Journal of Air and Waste Management Association (in press) RECYCLING IN A MEGACITY Nickolas J. Themelis and Claire E.

Todd Earth Engineering Center, Columbia University New York, NY 10027 (Corresponding author: njt1@columbia.edu) ABSTRACT In the aftermath of the 9/11 disaster, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City unveiled an aggressive budget plan that included the temporary suspension of glass and plastics recycling. This was considered by many to be anti-environmental but the results of this study show that for lack of markets, even at zero or negative prices, nearly 90% of the plastic and glass set aside by thoughtful New Yorkers, was transported to Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF) and from there to landfills. Sending bales of plastics to landfills is not limited to New York City. It is an environmental paradox that the U.S. is digging up new oil fields in pristine areas and, at the same time, keeps converting greenfields to brownfields by burying nearly 20 million tons of plastic fuel annually. The study also determined that at the present rate of source separation, estimated to be less that 30% of the available recyclables in 1999, building large, modern MRFs may increase substantially the rate of NYC recycling and also allow single-stream collection of commingled recyclables, as is done in Phoenix, Arizona. Single-stream collection simplifies separation at the source by citizens and increases the amount of collected recyclables. Also, since collection represents a large fraction of the costs of waste management, it may have a significant economic advantage. Implications of paper for law makers and policy makers There is much pressure on lawmakers to impose prescribed rates of recycling. This study showed that after sorting of the recyclables set aside by New Yorkers in Materials 1

Recovery Facilities (MRF), most of the paper and metals were recycled, while most of the glass and plastics were landfilled, for lack of markets. Recycling would be increased somewhat by improved collection (e.g., less glass breakage) and modern MRFs but the main factors are greater citizen participation and, for glass and plastics, markets for the sorted materials. For example, less that 10% of the 25 million tons of plastic wastes generated in the U.S are recycled into plastics.

INTRODUCTION Until the summer of 2002, New York Citys Department of Sanitation (NYC DOS) collected three types of wastes from NYC residents: Paper, metal-glass-plastic (MGP), and mixed putrescible wastes (black bag). The first two streams went either to sorting Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) that separated the waste into different materials or to paper recyclers, like Visy Paper on Staten Island. The black bag stream went to transfer stations and from there was shipped in 20-ton trucks, mostly to landfills in other states. The disposition of the MSW collected by NYC-DOS is shown in Figure 1. A 2001 study by the Earth Engineering Center of Columbia University (Todd 2002) examined in detail the fate of NYC MSW after it reached the MRFs. The objective was to determine the effectiveness and cost of these operations and examine whether the implementation of automated, state-of-the-art MRFs, such as have been built in cities like Chicago and Phoenix, might help in increasing the rate of recycling. All tonnages in this report are in short tons (1.1 short ton = 1 metric ton).

16.6%

12.4%

Recycling Waste-to-energy Landfilling

71.0%

Figure 1. Disposition of the MSW collected by NYC-DOS in 2000

THE NEW YORK RECYCLING PROGRAM New York and many other cities in the late 1980s responded to decreasing local landfill capacity and to public opinion by launching municipal recycling programs. As part of this effort, some municipalities established publicly-owned materials recovery facilities (MRFs) to sort the recyclable materials that citizens put aside from the rest of the municipal solid waste (MSW). While some material recovery technology such as magnetic separation is common to all of these facilities, MRFs range all the way from manual sorting to highly automated facilities. In 1999, NYC-DOS collected 394,000 tons of paper (paper stream, Todd 2002) and 278,000 tons of commingled metal-glassplastic materials (MGP stream, Todd 2002). In addition, NYS-DOS diverted from landfills another 838,000 tons of other wastes, such as construction and demolition materials. In addition to the nearly 5.4 million tons of materials managed by NYC-DOS, hundreds of private carters took care of nearly ten million tons of commercial wastes of businesses and institutions (NYC Comprehensive Commercial Waste StudyPreliminary Report, June 2002). This paper addresses only paper and the MGP streams collected by NYC-DOS. Paper Recycling Although the NYC formal recycling program began in the 1990s, the paper recycling industry has been established in the City for over three decades. Despite currently depressed markets, New York Citys paper recyclers maintain very steady and saleable recoveries, relying on international and domestic paper markets to absorb the recovered material. In 1999, the city had contracted five recycling facilities to process municipal paper recyclables. Four of these companies sorted and baled the paper stream to marketable grades. The fifth company, Visy Paper, is a paper mill with an on-site pulper and paper machine that processes about 350,000 tons per year of used corrugated cardboard (OCC) and mixed paper to cardboard-grade paper; 160,000 tons of the Visy Paper feedstock is provided by NYC-DOS and the rest by commercial sources. Newspaper grades range from #6 to #8, with higher numbers indicating a greater percentage of newspaper content. In January 2002, the Official Board Markets were

reporting the following prices in the New York region: $20-25/ton of mixed paper, $3540/ton of OCC, and $25-30/ton and $40-45/ton of #6 and #8 news, respectively. When the recycled paper is pulped, there is a residue, containing mostly plastic films, that ranges from 10-20% of the feed material. News and cardboard represent most of the material recovered and sold by New York City paper recyclers. The average recovery at the NYC paper stream MRFs is estimated at 10%. Accordingly, the tonnage of recovered paper in 1999 is estimated at 394,000*.90 = 354,600 tons. The Metal-Glass-Plastic (MGP) Stream At the beginning of 2002, the city was paying a fee ranging from $45-65 per ton of MPG to the processing MRFs. They were responsible for selling the products and disposing their residues to landfills. Of the four recycling facilities processing the DOScollected MGP, three provided on-site tours and interviews during the EEC study. Together, they represented 69% of the MGP stream of NYC.Most of the glass fraction of the DOS-collected stream was mixed broken glass mixed up with a small amount of dirt and small pieces of metal and plastic. However, a simple wash at the laboratory produced a nearly pure mixture of broken glass of different colors. Our study showed that most of the mixed broken glass is sent to landfills to be used as daily cover (at a tipping fee of about $10/ton less than landfilled MSW); some is pulverized for use either as aggregate substitute (e.g., road fill) or as landfill cover. MGP Material Recovery Facilities The operation of Plant A is similar to all three MRFs visited. It is located in the Bronx and was built in 1988. Labor needs fluctuate seasonally since waste flow generally increases during the summer, requiring a larger staff to process the material. Plant A operates around the clock five days a week and twenty hours on Saturdays. Shifts are eight hours long and employ about 40 workers. The plant receives 1100-1300 tons per week of DOS-collected MGP. It also bales 200 tons per week of used cardboard from commercial carters. The processing of DOS commingled material consists of 1) Tipping: After weighing in, trucks deposit waste on the tipping floor.

2) Pre-processing: 5-7 workers open the blue bags that contain MGP and screen the waste for non-recyclable, bulky items. 3) An inclined conveyor belt lifts the waste to a horizontal sorting belt. 4) 7 workers remove additional blue bags, plastic bags, and all other non-recyclable items. These materials are dropped down a chute for baling.. 5) Glass separation: 2 workers positively sort green glass, dropping glass down a chute into a bin. 6) 2 workers positively sort clear glass into a chute for collection. 7) 2 workers positively sort amber and brown glass into a chute for collection. 8) Screening of fines: Waste is conveyed over a vibrating screen and then through a rotating trommel screen that separates small particles, mostly broken glass. 9) Separation of ferrous metals: Material is passed under a magnetic separator which removes metal, primarily steel cans, into a bin for baling. 10) Separation of plastics: What remains of the stream, plastics and backend residue, is conveyed to a third conveyor belt. 11) 2 workers positively sort colored high density polyethylene (HDPE1) into a bin. 12) 2 workers positively sort natural-colored or clear high density polyethylene (HDPE2) into a bin. 13) 2 workers positively sort polyethylene terephthalate (PET) into a bin.When markets are strong, workers also sort out PVC and polypropylene items into smaller bins. 14) The remaining residue (mostly plastic bags and other non-recyclable plastics) is deposited in a bin for baling. Bales are approximately 3 feet x 5 feet x 6 feet and weigh about 1400 lbs. each. The plant residue consists of mixed broken glass and dirt particles separated by the trommel, bales of non-recyclable plastic film, and large plastic and wood objects. The residues are transported by 20-ton trucks to landfills in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Metal goods are hauled to local scrap metal recyclers. The marketable plastic materials are baled and transported to plastic recycling plants, where the plastic is melted down and pelletized for use in production of clothing, plastic containers and other goods. The operation of Plant B is very similar to that of Plant A.

