Page 6 RAIN November 1978 The Hidden Cost of Toxic and Hq,zardous Materials There is another disecpnomy of such recovery that has not· even been taken into account-one that is being externalited on the public-at-large: . All dumps or transfer stations receive a steady stream of toxic and hazardous materials, which with minimal legal enforcement and on-site controls, become thoroughly mixed in with other forms of waste, particularly when shredders and air classifiers are used. A short list of these materials known to make regular appearances in the solid waste stream include cadmium, lead, acids in batteries, radioactive elements from smoke detectors, zinc oxide in photocopy paper~ esticide and herbicide residues in discarded containers, exotjc metal oxides in paints, chlorides in plastics, petroleum distillates, PCBs in fluorescent light fixtures, glues, resins, raw sewage in disposable diapers, dynamite and other explosiv~ substances. No one knows how many different contaminants for sure, Nor do they know how they combine with each· other or with other materials, how they will affect the mostly anaerobic life processes that work beneath the surface of the landfill, whether and by what channels they will migrate into contact w·ith aerobic life forms, or what they will do wh~n they are burned. Test programs typically gather data only on a few items. Testing is expensive and complicate~; hundreds of items go untested. In varying concentrations, all these and more toxic and hazl!,rdous materials are distrib~ted throughout the moving waste stream. The more thoroughly processed, the more th0roughly the substances are mixed. The Highgrading Concept _Such .conc'erns were part of the context in which La11;e Counny Office of Appropriate Technology was formed in August of 1977. The majority of the staff hired during the first year were CETA employees brought in u9der a proposal to do a resource recovery program for the county. ~AT hired five experienced recyclers, each with a wealth of specialized knowledge. As the projects developed, Tom Brandt and others in OAT worked out the details of a highgrading system for recovering valuable metals and finished goods. The overall strategy, developed through the hard experien·ce of learning to survive financially off the solid waste stream, was based on a simple idea: metals are the most valuable items in solid waste, and metals recovered·in an organized form are worth-more money. Therefore, the highgrading project was organized so as to maintain and restore organization in the solid waste stream for the metals fraction. Workers in the project, which lasted 10 weeks, selected desirable metals, ,such as aluminum, copper, brass, cast iron and heavy steel, and processed them to meet market require,- ments. The public performed the initial selection function; they were informed of the new recycling option by a spotter who also gave them a card explaining the types of materials the project was looking for. Many people were eager to help, to the,point of separating the metals out of mixed loads and taking the extra time to drop them off at the metals recovery . area. The degree of public cooperation is perhaps best measured by th~ consistent, 30-ton-per-month jump in metals recovery after the project started. While one person spotted loads and distributed cards, the other received materials, sorted and cleaned them, and maintained the integrity of the collection system. Eventually, the •materials were marketeH and records kept of revenues, hours, etc. The energy require~ents for processing materials using the Mechanized Resource Recovery approach was more than 50,000 BTU_s per ton, and with the Highgraµing approach it _ was only 12,000 BTUs per ton. Much more impressive was the requirement for capital costs to employ people: With Mechani'zed Resource Recovery costs were more than $350,000.per person, while using the Highgrading concept.it was less than $500.00 per person. This one full-time person enabled Lane County's Metals Recovery Demonstration Project to more than double the volume of mixed metals recove~ed, therefore doubling revenues. -MA.T~ Rf(OV[R'( l)(roN:i1W\110N · PROJKT Offl{.E 0~ AM'RO~\Jlio.TE. ~c::.MHO\.OG.Y ,TATt.\~ lt.EfO~. ' IS JIA"'E l"\"11?> ljO !IO IP EXPE.<TEP VOU\ME. e:H;ED ON TEN MONTH INEIVAE (2?.-, '2»4~ /t"-o) MET~ .. VOlllME CTON~) JUNE 1-14• _., ~-AATS> EXPEct\:.t> • VOLUME : 47°/4 CF 2~-1 • 1'2. TON~ Surface Mining for Elemental Metals and Alloys While mining and manufacturing industries are going greater distances to retrieve poorer grade ores from an increasingly degraded resource base, consuming more energy, producing negativ€ environmental impacts and pushing inflation, the QAT metals highgrading demonstration_project seems to have·made a major metals "strike"-right in the middle of the solid waste stream. Viewed as a production_system rather than as a materials handling system, the project generated some impressive tonnages, especially when they are annualized. High Grade Metals_Production* Metals Aluminum (all grades) Copper (all grades) Brass (all .grades) Cast Iron & Steel Actual Output, 10 Weeks 6,747 lb. 220 505 21,670 29,142 lb. Annualized Output 33,735 lb. 1,100 - 2,525 108,350 145,710 lb. *With 2 people working an average total of 48 hours per week, including education and spotting; program affected less than 20 percent of the total solid waste stream for a .Metropolitan area of about 250,000. I .
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz