2004 CHARACTERIZATION OF NON- MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE STREAM

Transcription

1 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 URS Job Project Number:

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION... 7 SECTION 2 OVERVIEW OF THE NON-MSW STREAM Total Non-MSW Landfilled Total Non-MSW Disposal Capacity Primary Components of Non-MSW Stream Construction and Demolition Waste Composition Characterization Industrial Solid Waste Characterization SECTION 3 EVALUATION OF NON-MSW WASTES SECTION 4 SELECTED NON-MSW WASTES BY CATEGORY Category I Wastes: Waste Streams to be Monitored Concrete and Asphalt Waste Brick Waste Metal Waste Metal Shavings and Turnings Lime Sludge Paint Filters Plastic Tubing Blasting Media Foam Insulation Category II Wastes: Priority Waste Streams for Regional Initiatives 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 Category III Wastes: Waste Streams for Future Research and Evaluation Photo Resistance Sludge Vinyl Siding Vehicle Windshields \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doci August 2004

3 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream SECTION 5 FINDINGS Toxicity Reduction Potential for Reduction, Recycling and Reuse Landfill Abatement Techniques SECTION 6 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION 7 CONCLUSIONS APPENDICES Appendix A Non-MSW Work Group Participants Appendix B List of Facilities and Data Description Appendix C 1998 to 2003 Non-MSW Waste Volumes Appendix D Industrial Waste Flash Card Appendix E Non-MSW Flash Cards Category I: Concrete and Asphalt Waste Brick Waste Metal Waste Metal Shavings and Turnings Lime Sludge Paint Filters Plastic Tubing Blasting Media Foam Insulation Category II: Packaging Waste Wood Waste Foundry Sands Coal Ash Shingles Shredder Fluff Treated Wood Street Sweepings Contaminated Soil MSW Ash Gypsum Wallboard Sewage Sludge and Sewage Sludge Ash Medical Waste Category III: Photo Resistance Sludge Vinyl Siding Vehicle Windshields Appendix F Non-MSW Matrix Appendix G Non-MSW Resources \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.docii August 2004

4 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Regional Solid Waste Master Plan established as a principal outcome an increase in reduction, reuse, recycling and processing of non-msw. A key intermediate outcome was to prepare waste characterization data for policy and program development, which has been a focus of SWMCB work for the last several years. The Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) 2004 work plan and budget directs staff to conduct 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 for toxicity reduction, waste reduction, reuse and recycling. The primary purpose of this task is to inform the development 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, Dakota County, 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 task described above. Work Group participants researched and evaluated the waste streams, and documented the findings. The SWMCB contracted with URS Corporation (URS) to prepare a report that synthesizes the 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 not considered 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 medical waste 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 addition to the non-msw represented in this report, the region generated approximately 280,000 wet tons of MSW ash from resource recovery facilities in 2003, which was also disposed in landfills serving the SWMCB region. 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 of existing 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, and after additional in-depth research, evaluation and discussion, the Work Group then assigned each selected non-msw material to one of three final categories. The waste stream categories are defined below: \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc1 August 2004

5 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream Category I Wastes: Waste Streams to be Monitored Wastes assigned to Category I have satisfactory data available, and this data suggests that the material is being managed appropriately. Category I wastes are not considered a priority for the region to focus on at this time; however, any changes to their status will be monitored by the Work Group. Category I wastes are 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 Initiatives Wastes assigned to Category II are those that have satisfactory data available, and this data demonstrates that the material may be large in volume, or it may be expensive to manage, problematic, or may pose an elevated environmental risk if improperly disposed. Wastes placed in Category II appear to have the most potential for increased reduction, recycling, reuse and/or toxicity reduction. Category II wastes are presented 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 Evaluation Wastes in Category III do not have satisfactory data available. These waste streams may be recommended for 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 blasting media, shredder fluff and vehicle windshield glass. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc2 August 2004

6 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream Blasting Media Blasting media may contain heavy metals resulting from the blasting process. For example, blasting media waste containing paint removed from an old water tower may have hazardous concentrations of lead. Shredder Fluff High levels of heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, zinc, nickel, and copper) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) may be contained in the non-ferrous portion of the shredder residue. Vehicle Windshield Glass Vehicle windshields have a protective coating that contains high levels of lead, and this can cause windshields 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 appear to have the most immediate potential for reduction, recycling and reuse. Coal Ash: Reuse Potential A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for coal 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 for production of aggregate that will be used in concrete or concrete products. Approximately 70 to 75% of fly ash generated is still disposed in landfills and storage lagoons. Shingles: Reuse and Recycling Potential A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for manufacture shingle scrap. Minnesota Department of Transportation (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 scrap generated at three single manufactures in the Twin Cities Metro Area, but only 20 to 40% of this is currently recycled into hot-mix asphalt. Residential tear-off shingle scrap 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 industry is to expand the MnDOT asphalt pavement specification provisions to allow for the use of residential tearoff shingle scrap in hot-mix asphalt. Street Sweepings: Reduction and Reuse Potential Sand 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 or industrial uses. Street sweepings can be voluminous and, consequently, reuse is preferable to disposal. Foundry Sands: Reuse Potential A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for non-hazardous waste foundry sands. This determination allows foundry sands to be used as a feedstock for the manufacture of Portland Cement. In addition, the MPCA anticipates multiple case-specific beneficial use determination proposals to be submitted in the near future for the reuse of foundry sands as a component in asphalt. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc3 August 2004

7 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream LANDFILL ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES There are several over-arching management techniques in place to reduce the amount of non-msw landfilled. These landfill abatement techniques are discussed below. Market Development Having 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 lime sludge as an agricultural soil amendment. Because this viable market exists, this material is rarely, if ever, landfilled in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Education Organizations that offer education in the areas of non-msw reduction, reuse and recycling include the Green Guardian, MnTAP, Waste Wise Minnesota and the MOEA. Industry organizations, such as the National Asphalt Pavement Association, and academic institutions, such as the University of Minnesota, are also excellent sources of information. Taxes and Fees Taxes, fees, or exemptions can be an effective mechanism to influence reduction, reuse and recycling. For example, 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 that would otherwise be consumed by clean soils used as daily cover. Regulation Regulation has a direct effect on non-msw management. For example, prohibiting yard waste from being disposed in landfills has had a significant impact on the disposal practices of the waste stream. The beneficial reuse rules implemented by the MPCA may create opportunities to reuse or recycle certain non-msw waste streams in new ways. An example may be the potential use of MSW ash in hot-mix asphalt. Regulation may also be used to encourage or require sustainable building practices. For example, in January 2001, the Dakota County Board adopted Design, Construction, and Sustainability Standards for Dakota County Buildings. The standards outline construction quality control and assurance; staff productivity issues (such as indoor air quality, lighting, safety, and security); life cycle cost effectiveness and accountability; systematic approach to energy and resource management and conservation; building material selections; components; equipment; and sustainability. Technological Innovation New or innovative technologies, such as carpet recycling or manufacturing new gypsum wallboard from waste wallboard, can provide additional opportunities for non-msw. Research and development and pilot projects can be instrumental in these endeavors. Procurement Practices Government procurement practices can be effective in reducing the amount of non-msw landfilled. For example, a municipality may require a contractor to recycle a certain percentage of C & D waste generated during the construction of a government facility. Government procurement practices, such as purchasing only paper that has a specified recycled paper content, can promote recycling markets. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc4 August 2004

