by Daniel Lantz, Fred Edgecombe and Richard Warner

computer-based program can \

assess processing expansions and simplifv MRF management.

What is the effect on processing operations of adding a new material to the collection stream? What is the cost if processing rates decrease by 5 percent? How much money could be saved by moving from manual to automated sorting? The market for a recycl- able material now has new specifications - what is the cost implication? These questions and many others are asked almost daily by materials recovery facility (MRF) operators, including municipalities. Oftentimes, how- ever, the answers are hard to determine with- out first making physical changes to MRF op- erations and then studying the results.

A new computer-based Materials Recov- ery Facility-Processing Cost Model (MRF- PCM) can anwer these questions, without un- dertaking costly physical changes in MRF operations. The model was developed by Proctor & Redfem Limited for the Environ- ment and Plastics Institute of Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Ener- gy. To illustrate and substantiate this, an overview of how the MRF-PCM works will be presented, followed by two case studies.

Model overview MRF-PCM provides a tool to examine staffrng and equipment requirements and the

cost impact of processing recyclable materi- als in a MRF. The model is not restricted to reviewing the requirements for processing all materials received at a MRF. Simply by al- tering the input variables, the model can be applied to processing a single material, a sin- gle stream of material or any number of ma- terials or streams of materials, under either a manual or automated processing system. As market prices for materials fluctuate, recy-

cling programs may have to be examined on a material-by-material basis to allow opera- tors to minimize costs among more or less profitable materials.

Case study No. 1: How much will it cost to add HDPE to my current program? This MRF operator wanted to add HDPE con- tainers to the recycling stream, but was con-

Daniel Lantz is the waste management systems planner for Proctor & Redfem Limited, a consulting en- gineering firm in Don Mills, Ontario. Fred Edgecombe is technical vice president of the Environment and Plastics Institute of Canada (Mississauga, Ontario). Richard Wamer is a materials specialist for the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (Toronto).

Resource Rec~cling July 1995 m

i/ Examine the labor/equipment requirements and costs associated with starting a processing facility.

/ Calculate the costs associated with expanding a program by adding new materials and adding new sources of materials.

I/ Calculate the costs associated with initiating new mechanisms to in- crease material processing rates.

/ Manage MI& operations.

d Review costs associated with pilot programs.

/ Assist in budget planning.

Determine the materials to collect (e.g., effect of market prices, capture rate and material availability).

cerned about the cost implicatiot% and the ef- fect of the addition on current processing op- erations. Data on the current program were

Zollection and processing responsibility Aetric tons processed in 1993 (1) /laterials processed in the

current program Jollection method

:urrent processing confíguration

Innual cost in 1993, in Canadian dollars $1,242,000, or $57 per metric ton (2)

>NP = Old newspapers; OMG = Old magazines and catalogs; OCC = Old corrugated containers; OBB = Old boxboard. 1) A metric ton equals 2,204.6 pounds. 2) Total cost includes capital, operating and administrative expenses. Total cost is approximate. FOI

proprietary reasons, the exact figure was not released by the private operator. ;ource: Proctor & Redfem Limited, 1995.

entered into the MRF-PCM to compare the cost effects of the additional materials. Sta- tistics describing the program before adding HDPE are outlined in Table 1.

Using the tables in the MRF-PCM man- ual, the quantity of HDPE plastic containers

Case Study No. 1, general statistics, hefore adding HDPE

Private collection; private processing 21,850 ONP, OMG, OCC, OBB, aluminum and

steel cans, PET and glass containers Curbside, sorted into four compartments -

fíbe13, containers (except glass), clear glass, colored glass

One raised conveyor line sorts both fibers and containers. Fibers are sorted in the first shift, by five sorters. Containers require only one-half of the second shift. Two sorters are required. Baling requires two ful1 shifts.

-

that could be expected to be recovered was calculated - 480 metric tons of HDPE per year. Five metric tons would be removed as residue during processing. These additional tons were added to the base case data in the model. Because only one plastic item was

Lean & Mean Take a close look at what you are paying for in a hydraulic hook lift loader. Are you paying a premium price for “excess fat”? Stellar 52,000 and 65,000 pound capacity loaders put the beef where the beef is needed. Look at our massive 3-inch diameter rear hinge pin, or the single 8-inch bore cylinder on the 52,000-pound and twin 7-inch bore cylinders on our new 65,000-Pound loader. If stability in dumping is importan1 to you, does your loader have a full length, 27-inch wide framework with outside front saddles to support your container when dumping? Yes, there is a reason why our loaders are up to a ton liahter than some competitive makes. Siellar works harder to design a machine

