increase for biweekly carts and a 26.1 percent increase for weekly bins. The single-stream

-

-

ucts that have been developed with a wider range of poly- mers, including polypropy- lene, polystyrene, ABS and vinyl.

Polymer-polymer sys- tems is an interesting new technology that has shown how specific blends of poly- mers normally thought to be incompatible (such as poly- ethylene and polystyrene) can be formed into composites with properties that dramat- ically exceed the expected performance of the blend.

The role of additives The report also reviews the different additives that can be used to improve RPL products, including: + foaming agents, which are used widely

in pure polymer extrusions to reduce the weight of board stock and to impart a uniform cell or pore structure

+ coupling agents, which can increase tensile strength, flexural strength and impact strength, as well as reduce water absorption / \

+ extrusion aids, which have proved to 1 be available by the end of be very beneficial in woodfiber-plastic scribe a hypothetical manu- composites by increasing throughput, as be posted on both the EPIC well as reducing zone temperatures and

)I But why sh e? \

Sure, this tough waterproof- coated reusable woven- fabric bag is made for multi- family recycling. But the Bag Connection has priced it so low you can give one to every family for a strong, effective recycling program1 Available in a choice of size

and colors-and your logo. Designed to encourage use and made to withstand years of abuse. Our Multi-Family Tote makes a powerful state- ment for recycling. For complete information call ...

SYSTEM'

www.bagitsystem.com ernail: info@bagitsystern.com

The Original REUSABLE BAG & RACK RECYCLING SYSTEM

Reader service # 25

ORG ODOR CONTROL A complex blend of non-toxic and

non-hazardous organic nutrients that increase microbial activity and reduce production of offensive odors caused by ammonia and nitrogen compounds

common to compost piles, green waste and manures

STOP THE %TIINK.. and

r9TOP THE CQMPLb\lN"PSF! mmm

L i s t e d

Resource Recycling November 2002

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY I FIELD PROVEEl EXPERIENCE.

Complete Solutions BHS is a complete material recovery facility supplier. Our in- house resources allow us to engineer, manufacture, and install anything from simple retrofits to new facility startups. Each and every system we supply focuses on delivering maximum profitability with minimum capital outlay.

Excellence in Engineering At Bulk Handling Systems we pride ourselves in developing the most innovative products on the market. Our engineers have led the industry in design patents over thelast two decades and have set the standard of quality and functionality that others are measured by. Simply put, BHS is the benchmark for excellence within the industry.

Customer Commitment Our customers are our end focus -period. We understand and take challenge to each unique facility environment. We work hand in hand with each and every client to ensure the best

/ system installation possible - nothing more and nothing less.

. .. Design, Manufacture and Install

Single-Stream Recytlables

Commercial/Residential Fiber

Greenwaste/Yardwaste

Transfer Stations

Municipal Solid Waste

Construction/Demo~ition Debris

Residential Recyclables

BULK HANDLING SYSTEMS, I ~ C . 1040 Arrowsmith I Eugene, OR 97402 1 USA 1 541.485.0999 1 fax 541.485.6341 1 sales@bhsequip.com I www.bulkhandlingsystems.com

Reader service # 39

TV PSAs on Recycling Actrvrty Books, Posters, Tradrng Cards Web Srtes, Costume, T-Shrrts & morel

For lnformatlon & samples call 1-800-559-1 953 John Lemmon F~lms

Charlotte, NC

EMAIL: JLEMMON@JLF.COM \IVWW.JLF.COM

Reader service # 89

Increase in materials and participation by storage Table capacity and collection method

cern for recycling program managers and materials recovery facility (MRF) operators alike. A high residual rate after processing can cancel out the benefits of increased col- lection of materials. Drawing on its nation- al survey of 36 programs, Governmental Advi- sory Associates (Westport, Connecticut) esti- mates the average residual rate among single- stream programs to be 16.6 percent (see "Sin- gle-Stream Ahead" in the August 2002 issue of Resource Recycling).

The 16.6 percent single-stream residual rate is a significant departure from other col- lection systems. St. Paul's existing source- separated collection method maintains a resid- ual rate that does not exceed 1.6 percent, while GAA's national survey of 215 two-stream facilities indicates an average residual rate of

6.4 percent. In the Eureka Recycling study, the net overall recovery of materials in sin- gle-stream (i.e., the amount of materials reach- ing end markets), at 72.8 percent, was lower than every other tested method (see Table 2).

Several reasons can be offered as to why single-stream collection leads to a higher residual rate. First, residents include more nonrecyclable materials in single-stream carts. Study results indicate that 4.4 percent of the materials collected in the single-stream method were not recyclable, compared to less than 1.9 percent in any other method tested. Second, because materials are mixed togeth- er, more materials are contaminated and more sorting is required to separate the materials before they can go to market. The addition- al sorting is particularly damaging to glass,

Be the Owner of a Five-Star Baler THE ENTERPRISE E Z R R B ~ E R I E S BALERS

(Choose from six baler oDtions)

Built for all grades of scrap pa?er, solid waste and nonferrous metals. Choose from a wide range of sizes, from the 1 0 ton per hour EZRRBs to the monster 45 ton per hour RZRRB.

smallest E2RRB weighs 37 tons.