8 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream NON-MSW WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS Ten non-msw management strategies relative to toxicity reduction, waste reduction, reuse, recycling and proper management are proposed in this report. The implementation of these strategies will require the SWMCB and its member counties to seek out partnerships with other units of government, private industry and academic institutions. In addition, the State of Minnesota, other public entities, academic institutions and private industry are continually investing in innovative research initiatives to increase the reduction, beneficial reuse and recycling of non-msw. Collaborative efforts have historically been 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 and toxicity), reuse and recycle non-msw. These strategies represent the views of multiple stakeholders and are not put forth as binding policy for the SWMCB region. The Non-MSW Work Group asks that these recommendations be considered by the SWMCB Regional Policy Development Committee as they prepare the outcomes and strategies for the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan. The SWMCB should support research initiatives of the State, trade associations and other organizations pursuing the beneficial reuse of non-msw, including, but not limited to, postconsumer 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, disseminating information to public entities, conducting research and implementing demonstration projects. Where state approval exists, the SWMCB should promote the beneficial reuse of non-msw in road construction projects. The SWMCB should research and develop a streamlined method for collecting and analyzing non-msw data from generators, contractors, municipalities, haulers, waste management providers and other data sources. Each year, the SWMCB should target an industrial, construction, and/or demolition waste material 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 the MPCA solid waste utilization rules. The SWMCB should identify and implement a product stewardship initiative targeted at a large volume or toxic non-msw waste stream (possibilities include the elimination of mercury switches in automobiles or the labeling of construction materials containing asbestos). The SWMCB should research the composition of the medical waste stream and develop and implement an action plan for waste reduction, toxicity reduction and recycling. The SWMCB should continue to evaluate the use of market based, financial and regulatory incentives that encourage reduction, reuse and recycling of non-msw materials. The SWMCB should continue to evaluate the challenges and barriers, including existing financial and regulatory disincentives, to reducing, reusing and recycling non-msw. The SWMCB should support MOEA market development initiatives that will help business recovering non-msw materials become more profitable. Support should include, but is not \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc5 August 2004

9 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream limited to, disseminating information to public entities, conducting research and implementing demonstration projects. The public entities in the SWMCB region should incorporate sustainable architectural guidelines in the planning process for construction and remodeling of government buildings. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc6 August 2004

10 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) 2004 work plan and budget directs staff to conduct 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 for toxicity reduction, waste reduction, reuse and recycling. The primary purpose of this task is to inform the development of strategies and outcomes for the 2005 to 2024 Regional Solid Waste Master Plan. In addition, the analysis will be consulted annually for the development of the SWMCB annual work plan and budget. Nevertheless, this report represents a snapshot in time of the non-msw stream. Recommended strategies 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, Dakota County, 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 task described 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 SWMCB contracted with URS Corporation (URS) to prepare a report that synthesized the Work Group s research findings and recommendations. The terms reuse and recycling are frequently used throughout this document. For purposes of this report, recycling is separating marketable materials from the non-msw waste stream and using them in manufacturing processes that would not preclude further use. Reuse is utilizing materials separated from the non-msw waste stream in their original form. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc7 August 2004

11 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream 2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE NON-MSW STREAM Non-municipal solid waste (non-msw) is a broad and highly variable waste stream defined by nonhazardous materials that are not considered (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 in its analysis of the non-msw stream. The Master Plan established as a principal outcome an increase in reduction, reuse, recycling and processing of non-msw. A key intermediate outcome was to develop waste characterization data for policy and 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 readily available source of non-msw management data is from annual reports submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency by permitted non-msw landfills. These landfills do not track the origin of the waste they receive, thus non-msw data is not available by county or region. In addition, significant amounts of non-msw is being reused, recycled or processed, such as the recycling of concrete from the demolition 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 amount of 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 data was 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 in Dakota, McCleod, Scott, Sherburne, Washington and Wright Counties (Table 1) These figures do not represent recycling of C & D or industrial waste, and do not include ash landfilled. Disposal data by facility is presented in Appendix C. In addition, 280,000 wet tons of ash from resource recovery facilities in the SWMCB region was landfilled in Table 1: NonMSW Landfilled at Facilities Serving the SWMCB Region (tons) Change Total C & D Waste 1,367,621 1,624,857 1,536,027 1,490,849 1,482,014 1,330,099 Generated Percent Change n/a 19% (5%) (3%) (1%) (10%) (3%) Total Industrial 930, ,696 1,042,147 1,099, , ,309 Waste Generated Percent Change n/a 0% 12% 5% (20%) 7% (1%) Total Non-MSW 2,297,693 2,556,553 2,578,174 2,590,012 2,359,578 2,273,408 Generated 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 for this are not known. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc8 August 2004

12 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream Chart 1. Non-MSW Lanfilled at Facilities Serving the SWMCB Tons (millions) TOTAL NON-MSW DISPOSAL CAPACITY This SWMCB region has considerable current and potential landfill capacity for non-msw disposal. In 2003, the total permitted industrial waste and construction and demolition (C & D) landfill capacity serving the SWMCB Area was approximately 28.9 million cubic yards. Un-permitted, conceptual design capacity potentially provides an additional 41.9 million cubic yards. Therefore the metropolitan area has a total permitted and potential added landfill capacity of approximately 71 million cubic yards. Although it may appear there is sufficient non-msw landfill capacity to serve the area, this does not preclude the need to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste disposed. 2.3 PRIMARY COMPONENTS OF NON-MSW STREAM 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). Demolition waste includes waste resulting from the demolition of buildings, roads, and other structures including concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, untreated wood, masonry, glass, trees, rock, and plastic building parts (Minnesota Rules ). In 2003, approximately 1.3 million tons of C & D waste was disposed in facilities serving the SWMCB region. The amount of C & D waste disposed has gradually been declining since The reasons for this are not known. Twenty-seven C & D transfer stations serve the SWMCB Area. According to MPCA annual facility reports, approximately 2.1 million cubic yards of waste was managed at these transfer stations in Many of the facilities sort C & D wastes and recover materials, such as wood and metal, for recycling. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc9 August 2004

13 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream Chart 2. Construction and Demolition Waste (C & D) Landfilled at Facilities Serving the SWMCB Region (tons) Tons (millions) Characterization In 1999 and 2000, the SWMCB conducted a construction and demolition waste observation study. The study observed five landfills in 1999 and two landfills in The study found that most of waste was generated from construction or remodeling projects. The largest components of the waste stream observed 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 significant quantities 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 significant quantities suggest that the materials were reused, recycled or disposed by a method other than landfilling Industrial Solid Waste Industrial solid waste includes all solid waste generated from an industrial or manufacturing process and solid waste generated from non-manufacturing activities such as service and commercial establishments. Industrial solid waste does not include office materials, restaurant and food preparation waste, discarded machinery, demolition debris, MSW combustor ash, or household refuse. In order for a facility to accept non-hazardous industrial solid waste for disposal, it must have an approved industrial solid waste management plan. The Work Group identified three significant works on industrial waste data. Although these pieces are dated, 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 the efforts of the 1986 legislature to evaluate and make recommendations regarding the management of nonhazardous industrial waste in Minnesota. The State of Wisconsin in 2000 and California in 1999 also developed 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. Approximately 950,000 tons of industrial waste was disposed in facilities serving the SWMCB region. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc10 August 2004

14 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream Chart 3. IndustrialWaste Landfilled at Facilities Serving the SWMCB Region (tons) Tons (millions) Characterization There are four landfills in Dakota County that accept industrial solid waste (two MSW landfills, one construction and demolition landfill, and one industrial waste landfill). The County requires these landfills to submit quarterly reports on the type and amount of industrial waste materials accepted for disposal. The Work Group analyzed these quarterly reports to gain a better understanding of the major components of industrial waste disposed at Dakota County landfills. Waste streams disposed in amounts of 2,000 tons or greater in 2003 are listed below: 1. Contaminated Soil 2. MSW Ash 3. Packaging 1 4. Foundry Sand 5. Asbestos 6. Ash (wood) 7. Medical Waste (infectious and non-infectious) 2 8. RCRA Containers (empty) 9. Organic Wastes (food, animal carcasses) Reject Glass 1 This waste stream is comprised of several types of packaging wastes. These wastes are often disposed as one comingled waste load and the exact volume of different packaging types cannot be determined. These types of wastes are cardboard, foam, shrink wrap, wood, and plastics. 2 Medical wastes disposed include both the noninfectious general industrial solid wastes that are generated at health care facilities (paper, plastic, general lab waste, packaging, etc) and the infectious wastes that have been treated 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 are not suitable for reprocessing or other uses. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc11 August 2004

15 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream 11. Mylar 12. Wood 13. Shingles 14. Street Sweepings 15. Sandblast Material 16. 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 not included in the data presented above. Other non-hazardous industrial wastes, such as sorbents and rags, are often managed through incineration or reclamation, and may not be reflected in this study. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc12 August 2004

16 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream 3.0 EVALUATION OF NON-MSW WASTES Non-MSW is comprised of a variety of waste streams from many different sources. The main types of non-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 offspecification items generated during manufacturing (industrial solid waste), excess material generated at a construction 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 review of 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 Minnesota Waste Management Board; Non-MSW Waste Observation Study Prepared by RW Beck for the SWMCB; Wisconsin Waste Characterization and Management Study Update Prepared by Franklin Associates Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; Construction Waste Report Prepared by URS for the SWMCB; and California Statewide Waste Composition Study 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 Group created fact sheets or flash cards for each non-msw material considered, which contain various levels of 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 of three final categories. The research findings for each waste stream are provided in Appendix E, and the non-msw matrix is presented in Appendix F. The waste stream categories are defined below: \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc13 August 2004

