Understanding the Waste Regulations Route Map Webinar hosted by WRAP on behalf of the Working Group 29/05/14

Agenda

Separate collection requirements – legislative overview

Introduction to the Waste Regulations route map

Applying steps 3 and 4 of the route map

Q&A session

Separate Collection Requirements

Linda Crichton, WRAP

Separate Collections

Highlight European legislative context

Highlight key requirements of the England & Wales Regulations

Separate collections – legislative context

Articles 10 and 11 of the revised Waste Framework Directive

The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (part 5)

The Waste (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Regulations provide a legal as well as a commercial and environmental context to improving quality of recyclate

Article 10 - Recovery

1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste undergoes recovery operations, in accordance with Articles 4 [waste hierarchy] and 13 [protect human health and the environment].

2. Where necessary to comply with paragraph 1 (above) and to facilitate or improve recovery, waste shall be collected separately if technically, environmentally and economically practicable and shall not be mixed with other waste or other material with different properties.

Article 10 – Re-use and recycling

1. ….

Member States shall take measures to promote high quality recycling and, to this end, shall set up separate collections of waste where technically, environmentally and economically practicable, and appropriate to meet the necessary quality standards for the relevant recycling sectors.

Subject to Article 10(2), by 2015 separate collection shall be set up for at least the following: paper, metal, plastic and glass

The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations

LAs need to consider both the 2011 Regulations and the 2012 (Amendment) Regulation

Particularly important are..

– Regulation 12 – duty in relation to the waste hierarchy

– Regulation 13 (as amended) – duties in relation to the collections of waste; and the requirement to collect the four key materials separately

– Regulation 14 – duty in relation to collected waste; in relation to keeping the four materials separate from other waste or other material with different properties

Regulation 13 (as amended 2012)…..

(3) Subject to paragraph (4), every WCA must, when making arrangements for the collection of waste paper, metal, plastic or glass, ensure that those arrangements are by way of separate collection.

(4) The duties in this regulation apply where separate collection—

(a) is necessary to ensure that waste undergoes recovery operations in accordance with Articles 4 and 13 of the WFD and to facilitate or improve recovery; and

(b) is technically, environmentally and economically practicable.

Some additional points

LAs need to consider the implications of the Regulations before 1st January 2015

Regulations will be enforced by EA and NRW

Commercial/trade waste within scope

Decision on necessary and practicable (TEEP) needs to be made in the context of local circumstances

Consideration of / decision on what is practicable needs to be kept under review

Decision making process and supporting evidence needs to be documented

Waste Regulations Route Map Antony Buchan, LWARB

Why?

Regulation 13 states that from 1st January 2015, all WCAs will be required to collect paper, metals, plastics and glass separately.

In January 2014 Defra confirmed that statutory guidance on the implementation of Regulation 13 would not be published.

With Defra’s announcement WCAs in England where reliant on Lord de Mauley’s letter as a basis upon which to interpret their compliance with Regulation 13.

By local authorities for local authorities

The Waste Network Chairs comprises representation from the following national and regional waste networks:

A working group comprising members of local authority waste networks (coordinated through the Waste Network Chairs), the London Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB), and WRAP came together to address the information vacuum through the development of the Waste Regulations Route Map.

Waste Regulations Route Map

• Published by the Working Group on 22 April 2014

• Developed to help local authorities that collect waste to understand their legal obligations under the Waste England and Wales Regulations 2011 (as amended);

– It is particularly focused on Regulation 13; but also

– Explores Regulation 12 requirements regarding the waste hierarchy;

• It is addressed primarily to English Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs).

• As part of its development the Route Map was peer reviewed by 20 English local authorities.

About the Route Map

• Presents a step by step process for councils to follow and should

help individual authorities avoid ‘reinventing the wheel’ in having to develop their own approach;

• Addresses some frequently asked questions (FAQs) about what the law requires;

• Signposts useful resources to help councils in their assessments.

• Wherever possible, it relies directly on the wording of the law, and refers back to the EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD) of 2008, and the European Commission’s guidance.

• It is NOT guidance, it will not tell a council which materials (if any) it must collect separately.

Route Map overview

A support tool designed to help local authorities to assess their compliance with the regulations.

Resource Pack

• To support the Route Map, WRAP has prepared a Resource Pack containing links to pertinent legislation and guidance.

• If there is anything missing that you think would be useful to you and other authorities let WRAP know.

The Waste Regulations

Route Map:

Applying Steps 3 and 4

Peter Jones, Eunomia Research &

Consulting

Overview

• A focus on:

– Step 3 – Applying the Waste Hierarchy (Reg 12)

– Step 4 – Applying the Necessity and TEEP tests (Reg 13)

• Identifying some of the questions that are the most

difficult and important when applying the tests

• Looking at some hypothetical examples

• Opportunity to ask some questions

Health Warning!

