HomeMy WebLinkAboutFishers Island Report on the Potential for Composting & Recyclying i
L~~ E & A Environmental Consultants, Inc.
1
1
1 AUO 151988
Mold Tovm n~
1
REPORT ON THE POTENTIAL FOR
COMPOSTING AND RECYCLING ON
FISHERS ISLAND, NEW YORK
1
1
t AUGUST, 1989
t
1
1
BY: E&A Environmental Consultants, Inc.
' 1613 Central St. / P.O. Box 372
Stoughton, Massachusetts 02072
TO: The Town of Southold, The Town Board, and
' The Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
' Chapter # Title Page #
' 1 Introduction ................................i
1.0 Introduction.. .1
1.1 Waste Characterization ......................1
' 1.2 Integration of Recycling and Solid Waste
Composting.. .2
1.3 State and Federal Regulations ...............2
' 2 Composting ..................................4
2.0 General Information .........................4
2.1 The Composting Process ......................5
' 2.2 Materials Balance ...........................6
2.3 Composting Systems Applicable to
Fishers Island .............................6
2.3.1 Facility and Process Description:::::;:::::.?
2.3.2 Economics... .7
q ..............8
2.4 Leaf and Yard Waste Procesain
' 3 Recycling ...................................9
3.0 Recycling ...................................9
3.1 General Recycling Systems Option............9
' 3.1.1 Source Separation ...........................9
3.1.1.1 Curbside Collection.. .10
3.1.1.2 Drop-off Centers ...........................13
' 3.1.1.3 Pros and Cons ........:::.:::::::::::::::::.14
3.1.2 Mixed Waste Sorting.. .14
3.1.3 Combined Source Separation and
' Centralized Sorting .................:::::.15
3.2 Specific Options for Fishers Island.. .16
3.2.1 Material Types and Volumes .................17
3.2.2 Recycling Collection Options ..............i8
' 3.2.2.1 Existing Solid Waste Collection
Activities.. .18
3.2.2.2 Material Placement .........................19
t 3.2.2.3 Sorting Categories ....::::::::::::::::::::.20
3.2.2.4 Vehicle Requirements.. .21
3.2.2.5 Summary ....................................21
' 3.2.3 Drop-off ...................................22
3.2.4 Transportation Requirements.. .22
3.2.4.1 Transfer Station Equipment .................23
3.2.5 Processing and Marketing ...................23
' 3.2.5.1 Groton, Connecticut Recycling Facility.:...23
3.2.5.2 Southold, New York............ ...24
3.3 System Economics ...........................25
' 3.4 Recommendations ............................26
4 Leaf and Yard Waste Processing .............28
' 4.0 General Information ........................28
5 Conclusions and Recommendations............30
5.0 Summary ....................................30
' Appendix A
Appendix B
~ -
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
' 1.0 INTRODUCTION
' Fishers Island, like other communities in New York State, needs to
modify its current solid waste disposal process to comply with the New
York Department of Environmental Conservation (NY DEC) and with the
' Federal Regulations. The potential options for the Island are:
' • Construct a transfer station and ferry the solid wastes
to the Town of Southold for composting
• Construct a composting plant specific to the Island's
needs
• Construct a modular incinerator
' With any of these options, the Island must initiate a recycling
program as specified by State legislation. The report evaluates the
' potential for composting and recycling on the Island. Figure 1-1
illustrates the waste material flow for Fishers Island. Materials such
' as newspapers could be either recycled or composted.
The objectives of this report are:
1
• To provide the Island with information on the potential
' of composting solid waste and other wastes
• To provide a program for recycling
' 1.1 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
' Detailed data on the quality and quantity of the solid waste
generated on the Island was not available. The Cummings and Lafayette
' report entitled "Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District Proposed
Incineration Facility", which was issued in December, 1988, estimated
waste generation at 830 tons per year, based on truck density of 500
' pounds per cubic yard.
' Figure 1-2 shows a typical distribution of the waste stream into
various categories. If all the organic materials, including paper, are
' composted, approximately 68 percent of the waste stream can be
1
~ _ - - -
1
1
FIGURE 1=1 ,
WASTE M,-^,TERIALS FLOW FOR FISHERS ISLAND
RECYCLE WASTE ,
b ~
CORRUGATED NEWSPRINT LEAF MSVV SEPTAGE S_UDGE '
CO-MINGLED & YARD
GLASS WASTE '
PLASTICS
ALUMINUM
TIN CANS '
1
MRF COMPOST
1
' FIGI,RE 1-2 COMF'~SITION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
FOOD WASTE~t- 8% GLASS 10%
RUBBER 2%
~ ;
PLASTICS 7.0%
j '
r MISC. ORG.~ 2%
' TE.YTILE 3%
' PAFER~- 37%
i
'
YARD WASTE- 18%
~~i/%
i~ j
iii/.
t METALS 9°1° WOODaE- 4%
' 'f- ITEtv1S WHICH ARE CCIvIP4STAe~ES
composted. If metals, glass, and some plastics are recycled, an '
additional potential removal or recovery can be achieved. Details on
the recycling potential for the Island are described in another section ,
of this report.
In addition to municipal solid waste (MSW), the Island generates '
septage, yard wastes, and possibly some sewage sludge. All these
materials can be incorporated into the composting facility. '
1.2 INTEGRATION OF RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE COMPOSTING ,
Recycling impacts composting in two major aspects: the process and '
the product.
The major impact on the process is related to the volume of t
materials to be handled. Since paper and paper products constitute a
major portion of the waste stream, the removal of cardboard, newsprint, '
commercial paper, and other recyclable paper will impact the facility
size and its operation. Equipment can be down-sized, thus materials '
handling is reduced. This reduces labor costs, fuel and electrical
consumption, and other operational costs. '
Recycling will also impact the product quality. The removal of '
glass, metals, plastics, batteries, household hazardous wastes, and
other items will result in a better product. The greatest impact is by
the removal of the inorganic and non-biodegradable items such as glass, '
metals, and plastics.
1.3 STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS '
The operation of composting facilities and the end product are '
regulated by NY DEC and the United States Environmental Protection ,
Agency (U.S. EPAj. NY DEC Part 360 regulates sludge and solid waste
composting facilities, including yard wastes. Appendix A provides a '
copy of sub-part 360-5 on composting facilities.
Currently, the U.S. EPA regulates in 40 CFR 257 criteria for solid ,
2
~
' waste process requirements as related to temperatures. These are
minimal product criteria that must be met. The criteria relates to
' heavy metals and PCHs. If the composting facility incorporates sludge
or septage, it will be regulated by the 503 regulations. These are
' currently being proposed and are in the process of review.
' Future State and Federal regulations will impact Fishers Island
waste disposal. The following are some of the impacts which will take
place and should be considered in any future waste disposal on the
' Island.
' • Current septage disposal will probably have to cease
and some method of stabilization applied
• Burning of brush would have to be discontinued
' • Sludge would either have to be stabilized or disposed
of in a monofill
1
1
' 3
' CHAPTER 2 - COMPOSTING
2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
' Composting is the biological decomposition of the organic materials
in wastes under controlled conditions. The benefits of composting at
Fishers Island are as follows:
' A. Composting could be the least costly alternative. This
is based on comparisons reported by Project Management
' Associates, Inc. for Fishers Island Conservancy, Inc.
and Cummings and Lafayette's report, as referenced
earlier.
B. Composting would handle several waste streams on the
Island. These would include brush, leaves, grass
clippings, sewage sludge, and septage. Neither of the
' two reports cited addressed these issues or included
them in their costs. NY DEC has stated that continued
burning of brush will not be permitted in the future.
' The U.S. EPA proposed 40 CFR 503 regulations will not
permit land application of septage without
stabilization.
' C. A composting facility could be designed specifically
for the Island and operated either by the District, the
current hauler, or someone else.
D. The Island's residences could probably utilize all of
the compost in landscaping. Other uses, such as sand
' dune stabilization, could also be explored.
E. The Island would control its own destiny and not be
subject to unexpected conditions which could provide
' hardship. The following are some examples:
• Weather conditions which could make ferry
' transportation of wastes difficult
• Work stoppages or unforeseen problems at the
Southold facility
F. Composting is very compatible with recycling and the
two could be merged and handled in one facility. This
provides for considerable flexibility in waste
' management. For example, paper. can be recycled or
composted. Therefore, if a market exists for paper, it
would be diverted from the composting facility.
1
' 4
1
G. Environmental impacts are minimal: '
• Little or no air emissions - odors and dust would t
be controlled
• No leachate or potential contamination of
groundwater, as the facility will be enclosed and
work is performed on a paved surface '
2. 1 THE COMPOSTING PROCESS
There are three basic elements to solid waste composting.
• Pre-processing '
• Composting ,
• Post-processing
Pre-processing consists of the preparation of solid waste for the '
composting process. It essentially consists of shredding, pulverizing,
or grinding the waste to increase the surface area which accelerates ,
composting. Following shredding, magnetic separation removes ferrous
metals. The remaining waste is then mined with water, septage, or
sludge to increase its moisture content to an optimum level. ,
Composting can take place in several different ways. The two most ,
common procedures are windrowing and static pile. Windrowing is
usually more efficient, but it is best suited for large facilities. t
The static pile is very cost-effective and suitable for small
facilities. There are some proprietary systems termed in-vessel, which '
use the principals of those two methods of composting. In Appendix B,
vendor cut sheets are provided.
The windrow system consists of placing the material in long piles,
four to five feet in height, and periodically turning them with a '
machine. The static pile (see Figure 2-1), which is the system
selected for Fishers Island, consists of the following: '
A. An aeration system built into the floor of a building '
or disposable pipe is laid on the floor or composting
pad.
B. The material to be composted is piled over the aeration '
system and is covered with finished compost. This
layer of finished compost acts as an insulation blanket
and retains the temperature within the pile. The heat '
5
t
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
FIt$JRE 2-1 - AERP,TFn SPATIC PILE
Air
Air
Compost ~~~i~•:'" Perforated Pipe
i Exhaust Fan
o ~ Air
Mixture Nonperforeted
Porous Base: Pipe ~
Wood Chips or
Compost
Filter Pile of
Compost
generated by composting disinfects the waste and '
accelerates decomposition. Temperature control is
achieved by the aeration blowers.
C. After the composting period of three to four weeks, the
compost is screened to remove undesirable objects and
placed in a curing/storage area. Curing takes from six '
to eight weeks or until the compost is stabilized and
does not adversely effect plant growth.
D. After curing, the compost is ready for distribution and '
utilization.
2.2 MATERIALS BALANCE ,
Table 2-1 indicates the projected materials balance for the ,
composting facility. The facility was designed to handle seven tons
per day based on Cummings and Lafayette estimates of a generation of 35 ,
tons per week from June through September. Approximately 900 gallons
per day of septage, sludge, or water would be used in the process. We ,
estimate that approximately 2.4 tons of rejects would need to be
landfilled daily during the summer season. Since these materials '
include sand, grit, stones, leather, rubber, etc., the density would be
fairly high or approximately 2,000 pounds per cubic yard. Therefore,
the yardage to be deposited into the landfill should be between two and '
three cubic yards per day during the summer months and less than 0.5
cubic yards per day during the winter, early sprinq,~and late fall. '
Alternatively, these materials could be shipped to Southold once per
month. ,
2. 3 COMPOSTING SYSTEMS APPLICABLE TO FISHERS ISLAND ,
There are relatively few proprietary vendor systems applicable to
Fishers Island or communities producing under 50 tons per day of MSW. '
Two systems which could be appropriate are:
• A generic pre-processing system using the static pile ,
composting method followed by post-processing ,
• A generic pre-processing system using the tunnel
reactor followed by post-processing.
