final non msw report - rethink recycling · final report 2004 characterization of non-municipal...

119
FINAL REPORT 2004 CHARACTERIZATION OF NON- MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE STREAM Prepared for: Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board August 2004 Prepared by: URS Corporation 700 Third Street South, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55415 URS Job Project Number: 31809592.00010

Upload: hoanglien

Post on 14-Apr-2018

217 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

FINAL REPORT

2004 CHARACTERIZATION OF NON-MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE STREAM

Prepared for:

Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board

August 2004

Prepared by:

URS Corporation 700 Third Street South, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55415 URS Job Project Number: 31809592.00010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.dociAugust 2004

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................... 1

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 7

SECTION 2 OVERVIEW OF THE NON-MSW STREAM............................................................... 82.1 Total Non-MSW Landfilled................................................................................... 82.2 Total Non-MSW Disposal Capacity ...................................................................... 92.3 Primary Components of Non-MSW Stream.......................................................... 9

2.3.1 Construction and Demolition Waste Composition ................................... 92.3.1.1 Characterization......................................................................... 10

2.3.2 Industrial Solid Waste............................................................................. 102.3.2.1 Characterization......................................................................... 11

SECTION 3 EVALUATION OF NON-MSW WASTES .................................................................. 13

SECTION 4 SELECTED NON-MSW WASTES BY CATEGORY................................................ 164.1 Category I Wastes: Waste Streams to be Monitored ........................................... 16

4.1.1 Concrete and Asphalt Waste................................................................... 164.1.2 Brick Waste ............................................................................................ 164.1.3 Metal Waste ............................................................................................ 174.1.4 Metal Shavings and Turnings ................................................................. 174.1.5 Lime Sludge............................................................................................ 174.1.6 Paint Filters............................................................................................. 184.1.7 Plastic Tubing ......................................................................................... 184.1.8 Blasting Media........................................................................................ 184.1.9 Foam ....................................................................................................... 184.1.10 Insulation ................................................................................................ 19

4.2 Category II Wastes: Priority Waste Streams for Regional Initiatives.................. 194.2.1 Packaging Waste..................................................................................... 194.2.2 Wood Waste............................................................................................ 204.2.3 Foundry Sands ........................................................................................ 204.2.4 Coal Ash ................................................................................................. 204.2.5 Shingles................................................................................................... 214.2.6 Shredder Fluff ......................................................................................... 224.2.7 Treated Wood ......................................................................................... 224.2.8 Street Sweepings..................................................................................... 234.2.9 Contaminated Soil .................................................................................. 234.2.10 Mixed Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Ash............................................ 244.2.11 Gypsum Wallboard ................................................................................. 244.2.12 Sewage Sludge and Sewage Sludge Ash ................................................ 254.2.13 Medical Waste ........................................................................................ 25

4.3 Category III Wastes: Waste Streams for Future Research and Evaluation.......... 254.3.1 Photo Resistance Sludge......................................................................... 254.3.2 Vinyl Siding............................................................................................ 264.3.3 Vehicle Windshields ............................................................................... 26

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.dociiAugust 2004

SECTION 5 FINDINGS....................................................................................................................... 275.1 Toxicity Reduction .............................................................................................. 275.2 Potential for Reduction, Recycling and Reuse .................................................... 275.3 Landfill Abatement Techniques........................................................................... 28

SECTION 6 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 30

SECTION 7 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 32

APPENDICESAppendix A Non-MSW Work Group ParticipantsAppendix B List of Facilities and Data DescriptionAppendix C 1998 to 2003 Non-MSW Waste VolumesAppendix D Industrial Waste Flash CardAppendix E Non-MSW Flash Cards

Category I:Concrete and Asphalt WasteBrick WasteMetal WasteMetal Shavings and TurningsLime SludgePaint FiltersPlastic TubingBlasting MediaFoamInsulation

Category II:Packaging WasteWood WasteFoundry SandsCoal AshShinglesShredder FluffTreated WoodStreet SweepingsContaminated SoilMSW AshGypsum WallboardSewage Sludge and Sewage Sludge AshMedical Waste

Category III:Photo Resistance SludgeVinyl SidingVehicle Windshields

Appendix F Non-MSW MatrixAppendix G Non-MSW Resources

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc1August 2004

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 1998 – 2017 Regional Solid Waste Master Plan established as a principal outcome an increase inreduction, reuse, recycling and processing of non-MSW. A key intermediate outcome was to preparewaste characterization data for policy and program development, which has been a focus of SWMCBwork for the last several years.

The Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) 2004 work plan and budget directs staff toconduct an analysis of the non-municipal solid waste (non-MSW) stream based on existing data,including quantities and characteristics of waste generated, and to determine priority waste streams fortoxicity reduction, waste reduction, reuse and recycling. The primary purpose of this task is to inform thedevelopment of outcomes and strategies for the 2005 to 2024 Regional Solid Waste Master Plan.

The Non-MSW Data Analysis Work Group, led by Ms. Sheila Wiegman and Mr. Bill Lauer, DakotaCounty, and comprised of staff from the SWMCB, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance(MOEA), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Minnesota Technical Assistance Program(MnTAP), SKB Environmental, Inc. and Waste Management, Inc. was created to perform the taskdescribed above. Work Group participants researched and evaluated the waste streams, and documentedthe findings. The SWMCB contracted with URS Corporation (URS) to prepare a report that synthesizesthe Work Group’s research findings and recommendations.

OVERVIEW OF NON-MSW

Non-MSW is a broad and highly variable waste stream defined by non-hazardous materials that are notconsidered municipal solid waste (MSW). In general, it consists of three major components: construction,demolition, and industrial waste. In addition to these materials, this report includes MSW ash and medicalwaste in its analysis of the non-MSW stream. Examples of non-MSW are provided below:

• Industrial Solid Waste (e.g. metal shavings and turnings from a manufacturing process);• Construction Waste (e.g. brick waste or insulation waste generated from new construction or

remodeling activities);• Demolition debris (e.g. concrete and asphalt waste from the demolition of buildings and roads);

and• Some wastes banned from the MSW waste stream, including MSW ash and medical waste.

In 2003, 2.3 million tons of non-MSW was disposed in landfills serving the SWMCB region. In additionto the non-MSW represented in this report, the region generated approximately 280,000 wet tons of MSWash from resource recovery facilities in 2003, which was also disposed in landfills serving the SWMCBregion.

EVALUATION OF NON-MSW MATERIALS

In order to determine priority waste streams for toxicity reduction, waste reduction, reuse, and recycling,the Work Group identified twenty-six non-MSW materials for analysis based on a cursory review ofexisting data and consultations with non-MSW landfill inspectors. The Work Group researched each non-MSW material and documented the findings. Waste streams were placed into temporary categories, andafter additional in-depth research, evaluation and discussion, the Work Group then assigned each selectednon-MSW material to one of three final categories. The waste stream categories are defined below:

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc2August 2004

Category I Wastes: Waste Streams to be MonitoredWastes assigned to Category I have satisfactory data available, and this data suggests that the material isbeing managed appropriately. Category I wastes are not considered a priority for the region to focus on atthis time; however, any changes to their status will be monitored by the Work Group. Category I wastesare presented below:

• Concrete and asphalt• Brick waste• Metal waste• Metal shavings and turnings• Lime sludge• Paint filters• Plastic tubing• Blasting media• Foam• Insulation

Waste Stream Category II: Priority Waste Streams for Regional InitiativesWastes assigned to Category II are those that have satisfactory data available, and this data demonstratesthat the material may be large in volume, or it may be expensive to manage, problematic, or may pose anelevated environmental risk if improperly disposed. Wastes placed in Category II appear to have the mostpotential for increased reduction, recycling, reuse and/or toxicity reduction. Category II wastes arepresented below:

• Packaging waste• Wood waste• Foundry sands• Coal Ash• Shingles• Shredder fluff• Treated wood• Street sweepings• Contaminated soil• Mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) ash• Gypsum wallboard• Sewage sludge and sewage sludge ash• Medical waste

Waste Stream Category III: Waste Streams for Future Research and EvaluationWastes in Category III do not have satisfactory data available. These waste streams may be recommendedfor study in the future. Category III wastes are presented below:

• Photo resist sludge• Vinyl siding• Vehicle windshield glass

FINDINGS FOR TOXICITY REDUCTION

The non-MSW waste streams identified as having the highest potential for toxicity reduction are blastingmedia, shredder fluff and vehicle windshield glass.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc3August 2004

Blasting MediaBlasting media may contain heavy metals resulting from the blasting process. For example, blastingmedia waste containing paint removed from an old water tower may have hazardous concentrations oflead.

Shredder FluffHigh levels of heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, zinc, nickel, and copper) andpolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) may be contained in the non-ferrous portion of the shredder residue.

Vehicle Windshield GlassVehicle windshields have a protective coating that contains high levels of lead, and this can causewindshields to be characteristically hazardous for lead.

FINDINGS FOR POTENTIAL REDUCTION, RECYCLING AND REUSE

Of the non-MSW waste streams evaluated, coal ash, shingles, street sweepings and foundry sands appearto have the most immediate potential for reduction, recycling and reuse.

Coal Ash: Reuse PotentialA Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency forcoal combustion slag and fly ash. Coal fly ash is an important source of cemetitious material in concrete.It can be used as a cement replacement in the formation of high-strength concrete or as an ingredient forproduction of aggregate that will be used in concrete or concrete products. Approximately 70 to 75% offly ash generated is still disposed in landfills and storage lagoons.

Shingles: Reuse and Recycling PotentialA Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency formanufacture shingle scrap. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) specifications allowmanufactured shingle scrap to be used in hot-mix asphalt applications. There is an estimated 35,000 tonsper year of manufactured shingle scrap generated at three single manufactures in the Twin Cities MetroArea, but only 20 to 40% of this is currently recycled into hot-mix asphalt. Residential tear-off shinglescrap can be a high quality, high asphalt content material that can also be used in making hot-mix asphalt.One of the most important next steps for the use of tear-off shingle scrap by the asphalt pavement industryis to expand the MnDOT asphalt pavement specification provisions to allow for the use of residential tear-off shingle scrap in hot-mix asphalt.

Street Sweepings: Reduction and Reuse PotentialSand recovered from street sweepings can be acceptable for reuse when mixed with new salt and sand;can be used as daily cover at some landfills; and can be used as clean fill material for commercial orindustrial uses. Street sweepings can be voluminous and, consequently, reuse is preferable to disposal.

Foundry Sands: Reuse PotentialA Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency fornon-hazardous waste foundry sands. This determination allows foundry sands to be used as a feedstockfor the manufacture of Portland Cement. In addition, the MPCA anticipates multiple case-specificbeneficial use determination proposals to be submitted in the near future for the reuse of foundry sands asa component in asphalt.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc4August 2004

LANDFILL ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES

There are several over-arching management techniques in place to reduce the amount of non-MSWlandfilled. These landfill abatement techniques are discussed below.

Market DevelopmentHaving established markets for reused or recycled materials is ideal for encouraging reuse and recycling,and lack of markets is a common challenge. An example of an established market is the reuse of limesludge as an agricultural soil amendment. Because this viable market exists, this material is rarely, if ever,landfilled in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.

EducationOrganizations that offer education in the areas of non-MSW reduction, reuse and recycling include theGreen Guardian, MnTAP, Waste Wise Minnesota and the MOEA. Industry organizations, such as theNational Asphalt Pavement Association, and academic institutions, such as the University of Minnesota,are also excellent sources of information.

Taxes and FeesTaxes, fees, or exemptions can be an effective mechanism to influence reduction, reuse and recycling. Forexample, contaminated soils that meet specific criteria can be used as daily cover at approved landfills.The soils used as daily cover are not subject to the same fees required for disposal of the soil as waste.This creates an incentive to reuse the material in a beneficial way, and has displaced landfill space thatwould otherwise be consumed by clean soils used as daily cover.

RegulationRegulation has a direct effect on non-MSW management. For example, prohibiting yard waste from beingdisposed in landfills has had a significant impact on the disposal practices of the waste stream. Thebeneficial reuse rules implemented by the MPCA may create opportunities to reuse or recycle certainnon-MSW waste streams in new ways. An example may be the potential use of MSW ash in hot-mixasphalt.

Regulation may also be used to encourage or require sustainable building practices. For example, inJanuary 2001, the Dakota County Board adopted Design, Construction, and Sustainability Standards forDakota County Buildings. The standards outline construction quality control and assurance; staffproductivity issues (such as indoor air quality, lighting, safety, and security); life cycle cost effectivenessand accountability; systematic approach to energy and resource management and conservation; buildingmaterial selections; components; equipment; and sustainability.

Technological InnovationNew or innovative technologies, such as carpet recycling or manufacturing new gypsum wallboard fromwaste wallboard, can provide additional opportunities for non-MSW. Research and development and pilotprojects can be instrumental in these endeavors.

Procurement PracticesGovernment procurement practices can be effective in reducing the amount of non-MSW landfilled. Forexample, a municipality may require a contractor to recycle a certain percentage of C & D wastegenerated during the construction of a government facility. Government procurement practices, such aspurchasing only paper that has a specified recycled paper content, can promote recycling markets.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc5August 2004

NON-MSW WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS

Ten non-MSW management strategies relative to toxicity reduction, waste reduction, reuse, recycling andproper management are proposed in this report. The implementation of these strategies will require theSWMCB and its member counties to seek out partnerships with other units of government, privateindustry and academic institutions. In addition, the State of Minnesota, other public entities, academicinstitutions and private industry are continually investing in innovative research initiatives to increase thereduction, beneficial reuse and recycling of non-MSW. Collaborative efforts have historically been andwill continue to be a great force in the reduction, reuse and recycling of non-MSW.

The Non-MSW Work Group recommends the following strategies to reduce (by volume andtoxicity), reuse and recycle non-MSW. These strategies represent the views of multiplestakeholders and are not put forth as binding policy for the SWMCB region. The Non-MSW WorkGroup asks that these recommendations be considered by the SWMCB Regional PolicyDevelopment Committee as they prepare the outcomes and strategies for the 2005 – 2024 RegionalSolid Waste Master Plan.

• The SWMCB should support research initiatives of the State, trade associations and otherorganizations pursuing the beneficial reuse of non-MSW, including, but not limited to, post-consumer shingles, MSW ash, coal ash, sewage sludge ash, street sweepings, and foundry sand,in road construction projects. Support should include, but is not limited to, disseminatinginformation to public entities, conducting research and implementing demonstration projects.Where state approval exists, the SWMCB should promote the beneficial reuse of non-MSW inroad construction projects.

• The SWMCB should research and develop a streamlined method for collecting and analyzingnon-MSW data from generators, contractors, municipalities, haulers, waste managementproviders and other data sources.

• Each year, the SWMCB should target an industrial, construction, and/or demolition wastematerial for region wide waste reduction, reuse, recycling or proper disposal promotions.

• The SWMCB should promote the beneficial reuse of non-MSW materials as specified in theMPCA solid waste utilization rules.

• The SWMCB should identify and implement a product stewardship initiative targeted at a largevolume or toxic non-MSW waste stream (possibilities include the elimination of mercuryswitches in automobiles or the labeling of construction materials containing asbestos).

• The SWMCB should research the composition of the medical waste stream and develop andimplement an action plan for waste reduction, toxicity reduction and recycling.

• The SWMCB should continue to evaluate the use of market based, financial and regulatoryincentives that encourage reduction, reuse and recycling of non-MSW materials.

• The SWMCB should continue to evaluate the challenges and barriers, including existing financialand regulatory disincentives, to reducing, reusing and recycling non-MSW.

• The SWMCB should support MOEA market development initiatives that will help businessrecovering non-MSW materials become more profitable. Support should include, but is not

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc6August 2004

limited to, disseminating information to public entities, conducting research and implementingdemonstration projects.

• The public entities in the SWMCB region should incorporate sustainable architectural guidelinesin the planning process for construction and remodeling of government buildings.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc7August 2004

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) 2004 work plan and budget directs staff toconduct an analysis of the non-municipal solid waste (non-MSW) stream based on existing data,including quantities and characteristics of waste generated, and to determine priority waste streams fortoxicity reduction, waste reduction, reuse and recycling. The primary purpose of this task is to inform thedevelopment of strategies and outcomes for the 2005 to 2024 Regional Solid Waste Master Plan. Inaddition, the analysis will be consulted annually for the development of the SWMCB annual work plan andbudget. Nevertheless, this report represents a snapshot in time of the non-MSW stream. Recommendedstrategies in this report may change over time as the non-MSW stream evolves and matures.

The Non-MSW Data Analysis Work Group, led by Ms. Sheila Wiegman and Mr. Bill Lauer, DakotaCounty, and comprised of staff from the SWMCB, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance(OEA), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Minnesota Technical Assistance Program(MnTAP), SKB Environmental, Inc. and Waste Management, Inc. was created to perform the taskdescribed above. Waste stream data was researched and documented by the Work Group members.Appendix A provides a list of the work group participants and their contact information. The SWMCBcontracted with URS Corporation (URS) to prepare a report that synthesized the Work Group’s researchfindings and recommendations.

The terms “reuse” and “recycling” are frequently used throughout this document. For purposes of thisreport, “recycling” is separating marketable materials from the non-MSW waste stream and using them inmanufacturing processes that would not preclude further use. “Reuse” is utilizing materials separatedfrom the non-MSW waste stream in their original form.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc8August 2004

2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE NON-MSW STREAM

Non-municipal solid waste (non-MSW) is a broad and highly variable waste stream defined by non-hazardous materials that are not considered (municipal solid waste) MSW. In general, it consists of threemajor components: construction, demolition, and industrial waste. In addition to these materials, thisreport includes MSW ash in its analysis of the non-MSW stream.

The Master Plan established as a principal outcome an increase in reduction, reuse, recycling andprocessing of non-MSW. A key intermediate outcome was to develop waste characterization data for policyand program development, which has been a focus of SWMCB work for the last several years.

The Work Group encountered significant challenges in compiling non-MSW data. The only readilyavailable source of non-MSW management data is from annual reports submitted to the MinnesotaPollution Control Agency by permitted non-MSW landfills. These landfills do not track the origin of thewaste they receive, thus non-MSW data is not available by county or region. In addition, significantamounts of non-MSW is being reused, recycled or processed, such as the recycling of concrete from thedemolition of buildings. This data is not captured by any reporting system.

Given the challenges described above, data presented in this section of the report is based on the amountof non-MSW landfilled at 12 facilities serving the SWMCB region (located in Dakota, McCleod, Scott,Sherburne, Washington and Wright Counties). A list of the facilities and a description of how the datawas derived is provided in Appendix B.

2.1 TOTAL NON-MSW LANDFILLED

In 2003, 2.3 million tons of non-MSW was landfilled at facilities serving the SWMCB region, located inDakota, McCleod, Scott, Sherburne, Washington and Wright Counties (Table 1) These figures do notrepresent recycling of C & D or industrial waste, and do not include ash landfilled. Disposal data byfacility is presented in Appendix C.

In addition, 280,000 wet tons of ash from resource recovery facilities in the SWMCB region waslandfilled in 2003.

Table 1: NonMSW Landfilled at Facilities Serving the SWMCB Region (tons)

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Change1998 - 2003

Total C & D WasteGenerated 1,367,621 1,624,857 1,536,027 1,490,849 1,482,014 1,330,099

Percent Change n/a 19% (5%) (3%) (1%) (10%) (3%)Total IndustrialWaste Generated 930,071 931,696 1,042,147 1,099,163 877,564 943,309

Percent Change n/a 0% 12% 5% (20%) 7% (1%)Total Non-MSWGenerated 2,297,693 2,556,553 2,578,174 2,590,012 2,359,578 2,273,408

Percent Change n/a 11.3% 0.9% 0.5% (8.9%) (3.7%) (1%)

The amount of nonMSW landfilled at facilities serving the SWMCB region is decreasing (Chart 1),primarily due to decreases in the amount of construction and demolition waste landfilled. The reasons forthis are not known.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc9August 2004

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Tons

(mill

ions

)

Chart 1. Non-MSW Lanfilled at Facilities Serving the SWMCB

2.2 TOTAL NON-MSW DISPOSAL CAPACITY

This SWMCB region has considerable current and potential landfill capacity for non-MSW disposal. In2003, the total permitted industrial waste and construction and demolition (C & D) landfill capacityserving the SWMCB Area was approximately 28.9 million cubic yards. Un-permitted, conceptual designcapacity potentially provides an additional 41.9 million cubic yards. Therefore the metropolitan area has atotal permitted and potential added landfill capacity of approximately 71 million cubic yards. Although itmay appear there is sufficient non-MSW landfill capacity to serve the area, this does not preclude theneed to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste disposed.

2.3 PRIMARY COMPONENTS OF NON-MSW STREAM

2.3.1 Construction and Demolition Waste Composition

“Construction waste” includes building materials, packaging, and rubble resulting from construction,remodeling, repair and demolition of buildings and roads (Minn. Stat. § 115A.03, subd. 7). “Demolitionwaste” includes waste resulting from the demolition of buildings, roads, and other structures includingconcrete, brick, bituminous concrete, untreated wood, masonry, glass, trees, rock, and plastic buildingparts (Minnesota Rules 7035.0300).

In 2003, approximately 1.3 million tons of C & D waste was disposed in facilities serving the SWMCBregion. The amount of C & D waste disposed has gradually been declining since 1999. The reasons forthis are not known.

Twenty-seven C & D transfer stations serve the SWMCB Area. According to MPCA annual facilityreports, approximately 2.1 million cubic yards of waste was managed at these transfer stations in 2002.Many of the facilities sort C & D wastes and recover materials, such as wood and metal, for recycling.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc10August 2004

Chart 2. Construction and Demolition Waste (C & D) Landfilled at FacilitiesServing the SWMCB Region (tons)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Tons

(milli

ons)

2.3.1.1 Characterization

In 1999 and 2000, the SWMCB conducted a construction and demolition waste observation study. Thestudy observed five landfills in 1999 and two landfills in 2000. The study found that most of waste wasgenerated from construction or remodeling projects. The largest components of the waste streamobserved were: untreated wood; concrete and block; stained and painted wood; gypsum wallboard; metal;cardboard and paper; roofing; insulation; and, plastic and vinyl. Items that were not seen in significantquantities included: asphalt; brick; carpet and padding; ceiling tile; containers; concrete with rebar;fiberboard; light fixtures; glass; and, treated wood. The materials that were not seen in significantquantities suggest that the materials were reused, recycled or disposed by a method other than landfilling.

2.3.2 Industrial Solid Waste

“Industrial solid waste” includes all solid waste generated from an industrial or manufacturing processand solid waste generated from non-manufacturing activities such as service and commercialestablishments. Industrial solid waste does not include office materials, restaurant and food preparationwaste, discarded machinery, demolition debris, MSW combustor ash, or household refuse. In order for afacility to accept non-hazardous industrial solid waste for disposal, it must have an approved industrialsolid waste management plan.

The Work Group identified three significant works on industrial waste data. Although these pieces aredated, they represent the most current information available on industrial solid waste. The 1987 Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste Report conducted by the Minnesota Waste Management Board represents theefforts of the 1986 legislature to evaluate and make recommendations regarding the management of non-hazardous industrial waste in Minnesota. The State of Wisconsin in 2000 and California in 1999 alsodeveloped waste characterization data. The results of these reports are included in Appendix D.

