Waste firms set out stall on commingling and quality

Waste management firms SITA UK and Veolia Environmental Services have waded into the discussion over commingled collections, TEEP and high quality recycling.

Debate is still raging as to whether commingling can fulfil the requirement for high quality recycling as set out in the revised Waste Framework Directive, which EU Member States will be required to bring into force from January 2015.

And, in an interview published this week, Veolias UK and Northern Europe director Estelle Brachlianoff has outlined her preference for keeping glass separate from other mixed dry recyclables.

Speaking to the Daily Mails financial supplement This is Money, Ms Brachlianoff admitted that separate collection of glass made a lot of sense adding that there does need to be some segregation at source.

She said: We are not saying there should be ten recycling bins in everybodys kitchen: one for paper, one for plastics, one for plastic bottles. That would be nonsense.

We need something that is effective, but simple to understand. One bin for recyclables, one for glass and one for the rest. That would make a lot of sense. There needs to be some segregation at source, but not too much.

It has long been argued that commingled collection of glass, metal, paper and plastic can in some instances be the most environmentally and economically practicable collection method, as it requires less vehicle and man hours to collect a greater volume of material.

But, critics claim that this system is less preferable to collections where materials are segregated at source, due to the increased sorting needed once the material is collected, and a higher level of contamination.

Ms Brachlianoffs comments on separate containers for glass are likely to be welcomed by the reprocessing sector who claim that much of the problem with commingling lies with the mixture of glass and paper, due to the difficulty in separating out these two materials and the damage that glass can cause to paper processing machinery.

Quality

On the issue of recycling quality, Gev Eduljee, SITA UKs director of external affairs has claimed that Defras definition of high quality recycling in its Quality Action Plan which states that material must be collected to a standard which maximises the environmental benefits of recycling is manifestly false.

In a submission to letsrecycle.com following the publication of Defras MRF Code of Practice last week Dr Eduljee questioned the assumption that all recycling firms require the highest quality input, and calls for a rethink of the wording of the legislation.

He said: Garden furniture or paving slabs made out of recycled plastic does not require the same quality of input material as a food-grade product. Fitness for purpose is the criterion which manufacturers apply to the quality of their inputs, and it is in this context that the CoP will give reprocessors the confidence that their stated quality criteria will be met.

Sometimes a recycled product may not offer the best environmental outcome, but it would still be environmentally preferable to the alternatives landfilling or energy recovery. The perverse result will be the emasculation of recycling to the benefit of options further down the waste hierarchy.

Over the past year our industry has focussed exclusively on the CoP and on TEEP. Instead, we should ask the European Commission to revisit the concept of high quality recycling to prevent the best environmental outcomes becoming the enemy of the merely good.