Both of these systems have been used for solid waste composting. '
6 '
1
' TABLE 2-1
MATERIALS BALANCE FOR FISHERS ISLAND
' tem Volume Total Dry Volatile Bulk Solids Volatile
(CY/D) Weight Weight Solids Density Content Solids
CTONS) CTONS) (TONS) (LBS/CY) t%) (y,)
~OTAL MSW 28.0 7.0 4.9 2.6 500 70 53
~SJECTS O.1
SHRED 27.6 6.9 4.8 2.6 500 70 53
~'AGNET 0.3
;O MIXER 26.4 -6.6 4.6 2.4 S00 70 53
EPTAGE 4.5 3.8 0.1 0.1 1685 3 65
~IX 27.6 10.4 4.5 2.S 778 45 56
:OMPOSTING 25.5 10.4 4.5 2.5 817 45 56
~OSS 3.8 O.S 0.5
~NSCRND 13.3 6.7 4.0 2.0 1000 60 S1
EJECTS 2.3
~OMPOST 8.7 4.3 2.6 1.3 1000 60 S1
~O CURE 8.7 4.3 2.6 1.3 1000 60 51
OSS 0.3 0.3
~TORAGE 7.8 3.9 2.3 1.0 1000 60 43
Assumptions
1. Bulk densities of materials are based on literature and data.
2. Solids content of all materials are assumed.
' 3. Volatile solids content of the raw MSW is assumed.
4. Mass balance begins after the tip floor rejects are removed.
' S. Rejects are assumed to be 35% of the processible MSW by
weight and include ferrous metals.
' 6. Composting losses are assumed to be 20% of during compacting and
10% during curing.
' 5/17/89
Since both systems utilize a generic pre-processing and post-processing '
method, a facility utilizing the static pile is described in detailed
followed by an economic analysis. '
2. 3.1 FACILITY AND PROCESS DESCRIPTION '
The proposed facility is shown in Figure 2-2. The processing and '
composting of the solid waste will take place in a steel building
having the dimensions of 230 feet long by 40 feet wide. The building
size could be modified if necessary. The sequence of operation is as '
follows (see Figure 2-3).
1. MSW, brush, leaves, and grass will be brought into the '
tipping area. '
2. A small loader will pick-up the material and deposit it
into a hopper after the operator inspects the material
for undesirable items. These will be removed for
deposit at the landfill or for recycling. The brush ,
may need to be chipped separately.
3. The material will be conveyed into a shredder. The
arrangement of the hopper, shredder, and magnet is '
shown in Figure 2-4.
4. After shredding, the waste will be conveyed past a
magnet to remove ferrous metals for recycling. '
5. .The discharged mixture will be picked-up by the
front-end loader and brought into the compost area. It
will be stacked in a static pile mode over perforated
pipes which will be connected to blowers. '
6. The compost piles will be covered with previously made
compost to insure uniform temperatures and capability
of meeting Federal and State regulations. Both '
negative and positive aeration will be used. Odors
will be scrubbed in a bio-filter.
7. Active composting will take place over a 28-day period. '
8. Following composting, the material will be screened.
The screened compost will be placed on an asphalt pad
for curing. The curing and storage pad is designed for
90 days. However, due to the low volume in the winter, ,
most of the material could be stored in the building.
The available space is adequate for storage of over 130
days or six months. '
9. The compost product will then be available for
distribution and marketing.
2.3.2 ECONOMICS '
The costs of the facility and its operation are shown in Table '
2-2. The facility costs are estimated at $477,500 and process and
7 ,
1
FIQIRE 2-2
2 3 0
s Q
PROCE88 AREA A'
COMP08T AREA
2 3 4
~ 40
U 8~
~6
O O~ O O O 7
ODOR ~IOFILTER
I.EQEND
1 TIP FLOON
2 HOPPER
e CONVEYOR
4 8HREDDER
8 MAGNET EiA ENVIRONMENTAL CONBULTANTB iNC.
8 PUQMILL
~ BLOWER 8 6CAlF: 1 ' 30~ APYNOVEO 0Y DRAWN BY 6 E /DOW
8 PU8HWALL oA~E: S-2N-89 _ -T
9 BEPTAQE TANK F18HER8 ~18LAND COMPOST- FACILITY
- ORAWINO NUMBER
F-100.
.a~ CMApNEIif PxO~iOHY qY~~ iN~NIEO OH YIOH CIUNYNmi vELLUu
1
FIGURE 2-3 '
SOLID WASTE PROCESS FLOW FOR FISt-ERS ISLAND ,
MSW PFr„1cCTS
7 T 29 CY Q.1 T '
&'~RE'D WiP.C~ET t
7 T 28 CY FEARC7US o.3 T
S~TAC~ Mp( '
4T 7T26CY '
COMPOST '
10 T 26 CY LOSSES
SC~1 RE..FCTS '
7T 13CY 21'
CI.RE LOSSES t
4T9CY 0.3T
STORAC~ '
4TSCY
1
1
1
- ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~
FIGURE 2- 4
t a~
i I _
_ 'r
jTo - b°~
I ~ t L~°0
S[[Tiav 'A'A' .
,~4A6Ne'I'rC Putter
• J ~r..~t:~.eccz_caAtrtY~a
- ~ a:
fov[i6~i.wttwat gLrLT
- ~ I a[~'[F~ CONVCYGR
CApneaP~a L.EDEC.
A MPNO.
^r 6
~ ~
r•::
1 ~ ~ ~ .
z~-o
?O'D NM 1 ~R.VM '48~Oy
A-~ T' . .
®E t A ENVINONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS~INC.
ND CENTML Ef
Q W% 7T7
t101gN70N, MA 77W7
sari: a-z '
COST ANALYSIS FOR A COMPOSTING FACILITY AT FISHERS ISLAND '
CAPITAL COSTS '
Building Costs Quantity Unit Costs Amount '
Dollars Dollars
Process area 5000 sf 60/sf 300000
Compost Hall 4000 sf 40/sf 160000
Push Wall 55 ft 80/ft 5000 '
Subtotal Coats 465000
Process Equipment '
Hopper /conveyor 1 ea. 50000
Shredder 1 ea. 70000 '
Conveyors 3 ea. 50000
Pugmill 1 ea. 20000
Magnet 1 ea. 25000 t
Blowers & controls 5 ea. 10000
Screen 1 ea. 25000
Odor control 1 ea. 5000
Septage system 1 ea. 7000 t
Subtotal Costs 262000
Moving Equipment '
Front end loader 1 ea. 85000
Subtotal Costs 85000 '
Curing Pad 2500 sf. 5/sf. 12500
Subtotal Costs 12500 t
Capital Costs 824500
Contingency and Engineering @25% 206125 ,
Total Costs 1030625 '
Operating and Maintenance Cost
Labor 1 person @12.5/hr 26000
Fuel 31.50/gal. 3000
Electricity 10000 '
Misc. costs 5000
Total 0&M Cost 44000 '
Amortized building & pad costs @ 8% & 20 yrs. 48657
Process & moving equipment @ 8% & 10 yrs. 51703
Contingency & engineering @ 8% & 20 yrs. 21000
¦
' ~ TABLE $-2 continued
' Subtotal 121360
O&M Costs 44000
' Total Costs 165360
Cost/ton 199
'Other costs not included are landfill cost for 2 tons in summer
and less than 0.5 tons /day in the winter, and finance costs.
1
1
1
¦ _ _ _
moving equipment at $347,000. Engineering and contingency costs at 25 '
percent are estimated at $206,000. Thus, the total costs are estimated
at $1,031,000. The capital costs were amortized at eight percent for '
20 years, whereas equipment was amortized at the same rate for ten
years. Operating costs were estimated at $44,000 per year. ,
The total annual costs are therefore estimated at approximately '
$165,360; costs per ton are estimated at $199 per ton. There are other
costs that need to be considered:
These include:
• Costs of landfilling approximately two to three cubic '
yards per day during the summer and 0.5 cubic yards per '
day during the remainder of the year
• The cost of financing the project
• The cost of any legal fees, permitting, etc. ,
2.4, LEAF AND YARD WASTE PROCESSING
Although leaves and yard wastes can and should be integrated into a '
solid waste composting facility, this section discusses the handling of '
leaf and yard waste separately.
Regardless of the type of technology selected by Fishers Island for '
disposal of the solid waste, it would be necessary to handle the leaf
and yard waste separately. Hauling the leaf and yard waste to Southold '
is not practical. Burning would require prior processing and would
utilize energy. The composting system could utilize the leaves and '
yard waste. Some chipping of yard waste will be necessary.
8 ,
1
- ¦
' CHAPTER 3 - RECYCLING
3.0 RECYCLING
Solid waste recycling can serve several important functions when
' fully integrated into a community's solid waste management practices.
As a waste reduction technique, recycling can substantially reduce
' overall tonnage. The most immediate effect from reduced tonnage is
often the avoided disposal cost. These costs are both immediate in
' terms of present tipping fees and long term in the form of extended
landfill life. Solid waste recycling also conserves natural resources
and reduces energy demands.
3.1 GENERAL RECYCLING SYSTEMS OPTIONS
' This section provides a review of recycling system options
' available to a community. Three general categories of recycling
systems are source separation, centralized sorting, and a combined
' system.
3.1.1 SOURCE SEPARATION
1
Source separated recycling systems require households to keep
' recyclables separate from their regular solid waste. This can be
accomplished through the use of in-home recycling containers.
' Traditional containers used throughout the country have been brown
paper bags, corrugated boaes, and plastic bags. As recycling programs
' have matured over time, these household provided containers have been
replaced with more formal containers, often provided by the City or
' Town sponsoring the program. Brightly colored plastic bins, barrels,
bags, and buckets have proved very effective in increasing household
participation.
In-home recycling containers provide a continual reminder to
' households that the program is real. Brightly colored recycling
9
¦ _ -
containers at the curb each week established a visible peer pressure 1
factor that promotes participation. ,
The number of separations required of each participant is dependent
on the number of materials collected and the available processing '
capacity. Source separated materials can either be collected at the
household, at centralized drop-off locations, or both. '
3.1.1.1 Curbside Collection '
If a community practices curbside collection of solid waste, the ,
most convenient and productive method of recycling collection will be
at the curb. Similarly, if households regularly drop their solid waste
directly at a landfill or transfer station, a recycling drop-off '
station can be an affective method. Curbside collection vehicle
requirements range from outfitting bins of existing refuse collection '
trucks to employing high volume, compartmentalized dedicated recycling
vehicles. Figures 3-1 and 3-2 illustrate several common types of ,
collection vehicles.
Primary considerations when selecting a recycling vehicle are the
ease of entering and exiting the vehicle, loading height, storage '
capacity, one or two person operation design, capital, and operation
and maintenance costs. Figure 3-3 provides a range of costs associated
with curbside collection operations. In densely populated urban ,
regions, design features that minimize time per stop are critical in
establishing an efficient collection program. These include a low '
entry cab with right hand side stand up drive controls. In rural
regions, where travel time between stops is a larger percentage of ,
total route time, these design factors (and costs) may not be
important. This may also be true in communities with small waste '
streams.
1
10 '
¦
1 ~ _
' FIGURE"3r1 - OPIN BODY VEHICZFS
1..