17 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream Waste Stream Category I: Waste Streams to be Monitored Satisfactory 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, any changes to their status will be monitored by the Work Group. Waste Stream Category II: Priority Waste Streams for Regional Initiatives Satisfactory data is available, and this data demonstrates the material may be large in volume, or it may be expensive 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, reuse and/or toxicity reduction. Waste Stream Category III: Waste Streams for Future Research and Evaluation Satisfactory data is not currently available for this waste stream; therefore this waste stream is recommended for further study. A subset of Category III wastes are those that are currently considered lower priority materials. Flash cards for wastes initially placed in Category III reflect the limited data known and recommendations for further study. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc14 August 2004

18 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream Early in the evaluation process, waste streams could be temporarily held in Category IV, the parking lot, while satisfactory data was being collected. All of the selected waste streams in Category IV were reassigned at the end of the evaluation process to Category I, II or III. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc15 August 2004

19 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream 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 is being 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 wastes are not considered a priority for the region to focus on at this time; however, any changes to their status will be monitored by the Work Group. Each waste stream is summarized below, and the associated flash card is presented in Appendix E Concrete and Asphalt Waste Concrete and bituminous asphalt were both evaluated. According to the Minnesota Recycling Market Directory, 21 asphalt brokers, processors, and end user companies and 25 concrete brokers, processors, and end user companies exist in Minnesota. Concrete A Standing Beneficial Use Determination, Minnesota Rule , has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for concrete when used for aggregate. This determination means that the generator or end user of a material can do so in accordance with this rule without contacting the agency. According to Minnesota Rule , subp.4, item I, uncontaminated recognizable concrete, recycled concrete 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 is acceptable as long as these materials are not from buildings or structures where they are likely to be contaminated. Crushed concrete is often used as a base fill in the construction of roads. The crushed material is used in place of virgin limestone aggregate. This reuse possibility represents a large potential market. The economies of scale of such reuse are often dictated by the local availability of limestone deposits, as hauling costs can be substantial. Contamination of concrete with wood, dirt, or other materials can be problematic. Crushed concrete may also be used as primary road surface materials on unpaved roads in rural areas. The use of crushed concrete for driveways is also practiced, with portable crushing equipment available for crushing and grinding directly on-site. Asphalt Minnesota Department of Transportation Research has demonstrated that cold in-place and hot-mix asphalt pavement recycling can be effectively used in road maintenance and construction. According to the National Asphalt Pavement Association, a report issued by the Federal Highway Administration and the EPA states that 80% of asphalt pavement removed each year during widening and resurfacing projects is reused as part of new roads, roadbeds, shoulders, and embankments Brick Waste A Standing Beneficial Use Determination, Minnesota Rule , has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for brick when used for aggregate. This determination means that the generator or end user of a material can do so in accordance with this rule without contacting the agency. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc16 August 2004

20 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream According to Minnesota Rule , subp.4, item I, uncontaminated recognizable concrete, recycled concrete 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 is acceptable as long as these materials are not from buildings or structures where they are likely to be contaminated. In addition to recycling, brick can be recovered for reuse, which may be of greater value for this waste stream. Brick recycled into an aggregate base for roadbeds and driveways may reduce to clay over time Metal Waste Metals are recycled because an economically viable market for recycled metals has been established. For example, 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 millions of tons of steel scrap from recycled cans, automobiles, appliances, construction materials, and other steel products. This scrap is then re-melted to produce new steel. The industry s overall recycling rate is nearly 68%. In 2001, an estimated 95% of structural beams and plates and 50% of reinforced bars and other metals were recycled in the United States Metal Shavings and Turnings Because ferrous scrap metal and brass prices are very strong, it is very unlikely that large sources are being 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 waste streams are mixed together, their value drops quickly. Literally thousands of companies in the state generate this kind of waste, from very small sources to extremely large sources. Recycling of metals is very market driven Lime Sludge A Standing Beneficial Use Determination, Minnesota Rule , has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for uncontaminated lime by-products. This determination means that the generator or end user of a material can do so in accordance with this rule without contacting the agency. According to Minnesota Rule , subp.4, item P, uncontaminated by-product limes can be used as agricultural 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 lime recommendations of the University of Minnesota Extension Service. Use of agricultural liming materials is 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 some years.) Infrequently there are contaminants present in a by-product lime that are of concern to human health and the environment. The National Lime Association completed a life cycle analysis of utilizing lime in interstate and highway projects. 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 \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc17 August 2004

21 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream temperatures; provide favorable alter oxidation kinetics and reduce their deleterious effects; and alter the plastic properties of clay fines to improve moisture stability and durability Paint Filters According to the 2004 Harris Directory, there are 70 Companies in Minnesota whose primary business is paint 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 nonhazardous, they are classified as an industrial solid waste. However, paint filters are likely to be a low percentage of all waste in the non-hazardous stream. Non-hazardous paint-filter disposal options include disposal at a landfill that has an industrial solid waste management plan approved by the governing regulatory agency and can safely manage paint waste (i.e. lined landfill). Paint filters can also be incinerated at an approved industrial solid waste incinerator Plastic Tubing A particular plastic tubing product used in generating radiant heat in structures is manufactured in Dakota County, 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 is currently landfilled in the metro area. Although the waste is currently not recyclable, the manufacturer has been collaborating with the MnTAP and a market for the shredded material has been determined. Recycling the tubing should begin in the near future Blasting Media A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Rule , 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 this rule 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 or non-hazardous characterization of the waste 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 carpet underlay (rebound). Many sellers of foam also purchase scrap and have buy-back agreements. There are drop off centers in Minnesota for these materials and some companies will arrange pick up for large quantities. There are post-consumer and industrial scrap foam companies that accept EPS, and some that accept polyethylene and polyurethane foams, depending on the market demand and prices. Recyclers are most interested in large quantities of foam. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc18 August 2004

22 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream Insulation Insulation can be comprised of cellulose, polystyrene, recycled glass, fiberglass, and vermiculite. The MPCA and Minnesota Department of Health strongly recommend that vermiculite insulation be considered a suspect asbestos containing material due to possible tremolite/actinolite asbestos contamination. Waste from sprayed on foam insulation or non-aerosol foam-in-a-can products are not recyclable. 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 around windows. 4.2 CATEGORY II WASTES: PRIORITY WASTE STREAMS FOR REGIONAL INITIATIVES Wastes assigned to Category II are those that have satisfactory data available, and this data demonstrates that the material may be large in volume, or it may be expensive to manage, problematic, or may pose an elevated environmental risk if improperly disposed. Wastes placed in Category II appear to have the most potential for increased reduction, recycling, reuse and/or toxicity reduction. Each waste stream is summarized below, and the associated flash card is presented in Appendix E Packaging Waste Packaging waste has been identified as a significant component of the non-msw waste stream resulting from both construction and industrial waste. This waste stream includes foam, shrink wrap (low-density polyethylene), plastic, cardboard, and wood. The various packaging wastes considered industrial or construction 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 the materials and remove any contamination. 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. Product stewardship initiatives call for packaging materials to be redesigned to minimize waste and facilitate recycling and reuse. The Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board provides information on the reduction, reuse, and recycling of transport packaging waste at Shrink wrap recycling is currently occurring in Minnesota. For example, a large local retailer collects shrink wrap and sends it to a manufacturer of plastic garbage bags. The manufacturer then sells the newly manufactured garbage bags back to the retailer. Shrink wrap has also been used in combination with waste wood to develop a composite deck board by a manufacturer of outdoor decks. The Minnesota Waste Wise It s in the Bag program ( provides information on shrink wrap and plastic 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 ample information 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 the waste stream. Cardboard waste is seen increasingly on construction sites as more components such as windows and cabinets are shipped over long distances. There is significant potential to reduce the \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc19 August 2004

