EPA-450/3-91-002
Air Pollutant Emission
Standards and Guidelines for
Municipal Waste Combustors:
Economic Analysis of
Materials Separation Requirement
Emission Standards Division
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
November 1990
-------
-------
This report is issued by the Emission Standards Division of the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards of the Environmental Protection Agency.
It presents technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies
are available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and non-profit organizations—as supplies permit—from the Li-
brary Services Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
search Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone 919-541-2777 (FTS 629-2777), or
may be obtained for a fee from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, phone 703-487-4650 (FTS 737-
4650).
Publication No. EPA-450/3-91-002
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1 Introduction j.j
2 Materials Separation and Recycling Programs: Predicting the
Implementation of the Materials Separation Requirement 2-1
2.1 Overview of Materials Separation and Recycling. 2-3
2.1.1 Differentiating Materials Separation from Recycling. 2-3
2.1.2 Materials Separation and Recycling Programs 2-4
2.2 Baseline Levels of Recycling 2-13
2.3 Case Studies and Surveys of Recycling Programs 2-13
2.3.1 Case Studies 2-16
2.3.2 National Solid Wastes Management Association
(NSWMA) Survey 2-18
2.4 Model Programs 2-18
2.4.1 Key Elements of Materials Separation Model Programs 2-18
2.4.2 Two-Stream Household Separation Model Programs 2-29
2.4.3 Multiple-Stream Separation Model Program 2-30
3 Costs and Cost-Savings of Model Materials Separation Programs. ...3-1
3.1 A Critical Behavioral Assumption: Expansion of the Catchment
Area of Existing MWCs 3_2
3.2 Collection Systems and Processing Facilities 3.4
3.3 Household Cost of Materials Separation. 3-15
3.4 Downsizing Credit for Planned MWCs .3-ig
3.5 Avoided Landfill Costs 3_2i
3.5.1 Greater Estimate of Avoided Landfill Costs. 3-21
3.5.2 Lesser Estimate of Avoided Landfill Costs ;..3-23
3.6 Implications of a Change in Waste Composition 3-24
111
-------
Chapter
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
3.7 Avoided Residential MSW Collection Costs 3-27
3.7.1 Greater Estimate of Avoided Costs. ~ 3-27
3.7.2 Lesser Estimate of Avoided Costs 3-28
3.8 Adjusting Model Program Costs for Scale. 3-31
4 Framework for Estimating National Costs and Diversion 4-1
4.1 Existing and Planned MWCs 4-1
4.2 Model Communities 4.9
4.2.1 Population Served 4-10
4.2.2 Location of the Catchment Area 4-12
4.2.3 Density „ ....4-12
4.2.4 Population-Served and Density Classes. 4-13
4.2.5 Assumed Density of Planned MWCs 4-13
4.2.6 Summary 4_13
4.3 Assigning Model Programs to Model Communities 4-15
5 Market Impacts of a Materials Separation Requirement 5-1
5.1 Comparative Statics of a Materials Separation Requirement 5-3
5.2 Preliminary Estimates of Market Impacts of a Materials Separation
Requirement 5.3
5.2.1 Post-Consumer Newspaper. 5.9
5.2.2 Post-Consumer Glass 5.11
5.2.3 Post-Consumer Aluminum Used Beverage Containers 5-12
5.2.4 Post-Consumer Steel Containers. 5-14
5.2.5 Post-Consumer Plastic Containers 5.15
6 National Materials Separation Costs and Total Diversion.^ 6-1
IV
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter
Page
References.
.R-l
Appendix A: Legislation and Procurement Guidelines. ............................................ A-l
Appendix B: Paper and Paperboard Industry Profile ................................................ B-l
Appendix C: Glass Industry Profile
Appendix D: Aluminum Industry Profile.
Appendix E: Costs and Credits of the Materials Separation Requirement for
Selected Groups of Combustors .............................. ...................................... j?-l
-------
-------
TABLES
Number
Page
2- 1 Johnston, Rhode Island, Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) ......................... 2-6
2-2 Yard Waste Separation and Collection Methods .......................................... 2-12
2-3 Definitions of Municipal Solid Waste. .................................. ', ....................... 2-15
2-4 Comparison of Recycling Programs [[[ 2-17
2-5 Background Information from the National Solid Wastes Management
. Association Survey. [[[ ° 2-19
2-6 Key Elements of Materials Separation Model Programs .............................. 2-22
2-7 Unit Pricing Programs [[[ 2-24
2-8 Model Programs: Participation Rates [[[ 2-28
3-1A Collection. Systems for the Two-Stream Model Program "Option 2" ............ 3-7
3- IB Processing Facilities for the Two-Stream Model Program "Option 2" .......... 3-8
3-1C Program Administration for the Two-Stream Model
Program"Option 2" [[[ _
3-2A Collection Systems for the Multiple Stream Model Program "MS". ............ 3-10
3-2B Processing Facilities for the Multiple Stream Model Program "MS". .......... 3- 1 1
3-2C Program Administration for the Multiple Stream Model Program
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
Page
3-7 Pre- and Post-Separation Composition of MSW. 3-26
3-8A Percent Reduction in Refuse Collection Cost Assuming No Change in
Frequency of Refuse Collection 3-30
3-8B Percent Reduction in Refuse Collection Cost Assuming Halved
Frequency of Refuse Collection 3-30
4-1 Existing Municipal Waste Combustors 4-3
4-2 Characteristics of Model MWCs 4-8
4-3 Classification of Model Communities. 4.9
4-4 Population Served and Density Classes: Ranges, Medians, and
Number of Observations 4-14
4-5 Description of Model Communities 4-14
4-6 Predicted Choice of Materials Separation Programs, by Community
Type. 4_19
4-7 Number of Existing and Planned MWCs Assigned to Model Programs
and Communities. „ 4_20
4-8 Number of Existing and Planned MWCs Assigned to Model Programs
and Communities after Exclusions Based on Size and Baseline
Materials Separation. 4_2i
5-1 MSR Impacts Estimates: Post-Consumer Newspaper Market 5-17
5-2 MSR Impacts Estimates: Post-Consumer Glass Market 5-17
5-3 MSR Impacts Estimates: Post-Consumer Aluminum Market 5-18
5-4 MSR Impacts Estimates: Post-Consumer Steel Market 5-18
5-5 MSR Impacts Estimates: Post-Consumer Plastic Market 5-19
vu
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
Page
6-1 Materials Separation Costs, Avoided Costs, and Revenues for MWCs
Larger than 35 Megagrams per Day Capacity 6-2
6-2 Net Quantities Diverted, Prices, and Revenues for Estimate One .....6-3
6-3 Net Quantities Diverted, Prices, and Revenues for Estimate Two. 6-3
A-l State Comprehensive Recycling Laws '.A-4
A-2 Selected Characteristics of State Recycling Programs. A-6
B-l- Principal Product Categories for Paper 5.3
B-2 Secondary Materials Matrix for Waste Paper Showing the Different
Grades and the Products They Make. jj-6
B-3 Barriers to Increased Use of Paper and Paperboard. B-9
C-l Glass Container Shipments „...„ Q_%
C-2 Specifications for Furnace-Ready Gullet C-5
C-3 Glass Discarded to Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2000 C-l 1
C-4 Summary of State Glass Recycling Programs. C-15
D-l Aluminum Production, Imports, and Exports, 1985 to 1989 D-1
D-2 Aluminum Discarded to Municipal Waste Stream, 1960 to 2000 D-8
D-3 Used Beverage Cans Shipped and Recycled, 1985 to 1988 D-9
E-1A Materials Separation Costs Small Population, Medium Density
Community Two-Stream Recycling Program: Option 1 Planned
MWCs ;
E-1B Materials Separation Costs Small Population, Medium Density
Community Two-Stream Recycling Program: Option 2 Planned
MWCs
.E-4
.E-4
vui
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
Page
" E-1C Materials Separation Costs Small Population, Medium Density
Community Multiple Stream Recycling Program Planned MWCs ;.,E-5
E-1D Materials Separation Costs Medium Population, Medium Density
Community Two-Stream Recycling Program: Option 2 Planned
MWCs ^ E-5
E-1E Materials Separation Costs Medium Population, Medium Density
Community Multiple Stream Recycling Program Planned MWCs E-6
E-1F Materials Separation Costs High Population, Medium Density
Community Two-Stream Recycling Program: Option 1 Planned
MWCs...; E_6
E-1G Materials Separation Costs High Population, Medium Density
(Community Two-Stream Recycling Program: Option 2 Planned
MWCs E_7
E-1H Materials Separation Costs High Population, Medium Density
Community Multiple Stream Recycling Program Planned MWCs E-7
E-1I Materials Separation Costs High Population, High Density Community
Two-Stream Recycling Program: Option 1 Planned MWCs E-8
E-l J Materials Separation Costs High Population, High Density Community
Two-Stream Recycling Program: Option 2 Planned MWCs E-8
E-2A Materials Separation Costs Very Small Population, Low Density
Community Two-Stream Recycling Program: Option 2 Existing
MWCs E.10
E-2B Materials Separation Costs Very Small Population, Low Density
Community Multiple Stream Recycling Program Existing MWCs E-10
E-2C Materials Separation Costs Small Population, Low Density
Community Two-Stream Recycling Program: Option 2 Existing
MWCs E.n
E-2D Materials Separation Costs Small Population, Low Density
Community Multiple Stream Recycling Program Existing MWCs E-ll
IX
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
Page
E-2E Materials Separation Costs Small Population, Medium Density
Community Two-Stream Recycling Program: Option 1 Existing
E-12
E-2F Materials Separation Costs Small Population, Medium Density
Community Two-Stream Recycling Program: Option 2 Existing
MWCs [[[ E-12
E-2G Materials Separation Costs Medium Population, Medium Density
Community Two-Stream Recycling Program: Option 1 Existing
MWCs [[[ E-13
E-2H Materials Separation Costs Medium Population, Medium Density
Community Two-Stream Recycling Program: Option 2 Existing
MWCs [[[ £_j3
E-2I Materials Separation Costs Medium Population, Medium Density
Community Multiple Stream Recycling Program Existing MWCs ............. E-14
E-2J Materials Separation Costs High Population, Medium Density
Community Two-Stream Recycling Program: Option 1 Existing
MWCs [[[ ° .............. E_14
E-2K Materials Separation Costs High Population, Medium Density
Community Two-Stream Recycling Program: Option 2 Existing
MWCs
.E-15
E-2L Materials Separation Costs High Population, Medium Density
Community Multiple Stream Recycling Program Existing MWCs E-15
E-2M Materials Separation Costs High Population, High Density Community
Two-Stream Recycling Program: Option 1 Existing MWCs E-16
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
Page
E-5A Materials Separation Costs National Aggregate Totals by Material
Newspapers E-19
E-5B Materials Separation Costs National Aggregate Totals by Material
Glass E-19
E-5C Materials Separation Costs National Aggregate Totals by Material
Aluminum. E-20
E-5D Materials Separation Costs National Aggregate Totals by Material
Ferrous Metal ', E-20
E-5E Materials Separation Costs National Aggregate Totals by Material
Plastic E-21
E-5F Materials Separation Costs National Aggregate Totals by Material
Yardwaste. E-21
E-6 Materials Separation Costs National Aggregate Totals Combustors
with Greater than 35 MgPD Capacity, All States E-22
E-7 Materials Separation Costs National Aggregate Totals Combustors
with Greater than 100 MgPD Capacity E-22
E-8 Materials Separation Costs National Aggregate Totals Combustors
with Greater than 35 MgPD Capacity, Original Composting
Assumption. E-23
XI
-------
FIGURES
Number
1-1
2-1
3-1
3-2
5-1
B-l
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
C-l
D-l
E-l
E-2
E-3
Page
Household Solid Waste Flows 1_2
Schematic Diagram of Materials Separation Process at Crestwood
Illinois. '
.2-7
Average Annualized Facility Costs 3_14
Household Cost of Recycling. 3_17
Market Impacts of a Materials Separation Requirement 5.4
Flow of Paper and Paperboard Production. B-3
Old Newspaper Generation and Recovery B-17
Old Newspaper Recovery Rate B-18
Newsprint Prices in Chicago, 1970 to 1988 B-19
Utilization of Old Newspaper B-21
Used Corrugated. ; B-23
Recovery of Used Corrugated Containers, 1970 to 1988. B-24
Used Corrugated Containers , t B-25
Office Paper Recovery and Discards B-26
High-Grade Deinking Paper Industry B-28
Approximate Glass Industry Materials How, in 1,000 tons, 1967 C-2
Aluminum Beverage Can Recycling Growth in the U.S D-9
Guide to Tables in Group 1 (Costs and Credits by Program for Planned
Combustors) _ E_3
Guide to Tables in Group 2 (Costs and Credits by Program for Existing
Combustors) .' _ 6 E_9
Guide to Tables in Group 5 (Cost and Credits by Material Separated) E-18
xu
-------
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The New Source Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines for municipal
waste combustors (MWCs) mandate separation and removal of 25 percent of municipal
solid waste prior to combustion in an MWC. Specifically, credit is given for separation
of one or more of the following materials:
• Paper and paperboard
• Ferrous and nonferrous metals
• Glass
• Plastics
• Household hazardous wastes
• Household batteries
• Motor vehicle maintenance materials (used oil, tires, and batteries)
• Yard waste and leaves
The separation requirement mandates not only the removal of 25 percent
(calculated as annual average by weight) of municipal solid waste, but also the separation
of lead-acid batteries heavier than 4.4 pounds. In addition, the separation requirement
allows a maximum of 10 percentage points credit for yard waste and leaves.
Using the example of a household, the flowchart in Figure 1-1 shows the
destinations of waste and recoverable materials. Notice that several paths lead to landfills
and MWCs. The stated intent of the materials separation requirement is to dramatically
alter the flow of municipal solid waste (MSW), diverting it from MWCs. Although
diversion of MSW from MWCs is itself beneficial, recycling must occur to obtain the
additional benefits of increasing the supply of materials that are substitutes for virgin
paper, metals, glass, and plastic.
Clearly, recycling is essential for reducing the quantity of combusted or landfilled
solid waste. Typically, a residential recycling program requires households to separate
recyclables from refuse and to set them out for curbside pick-up, a collection system
(i.e., trucks and crew) in addition to the ordinary refuse collection system, and a
1-1
-------
Household Consumption-
Waste Generated
Sort out \ no
^recyclabtes?,
yes
Disposal of
Recyclable Waste
Drop-off
1
Disposal of Unsorted or
Non-recyclable Waste
Collection
Service
Recydabtes Processed,
Readied for Market
Residuals
Landfill
MWC
Secondary Materials
Markets
Figure 1-1. Household Solid Waste Flows
1-2
-------
facility that readies recyclable materials for market. Recycling requires a fundamental
change in the ways that households and municipalities manage waste.
This study investigates the cost and performance of the recycling programs that
communities may rely on to comply with the materials separation requirements. It
addresses the following specific questions:
• How will increased separation be carried out?
• How much will the requirement increase materials separation?
• How will the requirement affect solid waste flows to MWCs and landfills?
• How will the requirement affect prices and quantities in the markets for
secondary materials?
• What is the cost of increased separation?
1-3
-------
-------
CHAPTER 2
MATERIALS SEPARATION AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS: PREDICTING
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MATERIALS SEPARATION
REQUIREMENT
"Materials separation" refers to the first phase of recycling—diverting materials
from the combusted waste stream. "Recycling" requires two additional phases:
preparing the separated materials for market, and manufacturing new products with these
materials. These phases lead logically from one to another, and all three are required for
recycling to occur (U.S. Congress, 1989). Traditionally, some materials are not recycled
after separation because they do not meet market specifications or because the separated
materials are not in demand due to a temporary surplus of the material in secondary
materials markets.
One goal of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Emission
Guidelines (EG) is to have communities with municipal waste combustors (MWCs)
-interpret the materials separation requirement not only as a requirement to divert waste
from an MWC but also as part of a waste management system that involves recycling the
diverted materials. This particular goal is consistent with the Agency's announced
objective of increasing recycling by governments, individuals, and corporations (U.S.
EPA, 1989b, p. 24).
The regulated communities may employ a large variety of materials separation
programs to comply with the proposed regulation. Because of the diversity across the
regulated communities, all communities will probably not pursue the same program.
They are more likely to tailor programs to then- local situations. A number of program
characteristics may influence the nature and costs of a community's response to the
proposed regulation. Most important among these characteristics are the materials
targeted for separation and the place of separation.
Materials differ according to then- representation hi the municipal solid waste
(MSW) stream and their market value. MSW includes all nonhazardous wastes from
household, institutional, commercial, municipal, and industrial sources (U.S. EPA,
1988c). Approximately 143 million Mg of MSW were generated in the United States in
1986 (Franklin Associates, 1988).
2-1
-------
The NSPS and EG express the separation requirement in terms of the proportion
by weight of the combusted waste stream, but it is incorrect to conclude that the form of
the requirement implies that the heaviest factions of the waste stream are the best targets
for separation. Because separation will impose costs, the opportunity may exist to
partially or completely offset these costs if the separated material can be sold in
secondary materials markets. The problem faced by municipalities is that some of the
highest share components of the waste stream have little or no value to offset then-
separation costs (e.g., yard wastes) while other fractions have a high value but represent
only a small share of the waste stream (e.g., aluminum).
A second consideration faced by the regulated communities is where to separate
materials from the waste stream. Centralized separation, at one extreme, would require
generators to discard mixed wastes, which would be collected and subsequently separated
and processed at a central facility. This method calls for the explicit expenditure of
resources by the community to build and operate these materials recovery facilities. At
the other end of the spectrum, generators would be required to separate certain fractions
of their solid waste stream and place them at the curbside for collection or take them to a
centralized drop-off location. This type of materials separation requires the implicit
expenditure of resources by households.
Some of the key recycling program collection and processing characteristics are
outlined in this chapter along with examples of actual communities using each program.
These program characteristics are subsequently used to develop a set of model programs
designed to represent communities' responses to meeting the materials separation
requirement
Section 2.1 first draws a distinction between materials separation and recycling
and then describes several materials separation and collection strategies currently in use
across the nation.
Section 2.2 establishes the baseline level of recycling for residential curbside
collection programs as well as for commercial and institutional collection sources. (See
Appendix A for information about state and national recycling efforts.)
Section 2.3 presents several case studies of municipally run recycling programs.
Several characteristics of these programs are compared, including cost, size of population
served, and collection features.
2-2
-------
Section 2.4 describes the model curbside collection programs developed for this
study. The two types of model collection programs discussed in this section are the
strategies most likely to be implemented in response to the NSPS and EG. Section 2.4
also provides the estimated household participation rates for each model program and the
projected capture rates for each target material (i.e., steel cans, aluminum cans,
newspapers, yard waste, glass containers, and high density polyethylene (HDPE) and
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic containers).
2.1 OVERVIEW OF MATERIALS SEPARATION AND RECYCLING
This section first draws a distinction between materials separation and recycling
and then describes several materials separation and collection strategies currently in use
across the nation. A primary behavioral assumption is that materials separation is
perceived, not only as a method of diverting waste from an MWC, but as part of a
materials management system. Shifting to a materials management concept requires
thinking of MSW in terms of its components as individual resource streams rather than as
an indistinguishable mixture (Waird, 1990).
2.1.1 Differentiating Materials Separation from Recycling
Recycling consists of three different phases: separating and collecting target
materials, preparing those materials for market, and actually manufacturing new products
with recyclable materials. All of these phases are related and required for recycling to
occur. Recycling does not occur unless the collected recyclable materials are made into a
product that is actually used (U.S. Congress, 1989).
Materials separation, on the other hand, refers simply to collecting and preparing
target materials for market. Some materials will not be recycled after separation because
either the materials do not meet market specifications or no market demand for the
materials exists.
Therefore, materials separation and recycling differ in one important respect:
what happens to the separated materials after they are collected and processed. This
study focuses on the collection and preparation phases of recycling and materials
separation.
2-3
-------
2.1.2 Materials Separation and Recycling Programs
Community managers must consider a plethora of issues when designing a
materials separation program, including solid waste generation rates, population served,
public convenience, collection characteristics, number of target materials, availability of
disposal facilities, market requirements, distance to market, program cost, space needs,
administrative roles and responsibilities, personnel needs, application of economic
incentives/disincentives, and degree of community support (O'Leary and Walsh, 1988
and The Minnesota Project, 1987).
Several materials separation and recycling program strategies are described
below. Each strategy can be classified into one of two groups:
• relies exclusively on a centralized materials recovery facility or
• requires household separation (possibly augmented with curbside separation by
collection crews).
Each strategy is illustrated with an example of a currently operating city program.
2.12.1 Centralized Separation
With centralized separation, commingled (mixed) materials picked up by curbside
programs are sent to a central material recovery facility (MRF). At the MRF, materials in
the incoming commingled stream are separated and processed into marketable
recyclables. A MRF can stand alone or it can be incorporated into transfer stations,
composting facilities, or the front end of waste-to-energy projects (Berenyi, 1990).
The capital intensity of MRFs can vary considerably, as can the type of waste"
stream they can process. A MRF can use complex machinery to separate various
elements of value from the waste steam, or it can rely largely on human labor to manually
pick through the wastes. The incoming waste stream can range from a load of garbage
dumped onto a tipping floor to a shipment of highly source-separated recyclables
(Biocyde Journal of Waste Recycling, 1990).
MRFs can be designed to recover a variety of materials. The most common
materials cited are steel cans, clear glass, brown glass, green glass, aluminum, bi-metal
cans, newspaper, HOPE plastics, and PET plastics. On average, about 10 percent of a
MRF's daily tonnage ends up as nonrecyclable residue (Berenyi, 1990). This residue is a
2-4
-------
mixture of grit and contaminated paper and is usually disposed of but is sometimes
composted.
The MRF at Johnston, Rhode Island (see Table 2-1), is an example of a MRF that
accepts source-separated commingled recyclables (Berenyi, 1990). Crestwood, Illinois,
operates a MRF that accepts about 400 tons of unseparated MSW (garbage) a day.
Figure 2-1 illustrates the materials separation process used by the Crestwood facility
(Radian Corporation, 1990).
2.1.22 Household Separation
Household separation requires residents to separate target recyclables from the
rest of the garbage. These recyclables are then set out for curbside collection as part of
the single-stream separation, two-stream separation, and multiple-stream separation
programs or taken to a drop-off center by the resident.
Single-Stream Household Separation. Single-stream household separation refers
to a separation strategy that asks residents to provide commingled (mixed) recyclables
(excluding compostable material) in a single container. For example, in one area of
Seattle residents commingle all containers and old newspapers. Commingled set out is
the most convenient strategy for residents; however, because the markets that purchase
commingled materials are typically scarce, post-resident sorting is often necessary
(Biocycle Journal of Waste Recycling, 1990). Post-resident sorting can be done either at
the curbside or at a centralized separation facility (i.e., a MRF).
With curbside sorting the collector picks up the home storage container
(containing a mixture of recyclables) and sorts the materials truckside into discrete
fractions representing the various salable commodities. Curbside sorters perform a
quality control function by rejecting nonrecyclables (which are simply left in the
container). Therefore, depending on the training and performance of the collector, the
separated materials are close to market specifications.
2-5
-------
TABLE 2-1. JOHNSTON, RHODE ISLAND, MATERIALS RECOVERY
FACILITY (MRF)
Name: Johnston MRF
Location: Johnston, RI
Status: Operational
Start-up Date: 5/89
Geographic Area: Northern Rhode Island (10 cities and towns; 1/3 of RI's population)
Technical Specifications
Degree of mechanization: High
Design capacity (TPD): 130
Building size (ft2): 40,000
Residue (TPD): 13.0
Degree of pre-sorting: None
Materials commingled: 42%
Materials source separated: 58%
Residue/IPO design ratio: 0.10
Materials Recovered
Specific materials recovered:
newspaper, cardboard, glass (clear,
brown, green), aluminum, tin and
bi-metal cans, PET and HOPE
plastics
Materials
Newspaper
Mixed recyclables
Tons per day
55^0
75.0
Operating History
Days operation/week: 5
Shifts/day: 2
Hours/shift: 8
Days operation/yean 250
Annual tons processed (yr): 36,000 (89)
Total FEE employees: 19
Costs
Capital Costs
Original capital costs (yr): $4,150,000 (89)
Adjusted capital costs (yr): $4,150,000 (89)
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Annual O&M without
debt service (yr): $1,054,000 (89/90)
"•"^^^—•"^^^™n«^^^—»^™
Notes: High-tech Bezner system separates glass from aluminum and plastics; also uses magnetic
separator. Glass and plastics hand-sorted. New England CR Inc. has three-year contract
Source: Berenyi, 1990.
2-6
-------
IJ
OS
?S
CO g
II
S.3
CO
o
•
CO
co
I
.2
o
•.5.9
J-8-
°- §
i2
(0
JCO
co
o>
2
CO
1
•g
co
•g
co
O
0)
o
n
o
o
i
£
O
OT
(0
<1>
U
O
O
£
.2 ^-
Is
H- <£
o .2
E 2
2S-
o> o
CO U
5 §
O =5
1£
o §
O)
^ CD
STB
c u
H- CO
ll
^-
-------
Curbside separation requires less household effort and storage of materials for
collection than multiple-stream separation and is easy to change as the program grows (or
as markets fluctuate) without households having to change their separation behaviors.
Probably the biggest advantage of curbside sorting is that it enables the community to sell
higher quality recyclables without having to develop and pay to operate expensive
processing facilities (Biocycle Journal of Waste Recycling, 1990).
One community that operates a successful program in which collectors sort at the
curb is Anne Arundell County, Maryland. The contract collector for the county
completes routes of slightly over 1,000 homes a day. Collectors make between 450 and
600 stops per day where they sort and load the materials into the collection truck. They
separate materials into five compartments: three for different colors of glass, one for
mixed cans (aluminum and ferrous), and one for old newspapers (Biocycle Journal of
Waste Recycling, 1990).
In the south side of Seattle, Washington, commingled recyclables are separated at
a MRF. Recyclable materials are collected in a rear-loading truck and delivered to an
800,000 square foot facility, which combines mechanized and hand-sorting techniques.
The local collection company provides each resident one, large, 90-gallon wheeled
container in which the resident commingles all target materials for collection once per
month. Residents can request a 60-gallon container (Allan, Platt, and Morris, 1989).
Two-Stream Household Separation. In two-stream household separation,
households put commingled target recyclables into one container and place stacked
and/or bundled paper near the container.
Haddonfield, New Jersey, is an example of a community that uses two-stream
household separation. The borough of Haddonfield is a residential suburb of Camden,
New Jersey, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, In March 1985, participation in the
municipal curbside recycling program became mandatory. In May 1986, the Camden
County Intermediate Processing Facility (CCIPF) opened to accept all glass and metal
food and beverage containers. The new facility accepts commingled tin, steel, and mixed
metal for recycling. The Borough now has a stable market, and the County separates,
processes, stores, and markets the materials. The Borough considered collecting plastic
containers, but found this activity to be prohibitively expensive to implement. Residents
commingle recyclables into one or more containers, stack old newspapers in paper bags
or bundle them separately, and flatten corrugated cardboard. Recyclables are collected
2-8
-------
with two 1-ton pick-up trucks, each pulling a 12-cubic yard trailer with five
compartments. Newspapers are unloaded from the trailer into the dumpster at the
Borough yard two or three times per day. The trucks haul bottles and cans to the CCIPF
(Allan, Platt, and Morris, 1989).
During a strong enforcement program, driver records showed that only about
5 percent of the 4,400 households in Haddonfield never put out any recyclable materials.
Some households (particularly senior citizens) do not put materials out weekly, but do so
biweekly or monthly. Some households share containers (Allan, Platt, and Morris, 1989).
Multiple-Stream Separation. Multiple-stream separation requires residents to
separate recyclables into at least three divisions: for example, one for glass containers
mixed with metal cans, a second for mixed paper, and a third for newspaper. As the City
of Portland's program illustrates (see below), however, the level of separation can be
increased considerably. The multiple-stream separation strategy is more effective than
the other two separation strategies in reducing the contamination of one recyclable waste
stream by another. Even with multiple-stream separation, however, some materials
preparation is often necessary to meet the needs of buyers.
With multiple-stream separation households perform much of the labor of sorting
and bear the implicit costs of this effort. The municipality's explicit costs may be less
than with less complete separation. Typically the municipality is able to obtain a higher
price for well-separated materials compared with commingled recyclables. One
disadvantage of multiple-stream separation is its high dependency on public participation
to prepare materials properly. Another disadvantage of multiple-stream (and two-stream)
separation is the need to buy expensive, specialized equipment, such as a
compartmentalized collection vehicle (U.S. Congress, 1989).
The curbside collection program in the north section of Seattle, Washington, is
operated by Recycle America, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc., and serves
65,000 households. Residents are provided three stackable containers: one for glass,
aluminum, and tin cans and containers; a second for mixed scrap paper, and a third for
old newspapers. Any cardboard is placed next to the containers. A compartmentalized
recycling truck collects recyclable materials weekly. Recycle America owns and operates
a processing facility that separates glass, aluminum, and tin with a combination of hand
and mechanical sorting (Allan, Platt, and Morris, 1989).
2-9
1 I
-------
The City of Portland, Oregon, implemented a multiple-stream separation program
on June 1,1987. Waste haulers are required by the city to offer their customers a
minimum service level of weekly curbside collection of old newspapers and monthly
curbside collection of old newspapers, glass bottles, tin cans, corrugated cardboard,
aluminum, ferrous metals, non-ferrous metals, and used motor oil. Residents are required
to set out seven separate bins and bundles of recyclables as follows:
• Newspapers—bag, box, or bundle tightly with string.
• Glass jars and bottles—rinse and sort by color.
• Used motor oil—pour into leak-proof plastic or metal container with a screw-on
lid.
• Corrugated cardboard—flatten and bundle.
• Tin cans—remove labels, cut out both ends, then rinse and flatten.
• Aluminum—rinse cans, food trays, and foil.
• Other metals—prepare scraps so they are less than 30 inches long and free of
rubber, plastic, or other foreign materials.
In addition, commercial customers must prepare paper as follows:
• High grade paper—separate white, colored, and green-striped computer papers.
Drop-Off Centers. Drop-off centers require residents to carry their recyclables to
a central collection point Currently they are the most common form of community-based
recycling. Recyclables are stored at the centers until being transported to a processing
facility (only very limited materials processing occurs at drop-off centers).
Convenient, safe access and quality control are the keys to a successful drop-off
center. Program coordinators generally agree that the most desirable drop-off sites are
located within three to five miles of home. Shopping centers, grocery stores, schools, and
churches are frequently chosen sites (Biocycle Journal of Waste Recycling, 1990).
Drop-off programs can be especially useful in communities just becoming
involved in recycling because the programs are fairly inexpensive to operate. In areas
with low waste disposal costs, drop-off programs may be more economically feasible
than curbside programs. Rural areas are well-suited for drop-off programs because low
population densities make curbside collection impractical. At the other end of the scale,
high-density population areas (such as multi-family residences) are also good locations
2-10
-------
for drop-off programs (Biocycle Journal of Waste Recycling, 1990). Wherever drop-off
centers are placed, care must be taken to ensure the collection of high-quality materials.
Most drop-off programs do not provide the same level of service as curbside
collection programs; however, drop-off programs have proven to be effective as adjuncts
to curbside programs because adding drop-off sites to a curbside program may improve
the program's overall convenience (especially for residents in nearby neighborhoods that
are not included in the recycling program). For example, when a pilot curbside collection
program started in Durham, North Carolina, the material collected at the drop-off center
actually increased (Biocycle Journal of Waste Recycling, 1990). Drop-off facilities also
can expand the collection of target materials by providing a place to receive hard-to-
collect materials (such as plastics, corrugated cardboard, batteries, and motor oil).
Although drop-off centers are common components of curbside programs, they
are excluded from the model programs (see Section 2.4 below) because of the difficulty
of estimating the participation and capture rates for these facilities. Another reason is that
quality control—likely to be critical in the future—is best achieved through curbside
programs per se.
2.13.3 Composting
Composting is the natural, aerobic degradation of organic material (such as grass
clippings, leaves, brush, and tree primings). It can be carried out with as little, or as
much, intervention and attention as the composter desires. Some communities give
residents two options for composting their yard wastes: backyard composting, or source
separation followed by centralized composting (Taylor and Kashmanian, 1988).
