Laserfiche WebLink
Analysis of Processing Residuals <br />Dermition of `Recycling" Markets vs. Waste "Disposal' - In lieu of more clear <br />policy direction, each city should establish its own policy for defining end uses that <br />shall be considered `recycling" vs. "disposal'. <br />As the industry moves to more commingled collection systems (e.g., source separated <br />to dual- stream; dual- stream to single- stream), more color- mixed, broken glass will be <br />produced from the MRFs. Some parties advocate for only higher -value end use <br />applications (e.g., glass bottles) to be defined as recycling. Others, including <br />integrated waste management companies, will advocate for lower -value end use <br />applications (e.g., aggregate for road base, alternative daily landfill cover, etc.) to be <br />defined as recycling and not as disposal. This policy definition is critical to evaluating <br />the effectiveness of commingled collection systems. <br />One potential policy position is that color- mixed, broken glass that is further processed <br />(e.g., screened) so that it can be used as an aggregate supplement (e.g., meets <br />MN /DOT class 7 aggregate specifications as road base) and therefore can be <br />considered a legitimate commercial commodity could be considered a `recyclable ". <br />Mixed broken glass that is not further processed and does not meet minimum <br />specifications for use as an aggregate supplement (e.g., is significantly contaminated <br />with non -glass debris), could be considered a "residual disposed" and therefore a <br />"waste" and not a recyclable commodity. Exceptions to this determination could be <br />requested by the MRF operator if suitable documentation is provided that <br />demonstrates the color- mixed, broken glass is clean enough to be considered a <br />commercial commodity with equal or better value compared to the virgin or other <br />traditional materials used as aggregate for alternative daily cover. <br />Calculating Net Recycling Rates - There is a continuing need among the recycling <br />industry to provide clear, standardized methods to define and calculate net recycling. <br />Two components of the system should be treated independently: collection, and then <br />processing. Collection effectiveness should measure the performance of the residents <br />in complying with public education messages and the collection crews (if truck -side <br />rejecting of non - targeted materials is employed). The "non- targeted materials rate" (in <br />percent as collected and loaded on the truck) should define the effectiveness of <br />collection. <br />The "processing residuals rate" (in percent of total inbound material) should define the <br />effectiveness of the MRF in processing the materials. While related, if both rates are <br />measured and reported independently, there can be more objective analysis and <br />management controls implemented to improve quality. <br />Recommendations for Additional Study <br />This analysis was necessarily limited in scope. The following recommendations for <br />additional study are derived from the many research questions raised by this analysis <br />but not yet adequately addressed: <br />1. Processing residuals from dual - stream systems - The WM test at their <br />Minneapolis MRF reported only on results from their single- stream <br />systems. No comparable data has yet been made available on dual- stream <br />B1605 A-7 <br />