Minneapolis hopes to double recycling with move from seven-sort to single-sort

Photo courtesy of Allied Waste.

After 30 years of curbside pickup for multi-sorted recycling, the city of Minneapolis is switching to single-sort recycling. On May 25, the City Council and Mayor R.T. Rybak approved a plan to move forward with single-sort recycling by 2013, in hopes of drastically increasing the city's recycling rate.

Currently, Minneapolis uses a seven-sort system, where residents must separate cans, plastic, glass, paper and cardboard, and magazines into different containers before being picked up by the city. The city then transports that pre-sorted material to a contracted recycling plant where they unload the differing containers separately, without much need to sort through the material.

With single-sort, the material will arrive in one bin, leaving all of the sorting to the plants.

"I'm extremely excited about it," said Rybak. "For many years we had the right impulse, which is to ask more of our residents. The reality is it's been clearly demonstrated that we can get dramatically more materials recycled by going single sort, so let's do what we know is effective."

For the last decade, Minneapolis' recycling rate has remained at a stagnant 18.1 percent. The city wants to double that rate to 35 percent by 2015, a goal necessary to continue receiving state grant funding from SCORE, or Support of Competitive Research. According to the city's study, they believe they can bring that 18.1 percent to 32 percent simply by switching to single-sort recycling. A switch to a dual-sort system would only bring their recycling rate to 25 percent.

While the goals may seem ambitious, they've been long overdue says Richard Hirstein of Allied Waste Services, Minneapolis' main contracted recycling company. Single-sort has become a standard, says Hirstein, and Minneapolis is way behind.

Minneapolis seems especially behind when compared to sister city, St. Paul, which uses a double-sort system. St. Paul currently has a recycling rate of 30 percent, and it doesn't end there. In 2010, St. Paul began developing an organic recycling program, to further its goal of becoming waste-free by 2020.

"I'm extremely interested in addressing organics," said Rybak. However, before spending more money on developing city-run programs that would pick up the materials with trucks, he'd like to explore collaborative community solutions, such as developing community compost for community gardens, something the neighborhoods would run, not the city.

Besides the predicted increase in recycling, the switch to single-sort will also save the city of Minneapolis money. According to the Southwest Journal, the switch is estimated to lower the city's annual net recycling operation cost from $900,000 a year to $717,00 a year. The city will also save $28,000 by being able to utilize its current truck fleet.

"Less trucks too," said Jeff Jinks with Minneapolis Public Works. When Minneapolis switches over, says Jinks, the trucks will have two-person crews and will be able to combine routes, speeding up the process of collecting recyclables, and therefore reducing the need for more trucks.

"It's going to definitely increase the amount of recycling collected," continued Jinks. "We're going to get more material not going to the garbage, so that's a huge bonus to this."

The process will take more time on the sorting end, however, says Jinks. "There will be more time needed to separate out the material."

The plants are ready for it, according to Hirstein. "It's mostly done by machine." The Allied Waste plants house giant conveyor belts with sophisticated methods for separating recyclables, said Hirstein.

For paper, rubber rollers skim through the materials, catching the paper and preventing it from moving forward, what recyclers refer to as "surfing," said Hirstein. "The rollers catch onto the paper because the rubber is sort of sticky."

From there they use "eddy streams" to collect the aluminum, said Hirstein, a technique using the polarization of magnets to push instead of attract. An optical sensor then helps detect the plastic from the glass.

The result of the process, said Hirstein, is that the delay will be minimal despite the load coming in mixed.

As for the residents of Minneapolis, the effect is simple: less work. Residents will soon be able to dump all their recyclables into one container, the same way they do their garbage — and like the garbage, it will be picked up quickly, and most likely with a giant fork lift attached to the back of a truck.

"The convenience is going to be really nice," said Jinks, "for both the customer and the collection."

    Comments

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

    Bullshit

    It's amazing and depressing that on a subject so easily researched, almost nobody writing on this has made any effort to report the other side of the story.

    Nobody seriously interested in getting to high recycling rates thinks "single sort" is the way to go.  Mpls collection systems needed to change, but not in this way.

    Alan Muller

    And what is the other side of

    And what is the other side of the story? Everyone I talked to, including people that do the recycling, contrary to what you're saying, said single sort is the way to go. Please, enlighten us.

    Bullshit on "single sort"

    Who did you talk to?  Anybody outside the closed circle controlled by Hennepin County Environmental Services?  Pardon the harshness of my previous comment, but I thought the purpose of the Media Alliance was to promote journalism, not stenography.  When a whole retinue of government officials and businesses are cheerleading for something, basic instincts should call for a little digging.

    Mpls for many years has had a system requiring a lot of involvement from homeowners--sorting into many categories.  At the same time, there was little or no "commercial" recycling, so the overall rate has recently been reported as around 17-18 percent and declining.  This is about half St. Paul's reported rate.  (Until this year, the City was claiming a recycling rate of double that, presumably by ignoring the commercial sector.  I say presumably because nobody from Mpls. or their consultants has returned my calls or emails.  Could this be because I was asking real questions....?). 

    Nobody has really compared Mpls. unusual system to "single sort" ("single stream").  A dual sort pilot project in Seward was shut down prematurely because, as far as I could tell, the decision had been made and nobody wanted data that might be contradictory.  A fact sheet from the University of Wisconsin (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=limitations%20of%20%22single%20st...) has this to say:

    Does Single Stream Save Money?
    Single stream recycling typically saves money on collection while increasing the cost of processing. The economics of single stream has demonstrated that:
    * Average savings for a collector using single stream was 5-25%
    * Total increase in costs to paper mills if single stream was universally employed is estimated to be about $50 million per year
    * The net cost “total value chain” of single stream = collection savings per ton (~$15); cost increase for processing per ton (~$10); cost increase per ton for pulping/paper making (~$8) = overall system net cost increase of ~$3 per ton.

    And also this (residuals are recyclable materials that end up dumped or burned or otherwise wasted):

    * A good dual-stream program can be around 2-3% residuals, while source separated can produce slightly more than 1% residuals (CBS, 2005). Single stream can be significantly higher; a study conducted by Government Advisory Associates (GAA) on 36 programs shows a residual rate of 16.6%, close to the number acquired by the St. Paul case study at 14.2% when not including mixed glass (27.2% when including mixed glass).

    Obviously the "single sort" approach has its pros and cons. 

    But the real issue is that Mpls has no plan, or apparently even thought, of how to get to a really decent recycling rate of, say 80 percent.  (Many people in the USA are using San Francisco, CA, presently at around 75 percent, as an example of what can be done.)  Almost any system can do better than Mpls does now, but we should be moving towards a approach compatible with, say, 80 percent.  Hennepin County, and the MPCA, on the other hand, are interested in promoting incineration and limiting the growth of recycling programs.  (Recycing everything that can be recycled and there won't be anything left to burn....)  The single sort approach is really only compatible with mediocre recycling rates.

    What I see in Mpls, sad to say, is an empty-suit mayor babbling about "sustainability:" while doing moving the City backwards on the reality of it.

    A lot more needs to be written on this, but where is the time to do it?  This post from the Mpls. e-democracy list, touches on some other aspects:

    http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls/messages/post/7c5HQktIPfmMLdVG...

    Alan Muller

    Post new comment

    The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
    • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
    • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <br> <img> <span> <div>
    • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
    • Each email address will be obfuscated in a human readable fashion or (if JavaScript is enabled) replaced with a spamproof clickable link.

    More information about formatting options