Since 1998, the amount of industrial waste disposed has remained around 1 million tons. Approximately950,000 tons of industrial waste was disposed in facilities serving the SWMCB region.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc11August 2004

Chart 3. IndustrialWaste Landfilled at Facilities Serving the SWMCB Region (tons)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Tons

(mill

ions

)

2.3.2.1 Characterization

There are four landfills in Dakota County that accept industrial solid waste (two MSW landfills, oneconstruction and demolition landfill, and one industrial waste landfill). The County requires theselandfills to submit quarterly reports on the type and amount of industrial waste materials accepted fordisposal. The Work Group analyzed these quarterly reports to gain a better understanding of the majorcomponents of industrial waste disposed at Dakota County landfills. Waste streams disposed in amountsof 2,000 tons or greater in 2003 are listed below:

1. Contaminated Soil2. MSW Ash3. Packaging1

4. Foundry Sand5. Asbestos6. Ash (wood)7. Medical Waste (infectious and non-infectious)2

8. RCRA Containers (empty)9. Organic Wastes (food, animal carcasses)3

10. Reject Glass

1 This waste stream is comprised of several types of packaging wastes. These wastes are often disposed as one co-mingled waste load and the exact volume of different packaging types cannot be determined. These types of wastesare cardboard, foam, shrink wrap, wood, and plastics.2 Medical wastes disposed include both the noninfectious general industrial solid wastes that are generated athealth care facilities (paper, plastic, general lab waste, packaging, etc) and the infectious wastes that have beentreated through autoclaving. This does not include chemotherapy and other medical waste regulated as hazardous.3 Organic wastes include animal parts and carcasses (University of Minnesota research, rendering plants,slaughterhouses), meat byproducts, food waste, reject food (off spec food), flour, feed, and grains. These wastes arenot suitable for reprocessing or other uses.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc12August 2004

11. Mylar12. Wood13. Shingles14. Street Sweepings15. Sandblast Material16. Windshields and Auto Glass

Notes about the data:• Quarterly reports from MSW landfills provide data on industrial wastes that are segregated from

MSW. Industrial wastes that are co-mingled with MSW are tracked as MSW and therefore notincluded in the data presented above.

• Other non-hazardous industrial wastes, such as sorbents and rags, are often managed throughincineration or reclamation, and may not be reflected in this study.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc13August 2004

3.0 EVALUATION OF NON-MSW WASTES

Non-MSW is comprised of a variety of waste streams from many different sources. The main types ofnon-MSW wastes are provided below:

• Industrial Solid Waste (e.g. metal shavings and turnings from a manufacturing process);• Construction Waste (e.g. brick waste or insulation waste generated from new construction or

remodeling activities);• Demolition debris (e.g. concrete and asphalt waste from the demolition of buildings and roads);

and• Some wastes banned from the MSW waste stream, including MSW ash and medical waste.

Some materials fit into more than one waste type. For example, waste shingles can result from off-specification items generated during manufacturing (industrial solid waste), excess material generated at aconstruction site (construction waste), or old shingle tear-off materials from a roofing project (demolition debris).

The Work Group identified twenty-six non-MSW materials for further analysis based on a cursory reviewof existing data and consultations with non-MSW landfill inspectors.

The Work Group researched each waste material to identify amounts generated, characteristics,management methods and other pertinent facts. Major research sources include the following:

• Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board;• Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance;• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency;• United States Environmental Protection Agency;• National industrial, construction and demolition associations;• University of Minnesota; and• Other states and universities.

In addition, the Work Group consulted the following reports for background information:

• Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste Report. 1987. Minnesota Waste Management Board;• Non-MSW Waste Observation Study. 2000. Prepared by RW Beck for the SWMCB;• Wisconsin Waste Characterization and Management Study Update. 2002. Prepared by Franklin

Associates Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources;• Construction Waste Report. 2002. Prepared by URS for the SWMCB; and• California Statewide Waste Composition Study. 1999. Prepared by Cascadia Consulting, Inc.,

Sky Valley Associates, Inc., et. al. for the California Integrated Waste Management Board.

In order to determine priority waste streams for toxicity reduction, waste reduction, reuse, and recycling,the Work Group evaluated the selected twenty-six non-MSW materials. To do this, the Work Groupcreated fact sheets or “flash cards” for each non-MSW material considered, which contain various levelsof information. Waste streams were placed into temporary categories, and after additional in-depth research,evaluation and discussion, the Work Group then assigned each selected non-MSW material to one ofthree final categories. The research findings for each waste stream are provided in Appendix E, and thenon-MSW matrix is presented in Appendix F. The waste stream categories are defined below:

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc14August 2004

Waste Stream Category I: Waste Streams to be MonitoredSatisfactory data is available, and this data demonstrates that the material is being managed appropriately.A subset of Category I includes wastes that have special conditions that should be monitored.Flash cards for wastes initially placed in Category I addressed the following:

• What is known about the waste;• How is it currently managed; and• Why the waste stream was set aside to focus on others.

Category I wastes are not considered a priority for the region to focus on at this time; however, anychanges to their status will be monitored by the Work Group.

Waste Stream Category II: Priority Waste Streams for Regional InitiativesSatisfactory data is available, and this data demonstrates the material may be large in volume, or it may beexpensive to manage, problematic, or may pose an elevated environmental risk if improperly disposed.

Flash cards for wastes initially placed in Category II sought to address the following:

• General information:- Waste toxicity;- Why and how it is used; and- Potential to reduce, reuse, or recycle.

• Minnesota Data:- Quantity generated;- Quantity disposed;- Major players involved;- Recovery rates; and- Percentage of landfill space consumed.

• Comparisons to other data sources, policies, programs and projects;• Economics;• Management practices;• Other issues to consider;• Information missing or needed; and• Recommendations.

Wastes placed in Category II appear to have the most potential for increased reduction, recycling, reuseand/or toxicity reduction.

Waste Stream Category III: Waste Streams for Future Research and EvaluationSatisfactory data is not currently available for this waste stream; therefore this waste stream isrecommended for further study. A subset of Category III wastes are those that are currently consideredlower priority materials.

Flash cards for wastes initially placed in Category III reflect the limited data known andrecommendations for further study.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc15August 2004

Early in the evaluation process, waste streams could be temporarily held in Category IV, the “parkinglot”, while satisfactory data was being collected. All of the selected waste streams in Category IV werereassigned at the end of the evaluation process to Category I, II or III.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc16August 2004

4.0 SELECTED NON-MSW WASTES BY CATEGORY

4.1 CATEGORY I WASTES: WASTE STREAMS TO BE MONITORED

Wastes assigned to Category I have satisfactory data available, and this data suggests that the material isbeing managed appropriately. A few of the waste streams that qualify for Category I are considered a“subset” of the Category, because they have special conditions that should be noted. Category I wastesare not considered a priority for the region to focus on at this time; however, any changes to their statuswill be monitored by the Work Group. Each waste stream is summarized below, and the associated flashcard is presented in Appendix E.

4.1.1 Concrete and Asphalt Waste

Concrete and bituminous asphalt were both evaluated. According to the Minnesota Recycling MarketDirectory, 21 asphalt brokers, processors, and end user companies and 25 concrete brokers, processors,and end user companies exist in Minnesota.

ConcreteA Standing Beneficial Use Determination, Minnesota Rule 7035.2860, has been issued by the MinnesotaPollution Control Agency for concrete when used for aggregate. This determination means that thegenerator or end user of a material can do so in accordance with this rule without contacting the agency.

According to Minnesota Rule 7035.2860, subp.4, item I, uncontaminated recognizable concrete, recycledconcrete and concrete products, and brick for service can be used as a substitute for virgin aggregate.Concrete materials are currently being used widely as replacements for virgin aggregate. This practice isacceptable as long as these materials are not from buildings or structures where they are likely to becontaminated.

Crushed concrete is often used as a base fill in the construction of roads. The crushed material is used inplace of virgin limestone aggregate. This reuse possibility represents a large potential market. Theeconomies of scale of such reuse are often dictated by the local availability of limestone deposits, ashauling costs can be substantial. Contamination of concrete with wood, dirt, or other materials can beproblematic. Crushed concrete may also be used as primary road surface materials on unpaved roads inrural areas. The use of crushed concrete for driveways is also practiced, with portable crushing equipmentavailable for crushing and grinding directly on-site.

AsphaltMinnesota Department of Transportation Research has demonstrated that cold in-place and hot-mixasphalt pavement recycling can be effectively used in road maintenance and construction.

According to the National Asphalt Pavement Association, a report issued by the Federal HighwayAdministration and the EPA states that 80% of asphalt pavement removed each year during widening andresurfacing projects is reused as part of new roads, roadbeds, shoulders, and embankments.

4.1.2 Brick Waste

A Standing Beneficial Use Determination, Minnesota Rule 7035.2860, has been issued by the MinnesotaPollution Control Agency for brick when used for aggregate. This determination means that the generatoror end user of a material can do so in accordance with this rule without contacting the agency.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc17August 2004

According to Minnesota Rule 7035.2860, subp.4, item I, uncontaminated recognizable concrete, recycledconcrete and concrete products, and brick for service can be used as a substitute for virgin aggregate.Brick materials are currently being used widely as replacements for virgin aggregate. This practice isacceptable as long as these materials are not from buildings or structures where they are likely to becontaminated.

In addition to recycling, brick can be recovered for reuse, which may be of greater value for this wastestream. Brick recycled into an aggregate base for roadbeds and driveways may reduce to clay over time.

4.1.3 Metal Waste

Metals are recycled because an economically viable market for recycled metals has been established. Forexample, 44 roofing steel recycling brokers, processors, and end user companies exist in Minnesota,according to the Minnesota Recycling Market Directory.

According to the Steel Recycling Institute, the North American steel industry annually recycles millionsof tons of steel scrap from recycled cans, automobiles, appliances, construction materials, and other steelproducts. This scrap is then re-melted to produce new steel. The industry’s overall recycling rate is nearly68%. In 2001, an estimated 95% of structural beams and plates and 50% of reinforced bars and othermetals were recycled in the United States.

4.1.4 Metal Shavings and Turnings

Because ferrous scrap metal and brass prices are very strong, it is very unlikely that large sources arebeing landfilled. Non-ferrous metals, such as aluminum and brass, are even more valuable. However,small sources might not be collected at a rate to justify storage and pickup costs. If the metal wastestreams are mixed together, their value drops quickly. Literally thousands of companies in the stategenerate this kind of waste, from very small sources to extremely large sources. Recycling of metals isvery market driven.

4.1.5 Lime Sludge

A Standing Beneficial Use Determination, Minnesota Rule 7035.2860, has been issued by the MinnesotaPollution Control Agency for uncontaminated lime by-products. This determination means that thegenerator or end user of a material can do so in accordance with this rule without contacting the agency.

According to Minnesota Rule 7035.2860, subp.4, item P, uncontaminated by-product limes can be used asagricultural liming materials and distributed in accordance with chapter 1508 and Minnesota Statutes,sections 18C.531 to 18C.575. Application rates for by-product limes must be based on the limerecommendations of the University of Minnesota Extension Service. Use of agricultural liming materialsis regulated by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA).

By-product limes have been land applied for many years for their value as agricultural liming materials,and they make up a significant percent of the agricultural liming used in Minnesota (up to 40% in someyears.) Infrequently there are contaminants present in a by-product lime that are of concern to humanhealth and the environment.

The National Lime Association completed a life cycle analysis of utilizing lime in interstate and highwayprojects. Lime can provide roadway projects with the following benefits: provide anti-stripping benefits;act as a mineral filter to stiffen the binder and reduce rutting; improve resistance to fracture growth at low

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc18August 2004

temperatures; provide favorable alter oxidation kinetics and reduce their deleterious effects; and alter theplastic properties of clay fines to improve moisture stability and durability.

4.1.6 Paint Filters

According to the 2004 Harris Directory, there are 70 Companies in Minnesota whose primary business ispaint and coatings. In addition, 4,000 companies in Minnesota have Standard Industrial Classification(SIC) codes 35, 36, and 37, which are likely to do coating as a secondary activity. If filters are non-hazardous, they are classified as an industrial solid waste. However, paint filters are likely to be a lowpercentage of all waste in the non-hazardous stream. Non-hazardous paint-filter disposal options includedisposal at a landfill that has an industrial solid waste management plan approved by the governingregulatory agency and can safely manage paint waste (i.e. lined landfill). Paint filters can also beincinerated at an approved industrial solid waste incinerator.

4.1.7 Plastic Tubing

A particular plastic tubing product used in generating radiant heat in structures is manufactured in DakotaCounty, Minnesota. The tubing consists of a cross-linked polyethylene with an oxygen infusion barrier,which has been difficult to recycle. Approximately 1,900 tons per year of this off-specification tubing iscurrently landfilled in the metro area. Although the waste is currently not recyclable, the manufacturer hasbeen collaborating with the MnTAP and a market for the shredded material has been determined.Recycling the tubing should begin in the near future.

4.1.8 Blasting Media

A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,Minnesota Rule 7035.2860, for recycled glass and coal combustion slag used as surface blasting material.This determination means that the generator or end user of a material can do so in accordance with thisrule without contacting the agency.

Blasting media can be reused until the particle size degrades, and then the fines are typically landfilled.Concentrations of paint constituents, including heavy metals and other toxins determine the hazardous ornon-hazardous characterization of the waste.

4.1.9 Foam

Three types of foam have been recycled:

• Expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam: rigid, used for Styrofoam cups, coolers and packaging;• Polyethylene foam: semi-rigid, used for packaging; and• Polyurethane foam: flexible, used for carpet padding and furniture cushions.

Most of this material can be recycled by grinding into small particle sizes and made into bonded carpetunderlay (rebound). Many sellers of foam also purchase scrap and have buy-back agreements. There aredrop off centers in Minnesota for these materials and some companies will arrange pick up for largequantities. There are post-consumer and industrial scrap foam companies that accept EPS, and some thataccept polyethylene and polyurethane foams, depending on the market demand and prices. Recyclers aremost interested in large quantities of foam.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc19August 2004

4.1.10 Insulation

Insulation can be comprised of cellulose, polystyrene, recycled glass, fiberglass, and vermiculite. TheMPCA and Minnesota Department of Health strongly recommend that vermiculite insulation beconsidered a suspect asbestos containing material due to possible tremolite/actinolite asbestoscontamination. Waste from sprayed on foam insulation or non-aerosol foam-in-a-can products are notrecyclable. Foam insulation is not considered as a significant component of the construction waste stream.Purchasing only the amount needed for the project is the best method for reducing this waste stream.Clean scraps can be reused as extra attic insulation, interior wall cavities, or for chinking aroundwindows.

4.2 CATEGORY II WASTES: PRIORITY WASTE STREAMS FOR REGIONALINITIATIVES

Wastes assigned to Category II are those that have satisfactory data available, and this data demonstratesthat the material may be large in volume, or it may be expensive to manage, problematic, or may pose anelevated environmental risk if improperly disposed. Wastes placed in Category II appear to have the mostpotential for increased reduction, recycling, reuse and/or toxicity reduction. Each waste stream issummarized below, and the associated flash card is presented in Appendix E.

4.2.1 Packaging Waste

Packaging waste has been identified as a significant component of the non-MSW waste stream resultingfrom both construction and industrial waste. This waste stream includes foam, shrink wrap (low-densitypolyethylene), plastic, cardboard, and wood. The various packaging wastes considered industrial orconstruction and demolition waste are generally commingled when disposed.

There is potential to recycle or reuse each of these packaging wastes, but the challenge is to segregate thematerials and remove any contamination. Packaging of certain products can involve some or all of thepackaging materials listed above and this further complicates the potential to reduce, reuse, and recyclepackaging wastes. Product stewardship initiatives call for packaging materials to be redesigned tominimize waste and facilitate recycling and reuse. The Solid Waste Management Coordinating Boardprovides information on the reduction, reuse, and recycling of transport packaging waste atwww.greenguardian.com.

Shrink wrap recycling is currently occurring in Minnesota. For example, a large local retailer collectsshrink wrap and sends it to a manufacturer of plastic garbage bags. The manufacturer then sells the newlymanufactured garbage bags back to the retailer. Shrink wrap has also been used in combination withwaste wood to develop a “composite” deck board by a manufacturer of outdoor decks. The MinnesotaWaste Wise “It’s in the Bag” program (www.mnwastewise.org) provides information on shrink wrap andplastic bag recycling options.

Plastic is used in packaging to protect materials and products during shipping. This includes plastic bags,inserts, supports, etc. that are not foam, but are a portion of the packaging waste stream. The ampleinformation available on plastic recycling indicates this waste could be recycled.

Data from several Minnesota landfills in 2003 shows that cardboard remains a significant portion of thewaste stream. Cardboard waste is seen increasingly on construction sites as more components such aswindows and cabinets are shipped over long distances. There is significant potential to reduce the

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc20August 2004

generation of cardboard as well as reuse and recycle the material. It has been recycled for decades andcurrently over 74% of all waste cardboard is recycled in the United States.

Wood packaging wastes consist of pallets (broken and unbroken), wood crates, and wood used to supportvarious products and materials during shipping. Nearly half of all pallets are designed to make just onetrip, though many are durable enough for repeated use. Pallets and other packaging wood waste can berepaired and reused or chipped for animal bedding, used as mulch, applied as a compost bulking agent, orburned as a fuel. The challenge is to segregate and remove contaminants that may render the wood wasteunmarketable. Adhesives, coatings, and preservatives may contain toxic materials, and most recyclerswill not accept wood waste containing these substances.

4.2.2 Wood Waste

The greater metropolitan area and surrounding areas generate approximately one (1) million tons ofurban, tree and brush waste annually. Approximately 50% is generated by land clearing for developmentand the remainder comes from urban wood waste (trees and branches) and brush. Other sources of cleanwood include pallets, cut-offs from construction projects, cabinet makers, flooring manufacturers andothers.

Clean wood can be sold for reuse or ground for mulch. Using wood as fuel to create energy for heatingand cooling appears to provide the best economic option because wood has the same British Thermal Unit(BTU) value as coal. District Energy in St. Paul, Minnesota will burn 290,000 tons of wood waste peryear to generate electricity and steam, and The Green Institute, a non-profit organization in Minneapolis,Minnesota, is proposing a wood waste resource recovery facility in Minneapolis.

4.2.3 Foundry Sands

A Standing Beneficial Use Determination, Minnesota Rule 7035.2860, has been issued by the MinnesotaPollution Control Agency for non-hazardous waste foundry sands. This determination means that thegenerator or end user of a material can do so in accordance with this rule without contacting the agency.Minnesota Rule 7035.2860, subp.4, item O, allows foundry sands to be used as a feedstock for themanufacture of Portland Cement.

The MPCA anticipates multiple case-specific beneficial use determination proposals to be submitted inthe near future, which could result in an increased reuse of foundry sands as a component in asphalt.

4.2.4 Coal Ash

A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,Minnesota Rule 7035.2860, for coal combustion slag and fly ash. This determination means that thegenerator or end user of a material can do so in accordance with this rule without contacting the agency.Minnesota Rule 7035.2860, subp.4, item K, allows coal combustion slag to be used as a component inmanufactured products such as roofing shingles, ceiling tiles and asphalt products. Minnesota Rule7035.2860, subp.4, item L, allows coal combustion slag to be used as blasting media. According toMinnesota Rule 7035.2860, subp.4, item M, coal combustion fly ash can be used as a cement replacementin the formation of high-strength concrete. Minnesota Rule 7035.2860 subp.4, item N, provides that coalcombustion fly ash or coal combustion gas scrubbing by-products can be used as an ingredient forproduction of aggregate that will be used in concrete or concrete products.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc21August 2004

Historically, approximately 25% of coal ash by-products have been used as construction material or forother applications, with the remaining 75% disposed in coal ash monofills. Ash markets depend on thechemical composition of the ash. Coal ash has a Federal exemption from the hazardous waste regulations.Local data shows that this material is very consistent in quality, and that the constituents present in thematerial are below levels of concern for human health and the environment.

Coal fly ash is a byproduct of coal burning at electric utility plants (the MPCA estimates that 75% of coalash is fly ash). Coal fly ash is collected by air pollution control equipment. For many years, coal fly ashhas been an important source of cementitious material in concrete. The level of coal fly ash in concretetypically ranges from 15 to 35% of the total cementitious material. Statewide, between 95% and 100% ofconcrete used in large construction projects will contain fly ash in the mix design. While not all coal flyash can meet specifications for use in concrete, many thousands of tons of fly ash from large electricpower plants are used annually.

In addition, coal ash is used in the manufacturing of lightweight concrete block, and has been used as asoil stabilizer, an agricultural liming agent, a source of boron, and for various uses as mineral filler.

4.2.5 Shingles

A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,Minnesota Rule 7035.2860, for manufacture shingle scrap. This determination means that the generatoror end user of a material can do so in accordance with this rule without contacting the agency. MinnesotaRule 7035.2860, subp.4, item Q, allows manufactured shingle scrap and ground tear-off shingle scrap tobe used in asphalt pavement or road subbases. However, the Minnesota Department of Transportation(MnDOT) specifications currently allow only the use of manufactured shingle scrap in hot mix asphalt.Manufacture shingle scrap can be used in the manufacture of new shingles, but is not economicallyfeasible at this time.

In 1991, MnDOT began investigating whether shingle by-product from the manufacturing process couldbe used as a beneficial additive to hot-mix asphalt for paving. In 1995, MnDOT confirmed that asphaltpavement mix containing shingle by-products performed at least as well or better as those mixes withoutshingle by-product.

Potential end markets for recycled asphalt shingles include: feedstock for hot-mix asphalt and cold patch,dust and erosion control on rural roads, aggregate for road bases, recycling into new shingles, and fuel.While shingles have a high BTU value, burning them for energy produces a relatively large volume ofresidue (ash).

According to the MOEA, the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area generates an estimated 400,000 tons ofwaste residential tear-off shingle scrap (RSS) that is disposed in area C & D landfills. In addition, there isan estimated 35,000 tons per year of manufactured shingle scrap generated at three single manufactures inthe Twin Cities Metro Area, but only 20 to 40% of this material is currently recycled.

Recently, a series of structured research and development projects have been conducted in the Twin CitiesMetropolitan Area that clearly demonstrate the viability of recycling asphalt roofing shingles into hot-mixasphalt used for road pavement. The final shingle-derived hot-mix asphalt product has been tested innumerous controlled field and lab experiments. The high-grade asphalt, the fiber content, and mineralgranules contained within the recycled roofing shingles are valuable components of traditional hot-mixasphalt, and the process is economically sound.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc22August 2004

In 2003, MnDOT updated its hot-mix asphalt material specifications to allow discretionary use of up to5% ground shingle scrap from shingle manufacturers for most hot-mix asphalt types. Residential tear-offshingle scrap can be a high quality, high asphalt content material that can also be used in making hot-mixasphalt. One of the most important next steps for the use of tear-off shingle scrap by the asphaltpavement industry is to expand the MnDOT asphalt pavement specification provisions to allow for theuse of RRS in hot-mix asphalt. The MnDOT specification is the standard used in most asphalt pavingdesigns in Minnesota. Removal of this primary institutional barrier for the use of RRS may allow theasphalt pavement industry and other private businesses to incorporate the proven positive economics. Byincluding RRS use into their business plans, market demand for use of RSS may increase.

Currently, there is not adequate shingle grinding capacity to manage more than the existing generation ofmanufactured shingle scrap. In March 2004, the SWMCB adopted a resolution in support of thebeneficial reuse of manufactured shingle scrap and continued research on the beneficial reuse of tear-offshingles in hot-mix asphalt. Nationwide there are numerous successful residential tear-off shinglerecycling business activities associated with hot-mix asphalt production.

The Twin Cities Metropolitan area uses approximately 5,000,000 tons of hot-mix asphalt annually. TheMOEA has estimated that the use of RSS in 75% of hot-mix asphalt used in the metropolitan area couldresult in significant hot-mix asphalt cost savings to businesses and government.

4.2.6 Shredder Fluff

Shredder fluff is the non-ferrous residue resulting from the shredding of scrap automobiles, majorappliances and other ferrous scrap in preparation for the steel smelting process. Elevated concentrationsof heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, zinc, nickel and copper) and PCBs (polychlorinatedbiphenyls) are detected in the shredder fluff, which raises environmental concerns for disposal of thisresidue in solid waste landfills.

Automobile manufacturers phased out the use of mercury in trunk light switches and anti-lock brakesystems in 2003. However, mercury is still used in car alarms, LCD screens, some types of headlights,and other devices. PCBs are no longer being manufactured in the United States but are still found incomponents in major appliances. Items such as mercury and PCB containing components in appliancesas well as mercury containing auto parts, lead wheel weights, lead acid car batteries, lead in windshieldtinting, etc. are not always recovered prior to appliance and automobile shredding and smelting.