23 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream generation of cardboard as well as reuse and recycle the material. It has been recycled for decades and currently 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 support various products and materials during shipping. Nearly half of all pallets are designed to make just one trip, though many are durable enough for repeated use. Pallets and other packaging wood waste can be repaired and reused or chipped for animal bedding, used as mulch, applied as a compost bulking agent, or burned as a fuel. The challenge is to segregate and remove contaminants that may render the wood waste unmarketable. Adhesives, coatings, and preservatives may contain toxic materials, and most recyclers will not accept wood waste containing these substances Wood Waste The greater metropolitan area and surrounding areas generate approximately one (1) million tons of urban, tree and brush waste annually. Approximately 50% is generated by land clearing for development and the remainder comes from urban wood waste (trees and branches) and brush. Other sources of clean wood include pallets, cut-offs from construction projects, cabinet makers, flooring manufacturers and others. Clean wood can be sold for reuse or ground for mulch. Using wood as fuel to create energy for heating and 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 per year 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 Foundry Sands A Standing Beneficial Use Determination, Minnesota Rule , has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for non-hazardous waste foundry sands. This determination means that the generator or end user of a material can do so in accordance with this rule without contacting the agency. Minnesota Rule , subp.4, item O, allows foundry sands to be used as a feedstock for the manufacture of Portland Cement. The MPCA anticipates multiple case-specific beneficial use determination proposals to be submitted in the near future, which could result in an increased reuse of foundry sands as a component in asphalt Coal Ash A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Rule , for coal combustion slag and fly ash. This determination means that the generator or end user of a material can do so in accordance with this rule without contacting the agency. Minnesota Rule , subp.4, item K, allows coal combustion slag to be used as a component in manufactured products such as roofing shingles, ceiling tiles and asphalt products. Minnesota Rule , subp.4, item L, allows coal combustion slag to be used as blasting media. According to Minnesota Rule , subp.4, item M, coal combustion fly ash can be used as a cement replacement in the formation of high-strength concrete. Minnesota Rule subp.4, item N, provides that coal combustion fly ash or coal combustion gas scrubbing by-products can be used as an ingredient for production of aggregate that will be used in concrete or concrete products. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc20 August 2004

24 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream Historically, approximately 25% of coal ash by-products have been used as construction material or for other applications, with the remaining 75% disposed in coal ash monofills. Ash markets depend on the chemical 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 the material 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 coal ash is fly ash). Coal fly ash is collected by air pollution control equipment. For many years, coal fly ash has been an important source of cementitious material in concrete. The level of coal fly ash in concrete typically ranges from 15 to 35% of the total cementitious material. Statewide, between 95% and 100% of concrete used in large construction projects will contain fly ash in the mix design. While not all coal fly ash can meet specifications for use in concrete, many thousands of tons of fly ash from large electric power plants are used annually. In addition, coal ash is used in the manufacturing of lightweight concrete block, and has been used as a soil stabilizer, an agricultural liming agent, a source of boron, and for various uses as mineral filler Shingles A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Rule , for manufacture shingle scrap. This determination means that the generator or end user of a material can do so in accordance with this rule without contacting the agency. Minnesota Rule , subp.4, item Q, allows manufactured shingle scrap and ground tear-off shingle scrap to be 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 economically feasible at this time. In 1991, MnDOT began investigating whether shingle by-product from the manufacturing process could be used as a beneficial additive to hot-mix asphalt for paving. In 1995, MnDOT confirmed that asphalt pavement mix containing shingle by-products performed at least as well or better as those mixes without shingle 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 of residue (ash). According to the MOEA, the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area generates an estimated 400,000 tons of waste residential tear-off shingle scrap (RSS) that is disposed in area C & D landfills. In addition, there is an estimated 35,000 tons per year of manufactured shingle scrap generated at three single manufactures in the 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 Cities Metropolitan Area that clearly demonstrate the viability of recycling asphalt roofing shingles into hot-mix asphalt used for road pavement. The final shingle-derived hot-mix asphalt product has been tested in numerous controlled field and lab experiments. The high-grade asphalt, the fiber content, and mineral granules contained within the recycled roofing shingles are valuable components of traditional hot-mix asphalt, and the process is economically sound. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc21 August 2004

25 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream In 2003, MnDOT updated its hot-mix asphalt material specifications to allow discretionary use of up to 5% ground shingle scrap from shingle manufacturers for most hot-mix asphalt types. Residential tear-off shingle scrap 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 industry is to expand the MnDOT asphalt pavement specification provisions to allow for the use of RRS in hot-mix asphalt. The MnDOT specification is the standard used in most asphalt paving designs in Minnesota. Removal of this primary institutional barrier for the use of RRS may allow the asphalt pavement industry and other private businesses to incorporate the proven positive economics. By including 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 of manufactured shingle scrap. In March 2004, the SWMCB adopted a resolution in support of the beneficial reuse of manufactured shingle scrap and continued research on the beneficial reuse of tear-off shingles in hot-mix asphalt. Nationwide there are numerous successful residential tear-off shingle recycling business activities associated with hot-mix asphalt production. The Twin Cities Metropolitan area uses approximately 5,000,000 tons of hot-mix asphalt annually. The MOEA has estimated that the use of RSS in 75% of hot-mix asphalt used in the metropolitan area could result in significant hot-mix asphalt cost savings to businesses and government Shredder Fluff Shredder fluff is the non-ferrous residue resulting from the shredding of scrap automobiles, major appliances and other ferrous scrap in preparation for the steel smelting process. Elevated concentrations of heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, zinc, nickel and copper) and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) are detected in the shredder fluff, which raises environmental concerns for disposal of this residue in solid waste landfills. Automobile manufacturers phased out the use of mercury in trunk light switches and anti-lock brake systems in 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 in components in major appliances. Items such as mercury and PCB containing components in appliances as well as mercury containing auto parts, lead wheel weights, lead acid car batteries, lead in windshield tinting, 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 transportation costs associated with its disposal in neighboring states may be achieved through a combination of regulatory, economic and legislative initiatives. These initiatives could include the implementation of an auto mercury switch collection bounty program based on the 2002 pilot study conducted by Ramsey County, MPCA, MOEA, and North Star Steel in cooperation with local salvage yards. Further, the State of Wisconsin allows non-hazardous shredder fluff to be used as alternate daily cover material while the State of Minnesota does not. Approving this material for use in local landfills as an alternate daily cover material would reduce transportation costs to neighboring states Treated Wood Most treated wood contains some type of potentially hazardous contaminant. The most common treated wood chemistry is CCA (chromated copper arsenate), often called green treated wood, although it can be red or brown. Other varieties include pentachorophenol and creosote treated woods. Most treated wood cannot be reused other than for its original purpose. CCA treated wood cannot, by federal policy, be \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc22 August 2004

26 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream chipped for use as a residential landscaping product. EPA has already placed a voluntary ban on the sale of CCA for residential uses. This is expected to eliminate significant increases in the construction waste stream. However, due to the large amount of CCA treated wood in service, an increasing amount of CCA wood 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 MSW landfills. Most demolition landfills are not allowed to accept treated wood. Some industrial solid waste and C & D landfills have been allowed to accept treated wood either through their permit or industrial solid 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 collection requirements for land disposal facilities that accept CCA treated wood waste Street Sweepings Street sweepings are high in volume making screening and reuse of the sand component preferable to landfill disposal. The sweepings can be acceptable for reuse as fill material but MPCA recommends for them not to be used in certain areas, such as playgrounds, as a precaution. Prior to reuse, trash, leaves, and other debris should be removed from the sweepings. This is often accomplished by screening, but other methods 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, effectiveness is impacted when angles become worn and smooth. Therefore, previously used street sweepings may 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 or demolition landfills that have a ground-water monitoring system; and Clean fill material in commercial and industrial development projects, road restoration or construction, or natural park lands. (Clean fill classification means that the waste has been processed and tested to be non-hazardous) Contaminated Soil The most common contaminant in soils is petroleum products. The majority of contaminated soils are generated 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). This creates an incentive to reuse the material in a beneficial way, and has reduced the amount of clean soils required for daily cover. In 2003, contaminated soils accounted for 44% of all the industrial waste landfilled at the three metro landfills that accept this waste. Soils impacted by agricultural chemicals or fertilizers may be appropriate for land application. This determination is made on a case-by-case basis. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc23 August 2004