Plant C is operated by a nationwide waste management company and serves as a transfer station for both DOS and commercial waste and also processes DOS-collected MGP. The plant is in operation six days a week and the total work force consists of forty five people working ten-hour shifts. It uses similar equipment to Plant A but is equipped with an eddy current separator for separating aluminum from steel objects. A hammer mill is used to pulverize the mixed broken glass stream so it can be used either as an alternate grading material or daily cover in landfills (in place of soil). The distribution of the products and by-products of the three plants visited are shown in Table 1 and are summed up in Table 2. Collectively, these plants processed nearly two thirds of the total MGP stream of NYC (278,000 tons per year). Table 1. Products and residues of MRFs A-C that process the NYC MGP stream
Plant A Material Clear HDPE Colored HDPE PET Other plastics Aluminum Steel cans Steel misc. Color-sorted glass Total recycled Mixed broken glass Plastic film and other residue Total landfilled Total processed Fraction of total NYC MGP stream (278,000 tons/y) 20.6% 6.6% 41.4% 29,400 57620 51.02% 100.00% 11,920 18470 64.54% 100.00% 81,790 115930 70.55% 100.00% Tons/year 920 920 920 1,900 580 3,800 14,400 4,780 28,220 14,400 15,000 % of input 1.60% 1.60% 1.60% 3.30% 1.01% 6.59% 24.99% 8.30% 48.98% 24.99% 26.03% 299 325 292 7 177 1440 3290 720 6,550 9580 2340 Plant B Tons/year % of feed 1.62% 1.76% 1.58% 0.04% 0.96% 7.80% 17.81% 3.90% 35.46% 51.87% 12.67% 34,140 45620 36170 1370 10940 16130 1960 1610 2130 Plant C Tons/year % of feed 1.69% 1.39% 1.84% 0.00% 1.18% 9.44% 13.91% 0.00% 29.45% 39.35% 31.20%

Table 2. Summary of materials recovered in Plants A, B,C

Material Clear HDPE Colored HDPE PET Other plastics All plastics: Aluminum Steel cans Iron and steel objects All iron and steel Color-sorted glass Total recycled materials Mixed broken glass residue Plastic film and bulky items residue Total residues Total processed

Tons/year 3179 2855 3342 1907 11,283 2127 16,180 33,820 50,000 5500 68,911 69,600 53,510 123,110 192,020

% of total 1.7% 1.5% 1.7% 0.99% 5.9% 1.1% 8.4% 17.6% 26.0% 2.9% 35.9% 36.3% 27.9% 64.1% 100.0%

On the basis of published information on the constitution of the NYC MSW (Life Fresh Kills 2002) and the recycling data of Table 2, it is possible to make a rough estimate of the percent recovery of each recyclable material in the three MRFs examined. Table 3 shows that the highest recovery was for ferrous metals (84.5%) followed by aluminum (23.0%), plastics (12.3%), and glass (10.7%). Table 3. Estimated % recovery of MGP recyclables at MRFs A+B+C of NYC
Component Distribution in MSW* Plastics Ferrous metals Aluminum Glass Total 8.9% 3.9% 0.9% 5.0% 18.7% Corresponding Distribution in MGP** 47.6% 20.9% 4.8% 26.7% 100.0% Tons MGP delivered to MRFs** 91,389 40,047 9242 51,342 192,020 Tons actually recycled by MRFs 11,283 33,820 2127 5500 52,730 12.3% 84.5% 23.0% 10.7% 27.5% % recovery of recyclables

*After Fresh Kills Report to NYC DOS ; ** assuming that MGP delivered to Plants A-C has same distribution as NYC MSW