Reduction in toxicity (the amount of heavy metals and PCBs) of shredder fluff and the transportationcosts associated with its disposal in neighboring states may be achieved through a combination ofregulatory, economic and legislative initiatives. These initiatives could include the implementation of anauto mercury switch collection bounty program based on the 2002 pilot study conducted by RamseyCounty, MPCA, MOEA, and North Star Steel in cooperation with local salvage yards. Further, the Stateof Wisconsin allows non-hazardous shredder fluff to be used as alternate daily cover material while theState of Minnesota does not. Approving this material for use in local landfills as an alternate daily covermaterial would reduce transportation costs to neighboring states.

4.2.7 Treated Wood

Most treated wood contains some type of potentially hazardous contaminant. The most common treatedwood chemistry is CCA (chromated copper arsenate), often called “green” treated wood, although it canbe red or brown. Other varieties include pentachorophenol and creosote treated woods. Most treated woodcannot be reused other than for its original purpose. CCA treated wood cannot, by federal policy, be

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc23August 2004

chipped for use as a residential landscaping product. EPA has already placed a voluntary ban on the saleof CCA for residential uses. This is expected to eliminate significant increases in the construction wastestream. However, due to the large amount of CCA treated wood in service, an increasing amount of CCAwood waste will be directed to landfills for the next 10 to 15 years or more.

The majority of CCA treated wood is created as a residential waste and therefore disposed of in MSWlandfills. Most demolition landfills are not allowed to accept treated wood. Some industrial solid wasteand C & D landfills have been allowed to accept treated wood either through their permit or industrialsolid waste management plan.

In an effort to reduce toxicity to the environment resulting from the waste being improperly managed,there is potential MPCA rulemaking that may define liner, monitoring, and leachate collectionrequirements for land disposal facilities that accept CCA treated wood waste.

4.2.8 Street Sweepings

Street sweepings are high in volume making screening and reuse of the sand component preferable tolandfill disposal. The sweepings can be acceptable for reuse as fill material but MPCA recommends forthem not to be used in certain areas, such as playgrounds, as a precaution. Prior to reuse, trash, leaves, andother debris should be removed from the sweepings. This is often accomplished by screening, but othermethods may also be used.

Street sweepings have the potential to be reused in the following ways:

• Mix with new salt/sand mixture for winter application to roads, parking lots or sidewalks.Because the sands provide the most skid resistance when particle angles are sharp, effectivenessis impacted when angles become worn and smooth. Therefore, previously used street sweepingsmay need to be mixed with virgin sand to be most effective;

• Use as daily cover on landfills. MPCA recommends using them only on sanitary, industrial ordemolition landfills that have a ground-water monitoring system; and

• Clean fill material in commercial and industrial development projects, road restoration orconstruction, or natural park lands. (Clean fill classification means that the waste has beenprocessed and tested to be non-hazardous).

4.2.9 Contaminated Soil

The most common contaminant in soils is petroleum products. The majority of contaminated soils aregenerated through the remediation of impacted sites or brownfield redevelopment projects.

A large portion of the contaminated soil disposed at metro landfills is approved for use as daily cover.Waste approved for use as cover is exempt from the State Solid Waste Tax (or County Host fee). Thiscreates an incentive to reuse the material in a beneficial way, and has reduced the amount of clean soilsrequired for daily cover.

In 2003, contaminated soils accounted for 44% of all the industrial waste landfilled at the three metrolandfills that accept this waste. Soils impacted by agricultural chemicals or fertilizers may be appropriatefor land application. This determination is made on a case-by-case basis.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc24August 2004

An estimated 90% of contamination of soil or releases to ground water are caused by the mishandling ofhazardous substances. Therefore, the amount and toxicity of this waste stream may be reduced byencouraging safe hazardous material practices and preventing future releases.

4.2.10 Mixed Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Ash

Both mass burn and refuse derived fuel (RDF) waste-to-energy (WTE) combustors produce two types ofash: fly and bottom ash. Fly ash is the residue from air pollution control equipment, and bottom ash iscollected from the bottom of the combustion chamber. Minnesota’s nine WTE facilities each produce acombined ash that has been demonstrated to substantially fall below MPCA leachate toxicity standards.

Recent testing and a demonstration project at a Minnesota WTE facility found that hot-mix asphaltpavement made with ash in the mixture was superior to standard hot-mix asphalt pavement. The studydemonstrated the use of MSW ash in a hot-mix asphalt road base course pavement. The project resultsfound that the hot-mix asphalt mix design containing 5% MSW ash was superior in strength andflexibility to the standard mix design for the project. Extensive materials testing and on-siteenvironmental testing were conducted. A second demonstration project proposal will be submitted toMPCA for consideration for the summer of 2004. A proposal for a permanent MPCA beneficial usedetermination for the use of WTE MSW ash in hot-mix asphalt pavement will be submitted to the MPCAduring 2004. A number of other Minnesota WTE facilities are considering MSW ash-amended asphaltpaving projects.

4.2.11 Gypsum Wallboard

Minnesota’s traditional management of gypsum wallboard has been landfilling. It is not currentlyrecycled on a large scale although wallboard debris is often source-separated at construction sites.

Some identified options for recycling or reuse of wallboard include the following:

• Using gypsum wallboard as a feedstock material in the production of new wallboard. However,manufacturers often own gypsum mines and utilize their own scrap from manufacturing for reuse,so there is not much incentive to incorporate post-consumer recycled wallboard back into themanufacturing process;

• Using wallboard as a feedstock material in cement kilns is an economical option in marketswhere cement kilns are located. There are no local cement kilns;

• The National Association of Homebuilders suggests that individual contractors can crushwallboard on-site and land apply it as a soil amendment. Metro area soils are unlikely to benefitfrom the application of the material, however this determination needs to be made on a case-by-case basis.

• The material may be used as an agricultural amendment including use as a fertilizer feedstock inMinnesota. There is potential in this area that could be further explored; and

• Other reuse potentials are for animal bedding material and as a compost amendment.

In addition, carefully calculating the amount of wallboard needed prior to beginning a constructionproject is the best method for reducing this waste stream.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc25August 2004

4.2.12 Sewage Sludge and Sewage Sludge Ash

Sewage sludge ash is the by-product of incinerating dewatered sewage sludge in an incinerator. Sludgeash has been previously used as a raw material in Portland cement concrete production, as aggregate inflowable fill, as mineral filler in asphalt paving mixes, and as a soil conditioner mixed with lime andsewage sludges. Sludge ash has also been proposed as a substitute lightweight aggregate product,produced by firing sludge ash or a mixture of sludge ash and clay at elevated or sintering temperatures.

The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) facility in St. Paul, Minnesota will beswitching incinerators in the summer or fall of 2004. The new incinerator and air quality controlequipment will likely change the chemical and physical characteristics of the ash. It is not known to whatdegree the ash will change or how it will affect current or future reuse proposals. MnDOT will likelyrequire a re-characterization of the material to confirm its suitability for reuse.

The MnDOT has completed a Hazard Assessment of the use of sewage sludge ash in road construction. A5% blend has been approved for highway bituminous asphalt wear course and base course. All projectsmust be permitted and meet non-hazardous waste criteria.

The metro area sludge ash is currently used as a raw material in Portland Cement at the Holham CementKiln in Mason City, Iowa. Recently, there have been discussions surrounding composting sewage sludgeto be used as a component in engineered soils or soil products. This is being done in other states and maybe a potential future reuse option here locally.

4.2.13 Medical Waste

Many hospitals routinely dispose 50 to 70% of their waste as biohazard waste, although a large portion ofthe waste is similar to that of a hotel or office building. There are significant opportunities to dramaticallyreduce the amount of wastes incorrectly disposed as biohazard waste. Case studies have shown thathospitals can decrease their biohazard waste to 6 to 10% of their overall waste stream throughcomprehensive education programs. Waste audits, management plans and evaluations of disposable itemsare effective ways to reduce unnecessary medical waste in a health care setting.

Components of the medical waste stream can be classified as industrial solid waste and disposed at alandfill that is approved to accept it. Infectious waste must be decontaminated through a process such asautoclaving or incineration to render it non-infectious prior to landfilling. This process is costly, andhealth care providers should ensure that only truly infectious wastes are added to this waste stream.

4.3 CATEGORY III WASTES: WASTE STREAMS FOR FUTURE RESEARCHAND EVALUATION

Wastes in Category III do not have satisfactory data available. These waste streams may be recommendedfor future study in the future. Each waste stream is summarized below, and the associated flash card ispresented in Appendix E.

4.3.1 Photo Resist Sludge

Circuit board photo resist sludge is generated by a process that includes a coating process, light exposureand caustic stripping. According to the 2003 Harris Directory, there are 77 companies in Minnesota (44are in the metro area) with SIC code 3672 (printed circuit boards). This type of process may be occurringat facilities such as these; however, quantitative data on waste volumes generated is not tracked.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc26August 2004

4.3.2 Vinyl Siding

The reuse of vinyl siding is already promoted within the industry during manufacturing. A strongdemand for recycled vinyl exists according to the Recycling Times. Vinyl can be recycled into sewerpipe, electrical conduits, irrigation pipes, outdoor furniture, fencing, electrical cable coating, gardenhoses, floor mat backings, molded tool handles, industrial sheeting, and tarps. Market rates for recycledvinyl flake fluctuate by region, type of market, and quality.

Pre-consumer vinyl scrap has two desirable characteristics:

• Natural points exist for collection and consolidation (construction sites, manufactured housingproduction facilities, and landfills); and

• The materials generated at these points are relatively free of contamination.

Often large quantities of same color siding are desired by recyclers. Because no vinyl recyclers have beenidentified as currently operating in Minnesota, this waste stream is considered a low priority at this time.However, this market should be monitored for potential in the future.

4.3.3 Vehicle Windshields

Quick defrost windshields, tinting techniques, metallic crystal alignment films, and implosion proofing bya new inner polymer laminate makes reuse or recovery of auto glass difficult. Windshields aremanufactured with two layers of glass with a strong plastic (usually PVC) membrane sandwichedbetween the panes, limiting its ability to be recycled. The windshields have a protective coating thatcontains high levels of lead. As a result, some windshields are considered hazardous waste.

Although the glass could be used in aggregate and industrial minerals applications, high recovery costsand low material prices undermine market development. For this reason, this waste stream is considered alow priority at this time.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc27August 2004

5.0 FINDINGS

5.1 TOXICITY REDUCTION

The non-MSW waste streams identified as having the highest potential for toxicity reduction are blastingmedia, shredder fluff and vehicle windshield glass.

Blasting MediaBlasting media may contain heavy metals resulting from the blasting process. For example, blastingmedia waste containing paint removed from an old water tower may have hazardous concentrations oflead.

Shredder FluffHigh levels of heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, zinc, nickel, and copper) andpolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) may be contained in the non-ferrous portion of the shredder fluffresidue.

Vehicle Windshield GlassVehicle windshields have a protective coating that contains high levels of lead, and this can causewindshields to be characteristically hazardous for lead.

5.2 POTENTIAL FOR REDUCTION, RECYCLING AND REUSE

Of the non-MSW waste streams evaluated, coal ash, shingles, street sweepings and foundry sands appearto have the most immediate potential.

Coal Ash: Reuse PotentialA Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency forcoal combustion slag and fly ash. Coal fly ash is an important source of cemetitious material in concrete.It can be used as a cement replacement in the formation of high-strength concrete or as an ingredient forproduction of aggregate that will be used in concrete or concrete products. Approximately 70 to 75% offly ash generated is still disposed in landfills and storage lagoons.

Shingles: Reuse and Recycling PotentialA Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency formanufacture shingle scrap. MnDOT specifications allow manufactured shingle scrap to be used in hot-mix asphalt applications. There is an estimated 35,000 tons per year of manufactured shingle scrapgenerated at three single manufactures in the Twin Cities Metro Area, but only 20 to 40% of this iscurrently recycled into hot-mix asphalt. Residential tear-off shingle scrap can be a high quality, highasphalt content material that can also be used in making hot-mix asphalt. One of the most important nextsteps for the use of tear-off shingle scrap by the asphalt pavement industry is to expand the MnDOTasphalt pavement specification provisions to allow for the use of residential tear-off shingle scrap in hot-mix asphalt.

Street Sweepings: Reduction and Reuse PotentialSand recovered from street sweepings can be acceptable for reuse when mixed with new salt and sand;can be used as daily cover at some landfills; and can be used as clean fill material for commercial orindustrial uses. Street sweepings can be voluminous and, consequently, reuse is preferable to disposal.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc28August 2004

Foundry Sands: Reuse PotentialA Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency fornon-hazardous waste foundry sands. This determination allows foundry sands to be used as a feedstockfor the manufacture of Portland Cement. In addition, the MPCA anticipates multiple case-specificbeneficial use determination proposals to be submitted in the near future for the reuse of foundry sands asa component in asphalt.

5.3 LANDFILL ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES

The several over-arching management techniques are in place to reduce the amount of non-MSWlandfilled. These landfill abatement techniques are discussed below.

Market DevelopmentHaving established markets for reused or recycled materials is ideal for encouraging reuse and recycling,and lack of markets is a common challenge. An example of an established market is the reuse of limesludge as an agricultural soil amendment. Because this viable market exists, this material is rarely, if ever,landfilled in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.

EducationOrganizations that offer education in the areas of non-MSW reduction, reuse and recycling include theGreen Guardian, MnTAP, Waste Wise Minnesota and the MOEA. Contact information for theseorganizations is presented in Appendix G. Industry organizations, such as the National Asphalt PavementAssociation, and academic institutions, such as the University of Minnesota, are also excellent sources ofinformation.

Taxes and FeesTaxes, fees, or exemptions can be an effective mechanism to influence reduction, reuse and recycling. Forexample, contaminated soils that meet specific criteria can be used as daily cover at approved landfills.The soils used as daily cover are not subject to the same fees required for disposal of the soil as waste.This creates an incentive to reuse the material in a beneficial way, and has displaced landfill space thatwould otherwise be consumed by clean soils used as daily cover.

As outlined in SWMCB’s Construction Waste Project report (URS, 2002), some statutory requirementsresult in non-MSW management inequities. For example, per Minnesota Statute 297H.04, commercialgenerators that generate non-MSW shall pay a solid waste management tax of 60 cents per non-compacted cubic yard. The result is that all material accepted at a construction and demolition debrisprocessing facility or landfill is taxed, regardless of whether the material is ultimately recycled orlandfilled. Therefore, there is a tax disincentive to process mixed loads of construction and demolitionwaste for recycling. Minnesota Statute 297H.06 provides for certain tax exemptions to encourage therecycling of MSW. Minnesota Statutes do not provide similar exemptions to encourage the recycling ofnon-MSW.

The report goes on to explain that construction and demolition waste is often contaminated with MSW,such as residue, which is separated and sent to an MSW disposal facility as residue. The residue waste istaxed a second time at the rate of 17% (Minnesota Statute 297H.03) upon being disposed as MSW,resulting in a double tax.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc29August 2004

RegulationRegulation has a direct effect on non-MSW management. For example, prohibiting yard waste from beingdisposed in landfills has had a significant impact on the disposal practices of the waste stream. Thebeneficial reuse rules implemented by the MPCA may create opportunities to reuse or recycle certainnon-MSW waste streams in new ways. An example may be the potential use of MSW ash in hot-mixasphalt.

Regulation may also be used to encourage or require sustainable building practices. For example, inJanuary 2001, the Dakota County Board adopted Design, Construction, and Sustainability Standards forDakota County Buildings. The standards outline construction quality control and assurance; staffproductivity issues (such as indoor air quality, lighting, safety, and security); life cycle cost effectivenessand accountability; systematic approach to energy and resource management and conservation; buildingmaterial selections; components; equipment; and sustainability.

Technological InnovationNew or innovative technologies, such as carpet recycling or manufacturing new gypsum wallboard fromwaste wallboard, can provide additional opportunities for non-MSW. Research and development and pilotprojects can be instrumental in these endeavors.

Procurement PracticesGovernment procurement practices can be effective in reducing the amount of non-MSW landfilled. Forexample, a municipality may require a contractor to recycle a certain percentage of C & D wastegenerated during the construction of a government facility. Government procurement practices, such aspurchasing only paper that has a specified recycled paper content, can promote recycling markets.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc30August 2004

6.0 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

In 1998, the Metropolitan Solid Waste Policy Plan recognized, for the first time, that non-MSW shouldreceive greater attention in regional decision making. The 2004 – 2023 Metropolitan Solid Waste PolicyPlan continues to recognize the need to place greater attention on non-MSW management and the needfor better data to best determine environmentally sound management practices. For example, Policy 2-9states that non-MSW materials should be managed in accordance with the solid waste managementhierarchy and Policy 3-11 calls for the state, region, and counties to remove economic disincentives thatdiscourage reduction, reuse, and recycling of non-MSW.

Between 1998 and 2004, the SWMCB invested significant resources in characterizing and researching thenon-MSW waste stream so that information on existing and alternative management practices would beavailable for use in policy and program development. This research has played an instrumental role indeveloping regional outcomes and strategies for the 2005 – 2024 Regional Solid Waste Master Plan.

The implementation of non-MSW management strategies will require the SWMCB and its membercounties to seek out partnerships with other units of government, private industry and academicinstitutions. The private sector owns and operates most of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Areamanagement facilities for non-MSW waste streams. There is, however, some public sector activity inmanaging certain non-MSW materials in the metropolitan area, such as tree waste processing andcrushing and recycling of concrete or road base. In addition, the State of Minnesota, other public entities,academic institutions and private industry are continually investing in innovative research initiatives toincrease the reduction, beneficial reuse and recycling of non-MSW. Collaborative efforts have historicallybeen and will continue to be a great force in the reduction, reuse and recycling of non-MSW.

The Non-MSW Work Group recommends the following strategies to reduce (by volume andtoxicity), reuse and recycle non-MSW. These strategies represent the views of multiplestakeholders and are not put forth as binding policy for the SWMCB region. The Non-MSW WorkGroup asks that these recommendations be considered by the SWMCB Regional PolicyDevelopment Committee as they prepare the outcomes and strategies for the 2005 – 2024 RegionalSolid Waste Master Plan.

StrategiesStrategy #1: The SWMCB will support research partnerships for the beneficial reuse of non-MSW,including, but not limited to, post-consumer shingles, MSW ash, coal ash, sewage sludge ash, streetsweepings, and foundry sand, in road construction projects. Support will include, but is not limited to,disseminating information to public entities, conducting research and implementing demonstrationprojects. Where state approval exists, the SWMCB will promote the beneficial reuse of non-MSW in roadconstruction projects.

Strategy #2: By 2010, SWMCB will research and develop a streamlined method for collecting andanalyzing non-MSW data from generators, contractors, municipalities, haulers, waste managementproviders and other data sources.

Strategy #3: Each year, the SWMCB will target an industrial, construction, and/or demolition wastematerial for region wide waste reduction, reuse, recycling or proper disposal promotions.

Strategy #4: The SWMCB will promote the beneficial reuse of non-MSW materials as specified in theMPCA solid waste utilization rules.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc31August 2004

Strategy #5: By 2010, the SWMCB will identify and implement a product stewardship initiative targetedat a large volume or toxic non-MSW waste stream (possibilities include the elimination of mercuryswitches in automobiles or the labeling of asbestos containing construction products).

Strategy #6: By 2010, the SWMCB will research the composition of the medical waste stream anddevelop and implement an action plan for waste reduction, toxicity reduction and recycling.

Strategy #7: The SWMCB will continually evaluate the use of market based, financial and regulatoryincentives to encourage reduction, reuse and recycling of non-MSW materials in support of theimplementation of other strategies.

Strategy #8: The SWMCB will continually evaluate the challenges and barriers, including existingfinancial and regulatory disincentives, to reducing, reusing and recycling non-MSW.

Strategy #9: The SWMCB will support MOEA market development initiatives that will help businessrecovering non-MSW materials become more profitable. Support will include, but is not limited to,disseminating information to public entities, conducting research and implementing demonstrationprojects.

Strategy #10: Public entities in the SWMCB region will incorporate sustainable architectural guidelines inthe planning process for construction and remodeling of government buildings.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc32August 2004

7.0 CONCLUSIONS

The SWMCB 2004 work plan and budget directs staff to conduct an analysis of the non-MSW streambased on existing data, including quantities and characteristics of waste generated, and to determinepriority waste streams for toxicity reduction, waste reduction, reuse and recycling. This report representsa snapshot in time of the non-MSW stream.

In 2003, the region disposed of 2.3 million tons of non-MSW in the greater Twin Cities area. However,significant amounts of non-MSW are recycled outside of any reporting system, such as in the recycling ofconcrete and metal from the demolition of buildings and roads. In addition to the non-MSW representedin this report, the region generated approximately 234,540 wet tons of MSW ash from resource recoveryfacilities in 2003, which was also disposed in landfills serving the greater Twin Cities Area.

In order to determine priority waste streams for toxicity reduction, waste reduction, reuse, and recycling,the Work Group evaluated the selected twenty-six non-MSW materials. Waste streams were placed intotemporary categories, and after additional in-depth research, evaluation and discussion, the Work Groupthen assigned each selected non-MSW material to one of three final categories.

Waste Stream Category I wastes are those recommended for monitoring. Satisfactory data is available,and this data demonstrates that the materials are being managed appropriately. Category I wastes are notconsidered a priority for the region to focus on at this time; however, any changes to their status will befollowed by the Work Group. Category I wastes include concrete/asphalt waste; brick waste; metal waste;metal shavings and turnings; lime sludge; paint filters; plastic tubing; blasting media; foam; andinsulation.

Waste Stream Category II wastes are priority waste streams for regional initiatives. Satisfactory data isavailable, and this data demonstrates the materials may be large in volume, or may be expensive tomanage, problematic, or may pose an elevated environmental risk if improperly disposed. Wastes placedin Category II appear to have the most potential for increased reduction, recycling, reuse and/or toxicityreduction. Category II wastes include packaging waste; wood waste; foundry sands; coal ash; shingles;shredder fluff; treated wood; street sweepings; contaminated soil; MSW ash; gypsum wallboard; sewagesludge and sewage sludge ash; and medical waste.

Waste Stream Category III wastes are those recommended for future research and evaluation. Satisfactorydata is not currently available for these waste streams; therefore further study is recommended. CategoryIII wastes include photo resist sludge; vinyl siding; and vehicle windshields.

The non-MSW waste streams identified as having the highest potential for toxicity reduction are blastingmedia, shredder fluff and vehicle windshields. Coal ash, shingles, street sweepings and foundry sandsappear to have the most immediate potential for reduction, recycling and reuse.

Several over-arching management techniques are in place to reduce the amount of non-MSW landfilled.These landfill abatement techniques include market development, education, taxes and fees, regulation,technological innovation, and procurement practices.

The Non-MSW Work Group developed 10 strategies to reduce (by volume and toxicity), reuse andrecycle non-MSW. These strategies represent the views of multiple stakeholders and are not put forth asbinding policy for the SWMCB region. The Non-MSW Work Group asks that these recommendations beconsidered by the SWMCB Regional Policy Development Committee as they prepare the outcomes andstrategies for the 2005 – 2024 Regional Solid Waste Master Plan.

Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream

\\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc33August 2004

This report will be consulted annually for the development of the SWMCB annual work plan and budget.However, recommended strategies in this report may evolve over time as the non-MSW stream evolvesand matures.

