Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.F.2. Dick's Sanitation Proposal for One Sort Recycling CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Dick's Sanitation Proposal for One Sort Recycling DATE: June 5, 2012 Comment: Introduction: The Council is asked to consider a proposal from Dick's Sanitation Inc., for a one sort recycling option for its Shakopee residents. If approved, it would involve require a negotiation of an extension of the current Dick's contract. Background: Dick's Sanitation has been the City's designated garbage and recycling hauler since 2001, which was the last time competitive quotes were taken. A five year contract extension was negotiated for renewal in 2006. In 2010, the Council extended the existing contract for an additional three years, in exchange for a reduction in garbage and recycling pick up rates. The existing contract runs through May 31, 2014. Dick's has approached the City with a proposal to change the method in which recycling materials are collected. In this, they propose to convert to a "single sort" system, wherein all recycling would be placed by the customer into a wheeled container, which would be nearly identical in design to the garbage containers currently used. The single sort system is becoming more widespread, and is seen favorably by many customers in that it eliminates the need to separate recyclables, and to bundle cardboard and newspapers. It also offers the advantage of eliminating the debris caused by wind- blown materials, in that the recyclables are kept in a covered container. However, more of the recycled materials may become contaminated in the single sort system, and therefore must be incinerated or landfilled at a higher disposal cost, and cost to the environment. However, Dick's does indicate that the overall participation in recycling is greater in a single sort system, thus offsetting some of the loss of the contaminated materials. In most cases, the single sort system actually increases the amount of recyclables diverted from the waste stream. It should be noted that recycling does impact the cost of providing garbage services; the economy has a major impact on the market for recyclables. When the economy was strong, Dick's reported that they would often sell Shakopee recyclables at $30 per ton. The City received a portion of that amount back, which went towards off - setting the cost there were times when Dick's had to actually pay to have recyclable materials taken. However, regardless of the recyclable materials market, it usually still makes economic sense to recycle —the cost of incineration is usually more expensive per ton. As shown in the attached letter from Dick's Sanitation representative David Domack, Dick's proposes to go to a single sort system, but indicates that it would be an investment of $1.4 million for the new carts. To do this it proposes to extend the existing contract by 5 years from the current May 31 2014 expiration date. Analysis: It is apparent that the industry is moving towards a single sort system, and the option is very popular with customers. Therefore, it would be widely seen as a service improvement to go with this sort of system. However, part of the increase in efficiency is that instead of recycling be picked up weekly as it is now, it would be done every other week. That change does affect the City as well, in the positive terms of there being less wear and tear on the streets, but customers will have to pay more attention to scheduling —if they miss their recycling day, they will have a month's worth the next time that recycling is collected. Related to this, the City Council has also had previous discussion about the need to be assured that the best possible rates are being extended to Shakopee customers covered under the City's organized collection contract. At the end of the current contract, it will have been fifteen years since competitive quotes were last taken. Staff sees Dick's Sanitation as being responsive to needs and customer service, but there may be an alternative provider who could do as well or better. The City does get frequent calls from other providers who inquire as to when the current contract expires. If the Council chooses to accept the single sort proposal now and thus extend the current contract, it should direct Dick's to come back with a more concrete disposal, including providing staff with what the rates would be for the five year extension of time. On the other hand, if the Council wishes to seek bids for a new contract after the current one expires, sufficient time will need to be provided to put together contract specifications, allow for a solicitation of a Request For Proposals, and award the contract in time so that any newly - designated hauler may order the garbage and recycling carts in sufficient quantities to service 11,000 accounts. The lead time for that is months; it would mean that RFP's should be sent out early in 2013. Whenever garbage services are discussed, it could also be expected that a discussion of the philosophies of "organized" versus "open" systems might be heard. Shakopee has had the organized system for as long as anyone can remember, and seems to have served the City well -there is less wear and tear on streets, and overall rates seem to be lower than in neighboring cities with comparable services, due to the greater efficiencies provided by the organized system. Organized collection makes it much easier for the City to comply with State law which mandates curbside recycling for all its customers. Finally, organized collection discourages illegal dumping of waste by residents and businesses, as customers are paying for the service anyway. Alternatively, the open system is popular with people who prefer to hire their own haulers. David Domack of Dick's Sanitation will be present at the June 5 meeting to more fully discuss the single sort proposal. See the attached letter. Alternatives: 1. The Council accepts the Dick's Sanitation proposal, and directs the staff to negotiate rates for a five year extension. 2. Reject the proposal, and direct that staff prepare to issue a Request for Proposals for garbage and recycling services for the five year period to commence June 1, 2014. Note that by rejecting the single sort proposal, it would mean that Shakopee will need to continue with the current two sort "bin" recycling system for the remainder of the current contract. 3. Table for further information. Recommendation: I recommend item 2 above, which directs staff to prepare an RFP for a provision of garbage and recycling services for a five year contract to commence June 1, 2014. This RFP would come back to Council for further direction before it would be issued. Relationship to Visioning: This supports Goal A — "Keep Shakopee a safe and healthy community where residents can pursue active and quality lifestyles." Action Required: Council should hear the proposal, discuss and provide direction as to the prevision of recycling, and garbage, services in Shakopee. lyt Mark McNeill MM:cn City Administrator rDSI) Sanitation Inc. May 21, 2012 Mark McNeill City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mark McNeill, Mayor and Members of Council, Dick's Sanitation, Inc. appreciates serving your community with quality trash and recycling services over the past twelve years. Over this period of time, our industry has seen advances in new technology. One of the biggest advancements has been in the way that we can accept, collect and deliver recycling materials to markets — which is better know as "one- sort" recycling. One -sort recycling allows us to collect your recycling materials all mixed together in a residential cart. The one -sort program provides convenience, less traffic on the streets (due to the every other week collection) and people recycle more. Due to the financial commitment associated with converting to one -sort recycling of an estimated $1.7 million dollars. Dick's Sanitation, Inc. is requesting the opportunity to enter into renegotiations with the City of Shakopee for a five year extension of our existing agreement. The extension would allow us to absorb the additional equipment costs incurred to implement one -sort recycling without increasing our rates to the residents of Shakopee. Dick's Sanitation, Inc. has developed a full - service program to satisfy all of your community's needs. We are confident that this one -sort recycling program will enhance the quality and value your residents have enjoyed over the past several years. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, anid smack David Domack V.P. Sales & Marketing Dick's /Lakeville Sanitation, Inc. david@).dickssanitation.com 952- 469 -9870 Dick's Sanitation Inc. 8984 215th Street West Lakeville, MN 55044 Phone: 952 - 469 -2239 Fax: 952 - 469 -1146 WWW.dickssanitation.com Cit of Minnea•olis Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection St.. ..t -'May 10, 2012 416 Longshore Dr. 1 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 I 734.996.1361 p 1 734.996.5595 f 1 www.recycle.com Report Minneapolis SEH City of Lakes Resource Recycling Systems -, ,.,44111r Sustainable Systems for a Waste -Free Future Table of Contents Executive Summary and Key Points 1 Introduction & Background 3 Solid Waste and Recycling Programs and Policies 4 Minnesota Solid Waste Management Tax 5 Waste and Recycling Infrastructure 6 Disposal Cost Summary 7 Comparative City Information 8 Changes in Collection Systems 10 Recycling Collection Options 10 Current Multi -Sort Collection Program 11 Dual -Sort Collection Program 12 Single -Sort Collection Program 12 Curb Container Set Out Options 12 Collection Assessment 15 Location: Alley vs. Curbside 15 Width and turning radius 15 Height Restrictions 15 Options 15 Pilot Collection Program 16 Focus Group Meetings 17 MEETING PARTICIPANTS 18 ATTITUDES TOWARDS PROGRAMS AND COMPARABLE EXPERIENCES 18 RECYCLING Carts and Bins 19 =,=a I RECYCLING AWARENESS AND EDUCATION 19 SPECIAL PROGRAMS and ADDITIONAL SERVICES 20 COMMENTS 20 Collection Options Analysis and Costs 21 Recycling Incentive Programs 23 Incentive System Pros and Cons 25 Pros 25 Cons 25 pad Processing Options 25 Secondary Markets 27 Markets and Revenue for Materials 27 General Discussion of Dual -Sort Recycling 29 Background on Dual -Sort 29 Dual -Sort Scale of Operations 30 Dual -Sort Sequence of Operation 30 General Discussion of Single -Sort Recycling 31 Background on Single -Sort 31 Early Single Sort Problems 32 Challenges 32 Improved Technologies 33 Single -Sort Scale of Operation 34 Sequence of Operation 34 uk -44r Adding Materials to the Recycling Sort 36 Metals 36 Poly- Coated Fiber 36 Plastic Film 36 Large Rigid Plastics 37 Opimizing Sorting Choices 38 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 39 Appendices Appendix I: Hennepin County Resolution 42 Appendix II: Revenue Projections 45 Appendix III: Dual Sort Process Flow Diagram 46 Appendix IV: Single Sort Process Flow Diagram 47 " Resource Recycling Systems `. Sustainable Systems for a Waste -Free Future S E H Minneapolis cry of Lakes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY POINTS The State of Minnesota has established new recovery goals for Hennepin County, which includes 45% recycling rate by 2015 and 47% by 2020. Hennepin County has established a recycling goal of 35% for the City of Minneapolis. The City of Minneapolis contracted a study and assessment of collection options and the impact on the value of the marketable materials, to assist in determining its next steps. The City operates a bi- weekly at- the -curb, multi -sort collection system, which requires residents to place all items in separate paper bags in their recycling bin. Although the community accepts and supports recycling, for more than 10 years the city has seen a stagnant recycling rate, and in some years, the rate has declined. The City has a fairly good participation rate for the recycling program, yet compared to other cities in the region and the nation; the amount of material recycled by residents is far below the regional and national average. Minneapolis conducted two pilot programs, testing the effectiveness of dual -sort and single -sort collection. Both pilot programs incorporated recycling carts and collecting on the bi- weekly schedule. The results from these pilot programs show a significant increase in number of stops that can be served by a single route and the quantity of recyclables collected per household. Key Points from Recycling Program Study The study findings, summarized below, are based on information collected from the city's pilot programs and from the experiences of other cities, and from focus group meetings held with current Solid Waste and Recycling customers. The project evaluated single -sort and dual -sort collection for both weekly and biweekly collection. Recovery 1. A single -sort system is projected to increase materials quantity recovered by 60% and the Minneapolis recycling rate increases from 18.1% to 32% (based on case studies such as Ann Arbor and Portland). 2. A dual -sort system is projected to increase materials quantity recovered by 36% and the Minneapolis recycling rate increases from 18.1% to 25% (based on case studies such as Ann Arbor and Portland). Processing ESa K 4s� y s 1. The majority of local recycling centers - Material Recovery Facilities (MRF's) - are well equipped to handle single sort collection. 