Applying the 27.5% overall recovery rate of plants A,B, C to the entire tonnage of MGP stream collected by NYC-DOS results in 278,000*.275= 76,450 tons of actually recycled materials. Thus, the total of MGP and papermaterials recovered in 1999 is estimated to 431,050 tons. CURRENT RECYCLING IN NEW YORK CITY In the aftermath of the 9/11 disaster, Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveiled an aggressive budget plan designed to close a near-future budget gap estimated at billions of dollars. The temporary suspension of part of the MGP recycling program (glass and plastics) was one of the proposed cost-cutting measures. In February 2002, the Mayor stated that of the two recycling streams, paper worked and MGP did not. The data presented in this paper document the reasons: Only 12% of the plastics and 11% of the glass collected by the City at considerable cost (including the use of non-renewable fuel), were actually recycled. Most of the plastic residue was baled and sent to landfills so both its material and energy values were effectively wasted. The glass residue consisting of broken mixed glass had no market value or it would not end up in landfills. Yet the temporary suspension of glass and plastic collection was derided as anti-environmental. Since its inception, the curbside recycling efforts of the Department of Sanitations have been the subject of intense scrutiny. Although the size and density of New York represent an enormous waste management challenge, DOS has developed a collection infrastructure and awareness of recycling in all of its residential communities through innovative public education efforts and some research initiatives (e.g. composting). However, the success of any recycling system depends on public response (to actually set apart recyclable materials) and markets for recyclable products that are beyond the jurisdiction of municipalities, no matter how large they may be. For example, the estimated (Life After Fresh Kills 2002, Table B-5) total of potentially recyclable paper in the DOS-collected MSW (4.5 million tons total) is about 1.5 million tons. Yet, the amount of paper that was set aside by New Yorkers for collection by DOS amounted to only 0.39 million tons, i.e. 26% of the maximum available in the MSW. Also, as shown in Table 3, for lack of markets, only 27.5% of the materials in the MGP collected by the city were actually recycled. Obviously, there is a long way to attaining the 100%

recycling rates expected by some, even for recyclable materials, let alone the fact that some materials like disposable diapers are not recyclable by any stretch of imagination. POSSIBILITIES FOR INCREASING RECYCLING RATES Sending bales of plastics to landfills is not limited to New York City. EPA reports that only 5.4% of the plastics generated in the U.S. were recycled in 2000 (Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S.: 2000 Facts and Figures (www.epa.gov). It is an environmental paradox that the U.S. is digging up new oil fields and coal mines in pristine areas and, at the same time, converts greenfields to brownfields also greenfields by burying nearly 20 million tons of fuel in the form of plastics. It is regrettable that the environmental organizations that rightly oppose opening oil exploration in Alaska are not taking any interest in the vast new deposits of combustible and putrescible materials spreading over the land. With respect to glass, an obvious response to the low NYC recovery is to avoid breakage on route between kitchens and MRFs. This will require modifying the present collection system so that bottles are not crushed during handling of the blue bags or by compaction of the waste in the DOS trucks. By itself, this will increase the cost of collection since it depends on the volume of material collected. However, the collection cost may be decreased by changing from the NYC two-stream of recyclables (paper and MGP) to a single combined stream of all recyclables. This single stream would then be sent to new, automated MRFs that separate marketable materials from nonrecyclable residues. Such a system is partially used by the City of Phoenix, Arizona. It consists of collecting two streams, the black bag waste that, unfortunately, in Arizona goes to landfills and a recyclable stream (equivalent to the NYC combined paper and MGP streams) that goes to two modern MRFs. Single-stream MRFs have been in use since the late 1980s, with facilities currently also operating in Los Angeles, Seattle, and Palm Beach, amongst other cities (Todd 2002). The simplicity and lower cost of collecting one stream of recyclables appeals both to citizens and municipalities, for different reasons. The 27th Avenue MRF of Phoenix, AZ

Figure 1 shows the flowsheet of one of the two single-stream MRFs of Phoenix, AZ. This facility was designed by the McGuire Group in collaboration with Resource Recovery Technologies (RRT) of Melville, New York. The total capital cost was eight million dollars in 1999 (Phoenix Public Works Department). It has a capacity of 100,000 tons per day and is based on recovery technology common to other modern single-stream MRFs in the U.S. (Biddle 1998). The capital cost of this MRF amounted to about $80 per annual ton capacity ($30,000 tons per daily ton capacity). A third facility is scheduled for completion in 2005.