~c
'
II
i ~i
' ~ Q1 ~
~1~1/1~111
~ I ~J
' Compartmeataliud?nIIer
1
' 1
' ~
s
~ I
'
~ ~ts~~~
FIGURE 3-1 CONTINUED - OPEN BODY
• Open Bin Recycling Truck t
- Low chassis vehicle with two, three, or four individual
open bins '
- Dual left and right hand driving controls
- Low entry cab
- Each bin hydraulically dumps contents to either side or
to the end as specified ,
- Typical two person operation
- Some flexibility to bin size total 15 cubic yards in
capacity ,
- Bins require tarps for rainfall or litter control in
highway
• Flat Bed Truck '
- Conventional one ton flat bed with wire cages for
materials ,
- Standard chassis and cab
- Typically two person operation
- High loading height ,
- Usually requires forklift to off-load bins
- Can be fitted with overhead canopy for weather protection
- Approximately ten cubic yard capacity t
• Compartmentalized Trailer
- Three to six compartment trailer with hinged dividers '
- Side loaded
- Hydraulic rear unloading
- Commonly pulled behind pick-up or dump truck '
- Some problems with maneuverability and safety concerns
- Requires tarp for highway travel
- Approximately 15 cubic yard capacity '
11 '
~
~
~L1,1 ®y '~1
c ~ ~
~ H
~ LSY1
. ~ ~ ~ 7 W
N
O
u
~ ~
,
D ~
f~t~~1~i •
FIGURE 3-2 CONTINUED - CLOSED BODY
• Closed Body Recycling Truck '
- Compartmentalized body 28 to 39 cubic yard capacity
- Moveable interior hinged partitions '
- Side loading
- Rear hydraulic dumping of individual compartments
- Low entry walk-in cab
- Dual left and right hand driving controls '
- Typically one person operation
- God maneuverability
• Step Van '
- Left hand drive only
- Approximately 15 cubic yard capacity '
- Materials typically loaded through side van doors and
manually unloaded through rear door
- Normally a two person operation '
- Materials stored in containers, newspapers stacked
- Access from cab directly to van
- Excellent maneuverability ,
• Rear Packer
- Conventional rear or side loading vehicle '
- Up to 32 cubic yard capacity
- Normally two person operation
- Difficult to adapt to multi-material collection '
12 ,
¦
1
FIGURE 3-3
' Ranges of Typical Gross
' Capital Costs Per Ton
160
144
128
' ~ 112
E-
~ 96
a
' y eo
0 64
O
' 48
32
' 16
0
Total Collection Processing Site
Cost Category
' Ranges of Typical Gross
Operating Costs Per Ton
' 2ss
~ z2a
~ 1s2
' m
tL 160
N
O
U 128
' ~ 96
g 64
' CJ 32
0 ~
' Total Labor Collection Fixed Processing '
Overhead
Cost Category
SOiTRCE: Glass Packaging Institute - Comprehensive
' Curbside Recycling
¦ -
3.1.1.2 Droo-off Centers
Drop-off centers are a relatively inexpensive method of collecting ,
recyclables in both rural and urban settings. In an area that does not
collect refuse at the curb, drop-off centers are most effective when '
sited at the same point of delivery as regular solid waste. Drop-off
centers are less effective when sited away from the point of solid '
waste collection. Experience has shown that unattended drop-off
centers invite illegal dumping, improper sorting, and unacceptable ,
contamination of recyclable materials. Table 3-1 presents selected
characteristics of drop-off centers throughout North America. '
West Germany has popularized the successful use of satellite ,
drop-off sites using unique collection containers. Referred to as
Igloos or Recycle Bells, these drop-off containers are half domed in
shape with specific sized orifices to allow entry of certain shaped ,
materials only. The orifices are located high enough up on the dome to
discourage contamination from children. The containers have hinged t
bottoms that are gravity dumped by a truck mounted crane arm into the
back portion of the truck. The containers are then dropped back in '
place.
These contamination safeguards enable the containers to be '
unattended at certain locations. Perhaps the most appropriate sites
for unattended containers are at apartment complexes, commercial '
shopping areas, and recreation sites. This provides an opportunity for
people to deposit their materials for recycling rather then throw them '
away.
Drop-off recycling alone has proven ineffective in areas that ,
provide curbside collection of solid waste. The primary reason is '
convenience and visibility. To some eatent, a conveniently located
drop-off site will attract residents to participate. These
participants are often the "Innovators" and "Early Adopters" of '
innovative behavior which make up only about 15 percent of a standard
population. In order to achieve a majority participation in a '
recycling program, it must be very visible (BioCycle, October 1987).
13 ,
_ - - _ ¦
' TABLE 3-1 - CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED MULTI-MATERIAL DROP-OFF CENTERS IN THE U.S. AND
CANADA
CENTER NAME 6 YEAR POPULATION MATERIALS ANNUAL NUMBER PAID STAFF
LOCATION BEGUN OF AREA ACCEPTED TONNA E OF SITES fi VOLUNTEERS
' Delta Rec. Society 1979 78,000 ONP, OCC, 600 4 Paid
Vancouver, CN GL, AL, 0
' Arcata Comm. Rac. 1971 20,000 ONP, OCC, 1,000 1 Paid
Ctr. Arcata, CA MP, GL, AL
011
' N. Shore Ecology 1971 33,200 ONP, GL, 4,008 12 Both
Ctr., Glencoe, IL TC
' Seniors Recycling 1978 23,000 ONP, GL, 200 1 Volunteer
Orland Park, IL TC, AL, Oil
Paloa Recycling 1980 50,000 ONP, OCC, 305 1 Volunteer
' Depot Palos MP, GL, TC,
Heights, IL AL, Oil
Recycle Unltd. 1973 185,000 ONP, GL, 3,000 33 Both
' Grand Rapids, MI TC, AL, Oil
Feat Foundation 1970 145,000 ONP, MP, 210 1 Volunteer
' Rec. Ctr. GL, AL, 011
Flint, MI
Sussez Co. Rec. 1980 125,000 ONP, OCC, 1,761 1 plus Both
' Ctr. Newton, NJ MP, GL, TC 2 mobile
AL, 0 trailers
Portland Recycling 1970 381,000 ONP, OCC, 2,420 4 Both
' Team Portland, OR MP, GL, TC,
AL, 011, 0
' Bloomsburg Volun- 1977 60,000 ONP, OCC, 2,200 21 Both
leer Rec. MP, GL, AL,
Bloomsburg, PA 0
t Waterstreet Rescue 1970 350,000 DNP, OCC 200 50 Both
Mission GL, AL
Lancaster, PA
' Westchester Area 1981 30,000 ONP, GL, AL 593 1 Both
Rec. Ctr.
Westerchester PA
' Bainbridge Rec. 1978 12,000 ONP, OCC, 350 1 Paid
Bainbridge Isl., WA MP, GL, TC
AL, 0
' NOTES:
1. ONP-newspapers; OCC-corrugated cartons; MP-mixed paper; GL-glass; TC-tins cans;
AL-aluminum 0-other.
' 2. May include some commercial generated recyclables.
Source: Clean Michigan Fund: Background report to recycling feasibility studies.
¦ _ _ -
In a solid waste curbside collection environment, drop-off '
recycling can provide some marginal value to amore comprehensive '
recycling program. This is especially true when curbside collection of
recyclables is less frequent than curbside collection of solid waste.
Residents participating in a once per month recyclables collection t
program occasionally either know they will be gone or forget the
collection day. These residents will still have an opportunity to '
recycle without having to store their recyclables for another month.
3.1.1.3 Pros and Cons '
The relative costs and benefits of a source separation program are '
dependent on a community's size, nature, and program objectives. In ,
general terms, the following list describes characteristics common to
source separation recycling systems:
PROS
m Recyclables are not contaminated with other wastes, 1
thereby reducing processing costs
• Increased marketability of source separated recyclables '
• Access to paper fraction that would otherwise be lost
due to contamination
~ Raises public awareness regarding the benefits of
recycling and related waste reduction practices, e.g. t
the need to buy recyclable and reusable materials
versus non-recyclables and disposables.
CONS '
m Increased collection costs, e.g. equipment, labor, fuel '
• Requires time and effort on the part of households
• Requires on-going public information and education
programs
3.1.2 MIRED WASTE SORTING ,
In this scenario, households do not separate recyclables from their 1
regular refuse. Refuse and recyclables are all placed in the same ,
container and collected in a normal refuse collection manner. A mined
waste recycling system relies on centralized sorting facilities to
mechanically and manually separate recyclable components from the ,
general waste stream.
14 ,
¦
A series of conveyor belts, shredders, magnets, trommels, screens,
air, and water classification devices are used to clean and separate
' certain recyclables from the general waste stream. Manual separation
of bulky items, certain paper grades such as corrugated containers,
color sorting, of glass, and removal of contaminants are commonly
conducted in conjunction with mechanical processing. The organic waste
' fraction is often separated and composted either by itself or in
combination with sewage sludge. Alight fraction, primarily composed
' of paper and plastic, is often diverted as a refuse derived fuel (RDF).
' In comparison to source separation programs, there is little
experience with this form of recycling in the United States. Out of
the handful of mired waste recycle systems operating in the United
States, only a few have gone into full-scale commercial operation. The
Delaware Solid Waste Authority operates one of the few large scale
' facilities of this kind in the Country.
' PROS
• Does not require household time and effort
' • Does not require separate collection system, e.g.
trucks, labor, fuel, etc.
• Can potentially maximize recovery rates of ferrous
' metals and glass
• Can divert up to SO percent of the MSW stream
CONS
' • A large fraction of the waste stream's paper is
contaminated and therefore cannot be recycled back into
' new paper grades.
• Large amounts of broken glass that has a restricted
market value
• Plastics are difficult or impossible to separate with
' current technology
• Roughly half of the aluminum fraction is unable to be
captured and must be disposed
' • Does not provide direct and regular reinforcement of
the difference between a recyclable product and one
that must be disposed
• High processing costs
3.1.3 COMBINED SOURCE SEPARATION AND CENTRALIZED SORTING
' This "hybrid" system is based on two basic principles. First,
' 15
recyclable materials are more easily processed and marketed when they
are kept separated from the general waste stream. Second, source '
separation must be simple and convenient in order to achieve large
majority participation.
In order to address the convenience component of a source
separation program, the practice of mixing or commingling recyclables '
has evolved. This method allows households to place all colors of
glass, aluminum, tin cans, and plastics in a single container. Often '
newspaper is bundled separately and placed on the top at the time of
collection. A single container reduces space requirements and ,
increases the ease of participation. Separate collection of commingled
recyclables maintains the necessary separation from regular refuse. ,
It is necessary to process commingled recyclables prior to
marketing. This includes removing contaminants, sorting materials back ,
into their separate material types, and sorting glass by color.
Cleaned and sorted recyclables are then either crushed, shredded, ,
and/or baled for ease of transportation to end use industries.
P~ 1
• Convenient source time separation techniques for '
recycling households
• Less handling by recycling vehicle operators than
separated materials collections '
• Avoids material contamination due to mixing with solid
waste
• Maximizes overall recovery rates
• Promotes public awareness of waste recycling, reuse, '
and reduction
CONS '
• Requires substantial processing costs, capital, labor,
and energy '
• Eliminates ability to market directly to end users
• Reduces competition for a community's recyclables due
to limited number of facilities with processing
capacity ,
3.2 SPECIFIC OPTIONS FOR FISHERS ISLAND
Fishers Island has several outstanding features that effect the
16 ,
preliminary design considerations of a solid waste recycling program.
' • First, the very nature of an island's geography
highlights the need to carefully consider the
' procedures and costs associated with transporting
recyclables to off-island destinations. Special
consideration should be given to possible on-island use
of recyclable materials.
• Second, Fishers Island's unique proximity to
Connecticut offers an economic opportunity to process
and/or market recyclables outside of New York State.
• Third, Fishers Island's small year-round population
' base of 300 persons and large tenfold seasonal increase
requires a recycling system with minimal fined costs
and a large degree of flexibility. Both year-round and
seasonal residents are characterized as an affluent and
' well educated population.
• Fourth, the current method of household solid waste
' collection by a single contractor establishes the
principal framework from which to build a corresponding
recycling collection system. The housing density of
' the Island is quite low, thereby suggesting collection
equipment appropriate for these conditions.
• Finally, regardless of the management method chosen for
' solid waste, recovering glass, plastics, and metals
will be beneficial to the process. The recovery of
newspaper, corrugated, and other paper grades also
' holds potential benefits.
