MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MANUAL

This manual was developed by the staff of the Minnesota Office of Waste Management. The following individuals contributed to the development of this manual: Solid Waste Management Advisory Council Gene Bueckers Trudell Een Richard Engan LeAllan Estrem Linnea Fredrickson Mary James Kevin Johnson Timothy Kennedy Don Kyser Neal Miller Daniel Molesky Dawn Molesky Gary Neilsen Thomas Osdoba Sigurd Scheurle Barb Thoman Jeff Weaver Sue Wiley Jon Winji

Printed on recycled paper

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I . PLANNING A MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY A. B. C. Introduction Organization of manual Office of Waste Management technical assistance programs Local government assistance 1. Solid waste. grants and technical assistance 2. Market development grants and technical assistance 3. Materials recovery facilities: Building blocks Catalyst for materials recovery facilities in Minnesota 1. Leadership in planning a materials recovery facility 2. Matching materials recovery facility to recycling system 3. Planning Collection Design Markets 4. Public education/promotion 5. Financing, procurement, and operation 6. 7. Permits Page I-l I-2 I-2 I-2 I-3 I-3 I-4 I-5 I-6 I-7 I-7 I-8 I-8 I-8

D.

II.

MATERIALS RECOVERY PROJECT CASE STUDIES A. B. Introduction Map of materials recovery project case studies Overview of projects The City of Cannon Falls (Goodhue County) 1. Cook County 2. Mower County 3. 4. The City of Sauk Centre (Stearns County) Analysis of materials recovery project case study fact sheets Institutional arrangements 1. Operational parameters 2. Cost factors 3. Materials recovery project table Key to materials recovery project table e i II - 1 II - la II - 2 II - 2 II - 2 II - 2 II - 3 II - 3 II - 4 II - 5 II - 6

C.

D. E.

IV.

APPENDICES APPENDIX A - Materials recovery facility industrial safety inspection list APPENDIX B - Goodhue County materials recovery facility layout APPENDIX C - Kandiyohi County materials recovery facility layout APPENDIX D - Olmsted County materials recovery facility layout APPENDIX E - Rice County materials recovery facility layout APPENDIX F - Additional sources of information on recycling APPENDIX G - Order form for Materials Recovery Facility Technical Assistance Manual APPENDIX H - Pollution Control Agency solid waste management rules APPENDIX I - OWM solid waste management financial assistance program fact sheets

111

...

CHAPTER 1 PLANNING A MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY

B.

ORGANIZATION OF MANUAL

This manual provides a resource for organizations and businesses that undertake the development and implementation of a MRF. By summarizing the planning steps that contribute to a successful project, the manual will allow entities to save time and money during the planning process and will assist in developing better projects. Chapter I summarizes the planning steps that are essential to MRF development and the technical assistance programs available through the Minnesota Office of Waste Management (OWM). Chapter II presents detailed case studies of four recycling programs in Minnesota, three of which include a MRF. The case studies provide program descriptions; collection, processing, and marketing data; and cost summaries. Chapter III presents an overview of the technical considerations involved in the development of a MRF. This overview includes a checklist of equipment and building specifications that will assist in the design of future MRFs.

c.

OFFICE OF WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

This section summarizes the OWM financial and technical assistance programs for the s development of solid waste processing facilities. 1.
Local Government Assistance

The OWM Local Government Assistance Unit assists Minnesota 87 counties. The OWM s s provides financial support in the form of pass-through grants allocated in the SCORE legislation. The OWM, also provides technical assistance to counties for planning and developing new programs to effectively manage solid waste. A major responsibility for counties is the development of comprehensive solid waste management plans. The Local Government Assistant Unit assists in the preparation, review, and approval of such plans to assure compliance with the legislative objectives.
2. Solid Waste Grants and Technical Assistance

The Solid Waste Grants Unit provides financial assistance to cities, counties, solid waste management districts, and sanitary districts for solid waste management projects. Technical assistance is provided to all interested parties. Projects that have received financial assistance from this unit include solid waste processing facilities and recycling collection programs. The Solid Waste Processing Facility Capital Assistance Program (CAP) has provided over $16.7 million in grants since 1985, a portion
I-2

of which was for the development of MRFs. This experience has generated a store of technical expertise that is valuable to both public and private entities that are considering the development and implementation of a MRF or other solid waste management programs.
3. Market Development Grants and Technical Assistance

The Market Development Unit provides financial and technical assistance to cities, counties, solid waste management districts, sanitary districts, and other organizations in the recycling community for activities that support sustained development of markets for recyclable materials and recycled products. Local units of government and other organizations that are developing and implementing recycling programs should utilize the resources of this unit to acquire and develop satisfactory markets for recyclable materials.

D.

MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITIES: BUILDING BLOCKS

This section discusses essential ingredients for developing successful MRFs and is a guide for project managers responsible for the planning and development.
1. Catalyst for Materials Recovery Facilities in Minnesota

Public interest and support for recycling is perhaps the most important catalyst for initiating or expanding recycling activities. The public is now enthusiastic about recycling and many other environmental issues. This may be helpful in securing public acceptance of a new recycling program. Citizen advisory committees can aid in formulating solutions for the challenges of recycling and broadening program support. Another catalyst used for increasing development of MRFs in Minnesota was the SCORE legislation. The SCORE recycling goals were determined due to Minnesota growing s shortage of land disposal capacity for solid waste. The recycling goals established in the legislation are higher than the level of recycling accomplished through voluntary residential recycling programs. In order to achieve the SCORE goals, counties are developing MRFs to address the processing and marketing issues necessary for success. Public interest and SCORE have caused many county and city officials to examine whether their community needs a MRF. This important question can only be answered after some careful study. Today MRF may cost in excess of $1 million. The cost to process a ton of recyclables may s exceed $100. Conversely, the cost for collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste is between $120 and $180 per ton. Clearly, a final decision regarding whether or not to build a MRF cannot be made without a deliberate study of the facts. Local units of government and other organizations should research existing information to determine whether a MRF is needed. A county Solid Waste Management Plan usually s provides some information about current recycling facilities and what existing recycling programs are in place. Plans also include an implementation section that may influence the desirability of a MRF for processing recyclables.
I-3

