The note of endorsement, for MRFs serving the municipal wastestream, came from WRAP at a conference it organised in Birmingham on materials recycling facilities, which was attended by top representatives from local authorities, reprocessors and waste management firms. They heard WRAP's chief executive Liz Goodwin state that MRFs “can provide effective collection and sorting processes.”
She added: “My view is that the responsibility for quality is shared equally between collectors, the local authority and MRFs.”
I believe that MRFs are important going forward
Liz Goodwin, chief executive, WRAP
Dr Goodwin spoke of the importance of delivering recyclables to a MRF in an acceptable form and said that the “public need to know that their recycling is being put to good use. If this is the case they are more willing to recycle.”
And, she pointed to newer MRFs providing higher quality, saying there was a need for these, adding: “I believe that MRFs are important going forward.”
The conference came against a background of debate over whether kerbside sorting schemes, as largely practiced by the community sector, are better than using MRFs. But a report on costs of different schemes by WRAP is still to be published and has been delayed because of the need to double-check figures.
Gate fees
However, the conference did hear from Linda Crichton, WRAP's ROTATE manager, that MRF gate fees range from £0-60 per tonne and accordingly “are clearly influential in terms of a commingled system”.
Mrs Crichton did appear to lean towards the kerbside sorting camp in cost terms when she said: “in current market conditions, the net costs of kerbside sorting are lower than single stream commingled costs, whereas two stream sorting has similar costs.”
Waste management industry representatives told letsrecycle.com that this data was “hard to believe” and needed considerably more discussion over points such as yields, volumes, speed and landfill diversion.
Separation
Gerrard Fisher, products sector manager for WRAP, highlighted its recent MRFs work on separation technology, quality management, materials analysis and contractual guidance. And, on achieving higher volumes of material, Mr Fisher said; “In terms of drivers, the collection data shows more paper is collected by the commingled route.”
He pointed to quality meaning fewer contaminant types in the product, consistent processing and output and controls in place to quarantine materials which were unsuitable. And, he emphasised how “none of these things on their own will guarantee quality – you will have to work on all these things together.”
Mr Fisher explained that WRAP's work on contractual guidance for local authorities, with input from Entec consultants, should provide the means where there is “an opportunity to share rewards from the market revenues for material and this should be a commercial arrangement between the local authority and the operator.”
He said that contractual guidance on collections covered seven topics, including compostion of incoming materials, form of delivery, compaction levels in collection vehicles and how to handle auditing of material quality.
Compaction
The compaction issue was one take up by Mrs Crichton who also spoke on communications with the public and the potential for two stream collections, where paper is collected separately from used containers (glass, plastics and cans). 
On compaction she said that some MRFs “are now specifying compaction levels. A strongly compacted aluminium can may not behave as you would expect it to behave. Levels may need to be much lower than you would have for refuse collection. This could mean you might need more vehicles or not to compact at all and the choice of vehicle you are using may need to change.”
On communications with the public over quality of recyclables, WRAP has long been reluctant to get involved. It has steered clear of tackling this issue nationwide on the grounds that collection systems are different across England and Wales. Now, however, Mrs Crichton hinted that this could change adding that “unlike kerbside sorting, it is difficult to introduce quality control for commingled material at the kerbside.”
Questions
WRAP was tackled on a number of points by the audience. Matthew Homer, recycling manager for the London borough of Islington, asked whether it was possible for UK paper mills to use material from MRFs. Gerrard Fisher for WRAP said paper was used but it was important to focus in MRFs on the number of separation processes so as to get the right product for this to happen.
Chris White, Aylesford Newsprint's commercial manager and a strong supporter of the pro-kerbside sorting group the Campaign for Real Recycling, also responded to Mr Homer's question. He said: “I think all of the paper mills have taken paper from MRFs where paper was properly sorted rather than some of the stuff coming out of the MRFs. It is the fact that very poor quality comes out of most of the MRFs in the country.”
Jonathan Clark, UK director of sorting technology firm Titech, asked about whether the huge variety of collection systems in the UK was a problem.
Mrs Crichton, of WRAP, responded, calling for a “focus on the consistency of types of material collected – then we will have less system configurations.”
Richard Cutts, director of Community Waste which runs MRFs including one in Milton Keynes, said that data was needed to understand the actual costs per mile per tonne for collection in WRAP's work on costing. Mrs Crichton said that work on this would look at total system costs.
Presentations
The event ended with Marcus Gover, director of market development at WRAP confirming publication of a booklet, Contracts Guidance for Materials Recycling Facilities, as well as touching on future areas of work for WRAP related to MRFs.
And Steve Waite, WRAP's recycling manager discussed future work areas such as a special study for Scotland at the request of the Scottish government, the publication of gate fee information, residual waste from MRFs and output specifications from MRFs. The latter point was challenged by Richard Cutts of Community Waste. He argued that PAS 105 standards already exist within the paper industry and output specifications would not be needed.
The MRF Contracts Guidance is available at: Contracts Guidance
Copies of the event presentations are available at: MRF conference
Register for free to comment