DISCLAIMER
This report is issued by the Emission Standards Division of the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards of the Environmental Protection Agency. It
presents technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies
are available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and non-profit organizations - as supplies permit - from the Library
Services Office (MD-35), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone 919-541-2777 (FTS 629-2777), or may be obtained
for a fee from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, VA 22161, phone 703-487-4650 (FTS 737-4650).
Publication No. EPA-450/3-90-021
Region 5,
TTVtest J
Chicago, It 60604-3590
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction ..................... j ,
2.0 Current Rates of Materials Separation and Recycling ...... 2-1
2.1 Methodology for Determining Municipal Solid Waste
Separation Rates ................. 2-1
2.2 Nationwide Average Materials Separation Rates ...... 2-2
2.3 References for Section 2.0 .......... '.'.'.'.'. 2-5
3.0 Case Studies of Four Community Curbside Materials
Separation Programs ...................... 3_
3.1 Woodbury, New Jersey .................. 3_1
3.1.1 Materials Separation Program Description ..... 3-1
3.1.2 Materials Separation Program Costs for
Woodbury, New Jersey ............... 3.7
3.1.2.1 Capital Costs ............. 3.3
3.1.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs . . . . . 3-8
3.1.2.3 Program Revenues or Credits ....... 3-11
3.1.2.4 Net Program Cost .......... ] 3_H
3.1.3 References for Section 3.1 ............ 3. 14
3.2 Seattle, Washington ................... 3_15
3.2.1 Materials Separation Program Description ..... 3-15
3.2.2 Materials Separation Program Costs for
Seattle, Washington ............... 3.23
3.2.2.1 Overview of Costs and Credits
Considered ............. 3.34
3.2.2.2 Annual Costs and Credits ........ 3-24
3.2.3 References for Section 3.2 ............ 3-27
3.3 Islip, New York ..................... 3.28
3.3.1 Materials Separation Program Description ..... 3-28
3.3.2 Materials Separation Program Costs for
Islip, New York ................. 3.35
3.3.2.1 Capital Costs .............. 3.35
3.3.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs ..... 3.35
3.3.2.3 Program Revenues or Credits ....... 3.39
3.3.2.4 Net Program Cost ........... ' 3.39
3.3.3 References for Section 3.3 ............ 3-42
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
3.4 Rhode Island
3-44
3.4.1 Materials Separation Program Description . . . 3.44
3.4.2 Materials Separation Program costs for - '
Rhode Island . 3__.
3.4.2.1 Capital Costs .... 3 51
3.4.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs .'.'*'' 3.5?
3.4.2.3 Program Revenues or Credits . ' •» I?
3.4.2.4 Net Program Cost '.'.'.'.'.'. 3.55
3.4.3 References for Section 3.4 3.56
4.0 Case Studies of Centralized Facilities Separating
Unsorted MSW
4-1
4.1 XL Disposal corporation, Crestwood, Illinois 4.1
4.1.1 Facility Description and Materials
Separation Operations 4_!
4.1.1.1 General Plant Operations . . 41
4.1.1.2 Materials Separation Operations . .' .' 4.1
4.1.1.3 Fate of Recovered Materials .... ' 4.5
4.1.1.4 Materials Separation System Performance . 4-6
4.1.1.5 Handpicking Operations 4.3
4.1.2 Materials Separation Costs and Credits
for the XL Disposal Corporation 4.3
4.1.2.1 Capital Costs 4.9
4.1.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs '.'.'.'' 4-9
4.1.2.3 Program Revenues and Credits ... ' 4.9
4.1.2.4 Total Program Costs/Credits ...!!.. 4-12
4.1.3 References for Section 4.1 4_14
4.2 Reuter Recycling, Inc., Eden Prairie, Minnesota 4-15
4.2.1 Facility Description and Materials
Separation Operations 4.16
4.2.1.1 General Facility Description 4-15
4.2.1.2 Materials Separation Operations . . . 4-15
4.2.1.3 Refuse-Derived Fuel Production
Operations 4.19
4.2.1.4 Proportional Distribution of
Separated Materials 4.19
4.2.1.5 Fate of Separated Materials ' 4-19
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4.2.1.6 Handpicking Operations 4-20
4.2.2 References for Section 4.2 4-21
5.0 Impacts of Materials Separation on Combustor Air
Emissions Combustor Operation, and Ash 5-1
5.1 Composition of MSW 5-1
5.2 Impacts of Materials Separation on Air Emissions .... 5-3
5.2.1 Noncombustibles 5-3
5.2.2 Household Batteries 5-16
5.2.3 Lead-Acid Vehicle Batteries 5-16
5.2.4 Plastics .* 5-17
5.2.5 Paper 5-19
5.2.6 Yard Wastes 5-19
5.3 Impacts of Materials Separation on Combustor
Operations 5-20
5.3.1 Noncombustibles 5-20
5.3.2 Combustibles 5-23
5.4 Impact of Materials Separation on Ash Quantity
and Quality 5-25
5.4.1 Noncombustibles 5-25
5.4.2 Combustibles -.-. . ,---.- 5-29
5.5 References for Section 5.0 5-30
6.0 Occupational Risks for Manual Separation of
Recoverable Materials 6-1
6.1 Introduction 6-1
6.2 Process Description 6-2
6.3 Occupational Hazards 6-3
6.4 Techniques to Reduce Occupational Health Hazards .... 6-4
6.5 Applicable Health and Safety Regulations 6-7
6.6 References for Section 6.0 6-8
7.0 Characterization of Mercury-Containing Batteries
and Review of Programs for Their Separation,
Processing, and Disposal 7-1
7.1 Introduction and Background 7-1
7.2 Characterization of Household Batteries 7-1
7.2.1 Mercury Content of Household Batteries 7-1
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
7.2.2 Consumption Estimates 7.3
7.3 Current Battery Collection Programs 7.7
7.3.1 Collection Procedures 7.3
7.3.2 Collection Efficiency ...... 7.9
7.3.3 Sorting, Storage, and Disposal !!.'.' 7-11
7.3.4 Safety Considerations 7-13
7.4 Current Recycling Efforts 7-14
7.4.1 Mercury Oxide Battery Recycling Process 7-14
7.4.2 Development of Processes-to Recycle
Other Types of Batteries 7-15
7.5 Summary 7_17
7.6 References for Section 7.0 .......... 7-18
Appendix A Materials Separation Reporting and Documentation
Methodology A_l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2-1 Nationwide Gross Discards and Recovery of MSW in 1986 2-4
3-1 Total 1988 Tonnage of Recoverable Materials
Collected in the City of Woodbury 3-5
3-2 Woodbury Materials Separation Program Capital
Costs for 1988 ._ 3.9
3-3 Woodbury Materials Separation Program Operation
and Maintenance Costs for 1988 3-10
3-4 Woodbury Materials Separation Program Credits for 1988 .... 3-12
3-5 Woodbury Materials Separation Total Program Cost
Summary for 1988 3-13
3-6 Composition and Amount of MSW Generated in Seattle by the
Residential and Commercial Sectors in 1987 3-16
3-7 Composition and Amount of MSW Separated Through Private
Initiatives in Seattle by the Residential and
Commercial Sectors in 1987 3-18
3-8 Total Waste Generated and Total Materials Separated
in Seattle in 1987 3-19
3-9 Estimated Costs and Benefits of Seattle's Residential
Curbside Recyclables Collection Program 3-25
3-10 Weights of Materials Separated for Recovery
Through Islip Curbside Programs for 1988 3-32
3-11 Total Materials Separated for Recovery, Total Materials
Collected, and Percent Recovered in the Town of
Islip for 1988 . . . 3.34
3-12 Islip Materials Separation Program Capital Costs for 1990 . . . 3-37
3-13 Islip Materials Separation Program Operation and
Maintenance Costs for 1990 3-38
3-14 Islip Materials Separation Program Credits for 1990 3-40
3-15 Islip Materials Separation Total Program Costs
Summary for 1990 3-41
3-16 Total Estimated Annual Tonnage of Materials Separated
and MSW Generated in Rhode Island for 1990 3-48
3-17 Estimated Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs for
Rhode Island's Materials Separation Program for 1990 3-53
3-18 Estimated Credits for Rhode Island's Materials
Separation Program for 1990 3.54
3-19 Estimated Total Program Cost Summary for Rhode
Island for 1990 3.55
4-1 Tonnage of Materials Separated at the XL Disposal
Corporation Facility 4.7
4-2 Capital Costs for a Materials Separation Facility . . 4-10
4-3 Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs for a
Materials Separation Facility 4-11
4-4 XL Disposal Corporation's Materials Separation
Credits for 1990 • 4-13
4-5 Materials Separation Total Program Costs '. . 4-15
5-1 Composition of Municipal Solid Waste 5-2
5-2 Principal Components in MSW Which Potentially
Contribute to Air Pollutant Emissions from MWC's 5-4
5-3 Solid Waste Fuel Composition 5-6
•
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
.
4
5-5 Gaseous Emissions from the* Nashville' MWC ............ 5'7
""
5- frora
5-7 Gaseous Emissions from the Salem MWC
5-8 Heavy Metal Emissions from the Gal latin MWC .......... c5*10
f"?« Saseous Effl1ss1°ns from the Gallat n MWC .......... 5'H
5-10 Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Rates ............ 5'12
5-11 Bo??ird??f?alerial2 removed 1n Pressing) .... 5 „
c ,i °°11er Efficiency Measurements ......... 5"22
53 BBStL°: JSHh ,EP Tu°Xi?1ty M««^menti .' .' .' .' i'; ........ fJJ
5-13 Bottom Ash Leachable Heavy Metals ........... I'21
attery ' '
n
for Ho^ehold Batteries .......... 7'6
7 4 S*?"!^ by Eur°Pean Countries in 1990 . . 7 in
4 "1*' of Household Batteries .........
7-12
vii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
4-1 Schematic Diagram of Materials Separation Process at
XL Disposal Corporation 4.3
4-2 Schematic Diagram of Materials Separation and RDF
Production Processes at Reuter Resources Recovery Facility . . 4-17
5-1 The Rate of Lead-Acid Battery Recycling in the U.S.
from 1960-1985 5-18
7-1 The Actual and Predicted Amount of Mercury Used in
the U.S. Household Battery Production 7-5
viii
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
New source performance standards (NSPS) for new municipal waste
combustors (MWC's) and emission guidelines for existing MWC's were proposed
on December 20, 1989, under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (FR 54
52251 and 52209, respectively). The proposed standards and guidelines
contain provisions for controlling MWC air emissions by requiring three
control elements: (1) front-end materials separation, (2) good combustion
practices (GCP), and (3) add-on air pollution control devices (APCD's).
The proposed regulations for materials separation require that 25 percent
of the weight of municipal solid waste (MSW) be separated for recovery and
not combusted. The proposed 25 percent separation is determined on a
yearly average basis. The proposed regulations for materials separation
also contain a requirement that a lead-acid vehicle battery separation
program be implemented for all MWC's.
In developing the proposed regulations for MWC's, the Agency
identified several issues related to materials separation which required
further study. The purpose of this report is to provide further technical
information on these issues.
Chapter 2.0 of this report discusses current nationwide levels of
materials separation. Chapter 3.0 presents case studies of four existing
curbside community materials separation programs. These case studies
provide materials separation program performance data as well as program
costs. Chapter 4.0 describes case studies of two centralized materials
separation facilities which separate materials from unsorted MSW. These
case studies give descriptions of the separation mechanisms employed at the
two facilities. Performance data and costs are also provided where
available.
Chapter 5.0 discusses available data on the impacts of materials
separation on MWC air emissions, combustor operation, and MWC ash.
1-1
-------
Chapter 6.0 discusses the potential occupational risks of the handpicking
process used to separate materials from MSW at some centralized separation
facilities. Finally, Chapter 7.0 discusses the use of mercury in household
batteries and provides current information on community household battery
collection programs and household battery recycling efforts. Additionally,
Appendix A describes materials separation documentation and reporting
procedures and provides sample reporting forms that could be used to track
amounts of materials separated.
1-2
-------
2.0 CURRENT RATES OF MATERIALS SEPARATION ANO RECYCLING
Z.I METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SEPARATE RATES
instance, most communities estimate the weight of
2-1
-------
leaves or other yard waste collected on a truck count basis based on the
average weight of a certain size truckload of that material which has been
determined in previous weight measurements.
If the total weight of MSW disposed of in a landfill or an MWC and the
total weight of materials separated is known, the separation rate can be
determined simply, by dividing the weight separated by the sun, of the weight
disposed and the weight separated. Most all MWC"s have such scales but
many smaller landfills will not. Additionally, obtaining records of
weights of all materials separated In a given service area may be
difficult. For example, some supermarkets separate cardboard and ship it
to a central warehouse where cardboard from other stores of the same
company are stored. In such cases, the cardboard! is shipped out of the
service area and stored with materials from many other service areas When
these materials are taken to market, they are weighed together, but the
amount of cardboard from a specific store in a given service area is not
known. Similarly, materials brokers in large cities may buy and sell paper
or metals from individuals or small businesses from communities in
several service areas and it may be difficult to get exact weights of
materials received from a given service area. Some private materials
dealers often refuse to divulge information on weights of materials traded
because they view the information as proprietary.
The second method for determining materials separation rate, is a
materials flow approach. Government or industry trade association data are
used to estimate amounts of goods produced or consumed, and these data can
be used on a national level to estimate the amounts of MSW generated in
this area. Industry trade association data for consumption of secondary
materials can be used to estimate the amounts of materials separated for
recovery. On a State or local level, data from major materials brokers or
manufacturers which use secondary material may be used.
The materials flow approach tends to be more accurate on a national
scale. Such statistics are generally not applicable to smaller areas.
Furthermore, while these types of data can be obtained for materials such
as glass, plastics, and metals, no such data are available for yard waste,
food waste, wood waste, or some other materials which are not traded in
secondary markets. For these materials, waste generation and separation
2-2
-------
must be estimated by extrapolating from historical data on measurements of
the composition and separation rates of MSW.
2.2 NATIONWIDE AVERAGE MATERIALS SEPARATION RATES
A 1988 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study estimated the total
amount of MSW discarded in the United States and the proportion of those
discards which were separated for recovery.1 The study used a materials
flow approach for estimating discards and recovery of durable goods (e.g.,
appliances, furniture, tires), nondurable goods (e.g., newspapers, office
papers, clothing), and containers and packaging (e.g., cans, bottles,
boxes, bags, wrapping). Estimates of the amounts of food waste, yard
waste, and miscellaneous inorganic wastes, disposed of were made based on
numerous landfill sampling surveys. No estimates were available for
separation of these materials.
Table 2-1 presents the estimated quantity and percentage of individual
materials discarded in the United States in 1986 and the estimated quantity
and percentage of these materials which were separated for recovery.1 As •
shown in the table, about 160 million tons of MSW were discarded in the
United States in 1986. About 11 percent of these discards were separated
for recovery while the remaining 89 percent was disposed of in landfills or
MWC's.
Corrugated containers and other paperboard packaging accounted for
nearly half of the MSW materials recovered in the United States in 1986
(about 5 percent of the total MSW). All paper products together, including
paper packaging as well as nondurable goods such as newspapers and office
papers, accounted for over 85 percent of the MSW materials separated for
recovery. Glass, aluminum, and durable goods make up the majority of the
remaining materials separated for recovery.
Since the majority of these data are based upon the total industrial
production of goods or use of secondary materials, there is no way to
determine the proportion of waste discards or materials separation
attributed to the residential, institutional, or commercial sectors. For
instance, trade association data may give the total tons of office paper
recycled by paper industries, but there are no data for what proportion of
this paper comes from schools, homes, government offices, or commercial
businesses. There is also no way to differentiate the amounts separated by
both community programs or private initiatives. However, it is probable
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-1. NATIONWIDE GROSS DISCARDS AND RECOVERY OF MSW IN 19861
Gross Discards
Products
NONDURABLE GOODS
Newspapers
Books and Magazines
Office Papers
Commercial Printing
Other Nonpackaging Paper
Other Miscellaneous Nondurables
TOTAL NONDURABLE GOODS
CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING
Glass Containers:
Beer & Soft Orink Cans
Other Glass Containers
Subtotal - Glass
Steel Containers:
Beer & Soft Orink Cans
Food Cans
Other Steel Packaging
Subtotal - Steel
Aluminum:
Beer & Soft Orink Cans
Other Aluminum Packaging
Subtotal - Aluminum
Paper and Paperboard:
Corrugated Containers
Other Paperboard
Paper Packaging
Subtotal - Paper
Plastics:
Plastic Containers
Other Plastic Packaging
Subtotal - Plastics
Wood Packaging
Other Miscellaneous Packaging
TOTAL CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING
DURABLE GOODS
Major Appliances
Major Appliances
Rubber Tires
Other Durables
TOTAL DURABLE GOODS
OTHER WASTES6
Food Wastes
Yard Wastes
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
GRAND TOTAL
Quantity.
(tons x 10s)
12.6
4.8
6.1
3.7
3.5
-LS
41.5
5 5
6.3
11.8
0.1
1 8
1 . O
0.9
2.8
1.3
0.4
1.7
19.4
5.4
4.2
29.0
2.9
2.8
5.7
2.1
0^
53.3
2.8
2.8
1.8
1L3
19.5
12.5
28.3
2.6
157.7
Percent
of Gross
01 scards
8.0
3.0
3 g
2.3
5.4
JLJ.
(26.3)a
3 5
J . 3
4.0
(7.5)
0.1
1 1
o.'e
(1.8)
0.8
0.3
(1.1)
12.3
3.4
2.7
(18.4)
1.8
1.8
(3.6)
(1.3)
(o.n
(33.8)
1.8
1.8
1 i
-ill
(12.4)
(7.9)
(17.9)
(1.6)
100.0
Ouant 1 ty
(tons x 106)
3.8
0.4
j j
o.'s
0.2
6.0
Neg.b
1.1
0.0
Ot
.1
Neg.
0.1
0.6
Neg.
0.6
8.0
0.3
0.3
8.6
0.1
Neg.
0-1
Neg. '
Neq.
10.6
0.2
0.2
01
. i
0.4
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
17.0
Percent Percent
Recovery for Recovery for
Category Gross Discards
30.2
8.3
18.0
13.5
2.4
JLfl
(14.5)
20.0
0.0
(9.3)
0.0
5.6
0.0
(3.6)
46.2
0.0
(35.3)
41.2
5.6
7.1
(29.7)
3.4
0.0-
(1.8)
(0.0)
(O.Q)
(19.9)
7.1
7.1
Sc
.0
1J.
(2.1)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
NAd
2 4
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.1
p_o
(3.3)
0.7
0.0
(0.7)
0.0
0.0
(0 1)
0.4
0.0
(0 4)
5 1
0.2
0 2
(5 5)
>C .
0.0
(0 0)
(0.0)
(6.7)
0.1
0.1
>S:i
(0.3)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
10.8 •
a() Indicates percentage subtotals for categories.
bNeg. - Less than 100.000 tons.
cSome of these wastes are composted or otherwise recovered, but this is not estimated here.
dNA * Not applicable.
2-4
-------
that most of the materials separated were a result of private initiatives
since State or local community separation programs were not widespread in
1986. Also, corrugated paper which is usually separated as a result of
private commercial activities, accounted for nearly half of the materials
separated. Since many municipal and commercial separation/recycling
programs have begun since 1986, and since the cost of disposing of MSW has
risen, it 1s probable that the amount of total MSW separated has increased,
However, no current nationwide estimates are available.
2.3 REFERENCES
1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal
Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000 (Update 1988)
EPA/530-SW-88-033. March 1988. ''
2-5
-------
3.0 CASE STUDIES OF FOUR COMMUNITY CURBSIDE MATERIALS SEPARATION PROGRAMS
This section of the report presents case studies of four community
curbside materials separation/recycling programs. Each case study contains
information on how separation is achieved, the amount and fate of each
separated material, enforcement and recordkeeping aspects of the program,
and the capital and annual costs of the separation program. The four
communities are: Woodbury, New Jersey; Seattle, Washington; Islip, New
York; and Rhode Island. Each of these communities uses a different
strategy for separating materials from the waste stream. These four
communities also represent different geographical areas and a range of
populations, and are typical of many other U. S. communities.
3.1 WOODBURY, NEW JERSEY
3.1.1. Materials Separation Program Description
Woodbury, New Jersey, has a population of about 12,000 and is located
in Gloucester County in the southwestern part of the State. The community
is 80 percent residential consisting of single and two-family homes, and
20 percent commercial/institutional including apartments, commercial
establishments, industries, offices, churches, schools, and a hospital.
According to Mr. Donald Sanderson, Chairman of the Woodbury Recycling
Committee, the New York Times and the Philadelphia Enquirer have deemed
Woodbury to be "the typical small U.S.A. town."1'2
Materials separation activities in Woodbury were organized in the
early 1970's by environmentally-concerned citizens and local community
organizations. In 1972, volunteers formed the Woodbury Recycling
Committee. From 1970 to 1980, these volunteers, along with the support of
the City Public Works Department, organized curbside pick-ups for glass,
aluminum, mixed metals, and paper, and established reclamation centers for
handling these Items. During this period, about 10 to 15 percent of
Woodbury's residents participated in recycling.1'2
3-1
-------
In 1980, the Woodbury Recycling Committee undertook a study to
determine which materials in the waste stream could be separated for
recovery, what markets were available for these materials, and to design an
effective mandatory curbside collection program. This study used available
information from the State of New Jersey regarding MSW composition and
information obtained by the recycling committee from Woodbury's voluntary
recycling efforts. The study estimated that a mandatory materials
separation program could reduce the amount of waste being landfilled by
about 45 percent. The study also found that while some citizens and
organizations were adamantly opposed to mandatory recycling, 60 percent bf
the population favored such a program. The results of the study and a
proposed mandatory recycling program were presented to the Woodbury City
Council in late 1980. The City Council narrowly passed a recycling
ordinance in December 1980, and the mandatory program became effective in
February 1981.*'z
Woodbury's Initiative was consistent with the State of New Jersey's '•
1980 plan to work toward 25 percent annual recovery of the State's solid
waste by 1985. The State strategy urged communities to formulate their own
waste reduction programs, declared a tax surcharge on each ton of waste
landfilled, and created a fund to give rebates to communities for each ton
of waste material recovered for recycling.1
The Woodbury recycling program initially required separation of paper
(newspapers and clean white paper separated from cardboard and brown bags),
glass by color, aluminum, ferrous metals, and trash, including
nonrecoverable materials and yard waste. All items had to be completely
segregated in metal or plastic containers supplied by the individual
household. Initially, the program had also Intended to include separation
of food waste, but this requirement was soon abandoned because of strong
objection by citizens. Food waste Is now Included in the trash. In late
1981, the city ordinance was amended to require that yard waste (brush,
leaves, and grass clippings) be separated from the trash and placed at
curbside in separate containers or bundles. In 1989, separation of plastic
containers (i.e., detergent bottles, beverage bottles, and milk containers)
was added to the program.1'2
Currently, the city collects recyclables at curbside each Monday and
Tuesday. Yard wa'ste is picked up on Wednesday, and trash is picked up on
3-2
-------
Thursday and Friday. All collection services are provided by the
municipality. The recyclables are picked up by two rear-compactor trucks
that tow small custom-built compartmentalized trailers. The first truck
collects newspaper and white paper together in the compactor section of the
truck body. Ferrous metals, nonferrous metals, clear glass, and colored
glass are then collected in separate compartments of the trailer towed by
the truck. A second rear-compactor truck follows and collects brown
cardboard and brown bags in the truck body. Plastics are collected in the
trailer pulled by this truck. All types of plastic containers are
collected together in a common compartment, and are not separated by resin
type.
At the end of their route, the trucks drop off the,ir trailers at an
outdoor central reclamation center, which is located behind a shopping
center, and then go directly to the market to deliver the paper.2'3
Glass, metals, and plastics are stored in separate bins at the outdoor
reclamation center and are transported to market when each bin is full. '
The reclamation center is fenced in and is open to the public during
certain times of the week. Often, residents take their recyclables
directly to the center if they plan to be out of town or if they happen to
be shopping in the area.2'3
White goods (i.e., large appliances such as stoves and refrigerators)
are also collected separately. There is no set schedule for collection of
white goods. Residents can either call the city to schedule a pick-up, or
they can take them to the reclamation center.2'3
Yard waste, except for tree limbs and brush, 1s collected in compactor
trucks or vacuum trucks and transported directly to area farms where it is
composted. At the curbside, workers open plastic bags or any other
containers containing the yard waste and deposit the yard waste in the
truck. Plastic bags are left behind at the curbside. Residents are
encouraged to leave a brick or rock nearby, so that the workers can place a
weight on the bags, so they will not be blown away 1n the wind. Tree limbs
and brush are picked up separately and taken to a wood chipper operated by
the city.2'3
Trash 1s collected by compactor trucks and transported to a landfill.
In the near future, all trash will be taken to an MWC, which is currently
being tested in the nearby community of West Deptford.2'3
3-3
-------
The city employs a trained waste Inspector who randomly inspects
residential or commercial trash bins on trash pick-up days. The inspector
has been deputized and has the authority to issue citations for
noncompliance with the materials separation ordinance. If the inspector
finds recyclable materials in the trash, he attaches a red tag to the trash
container which warns.the resident that they are 1n noncompliance and
subject to penalty. This tag also gives a telephone number that the
resident can call if they need information on how to separate materials to
comply with the ordinance. The Inspector then records the address of that
resident, so that he can reinspect them the following week. Trash
collectors do not pick up containers that have been tagged, and the
household receives no service for that week. "The following week the
inspector first inspects the trash of those who were not in compliance the
previous week. If they still have not separated recyclables from their
trash, the inspector attaches another red tag and then sends a letter of
summons for those persons to appear in court. The judge often issues a '•
verbal warning for the first offense. According to Mr. Sanderson, most
persons choose to comply after receiving a verbal warning from the judge
However, some persons who have still not separated recyclables from their
trash after receiving a warning from the judge have been ordered to pay
fines or perform community service work. Noncompliance with the ordinance
carries a maximum $500 fine.
In 1988, the residents and businesses in Woodbury generated a total of
7,697 tons of MSW. Of this amount, a total of 3,229 tons (42 percent) was
separated for recovery. Table 3-1 shows a breakdown of the amount of each
material separated.4
As shown in Table 3-1, separation for Woodbury 1n 1988 of mixed paper,
corrugated paper, glass, aluminum, and ferrous metals totaled 2,113 tons
or 27.5 percent of the total MSW stream. The table also shows that
1,107 tons of yard waste, or 14.3 percent of the total MSW stream was
separated for recovery.
In June 1989, Woodbury residents were also required to separate
plastic milk containers, soda bottles, and household detergent bottles.
Residents must remove and discard metal and plastic caps from these
3-4
-------
Material
~ —
Newspaper and white pacer
Corrugated paper
Glass
Aluminum
Ferrous metals
Total paper, glass, and metals
Leaves
Yard debris (grass clippings, etc )
Brush (bushes, tree limbs, etc )
Total yard waste
Used oil
Total Materials Collected
Total MSW Landfilled
Total Materials Recovered
•» i • .
Tons
Collected3
— • • —
822
329
492
9
461
2,113
393
488
22$.
1* f\^
,107
5
3,225
4,472
1.225
Percentage of 0\
MSW Generate
^ ^^^___^
10.7
4 3
» • w
6.4
0.1
6.0
27.5
5.1
6.3
2.9
14.3
0.06
41.9
58.1
41.9
Total MSW Generated
7,697
100.0
•——
from all residences and businesses serviced by the
3-5
-------
containers and place all plastic containers together in one separate
collection container. Separation of plastic containers will increase
Woodbury's overall MSW reduction rate in the future.2'3
As of November 1989, markets were available to accept all of the
materials collected by the City of Woodbury's recycling activities 3 A
paper dealer accepts all separated paper and corrugated paper, a glass
manufacturer buys all clear and colored glass, a scrap metals dealer buys
ferrous and nonferrous metals, a plastics buyer buys all plastic
containers, yard waste is composted at local farm sites, and wood chips ar*
used for landscaping local parks and other public facilities. All of these
markets are located within a 1-hour hauling distance from the city.1-2
Complete records of all materials separation and waste disposal
activities are kept by the Woodbury Streets and Utilities Department The
weights of all paper, metal, glass, and plastic materials separated for
recovery are obtained when the materials are delivered to the market At
the market, the materials are weighed and a weight slip is issued which '
documents the amount of material delivered. These weight slips are used by
the City of Woodbury to calculate monthly and annual tonnages of each type
of material recovered.
City work logs also document the number of truckloads of leaves or
yard debris collected and transported to the composting facilities, and the
loads of tree limbs and brush taken to the wood chipper. Each truckload of
yard waste is not weighed, but the average weight of a truckload of a
certain type of yard waste is known. Therefore, the weight of leaves
delivered to the composting site can be estimated by multiplying the number
of truckloads of leaves by the average weight of a truckload of leaves.
