As many communities consider mandatory recycling, a major question remains: How much success can we expect

our programs to have in meeting diversion goals and extending landfill life?

One case study tracks its program’s progress

any communities are wondering where they will stand with recy- cling five years from now-for good rea- M sons. Today’s decisions

that direct planning efforts and capital investment will be based on predictions and “guesstimatcs” as to what will be accomplished long term with recycling. Long-term provisions for disposal capacity and alternative treatment approaches will be directly influenced by assumed recycling rates and their effect on the diversion of waste from municipal landfills. The bottom line is: To what extent can we expeci recycling to extend the lives of our existing land- fills, and how will recycling impact our need for future disposal capacity? 44 MSW Management

As municipal programs mature, our ability as an industry to track, report and monitor progress will improve. As our data improve, so will our ability to pre- dict recycling results and impacts. At the present time, there are few examples available that quantify the influence that recycling has had on the consumption of landfill space. While many coinniu- nities do an admirable job at record keeping, it is difficult to compare report- ed data to actual landfill consumption rates. There are inany factors that can cause changes in waste generation and recycling rates; a few examples include: economic downturns, shifts in growth paiierns, increase in tipping fees, and the emergence of new fkcilities.

This article will focus on a study of the waste stream conducted over a five-

year period in Monmouth County, NJ (population 575,000). An objective of the study was to measure the waste stream prior to the implementation of mandatory recycling efforts (October 1987) and to track the progress of recy- cling as the program was phased in. The county was interested not only in an assessment of progress but also in an indication of the impact the programs might be having on the remaining life of the county’s landfill.

THE WASTE STREAM STUDY In 1987, Monmouth County retained HDR Engineering Inc. to serve as solid waste management consuitant to the county. Early in the engagement, the firm was directed to plan and implement a waste composition and characterization

November/Dccember 1992

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3

Figure 4

study that would be used to help guide local planning efforts. The Monmouth study was different from most of the waste stream analyses conducted prior to that date in that it was designed with recycling in mind. Most of the earlier programs were used to plan for waste- to-energy facilities and placed a greater emphasis on the determination of fuel or BTU value and moisture content. The Monmouth County program had a dual purpose of providing information for planning for WTE and recycling.

Since the late 1980s, more and more communities have used waste stream studies to help in planning recycling efforts; however, field-sampling pro- grams can be expensive and problem- atic if specific attention is not given to the quality of data collection, difficulty in collecting representative samples, or the development of statistically accept- able conclusions.

Monmouth County was committed to a thorough study even to the extent that health care workers were called on for their maturity, appreciation of care- ful data collection, and trained eyes in sorting each load sampled. Several of the workers that joined the sorting crew for the original field study have con- tinued to participate over the entire five-year period.

PROGRAM GOALS The field study had multiple goals, including: the assessment of the impact of a three-phase recycling program ini- tiated in Monmouth County; use of the data in planning for landfill use, WTE, residue or reject disposal; and the iden- Novcmbei/Deccmbcr 1992

Figure 5

tification of trends in the waste stream specific to Monmouth County.

Conditions for the study were ideal in many ways. Monmouth is a flow- controlled county where waste gener- ated within its borders is consistently directed to a single, county-owned and operated landfill. The landfill has scale data dating from the mid-1970s. The scales are operated by county staff. Sig- nificant information was also available relative to demographics and waste generation rates. The ability to sample prior to the initiation of the first phase of mandatory recycling provided valu- able base data not generally available. Seven field surveys lasting two weeks each provided data from nearly 500 truckloads of residential and commer- cial waste. Sorting was done indoors using consistent techniques throughout the seven surveys. Specific records were kept of the type, size, origin, owner- ship, and general types of waste hauled in each of the trucks. Statistically valid samples were taken to gather an accept- able representation of the 53 munici- palities that exist within the county.

MANDATORY RECYCLING Recycling in Monmouth County is a mandatory activity. The program includes the residential, commercial, and construction and demolition debris streams. Penalties are in place, and an enforcement team is available to dis- courage the disposal of recyclables at the landfill. The following materials are included in the program. Phase 1 res- idential program, in effect since Octo- ber 1987, includes newspaper, glass

containers, aluminum cans and leaves. Phase 2 residential program, as of April 1,1988, includes bimetal food and bev- erage cans. Phase 1 commercial pro- gram, in effect since April 1988, includes newspaper, glass containers, aluminum cans, leaves, bimetal food and bever- age cans, high-grade paper and corru- gated paper. Demolition debris pro- gram, as of October 1988, includes asphalt, concrete, and certain wood wastes (pallets, clean lumber, stumps).

