No reason to doubt cost collection report

Last week, the study found that it was cheaper to collect recyclables at the kerbside, net of material sales, than to collect them commingled (see letsrecycle.com story).

At the moment it is our kerbside sort schemes that are producing the best prices for local authorities

 
Andy Moore, CRR

This prompted criticism from waste firms, who claimed that the findings flew in the face of current trends and were based on flawed modelling (see letsrecycle.com story).

However, speaking to letsrecycle.com, CRR co-ordinator Andy Moore said that he had seen no evidence to suggest the findings were wrong.

In particular, he said that he did not see how MRF operators could claim that the £21/£28 a tonne MRF gate fee used in the modelling was too high when they were in competition with each other, and did not know each others' prices.

He pointed out that WRAP had consulted many firms on how it would be calculating the figures, and that they had approved its method.

Mr Moore said: “We have to recognise that the study took a year and they asked some of the brightest people they could find. We can't allow it to be dismissed too easily.”

“I have been given no reason to doubt the study – it's been a very open process,” he added.

Contracts

Mr Moore said that while many councils were moving to commingled collections, this was because it was generally dictated by their contracts rather than adopted because it was the cheaper option.

And, he said that claims that contamination in commingled loads saved councils money on disposing of their residual waste did not stack up, because it cost more to put the material through a MRF and then send for disposal than if it went straight for disposal.

He said: “It's very difficult to argue that they don't pay more by putting that material through a MRF.”

“At the moment it is our kerbside sort schemes that are producing the best prices for local authorities,” he stressed.

Debate

Commenting on the wider commingled debate, Mr Moore claimed that source-separated collections had other advantages over commingled as well.

For instance, he said that battery collections could be easily added to source-separated collections but would cause problems if they were put in a commingled bin and were sent to a materials recycling facility.

Likewise, he said that, if Defra decided to roll out its financial recycling incentive programme, the contamination in commingled collections would increase in a manner which would not occur with source separation, where operatives would remove it at source.

He added that if there was an economic downturn in the UK, as has been forecast, it was more important than ever to maintain the quality of recyclables.

He said: “I don't think these are unreasonable concerns with commingled collections.”