The City of Woodbury keeps separate records on the estimated weight of
leaves, yard debris, and tree limbs and brush that are separated for
recovery. Records for the amount of waste landfilled are also maintained
Trucks hauling waste are weighed on scales when they enter and exit the
landfill.1'2'4
Complete records and supporting documentation enable the City of
Woodbury to be eligible for recycling grants from the State of New Jersey.
The grant program provides monetary rebates to municipalities for each ton
of waste recovered for recycling. According to the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection, to apply for recycling rebates, a municipality
3-6
-------
roust submit a standardized application listing the weight of each type of
material recovered. The municipality must also provide'documentation in
the form of: (1) weight slips from the market; (2) letters or other
documentation from the market; (3) in the case of yard waste, a work log
documenting the type of yard waste collected, the number of truckloads of
material delivered to the recovery facility, the method of collection
(i.e., vacuumed, compacted, uncompacted), the volume of the truck, and the
calculation to estimate the weight of material recovered based on standard
volume to weight conversion factors for yard wastes provided by the State.5
Recycling is strongly emphasized as a way of life in Woodbury. There
is a recycling curriculum in all public schools. Television, radio, and
newspaper promotions are common, and the Woodbury Recycling Committee has
created educational recycling videos and pamphlets. Revenues from
materials sales are used directly to purchase equipment for the recycling
program or other public benefit. In such cases, a sign is displayed to
show the public that monies from recycling have been used for buying a
particular item. For Instance, one new truck used to collect recyclables
displays a sign reading, "25 percent of the cost of this truck was paid for
by recycling funds." According to Mr. Sanderson, recycling in Woodbury
began as a grassroots volunteer effort and grew Into one of the Nation's
most successful programs. He said that the City of Woodbury's recycling
accomplishments have created a great source of pride and community spirit
for the citizens of Woodbury.1"3
Mr. Sanderson added that neighborhood peer pressure helps to increase
compliance with the program. Often residents will call the city to report
that their neighbors are not separating their recyclables properly.
Presently, about 95 percent of the citizens participate in recycling. The
remaining 5 percent of the population consists mainly of temporary
residents.*
3>1-2 Materials Separation Program Costs for Woodburv. New Jqrspy
This section presents the capital costs, operation and maintenance
(OiM) costs, and economic credits experienced by the City of Woodbury for
Us recycling program 1n 1988. Some program costs are borne directly by
the citizens of Woodbury. For example, the residents are required to
provide their own recycling containers and to separate their trash into
individual containers, whereas some municipalities provide containers and
3-7
-------
have separation done by the trash collectors or at a centralized processing
facility. In general, the additional cost of containers or labor to
separate materials is very small on a per household basis and is not a
significant portion of the total program costs. Most households use on-
hand containers such as cardboard boxes or old buckets, rather than
purchasing new containers.
3.1-2.1 Coital C9?tS. Capital costs for the Woodbury recycling
program include the cost of trucks, trailers, chipping and stumping
machines, and drop-off center construction. These costs were annualized by
using an interest rate of 10 percent and assuming an equipment life for
each item as specified in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2 presents the annualized capital costs for the Woodbury
program in 1988 dollars.6 The major capital costs are for the garbage and
diesel trucks, which are used for collecting both recyclables and trash.
The unit cost for each truck was multiplied by a fraction of recycling use
assigned to- that truck based on records of fuel usage for trash collection'-
versus recyclables collection.4 As shown in the table, total annualized
capital costs for the Woodbury materials separation program are $39,365.
3.1.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Co^r Operation and maintenance
costs for the Woodbury program include collection and administrative labor,
truck fuel/oil, and truck maintenance and insurance expenses. These costs
are summarized in Table 3-3. Total O&M costs for 1988 were $215,629.4'7
The main O&M cost is labor for the collection of recyclable materials,
which comprises almost 60 percent of the total O&M costs. Administrative
labor costs, which account for about 9 percent of the O&M costs, include an
allowance for a trash Inspector's salary. The trash Inspector enforces the
requirement that recyclables be separated from trash.
The costs of operating and maintaining the trucks account for about
33 percent of. the total O&M costs. Truck maintenance and insurance costs
were calculated as five times the fuel/oil costs based on International
Revenue Service allowances for maintenance and insurance costs as a
proportion of total mileage allowance.
Collection of recyclable materials, which occurs the entire year,
accounts for about 60 percent of the truck O&M costs. Collection of yard
debris and brush accounts for about 22 :ercent of truck O&M costs, and leaf
3-8
-------
I
«o
TABLE 3-2. WOODBURY MATERIALS SEPARATION PROGRAM CAPITAL COSTS FOR 1988a
Item5
Vacuum Truck
Vacuum Truck
Garbage Trucks
GMC Diesel Trucks
Recycling Trailers
Chipping Machine
Stumping Machine
Drop-Off Centers
Additional Equipment
Fraction
. Used For
Quantity" Recycling
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1.00
1.00
0.49
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
49
00
00
00
00
00
Unitb
Cost
($)
9,000
9,000
55,000
100,000
15,600
17,
19,
5,
5,
000
000
000
600
Total5
Cost
($)
9,000
9,000
53,810
97
31
17
19
10
5
,836
,200
,000
,000
,000
,600
Equip-
. ment
YearD Life
Incurred (Years)
1964
1970
1985
1985
1984
1985
1985
1983
1985
Total Annual ized
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
30
15
Capital
Capital0
Recovery
Factor
0.1627
0.1627
0.1627
0.1627
0.1315
0.1627
0.1627
0.1061
0.1315
Costs
Annual
Cost
($/yr)
1,464
1,464
8,757
15,922
4,102
2,767
3,092
1,061
736
39,365
All costs are presented in 1988 dollars.
the year
r»
Based on a 10-percent cost of capital
prnw/ioa
90 3d idb
-------
TABLE 3-3. WOODBURY MATERIALS SEPARATION PROGRAM kOPERAT I ON
AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR 1988**b
Item
Collection Labor
Administrative Labor
Truck Fuel/Oil
Truck Maintenance and Insurance
Total O&M Costs
Annual Cost
(S/yr)
125,469
19,000
11,860
59,300
215,629
References 4 and 7.
bAll costs are in 1988 dollars,
3-10
-------
collection, which only occurs in the fall, accounts for the remaining
17 percent.
3-1.2.3 Program Revenues or Crttfifo. Two sources of credit are
available for offsetting the recycling program costs. The first is revenue
from the sale of recyclables. As shown in Table 3-4, the City of Woodbury
received $41,457 from the sales of recyclables in 1988.4
The second source of credit is the avoided landfill charge for the
materials separated. This credit is calculated by multiplying the weight
of materials not landfilled due to the materials separation times the fee
($49 per ton [$/ton]) that would have been charged if the separated
materials had been landfilled. In 1988, 3,225 tons of materials were
diverted from the landfill, and the resulting credit for avoided landfill
charges was $159,573.4
The total annual materials separation credit from these two sources,
therefore, was about $200,000 in 1988. Further credits might be assigned
for the avoided or delayed cost of buying new landfill area, but this
credit was not considered in this study.
3.1.2.4 Net Program Cost. The net program cost is the difference
between the annualized capital costs plus total 04M costs and the sales
revenues plus avoided landfill charges. All four items for 1988 are
summarized in Table 3-5. The total program cost without the credit for
avoided landfill fee charges, which reflects actual cost to the city for
materials separation services, is approximately $214,000 for 1988. The
total program cost with the avoided landfill credit, which reflects the
total net cost for the materials separation program, was approximately
$54,000 for 1988.
Table 3-5 also presents these costs as $/ton of recyclable material
diverted from the landfill. The actual cost to the city of Woodbury for
each ton of recyclable material diverted from the landfill was $66/ton.
When the avoided landfill credit is included, however, the net cost is
reduced to $17/ton of recyclable material diverted from the landfill.
Costs are also presented in Table 3-5 in terms of $/ton of total MSW
generated (trash plus recyclables), which 1s a measure of the amount by
which the materials separation program Increases the cost of collecting and
disposing of each ton of MSW. As shown in the table, when the avoided
landfill credit is not included, the increased cost per ton of MSW
3-11
-------
TABLE 3-4. WOODBURY MATERIALS SEPARATION PROGRAM
CREDITS FOR 1988a'b
Item
Annual Cost Credit
($/yr)
Revenue from Sale of Recyclables
Avoided Landfill Feec
Total Credits
41,457
159,573
201,030
Reference 4.
All credits are in 1988 dollars.
cLandfill fee for 1988 was $49/ton,
3,225.
Total tonnage avoiding landfill ing was
3-12
-------
TABLE 3-5. WOOD8URY MATERIALS SEPARATION TOTAL PROGRAM COST
SUMMARY FOR 1988*
Weight of Total MSW Generated (tons)b - 7,597
Weight of Total Materials Recovered (tons) - 3,225
Total Annualized Capital Costs ($) . 39,365
Total O&M Costs ($) , 215,629
Recycling Revenue ($) » 41,457
Avoided Landfill Fee ($) . 159,573
$/ton of
Total $/ton of
Total Materials Total MSW
Recovered Generated
Total Program Costs (without
avoided landfill credit) 213,537 66 28
Net Program Costs (with avoided
landfill credit) 53,964 17 7
References 4, 6, and 7.
Total MSW includes all trash landfilled and all recyclables collected by the
C 1 t Jr •
3-13
-------
collected is $28. When the avoided landfill credit is included, the net
increased cost per ton of MSW collected is only about $7.
3.1.3 References for 3.1
1.
2.
3. Information obtained from visit to the City of Woodbury, NJ
Davis, Radian Corporation. November 15, 1989. Dury' NvJ'
4' reC?KUr!? ™a'eruls "Plated and municipal solid waste
7 «"* C *? °I H;°*ur^' NJ- m 1988. Records submitted by
5- a
3-14
-------
3.2 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
3-2-1 foteri*!S Separation Program
The City of Seattle, Washington (population 500,000) has been
achieving increasing rates of materials separation since 1981 when the city
set a variable rate structure for trash container collection. The rate
charged per household depended upon the number of trash containers
collected per week. This incentive, along with strong participation from
private citizens, private community organizations, businesses, and
government, helped to create a large network of private materials
separation activities. Much of this network consisted of both profit and
nonprofit drop-off or buy-back centers where residents delivered recyclable
materials. From 1981 to 1988, the average residential subscription rate
for trash pick-up dropped from 3.5 containers per household to
1.4 containers per household.1
In 1987, faced with dwindling landfill space and local opposition to
plans for an MWC, the City of Seattle began a major study to determine the' •
composition of municipal waste separated, existing rates of recycling, and
alternatives to further increase recycling activities. In this study,
computer models were used to evaluate the costs and effects of six waste
management scenarios involving 21 different recycling programs and
13 disposal options including near and distant landfill Ing, composting, and
various types of MWC's.2 As a result of this study, the City of Seattle
adopted a plan which includes a goal of recycling (including composting)
60 percent by weight of the city's waste by 1998. The city began phasing
in new programs in early 1988 which will work toward achieving this waste
reduction goal.1
To provide a clear picture of the evolution of recycling activities in
Seattle, it is necessary to first examine the rates of private materials
separation achieved before the city's 1988 initiative, and to then examine
the additional separation achieved as a result of recent programs directed
by the Seattle Solid Waste Utility. Materials separation activities which
take place independent of city-directed programs are referred to below as
"private" materials separation, and those which are a direct result of new
city programs are referred to as "utility-Initiated" materials separation.
Table 3-6 shows a breakdown of the amount and composition of waste
generated in 1987 by the residential and commercial sectors including
3-15
-------
TABU 3-6. COHPOSIT,ONsAMUNTuOF^SENERATED.,N.SEATTLE 5Y THE
Material
Newspaper
Corrugated/Kraft
High Grade Paper
Mixed Paper
Other Paper
Plastic
Yard Waste
Wood
Food Waste
Organics
Beverage Glass
Container Glass
Other Glass
Food Cans
Other Ferrous Metals
Aluminum Beverage
Other Aluminum
Other Nonferrous Metals
Construction Debris
Miscellaneous
aTotals do not equal 100.0 percent due to rounding
Resident
Tons
Generated
36,808
10,737
2,908
26,953
13,127
10,062
51,147
5,429
16,083
9,047
17,031
8,528
5,719
4,704
8,289
3,603
938
662
5,380
9.543
246,698
il
%
14.9
4.4
1.2
10.9
5.3
4.1
20.7
2.2
6.5
3.7
6.9
3.5
2.3
1.9
3.4
1.5
0.4
0.3
2.2
_L2
100. 2a
Commercial
Tons
Generated
•^—^— — — <^_ _^_
22,606
92,353
67,788
28,914
32,026
23,113
33,418
22,421
31,206
19,409
6,324
4,985
7,208
4,178
13,176
992
1,391
3,127
13,624
11.782
440,041
%
™ 1 —
5.1
21.0
15.4
6.6
7.3
5.3
7.6
5.1
7.1
4.4
1.4
1.1
1.6
0.9
3.0
0.2
0.3
0.7
3.1
2 7
99. 9a
3-16
-------
manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, offices, eating establishments,
schools, hospitals, government offices, and all other nonresident!al waste.
Table 3-7 shows the tonnage and percent of each of these materials
separated for recovery in 1987 through private initiatives encouraged
through the 1981 implementation of the variable rate structure. Also, it
was cheaper for commercial businesses to sell recyclable materials rather
than to landfill them in 1987, especially since Seattle has good markets
for most recyclable materials. The city obtained the data in Table 3-7
from private waste collectors, waste processors, and local organizations
responsible for drop-off and buy-back centers.3 Newspapers comprised over
50 percent of the weight of materials recovery by the residential sector.
Glass, ferrous metals, aluminum, and miscellaneous items accounted for the
remainder of the items removed. Table 3-7 also shows that paper products,
especially corrugated paper and high grade paper, comprised over 85 percent
of commercial separation with glass, ferrous metals, aluminum, and
miscellaneous items comprising the rest.
Table 3-8 provides a summary of the total amounts of MSW generated and
amounts separated by the residential and commercial sectors in 1987. A
total of 18.0 percent of the residential waste stream and 28.6 percent of
the commercial waste stream was separated for recovery. The total rate of
separation in Seattle for 1987 was 24.8 percent. These values reflect the
rates of materials separation achieved in Seattle prior to the city's
aggressive 1988 materials separation initiatives.
• The City of Seattle has been phasing in its new materials separation/
recycling programs since early 1988.l These programs include the
following:
• Revised Rate Schedule - The monthly curbside collection cost
for one 30-gallon trash can is $13.75 (higher rates apply for
backdoor collection). Each additional can costs $9.00. No fee
is charged for curbside collection of separate containers of
newspaper, mixed paper, cardboard, glass, tin cans, and aluminum.
Those residents that generate little trash and/or separate most
of the listed materials may use a smaller 19-gallon trash can and
pay only $10.70 per month. Trash pick-up is contracted by
3-17
-------
TABLE 3-7.
, OF MSW SEPARATED THROUGH PRIVATE
INITIATIVES IN SEATTLE BY THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
SECTORS IN 1987*
Residential
Material
Newspaper
Corrugated/Kraft
High Grade Paper
Mixed Paper
Other Paper
Plastic
Yard Waste
Wood
Food Waste
Organ ics
Beverage Glass
Container Glass
Other Glass
Food Cans
Other Ferrous Metals
Aluminum Beverage
Other Aluminum
Other Nonferrous Metals
Construction Debris
Miscellaneous
Tons
Separated %
25,661
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,284
3,593
0
83
3,309
1,499
0
0
0
3.000
44,429
57.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.4
8.1
0.0
0.2
7.4
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.8
100. la
Commercial
Tons
Separated
10,999
52,304
43,612
3,455
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,397
1,198
0
241
2,211
225
0
0
0
8.985
125,627
%
8.7
41.7
34.7
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0.
0.0
0.0
'1.9
1.0
0.0
0.2
1.8
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
7 j
100.0
Total does not equal 100.0 percent due to rounding
3-18
-------
TABLE 3-8. TOTAL WASTE GENERATED AND TOTAL MATERIALS SEPARATED IN
SEATTLE IN 19872
Residential Commercial
Sector Sector Total
246'698 440>041 686'739
n°'056
Pfir«nt 18.0 28.6 24 8
Separated "t
-------
competitive bidding to three private companies who issue
specially marked trash cans to residents. The number and size of
cans issued depends on the service requested and paid for by the
resident. Only these specially marked cans are collected.
Residents pay collection fees to the city.
Curbside Collection Program - Curbside collection service for
recyclable materials was offered to all single family and
multi-family units up to four-plexes beginning in February 1988
The city contracted two private companies by competitive bidding
to provide collection of recyclable materials, one on the north
side of the city and one on the south sidr. On the north side
residents are asked to separate paper, glass, and metals in
three separate compartments of a stackable container. On the
south side, residents put all recyclable items in one container
and these commingled materials are later separated at a materials
recovery facility (MRF). The city pays these companies about '
$48/ton of recyclables collected. The companies bear
responsibility for sales of the materials collected and retain
the profits. The materials separation contracts have a 5-year
duration.
Mandatory Yard Waste Collection - The city began mandatory yard
waste separation on January 1, 1989. While the mandatory
separation Is not enforced at the household level, haulers are
forbidden from delivering waste to a landfill which contains
yard waste. For a monthly fee of $2.00 per household, up to
20 cans, bags, or bundles of yard waste per month will be
collected from each residence. The city contracted three
companies by competitive bidding to provide yard waste collection
services. The yard waste 1s then composted at a new,
privately-owned centralized composting facility. The city also
encourages backyard composting with free training kits. If a
household elects to use backyard composting rather than curbside
collection of yard waste, the monthly fee does not have to be
paid. The city believes that the $2.00 per month charge is low
3-20
-------
enough to encourage participation in the yard waste collection
program, but high enough to not discourage backyard composting.
Since Seattle began its new curbslde collection program in early 1988,
the city has diverted an additional 3.4 percent of the total waste stream
through the collection of newspapers, mixed paper, glass, tin cans, and
aluminum. This amount is in addition to the amount achieved in 1987
(Tables 3-7 and 3-8). According to Ms. Jennifer Bagby, Economist for the
Seattle Solid Waste Utility, the new curbslde program actually diverts
5.8 percent of the total waste stream, but only 3.4 percent is new
materials separation since some of the materials that were previously taken
to drop-off centers are now being placed in curbslde recycling bins.3
According to Ms. Bagby, data for private materials separation for 1988
have not yet been compiled.3 As an alternative, the overall MSW materials
separation rate for 1988 can be estimated by adding the overall MSW
reduction achieved in 1987 through private materials separation to the
additional reduction achieved through the utility-initiated programs in
1988. This calculation assumes the rate of private materials separation in
1988 is the same as for 1987 with the exception of materials replaced by
utility-Initiated curbslde programs. By adding the 24.8 percent overall
MSW reduction achieved through private initiatives, and the additional
3.4 percent achieved through utility-initiated curbside programs, the
overall MSW reduction for the City of Seattle is calculated to be
28.2 percent for 1988.
In addition, the yard waste composting program which started in
January 1989 is diverting about 5.8 percent of the total waste stream. No
yard waste was separated prior to 1989. The addition of yard waste
separation 1s expected to Increase the overall rate of MSW reduction to
over 34 percent for 1989,3
The two private waste haulers under contract with the city to provide
curbside collection for recyclable materials each own and operate an MRF.
At these facilities, a combination of manual and mechanical methods are
used to sort the recyclable materials. The private waste haulers have the
responsibility of marketing the materials that they collect and separate.
Local markets are available for all of the newspaper, glass, and metals
collected. However, there is no local market for mixed paper. All mixed
3-21
-------
paper is exported to markets in Asia.* The exporting of mixed paper is
feasible since Seattle is a port city.
As discussed above, yard waste pick-up is contracted to three private
haulers. These haulers collect the yard waste at curbside and deliver it
to a new, privately-owned and operated composting facility At the
facility, the yard waste is shredded and piled into windrows. The finished
compost product will be sold as a soil conditioner or used as landfill
f* ** t* A Mk •
cover.
Nonrecoverable trash 1s currently disposed of in a county-owned
landfill. In the future, Seattle plans to send this waste by railcar to
distant landfills in eastern Washington or Oregon.1
The City of Seattle is putting a great amount of effort into community
education and promotion in its quest to reach a goal of reducing the
overall weight of MSW by 60 percent by 1998. Waste reduction education
programs have been integrated into all public school curricula in grades K
through 12. Information on waste reduction techniques is distributed to '•
the general public through newspaper, radio, and television, and through
educational packets mailed to individual households. Common themes includ-
backyard composting of food and yard waste, avoiding products with
excessive packaging, buying goods containing recycled materials, and buying
durable products. In addition, the city has an automated telephone service
with over 100 recorded messages to address all aspects of the waste
reduction and recycling program. About 75 percent of Seattle residents
currently participate in the curbside programs.
The Seattle Solid Waste Utility is also attempting to initiate an
apartment recycling program to serve multi-unit residential buildings since
the present curbside program only serves units up to four-plexes. This
program will inform apartment residents and owners on how to separate
recyclable materials and will contract private haulers for collection
services. Under this program, the city would pay private haulers for each
ton of recyclable materials diverted from the waste stream. The city has
had difficulty in getting haulers to participate In this program and is
currently restructuring the program to make It more attractive.1
The city Is also considering a differential rate structure for trash
collection from commercial businesses similar to the one currently in place
for residences. This would encourage more waste reduction and recycling
3-22
-------
activities by commercial businesses by giving them an additional financial
incentive.
Seattle's goal for 1998 is to reduce the total MSW stream by about
26 percent through its utility-initiated programs such as curbside
recyclables separation, curbside yard waste collection, apartment
recyclables separation, and backyard composting. Seattle also expects to
increase private separation and recycling from its current rate of
24 percent to about 34 percent of the total waste stream. This could be
facilitated by adopting a differential rate structure for collection of
waste and recyclables from commercial businesses. With 60 percent of the
waste stream separated for recovery, only 40 percent would have to be
disposed of in distant landfills.1
3-2-2 Materials Separation Program Costs for Seattle. Washington
As discussed in the above section, citizens, private organizations,
and businesses in the City of Seattle successfully separated a total of
170,056 tons of recyclable materials (24.8 percent of the total MSW
generated) in 1987. Commercial establishments accounted for 125,627 tons
of the separated materials, while households accounted for 44,429 tons.2
Materials separation activities in Seattle are motivated by several
factors: (1) the variable rate structure for residential collection
discussed in Section 4.2.1 encouraging household source separation; (2) the
cost effectiveness for businesses to separate and sell recyclable
materials, such as cardboard, rather than to landfill them; (3) well-
established and stable markets for recyclable materials in the Seattle
area; and (4) the relatively strong environmental ethic of the Seattle
citizenry. Costs of private materials separation activities are borne
primarily by the individual citizens, community organizations, or
businesses who separate the recyclable materials from MSW and transport
them to market.5 The City of Seattle municipal government bears little or
no cost for private materials separation.
This section presents information on direct and Indirect costs and
benefits associated with the implementation and administration of Seattle's
voluntary curbside recycling program. While the Solid Waste Utility is
implementing or is planning to Implement other materials separation
programs over the next 2 to 3 years, only the voluntary curbside recycling
program has been demonstrated for a full year. Therefore, costs are
3-23
-------
presented for the voluntary curbside recycling program for 1987, the year
the program was conceived and planned, 1988, the first full year of the
program, and cost projections are presented for 1989 through 1991. All
costs and benefits are expressed in 1988 dollars.
3-2-2-1 Overview of Costs and o^ts ConsidpraH The City of
Seattle's costs for the curbside recyclables collection program includes
administrative costs, educational and promotional costs, and direct costs
in the form of payments to the contractors for each ton of recyclable
material collected. Residential curbside recyclables collection services
and materials processing are contracted by the City of Seattle to private
haulers through competitive bidding. The City of Seattle pays selected
contract haulers $48/ton of recyclable materials collected, but incurs no
capital cost for this program since all of the collection vehicles and
processing equipment are owned by the private contractors.1'2
The $48/ton received by the private contractors is assumed to cover
the contractors' capital costs; all operating and maintenance costs
relating to collection activities, transportation, processing, and
marketing of the materials collected; and the contractors' profit. The
contractors also receive the revenue obtained from recyclable materials
sales.
The city receives no revenue from sales of the recyclables, but the
city does benefit from the diversion of the collected materials from the
landfill. Landfill 'avoidance produces credits that help offset costs for
the separation program. Credits Include reduced transportation costs, the
costs of transporting materials to the landfill being higher than
transporting recyclables to the processing facilities, and elimination of
charges for landfllllng. In addition, landfill avoidance extends the life
of present landfills and delays some of the costs associated with the
siting and construction of new landfills.
3-2-2-2 Annual Costs and Credits. Table 3-9 presents estimated costs
and credits for the curbside recyclables collection program for the years
1987 through 1991.6 All costs and credits are presented in 1988 dollars.
In 1987, the year prior to start-up of the program, total costs for
administration, education, and promotion were $1,018,320. These
3-24
-------
TABLE 3-9. ESTIMATED COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SEATTLE'S RESIDENTIAL
CUR8SIDE RECYCLABLES COLLECTION PROGRAM4-*
Ul
Cost
Education and Promt Ion ($)
Payment* to Contractor* ($)'
Total Coat ($)
Tonne*.* Information
Total HSU Collected by Utility (ton*)*
Recyclable* Collected by Utility Program (ton*)*
Recyclable* Diverted from Landfill (ton*)
Total Coat per Ton of Recyclable* Collected
(S/ton)
Benefit*
Avoided Coat per ton of Recyclable* Diverted
from Landfill ($/ton)'
Total Benefit ($)
Net Coat ($)
Net Coat per Ton of Recyclable* Diverted ($/ton)
Net Cost per ton of Total HSU Collected ($/ton)
Year
»987 1988 1989 1990 1991
181,600 181.600 287.780 290,680 186.180
•1*.«0 612,200 197,820 197,820 150,000
0 1,171.154 1.960,000 2,111,500 2,449,000
1.018.120 2.169.154 2,645.600 2.820,000 2 785 180
*1'.*« 515.877 611,901 617,508 623.702
0 23.946 40.000 43,500 50,600
0 10.020 24.565 27,794 34,300
*'* 91 66 65 56
"'A "00 77.00 85.50 85.50
0 771.540 1,891,505 2,376.187 2.912,650
1.018.320 1.397.614 754,095 443,613 -147,470
*'A "9 31 16 -4.30
191 2.61 1.23 0.72 -0.24
*R*ference 6
'Coat* and benefits are In 1988 dollars.
'Forty-eight dollar* paid to contractors for each ton of recyclable material collected.
"Total MSU Includes all trash and recyclables collected by the Seattle Solid Waste Utility. &
'Does not Include recyclablas collected by private Initiatives.
'Includes $54/ton avoided transportation cost and $23/ton avoided Undflll charge for 1987-89. For 1990-91 landfill
charges are expected to be $31 iO/loii '
-------
expenditures were used for planning and preparing the program for start-
up. No recyclables were collected, and no credits were realized during
1987. y
In 1988, the first year of the program, 23,946 tons of recyclable
materials, or 3.4 percent of the total waste stream, were collected at the
curbside. Total estimated annual costs were $2,169,154. About half of
this cost was paid to contractors for recyclables collection and processing
services, and the remaining half was spent on administration, education
and promotion. Total cost to the City of Seattle per ton of recyclable'
materials collected was about $91.
The utility conservatively estimates that of the 23,946 tons of
recyclables collected during the first year of the curbside program, only
10,020 tons (42 percent) was diverted from the landfill as a direct result
of the program, since many of the recyclables collected would have been
recycled through private initiatives if the program were not in place
Therefore, the Seattle Solid Waste Utility calculates program credits by '•
multiplying the tons of material diverted from the landfill as a result of
the program by the cost of landfilling a ton of materials. Total estimated
credits for 1988 were $771,540.
Net costs are a measure of the cost of the recycling program versus
the cost of landfill disposal. Net costs are calculated by subtracting
total program credits from the total program costs. In 1988, total costs
were higher than total credits, and net costs were $1,397,614. The net
cost to the City of Seattle per ton of recyclable material diverted from
the landfill was about $139. The net cost increase per ton of total MSW
collected by the utility as a result of the program, including trash and
recyclables, was about $2.61. This is a measure of the cost by which the
materials separation program raises the average cost of collecting and
disposing of each ton of MSW.
In the years following 1988, it is projected that administrative,
educational, and promotional costs will decrease as the program becomes
more established. It is also projected that collections of recyclable
materials will increase due to higher participation rates and additional
recyclable material types being separated.2
As shown in Table 3-9, in 1991, 5 years after program inception, it is
estimated that the total cost to the City of Seattle for recyclables
-------
collection and processing will drop to about $56/ton. The table also shows
that 1991 is the first year in which total program benefits are expected to
exceed total program costs. In 1991, net costs are projected to be
-$147,470, which equates to a credit (cost reduction) of $4.30/ton of
recyclable materials diverted from the landfill and a credit of $0.24/ton
of total MSW collected by the Utility.