In consideration of these factors, a source separation recycling
' system is most practical for Fishers Island. Several options exist
within this system. Components of these options are:
' • The number of types of materials to collect
' • Separated or commingled sorting procedures
• Curbside collections, drop-off facility(s), or both
• Direct transport to market, limited processing, or full
processing
' 3.2.1 MATERIAL TYPES AND VOLUMES
As part of New York's container deposit legislation, Fishers Island
residents pay a $0.05 deposit on all carbonated beverage containers.
No data is available regarding actual container recovery rates as a
' 17
¦
result of this deposit system. Reported container redemption rates '
tend to vary depending on the circumstances of a particular community '
or region. Mid-size urban regions have reported high recovery rates
(80 to 90 percent) while smaller communities with large summer vacation '
communities have estimated low rates, of redemption. Unofficial
estimates from Nantucket Island have estimated their redemption rate as
low as 40 percent. Assuming a mid-range rate for Fishers Island of 60 t
percent, this results in a substantial portion of aluminum, glass, and
plastic beverage container remaining in the general waste stream. '
An existing container deposit system services to capture a '
significant portion of the aluminum cans, glass bottles, and plastic
containers that might otherwise be available for collection via a '
household recyclables collection system. This impacts a potential
recyclable collection system by reducing the volume of materials
collected per household and any corresponding material sale revenues. '
Aluminum cans and plastic containers collected through the deposit
represent a significant "lost revenue" factor when determining the ,
economics of a curbside program.
Tables 3-2 through 3-5 provide estimates of the annual tonnage of '
recyclable materials that are part of the Island's waste stream. Table '
3-2 estimates the tonnage of recyclables generated from the year round
base population only. Table 3-3 provide estimates for the seasonal
population only. Tables 3-4 and 3-5 provide estimates of commercially t
generated recyclables for the base and seasonal business activities
separately. '
Other potential recyclables are large household appliances (white '
goods) tires, and batteries.
3.2.2 RECYCLING COLLECTION METHODS '
3.2.2.1 Existing Solid Waste Collection Activities '
Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District (FIGRD) was established '
18 '
¦
TABLE 3-2
ECYCLABLE MATERIALS TONNAGES - YEAR ROUND BASE POPULATION ONLY
RESIDENTIAL WASTE VOLUME---------1989 1990 1991 1993 1998 2008
Year Round Population 300 315 331 347 365 383
'Residential Rate (t/p/yr) 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.471 0.971 0.471
'Total Tons 191 148 156 164 172 180
'3ECYCLABLES (TONS PER YEAR)
Metal Alum PET & TOTAL
' Nevs Glass Cans Cans FiDPE
Composition `k 10.5 6.5 2.5 0.5 1.5 21.50
participation 'E 75 75 75 75 75
Capture 7t 85 70 40 70 60
~ecovery Rate 'k 6.69 3.41 0.75 0.26 0.68 11.79
' TOTAL
'1989 Tons/Year 9 5 1 0.4 1 17
990 Tons/Year 10 5 1 0.4 1 17
1991 Tons/Year 10 5 1 0.4 1 18
993 Tons/Year 11 6 1 0.9 1 19
1998 Tons/Year it 6 1 0.5 1 20
,2008 Tons/Year 12 6 1 0.5 1 21
~ _ _ - _ -
TABLE 3-3
RECYCLABLE MATERIALS TONNAGES - SEASONAL RESIDENTS ONLY '
RESIDENTIAL WASTE VOLUME 1989 1990 1991 1993 1998 2008
t
Seasonal Pop. (5/15-9/15) 2700 2835 2977 3126 3282 3446
Residential Rate (t/p/.3y) 0.154 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.154 '
Total Tons -415 436 958------981 505 530 '
RECYCLABLES (TONS PER YEAR) '
Metal Alum PET 6 TOTAL
News Glass Cans Cans HDPE '
Composition $ 5.6 8.7 1.5 1.5 2.6 19.90
Participation 'E 75 75 75 75 75 '
Capture $ 85 70 90 70 60
Recovery Rate ~ 3.57 4.57 0.45 0.79 1.17 10.55
TOTAL ,
1989 Tons/Year 15 19 2 3 5 44 '
1990 Tons/Year 16 20 2 3 5 46
1991 Tons/Year 16 21 2 9 5 98 '
1993 Tons/Year 17 22 2 9 6 51 '
1998 Tons/Year 18 23 2 4 6 53
2008 Tons/Year 19 29 2 4 6 56 '
1
_ ~
TABLE 3-4
COMMERCIALLY GENERATED RECYCLABLE MATERIALS - YEAR ROUND BASE ONLY
COMMERCIAL WASTE VOLUME 1989 1990 1991 1993 1998 2008
Year Round Population 300 315 331 347 365 383
' Commercial Rate (t/p/yr) 0.183 0.183 0.183 0.183 0.183 0.183
Total Tons--------------------------55------57------60------63------67------?o-
'RECYCLABLES (TONS PER YEAR)
Office Metal Alum PET & TOTAL
Nevs Corrg Paper Glass Cans Cans HDPE -
'Comp. ~ 6.8 11.6 9 6.2 1.8 0.3 1 31.7
Capture $ 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
'Recovery $ 3.40 5.80 2.00 3.10 0.90 0.15 0.50 15.85
' TOTAL
'1989 Tons/Yr 2 3 1 2 0.5 0 0 9
1990 Tons/Yr 2 3 1 2 0.5 0 0 9
' 1991 Tons/Yr 2 9 1 2 0.5 0 0 10
'1993 Tons/Yr Z 4 1 2 0.6 0 0 10
1998 Tons/Yr 2 9 1 2 0.6 0 0 11
'2008 Tons/Yr 2 4 1 2 0.6 0 0 11
1
1
¦
1
TABLE 3-5
COMMERCIALLY GENERATED RECYCLABLE MATERIALS - SEASONAL ACTIVITY ONLY
COMMERCIAL-WASTE VOLUME-----------1989 1990 1991 1993 1998 2008
Seasonal Population (5/15-9/15) 2700 2835 2977 3126 3282 3996
Commercial Rate (t/p/1/3yr) 0.079 0.152 0.152 0.152 0.152 0.152 '
Total Tons-------------------------219 431 953 475 499 524 '
RECYCLABLES (TONS PER YEAR) '
Office Metal Alum PET 6 TOTAL
Nevs Corrq Paper Glass Cans Cans HDPE
Comp. ~ 6.8 11.6 4 6.2 1.8 0.3 1 31.7
Capture $ 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Recovery $ 3.40 5.80 2.00 3.10 0.90 0.15 0.50 15.85 '
TOTAL '
1989 Tons/Yr 7 12 9 7 2 0.3 1 34 '
1990 Tons/Yr 15 25 9 13 4 0.6 2 68
1991 Tons/Yr 15 26 9 14 4 0.7 2 72 '
1993 Tons/Yr 16 28 10 15 4 0.7 2 75 '
1998 Tons/Yr 17 29 10 15 4 0.7 2 79
2008 Tons/Yr 18 30 10 16 5 0.8 3 83 '
1
¦
' to oversee the collection and disposal of garbage and refuse generated
' on the Island. FIGRD has recently entered into a five year contract
with Alfred R. Grebe, Jr. to collect municipal solid waste and manage
the disposal operations. Collection schedules set out in this contract
' require the contractor to collect solid waste at different frequencies,
.depending on the season. During the "summer season", May 1 through
' October 31, all residential housing units are required to be collected
twice per week. Commercial establishments and other nonresidential
' waste generators are to be collected on a daily basis. During the
"winter season", November 1 through April 30, residences, commercial
' establishments, and nonresidential generators are all collected on a
once per week basis. The contracted price to perform these services
' for a five-year period is $167,900 per year. Annual increases are tied
to the consumer price index. Assuming an annual tonnage of 83 tons of
municipal refuse, the average cost for collection and disposal is $202
' per ton.
' Curbside collection of recyclables is most effective when performed
on a regular basis, commonly at the same frequency as solid waste
' collections. The reason for this is simplicity. In a once per week
solid waste collection environment households need only remember that
' recyclables go out for collection on the same day as regular solid
waste. In a twice per week back yard collection environment, such as
eaists on Fishers Island from May through October, this procedure would
' need to be modified somewhat. Households could put their recyclables
out on one of the two refuse collection days. Recycling vehicle
' collection routes would be developed accordingly. Depending on the
volume of recyclables collected, the second refuse collection could
' conceivably be replaced by a recyclables collection only. The
feasibility of this option is dependent on the level of participation,
volume of recyclables captured, and storage potential of the general
household on Fishers Island.
3.2.2.2 Material Placement
' The actual placement of a household's recyclables on a particular
collection day has a significant effect on the cost of a curbside
' 19
¦
program. For ezample, recycling containers placed at the front of the '
house, or conceivably at the "curb", are readily seen and collected by t
a dedicated recycling vehicle. This is particularly important when
considering that a program achieving 80 percent monthly participation
typically averages approximately 50 percent participation on a weekly '
basis. If a• recycling container was not placed out front, or at the
curb, a recycling collection vehicle would have to stop at every house, '
walk to the back, and return to the truck empty handed 50 percent of
the time. Furthermore, a second trip to the back yard would be '
required to replace the recycling container. This additional route
time would escalate the costs of a curbside recycling program to '
prohibitive levels.
Another important aspect of placing recyclables out front is their '
visibility to area neighbors. This peer pressure effect has been shown
to substantially increase participation levels. The combined effect of '
supplying households with a durable recycling container and
establishing a visible collection system has been dramatic in many '
communities throughout North America. Table 3-6 presents the change in
participation levels after recycling containers were added to a '
curbside collection program.
3.2.2.3 Sorting Categories '
Depending on the solid waste management method chosen by Fishers '
Island, several of the identified recyclables may more practically be
left in the general waste stream. For instance, in a solid waste ,
composting environment, residential newspaper, corrugated, and mized
paper can either be collected for recycling or composted with the '
general waste stream, depending on the economics of collection and
market conditions. '
Some degree of material mizing or commingling is most applicable to
the demographic nature and collection system of Fishers Island. '
In-house sorting of materials into seven or eight categories is a time
and space consuming activity. The seasonal population, who have come '
to Fishers Island to escape the hectic details of every day life will
20 '
- - _ - - _ ¦
' TABLE 3-6 - PARTICIPATION RATES AFTER STORAGE CONTAINERS HEING PROVIDED
C_~ PARTICIPATION
' BEFORE AFTER
Champaign, IL 11 83(1)
' Kitchener, ONT 65 75
San Jose, CA 48 75
' Santa Rosa, CA 35 70
Toroto, ONT 42 66
NOTES:
' 1. Rate for one of five collection cones in the City. Average
participation for all cones is 65 percent.
' Source: Glass Packaging Institute - Comprehensive Curbside Recycling
1
~ _
probably not spend the time to sort their solid waste into seven '
different categories. The following combinations are possible options ,
for Fishers Island.
• One Category '
- All color glass, tin and aluminum cans, and
plastics
• Two Categories ,
- All color glass, tin and aluminum cans, and
plastics '
- Newspapers
• Three Categories ,
- All color glass, tin and aluminum cans
- Plastics
- Newspaper
• Four Categories '
- Clear, green, and brown glass
- Tin and aluminum cans '
- Plastics
- Newspaper
3.2.2.4 Vehicle Rewirements 1
The number and types of recycling collection vehicles required for '
a curbside recycling program on the Island is dependent on the
frequency of collection, type of materials collected, general '
participation levels, capture rates, and collection procedures (back
yard versus front yard, commingling versus separated materials). '
Similar to the Island's solid waste collection system, a '
recyclables collection system (labor and equipment) would be based on
the peak demands occurring during the summer months. '
3.2.2.5 Summarv
Several options are applicable to Fishers Island. Once per week
front yard collection on the same day as refuse collection using '
durable household recycling containers is an effective and applicable
option for the Island. If all recyclables are commingled and newspaper '
is left in the waste stream, it may be possible to use eaisting solid
21 '
1
' waste collection vehicles. Should newspapers be included for
recycling, dedicated collection vehicles with separated compartments
' would be required. An effective recyclables collection schedule would
be on the second weekly refuse collection day during the summer season
and on the same day as refuse collection during the winter. The
potential exists to convert the second weekly refuse collection day
' into a recyclables only collection. This could have the effect of
minimizing the additional costs of implementing a curbside recycling
' program.
