The report, on the paper standard BS EN643:2001, was prepared following some concerns among local authorities over the role of industry specifications within the sector following publication last year of a paper industry guide.
Now, in a report released last week, it is made clear that while the standard is not mandatory, it “provides a valuable yardstick against which quality can be measured”.
A total of 560 paper and board samples were taken from 80 local authorities using a variety of collection routes. Importantly, the data collected suggests that the widespread perception of poor quality material arising from kerbside collections systems is incorrect and that paper from clean MRFs is acceptable. There had been concern among local authorities and the waste management industry that last year’s paper industry guidance could be interpreted as suggesting that paper from MRFs would become unacceptable.
WRAP's report says the evidence is that “co-mingled collections in clean MRFs can function comparably with other systems. The quality of recovered arising from an MRF depends on the management of the process rather than on the process itself.”
The report also says that quality does not depend on the collection container used.
As for trading, the report appears to suggest that councils should take on some of the role of the recovered paper industry and look at trading of material within Europe.
Commenting on the report, Kathy Bradley, communications director at the Paper Federation said: “The study is very useful and it shows how the way schemes are managed is crucially important. It also makes it clear that some opportunities are being mixed and that mixed waste could be upgraded.”
Chris White, recycling manager for Aylesford Newsprint, said that the report gave useful guidance. Speaking at the LARAC local authority officers' conference last week, he said: “This is really is an excellent report – we will never get a better study done on paper at this moment in this country.”
Customer
Mr White explained that: “The paper industry considers itself a customer. We don’t run paper mills to be a service to local authorities but as a service to our customers. If we can use paper that meets our quality specification then we will. We have to make a quality product. If we were to run a MRF and produce good quality material then we would take it.”
A local authority view at the conference came from Peter Blewden, environmental strategy for Chichester district council who pointed that councils had cost constraints and needed to meet targets. “We have got tough targets by 2006 and we are not going to make them. People want to recycle, could we collect it mixed, as it’s cheaper and easier.”
Dr Julian Parfitt of WRAP, who has responsibility for the research project, said: “It might be that local authorities are so keen to hit targets that they just go with mixed paper, but long term it may be better to go with separate streams. This is a revenue issue.”
The full report can be seen as a pdf at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/publications/fullreportBSEN643.pdf
Subscribe for free