2. Preliminary research indicates no difference in market revenues — single vs. dual in local MRF's. Operations and Operational Costs 1. Collection time for single -sort is less than dual -sort and there is no need to come off route when one compartment fills before the other. 2. A single -sort recycling system preserves space for a possible third cart for comingled yard waste and organics. 3. A semi - automated rear load truck (such as currently used for garbage collection), with 2 staff per truck, best serves alley -based collections. This is the same system that is currently used for garbage collection. 4. Single -sort collection allows for utilization of a similar truck fleet to current rear load packers, resulting in a more cost - effective fleet than adding a completely new type of vehicle for recycling collection. City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 1 Resource Recycling Systems NAV Sustainable Systems for a Waste Free Future 5 E H Minneapolis Cory of Lakes Capital Costs 1. Dual -sort collection requires an additional truck cost of $28,000 more than single sort truck due to split body packers. 2. Cart cost for single sort (1 per unit @$65) is estimated at $6,800,000. Truck Cost (8 trucks) for a bi- weekly single sort collection program is $1,976,000. 3. Cart cost for dual sort (2 per unit @$50) is estimated at $10,500,000. Truck Cost (9 trucks) for a bi- weekly, dual sort collection program is $2,475,000. Overall Program Costs The Net Recycling Costs are the lowest for the Single Sort Semi Automated Bi- weekly collection program by approximately 20% below current net cost while achieving a 32% recycling rate. The Dual Sort Bi- weekly program has a net cost of approximately 65% higher then the current multi -sort program and achieves a 25% recovery rate. A ten percent increase in the quantity of material collected in the single sort program achieves a 35% recycling rate with a net cost that is 40% lower then the current program. A ten percent increase in the quantity of material collected in the dual sort program achieves a 28.5% recycling rate with a net cost that is 40% higher then the current program. J Single -sort collection and processing also allow consideration of transferring recyclables from milt - family [ locations should Minneapolis be interested in offering recycling services in currently under - served areas. Single sort collection programs are more compatible with the development of a yard waste and organics collection program that would require another cart. Although dual -sort recycling remains technically viable, when you consider that the market trend is toward single -sort processing and that placing recyclables all in one container, which is the most convenient to most residents, it is clear that Minneapolis should consider switching to single -sort collection. It is further recommended that the City conduct a more detailed evaluation of the program and investment requirements associated with such a conversion to single sort collection and processing by issuing a Request for $' Proposal (RFP) to determine the actual collection and processing costs. This evaluation would include equipment options and costs, processing and marketing arrangements, route requirements, and program investments and savings. A Ci ty of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 2 " Resource Recycling I Systems A C . Sustainable Systems for a Waste -Free Future 5 E H Minneapolis Crry of Lakes INT & BKGROUND Many cities and solid waste districts throughout the nation are setting new, ambitious goals for higher recycling, waste recovery rates and even targeting zero waste as an attainable goal. The State of Minnesota has established new recovery goals for Hennepin County, which includes 45% recycling rate by 2015 and 47% by 2020. Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services approved a Resolution to establish recycling goals and revise the Funding Policy for recycling grants efforts, establishing a recycling goal of 35 %. The goals stated in the Hennepin County Resolution are to increase recycling participation, increase the amount of material recycled and reduce the cost of services. To meet those goals, Hennepin County is ' considering establishing what materials should be included in recycling programs and requiring implementation of either dual -sort or single —sort collection. A copy of the Resolution is included as Appendix #1. Minneapolis' curbside recycling program began as a pilot, monthly collection in 1982. Over the years, the i number of items collected was increased in the program and the frequency of collection was shifted to bi- weekly service. The collection method has remained as an at- the -curb, multi -sort system, which requires residents to place all items in separate paper bags in their recycling bin. Although the community accepts and supports recycling, for more than 10 years the city has seen a stagnant recycling rate, and in some years, the rate has declined. WI FIGURE 1: MINNEAPOLIS RECYCLING RATE AND HENNEPIN COUNTY RECYCLING GOAL* — -Hennepin County Goal (Grant Requirement) fMLPS Recycling Data 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% • • • • ■ 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 1 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 *2011 Recycling Rate = 18.1% The challenge facing the City is how to increase the current recycling rate to meet the goals set by the State of Minnesota and supported by Hennepin County, while providing a cost - effective program that can be embraced by its residents and businesses. �, City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 `1W Page 3 Resource Recycling Systems NOV Sustainable Systems fora Waste -Free Future 5 E H Minneapolis City of Lakes SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS AND POLICIES Both state and local government policies play a strong role in shaping recovery in the TCMA. At the state level, Minnesota's Waste Management Act (WMA) (Minn. Stat. §115A), enacted in 1980, establishes the following program goals. An official hierarchy of waste management methods: (1) Waste reduction and reuse; (2) Waste recycling; (3) Composting of yard waste and food waste; (4) Resource recovery through mixed municipal solid waste composting or incineration; (5) Land disposal which produces no measurable methane gas or which involves the retrieval of methane gas as a fuel for the production of energy to be used on -site or for sale; and (6) Land disposal that produces measurable methane and which does not involve the retrieval of methane gas as a fuel for the production of energy to be used on -site or for sale. • A statewide source reduction goal to be achieved by December 31, 2000, of a minimum ten percent per capita reduction from the 1993 MSW generation (Minn. Stat. § 115A.55). A 50 percent recycling p y g goal for the metropolitan counties, including credits for yard waste and source reduction, which can add up to 8 percent to the base recycling rate (Minn. Stat. 5 115A.551). In addition, Minn. Stat. 5473.149 establishes requirements for comprehensive solid waste planning, including • setting quantifiable objectives for reducing land disposal in the TCMA region. At the local level, the metropolitan counties have the primary responsibility for creating this plan and managing the integrated solid waste system. The 2008 Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group (MCCAG)'s recommendations, which are not statutory requirements, also guided the TCMA's solid waste planning process. These include statewide goals of 60 percent recycling and 15 percent organics recycling by 2025 to help reach greenhouse gas reduction goals set by the legislature. The goals established for the metro area are shown in Table 1 below. Hennepin County adopted the goals established by the MPCA in its Policy Plan adopted April 10, 2012 with the exception that the county • has an organics recovery goal of 6 percent by 2015 and by 2020. Table 1: Solid Waste Management Goals • Source Reduction and Reuse (minimum) 1 -2% ° Recycling (minimum) 41% 45 -48% 47 -51% 48 -54% 53 -60% Organics Recovery (minimum) 2% 3 -6% 4 -7% 5 -9% 7 -9% Resource Recovery (expected) 29% ° y ( p ) 32 -34/0 34 -35/0 32 -33/0 29 -30% Landfill (maximum) 28% 20% 15% 15% 11% Residential recycling programs consist of curbside collection and drop -off sites, and include recycling services for both single - family and multifamily housing. Curbside recycling programs in the TCMA are provided by haulers through a contract with a municipality or are provided through subscription service. Most counties provide k :! some funding for municipal programs. The private sector, municipalities, and two counties provide numerous public drop -off locations for one or more types of recyclables. `- City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 app 3I' Page 4 l Resource Recycling Systems —_ . ..` r sustainable Systems for a Waste -Free Future SEH ■ Minneapolis Or) of takes MINNESOTA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TAX The State of Minnesota also promotes recycling of waste via a Solid Waste Management Tax levied on all mixed municipal solid waste management services. Services for recycling, yard trimmings and other materials separated from the waste sort are exempt from the tax. This has a net effect of increasing costs of disposal and decreasing the relative costs to recycle, thereby encouraging businesses and communities to recycle more. The current Solid Waste Management Tax rates are: • 9.75% for residential generators • 17% for commercial generators and self - haulers The City of Minneapolis tax is calculated and the tax incentive for recycling is shown in Table 2. Table 2: Solid Waste Management Tax Example Sample Tax: One residential dwelling unit with a single large garbage cart per Calculation Non - Recycler Recycler Base Fee $24.00 x 9.75 % = $2.34 $2.34 Recycling Credit $7.00 x 9.75% = ($0.68) Cart Disposal Fee $5.00 x 9.75% = $0.49 $0.49 A Total Tax $2.83 $2.15 ¢ 4 r : t t. City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 5 A ribt. Resource Recycling Systems Sustainable Systems for a Waste -Free Future 5 E H Minneapolis Cory of Lakes WASTE AND RECYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE ji Several large incinerators, landfills, and material recovery facilities, as well as numerous transfer stations serve the TCMA. These are shown are listed in Table 3. Table 3: Disposal Infrastructure Landfills: Primary recipient of Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill Inver Grove Heights, MN C &D, MSW 792 $70.00* TCMA landfilled waste SKB Rich Valley Demolition Landfill & TS South Saint Paul, MN C &D, MSW 5 N/A Secondary recipient Elk River Sanitary Landfill, Inc. Elk River, MN C &D, MSW 1503 $78.80* of TCMA landfilled waste Primary recipient of Burnsville- Kraemer Sanitary Landfill Burnsville, MN C &D, MSW 1074 $69.78* TCMA landfilled waste Dawnway Demolition Landfill South Saint Paul, MN C &D, MSW 63 N/A Lake Elmo- Washington County Landfill Lake Elmo, MN MSW NA N/A Ruby Landfill Township Maiden Rock, WI MSW N/A N/A Incinerators: Elk River RDF Processing Facility Elk River, MN MSW 1664 $69.00 Refuse - derived fuel processing Converts MSW into refuse - derived fuel, NRG- Ramsey /Washington RDF Newport, MN MSW, Tires, Wood 1192 $50.00 ferrous and non- ferrous metal recovery Mass -burn Hennepin Energy Resource Company technology with (HERC) Minneapolis, MN MSW 740 $47.00 ferrous metal recovery Transfer Stations: C &D, MSW, Yard Waste Management Transfer Station Saint Paul, MN Waste 324 $60.00 C &D, MSW, Yard Twin Cities Recyco Transfer Station Blaine, MN Waste 312 $85.00 Richard's Transfer Station Savage, MN C &D, MSW 255 $43.00 C &D, MSW, Yard Bellaire Resource Recovery System TS Stillwater, MN Waste 134 $50.00 WMI / Northern Wisconsin TS River Falls, MN C &D, MSW 100 $55.00 Dakota Resource Recovery, Inc. TS / Inver Grove Heights, MN C &D, MSW 63 $50.00 United Waste Knutsen Services Inc. TS Rosemount, MN MSW 63 N/A Freeway Transfer Station Burnsville, MN MSW, Tires (Auto) 819 $45.00 C &D, MSW, Yard Hennepin County Recycling Center Brooklyn Park, MN Waste 595 $45.00 Cambridge SW Transfer Station Cambridge, MN C &D, MSW, Ash 136 $49.00 Minneapolis South Side Transfer Station Minneapolis, MN C &D, MSW 4 $88.92 • Tip fees shown are stated gate rates. City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 6 " Resource Recycling Systems `. Sustainable Systems for a Waste -Free Future S E H Minneapolis Cay o! Lakes • Table 4: Processing Infrastructure (Material Recovery Facilities) Facility Location _Material Lines To S er,Ray .., Allied Waste Minneapolis Mixed Fiber, Commingled Containers Recycling Center Minneapolis, MN (rigids), All Materials - single sort, High Grade 500 Fiber Eureka Recycling St. Paul, MN Mixed Fiber, Commingled Containers 180 Inver Grove Heights /St. Paul Inver Grove Heights, All materials 200 (Allied Waste) MN Mall of America - Waste and Bloomington, MN Commingled Containers, Mixed Fiber- 31 Recycling Department Manual, OCC- manual Pierce County MRF Ellsworth, WI Glass- manual, Commingled Containers - no 16 glass, Mixed Fiber Pythons of St. Cloud Inc. St. Cloud, MN Mixed Fiber, Commingled Containers, OCC 85 Recycle America Alliance Minneapolis, MN Mixed Fiber, Single Sort, Dual Sort 558 containers, OCC A majority of local recycling centers — Material Recovery Facilities (MRF's) — have made significant capital n investment on single sort processing. DISPOSAL COST SUMMARY Table 5 contains estimates from the TCMA's solid waste plan for the all- inclusive cost per ton for various methods of managing solid waste, taking into account recycling revenue, collection costs, processing costs, and tip fees. Where possible, tip fees and collection costs have been disaggregated. Actual costs from the City of Minneapolis as well as private hauling companies are used in the analysis of program costs. Table 5: Estimated Costs Per Ton for Solid Waste Management Management Method Total Cost Tip fee Collection and other costs per ton 4 i Recycling (residential) $110 -$143 Not applicable Unable to separate these costs r 71 Recycling (commercial, institutional, and industrial) $85 - $90 Not applicable Unable to separate these costs Organics (Food to animals) $0 - $49 Not applicable Unable to separate these costs Organics (SSO) $80 - $193 $40 - $45 $40 - $148 ill 1 Waste to Energy $168 - $207 $47 - $84 $119 - $123 Landfill $130 - $162 $39 - $43 $91 - $119 AN! City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 7 � ` Resource Recycling Systems � Sustainable Systems for a Waste -Free Future 5 E H Minneapolis Cory of Lakes COMPARATIVE CITY INFORMATION The cities included in the comparative analysis that have single sort systems are Ann Arbor, Kansas City, and Cincinnati. Keeping glass separate from the remainder of the recyclable materials modifies Kansas City's single sort collection. Table 6: Comparative Recycling Participation Rates �. > ate.. . aid Recy 41 Ra Current MPLS 18% St. Paul 30% Ann Arbor 37% Portland 34% Kansas City ** 16% Cincinnati ** 18% Communities that have converted to dual sort or single sort collection experience an immediate, significant increase in the volumes collected. Residents do not have to provide as much space for sorting and storing materials in preparation for their collection day, and find it easier to carry materials to the curb in fewer containers. Further, the routes can be expanded to serve a larger number of stops, which saves in truck usage, labor and travel time on the street. It has been demonstrated throughout the country that cart based systems increases the amount of recyclable material that can be collected in a bi- weekly or weekly program. Table 7: Comparative Recycling Quantity Rates Recycling Collection Single Sort Dual Sort Single Sort Single Sort Single Sort Weekly Weekly Weekly Biweekly Weekly Container Cart Bin Bin Cart Cart Lbs. /HH 726 477 302 386 659 The five comparable cities offer a variety of service combinations to consider. Each has its own success story. Each has adapted to its own program, so additional review would be beneficial in evaluating which options would be the most applicable. Table 8: Comparative Recycling Changes Ann Arbor Saw 15% increase in tonnage with switch from weekly dual sort bins to single sort carts St. Paul Saw 15% increase in tonnage with switch from source separated biweekly bins to dual sort weekly bins Saw participation increase from 40% to 71% with switch from weekly bins to biweekly carts Cincinnati Switch saved city $900,000 per year Tonnage increased by over 50% in same time period F.� tY Carts versus bins: Carts have consistently shown an increase in the volume of recycling collected. Carts offer greater capacity, more stability and decreased risk of materials becoming wind - strewn or placed in trash when the bin is full before collection. There are concerns, as noted in the later section entitled 'Curb Set Out Options', Ar` City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 8 / ide Resource Recycling Systems b re e SEH Minneapolis Cory of Lakes about the size of the carts and difficulty in handling to the curb. However, with consistent, user - friendly education and if carts are offered in size options, carts yield greater participation and volumes. Waste versus recycling: The combination of waste and recycling collection remains a factor in recovery rates. If unlimited waste disposal, at a low rate of cost is offered to a community, it is very easy to put everything into a waste container. Successful programs focus on discouraging waste disposal and encouraging recycling, composting and source reduction as the better alternatives. This can be accomplished through education and encouraging participating in the recycling programs and through the variable pricing of waste disposal. Where these factors are present, recycling programs tend to be much more successful in both recovering material and generating revenue. Frequency: Many communities have resorted to bi- weekly recycling collection as a cost savings. Communities attaining high recycling rates in the compared cities provide weekly collection. Weekly collection provides residents with a simpler "everything out to the curb" model. Bi- weekly as an option in the interests of cost savings must be balanced by providing adequate containers and reminders of the collection schedule to avoid recyclables being disposed in the garbage because the resident "ran out of room" in the recycling bin. 4 Cost: Converting to a dual or single sort collection system requires some capital investment in equipment, program modifications and public education. Changes in processing fees will be dependent upon the arrangement with the MRF and the revenue sharing arrangement established with the City. These investment factors are balanced against the increase in recycling resulting from a simpler method of setout and collection for the community, and the savings realized from reduced waste disposal fees and collection costs. City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 1` Page 9 I A#% Resource Recycling Systems - - 4 . _I `. Sustainable Systems fora Waste -Free Future S E H Minneapolis Crry of Lakes COLLECTION ASSESSMENT LOCATION: ALLEY VS. CURBSIDE Historically, refuse and recycling is set out and collected via the City's extensive alleyway system. Residents and the collection team prefer the alleyways as it facilitates an easier set out and collection than a street side pickup. Because the street is heavily utilized for parking, any additional space required for curbside pickup would prove challenging and is not recommended. WIDTH AND TURNING RADIUS Eighty percent of the City's collection points are located in "` ' ,, ;, ' ., alleys. Any new collection system will need to adapt to the °. narrow characteristics and challenges found throughout ` '�� f.' `,, ,t' ' : °` the city. i The average right -of -way in a Minneapolis alley is 12' with t 1 -2 ' of unpaved curb. There are areas where this is as .., . 1 - narrow as 8.5'. In winter months, considerable amounts of r� � " 3 ' snow do accumulate on either side of the alley, effectively J ,. r ., :k + narrowing the width even more. ; ' ;''''7-;' 1 i. 3 Routes also include a full range of traffic flows, from "T" ' - and "L" turns to dead -end alleyways that require backing a vehicle into position. To complete the routes effectively and safely, RRS finds that only 96" wide chassis should lk be considered as well as trucks with at most a 27' turning radius. ''Al HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS The alleyways are also home to a network of ) ,.,: x overhead utility wires that crisscross alleys at 12' to ' ;; 14' high. Many carts are also placed under garage \ ,: t overhangs with a similarly low 12' clearance. This fact, coupled other obstructions, has lead RRS to • Iiir -- ',4' I recommend vehicles with a maximum riding height of -A r I 11'9 ". The height clearance restrictions also make _ other collection options difficult to operate if not , : 1 t,,,'.4 totally removing them from the realm of possibility. OPTIONS 4„3.,., I,,,,, , '� Considering the constraints of maneuverability, cart placement, general conditions and available technology RRS suggests narrowing the focus to 20 -23 cubic yards per day (CYD) rear load packers and smaller semi automated side loaders. Standard, fully automated side load systems lift carts well above the obstruction height and then tip the contents into a hopper. This system requires considerable height clearance, proper cart placement, and a wide enough road to allow the lifter arm to operate. With current available technology, this option isn't viable. City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 S Page 15 " Resource Recycling Systems Sustainable Systems for a Waste -Free Future S E H Minneapolis Crty of Lakes Semi- automated side load systems require a worker to hook a recycling cart to a lifter arm that then • mechanically dumps into the truck. This system is still - a feasible option, but requires a proper height _ _ • clearance that is problematic in many parts of the City. • • The more traditional type of refuse /recycling truck - .i setup is the rear - loading packer. In this system a worker rolls carts to the lifting mechanism at the rear 1 , �. of the truck, and the contents are then mechanically i - dumped into the truck. This option requires the least amount of height and width clearance to operate and works best of the options noted, in the alley system operating in Minneapolis. Table 10: Recycling Collection Options (Bodies) Crane Labri Labrie Chassis Heil Lodal Criteria Expert t Expert With 40-60 Rea 50/50* Leach Bo. 000 1 00 !. Type Rear loader Rear loader Side Loader Side Loader Side Loader Single /Dual Single Sort Dual Sort Single Sort Dual Sort Dual Sort Cycle time (Seconds) Not (Time per Stop) 20 15-17 20 20 Provided Capacity (cubic Yards) 20 20 -25 22 17 -24 23 Price ** $152,000 $180,000 $161,700 $173,700 $230,000 Height Clearance 11.5' Height Above Frame gg" 102" 102" (Body) *Includes chassis and bodies ** Cost does not include cart lift mechanism or other body modifications Based on the assessment of the constraints posed by the collection of recyclables in alleys, discussions with the City of Minneapolis staff and on discussion with truck vendors it was determined that rear load 20 cubic yard capacity trucks with short turn radius was the only viable option for the collection of recycling materials. PILOT COLLECTION PROGRAM Minneapolis conducted two pilot programs, testing the effectiveness of dual -sort and single -sort collection. Both pilot programs incorporated recycling carts and collecting on the bi- weekly schedule. The results from these pilots programs show a significant increase in number of stops that can be served by a single route and the quantity of recyclables collected per household. These increases yield a higher recycling rate for a community, q Y Y P Y g Y g Y, a reduced number of routes, fewer trucks required for collection per household. • City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 16 " Resource Recycling Systems NOV Sustainable Systems for a Waste -Free Future 5 E H Minneapolis ry C of Lakes Table 11: Pilot Performance Metrics Increase in Increase in Avg. Program Stops Weight lbs. /HH /Yr. Single Sort High Performing Neighborhood 34.6% 31.0% 592 Low Performing Neighborhood 74.6% 77.0% 338 Dual Sort Average Performing Neighborhood 92.6% 28.8% 474 Current Multiple Sort for Participating HH 405 Current Multiple Sort for 1 All Dwelling Units 343 a St. Paul, MN Dual Sort All Dwelling Units 477 Portland, OR - Single Sort 659 Currently the City of Minneapolis uses side load multi sort trucks to collect curbside recycling and is in the process of reviewing options for single and dual sort collection. RRS explored the best options in collection vehicles, evaluated key features, and broadly associated a price to the various selections, including automated, semi - automated, and manual load trucks. The City of Minneapolis collection routes include obstacles and unique considerations that limit the range of viable options. FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS Focus Group meetings were held in two quadrants in the City which are currently provided with traditional, curb -sort recycling collection and one meeting in each of the areas of the city that experienced pilot programs of alternative collection services: one section participated in dual -sort collection, then transitioned to a single -sort '', I and one section participated in a single -sort collection. The meetings were held in the residents' neighborhoods, in local Park recreation buildings' meeting rooms. Ni t The Groups were identified as Group A Northeast Quadrant, Multi -Sort Curbside Service : Group B Southwest Quadrant, Multi -Sort Curbside Service Seward, Pilot Program, Dual Sort then Single Sort '' Willard Hay & ECCO, Pilot Program, Single Sort a > The Focus Group participants were invited to attend the meetings by random selection of telephone numbers published in the city directory. Specific addresses and names of individuals were unknown. A telephone call script was prepared to provide a standard format to invite residents to participate in the group meetings. The groups were intentionally kept small, which provided the opportunity for neighbors to meet and share his or AI her attitudes towards recycling, recycling habits and discuss the service that would best meet their expectations and needs for recycling. Ar` City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Nik Page 17 " Resource Recycling Systems `. Sustainable Systems fora Waste -Free Future S E H Minneapolis Cary at Lakes The meetings followed an agreed upon format. A brief review