Laserfiche WebLink
Recycling Pilot Program Summary <br />Table 6 <br />Comparison of Projected Pounds Per HH Per Year <br />Average Pounds <br />Collected Per Estimated <br />Collection Event Pounds Per <br />During Pilot' HH Per Year <br />Mon. SS 28.16 732.16 <br />Mon. - SS Contrast 34.39 894.14 <br />Tues -Weekly 14.40 748.80 <br />Wed. - Addt'I Etluc 25.30 657.80 <br />Thurs, -Larger Bins 26.87 698.62 <br />Fri. -Control 26.86 698.36 <br />~ Net non-targeted materials <br />As reflected above, weekly collection resulted in annual quantities collected that are <br />comparable to the single-stream pilot route. <br />Processing Residuals <br />The previous section addressed contamination with non-targeted materials by residents <br />at the curb. Once recovered materials were collected, they were taken to Waste <br />Management's MRF in Minneapolis for processing during the pilot project.. <br />Actual data from the processing of the collected materials was not provided to the City <br />as part of the pilot study. However, the Project Team reviewed literature regarding <br />processing residuals. In addition, Waste Management provided the results of an <br />internal study of materials processing at the Minneapolis MRF in 2003 of single- <br />stream collected materials. Based on this literature review, key items regarding <br />processing residuals and other contamination issues included the following: <br />Waste Management Study <br />The study was performed for materials collected only from selected single-stream <br />routes in the Twin Cities area (normally this MRF processes material from non- <br />single-stream sources as well). The Waste Management study reported that <br />5.95% of total inputs became residuals. These materials included both <br />contamination by residents at the curb (non-targeted materials) and residuals from <br />facility operations (processing residuals, such as dirt and very small pieces of <br />material). <br />The Project Team notes that the Waste Management study considered both the <br />2% of total products as color-sorted glass and 11 % of total products as color- <br />mixed, broken glass. Both forms of glass were defined as a recycled product. <br />Were the 11 % of color-mixed, broken glass not considered to be a marketed, <br />recycled commodity, the residual rate would be nearly 17% for this facility <br />(5.95% from other reported residuals plus the 11 % from color-mixed broken <br />glass). <br />si6os DRAFT 15 <br />