E~te~~zlzeils B a L Co. ***** P.O. Box 15546 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Sales & Service (714) 835-0551 Five Star Design, Web site: www.enterpriseco.com E-mail: enterpriseco@earthlink.com Performance and Reliability

i

Reader service # 71

Resource Recycling November 2002

-

o-stream

Projected participation I rate. in ~ e r c e n t I

Fiber portion, in percent I (baseline: 85.21 84.7 79.6 82.5

I processing,

I ~ e r ton- $20 oraanics

(1) This residual rate incluudes mixed color glass as not being recycled. (21 Based on differential costs of orocessina methods when a~alied to current orice of service for source-seoarated orocessins. Information ~rovided bv Waste . . I ' ' Management. Source: A Comparative Analysis of Applied Recycling Collection Methods in St Paul, Eureka Recycling, 2002.

which is broken to the point that it cannot be sorted easily by color.

Currently, Waste Management's district office in Blaine, Minnesota reports that, in its experience, single-stream collection sees residual rates of 3 to 5 percent. However, at this time, the Minneapolis MRF where WM is basing this experience handles less than 11 percent single-stream material as a percent- age of all materials coming through its facil- ity, As a result, it is difficult to ascertain whether this 3 to 5 percent residual rate is a result of the 20,000 plus tons per year of source-separated materials from St. Paul's program that also are handled at that MRF - tonnage that arrives at the MRF with fewer nonrecyclables and requires no sorting.

Broken glass One major consideration for both MRFs and subsequent buyers of recyclables is the resid- ual glass found among recovered materials. This study, in conjunction with the GAA sur- vey, found that glass breakage increased as the curbside sorting requirements decreased. In source-separated collection, 95 percent of the total glass collected was sorted by color and could be recycled back into bottles. In

two-stream collection, 59 percent was sort- ed. In single-seam, none of the glass could be sorted by color.

According to W, "single-stream collec- tion produces less breakage in collection and tipping than two-stream, but breaks glass in processing because of the additional handling and screening in the systems." Broken glass cannot be sorted by hand, and new technolo- gy designed to sort glass by color is expen- sive. Mixed color glass is not suitable for marketing to most traditional glass bottle recy- cling markets, and 99 percent of St. Paul res- idents surveyed do not consider use of glass in landfill operations (a typical alternative market, along with sandblasting and paving) to be recycling. Tllerefore, with a lack of suit- able markets, mixed color glass is considered a residual in St. Paul's program. This signif- icantly increases the single-stream collection method's materials processing residual rate in this study to 27.2 percent.

Processing: The costly side of singlastream The cost of single-stream collection is low. However, the cost benefits of single-stream collection disappear when systemwide costs

are considered. In this study, the single-skam method, along with the biweekIy two-stream bins scenario, resulted in the least expensive collection costs, but the increase in sorting and processing costs, and the decrease in rev- enues due to material loss, ultimately made single-stream the most expensive method. When comparing MRF processing costs of St. Paul's existing truck-sorted materids with those of facilities handling single-stream mate rials, the outlay nearly doubles, increasing costs $25 to $35 per ton. WM estimates that single-stream processing adds an additional $10 to $20 per ton "re-processing" step to a two-stream system.

Single-sm materials will have inherently Iower end-market values. In the study's appen- dix, RecycleWorlds Consulting (Madison, ms- consin) notes that high-speed, high-through- put sorting is necessary in order to attain eco- nomic feasibility% which can lead to sorting that is less extensive and therefme less effective. When this happens, the end product tends to be of a lower quality and sells for a lower price (see Figure 1). Furthermore, single-stream processing will see higher costs because MRFs must pay for the disposal of increaed residu- als, resulting in additional lost revenue.

Resource RecycZing November 2002

Figure 1 How the proportion of recyclables differs by collection method

Source-separate[ biweekly bins Sorted glass

Mlxed glass

biweekly bins I

Two-stream L - biweekly carts

Single-stream biweekly carl

Tin I m Aluminum 1

PET HOPE

16 grade ONP

1 #7 grade ONP $8 grade ONP

60 80 100 Percent

bulluyaieu butlialllela. ource: A Comparative Ana

2002.p*;;6~3:=,- L, -&-va2s --

For example, old newspaper ( O W col- lower #6 grade and 67 percent #8 grade. lected in a single-stream system tends to be Based on interviews with different types of worth less than that collected using other sort MRFs across the country, Recycleworlds methods. In St. Paul, the source-separated projects that single-stream collection would collection method offers 33 percent of the be expected to produce 30 percent #6 grade,

30 percent #7 grade and 40 percent #8 grade. Having supplemented local data collect-

ed in St. Paul with information from other sin- gle-stream programs across the country, Recy- cleworlds adds, "Mills also report skepticism that single-stream MRFs will be able to achieve a strong #8 [grade ONP] share, sug- gesting that the projected fractions for single- stream may overstate the portion that is ulti- mately sold as #8 [grade ONP]."

With a high residual rate, expensive proc- essing and the lower quality in materials, single-stream collection presents concerns from both an environmental and a financial point of view. In the Eureka Recycling study, the cost advantages and efficiencies of sin- gle-stream collection disappear the more closely one looks at the later stages of the recycling process. The results of the Eureka Recycling study are one tool that recycling program managers can use in a balanced assessment of the best choices for their communities. There is no single answer or one-size-fits-all solution. Rather, it takes a recycling program tailored to meet each com- munity's values and needs to accomplish its recycling goals. RR

The full report of A Conzl~arative Analysis of Applied Recycling Collectiolz Metlzods is available from Eureka Recycling's Web site at www.eu rekarecycling.org.

jr Complete Shredding, Re-Shredding, Sorting, Conveying and Separation Systems

Single and Multiple Rotor Shredders Conveying Technolo@es

Rotary Wommels

Reader service # 154

~esource Recycling November 2002

Reader service # 68