Several methods of MSW processing are available as an alternative to land disposal, and many of these methods have been tried throughout Minnesota over the past 10 years. These methods include waste-to-energy incineration, refuse-derived-fuel (RDF), cornposting, and recycling. While all of these methods provide an alternative to land disposal, recycling is the one method accepted as environmentally protective and politically acceptable. The SCORE legislation reflects this by identifying recycling as a top priority for processing solid waste. (NOTE: A reduction in the amount of waste generated is the first priority for solid waste management in Minnesota, but does not represent a method of processing solid waste.) The legislature intent is to minimize the need for land disposal facilities in Minnesota. The s aforementioned processing alternatives reduce the need for land disposal capacity but do not eliminate the need completely. The OWM advocates an integrated approach to solid waste management that incorporates more than one management method. For example, a county may develop a solid waste management system that includes recycling, incineration, and land disposal of residual waste. The SCORE legislation has institutionalized integrated systems by placing such a high priority on recycling. This legislative direction reflects the political and economic realities associated with solid waste management. Incineration is expensive and presents potential environmental problems. Solid waste composting just developing in the United States and is also an expensive undertaking. In comparison to both incineration and MSW composting, recycling can be implemented with a smaller capital outlay and presents fewer environmental review concerns. In addition, recycling is a method of energy conservation. Many manufacturers will see substantial energy savings by substituting recyclable materials for virgin materials in the manufacturing process.
2. Leadership in Planning a Materials Recovery Facility

Successful planning and implementation of a MRF requires effective leadership through all stages of a project. The OWM recommends forming a project management team to provide the necessary leadership. If implementation is at the county level, a project team should consist of: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. One or more county commissioners; The county solid waste officer; All county, city, and private recycling coordinators; Other county staff with public works, financial, and legal expertise; An engineering consultant; and A project manager (if not the solid waste officer).

This team will provide the leadership necessary to secure support for the development of a MRF. The OWM encourages the appointment of a project manager whose sole responsibilities are to develop and implement the MRF. A number of proposed Minnesota

I-4

solid waste projects have failed due to indecision caused by the lack of a project management team or the loss of a project leader. Every community has a great deal of local expertise that can be applied to a proposed project. Seek out this expertise. Help with project development by visiting similar facilities, viewing equipment while in operation, and talking with other MRF operators. The existence of local expertise cannot, however, replace the need for experienced engineering and architectural consultants. Consultants can provide an unbiased outlook on economics, design factors, and overall system operations from the curb to marketing. Consultant involvement in review of equipment installation, facility operation, shakedown, and final facility acceptance is advised. In addition to the project team, the OWM recommends the formation of an advisory committee. An advisory committee should consist of: 1. 2. 3.
4.

The project team; Representatives from the solid waste and recycling industry; Representatives from other affected political subdivisions; and Citizen representatives.

This committee will organize a public forum for the planning of a MRF. This public forum will provide interested parties with an opportunity to give the project team valuable input on the project and will secure a wide base of support for the project. This advisory committee should meet to develop a consensus prior to making major decisions in the planning process. The project manager may consider establishing a subcommittee to assist in the technical review of a project. This smaller group would meet more frequently to assist in the technical aspects of a project.3. Matching Materials Recovery Facility to Recycling System

This section summarizes considerations for planning a MRF that matches the characteristics of the recycling system the facility will serve. These considerations are essential for long term effectiveness and efficiency.
a. Planning

Every Minnesota county prepares and maintains a comprehensive solid waste management plan or, for metropolitan counties, a solid waste master plan. The plan specifies components of the solid waste management system that will be developed in a county. A county that intends to develop a MRF, whether public or private, must describe the MRF within the context of its plan, including a discussion on how the MRF will contribute to the county solid waste management goals. s

I-5

The SCORE legislation requires each county to amend its plan by preparing a recycling implementation plan for meeting the recycling goals. This plan amendment must describe the recycling programs that will be developed in a county, including any MRFs that will be developed to support the recycling activities.
A county must undergo an important decision making process when preparing this recycling

implementation plan. The procedures a county will use to accomplish their recycling goals must be determined. Mechanisms for providing financial incentives to solid waste generators for reducing the amount of waste generated and for separating recyclable materials from the waste stream must also be determined. These major policy decisions will serve as a foundation for the successful implementation of recycling programs. Input from the private sector should be included in this process. A project team will utilize the information developed and presented in these plans to assess the need for increased recycling activities to meet the SCORE requirements. If a county proposes a MRF to serve the recycling programs, the planning process will assist in identifying the need for the MRF and will provide guidance when developing the facility. For example, a county may determine that curbside collection of recyclables is necessary in every city with a population over 3,000. The information supporting that determination would include estimates of recyclable materials to be collected and program costs. A project team determines the appropriate capacity and design of a MRF, and will be able to ascertain the financing necessary for the project. The project team should also investigate other recycling programs in counties or cities with similar demographics. b. Collection The collection of recyclables can be the single largest cost related to recycling. This element is critical to the development of a MRF. A project team must initially determine the types and quantities of recyclables in the mixed solid waste stream that could be separated and collected for processing at the MRF. This search for recyclables should examine the waste generated by households; however, a tremendous amount of recyclable material is generated and discarded by institutions, commercial businesses, and industries. These large quantity generators can be very helpful in identifying large quantities of readily available recyclables. With this information in hand, optional methods of collection can be evaluated more accurately. The most important aspects of a collection program are cost, dependability, and convenience. Mixed waste. collection historically has provided a coat effective, dependable service to most households. Recyclers can learn a lot from this approach to collection. Recyclable materials drop-off satellites/sheds or drop boxes are also excellent ways to collect recyclables, especially in rural areas. Although a curbside approach costs more, it will generally yield higher participation rates, higher volumes, and greater support from those

I-6

served. Consistent and reliable service is needed to help residential, commercial, and - industrial generators participate and appreciate their opportunity to recycle. Collectors of recyclable materials use everything from coaster wagons to semi-trailers. For this reason, the developers of a MRF must establish communication with and be sensitive to the needs of collectors before proceeding with the siting and design of the MRF which will serve them. Most collectors are concerned about the speed and convenience of unloading collected materials. Collectors may also want a record of the quantity of materials delivered. In the past, some facilities have reserved an area for buying back aluminum and other high value materials. Many new public MRFs do not have this option. The public is encouraged to donate materials or sell aluminum to scrap dealers or other buyers.
c. Design