APPENDIX ANon-MSW Work Group Participants

11/03/04

V:\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT APPENDICES\Appendix A Non-MSWWork Group Participants.doc

Solid Waste Management Coordinating BoardNonMSW Data Collection Contact List

Name Organization & Address Phone Fax Number

Email Address

Mike Niewind Waste Management2650 W. Cliff RoadBurnsville, MN 55337

(w) 952-890-3248 952-894-6263 [email protected]

Bill Lauer Dakota County14955 Galaxie AvenueApple Valley, MN 55124-8579

(w) 952-891-7546 952-891-7588 [email protected]

Sheila Wiegman Dakota County14955 Galaxie AvenueApple Valley, MN 55124-8579

(w) 952-891-7025 952-891-7588 [email protected]

Kristin Pierskalla Hennepin County417 North Fifth StreetMinneapolis, MN 55401

(w) 612-348-4787 612-348-8532 [email protected]

Randy Cook Mn/TAP200 Oak Street S.E.Suite 350Minneapolis, MN 55455-2008

(w) 612-624-4633 612-624-3370 [email protected]

Matt Herman MPCA520 Lafayette Road N.St. Paul, MN 55155-4194

(w) 651-296-6603 651-297-8676 [email protected]

Wayne Gjerde OEA520 Lafayette Road N.St. Paul 55155-4100

(w) 651-215-0270 651-215-0246 [email protected]

Don Kyser OEA520 Lafayette Road N.St. Paul 55155-4100

(w) 651-215-0191 651-215-0246 [email protected]

Katie Theisen Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc.477 Selby AvenueSt. Paul, MN

(w) 651-222-7227

(c) 612-202-3028

651-223-5229 [email protected]

Ryan O'Gara SKB Environmental251 Starkey StreetSt. Paul, MN 55107

(w) 612-366-4521 651-223-5053 [email protected]

Jan Lucke Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc.477 Selby AvenueSt. Paul, MN

(w) 651-222-7227 651-223-5229 [email protected]

Sabina Ylinen URS Corporation700 Third Street South, Suite 700Minneapolis, MN 55415

(w) 612-373-6374 612-373-6800 [email protected]

APPENDIX BList of Facilities and Data Description

Appendix B List of Facilities and Data Description

For the purposes of this report, non-MSW comprises construction and demolition (C & D) waste andindustrial solid waste. The data is derived from analyzing 2003 annual reports to the MinnesotaPollution Control Agency (MPCA) from the following facilities:

Non-MSW Management Facilities Included in 2003 SWMCB Results Report

Note: SLF = Sanitary Landfill The following caveats should be considered when using this data for policy and program development: • Some facilities measure non-MSW in tons and other facilities measure it in cubic yards. To

facilitate trend analysis, a factor of 1.8 yard3/ton was used to convert cubic yards of construction anddemolition waste to tons, and a factor of 1.2 yard3/ton was used to convert cubic yards of industrial waste to tons. The conversion factor was provided by MPCA (Contact: Jim Chiles). Although theseare the best conversion factors available, they are weak due to the challenge of developing a singleconversion factor for waste streams representing hundreds of materials.

• Non-MSW waste streams are identified and reported inconsistently. For example, industrial wastes

that are collected in aggregate with other materials are most often reported as MSW and notclassified as industrial wastes.

• The data does not reflect the beneficial utilization of industrial wastes (e.g., land application) or the

large amount of construction and demolition waste recycled on-site (e.g., concrete and asphalt). • It is difficult to identify and track non-MSW generated in the SWMCB region because Minnesota

industrial and construction/demolition disposal facilities are not required to report the origin of thewastes they receive. Therefore, the data presented is from 12 select facilities. Five of these facilitiesare in counties that border the SWMCB region, and most likely accept metro area and non-metro area non-MSW

• Some non-MSW disposal facilities are not required to report or do not report to the MPCA or toindividual counties (e.g., permit by rule facilities).

County Facility Name Facility Type Dakota Burnsville Dem/Con DemolitionDakota Burnsville Sanitary Landfill SLF/IndustrialDakota Dawnway Demo DemolitionDakota Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill SLF/IndustrialDakota SKB Rich Valley Demolition DemolitionDakota SKB Rosemount IndustrialMcCleod Spruce Ridge (WMI) SLF/IndustrialScott Dem-Con Landfill LLC DemolitionSherburne Elk River Sanitary Landfill (WMI) SLF/Industrial/Demolition Sherburne Vonco Demo II Demo DemolitionWashington NSP A.S. King Plant Industrial (coal ash)Wright Onyx Forest City Road Landfill, Inc. SLF/Industrial/Demolition

Page 1 Appendix B

11/3/2004file://V:\URS%20Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW%20Characterization%20Project\FINAL%20R

APPENDIX C1998 to 2003 Non-MSW Waste Volumes

Non-MSW Waste Volumes as reported by MPCA permitted facilities 1998-2003

County Permit name Type1998 C & D Landfilled

(cy)

1998 C & D Landfilled

(tons)

1998 Industrial Landfilled

(cy)

1998 Industrial Landfilled

(tons)

1999 Demolition landfilled

(cy)

1999 Demolition landfilled

(tons)

1999 Industrial landfilled

(cy)

1999 Industrial landfilled

(tons)

2000 Demolition landfilled (cy)

2000 Demolition landfilled

(tons)

2000 Industrial landfilled

(cy)

2000 Industrial landfilled

(tons)

2001 Demolition landfilled

(cy)

Dakota Burnsville Dem/Con demo 223,215 218,146 151,703Dakota BurnsvilleSLF SLF/indus 131,798 126,241 111,251Dakota Dawnway Demo demo 21,786 11,990 20,246 70,457Dakota Pine Bend SLF SLF/indus 1,030 287,506 397 121,636 205 222,853Dakota SKB Rich Valley Demo. demo 779,641 778,917 644,347 870,300Dakota SKB Rosemount ind 77,267 170,065 283,081McCleod Spruce Ridge (WMI) SLF/indus 1,050 243 712Scott Dem-Com Landfill, LLC demo 690,045 123,715 664,916 144,713 703,864 128,593 583,170Sherburne Elk River SLF (WMI) SLF/demo/indus 159,561 53,970 198,962 44,799 246,331 65,014Sherburne Vonco II Demo demo 155,055 575,813 585,350 486,326Washington NSP A.S. King Plant ind 48,435 55,269 42,545Wright Onyx FCR Landfill, Inc. SLF/demo/indus 69,078 235,022 78,665 302,060 52,340 216,621Total As Reported 1,646,527 452,884 172,150 786,613 2,031,636 496,170 199,982 765,044 1,953,807 450,579 171,138 899,532 2,010,253Total cubic yards converted to tons 914,737 143,458 1,128,687 166,652 1,085,448 142,615 1,116,807Total Tons (reported plus converted) 1,367,621 930,071 1,624,857 931,696 1,536,027 1,042,147Conversion Factors (cubic yards per ton)Industrial Waste 1.2Construction and Demolition Waste 1.8

11/3/2004 1

Non-MSW Waste Volumes as reported by MPCA permitted facilities 1998-2003

County Permit name Type

Dakota Burnsville Dem/Con demoDakota BurnsvilleSLF SLF/indusDakota Dawnway Demo demoDakota Pine Bend SLF SLF/indusDakota SKB Rich Valley Demo. demoDakota SKB Rosemount indMcCleod Spruce Ridge (WMI) SLF/indusScott Dem-Com Landfill, LLC demoSherburne Elk River SLF (WMI) SLF/demo/indusSherburne Vonco II Demo demoWashington NSP A.S. King Plant indWright Onyx FCR Landfill, Inc. SLF/demo/indusTotal As ReportedTotal cubic yards converted to tonsTotal Tons (reported plus converted)Conversion Factors (cubic yards per ton)Industrial Waste 1.2Construction and Demolition Waste 1.8

2001 Demolition landfilled

(tons)

2001 Industrial landfilled

(cy)

2001 Industrial landfilled

(tons)

2002 Demolition landfilled

(tons)

2002 Industrial landfilled

(tons)

2003 Demolition landfilled

(tons)

2003 Industrial landfilled

(tons)

148,504 1,664 130,186 0 134,097 1,40984,076 0 63,480 0 94,126

38,627 0 75,876 0115 211,959 461 243,069 1,682 72,874

429,021 0 293,552 0257,752 0 199,273 0 352,868

7,852 27,299 0 7,034 140,618 30,060142,625 435,584 0 296,714 76,480

163,524 21,255 85,148 16,583 85,148 0337,220 0 302,412 0

47,410 25,767 0 0 27,13954,047 336,795 0 348,125 0 288,353

374,042 190,035 940,800158,363

1,490,849 1,099,163 1,482,014 877,564 1,330,099 943,309

11/3/2004 2

APPENDIX DIndustrial Waste Flash Card

Industrial Waste

Minnesota Data1) Generated

a) Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste Report 19871

Data Collected: 1981-July 1986Waste Type Ongoing Disposal

(tons^3/year)Agricultural - Nonfarm 26Asbestos 42Ash - Unspecified 29,567Ash - Wood 920Ash Total 30,487Contaminated Soil - PetroleumContaminant

84

Contaminated Soil - UnspecifiedContaminant

14,682

Contaminated Soils Totals 14,766Empty Containers - Miscellaneous 1,759Empty Containers - Ink 13Empty Containers - Organic Resins 4Empty Containers - Paint 161Empty Containers Totals 1,937Food Process 13,984Fossil Fuel Power Plant Ash 28,236Foundry Waste 47,584Glass Sludge 56Ink - General 176Ink - Sludge 132Ink Totals 308Organic Resins 14,478Paint - General 870Paint - Filters 504Paint Totals 1,275Printed Circuit Board Waste 363Pulp and Paper Sludge 13,145Water and WastewaterTreatment Sludge

211

Wood Waste 12,656Miscellaneous 27,353Total 206,907

1 Minnesota Waste Management Board. Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste Report:Summary of Ongoing Co-disposal Quantities by Waste Type. Table IV-I, page 62.Oct. 22,1987.

05,000

10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,00050,000

Agricu

ltura

l

Ash

Tota

l

Em

pty

Foss

il Fu

el

Gla

ss

Org

anic

Pulp

and

Wood

1987 MWMB Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal (tons^3/year)

2) Major players involveda) Top industries in Minnesota (Ranked by Total Wages)2

Ranking Seven CountyMetro Area ofMinneapolis & St.Paul 2000--SICCode

IndustryCode

Averagenumber ofestablish-ments

Averagenumber ofem-ployees

Total Wages Averageweeklywage

1 Services I 33542 584254 $21,058,274,434 $6932 Manufacturing D 5172 256814 $13,566,917,381 $1,0163 Trade, Total T 21641 383261 $11,597,455,932 $5824 Durable Goods

ManufacturingD1 3122 154178 $8,135,908,047 $1,015

5 Finance, Insuranceand Real Estate

H 9461 126037 $7,388,305,994 $1,127

6 Retail Trade G 13866 281999 $6,026,335,935 $4117 Wholesale Trade F 7776 101262 $5,571,119,997 $1,0588 Non-durable Goods

ManufacturingD2 2050 102636 $5,431,009,334 $1,018

9 Transportation,Communication,Electronics

E 3093 102411 $4,754,916,352 $893

2Department of Employment and Economic Development: Labor Market Information Office.Covered Employment and Wages Program. http://data.mnwfc.org/lmi/es/. February 2004.

10 Construction C 7394 75618 $3,580,360,698 $91111 Transportation E1 2484 77849 $3,310,956,949 $81812 Public

AdministrationJ 646 62185 $2,514,624,460 $778

13 PublicAdministration

JJ 646 62185 $2,514,624,460 $778

14 Communications &Utilities

E2 609 24561 $1,443,959,403 $1,131

15 Agriculture A 1454 10119 $234,848,226 $44616 Mining B 48 434 $23,248,670 $1,030

Comparisons to Other Data Sources, Policies, Programs and Projects(include contact information, date, and web address)1) Minnesota comparison to California (See Attachment)2) California Data (See Attachment)3) Wisconsin3

a) Non-MSW materials include: scrap vehicles, used oil, pulp/paper mill waste,coal ash, foundry waste, pottery cull, municipal wastewater treatmentsludge, and construction and demolition debris.

a) The total generated tons non-MSW for 2000 was 9,143,700 tons.b) Estimated Disposition of Selected Non-MSW in WI 2000

Generation RecoveredforRecycling

BeneficialUse

Combustion Landfilled Landspread/Other

Waste Category tons/year tons/year tons/year tons/year tons/year tons/yearScrap vehicles 393,000 291,300 101,700Used oil 121,900 13,000 64,600 8,300 7,400Used oil filters 4,500 700 3,800Pulp/paper millwaste

1,854,900 1,150,000 73,700 631,200

Coal Ash 1,595,600 1,155,200 440,400Foundry waste 1,102,600 446,900 655,700Pottery cull 14,600 14,600Municipalwastewatertreatment sludge

1,315,800 72,900 75,600 1,167,300

C&D Debris 2,740,800 1,096,300 959,300 685,200Total SelectedWaste

9,143,700 1,401,300 2,853,800 21,200 2,788,900 1,859,900

15% 31% 2% 31% 20%

3 Wisconsin Waste Characterization and Management: Study Update 2000.Prepared for State of Wisconsin, Department of Natural Resources, Madison,Wisconsin by Franklin Associates, Ltd. Prairie Village, KS. July 2002

APPENDIX ENon-MSW Flash Cards

- 1 -

Concrete/Asphalt Waste

General Information1) Why and How It Is Used

a) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Solid Waste Utilization1

i) A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued for concretewhen used for aggregate. Standing Beneficial Use Determination meansthat the generator or end user of a material can do so in accordance withthis rule without contacting the Agency.

ii) Rule (7035.2860 Subpart 4 I): Uncontaminated recognizable concrete,recycled concrete and concrete products, and brick are specified forservice as a substitute for conventional aggregate.(1) Concrete and brick materials are currently being used widely as

replacements for conventional, virgin aggregate. This practice isacceptable as long as these materials are not from buildings orstructures where they are likely to be contaminated.

2) Potential to Reduce, Reuse or Recyclea) Construction Waste Project2

i) Crushed concrete and brick are often used as base fill in the constructionof roads.

ii) The crushed material is used in place of limestone. This reuse potentialrepresents a large potential market.

iii) The economies of scale of such reuse are often dictated by the localavailability of limestone deposits, as hauling costs can be substantial.

iv) Contamination of concrete with wood, dirt, or other substances can beproblematic.

v) Crushed concrete and brick may also be used as primary road surfacematerials on unpaved roads in rural areas.

vi) The use of crushed concrete for driveways is also practiced, with portableequipment available for crushing and grinding directly on-site.

Minnesota Data1) Disposed

a) SKB Environmental/Bolander3

i) Concrete recycling is generally practiced in the SWMCB counties such thata sufficient end-market for the material exists.

ii) Concrete that is not recycled may be contaminated with rebar, foam, orother substances.

1 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Solid Waste Utilization. Adopted Permanent RulesRelating to Beneficial Use of Solid Waste – Not the Final Rule. Viewed March 15, 2004.http://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/sw-utilization.html.2Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board. Construction Waste Project. December 31,2002. Prepared by URS Corporation.3 Ryan O’Gara from SKB Environmental. February 2004.

- 2 -

Concrete and Blacktopdelivered to landfill

28,233 cubic yards

Recycled class 5,6,7 30,580 cubic yardsBlacktop recycled 115 cubic yardsTotal Recycled 30,695 cubic yards• More concrete was recycled than brought into the landfill, due to an existing stockpile of

concrete to be recycled left behind by the previous owner.• A conversion factor of 1.4 cubic yard/ton was used.

2) Major Participantsa) Minnesota Recycling Market Directory4

i) According to the market directory, 21 asphalt brokers, processors, andend user companies exist in Minnesota.

ii) According to the market directory, 25 concrete brokers, processors, andend user companies exist in Minnesota.

3) Recovery Ratesa) Minnesota Department of Transportation5

i) Research has demonstrated that cold in-place and hot asphalt recyclingcan be effectively used in road maintenance and construction.

ii) This guide provides detailed information on when and where to use whichrecycled paving method.

iii) A survey was conducted amongst city and county engineers to gatherinformation on the number and percentage of municipalities that practiceasphalt recycling, as well as on the methods that are most commonlyused. The survey was distributed via email in June 2001; 83 surveyswere returned.(1) Is asphalt recycling currently being practiced by your agency?

(a) Yes: 75 (90%)(b) No: 8 (10%)(c) Total responses: 83

(2) If yes, what methods of recycling do you use?(a) Cold in-place: 23(b) Hot in-place recycling: 0(c) Full depth reclamation: 49 (29%)(d) Cold Planning: 28 (17%)(e) Hot Mix Asphalt: 48 (29%)(f) Other: 14(g) Total responses: 162

(3) If no, why not?(a) Economics: 0(b) Performance Issues: 4

4 Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Minnesota Recycling Market Directory:Construction and Demolition Debris. 2000. http://www.moea.state.mn.us/markets/C&D8-3-00.pdf5 Marti, Michael M. and Andrew Mielke. Minnesota Department of Transportation. Synthesisof Asphalt Recycling in Minnesota. Synthesis Report 2002-32. Published by MinnesotaLocal Road Research Board. June 2002.

- 3 -

(c) Equipment/contractor availability: 1(d) Other: 4(e) Total responses: 9

(4) What information of recycling would you like to know more about?(a) Cold in-place: 19(b) Hot in-place: 9(c) Full depth reclamation: 7(d) Cold Planning: 3(e) Hot Mix Asphalt: 1(f) Quality/Performance: 6(g) Cost information 4(h) Other/Miscellaneous 12

b) Construction Waste Project6:

Material Recycling/ReuseOptions

Recycling/Reuse Rating

1) Aggregate in newconcrete

1) Fair; little concrete inconstruction waste

Concrete and Brick2) On-site grinding 2) Good; possible road

application

Comparisons to Other Data Sources, Policies, Programs and Projects

1) National Asphalt Pavement Association7

a) According to a report issued by the Federal Highway Administration and theEPA, 80% of the asphalt pavement removed each year during widening andresurfacing projects is reused as part of new roads, roadbeds, shoulders, andembankments.

b) Every year, approximately 73 million tons of reclaimed asphalt pavement isreused—nearly twice as much as the combined total of 40 million tons ofrecycled paper, glass, aluminum, and plastics.

c) Benefits of recycling:i) Reduces environmental impacts,ii) Lowers asphalt costs,iii) Uses less virgin materials,iv) Avoids landfill tipping costs, andv) Uses less diesel fuel for transport.

2) California8

a) Advantages of pavement recycling:i) Reduced maintenance costs,ii) Avoidance of tipping fees for disposal,

6Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board. Construction Waste Project. December 31,2002. Prepared by URS Corporation.7 National Asphalt Pavement Association. Asphalt Pavement is the Surprise Leader in theRecycling of Various Materials. http://www.hotmix.org/recycling.php8 Lindert, Lin. Market Status Report: Pavement. Market Trend and Analysis Section:California Integrated Waste Management Board. April 28, 1993.

- 4 -

iii) Reduction of energy used to extract virgin materials,iv) Lower transportation costs,v) Saves landfill space, andvi) Extends quarry life as well as replacing barrels of oil when reclaimed

asphalt concrete is recycled.b) California had a mandate to divert 25% of waste stream by 1995, and 50%

by 2000.c) Market incentives:

i) Board has a loan program to provide funds for recycling industries.ii) Recycling Tax Credit Program encourages business to invest in equipment

that will recycle material such as post-consumer pavement.iii) California Materials Exchange (CALMAX) lists quantities of waste available

and buyers wishing to buy secondary materials.d) Barriers to efficient markets for recycled used payments:

i) Permitting issues may have to be addressed when equipment is modifiedto use recycled materials.

ii) The lack of state and public works specification for use of recycledproducts.

iii) Local opposition from city or county public works staff.3) U.S. Department of Transportation9

9 U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration and U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress. A Study of the Use of RecycledPaving Material. June 1993. FHWA-RD-93-147 and EPA/600/R-93/055.

- 5 -

- 6 -

Brick Waste

General Information1) Why and How It Is Used

a) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Solid Waste Utilization10

i) A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued for brick when itis used for aggregate. Standing Beneficial Use Determination means thatthe generator or end user of a material can do so in accordance with thisrule without contacting the agency.

ii) Rule (7035.2860 Subpart 4 I): Uncontaminated recognizable concrete,recycled concrete and concrete products, and brick for service as asubstitute for conventional aggregate.(1) Concrete and brick materials are currently being used widely as

replacements for conventional, virgin aggregate. This practice isacceptable as long as these materials are not from buildings orstructures where they are likely to be contaminated.

2) Potential to Reduce, Reuse, or Recyclea) Construction Waste Project11

i) Bricks were temporary reused to form roadways to prevent erosion.b) SKB Environmental.12

i) Bricks have a higher reuse value than recycling.(1) Clay degradation is a potential problem in recycling.

Management Practices1) Can be disposed of in demolition landfills.2) Although brick and cement block can be recovered for reuse, more often they

are crushed and combined with concrete and asphalt to form the base forroadbeds and driveways.13

Toxicity1) The common building brick is very inert.2) Refractory brick (used in high heat industrial processes) often contains heavymetals.

10 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Solid Waste Utilization. Adopted Permanent RulesRelating to Beneficial Use of Solid Waste – Not the Final Rule. Viewed March 15, 2004.http://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/sw-utilization.html.11Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board. Construction Waste Project. December 31,2002. Prepared by URS Corporation.12 Ryan O’Gara from SKB Environmental. February 2004.13 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Waste Management Program: Constructionand Demotion Debris. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/aw/wm/condemo/

- 7 -

Metal Waste

General Information1) Potential to Reduce, Reuse, or Recycle

a) Some of the metals within concrete, such as rebar, are not recycled(sometimes a barrier but can be removed in crushing).

b) Metals are recycled because a market exists. (or local demolition landfilltipping fees are high)

Minnesota Data1) Major Participants

a) Minnesota Recycling Market Directory14

i) According to the market directory, Minnesota has 44 roofing steelrecycling brokers, processors, and end user companies.

2) Recovery Ratesa) Construction Waste Project15

i) Metal is used as a structural support material in larger constructionprojects. Residential construction projects may employ small amounts ofmetal in wiring, siding, fasteners, and roof flashing.

ii) Typical metals associated with construction projects are copper from pipeand wire, iron from structural beams and supports, and aluminum and tinfrom siding and flashing.

iii) When metal is present in sufficient amounts, recycling is an attractiveoption because there is a ready market for scrap metal.

Material Recycling/Reuse Options Recycling/Reuse RatingMetal 1) New metal products 1) Excellent; markets established

and currently practiced

c) Steel Recycling Institute16

i) The North American steel industry annually recycles millions of tons ofsteel scrap from products such as recycled cans, automobiles, appliances,and construction materials. This scrap is then melted to produce newsteel.

ii) The industry’s overall recycling rate is nearly 68%.iii) There are two industrial technologies for making steel:

(1) The Basic Oxygen Furnace Process, which produces the steel neededfor packaging, car bodies, appliances, and steel framing, uses aminimum of 25% recycled steel.

14 Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Minnesota Recycling Market Directory:Construction and Demolition Debris. 2000. http://www.moea.state.mn.us/markets/C&D8-3-00.pdf15Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board. Construction Waste Project. December 31,2002. Prepared by URS Corporation.16 Steel Recycling Institute. Fact Sheet: A few facts about steel-North American’s #1recycled material. http://www.recycle-steel.org/fact/main.html

- 8 -

(2) The Electric Arc Furnace Process, which produces steel shapes such asrailroad ties and bridge spans, uses virtually 100% recycled steel.

iv) Builders across the US are constructing all types of steel-framed homes,from multi-family developments and retirement homes to single familyresidences.

v) Builders use steel because it is lightweight, cost effective, non-combustible, performs well in high winds and seismic areas, and resistscorrosion.

vi) Estimated 2001 steel construction recycling:(1) Structural Beams and Plates 95% Recycled(2) Reinforced Bars and Others 50% Recycled

Management Practices1) Disposal fees at Twin Cities C&D landfills range between $15 to $20 per ton.