The choice of collection method depends on cost, convenience, household
participation, and amount and type of yard wastes separated and coUected (Taylor and
Kashmanian, 1988). Table 2-2 shows the various separation and collection methods used
in eight currently operating composting programs. Yard waste may be bagged, placed in
a container, left at the curbside, or dropped off at a central collection site. Depending on
the collection method and the level of separation required, pre-processing may be
necessary. For example, non-biodegradable plastic bags need to be opened and brush
may need shredding. Collection service varies from weekly to seasonally, depending on
the type of yard waste composted and the collection equipment used (e.g., curbside
vacuums are usually used primarily in the fall). All yard waste is coUected separately
from normal trash (Taylor and Kashmanian, 1988).
2-11
-------
CO
§
OH
i
2
o
>— i
H
0
Ed
>J
, i
O
(J
Q
Z
(
O -— •
fi.
"S
3
a
o
8
public education
public education
^>.
^ *
tt< CXJ
•» M
3 3
COCO
0,0*
CO CO
«!
c ^
Y— 1
backyard
curbside — claw
££
urbsider-wheeled bin
and degradable bag
landscaper drop-off
u
Z o
PQ
25
OJ
•s
o
§
•s
hotline, public educal
^>^
i^1 i^ t^
IL fT. FT.
^*^ p*H h*H
333
CO CO CO
Cli CU di
co coco
rt
c c c
backyard
resident drop-off
landscaper drop-off
ZZZ
<3
^
•a
S
CO
82 e
((O JJ
as
GO CA
lie ed, newspaper, bill
lie ed, newspaper, bill
word-of-mouth
X> JS
3 3
££
fe
fY_ f T a ^
rM ^*H p^
3" 3"CO
coco^
coco
«««
C B C
backyard
resident drop-off
landscaper drop-off
zzz
?
w ofl
hodine, newspaper i
newspaper ad, mailin
newspaper ad
PH PH
** «k
, 3 3
PnCOCO
o, OH
coco
^
cJ C C
urbside — ^front loader
resident drop-off
landscaper drop-off
o
>H^>H
I—,
^
S
13
1
CO
W}
public education
free bags yr 1, mailin
PH PH
a o
coco
coco
•8
*ii
-1
i— ^
backyard
urbside — degradable
bag
u
J5
g
§
^
1
1
•"^
s
r. (2/F - 2 collections per fa
*l
li S'
| f d S
1. ^ •= i
o oS* >2 »> *^
^ S la "31
2 § 13 b. 'S
H "B^
Z • co
2-12
-------
The nation has at least 1,000 yard waste composting faculties, and many more are
expected to begin operation in response to state and local mandated source separation
laws. For example, the City of Seattle requires residents to separate yard waste from
household trash. Yard waste, representing 30 percent of the city's residential waste
stream, is collected for a fee. The fee serves to encourage backyard composting. The
utility also sponsors a backyard composting education program run by a local, nonprofit
organization of urban gardeners (Allan, Platt, and Morris, 1989). Despite the number of
composting facilities, yard waste continues to be a substantial component of landfffled
solid waste.
2.2 BASELINE LEVELS OF RECYCLING
Some communities with MWCs already have recycling programs. Others have
plans to implement such programs for residential or commercial and institutional
generators. The NSPS and EG will give full credit for the material collected in existing
recycling programs toward the 25 percent requirement Therefore, the increment in
materials separation required for compliance will be less for communities with existing
recycling programs than for communities without recycling programs. It is not possible
to identify every community that is currently achieving a 25 percent materials separation
level as defined in the NSPS and EG, but it is possible to identify the states that have
mandated recycling goals of at least 25 percent to be achieved in the near future.
New Jersey, which set a 1988 deadline for 25 percent recycling, is the only state
to have reached its deadline for complying with its mandated recycling goal. Other states
and areas that have set deadlines for achieving their goals between now and 19951 include
Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, North Carolina,
Ohio,2 Virginia, and Washington (Glenn, 1990). Because they will not need to develop
new materials separation programs, these states are omitted from the analysis to
determine the cost of implementation of the materials separation regulation on a national
basis (see Chapter 4).
23 CASE STUDIES AND SURVEYS OF RECYCLING PROGRAMS
Communities across the country are recognizing recycling as an effective
alternative to the disposal of municipal solid waste because it reduces the amount of
1 This year is the deadline for compliance with the materials separation requirement
Akron and Columbus, Ohio (cities with large waste-to-energy facilities), already operate front-end
separation and pilot curbside programs in some areas.
2-13
-------
waste to be landfilled or incinerated. In fact, six of the nation's ten largest cities
(Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Phoenix, Philadelphia, and San Diego) have curbside
collection programs. Three others (Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas) have programs in
preliminary stages. In addition, municipalities around the country operate more than
1,000 curbside recycling programs (National Solid Wastes Management Association,
1989). Some nonprofit organizations and private enterprises also conduct collection
programs.
Implementing a recycling program presents a number of problems, challenges,
and opportunities for municipalities and recycling companies. Solid waste management
planners must consider what to recycle, how to collect recyclables, how to increase
participation rates and maximize materials recovery, how to determine costs, and how to
market the recyclables.
This section describes a sample of the wide variety of municipally run curbside
collection programs to illustrate possible designs for recycling programs. It would be
ideal to compare the costs and levels of materials recovery, and to determine how they
vary with density, size, and waste composition. The lack of reliable data, in part due to
the lack of a standard definition for the term "municipal solid waste," makes such
comparisons difficult. Table 2-3 gives examples of different definitions of municipal
solid waste used in different programs across the country
Careful consideration of the economic data and tonnage data provided in surveys
of curbside programs indicates that any detailed statistical analysis of these programs
would be handicapped by the information that communities provide on how much waste
they generate, how much of this waste is recovered, and how much it costs to do so.
Therefore, the available data are most appropriately used to make broad inferences about
the relative popularity of different types of programs, target materials, the point where
materials separation takes place, and other attributes of the programs that will be operated
in response to the NSPS and EG.
2-14
-------
TABLE 2-3. DEFINITIONS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
==========
Program Definition
Barrington, RI
Refuse generated by residents through their daily course of
living: includes school refuse, but does not include waste from
contractors or businesses.
Deschutes County, OR Everything delivered to the County's five landfills arid one
transfer station, including household, commercial, industrial
and demolition debris.
Hamburg, NY
Hempstead, NY
Longmeadow, MA
Mecklenburg, NC
Metro Toronto, ONT
Montclair, NJ
Newport, RI
Orlando, FL
Prairie Du Sac, WI
Sarasota, FL
Sauk County, WI
Seattle, WA
Sunnyvale, CA
Wilkes-Barre, PA
Woodbury, NJ
Upper Arlington, QH
Source: Snow, 1989, Table 3.
Mixed waste from households not including construction and
demolition debris, bulky waste, or white goods.
All materials set out for collection, including bulk items and
recyclables.
Nonresidential with the exception of two elderly housing projects
and a nursing home; includes shopping areas.
Whatever is collected by the municipality—residential waste and
small businesses.
Domestic waste from residences and apartments and waste
collected by municipal forces including light commercial, street
sweepings, catch basin cleanings, ash, sewage sludge, park
wastes, waste from municipal offices and waste from libraries,
etc.
Type 10 refuse as defined by the State of New Jersey and
collected by the Town.
Waste generated by city residences and certain municipal
buildings: also includes litter barrels.
All putrescible and nonputrescible solid waste, except body
waste, including garbage, rubbish, ashes, street cleanings, dead
animals, or discarded materials of any kind that tend to decav or
putrefy. J
Refuse accumulation of animals, fruit or vegetable matter, liquid
or otherwise, that attends the preparation, use, cooking, dealing
in, or storage of meat, fish, fowl, fruit or vegetables.
Residential and yard waste.
All the commercial and post-consumer materials requiring
disposal.
All waste, except demolition debris, generated within Seattle's
city limits..
Commercial and residential waste.
Waste generated by people, but not household furnishings or
appliances.
Garbage, building materials, contaminated papers, appliances.
Household refuse and yard waste.
2-15
-------
23.1 Case Studies
This section compares performance, conditions of service, and other
characteristics of 13 municipally run recycling programs. The comparison uses the data
contained in Beyond 25 Percent: Materials Recovery Comes of Age. The authors of that
study conclude, in part, that .
Extensive materials recovery in peacetime is so new that most programs still lack
basic quantitative data. Five years ago most communities had no idea how much
waste they generated. Because of their expectations for incineration, communities
that did conduct studies tended to divide their waste streams into only two primary
categories; combustibles and noncombustibles. Even today very few communities
have information on the amount of garbage generated by the commercial or
industrial sectors, or of white goods, or even of yard waste.
Economic data are also inadequate. Communities whose recycling programs are
separate from regular pick-up may have relatively good cost figures. But, in
communities where recycling is part of the municipal collection services, or where
. private collectors pick up recyclable items from the commercial or residential
sector as part of their collection contracts, economic data are scarce and often
unreliable. (Allan, Platt, and Morris, 1989, page 3).
Table 2-4 compares information from the 13 case studies. The communities range
in size from 1,100 households in Prairie Du Sac, Michigan, to 150,000 households in
Portland, Oregon. Nine of the communities have fewer than 40,000 people. This sample
is fairly representative of national demographics—thousands of cities have populations of
5,000 to 40,000, compared with only a few hundred with populations over 100,000. Most
of the surveyed communities are achieving greater than 75 percent participation. Six
areas report that over 90 percent of households participate. The programs have a .nine-to-
four split of voluntary to mandatory participation, respectively (Allan, Platt, and Morris,
1989).
All of the communities collect old newspapers, corrugated paper, glass containers,
aluminum cans, and yard waste. All but three of the communities collect ferrous cans,
and only three collect plastic containers (i.e., PET and/or HOPE). One community has
single-stream set out, eight communities have two-stream set out, and four communities
have multiple-stream set out (Allan, Platt, and Morris, 1989).
Perkas'ie, Pennsylvania, and West Linn, Portland, use per-bag disposal fee programs
to encourage waste reduction and provide a direct economic incentive to recycling. West
Linn residents are charged by volume (per 30-gallon can) of waste generated. Perkasie
residents can purchase large bags with the capacity to hold up to 20 pounds for $1.50 and
small bags with capacity to hold up to 20 pounds for $0.80 (Allan, Platt, and Morris, 1989).
2-16
-------
••• C3
£«
o
ft*
s o
'flj Q)
6X)
•ts.c
iiilllllill.il
-s'SP^^SPo-S'Soi'SA
1 I 1 !
U
CsJ
fiti
fe
O
z
o
I
£
g
o
u
s
II
"2 '3
21
IS I
s i
5 5
^s
g
0>
CO
I
•n
'^.pri
~ en
c«\
«ri T
cs o o"
o
en
1
2 8 2
en
S
2 2 ^ £
n
-------
23.2 National Solid Wastes Management Association (NS WMA) Survey
The National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA) conducted a
survey in 1989 of 24 household curbside collection programs. The survey was designed to
compile a detailed picture of curbside collection operations across the nation. Table 2-5
outlines the basic characteristics of each program surveyed. The programs range in size
from 1,100 households in Prairie Du Sac to 250,000 households in Metro Toronto,
Ontario. Target materials include old newspapers, corrugated cardboard, mixed paper,
aluminum cans, glass, plastic bottles, leaves, tin cans, white goods, and waste oil. The
programs have a 12-to-ll split of voluntary versus mandatory participation, respectively
(Sauk County, Wisconsin, has both classifications of participation). Participation rates in
mandatory programs are, on average, twice as high as voluntary programs (Snow, 1989).
2.4 MODEL PROGRAMS
The decisions made in developing the model programs listed below are based on
data from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance's Beyond 25 Percent: Materials Recovery
Comes of Age, the 1989 NSWMA survey of local programs, current literature, as well as
discussions with state environmental offices, local program operators, and curbside
recycling program consultants. Communities can choose from literally hundreds of
combinations of specific program parameters when planning curbside collection. The
model programs are designed to be plausible and to represent the range of likely
responses of communities to the regulation.
Presumably, none of the modeled programs affect the diversion rate of either
white goods (e.g., refrigerators, stoves) or stumps; it is also assumed that the cost of
collecting and processing these things is unaffected by the materials separation
requirement The analysis of the collection and processing of household batteries,
household hazardous waste, and motor vehicle maintenance materials is beyond the scope
of this study. The modeled programs encompass only the diversion and processing of old
newspapers, certain types of containers, and the lighter fractions of yard waste (i.e.,
leaves, grass, and brush).
2.4.1 Key Elements of Materials Separation Model Programs
Each model program is defined by the following characteristics:
• target materials,
• point where materials separation takes place,
• imposition of mandatory participation ordinances,
• quality of promotional services (public advertising and educational programs),
2-18
-------
H
W
C
Frequency
Refuse
J
^
8
1
ts -a is -g is -a -a
iiiin i
a? a? «
i.«
I"50
OH
1
gram
Start Up P
§
ft
llll 8 11
-IS I
CO
U
ifffflfffflf
g£££c2££££.g£
>
I
>»>»
III
1 1
i i
OtSvO
1 il 1 1
*
en in ON 0 Tf
^
o
00 -H
r^ o\ «o
oo oo oo
O\ ON ON
f
i -
rf
B
B
B
2-19
-------
g
w
w
o
cc
S
I
Q
>—<
O
C/3
<
z
1
z
Ed
E-
So
Oj
S
o>
z§
>-< ?s
30
>-» >—(
II
ug
«<
up
IN
S
ca
S
'requency of
Refuse
Collection
a
ai o> jj
ea o
co w
:«
otS
| 8
o-'o
2»U
I-B
?R P 2 2
?^ ?% *•< S3
CO
O CO
H
ON oo
r» oo
ON ON
CM oo
oo oo
ON ON
1-1 VO t-
oo oo oo
ON ON ON
c3
co
03
-------
• application of unit pricing incentives,
• type of post-collection processing,
• participation rates, and
• capture rates.
Table 2-6 lists the characteristics that define each program. These characteristics are '
described below.
2.4.1.1 Target Materials
As shown by existing programs, the level of materials recovery and recycling is
directly related to the number of materials targeted for separation from the waste stream.
All programs are expected to target steel cans, aluminum cans, old newspapers, yard
waste, glass containers, and PET and HDPE plastic containers.
2.4.13, Point of Separation
Point of separation refers to where the recyclables are separated from the
municipal solid waste stream. All the model programs rely on household source
separation with curbside pick-up! A program in which the municipal solid waste stream
is sent unseparated to a MRF for processing was not modeled because it is an unlikely
response to the regulation. Such programs require expensive facilities that communities
are unlikely to finance. In addition, these facilities yield highly contaminated materials,
imposing a penalty on sales.
2.4.1.3 Mandatory Participation Ordinances
Municipalities in states with mandatory recycling laws are often required to adopt
mandatory recycling ordinances. In fact, a municipality's power to adopt a mandatory
recycling ordinance depends on the existence of some state legislation authorizing the
municipality to do so (Biocyde Journal of Waste Recycling, 1990). The models in this
study include both communities with and without mandatory participation ordinances.
As reflected in the models, mandatory participation does not ensure total participation.
2-21
in
-------
TABLE'2-6. KEY ELEMENTS OF MATERIALS SEPARATION MODEL
PROGRAMS
Two-Stream
Programs
Option
1 2
Characteristic
Target materials
Steel cans
(capture rate = 60%)
Aluminum cans
(capture rate -60%)
Newspapers
(capture rate = 80%)
Yard waste
(capture rate = 80%)
Glass containers
(capture rate =-65%)
PET &HDPE plastic
containers
(capture rate = 65%)
Recyclables separated by
households with curbside
pick-up service
Partially commingled
recyclables
Recyclables separated into at
least three containers
Mandatory participation
Promotional services program
Unit pricing program
All waste sent to a MRF
All recyclables sent to a transfer
facility for recycling
All yard waste sent to compost
facility
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
. 1
1
Multiple-Stream
Programs
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
i
0
i
i
Option
3 4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
MS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
NA*
NA*
NA*
0
1
1
Note: l = yes. 0 = no.
*See Section 2.43.
2-22
-------
Mandatory ordinances require households to separate specific recyclables from
their garbage. These ordinances are aimed at stimulating participation and reducing the
amount of materials going to other disposal alternatives. Mandating participation
encourages an extra level of support that can have a significant impact in terms of
diverting materials. Just the act of passing the ordinance helps publicize and legitimate
the program. Enforcement provisions are necessary to show that the municipality is
serious about recycling and intends to sustain the program. Even with an ordinance in
place, however, most municipalities make a serious effort to educate and motivate the
public prior to taking any type of enforcement action.
Enforcement is often applied in steps. Usually, the first step against a nonrecycler
is to leave instructions attached to the trash container explaining how to properly prepare
recyclables. If the problem is not corrected, then the garbage is not collected and the
resident receives a notice of violation. Refusal to pick up improperly separated trash is
generally very effective in motivating compliance with the program. If the problem is not
corrected after several warnings, then enforcement action can be applied. Most
municipalities avoid penalizing citizens for not recycling. In fact, even those
communities that actively monitor compliance seldom resort to summons and fines
(Biocycle Journal of Waste Recycling, 1990).
2.4.1.4 Promotional Services
Public participation is critical to recycling. Although the models do not specify
particular educational services, in reality, programs must be thorough and broad to
generate the level of response assumed in the participation rates. A quality educational
effort should include staff, supplies, and office space for an array of mailings, as well as
videotapes, stickers, calendars, media coverage, public presentations, and personal
contacts. Many cities have targeted their education efforts at grade school and high
school students. Advertising efforts may include placing articles in the newspapers,
circulating information at street fairs and festivals, placing signs on city buses, and
sponsoring media events such as Seattle's "Cash for Trash" program that rewards
residents who do not place recyclables in their trash.
2.41.5 Unit Pricing
At least 17 communities employ some type of quantity-sensitive pricing of solid
waste management services (see Table 2-7). All of the unit pricing programs shown in
2^23
-------
O
O
8
I
§
a
fc
"c
j
If optional,
percent
artklpatlon
O B
•S P
I?
= i
l!
1 s
C el
1|
<3*
J
'S
I
fi1
| 22 22 22 222222 2 2
2522 22
2 2
222222
22 222222
2222||
2 2 >i.2 2 2 55 55 !H
2 2
2 2
» I
2 2
>* 2 >* SHJ! 2
is
is
2 a .a J
5 «8 ^ >£
{MfMjHjK >4>N JM>H >, >,
ble
*£*
sgl
A t^ J
S'g
os o
O 0
I
g
•& R S8
2222 o S
.§ 00
II
oo
o\
W f- O
» "> V
A »i I
t* i
a 2 I
oo
o\
25 S S &
OA
pid
i s
S2- "">
H Si
Duluthe,
o g
if
#J
• 5? & S
„ - 2 n S
2 Q, >^ vcT <-^
^
rlis!
lut
and
G
•a
&
^
^ i
3 A
ing,
a, WA
e,PA
'&
4
6 8 ^ -g 1
J 2 O £ E
g
4
€
u
CO
00 00
oo oo
OS O\
£
f
«
£ £
i
il
I
C oo
3 -a
I*
r
i
P
t
2-24
-------
J
H"
uu u £ o u
5 T1 •"• SP "3!«
00 <
o * ££
>
a g
£ 1
s
I
£ £
£
i
a si
1
1
s* Ǥ
I s
^
of
ll
Sw
CO
d
2
I
2-25
-------
Table 2-7 have one feature in common: pricing based on volume. Residents are required
to use waste containers (usually bags) that meet certain volume specifications. Even so,
service providers generally estimate weights per unit volume when setting prices, and
some programs have weight limits. However, enforcing weight limits is costly and
seldom done. Fee structures for unit pricing programs vary widely—some programs use
per-unit fees, while others use per-unit fees that supplement flat fees (that are either billed
directly or included in taxes). Finally, collection characteristics (i.e., frequency, time, and
placement of containers) and requirements for special services, such as bulky waste pick-
up, vary widely (Research Triangle Institute, 1989).
2.4.1.6 Post-Collection Processing
Post-collection processing refers to what happens to the recyclables after they are
collected from households. Some degree of post-collection processing is always
beneficial to the sellers of the recovered materials even if it is no more than densifying
plastic containers, crushing glass and cans, or bailing paper.3 Both two-stream separation
programs discussed below in Section 2.4.2 send materials to a MRF; all recyclables
collected from the multiple-stream separation programs discussed in Section 2.4.3 are
sent to a recycling transfer station to be stored until they are shipped to market. All yard
waste collected by two-stream and multiple-stream model programs is sent to a
centralized facility to be processed into mulch or compost
2.4.1.7 Participation Rates
Participation rates state the percentage of households expected to participate in a
given model program by sorting recyclables from their garbage and setting them out by
the curb for pick-up. Participation rate is a function of population, population density,
and three program characteristics (i.e., the quality of promotional services, imposition of
unit pricing, and adoption of mandatory compliance ordinances).
Deriving reliable, precise relationships between participation rates and their
determinants is currently infeasible because of a lack of information on recycling
programs. Nonetheless, the following hypotheses are reasonable:
3 These activities are typical of recycling transfer stations.
2-26
-------
Hypothesis #1—As population increases the participation rate decreases.
This inverse relationship is a result of the increased difficulty in enforcing mandatory
programs in large population centers as compared to small towns.
Hypothesis #2—As population density increases participation decreases.
Increasing the population density generally correlates with increasing the proportion of
multi-family units in a given area. Increasing the proportion of multi-family units lowers
participation rates because (1) recycling is less convenient for multi-family residents, and
(2) enforcing mandatory recycling ordinances is more difficult in multi-family units.
Multi-family residents find recycling inconvenient because they have less space in which
to store recyclables. Monitoring the compliance of individual multi-family residents is
difficult because the residents deliver their recyclables to a central collection site.
Hypothesis #3—Three program characteristics directly increase
participation rates:
• using promotional services (i.e., advertising and education programs),
• imposing unit pricing, and
• adopting mandatory compliance ordinances.
Table 2-8 shows the influence of these characteristics on each model program's
participation rate. The program options highlighted by boxes in Table 2-8 are the ones
used in this analysis.
An effective promotional service campaign includes both how-to information as
well as a message that makes people aware that their "individual effort, however small in
itself, is part of a mighty earth-community effort" (Biocycle Journal of Waste Recycling
1990, page 46).
Imposing a unit pricing program also has a positive effect on participation rates.
As reported in Biocycle,
.. .it's hard to beat the overall educational value of the pay-per-bag program
What goes on in the mind of consumers when they must repeatedly go into a store
and buv the actual bags they use for their garbage and pay a price mat actually
)f the services is very important. It sends a powerful message on
sis ttiat waste disposal is an expensive service, and that if I reduce the
,.,.- —row away by recycling, I will also reduce my garbage bill. It's a
«SSf m SI Tati°n than Iea^ng a flyer or goinS to a meeting and really
seems to bring about an awareness in people of what'* w»aii« «~«o, ;L /n.- :_,
Journal of Waste Recycling, 1990, page 73)
2-27
-------
tlT
i
H
2
O
P
§
U
H
OS
&<
*•
1
"^1
CM
o
§
CU
Q
i
00
TABLE 2.
•
%
|
o
U
g
°B
-
§~
a?
c^
°I
«I
s
/•N
<5c«
^^
^
•••*
1
£
1
S B
O.g
S "g a>
I'i'S
i!
w
1
•s
2
CO
6
Ee
2.2
1*
Pk
o
r-
o
oo
0
oo .
8
•
8
0
*
s'
i
2
§
u
A A A
8
1
°» &1
no
c^ oooo
O V-iO
r~- oo oo
O«O
c^oo
O«r»O
c~- oooo
O
in
O O Co
0 C >>
AAV
-573
ill
ftf
III
O
t-
VAA
Oioo
c^oo
O >O
VOt^
o
VO
«oo
f-OO
' -111
0 C >»
A V A
O«r)o
^1000
O >0 O
«T>\OOO
«oo
p-oo
O w>O
V0r~-00
o
-»•
o
VO
«no
t^OO
A V V
1
o
1
15
i
S v vi
§.VI -H jr;
§
till
s:
2-28 2, j •
-------
Not surprisingly, an analysis of the case studies in Section 2.3 leads to the
conclusion that programs with mandatory participation ordinances have significantly
higher household participation rates than those with voluntary programs. In fact,
participation rates above 60 percent are very rare in voluntary programs (Allan, Platt, and
Moms, 1989).
Hypothesis #4—Participation rates in multiple-stream programs will not be
greater than those in two-stream programs given the following conditions:
Hold constant all variables discussed in hypotheses 1,2, and 3 (i.e., population,
population density, quality of promotional services, imposition of unit pricing, and
implementation of mandatory compliance ordinances) and only change the set-out
method.
2.4.1.8 Capture Rates
Capture rate (or percent recovery) is the percentage of each target material that a
participating household removes from the waste stream. All capture rates shown in
Table 2-6 are based on figures recommended to us by OSW. These projections are based,
as much as possible, on experiences with operating systems in this country. The rates are
applied to both MWCs with RDF and without RDF.
2.4.2 Two-Stream Household Separation Model Programs
Two-stream household separation generally refers to a commingled (mixed) set
out of target recyclables in one container with paper stacked and/or bundled and placed
near the container. This analysis models two options of the two-stream household
separation program to estimate national implementation costs and participation rates (see
Table 2-6). Program characteristics common to both options are as follows:
• Target materials are steel cans, aluminum cans, old newspapers, yard waste
glass containers, and PET and HOPE plastic containers.
• Target materials are sorted from garbage by the household, placed at the curb
and collected without further separation.
• Good promotional services are provided to educate and inspire public support
J o*
• All collected recyclables are sent to a MRF for processing.
• All collected yard waste is sent to a compost facility in the community.
2-29
-------
• The capture rate is 60 percent for steel and aluminum cans, 80 percent for old
newspapers and yard waste, and 65 percent for glass containers and PET and
HOPE plastic containers.
Two-stream household collection options 1 and 2 differ in the following three
characteristics:
• Mandatory participation is imposed on households in option 1; participation is
voluntary in option 2.
• Unit pricing is in effect in option 2 but not in option 1.
• Because mandatory participation and unit pricing both tend to increase
participation, one might expect the participation rate for option 2 to be the same
as option 1. However, because it is felt that unit pricing has a greater positive
influence on participation than imposing a mandatory ordinance, the
participation rate for option 2 is higher than option 1 (see Table 2-8).
2.4.3 Multiple-Stream Separation Model Program
The multiple-stream separation model program requires residents to separate glass
by color, to separate other containers by material, to stack and bundle old newspapers,
and to bag yard waste. The approach taken to modeling multiple-stream programs begins
by describing different programs with the intent of determining a plausible range in then-
variations. Knowledge of program diversity permits an informed selection of the best
average program for use in subsequent analysis.
Four different multiple-stream separation model programs illustrate the variety of
options available to local program planners (see Table 2-6). Characteristics common to
all four multiple-stream model program options are as follows:
• Steel cans, aluminum cans, old newspapers, yard waste, glass containers, and
PET and HDPE plastic containers are the target materials.
• Target materials are separated from garbage by the household, placed at the
curb, and collected without further separation.
• All collected recyclables are sent to a recycling transfer facility.
• All collected yard waste is sent to a compost facility in the community.
• The capture rate is 60 percent for steel and aluminum cans, 80 percent for old
newspapers and yard waste, and 65 percent for glass containers and PET and
HDPE plastic containers.
The four multiple-stream separation model program options differ in the
following characteristics:
2-30
-------
• Mandatory participation is required by households in options 1,2, and 3 but not
in option 4.
• Unit pricing is in effect in options 2 and 3 but not in options 1 and 4.
• Good promotional services are provided in options 1,2, and 4 but not in
option 3.
• Participation rates vary from 90 percent (option 3) to 30 percent (option 4).
(Section 2.4.1.7 explains what causes participation rates to vary.)
The cost of implementing the multiple-stream separation model program was
derived by .using a hybrid of all four model programs. The hybrid is labelled "program
option MS" in Tables 2-6 and 2-8. Its participation rates are intermediate in comparison
to those of the other multiple-stream programs. Consequently, program MS has the same
participation rates as the least effective two-stream program (two-stream option 1). The
estimate of the cost of a multiple-stream program is thus premised on the hypothesis that
the effectiveness of the typical multiple-stream program is near the lower end of the range
for two-stream programs.
2-31
;l
-------
-------
CHAPTER 3
COSTS AND COST-SAVINGS OF
MODEL MATERIALS SEPARATION PROGRAMS
The materials separation programs that communities will operate to comply with
the materials separation requirement require collection systems and facilities for post-
collection processing. A comprehensive accounting of the net cost of a program requires
not only a valuation of the resources allocated to the collection system and facilities, but
also a valuation of the other resources whose allocation will change. The accounting
should therefore include revenues from the sale of recovered materials and cost-savings
from the reduction in the consumption of services provided by future municipal waste
combustors, municipal solid waste landfills, and ordinary residential garbage collection.
This chapter describes the methodology of estimating the costs and cost-savings
of the model materials separation programs. To reflect uncertainties in the estimation of
national cost, the methodology produces a range of estimates. The estimate of the cost of
the materials separation programs that will operate in response to the materials separation
requirement is most appropriately presented as a range because of numerous uncertainties
in predicting the choices of the owners of MWCs and the behavior of the residents in
their service areas. To produce a range of costs, varying the level of resources applied to
administration and the characteristics of composting programs is convenient as well as
plausible. The administration of a program may require the substantial addition of
resources to demonstrate compliance with the NSPS and EG. Some communities may
operate a materials separation program that does not include a composting component;
other communities may opt for backyard composting. Additional sensitivity analysis is
conducted by varying the methodologies used to estimate avoided landfill costs and
avoided residential MSW collection costs.
Section 3.1 addresses a behavioral issue that underlies the calculation of costs and
cost-savings for existing MWCs. This issue is whether an owner will avert a reduction in
throughput by expanding the catchment area. Section 3.4 through 3.7 detail costs and
cost-savings of model materials separation programs with respect to household costs,
downsizing MWCs, effect on landfill space, changes in waste composition, and
residential collection costs. Section 3.8 briefly defines the method for extrapolating the
costs from model communities to communities of different sizes.
3-1
-------
3.1 A CRITICAL BEHAVIORAL ASSUMPTION: EXPANSION OF THE
CATCHMENT AREA OF EXISTING MWCS
In the absence of mitigating behavior, the amount of waste combusted declines by
the amount of separated material. Setting aside the change in heat content that occurs
because of materials separation (see Section 3.6), a reduction in throughput reduces
tipping fee revenues at all MWCs and electric and steam generation in waste-to-energy
units; operating and maintenance costs may also change.
The Wall Street Journal recently described the problem facing the owners of the
MWC in Portland, Maine, caused by an unexpected decline in throughput:
The plant started up two years ago, but a hitch soon appeared: When Maine's
tourists go south for the winter, the amount of trash declines more than planners
had figured. So far, that hasn't hurt the plant, which is obligated to generate a
certain amount of power under its financing terms. But Maine towns are
expanding recycling programs under a new state law, and that could starve the
incinerator for fuel.
So, when Portland and other towns in the Regional Waste Systems cooperative
recently were granted state money to increase recycling, they decided not to use
it, at least for the time being. "We're not anti-recycling," says Charles Foshay,
Regional Waste's director. "But we put the expansion [of recycling] on hold
until we have a better understanding of its impact."
Regional Waste, he adds, probably will ask other Maine towns to send trash
when its garbage runs low. "But," he adds, "I don't want [garbage] barges from
New York." (4/19/90, p. B1)
Recycling and materials separation programs directly affect the financial viability
of an MWC. The potential effect is substantial. Alfred Medioli, Vice President and
Manager, Moody's Investors Service, observed earlier this year that recycling programs
are "already quite significant in any current analysis of projects" and are among the eight
issues that "will strongly shape solid waste disposal projects, their financing, their
feasibility, and their credit worthiness in coming years" (1990, p. 7). To illustrate, he
recounted the difficulties experienced by the owners of a mass-burn unit in Warren
County, New Jersey:
This plant was designed and built before the state's mandated recycling
program. It started operating in the summer of 1988, and for the first six months
it received 27 percent less garbage than projected, resulting in some degree of
operating loss. The Warren plant will likely take waste from neighboring
counties. (Ibid., pp. 11-12)
3-2
-------
Whether owners of other existing MWCs will also ask nearby towns for their
MSW when throughput declines depends on how the cost of obtaining that waste
compares with the cost of combusting less waste. This comparison depends on
transportation costs, operating costs, tipping fees, and energy prices, all of which vary
across communities. Recognizing that the results of this comparison are likely to differ, it
was hypothesized that an owner typically will increase the population served (expand the
catchment area) to maintain the baseline rate of capacity utilization.
