The debate over source separated collection versus commingled has been raging for some time, so the news that WRAP was to commission research into the quality of material emerging from the MRF process had more than a few holding their breath.

Although the report itself will never be published, WRAP recently announced the findings to a waiting industry. Mike Falconer Hall, Aggregates Capital Projects Manager at WRAP, said the research would have to remain confidential and that some of the initial findings couldn’t be made public: by gaining a free hand to look at facilities in depth, WRAP needed to be able to guarantee the safety of sensitive commercial information.

Falconer Hall says the drivers behind the report were threefold: “An increase in commingled collections as recycling rates go up; the need to engage the supply chain, and thirdly, the need to focus on quality.” A stakeholder meeting was organised in 2006 and the message that emerged was overwhelmingly one of concerns over the quality of material being sourced through MRFs.

Paper and glass were chosen as key areas. Paper because of the large volumes involved, and the doubts voiced by UK mills over the material they were receiving from MRFs, and glass because traditionally MRF glass had been used primarily in aggregate and it was decided to investigate the quality with a view to sending it for remelt.

And in both cases the answer was, ‘yes’, MRF material could compete. However, Falconer Hall is swift to assert the surrounding conditions: “The stakeholder meeting led to work on MRF configuration. We worked out the ‘ideal’ set up, then found one that was as similar as possible”.

Although the results proved positive for MRF operators and supporters of commingled collection, he agrees that more work needs to be done: “In the case of glass, we need to do more on the recovery rate [50 per cent in the research; the other 50 per cent goes to aggregates]. The question is, can it be economically viable?”

Practical management systems are also needed to quantify improvements: “If you don’t measure what you’re doing, how can you tell if you’ve improved? And if you’re going to improve quality, you’ve got to know where you are now, and where you’re going.” One of the MRFs involved has taken this on board and achieved ISO accreditation.

Falconer Hall says the aim now is to start working with industry. However, against a back drop that recently showed that almost 10 per cent – 89,000 tonnes per year – of materials sent by householders for recycling are not actually recycled, it may be hard to convince some that the findings are representative of MRF systems as a whole.

Eric Randall, speaking on behalf of the Campaign for Real Recycling, said: “While WRAP’s intentions to move the industry to a more controlled, production-focused business are laudable, it misses the point that MRFs have limited control over the quantity and quality of inputs. This inevitably leads to MRFs running frequently and in some cases permanently over capacity, resulting in low quality materials; it’s a structural and systemic problem associated with MRF operations.

“In addition, it became apparent from comments made by leading MRF providers and glass industry representatives during the WRAP seminar in Birmingham on 29 May, that the significant costs of recovering glass for remelt using optical sort technology would not provide nearly sufficient revenue to make the theory economically viable. Furthermore, an apparent conflict was not sufficiently addressed: that while the paper industry requires glass to be smashed as small as possible to remove it from other materials, the smaller the particles get, the less can be effectively recovered for remelt by glass manufacturers.”