• Environment Agency has not decided its approach to

enforcement of the Waste Hierarchy

• There is no case law to inform decisions on

“Necessity” and “Practicability”

• The hypothetical examples are deliberately

exaggerated – you should not try to apply them

directly to your authority

• But – the lack of guidance and case law means there

is scope for authorities to interpret the regulations

while acting reasonably

Step 3

Step 3

• Applies to all producers and collectors of waste

• Applies to all materials

• Not technically about “separate” collection – but this

is likely to be required for recycling

• Considerable overlap with TEEP test

• Obligations already apply and Defra has produced

guidance

• Risk?

– EA Regulatory Enforcement

Step 3 Breakdown

Step 3

• Material by material, apply the hierarchy

• Depart from the hierarchy where reasonable or

justified

• Gather together your evidence of applying the

hierarchy

• Consider:

– Best practice

– Waste prevention toolkits

– Most impactful materials (food, textiles, nappies, glass…)

• Are any additional measures justified?

Step 3 – Application to Food Waste

• How much food is in your waste?

• Preventing waste from arising – Have you run any campaigns to reduce food waste?

• What evidence of impact

– How does your spend compare with neighbours?

• Collection for recycling may not be reasonable if: – Collection and treatment costs substantially outweigh savings

– You’re in a collection or disposal contract that doesn’t cover separate food waste collection

– WDA doesn’t offer food waste treatment/savings for avoided disposal

• If you already collect food waste for recycling – could you increase take-up?

• Can any remaining food waste in residual go to EfW?

Step 4

Step 4

• Applies to collectors only

• Separate collections are required where

– Necessary; and

– Practicable (TEEP!)

• Of

– Glass, Paper, Metal and Plastics

• Obligations apply from January ’15

• Risks of poor compliance?

– Legal challenge, Judicial Review

Step 4 Breakdown

Step 4 - Necessity Test

Step 4 – Necessity Test

• Applies to collectors only

• Separate collections are required where

– Necessary; and

– Practicable (TEEP!)

• Of

– Glass, Paper, Metal and Plastics

• Obligations apply from January ’15

• Risks of poor compliance?

– Legal challenge, Judicial Review

Step 4 – Necessity Test

• Using fictitious numbers….

• Here separate collection yields more, better recovery

Co-mingled Separate

Collected 100 90

Rejected during

sorting 10 0

Rejected during

reprocessing 10 8

SRF 12 1

Recycled 80 82

High quality

recycling 40 61

Step 4 - Practicability (TEEP) Test

Step 4 - Practicability (TEEP) Test

• Impracticability is a “high hurdle” – Not the same as being difficult, inconvenient,

more expensive or unpopular

• Technical practicability of separate collection is widely demonstrable – Don’t proceed on one-size fits all basis: you might

decide to offer different service in different areas

• The more interesting questions are around economic and environmental practicability

Step 4 – Economic Practicability

• Separate collection should not cause excessive cost

• Robust options analysis using fair comparisons – What would separate collection cost? – What sets the boundaries of “economically

practicable” for you?

• Can you change now? Consider – Contract exit/variation costs – Vehicle re-sale costs – Container replacement costs

• Could you change in the future?

Step 4 – Economic Practicability

• Using fictitious numbers….

• In practice, your current collection system is likely to be the starting point for deciding affordability

Annualised costs Separate (Co-mingled)

Vehicle Costs 650 550

Staff Costs 1,100 900

Container Costs 120 100

Depot Costs 150 120

Disposal Costs 2,200 2,100

Material Income -500 -100

Total 3,720 3,670

Affordability Ceiling ? ?

Step 4 – Environmental Practicability

• The added value of ecological benefits justifies possible negative environmental effects of separate collection

– In practice will almost always “cover its own costs”

– Therefore worth comparing it with alternative options

• Lifecycle thinking should be applied

– Many systems exist

– A focus on CO2 equivalents will capture the key issues

Step 4 – Economic Practicability

• Using fictitious numbers….

• In practice, your current collection system is likely to be the starting point for deciding practicability

Activity

Tonnes of CO2e

Separate (Co-mingled)

Collection 500 550

Sorting 0 600

Rejects 20 70

Haulage/Shipping 100 300

Disposal 21,500 19,900

Recycling Benefit -9,000 -7,500

Total 13,120 13,910

Waste Regulations Route Map

www.wrap.org.uk/content/

requirements-waste-regulations