To calculate the new quantity of MSW that a combustor must receive to avert a
decrease in throughput, the following three values are essential:
• RO, original quantity of MSW received1
• b, baseline separation rate (with respect to RQ)
• d, gross incremental separation rate (with respect to Ro)2
When a new program starts, the resulting reduction in throughput equals Ro*d.
To keep the quantity combusted at the original level, the quantity received must increase
by Ro*d plus an additional amount (to be specified) to offset baseline separation in the
expansion of the catchment area and incremental separation. Although the quantity
received has increased, by Ro*d, the quantity combusted has increased by less. This
shortfall equals R<,*d*b (due to baseline separation3) plus Ro*d*d (due to incremental
separation4); the total shortfall is R0*d*(b-Hi). Therefore, to maintain baseline
combustion, the quantity received must again increase (by R0*d*(b+d)) to replace the
shortfall. Whenever additional MSW is received, a fraction is combusted—never the
whole amount because some is separated due to baseline activity and the rest is separated
due to the new materials separation program.
(Rn):
The following equation identifies the requisite new amount of MSW received
Rn= RO+ Ro*d + Ro*d*(b+d) + Ro*d*(b+d)2 + R0*d*(b-Kl)3
(3-1)
1 To be consistent with the proposed rule, the MSW "received" at a combustor includes materials separated
in the baseline.
2 The measurement of diversion is gross of the cap on the credit for compostable materials, and it is gross
of the residuals generated in the processing and composting facilities.
3 The baseline separation rate is assumed the same in all areas.
The incremental diversion rate is assumed the same in all areas.
3-3
-------
After collecting terms, this formula becomes
Rn=Ro+ .£0Ro*d*(b+d)i
(3-2)
. The infinite sum is a geometric series with initial term Ro*d and ratio (b+d). The
next four equations show progressive simplifications of equation (3-2).
Rn=Ro+Ro*d/(l-(b+d))
Rn=Ro*[l+d/(l-(b+d))]
Rn=
Rn=R0*(l-b)/(l-(b+d))
(3-3)
(3-4)
(3-5)
(3-6)
Equation (3-6) states that the new quantity received equals the old quantity
received multiplied by the ratio of the baseline combusted fraction (1-b) to the post-
separation combusted fraction (l-(b+d)). For example, if the baseline combusted fraction
were 10 percent and the post-separation combusted fraction were 5 percent, then the
quantity received would double.
It was assumed that the original catchment area and its environs have identical
characteristics vis-a-vis municipal solid waste. In the example, the population served
would therefore double.
In general, for an existing MWC, the catchment area and the population served
increase by a factor equal to (l-b)/(l-(b+d)). The expansion factors for the model
programs analyzed range from 1.19 to 1.24.
3.2 COLLECTION SYSTEMS AND PROCESSING FACILITIES
A materials separation program requires equipment, facilities, crews for collection
and post-collection processing and administration. The cost of infrastructure and crew for
three different model programs in model communities that differ by size of population
3-4
-------
served and population density were estimated.5 A three-step method for estimating costs
was followed:
1. Characterize the basic elements of collection systems and processing facilities
for each model program/model community combination.
2. Determine the appropriate scale of collection and processing.
3. Calculate the annualized capital, operating, and maintenance costs implied bv
(l)and(2). * s
The method employed to calculate costs disaggregates the entire collection and
processing system into two subsystems (collection and post-collection processing).
Further, it disaggregates the subsystems themselves into basic units of equipment,
facility, and crew for which individual costs were estimated.
The collection system comprises one subsystem for the collection of newspapers
and containers from single-family residences, a second subsystem for gathering these
materials from multi-family residences, and a third subsystem for compostable materials.
A collection subsystem comprises containers, tracks, and crew. This cost analysis also
includes factors that determine the efficiency of collection in each subsystem. The
critical factor for collection is the number of households served per hour, which varies
with density.6
The system for post-collection processing includes one subsystem for newspapers
and containers and another for leaves and yard waste. All model programs include one or
more composting facilities. A two-stream program includes a composting facility and a
materials recovery facility, and a multiple-stream program includes a composting facility
and a recycling transfer facility.7 The classes of equipment vary from facility to facility,
but in the entire system the equipment performs the functions of materials handling,
sorting, windrow turning, and compacting.
5 Chapter 4 focuses on the role of communities; nevertheless, costs, the subject of this chapter vary by
community. Communities are classified as follows:
v*r »?PUlati°" ™rt Density (persons/square mile)
VS (very small) P£ 20,000 L(low) D^400
S (small) 20,001 SPS 100,000 M(medium) 401 SD<800
M (medium) 100,001 <, P £ 200,000 H(high) 80KD
H(high) 200,001 SP
Within any model community, collection efficiency varies across subregions (urban, suburban rural)
Efficiency also varies in an overall sense with population density.
3-5
-------
Tables 3-1A, B, C and 3-2A, B, C identify the characteristics of the collection
systems and processing facilities for model two-stream and multiple-stream programs for
three model communities (C, E, and G). The tables list containers, trucks, crews, sites,
and facilities and their unit costs. Other relevant details are included.
The scale of collection and processing depends on the separated materials, which
differ by program and community. The number of containers (for example, "blue .
boxes"), size of the truck fleet, and number of collection workers and processing facility
operators were determined using the Tellus Institute's computer program (WastePlan) for
solid waste management. The inputs to WastePlan are characteristics of the separation
program and community and the elements of the collection and processing facility
subsystems. WastePlan calculates the quantities of the needed resources and, using input
prices, calculates costs.
Table 3-3 reports the average (per Mg) annualized costs for all collection and
processing activities by model program and model community.8 Costs for materials
recovery facilities and recycling transfer facilities show economies of scale (see
Figure 3-1). Costs for collection systems and compost facilities show constant returns to
scale. Average costs become progressively higher as population served decreases.
Uncertainties in the estimation of the national cost of materials separation
programs are incorporated by 1) varying the magnitude of the administrative effort that
will be required to demonstrate compliance with the materials separation requirement and
2) modifying the hypothesis concerning composting programs. In the lower estimate of
costs, additional administrative effort is unnecessary; in the higher estimate, additional
effort is necessary, and the rate of expenditure is $35,000 (salary and fringe benefits for
one administrator) per year per 25,000 persons served.9
Up to this point, the hypothesis concerning composting programs has been that
every affected community will operate the same type of program (bagged setout of yard
waste and leaves, and central composting). A more plausible prediction is that different
types of composting programs will operate. Specifically, costs are developed on the
7 A materials recovery facility houses more types of sorting equipment than a recycling transfer facility. In
the latter, the basic activity is moving presorted material from smaller containers (bins in collection
trucks) to larger containers (semi-trailers or roll-off bins).
8 Two combinations are irrelevant—see Chapter 4.
9 The total expenditure increases in steps: $0—$35,000—$70,000—etc.
3-6
-------
VO
O\
ON ,
ION 2
o
g
o«
>•>
"S
OO O
000
o
oo i
W
6
H
O
fe
C/3
C/3
C/3
O
H
J
O
S3
S
§
o
Si
O -H 5° "
-
ss
. T— 1
o "^
S"1
O —
ooo
OOO
"
O
o
^
o o °o »
«
i
u
i
&H
C/3
z
i
u
u
J
J
o
ckb
-Purce
- Service
- Other O
Collection
-
-
•v vi vi
VI -H -H
.
200.
3-7
-------
2
O
E
O
O
o
Q
O
O
H
a
g
O
2
o
2
»— I
C/3
o
o
£
tn
td
w
.
ooo
-*f O >0 »O *•!
of , a?n c M y 2
c<9 £> &o o o Q (—'
"S! .2 PS S '5 S »-
S CL «.S -*i S C
total
of tot
te
e
OB
I
1
Sal
»^|-i
sf*a*i
3 S « ^^ o
|f?II
'•S B S S ts
Ijc3s5<£
Q. • • • •
I
Maximum Acres per S
Equipment Cost per Si
Lifetime of Site (Years
Workers per Site
Average Annual
3-8
-------
o
MH
s
9
o
£
H
Q
O
|
Ed
CO
6
H
S
H
0
ta
z
o
I-N
«
H
1
Q
TABLE 3-1C. PROGRAM
S3
lunuiui
o
§
HI
ul
H
CO
0
OGRAM ADMINISTRATION C
S/househoId)
CH .
0
oo
o
0
oo
0
••
3
o
Single-Family Commingled
s
0
o
oo
C5
O
oo
.0
Multi-Family Commingled
o
«n
O
o
0
«n
O
Residential Composting
oo
vq
CO
^
en
Additional Record Keeping
3-9
-------
¥
I
CS
O
O
Q
O
S
s
<
U
I
Ed
»W4
M-«
H
fii
g
CO
CO
>j
o
u
tt
Commun
"
E
LECTION SYSTEMS
§
oo •§
o o
8
en
g
c
8 §
£2
en
co
i
cs
i
en
CO
SSJ
?
CO
I)
^**
i?
mm
Pric
o
u
•£»
s%
^E§
e« •
I
s-s
II
f?!5
3 ui >*-' " •
S-5?^ S
o^^. 5 o
^S^'S?
Jtt 'S a "O S!
l8§ll^
"§'S|||1I
cs^oasla
11 11 i § i
«*-§
c
' ' ' ' ' 6 ' c3
• e
S II
i'ffSIP
^I^Vs
illl
oi-J2 5*3
I8?'g-g
|-g|||
^C/2OUffi
I I I I I
C ^ vi vi
§ VI -« -<
^.Q?§.
i -=•
3-10
-------
CO
0*
O
o
'Ctf
o-
j
Ed
Q
O
Ed
td
si
g
1
fii
o
fe
CO
Ed
qpp
f* ^ »n
>n «n »-H
O O OO<
f\J O^1*"} >O i
'-H r< en T-Ji
SO O Q O
^o^ggogoq;
e
i
I
o o r~ o
*^ ^? OO *^ f+Z * ^^ C>
10 JQ
'OOOg
^
-------
C/3
3
X
S
O
O
Cd
Q
O
^j
^«
|
Cd
1
Ed
Oj
a
s
H
£i
O
fc
2:
o
1
TABLE 3-2C. PROGRAM ADM]
C3
^!?
i
I
(JP^2
5-
*
c^?
s»
as
c^ ^^»
£2-
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION COST
($/household)
o
oo
O
O
oo
0'
O
oo
0
*
Single-Family Commingled
o
ON
»-H
O
CN
i— I
f\|
T-I
Multi-Family Commingled
o
«n
O
o
«n
o
Vj
0
Residential Composting
oo
VO
en
vo
-a-
en
>n
en
Additional Record Keeping
3-12
' \Z
-------
& o r~ Ti- vo
\O CO i-l i-H OS
gS
<: < < < < .<
o
I
Q
^
N
D
1
c«
O
O
u
Q
Z
O
u
w
J
O'
CJ
s
o
o
Q
O
CE}
ea
$
ON t~-- CO
oo
a
S
a
-
oo »n m .
§§
S3 S P5 22
t- O\ (N o >n vo
O\ -H
c-- r*
O
>n
.a
Q. Q
vi vi
mi
3-13
-------
Materials Recovery Facility
Recycling Transfer Facility
MRF — High Density Cities
Annual Throughput
(thousands tons)
Figure 3-1. Average Annualized Facility Costs
3-14
-------
assumption that only 75 percent of the model communities have a program defined by
bagged setout and centralized composting; 20 percent have a pre-existing composting
program; and 5 percent start a backyard composting program in response to the materials
separation requirement.10 Although predicting the selection of a composting program on
the basis of population and density (as was done for recycling programs), would have
been ideal, the schedule necessitated a simpler approach to estimating the national cost of
composting programs. This estimate was-made by calculating the cost of bagged setout
and centralized composting for every model community and adjusting the cost and
avoided costs following the 75 percent—20 percent—5 percent distribution of program
types." Note that Tables 3-1,3-2, and 3-3 report the unadjusted costs for a bagged setout
and centralized composting program.
33 HOUSEHOLD COST OF MATERIALS SEPARATION
The flow of separated material begins at someone's home when he or she bundles
newspapers, bags leaves, or places used beverage containers in a "blue box" and sets
things out for curbside pickup. This effort may seem as though it is free. No exchange
occurs; the collection and processing services provided by the householder are not traded
in the market However hidden, resources are consumed: the householder takes storage
space for the blue box away from other uses, and he or she could have spent time in
another activity.
It is very likely that the materials separation programs that communities operate to
comply with the NSPS and EG will require households to process, sort, store, or
otherwise control the way in which MSW is provided for collection. Such programs
impose some costs on those households that wouldn't voluntarily undertake the practices
mandated by the program. Time and money the household spends washing glass,
stacking newsprint, clearing and organizing storage space, etc. are real resource costs and
are properly considered as a cost of materials separation. One widely accepted measure
of this cost is the compensating variation: the minimum amount of money paid to a
household which—if the materials separation program is implemented—would leave the
household as well off as before the program (Just, Hueth, and Schmitz, 1982).
1° The effect on costs (other than a householder's opportunity cost) and cost savings is the following- 20
percent of the programs would generate neither costs nor cost savings; the other 5 percent would not
generate costs.
commui^'Ae raPita1' operating and maintenance costs of the composting program are
3-15
-------
The compensating variation measure of the household's cost of materials
separation is illustrated in Figure 3-2. As depicted hi that figure, a utility maximizing
household has an initial income of mo, consumes XQ units of other goods (denominated in
dollars) and voluntarily provides RO units of recycled material (denominated in
megagrams). The utility level obtained is UQ. With materials recycling, the household is
obliged to increase its recycling efforts by way of separating RI units of MS W. This
effort, with its attendant time and expenditure levels, reduces the maximum attainable
level of utility to Ui. The compensating variation is the minimum income supplement
that would allow the household to recover its original level of utility and still meet the
material separation requirement RI. This income shift is represented by the new income
constraint mi and the compensating variation is the difference, along the Other Goods
axis, between xi' and XQ.
Application of compensating variation measures of cost in the case of materials
separation differ from more common examples because costs arise from requiring the
household to met specified levels of certain activities, rather than from direct price
increases in the goods consumed. This difference, however, does not in any way affect
the appropriateness or applicability of compensating variation as a measure of the
household costs of materials separation.
Morris and Holthausen (1990) have constructed a model of household MSW
management the includes both recycling and source reduction as alternatives to
conventional mixed waste disposal. They have estimated parameters for a two-good
version of the model that can be used to simulate the response of an "average" household
to a curbside materials separation program. Parameter estimates used in Morris and
Holthausen's model are based on both national and local waste flow data and national
income and expenditure data.
j.
With this model, one can solve for household activity levels, including recycling,
that would be voluntarily selected by the household as it attempts to maximize utility.
Using the model a second time, one can impose the constraint that the household recycles
25 percent (by weight) of the waste it originally generated and solve for new levels of
utility-maximizing household activity. The compensating variation that measures the
difference in household cost between these two solutions is found by solving the model
for the minimum income increase that would allow the household to both achieve the
materials separation requirement and the initial, higher level of utility. The income
3-16
-------
m0 m1
Other Goods
($/year)
RO - Original recycling without Materials Separation
R1 - Recycling with Materials Separation
Household Cost = x^ - x 1; income supplement
required to attain original level of utility
Figure 3-2. Household Cost of Recycling
3-17
-------
supplement required in this scenario is about $ 10 per year for incremental recycling of. 16
Mg more MSW. In other words, the average household cost of meeting the materials
separation requirement through curbside recycling is estimated to be about $10 per year
($61/Mg of additional MSW recycled).
This estimate should be regarded as both crude and preliminary in as much as the
model is highly aggregate and many of the data used to estimate the model are coarse.
Although this estimate is plausible for some households, the true average household cost
of the materials separation requirement may be either greater or less. The uncertainty in
extrapolating to all householders who will be affected by the regulation is great.
Consequently, this category of cost is not included in the national analysis.
3.4 DOWNSIZING CREDIT FOR PLANNED MWCS
As outlined in Section 3.1, estimates of regulatory impacts were developed for
existing MWCs under the behavioral assumption that the plant owner will increase the
population served in anticipation of the diversion of up to 25 percent of the waste stream.
Aside from co-firing with non-waste materials, the owners of existing plants who wish to
maintain the baseline rate of capacity utilization have few alternatives available to them
because increasing the size of the service area may be difficult or costly for some owners;
however, owners of planned MWCs will probably respond by downsizing the MWC in
the planning stages rather than risk having to operate at a reduced capacity utilization.
For MWCs subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), estimated
impacts are based on the behavioral assumption that solid waste managers will downsize
planned capacity in response to the materials separation requirements. The methodology
used to calculate the cost savings due to downsizing is outlined below.
First the study developed baseline projections of the number of MWCs,
distribution of capacity, estimated total capacity, and distribution of plant technology
consistent with the projections developed for the Economic Impact of Air Pollutant
Emission Standards for New Municipal Waste Combustors (EPA, 1989). Without the
effects of downsizing, an estimated 14.25 million Mg per year will be processed in 67
planned MWCs.
Then the total annualized cost was estimated, including baseline and control costs
for air emission requirements but excluding the cost of materials separation requirements
for each category. These costs were estimated without incorporating downsizing. The
' T " 3-18
-------
cost model and assumptions used to calculate these costs are contained in the Economic
Impact of Air Pollutant Emission Standards for New Municipal Waste Combustors (EPA,
1989).
Next, calculating the corresponding percent reduction in total annualized costs
was accomplished by using the percent reduction in total waste flows for each of the plant
categories. For the purposes of this analysis, percent reduction in costs is equivalent to
percent reduction in waste flows. Total cost savings are the difference between the total
cost without downsizing and total cost with downsizing.
After downsizing an estimated 12.3 million Mg per year will be processed at
planned MWCs. This figure represents an overall 17.16 percent reduction in total waste
processed. Note that percentage reduction in waste flows for each category of plants may
be more or less than the overall average, depending on the characteristics of the model
programs associated with the individual plants within each category.
The costs presented in Table 3-4 are used only as a rough estimate of the cost
savings associated with downsizing. The estimated total cost savings presented here do
not account for economies of scale or differences in technology.
The downsizing credit of approximately $90 million dollars reflects adjustments
in the distribution of composting programs (see Section 3.2 above). When every model
community starts a bagged composting program, the credit is approximately $103 million
dollars. It is a larger credit because every megagram of yard waste and leaves collected is
one less megagram of waste combusted at an MWC. When, instead, 20 percent of the
model communities have a pre-existing composting program, a planned MWC would
have already been appropriately sized and an additional reduction in size would be
inappropriate. At the national level, the adjusted downsizing credit is calculated
according to the following formula:
2Y
$103 million
(3-7)
In the formula, Y is the weight of yard waste and leaves collected and O is the
weight of newspapers and containers collected. The fraction Y/(Y+O) is the fraction of
the unadjusted downsizing credit attributable to yard waste and leaves. The results
reported in Chapter 6 are based on the downsizing credit of $90 million dollars.
3-19
-------
TABLE 3-4. DOWNSIZING CREDITS
Model Plant
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6 .
7
8
9
10
11
12
Estimated
Percent
Waste Flow
Reduction
18.01%
16.26%
16.62%
16.68%
16.68%
16.23%
16.31%
17.25%
17.81%
17.98%
15.88%
15.88%
Without
Downsizing
National Level
Annualized
Post-Regulatory
Cost
($103)
$75,149.34
$75,436.92
$155,290.03
$35,900.42
$44,740.42
$87,066.03
$56,035.91
$11,039.44
$1,946.85
$11,468.14
$20,396.01
$44,871.81
With
Downsizing
National Level
Annualized
Post-Regulatory
Cost
($103)
$61,614.95
$63,170.87
$129,480.82
$29,912.23
$37,277.72
$72,935.22
$46,896.45
$9,135.14
$1,600.12
$9,406.17
$17,157.12
$37,746.16
Percent
Reduction in
Costs
18.01%
16.26%
16.62%
16.68%
16.68%
16.23%
16.31%
17.25%
17.81%
17.98%
15.88%
15.88%
Total Cost
Total Waste Flow
(Unadjusted Composting)
(H^Mg/yr)
Total Cost Savings .
(Unadjusted Composting)
($103/vr)
Total Cost Savings
(Adjusted Composting)
($103/yr)
$619,341.31
14.95
$516,332.96
12.48
$103,008.34
$90,113.02
16.63%
16.52%
Notes:
1) Percent waste flow reduction estimated using Waste Plan model.
2) National level annualized post-regulatory costs are baseline annualized costs plus costs of the air
emission requirements under the proposed regulation.
3) For the purposes of this analysis, percent reductions in costs are equal to the percent reduction in waste
flows.
3-20
-------
3.5 AVOIDED LANDFILL COSTS
It is hypothesized that owners of existing MWCs will avert a reduction in the flow
of waste to their plant by obtaining waste from expanded catchment areas. This waste
will consequently be diverted from a municipal solid waste landfill (MS WLF). Landfill
space is a valuable resource, so the avoided cost of landfilling should enter into a full
accounting of the cost of the materials separation requirement
3.5.1 Greater Estimate of Avoided Landfill Costs
Avoided landfill costs were calculated by using the estimates of the full costs of
disposal provided by the Office of Solid Waste (Burke, 1990). The costs in Table 3-5
"reflect total costs after implementation of the draft final rule for revisions to the Subtitle
D criteria for MSWLFs" (Ibid., p. 1). Tables 3-6A and 3-6B describe the distribution of
landfills by size and type, respectively.12
An average cost was calculated using two different methods. In the first, each
landfill counts equally. In the second, each ton of daily landfill throughput counts equally.
Assuming that size and type are independent, the average cost calculated by
equally weighting landfills is $62.60 per ton. The other average cost is $20.23 per ton.
Several considerations imply that the correct average is an intermediate figure.
The first average ($62.60) is too high:
• Landfills nearest an MWC would not be the smallest landfills—this average
overestimates the importance of small landfills relative to the average cost of
landfilling all waste.
• This average surely overstates the costs, if for no other reason than that the cost
of transporting waste from the expanded catchment area to an MWC is probably
higher than the cost of transportation to the landfill, which the calculations do
not include.
The second average is too low:
• MWCs are found in densely populated areas with higher than average land cost
but the distributions of landfill costs reflect size and type—not population
density.
12 It is assumed that size and type are independently distributed.
3-21
-------
TABLE 3-5. BASELINE AND COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR NEW AND EXISTING
FACILITIES (TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST PER TON)3
MSWLF
Size
(TPD)
10
25
75
175
375
750
1500
Uniform Standard
On-Site
Clay
$101
67
44
28
20
14
14
Off-Site
Clay
$106
72
47
31
22
15
16
Final Rule
Performance Standard6
S/S
$97
64
42
26
18
13
13
U/S
$84
54
35
21
14
10
10
u/v
$78
49
32
18
12
9
8
*Total costs include baseline. MSWLF sizes listed in tons per day (TPD).
kperformance standard modeled for three designs.
U/V = unlined with a vegetative cover
U/S = unlined with a synthetic cover
S/S » synthetic liner with a synthetic cover.
TABLE 3-6A. SIZE DISTRIBUTION
MSWLF Size
(TPD)
Fraction of Total
Number of Landfills
10
25
75
175
375
750
1500
0.513
0.170
0.131
0.073
0.055
0.031
0.026
TABLE 3-6B. TYPE DISTRIBUTION
Types of Landfill
Fraction of Total
Number of Landfills
Uniform On-site Clay
Standard Off-site Clay
S/S
U/S
U/V
0.202
0.071
0.158
0.004
0.565
3-22
-------
The dilemma is resolved by using the simple average of $62.60 and $20.23 or
$41.42 per ton ($45.65/Mg). The avoided landfill cost will be calculated by multiplying
$45.65 times each megagram of MSW shipped to an existing MWC from the expanded
portion of a catchment area.
3.5.2. Lesser Estimate of Avoided Landfill Costs
Another way of calculating avoided landfill costs uses the elasticity of cost with
respect to size. To illustrate, if the elasticity were 0.6, the average cost of landfilling $50
per ton, and the reduction in waste flow 100 tons, then the total reduction in cost would
be $3000 (0.6*50*100).
Looking at the issue from a long-run perspective, the planned size of a landfill
would vary according to the expected rate of use: a landfill that would receive 10
megagrams per day would be replaced with a 7 1/2 megagram per day landfill if the
expected flow of waste were to fall by 25 percent. All costs are variable costs, marginal
cost equals average cost, and some capital expenditures would be avoided with a
reduction in planned capacity. In the short run, the capital expenditures associated with
an oversized (after the reduction waste flow) landfill could not be recovered. The long-
run perspective produces an upper bound (i.e., the maximum reduction in cost).
The first step in this approach is to calculate the elasticity of cost with respect to
size by statistically estimating the relationship between cost and size. Using the figures in
Tables 3-5 and 3-6B, the average costs range from $87.660/ton for a 10 TPD landfill to
$10.578/ton for a 1500 TPD landfill* Using the functional form that assumes a constant
point elasticity with respect to size, the following equation results:14
LN (weighted average cost) = 5.485 - .450*LN(size)
(3-8)
After exponentiating both sides and expressing total cost as a function of size, the
equation becomes:
Total Cost = 241*(size)A.55
(3-9)
Equation (3-9) implies a point elasticity of 0.55 for a change in size (within the
long run also equals the change in waste flow when both are expressed as fractions). For
zed COSt P*ton) ** 87'660' 56-659> 37.081,22.219,15.282,
3-23
-------
a 25 percent reduction in the quantity (weight) going to a landfill, the long-run reduction
in cost is about 59 percent15
The next step is to estimate the average cost of landfills near MWCs. Using the
National Survey of Solid Waste (Municipal) Landfill Facilities (U.S., E.P.A., 1988b)
made it possible to determine the nearest landfill to 100 MWCs and the average size of
these landfills. For a landfill of that size, the average cost was computed using equation
(3-8). Significantly, the data used to estimate equation (3-8) reflect conditions across the
nation. The average cost implied by these data is unlikely to be representative of the
average cost typical of the population of landfills that are near to MWCs. Landfill costs
in service areas of MWCs may be expected to be greater than for the entire nation
because MWCs generally serve urban areas. Labor and land costs are likely to be higher.
Some adjustment in the average cost determined by equation (3-8) is appropriate.
Unfortunately, no studies of regional variation in cost exist The best approximation to
cost that is available comes from a survey of tipping fees (Pettit, 1989). The difference
between tipping fees in the Northeast and the entire nation is $18.55/ton (Ibid., p. 101). A
somewhat arbitrary urban premium of $18.55/ton was added to the average cost
determined by equation (3-8) to give an average cost of $33.97/ton or $37.81/Mg for
landfills near MWCs.
The lesser estimate of avoided landfill costs is based on an elasticity of 0.59 and
an average cost of $37.81/Mg. The unit avoided cost is therefore $22.31/Mg.
•
3.6 IMPLICATIONS OF A CHANGE IN WASTE COMPOSITION
The proposed rule targets certain components of MS W for removal from the
combusted waste stream: paper and paperboard, glass, aluminum, ferrous metals,
plastics, and yard waste. Selective removal changes the composition of the waste stream
and heat and ash content The change in heat content may change the value received (per
Mg of waste combusted) from the generation of steam and electricity. The change in ash
content affects the cost (per Mg of waste combusted) of landfilling the ash.
*4 The R-squared is 0.986 and the standard error of the coefficient on size is 0.024.
15 The reduction in cost varies little over a wide range of size reductions. For a 5 percent reduction in size,
the reduction in cost is 56 percent; for a 50 percent reduction in size, the reduction in cost is 63 percent
3-24
-------
Table 3-7 describes the baseline composition of residentially generated,
combusted MSW and the post-separation composition for several model materials
separation programs. The maximum increase in heat content is approximately
9 percent16 The maximum increase in ash content is approximately 12 percent17
The value of energy recovery depends on the type of MWC. For mass burn plants
(the most common), the revenue from the sale of energy ranges from nothing to $27.40
per megagram of combusted waste (EPA, 1988c, Table 3-4, p. 3-19). For refuse-derived-
fuel plants, the revenue ranges from $40.00 to $40.20 per megagram of combusted waste
(Ibid.). The value for refuse-derived-fuel plants is most unrepresentative because of the
relative rarity of that type and the pre-processing of the waste. The representative range
of the value of energy recovery is from nothing to $32.30 per megagram of combusted
MSW. For modular plants, the range is from nothing to $32.30 per megagram of
combusted waste (Ibid.).
The increase in the value of energy recovery may be as high as $2.96 per
megagram combusted (0.0917 * $32.30). An .important assumption is that the basis of the
capacity of an MWC is throughput of waste.
If the basis of capacity were BTU rather than throughput, the net effect of a
change in waste composition would be negative for existing MWCs. An existing MWC
would combust less waste, generate the same amount of energy, and receive the same
total revenue from the sale of energy. The expansion of the catchment area would be
less, reducing the savings from avoided landfill costs (valued at $45.64/Mg). Without
additional information on technological constraints, concluding whether the change in
heat content from a change in waste composition would lead to a savings or loss is not
possible.
In the baseline, one megagram of combusted MSW generates 0.2622 megagrams
of ash. The disposal cost ranges from $25.86 /Mg (Radian, 1990) to $45.64/Mg (the
average landfilling cost calculated in the previous section above). The ash disposal cost
is therefore $6.78 to $11.96 per megagram combusted. Because of the change in waste
16 This change occurs in the two-stream model program "option 2" in the small and very small model
communities.
17 This change occurs in the multiple-stream model program and the two-stream program "option 1" in the
high-population, high-density model community.
3-25
l.Jl
-------
TABLE 3-7. PRE- AND POST-SEPARATION COMPOSITION OF MSW
Residential
Composition
of Combusted
MSWPre-
Separation
Residential Composition
of Combusted MSW
Post-Separation
by Community
and Program
Newspaper
Glass
Aluminum
Ferrous
HDPE.& PET Plastic
Appliances
Yard Waste
Leaves
Stumps
Books
Office Paper
Comm. Printing Paper
Tissue & Towel
Nonpackaging Paper
Pkg. Paper/Paperboard
Corrugated Cardboard
Misc. Glass
Misc. Scrap Alum.
Misc. Ferr. Scrap
Nonpkg. Plastic
Woodwaste
Foodwaste
Textiles
Leather
Tires
Ceramics & Misc. Inorganics
Misc. Organics
Sum
Change in:
Ash content
Energy
Doesn't
Vary
by
Community
8.69
10.38
1.06
2.65
4.13
0.00
10.81
15.15
0.00
5.83
0.64
1.59
3.18
1.27
3.07
5.40
1.06
0.64
4.13
3.39
0.64
6.78
1.91
2.12
1.38
3.28
0.85
100.00
SM-2
SL-2
VSM-2
VSL-2
4.02
7.82
0.89
2.22
3.26
0.00
5.63
7.90
0.00
8.44
0.92
2.30
4.60
1.84
4.45
7.82
1.53
0.92
5.98
4.91
0.92
9.82
2.76
3.07
1.99
4.75
1.23
100.00
+4.39%
+9.17%
VSL-MS
VSM-MS
SL-MS
SM-MS
HH-2
SM-1
SL-1
VSM-1
4.86
9.29
0.95
2.37
3.52
0.00
5.44
7.63
0.00
8.15
0.89
2.22
4.45
1.78
4.30
7.56
1.48
0.89
5.78
4.74
0.89
9.48
2.67
2.96
1.93
4.59
1.19
100.00
+8.66%
+7.96
HH-MS
HH-1
6.48
10.50
1.07
2.68
4.07
0.00
5.18
7.26
0.00
7.76
0.85
2.12
4.23
1.69
4.09
7.19
1.41
0.85
5.50
4.51
0.85
9.03
2.54
2.82
1.83
4.37
1.13
100.00
+12.12%
+7.46%
Source: Radian.
3-26
-------
composition, the disposal cost increases from $0.30 to $1.45 per megagram of
residentially generated combusted MSW.18 The increase in cost at the national level was
not estimated.