' 3.2.3 DROP-OFF CENTERS
Drop-off recycling would not be an effective method of recycling on
Fishers Island. This is primarily true because of the contrast between
drop-off recycling and household collection of solid waste. Residents
' on-island are used to household service and therefore would be lax in
transporting their recyclables to one or a series of drop-off
' locations. This would be especially true with the seasonal
population. Drop-off recycling in a household collection environment
' should not be expected to achieve more than 15 or 20 percent
participation.
' 3.2.4 TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS
' Truck-collected recyclables from households would need to be
transferred to larger containers in order to minimize transportation
' costs to off-island destinations. This would require the development
of a split grade recyclables transfer station. This type of transfer
' station should accommodate the tipping of recyclables from typical
refuse vehicles operating on the Island, as well as rear dumping
' recycling vehicles.
To provide the necessary flexibility, the station should be kept
' simple. The main feature of the station is a six foot high concrete
block wall. A concrete pad at the bottom of the wall is optional,
depending on the site's ground conditions. Thirty cubic yard
containers are placed with their long sides against the long wall
' 22
sections. The containers are parallel but offset in a "stepped back"
pattern (see Figure 3-4). This provides roll-off truck access to both '
containers from below. Circulation and any necessary paving around the
station must take into account the turning radii and backing demands of
both collection and transfer vehicles. '
3.2.4.1 TRANSFER STATION EQUIPMENT '
The most basic equipment required are the containers. These are t
commonly 30 cubic yard, open top, roll-off containers. Containers can
be compartmentalized with top hinge swing gates to accommodate ,
separated materials. Plastic, metal, and canvas covers can also be
incorporated to protect recyclables from the weather. ,
Roll-off containers can only be used in conjunction with a
specialized hoist truck or tractor trailer. Due to the low volume of ,
materials generated, Fishers Island could contract for this
transportation service on an as-needed basis. Tables 3-7 through 3-9 '
present estimated volumes of materials to be transported.
3.2.5 PROCESSING AND MARKETING
Commingled recyclables require sorting and processing prior to '
market delivery. Due to the low volume of recyclables generated, it
would not be cost effective for Fishers Island to develop its own '
sorting and processing capabilities. An option does exist for the
recycling collection driver to hand sort recyclables into a '
compartmentalized vehicle. This sorting would allow direct shipments
of recyclables to various market buyers. The additional costs of this '
alternative, e.g. increased labor requirements and capital costs of a
compartmentalized curbside recycling vehicle, often out weigh the '
benefits of avoiding the tipping fees at a centralized processing
facility. This issue is directly dependent on the costs and
availability of such a facility. '
3.2.5.1 Groton. Connecticut Recvclina Facilitv '
Conversations with Resource Recovery Systems Inc., operators of the '
23
¦
FIGURE 3-~}
- ,
. -
'
V ,
~ ~ / ~
= 2.
\
TABLE 3 7
VOLUME OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS - TOTAL WASTE STREAM
Cubic Cubic
Tons Yds. Tons Yds. Tons '
Materials Program /Day /Day /Wk. /Wk. /Yr.
I. Year Round Base 0.03 0.07 0.13 0.36 '
Glass Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.30 0.85 1.99 9.25
Containers Combined Total May-Sept 0.32 0.92 1.61 4.61 '
Combined Total Annual Avg. 0.12 0.35 0.62 1.76 32
II. Year Round Base 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.41
Metal Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.09 0.61 0.22 3.04 '
Cans Combined Total May-Sept 0.05 0.69 0.25 3.45
Combined Total Annual Avg. 0.02 0.28 0.10 1.42 5
III. Year Round Base 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.35 ,
Aluminum Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.04 1.67 0.21 8.35
Cans Combined Total May-Sept 0.04 1.79 0.22 8.70 ,
Combined Total Annual Avq. 0.02 0.62 0.08 3.11 4
IV. Year Round Base 0.00 0.31 0.02 1.57
Plastic Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.07 9.60 0.39 22.98 '
Containers Combined Total May-Sept 0.07 4.91 0.37 29.55
Combined Total Annual Avg. 0.03 1.83 0.14 9.17 7
Mixed Year Round Base 0.09 0.54 0.19 2.69 '
(all of Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.95 7.72 2.26 38.62
the above) Combined Total May-Sept 0.99 8.26 2.45 41.31 ,
Combined Total Annual Avg. 0.19 3.09 0.94 15.47 99
V. Year Round Base 0.04 0.17 0.22 0.87
Nevs Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.26 1.03 1.28 5.19 '
Combined Total May-Sept 0.30 1.20 1.50 6.01
Combined Total Annual Avq. 0.13 0.51 0.69 2.57 33
VI. Year Round Base 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.17 '
Corrugated Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.19 0.41 0.72 2.06
(baled) Combined Total May-Sept 0.16 0.95 0.78 2.23
Combined Total Annual Avg. 0.06 0.17 0.30 0.85 16 '
VII. Year Round Base 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.06
Office Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.08 0.24 0.38 1.18 '
Paper Combined Total May-Sept 0.08 0.25 0.91 1.25
(gaylords) Combined Total Annual Avg. 0.02 0.06 0.10 0.32 5
¦
1
'TABLE 3-8
VOLUME OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS - RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM ONLY
' Cubic Cubic
Tons Yds. Tons YdS. Tons
Materials Program---------------------/Day /Day /Wk. /Wk. /Yr.
I. Year Round Base 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.26
'Glass Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.22 0.63 1.10 3.15
Containers Combined Total May-Sept 0.24 0.68 1.20 3.42
Combined Total Annual Avq 0.09 0.26 0.96 1.31 29
' II. Year Round Base 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.28
Metal Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.02 0.30 0.11 1.50
~ans Combined Total May-Sept 0.03 0.36 0.13 1.78
Combined Total Annual Avg 0.01 0.16 0.06 0.78 3
III. Year Round Base 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.29
luminum Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.04 1.52 0.19 7.61
ans Combined Total May-Sept 0.09 1.58 0.20 7.89
Combined Total Annual Avg 0.01 0.56 0.07 2.80 9
' IV. Year Round Base 0.00 0.24 0.02 1.22
Plastic Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.06 3.77 0.28 18.89
containers Combined Total May-Sept 0.06 4.01 0.30 20.06
Combined Total Annual Avg 0.02 1.49 0.11 7.45 6
axed Year Round Base 0.03 0.41 0.19 2.05
tall of Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.39 6.22 1.68 31.10
~he above) Combined Total May-Sept 0.36 6.63 1.82 33.15
Combined Total Annual Avg 0.19 2.47 0.70 12.34 36
' 'V. Year Round Base 0.04 0.15 0.18 0.73
Nevs Seasonal Only Nay-Sept 0.17 0.69 0.86 3.95
' Combined Total May-Sept 0.21 0.89 1.04 4.18
Combined Total Annual Avq 0.09 0.37 0.47 1.87 24
¦
TABLE 3-9 '
VOLUMB OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS - COMMERCIAL WASTE STREAM ONLY
Cubic Cubic '
Tons Yds. Tons Yds. Tons
Materials Program---------------------/Day /Day /Wk. /Wk. /Yr. t
I. Year Round Hase 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.09
Glass Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.08 0.22 0.38 1.10 t
Containers Combined Total May-Sept 0.08 0.29 0.92 1.19
Combined Total Annual Avg 0.03 0.09 0.16 0.96 8
II. Year Round Base 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.13 '
Metal Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.02 0.31 0.11 1.59
Cans Combined Total May-Sept 0.02 0.33 0.12 1.67 '
Combined Total Annual Avg 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.69 2
III. Year Round Base 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.06
Aluminum Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.00 0.15 0.02 0.74 '
Cans Combined Total May-Sept 0.00 0.16 0.02 0.81
Combined Total Annual Avg 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.31 0.4
IV. Year Round Base 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.35 '
Plastic Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.01 0.83 0.06 9.19
Containers Combined Total May-Sept 0.01 0.90 0.07 9.49 '
Combined Total Annual Avg 0.01 0.34 0.03 1.72 1
Mixed Year Round Base 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.69
(all of Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.12 1.50 0.58 7.52 ,
the above) Combined Total May-Sept 0..13 1.63 0.63 8.16
Combined Total Annual Avg 0.05 0.63 0.24 3.13 12
V. Year Round Base 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.14 '
Nevs Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.08 0.34 0.92 1.69
Combined Total May-Sept 0.09 0.37 0.96 1.83 t
Combined Total Annual Avg 0.09 0.14 0.18 0.70 9
VI. Year Round Base 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.17
Corrugated Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.14 0.91 0.72 2.06 '
(baled) Combined Total May-Sept 0.16 0.45 0.78 2.23
Combined Total Annual Avq 0.06 0.17 0.30 0.85 16
VII. Year Round Base 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.06 '
Office Seasonal Only May-Sept 0.08 0.29 0.38 1.18
Paper Combined Total May-Sept 0.08 0.25 0.41 1.25 '
(gaylords) Combined Total Annual Avg 0.02 0.06 0.10 0.32 5
_ _ - ¦
1 Groton, Connecticut recyclables processing facility, have indicated a
' willingness on their part to accept Fishers Island's mined recyclables
(bottles and cans). They also advised that they do not accept
newspaper from new communities. Discussions have been initiated with
' Southeast Connecticut Resource Recovery Facility (SCRRA), the financial
managers of the Groton Facility. Mr. Mitch Suzick, Director of SCRRA,
' explained their current formula for determining tipping fees is based
on an annual assessment where total operating costs from the previous
' year are divided by the aggregate population using the facility. As of
July 1, 1989, this fee has been set at $0.25 per capita. This rate
' will be in effect until July 1, 1990 when an updated assessment will
determine the neat year's rate. Mr. Suzick is forwarding a copy of
their municipal agreement to E6A for FIGRD review. Mr. Suzick went on
' to explain that the SCRRA has a "last in -first out" policy regarding
non-New London County communities. In other words, first priority is
' given to New London County communities. Even though a substantial
capacity currently exists at the Groton facility, non-New London County
' communities entering into future contracts to use the facility risk
getting "bumped out" when and if communities within New London County
' wish to use the facility. Mr. Suzick acknowledged Fishers Island's
very small tonnage and relative dependence on the Groton Region would
require special consideration by CRRA. He stated that he would bring
this up with the CRRA board and confirm their position on the issue.
In the meantime, he will send a copy of the municipal contract to E&A
' for general review. Representatives of Resource Recovery Systems were
optimistic regarding Fishers Island's long term potential using the
' Groton facility.
' Connecticut Carting Company of Hozra, Connecticut currently
maintains a newspaper transfer facility in New London. They will
' accept Fishers Island's newspaper for a $10 per ton payment and
transport it to Willimantic Waste Paper. Willimantic currently charges
$25 per ton to accept loose newspaper.
1
3.2.5.2 Southold, New York
' The Town of Southold currently has not developed capacity to
' 24
¦ _
process commingled recyclables. In addition, the transportation costs 1
involved in ferrying recyclables to Fishers Island via New London, '
Connecticut are potentially high. Should the Town of Southold develop
a capacity to process or transfer recyclables and a direct and economic
ferry connection can be developed between Fishers Island and Southold, '
then this option would warrant further evaluation.
