&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/R-95/125
August 1995
Environmental,
Economic and Energy
Impacts of Material
Recovery Facilities
A MITE Program Evaluation
-------
CONTACT
Lynnann Kitchens is the EPA contact for this report. She is presently with the newly organized
National Risk Management Research Laboratory's new Land Remediation and Pollution
Control Division in Cincinnati, OH (formerly the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory).
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is headquartered in Cincinnati, OH, and
is now responsible for research conducted by the Land Remediation and Pollution Control
Division in Cincinnati.
-------
EPA/600yR-95/J25
August 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND ENERGY IMPACTS
OF MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITIES
A MITE PROGRAM EVALUATION
By
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887
and
The Solid Waste Association of North America
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
EPA Cooperative Agreement No. CR818238
NREL Subcontract No. AR-2-12242
EPA Project Officer
Lynnann Hitchens
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
NREL Technical Monitor
Philip B. Shepard
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, Colorado 80401
Prepared for:
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, D.C. 20585
NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) through Cooperative Agreement CR-818238 and the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) under Subcontract No. AB-2-1224Z with the Solid Waste
Association of North America. It has been subject to the peer review and administrative review
by both the U.S. EPA and NREL and has been approved for publication as a U.S. EPA and
Department of Energy (DOE) document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does
not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document contains numerous references to various methods and procedures for
performing tests as part of the quality control and quality assurance process. The document
references wherever possible consensus standards developed and approved by the U.S. EPA, the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the American Conference of
Governmental and Industrial Hygienists. Other methods referenced in this document have been
developed by individual parties and, therefore, do not necessarily represent consensus standards.
The reference of non-consensus standards does not represent endorsement by the U.S. EPA or
DOE.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is charged by Congress
with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency- strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a
compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and
nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical
support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base
necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health,
and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to
human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources;
protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites and ground
water; and prevention and control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to
catalyze development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental technologies;
develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and provide technical support and information transfer to ensure effective
implementation of environmental regulations and strategies.
This document is part of a series of publications for the Municipal Solid Waste Innovative
Technology Evaluation (MITE) Program. The purpose of the MITE Program is to: 1) accelerate
the commercialization and development of innovative technologies for solid waste management
and recycling; and 2) provide objective information on developing technologies to solid waste
managers, the public sector, and the waste management industry.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents an evaluation of the environmental, economic, and energy impacts
of material recovery facilities (MRFs) conducted under the Municipal Solid Waste Innovative
Technology Evaluation (MITE) Program. The MITE Program is sponsored by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to foster the demonstration and development of innovative
technologies for the management of municipal solid waste (MSW). This project was also funded
by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
Material recovery facilities are increasingly being used as one option for managing a
significant portion of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). The owners and operators of these facilities
employ a combination of manual and mechanical techniques to separate and sort the recyclable
fraction of MSW and to transport the separated materials to recycling facilities.
Despite the increasing use of these facilities, only limited data are available on the
environmental, economic, and energy implications of MRFs. These data are necessary if solid
waste managers are to make informed decisions on the design and operation of integrated
municipal solid waste management (IMSWM) systems. To help close this data gap, a
comprehensive evaluation was performed to determine the environmental, economic, and energy
aspects of six operational MRFs. The participating MRFs are geographically distributed
throughout the country, receive both commingled and source separated wastes, and employ a
variety of techniques to recover recyclables. The facilities are located in the following
jurisdictions: Islip, New York; Montgomery County, Maryland; Albuquerque, New Mexico;
Hartford, Connecticut; Rice County, Minnesota; and Orange County, Florida.
The primary objective of the evaluation was to understand the effects of MRF operations
on public health and the environment, as well as on occupational health and safety. The
environmental evaluation conducted at the six MRFs considered the impacts on ambient air
quality, receiving waters, and community noise levels, while the occupational health and safety
evaluation addressed exposure to chemicals, biological aerosols, and occupational noise, as well
as physical safety hazards and ergonomic stressors. The economic and energy aspects of MRFs
must also be understood to fully appreciate these impacts in the context of the IMSWM system.
The economic and energy evaluation was based on publicly available information or material
provided by the owners or operators of the participating MRFs.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Paee No*
Disclaimer
Foreword
Abstract
List of Figures
List of Tables
Acknowledgments
Executive Summary
Overview
Case Studies
Technical Approach
Field Test Results
Conclusions
1.0
Introduction
2.0 Test Program Description
2.1 Case Studies
2.2 Facility Surveys
2.2.1 Economic Implications
2.2.2 Energy Consumption
2.2.3 Environmental Regulations
2.3 Field Test Program
2.3.1 Regulatory Criteria
2.3.2 Sampling and Analysis Procedures
2.3.3 Quality Assurance Procedures
11
• ••
m
iv
ix
x
xiv
xv
XV
XV
XV
xvi
xviii
3
3
5
5
6
7
7
7
9
17
2.4
Facility Effectiveness
19
-------
CONTENTS (cont.)
3.0 Islip, New York
3.1 Process Description
3.1.1 Integrated Solid Waste Management System
3.1.2 Material Recovery Facility
3.1.3 Economic, Energy, and Environmental Issues
3.2 Field Test Results
3.2.1 Test Procedures
3.2.2 Environment and the Public Health
3.2.3 Occupational Health and Safety
4.0 Montgomery County, Maryland
4.1 Process Description
4.1.1 Integrated Solid Waste Management System
4.1.2 Material Recovery Facility
4.1.3 Economic, Energy and Environmental Issues
4.2 Field Test Results
4.2.1 Test Procedures
4.2.2 Environment and the Public Health
4.2.3 Occupational Health and Safety
5.0 Albuquerque, New Mexico
5.1 Process Description
5.1.1 Integrated Solid Waste Management System
5.1.2 Material Recovery Facility
5.1.3 Economic, Energy and Environmental Issues
5.2 Field Test Results
5.2.1 Test Procedures
5.2.2 Environment and the Public Health
5.2.3 Occupational Health and Safety
21
21
21
23
26
30
30
32
40
49
49
49
52
55
60
60
64
69
79
79
79
81
83
89
89
91
95
VI
-------
CONTENTS (comt.)
6.0 Hartford, Connecticut
6.1 Process Description
6.1.1 Integrated Solid Waste Management System
6.1.2 Material Recovery Facility
6.1.3 Economic, Energy and Environmental Issues
6.2 Field Test Results
6.2.1 Test Procedures
6.2.2 Environment and the Public Health
6.2.3 Occupational Health and Safety
7.0 Rice County, Minnesota
7.1 Process Description
7.1.1 Integrated Solid Waste Management System
7.1.2 Material Recovery Facility
7.1.3 Economic, Energy and Environmental Issues
7.2 Field Test Results
7.2.1 Test Procedures
•. . 7.2.2 Environment and the Public Health
7.2.3 Occupational Health and Safety
8.0 Orange County, Florida
8.1 Process Description
8.1.1 Integrated Solid Waste Management System
8.1.2 Material Recovery Facility
8.1.3 Energy, Economic and Environmental Issues
8.2 Field Test Results
8.2.1 Test Procedures
8.2.2 Environment and the Public Health
8.2.3 Occupational Health and Safety
102
102
102
105
107
116
116
119
124
135
135
135
137
138
145
145
148
153
160
160
159
163
166
172
172
175
179
vn
-------
9.0
CONTENTS (cont.)
Conclusions
9.1 Economic, Energy and Environmental Issues
9.2 Environment and the Public Health
9.3 Occupational Health and Safety
187
187
188
189
Appendices:
A. Quality Assurance Project PJan
B. Site Windrose Data
C. Field Test Results for Islip, New York
D. Field Test Results for Montgomery County, Maryland
E. Field Test Results for Albuquerque, New Mexico
F. Field Test Results for Rice County, Minnesota
G. Field Test Results for Hartford, Connecticut
H. Field Test Results for Orange County, Florida
The Appendices are not included in this report, since the majority of the field test results have
been incorporated into the body of the document. To obtain a copy of the Appendices, make a
request in -writing to:
Lynnanh Hitchens
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. •
Vlll
-------
FIGURES
Figure Title Page No.
3-1 Islip, New York Solid Waste System 22
3-2 Site Plan: Multi-Purpose Recycling Facility, Islip, New Yo^k 24
3-3 Ambient Sampling Locations: Multi-Purpose Recycling Facility,
Islip, New York ' 33
4-1 Montgomery County Solid Waste System 50
4-2 Site Plan: Montgomery County Recycling Center, Derwood, Maryland 53
4-3 Energy Consumptions for the Montgomery County IMSWM System 58
4-4 Ambient Sampling Locations: Montgomery County Recycling Center,
Derwood, Maryland 62
5-1 Albuquerque Solid Waste System 80
5-2 Site Plan: Intermediate Processing Facility, Albuquerque, New Mexico 82
5-3 Total Costs and Revenues for the City of Albuquerque IMSWM System 86
5-4 Energy Consumption for the City of Albuquerque IMSWM System 88
5-5 Ambient Sampling Locations: Intermediate Processing Facility,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 90
6-1 Mid-Connecticut Solid Waste System 103
6-2 Site Plan: Mid-Connecticut Recycling Center, Hartford, Connecticut 106
6-3 Total Costs and Revenues for the Mid-Connecticut IMSWM System 111
6-4 Energy Consumption for the Mid-Connecticut IMSWM System 114
6-5 Ambient Sampling Locations: Mid-Connecticut Recycling Center,
Hartford, Connecticut 118
7-1 Rice County Solid Waste System 136
7-2 Plot Plan: Rice County Recycling Center, Dundas, Minnesota 138
7-3 Total Costs and Revenues for the Rice County IMSWM System 141
7-4 Energy Consumption for the Rice County IMSWM System 143
7-5 Ambient Sampling Locations: Rice County Recycling Center; Dundas,
Minnesota 146
8-1 Orange County, Florida Solid Waste System 160
8-2 Site Plan: Material Recovery Facility, Orange County, Florida 164
8-3 Total Costs and Revenues for the Orange County IMSWM System 168
8-4 Energy Consumption for the Orange County IMSWM System 170
8-5 Ambient Sampling Locations: Material Recovery Facility, Orange
County, Florida 173
IX
-------
TABLES
Table
Title
ES-1 Summary of the Occupational Health and Safety Sampling Program
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-16
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
National Abient Air Quality Standards for TSP, PM10, and CO
Worker Exposure Limits
Summary of the Environmental and Public Health Sampling Program
Summary of the Occupational Health and Safety Sampling Program
Comparison of the Original and Revised Protocols for the Field
Test Programs
Material Received and Recovered in 1992
Estimated Costs for the Islip IMSWM System
Estimated Revenues for the Islip IMSWM System
Major Environmental Permits and Approvals
Sampling Locations at the Islip MRF
Islip TSP, PM10 and Lead Sampling Results
Islip Ambient CO and Mercury Measurement Results
Islip VOC Sampling Results
Islip Wastewater Sampling Results
Islip Community Noise Measurement Results
Islip Total Dust, Respirable Dust and Silica Personnel Sampling
Results
Islip Metals Personnel Sampling Results
Islip Airborne Fungi and Bacteria Sampling Results
Islip Surface Bacteria Sampling Results
Islip Audiodosimeter Results
Islip Indoor Noise Measurement Results
Material Received and Recovered in 1992
Estimated Costs for the Montgomery County IMSWM System
Estimated Revenues for the Montgomery County IMSWM System
Estimated Energy Consumption for the Montgomery County IMSWM
System
Major Environmental Permits and Approvals
Sampling Locations at the Montgomery County MRF
Montgomery County TSP, PM10 and Lead Sampling Results
Montgomery County Ambient CO and Mercury Measurement Results
Montgomery County VOC Sampling Results
Montgomery County Wastewater Sampling Results
Montgomery County Community Noise Measurement Results
Page No.
xvii
8
9
11
14
19
25
28
28
30
32
34
36
37
39
40
41
41
43
43
45
45
52
56
56
57
59
63
64
66
67
68
69
x
-------
TABLES (conlt.)
Table Title Page No.
4-12 Montgomery County Total Dust, Respirable Dust and
Silica Personnel Sampling Results 70
4-13 Montgomery County Metals Personnel Sampling Results 70
4-14 Montgomery County Indoor CO and Mercury Measurement Results 71
4-15 Montgomery County Airborne Fungi and Bacteria Sampling Results 72
4-16 Montgomery County Surface Fungi and Bacteria Sampling Results 73
4-17 Montgomery County Audiodosimeter Results 74
4-18 Montgomery County Indoor Noise Measurement Results 75
4-19 Injury and Illness Rates for 1991, 1992 and 1993 77
5-1 Material Received and Recovered from April 1 through
September 30, 1993 83
5-2 Estimated Costs for the Albuquerque IMSWM System 84
5-3 Estimated Revenues for the Albuquerque IMSWM System 85
5-4 Energy Consumption for the Albuquerque IMSWM System 87
5-5 Sampling Locations at the Albuquerque MRF 91
5-6 Albuquerque TSP, PM10 and Lead Sampling Results 92
5-7 Albuquerque Ambient CO and Mercury Monitoring Results 93
5-8 Albuquerque VOC Sampling Results 94
5-9 Albuquerque Community Noise Measurement Results 95
5-10 Albuquerque Total Dust, Respirable Dust and Silica Personnel
Sampling Results 96
5-11 Albuquerque Indoor CO and Mercury Monitoring Results 97
5-12 Albuquerque Airborne Fungi and Bacteria Sampling Results 97
5-13 Albuquerque Surface Fungi and Bacteria Sampling Results 98
5-14 Albuquerque Audiodosimeter Results 99
5-15 Albuquerque Indoor Noise Measurement Results 100
6-1 Material Received and Recovered in 1992 107
6-2 Estimated Costs for the Mid-Connecticut IMSWM System 108
6-3 Estimated Revenues for the Mid-Connecticut IMSWM System 109
6-4 Energy Consumption for the Mid-Connecticut IMSWM System 113
6-5 Major Environmental Permits and Approvals 115
6-6 Sampling Locations at the Hartford MRF 117
6-7 Hartford TSP, PM10 and Lead Sampling Results 119
6-8 Hartford Ambient CO and Mercury Measurement Results for the
Container Recycling Facility 121
XI
-------
TABLES (cont.)
Table Title
6-9 Hartford Ambient CO and Mercury Measurement Results for the
Paper Recycling Facility
6-10 Hartford VOC Sampling Results
6-11 Hartford Community Noise Measurement Results for the Container
Recycling Facility
6-12 Hartford Community Noise Measurement Results for the Paper
Recycling Community
6-13 Hartford Total Dust, Respirable Dust and Silica Personnel
Sampling Results
6-14 Hartford Indoor CO and Mercury Measurement Results for the
Container Recycling Facility
6-15 Hartford Indoor CO and Mercury Measurement Results for the
Paper Recycling Facility
6-16 Hartford Airborne Fungi and Bacteria Results
6-17 Hartford Surface Fungi and Bacteria Results
6-18 Hartford Audiodosimeter Results
6-19 Hartford Indoor Noise Measurement Results for the Container
Recycling Facility
6-20 Hartford Indoor Noise Measurement Results for the Paper
Recycling Facility
6-21 Injuries and Illnesses 1991, 1992 and 1993
7-1 Material Received and Recovered in 1992
7-2 Estimated Costs for the Rice County IMSWM System
7-3 Estimated Revenues for the Rice County IMSWM System
7-4 Energy Consumption for the Rice County IMSWM System
7-5 Sampling Locations at the Rice County MRF
7-6 Rice County TSP, PM10 and Lead Sampling Results
7-7 Rice County VOC Sampling Results
7-8 Rice County Wastewater Analysis Results
7-9 Rice County Community Noise Measurement Results
7-10 Rice County Total Dust, Respirable Dust and Silica Personnel
Sampling Results '
7-11 Rice County Indoor CO and Mercury Measurement Results
7-12 Rice County Airborne Fungi and Bacteria Results
7-13 Rice County Surface Fungi and Bacteria Results
7-14 Rice County Audiodosimeter Results
7-15 Rice County Indoor Noise Measurement Results
7-16 Injuries and Illnesses 1991, 1992 and 1993
Page No.
122
122
123
124
125
126
126
127
127
129
130
131
133
137
140
141
143
146
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
155
157
157
159
XII
-------
TABLES (cont.)
Table Title
8-1 Material Received and Recovered in 1992
8-2 Estimated Costs for the Orange County IMSWM System
8-3 Estimated Revenues for the Orange County IMSWM System
8-4 Energy Consumption for the Orange County IMSWM System
8-5 Major Permits and Approvals
8-6 Sampling Locations at the Orange County MRF
8-7 Orange County TSP, PM10 and Lead Sampling Results
8-8 Orange County VOC Sampling Results
8-9 Orange County Community Noise Measurement Results
8-10 Orange County Total Dust, Respirable Dust and Silica Personnel
Sampling Results
8-11 Orange County Airborne Fungi and Bacteria Results
8-12 Orange County Surface Fungi and Bacteria Results
8-13 Orange County Audiodosimeter Results
8-14 Orange County Indoor Noise Measurement Results
8-15 Injuries and Illnesses 1991, 1992 and 1993
Page No.
164
167
168
170
173
175
176
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
Xlll
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared under the coordination of Lynnann Kitchens, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Municipal Solid Waste Innovative Technology
Evaluation (MITE) Program Manager, at the National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio and Philip B. Shepherd, Technical Monitor, at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL), Golden, Colorado. Contributors and reviewers of this report include
Charlotte Frola and Dianne DeRoze of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA).
This report was prepared for the U.S. EPA's MITE Program by Ian Thomson,
James Walsh, Patrick Rafferty, and Jeffrey Benyo of Roy F. Weston, Inc. The air samples were
analyzed by the Analytics Division of Roy F. Weston, Inc., Coast to Coast Labs, and MDS Labs.
Bacteria and fungi samples were analyzed by PathCon Laboratories and Five Star Laboratories.
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of the municipal, county, and
regional officials, as well as representatives of private operators, who assisted in the test program
at the participating material recovery facilities (MRFs) and who also provided essential
information on the MRFs and associated integrated municipal solid waste management (IMSWM)
systems.
xiv
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview
The use of material recovery facilities (MRFs) is increasing by state, county and local
governments as one option for managing municipal solid waste (MSW). The owners and
operators of these facilities employ a combination of manual and mechanical techniques to separate
and sort the recyclable fraction of MSW and then transport the separated materials to recycling
facilities. Despite the increasing use of these facilities, only limited data are available on the
environmental, economic, and energy impacts associated with MRF operation. These data are
necessary if solid waste managers are to make informed decisions on the design and operation of
integrated municipal solid waste management (IMSWM) systems which include collection,
transport, processing and final disposition of solid waste and recycled materials.
The primary objective of the evaluation was to understand the effects of MRF operations
on public health and the environment, as well as on occupational health and safety. To that end,
the environmental evaluation conducted at the six MRFs considered the impacts on ambient air
quality, receiving waters, and community noise levels, while the occupational health and safety
evaluation addressed chemical exposure, biological aerosols, occupational noise, physical safety,
and ergonomics. The economic and energy aspects of MRFs must also be understood to fully
appreciate these impacts in the context of the IMSWM system.
Case Studies
Six MRFs considered representative of the systems currently operating or planned
throughout the country were selected for this evaluation. The selected MRFs are geographically
distributed throughout the country, receive both commingled or source separated wastes, and
employ a variety of techniques to recover recyclables. The facilities serve the following
jurisdictions:
• Islip, New York;
• Montgomery County, Maryland;
• Albuquerque, New Mexico;
• Hartford, Connecticut;
• Rice County, Minnesota; and
• Orange County, Florida.
Because of the limited sample of MRFs evaluated compared with the entire universe of facilities,
the evaluations should be considered case studies of typical MRFs currently in operation or under
development throughout the country.
Technical Approach
The field test programs conducted at the participating MRFs were intended to assess the
direct impacts of MRF operations on public health and the environment, as well as occupational
xv
-------
health and safety impacts of facility operations. To put these impacts in perspective, a field
survey was conducted at the six MRFs prior to the field test program to evaluate the technical,
economic, energy, and environmental issues related to the IMSWM system and its various
components.
During the field test programs at the six MRFs, environmental sampling was conducted
to determine the measurable impacts on ambient air quality, wastewater quality, and noise levels
in the immediate vicinity of each of the facilities. Indoor and personnel sampling were conducted
to evaluate worker exposure to chemicals, biological aerosols, and noise. A Certified Industrial
Hygienist also reviewed available health and safety programs, conducted personnel interviews,
and videotaped operations for a subsequent ergonomic hazard evaluation.
For the most part, the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with standard
methods and procedures established by the U.S. EPA and the National Institute of Occupational
Health and Safety (NIOSH). Table ES-1 summarizes the environmental and occupational health
and safety sampling conducted at the facilities, the parameters measured in each sampling
program, and the criteria established by regulatory agencies or professional associations.
An analysis of costs and revenues associated with the integrated solid waste management
systems (ISWMS) and the material recovery facilities (MRF) was performed as part of this
project. A questionnaire and data request list were sent to each of the six participating entities
to collect preliminary information regarding costs and revenues associated with their operations.
The completed questionnaires and data which were returned were evaluated to determine their
usability for the analysis. The relevant information was input into a cost/revenue spreadsheet
model which was developed to analyze the ISWMS/MRF costs and revenues. After input of
information into the model, it was determined that a significant amount of additional information
was required. Follow up written and telephone communications were undertaken to collect
needed data. Four of the six participating entities were able to provide sufficient data to complete
the analyses. Two were unable to provide sufficient data, and consequently, the analyses for these
entities are incomplete. The results shown in this report are based on the spreadsheet analyses
for the four entities from whom we obtained sufficient data.
Field Test Results
The environmental testing conducted at the MRFs measured the ambient concentrations
of total suspended particulates (TSP), particulate less than 10 microns (PM10), carbon monoxide
(CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), lead, and mercury vapor. Wastewater quality and
community noise was also addressed in the field testing. Generally, TSP, PM10, and lead
concentrations were well below the applicable State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Carbon monoxide and mercury concentrations were also well below the applicable NAAQS or
OSHA's Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs). Detectable VOC concentrations were several
orders of magnitude below applicable state guidelines. Wastewater quality and community noise
levels met applicable Federal and state criteria.
xvi
-------
Table ES-1
Summary of the Occupational Health and Safety Sampling Program
Critical Measurement
Total Suspended Paniculate (TSP)
Paniculate < 10 Microns (PM10)
Paniculate Lead
Volatile Organic Compounds
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Mercury Vapor
Wastewater Parameters
Community Noise
Nuisance Dust, Total
Nuisance Dust, Respirable
Silica, Crystalline
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
PCBs and Pesticides
Bacteria and Fungi
Worker Noise
Matrix
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Water
Noise .
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air .
Air
Air
Noise
Test Method
40 CFR 60, Appendix B
40 CFR 60, Appendix J
40 CFR 60, Appendix G
EPA Method TO-14
NIOSH 7601
Jerome Analyzer
EPA Methods
Sound Level Meter
NIOSH 0500
NIOSH 0600
NIOSH 7601
NIOSH 7300
NIOSH 7300
NIOSH 7300
NIOSH 7300
NIOSH 7300
EPA TO-10
PathCon Protocol
Personnel Dosimeter
Regulatory Standard
or Guideline
260/ug/rn3
150 //g/m3
1.5^g/m3a
Compound Dependent
35 ppm
0.05 mg/m3
Site-Specific
Site-Specific
15 mg/m3
5 mg/m3
0.1 mg/m3
15.0 mg/m3
0.01 mg/m3
1.00 mg/m3
0.05 mg/m3
1.00 mg/m3
Compound Dependent
None Established
90dBA
"Reduction to 0.75 /ug/m3 pending.
xvu
-------
The occupational health and safety testing conducted at the MRFs addressed worker
exposure to total dust, respirable dust, crystalline silica, metals, CO, mercury vapor,
polychlorinated biphenyls, pesticides, bacteria, fungi, and occupational noise. Physical safety
hazards and ergonomic stressors were also evaluated during the field test program. Total dust,
respirable dust, silica, and metal concentrations were one or more orders of magnitude below the
applicable PELs. Carbon monoxide and mercury vapor concentrations were well below the
applicable PELs, while PCB and pesticide levels were below the detection limits of the test
method. Airborne bacteria and fungi concentrations measured inside the MRFs were roughly one
order of magnitude higher than the levels found outside the facility. The airborne and surface
samples of bacteria and fungi were relatively consistent from one location to another inside a
facility.
For the most part, the six MRFs had implemented programs to protect worker health and
safety in conformance with regulations promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). These programs address, among other issues, energy control, hazard
communication, respiratory protection, hearing conservation, and bloodborne pathogens. The
ergonomic issues identified at the MRFs include worker discomfort, fatigue, injury, and illness.
The most common ergonomic risk factors is improper workstation design and excessive line speed
that fails to accommodate workers or causes repetitive or awkward motions.
The forms of energy used to manage MSW include gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, number
2 fuel oil, and electricity. Estimates of the energy consumed by collection vehicles, processing
facilities, including the MRF, composting facilities, and landfills are provided in this report. For
the MRF's the energy consumption was determined from actual facility records, including monthly
invoices. Telephone interviews were held with numerous private contractors to obtain actual or
estimated energy consumption for their vehicles and operations. When data was not readily
available, for example for collection vehicles, the average energy consumption was estimated
using statistics from other communities.
Conclusions
The MRFs considered in this evaluation employed manual and mechanical techniques to
recover materials from both commingled and source separated wastes. Considering the costs and
revenues associated with material recovery, the six MRFs all provided a net cost to the respective
IMSWM systems. Similarly, the energy consumption per ton of waste handled was typically an
order of magnitude higher for recyclables compared with MSW, with MSW and recyclables
collection dominating total energy consumption. Regardless of the economic or energy penalties
associated with MRFs, most states mandate material recycling as part of the overall solid waste
management plan for the responsible jurisdictions.
Based on the results of the environmental and occupational health and safety evaluation,
MRFs do not appear to pose a significant threat to public health or the environment. Nuisance
conditions, such as fugitive dust and excessive noise, can be readily
xvni
-------
mitigated through maintenance of roadways and equipment enclosure. Similarly, the health and
safety hazards to which workers may be exposed can be controlled by design and implementation
of OSHA-required worker protection programs. Because of rapidly developing knowledge and
awareness of airborne microbiology and ergonomics, these areas may warrant additional
evaluation.
xix
-------
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Material recovery facilities (MRFs) are increasing in use by state, county and local
governments as one option for managing municipal solid waste (MSW). The owners and
operators of these facilities employ a combination of manual and mechanical techniques to separate
and sort the recyclable fraction of MSW and then transport the separated materials to recycling
facilities. Despite the increasing use of these facilities,, only limited data are available on the
environmental, economic, and energy impacts associated with MRF operation. These data are
necessary if solid waste managers are to make informed decisions on the design and operation of
integrated municipal solid waste management (IMSWM) systems. To help close this data gap,
a comprehensive evaluation was performed to determine the environmental, economic, and energy
impacts associated with six operational MRFs. i
The primary objective of the evaluation was to understand the effects of MRF operations
on public health and the environment, as well as on occupational health and safety. To that end,
the environmental evaluation conducted at the six MRFs considered the impacts on ambient air
quality, receiving waters, and community noise levels, while the occupational health and safety
evaluation addressed exposure to chemicals, biological aerosols, and occupational noise, as well
as physical safety hazards and ergonomic stressors. The economic and energy aspects of MRFs
must also be understood to fully appreciate these impacts in the context of the IMSWM system.
The economic and energy evaluation was based on publicly available information or material
provided by the owners or operators of the participating MRFs.
Six MRFs considered representative of the systems currently operating or planned
throughout the country were selected for participation in the evaluation. The selected MRFs are
geographically distributed throughout the country, receive both commingled or source separated
wastes, and employ a variety of techniques to recover recyclables. The facilities serve the
following jurisdictions:
• Islip, New York;
• Montgomery County, Maryland;
• Albuquerque, New Mexico;
• Hartford, Connecticut;
• Rice County, Minnesota; and
• Orange County, Florida.
Because of the limited sample of MRFs evaluated compared with the universe of facilities, the
evaluations should be considered case studies of typical MRFs currently in operation or under
development throughout the country.
-------
The field test programs conducted at the participating MRFs were intended to assess the
direct impacts of MRF operations on public health arid the environment, as well as occupational
health and safety impacts of facility operations. A field survey was conducted at the six MRFs
prior to the field test program to evaluate the technical ^economic, energy, and environmental
issues related to the IMSWM system and its various components. The forms of energy used to
manage MSW include gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, number 2 fuel oil, and electricity. Estimates
of the energy consumed by collection vehicles, processing facilities, including the MRF,
composting facilities, and landfills are provided in this report. For the MRF's the energy
consumption was determined from actual facility records, including monthly invoices. Telephone
interviews were held with numerous private contractors to obtain actual or estimated energy
consumption for their vehicles and operations. When data was not readily available, for exaihple
for collection vehicles, the average energy consumption was estimated using statistics from other
communities. Based on this information, the total costs and energy use were allocated as
appropriate to the MRF and IMSWM system. The environmental information was used to place
the field test results into perspective. '
The environmental evaluation addressed the impacts of MRF operations on ambient air
quality, wastewater quality, and noise levels in the immediate vicinity of each facility. The
occupational health and safety evaluation addressed worker exposure to chemicals, biological
aerosols, and noise, as well as safety and ergonomic hazards. For the most part, the sampling and
analysis was conducted in accordance with standard methods and procedures established by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and National Institute of Occupational Health
and Safety (NIOSH).
The environmental and occupational impacts of MRF operations were assessed by
comparing measured concentrations With regulatory levels or other acceptable criteria. This
identified those areas approaching or exceeding acceptable levels and determined the likely
impacts on both the workers and the local community. For those releases without established
criteria, the exposure or release was compared with other comparable sources, typical background
levels, or measured background levels. This type of comparison was particularly useful for
parameters such as airborne microbiological indicators.
-------
SECTION 2
TEST PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
2.1 Case Studies
Six MRFs were selected for participation in a comprehensive environmental and
occupational health and safety evaluation. The selected MRFs are located in various geographical
areas, process source separated or commingled wastes, and employ a variety of techniques for
separating and sorting recyclable material. The facilities evaluated serve the following
jurisdictions:
• Islip. New York. The Multi-Purpose Recycling Facility, located in South Holbrook,
Long Island, is owned and operated by the Islip Resource Recovery Agency. The
facility was designed and built by the Agency. Private haulers collect paper and
commingled recyclables, in most of the districts within the Town of Islip, with the
Agency providing collection services in the-remaining districts., The facility receives
newsprint and corrugated cardboard on Wednesday every other week, and
commingled recyclables on the alternating Wednesdays. The recyclables are sorted
in two processing lines by means of trommels, magnetic separators, and manual
sorting. The recovered materials include newsprint, corrugated cardboard, ferrous
cans, aluminum, plastics, and glass. The recovered materials are shipped to market
by truck, with rejected material transported to the Agency's waste-to-energy facility.
• Montgomery County. Maryland. The Material Recovery Facility, located in
Berwopd, Maryland, is owned by Montgomery County, The facility was built and
is currently operated by CRInc-Well under a subcontract with Maryland
Environmental Services. Newsprint and commingled recyclables are collected
separately by municipalities and private haulers; the County also provides collection
services to a number of municipalities. At the facility, the newsprint and commingled
recyclables are unloaded in separate areas on the tipping floor. The commingled
recyclables are then processed in a sorting system developed by Bezner. The
recovered materials include ferrous cans, aluminum, plastics, and color-sorted glass.
The recovered material is baled, except for glass which is crushed into cullet, prior
to shipment to market. Rejected material is currently transported to a private landfill.
• Albuquerque. New Mexico. The Intermediate Processing Facility is located adjacent
to the City's landfill, approximately 20 miles from Albuquerque, The facility is
owned and operated by the City. The City collects recyclables from residential and
commercial customers in Albuquerque; private haulers also provide commercial
collection services. At the facility, newsprint and corrugated cardboard are presorted
on the tipping floor and baled for shipment to market. Commingled recyclables, that
-------
is ferrous metal, aluminum cans, plastic containers, and color-sorted glass, are
recovered manually on a single sorting belt conveyor. The recovered material is
delivered by truck to market, while rejects are disposed of in the adjacent landfill
operated by the City.
Hartford. Connecticut. The Mid-Connecticut Recycling Center, consisting of separate
container and paper recycling operations, is located in Hartford. The Container
Recycling Center is owned by the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority and
operated under contract by RRT Empire of Mid-Connecticut, Inc. The Paper
Recycling Center is leased by the Authority and operated by Capital Recycling of
Connecticut, Inc. The municipalities within the Mid-Connecticut Region collect paper
and commingled recyclables in their jurisdictions and deliver them either directly to
the facility or one of four transfer stations. The paper and corrugated cardboard is
sorted into various grades of recyclable paper at the Paper Recycling Center, while
commingled recyclables are sorted at the Container Recycling Center. Ferrous cans,
aluminum, plastic containers, and color-sorted glass are separated from the waste
stream and baled or crushed prior to shipment by truck and rail to market. Rejects
are disposed of at the waste processing facility owned by the Authority.
Rice County. Minnesota. The Recycling Facility, including a household hazardous
waste center, is located adjacent to the County's landfill. The facility is owned and
operated by the County. Private haulers collect recyclables separately from other
wastes throughout the County. The source-separated recyclables include newsprint,
corrugated cardboard, ferrous cans, aluminum, plastic containers, and glass bottles.
The recyclable paper is shredded and baled in a separate building. The remaining
separated material is processed individually throughout the day. Ferrous cans,
aluminum, and plastics are baled for shipment to market, while glass is crushed into
cullet prior to shipment. Rejects are disposed of at the adjacent landfill, owned and
operated by the County. Household hazardous waste is also sorted in a separate
building, and either made available to the public for reuse or transported by a licensed
hauler to an off-site disposal site.
Orange County. Florida. The Material Recovery Facility is located adjacent to the
County's landfill east of Orlando. The facility is owned and operated by Recycle
America of Orange County, a unit of Waste Management, Inc; however, the County
has an option to purchase the facility at a future date. The recyclables are collected
by municipalities or private haulers within franchise districts throughout the County.
At the facility, paper and cardboard are presorted on the tipping floor, while mixed
recyclables are mechanically and manually sorted into ferrous metals, aluminum,
plastics, and color-sorted glass. The recovered material is shipped to market by
truck. The rejects are disposed of at the adjacent landfill, owned arid operated by the
County.
-------
It should be noted that the evaluation of only six MRFs cannot be expected to provide a high level
of confidence (e.g., 95 to 98 percent confidence) in the representativeness of the samples collected
compared with the entire universe of MRFs. Rather, these evaluations should be considered case
studies of typical MRFs currently in operation or under development throughout the country.
/
2.2 Facility Surveys
The field survey identified the technical, economic, energy, and environmental issues
related to each of the IMSWM systems and their various components. Based on this information,
the portion of the total costs and energy use may be properly allocated to the MRF and IMSWM
system. The environmental information obtained during the field survey was used to put the field
test results into perspective. The methodologies used in the economic, energy, and environmental
evaluation are discussed in the following sections.
2.2.1 Economic Implications
One of the objectives of the evaluation was to determine what portion of the overall costs
of each IMSWM system may be properly allocated to its MRF. Accordingly, the capital and
operating costs were determined for each of the system components to the extent the necessary
information was available from the project participants. To this end, the field survey team
requested the following information from each participant:
• a mass balance for the IMSWM system and its various components;
• operating costs and fees associated with the collection of solid waste and delivery to
the appropriate component of the system;
• capital and operating costs for the MRF, transfer stations, drop-off centers,
composting facility, waste-to-energy facility, and landfill;
• operating costs and fees for the transport of solid waste, rejects, and residues from
these facilities to' the. waste-to-energy facility or landfill; and ,
• operating costs and fees for the transport of marketable commodities to market.
In any systems analysis problem, it is necessary to establish the boundaries of the system.
For this evaluation, the system boundary has been set at the point of curbside pickup to the point
of final delivery of products or rejects. This boundary included all of the IMSWM system
components for which the municipal budget is normally responsible. If available, actual cost data
for the calendar year 1992 were used in the, evaluation. Alternatively, the jurisdiction's fiscal year
was used instead of the calendar year.
-------
At the participating MRFs, the responsible jurisdictions provided information required to
complete a mass balance for the components of their IMSWM system. If available, the
jurisdiction provided the records of revenues derived from the sale of marketable commodities or
electrical power. Because waste collection services are often provided by private contractors, it
was not always possible to ascertain the costs associated with the collection of MSW and
recyclables and delivery of same to the appropriate component of the IMSWM system. In these
cases, the costs were based on the actual fees charged to the jurisdiction. Once these data were
compiled, the capital and operating costs were allocated to the appropriate components of the
IMSWM system.
2.2.2 Energy Consumption
To determine the overall energy consumption of the IMSWM system and, in the case of
a waste-to-energy facility, the energy production, the field survey team requested the following
information from each participant:
• fuel used to collect solid waste and deliver it to the appropriate component of the
system;
fuels and electricity used to operate the MRF, transfer stations, drop-off centers,
compost facility, waste-to-energy facility, and landfill;
• fuel used to transport solid waste, rejects, and residues from these facilities to the
waste-to-energy facility or landfill;
• fuel used to transport marketable commodities to market; and
• sales of electricity and thermal energy to off-site markets.
The system boundaries extended from the point of curbside pickup to the point of final delivery
of products or rejects. The time period was consistent with that used in the economic evaluation
— either the calendar year 1992 or corresponding fiscal year.
At the participating MRFs, the jurisdictions supplied records of fuel usage and electricity
consumption allocated to the IMSWM system and the various components of the system. Where
applicable, the jurisdiction provided the energy production records for the waste-to-energy
facility. Because waste collection services are often provided by private contractors, it was not
always possible to ascertain the fuel consumption associated with the collection of MSW and
recyclables and delivery of same to the appropriate component of the IMSWM system. The
available energy consumption or production values were then assigned to various system
components.
-------
2.2.3 Environmental Regulations
' ' " f
The field test programs conducted at the participating MRFs were intended to assess the
direct, impacts of MRF operations on public health and the.environment, as well as occupational
health and safety impacts on MRF employees. To put these impacts in perspective, information
was obtained on federal and state regulations and approvals applicable to the various components
of the IMSWM system. These regulations and approvals typically impose design and performance
standards on solid waste management facilities. Any comparison of the environmental impacts
associated with the participating MRFs must take these standards into consideration.
2.3 Field Test Program
The field test programs at the participating-MRFs considered ambient air quality,
wastewater effluent, and community noise, while the occupational health and safety assessment
addressed exposure to chemicals, biological aerosols, and occupational noise, as well as physical
safety hazards and ergonomic stressors. This section describes the technical approach used in the
field test programs.
2.3.1 Regulatory Criteria
The field test results were compared to environmental and workplace standards established
by the U.S. EPA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). Discussed below are the standards
used in the assessment of the environmental and occupational health and safety impacts associated
with the participating MRFs.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the U.S. EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for total suspended particulates (TSP), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide
(NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), and
photochemical oxidants measured as ozone (O3). The NMHC standard was eventually changed
to a guideline, and the O3 standard was revised in subsequent regulations. Most recently, the U.S.
EPA promulgated standards for respirable particulates with a mean diameter less than 10 microns
(PM10). Based on an analysis of potential pollutant emissions from MRFs, the field test program
was designed to measure ambient concentrations of TSP, PM10, and CO. The standards for these
pollutants are presented in Table 2-1. Note that the primary standards are intended to protect
public health, while the secondary standards protect public welfare.
-------
Table 2-1
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for TSP, PM10 and CO
Pollutant
TSpa
PM10
CO
Averaging
Period
24-hour
24-hour
1-hour
8-hour
NAAQS (Mg/m3)
Primary Standard
260
150
40,000
10,000
Secondary Standard
150
_
.. _ •-
10,000
"PM10 standard has replaced TSP standard. . .
Permissible Exposure Limits
The OSHA has established mandatory concentration limits for over 400 workplace air
contaminants under 29 CFR 1910.1000. A standard was also established for lead under
29 CFR 1910.1025. These standards, referred to as Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs), are
usually expressed as an 8-hour, time-weighted average concentration of the contaminant measured
in the worker's breathing zone. In some cases, PELs may be expressed as 15-minute average
Short-term Exposure Limits (STELs) or as instantaneous Acceptable Ceiling Concentrations
(Ceilings). In addition, the ACGIH has developed workplace criteria for air contaminants, known
as Threshold Limit Values (TLVs). The pertinent PELs for the field test program are summarized
in Table 2-2. To date, neither OSHA nor ACGIH has developed standards for bacteria and fungi.
Occupational Noise Exposure
The OSHA has established occupational noise exposure standards under 29 CFR 1910.95.
According to these regulations, the maximum acceptable 8-hour worker exposure is 90 decibels
on an A-weighted scale (dBA). Employers are required to institute a Hearing Conservation
Program in cases where workers are exposed to noise levels in excess of 85 DBA.
Occupational Health
Additional standards have been established by OSHA to protect worker health and safety
through work practices, engineering controls, training, protective equipment, reporting, and
recordkeeping. These occupational health standards include:
• Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (29 CFR 1904.2),
• Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910,134),
• Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200), -:
• Lockout/Tagout Standard (29 CFR 1910.147), and
8
-------
Bloodborne Pathogen Program (29 CFR 1910.1030).
Although a number of these standards do not apply directly to MRFs, they can serve as a basis
for employers to develop their own programs.
Table 2-2
Worker Exposure Limits
Contaminant
Total Dust
Respirable Dust
Respirable Silica
CO
Mercury Vapor
Arsenic
Aluminum
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Units
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
ppm
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
Concentration
PEL"
15.0
5.0
0.1
35
0.05
0.01
15.0
1.00
0.05b
1.00
"Maximum 8-hour exposure established by OSHA (40 CFR 1910.1000)
bMaximum 8-hour exposure established by OSHA (40 CFR 1910.1025).
Ergonomics
The OSHA has proposed an ergonomics standard, focusing on the prevention of work-
related cumulative trauma disorders. It is anticipated that the final standard will require all
employers to perform an assessment to identify ergoriomic risks in their workplace. Where
employees experience cumulative trauma disorders, employers will be required to perform a more
detailed assessment of jobs and tasks to develop a comprehensive ergonomics program to prevent
future injury.
2.3.2 Sampling and Analysis Procedures
To completely define the environmental and occupational health and safety impacts of
MRFs would require the collection of a large number of samples over the entire range of
operating, production, seasonal, and meteorological conditions. Because such an approach was
considered infeasible for this impact analysis, the sampling and analysis program was based on
-------
the collection and analysis of a wide variety of samples over a three-day period at each MRF
under typical operating, production, and meteorological conditions.
The sampling and analysis were conducted in accordance with test procedures developed
by the U.S. EPA and NIOSH. Discussed below are the sampling and analysis procedures used
in the environmental and occupational exposure evaluation.
Public Health and the Environment
An environmental sampling program was conducted at the participating MRFs to assess
the potential environmental impacts associated with their operation. The testing program
addressed ambient air quality, wastewater quality, and noise levels in the immediate vicinity of
each of the facilities. Table 2-3 summarizes the environmental tests that were conducted at the
facilities, the parameters measured during the test programs, and the applicable criteria established
by responsible agencies.
Air Quality
Air emissions from MRFs typically result from the following sources: general or local
ventilation exhaust; fugitive emissions from process equipment; fugitive dust from materials
handling; fugitive dust from vehicular traffic; vehicular exhaust emissions; and exhaust from
combustion sources. Because MRFs rarely, if ever, use thermal processing systems, stack
sampling was deemed unnecessary to quantify stack emissions. The only stack emissions
anticipated are those from oil or gas combustion for general heating purposes, which may be
readily estimated based on published emission factors and fuel consumption. Likewise, vehicular
emission can be calculated using appropriate emission factors and either fuel consumption or miles
traversed.
10
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of the Environmental and Public: Health Sampling Program
Critical Measurement
Particulate, Total
Particulate lead
Particulate < 10 fim
Volatile Organic Compounds
Mercury Vapor
Pesticides
BOD (colorimetric tests)
COD (colorimetric tests)
TOC (UV, persulfic oxide)
Oil and Grease (spectrophotometric)
Suspended Solids (gravimetric)
Total Dissolved Solids (gravimetric)
Ph (electrometric)
Conductivity (specific conductance)
Ammonia (colorimetric)
Total Nitrogen (colorimetric)
Total Phosphorous (colorimetric,
ascorbic acid)
Coliform Bacteria
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Metals (RCRA 8)
Matrix
Air
Air
Air
.. Ah—
Air
Air
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
' Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Test Method
40 CFR 50, Appendix B
40 CFR 50, Appendix G
40 CFR 50, Appendix J
EPA TO- 14
Manufacturer's Manual
EPA TO- 10
Standard Method 405.4
Standard Method 410.4
Standard Method 415. 2
Standard Method 4 13. 2
Standard Method 160.2
Standard Method 160. 1
Standard Method 150, 1
Standard Method 120.1
Standard Method 350. 1
Standard Method,35 1.2
Standard Method 365.1
I
Standard Method 909A
Standard Method 909C
CLP-TAL
Regulatory Standard
or Guideline
260 /ig/m3
1 .5 /zg/m3"
150 n/m3
Compound-Specific
50/ig/m3
Compound-Specific
Site-Specific
Site-Specific
Site-Specific
Site-Specific
Site-Specific
Site-Specific
Site-Specific
Site-Specific
Site-Specific
Site-Specific
Site-Specific
Site-Specific
Site-Specific
Site-Specific
"Reduction to 0.75 /tg/m3 is pending.
The total emissions from each MRF were measured by means of ambient air quality
sampling. At each of the participating MRFs, the test program consisted of property-line
sampling using the following reference methods prescribed by the U.S. EPA:
• Total Suspended Particulate (TSP). U.S. EPA Method described in 40 CFR 50,
Appendix B.
11
-------
• Particulate Matter Less than 10 Microns rPMIQV U.S. EPA Method described in 40
CFR 50, Appendix G.
• Lead and Lead Compounds. U.S. EPA Method described in 40 CFR 50,
Appendix G.
• Volatile Organic Compounds CVOCV U.S. EPA Method TO-14.
• Pesticides and Polvchlorinated Biphenvls (PCBsV U.S. EPA Method TO-10.
Because the U.S. EPA methods call for the 24-hour samples of TSP, PM10 and lead, three
consecutive one-day samples were collected for each of these contaminants. One sample was
collected upwind of the MRFs, while two were collected downwind (plus one collocated sample
for quality assurance).
Carbon monoxide .(CO) and mercury vapor measurements were made using the Drager 190
Datalogger and Jerome Mercury Vapor Analyzer, respectively. These instruments, which provide
direct measurements of these contaminants, were used throughout the facility property (including
selected upwind and downwind fence line locations) at three-hour intervals during the sampling
period. Basic meteorological measurements were collected contemporaneously with the ambient
sampling to determine temperature, wind speed, and wind direction. The meteorological data
were used to determine the upwind and downwind sampling locations.
Water Quality
Wastewater effluent streams from MRFs are generally limited to housekeeping wash water,
rinse water from process sources, and stormwater runoff. The process streams typically result
from intermittent, rather than continuous washing operations. For this reason, wastewater
sampling was limited to grab samples from floor drain and stormwater sumps during episodes of
water-intensive housekeeping.
The wastewater samples were collected and analyzed at the MRFs in accordance with U.S.
EPA methods or Standard Methods for the Analysis of Water and Wastewater. The grab samples
were analyzed for the following parameters:
• 5-day biological demand (BOD5),
• chemical oxygen demand (COD),
• total organic carbon (TOC),
• oil and grease,
• total suspended solids (TSS),
• total dissolved solids (TDS),
• pH,
• conductivity,
12
-------
• total nitrogen ammonia,
• total Kjeldal nitrogen (TKN),
• total phosphorous,
• total coliform bacteria,
• fecal coliform bacteria, and
eight RCRA metals.
A total of two water samples, along with quality assurance samples, were collected at each of the
Islip and Montgomery County MRFs, and one sample was collected at the Rice County facility:
No samples were collected at the remaining MRFs, either because the facilities did not provide
for drainage or washing events did not occur during the test period.
Noise Levels
Community noise typically results from the operation and unloading of trucks, material
separation activities, shredding and baling equipment, and operation of front-end loaders. The
resulting noise levels are strongly dependent on the size of the "buffer zone" between the sources
of noise and receptors within the community and the presence of noise attenuating structures such
as walls, roofs, vegetation, and other barriers. The acceptability of noise depends on the
historical land use around the facility, the proximity of other noise sources, the time of the day,
and existing community noise ordinances.
At the six MRFs, community noise was measured using a sound level meter. The noise
measurements were taken along the perimeter of the facility property. Measurements were taken
during all hours of operation at one or two locations, depending on the layout of the facility and
proximity of adjacent noise-generating sources. To establish background noise levels,
measurements were also made during non-operating periods.
Occupational Health and Safety
Indoor and personnel sampling was conducted to evaluate the occupational health aspects
of MRF operations. The sampling addressed chemical exposure, biological aerosols, and noise
levels. A Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) reviewed available health and safety programs,
conducted personnel interviews, and videotaped operations for subsequent ergonomics evaluation.
Table 2-4 summarizes the occupational health and safety sampling conducted at each of the
facilities, the parameters measured in each sampling program, and the criteria established by
responsible agencies.
13
-------
Chemical Exposures
Chemical exposures result from the same sources associated with air emissions described
earlier, with the notable difference that workers are frequently much closer to the source for
longer periods of time than the general public. Chemical exposure was determined using standard
methods established by NIOSH.
Table 2-4
Summary of the Occupational Health and Safety Sampling Program
Critical Measurement
Nuisance Dust, Total
Nuisance Dust, Respirable
Mercury Vapor
Carbon Monoxide
Silica, Crystalline
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
PCBs and Pesticides
Bacteria
Matrix
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Air
Test Method
NIOSH 0500
NIOSH 0600
Manufacturing
Instrument Manual
NIOSH S-340
NIOSH 7601
NIOSH 7300
NIOSH 7300
NIOSH 7300
NIOSH 7300
NIOSH 7300
EPA TO-10
PathCon Protocol
Regulatory Standard
or Guideline'
15 mg/m3
5 mg/m3
0.05mg/m3b
35 ppmb
0.1 mg/m3
15.0 mg/m3
0.01 mg/m3
1.00 mg/m3
0.05 mg/m3
1.00 mg/m3
Compound-Specific
Not Established
"fcignt-nour, time-weighted average concentration, unless otherwise noted.
""Ceiling concentration.
At each of the MRFs, the sampling program addressed organic and inorganic contaminants
of potential concern from an occupational health perspective. These include the following
contaminants:
• Total Nuisance Dust. NIOSH Method 0500.
• Respirable Nuisance Dust. NIOSH Method 0600.
• Crystalline Silica. NIOSH Method 7601.
14
-------
• Carbon Monoxide (CO}. Drager 190 Datalogger CO Dosimeter.
• Pesticides and Polvchlorinated Biphenvls (PCEs1). U.S. EPA Method TO-10.
- • Trace Metals. NIOSH Method 7300 (arsenic, aluminum, chromium, lead and nickel).
i
At the six MRFs, sampling was conducted over the entire work-shift on personnel selected
as representative of the range of exposures experienced by the entire work-force. Where possible,
samples were collected from the breathing zone of sampled employees using personal sampling
equipment. Samples were collected on one shift each day of the three-day sampling period at the
facilities.
Biological Aerosols
Biological aerosols, or bioaerosols, represent an important and controversial aspect of
occupational health in MRFs. Bioaerosols are important because they are ubiquitous in residential
and commercial waste and can have health implications for the exposed worker. They are
controversial in that, despite the public concern, reliable methods have yet to be developed for
many bioaerosol components. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that safe or acceptable
levels of microorganisms in the air have not yet been established as has been done for chemical
compounds.
The procedures used in characterizing bioaerosols were developed by Path Con and Five
Star Laboratories. The procedures call for six plates of microbiological media selected to allow
for a wide range of organisms to be collected and cultured on the following growth media:
• R2A with cycloheximide (R2Ac),
• Rose Bengal Agar (RBA), and
Tryptic Soy Agar (TSA).
For each of the three days, one sample set was collected ait an upwind location, two at downwind
locations, and from three to six at indoor locations. In addition, up to eight wipe or surface
samples were collected at each facility to identify potential sources of contamination or skin
contact.
The initial characterization was performed using standard biochemical techniques followed
by speciation using gas chromatography (GC). The GC analysis allows for the isolation of the
six most predominant colony types and characterization of bacteria by means of GC analysis of
fatty acids identified with individual species. Fatty acid chromatograms are compared with a
library of chromatograms of common environmental and pathogenic microorganisms, thus
providing a greater degree of reliability in characterizing the organisms. With the ability to
identify less predominant colonies, it is unnecessary to use specialized (inhibitory) media called
for in other protocols.
15
-------
Noise Levels
As with chemical exposures, occupational noise exposures result from the same sources
as community noise, with the notable difference being the worker's proximity to the noise source.
Based on a preliminary noise survey, personal noise dosimeters were placed in the hearing zone
of employees to represent the range of exposures experienced by the entire work-force. Samples
were collected on one shift each day of the three-day sampling period at the facilities.
Physical Safety
Physical safety encompasses job-related exposures that pose a risk of physical injury to the
worker, including motor vehicle operation, electrical hazards, falling objects, explosions,
mechanical equipment, and laceration or puncture by sharp objects. These potential hazards were
evaluated subjectively by a CIH during the test program. The hazard posed by a particular
process or operation was then evaluated against any patterns of injuries or illnesses noted in the
OSHA 200 Form "Log of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses."
Occupational Health
Available information on existing occupational health and safety programs in the MRFs
were reviewed to evaluate their status and effectiveness. The following programs and procedures
were addressed in the review:
• respiratory protection program,
• hazard communication program,
• hearing conservation program,
• lockout/tagout procedures,
« chemical exposure program, and
• bloodborne pathogens program.
These programs or procedures may be required under standards established by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Ergonomics Review
During the site visit, employees were videotaped as they performed routine tasks. The
videotapes were reviewed by a Certified Occupational Health Nurse (COHN), who evaluated the
potential for back strain, repetitive motion trauma, overexertion, and other injuries. The COHN
then identified potential ergonomic risk factors affecting MRF employees and recommended
appropriate measures to minimize the potential risk.
16
-------
2.3.3 Quality Assurance Procedures ' t
Prior to implementation of the field test program, the U.S. EPA approved the Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP) and site-specific Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs). The
initial field test programs at the Islip and Montgomery County MRFs were conducted in
accordance with the procedures described in the QAPjP and site-specific SAPs. In accordance
with the original protocol, the initial two programs included individual tests for the following
parameters:
• TSP, PM10, and particulate lead;
• CO and mercury vapor;
• VOCs;
• PCBs and pesticides;
• total and respirable dust, crystalline silica, and metals;
• airborne and surface fungi and bacteria;
• wastewater quality; and
• community and workplace noise levels. . • ,
Following the initial two test programs, the test results were evaluated to determine the
effectiveness of the sampling and measurement strategy employed at the two sites and, as
appropriate, to revise the test protocol to improve the overall effectiveness of the remaining field
testing. The revised test protocol was reflected in the SAPs for the facilities in Albuquerque, New
Mexico; Hartford, Connecticut; Rice County, Minnesota; and Orange County, Florida. A
comparison of the original protocol for the initial two test programs and the revised protocol for
the remaining sites is presented in Table 2-5. The scope of the individual tests and justification
for revisions are discussed below.
• TSP. PM10 and Lead. The original protocol called for three 24-hour samples for
TSP, PM10 and lead at one upwind and two downwind locations. This required four
high volume samplers (TSP and lead) and four particle-size-specific samplers (PM10)
— three samplers for primary samples and a fourth collocated sampler for quality
control. The revised protocol eliminated the need for the collocated sampler by using
one downwind sampler for the collocated sample on the third day.
• CO and Mercury. The original protocol called for direct-reading instruments for CO
and mercury measurements at 3-hour intervals over the three-day test period. The
testing at the initial sites found extremely low levels of these contaminants, well below
the applicable Threshold Limit Values (TLVs). These tests were continued at the
remaining sites due to the high level of interest in the concentrations of these
contaminants at operating MRFs.
• VOC. The original protocol Called for three VOC samples collected using Summa®
canisters at 24-hour intervals on each of the three days The initial testing found
17
-------
extremely low levels of VOCs (on the order of 1 ppb), several orders of magnitude
below the applicable PELs. Consequently, this test was reduced from 3 days to 1 day
at the remaining sites. '
e PCBs and Pesticides. The original protocol required that PCB and pesticides samples
be collected at four locations over the three days. Neither PCBs nor pesticides were
detected at thd initial two sites; therefore, the test was eliminated at the remaining
sites.
• Dust. Silica and Metals. The original protocol called for the collection of personnel
samples from up to three workers on each of the three days, requiring samples from
up to nine workers per day. Total dust, respirable dust, and silica levels at the initial
sites were well below the applicable PELs; arsenic, aluminum, chromium, lead, and
nickel levels, for the most part, were below detection levels. Consequently, the
revised protocol called for a reduction in the number of samples for total dust,
respirable dust, and silica, and elimination of the personnel samples for metals
entirely.
• Fungi and Bacteria. According to the original protocol, airborne fungi and bacteria
samples were collected at one upwind, two downwind, and four indoor locations using
the six-plate method described in Addendum No. 1 to the QAPjP. In addition, up to
eight wipe samples were taken from worker skin or work surfaces. The test results
from the initial sites demonstrated no significant variation in upwind and downwind
samples nor the various indoor samples regardless of location. Consequently, the
revised protocol reduced the airborne samples by eliminating one downwind location
and several indoor locations based on the discretion of the CIH. The revised protocol
maintained the same procedures for the wipe samples.
• Wastewater Quality. The original protocol called for two wastewater samples during
intensive washing event. Based on the experience at the initial sites, such washing
events are infrequent (e.g., once per week) and result in a minimal wastewater
discharge (e.g., 5 gallons per event). Furthermore, the wastewater analyses found no
significant contamination levels. The revised protocol, therefore, required that the
test crew be prepared to collect a single sample in the event the operator washes the
facility. . ...
• Noise Levels. Community noise measurements were taken with a sound level meter
at various onsite and fence line locations, while workplace noise levels were measured
using personnel dosimeters over the three day period. The community and workplace
noise levels were significant, either approaching or exceeding applicable criteria, at
both of the initial two sites. In light of these findings, the noise measurements at the
remaining sites were conducted in accordance with the original protocol.
Except as noted above, all testing was conducted in accordance with the quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) procedures documented in the QAPjP.
18
-------
Table 2-5
Comparison of the Original and Revised Protocols
for the Field Test Programs
Parameters
TSP, PM10 & Lead
CO & Mercury
VOCs
PCBs & Pesticides
Dust, Silica & Metals
Fungi & Bacteria
Wastewater Quality
Noise Levels
Sampling and Analytical Protocol
Initial Two Sites
TSP and PM1Q samplers at 1 upwind
and 2 downwind locations for 3 days of
testing with collocated samplers for
duplicate analysis. . • . - • ,
CO and mercury measurements using
direct reading instruments at 3-hour
intervals for 3 days of .testing. ;
VOC sampling with Summa® canisters
for 3 days of testing.
PCB and pesticides sampling using low-
volume samplers at four locations for 3
days of testing.
Dust, silica and metals samples with
personnel sampling pumps from up to 9
personnel for the 3 days of testing.
Airborne fungi and bacteria. sampling
using 6-plate method at 2 upwind and 4
indoor locations for 3 days of testing;;
up to 8 wipe samples from worker skin
or work surfaces.
Two wastewater samples during
intensive washing event.
Community noise measurements with
sound level meter at onsite and fence-
line locations; workplace noise
measurements using dosimeters for
3 days of testing.
Remaining Four Sites
Eliminated the collocated samplers
using 1 downwind sampler on the third
day for duplicate analysis.
Same.
<"•* . " . j
-''•-. •
Reduced VOC sampling from 3 days to
1 day.
Eliminated PCBs and pesticides
sampling.
Reduced the number of samples for
dust and silica; eliminated metals
samplihg entirely.
Reduced the number of samples for
airborne fungi and bacteria; maintained
wipe samples.
Reduced wastewater collection from
2 samples to 1 sample (if washings are
routinely conducted at site).
Same.
2.4 Facility Effectiveness
' ; ~ • '' \ . i • , • f t ,:<.,•• . •
The environmental and occupational .impact of the releases from the MRFs were
determined using several methods. The first method involved comparing .measured concentrations
with acceptable levels or other criteria. Acceptable levels or related criteria included:
• National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),
• OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs),
19
-------
• ACGIH Threshold Limit Values (TLVs),
• NIOSH Recommended Exposure Levels (RELs),
• State air toxics standards or guidelines,
• ACGIH bioaerosol.guidelines,
• Federal and State effluent standards,
• OSHA occupational noise limits,
• community noise standards, '
• OSHA safety regulations, and
• odor threshold values.
The comparison identified those areas approaching or exceeding acceptable levels and assessed
likely impacts of such excursions on both the workers and the local community. For those
releases without established criteria, the exposure or release was compared with other comparable
sources and/or typical or measured background levels. This type of comparison may be
particularly useful for such issues as environmental biological indicators.
20
-------
SECTION 3
ISLIP, NEW YORK
3.1 Process Description
The Islip MRF, known as the Multi-Purpose Recycling Facility, is located in South
Holbrook, Long Island. The facility is only one component of the IMSWM system serving the
Town of Islip, New York. The process description presented in this section addresses the
technical, economic, energy, and environmental aspects of both the MRF and IMSWM system.
3.1.1 Integrated Solid Waste Management System
The Islip Resource Recovery Agency (the Agency) provides disposal and limited collection
services for MSW in the Town of Islip, New York. The components of the IMSWM system
serving Islip include:
• Multi-Purpose Recycling Facility,
• Resource Recovery Facility,
• Composting Facility, and i
• Hauppage Landfill.
Figure 3-1 presents a process flow diagram of the IMSWM system for Islip, showing the
quantities of waste received and the residue produced by the various components of the system.
Waste Collection
Most of the MSW generated in Islip is collected by private haulers licensed by the Town.
Licensed haulers are required to deliver waste to a site designated by the Town and pay the
prevailing tipping fee charged at that facility. In addition, all one, two, and three-family
dwellings within the Town are included in designated MSW collection districts. There are
currently 70 districts within the Town. The Agency provides residential collection services in the
remaining areas of the Town. In 1992, approximately 134,879 tons of residential waste and
33,373 tons of commercial waste were delivered to the Resource Recovery Facility. During this
same period, the MRF received about 27,144 and 3,541 tons of residential.and commercial
recyclables, respectively.
Multi-Purpose Recycling Facility
The Multi-Purpose Recycling Facility is located at the Lincoln Avenue Complex in South
Holbrook, New York. The facility is owned and operated by the Agency. The facility design
includes two primary processing lines for backup redundancy and operational flexibility; each
21
-------
73
5
Hauppage
c
S53
0 W
is
O to
Construction &
Debris - 333,8(
co
co
CO
•in
in
Ash from RRF
tn
£
CM
Other Ash -37
1
u_
^
,8
Crushed Glass
3,078 tons
1
Miscellaneous
50,076 tons
-"*«*-
* t
f
0
•4— •
CO
0)
-«— •
CO
Ss
!= O
f
_ o
r
L .
— i
i
i
: 8
S
S <= Q
8w§
5 ^ *~
CO •£ '
fe 1 t i
•S 1 I. 1
'g c S § -S
$ S S c
C ^4 CA ^""* CA
o uS « ^- «
O -«r *2f *^ *2?
CO CC C*4 Q.
|
CD
A
f)
S!
r -1
I
o
co
o u£
0)
^ §»
t3 o
8 I
_g? -x
^ <»
O O)
o<
o
O
a:
(D i
f s s
Is I
o
o
I I
I I
22
-------
processing line is capable of processing 120 tpd. The processing lines employ both mechanical
and manual sorting to recover newsprint, corrugated cardboard, ferrous and aluminum cans, and
.color-sorted glass. Originally the facility received newsprint and mixed recyclables on every
Wednesday and processed these materials over the next five days. Since November 1992,
newsprint has been delivered to the facility on every other Wednesday, with mixed recyclables
delivered on the alternating Wednesday, In 1992, the facility received approximately 30,685 tons
of recyclables and shipped 13,515 tons of material to market. The rejects are transported either
to the Resource Recovery Facility or Hauppage Landfill.
Resource Recovery Facility
The Resource Recovery Facility is located near MacArthur Field in Islip, New York. The
facility is owned by the Agency and operated under contract by Montenay. The facility consists
of two mass-burn, waterwall furnaces, each with a rated capacity of 100 tons per day (tpd). The
furnaces employ the proprietary O'Gonnor rotary combustor. Following weighing at the scales,
waste collection vehicles unload the MSW directly into a storage pit. Overhead cranes then
transfer the waste to one of two feed hoppers serving the furnaces. The combustion process starts
in the rotary combustor and continues on a grate system. The waste combustion produces
superheated steam, which is then directed to a turbine generator for the generation of electricity.
The electricity is sold to the Long Island Lighting Company. Approximately 168,252 tons of
residential and commercial waste were burned at the facility in 1992. An additional 14,527 tons
of solid waste were received from the MRF and Composting Facility.
Composting Facility ,
The Composting Facility is located at the Hauppage Landfill. Yard waste is brought to
the facility by municipal and private haulers, commercial landscapers, and other Town agencies.
The facility received approximately 43,298 tons of yard waste in 1992. r
Landfill
The Hauppage Landfill is the ultimate disposal site for residue generated at the Resource
Recovery Facility and Multi-Purpose Recycling Facility. Construction and demolition (C&D)
debris is also disposed of at the landfill. In 1992, the landfill received approximately 55,650 tons
of ash, 333,885 tons of C&D debris, and 3,078 tons of MRF residue. An additional 37,872 tons
of ash were received from other resource recovery facilities on Long Island.
3.1.2 Material Recovery Facility
The Islip MRF, known as the Multi-Purpose Recycling Facility, is located on a 39.4-acre
parcel of land at the Lincoln Avenue Complex in the unincorporated area of South Holbrook, New
York. The facility itself occupies approximately 10.5 acres of the overall parcel. The MRF site
plan is shown in Figure 3-2. Commencing operations in December 1990, the MRF is owned and
23 : ' ' •• '" "'. .•.'. .'
-------
CM
I
00
D
O
Cd
H
OQ
K
3
i—•
O
O ^
2 05
30
O >
SI
u
z
§
O.
-------
operated by the Islip Resource Recovery Agency. Table 3-1 summarizes the material received
at the MRF in 1992.
Table 3-1
Material Received and Recovered in 1992
Material
Newspaper
Corrugated Cardboard
Mixed Paper
Metals
Tin Cans
Plastics
Flint Glass
Green Glass
Aluminum
Rejects
Total
Throughput
(tons)
7,363
2,095
1,355
1,320
1,018
167
120
61
15
12,707
26,222
Percent of Total
(%)
28.1
8.0
5.2:
5.0
3.9
0.6
0.5
0.2
<0.1
48.5
100.0
The MRF includes a scalehouse, recyclables tipping area, processing floor building,
residential drop-off center, administrative offices, and vehicle maintenance building. The facility
design includes two primary processing lines for backup redundancy and operational flexibility.
Each processing line is capable of handling between 15 and 18 tons per hour providing an
installed processing capacity of 36 tons per hour. A single eight-hour shift, therefore, can process
about 120 tons or, with both lines in operation, 240 tons.
Vehicles delivering either paper or commingled recyclables (on alternating Wednesdays)
to the MRF immediately proceed to the scalehouse where the vehicle is identified, weighed, and
logged into the computer system. The vehicles are then directed to the recyclables receiving
building to discharge their load onto the tipping floor. After visual inspection, a payloader
charges the material to one of two steel pan conveyor systems serving each processing line.
In each processing line, inclined transfer conveyors move the material from the steel pan
conveyors to a variable-speed, hand-picking conveyor. The handpicking conveyor belt is 48
inches in width and 65 feet in length. The conveyors in each processing line are located in an
enclosed primary sorting station where pickers remove corrugated cardboard, bulky wastes, and
large metals. Three conveyors transfer the removed materials from the sorting station to three
transfer trailers below the building.
25
-------
The hand-picking conveyor discharges the remaining material into a primary trommel.
Each trommel is 8 feet in diameter and 36 feet in length, with 9-inch holes in the trommel screens.
Material expected to drop through the 9-inch holes include bottles, cullet, and cans (ferrous, tin,
and aluminum). The rejects from the trommel pass onto another conveyor within a second
enclosed picking station. The pickers here remove plastics and No. 2 paper (Mixed Paper-Grade
No. 1), while cleaned No. 1 paper (Special News-Grade No. 7) passes through the picking station.
The sorted materials are transferred by conveyor to transfer trailers.
The bottles, cullet, and cans passing through the 9-inch holes in the trommel are
transferred by a series of conveyors to a third enclosed picking station. Steel cans are removed
by a magnetic separator and discharged into a trailer below the building. The remaining material
discharges onto a variable-speed conveyor within the picking station. In this picking station,
aluminum is removed and glass is color-sorted and deposited into containers.
The rejects from the picking station are discharged to secondary trommels for removal of
mixed broken glass. Each trommel, equipped with 3-inch diameter screens, is 4 feet in diameter
and 18 feet in length. Rejects from this trommel are discharged onto a variable-speed conveyor
within the final picking station. Plastic and No. 2 paper are removed from the conveyor in this
picking station; the remaining No. 1 paper drops onto the same conveyor serving the primary
sorting system.
3.1.3 Economic, Energy and Environmental Issues
This section addresses the economic, energy, and environmental impacts associated with
the operation of the MRF and IMSWM system. These impacts are based on publicly available
information or material provided by the Authority.
Economic Implications
In 1982, The Agency was authorized by the New York State Legislature and established
through public referendum in the Town. The Agency is governed by a five-member board of
directors comprised of the five members of the Town Board. Under a service agreement, the
Agency agreed to develop a solid waste management system to process and dispose of all waste
generated within the Town. The Town, in turn, is obligated to deliver all waste collected in the
Town to the system and pay service charges collected from Town residents to the Agency. The
system consists of the MRF, resource recovery facility, composting facility, and.C&D landfill
(Hauppage Landfill). The Agency is authorized to acquire land, develop facilities, contract
services, sell bonds, and collect fees to pay all debt service and operating and maintenance
expenses. Insufficient information was provided by the Agency to appropriately allocate costs to
the IMSWM system and MRF. Estimates provided by the Agency, therefore, were used to assess
the relative costs of the MRF in the context of the IMSWM system.
26
-------
Tables 3-2 and Table 3-3 summarize the estimated costs and revenues for both the
IMSWM system and MRF in 1992, respectively. The revenues were generated by tipping fees
at the MRP, resource recovery facility, composting facility, and landfill, as well as sale of
electricity produced at the resource recovery facility and material recovered at the MRF
and composting facility. The County also received state grants and levied a special assessment
on all households in the County. The expenses included iadministration costs and operating and
maintenance (O&M) costs for the waste management facilities. In 1992, the total revenues were
approximately $25,395,000, while total expenses were $19,152,000. The MRF generated about
$804,000 in revenues from tipping fees and recovered material sales, while the associated O&M
expenses were $2,801,000. Based on these estimated costs and revenues, the net MRF costs
represent over 10 percent of the total IMSWM system.
i
Energy Consumption
The Agency provided insufficient data to assess the energy consumption and production
ofthe MRF and associated IMSWM system. Based on observations at the facilities, however, it
can be deduced that the energy consumption of the vehicles and processing equipment at the MRF
is insignificant, when compared with the energy consumption by the other disposal facilities within
the system and net energy production from the resource recovery facility.
Environmental Regulations
The Islip facilities have received all necessary construction and operating permits from the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Table 3-4 summarizes
the status of all major permits and approvals for the resource recovery facility, composting
facility, landfill, and MRF. Discussed below are the regulations governing solid waste
management facilities in New York State. ;
Solid waste management facilities are regulated under 6 NYCRR 360 (Part 360) issued by
the NYSDEC. The Part 360 regulations establish permitting requirements, design and operational
constraints, financial assurance obligations, and monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements specific to resource recovery facilities, composting facilities, landfills, and MRFs.
The regulations applicable to the Islip IMSWM system are summarized below:
• Landfills (6 NYCRR 360-2). Landfills must obtain permits prior to construction and
operation from the NYSDEC i To obtain a pennit, the operator must submit, amongst
other material, an engineering report, plans and specifications, QA/QC plans, O&M
manual, contingency plan, and hydrogeologic report. At a minimum, the permit
imposes requirements for landfill liner system, leachate collection and treatment,
groundwater monitoring landfill gas recovery, closure and post-closure activities,
landfill reclamation, and financial assurance.
27
-------
Table 3-2
Estimated Costs for the Islip IMSWM System
Cost Element
Waste-to-energy operating expenses
MRF operating expenses
Compost facility operating expenses
C&D landfill operating expenses
Administration
Miscellaneous
Total
IMSWM System
5473000
2801000
1821000
1531000
5295000
2231000
19152000
MRF
2801000
2801000
Table 3-3
Estimated Revenues for the Islip IMSWM System8
Cost Element
Resource recovery facility tip fees
C&D landfill tip fees
Yard waste tip fees
MRF tip fees
Sale of electricity
Sale of recovered material
Sale of compost
Methane royalties
Residue disposal fees
Revenues received from grants
Earnings on debt service
Administration charged to collection
Interest income
Miscellaneous
Total
IMSWM System
15,829,000
4,232,000
765,000
559,000
2,814,000
245,000
18,000
144,000
168,000
41,000
301,000
25,000
233,000
21,000
25,395,000
MRF
559,000
245,000
804,000
The retained earnings in the Waste Management Enterprise Fund has increased by approximately $553,000
in 1992. The remaining balance is to be used as reserve funds for future post closure needs.
28
-------
. Incinerators (6 NYCRR 360-3). Resource recovery facilities must obtain permits
prior to construction and operation from the NYSDEG. To obtain a permit, the
operator must submit an engineering report, plans and specifications, comprehensive
recycling plan, O&M manual, and waste control, contingency, closure and ash
management plans. The permit establishes minimum requirements for facility
operations, waste receipt and handling, and monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping.
. Composting (6 NYCRR 360-5). Composting facilities must obtain permit prior to
from the NYSDEC. The facility must also comply with minimum design
requirements and submit an annual report to the NYSDEC.
. Recycling (6 NYCRR 360-12). If a MRF accepts only source-separated, non-
putrescible waste, it does not require a permit from the NYSDEC, but need only
register with the agency prior to operation. The facility must also comply with
minimum design requirements and submit an annual report to the NYSDEC.
If facilities discharge stormwater or process wastewaters to surface waters, they are also required
to obtain a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit and Water Quality Certification
from the NYSDEC. A wastewater discharge permit is required for releases to a municipal
treatment plant from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
i ' - -
Resource recovery facilities must also obtain permits for air emissions prior to construction
and operation from the NYSDEC (6 NYCRR 200, et seq.). If classified as a major source, the
facility also requires a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit. To obtain a permit,
the operator must demonstrate that the facility will comply with all applicable ambient air quality
standards and that the facility incorporates Best Available Control technology (BACT). The
permit will establish emission standards for all regulated pollutants, performance criteria for air
pollution controls, and monitoring, testing, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. In
addition, the U.S. EPA proposed Section lll(d) emission guidelines for existing resource
recovery facilities in September 1994. These guidelines require existing facilities to comply with
more stringent emission standards and retrofit additional control technology than currently
required by the NYSDEC. ' ,
29
-------
Table 3-4
Major Environmental Permits and Approvals
Facility
Resource Recovery
Facility
Hauppage Landfill
Multi-Purpose
Recycling Facility
Responsible Agency
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC)
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
Suffolk County Department of Health
Services
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
Permit to Construct/Certificate to Operate an Air
Contaminant Source (including PSD Permit)
Permit to Construct/Permit to Operate a Solid
Waste Management Facility (Part 360 Permit)
State Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(SPDES Permit)
Long Island Well Permit
Wastewater Discharge Permit
Permit to Construct/Permit to Operate a Solid
Waste Management Facility (Part 360 Permit)
Permit to Construct/Permit to Operate a Solid
Issuance
11/30/84
11/30/84
11/30/84
11/30/84
11/30/84
N/A
N/A
3.2 Field Test Results
The field test program addressed the environmental and occupational health and safety
impacts associated with the operation of the Islip MRF. The sampling procedures and results are
summarized in the following sections.
3.2.1 Test Procedures
The field test program at the Islip MRF was conducted over a three-day period from
June 29 through July 2, 1993. At the time of the field test program, the Islip facility was
operating five days per week on a single shift basis from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Operations were
suspended during a one-half hour lunch break and two 15-minute coffee breaks. A total of 58
people were employed at the facility. The facility was operating on an alternating schedule of
receiving and processing newsprint collected during one week and then mixed recyclables the next
week. The changeover occurred on Wednesday.
During the field test program, the Islip facility completed processing of paper received the
prior week, and received mixed recyclables on Wednesday. The operating schedule was as
follows:
• Tuesday. Paper processing only.
• Wednesday. Paper processing for two hours, mixed recyclables for the remainder of
the day.
30
-------
• Thursday. Mixed recyclables processing only.
The schedule allowed ambient sampling to take place during the two operational modes of the
MRF ~ processing newsprint and corrugated cardboard received the prior week and receiving and
processing commingled recyclables.
The field test program was conducted in accordance with the approved QAPjP and site-
specific SAP, with the following exceptions:
• Oh June 29 and July 1, there were two upwind and one downwind sampling locations
due to a change in the predominant wind direction after startup of the TSP and PM-10
samplers.
• A second downwind PM-10 location was not sampled on July 1. Because only three
PM-10 samplers were available for the program, the third sampler was used for the
downwind duplicate sample on the last day.
• An audiodosimeter duplicate was not taken due to an oversight on the part of the field
team.
• A pesticide field spike was not performed due to an oversight on the part of the field
team.
• The desired sample volume of 2,880 liters was not achieved for the pesticide samples.
The sample volumes were as low as 2,350 liters. Two factors contributed to this
problem: (1) the pesticide samplers could not be started until between 8:30 and 9:00
a.m. because of delays in initiating the personnel sampling; and (2) the sampling team
was required to leave the building at 4:00 p.m. curtailing the final part of the
sampling period.
• A respirable dust sample was not collected on the custodian as he was absent from
work due to illness on July 1.
• A matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate wastewater sample could not be collected
because of insufficient wastewater volume in the sump drain,
Figure 3-3 shows the approximate locations of the sampling sites. The upwind/downwind
locations of the air sampling equipment relative to the facility for each of the three days of
monitoring are summarized in Table 3-5.
A brief discussion of each of the sampling location is presented below, highlighting any
limitations that should be considered in the evaluation of the reported data.
31
-------
• Site 1. This site was located near the southwest fence line, downwind of the facility
for all three sampling events. The location was suspected to be influenced by
vehicular traffic from the adjacent public road, but could not be relocated due to
limitations imposed by the fence line and electrical outlet access.
• Site 2. This site was located at the north fence line, upwind of the facility for all
three sample events and generally considered to be representative of upwind
conditions.
• Site 3. This site was located to the northeast of the facility. At the end of Day 1,
meteorological forecasts indicated that wind directions were shifting and equipment
was moved from this location to Site 4 to better characterize downwind conditions.
No further samples were collected from this location after Day 1
• Site 4. This site was located to the south of the facility and represents downwind
conditions on Day 2 and upwind conditions on Day 4. The data from this location is
suspected to be influenced by vehicular traffic from a nearby dirt access road between
the MRF and the inactive landfill. To obtain a duplicate PM10 sample, the PM10
sampler was moved to Site 1 on Day 3.
3.2.2 Environment and the Public Health
The test program was conducted at the Islip MRF between June 29 and July 2, 1993. The
air quality sampling measured the ambient concentrations of TSP, PM10, CO, VOC, lead, and
mercury vapor. Measurements were also conducted to determine wastewater quality and
community noise levels associated with MRF operations. The windrose data for the sampling
period at Islip are presented in Appendix B. The test results are discussed in the following
sections; the complete test results are presented in Appendix C.
Table 3-5
Sampling Locations at the Islip MRF
Sample Day
1
2
3
Locations
Upwind
2,3
2
2,4
Downwind
1
1,4
1
32
-------
f
I
X
CO
I
CO
W
(&
£>
u
CO
O
o
o
o
o >-
i>-
O ^
w w
D5 2
cofc
O -3
D
a
I': s *
E- 2
33
-------
Total Suspended Participate. PM10 and Lead
Samples for TSP, PM10, and lead were collected at three locations for approximately 24
hours on each of the three days of sampling. The TSP, PM10, and lead data are summarized in
Table 3-6. The winds were variable during the three sampling events.
Table 3-6
Islip TSP, PM10 and Lead Sampling Results8
Day
1
2
3
Compound
TSP
PM10
Lead
TSP
PM10
Lead
TSP
PM10
Lead
Concentration (//g/m3)
Upwind
40.4
24.71
0.01
66.09
33.22
0.01
60.10
27.01
0.01
Upwind
37.68
27.57
0.01
_
_
_
142.53
NA
0.03
Downwind
60.76
36.93
0.01
94.84
46.22
0.02
69.31
28.65
0.01
Downwind
.
_
.
159.42
75.50
0.05
_
_
-
JTM1U and lead standards are 150 and 1.5 Mg/nr, respectively.
On Day 1, TSP and PM10 levels measured at the upwind location were found to be lower
than those at the downwind location. Two samplers were inadvertently operated at upwind
locations due to a shift in the predominant wind direction after the sites were already set up and
operational. Hourly wind speeds ranged from 1 to 7 miles per hour. Comparison of the two
upwind locations show reasonable agreement for all three parameters. The TSP levels at the
downwind location was approximately 50 percent higher than the levels at the two upwind
locations. A negligible difference was noted when comparing the lead values for the three
locations. The PM10 contribution to the total paniculate ranged from 61 to 73 percent for all
three locations.
The TSP and PM10 levels were measured at all sites on Day 2 were higher than that found
on Day 1. Hourly wind speeds ranged from 2 to 10 miles per hour. Site 4 was determined to be
downwind during testing on Day 2. The paniculate results for Site 4 were 165 percent higher
than that observed at the other downwind location (Site 1). Similarly, the lead levels at Site 4
were 200 percent higher than that observed at Site 1. This suggests that the Site 4 data may be
elevatedrdue to vehicular traffic in the vicinity of the sampler. The PM10 contribution to total
paniculate ranged from 47 to 51 percent for the three sites.
34
-------
On Day 3, variable wind directions again resulted in two upwind and one downwind
sampling locations. Hourly wind speeds ranged from 4 to 19 miles per hour. The higher wind
speeds may have influenced the variability of the results. The upwind location (Site 2) showed
little change in particulate concentration from Day 2, maintaining the 50-percent increase over
levels measured on Day 1. At downwind Site 1, the particulate levels were similar to those
observed on Day 1. Site 4 was considered upwind for Day 3, based on variable wind patterns
noted throughout the day. The particulate concentrations at Site 4 were similar to those measured
on Day 2, supporting the hypothesis that the higher particulate concentrations primarily result
from vehicular traffic.
Excluding the Site 4 data, the TSP and PM10 downwind average concentrations were
higher than the upwind concentrations by 37 and 28 percent, respectively. The higher downwind
concentrations at Site 4 may be attributed to vehicular traffic on and off site, and the location of
dirt roads near downwind sampling sites. There would appear to be a moderate contribution of
the facility to fence line TSP and PM10 concentrations. There was negligible difference in
upwind and downwind lead concentrations. The PM10 and lead levels were well below all
applicable New York and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which are
150 /ug/m3 and 1.5 /ug/m3, respectively. There is currently no ambient air quality standard for
total suspended particulate.
The lead QC laboratory spike and spike duplicate analyses recoveries were both
85 percent. The lead matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate analyses recoveries were 49 and 68
percent, respectively. Based on the low lead recoveries, the test results should be assumed to be
biased low. A sensitivity analysis of these recoveries shows, as a worst case, the adjusted results.
may be twice as high as the reported values, but are still considerably below the NAAQS.
Carbon Monoxide and Mercury Vapor
Carbon monoxide and mercury vapor levels were monitored with direct-reading
instruments at upwind and downwind sites on each of the three days on-site. Instantaneous
readings were generally taken at each sampling location once in the morning and once in the
afternoon. The CO and mercury (Hg) results are summarized in Table 3-7. Carbon monoxide
and mercury were not detected in concentrations higher than background levels. No difference
between upwind and downwind concentrations were found. All results were considerably lower
than the applicable OSHA and ACGIH exposure limits.
35
-------
Table 3-7
Islip Ambient CO and Mercury Measurement Results8
Location
Fence Line (Trailer Park) '
Fence Line (Coates Avenue)
Ambient Air Station #1
Ambient Air Station #2
Ambient Air Station #3
Ambient Air Station #4 •
CO Level
(ppm)
ND
ND-1
ND-1
ND-1
ND
1
Hg Level
(mg/m3)
ND-0.004
ND
ND-0.006
ND-0.006
ND-0.001
ND
"ine PbLs tor CO and Hg are 35 ppm and 0.05 mg/m3, respectively.
Volatile Organic Compounds
Samples for VOC were collected at one upwind and two downwind locations for
approximately 24 hours on one day, and two upwind and one downwind locations on two days
of sampling. The samples were analyzed for "target compounds" consisting of VOC from EPA's
Hazardous Substance List (HSL) and featured scans for over thirty-five compounds.
Table 3-8 compares the laboratory results with the applicable ambient guidelines issued
by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Only those
comppunds that were found above their respective detection limits are presented in this table.
Eleven VOCs were detected on Days 1 and 2, while five compounds were detected on Day 3.
None of the compounds were measured at concentrations of greater than 10 yug/m3, with the
following exceptions:
• Three compounds (toluene, 1,3-butadiene, 2-butanone, and chloromethane) were
detected in the range of 1 to 60 Atg/m3 range at the upwind Site 2.
• Acetone was detected in all samples in the range of 21 to 902
36
-------
Table 3-8
Islip VOC Sampling Results
Dav
1
2
3
Compound
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Xylenes
Acetone
Benzene .
1,3-Butadiene
2-Butanone
Chloroethane
Chloromethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Xylenes
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Detection
Limit
(ui>/m3)
2.4
0.6
0.6
1.3
0.4
0.7
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.5
0.9
2.4
0.6
1.1
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.8
1.1
1.1
0.9
2.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
1.1
Concentration (jj,g/m3)
Site 1
"98.7
5.1
7.1
1.3
2.7
ND
15.1
6.5
5.6
ND
7.4
94.9
4.2
ND
12.1
ND
2.5
5.4
15.8
6.0
5.1
6.1
21.1
ND
7.1
2.6
1.1
Site 2
902.0
5.7
9.4
ND
2.5
0.7
15.8
8.2
6.2
13.8
6.5
52.2
5.1
' 59.7
44.2
7.9
56.3
. 6.8
13.9
5.5
3.4
5.2
21.1
1.0
ND
2.3
ND
Site 3
76.0
4.2 '
ND
ND
2.3
•1.4
10.9
8 .1
2.8
ND •' ,
-"• 4.3
71.2
.4.2
ND
10.9
ND
ND
8.8
1.1
ND
ND
ND
33.2
ND
1.2
1.9
ND
State
Guideline
(u.z/m3)
NA
NA
NA
1,300
22,000
NA
- NA
,NA
' ' NA
NA
100,000
NA
NA
2,200
: .NA'
NA
22,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
100,000
NA
. NA'
NA
NA *
NA
37
-------
Review of the data found no significant differences between upwind and downwind concentrations
of VOCs. The levels of VOC reported can be considered representative of normal background
levels in urban areas. All results were well below the limits found in the NYSDEC guidelines.
The duplicate analysis of a field sample demonstrated precision of 7 to 17 percent for all
analytes, except acetone with a precision of 35 percent. Except for acetone, the RPD values for
this set of samples met acceptance criteria of ±20 percent. For the laboratory spike samples, the
percent recoveries for 18 compounds spiked ranged from 74 to 120 percent, which slightly
exceeds the QAPjP criteria of 75 to 115 percent. EPA Method TO-14 does not state specific
acceptance ranges for surrogate and spike recoveries. Coast-to-Coast Analytical Service uses 70
to 130 percent as an acceptance criteria, based on guidance from EPA Region V. There were no
VOCs detected in any of the field or instrument blanks.
Wastewater
Wastewater samples were collected from the drain at the rear of the building during the
washing of a truck on July 2, 1993. This drain collects runoff from the area behind the building
including runoff from stormwater and the washing of trucks. This runoff is pumped to a drainage
field behind the facility. The soil is periodically removed and landfilled. Trucks and roll-off
dumpsters are washed approximately once per week or as needed to keep them clean. The results
of the wastewater sampling are presented in Table 3-9. The metals levels in the wastewater were
found to be less than regulatory limits established under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). Because the facility did not require a discharge permit, no limits have been
established for the other parameters.
Community Noise
Community noise levels were measured at the four ambient air stations, the facility
entrance, Lincoln Avenue, Coates Avenue, and the fence line by the trailer park. The results of
the noise survey are presented in Table 3-10. The main source of noise is the dumping of glass
and other recyclables on the tipping floor. The entrance to the tipping floor faces Lincoln Avenue
and is shielded from the nearby mobile home park by the Residential Drop-off Building and the
non-operational Incinerator Building. At the Lincoln Avenue property line, an instantaneous
increase in noise levels of 6 and 13 dBA was measured during the dumping of recyclables. The
impact of this increase should be minimal, because this activity is intermittent and Lincoln Avenue
is a commercial and retail area. Measurements taken at the fence line next to the mobile home
park ranged from 54 to 60 dBA, but reached instantaneous levels as high as 74 dBA when trucks
passed through this area. The truck loading area also contributes to an increase in ambient noise
levels. During operations, the noise levels at the nearest sampling point to a residential area
(fence line by the trailer park) were below the 1-hour energy equivalent sound level of 62 dBA
specified for a suburban area in the NYSDEC's Part 360 regulations [6 NYCRR 360-1.14(p)].
Instantaneous noise levels of 95 dBA were measured between the trucks during loading
operations.
38
-------
Table 3-9
Islip Wastewater Sampling Results8
Analyte
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Ammonia, as Nitrogen
Total Organic Nitrogen
Total Organic Carbon
Oil and Grease
Phosphate, as P-Total
Specific Conductance
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
BOD, 5-day
Silver, Total
Arsenic, Total
Barium, Total
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
Mercury, Total
Lead, Total
Selenium, Total
Total Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Units
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
umhos/cm
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/1 '
mpn/lOOml
mpn/100 ml
Primary
Sample,
398
1.0
5.7
114
56.4
4.9
381
323
210
83
<10.0
<10.0
257
24.5
13.6
<0.20
365
<5.0
16,000
16,000
Duplicate
Sample
398
0.84
5.2
111
45.6
1.7
398
291
196
630
<10.0
< 10.0
219
22.0
12,3
<0.20
246
<5.0
16,000
16,000
Blank
Sample
<5.0
<0.10
<0.iO
<0.50
<5.0
< 0.050
9.9
<5.0
<5.0
<1
<10.0
< 10.0
<200
<5.0
<10.0
<0.20
6.8
<5.0
<2
<2
"Samples collected from wastewater sump on 07/02/93.
39
-------
Table 3-10
Islip Community Noise Measurement Results
Location
Fence Line (Trailer Park)
Fence Line (Coates Avenue)
Fence Line (Lincoln Avenue)
Fence Line (Facility Entrance)
Ambient Air Station #1
Ambient Air Station #2
Ambient Air Station #3
Ambient Air Station #4
Instantaneous Noise
Level (dBA)
57.0-60.0
46.0-70.0
60.0-76.0
55.0-58.0
53.0-74.0
54.0-56.0
50.9-52.0
58.0
3.2.3 Occupational Health and Safety
The occupational health and safety evaluation was conducted concurrently with the ambient
sampling. Personnel sampling was conducted to measure worker exposure to nuisance dusts,
silica, metals, fungi, bacteria, and noise. Indoor sampling was also conducted to detect levels of
CO, mercury, PCBs, and pesticides. These sampling results are discussed in the following
sections; the complete test results are presented in Appendix C.
Dusts. Silica and Metals
Worker exposures to total dust, respirable dust, silica, and metals were evaluated by
collecting breathing zone samples from selected workers over the entire work shift (8 hours).
Workers in the following job functions were sampled: maintenance worker, front end loader
operator, residential drop-off attendant, roll-off driver, tipping floor attendant, truck loading
laborer, custodian, and scale attendant. The personnel sampling results for total dust, respirable
dust, and silica are summarized in Table 3-11; the metals sampling results are summarized in
Table 3-12. As seen in these tables, all exposures levels were considerably lower than the
applicable PELs. The highest total and respirable dust levels were found on the tipping floor
attendant ~ 3.39 mg/m3 for total dust and 0.55 mg/m for respirable dust. The only metal
detected during the test program was aluminum. The highest concentration of 0.0105 mg/m3 was
several orders of magnitude below the TLV of 15 mg/m3. The tipping floor attendant was
observed to be wearing a dust mask approved for nuisance paniculate.
Duplicate analysis found that all Relative Percent Difference (RPD) values were within the
QAPjP limits, with the exception of one respirable and one total dust sample.
40
-------
Table 3-11
Islip Total Dust, Respirable Dust and Silica
Personnel Sampling Results3
Job Description
Maintenance
Front End Loader Operator
Custodian
Residential Drop Attendant
Roll-Off Driver
Scale Attendant
Tipping Floor Attendant
Truck Loading Laborer
Concentration (mg/m3)
Total Dust
0.4099
1.991
0.6533
0.7581
0.935
< 0.1275
3.081
1.7592
Respirable Dust
< 0.1357
0.2586
-
0.2238
0.3359
<0.1512
0.5503
0.439
Silica
< 0.0136
<0.0001
-
< 0.1237
0.039
<0.0151
0.0144
< 0.0122
PELs are 15.0, 5.0, and 0.1 mg.m3 for total dust, respirable dust, and silica, respectively.
Table 3-12
Islip Metals Personnel Sampling Results3
Job Description
Front End Loader Operator
Roll-Off Driver
Tipping Floor Attendant
Truck Loading Laborer
Comcentration (mg/m3)
Arsenic
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
Aluminum
0.0055
0.0036
0.0081
0.0023
Chromium
< 0.0011
<0.0012
<0.0014
<0.0011
Lead
<0.0011
<0.0012
< 0.0014
< 0.0011
Nickel
<0.0011
<0.0012
<0.0014
<0.0011
' PELs are 0.01, 15.0, 1.00, 0.05, and 1.0 mg/M3 for arsenic, aluminum, chromium, lead, and nickel, respectively.
41
-------
Carbon Monoxide and Mercury Vapor
Direct reading measurements for carbon monoxide and mercury were made throughout the
facility on the three days of the program generally once in the morning and once in the afternoon.
The measurements found no levels above the typical instrument background, which is considerably
lower than the applicable PELs.
PCBs and Pesticides
Indoor samples were collected for analysis of pesticides and PCBs on each of the three
sampling days at the tipping floor and picking stations A and B. One sample each was collected
from the lunch area, the large trommel, and outside the control room. All results were less than
the detection limits for each compound, with the exception of the sample collected in the lunch
area. This sample showed a concentration of 0.8306 yug/m3 of PCB (Aroclor-1242). This
concentration is slightly above the detection limit of 0.5106 /ug/m3, but is several orders of
magnitude below the PEL and TLV of 1,000 ^g/m3. The PCB and pesticide detection levels are
presented in Appendix C.
Bacteria and Fungi
Airborne and surface bacteria and fungi samples were collected inside the building.
Samples were collected at the tipping floor and picking booths A and B on each of the three
sampling days. One airborne sample was collected at each of the following locations: lunch area,
large trommel, and the control room. One surface sample was collected at each of the following
locations: tipping floor, picking booths, lunch area, large trommel, and control room. Airborne
and surface sampling results are summarized in Tables 3-13 and 3-14, respectively. As shown
in these tables, bacteria and fungi levels were relatively consistent from location to location inside
the facility, with no specific area exhibiting unusually high or low levels. The OSHA has not yet
established PELs or TLVs for either fungi and bacteria.
In addition, airborne bacteria and fungi levels were measured at the one upwind and two
downwind locations outside the building on all three days. These bacteria and fungi results are
also presented in Table 3-13. As shown in this table, the airborne fungi and bacteria levels
measured outside the facility were approximately one order of magnitude lower than the levels
inside the facility. The downwind sample results were not higher than those measured upwind,
which may indicate that the airborne bacteria and fungi present inside the building are not being
released in measurable quantities. There are currently no regulatory limits for bacteria and fungi
levels in ambient air.
All fungi detected were common environmental fungi. None of the fungi detected are
considered highly virulent in nature. The two most commonly associated with infections that were
detected are Aspergillus niger and Aspergillus flavus. These organisms are considered
opportunistic pathogens, in that they are most likely to infect individuals with compromised
42
-------
immune systems. Healthy people are not likely to be infected. However, it is possible that
hypersensitive people, and people exposed to high levels of fungal spores, may
Table 3-13
Islip Airborne Fungi and Bacteria Sampling Results
T jficntifiti
Picking Booth A
Picking Booth B
Tipping Floor
Lunch Room
Large Trommel
Control Room Stairs
Ambient Air Station #1
Ambient Air Station #2
Ambient Air Station #3
Ambient Air Station #4
Sample (viable counts per cubic meter)
Fungi
3498-8774
2157-5856
1364-9795
9513
6546
6530
129-451
187-2855
1440
234-338
Bacteria RTa
2139-3660
350-2584
1341-2782
1135
2093-2338
2332
163-342
280-1574
793
373-795
Bacteria 56b
23-61
< 12-23
12-110
24
< 12-94
<12
12-58
23-35
37
12-35
"Bacteria RT is incubated at room temperature.
""Bacteria 56 is incubated at 56 degrees F.
Table 3-14
Islip Surface Bacteria Sampling Results3
Location
Picking Booth A
Picking Booth B
Tipping Floor
Lunch Room
Large Trommel
Bacteria
(units per gauze wipe)
8,400-63,000,000
9,200
1,000,000
80,000,000
40,000
aFungi tests were not conducted on this sample
43
-------
develop hypersensitivity reactions, such as allergies, asthma, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis.
Little information is available describing the exposure levels required to initiate such reactions.
No highly virulent pathogenic bacteria were identified in any of the samples. The most
common bacteria detected was Bacillus, which is commonly found in environmental samples and
occur naturally in soil and water. Curtobacterium is a common plant pathogen which is
commonly recovered from air samples. Arthrobacter is a common environmental organism often
associated with soil. The species of Acinetobacter, Flavobacterium, and Pseudomonas detected
likely originated from water or wet environments. Staphylococcus and Micrococcus are associated
with human and/or animal skin, and are typically found in samples from occupied facilities.
Several enteric organisms were detected. Serratia and Enterobacter are common in soil and water
environments. Proteus vulgaris is often found in association with food, soil and sewage.
Klebsiella pneumoniae is an environmental bacterium that is considered to be an opportunistic
pathogen that has been related to incidence of pneumonia in immune-compromised individuals.
General sanitation at the facility may be a contributing factor to the presence of fungi and
bacteria. Equipment and conveyors are not cleaned on a regular basis. Floors and booths are
swept at the end of the day to remove broken glass and debris, but this is unlikely to have any
significant effect on bacteria or fungi levels found in the facility.
Duplicate samples were collected on each of the three sampling days and the results were
evaluated for Relative Percent Difference (RPD). The RPD for fungi and thermophilic were not
within the specified range of 20 percent on two of the three sampling days. This may be due to
the significant and variable distribution of microorganisms in the air within the building.
Noise Exposure
Worker exposures to noise were evaluated using personal audiodosimeters over the entire
8-hour work shift. Workers in the following job functions were sampled: maintenance, tipping
floor attendant, truck loading laborer, picking booth workers, and truck maintenance. In addition,
instantaneous indoor noise measurements were made using a direct-reading sound level analyzer.
Tables 3-15 and 3-16 sumrnarize the audiodosimeter and indoor noise level results, respectively.
On June 29, when the facility was processing paper only, the average noise levels to which
workers were exposed over the entire work shift ranged from 78.8 to 80.8 dBA. These levels are
below the OSHA Action Level of 85 dBA and the PEL of 90 dBA (see Table C-l 1 and C-12 in
Appendix C). On June 30 and July 1, when mixed recyclables were processed, the average noise
levels to which workers were exposed over the entire shift ranged from 99.2 to 106.6 dBA.
These levels are in excess of the OSHA PEL, and would require the implementation of a
comprehensive hearing conservation program for workers in all "of the tested job functions.
Hearing protection was available and worn by several workers, but full compliance was not
achieved with hearing protection requirements. Personal exposure levels in each of the four
picking booths were in excess,of 100 dBA. Direct reading measurement with
44
-------
Table 3-15
Islip Audiodosimeter Results
Job Description
Tipping Attendant
Picking Booth A
Picking Booth B/C
Picking Booth G
Picking Booth D
Maintenance Worker
Tipping Attendant
Truck Loading/Maintenance
Average Noise
Levels (dBA)
80.6-113.9
82.2-108.2
106.6
82,7-113.8 ,
81.0-109.7,
99.3-105.3
113.9
107.7-108.6
Table 3-16
Islip Indoor Noise Measurement Results
Location
Picking Booth A
Picking Booth B
Picking Booth C
Picking Booth D
Lunch Room
Tipping Floor
Large Trommel
Foreman's Office Stairs
Ventilation Motor Area
Truck Loading Area
Main Floor
Maintenance Room
Truck Repair Area
Instantaneous Noise
Level (dBA)
76.0-80.1
73.0-87.0
70.6-91.0
72.5-98.0
65.0-74.0
82.6-111.0
99.0-101.0
90.0-95.0
84.0
95.0
78.0-101.0
61.0
74.6-93.0
45
-------
a noise meter found that the highest noise levels were generated by the dumping of mixed
recyclables on the tipping floor. Short-term levels reached as high as 111 dBA during this
operation. /,
' ' ' i
Health and Safety Programs
An evaluation was performed to determine the status of occupational health and safety
programs in place at the facility with respect to OSHA Standards. Documentation was made
available for several of the following programs:
• An Energy Control Program is in place at the facility, although no documentation of
training or evaluation of program effectiveness was available. Each maintenance
worker was issued a lock with instructions on how the program operates and lockout
procedures are posted in the control room.
• Dust masks are the only form of respiratory protection used at the facility. Use of
these respirators was reviewed during Hazard Communication Training, but no
information or documentation was available on a Respiratory Protection Program.
Medical monitoring is not performed on employees prior to their use of respirators.
• A Hazard Communication Program is in effect at the facility, although documentation
of draining was not available.
» A Hearing Conservation Program has been implemented. Documentation of training
and evaluations of hearing protectors were not available. Hearing protectors were not
always worn by exposed workers, nor were warnings posted in areas of high noise.
• There were no air contaminants identified present requiring specified control
programs. - '
• There was no Bloodborne Pathogen Program in place. Workers did report that
syringes and needles are sometimes found in plastic containers. There has been one
unconfirmed needle stick injury.
Information on injury and illness rates were not provided during or subsequent to the field test
program. ;
Ergonomics '
Picking booth operations were videotaped during the on-site facility assessment. These
videotapes were reviewed by a COHN to identify the general ergonomic conditions and potential
ergonomic risk factors. For the purpose of this assessment, potential ergonomic risk factors are
defined as workplace conditions, or work practices that may contribute to, or result in, worker
discomfort, fatigue, or injury. Five types of workstations were evaluated at the Islip MRF:
46
-------
Workstation 1. In the first type of workstation, workers were located on each side
of a conveyor, with bins on either side for separating .aluminum and plastic
recyclables. The conveyor height was not adjustable to accommodate individual
workers. The fixed height of the conveyor system appeared appropriate for the
majority of workers, based on the observation of their upper extremities while
performing work. No foot stools (platforms) appeared to be available in this area to
accommodate one shorter worker. This shorter worker was, noted to raise elbows and"
shoulders in order to accommodate the fixed workstation height.
Workers were able to perform sorting tasks without bending or excessive reaching.
Standard sized bins allow workers to discard recyclables with ease. One worker was
observed twisting at the waist repeatedly when discarding into a smaller plastic
disposal container. Two workers have developed a work practice of repetitively
flexing/extending wrists to "flip" plastics over their forearm to discard into bins.
The potential ergonomic risk factors associated with this workstation are: (1) the fixed
.workstation (conveyor) height did not accommodate shorter workers; (2) the bin
height/placement caused one worker to repetitively twist at waist to discard
repyclables; and (3) workers have developed the practice of repetitively flipping
plastics over forearm to discard recyclables.
Workstation 2. This type of workstation was found at the end of the picking line
(Picking Booth B), with one worker assigned for sorting plastic/aluminum recyclables.
The workstation height was not adjustable, but appeared appropriate for this particular
worker. This worker repetitively reached across the full width of the conveyor,
resulting in repetitive bending at waist. The worker performed the majority of his
work from the end of the conveyor. The bin for discarding recyclables was placed
at the opposite end of conveyor, which required the worker to throw plastics the
length of the conveyor to reach the bin.
The potential ergonomic risk factors associated with this type of workstation are:
(1) the workstation width required workers to reach across the full width of conveyor;
and (2) the bin placement resulted in repetitive, forceful throwing motion to discard
recyclables at other end of conveyor.
Workstation 3. At this workstation, the workers were located on one side of
conveyor with the bins on the opposite side. The workstation (conveyor) height was
non-adjustable and appeared too high for the majority of workers in this area, as noted
by raised shoulders and elbows bent and away from body in performing tasks. The
guard on the side of conveyor raised the workstation height two to three inches,
resulting in workers tending to rest forearms on a blunt guard edge. Several workers
used foot stools (platforms) to. elevate themselves to accommodate workstation height.
All foot stools (platforms) were-of the same height, limiting fit to individual workers.
47
-------
One tall worker using a foot stool had to continuously bend at the waist over the
conveyor.
In performing picking tasks, workers reached the full width of the conveyor to sort,
resulting in repetitive leaning and bending at the waist. The placement of bins on the
opposite side of conveyor from workers required workers to throw recyclables from
the conveyor to the bins, causing repetitive flexion/extension of elbows and wrists.
The resulting potential ergonomic risk factors are: (1) the attempt to accommodate
workers may not be effective in alleviating problems associated with the fixed
workstation (conveyor) height; (2) the workstation width requires workers to reaches
across full width of conveyor to pick recyclables; and (3) the bin placement required
repetitive throwing of recyclables into bins.
Workstation 4. This type of workstation had workers on each side of conveyor with
bins on either side for sorting paper. The workstation height was non-adjustable,
appearing appropriate for a majority of workers. Workers were able to perform tasks
without bending or excessive reaching. Workers were also able to place discarded
paper into bins with minimal twisting motion of torso. No potential ergonomic risk
factors were identified for this type of workstation.
Workstation 5. This type of workstation had one worker assigned to the end of the
paper picking/sorting line (outside Booth B). The guard on the side of the conveyor
raised the workstation height two to three inches, but did not appear to be problematic
for this particular worker. This worker performed repetitive reaches to the full width
of conveyor, resulting in repetitive bending at the waist.
The only potential ergonomic risk factors is the workstation width, which required the
one worker to reach across full width of conveyor for picking/sorting recyclables.
48
-------
SECTION 4
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
4.1 Process Description
f ' '
The Montgomery County Council maintains several solid waste management facilities to
serve the residents and businesses in Montgomery County, Maryland. The process description
presented in this section addresses the technical, economic, energy, and environmental aspects of
both the MRF and IMSWM system.
4.1.1 Integrated Solid Wiaste Management System
Montgomery County (the County) provides disposal and limited collection services for
MSW generated in Montgomery County, Maryland. The components of the IMSWM system
serving Montgomery County include:
• Materials Recovery Facility,
• Transfer Station,
• Leaf and Yard Waste Composting Facility, and
• Oaks Landfill.
In addition, a Resource Recovery Facility will commence operations in the hear future. Figure 4-
1 presents a process flow diagram of the IMSWM system for Montgomery County, showing the
quantities of waste received and the residue produced by the various components of the system.
Waste Collection'
The County Collection District has 80,000 residences consisting of single family homes
and multi-family homes with less than seven dwellings. The County sets routes and contracts with
haulers. The Collection District was expanded in 1993 to cover all unincorporated areas of the
County. The expansion of the Collection District added another 95,000 residences. In fiscal year
(FY) 1992, 110,200 tons of MSW were collected from the 80,000 residences in the Collection
District. In addition, County facilities contribute approximately 50,000 tons of MSW annually
to the solid waste system.
Five municipalities in the County have municipal collection. These municipalities are
Rockville, Takoma Park, Chevy Chase Village, Town of Chevy Chase, and Kensington.
Approximately 50,000 tons of MSW are collected by the municipalities. Private haulers collect
from residences outside of the Collection District and the five municipalities, residences with more
than six dwellings within the Collection District, and commercial establishments. Private haulers
collected approximately 500,000 tons of MSW in FY 1992.
49
-------
«=
c
J2
re
1
CM
CO
>
CO
CO
CD
4
4
CD
3
O)
O
CD
O
CD
-«— •
O
* 1
& s
1 I
£ i
Si
1
TO
*
5'
ll
Z V)
gg
2. S
CO T"
ss
Si
•5
U
ifi
O)
6
8
A
"o co
'£= 0)
CO — en
Q "o ^
§o8l£ |
t3 "c "S
_q> 3 E
i
1
1
"a,
S|
||
.1 eg
CO -S §
S * s S"
'1 ill i!
•;> o: |2 o (2 2
n
^_
i
ts
CO
gcyclables Col
o:
'""• •{•-
cu
CO
LeafA'ard Wa
Collection
A
50
-------
Other collection consists of recyclables and leaf/yard waste. In FY 1992, approximately
53,000 tons of newspaper and commingled containers were collected in County-supported or
sponsored programs. The collection of residential recyclables is offered to 205,000 residences.
In FY 1992, approximately 24,000 tons of leaf and yard waste were collected from the
approximately 147,000 residences. Recyclables collected from commercial establishments were
estimated to amount to an additional 55,000 tons in FY 1992. •
Material Recovery Facility
The Material Recovery Facility (MRF) is located next to the transfer station. The facility
is owned by the County and operated by Maryland Environmental Services (MES). MES has
subcontracted the operation to CRInc-Well. The MRF handled 64,658 tons of material in
FY 1992. Operations at the MRF include the separation and' baling of commingled containers,
the shredding of brush and clean wood waste, and the balling of newspaper. Some leaf and yard
waste is also brought to the MRF and then shipped to the composting facility. Newsprint is
shipped to Southeast Paper in Silver Springs where it is further processed. The newsprint is then
shipped to a pulp and paper mill in Georgia.
Transfer Station ;
The Transfer Station is located centrally in the County adjacent to the MRF. It is owned
and operated by the County. In FY 1992, approximately 363,000 tons of MSW were received
at the Transfer Station. The MSW is hauled to the landfill by Laidlaw.
Composting Facility
••*"* The Composting Facility is located in the western portion of the County. The facility is
owned by the County and operated by MES. The composting area is approximately 35 acres in
size. The leaf and yard waste is composted in windrows. The windrows are turned regularly with
a mechanical turner. The compost product is marketed to landscapers, nurseries, retailers, and
private citizens at $8.00 per cubic yard. In FY 1992, approximately 35,848 tons of yard waste
were received at the Composting Facility.
Oaks Landfill
The Oaks Landfill is the northern portion of the County. The Oaks Landfill is owned by
the County and operated by Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI). In FY 1992, 396,933 tons of
MSW were disposed of at the landfill - approximately 363,000 tons from the transfer station and
34,000 hauled directly to the landfill.
51
-------
Out-of-Countv Disposal
An estimated 80,000 tons of MSW were disposed of out-of-County in FY 1992.
Approximately half of that was hauled directly to the Baltimore RESCO waste-to-energy facility!
The balance was hauled by Waste Management to distant landfills.
4.1.2 Material Recovery Facility
The Montgomery County MRF is situated on four acres of land immediately off of
Interstate 270 south of the City of Gaitersburg, Maryland. The facility is located adjacent to the
County's Solid Waste Transfer Station. The MRF is owned by the Montgomery County and, in
a state and county partnership, managed by the Maryland Environmental Service. Under a
subcontract with the MES, CRInc-Well constructed the facility and has operated it since startup
in August 1991.
The MRF consists of a recyclables receiving area, processing room, administrative offices
and yard waste building (see Figure 4-2). The facility design includes a single processing line
having a total throughput of 240 tons per eight-hour shift. This includes 140 tons of newspaper
and 100 tons of commingled recyclables. The commingled recyclables consist of aluminum,
ferrous materials, glass bottles, plastic bottles, and aluminum foil. Table 4-1 summarizes the
material received and recovered at the MRF in 1992.
Table 4-1
Material Received and Recovered in 1992
Material
Newspaper
Ferrous
Aluminum
Plastics
Flint Glass
Green Glass
Amber Glass
Mixed Glass
Residue
Total
Throughput
(tons)
41,557
2,006
829
1,822
6,426
3,444
1,504
4,753
2,317
64,658
Percent of Total
(%)
64.3
3.1
1.3
2.8
9.9
5.3
2.3
7.4
3.6
100 0
52
-------
8
§
C\2
I
O
•—i
w
gi
l
o g
o
o
53
-------
Upon entering the site, the collection vehicles proceed immediately to the tipping floor
Because the County has negotiated a long-term contract for newspaper, the newspaper is simply
dumped onto the floor and transferred by front-end loaders to open-top trailers for delivery to
market. The commingled recyclables are dumped onto a separate portion of the floor and then
pushed by a front-end loader into a pit serving the infeed conveyor.
The commingled materials are moved into the processing area by the infeed conveyor and
then elevated by an inclined conveyor to an initial sorting station for the removal of
nonrecyclables and aluminum foil products. The aluminum is deposited into portable storage bins
while nonrecyclables are conveyed to a roll-off. After initial sorting, the recyclables travel up
another inclined conveyor to a magnetic separator that removes ferrous material (steel tin and
bi-metal cans). The ferrous material is moved by conveyor to a self-tying baler for compaction
into 1200-pound bales.
Following the magnetic separator, the remaining material drops onto a vibrating conveyor
positioned at a right angle to the feed conveyor. As the material moves down this screen broken
glass and smaller contaminants fall through holes onto a mixed glass cullet conveyor. A triangular
barrier at the end of the screen splits the stream into light and heavy fractions. The material is
directed onto two inclined rotating tables designed to divide the heavy and light fractions
Rotating chain curtains divert the lightweight aluminum and plastic to each side of the table while
the heavier glass falls through the chains and brushes.
The plastic and aluminum drops off the side of the inclined table onto a two-stage vibrating
screen. As the material moves down the vibrating screen, the aluminum cans and residue fall
through the screen, while plastics continue onto the plastics sorting station. An eddy-current
conveyor automatically separates aluminum cans from any remaining material On the eddy-
current conveyor, opposing magnetic fields cause the cans to jump off the conveyor onto a
separate line that feeds a dedicated aluminum baler. The plastic containers remaining on the
screen are sorted by type (PET and HDPE). The plastic bottles are directed to a baler for
compaction into 900-pound bales.
The glass rolling off the inclined table is collected in a trough conveyor. The glass bottles
are directed to another vibrating screen for removal of broken glass and then onto a conveyor that
transports it to an enclosed sorting room. Sorters separate the amber and green glass which is
dropped through chutes to conveyors below the sorting room. The clear flint glass which is
negatively sorted, drops onto a conveyor outside the room. The three conveyors feed glass
crushers on top of large enclosed storage bins. The crushed glass, along with the mixed cullet
are transferred to trucks for transport to market. '
Vehicles deliver leaves, grass, brush, and other yard waste to the yard waste building A
tub grinder is provided to produce mulch from small diameter wood waste. Front-end loaders lift
the yard waste into 45-foot, open-top trailers bound for the County's compost facility The mulch
is available to the public for pick-up.
54
-------
4.1.3 Economic, Energy and Environmental Issues
This section addresses the economic, energy, and environmental impacts associated with
the operation of the MRF and IMSWM system. These impacts are based on publicly available
information or material provided by the Authority.
Economic Implications
The County is responsible under law for assuring that adequate facilities exist for disposal
of the solid waste generated in the County. In 1976, the County established the Solid Waste
Enterprise Fund to account for revenues and expenses of the IMSWM system. The system
consists of a landfill, transfer station, composting 'facility, and MRF. In the near future, the
resource recovery facility will commence operations and expand the disposal capacity available
to the County. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), a part of the County's
Executive branch, is responsible for planning, implementing, and managing the County's solid
waste management program. The Division of Solid Waste Management, a division of the DEP,
is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the IMSWM system. Insufficient information was
provided by the County to appropriately allocate costs to the IMSWM system and MRF. To
estimate the costs and revenues, the relative costs of the system components were estimated based
on projections cited in the 1993 Official Statement for the Montgomery County IMSWM system.
Tables 4-2 and 4-3 summarize the estimated operating costs and expenses for both the
IMSWM system and MRF in FY 1993, respectively. Revenues were generated by tipping fees
at waste management facilities and the sale of material recovered at the MRF. Although not
required in FY 1993, the County may also impose a System Benefit Charge on residents of the
County The expenses included administration costs, operating and maintenance (O&M) expenses
and debt service for the waste management facilities. In FY 1993, the total system costs were
estimated to be approximately $31,114,000. Settling the tipping fee to offset expenses, the total
system revenues must equal system costs. The MRF generated about $990,000 in revenues from
recovered material sales, while the O&M expenses were $12,350,000. Based on these estimated
costs and revenues, the net MRF costs represent 36 percent of IMSWM system expenses (settling
tipping fee to offset expenses).
Rnergv Consumption
An estimated 202 billion Btu of Energy was consumed to collect, transfer, haul, process,
compost, and transport to market about 497,000 tons of MSW, yard waste, and recyclables. Of
the 202 billion Btu consumed, approximately 65.8 percent was used to manage 397,000 tons of
MSW 9 4 percent was used to manage 35,800 tons of yard waste, and 24.8 percent was used to
manage 64 700 tons of recyclables. Approximately 0.41 MMBtu of energy was consumed for
each of the 497,000 tons of waste managed with 0.34, 0.53, and 0.77 MMBtu consumed for each
of the 397,000 tons of MSW, 35,800 tons of yard waste, and 64,700 tons of recyclables,
respectively. ,
55
-------
Table 4-2
Estimated Costs for the Montgomery County IMSWM System"
Cost Element
Recycling Expenses
IMSWM
^=
12,350,000
MRF
^SSZ
12,350,000
MRF Operating Expense
1,211,000
Oaks Landfill Operating Expenses
4,131,000
Gude Landfill Operating Expense
140,000
Waste Reduction & Detoxification Expense
583,000
Administrative & General Expenses
4,006,000
Transportation System Expenses
1,400,000
System Bonds Debt Service
4,294,000
Existing County Debt Service11
3,000,000
Total
31,114,000
The above financial data are based on the information provided in 1993 Official Statement including the
feasibility study. Because much of the financial information in the Official Statement are budget projections
provided by the County, the'above data should be considered "rough" estimations only.
"Information from the 1993 official statement including the feasibility study.
bNo data provided on debt service prior to 1994.
Table 4-3
Estimated Revenues for the Montgomery County IMSWM System
Cost Element
Tipping Fee Revenue"
IMSWM
=——
27,525,000
MRF
Yard Waste Tipping Fee Revenue
273,000
Recycling Net Revenue
990,000
990,000
Gude Landfill Methane Sales
203,000
Revenue from Citizen Drop-Off Center
753,000
Interest Income
1,371,000
— - •' -—^—— .^—-_^—..^_-—_i__^ __m!_r •>"'•"-' | ?y\jt\j\j\j
The above financial data are based on the information provided in 1993 Official Statement including the
feasibility study. Because much of the financial information in the Official Statement are budget projections
provided by the County, the above data should be considered "rough" estimations only
"Information from the 1993 official statement including the feasibility study.
"Tipping fee established to offset expenses.
56
-------
Figure 4-3 and Table 4-4 show the energy consumed by function. For the entire IMSWM,
almost 84 percent of the energy consumed was for transportation, that is, collection, transfer and
haul, transporting recyclables to market, and hauling residue to the landfill. About 84, 78, and
85 percent of the energy consumed was for the transportation of MSW, yard waste, and
recyclables, respectively.
Table 4-4
Estimated Energy Consumption for the Montgomery County IMSWM System
(MMBtu)3
Activity
Collection Vehicles
Transfer & Haul (Inc. Maintenance
Building)
MRF - Container/Paper Processing
Facility
MRF - Yard Waste
Grinding/Mulching Facility
Composting Facility
Transport Residue
Landfill Disposal
Subtotal
Haul to Market
Total Energy Consumption
(MMBtu)
Tons Collected
Average Energy Consumption
MSW
92,970
20,048
20,750
133,768
133,768
396,933
0.34
Yard Waste
11,020
3,309
792
3, 127
18,248
454
19,000
35,848
0.53
Curbside
Recycling
26,502
6,581
57
121
33,262
15,781
50,000
64,658
0.77
Total
130,494
23,357
6,581
792
3,127
57
20,871
185,278
16,235
201,513
497,439
0.41
Excludes energy consumed by administration vehicles and energy consumed by some equipment used at toe transrer
station.
Except as discussed below, the energy consumption was obtained from data provided by
the County, MES, and Browning-Ferris Industries (the operator of the Oaks Landfill). The fuel
consumed to collect MSW, yard waste, and recyclables was estimated using collection vehicle data
from Palm Beach County, Florida; Springfield, Massachusetts; Scottsdale, Arizona; Minneapolis,
57
-------
.1
W
O
O
I
111
1U
UJ
§
en
UJ
(0
i
g
58
-------
Minnesota; and Seattle, Washington. The energy consumed to haul recovered materials to market
was estimated by multiplying the estimated ton-miles hauled by $0.024 per ton-mile, that is, the
approximate fuel consumed by the MSW transfer vehicles used in Hartford, Connecticut; Palm
Beach County, Florida; and Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Environmental Regulations
The Montgomery County facilities have received all necessary construction and operating
permits from the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and Maryland Department of
-Natural Resources (MDNR). Table 4-5 summarizes the status of all major permits and approvals
for the transfer station, landfill, and resource recovery facility. Discussed below are the
regulations applicable to solid waste management facilities in Maryland.
Table 4-5
Major Environmental Permits and Approvals
Resource Recovery Facility
Transfer Station
Landfill
Responsible
Agency
Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE)
MDE
MDE
MDE
Maryland Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR)
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE)
MDE
MDE
Permit/
Approval
PSD Permit
Permit to Construct
Refuse Disposal Permit
SPDES Permit
Surface Water
Appropriations Permit
Wetlands Permit
i Refuse Disposal Permit
Refuse Disposal Permit
Issuance
Date
04/26/90
02/12/93
02/12/93
04/01/91
01/01/91
08/14/91
04/22/91
not
available
Solid waste management facilities are regulated under COMAR 26.04.07 issued by the
MDNR. These regulations establish permitting requirements, design and operational constraints,
financial assurance obligations, and monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements
applicable to landfills, composting facilities, transfer stations, and resource recovery facilities.
The regulations applicable to the Montgomery County system are summarized below:
. Landfills (COMAR 26.04 07.01-26.04.07.22). Landfills must obtain a refuse
disposal permit prior to construction from the MDNR. To obtain a permit, the
59
-------
operator must submit, amongst other material, site information, geological and
hydrogeological information, and detailed engineering plans and specifications. The
refuse disposal permit imposes requirements for landfill liner system, leachate
treatment, groundwater monitoring, landfill gas recovery, closure and post-closure
activities, and financial assurance.
* Processing Facilities (COMAR 26.04.07.24). Composting facilities must obtain a
refuse disposal permit prior to operations from the MDNR. The facility must also
comply with minimum design requirements and submit an annual report to the
MDNR.
* Incinerators (CQMAR 26.04.07 7,5). Resource recovery facilities must obtain permits
prior to construction and operation from the MDNR. To obtain a permit, the operator
must submit engineering data, plans and specifications, O&M manual, waste control
plan, and ash management plan. The permit establishes minimum requirements for
facility operations, waste receipt and handling, and monitoring, reporting and
recordkeeping.
If facilities discharge stormwater or process wastewaters to surface waters, they are also required
to obtain a discharge permit from the MDNR. The MDNR must also issue a discharge permit for
releases to a municipal wastewater treatment plant.
Resource recovery facilities must also obtain permits for air emissions prior to construction
and operation from the MDE. If classified as a major source, the facility also requires a
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit. To obtain a permit, the operator must
demonstrate that the facility will comply with all applicable ambient air quality standards and that
the facility incorporates Best Available Control technology (BACT). The permit will establish
emission standards for all regulated pollutants, performance criteria for air pollution controls and
monitoring, testing, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. In addition, the U.S. EPA
proposed Section lll(d) emission guidelines for existing resource recovery facilities in
September 1994. These guidelines require existing facilities to comply with more stringent
emission standards and retrofit additional control technology than currently required by the MDE.
4.2 Field Test Results
The field test program addressed the environmental and occupational health and safety
impacts associated with the operation of the Montgomery County MRF, The sampling procedures
and results are summarized in the following sections.
4.2.1 Test Procedures
The field test program at the Montgomery County MRF was conducted on July 20, 21,
and 23, 1993. The Montgomery County facility operates five days per week on a 7:00 a.m. to
60
-------
5:30p.m. shift. There is a one-half hour lunch break and two 15-minute breaks throughout the
day. The process line is stopped at 5:00 p.m. to clean the work areas. Approximately 20
operations personnel are employed at the facility. The sorting operations are conducted 10 hours
per day - Monday through Thursday. Mixed recyclables are shipped Monday through Thursday,
and paper is shipped five days a week (10 hour shifts). Maintenance personnel work Monday
through Friday on an 8-hour shift. Friday is designated as the primary day for maintenance of
the processing line equipment. Materials are received Monday through Friday. Glass, aluminum,
metal, and plastic are sorted by the main processing line; newspapers are collected in open-top
trailers for shipment without being baled. The facility also maintains a tub grinder to process
small diameter wood waste into mulch which is provided free to the public.
The field test program Was conducted in accordance with me approved protocol in the
QAPjP and site-specific SAP. The following deviations were noted from the QAPjP and site-
specific field test protocol: - •-'...'
• A respirable dust/silica sample could not be collected on the traffic control person
since this person was released from work.
• On July 20, the sampling time for the TSP and PM10 duplicate sample were less than
24 hours (12.6 hours sampled) due to a power outage.
• The relative percent difference (RPD) for the set of replicate lead samples exceeded
20 percent on July 20.
• On 20 July, two samplers were operated from \vhat was later determined to be upwind
locations due to a shift in the predominant wind direction after the sites were already
set-up and operational: ,
Figure 4-4 shows the approximate locations of the sampling sites. The upwind and
downwind locations of the air sampling equipment relative to the facility for each of the three days
of monitoring are summarized in Table 4-6. The following discussion describes each sampling
location and any limitation that should be considered in the' evaluation of the reported data.
• Site 1. This site was located southwest of the facility. The location was suspected
to be influenced by vehicular traffic, but could not be relocated due to limitations
imposed by the fence line and electrical outlet access. On Day 1, this site was
determined to be upwind of the facility. At the conclusion of testing, equipment from
this location was moved to Site 5 due to shifting wind conditions.
. Site 2. This site was located north of the facility. The site was upwind on Day 1 and
was considered to be a representative location. Shifting wind conditions, however,
forced relocation of the equipment to Site 4 after completion of testing to better
61
-------
-------
Table 4-6
Sample Day
1
2
3
Locations
Upwind
1,2
4
4
Downwind
3
5,6
•7,8
characterize upwind concentrations. After Day 1, no further samples were collected from
this location.
• Site 3. This site was located northeast of the facility. The site was located downwind
on Day 1. After the first day of testing, the equipment from this location was moved
to Site 6 to provide a better characterization of downwind concentrations. No further
samples were collected from this location after Day 1.
• Site 4. This site was located northwest of the facility. The site was upwind on
Days 2 and 3.
• Site 5. This site was located south of the facility. The site was downwind on Day 2.
After the completion of testing, the equipment was moved to Site 7 to better
characterize downwind concentrations.
• Site 6. This site was located southeast of the facility. The data from this location is
suspected to be influenced by vehicular traffic from a nearby road and operation of
a tub grinder used to grind yard wastes into mulch. On Day 2, the site was downwind
of the facility and was moved to Site 8 after the conclusion of testing to better
characterize downwind concentrations.
• Site 7. This site was located southeast of the facility. The data collected at this
location is suspected to be influenced by vehicular traffic from a nearby road and
operation of the tub grinder. The site was situated downwind on Day 3.
• Site 8. This site was located east-southeast of the facility. The data, from this location
is suspected to be influenced by vehicular traffic from a nearby road and operation of
the tub grinder. The site was located downwind of the facility on Day 3.
63
-------
4.2.2 Environment and the Public Health
The field test program at the Montgomery County MRF was conducted on July 20
through 23, 1994. The air quality sampling was conducted to measure ambient concentrations of
TSP, PM10, CO, VOC, lead, and mercury. Measurements were also conducted to determine
wastewater quality and community, noise levels. The windrose data for the test period are
provided in Appendix B. The field test results are discussed in the following sections- the
complete test results are presented in Appendix D.
Total Suspended Particnlqte. PM10 and I^A
The TSP, PM10, and lead levels measured during the test program are summarized in
Table 4-7. With the exception of the PM10 measurement at Site 2 on Day 1, the PM10 and lead
levels were below the applicable Maryland and National Ambient Air Standards (NAAQS) despite
possible bias from site locations in the vicinity of vehicular traffic and the
Table 4-7
nav
1
2
3
•PMHTandles
Compound
TSP
PM10
Lead
TSP
PM10
Lead
TSP
PM10
Lead
id standards are 150
Concentration fag/m3)
Upwind
66.80
56.39
0.02
2.30 "
60.41
0.01
64.05
38.43
0.01
Downwind
70.68
335.40
0.04
85.55
131.51
0.03
134.43
54.93
0.01
and LSyUg/nr*, respectively.
Downwind
68.79
38.67
0.01
146.25
54.82
0.02
322.75
115.32
0.01
!
tub grinder. The PM10 and lead standards are 150 and 1.5 ,ug/m3, respectively There is no
stated standard for TSP.
On Day 1, there were two upwind and one downwind sites due to a shift in the
predominant wind direction after the samples were setup and operational. Hourly wind speeds
ranged from 3 to 10 miles per hour, slightly higher than the wind speeds occurring on either
Day 2 or 3. At Site 2, a power outage resulted in TSP and PM10 sampling times of 12.6 hours
64
-------
instead of the desired 24 hour sample time. Review of tide results for Day 1 show negligible
differences in TSP concentrations at the upwind and downwind locations. For this sample event,
the PM10 levels were 49 percent higher at the upwind location than measured at the downwind
location.
On Day 2, the sampling equipment from Sites 1, 2, and 3 was relocated to new positions
and identified as Sites 4, 5, and 6. Site 4 sampling equipment was located in the vicinity of
automobile traffic. Wind speeds were 1 to 6 miles per hour. The TSP results for Site 4 (upwind)
and PM10 results for Site 5 (downwind) are suspect and are not summarized in the report. The
TSP concentrations measured downwind at Sites 5 and 6 were 24 and 113 percent higher than
those measured downwind on Day 1, respectively. The TSP levels at Site 6 were about 71 percent
higher than the levels measured at the other downwind location (Site 5). The higher
concentrations measured at Site 6 are possibly attributable to truck traffic and the operation of a
tub grinder in the vicinity of the sampler. These, activities are associated with facility operations
and therefore may indeed contribute to fence line concentrations. There was no appreciable
difference in upwind and downwind PM10 concentrations measured at the site.
For Day 3, upwind TSP and PM10 concentrations are similar to Day 1 concentrations.
Wind speeds were 2 to 7 miles per hour. The TSP and PM10 concentrations at site 7 are similar
to the concentrations measured at Site 6 during Day 2. These two sites are in the same general
vicinity and .the concentrations are possibly affected by placement near the tub grinder. Site 8
equipment was located the closest to the tub grinder. The TSP and PM10 levels measured at this
site were 240 and 209 percent higher than those measured at Site 7, respectively. Site 8 was
approximately 30 feet closer to the tub grinder.
For Days 1 and 2, no clear conclusions on TSP and PM10 concentrations can be drawn
from comparison of upwind and downwind data. The higher downwind concentrations on Day 3
may be attributed to vehicular traffic off site and the operation of the tub grinder. When the tub
grinder was operating, a significant increase in fence line TSP and PM10 concentrations was
observed; however, further study would be needed to determine the actual contribution of the tub
grinder. Because of the negligible difference in the upwind and downwind lead levels, the facility
does appear contribute to fence line lead concentrations,, The PM10 and lead concentrations
(including'Site 8) are below the corresponding NAAQS.
The relative percent difference for the lead analysis exceeded 50 percent which was above
the QA/QC guideline of ± 20 percent. The TSP duplicate sampler experienced a power outage
which may have contributed to the variation. The lead QC spike and spike duplicate analyses
recoveries were 75 and 80 percent, respectively. Even though the spikes did not meet laboratory
acceptance criteria, the test results should be assumed to be biased low. In the worse case, the
adjusted results would be approximately twice the reported values.
65
-------
Carbon Monoxide and Mercury
Carbon monoxide and mercury vapor levels were monitored with direct-reading
instruments at upwind and downwind sites on each of the three days on-site. Instantaneous
readings were generally taken at each sampling location once in the morning and once in
the afternoon. Carbon monoxide and mercury were not detected in concentrations higher than
background levels. No difference between upwind and downwind concentrations were observed
during the test program. The CO and mercury vapor test results are presented in Table 4-8. As
shown in this table, all CO and mercury vapor concentrations were found to be less than OSHA
and ACGIH exposure limits.
Table 4-8
Montgomery County
Ambient CO and Mercury Measurement Results8
Location
Fence Line (North)
Fence Line (East)
Fence Line (South)
Fence Line (West)
Ambient Air Station #6
CO Level
(ppm)
ND
ND-1
ND
ND
ND
Hg Level
(mg/m3)
ND-0.003
ND-0.003
ND-0.003
ND-0.001
0.001
Volatile Organic Compounds
The VOC test results are summarized in Table 4-9. The target compounds were from the
hazardous substance list (HSL) and featured scans for over thirty-five compounds. Samples
collected on Day 1 identified the presence of seven VOCs (i.e., acetone, benzene, 2-butanone
chloromethane, toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and xylenes). On Days 2 and 3, the sampling
detected six (no chloromethane detected) and five (no chloromethane or xylenes detected)
compounds, respectively. None of the compounds (excluding acetone) were reported at
concentrations of greater than 4.4 /ug/m3. Acetone was detected in all samples in the 18 to 131
Mg/m3 range. For all compounds detected, there are no applicable Maryland Department of the
Environment Air Administration Standards.
The VOC surrogate recovery values were well within acceptance limits at 97 to 100
percent except for one sample with a recovery of 111 percent. The duplicate analysis of a field
sample demonstrated precision of 7 to 25 percent. Benzene and trichlorofluoromethane (F-ll)
were outside the acceptance criteria of RPD ±20 percent. For all samples in which benzene and
trichlorofluoromethane (F-ll) were detected, the concentrations were less than two times the
66
-------
detection limit. For the VOC quality control spikes, the, percent recoveries for 18 compounds
spiked ranged from 71 to 124 percent, which slightly exceeds the QC criteria of 75 to 115
percent. EPA Method TO-14 does not state specific acceptance ranges for surrogate and spike
recoveries. Coast-to-Coast Analytical Service uses 70 to 130 percent as an acceptance criteria.
With the exception of acetone, the measured VOC concentrations were below 5 yug/m3),
with no significant variation in upwind and downwind concentrations. The VOC data, as
reported, can be considered representative of normal background levels in rural areas.
Table 4-9
Montgomery County VOC Sampling Results
Day
1
2
3
Compound
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Chloromethane
Toluene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Xylenes
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichlorofluoromethan
e
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Toluene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Detection
Limit
(Atg/m3)
2.4
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.8
1.1
0.9
2.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
1.1
1.1
2.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
1.1
Concentration (jj.g/m3)
Site 1
30.9
1.3
3.8
1.3
4.1
2.2
1.7
19.9
1.0
2.7
2.6
1.6
1.7
45.1
0.6
ND
1.9
- 2.2
Site 2
121.1
1.0
3.5
ND
2.6
1.1
ND
26.1
1.0
2.1
2.6
ND
1.7
130.6
0.6
4.4
1.9
ND
Site 3
19.9
1.0
1.2
ND
2.3
ND
ND
22.1
0.6
1.5
2.6
2.2
ND
18.0
ND
ND
1.9
2.2
State
Guideline
(Atg/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA'
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA *
NA
NA
NA
67
-------
Wastewater
On July 23, 1993, wastewater samples were collected from the process floor using a shop
vacuum, while the equipment was being washed with a high power sprayer. Equipment is washed
approximately once per month. There were no floor drains present in the building. The wash
water is swept to a pit below the materials feed belt and then pumped to a truck and taken to a
treatment facility. The metals levels in the wastewater were found to be less than the regulatory
limits established under RCRA. The wastewater effluent quality is summarized in Table 4-10.
Table 4-10
Montgomery County Wastewater Sampling Results3
Analyte
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Ammonia, as Nitrogen
Total Organic Nitrogen
Total Organic Carbon
Oil and Grease
Phosphate, as P-Total
Specific Conductance
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
BOD, 5-day
Silver, Total
Arsenic, Total
Barium, Total
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
Mercury, Total
Lead, Total
Selenium, Total
Total Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Units
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
umhos
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/1
mpn/100 ml
mpn/100 ml
Primary Sample
5290
2.7
123
1880
342
19.3
2520
4180
1120
1000
14.9
256
678
21.8
225
4.9
481
<5.0
3.5 X 105
2.2 X 106
Duplicate
Sample
11,000
2.8
206
1940
246
21.4
2500
4320
1090
1000
17.2
290
742
22.4
258
5.7
568
<5.0
3.5 X 106
3.3 X 106
Blank
Sample
<5.0
<0.10
<0.10
1.1
<5.0
< 0.050
1.0
7.0
<5.0
<1
<10.0
<10.0
<200
<5.0
<10.0
<0.20
6.8
<5.0
<18
<18
"samples collected rrom wastewater sump on 07/23/93.
68
-------
Community Noise
Community noise levels were measured at the fence lines to the norths south, east, and
west. The results of this noise survey, which are expressed as a range of instantaneous noise
measurements over the three-day period, are summarized in Table 4-11. The main sources of
noise were the dumping of glass and other recyclables on the tipping floor, the process line, and
the tub grinder. Measurements at the fence lines were in the range of 50 to 60 dBA when the
process line was not operating, and 58 to 76 dBA when the process line and tub grinder were in
operation. The tub grinder has the greatest effect on fence line noise levels, with 76 dBA
measured at the east fence line. The community impact of this increase in noise during facility
operation is minimal, since the facility is bordered by a rail repair yard, shopping center, and
solid waste transfer station.
Table 4-11
Montgomery County
Community Noise Measurement Results
Location
Fence Line (North)
Fence Line (East)
Fence Line (South)
Fence Line (West)
Ambient Air Station #6
Instantaneous Noise
Level (dBA)
53.0-62.0
57.0-76.0
67.0-76.0
57.0-65.0
74.0
4.2.3 Occupational Health and Safety
The personnel sampling was performed concurrently with the ambient sampling program
at the Montgomery County MKF. Personnel sampling was conducted to measure worker exposure
to dusts, silica, metals, fungi, bacteria, and noise. Indoor sampling was also conducted to detect
levels of CO, mercury, PCBs, and pesticides. These results are discussed below; the complete
testing results are presented in Appendix D.
Dusts. Silica and Metals
Worker exposures to total dust, respirable dust, silica, and metals were monitored over
the entire work shift (10 hours). Workers in the following job functions were sampled:
maintenance, fork truck operator, custodian, roll-off driver, scale attendant, presort attendant,
tipping floor attendant, front end loader operator, traffic controller, mulch area front end loader
operator, and the tub grinder operator. Table 4-12 summarizes the personnel sampling results for
total dust, respirable dust, and silica, while the metal sampling results are summarized in Table
4-13. As shown in these tables, all exposure levels were less than the applicable PELs. The
69
-------
highest total and respirable dust levels were found on the custodian - 2.05 and 0.40 mg/m3 for
total and respirable dust, respectively. Duplicate analysis did show variation beyond the RPD
limit set in the QAPjP in a few cases. One respirable dust sample and two aluminum samples
exceeded the 20-percent RPD limit.
Table 4-12
Montgomery County Total Dust, Respirable Dust and Silica
Personnel Sampling Results8
Maintenance
Front End Loader (Tipping Floor)
Custodian
Traffic Control
Roll-Off Driver
Scale Attendant
Presort Attendant
Fork Truck Operator
Tub Grinder Operator
Front End Loader (Mulch Area)
Concentration (mg/m3)
Total Dust
0.6991
0.3332
2.0554
0.4712
0.4719
0.29
0.3341
1.5123
0.3903
N/A
Respirable Dust
0.15
0.18
0.4
NA
0.12
0.07
0.33
0.2122
0.24
0.31
Silica
<0.0100
<0.0010
<0.0100
NA
< 0.0 100
<0.0100
<0.0100
<0.0100
<0.0100
<0.0100
*PELs are 15.0, 5.0, and 0.1 mg/m3 for total dust, respirable dust, and silica respectively.
Table 4-13
Montgomery County Metals Personnel Sampling Results3
Front End Loader (Tipping Floor)
Custodian
Traffic Control
Roll-Off Driver
Scale Attendant
Presort Attendant
Fork Truck Operator
Concentration (mg/m3)
Arsenic
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
Aluminum
0.0018
0.0031
0.0024
0.0049
0.0034
0.0115
0.0035
Chromium
< 0.0009
< 0.0008
<0.0008
<0.0010
<0.0011
< 0.0008
< 0.0009
Lead
< 0.0009
<0.0008
< 0.0008
<0.0010
<0.0011
< 0.0008
< 0.0009
Nickel
< 0.0009
< 0.0008
< 0.0008
<0.0010
<0.0011
< 0.0008
<0 0009
are u.ui, ia.u, i.uu, U.UD, and l.UO mg/nr tor arsenic, aluminum, chromium, lead, and nickel, respectively.
70
-------
Carbon Monoxide and Mercury Vapor
Carbon monoxide and mercury measurements were taken with direct reading instruments
at 13 locations throughout the facility, including the tut) grinder and the mulch pile. The test
results are presented in Table 4-14. Carbon monoxide levels in the range of 8 to 14 ppm were
measured in the baler and roll-off areas, presumably resulting from the operation of fork trucks.
These levels are well below the PEL of 50 ppm and the TLV of 25 ppm. All other areas were
5 ppm or less for CO. Mercury vapor was not detected in concentrations higher than background
levels.
Table 4-14
Montgomery County
Indoor CO and Mercury Measurement Results3
Location
Tipping Floor
Maintenance Room
Plastic Sorting Booth
Glass Sorting Platform
Tub Grinder
General Floor Areas
Baler Areas
Roll-Off Area
Pre-Sort Platform
Lunch Room
Receptionist's Desk
Traffic Control
Mulch Pile
General Offices
Men's Locker Room
Process Floor Stairs
Mezzanine Outlook
Front Door
Grinder Building
CO Level
(ppmi)
ND-2
ND
ND-3
ND-3
ND
ND-3
ND-14
ND-8
ND-5
ND
ND
ND-1
ND
ND
ND
ND.
3
ND
ND
Hg Level
(mg/m3)
ND
ND
ND-0.005
ND
ND-0.004
ND-0.001
ND-0.001
ND-0.002
ND-0.003
ND
NA
ND
ND-0.002
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
aPELs for CO and Hg are 35 ppm and 0.05 mg/m3, respectively.
71
-------
Pesticides/PCBs
Pesticide and PCB samples were collected at the tipping floor, pre-sort platform, tub
grinder, and plastics sorting station on all three sampling days. One day of sampling was
conducted in the facility's lunch area. All results were less than the detection limits (see Appendix
D).
Bacteria and Fungi
Airborne and surface samples were collected for bacteria and fungi on the tipping floor,
glass sorting platform, pre-sort platform, and plastic sorting station on all three days. One sample
was collected in the lunch area. Ambient levels of airborne bacteria and fungi were also measured
at the one upwind and two downwind locations on all three days. The airborne and surface
sample results are presented in Tables 4-15 and 4-16, respectively.
Table 4-15
Montgomery County Airborne Fungi and Bacteria Sampling Results
Location
Glass Sorting Platform
Plastics Sorting Platform
Tipping Floor
Lunch Room
Pre-Sorting Platform
Ambient Air Station #1
Ambient Air Station #2
Ambient Air Station #3
Ambient Air Station #4
Ambient Air Station #5
Ambient Air Station #6
Ambient Air Station #7
Ambient Air Station #8
Sample (viable counts per cubic meter)
Fungi
2494-9440
2553-9440
7026-9440
1919
4620-9368
7242
7242
6639
448-3677
1417
1792
2419-2525
1322
Bacteria RT"
2483-9440
2096-9440
4508-9440
954
4345-9440
1195
893
712
363-6490
3513
1757
1888-2596
1298
Bacteria 56b
85-153
205-258
60-445
85
82-121
48
36
121
35-316
304
269
59-142
153
"Bacteria RT is incubated at room temperature.
bBacteria 56 is incubated at 56 degrees F.
72
-------
Table 4-16
Montgomery County Surface Fungi and Bacteria Results
Location
Tipping Floor
Glass Sorting Platform
Pre-Sort Platform
Mezzanine Outlook
Lunch Area
Sample (units per gauze wipe)
Fungi
500
400-1500
69,000
1000
<1000
Bacteria
4000
300-4600
90,000
1000
3200
Airborne fungi levels inside the facility were generally two to three times higher than
outdoor levels, except for the first sampling day when outdoor levels were approximately
equivalent to indoor levels. The fungi levels were consistent from lopation to location inside the
facility, although the fungi levels in the lunch area were about 25 percent of the levels in the
remainder of the plant. ,
Wipe samples for bacteria/fungi were also collected at the tipping floor, glass sorting
platform, pre-sort platform, mezzanine, and lunch area. The levels at the pre-sort platform were
measurably higher than other areas. This may result from the workers agitating the materials by
picking out nonrecyclables prior to the reaching the process line.
All fungi detected were common environmental fungi. None of the fungi detected are
considered highly virulent in nature. The two fungi most commonly associated with infections
that were detected are Aspergillus fumigatus and Aspergillus niger. Aspergillus fumigatus can
cause pulmonary and/or eye infections, and is the dominant cause of aspergillosis. These
organisms are considered opportunistic pathogens, in that they are most likely to infect individuals
with compromised immune systems. Healthy people are not likely to be infected with Aspergillus
fumigatus unless they are exposed to an unusually high dose. Infections due to Aspergillus niger
are more rare — it can cause infections in the ear. However, it is possible that hypersensitive
people, and people exposed to high levels of fungal spores, may develop hypersensitivity
reactions, such as allergies, asthma and hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Little information is
available describing the exposure levels required to initiate such reactions.
No highly virulent pathogenic bacteria were identified in any of the samples submitted.
The most common bacteria detected were Bacillus, which are commonly found in environmental
samples and occur naturally hi soil and water. Curtobacterium is a common plant pathogen which
is commonly recovered from air samples. Arthrobacter and streptomycetes are common
environmental organisms often associated with soil. The species of Acinetobacter,
Flavobacterium, Xanthomonas, and Pseudomonas detected likely originated from water or wet
73
-------
environments. PSeudomonas aeruginosa is considered an opportunistic pathogen. Although it
is common in the environment, it can cause skin, eye, ear and lung infections. Staphylococcus,
Brevibacterium, and Micrococcus are associated with human and/or animal skin. Several' enteric
organisms were detected: Serratia, Envinia, and Enterobacter are common in soil and water
environments.
The RPD for duplicate samples collected at Site 7 on July 22 had exceeded the QAPjP
limit of 20 percent, with RPD values of 32 and 83 percent for bacteria RT and thermophilic
bacteria, respectively: In four cases, the RPD from duplicate samples exceeded the QAPjP limits.
Noise Exposure
Worker noise exposures were determined using audiodosimeters over the course of the
entire shift. Workers in the following job functions were sampled: maintenance, fork truck
operator, custodian, roll-off driver, plastic sorter, glass sorter, presort attendant, tipping floor
front end loader, traffic controller, mulch area front end loader, and tub grinder operator. The
personnel sampling results are presented in Table 4-17. The average noise levels for the entire
10-hour workshift ranged from 76.1 to 96.0 dBA. Employees working on the front-end loader,
pre-sort platform, glass sorting platform, plastic sorting station, fork truck operation, tub grinder,
and custodial operations experienced noise levels in excess of the PEL (adjusted to 88 dBA to
account for the 10-hour shift). Consequently, these workers would require hearing protectors.
Table 4-17
Montgomery County Audiodosimeter Results
Job Description
Traffic Controller
Front End Loader Operator
Pre-sort Platform
Glass Sorting Platform
#11 Plastic Sorting
Fork Truck Operator
Maintenance
Roll-Off Driver
Tub Grinder Operator
Custodian
Average Noise
Levels (dBA)
87.1
84.4-88.1
89.3-90.2
94.8-96.0
93.6
92.3
85.7
76.1
88.3
95.5 ;
Direct reading measurements were also made with a sound level analyzer throughout the
facility. The measurement results are summarized in Table 4-18. These results demonstrate that
74
-------
the highest noise levels were generated by the dumping of mixed recyclables on the tipping floor.
Instantaneous noise levels reached as high as 107 dBA during this operation. Operation of the tub
grinder increased noise levels by approximately 30 dBA ~ from 70 to 100 dBA.
Table 4-18
Montgomery County Indoor Noise Measurement Results
Location
Tipping Floor
Maintenance Room
Plastic Sorting Booth
Glass Sorting Platform
Tub Grinder
General Floor Areas
Baler Areas
Roll-Off Area
Pre-Sort Platform
Lunch Room
Receptionist's Desk
Traffic Control
Mulch Pile
General Offices
Men's locker Room
Process Floor Stairs
Mezzanine Outlook
Front Door
Tub Grinder Building
Instantaneous Noise
Level (dBA)
82.0-107.0
72.0-97.0
95.0-97.0
87.0-104.0
72.0-105.0
99.0-100.0
86.0-100.0 '
91.0-96.0
88.0-101.0
50.0-60.0
61.0-64.0
72.0-88.0
63.0-71.0
60.0
<50.0
65.0
97.0
57.0
69.0
The health and safety program evaluation was limited to information provided by on-site
personnel. The facility had documentation available on-site to show compliance with each of the
programs reviewed. The key findings from this evaluation include:
75
-------
• An Energy Control Program is in place at the facility, and documentation of training
was available. The facility SOP calls for annual evaluations of program effectiveness,
although none had been conducted yet because the program had not been in effect for
one year. ,
• A Hazard Communication Program is in effect at the facility and meets the standard
established by OSHA.
• Dust masks are the only form of respiratory protection used at the facility. Use of
these respirators had been covered in training, although no written respiratory
protection plan had been developed. Air monitoring prior to this study showed
airborne contaminant levels below PELs; therefore, respirators were not required.
Medical monitoring of employees using dust masks has not been conducted.
• A Hearing Conservation Program has been implemented in accordance with OSHA
.requirements. Hearing protectors are provided to anyone entering a high noise area.
Audiometric testing is conducted by the facility and also through a consultant.
Consultants were used to conduct a noise survey in 1992. The only program
deficiency was that a copy of the OSHA noise standard has not been posted at the
facility.
• There were no air contaminants identified that required control programs under
OSHA.
• There was a Bloodborne Pathogen Program in place that appeared to meet the
requirements specified by OSHA. The facility provides gloves with liners, Kevlar
sleeves, and plastic aprons to prevent cuts and contact with infectious materials.
• Information on injury and illness rates was provided for 1991, 1992, and 1993. Those
rates, provided by the facility, are summarized in Table 4-19, along with BLS
estimates of occupational injury and illness incidence rates for 1991 for Sanitary
Services and Private Sector Industries. The operators did not provide specific
information on the types of injuries or illnesses that have occurred at the facility.
Ergonomics
Picking booth operations were videotaped during the on-site facility assessment. These
videotapes were reviewed to identify the general ergonomic conditions within this work area. For
the purpose of this assessment, potential ergonomic risk factors identified can be defined as
workplace conditions or work practices which may contribute to, or result in, worker discomfort,
fatigue, or injury.
76
-------
Three types of workstations at the Montgomery County facility were evaluated:
• Workstation 1. This type of workstation was used for separating aluminum and glass
with workers located on each side of conveyor with bins on either side of workers.
The workstation (conveyor) height was non-adjustable, but appeared appropriate for
the majority of workers based on observation of arm motions while performing work.
No foot stools (platforms) were available in this area to accommodate shorter
workers. Shorter workers were seen raising elbows and shoulders in order to
' Accommodate to workstation height.
Workers were able to perform tasks without bending or excessive reaching and were
able to place recyclables in bins without excessive twisting. One taller worker was
observed to lean over conveyor repetitively to reach into work area of worker on the
other side of conveyor. Work on this line involved extensive repetitive motion of
upper extremities. Line speed in combination with volume of recyclables may have
been a factor in the extent of repetitive motion required to complete tasks.
The potential ergonomic risk factors are: (1) fixed workstation (conveyor) height did
not accommodate shorter worker; (2) one worker repetitively bent over the conveyor
into workspace of co-worker; and (3) the line speed and volume of recyclables caused
extensive repetitive motion of upper extremities to complete sorting/picking tasks.
Table 4-19
Injury and Illness Rates
for 1991,1992 and 1993
1991
1991
1991
1992
All Industry
Sanitary Services
MRF
MRF
Recordable Cases
8.4
15.3
12.6
10.3
18.8
Lost Workday Cases
3.9
7.9
12.6
6.88
6.26
Lost Workdays
86.5
163.5
37.9
79.1
25. 0-'"'
Workstation 2. At this type of workstation, workers sorting glass were located on
each side of conveyor with bins on either side of workers! The workstation height
was non-adjustable. Some workers would benefit from foot stools (platforms) to
accommodate conveyor height, as noted by raised elbows in work performance.
Workers used repetitive sweeping motions of upper extremities to push glass into
bins. Extensive repetitive motion of upper extremities was required, the line speed
and volume of recyclables appeared to be factors in the extent of repetitive motion
required to complete tasks.
77
-------
The potential ergonomic risk factors are: (1) the fixed workstation (conveyor) height
failed to accommodate shorter workers; and (2) the line speed in combination with
volume of recyclables resulted in extensive repetitive motion of upper extremities to
complete sorting/picking tasks.
Workstation 3. This type of workstation was employed for plastic sorting Two
workers were assigned to the line, one on each side of the conveyor. Workstation
height was non-adjustable, but appeared appropriate for the individuals assigned to
this task. The bin placement scheme required one worker to reach across the full
conveyor width to discard paper. The worker on the opposite side of the conveyor
had to reach across the full width of the conveyor to discard aluminum. The only
potential ergonomic risk factor is that the bin placement required extensive reach
across the full width of the conveyor.
78
-------
SECTION 5
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO
5.1 Process Description ,
The City of Albuquerque, relies primarily on landfilling for managing residential and
commercial solid .waste under its jurisdiction. The City also maintains a MRF and drop-off
centers. The process description presented in this section addresses the technical, economic,
energy, and environmental aspects of the MRF and IMSWM system.
5.1.1 Integrated Solid Waste Management System
The City provides collection and disposal services for MSW generated within
Albuquerque. The components of the IMSWM system serving Albuquerque include:
• Intermediate Processing Facility
• Two Drop-Off Centers., and
• Landfill.
Figure 5-1 presents a flow diagram for the IMSWM system, showing the quantities of waste
received and residue disposed of by the various components of the system during the first six
months of MRF operation (April 1 through September 30, 1992).
Waste Collection
The City provides collection services to residential and commercial customers in
Albuquerque. During the six months since startup of the MRF, the City collected approximately
55,459 and 96,293 tons of residential and commercial waste, respectively. This represents 77
percent of the MSW delivered to the landfill during that period. Of the remaining waste received
at the landfill, 14,915 tons were delivered by private haulers, and 30,117 tons were transferred
from the drop-off centers over the six-month period.
Intermediate Processing Facility
The Intermediate Processing Facility is located on the site of the City's Landfill.
Commencing operation April 1, 1993, the facility is owned and operated by the City of
Albuquerque. During the first six months of operation, the facility processed about 2,574 tons
of recyclable material. Newsprint and corrugated cardboard are presorted on the tipping floor and
baled for shipment to market. The co-mingled recyclables, that is, plastic containers, ferrous
metal, aluminum cans, and color-sorted glass, are recovered by mechanical and manual sorting.
79
-------
s
*
1
CD
CO
.S> co
-° £
jo 2
CO CM
CC CM"
CD
<4—'
CO
4
CO
0
•4— <
CO
10
15 O
.0) CO
LL 0
Z5
ET
CD
3
CT
13
O
.£•
O)
s,
I
•o
CO
CO
g g
22
•«t in
h- -o-
m CN
CM" CM"
i
.o
"o
CO
CO C
0> O)
in CM
-»-. co
in O)
in
"
§
•o
—
CO O
CC O
03
"55
co
CO
CO
co
o
"o
"o
o
"55
0)
co
i
JS *
S, I
o t:
0) 0) co
$*
if
« CO
0)
80
-------
Drop-Off Centers
Two Drop-Off Centers are located throughout in the City of Albuquerque. The centers
are owned and operated by the City. Citizens may drop off white goods, yard waste, and other
materials at these centers. The waste is delivered to the landfill by truck. Approximately 30.177
tons of waste were transferred from these centers to the landfill during the first six months of
MRF operation.
r ;T* *' '
City Landfill
The landfill is located approximately 20 miles outside of the City of Albuquerque. The
landfill is owned and operated by the City. Yard waste is stored within a segregated area of the
landfill. During the same six months since startup of the MRF, the landfill received
approximately 196,784 tons of residential and commercial waste.
5.1.2 Material Recovery Facility
The Intermediate Processing Facility located at the site of the City Landfill approximately
20 miles west of Albuquerque, is owned and operated by the City. The facility has a single
processing line designed to handle 125 tpd of recyclable material. The facility is staffed by six
full-time employees, including the plant manager, truck driver, equipment operator, laborer, and
two corrections officer. The material sorting is performed by 17 to 24 laborers supplied by the
local correctional facility. Figure 5-2 presents a site plan for the Intermediate Processing Facility.
Table 5-1 summarizes the material received and recovered at the MRF between April 1 and
September 30, 1993.
Upon entering the building, the collection vehicles discharge their load on the tipping floor
at the immediate entrance of the facility. Newsprint and corrugated cardboard are separated from
the commingled recyclables on the tipping floor. The paper products are then manually
transferred to a conveyor feeding the baler. The baled paper products are then stored in an area
on the north side of the building (North Area). Plastic bags containing mixed recyclables are
transferred to the sorting conveyor.
The plastic bags are ripped open and the contents dumped onto the feed conveyor. The
recyclable materials move up the feed conveyor onto the sorting belt. An overhead magnetic
separator removes ferrous material. Other recyclable material, that is, PET and HOPE plastic
containers, aluminum cans, and glass containers are sorted by workers on each side of the belt.
The workers drop the sorted material through chutes to storage areas below the sorting belt.
Rejects drop off the end of the sorting conveyor. The plastic material is baled and stored in the
North Area. Metal cans are crushed, baled, and then stored on-site.
The recovered material is transported off-site by private haulers to market. The rejects
are transferred to the adjacent City landfill.
81
-------
a
3
n
I
x
CV2
I
in
D
O
»_t
(x.
3o
O O
OH
ta
CO
o .
O W
OS D
a, cy
I? ^
< OT
Q D
Ed CQ
s ^
a: <
w
E-
g
a.
-------
Table 5-1
Material Received and Recovered
From April 1 to September 30, 1993
Material
Newspaper
Ferrous Cans
Aluminum
Glass
Plastic
Cardboard
Mixed Paper
Rejects/Residue
Miscellaneous
Total
Throughpul:
(tons)
1,391
44
28
191
44
522
25
320
9
2,574
Percent of Total
(%)
54.0
1.7
1.1
7.4
1.7
20.3
1.0
12.4
0.4
100.0
5.1.3 Economic, Energy and Environmental Issues
' This section addresses the economic, energy, and environmental issues associated with the
MRF and IMSWM system. These issues are based on publicly available information or material
provided by the City.
-,-•. Economic Implications
The Albuquerque Solid Waste Department is responsible for day-to-day operation of the
IMSWM system. The system is operated as a self-supporting environmental unit under an
enterprise fund managed by the Department. The data which was collected for this analysis was
obtained from the City of Albuquerque. According to the City, the costs and revenues provided
were based on actual results for FY 1992 and included all solid waste which was handled by the
City.
In FY 1992, the total cost of waste transport, processing and disposal, material recovery
and marketing, and administration was approximately $30.6 million. Approximately $13.7
million or 45 percent of costs was associated with labor/personnel. These costs included all labor
associated with administration and operations related to the management of solid waste which for
the City is responsible. Approximately $6.2 million or 20 percent of costs was associated with
collection. Another $7 million was associated with materials and equipment maintenance, while
the remaining $3.7 million was split between debt service, energy, and contractors.
83
-------
The total cost of operating the MRF, including material collection, transport, processing,
and product marketing, was approximately $4.4 million in FY 1992. Based on the City's
allocation of costs, approximately $2.2 million or 50 percent of costs were associated with
collection. Approximately 34 percent of MRF costs was for debt service, and 11 percent for
personal services. The remaining 5 percent of MRF costs was associated with energy,
contractors, supplies, and equipment maintenance. Table 5-2 summarizes the costs for the
IMSWM system.
Table 5-2
Estimated Costs for the Albuquerque IMSWM System
Cost Element
Labor/Personnel
Contractors
Materials/Supplies
Equipment
Energy
Collection Costs
Distribution Costs
Debt Service
Total
IMSWM System
$13,700,000
573,000
2,600,000
4,400,000
126,000
6,200,000
N/A
2,970,000
$30,569,000
MRF
$478,000
55,800
15,710
82,000
31,224
2,211,000
N/A
1,500,000
$4,373,734
Based on the allocation of costs provided by the City, the operating costs of the MRF
represent approximately 14.3 percent of total operating costs for the IMSWM system. It is
important to note that, in the area of collection (the largest MRP expense category), the MRF
accounts for one-third of total cost of the IMSWM system.
Based on an allocation performed by the City, the amount of total revenues from the MRF
in FY 1992 was approximately $295,000. These revenues were earned through user charges
(assessments), and the sale of recyclables. Table 5-3 summarizes the revenues generated by the
IMSWM system and the MRF.
84
-------
Table 5-3
Estimated Revenues for the City of Albuquerque
Revenue Element
Tipping Fees
User Charges
Sales of Recyclables/Compost
Total Revenues
liMSWM System
$6,570,000
45,000
' 250,000
$6,865,000
MRF
$ 0
45,000
250,000
$ 295,000
For clarification, user charges (assessments) are defined as annual fees which were
charged to City residents for collection of recyclables.
Based on the allocation of costs provided by the City, the operating revenues of the MRF
represent approximately 4.3 percent of total IMSWM system operating revenues. This is
significantly less than the percentage contribution of the MRF to IMSWM system costs. These
operating revenues recover approximately 6.7 percent of MRF costs.
Figure 5-3 presents the costs and revenues for both the MRF and IMSWM system. Based
on the analysis of operating costs and revenues for FY 1992 and the allocations provided by the
City, it appears that the MRF provided a net cost to the IMSWM system in the amount of
approximately $4,078,700 or 13.3 percent of total operating expenditures.
Energy Consumption
An estimated 74 billion Btu of energy was consumed to collect, transfer, haul, and process
about 199,358 tons of MSW and recyclables. Of the 74 billion Btu consumed, approximately 98.7
percent was used to manage 196,784 tons of MSW, while 1.3 percent was used to manage 2,574
tons of recyclables. Approximately 0.37 MMBtu of energy were consumed for each of the
199,357 tons of waste managed, with 0.34 and 2.91 MMBtu consumed for each of the 196,784
tons' of MSW and 2,574 tons of recyclables, respectively. The average energy consumption for
the recyclables is almost three times higher than that found at the other facilities. This appears
to be due to a higher per ton average for haul to market. Most likely, the values are inflated
because they reflect only the first six months of operation of the MRF.
Table 5-4 and Figure 5-4 show the energy consumed by function. For the entire IMSWM
system, almost 62 percent of the energy consumed was for transportation, that is, waste collection,
transfer and haul, transporting recyclables to market, and hauling residue to the landfill. About
62 and 63 percent of the energy consumed was for the transportation of MSW and recyclables,
respectively.
85
-------
Figure 5-3.
TOTAL COSTS AND REVENUES FOR THE
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE ISWMS
MRF
$4,500,000 i
S4.000.000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500.000 •
$2,000,000 •
$1.500,000 •
$1,000.000 •
$500,000
s- •
f
i
1
•
JMJiifiiJiJImffijjSS^^S
»«^^^^^^j^^a
_
•
555S55555SS52
COSTS
REVENUES
•Sato ofRtcycltUit/Compott
BUftrChtrgtt
• D«MS«rvleM
•Colltctlon Costs
B Energy
D Equipment
DMaterfals/Supplta)
B Contractors
B Labor/Parsonntl
$35,000,000 i .
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000 •
$10.000.000 •
S5.000.000
$- J-
1
ISWMS
IllllmlmmllWWWfll
'' '
=====
— — ^=
^^^1
^H
^^^^"
COSTS
REVENUES
BSate ofRteyelthlatfCompott
• (/««r Chtrgts
B Tipping Fn*
BD«btSarvic«
QMat*rlals/Suppli«
B Collection Costs
• Energy
O Equipment
m Contractors
• Ubor/Peraonnel
86
-------
Table 5-4
Energy Consumption for Albuquierque IMSWM
(MMBtu)
Activity
Collection Vehicles3
Transport MSW from Drop-off
Centersb
Material Recovery Facility0
Drop-off Centers0
Transport Rejects/Residue
Landfill
Subtotal
Haul to Market"1
Total Energy Consumption
(MMBtu)
Tons Processed
Average Energy Consumption
(MMBtu/ton)
Garbage
39,037
2,364
760
25,070
66,471
66,471 •
196,784
0.34
Curbside Recycling
1,055
2,780
0.56
; 3,836
3,660
7,496
2,574
2.91
Total
40,092
2,364
4,860
1,140
0.56
25,070
72,386
3,660
76,047
199,357
0.38
"Collection consumption is based on an average of 1.6 gal/ton of garbage collected and 2.x gal/ton or recyciaoies
collected. These averages are based on a similar study.
Transport fuel consumption is based on distances traveled and an average of 0.024 gal/ton mile for transfer trailers.
'Consumption for the MRF, Drop-off Centers, and the landfill was calculated based on cost expenditures and the
following rates: Diesel, $0.70/gal (Fleet Management - suppliers); Natural Gas, $4.01/MMBtu (Gas Company of New
Mexico); Electricity (Actual Consumption was provided by the City of Albuquerque).
dHaul to market consumption is based on distances for each type of recyclables to its appropriate processing facility and
a haul average of 0.024 gal/ton-mile.
Except as discussed below, the energy consumption information was obtained from data
provided by the City. The fuel consumed to collect garbage and recyclables was estimated using
collection vehicle data from Palm Beach County, Florida; Springfield, Massachusetts; Scottsdale,
Arizona; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Seattle, Washington. The energy consumed to haul
recovered materials to market was estimated by multiplying the estimated ton-miles hauled by
0.024 gallons per ton-mile, that is, the approximate fuel consumed by the MSW transfer vehicles
used in Hartford, Connecticut; Palm Beach County, Florida; and Minneapolis, Minnesota.
87
-------
UJ
g
§1
0)
«- £Z w
3 O S
i~ ~j ffl
P'S
f I
li.
QL
O
O
I
UJ
z
UJ
(0
ui
m
3
UJ
o:
Ul
1
88
-------
Environmental Regulations
The landfill and MRF have received solid waste management facility permits from the New
Mexico Environment Department (NMED). The NMED regulations specify design and
operational criteria, as well as monitoring, reporting and irecordkeeping requirements, for these
facilities.
5.2 Field Test Results
The field test program assessed the environmental and occupational health and safety
impacts associated with the operation of the MRF. JThe sampling procedures and analytical results
are summarized in this section. ;
5.2.1 Test Procedures
The field test program at the Albuquerque MRF was conducted from September 14 through
16, 1993. The Albuquerque facility operates five days per week on a 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
shift. There are six full-time municipal employees including: the plant manager, a truck driver,
an equipment operator, a laborer, and two corrections officers. The material sorting is performed
by 17 to 24 laborers supplied by the local correctional facility. The laborers are given one hour
for lunch, one 15-minute break in the morning, and one 15-minute break in the afternoon. The
municipal employees start at 7:00 a.m. and clean the facility until 8:00 a.m. The laborers
supplied by the correctional facility arrive at 8:00 a.m., and begin the processing of recyclables
shortly after their arrival.
The facility is designed to process commingled recyclables. Newsprint and corrugated
cardboard are separated on the tipping floor for baling. Plastic bags containing tin cans,
aluminum, plastic containers, and glass bottles are pitched toward the sorting conveyor. These
materials are then mechanically and manually separated and sorted on the conveyor.
The field test program was conducted in accordance with the approved test protocol in the
QAPjP and site-specific SAPs. The only deviation from the protocol was that the relative percent
difference (RPD) for the set of replicate lead samples exceeded 20 percent.
Figure 5-5 shows the approximate location of the ambient sampling sites. The
upwind/downwind locations of the air sampling equipment relative to the MRF are summarized
in Table 5-5. Provided below is a brief discussion of each sample location and any limitations that
should be considered in the evaluation of the reported data.
89
-------
(\
o
2
OT
o>
w
u s-
o fc
w
§
a
w
I
\
i
8
S
10
I
O
toj
2
O
O
O
o
25
a
cu
DQ
0
1—4 O
o o
02
CO
co
W
o
O
K
OH
OQ
<
O H
? g
s i
, i
o
I
O
90
-------
Table 5-5
Sampling Locations at the Albuquerque MRF
Sample Day
1
2
3
Locations
Upwind
1
2
3
Downwind
2,3
1,3
4
• Site 1. This site was located northwest of the facility. On Days 1 and 2, this site was
located upwind of the facility on Day 1 and downsized on Day 2. Due to shifting
wind conditions, the equipment from this location was moved to Site 4 at the
conclusion of testing on Day 2. The samplers were used to obtain duplicate samples.
No further samples were collected from Site 1 after Day 2.
• Site 2. This site was located east of the facility and was downwind on Day 1
and upwind on Day 2. The location was suspected to be influenced by off site
(landfill) vehicular traffic, but could not be relocated due to limitations imposed by
the fence line and electrical access. Shifting wind conditions required relocation of
the equipment after completion of testing to Site 4 to better characterize downwind
concentrations. After Day 2, no further samples were collected from this location.
• Site 3. This site was located southwest of the facility. This site was downwind on
Days 1 and 2 and upwind of the facility on Day 3.
• Site 4. This site was located northeast and downwind of the facility. The site was the
only downwind site on Day 3 and included TSP and PM10 duplicate samplers.
5.2.2 Environment and the Public Health
The ambient air quality sampling was conducted to measure the concentrations of TSP,
PM10, CO, VOC, lead, and mercury vapor. Measurements were also made to determine
community'noise levels. The windrose data for the three days of sampling are presented in
Appendix B. These ambient sampling results are summarized below; the complete results are
presented in Appendix E.
Total Suspended Particulate. PM10 and Lead
Table 5-6 summarizes the sampling results for TSP, PMJO, and lead. The PM10 and lead
levels were found to be well below all applicable New Mexico and National Ambient Air Quality
91
-------
Standards (NAAQS) for all runs, despite concerns over possible bias from site locations in the
vicinity of vehicular traffic. The New Mexico standard for TSP is 150 ^g/m3; the NAAQS for
Table 5-6
Albuquerque TSP, PM10 and Lead Sampling Results3
PM10
Lead
Upwind
Concentration (//g/m3)
17.51
11.35
0.02
Downwind
=—
63.41
25.49
0.03
Downwind
=====
16.36
10.50
0.03
TSP
301.06
25.74
41.07
PM10
107.06
11.81
18.18
Lead
0.004
0.006
0.006
TSP
PM10
65.38
91.98
20.04
34.36
I Lead | 0.002 [ Q.QI
a PM10 and lead standards are 150 and 1.5 ug/m3, respectively.
PM10 and lead are 150 and 1.5 Mg/m3, respectively. The wind speeds were basically the same
for all days and ranged from 1 to 11 miles per hour. It was visually noted by test personnel that
dust generated by vehicular traffic to and from the landfill was impacting the Site 2 samplers on
Days 1 and 2.
On Day 1, comparison of the Sites 1 (upwind) and 3 (downwind) show negligible
differences in PM10 and TSP concentrations. The TSP and PM10 concentrations measured at Site
2 (downwind) were 143 and 288 percent higher than the concentrations found at Site 3,
respectively. These results demonstrate that particulate concentration at Site 2 may be higher due
to bias from truck traffic near the facility.
The Site 2 samplers were located upwind of the facility on Day 2. The TSP concentrations
measured at Site 2 were five to ten times higher than the concentrations found at Sites 1 and 3
respectively. Similarly, the PM10 concentrations for Site 2 were four to eight times higher than
Sites 1 and 3, respectively. This data is an indication that the Site 2 data may be biased high,
possibly attributable to truck traffic in the vicinity of the sampler.
On Day 3, the sampling equipment from Sites 1 and 2 was relocated to a new position (Site
4) to better characterize downwind concentrations and obtain duplicate samples. Winds were
variable on Day 3 and at times the samplers were not in ideal position to identify upwind and
92
-------
downwind concentrations. It was noted that Sites 3 (upwind) and 4 (downwind) did not appear
to be impacted by vehicular traffic to the degree noted on Days 1 and 2. Also there was more
dust generated by facility activities. A review of the sampling results indicates much higher
paniculate concentrations than on previous days. Since vehicular traffic may have biased results
for Days 1 and 2 compared with Day 3, comparisons of all three days may not be appropriate.
A comparison of upwind and downwind sites show an increase in downwind TSP and PM10
concentrations.
Due to possible bias from truck traffic on Days 1 and 2, it is inconclusive whether the
facility contributes to fence line concentrations. For Day 3, there would appear to be a moderate
contribution of the facility to fence line TSP and PM10 concentrations. All TSP and PM10 results
.(including Site 4) are below NAAQS. Except for Day 2, there was no difference in upwind and
downwind lead concentrations. For Day 2, the upwind and downwind lead concentrations were
0.01 and 0.02 /ug/m3, respectively - considered a negligible difference. The facility then does
not appear to contribute to ambient lead concentrations at the property boundary.
The lead duplicate results demonstrated a RPD of 40 percent, above the QC criteria of
+20 percent. The lead results are very low and close to the detection limits for lead analysis.
Therefore, the RPD excursion should have no impact on the results. The lead QC spike and spike
duplicate analyses recoveries were both 100 percent. The lead matrix spike and matrix spike
duplicate analyses met the laboratory acceptance criteria.
Carbon Monoxide and Mercury
Carbon monoxide and mercury vapor levels were monitored with direct-reading
instruments at upwind and downwind sites on each of the three days on-site. Instantaneous
readings were generally taken at each sampling location once in the morning and once in the
afternoon. Carbon monoxide and mercury were not detected in concentrations higher than
background levels. No difference between upwind and downwind concentrations were found.
The results are presented in Table 5-7. All results were less than OSHA exposure limits:
, Table 5-7
Albuquerque Ambient CO and Mercury Monitoring Results
Location
Ambient Air Station #1
Ambient Air Station #2
Ambient Air Station #3
Ambient Air Station #4
CO Level
(ppm)
ND-1
ND-1
ND
ND
Hg Level
(mg/m3)
ND-0.001
ND-0.002
ND-0.002
ND-0.002
"PELs for CO and Hg are 35 ppm and 0.05 mg/m3, respectively.
93
-------
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC.)
VOC data collected on Day 2 is presented in Table 5-8. The target compounds were from
the hazardous substance list (HSL) and featured scans for over thirty-five compounds. Sampling
was conducted at Sites 1, 2, and 3 and the presence of two VOCs was detected. Acetone was
detected in all samples with the highest concentration of 35.6 //g/m3 measured at the upwind
location. Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Fll), another suspected laboratory contaminant, was detected
in one of the two duplicate samples collected at Site 2. Acetone levels were well below the
guideline established by the New Mexico Health and Environment Department Environmental
Improvement Division. Excluding common laboratory contaminants, the VOC results indicated
that no VOCs were present at the upwind or downwind locations. The results can be considered
representative of normal background levels in rural desert areas.
Table 5-8
Albuquerque VOC Sampling Results
Day
2
Compound
Acetone
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Detection
Limit
(Mg/m3)
2.4
1.5
Concentration (//g/m3)
Sitel
35.6
ND
Site 2
18.0
ND
Site3
28.5
ND
State
Guideline
0/g/m3)
590,000
For the VOC QC spikes, the bromomethane recovery of 124 percent exceeded the QC
criteria of 75 to 115 percent. It should be noted that bromomethane was not detected in any of
the samples. EPA Method TO-14 does not state specific acceptance ranges for surrogate or spike
recoveries. Coast-to-Coast Analytical Service uses 70 to 130 percent as an acceptance criteria.
This is based on guidance from EPA Region V. Therefore, the high recovery for bromomethane
should have no impact on the results.
Wastewater
Equipment at this facility is not normally washed with water sprayers. Any water used
at the facility evaporates quickly due to the low humidity. No wastewater samples, therefore,
were collected at this facility.
Community Noise
Instantaneous noise levels were measured at locations inside the facility, at the ambient air
stations, and at locations along the fence line of the facility property. Table 5-9 summarizes
community noise levels measured around the MRF. The main source of noise outside the facility
was produced by the glass crusher. Noise levels in the vicinity of the glass crusher while in
operation ranged from 95 to 100 dBA. Noise levels increased from 59 to 74 dBA in the North
94
-------
Table 5-9
Albuquerque Community Noise Measurement Results
Location
Fence Line (North)
Fence Line (East)
Fence Line (South)
Fence Line (West)
Ambient Air Station #1
Ambient Air Station #2
Ambient Air Station #3
Ambient Air Station #4
Instantaneous Noise
Level (dBA)
43.0-56.0
46.0-65.0
43.0-78.0
43.0-45.0
60.0-63.0
63.0-65.0
55.0-64.0
65.0-70.0
Work Area when the glass crusher was started. Even 150 meters north of the facility, noise levels
increased from 43 to 56 dBA.
Noise levels measured at ambient air station locations and fence line locations generally
ranged from 43 to 70 dBA. Periodically, when trucks passed, noise levels along the south fence
line reached as high as 78 dBA. Due to the remote location of this facility, the noise generated
by the facility does not have a community noise impact.
5.2.3 Occupational Health and Safety
Personnel sampling was conducted to measure worker exposure to dusts, silica, bacteria,
fungi, and noise. Indoor sampling was also conducted to determine levels of CO, mercury and
noise. The personnel and indoor sampling results are summarized below; the complete results are
presented in Appendix E.
Dusts and Silica
Worker exposures to total dust, respirable dust, and silica were monitored over the entire
work shift (8 hours). Workers hi the following job functions were sampled: sorting line worker,
baler line worker, glass crusher operator, truck driver, tipping floor attendant, front end loader
operator and truck driver. The personnel sampling results are summarized in Table 5-10. All
sample results were less than the applicable PELs or TLVs. The highest total dust concentration
was found on the glass crusher operator (1.45 mg/m3), and the highest respirable dust
concentration was found on a sorting line worker (0.57 mg/m3). Sampling result for respirable
silica indicated less than detectable for all samples.
95
-------
Only two respirable dust and one total dust duplicate samples exceeded the RPD limit of
20 percent.
Table 5-10
Albuquerque Total Dust, Respirable Dust and Silica3
Personnel Sampling Results
Job Description
Sorting Line Worker
Baler Line Worker
Glass Crusher Operator
Tipping Floor Attendant
Front End Loader Operator
Truck Driver
Concentration (mg/m3)
Total Dust
0.5367
0.5767
1.4471
0.8647
0.4341
0.3784
Respirable Dust
0.5711
0.2694
0.1734
0.1291
<0.1184
O.1197
Silica
O.0117
<0.0134
O.0124
O.0129
O.0118
<0.0120
•PELs are 15.0, 5.0, and 0.1 mg/m3 for total dust, respirable dust, and silica, respectively.
Carbon Monoxide and Mercury Vapor
Carbon monoxide and mercury measurements were taken with direct reading instruments
at six locations throughout the facility. These measurement results are presented in Table 5-11.
Carbon monoxide levels ranging from 3 to 11 ppm were measured on the sorting line. The CO
levels on the tipping floor ranged from 8 to 12 ppm, although the 12 ppm measurement was the
result of a small front end loader operating in the area. A CO level of 21 ppm was measured at
the baler, again while the loader was in operation. These levels are below the PEL of 50 ppm and
the TLV of 25 ppm. It is unlikely that personnel would be exposed to levels over the PEL or
TLV, since the loader is not continually in the area. One measurement detected a CO level of 167
ppm in the area of a compressor being used to repair the front end loader. All other areas were
5 ppm or less for carbon monoxide.
Direct reading measurements for mercury vapor did not find any levels above the typical
instrument background nor approaching the established exposure limits.
Bacteria and Fungi
The airborne bacteria and fungi levels were measured at the one upwind and two
downwind locations on all three days. In addition, airborne bacteria and fungi samples were
collected at the sorting line and tipping floor on all three sampling days. One sample was
collected at the baler and in the lunch area. The airborne bacteria and fungi results for the
Albuquerque facility are presented hi Table 5-12. Levels of airborne bacteria and fungi outside
96
-------
the facility were generally one to two orders of magnitude lower than the levels inside the facility.
The downwind sample results were found to be similar to upwind samples, indicating that the
airborne bacteria and fungi present inside the building are not being released iti measurable
quantities. There are currently no regulatory limits for bacteria and fungi levels in ambient air.
Table 5-11
Albuquerque Indoor CO and Mercury Monitoring Results
Location
Sorting Line
Baler Line
Aluminum Can Vacuum
Glass Crusher
Tipping Floor
Lunch Room
North Work Area
Front End Loader
CO Level
(ppm)
ND-11
ND-21
1-3
ND-1
ND-12
ND-3
ND-1
167
Hg Level
(mg/m3)
0.001-0.003
ND-0.003
ND-0.002
ND-0.004
ND-0.003
ND-0.003
ND-0.003
0.002
Table 5-12
Albuquerque Airborne Fungi and Bacteria Sampling Results
Location
Lunch Room
Baler Line
North End Area
Tipping Floor
Sorting Line
Ambient Air Station #1
Ambient Air Station #2
Ambient Air Station #3
Ambient Air Station #4
Sample (viable counts per cubic meter)
Fungi
35-70
4231-5607
1855
5326-7618
340-9248
88-451
139-328
35-139
80-512
Bacteria RT"
305-551
3036->6936
>6828
3757->6828
715->6936
231-1179
1360-3260
624-938
375-1013
Bacteria 56b
23-59
58-231
68
35-445
117-307
<12-35
23-35
12-45
23-34
"Bacteria RT is incubated at room temperature.
bBacteria 56 is incubated at 56 degrees F.
97
-------
Bacterial and fungi wipe samples were also collected on the surfaces inside the facility on
September 16, 1993. However, because PathCon detected a contaminant in the diluent solution
for these samples, a second set of wipe samples were collected October 28, 1994. The analytical
results of the wipe samples indicated that they contained several organisms that were similar to
those organisms found in air. Therefore, it is plausible that the organisms detected in the air
samples may have originated from some of the surface sources. Table 5-13 summarizes the
results of the bacterial and fungi wipe samples.
Table 5-13
Albuquerque Surface Fungi and Bacteria Results
Location
Tipping Floor
Large Baler
Bag Breaking Area
Lunch Room
Small Baler
Sorting Line
Sample (units per gauze wipe)
Fungi
20000
11000
25000
<260
800
72000-190000
Bacteria
150000
920000
740000
570
50000
1600000-1700000
All fungi detected were common environmental fungi. None of the fungi detected are
considered highly virulent in nature. The two most commonly associated with infections that were
detected are Aspergillus niger and Aspergillus flavus. These organisms are considered
opportunistic pathogens, in that they are most likely to infect individuals with compromised
immune systems. Healthy people are not likely to be infected. However, it is possible that
hypersensitive people, and people exposed to high levels of fungal spores, may develop
hypersensitivity reactions, such as allergies, asthma and hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Little
information is available describing the exposure levels required to initiate such reactions.
No highly virulent pathogenic bacterial were identified in any of the samples submitted.
The most common bacteria detected were Bacillus, which are commonly found in environmental
samples, and occur naturally in soil and water. Curtobacterium, Erwinia, and Clavibacter are
common plant pathogens which is commonly recovered from air samples. Arthrobacter is a
common environmental organism often associated with soil. Corynebacterium and Brevibacterium
may be found in human/animal or environmental sources. Aureobacterium has been found in soil
and dairy products but is probably widely distributed in the environment. The species of
Acinetobacter, Flavobacterium, Pseudomonas, Alcaligenes, and Xanthomonas detected likely
originated from water or wet environments and soil. Sphingobacterium multivorum probably
originates from water and soil sources. Staphylococcus and Micrococcus are associated with
98
-------
human and/or animal skin and mucus membranes. Three enteric organisms were detected:
Enterobacter cloacae, Hafnia alvei, and Klebsiellapneumoniae. All three may be found in various
environments including water, food, soil, and sewage. Klebsiellapneumoniae is an environmental
bacterium that is considered to be an opportunistic pathogen that has been related to incidence of
pneumonia in immune compromised individuals.
Duplicate fungi/bacteria samples were collected at Site 4 on September 16, 1993. The
RPD for the fungi, environmental bacteria, and thermophilic bacteria were 146, 92 and
38 percent, respectively. These RPD values are not within the 20 percent limit in the QAPjP.
Two duplicate samples were Collected for indoor samples. The RPD values for both samples also
exceeded the QAPjP limit of 20 percent.
Noise Exposure
Worker noise exposure levels were determined over the work shift through the use of
audiodosimeters. Workers in the following job functions were monitored: sorting line worker,
baler line worker, glass crusher operator, truck driver, tipping floor attendant, and front end
loader operator. The audiodosimeter results are presented in Table 5-14. The average noise
levels for the three days of sampling ranged from 79.3 dBA for the front end loader operator to
93.1 dBA for the glass crusher operator. In several cases, noise levels exceeded the OSHA
Action Level of 85 dBA and the PEL of 90 dBA. The highest noise levels, above 90 dBA, were
found on the glass crusher operator, sorting line worker, and tipping floor attendant. At these
levels, workers would be required to use hearing protectors. Another major source of noise
within the facility is the aluminum can vacuum. Noise levels ranged from 95 to 99 dBA when the
vacuum was hi operation. ,
Table 5-14
Albuquerque Audiodosimeter Results
Job Description
Truck Driver
Equipment Operator
Tipping Floor Attendant
Sorting Line Foreman
Glass Crusher Operator
Baler Line Operator
Average Noise Levels
(dBA)
84.9
79.3-80.5
83.4-91.2
89.1-92.0
91.7-93.1
82.0-83.6
Instantaneous noise measurements were also made using a sound level meter throughout
the facility. Table 5-15 presents the results of the indoor noise measurements. The indoor noise
99
-------
levels ranged from 57 dBA in the north work area to 102 dBA at the glass crusher outside the
building.
Table 5-15
Albuquerque Indoor Noise Measurement Results
Location
Sorting Line
Baler Line
Aluminum Can Vacuum
Glass Crusher
Tipping Floor
Lunch Room
North Work Area
Front End Loader
Instantaneous Noise
Level (dBA)
82.0-94.0
80.0-86.0
87.0-99.0
95.0-102.0
72.0-85.0
57.0-70.0
56.0-74.0
100.0
Health and Safety Programs
The health and safety program evaluation was limited to information provided by on-site
personnel and the regional safety officer. Key findings from this evaluation include:
• An Energy Control Program is in place at the facility, although the energy control
procedures do not meet OSHA standards. Documentation of training was available,
although the training content does not meet OSHA's specifications. Documentation
of periodic inspections of the lockout/tagout program effectiveness was not available.
• Dust masks are the only form of respiratory protection used at the facility. The
facility does have a written respiratory protection program and medical examinations
for municipal employees, but the examinations are for initial employment only and do
not meet OSHA standards. Dust masks are stored in a clean area, the program is
evaluated periodically, and the work area is surveyed for conditions which may
contribute additional stress for respirator wearers. Training on the use of these
respirators had not been conducted.
• A Hazard Communication Program is hi effect at the facility which includes a written
program, container labelling, material safety data sheets (MSDS), and training. The
facility did not have a list of hazardous chemicals available, indicating that it was at
100
-------
the main office. MSDS were not readily available at all times, because the front
office is sometimes locked.
• A Hearing Conservation Program has been implemented. Noise monitoring,
audiometric testing, evaluations of hearing protectors, and training have been
conducted. Employees have not been formally notified of exposures above 85 dBA
and a copy of the OSHA noise standard has not been posted at the facility.
• There were no air contaminants present requiring specific control programs.
• There was no Bloodborne Pathogen Program in place. Workers are not required to
have first aid or CPR training, although two to three people have been trained in
CPR.
• Information on injury and illness rates were not available, because the facility had
only been in operation seven months at the time of the study.
Ergonomics
Ergonomic conditions at the facility were evaluated by an occupational nurse who reviewed
notes and drawings made by the on-site industrial hygienist. Video tape of the operations was not
conducted at the request of the facility manager due to the presence of prison workers. Picking
booth operations were observed during the on-site facility assessment. For the purpose of this
assessment, the potential ergonomic risk factors identified can be defined as workplace conditions
or work practices which may contribute to worker discomfort, fatigue or injury.
Two types of workstations were evaluated:
• Workstation 1. At this workstation, workers opened bags on a conveyor as they
moved toward sorting line. The only significant ergonomic risk factor appeared to
be associated with workers reaching across the entire width of conveyor.
• Workstation 2. At this workstation, workers on each side of the conveyor removed
recyclables and placed them into the bins. This action required repetitive twisting of
the upper torso.
101
-------
SECTION 6
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
6.1 Process Description
The Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (the Authority) maintains several solid
waste management facilities to serve the communities in the Mid-Connecticut Region. The
process description presented in this section addresses the technical, economic, energy, and
environmental aspects of the MRF and IMSWM system.
6.1.1 Integrated Solid Waste Management System
The Authority provides disposal services for MSW generated in the 44 communities in the
Mid-Connecticut Region. The components of the IMSWM system located in Hartford and several
other communities include:
• Recycling Center,
• Four Transfer stations,
• Waste Processing Facility,
• Power Block Facility, and
• Hartford and Ellington Landfills.
Figure 6-1 presents a flow diagram of the Authority's IMSWM system, showing the quantities of
waste received and the residue disposed of by the various components of the system.
Waste Collection
Originally, 33 municipalities entered into service contracts with the Authority to deliver
all municipal solid waste (MSW) generated within their boundaries to the system. Subsequently,
an additional eleven municipalities entered into service contracts. Each service contract provides
that payments be made by each municipality sufficient to cover the debt service and operating
costs of the system. The payments are based on the greater of the actual tonnage of MSW
delivered each year or the contractually committed minimum annual tonnage.
The municipalities provide collection services for MSW either directly or through private
contractors. The MSW is then delivered by the municipal or private haulers to either the Waste
Processing Facility or one of four Transfer Stations. Recyclables materials, collected by the
municipal or private haulers, are delivered to the Recycling Center, the Watertown Transfer
Station, or the Torrington Transfer Station. In FY 1992, approximately 508,156 and 195,792 tons
of MSW were delivered directly to the Waste Processing Facility and Transfer Station system,
respectively. Approximately 89,098 tons of residential and commercial recyclables were delivered
to the Recycling Center.
102
-------
(D
CO
CD
•*-•
(/)
.05
-------
Recycling Center
The Recycling Center is located in Hartford, near the Waste Processing and Power Block
Facilities. The Recycling Center consists of two separate recycling operations - the Container
Recycling Center and the Paper Recycling Center. The Container Recycling Center is owned by
the Authority and operated under contract by RRT Empire of Mid-Connecticut, Inc. (RRT). The
Paper Recycling Facility is leased by the Authority and operated by Capitol Recycling of
Connecticut, Inc (CROC). The Metropolitan District Commission (the District) transports all
residue generated the Recycling Center to either the Waste Processing Facility or Hartford
Landfill. In FY 1992, approximately 17,760 tons of recyclable material was recovered at the
container recycling facility and 61,338 tons of newsprint, commercial paper, and corrugated
cardboard at the paper recycling facility.
Transfer Stations
The four transfer stations are located in outlying areas of the wasteshed in Ellington,
Essex, Torrington, and Watertown. All four transfer stations are owned by the Authority and
operated by the District. The Torrington transfer station receives both MSW and container
recyclables; the other transfer stations receive only MSW. In FY 1992, approximately 195,792
tons of MSW were received at the four transfer stations. The MSW is transferred from the
transfer stations to the waste processing facility by trailer trucks.
Waste Processing Facility
The Waste Processing Facility is centrally located in the wasteshed in Hartford. The
facility is owned by the authority and operated by the District. Municipal solid waste is
transported either from the transfer stations by trailer truck or directly.from nearby participating
municipalities by collection vehicles. In the facility, the MSW is first weighed, then deposited
in a receiving area, and finally processed to separate combustible material, non-combustible
residue, and recoverable ferrous metal. In FY 1992, 703,948 tons of MSW were delivered to the
facility from the transfer stations and local communities. Approximately 561,398 tons of waste
were used hi the production of refuse-derived-fuel (RDF), 119,346 tons of residue, non-
processibles, and bypass waste were transported to the Hartford Landfill, and 23,199 tons of
ferrous metal were delivered to market.
Power Block Facility
The Power Block Facility, located adjacent to the Waste Processing Facility, is owned by
the Authority and operated by Ogden Martin Systems of Hartford, Connecticut (Ogden). The pre-
processed fuel is conveyed directly to one of three traveling-grate, waterwall furnaces fabricated
by Combustion Engineering. The combustion process both reduces the volume of waste requiring
landfill disposal and produces steam delivered to the electrical generating facility owned and
operated by Connecticut Light & Power (CL&P). Coal, delivered to the facility by barge, may
104
-------
be fired in a parallel train to folly utilize the facility's electrical generating capacity.
Approximately 561,403 tons of refuse-derived-fuel (RDF) and 22,038 tons of coal were burned
in the facility in FY 1992. The approximately 147,870 tons of ash residue generated at the facility
was transported to the Hartford Landfill for disposal in a dedicated ash monofill under lease to
the Authority. , ,
Hartford Landfill
The Hartford North Meadows Landfill is located in northeast portion of the City adjacent
to the Connecticut River. The Hartford Landfill is leased from the City by the Authority and is
operated and maintained by the District. The approximately 87-acre landfill is augmented by a
36-acre parcel dedicated to the disposal of oversized bulky wastes (OBW), non-processible waste,
bypass waste, and system residue. In FY 1992, about 2101,320 tons of waste and residue were
disposed of at the Hartford Landfill. In addition, OBW from the four communities using the
Ellington Transfer Station is disposed of at the Ellington Landfill.
6.1.2 Material Recovery Facility
The Recycling Center is located on Murphy Road in Hartford, near the Authority's Waste
Processing Facility and Power Block (see Figure 6-2). The facility consists of two separate
recycling operations - the Container Recycling Center and the Paper Recycling Center. The
Container Recycling Center is owned by the Authority and operated under contract by RRT
Empire of Mid-Connecticut, Inc. This facility is designed to process 200 tpd of recyclable
material, including ferrous metal, aluminum, plastics, and color-sorted glass. The Paper
Recycling Center is leased by the Authority and. operated by Capitol Recycling of
Connecticut, Inc. This facility is designed to'process 380 tpd of newsprint, corrugated cardboard,
and commercial paper goods. Table 6-1 summarizes the material received and recovered at the
MRFinl992.
At the Container Recycling Center, collection vehicles enter the building and discharge
their load onto a tipping floor. A front end loader directs material into either of the receiving
hoppers serving the two identical lines. The material is automatically transferred from the hopper
by conveyor to a magnetic separator for removal of ferrous metal. The remaining waste then
passes by an inspection station for removal of non-recyclables (i.e., ceramics, PVC, plastic film,
etc.).
The material is then directed to a primary air classifier. The light fraction, consisting
primarily of aluminum and plastic containers, is conveyed to a grizzly conveyor to separate large,
plastic containers from the aluminum and plastic. The: reduced stream is then fed to an eddy-
current separator for separation of aluminum and plastic. The aluminum is fed directly to a
storage bin and then to a baler, while the plastic is directed to a sorting conveyor. On the
conveyor, the sorters positively sort PET and colored HOPE and negatively sort clear HDPE.
105
-------
r\
\ \ /~--
\ x — ^
\
t
<
i
>
»
«
V_. . ._. . ._
n^
i
i
i
i
i
i
\
«
\
\
\
*\ \
\ \
i
1
j
L. „
r
i
flfln L
uyy
^
:
2
s
•
RECYCLING
'*%
s
4
f
1B^
c
1.
1
VISITOR
CENTER
1
•""*
CROC. INC PAPER RECYUNG
r
]
\
L
,
ri
i
•
i
•
i
~i
— i
i
~l
i,
i
-t
- — K
j
i
u
i
j
— r
j
r
Q
O
oi
a!
/
\
j
\
.
(
all "
g
" 0
a " •"
U 0
a
i
CD
Cd
05
.0
DLAN
RECYCLING CENTER
ONNECTICUT
"-1 I-M (_>
H gQ
55|g
O E^
S5 K
0
1
Q
h-H
S
Z
13
I
i
i
i
106
-------
The heavy fraction from the primary air classifier is directed to a vibrating screen for
removal of broken glass. The remaining oversized material is fed to a secondary air classifier
removing additional aluminum and plastic. The material then continues into the glass sorting
conveyor. Workers sort green and amber glass, negatively sorting flint glass. The color-sorted
glass is then conveyed to a hammer crusher before being transferred to a beneficiation system.
The mixed color, glass aggregate is conveyed to a beneficiation system producing a high-quality
cullet for use in construction applications.
Table 6-1
Material Received and Recovered in 1992
Material
Newspaper
Tin Cans
Aluminum
Aluminum Foil
PET
HOPE Mixed
HDPE Natural
Flint Cullet
Green Cullet
Amber Cullet
Mixed Glass
Scrap Metal
Total
Throughput
(tons)
33,852
3,645
150
26
47
896
115
2,999
1,436
366
8,043
38
51,611
Percent of Total
(%)
65.6
7.1
0.3
<0.1
0.1
•1.7.
0.2
5.8
2.8
0.7
15.6
<0.1
100.0
At the Paper Recycling Center, the newsprint commercial paper, and corrugated cardboard
are hand sorted on a series of conveyors. The facility is capable of producing high-quality grades
of recyclable paper readily acceptable in the market place.
6.1.3 Economic, Energy and Environmental Issues
This section addresses the economic, energy, and environmental issues related to the
operation of the MRF and IMSWM system. These impacts are based on publicly available
information or material provided by the Authority.
107
-------
Economic Implications
In 1973, the State of Connecticut created the Authority to implement the State's
comprehensive plan for solid waste disposal, while conserving and preserving the environment.
To that end, the Authority provides solid waste management facilities and services to participating
municipalities and regional districts on a self-sustaining basis. It is empowered to site, own and
operate waste management facilities either directly or under contract with private industry, and
to provide waste management services through contracts with participating municipalities and
regional districts. The Authority is quasi-public, non-profit entity governed by a board of
fourteen directors appointed by the governor and state legislature.
The data collected for this analysis was obtained from the Authority. According to the
Authority, the costs and revenues were based on actual results for FY 1992 and included all solid
waste handled by the Mid-Connecticut project. In FY 1992, the total cost of waste collection,
processing, combustion, and disposal, material recovery and marketing, and administration was
approximately $80.9 million. Approximately $40.5 million or 51 percent of costs were associated
with vendor operating fees. The total costs, including operating fees, are illustrated in detail in
Table 6-2. Approximately $31.1 million or 38.5 percent were associated with debt service. The
remaining $9.3 million was split between waste transport, administration, and other expenses.
Table 6-2
Estimated Costs for the Mid-Connecticut IMSWM System
Cost Element
Waste Processing Facility
Power Block Facility
Hartford and Ellington Landfills
Electrical Generating Facility
Transfer Stations
Recycling Center
Subtotal (Vendor Fees)
Administration
Debt Service
Waste Transport
Other
Total
IMSWM System
$13,260,000
16,765,613
3,329,482
1,833,500
2,234,050
1,831,079
40,440,974
4,047,790
31,129,176
5,205,200
90,000
$80,913,140
MRF
$1,831,079
1,831,079
1,500,190
1,053,012
204,457
$4,588,738
108
-------
In FY 1992, the total cost of operating the MRF, including collection, processing, and
marketing recyclables, was approximately $4.4 million. Approximately $1.8 million or
42 percent of costs was associated with vendor operating fees, while approximately 34 percent of
MRF costs was associated with administration. The remaining $1.05 million or 24 percent of
MRF costs was for debt service. Based on the allocation of costs provided by the Authority, the
operating costs of the MRF represent approximately 5.4 percent of total IMSWM system
operating costs. It is important to note, however, that in the area of administration, the MRF
accounts for 37 percent of total IMSWM system cost.
The amount of total revenues received by the IMSWM system was approximately
$80.9 million in FY 1992. Approximately $37 million or 46 percent of revenues was associated
with sale of energy generated by the EGF to Northeast Utilities. Approximately $28.5 million or
35 percent was associated with general tipping fees. The remaining $15.4 million was split
between interest, use of prior year earnings, sale of recyclables, and service charges. The
revenues are broken out in detail in Table 6-3.
Table 6-3
Estimated Revenues for the Mid-Connecticut IMSWM System
Cost Element
Tipping Fees
Metal Tipping Fees
Spot Waste
Hauler Fees
Sale of Recyclables
Sale of Energy
Interest
Fines
Bulky Waste
Soil
Use of Prior Year Earning
Miscellaneous
Total
IMSWM System
$28,560,000
46,300
5,102,100
30,000
1,434,240
37,000,000
3,001,000
10,000
2,900,000
240,000
2,500,000
90,000
$80,913,640
MRF
1,392,640
$1,392,640
For clarification, the definition of selected revenue sources is as follows:
• Metal Tip Fees. Tipping fees associated with white metal goods, such as
refrigerators, stoves, etc. which were sent directly to the landfill.
109
-------
• Waste. Disposal fees associated with waste which was received from out of state.
• Sale of Energy. Sale of electricity which was generated by the EOF to Northeast
Utilities.
• Interest. Earnings on Authority investments.
• Bulky Waste. Fees associated with bulky items which could not be processed at the
WPF and had to be directly landfilled (e.g. mattresses)
• Soil. Fees associated with the disposal of contaminated soil.
. • Use of Prior. Operating surplus from prior year.
• Year Earnings. Based on an allocation performed by the Authority, the amount of
total revenues from MRF in FY 1992-93 was approximately $1.4 million. All of
these revenues were earned through the sale of recyclables.
The operating revenues of the MRF represent approximately 1.7 percent of total IMSWM
system operating revenues based on the allocation of costs provided by the Authority. This is
significantly less than the percentage contribution of the MRF to IMSWM system costs.
Figure 6-3 presents the costs and revenues for both the MRF and IMSWM system. Based
on the analysis of operating expenses and revenues for FY 1992 and the allocation provided by
the Authority, it appears that the MRF provided a negative incremental contribution to the
IMSWM system in the amount of approximately $3 million or 4 percent of total operating
expenditures.
Energy Consumption
The energy conserved from the generation of about 395,000 MWh of net electrical power
at the power block facility was an order of magnitude greater than the energy consumption of the
entire-system. Since this project only evaluates the energy consumption and production for the
Mid-Connecticut IMSWM system, the energy consumed or conserved at the remanufacturing
facilities that process recyclables is not included in this analysis. Specifically, an estimated
3,380 billion Btu of energy was conserved from the combustion of approximately 575,000 tons
of refuse-derived fuel in FY 1992. Exclusive of the in-plant power consumed by the waste
processing facility and the power block, an estimated 332 billion Btu of energy was consumed
to collect, transfer, haul, process, combust, and transport to market about 734,000 tons of MSW
and recyclables. The net energy conserved was 3,050 billion Btu.
The approximately 59,700 MWh (or about 203 billion Btu) of electrical energy was
consumed to process and combust the MSW. This in-plant power consumption plus the 3,930
110
-------
Figure 6-3.
TOTAL COSTS AND REVEMUES FOR THE
MID-CONNECTICUT ISWMS
MRF
COSTS
REVENUES
e Sale of Recyclabelt
D Waste Transport
Q Debt Service
H Administration
B Vendor Fees
ISWMS
Q Use of Prior Year Earning
B Bulky Waste & Soil
Interest & Fines
B Sale of Energy
a Sale of Recyclable?
B Tipping Fee*
Other
Q Waste Transport
D Debt Service
D Administration
B Vendor Fees
COSTS
REVENUES
111
-------
MWh of purchased power was subtracted from the gross power generation to estimate the net
energy conserved from the combustion of RDF and coal at the power block facility. The energy
value of the coal was then subtracted from the gross energy conserved to estimate that portion of
the energy conserved attributed to the combustion of RDF.
Of the 332 billion Btu consumed, approximately 76 percent was used to manage 674,000
tons of MSW and 24 percent was used to manage 59,700 tons of recyclables. Approximately 0.45
MMBtu was consumed for each of the 734,000 tons of MSW and recyclables managed. The
management of the 674,000 tons of MSW consumed an average of 0.38 MMBtu per ton, while
the management of the 59,700 tons of recyclables consumed an average of 1.33 MMBtu per ton.
The energy consumed to manage the recyclables included the energy required at the waste-to-
energy facility and landfill to process or dispose of residue from the MRF.
Table 6-4 shows the energy consumed by function. For the entire IMSWM System, almost
79 percent of the energy consumed was for transportation, that is, collection, transfer and haul,
transporting recyclables to market, and hauling non-processible waste, residue, and ash to the
landfill. The energy consumed for transportation of waste and materials constituted 74 and 87
percent of total energy consumption for MSW and recyclables, respectively. The energy
consumption is graphically depicted in Figure 6-4.
Except as discussed below, the energy consumption information reported in this section
was obtained from data provided by the Authority. The fuel consumed to collect garbage and
recyclables was estimated using collection vehicle data from Palm Beach County, Florida;
Springfield, Massachusetts; Scottsdale, Arizona; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Seattle
Washington. The energy consumed to haul recovered materials to market was estimated by
multiplying the average ton-miles hauled by $0.024 per ton-mile. This was the average fuel
consumed by the MSW transfer vehicles used in the Hartford area.
Environmental Regulations
The Mid-Connecticut facilities have received all necessary construction and operating
permits from the U.S. EPA and Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP).
Table 6-5 summarizes the status of all major permits and approvals for the power block facility,
waste processing facility, container recycling center, paper recycling facility, four transfer station,'
and Hartford Landfill. Discussed below are the regulations applicable to solid waste management
facilities in the State of Connecticut.
All of the facilities were required to obtain permits to construct and operate a solid waste
management facility from the CTDEP. These. permits established design and operational
constraints, financial assurance obligations, and monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements. In addition, the power block facility had to obtain an State Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (SPDES) permit and sewer discharge permits from the CTDEP. The four
transfer stations also required SPDES permits.
112
-------
The power block facility was required to obtain permits for air emissions prior to
construction and operation from the CTDEP. Because the facility was classified as a major
source, the facility also had to obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit from
the U.S. EPA. To obtain these permits, the Authority demonstrated that it complied with all
applicable ambient air quality standards and that the facility incorporated BACT.
Table 6-4
Estimated Energy Consumption for The Mid-Connecticut IMSWM System3
(MMBtu)
Activity
Administration
Collection Vehicles
Transfer & Haul
MRF - Container Processing Facility
MRF - Paper Processing Facility
WTE - Waste Processing Facility
WTE - Power Block Facility
Transport Residue & Non-Processibles
Transport Ash
Landfill Disposal
Sub-Total
Haul to Market
Total Energy Consumption
(MMBtu)
Tons Collected
Average Energy Consumption
Garbage
157,836
28,237
28,635
20,864
1,809
3,085
7,333
247,799
5,396
253,195
673,867
0.38
Curbside Recycling
24,452
1,154
4,932
3,566
170
124
18
153
34,570
44,783
79,353
59,665
1.33
Total
146.5
182,288
29,392
4,932
3,566
28,805
20,987
1,809
3,104
7,486
282,369
50,180
332,549
733,522
0.45
'Exclusive of waste-to-energy facility in-plant power usage
The permits established emission standards for all regulated pollutants, performance criteria for
air pollution controls, and monitoring, testing, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.
The U.S. EPA proposed Section lll(d) emission guidelines for existing municipal waste
combustors in September 1994. These guidelines will require that the power block facility comply
with more stringent emission standards and retrofit additional control technology than currently
required by the CTDEP.
113
-------
O
UJ
i
o
Q o
0) 2: £
^UJ^
.2>E '=
il H m
of t-
o °
U. (A
gl
O
O
i
UJ
UJ
si
i
uj
i
tz
§
114
-------
Table 6-5
Power Block Facility
Waste Processing
Facility
Container Recycling
Facility
Paper Recycling Facility
Hartford Landfill
Essex Transfer Station
Torrington Transfer
Station
Ellington Transfer
Station
Watertown Transfer
Station
Responsible Agency
U.S. EPA
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
(CTDEP)
CTDEP
CTDEP
CTDEP
CTDEP
CTDEP
CTDEP
CTDEP
CTDEP
CTDEP
CTDEP
CTDEP
CTDEP
CTDEP
CTDEP
CTDEP
CTDEP
Permit/Approval
PSD Permit
Air Permit to Contract
Air Permit to Operate
Solid Waste Facility Permit to
Construct Facility
SPDES Permit
Sewer Permit
Solid Waste Facility Permit to
Construct/Permit to Operate
Solid Waste Facility Permit to
Construct
Permit to Operate
Solid Waste Facility Permit to
Construct
Permit to Operate
Solid Waste Facility Permit to
Operate
Solid Waste Facility Permit to
Operate
SPDES
Solid Waste Facility Permit to
Operate
SPDES
Solid Waste Facility Permit to
Operate
SPDES
Solid Waste Facility Permit to
Operate
SPDES
Issuance
Date
4/4/85
4/18/85
8/27/85
10/7/87
6/16/87
4/20/87
01/28/86
8/2/91
3/13/92
6/15/91
10/18/91
01/07/93
12/11/87 .
1/12/88
8/19/93
2/18/88
6/26/90
6/9/90
12/27/90
11/27/90
115
-------
6.2 Field Test Results
The field test program addressed the environmental and occupational health and safety
impacts associated with operation of the Mid-Connecticut Recycling Center. The sampling
procedures and results are summarized in this section.
6.2.1 Test Procedures
The field test program at the Hartford MRF was conducted from November 2
through 4, 1993. The Hartford MRF consists of two separate facilities on adjacent sites: the
Container Recycling Center, which processes commingled recyclables, including plastics, glass,
tin, and aluminum; and the Paper Recycling Facility, which processes paper products including
cardboard and newspaper. The RRT facility operates during the day from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The CROC facility runs two shifts - the first shift running from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m and the
second shift from 4:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. Approximately 15 to 20 full time employees work at
the container recycling facility and 15 to 20 employees work at the paper recycling facility. At
each facility, the workers are given a half-hour for lunch and two additional fifteen-minute breaks
during the day.
The field test program was conducted in accordance with the approved test protocol in the
QAPjP and site-specific SAP. The following deviations were noted from the field protocol:
• Only one set of duplicate respirable dust/silica samples was collected during the
test program; the second duplicate was voided after sampling equipment was
damaged during testing.
No airborne bacteria samples were collected at the glass sorting station on Day 1,
because operations were shut down before samples could be collected. To make
up for the missed sample, two sets of samples were collected in the glass sorting
station at different times on Day 2.
• Only one round of direct-reading instrument measurements were taken on Days 1
and 3 due to the effort needed to reposition the TSP and PM-10 samplers. An
additional round of measurements was taken on Day 4.
• The VOC canister pressure readings exhibited wide variations suggesting that dust
particles may have jammed the flow regulator and reduced the flow of air into the
cylinder.
• On Day 3, the TSP, PM10, and lead samples collected downwind of the CROC
facility ran for less than 24 hours (8.7 hours) due to a power outage. The run time
did capture the operating time of the MRF.
116
-------
• The relative percent difference (RPD) for the replicate samples for PM10, total
dust, and respirable dust each exceeded the QAPjP limit of 20 percent.
Table 6-6 summarizes upwind/downwind location of the air sampling equipment in relation
to the facility for each of the three days of monitoring. Figure 6-5 shows the approximate location
of the sampling sites selected for the test program.
Table 6-6
Sampling Locations at the Hartford MRF
Sample Day
1
2
3
Locations
Upwind
1
4
4
Downwind
2,3
'5
5,6
Provided below is a brief discussion of each sampling location and any limitations that
should be considered in the evaluation of the reported data:
• Site 1. This site was at an upwind location north northeast of the RRT Empire
facility and was suspected to be influenced by vehicular traffic. The sampling
equipment at this site was moved to Site 5 for the last two sampling days in order
to collect a downwind sample. Due to the lack of property space north-northeast
of the CROC facility, an appropriate upwind sample location representing both
facilities could not be identified. No further samples were collected at this site
after Day 1,
Site 2. This site was located east of Che RRT paper facility. This site was
downwind of the facility for the first sampling event and considered to be a
representative sample location. The sampling equipment from this site was moved
to Site 5 for the collection of duplicate TSP and PM10 samples on Day 2.
• Site 3. This site was located southeaist of the RRT facility. This site was
downwind for the first sampling event. Due to a shift in wind direction, the
equipment from this site was moved to Site 4 in order to collect an appropriate
upwind sample for the final two days of sampling. No further samples were
collected from this source.
Site 4. This site was located south of the RRT facility. This site represented a
upwind sample location for both facilities for the final two sampling events.
117
-------
\ ^
» \
\ >^
\ ^
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
-
%
\
\-
\
— — __
'
/""-•^
^'
(
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
i
\
\
\
i
i
L.
•••••I^HM
1
i z
s
i
-L. .r
-T
Cd J
1 11 II 1
U
CL.
El
CB
^••••HH
*
s^
•'
O
P
w
1
MIXED
MH^H
O
H
P
IM^
•
c
l_
L
VISITOR
CENTER
_|
vi
^VHMBi
CROC. INC PAPER RECYIJNG
I_J
:^\^
'£
53
•
i
mtmfm^m
!
r
i
4
L_
^
1
1
j
-i
i
4"
L
I
1
1
1
1,
|,
1
1
t
T
|i
i
1
j-'
j
-J\
"• i
^m
j
\
r
Q
O
cu
ui
i
i
•^•H
f
i*
i
o
g
•
i • s
I 8
Si
-* O
]
1
• ' i
1
••^••M^BM
NG LOCATIONS
ECYCLING CENTER
n
S E-
^ ^
S sa
£^
2 W
H 2
S 0
1
Q
H-H
S
OS
a
1 =
u 1
•g i
mummi Line
HI-VOLUME AND
1
1
•MHB^Bi
in
CO
O
ONNECTICUT |
o
Q
p
^H
K
z
D
:
1
j
i
0
I
>
Mi
118
-------
• Site 5. This site was located between the two facilities, northeast of the RRT
facility. This site was a representative downwind sample of the RRT facility for
the last two sampling events. Duplicate TSP and PM10 samples were collected
during the second sampling event at this site and moved to Site 6 for sampling
events.
• Site 6. This site was located northwest of the CROC facility for the third sampling
event. This site was the only site located downwind of the CROC facility during
the sampling program.
6.2.2 Environment and the Public Health
Air quality sampling was conducted at the Hartford MRF to determine ambient
concentrations of TSP, PM10, CO, VOC, lead, and mercury vapor: Measurements were also
made to determine community noise levels. The windrose data for the test period are presented
in Appendix B. The ambient sampling results are summarized below; the complete results are
presented in Appendix F.
Total Suspended Partlculate. PM10 and Lead
The TSP, PM10, and lead sampling results are summarized in Table 6-7. The PM10 and
lead results were well below all applicable Connecticut and National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for all runs. The Connecticut standards for TSP, PM10, and lead are 260,
150, and 1.5 Aig/m3, respectively.
Table 6-7
Hartford TSP, PM10 and Lead Sampling Results
Day
1
2
3
Compound
TSP
PM10
Lead
TSP
PM10
Lead
TSP
PM10
Lead
Concentration (Mg/m3)
Upwind
122.75
48.66
0.03
27.30
25.79
0.02
46.38
28.94
0.02
Downwind
49.63
27.01
0.02
45.29
43.94
0.02
58.00
29.40
0.02
Downwind
59.75
32.46
0.03
40.67
24.15
0.01
138.90"
52.41"
0.02"
The Connecticut standards or TSP, PM10, and lead are 260, 150, and 1.5 Mg/mJ, respectively.
"Samples collected over 8-hour period due to loss of power.
119
-------
The sampling results for Day 1 show possible bias from truck traffic at the upwind
location. The upwind TSP concentrations were higher than the downwind locations by 110 and
157 percent. The upwind PM10 concentrations were 48 and 80 percent higher than the downwind
locations. Comparison of the two downwind locations show reasonable agreement for all three
parameters of interest. A negligible difference was noted when comparing the lead levels
measured at the three locations. The PM10 contribution to the total paniculate was 39 and 55
percent for the upwind and downwind sites, respectively.
On Day 2, there was negligible difference in the PM10 concentrations measured at the
upwind and downwind locations. The downwind PM10 concentrations were approximately
59 percent of the TSP concentrations, while the upwind TSP and PM10 concentrations were
nearly equivalent. Excluding possible biased results for Day 1, the TSP and PM10 concentrations
(except upwind TSP) were in the same range as measured on Days 1 and 3.
Compared with TSP levels measured on Day 2, the TSP concentrations measured
downwind of the RRT facility (Site 5) were about 25 percent higher on Day 3. The PM10
concentrations, on the other hand, were essentially equivalent to the levels measured on Day 2.
The samplers located downwind of the CROC facility (Site 6) experienced power failure resulting
in a reduced sampling time of 8.7 hours. The samplers were running while the facility was
operating. The Site 6 TSP and PM10 concentrations measured at Site 6 were 200 and 81 percent
higher than the upwind location, respectively.
It can be concluded that there was negligible facility contribution to TSP and PM10 fence
line concentrations for RRT. For CROC, there appears to be a moderate contribution to TSP and
PM10 fence line concentrations during working hours. Since the samplers at the location
downwind from CROC were only operating during facility operations, no conclusions can be
made on a 24 hour basis. All TSP and PM10 concentrations were considerably less than the
applicable standards. For all three days, there were insignificant differences in upwind and
downwind lead concentrations. All measured lead concentrations were well below the applicable
NAAQS.
The PM10 and lead duplicate results exceeded the QAPjP.limit at 58.3 and 66.7 percent,
respectively. Sampling and analytical problems were investigated, but no procedural errors were
identified during the sampling program. Although the TSP duplicate samples had poor RPD, the
results for Days 1 and 3 should be considered valid. The other TSP concentrations should be
considered suspect due to the relatively poor RPD. Because lead concentrations were very low
with negligible differences in upwind and downwind concentrations, the lead RPD excursion
should have little impact on the results. All results for Day 2 should be considered suspect. The
lead QC spike and spike duplicate analyses recoveries were both 80 percent. The lead matrix
spike and matrix spike duplicate analyses were 82 and 62 percent, respectively. Although the lead
spikes met laboratory acceptance criteria, the test results should be assumed to be biased low. In
the worse case, the adjusted results would be approximately two thirds higher than the reported
values. Even with this adjustment, the concentrations are considerably lower than the NAAQS.
120
-------
Carbon Monoxide and Mercury Vapor
Carbon monoxide and mercury vapor levels were monitored with direct-reading
instruments at upwind and downwind sites on four days on-site. Instantaneous readings were
taken at each sampling location once on Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, and twice on
Wednesday. Carbon monoxide and mercury were not detected in concentrations higher than
background levels. No difference between upwind and downwind concentrations were found.
The ambient CO and mercury sampling results at the Container Recycling Center and Paper
Recycling Center are presented in Tables 6-8 and 6-9, respectively. All results were less than
OSHA exposure limits. s
Table 6-8
Hartford Ambient CO and Mercury Measurement Results
for the Container Recycling Facility2
Location
Fence Line (North)
Fence Line (East)
Fence Line (Southeast)
Fence Line (South)
Fence Line (West)
Fence Line (Northwest)
CO Level
(ppm)
ND
ND, ,
ND
ND
ND
ND
Hg Level
(ing/m?)
ND
ND-0.003
ND
ND
ND
ND
"PELs for CO and Hg are 35 ppm and 0.05 mg/mj, respectively.
121
-------
Table 6-9
Hartford Ambient CO and Mercury Measurement Results
for the Paper Recycling Facility8
Location
Fence Line (North)
Fence Line (East)
Fence Line (South)
Fence Line (West)
Ambient Air Station #4
Ambient Air Station #5
Ambient Air Station #6
CO Level
(ppm)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Hg Level
(me/m3)
ND
ND-0.002
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ror uu ana Hg are 35 ppm and 0.05 mg/m3, respectively.
Volatile Organic Compounds
The VOC sampling was conducted on Day 2 at Sites 4, 5, and 6. The sampling results
are summarized in Table 6-10. The target compounds were from the hazardous substance list
(HSL) and featured scans for over thirty-five compounds. The analysis detected the presence of
six VOCs: acetone, toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), trichlorofluoromethane (F-ll), and
xylenes. None of the compounds (excluding acetone and toluene) were reported at concentrations
of greater than 6.9 //g/m3. Acetone and toluene were detected in all samples at concentrations
ranging from 9.4 to 41 yug/m3.
Table 6-10
Hartford VOC Sampling Results
Day
2
Compound
Acetone
Benzene
Toluene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Xylenes
Detection
Limit
fcg/m3)
2.4
0.6
0.8
1.1
1.1
0.9
Concentration (Mg/m3)
Upwind
23.0
1.9
9.4
ND
ND
ND
Downwind
33.2
ND
41.4
ND
ND
6.9
Downwind
30.9
2.2
10.9
1.1
ND
ND
=^==
State
Guideline
11,800
150
7,500
38,000
NA
122
-------
All compounds detected were considerably less than the 8-hour hazard limit values (HLVs)
established by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP). A review of
the data suggested a slight increase in VOC concentrations from upwind to downwind locations.
The VOC data, as reported, can be considered representative of normal background levels in
urban areas. •
Wastewater ,
Very little wastewateos generated at this facility. The small amount generated is allowed
to evaporate. Consistent with the revised protocol, no wastewater samples were collected at this
facility during the test'program.
Community Noise
Community noise levels were measured at the ambient air stations and at locations along
the fence line of each facilities property. Instantaneous noise levels measured at ambient air
station locations and fence line locations outside the two facilities ranged from 57 to 73 dBA. The
highest instantaneous levels were found west of the RRT facility (72 dBA) and south of the CROC
facility (73 dBA). The community noise levels measured at the Container Recycling and Paper
Recycling Center are summarized in Tables 6-11 and 6-12, respectively.
Table 6-11
Hartford Community Noise Measurement Results s
for the Container Recycling Facility
Location
Fence Line (North)
Fence Line (East)
Fence Line (Southeast)
Fence Line (South) '
Fence Line (West)
Fence Line (Northwest)
Instantaneous Noise
Level (dBA)
58.0-67.0
60.0
64.0
. 58-60
65.0-72.0
65.0
123
-------
Table 6-12
Hartford Community Noise Measurement Results
for the Paper Recycling Facility
Location
Fence Line (North)
Fence Line (East)
Fence Line (South)
Fence Line (West)
Ambient Air Station #4
Ambient Air Station #5
Ambient Air Station #6
Instantaneous Noise
Level (dBA)
57.0-58.0
60.0-67.0
65.0-73.0
60.0-67.0
58.0
62.0
65.0
6.2.3 Occupational Health and Safety
Personnel sampling was conducted to measure worker exposure to dust, silica, bacteria,
fungi, and noise. Indoor sampling was also conducted to measure the CO and mercury
concentrations and noise levels. The personnel and indoor sampling results are summarized
below; the complete sampling results are presented in Appendix F.
Dusts and Silica
Worker exposures to total dust, respirable dust, and silica were monitored over the entire
work shift (8 hours). Workers in the following job functions were sampled; Glass Sorter, Baler
Operator, Box Belt Operator, Plastic Sorter, Fork Truck Operator, Paper Sorter, Maintenance,
and Front End Loader Operator. The results are presented in Table 6-13. All sample results were
less than the applicable PEL. The highest total dust and respirable dust concentrations were found
on a worker sorting glass - 1.03 and 0.30 mg/m3, respectively. Sample results for respirable
silica indicated less than detectable for all samples. The results obtained in this evaluation are
similar to the results of a voluntary survey conducted at the container recycling facility by the
State OSHA in January 1993. This earlier survey found respirable dust levels ranging from 0.07
to 0.26 mg/m3' which compares favorably with the respirable dust results from this evaluation
ranging from <0.12 to 0.30 mg/m3. The State OSHA survey also sampled for respirable quartz,
cristobalite, and tridymite, and found levels at or below the method detection limits. Again, this
agrees with results for silica sampling obtained in this evaluation.
124
-------
Table 6-13
Hartford Total Dust, Respirable Dust and Silica
Personnel Sampling Results8
Job Description
Baler Operator (Mixed Recyclables)
Box Belt Operator (Mixed Recyclables)
Glass Sorter (Mixed Recyclables)
Plastics Sorter (Mixed Recyclables)
Maintenance (Mixed Recyclables)
Paper Sorter (Paper Building)
Fork Truck Operator (Paper Building)
Maintenance (Paper Building)
Concentration (mg/m3)
Total Dust
0.30(16
0.6694
1.0319
0.5921
0.8094
0.4151
0.4376
0.443
Respirable Dust
0.164
<0.1208
0.3048
< 0.1230
0.2751
0.5358
<0.1312
<0.1315
Silica
<0.0117
<0.0121
<0.0117
<0.0123
< 0.0120
<0.0131
<0.0131
<0.0132
"PELs are 15.0, 5.0, and 0.1 mg/m3 for total dust, respirable dust, and silica, respectively.
The Authority also obtained the services of a consultant to collect dust and silica samples
at the discharge of the broken glass trommel at the container recycling facility. The area sampled
was representative of a "worst case" situation, as if a worker were standing next to the trommel
for a full shift. The total dust level of 6.8 mg/m3 was significantly higher than any of the personal
sampling results obtained in this evaluation of 0.99 mg/rn3. Regardless, the results obtained in
the earlier study were well below the PEL. It should be noted no silica' was detected in that
earlier study.
All QA samples were within the specified range, except that the RPD for one total dust
sample duplicate and one respirable dust sample duplicate that exceeded the QAPjP limit of
20 percent. These RPD values were 32 percent and 110 percent, respectively.
Carbon Monoxide and Mercury
Carbon monoxide and mercury measurements were taken with direct reading instruments
at six locations throughout the Mixed Recyclables Facility and 3 locations inside the Paper
Facility. The indoor CO and mercury sampling results at the Container Recycling Center and
Paper Recycling Center are presented in Tables 6-14 and 6-15, respectively. Carbon monoxide
levels did not exceed 5 ppm, with the highest level measured in the Maintenance Area of the
Container Recycling Facility. These levels are well below the PEL of 35 ppm and the TLV of
25 ppm. Direct reading measurements for mercury did not show any levels above the typical
instrument background and did not approach established exposure limits.
125
-------
Table 6-14
Hartford Indoor CO and Mercury Measurement Results
for the Container Recycling Facility
Location
Glass Sorting Line
Plastics Sorting Line
Box Belt Line
Baler Area
Tipping Floor
Maintenance Area
CO Level
(ppnt)
ND-4
ND-3
ND-2
ND-3
ND-3
ND-5
Hg Level
(mg/m3)
ND-0.002
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
"PEL for CO and Hg are 33 ppm and 0.05 mg/m3, respectively.
Table 6-15
Hartford Indoor CO and Mercury Measurement Results
for the Paper Recycling Facility
Location
Tipping Floor
Paper Sorting Lines
Fork Truck Operator
Baler Control Room
CO Level
(ppm)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Hg Level
(mg/m3)
ND
ND
ND
ND
TEL for CO and Hg are 33 ppm and 0.05 mg/m3, respectively.
Bacteria and Fungi
Airborne and surface samples were collected for bacteria and fungi at several locations
inside the operations building. Airborne samples were also taken at the one upwind and two
downwind locations on all three days. The airborne bacteria and fungi sampling results are
presented in Table 6-16; the surface sampling results are then presented in Table 6-17.
126
-------
Table 6-16
Hartford Airborne Fungi and Bacteria Results
Location
Tipping Floor
Plastics Sorting Line
Paper Sorting Line
Glass Sorting Line
Ambient Air Station #1
Ambient Air Station #2
Ambient Air Station #3
Ambient Air Station #4
Ambient Air Station #5
Ambient Air Station #6
Sample (viable counts per cubic meter)
Fungi
1082-6926
2916-7559
926-5751
2705-8004
398
246
305
188-212
200-459
259
Bacteria RT"
3798- > 9376
4304- > 9376
1517-2602
4222- > 9416
609
785
1195
353-1000
400-506
1282
Bacteria 56"
82-292
94-246
47-94
82-777
<12
23
4688
23-24
12-71
24
"Bacteria RT is incubated at room temperature.
bBacteria 56 is incubated at 56 degrees F.
Table 6-17
Hartford Surface Fungi and Bacteria Results
T ocjition
Tipping Floor (Mixed Recyclables)
Plastics Sorting (Mixed Recyclables)
Lunch Room (Mixed Recyclables)
Glass Sorting (Mixed Recyclables)
Paper Sorting (Paper Building)
Sample (units per gauze wipe)
Fungi
1900
4500-4700
800
300
1300-3300
Bacteria
5000
100-1600
4700
5200
100-800
The levels of airborne bacteria and fiingi inside the facility were generally one order of
magnitude higher than the levels outside the facility, the only exception being the thermophilic
bacteria level on Day 1 at Site 3 (downwind). The thermophilic bacteria level was 4688 cfu,
compared to the 23 cfu at the other downwind location and < 12 cfu at the upwind location. The
level at Site 3 was one to two orders of magnitude higher than any of the levels measured inside
the facility and was likely caused by another source. For the remaining sample days, the
127
-------
downwind sample results were not higher than the upwind, which may indicate that the airborne
bacteria and fungi present inside the building are not being released in measurable quantities.
There are currently no regulatory limits for bacteria and fungi levels in ambient air.
All fungi detected were common environmental fungi. None of the fungi detected are
considered highly virulent in nature. The two most commonly associated with infections that were
detected are Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus niger and Aspergillus flavus. These organisms are
considered opportunistic pathogens, in that they are most likely to infect individuals with
compromised immune systems. Healthy people are not likely to be infected with Aspergillus
unless they are exposed to an unusually high dose. Infections due to Aspergillus flavus and
Aspergillus niger are rare. Aspergillus fumigatus is the dominant cause of aspergillosis.
However, it is possible that hypersensitive people, and people exposed to high levels of fungal
spores, may develop hypersensitivity reactions, such as allergies, asthma and hypersensitivity
pneumonitis. Little information is available describing the exposure levels required to initiate
such reactions.
No highly virulent pathogenic bacterial were identified in any of the samples submitted.
The most common bacteria detected were Bacillus, which are commonly found in environmental
samples, and occur naturally in soil and water. Curtobacterium, Agrobacterium, and Clavibacter
are common plant pathogens which is commonly recovered from air samples. Arthrobacter is a
common environmental organism often associated with soil. Corynebacterium is commonly
associated with the soil but may also be of human or animal origin. The species of Acinetobacter,
Flavobacterium, Aeromonas, Pseudomonas, Alcaligenes, and Xanthomonas are common in water
or wet environments. Staphylococcus, Brevibacterium and Micrococcus are associated with
human and/or animal skin. Several enteric organisms were detected: Cedecea, Klebsiella,
Hajhia, and Serratia are frequently found in soil and/or water environments.
Both airborne duplicate samples collected inside the building exceeded the QAPjP RPD
limit of 20 percent. The analytical results of the wipe samples.indicated that they contained
several organisms that were similar to those organisms found in air. Therefore, it is plausible that
the organisms detected in the air samples may have originated from some of the surface sources.
The duplicate sample for bacteria collected outside the building exceeded the RPD limit of
20 percent. The RPD for thermophilic bacteria of 67 percent, also exceeding the RPD limit.
Noise
Worker noise exposures were determined over the work shift through the use of
audiodosimeters. Workers in the following job functions were monitored: glass sorter, baler
operator, box belt operator, plastic sorter, fork truck operator, paper sorter, maintenance worker,
and front end loader operator. The personnel audiodosimeter results are summarized in Table 6-
18. The average noise levels found on workers in the Container Recycling Center over the three
days of sampling ranged from 83.4 to 95.5 , with the highest noise level found on the belt box
operator. Ngise levels on six of the seven workers monitored in this facility exceeded the PEL
128
-------
of 90 dBA. At this level, workers are required by OSHA to wear hearing protection. All
workers monitored were wearing hearing protection. The average noise levels observed on
workers in the Paper facility ranged from 81.4 to 86.1 dBA. One paper sorter and baler operator
exceeded the OSHA Action Level of 85 dBA, which requires the implementation of a hearing
conservation program.
Table 6-18
Hartford Audiodosimeter Results
Job Description
Glass Sorter
(Mixed Recyclables)
Plastic Sorter
(Mixed Recyclables)
Equipment Operator
(Mixed Recyclables)
Box Belt Operator
(Mixed Recyclables)
Box Belt Operator
(Mixed Recyclables)
Equipment Operator
(Paper Building)
Paper Sorter
(Paper Building)
Maintenance
(Mixed Recyclables)
Baler Operator
(Paper Building)
Paper Sorter
(Paper Building)
Equipment Operator
(Paper Building)
Baler Operator
(Mixed Recyclables)
Maintenance
(Paper Building)
Average Noise
Levels (dBA)
94.3
90.0
83.4
94.5
95.5
89.0
85.4
- 93.6
86.1
83.7
81.4
91.0
84.1
These results are similar to those obtained during a voluntary survey conducted by the
State OSHA in January 1993. This survey found noise levels ranging from 85.1 to 99.2 dBA.
129
-------
The State OSHA measured noise levels at the glass sorting line two to four times higher than
measured during this evaluation. The noise levels measured at the box belt line during this
evaluation, however, were three times higher than those determined during the State OSHA
survey. Too few sample results are available to determine the significance of these differences.
The position with the lowest exposure, the front end loader operator, had similar results in both
studies.
Instantaneous measurements taken with a sound level meter found noise levels inside the
RRT facility ranged from 85 to 106 dBA. The main sources of noise inside the container
recycling facility were the box belt line and the tipping floor. Instantaneous noise levels in the
vicinity of the box belt line ranged from 94 to 106 dBA; noise levels on the tipping floor ranged
from 95 to 97 dBA, with peaks up to 105 dBA during dumping of materials. Instantaneous noise
levels in the glass sorting area ranged from 93 to 102 dBA. The results are slightly lower than
the those obtained during the survey conducted by the State OSHA, which found noise levels
ranging from 94 to 110 dBA in the processing areas. Measurements taken with a sound level
meter found noise levels inside the CROC Paper facility ranged from 73 to 92 dBA. The highest
noise levels were found on the tipping floor and baler control room, and during fork truck
operations. Noise levels on the tipping floor ranged from 80 to 90 dBA, with the highest levels
being measured when the bobcat loader was in operation. The indoor noise measurements at the
Container Recycling Center and Paper Recycling Center are summarized in Tables 6-19 and 6-20,
respectively.
Table 6-19
Hartford Indoor Noise Measurement Results
for the Mixed Container Recycling Facility
Location
Glass Sorting Line
Plastics Sorting Line
Box Belt Line
Baler Area
Tipping Floor
Maintenance Area
Instantaneous Noise
Level (dBA)
93.0-102.0
89.0-93.0
94.0-106.0
85.0-100.0
85.0-105.0
90.0-94.0
130
-------
Table 6-20
Hartford Indoor Noise Measurement Results
for the Paper Recycling Facility
Location
Tipping Floor
Paper Sorting Lines
Fork Truck Operator
Baler Control Room
Instantaneous Noise
Levels (dBA)
75.0-90.0
73.8-85.0
92.0
78.0-90.0
Health and Safety Programs
Health and Safety Program evaluation was limited to information provided by on-site
personnel. The key findings from this evaluation are presented below.
RRT Container Recycling Center
• An Energy Control Program is in place at the facility, including training and a
written program.
• Dust masks are the only form of respiratory protection used at the facility. Dust
masks are not required, but are given to workers to wear at their discretion. Use
' of these respirators was reviewed during Hazard Communication Training, but no
information or documentation of a respiratory protection program was available.
• A Hazard Communication Program is in effect at the facility. A copy of the written
hazard communication plan and MSDS were available in the plant processing area
and the plant manager's office. Documentation of training was on file.
• A Hearing Conservation Program has been implemented according to the manager,
although documentation of training was not available. A copy of the OSHA noise
standard has not been posted at the facility.
• There were no air contaminants identified as requiring OSHA specified control
programs.
• A Bloodborne Pathogen Program has been implemented. This program includes
a written program located in the plant manager's office, training, protective
equipment, and vaccinations.
131
-------
• Information on injuries and illnesses for 1993 were provided, but rates could not
calculated because workforce statistics were not made available for this review.
CROC Paper Recycling Center
• An Energy Control Program is in place at the facility, including training and a
written program. The facility uses "breakaway locks" on equipment that is in use,
and uses lockout/tagout procedures when equipment is being serviced.
• Dust masks are the only respirators used at the facility, and are only used at the
discretion of the workers. If required, a respirator program will be implemented
at the facility.
• A Hazard Communication Program is in effect at the facility. A copy of the
hazard communication program is located in the lunch area and documentation of
training was located in employee folders.
• A Hearing Protection Program has been implemented at the facility; however, past
noise surveys have not warranted the use of hearing protection. Hearing protection
is available to workers but not required. Two noise surveys have been conducted
since the plant opened in 1991.
• There were no air contaminants identified as-requiring specified control programs.
• A Bloodborne Pathogen Program has not been implemented for line personnel
because of management's understanding that line personnel are not exposed to
bloodborne pathogens. However, foremen and managers are trained on the
bloodborne pathogen standard because they are certified in first aid.
• Information on injury and illness rates was provided for 1991, 1992, and 1993 (see
Table 6-21). Those rates, provided by the facility, are summarized below, with
BLS estimates of occupational injury and illness incidence rates for 1991 for
Sanitary Services and Private Sector Industries.
The facility did not provide specific information on the types of injuries or illnesses that have
occurred.
Ergonomics
Picking booth operations were videotaped during the on-site facility assessment. These
videotapes were reviewed to identify the general ergonomic conditions within these work areas.
For the purpose of this assessment, the potential ergonomic risk factors identified can be defined
132
-------
as workplace conditions or work practices which may contribute to, or result in worker
discomfort, fatigue, or injury.
Table 6-21
Injuries and Illnesses 1991, 1992 and 1993
Year
1991
1991
1991
1992
1993
Sector
All Industry
Sanitary Services
MRF
MRF
MRF
Recordable Cases
8.4
15.3
5.13
5.13 '
2.56
Lost Workday Cases
3.9
7.9
0
0
2.56
Lost Workdays
86.5
163.5
0
0
5.13
Three types of workstations were evaluated:
• Workstation 1. At this type of workstation, workers on one side of conveyor
sorted glass by removing the glass from the conveyor and placing on one of two
parallel conveyor lines. The workstation height was non-adjustable, but appeared
appropriate for most workers. No knee clearance was provided by this workstation
design. The workers had to lean forward repetitively in order to throw sorted
glass to the second or third conveyor line. The potential ergonomic risk factors
include: (1) no knee clearance was provided by workstation design; and (2)
workstation width/design required workers to repetitively lean forward to access
conveyors for sorting recyclables.
• Workstation 2. At this workstation, workers separated paper on both sides of a
conveyor with bins between them for sorting. Again the workstation height was
not adjustable and appeared to be too high for one or more of the workers in the
area. No foot stools (platforms) were seen in this area to accommodate workers
to the level of the workstation. Bin placement allowed sorting with minimal
twisting to access. Work performed in this area requires very repetitive upper
extremity tasks, possibly related to line speed and volume of recyclables.
Repetitive motion was intermittently interrupted to clear line jams. The potential
ergonomic risk factors are: (1) the fixed workstation (conveyor) height; (2) the lack
of accommodation of shorter workers; (3) line speed and volume of recyclables;
and (4) extensive repetitive motion of upper extremities required to complete
sorting/picking tasks.
• Workstation 3. Plastics sorting was accomplished at this type of workstation by
workers on one side of conveyor pushing plastics off the conveyor into a large bin
(chute). The workstation height was non-adjustable, but appeared suitable to
133
-------
workers in this area. Two workers leaned across full depth of conveyor to push
plastic into bin, resulting in repetitive, forceful leaning and pushing. The potential
ergonomic risk factors are: (1) the workstation width (depth) and current work
practice; and (2) pushing plastic recyclables into bin/chute using repetitive forceful
motion. •
134
-------
SECTION 7
RICE COUNTY, MINNESOTA
7.1 Process Description
Rice County maintains and operates the Material Recovery Facility and County Landfill
located in Dundas, Minnesota. The process description addresses the technical, economic,
energy, and environmental aspects of the MRF and IMSWM system.
7.1.1 Integrated Solid Waste Management System
Rice County provides disposal services for MSW generated in the County. The
components of the integrated solid waste management system serving Rice County, Minnesota
include:
• Recycling Facility,
• Household Hazardous Waste Facility, and
• Rice County Landfill.
Figure 7-1 presents a flow diagram for the Rice County System, showing waste processed and
residue generated by the system components.
Waste Collection
Private haulers provide collection services for both urban and rural areas throughout the
County. In urban areas, the municipalities contract with private haulers to collect both MSW and
recyclables from residences and commercial establishments. Collection services are performed
by private haulers contracted by individual homeowners in rural areas. In 1992, private haulers
delivered 29,037 tons of MSW to the Rice County Landfill and 6,682 tons of recyclables to the
Recycling Facility.
Recycling Facility
The Recycling Facility is located adjacent to the Rice County Landfill. The facility is
owned and operated by the County. Residential recyclable material includes source-separated
glass, plastic bottles, newspaper, and metal cans; commercial, industrial, and institutional
recyclables consist primarily of corrugated cardboard and various grades of ledger paper. The
source-separated recyclables are delivered by private haulers and deposited in designated areas
within the recycling building. The containers are mechanically or manually sorted to separate tin
and aluminum cans, PET and HDPE plastics, and color-sorted glass. Newsprint is chopped and
baled into animal bedding used by local farmers. The coixugated cardboard and ledger paper are
shipped directly to market. The facility processed 6,682 tons of recyclable material in 1992.
135
-------
CO
>
CO
. >
3 o
.2s CO
"-
o
O
0
o
o:
i
Si
3S
O>
ll
$ m
Z£
<5
(0
(0
0)
136
-------
Household Hazardous Waste Facility
Household hazardous waste may be dropped off at a separate at the recycling center. The
wastes are either given away to the citizens or shipped off-site for disposal. Approximately 17
tons of household hazardous waste was processed in 1992.
Rice County Landfill
The Rice County Landfill has been in operation since 1975. The latest change in landfill
operations occurred in 1992 with vertical expansion to increase the capacity and longevity of the
landfill. Residential and commercial MSW is delivered to the landfill for disposal by private
haulers serving both urban and rural areas in the County. In addition, citizens may drop off yard
waste and scrap metal for a fee, while appliances and tires are accepted at no cost. The tires are
removed from the landfill by BFI Recyclers of Minnesota, and appliances by JR's Appliance
Disposal. In 1992, approximately 29,037 tons of MSW was delivered to the landfill by private
haulers and self-haul.
7.1.2 Material Recovery Facility
The Recycling Facility, located adjacent to the County Landfill, is owned and operated by
the County. The facility consists of three structures: the processing building, the paper chopper
building, and the household hazardous waste center. The facility site plan is presented in Figure
7-2. Table 7-1 summarizes the material received and recovered at the facility in calendar year
1992.
Table 7-1
Material Received and Recovered in 1992
Material
Mixed Recyclable
Cardboard
Paper
Glass
•^
Metals
Plastic
Newspapers
Rejects
Total
Throughput
(tons)
2,888
877
497
198
68
3
1,801
350
6,682
Percent of Total
(%)
43.2
13.1
7.4
3.0
1.0
<0.1
27.0
5.2
100.0
137
-------
-------
The source-separated recyclable are delivered by private haulers and deposited in
designated storage areas. The recyclable are source-separated into newsprint, high grade paper,
corrugated cardboard, metal cans, plastics, and glass containers. The separated materials are then
processed independently over the day. The ferrous and aluminum are fed via a hopper onto a
conveyor. After removal of ferrous metal by a magnetic separator, sorters remove tramp
material, negatively sorting the aluminum. The metal recyclables are temporarily stored in
wagons. Plastic containers are also fed through a hopper onto a conveyor. The plastic is sorted
into PET and HDPE, which is baled prior to shipment. Similarly, glass is sorted on a conveyor
and stored in roll-off containers. , '
The newsprint, high grade paper, and cardboard are transferred by truck to the chopper
building. The various paper grades are shredded in a chopper and the baled in this separate
building. The shredded paper is provided free to local farmers for animal bedding.
The Recycling Center also includes a household hazardous waste center. Residents drop
off household products that may be classified as hazardous waste. A chemist determines what
material can be reused and offers them free to County residents. Other material is inventoried and
deposited into drums for removal by a licensed hauler.
7.1.3 Economic, Energy and Environmental Issues
The economic, energy, and environmental impacts associated with the operation of the
MRF and IMSWM system are addressed in this section. These impacts are based on publicly
available information or material provided by the County.
Economic Implications
The IMSWM system is owned and operated by the Rice County Board of Commissioners
(the Board). Reporting to the Board, the Department of Waste Management (Department) is
responsible for the day-to-day operations of the IMSWM system. The IMSWM system is
operated as a self-supporting governmental unit under an enterprise fund managed by the Board.
The data which was collected for this analysis was obtained from the Department.
According to the Department, the costs and revenues were based on actual results for 1992 and
included all solid waste which was handled by the Department.
In 1992, the total cost of waste collection, transport, processing, and disposal, material
recovery and marketing, and administration was approximately $4.55 million. Approximately
$3.7 million or 81 percent of costs were associated with collection. These collection costs
included labor, transportation, equipment, and operational costs associated with the collection of
all of the waste for which the Department is responsible. Approximately $460,000 or 10 percent
of costs were associated with personal services. The remaining $250,000 was split between
operations and maintenance, utilities, supplies, debt service, distribution, and other expenses.
139
-------
The total cost of operating the MRF, including collecting, transporting, hauling,
processing, and marketing recyclables, was approximately $2.7 million in 1992. Based on the
Department's allocation of costs, approximately $2.2 million or 81.5 percent of costs were
associated with collection. Approximately 10 percent of MRF costs were associated with personal
services. The remaining 8.5 percent of MRF costs were associated with O&M, utilities, supplies,
distribution, debt service, and waste transport. Table 7-2 shows costs for the IMSWM system and
MRF.
Table 7-2
Estimated Costs for the Rice County IMSWM System
Cost Element
Personal Services
O&M and Utilities
Supplies
Debt Service/Depreciation/Interest
Other
Collection Costs
Distribution Costs
Total Cost
IMSWM System
$ 462,804
116,500
22,310
82,000
31,224
3,711,000
120,000
$4,545,838
MRF
$ 286,104
55,800
15,710
82,000
31,224
2,211,000
50,000
$2,731,838
Based on the allocation of costs provided by the Department, the operating costs of the
MRF represent approximately 60.1 percent of total IMSWM system operating costs. It is
important to note that in the areas of collection and personal services (the two largest expense
categories) the MRF accounts for 60 percent of total IMSWM system cost.
The amount of total revenues received by the IMSWM system was approximately $2.12
million in 1992. Approximately $1.5 million or 69 percent of revenues was associated with
tipping fees. Approximately $405,000 or 19 percent was associated with general tipping fees.
The remaining $200,000 was generated through the sale of recyclables.
Based on an allocation performed by the Authority, the amount of total revenues from
MRF was approximately $655,000 in 1992. These revenues were earned through assessments,
the sale of recyclables, and revenue from landfill operations. Table 7-3 summarizes revenues for
the IMSWM system and MRF.
140
-------
Table 7-3
Estimated Revenues for the Rice County EMSWM System
Revenue Element
Tipping Fees
Assessments
Revenue from Landfill Operations
Sale of Recyclables/Compost
Total Revenues
Net Income (Deficit)
IMSWM System
$1,515,740
405,000
0
200,000
$2,120,740
($2,425,098)
MRF
$ 0
405,000
0
200,000
$ 655,000
($2,076,838)
For clarification, the definition of selected revenue sources is as follows:
• Assessments: Annual fees which were charged to County residents for collection of
recyclables.
• Revenue from Landfill Operations: Revenue which was transferred from tipping fees
received by the landfill to partially offset MRF costs.
Based on the allocation of costs provided by the Department, the operating revenues of the
MRF represent approximately 31 percent of total IMSWM system operating revenues. This is
significantly less than the percentage contribution of the MRF to IMSWM system costs. These
operating revenues recover approximately 24 percent of MRF costs.
The total costs and revenues for the IMSWM system and MRF are shown in Figure 7-3.
Based on the analysis of operating expenses and revenues for 1992 and allocations provided by
the Department, it appears that the MRF provided a net cost to the IMSWM system in the amount
of approximately $2,077,000 or 46 percent of total operating expenditures.
Energy Consumption
An estimated 16 billion Btu of energy was consumed to collect, transfer, haul, process and
transport to market about 35,736 tons of MSW, household hazardous waste, and recyclables. Of
the 16 billion Btu consumed, approximately 59 percent was used to manage 29,037 tons of MSW,
0.42 percent was used to manage 17 tons of household hazardous waste, and 41 percent was used
to manage 6,682 tons of recyclables. Approximately 0.46 MMBtu of energy were consumed for
each of the 35,736 tons of waste managed, with 0.33, 4.07, and 1.0 MMBtu were consumed for
each of the 29,037 tons of MSW, 17 tons of household hazardous waste, and 6,682 tons of
recyclables, respectively.
141
-------
Figure 7-3.
TOTAL COSTS AND REVENUES FOR THE
RICE COUNTY ISWMS
MRF
$3,000.000
52,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000 •
$500,000 •
COSTS
B Salt ofRfcycltblei/Compott
BRwtnut from Landfill
Operat/bn*
BAtttttmtnts
B Distribution Costs
•Collection Costs
• Other
Q Debt
Service/Depreciation/Interest
D Supplies
BO & Hand Utilities
• Personal Services
REVENUES
$5,000,000
$4,500,000
$4.000,000
$3.500,000
$3,000,000
$2.500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500.000
$1.000,000
$500,000
s-
ISWMS
iiiiiiiimmimmmiimi
B Sale of
Recyclables/Compost
M Assessments
S Tipping Fees
D Distribution Costs
D Supplies
D Collection Costs
Mother
D Debt Service/
Depreciation/Interest
H1O &M and Utilities
• Personal Services
COSTS
REVENUES
142
-------
Table 7-4 summarizes the energy consumed by function. For the entire IMSWM system,
almost 68 percent of the energy consumed was for transportation, that is, waste collection,
transfer and haul, transporting recyclables to market, and hauling residue to the landfill. About
70 and 65.3 percent of the energy consumed was for the transportation of MSW and recyclables,
respectively. Collection data was hot available for household hazardous waste as the facility is
maintained as a drop-off center. Figure 7-4 shows the energy consumption for both the IMSWM
system and MRF.
Table 7-4
Energy Consumption for the Rice County IMSWM System
(MMBtu)
Activity
Collection Vehicles
MRF - Paper Chopping Facility
MRF - Processing Building
Subtotal
Household Hazardous Waste Center
Transport Rejects/Residue
Transport Tires/Appliances from
Landfill
Landfill
Subtotal
Haul to Market
Total Energy Consumption
(MMBtu)
Tons Collected/Tires & Appliances
Average Energy Consumption
(MMBtu/ton)
Garbage
6,644
30
2,846
9,520
9,520
29,037
0.33
Household
Hazardous
Waste
69
69
69
; 17
4.07
Curbside
Recycling
3,299
280
2,039
2,319
76
5,694
6,513
6,689
6,682
1.00
Total
9,943
280
2,039
2,319
69
76
30
2,846
15,283
6,513
16,278
35,736
0.46
Except as discussed below, the energy consumption information reported in this section
was obtained from data provided by Rice County. The energy consumed to haul recovered
materials to market was estimated by multiplying the estimated ton-miles hauled by 0.024 gallons
per ton-mile, i.e., the approximate fuel consumed by the MSW transfer vehicles used in Hartford,
Connecticut; Palm Beach County, Florida; and Minneapolis, Minnesota.
143
-------
E
lil
(0
S
I
8!
O 15
UJ |
fill
£3 I*™* ?jpp
IE O DO
V)
O
O
UJ
UJ
m
g
UJ
UJ
<
Of,
<
o
144
-------
Environmental Regulations
The County landfill has been in operation since 1975 and thus was grandfathered under
the regulations of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The most recent change in
landfill operations was the vertical expansion of the existing landfill. This expansion was intended
to prolong the useful life of the landfill and allowed for covering the landfill with a more
impermeable layer to prevent water from control leaching through the existing landfill cells to
subsurface water. The MPCA must approve the leachate control system and future landfill
expansion.
For the MRF, construction and operation required only a Conditional Use Permit issued
by the County. Pursuant to MPCA Solid Waste Management Regulations (Parts 7035.2845), the
DWM submitted a letter of notification to the agency prior to starting operations at the MRF. The
MRF also had to comply with design, operations, contingency plans, and closure requirements
specified in the MPCA regulations.
7.2 Field Test Results
The field test program at the Rice County facility was conducted between November 16
and 18, 1993. The Rice County MRF is the smallest of the six facilities included in the
evaluation. The field test procedures and results are discussed in detail in this section.
7.2.1 Test Procedures
In Rice County, the material is source-separated prior to being delivered to the facility.
At the facility, the material is dumped into the appropriate storage area recycling building. Unlike
the other facilities, the sorting line workers do not remove the material from commingled
recyclables on a conveyor, but rather remove non-recydables and sort the remaining recyclables
in the source-separated material. The sorted recyclables are crushed and baled for delivery to
market. Unique to this facility is that newsprint is first shredded in a paper chopper and then
baled in a separate building.
There are approximately 10 to 12 full time employees at the facility. Two to three times
a week, a group of mentally disabled adults assist with sorting activities. The facility is operated
from 7:30 am. to 4:00 pm. The workers are given one half hour for lunch, two fifteen minute
breaks during the day.
The field test program was conducted in accordance with the approved test protocol hi the
QAPjP and site-specific SAP. The following deviations from the field protocol and the QAPjP
are discussed below:
• The BOD analysis could not be performed by the laboratory because of the large
amount of oil present in the samples.
145
-------
• The TSP and PM-10 samples were analyzed by Coast to Coast Analytical
Laboratories, rather than by WESTON.
• One VOC sampler did not have an accurate vacuum reading after running overnight.
• Four to five hours of run time were lost on a set of TSP and PM-10 samplers when
the timer switch inadvertently shut the samplers down early.
• The meteorological station did not collect data for a short period on the first sample
day, and the temperature recorder did not operate throughout the study.
• Personnel noise monitoring on the paper chopper operator was limited to
approximately 4 hours, because the operator was replaced.
• The oil and grease analysis of the wastewater sample could not be completed using
the standard Freon extraction method due to the gelatinous nature of the sample. The
sample was prepared using a Soxhlet distillation extraction procedure.
• Only one set of replicate respirable dust and silica samples was collected, because the
second duplicate was voided due to damaged sampling equipment.
• No airborne bacteria samples were collected at the glass sorting station on Day 1,
because operations were shut down before samples could be collected. To make up
for this sample, two sets of samples were collected in the glass sorting station at
different times on Day 2.
• The relative percent difference (RPD) for one set of replicate total dust samples
exceeded 20 percent. The RPDs for the set of replicate respirable dust samples and
replicate lead samples exceeded 20 percent.
Table 7-5 summarizes upwind/downwind location of the air sampling equipment in relation
to the facility for each of the three days of monitoring. Figure 7-5 shows the location of the
ambient sampling sites at the Rice County MRF.
Table 7-5
Sampling Locations at the Rice County MRF
Sample Day
1
2
3
Locations
Upwind
1
2
5
Downwind
2,3
4,5
2
^ — — — _^____ ^____
146
-------
a
3
o
S
2
Cd
ce
D
o
CO
s:
o
o
o
>-J
o
55
CO
55
W
05
00
05 w
b-l "^
o
a
z
I ! 1
o. i a
147
-------
Provided below is a brief discussion of each sample location and any limitations that should
be considered in the evaluation of the reported data.
• Site 1. This site was located southwest of the facility. On Day 1, this site was
located upwind of the facility and was suspected of being influenced by truck traffic
on a nearby dirt road. Due to shifting wind conditions, the TSP and PM10 samplers
from this location were moved to Site 5 at the conclusion of testing. No further
samples were collected from this location after Day 1.
• £ite_2. This site was located north of the facility. Samplers were located at this site
for all three sample events and were downwind on Days 1 and 3 and upwind on
Day 2. The site was considered to be a representative location. The site was the only
downwind site on Day 3 and included TSP and PMio duplicate samplers.
• Site 3. This downwind site was located east-northeast of the facility. Due to shifting
wind conditions, the TSP and PMi0 samplers from this location were moved to Site
4 at the conclusion of Day 1 testing. After Day 1, no further TSP and PM10 samples
were collected from this location. On Day 3, VOC samples were collected at this
location downwind of the facility.
• Site 4. This site was located southeast of the facility. This site was downwind of the
facility for Day 2 and considered to be a representative location. For Day 3, the TSP
and PMIO samplers were relocated to Site 2 and used to obtain duplicate samples.
No further samples were collected from this location after Day 2.
• Site 5. This site was located southeast of the facility and was observed to be
influenced by truck traffic in the vicinity. This site was located downwind on Day 2
and upwind on Day 3.
7.2.2 Environment and the Public Health
Ambient sampling was conducted at the Rice County facility for TSP, PMIO, lead, CO,
mercury vapor, and VOC. Measurements were also made for wastewater quality and community
noise. The windrose data for each of the sampling days are provided in Appendix B. The
ambient sampling results are summarized below; the detailed results are presented in Appendix G.
Total Suspended Particulate. PMIO and Lead
The TSP, PMIO, and lead data are summarized in Table 7-6. The PMIO and lead levels
were well below all applicable NAAQS for all runs. The PMIO and lead standards are 150 and
1.5 Atg/m3, respectively. There is no stated standard for TSP. There were periods when no
meteorological data was collected possibly due to moisture in meteorological station. Wind speeds
for Days 2 and 3 were approximately twice the speeds measured on Day 1.
148
-------
Table 7-6
Rice County TSP, PM10 and Lead Sampling Results3
11
1
2
3
f nmnound
TSP
PM10
Lead
TSP
PM10
Lead
TSP
PM10
Lead
Concentration Cug/m3)
Upwind
30.19
11.02
0.003
9.66 '
15.76
0.002
99.75
20.96
0.007
Downwind
17.92
12.68
0.003
16.47
28.78
0.002
49.69
18.48
0.004
Downwind
18.50
15.24
0.001
27.17
89.84
0.003
-
-
-
aPM10 and lead standards are 150 and 1.5 Atg/m3, respectively.
For Day 1, the upwind location was noted as being possibly biased by vehicular traffic on
the dirt road adjacent to the samplers. A review of the results reveals that the upwind TSP
concentration is approximately one-third higher than the two downwind locations, while the
upwind PM10 concentration is lower than the downwind locations. It is possible that dust
generated from the dirt road was greater than 10 microns and thus would not affect the upwind
PM10 results. The two downwind P1V{0 concentrations were approximately 14 and 37 percent
higher. At the downwind locations, the PM10 contribution to the total particulate was 54 and 64
percent. There was negligible difference in lead concentrations.
On Day 2, the downwind TSP concentrations were 62 and 465 percent higher than that
measured upwind at Sites 4 and 5, respectively. The PM10 concentrations were 74 and
179 percent higher than those at Site 4 and 5, respectively. For Day 2, the TSP and PM10 levels
at Site 2 and 4 were 7 and 21 percent higher than those at the downwind locations on Day 1,
respectively.
~\ 1>v -v
On Day 3, the TSP and PM10 concentrations measured at the upwind location (Site 5) were
100 and 47 percent higher than those at the downwind location, respectively. For Days-2,and 3,
the data indicates that Site 5 results may be biased high due to the truck traffic on a nearby dirt
road and high wind speeds.
The lead duplicate RPD was 29 percent, which exceeded the criteria of ±20 percent.
Since the lead results were at or near the detection limit, there should be little impact on the
results. The lead spike and spike duplicate analyses recoveries were both 90 percent. The lead
149
-------
matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate analyses were both 72 percent. Although the spikes met
the laboratory criteria, the test results should be assumed to be biased low. In the worse case, the
adjusted results would be approximately 1/3 higher than the reported values. ' Even with'this
adjustment the concentrations are considerably lower than the NAAQS.
Carbon Monoxide and Mercury Vapnr
Carbon monoxide and mercury vapor levels.,were monitored with, direct-reading
instruments at upwind and downwind sites, as well as at the fence line boundaries The readings
were taken once in the morning and once, in the afternoon on each of the three sampling days.
Carbon monoxide and mercury were not detected at any of the sites.
Volatile Organic Compounds
The VOC data collected on Day 2 are summarized in Table 7-7. The target compounds
were from the hazardous substance list and featured scans for over thirty-five compounds and
detected the presence of three VOCs. Acetone and toluene were detected in all samples ranging
from 1.5 to 40 ^g/m3. Benzene was detected in one sample (downwind) at a concentration that
was close to the detection limit and, therefore, should not be considered native to the source. The
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MFCA) has not established air quality standards or
guidelines for these pollutants. A review of the data demonstrated no significant difference
between upwind and downwind concentrations of VOCs, with the possible exception of toluene.
The VOC data, as reported, can be considered representative of normal background levels in rural
areas.
Table 7-7
Rice County YOG Sampling Results
Date
1
Compound
Acetone
Benzene
Toluene
Detection
Limit
2.4
0.6
0.8
Concentration (/ug/m3)
Upwind
21.4
ND
1.5
Downwind
7.1
1.0
21.1
9.5
ND
10.2
State
Guideline
NA
.NA
NA
The trichlorofluoromethane (Fll) recovery was 121 percent, which did not meet'criteria
of+.15 percent. Fll was not detected in any of the field samples and, therefore, did not affect
the results. EPA Method TO-14 does not state specific acceptance ranges for surrogate and spike
recoveries. Coast-to-Coast Analytical Service, however, uses +70 to' 130 percent as an
acceptance criteria based on guidance from EPA Region V.
150 :
-------
Wastewater
Wastewater samples were collected on Day 1 from a storage tank located beneath the floor
at the back of the facility. The wastewater sampling results are summarized in Table 7-8. Drams
on the processing floor emptied to this storage. Sources contributing to the tank include wash
Table 7-8
Rice County Wastewater Analysis Results8
Analyte
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Ammonia, as Nitrogen
Total Organic Nitrogen
Total Organic Carbon
Oil and Grease
Phosphate, as P-Total
Specific Conductance
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
BOD, 5-day
Silver, Total
Arsenic, Total
Barium, Total
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
Mercury, Total
Lead, Total
Selenium, Total
Total Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Units
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
umhos/cm
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Mg/1
Mi/1
Mg/l
Mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/1
Mg/1
mpn/100 ml
mpn/lOOml
Primary
Sample
10,100
10.0
114
1,450,000
.
6.5
1.9
1,730
90,700
N/Ab
16.4
14.6
1,040
44.6
131
<0.20
42,800
<5.0
> 1,600
300
Duplicate
Sample
10,100
7.8
57.6 ,
877,000
-
9.0
9.1
1,480
28,400
N/Ab
12.8
15.7
967
40.4
108
O.20
84,400
<5.0
> 1,600
300
Blank
Sample
<5.0
0.10
<0.10
<0.50
• -
0.090
1.3
<5.0
<5.0
2
<10.0
<10.0
<200
<5.0
<10.0
0.20
<3.0
<5.0
<1
<1
"Samples collected from wastewater sump on 11/16/93.
laboratory could not analyze because samples contained oil.
151
-------
water from vehicles and equipment, fluids released during vehicle or equipment maintenance, and
liquids released from the balers during the crushing of aluminum, plastic, and tin. Minor spillage
was observed from the plastic oil container draining system. The oil draining system is a PVC
pipe with holes drilled in the top to accept empty oil containers submitted for recycling. The tank
had not been drained since the facility opened. If required, the County will contract a licensed
hauler to dispose of the waste. •
The contents of the tank had a layer of oil floating on top that was approximately 4 to 5
inches thick. This impacted the quality of the data presented in Table 7-8. The metals analysis
found a lead concentration of 42.8 mg/1 and 84.4 mg/1. These both exceed the RCRA limit of 5
mg/1. A potential source of lead in this wasteewater could have been used motor oil, leaded
gasoline, and lead solder on tin cans processed in the baler. The remaining RCRA metals were
below EPA limits.
Community Noise
Instantaneous noise levels were measured at locations inside the facilities, at the ambient
air stations, and at locations along the fence line of the facility property. The community noise
levels are summarized in Table 7-9. The instantaneous noise levels measured at ambient air
station locations and fence line locations outside the facility ranged from 48 to 66 dBA. The MRF
is located in a remote farming area and is unlikely to cause any noise impact on residences or the
community. ,
Table 7-9
Rice County Community Noise Measurement Results
Location
Fence Line (North)
Fence Line (East)
Fence Line (South)
Fence Line (West)
Ambient Air Station #1
Ambient Air Station #2
Ambient Air Station #3
Ambient Air Station #4
Ambient Air Station #5
Instantaneous Noise
Level (dBA)
51.0
50.0-58.0
52.0-58.0
52.0-58.0
55.0
48.0-66.0
53.0-55.0
50.0-52.0
57.0
152
-------
7.2.3 Occupational Health and Safety
Personnel samples were collected for total dust, respirable dust, silica, and noise exposure.
Indoor sampling was conducted for CO, mercury vapor, and noise levels. Airborne and surface
samples were also collected for bacteria and fungi. The sampling results are summarized below; the
detailed results are presented in Appendix G.
Dusts and Silica
Worker exposures to total dust, respirable dust, and silica were monitored over the entire
work shift (8 hours). The sampling results are summarized in Table 7-10. The workers sampled
included the paper chopper operator, Economy Baler operator, tipping floor attendant, light
equipment operator, and hazardous waste coordinator. All sample results were less than the
applicable PELs or TLVs. The highest total dust and respirable dust concentrations were found on
the worker operating the paper chopper - 2.50 and 0.36 mg/m3, respectively. Sample results for
respirable silica were less than the detectable levels for all samples.
Table 7-10
Rice County Total Dust, Respirable Dust and Silica
Personnel Sampling Results*
Paper Chopper Operator
Economy Baler Operator
Tipping Floor Attendant
Light Equipment Operator
Hazardous Waste Coordinator
, Concentration (mg/m3)
Total Dust
2.5036
0.387
0.2978
0.3178
0.1264
Respirable Dust
0.3618
0.2372
0.1276
0.2064
0.1328
Silica
O.0120
O.0119
O.0116
O.0121
O.0133
PELs are 15.0, 5.0, and 0.1 mg/m3 for total dust, respirable dust, and silica, respectively
The duplicate analyses for respirable dust and total dust found one respirable dust sample
with an RPD of 22 percent and a total dust sample with an RPD of 42 percent. Both exceeded the
QAPjP limit of+20 percent. The consideration of this variation does not change the conclusion that
all results are less than the applicable PEL.
Carbon Monoxide and Mercury
Instantaneous CO and mercury vapor measurements were taken with direct reading
instruments at the sorting lines, tipping floor, and cardboard baler in the processing building, and
in the paper chopping building and hazardous waste building. The results are presented in Table 7-
11. Carbon monoxide levels ranged from zero to 6 ppm, with the highest level measured oh the
153
-------
main processing floor when the foreman was operating a fork truck. These levels are well below the
PEL of 35 ppm and the TLV of 25 ppm. Direct reading measurements for mercury did not show any
levels above the typical instrument background and did not approach established exposure limits.
Table 7-11
Rice County Indoor CO and Mercury Measurement Results
Location
Sorting Lines
Tipping Floor
Paper Chopper Building
Worker Foreman
Cardboard Baler
Main Floor
Light Equipment Operator
Can Compactor
Economy Baler
Hazardous Materials Building
CO Level
(ppm)
ND-3
ND-4
ND
ND-6
ND-4
ND
ND
ND
2
ND
Hg Level
(mg/m3)
ND-0.005
ND-0.002
ND-0.002
ND
ND-0.002
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND-0.002
"PELs tor CO and Hg are 35 ppm and 0.05 mg/m3, respectively.
Bacteria and Fungi
Airborne bacteria and fungi concentrations were determined at several locations inside the
facility. Samples were collected on each of the three sampling days at the tipping floor, sorting lines,
and paper chopper. Airborne bacteria and fungi levels were also measured outside at the one upwind
and two downwind locations on the first two days, and one upwind and one downwind on the third
day. As shown in Table 7-12, the bacteria and fungi levels inside the facility were one to two orders
of magnitude higher than the levels outside the facility. Day-to-day variability in fungi and
environmental bacteria levels was evident.
The paper chopping operation showed lower fungi and environmental bacteria levels than
the main processing area. This is most likely due to the presence of only newspaper in the
chopping area, with no food containers or other containers providing a medium for microbial growth.
Of the downwind samples, only Site 5 on the second day of sampling had a significantly higher (two
times) level of fungi than the upwind location. The environmental bacteria showed higher levels
upwind than downwind, which indicates the possible presence of a source other than the MRF. The
thermophilic bacteria levels were relatively consistent from day to day and site to site indicating that
the MRF is not likely to be contributing to ambient levels.
154
-------
Table 7-12
Rice County Airborne Fungi and Bacteria Results
Location
Tipping Floor •* •• '
Sorting Lines
Paper Chopper
Ambient Air Station #1
Ambient Air Station #2
Ambient Air Station #3
Ambient Air Station #4
Ambient Air Station #5
Sample (viable counts per cubic meter)
Fungi
796->5661
'l764->9168
92-848
323
92-665
357
35,
207-458
Bacteria RT*
507-1329
623-1637
150-2693
415 "
81-550
81
150
207-1364
Bacteria 56**
. 11-23
70000
8000
1200
4000 :
All fungi detected were common environmental fungi. None of the - fungi detected are
considered highly virulent in nature. The most commonly associated with infections that were
detected is Aspergillus niger. This organism is considered opportunistic pathogens and is most
likely to infect individuals with compromised immune systems. Healthy people are not likely to be
infected with Aspergillus unless they are exposed to am unusually high dose. Infections due to
Aspergillus niger are rare. It is possible that hypersensitive people, and people exposed to high
155-
-------
levels of fungal spores, may develop hypersensitivity reactions, such as allergies, asthma and
hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Little information is available describing the exposure levels required
to initiate such reactions.
No highly virulent pathogenic bacterial were identified in any of the samples submitted.
Many of the bacteria detected were various species of Bacillus. These bacteria are commonly
found in environmental samples, and occur naturally in soil and water. Curtobacterium and
Agrobacterium are common plant pathogens which is commonly recovered from air samples.
Arthrobacter is a common environmental organism often associated with soil. Corynebacterium
is commonly associated with the soil but may also be of human or animal origin. The species of
Flavobacterium, Pseudomonas, and Alcaligenes are common in water or wet environments.
Aureobacterium is commonly found in soil and dairy products. Staphylococcus, Brevibacterium,
and Micrococcus are naturally associated with human and/or animal skin. Genera from the family
of Enterobacteriaceae are frequently found in soil and/or water environments.
A duplicate sample taken at Ambient Air Station #2 found RPD values for environmental
bacteria and thermophilic bacteria of 34 and 39 percent, respectively. Both are in excess of the
QAPjP limit of ±20 percent. This information does not affect the interpretation of the results.
Noise Exposure
Worker noise exposures were determined over the work shift through the use of
audiodosimeters. The audiodosimeter results are presented in Table 7-14. Workers monitored
included the paper chopper operator, foreman, sorting line worker, Economy Baler operator,
tipping floor attendant, light equipment operator, and hazardous waste coordinator. The average
noise levels ranged from 72.9 to 91.4 dBA. Results indicated that the paper chopper operator
(91.4 dBA) was the only operation which exceeded the PEL of 90 dBA. However, several
operations, such as the sorting line worker (87.7 to 89.1 dBA) and tipping floor attendant (88.0
to 89.6 dBA), showed noise levels exceeding the OSHA Action Level of 85 dBA and approaching
the PEL of 90 dBA. At the PEL, workers are required by OSHA to wear hearing protection.
The paper chopper operator and tipping floor attendant were the only workers observed to be
wearing hearing protection.
These results are summarized in Table 7-15. The indoor noise levels ranged from 70 to
103 dBA, and noise levels inside the paper chopper building were as high as 98 dBA during
operation. The main sources of noise inside the processing building appeared to be the can
compactor and the sorting of glass and cans. Instantaneous noise levels in the vicinity of the can
compactor reached as high as 103 dBA. Noise levels on the sorting line during the sorting of
glass ranged from 75 to 88, with peaks up to 110 dBA during dumping of glass into carts. Noise
levels on the sorting line during the sorting of aluminum and tin where as high as 103 dBA.
156
-------
Table 7-14
Rice County Audiodosimeter Results
Job Description
Paper Chopper
Foreman
Sorting Line Worker
Tipping Floor Attendant
Economy Baler Operator
Light Equipment Operator
Hazardous Materials Worker
Average Noise Levels
(dBA)
- 86.6-91.4
83.8
87.7-89.1
88.0-89.6
78.4
87.3
72.9
Table 7-15
Rice County Indoor Noise Measurement Results
Location
Sorting Lines
Tipping Floor
Paper Chopper Building
Worker Foreman
Cardboard Baler
Main Floor
Light Equipment Operator
Can Compactor
Economy Baler
Hazardous Materials Building
Instantaneous Noise
Level (dBA)
70.0-110.0
63.0-95.0
67.0-98.0
75.0-80.0
75.0-85.0
65.0
85.0 ,
103.0
85.0-94.0
50.0-62.0
Health and Safety Programs
Health and Safety Program evaluation was limited to information provided by on-site
personnel. However, some questions could not be answered at the time of the on-site visit due to
facility personnel scheduling, and the program evaluation forms were completed and received via
157
-------
mail. Key findings from this evaluation include:
• A Respiratory Protection Program has been implemented for the facility which includes
a written program and training. Disposable dust masks are used in the Paper Chopping
Operation and cartridge type air-purifying respirators are used in the Household
Hazardous Waste Building. Dust masks are not required, but are available for workers
to wear. Only the Household Hazardous Waste Coordinator has been evaluated.
• A Hazard Communication Program is in effect at the facility, however, documentation
of training was found only for three workers.
• No Hearing Conservation Program has been implemented at the facility to protect
employees routinely exposed to noise levels in excess of the OSHA Action Level of 85
dBA. Employees working in the paper chopping operation, sorting lines, tipping floor,
and light equipment operation would be required to participate in a Hearing
Conservation Program. Based on the measurement data, only the Paper chopper
operator would be required to wear hearing protection, although several other job
functions showed levels very close to the PEL.
• There were no air contaminants identified as requiring specific control programs.
• A Bloodborne Pathogen Program has been implemented which includes a written
program, personal protective equipment, offering Hepatitis B vaccinations, and training.
• Information on injury and illness rates was provided for 1991, 1992, and 1993. Those
rates, provided by the facility, are summarized in Table 7-16, along with BLS estimates
of occupational injury and illness incidence rates for 1991 for Sanitary Services and
Private Sector Industries. The most frequent injury over the three year period was
crushed hands which occurred three times resulting in eight lost workdays. There were
also two shoulder injuries, a strain and a dislocation, which did not result in any lost
workdays.
158
-------
Table 7-16
Injuries and Illnesses
1991,1992 and 1993
Year
1991
1991
1991
1992
1993
Sector
All Industry
Sanitary Services
MRF
MRF
MRF
Recordable Cases
8.4
15.3
15.7
63.0
31.5
Lost Workday Cases
3.9
7.9
15.7
15.7
0
Lost Workdays
86.5
163.5
78.7
47.2
0
Ergonomics
Picking booth operations were videotaped during the on-site facility assessment. These
videotapes were reviewed to identify the general ergonomic conditions within this work area. For
the purposes of this assessment, potential ergonomic risk factors identified can be defined as
workplace conditions or work practices which may contribute to or result in, worker discomfort,
fatigue or injury.
Two types of workstations were evaluated:
• Workstation 1. At this type of workstation, workers on each side of a conveyor
separated glass from paper and placed the glass into bins on each side of the conveyor.
The workstation height was non-adjustable, but appeared appropriate for individuals
assigned in this area. Workers were able to perform tasks without bending or excessive
reaching. Bin placement allowed workers to place material in cans with minimal effort.
No significant ergonomic risk factors were identified for this workstation.
• Workstation 2. This type of workstation required workers on each side of a conveyor
to separate material and to transfer it to bins behind the workers. The workstation height
was non-adjustable and appeared low for some workers as evidenced by workers leaning
forward over conveyor. The workers were able to sort without excessive reaching. The
placement of the bins behind the workers required repetitive twisting and turning. The
potential ergonomic risk factors are: (1) the fixed workstation height may have been too
low for a majority of assigned workers; and (2) the bin placement behind the workers
required repetitive twisting and turning to discard recyclables.
159
-------
SECTION 8
ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
8.1 Process Description
Orange County provides disposal services to participating and unincorporated areas of the
County. This section addresses the technical, economic, energy, and environmental impacts of
the Orange County IMSWM system.
8.1.1 Integrated Solid Waste Management System
The Orange County Public Utilities Division is responsible for day-to-day operation of the
IMSWM system. The components of the IMSWM system serving Orange County, Florida
include:
• Material Recovery Facility,
• Two Transfer Stations,
• Household Hazardous Waste Station,
• Composting Facility, and
• Landfill.
Figure 8-1 presents a flow diagram of the IMSWM system, showing the solid waste received and
residue generated at the various system components.
Waste Collection
Mandatory MSW collection has been in effect throughout the unincorporated area of the
County since July 1987. Under County ordinance, residential waste must be collected and
transported to designated disposal facilities by licensed franchised haulers. The franchise haulers
are required to provide curbside pickup of MSW twice weekly and yard waste and recyclables
once a week. Seven residential franchises and unlimited commercial licenses have been
established to serve the unincorporated area of the County. In addition to providing solid waste
disposal services in the unincorporated area, the County has entered into interlocal agreements
with 11 of 13 municipalities within the County. Interlocal agreements have not been executed
with Bay Lake and Lake Bueno Vista.
In FY 1992, approximately 579,240 tons of MSW were delivered to the Orange County
Landfill. This included 136,918 tons from McLeod Transfer Station and 133,747 tons from the
Porter Transfer Station. The County also received approximately 26,250 tons of recyclables,
9,586 tons of yard waste, 76,568 tons of construction and demolition debris, and 39,522 tons of
sludge. Approximately 1,000 tons of special waste, including tires, batteries, asbestos, waste oil,
and household hazardous waste, was also received by the County.
160
-------
£
E o>
CO
CO
.03
O
CO
LL
^
13
O
O
0
O)
E
O
—
•o
c
CO
_1
^,
"c
o
o
CD
C?
CO
6
(O
S
10
f^r
eo"
S
1
CO
ts
CD
5
CO
o
in
ts.
o
N-
CM
CO
—
Q
it
CO
LL J
i S
*^ CM
erf
CM
A
S i-
to
,s
II
2 eo
"= S
CO
5? 2
c i~-
"5
»-!„-
CO gj CO
CO
" I
s
•o
CM
|
! eo
r ^s
CO
O
,
i
«=
T3
1
^
CO
0
08
c
CO
o
O
Demolition Debris
>ard Trash, etc. -
76,568 tons
o
CO
Waste and
Collected
aulers
I
'E
z>
MSW, Yard
Recyclable
Franchise
st
S •§
| S
I 8
nsed
to
"ro -5
'8 x
•
s
0
CO
to
§
X
CD
1
to
o
f3
CO
N
CO
X
c
jO
"co
c/5
JO
Q>
i
CD
O
CO
CD
'C
•S
«co
o
111
s
CD
to
^^
=
CD ^ •**
S <« CM
CO
161
-------
Material Recovery Facility
Opening in August 1990, the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) is located just south of
Cells A through K at the County Landfill. The facility is owned and operated by Recycle America
of Orange County, a unit of Waste Management, Inc. The County, however, has the option to
purchase the facility in five or ten years. Newsprint and corrugated cardboard, handled separately
from the commingled recyclables, is baled and shipped directly to market. The commingled
recyclables are mechanically processed to separate ferrous metals, and manually processed to
separate plastic containers, aluminum cans, and color-sorted glass. In FY 1992, the MRF
received approximately 26,250 tons of recyclable material.
Transfer Station
The County operates two transfer stations in the City of Orlando. The McCleod Road
Transfer Station, located just west of 1-4, is operated under a lease from the City by the County.
This transfer station has an average capacity of 600 tpd of residential and commercial waste. The
Porter Transfer Station is located at the intersection of Good Homes Road and White Road north
of State Road 50. This transfer station also has an average capacity of 600 tpd of residential and
commercial wastes. The waste is delivered by transfer station from each station to the County
Landfill. Approximately 270,665 tons of MSW were transferred to the landfill through the two
transfer stations in FY 1992.
Household Hazardous Waste Station
The Household Hazardous Waste Station, located just south of Waste Station the MRF,
opened in April 1990. The station includes two storage sheds — one for containing corrosives and
the other for flammable and poisonous materials. Waste oil received at the second shed is pumped
to a holding tank at the site.
Composting Facility
The Composting Facility is located in the extreme northeast corner of the landfill site. The
facility began receiving yard waste in March 1992. Finished compost was used as a soil
amendment around the landfill, however, the County intends to market the compost once the
process has stabilized. In FY 1992, the Composting Facility received approximately 9,586 tons
of yard waste.
Landfill
The County owns and operates a 5,000-acre landfill located at the end of Young Pine Road
east of Orlando. Of the 5,000 acres, approximately 650 acres are closed waste cells. Following
weighing, waste haulers are directed to the appropriate area of the landfill depending on the waste
and vehicle type. Franchise and other commercial haulers are sent directly to an active face,
162
-------
while private haulers are sent to a separate off-loading area. Transfer trailers are sent to a staging
area where the trailer is disconnected and towed to the active face by landfill equipment. In FY
1992, the landfill received approximately 579,240 tons of MSW.
Special wastes delivered to the landfill include whole tires, asbestos, white goods,
automotive batteries, waste oil, and household hazardous wastes. Used tires are stored and
processed on the east side of the landfill, while asbestos is buried in sealed containers in the
northern portion of the landfill. Automotive batteries, waste oil, and household hazardous waste
are stored near the small vehicle unloading area at the Household Hazardous Waste Station.
Yard trash, land clearing debris, street sweepings, and construction and demolition debris
are disposed of at a Class III landfill located adjacent to Composting Facility. Domestic
wastewater sludges are also delivered to the landfill by various municipalities. The sludge is
delivered in tanker trucks and deposited just east of the Class III disposal area. The sludges are
stabilized on site and used as a solid amendment in landfill cover material.