Metals recycling price per ton is $25 to 50.17

2) An extensive recycling market exists. See attached.18

17 University of Minnesota. Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide. http://www.sustainabledesignguide.umn.edu18 Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board. Resourceful Waste Management Guide: Abusiness guide on how to recycle or dispose of just about anything.http://swmcb.org/RWMG

- 9 -

Metal Shavings and Turnings

General Information1) Potential to Reduce, Reuse or Recycle

a) Given the record-high value of scrap metal prices in 2004—approximately2.5/cents/pound (ferrous)—it is unlikely that large sources are beinglandfilled. On the other hand, small sources of scrap metal probably are notcollected at a rate that justifies storage and pickup costs; hence these mightbe thrown in the dumpster. Non-ferrous wastes (e.g., aluminum and brass)are even more valuable. A combination of ferrous and non-ferrous materialis a factor that might increase the likelihood of the material being landfilled.The value of waste streams that are not “pure” (or which cannot be isolatedas such) drops very quickly.19

Minnesota Data1) Major Participants

a) Literally thousands of companies in the state generate this kind of waste,from very small sources (maybe a single machine center) to extremely largesources (operations with hundreds of centers).20

b) Very market driven.

Management Practices1) Very market dependent.2) Small amounts of metal shavings and turnings are disposed.21

19 Randy Cook. Minnesota Technical Assistance Program. February 2004.20 Randy Cook. February 2004.21 Bill Lauer. Dakota County. March 2004.

- 10 -

Lime Sludge

General Information1) Why and How It Is Used

c) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Solid Waste Utilization22

i) A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued foruncontaminated lime by-products. Standing Beneficial Use Determinationmeans that the generator or end user of a material can do so inaccordance with this rule without contacting the agency.

ii) Rule (7035.2860 Subpart 4 P): Uncontaminated by-product limes used asagricultural liming materials and distributed in accordance with chapter1508 and Minnesota Statutes, sections 18C.531 to 18C.575. Applicationrates for by-product limes must be based on the lime recommendations ofthe University of Minnesota Extension Service and cannot cause the soilpH to exceed 7.1 after application. Site specific application rates for by-product lime must be determined by an individual that has a backgroundand understanding of crop nutrient management.(1) By-product limes have been land applied for many years for their

value as agricultural liming materials.(2) The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) regulates the use of

agricultural liming materials.(3) By-product limes make up a significant percentage of the agricultural

liming used in Minnesota (up to 40% in some years.)(4) Infrequently, there are contaminants present in a by-product lime that

are of concern to human health and the environment.

Generated1) Minnesota Data

a) Local generation data was unobtainable.b) Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA)23

i) The Agricultural Liming Materials Program at the MDA is “delegated by theState of Minnesota to provide educational and regulatory oversight for ag-lime materials distributed in Minnesota.”

ii) Agricultural Liming Material Tonnage and Statistics for 1991-2003(1) The following data table presents state total liming tonnages. The

state total liming tonnages can further be broken down intosubcategories. Only two categories are presented below, industrialand municipal lime by-product.

(2) Metropolitan liming tonnages for industrial and municipal lime by-product can be estimated. An estimated 75% of state total municipal

22 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Solid Waste Utilization. Adopted Permanent RulesRelating to Beneficial Use of Solid Waste – Not the Final Rule. Viewed March 15, 2004.http://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/sw-utilization.html.23 Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Liming Materials Program: Ag-LimeAnalysis Report/Information. Viewed June 10, 2004. http://www.mda.state.mn.us/lime/.

- 11 -

liming sludge is generated in metropolitan region while an estimated10% of industrial liming sludge is from the Metropolitan region.24

Year State TotalTonnage

StateIndustrialTonnage

StateMunicipalTonnage

EstimatedMetroIndustrialTonnage

EstimatedMetroMunicipalTonnage

1991 594,774 36,940 320,633 3,694 240,4751992 811,913 40,579 416,121 4,058 312,0911993 789,608 37,269 375,189 3,727 281,3921994 884,842 77,082 329,855 7,708 247,3911995 827,602 41,733 266,728 4,173 200,0461996 759,363 53,099 233,225 5,310 174,9191997 931,020 84,356 241,698 8,436 181,2741998 973,185 88,623 281,765 8,862 211,3241999 950,232 128,316 223,731 12,832 167,7982000 849,334 142,057 263,345 14,206 197,5092001 762,640 117,228 182,261 11,723 136,6962002 754,903 153,602 225,917 15,360 169,4382003 857,849 195,540 183,563 19,554 137,672

Comparisons to Other Data Sources, Policies, Programs and Projects(include contact information, date, and web address)1) National Lime Association25

a) Study completed a life cycle analysis for interstate and highway projects.b) The findings show that lime is the most cost-effective design for all of the

applications studied.c) Life cycle cost saving from lime is, on average, $2 to $3 per square yard or

$13,000 to $21,000 per land mile (13 to 15% of project life cycle costs).d) Lime additions can provide the following technical benefits for interstate and

highway products:i) Provide anti-stripping benefits,ii) Act as mineral filter to stiffen the binder and reduce rutting,iii) Improve resistance to fracture growth (i.e., improves fracture toughness)

at low temperatures,iv) Favorably alter oxidation kinetics and reduce their deleterious effects, andv) Alter the plastic properties of clay fines to improve moisture stability and

durability.e) Typical costs to contractors for adding lime:

24 Ed Kaiser, Agronomy & Plant Protection Division, Minnesota Department of Agriculture.June 9, 2004.25 National Lime Association. Life Cycle Costs for Lime in Hot Mix Asphalt: Volume 1Summary Report by R. G. Hicks, Oregon State University, and Todd Scholz, RoadworthyResearch and Design. April 2003. http://www.lime.org.

- 12 -

- 13 -

Paint Filters

General Information1) Toxicity

a) PCA26

i) Disposal of hazardous paint filers through a hazardous waste transporterand facility is relatively easy yet expensive.

ii) As lower concentrations of heavy metals are used in automotive and otherindustrial paints, paint filters are less likely to be hazardous.

iii) Steps to determine if a paint filter is hazardous:(1) Certification: Ash paint manufacturer or supplier should certify in

writing that none of the paints will leach any toxic metals (such aslead, barium, cadmium, or chromium) above the maximum allowableconcentrations.

(2) Testing: An environmental testing laboratory should test arepresentative filter sample for metals using the Toxicity CharacteristicLeaching Procedure (TCLP).

(3) Note: Waste paint filters are sometimes capable of spontaneouscombustion. Concerns over spontaneous -combustion may require thewaste to be managed as a hazardous waste.

iv) Non-hazardous filters are classified as an industrial solid waste.

Minnesota Data1) Generated

a) Randy Cook – MnTAPi) Minnesota has 70 Companies whose primary business is paint and

coatings. (Harris Directory 2004)ii) Companies within the SIC codes 35, 36, and 37 are likely to do coating as

a secondary activity – 4000 exist in the state of Minnesota. (HarrisDirectory 2004)

iii) Many businesses, throughout the state, generate paint filter waste,iv) Paint filters are a very low percentage of all waste in the non-hazardous

stream.v) As technology increases efficiency in this industry, the waste stream is

being reduced.

2) Disposeda) SKB Environmental: Rosemount Data for Paint Filter Disposal27

Year Tons Landfilled2002 382003 80

26 PCA Fact Sheet. Paint-Filter Disposal: Hazardous Filters. February/March 1997.http://www.pca.state.mn.us///air/pubs/sbap-paint.pdf.27 Ryan O’Gara from SKB Environmental. February 2004.

- 14 -

Management Practices1) NonHazardous Paint Filter Disposal Options28

a) Filters may be sent to a landfill specializing in industrial waste managementthat can safely manage paint waste (i.e., a lined landfill).

b) Filters may be sent to an industrial solid waste incinerator.

28 PCA Fact Sheet. Paint-Filter Disposal: Hazardous Filters. February/March 1997.http://www.pca.state.mn.us///air/pubs/sbap-paint.pdf.

- 15 -

Plastic Tubing

General Information1) Toxicity

a) Plastic tubing is made from cross-linked polyethylene with an oxygen infusionbarrier.

b) Plastic tubing is manufactured in Dakota County, Minnesota.

2) Why and How It Is Useda) Tubing applications.b) Five billion feet of this plastic pipe is in service worldwide.29

3) Potential to Reduce, Reuse, or Recyclea) Tubing is a composite plastic that is not currently recyclable.b) The company is considering a project to shred the material for reuse

(working with MnTAP).c) The current waste stream is bulky, making disposal difficult for landfill

operators.

Minnesota Data1) Generated by One Generator in Minnesota30

a) 20 to 40 yards per dayb) The current annual amount of waste landfilled from a single generator is

approximately 1,900 tons. c) The majority of this waste is off-spec tubing. d) The company, which plans to start shredding this waste, believes there is a

market for the shreds.

2) Disposeda) SKB Environmental: Rosemount Data for Plastic Tubing disposal31

Year Tons Landfilled2003 872

Management Practices1) Plastic tubing is currently being landfilled at SKB Rosemount.2) BFI has not been successful in identifying a viable recycling market.

29 Wirsbo Plastic Tubing, www.wirsbo.com. June 2004.30 Bill Lauer. Non-MSW Industrial Waste Review: Dakota County Co-Disposal/ InspectorPerspective. January and February 2004.31 Ryan O’Gara from SKB Environmental. February 2004.

- 16 -

Blasting Media

General Information1) Toxicity

a) Surface blasting media may potentially contain heavy metals once it is used.The use of sand as a surface blasting media has declined significantly due toemployee health concerns with silicosis. Non-sand type media greatly reducethis health risk.

2) Why and How It Is Useda) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Solid Waste Utilization32

i) A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued for recycledglass and coal combustion slag used as surface blasting media. StandingBeneficial Use Determination means that the generator or end user of amaterial can do so in accordance with this rule without contacting theagency.

ii) Rule (7035.2860 Subpart 4 C): Uncontaminated glass when used as asandblasted agent.

iii) Rule (7035.2860 Subpart 4 L): Coal combustion slag when used as a sandblast abrasive.

Minnesota Data1) Generated

a) Randy Cook – MnTAPi) Sources of surface blasting media material are equated with paint waste.ii) Many chemical and physical means can be used to remove a coating or

prep a surface for coating.iii) It is likely that there are fewer sources of surface media blasting waste

than that of painting operations.iv) To obtain reliable data on the volume of waste, a survey of users would

be necessary.v) The surface blasting media can be reused until the particle size

degrades—then the fine dust is wasted.vi) Waste characterization status is determined by paint constituents

including heavy metals used in paint pigments and other solvent and non-solvent ingredients

2) Disposeda) SKB Environmental: Rosemount Data for Surface Blasting Media33

Year Tons Landfilled2002 1,5482003 2,397 32 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Solid Waste Utilization. Adopted Permanent RulesRelating to Beneficial Use of Solid Waste – Not the Final Rule. Viewed March 15, 2004.http://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/sw-utilization.html.33 Ryan O’Gara from SKB Environmental. February 2004.

- 17 -

3) Major Participantsa) Black Diamond (or Grand Grit), which formerly made surface blasting media

from coal slag, is no longer in business.34

Comparisons to Other Data Sources, Policies, Programs, and Projects

1) Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, California35

a) The Naval Station at Treasure Island had a facility for commercial ship repairoperations including corrosion control work.i) There was 4,665 tons of spent sandblasted grit at site.ii) Sandblasted grit, consisting of silica sand plus small amounts of slag-

derived grit, had physical characteristics of coarse-grained beach sandand also contained fragments of coatings.(1) The grit had the potential to be hazardous since coatings included

lead-based primers, copper, and butyltin-containing antifoulingtopcoats.

b) The spent grit was difficult to treat by conventional cement basedsolidification/stabilization methods.i) The lead and copper contaminants were contained in the organic portion

of the paint chips, thereby limiting the ability of inorganic binders tostabilize the lead and copper.

c) An alternative management method is to use a replacement for some of thefine aggregate in asphalt concrete.i) 4.5 to 8 % bitumen, 45 to 60 % coarse rock, and 35 to 45 % sand.ii) Due to the high cost of bitumen compared to aggregate, the lowest

bitumen content meeting performance specification is favored.iii) Asphalt samples meet California hazardous waste leaching criteria and

provide acceptable physical performance propriety as defined by localpaving specifications.

iv) Asphalt removal by conventional road grinding equipment in 1993:(1) Air monitoring showed no hazardous contaminants.

d) Results from the long-term pilot test demonstrated that the beneficial reuserequirements could be meet.

e) Full-scale operations began in 1994.f) Estimated Costs to Recycle Spent Grit:

34 Bill Lauer, Dakota County Environmental Services. March 2004.35 Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center. Tech Data Sheet: Recycling SpentSandblasting Grit and Similar Waste as Aggregate in Asphaltic Concrete. TDS-2065-ENV.Port Hueneme, California. December 1998.http://enviro.nfesc.navy.mil/erb/erb_a/restoration/technologies/remed/phys_chem/tds-2065.pdf

- 18 -

Operation Approximate Cost with Non-hazardous Grit ($/ton)

Approximate Cost withHazardous Grit ($/ton)

Characterization 2.00 to 8.00 5.00 to 11.00Screening 2.00 to 3.00 4.00 to 6.00Transportation 5.00 to 11.00 10.00 to 20.00Tipping fee 0.00 to 10.00 40.00 to 60.00RegulatoryCompliance

1.00 to 5.00 50.00 to 100.00

Cost to Manage byRecycling

10.00 to 36.00 109.00 to 197.00

Cost to ManageWaste

12.00 to 70.00 300.00 to 600.00

Estimated savingthrough recycling(Cost to ManageWaste – Cost toManage byRecycling)

2.00 to 34.00 191.00 to 403.00

- 19 -

Foam

General Information1) Why and How It Is Used

a) Foam has a variety of uses such as in furniture, automobile seats, packaging,carpet padding, and containers.

2) Potential to Reduce, Reuse, or Recyclea) Three types of foam are commonly recycled:

i) Expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam—rigid, used for Styrofoam® cups,coolers, and packaging

ii) Polyethylene foam—semi-rigid, used for packagingiii) Polyurethane foam—flexible, used for carpet padding and furniture

cushions.b) Polyurethane foam can be recycled by grinding into small particle sizes and

made into bonded carpet underlay (also known as “rebound”). Many sellersof this foam also purchase scrap and even offer buy back agreements.

c) In addition to drop-off centers in MN, some companies will arrange pick upfor large quantities.

d) Scrap outlets include:i) Diversion Products, Inc. in Rockford, MN, accepts molded EPS.ii) Poly-Foam, Inc. in Lester Prairie, MN, accepts EPS.iii) Reynolds Polyurethane Recycling of Middleton, WI, accepts polyurethane

and all types of flexible foams.iv) Plymouth Foam, Inc. in Becker, MN, accepts EPS (but only in the

summer).e) Foam recycling has been implemented in other states and counties.f) Foam must be dry in order to be recycled or reused.g) As of April 2004, the current recycled market value for carpet padding is

between $0.12 to $0.15 per pound.

Case Studies1) Reclamation of Urethane Foam from Automobile Seats by Bryan Martel, Martel

and Associates, located at http://www.polyurethrane.org/recycling/car_seat.asp2) Technical Evaluation of Rigid Foam Regrind Into Flexible Foams as a Viable

Route to Recycling by the Alliance for the Polyurethane Industry, located athttp://www.polyurethrane.org/recycling/tech_eval.asp

3) Use of Finely Ground Foam in the Production of New Flexible Foam, located athttp://polyurethane.org/org/recycling/finely_ground.asp

Economics1) Parts of this waste stream are currently being recycled.

a) According to MnTAP, some post-consumer and industrial scrap foam outletsaccept expanded polystyrene foam (EPS). Others accept polyethylene andpolyurethane foams, depending on the market demand and prices.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Web Site. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/

- 20 -

SourcesAFPF Technical Bulletin. Properties, Performance and Design Fundamentals ofExpanded Polystyrene Packaging. January, 2000.

AFPF. Flexible Polyurethane Foam. http://www.afpf.com/geninfo.html.

Martel, Bryan. Alliance for the Polyurethane Industry. Reclamation of UrethaneFoam from Automotive Seats. http://www.polyurethane.org/recycling/car_seat.asp.

Alliance for the Polyurethane Industry. Use of Finely Ground Foam in theProduction of New Flexible Foam.http://www.polyurethane.org/recycling/finely_ground.asp.

MnTAP. Post-consumer and Industrial Scrap Foam Outlets.http://mntap.umn.edu/A-Zwastes/32-ScrapFoam.htm.

- 21 -

Insulation

General Information1) Toxicity

a) Insulation is made out of several types of materials including: cellulose,polystyrene, recycled glass, and vermiculite.

b) The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Healthstrongly recommend that vermiculite insulation be considered a suspectasbestos containing material due to possible tremolite/actinolite asbestoscontamination (MPCA memo to Asbestos Contractors, Inspectors, Consultantsand Laboratories, dated January 9, 2004).

c) Non-recyclable materials include waste from sprayed-on foam insulation andfoam from non-aerosol canned products.

d) Insulation can potentially contain asbestos.

Minnesota Data1) Generated

a) Studies cite foam as being an insignificant amount of the construction wastestream.

b) Office building and manufacturing facility construction accounts for 6% ofinsulation waste, while commercial office building demolition generates 4%insulation waste.

Management Practices1) Carefully calculate and only order the amount needed. For guidance, refer to

the manual WasteSpec: Model Specifications for Construction Waste Reduction,Reuse, and Recycling.

2) Reuse clean scraps as extra attic insulation or for chinking around windows.Install in interior wall cavities.

- 22 -

Packaging Waste

General Information1. Why and how it is used

a) Packaging waste has been identified as a significant component of the non-MSW waste stream resulting from both construction and industrial waste.

b) This waste stream includes foam, shrink wrap, plastic, cardboard, and wood.c) The various packaging wastes considered industrial or construction and

demolition waste are generally commingled when disposed.

2. Potential to Reduce, Reuse, and Recyclea) There is potential to recycle or reuse each of these packaging wastes, but the

challenge is to segregate the materials and remove any contamination.b) Packaging of certain products can involve some or all of the packaging

materials listed above and this further complicates the potential to reduce,reuse, and recycle packaging wastes.

c) Product stewardship initiatives call for packaging materials to be redesignedto minimize waste and facilitate recycling and reuse.

d) The Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board provides information onthe reduction, reuse, and recycling of transport packaging waste atwww.greenguardian.com.10

Foam

1. Why and how it is useda) Polyethylene and polystyrene foam are the types of foam typically used in

packaging.b) In order for foam to be recycled, it must be segregated from other packaging

wastes.c) Additional information on foam can be found in this Appendix (see “Foam”).

Shrink Wrap

1) Why and how it is used a) Shrink-wrap has many commercial and industrial packaging uses.

b) It is also used to protect boats from the effects of weather.43

c) Self adhesive and applied in layers, the elastic film is stretched around aproduct.

d) It is composed of low-density polyethylene.e) The waste is often the large portion of a warehouse or distribution center’s

waste stream.12

2) Potential to reduce, reuse, or recyclea) One study in Pennsylvania found that although there is a market for recycled

shrink- wrap, it is subject to fluctuation.

- 23 -

b) In some cases, shrink-wrap is not economically feasible to recover unless thesavings from avoided disposal is considered. The materials must be of goodquality.12

c) One local retailer in Minnesota collects and sends shrink-wrap to amanufacturer of plastic garbage bags. The manufacturer of plastic bagsthen sells the bags back to the store for resale.

d) Shrink-wrap has also been used in combination with waste wood by amanufacturer of outdoor decks to develop a deck board.

e) Minnesota Waste Wise provides information on shrink-wrap and plastic bagrecycling options.

f) Shrink-wrap is often co-mingled with other packaging waste making itdifficult and expensive to separate.

i) The shrink-wrap needs to be separated by color. White wrap maycontain titanium dioxide.

ii) The material is easily contaminated.

3. Comparisons to Other Data Sources, Policies, Programs and Projects

Lycoming County Stretch Wrap Report.12

4. Additional ResourcesAPC. Plastic Film Recovery Guide American Plastics Council.11

APC. Recovering Plastic Film from a Mixed Waste MPR.11

APC. Stretch Wrap Recycling: A How To Guide.11

Plastic1. Why and How It is Used

a) Plastic is used in packaging to protect materials and products duringshipping.

b) This includes plastic bags, inserts, supports, etc. that are not foam, but are aportion of the packaging waste stream.

c) Further information on this aspect of the packaging waste stream is notprovided here, but the ample information available on plastic recyclingindicates this waste could be recycled.

Cardboard (Old Corrugated Containers or OCC)

1. Why and How It Is Useda) Data from several landfills in 2003 shows that cardboard remains a

significant portion of the waste stream.b) Cardboard waste is seen increasingly on construction sites as more components such as windows and cabinets are shipped over long distances.46

2. Potential to Reduce, Reuse and Recyclea) There is significant potential to reduce the generation of OCC as well as reuse

and recycle the material.b) OCC has been recycled for decades and currently over 74% of all OCC is recycled in the US.44

- 24 -

c) Box manufacturers have learned to make strong boxes using less raw material.44

d) The Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (MOEA) provides amethodology that can be used to increase OCC recycling revenue atwww.moea.state.mn.us/berc/occ.cfm.

e) Information on recycling of OCC is available at www.greenguardian.com andin the Minnesota Recycling Markets Directory atwww.moea.state.mn.us/market/markets/index.cfm,

f) The Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board provides information atwww.greenguardian.com on reusable transport packaging that can replacesingle use OCC boxes.

3. Case Studies

a) St. Mary’s Medical Center in Duluth, MN began baling and recycling OCC in1989 resulting in a savings of $12,000 per year in avoided disposal costs.This facility worked with vendors to reduce the packaging used to shipsupplies and vendors now use only shrink wrap to secure them onto pallets.45

b) Additional case studies on reusable transport packaging can be found atwww.swmcb.org/better-way/casestudies.html

Wood

1. Why and how it is useda) Wood packaging wastes consist of pallets (broken and unbroken), wood

crates, and wood used to support various products and materials duringshipping.

b) Nearly half of all pallets are designed to make just one trip, though many aredurable enough for repeated use.47

c) Additional information on wood can be found in this Appendix (see “Wood”).

2. Potential to reduce, reuse and recyclea) Pallets and other packaging wood waste can be repaired and reused or

chipped for animal bedding, used as mulch, applied as a compost bulkingagent, or burned as a fuel.

b) The challenge is to segregate and remove contaminants that may render thewood waste unmarketable.

c) Adhesives, coatings, and preservatives may contain toxic materials, andmost recyclers will not accept wood waste containing these.

d) MOEA provides guidance on use, recycling and reuse of pallets in Minnesota.e) It is recommended that companies purchase more durable pallets that allow

reuse, which may cost more initially, but save money in the long run. 47

f) The Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board provides information onreusable transport packaging that can replace single use pallets and crates isavailable at www.greenguardian.com

- 25 -

3. Case Studies

a) Frigidaire Freezer Products in St. Cloud, MN implemented a program inwhich collapsible plastic palletized containers are now used rather thanwooden pallets resulting in a savings of $5,200 annually. 47

b) Additional case studies on reusable transport packaging can be found atwww.swmcb.org/better-way/casestudies.html

Sources

1. Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board. Transport Packaging-WhatWorks for You? www.greenguardian.org/business/for_shipping2.asp

2. American Plastics Council. Commercial Recycling, June 1999,www.plasticsresource.com/s_plasticresource/doc.asp.

3. Lycoming County Stretch Wrap Report.

4. Warehouse Education and Research Council, Issue No. 43-EnvironmentallyConscious Warehousing, May 18, 2000,www.werc.org/email/archive/email/default.asp

5. Waste Cap of Massachusetts, Marine Shrink Wrap Recycling Program,www.wastecap.org/wastecap/Programs/shrinkwrap/shrinkwrap.

6. Corrugated Packaging Alliance. Recycling Center.http://cpc.corrugated.org/Recycle/

7. MOEA. Old Corrugated Containers. www.moea.state.mn.us/berc/occ.cfm

8. MOEA. Minnesota Recycling Markets Directory.www.moea.state.mn.us/market/markets/index.cfm.

9. MOEA. Are you wasting pallets and money?www.moea.state.mn.us/berc/pallets.cfm

- 26 -

Wood Waste

General Information1) Potential to Reduce, Reuse, or Recycle

a) Pallets have an economic reuse value. 36

i) Other sources of clean wood are from construction projects,cabinetmakers, and floor manufactures.

ii) Clean wood can be sold for reuse or ground for mulch.