27 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream An estimated 90% of contamination of soil or releases to ground water are caused by the mishandling of hazardous substances. Therefore, the amount and toxicity of this waste stream may be reduced by encouraging safe hazardous material practices and preventing future releases Mixed Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Ash Both mass burn and refuse derived fuel (RDF) waste-to-energy (WTE) combustors produce two types of ash: fly and bottom ash. Fly ash is the residue from air pollution control equipment, and bottom ash is collected from the bottom of the combustion chamber. Minnesota s nine WTE facilities each produce a combined 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 asphalt pavement made with ash in the mixture was superior to standard hot-mix asphalt pavement. The study demonstrated the use of MSW ash in a hot-mix asphalt road base course pavement. The project results found that the hot-mix asphalt mix design containing 5% MSW ash was superior in strength and flexibility to the standard mix design for the project. Extensive materials testing and on-site environmental testing were conducted. A second demonstration project proposal will be submitted to MPCA for consideration for the summer of A proposal for a permanent MPCA beneficial use determination for the use of WTE MSW ash in hot-mix asphalt pavement will be submitted to the MPCA during A number of other Minnesota WTE facilities are considering MSW ash-amended asphalt paving projects Gypsum Wallboard Minnesota s traditional management of gypsum wallboard has been landfilling. It is not currently recycled 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 the manufacturing process; Using wallboard as a feedstock material in cement kilns is an economical option in markets where cement kilns are located. There are no local cement kilns; The National Association of Homebuilders suggests that individual contractors can crush wallboard on-site and land apply it as a soil amendment. Metro area soils are unlikely to benefit from the application of the material, however this determination needs to be made on a case-bycase basis. The material may be used as an agricultural amendment including use as a fertilizer feedstock in Minnesota. 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 construction project is the best method for reducing this waste stream. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc24 August 2004

28 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream Sewage Sludge and Sewage Sludge Ash Sewage sludge ash is the by-product of incinerating dewatered sewage sludge in an incinerator. Sludge ash has been previously used as a raw material in Portland cement concrete production, as aggregate in flowable fill, as mineral filler in asphalt paving mixes, and as a soil conditioner mixed with lime and sewage 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 be switching incinerators in the summer or fall of The new incinerator and air quality control equipment will likely change the chemical and physical characteristics of the ash. It is not known to what degree the ash will change or how it will affect current or future reuse proposals. MnDOT will likely require 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. A 5% blend has been approved for highway bituminous asphalt wear course and base course. All projects must 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 Cement Kiln in Mason City, Iowa. Recently, there have been discussions surrounding composting sewage sludge to be used as a component in engineered soils or soil products. This is being done in other states and may be a potential future reuse option here locally Medical Waste Many hospitals routinely dispose 50 to 70% of their waste as biohazard waste, although a large portion of the waste is similar to that of a hotel or office building. There are significant opportunities to dramatically reduce the amount of wastes incorrectly disposed as biohazard waste. Case studies have shown that hospitals can decrease their biohazard waste to 6 to 10% of their overall waste stream through comprehensive education programs. Waste audits, management plans and evaluations of disposable items are 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 a landfill that is approved to accept it. Infectious waste must be decontaminated through a process such as autoclaving or incineration to render it non-infectious prior to landfilling. This process is costly, and health care providers should ensure that only truly infectious wastes are added to this waste stream. 4.3 CATEGORY III WASTES: WASTE STREAMS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Wastes in Category III do not have satisfactory data available. These waste streams may be recommended for future study in the future. Each waste stream is summarized below, and the associated flash card is presented in Appendix E Photo Resist Sludge Circuit board photo resist sludge is generated by a process that includes a coating process, light exposure and caustic stripping. According to the 2003 Harris Directory, there are 77 companies in Minnesota (44 are in the metro area) with SIC code 3672 (printed circuit boards). This type of process may be occurring at facilities such as these; however, quantitative data on waste volumes generated is not tracked. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc25 August 2004

29 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream Vinyl Siding The reuse of vinyl siding is already promoted within the industry during manufacturing. A strong demand for recycled vinyl exists according to the Recycling Times. Vinyl can be recycled into sewer pipe, electrical conduits, irrigation pipes, outdoor furniture, fencing, electrical cable coating, garden hoses, floor mat backings, molded tool handles, industrial sheeting, and tarps. Market rates for recycled vinyl 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 housing production 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 been identified 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 Vehicle Windshields Quick defrost windshields, tinting techniques, metallic crystal alignment films, and implosion proofing by a new inner polymer laminate makes reuse or recovery of auto glass difficult. Windshields are manufactured with two layers of glass with a strong plastic (usually PVC) membrane sandwiched between the panes, limiting its ability to be recycled. The windshields have a protective coating that contains 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 costs and low material prices undermine market development. For this reason, this waste stream is considered a low priority at this time. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc26 August 2004

30 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream 5.0 FINDINGS 5.1 TOXICITY REDUCTION The non-msw waste streams identified as having the highest potential for toxicity reduction are blasting media, shredder fluff and vehicle windshield glass. Blasting Media Blasting media may contain heavy metals resulting from the blasting process. For example, blasting media waste containing paint removed from an old water tower may have hazardous concentrations of lead. Shredder Fluff High levels of heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, zinc, nickel, and copper) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) may be contained in the non-ferrous portion of the shredder fluff residue. Vehicle Windshield Glass Vehicle windshields have a protective coating that contains high levels of lead, and this can cause windshields 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 appear to have the most immediate potential. Coal Ash: Reuse Potential A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for coal 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 for production of aggregate that will be used in concrete or concrete products. Approximately 70 to 75% of fly ash generated is still disposed in landfills and storage lagoons. Shingles: Reuse and Recycling Potential A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for manufacture shingle scrap. MnDOT specifications allow manufactured shingle scrap to be used in hotmix asphalt applications. There is an estimated 35,000 tons per year of manufactured shingle scrap generated at three single manufactures in the Twin Cities Metro Area, but only 20 to 40% of this is currently recycled into hot-mix asphalt. Residential tear-off shingle scrap 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 industry is to expand the MnDOT asphalt pavement specification provisions to allow for the use of residential tear-off shingle scrap in hotmix asphalt. Street Sweepings: Reduction and Reuse Potential Sand 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 or industrial uses. Street sweepings can be voluminous and, consequently, reuse is preferable to disposal. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc27 August 2004

31 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream Foundry Sands: Reuse Potential A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for non-hazardous waste foundry sands. This determination allows foundry sands to be used as a feedstock for the manufacture of Portland Cement. In addition, the MPCA anticipates multiple case-specific beneficial use determination proposals to be submitted in the near future for the reuse of foundry sands as a component in asphalt. 5.3 LANDFILL ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES The several over-arching management techniques are in place to reduce the amount of non-msw landfilled. These landfill abatement techniques are discussed below. Market Development Having 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 lime sludge as an agricultural soil amendment. Because this viable market exists, this material is rarely, if ever, landfilled in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Education Organizations that offer education in the areas of non-msw reduction, reuse and recycling include the Green Guardian, MnTAP, Waste Wise Minnesota and the MOEA. Contact information for these organizations is presented in Appendix G. Industry organizations, such as the National Asphalt Pavement Association, and academic institutions, such as the University of Minnesota, are also excellent sources of information. Taxes and Fees Taxes, fees, or exemptions can be an effective mechanism to influence reduction, reuse and recycling. For example, 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 that would otherwise be consumed by clean soils used as daily cover. As outlined in SWMCB s Construction Waste Project report (URS, 2002), some statutory requirements result in non-msw management inequities. For example, per Minnesota Statute 297H.04, commercial generators that generate non-msw shall pay a solid waste management tax of 60 cents per noncompacted cubic yard. The result is that all material accepted at a construction and demolition debris processing facility or landfill is taxed, regardless of whether the material is ultimately recycled or landfilled. Therefore, there is a tax disincentive to process mixed loads of construction and demolition waste for recycling. Minnesota Statute 297H.06 provides for certain tax exemptions to encourage the recycling of MSW. Minnesota Statutes do not provide similar exemptions to encourage the recycling of non-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 is taxed a second time at the rate of 17% (Minnesota Statute 297H.03) upon being disposed as MSW, resulting in a double tax. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc28 August 2004