outlined the reasons the City is evaluating recycling collection options and the potential impacts of any changes, based upon other communities' experiences. The possible options for increasing recycling in the city and collection options were presented. Key questions were prepared as guidelines to enable a conversation style for the meetings. MEETING PARTICIPANTS All participants have been recycling for a number of years, some for decades. Participants were a mix of ages and family circumstances, including retired, young family with infant, grandparents who provide daycare for grandchildren. Every person participated and offered insights, experiences and support of improving the recycling program. Each group also, via individual comments and observations, expressed their appreciation for the city's efforts to evaluate and improve services and was aware that the city would be evaluating any service changes in terms of the final cost for service and equipment. The participants in all the groups expressed an interest and commitment to recycling that stems, in part, from a desire to improve the environment and an awareness of other sustainability and green initiatives. Though everyone did identify themselves as recyclers, there was a range of recycling awareness and participation levels. In the area served by the single sort pilot program, a resident did acknowledge that she is recycling more now that the program has been simplified. ATTITUDES TOWARDS PROGRAMS AND COMPARABLE EXPERIENCES There was an almost even division of life -long Minneapolis residents and those who have lived in other communities. However, everyone has visited relatives or friends in other communities and has hosted guests in their homes. This allowed a productive discussion of comparisons to the acceptance and ability to recycle in various programs. In the areas that have the established multi -sort curbside service, the participants expressed a desire and support making the program simpler. The discussion covered the issue of simplifying the program to encourage all the residents to participate at greater levels. In the areas that have the pilot programs, the participants preferred the single -sort to the dual sort program. Both programs were preferred to going back to the multi -sort system. One resident in the single sort pilot area acknowledged that she recycles much more now that the program has been made simpler. In both pilot program areas, there is agreement that recycling participation and volumes have increased. Those who have lived in other communities have experience participating in single -sort collection, though most have also visited relatives or friends who have an alternative to the multi -sort recycling program. Those who have experienced single sort recycling felt it was simpler to participate and did not see any negative issues. One resident commented that visiting relatives and friends often aren't very helpful because they don't understand the multi -sort program. Two of the groups included duplex owners, in which the owners occupied one of the units and the second was rented. One of the groups was the multi -sort service and the other was in the dual -sort to single -sort pilot area. The duplex owners shared their experiences that renters are less inclined to recycle and their frustrations to encourage participation by renters. These residents share the perspective that too many neighbors do not participate or support recycling and have a keen desire to have the program improved to increase participation and volumes collected. City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 `9 Page 18 i _ ....... 4 Resource Recycling Systems ---�� Adir Sustainable Systems for a Waste -Free Future S E H Minneapolis Cary of Lakes The duplex owner from the single -sort pilot area brought her tenant with her. This provided an opportunity to hear different perspectives, although the renter's attendance was indicative of the commitment to recycling. The discussion and suggestions from the duplex residents included: • Less commitment to recycling, the connection to the community is not as strong, renters move and a new renter must be informed about the program. • Difficulty of the multi -sort system for tenants, multiple containers in a smaller space, outdoor container storage space • Not "required ". One duplex owner has written into the lease that the renter must participate in the recycling program. In terms of recycling setouts, only two have curbside collection. All the residents with alley collection do not want collection to be switched to curbside. In some portions of the city, switching to curbside would pose a hardship, where there are steps to the curb and street and limited space at the curb. In addition, parked cars, traffic flow and the aesthetics were viewed as restrictive to changing the collection. i ' RECYCLING CARTS AND BINS Residents in the multi -sort service areas shared their experiences and the challenges of setting out multiple expressed c ontainers. Some even shared tips with each other to make setouts easier. A couple of the residents ex �_�, P P P V guilt about going to the grocery store and asking for additional paper bags to use in their recycling program. One ;.' • resident carries cloth bags for grocery shopping, yet needs to obtain paper bags to recycle. Most acknowledged g g Y P P g Y g E „i that if they don't have a full bag for a particular item, they consider whether to save and store the bag for < another week or throw the items in the garbage. h; Both duplex residents and single - family home residents supported increasing the size of recycling containers. For those in the pilot areas, the recycling cart was well received and viewed as a plus for the programs and one resident even hoped she would not have to return her cart at the end of the pilot program. No one felt there i were space problems in storing the larger cart. In all the areas, when discussing the recycling carts, there was discussion and support for offering size options ,.] for residents based on household size and recycling generated. This led to an observation that the waste cart could also be reduced as recycling participation increases. t',; RECYCLING AWARENESS AND EDUCATION v. Most of the residents were very aware of the recycling program, what is included and how to set out materials. If there is doubt about an item, residents acknowledged they throw it in the garbage. Very few seemed aware of the City's website or have accessed the information provided. The primary source of information for the residents is the mailed flyer or brochure. Every resident was aware of the information on the flyer and many indicated where the brochure is stored or posted in the home as a reference. One of the • residents especially noted the quality of the graphics and the information presented. Several supported Ni providing a laminated version that could be posted in the home. In the pilot areas with recycling carts, residents • thought a laminated version could be placed on the cart. There is general support for increased education, outreach and events to increase awareness of recycling in the r`r community and to encourage participation. Some of the suggestions and discussion included hiring an educator City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 ` Page 19 Resource Recycling Systems r Sustat ble Sy for a Waste Free Future Minneapolis SEH Cry of Lakes or coordinator, providing programs in the schools to help develop life -long recycling habits, organizing a team of volunteers who could make presentations in schools or to groups, organizing tours of recycling facilities. SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES Questions concerning special collections or recycling programs were not a part of the planned discussion. However, every group mentioned how much they appreciate and want to see continued collection of bulky items, recycling of electronics and the household hazardous waste programs. Several residents were also interested and would like yard waste or organics recycling collection added to the program to enhance the recovery of materials in the community. Residents are very happy that milk cartons and other types of cartons were added, it adds to the recycling program. All the groups discussed and agreed that reaching the recycling rate goal in the city would most likely need to include multi - family services. The residents recognized that providing or requiring that multi - family units with recycling service would be a longer -range goal that needs study and consideration. COMMENTS Each group quickly became comfortable in discussing the programs. Following are comments made during the Y 'sII� discussions: • Preference for single sort, weekly collection; every other week can be confusing. • Containers equipped with lids were preferred, to reduce litter, weather degrading the materials and animals getting at the recycling. • The single sort system is easier to explain, especially for residents who have moved from other communities that offer a simpler system. The simpler you make the program, the more participation and amount of recycling will occur. • Would prefer single sort to dual sort because would have to store additional recycling carts. • Need more education about recycling and ways to be more environmentally responsible in general. • • Would like to see more items added if possible (plastic bags, egg cartons, other plastics, pizza boxes). • Enforce some sort of penalty for not recycling • Renters pose special challenges, the recycling program has to be explained and renters have to be encouraged to recycle. • Giving some form of credit for recycling is nice, but not necessary. If the rebate for recycling were eliminated, it would not change the desire to recycle. • Suggested if a reward is provided for recycling, it should be based on giving a higher reward for those who recycle more • Provide any incentives that help encourage recycling, anything that works. • Supports whatever it takes to reach the recycling goal established by the County. • Love the recycling cart and don't want to return it when the pilot program ends. • Have seen more participation in the neighborhood, sometimes thought no one else recycled on the block when putting out materials before the pilot program started. • Realize that recycling saves money for the city, this should be promoted to the residents, and explain the payback to the residents. If tipping /disposal costs are reduced, the money saved is actually a savings for residents. City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 t Page 20 . Resource Recycling Systems i � de Minneapolis S E H Dry of Lakes COLLECTION OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND COSTS An analysis of the performance and costs associated with transforming the Minneapolis collection program from a multi -sort to a dual or single sort system was developed to provide a comparative assessment of the different approaches. Although fully automated systems were evaluated, given the constraints presented by collection in alleys it was determined that semi automated rear load collection options would be presented in this report. This method of collecting recyclable material is also consistent with the consideration of collecting yard wastes and other residential and commercial organic wastes through cart based collection programs. Assumptions were developed based on the analysis of programs in other cities that have dual and single sort collection programs and on the pilot collection programs conducted by the City of Minneapolis. The three key assumptions derived from this information are the participation rate, the number of stops per day that a collection truck can achieve in a constrained alley environment, and the increase in the amount of material that participants will recycle on an annual basis. Other related assumptions include the size of the cart and the capacity of the collection vehicle. Table 12: Program Assumptions l is t r 1 : ( r Ir k 3 Size of Cart (gals) 96 64 2 x 64 1x64 1x32 Number of Carts for City Only Households 52,594 52,594 105,188 105,188 Participation Rate 84.5% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% Lbs. /HH /Year (Participating HH) 405 600 600 500 500 Lbs. /HH /Stop 15.6 23.1 11.5 19.2 9.6 Stops per Day per Truck (Avg. City Route) 318 676 676 609 609 ti Truck Capacity (Cubic Yards) 20 20 20 20 20 The relationship between participation rate and the quantity of material that is recycled is a difficult variable to balance. Minneapolis is characterized by a fairly high average participation rate but a low quantity per household. This is explained by two factors. First, there are low performing neighborhoods in terms of both participation and the quantity of material. Second, although there are high performing neighborhoods the quantity of material set out is very low in comparison to other cities. Although there is no data to statistically determine what the variations are on a neighborhood -by- neighborhood basis it was evident in the focus groups that even highly motivated residents did not recycle all the material that the city accepts, primarily due to the difficulty of separating the materials into nine different collection sorts. ti The frequency of collection on a weekly or bi- weekly basis has a major impact on the costs for trucks and staffing. The current recycling program