Chapters II and III provide a great deal of information about facility design. These chapters demonstrate that there are a variety of building layouts and processing schemes available. There are, however, some important issues that should be considered in the design of MRFs: Types and quantities of materials proposed for delivery to the facility Types of collection vehicles delivering materials Selection of an appropriate site Availability of essential utilities Need to quantify and record deliveries Time, equipment, and space required for receiving and unloading Procedures and equipment for sorting recyclables - quality control Configuration of receiving, processing, storage, and shipping areas Lighting, ventilation, and safety features to protect workers Selection of appropriate equipment Ease of expanding and/or remodeling the facility
4. Markets

Marketing processed recyclables is the objective of every MRF. Identifying and securing markets for all of the materials is central to the cost effectiveness, design, and operation of recycling prograins. The challenge of a MRF is the transformation of recyclable waste into marketable resources for future use. Therefore, the demand of secondary materials markets should guide the architects of recycling facilities with respect to: Types and quantities of recyclables accepted by the MRF Level of sorting necessary for before-and-after delivery to the MRF Equipment and staffing needed for sorting recyclables Processing required for end-market acceptance and economical transportation

1-7

Amount of storage required for accumulating sufficient quantities of recyclables for transport Revenue projections for the sale of recyclables
5. Public Education/Promotion

Garnering lasting support and participation from the community is perhaps the largest challenge facing the developers of recycling projects. Many barriers exist to changing the behavior of waste generators. Overcoming these barriers involves a well financed and ongoing public education campaign. Yet, without a convenient and consistent program to provide recycling services, even the finest public education and promotion efforts will fall short. Many recycling coordinators recommend that public education campaigns express a clear and consistent message that directly requests a specific response from generators. This message can only be formulated once the project has emerged from the planning stage to the verge of implementation. Because of the public current environmental awareness, most s communities are waiting impatiently for someone to organize and implement a recycling program so that they may begin to recycle. This awareness will help well organized programs succeed. Lengthy timeframes are often involved with this activity. Numerous counties and cities have gone through the educational process and much can be learned from their experiences.
6. Financing, Procurement, and Operation

If a MRF is to be owned by a county, it is important to discuss early, at the highest levels (county commissioner level), the issue of financing capital and operating costs. The need for secure and dependable annual financing cannot be overemphasized since additional funding for the program will be needed. The relationship of annual capital cost to the total annual capital and operational costs is also an important consideration. Wise initial capital costs can save additional annual operating costs. Financing the initial and ongoing costs of MRFs can be managed through a combination of methods, including: Public MRF Recycling user fees/service fees assessed by local government SCORE funds Issuance of debt Revenue from the sale of recyclables Property taxes and special assessments Landfill surcharges Tipping fees at solid waste facilities OWM grants

I-8

General obligation (GO) bonds Revenue bonds Private MRF Recycling user fees/service fees Bank loans Private capital Subsidies from local government Revenue from the sale of recyclables Regardless of ownership, most projects are procured through the traditional architect and engineer (A & E) process. This involves the design and construction of a tailor-made facility to meet the needs of the owner. Modifications or additions to existing structures are possible but require careful review to assure maximum flexibility. The key is to balance capital costs with operating costs. Operation and management of a MRF can be carried out by employees of the MRF owner or by contract with a third party. Careful consideration of any management and operation agreement needs to be undertaken. A number of counties have negotiated these types of agreements that can serve as a basis to start initial negotiations. The following case studies (Chapter II) demonstrate different methods of financing, procuring, and operating both public and private MRFs. 7. Permits

Local permitting requirements vary depending on the area in which a MRF is developed. The project team should contact its local planning department in order to evaluate the required permits. The Chapter II case studies indicate some of the different permits needed for MRF development. Recycling facilities must obtain a solid waste management facility permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Facilities that collect or process source separated recyclable materials (MRFs) need to provide notice of operation and an annual report through the permit-by-rule process. For more information on the MPCA permit-by-rule process, see Appendix H.

I-9

CHAPTER II MATERIALS RECOVERY PROJECT CASE STUDIES

A.

INTRODUCTION

Since 1984, the OWM has awarded ten grants for the construction of MRFs in the state. These grants totaled almost $4 million, and assisted in financing the capital costs of implementing recycling programs. This chapter presents comprehensive case studies of four Minnesota recycling programs: the City of Cannon Falls recycling program, the Cook County recycling facility, the Mower County recycling facility, and the City of Sauk Centre transfer station and recycling facility. All but the Sauk Centre facility have received OWM grant assistance. The programs were chosen to reflect the variation among current recycling programs in the state. The case studies were developed to provide comprehensive information on how a recycling program operates from collection through the marketing of the processed recyclables. The four projects vary in methods of operation, public education, collection, processing, and marketing of recyclables. The following case studies offer information on: recyclables processed, program statistics, facility operation, cost information, markets, the goals of the program, facility layouts, and equipment lists.

II - 1

SELECTED MINNESOTA MATERIALS RECOVERY PROJECTS - CASE STUDY LOCATIONS -

II - la

B.
1.

OVERVIEW OF PROJECTS
The City of Cannon Falls (Goodhue County)

The City of Cannon Falls began a recycling program in October 1988. The program does not have a central processing or materials recovery facility, but provides weekly curbside services and a central drop-off location for residents. The program accepts aluminum, all colors of glass, HDPE plastic, old newsprint, mixed metals, and corrugated cardboard. During the first year of operation, the program diverted 243 tons of waste from the Pinebend landfill in Dakota County.
2. Cook County