2) Generateda) John Madol37

i) Annual urban tree and brush waste amounts to 1 million tons in the metroarea and its fringe communities.(1) 50% comes from land clearing for development.(2) 50% comes from urban wood waste and brush.

ii) St. Paul District Energy burns approximately 290,000 tons per year ofclean wood waste to make steam and electricity.

iii) Pallets are typically sold for reuse or ground for mulch.iv) The Green Institute in Minneapolis is proposing an on-site wood waste to

energy facility.v) Wood ash can be land applied with a Pollution Control Agency permit.

3) Disposeda) St. Paul District Energy generated 595 tons of boiler ash in January 2004

from burning wood wastes.38

i) 800 tons of wood waste is generated per day.ii) Wood has the same BTU value as coal.iii) Price: $ 8.70 per ton for ground wood.

Economics1) Incineration for district heating provides the best economic option because there

is greater market variability with wood landscaping mulch markets.39

36 Bill Lauer, Dakota County. March 2004.37 Don Kyser, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. February 23, 2004.38 Bill Lauer. March 2004.39 Ryan O’Gara from SKB Environmental. March 2004.

- 27 -

Foundry Sands

General Information1) Why and How It Is Used

a) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) – Solid Waste Utilization40

i) A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued for foundrysands. Standing Beneficial Use Determination means that the generatoror end user of a material can do so in accordance with this rule withoutcontacting the agency.

ii) Rule (7035.2860 Subpart 4 O): Foundry sands used as a feed material forthe manufacture of Portland Cement.

iii) Multiple case specific Beneficial Use Determination proposals are expectedsoon. Generators will seek to use spent foundry sands as a component inasphalt.

2) Potential to Reduce, Reuse, or Recyclea) An increase in the reuse of foundry sands will likely be seen in the near

future. This is due in part to a clear regulatory structure and an improvingrelationship between industry and MPCA staff.

Minnesota Data1) Generated

d) Foundry Sand Survey Results41

i) The survey resulted in 13 responses statewide from Minnesota.ii) The responses generated the following data on the types and amounts of

foundry sand generated:

Sand Type Volume Range(lbs./year)

Volume Totals(lbs./year)

Green Sand 15,000 to 14.8 million 32.38 millionPhenolic no-bake 1.85 million to 6.8 million 19.66 millionPhenolic urethane 1.6 million to 5.0 million 8.39 millionCore oil 10,000 to 276,000 0.36 millionShell 15,000 to 2.5 million 7.08 millionLow furan 2.6 million 2.6 millionSodium silicate-ester 350,000 to 1.4 million 1.79 millionSodium silicate non-ester 1.5 million 1.5 million

iii) All but 3 respondents disposed of unsegregated sands in landfills. Theseexceptions were:(1) Sand used for road base or clean fill.

40 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Solid Waste Utilization. Adopted Permanent RulesRelating to Beneficial Use of Solid Waste – Not the Final Rule. Viewed March 15, 2004.http://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/sw-utilization.html.41 MCM Spent Foundry Sand Work-Group: MPCA, MnTAP, and MN/DOT. Spent FoundrySand Survey. Memo to Doug Harmon, Twin Cities Die-Casting Company, and Doug Ohlsen,MCM, from Therese Benkowski. September 3, 1998.

- 28 -

(2) Segregated sands to be taken to landfill and asphalt company.(3) Segregated sands to be taken to landfill and cement plant (phenolic

urethane core and no-bake molding sands to cement plant; fines,green sand, and shell cores to landfill).

iv) All respondents used the TCLP method of testing.v) 7 of the 13 facilities are within the metro area.

- 29 -

Coal Ash

General Information1) Toxicity:

a) Fly ash is the residue from air pollution control equipment.i) Leachate from fly ash has shown hazardous levels of cadmium and lead in

(TCLP) toxicity tests.ii) Fly ash is treated by mixing it with bottom ash. The resultant mixture

usually passes an EP toxicity leach test.iii) Bottom ash consists of the materials remaining at the bottom of the

furnace after combustion.b) Coal combustion slag is molten ash collected at the base of the boiler and

when removed shatters into black, angular particles having a smooth glassyappearance. Its granular consistency and hardness make it a preferredproduct in applications such as the manufacturing of roofing shingle granulesand as blasting abrasives.42

2) Potential to Reduce, Reuse, or Recyclea) Historically, about 25% of the ash by-products have been used as

construction material or for other applications, leaving 75% for deposit inlandfills, according to EPRI Statistics.

b) Coal fly ash is a byproduct of coal burning at electric utility plants (the MPCAestimates that 75% of coal ash is fly ash). Coal fly ash is collected by airpollution control equipment. For many years, coal fly ash has been animportant source of cementitious material in concrete. The level of coal flyash in concrete typically ranges from 15 to 35% of the total cementitiousmaterial. Statewide, between 95% and 100% of concrete used in largeconstruction projects will contain fly ash in the mix design. While not all coalfly ash can meet specifications for use in concrete, many thousands of tonsof fly ash from large electric power plants are used annually.43

c) In addition, coal ash is used in the manufacturing of lightweight concreteblock, and has been used as a soil stabilizer, an agricultural liming agent anda source of boron, and for various uses as a mineral filler.

d) Ash markets depend on chemical composition.e) Coal ash has a federal exemption from being a hazardous waste.f) Market potential

(1) Coal(a) Fly Ash (~80%)

(i) Concrete additives (low carbon ash)(ii) Soil stabilizers(iii) Agriculturally used a liming agent or as a source of boron

when land applied.

42 Rustu S. Kalyoncu and Donald W. Olson. United States Geological Survey. CoalCombustion Products (Fact Sheet 076-01).43 Don Kyser, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. February 23, 2004.

- 30 -

(iv) Uses: reclaim sand and gravel pits, constructing highwayembankments and business parks, and back filling utilitytrenches, Portland cement – supplementary cement materials,asphalt concrete – mineral filler, stabilized base –supplementary cement material, flowable fill – aggregate orsupplemental cement material, embankment fill material,fertilizer, and liming agents

(v) DOT information1. In 1996, approximately, 14.6 million metric tons (16.2

million tons) of fly ash were used.2. Between 1985 and 1995, fly ash usage has fluctuated

between approximately 8.0 and 11.9 million metric tons (8.8and 13.6 million tons) per year, averaging 10.2 millionmetric tons (11.3 million tons) per year.

3. Approximately 70 to 75 percent of fly ash generated is stilldisposed of in landfills and storage lagoons.

(b) Bottom Ash (~20%)(i) Limited market potential

d) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Solid Waste Utilization44

i) A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued for coalcombustion slag and fly ash. Standing Beneficial Use Determinationmeans that the generator or end user of a material can do so inaccordance with this rule without contacting the agency.(1) Rule (7035.2860 Subpart 4 K): Coal combustion slag when used as a

component in manufactured products such as roofing shingles, ceilingtiles, or asphalt products.

(2) Rule (7035.2860 Subpart 4 L): Coal combustion slag when used as asand blast abrasive.(a) For Rule K and L: The MPCA has over 15 years of data (since the

mid-1980’s) regarding the use of coal combustion slag in roofingshingles, ceiling tiles, asphalt products, and as a sand blast agent.(i) The majority of the information comes from Xcel Energy.(ii) The data shows that this material is very consistent in quality,

and that the constituents present in the material are belowlevels of concern for human health and the environment.

(3) Rule (7035.2860 Subpart 4 M): Coal combustion fly ash as defined byASTM C 618 as a pozzolan or cement replacement in the formation ofhigh-strength concrete.

(4) Rule (7035.2860 Subpart 4 N): Coal combustion fly ash or coalcombustion gas scrubbing by-products when used as an ingredient forproduction of aggregate that will be used in concrete or concreteproducts. This doe not include use in flowable fill.

44 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Solid Waste Utilization. Adopted Permanent RulesRelating to Beneficial Use of Solid Waste – Not the Final Rule. Viewed March 15, 2004.http://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/sw-utilization.html.

- 31 -

Minnesota Data1) Generated

a) DOTi) A 1994 survey of transportation agencies in all 50 states indicated that 8

states have made some recent use of fly ash as a mineral filler in asphaltpaving. These states include Connecticut, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska,New York, Ohio, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. Most of these states reportedthat the performance of fly ash as a filler material was fair to good.However, in two states (Michigan and Nebraska) fly ash reportedlyperformed poorly as a filler material and was either discontinued oreliminated from further use.

Comparisons to Other Data Sources, Policies, Programs and Projects1) Wisconsin Waste Characterization and Management: Study Update 200045

a) 2000 total generation of non-MSW: 9,143,700 tonsGeneration Recovered

forRecycling

BeneficialUse

Combustion Landfilled Landspread/Other

CoalAsh

1,595,600 0 1,155,200

0 440,400 0

2) 2002 Indiana Solid Waste Facility Report46

a) Disposal of Solid Waste by Landfill Type and Waste Type During 2002Tons of Waste DisposedWaste Type Municipal

Solid WasteLandfills

ConstructionandDemolitionSites

RestrictedWasteSites

Non-MunicipalSolid WasteLandfills

All Landfills

Coal Ash 10,789 0 750,457 0 61,246

45 State of Wisconsin, Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin Waste Characterizationand Management: Study Update 2000. Madison, Wisconsin. July 2002.Prepared by FranklinAssociates, Ltd. Prairie Village, KS.46 Indiana Department of Environmental Management: Office of Land Quality. 2002 IndianaSolid Waste Facility Report. Indianapolis, Indiana. Contributors: Michelle Weddle andRichard Worth.

- 32 -

Shingles

General Information1) Why and How It Is Used

a) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Solid Waste Utilization47

i) A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued for manufactureshingle scrap. Standing Beneficial Use Determination means that thegenerator or end user of a material can do so in accordance with this rulewithout contacting the agency.

ii) Rule (7035.2860 Subpart 4 Q): Manufacture shingle scrap and groundtear-off shingle scrap when used in asphalt payment or road sub-bases.However, MNDOT has only approved a specification for manufacture scrapin hot mix asphalt.

Minnesota Data1) Generated

a) National Roofing Contractor Associations48

i) Every year, an estimated 9 to 10 million tons of asphalt roofing waste aresent to U.S. landfills at a cost of more than $400 million in disposal fees.

ii) “Most waste from roofing shingles and roll goods can be economically andeffectively recycled into asphalt pavement for roads and highways. Andwith promising technological advances and economic feasibility, thepotential of asphalt reclamation is limitless.”

iii) Together, the following industry groups are aggressively promotingwaste-reduction and recycling programs: Asphalt Roofing ManufacturersAssociation (ARMA), Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA),National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA), Asphalt EmulsionsManufacturers Association, and Asphalt Recycling and ReclaimingAssociation (ARRA).

iv) ARMA is educating all involved in the asphalt shingle recycling process,while also establishing a network and common process to collect roofingwaste for recycling.

v) In December 10, 1999, ARMA’s “Roofs to Roads” seminar was presentedin Chicago, Illinois to paving and roofing contractors, manufactures,processors, environmental and highway officials, equipmentmanufactures, home builders, and paving plant operators.(1) Seminar focus: opportunities and challenges to roof-to-road recycling.(2) As a result of the seminar, ARMA, NRCA, NAPA, CMRA, ARRA, and the

National Association of Home Builders Research Center became roof-to-road sponsors.

47 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Solid Waste Utilization. Adopted Permanent RulesRelating to Beneficial Use of Solid Waste – Not the Final Rule. Viewed March 15, 2004.http://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/sw-utilization.html48 Snyder, Russell K. National Roofing Contractors Association, Professional RoofingMagazine. “21st Century Recycling: ARMA and other industry organizations are leading theway for waste reduction and recycling programs.” August 2001.

- 33 -

(3) The CMRA web site, www.cdrecycling.org, now serves as a place whereindustry professionals can share technical information and researchstudies; discuss recycling business opportunities and barriers; identifyparticipating organizations; and identify universities and governmentagencies that are pursing the recovery and recycling of shingle waste.

2) Disposeda) Construction Waste Project49

i) “There are no known risks associated with the on-site use of newshingles, stone, and other aggregate as replacement for Class 5aggregate for driveway base.”

ii) The Minnesota Department of Transportation currently uses salvagedshingles, stone, and other aggregate in a variety of roadway applications.

iii) A demonstration project involving construction sites was completed toshow the feasibility of on-site grinding and the beneficial reuse ofshingles, as well as other waste streams. The project successfully divertedalmost half of the construction waste generated from the landfill.

iv) Manufacture asphalt shingle scrap can be used in the manufacture of newshingles.

v) Shingles have a high BTU value, but incinerating shingles produces arelatively large volume of residue.50

3) Major Participantsa) Minnesota Recycling Market Directory51

i) According to the market directory, Minnesota has 12 roofing shinglebrokers, processors, and end user companies.

4) Recovery Ratesa) Construction Waste Project:52

Material Recycling/ReuseOptions

Recycling/Reuse Rating

1) Hot mix asphalt 1) Good; has been testedand practiced, needsmarket development

Asphalt Roofing Shingles2) On-site driveway andother applications

2) Good; potential exists,successful in otherlocations

49Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board. Construction Waste Project.December 31, 2002. Prepared by URS Corporation.50 Don Kyser, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. February 2004.51 Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Minnesota Recycling Market Directory:Construction and Demolition Debris. 2000.http://www.moea.state.mn.us/markets/C&D8-3-00.pdf52Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board. December 31, 2002.

- 34 -

b) SKB Environmental53

i) Tar from shingles can cause grinders to gum up.ii) There is a loss of efficiency.iii) Tear off shingle recycling might not work because of problems with

asbestos in older shingles from commercial sources.

Comparisons to Other Data Sources, Policies, Programs and Projects

1) Vermont54

a) Nationally, an estimated 10 million tons of waste shingles are generatedannually.

b) Potential end markets for recycled asphalt shingles include feedstock for hotmix asphalt (HMA) and cold patch, dust and erosion control on rural roads,aggregate for road bases, recycling into new shingles, and fuel.

c) Asbestos contamination is an ongoing concern.d) A number of states have incorporated recycled asphalt shingles into HMA

specifications, including Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey,North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, and Florida.

e) Literature review done by Vermont was extensive (See attached).f) Conclusions reached:

1. The composition and properties of asphalt roofing is welldocumented, particularly for post-manufacturing “factory scrap.”Because of age, location, and type of installation, old shingles removedfrom existing buildings (“tear-offs’) are less uniform and morecontaminated.2. New shingles do not contain asbestos. The percentage of tear-offshingles that contain asbestos is extremely low.3. Scrap shingle processing techniques and equipment are improvingas the processors gain experience. Processing at an asphalt plant withcrushers, hammer mills, or rotary shredders is the most commontechnique. Factory scrap is more difficult to process because of theplasticity of new shingles.4. Roofing shingles processed into aggregate have been usedsuccessfully as dust suppression on gravel roads, mixed with naturalaggregate as road base material, and used as a low-cost “pavement”on driveways and parking areas.5. Scrap shingles have been incorporated into cold-applied pavingasphalt on a limited basis. Cold-applied pothole patch is beingproduced commercially for municipal and state clients, with smallquantities available nationwide for residential use. Anecdotal responsehas been very favorable.6. Laboratory and field-testing of the use of roofing shingles in hot mixasphalt has been ongoing since at least 1987. Pilot projects havedemonstrated that shingles can physically be processed and

53 Ryan O’Gara from SKB Environmental. February 2004.54 Grodinsky, Carolyn, Nancy Plunkett, and James Surwilo. Performance of Recycled AsphaltShingles for Road Applications: Final Report. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources andChittenden Solid Waste District. September 2002.

- 35 -

incorporated into HMA. Because shingles contain a high percentage ofasphalt, the virgin asphalt content in HMA may be reduced slightly.Laboratory research indicates that RS-HMA performs well for specificsituations and mixtures, but as with any pavement, the mix design iscritical. Field-testing and observations have concluded that RS-HMAhas performed as well as control sections of conventional HMA. Atleast nine states (Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey,North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, and Florida) have standardspecifications that allow shingles to be incorporated into HMA:generally up to 5% by weight of aggregate, and using factory scraponly.

Management1) MOEA and Mn/DOT55

a) Project overviewi) In 1991, Mn/DOT began investigating whether shingle by-product from

the manufacturing process could be a usable and beneficial additive tohot-mix asphalt for paving.

ii) In 1995, Mn/DOT confirmed that asphalt pavement mix containing shingleby-products performed at least as well as or better than those mixeswithout shingle by-product.(1) Mn/DOT issued specifications for the use of up to 5% (by weight or

mixture) shingle by-product in all course for both Type 32 and Type 42mixtures.

(2) Tear off shingles are not yet allowed.iii) Similar rules exist in North Carolina, New Jersey, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio,

Washington, Michigan, and Maryland.b) Potential Benefits

i) The practice increases recycling of shingle by-products from themanufacturing process, which in turn helps reduce the amount of suchby-product that eventually finds it way to landfills.

ii) It improves the performance of hot-mix asphalt by increasing thepavement’s resistance to wear and moisture, decreasing deformation andrutting, and decreasing thermal fatigue and cracking.

iii) It reduces the cost to produce hot-mix asphalt. Current estimates placethe potential cost saving from $0.50 to $4 per ton for a mix that includesup to 5% of shingle by-product.

iv) It helps conserve the supply of increasingly scarce aggregate and virginpetroleum asphalt.

v) While an estimated 35,000 tons per year of manufactured shingle scrap isgenerated at three single manufactures in the Twin Cities Metro Area,only 20 to 40% is currently recycled.(1) This figure represents scrap shingles at manufacturing facilities--not

tear off shingles.

55 Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance and Minnesota Department ofTransportation. A Guide to the Use of Roofing Shingles in Road Construction: It’s All Part ofthe Mix. September 2002

- 36 -

(2) Tear-off shingles are shingles removed from homes or businesses.These shingles are contaminated with tar, nails, and other material.(a) Tear-off shingles represented 20% of the waste stream seen in the

Construction Waste observation study conducted by the SWMCB.(b) An estimated 400,000 tons of tear-off shingles are produced

annually in Minnesota.c) Minnesota Research

i) Minnesota Department of Transportation, University of Minnesota, andMinnesota Office of Environmental Assistance have conducted testing.

ii) Mn/DOT has continued to monitor the test sections.iii) Case Studies (See Attached) can be found in: France Avenue – Hennepin

County, Residential Paving Projects – City of St. Paul, DemonstrationProjects – Bituminous Roadways, Munger Trail, Truck Highway 25 andHighway 17 – Scott County, Demonstration Project – Allied Blacktop, DustControl Application – SKB Landfill.

d) Economicsi) The use of shingle byproduct in hot-mix asphalt can reduce the overall

cost to pave a road. Consisting of about 40% asphalt, shingles offer onecost-effective alternative to virgin asphalt and aggregate in pavingprojects.

ii) Factors influencing cost include equipment and labor to efficiently grindthe byproduct, transportation, and storage

iii) In January 1997, the National Asphalt Pavement Association published aspecial report, Use of Waste Asphalt Shingles in Hot-Mix Asphalt: State ofthe Practice. The report concluded that cost savings using 5% shinglebyproduct in hot-mix asphalt range from between $1 to $2.80 per ton.

iv) Many variables come into play when estimating possible cost saving.These include the grade of hot-mix asphalt produced the cost for virginliquid asphalt and alternative aggregates, landfill tipping fees, and thecapital cost of equipment, processing, and handling expenses.

v) The use of shingle byproduct in hot-mix is relatively new in Minnesota.Public and private organizations recently began using the material inmixes for roads and parking lots. While there has been extensive marketdevelopment and research in MN, there is not extensive data about costsavings.

2) Residential Tear-off Shingle Scrap Recycling56

a) The State of Minnesota through the MOEA, Minnesota Department ofTransportation (Mn/DOT), the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board,individual metropolitan counties and the Federal Highway Administration,together with a hot-mix pavement company have conducted a series ofstructured research and development projects.i) Results from these projects clearly demonstrate the viability of recycling

residential tear-off shingle scrap into hot-mix asphalt (HMA) used for roadpavement.

ii) The next step in this development process is for Mn/DOT to adopt anadditional specification for tear-off shingle scrap.

56 Don Kyser from the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. May 12, 2004.

- 37 -

iii) The final HMA product derived from manufactured shingle scrap has beentested in controlled field and lab experiments.(1) Environmental concerns related to the use of tear-off shingle scrap

have been shown to be insignificant.b) Mn/DOT, in 2003, updated its hot-mix asphalt material specifications allowing

the use of up to 5% ground shingle scrap from shingle manufacture for mostprimary HMA types.

c) Residential tear off shingle scrap (RRS) is also a high quality, high asphaltcontent material that can also be used in making HMA.

d) Currently, there appears to be processing capacity to grind manufacturedshingle scrap with equipment located in the Twin Cities area and in EauClaire, Wisconsin. There is essentially no existing RRS shingle processing orgrinding capacity in the metro area.

e) A shingle processing system including a grinder, screens, magneticseparators and assuming the use of loading equipment shared with otheractivities, could be expected to cost $300,000 to $400,000.

f) The metro area uses approximately 5,000,000 tons of hot-mix asphaltannually.

g) The OEA has estimated the use of RSS in 75% of HMA produced in themetropolitan area could result in:i) HMA cost reductions to businesses and government of $2,800,000

annually;ii) New gross business activity of over $6,000,000 for the RRS recycling

activity;iii) The use of approximately 190,000 tons of ground RRS annually in the

next few years;iv) The creation of 7 to 8 new jobs; and,v) Annual reductions in the use of C&D landfill capacity of approximately

200,000 to 300,000 cubic yards.3) Cost of Producing Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA)57

a) The average cost for producing one ton of HMA is approximately $18.00 perton.i) This cost includes the cost for asphaltic concrete liquid, crushed

aggregate, and plant operations.b) The cost saving by using ground shingles is approximately $0.75 per ton,

thereby, reducing the cost of HMA to $17.25 per ton.

Resourceswww.shinglerecycling.org

57 Data provided by Dusty Ordoff from Butuminous Roadways Inc. May 12, 2004.

- 38 -

In March 2004, the SWMCB adopted a resolution in support of the beneficial reuse of manufacturedshingle scrap and continued research on the beneficial reuse of “tear-off” shingles in hot-mix asphalt.Specifically, the resolution included the following clauses:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the SWMCB encourages each of its memberCounties to include statements of non-binding policy preference for shingle-derivedhot-mix asphalt when it issues requests for bids; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the SWMCB encourages Mn/DOT and theMinnesota Department of Natural Resources to include statements of non-bindingpolicy preference for shingle-derived hot-mix asphalt when these state agenciesissue requests for bids; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the SWMCB County Engineers andEnvironmental staff continue to coordinate and collaborate with Mn/DOT, OEA, andMPCA on initiatives to accelerate continued development of the shingle recyclingindustry by the private sector; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the SWMCB encourage Mn/DOT to finalize itsdraft recycled scrap shingle specification on file in the Bituminous Office into aspecification that that can be reliably used by the private sector; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the SWMCB encourage Mn/DOT to continue tocompletion its research and development of a new materials specification that couldallow “tear-off” shingles to be recycled into hot-mix asphalt based on the successfulresearch, development and implementation of “manufactured” shingle scraprecycling based on Mn/DOT’s current specification originally adopted in 1996.

- 39 -

Shredder Fluff

General Information2) Toxicity: The Main Concern of the Industrial Waste Stream

a) Automobile manufacturers phased out the use of mercury in trunk lightswitches and anti-lock brake systems in 2003. However, mercury is still used incar alarms, LCD screens, some types of headlights, and other devices.b)Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (MOEA)58

i) Shredder Fluff(1) The US secondary metals industry recovers roughly 40 million tons of

ferrous scrap annually. The largest portion comes from obsoleteautomobiles. Another less significant source is major appliances.

(2) For every ton of recyclable metal recovered, roughly 500 pounds ofnon-recyclable residue remains.

