MERCURY IN MSW

J. Turnbull1) A.Lepine2) L.Otten2) G. Edwards2) G.Dharwarkar2)

1) Wet/Dry Composting Facility, City of Guelph
2) School of Engineering, University of Guelph

The Composting Conference Council of Canada

Annual Conference
Halifax, ON
 Background

Compost produced at the City of Guelph Wet-Dry Recycling Centre has been of high
quality on a consistent basis. Historically the finished compost has been able to meet the
limits for heavy metals and other parameters as set out in Category “A” of the Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Guidelines, a nationally recognised
Canadian standard for finished compost quality.

In Ontario however, the Provincial Ministry of the Environment (MOE) upholds a

different set of standards for finished compost quality. Some of the limits for the
different parameters are lower than those found in the CCME Guidelines. Therefore, the
Ontario standard for unrestricted use compost is more difficult for composting facilities
to meet, particularly those facilities that compost residential organic municipal solid
waste. Of the various substances accounted for in both the CCME and MOE guidelines
mercury has posed the greatest challenge for the City of Guelph.

The limit for mercury content in finished compost is 0.8 ppm and 0.15 ppm under the
CCME and MOE Guidelines, respectively. Since the Guelph compost mercury content
average is about 0.3 ppm, it is challenging for this facility to meet the MOE requirements
on a routine basis.

The City of Guelph’s Certificate of Approval for operating the composting facility
states that the Interim Guidelines for finished compost must be followed for the
production and un-restricted use of the Centre’s compost. In recent years the MOE has
shown an interest in updating their guidelines to be more in-line with the national
standards. Because of this interest the City of Guelph has been given temporary approval
to be governed by the CCME guidelines. This allows the city of Guelph to continue
producing high quality, marketable finished compost that is fit for unrestricted and
continuous use.

Investigation

In 2001, there was a change of direction regarding the Ministry’s intentions

surrounding finished compost guidelines. The City of Guelph’s request for CCME limits
was initially denied, then, upon appeal, approval was granted for one final year, ending
September 30, 2002. This agreement was given on the condition that the City would
investigate the potential sources of mercury, and take corrective measures to meet the
Interim Guideline limit of 0.15 ppm in the future.

To begin the investigation, potential sources of mercury contamination were

reconsidered. Contact of the compost with processing equipment was identified as one
potential source of contamination. Oils and greases, used by machinery, often contain
trace levels of heavy metals and other contaminants. Previous investigations into the
subject had suggested that the screening process might be a source of contamination.
Water addition and aeration were other process streams identified as possible sources of
contamination. This was suspected due to the large volumes that are added to the system
daily. When added in the large volumes this can account for a significant amount of
mercury.
 Of course, it is well-known that the most significant source of mercury is the
feedstock itself. Many consumer products and even food wastes contain trace levels of
mercury and it is possible that the accumulation of all of these sources adds up to be an
unacceptable amount of mercury in the finished compost.

Actions and Initiatives

To obtain a better understanding of the problem certain actions and initiatives

were undertaken. Past mercury research was re-visited. This included reviewing the
findings of research carried out at the Guelph facility by McCartney (1999), as well as
gathering any information available regarding mercury in compost or waste streams from
other sources. There was also some information gathered on household wastes which are
considered contaminants in the wet waste stream, such as batteries, paint, thermometers,
etc.

Meetings with other staff produced ideas and leads for further investigating the
issue. Past and present screening contractors were interviewed to determine what other
substances their screening plants had come in contact; for example, contaminated soils.
There were also many telephone conversations with various knowledgeable and expert
parties to share ideas, information and theories for further insight into the matter.

Changes in the operation were made to eliminate any suspected sources of

contamination. An example of such a change was the discontinuation of the use of the
compost facility loader for picking up bypass wastes from the household hazardous waste
depot on site. When handling the bypass material this loader could perhaps come in
contact with hazardous materials containing elevated concentrations of metals.