32 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream Regulation Regulation has a direct effect on non-msw management. For example, prohibiting yard waste from being disposed in landfills has had a significant impact on the disposal practices of the waste stream. The beneficial reuse rules implemented by the MPCA may create opportunities to reuse or recycle certain non-msw waste streams in new ways. An example may be the potential use of MSW ash in hot-mix asphalt. Regulation may also be used to encourage or require sustainable building practices. For example, in January 2001, the Dakota County Board adopted Design, Construction, and Sustainability Standards for Dakota County Buildings. The standards outline construction quality control and assurance; staff productivity issues (such as indoor air quality, lighting, safety, and security); life cycle cost effectiveness and accountability; systematic approach to energy and resource management and conservation; building material selections; components; equipment; and sustainability. Technological Innovation New or innovative technologies, such as carpet recycling or manufacturing new gypsum wallboard from waste wallboard, can provide additional opportunities for non-msw. Research and development and pilot projects can be instrumental in these endeavors. Procurement Practices Government procurement practices can be effective in reducing the amount of non-msw landfilled. For example, a municipality may require a contractor to recycle a certain percentage of C & D waste generated during the construction of a government facility. Government procurement practices, such as purchasing only paper that has a specified recycled paper content, can promote recycling markets. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc29 August 2004

33 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream 6.0 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS In 1998, the Metropolitan Solid Waste Policy Plan recognized, for the first time, that non-msw should receive greater attention in regional decision making. The Metropolitan Solid Waste Policy Plan continues to recognize the need to place greater attention on non-msw management and the need for better data to best determine environmentally sound management practices. For example, Policy 2-9 states that non-msw materials should be managed in accordance with the solid waste management hierarchy and Policy 3-11 calls for the state, region, and counties to remove economic disincentives that discourage reduction, reuse, and recycling of non-msw. Between 1998 and 2004, the SWMCB invested significant resources in characterizing and researching the non-msw waste stream so that information on existing and alternative management practices would be available for use in policy and program development. This research has played an instrumental role in developing regional outcomes and strategies for the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan. The implementation of non-msw management strategies will require the SWMCB and its member counties to seek out partnerships with other units of government, private industry and academic institutions. The private sector owns and operates most of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area management facilities for non-msw waste streams. There is, however, some public sector activity in managing certain non-msw materials in the metropolitan area, such as tree waste processing and crushing 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 to increase the reduction, beneficial reuse and recycling of non-msw. Collaborative efforts have historically been 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 and toxicity), reuse and recycle non-msw. These strategies represent the views of multiple stakeholders and are not put forth as binding policy for the SWMCB region. The Non-MSW Work Group asks that these recommendations be considered by the SWMCB Regional Policy Development Committee as they prepare the outcomes and strategies for the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan. Strategies Strategy #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, street sweepings, and foundry sand, in road construction projects. Support will include, but is not limited to, disseminating information to public entities, conducting research and implementing demonstration projects. Where state approval exists, the SWMCB will promote the beneficial reuse of non-msw in road construction projects. Strategy #2: By 2010, SWMCB will research and develop a streamlined method for collecting and analyzing non-msw data from generators, contractors, municipalities, haulers, waste management providers and other data sources. Strategy #3: Each year, the SWMCB will target an industrial, construction, and/or demolition waste material 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 the MPCA solid waste utilization rules. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc30 August 2004

34 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream Strategy #5: By 2010, the SWMCB will identify and implement a product stewardship initiative targeted at a large volume or toxic non-msw waste stream (possibilities include the elimination of mercury switches 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 and develop 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 regulatory incentives to encourage reduction, reuse and recycling of non-msw materials in support of the implementation of other strategies. Strategy #8: The SWMCB will continually evaluate the challenges and barriers, including existing financial and regulatory disincentives, to reducing, reusing and recycling non-msw. Strategy #9: The SWMCB will support MOEA market development initiatives that will help business recovering non-msw materials become more profitable. Support will include, but is not limited to, disseminating information to public entities, conducting research and implementing demonstration projects. Strategy #10: Public entities in the SWMCB region will incorporate sustainable architectural guidelines in the planning process for construction and remodeling of government buildings. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc31 August 2004

35 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream 7.0 CONCLUSIONS The SWMCB 2004 work plan and budget directs staff to conduct an analysis of the non-msw stream based on existing data, including quantities and characteristics of waste generated, and to determine priority waste streams for toxicity reduction, waste reduction, reuse and recycling. This report represents a 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 of concrete and metal from the demolition of buildings and roads. In addition to the non-msw represented in this report, the region generated approximately 234,540 wet tons of MSW ash from resource recovery facilities 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 into temporary categories, and after additional in-depth research, evaluation and discussion, the Work Group then 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 not considered a priority for the region to focus on at this time; however, any changes to their status will be followed 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; and insulation. Waste Stream Category II wastes are priority waste streams for regional initiatives. Satisfactory data is available, and this data demonstrates the materials may be large in volume, or may be expensive to manage, problematic, or may pose an elevated environmental risk if improperly disposed. Wastes placed in Category II appear to have the most potential for increased reduction, recycling, reuse and/or toxicity reduction. 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; sewage sludge and sewage sludge ash; and medical waste. Waste Stream Category III wastes are those recommended for future research and evaluation. Satisfactory data is not currently available for these waste streams; therefore further study is recommended. Category III 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 blasting media, shredder fluff and vehicle windshields. Coal ash, shingles, street sweepings and foundry sands appear 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 and recycle non-msw. These strategies represent the views of multiple stakeholders and are not put forth as binding policy for the SWMCB region. The Non-MSW Work Group asks that these recommendations be considered by the SWMCB Regional Policy Development Committee as they prepare the outcomes and strategies for the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc32 August 2004

36 Characterization of Non-Municipal Solid Waste Stream 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 evolves and matures. \\S071NT21\PROJECTS\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL Non MSW Report.doc33 August 2004

37 APPENDIX A Non-MSW Work Group Participants

38 Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board NonMSW Data Collection Contact List Name Organization & Address Phone Fax Number Address Mike Niewind Waste Management (w) W. Cliff Road Burnsville, MN Bill Lauer Dakota County (w) Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN Sheila Wiegman Dakota County (w) Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN Kristin Pierskalla Hennepin County (w) North Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN Randy Cook Mn/TAP (w) Oak Street S.E. Suite 350 Minneapolis, MN Matt Herman MPCA 520 Lafayette Road N. St. Paul, MN (w) Wayne Gjerde Don Kyser Katie Theisen Ryan O'Gara Jan Lucke Sabina Ylinen OEA 520 Lafayette Road N. St. Paul OEA 520 Lafayette Road N. St. Paul Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc. 477 Selby Avenue St. Paul, MN SKB Environmental 251 Starkey Street St. Paul, MN Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc. 477 Selby Avenue St. Paul, MN URS Corporation 700 Third Street South, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN (w) (w) (w) (c) (w) (w) (w) /03/04 V:\URS Projects\SWMCB\NonMSW Characterization Project\FINAL REPORT\August 2004 FINAL REPORT\FINAL REPORT APPENDICES\Appendix A Non-MSW Work Group Participants.doc

39 APPENDIX B List of Facilities and Data Description

40 Appendix B Page 1 file://v:\urs%20projects\swmcb\nonmsw%20characterization%20project\final%20r 11/3/2004 Appendix B List of Facilities and Data Description For the purposes of this report, non-msw comprises construction and demolition (C & D) waste and industrial solid waste. The data is derived from analyzing 2003 annual reports to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) from the following facilities: Non-MSW Management Facilities Included in 2003 SWMCB Results Report County Facility Name Facility Type Dakota Burnsville Dem/Con Demolition Dakota Burnsville Sanitary Landfill SLF/Industrial Dakota Dawnway Demo Demolition Dakota Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill SLF/Industrial Dakota SKB Rich Valley Demolition Demolition Dakota SKB Rosemount Industrial McCleod Spruce Ridge (WMI) SLF/Industrial Scott Dem-Con Landfill LLC Demolition Sherburne Elk River Sanitary Landfill (WMI) SLF/Industrial/Demolition Sherburne Vonco Demo II Demo Demolition Washington NSP A.S. King Plant Industrial (coal ash) Wright Onyx Forest City Road Landfill, Inc. SLF/Industrial/Demolition 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 yard 3/ ton was used to convert cubic yards of construction and demolition waste to tons, and a factor of 1.2 yard 3/ ton was used to convert cubic yards of industrial waste to tons. The conversion factor was provided by MPCA (Contact: Jim Chiles). Although these are the best conversion factors available, they are weak due to the challenge of developing a single conversion 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 not classified 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 the wastes they receive. Therefore, the data presented is from 12 select facilities. Five of these facilities are 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 to individual counties (e.g., permit by rule facilities).

