Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of MRW, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

John Glover

Recent activity

Comments (38)

  • Comment on: UK recyclers ‘caught out’ by Indonesia waste export restriction

    John Glover's comment 13 August, 2019 7:02 am

    0% is unrealistic, whatever the material.

    All current contracts were historically based on the generally accepted standards of the past. It is suggested that standards have been flouted by some exports.

    Currently the UK does export cardboard to China with a maximum of 0.5% contamination by weight and no food contamination. China customs and their agents do supervise and inspect material on our site and do have bales deconstructed for inspection on a regular basis, all as part of the process.

    Moving onto other materials surely the UK could set standards of contamination by weight that are recognized world wide for all types of material for export and, in addition, certain types of contamination would lead to instant failure of certification for export.

    MRF’s will be held responsible for quality standards but the ultimate customer must be prepared to pay, usually a local authority. To meet higher standards MRF’s will HAVE to reduce their throughput and/or install additional equipment and quality control staff. This will cost money and MRF customers will need to cover the additional costs or ensure they send in 100% recyclables, not 80% recyclables plus 20% rubbish.

  • Comment on: Council and Veolia end contract over thwarted incinerator

    John Glover's comment 13 August, 2019 6:55 am

    Where is the joined up thinking allowing waste produced by the local population to be treated locally? We should be guided by the proximity principle and waste produced in London and the Home Counties should surely be treated as close as possible to the point of production. Those in opposition do not have better answers, including the GLA. Well done the North London Waste Authority for pressing on with their new EfW (replacement) plant.

  • Comment on: Recycling must be actually recycled

    John Glover's comment 7 August, 2019 11:52 am

    We opened our domestic and commercial recyclables MRF in 2008. Collection of recyclables was relatively new at the time and contamination was typically up to 5%. In recent years, during which "residual waste" collections have been cut back and recycling collections have become the norm everywhere contamination levels have frequently been 20% + in reality. WRAP reported up to 30% from multi-occupancy areas. It is this contamination that has to go to Energy from Waste or Landfill, not the recyclable element because we recover this. For 100,000 tonnes coming in a "reject" rate of 5% gives rise to 5,000 tonnes to be disposed of. If contamination is 20% the element for disposal is 20,000 tonnes. The recycling "product" should be clean and without contaminants, with no food whatsoever. One pizza box with a pizza still in it does lead to a whole shipment of hundred of tonnes being 100% rejected. If the contamination level of recyclables is nil, when delivered to the MRF, we can recycle all acceptable materials at close to 100%. These are the real problems that cause input to need to be disposed of.

  • Comment on: Lord Deben: Defra's food waste landfill ban 'too slow'

    John Glover's comment 10 July, 2019 7:55 pm

    An everlasting problem in making English, Welsh, Scotland or Northern Ireland decisions is that most decisions are “all or nothing”. The same with local authorities, probably due to EU regulations that may prevent locally agreed contracts being rolled out over a period of time that tackle urgent problems such as food in non-food waste streams. The moment there is NO FOOD in residual waste (and NO FOOD indeed in commingled) it will be much easier for us to recover recyclables from the streams with NO FOOD IN. The recycling rates possible from multi occupancy could then move much faster forward. If Bywaters can do this in London what are we waiting for?

  • Comment on: The aim is to reduce costs

    John Glover's comment 1 July, 2019 6:01 pm

    In 2017 it appears that the London Waste & Recycling Board spent almost £500,000 (Some with Eunomia?) developing a similar scheme that collapsed before it had started. Let alone those that have got together Bywaters provide a full range of services in the London area, as do many other firms in various parts of London. So where are these alternative services particularly required where they are not now available? Customers have a choice of suppliers and we concentrate on closely meeting customers requirements, which in London involves meeting strict time requirements and fighting off 100's of Penalty Charge Notices whilst we work to provide a professional service. We don't live in a world where one size fits all and the private sector is very many years ahead of traditional local authority services, which are normally and necessarily of a fixed and inflexible nature. Apart from this not all suppliers can provide a service that meets customer requirements.

View all comments