operated by the City of Minneapolis with city staff consist of a biweekly pickup serviced by small trucks with pup trailers. In effect, half the households receive service one week and the other half receive service on the alternate week. These fourteen multi sort trucks are each operated by a single employee. Converting the collection program to a semi automated rear load collection truck results in a similar operation level as the waste collection system that is also a semi automated rear load operation. This means that there would be two staff per truck in this new configuration for a bi- weekly collection program. Given the nearly 200% increase in the number of pickups per day that a semi automated truck can achieve over City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 21 " Resource Recycling Systems /� - Sustainable Systems fora Waste Free Future J E H Minneapolis Ca), of Lakes the current multi -sort program the impact is that half the trucks are required while maintaining the same staffing level. A change to a weekly collection program would require double the number of trucks and a doubling of the staff required to collect all households on a weekly basis. The collection time for single sort is less than dual sort and there is no need to come off route when one compartment fills before the other. Table 13: City Only Collection Operating Costs Current Single Sort Single Sort Dual Sort Dual Sort Program Area Multi -sort Semi Auto Semi Auto Semi Auto Semi Auto Baseline Biweekly Weekly Biweekly Weekly Labor with Benefits $1,031,338 $1,098,333 $2,036,263 $1,232,323 $2,304,243 O &M $488,400 $293,200 $464,000 $324,600 $519,800 Education $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Customer Service $174,537 $174,537 $174,537 $174,537 $174,537 Total Annual Cost $1,694,275 $1,666,070 $2,774,800 $1,831,460 $3,098,580 Percentage Cost Change -1.7% 63.8% 8.1% 82.9% The costs for the weekly and bi- weekly collection program for dual and single sort were based on the current labor cost structure and the cost for purchasing rear load semi automated trucks as currently operating in the waste fleet with the same cart tipping system. The operating and maintenance costs were adjusted based on the number of trucks. The total annual cost based on current City of Minneapolis accounting practice illustrates that dual and single sort bi- weekly programs can be implemented with very small impacts on the current operating costs for the City. Capital Costs for the collection vehicles were based on the most recent truck purchase for rear load semi automated trucks with dual tippers. Dual sort collection requires significant truck capital purchase of dual rear load split body packers ($30,000 more than single rear load). Cart cost for single sort (1 per unit) is estimated at $6,800,000. Cart cost for dual sort (2 per unit) is estimated at $10,500,000. The total costs for new trucks for a City of Minneapolis single sort; bi- weekly collection program is $8,840,000. Table 14: Projected Capital for Collection Program Current Single Sort .., Single Sort . Dual Sort Dual Sort tions Multi -sort Semi Au o. -e i Aut.` Se Auto,' S i Attto Size of Cart (gals) 96 64 2 x 64 1x64 1x32 Number of Carts 105,226 105,226 210,452 210,452 Number of Trucks (includes extra) 16 8 15 9 17 Total Cart Cost $6,839,690 $6,839,690 $10,522,600 $9,470,340 Total Truck Cost $3,952,000 $1,976,000 $3,705,000 $2,475,000 $4,675,000 The projected potential recycling rate and the quantity collected increase substantially from the current program in all scenarios for single and dual sort programs. The bi- weekly programs can be implemented with a low cost impact if any and can achieve much higher recovery rates. A single sort system will increase material quantity recovered by 60% and the Minneapolis recycling rate increases from 18% to 32% (based on case studies = such as Ann Arbor and Portland). A dual sort system will increase material quantity recovered by 36% and the Minneapolis recycling rate increases from 18% to 25% (based on case studies such as Ann Arbor and Portland). Although the total program costs for both the single sort and dual sort bi- weekly programs are similar the cost per ton is much lower then the current multi sort bi- weekly program. A rte City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 22 " R `. Susta in es o able urce Sys te Rec ms fo yr clin oWast e -Fr System ee s - - jo/ Future E H Minneapolis Cry of Lakes Table 15: Projected Collection Program Recovery and Metrics Current Single Sort Single Sort Dual Sort Dual So Options Multi -sort Semi Auto Semi Auto Semi Auto Semi Au_ Baseline Biweekly Weekly Biweekly City Tons per Year 9,010 14,200 14,200 11,833 11,833 Total Tons per Year 18,026 28,411 28,411 23,676 23,676 Percent Recovery Curbside * (Rec /MSW) 18.1% 31.9% 31.9% 25.2% 25.2% Cost /HH City Collection $32.21 $31.68 $52.76 $34.82 $58.92 Cost /HH /Month City Collection $2.68 $2.64 $4.40 $2.90 $4.91 Cost /ton City Collection Only $188 $117 $195 $155 $262 * A Recovery Percentage of 35% is achieved with 650 lbs. /HH /Year The final analysis includes the impact on the revenue and disposal costs on the overall program costs. The net revenue decline for all the new collection scenarios is due to the projected increase in processing fees. These increase in costs are offset by the cost savings from the reduction in disposal fees paid to the Hennepin Energy Resource Company (HERC). Appendix 11 details the projected tonnage and net revenue. „ Table 16: Projected Net Recycling Costs s Current Single Sort Single Sort Dual Sort Dual Sort Options Multi -Sort Semi Auto Semi Auto Semi Auto Semi Auto Baseline Biweekly Weekly Biweekly Weekly t. ' City Collection ($1,694,275) ($1,666,070) ($2,774,800) ($1,831,460) ($3,098,580) MRI Collection ($1,694,593) ($1,666,371) ($2,775,301) ($1,831,791) ($3,099,139) Total Collection Cost ($3,388,868) ($3,332,441) ($5,550,101) ($3,663,251) ($6,197,719) Material Revenue* $1,640,937 $1,280,504 $1,280,504 $1,067,087 $1,067,087 Net Recycling Costs including Revenue ($1,747,931) ($2,051,937) ($4,269,597) ($2,596,164) ($5,130,633) Value of MSW Diverted $847,231 $1,335,318 $1,335,318 $1,112,765 $1,112,765 Net City Recycling Costs (Annual Cost MSW Diverted ($900,701) ($716,619) ($2,934,279) ($1,483,399) ($4,017,868) *Assumes a Processing cost for SS /DS = $70.00 and a Current Processing Cost = $24.04 The Net Recycling Cost is the lowest for the Single Sort Semi Automated Bi- weekly collection program by approximately 20% while achieving a 32% recycling rate. The Dual Sort Bi- weekly program has a net cost of . approximately 56% higher then the current multi -sort program and achieves a 25% recovery rate. A ten percent increase in the quantity of material collected in the dual sort program achieves a 28.5% recycling rate with a net '' cost that is 28% higher then the current program. RECYCLING INCENTIVE PROGRAMS We are all familiar with the old adage one mans trash another mans treasure." New companies are trying to change that They say your trash is your own treasure, because you're going to pay you for it The concept, called Incentive Based Recycling, is to increase recycling rates by providing a direct financial incentive for people to go through the trouble of sorting their garbage. Participating customers receive a 35, 64, or 96- gallon container that has a barcode that identifies their home. As the truck collects the recycling it scans the barcode City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 23 " Resource Recycling Systems ----_ � `. Sustainable Systems for a Waste -Free Future 5 E H Minneapolis City of Lakes on the container and translates the value of the recycled items into a dollar amount - that can be redeemed though shopping coupons at participating businesses. The two major programs are: Recyclebank and Rewards for Recycling. Participants use an online interface to choose which coupons suit them best, order the coupons and receive them by mail. Alternatively participants can choose to donate their Recyclebank Dollars to charity. Recyclebank serves both residential and retail customers. Many paper, plastic, metal and glass recyclables are collected and the company supports a single sort recycling system that allows all types of recyclables to be deposited in one single container. Home collection of e-waste is coming soon but in the meantime customers can send in cell phones for recycling by printing a envelope label including stamp directly from the website. Recyclebank trades the actions a customer makes that have a positive impact on your home by saving energy, community by recycling and the environment by conserving natural resources for points that you can use for rewards you choose. Those rewards come in a variety of options: Products, discounts and coupons from the world's leading brands (think: Kashi, Footlocker, Dunkin Donuts), or by donating your points to support environmental education in schools. Because Recyclebank offers coupons and other economic incentives to recycle, the RecycleBank model is $` particularly attractive to lower- income communities. By rewarding households with coupons for groceries or services, RecycleBank is having a direct positive impact on family budgets. Therefore, recycling becomes something households participate in for financial assistance, rather than altruistic reasons. This is not meant to suggest that the only people participating in RecycleBank are those on the lower end of the income spectrum, only that the incentives inherent in the RecycleBank model become increasingly attractive the lower on the spectrum a household lays. Rewards for Recycling was founded in late 2008 with the express intent to provide a better recycling affinity program option for municipalities and waste haulers. The Recycle Bank program was closely studied and evaluated, and R4R was designed to be uniquely different, addressing all of the challenges we found in the alternate system. The R4R program founders identified multiple challenges in the alternate system, specifically a lack of understanding of basic marketing and consumer behavior patterns. Rewards for Recycling is a community based Recycling program. R4R partners with the municipality, the residents, the community and the local businesses. Rewards for Recycling rewards frequency and loyalty for building recycling as a household habit. The program is open and available to all members within the community. Rewards for Recycling provides rewards to every household immediately upon start -up, and E continues to provide smaller value rewards to all households regardless of recycling activity. This methodology provides the opportunity to continuously convert non - recyclers by showing them the rewards of significantly higher value that will be available to them as soon as they begin recycling. Local Business participation is a key component of the Rewards for Recycling program. The R4R Program features rewards that come from the businesses located within each community. Restaurants, Pharmacies, Dry - cleaners, Oil Changes and other retail products and services. The majority of them are locally owned and operated, and employ local people. The revenue generated by these businesses stays home and supports the local economy. R4R gives each business an opportunity to offer valuable savings to residents free of charge. These offers can drive traffic to local business. In addition, Rewards for Recycling has multiple promotional options available for local businesses that can get them exposure in Direct mail, E- newsletter marketing and even television. City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 24 " Resource Recycling Systems 1 `. Sustainable Systems for a Waste -Free Future S E H Minneapolis Cary of Lakes INCENTIVE SYSTEM PROS AND CONS Demographics are probably the most important factor to look at when considering an incentive system partnership. An incentive system model is particularly attractive to lower- income communities because it offers coupons and other economic incentives to recycle. By rewarding households with coupons for groceries or services, an incentive system is having a direct positive impact on family budgets. Therefore, recycling becomes something households participate in for financial assistance, rather than altruistic reasons. The following is a partial listing of the pros and cons of incentive systems. Pros • Incentive -based program rewards recycling participation and builds good recycling habits • Public awareness and participation in recycling rises • Substantial rise in material volumes • Data on the effectiveness of existing and proposed waste collection routes and strategies is collected • Opportunity to modernize or upgrade the waste collection and recycling infrastructure Cons • System rewards consumption, not waste reduction • Program may be a poor fit in communities with already high recycling participation • Success relies on the participation of national and local businesses and retailers • Upgrade costs could be prohibitively expensive for communities and smaller haulers if not adequately negotiated with Service Provider • Program not cost effective in areas with low -cost disposal PROCESSING OPTIONS Choices pertaining to both sorting technologies and overall processing choices are predominantly driven by curbside collection systems. Substantial improvement in processing capability and efficiency has been