3.7
AVOIDED RESIDENTIAL MSW COLLECTION COSTS
A materials separation requirement for municipal waste combustors will reduce
the quantity of refuse that needs to be collected in communities. This reduction may in
turn reduce the costs of refuse collection in affected communities. Intuitively, a materials
separation program reduces the cost of conventional refuse collection by reducing the
quantity of conventional refuse to be collected. In addition, if quantity reductions are
significant, some communities that now collect refuse twice weekly may find it
acceptable to collect refuse once weekly, allowing cost savings apart from the quantity
reduction alone. The purpose of this section is to develop and present an approximation
of the range of refuse collection cost savings in affected communities that is attributable
to a materials separation requirement
3.7.1 Greater Estimate of Avoided Costs
The following variables must be known to estimate the refuse collection cost
saving in a given community that is attributable to a materials separation requirement:
• the baseline refuse collection cost in the community,
• the relationship between refuse collection costs and determining variables such
as refuse quantity and collection frequency, and
• the expected impact of materials separation on these pertinent cost-determining
variables. &
The greater estimate of avoided costs results from using WastePlan to model the
effect of a recycling program on residential garbage collection (Mathias, 1990). For three
model communities,19 the cost of garbage collection was estimated twice: once without
a recycling program and again with a recycling program (in particular, the two-stream
program "Option 2"). Garbage collection occurs once weekly in both scenarios. The
savings in total, annualized garbage collection cost is 16 percent to 17 percent of a
18 Calculated in this way: 0.0439 * $6.78 and 0.1217 * $11.96.
The communities are high population/high density, medium population/medium density, and very small
population/low density. .
3-27
-------
baseline collection cost of 27-38 dollars per ton, corresponding to diversion rates of 28-
29 percent
This analysis implies a savings of $23.30 for each megagram of residential waste
that is diverted from the ordinary garbage collection system. This figure will be used for
each model program and community.
3.7.2 Lesser Estimate of Avoided Costs
For purposes of estimating the lower end of the range of avoided costs, it is
assumed that for all communities a baseline (without materials separation) refuse
collection cost of $100 per household per year. Savas and Stevens (1978) present annual
per-household refuse collection costs for communities of different sizes and collection
arrangements. Their estimates are derived statistically from a survey of 315 cities.
Statistical estimates (in 1-974 dollars per household per year) range from as low as $11 to
as high as $65.
Using the services component of the personal consumption expenditures implicit
price deflator, these 1974 estimates are equivalent to a range of $30 to $179 per
household per year in 1989 dollars. The low end of the range is for once-a-week,
curbside collection in a large city with low collector wages, assuming 0.9 Mg (one ton) of
refuse per household per year. The high end of the range is for twice-a-week, backyard
collection in a small town with high collector wages, assuming 1.8 Mg (two tons) of
refuse per household per year. The mid-point of the range is $104.50 per household per
year ($ 1989), about the assumed $ 100 estimate.20
Stevens (1978) estimates the cost of refuse collection as a function of the
collector's wage, the total quantity of refuse collected per year, market structure (public
monopoly, private monopoly, competition), frequency of collection .(once or twice
weekly), pick-up location (curbside or backyard), quantity of per-household refuse
collected per year, number of households per square mile, and variability of weather
conditions. To examine the nature of scale economies in refuse collection, Stevens
separately estimates log-log equations for four community size groups: population fewer
20 In the model communities, a household generates slightly more than 1 Mg (less than 1.2 tons) of
municipal solid waste each year (generation measured as gross discards). It is therefore assumed that
residential refuse collection costs an average of $94.41/Mg ($85.63/ton) per year.
3-28
-------
than 20,000, population between 20,000 and 30,000, population between 30,000 and
50,000, and population over 50,000.
Stevens shows the most significant cost determinants to be wages (positive
relationship), total quantity of refuse collected (positive relationship), quantity of refuse
collected per household holding total quantity constant (negative relationship), frequency
of collection (positive relationship), and pick-up location (backyard is more costly than
curbside). The estimated regression coefficients can be interpreted as partial elasticities,
indicating the percentage change in refuse collection cost given a small percentage
change in refuse quantity or frequency of collection.
For purposes of this approximation, it is assumed that materials separation would
have no impact on the following variables: wages, market structure, and pick-up
location. Some or all of the following variables might be affected by materials separation:
total quantity of refuse collected per year, per-household refuse collected per year, and
frequency of collection.
The percent reduction in refuse collection costs is calculated under two scenarios
using Stevens' regression coefficient estimates and an assumed baseline household
annual collection cost of $100 in all communities. One scenario assumes that the quantity
(and quantity per household) of refuse declines with materials separation and that
communities leave the frequency of collection unchanged (Table 3-8A). For a 25 percent
reduction in collection,21 the cost of collection falls by 1.43 percent to 3.35 percent,
depending on the population served.
A second scenario assumes that the total quantity (and quantity per household) of
refuse declines with materials separation and that communities respond by reducing the
frequency of collection from twice-weekly to once-weekly. If the cost of collection were
the only consideration, it is plausible that communities would reduce collection
frequency. Table 3-8B shows that the reduction in collection cost would be substantial:
about 22 percent when collection occurs weekly instead of semi-weekly. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that opposition from inconvenienced residents and displaced workers
may inhibit or delay the reduction in collection frequency (New York Times, 1990).
These conditions presumably vary greatly from city to city, and predicting
21
The model programs reduce residential collection by approximately 25 percent
3-29
-------
TABLE 3-8A. PERCENT REDUCTION IN REFUSE COLLECTION COST
ASSUMING NO CHANGE IN FREQUENCY OF REFUSE
COLLECTION
Population of Community
Refuse Reduction
One percent
Ten percent
Twenty percent
Twenty-five percent
Thirty percent
Under
20,000
0.13
1.34
2.68
3.35
4.02
20,000 to
30,000
.0.10
1.03.
2.06
2.58
3.09
30,000 to
50,000
0.13
1.33
2.66
3.33
3.99
Over
50,000
0.06
0.57
1.14
1.43
1.71
TABLE 3-8B. PERCENT REDUCTION IN REFUSE COLLECTION COST
ASSUMING HALVED FREQUENCY OF REFUSE COLLECTION
Population of Community
Refuse Reduction
One percent
Ten percent
Twenty percent
Twenty-five percent
Thirty percent
Under
20,000
18,30
19.51
20.85
21.52
22.19
20,000 to
30,000
19.10
20.03
21.06
21.57
22.09
30,000 to
50,000
19.73
20.93
22.26
22.92
23.59
Over
50,000
19.79
20.30
20.87
21.16
21.44
3-30
-------
reductions in collection frequency would be very speculative. Therefore, the estimation
of the reduction in regular garbage collection cost is restricted to the case in which
frequency is unchanged.
Because the baseline refuse collection cost is per household, the number of
households in all communities in each of the four community size categories can be
estimated, these estimates are derived by dividing the population of each affected
community22 in the MWC data base by 2.7, an estimate of the average number of persons
per household.
The estimate of the net cost of the materials separation requirement (see
Chapter 6) includes the avoided cost of residential refuse collection calculated under the
assumption that collection frequency does not change. Thus, the percentages in
Table 3-8A are used for a 25 percent reduction in refuse collection.
3.8 ADJUSTING MODEL PROGRAM COSTS FOR SCALE
Thus far the costs (including avoided costs) of a model program in a model
community of a specific size, i.e., population served, have been discussed.23 Estimating
the net costs of the materials separation requirement at the national level requires a
method of extrapolating from model communities to communities of different sizes.
It is assumed that the costs of collection and post-collection processing for any
particular combination of model program and population served class exhibit constant
returns to scale. For example, in a community that is 10 percent larger than the
corresponding model community,24 the costs of the two-stream and multiple-stream
programs would be 10 percent greater. This extrapolation is equivalent to using a
piecewise linear function to approximate the average cost curve.
22 After exclusion of units below the size cutoff of 35 Mg/day of design capacity.
This study uses the median of the population-served class (see Chapter 4).
The comparison of population served takes into account the expansion of the catchment area.
3-31
-------
-------
CHAPTER 4
FRAMEWORK FOR ESTIMATING NATIONAL COSTS AND DIVERSION
The Agency's materials separation requirement defines the goal—25 percent of
MSW—that owners and planners of MWCs must meet, but it does not prescribe a
particular materials separation program, leaving the selection to the owner of the unit.
Predicting the result of the materials separation requirement requires predicting the
response of the owners1 of MWCs. With the freedom that the proposed requirement
gives, owners are likely to implement the requirement differently. Public involvement in
curbside recycling programs may very well be a factor in the materials separation
programs that MWC owners implement. Estimating the costs and effectiveness of these
programs requires predicting the response of the public. The modeling framework
therefore links differences in the choices among programs made by the owners of MWCs
and differences in the public's response to differences in communities.
Existing and planned MWCs number almost 300. This number is too large to
allow us to attend to more than a few of the influences on an owner's choice of materials
separation program. It is hypothesized that differences in choice of program correlate
with differences in the size of population served and population density of the MWC
service area. Thus the type of community is again the critical determinant of behavior.
Recall from Chapter 2 that the type of community also influenced the prediction of the
diversion by consumers of materials from the residential waste stream.
Section 4.1 describes the procedure for creating a model community by
estimating population served and population density for existing and planned MWCs.
Section 4.2 defines the model communities that represent the catchment areas of actual
and planned MWCs. Finally, Section 4.3 predicts the adoption of materials separation
programs.
4.1 EXISTING AND PLANNED MWCS
This study describes a model community by its population served and population
density. The available databases on MWCs do not contain these statistics. As explained
in the next section, population served and population density are estimated for an existing
MWC using the design capacity of the unit and the size of its catchment area; for a
1 The term "owner" is used to refer to both actual owners of MWCs and planned owners.
4-1
-------
planned MWC, a somewhat different procedure is used. These estimates depend on the
location, capacity, and operational status of MWCs.
Table 4-1 identifies the existing MWCs, giving location by city and state, design
capacity, and start-up date. Different sources of information2 disagreed on the number
and operational status of units, so these sources were merged to lessen the chance of
overlooking an MWC. Two hundred thirteen units are already in service or will be in
service sometime in 1991.3 These units are listed in increasing order of design capacity
in Table 4-1.
The planned MWCs included in this analysis replicate the 12 model units that
appear in the economic impact analysis of the New Source Performance Standards for air
pollutant emissions from MWCs (see Table 4-2). Other lists of planned units are
available but were not used because of the difficulties that would have arisen in
estimating the cost savings from the construction and operation of smaller, planned units.
The capital, operating, and maintenance costs of the model MWCs are known precisely.
The use of model, planned MWCs allows a more accurate estimate of the cost-savings
from downsizing.
Corresponding to each model MWC is a scaling factor (in the NSPS economic
impact analysis) that gives the expected number of units. The scaling factors are
fractional numbers. They were converted to whole numbers to match the list of existing
MWCs.4 Thus, this analysis develops measures of cost and effectiveness for materials
separation programs implemented by the owners of 17 small mass-burn/waterwall
MWCs, 8 mid-size mass-burn/waterwall MWCs, and similarly for a total of 67 planned
MWCs.
^o8^0!8 m ^ October 1989 Cify Currents; 1988-90 Resource Recovery Yearbook; and "Waste Age
1989 Refuse and Incineration Refuse-To-Energy Listings," Waste Age, November 1989, pp. 169-182
5 A unit that will be in service in 1990 or 1991 is probably too nearly completely constructed to be
redesigned. The response of an owner of a planned unit to the materials separation requirement should
be the same as the response of an owner of an existing unit Therefore, such planned units are included
with actually existing units.
4 The objective of keeping the total of model MWCs to 67 guided the conversion of scaling factors to
integers. First a scaling factor was rounded to the nearest integer, thus producing a total of 65 MWCs-
then the number 2 was s\AA?A to th« rairMifatinn '
then the number 2 was added to the calculation.
4-2
-------
TABLE 4-1. EXISTING MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
City
Auburn
Friday Harbor
Nottingham
East Penn Township
Canterbury
Stamford
Skaneateles
Gatesville
Grimes County
Harpswell
Candia
Plymouth
Wolfeboro
Shemya
Litchfield
Groveton
Sitka
Huntsville
Palestine
Wilton
Meredith
Hope
Mayport Naval Station
Carthage City
Collegeville
Pittsfield
ElkhartLake
Westmoreland County
Ketchikan
Frenchville
Wrightsville
Brookings
Johnsonville
Hohenwald
Osceola
Waxahachie
Burley (Cassia County)
Galax
Stuttgart
Lewisburg
Savage
Juneau
Blytheville
Thief River Falls
State
NH
WA
NH
PA
NH
VT
NY
TX
TX
ME
NH
NH
NH
AK
NH
NH
AK
TX
TX
NH
NH
AR
FL
TX
MN
NH
WI
PA
AK
ME
NC
OR
SC
TN
AR
TX
ID
VA
AR
TN
MN
AK
AR
MN
Design
Capacity
(Mg/Day)
5
5
7
7
9
9
12
12
12
13
14
15
15
18
20
22
23
23
23
27
28
34
36
36
39
44
44
45
45
. 45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
51
54
54
62
63
63
63
Start-up
Date
1979
. iy / y
1978
i^ / \J
1972
JLi' / £*
1988
NA
i iZjk.
1Q73
i-7 / j
1975
1980
1984
JL. S \J^T
1975
-L^ / *J
NA
i.^f\
1Q76
.1*7 / O
1975
1975 .
NA
i'lii
1980
1985
1984
JL^O*T
1980
1979
NA
1978
1985 .
1981
1969
1987
1991
1984
1981
1978
NA
1988
1980
1982
1982
1986
1980
1980
1981
1986
1983
1985
CONTINUED
4-3
-------
TABLE 4-1. EXISTING MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS (CONTINUED)
City
Alexandria (Douglas County)
Livingston
City of Red Wing
Franklin
Port Washington
Fort Leonard Wood
Polk County
FtDix
Barren County
Hereford
Moore County
City of Fergus Falls
Bellingham
Marquette County
Durham
PnidoeBay
N. Little Rock
Dyersburg
Harrisonburg
Salem
Batesville
Hot Springs
Miami
Windham
Clebume
New Richmond (St. Croix Co)
Cuba (Cattaraugus Co.)
Perham (Quadrant)
MandeviUe
Muscoda
New Canaan
Coos Bay
Key West (Monroe Co.)
Pascagoula '
Craighead County
Humboldt
Waukesha
Skagit County
Muskegon County
Oswego County (Volney)
Long Beach
Wilmington (New Hanover Co)
Gallatin
Claremont
State
MN
MT
MN
KY
WI
MO
MN
NJ
WI
TX
TX
MN
WA
MI
NH
AK
AR
TN
VA
VA
AR
AR
OK
CT
TX
WI
NY
MN
LA
WI
CT
OR
FL
MS
AR
TN
WI
WA
MI
NY
NY
NC
TN
NH
Design
Capacity
(Mg/Day)
65
68
65
68
68
68
73
73
73
82
82
84
91
91
98
91
91
91
91
91
91
94
98
98
104
104
102
105
109
113
113
113
136
136
136
136
159
161
163
181
181
181
181
181
Start-up
Date
1987
1982
1982
1986
1965
1981
1988
1986
1986
1965
1972
1988
1986
1991
1980
1981
1977
1980
1982
' 1978
1981
NA
1982
1981
1986
1988
1983
1986
1991
1989
1971
•*• ^ i *.
1976
A ^ 1 \t
1986
1985
1991
1990
1 ^ *r\J
1971
A *^ / A
1988
1990
1986
1988
•A. ^ \j\j
1984
1981
i^tj J.
1987
CONTINUED
4-4
-------
TABLE 4-1. EXISTING MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS (CONTINUED)
City
Shreveport
Portsmouth
Euclid
Oneida County (Rome)
Hampton
Jackson County
Hampton
Rochester (Olmstead County)
Ames
/ Madison
Berkeley County
Middletown
Charlotte-Mecklenburg County
Pittsfield
Rutland
Sheboygan
Glen Cove
Easton
Tacoma
Lakeland
Tuscaloosa
Springfield
Harfoid County
Norfolk
City of Commerce (LA Co.)
Hudson Falls
Oyster Bay
Gaston County
Saratoga County
Washington County
Dutchess County
Duluth
La Crosse County
Davis County
Warren County
Madison (Gas and Electric Co)
Wallingford
Webster
Huntington
Taunton
Framingham
Lisbon
Londonderry
Glendon
State
LA
NH
OH
NY
VA
MI
SC
MN
IA
TN
SC
CT
NC
MA
VT
WI
NY
PA
WA
FL
AL
MA
MD
VA
CA
NY
NY
NC
NY
NY
NY
MN
WI
UT
NJ
WI
CT
MA
NY
MA
MA
CT
NH
PA
Design
Capacity
(Mg/Day)
181
181
181
181
181
181
218
181
181
190
204
209
212
218
218
218
227
272
272
272
272
327
327
327
327
363
363
363
363
363
363
363
363
363
363
363
381
381
408
408
454
454
454
454
Start-up
Date
1987
1982
NA
A^^a.
1985
1980
•*• -^ \j\j
1987
1985
**s\j*J
1987
1975
i.S I +J
1988
±^\j\j
NA
1991
± -7*7 A
1989
1981
1987
A.XIJ /
1965
A ^ \J%J
1983
1986
1990
i^ s\J
1982
.L^O-Atf
1984
-L.7O*T
1988
1988
1Q67
iy\ji
1987
1990
NA
X~iV
1991
1991
•L ^ ^ A.
1991
1989
1Q86
iyou
1987
1988
-L^OO
1988
1979
1990
1991
MA
iN.f\
1991
1970
1991
1991
1991
CONTINUED
4-5
-------
TABLE 4-1. EXISTING MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS (CONTINUED)
City
Portland
Concord
Savannah
Tacoma
Panama City (Bay County)
Islip
Lake County
Marion County
Stamford
Manchester
Gloucester County
Fall River
Clinton Township
Preston
Oakland County
Biddeford/Saco
Wilmington (Pigeon Point)
Honolulu
Charleston
Albany (steam plant)
Kent County
Bristol
Hunts ville
Somerset County
Harrisburg
Albany (processing plant)
Bangor /Brewer
Johnston
Babylon
EdenPrarie
St Louis
Pierce County
Stanislaus County
Oklahoma City
Lawrence
Alexandria/Arlington
Washington
Louisville
New York (Belts Avenue)
Wilmington
Tampa
Newport
Akron
Pasco County
State
ME
NH
GA
WA
FL
NY
FL
OR
CT
NH
NJ
MA
MI
CT
MI
ME
DE
HE
SC
NY
MI
CT
AL
NJ
PA
NY
ME
RI
NY
MN
MO
WA
CA
OK
MA
VA
DC
KY
NY
DE
FL
MN
OH
FL
Design
Capacity
(Mg/Day)
. 454
454
454
454
463
470
479
499
508
508
522
544
• 544
544
544
544
544
544
544
544
567
590
626
635
653
680
680
680
680
726
726
726
726
744
862
884
907
907
907
907
907
907
907
952
Start-up
Date
1988
1989
1987
1989
1987
1988
1991
1987
1974
1991
1990
1972
1972
1991
1991
1987
1986
1970
1989
1981
1990
1988
1990
1991
1972
J. S 1 **
1981
1988
NA
X TiJL
1988
1987
NA
X T *»
1991
1989
1991
1984
J. S\J^T
1988
1972
*. *r 1 4*
1960
JLS\J\J
1980
1984
1985
••• ^ *j+s
1987
1979
*^ / ^
1991
CONTINUED
4-6
-------
TABLE 4-1. EXISTING MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS (CONTINUED)
City
Camden County
Nashville
Tulsa
Pulaski
Cockeysville
Lancaster County
Hillsborough County
Hennepin County
Baltimore County
York Co. (Manchester Tnshp)
Long Beach
Millbury
Anoka County (Elk River)
Saugus
North Andover
Montgomery County
Chicago (NW)
Haverhill
Rochester
Portsmouth
West Palm Beach
Honolulu
Hartford
Niagra Falls
Columbus
Bucks County
Bridgeport
Westchester County
Delaware County
Essex County
Baltimore (SW Rec. Fac.)
Hempstead
Indianapolis
Fairfax
Dade County
Pinellas County
Detroit
State
. NJ
TN -
OK
MD
MD
PA
FL
MN
MD
PA
CA
MA
MN
MA
MA
OH
EL
MA
MA
' VA
FL
ffl
CT
. NY
OH
PA
CT
NY
PA
NJ
MD
NY
IN
VA
FL
FL
MI
Design
Capacity
(Mg/Day)
952
1,016
1,020
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,219
1,252
1,361
1,361
1,361
1,361
1,361
1,451
1,497
1,723
1,814
1,814
1,959
1 814
1,814
1,814
2,041
2,041
2,041
2,438
2,041
2,041
2,103
2,141
2,721
2,721
2,857
2,993
Start-up
Date
1991
1974
1986
1982
NA
1991
1987
1989
NA
1989
NA
1988
1989
1975
1985
1970
1989
1989
1989
' 1Q8«
iyoo
1989
1990
1QS8
17OO
1981
1983
1991
1988
1984
1991
1990
1985
NA
1989
1990
1982
1983
1990
Source: City Currents Volume 8, Number 3, October 1989; 1988-89 Resource Recovery Yearbook- and Waste Aee
November 1989, "Waste Age 1989 Refuse and Incineration Refuse-to-Energylistingt'?pp169 *
4-7
-------
T) S «
il*i
B es -e 7^
CO
"S B -S
l'-55
Ofl
odel Uni
Capacity
(May)
Definition of Ter
.2
">
•s*
•a *j
IB
VO
O\ »— i t— *
CO
CS
VO
OOOOOOOO«r>
OOOO
3
«««««
H
O
•
-------
4.2 MODEL COMMUNITIES
Several model communities that represent the catchment areas of actual and
planned MWCs are needed to create a manageable analytical framework. The model
communities differ by population served and population density. They also differ in
other ways, for example, by the percentage of single-family residences, but population
served and density determine these differences. Table 4-3 classifies the model
communities. The population-served variable has four levels, and the population-density
variable, three levels. Instead of using the 12 possible combinations of population served
and population density, the study uses the 7 that are of most interest to the Agency.
TABLE 4-3. CLASSIFICATION OF MODEL COMMUNITIES
Model
Community
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Population
Very Small
Very Small
Small
Small
Medium
High
High
Population Density
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
The modeling framework is operational because specific values for the population
served and density variables were selected. The selection process involved several steps,
and, because the modeling of the planned MWCs in the economic impact analysis
excludes location, the steps for the existing and planned units differ slightly. Briefly, the
steps are the following:
1. For every MWC, estimate the population served.
2. For every existing MWC, determine the location (county, city, or Primary
Metropolitan Statistical Area) of the catchment area.
3. For every existing MWC, determine the density of the catchment area.
4. Determine the ranges for the population-served and density classes.
4-9
-------
5. For every existing MWC, use actual population served and catchment area
density to assign the unit to the appropriate population-served and density
classes.
6. For every planned MWC, use actual population served to assign the unit to the
appropriate population-served class.
7. For every planned MWC, randomly assign the unit to either a medium or high
density class.
Most of these steps were complex aiid are described in the remainder of this
subsection. The fifth and sixth steps were omitted because of their mechanical nature.
4.2.1 Population Served
Population served means the "full-garbage-equivalent" population served: the
population served that results under the twin assumptions that all of someone's garbage
goes to an MWC and that everyone sends his or her garbage to the MWC. The crucial
elements in the calculation of population served are the capacity utilization factor and the
per capita generation of MSW. The formula for calculating population served is:5
Population Served = capacity * 2000 * capacity utilization factor/MSW generation (4-1)
The rationale for this formula is the equality between expected service demanded (total
flow of MSW to the unit) and service provided, including an adjustment for desired
excess capacity (design capacity times capacity utilization factor).
Recall that the capacity of an MWC was obtained from either published surveys
or the NSPS economic impact analysis. The actual capacity utilization factor for an
existing MWC was used if the unit's owner reported it in a § 114 letter, if not, then a
factor was assumed. For the latter MWCs and for all planned MWCs, these capacity
utilization factors were used: mass burn—0.85, RDF and FBC—0.83, modular—0.82,
unknown technology—0.83.6
5 ^^ Of ca^>yis tons P61" to^ *e capacity utilization factor is a number less than one; the unit of
MSW generation is pounds per person per day.
6 The source of the factors is the NSPS economic impact analysis (p. xvi). The unknown technology class
refers only to existing MWCs.
4-10
-------
This study uses 3.58 pounds per person per day for the generation rate.7 This rate
is commonly cited and used for planning purposes. The Agency refers to it in the
proposed standards for new MWCs. 8( A confidence interval for this point estimate is
unavailable, which is unfortunate because estimates of MS W generation are subject to a
large measurement error.9 For example, the results of the BioCycle 1989 survey of state
recycling and composting indicate that the annual generation of MSW is between 268
million and 270.5 million tons (Glenn, 1990, p. 48), implying a per capita rate of
approximately six pounds per person. These estimates exceed Franklin Associates'
estimate by almost 70 percent, although some (the amount is unknown) of the difference
is due to different definitions of MSW. In view of the magnitude of these differences, it
is important to discuss at the outset the effects on this investigation of using either another
per capita generation rate or an alternative to the fuU-garbage-equivalent assumption.
Changing the per capita generation rate will not change the estimates of the
quantity of materials diverted from MWCs, but the change in cost is ambiguous because
of opposite tendencies. The formula (4-1) for population served implies that a change in
per capita generation leads to an offsetting change in population served: for any given
capacity, if the generation rate were to increase by 70 percent, the population served
would decrease by 70 percent. The following formula shows that diversion would not
change:
*• target *Waste ComP°sition Fraction * Participation Ratei * Capture Ratei *
materials
(1-Residual RateO)] * Per Capita Residual MSW * Population
(4-2)
Apart from the national average per capita generation rate, another issue is the
assumption that all of someone's household MSW goes to an MWC. If the MSW in a
community is delivered first to a transfer station and later sent to a landfill and an MWC,
then the full-garbage-equivalent assumption is incorrect. In this community,
distinguishing residents by disposal site is impossible. Analytically, a fraction of each
resident's MSW goes to the MWC and the remainder to the landfill; the split depends on
the relative flows. If 70 percent were to go to the landfill and 30 percent to the MWC,
7 ^2lf** reference fpr ±is Pardcular rate of gross discards is Table 7 in Franklin Associates (1988,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 20, 1989 Federal Register
* The figure is a soft, even spongy number" (Glenn 1990, p. 48).
4-11
-------
then the population served would be the entire population of the community, and, as
regards the flow to the MWC, the per capita generation rate would be 30 percent of the
average for the entire community.
For the entire nation, the application of this alternative approach implies that the
population served by all existing MWCs equals the national population less the
population served exclusively by landfills. The full-garbage-equivalent assumption used
should imply a smaller population served.
The preferred approach uses the full-garbage-equivalent assumption because the
alternative requires tracking flows of MSW to every MWC and landfill community by
community. The preferred approach is tractable.
4.2.2 Location of the Catchment Area
This study uses the 1988-89 version of the Resource Recovery Yearbook as an
initial guide to the catchment areas of existing MWCs. The Yearbook specifies only one
city, one county, several cities, or more than one county for the catchment area, but does
not name them. The location of the MWC approximates the actual cities or counties
included in the catchment areas.
If the Yearbook states that only one city or one county comprises the catchment
area for an MWC, the catchment area was defined in that manner. If the Yearbook states
that more than one city or county are included in the catchment area, however, Primary
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (PMSAs) were used as a guide to the catchment area.
If an MWC is in or near a PMSA, it is assumed that the MWC served that PMS A.
The assumption satisfies the several-city or several-county catchment area specified by
the Yearbook because PMSAs typically consist of more than one city and extend into
multiple counties. If the MWC is not near a PMSA, and the catchment area described in
the Yearbook consists of either several cities or more than one county, the catchment area
was determined to be the county of the MWC. Although the catchment area for this
MWC could lie in multiple counties, the other counties could not be determined.
4.2.3 Density
Density affects participation rates in high population catchment areas (see
Table 2-8) and the cost of materials separation programs. The latter effect is due to
4-12
-------
differences in land and labor costs, the relative frequency of single-family households,10
and collection efficiencies.11 Density is an indicator of these differences, but density per
se is not a variable in the model used to estimate the costs of materials separation
programs.
The calculation of "density" divides the total population served12 in a catchment
area by its land area. This measurement approximates, but is different from, the actual
density of a catchment area. Actual density is unavailable because adequate information
on catchment area is not available; consequently, a substitute is used.
43.4 Population-Served and Density Classes
The histograms of population served and density for existing MWCs were used to
determine the ranges of the population and density classes. The number of classes was
decided in advance,13 and obvious breakpoints were not found. Ranges were chosen that
were expected to possess both a good spread in the medians and enough MWCs to justify
the class. However inexact the procedure, the results are satisfactory. Table 4-4
describes the population and density classes.
4.2.5 Assumed Density of Planned MWCs
Planned MWCs were randomly assigned to medium and high density classes. The
rationale is that planned MWCs are very unlikely to service low density catchment areas,
while existing MWCs servicing medium and high density catchment areas are almost
equally numerous (a pattern that is expected to continue).
4.2.6 Summary
Table 4-5 characterizes the model communities. This study estimates the cost of a
particular model materials separation program in a model community by using a specific
population served: 7,000; 53,000; 164,000; or 462,000.14 The per capita
11 Si® ' containers raaking UP a collection system vary with the type of residential unit
The measure of collection efficiency is the number of households serviced per hour. It equals the
product of stops per hour and households per stop. Collection efficiency varies across the urban
suburban and rural regions within a catchment area; it also varies with the type of residential unit
serviced (single-family or apartment house).
When multiple MWCs service the same catchment area, the populations served were summed
" There are four classes for population and three for density
I000-
4-13
-------
TABLE 4-4. POPULATION SERVED AND DENSITY CLASSES: RANGES,
MEDIANS, AND NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
Population
Served Class
, Very Small
Small
Medium
High
Density Class
Low
Medium
High
Range
P^ 20,000
20,001 £ P <£ 100,000
100,001 £P£ 200,000
200,000 £P
D^400
401 ^D^ 800
801 ^D
Median
7,196
53,212
164,313
462,011
95
464
2,043
Number of MWCs
30
95
32
123
122a
35*
40*
lumber of existing MWCs.
TABLE 4-5. DESCRIPTION OF MODEL COMMUNITIES
Population Served
VS
s
M
H .
Range
P£ 20,000
20,001 <. 100,000
100,001 £P£ 200,000
200,001
-------
generation rate and density have already been discussed. The additional characteristics of
the model communities, namely the division of MS W generation between residential and
other sources, and the relative frequency of single-family households, need discussion.
The residential fraction of MSW was estimated using Westat's survey of
municipal landfills (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988b), under the
assumption that "household wastes" and "commercial wastes" are MSW: 1 13.86 million
tons and 58.17 million tons annually, respectively (Ibid., p. 7-3). These figures imply that
66 percent of landfilled MSW is generated by residential sources. It is assumed that
66 percent of all MSW, however disposed, is generated by residential sources. Then,
using Franklin Associates' estimate of total per capita generation (3.58 Ibs/person/day),
66 percent or 2.37 Ibs/person/day of MSW is the residential rate.
The housing parameters were defined by surveying the information on housing
reported in the County and City Data Book. This reference gives the percentage of year-
round housing units with five or more units, from which the percentage of single-family
units is inferred as one minus the former statistic. Durham, North Carolina, was
considered a typical medium density catchment area: single-family units (in 1980)
accounted for approximately 74 percent (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1988, p. 692). This
percentage was the anchor for selecting the percentages for the low and high density
model communities: 90 percent and 55 percent, respectively. Evidence for the
plausibility of these percentages comes from a comparison with housing statistics in
actual cities.15
4.3 ASSIGNING MODEL PROGRAMS TO MODEL COMMUNITIES
The proposed rule mandates a level of performance for a materials separation
program and the separation of certain materials, but these requirements together far from
prescribe an acceptable program. The list of targeted materials is a loose constraint:
given the conditions in secondary materials markets, any materials separation program for
MSW would collect paper, beverage containers, etc.^ Owners of MWCs are free to
choose most of the critical elements of design:
• the point where materials separation occurs
• the collection system
• the materials recovery facility or recycling transfer facility
15 ^T^? «f °f sf Sle-family units in boroughs of New York range from 2.5 percent (Manhattan) to
fff^9u^). ^ the figure for Seattle is 67 percent At the other extreme, the figure for
Suffolk Virginia (125 persons/square mile) is 96 percent, and for Oak Ridge, Tennessee (324
16 V?5™5/**13™ mde> S4 Percent of units are single-family (U.S., Bureau of Census, 1988, .passim)
The 10 percent cap on credit for yard waste appears to be a binding constraint (see Chapter 6).
