Councils which adopt alternate weekly collections of commingled dry recycling and residual waste are likely to see a significant increase in their recycling rates, according to research published today (May 27) by consultancy WYG.
However, questions have been raised over the studyas itwas partly funded by collection specialist Biffa Municipal, whose parent company Biffa is one of the largest sorters of commingled dry recyclables in the UK.
The study, entitled ‘Review of Kerbside Collection Schemes 2009/10’, assesses the top performing councils in England for kerbside dry recycling in the past financial year.
In a move which has the potential to further inflame the on-going debate between preferred collection schemes, WYG claims that highest dry recycling rates are achieved with a 100% commingled collection collected on a fortnightly basis, with at least five materials being collected.
The report builds on a study carried out by WYG in May 2010, which indicated that commingled collections could supply material of equal quality to kerbside sort schemes (see letsrecycle.com story).
Len Attrill, WYG project director, said: The evidence is irrefutable. Factors like commingling, wheeled bins and fortnightly refuse collection can do markedly lift recycling performance while often saving costs. In todays tough climate of budget austerity, its vital that councils make sound decisions about important local services.
Of the top 30 councils for 2009/10, WYG claims that 23 of the councils collected 75% or more of dry recyclable material commingled, while 23 also collected it fortnightly. And, all of them collect at least five of the main dry recyclable materials. Furthermore, 21 councils collect residual waste fortnightly.
The research also suggested that the use of 240 litre wheeled bins was recommended to optimise commingled collections, while residual waste wheeled bins should be reduced from 180 litres to 140 litres. This use of wheeled bins helps increase yield and also reduce litter or tearing, WYG claims.
WRAP
To support its argument, WYG highlighted research carried out by the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) in Wales, which showed that commingled collections had a 12% higher average yield than weekly kerbside sort schemes and 22% more than kerbside sort for fortnightly collections.
The consultancy claims that this shows that WRAP has back-tracked from its previous pro-source separated stance, which came to the fore in June 2009 when the government-funded body claimed commingled had both cost and quality disadvantages (see letsrecycle.com story).
Improved
WYG also claimed that 11 of the 13 most improved councils over the past financial year had adopted commingled dry recycling collections in wheeled bins. In addition, of the top 13 most improved councils, four moved to smaller refuse bins for residual waste and six moved residual waste collections to a fortnightly round.
WYG did stress that it was for councils to adopt the appropriate collection method for their area and said the report was only to provide information and facts to help inform decision-making.
The research follows a number of similar studies undertake on the issue of collection method, with one of the most high profile seeing the London borough of Camden drop its commingled service following a report which highlighted its carbon impact (see letsrecycle.com story).
MRF deals
The WYG study highlights the changing dynamics in the payment deals for commingled material sorted at materials recycling facilities (MRF).
Echoing recent industry trends (see letsrecycle.com story), WYG said councils should be aware of recent procurement exercises which have seen MRF operators paying local authorities to secure material.
The consultancy claimed that historic data, such as WRAPs cost modelling work, could mislead councils and that, as payment deals become the norm, local authorities needed to be aware of a potential revenue stream.
Mr Attrill said: With cost information that reflects the reality of today, not yesterday, councils can be more confident about making sound decisions on how to allocate hard-pressed budgets.
Credible
In response to the report, the Campaign for Real Recycling (CRR) – fierce advocates of source-separated collections – have attacked the credibility of the research due to its funding and also its use of existing material.
Andy Moore, CRR coordinator, said: This WYG report supported by Biffa Municipal claims to be independent, but clearly is not and risks confusing the debate.
“As evidence, it cites WRAPs recent report that a commingled approach captures more material than source separation, but does not properly deal with the same reports finding that the difference is negligible when collection of contaminated or non-target material in co-mingled collection is taken into consideration.”
This provides the basis for WYG to claim that kerbside sort will incur more landfill costs. Alarmingly, this suggests that co-mingled collections are not accounting for the disposal of contaminated or non-target materials.”
And, Mr Moore also said councils were at risk of “having the wool pulled over their eyes” on the issue of value of material.
He said: “The WYG report is based on weighbridge data that arrives at MRFs, not weighbridge data of material that arrives at reprocessors for recycling. This reports selective use of evidence and inference about WRAPs position to us appears disingenuous.
Subscribe for free