The Cook County recycling program has been operating since 1985 and consists of a dropoff and MRF located in Grand Marais, and a rural drop-off center in Tofte. Cook County s population increases during the summer tourist season from about 4,200 to over 15,000. The facility accepts cardboard, all colors of glass, old newsprint, aluminum, magazines, steel and tin cans, mixed paper, used motor oil, lead acid batteries, yard waste, used clothing, and household items. Used clothing and household items are offered for sale. Any unsold items are sent to Goodwill Industries. The maximum operating capacity of the facility is approximately five tons per day (TPD). In 1989, the facility diverted 15% of the CookCounty solid waste stream from landfill disposal. Cook County recently began a pilot curbside collection program in the City of Grand Marais.
3. Mower County

Mower County opened a MRF in October 1989. The County provides monthly curbside collection and drop-off facilities for residents, along with some commercial recyclable materials processing. The facility accepts newspaper, all colors of glass, aluminum, HDPE and PET plastic, corrugated cardboard, and tin for processing. The maximum operating capacity of the Mower County facility is 30 TPD. The facility is expected to process 913 tons of recyclable materials during the first year of operation.
4. The City of Sauk Centre (Steams County)

At the Sauk Centre transfer station and MRF, workers remove recyclables from the mixed municipal solid waste (MSW). All waste in the western portion of Stearns County is designated to the transfer station. The facility separates all plastic bottles, aluminum, copper wire, corrugated cardboard, demolition material, all colors of glass, iron, tin cans, and white goods from the mixed MSW. Unacceptable materials are baled and shipped to a fuel pellet processing plant in North Dakota. The privately owned and operated facility processes approximately 30 to 40 TPD of mixed MSW.

II - 2

c.

ANALYSIS OF MATERIALS RECOVERY PROJECT CASE STUDY FACT SHEETS

Each of the following case study fact sheets are comprised of three categories:
Institutional arrangements Operating parameters Cost factors

The institutional arrangements section includes information on the role of the public and private sector in regard to ownership and operation of the facility. Ownership and operation of the facility may be accomplished through one of the following arrangements: 1.
2. 3. Full Public: publicly-owned and operated Public/Private: publicly-owned and privately-operated Full Private: privately-owned and operated

Of the case studies. three are public (Cannon Falls, Cook County, and Mower County) and one is private (Sauk Centre). The institutional arrangements section also details how the materials recovery projects were developed and financed, whether privately, through the sale of some type of governmental bonds, or through bank loans. The onerational parameters section explains how recyclables are accepted (commingled vs. sorted) and the types of materials accepted. The greatest difference between the materials recovery projects is the types of paper and plastic accepted. The types of paper accepted may include magazines, corrugated cardboard, old newspaper, mixed paper grades, and high grade paper. Plastic types may include high density polyethylene (HDPE), polyethylene teraphthalate (PET), and polyvinylchloride (PVC). Residue generation is also a pertinent concern of facility operation as the disposal of residue presents an additional operating cost to the facility. The maximum operating capacity of most U.S. MRFs is under 100 tons per day (TPD). All four case study programs are under 100 TPD operating capacity. Information will also be examined in regard to the collection, facility space requirements, facility layout, the processing operation, the number of personnel needed for operation, and markets for recyclable materials. Other factors important to operation of MRFs are power requirements, facility procurement, required permits, and the implementation time frame of the program.

II - 3

Hard cost information for each case study is provided for the capital costs of the project, annual tonnage sold, annual revenues from the sale of materials, revenue per ton, and -annual operating and maintenance costs. Additional fact sheet data involves municipal solid waste characteristics, waste disposal options, public education, and equipment lists.

II - 4

KEY TO MATERIALS RECOVERY PROJECT TABLE

Capacity_ - Maximum processing capacity in tons per day (TPD) Population Served - Entire population serviced by facility or program Total Capital Cost - Actual (or estimated) capital cost of the facility Type of Service (Frequency)

Some curbside (SC) Drop-off (DO) Commercial (service some commercial waste in Curbside (CS) addition to residential waste), (C) Buy-back (BB) Other (please specify), (0) * Frequency of collection = weekly (w), bi-weekly (bw), monthly (m), or
5. Floor Space
- Process/Storage/Tipping-Receiving Area

other (0)

- This row of data lists three (3) separate building dimensions in square feet: processing area, storage area; and the tipping or receiving area

6. Annual Tonnage Sold - Total tonnage of recyclables sold 7. Annual Revenues (Sales) - Total revenue from sale of recyclables (does not include

revenue from labor subsidies, grants, or from any other revenue source)
8. Annual Operating Costs - This sum comprises the following costs:

Salaries (operating, maintenance, & administrative) Employee benefits Residue removal/disposal Other overhead Insurance Professional service

Maintenance (building and equipment) Fuel (gasoline & heat) Public education/awareness Electricity Water & sewer

* Costs associated with collection or debt service are not included.

9. Annual Collection Costs - This sum comprises the following costs:

Collection contract Salaries (operating & maintenance) Employee benefits

Insurance Fuel (gasoline) Equipment maintenance

II - 6

Cannon Falls Recycling Program . . . Page Two

MSW Characteristics
The City of Cannon Falls generates 1,923 tons per year of mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) (October 1988 - October 1989 data). Approximately 39% of the waste stream is residential waste and the remainder (61%) is commercial waste.

Implementation Time Frame

One year was required from conception to grant award.

Public Education
$2,OOO advertising/education budget includes the following activities: advertisements - two months prior to curbside service (Itasca County ads used as a model) brochures, along with 1,200 co-mingle bins, delivered to households by volunteers October 10th proclaimed recycling week by the mayor recycling contest for grades K-12 weekly column and editorials - one month before curbside service weekly $10 recycling prize, city and rural participants public speaking at local groups telephone calls to encourage participation

Program Staffing
The program is staffed by a paid coordinator (part-time) who awards the weekly city and rural recycling prizes, facilitates the weekly newspaper column, and organizes volunteer groups to staff the Saturday drop-off center (i.e. Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Lions, etc.).

Collection Operation
The collection contract for curbside services is with Waste Management Inc. (memo of understanding - three year commitment and payments in kind). Cannon Falls receives a bill for labor, maintenance, gas/fuel, etc. Waste Management also contributes time for the Saturday drop-off operation. There is no charge per stop at each household (the cost is approximately $1.30/household/month). Curbside collection is weekly and on the same day as refuse collection (Tuesday and Wednesday from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m.). A pick-up and trailer unit is used for curbside collection. The trailer is divided into six compartments. The operator picks up a bin and sorts materials into the trailer. Residents can co-mingle the recyclables for curbside pickup. Each household has been furnished with a recycling bin.