4-15
-------
• the extent of post-collection processing
• the buyer of secondary materials
• the quality of promotional services
• the incentives for household participation
The above characteristics along with the smaller details, previously described in
Chapter 2, ignore the issue of integrating the materials separation program with other
components of a solid waste management system and the issue of coordination. Larger
issues, which an owner could address in the selection of an optimal materials separation
program, are the following:
• geographical scope—which may allow combined programs to take advantage of
technological economies of scale;
• cooperative marketing—the benefits of which may be higher prices and more
reliable sales;
• waste reduction—which under the proposed rule is equivalent in effect to
materials separation; and
• optimal redesign of a planned MWC—which occurs through simultaneously
selecting the size of an MWC and materials separation program.
The final group of considerations relevant to the optimal selection of a program
pertains to the dynamics of secondary materials markets. These dynamics are important:
• the initial decline in prices as supplies increase
• future prices
• price variability
• technical standards for contamination of post-consumer materials
Technical standards for contamination, by influencing post-collection processing,
help determine the design of the processing facility. The first three considerations will
probably influence the financing of materials separation programs and thus also the
selection of equipment for the collection system and processing facility. In addition,
these considerations influence the attractiveness of strategies in adapting to market
uncertainty17 and thereby influence price.
Predicting responses to the proposed materials separation requirement is
challenging. Two alternative approaches can be used to make predictions: simulate the
relevant decision process or extrapolate from past trends.
17 Examples are buffer stocks and contracts between sellers and buyers of secondary materials.
4-16
-------
The first approach would simulate the decision of the MWC owner concerning
how he or she will comply. The success of this approach depends on either surveying
owners to elicit information on their intentions vis-a-vis the requirement, or justifying an
analogy with past modeling of the behavior of this type of decision-maker. A survey was
beyond the scope of this study. The second option for formally modeling the decision
process was evaluated by reviewing Mathtech's econometric model of the choice between
constructing a municipal solid waste landfill and constructing an MWC (Bentley and
Spitz, 1988). The model shows that cost is a determining factor, but not the only factor
the others are the educational level of the population served and the size of the
manufacturing sector. Although the latter variables could serve as a proxy for land costs
(Ibid., p. 17), they are in fact nonpecuniary variables and thus could serve as a proxy for
variables that are significant in the political aspects of solid waste management.
Nonpecuniary considerations or political constraints are relevant to planning curbside
recycling programs but could not be quantitatively studied at this time.
Nonetheless, because costs are salient, one could attempt to approximate the
decision process by assuming that only costs matter and that the decision-maker chooses
the least costly option for compliance with the New Source Performance Standards or
Emission Guidelines. *8 This description of decision-making in the context of solid waste
management is difficult to justify. One observer, who is familiar with municipal planning
because of his experience with rating municipal bonds, has remarked that "price and cost
analysis of [recycling] programs of the local level appear not very sophisticated"
(Medioli, 1990, p. 11). Decision theory also supports the view that minimization or
global optimization is a misleading premise upon which to build a model of actual
decision-making in complex and uncertain environments, such as solid waste
management As argued by Herbert Simon, people "satisfice."i9 "While economic man
maximizes—selects the best alternative from among all those available to him; his cousin,
whom we shall call administrative man, satisfices—looks for a course of action that is
satisfactory or 'good enough'" (Simon 1961, p. xxv). Also, actual people selectively
attend to features of the environment, forming a mental representation that is a gross
simplification. A prediction of the outcome of an actual choice should be predicated on
knowledge of how the decision-maker is likely to perceive the opportunity set Although
J*Some way would also have to be found for justifying the delimitation of the opportunity set
- >r . to behayior m "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice" (Simon,
1955) and Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment" (Simon 1956)
4-17
-------
formal modeling of the decision process vis-a-vis compliance with the NSPS and EG
could be very informative, it is unlikely to be successful at this time.
Consequently, an alternative approach was employed, which hypothesizes that the
pattern of materials separation programs in the near future resembles the current pattern.
Over short periods of time continuity can be observed in the economy; factors that have
led to current patterns of behavior reoccur in the near future. The particular resemblance
concerns the relative popularity of different curbside set-out methods.
Recent surveys of recycling programs (see Chapter 2) contain information on set-
out methods. They provide rough guidance on the proportions of different programs, but
neither one randomly selected respondents.20 The lack of randomness in the sampling
procedure is most evident in the Institute for Local Self Reliance survey, which selected
respondents because of a program's success. Although calculating the percentage of
programs that employ the same method is possible with the survey, the percentage is not an
estimate of the percentage in the population of all programs. The following pattern seems
representative:
• One-stream programs are very infrequent;
• The frequency of multiple-stream programs declines with population-served
and/or density; and
• The frequency of two-stream programs increases with population-served and/or
density.
Table 4-6 presents one prediction of the relative frequency of the materials
separation programs that the proposed rule will probably foster. All programs are either
two- or multiple-stream. Only two-stream programs are assigned to high density
communities. Multiple-stream programs are most frequent in low density communities.
All 280 MWCs were randomly assigned to model programs to produce the
assignment shown by Table 4-7. In each cell, the first upper figure is the total number of
MWCs corresponding to that combination of community and program, the upper figure in
parentheses is the number of planned MWCs, and the lower figure is the total population-
served (before expansion of the catchment areas of existing MWCs). Table 4-7 therefore
indicates the distribution of MWCs by program and community in the absence of
exclusions.
20This remark is not a criticism. It is an observation of a feature that affects the use of a survey.
4-18
-------
Table 4-8 indicates the distribution of MWCs by program and community after
the exclusion of MWCs that either fall below the size cutoff (35 MgPD) or are located in
an area in which baseline materials separation will be sufficient for compliance with the
Agency's requirement. As explained in Chapter 2, these areas are Connecticut, the
District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio,
Virginia, and Washington. .The population indicated in this table is effective population,
(Le., the population after expansion of a catchment area).21 One-hundred ninety three of
280 MWCs remain after exclusion.
TABLE 4-6. PREDICTED CHOICE OF MATERIALS SEPARATION
PROGRAMS, BY COMMUNITY TYPE (%)
Multiple-stream
Total
Community
(population-served/density)
Program Option
Two-stream
option 1
Two-stream
option 2
A
(VS/L)
0
20
B
(VS/M)
60
20
C
(S/L)
0
20
D
(S/M)
60
20
E
(M/M)
60
20
F
(H/M)
60
20
G
(H/H)
70
30
80 20 80 20 20 20 0
100 100 100 100 100 100 100
21 TTie results reported in Chapter 6 are based on effective population.
4-19
-------
1
§
^1
B
O
1
<
0
O
cu
>J
w
o
h^ ^~S
^2 ^2
sl
H5
Q J
WO
zz
O"
IS
82
i^
Q
Z
Z
_a
1^4
Q
^
O
1
a
fa
o
w
*A
TABLE 4-7. NUMI
*^^
**
»9
c
C-
Program Option
S8
o vo"
•^ w
06"
S s
^^ ON
^ VO
M
-------
po
o o
in co
w £
oo
s
oC
00 00
oo
oo
o •
- s
-
l-H M
«n
00
-------
-------
CHAPTERS
MARKET IMPACTS OF A MATERIALS SEPARATION REQUIREMENT
Secondary materials of various kinds suitable for recycling are produced at several
stages in manufacturing and consumption. "Prompt" scrap is pre-consumer scrap
commonly recovered and recycled by producers during manufacturing processes as a way
to reduce materials procurement and disposal costs. Some of this pre-consumer scrap
enters formal secondary materials markets. Other "prompt" scrap is simply reintroduced
into the production process, frequently in the same facility where it is generated.
Secondary materials are also present in the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream.
Currently, some of these materials are recycled back into new products, though most is
simply disposed of through landfilling or incineration. A materials separation
requirement will increase the quantities of secondary materials recovered from the MSW
stream. The sale of these materials has the potential to offset some of the costs of the
requirement The revenues earned from these sales are simply the quantities recovered
times the prices received.
Conventional economic reasoning argues that increases in the supply of a
commodity will, holding all else constant, lower the commodity's price. This chapter
examines the potential effect of a materials separation requirement on the price of each of
the five post-consumer secondary materials: newspaper, glass containers, aluminum
containers, steel containers, and plastic containers. Projected post-materials separation
requirement secondary materials prices presented in this chapter are used in Chapter 6 to
estimate the annuaKzed net cost of the materials separation requirement. These price
reductions are important because, unless they are accounted for, sales revenues will be
overstated and the costs of the materials separation requirement will be understated.
Post-residential consumer secondary materials (hereafter secondary materials)
may be collected from households as mixed MSW, commingled recyclables, or separated
.recyclables. The form in which they are collected influences in part the magnitude and
distribution of the pecuniary costs of recycling.
The recovery of secondary materials from mixed MSW involves the removal of
specific materials like glass and metal from ordinary MSW at a materials recovery
facility. This process imposes little recycling effort on consumers, but costs incurred at
5-1
-------
the facility per unit of recovered secondary material are relatively high because of the
high degree of contamination.
Commingled recyclables are normally produced by households who separate, for
example, glass and aluminum from their household waste stream. The glass and
aluminum in the commingled state are collected and transported to a recycling facility
where they are then separated. Commingled recycling involves more effort by
households than ordinary MSW handling, but less pecuniary separating and recovery
costs than mixed MSW handling.
Separated recyclables are produced by households who separate individual
recyclable materials. Materials such as paper, aluminum, ferrous cans, glass, and plastic
that have been separated by consumers are less expensive to process down-stream
because they are relatively uncontaminated. Indeed, glass is commonly sorted by color,
and newspaper may be separated from other paper. The pecuniary unit-cost of processing
a separated secondary material is generally lower than that of processing a mixed- or
commingled-source secondary material.
i
As implied above, the preparation of secondary materials for market requires
different technologies that depend in large part on the form in which they have been
collected. Mixed MSW-handling facilities are complex, multi-process facilities with high
operating and maintenance costs (relative to commingled and separated facilities). Mixed
MSW-handling is reportedly unpopular in the United States due to a history of poor
performance in the 1970's. Commingled and separated recyclables processing is
relatively simple and inexpensive.
The actual conversion of secondary materials into new products involves a wide
range of industry-specific activities. For example, the processes involved in turning
secondary newsprint into paperboard products are very different from those involved in
turning secondary ferrous cans into new rolled steel products. Regardless of the industry
or process, recycling at the "production level," where recycled material is combined with
other inputs to produce a "final good," is not a costless process. The resource user will
choose between newly extracted resources and recycled resources on the basis of relative
cost For example, since the unit price of silica sand is relatively low, cullet (waste glass)
prices must remain low to compete. Glass manufacturers commonly have the flexibility
to use as little as 10 percent and as much as 80 percent cullet in their silica-cullet mix and
will determine the mix largely based on relative prices.
5-2
-------
5.1 COMPARATIVE STATICS OF A MATERIALS SEPARATION
REQUIREMENT
Because recycling involves at least three genetically-different types of activities
(collection, preparation, and manufacturing), clearly several or more markets might be
affected by a materials separation requirement Conceptually, prices and quantities of
many goods and services could change, if only slightly. Beverages, silica sand, bauxite,
pulpwood, and iron ore are only some of the products whose prices and quantities could
change as a result of a materials separation requirement This section describes
qualitatively the expected directions and magnitudes of changes in prices and quantities
of only a subset of those goods.
Figure 5-1 is a competitive-market diagram illustrating some first-round effects of
a materials separation requirement The diagram depicts a single secondary materials
market, the market for recycled glass jars and bottles, old newsprint, recycled aluminum
cans, recycled plastic containers, or recycled ferrous cans. Currently some baseline
(without materials separation requirement) derived demand curve (d) defines the quantity
demanded of the secondary material per time period at various prices, other things held
constant The position and slope of the derived demand curve depend on demand
conditions in one or more down-stream markets that buy the secondary material, the cost
shares of the secondary material in producing those outputs, and the substitution potential
between the secondary material, (e.g., recycled glass) and other inputs (e.g., silica sand) in
the production of those outputs (e.g., glass).
The baseline supply curve (s) defines the quantity of the secondary material
supplied at various prices holding other things constant. In this context, its position and
slope can be thought of as dependent on the number and characteristics of communities
that currently recycle a particular secondary material. The supply curve is drawn
intercepting the abscissa, which indicates that some positive quantity of secondary
material is supplied to the market even at a zero or negative price. This conclusion is
consistent with the observation that, in some communities, all of, or more than, the cost of
secondary materials collection and preparation is offset by savings in ordinary municipal
refuse collection and disposal costs.
5-3
-------
$/q
P'
P"
q q' q*
q/time
Secondary Materials Market
Figure 5-1. Market Impacts of a Materials Separation Requirement
5-4
-------
To examine the potential impacts of a materials separation requirement in this
market, it is assumed (as a simplification) that none of the 193 MWC communities
currently recycle a given secondary material. The baseline secondary materials supply
curve (s) from the intercept to the baseline demand curve (d) is comprised of
communities other than the 193 MWC communities. Under this assumption, a materials
separation requirement mandates the recovery in 193 "new" communities of some
fraction of municipal waste in the form of one or more secondary materials. This new,
exogenous supply is depicted in Figure 5-1 as the perfectly vertical (inelastic) supply
curve s'mwc, though this supply would probably not be completely insensitive to price as
drawn.
The new (with materials separation requirement) market supply curve (s') is the
horizontal summation of the baseline supply curve (s) and the 193 MWC community
supply curve (s'mwc). Given the stationary derived demand curve (d), the first-round
equilibrium secondary material price and quantity is p1 and q1, respectively. Note that the
new (with materials separation requirement) price is less than the baseline price, and that
the new (with materials separation requirement) quantity is less than the simple, sum of
the baseline quantity and this exogenous new quantity. As long as buyers and sellers of a
secondary material are at all sensitive to price, a materials separation requirement-
induced supply increase will lead to a reduction in price and a net-increase in quantity
less than the exogenous supply increase. Under these conditions, price must fall for the
market to clear. Also under these conditions, the net-increase in quantity will be less than
the exogenous increase in quantity because of "displacement"—the lower price will cause
some marginal baseline recycling communities to recycle less.
Three factors influence the degree (absolute or relative) of first-round impact on
price and quantity: the size of the exogenous shift in supply, the slope of the baseline
supply curve, and the slope of the baseline derived-demand curve.
The exogenous supply shift is the quantity of "new" secondary material entering
the market from the 193 MWC communities. It will depend largely on the quantity
already being supplied (at baseline) by these 193 communities and their responsiveness to
the regulation. All else being equal, greater exogenous shifts will result in lower
equilibrium prices and greater equilibrium quantities.
The slope of the baseline supply curve (s) also influences the equilibrium impacts
of a materials separation requirement. Given any downward-sloping derived demand
5-5
-------
curve (d) and exogenous supply shift (s'mwc), the flatter (more elastic) the supply curve,
the less the impact of the shift on equilibrium price and quantity. The explanation lies in
the reason behind the slope. If the supply curve is relatively steep, the community
recycling effort is relatively insensitive to the price of the secondary material. As price
falls, marginal baseline recycling communities find it less profitable to recycle. The less
sensitive these communities are to price (the steeper the supply curve), the fewer the
number of communities that will curtail recycling efforts. At one extreme, when supply
is perfectly inelastic (vertical), the equilibrium output change is equivalent to the
exogenous shift because no baseline recycled output is "displaced" by new recycled
output. Toward the other extreme, when supply is very elastic (flat), even a small
reduction in price will lead many communities to curtail recycling, causing the
equilibrium "net" recycling output to be a little higher than at the baseline.
Communities with baseline recycling programs will probably be reluctant to
dismantle those programs, even in the face of reduced secondary materials prices.
Starting and stopping recycling programs is not costless, especially since a program's
success depends so greatly on public participation, which takes time to foster. Two
consequences of such an outcome are important. First, communities that continue to
operate voluntary (or other mandatory) recycling programs at reduced secondary
materials prices will do so at lower profits (or greater losses) than before. Second, the
equilibrium secondary material price (p1) will be even lower than that depicted in
Figure 5-1 if "unprofitable" programs are not curtailed. Indeed, if baseline recycling
efforts continued unabated after a materials separation requirement, the secondary
material price would fall to p" (given derived demand curve d).
Finally, the slope of the baseline demand curve (d) influences the equilibrium
impacts of a materials separation requirement. Given any upward-sloping supply curve
(s) and exogenous supply shift (s'mwc), the flatter (more elastic) the demand curve, the
lower the impact on equilibrium price while the impact on equilibrium quantity will be
greater. If the demand curve is relatively "steep," buyers of the secondary material are
relatively insensitive to price. As exogenous supply increases, the secondary material
price falls. As price falls, buyers purchase little additional secondary material.
Conversely, if buyers are very sensitive to price and demand is flat (elastic)* even a small
reduction in price will lead buyers to purchase significantly more secondary material
The above analysis is a single-period impacts analysis. As a single-period
analysis, a stationary baseline demand is assumed. Suppose that in the future demand for
5-6
-------
the secondary material increases from (d) to (d*). This increase might occur in the old
newspaper market as new de-inking capacity comes on line, and/or as demand for paper
increases. Such a shift in derived demand effectively represents new buyers who
"absorb" the additional supply forthcoming from new (MWC) communities and mitigate
downward price impacts. In the special case drawn in Figure 5-1, the new equilibrium
. price (p ) under the hypothetical future demand scenario is unchanged from the baseline
price (p), and the new equilibrium quantity (q*) is the sum of the baseline quantity" (q)
and the exogenous new supply. In this hypothetical inter-temporal analysis, price
remains unchanged and quantity increases by the amount of the new supply forthcoming
from MWC communities. More generally, a demand increase would lead to a post-
materials separation requirement price higher than p' and a post-materials separation
requirement quantity higher than q1, holding all else in Figure 5-1 constant.
In addition, "displacement" of a different type may still occur under a materials
separation requirement. In Figure 5-1, as derived demand shifts to the right along any
upward-sloping stationary baseline supply curve, the secondary material price rises. As
depicted, the equilibrium price at the intersection of the baseline supply curve (s) and the
hypothetical future demand curve (d*) is p**. At this higher price, more communities
would find it economical to recycle, and output would increase beyond q even in the
absence of a materials separation requirement With a materials separation requirement
in place, price would not rise to p**, and some communities that would have voluntarily
begun or expanded recycling efforts might no longer choose to. Instead, they would be
"displaced" by the MWC communities. Possibly, some of the 193 MWC communities
would be among the potential new entrants in the hypothetical future period so that the
materials separation requirement is simply accelerating their recycling efforts. If this is
true though, the exogenous supply shift would be less than depicted.
A materials separation requirement would also influence other markets. An
output market purchases a secondary material (e.g., recycled glass) along with additional
other inputs (e.g., silica sand, labor, energy) to produce a final or "more final"
intermediate good (e.g., glass). Assuming there is some substitution potential between
the secondary material and other inputs—as there is between recycled glass and cullet—a
reduction in the price of the secondary material reduces the cost of producing the final
output. If cost reductions are passed along to consumers, the quantity demanded of the
final good increases.
5-7
-------
The anticipated impacts in two hypothetical "other" markets should be
considered: the market for a close substitute for the secondary material (e.g., bauxite for
aluminum cans, or silica sand for recycled glass), and the market for some other,
essentially non-substitutable input (e.g., fuel).
The signs as well as the magnitudes of price and quantity impacts in a substitute
(primary materials) market are ambiguous. When the price of a secondary material (e.g.,
recycled glass) falls, two opposing forces are at work in a market for a substitute product
(e.g., silica sand). On the one hand, because the two inputs are substitutes, an increase in
the utilization of the secondary material per unit output of the final good allows a
reduction in the utilization of the primary material per unit output of the final good. Put
differently, the substitution effect reduces demand and, generally, price for the primary
input On the other hand, as explained above, a price reduction in the final good market
leads to an increase in quantity demanded in the final good market As producers of the
final good produce more output to satisfy demand, they require more inputs. This result
leads to an off-setting, positive output effect in the primary market Whether the net
effect in the substitute primary market is "positive" or "negative" is a function of demand
and supply elasticities, substitution elasticities, and cost shares.
The signs, if not the magnitudes, of impacts in the market for a non-substitute
input are relatively clear. A demand-induced increase in production in a final market
prompted indirectly by a price reduction in a secondary material market will lead to a
positive output effect in a market for some other, non-substitute input. Because there is
no significant substitution effect to consider, the net effect is likely to be positive.
Consequently, equilibrium prices and quantities in such markets will tend to rise as a
result of a materials separation requirement
5.2
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF MARKET IMPACTS OF A
MATERIALS SEPARATION REQUIREMENT
The estimates to be presented here result from a single-period analysis. They
should be interpreted as preliminary estimates of equilibrium prices and quantities in each
secondary material market with and without a materials separation requirement. Demand
and supply shifts in these and related markets that might be expected to occur over time
are not modeled. If, for example, the demands for secondary materials are generally
increasing over time, they would tend to mitigate the projected price impacts of the
materials separation requirement.
5-8
-------
Also, the estimates result from an analysis that does not address potential
interrelationships between secondary materials markets. For example, in reality a
baseline recycling community's decision whether, how, and what to recycle depends
partly on prices of old paper, old aluminum cans, old glass, etc. The baseline supply
functions (supply elasticities) used in this analysis are assumed to be stable in this regard,
but in reality they probably are not.
Tables 5-1 through 5-5 present price and quantity impact projections and the
underlying parameter assumptions. The baseline quantity of each material is an estimate
for 1990. The baseline price of each material is an estimate of the long-run equilibrium
price in the absence of an MSR. Details on the estimates will be provided below. The
elasticity of demand for post-consumer newspapers has been estimated by using Bingham
and Chandran's (1990) model. Demand elasticities for the other four materials are
assumed to be more elastic, as will be described below. The elasticity of supply of post-
consumer newspapers has been estimated by Bingham and Chandran (1990). The supply
elasticities for the other secondary materials are identical by assumption. The estimates
of net diversion reflect the model recycling programs and communities described in
previous chapters in this report. They exclude (do not count) materials already being
recycled in the nine states and the District of Columbia that already comply with the
materials separation requirement.
5.2.1 Post-Consumer Newspaper .
Table 5-1 presents model parameter assumptions arid impact projections in the
post-consumer newspaper market.
Franklin (1990) estimates that 4.4 million tons of old newspaper (ONP) were
recovered for recycling in 1988. The estimate is adjusted upward to the 1990 estimate
reported in Table 5-1 (5.371 million tons) using national waste paper consumption data
reported in the June 1990 Survey of Current Business.
Recycling Times (August 28,1990) shows prices for baled material in large
quantities, relatively free of contamination, freight not included, which is realistically the
commodity being sold by municipalities. Prices during the first two weeks of August
1990 vary from -$40 to +$10 per ton, depending, on the region.
The wastepaper Producer Price Index (PPI) has ranged from as low as 100 in 1982
to as high as 223.4 in 1984 (index 1982=100) (U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
5-9 •; >• • :•' t
-------
Labor Statistics, June 1990). The current PPI for wastepaper is 141.0. Recognizing the
limitations that the PPI is calculated using mill prices paid to dealers (not prices paid by
dealers to municipalities) and is for all waste paper (not just old newspaper), it can be
used to estimate the price received by municipalities in 1984. Assume that municipalities
currently receive an average of $5 per ton for newspaper (the range is $-40 to $+5 per
ton). Adjusting the 1984 price to 1990 dollars using the GNP price deflator, the 1984
price in 1990 dollars is $9.53.
McEntee (1990) reports that in New Jersey dealers charge $20 to $40 per ton to
bale, process, and deliver old newspaper to a mill. The same article shows that in January
1985, loose (unbaled) old newspaper was about $5 per ton at the dealer's door in the New
York city area. This figure allows us to estimate a mill price in the New York City area
of $25 to $45 per ton (assuming the processing charge was about the same in 1985).
Waste Age (March, 1989) charts mill buying prices of old newspaper in Chicago
from 1970 to 1989. It illustrates that "the market price for No. 1 news in June, 1988, was
$45 per ton in the Chicago market This is the mill buying price for old newspapers. If
the paper packer provides a roll-off container for a recycling center, or a paper drive, the
price paid to the collector would be about $12 per ton." At the other extreme, "if the
collection center is equipped to prepare bales, the price for brokered tonnage would be
$42 to $42.50 per ton."
Old newspaper prices have fluctuated greatly over time and across regions. Prices
received by municipalities also apparently vary significantly depending on how they
prepare the material for dealers. A range of $5 to $42 per ton received by municipalities
for baled old newspaper is assumed as a long-run equilibrium price baseline, with a best
estimate toward the lower end of the range: $10 per ton.
A model of North American pulp, paper, and other related markets (Bingham and
Chandran, 1990); estimates that the long-run own-price demand elasticity for recycled
newspapers is -0.71. Several reasons suggest that the demand elasticity for this good is in
fact inelastic. The U. S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1989) reports that
most new newsprint producing capacity now under construction in the U.S. will use
virgin (not recycled) fiber. The report also indicates the following:
• world ONP supply is out-pacing demand;
• export prices are soft and the potential for increases of exports to Europe is low;
5-10
-------
• users are concerned that "mandatory separation" ONP quality is low; and
• ONP prices appear to be extremely sensitive to supply shifts.
Further, the Bingham-Chandran model allows for the addition of de-inking
capacity. If it did not, the demand elasticity would be even lower. Consequently, the
demand elasticity employed in this analysis is -0.71.
The projected best-estimate equilibrium price of post-consumer newspapers
following implementation of the materials separation requirement is $9.35 per ton—
6.5 percent below baseline. Other impact estimates are presented in Table 5-1 as well.
5.2.2 Post-Consumer Glass
Table 5-2 presents model parameter assumptions and impact projections in the
post-consumer glass market.
Franklin (1990) estimates that 1.5 million tons of post-consumer glass bottles
were recovered for recycling in 1988. The estimate is adjusted upward to the 1990
estimate reported in Table 5-2—1.8 million tons—based solely on a report that one of the
nation's largest glass-recycling firms recycled 20 percent more glass in 1989 than in 1988
(Powell, 1990). The estimate reported in Table 5-2 may be conservative.
Recycling Times (August 28,1990) shows prices paid by dealers for used glass.
Prices during the first two weeks of August 1990 vary from -$5 to +$100 per ton,
depending on glass color and region. Across regions, $30 looks representative.
Waste Age (March, 1989) reports that the market price for cullet in May, 1988,
was approximately $40 per ton delivered to a glass plant and color sorted. The price
received by municipalities has to be lower than $40 because this is the delivered price.
This report is consistent with the $30 estimate described above.
Recycling Today (July 16,1990) reports that BaU-Licon Glass Container
Corporation, which has 12 plants across the country, pays from $50 to $90 per ton for
recycled glass, depending on the region. These are also delivered prices.
The same article in Recycling Today quotes a glass scrap dealer who reports that
prices paid by glass companies have fallen from $80 to $50 per ton.
5-11
-------
For this analysis, a range of $20 to $80 per ton received by municipalities for
recycled glass containers is assumed as a baseline long-run equilibrium price, with a best
estimate toward the lower end of the range: $30 per ton.
No published estimates of the own-price demand elasticity for recycled glass
containers are known to the authors. Several factors discussed in the U. S. Congress
Office of Technology Assessment report (1989) suggest that the demand elasticity is
higher (more elastic) than that for recycled old newspapers:
• the current recycling rate for cullet is about 15 percent, but a cullet charge of 70
to 80 percent is used in some glass-making facilities and a mix of 25 percent
cullet is commonplace;
• environmental regulations and aesthetic concerns about sand mining are
restricting the extraction of the virgin material;
• "curbside cullet" color separation has been good;
• glass producers have publicly announced a desire to use more cullet; and
• "glassphalt" is potentially a very good market.
The own-price demand elasticity for cullet is subjectively assumed to be higher
than that for old newspapers, and the value of -2.0 is assumed.
The projected best-estimate equilibrium price of post-consumer glass following
implementation of the materials separation requirement is $27 per ton—about 11 percent
below baseline. Other impact estimates are presented in Table 5-2 as well.
5.2.3 Post-Consumer Aluminum Used Beverage Containers
Table 5-3 presents model parameter assumptions and impact estimates in the post-
consumer aluminum used beverage container market.
Powell (1990) estimates that 844 thousand tons of aluminum cans were recovered
in 1989, an increase of 12.2 percent over 1988. Assuming the same percentage increase
from 1989 to 1990, the 1990 baseline estimate is 947 thousand tons—reported in
Table 5-3.
Recycling Times (August 28,1990) shows prices paid by processors for aluminum
used beverage containers. Prices during the first two weeks of August 1990 vary from
5-12
-------
$440 to $880 per ton, depending on the region of the country. Across regions, $800 looks
representative.
A Producer Price Index exists for aluminum scrap. Given a 1982 index of 100.0,
the index has been as high as 228.7 (in 1988) and as low as 127.5 (in 1985) in the last five
years. The 1990 Producer Price Index for aluminum scrap is 172.8.
Apotheker (1989) reports that the toll end price paid for truckload quantities of
bailed aluminum UBCs has ranged from a low of $620 in June of 1985 to a high of about
$1,400 in June of 1989 in nominal prices. In 1990 dollars (using the GNP Implicit Price
Deflator), these figures translate into a range of about $725 to $1,440. Dealers must pay
municipalities less than the toll end price. The article suggests that a "street price" of
$540 per ton is consistent with a "toll price" of $840 per ton. Consequently, an estimated
range for the "street price" of aluminum used beverage containers of $466 [(540/840)
$725] to $926 [(540/840) $1,440] per ton can be derived.
Powell (1990) reports that "American consumers and scrap dealers" received
more than $900 million for 844 thousand tons of scrap aluminum cans in 1989. This
figure translates into a price of $1,066 per ton in a year when scrap aluminum prices were
high.
For mis analysis, a range of $500 to $1,000 per ton received by municipalities for
recycled aluminum used beverage containers is assumed as a baseline long-run
equilibrium price, with a best estimate toward the upper end of the range: $800 per ton..
No known published estimates of the own-price demand elasticity for aluminum
used beverage containers exist But information from the U. S. Congress Office of
Technology Assessment (1989), Powell (1990), and the U. S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics (June, 1990) suggests that the demand elasticity is high:
• primary aluminum production is much more fuel intensive than aluminum
production using recycled aluminum;
• aluminum used beverage containers are easy for aluminum producers to use;
• demand for used beverage containers is strong;
• export demand for aluminum used beverage containers is strong; and
• aluminum scrap prices are fairly stable over time, even in the face of increasing
supplies of post-consumer materials. 5
5-13
-------
For these reasons, the elasticity is assumed to be still higher than that for. glass
cullet A value of -4.0 is assumed in this analysis.
The projected best-estimate equilibrium price of post-consumer aluminum
beverage containers following implementation of the materials separation requirement is
$793 per ton—about one percent below baseline. Other impact estimates are presented in
Table 5-3 as well.
5.2.4 Post-Consumer Steel Containers
Table 5-4 presents model parameter assumptions and impact projections in the
post-consumer steel can market
Franklin (1990) reports that approximately 400 thousand tons of post-consumer
steel containers were recovered for recycling in 1988. The 1988 estimate is adjusted
upward to the 1990 estimate of 576 thousand tons based on a report that the recycling rate
for steel food and beverage cans increased from 15 percent in 1988 to 21.6 percent in
1989 (Powell, 1990). The 1990 estimate may be conservative because it assumes the
recycling rate in 1990 remained at the 1989 level.
Recycling Times (August 28,1990) shows prices paid by processors for clean
steel/tin cans. Prices during the first two weeks of August 1990 vary from $45 to $104
• per ton, depending on the region of the country. Across regions, $70 per ton looks
representative.
The Producer Price Index for iron and steel scrap gives a 1982 index of 100.0, yet
the index has been as high as 177.6 (in 1989) and as low as 112.2 (in 1985) in the last five
years. The 1990 Producer Price Index for iron and steel scrap is 167.7.
Prices of delivered iron and steel scrap are reported by the U. S. Bureau of Mines
(1990). Since 1985, scrap prices (in 1990 dollars) have ranged from as low as $74.64
(1986) to as high as $104.18 (1988). The 1990 scrap price is $91.61.