Much of the yard waste generated in the county, including grass and shrub trimmings, is composted at municipal- ly operated compost sites. The county provides backup composting capacity for communities in need of facilities. Other than leaves, yard waste is not yet a mandated recyclable. Additional green waste composting facilities are currently in planning phases.

FIELD SAMPLING To date, seven field surveys have been conducted. The sampling protocol was consistent with NJAC 7:26-2B.4(a)14 of the State Solid Waste Management Regulations. The protocol was approv- ed by the state prior to initiating the first field program. The survey periods were timed to minimize the impact of unusual circumstances such as holi- days, severe weather conditions, or dis- ruptions in waste collection services. They were also timed to provide sea- sonal consistency.

The field studies measured both res- idential and commercial waste streams. Each field survey sampled 60-70 truck- loads of material. The sampling program exceeded the state’s guidelines. Trucks were selected at random after weighing and initial identification. Records were made of the hauler identification num- bers, waste origin, waste type, vehicle type, volume, net weight and weather conditions. One-cubic-yard samples were taken, weighing at least 200 pounds, from each truck.

Because timing for the implementa- tion of mandatory recycling for the res- idential and commercial waste stream

MSW Management 45

Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8

Figure 9

varied, the number of pre-recycling sur- veys also varied. One survey was avail- able prior to implementation of manda- tory recycling for the residential waste stream and three were available for the commercial waste stream.

One of the most significant aspects of the study was the ability to compare waste stream compositional changes with accurate base data. Many commu-

Figure 10

nities must guess at the composition of the waste stream prior to mandatory recycling, thus adding further questions to the accuracy of data used to report progress. Sorting and weighing results were statistically analyzed using Sam- ple mean, standard deviation, and 90% confidence interval. All data sets were normalized, and percentages totaled 100% in all cases.

~

SORTING CATEGORIES Over the five-year study period, the number of components into which the waste was sorted was increased. While each survey included the original 17 sorting categories, additional categories were added reflecting additional data needs for system planning. The cate- gories for the first through third surveys included: newspaper; corrugated con- tainers; other paper; plastics; yard waste; food waste; wood; textiles, leather, rub- ber, and other combustibles; aluminum beverage cans; all other aluminum; fer- rous cans; all other ferrous and non- ferrous metals; brown, green and clear glass; and ceramic and fines (less than .25-inch mesh).

Categories added for the fourth and fifth surveys included high-grade paper, PET, HDPE, recyclable ferrous, nonre- cyclable glass, and household batteries.

46 MSW Management Noveml,er/l)eccmher 1992

Categories added for the sixth and sev- enth surveys included additional paper a d medical waste.

RESULTS The results of the study were enlight- ening and valuable to those planning future elements of the Monmouth pro- gram. They offered an unusual oppor- tunity to detect progress and trends. A look at material-specific data by waste stream segment reveals clear progress. The examples and accom- panying tables offer a graphic illus- tration of changes over the five-year period.

From the residential waste stream, newspapers experienced a dramatic drop from 10% prior to mandatory recy- cling (September 1987) to 5% in the sec- ond survey (November 1987) following the implementation of mandatory recy- cling. After four years of newspaper recycling, that figure fluctuated by a per- centage point up and down, with the last survey in July 1992 showing 4% (see Table 1 and Figure 1).

Glass bottles, like newspapers, ini- tially showed a major drop in the res- idential stream. Originally, glass bot- tles constituted slightly over 5% of the total waste stream; the figure dropped to 3.2% with the introduction of a mandatory program. Progress contin-

ued for the next year, bringing the level down to 1.9% in July of 1988. By July of 1992, the rate decreased to 1.2% (see Table 1 and Figure 2).

Aluminum cans experienced a more gradual drop from 0.7% of the total res- idential waste stream to 0.6% during the first month to 0.3% in July 1992 (see Table 1 and Figure 3).