280 West 3nl Street rugged enough to provide years of P. 0. Box 169

i Garner, lowa service while not costing an arm and a

50438 U.S.A. leg in lost net payload capacity. Join : Telephone: 5151923-3741 others that have discovered the Stellar

IWDUSTRlES /WC. Fax: 515/923-2812 Advantage today. Circle 304 on RR service card

Resorrrce Reqclirlg July 1995 m

Parameter Before adding

HDPE After adding

HDPE

Number of hours per day required to sort containers 4 4 Conveyor belt speed 53 feet/minute 67 feetlminutr Number of sorters required per four-hour shift 2 6 Average sorting rate for HDPE (1) N.A. 298 Average sorting utilization rate for HDPE (2) N.A. 97% Number of baling hours required per day 16.5 17.5 Additional costs per year, in Canadian dollars N.A. $48,700

N.A. = Not applicable. (1) In pounds per hour. (2) The unlizatioa rate assumes 10 percent downtime due to events outside worker control. The rnax.

imum sorting rate for HDPE is 308 pounds per hour per worker. Source: Proctor & Redfem Limited, 1995.

being added, it was estimated that each sorter could maintain an uninterrupted, relatively high sorting rate of approximately 140 kilo- grams (308 pounds) per hour of HDPE.

Results of the investigation. The impact on processing requirements are summarized in Table 2. The four-hour shift for sorting containers could be maintained and the HDPE could be sorted using four sorters. Because the setup at the MRF has trine $orting stations on the belt, there was not a concem with po-

tentially needing a large number of people to sort one material.

Total operating cost per year would in- crease by approximately $49,000 (al1 dollars are Canadian). This includes the costs of four half-time sorters (including payroll taxes and benetits), additional baler operating costs (ie., wire and electricity), baler operator time (at overtime rates) and freight costs. Any addi- tional time for moving bales or unsorted ma- terials could be absorbed by the current em-

ployees (i.e., by increasmg cneu ~~uuuu~~~~ ty slightly).

Effect on operating costs. Revenues for HDPE were expected to be approximately $7 1,250 per year ($150 per metric ton). Therefore, from a processing perspective, be- cause the revenues would exceed costs, it was recommended that the MRF operator add HDPE containers to the list of materials be- ing processed.

Case study No. 2: What is the effect on operations of adding a new source of materials? A private MRF operator wanted to submit a bid to process materials from a nearby com- munity. He was already processing materi- als from three other municipalities in the area. The MRF operator was concemed that the in- creased tonnage (20 percent) would result in having to add a third shift to his MRF’s op- erations.

The MRF-PCM was used to determine the effect of the additional tonnage of material. Data on the current operations were entered into the MRF-PCM to provide a basis for comparing the effects of the additional mate- rials. The general statistics for the program are outlined in Table 3.

Results of the investigation. The effect on the processing requirements are summa- rized in Table 4. The two shifts required for

With This Capaeity, A Champion CanGoMoreThan AFew Rounds

The Walinga Champion l Positive power up 8 down l 45 yard capacity l Hydraulic Bustle tail gate l Walinga Factory “Cab

Convt!rsion”

m .<: Rewurce Rec~~lmg July 199.5 CV& 199 on RR service card

sorting fibers and containers could be main- tained. However, it was determined that one additional sorter per shift would be required on the fibers line and one additional sorter on the containers line. The setup at the MRF has nine sorting stations on each side of the fiber belt, and seven on each side of the containers belt. On each sorting line, the MFLF has mul- tiple sorting stations assigned to one storage bunker. This allows the MRF operator to as- sign additional people to sort specific mate- rials as the incoming material characteriza- tion changes (e.g., especially with recyclables from the commercial sector). This flexibility also means that adding one person on the fibers or containers line (as required to sort the additional materials) does not affect the current sorting configurations (Le., location of sorters on each of the sorting lines picking specific materials in a specific order).

Adding 20 percent more materials in- creased the average quantity of material sort- ed by each sorter by 29 kilograms (64 pounds) per hour on the fibers line and by 13 kilo- grams (29 pounds) per hour on the contain- ers line (see Table 5 and Figure 1). Effective sorting rates improved by 10 percent, from 83 percent to 91 percent, on the fibers line and by almost 9 percent, from 82 percent to 89 percent, on the containers line,(see Table 5 and Figure 2).