The ratio of the representative steel can processor price in 1990 ($70) to the
delivered steel scrap price in 1990 ($91.61) is 0.76. Applying this ratio (assuming
constancy in recent years) to six-year low and high scrap prices, estimated low and high
steel can processor prices in 1990 dollars are $56.73 [0.76 * $74.64] and $79.18 [0.76 *
$104.18].
5-14
-------
For this analysis, a range of $55 to $80 per ton received by municipalities for
recycled steel cans is assumed as a baseline long-ran equilibrium price, with a best
estimate of $70.
No known estimates of the own-price demand elasticity for post-consumer steel
containers exist, but data reported by the U. S. Congress Office of Technology
Assessment (1989) and the U. S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (June,
1990) suggest a high elasticity:
• municipal solid waste scrap steel is mostly tin cans, which need to be de-tinned;
• de-tinning companies de-tin cans to recover the tin, and de-tinning capacity is
growing;
• electric arc furnace (EAF) steel making facilities are major demanders of steel
scrap, and EAF capacity is growing rapidly;
• ferrous scrap export demand is strong; and
• steel scrap prices have been fairly robust over time.
The projected best-estimate equilibrium price of post-consumer steel following
implementation of the materials separation requirement is $66 per ton—about 5.6 percent
below baseline. Other impact estimates are presented in Table 5-4 as well.
5.2.5 Post-Consumer Plastic Containers
Table 5-5 presents model parameter assumptions and impact projections in the
post-consumer plastic containers market.
The 1990 baseline quantity of recycled plastic containers is the most difficult of
the secondary materials to estimate. Franklin (1990) estimates that 100 thousand tons of
post-consumer plastic containers were recycled in 1988. Market forecasters project a
five- to ten-fold growth in this volume in the next five years alone (Basta and Johnson,
1989). A Business Opportunity Report (Schlegel and Fuller, 1989) projects that 550
thousand tons of plastic containers will be recycled in 1991—about a five-fold increase.
The 1990 estimate reported in Table 5-5 subjectively assumes that the 1990 baseline
recycled quantity is twice the 1988 estimate. The direction and magnitude of the bias is
difficult to assess.
Recycling Times (August 28,1990) shows prices paid to and by (a mixture)
processors for baled, color-sorted PET and HOPE. Prices during the first two weeks of
5-15 \
-------
August 1990 vary from $0 to $200 per ton, depending on the region of the country.
Across regions, $120 per ton looks representative.
Other plastic scrap data are very scarce because this is such a new market, even
relative to other secondary materials markets.
Recycling Today (April 15,1990) reports that "the demand for plastic household
bottles and jugs is strong and growing" and that "companies are building new plants to
reclaim plastics and demanding more materials from sources."
For this analysis, because there is so little historical data to rely on, a relatively
wide range of $50 to $250 per ton received by municipalities for recycled plastic bottles
and jugs is assumed as a baseline long-run equilibrium price, and today's prevailing price
of $120 is the best estimate because it is near the middle of the range.
Estimates of the own-price demand elasticity for recycled plastic containers do not
exist The U. S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1989) reports that "lack of
collection is a major barrier to the recycling of plastics" and that "market studies for PET
and HOPE (the two main constituents of consumer plastics) show enormous potential."
Recycling Today (April 15,1990) reports that demand for recycled plastics is out-
pacing supply and that new products manufactured from recycled plastics are being
developed. The source also reports that companies are building new plastic reclamation
plants and that Wellman, the largest recycler of PET in the U.S., has a "tremendous
appetite" for more post-consumer plastic.
For these reasons, the demand elasticity is assumed to be the same as that for steel
and aluminum containers, -4.0.
. The projected best-estimate equilibrium price of post-consumer plastic following
implementation of the materials separation requirement is $86 per ton—about 28 percent
below baseline. Other impact estimates are presented in Table 5-5 as well.
5-16
-------
TABLE 5-1. MSR IMPACTS ESTIMATES: POST-CONSUMER NEWSPAPER
MARKET
Parameters:
Results:
Baseline Quantity (103 tons):
Baseline Price ($/ton):
Elasticity of Demand:
Elasticity of Supply:
Net Diversion (103 tons):
Post-MSR Price ($/ton):
Price Change:
Post-MSR Quantity (103 tons):
Quantity Change (103 tons):
5,371
$5 to $42 ($10 best estimate)
-0.71
1.6
805 (15% of baseline)
$4.68 to $39.27 ($9.35 best estimate)
(-6.5%)
5,618
+247 (+4.6%)
TABLE 5-2. MSR IMPACTS ESTIMATES: POST-CONSUMER GLASS
MARKET
Parameters:
Results:
Baseline Quantity (103 tons):
Baseline Price ($/ton):
Elasticity of Demand:
Elasticity of Supply:
Net Diversion (103 tons):
Post-MSR Price ($/ton):
Price Change:
Post-MSR Quantity (103 tons):
Quantity Change (103 tons):
1,800
$20 to $80 ($30 best estimate)
-2.0
1.6
714 (40% of baseline)
$18 to $71 ($27 best estimate)
(-11%)
2,197
+397 (+22)
5-17
-------
TABLE 5-3. MSR IMPACTS ESTIMATES: POST-CONSUMER ALUMINUM
MARKET
Parameters: Baseline Quantity (103 tons):
Baseline Price ($/ton):
Elasticity of Demand:
Elasticity of Supply:
Net Diversion (103 tons):
Results: Post-MSR Price ($/ton):
Price Change:
Post-MSR Quantity (103 tons):
Quantity Change (103 tons):
947
$500 to $1,000 ($800 best estimate)
-4.0
1.6
47 (5% of baseline)
$495 to $991 ($793 best estimate)
(-0.9%)
981
+34 (+3.5%)
TABLE 5-4. MSR IMPACTS ESTIMATES: POST-CONSUMER STEEL
MARKET
Parameters:
Results:
Baseline Quantity (103 tons):
Baseline Price ($/ton):
Elasticity of Demand:
Elasticity of Supply:
Net Diversion (103 tons):
Post-MSR Price ($/ton):
Price Change:
Post-MSR Quantity (103 tons):
Quantity Change (103 tons):
576
$55 to $80 ($70 best estimate)
-4.0
1.6
180 (31% of baseline)
$52 to $76 ($66 best estimate)
(-5.6%)
704
+128 (+22%)
5-18
-------
TABLE 5-5. MSR IMPACTS ESTIMATES: POST-CONSUMER PLASTIC
MARKET
Parameters:
Results:
Baseline Quantity (103 tons):
Baseline Price ($/ton):
Elasticity of Demand:
Elasticity of Supply:
Net Diversion (103 tons):
Post-MSR Price ($/ton):
Price Change:
Post-MSR Quantity (103 tons):
Quantity Change (103 tons):
200
$50 to $250 ($120 best estimate)
-4.0
1.6
311(156% of baseline)
$36 to $180 ($86 best estimate)
(-28%)
422
+222 (+111%)
5-19
-------
-------
CHAPTER 6
NATIONAL MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS AND TOTAL DIVERSION
The net cost of the materials separation requirement equals the sum of capital
costs and operating and maintenance costs of separation (recycling in this study) minus
the credit for downsizing planned municipal waste combustors, avoided landfill costs,
avoided garbage collection costs, and revenues from the sale of diverted materials. Two
estimates of net costs are presented (see Table 6-1).
The net cost of the materials separation requirement may be as low as -86 million
dollars (annualized), i.e., a savings, or as high as 367 million dollars (annualized).
Obviously the estimates describe a range, but neither estimate was made with the
intention of finding an extreme.
Chapters 3 and 5 describe in detail the differences in. assumptions underlying the
two estimates of net cost, but a summary will be helpful here. Four components of net
cost differ: total separation, avoided landfilling, avoided garbage collection, and revenue.
1) The category of cost labeled 'Total Separation" refers to the annualized capital
and operating costs of collection systems, materials recovery facilities, recycling transfer
facilities, and centralized composting facilities. This category also includes the cost of
administration. The difference in 'Total Separation" cost is due to the difference in
administrative effort: the higher cost reflects the addition of staff whose purpose is to
demonstrate compliance with the New Source Performance Standards and Emission
Guidelines.
2) The difference in the two estimates of avoided landfill cost is due to different
estimates of the unit cost of landfilling ($45.65/Mg or $22.31/Mg). The greater unit cost
is the result of averaging two different weighted average costs of landfilling (one
weighted by daily throughput capacity, the other weighted by landfill type). The lesser
unit cost ($22.31.Mg) is the result of statistically analyzing the relationship between
landfill size and cost
3) The avoided garbage collection cost is either $269 million or $86 million. The
greater estimate results from modeling garbage collection with and without recycling in
high population/high density, medium population/medium density, and very small
population/low density communities. The lesser estimate results from applying the
statistical analysis of garbage collection costs conducted by Savas and Stevens (1978).
6-1
-------
4) The last source of difference in net cost is the revenue obtained from the sale of
old newspapers and steel, aluminum, glass, and plastic containers (see Tables 6-2 and
6-3). As discussed in Chapter 5, the new price of a secondary material depends on the
baseline price (among other things). The greater estimate of total revenue reflects the
assumption of greater baseline prices, hence, greater post-separation prices.
Appendix E presents the results of several sensitivity analyses. Table E-6
identifies the net cost of materials separation when all MWCs larger than 35 MgPD
capacity are included (the results presented in this chapter reflect the exclusion of MWCs
in certain areas of the country). Table E-7 reflects the exclusion of MWCs below 100
MgPD capacity. Table E-8 identifies the net cost of materials separation under the
assumption that all model programs include a composting program in which householders
set out bagged yard waste and leaves, the bags are collected by a paid collection crew,
and the community operates a centralized composting facility (the results presented in
this chapter reflect a mix of backyard and centralized composting programs).
TABLE 6-1. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS, AVOIDED COSTS, AND
REVENUES FOR MWCS AT LEAST 35 MEGAGRAMS PER DAY
CAPACITY3
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(annualized millions of dollars)
Total Separation
Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenue
Total
$565
($90)
($1.61)
($131)
($269)
($86)
$657
($90)
($82)
($32)
($86)
$367
•(annualized $ per Mg)
$ Per Mg Collected
$ Per Mg Combusted
($15)
($3)
$65
$11
a There are 280 existing and planned MWCs. Of these, 66 are in CT, DC, FL, LA, MN,
NC, NJ, OH, VA, and WA, and they are excluded from the analysis. Of the remaining
214, 21 are below the size cutoff, leaving 193 in the analysis.
6-2
» I '.
-------
TABLE 6-2. NET QUANTITIES DIVERTED, PRICES, AND REVENUES FOR
ESTIMATE ONE
Newspaper
Glass
Aluminum
Ferrous containers
Plastic
Total
Net Diversion
(Mg/Yr)
1,090,404
744,606
75,980
189,950
323,980
Diverted Materials
High Price
($/Mg)
43.30
78.28
1,092.58
83.79
198.45
TABLE 6-3. NET QUANTITIES DIVERTED, PRICES, AND
ESTIMATE TWO
Newspaper
Glass
Aluminum
Ferrous containers
Plastic
.
Net Diversion
(Mg/Yr)
1,090,404
744,606
75,980
189,950
323,980
Diverted Materials
Low Price
($/Mg)
5.16
19.85
545.74
57.33
39.69
Revenues
($)
47,214,486
58,287,739
83,014,425
15,915,948
64,293,900
$268,726,498
=======
REVENUES FOR
Revenues
($)
5,626,484
14,780,424
41,465,423
10,889,859
. 12,858,780
Total
$85,620,971
6-3
-------
-------
REFERENCES
Man, Theresa; Brenda Platband David Morris. 1989. Beyond 25 Percent: Materials Recovery
Comes of Age. Washington, DC: The Institute for Local Self-Reliance.
Alter, H. and W.R. Reeves. 1975. Specifications for Materials Recovered from Municipal
Rquse. Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington DO
The National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc. '
Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA). 1989a. Alcoa Recycling 1985 Update. Pittsburgh
PA: Aluminum Company of America. 5
Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA). 1989b. Aluminum Beverage Can Recycling
Booklet, Pittsburgh, PA: Aluminum Company of America.
Alummuni Company of America (ALCOA). 1989c. Aluminum Cans Make Sense. Booklet,
Pittsburgh, PA: Aluminum Company of America.
Alummum Company of America (ALCOA). 1989A Our Best Rigid Container Sheet. Booklet,
Pittsburgh, PA: Aluminum Company of America.
Alummum Company of America (ALCOA). 1989e. Recycling: If s Nature's Way. Booklet
Pittsburgh, PA: Aluminum Company of America.
American Paper Institute, Inc. Paper Recycling and Its Role in Solid Waste Management
YOTkf NY^ PaPCr Recycling Committee of the American Paper Institute, New
5:S£!; £™Jw*lN% W™Not: State and Federal Roles in Source Reduction and
Recycling of Solid Waste. Washington, DC: Northeast-Midwest Institute.
"Aluminum: ^ Times MQ Changing." Resource Recycling
1989* "PlasticsRecyclinS Kcks Up Momentum."
Iaylfr?-^dRT?V-Shandran- 199°- "The Old Newspapers Problem: Benefit-
Cost Analysis of a Marketable Permit Policy." Report prepared for the US Envkonmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangl
199a "^ Bicycle Guide to CoUecting, Processing and
^ ±Q SpeClal Rep°rt °n Materfals Recove& Facilities/'
City Currents. October, 1989. Vol. 8, No. 3. Published by U. S. Conference of Mayors.
R-i ; L ; : ' ; :
-------
Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Waste Management 1989. "Virginia Recycling
Grants Awarded." Grant information package from Mary Clark German, Richmond, VA.
Curlee, T. R. 1989. Source Reduction and Recycling as Municipal Waste Management Options:
An Overview of Government Actions. Report prepared for the EPA Environmental Source
Reduction and Recycling Meeting. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Darnay, Arsen and William E. Franklin. 1972. Salvage Markets for Materials in Solid Wastes.
Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Kansas City, Missouri:
Midwest Research Institute.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Economic Impact of Air Pollutant Emission Standards
for New Municipal Waste Combustors. Report prepared by Research Triangle Institute
EPA/450-3-89-006.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. 1988. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States,
1980 to 2000. Final report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. 1989. Markets for Selected Postconsumer Waste Paper Grades. Draft
report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No
68-01-7310.
Franklin, William E.; Marjorie A. Franklin; and Robert G. Hunt 1982. Waste Paper: The
Future of a Resource, 1980-2000. Report prepared for The Solid Waste Council of the
Paper Industry. Prairie Village, KS: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Furukawa, Tsukasa. 1985. "Japanese Aluminum Imports from U.S. Are Under Study "
American Metal Market 16:7.
Glenn, Jim. 1990. "The State of Garbage in America." Biocycle (April):34-41.
Gold, Allan. 1990. "Confronting the Rising Cost of Recycling." New York Times October
JL<3«^£*
Hill and Knowlton. 1990. Facts About Solid Waste, Recycling, and the Paper Industry Press
Release.
JACA Corporation. 1977a, "Aluminum Industry." In Barriers to the Use of Secondary Metals
Report prepared for the Bureau of Mines. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
JACA Corporation. 1977b. "Barriers to the Use of Secondary Metals." In Barriers to the Use of
Secondary Metals. Report prepared for the Bureau of Mines. Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office.
Just, Richard E.; Hueth, Darrell L.; and Schmitz, Andrew. 1982. Applied Welfare Economics
and Public Policy. Englewood Cliff s, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Jeyasingam, Thampoe. 1982. Production of Newsprint from Waste Paper in North America
Report prepared for the United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
Keller, Richard. 1988. "Building Markets for Recyclables: Government Procurement Facts "
Waste Age July:38-42.
Keller, Richard. 1989. Creating Recycling Markets: What Congress Can Do To Help
Transcript from Environmental and Energy Study Institute Seminan ...
R-2
-------
Kirkpatric, George. 1988. "What Florida's Legislators Have Wrought." Waste Age October:
Kovacs, William L. 1988. "The Coming Era of Conservation and Industrial Utilization of
Recyclable Materials." Ecology Law Quarterly. 15(4):537-625.
Kovacs, William L. 1989. Creating Recycling Markets: What Congress Can Do To Help.
Transcript from Environmental and Energy Study Institute Seminar.
Kusik, CJL. and CB. Kenahan. 1978. "Aluminum." In Energy Use Patterns for Metal
Recycling. U.S. Department of Interior circular 8781.
Mathias, Scott. August 15, 1990. Memorandum. To Tom Walton, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
McEntee, Ken. 1990. "Paper-Makers Pushed to Do More Recycling." Recycling Today
February 15:120-128.
Medioli, Alfred. 1990. "Rating Solid Waste Disposal Debt." Paper presented at the Fourth
Annual National Symposium on Solid Waste Disposal and Energy Production. Orlando
FL, January 22-23. '
Minnesota Project 1987. Case Studies in Rural Solid Waste Recycling. Report prepared for
The Ford Foundation. November.
Morris, Glenn E. and Holthausen, Duncan M. Jr. 1990. "The Economics of Household Solid
Waste Generation and Disposal." Working paper. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research
Triangle Institute.
Morris, Glenn E.; Brenda L. Jellicorse; Katherine B. Heller, P. Timothy Neely; and Taylef H
Bingham. 1989. 'Economic Impact of Air Pollutant Emission Standards for New
Municipal Waste Combustors." Final report prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
Mullet, Clare. 1989. "ONP Facts and Realities." Waste Age Novemben32-34.
Natiomd Polystyrene Recycling Company. 1990. Information/Promotion Packet. Washington,
National Solid Wastes Management Association. 1989. "Recycling in the States " Waste
Alternatives/Reduction and Recycling. Waste Recyclers Council Information Packet No 2
Washington, DC. p. 27. ' '
' Old Newspaper Supply in the Northeast
United States. The Council of State Governments, Eastern Regional Conference.
1988< "Devel°PmSARecycling Processing Center." Waste
Papke, Chuck. 1983. "New Products From Glass Gullet." Resource Recycling 2(4): 12-15,46.
Paul, Bill. 1989. "For Recyclers, the News Is Looking Bad." The Wall Street Journal, •
August j l , p. 13 In.
Pettit, C. L. 1989 . "Tip Fees Up More Than 30% In Annual NSWMA Survey." Waste Ase
March: 101-106. • °
R-3
-------
Phoenix Quarterly. "The Amazing All-Aluminum Can." 21(2):8-11.
Powell, Jerry. 1990. "How Are We Doing? The 1989 Report." Resource Recycling May:34-37.
Price Waterhouse. 1988. Newsprint Cost Study, 1983-1987. Report prepared for the Newsprint
Subcommittee of the Forest Sector Advisory Council.
Radian Corporation. 1990. Materials Separation Report for Municipal Waste Combustors.
Draft report prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract
. Number 68-02-4378.
Recycling Times. 1989. "Recycling in the States." December 19:26-27.
Recycling Times. 1990. "The Markets Page." Washington, DC: Waste Age. August:5.
Recycling Today. 1990. "Glass Recycling Continues Popularity with Consumers."
July 16:68-72.
Recycling Today. 1990. "Supplies Can't Meet Demand Bottled Up for Plastics."
April 15:70-74.
Research Triangle Institute. 1989. "The Effects of Weight- or Volume-Based Pricing on Solid
Waste Management" Draft report prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency under EPA Contract Number 68-01-7290.
Resource Recovery Yearbook. 1988-89. Eileen Berenyi and Robert Gould, eds., Washington DC:
Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc.
Resource Recycling. 1983. "PET Plastic Recovery." 2(1): 17-19,35.
Rogers, Jack K. 1988. "Recycling Grows Up: Where It's Headed." Plastics Technology
December:50-56. **
Savas, E. S. and Barbara J. Stevens. 1978. Evaluating Residential Refuse Collection Costs • A
Workbook for Local Government.
Schlegel, John A. and E. E. Fuller. 1989. "Plastic Package Recycling: The Challenges and
Opportunities." Norwalk, Connecticut: International Plastics Consultants.
Schloemann, Ernst 1982. "Eddy-Current Techniques for Segregating Nonferrous Metals from
Waste." Conservation and Recycling 5(2/3): 149-162.
Siberg, Steven. 1982. "Recycling Techniques for Separation of Scrap Aluminum." Scran Age
August: 180-184. . ^ 6
Simon, Herbert A. 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice." Quarterly Journal of
Economics February:99-118.
Simon, Herbert A. 1956. "Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment"
Psychological Review April: 129-138.
Simon, Herbert A. 1961. Administrative Behavior. 2d ed. with a foreword by Chester I
Barnard. New York: Macmillan.
Snow, Darlene. 1989. 'Trends in Collecting Recyclables." Waste Alternatives/Reduction and
^cycling. Waste Recyclers Council Information Packet No 2, Washington, DC: National
Solid Wastes Management Association, p. 58.
R-4
-------
Solid Waste Report .1989. "Aluminum Recycling Plant Opens in Morgantown, Kentucky "
November 27:374.
Solid Waste Report 1990a. "Minnesota Awards $4 Million in Grants for Garbage Composting
Projects. 21(19): 154. &
Solid Waste Report. 19905. . "Pennsylvania to Award Environmental Technology Funds for
Recycling. 21(15): 1 17.
SoMWasaeRmon. 1990c. "Illinois to Award $1.25 Million in Recycling Grants to Cities."
): i lu.
SWM Waste Report. 1990d. "Missouri Awards Recycling Grants to Municipalities." 21(9):69.
Solid Waste Report. 1990e. "Current State Recycling Initiatives Marked by Innovative
Approaches. 21(2): 11.
Stevens, Barbara J. 1978. "Scale, Market Structure, and the Cost of Refuse Collection." The
Review of Economics and Statistics 60(3):438-448.
Taylor Alison C. and Richard M.Kashmanian. 1988. "Study and Assessment of Eight Yard
Waste Composting Programs Across the United States." Project funded by U S
Environmental Protection Agency through Fellowship Number U-913010-01-0.' Office of
Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Washington, DC.
Washington, DC: U.S.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1990. Mineral Commodity Summaries: 1990. Washington, DC.
Washington, DC: U.S.
U'S*
,- 1989' Fadng America's Trash: What
id Waste? Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
°f Ec°n0mic A113^8- 1990. Survey of Current
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1989. Consumer Expenditure Survey
Integrated Survey Data, 1984-1986. Bulletin 2333. wnuuure survey.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1990. Producer Prices and Price Indexes,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Office of Solid Waste. 1988a. Characterization
WuS!££ DC ^ UnitedStates WO-2000. Update. EPA/530^E-88 033
n
' 1988b' National Survey °f Solid Waste (Municipal)
D5" reP01t prepared by Westat' Iac' EPA/530-SW88-034.
m-eoo^^^^ 1988c- The Solid Waste
Dilemma. An Agenda for Action. Appendices A-B-C. PB88-251145. Washington,' D.G
R-5
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste, 1989a. Recycling Works: State
and Local Solutions to Solid Waste Management Problems. EPA/530-SW-89-014
Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste. 1989b. The Solid Waste
Dilemma: An Agenda for Action. EPA/530-SW-89-019. Washington, DC.
Waird, Mary. "Recyclables Seen As Valuable." Recycling Times, December 19,1990.
Wall Street Journal. 1990 "It Sounds Like Rubbish, But They Need Trash." April 18, p. B1.
Wall Street Journal. 1990. "Think of Them as Your New Home... Think Recycle."
Advertisement by Huntsman Chemical Corporation, February 13, p. A13.
Waste Age. 1989. "Building Markets for Recyclables." March:44-196.
Waste Age. 1989. "Waste Age 1989 Refuse and Incineration Refuse-to-Energy Listings "
November: 169-182.
Water and Waste Treatment Journal. 1980. "Glass Recycling: A Commitment for the '80s "
23(l):38ff.
R-6
-------
APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION AND PROCUREMENT GUIDELINES
This appendix highlights state and national recycling legislation and procurement
guidelines that have been developed to stimulate demand for recyclables and avoid
market place gluts.
State legislatures have recently passed or introduced numerous pieces of
legislation concerning recycling. To help set the direction for local solid waste
management, some states are developing comprehensive waste management strategies.
In addition, some states are addressing local conditions and needs by sponsoring a range
of complementary programs, including funding pilot demonstration projects, awarding
technical assistance grants, and providing economic incentives.
At the regional level, states are grouping themselves into economic regions by
creating interstate compacts. For example, several northeastern states have joined
together to promote recycling. The June 1988 issue of Waste Age reports that
The coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) is advocating a coordinated
.comprehensive, solid waste management policy incorporating source reduction
and recycling, refuse-to-energy, and landfilling (Curlee, 1989, p. 8).
By acting as an economic region, states in compacts can tackle issues such as
developing long-term uses for the materials recovered from the solid waste stream and
promoting consumer acceptance of products made from such materials. Working
together as a region changes the nature of the relationship between states from market
competition (where each state seeks to unloadits own recovered materials) to one of
cooperation (where states work together to develop a market for all the materials
generated in the region). Compacts also enable states to pool resources for research and
development projects and joint ventures (Kovacs, 1988).
The federal government's role in promoting recycling includes establishing
procurement guidelines for purchasing items containing recovered materials, providing
technical assistance to states, funding research and development projects on the uses of
recovered materials, and supporting recycling and use of recovered materials with federal
tax incentive policies.
A.1 STATE SUMMARY
Recent nationwide surveys indicate that fifteen states, including the District of
Columbia, have enacted mandatory comprehensive recycling laws that set minimum
A-l
a 5
-------
requirements for local solid waste management plans (see Table A-l). Several statewide
laws set goals for recycling at 25 percent (although the goals range from 10 percent to 50
percent). For example, California and Washington have mandated a 50 percent recycling
goal, while Delaware and Wisconsin have a 10 percent goal. Some state recycling laws
have strong economic measures that take effect if the goals are not met (Curlee, 1989). -
Some states mandate local government and citizen participation in collection
efforts. For example, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington, Connecticut, New York,
the District of Columbia, and Pennsylvania mandate that citizens and businesses source-
separate "designated" recyclables. In Maine, source separation requirements apply only
to offices (NSWMA, 1989). New Jersey's 1987 "Mandatory Recycling Act" requires
that
• local governments design their own programs,
• county recycling plans identify how recyclables are to be processed and
marketed, and
• households separate at least three materials (to be selected by the local
governments).
The Act gave municipalities until 1989 to achieve a recovery rate of 25 percent. The state
provided $8 million in start-up aid to municipalities (Curlee, 1989).
Some states require local jurisdictions to offer or provide recycling as an option to
households. Oregon, one of the first states to promote recycling, enacted an "Opportunity
to Recycle" Law in 1983 that requires municipalities with populations over 4,000 to
provide recycling drop-off centers and offer curbside collection of recyclables at least
once per month. Household participation is voluntary (Curlee, 1989).
Minnesota, Oregon, Ohio, North Carolina, Washington, Wisconsin, and Hawaii
mandate that local governments provide curbside collection service in certain
communities (NSWMA, 1989 and Glenn, 1990). Meeting mandatory recycling goals is
often linked to permitting new disposal capacity and financing solid waste management
programs. For example, Maryland will not issue a permit to install or alter an incinerator
unless the host county has submitted a state-approved recycling plan (Snow, 1989).
Florida enacted solid waste legislation in 1988 designed to change people's solid
waste management habits, provide incentives for recycling, protect the environment,
A-2
-------
stimulate recycling markets, and conserve landfill space and waste-to-energy capacity.
During fiscal year 1988-89, Honda appropriated $28.7 million for local recycling
A-3
-------
TABLE A-l. STATE COMPREHENSIVE RECYCLING LAWS
State
California
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Recycling
Goal8
50%by2000b
25% by 1991
10% by "1994
35% by 1994
30% by 1995
25% c by 2000
25% by 1992
50% by 2000
25% by 1992
50% by 1994
20% by 1994 f
38% by 2000
20-30% by 2005
25% by 1993
35% by 2000
25%by 1992
40% by 1997
25% by 1993
25% by 1994
25% by 1997
maximum by
1993 possible^
40% by 2000
25% by 1995
50% by 1995
30% by 2000
10% by 2000
Mandated
Goal
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mandatory
Source
Separation
X
X
Xe
X
X
X
X
X
Mandatory Mandatory
Municipal Local
Recycling Recycling
Ordinance Planning
X
X
X
Xd .
*
X
X
X
. x
X X
X
X .
X
X
X
X
juiviuuvo 1MU VI jr
-------
programs and almost $1.3 million for research. Under the new law, each county was to
initiate a recycling program by July 1,1989 (Kirkpatric, 1988). County recycling
programs can be implemented either at a central location or through curbside collection
programs.
As shown in Table A-l, eleven states require local jurisdictions to include
recycling in solid waste management plans. In some cases, mandatory implementation of
the plan is not required.
Table A-2 describes other types of initiatives, such as redemption programs,
financial incentives, laws favoring procurement, and technical assistance, that states are
pursuing.
Redemption Programs
Current mandatory bottle deposit programs are effective in ensuring that items are
returned to manufacturers for reuse or recycling. Roth reports that bottle reclamation in
states with bottle deposit laws averages 90 percent or better. Deposit programs typically
require the consumer to pay a five-cent deposit on beverage containers, which can be
redeemed when the bottles are returned to the retailer. When states began bottle-deposit
programs in the 1970's, the intent was to encourage reflllable bottles; now, however,
manufactures opt for recycling.
In addition to beverage containers, some jurisdictions have recently established
redemption programs for tires, automobile batteries, and motor oil. For example,
Minnesota charges a $1 fee on the sale of new tires, which helps fund a tire-recycling
facility (Andress, 1989). Currently, five states have legislation requiring retailers to
accept old batteries at the time of a sale. Three states (Minnesota, Washington, and
Rhode Island) charge a fee if an old battery isn't returned at the time of purchase (Glenn
1990).
Florida's advance disposal fee is a variation of the deposit idea. Under this law,
manufacturers are assessed one cent per container (i.e., glass, plastic, plastic-coated
paper, aluminum, and other metals) on containers that are not recycled at a sustained rate
of 50 percent by October 1,1992. The fee increases to 2 cents in 1995 if the target is not
met by October 1,1995 (Andress, 1989).
A-5
i I
-------
CO
C?
O
o
Q
s
CO
O
CO
1
I
CO
es
I
«
3 B
es '
iSJ
-A
s
en
"
-
1 §
2 "a
.
•"
lllil
X!
x
X
.2
,1
.1 9
i -
o
|
2
8
§
«i2u
•— ."2 .s
.I*11
•3 »5 g
R &t3
X
XX
11
X
X
X
X
XX
•118
I 1 8
6 3 §
x
X X
X
X
.a
o
_:
X
X
X
X
i3
A-6
S
CQ
ir
Is
&4 U
§ o
« 2?
*3 i^*
co ^
S.*O •
QOQI
X X
X X
X
X
X
XX
X
II
X
,x
X
X
X
.3
•a
£
g'g g>
S 11
oo e o
sli
X XX
X
X
5 J 3
•1 -I
-------
Q
|
O
O
£
c
u
W
I
fa
O
CA
U
a
u
Q
e
u
w
J
a
C/3
w
SQ
H
3S
as
11
•s-a
X
X
XX
X
X
— M
X!
XXX
X
XXX
X
XX
X
X X
X X
H
t« S
5«
X
XXX
X
X
1
on
.§
I
i
I
i
A-7
1 .
-------
(CONTINUED)
CO
5*
^j
2
0
o
os
eu
1
-j
1
W
I
fa
O
CO
y
2
OS
C3
S
S
1
Q
W
B
S
a
CO
3
w
ea
S
1
jg
W
I.
i
Cfi
•
|S
en
£'!
I-H
Ju
Q
H;S
a|l
2"s e &
|.2o.2
W>3 O a)
S
.§•2.1
QW
*• 0. i
'|o||fl
Q es «
s
s
b
State offers technical
assistance for waste reduction
Counties must develop waste
management plans. Disposal
surcharge funds program.
State has lower freight rates fc
recyclables.
XX XX
X X
X
X X
X XX
XX X
X
•I
Jca
O S3
fj O jf §>
J S S 8
s; o o o
Recycling program funded by
disposal surcharge.
Deposit on batteries.
Commercial sector must
source-separate wastes as of
1/89.
X X
X X
•
X X
X
X X
X
X
X X
Ctt *Q
I J
> w
"S.
S3 »T3
O •£•
OH W
01
Local solid waste plans must
include recycling, but plans ar
not required.
Solid Waste Fund funded by
franchise tax on landfill
owners.
