Responding to the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) research on materials recycling facilities (MRFs) the Campaign for Real Recycling (CRR) has questioned the financial logic of pursuing commingled collections.
CRR spokesman Andy Moore said: The CRR is not against MRFs and is not saying that its not possible to get quality product from them. Its just that MRFs and commingled collections havent so far generally produced the material quality that UK and other reprocessors require.
"Were happy to believe, as WRAP is suggesting, that MRF output quality can be improved. But such improvements will cost, and given that we also now know, as Rotate manager Linda Crichton said last week, that kerbside sort costs less per tonne already than commingled/MRF systems, it is less easy to see any financial logic in pursuing the commingled option further.
He also said that it was not good for recyclings image as value for money that cash was being wasted with MRF rejection rates of more than 9%.
Moore added: Were not sure what is being measured in the claim that commingled collections collect 15% more tonnage than kerbside sort. Is any perceived extra actually recyclable material? Some MRFs have been shown by WRAP research to be taking in 14% non-target tonnage. Rubbish collected into a MRF is a net cost, not a saving.