8.1.2 Material Recovery Facility
The MRF has a design capacity of 300 tpd based on two shift operators, but is currently
operating only one shift at an average rate of 80 tpd. The facility processes newsprint, corrugated
cardboard, ferrous metals, plastic containers, aluminum cans, and color-sorted glass. Table 8-1
summarizes the tonnage of material received and recovered between August 1, 1991 and July 31,
1992. Figure 8-2 presents a site plan for the Orange County MRF.
Upon arrival, collection vehicles enter the facility and discharge their loads onto the
tipping floor. A front end loader moves the material to either a storage or pre-sort area. At the
pre-sort area, a worker separates newsprint and corrugated cardboard from the recyclable waste
stream. The paper products are loaded onto a conveyor belt where the newsprint is separated
from the cardboard. The recyclable paper is baled and then stored inside the facility prior to
shipment to market.
The commingled recyclables are transferred to a conveyor belt that feeds the sorting
conveyor. The material first passes over screens to remove grit and broken glass, and then a
magnetic separator for the recovery of ferrous metal. The remaining material is manually sorted
on a conveyor belt for recovery of plastic containers, aluminum cans, and color-sorted glass. The
recovered material is dropped down a chute to dedicated storage areas below the sorting belt. The
recovered material is crushed and then baled for shipment. The recyclable material is transported
to market by truck.
163
-------
Table 8-1
Material Received and Recovered at the MRF
between August 1, 1991 and July 31, 1992
Material
Newsprint
Aluminum
Plastic
Clear Glass
Amber Glass
Green Glass
Ferrous
Residue
Rejects
Unprocessed
Phone Books
Total
Throughput
(tons)
15,493
671
1,275
2,305
700
822
1,288
1,909
1,286
9
492
26,250
Percent of Total
(%)
60.2
2.5
4.9
9.6
2.7
3.3
4.9
7.0
3.3
<0.1
1.5
100.0
164
-------
r
i
0.
c\2
I
t
CO
w
OS
ID
O
E- <:
JS
5 K
< o
00
-------
8.1.3 Economic, Energy and Environmental Issues
The economic, energy, and environmental impacts associated with the operation of the
MRF and IMSWM system are addressed in this section. These impacts are based on publicly
available information or material provided by the County.
Economic Implications
The IMSWM system is owned and operated by an elected body ~ the Orange County
Board of County Commissioners (the Board). The Board has the authority to issue bonds, se.t
rates and fees, and engage in other financial activities necessary to provide for the management
of solid waste in the County. The County Chairman is a member of the Board and exercises
direct authority over the day-to-day operations of County government under the jurisdiction of the
Board. The County Administrator, appointed by the Chairman and confirmed by the Board, is
employed on a full-time basis to assist in the daily management of the County.
The Public Utilities Division (PUD) is responsible for operating and maintaining the
IMSWM system. The PUD reports directly to the County Chairman and County Administrator.
The system is operated as a self-supporting governmental unit and is accounted for as an
enterprise fund of the Board. Under an enterprise fund, the expenses associated with the delivery
of services, as well as depreciation, amortization, and interest, are recovered primarily through
user charges.
The data collected for this analysis was obtained from Orange County. According to the
County, the costs and revenues were based on actual results for FY 1992 and included all solid
waste handled by the County. It should be noted that processing of recyclables is performed by
a subcontractor, and they were unwilling to provide detailed information regarding operating
expenses.
In FY 1992, the total cost of waste collection, transport, processing, disposal, and
combustion, material recovery and marketing, and administratiqn was approximately $52.5
million. Approximately $17.6 million or 34 percent of costs was associated with collection.
These costs included the labor, transportation, equipment, and operations associated with the
collection of all of the waste for which the County has responsibility. Approximately $6.3 million
or 12 percent of costs were associated with debt service and depreciation, and $4.3 million was
associated with labor. The remaining $24.3 million was split between contractors, supplies,
equipment, O&M, utilities, and other expenses.
The total cost of operating the MRF, including collecting, transporting, processing, and
marketing recyclables, was estimated to be approximately $4.2 million in FY 1992. This amount
was estimated based on an a fee of $1.02 million which was charged by the subcontractor to
process the recyclables. Based on this estimate, approximately $1.9 million or 46 percent of costs
was associated with O&M and debt service. The remaining 54 percent of MRF costs was
166
-------
associated with collection. Based on the estimated costs provided by the County, the operating
costs of the MRF represent approximately 8.1 percent of total IMSWM system operating costs.
Table 8-2 summarizes the costs for the IMSWM system and MRF.
Table 8-2
Estimated Costs for the Orange County IMSWM System
Cost Element
Labor
Contractors
Materials and Supplies
Equipment O&M
Utilities
Other Expenses
Debt Service/Depreciation
MRF O&M plus Debt ,
Subtotal (O&M plus Debt)
Collection Costs
Total
IMSWM System
34,341,624
1,845,377
429,918
685,882
88,669
3,809,559
6,226,015
17,466,044
17,600,000
$52,532,088
MRF
$1,940,200
1,940,200
2,300,000
$4,240,200
The amount of total revenues received by the IMSWM system was approximately
$24.3 million in FY 1992. Approximately $18.2 million or 75 percent of revenues was associated
with tipping fees, while approximately $2.1 million or 9 percent was associated as closure costs
adjustment. The remaining $4 million was generated through the sale of recyclables, grants,
interest revenue, and other revenues.
Based on an allocation performed by the Authority, the amount of total revenues from
MRF was approximately $3 million in FY 1992. These revenues were earned through tipping
fees, the sale of recyclables, and grants. Table 8-3 summarizes the revenues for the IMSWM
system and MRF.
167
-------
Table 8-3
Estimated Revenues for the Orange County IMSWM System
Cost Element
Tipping Fees
Closure Cost Adjustments
Sale of Recovered Materials
Grants and Subsidies
Interest Revenue
Other Revenues
Total
IMSWM System
$18,169,117
2,128,700
1,308,240
1,050,000
1,616,389
38,511
$24,310,957
MRF
$1,050,000
1,308,240
640,000
$2,988,240
For clarification, the definition of selected revenue sources is as follows:
• Closure Costs Adjustment. Surplus funds which were originally allocated to a closure
activity which were subsequently unused for that purpose.
• Grants. Funds received from the County and/or the State to partially offset MRF
costs.
Based on the allocation of costs by the County, the operating revenues of the MRF
represent approximately 12.5 percent of total IMSWM system operating revenues. This is
somewhat more than the percentage contribution of the MRF, to IMSWM system costs. These
operating revenues recover approximately 71 percent of MRF costs.
Figure 8-3 shows the total costs and revenues for the IMSWM system and MRF. Based
on the analysis of operating expenses and revenues for FY 1992 and allocations provided by the
County, it appears that the MRF provided a net cost to the IMSWM system in the amount of
approximately $1.2 million or 2.5 percent of total operating expenditures.
Energy Consumption
An estimated 266 billion Btu of energy was consumed to collect, transfer, haul, process,
compost, and transport to market about 733,138 tons of MSW, yard waste, and recyclables. Of
the 266 billion Btu consumed, approximately 81.9 percent was used to manage 697,302 tons of
MSW, 1.5 percent was used to manage 9,586 tons of yard waste, and 16.5 percent was used to
manage 26,250 tons of recyclables. Approximately 0.36 MMBtu of energy was consumed for
168
-------
Figure 8-3.
TOTAL COSTS AND REVENUES FOR THE
ORANGE COUNTY ISWMS
MRF
COSTS
a Sal* of
Rtcyclabltt/Compott
aonntt/Sulaldltt
B Tipping Fees
BO&M Plus Debt
B Collection Costs
REVENUES
ISWMS
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000.000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$1,0.000,000
$5,000.000
mother
B Inttrttt Revinut
Q Qnints/Subt/dies
BSa/e ofRtcyclables/Compott
• Cloturt Cottt Adjuttmtnt
O Tipping Fets
B Collection
BDabt Service
Bother
B Equipment O&M/Utllttles
D Materials/Supplies
B Contractors
B Labor
COSTS
REVENUE
169
-------
each of the 733,138 tons of waste managed, with 0.31, 0.43, and 1.68 MMBtu consumed for
each of the 697,302 tons of MSW, 9,586 tons of yard waste, and 26,250 tons of recyclables,
respectively.
Table 8-4 and Figure 8-4 show the energy consumed by function. For the entire IMSWM
system, almost 67 percent of the energy consumed was for transportation, that is, collecting
recyclables, transporting recovered materials to market, and hauling residue to the landfill.
Transportation constituted about 62, 72, and 93 percent of the.energy consumed for MSW, yard
waste, and recyclables, respectively.
Table 8-4
Energy Consumption for the Orange County IMSWM System
(MMBtu)
Activity
Collection Vehicles
Material Recovery Facility3
Transfer of Rejects to Landfill"
Transfer Stations0
Composting Facility"1
Landfill0
Subtotal
Haul to Market
Total Energy Consumption
(MMBtu)
Total Tons Collected
Average Energy Consumption
(MMBtu/ton)
Garbage
135672
15560
66756
217987
217987
697302
0.31
Curbside
Recycling
10760
3270
34
14063
29935
43998
26250
1.68
Yard Waste
2947
1138
4085
4085
9586
0.43
Total
149378
3270
34
15560
1138
66756
236136
29935
266071
733138
0.36
«* JT — — ••-"* f «• .*.««« tjj A*.WJ ^.iw * JL.IIAWI *\/ci vyiivy inaiiiicuilo CUIU UL/dalvo U1C
facility.
bFuel consumed to transfer rejects from the MRF to the landfill was calculated based on mileage and the average value
of 0.024 gal/ton = mile for rejects and residues based on studies done in Springfield, Massachusetts; Scottsdale,
Arizona; Palm Beach County, Florida; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Seattle, Washington.
'Transfer station data was based on actual electric consumption and fuel consumption provided by Orange County.
dTotal landfill electricity and fuel consumption were provided by Orange County. The operator of the composting
facility estimated that the only energy consumption related to the composting facility was diesel fuel and it was
conservatively estimated that 10% of the total diesel of the landfill was consumed for composting operations.
'Haul to market was calculated based on mileage from the MRF to the appropriate processing facility and the study
value of 0.024 gal diesel/ton = mile for transport of recyclables.
170
-------
UJ
(0
1
fc_
^ 43
O c
O 3
UJ 15
LJJ .«>
(0
UJ
m
1
u- w
I
13
(0
O
O
1
01
UJ
UJ
I
cc
UJ
I
171
-------
Except as discussed below, the energy consumption information reported in this section
was obtained from data provided by Orange County and Recycle America(the operator of the
Material Recovery Facility). The fuel consumed to collect garbage, yard waste, and recyclables
was estimated using collection vehicle data from Palm Beach County, Florida; Springfield,
Massachusetts; Scottsdale, Arizona; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Seattle, Washington. The
energy consumed to haul recovered materials to market was estimated by multiplying the
estimated ton-miles hauled by 0.024 gallons per ton-mile, i.e., the approximate fuel consumed by
the MSW transfer vehicles used in Hartford, Connecticut; Palm Beach County, Florida; and
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Environmental Regulations
The County was required to obtain construction and operating permits for various
components of the IMSWM system. The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
(FDER) has issued the required permits for the expansion, operation, and closure of the landfill,
including the Construction, Operating, and Management and Storage of Surface Waters Permits.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit required for the landfill
was received from the U.S. EPA, and the Consumptive Use Permits from the St. Johns River
Water Management District (SJWMD). The FDER also issued the Construction and Operating
Permits for the transfer stations, composting facility, household hazardous waste facility, and
other waste management facilities operated by the County. Table 8-4 summarizes the current
status of the permits required for the components of the IMSWM system.
8.2 Field Test Results
The field test program at the Orange County MRF was conducted between January 18
and 21, 1994. The field test procedures and results are discussed in detail in the following
sections.
8.2.1 Test Procedures
The material is brought to the facility in the trucks containing paper products separated
from the rest of the remaining recyclables. At the facility, the paper products and mixed
recyclables are dumped separately and sorted separately. There are approximately 20 full time
employees at the facility. The facility operates from 7:00 am to 5:30 pm. The sorting lines start
at approximately 7:30 am. Workers generally stop sorting at 5:00 pm to clean up their areas.
The workers are given a half hour for lunch and two fifteen-minute breaks during the day. The
MRF is located next to an active municipal landfill. The side facing the MRF has been covered
and was in the process of having a cap installed.
The field test program was conducted in accordance with the approved test protocol
contained in QAPjP and site-specific SAP. The following deviations were noted from the field
protocol:
172
-------
Table 8-5
Major Permits and Approvals
Facility
County Landfill
Tire Storage Area
Household Hazardous
Waste Facility
McLeod Transfer Station
Porter Transfer Station
Landfill Yard Waste
Compost Facility
Responsible Agency
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
(FDER)
FDER
FDER
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
St. John's River Water
Management District
FDER
FDER
FDER
FDER
FDER
FDER
Permits/ Approvals
New Cell Construction
Permit
Management and
Storage of Surfaces
Water Permit
Class III Expansion
Construction Permit
NPDES Permit
Consumptive Use
Permit
Temporary Operating
Permit
Temporary Operating
Permit
Operating Permit
Construction Permit
Construction Permit
Operating Permit
Issuance Date
03/22/88
05/91
02/06/92
05/01/88
08/91
06/30/89
11/29/89
10/29/85
09/08/81
12/10/91
12/20/91
• Due to severe winter storm weather conditions, shipment and delivery of some of
the sampling equipment was delayed. This resulted in only one downwind PM10
sample being collected on Day 1.
On 14 January, a power outage resulted in TSP and PM10 sample times of less
than 24 hours (10.6 hours duration).
• The RPD for the set of replicate respirable dust samples exceeded 20 percent.
Figure 8-5 shows the locations of the sampling equipment and meteorological station
during the field test program at the Orange County MR]?. The upwind/downwind location of the
air sampling equipment in relation to the facility for each of the three days of monitoring are
summarized in Table 8-6.
173
-------
s
10
i
CO
D
O
CO
2;
o
IP
<;
o
o
CO
2;
5
<
e- <:
29
5 «
^ 3
tt, »H
PL,
>^ .
K >-
W t-
^ 2
I
fi S 2
g g J. C
a. S x a
174
-------
Table 8-6
Sampling Locations at the Orange County MRFa
Sample Day
1
2
3
Locations
Upwind
1
1
1
Downwind
2,3
2,4
2
"The PM10 and lead standards are 150 and 1.5
respectively.
Provided below is a brief discussion of each sample location and any limitations that should
be considered in the evaluation of the reported data.
• Site 1. This site was located north of the facility. The site was located upwind of
the facility for all three sample events. It was noted that the results might be
biased by nearby landfill activities.
• Site 2. This site was located south of the facility. Samplers were located
downwind at this site for all three sample events. The site was considered to be
representative location and included TSP and PM10 duplicate samplers.
• Site 3. This site was located southwest of the facility. Due to shifting wind
conditions, the TSP sampler from this downwind location was moved to Site 4 at
the conclusion of Day 1 . After Day 1 , no further samples were collected from this
location.
• Site 4. This site was located south southwest of the facility. This site was
downwind of the facility for Day 2 sample events and considered to be a
representative location. The TSP and PM10 samplers were relocated on Day 3 to
Site 2 and used to obtain duplicate samples. No further samples were collected
from this location after Day 2.
8.2.2 Environment and the Public Health
The ambient air sampling program included measurements for TSP, PM10, lead, VOC,
CO, mercury vapor, and VOC. Community noise measurements were also made along the fence
line boundaries of the property. The wind rose data for the sampling period are presented in
Appendix B. The sampling results are summarized below; the complete results are presented in
Appendix H.
175
-------
Total Suspended Particulate. PM10 and T.ead
The TSP, PM10, and lead data are summarized in Table 8-7. Values for PM10 and lead
were well below all applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all runs
despite concerns over possible bias from site locations in the vicinity of the local landfill. The
PM10 and lead standards are 150 and 1.5 g/m3, respectively; there is no standard for total
suspended particulate. Over the testing period, there were no major difference observed in the
wind speeds which ranged from 1 to 12 miles per hour.
Table 8-7
Orange County TSP, PM10 and Lead Sampling Results0
Day
1
2
3
TSP
PM10
Lead
TSP
PM10
Lead
TSP
PM10
Lead
Concentration (^g/ra3)
Upwind
38.36
18.07
0.004
43.44
21.33
0.006
99.41
50.47
0.008
Downwind
70.74
29.10
0.005
110.99C
47.39C
0.005C
82.34
43.27
0.007
61.79
NAb
0.004
54.51
23.28
0.002
86.55d
48.78d
0.00d
"No PM10 sample collected.
"Samples collected over 10.6 hours due to loss of power.
•"Duplicate sample.
A review of the results for Day 1 show the downwind TSP concentrations were 61 and 84
percent higher than the upwind location. An increase of approximately 41 percent was noted for
PM10 at the downwind location, when compared to the upwind location. A negligible difference
was noted when comparing the lead values for the three locations. The PM10 contribution to the
total particulate ranged was 47 and 41 percent for upwind and downwind locations, respectively.
On Day 2, the TSP levels increased approximately 25 and 156 percent at the two
downwind (Sites 2 and 4) over the levels measured on Day 1. The PM10 results increased
approximately 9 and 122 percent at these downwind locations. The TSP and PM10 concentrations
measured at Site 2 were twice as high as those measured at Site 4, while the TSP and PM10
concentration measured at Sites 1 and 2 are similar to concentrations measured during Day 1.
176
-------
These data indicate that the data collected at Site 4 may be biased high, possibly attributed to a
power outage that resulted in a reduced sample time (10.6 hours). This hypothesis is based on
the significant difference observed between the data collected at Sites 2 and 4, along with the
reproducibility of the results at the other locations on Days 1 and 2. The PM10 contribution to
total paniculate was 49 and 42 percent for the upwind and downwind locations, respectively.
Excluding Site 2, the TSP and PM10 sampling results for Day 3 increased at the upwind
location when compared with the corresponding results for Days 1 and 2, while the downwind
concentrations increased only moderately. The upwind TSP and PM10 concentrations were
approximately 18 and 10 percent higher than the downwind concentrations, respectively. This
is an indication that Site 1 results might be influenced, from activities at the nearby landfill.
The TSP and PM10 levels measured at the fence line were highest on Days 1 and 2
(excluding Site 2). The results for Site 2 demonstrate a significant increase in downwind
concentrations on Day 2. This could be attributable to the fact that the samplers only operated
during facility operations (when activities tend to generate more dust), rather than over the entire
24-hour period. No conclusions can be drawn from the results collected on Day 3 due to possible
bias of the results at the upwind locations. All TSP and PM10 results (including Site 4) are below
the NAAQS. For all three sample events, there were no significant differences in upwind and
downwind lead concentrations. The lead concentrations were well below the corresponding
NAAQS.
The TSP, PM10, and lead duplicate results were 5.0, 11.9, and 33.0 percents,
respectively. The RPD for the duplicate lead samples exceeded QAPjP criteria of +20 percent.
Because the lead levels were extremely low, the RPD excursion has little impact on the results.
The lead QC spike and spike duplicate analyses recoveries were both 105 percent. The lead
matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate analyses were 72 and 77 percent, respectively, which do
not meet QAPjP criteria. Based on the low lead recoveries, the test results should be assumed to
be biased low. In the worse case, the adjusted results would be approximately 129 percent of the
reported values. Even with this adjustment the concentrations are considerably lower than the
NAAQS.
Carbon Monoxide and Mercury
Carbon monoxide and mercury vapor levels were monitored with direct-reading
instruments at upwind and downwind sites, and at the fence line boundaries. The readings were
taken once in the morning and once in the afternoon on each of the three sampling days. Neither
CO nor mercury vapor were detected at any of the ambient sampling locations.
Volatile Organic Compounds
The VOC data collected on Day 3 at Sites 1, 2, and 4 are presented in Table 8-8. The
target compounds were from the hazardous substance list and featured scans for over thirty-five
177
-------
compounds. The presence of two VOCs were detected in the samples. Acetone and toluene were
detected in all samples in the range of 0.4 to 7 ^g/m3. Acetone and toluene concentrations were
well below the "no-treat levels" established by the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation (FDER). Excluding common laboratory contaminants, the VOC data demonstrated
no compounds present in upwind or downwind locations. The data can be considered
representative of normal background levels in rural areas.
Table 8-8
Orange County VOC Sampling Results
The VOC surrogate recovery values were 84 to 89 percent which exceeds the QC criteria
of ±10 percent. For the QC spikes, the RPDs for 18 compounds spiked ranged from 74 to 124
percent, exceeding the QC criteria of ±15 percent. EPA Method TO-14 does not state specify
acceptance ranges for surrogate or spike recoveries. Coast-to-Coast Analytical Service, however
uses ±30 percent as an acceptance criteria. This is based on guidance from EPA Region V.
Community Noise
Instantaneous noise levels were measured at locations along the fence line of the facility
property. The community noise measurements are summarized in Table 8-9. Instantaneous noise
levels measured at the fence line locations ranged from 55 to 74 dBA. The highest ambient noise
levels were found along the north fence line, which is likely due to the facility having no wall on
the north side. The noise levels encountered are unlikely to have any community impact due to
the remote location of the facility.
178
-------
Table 8-9
Orange County Community Noise Measurement Results
Location
Fence Line (North)
Fence Line (East)
Fence Line (Southeast)
Fence Line (South)
Fence Line (Southwest)
Fence Line (West)
Instantaneous Noise
Levels (dBA)
69.0-74.0
59.0-66.0
61.0-66.0
66.0-71.0
65.0-67.0
55.0-65.0
8.2.3 Occupational Health and Safety
The occupational health and safety evaluation addressed chemical exposure, CO, mercury
vapor, bacteria, fungi, and noise exposure. Both personnel sampling and indoor sampling were
performed at the facility. The sampling results are summarized below; the detailed results are
presented in Appendix H.
Dusts and Silica
Worker exposures to total dust, respirable dust, and silica were monitored over the entire
work shift (8 hours). The personnel sampling results are presented in Table 8-10. Workers
sampled included the plastic sorter, aluminum sorter, baler operator, tipping floor attendant, glass
sorter, supervisor, front-end loader operator, and fork lift operator. All sampling results were
less than the applicable PELs or TLVs. The highest total dust and respirable dust concentrations
were found on the bobcat operator - 0.32 and 0.16 mg/m3, respectively. Sampling results for
respirable silica indicated less than detectable levels for personnel.
179
-------
Table 8-10
Orange County Total Dust, Respirable Dust and Silica
Personnel Sampling Results
Tipping Floor Attendant
Baler Operator
Plastics Sorter
Aluminum Sorter
Glass Sorter
Supervisor
Front-end Loader Operator
Fork Lift Operator
Concentration (mg/m3)
Total Dust
0.1426
0.1325
0.0844
0.125
0.083
0.1359
0.3179
0.3042
Respirable Dust
0.1165
0.0993
_
0.1029
0.083
1
0.1587
-
Silica
< 0.0106
< 0.0103
< 0.0107
.
0.0099
-
Duplicate analyses for respirable dust and total dust found that two total dust samples had
RPDs of 37 and 33 percent, respectively. Both of these values exceed the QAPjP limit of
.+.20 percent.
Carbon Monoxide and Mercury
Direct reading measurements for mercury and carbon monoxide were taken at the sorting
lines, tipping floor, lunch area, baler area, front-end operations, and fork truck operations. These
measurements did not detect any levels above instrument background over the sampling period,
with the exception of one measurement of 0.001 mg/m3 near one of the workers on the sorting
line.
Bacteria and Fungi
Airborne and surface samples of bacteria and fungi concentrations were determined at
locations inside and outside the facility. Indoor sample locations included the tipping floor,
sorting lines, baler, bale storage, and lunch area. Outside, airborne bacteria and fungi levels were
measured at the one upwind and two downwind locations on each of the three sampling days. The
airborne and fungi results for the Orange County facility are presented in Table 8-11. As shown
in this table, the levels of airborne bacteria and fungi inside the facility were generally one to two
orders of magnitude higher than the levels outside the recyclables processing facility.
180
-------
Table 8-11
Orange County Airborne Fungi and Bacteria Results
Tipping Floor
Sorting Lines
Baler Operator Station
Bale Storage
Lunch Room
Ambient Air Station #1
Ambient Air Station #2
Ambient Air Station #3
Ambient Air Station #4
Sample (viable counts per cubic meter)
Fungi
359-2707
1843- > 9256
522-3992
324-683
278-1238
220-440
348-3437
162
313
Bacteria RT"
580-2318
1147-2569
811-2742
243-694
394-949
209-1136
336-2730
533
452
Bacteria 56"
12-35
12-58
<12-93
< 12-46
< 12-12
< 12-58
< 12-46
23
35
"Bacteria RT. is incubated at room temperature.
bBacteria 56 is incubated at 56 degrees F. ;
Fungi and environmental bacteria levels were highest on the third day of sampling at each
of the indoor locations. Thermophilic bacteria levels were highest on the first sampling day. No
conditions were observed that were likely to have contributed to the variation in levels. Outside
the building, a significantly higher level of environmental fungi and bacteria (one order of
magnitude) was observed at the downwind location (Site 2) than at the upwind location only on
Day 3. The levels inside the facility were also measurably higher on Day 3. This indicates
that the MRF may have been a contributing source to the ambient downwind concentrations of
fungi and bacteria. The thermophilic bacteria levels were relatively consistent from day-to-day
and site-to-site, indicating that the MRF is not likely to be contributing significantly to ambient
levels of thermophilic bacteria.
The surface samples of bacteria and fungi are summarized in Table 8-12. The analytical
results of the wipe samples indicated that they contained several organisms that Were similar to
those organisms found in air. Therefore, it is plausible that the organisms detected in the air
samples may have originated from some of the surface sources. The surface of the baler area
showed significantly higher levels of fungi than at any other sampling location.
181
-------
Table 8-12
Orange County Surface Fungi and Bacteria Results
' ' • F ,
Location
Sorting Line
Baler Area
Lunch Room
Sample (units per gauze wipe)
Fungi
2,800-9,800
1,600,000 :
' 200
Bacteria
8,800-17,000
i , 5,800
2,000
All fungi detected were common environmental fungi. None of the fungi detected are
considered highly virulent in nature. The two fungi most commonly associated with infections
that were detected are Aspergillus niger and Aspergillus flavus. These organisms are considered
opportunistic pathogens and are most likely to infect individuals with compromised immune
systems. Healthy people are not likely to be infected with Aspergillus unless they are exposed
to an unusually high dose. Infections due to Aspergillus ni§er and Aspergillus flavus are rare.
It is possible that hypersensitive people, and people exposed to high levels of fungal spores, may
develop hypersensitivity reactions, such as allergies, asthma and hypersensitivity pneumonitis.
Little information is available describing the exposure levels required to initiate such reactions.
No highly virulent pathogenic bacterial were identified in any of the samples submitted.
Many of the bacteria detected were various species of Bacillus. These bacteria are commonly
found in environmental samples, and occur naturally in soil and water. Curtobacterium,
Clavibacter and Agrobacterium are common plant pathogens which is commonly recovered from
air samples. Arthrobacter is a common environmental organism often associated with soil.
Coiynebacterium is commonly associated with the environment but may also be of human or
animal origin. The species of Acinetobacter, Xanthomonas, Hydrogenophaga, Flavobacterium,
and Pseudomonas and Gram negative non-fermenting bacteria are common in water or wet
environments. Aureobacterium is commonly found in soil and dairy products. Staphylococcus
and Micrococcus are naturally associated with human and/or animal skin. The genera
Enterobacter, Klebsiella, Hafnia, other bacteria from the family Enterobacteriaceae, and Gram
negative fermenting bacteria are frequently found in soil and/or water environments. Flavimonas
and Brochothrix are widely distributed in the environment. Microbacterium is found in dairy
products, sewage, and associated with insects. Gram positive bacteria are common in soil and
other environmental sources.
Fungi and environmental bacteria air samples and wipes exceeded the RPD limit of
20 percent. A duplicate sample taken at Ambient Air Station #2 found RPD values for fungi and
environmental bacteria of 62 and 27 percent, respectively. Both are in excess of the QAPjP limit
of 20 percent.
182
-------
Noise Exposure
Worker noise exposures were determined over the work shift through the use of
audiodosimeters and are presented hi Table 8-13. Workers monitored included the plastic sorter;
aluminum sorter, baler operator, tipping floor attendant, glass sorter, bobcat operator, and fork
lift operator. The average noise levels to which workers were exposed ranged from 87.0 to 98.6
dBA. Out of the 11 noise exposure samples, eight were above the PEL of 90 dBA. Personnel
experiencing noise levels above the PEL were the plastics, aluminum, and glass sorters, fork lift
operator, bobcat operator, and tipping floor attendant. The highest noise levels were found on
the sorting line, ranging from 93.5 to 98.6 dBA. The only operation showing levels below the
PEL was the baler operator; however, the levels on the baler operator were close to the PEL
ranging from 87.0 to 88.5 dBA. At noise levels above the PEL, workers are required by OSHA
to wear hearing protection. The majority of the workers in the facility were observed wearing
hearing protection.
Table 8-13
Orange County Audiodosimeter Results
Job Description
Fork Lift Operator
Bobcat Operator
Plastics Sorter
Aluminum Sorter
Baler Operator
Tipping Floor Attendant
Glass Sorter
Average Noise
Levels (dBA)
90.2
92.9
95.8-98.6
93.5-95.1
87.0-88.5
88.2-90.8
94.7
Instantaneous noise measurements collected within the facility are summarized in
Table 8-14. These noise levels ranged from 82 to 99 dBA. The main sources of noise inside the
facility was found on the sorting line and the tipping floor. Instantaneous noise levels on the
sorting line ranged from 85 to 99 DBA, with the highest levels found at the picking stations
located closest to the feed conveyor. Noise levels on the tipping floor ranged from 83 to 98 dBA,
with peaks as high as 101 dBA during dumping of material.
183
-------
Table 8-14
Orange County
Indoor Noise Measurement Results
Location
Sorting Lines
Tipping Floor
Lunch Room
Baler Area
Bobcat Operator
Fork Truck Operator
Instantaneous Noise
Levels (dBA)
85.0-99.0
83.0-101.0
43.0-53.0
82.0-89.0
86.0-94.0
84.0-91.0
Health and Safety Programs
The health and safety program evaluation was limited to information provided by site
personnel. The key findings from this evaluation include:
A Respiratory Protection Program has not been written for the facility. Disposable
dust masks are the only form of respiratory protection used at the facility. Dust
masks are-not required, but are given to workers to wear at their decision.
Workers have not been trained on the use of these respirators.
• A written Hazard Communication Program was not available at the facility. A list
of hazardous chemicals and MSDS were available. Documentation of training was
not available.
• No air contaminants were identified as requiring specific control programs.
• A comprehensive Hearing Conservation Program has not been implemented at the
facility, although employees have received training and audiometric tests.
Monitoring has not been conducted prior to this study. Hearing protectors have
not been evaluated and the OSHA noise standard was not posted at the facility.
• A Bloodborne Pathogen Program has been implemented. A worker had recently
received a needle stick and was given a hepatitis vaccine. The facility does have
a part-time nurse on-site. The facility has a biomedical incineration box which is
used to transport needles to a medical incinerator.
• Information on injury and illness rates was provided for 1990, 1991, 1992, and
1993. Those rates, provided by the facility, are summarized in Table 8-15, along
184
-------
with BLS estimates of occupational injury and illness incidence rates for 1991 for
Sanitary Services and Private Sector Industries.
Table 8-15
Injuries and Illnesses
1991, 1992 and 1993
1991
1991
1990
1991
1992
1993
All Industry
Sanitary Services
MRF
MRF
MRF
MRF
Recordable Cases
8.4
15.3
4.60
4.60
11.5
9.20
Lost Workday Cases
3.9
7.9
' '. 0
2.30
6.90
4.60
Lost Workdays
86.5
163.5
0
2.30
347
66.7
The facility provided specific information on the types of injuries or illnesses that have
occurred. Those injuries included:
1990: Elbow injury; leg laceration.
1991: Knee injury; finger laceration.
1992: Back injury; shoulder injury; hand-tendon injury; forearm-wrist injury; wrist
fracture.
f*
1993: Knee/back/neck injury from fall; neck pain; back pain; needle stick.
Ergonomics
Picking booth operations were videotaped during the on-site facility assessment. These
videotapes were reviewed to identify the general ergonomic conditions within this work area. For
the purpose of this assessment, the potential ergonomic risk factors identified can be defined as
workplace conditions or work practices which may contribute to, or result in worker discomfort,
fatigue or injury.
Two types of workstations were evaluated:
• Workstation 1. At this type of workstation, workers on both sides of conveyor
separated material and place recyclables into bins on either side of worker. The
185
-------
workstation height was non-adjustable, but appeared appropriate for workers
assigned to work in this area. Knee and foot clearance appeared adequate for
worker comfort. No excessive reaching or bending was observed in performing
the tasks. Bin placement allowed workers to sort without excessive twisting. One
worker was observed lifting trash container to shoulder height to empty onto
conveyor. The only ergonomic risk factor observed was the lifting of the plastic
trash container to shoulder level to empty onto conveyor.
Workstation 2. This workstation required workers on both sides of conveyor to
perform general sorting placing recyclables into bins on each side of the workers.
The workstation height was non-adjustable; no foot stools (platforms) were
observed in the area to accommodate shorter workers. The guard on the side of
the conveyor raised the workstation height two to three inches and may have
contributed to poor accommodation of shorter workers to this workstation height.
No excessive bending or reaching was observed in performing tasks in this area
nor excessive twisting or reaching to access the bins. The only potential
ergonomic risk factors appears to be associated with the fixed workstation
(conveyor) height and lack of accommodation for shorter workers.
186
-------
SECTION 9
CONCLUSIONS
9.1 Economic, Energy and Environmental Issues
The MRFs considered in this evaluation employed manual and mechanical techniques to
recover materials from both commingled and source separated wastes. A field survey was
conducted at each of the MRFs to establish the economic, energy, and environmental issues
associated with MRF operation^ The field survey arid subsequent analyses established the
following: ' '
• Economic Implications. The costs and revenues associated with material handling
varied widely and were dependent on a number of variables, including collection
practices (commingled or source separated materials), facility design (degree of
* mechanical and manual sorting), market availability (long-term vs. short-term
markets), and contractual arrangements (full-service vs. operating contractor). Based
on the four waste management entities for which costs and revenues were analyzed,
the following conclusions could be drawn:
• Material recovery facilities result in a net cost for waste management entities.
• For the four participating entities that provided sufficient data, the ratio of
MRF costs to IMSWM costs ranged from less than 3% to almost 50%.
• The ratio of MRF costs to IMSWM costs has some correlation with (but is not
directly dependent on) the quantity of MSW and recyclables handled within the
system.
• There do not appear to be any accounting standards for allocating costs and
revenues associated with MRFs. There did not seem to be consistency in the
way that overhead costs were allocated to the MRF by each study participant.'
• There appears to be some correlation between the size of the service area and
the ratio of MRF costs to IMSWM costs; larger service areas incur a greater
percentage of costs for MRF operations. This appears to be related to
increased recyclable collection costs associated with the larger service areas.
It should be noted that the ratio of reported MRF costs to IMSWM costs for these
entities may have been based on varying methods of allocating costs and revenues
within each entity, and the ratios of MRF to IMSWM costs could be impacted by
differences in environmental laws between the states in which they operate.
187
-------
• Energy Consumption. Generally, the participating MRFs do not consume a
significant amount of electrical power or fossil fuels, especially when compared with
other components of the IMSWM system. The fuel usage associated with the
collection of recyclables and transport of materials to market, however, dominates the
overall energy consumption of MRF operations. Whether collecting commingled or
source separated recyclables, fuel usage ranges from 0.8 to over 4.0 MMBtu per ton
of recyclables compared with an average of 0.34 MMBtu per ton of MSW.
Depending on the quantities of MSW and recyclables handled, the fuel required for
material recovery may have a significant impact on the overall energy consumption
of the respective IMSWM systems.
* Environmental Regulations. The state environmental agencies having jurisdiction
over the participating MRFs impose design standards and permitting requirements on
the various components of the respective IMSWM systems. Typically, MRFs are
subject to less stringent design and operational standards than other system
components, especially waste-to-energy facilities governed by both state and, most
recently, federal regulations. The state permitting requirements are also usually less
stringent as state agencies are encouraging the development of MRFs. Indeed, most
state agencies have promulgated regulations mandating that recycling be incorporated
into the solid waste management plans for the respective IMSWM systems.
Considering the costs and revenues associated with material recovery, the MRFs all
provided a net cost to the respective IMSWM systems - the magnitude dependent on the quantity
of MSW and recyclables handled within the system. Similarly, the energy consumption per ton
of waste handled was typically an order of magnitude higher for recyclables compared with MSW,
with MSW and recyclables collection dominating total energy consumption. Regardless of the
economic or energy penalties associated with MRFs, most states mandate material recycling as
part of the overall solid waste management plan for the responsible jurisdictions.
9.2 Public Health and the Environment
The environmental testing conducted at the MRFs considered ambient concentrations of
TSP, PM10, CO, VOC, lead, and mercury vapor. Wastewater quality and community noise
levels were also addressed during the field testing. The environmental evaluation demonstrated
the following:
• TSP, PMlOandT^ad. Generally, TSP, PM10, and lead concentrations were below
the applicable State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
downwind concentrations of these pollutants were similar or slightly higher than the
upwind concentrations, except where samplers appeared to be unduly influenced by
fugitive dust generated by vehicular traffic or processing equipment. No significant
changes were observed in upwind and downwind lead concentrations.
188
-------
• CO and Mercury Vapor. Carbon monoxide concentrations were well below the
applicable NAAQS, as well as the PEL. Mercury vapor concentrations were also well
below the applicable PEL. In most instances, the CO and mercury readings were
below the detection limits of the monitoring instruments.
• VOCs. Volatile organic compound concentrations were several orders of magnitude
below applicable state guidelines. No significant changes were observed in upwind
and downwind VOC concentrations.
• Wastewater. The wastewater metal concentrations were below the regulatory limits
established under RCRA. Because no process wastewater was discharged to
municipal sewer systems at any of the MRFs, no permit limits have been established
for the other parameters.
• Community Noise. The community noise levels measured at the property boundaries
were below applicable Federal or state criteria. The major noise sources included
vehicular traffic and exterior processing equipment.
Based on the results of the environmental evaluation, MRFs do not pose a significant threat to
public health or the environment. Nuisance conditions, such as fugitive dust and excessive noise,
can be readily mitigated through maintenance of roadways, and enclosure of noise-generating
equipment. ,
9.3 Occupational Health and Safety ;
The occupational health and safety testing conducted at the MRFs addressed worker
exposure to total dust, respirable dust, crystalline silica, metals, CO, mercury vapor, PCBs,
pesticides, bacteria, fungi, and occupational noise. Physical safety hazards and ergonomic
stressors were also evaluated during the field test program. The occupational health and safety
evaluation demonstrated the following:
. Dust. Silica and Metals. Generally, total dust, respirable dust, and silica
concentrations were at least one order of magnitude below the applicable PELs.
Metal concentrations were several orders of magnitude below the applicable PEL and,
in most instances, below the detection limit of the test method.
• CO and Mercury Vapor. Indoor CO and mercury vapor concentrations were well
below the applicable PELs. In most instances, the readings were below the detection
limits of the monitoring instruments.
• PCBs and Pesticides. Indoor PCB and pesticide concentrations, for the most part,
were below the detection limit of the test method.
189
-------
• Bacteria and Fungi. Airborne and surface samples of bacteria and fungi were
relatively consistent from one location to another inside a facility. Airborne bacteria
and fungi concentrations measured inside the MRFs were roughly one order of
magnitude higher than the levels found outside the facility. While a wide variety of
pathogenic and nonpathogenic organisms were identified, no highly virulent pathogens
were found in any of the airborne or surface samples.
• Noise Exposure. Noise levels throughout the MRFs often exceeded the PEL and
OSHA Action Level. The main noise sources included truck unloading activities,
trommels, glass crusher, can flattener, and other equipment operations.
• Physical Safety Hazards. Compliance with worker health and safety programs
required by OSHA varied considerably among MRFs. Where they have been
implemented these programs address energy control, hazard communication,
respiratory protection, hearing conservation, and bloodborne pathogens.
• Ergonomic Stressors. The most common ergonomic risk factors at the MRFs are
improper workstation designs that fail to accommodate workers and that causes
repetitive or awkward motions.
Based on the test results, workers do not appear to be exposed to unusual health or safety hazards
provided the appropriate worker protection programs are developed and implemented. Because
of rapidly developing knowledge and awareness of airborne microbiology and ergonomics, these
two areas may warrant additional evaluation to ensure the adequacy of protection programs.
190
'U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: J995-650-006/22082
-------
-------
-------
-------
m
o
o
CO
CTI
01
CD 9.
5= fiL
oi1
"• CO
-05'
8
O 33 Z m C
g 8 Si E-
~ CD O -i' CD
3 CD 3 O o.
Z3 -3 03 3 -
£O O i^- ^ CO
O cn 55. S ciT
O
S
O3 o
•ij§ =
to ~ >
CO
CD
I
-ss-5 si
ȣ8 fl
R8s
_33
3- m
>f £
Q) -j
al
------- |