Cannon Falls Recycling Program . . . Page Three The truck and trailer used for curbside collection is also used for drop-off collection. The drop-off area is centrally located at a city parking lot on Highway 19. Drop-off hours are on Saturday from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. Recyclables are sorted into compartments in the trailer. Each compartment hydraulically lifts to dump the sorted recyclables into roll-off boxes. These boxes are covered and used as storage until full.

Processing
Glass is separated by color. All materials are loaded loose for transport to market. Recyclables have been stored and transported unprocessed to reduce front end costs. Recyclables are transported when the roll-off boxes are full. Reject material: approximately 25% of the plastic material received is reject material. Goals: reach 50% participation rate, 10% waste reduction, include food cans in May 1990, include commercial cardboard pick-up in June 1990, include PET plastic in the future.

Cannon Falls Recycling Program . . . . Page File

Project Profile
Operator: City of Cannon Falls, contracts with Waste Management Inc. for collection Collection equipment costs: Collection vehicle . . . . . . . $ 8,500 Collection trailer . . . . . . . $16,430 Drop-off boxes (4) . . . . . . $8,975 Curbside collection bins . . $6,510 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $40,415 Sources of funding: 1. LOW-TECH grant 2. county funds 3. revenue from the sale of processed materials 4. private industry funds 5. local city or township funds Period of operation . . . . . October 1988 to present Ordinances . . . . . . . . . . . The City of Cannon Falls passed a resolution that requires all licensed haulers in the city to provide curbside recycling. Tipping fee . . . . . . . . . . . $156/ton at Pinebend-landfill (June 1990) Recyclable processing . . . It was estimated that the program would process 84 tons of recyclables a year, but 243 tons were actually collected in Year 1. Estimates 320 tons for Year 2. Waste abatement . . . . . . . diverted 243 tons in Year 1 (15-l/2% recycling) Population of Cannon Fall + 11 surrounding twnshps . . . . 10,958 s Total population served by curbside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,357 Total households served by curbside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,200 Average participation rate in curbside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90+% (taken from a survey with a sample size of 10% of the population) Average participation rate in drop-off program . . . . . . . . . . 16% Cost/Household/Month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.21 (households w i t h c u r b s i d e ) Operation of program: curbside collection - weekly drop-off location - 4 hours on Saturday Household hazardous waste program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1986 HHW collection project; 1990 Fall collection

SHEET
Background

COOK COUNTY: RECYCLING PROGRAM

On May 28, 1987, Cook County was awarded a Demonstration Program (DEMO) grant of $62,755 to build a drop-off and processing facility located in Grand Marais and a rural drop-off center in Tofte. Cook County had operated a recycling program since 1985, but needed additional funds for a building and processing equipment. Since Cook County is a major tourist area. significant seasonal increases in population take place. The summer tourist season elevates the permanent population from around 4,200 to over 15,000.

Waste Management Options

The Cook County Sanitary landfill has approximately 30 years of remaining capacity at the current rate of 1,800 to 1,900 tons per year landfilled. Prior to the development of the Cook County recycling program in 1985, all of Cook County \ solid waste had been landfilled.

Private Recycling Operations

None.

Recyclablcs and Other Materials Accepted:

MSW Characteristics
.Cook County generates 1,995 tons per year of mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) (1989 estimate). The county waste stream is comprised of residential and commercial waste only.

Implementation Time Frame

Six months were required from conception to grant award. It took approximately three months from construction to a fully operational facility.

Facility Staffing
Both drop-off centers have an attendant on duty. The attendant or operator at the Grand Marais facility is responsible for receiving and processing all materials. Community service workers occasionally assist the recycling center operator with processing of materials. A Budget Shop contractor operates the household goods sales area. In the summer months, two additional workers are hired to help with processing. OSHA training and gloves are provided.

Facility Operation
The Grand Marais facility serves as a central drop-off and processing facility. It buys aluminum from the public. A semi-trailer in Tofte serves as a rural drop-off center. Recyclable materials collected in Tofte are processed at the Grand Marais facility.

Collection Operation
The hauler in Grand Marais is paid $50 per hour for curbside collection services. Approximately two hours a month are required to complete the curbside collection of recyclables. The curbside collection program serves 20 households in the City of Grand Marais. Residents set their separated recyclables out in paper bags for collection. The hauler uses a pick-up and trailer, equipped with boxes, to hold the recyclables.

Processing
The facility processes materials approximately four hours a day. When the Tofte trailer is full, an empty trailer is moved to the Tofte site and the full trailer is brought to Grand Marais for processing. Materials are stored in the Grand Marais facility until they can be shipped to market. Glass is crushed. Cardboard, tin cans, and aluminum cans are baled separately. Newspaper and magazines/mixed paper are baled together. Used motor oil is placed in storage tanks. Household items are placed for sale in the county Budget Shop or boxed for s shipment to Goodwill. Equipment down-time: one-half day annual maintenance on baler. Normal maintenance for other equipment (grease, oil change, etc.). Goals: reach 20.3 % waste reduction in 1990, 25% waste reduction (long range), include plastic in Summer 1990 after the building addition is completed, target resorts in Summer 1990 to secure recyclables generated during tourist season. (In order to meet the SCORE requirements, the county must recover 585 tons per year of recyclable materials).

* The county feels that four loading docks are needed rather than two and that the square footage of the building could be doubled. The Budget Shop takes up 500 square feet.

SHEET
Background

MOWER COUNTY: RECYCLING PROGRAM

On November 10, 1988, Mower County was awarded a Capital Assistance Program (CAP) grant of $415,589 to assist in the construction of a facility for the processing and marketing of recyclable materials and also in the development of remote collection facilities. The Mower County recycling program consists of three components: the City of Austin and Mapleview monthly curbside collection, the City of Austin weekly drop-box collection for apartment complexes, and weekly rural recycling drop-box collection for each municipality in the county. Previous recycling programs in Mower County consisted of periodic paper drives by

civic and social groups. However, the programs did not appreciably remove much of the recyclable materials from the waste stream. Because of low market prices for newsprint, paper drives are no longer being carried out. Waste Management Options Mower County utilizes the Albert Lea Sanitary Landfill as the County does not have its own landfill. The County is currently negotiating an agreement with the City of Albert Lea for use of the landfill for an extended period of time. Private Recycling Operations None. Recyclables and Other Materials Accepted:

Public Education
$10,000 for the first year and $15,000 per year, thereafter. The education budget includes the following activities:
.