(3) High levels of heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, zinc,nickel, and copper) and poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that end upin the non-ferrous portion of the shredder fluff can have negativeimpacts upon the environment and human health.

ii) Mercury Switch Collection(1) Eleven Salvage yards in the Metro were asked to collect mercury

switches from the vehicles they processed from January through July2002 as part of a pilot project involving industry, MOEA and RamseyCounty.

(2) This project included training and materials, vehicle marking protocols,recordkeeping requirements, a $1/switch incentive payment andmonthly technical visits by county and MOEA staff to collect switchesand paperwork.

(3) 62% of the 14,000 vehicles salvaged during the study contained oneor more mercury switches for a total recovery of 8,700 switches.

(4) The average rate of mercury switches is 62 for every 100 vehiclessampled. Salvaged vehicles in MN generate an estimated 168,000mercury switches in an estimated 280,000 vehicles annually.

(5) Average mercury per switch: 1.0 to 1.7 grams.(6) Estimated mercury generated from salvaged vehicles in MN: 370 to

630 pounds per year.(7) Recommendation: automobile manufactures should discontinue the

use of mercury switches. Mercury switches must be removed fromautomobiles prior to crushing or shredding.

(8)At present, mercury switches are either removed at the salvage yard,or the mercury is released in the crushing or shredding process.Mercury remaining in vehicles during crushing or shredding is releasedthrough several pathways. When a vehicle is shredded, about 8% ofthe mercury is immediately released to the air, about 60% remains inshredder fluff (from which it is slowly released), and the remainder,

58 Gilkeson, John. Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Letter to RepresentativeRay Cox, December 18, 2003.

- 40 -

about 1/3, stays in the ferrous scrap that is fed to the electric arcfurnace (EAF). Of the mercury that enters the EAF, about 40% isemitted to the air, and about 60% is captured in bag house flue dust.The captured flue dust is sent to another facility for further metalsrecovery and it is likely that most of it is released to the air at thatfacility. (All figures are derived from NSS Mercury Mass Balance andsubject to revision.)

(9) Estimated time to remove mercury switches: Less than 3 minutes(10)Estimated average cost to remove and manage a mercury switch: $1.00.(11)At an average per switch cost of $1.00, this is equivalent to $270 to $450 per pound of mercury. In contrast, the cost to manage mercury

emissions is $3400 to $7600 per pound of mercury for activatedcarbon injection in a solid waste incinerator; $2,000 to $20,000 perpound for treating sludge incinerator scrubber water at a waste watertreatment plan; and $1 million per pound of mercury for best availabletreatment (chemical reduction/precipitation followed by ion exchange)for wastewater treatment plant discharge. The Bush Administration’sClear Skies proposal supports mercury control efforts by coal-firedutility power plants at a cost of $35,000 per pound of mercury.

(12) Disposal Options for shredder fluff: use as daily cover on solid wastelandfills or landfilled as waste in Wisconsin.

(13) What other states have done to take mercury out of automobiles:(a) In 2002, the Maine Legislature passed a law requiring auto

manufacturers to establish a program and consolidation facilities tocollect mercury switches from salvage yards for recycling, and topay salvage yards at least $1/switch “as partial compensation forthe removal, storage and transport of the switches”. This programbegan operating in early 2003. The automakers challenged this lawon several counts in court but they have not prevailed with any oftheir legal arguments.

(b) The State of Michigan conducted an auto switch research projectwith the automakers in 2002-2003 and has been negotiating withautomakers for the implementation of a ‘voluntary’ switch removalprogram for several months.

(c) New Jersey is home to several shredders and steel facilities. Theyhave conducted stack testing that found significant mercuryemissions from facilities that accept auto scrap. They havenegotiated switch removal programs with steel facilities and theirsuppliers. They are currently drafting an air quality rule for steelfacilities that will address this issue in more depth.

(d) New York DEC’s Buffalo office has developed a storm water permitregulatory compliance program and mercury switch removal andmail-in program for recycling/salvage yards, in cooperation with theauto recyclers association, shredding and steel melting facilities,and a regional Household Hazardous Waste facility.

- 41 -

(e) Colorado is working with their auto recyclers association and a steelfacility to improve mercury switch management, using funds from astipulation agreement with the steel facility.

(f) Wisconsin is working with licensed salvage yards to implement‘self-certified’ switch removal programs and ensure propermanagement of recovered switches.

(g) Other states have worked with their steel facilities, shredders,and/or auto recycling/salvage yards to research this issue anddevelop pilot programs for switch removal and recycling. Thesestates include California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington.

Minnesota Dataa) Generated

i) MOEA.59

(1) North Star Steel and Schwartzman Company Inc generate shredderfluff in the metro area.

(2) These companies and the Minnesota Office of Environment Assistancehave formed an industry work group to address specific sampling anddisposal issues.

(3) Amounts generated:

Company Tons per Day Tons per year Toxicity Problems

North Star Steel 308 90,000 LeadSchwartzman 44 13,000 Lead, PCBs

b) The difference in volumes is due mainly to the disparity in the numbers ofcars that are shredded.

ii) North Star Steel generates considerably more fluff because it processes ahigher number and percentage of cars—the main source of shredder fluff.

iii) Schwartzman shreds a combination of cars, scrap metal, and appliances.iv) Both facilities use an eddy current separator to capture an additional 5%

of non-ferrous metal from the fluff. Additional technologies are expensiveand, of course, recover a smaller percentage of the remaining non-ferrousmetals.

b) Toxicityi) PCBs originate from the dielectric fluid used in older electronic capacitors

and ballasts in major appliances and other scrap items containingdielectric fluids.

ii) Contributing sources of lead beyond car batteries which are generallyremoved prior to crushing or shredding include: circuit boards fromautomobile electronics, tinting in windshield glass, wheel weights, lead invarious metal alloys and circuit boards contained in appliances andelectronics.

iii) A contributing source of cadmium is plastics used in the interior of cars. 59 Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Personal e-mail from Jeff Connell atMinnesota Pollution Control Agency on March 1, 2004.

- 42 -

iv) Other potential environmental toxins include mercury, chromium, zinc,nickel, and copper.

c) Both facilities are currently sampling and managing their shredder fluff underan interim approved plan that allows for some averaging of the test results.

d) Disposali) All shredder fluff currently generated in MN goes to WI. Landfills owned

by Onyx, Allied/BFI, and Waste Management actively compete in WI forthe waste as it is approved by the Wisconsin Department of NaturalResources as alternative daily cover. WI adds sampling criteria to SW-846 in order to demonstrate that the waste is suitable for cover material.

ii) Shredder fluff is not currently disposed of (nor used as daily cover) in thelocal MN regional landfills due to toxicity problems.

5) Major Participantsa) Steel Recycling Institute60

i) Life span of a car: 11 years.ii) In 2000, estimates place more than 123 million passenger cars in use in

North America.iii) By weight, a typical passenger car consists of nearly 66% steel and iron.

The steel used in car bodies is made with a minimum of 25% recycledsteel.

iv) The bodies and engines are normally made from steel and iron.v) Determining annual recycling rates for automobiles is done by comparing

the annual tonnage of steel used to produce new cars with the tonnagerecycled from old cars in that year.(1) Using that method, the 2000 recycling rate is estimated to be 95%.

vi) Environmental Benefits(1) Recycling steel saves energy and natural resources.(2) By recycling one ton of steel, the following is saved:

(a) 2,500 pounds of iron ore.(b) 1,400 pounds of coal.(c) 120 pounds of limestone.

60 Steel Recycling Institute. Recycling Scrapped Automobiles: Recycling steel and iron usedin automobiles. http://www.recycle-steel.org/fact/main.html

- 43 -

Treated Wood

General Information61

1) Toxicitya) Most treated wood will contain some type of potentially dangerous

preservative. The most common chemical preservative used in treatingwood is CCA (chromated copper arsenate) or green treated wood.

b) Other preservatives such as creosol or pentachlorophenol are sometimesused. By Policy, the MPCA directs that treated wood be disposed of in apermitted landfill that meets or exceeds the design and performancestandards set forth in 40 CFR 258.40, Subtitle D.

2) Why and How It Is Useda) Most treated wood cannot be reused other than for its original purpose.

Under federal policy, CCA treated wood cannot be chipped or used as aresidential landscaping product.

b) Treated wood can be used for docks or decks.c) Several European countries are working with methods to extract the CCA and

leave the unadulterated wood for reuse or for use a fuel source. However,the process is expensive and the extracted preservatives become ahazardous waste.

3) Potential to Reduce, Reuse, or Recyclea) EPA has already placed a voluntary ban on the sale of CCA for residential

uses, which will all but eliminate any increases in the waste stream.However, due to the large amount of CCA treated wood already in use,increasing amounts will be landfilled for at least the next 10-15 years.

Minnesota Data1) Generated

a) Treated wood accounts for around 3.5 percent of the metro MSW wastestream.b) 70-90 percent is generated by residential sources

2) Disposeda) The great majority of CCA treated wood is created as a residential waste and

therefore disposed of in MSW landfills. Most demolition landfills are notallowed to accept treated wood. Some industrial solid waste landfills andC&D landfills are allowed either by permit or their industrial wastemanagement plan to accept treated wood.i) SKB Rich Valley and Rosemount accept treated wood. 62

3) Percentage of Landfill Spacea) Treated wood accounts for 3.5% of MSW and is increasing over time.

61 Matt Herman from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. March 2004.62 Ryan O’Gara from SKB Environmental. February 2004.

- 44 -

Other Issues to Considera) In an effort to reduce toxicity to the environment resulting from the wastebeing improperly managed, there is potential MPCA rulemaking that may defineliner, monitoring, and leachate collection requirements for land disposal facilitiesthat accept CCA treated wood waste.

- 45 -

Street Sweepings

General Information1) Definition

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) defines street sweepings as“materials such as sand, salt, leaves and debris removed from city streets,parking lots and sidewalks to prevent these materials from being washed intostorm sewers and surface waters, and to improve the appearance of publicroadways”.63

2) Toxicity“Street sweepings are NOT potential contaminated materials removed from spillsites, hazardous waste cleanup sites or other contaminated areas. Materialsfrom these sources, whether or not they are removed by a sweeping process,must be tested to determine if they are hazardous. If hazardous, they must bemanaged according to hazardous waste requirements.”64

3) Why and How It Is UsedAlthough street sweepings may be safe and acceptable for reuse, MPCArecommends as a precaution that they not be used in the following areas:

i) Playgrounds,ii) Children’s play areas,iii) Residential yards,iv) Areas where human contact occurs on a continuous basis,v) Areas near drinking water wells, orvi) Wellhead protection areas for public drinking water-supplies.

4) Potential to Reduce, Reuse, or Recyclea) “Prior to reuse, trash, leaves, and other debris should be removed from the

sweepings (this is often accomplished by screening, but other methods mayalso be used).”

b) Reuse potential:i) Mix with new salt/sand mixture for winter application to roads, parking

lots or sidewalks. Because the sands provide the most skid resistancewhen particle angles are sharp, effectiveness is impacted when anglesbecome worn and smooth. Therefore, previously used street sweepingsmay need to be mixed with virgin sand to be most effective.65

ii) Daily cover on landfills. MPCA recommends use only on sanitary,industrial, or demolition landfills that have a liner and ground-watermonitoring system.

iii) Clean fill material in commercial and industrial development projects, roadrestoration or construction, and natural parklands. Clean fill classification

63 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Managing Street Sweepings. Hazardous WasteDivision Fact Sheet #4.54. September 1997.64 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. September 1997.65 Warren Wilson at Dakota County Environmental Services. April 2004.

- 46 -

means that the waste has been processed to remove debris and testedand shown to be non-hazardous.

Minnesota Data1) Generated

a) Information from the Minneapolis and St. Paul Municipal Storm WaterPermits66

Collected 40,876 cubic yards of debris from street sweepingThey estimate that 17,664 cubic yards were general debris and leavesaccounted for 23,212 cubic yards

St. Paul(2001)

Also collected 7055 cubic yards of debris from detention pondmaintenance

Minneapolis(2002)

Collected 23,800 tons of material reclaimed from street sweepings and3500 tons of leaves (leaf weight was lower than other years due to dryweather conditions)

b) Street sweepings were not included as a waste stream in the Non-HazardousIndustrial Waste Report by the Minnesota Waste Management Board inOctober 22, 1987.

c) The 2000 SWMCB Industrial Waste Work Group placed street sweepings inthe following category: “Needs no evaluation to confirm – material isconsistently non-hazardous material.”67

2) Disposeda) SKB Environmental: SKB Rosemount Data for Street Sweepings:68

Year Tons Landfilled2003 112

3) Major Participantsa) While the state permits and sets standards, each city and county may have

individual requirements.

Comparisons to Other Data Sources, Policies, Programs and Projects

1) Florida:69

a) In street sweepings, heavy metals and nitrogen are lower in commercialareas than residential areas. The difference is related to the higherfrequency of sweeping in commercial areas.

b) Reuse potential: general fill, parks, and road shoulders.

66 Mike Findorff, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. February 3, 2004.67 Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board – Industrial Waste Work Group. IndustrialWaste Matrix. May 2000.68 Ryan O’Gara from SKB Environmental. February 2004.69 Liebens, Johan. Contamination of Sediments in Street Sweepings and StormwaterSystems: Pollutant Composition and Sediment Reuse Options. University of West Florida –Department of Environmental Studies. Pensacola, Florida. January 24, 2001.

- 47 -

c) Benefit of street sweeping: reduce the impact of sand and siltation of surfacewaters

d) Street sweepings can be voluminous and, consequently, reuse is preferableover disposal.

2) Maine:a) The study was completed to determine how much non-municipal solid wasteis generated and reused in Maine.70

Miles of Road Swept Amount of StreetSweepingsCollected Annually

What is done withstreet sweepings?

Auburn Bureauof Public Works

150 miles of citystreets and 200 milesof sidewalks

5000 – 7000 cubicyards

Landfill daily coverand trench backfill

Bangor PublicWorksDepartment

165 miles 1030 cubic yards Used in acomposite withclay on 700 acresof forest

GardinerDepartment ofPublic Works

40 miles 2000 cubic yards Used for fill

Lewiston PublicWorksDepartment

~360 miles 4200 yards Used for fill

70 University of Maine. Beneficial Use of Solid Waste in Maine: Street Sweepings. May 7,2002. http://useit.umeciv.maine.edu/.

- 48 -

Contaminated Soil

General Information2) Why and How It Is Used71

a) A large portion of the contaminated soil disposed at metro landfills isapproved for use as daily cover.

b) Most of it is petroleum contaminatedc) Most of the contaminated soil is from “brown field cleanups”—sites being

cleaned up for development.d) Waste approved for use as cover is not subject to the State Solid Waste Tax

(or County Host fee). This creates an incentive to reuse the material in abeneficial way, and has displaced landfill space that would otherwise beconsumed by clean fill daily cover.

Minnesota Data1) Disposed

a) Amounts of contaminated soil accepted for use as daily cover at the threemetro landfills that accept Industrial Waste (SKB Rosemount, Pine BendLandfills, and Burnsville Sanitary Landfill):i) All Contaminated Soil is used as daily cover.ii) All contaminated soil must be non-hazardous in order to be used as cover.iii) Some waste is being exported.

Year Tons Contaminated Soil relative to other waste landfilled(MSW and Industrial Waste)

2003 199,235 22%2002 297,059 36%2001 255,274 26%

b) In 2003, contaminated soil accounted for 44% of all the industrial wastereported to be landfilled at these three metro facilities

c) In 2002, contaminated soil accounted for 44 to 59% of all the industrialwaste reported to be landfilled at these three metro facilities

Management Practices1) 90% of all contaminated soil or ground water releases are caused by the

mishandling of hazardous substances.72

2) Volume is related to pricing73.a) Volume shows sensitivity to market prices and the timing of major

construction/demolition projects.3) MPCA has recently clarified the acceptable levels of mercury concentrations for

disposal to be 4ppm, which is to be calculated by soil reference test.74

71 Bill Lauer, Dakota County. February 2004.72 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Web Site. Bill Lauer visited February 2004.http://www.pca.state.mn.us/73 Ryan O’Gara from SKB Environmental. February 2004.

- 49 -

Mixed Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Ash

General Information1) Toxicity - Both mass burn and refuse derived fuel (RDF) waste-to-energy

(WTE) combustors produce two types of ash: fly and bottom ash.75

a) Fly ash is the mass of fine ash particles that become airborne duringcombustion and are collected by air pollution control equipment. Fly ash ismixed with the gypsum-like residue from the dry scrubber, where acidexhaust gasses are neutralized in a vapor of hydrated lime. Fly ash is treatedby mixing it with bottom ash (some WTE facilities also pre-treat the fly ashby mixing it with dolomitic limestone). The resultant mixture consistentlypasses the TCLP leach test, which simulates the leaching environment inlandfill and is the regulatory test for determining whether the ash is to betreated as a hazardous waste Minnesota’s nine WTE facilities each produce acombined ash that has been demonstrated to substantially fall below theMPCA’s leachate toxicity standards.

b) Bottom ash consists of the materials remaining at the bottom of the furnaceafter combustion.

2) Potential to Reduce, Reuse, or Recyclea) Ash markets depend on chemical composition, which may vary depending on

the particular technology of the combustor and any preprocessing of itswaste feedstock, and the policies of regulatory governmental agenciesregarding MSW ash reuse.

Minnesota Data1) Current Disposal Rates76

FacilityName

FacilityLocation

Type ofFacility

CountiesSupplyingWaste forMass Burnor RDF

Tons ofWet AshGeneratedin 2002

Tons ofWet AshGeneratedin 2003

Great RiverEnergy – ElkRiver Station

Elk River RDFCombustor

AnokaHennepinTri-CountySherburne

81,583 79,037

HERC Minneapolis Mass Burn Hennepin 94,099 91,654

Xcel EnergyRed Wing RDF

CombustorRamseyWashington

61,118 55,746

Xcel Energy -Wilmarth

Mankato RDFCombustor

AnokaHennepinRamsey

61,283 57,030

75 Minnesota Waste Management Board. Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste Report. October22, 1987.76 Mark Zaben, Hennepin County. January 9, 2004.

- 50 -

SherburneTri-CountyWashington

TOTAL 298,083 283,467

Management Practices1) MN Dot

a) Road construction reuse at France Ave and Bloomington.2) Currently, most of the ash is landfilled in monofills.

a) Stringent landfill requirements exist.

Other1) Recent testing and a demonstration project at a Polk County, Minnesota’s WTE

facility found that hot-mix asphalt pavement made with ash in the mixture wassuperior to standard hot-mix asphalt pavement. The study demonstrated theuse of MSW ash in a hot-mix asphalt road base course pavement. The projectresults found that the hot-mix asphalt mix design containing 5% MSW ash wassuperior in strength and flexibility to the standard mix design for the project.Extensive materials testing and on-site environmental testing were conducted.

2) A second demonstration project proposal will be submitted to MPCA by PolkCounty for consideration for the summer of 2004. The proposed project will usean asphalt mix design incorporating up to 10% ash, and involves paving a 24foot wide 7.1 inch thick MSW ash amended asphalt pavement base courseapproximately 2 miles long. The project will use approximately 3,000 tons ofMSW ash (wet ash). The ash is screened to approximately one half inch withmost passing a ¼ inch screen and is blended into the hot-mix asphalt using oneof a number of the asphalt mixing plant’s materials feed bins.

3) A proposal for a permanent MPCA beneficial use determination for the use ofWTE MSW ash in hot-mix asphalt pavement will be submitted to the MPCAduring 2004. A number of other Minnesota WTE facilities are considering MSWash-amended asphalt paving projects.77

77 Don Kyser, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, and Matt Herman, MinnesotaPollution Control Agency. March 2004.

- 51 -

Gypsum Wallboard

General Information1) Why and How It Is Used

a) Construction Waste Project78

i) Wallboard is composed of the mineral calcium sulfate dehydrate (Ca2SO4-2H20) and a paper backing

ii) Wallboard is used as an interior wall building material because of its fire-resistant properties.

iii) Recycled gypsum wallboard may be used as a feedstock material in theproduction of new dry wall. However, manufacturers often own gypsummines and utilize their own scrap from manufacturing for reuse, so thereis little motivation to incorporate post-consumer recycled in themanufacturing process.

2) Potential to Reduce, Reuse, or Recyclea) Construction Waste Project79

i) Gypsum is commonly applied to soil for the following agriculturalpurposes:(1) As a source of plant nutrients,(2) Improving soil structure,(3) Reclamation of sodic soils,(4) Correction of subsoil acidity, and(5) Fertilizer.

ii) For wallboard to be used as a gypsum source, it must be crushed prior toapplication. The paper backing biodegrades once applied to the soil andexposed to the elements.

iii) The National Association of Homebuilders suggests that individualcontractors crush wallboard on-site and land apply it as a soilamendment.

iv) Sulfate, which is contained in wallboard, dissolves with water. Sulfate hasa federal secondary drinking water standard of 250 mg/L. Underanaerobic conditions hydrogen sulfide, a noxious smelling gas, may beproduced.

v) Wallboard can be used as a liming agent(1) Many products are available for agricultural liming

vi) Other reuse potentials are for animal bedding material and as a compostamendment.(1) Gypsum’s ability to absorb moisture and control odors has been cited

as a benefit for animal bedding.(2) As a compost amendment, gypsum wallboard provides a bulking agent

to absorb moisture and allow airflow.

78Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board. Construction Waste Project. December 31,2002. Prepared by URS Corporation.79Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board. December 31, 2002.

- 52 -

b) Recycling of Gypsum Drywall in Florida80

i) The most economically feasible option identified was the reprocessing ofwallboard at a central location for use in a cement kiln.

Minnesota Data1) Disposed

a) Construction Waste Project81

i) The Construction Waste Project identified gypsum wallboard as a materialnot currently being recycled.

ii) Wallboard was not shown to be beneficially useful to soils at theproduction builder’s sites, but it could be used as an agriculturalamendment in Minnesota.

iii) Wallboard debris is already source-separated at the job site during thedemonstration project and was shown to be economically feasible toprocess and distribute.

b) SKB Environmental82

i) SKB Rich Valley Landfill

2) Major Participantsa) US Gypsum, Duluth, MN

3) Recovery Ratesa) Construction Waste Project:83

Material Recycling/ReuseOptions

Recycling/Reuse Rating

1) New wallboard 1) Poor; little interest bylocal wallboardmanufactures

2) Cement 2) Poor; no local cementkilns

3) Agricultural soilamendment

3) Fair; some potential,transportation may be anissue

Wallboard (Sheetrock)

4) On-site soilamendments

4) Good; potential exists/successful in otherlocations

80 Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Construction and Demolition DebrisRecycling Study: Final Report. 2001.81Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board. Construction Waste Project. December 31,2002. Prepared by URS Corporation.82 Ryan O’Gara from SKB Environmental. February 2004.83Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board. December 31, 2002.

Time Material Quantity DisposedJune 2002 Dry wall (construction) 928 cubic yardsDecember 2002 Dry wall (construction) 582 cubic yards

- 53 -

Comparisons to Other Data Sources, Policies, Programs and Projects

1) Vermont84

a) Traditional management of wallboard has been landfilling or incineration.i) Landfilling: Moist anaerobic conditions of landfills allow bacterial to reduce

the sulfate components of gypsum to hydrogen sulfide gas, carbondioxide, and water.

ii) Incineration: Sulfate is converted into sulfur dioxide gas. Sulfur dioxidegas reduces the alkaline scrubber’s ability to remove other acidic gases.

iii) Vermont generates approximately 7,500 tons of wallboard annually.(1) 5,000 tons is new construction.(2) 2,500 tons is combination of demolition and renovation wastes.

iv) Successfully recycling is dependent on the following criteria:(1) Processing,(2) Transportation fees (wallboard is dense and bulky),(3) Storage (will readily absorb moisture),(4) Cost of disposal tipping fees,(5) Regulations,(6) Comparable products competing within the same market,(7) Stakeholder motivations, and(8) Environmental impact.

v) Recycling potential:(1) Reuse: donate usable, new dry wall sheets.(2) Resale: used construction building supplies and material exchange

networks may accept dry sheets(3) Recycling: 95% of new construction wallboard waste can be recovered

and turned into new wallboard.(4) Land Applications: gypsum adds calcium, sulfur, and some carbon to

soils. It is also good at absorbing odors in composting.(5) On-site Land Applications: on-site grinding at new construction sites.(6) Other: animal bedding, cement production, facilitate sodium leaching,

flea powder, grease absorbent, mushroom growing, mine reclamation,odor reduction, and water treatment.