Local governments allowed to
mandate source separation.
X
XXX
X
X
X
X
*J
g .2
en 2 .C
1 £ !
continued
A-8
-------
O
en
O
O
£
O
a
OS
E
O
8
OS
a
Q
a
H
u
a
a
en
•P
£<
ill.!
"Els
.
'i a
».IS o
3 &!•••
H*
S 1
Js>.
e
0,a«
g S
X
X
X
X
.3
a
I
11
a 9
's ll
[|'||
J 03 OS,
X
X
x
x
I
O
O\
A-9
-------
Financial Incentives
Three main types of tax incentives are available for recycling activities:
investment tax credits, sales tax exemptions, and property tax exemptions (U. S.
Congress, OTA, 1989).
Six states offer tax incentives to promote recycling activities. For example,
Oregon gives income tax credits for the purchase of recycling equipment and facilities.
New Jersey gives investment credits of 50 percent for buying recycling equipment.
Property tax exemptions are offered in Indiana for buildings, equipment, and land used
for recycling operations. Wisconsin offers tax exemptions for equipment and facilities as
well as business property tax exemptions for recycling equipment. North Carolina allows
industrial and corporate tax credits and exemptions for recycling equipment and facilities
(Curlee, 1989).
Low-interest loans and loan guarantees for investments in recycling equipment
and operations can lower companies' financing costs. For example, New Jersey's low-
interest loan program provided about $3 million to 12 businesses in its first three years
(Andress, 1989).
Procurement Guidelines
To increase demand for recycled products, some states are enacting laws that
"favor" procurement of recycled products. These state laws range from suggestions that
state agencies should purchase products that contain recycled materials to price
preferences for state purchases of recycled products (Andress, 1989). For example,
Oregon allows its state departments to pay up to 5 percent more for recycled products that
contain either 50 percent industrial waste or 25 percent postconsumer waste, as compared
to products made from virgin materials. Vermont has set goals for purchasing 25 and
40 percent recycled goods by 1990 and 1993, respectively. The procurement program in
New York provides a 10 percent price preference and requires that products have a
recycled content of at least 40 percent California's law provides a 5 percent price
preference and requires a recycled content of 50 percent, including 10 percent post-
consumer waste (Curlee, 1989). In Illinois, The Solid Waste Management Act of 1986
requires the total volume of paper and paper products purchased by the state's central
purchasing agency to contain at least 25 percent recycled materials by 1992 and at least
40 percent by 1996 (Solid Waste Report, 1990e).
A-10
-------
State paper procurement policies have not had much collective effect on the
markets because the definition of "recycled content" varies state by state. For example,
while New York requires a minimum of 40-percent recycled fiber content in its paper,
Maryland specifies an 80-percent recycled fiber content The lack of uniformity among
states makes manufacturers unwilling to provide adequate supplies of products and,
therefore, contributes to increased prices for recycled products. This absence of common
definitions and specifications for recycled products underscores the importance of federal
guidelines. In fact, since the federal government issued guidelines for recycled paper in
June 1988, ten northeast states have agreed to adopt them for state purchases (Andress,
1989).
Technical Assistance
Some states assist communities by sponsoring pilot projects and providing
technical assistance. This help can answer questions and overcome skepticism, especially
in communities that have little or no recycling experience (Andress, 1989).
Here are some examples of state technical assistance programs:
__ JT -------- -— — — " •*"» *v**«** w* Aw^j.wA*tu. J.WWJT w-uiig ]JM.\JgL oLilSy Virginia S
Department of Waste Management has made $100,000 in grants available to
local governments for demonstration programs. Virginia expects all its local
governments to gain useful information from the demonstration programs
(Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Waste Management, 1989).
Pennsylvania also recently awarded $577,948 in grants and loans from the
newly created Environmental Technology Fund. Some of the money will be
used to study the use of recycled plastic polymers, develop a computer bulletin
board to serve as a communications network for the recycling industry and
study the chemistry of a de-inking and defibering process for wastewater (Solid
waste Keportj
Missouri will award $1.2 million to cities, counties, local governments, and non-
profit groups to establish aluminum, glass, and paper recycling programs that
emphasize collection, marketing, and composting (Solid Waste Report, 1990d).
Under Public Act 86-256, Illinois is providing $1.25 million in recycling grants
to cities with populations over 20,000. Grant recipients will be required to
implement pilot recycling projects that demonstrate the economic feasibility and
environmental benefits of a combination of recycling methods (i.e., curbside
collection, drop-off and buy-back centers) (Solid Waste Report, 1990c)
A-ll
-------
• Minnesota will award Martin County and Wright County grants of $2 million
each for planned municipal solid waste composting facilities (Solid Waste
Report, 1990b).
NATIONAL SUMMARY
The federal government is using a variety of initiatives to supplement and support
states in solving their solid waste problems, to expand or increase market development, to
coordinate research and technology transfer, to award research and demonstration grants,
and to set minimum requirements for state programs.
Pending Legislation
Current pending federal legislation is aimed at stimulating recycling by requiring
government agencies to use recycled paper, compost for highway planting, and tire
fragments for rubberized asphalt in paving.
Financial Incentives
Industrial development bond (IDBs) are an important federal economic
development tool for state and local governments. State and local agencies issue the
bonds, which pay interest that is exempt from federal taxation. Expanding the use of
IDBs to include a range of recycling projects would give states more low-cost ways to
support recycling markets (Andress, 1989).
Procurement Guidelines
Section 6002 of the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requires EPA
to establish guidelines for federal agencies to buy recycled products. EPA is responding
by establishing procurement guidelines for an expanded product list. This list includes
such products as recycled paper, re-refined oil, remanufactured tires, and building
insulation made from recycled materials (Keller, 1988).
Federal government purchases have both a direct and an indirect impact on the
marketplace. Government purchases are of sufficient size to directly influence industry to
invest in research and equipment for using recycled materials. (Recent studies indicate
that federal government purchases represent about 7 percent of the Gross National
Product) Federal government purchases can have an indirect effect on the market
because private agencies and states frequently adopt the purchasing standards and
A-12
-------
specifications set by the federal government In addition, private agencies and states can
purchase recycled paper from the same vendors as the government (Keller, 1988).
Technical Assistance
Federal support is important in such areas as funding states and universities to
develop new technologies, funding demonstration projects, funding research into
manufacturing processes to identify specific products or components of products that
create problems for recycling, creating a national clearing house of information on
successful recycling activities, and determining what products the government can
purchase that are made from recovered materials rather than from virgin sources
(Andress, 1989).
A-13
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
PAPER AND PAPERBOARD INDUSTRY PROFILE
The flow of secondary materials to the paper and paperboard industry occurs because
waste paper, after treatment, is an accepted substitute for raw material (pulp) consisting of virgin
fiber. Newsprint, for example, may be made entirely of pulp produced from fiber that most
recently was standing timber, alternatively the direct source of the pulp may be old newspapers
recovered from a community recycling program. A dual perspective is necessary to completely
discuss statistics on the flow of secondary materials. When the emphasis is on an intermediate or
final product, for example, kraft paperboard, the quantities of different waste paper grades (and
virgin material), which are inputs to the manufacture of that product are described. Conversely,
when the emphasis is on a grade of waste paper, the quantities of different intermediate or final
products whose manufacture uses that grade are described. The organization of this appendix
corresponds to these two different ways of portraying material flows: by intermediate or final
product and by grade of waste paper.
Following the presentation of past and present statistics on secondary materials and the
production of paper and paperboard, the appendix briefly summarizes recent governmental
initiatives to influence the use of secondary materials, including waste paper. Although not
exhaustive, it conveys the range of market interventions that could substantially affect the paper
and paperboard industry, making it a very different industry in the future.
B.I RAW MATERIALS
Table B-l provides a complete listing of the primary products (intermediate and final)
that paper, paperboard, and construction paper generate. Figure B-l shows the general flow of
paper and paperboard products from the manufacture of intermediate and final products to the
disposal of wastepaper and paperboard through landfilling and incinerating or through recycling.
The demand for raw materials, hence the demand for virgin or secondary pulp, originates
in die input selections chosen by the operators of paper and paperboard mills. Almost all paper
and paperboard mills that consume wood pulp use captive, virgin raw materials. In 1968,
89.4 percent of all wood pulp consumed in domestic paper mills was produced from captive,
virgin raw materials. Paper or paperboard mills tied directly to pulp mills at the same location
consumed most of this captively produced wood pulp. Conversely, almost all wastepaper is
B-l
-------
TABLE B-l. PRINCIPAL PRODUCT CATEGORIES FOR PAPER
Category
Product Group
Principal Products
Paper
Paperboard
Newsprint
Printing and writing
papers
Packaging and
industrial
Tissue
Containerboard
Boxboard and other
paperboard
Construction Construction
Newspapers
Books, magazines, commercial printing, office
papers, forms, bond, cotton fiber, file folders,
computer paper, envelopes, etc.
Sacks, bags, wrapping paper, shipping sacks,
industrial papers, etc.
Toilet, facial, napkins, toweling, packaging, etc.
Corrugated boxes
Cartons, plates, cups, tube, can and drum, milk
cartons, pad backs, etc.
Insulating board, pressed board, etc.
Source: Franklin Associates, 1988.
B-2
-------
Paper grades
*
Paper Grades
Transport
Delivered ~~
paper grades
Disposal through
Landfilling or •*
Incineration Wast
= — ' disp
U.S. Forest
•
Pulp wood
i
Virgin Fiber
Pulping
i
Paper pulp
r
Fiber Blending
i
Fiber finished
r
Conversion to
Paper Grades
Conversion to Paper
Products &
Distribution
X Rnal product
Finished Product
Consumption &
Old Product
Management
Secondary pulp
Waste Paper
Treatment
I
i Delivered
waste paper
Waste Paper
Transport
Waste i
paper
!»/__*_
Waste Paper paper Export to Rest
9 paper Waste p
Josed recove
•- i-tecyciing —- of World
red 1
Waste
paper
Other Uses
Figure B-1. Flow of Paper and Paperboard Production
B-3
I I
-------
consumed by independent mill operations that depend on purchased wastepaper for raw
materials. This is true even for those organizations with wastepaper dealer subsidiaries (Franklin
Associates, 1989).
According to the American Paper Institute (API), the U.S. has approximately 600 pulp,
paper, paperboard, and building products mills. Of these 600 mills, 200 almost exclusively use
wastepaper for their fibrous raw material, and 300 use some wastepaper, leaving 100 that use
only virgin raw materials.
Paper mills that rely on virgin wood pulp are concentrated in the South, Northeast, North
Central states, and the West Coast, where commercial timberlands are located. Mills that use
paper stock are located predominantly in the East, North Central, and Middle Atlantic states,
close to population centers that generate paper stock and consume mill outputs (Franklin
Associates, 1989).
Over the next three years, the demand for recycled fiber is expected to grow at two times
the rate of demand for virgin fiber. One Canadian mill is currently producing 340,000 tons of
recycled newsprint a year with 55 percent recycled fiber content. Another recycled newsprint
mill will open late in 1990, and two or three other producers plan to start making recycled
newsprint in 1991. Three new newsprint recycling mills are planned in the U.S. (API)
B.2 PRODUCTS CONTAINING RECYCLED POSTCONSUMER MATERIALS
Wastepaper and paperboard are subdivided into five main categories or grades:
• old newspapers,
• old corrugated containers,
• mixed paper,
• high-grade deinMng paper, and
• pulp substitutes.
Although the Paper Stock Institute of America lists over 49 grades of wastepaper and 31 other
specialty grades, recyclable grades fall into these five divisions (API).
The first four categories are composed at least partially of postconsumer wastepaper—
products that have served the purpose they were manufactured for and have been recycled or
source-separated (API). Old newspaper (ONP) consists primarily of newspapers discarded by
B-4
-------
households, although unsold newspapers and publication scrap1 are also included hi this
category. Old corrugated containers (OCC) consist of both used corrugated boxes, usually
generated by the commercial sector, and new corrugated cuttings from converter plants.2 OCC is
used for manufacturing recycled paperboard, although it has secondary uses in the production of
unbleached kraft paperboard and semichemical paperboard. Mixed paper, or unsorted
wastepaper, is the lowest grade of wastepaper; it is predominantly used to produce recycled
paperboard and construction paper and board. High-grade deinking papers consist of sorted,
high-quality office wastepaper and printed scrap from printing and converting plants. This grade
is primarily used to make tissue paper but is also used to make fine printing and writing papers.
In contrast to the four categories of wastepaper and paperboard described above, the final
category, pulp substitutes, is not postconsumer scrap. Pulp substitutes consist of scrap from
printing and converting plants and mills, and neither manufacturing nor converting scrap are
categorized as postconsumer waste. Because of their source, pulp substitutes are the highest
quality wastepaper. These can be used as direct substitutes for wood pulp. Pulp substitutes are
used primarily to manufacture fine printing and writing papers, recycled paperboard, and tissue
papers (Franklin Associates, Ltd., 1989).
Table B-2 illustrates two possible methods of presenting data on the use of recycled
wastepaper in the manufacture of specific end uses: (1) by wastepaper grade recycled, and (2) by
secondary product manufactured from the recycled wastepaper. Reading Table B-2 by column
(method 1), the upper numbers describe the amount of each type of wastepaper used in the
manufacture of a certain product, while the lower figures are the percentage of raw materials
each waste grade represents in the manufacture of that product. Reading Table B-2 by row
(method 2), the numbers represent the amounts of a specified waste grade that are used in the
manufacture of different secondary products and sum to the total amount of wastepaper of each
grade recycled in the U.S.
Reading Table B-2 by column demonstrates the relative importance of the recycled
materials to the manufacture of a specific good. For example, in 1987,5.3 million tons of tissue
products were produced. The tissue production used 2.2 million tons of secondary fiber, giving a"
1 Publication scrap is pressroom scrap generated in producing newsprint
SUCh M e™*0***. ba§s. cartons, and plates, from paper and
B-5
-------
Ed
B
A
~
C5
u
fe
I
W
g
H
CO
1
O
U
w
CO
ea
I
^ o3 *"•
n
vo
po' c>o
rf 6? op
i™^ en
VO
C^ ^5 ^P
O OO
'
oo rt'
o'o' oo'
S
V^
o'o'
~ g-
oo o«n o'o
o oo o o\
.8 SS
oo
p o\ pp
o o • o* o
11
•o
o
3
(N
o" o oo o* o o' o o o'
'"
o'o"
O O O OO O O
o'o o' <*i o'o'
o \o . .SH
O«o t»ii-i
o— * o'tn
o
r^ oo
O ^
oo oo
« 00
O
VI
t
O
o
en
n
e>
>
1
en
gj
in
ON
CN
°°.
OO
r~
en
es
en
u
•S
.s
I
I
a.
a
I
•3
3
ber
Bottom nu
i other pre
I i
•*& £
a a
•i „'
^•1 3
||| i
^ s ••§ =
* TS g ;=
.a-3 S-*
ber
des
F
*Top
blnclu
cNo st
Sourc
B-6
-------
secondary materials utilization rate of 42 percent. High-grade deinking and pulp substitutes
accounted for 79 percent of the secondary fiber used in tissue manufacture, with the remainder
coming from postconsumer waste and lower grades of wastepaper, including 197,000 tons of old
newsprint
Reading Table B-2 by row gives the amount of primary fiber that generated the
wastepaper, the amount of wastepaper recovered, the amount of secondary fiber used in the
production of other goods, and the net quantity exported For example, 11.1 million tons of old
corrugated containers (OCC) were recovered in 1987. Of that, 290,000 tons were recycled into
paper products, 1.8 million tons into unbleached kraft paperboard, 1.6 million tons into
semichemical paperboard, 5.3 million tons into recycled paperboard, 232,000 tons into
construction paper and paperboard; 1.9 million tons were exported.
This latter method of reading Table B-2 by row focuses on the amount of each type of
wastepaper recycled. Thus its focus is on the generation of secondary material rather than on
utilization, which is the focus of the first method (reading by column). Each approach is useful
for determining the secondary materials markets most likely to use the postconsumer paper
generated as a result of the materials separation requirements.. For example, Table B-2 shows
that a relatively small amount of OCC (one row in the matrix) is used in the manufacture of fine
printing and writing papers, newsprint, tissue, draft packaging paper, and construction paper and
board (several columns in the matrix); however, 48 percent of OCC is recycled overall.
Mandatory separation of OCC from other waste may increase recycling of OCC, but current
trends show that industries manufacturing fine printing and writing papers, newsprint, kraft and
packing paper, and construction paper and board probably will not increase their use of recycled
OCC.
Table B-2 illustrates that the use of wastepaper and paperboard varies greatly by grade.
Certain grades are used only in a few product categories. For example, the only secondary uses
of mixed paper are in the manufacture of tissue and recycled paperboard. OCC is at the other
extreme: it is an input for the manufacture, of almost every product category, with the exception
of newsprint and bleached paperboard (which uses only virgin paper inputs). Patterns of reuse
reflect considerations of technical feasibility, cost, and consumer preference. The next section
discusses the use of secondary paper and paperboard, so the perspective shifts from secondary
materials to products, beginning with newsprint
B-7
-------
B.2.1 Production of Paper and Paperboard Products from Secondary Materials
B3J.1 Newsprint
ONP is virtually the only recycled wastepaper used in the manufacture of newsprint (see
Table B-2). In 1970, U.S. newsprint manufacturers used 371,000 tons of ONP in the production
of 3.464 million tons of newsprint for a utilization rate of 10.7 percent (Franklin Associates,
1989). Table B-2 shows that the use of ONP increased severalfold by 1987: 1.386 million tons
of ONP were used in the production of 5.843 million tons of domestic newsprint, for a secondary
materials utilization rate of 23.7 percent (Franklin Associates, 1989). Capacity to produce
newsprint in the U.S. in 1987 was 5.9 million tons. Only 1.5 million tons could be attributed to
the 7 recycled mills in operation in 1987 that used either 100 percent recycled fiber or a
significant portion of ONP, leaving almost 75 percent of the market to mills using virgin inputs
(U.S. Congress, 1989). By 1990, total annual capacity for U.S. newsprint mills is projected to be
7.021 million tons. Of this, 1.434 million tons should consist of recycled newsprint, for a
secondary materials utilization rate of 20.4 percent The capacity of mills using secondary
materials is approximately 20 percent that of mills using virgin inputs (Franklin Associates,
1989).
Table B-3 contains a common list of barriers to increasing the use of ONP: the addition
of capacity favors expansion rather than greenfield construction; mills are locked into virgin pulp
supply arrangements either through vertical integration or contracts; the supply of quality ONP is
perceived to be unreliable; and the current location of mills3 implies high transportation costs for
ONP. For a substantial increase in the relative rate of secondary material use to occur, it is not
enough for the number of mills using secondary material to increase: the economics of new mills
must change.4
The barriers to increasing the use of ONP may be less effective in the future than they
were in the past (even as recently as several years ago). The U.S. paper industry is rapidly
increasing recycling capacity,5 which is leading to unprecedented growth in waste paper demand
3 Newsprint mills using virgin fiber tend to be located near forest and water resources, far from the population
centers that are the source of ONP.
4 Secondary-pulp-using mills could increase the proportion of secondary pulp. The technological knowledge exists
to manufecture newsprint from 100 percent ONP using a deinking process patented by Garden State Paper
Company; however, the economic barriers are so high that publishers are not yet increasing their demand for
ONP (U.S. Congress, 1989).
5 Eighteen producers of newsprint plan to purchase deinking units in the near future (Hill and Knowlton, 1990).
B-8
-------
1
LND PAPERBOARD
•«5
C5
1
1
3
^
o
w
D
Q
•
Waste Paper
|
**"* >^3
Lfa1 >»
Too expensive to expand ca]
Integrated operations with v
Contracts with virgin mills
Quality of added ONP suppl
Economics of transportation
unfavorable
.*a
1
CO
1:1 •§)
^> S &*
y "hjv ^
S .a *M>OH
si'^Sj
9*2 M. 1 Q,
S Q '*"* S *^
« B) (ioS § *C
UJIr
•a
a
1
P*
Exhausted supply
Competition (tissue, exports
Limited sorted office paper
1
en
t« J3
fcr ^^
P^'S n-l
s-^^
60 C **
•S.9§
B-H w
1 &.S
III
00
a
•a e
8 O
Fine Printing a
Writing Pap
Exhausted supply
Competition, exports
Limited sorted office paper
•a
a
1
2
JH
I
S
va
1
bO
a
CO
s
Performance requirement
Competition from plastic
jg
w>
a
t
tUO
c
'Eb
c3
II
c3 OH
Performance requirement
•a
a
-
"O
a
.a
E
0
§
800
a '8
1 *
«3 "
*g^ 0
S4! §
111
.11-
UOQ
jS
ffi
T3 T3
c3 e3
•P JO
Bleached Paper
Recycled Paper
Declining industry
Competition from fiberglass
JS
bh
a
>
T3
§
s,
MH
Construction Pa
Board
B-9
-------
by domestic mills (Franklin Associates, 1990). Industry executives predict that approximately 33
percent of all newsprint used in the U.S. will be recycled back into newsprint in 1995, up from an
11 percent rate in 1990. They expect this figure will reach 41 percent by the year 2000 and then
level off because of supply limitations (Hill and Knowlton, 1990).
Addressing the issue of quality, the Northeast Recycling Council (NERC)6 is committed
to ensuring that existing supplies of ONP meet the "Number 6 News" specification as defined in
the Guidelines for Paper Stock: PS-88 Domestic Transactions. Furthermore, member states
(Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode island, Vermont, and the Virgin Islands) share a common long-term goal to
develop and organize a regional ONP supply that meets, at a minimum, the "Number 89 Special
News" specifications as defined in the guidelines. Several member states have funding available
to assist the development of marketing cooperatives that provide technical assistance to localities
to achieve this goal (NERC).
A leadership opinion study (that polled 26 of 36 newsprint producers in the U.S. and
Canada) conducted for the Black Clawson Company, one of the largest North American
manufacturers of recycling machinery, indicates that newsprint company executives strongly
endorse newsprint recycling and predicts that the rate of recycling newsprint back into newsprint
wiU triple by 1995. Although 30 percent of the surveyed producers currently produce recycled
newsprint, nearly every producer expects to make recycled newsprint by 1995. Roughly one-
third anticipate producing nothing but recycled newsprint in 1995; half will make both recycled
and virgin newsprint. Only one of the 26 responding firms states said that it will not produce
recycled newsprint Industry leaders hold these positive views even though they are concerned
about costs, availability of adequate supplies of ONP, and the quality of post-consumer newsprint
collected for recycling (Hill and Knowlton, 1990).
Some restructuring of the industry may occur. Carl C. Landegger, Chairman of Black
Clawson, comments, "In total, the amount of ONP currently bypassing the solid waste stream
appears to be seven million tons out of the 13.6 million tons used in the U.S. in 1989. This is
why newsprint industry leaders predict supplies of ONP will be tight when newsprint to
newspaper recycling approaches the 40 percent level [as promoted by the American Paper
Institute]" (Hill and Knowlton, 1990). Some producers are worried that as demand increases for
ONP, the price will also increase. Concerns over long-range ONP supply are prompting
newsprint producers to consider purchasing a waste paper dealer to assure a dependable source of
old newspapers (Hill and Knowlton, 1990).
6 Established in 1987.
B-10
-------
Fine Printing and Writing Papers
Products manufactured from recycled fine printing and writing papers are primarily
publishing and office products, such as books, brochures, magazines, stationery, commercial
printing, office papers, forms, bond, cotton fiber, file folders, computer paper, and envelopes
(EPA, 1988).
The higher grades of wastepaper, pulp substitutes and high-grade deinking paper, are
virtually the only types of recycled wastepaper used to manufacture fine printing and writing
papers. In 1970, U.S. producers of fine printing and writing papers used 736,000 tons of pulp
substitutes and high-grade deinking paper in a total production of 10.904 million tons, for a
utilization rate of 6.7 percent (Franklin Associates, 1989). Table B-2 shows that the use of
wastepaper had increased in 1987; 970,000 tons of pulp substitutes (74 percent of the wastepaper
used) and 336,000 tons of high-grade deinking paper (25 percent of the wastepaper used), along
with 12,000 tons of OCC, were used in a total production of 20.778 million tons of fine printing
and writing paper. Because the total production increased relatively more than the use of
wastepaper, the secondary materials utilization rate actually decreased to 6.3 percent (Franklin
Associates, 1989).
Increasing this utilization rate may not be possible immediately. Secondary fiber mills
compete with the larger, integrated world-class mills by offering high quality and low-cost
secondary fiber (U.S. Congress, 1989). Competition from tissue paper manufacturers and
increased exports can increase the cost of secondary fiber. Also, according to the Office of
Technology Assessment, most of the pulp substitutes and high-grade deinking paper generated
appears to be used already. The only immediate means to increase the supply of secondary fiber
is to increase the supply of products manufactured at converting and printing plants and paper
mills, thereby generating the cuttings that are pulp substitutes. Otherwise, increasing recycling
of sorted high-quality office paper is necessary to yield the needed secondary fiber (U.S.
Congress, 1989).
U.S. mills' capacity to produce fine printing and writing paper in 1988 was 22.7 million
tons, but only 9 mills had deinking facilities. Eighteen mills, however, had the capability to
produce products containing at least 50 percent wastepaper but had a combined capacity of only
one million tons annually, leaving almost 96 percent of the market to mills using virgin inputs
(U.S. Congress, 1989).
B-ll
-------
B3J.3 Tissue Paper
Toilet and facial tissue, napkins, toweling, diapers, wipes, and other sanitary papers are
the primary products manufactured from tissue paper (U.S. Congress, 1989).
Tissue paper manufacturers use-primarily the higher grades of wastepaper, pulp
substitutes, and high-grade deinking paper, while using the lower three grades to a lesser extent.
In 1970, U.S. tissue paper manufacturers used 819,000 tons of pulp substitutes and high-grade
deinking paper, 76,000 tons of ONP, 69,000 tons of OCC, and 7,000 tons of mixed papers in the
total production of 3.178 million tons of tissue paper, for a utilization rate of 26.1 percent
(Franklin Associates, 1989). Table B-2 shows that the use of wastepaper in 1987 increased to
2.246 million tons; 1.051 million tons of high-grade deinking paper (47 percent of the
wastepaper used), 726,000 tons of pulp substitutes (32 percent), 209,000 tons of OCC
(9 percent), 197,000 tons of ONP (8 percent), and 63,000 tons of mixed paper (3 percent) were
used in a total production of 5.301 million tons of tissue paper, for a secondary materials'
utilization rate of 45 percent (Franklin Associates, 1989).
The problems with increasing this utilization rate are similar to those encountered by the
fine printing and writing paper manufacturers. Tissue paper manufacturers compete with
manufacturers of fine printing and writing papers for wastepaper. Also, because the Office of
Technology Assessment states that most of the pulp substitutes and high-grade deinking paper
generated appears to be collected already, increasing the supply of cuttings generated as waste
from converting and printing plants and paper mills, as well as increasing the recycling of sorted
high quality office paper, is the route that stands to yield the needed secondary fiber (U.S.
Congress, 1989). An alternative to increasing the supply of pulp substitutes and high-grade
deinking paper is using lower grades of wastepaper in the manufacture of tissue paper.
Currently, the only companies employing this method are companies marketing then- products to
commercial establishments, which do not require the soft, white tissue that can only be produced
by the higher grades of wastepaper or virgin materials. Consumer preference strongly influences
the decisiomnaking of tissue manufacturers on this matter (U.S. Congress, 1989).
U.S. capacity to produce tissue paper in 1988 was 5.8 million tons, but only 20 to 40 mills
manufactured products containing at least 25 percent wastepaper. Some mills employ an
increased percentage of wastepaper using proprietary technology (U.S. Congress, 1989).
B-12
-------
B3.1.4 Kraft and Packaging Paper
The products manufactured from kraft and packaging paper are primarily sacks, bags,
wrapping paper, shipping sacks, and industrial papers (EPA, 1988).
Because of the high performance requirements demanded of kraft and packaging paper,
pulp substitutes and OCC are the dominant grades of wastepaper used to manufacture this paper,
high-grade deinking paper is used to a lesser extent Table B-2 shows that 5.1 million tons of
kraft and packaging paper were manufactured in 1987, with an annual secondary materials
utilization rate of approximately 5 percent (U.S. Congress, 1989). Barriers to increasing this rate
are the strength requirement of this paper and the strong competition from plastic bag
manufacturers faced by kraft and packaging paper bag manufacturers (U.S. Congress, 1989).
B.2.2.5 Unbleached Kraft Paperboard
Liherboard (outer facing for corrugated and solid fiber boxes) and folding cartons are the
primary products manufactured from unbleached kraft paperboard (U.S. Congress, 1989; API).
OCC is the dominant grade of wastepaper used to manufacture unbleached kraft
paperboard. In 1970, U.S. unbleached kraft paperboard manufacturers used 162,000 tons of
OCC in the total production of 11.541 million tons of unbleached kraft paperboard for a
utilization rate of 1.4 percent (Franklin Associates, 1989). Table B-2 shows that the use of
wastepaper increased to 1.9 million tons in 1987, virtually all of which was OCC. The
manufacture of 18.898 million tons of kraft and packaging paper included 1.755 million tons of
OCC (92 percent of the wastepaper used) for a secondary materials utilization rate of
10.1 percent (Franklin Associates, 1989). Because of the high performance requirements
demanded of unbleached kraft paperboard, this rate is not expected to increase. Nevertheless,
ongoing research is studying ways to enhance the strength of OCC, including using heat and '
higher pressure in board production, press drying in papermaking, separation of the linerboard
from the weaker medium, and enhancement with chemical additives (U.S. Congress, 1989).
B.2.1.6 Semichemical Paperboard
The center fluting in corrugated boxes is the primary product manufactured from
semichemical paperboard (API).
OCC is the dominant grade of wastepaper used to manufacture semichemical paperboard.
In 1970, semichemical paperboard manufacturers' secondary materials utilization rate was
approximately 21 percent (U.S. Congress, 1989). Table B-2 shows that this rate increased to
B-13 i
-------
32 percent in 1987. Manufacturers used approximately 1.8 million tons of wastepaper, virtually
all of which was OCC. The manufacture of 5.6 million tons of semichemical paperboard
included 1.645 million tons of OCC (91 percent of the wastepaper used) (Franklin Associates,
1989).
Technically, manufacturers of semichemical paperboard could achieve a higher
utilization rate. The higher-strength and durability demanded by U.S. shipping and legal
requirements are possible only by including low proportions of recycled material in the final
product (U.S. Congress, 1989).
B3.1.7 Bleached Paperboard
Sanitary packages such as milk cartons, frozen food cartons, and containers for moist,
liquid, and oily foods and folding cartons and food service items (cups and plates) are the
primary products manufactured from bleached paperboard (U.S. Congress, 1989; API).
In 1987, U.S. manufacturers produced 4.3 million tons of bleached paperboard using
virgin materials exclusively (U.S. Congress, 1989). Because of the strict legal sanitary
requirements, any significant use of secondary fiber is unlikely (U.S. Congress, 1989).
B3.1.8 Recycled Paperboard
Test liners, corrugating medium,7 filler chipboard for solid fiber boxes, folding cartons,
rigid boxes, gypsum wallboard, paper tubes and drums, panelboard, set-up boxes,8 and tablet
backing are the primary products manufactured from recycled paperboard (U.S. Congress, 1989).
ONP is used to manufacture folding boxboard, set-up boxboard, gypsum wallboard
facing, and tube can and drum paperboard (Franklin Associates, 1989). Otherwise, OCC and
pulp substitutes are the dominant wastepaper grades in many paperboard products (Franklin
Associates, 1989). Almost 50 percent of all wastepaper recycled in the U.S. is used to
manufacture recycled paperboard; the process uses no virgin raw materials (U.S. Congress,
1989). In 1970, manufacturers used 7.291 million tons of wastepaper in the total production of
6.981 million tons of recycled paperboard: 1.183 million tons of pulp substitutes, 2.995 million
tons of OCC, 1.437 million tons of ONP, and 1.676 million tons of mixed papers (Franklin
7 A conrugated medium is the corrugated or fluted paperboard used by corrugating plants to make corrugated
combined board, corrugated wrapping, etc. (Franklin Associates, Ltd. 1982).