experienced in the past 5 -10 years. Beyond the initial use of magnets to capture ferrous metals at an efficient rate, and eddy currents to separate and capture aluminum from the sort, more sophisticated equipment and reconfiguration of the sorting systems has resulted in higher recovery rates, greater throughput, and less contamination to meet market standards. The number of recyclable materials has increased as the ability of secondary and manufacturing industries to convert post- consumer packaging into marketable products has grown. Subsequently, the market demand for the greater variety and volume of materials has driven MRF's to seek equipment that enable them to efficiently recover an increased array of post- consumer plastics and fiber. The processes must also be designed to increase the volumes or tons per day, to justify the investment in such equipment or systems. MRF's and equipment manufacturers, to remain competitive and derive the greatest value from the collected material, continue to improve the ability of the sorting methodology and performance standards. Systems are configured to provide screening of non - recyclable materials and contaminants from a particular recyclable material to yield a higher value end -of -sort product. Optical sorting technologies have advanced to enable 2 Resource Recycling Magazine, October, 2009 Ar■ City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 25 Resource Recycling Systems _ kr dr u tCi ,t S y ste ms for a∎ taste- F- eeFutore Minneapolis SEH City of Lakes efficient and broader range of sorting plastics and fiber cartons that results in an increased variety of accepted materials for recycling at a higher marketable value. Residual rates are an indicator of the success of the sorting systems and the recycling collection program. Residual rates in both dual sort and single sort sorting systems have declined over the years, as evidenced in the Table below. Whether dual sort or single sort, the ability to recover everything that is recyclable or marketable and to remove waste that cannot be recycled is a key factor in determining the type of recycling program provided. It is also a key measurable in determining overall recycling program success or failure. A study' conducted for the MPCA by Tim Goodman & Associates to examine the issue of single- stream and dual - stream recycling, focusing specifically on the processing of collected materials and the marketing of those materials to end - markets. A key finding of that study stated: "The amount of processing residuals (including mixed, broken glass) generated at the single- stream facilities serving the Minneapolis /St. Paul metro area varies significantly from approximately 2% of throughput up to 17% of throughput ". FIGURE 3: MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY (MRF) RESIDUAL RATE* 17.0% xY N d'!/ 10.0% 7.0% a' 4.0% 4.0% 2.5% 0.6% ; .t Old Single Toledo Cincinnati Portland Ann Arbor National St Paul Minneapolis Stream (SS) (SS) (SS) (SS) Average (DS) (MS) Programs (DS) * SS - Single Sort, DS - Dual Sort, MS - Multi Sort Quality control remains a critical element in MRF recovery. At various points in the recovery process, testing or checking of the commodity destined for markets can result in increased value to the commodity. The community can also play a role in helping to increase the value of materials collected. To ensure quality . >: standards, communities can require contracted MRF's to report volumes and percentages of recovered materials by type, including residue rates; set minimum standards of recovery and residue, and the volume of materials sold as various grades in the recycling markets. The Goodman study recommended certification process be applied to MRFs. MRFs should be required to report certain operational data for monitoring purposes. This information should include at a minimum: • Amounts and types of recyclables delivered to the facility; • Amounts and composition of processing residuals; 3 Single- Stream and Dual- Stream Recycling: Comparative Impacts of Commingled Recyclables Processing, Prepared For the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Tim Goodman & Associates, January 20, 2006 City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 t Page 26 Resource Recycling Systems . Sustainable Systems for a Waste Free Future S E H Minneapolis City or Lakes • Amounts and types of materials processed and marketed on an annual basis; and • Amounts and types of materials downgraded or rejected by markets. Residual rates at the MRF can also be improved by education. As recycling participation increases, it is important to provide direct, simple and positive education about what can be recycled. Consistent, accessible, user - friendly education about what can be recycled makes an impact on the participants' participation to place the materials that are accepted in the recycling container. Even with the most efficient system for sorting materials, if an item that is not included in the recycling program is incorrectly placed in a recycling bin, it must be treated as residual at the MRF. SECONDARY MARKETS Manufacturing techniques using post- consumer materials also have kept pace with technology and knowledge of the materials sorts. Mills have improved their equipment and systems to predict and adapt to a degree of contamination and to capture contaminants to minimize damage to equipment and maintain quality product standards. .; End markets for even more materials, especially the #3 - #7 plastics, has provided opportunities for MRF's to 1 increase their list of accepted materials and collected volumes. In fact, the capabilities of both dual and single sort collection programs to easily add materials types to their collection programs has led to the expansion of recycling programs nationwide. Without these inherent flexibilities, the successful recycling of cartons, juice boxes, textiles, boxboard, and exotic plastics ( #3 - #7) would not have grown as quickly over the last five to ten years. MARKETS AND REVENUE FOR MATERIALS j All materials collected and ultimately processed in a recycling program are considered commodities. This means that in spite of market demand fluctuations and associated price increases or decreases, the total collected tonnages must yield a profit to maintain a healthy, stable recycling program. In reviewing the Market Trends Data, the market demand and commodity prices for fiber, plastics, aluminum and steel have remained strong to 1 ?; stable. Two brief periods in the early 1990's and mid 2000's have seen brief price tumbles. But recycled commodity price rebounds have been quick and over time have shown an almost universal strengthening. The commodity revenues associated with these materials have over time provided the financial foundation for most recycling programs, whether publicly or privately sponsored. A City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 27 " Resource Recycling Systems `. Sustainable Systems for a Waste -Free Future 5 E H Minneapolis City of takes FIGURE 4: MARKET TREND DATA Average Price for Curbside Recycled Materials Pacific Northwest, 1985 -2011 $180 — 9160 — $140 — $120 — $100 0 $80 — S88 $60 — $40 — $64 550 $20 533 as 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 OS 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Communities can choose to request MRF's to share in the market value of materials that are sold, as contracts are prepared. This is a typical practice when separate contracts are awarded for collection and for processing and marketing of materials. A revenue sharing arrangement provides an incentive for both the MRF to maintain high quality and market standards and for the community to encourage residents to participate in the recycling 4LL' program and educate residents how materials should be set out to maximize the benefit of the program. > y= A market share arrangement generally includes an established floor price, which guarantees a minimum price per ton paid to the community for materials brought to the MRF. The floor price can be fixed based on the market value of a select number of items or the total mix of recyclable materials collected. When the market value of the recyclable tonnages exceeds the established floor price, the community and the MRF share in the value of the sold commodities, based upon an established percentage split. As an example: Cincinnati has a market share arrangement with their MRF, operated by Rumpke, which provides a floor price of $85 /ton. If the revenue from sale of the materials exceeds $85 /ton, 50% of the revenue above $85 /ton is shared with the city. City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 28 Resource Recycling Systems ---_ � Minneapolis 5EH Cory o1 Lakes GENERAL DISCUSSION OF DUAL -SORT RECYCLING Background on Dual -Sort Dual -sort recycling is a collection and processing system where mixed bottles and cans are collected in one compartment and mixed fiber is collected in another compartment. For many years and until recently, this technology has been the default choice for large -scale residential recycling operations in the US. As more programs recognized the high cost of paying drivers to sort material at the curb, efforts focused on finding a collection method that did not require sorting at the curb. Programs found that residents responded well to being asked to sort materials into two containers. These two containers could be dumped into the collection vehicles with no curb -sort. By 1990, most new recycling facilities were being designed with dual -sort sorting capabilities. The reduced cost of dual -sort curbside collection was traded off against the increased cost of central sorting. An incentive for doing this was the increased ability to accept a wider range of recyclable materials and still produce marketable products from the collected materials. Many dual -sort facilities were designed with the ability to sort to more than 20 products. A typical dual -sort program collects and processes at least the following list of materials: • Fiber sort o Newspaper o Cardboard o Paper bags (depending on local markets this might be baled with cardboard) o Magazines (depending on local markets this might be baled with news or mixed paper) o Junk mail (depending on local markets this might be baled with news or mixed paper) o Boxboard (depending on local markets this might be baled with news or mixed paper) • Container sort o Clear glass o Colored glass (Green & Brown) (in many areas, glass is no longer color sorted at the MRF) o Steel cans o Aluminum cans o Natural HDPE plastic bottles o Colored HDPE bottles o PET bottles A number of dual -sort programs have also added the following materials: • Fiber sort o Shredded paper (depending on local markets this might be baled with SOP or mixed paper) o White office paper (SWL) (depending on local markets this might be baled with SOP) o Mixed office paper (SOP) • Container sort o Colored PET bottles (only common in a few regions) City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 29 Resource Recycling Systems `. Sustain Systems for aWaste -Free Future S E H Minneapolis City of Lakes o Mixed plastic containers (small food tubs, clamshells, trays, etc.) o Large rigid plastics (lawn furniture, buckets, large plastic toys) o Cartons (aseptic and milk & juice gable -top) o Junk metal (some restrictions on size and material need to apply) o Plastic film (plastic bags, and stretch & shrink wrap) The junk metals, plastic film and large rigid plastics are challenging to handle in a cost effective manner, so these materials are often directed to a drop -off collection that compliments curbside collection. Dual - Sort Scale of Operations Dual -sort systems have been built to operate in sizes ranging from less than 2,500 tons per year (tpy) to over 200,000 tpy. In smaller facilities, nearly all sorting is done manually. Many of these smaller facilities have only one sorting line that is used alternately for containers and fiber. Larger facilities that require more throughputs have specialized sorting lines that utilize staff more efficiently. Larger facilities also add mechanical separation technologies such as • Cardboard (OCC) screen to separate large cardboard from other fiber • Magnet to remove steel cans from other bottles and cans • Fines Removal Screen or Glass Breaker to remove broken glass and dirt from bottles and cans • Density Separator to remove glass from lighter bottles and cans (if no glass breaker) • Eddy Current Separator (ECS) to separate aluminum from other containers • Optical Sort to sort plastics by resin type or to sort other optically identifiable materials such as cartons Dual - Sort Sequence of Operation A typical single sort processing facility has two sort lines and one or more balers. Eureka Recycling is an example of a medium -large dual -sort processing facility. See Appendix III for s diagram of a Dual Sort Process Flow Diagram. A Dual Sort facility consists of the following processing sequences. Fiber Sort Line: • Mixed fiber is dumped from the collection vehicle onto the tipping floor • A large loader pushes materials up and then loads them onto an in -floor metering conveyor as sorting progresses • An inclined conveyor carries mixed fiber up to the pre -sort conveyor where sorting staff removes trash and oversized items • Cleaned fiber falls onto the cardboard (OCC) screen. Smaller fiber