PET/HDPE bottles, while not a part of the mandatory residential recycling program, provided an opportunity to look at what the public may be willing to do on a voluntary basis. In April of 1988 when PET and HDPE containers were added as distinct categories, those materials combined to total 3.4% of the waste stream. In the summer of 1988, the rate rose to 3.9%. By July of 1992, the level had dropped to 1.4% (see Table 1 and Figure 4).

Other paper, although not a manda- tory material in the residential program, has increased since the beginning of the study. In September 1987, other paper made up 25.8% of the total waste stream. As mandatory recycling was brought online, the rate changed to 31.9%, 32.2%, 30.2%, and 35.1% by July 1988. The lat- est measurement showed mixed paper at 23.1%, a net decrease over the study period. Some of this fluctuation may be due to changes in the other categories (see Table 1 and Figure 5).

Data from the commercial waste stream showed similar results. One inter- esting finding of the survey was that, while the mandated commercial pro- gram began in February 1988, initial changes in the commercial waste stream coincided with the November 1987 sam- pling period. This could be an indica- tion that the commercial sector adopt- ed the residential recycling schedule, and/or that there was residential waste collected as commercial. ~

In the September 1987 survey, news- papers made up 7.5% of the commer- cial waste stream. One month later when residential mandatory recycling began, the level of newspaper in the commer- cial stream dropped dramatically to 4.8%. By February, four months later, the num- ber increased to 6.1%. Newspaper recy- cling in the commercial sector began in April 1988. Surveys 4,5,6, and 7 showed the presence of 5.5%, 7.4%, 6%, and 6.2% respectively (see Table 2 and Figure 6).

The September 1987 survey showed that 4% of the commercial waste stream was glass bottles. As with news- paper, glass also experienced a dra- matic drop that coincided with the implementation of the residential pro- gram. The first survey after the initia- tion of commercial recycling showed glass at 3.5%, dropping to 3% by the summer of 1988 and 1.2% as of sur-

~

WTJHDPE Bottles - Fsrod Waste 10.8 10.5 15.5 14.4 13.1 13.9 19.3 wood 4.4 3.8 3.8 3.6 2.6 3.4 4.9 fextites/Leather/

Rubber 8.3 7.1 5.1 6.9 7.3 5.2 6.7 Ruminum Cans 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.6 OVler Aluminum 0.9 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 fbrrousCans - 1.9 2.4 2.5 2.2 1.7 1.2 1.1 Other Ferrous 2.5 3.3 3.0 2.1 1.3 0.6 0.8 Nanfmus Metals 0.7 0.3 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.6 2.4 olaes Bottles 4.0 3.3 2.7 3.5 3.0 2.0 1.2

0.1 0.1 2.5 0.2 Other Glass - - Cmmics & Fines 0.7 1.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 2.9 3.9 Household Batteries - - 0.1 0.0 0.0 tXher* - -

-

- - - - 8.3 1.4

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0

*W8gers, small appliances, household hazardous, household medical, manure. ~

NovembedDrcember 1992 MSW Management 47

vey 7 (see Table 2 and Figure 7). Aluminum cans started with 0.9% of

the September 1987 commercial waste stream survey. Their percentage dropped to 0.6% in November 1987 and remained at that level until mandated efforts began in April 1988. Survey 4 showed a drop to 0.5%, survey 5 an increase to 0.6%, and the final survey also shows aluminum cans to constitute 0.6% of the commercial stream (see Table 2 and Figure 8).

Survey 4 showed PET and HDPE bot- tles (not a mandatory item) made up 3%, followed by 3.1%, 1.3%, and 1.1%, respectively, of the commercial waste stream. Again, the shift may be reflec- tive of public awareness and voluntary efforts (see Table 2 and Figure 9).

Other paper (not a mandatory item) was an exception to the pattern fol- lowed by the other examples. Other paper increased over the first year of mandated recycling from 26.2% of the commercial stream to 31.8% by the summer of 1988. However, over the period between surveys 5 and 7 the level decreased to 20.7% (see Table 2 and Figure 10).

WASTE DELIVERIES TO LANDFILL Although there was an initial, significant drop in MSW deliveries to the Mon- mouth County landfill following the ini- tiation of mandatory recycling, the impact on quantities of waste landfilled has been small in subsequent years. While recycling rates in Monmouth County had increased from approximately 25% in 1988 to 43.5% (type 10, New Jersey waste) in 1991, the tonnage of MSW land- filled had decreased only 3.7% (see Table

3). This is not nearly as dramatic as the landfilled tonnage reduction of almost 17.5% that occurred between 1987 and 1988. It may be argued that recycling offset population increases during the 1988-1991 period, but population grew only approximately 5.4% in Monmouth County during this period.