. . . . .

public speaking at service groups and public events newspaper articles radio announcements and interviews TV announcements mailings to county residents week-long curriculum on recycling in grade schools (targeted for the 4th and 5th grades)

* The county would like to hire a student worker for approx. 20 hours a week.

Facility Staffing
The facility is staffed by a recycling coordinator, 13 Cedar Valley -Rehabilitation Workshop (CVRW) contract workers (sort and process materials), a CVRW recycling foreman (oversees CVRW clients and helps with processing), a secretary/receptionist, and two job coaches. Gloves, hardhats, goggles, and ear plugs are provided.

Facility Operation
The facility serves as a central drop-off and processing facility. The City of Austin and Mapleview have monthly curbside collection. Austin also has weekly drop-box collection for apartment complexes. Rural municipalities are served by weekly drop-box collection.

Collection Operation
Mower County contracts with three private haulers for curbside collection of recyclables and for collection of materials at the drop-off sites. The haulers receive:
.

. .

$1.25 for the first 400 customer stops $1.10 for additional stops Approx. $2,000.00 per month to empty all drop-off sheds on a bimonthly basis

(The county cost for May curbside collection in the Cities of Austin & Mapleview was $2,500).

Haulers use a specialized, county-owned trailer to collect recyclables from tile curb. The trailer has four bins which hydraulicly empty into gaylord boxes inside the recycling center. It takes about seven hours a day (Monday through Friday) for collection. Each household within the county, other than apartment dwellers, can receive three, stackable material bins for curbside collection. The trailers used to empty rural recycling centers and drop-boxes are modified horse trailers. The rural centers are serviced when necessary, which is usually twice a month. There are 13 rural sheds or drop-boxes in the county. The sheds are 10 x 12 ft and contain 12 (55 gallon) barrels for the recyclables.

Processing
The facility processes materials approximately six hours a day. Overflow materials are stored until they can be processed. Glass is crushed. Cardboard and newspaper are baled separately. Tin and aluminum cans are flattened. HDPE plastic is shredded. PET plastic is baled. Reject material: 4-5% (mostly plastic from the rural areas). Rejects are sent to the landfill. Equipment down-time: one-half hour down-time per ten hours with the plastic granulator. Detergents, oil, etc. from the plastic tend to get stuck on the outside of the fan. This causes the blower to quit working after a period of time. Goals: 10 - 15% waste reduction after second year.

Annual Tonnage Sold - 1989

Newsprint Corrugated cardboard HDPE plastic PET plastic Glass, all colors Aluminum

Tonnage
126 12

23

Non-ferrous TOTAL

.5 167.5

Annual Revenues*
Sale of Materials Revenue Per Ton $2,359

Tons of Waste Landfilled

*October 1, 1989 to December 31, 1989 sales

26,000

POPULATION OF MINNESOTA COUNTIES Breakdown by category

1990 Census

POPULATION CATEGORY 0 - 10,000 10,000 to 20,000 20,000 to 30,000 30,000 to 40,000 40,000 to 50,000 50,000 to 60,000 60,000 to 70,000 70,000 to 100,000 100,000 to 200,000 200,000 to 300,000 300,000 to 400,000 400,000 to 500,000 500,000+

NUMBER OF COUNTIES 15 27 16 9 .7 4 1 0 4 2 0 1 1 counties counties counties counties counties counties county counties counties counties counties county county

1990 MINNESOTA CENSUS DATA

February 13, 1991 4,375,099 37,385 9,660 28,076 20,098 7,975 106,470 50,714 13,306 21,264 10,491 32,498 10,745 485,765 4,525 17,254 17,673 49,183 9,806 15,026 198,213 57,846 41,945 14,366 118,791 30,729 10,634 10,724 23,363 4,463 19,744 13,154 18,079 145,896 11,682 7,516 47,828 68,710 11,684

Source: State Demoqrapher Minnesota Population ----------------Aitkin County -----Anoka County - - - Becker County -----Beltrami County ---Benton County -----Big Stone County --Blue Earth County -Brown County ------Carlton County - - - Carver County -----Cass County -------Chippewa County ---Chisago County ----Clay County -------Clearwater County -Cook County ------Cottonwood County -Crow Wing County --Dakota County -----Dodge County ------Douglas County ----Faribault County --Fillmore County ---Freeborn County ---Goodhue County ----Grant County --------Hennepin County ---Houston County ----Hubbard County - - - Isanti County -----Itasca County -----Jackson County ----Kanabec County ----Kandiyohi County --Kittson County ----Koochiching County Lac qui Parle County Lake County -------Lake of the Woods Co Le Sueur County ---Lincoln County ----Lyon County - - - - - McLeod County -----Mahnomen County ---Marshall County ---Martin County -----Meeker County -----Mille Lacs County -Morrison County ---12,425 243,641 27,881 34,384 30,185 6,285 54,044 26,984 29,259 47,915 21,791 13,228 30,521 50,422 8,309 3,868 12,694 44,249 275,227 15,731 28,674 16,937 20,777 33,060 40,690 6,246 1,032,431 la,497 14,939 25,921 -40,863 11,677 12,802 38,761 5,767 16,299 a,924 10,415 4,076 23,239 6,890 24,789 32,030 5,044 10,993 22,914 20,846 18,670 29,604

Mower County - - - - Murray County - - - - Nicollet County ---Nobles County - - - Norman County -----Olmsted County ----Otter Tail County -Pennington County -Pine County - - - - - Pipestone County --Polk County - - - - - Pope County ------Ramsey County -----Red Lake County ---Redwood County ----Renville County ---Rice County -------Rock County ------Roseau County - - - St. Louis County --Scott County - - - - Sherburne County --Sibley County - - - Stearns County ----Steele County - - - Stevens County ----Swift County - - - Todd County -------Traverse County ---Wabasha County ----Wadena County -----Waseca County -----Washington County -Watonwan County ---Wilkin County -----Winona County -----Wright County -----Yellow Medicine Co.-