3.2.3 References for Section 3.?
1. Parker, Lorie. Seattle's Road to Recovery. Biocycle. June 1989
pp. 29-31.
2. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Waste Reduction Recycling, and
Disposal Alternatives. Recycling Potential Assessment and Waste
?trea?0Srecast* Volume 2< Seattle Sol1d Waste Utility, Seattle, WA.
July 1988.
3. Telecon between Jennifer Bagby, Solid Waste Utility, Seattle, WA, and
Lee Davis, Radian Corporation. November 7, 1989.
4. Beyond 25 Percent: Materials Recovery Comes of Age. The Institute ' '
for Local Self-Reliance. April 1989. pp. 111-119.
5. Telecon between Jennifer Bagby, Solid Waste Utility, Seattle, WA, and
Lee Davis, Radian Corporation. November 29 1989.
6. Cost information submitted on computer disk by Jennifer Bagby, Solid
Waste Utility, Seattle, WA, to Lee Davis, Radian Corporation
December 7, 1989.
3-27
-------
on
3.3 ISLIP, NEW YORK
3-3-1 Materials Separation Program
The Town of Islip (population 300,000) is located in Suffolk County
Long Island, New York. Islip has one of the oldest and largest materials
separation programs in the United States. The town began their separation
program in 1978 by operating drop-off bins at the landfill where citizens
could bring recyclable materials. In 1980, the State of New York ordered
the town to initiate a source separation program as a condition for
obtaining approval to continue operating its landfill.1
Islip was the source of the infamous "garbage barge" which in 1987
wandered down the east coast of the United States to the Caribbean, and
back to New York without finding a place to unload its cargo. Since that
episode, the town has placed an even greater emphasis on materials
separation and recycling.
In 1987, to gain better control of its materials separation program,
the town divided itself into 70 garbage districts. Trash and recyclables '
collection contracts were bid out to private waste haulers for 60 of these
districts. The town services the remaining 10 districts. The collection
contracts require that the haulers provide separate curbside collection of
commingled recyclable materials, yard waste, and trash. Under the
contract, all materials collected must be delivered to one of four
facilities operated by the Town of Islip: the MRF, the composting
facility, the landfill, or the MWC which is currently undergoing start-up
testing.2'3
Haulers are given an economic incentive to participate. The tipping
fee for waste delivered to the landfill or the MWC is $40/ton, while the
tipping fee for recyclables delivered to the MRF and yard waste taken to
the composting facility is $18/ton. Currently, 16 haulers service the
60 garbage districts.2'3
The town's materials separation and recycling program is called WRAP
("We Recycle America and Proudly"). In 1987, all residences were issued
20-gallon plastic WRAP containers for collecting recyclables. All
residences are required to separate all paper, glass, aluminum, and tin
cans from the rest of their trash and place them together in WRAP pails.
The WRAP palls are collected weekly on Wednesday and transported to the MRF
for processing.2'3
3-28
-------
Residences are also required to separate yard waste. Yard waste .ay
be placed at curbside in plastic bags, boxes, or any other type of
container. Yard waste is collected weekly on Saturday, Monday, or Tuesday
depending on the location of the district The yard waste is transported
directly to the composting facility.2'3
The town employs inspectors who randomly inspect residential trash to
check for compliance with the program. If recyclable items are present in
the trash, the container is tagged with a warning, and that container is
not picked up for that week. Continued noncompliance could result in a
fine of up to $250; however, few fines are levied.3
Apartment complexes and commercial businesses are not covered under
the mandatory WRAP progranr, but, commercial businesses are required to
separate cardboard. Separation and transportation of the cardboard is the
responsibility of the individual business. The business can either sell it
to a private buyer or deliver it to the MRF. If a hauler delivers
commercial waste containing a noticeable amount of cardboard to the
landfill or MWC, the whole truckload of waste may be rejected. This
produces a strong incentive to promote separation of cardboard 3
Recyclable materials collected from residential WRAP containers are
Pr0MC"SedTkat the MRF' The MRF 1S located '» • Building which used to house
an MWC. The MWC was shut down in 1978, and the MRF began operation in
1981. Commingled paper, glass, and metals are dumped by the collection
trucks into a large pit. Although all materials are delivered to the MRF
on Wednesday, it takes several days to process the 600 to 700 tons of
commingled materials delivered each week.3
At the MRF, the commingled materials are fed by crane to a hopper
which discharges into a large rotating trommel fitted with 8-inch holes
Small paper, glass, and metal cans pass through the holes and onto a
conveyor while the larger items (e.g., newspapers, cardboard) continue
through the trommel. The smaller fraction proceeds through a magnetic
separator where ferrous cans are removed. The small fraction is then
conveyed past handpickers who manually separate glass (by color) and
aluminum cans. The remainder of the small fraction, which consists mostly
of small mixed paper and broken glass, is discharged into a large waste
container for disposal. About 15 percent of the glass delivered to the
3-29
-------
facility is broken during transportation and processing and is not
recovered.
The large fraction which passes through the trammel is primarily
composed of newspapers and cardboard. This fraction is conveyed past a
second group of handpickers who manually remove the cardboard and mat«r1ais
which are considered contaminants in the newspaper fraction such as giossy
papers, magazines, and telephone books. The newspapers and cardboard are
recovered while the contaminants are disposed along with the mixed paper
from the small fraction.
The waste handling equipment at the MRF is largely makeshift, and much
of it has been fabricated from scrap materials. The facility is also
understaffed. The town has had difficulty in employing a sufficient number
of handpickers. While management believes that about 18 handpickers are
needed to provide an adequate level of separation, often only about
15 handpickers are employed at a given time. The rate of absenteeism among
these employees is also high, and often the facility operates with as few ''
as 10 handpickers.3
About 80 percent of the materials delivered to the MRF are currently
being marketed. The remaining 20 percent, mostly mixed paper and broken
glass, is disposed of.3 The glass is landfilled, and the mixed paper is
disposed of in the landfill or the MWC. The program was initially set up
to include separation of all types of paper since there was a market for
mixed paper at the time the program began. Now that the paper market has
weakened, the Town of Islip has chosen to dispose of mixed papers separated
at the MRF rather than to redirect residents to remove mixed papers from
their WRAP containers. Town officials said that it is difficult to change
policies regarding the types of items that should be separated once
residents become accustomed to separating certain items. Also, the town is
hopeful that the market for mixed paper will Improve in the future.
Glass, newspapers, and cardboard are transported to market in New York
City. Tin cans are taken to a detinnlng facility in Pennsylvania, and
white goods and other mixed ferrous materials are taken to a nearby scrap
dealer. Aluminum cans are sold to a local buyer.3
All yard waste 1s transported to a 39-acre composting facility which
opened in September 1988. At the facility, all leaves, grass clippings,
and brush are shredded and then screened to remove pieces of plastic bags.
3-30
-------
Leaves collected in the fall are piled in windrows and stored until spring
and summer when they can be mixed with grass clippings. Leaves alone
compost very slowly because of a lack of nitrogen; however, when mixed with
grass clippings, the mixture breaks down much faster. At the Islip
facility, wood chips are added to the leaf and grass mixture to provide
bulking and aeration. This mixture is piled into windrows which are about
10 feet (ft) wide, 8 ft high, and 100 ft long. The windrows are
periodically turned by a turning machine. The materials break down into
compost within 6 to 8 weeks. The compost is then piled in large piles to
cure for several months. After curing, the compost is screened again to
remove wood chips and any residual plastic. The resulting compost is
available free to residents who haul it away for use in gardening or
landscaping. Currently, the demand far exceeds the supply.3
The Town of Islip maintains records on the weights of all materials
delivered to each of its waste management facilities. Scale houses are
located at the MRF, the composting facility, the landfill, and the MWC. '"
Trucks are weighed as they enter and exit the facilities, and the resulting
weight difference is reported as the amount of material received. Trucks
transporting separated recyclable materials from the MRF to the market are
also weighed. All weights are entered Into a central computer data base
which computes the total amount of materials collected, the amount of
materials separated for recovery, and the amount of waste disposed.3
Table 3-10 shows the total weights of all materials collected by the
Town of Islip and a breakdown of each material that was separated for
recovery for 1988. A total of 23,715 tons were recovered at the MRF and
32,633 tons at the composting facility. Prior to September 1988, yard
waste was composted at an older facility which had limited capacity and did
not have scales. Therefore, the Town of Islip estimated the weight of yard
waste from a record of the number of truckloads of yard waste delivered and
an estimate of the average weight of each load. The new composting
facility opened 1n September 1988, and scales were obtained in April 1989.
In the future, an accurate weight of yard waste composted will be
obtained.4'5
3-31
-------
TABLE 3-10. WEIGHTS OF MATERIALS SEPARATED FOR RECOVfRY
THROUGH ISLIP CURBSIDE PROGRAMS FOR 1988^
Material
Newspaper
Cardboard
White goods and other large ferrous items
Tin cans
Glass
Aluminum
Total Materials Collected Through WRAP Program
Yard Waste Delivered to Composting Facility
Total Materials Separated Through Curbside Programs
56,348
3-32
-------
Table 3-11 gives a breakdown of all waste flows tracked by the Town of
Islip and includes an estimate of the weight of beverage containers
returned through the New York State container deposit/return program.
According to Mr. Joe Phillips of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, about 5 percent of the MSW in the State is
recovered through the beverage container deposit/return program.6 As shown
in the table, 5.7 percent of the total MSW stream was separated for
recovery at the MRF, 7.8 percent was delivered to the composting facility,
and 6.0 percent was separated by private commercial businesses. The total
MSW reduction achieved for the Town of Islip in 1988 is calculated to be
24.5 percent.
The values reported in Table 3-11 reflect weights reported by the Town
of Islip from their materials separation programs, an estimate obtained
from the State of New York regarding beverage container returns, and
private commercial materials separation which occurred independent of these
two programs. According to Ms. Elizabeth Gallagher, Commissioner at the
Islip Department of Environmental Control, many commercial businesses bail
their waste cardboard and sell it to private buyers. Some of these
businesses submit records of the amount of cardboard or other materials
separated for recovery, but many do not. Also, the records that are sent
to the town are often poorly documented. Table 3-11 includes 25,000 tons
of privately separated commercial waste. This value is the town's "best
estimate" from the available records.7
Since scales were installed at the new composting facility in
April 1989, records show that 13.6 percent of the total waste stream is
being diverted through yard waste composting. While the data are not
complete for the entire year, it is expected that over 60,000 tons will be
composted for 1989. Therefore, in the future it is likely that the Town of
Islip would achieve a higher rate of yard waste separation. This would
result in the town achieving over 25 percent MSW reduction.3
In addition, plastic containers have recently been added to the list
of materials separated for recovery through the curbside WRAP program.
This will increase the rate of overall MSW reduction in the future.2
Currently, about 95 percent of residences in Islip participate in the
materials separation programs. The town avidly promotes its programs in
its public schools and through the local media. Educational programs
3-33
-------
TABLE 3-11. TOTAL MATERIALS SEPARATED FOR RECOVERY, TOTAL MATERIALS
COLLECTED, AND PERCENT RECOVERED IN THE TOWN OF I slip
FOR 1988*'5
Percent of Total
Tons MSW Generated
Total MSW Generated3
Total MSW Disposed
in Landfill
Total Materials Separated for
Recovery at the MRF
Total Materials Delivered to
the Composting Facility
417,620
315,272
23,715
32,633
100.0
75.5
5.7
7.8
Estimated Weight of Beverage
Containers Separated through
State Container Deposit Program 21,000 5.0
Total Weight of Materials Separated
by Private Commercial Businesses 25.000 $.0
Total Materials Separated
for Recovery 102,348 24.5
J?M!U7?Snnn6;620 t0?? rec?1ved at landfill, MRF,, and composting facility
plus 21,000 tons estimated through beverage container return.
3-34
-------
called "WRAP Sessions" for grades K through 6 Include programs to instruct
children in recycling and the importance of responsible waste management.2
The town also promotes a weekly WRAP contest as an incentive for
citizens to separate recyclables from their waste. Weekly, a list of
20 names is randomly generated from a computerized list of homeowners. If
they are in compliance, they receive a free dinner for two donated by a
local radio station. If they are not in compliance, the inspector leaves a
notice of prize eligibility stating that they would have received a free
dinner if they had been in compliance. The notice also states that the
Inspector will check for compliance again in 60 days. If the homeowner is
in compliance at that time, they receive a second prize such as a recycling
T-shirt or mug. Those residents who demonstrate compliance are also .
eligible for a $1,000 annual grand prize.2
The town sends out quarterly newsletters to all residents which
provide current information on the materials separation programs. Public
service announcements through the local newspapers and the television and '
radio stations are also common. In addition, the town created a special
WRAP telephone hotline that residents can call to get up-to-date
information.2
Construction is currently underway on a new J10 million MRF capable of
processing up to 3,000 tons of commingled recyclables per week. The new
facility, which is expected to begin operation in late 1990 or early 1991,
will include mechanical and manual sorting methods for processing the
waste. The new facility will have adequate capacity to handle the amount
of recyclables to be generated in Islip in coming years, and town officials
expect it to be more efficient than the present facility.3
Also, a new 500 ton per day (tpd) MWC has been constructed in Islip
and is currently operating while start-up tests are being conducted. The
MWC consists of two 250 tpd rotary waterwall combustors. Much of the
nonrecoverable waste from Islip 1s being diverted from the landfill and is
now being combusted for electrical generation.3
3'3'2 Materials Separation Program Co«fo for Islin. New York
This section presents the estimated capital' costs, 04M costs, and
economic credits estimated for the Town of Islip materials separation
programs for 1990. Materials separation program costs include costs for
3-35
-------
both the WRAP program and the yard waste collection and composting
programs.
3.3.2.1 Capita.! Cpsts. Capital costs for the WRAP program include
equipment for the presently operating MRF, construction and equipment for
the new MRF currently being constructed, trucks which haul recyclables to
market, and WRAP pails issued to households. Capital costs for the yard
waste program include construction and equipment costs for the composting
facility. The Town of Islip also owns trucks which provide trash,
recyclables, and yard waste collection services for 10 of the town's
70 waste districts. The capital costs for these trucks are not available
and are not included in this analysis, but it is roughly estimated that
this cost could increase the annual ized capital cost by about 5 to
10 percent. Table 3-12 presents the annual ized capital costs for the WRAP
Program and the yard waste program in 1990 dollars.1'2'8 These costs were
annual ized by using an interest rate of 10 percent and assuming an
equipment life for each item as specified in Table 3-12. As shown in the '
table, total annualized capital costs for the Islip materials separation
program are about $2 million. Almost 70 percent of this cost is for the
new MRF.
3>3-2'2 Operation and Malntenan^ r^t^ Operation and maintenance
costs for Islip materials separation programs are broken down into the
following categories: administration; education and promotion; labor at
the MRF; all other O&M costs at the MRF (taxes, insurance, utilities, and
maintenance materials); labor at the composting facility, all other O&M
costs at the composting facility (taxes, Insurance, utilities, and
maintenance materials); and payments to private haulers for recyclables and
yard waste collection services they provide to 60 waste districts. The
labor and other O&M costs for collection services for the remaining
10 districts serviced by the town are not available and are not included in
this analysis. However, if the costs per district were similar to the fees
paid to private haulers, this cost would increase the O&M cost by about
$800,000, or about 10 percent. Operation and maintenance costs are
summarized 1n Table 3-13. The total estimated O&M costs for 1990 are about
$8.4 million.8'9'10
The main O&M cost is for recyclables and yard waste collection
services provided by private haulers, which accounts for almost 60 percent
3-36
-------
TABLE 3-12. ISLIP MATERIALS SEPARATION PROGRAM CAPITAL COSTS FOR 1990a
Item
Equipment at present MRFC
New MRFd
Composting Facilityd
WRAP Containers6
(initial distribution)
Replacement WRAP Containers6
Trucks foe Hauling Recyclables
to Marketr
TOTAL ANNUAL IZED CAPITAL COSTS
?A11 costs are in 1990 dollars.
Based on a 10 percent cost of
^References 1 and 9.
Total
Cost
169,000
10,000,000
2,500,000
750,000
50,000
228,000
capital.
Year
Incurred
1987
1988
1989
1987
1988
1989
Life
(years)
4
20
35
10
10
7
Capital5
Recovery
Factor
0.3155
0.1175
0.1037
0.1627
0.1627
0.2054
Annual
Cost
($)
70,962
1,292,056
313,661
162,461
9,846
51.516
1,900,5029
fReference 7.
Reference 9.
.
9Does not include cost of existing trucks that collect MSW, recyclables, and yard waste from 10 waste
districts since capital costs were not available.
-------
TABLE 3-13. ISLIP MATERIALS SEPARATION PROGRAM OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR 1990a»b
T.
Item
MRF Labor
All Other MRF O&M (taxes, insurance,
utilities, and maintenance materials)
Composting Facility Labor
All Other Compos ig Facility O&M
(i.e., taxes, ir,....-ance, utilities,
and maintenance materials)
Educational and Promotional Costs
Administrative Costs
Payments to Private Haulers for
Collection Services
TOTAL O&M COSTS
aAll costs are in 1990 dollars.
References 8-10.
labor and
Annual Cost
($/yr)
—•——»
1,600,000
289,000
670,000
334,000
268,000
175,000
5.000.OOP
8,336,000° x
collection service costs for the
' and yard waste are collected b* the
3-38
-------
of the total OiM costs. Labor for separating the commingled recyclable* at
the MRF and for hauling the separated materials to market accounts for
about 19 percent of total OiM costs. Other OiM costs at the MRF account
for about 3 percent of the total.
Labor at the composting facility comprises about 8 percent of total
OiM costs, and other OiM costs at the composting facility comprise about
4 percent.
Administrative costs account for about 2 percent of total OiM costs,
and educational and promotional expenditures account for about 3 percent.
3-3-2.3 Program Revenues or Credit^. TWO potential sources of credit
were examined for offsetting the materials separation program costs. The
first is revenue from the sale of recyclables. Currently, the Town of
Islip pays a fee to a paper dealer for accepting separated newspapers.
While the aluminum, ferrous metals, glass, and plastics are sold, their
total revenue is less than the amount paid to the dealer for accepting the
separated newspapers. While the Town of Islip expects that total revenues'"
for marketing separated recyclables will be negative for 1990, no estimate
is available for total expected revenue losses or losses on a per ton of
commingled material basis.10
The second source of credit is the avoided landfill or MWC charge for
materials separated. This credit is calculated by multiplying the weight
of materials separated times the fee ($40/ton) that would have been charged
if the separated materials had been landfilled or combusted in an MWC.3 In
1990, it is expected that about 35,000 tons of recyclables and about 65,000
tons of yard waste will be diverted from the landfill or MWC through the
materials separation programs.3'9 Diverting 100,000 tons of materials from
the landfill or MWC would result in a credit of $4 million. Table 3-14
presents a summary of credits included in this analysis.
Further credits might be assigned for the avoided or delayed cost of
locating new landfill area or from the avoided or delayed cost of
purchasing additional MWC capacity, but these credits were not considered
in this analysis.
3-3-2-4 Net Program £9^. The net program cost is the difference
between the annualized capital costs plus OiM costs and the materials sales
revenues plus avoided landfill or MWC charges. All four items for 1990 are
summarized in Table 3-15. Although, as noted in the previous sections,
3-39
-------
TABLE 3-14. ISLIP MATERIALS SEPARATION PROGRAM CREDITS FOR 1990a»b
Item
Revenue from Sale of Recyclables
Avoided Landfill Feed
Total Credits
Annual Cost Credit
(Vyr)
Negative0
4,000,000
$4,000,000
aAll credits are In 1990 dollars.
References 3,4,9,10.
Revenues are currently negative and are expected to be negative for the
remainder of 1990. No value estimate was available. egailve Tor tne
f°r 1J9°*]S ^0/ton' Total exPfict^ tonnage avoiding
or combustion in an MWC is 100,000.
3-40
-------
TABLE 3-15. ISLIP MATERIALS SEPARATION TOTAL PROGRAM COST SUMMARY FOR 1990
Weight of Total MSW Collected (tons) 400,000
Weight of Total Recyclables and Yard Waste Collected (tons) 100,000
Total Annualized Capital Costs ($) 1,900,502
Total O&M Cost ($) 8,336,000
Recyclable Materials Revenues ($) 0
Avoided Landfill or MWC Credit ($) 4,000,000
$/ton of $/ton of
Total Total Material Total MSW
*/vr Separated Collected
Total Program Costs 10,236,502 102 ?fi
(without avoided "
landfill or MWC
credit)
Net Program Costs 6,236,502 62 is
(with avoided lt}
landfill or MWC
credit)
3-41
-------
a
these are partial costs since there was no quantitative information for .
few of the cost components. The total estimated program cost without the
credit for avoided landfill or MWC charges, which reflects the actual cost
to the town for materials separation services, is approximately
$10.2 million. The total program cost with the avoided landfill or MWC
credit, which reflects the total net cost for the materials separation
program, is approximately $6.2 million.
Table 3-15 presents these costs as $/ton of materials diverted from
the landfill or MWC. The actual cost to the Town of Islip for each ton of
material diverted is about $102. When the avoided landfill or MWC credits
are included, however, the net cost is $62 for each ton of material
diverted.
Costs are also presented in Table 3-15 in terms of $/ton of total MSW
collected (trash plus recyclables and yard waste), which is a measure of
the amount by which the materials separation program increases the cost of
collecting and disposing of each ton of MSW. As shown in the table, when '
the avoided landfill or MWC credits are not included, the increased cost
per ton of MSW collected is $26. When the avoided disposal credits are
included, the net increased cost per ton of MSW collected is about $16.
The unavailable cost components -- capital and operating costs for
municipal recyclables collection in 10 service districts and recyclable
materials sales losses -- would increase the costs shown in Table 3-15.
However, as stated in Section 3.3.2.3, potential credits from the avoided
or delayed cost of purchasing additional MWC or landfill capacity is also
not included in this analysis. Therefore, the actual effect of the
unavailable cost and credit components on the program costs shown in
Table 3-15 is unclear.
3.3.3 References for Section 3.3
1. Beyond 25 Percent: Materials Recovery Comes of Age. The Institute
for Local Self-Reliance. April 1989. pp. 71-78.
2. Gallagher, Elizabeth. The Barge Can Stay Home. Biocycle. June 1989.
pp. 42-44.
3. Information obtained from visit to the Town of Islip, NY. Lee Davis,
Radian Corporation. November 8-9, 1989.
3-42
-------
4- Raj??,:; co
submitted by Elizabeth Gallaghe'r, Con,Usoner?epfrtmenT?f
Environmental Control. Islip, NY. November 14, 1989
5. Records of recyclable materials separated at the Islip, NY material
F^m? faSilUy 1rV??8'D R6COrds subniitted »>y Al Sancfiez,
November 8, 19896r> Resource Recovery Agency, Islip, NY.
6' Sl«S!!af?o!een H°f Phi11Ips'BM?' York DePartment of Environmental
Conservation, and Lee Davis, Radian Corporation. October 30, 1989.
7. Telecon between Elizabeth Gallagher, Town of Islip, NY, and Lee Davis
Radian Corporation. November 21, 1989. udvis,
8< I;Jtc!!;.and "f*,8?1"**!* *uf"«t«d by Elizabeth Gallagher, Department
' NY' t0 Lee Davis' Rad^a
9. Telecon between Al Sanchez, Resource Recovery Agency, Isl ID NY and
Lee DavTS, Radian Corporation. January 16, 1990
Jontr«? b?^?n" ll'Z^ Galla?her' DePartment of Environmental
Control, Islip, NY, and Lee Davis, Radian Corporation. January 22,
10.
1990.
3-43
-------
3.4 RHODE ISLAND
3'4-1 Materials Separation Program
Concerns about potential adverse environmental impacts from
landfilling have led the State of Rhode Island to reduce its dependence on
landfill ing through source reduction and recycling. The soils of Rhode
Island are highly permeable, and most locations are not suitable sites for
landfills. In 1986, the State of Rhode Island passed the Flow Control Law
which granted the Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation (RISWMC)'
authority to control the flow of solid waste, mandated the construction of
three resource recovery facilities, and mandated Statewide recycling, with
a goal of recycling a minimum of 15 percent residential MSW.1.2,3
The RI.SWMC is a quasi-public agency which has the responsibility of
managing the State's solid waste in Rhode Island, including siting,
planning, and managing waste processing and disposal facilities. 1,3 The
RISWMC receives no funding from the State of Rhode Island. It is funded
primarily through landfill tipping fees.l The RISWMC is regulated by the '•
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM). The OEM is
responsible for regulatory development and enforcement and provides some
technical assistance to the RISWMC. 2
Under the Flow Control Law, all municipalities in Rhode Island must
institute curbside collection of recyclable materials from residences of
less than six family units. All communities must implement these
collection programs within 1 year of start-up of the State's MWC's which
are still in planning stages. Each municipality receives planning guidance
from the DEM, but must formulate its own plan. Then the municipality and
the RISWMC negotiate the plan and sign a contract documenting the specifics
of the agreement.
Municipalities receive full funding from the RISWMC for 3 years to
implement and operate the curbside recyclables collection program. This
funding includes the purchase of "blue bins" (I.e., 12.5 gallon rectangular
plastic containers for holding commingled recyclables), collection trucks,
reimbursement for collection labor and other operating and administrative'
expenses, and educational and promotional assistance. In addition, the
municipalities deliver the collected materials free of charge to the MRF's
owned and operated by the RISWMC. At the end of the first 3 years, each
municipality will be responsible for financing its own collection program
-------
but will still be able to use the MRF at no charge. Communities are
required to achieve 15 percent separation of residential waste within
3 years of implementing their program.*>2
Currently, about one-half of the State's municipalities have fully
instituted materials separation programs, and others are in late planning
or early start-up stages. About two-thirds of the State's 333,000
households currently receive curbside collection services.1
Curbside materials separation programs in Rhode Island are all set up
to collect partially commingled materials. Residents are required to place
glass (including all clear, green, and brown container glass), tin cans,
aluminum cans, and high density polyethylene (HOPE) and polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) plastic beverage containers in the blue bin.
Newspapers are bundled or placed in brown paper bags and stacked separately
on top of the blue bin. At the curbside, the collector places the
newspapers in one section of the collection truck and the remaining
commingled materials in a separate sect ion.1*3,4
Residents are asked to include only rinsed, unbroken container glass
with caps removed; cookware, light bulbs, window glass, and other types of
glass should not be included. Newspapers can include colored pages and
inserts, but magazines and other papers are excluded at this time. The
State is also planning to include separation and recovery of magazines.5
Residents can tie newspapers together with string or place them in brown
paper bags, but they are asked specifically not to use plastic bags. All
tin cans can be included, and these should also be rinsed. In addition to
cans, other types of aluminum, such as foil and pie plates, can be included
as long as they have been cleaned. Currently, only plastic beverage
containers (i.e., HOPE milk and water containers and PET soda bottles) are
collected. The RISWMC is investigating the feasibility of including other
rigid plastics, such as shampoo and detergent bottles, but it is often
difficult to determine their resin composition, and cross contamination of
plastic resins usually renders these materials less marketable.1.3,4
Rhode Island's first MRF, built in Johnston, Rhode Island, began
operation in May 1989. The Johnston MRF separates commingled recyclables
from all municipal collection programs in the State. The MRF, which is
completely enclosed in a 40,000 square foot (sq. ft.) metal building, uses
3-45
-------
equipment manufactured by Bezner of West Germany. The MRF is operated by
New England CRInc. under contract with the RISWMC.1.3,4
Recyclables collection trucks arriving at the MRF enter the building
and deposit materials into two separate piles. Commingled glass, metal
and plastics collected in one compartment of the truck are dumped in a pile
located near the feed hopper for the separation equipment. Newspapers
collected in the other compartment of the truck are dumped in a pile
located near a hopper which feeds a conveyor and bailer.1.4
Newspapers undergo some manual sorting. The newspapers are removed
from brown paper bags or are untied and are tossed into the hopper. The
brown paper bags are tossed into a separate pile to be bailed and sold
whenever enough have accumulated. Other contaminants, such as plastic
bags, magazines, or other contaminated or mixed papers are also removed
and these are discarded. The clean newspapers are conveyed from the hopper
to a bailer which bails them for market.1.4
The commingled materials are fed through the separation process to '•
separate the materials into their individual components. The materials are
conveyed from the feed hopper to a manual sorting station where two to
three workers pull aluminum pie pans and large nonrecyclable contaminants,
such as propane tanks, cookware, and small appliances, from the conveyor.