41 APPENDIX C 1998 to 2003 Non-MSW Waste Volumes

42 Non-MSW Waste Volumes as reported by MPCA permitted facilities County Permit name Type 1998 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, , ,703 Dakota BurnsvilleSLF SLF/indus 131, , ,251 Dakota Dawnway Demo demo 21,786 11,990 20,246 70,457 Dakota Pine Bend SLF SLF/indus 1, , , ,853 Dakota SKB Rich Valley Demo. demo 779, , , ,300 Dakota SKB Rosemount ind 77, , ,081 McCleod Spruce Ridge (WMI) SLF/indus 1, Scott Dem-Com Landfill, LLC demo 690, , , , , , ,170 Sherburne Elk River SLF (WMI) SLF/demo/indus 159,561 53, ,962 44, ,331 65,014 Sherburne Vonco II Demo demo 155, , , ,326 Washington NSP A.S. King Plant ind 48,435 55,269 42,545 Wright Onyx FCR Landfill, Inc. SLF/demo/indus 69, ,022 78, ,060 52, ,621 Total As Reported 1,646, , , ,613 2,031, , , ,044 1,953, , , ,532 2,010,253 Total cubic yards converted to tons 914, ,458 1,128, ,652 1,085, ,615 1,116,807 Total Tons (reported plus converted) 1,367, ,071 1,624, ,696 1,536,027 1,042,147 Conversion Factors (cubic yards per ton) Industrial Waste 1.2 Construction and Demolition Waste /3/2004 1

43 Non-MSW Waste Volumes as reported by MPCA permitted facilities County Permit name Type 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) Dakota Burnsville Dem/Con demo Dakota BurnsvilleSLF SLF/indus Dakota Dawnway Demo demo Dakota Pine Bend SLF SLF/indus Dakota SKB Rich Valley Demo. demo Dakota SKB Rosemount ind McCleod Spruce Ridge (WMI) SLF/indus Scott Dem-Com Landfill, LLC demo Sherburne Elk River SLF (WMI) SLF/demo/indus Sherburne Vonco II Demo demo Washington NSP A.S. King Plant ind Wright Onyx FCR Landfill, Inc. SLF/demo/indus Total As Reported Total cubic yards converted to tons Total Tons (reported plus converted) Conversion Factors (cubic yards per ton) Industrial Waste 1.2 Construction and Demolition Waste ,504 1, , ,097 1,409 84, , ,126 38, , , ,069 1,682 72, , , , , ,868 7,852 27, , ,618 30, , , ,714 76, ,524 21,255 85,148 16,583 85, , , ,410 25, ,139 54, , , , , , , ,363 1,490,849 1,099,163 1,482, ,564 1,330, ,309 11/3/2004 2

44 APPENDIX D Industrial Waste Flash Card

45 Industrial Waste Minnesota Data 1) Generated a) Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste Report Data Collected: 1981-July 1986 Waste Type Ongoing Disposal (tons^3/year) Agricultural - Nonfarm 26 Asbestos 42 Ash - Unspecified 29,567 Ash - Wood 920 Ash Total 30,487 Contaminated Soil - Petroleum 84 Contaminant Contaminated Soil - Unspecified 14,682 Contaminant Contaminated Soils Totals 14,766 Empty Containers - Miscellaneous 1,759 Empty Containers - Ink 13 Empty Containers - Organic Resins 4 Empty Containers - Paint 161 Empty Containers Totals 1,937 Food Process 13,984 Fossil Fuel Power Plant Ash 28,236 Foundry Waste 47,584 Glass Sludge 56 Ink - General 176 Ink - Sludge 132 Ink Totals 308 Organic Resins 14,478 Paint - General 870 Paint - Filters 504 Paint Totals 1,275 Printed Circuit Board Waste 363 Pulp and Paper Sludge 13,145 Water and Wastewater 211 Treatment Sludge Wood Waste 12,656 Miscellaneous 27,353 Total 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.

46 1987 MWMB Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal (tons^3/year) 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Agricultural Ash Total Empty Fossil Fuel Glass Organic Pulp and Wood 2) Major players involved a) Top industries in Minnesota (Ranked by Total Wages) 2 Ranking Seven County Metro Area of Minneapolis & St. Paul SIC Code Industry Code Average number of establishments Average number of employees Total Wages Average weekly wage 1 Services I $21,058,274,434 $693 2 Manufacturing D $13,566,917,381 $1,016 3 Trade, Total T $11,597,455,932 $582 4 Durable Goods D $8,135,908,047 $1,015 Manufacturing 5 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate H $7,388,305,994 $1,127 6 Retail Trade G $6,026,335,935 $411 7 Wholesale Trade F $5,571,119,997 $1,058 8 Non-durable Goods D $5,431,009,334 $1,018 Manufacturing 9 Transportation, Communication, Electronics E $4,754,916,352 $893 2 Department of Employment and Economic Development: Labor Market Information Office. Covered Employment and Wages Program. February 2004.

47 10 Construction C $3,580,360,698 $ Transportation E $3,310,956,949 $ Public J $2,514,624,460 $778 Administration 13 Public JJ $2,514,624,460 $778 Administration 14 Communications & E $1,443,959,403 $1,131 Utilities 15 Agriculture A $234,848,226 $ Mining B $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) Wisconsin 3 a) Non-MSW materials include: scrap vehicles, used oil, pulp/paper mill waste, coal ash, foundry waste, pottery cull, municipal wastewater treatment sludge, 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 Recovered for Recycling Beneficial Use Combustion Landfilled Landspread/ Other Waste Category tons/year tons/year tons/year tons/year tons/year tons/year Scrap vehicles 393, , ,700 Used oil 121,900 13,000 64,600 8,300 7,400 Used oil filters 4, ,800 Pulp/paper mill 1,854,900 1,150,000 73, ,200 waste Coal Ash 1,595,600 1,155, ,400 Foundry waste 1,102, , ,700 Pottery cull 14,600 14,600 Municipal wastewater treatment sludge 1,315,800 72,900 75,600 1,167,300 C&D Debris 2,740,800 1,096, , ,200 Total Selected Waste 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 Prepared for State of Wisconsin, Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin by Franklin Associates, Ltd. Prairie Village, KS. July 2002

48 APPENDIX E Non-MSW Flash Cards

49 Concrete/Asphalt Waste General Information 1) Why and How It Is Used a) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Solid Waste Utilization 1 i) A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued for concrete when used for aggregate. Standing Beneficial Use Determination means that the generator or end user of a material can do so in accordance with this rule without contacting the Agency. ii) Rule ( Subpart 4 I): Uncontaminated recognizable concrete, recycled concrete and concrete products, and brick are specified for service as a substitute for conventional aggregate. (1) Concrete and brick materials are currently being used widely as replacements for conventional, virgin aggregate. This practice is acceptable as long as these materials are not from buildings or structures where they are likely to be contaminated. 2) Potential to Reduce, Reuse or Recycle a) Construction Waste Project 2 i) Crushed concrete and brick are often used as base fill in the construction of roads. ii) The crushed material is used in place of limestone. This reuse potential represents a large potential market. iii) The economies of scale of such reuse are often dictated by the local availability of limestone deposits, as hauling costs can be substantial. iv) Contamination of concrete with wood, dirt, or other substances can be problematic. v) Crushed concrete and brick may also be used as primary road surface materials on unpaved roads in rural areas. vi) The use of crushed concrete for driveways is also practiced, with portable equipment available for crushing and grinding directly on-site. Minnesota Data 1) Disposed a) SKB Environmental/Bolander 3 i) Concrete recycling is generally practiced in the SWMCB counties such that a sufficient end-market for the material exists. ii) Concrete that is not recycled may be contaminated with rebar, foam, or other substances. 1 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Solid Waste Utilization. Adopted Permanent Rules Relating to Beneficial Use of Solid Waste Not the Final Rule. Viewed March 15, Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board. Construction Waste Project. December 31, Prepared by URS Corporation. 3 Ryan O Gara from SKB Environmental. February

50 Concrete and Blacktop 28,233 cubic yards delivered to landfill Recycled class 5,6,7 30,580 cubic yards Blacktop recycled 115 cubic yards Total 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 Participants a) Minnesota Recycling Market Directory 4 i) According to the market directory, 21 asphalt brokers, processors, and end user companies exist in Minnesota. ii) According to the market directory, 25 concrete brokers, processors, and end user companies exist in Minnesota. 3) Recovery Rates a) Minnesota Department of Transportation 5 i) Research has demonstrated that cold in-place and hot asphalt recycling can be effectively used in road maintenance and construction. ii) This guide provides detailed information on when and where to use which recycled paving method. iii) A survey was conducted amongst city and county engineers to gather information on the number and percentage of municipalities that practice asphalt recycling, as well as on the methods that are most commonly used. The survey was distributed via in June 2001; 83 surveys were 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 Marti, Michael M. and Andrew Mielke. Minnesota Department of Transportation. Synthesis of Asphalt Recycling in Minnesota. Synthesis Report Published by Minnesota Local Road Research Board. June