3.3 SYSTEM ECONOMICS t
This section presents preliminary costs associated with '
implementing a household recyclables collection program on Fishers '
Island. Three basic options are evaluated:
Option 1 (Table 3-10 and 3-111 '
• Glass, tin, aluminum and plastics in a single in-home ,
container, newspapers bundled and set on top
• Front yard weekly collection of recyclables on the same
day as refuse collection (summer - second weekly
collection day) '
• Use of a two compartment recycling vehicle
• Recyclables transferred on-island into a 30 cubic yard
roll-off container that has two compartments - ,
newspapers transferred at Waterford and delivered to
Willimantic, Connecticut; and mixed recyclables
delivered to Groton Recycling Center. '
Option 2 (Table 3-12 and 3-131
• Glass, tin, aluminum, and plastics commingled in a '
single in-house container - newspaper left in the waste
stream to be composted
• Front yard weekly collection of recyclables on the same '
day as refuse collection (second collection day during
the summer)
• Use of existing refuse trucks to collect recyclables '
• Recyclables transferred on-island
• Mised recyclables delivered to Groton Recycling Center
Option 3 (Table 3-141 '
Same as Option 2 above except:
• Second weekly collection during the summer season would '
be for recyclables only, i.e. solid waste once per week
and recyclables once per week '
25 '
1
¦
TABLE 3-10
OPTION 1 - COLLECTION COSTS
Assumptions
' 1. Truck Type: Modified Flatbed Dump
2. Estimated Truck Productivity 200 Passbys per day
3. Summer Collection Route 500 Hslds/Wk or 100 Hslds/Day
' 9. Winter Collection Route 100 Hslds/Wk or 20 Hslds/Day
5. Trucks Required During Peak .5 (100 Hslds/Day / 200 Passbys/D
' Summer Winter Annual
Operating Costs
' Maintenance ($/mi) 5 0.10
(Repairs, Tires, Etc.)
Fuel (m.p.g.) 9
' S/gallon 1.00
g/mi 0.111
Subtotal $/mi S 0.211
@ 12,500 mi/yr X .5 yr 51,319
@ 6,250 mi/yr X .5 yr 5659
Total Maintenance and Fuel S1,978
' Insurance 51,200
License 5400
Labor
' @ $30,000/yr X .5 yr $15,000
@ 530,000/yr X .5 yr X 1/9 time 59,950
Total Labor 519,950
Total Annual Operating Costs $23,528
' Capital Costs
Flat Bed Truck Purchase Price 590,000
Life (Yrs) 7
Annual Costs @ 10~ Interest 57,969
In-home Recycling Containers
' 500 @ 56 each 53,000
Life (yrs) 5
Annual Costs $600
' Total Annual Capital Costs 58,569
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL COLLECTION COSTS 532,097
PROFIT @ 15$ $4,815
' TOTAL ANNUAL COLLECTION COST3---------------------------------$36,911-
TABLE 3-11 '
OPTION 1 - TRANSFER, TRANSPORTATION, AND MARKETING COSTS
TRANSFER STATION COSTS ,
Earth Work (100 CY @ $10/CY) $1,000 '
Concrete Blocks (60 @ $90 each) $5,400
Labor (90 hrs @ $10/hr) $400
Total Transfer Station Costs $6,800 '
Expected Lifetime (Years) 10
TRANSFER STATION ANNUALIZED COSTS $680 ,
TRANSPORTATION COSTS
Mixed Recyclables '
Annual Volume (CY) 780
Trips/Year (@ 30 CY per Trip) 27
Cost Per Trip $125 '
Cost per Year $3,350
Newspaper
Annual Volume to Waterford Transfer (CY) 156 '
Trips/Yeaz (@ 30 CY per Trip) 6
Cost Per Trip $125
Cost Per Year $750 '
Annual Tonnage to Willimantic 33
Cost Pez Ton $10
Cost Per Year $330
Containez Rental (52 vks @ $25 per wk) 51,300 '
TOTAL ANNUAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS $5,730 '
MARKETING COSTS
Mixed Recyclables (Groton,CT) ,
Year Round Population 300
Summer Population (2700*.33) 891
Annual Population Equivalent 1191 '
Population Based Fee (per capita) $0.25
Annual Fee $29g
Newspaper (Willimantic) ,
Annual Tonnage 33
Cost per Ton $25
Annual Cost $825 '
TOTAL ANNUAL MARKETING COSTS $1,123
TOTAL TRANSFER, TRANSPORTATION, AND '
MARKETING COSTS PER YEAR $7,533
_ _ _ ¦
TABLE 3-12
OPTION 2 - COLLECTION COSTS
Assumptions
' 1. Truck Type: Packer Truck
2. Estimated Truck Productivity 200 Passbys per day
' 3. Summer Collection Route 500 Hslds/Wk or 100 Hslds/Day
9. Winter Collection Route 100 Hslds/Wk or 20 Hslds/Day
5. Trucks Required During Peak .5 (100 Hslds/Day / 200 Passbys/D
' -Summer-- -Winter-- -Annual--
Operating Costs
Maintenance (S/mi) 50.70
(Repairs, Tires, Etc.)
' Fuel (m.p.g.) 5
$/gallon 1.00
$/mi 50.111
Subtotal S/mi 50.811
@ 12,500 mi/yr X 5 yr 55,069
@ 6,250 mi/yr X .5 yr 52,539
Total Fuel and Maintenance 57,603
' Insurance 51,200
License 5900
Labor
@ S30,000/yr X .5 yr 515,000
@ 530,000/yr X .5 yr X 1/4 time 59,950
Total Labor 519,950
Total Annual Operating Costs $29,153
' Capital Costs
Rear Packer Truck Purchase Price S50,000
' Life (Yrs) 7
Annual Costs @ 10~ Interest $9,961
' In-home Recycling Containers
500 @ 56 each 53,000
Life (yrs) 5
Annual Costs $600
' Total Annual Capital Costs 510,561
' SUBTOTAL ANNUAL COLLECTION COSTS $39,719
PROFIT @ 15~ $5,957
' TOTAL ANNUAL COLLECTION COSTS 595,671
1
¦
1
TABLE '3-13
OPTION 2 - TRANSFER, TRANSPORTATION, AND MARKETING COSTS
TRANSFER STATION COSTS '
Earth Work (100 CY @ $10/CY) $1,000
Concrete Blocks (60 @ $90 each) --$5,400- ,
Labor (40 hrs @ $10/hz) $900
Total Transfer Station Costs $6,800
Transfer Station Life (Years) S10 ,
TOTAL TRANSFER STATION ANNUALIZED COSTS $680
TRANSPORTATION COSTS '
Mixed Recyclables ,
Annual Volume (CY) 780
Trips/Year (@ 30 CY per Trip) 27
Cost Per Trip $125 ,
Cost Per Year $3,350
Container Rental (52 wks @ $25 per vk) $1,300 '
TOTAL ANNUAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS $4,650
MARKETING C03TS
Mixed Recyclables (Groton,CT) '
Year Round Population 300
Summer Population (2700*.33) 891
Annual Population Equivilent 1191 ,
Population Based Fee (per capita) $0.25
Annual Fee $29g
TOTAL ANNUAL MARKETING COSTS -__-g29g- '
TOTAL TRANSFER, TRANSPORTATION, AND '
MARKETING COSTS PER YEAR $5,628
1
1
TABLE 3-14
SUMMARY OF OPTION COSTS
' OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3
' COLLECTION $36,911 $95,671 $600
TRANSFER $680 $680 $680
' TRANSPORTATION $5,730 $4,650 $9,650
MARKETING 51,123 $298 $298
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $44,999 $51,299 $6,228
' Cost Per Household/Year $19.81 $17.10 $2.08
1
1
¦
1
3.4 RECOP4IENDATIONS
In order for Fishers Island to meet the New York State recycling '
goals, an ambitious recycling program must be undertaken. Option 1 ,
provides the most comprehensive and balanced program for Fishers Island
to implement as a first phase effort. The following Option I '
components are recommended:
1. Each household on the Island should be required to keep t
the following items separate from their regular refuse:
• Glass food and beverage containers ,
• Tin coated steel cans
• Aluminum cans
• Newspapers
This requirement should be made mandatory and 1
established as an FIGRD ordinance.
2. The FIGRD should provide an in-home recycling container '
to each household on the Island to increase the
convenience of the source separation program. All '
bottles and cans should be mixed together in this one
container. Newspapers should be bundled or tied and
set on top.
3. Recyclables should be collected once per week on the 1
same day as regular refuse collection. During the
summer months when refuse is collected twice per week, ,
the recommended recyclables collection day is on the
second refuse collection day.
4. Recyclables should be placed at the curb or in a ,
visible position at the front of the house.
5. Recyclables collection services should be included as ,
an amendment to the current refuse collection
contract. A flat bed body truck with a two-compartment
body (one for recyclables, one for newspaper) is the ,
most appropriate vehicle to collect recyclables on
Fishers Island.
6. Recyclables should be transferred on-island to a ,
single, large, roll-off container. The roll-off
container should have two compartments (one for bottles
and cans and one for newspaper). A private hauling '
firm should be hired to unload newspapers at the New
London Newspaper Transfer Station. Mixed recyclables
should then be delivered to the Groton, Connecticut ,
Recycling Facility.
26 1
¦
' 7. A public information and education program should be
initiated in advance of the recycling program to raise
' the public's awareness of the solid waste management
issues and the benefits of recycling. A targeted
program aimed at the large summer population should be
developed and maintained.
8. The Island should monitor program results and consider
the future potential of replacing the second summer
' refuse collection with a recyclables collection only.
9. If a municipal solid waste composting program is
' developed, the Island should consider leaving the
newspaper in the solid waste stream to be composted.
This would allow the use of existing refuse trucks to
collect the recyclables (no compartments required) and
' also facilitate the least costly alternative (Option 3)
by replacing a solid waste collection with a
recyclables collection.
1
1
' 27
1
' CHAPTER 4 - LEAF AND YARD WASTE PROCESSING
4.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
' Separation of leaf and yard waste from the refuse stream has the
' dual benefit of savings in landfill and/or transportation costs plus
the potential for recycling these wastes to a usable product, either as
a mulch or a compost product. The composting process will, in itself,
' reduce the volume by 30 percent and produce a humus-like product. The
product of this composting can be used as a top dressing for parks,
' road site maintenance, landfill cover, or mulch for garden areas.
' Leaves and yard waste contribute 15 to 20 percent of the waste
stream volume. The quantities vary from a low of five percent in the
' winter months to a high of 30 percent in late summer or fall. The
study for incineration states that approximately 800 tons of refuse per
year are generated on Fishers Island. If 15 percent of the total is
leaf and yard waste, then some 120 tons could be composted. This
tonnage would occupy approximately 1,000 cubic yards in the uncompacted
' state.
' Composting this material involves collection or drop-off at the
site, shredding, or chipping the brush component, pile construction,
' and pile turning. If a solid waste composting facility is built, then
this waste can be incorporated into the system.
' For Fishers Island, two collection methods seem advisable:
residential and private hauler collection. The volume of the brush
' component can be reduced by 50 percent by chipping. Landscaping and
tree service companies regularly utilize chippers to reduce waste
' volumes at the production site. In addition to the privately owned and
operated chippers, one heavy duty chipper should be available at the
t compost site to process brush for composting. A chipping unit equipped
with driven feed roles is preferable to the push fed units.
' 28
¦
The chipped brush and leaves will be combined. This material will '
be used to construct eight to ten foot high piles using a front-end
loader. The piles will be approximately 20 feet wide at the base and '
100 to 200 feet long. A 100-foot long pile will contain approximately
350 cubic yards of waste. Three such piles will be adequate to compost '
a full year's waste content. If a 15-foot aisle is provided between
each pile, the foot print of this process would be 90 by 100 feet or '
9,000 square feet, approximately one-fifth of an acre.
Pile construction would proceed on an intermittent basis. Yard
waste would be allowed to accumulate at the site for two or three weeks
before the chipping and pile construction would be accomplished. The '
accumulation period will be much longer during the winter months.