The aluminum pie pans are separated for recovery, and the nonrecyclables
are discarded as residue. The remaining materials then pass under a
rotating magnet which removes the ferrous metals. The nonferrous materials
proceed to an inclined shaker where small broken glass is screened through
1.5 inch (in.) diameter holes. The large materials are conveyed to a
density separator which separates the plastic bottles and aluminum cans
from the glass bottles. The density separator separates the heavy and
light materials by means of three rows, or "curtains," of weighted chains
suspended over an inclined surface. The glass Is heavy enough to fall
through the chains, but the aluminum and plastic are not.1.4
The aluminum and plastic are conveyed over an eddy current magnet
which imparts a repelling force on the aluminum cans ejecting them onto a
separate conveyor. A handpicker inspects the aluminum can conveyor and
removes any contaminants. These cans proceed through a can flattener and
are then blown into a trailer for transport to market.1.4
3-46
-------
The HOPE and PET plastics travel by a handpicklng station where
handpickers remove HOPE milk and water bottles and any contaminants The
HOPE is deposited into a separate bin, and the PET remains on the conveyor
which feeds a PET bin. The HOPE is granulated and packed in large boxes
for market. The PET bottles are perforated and bailed for market.
The glass fraction which had been separated by the density separator
travels on a conveyor where handpickers remove colored glass and any
remaining contaminants. The brown and green glass are deposited into
separate bins. The clear glass continues on the conveyor and is deposited
in a separate bin. Each color of glass is then crushed prior to being
shipped to market.1»4
The steel cans separated by the magnet are shredded at the facility
and are then shipped to a detinning mill.1,4
The Johnston MRF now processes about 80 tpd of commingled recyclables
and about 100 to 110 tpd of newsprint. Usually the commingled materials
are processed during an 8-hour day shift and newspapers are processed
intermittently during the day or during a separate night shift.. On
average, about 22 workers are needed during the day shift.M
Table 3-16 shows the estimated annual tonnages of materials separated
for recovery at the Johnston MRF and tons of total MSW landfilled for the
area served by the Rhode Island separation program for 1990.5,6,7 As shown
in the table, about 40,000 tons of recyclables (about 6.9 percent of MSW
generated) are recovered at the MRF each year and recycled. About '
8,000 tons per year (about 1.5 percent of MSW generated) is attributed to
nonrecyclable residue removed at the MRF. About 90 percent of this residue
is attributed to glass broken during pick-up or while in transit. This
residue is landfilled. About 534,000 tons (about 92 percent of total MSW
generated) is landfilled. Of the 40,092 tons per year (tpy) recovered at
the MRF, newspapers, account for over 65 percent of the materials recovered
and glass accounts for about 18 percent. Tin cans, plastics, aluminum, and
corrugated paper account for the remainder.
The operators at the MRF, New England CRInc., are responsible for
marketing the recovered materials. New England CRInc. receives a materials
processing fee from the RISWMC for each ton of material processed and also
receives 10 percent of the revenue from the sale of materials. The RISWMC
receives the remaining 90 percent of materials revenues.1,6,7
3-47
-------
TABLE 3-16.
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL TONNAGE OF MATERIALS SEPARATED AND MSW
GENERATED IN RHODE ISLAND FOR 1990*.b
Material
Newspapers
Corrugated Paper
Clear Glass
Brown Glass
Green Glass
HOPE Plastic
PET Plastic
Steel Cans
Aluminum
Total Materials Separated for Recovery
Total Materials Separated for Recovery
Total Residue from MRF
Total MSW Landfilled
Tons
Collected
27,636
156
3,888
1,452
1,896
804
924
2,688
648
40,092
40,092
8,064
534.000
Percentage of Overall
MSW Generated
4.7
<0.1
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.1
6.9
6.9
1.5
91.7
Total MSW Generated
582,156
100.1C
aMatenals recovery and residue values based on tonnages recorded at the
Johnston MRF for December 1989 and January 1990. Total MSW landfilled
based on yearly average estimate for area of State currently served by the
separation program. 3
References 5, 6, and 7.
cGreater than 100.0 percent due to rounding.
3-48
-------
It should be noted that yard waste and materials separated by
commercial businesses are not included in the calculation of the materials
recovery rate. As discussed below, yard waste separation programs are
still in the preliminary phase, and materials recovery values are not
currently available from commercial businesses. Therefore, the recovery
rates presented in Table 3-16 are partial estimates. However,
representatives of the RISWMC believe that businesses and industries, along
with help from waste haulers, are currently separating about 15 percent of
the commercial waste stream.5
Currently, about two-thirds of the residents in Rhode Island are
receiving curbside recyclables collection service. Reports from individual
communities in Rhode Island which have materials separation programs in
place show that about 15 percent of the residential portion of the waste
stream is being separated for recovery.2 AS discussed above, about
6.9 percent of the total MSW is being separated in the areas served by the
residential curbside separation program. This is similar to the rates
achieved by residential curbside programs in both Seattle and Islip which
achieve 5 to 6 percent separation through residential curbside recyclables
pick-up. Residential curbside recyclables pick-up, however, is only one
element of a comprehensive separation program. Recovery rates would rise
with incorporation of yard waste separation and inclusion of tonnages from
commercial waste separation.
The State of Rhode Island has adopted regulations for commercial waste
recycling.8.9 This program 1s administered jointly by the RISWMC and the
DEM. According to the regulations, effective January 1, 1989, no
commercial waste may be disposed of which contains more than 30 percent
recyclable material by weight. After January 1, 1990, no commercial waste
may be disposed of which contains more than 20 percent recyclable
materials. Materials included in the calculation of the percentage of
recyclables that must be separated include all of the materials in the
residential curbside program plus corrugated cardboard, colored ledger
paper, and white office paper.
A trained waste Inspector visually Inspects each load of commercial
waste delivered to the landfill. If the waste Inspector judges that the
load has not been separated and contains too much recyclable material, the
truck is directed to a sorting area. At the sorting area, the load is
3-49
-------
tipped, pictures are taken of the waste, and a sorting crew sorts and
weighs the materials to determine compliance. If the load Is not in
compliance, the generator or transporter of the waste will be assessed a
$500 fee for the weighing and sorting test. If a generator or transporter
fails a weighing and sorting test, they must submit a materials recycling
plan within 1 month or they will be prohibited from disposing at the
landfill.8.9
In addition, after June 1990, all businesses with over 100 employees
must submit a waste reduction/recycling plan. The plan must include a
characterization of the business' waste and a plan to segregate recyclable
materials. The RISWMC offers technical assistance by providing an RISWMC
employee to go on-site to commercial businesses to help identify potential
methods of waste reduction and materials for recycling.8,9
In addition, all businesses with over 100 employees must report to the
OEM the type and amount of materials separated each year.1,8 However, in
Rhode Island, over 97 percent of all businesses are small businesses of
less than 100 employees.1 Representatives of the RISWMC stated that they
will probably not be able to obtain good estimates of the total amount of
commercial recycling given the predominance of small businesses and the
difficulty In verifying reports submitted by the large businesses.1
The commercial businesses are generally expected to market their own
materials; however, if the business has difficulty in locating markets,
they may deliver the materials to the MRF for one-fourth of the $59/ton
tipping fee charged at the landfill ($14.75/ton)..l»8
Rhode Island regulations also include provisions for multi-family unit
recycling.1,8 Within 6 months of Implementation of a community's curbside
collection program, all apartment building owners in the community must
submit materials separation plans to the DEM. The RISWMC provides
recyclables containers, educational Information, and recycling coordinator
assistance to the building owners. The owners are required to cooperate
with the OEM and RISWMC, to distribute Information to the residents, to
make materials separation available to the residents, and to negotiate
contracts with haulers for recyclables collection. The haulers would be
able to deliver the recyclables to the MRF at no charge as long as the
municipality provides for trash disposal at the multi-family unit from
which the recyclables are collected. Several thousand multi-family units
3-50
-------
which the recyclables are collected. Several thousand multi-family units
are are currently served by recyclables collection programs.5
Rhode Island's materials separation programs do not currently include
yard waste. Most yard waste is collected and disposed along with the
trash. The RISWMC is conducting 3 different pilot yard waste collection
and composting programs. Once these studies are completed, alternative
recommendations will be made for yard waste management, and yard waste may
be banned from landfills and MWC's.l
Rhode Island also has a source reduction program. Most activities
thus far have been educational. The RISWMC provides posters and other
educational materials to schools, businesses, and residences which stress
the use of products which have one or more ofthe following
characteristics: reusable, reliable, recycled, and recyclable. These
educational materials offer suggestions such as leaving grass clippings on
the lawn, and avoiding disposable products such as disposal razors and
diapers.M° Representatives from the RISWMC stated that it is not
feasible to determine the amount of source reduction achieved with
precision, and they have no plans to attempt to demonstrate a quantitative
reduction.!
Future waste management plans for the State of Rhode Island include
construction of a second MRF and 3 MWC's, each with a design capacity not
to exceed 750 tpd. The second MRF will be built at Quonset Point, Rhode
Island. The RISWMC has selected a builder, and construction on the MRF
will begin soon. Two of the MWC's are still in permitting, and plans for
the third MWC are still preliminary.5
3-4-2 Materials Separation Program Costs for Rhode Island
This section presents the capital costs, 04M costs, and economic
credits for the State of Rhode Island's curbside materials separation
program for 1990. Costs and credits are presented on a Statewide basis as
reported by the RISWMC. As discussed in the previous section, the RISWMC
bears the total cost of implementing and operating the community programs
for the first 3 years.
3.4.2.1 C4Pit3l Costs. All capital equipment needed by communities
to run their respective curbside materials separation programs was
purchased by the RISWMC. The equipment purchased for the communities
includes the recyclables containers (blue bins) and collection trucks.
3-51
-------
Collection trucks are not purchased for all communities since some
communities contract collection services. In such cases, these costs would
be reflected 1n the collection costs. The RISWMC also pays the full
capital cost of the MRF where the communities deliver the recyclables
collected.
As shown in Table 3-17, the estimated annual ized capital cost for the
purchase of blue bins in 1990 1s about $260,000, and the annual ized capital
cost for the purchase of collection vehicles is about $270,000. Bond
interest for the Johnston MRF is about $230,000, and equipment depreciation
is about $200,000 for 1990. Total estimated annual ized capital costs for
Rhode Island's community materials separation programs for 1990 are about
$960,000.2,6,7
3-4-2-2 Potation and Maintenam-? rmt? Operation and maintenance
costs for the Rhode Island materials separation program include processing
fees to the contractor operating the MRF, fixed operating costs at the MRF,
collection reimbursement costs paid to communities, and administrative
costs including educational and promotional assistance to communities.
These costs are summarized in Table 3-17. Total estimated 04M costs for
1990 are about $4.9 million. 2, 6, 7 Tnese costs are all pa-d fay t|w RISWMCt
The main O&M cost 1s for recyclables collection which comprises about
65 percent of the total 04M costs. Operating and maintenance costs for the
MRF are the next largest cost, accounting for about 25 percent of total O&M
costs.
3-4-2.3 Program Revenues or fr^ty Two sources of credit are
available for offsetting the materials separation program costs. The first
is revenue from the sale of recyclables. As shown 1n Table 3-18, estimated
revenues from sales of materials collected in Rhode Island in 1990 are
about $1 million. 6»7
The second source of credit 1s the avoided landfill charge for the
materials separated. This credit is calculated by multiplying the weight
of materials not landfllled due to materials separation times the fee
($13/ton) that would have been charged if the separated material had been
landfilled. In 1990, it is estimated that 40,092 tons of materials will be
diverted from the landfill.2,6,7
The total annual materials separation credit for these two sources,
therefore, is estimated to be about $1.5 million for 1990. Further credits
-------
TABLE 3-17. ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR
RHODE ISLAND'S MATERIALS SEPARATION PROGR/SI FOR 1990™
Annualized Capital Costs t/
Bond Interest on MRF 228 480
Equipment Depreciation for MRF ?ni'finn
Collection Containers 260 7?n
Collection Vehicles 273.214
Total Annualized Capital Cost: 964,014
Annual Operation and Maintenance r^ts
MRF Q&M Costs
O&M Fee to Contractor i nfi7
Residue Disposal 47
Electricity %>
Water 5
Lawn Service J'
Materials Shipping g
Total Annualized MRF O&M Cost: 1,312,314
Collection Costs
Cost reimbursements to communities 12j 920
Other Administrative Costs
Administrative, educational, and
promotional assistance 460 QOO
Total Annual O&M Cost: 4,894,234
Total Annualized Capital and O&M Cost: 5,858,248
References 2, 6, and 7.
bAll costs are in 1990 dollars.
3-53
-------
TABLE 3-18. ESTIMATED CREDITS FOR RHODE ISLAND'S MATERIALS
SEPARATION PROGRAM FOR 1990™b
Item
Revenue from Sale of Recyclables
Avoided Landfill
Total Credits
Annual Credit
($/yr)
1,022,268
521,196
1,543,464
References 2, 6, and 7.
bAll credits are in 1990 dollars.
t?v?°i""ir51il W3Ste and $13/ton for community
* "3/ton rate is used in calculating avoided
!tCrSlt«J1nCV5i,"ftir1als seParated would- hive been
tobe 40 092 t0nnage avoid1n9 landfill Ing is estimated
-------
TABLE 3-19. ESTIMATED TOTAL PROGRAM COST SUMMARY FOR
RHODE ISLAND FOR 1990*
Weight of Total MSW Collected (tons)
Weight of Materials Separated (tons)
Total Annualized Capital Costs ($)
Total O&M Costs ($)
Materials Sales Revenue ($)
Avoided Landfill Fee (J)
582,156
40,092
964,014
4,894,234
1,022,268
521,196
Total Program Costs
(without avoided landfill credit)
Net Program Costs
(with avoided landfill credit)
(S/vr>
4,835,980
4,314,784
S/ton of
Total
Materials
Separated
121
108
$/ton of
Total
Materials
Collected
8.30
7.41
References 2, 6, and 7.
3-55
-------
might be assigned for the avoided or delayed cost of buying new landfill
area or MWC capacity, but these credits were not considered in this study
It should be noted that the $13/ton included in the credit calculations is
a relatively low value for a landfill tipping fee. Tipping fees for
landfills and MWC's are often much higher.
3.4.2.4 Net Prww Cost. The net program cost is the difference
between the annualized capital cost plus total O&M cost and the sales
revenues plus avoided landfill charges. All four items estimated for 1990
are summarized in Table 3-19.. The total estimated program cost without the
credit for avoided landfill fee charges, which reflects the actual cost to
the RISWMC for materials separation services, is approximately $4.3 million
for 1990.
Table 3-19 presents these costs as $/ton of recyclable materials
diverted from the landfill. The actual cost to the RISWMC for each ton of
recyclable materials diverted from the landfill is $121. When the avoided
landfill credit is included, the net cost is reduced to $108/ton of
recyclable materials diverted from the landfill.
Costs are also presented in Table 3-19 in terms of total MSW collected
(trash plus recyclables), which is a measure of the amount by which the
materials separation program increases the cost of collecting and disposing
of each ton of MSW. As shown in the table, when the avoided landfill
credit is not included, the increased cost per ton of MSW collected is
about $8.30. When the avoided landfill credit is included the net cost per
ton of MSW collected in about $7.41.
3-4-3 References for Section ? A
1. Information obtained from visit to Providence, Rhode Island, and
SSSn^* ISJ?nd S°Vd WaSte "«"i9««it representatives.
, Radian Corporation. January 18-19, 1990.
?S]1!!V Jro9™nJD«l9n and Planning. Informational packet
compiled by the Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation.
4. Salimando, J., Rhode Island's State-of-Art Plant. Waste Age.
September 1989.
3-56
-------
5. Teleconference between Lee Davis, Radian Corporation, and Dante
lonata. Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Sober 15,
6' KJlJi1? Ec°noi!\Vnd Performance Summary - Johnston Materials
Recycling Facility. Compiled by the Rhode Island Solid Waste
Management Corporation. December 1989.
7. Monthly Economic and Performance Summary - Johnston Materials
Recycling Facility. Compiled by the Rhode Island Solid Waste
Management Corporation. January 1990.
8. Regulations for Reduction and Recycling of Commercial and
Non-Municipal Residential Solid Waste. Compiled by the Rhode Island
Solid Waste Management Corporation. June 28, 1988.
9. Commercial Solid Waste Recycling and Reduction Program- Enforcement
?1S' J"^;11""/^ Cycling Technical Assistance and Delivery of
RSFui^Fl^iV*?1^* D1sposa1 Pintles. Compiled by the
Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation. January 1, 1989.
10' Sod! uiSS ^vfuR6JUCii0n Task Force Report- Compiled by the
Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation. November 1987.
3-57
-------
4.0 CASE STUDIES OF CENTRALIZED FACILITIES SEPARATING UNSORTED MSW
This section presents case studies of two centralized materials
separation facilities which use a combination of mechanical and manual
techniques to separate recoverable materials from unsorted MSW. Each case
study contains information on how separation is achieved at each facility,
the amounts and fate of each material separated, and the capital and
annualized costs of the facility. One facility is located in Crestwood,
Illinois, and the other in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Both facilities
operate at transfer stations. However, the technologies employed at either
facility could also be employed at MWC's or at landfills. Descriptions of
the two facilities are presented below.
4.1 XL DISPOSAL CORPORATION, CRESTWOOD, ILLINOIS1
4'1'1 Facility Description and Materials Separation Onpratinnc
4-1-1-1 General Plant Operations. The XL Disposal Corporation
operates a materials separation facility at a transfer station which
accepts waste from the Crestwood, Illinois, area near Chicago. Residential
and commercial waste are delivered to the facility by local curbside
haulers. All trucks are weighed as they enter the facility. All of the
residential waste and some of the commercial waste undergo processing to
separate some materials for recovery. Construction/demolition wastes and
some commercial wastes which do not contain a high proportion of
recyclables are not processed. Residual and nonrecoverable wastes are
loaded into larger trucks for transport to one of several landfills which
are located 50 to 90 miles away.
4-1-1-2 Materials Separation QneraHi^ The separation facility is
housed in one building which has three sections separated by concrete
walls. The three sections are: (1) tipping floor for waste which is to
undergo processing; (2) materials separation section; and (3) section where
4-1
-------
compostable wastes and nonrecoverable wastes from the separation process
are deposited and loaded onto trucks for transport to the composting
facility and the landfill, respectively. This third section also serves as
the tipping floor for waste which does not undergo processing.
Figure 4-1 provides a schematic diagram of the materials separation
process. Unsorted municipal waste entering the facility is dumped onto the
concrete tipping floor in the first section of the building. Waste
designated for processing is pushed by a front-end loader into a pit which
feeds a conveyor system. Large items, such as appliances or large
automobile parts, are pushed aside and do not enter the materials
separation system.
The waste feed conveyor exits the tipping area through an opening in
the wall and conveys the waste into the second section of the facility
where automated materials recovery and handpicking are performed. Next to
the conveyor is a handpicking station where cardboard and/or newspaper is
periodically recovered. Current practice is to man the station for only 2 •
to 3 hours per day to separate cardboard from the commercial waste.
According to Mr. Ed Pruim, President of XL Disposal Corporation, the
cardboard content of residential waste is too low to justify handpickers.
However, at certain times of the day, commercial waste is delivered which
has a high proportion of cardboard. Mr. Pruim added that if the market for
newspaper improved, he would consider separating newspapers, but presently
there is no demand.
After passing by the initial handpicking station, the conveyor dumps
the waste into the automated materials separation system manufactured by
National Recovery Technologies, Incorporated (NRT). The first component of
the NRT system is a large inclined, rotating drum (see Figure 4-1). The
drum measures 12 ft in diameter and 35 ft in length and has a capacity of
about 400 tpd of MSW. Large knife blades around the interior circumference
of the drum slash open paper and plastic trash bags, and the rotating
action of the drum homogenizes the waste. The tumbling action also breaks
glass objects into small pieces. Permanent magnets mounted on the interior
circumference of the drum near the exit trap ferrous objects which are then
scraped off and deposited onto a separate ferrous metals conveyor. Lifters
at the drum's exit separate the remaining material by size and density.
4-2
-------
CMdbowd
Tuck
PlMlics
Floor
Cwdbowd
ToUndM
Figure 4-1. Schwa tic Diagram of Ma^nals Seuar
a I imi Prnro. r > i
-------
Small dense materials such as broken glass, grit, and grass clippings are
deposited on a separate conveyor, and the remaining materials, primarily
aluminum cans, paper, and plastics, exit the bottom of the drum.
The magnetically removed ferrous portion of the waste travels on a
conveyor to the ferrous recovery bin. Because the ferrous fraction still
contains some contaminants such as pieces of paper or plastics, there is a
flexible plastic curtain at the discharge of the conveyor which deflects
the nonmetallic contaminants into a bin. The ferrous metals are retained
on the conveyor by a magnetic head pulley. This rotating magnet holds the
ferrous metals on the conveyor, allowing them to pass through the flexible
curtain and under the head pulley. After passing under the head pulley,
the ferrous metals are scraped off and deposited into a separate bin.
The small dense fraction consisting mostly of yard waste, glass, and
grit travels from the rotating drum on a separate conveyor. At one
location, air jets blow air across the conveyor to remove light
contaminants such as small paper and plastic film. The remaining small
dense material travels through an opening in the wall to the third section
of the building where it is deposited in a separate pile. This material is
later removed from the building and taken to a separate composting pile
located outside of the facility.
The largest volume fraction of the waste stream, consisting primarily
of aluminum cans, paper, and plastic containers, exits the drum on a
separate conveyor and passes through the aluminum concentrator. In the
aluminum concentrator, the waste is electronically scanned for the presence
of nonferrous metals. When nonferrous metals are detected, sensors
activate one or more air valves that provide a pulse of air propelling the
objects out of the waste stream and onto a separate slide. There are
15 sets of sensors/air valves in the aluminum concentrator, one row of 7
and one row of 8 in an offset position. The air pulse in the aluminum
concentrator also ejects some paper and plastic along with the aluminum.
As the aluminum concentrate approaches the bottom of the slide, it passes
over an eddy current magnet which imparts a repelling force on the aluminum
items. The aluminum is ejected over a barrier onto a separate conveyor
while the non-aluminum items fall onto a conveyor which rejoins the
remaining large fraction. The aluminum is transported to a separate bin
where a handpicker removes aluminum items such as pie pans since aluminum
4-4
-------
cans have a higher sale value if they are separated from other aluminum
materials.
The remaining fraction, which consists mostly of paper and plastic,
passes by a handpicking station where three or four workers remove plastic
containers and any remaining aluminum items from the moving waste conveyor
Three plastic fractions are collected: (1) PET beverage bottles,
(2) colored HOPE containers, and (3) clear HOPE milk containers. These
items are pulled from the waste by hand and dropped into chutes which lead
to separate bins. The residual nonrecovered waste, which is primarily
paper, then travels through an opening in the wall of the materials
separation area and is deposited on the floor of the reloading and exit
section of the facility. This residual waste is then loaded by front-end
loader onto trucks for transport to a landfill.
The materials separation system presently operates 8 to 10 hours per
day and processes about 20 tons of MSW per hour. There are 7 to
10 employees, including a plant operator, an assistant plant operator, and
handpickers. Other maintenance personnel, such as electricians, do not
work full time, but work on an as-needed basis. In the near future, a
second shift will be added, and the plant will operate 20 hours per'day and
process about 400 tpd of MSW.
The separation system does not discharge emissions to the atmosphere.
It is a closed loop system which recycles all process air. Thus, no APCD
is needed.
4'M-3 Fatq of Recovered Material <,. The ferrous material , which
consists mostly of tin cans, is sold to a local scrap dealer. The scrap
dealer shreds the material, removes some contaminants such as paper, and
mixes it with other scrap. This mixed scrap is then sold to steel mills
for the manufacture of new steel. For steel production, steel producers
normally prefer to use mixed scrap that contains no more than 5 percent
ferrous metal derived from MSW.
Aluminum scrap, especially cans, is in high demand, is economically
valuable, and is sold directly to aluminum producers.
The recovered PET plastic is sold to a company which uses it to make
products such as polyester fiber insulation used in jackets and sleeping
bags. The HOPE plastics, both colored and clear, are sold to a company
which uses them to make products such as drain pipe and plastic lumber.
4-5
-------
Separated cardboard is bailed and sold to a paper-mill for the
manufacture of new boxboard materials. Paper and newspaper are currently
being landfilled. Mr. Pruim said that there is a paper company located
about 2 miles from the facility. He is currently looking into the
possibility of separating and shipping some newspaper to the papermill but
there was not presently a strong enough market for separated newspaper'
The compostable fraction, including yard waste, grit, glass, and other
small dense materials, is to be taken to an off-site composting facility
Mr. Pruim said that the compostable fraction will be mixed with 20 percent
wood chips which have been soaked in compost bacteria. The material will
be composted outdoors for about 60 days. The broken glass aids the
composting action by providing air spaces throughout the material. Once
the material has been composted, Mr. Pruim intends to use it as final
landfill cover. He said that he believes it should also be of high enough
quality to use for other purposes such as landscaping or agriculture.
However, the glass and other contaminants would have to be screened out •
first. Currently, the composting process is not in full operation. The
compostable fraction is being placed in a pile outside of the facility
pending start-up of the composting operation.
Within the next year, a wood chipper will be purchased to chip lumber
(abundant in construction waste), wooden pallets, and tree limbs. The
chipped wood could then be composted or used as mulch.
4'L1-4 Materials Separation Svston, Performance Table 4-1 shows
that XL Disposal Corporation's separation operations separate about
20 percent of the total weight of MSW processed. Of the 20 percent
separated, the majority (11.4 percent) consists of the compostable
fraction. The second largest fraction is corrugated paper (4.1 percent),
followed by ferrous metals (3.3 percent), aluminum (0.74 percent), and
plastic (0.48 percent).2
The majority of the separation equipment, including the rotating drum,
magnets, air classifiers, aluminum separators, and associated computer
controls were purchased from NRT. Conveyors and other equipment were
purchased from other vendors. Dr. Charles Roos, President of NRT, said
that the purchase agreement with XL Disposal Corporation guaranteed at
least 70 percent automated separation of aluminum and 85 percent automated
4-6
-------
TABLE 4-1. TONNAGE OF MATERIALS SEPARATED AT THE XL
DISPOSAL CORPORATION FACILITY3
Total MSW Processed
Tons Separated
Al umi num
Ferrous Metals
Plastic
Corrugated Paper
Compost
Total Materials
Tons Per y^ej^
1,534
1.1.3
50.3
7.3
63.1
175.1
Separated 307.1
^^^^B^^VBM^MMMBHHHHMMi^^^HMi^HM^^^^B
Percent of Total
100
0.74
3.3
0.48
4.1
1L4
20.0
Reference 2.
The "compost" fraction is composed of a mixture of yard waste, food waste
broken glass, grit, and other small dense organic and inorganic materials:
4-7
-------
separation both of glass and ferrous metals. Mr. Pruim said that while he
has not yet tested removal efficiencies of individual components, he is
satisfied that he is getting a greater separation efficiency than that
guaranteed by NRT. He said that he believes that he is getting about
90 percent automated separation of aluminum. Separation efficiencies of
compostable materials and manually separated materials have also not been
determined.
The materials separation facility and associated equipment supplied by
NRT are designed for a daily throughput of 400 tpd of MSW based on 20 hours
per day of operation. At present, the facility is only operating at about
half this capacity, 8 to 10 hours per day. Mr. Pruim said that they plan
to experiment with the system and determine separation efficiencies at
capacity as well as above capacity to determine the operating rate at which
the separation efficiency drops. If the system performs well above the
design capacity, they may choose to operate at a higher waste throughput.
4'1'1-5 "andpicMng Op
-------
4.1.2.1 Ca.PlU1 CQsf.*.2 Capital costs include the transfer station
modifications, the automatic materials separation equipment, scales, and
miscellaneous equipment such as a front-end loader, bailers, and material
bins. Because XL Disposal Corporation's existing facility was used for the
materials recycling center, their costs were less than the costs of a new
facility. Table 4-2 presents both XL Disposal Corporation's actual capital
costs and XL Disposal Corporation's estimate of capital costs for a new
facility. New facility costs at $5.5 million are close to twice the costs
actually incurred by XL Disposal Corporation. Most of the extra cost for a
new facility would be for the property and construction costs of a new
transfer station, as discussed below.
Capital costs were annualized using an interest rate of 10 percent and
assuming an equipment life for each item as listed in Table 4-2. As shown
in the table, annualized capital costs are about $350,000 for XL Disposal
Corporation as compared to about $620,000 for a new facility.
The major capital cost for XL Disposal Corporation is for
modifications to the transfer station, which is a concrete structure that
houses the materials separation plant. For XL Disposal Corporation,
expansion costs for their existing transfer station were about $1.5 million
or 50 percent of their total capital costs. For the construction of a new
facility, the property and the transfer station building would cost
approximately $4 million or 73 percent of the total capital cost. The
automatic materials separation equipment described in Section 4.1.1.2 is
the next largest capital cost item at $1.1 million.
4'1'2'2 Operation and Maintenance W? 2 Operation and maintenance
costs are presented in Table 4-3 and include operating and administrative
labor, maintenance materials, property taxes, insurance, and utilities. As
shown in Table 4-3, total O&M costs for XL Disposal Corporation are
$617,000 per year and are assumed to be the same for both XL Disposal
Corporation and a new facility. Operating and administrative labor is the
major O&M cost, accounting for 80 percent of total O&M costs.
