My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005-07-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
200x
>
2005
>
2005-07-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2010 3:57:34 PM
Creation date
9/8/2006 9:57:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
7/26/2005
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
190
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />April 28, 2005 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />. Attachment C - Excerpts from the City of Shoreview Recycling Contract: <br />Processing Residuals Requirements <br /> <br />Background <br /> <br />Many communities are considering changing their recycling programs to single stream <br />systems. The City of Roseville conducted a pilot collection study in 2004 to test the <br />residents' response to a variety of collection design changes, including two pilot routes testing <br />single stream recycling. One of the key components in quantif'ying the overall impacts of <br />collection design choices is the need to estimate the change in "processing residuals from the <br />MRF" as one indicator of environmental impacts. <br /> <br />Changing a collection design impacts many system variables: <br /> <br />. Overall participation may increase or decrease due to increased convenience (e.g., <br />less sorting, wheeled carts); <br /> <br />. Individual household recovery rates may increase (more recyclable materials set out <br />and less trash) affecting the relative composition of the recycling stream; <br /> <br />. More "non-targeted materials" may be set out by residents for recycling; <br /> <br />. The collection crews may not inspect the recycling bins at truck-side for non- <br />targeted materials (if lidded carts are loaded with semi-automatic or automatic lifting <br />devices on board the curbside recycling vehicles); <br /> <br />. Once delivered to a MRF, the relative percent and absolute tons of "processing <br />residuals" output for disposal may increase; <br /> <br />. Once sorted and processed at the MRF, the individual recyclable commodities (e.g., <br />bales of newspaper, aluminum cans, etc.) may have more or less "contaminants" <br />depending on MRF design, management and operations; and/or <br /> <br />. There may be more or less glass breakage throughout the collection and processing <br />stages such that the relative output of color-sorted glass vs. color-mixed, broken <br />glass changes. <br /> <br />Beyond "processing residuals", other potential environmental and health impacts of collection <br />system changes include: <br /> <br />. Overall or "net" recovery of recyclable material (i.e., more or less tons actually <br />recycled); <br /> <br />. Efficiency of collections (e.g., change in curbside truck payloads, routing, etc.); <br /> <br />. Worker health and safety (e.g., manual vs. automatic lifting; centralized processing <br />requiring manual sorting, etc.); and <br /> <br />. Composition of recyclables, commodities products, and processing residuals. <br /> <br />01-00253-10101-01011070001 I 13500 P:\13500 Ramsey Co. 2003\RTA\Roseville\FA\DraftResidualsMemo042805.doc <br /> <br />DRAFT <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.