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 9 <br /> <br />Recommendations for Additional Study <br /> <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 but not <br />yet adequately addressed: <br /> <br />1. Processing residuals from dual stream systems - The WMIRAA test at their <br />Minneapolis MRF reported only on results from their single stream systems. No <br />comparable data has yet been made available on dual stream systems. The <br />metropolitan area counties and State of Minnesota could consider the need for a set <br />of independent, parallel tests resulting in statistically reliable data that compares <br />single stream processing residuals to dual stream processing residuals. <br /> <br />2. Review of contracting provisions and implementation practices - This memo <br />summarized recycling contract language used by the City of Shoreview in 2001. <br />Follow-up interviews with the City staff and their contractor, WM/RAA, is needed <br />to determine how the provisions were actually implemented, the effectiveness of <br />these provisions, and recommendations for future contract language. Also, a <br />survey of other metro area communities may reveal additional examples of other <br />cities establishing "processing residuals maximums" in their recycling contracts. <br />Finally, this research activity could help with the efforts to standardize definitions <br />and monitoring procedures. <br /> <br />3. Review of MRF operator procedures to minimize processing residuals - This <br />analysis has only touched the surface of a much deeper set of operator policies and <br />practices to minimize processing residuals and maximize clean, marketable <br />recyclable products. A direct survey of MRF operators, both public and private, <br />could help further itemize these policies and operations. The end result of this <br />additional research could be to establish generic industry "best practices" <br />recommendations. <br /> <br />4. Review of current end-use applications for mixed-color, broken glass - There <br />are many MRFs sending a variety of materials to landfills. Some of these <br />materials are defined as "waste for disposal" and some are defined as "aggregate <br />substitutes for alternative daily landfill cover". There is a need to survey such <br />current policies and practices by county, state, and private companies. This <br />relatively simple research activity would help greatly to establish the current <br />"baseline" for discussion about the effectiveness of the current systems in <br />minimizing MRF process residuals. <br /> <br />01-00253-10101-01011070001 I 13500 P:\13500 Ramsey Co. 2003\RTA\Roscville\FA\DraftResiduatsMemo042805.doc <br /> <br />DRAFT <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.