4>L2-3 Program Revenues and Creditv Three sources of revenue or
credit are assigned for the materials separation program. The first is
revenue from the sale of recyclables. For this study, aluminum was
assigned a recycling value of $900/ton, ferrous metals were assigned
$40/ton, cardboard was assigned $30/ton, and plastics were assigned
4-9
-------
TABLE 4-2. CAPITAL COSTS FOR A MATERIALS SEPARATION FACILITY*-'
Transfer Station
Separation EqulpoMnt
Scale,
Other'
Total
XL Dlipoial Corporation
Capital Co*t
(S)
1.450.000
1.100.000
30.000
3.22,0,00
2,925.000
Mew Facility
Capital Colt
($)
4,025.000
1.100.000
50.000
325,000
5.500.000
XL Dlapoaal Corporation
Annuallzed Capital
Life co«t
(yra) ($)
5° 151,815
1* 144.621
» 6.574
15 42.729
347.739
Hew Facility
Annuallced Capital
Co*t
($)
426,969
144.621
6,574
42.729
620,893
*Raference 2.
'All coat* are 1990 dollar*.
'Include, front-end loader, bailer.. ..terlal bin,, and other specified equlp«nt.
pmw/108
90-da.tab
-------
TABLE 4-3. ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR A
MATERIALS SEPARATION FACILITYa'b>c
Property Taxes $ 15,000
Insurance 60,000
Utilities 36)000
Materials 12,000
Lab°r 416,000
Administration 79.000
Total $ 617,000
Reference 2.
These are the O&M costs reported by XL Disposal Corporation and are
assumed to be the same for a new facility.
CA11 costs are in 1990 dollars.
4-11
-------
$I40/ton. No revenue was assigned for compost because XL Disposal
Corporation does not currently market their compost. AS shown in
IL t* ™ no?'0"1 COrP°ration Wi11 rece-' •" estimated revenue of
about $780,000 from the sale of recyclables in 1990
The second source of credit is the landfill fee which is avoided by
recycling. This credit is calculated by multiplying the weight of the
materials recycled (tons) times the landfill fee (S/ton). The estimated
credit for the avoided landfill fee for XL Disposal Corporation in 1990 is
estimated to be approximately $350,000 based on a landfill fee of $22/ton 3
The third source of credit is the avoided transportation cost of
hauling the separated materials from the transfer station to the Undflll
Average round trip hauling costs for XL Disposal Corporation are about
$7.50/ton. Therefore, for each ton of material that is separated $7 50 is
saved in avoided hauling cost. Avoided transportation costs for 199o'are
estimated to be about $120,000.3
The total materials separation credit from these three sources is
estimated to be about $1.25 million. Both XL Corporation and a new
facility were assumed to receive this credit. Further credit might be
assigned for the avoided or delayed cost of buying new landfill area, but
this credit was not considered in this study.
4'1>2<4 T9t^ Pn?qr™ r"Wr™im. The total program costs and
credits include annualized capital costs, O&M costs, materials sales
revenues, avoided landfill fees, and avoided transportation costs. These
items are summarized in Table 4-5. The total program cost without the
avoided landfill credit and the avoided long-haul transportation credit
(which is the actual cost to operate the facility) is $181,000 for XL
Disposal Corporation and $454,000 for a new facility. With avoided
landfill fees and avoided transportation credits, the total program costs
become negative, which reflects a net savings. This savings, which
reflects the net benefit of materials separation compared to landfilling
is about $290,000 for XL Disposal Corporation and $17,000 for a new
facility.
Table 4-5 presents these costs as $/ton of recyclable materials
diverted from the landfill. The actual cost for each ton of recyclable
materials diverted from the landfill is about $11.50 for XL Disposal
4-12
-------
TABLE 4-4. XL DISPOSAL CORPORATION'S MATERIALS
SEPARATION CREDITS FOR lQQna»D
Item
Annual Credit
(S/yr)
Revenue from Sale of Recyclables:
Tons Separated0
Aluminum
Ferrous Metals
Plastic
Corrugated Paper
Compost
Subtotal
Avoided Landfill Feed
Avoided Long-Haul Transportation Cost6
Total Credits
586
2,616
«
380
3,281
9. 103
15,966
527,400
104,604
53,200
98,430
0
$ 783,670
351,252
119.745
$1,254,667
References 1, 2, and 3.
bAll credits are 1990 dollars.
cAnnual tons separated are based on weekly tons presented in Table 4-1
times 52 weeks.
Avoided Landfill Fee - 15,966 tons separated * landfill fee ($22/ton)
tr1"
4-13
-------
Corporation and $28.50 for a new facility. When the avoided landfill fees
and avoided transportation costs are included, the net savings is about
$18.20/ton for XL Disposal Corporation and $1.10/ton for a new facility
Total program costs are also presented as $/ton of total MSW collected
(including trash and recyclables), which is a measure of the amount by
which the materials separation program raises or lowers the cost of
disposing of each ton of MSW. As shown in Table 4-5, when avoided landfill
fees and avoided transportation costs are not included, the increased cost
per ton of MSW collected is $2.30 for XL Disposal! Corporation and $5.70 for
a new facility. When avoided landfill fees and avoided transportation
costs are included, the decreased cost per ton of MSW collected is about
$3.60 for XL Disposal Corporation and $0.21 for a new facility.
4-1.3 References for Section A.]
1. Davis, L., Radian Corporation. Trip Report -- Site Visit- XL
Disposal Corporation Materials Separation Facility. September 25,
2' I£l*r0 fc°m Edwand H' Pru1m' Pres^ent, XL Disposal Corporation to
oEmC Si3™-' Diry*«r. E"1«1on st^ards Division, Office of Air
February S^gS?. SUndards» U-S' Environmental Protection Agency.
3- corporatlon' and
* 1 M
-------
TABLE 4-5. MATERIALS SEPARATION TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS'-'
Walght of Total MSU Collactad (ton*)
Walght of Total Matarlal* Saparatad (tona)
Total Annual lead Capital Coat* (8)
Total OlM Coat* <$)
Racjrcllng Ravanua* ($)
Avoldad Landfill Paa («)
Avoldad Long-Haul Co*t ($)
W- BliB°'*i corporaj ^ojj
79.768
15,966
347.7|9
617,000
783.670
351,252
119,745
MawFac 1 1 1 t T
79,742
15,966
620,893
617,000
783,670
351.252
119,745
I
t—"
Ul
Coata
Total Prograai Coat* (without
Avoldad Landfill and Lone-Haul Cradlta) 181,069
Total Program Coata (with Avoldad
Landfill and Long-Haul Cradlta)
-289.928'
*Rafarancaa 1, 2, and 3.
'All cott* and cradle* ara In 1990 dollar*.
'Ncgatlva valuaa Indlcata a net cradlt or laving*.
H, Pi»po»al Corooratlo^
(S/ton of Racjrclabla
Matarlal Dlvartad (S/ton of Total
froa tha Landfill) MSW Collactadl
N.w Facility
Coata
(5/ton of Racyclabl*
Matarlal Dlvartad ($/ton of Total
Froai tha Landfill) MSM Collactadl
11.53
-18.16
2.27
-3.63
454,223
- 16,774
28.45
-1.05
5.70
-0.21
pmw/108
90-4a.tab
-------
4.2 REUTER RECYCLING, INC., EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA1
4'2'1 Facility Description *^ Materials Separation np^t^nc
4-2-1-1 general Facility Dg^pt^ The Reuter Recycling, Inc.,
facility is located in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, just outside of
Minneapolis. The facility, including offices, tipping floor, and
processing area, is completely enclosed in a 70,000 sq. ft. building
constructed of concrete. The facility accepts about 450 to 470 tons of MSW
per day. The facility operates at full permitted capacity (2 processing
lines) for 1 shift during the day, and at half capacity (1 processing line)
for 1 shift at night. As-received waste is comprised of about 75 percent
residential waste and 25 percent commercial waste. About 40 to 50 percent
of this MSW (mainly paper) is processed into refuse-derived fuel (RDF), 25
to 30 percent is composted, 12 to 15 percent is recovered for materials
recycling, and about 10 to 15 percent is sent to a landfill. The majority
of the separation equipment and RDF processing equipment was purchased from
Buhler-Miag, a Swiss company. The facility has been in operation since
1987.
4-2.1.2 Materials Separation On»n^ n^ Figure 4-2 provides a
schematic diagram of the materials separation process. Trucks are weighed
on scales as they enter the facility and as they exit the facility. Trucks
deliver unsorted waste to the tipping floor section of the building which
is completely enclosed. A front-end loader is used to push the waste into
a large pile in one corner of the building. The front-end loader operator
also takes waste from the pile and deposits it onto an open area of the
floor where two to three handpickers remove corrugated paper, automobile
batteries, tires, lumber, large tree limbs, and other large items such as
appliances or large automobile parts. These items are placed in separate
piles for later recovery or transport to a landfill. After the waste has
been presorted on the tipping floor, the front-end loader operator pushes
the remaining waste into a hopper which feeds either of two parallel
conveyors. The conveyors exit the tipping floor area through openings in
the wall and travel Into the separate section of the building where
automated materials recovery, handplcking, and fuel processing is
performed.
4-16
-------
u
•a
o
Q.
O .
c *"
4-17
-------
The conveyors feed two parallel processing lines where waste is first
fed into a rotating drum sieve. The drum sieve separates waste into three
size fractions: (1) fine waste which is screened through 1 3/8 in.
diameter holes, (2) medium waste which is screened through 8 in. diameter
holes, and (3) large waste which passes through the drum sieve. The fine
fraction travels by conveyor to a truck for transportation to an offsite
composting area.
The medium and large fractions proceed on to separate conveyors and
past the handpicking station. At the handpicking station, workers manually
remove aluminum, HOPE plastic containers, low density polyethylene (LDPE)
plastic film, PET plastic beverage bottles (clear and green containers are
separated), residual corrugated paper, and textiles. Handpicking is
performed to separate materials for recovery and to keep contaminants from
entering the RDF production process.
After exiting the handpicking station, the large waste fraction enters
a primary hammermill shredder which shreds the waste to about 6 inches in
diameter. According to Mr. Jim Markeson of Reuter Recycling, Inc., there
is some risk of explosion from shredding propane tanks or gas tanks that
may be overlooked, but no serious explosions have occurred due to effective
handsorting of these materials on the tipping floor as well as on the
handsorting conveyor. The shredder is designed to vent to the exterior of
the building in the event of an explosion.
The reduced fraction exiting the shredder then joins the medium
fraction from the rotating drum sieve and the combined materials proceed
through a primary magnet which removes ferrous metals. The ferrous metal
fraction removed by the primary magnet then travels through a secondary
magnet to further separate the ferrous metals from any contaminants (paper)
which may have been entrapped in the ferrous metals during separation at
the primary magnet. The ferrous metals are taken by conveyor to a truck
for shipment to a ferrous metals scrap dealer. At this point, materials *
separation is essentially complete. The remaining waste consists of paper
and any contaminants that may have passed through the separation processes.
This remaining waste then proceeds to the RDF production segment of the
plant.
4-18
-------
4-2.1-3 Refuse-Derived Fuel production Operation* The RDF
production process Is also shown 1n the schematic diagram in Figure 4-2.
After passing through the materials separation processes, the paper
fraction passes through an air classifier and an air classifier cyclone to
separate any heavy contaminants. The heavy contaminants are collected for
shipment to a landfill or for composting. The remaining paper then enters
a secondary hammer-mill shredder where it is reduced to a size of about
4 in. in diameter. The remaining paper (fluff RDF) is then either bailed
or densified into RDF pellets.
To make densified RDF pellets, the fluff is first densified into a
flake with a conditioning screw and then pressed into densified pellets in
a pellet mill. The resulting cylindrical pellets, which measure about
3/4 in. in diameter by 2 in. in length, are then cooled and transported to
storage bins where they are stored until being transported to an energy-
generating facility. These densified RDF pellets have an energy value of
about 8,000 Btu/lb and an ash content of 6 to 9 percent.
4'2-1'4 Proportional Distribution nf Separated Mato-^ic According
to Reuter, Inc., the operations at the facility process the total MSW waste
stream ;nto the following components (by weight percent): bailed fluff RDF
and densified RDF (40 to 45 percent); small dense compostable fraction (25
to 30 percent); plastics (4 to 5 percent); cardboard (5 to 6 percent);
ferrous metals (3 to 4 percent); and aluminum (1 percent). The remaining
10 to 15 percent is comprised of nonrecoverable materials which are
disposed of in a landfill.
4-2'L5 Fate of Separated Material*. The separated fine fraction,
consisting of yard waste, glass, and grit is transported offsite to an
outdoor composting area. Currently, the material is composted in a static
pile, and the resulting compost is used as landfill cover. In the future,
Reuter plans to use an indoor aerated windrow composting process which will
compost the waste for 6 weeks. Mr. Markeson said that Reuter Recycling,
Inc. may choose to screen out the glass, but will screen out household '
batteries and other contaminants, and the resulting compost may be used for
agriculture or landscaping purposes. Mr. Markeson said that preliminary
tests indicate that the metals content of the compost after screening would
be low enough for agricultural use. He was not sure what would be done
with the glass/contaminant fraction screened from the compost.
4-19
-------
Separated aluminum is sold to a major aluminum producer, and ferrous
scrap is sold to a scrap metals dealer. The ferrous scrap is then shredded
prior to being sold to a steel manufacturer.
The PET plastics are granulated at the plant and sold to a company
which uses the plastic to manufacture products such as polyester fiber
insulation used in jackets and sleeping bags. The HOPE plastics are also
granulated and sold to a company which uses the plastic to manufacture
products such as plastic lumber and drainpipe. The LDPE film plastics are
bailed and sold to the same company which uses the plastic to make new
plastic film products.
Automotive batteries removed on the tipping floor are sold to a scrap
dealer who sells them to a battery producer. The lead from the batteries
is then processed into new batteries. Generally, less than a dozen
batteries are separated per month.
Tires removed from the tipping floor are transported to a tire
recycling facility in Minnesota. Reuter Recycling, Inc. pays a fee to the •
tire recycling facility for accepting the tires.
Corrugated paper materials separated on the tipping floor and at the
handpicking station are bailed and sold to a corrugated paper producer.
Textiles such as clothing, carpet, and upholstery, which are separated at
the handpicking stations, are disposed of in a landfill with the other
nonrecovered materials. Reuter Recycling, Inc. has not located an
accessible market for used textiles.
The remaining separated paper fraction which is processed into bailed
fluff RDF is given to an RDF combustion facility located in Minnesota and
operated by Northern States Power. Northern States Power uses the bailed
fluff RDF to balance energy inputs to their combustors when extra fuel is
needed. The densified RDF pellets are sold to a paper manufacturing
company as a fuel which is cofired with coal in traveling grate coal
boilers. According to Minnesota State law, RDF can account for no more
than 25 percent of the total Btu value when being cofired with coal.
4.2.1.6 Handoickinq Operations. On the tipping floor, two to
three workers pick out large appliances, tree limbs, automotive batteries,
corrugated paper, and other large materials. There is a potential risk of
accident. The workers walk through the garbage on the tipping floor as a
front-end loader continually operates back and forth in the same area.
4-20
-------
•
:, =• •;;
are two separate processing ,,nes with two conveyors pe ,1 f
so*e wear neither A,l o k """ C'0tl1 'ab°rat°^ "ats- "«
"^ C'°th "-'-" £?- C -erg^eVT?; ^
s e
left the facility in 1988 « " e°""°yed at a
Tr, ,. '~""
Referenrp<;
VrlfioXJiii^S^j^--,,,
4-21
-------
S-0 ,MPACTS Of
This section presents information on the effects of materials
separation on MWC air emissions, combustor operation, and combustor ash
Section 5.1 presents information on the composition of typical MSW
Section 5.2 summarizes available information on the effect of materials
separation on MWC air emissions Including petals, organics, acid gases and
nitrogen oxide (NO,). Section 5.3 describes potential beneficia, '. £t .
of matenals separation on combustor operations including the effects on
operation and maintenance, combustor ava1l,b1l1ty, productivity, and boll.r
efficiency. Section 5.4 presents information on the effects of «t.n,l
separation on the quantity and quality of combustion
5.1 COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Table 5-1 lists the components of typical MSW and the percent by
weight of each component in the mc.l Although the actual weight-percent
of eac component material will vary among comities and among seasons
United UPre"nt'd "" C°"^'r"i rei>r"enUt1'e °f Ms« 9-erated in the
t '
MSW components into two categories, combustibles and
noncombustlbles. As shown in Table 5-1. paper and paperboard, plastics
of" sr UK* ^ MSU make UP tlle maJ°rny °f the CMbUStib!e '"C«.
of MSH. Glass and ferrous metals are the two largest noncombustible
components, followed by aluminum and other nonferrous metals. During
combustion, the combustible portion Is burned and a volume reduction
occurs. Although the noncombustible portion may be altered chemically and
5-1
-------
TABLE 5-1. COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE1
Material
Ferrous Metals
Aluminum
Other Nonferrous Metals
Glass •
Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes
TOTAL NONCOMBUSTIBLES
Paper and Paperboard
Plastics
Yard Waste
Food Waste
Wood
Rubber and Leather
Textiles
Other
TOTAL COMBUSTIBLES
Percent by Weight in MSWa
—!^»
7.0
1.5
0.2
8.2
1.6
I^^MMH
18.5
41.0
6.5
17.9
7.9
3.7
2.5
2.8
0.1
82.4
'Percent of gross discards before materials recovery.
5-2
-------
physically during combustion, and may affect MWC operation and emissions
it is not actually combusted.
Table 5-2 lists typical pollutants of concern from MWC's along with
some common materials in MSW which are composed of the pollutant of concern
or potential precursors for these pollutants. While this table does not
list every component in MSW which potentially contributes to air pollution
emissions, it does include the principal components. Section 5.2, which
addresses the air emissions impacts from the separation of various
components of MSW, includes a discussion of each of the two major
categories of MSW and its potential contribution to air pollution
emissions.
5.2 IMPACTS OF MATERIALS SEPARATION ON AIR EMISSIONS
This section summarizes test data and other information on the effects
of materials separation and removal on air emissions from MWC's In
particular, the effects of removing noncombustibles, household batteries
lead-acid vehicle batteries, plastics, paper, and yard waste prior to
combustion are discussed.
5.2.1 Noncombustibles
Noncombustibles comprise a broad class of waste components including
metals, glass, grit, and other minerals. Noncombustible materials such as
ferrous metals, glass, and aluminum do not directly produce potentially
hazardous emissions. However, some ferrous items are associated with other
heavy metals that can contribute to toxic emissions. For example, ferrous
containers with ,ead-soldered seams, and ferrous components containing
lead-soldered electrical junctions are sources of lead in MSW. Household
batteries, which contain mercury, cadmium, and nickel, are often encased in
steel jackets (see Section 7.0 for a discussion of household batteries)
Tests at three mass burn facilities, Gallatm, Tennessee; Nashville
Tennessee; and Salem, Virginia were conducted In a Department of Energy-
sponsored study in association with NRT to evaluate the effect of
noncombustibles removal on combustor performance and emissions The
Gallatin facility is an older (1981) West1nghouse/0'Connor technology mass
burn rotary waterwall combustor with a capacity of 200 tpd. The
5-3
-------
Pollutant
Cadmiurn
Lead
Mercury
Hydrogen chloride (Cl)a
Sulfur dioxide (S)a
Nitrogen Oxide (N)a
Organic compounds
Principal Components 1n MSW Composed of
Pollutant or Pollutant Precursor
- - -- • - -
Nickel -cadmium batteries, plastics, plated
metals, pigments
b*tjtrjtj' lea<* solder in consumer
so-ra' leaded cera™1«. plastics, lead-
soldered cans, pigments
' electri«l switches and
,i$» pa1nts' thermometers,
fungicides, disinfectants
Chlorinated plastics, bleached paper,
m?lrl ?a!en solventf» >ard wastes, food waste, .
miscellaneous organi cs
rnhh aj?,otner PaPer, tires and other
rubber, textiles, plastic, food waste, yard
wastes, gypsum wall board, miscellaneous organi cs
Yard waste, food waste
Organic chemicals, plastics, wood, paper,
textiles, food waste, and all other organ ics
5-4
-------
"11*1 of four 25 tpd c"bustors ""*
A HRF located In Gallatln and operated by NRT was used to separate
noncombustlbles fro™ the waste for al, three test sites. At n ty
he mec anica, NRT separation process described „ Section 3. w
remove ferrous metals, nonferrous metals, and glass/grit 6 le d-acid
veMcle batteries were r?-,ved by hand.' The HSH, om whlc " s
noncom ustib, s had been - t
^ ^ ^
ection, as separated HSW," was then returned to each MWC for
incinerate. Fuel composition for the three sites b6for= „
noncombustlble separation, Is shown In Table 5 A
separated
Uncontrolled emissions of heavy metals, carbon monoxide (CO)
hydrocarbons, hydrogen chloride (HC1), sulfur dioxide (SO ) nd NO
"a?' thr" SU" "ile bUr"in9 "^ - -P" - -
results are presented fn Tables 5-4 through s-9.«.« Results are
" pounds
-stor
jde:-
rather than contro,,ed stack emissions.
i
1
«"•• P— e emissions are about
5-5
-------
TABLE 5-3. SOLID WASTE FUEL COMPOSITION5'6
MSW Separated
Metals
Glass
Grit
Totals
Gallatln
10/84
76.5%
8.2%
5.8%
8.7%
0.8%
100.0%
Nashville
04/87
74.5%
7.0%
7.3%
10.4%
0.8%
100.0%
Salem
05/86
— — — — _ _
70.3%
6.1%
9.7%
13.9%
-
100.0%
to Kemov
Gallatln
10/84
.
93.3%
2.4%
1.7%
2.6%
-
100 ,.0%
e Noncom^uft
Nashville
04/87
96.2%
1.8%
0.8%
1.2%
.
100.0%
ibles
Salem
05/86
— •^^•^
94.0%
1.3%
1.9%
2.8%
.
100.0%
5-6
-------
TABLE 5"4- PECULATE AND HEAVY METAL EMISSIONS FROM THE NASHVILLE MWC*>b
Filterable
Participates
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cnromium
Copper
Manganese
Nickel
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Mercury
'Reference 6.
(Ib/hr)
233
0.035
0.009
0.240
0.039
0.296
4.264
0.290
0.021
0.872
0.044
12.11
0.194
(lb/1,000 tons
as -received MSW)
14,617
2.2
0.56
15.1
2.5
18.6
268
18.2
1.32
54.7
2.76
760
12.2
(Ib/hr)
— -^— — «^— *^—
326
0.039
<0.0002
0.156
0.079
0.289
4.304
0.433
0.092
0.429
0.071
8.27
0.065
(lb/1,000 tons
as-received MSW)
•
17,489
2.1
<.01
8.4
4.2
15.5
' 231
23.2
4.94
23.0
3.81
444
3.49
EPA Method
Measurements are averages of three test runs conducted on April 15, 1984.
on an average of 15.94 tons of as-received MSW combusted per hour.
^Lead-acid vehicle batteries were not removed from the separated MSW.
5-7
-------
TABLE 5-5. GASEOUS EMISSIONS FROM THE NASHVILLE MWCa'b
As-Received,
db/hr) (PP.V)* „!;%{% jggf (1yhr) (ppmv)e „W1.000 t=nsg
Carbon
monoxide 6.0 33 374 3.16 19.4 170
Nitrogen
°Xide 43'2 147 2,711 54.8 204.3 2,940
Sulfur
dioxide 40.6 107 2,547 52.8 141.5 2,832
Hydrogen
chloride 145 643 9,096 78.8 493.6 4,227
Total
Hydrocarbons 0.89 13 56 0.92 13.2 49
Reference 6.
mnnifo; ??«nS°2' and t0tal W^rbons are based on continuous
monitor (CEM) measurements. Hydrogen chloride measurements are
averages of three measurements conducted according to EPA Me?hod ?3A.
cAs-received MSW measurements conducted on February 9, 10, and 11, 1984.
Separated MSW measurements conducted on April 15, 1984.
A
Parts per million by volume at 12 percent CO-.
fBased on an average of 15.64 tons of as-received MSW combusted per hour.
9Based on an average of 18.64 tons of as-received MSW disposed per hour.
5-8
-------
TABLE 5-6. HEAVY METAL EMISSIONS FROM THE SALEM MWCa'b
Separated
As -received MSWC
(lb/ 1,000 tons
(Ib/hr) as -received MSW)e
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
lead*
Mercury
0.0029
0.0149
0.0002
0.1025
0.00007
1.0
5.4
0.07
36.8
0.025
(lb/1,000 tons .
(Ib/hr) as-received MSW)f
0.0010
0.0138
0.0003
0.1260
0.0003
0.3
4.2
0.09
38.6
0.09
Reference 6.
Heavy metals testing was performed according to EPA Method 5. Mercury
testing was performed according to Method 101A. nercury
cMeasurements are averages of six test runs conducted during May 12 and 13,
Measurements are averages of six test runs conducted during May 19 and 20,
eBased on an average of 2.79 tons of as-received MSW combusted per hour.
fBased on an average of 3.27 tons of as-received MSW disposed per hour.
9Lead-acid vehicle batteries were removed from the separated MSW.
5-9
-------
TABLE 5-7. GASEOUS EMISSIONS FROM THE SALEM MWCa'b
Carbon
monoxide
Nitrogen
oxide
Sulfur
dioxide
Hydrogen
chloride
Total
Hydrocarbons
— — — — — .^_ _ _
2.8h
8.6 87
5.45 54.9
3.0 54
9.31
rV "yg
[lb/1,000 tons
•eceived MSW)r
— — — — — — — —
3,104
1,952
1,095
b/nr) (ppmv)e as-re
— — — ^— — _
15. 9h
7.7 78
6.72 67.9
0.74 13.2
29. 21
_
2,370
2,055
228
Reference 8.
ass
cAs-received MSW measurements conducted May 12 and 13, 1986.
Separated MSW measurements conducted May 19 and 20, 1986.
p
Parts per million by volume at 12 percent C02.
fBased on an average of 2.79 tons of as-received MSW combusted per hour.
gBased on an average of 3.27 tons of as-received MSW disposed per hour.
d CEM measu™ent ^ ^0. Emission data
measurement
5-10
-------
TABLE 5-8. HEAVY METAL EMISSIONS FROM THE GALLATIN MWCa'b
(Jb/1,000 tons
(Ib/hr) as -received MSW
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
0.012
0.088
0.029
1.02
— ^— — — — — — .
3.2
23.6
7.9
274
(Ib/hr) as-received MSW)f
0.008
0.025
0.011
0.530
2.1
6.4
2.9
130
Reference 6.
Heavy metals testing was performed according to EPA Method 5.
cMeasurements are averages of three test runs conducted during February 7
- 11,
*Based on an average of 3.74 tons of as-received MSW combusted per hour.
fBased on an average of 4.50 tons of as-received MSW disposed per hour.
^Lead-acid vehicle batteries were removed from the separated MSW.
5-11
-------
TABLE 5-9. GASEOUS EMISSIONS FROM THE GALLATIN MWCa»b
Carbon
monoxide 17.9 540 4,490
Hydrogen
chloride 19.8 509 5,300
Sulfur
dioxide 11.41 182 2,810
Nitrogen
oxide g.ll 147 2,200
Nonmethane
hydrocarbons 1.09 40.5 230
_ ieoaratPrt qsw~
•^
7-16 216 1,590
27.9 721 6,200
12.47 199 2,779
5-76 93 1,280
0.27 10.0 60
Reference 6.
b
As-received MSW measurements conducted February 7 - 23, 1983.
dSeparated MSW measurements conducted February 7-23, 1983, and on October 8,
Parts per million by volume at 12 percent CO,.
fBased on an average of 3.74 tons of as-received MSW combusted per hour.
gBased on an average of 4.50 tons of as-received MSW disposed per hour.
5-12
-------
waste than for as-received MSW. On a mass emissions basis, beryl]ium,
cadmium, copper, tin, zinc, and mercury emissions are higher for the as-
received MSW. Mass emissions of arsenic, chromium, lead, manganese,
nickel, and vanadium are higher for the separated MSW.
When comparing emissions from the Nashville MWC on a Ib of pollutant
per 1,000 tons of as-received MSW basis, emissions of arsenic, beryllium,
cadmium, copper, tin, zinc, and mercury are higher for the as-received
waste while emissions of chromium, manganese, nickel, and vanadium are
higher for the separated waste. When measured on a Ib of pollutant per ton
of as-received MSW basis, emission values are based on the amount of as-
received MSW rscejved for each test. For the separated MSW, the amount
received is greater than the amount actually combusted because some is
removed during processing. For the Nashville tests of as-received MSW
15.94 tons of as-received MSW were combusted per hour. However, for the
tests of the separated MSW, the emission values are based on 18.64 tons *"•
as-received MSW combusted per hour. Of the 18.64 tons, 13.89 tons were
actually combusted per hour, and 4.75 tons were separated prior to
combustion per hour. Lead-acid vehicle batteries were not removed from the
separated MSW combusted during the Nashville tests.