The Costs for such an operation would involve some leveling of the ,
site and the purchase of a chipping unit. If the Town lacks a '
front-end loader, the purchase of a unit capable of building eight-foot
high piles will be necessary. Estimates coats for these items are ,
shown in Table 4-1.
Materials should be turned approximately once per month or when the ,
temperature begins to decrease. Composting action can be monitored by
measuring temperatures in the piles. More frequent turning and '
moisture addition when necessary will accelerate composting. Piles
containing high concentrations of leaves will require nine months to a '
year, or more, to produce a usable product.
1
29 '
- - ¦
TABLE 4-1 - ESTIMATED COSTS FOR LEAF AND YARD WASTE COMPOSTING
CAPITAL COSTS
Site preparation (depending on NY DEC requirements,
' location, and site conditions) estimated for
900 square feet at 51.50/SF 513,500
' Chipper (Eager Beaver or equivalent 15,000
' Rental of front-end loader at S60/hour - 2 days
for 3 months and 0.5 days for 9 months 5,040
1
ESTIMATED TOTAL 3S 3.540
1
1
1
1
1
¦
t CNAPTER 5 - CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
' S.0 SUMMARY
' Composting of solid waste and the other waste streams generated on
' the Island represents a viable and economical solution to the Island's
waste problems. With potential changes in the U.S. EPA regulations and
' the current NY DEC regulations, septage disposal could be costly for
the Island. Composting could incorporate these wastes into a solid
waste facility. Composting on the Island would reduce the Island's
' dependency on other remote waste management opportunities and would
provide the Island with greater control of its costs.
' Recycling could be implemented on the Island in conjunction with
' current collection methods and recyclables could be delivered to
Groton, Connecticut for resale. The recycling program could be
' integrated into the composting system.
Estimated costs of composting is 5199 per ton. Lower costs would
' depend on the site location and NY DEC requirements for curing and
storage. Estimated additional costs for recycling could range from
' 52.08 to 517.50 per household.
If in the future the current brush disposal by burning would have
to be discontinued, brush, leaves, and other yard waste could be
' composted separately or within the solid waste composting facility.
' 30
1
1
1
' A P P E N D I X A
1
1
1
1
1
1
COMPOSTING FACILITIES 5-1 360-5
L~
t. SUBPART 360-5
COMPOSTING FACILITIES
' Section 360-5.1 Applicability and exemptlons.
360-5.2 Permit application: sludge and solid waste.
360-5.3 Operational requirements: sludge and solid waste.
' 360-5.4 Permit application: yard waste.
360-5.5 Operational requirements: yard waste.
' Section 360-5.1 Applicability and exemptlons.
(a) Applicability. This Subpart regulates the construction and
operation of composting facilities for sewage sludge, septage, yard waste,
and other solid waste.
(b) Exemptions. The following solid waste management facilities and
operations are exempt from this Part:
(1) the composting of less than 3,000 cubic yards of yard waste
per year, provided the process follows acceptable methods of composting;
and
(2) a composting facility at which only food processing waste
and/or animal manure are processed, if the following conditions are
satisfied:
(i) the facility is developed, operated, and maintained in
a safe, nuisance free manner;
(ti) the process follows acceptable methods of composting
that minimize odors and produces a useful, stable end product;
(iii) prior to commencement of operation, written notice is
provided to the office of the department in the region in which the
facility is located, stating the location of the composting facility, a
description of the operation of the facility, and the intended end use for
the compost;
(iv) the facility complies with the requirements of
subdivision 360-4.4(d) of this Part; and
(v) the waste contains no domestic sewage, sewage sludge,
or septage.
1
COMPOSTING FACILITIES 5-2 360-5.2
Section 360-5.2 Permit application: sludge and solid waste.
(a) This section describes the permit application requirements for '
the processing by composting methods of sewage sludge, septage, and other '
solid waste other than yard waste, animal manure, or food processing waste.
Subdivision (b) of this section contains the requirements, in addition to
those set forth in section 360-1.9 of this Part, pertaining to the contents
of an engineering report to be submitted as part of an application to
construct. Subdivision (c) of this section identifies the minimum
engineering report contents for an application to operate the facility.
(b) An engineering report for an application for an initial permit to ,
construct must contain, at a minimum, the following:
(1) A regional map (minimum scale of 1:62,500) that delineates
the entire service area of the proposed facility (both existing and
proposed); existing and proposed collection, processing, and disposal
operations; the location of the closest population centers; and the
transportation systems including highways, airports, and railways.
(2) A vicinity map (minimum scale of 1:24,000) that delineates
the area within one mile of the facility boundaries, zoning and land use,
residences, surface waters, access roads, bridges, railroads, airports,
historic sites, and other existing and proposed man-made or natural
features relating to the project.
(3) A site plan (minimum scale of 1:2,400 with five feet contour
intervals) that delineates property lines, the location of existing and
proposed soil borings, monitoring wells, buildings and appurtenances,
fences, gates, roads, parking areas, drainage, culverts, storage facilities
or areas, loading areas; existing and proposed elevation contours and
direction of prevailing winds; and the location of residences, potable
wells, surface water bodies, property lines, and drainage swales located
within the site and in the site plan area.
(4) A map indicating wetlands and floodplains within 1,000 feet f
of the site, if any.
(5) A description of the operation of the facility, which must
include at a minimum:
;-0
(i) a schedule of operation, including the days and hours
that the facility will be open, preparations before opening, and procedures
followed after closing for the day;
(11) anticipated daily traffic flow to and from the
facility, including the number of trips by private or public collection
vehicles, and the quantity of material contained in each vehicle;
(iii) the procedure for unloading trucks (including
frequency, rate, and method);
COMPOSTING FACILITIES 5-3 360-5.2(b)(5)(i_v)
(iv) special precautions or procedures for operation during
wind, heavy rain, snow, and freezing Conditions; and
(v) a description of the ultimate use for the finished
compost, method for removal from the site, and a plan for use or disposal
of finished compost that cannot be used 1n the expected manner due to poor
quality or change in market conditions. In addition, a description of the
label or other Information source that outlines the type of waste the
compost was derived from, a list of any restrictions on use, and
recommended safe uses and application rates.
(6) A description of the design of the facility, including:
' (i) the type, size, and associated detention times for the
handling, processing, and storage equipment;
' (ti) the method of measuring, shredding, mixing, and
proporttoning input materials;
(iti) a description and sizing of the storage facilities for
amendment, bulking agent, solid waste, and finished compost; !
P
(1v) the separation, processing, storage, and ultimate F
disposal of noncompostable materials, if applicable; F
(v) the location of all temperature and any other type of
monitoring points, and the frequency of monitoring;
4
(vi) a process flow diagram of the entire process, including
all major equipment and flow streams. The flow streams must indicate the
quantity of material on a wet weight, dry weight, and volumetric basis;
(vii) the aeration capacity of the system;
(viii) the method of supplying and regulating air flow;
(ix) the expected mass balance through the composting
system; ~
~ t
(x) a description of how the temperature monitoring
equipment will ensure that the facility qualifies as a process to further
reduce pathogens, as described in section 360-5.3 of this Part;
' (xi) if applicable, a description of the air emission
collection and control technologies;
P' (xii) a description of the method to collect and control
surface water run-off and leachate, including the method for treatment or
disposal of leachate generated. For uncovered sites, calculations of ~
surface water run-off that must be handled at the site, based on a rainfall
j
i
y COMPOSTING FACILITIES 5_4 '
360-5.2(b)(6)(xii)
l '
G
u' intensity of one-hour duration and a 10 year return period; and
(xiti) a description of any seed material, including its '
quantity, quality, and frequency of use.
facility. The specific ownership or leasing arrangement of the '
(8) Identification of the personnel required and their '
responsibilities.
of the solid)wasteetoibedcompostedioincludingsthecsource~iquality,qundntity
expected quantity of any bulking agent or amendment (if applicable); and
any expected recycle of bulking agent or compost. The description must
include the annual solid waste input (both present and projected), the '
service area population (both present and projected), and any seasonal
variations in the solid waste type and quantity.
informationOmustfbeesubmittedgwith thetapplicationbe Thepnumber ofusewage
sludge or septage samples and analyses is the same as required in
subdivisions 360-4.3(g) and 360-4.3(h) of this Part.
(c) An engineering report for an application to operate a composting
facility must contain, at a minimum, the following: -
composting(facilOity11includingemanufacturer'~s performanceodataoforhthentire
selected equipment.
(2) Contingency plans detailing corrective or remedial action to
be taken in the event of equipment breakdown; air pollution (odors);
unacceptable waste delivered to the facility; groundwater contamination; g
spills; and undesirable conditions such as fires, dust, noise, vectors, and
unusual traffic conditions.
(3) An operation and maintenance manual. The manual must
contain general design information, detailed operational information and
n
instructions. In addition, the manual must list the procedures used in
monitoring, sampling and analyzing the solid waste and compost product, and a
recordkeeping requirements.
(4) A fact sheet and process flow diagram that summarizes actual
equipment sizing, aeration capacity, detention times, storage capacity, and
flow rates (wet weight, dry weight, and volumetric) for the system and
equipment chosen.•
Section 360-5.3 Operational requirements• sludge and solid waste.
(a) This section sets forth the operational requirements fore
composting facilities handling solid waste other than animal manure, yard
a
COMPOSTING FACILITIES 5-5 360-5.3(a)
waste, and food processing waste that are in addition to those contained in
section 360-1.14 of this Part. For solid waste that possesses a pathogen
concern (including sewage sludge, septage, and mixed solid waste), the
composting process must meet the criteria for a process to further reduce
pathogens. Three acceptable methods are:
i
(1) Using the windrow composting method, the solid waste is
maintained under aerobic conditions during the compost process. A minimum
of five turnings is.required during a period of 15 consecutive days when
the temperature of the mixture is not less than 55 degrees Celsius within
six to eight inches below the surface of the pile.
(2) Using the aerated static pile composting method, the compost
pile must be insulated and a temperature of not less than 55 degrees
Celsius must be maintained throughout the compost pile for at least three
consecutive days.
' (3) Usinq the enclosed vessel composting method, the mixture
must be maintained at a temperature of not less than 55 degrees Celsius
throughout the mixture for at least three consecutive days.
(b) The composting facility must have sufficient temperature
monitoring to ensure that the pathogen reduction criteria are met. For a
windrow and an aerated static pile process, this may include monitoring six
to eight inches below the pile surface and for an aerated static pile
process, six to eight inches from the outlet of the aeration pipe. For an
enclosed vessel system, Lhis may include monitoring six to eight inches
inside the vessel wall and six to eight inches from the aeration piping
(when operating 1n the positive aeration mode). Temperature monitoring
must occur, at a minimum, on a daily basis.
(c) The finished compost must be sufficiently stable that it can be
stored or applied to land without producing nuisance problems.
(d) The finished compost must contain no sharp objects.
' (e) Surface water drainage must be diverted away from the operating
area.
(f) The waste storage area and the active composting, curing, and
compost storage areas must be located on surfaces capable of minimizing
leachate release into the groundwater under the site and the surrounding
land surface. If natural soils are used, the liner must be at least two
feet thick a9d the liner coefficient of permeability must not be greater
than 1 x 10 centimeters per second.
(g) All leachate must be collected and treated by a method approved
by the department in the engineering report.
(h) The facility must be designed and operated to control vectors and
odors.
1
_ _ _
COMPOSTING FACILITIES 5-6 360-5.3(i) ~
(1) The facility must not be operated or constructed on flood plains
unless provisions have been made to prevent the encroachment of flood
waters upon the facility.
(j) The operation of the facility must follow acceptable methods of }
composting which results in the aerobic biochemical decomposition of the
organic material received.