Figure 2. Schematic of single-stream materials recovery facility in Phoenix As shown in Figure 2, the sorting of waste starts on the tipping floor where bulky, non-recyclable items and scrap metal are removed. The remainder of the stream is then loaded onto an inclined conveyor belt by means of grapples and front-loaders. 10

Workers then further screen the conveyed material for bulky items unsuitable for the automated separation equipment. The first automated device is the primary screening machine which sifts out small particles such as dirt and broken glass using vibrating horizontal screens. The oversize material passes over the screens and is deposited at the top of an inclined sorting table. The table surface consists of a number of conveyor belts that move in a horizontal direction. As the materials move down the inclined table, the paper materials tend to stick on the conveyor belts, are conveyed across the incline, and are discharged off to one side of the table and onto conveyor belts below it. Metal, glass, and plastic containers, and other objects tend to roll down the surface of the inclined table, and fall onto a conveyor belt disposed underneath the base of the sorting table. This stream is first conveyed past a magnetic separator that collects the ferrous objects. The remaining objects are conveyed through an inclined conveyor belt where the heavy glass containers roll through a rotating curtain of heavy chain while the lighter plastic and aluminum containers continue to move on the conveyor belt. The glass containers are then separated manually to sort the glass stream into flint, amber, and green glass. The plastics-aluminum stream is sent through an eddy current separator to recover aluminum and then the plastic containers are sorted manually. The paper stream resulting from the inclined sorting table is also subjected to magnetic separation to recover any ferrous materials. Workers then manually sort the remaining material into newspaper, telephone books, cardboard, mixed paper, and highgrade paper streams. Using this technology described above, the city of Phoenix diverted 82,236, i.e. 76.9% of the collected recyclables. This material represented 14.3% of the 573,834 tons of MSW collected by Phoenix in 2001. Table 4 shows the tonnages of theoretically available recyclables in the total MSW stream of Phoenix, the combined tonnage of source-separated recyclables, the tonnages actually recycled at the MRFs and the capture rate of each material. Table 4. Performance of Phoenix MRFs
Materials Estimated tons in MSW As % of total MSW Total collected recyclables, Actually recycled, tons Actually recycled as % of total Recycled material as % of collected

11

tons Paper Metal Glass Plastic Targeted materials All other materials Total MSW Landfilled: 573,834 491,598 100% 85.7% 355,204 218,630 61.90% 38.10% 106,970 218,631 44,759 31,561 60,253 38.10% 7.80% 5.50% 10.50% 70,906 3407 3198 4725 82,236

collected 66.29% 3.19% 2.99% 4.42% 76.88%

recyclables 86.22% 4.14% 3.89% 5.75% 100.00%

Table 5 compares the performance of the NYC and Phoenix recycling programs. It can be seen that the current collection efficiency of NYC is 16.6% vs 18.6% for Phoenix. However, assuming that collection of recyclables in Phoenix can increase by 50%, when the third MRF is started in 2005 the Phoenix overall recycling efficiency will increase to 27%. The NYC MRF recovery efficiency (2000) was 69.8% vs 76.9% for Phoenix. The tons of recycled materials were nearly the same at about 0.06 tons per person. The one advantage of NYC is that it sends 550,000 tons of MSW per year to waste-to-energy plants that generate electricity. This resulted in 77.9% of the NYC MSW being landfilled vs 85.7% of the Phoenix MSW. Table 5. Comparison of Phoenix (2001) and NYC (1999) MRFs
NYC Population (2000) Collected residential MSW, tons Collected Paper + MGP, tons Collected Paper+MGP, as % of total MSW Actually recycled Paper+MGP, tons Actually recycled Paper+MGP, as % of total MSW Actually recycled Paper+MGP, as % of Paper+MGP to MRFs Tons of MSW to Waste-to-Energy Recyclables recovered, tons per capita 8,008,000 4,525,000 672,000 14.9% 431,050 9.5% 64.1% 550,000 0.05 Phoenix 1,321,000 573.834 106,970 18.6% 82,236 14.3% 76.9% 0 0.06