The incidence of contamination in the incoming waste stream was examined in

detail and discussions about the importance of proper household waste sorting and
collection consistency took place. These issues are complex and involve the co-operation
of all citizens to ensure a clean waste stream.

The items included in the wet sorting list were also re-examined. This was
because it had become evident that a couple of the items on the current sorting list had a
reputation for containing higher levels of mercury, specifically speaking – vacuum
cleaner bag contents and floor sweepings. Coincidentally, the City of Guelph is in the
process of adopting a new waste management program, switching from the current 2-
stream system to a 3-stream system. The timing of this project was ideal in the sense that
it allowed for the easy removal of these potentially problematic items from the allowable
items on the “wet” sorting list. This involves using one bag for organics, one for
recyclables and one for residual waste. In the development of the wet/dry centre, a pilot
study in the early 1990s involved both 2- and 3-streams collection, as well as various
collection containers, but because of the high cost of the 3-stream collection process, the
City opted for the 2-stream one (Otten et al, 1993).1
1 Otten et al. 193. An Integrated Waste Management System - Data and Recommendation for
Guelph, Ontario. School of Engineering, University of Guelph. Published by Wellington Applied
Sciences Ltd., Guelph, Ontario.
Current Investigation

In view of the MOE requirement, the City decided to conduct additional work
during the summer of 2002. The first step was to review the literature to see if any new
information on mercury or heavy metals in compost had been published in recent years.
In addition all of the plant’s compost quality data and pilot project data were re-
examined. Through the literature review it was determined that many household products
and foods contain trace values of mercury. The combination of all the products could
cause a significant source of contamination.

The experimental phase of the project involved the development of a sampling

procedure that followed three batches of waste through the primary composter during the
“high rate” stage of composting. Two batches contained residentially originated organic
wastes and one was a ‘clean’ batch, consisting only of organics known to be free of
specific types of contamination commonly found in curb side-collected organics. The
compost was sampled three times weekly, at a location determined by the turning
schedule. While this batch was going through the system, the volume of water and air
that was added was recorded. The air and water were also sampled and analysed for
mercury content. The purpose of this was so that a mass balance could be constructed
and the amount of mercury entering and leaving the system could be determined. Dr.
Grant Edwards and Gireesh Dharwarkar analysed the air for gaseous elemental mercury.
The screening process was also examined. This was done by sampling the compost
before screening as well as the under and over fractions. The two-stream “wet”
feedstock, which is currently collected in Guelph, and the pilot three stream “wet”
feedstock were sampled and compared.

Sample preparation is extremely important in ensuring accurate analysis. There

can be no personal bias on where the sample is taken. It was noted that in past
investigations the compost was screened prior to analysis. This could possibly leave out
potential sources of mercury. After the samples were obtained they were dried in an
oven to determine their moisture content and to prepare them for analysis. The dried
samples were ground using a ceramic plated grinder, to ensure no metal contamination.
The entire sample, except for the particles too big for the grinder (>10 cm), were ground
and sent for analysis. The un-ground fraction was properly stored and saved in case
further analysis was needed. All the samples were sent to the University of Guelph Lab
Services, and is known for its precision and consistency.

Results
At this time, a several samples remain at the lab and are undergoing analysis.
The results for the samples that have been analysed are presented in Figure 1 - Mercury
Concentration vs. Distance in Channel. This graph shows the concentrations of the
mercury in the three channels (2 residential and 1 “clean”) as it moves through the
system, the 2 and 3 stream feed stock concentrations, the vacuum bag concentrations and
the analysis around the screener. Upon completion of sample analysis, a mass balance
will be performed to determine the affect of the process air and water and final
conclusions will be formed.

FIGURE 1 – Mercury Concentration Vs Distance in Channel

0.50

0.45

0.40
Hg Concentration (PPM)

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
15 65 115 165
Distance Down Channel (ft)

C3 C4 C5
2 Stream 3 stream feed
unders overs Vacuum Bags