passes through the screen and OCC is conveyed off the end of the screen and piled on the floor where a loader can later load sorted OCC onto the baler feed conveyor. • Smaller fiber is conveyed to the main sort conveyor where staff picks off small OCC, trash and other 5 •'' products. Cleaned newspaper (ONP) drops off the end of the sort conveyor onto a conveyor that feeds to a baler. Container Sort Line: *;fi • Containers are dumped from the collection vehicle onto the tipping floor • A large loader pushes materials up and then loads them onto an in -floor metering conveyor as sorting A City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 30 Resource Recycling Systems � `. Sustainable Systems for a Waste -Free Future SEH Minneapolis Cry of Lakes • An inclined conveyor carries mixed fiber up to the pre -sort conveyor where sorting staff removes fiber products, trash, and oversized items • Material passes under an overhead self - cleaning magnet that removes steel (includes tin plated) cans and other ferrous metal to a conveyor that leads to a storage bin • The rest of the bottles and cans pass over a roll- screen that drops out small glass, dirt, and other fines • The overs are fed to a density separator that pulls the plastics, aluminum and cartons (if present) separate from the remaining glass. The glass continues to a manual glass sort line where the glass can be manually color sorted • Aluminum is sorted from the light fraction using and Eddy Current Separator (ECS). The aluminum is conveyed to a storage bin by a blower /duct system. • The remaining light fraction is conveyed to an elevated sort line where staff sorts remaining plastics and cartons GENERAL DISCUSSION OF SINGLE -SORT RECYCLING Background on Single -Sort Single -sort recycling is a collection and processing system where all bottles and cans are combined with all fiber i in one collection container. This technology has been a significant part of residential recycling in the US for approximately 10 years. The technology for single -sort processing is still evolving rapidly. The appeal of single- ,.:. sort recycling comes from several factors: • Residents place all recyclables in one container. This is often a cart with a lid that can be stored outside without other cover. In most communities this makes recycling easier for residents and provides residents with more recycling container capacity • Most single -sort rollouts have resulted in significant increases in recycling collection volumes. In many areas where Recycle Bank or other incentive programs have been included, the increases have been dramatic. • Adding new materials is very easy for residents because they just add the material to the one container. There is no confusion in what bin to place a new recyclable. 4 • Collection costs are usually less than for other curbside recycling technologies. This is true whether the driver must dump tubs, dump carts with a mechanical cart dumper or if the driver can sit in the cab and dump carts with an automated robotic arm. Because there is only one container, each stop takes less time than dumping the same container type with multiple containers. Less time at a stop means a driver can pick up at more stops in a day. • Automated cart dumping usually results in significant reduction of workers compensation claims, since most carts can be dumped without manual handling. • When using automated collection vehicles, identical collection vehicles can often be used for recyclables, organics and trash. Having all the same vehicle requirements simplifies fleet service and parts inventory and allows rededication of trucks with just a change in signage or paint. • The collection vehicle needs only one compartment for recyclables, which means compaction is s 3S common and usually more stops can be made before returning to empty. .;c. } • Multiple compartment trucks can collect trash and organic waste with recyclables where a single tqr provider offers two or three services. Combined collection reduces truck traffic on any one street and reduces total fuel consumption where alternate week service is not acceptable. • Collected recyclables can be hauled long distances cost effectively. All recyclables can be tipped in one pile and loaded into a single transfer trailer. This allows a single processing facility to City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 31 . Resource Recycling Systems "de 5us !au "b!e Syste r a L4cst_ ree Fut r Minneapolis SEH Cry of Lakes competitively serve residents in large radius (in some cases over 200 miles). Hub and spoke regional recycling service is becoming practical in many underserved parts of the US as a result of simplified transfer. • Except for color sorted glass and plastic film, recent large single -sort facilities are able to efficiently sort recyclables and produce quality products with comparable or less labor cost than in a similarly sized dual -sort facility. • Many recent single -sort facilities incorporate secondary fiber recovery and other scavenging technologies are able to achieve residue rates approaching that of dual -sort facilities Early Single - Sort Problems Early single -sort processing facilities exhibited some problems. The two most significant problems are described below: • The most cited problem is high residue rates. High residue rates were common in early facilities. These high rates resulted from a combination of unrefined processing technologies, loss of driver quality control and poor education of residents. Because fiber and containers are mixed, reclaiming small recyclables from residuals is more complex than for the same target materials in dual- sort facilities. Shredded paper, fine glass, plastic film and caps and lids are among the most challenging materials to recover. Newer facilities that are designed with the capability to reduce residue and with an operator that committed low residue can achieve low residue rates. • The other common problem for early single -sort facilities was poor product quality. The main product quality issues have been with glass and lids in fiber products and glass in plastic products. ,'. Also, early screens were not able to separate newspaper from other paper grades very well. Newer separation screens can produce products that compete with the best dual sort product quality. Newer screen especially when combined with a glass breaker at the front end of the system are able to produce products rivaling that of dual -sort facilities Challenges ' Single -sort recycling does not solve all problems for recyclers. A number of challenges remain for a single -sort facility operator. • Single -sort processing equipment is more sensitive to certain materials than most dual -sort processing lines. In particular, plastic film, garden hoses, rope, cords, wire, strapping and chains quickly become wrapped around screen shafts. Allowing these materials to reach the separation q Y PP g P screens can result and reduced screen efficiency, lost production time and in some cases, the need for costly repairs. • Most single -sort facilities often operate at a higher residual rate than comparably sized dual -sort facilities. With good education of residents, sufficient pre -sort effort, modern reclaim features and manual reclaim from the residual sort, residuals of less than five percent are common. Lower rates are possible with additional picking staff and management committed to low residuals. This extra effort can in some cases increase operating cost. • Single -sort processing equipment is more costly to purchase than that of a comparably sized dual- sort facility. This is especially true for smaller facilities where single -sort equipment does not scale well. When significant quantities of mechanized sorting are added to a dual -sort facility, the capital cost of the dual -sort facility may approach that of the single -sort facility. • Single -sort facilities require more maintenance and more expensive maintenance than dual -sort facilities. More equipment needs maintenance, but also, a higher level of skill is needed to perform City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 32 Resource Recycling Systems NOV Sustainable Systems for a Waste -Free Future E H Minneapolis City or lakes some of the maintenance. Hundreds of screen discs must be changed every 12 -24 months and these typically cost $40 each. Improved Technologies Most recent single -sort processing facilities incorporate a number of improved technologies that improve operating efficiency, product quality and reduce residue as compared to earlier facilities. While these add to the facility capital cost, an acceptable return on investment can be demonstrated when the features are applied appropriately. A partial list of improvements follows: • Front end metering to keep the flow of materials very close to the optimum capability of the line for the mix being fed and to simplify line loading and allow loader operator to perform other tasks. • Large presort to remove trash, oversize materials and materials that might wrap on screen shafts, and to allow recycling of large rigid plastics and scrap metals • News and Mixed Paper screens have been much improved, reducing the amount of post sort needed to produce marketable products, and at the same time providing a cleaner sort to the container line. • Where significant volumes of cardboard are present sort, adding an OCC screen at front end to eliminate most manual sorting of OCC. This makes other screens more effective and reduces staffing requirements at presort and at fiber post sorts. • Glass removal at front end to get glass out of other products and to prolong the life of equipment. • Glass cleanup systems to improve glass quality and in some facilities to reclaim small (shredded) fiber for recycling • Fiber reclaim from mixed container sort to reduce residue and recycle more fiber • Bottle and can reclaim conveyors from fiber post sort lines • Optical plastic sorting to reduce labor needs, increase throughput and efficiency and sort grades that humans cannot differentiate visually (ex: PLA vs. PET). Optical sorting can be used for PET, 7,1 NHDPE, colored HDPE, PLA, #3 -7 (or grades within), aseptic cartons, milk and juice cartons and various combinations of these. Optical sorters can also be used to color sorts where the markets demand this effort (ex: green PET or light and dark CHDPE). The quality of sort and reliability of this equipment has improved dramatically in recent years. Also, dual -sort optical sorters perform well in some applications to sort two products from the sort at one time While most of the above technologies can be applied to dual -sort systems, most dual -sort MRFs are not operating at a scale to justify these solutions. Single -sort programs are capable of collecting all of the materials that can be collected in dual -sort systems. The list of materials in the Dual -Sort discussion above also applies here. Because some materials will clog or jam the mechanical sorting equipment, additional efforts may be needed at the pre -sort to remove these materials. Examples of materials that generally need to be removed at pre -sort include large rigid plastic, junk metal and plastic film. These materials are manually sorted from the sort at the pre -sort station. This can be costly for plastic film where a good deal of hand motion is required to sort just one pound of material. Missed plastic film wraps on the screen shafts and must be cut off frequently. These materials that cannot be easily sorted mechanically are often directed to drop -off collections that take these materials and other difficult to handle recyclables. City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 '• Page 33 Resource Recycling Systems /� . Sustainable Systems for Waste -Free Future S E H Minneapolis City of taxes Single -Sort Scale of Operation Historically the throughput sweet spot for single -sort facilities has been 15 ton per hour (tph) or 30,000 tons per year (tpy) or greater. This was based on the early screens that separated fiber from containers performing well at 15 tons per hour. The screens could be run at lower rates, but manual sorting staff requirements did not decrease much because of the sort locations that must be staffed, making smaller facilities proportionately more costly to operate. Some facilities were built in the 8 tph size range, using smaller or less advanced screen designs, mostly to serve isolated populations, large rural areas or where recycling rates are low. These lower throughput facilities could not compete economically with larger facilities where sufficient volume of recyclables is available. Recent designs with a single sort line appear to perform well in the 15 -35 tph -size ranges. At throughputs below 35 tph, increased capacity is obtained through increase in size of separation equipment and increase in the number of separation stages rather than through parallel equipment. The primary advantage of this approach is that little additional staff is required to increase throughput. As a bonus, the additional separation stages also ' have the potential of providing better separation quality and automated production of additional fiber grades. ? Most equipment designers choose to split the material sort after the OCC screen into two lines when processing 35 tph or more rather than build huge components to handle it all as one sort. This allows for a I loading /metering station, a single large presort and a single OCC screen. These split systems have been 1 designed to operate at more than 50 tons per hour. Usually, containers are recombined into a single sort for optical sorting. i I Facilities sized to process 50,000 tons or more per year usually justify optical sorters for PET and NHDPE. A number of facilities in this size range are also adding optical sort for CHDPE, #3 -7 plastics and cartons. Many larger facilities add more optical and mechanical sorting rather than increasing staff. 