51 (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 Project 6 : Material Concrete and Brick Recycling/Reuse Recycling/Reuse Rating Options 1) Aggregate in new 1) Fair; little concrete in concrete construction waste 2) On-site grinding 2) Good; possible road application Comparisons to Other Data Sources, Policies, Programs and Projects 1) National Asphalt Pavement Association 7 a) According to a report issued by the Federal Highway Administration and the EPA, 80% of the asphalt pavement removed each year during widening and resurfacing projects is reused as part of new roads, roadbeds, shoulders, and embankments. b) Every year, approximately 73 million tons of reclaimed asphalt pavement is reused nearly twice as much as the combined total of 40 million tons of recycled 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, and v) Uses less diesel fuel for transport. 2) California 8 a) Advantages of pavement recycling: i) Reduced maintenance costs, ii) Avoidance of tipping fees for disposal, 6 Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board. Construction Waste Project. December 31, Prepared by URS Corporation. 7 National Asphalt Pavement Association. Asphalt Pavement is the Surprise Leader in the Recycling of Various Materials. 8 Lindert, Lin. Market Status Report: Pavement. Market Trend and Analysis Section: California Integrated Waste Management Board. April 28,

52 iii) Reduction of energy used to extract virgin materials, iv) Lower transportation costs, v) Saves landfill space, and vi) 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 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 modified to use recycled materials. ii) The lack of state and public works specification for use of recycled products. iii) Local opposition from city or county public works staff. 3) U.S. Department of Transportation 9 9 U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress. A Study of the Use of Recycled Paving Material. June FHWA-RD and EPA/600/R-93/

53 - 5 -

54 Brick Waste General Information 1) Why and How It Is Used a) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Solid Waste Utilization 10 i) A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued for brick when it is used for aggregate. Standing Beneficial Use Determination means that the generator or end user of a material can do so in accordance with this rule without contacting the agency. ii) Rule ( Subpart 4 I): Uncontaminated recognizable concrete, recycled concrete and concrete products, and brick for service as a substitute for conventional aggregate. (1) Concrete and brick materials are currently being used widely as replacements for conventional, virgin aggregate. This practice is acceptable as long as these materials are not from buildings or structures where they are likely to be contaminated. 2) Potential to Reduce, Reuse, or Recycle a) Construction Waste Project 11 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 Practices 1) 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 for roadbeds and driveways. 13 Toxicity 1) The common building brick is very inert. 2) Refractory brick (used in high heat industrial processes) often contains heavy metals. 10 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Solid Waste Utilization. Adopted Permanent Rules Relating to Beneficial Use of Solid Waste Not the Final Rule. Viewed March 15, Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board. Construction Waste Project. December 31, Prepared by URS Corporation. 12 Ryan O Gara from SKB Environmental. February Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Waste Management Program: Construction and Demotion Debris

55 Metal Waste General Information 1) 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 landfill tipping fees are high) Minnesota Data 1) Major Participants a) Minnesota Recycling Market Directory 14 i) According to the market directory, Minnesota has 44 roofing steel recycling brokers, processors, and end user companies. 2) Recovery Rates a) Construction Waste Project 15 i) Metal is used as a structural support material in larger construction projects. Residential construction projects may employ small amounts of metal in wiring, siding, fasteners, and roof flashing. ii) Typical metals associated with construction projects are copper from pipe and wire, iron from structural beams and supports, and aluminum and tin from siding and flashing. iii) When metal is present in sufficient amounts, recycling is an attractive option because there is a ready market for scrap metal. Material Recycling/Reuse Options Recycling/Reuse Rating Metal 1) New metal products 1) Excellent; markets established and currently practiced c) Steel Recycling Institute 16 i) The North American steel industry annually recycles millions of tons of steel scrap from products such as recycled cans, automobiles, appliances, and construction materials. This scrap is then melted to produce new steel. 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 needed for packaging, car bodies, appliances, and steel framing, uses a minimum of 25% recycled steel. 14 Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Minnesota Recycling Market Directory: Construction and Demolition Debris Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board. Construction Waste Project. December 31, Prepared by URS Corporation. 16 Steel Recycling Institute. Fact Sheet: A few facts about steel-north American s #1 recycled material

56 (2) The Electric Arc Furnace Process, which produces steel shapes such as railroad 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 family residences. v) Builders use steel because it is lightweight, cost effective, noncombustible, performs well in high winds and seismic areas, and resists corrosion. vi) Estimated 2001 steel construction recycling: (1) Structural Beams and Plates 95% Recycled (2) Reinforced Bars and Others 50% Recycled Management Practices 1) Disposal fees at Twin Cities C&D landfills range between $15 to $20 per ton. Metals recycling price per ton is $25 to ) An extensive recycling market exists. See attached University of Minnesota. Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board. Resourceful Waste Management Guide: A business guide on how to recycle or dispose of just about anything

57 Metal Shavings and Turnings General Information 1) Potential to Reduce, Reuse or Recycle a) Given the record-high value of scrap metal prices in 2004 approximately 2.5/cents/pound (ferrous) it is unlikely that large sources are being landfilled. On the other hand, small sources of scrap metal probably are not collected at a rate that justifies storage and pickup costs; hence these might be thrown in the dumpster. Non-ferrous wastes (e.g., aluminum and brass) are even more valuable. A combination of ferrous and non-ferrous material is 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 isolated as such) drops very quickly. 19 Minnesota Data 1) 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 large sources (operations with hundreds of centers). 20 b) Very market driven. Management Practices 1) Very market dependent. 2) Small amounts of metal shavings and turnings are disposed Randy Cook. Minnesota Technical Assistance Program. February Randy Cook. February Bill Lauer. Dakota County. March

58 Lime Sludge General Information 1) Why and How It Is Used c) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Solid Waste Utilization 22 i) A Standing Beneficial Use Determination has been issued for uncontaminated lime by-products. Standing Beneficial Use Determination means that the generator or end user of a material can do so in accordance with this rule without contacting the agency. ii) Rule ( Subpart 4 P): Uncontaminated by-product limes used as agricultural 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 lime recommendations of the University of Minnesota Extension Service and cannot cause the soil ph to exceed 7.1 after application. Site specific application rates for byproduct lime must be determined by an individual that has a background and 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. Generated 1) 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 the State of Minnesota to provide educational and regulatory oversight for aglime materials distributed in Minnesota. ii) Agricultural Liming Material Tonnage and Statistics for (1) The following data table presents state total liming tonnages. The state total liming tonnages can further be broken down into subcategories. Only two categories are presented below, industrial and municipal lime by-product. (2) Metropolitan liming tonnages for industrial and municipal lime byproduct can be estimated. An estimated 75% of state total municipal 22 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Solid Waste Utilization. Adopted Permanent Rules Relating to Beneficial Use of Solid Waste Not the Final Rule. Viewed March 15, Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Liming Materials Program: Ag-Lime Analysis Report/Information. Viewed June 10,

59 Year liming sludge is generated in metropolitan region while an estimated 10% of industrial liming sludge is from the Metropolitan region. 24 State Total Tonnage State Industrial Tonnage State Municipal Tonnage Estimated Metro Industrial Tonnage Estimated Metro Municipal Tonnage ,774 36, ,633 3, , ,913 40, ,121 4, , ,608 37, ,189 3, , ,842 77, ,855 7, , ,602 41, ,728 4, , ,363 53, ,225 5, , ,020 84, ,698 8, , ,185 88, ,765 8, , , , ,731 12, , , , ,345 14, , , , ,261 11, , , , ,917 15, , , , ,563 19, ,672 Comparisons to Other Data Sources, Policies, Programs and Projects (include contact information, date, and web address) 1) National Lime Association 25 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, and v) 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, National Lime Association. Life Cycle Costs for Lime in Hot Mix Asphalt: Volume 1 Summary Report by R. G. Hicks, Oregon State University, and Todd Scholz, Roadworthy Research and Design. April

60 - 12 -