Results of measurements of uncontrolled gaseous emissions at the
Nashville MWC are presented in Table 5-5.6 This table shows that emissions
of NOX and S02 were higher for the separated MSW regardless of the basis
for measurement, while emissions of CO and HC1 were higher for the as-
received MSW. Emissions of total hydrocarbons were slightly higher for the
separated MSW on a mass emissions and a concentration basis, but slightly
lower for the separated MSW on a Ib of pollutant per 1,000 tons of as-
received MSW basis.
While the data may indicate that some heavy metals and gaseous
emissions are higher or lower for combustion of as-received MSW as compared
to separated MSW, these data are not conclusive. At Nashville, testing of
emissions from combustion of as-received MSW was conducted in
February 1984, while testing of emissions from combustion of separated MSW
was conducted in April 1984. Since waste stream characteristics vary
considerably from season to season, as well as from day to day, it is
5-13
-------
difficult to compare emissions from waste combusted several months apart 6
T K, T!St el"1'5 °f h"Vy metal em1SSl°nS fr°ro the Salem MWC »™ shown in
Table 5-6. ' At Salem, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury emissions were
higher for combustion of the as-received MSW on both a mass emissions basis
and a Ib of pollutant per 1,000 tons of MSW disposed basis. However,
emissions of chromium and lead were higher for combustion of the separated
MSW. Lead-acid vehicle batteries were removed from the separated MSW at
Salem.
Table 5-7 shows that emissions of NOX and HC1 at Salem are higher for
the as-received MSW, whereas emissions of S02 are higher for the separated
MSW. » Average emissions for CO and total hydrocarbons are not presented
because of instrument failures encountered during testing. However, grab
samples showed that both CO and total hydrocarbons were higher for the
separated MSW.
At Salem, emissions testing for as-received MSW was conducted May 12 '.
and 13, 1986, and testing for separated MSW was conducted May 19 and 20,
1986. While all of the as-received MSW was derived from the Salem,
Virginia, area, the separated MSW combusted during testing was not'all
derived from the Salem area MSW. At least 50 percent of the separated MSW
combusted during testing was derived from Gallatin, Tennessee, area waste.
The remainder of the separated waste was Salem area waste which was shipped
to Gallatin, Tennessee, for processing and then returned for combustion
testing.6
Since the two types of waste used in combustion testing at Salem were
not always derived from the same community, and since it is possible that
differences in MSW characteristics from the two regions are significant, it
is not possible to determine whether differences in emissions are a result
of MSW separation or differing waste stream composition.
Table 5-8 presents uncontrolled heavy metals emissions from the
Gallatin MWC while burning as-received and separated MSW.6 For each metal
measured (arsenic, cadmium, lead, and chromium), emissions were higher for
the as-received MSW. Lead-acid vehicle batteries were removed from the
separated MSW of Gallatin. Emissions of gaseous pollutants fror the
Gallatin MWC are shown in Table 5-9.6 Emissions of CO, N0¥, and nonmethane
5-14
-------
hydrocarbons are much higher for the as-received MSW. Sulfur dioxide
emissions are very similar for the as-received and separated MSW, whi1e HC1
emissions are higher for the separated MSW.
At Gallatin, measurements for the as-received MSW were conducted in
February 1983, while measurements for the separated MSW were conducted in
February 1983 and later in October 1984. Again, the validity of comparing
results of separate emissions tests conducted more than a year apart using
waste derived during different seasons is questionable.6
In examining the emissions measurements from the three test sites, it
appears that in many cases, heavy metals emissions were lower when
combusting separated MSW; however, in other cases heavy metals emissions
were higher for the separated MSW. Cadmium emissions appear to be somewhat
lower for separated waste at all three test sites, but results for lead and
mercury are mixed. Results for each of the gaseous pollutants, CO, NO ,
S02, HC1, and hydrocarbons were mixed, and no clear trend can be * '•
identified.
Uncontrolled emissions from MWC's are typically variable due to the
highly variable nature of MSW. As previously discussed, each of the thre*
tests were conducted using as-received MSW or separated MSW collected
during different times of the year or from different localities. These
testing practices are likely to have contributed significantly to
variations in emissions results from combustion of the two types of MSW
Also, combustors operated at different temperatures for different types of
MSW, and this could also be a source of variability. In many cases,
results are based on as few as three test runs for as-received MSW and
three test runs for separated MSW. The small number of data points does
not allow for an extensive analysis. Therefore, while it would seem to be
a straightforward conclusion that removal of noncombustibles would result
in a reduction in uncontrolled metals emissions, current data are limited
Add-on particulate matter (PM) control devices such as electrostatic
precipitators (ESP's) and fabric filters (FF's), required under the
proposed regulations for new and existing MWC's, typically reduce metals
emissions by over 97 percent, with the exception of mercury. Since these
add-on control devices already achieve a substantial reduction in metals
5-15
-------
emissions, any reductions in uncontrolled metals emissions achieved through
materials separation would have a small incremental effect in reducing
stack emissions.
5.2.2 Household Batteries
It is estimated that over 2.5 billion household batteries are
purchased each year to power flashlights, toys, cameras, appliances, and
other electrical products.9 Many common types of batteries contain high
amounts of mercury, cadmium, and/or nickel. The burning of these batteries
may contribute to mercury and cadmium air emissions from MWC's. Some of
the household batteries present in MSW were removed magnetically with the
noncombustible materials in the three tests described in Section 5.2.1, and
it is possible that in some cases their removal may have contributed to
reductions in mercury, cadmium, and other metals. However, there are no
data to demonstrate what quantity of mercury, cadmium, or other metal
emissions from MWC's are due specifically to the combustion of batteries. '
Section 7.0 discusses the composition of batteries as well as current
separation efforts.
5-2.3 Lead-Acid Vehicle BattPHo^
Lead-acid vehicle batteries are the single most prevalent source of
lead introduced Into the solid waste stream. In 1985, lead-acid vehicle
batteries accounted for 73 percent of the lead used in the United States.9
Lead-acid vehicle batteries are the large batteries used in automobiles,
boats, lawn tractors, farm and construction machinery, and other vehicular
and stationary uses. These batteries are composed of about 50 percent by
weight of lead (approximately 18 Ibs of lead per battery). In 1986, about
70 percent of all used lead-acid vehicle batteries in the United States
were recycled. The remainder accounted for over 185,000 tons of lead
discarded into the MSW stream or elsewhere.9
Recycling of lead-acid vehicle batteries has decreased in the past
20 years (see Figure 5-1). In the mld-1960's, over 97 percent of all lead-
acid vehicle batteries were recycled. The decline is attributed to the
Increased cost to recyclers for compliance with occupational health and
environmental regulations and to decreased demand for lead due to the
elimination of lead in gasoline and most paints.9»10»11
5-16
-------
Studies conducted at the Gallatin MRF over a 3-month period in 1987
in which lead-acid vehicle batteries were selectively removed by hand and
weighed, found that 1,265 Ibs of lead in the form of batteries were removed
from 6,065 tons of MSW. This results in an average of 104 ppm of lead
removed. This amount is equal to over half of the average total lead
content in as-received MSW measured in the combustor exhaust and the ash at
the three test facilities discussed in Section 5.2.1. Based on this test
separation of lead-acid batteries could significantly reduce the amount of
lead in MSW, and thereby potentially reduce lead emissions. However, from
the air emissions values presented in Section 5.2.1, the effect of lead-
acid vehicle battery removal is not clear. Emissions of lead 'were higher
for separated MSW at Salem and higher for unseparated MSW at Gallatin.
Lead-acid vehicle batteries were removed from separated MSW for both tests
For the Nashville test, where lead-acid vehicle batteries were not
separated for the separated MSW, there was little difference in lead
emissions for separated and unseparated MSW.
5.2.4 Plastics
Plastics are an increasing constituent in the MSW stream. Polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) is the most prevalent chlorine-containing plastic in MSW and
has been shown to be a precursor for formation of chlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and dibenzo-furans (dioxin/furan) in laboratory tests.13 However
its role in dioxin/furan emissions from MWC's is not clear. Studies at the
Pittsfield, Massachusetts, MWC showed that levels of dioxin/furan at the
boiler and stack outlets were not significantly affected by the amount of
PVC in the waste feed.14
It is believed that dioxin/furan precursors are diverse in the MSW
stream. Also, since chlorine-containing materials are dispersed throughout
the waste stream, and since the concentration of chlorine in the combustion
gas stream is generally several thousand times greater than concentrations
of dioxin/furan, it is doubtful that separating any specific chlorine-
containing material will sufficiently lower the level of available chlorine
to a point where dioxin/furan formation is limited.15
5-17
-------
Automotive Battery Recycling Rates
t
•—•
00
SO -
Year
Figure 5-1. The Rate of Lead-Acid Battery Recycling in the U.S. from 1960-1985 9
-------
Studies at Pittsfield, Massachusetts, however, did show that the
concentration of HC1 in the flue gas stream was correlated with the amount
of PVC in the waste that was combusted. Therefore, separation of PVC may
help to reduce HC1 emissions from MWC's.14
5.2.5 Paper .
Paper products comprise the largest segment of MSW and are the primary
fuel source in the incineration of MSW. Paper products, especially
bleached paper, are sources of chlorine, but it is not clear to what extent
removal prior to combustion would reduce HC1 emissions since chlorine is
distributed throughout the combustible waste fraction. Corrugated paper
has a relatively high sulfur content, and its removal theoretically could
reduce combustor S02 emissions.
Paper products are also potential sources of heavy metals such as
chromium, lead, and cadmium since paper products are often imprinted with
inks and other colorants containing high concentrations of these materials '
Separation of some paper may, therefore, help to reduce heavy metal
emissions. The waste paper fraction has a heating value of about
8,000 Btu/lb compared to about 4,500 Btu/lb for the total MSW stream.11 if
a high proportion of paper were removed, the heating value of the fuel
would be less and combustion performance may decline, possibly resulting in
higher emissions of some pollutants. No data are available on the positive
or negative effects of paper separation on MWC emissions
5-2.6 Yard Wastes
Yard waste (leaves, grass clippings, and brush) is the second most
prevalent constituent of MSW behind paper.1 The degree of moisture in yard
waste varies greatly depending on season and location. As a result yard
waste exhibits inconsistent combustibility which may hinder combustion
performance and potentially contribute to products of poor combustion such
as organic compounds. However, there are no data relating removal of yard
waste to toxic emissions.
Yard wastes, especially grass clippings, are a source of nitrogen in
MSW, and it is an established fact that NO, emissions from combustion are
related to the nitrogen content of the fuel. Testing at mass burn MWC's
has shown that NOX emissions increase during the summer months when the MSW
5-19
-------
contains a higher proportion of yard waste.16 The exclusion of yard wastes
from combustion may, therefore, reduce NOX emissions.
5.3 IMPACTS OF MATERIALS SEPARATION ON COMBUSTOR OPERATIONS
This section discusses the effects of separation and removal of
noncombustible and combustible materials on MWC operation. Materials
separation may affect equipment life, frequency of operation and
maintenance problems, combustor availability, steam production, and boiler
efficiency. '
5.3.1
uminum
Theoretically, the removal of noncombustibles would not adversely
affect the combustion process. Removal of glass, metals, and grit should
decrease slag and clinker formation. Slag is a rock-like mineral material
formed by the melting and subsequent solidification of ash in a furnace.
clinker is a large solidified mass of slag material. Reductions in slag
and clinker formation would reduce maintenance, increase equipment life,
increase combustor availability, and improve performance.13'17 Alumin
can melt and block underflre air plenums In the boiler, causing uneven
burning. Removal of aluminum could result 1n Improved combustor
efficiency. Removal of noncombustible materials would also tend to
Increase the heating value of MSW, resulting In Increased boiler
efficiency,
Boiler efficiency and MWC operations were studied at the Gallatin,
Tennessee, mass burn rotary waterwall MWC. A mechanical separation process
to remove noncombustible materials was Installed at Gallatin in 1982 (see
Section 4.0 for a description of the NRT separation process). During a
19-day test in August 1983, one unit was operated using separated MSW,
while the other unit was operated using as -received- MSW. During the
periods before and after the test, both units used mostly separated MSW.
Combustor availability (percent of time combustor operated) was
recorded over a 9-week period before, during, and after the test. When the
separated MSW was fired, combustor availability was about 80 to 86 percent,
whereas when as-received MSW was fired, availability decreased to about
60 percent. Decreased ash drag failure, hopper jam, and decreased episodes
of low steam pressure were observed while the separated MSW was fired.
5-20
-------
Information collected over a 3-year period indicates that combustor
in'alleV" "*"" "* a"°Ut " Per"nt '"" **• Separat1on >"*•*» "«
con*,, ?*'" product10" resulted " tta Gallatin MWC from increased
combustor availability when coasting the separated MSW. When burning as-
receded MSW, an average of about 2.80 ,b of steam were produced per
waste received, When burning 70 percent separated NSW fuel steam
production was about 2.94 Ib/lb of MSW received at the processing facility
(3.2 Ib/lb of separated waste combusted)." When burning 100 percent
separated MSW, a rate of 3.07 Ib/lb of waste received is predicted fro™ the
ava,,ab e data." A.,2 percent increase in stealing rate, expressed as
Ib/hr of steam produced during combustion, was observed when combusting
separated MSW." Long-term data show an increase in steam sales of ovlr
"* in
Furnace temperature profiling was performed in February 1983 tests
Temperatures were measured along , vertical plane through the center, ,M. o
the furnace oriented to contain the rotation axis of the combustor
Average furnace temperatures (4-hour averages) 1n the measured locations
were found to be higher by about 80°F to 200«F in ,ive ,f ,„. six neasured
ocations when the combustor was burning separated MSW. m the sixth
locat,on, the temperature was about 30°F higher when the combustor was
burning as-received MSW.18
Removal of noncombustibles increased the heating value of the MSW at
t m I^ff I' t "^ * PerCMt- '"""^ heat1"9 "lu" «°u" '•-
to more efficient combustion.
During the more recent tests at Gallatm, Tennessee-, Nashville
Tennessee: and Salem, Virginia, described 1n Section 5.2.1, effects'of
materials separation on MSW disposal rates and boiler efficiency were
measured. The average disposal rates (tons of as-received MSW disposed per
fable 5-10™ " ^ 2* P6rCent f°r the ""•" MWC'5' " *""" '"
Boiler efficiency tests were performed using American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) procedures. The test data are shown in
5-21
-------
TABLE 5-10. MUNICIPAL SOLID HASTE DISPOSAL RATES19
(Includes materials removed In processing)
Gallatln, TN
Nashville, TN
Salem, VA
Combustor Fired On
As-Received MSH
(tons/hour)
3.25
15.96
2.79
Combustor Fired on MSH Separated
to Remove Noncombustibles Percent
(tons/hour) Increase
•i a
4.03 24
18.12 14
3.27 17
5-22
-------
Table 5-11.5 when firing separated MSW, boiler efficiency increased at all
three sites, ranging from a 1.6 percent increase at Nashville to a
10.6 percent increase at the older Salem MWC. At Nashville, the increase
in efficiency was due mainly to Increased ash burnout. At Gallatin
reduced water losses and dry gas losses, 1n addition to increased ash
burnout accounted for a 6.0 percent Increase in boiler efficiency
However, it should be noted that efficiency testing at Gallatin for as-
received MSW and separated MSW was performed using different methods
Therefore, it may not be valid to compare these results. The major
contributors to increased efficiency at Salem appear to be reduced dry gas
losses and water losses.
Efficiency calculations are highly dependent on furnace excess air
levels. If operating conditions are not held constant among test runs the
data cannot be reliably compared. At this point, it is unclear whether
differences in operating conditions may have affected the results of boiler-
efficiency testing at the three test sites.
In summary, while data are limited, the available data tend to support
the expectation that removal of noncombustible materials should improve
combustor operation. However, a more thorough analysis of the available
data 1s recommended.
5.3.2
Removal of combustible materials, such as paper and plastics, would
remove constituents of the waste capable of supporting combustion. If a
heat content high enough to support combustion Is not maintained, the
adoption of fossil fuel may be required to carry out the combustion process
and to maintain temperatures sufficient for the destruction of organics
Paper generally has a heating value of about 8,000 Btu/lb and plastics
a heating value of about 12,000 Btu/lb. In comparison, the heating value
for total MSW is about 4,500 Btu/lb." Thus, reffloval „ ,„ much Jf ^
paper fraction could reduce the heating value of the MSW significantly
The effect of materials separation on the fuel value of MSW has been
studied by Wheelabrator, Inc., a major manufacturer of waste combustion
equipment. According to this manufacturer, an all -encompass ing materials
5-23
-------
TABLE 5-11. BOILER EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENTS5'6
Combustor Fired On
Combustor Fired on MSW Separated
Test No. Gall at in
1
2
3
4
Average
Heat Looses
Dry Flue Gas
Fuel Moisture
H2 - H20
Ash Burnout
Other
— — •— — i — ^_ ^_
62.5%
63.8%
70.8%
63.2%
13.2%
4.0%
9.5%
5.5%
5.3%
Nashvillg
67.3%
70.5%
33.7%
48.4%
69.5%
14.2%
4.6%
8.4%
1.5%
1.8%
Salem
50.0%
60.0%
48.0%
21.0%
5.2%
13.1%
6.2%
6.5%
to Kemov^
Gall at In
68 ..3%
70.0%a
•
69.2%
11.9%
3.5%
7.. 9%
3.2%
5.2%
» Noncombustibles
Nashville Salem
71.2%
70.9%
59.0%
55.2%
71.1%
14.1%
4.2%
8.3%
0.5%
1.8%
56.7%
63.4%
58.694
16.5%
4.5%
9.4%
5.3%
5.8%
?n^,2 at Ga1latln *as ™ input/output test determined by
outiriii! analysis of «*••• Production correlated with waste input and
materials recovery activities over a 2-year period
5-24
-------
separation/recycling program that removes both combustibles and
noncombustibles should not appreciably alter the fuel value of the incoming
waste. The removal of noncombustibles (i.e., glass, metal cans, etc )
would have no effect on thermal input. Enough paper shou]d remain after
recycling to maintain present levels of electricity and steam production
with no requirement for auxiliary fuel. Another study estimates that a
newspaper recycling program achieving 25 percent participation would reduce
the fuel value of the remaining waste by only 2.8 percent.20
While yard waste is a combustible material, it typically contains so
much moisture that combustion is poorly sustained. Therefore, removal of
yard waste or other wet organic waste is generally considered to be
beneficial to combustor operation.^
5.4 IMPACT OF MATERIALS SEPARATION ON ASH QUANTITY AND QUALITY
The combustion of MSW generally produces two types of residue, bottom
ash which is collected from the combustor, and fly ash which is removed '•
from the flue gas stream by add-on APCD's. The ash is composed mainly of
noncombustible materials, and typically contains heavy metals such as lead
cadmium, and mercury. The concentration of leachable heavy metals in MWC
ash, especially lead and cadmium, is a concern in disposing of ash in
landfills, because leachate, if not contained, could impact water
quality. The toxicity of ash is also of concern because fugitive air
emissions occur during handling, storage, and transportation of ash. This
section summarizes information on the effects of materials separation on
ash quantity and quality.
5.4.1 Noncombustible^
Since noncombustible materials (glass, ferrous and nonferrous metals
and grit) are not reduced in weight or volume by the combustion process
essentially 100 percent of the noncombustible materials entering the MSW
become ash. In contrast, proximate analyses show that only about 5 percent
(dry basis) of paper is ash. Therefore, reducing the amount and relative
proportion of noncombustibles entering the MWC would reduce ash generation.
Test data from the Gallatin, Tennessee; Nashville, Tennessee; and
Salem, Virginia, MWC's described in Section 5.2 support this conclusion.
Data are available comparing the waste composition and quantity of ash
5-25
-------
generated when burning as-received MSW versus MSW separated to remove
noncombustlble materials.
The proximate analysis of the MSW showed that the ash content of the
MSW at all three facilities was reduced by about 50 percent due to the
removal of noncombustlbles. The ash content of as-received MSW averaged 23
to 25 percent, whereas the ash content of the separated MSW was 10 to
13 percent. The amount of bottom ash produced per ton of MSW combusted
was reduced by 45 to 50 percent for all three facilities. When burning
as-received MSW, about 0.20 to 0.23 tons of bottom ash were produced per
ton of MSW combusted, but when burning waste from which noncombustibles had
been removed, about 0.10 to 0.12 tons of ash were produced per ton of waste
combusted. More complete ash burnout indicated by a lower carbon content
in the ash was also observed at Nashville and Gallatin. At Salem, ash
burnout was not particularly good for either as-received MSW or separated
MSW. It is believed that poor ash burnout was due to the high proportion '•
of tires in the Salem waste since the Salem MWC accepts tire waste from a
nearby manufacturer.. The exact percent reductions In ash quantity
achievable through removal of noncombustibles would vary depending on site-
specific waste composition and the amount of noncombustlble materials
removed.
Removal of heavy metals present 1n the noncombustible fraction of MSW
would be expected to reduce the amount of metals in MWC ash. Data on the
..Teachable heavy metal content of the bottom ash (Ib metal per 1,000 tons
as-received MSW) and the corresponding extraction procedure (EP) toxicity
measurements (ppm of extract) were gathered during the tests of the
Nashville and Salem MWC's. These data were not collected at Gallatin.
Tables 5-12 and 5-13 show the results.5 These measurements showed
reduction 1n leachable lead for both facilities, but increases in cadmium.
There was no measurable change for most other metals'because levels found
at both MWC's for both separated and as-received MSW were below the
analytical detection limit.
Lead in ash, measured as ppm of extract and as Ibs of leachable heavy
metals per ton of MSW combusted, was about 80 percent lower at Nashville
and about 30 percent lower at Salem for combustion of separated MSW.
5-26
-------
TABLE 5-12. BOTTOM ASH EP TOXICITY MEASUREMENTS5'6
Combustor Fired On
As-Received MSW
Combustor Fired On MSW Separated
to Remove Noncombustibles
-~— — — — — —
Lead
Cadmi urn
Silver
Mercury
Arsenic
Chromium
Barium
Selenium
Nashville*
04/87
.
2.42
0.10
0.02
<0.0020
<0.03
<0.04
<0.50
<0.01
Salem5
05/86
15.20
0.21
0.02
<0.0020
<0.03
<0.02
none
<0.01
tppm Q-
Nashville3
04/87
•
0.69
0.42
0.03
0.0028
<0.03
<0.04
<0.50
<0.01
r extract^
Salemb
05/86
12.30
0.28
0.01
<0.0020
<0.03
<0.03
none
<0.01
as-received MSW, four
each for as-received MSW and
5-27
-------
TABLE 5-13. BOTTOM ASH LEACHABLE HEAVY METALS5'6
Cadmium
Silver
Mercury
Arsenic
Chromium
Barium
Selenium
wwuiuuaiur rirea un
As -Received MSW
(lbs/1,000 tons
is_^received MSW Combusi;q
-------
Removal of lead-acid vehicle batteries may account for some of the lead
reductions at Salem, but lead-acid vehicle batteries were not removed from
the separated MSW at Nashville. While the lead concentration in the ash
from Salem is much higher than that from Nashville, the uncontrolled lead
air emissions (see Tables 5-12 and 5-13) are much higher for Nashville.
These results indicate that the excess air combustion at the Nashville MWC
may be more effective at volatilizing lead than the smoldering type of
combustion at the Salem starved-air MWC.
In contrast, the cadmium content of ash increased while burning the
separated MSW at both the Nashville and Salem facilities. The reasons for
the increases in cadmium are uncertain. Removal of cadmium-containing
batteries would generally help reduce the amount of cadmium in ash, but
since these batteries are often encased in appliances, it is not known how
many are removed magnetically in the separation process.
At Nashville, the concentration of mercury in the ash from separated '
MSW was slightly above the detection limit while mercury in the ash from
as-received MSW was below the detection limit. At Salem, mercury was below
the detection limit for both types of MSW. There was little difference in
the silver concentration in the ash from the two types of MSW. Since
measurements for arsenic, chromium, barium, and selenium were below the
detection limit, no comparison can be made for these metals.
The concentrations of heavy metals in fly ash collected by a control
device would theoretically be reduced if combustor outlet emissions of
metals relative to PM were reduced; however, as discussed in Section 5.3,
the data concerning the concentrations of metals in combustor outlet
emissions are inconclusive. No EP toxicity test data were collected on the
fly ash at Nashville or Salem.
As discussed in Section 5.3 with regard to air emissions for the three
test sites, variation* in the composition of waste used during the tests
could possibly account for variations in the metals content measured in the
ash.
5.4.2 Combustible?
Removal of combustibles would have a lesser effect on the quantity and
quality of MWC ash. Only a small percent of the combustible materials
5-29
-------
remains as ash. Proximate analyses of various types of plastics, paper,
textiles, food, and yard waste shows that the ash content (dry basis) of
these materials ranges from about 2 to 20 percent, with yard waste being at
the upper end of the range.18
Reductions in the amount of combustibles burned, especially yard
waste, could reduce ash quantity somewhat. However, if a high proportion
of combustible materials were removed, increased ash generation per ton of
waste combusted could result, due to the higher proportional concentration
of noncombustibles which become ash. Operating problems such as decreased
combustibility discussed in Section 5.3 could also result. Therefore, a
balanced removal program is preferable.
To the extent that combustibles contain heavy metals (e.g., metals in
printing inks used on paper), removal of some combustibles could result in
improved ash quality, however, no data are available indicating the effect
of separation of combustible materials on ash quality.
5.5 REFERENCES
l'
Sol?d wUSnrJh11!!1'!!^!0! Age?T Cauterization of Municipal
Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000 (Update 1988)
Washington, DC. Publication No. EPV530-SW-88-033. March 1988.
P • t, 1 •
2' r;J;sE"Vir?nm!!ntai f.r°tect1on Agency. Characterization of Products
Containing Lead and Cadmium in Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States. 1970 to 2000. EPA/530-SW- 18-158. 1989
3' 'erUy R1s1ng Frora Inci"erators to the Foodchain: The
Research and
y pp. A1r
5'
R^«vET if ?' ?' K6?ny' J' A' Kearly' and C' E- Roos' National
Recovery Technologies, Inc. Mass Burn Incineration with a Presorted
MSW Fuel. JAPCA 39(4): 511-516, April 1989.
6' ffTK'p^i'.** al- Mat1?"}1 Recovery Technologies, Inc. Effects
of MSW Processing on Thermal Conversion of MSW in Mass Burn
nJCJn^n!°rSu u?"! H £inal Report' PreP^ed for U. S. Department
of Energy. Washington, DC. December 31, 1987.
5-30
-------
IlJSSi DDaV1'S* A; L:* ?ad1an CorPoration, with Sommer, E. J.,
National Recovery Technologies, Inc. Novembers, 1987.
An
Washington, DC. September 1988. pp. AF-1 to AF-20.
C°rp0rat10n' Wlth So«». H., Interstate
Corporat1on' Wlth Pri«. B.f RSR, Inc.
13' 5n?]Hnu^rP°raS10n< "u;1c1P»1 Waste Combustion Study: Recycling of
n k B • "^ of the Combustion and Emissions
N^vlS! cr°*ec£ at thS V1con Inc1nerator Facility in Pittsfield, MA
JuTy 1987 9y Research and Development Authority Report
15. Visalli, J R. A Comparison of Some Results from the Combust ion-
pllSkill innlPr°?rfiai Jh« "«sf1«ld, Prince Edward Island, and
25h PolluSSi ?S!J ? ld Wa^e Incinerators. Presentation at the
Pollution Control Association Annual Meeting. New York, NY
16' LkarnunHr?n!±aJ/r0ieCti0n Agency* Mun1^P*l Waste Combustors -
Background Information for Proposed Standards: Control of NO
2?d! August ?lirVl-?9le Park> NC> Publ1cat1on No' 450/5-89-
17. Recycling/Composting Seen Boosting Waste's Energy Content bv Over
13 Percent. Waste-to-Energy Report. McGrwHIll. October 18, 1989.
18. Kennv. G. and E j. Sommer.National Recovery Technologies, Inc. A
r
Prro«nn Convers1on in ASME 1984 National Waste
Processing Conference, Proceedings. Orlando, FL. June 3-6, 1984.
5-31
-------
19. Sonwer, E J G. R. Kenny, J. A. Kearly, National Recovery
Technologies, Inc., and C. E. Roos, Vanderbilt Un versity Mass
Fired Energy Conversion Efficiency, Emissions and Cecity wHh a
Homogenous Low Ash Fuel in ASME 1986 National Waste Processing
Conference Proceedings, Denver, CO. June 1-4, 1986.
2°' S2J!!S^F;tJ;h.CSl8;h1S1J]ty ?f0ReCy?l1ng w1th Resource Recovery.