It was calculated that eight additional hours

Collection and processing responsibility Public collection; private processing Metric tons processed in 1993 (1) 54,505 Additional metric tons to be processed

under new contract ll ,200 Materials processed ONP, OMG, OCC, OBB, mixed paper

(including junk mail), aluminum and steel cans, PET and HDPE containers, plastic tubs, plastic film, clear and colored glass

Collection method Curbside, sorted into four compartments - fibers (including plastic film), containers (except glass), clear glass, colored glass

Current processing configuration Two raised conveyors sort both fibers and containers. Fibers are sorted in two shifts, by 10 sorters on each shift. Containers require only one shift with nine sorters. Baling with two balers requires two shifts.

Annual cost in 1993, in Canadian dollars $2,900,000, or $53 per metric ton (2)

MRF = Materials recovery facility; ONP = Old newspapers; OMG = Old magazines and catalogs; OCC = Old cormgated containers; OBB = Old boxboard.

(1) A metric ton equals 2,204.6 pounds. (2) Total cost includes capital, operating and administrative expenses. Total cost is approximate. For

proprietary reasons, tbe exact figure was not released by the private operator. Source: Proctor & Redfem Limited, 1995.

of baling (Le., 4 hours per shift), from 36 to 44 hours per day (over two balers), were re- quired to sort the new materials. The MRF

operator decided that it would be more cos effective to run a third baling shift rather thar purchase another baler and keep only two bal

CRUSH 8r STORE ALUMINUM BEVERAGE CANS

CANPACTOR II CRUSHES 81 SELF EJECTS CANTOPPER 16” wide by 34” tal1 by 22” deep. Weighs 10 Ibs. New economy lid fits on existing 32 gallon trash and holds a 30 gallon trash bag. containen including Rubbemaid and Tucker. $64.95 plus S&H $29.95 Plus s&H

TWO CHOICES - CANPACTOR II OR NEW CANTOPPER At last! A practical spacesaving answer to the bulky mess of can collecting. Perfect for schools, clubs, offices, homes,

cafeterias, bars - wherever cans collect. Made of highly durable polyethylene, both the Canpactor II and the Cantopper are hand operated and self ejecting. Crush and store over 400 cans with no mess. For more information call l-800-622-6069.

CSL & ASSOCIATES l-800-622-6069

202 Buck Drive, Fort Walton Beach. FL 32548, 904-664-6801. FAX: 904-664-6838

m Resowce Recycling July 1995 CV& 326 on RR service card

ing shifts. Any further increases in material woulii mean that a third baler would have to be purchased.

Effect on operating costs. Operating costs to process an additional 11,200 metric tons would increase by approximately $197,000 per year. This includes the cost of two additional sorters for fibers processing and one additional sorter for the containers line (costs include payroll taxes and benefíts), additional baler operating costs (i.e., wire and electricity), additional baler operator time and other related expenses. It was estimated that processing the additional ll ,200 metric tons could be accomplished for only approximately $17 per metric ton. The estimated increase in costs does not include any profit.

B y using the MRF-PCM, the MRF oper- ator was confdent of the cost impact of adding the additional tons and, therefore, was able to submit a lower bid than originally planned for the contract.

Conclusions As MRF operators move to increase effi- ciencies and decrease costs, the MRF-PCM model allows them to do this more effective- ly. More important than just being able to ex- amine processing, the MRF-PCM was de- veloped to work in conjunction with the Mu- nicipal Recycling Collection Cost Model

4 COMPANY -

Rugged and Relíable

MODEL 102 AUTOMATIC WIRE TYER

HIGHER PRODUCTION SPEED LOWER OPERATING COSTS

Designed specificaliy for the recycling, solid waste and

non-ferrous industries. For more information, contact

the leaders in wire tying technology: GERRARD WIRE PRODUCTS

13350 N.E. Whitaker Way Portland, OR 97230

(563) 252-0363

Circle 7 on RR service card

m Resource Recycling July 1995

(MRCCM) (see “Allocating recycling pro- Together, the two moaels auuw ~~~~~~~~~~ gram costs: The rigid plastic container ex- program operators to relate their collectior ample,“‘in the May 1992 issue). method to their processing operations. Pro

Case Study No. 2, effect of adding 20 percent more material to an existing MRF operation

Before adding new Parameter material source

Number of hours per day required to sort fibers 16

Conveyor belt speed, fiber line 37 feetlminute Number of sorters required per eight-

hour shift, fiber line 10 Number of hours per day required to

sort contítiners 8 Conveyor belt speed, containers line 29 feet/mi&te Number of sorters required per eight-

hour sbift, containers line 9 Number of baling hours required per day l8x2balers Additional estimated costs per year N.A.

