The report was welcomed by the Welsh Assembly Government and source-separation lobby group the Campaign for Real Recycling (CRR), with the WAG claiming the report vindicated its decision to put source-separated collections at the heart of its long-term waste management strategy, ‘Towards Zero Waste' (see letsrecycle.com story).
The CRR – which has voiced its support for kerbside sorting on numerous occasions – welcomed the “timely guidance” and urged all councils to study it “carefully and soon”.
However, waste management companies Viridor, Veolia Environmental Services, Community Waste and Greenstar UK questioned the modelling used in the WRAP research and also queried why councils would adopt a collection system if it was not a cost-effective option.
Critical of the general nature of the report, Paul Levett, deputy chief executive for Veolia, said: “There is no one-size fits all solution. We judge collection systems on the characteristics of a local authority area. This WRAP report looks backwards at historic data rather than forward to how we get the UK recycling rate from 34% to 50%.
“As a company that derives revenue from the quality of materials we collect, we would not offer a service that means we cannot sell our product into the market which is why we are confident that good MRFs will produce a good output,” he added.
Diversion
Taunton-based waste management firm Viridor claimed that the use of “modern and effective technology” at its MRFs ensured that the “highest quality of product” could be regained from commingled collections.
A spokesman for Viridor told letsrecycle.com: “Commingled recycling collections along with a new generation of materials recycling facilities (MRFs) are helping the UK recover more valuable materials that would have otherwise ended up needlessly in landfill sites.”
Irish-owned Greenstar UK – which operates one of the UK's largest MRFs, the 300,000 tonnes-a-year capacity facility at Aldridge outside Birmingham – took solace in the fact that the WRAP report did not rule out the use commingled collections entirely.
However, Mr Wakelin questioned the cost element of the WRAP report and claimed that local authorities are very “cost-conscious” and said: “Why would nearly half of English authorities choose some form of commingled collection if a cheaper alternative was available?”
Also on the issue of cost, Bruce Terrell, director of London-based Atlantic Paper and Community Waste, said that it was important that the industry knew what comparisons WRAP was using to assume the costs of the two collection methods.
He said: “I think the industry should be allowed to check the underlying assumptions of the comparison before accepting the argument that kerbside source-segregated collections are cheaper than the alternatives.”
LGA
The Local Government Association, although not as critical as the waste companies, said that it was important to remember that the purpose of any collection service was to serve the benefits of the particular local authority.
A spokesman said: “The WRAP report accepts that different systems work best in different areas. When deciding on bin collections, councils have to consider more than just what provides the best materials for the recycling industry, they have to consider what will work and what residents actually want.”
WRAP
Explaining its research, Philip Ward, director of local government services at WRAP, said: “A lot of people have attacked us for sitting on the fence and we are evidenced-based, and we only look to speak when we have the work to back it up and we think we have that evidence now.”
“A lot of people had been interpreting the work we are doing with the quality of what comes out of MRFs as a tacit support for commingled, while WRAP is simply interested in quality,” he added.
Defending the conclusion of the report, Mr Ward said: “We are not saying you should never commingled but it was probably the time to answer the question of what is the best system and, in the majority of cases, we think kerbside sort is.”
Register for free to comment