Operation of facility: 6 hours a day Monday through Friday Household hazardous waste program . . . . . . . . . . . . education of public on HHW (pamphlets, public service announcements) Power Requirements: 208 volts, 3-phase, 60 Hertz service (largest motor: 15 hp) Combined hp - approx. 50 hp Space Requirements: 2 Processing area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,000 ft 2 Storage area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,250 ft 2 Tipping/receiving area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000 ft 2 Office area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,500 ft Ceiling height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ft 6 inches

For more information, contact= Jeffey A. Weaver

Project Manager 1111 N.E. 8th Ave. Austin, MN 55912 (507) 437-9551

SHEET
Background

SAUK CENTRE: CITY SANITATION SERVICE TRANSFER AND RECYCLING FACILITY

On September 1, 1989, the landfill serving western Stearns County closed. Because no other solid waste management options existed in that pan of the county, City Sanitation Service in Sauk Centre developed a transfer and recycling facility. Waste Management Options

The privately-owned facility is the primary solid waste management method in western Steams County.
Private Recycling Operations

None.

Recyclables and Other Materials Accepted:

Steams County generates 94,900 tons per year of mixed municipal solid waste ( MSW ) (1990 estimate). The county has designated all residential and commercial waste III the western portion of the county, about 6,000 tons per year, to the City Sanitation Service facility.

on

City Sanitation Service developed the facility by modifying an existing building. Three months were required from conception to full operation. The project encountered difficulty because of neighborhood opposition.

Facility Staffing
The facility is staffed by the owner-operator, a secretary, and 12 workers (including three from the Opportunity Training Center). Workers receive and process all materials. Gloves and masks are provided.

Facility Operation
The facility serves as both a recycling facility and transfer station. It buys aluminum and glass from the public. Area residents can drop off plastic, cardboard, and tin cans at no charge. City Sanitation Service runs occasional newspaper ads to encourage residents to drop off recyclable materials.

Processing
The facility receives three to six truck loads of MSW per day (approximately 20 cubic yards per truck). It processes material eight hours a day, storing recyclable materials until they can be shipped to market. Glass is crushed. Cardboard, plastic, and iron are baled separately. Tin cans are compacted into cylindrical bales 24 high and 18 in diameter. The cylindrical bales are wired together in sets of four for transport to market. Garbage (including newspaper and some cardboard) is baled and transported to a refuse-derived fuel plant at a cost of $45 per ton (22 bales typically comprise one load). Reject material: manually loaded into roll-off containers and sent to Fergus Falls incinerator at $45/ton tipping fee (three percent of MSW is reject material). Equipment down-time: occasional maintenance as needed. Goal: increase processing efficiency from three bales (about 7,000 lbs) per hour to five bales per hour.

CHAPTER

III

MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY DESIGN & EQUIPMENT SELECTION

A.

INTRODUCTION

Designing and selecting equipment for a MRF is a detailed evaluative process involving knowledge and understanding of the three interrelated elements needed to make the recycling system operate. The three elements are the recycled materials collection system, the operation of the MRF, and the marketing of recovered materials. Without a clear understanding of each element. an efficient facility design cannot be assured. Many examples of inefficient MRF designs and the purchase of inadequate equipment exist. While inadequate facilities and equipment can almost always be modified to make do, some initial research into the design and operation of existing facilities and equipment can result in significant savings, time, and effort. That research should include checking out the claims of equipment vendors, taking tours of existing facilities, viewing each piece of equipment proposed to be purchased while it is in operation, and interviewing experienced persons. When visiting facilities and viewing equipment, the project manager, engineer, architect, and/or local persons, who can lend their expertise, should be present. Over the life of a project, approximately 80 to 90 percent of the costs to a unit of government or a private business for a recycling program are for the daily operating costs of the recycling collection system and the daily operation of the MRF, with the remaining 10 to 20 percent allocated for capital debt service. Considering that debt service represents a fixed small amount of total operating costs, it is prudent to construct a facility incorporating features which will serve in reducing total operating costs. Even if it results in a slightly higher initial capital cost, these features may be cost effective. Section C provides a MRF design checklist intended for use by parties designing a MRF and the collection system that will supply collected materials to the MRF. The checklist will not. design a MRF, but it will prompt questions that, hopefully, will lead to the well thought out design of a MRF. Project planners must give serious consideration to each individual handling step in the flow of a single piece of material from the household through to the final market. One goal for facility design is to reduce hand and back labor and actual footsteps in the process. In addition to the checklist, it will be necessary to prepare an overall recycling program budget including MRF operating costs. A great deal of information on actual program costs and budgets is available from operating facilities. Each MRF has a unique set of circumstances influencing its design. It will be necessary to use the MRF design list to suit your particular situation. There is no generic state-of-the-art MRF. Equipment, staff, existing recyclers and the size of the city can create enormous differences in how a MRF will operate. A MRF can range in concept from a simple transfer facility with little processing to a full-service facility. The capabilities of existing private recyclers are also important in designing a MRF capacity and operations. s

III - 1

B.
1.

DISCUSSION OF FACILITY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Materials Collection Methods

Integration and understanding of the various methods of materials collection and the collection equipment to be used in a recycling collection program is vital to creating an efficient MRF design and its operational method. The daily volumes, the degree of separation required by commercial businesses before materials will be collected, the separation required of households, the recycling collection equipment and methods being used by existing recycling programs will influence the facility design. Involvement of the existing recyclers and solid waste haulers will be very helpful in the design of the overall materials collection system. 2.
Work Force

Knowledge of the work force and their capabilities is an important design consideration. Determining how much labor-intensive work you want to do, when during the day or week you want to do it, and the minimum tonnage to be processed will greatly influence the facility design. It makes little economic sense, for example, to have enough staff to handle what may be a two-hour peak work load demand and then keep the entire staff on hand for the remainder of the day. This is even more important if developmentally disabled staff are used. Separation and sorting activities in a MRF involve handling materials that can present hazards to the employees. Safety concerns are paramount. The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry can provide one of their OSHA safety inspectors for a consulting visit (a non-enforcement visit) once a facility is in operation. Measures to ensure adequate ventilation, noise, health, and safety levels that meet OSHA requirements must be taken (see Appendix A - MRF Industrial Safety Inspection List). 3.
Receiving Area

