Almost a year ago, at the 2014 RWM Exhibition and Conference, Resource asked then-Resources Minister Dan Rogerson what he thought the coalition government’s greatest achievement was in terms of waste policy. The minister briefly hesitated before saying: “I’d like to say we moved some things forward. I suppose I think the MF Regulations coming in will make a real contribution – it’s the start of the process where there’s a real engagement to look at what’s coming through and for everybody to focus on best practice. So, that’s a success.”

Since that statement, the coalition has, of course, dissolved (with Rogerson ousted along with most of his Lib Dem colleagues in the general election). More importantly (for the purposes of this article), sampling obligations for the Materials Facility Regulations have been in force since October 2014, and so we thought it time to reflect on what the regulations have achieved and whether Rogerson was right to consider them the previous government’s greatest resource achievement…

Part of The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, the MF Regulations require operators of materials recovery facilities (MRFs) processing more than 1,000 tonnes of material per annum to test the composition of samples taken from material they put into the sorting process, as well as the useable output. The government’s intention in instituting the regulations was to ‘help stimulate the market conditions necessary to improve the quality of the material produced by MRFs so that it can be more readily recycled’, in line with the separate collection requirements of the revised Waste Framework Directive.

Before the sampling requirements came into force, Defra released a brief guidance document (six sparse pages, including contents and back cover), which have since been complemented by more comprehensive, but non-statutory, guidance, from WRAP (et al). Defra’s ‘Material facilities: how to report on mixed waste sampling’ outlined that MRFs must take samples of at least 60 kilogrammes (kg) for every 160 tonnes (t) received from each supplier, decreasing to every 125t from October 2016. Varying sampling requirements for the four target output materials – glass, metals, paper and plastic – were also laid out, and the guidance indicated that electronic reports must be submitted to the regulator (the Environment Agency (EA) in England, and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) in Wales) on a quarterly basis, and that inspections will be carried out twice a year (once unannounced) to review procedures.

Resource contacted the EA to find out about the inspection procedure and how many visits have taken place to date, but did not receive a response, though we understand that no inspections have yet been carried out in England.

Perhaps more worryingly, the first quarter’s sampling data was released by WRAP earlier in the summer and shows that, of the MRFs in England that ought to be providing data under the regulations, only around half – 86 – complied and submitted sampling information. Moreover, most facilities appear to only be carrying out the statutory minimum sampling requirements (or at least only reporting the minimum), despite assurances from some of the major MRF operators when the regulations were being developed that they would sample in excess of the requirements.

Commentators have cautioned that no conclusions should be drawn from one quarter’s data, and have commended the work so far, but are concerned that so few operators have submitted data and that there seems to be inconsistency in the definitions MRFs are using. Commenting on the figures, CEO of the Recycling and Recovery UK division of SUEZ David Palmer-Jones said: “[W]e do have concerns that only 90 MRFs have notified the regulator and submitted data… [I]t seems clear to us that there is still some work to do to ensure that all operators are taking a consistent approach to the application of terminology for ‘non target’ and ‘contamination’– as this can, and will, skew results.”

Over in Wales, eight out of nine obligated facilities submitted data in the first quarter. NRW tells me it aimed to inspect the nine self-identified facilities at the start of the regime “to explain the requirements and assist them in understanding the sampling requirements”, though the spokesperson adds this was not always possible.

Asked what inspections entail, the spokesperson continues: “We are taking a pragmatic approach to MF inspections. We are working with facility operators to ensure continual improvement in compliance with the regulations. We anticipate that it will take time for facility operators to learn lessons and adapt their sampling and reporting protocols to be… fully compliant.

“Specifically, MF Regs inspections will focus on ensuring that the operator: has taken samples in the correct fashion – for example, the necessary size, and at the correct frequencies; has analysed for components correctly; has supplied all of the required data and correctly reported the inputs and outputs.”

NRW has developed a draft scoring methodology and guidance for officers to use to ensure consistency in inspections, and says it is keen to “take on board” feedback to inform its guidance around these new requirements, just as it is trying to improve operators’ understanding of the sampling and reporting requirements.

The final implications of the regulations and how they will be enforced are not yet clear, but it’s safe to say Rogerson was right to claim that their implementation was the “start of the process” of engagement.

Case study: Casepak

Leicester-based recycling company Casepak operates a 150,000-tonne-a-year MRF, which opened in 2011. The MRF serves roughly 10 councils every week, and conducts around eight samples each day, according to Jacob Smith, Trainee Operations Manager.

Smith explains the sampling process on incoming loads: “It’ll be flagged by the weighbridge that a load needs to be sampled. After it’s tipped, operatives will visually inspect it, so they’ll tick off prohibitives and give it a grade from A-E and then they’ll take a big bucket from all three sides of a load, and then fill one of those yellow bins to get the minimum weight of 60 kilos, take it [to the sampling area] and then weigh it.”

The sampling area comprises a very short conveyor belt coming off the caged yellow eurobin, which is surrounded by grey bins (roughly the size of standard recycling boxes) into which the various materials are hand sorted by two full-time staff before they are weighed and recorded. A series of images on a nearby wall depicts the exact criteria for different categories, though Smith indicates that those who do the sorting are by now very familiar with the standards. The sampling process takes roughly 30-45 minutes on input loads, but is much faster for outputs, because, as Smith says, those “should be all one grade at the end, so it’s quite easy”.

Casepak says that it conducts more sampling than required under the regulations, and has been doing so since it opened, convinced that it helps it to work with councils to improve quality. Georgina Cullen, Business Development Manager, explains: “When we started, we found that we had a lot of quality issues with contracts, so we set up our own procedure anyway… In one of our first contracts, the tender document specified five per cent residue – it was actually 16, and we’ve now got that down to about eight or nine. So, we’ve done quite a lot of hard work.

“The main impact for us isn’t actually on the input sampling, because we were actually doing that more than the requirements… the impact has been more on the output side, because we didn’t do that to the degree. Actually, we found that it gives us good data.” Indeed, Smith indicates that information about outputs can be fed back to operators to improve the sorting process – by adjusting the speed of sorting lines and so on.

Both Smith and Cullen feel that the sampling regime has definitely been beneficial to the business overall, despite the operational implications and staff costs (the business has just created a new role for a dedicated quality assessor in addition to the two sorters). This is because it results in better quality input material from councils with long-term contracts, thanks (in part) to all the feedback on quality issues, and it makes poor loads from those with spot contracts easier to reject. Ultimately, they say, it also results in less residual waste being sent to landfill or for use as refuse-derived fuel.

Despite all this work, most people who take material off Casepak don’t know too much (or anything at all) about the regulations, and, to date, Casepak has had no dialogue with the EA about the regulations (though it works with a local officer on other issues). “We’ve had no meeting”, Cullen says. “No one’s contacted us to say, ‘This is how it’s going to work.’ No one’s contacted us to ask if we’re happy with the way that it gets submitted or if we fully understand.

“It’ll be interesting to see how it’s going to work really”, she concludes. Indeed – we’re all anxious to find out what the long-term applications will be, I’m sure.