1986 Seattle WA Recycling Congress. September 24-26,
21. Memorandum. Epner, E., D. Jackson, and R. Mead, Radian Corporation
to Municipal Waste Combustion NSPS Project File. Assessment of the'
Effects of Acid Gas Control on the Toxicity of Municioal Waste
Combustor (MWC) Ash. 10 p. February 27, 1989 U"1C'pal Waste
5-32
-------
no
6.0 OCCUPATIONAL RISKS FOR MANUAL SEPARATION
OF RECOVERABLE MATERIALS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Manual separation (handpicking, of recoverable materials is a
technique that may be used to comply with the materials separation
provisions of the standards and guidelines for MWC's proposed on Decker
20, 1989. The case stud.es presented in Sections 3.2, 33 34 4 , anri
«.2 include handpickin, as part of the materials separation r Ce s
occupation of handpicking at MRF's is a relatively new one This
occupation involves the removal of various recyclable materials such as
c ' ; I "rdb0ardl PUStfCS' aUt0nrab1le "'««•'•'. »- Urg
VT, the HRF '"' Stream' "° StUd1" "ere found "«c™n t
safety and health hazards associated with handpicking at MRF's. Howe
ud,es have been performed t, evaluate occupation,, risks associate nh
e an l,ng Of municipal wastes, 1n particular, sanitation workers
d v,duals who empty cans of MSW into trucks,. Since both occupations
e ,m,l,r ,„ that they require the handling of MS*, injuries and othe
r.»TL tT'1? "ith han<1PfCkerS S(l°U'd ^ SimfUr t0 th°"
si ta T y eXM""in9 ^ °«u'»tf™' ^> "sociated with
a et" h -"' f"ferenCeS "" "e ^ '° dete™'ne P0tent-' ^
and safety hazards related to handpicking at MRF's. In order to obtain
information on occupational risk, associated with the handling f
as ate and Federa, agencfe$ were ^^ VJ^^
and a literature search was performed.
Sev.n ',*•"" deUrm1ned that Sa"1t't10n "Qrtari have « I"*"* rate that is
e t ,me s greater than the average for ,1, other industries combine
t sk PPar6n> fs ths — '' of:
t w k , , W°rkerS (USUa"y d"m fr« the "« '»«"»«' Potion
Me workforce,; (2, ,nadequate tra(njng> Supervfs1onj ^ P °"
(3, low morale.^ Another factor contributing to the exce.sive inj y .
6-1
-------
is the nature of the work (requires lifting, carrying, interface with
equipment, and exposure to hazardous materials).
From the site visits that were conducted, it is apparent that
handpickers at MRF's also fall into the above characterization. The above-
mentioned problems, coupled with relatively low pay and poor working
conditions, lead to a high turnover rate and high absenteeism at MRF's.
The following discussion focuses on the occupational health risks
associated with handpicking at MRF's with a brief discussion on the overall
process. In particular, the physical and biological hazards are emphasized
and various controls to mitigate the problems are discussed. The
applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards
are also mentioned.
6.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
There are two basic types of MRF's in the United States: (1) those
which separate recyclable materials from MSW which has undergone no
presorting and (2) those which separate "commingled" recyclables into their
component materials. Commingled recyclables are metals, glass, plastics,
and paper materials that have been placed 1n a common container and
collected separately from other MSW.
At MRF's that process unsorted MSW, the MSW arrives at the facility
via trucks and is dumped onto a tipping floor. At some facilities,
handpickers remove cardboard, automobile batteries, tree limbs, and other
large objects while the waste is still on the tipping floor. A front-end
loader is then used to transfer the waste onto a conveyor belt. The
conveyor belt then transports the waste to the various separation processes
(e.g., screens, air classifiers, magnets, density separators, handpicking
stations) to remove the recyclable materials. At some facilities,
mechanical processes provide most of the separation, and handpickers are
only needed to separate plastic and cardboard from the conveyor. At other
facilities, most of the separation Is done manually and handpickers remove
glass, aluminum, plastics, paper, and other materials from MSW on the
conveyor.3"5 Further details of the process as observed at two facilities
are included in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of this report.
At MRF's that separate commingled materials, the materials arrive via
truck and are deposited on a tipping floor or in a pit. The materials.are
then transferred to a conveyor by a front-end loader or a crane. Similar
6-2
-------
methods are used
ln, and processing waste containing r
present ,„ MSW „ v,rtu.lly eliminated. A description of two facilities
st"n"73T ;rlables were manuaii> "»r™ - <«*•<£
Sections 3.3.1 and 3.4.1 of this report.
6.3 OCCUPATIONAL HAZARDS
A variety of manifestations can result due to the physical hazards
assoc ated with the handling of HS«. Two of the most coin physi
hazard' assorted with handling MSW are back strain and Inju i 3 to the
hands and fmgers which account for 28 and 25 percent of the
to sanitation workers, respectively.' The hand' and"
c 1 Us
C1ncinnat1 and S» Francisco
e 7 e "«"S' «"*«'«.». Drains,
1 uses. These ,nvest1gat1ons also noted a h19h incidence of eye
injury for sanitation workers.
A number of different physical hazards are present at HRF'< 'tt,,,
result in these types of Injuries. Probably thel t e a e o eL"
P*. cal hazards are sharp objects. Mun1cipa, wastes such as Us
. can cause severe lacerations if not handled properly, o scarded
e,ev,s,on p,cture tubes and fluorescent light bulbs which end up in MS«
V: °Si°n "a2anf t0 ha"dl>fckers- If «m objects are b ok „
ur n, h „, tube „ Mb ^^ exp]ode
no he face of the handler. Another physical hazard that could
potent,,! y affect handplckers Is the speed of the conveyor belt If th.
rz; • ': °rated at hi9h speeds- the "p(d
o remove objects from the belt could result 1n carpal tunnel syndrome
T ,s condit,on 1s characterized by inflation of the are, m he r n
through which the nerves, tendons, ,nd arteries pass
dun tn »h. i-«»j « , ---....»» ™ ueveioping oacK strain
due to the iming of large, heavy objects. Furthermore, equipment such as
fron -end or back-end loaders ™,y oper,te .. h19h speeds on the p *
floor, and there Is a risk of handplckers being run into by this equiplnt.
6-3
-------
Also of occupational concerns at MRF's Is the generation of Urge
quantities of dust fro™ the physical separation of the waste stream This
" b"nvTethrrnT:n °f ^ """ a"d br°ncM" "s"9" ^ "*«•
v sibll.ty in the workplace. It was evident at the three facilities
v s,ted that dust was present in substantial concentrations in the tipping
floor area. At one of the facilities, a high concentration of dust was
present throughout the plant.
Workers who handle MSW are also exposed to a number of biological
hazards. Both bacterial and viral agents that can cause disease in humans
are known to be present in MSW.* Facial tissues,, dog and cat excrement,
spoiled foods, and soiled disposable diapers all can contain high levels of
microorganisms, m addition to microbes in the waste itself, investigators
have also detected microorganisms in the air of IMF's.8 Although
pathogenic microorganisms have been identified in both solid waste and in
the air at MRF's, no adverse effects have been reported in individuals
exposed to them. It is possible that the diseases caused by these
organisms are not contracted in exposed Individuals because the
concentration of the pathogens are not high enough to cause infection. But
the possibility of Infection from air and wastebome pathogens still exists
for handpickers.
Although the risk posed by biological agents appears low, there are
three possible infections that warrant special- consideration. Hepatitis B
virus and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are pathogenic viruses which
can infect an individual via contaminated blood, while Clostridium tetani
(that causes tetanus) 1s a bacteria that infects cuts and wounds. It is
known that the hepatitis B virus can be viable for up to 1 week on
environmental surfaces.9 Handpickers could be exposed to the hepatitis B
virus via contaminated hypodermic needles present In the waste. An
operator of a MRF said he has seen hypodermic needles in the waste stream
at his facility. The HIV is the viral agent responsible for the
development of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) which is also
contractible via hypodermic needles containing Infected blood. The risk of
contracting AIDS from needles found in MSW 1s virtually nonexistent since
HIV is very fragile under environmental conditions and should not survive
in the MRF waste. Tetanus is of concern because It is caused by an
opportunistic microorganism that, excretes a toxin that may cause paralysis
6-4
-------
and death 1. humans. Because handplckers are more likely to have cuts and
abrasions, they are also more susceptible to contracting tetanus
In addition to physical and biological hazards, there are some
chemical hazards associated with handplcking at HRF's. Exposure to
chemicals Is possible through Items such as batteries, paints, solvents
and pesticides, which households may dispose of with other household '
-astes. By handling these items, workers can be exposed to lead, acids
chlorinated hydrocarbons, and other potentially toxic compounds
Various health effects can result from either acute (short-tern,, or
chrome (several years to lifetime) exposures to chemicals. Effects of
acute exposures would be more readily apparent. For example, direct de™,
(skin) contact with acids could cause burns. Chloracne, a skin condition
could be caused by exposure to chlorinated hydrocarbons. The probability'
of cancer or other effects from chronic exposures cannot be estimated
w,t ou knowledge of the concentrations of each chemical to which workers
would be exposed over a long time period, Information of this type has not
been co lected for HSW handpickers. However, In most cases, exposures a"
more l,ke y to be short term in nature because: (1) exposures would depend
what c emicals are present in , particular batch of MSW, which win vary
fro™ one load to the next, and (2, since there is a high turnover rate in
handp,ckers, most would not be employed in this occupation and exposed to
chem,cals In MSW over a long (multi-year) period.
6.4 TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH HAZARDS
Handpickino of MSW at MRF's can have , relatively large amount of
hazard assorted with it. The use of personal protective equipment,
eng.neenng controls, proper work practices, and adequate training can
great y reduce occupational risks associated with handplcking at MRF's
Personal protective equipment Is very effective in minimizing
su"!' b? Va"rdS- S1"Ce the "andS a"d «" «f "-Plctar, ar! most
u ceptlble to injury, adequate safety glasses and gloves should be worn.
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends
c v a,?;"' ^ Slde S"1"ds' ""'" sa-mtlet gloves, and f 1,-oody
°
, •*. ce
cloth and latex gloves do not protect against punctures, and rubber g,oves
do not allow the hand to breathe, the use of these types of gloves i
6-5
-------
advisable. Proper foot protection, especially for handpicking on the
tipping floor, should be worn. Steel-toed safety shoes would be
appropriate for handpickers. Dust masks should also be worn to reduce
exposure to PM.
There are a couple of process changes that can be enacted to provide a
safer working environment. At one of the facilities visited, the conveyor
belt carrying the MSW was operating at a very fast pace. Such operating
conditions are conducive to the development of carpal tunnel syndrome. By
decreasing the speed of the belt, this type of adverse effect can be
minimized. The use of adequate ventilation can remove particulates and
airborne microorganisms from the breathing zone of the workers. By
enclosing the handpicking^area and using exhaust fans, which was seen at
two of the facilities visited, exposure to air contaminants can be reduced.
Another important engineering aspect to consider is warning lights and
signals on machinery operated inside the facilities, especially the back-
end loader. All machinery should be equipped with these safety devices in'-
order to prevent collisions between the vehicles and the workers. And,
finally, it is important to position the magnetic separation of metals
before any handpicking stations. It was observed at one of the facilities
that the handpickers were placed before the magnetic separation process.
By positioning the workers after the magnets, the likelihood of cuts and
wounds due to sharp metal objects can be drastically reduced.
Other important aspects to consider with handpicking operations are
work practices and personal hygiene. For sanitation workers, NIOSH
strongly suggests the following practices: (1) wash before eating during
the workday, (2) wash before leaving work, and (3) bathe daily for
protection against infection and skin diseases.1 The National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health also recommends that the employer be
responsible for the cleaning of work clothes to prevent contaminants from
being taken into the home. These practices are essential to preventing
infection, especially if the employee has open wounds and cuts.
An integral part of any safety program is the implementation of an
employee training program. Employees should be made aware of the types of
hazards that will be encountered and proper ways for handling and lifting
municipal wastes. These types of programs can reduce employee turnover
and, more importantly, reduce work-related injuries. It is important that
fi-fi
-------
the safety training be an ongoing process. Safety meetings discussing the
various hazards and problems associated with the work should be conducted
at least monthly. Mr. Roy Caplan, of the Milwaukee Department of Public
Health, stated that the department's injury pay dropped almost by one-half
a year after they implemented biweekly safety meetings for sanitation
workers. Therefore, continuing safety training reduces both worker
injury rates and the costs that result from the lost time and medical
bills.
The overall safety program for municipal waste handpickers should
include an immunization program. Vaccination for hepatitis B virus and
tetanus could be administered or proof of such immunization could be
requested prior to the start of employment. By supplying preemployment
vaccinations, infection from these two agents can be eliminated
6.5 APPLICABLE HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration promulgates
standards in order to protect employees against hazards in the workplace '
Section 5 (a)(l) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 states
(in the General Duty Clause), "each employer shall furnish to each of his
employees employment and a place of employment which are free from
recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious
Physical harm to his employees." The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has no specific standards covering handpicking at MRF's but
each employer in the industry must abide by the above General Duty Clause
Although no industry-specific regulations apply, there are general
ndustry standards which may impact MRF's. One standard that MRF's would
ave to comply with is the nuisance dust standard. The Occupational Safety
and health Administration has set a 5 and 15 mg/m' permissible exposure
limit for respirable and total dust, respectively, while the American
onference of Governmental industrial Hygienists (ACGIH, has recommended a
threshold limit value of 10 mg/m3 for total dust. Respirable dust has an
aerodynamic diameter of 10 „. or less. The-Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has recently proposed standards for occupational exposure to
bloodborne pathogens including the hepatitis B virus and HIV This
standard would require employers to provide required safety measures
(vaccinations, personal protective equipment, and other precautions) to
6-7
-------
reduce or eliminate potential contact with blood that 1s potentially
contaminated.
6.6 REFERENCES
f Occupational Health and Safety, Volume 2, 3rd Edition
Labor Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1983.
3. f.1nal Trip Report - Site Visit: XL Disposal Corporation, Crestwood
IL. Submitted to the U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and .
Standards. Lee Davis, Radian Corporation. September 26, 1990
4< uina1cT[1p.*?e5ort ' Site V1sit: Reuter Recycling, Inc., Eden Prairie
MN. Submitted to the U.S. EPA Office of Air Qua? ty P anninS and
Standards. Lee Davis, Radian Corporation. September 26 990
An,. J.
7. Sell in, G. A., and M.R. Zavon. Occupational Dermatoses of Solid
Workers. Arch. Environ. Health, 20:510-515, 1970
aahT
17(3): 187-228! 1987 ReVl8W 1" Env1ronmental Control,
9. 54 FR 23042, May 30, 1989.
of Mun1c1pal Workers- NIOSH Report
6-8
-------
7<° JKR5Sfi!IZATIOM OF MERCURY-CONTAINING BATTERIES
AND DISPOSAL PR°GRAMS FOR THEIR SEPARATION, PROCESSING,
• 7.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Since household batteries are thought to be a significant source of
mercury in MSW, and since conventional add-on control systems at MWC's
typically achieve a lower percent removal of mercury than other metals,
separation of batteries prior to combustion may be a way to achieve mercury
emission reductions. At least five areas in the United States have
established programs to collect household batteries, and battery separation
is widely practiced in Europe and Japan. However, questions have been
raised about the feasibility of collecting batteries and about how
collected batteries should be handled, stored, and disposed of or recycled.
This section presents a characterization of mercury-containing
household batteries in MSW and a synopsis of current collection programs
and available processing and disposal options for household batteries.
7.2 CHARACTERIZATION OF HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES
7-2-1 Mercury Content of Hnn^hold Batt?H^
The mercury content of household batteries varies according to type.
Table 7-1 shows the composition of six different types of household
batteries. Mercury is used in most household batteries to control hydrogen
gas generating reactions between the zinc electrode and other battery
components. This hydrogen gas generation causes the battery to leak and
reduces performance. Therefore, a thin film of mercury is applied to the
:inc electrode to prevent leakage and extend the batteries' shelf life.
Mercury content in these types of batteries ranges from less than
0.01 percent to about 2 percent by weight.1 In mercuric oxide button cell
7-1
-------
TABLE 7-1. COMPOSITION OF HOUSEHOLD BATTERY TYPES IN 1987
Battery Type
(Common Namel
Alkaline
Carbon Zinc
Mercury
Silver
Zinc Air
Nickel Cadmium
Positive Electrode
Material
Manganese Dioxide
Manganese Dioxide
Mercuric Oxide
Silver Oxide
Oxygen taken
from the air
Nickel Oxide
Negative Electrode
Material
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Cadmium
Electrolyte
Alkaline Solution
(Potassium Hydroxide)
Ammonium Chloride
and/or Zinc Chloride
Alkaline Solution
(Potassium Hydroxide
or Sodium Hydroxide)
Alkaline Solution
(Potassium Hydroxide
or Sodium Hydroxide)
Alkaline Solution
(Potassium Hydroxide)
Alkaline Solution
(Potassium Hydroxide
or Sodium Hydroxide)
Typical Mercury
or Cadmium Weight
Per Cellm. 1
-------
batteries, such as those used in hearing aids, the positive electrode is
made of mercury. These batteries contain 35 to 50 percent mercury,1 by far
the largest weight-percent of mercury.
Over the past several years, the manufacturers of batteries have
reduced the mercury content of most household batteries. Alkaline
batteries, for example, contained about 1.0 to 1.5 percent mercury in 1984;
a typical alkaline battery in 1990 contains only 0.025 to 0.05 percent.
This is over a 95-percent reduction and is the result of a voluntary
commitment on the part of battery manufacturers to reduce the mercury
content of all but mercuric oxide batteries-to 0.025 weight-percent or less
by 1993. This is the same level proposed by the European Community
Directive to take effect in 1993. It reflects the minimum mercury content
needed to maintain battery efficiency. Battery manufacturers have said
that, while they are continually researching alternative methods for
controlling the behavior of zinc electrodes, they cannot currently reduce
the mercury content of these batteries below 0.025 percent without
significantly reducing battery performance.2
The mercury content of mercuric oxide batteries, which are used in
small appliances and hearing aids, is not expected to decrease in the near
future. Substitutes, such as zinc-air cells, are being marketed as a
replacement for mercuric oxide button cells in some applications. While
zinc-air cells are expected to increase their market share for use in
hearing aids, overall hearing aid sales are expected to increase. Industry
projections indicate that the net effect will be that the actual amount of
mercury consumed as mercuric oxide button cell batteries will remain
relatively constant over the next few years.2
Two types of household batteries, lithium and nickel-cadmium, contain
no mercury. Manufacturers of lithium batteries state that each battery
contains about 1 gram (g) of lithium, and that this amount does not
constitute a problem for MWC's.2 However, one battery recycling facility
reports that lithium batteries, which are reactive, are sent to a separate
facility for "deactivation" before they are landfilled.3
7-2.2 Consumption Estimates
Annual consumption of household batteries has been estimated on a per
capita and per household basis. The National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA) estimates battery consumption in the United States at
7-3
-------
1 Ib, or about eight batteries, per person per year.1 Marketing studies bv
Duracell project that for the year 1990, the average family will purchase
about 32 batteries.1
Figure 7-1 shows NEMA's figures for United States mercury consumption
in batteries for 1983-1990. The total mercury consumed in all types of
household batteries produced in the United States is reported by NEMA to be
225 tons in 1988. This is about 50 percent of all mercury consumed in the
U. S. Projections for 1989 are 131 tons and for 1990 are down to 62 tons
This drop in mercury consumption is due to the industry trend towards
0.025 percent mercury content in all but mercuric oxide batteries. These
tonnages do not include imported batteries, but Imports are expected to add
less than 10 percent to the total tonnages of mercury in household
batteries.
Estimates by NEMA of the national consumption of mercury in mercuric
oxide batteries are shown in Table 7-2. In 1988, consumer use of mercuric
oxide batteries accounted for 46,8 tpy of mercury consumption. This was
about 27 percent of all mercuric oxide battery related mercury consumption
in the. United States. The remaining mercuric oxide battery consumption is
attributed to commercial/industrial and military uses. Mercuric oxide
batteries in medical and hospital applications and miscellaneous industrial
applications account for 42.7 tpy. These batteries come in many different
shapes and sizes, and do not look like consumer button cell batteries.
Military applications account for another 83.1 tons of mercury consumption,
for a total of 172.6 tons. The fate of these batteries is not clear. For
example, some MWC's do not accept hospital wastes, while other facilities
do accept hospital waste if the hospitals are located in the communities
that they serve. Also, some military installations have MWC's, but it is
unclear whether batteries used in military applications are combusted in
these MWC's.
Because the amount of mercury used for consumer mercuric oxide
batteries 1s expected to remain relatively constant while the amount used
in other batteries 1s expected to decrease over the next few years,
consumer mercuric oxide batteries should account for a greater proportion
of mercury from household batteries. If it 1s assumed that mercury in all
7.*
-------
1,000
Mercury Usage in U.S. Consumer Battery Production
800
I
en
400
200
1983
1984
1985
1986
1988
1989
Calendar Year
1990
-------
TABLE 7-2. 1988 U.S. PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF
MERCURY IN MERCURIC OXIDE BATTERIES
Production
• Number of Manufacturers Producing in U.S 3
• Short Tons of Mercury Used in Production n6 4
• Short Tons of Mercury Exported 5 g
Consunrntiop
• Number of Manufacturers Selling in U. S 6
• Short Tons of Mercury Imported 62 j
• Short Tons of Mercury Used in Consumption 172.5
• Short Tons of Mercury Used in:
consumer applications 46 8
•• medical/hospital applications 24.7
other industrial applications 18.o
military applications* 33 j
includes use by U. S. miliary and NATO overseas
Source: National Electrical Manufacturers Association
7-6
-------
consumer batteries in 1990 is 62 to 70 tons (Figure 7-1 shows 62 tons
produced in the United States), and that about 46 tons are used in mercuric
oxide consumer batteries (from Table 7-2), then about 65 to 75 percent of
the total mercury in household batteries can be attributed to mercuric
oxide button cell batteries.
There is a lack of information on the percent of total mercury in MSW
that is attributable to household batteries. Other sources of mercury in
MSW include thermometers, thermostats, electrical circuitry, switches and
relays, paints, electrical lighting, and other miscellaneous items in
residential or commercial/institutional waste. A 1988 U. S. Bureau of
Mines report shows that the total amount of mercury use in battery
production declined by more than 55 percent from 1984 to 1988.4 A Swedish
report from 1984 states that mercury emissions for MWC's could be reduced
by 70 percent through battery separation.5 However, given the rapid
decline in mercury use in batteries over the last 4 years, this estimate is
likely.to be out of date.
7.3 CURRENT BATTERY COLLECTION PROGRAMS
There are currently at least five battery collection programs in place
in the United States. They vary in structure and organization from local
efforts in small towns or suburbs, to State or regional efforts. In
Hennepin County, Minnesota, pilot programs for collection of household
batteries were undertaken for about 6 months in two suburbs. A Missouri
program which covers 23 counties, collects only button cell batteries. New
Hampshire and Vermont cooperate in a mixed household battery collection
program which has been in place for over 2 years and involves 26 towns and
surrounding rural areas.1 Warren County, New Jersey, has a pilot
collection program where residents can deposit batteries at select stores.6
The City of Bellingham, Washington, in conjunction with a local MWC
operator, has been conducting a program for 2 years which collects mixed
household batteries from over 40 retail stores.7
Generally, the programs are not heavily funded, and often rely on
volunteer workers. The most significant cost incurred by most collection
programs is landfill fees for disposing of collected batteries. When
handed separately, mercury oxide and silver oxide batteries are often taken
to a processor for recycling. Recycling is not presently possible for
other types of mercury-containing household batteries, and these batteries
7-7
-------
are commonly landfilled. A concern with storage has been exposure to high
indoor ambient mercury levels in areas where batteries are stored.
7.3.1 Collection Procedures
Reports from the five battery collection programs cited above indicate
that battery collection may occur either at drop-off centers in retail
stores where batteries are sold, or at the curbside in conjunction with
household garbage collection.1'2 Most programs included a drop-off
component.
For retail store collection, some projects have relied on specially
designed cardboard collection boxes, while others have used plastic or
galvanized buckets. In one case, participating camera and jewelry stores
collect only mercury and silver oxide button cell batteries exclusively and
sell them to a battery recycler. Other programs collect mixed batteries at
retail stores and other locations. The button cell batteries can be
identified by the serial number on the battery casing and can be separated
by hand and sent to a battery recycler. Other types of batteries are
usually stored or landfilled.
Retail store drop-off programs have been administered in a variety of
ways. Some mixed battery collection programs have been organized by county
or regional waste disposal authorities who have enlisted retailers to
participate, publicized the programs, organized collection of batteries
from the retailers, and been responsible for storage and disposal. In the
Missouri case, a nonprofit organization contacted retail stores selling
button cell batteries and a company that recovers mercury from button cell
batteries, facilitated private collection efforts, and also publicized the
programs. Many retailers have been cooperative, while others are unwilling
to participate.
Newspaper and radio advertisements, direct mailings, flyers and
posters 1n stores and in senior citizen centers (where people are likely to
use mercury oxide hearing aid batteries) have been tried to publicize
programs. Most programs rely in part on volunteer groups, such as Optimist
Clubs, Boy Scouts, and Retired Senior Volunteer Programs for monitoring
collection sites, delivering batteries from collection sites to central
locations, and/or separating of various types of batteries from the mixture
collected.
7-fl
-------
A pilot curbside collection program was implemented in the community
of New Hope in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Residents were sent ziplock
bags and instructions to place batteries in the bags at the curbside with
other recyclables on two specified days over a several-month period.1
In Europe, at least 10 countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France,
Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and West Germany) and
Japan have battery collection programs. Most countries collect mixed
batteries. In Belgium and France, however, only button cells batteries are
collected. Batteries are collected at retail stores and drop-off locations
in most cases. Three countries, Austria, Denmark, and Switzerland, are
planning to implement deposit or rebate programs to encourage recovery. In
Sweden and Japan, batteries are collected at curbside in addition to drop-
off and retail locations; in Japan, this is reported to be the most popular
collection method.
Several European countries are planning additional regulatory
measures for household batteries. Most of these measures will be
implemented in 1990. Available information on regulations for household
batteries in European countries is shown in Table 7-3.9
7.3.2 Collection Efficiency
Over approximately 2 years, 7 tons of mixed batteries were collected
in the New Hampshire/Vermont program, which serves about 72,000 people. In
Hennepin County, Minnesota, a total of just over 1 ton was collected
between February and November 1989 from a population of about 40,000. Of
the county's two pilot programs, the curbside collection effort brought in
more batteries than did the retail location effort.10
Estimated battery recovery rates are 10 percent for New
Hampshire/Vermont, and about 3 percent for Hennepin County.1'10 These
rates are calculated using collection data and NEMA projections of per
capita battery consumption. Data are not available for other programs.
New Hampshire/Vermont's rate of 10 percent is considered a good rate of
removal in light of the low budgets and fairly low profile usually allotted
to battery collection.2 Program coordinators have stated that up to 20 or
25 percent removal might be achieved with aggressive publicity or if
curbside collection was done on a frequent, regular basis.2 However,
collection rates above 10 percent have not been demonstrated in the United
States.
7-9
-------
TABLE 7-3. REGULATORY MEASURES FOR HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES
IMPLEMENTED BY EUROPEAN COUNTRIES IN 1990
Country
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
(currently)
Sweden
(planned)
Switzerland
West Germany
Austria
Battery Type
Nickel-cadmium
Mercury or cadmium
Nickel-cadmium,
alkaline, button cell
Nickel-cadmium,
alkaline, button cell
Not specified
Mercury oxide,
Nickel-cadmium,
Alkaline
Not specified
Regulatory Action
10% rebate
Tax for >0.025% nickel
or cadmium content
Environmental fee
for >0.025% mercury or
cadmium content
Ban on >0.025% mercury
or cadmium content
Deposit
Labeling required
for >0.1% mercury content
Labeling and deposits
7-10
-------
Available information on recovery rates in Europe and Japan are
presented in Table 7-4.n Recovery rates have been higher than in the
United States.
7-3.3 Sorting. Storage, and Disposal
Batteries collected by the U. S. programs are disposed of either
through recycling facilities where mercury and silver are recovered, or
they are landfilled or stored. Currently, mercury oxide and silver'oxide
batteries can be recycled, and two companies located in the U.S. are
available for reclaiming metals from nickel-cadmium batteries. However,
there are no plants recycling other types of household batteries, so these
are stored or landfilled. Usually, collected mixed household batteries
are taken to hazardous waste landfills. Reported charges are $350 per SB-
gallon drum for the New Hampshire/Vermont program (one 55-gallon drum
weighs about 650 Ib), and $500 per ton for the Hennepin County pilot
program. The New Hampshire/Vermont program has successfully offset
landfill fees for batteries with tipping fees from the local MWC. In
Hennepin County, the landfill fee was considered prohibitive.
Consequently, their batteries remain In storage. A representative for the
Warren County, New Jersey, program said they hand sort the mercury oxide
button cell batteries and plan to send them to a recycler, but are
presently storing the remaining batteries in plastic buckets and have yet
to identify a place of disposal. In Bellingham, Washington, the batteries
have been stored in plastic buckets outside of the local MWC for over 2
years. A representative of the program said that the batteries are being
stored pending market development.7
Most batteries collected in Europe are also stored or landfilled.