It is likely, therefore, that the high recycling numbers reflect better accounting of the recyclable items. These results are also a verification of what may be self-evident: that recycling alone cannot handle the entire munic- ipal waste stream, and that significant disposal capacity will still be required. Increasing recycling’s impact on the tonnage of waste landfilled will require a different approach to the remaining waste stream.

The increase in recycling activity in Monmouth County is verified by munic- ipal records that are submitted to the state for the purpose of receiving recy- cling tonnage grants. The total tonnage of recyclables reported by Monmouth County’s 53 municipalities for the years 1987-1991 is reported in Table 4. As shown, a large increase occurred between 1987 and 1988, and the recy- cling rate increase was also quite large between 1990 and 1991.

POTENTIAL TRENDS As mentioned earlier, there are many factors that influence the composition, characteristics and quantity of the waste stream. Many communities have expe- rienced a drop in the quantities of mate- rial handled that coincided with the cur- rent economic downturn. Population growth patterns, increases in tipping

cardboard, glass, tic, leaves and grass,

fees, the closure of disposal facilities, and the opening of new facilities are among many events that impact the waste stream.

This study spanned several strong economic years in Monmouth County as well as the last two years of an eco- nomic recession. Over the course of the program, the landfill has been the only operating disposal facility in the coun- ty. Flow control is used to direct waste from each of the county’s 53 munici- palities to the landfill. While tipping fees have increased, fees in the region tend to still exceed those at the Monmouth County landfill.

Caution should be used when dis- cussing trends or the potential for trends for any element of solid waste manage- ment. Political and regulatory influences often result in changes that cannot be predicted from a scientific or technical point of view. For that reason, this arti- cle will relate strictly to clear changes reflected in the data.

The first potential trend is that peo- ple respond to mandatory recycling programs. While plastic bottles are not included in the program, a significant effort is being made to recycle them. Thirty-two municipalities currently have some form of plastic container recycling program, although plastics are not mandated.

The second potential trend is that while recycling rates are reaching impressive levels, a significant portion of the waste stream remains for disposal. While reported recycling rates exceed 40% (Monmouth County Planning Board, 1992, under New Jersey rules for calculating recycling rates), the quanti- ty of material destined for the landfill was not significantly reduced over the course of the study.

The third potential trend is that the public’s level of cooperation or willing- ness to segregate the waste stream may have limits that fall short of the county’s maximum recycling potential and the state’s goals.

The fourth potential trend is that as time passes, progress in reducing the waste stream via recycling efforts depen- dent on public or commercial involve- ment may level off. The Monmouth County data provided a possible exam- ple. Participants made significant progress early on, presumably with mate- rials that were the easiest or most con- venient to recycle. Many programs across the country may be reaching this level- ing-off stage, so new techniques will be required to progress further.

Given the quantity of material remain- 48 MSWManagement NovembedDecemnber 1992

I ing in the waste stream, additional efforts will be required to recover material that the public and commercial sectors are not willing to handle. Future processing capacity may be required to target select loads of commercial waste and to pro- cess mixed waste from the residential and, possibly, the commercial streams. It may also be necessary to make changes in the collection system and the way recy- clable materials are separated and col- lected. In addition, other select materi- als may need to be targeted, such as wet organic wastes and paper. Without changes in the collection and recovery approaches, significant amounts of mate- rial will continue to be landfilled.

L

DATA APPLICATION Much has been learned about the waste stream in Monmouth County and the general population's response to recy- cling. There are other, related benefits that can be derived from these data. Cur- rently, work is under way to determine ways in which recycling rates can be boosted further. The waste stream study provides a recycling road map that can be followed to target remaining com- ponents. The other paper category pro- vides a large component of the waste stream that might be targeted. The same is true for food waste.

Further, the data show which com- ponents are being adequately removed from the waste stream. Data also show that residents of Monmouth County may be willing to recycle plastic bottles, even though not required. HDPE and PET con- tainers take up significant volume in a landfill. Volume savings may justify the inclusion of plastic containers in the mandatory program. However, Mon- mouth County shreds its residential and commercial wastes, so volume savings may not be as significant.