2) National Association of Home Builders85

a) Of the nearly 1.6 million new homes constructed annually in the U.S., mostuse wallboard during some part of their construction. The construction of anaverage single family American home (2,000 square feet) generates nearly 1tons of new uncontaminated wallboard waste.

3) Z-Best Products86

84 Marvin, Emma. Gypsum Wallboard Recycling and Reuse Opportunities in the State ofVermont. Waste Management Division: Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. August 4,2000.85 National Association of Home Builders. Residential Construction Waste: From disposal toManagement. June 2000. www.nahbrc.org.86 Z-best Products. Zanker Landfill, San Jose California. Agricultural Gypsum Fact Sheet.http://www.z-best.com/zbest/agricultural-gypsum/argi-gyp-factheet.html

- 54 -

a) Primary Value: adds sulfate and calcium to the soil in balance proportionsthat will not significantly increase the soil pH.

b) Recommended uses:i) Ideal for adding to soil in need of sulfur where a drop in pH is undesirable.ii) Good to add to soils needing both sulfur and calcium.iii) Good facilitator for removal of excessive levels of sodium or magnesium.

c) This company sells products made from recycled new construction wallboard.4) Integrated Waste Management Board, CA87

a) Quantities Generated:i) New: The U.S. produces approximately 15 million tons of new wallboard

per year. California’s wallboard usage is estimated to be 1.8 million tonsper year

ii) New Scrap: Approximately 12% of new construction wallboard is wastedduring installation, producing over 200,000 tons of scrap in California peryear.

iii) Wallboard Scrap Generators: Most wallboard waste is generated from newconstruction, 64%; followed by demolition, 14%; manufacturing, 12%,and renovation, 10%.

b) Benefits of wallboard: Ground wallboard can provide a source of boron, anessential plant micronutrient, to soil when land applied. Although boron canbe toxic to plants in high concentrations but is an essential micronutrient.

c) Potential Marketi) Stucco additive: A company is New Jersey is adding recycled gypsum to

stucco.ii) Sludge drying: A company in New York is researching the mixing of

recycling gypsum with sludge for bulking and drying. (Study funded bythe State of New York.)

iii) Water treatment: Recycled gypsum could be used to settle dirt and clayparticles in turbid waters. (Study funded by the State of New York.)

iv) Salty soil treatment: Recycled gypsum could be used to facilitate theleaching out of sodium salt in soil along roads where salt is spread duringthe winter.

v) Manure treatment: Recycled gypsum can be mixed with animal waste, incombination with ammonia, to reduce odor. (Several case studies fromWashington.)

vi) Athletic field marker: Gypsum is used to mark lines on athletic fields.

Management Practices1) Construction Waste Project88- Wallboard Economic and Market Feasibility Study

a) In Minnesota, wallboard subcontractors at most production builders aretypically required to include the cost of clean-up and disposal of waste

87 Intergraded Waste Management Board, California. Construction and Demolition FactSheet: Dry Wall Recycling. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ConDemo/FactSheets/Drywall.htm88Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board. Construction Waste Project: DrywallEconomic and Market Feasibility Study, Appendix G. December 31, 2002. Prepared by URSCorporation.

- 55 -

wallboard when bidding a construction job. This results in wallboard beingseparated from other construction wastes on site.

b) A successful wallboard processing and recycling operation exists in DoorCounty, WI, that processes wallboard and distributes it to local farmers invarious surrounding counties.i) Tipping fees for wallboard range from $30-$60 per ton.

c) An economic feasibility study was conducted on the recyclability of gypsumwallboard in the SWMCB area. Research by URS showed that soils inMinnesota need sulfur as a soil amendment in the area roughly from Hudson,WI to St. Cloud, MN.i) Potato crops can benefit from added sulfur.

d) Wallboard recycling facility economic analysis.

*Drywall© and Sheetrock© are two trade name products of wallboard.

- 56 -

Sewage Sludge and Sewage Sludge Ash

General Information1) Toxicity

a) University of Northern Iowa89

i) When sludge contains pollutants at or above the regulatory limit, it ishazardous and must be disposed of by a hazardous waste managementcompany.

b) DOTi) Sewage sludge ash is the by-product generated during the combustion of

dewatered sewage sludge in an incinerator.ii) Sludge ash properties depend on the nature of the wastewater,

incineration method, air quality control equipment, chemicals used in thetreatment, and handling of the sludge.

iii) The pH of sludge ash varies between 6 and 12 but is generally alkaline.iv) Trace metals such as lead, cadmium, zinc, and copper may been found.

2) Potential to Reduce, Reuse, or Recyclea) DOT

i) Sludge ash has been previously used as a raw material in Portland cementconcrete production, aggregate in flowable fill, mineral filler in asphaltpaving mixes, and a soil conditioner mixed with lime and sewage sludges.

ii) Sludge ash has also been proposed as a substitute lightweight aggregatethat would be produced by firing sludge ash--or a mixture of sludge ashand clay--at elevated or sintering temperatures.

b) Minnesota Department of Transportation90

i) DOT has completed a Hazard Assessment of the use of sewage sludge ashin road construction.

ii) A 5% blend is approved for highway bituminous asphalt wear course andbase course for highway use.All projects must be permitted and meet non-hazardous waste criteria

c) Future Considerationsi) The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services facility in St Paul will beswitching incinerators in the summer or fall of 2004. The new incineratorand air quality control equipment will likely change the chemical and physicalcharacteristics of the ash. It is not known to what degree the ash willchange, or how it will affect current or future reuse proposals. The DOT willlikely require a re-characterization of the material to confirm its suitability forreuse. The use of the ash as a raw material in Portland cement takes placein Iowa and, with the exception of transportation of the material, is outsidethe authority of the MPCA.

89 University of Northern Iowa. Vehicle Maintenance Pollution Prevention. Small BusinessPollution Prevention Center: Iowa Waste Reduction Center. 1995.90 Personal correspondence with Bruce Johnson at Minnesota Department of Transportation.February 19, 2004.

- 57 -

ii) There have been recent discussions surrounding the composting of sewagesludges to be used as a component in the creation of engineered soils or soilproducts. This is being done in other states throughout the country and is apotential area for reuse of this material in the future.

Minnesota Data1) Generated

a) MCES generates 16,500 tons of sludge ash:91

i) 90% St. Paulii) 10% Eagan

2) Disposeda) All MN sludge ash goes to Holham Cement Kiln in Mason City, IA, for addition

in Portland cement.92

3) Recovery Ratesa) Metropolitan Waste Control Commission of Minneapolis (MET Council)

i) Demonstration project results show no visible difference between thepavement sections containing sludge ash and adjacent sections containingconventional materials:

Date Location Sludge Ash Content Course1983 Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport

(two bypass roads)2% and 3% Base binder wearing

1989 Bridge Overpass 1-94 2% Wearing1990 TH-47, City of Ramsey 2% Leveling Wearing1990 TH-97, Forest Lake Twp. 2% Base binder wearing

Comparisons to Other Data Sources, Policies, Programs and Projects

1) DOTa) National Data: Incineration of sewage sludge (dewatered to approximately

20% solids) reduces the weight of feed sludge requiring disposal byapproximately 85%.

b) Nationally, 170 municipal sewage treatment incinerators processapproximately 20% of all sludge, and produce between 0.45 million and 0.9million metric tons (0.5 and 1.0 million tons) of sludge ash annually.

Management Practices1) University of Northern Iowa93

a) Sludge can be dried by spreading it on an impermeable surface, such asconcrete, or by placing it in a drum and periodically mixing. Directapplication of sludge on the ground (e.g., landscaping) should be avoided asit may cause environmental damage for which the waste generator would beliable.

2) DOT 91 Matt Herman, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, February 9, 2004.92 Matt Herman. February 9, 2004.93 University of Northern Iowa. 1995.

- 58 -

a) Due to the relatively small quantities of ash generated, provisions for ashstorage will be required to accumulate sufficient amounts for mostapplications.

3) Sludge has also been used for landfill cover in other states.

- 59 -

Medical Waste

General Information1) Why and How It Is Used

a) Medical waste is a general term applied to wastes generated from a varietyof industry sources including dentistry, dialysis, environmental services, lab,pathology, pharmacy, nuclear medicine, radiology, sterile processing, andsurgery.i) Medical wastes, depending on type, may be regulated as industrial solid,

hazardous, industrial, infectious, or radioactive.b) In this review industrial solid, infectious, and radioactive wastes will be

considered as Non-MSW wastes.c) Infectious waste is that which has the potential to transmit disease.

i) Examples include regulated body fluids (blood and blood products,amniotic, cerebrospinal, pericardial, peritoneal, pleural, and synovialfluids) and items dripping with those fluids, as well as laboratory wastes,infected research animal waste, sharps, and pathology waste.

ii) Such waste is sometimes also called biohazard, red bag, or regulatedmedical waste.

d) Although not discussed in detail here, hazardous wastes, which include somepharmaceuticals including bulk chemotherapy and lab reagents, are part of aseparate SWMCB initiative.

2) Potential to Reduce, Reuse, or Recyclea) Case studies show that through comprehensive education programs,

hospitals can dramatically decrease red bag waste: amounts originally ashigh as 90% of the waste stream can be reduced to as little as 6 to 10%. 94

i) Significant opportunities for medical waste reduction also result fromeliminating such items as coffee cups, packaging, paper towel waste, andclean blue wrap from red bag waste. Hospitals can develop programs toeducate staff in properly handling the institution’s distinct waste streams.

ii) Hospital waste also may contain items such as reusable instruments,linen, and other supplies.

b) In health care settings, reduction gains are made through waste segregationand looking “upstream” to find ways to reduce waste volume and toxicity.95

i) Methods for upstream reduction opportunities include waste audits andmanagement plans.

ii) A review of the use of disposable products can also contribute to wastereduction.

iii) This review must be done on an item-by-item basis and consider infectionrisks.

94 Hospitals for a Healthy Environment. “10 Steps to Implementing a Regulated MedicalWaste Reduction Plan.” www.h2e-online.org.95 Hospitals for a Healthy Environment. “University of Michigan Hospitals and HealthCenters: Being Sustainable is Attainable” www.h2e-online.org.

- 60 -

Minnesota Data1) Disposed

a) Many hospitals routinely dispose of 50-70% of their waste into thebiohazardous waste stream, although a large portion is similar to that of ahotel or office building.96

i) Red bags and shipping boxes sometimes comprise the largest portion ofthe hospital waste stream.

b) MPCA provides guidance on its web site on “Managing Wastes from HealthCare Providers” 97 which includes a table of the many regulated medicalwastes, disposal methods, and associated fact sheets.98

Comparisons to Other Data Sources, Policies, Programs and Projects(include contact information, date, and web address)1) “University of Michigan Hospitals and Health Centers: Being Sustainable is

Attainable” 99

a) A case study on the University’s P2 programs demonstrates how oneprogram made an impact in reducing medical and general waste throughrecycling and waste reduction methods such that now 30% of the total wastestream is recycled.

b) Under the program, donations are made of previously discarded unused orexpired instruments, old wheel chairs, and other medical supplies (asappropriate) to charity programs, shelters, and the non-profit World Relief fordistribution in hospitals in developing countries.

2) Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E)100

a) As the web site for the H2E program, www.h2e-online.org provides a numberof publications, guidance documents, case studies, and links.

b) H2E is also implemented in Minnesota by MnTAP(http://mntap.umn.edu/health/).

c) The H2E program is an outgrowth of the agreement signed by the AmericanHospital Association and USEPA to work on persistent bioaccumulative toxins,and to reduce the volume of waste by 50 % by 2010.

d) MnTAP offers technical assistance to those hospitals undertaking thisprogram.

3) Other sources of information include: 101

a) http://www.uml.edu/centers/LCSP/hospitals/ This sustainable hospitals siteprovides health care professionals with tools and information to improveenvironmental practices.

96 Hospitals for a Healthy Environment. “10 Steps to Implementing a Regulated MedicalWaste Reduction Plan.” www.h2e-online.org.97 MPCA. “Managing Waste from Health CareProviders.”http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/w-hw3-34.pdf.98 MPCA. “Table of Common Regulated Wastes In Health Care Industry.”http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/w-hw3-34a.pdf.99 Hospitals for a Healthy Environment. “University of Michigan Hospitals and Health Centers:Being Sustainable is Attainable.” www.h2e-online.org.100 MnTAP. “Health Care.” http://mntap.umn.edu/health/101 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. “Medical/Infectious Waste.”http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/aw/wm/publications/medinf/medinflk.htm

- 61 -

b) http://outreqach.misssouri.edu/polsol/health.htm This site provides specificwaste reduction suggestions for health care and other businesses (6).

c) http://uvm.edu/-dceweb/profprog/healthCare/iindex.htm. This site providestraining on waste reduction in health care (6).

d) http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/medical/index.htm The USEPA medicalwaste home page provides many links (6).

e) http://www.noharm.org The site for “Health Care Without Harm: TheCampaign for Environmentally Responsible Health Care” includes publicationsand links (6).

f) http://www.albanyonline.com/hrcc The Healthcare Resources ConservationCoalition (HRCC) site includes publications, bibliography, and links (6).

Management Practices1) Currently, health care industrial solid waste is disposed at landfills or

incinerated.2) Red bag waste must be autoclaved or incinerated, then disposed of at an

approved landfill.3) In a project at Health East, MnTAP found that 20% of waste disposed as red bag

waste instead could be disposed as general solid waste at a cost savings of$60,000 to the company.102

4) Because this process is expensive, health care providers should ensure onlytruly infectious wastes are added to this waste stream

102 Verbal communication with Catherine Zimmer of MnTAP to Sheila Wiegman, April 28,2004.

- 62 -

Photo Resist Sludge

General Information1) Why and How It Is Used

a) Photo resist sludge is generated during circuit board manufacturing. Photodeveloping is a three-step process:i) Lay a coating on a bare board,ii) Expose a patter with light, andiii) Strip off paint coating with a caustic stripper.

b) Matured waste stream

Minnesota Data1) Generated

a) MnTAP103

i) According to the 2003 Minnesota Harris Directory, there are 77 companiesin Minnesota of which 44 are in the Metro area in SIC 3672 (printed circuitboards).

What Information Is Missing or Needed?1) MnTAP104

a) No known sources of reliable data existi) In order to obtain good date, a survey of companies will be necessary.ii) MnTAP employees with experience in photo resistant sludge believe that

the volume of waste is not high, but that is guesswork.

103 Randy Cook. Minnesota Technical Assistance Program February 23, 2004.104 Randy Cook. Minnesota Technical Assistance Program February 23, 2004.

- 63 -

Vinyl Siding

General Information1) Why and How It Is Used

a) Vinyl siding is made from polyvinyl chloride that can be repeatedly groundup, re-melted, and formed into a variety of products.

2) Potential to Reduce, Reuse, or Recyclea) Reuse is already promoted within the industry during manufacturing.

Trimmings and shavings have been ground up and used again to makesiding. Scrap remaining from construction and remodeling is consideredsuitable for recycling.

b) Vinyl siding must be homogenous in color to be recycled.c) Pre-consumer vinyl scrap has two desirable characteristics:

i) Natural points exist for collection and consolidation (construction sites,manufactured housing production facilities, and landfills), and

ii) The materials generated at these points are relatively free ofcontamination.

Minnesota Data1) Generated

a) Nationally, approximately 6% percent of the total weight of vinyl siding usedat jobs is thrown away annually--totaling approximately 96 million pounds ofscrap available for recovery each year (Vinyl Siding Institute) (1). This scrapis estimated to be less than 1% of the materials remaining after houseconstruction.

b) Vinyl siding is easy to source separate.

Economics1) According to the Recycling Times, there is strong demand for recycled vinyl.

The demand may be as high as 500 million pounds per year for use in sewerpipe, electrical conduits, irrigation pipes, outdoor furniture, fencing, electricalcable coating, garden hoses, floor mat backings, molded tool handles, industrialsheeting, and tarps.

2) Market rates for recycled vinyl flake range from 13 to 21 cents per pound.Markets fluctuate by region, type of market, and quality.

3) The document, “Vinyl Siding Recycling: A How-To Guide,” explains how todetermine if there are markets for recycling of vinyl siding.

Management Practices1) Quality control, which is important for the success of recycling vinyl siding,

requires education at the collection site. Vinyl siding recycling involvesprocessing the material into PVC flake for markets.

- 64 -

References1. The American Plastics council. “Vinyl Siding Recycling: A How to Guide.” 2004.http://plasticsresource.com/splasticsresource/doc.asp?TRACKID=&CID=174&DID=3972. Chlorine Community Council. “Vinyl Stewardship Breakthrough: PartnershipRecycling Project Gives Vinyl Building Scrap New Lease on Life.” http://c3.org/newscenter/ccc periodicals/vinyl stew breakthrough.html.

- 65 -

Vehicle Windshields

General Information1) Potential to Reduce, Reuse, or Recycle

a) Canadian Information105

i) Currently, approximately 75% of junked vehicles are shredded to recoveriron and steel.

ii) After the ferrous material is magnetically separated, the remaindercontains about 16% of glass originating from windshields, side windows,and sunroofs, most of which are normally landfilled.

iii) Reuse or recovery is made difficult by quick defrost windshields, tintingtechniques, metallic crystal alignment films, and implosion proofing by anew inner polymer laminate.

iv) Uses for recycled glass:(1) If uncontaminated with plastic, it can be melted and spun into

fiberglass or molded into other products.(2) Impure glass can be incorporated into agricultural aggregate, or

ground for abrasives.b) Clean Washington Center106

i) Windshields are manufactured with two layers of glass with a strongplastic (usually PVC) membrane sandwiched between the panes. Thislimits recycling options.

ii) Plate glass is challenging to recycle because of its different chemicalcomposition from container glass.

iii) If glass can be separated from plastic, windshields and plate glass can berecycled into construction aggregate.

iv) Separating film plastic from windshield glass requires that the glass bebroken adequately to free the film, while keeping the film in large enoughpieces that it can be removed without fouling equipment.

2) Minnesota Data3) Generated

a) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency107

i) Windshields are very hard to recycle(1) Currently a windshield consists of two layers of glass with a plastic

layer in-between.(2) In the future, windshield manufactures are considering moving from

two to three glass layers.ii) The windshields are a structural component of the car. They are

connected to a car with a bonding tape and then the tape is painted black.

105 Natural Resources Division of Canada. Automotive Recycling Archives Articles.Recycling Technology Newsletter. May 1996..106 Clean Washington Center. Best Practices in Glass Recycling: ProcessingAutomotive Windshield Glass. November 1996.107 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Personal Conversation with John Ikeda.February 18, 2004.

- 66 -

iii) The windshield and bonding tape are then coated with a protective layer.(1) Coating contains high levels of lead.

(a) This can cause windshields to fail hazardous waste testing.(2) Windshield testing project has been completed.

(a) Windshield B20 tested as having a lead level of 670 mg/kg.

4) Disposeda) SKB Environmental: Rosemount Data for Windshield disposal108

Year Tons Landfilled2003 43

Comparisons to Other Data Sources, Policies, Programs and Projects1) United States Council for Automotive Research Windshield Collection Pilot

Project109

a) The Recycling Materials Center, a program of the Center for EnvironmentalPolicy, Economics and Science (CEPES) in Ann Arbor, MI, successfullycompleted negotiations in July with Henderson Glass of Bloomfield Hills, MI;Waste Management of Michigan, Inc. of Livonia, MI; and Strategic Materialsof Houston to set up the pilot project.

b) According to J.D. Snyder, CEPES's director of the Recycling Materials Center,over 70 tons of windshield material per month is currently landfilled byHenderson Glass, a Michigan chain of 33 glass replacement stores.

c) For 90 days, five metropolitan Detroit Henderson Glass stores will collectdamaged windshields in special dumpsters dedicated to windshield recycling.Waste Management is responsible for collecting these windshields once perweek from Henderson and transporting them to Strategic Materials' Detroitfacility to study glass processing and recycling. Some windshield glass isalready recycled, but the plastic laminates are not recovered.

Economics1) Auto Recycling Demonstration Project110

a) Glass recovery from auto disassembly operations was determined to beunfeasible in the near term because of the difficulty of removal (along withcorresponding high recovery costs) and low material prices. High recoverycosts and low material prices undermine market development in the absenceof some kind of external intervention.

108 Data provided by Ryan O’Gara from SKB Environmental. February 2004.109 United States Center for Automotive Research. USCAR Sponsors Project to TackleWindshield Recycling Issue. August 18, 1998.http://www.theautochannel.com/F/news/press/date/19980818/press016023.html.110 Prepared by Great Lakes Institute for Recycling Markets for the MichiganDepartment of Environmental Quality. Auto Recycling Demonstration Project.January 23, 1998. http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-ead-recycle-autofinal.pdf.

- 67 -

b) A demonstration project focused on recovery of auto glass from glassreplacement and collision shops.

c) Price ranges up to $20-$30 per ton of plate glass but as little as no net pricefor windshields.

d) Market prices for PVB resin (plastic material found between glass layers in awindshield) is approximately $1.50 per pound and $3.00-6.00 per pound forformulated PVB. Such a technology to remove this product would have asignificant positive impact on the economic feasibility of auto windshield glassrecovery.

e) Two methods were unsuccessfully used to remove windshield glass:i) Forklift: too much shattering for efficient removal.ii) Cutting the windshield bond with piano wire preserved an intact

windshield but required too much time to be cost-effective. (If this couldbe done faster or with a better tool, cutting could be the solution for cost-effectiveness.)

Management Practices1) Best Practices: Systems are available to crush windshields and screen film

plastic residuals in a turnkey system.111

2) Benefits: With effective processing, there is no need for windshield glass togo to landfills. Windshield glass represents a substantial supply of relativelyclean, clear plate glass which has potentially widespread applications,including aggregate and industrial minerals applications.112

111 Clean Washington Center. Best Practices in Glass Recycling: Processing AutomotiveWindshield Glass. November 1996.112 Clean Washington Center. Best Practices in Glass Recycling: Processing AutomotiveWindshield Glass. November 1996.

APPENDIX FNon-MSW Matrix

V:\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT APPENDICES\Appendix F Non MSW Matrix.doc

APPENDIX F NON-MSW MATRIX

CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY II CATEGORY III

Waste Stream Satisfactory Data Recycling Reduction Reuse Toxicity Reduction

Research and Development

Concrete & Asphalt Waste X

Brick Waste X Metal Waste X

Metal Shavings and Turnings X

Packaging Waste X X X Wood Waste X X X Lime Sludge X

Foundry Sands X Coal Ash X Shingles X X

Shredder Fluff X X X X Treated Wood X

Street Sweepings X X X Contaminated Soil X X X

MSW Ash X X Gypsum Drywall X X X

Photo Resist Sludge X Vinyl Siding X Paint Filters X

Plastic Tubing X Vehicle Windshield

Glass X

Sewage Sludge & Sewage Sludge Ash X X

Blasting Media X Shrink Wrap X

Foam X Insulation X

Medical Waste X X X

APPENDIX GNon-MSW Resources

Appendix GNon-MSW Resources

The following organizations offer education in the areas of non-MSWreduction, reuse and recycling.

Green Guardianwww.GreenGuardian.com

Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP)McNamara Alumni CenterUniversity of Minnesota Gateway Center200 Oak Street SE, Suite 350Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 - 2008(612) 624-1300(800) 247-0015www.mntap.umn.edu

Minnesota Waste WiseMinnesota Chamber of Commerce400 Robert Street North, Suite 1500St. Paul, MN 55101(651) 292-4650(800) 821-2230www.mnwastewise.org

Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (MOEA)520 Lafayette Rd North, Floor 2St. Paul, MN 55155-4100(651) 296-3417(800) 657-3843www.moea.state.mn.us