There are facilities for recovery of nickel and cadmium from nickel-
cadmium batteries in Europe (at one plant 1n France and one plant in
Sweden), and there are no mercury recovery facilities. Silver is recovered
from silver oxide button cell batteries. Most separated batteries
containing mercury or cadmium are put in long-term storage in underground
salt domes in West Germany. Others are stored or landfilled at various
locations. Most batteries collected in Japan are put in long-term storage,
but some are sent to the Clean Japan Center's Itomuka demonstration plant
for metals recycling.12
7-11
-------
Country
Denmark
Sweden
Switzerland
Japan
TABLE 7-4. ESTIMATED RECOVERY RATE OF HOUSEHOLD
BATTERIES IN EUROPE AND JAPAN
Battery Tvpg
Alkaline and
zinc-carbon
Button cell
All types
All types
All types
Recovery Rate
25%
80%
60%
30%
20% Average
40-50% Maximum
-------
A
7.3.4 Safety Considerations
Storage of collected batteries has caused concern over possible
exposure to mercury vapors as well as possible ingestion of button cell
batteries. In Hennepin County, elevated ambient mercury levels have been
detected when battery storage containers were opened. Mercury was detected
at levels of up to 0.5 mg/m3 in containers which had contained alkaline
batteries for 3 months.8 In Denmark, mercury has been measured at levels
from 0.015 to 2.5 micrograms per cubic meter (Mg/m3) in various battery
storage areas, and from 0.75 to 0.92 Mg/m3 above manual sorting tables.
level of 74.5 Mg/m3 was measured in a closed container of mixed batteries
stored for 4 months.12
The OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) for mercury vapor is an 8-
hour time weighted average (TWA) of 0.05 mg/m3, or 50 Mg/m3. Inorganic
mercury and mercury vapor also have a "skin designation," which means that
they can be absorbed through the skin (54 FR 2942, January 19, 1989).
Exposure to mercury and mercury vapors could be of concern to volunteer and"
retail store workers who handle or work near collected batteries.
Improperly stored batteries also pose a potential risk of explosion.
If batteries are stored in a container such that incompletely discharged
batteries make electrical contact, some batteries can become overcharged.
These overcharged batteries generate heat and pressure which ruptures the
battery seal, thereby liberating hydrogen gas which is highly explosive.
At least one such incident has been reported in which a barrel of batteries
being unloaded from a truck exploded and injured a worker.13
Public and professional concern has also been expressed over the
increased likelihood of button cell battery ingestion if batteries are
improperly handled or stored in homes or during collection.14'5 The
National Capital Poison Center reports over 1,340 cases of button cell
battery Ingestion from 1983 to 1988, including two fatalities in small
children. Injuries incurred by battery ingestion include permanent
esophageal injury. In addition, perforation of the ear drum as well as
permanent Impairment of hearing have occurred following accidental battery
placement in the ear by children as well as adults.14 In light of these
hazards, both the American Association of Retried Persons (AARP) and the
National Capital Poison Center have expressed strong opposition to battery
collection legislation proposed in the New York State Assembly. Both
7-13
-------
organizations urge that, where household batteries are collected, care must
be taken to prevent their misuse. The use of slotted containers for the
storage of button cell batteries in the home could help to prevent their
misuse.
7.4 CURRENT RECYCLING EFFORTS
7'4'1 Mercury Oxide Battery RgcvcHnq Prnro^
In the United States, there is currently only one metals recovery
facility that recycles mercury from post-consumer household batteries
Mercury Refining Company of Latham, New York, recycles mercury oxide and
silver oxide button cell batteries.
The batteries are put in a -retort" oven along with other mercury-
containing items, and heated to between 1,000 and 1,200°F. Mercury vapors
generated in the oven are collected in a condenser operated at 90 to 100°F
The collected mercury goes through two more purification steps, and is then
sold for use in dental work, fluorescent lights, thermometers, and
batteries. Other liquids are sent to wastewater treatment processes or
hazardous waste incinerators. Solids, including battery casings, are sent
to a hazardous waste landfill, although they usually pass the EP toxicity
test. When a shipment contains mainly silver oxide batteries, the solids
are further processed to concentrate the silver, which is sold to another
refiner for further purification. In 1989, Mercury Refining Company
recycled over 28,000 Ib of button cell batteries. They currently receive
button cell batteries from seven communities.2
Mercury Refining Company will also accept other types of batteries
from communities. Only the button cell batteries are recycled on site
These are screened from other batteries by size. Lithium batteries, which
are reactive, are sent to another facility for "deactivation" and then
landfilled. Carbon-zinc and alkaline batteries are put in a hazardous
waste landfill. Payments to Mercury Refining or to the community depend on
the mixture of batteries. Mercury Refining Company can pay for mercury
oxide or silver oxide button cell batteries. However, communities pay
Mercury Refining to take mixed household batteries.
Some mercury is emitted during the battery recycling process. The
Mercury Refining Company's permits allow 48 Ib/yr total mercury emissions
from the facility. The OSHA regulations, training, and monitoring programs
are followed to protect worker health and safety.
7-14
-------
In Europe, silver oxide batteries can be recycled to recover silver,
but there are no plants recovering mercury from batteries.
7'4'2 Development of Processes to Recvrle Other Types of Battprioc
Currently, there are no commercial facilities 1n the United States or
Europe to recover metals from alkaline batteries and most other types of
household batteries.
One company In the United States, Inmetco of Ellwood City, -
Pennsylvania, recovers nickel from industrial nickel-cadmium batteries and
would also recycle household nickel-cadmium batteries if they were
separated from other batteries. Another company, NIFE, Inc., which is
based in Sweden but has a subsidiary in Greenville, North Carolina, accepts
industrial and household nickel-cadmium batteries for shipment to their
recycling facility in Sweden. Both Inmetco and NIFE charge a fee for
accepting the batteries.16
Some research is being done in Europe, Japan, and the United States to
develop battery recycling processes and test them on laboratory and pilot
scales. Commercial facilities may be built in the future. Some examples
of processes being investigated or developed are described below.
Recytec, Inc., is developing a process for recovering metals from
mixed household batteries. They are operating a 100 tpy pilot-scale
process in Switzerland. They have also acquired a site and completed
design for a 500 tpy commercial facility in Switzerland and are currently
involved in equipment sourcing and project financing activities. The
company has offices 1n Maryland and New Jersey and hopes to market the
process in the United States.2
The Recytec process uses mixed household batteries. No presorting
would be required. An initial thermal treatment step volatilizes mercury
and some of the cadmium. The collected condensate is mainly mercury, and
can be sold in Europe. The battery sol Ids are then processed by shredding
and magnetic separation in preparation for the electrowinning steps.
Flouroboric acid, which is used in the metal plating Industry, is used in
electrolytic treatment steps to recover metals from the battery solids
mixture. Metals recovered include manganese, zinc, iron, cadmium, copper,
silver, gold, and nickel. High purities (e.g., 99 percent) are achieved
for the individual metals or compounds recovered. Most of these metals can
7-15
-------
be sold. About 95 percent of the total Inputs are recovered, leaving only
5 percent residual waste.2
Since a full-scale facility has not been built, actual economic data
are not available, however representatives said costs to recycle batteries
would probably be similar to fees charged by hazardous waste landfills.
In an effort to recover some of the raw materials lost with battery
disposal, the Clean Japan Center began a joint venture with State and
private funding.17 The project includes collection of mixed battery types,
sorting, and recovery of mercury, zinc and Iron at a pilot facility. The
recycling process consists of the following steps: a combination of '
mechanical and hand sorting by size, then by metal content; mechanical
dismantling of batteries and separation of iron jackets; heating in a
rotary furnace to between 1,200°F and 1,500°F to vaporize mercury; magnetic
separation of iron and zinc; recovery by condensation of vaporized mercury;
further treatment of gases and recovery of chloride and residual mercury;
and, finally, wastewater treatment. Recovered mercury is further refined
to a purity of 99.99 percent.17
The facility processes approximately 20 tpd under optimal conditions.
The recovery ratios (weight of recovered material/weight of waste
batteries) for reusable materials are 0.05 percent for mercury, 14 percent
for iron, and 54 percent for zinc residue.17 Facility emissions are
reportedly within the standards of Japan's Air Pollution Prevention Act,
and ambient mercury levels are below the World Health Organization
guideline of 0.015 milligrams per normal cubic meter (mg/Nm3).17
Although fees were charged for acceptance of batteries and recovered
materials were sold, the facility failed to cover costs of operation during
its 2-year pilot operation. A report from the Clean Japan Center states
that profitable operation is expected once supplies of feed materials and
market prices stabilize.
Sumitomo Industries, Ltd. of Japan has researched a process for
recovering metals from mixed household batteries. Sumitomo has constructed
a 100 Kg/hour pilot demonstration plant in Japan, but currently does not
have a commercial operation. The Sumitomo process uses a pyro-
metallurgical concept to recover saleable mercury, zinc, and
ferro-manganese alloy from mixed, unprocessed dry cell batteries.
-------
A treatment fee for accepting and recycling the batteries or other
source of revenue will be needed to operate the plant since the revenue
from the sale of recovered metals is not expected to cover costs. However,
since a full-scale facility has not been constructed, actual economic data
are not available.18
There are no pilot plants in the United States; however, some research
on potential battery recovery processes is beginning. For example, Bronx
2000, a nonprofit economic development organization, is conducting a 1-
year feasibility study in 1990. The study objectives are to characterize
batteries, identify materials that may have value if reclaimed from
batteries, and identify potential reclamation processes. Bronx 2000 is
also working with Polaroid Corporation to recycle their zinc-carbon
batteries in-house, and has completed a lab-scale demonstration.2
7.5 SUMMARY
Total usage of mercury in household batteries has declined rapidly in
the past few years, and the battery manufacturing industry plans to further
reduce the mercury content of all but mercuric oxide batteries to
0.025 percent by 1993. At this level of production, the mercury content of
all but mercuric oxide batteries would be reduced by over 97 percent as
compared to levels in 1984. It is estimated that mercuric oxide batteries
are now the major source of mercury in household batteries due to the
recent decline in the mercury content of alkaline batteries.
Collection efforts in the United States are minimal and consist
primarily of low budget, volunteer-oriented projects. The highest reported
collection rate is roughly 10 percent. Battery collection projects are
better developed in Europe and Japan, where the collection efficiency is
typically about 20 to 30 percent.
Disposal of collected batteries is problematic. There is only one
facility in the United States which recycles mercuric oxide and silver
oxide button cell batteries. This may be a deterrent to further household
battery collection efforts. The majority of collected household batteries
are either stored or disposed of in hazardous landfills, because there are
currently no commercial recovery facilities for these types of batteries.
With the exception of the one U. S. facility that recycles button cell
batteries, no facilities in the United States or Europe have been
identified which recover mercury from alkaline or other types of household
7-17
-------
batteries. The cost of landfill ing 1s sometimes prohibitive to battery
separation.
Collection, storage, and sorting of household batteries can also
expose workers to health hazards. Elevated ambient levels of mercury have
been measured in association with battery collection efforts in the United
States and in Europe. Public and professional concern has been expressed
over the possible Increased likelihood that children and elderly people
will Ingest button cell batteries collected for recycling.
7.6 REFERENCES
1. Meeting Summary Municipal Waste Combustors-"Precombustion" Control
SrovS^ ES1"i°nS rr'ySatttr1iS- ' Atta<*ment 3: Information
Provided by New Hampshire/Vermont Solid Waste Project Household
Battery Program, Claremont, NH. February 1990. U. S Environmental
No"
2' o^il^^T!^ Munic1Pal Waste Combustors--"Precombustion" Control
oy Em1"1°n* fr°ra Batteries. U. S. Environmental Protection
ioRnoearch Tr1an9le Park» NC. February 8, 1990. Docket
-
to the EPA Task Force on Precombustion
°f th6 Inter1or» Bureau of Mines- 19*8 Minerals
5' Fan^r?;iMAca^tPapa3eSrg10U'rA; "Collecti°n <* Batteries-Technique,
?lohn? SSpeftS an? Mean! of Control«" Swedish National Board for
Technical Development. Information No. 440. 1984.
6. Telecon between Mary BHggs, Warren County New Jersey Pollution
Fl?aSS1ng Agency' and Lee Dav1s> Radian Corporation.
, 1990.
7* J?]jcon between Bill Englander, City of Bellingham, WA, and Lee Davis,
Radian Corporation. March 29, 1990.
8* w«'rp°!!^R; ??%rt [Ia?agementjn Hennepin County, Minnesota-What
£min£ 9B J? Whai W? rS Not' Pr«ented at the First Annual
seminar on Battery Waste Management. November 6-8, 1989.
7-18
-------
14
9. Lauliac, Hugues. Background Paper delivered to Waste Management
Policy Group Workshop on Waste Minimization: Management of Used
Batteries Containing Mercury and Cadmium. Agence Nationale Pour la
K£«pe^tlon et ^'elimination des Dechets, France. October 24-25
1989. 38 p. '
10. Meeting Summary. Municipal Waste Combustors--"Precombustion" Control
of Mercury Emissions from Batteries. Attachment 4: Information
£SfI««.?X H2!!neprnKCoUnty "Ijt Battery Separation Battery Program,
Springfield, MN. February, 1990. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. February 8, 1990. Docket No. A-
89-08.
11. Forker, T. Strategic Approaches to the Used Household Battery
Problem: A report on European Experiences and their Implications for
iSoo°n oo United States. Environmental Action Coalition, NY, NY.
1989. 22p.
12. Levy, S. J. European Battery Management Practices. Presented to
L S- Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Meeting on "Precombustion Control of Mercury Emissions
from Batteries." February 8, 1990.
13. Letter from Lawton and Cates, SC, Madison Wisconsin to Legal
Department, RAYOVAC Corporation. December 9, 1986.
Letter from Litpvitz, Dr. T. National Capital Poison Center to Tally
Senator M. J. March 30, 1988.
15. Letter from McHugh, J. R., American Association of Retired People
Pharmacy Service to Hinchey, Hon. M.O. New York State Assembly. '
nay 4, 1987.
16' SSnlSS " J°U^!!011 ?attery Ruling- ^om Lee Davis, Radian
Majl7 1990 Johnston, u- S. Environmental Protection Agency.
17 ' Sl^" Jap.ar\.C?n*er*u T?st Report of Demonstration Plant for Recycling
Mercury Containing Wastes. August 1988.
18. New Technology for Treatment of Used Dry Batteries, Sumitomo Heavy
Industries, Ltd. Tokyo, Japan. November 6, 1989.
7-19
-------
APPENDIX A
MATERIALS SEPARATION REPORTING
AND DOCUMENTATION METHODOLOGY
1. Introduction
The following four forms (A, B, C, and Cl) are sample forms which may
be used by MWC owners or operators in tracking and reporting amounts of
materials separated from MSW prior to combustion. The forms may serve as
useful examples of the types of information and documentation the Agency
considers important in verifying overall levels of materials separation.
2. Description of Use of Example Forms
2.1 Form A. Form A is the Annual Materials Separation Tonnage
Summary Form. Form A would be prepared annually by each MWC operator to
report all on-site and off-site materials separation claimed by that
MWC. This form summarizes total weight (in metric tons or Mg) of all
materials separated. Weights of all materials separated on-site at the
MWC, off-site through county or municipal collection programs, or
off-site by another party (e.g., private non-profit groups or commercial
businesses) are added together and then entered on this form. The total
weight summarized on Form A is used as the basis for determining the
overall percent separation level. The weights (Mg/year) summarized on
Form A are derived from weights (Mg/year) submitted to the MWC operator
by individual parties on either Form B or Form C.
2.2 Form B. Form B is the Off-Site Materials Separation Reporting
Form for Materials Measured on a Weight Basis. Form B would be used by
individual parties separating materials off-site to report weights of
separated materials documented by that party. Each individual
community, non-profit group, or commercial business in the MWC service
area would submit a separate Form B to the MWC operator in order to
apply the weights of those materials to the overall percent separation
level. Proper documentation should be attached to Form B for all of the
weights of materials reported on Form B.
2.2.1 Documentation to Accompany Form B. Proper documentation for
Form B includes: (1) actual weight receipts from the business or market
purchasing/accepting the separated material; (2) accounting
A-l
-------
summarization* of multiple weight receipts; (3) letters from the
business or market stating the amount of separated materials purchased/
accepted from parties within the MWC service area; or (4) letters from
the generator (e.g., private community group, business generating a
separated recoverable material) stating the amount separated and the
business or market to which the material was delivered. The
summarizations of multiple weight receipts, letters from markets and
letters from generators are means of submitting documentation in a
simplified, condensed form. For example, it may be less burdensome for
a municipality to submit one accounting summarization sheet containing
information from hundreds of weight receipts rather than submit each of
the individual weight receipts. Accounting summarization sheets are
considered acceptable documentation as long as they include for each
material transaction the: (1) date; (2) receipt number; (3) business or
market accepting the material; (4) type of material; and (5) weight of
material. Signed letters from the market or from the generator should
identify the provider and acceptor of the materials. The letter should
also include the type(s) of material(s) and weight of each material
delivered during a specified calendar period.
2.2.2 Retention of Documentation. If weight receipt accounting
summarizations or letters from the generator or the business/market
accepting the material are submitted, documentation pertaining to
individual transactions should be retained for 2 years following
submittal. The person submitting the simplified documentation should
also indicate the contact person and company/location where the
supporting documentation is retained. Supporting documentation should
also be made available for review by the appropriate authorities.
2.3 Form C. Form C is the Tonnage Calculation Estimation Form for
Sepanttd Materials Measured on a Volume Basis. While materials that
are dfrtctly weighed should be reported on Form B, Form C provides an
alternative for reporting materials that are commonly measured on a
volume basis. Yard waste is often measured on a volume basis (i.e., by
the cubic meter or truckload) and may not be weighed on scales. Other
materials may be traded at the market on a volume basis. For example,
corrugated paper may be bought and sold by the bale. For each material
A-2
-------
measured on a volume basis, the volume of material separated is entered
on Form C and the estimated weights are calculated by converting from
volumes to metric tons (Mg) using the conversion factors provided on
Form C.
2.3.1 Documentation to Accompany Form C. Documentation submitted
with Form C is virtually the same as for Form B except that (1) volume
receipts, (2) accounting summarizations of volume receipts, (3) letters
from generators or (4) letters from businesses or markets accepting
materials would state the volumes of materials separated instead of
weight-based documentation.
2.3.2 Retention of Documentation. The same procedures for
retaining records of individual transactions specified in
paragraph 2.2.2 for Form B would also apply to Form C.
2.3.3 Form Cl. Form Cl, the Yard Waste Collection Log, may be
used to document the volume of yard waste separated since yard waste is
not usually traded in traditional markets. Form Cl documents the type
of yard waste collected, the volume of the collection truck, and the
date of each load of that material collected. A separate Form Cl should
be filled out for each type of yard waste material (e.g., leaves, grass
clippings, wood chips). The total volumes of the various yard waste
materials recorded on Form Cl are used to calculate estimates of the
total weights of separated yard waste materials on Form C.
2.4 Signature of Forms. Each of the forms (A, B, C, and Cl)
should be signed by the person submitting the form. The certification
statement to be signed includes the statement that the materials claimed
on the form were generated in the MWC service area and were not
combusted. Form A would be verified and signed by the MWC owner or
operator. Forms B or C submitted by a municipality or county would be
verified and signed by the recycling coordinator, solid waste utility
superintendent, or other responsible employee of that municipality or
county. Forms B or C submitted by a business, community group, or other
organization would be verified and signed by a responsible
representative of that organization.
2.5 Summary. In summary, all materials separated on-site and
off-site would be reported by the MWC owner or operator on Form A to
A-3
-------
determine the overall percent separation level. Form B and/or Form C
should be submitted by Individual parties performing off-site separation
for all materials separated off-site that are reported on Form A.
Documentation for Individual materials transactions or summaries of
those transactions should accompany Form B and Form C. If documentation
summaries are submitted, documentation of individual transactions should
be retained and these records made available for inspection by the
appropriate authorities upon request. Form Cl may be submitted as
documentation for yard waste collected on a volume basis and reported on
Form C.
A-4
-------
FORM A • SIDE 1
ANNUAL MATERIALS SEPARATION TONNA6E SUMMARY FORM
(To B« Completed by the MWC Operator or Co-operator)
DIRECTIONS; To report annual materials separation tonnage, complete
Sections 1, 2, and 3 of this form and attach Forms B and/or Form C along with
supporting documentation. Type all entries. Insert the total tonnage In the
appropriate columns.
1. APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name of MWC
Street Address of MWC.
City, State, Zip Code
Contact Person
Title
Mailing Address
City, State, Zip Code
Telephone ( J
2. MWC CERTIFTCATTOM
I hereby certify that the tonnage claimed below on this form represents
materials generated 1n the MWC service area and that these materials were
separated during the calendar year covered by this application through
separation for recovery and that the materials claimed were not combusted.
Signature
Title Date
A-5
-------
FORM A • SIDE 2
3. MATERIALS SEPARATION SUMMARY TOTALS
Enter the total number of metric tons (or megagrams [Mg]) claimed for each
material separated (round off to the nearest hundredth).
On-s1te at HUC Off-site Total
Paper — '***'
Newspaper
H1-Grade (Office ~~
or Computer Paper)
Corrugated
Other Paper
Glass ~~
Glass Containers
Qther Glass
Matal ~
Aluminum Cans
81-Metal Cans ~ ~~~~~~
Other Nonferrous
Ferrous Cans
White Goods _~ ~~~~~
Other Ferrous
Ferrous Recovered
from MWC Ash x (0.5)
Plastic
Plastic Containers
Other Plastics "
Yard Waste ~
Grass Clippings
Leaves
Wood Chips " '
Other Yard Waste ~ ^^^_
Autbe»t1ve
Maintenance
Motor 011 __
Tires ~
Vehicle Batteries ~ '
Household
Hazardous Waste
Household Batteries
TOTAL METRIC TONS
SEPARATED
A-6
-------
FORM B -SIDE 1
OFF-SITE MATERIALS SEPARATION REPORTING
FOR MATERIALS MEASURED ON A WEIGHT BASIS
(To bt Completed by Each Party
Performing Off-Site Separation)
THIS BOX TO BE COMPLETED BY MWC
OPERATOR OR CO-OPERATOR ONLY.
* _ of Form B's
Included""™ For* A
DIRECTIONS* COMPLETE BOTH SIDES AND SIGN THIS FORM. TYPE ALL ENTRIES
ATTACH DOCUMENTATION TO VERIFY TONNAGE. Use th s form to rlJoVIJcSented
separated tonnage totals for any group performing off-site sSparatloTIt a
locat on other than the MWC (e.g., County/Mun1c1?al Agencies, Son-profit
Organizations, Direct Sales to a Market by Individual(s), and the Business/
Commerda Sector). Complete and submit one form for each agency,
organization, Individual, or business. Submit forms to the MWC operator (or
the co-operator In cases where the municipality or county 1s the co-operator
J?™?™E1aIn 2!?ari£1on)- FAILURE T0 COMPLETE BOTH SIDES, INCLUDING
DISTANCE o!*™LGE0 ATTACH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION wiu. RESULT IN THE
i.
™RTY ?EP??TI1!? SEPmTgp niM^ (File a separate Form B
for each agency/organlzatlon/lndlvldual/buslness performing off-site
separation).
A. Name
B. Mailing Address
C. City, State, Zip Code
D. Contact Person
E. Title
F. Telephone No. j )
G. Type of Agency/Organization/Business (check one)
- County/Municipal Agency - R.tatl Operation _
— E0!"?1- O
~ A9r
-------
r«M • - SIDE 1
« «MluUiO MMCTIAL 101*4$ (louAd off to th* nearest hundredth).
OB* - CITT.
Pip«r
AUD iUft litlf
Hl-6r«te (Office
or CopuUr P«ptr)
Corrugated
Other faper
6l*ti Conttliteri
Other iUti
Mttil
AluBlnuB Cent
ai-H*t«l CMS
Other Nonferroui
Firroui C«n$
Miite 6oodi
Other Ferrout
Plastic Containers
Other rustics
Yard U«it«
Grass Clippings
Leaves
Mood Chips
Other Vard test*
jbj»naj»Mya l^lnteiuuice
Motor Oil
Tires
Vehicle Batteries
Haiardous Haste
Housahold B*tt*ries
TOTAL M|
HMtft
cilf. Aim SUI£
designates megtgran or metric tons; 1 Hg - 1.1 ton > Z.ZOO Ibs.
-------
FORM C - SIDE 1
l FORM FOR
MATERIALS MEASURED ON A VOLUME BASIS
(To be Completed by Each Party
Ptrformlng Off-Site Separation)
THIS BOX TO BE COMPLETED BY MWC
OPERATOR OR CO-OPERATOR ONLY
_ of Form C's
Includedon Form A
A. Name
B. Mailing Address
C. City, State, Zip Code
0. Contact Person
E. Title
F. Telephone No.
]_
S. Type of Agency/Organization/Business (check one)
Nwutetuw (specify product"
Othtr ' ~ *
H. Name of MWC to Which Form C
Is Being Submitted
2. DOCUHEKTATTnil
contact"
Name
lB-1eat- Where s«PP^»*«tary records are kept as Mli as a
Location
Title
Phone
>s tFBTTFKflTTIItf
- ~
lype name of Individual, Recycling
Coordinator, or Organization/
Business Representative
TTtTi •
Signature of Individual, Recycling
Coordinator, or Organization/
Business Representative
BSti
A-9
-------
FOM C - SIM 2
4. SEPARATEO MATERIAt IQIA)$ (Round off to the nearest hundredth).
I
—4
3
VOLUME
miEBiAL Jrl_
Paper
Corrugated (uncOBpacted)
Corrupted (coBDectad)
(drua*)*
61 tH
Uncruihed
Manually cruihed
Mechanically crushed
(•*)
Httil
Altai HUB CMS iutiole)
AluBtnuB Can* (flat)
Ferrous Can* (•hole)
Ferrous Can* (fUtl
White Goodi
(•*)
Pintle
PEI Container*
HOPE Container! (nholal
HOPE Container* (flat!
(•*)
tard WastC "ro> Fora CD
Grass Clinoino*
(uncoBpacted)
Grass Cllnalnai
(coHpacted)
Leave* (uncoipacted)
Leave* Icaapacted)
Wood Chip*
Sruah
(•'I
*"*(gK{l»a Maintenance
Motor Oil (gallon.)
Pasiengtr Tire*
It of tlr.t)
Truck Tires
U at tint)
Autoaotlve Batteries
(f of tuttarlal) _
CODVEIISION
FAXTOB
Jfla*^3!- _Ba_ cilf. couiTf. AND STATE WERE GEWMIED MAMCET COMPANY NAME. cm. AMD STAK arcfMint NAIERI/U
_ * p. 169 •
. « 0 JOI
(No/drum)
. M B. 079
. I 8.13* •
. * 0.24*
(Ng/*r>) — __
. I 0.044 -
. « 0.141
. x 0.009
. • O.S05
M O.OM
(Ng/er>) — _
x 0 OH
x 0 016
* 0.04S
(H9/*r»)
x 0.439
x 0.659
x 0.237 • >
I 0.593 •
x 0.250 . ~
K 0.14f • ~
-------
FORM Cl
. YARD HASTE COLLECTION LOfi
MATERIALS MEASURED oJ A WLuSf BASIS
(To bt Completed by Each Party
Ptrfor»1ng Off-Site Separation)
THIS BOX TO BE COMPLETED BY NWC
OPERATOR OR CO-OPERATOR ONLY.
Voliwe fro« this Form Cl
reported on Fom C *
and the
MONTH
YEAR
MATERIAL
l, ftecycling-
or Organization/
Business Representative
Signature of Individual, Recycling
Coordinator, or Organization/
Business Representative
TTtTF
Date
A-ll
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
EPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-90-021
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Municipal Waste Combustion: Background Information
for Materials Separation
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
G ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRE
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-4378
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
DAA for Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
200/04
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Several issues related to materials separation from municipal solid waste (MSW)
are discussed. Current nationwide rates of materials separation and recycling, as
well as the methodology for determining municipal solid waste separation rates, are
presented. Case studies of four community curbside separation programs include
performance data and program costs. Two centralized materials separation facilities
which separate materials from unsorted MSW are described with respect to the
separation mechanisms employed, performance, and available cost data.
Available data on the impacts of materials separation on municipal waste
combustor (MWC) air emissions, combustor operation, and MWC ash are presented.
The potential occupational risks of the handpicking process used to separate
materials from MSW at some centralized separation facilities are discussed. The
use of mercury in household batteries, and current information on community battery
separation and collection programs and recycling efforts, are also discussed.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
Air Pollution
Municipal Waste Combustors
Incineration
Pollution Control
Materials Separation
Costs
Air Pollution Control
ftoif :>•
13B
: u
jfttt
,*
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (P142J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th floor
Chicago, It 60604-3590
------- |