Waste composition helps when planning for future collection and pro- cessing needs. By knowing the quan- tities of materials available and their points of generation, alternatives to current collection techniques can be considered. Further, processing capa- bility and market issues can be more easily addressed. By being able to mea- sure progress with recycling, commu- nities can do a better job of estimating the cost of existing and planned sys- tems. Overall, they will be better equipped to respond to the entire range of waste disposal needs.

By studying the waste stream, it is possible to measure the progress of mandatory recycling programs. In Mon- mouth County's case, the study showed Novemher/December 1992

that recycling, after nearly five years of mandatory requirements, education, media coverage, a WTE referendum, the expansion of state goals and require- ments, increased tipping fees at the landfill, and an extended recession have not eliminated the need for landfill and other processing and disposal capaci- ty. Progress with recycling-at a better than 40% reported rate-slowed and in some cases leveled off or retreated. While recycling rates increased through- out the five-year study period, the ton- nage of waste generated dropped only

slightly (3.7%). The landfill, over five years, is still being consumed at approx- imately the same rate. Recycling has helped reduce growth in waste land- filled but is not the panacea for dis- posal needs. MSW

Robert J. Collins is a n administrator for Monmouth County, NJ. Joseph D. Mur- doch is a vice president and seniorproject managerwith HDREngineertng, Monmouth CountyProgram. JohnF. Williams isa vice president and senior solid waste planner with HDR Engineering.

__

~~~ ~

~

TURN AND DEmBAG WITH

One machine, one simple operation, opens plastic bags -- turns and aerates leaves, grass clippings, etc. SCAT Elevating Face has optional bag breaking teeth -- lifts bags and opens contents. Results of a single pass are shown in the small photo. The SCAT Debaggernurner is available ENGINEERING in pulland self-propelled types.

1-800-843-7228 Fax 319-922-2700 Write or call for details. Box 265. Delhi. Iowa 52223

Circle # I 9 on Reader Service Card MSW Management * 49

Supe f u n d litigatz presents numerous hurdles over ich municipalities must leap. These obstacles re manageable f a compreh sive strategy is developed

N A N C Y K A P L A N f, ;P unicipalities that have the Superfund game Potentially Responsible inally sued by the fed

ernments are finding themselves enta tracted, expensive litigation. Once begin, they take on a life of the costs and potential liability e

Municipalities can gain some c defense transactions and liability

ring percentage of the cleanup costs. The ipalities argued, on the other hand, that if

ability were charged, it should be based on the toxicity of the MSW, not the volume. One expert

ced the theory that MSW reduces the extent of the cleanup, because it helps neutralize haz- ardous substances.

Due to the expansive definition of hazardous substances and the strict joint and several liabili- ty provisions in CERCLA, the potential liability of municipalities is enormous. Moreover, the trans-

igation. Such issues include: come from to defend the c

settlement negotiat the settlement strat

hensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the corresponding state Superfund statute, MGL Chapter 21E. In 1989, the governments amended their suit by adding 24 corporate defendants as generators and trans- porters of hazardous substances to the landfill. The corporate defendants in turn looked to other cor- porations, two trucking companies and 12 munic- ipalities as generators and transporters of haz- ardous substances to the landfill. The corporate defendants maintained that MSW contains approx- imately .5%-2.0% hazardous constituents and that the municipalities should contribute to the cleanup costs based on the volume of trash disposed-a

50 MSWManagement

e a municipality to cut back on essential This can be devastating for any local gov-

ment in order to pay for defense n costs resulting from sending ordi-

defense costs before d to begin. The cor-

over the course of two ants attempted to nego-

ed Interim Municipal Sett ernments, however, refused 'y talk with the municipalities and forced them tb participate in global negotiations. The governmhts refused to even acknowledge the underlying principles of their own interim policies.

After negotiating for over a year, it appears that all of the parties, with the exception of the origi- nal operator defendants, have reached a settle- ment-reportedly the second largest discount the governments have ever given in Superfund cases. The remaining case against the operator defen- dants is expected to go to trial soon.

The main point of contention among all of the defendants was how to allocate liability. This issue

~ovcmbcdDcccmbcr 1992