12

MSW to Waste-to-Energy, tons per capita

0.12

Conclusions The results of the Todd study (1) showed that despite an apparent all-out effort by DOS to collect paper and MPG, less than one third of the generated materials were actually source-separated by the citizens; the rest never reached the MRFs or recycling plants. Also, for lack of markets, even at zero or negative prices, nearly 90% of the plastic and glass that was collected by DOS in the MGP stream, at a considerable cost to the City, ended up in landfills. Another interesting finding was that building large, modern MRFs such as the ones in Phoenix, may increase the 1999 rate of NYC recycling by as much as 50%. Commingled collection of recyclable materials, as is done in Phoenix, AZ, will reduce the present number of recyclable collections from two to one and, properly implemented, will reduce glass breakage. Since collection represents the largest fraction of recycling costs, this should have a significant impact on overall program costs. Single-source collection of recyclables also simplifies separation at the source, thus increasing the amount of collected recyclables. Also, investing in a few well-designed MRFs will provide better jobs and will improve the neighborhoods where small and antiquated MRFs are located. New Yorks Department of Sanitation explored the possibility of building cityowned Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) in the early 1990s (Dubanowitz 2000) but the plans were halted by opposition from private recyclers as well as by lack of political support. The overwhelmingly negative reaction to Mayor Bloombergs suspension of glass and plastic recycling suggests that perhaps now there is sufficient motivation and public support to address and improve the NYC recycling program. References: TO EDITOR, REFERENCES BELOW WILL BE COMPLEMENTED WITH REFERENCES NOTED THROUGHOUT THE TEXT Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Annual Waste Reduction and Recycling Questionnaire (Carl Smith of the City of Phoenix Dept. of Public Works), 2001. Biddle, David, MRF Designs Around Single Stream Recycling BioCycle: August

13

1998. Biddle, David. Comparing Recycling Programs in Major U.S. Cities. BioCycle: September 2001. Bloomberg, Michael R. Presentation of Preliminary Budget for Fiscal 2003. New York City Office of Management and Budget: Feb.13, 2002. http://nyc.gov/html/om/html/2002a/budget_2003.html City of Chicago Department of Environment, Blue Bag Recycling Program Results, 2001. http://www.ci.chi.il.us/environment/BlueBag/Results.html. City of New York Independent Budget Office, Overview of the Waste Stream Managed by the NYC Department of Sanitation: February 2001. City of New York Independent Budget Office, Closing Fresh Kills Means Mounting Costs to dispose of New York Citys Garbage.Inside the Budget: No. 77, Feb. 5, 2001. City of New York Office of the Comptroller: Bureau of Management Audit. Audit of the New York City Department of Sanitations Recycling Program. June 29, 2001 City of Phoenix Public Works Department. This is the MRF Where Phoenix Recycles, 1998. Dubanowitz, A.J. Design of a Materials Recovery Facility for Processing the Recyclable Materials of New York City Municipal Solid Waste, M.S. Thesis, Columbia University 2000. Earth Engineering Center and SIPA, Life After Fresh Kill, Report to NYC Administration, December 2001, Columbia University (www.columbia.edu/wtert). Egosi, Nathiel. Resource Recovery Technologies. E-mail correspondence. April 2002. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2000 Facts and Figures, EPA530-R-02-001, www.epa.gov, June 2002. NYC Department of Sanitation: Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse and Recycling. New York City Recycling in Context: A Comprehensive Analysis of Recycling in Major U.S. Cities. August 2001. NYC Department of Sanitation: Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse and Recycling. Recycling: What do New Yorkers Think? 5 Years of Market Research. Fall 1999. New York City Department of Sanitation: Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse and Recycling. What happens to my recyclables? June 1995.

14

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dos/html/bw_what/index.html. Recyclers World. RecycleNet Waste Paper Index Online Market Prices, May 15, 2002. http://www.recycle.net/price/paper.html. Recycling Manager, Recycling Manager Archives, American Metal Market, LLC: 2001. http://www.amm.com/recman/recprmnu.htm. SCS Engineers. New York City Waste Composition Study. 1991. Todd, C.E., Technical and Economic Analysis of the New York City Recycling System, M.S. Thesis, Columbia University. 2002 (www.columbia.edu/wtert).

15