1 A number of facilities have been built to process more than 200,000 tons per year Most recent large facilities efe e l use optical sorters for most plastics. A few MRFs use optical sorters to post sort mixed fiber. These larger facilities are usually set up to receive transfer trailers and to serve a large geographical area In the Chicago area several large MRFs compete, drawing materials from five to seven states. e ;t Sequence of Operation ' The separation technologies vary somewhat from one manufacturer to another, but with a few exceptions there 0, 1 1 ` i s general agreement process eneral a reement on the se The two areas where design sequences significantly are the 0 sequence. g q uences var Y g Y ' ` " " place and method of glass removal and the place and method of small fiber recovery. See Appendix IV for a 4 d, , diagram of the Single Sort Process Flow Diagram. The following describes a typical single -sort equipment o;, sequence: il `` Lo adin hopper— is usual) loaded from the ti in floor b a lar a wheel loader �� Loading pp Y pp� g Y g ( • Metering (either metering drum from hopper or metering drum over inclined conveyor following hopper : with optical feedback control) • Presort — A large horizontal conveyor with picking stations for materials such as trash, large rigid plastic, junk metal, any materials that might wrap screen shafts. If no OCC screen follows, large OCC is :, 1 Y g p picked g p I l i here. If plastic film is collected, overhead suction tubes may be provided for film collection from sorters' a r ; hands. , OCC screen — Large OCC is removed (not needed in facilities where little OCC shows up in single -sort in- : I feed) C .a Most facilities provide a an OCC post -sort station that may or may not be staffed City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 -1 ‘0 7 Page 34 4 Resource Recycling Systems ----_ -'� Sustainable Systems fora Waste Free Future S E H Minneapolis Crty of takes • Second presort — Needed where lots of large OCC is delivered in single -sort materials because it is difficult to see under the large OCC • Glass removal —This can be done under OCC screen (BHS) or under a scalping screen following OCC screen (CP). This is often accomplished with a multi -stage all -metal roll- screen designed to break and screen glass from other materials. Glass is usually directed to a glass clean up system to remove most non -glass materials before the glass is stacked in a bunker. • The materials that pass through the OCC screen but not the glass breaker are fed to a news screen that separates newspaper from bottles and cans with smaller fiber. The ONP goes to a post sort station where brown paper /OCC, contaminants and out -throw are sorted to achieve the required market specification. • The bottles and cans with smaller fiber (unders) from the news screen pass to the next screen which separates mixed paper from the mixed bottles and cans. The mixed paper goes to a post sort station where bottles and cans, contaminants and newspaper that was not captures by the news screen are manually sorted to appropriate bins or conveyors. • The small paper that comes out with the bottles and cans from the mixed paper screen is recaptured either as part of the mixed paper screen operation or as a secondary process (CP uses air drum separators — ADS). Small paper is fed to the mixed paper post sort. • The bottles and cans are conveyed to the container sort section. Steel cans are pulled off with an overhead magnet. • Optical sorters remove PET, NHDPE and possibly other materials (CHDPE, #3 -7, cartons). Post sort manual inspection stations allow sorting materials missed by optical sorters. If PETG must be kept separate from PETE, this is usually accomplished manually at the PET post sort station. • Materials not sorted by optical sorters are manually sorted into appropriate bins • If aluminum is left on the line, an eddy current separator (ECS) captures the aluminum. Post sort stations can be staffed to capture missed aluminum and pick recyclables from residue. Some facilities manually sort foil items such as pie tins, but leave cans on conveyor for ECS, either to bale these materials separately or because some ECS units do not sort foil well. • Manual residuals sorting of recyclables missed on line. This position is built in most new facilities, but } often not staffed. • All sorted materials are stored in bunkers and bins and fed to one or more balers as bins fill. 1 A City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 35 i Resource Recycling Systems ' ' Sustainable Systems for a Waste Free Future SEH Minneapolis eery of Lakes ADDING MATERIALS TO THE RECYCLING SORT A number of MRFs recycle several materials that Minneapolis does not yet accept. • Metal recycling could also be expanded. • Minneapolis does collect most fiber materials. Depending on local markets, Minneapolis may be able to recycle other poly- coated papers with cartons or as a separate fiber grade • While markets for post consumer plastics other than #1 (PET) and #2 (HDPE) bottles have not yet matured, Minneapolis could substantially increase plastic recycling. Most processors are having no problem marketing the plastics they receive as long as the material is clean. The three most common inputs are plastic film and large rigid plastics. Each of these possible new materials is discussed in some detail in the following sections. METALS Many curbside collection programs include junk metals. In dual -sort recycling these materials are collected with containers and pulled out at the pre -sort station. In single -sort recycling the junk metals are pulled out at the main pre -sort station. The challenge with junk metals is defining what is and is not accepted and making sure residents are aware of the acceptable limits. In order for the collected material, to have good value to the ; 4 recycler, it needs to be clear that toaster ovens and microwaves are not accepted because a large portion of 1 them is not metal. Usually automobile parts are excluded, but items such as pots and pans are encouraged. ER '_. could add junk metals if in expanding its container pre -sort a chutes and a bunker are added for this material. If ER moves to single -sort collection, similarly, a place for this material could be included in the pre -sort. Amounts collected vary widely depending on restriction on materials and other entities that accept metals in the area RRS Recommends that ER consider recycling junk metals. POLY - COATED FIBER Poly- coated fiber is used to package many refrigerated and frozen food products as well as used for manufacture of paper cups. Some packages are coated on one side only while others are coated on both sides. Single coated packages may have printing on the fiber, where as on double coated fiber, the ink is usually on the poly. These packages also contain varying amounts of wet strength resin in the fiber. Accordingly, not all mills 4 that accept cartons can accept these materials. Where these materials can be sold with the cartons, the volume of poly- coated fiber can typically be doubled over the volume of cartons (aseptic plus gable -top) alone. Poly 4 coated packaging presents a challenge for collection and separation. In dual -sort collection, it is usually collected with containers. This can be confusing to residents. In single -sort processing, flattened packages may be mechanically sorted to mixed paper, while 3 -D packages will be sorted to containers. Optical sorters can readily identify /sort poly- coated fiber on the container line, but manual sorting would be required to pull this ° �mo t material from the mixed paper. RRS recommends that ER explore marketing opportunities for this material. If a range of poly- coated fiber can be mixed with cartons and sold at the same price, RRS recommends that ER ,i t 7 I t, explore feasibility adding existing Y ex lore the feasibilit of addin this material. In the existin system, no new hardware would be needed. PLASTIC FILM Plastic film can include plastic shopping and produce bags, industrial shrink -wrap, industrial stretch wrap and a variety of other bags and wraps. Plastic films of low- density polyethylene (LDPE), medium density polyethylene `, (MDPE), high- density polyethylene and polypropylene are common. All of these plastics belong to the polyolefin z family. Most industrial shrink and stretch wraps are also polyolefin. Most MRFs that receive plastic film bale it -`- City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 NO Page 36 Resource Recycling Systems ___ Sustainable Systems fora Waste Free Future 5 E H Minneapolis ay of Lakes all together. Mixed polyolefin is used in making plastic lumber and other products that do not require specific melt and flow properties. If specific resins can be baled separately, the plastic film has a much higher value and the plastic be recycled into higher end products. In areas where a large number of boats are shrink - wrapped for winter storage, having a bunker designated to stockpile this material every spring can be profitable. Distribution centers that restack pallets are often a significant year -round source of natural colored shrink and stretch wrap. If ER can encourage haulers to bring post- industrial clean plastic film to the MRF, ER can make money baling and selling this product. The price for clean post - industrial wrap varies, but $200- 300 /ton is common in some areas. Residential plastic film is primarily plastic bags. Most grocery shopping bags are HDPE and most produce and bread bags are LDPE, however, there is no standard. Most manufacturers of recycled content bags need =r4 material sorted by resin type. Plastic film is difficult to sort manually, mechanically or optically, so making ' shopping bags from shopping bags is not generally cost effective. The biggest problem in collection is making sure that bags are clean. Significant food contamination is a problem for nearly all buyers. ' If plastic film is collected curbside, some means of consolidation is needed to keep bags from blowing around t and to allow efficient sorting at the MRF. One of the most effective methods thus far observed is known as i "Bag- the - Bag ". In this approach, residents are instructed to stuff all bags in one outer bag and to tie the outer bag shut when the bag is full. The full bag is then placed at the curb with other recyclables. If collecting dual -sort, residents can be instructed to place the bag with either containers or fiber. Fiber is . g P g usually the preferred option, because bags can be sorted to a bunker either at pre -sort or at the main sort. If included with containers, bags must be picked at the pre -sort and the likelihood of contamination with broken glass is much higher. If collected in a single -sort program, bags must be picked at the pre -sort. Overhead suction tubes are often used to convey bags from multiple pick points to a common bunker. Because it takes from 200,000 to over 1,000,000 bags to make a bale, picking individual bags is not practical unless labor cost is very low. As a percentage of the total recycling sort, plastic bags are a small percentage. In programs aggressively collecting plastic bas, they can make up as much as 0.5% of the recycling - gg Y g P g Y p Y g sort. The value of this ,, } material varies wildly from $40- 200 /ton depending on product quality and available markets. Based on programs that have been observed thus far, RRS does not recommend that ER collect bags curbside. The challenge is getting residents to keep bags clean and consolidate them for efficient sorting. While residents are generally eager to add bags to their recycling, this can be a costly addition to the bin without ascertaining that residents will prepare the bags properly. LARGE RIGID PLASTICS Large Rigid Plastic usually refers to a wide variety of large molded objects. Lawn furniture, riding toys, play structures, buckets, large tubs, and a number of other larger molded plastic objects are typically included. The F, objects are mostly made from HDPE and PP. Because the pieces are large, hand sorting at secondary processor into specific resins is even practical in the US, though much of this material is sold off shore. This material is easily collected at drop -off stations, and is collected in many curbside programs. When collected single -sort this $4 material is pulled out manually at the pre -sort. In dual -sort collection, this material is almost always collected in t the container sort. The primary problem with large rigid plastics is the physical size of the object. Some programs limit the size of the largest piece. Others require that all objects fit in the collection bin or cart. Collection works best if the truck can compact the object, to avoid having the compartment on the truck fill prematurely. City of Minneapolis: Dual Sort /Single Sort Collection Study May 10, 2012 Page 37