The facility may receive materials from curbside collection trailers, commercial solid waste compactor vehicles, various size trucks and automobiles, all of which have different unloading characteristics. Carefully consider the total volume of material to be handled daily at the facility and the access and space needed to accomplish the unloading process. A primary operating goal of a MRF is to handle the material as little as possible. One MRF operator estimated that each separate handling of a material costs approximately $7 per ton. Multiple handling of collected materials is very expensive and should be avoided if possible. A design to efficiently and quickly handle the public at an aluminum redemption area can also save considerable staff time. It will also be important to be competitive on paid for products. Planning for daily cash accountability with a daily reconciliation of cash accounts from the redemption area is also advisable.

III - 2

4.

Conveyance of Material to Processing Areas and Equipment

Emptying material from the collection vehicles and moving the material to the processing areas can present logistical problems if the process and the facility design are not well

conceived. Most MRF operators avoid dumping materials onto the floor if any hand separation is needed. Cardboard boxes and newspaper that can be directly pushed to baling areas and then directly onto a feed conveyor are probably best dumped onto the floor. At some MRFs, material is unloaded from hydraulic side dumping curbside trailers and compartmentalized roll-off collection bins by first dumping into gaylord boxes or into wheeled carts. The question of how to efficiently and safely sort materials from these large containers must be examined. Emptying full gaylord boxes or carts onto elevated sorting tables or conveyors has presented some problems to operators of smaller MRFs. Hydraulic gaylord and barrel dumpers have solved this problem at some MRFs. Avoiding double handling and minimizing manual labor is again a goal.
5. Processing Methods

An object of the MRF operating design is to utilize available staff efficiently throughout the day to produce a quality product. With this in mind, some facilities attempt to store enough unprocessed material until a production run of material can be done. Storage space for the unprocessed material needed for production runs is then an important consideration. The flow of each separate commodity through the MRF from initial drop off through to the final processing and shipping steps must be carefully reviewed to acquire the level of efficiency obtainable with the facility in question. Cleanup and handling of residue requiring disposal is also an important consideration.
6. Equipment

Depending on the degree of processing desired, equipment and designs to minimize manual lifting and hand separation should be incorporated into the facility. Numerous examples of unnecessary manual labor caused by poor initial facility design and equipment selection exist. The key to equipment selection is to understand the product quality and final form desired, the actual every day capacity of the equipment, its versatility, its power demand, space requirements and how it is best used and repaired. The experiences of others, both positive and negative, should be extensively researched.
7. Load Out and Transport to Market

The quantity and form specified by end users, as well as the type of transport equipment needed to economically move the commodity, are the primary influences on design of MRFs. Since some materials take considerable storage space, the price received for a commodity may be less important than a guaranteed market year round which will allow less storage. For example, one MRF indicated that it will take 22 gaylord boxes of shredded plastic to make one semi-trailer load. A 10 X 40 area was needed for gaylord storage without
III - 3

stacking, and it took six months to accumulate the shredded material. Some MRFs have designed the facility to have numerous loading docks to store materials in semi-trailers since trailer storage can be purchased for approximately $10 per square foot verses $30 to $40 per square foot for a building. 8.
Building Design

An architect will be needed for the final building design. Architectural planning should be integrated with process engineering, site conditions, traffic patterns, surrounding buildings, and working conditions inside. Some consideration for future expansion and process modifications should be incorporated. Easy equipment maintenance and replacement should be provided for in a good design. Learn from the best of other processing facilities and from the lessons learned where miscalculations in design and equipment purchase have been made. Building, Fire, and Safety Codes are important considerations (see Appendices B-F Materials Recovery Facility Layouts).
9. Site Plan

Plan for high traffic flow and use of the facility by heavy transport trucks. The facility will also likely have a drop-off container or shed for weekend use. Some MRFs have found that staff must empty the MRF drop-off shed twice during weekends. Winter operations and storage of trailers are also considerations.

III - 4

APPENDICES

APPENDIX F (CONTINUED) 6. The 1991 Minnesota Recycling Directory

- A listing of Minnesota businesses that collect, process, or utilize recyclable materials (also includes a listing for recycling used oil, spent lead-acid batteries, wood waste, and auto parts). For free a copy of the directory, write to: Minnesota Office of Waste Management Market Development Program 1350 Energy Lane Saint Paul, Minnesota 55108 Fax (612) 649-5749 MN Toll Free l-800-652-9747 (612) 649-5750
7. Community Waste Education Manual

- Contains step-by-step assistance on how to get a campaign organized, planned, researched, budgeted, implemented and then evaluated. Includes camera-ready ad copy, glossary and how to get the media involved. 82 pp. Stock No. 5-7. $22.95. For a copy of the manual ($22.95 each), write to: Minnesota Bookstore s 117 University Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 Metro area call (612).297-3000 Greater Minnesota, call l-800-652-9747, ask for Minnesota Bookstore s
8.

Waste Industry Buyer Guide (1990 Products Literature Services)

- Contains listings of waste industry products and services. Written by: Waste Age Magazine For a copy of the guide, write to: NSWMA Publication Order Dept. 1730 Rhode Island Ave., N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036

APPENDIX F (CONTINUED) 9. 89, Resource Recycling - Recycling Equipment Guide 1989 (Aug Vol. 8/NO. 4)

For a copy of the guide, write to: Resource Recycling 1218 N.W. 21st Portland, Oregon 97210 10.
Student Action for Recycling (STAR)
l

November 1988

Written by: Environment Ontario For a copy, write to: Minnesota Office of Waste Management, Waste Education Clearinghouse 11.
MRF Guides Reviewed

Written by:

Mr. David Hull, Senior Project Manager Killam Associates 27 Bleeker Street P.O. Box 1008 Millburn, NJ 0704l-1008 Fax (201) 376-1072