Agenda item

Consideration was given to a report on MDR Contamination and Monitoring which informed the Partnership that from 1^st April 2015, the County Council had responsibility for the countywide processing of the presented dry recycling materials.  Section 9A of the Environment Permitting Regulations 2014 placed a requirement on Materials Reclamation Facilities to routinely sample and test the composition of their input and output materials and to report this.

This was in effect from 1 October 2014 and required a sample to be taken for every 160 tonnes by each district council, and would decrease to 125 tonnes from 1 October 2016.  This sampling has been queried by the District Councils as the reported contamination was above the national average of 14% and in most cases well above the levels previously reported.  As a result, the County has undertaken inspections of the sampling process which concluded that there was no reason to question the stated contamination.  However, the validity of these figures and the testing regime was still challenged by the district councils.

In response to this challenge, an open discussion was held with the Partnership around the following topics, so all authorities could work together to investigate and agree an appropriate way forward:

1.    Levels of contamination v previous years v national average and impact

2.    Potential impact of contamination on TEEP

3.    Independent testing of the countywide material

4.    Timeliness of processing at WTS

5.    Contingency arrangements

6.    Enforcement and Education

7.    Future plans and way forward

Some of the points and issues raised during this discussion included the following:

·         There was a need to find out what the issues were and document them.

·         There may be a need for the Officer Working Group to meet and take forward any actions.

·         The original driver was the contamination issue, and there were other issues which may come out of this, such as issues with the contract.

·         It was commented that up until a few years ago, contamination rates were at 5, 6, 10, 12%, however, since the new contract had been in place rates were regularly in the teens.  There was a need to understand the sampling regime.

(At this point in the meeting, Councillor R Wright declared an interest as the organisation he worked for handled the recycling for Lincoln Prison)

·         It was acknowledged that for three months the sampling method was being confirmed.

·         It was commented that that it was strange that the contamination rates were so high, and it was queried whether there was any benefit to the operator of high contamination rates.

·         It was commented that drivers in South Holland had reported that most of the material at the WTS at Market Deeping was not being processed very quickly.  Material quality would degrade very quickly, particularly in hot weather if not processed in a timely manner.

·         The closure of processing facilities around the country for paper and tins as well as changes in the market for recyclables had also been an issue.

·         It was queried who benefitted from an increased failure rate, and it was reported that Mid UK converted any contaminated materials into SRF which was then sold on to the cement industry.  Mid UK claimed to divert 100% of waste from landfill.

·         All districts accepted that there was contamination in the recycling, but there was a need for confidence in the methodology being used. 

·         There had been a suggestion that some additional third party sampling took place.  The County Council had undertaken a validation process, as had Mid UK..

·         It was proposed that members visit a Waste Transfer Station so they could see the levels of contamination themselves.  It was recommended that members should go as a group, and that they could pick the days on which they wanted to visit.

·         The incentives for Districts to increase recycling had been removed the previous year.  It was noted that significant money had been taken out of the County's budget for waste, officers and members would like to be able to put additional resources into recycling rates, but there was no money for this work.

·         Members were advised that the current contract would run until 2018, and there had been a suggestion for an incentivised process in the future.  It was noted that there would be a need to start working on the new contract in the near future.

·         With ongoing work on devolution agreements, there would be a need for all authorities to work together on waste and deal with it as a resource going forward.

·         It was felt that one issue with the contract was that it was indexed.

·         There was a need to gather intelligence about the areas where there was the most contamination, so that marketing information could be targeted.

·         It was important that all districts were delivering the same message in terms of what would be collected.  If there was a need to determine the best things to be collected for the new contract then it should be done.  There was a need for a countywide publicity campaign, rather than mixed messages.

·         It was queried whether having a county owned MRF would be a better option, or if kerbside recycling should be introduced, so that contaminants could be rejected at the kerbside.

·         Nationally there were hundreds of different recycling schemes working across the country.  If authorities were going to be given increased recycling targets something would have to change, and this was where the Partnership should be focused.

·         The next opportunity for change would be the contract from 2018 onwards as it could give an opportunity for a different model and to look at things in a different way.

·         Glass was an issue in terms of whether it should be in or out of recycling bins in East Lindsey as it had never been collected at the kerbside, and the district has always used bring sites.  The benefit of this had been a cheaper contract price.  Work was ongoing on whether glass should be included and the implications for TEEP.

·         It was queried how the actions which came out of the audit would be prioritised, and also whether the Partnership should wait for the outcome of the audit.

·         There would need to be an assessment of the potential impact of contamination on TEEP prior to the new contract.

·         Contamination was increasing, and it would need to be discussed whether or not districts should continue to collect co-mingled waste.

·         It was recognised that markets had changed, and the pressures on the company had changed.

·         County Council paid more for the waste which was rejected, than that which was accepted.

·         It was important for the Partnership to know what the levels of contamination were across Lincolnshire, and until the feasibility study took place, this would be an unknown.

·         There would be a need to work together with the wider devolution agenda going forward.  Collection of waste was a huge issue, and there could be a need to look across the greater Lincolnshire area for a solution for managing waste.

·         It would be important for members to have sight of any business case which was produced for either kerbside collections or a county owned MRF, as members would need to have the debate in their own areas as there would be a cost implication.

·         It was reported that Norfolk had had a huge contamination issue, but authorities worked together as a partnership, and did a lot of work and the contamination rate has dropped, without resorting to kerbside collections.

·         It was suggested whether the money which could be used for an MRF could be used to find other ways to solve the contamination issue.

·         It was noted that the collection costs for kerbside sorting were higher than for the collection of co-mingled recycling. 

·         Newcastle had switched to kerbside recycling, and it was a very complex scheme, and the council was still doing a lot of education work.

·         There would be a need to lay out very clearly what was being suggested and what it would mean for residents.

·         There would be a need to work differently as a combined authority, and there would need to be some compromises.

·         In terms of contingency arrangements, there was a need to think about the risks for all the organisations in the Partnership in the event that there were changes.

·         It was commented that if what was accepted as recycling was reduced, then there would be an increase in residual waste for the EfW, and there would need to be plans put in place which would deal with that situation.

·         It was reported that an article was to be included in County news which would focus on enforcement and education.

RESOLVED

1.    That visits to the Waste Transfer Stations in the County be arranged for the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership

2.    That consideration be given to the contents of the next Mixed Dry Recyclables Contract by the Officer Working Group

3.    That consideration be given to the possibility of a county owned Materials Recovery Facility and for the implementation of a kerbside recycling scheme throughout the county, as part of the Waste Strategy refresh.

4.    That some of the Districts had written regarding independent testing.  The County had responded to these districts to clarify the position with regards to the funding of this testing.