N.A. = Not applicable. Source: Proctor & Redfem Limited, 199.5.

After adding new material source

16 45 feetiminute

11

8 35 feet/minute

10 22 x 2 balers $197,000 @CN)

on processing operations

Number of Actual sorting rate sorters required (pounds per hour)

Sorter utilization rate

Material Before -After Before After Before -

Fiber sorting line DNP/OMG/OTD Negatively Negatively

sorted sorted N.A. N.A. N.A. DCC/OBB 4 4.5 (1) 985 1,051 89% Mixed household papers

Plastic film Fiber stream residue

Average total per shift

1.5 (2) 1.5 (1) 1,117 3.5 (2) 4 145

1 1 637

10 ll 677

1,351 72% 152 87%

Container sorting line Aluminum cans 1.5 (3) 1.5 (3) 280 PET soft drink

containers 1.5 (3) 1.5 (3) 355 HIPE containers 4.5 (4) 5 251 Plastic tubs 1.5(4) 2 176 3teel cans 1 magnet 1 magnet 4,421 Zontainer Negatively Negatively stream residue sorted sorted N.A.

Average total per shift (5) 9. 10 287

778 58%

741 83%

335 77%

432 72% 273 88% 161 80%

5,369 67%

N.A. N.A.

315 82%

grcrfii aperators now have the tools to exam- ine, in theory, how a change in collection will affect processing operations or what the ef-

Further information about the EPIUMOEE cost model may be obtained from the Environment and Plastics Institute of Canada, 5925 Airport Road,

fect on collection costs would be under a re- Suite 500. Mississauga, Ontario, Cañada, L4V vised processing method. RR 1 W 1 or from Rick Warner at the Ontario Ministry

Sorting rates (kg/hour) before new material added

Sorting rates (kg/hour) after new material added

ocu Plastic Fiber Aluminum HDPE Container OBB Mixed film Fiber stream cans PET containers Plastic stream

household stream average paper residue

soft dnnk containers

tubs average

\ I Fibers - I Containers -

XC = Old corrugated containers; OBB = Old boxboard. source: Proctor & Redfem Limited, 1995.

Manual sorter utilization rate before new material source added

r-l “. Manual sorter utilization rate after new material source added

90 2 0 80 8 c 70 .f g 60

; 50 .w .- 40 5 z 30 33 5 20

10

0 OCCI Plastic Fiber Alumiñum HDPE Container OBB Mixed film Fiber stream cans PET containers plastic stream

household stream average soft drink tubs average wer residue containers

- Fibers - - Containers - &c = Old corrugated containers; OBB = Old boxboard. ‘ource: Proctor & Redfem Limited, 1995.

of Environment and Energy, Waste Reduction Branch, 40 St. Clair Avenue West, 7th Loor, Toron- to, Ontario, M4S IL5 The model is available at no cost.

Notes

The monetary unit is the Canadian dollar; a met- ric ton equals 2.204.6 pounds; a kilogram is 2.2 pounds.

Acknowledgements

The MRF-PCM project was co-sponsored by the Environment and Plastics Institute of Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Enegy. The authors would like to thank the following peo- ple who made up rhe Steering Committee for the MRF-PCM and devoted their time and insight to help produce the model: Dr. Fred Edgecombe (Vice President, Technicol, EPIC); Rick Wamer (Materials Specialist. MOEE); John Lieou (Mu- nicipal Recycling Support Program, MOEE); John Baldry (Scotts Plains Recycling Inc.); Gwen Dis- cepolo (Bronte 3Rs Inc.); Herb Lambacher (HGC Consultan& Inc.); Rob Ross (Laidlaw Waste Sys- tems Inc.); Iain Wates (Muskoka Containerized Services Inc.); and Barry Wood (President. Re- source Plastics Incorporated).

Compacts aluminum cans, ‘-pIastic bottles and jugs, styro-

‘oam cups, dishes and trays, laminated and ‘ilm plastics, rags, etc. into 2O”x2O”x36” 3ales, each weighíng approximately 125 Ibs.

Sonveniently fits onto a truck or trailer for :urb-side use and easily connects to a 12- dolt system or it can be set up for 220-volt single-phase in-plant operation.

Lease for under $155 per month.

ARIZONA (602)437-5020 (602)437-5025 l-800-223-454C

3451 S. 40th St. l Phoenix, AZ 85040 Man”fsct”nng Ph”f b.!cmmll0. M N

circle 153 on RR service card