Glass noise guidance findings absurd

To suggest that commingled collection is the answer is absurd

 
Mal Williams, CRR

The campaign, which has championed source-separated collections in the past, claimed that collecting glass in commingled collections could damage the quality of glass being reprocessed, and that measures were being undertaken to tackle noise exposure on kerbside sorted collection rounds.

Mal Williams, CRR chair and community sector representative on the WISH committee, said: “We're prepared to believe that glass noise can be a problem in certain circumstances. Recent modifications to stillage vehicles, prompted by HSE research findings, have improved the situation.

“But, to suggest that commingled collection is the answer is absurd. We suspect this conclusion about noise is simply an excuse to mitigate the practice of commingling as it costs and quality disbenefits become clearer,” he added.

The response marks the latest in a series of clashes between advocates for both collection methods, with glass a particularly significant material due to the quality of the product needed for it to be used in the remelt process to create new containers.

In the report – published last week in partnership with the Waste Industry Safety and Health Forum (WISH) -the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) summarised its findings on the impacts of glass noise exposure by stating that collecting glass mixed with other materials could “significantly” reduce noise risks posed to operatives (see letsrecycle.com story).

Quality

Members of the CRR challenged the guidance's advice for councils to consider commingled glass collection when “developing recyclable collection strategies”, and claimed that it could detrimentally affect the recycling process for other materials.

Andrew Perkins of Aylesford Newsprint said: “Collecting glasses commingled isn't just a problem for glass reprocessors. Fragmented glass as a contaminant also causes expensive and unnecessary abrasion damage to the screens in paper mills.

“I really can't see how a particular solution to a problem in one area should be allowed to create multiple problems in other areas,” he added.

The campaign coordinator for the CRR, Andy Moore, claimed that the guidance failed to address the effect single-stream collections had on glass quality and how the material was reprocessed.

He said: “Single stream commingled collections are more expensive than those which sort at the kerbside. They produce lower quality materials, which are now having trouble finding markets. Commingling means wasting good materials put out by householders.

“Cullet glass output from MRFs can be up to 40% non-glass. The sad truth is that no bottles are being remade anywhere from single stream MRF output material. MRF output cullet goes into landfill. This practice is material downcycling and a waste of embodied carbon. It is telling that no EU countries other than UK and Ireland will allow glass into roadfill.”