More positive evidence on co-mingled recycling

Greenstar says new evidence supporting co-mingled recycling collections should persuade critics to accept that 'it is a valid and valuable part of Britain's recycling landscape'

Greenstar UK CEO Ian Wakelin says many critics of co-mingling are 'blinkered', and seem to regard it as 'some sort of heresy'.

He claims new as well as recent evidence shows that co-mingled collections, whether single or dual stream, do improve tonnages, are efficient, and are more carbon-friendly than previously thought.

the evidence cited was:.

* Volume.

Greenstar continues to see increased levels of recyclate collection as more of its local authority customers convert to single stream collections.

Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council, serviced by Greenstar subsidiary Verdant, has most recently converted to single stream co-mingled collections, and almost two-thirds of its 59,000 households now use a wheeled bin for single stream co-mingled recycling.

Pre-roll-out of this new service, the average monthly recycling collection was 808 tonnes: phase one of the roll-out (to around 29 per cent of households, some 17,000) increased the monthly average to 952 tonnes (+16 per cent).

Phase two, which expanded the scheme to 36,000 households, increased the monthly average to 995 tonnes, with four of the last six months each collecting over 1,000 tonnes, for a recycling gain of close to 19 per cent.

* Commercial.

Co-mingling is the best system for the world of commerce and industry to improve recycling.

Some Greenstar commercial customers have increased their volumes by up to 45 per cent through co-mingling.

* Efficiency.

In London, a recent transparency report from Camden Council found that collection vehicle mileage decreased by around 25 per cent, and vehicle time on the road fell 30 per cent, after co-mingling began.

It said that co-mingling encouraged the recycling of more materials, increasing collection tonnage by 60 per cent (from 5,000 to 8,000 tonnes), and reducing hazardous operation risk.

A co-mingling vehicle has a higher payload (up to 8.5 tonnes), while a kerbsider vehicle has a payload of up to 2.5 tonnes.

* Value.

Nearly half (46 per cent) of English local authorities now co-mingle, with 35 per cent using single stream and 11 per cent dual stream (source WRAP).

More councils are introducing or considering co-mingled collections because, in Greenstar's opinion, public sector competitive tender criteria focus on best value delivered through efficiency, productivity and cost.

Greenstar experience is that co-mingled collections are up to 20 per cent cheaper than kerbside segregated collection methods when current costs and MRF gate fees are built into the model.

* Carbon impact.

A Hyder Consulting study for recycling firm and MRF operator Community Waste of Milton Keynes found that carbon emissions from co-mingled recycling are 28 per cent lower per tonne of material collected than for source-separated schemes.

* Quality.

A recent WRAP report found that modern MRFs can produce quality paper and glass outputs.

Greenstar already provides MRF-processed plastics, metals and paper to reprocessors, and hopes to begin supplying glass for remelt use in the near future.

Greenstar says that the decision by several leading paper companies to invest in building MRFs to handle co-mingled recyclables 'completely undermines' the stance of more entrenched reprocessors who claim that MRFs broadly cannot produce the quality of paper outputs they need.

Wakelin said: "Co-mingled collections are a valid and valuable part of Britain's recycling landscape.

They are here to stay because they work".

He added that on almost every measure, co-mingling is productive, efficient and cost-effective, and when coupled with modern MRF processing, can deliver quality materials.

Continuing, he stated: "This rather blows a hole in the collection hierarchy concept recently launched by the Campaign for Real Recycling.

It was a drastic over-simplification of the many complex considerations that a local authority has to balance when deciding on recycling.

The CRR hierarchy is blatantly biased to kerbside-segregated collection, reflecting the blinkered view held by many critics who seem to regard co-mingling as some sort of heresy".

He endorsed the Community Waste opinion that a collection hierarchy should be produced by independent consultants commissioned by both sides of the debate.

Accept the inevitable Wakelin called on the CRR and other critics 'to accept the inevitable' and to use their collective energy, resources and expertise to work with all parties to improve the volume, quality and impact of British recycling.

"Unlike others, Greenstar is not blinkered.

We support co-mingling but are totally open-minded about any recycling system that helps achieve objectives" he stated: "We see roles for both co-mingled and source-separated collections, according to local needs and conditions.

We share the WRAP opinion that 'it's wrong to assume that one type of collection scheme is always going to be cheaper or produce better quality material than another'.

WRAP has also said that 'we have to face up to the fact that we will need standardised collections' as a way of countering public confusion.

Co-mingling couldn't be more suitable as a standard system - just one wheelie bin into which you put all your dry recyclables".

He also said that Greenstar is designing its new breed of MRFs to process both streams to acceptable quality as part of its substantial investment in systems and processes that will benefit recycling as a whole.

"The world has moved on and will keep on moving on," said Wakelin: "Rather than clinging to the past, let's encourage new thinking and new solutions for the considerable challenges that lie ahead.

Remember Britain has to increase its current recycling rate by around a further 20 per cent if it is to reach its 40 per cent target in two years.

We've got to recycle more and recycle better".

Back to top