(k) The facility must meet minimum horizontal separation distances r
set forth in subdivision 360-4.4(d) of this Part. This requirement does
not apply to composting facilities located at existing POTWs.
a
(1) For uncovered composting facilities, the leachate collection and
treatment system must be adequate to manage the quantity of surface water
run-off at the site based on a rainfall intensity of one-hour duration and
a 10 year return period.
i
(m) Non-compostable solid waste and unacceptable compost must be
disposed of in a manner approved by the department.
(n) Daily operational records must be maintained for the facility,
which include, at a minimum, temperature data and quantity of material
processed. r
(o) For composting systems involving only sewage sludge or septage
(no municipal solid waste) with an amendment, the maximum contaminant
concentrations of the sewage sludge or septage must not exceed the levels
identified in subdivision 360-4.4(a) of this Part. This requirement may be
waived, on a case specific basis, for composting facilities producing
compost for Class II use only. i
(p) The quality of the compost will determine the allowable usage, as
Class I or Class II. The criteria are specified as follows:
(1) Class I compost:
(1) must not contain contaminant levels greater than the
following: ~
Parameter Concentration. cam drv weight
Mercury 10
Cadmium 10
Nickel 200
Lead 250
Chromium - total 1000
Copper 1000
Zinc 2500
PCBs - total 1
k
' COMPOSTING FACILITIES 5-7 360-5.3(p)(1)(ii)
(ii) must not exceed 10 millimeters (0.39 inch) particle
size;
' (111) must be produced from a composting process with a
minimum detention time (including active composting and curing) of 50 days;
' (1v) must not be used on crops grown for direct human
consumption (1.e., crops consumed by humans without processing to minimize
pathogens before distribution to the consumer); and
' (v) can be distributed for use by the public, used on food
chain crops and other agricultural and horticultural uses.
(2) Class II compost:
(i) must not have contaminant concentrations greater than
the levels identified in subdivision 360-4.4(a) of this Part;
(ti) must not exceed 25 millimeters (0.98 inch) particle
size. Particle size greater than 10 millimeters (0.39 inch) will be
restricted to landfill cover and similar uses approved by the department on
a case specific basis;
(i11) must be produced from a composting process with a
minimum detention time (including active composting and curing) of 50 days;
and
(iv) must be restricted to use on non-food chain crops.
(3) All compost that is bagged must contain a label which
indicates, as a minimum, the type of waste the compost was derived from,
any restriction on the use of the product, and recommended safe uses and
application rates. For bulk sale of compost, printed literature or signs
must be available containing this information.
(q) The results of laboratory analyses must be reported to the
department on a quarterly basis for those facilities that produce at least
one dry ton of compost per day and on a semi-annual basis for those
facilities that produce less than one dry ton of compost per day.
Reporting of the analyses must include copies of the laboratory reports.
The laboratory used must be acceptable to the department. The frequency of
annual compost sampling and analysis is outlined as follows:
Average Compost Frequency Number of
Produced of Grab Samples
Parameter (dry tons aer day) Analysis for Composite
Heavy Metals less than one semiannual six (composited
(Cadmium, Total monthly)
Chromium, Copper, one to ten monthly four (composited
Mercury, Nickel weekly)
Lead, Zinc)
1~
Y
s
COMPOSTING FACILITIES 5-8 360-5.3(q)
Total Solids, Total over ten weekly five (composited
Volatile Solids, Total daily)
Kjeldahl Nitrogen,
i Ammonia Nitrogen,
Nitrate, Nitrite, Total
Phosphorous, Total
Potassium, pH
Total Polychlorinated less than one annually twelve
Biphenyls
(composited
monthly)
more than one semiannual six (composited
monthly)
Note: Analysis of nitrogen series (TKN, NH3, N02, and NO ) must be x
performed on either grab samples or samples that are imme2~iately frozen and
remain frozen throughout the storage period. With the exception of pH,
total solids, and total volatile solids, all results must be reported on a
dry weight basis. a
(r) The following analyses, in whole or part, may be required for the
compost as determined by the department:
(1) Salt content, including chloride, fluorides, and sulfates.
(2) A scan of the compost material for any or all of the
pollutants identified by Part 373-2, Appendix 33 of this Title.
(s) For composting systems involving only sewage sludge or septage
(no municipal solid waste), the input sewage sludge or septage must be s
sampled and analyzed as outlined in subdivision 360-4.4(c) of this Part.
beforetoperationmofsthegfacilityiea wastevcontroliptan, aorecyclables
separation program, and a household hazardous waste collection program must
be in place and approved by the department. Household hazardous waste
collection must follow the requirements of paragraph 360-1.7(b)(6) of this
Part.
(u) An annual report must be submitted to the department's central
office and the office of the department administering the region in which
the facility is located within 120 calendar days after the anniversary date
of the facility's permit to operate. The report must include, at a
minimum:
(1) all information and analyses required by the permit with
copies of laboratory reports;
as bulking(agentse bepngacompostedtincludingwtheesourceoofetheamaterielsuch
A
COMPOSTING FACILITIES 5-9 360-5.3(u)(3)
(3) sampling locations and protocol used to obtain
representative samples;
(4) process operational information including temperature
j monitoring data and significant facility operational problems;
(5) the quantity, by weight and volume, of compost produced and
the quantity of compost removed from the facility;
(6) a description of the end-product distribution and disposal
methods; and ~
(7) if applicable, the application sites, application rates, and
dates of compost application.
Section 360-5.4 Peneit application: yard waste.
(a) In addition to the requirements set forth in section 360-1.9 of
this Part pertaining to engineering report contents, the engineering report
submitted as part of applications for initial permits to construct and to ~
' operate a compassing facility to compost exclusively yard waste must
include the following:
(I) A vicinity map (minimum scale of 1:24,000) that delineates
the area within one mile of the composting site boundaries; the zoning and
land use, residences, surface waters, access roads, bridges, railroads,
airports, historic sites, and other existing and proposed man-made features
' relating to the project.
(2) A site plan map (minimum scale of 1:2,400 with five feet
contour intervals) that delineates the following:
(1) the location of the proposed composting area and
boundary locations, and location of the compost facility within the site
boundaries;
(11) a description of the composting facility drainage
characteristics identifying the direction of both site run-on and run-off,
ditches, and swales together with any run-off controls that now exist or
will be implemented with facility construction;
(iii) a delineation of the composting staging and storage
area;
' (iv) the location of access roads and on-site roads;
• (v) the location of property boundaries and the names and
' addresses of all contiguous landowners;
1~
¦
COMPOSTING FACILITIES 5-10 360-5.4(a)(2)(vi)
(vi) the location of all water supply wells, buildings,
residences, surface water bodies, and drainage swales within 1,000 feet of
the site. Identification of all buildings owned by the applicant or
operator must be included; and
(vii) existing and proposed elevation contours and direction
of prevailing winds.
(3) A map indicating regulated wetlands and floodplains within
1,000 feet of the site, if applicable.
(4) A description of the ultimate use for the finished compost
and method for removal from the site and a plan for the disposal of
finished compost that cannot be used in the expected manner due to poor
quality or change in market conditions.
(5) A description of the operation of the facility, including:
(i) schedule of operation including the days and hours that
the facility will be open, preparations before opening, and procedures
followed after closing for the day;
(ii) daily traffic flow to and from the facility including
the number of trips by private or public collection vehicles and quantity
of solid waste contained in each vehicle;
(iii) procedure for unloading trucks including frequency,
rate, and method;
(iv) special precautions or procedures for operation during
wind, heavy rain, snow and freezing conditions;
(v) equipment used including any shredding, mixing,
screening, and turning equipment;
(vi) the method used to collect and control surface water
run-off at the site;
(vii) a description of any seed material in terms of its
quantity, quality, and frequency of use;
(viii) composting time duration, time period from initiation
of the composting process to completion, and distribution;
(ix) for windrow systems, the windrow construction,
including width, length, and height;
(x) method of aeration, including turning frequency or
mechanical aeration equipment and aeration capacity;
(xi) site access control method; and
COMPOSTING FACILITIES 5-11 360-5.4(a)(5)(xii)
(xii) fire fighting procedures, including availability of
water for fire fighting and for moisture addition to the piles.
(xiii) for in-vessel composting systems, a process flow
diagram of the entire process, including all major equipment and flow
streams.
(6) The specific ownership or leasing arrangement of the
F facility.
(7) Personnel required and their responsibilities.
4
(8) A description and an identification of the surface soil
' characteristics for the proposed site area and depth to seasonal high
groundwater and bedrock.
(g) A description of the composition of the yard wastes
involved, the anticipated quantity of each type of material, and how each
will be handled at the site.
(10) A description of any monitoring that will occur involving
the composting process or the site.
(b) A contingency plan must be developed to outline the steps that
' will be taken if unapproved wastes are delivered to the composting
facility; and in the event of odors, groundwater contamination, and other
undesirable conditions.
Section 360-5.5 Operational requirements: yard waste.
Composting facilities accepting only yard waste are subject to the
following operational requirements, in addition to those contained in
section 360-1.14 of this Part.
's
(a) Only yard waste may be accepted at this type of composting
facility.
(b) Compost arias located on soils with a coefficient of permeability
greater than 4 x 10 centimeters per second (six inches per hour) may be
required to install groundwater monitoring wells or other monitoring
devices to protect groundwater and surface water as determined by the
department.
(c) Drainage must be controlled to prevent leachate run-off from the
site. Surface water drainage must be diverted away from the compost site.
(d) The operation of the facility must follow acceptable methods of
composting which result in the aerobic biochemical degradation of the
organic material received.
COMPOSTING FACILITIES 5-12 360-5.5(e) '
(e) The facility site must be graded to minimize any ponding.
(f) The. windrow construction and turning frequency must be sufficient ,
to maintain aerobic conditions and to produce a compost product in the
desired time frame.
i
' (g) The minimum horizontal separation distances set forth in
i subdivision 360-4.4(d) of this Part also apply to yard waste composting
1 facilities, except the minimum horizontal separation distance to a '
residence or place of business must be 200 feet. This requirement does not
i apply to composting facilities located at existing POTWs.
(h) The facility must not be operated or constructed on flood plains t
unless provisions have been made to prevent the encroachment of flood
waters upon the facility.
~ (i) Composting must not occur in areas where the seasonal high '
i groundwater is less than 24 inches from the ground surface or where the
bedrock lies less than 24 inches below the ground surface. '
(j) The composting facility must be operated to control vectors and
; odors. '
1
k (k) Upon completion of the composting cycle, the compost must receive
7 a final aeration to ensure stability before distribution.
(1) The facility must be located on a suitable base to ensure
stability and accessibility.
(m) An annual report must be submitted to the department's central '
office and appropriate regional office within 120 calendar days after the
anniversary date of the facility's permit to operate. The report must ,
include, at a minimum:
(1) the type and quantity, by weight or volume, of waste
received at the facility; '
(2) the turning frequency (if applicable) and the timing and
amount of any water addition; t
(3) the quantity, by weight or volume, of compost produced; ~
(4) any monitoring that occurred during the operation; t
i
(5) the quantity and timing of any seed material used; ~
(6) the quantity, by weight or volume, of compost removed from ,
the facility; and
(7) a description of the end-product distribution and disposal '
system.
1
1
' A P P E N D I X B
1
1
1
1
¦
COMPOST COMPOST BAY
MIXER/AGITATOR (TYPICAL)
AIR WITHDRAWAL
CONCRETE
BAY WALL
AERATION
BLOWER
GRAVEL BED AIR FEED
INTERNATIONAL PROCESS SYSTEMS
COMPOST SYSTEM
TO CURE
RAW COMrOST
MIX
Ail
WITHDRAWAL
NLET Aii
F10011 MOM/TEO HEADER
' AIR' D~FU8ER8
MILET DOOR '
HYDRAULIC '
CYLNOER
A3HBROOK-3IMON-HARTLEY TUNNEL