8 Set-up boxboard is boxes in rigid form as contrasted with folding or collapsible boxes, made from a paperboard
that can be a solid or combination board ranging in thickness from 0.016 to 0.065 of an inch and weighing 60 to
206 pounds per 1,000 square feet Stiffness, rigidity, and resistance to abuse are essential qualities. The class
includes plain chipboard, filled newsboard, single news vat-lined chipboard, and single white vat-lined chipboard
(Franklin Associates, 1982). *
B-14
-------
Associates, 1989). Table B-2 shows that the 1987 production of recycled paperboard increased
to 8.508 million tons, using 9.121 million tons of wastepapen 5.258 million tons of OCC,
1.641 million tons of mixed paper, 1.274 million tons on ONP, 832,000 tons of pulp substitutes,
and 116 million tons of high-grade deinking papers (Franklin Associates, 1989).
The use of recycled paperboard for packaging products has been increasing as industries
attempt to lower costs (U.S. Congress, 1989). Competing plastics and virgin paperboard
industries cut into the recycled paperboard market, particularly in the packaging of high-quality
goods. In this case, the manufacturer tends to disdain recycled paperboard for fear that the
consumer will consider the product an inferior good. Secondary limitations on the use of
recycled paperboard are sanitary, health, weight, economic, and performance considerations
(U.S. Congress, 1989).
B,2.1.9 Construction Paper and Board
Roofing, siding, wallboard, and insulation board are the primary products manufactured
from construction paper and paperboard (U.S. Congress, 1989).
In 1970, U.S. manufacturers produced 3 million tons of construction paper and board.
That production steadily decreased until only 1.2 million tons were manufactured in 1987. The
manufacturing process used approximately 900,000 tons of wastepaper of all grades, including
277,000 tons of ONP and 232,000 tons of OCC, for a secondary materials utilization rate of
75 percent Because of competition from fiberglass and other materials, the construction paper
and board industry is expected to continue its decline and, therefore, its market for wastepaper
(U.S. Congress, 1989).
B.2.2 Net Exports of Wastepaper
Countries that lack significant forest resources, such as Mexico, Korea, Taiwan, Japan,
Italy, and Venezuela, rely on imports of U.S. wastepaper as raw material inputs to their paper and
paperboard mills (Franklin Associates, 1982). Countries in the Far East accounted for more than
half of U.S. exports of wastepaper in 1987 (U.S. Congress, 1989). Other conditions exist that
cause countries to import U.S. wastepaper: the gap in balance of trade with the U.S., the value of
their currency versus the U.S. dollar, and the excess cargo room in ships making return trips to
thek countries from the U.S. (Franklin Associates, 1989).
OCC dominates the export market, claiming about 40 percent of wastepaper exported.
Mixed paper and ONP are next, with each comprising approximately 20 percent of the market;
B-15
-------
pulp substitutes and high-grade deinking paper share the remaining 20 percent (U.S. Congress,
1989).
U.S. exports of wastepaper increased in 1987 to approximately 18 percent of wastepaper
recovered, compared with only 3 percent in 1970. Export amounts are calculated by determining
the net quantity exported—total exports less the quantity imported of that material. In 1970,
exports of wastepaper totalled 341,000 tons; that figure had increased to 4.295 million tons by
1987 (EPA, 1988). Exports of ONP from the United States to Canada may reach 700,000 tons in
1995 (Franklin Associates, 1990).
Increasing exports of wastepaper from the U.S. is subject to the cyclical demands of
foreign nations for these goods. Nevertheless, wastepaper exports to foreign nations should
continue to increase, although the recent glut of ONP has reduced export prices (U.S. Congress,
1989).
B3 CURRENT AND HISTORICAL STATISTICS ON SECONDARY MATERIALS
B3.1 Old Newspaper (ONP)
Over the last 15 years the quantity of ONP generated has increased along with the
quantity recovered as shown in Figure B-2. In 1987, the quantity of ONP diverted from the solid
waste stream reached a record of 4.3 million tons. The ONP recovery rate has tended slightly
upward as shown in Figure B-3. In 1987, the ONP recovery rate was 32 percent (Franklin
Associates, 1989). Some observers speculate that the upper limit of the recovery rate is 50 to
55 percent, although others assert that a 75 percent recovery is possible (Franklin Associates,
1989).
Figure B-4 demonstrates that ONP prices fluctuated dramatically in a cyclical pattern
between 1970 and 1988. Chicago manufacturers paid the highest prices in January 1978—over
$80 per ton. More typically, however, manufacturers' prices ranged from about $20 per ton to
about $60 per ton. The lows have been increasing over time: the lows in the early 1970's were
under $20 per ton, increasing to approximately $25 per ton in the early- to mid-1980's.
B-16
-------
Old 8-I
Newspapers
(million tons) 6-
4 • ' _ ffa0MSQ&&
2'
0 1 1 1 i
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988
Year
^ Old Newspapers *«*« Old
Newspapers Recovered
Figure B-2. Old Newspaper Generation and Recovery
Source: Bingham and Chandran, 1990.
B-17
-------
40 T
Proportion 25
of Old
Newspapers 20 • •
Recovered
(%) is-
10 •
5--
•4-
-t-
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988
Year
Figure B-3. Old Newspaper Recovery Rate
Source: Bingham and Chandran, 1990.
B-18
-------
CO
o
TO
CO
O
(0 O)
o o>
O T"
•=£
0> ca
Z E
at
CD in
S 0
B-19
-------
The increased public consciousness of the U.S. solid waste crisis contributed to the 1989
glut in the ONP market. State and local laws encouraging or mandating recycling created a
tremendous oversupply of ONP, because no corresponding demand for this material was
stimulated. Foreign demand for ONP also decreased during 1989, compounding the problem
(Franklin Associates, 1989).
The oversupply of ONP caused market prices for ONP to fall drastically. In June 1988, a
Barberton, Ohio, recycling center received $30 a ton for ONP. By late July 1989, the same
center was paying a broker $10 a ton to take the paper away. The newspaper glut cost
municipalities approximately $100 million in lost revenue for 1989 (Paul, 1989). Export prices
of wastepaper, particularly ONP, also decreased due to the excess supply (Franklin Associates,
1989).
Figure B-5 shows the amount of ONP used by paper and paperboard mills, the quantities
used in manufacturing products unrelated to paper and paperboard, and the quantities exported,
since 1977. Of the 4.3 million tons of ONP recovered hi 1987,1.4 million tons were recycled
into newsprint, 197,000 tons into tissue, 9,000 tons into unbleached kraft paperboard, 1.3 million
tons into recycled paperboard, 277,000 tons into construction paper and paperboard, and 300,000
tons into other uses; 840,000 tons were exported. One market for ONP that is unrelated to
newsprint and other types of paper and paperboard is cellulose insulation for buildings, for which
EPA specifies a minimum content standard of 75 percent recycled newsprint. Other products
that use secondary newsprint include animal bedding, artificial fire logs, mulch, and worm
bedding. Research is under way to test the feasibility of using ONP to clean up spills of
hazardous liquids and sludges, as well as using up to 5 percent ONP in the manufacture of
linerboard (Mullet, 1989).
Consumption of ONP by U.S. newsprint manufacturers is expected to increase by over 1
million tons between 1988 and 1995, a 71 percent increase. The demand for ONP for other uses
(such as as animal bedding, hydromulch, and molded pulp products) will gradually accelerate
(starting in 1991) to 50-plus percent in 1995.9 The combination of all of these factors leads to a
projected 1995 recovery of 8.0 million tons or 51.6 percent of new supply of newsprint (Franklin
Associates, 1990).
9 An alternative prediction is less bullish: because most of the firms that manufacture these products have abundant
supplies of ONP, the outlook for increasing the amount of ONP recycled by these industries is not bright (Mullet
1989).
B-20
-------
Thousand
tons
5,000 T
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
Year
1985 1986 1987 1988
Figure B-5. Utilization of Old Newspapers
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd., 1989.
B-21
-------
B.3.2 Old Corrugated Containers (OCC)
Over the last 15 years, the quantity of OCC generated has, like ONP, increased along
with the quantity recovered as shown in Figure B-6. The OCC recovery rate has tended slightly
upward as shown in Figure B-7. In 1987, the OCC recovery rate was 48 percent (Franklin
Associates, 1989).
Figure B-8 shows the amount of OCC used by paper and paperboard mills, as well as the
quantities exported, since 1970. Of the 11.1 million tons of OCC recovered in 1987,290,000
tons were recycled into paper products, 1.8 million tons into unbleached kraft paperboard,
1.6 million tons into semichemical paperboard, 5.3 million tons into recycled paperboard, and
232,000 tons into construction paper and paperboard; 1.9 million tons were exported (Franklin
Associates, 1989).
As with ONP, the capacity to utilize corrugated as a fiber furnish is increasing very
rapidly. These increases are being driven by increased demand for container board, the
economics of fiber supply, and the ability of the paper industry to increase production of
linerboard and corrugating medium by incremental expansions and "greenfield" (new) mills.
The projected capacity for 1995 and estimated actual usage indicate continued very strong
increases for corrugated recycling, most of which will be post-consumer OCC because box plant
cuttings are already fully utilized (Franklin Associates, 1990)
The recovery of corrugated is projected to be 18.8 million tons in 1995, a 51.6 percent
increase relative to 1988 (12.45 million tons). Over the same period, containerboard new supply
may increase at less than half that rate, by 19.8 percent. Consequently, recovery rates may
increase to 63 percent of OCC. Using present manufacturing techniques, the recovery of OCC
will approach the limits of recovery by 1995 (Franklin Associates, 1990).
B.3.3 Mixed Papers
Because the higher grades of wastepaper—high-grade deinking paper and pulp
substitutes—are in short supply, manufacturers are developing techniques to improve the
recyclability of mixed paper. Programs are starting in office buildings and homes to separate
higher quality mixed paper from other discards (API). As Figure B-9 illustrates, the recovery of
office paper has slowly increased in the last five years, but it is far outpaced by the increasing
quantities of office paper discarded (Franklin Associates, 1989). Of the 2.4 million tons of
mixed paper recovered in 1987, 63,000 tons were recycled into tissue paper and 1.641 million
tons recycled into paperboard; 707,000 tons were exported (Franklin Associates, 1989).
B-22
-------
Thousand
short tons
5,000 £—0—o—
0 o—o—°—o—o-
O O'
1970 1972
1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988
Year
Production •<>• Total Recovery
Figure B-6. Used Corrugated
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd., 1989.
B-23
-------
60.0,
Recovery
as a
percentage
of
production 20-°'
10.0
i 1 1 1 i 1 1
0.0
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988
Year
Figure B-7. Recovery of Used Corrugated Containers, 1970 to 1988
(in thousands of tons)
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd., 1989.
B-24
-------
Thousand
short tons
—*-*— o^O^—o-
1970
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988
Year
Consumption -O- Exports
Total Recovery
Figure B-8. Used Corrugated Containers
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd., 1989.
B-25
-------
Thousand
tons
1960
, 1965
1970 1975
Year
1980
Figure B-9. Office Paper Recovery and Discards
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd., 1989.
B-26
-------
B.3.4 High-Grade Deinking Paper
The quantity of high-grade deinking paper recovered has increased over the last decade as
shown in Figure B-10. The amount recovered tended slightly upward for the first 9 years but has
begun to increase more dramatically in the last few years (Franklin Associates, 1989). Because
all the high-grade deinking paper generated appears to be collected for recycling every year, this
increase is probably due to an increased supply of products manufactured at converting and'
printing plants and paper mills (U.S. Congress, 1989).
Figure B-10 shows the amount of high-grade deinking paper consumed by paper and
paperboard mills, as well as the quantities exported since 1976. Of the 2.072 million tons of
high-grade deinking paper recovered in 1987, 336,000 tons were recycled into fine printing and
writing paper, 1.1 million tons into tissue, 7,000 tons into kraft and packaging paper, 52,000 tons
into unbleached kraft paperboard, 116,000 million tons into recycled paperboard, and 2,000 tons
into construction paper and paperboard; 526,000 tons were exported (Franklin Associates, 1989)!
B.3.5 Pulp Substitutes
Of the 3.2 million tons of pulp substitutes recovered in 1987,970,000 tons were recycled
into fine printing and writing paper, 726,000 tons into tissue paper, 374,000 tons into kraft and
packaging paper, and 832,000 tons into recycled paperboard; 300,000 tons were exported
(Franklin Associates, 1989).
B.4
^ERVENTIONS BY FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL
The recent period of falling ONP prices (see section B.3.1 above) and the associated glut
raised concerns over the economic viability of residential recycling programs and the prospect of
reduced participation rates in general as residents watched their carefully separated newspapers
go to landfills and municipal waste combustors. Dane County, Wisconsin, temporarily lifted a
ban on landfilling old newspapers after its newspaper broker halved the amount he would
purchase. Youngstown, Ohia, stopped picking up old newspapers in July 1989 and asked its
residents to store them, although soon it might ask residents to just throw them away (Paul,
1989). Many different programs have been considered by state and federal governments to
stabilize the market for waste paper.
B-27
-------
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
Year
Consumption
Exports
Total Recovery
Figure B-10. High-Grade Deinking Paper Industry
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd., 1989.
B-28
-------
B.4.1 Incentives
In an effort to decrease the amount of paper and paperboard products combusted or
landfffled, federal, state, and local governments have enacted legislation encouraging recycling
of these products. One such type of state legislation provides incentives targeted toward
manufacturers using secondary materials. These incentives include tax credits or exemptions,
grants, low-interest loans, industrial bonds, and accelerated depreciation for recycling equipment
purchases (EPA, 1988). This section focuses on subsidies that operate through the tax system.
The use of investment tax credits is under study by Massachusetts and New York and is
already available in New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. In Oregon, under the
Business Energy Tax Credit, companies can write off, over 5 years, 35 percent of the cost of any
equipment used only for recycling; the Pollution Control Facility Tax credit is available to
recycling facilities and materials recovery facilities. Both these programs have had minimal
effects on recycling (U.S. Congress, 1989).
Illinois, New Jersey, and Wisconsin have passed sales tax exemptions. For example, in
Wisconsin, collectors, processors, and manufacturers that use recycled materials are exempt'from
paying the state's 5 percent sales tax on equipment that uses recyclables or on the recyclables
themselves (U.S. Congress, 1989). A study of the tax incentives offered by the state of Illinois
found that these incentives did not prove effective, because tax liabilities are at most 1 percent of
sales (EPA, 1988).
Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Wisconsin administer property tax exemptions
that recyclers can claim; California provides a consumption tax credit, and North Carolina allows
an income tax deduction (U.S. Congress, 1989).
B.4.2 Procurement
Governments attempt to stimulate recycling through the procurement practices of their
offices. The idea is to increase the demand for recycled products by specifying a minimum-
content standard of recycled materials in certain paper and paperboard products. Most of the
recycled products the government purchases come from the print/writing and tissue paper grades
(EPA, 1988).
As mandated by Section 6002 .of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
EPA published its final revised procurement guidelines for paper products in the June 22 1988 '
Federal Register, requiring any government procurement agencies using federal funds to'comply
B-29
-------
with minimum content standards in purchasing paper products costing more than $10,000
annually (Waste Age July, 1989). For example, most printing and writing paper products must be
composed of at least 50 percent wastepaper and most tissue products composed of 20 to
40 percent wastepaper (EPA, 1988). The EPA guidelines are generating a great deal of interest
in expanding mill capacity to use waste paper in the printing and writing grades as well as
newsprint The list of mills that are capable of producing recycled products is growing
constantly in response to the markets created by the guidelines (Keller, 1989).
Programs at the state level include both set-aside and price preference programs. Set-
aside programs allocate some fixed portion of the state's purchases to products containing
recycled material, although the programs usually do not specify a set composition. Price
preference programs in effect reduce by 5 or 10 percent the price of products containing recycled
material, thereby allowing the recycled products to compete with virgin products that are
cheaper. States with active paper procurement programs include California, Connecticut,
Maryland, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington. The following are considering
similar legislation: Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey,
Ohio, Texas, and Vermont (EPA, 1988).
B.4.3 Minimum Content Standards
Minimum content standards enacted in Connecticut require publishers that print or sell
more than 40,000 copies of a newspaper in that state to manufacture newsprint containing at least
40 percent recycled material in at least 20 percent of the newspaper's sheets. The law takes
effect by 1993 and increases the 40 percent recycled content requirement to 90 percent of the
newspaper's sheets by 1997. Connecticut formed a task force to make recommendations on the
implementation of the policy. The existing legislation does not include any penalties for
noncompHance (Paul, 1989).
In 1988, Florida passed legislation requiring newspaper publishers to pay a tax of
10 cents per ton of the virgin content of the newsprint they consume.9 This policy went into
effect on January 1,1989. Although the size of the tax is small, it provides a message to
publishers indicating public preference for increased recycling. The recovery rate for
oS°f neWSPdnt ^ aPPIOXimately $6°°/t0n' ** tax is equal to approximately 0.16 percent of
B-30
i 0
-------
newspapers in Florida is currently estimated at 30 percent If this recovery rate rises to
50 percent by 1992, the law will be rescinded; if the recovery rate does not reach 50 percent by
1992, the tax will increase to 50 cents per ton (U.S. Congress, 1989).
Most recently, California passed legislation in September 1989 that is similar to
Connecticut's law. California's law requires publishers to use recycled newsprint for 10 percent
of their newsprint needs in 1991. The amount used must increase by 10 percentage points per
year until a rate of 50 percent is achieved in 1995. Violation of the law is classified as a
misdemeanor and civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation may be applied. The state will use
revenue generated by penalties to defray the expenses of implementing the law. After the bill
passed in California, Golden State, the largest user of ONP in California, announced it would
conduct a preliminary study for a 300,000 ton a year addition to its facility (Kovacks, 1989).
In addition to these laws, three other states (New York, Illinois, and Wisconsin) have
legislation pending that would encourage the use of recycled newsprint For example, Wisconsin
is considering legislation similar to California's law. The scheduled requirements for the use of
recycled newsprint are the same as in California. The penalties under the proposed Wisconsin
law are a function of the violator's total annual expenditures on newsprint and the difference
between actual recycled newsprint purchases and required purchases. The state will use revenue
generated by penalties for loans and grants to encourage recycling efforts.
One problem with state legislation is that newsprint mills are found in just 15 states, and
only 7 of these currently have facilities for reprocessing old newspapers into newsprint. To meet
a given state's requirement for recycling, newspaper publishers will purchase newsprint from the
least-cost supplier who meets the state's minimum of recycled fiber. So, although a consumer
purchases a newspaper in one state, the newspaper publisher may produce the newsprint in
another state. Therefore, any particular state's initiative may not significantly affect the quantity
of newspapers discarded in its solid waste stream. Another problem is the possible proliferation
of a patchwork of unique state laws affecting a commodity typically traded across state lines.
At the federal level, Senator Boschwitz has introduced a bill (S1764) requiring certain
newsprint consumers to use a minimum percentage of recycled newsprint. The required
percentage increases over time. Senators Heinz and Wirth have introduced a bill (S1763) based
on the concept of a marketable permit system that also would encourage the use of recycled
newsprint.
B-31
-------
House bill 3654, The Newspaper Incentive Recycling Conservation Act, provides a 10
percent investment tax credit for construction of recycling facilities and penalizes large
newspapers (those with circulation of more than 150,000 copies daily) that fail to use recycled
newsprint (Environmental and Energy Study Institute Seminar).
Conclusions about the level of the eventual use of secondary materials in the paper and
paperboard industry and the stability of secondary markets for paper are very speculative.
Nonetheless, predictions estimate that the use of ONP will increase in the early 1990's. If the
market for ONP expands and stabilizes, perhaps the lessons learned by legislatures and
businesses from the ONP market can be used to develop secondary markets for other grades of
waste paper and paperboard.
B-32
-------
APPENDIX C
GLASS INDUSTRY PROFILE
The glass industry produces three primary products: containers, pressed and blown glass,
and flat glass. Figure C-l shows the materials flow of the glass industry. These figures are for
1967 because more recent figures for all flows on the chart were not available. The basic flow of
the industry remains the same today as in 1967.
Containers, which make up 70 percent of all glass production and account for 90 percent
of all glass in municipal solid waste (MSW), include beverage, food, drug, cosmetic, and
chemical containers (EPA, 1988a). Container glass is usually one of three colors: flint (clear),
amber (brown), or green. Glass containers comprise about 65 to 70 percent flint, about
23 percent amber, and about 13 percent green (EPA, 1988a). Table C-l shows the shipments of
glass containers by type of container for 1980 through 1986. A total of 41 billion glass
containers was shipped in 1986, with beverage containers accounting for over 60 percent of those
containers. Other sources estimate the total number of glass containers shipped in 1987 and 1988
at 40.5 billion and 41 billion, respectively, but do not provide a breakdown by container type
(Franklin Associates, 1988; U.S. Congress, 1989).
Pressed and blown glass is divided further into three categories: (1) table, kitchen, art,
and novelty glass; (2) lighting and electronic glass; and (3) glass fiber. The first category'
includes tumblers, stemware, tableware, cookware, ornamental and decorative products, novelty
products, and ashtrays. Lighting and electronic glass includes such items as light bulbs, light
tubes, and TV tubes. Glass fiber is used for insulation and manufacturing products.
Hat glass is also divided into three categories: (1) sheet or window glass, (2) plate or
float glass, and (3) laminated glass. Sheet or window glass is used in buildings. Plate or float
glass is used in automobiles, doors, and appliances. Laminated glass includes products like
mirrors.
C.1 RAW MATERIALS
The primary raw material for glass production is silica sand. Other virgin raw materials
include feldspar, limestone, and natural soda ash. Although possible, glass is seldom
manufactured entirely from virgin materials. Instead, glass manufacturers also use cullet, which
is crushed waste glass. Cullet melts at lower temperatures than virgin materials, and using
8 to 10 percent cullet in the inputs to a glass-making furnace improves the melting efficiency of
the furnace and allows lower furnace temperatures. This results in energy savings, reduced air
C-l : -.1
-------
S
5
0
°
w
1
w
"co
•*^
I
O
s
as
r-r-r•
s:
§
T- CM
1
ffi
1
is
§.
aro
co o ITJ
^OICOOJ
.nt
t
ID
CO
a
«s
LL
-,g
» e\T
!
Si
co ^
• CD
S ro
ro I"
.S "
g.s
i_ CO
-
s
I
o
o
I
tn
CO
Ul
s
-s i o S « a.
.§ J o -^ c ^
•*-• c. "n? "-^ Is**
03 § 2 0 05
'
^- •
TO
8
(/>
(0
CO
CO
'x
o
=5 •-
1
~ -a
1
§
ro J3 o
o
D)
il
C-2
-------
TABLE C-l. GLASS CONTAINER SHIPMENTS (MILLIONS OF CONTAINERS)
sssssss=ss==s^^
Type of Container 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
Beverages
Soft drinks
Refutable
Nonrefillable
Beer
Refillable
Nonrefillable
Liquor
Wine
Food
Medicinal and
health supplies
Chemical, household,
and industrial
Toiletries and
cosmetics
29,534
8,330
658
7,672
17,666
269
17,396
2,274
1,265
12,857
2,310
470
1,470
29,029
8,676
596
8,080
16,897
226
16,671
2,213
1,244
13,123
2,277
409
1,340
27,511
8,787
537
8,250
15,532
273
15,259
1,981
1,211
13,108
2,231
377
1,248
26,402
9,017
487
8,530
13,982
356
13,626
2,119
1,284
12,713
1,823
257
998
25,459
8,867
302
8,564
13,075
500
12,575
2,018
1,500
13,028
1,914
341
1,011
24,457
8,652
224
8,429
12,064
269
11,795
1,719
2,021
12,054
1,645
282
849
25,592
8,941
N/A
N/A
12,615
N/A
N/A
1,566
2,471
12,640
2,291
696
0
TOTAL
46,641 46,178 44,474 42,194 41,753 39,286 41,219
Source: Department of Commerce (in EPA, 1988a)
C-3
-------
emissions, and extended life of the refractory lining of the furnace (EPA, 1988c). The most
common mix is 25 percent cullet (U.S. Congress, 1989).
Although cullet is 100 percent recyclable (i.e., one pound of cullet makes one pound of
new glass), it is not efficient-to use 100 percent cullet in furnace feed. One reason is that cullet
lacks "fining" agents, which are necessary to reduce bubbles in the glass (U.S. Congress, 1989).
Most importantly, however, the glass industry has strict specifications for cullet use in glass
making. The cullet cannot be contaminated and must be separated by type of glass and color.
Due to chemical differences, container glass cullet is not suitable for making other types of glass,
and flat and blown glass cullet is not suitable for making container glass (EPA, 1988c). Color
separation is critical for container glass. Table C-2 lists specifications for furnace-ready cullet
for container glass. Because these specifications are so strict, glass manufacturers rely primarily
on home scrap (scrap glass from their own processes) for cullet, rather than postconsumer
recycled glass. The composition of home scrap is far more reliable than that of postconsumer
cullet To use postconsumer cullet, manufacturers must apply rigorous cullet recovery
techniques to ensure that the cullet meets glass industry specifications.
C.1.1 Cullet Recovery Techniques
Techniques for recovering usable cullet from MSW include source separation, optical
sorting, froth flotation, and hand sorting. The goal of cullet recovery techniques is to produce
cullet that is color sorted and free of contamination, especially refractory materials (materials that
don't melt completely in the furnace) and metal. For some applications, color separation is not
necessary.
Source separation occurs when consumers separate glass from other recyclables and by
• color. Source separation is inexpensive and provides good gross separation of glass from other
materials and by color. Nevertheless, it is not sufficient to meet the strict specifications for cullet
use. Glass recovered by source separation may still contain contaminants, such as the metal rings
on many beverage containers. Source separation is, however, a valuable first step.
An alternative to source separation is hand sorting. In hand sorting, workers sort glass
pieces to remove contaminants and to separate by color. Larger pieces are easier to sort. Hand
sorting probably produces the most reliably contaminant-free, color-sorted cullet, but it is very
labor intensive. Hand sorting most often occurs at materials recovery facilities that receive clean
commingled recyclable materials.
C-4
-------
TABLE C-2. SPECIFICATIONS FOR FURNACE-READY CULLET
• Only container glass is acceptable.
• Permissible color mix levels:
- flint glass
95-100% flint; 0-5% amber; 0-1% green; 0-5% other colors
- amber glass
90-100% amber; 0-10% flint; 0-10% green; 0-5% other colors
- green glass
80-100% green; 0-20% amber; 0-10% flint or Georgia green; 0-5% other colors
• Glass must be free of excessive moisture.
• Glass must be free of any refractory materials. Can be rejected for any of the following
reasons: °
- presence of any pottery, porcelain, china, dinnerware, brick, tile, or clay larger than 1 inch;
- presence of more than two grains of quartzite, sandstone, or sand pebbles larger than U S
16 mesh per 10 pounds of sample;
's- 20 mesh m morc "-1 50
- presence of any alumina silicate refractory heavy minerals larger than U.S. 30 mesh or
more than 10 grains larger than U.S. 40 mesh per 10 pounds of sample;
- presence of any alumina refractory heavy minerals larger than U.S. 40 mesh;
- presence of zircon, cassiterite, chrome, or similar refractory particles larger than U.S. 60
nicsn*
£a?on*USt ^ freC °f mCtalliC ^S1"61"8 md obJects- C311 be ^^ted for any of the following
- presence of any metal fragments or objects larger than 1 .5 inches.
particle or object larger
but less *"* L5
metaUiC ParticleS OT °bjects less ±an 3/8 mch Per 50 P°unds of
• Gullet should be free of wire, staples, nails, bolts, welding rods, and other similar objects.
• Metallic foil from bottle labels will not be considered as metallic contamination.
of
• Large amounts of excessively decorated glass must be kept separate.
Source: Brockway, Inc. (in EPA, 1988)
C-5
-------
Optical sorting first separates transparent (glass) and opaque (presumably non-glass)
particles, then sorts the transparent particles by color. The particles fall one at a time past a light
source and photocell, which registers the intensity of light transmitted through the particle. An
electronic component of the system determines whether the particle is acceptable, based on the
photocell response. If the particle is unacceptable, a small burst of air deflects it from the flow of
particles into a reject bin. The system is fairly successful in separating flint from non-flint glass
.and in separating glass and non-glass refractory materials (EPA, 1988c). It is less efficient at
separating green and amber glass. Optical sorting has not found wide application and is
considered infeasible for large-scale use because the equipment is expensive. On a commercial
scale, it is unable to meet the cullet specifications of the glass container industry.
Froth flotation is used to separate finely ground glass and non-glass particles. The system
is based on the tendency of hydrophobic particles to float to the surface of an aqueous system.
An aqueous mixture of very fine glass and non-glass particles is treated with a hydrophobic
compound that selectively adheres to the glass particles. When air is blown through the mixture,
the glass floats to the surface and may be skimmed off, while the non-glass particles sink to the
bottom. No practical method exists to color-sort the cullet resulting from froth flotation; the
particles are too fine for optical or hand sorting. Particles could be optically sorted, then ground
up and froth floated, but this is not economically viable under present market conditions.
Because most post-consumer glass is recycled into containers (see below), and the specifications
are strict, color separation is essential. Optical sorting and froth flotation are ineffective at
sorting glass by color. Community glass recycling programs unsurprisingly require hand sorting.
C.2
PRODUCTS CONTAINING RECYCLED POSTCONSUMER MATERIALS
Glass containers account for 90 percent of recycled cullet use. The two largest existing
uses for the remaining 10 percent are in the manufacture of small glass beads or microspheres for
use in reflective paint for road signs and in the manufacture of glass wool insulation (Papke,
1983). A variety of other uses are also possible, but not currently in common use, although
glasphalt is a topic of much publicity.
C.2.1 Glass Containers
The glass industry produces about 11 million tons of glass containers each year. These
containers consist, on the average, of about 20 to 25 percent cullet. About 2.5 million tons per
year of cullet is used to produce glass containers, of which about 1.3 million tons is
postconsumer cullet (U.S. Congress, 1989). Another source estimates about 1.1 million tons of
C-6
-------
postconsumer glass was recovered in 1986 (Franklin Associates, 1988). Consumers discarded
about 12.9 million tons of glass in 1986, accounting for about 8 percent of all MSW. The
estimated 1.1 to 1.3 million tons of postconsumer glass recovered in 1986 represents a recycling
rate of about 10 percent (U.S. Congress, 1989).
Most glass containers are made for beverages (soft drinks, beer, wine, and liquor) and
food. Beer and soft drink containers may be refillable or one-way (non-refillable). Arefillable
bottle is about 50 percent heavier than a one-way bottle and is designed for about ten round trips
(EPA, 1988c)? Until 1975, refillable bottles dominated the market, but one-way bottles took over
around 1981. One-way bottles became increasingly popular as consumers increased their demand
for convenience products and refillable bottles became unable to compete effectively with one-
way glass bottles and aluminum and plastic containers. Refillable bottles used to be filled at small
bottling plants located near every metropolitan area, but industry moved away from small plants
toward larger regional plants. Since 1975, the number of bottling plants in the U.S. has dropped
from 3,000 to less than 300 (EPA, 1988c). One source estimates that more than half the glass
produced in the U.S. is used for products with a lifespan of less than one year.
There is a trend toward increasing the percentage of cullet in containers to around
40 percent, and it is theoretically possible to use 100 percent cullet in glass making (EPA,
1988c). -But two important barriers to increased cullet use are quantity and quality. Glass
manufacturers prefer a stable supply of high-quality cullet to achieve high percentages of cullet
usage. It is not feasible to operate a furnace at 20 percent cullet one week and 50 percent the
next, and they would need to stockpile cullet to even the flow. Therefore, one realistic influence
on cullet use is the amount that can be supplied on a regular basis.
Cullet quality also is a crucial issue and perhaps the most important one. Glass
manufacturers fear "foreign" cullet (i.e., not home scrap) because its composition is less well
known. Industry specifications for foreign cullet (shown in Table C-2) are very strict. Foreign
cullet may be contaminated with metals, refractory materials, and noncontainer glass. In addition
to damaging the furnace and other equipment, cullet that contains these materials may produce
glass of unacceptable quality. Metals and refractory materials can cause stones in the glass,
which weaken the glass and may even be visible if large enough. Noncontainer glass generally
has a different chemical composition than container glass. Small quantities of flat glass in cullet
are acceptable if the chemical composition is known, but it seldom is. Therefore, container
manufacturers are reluctant to buy cullet known to contain noncontainer glass. Foreign cullet
also may contain glass of another color. This can result in off-color glass, especially when the
glass being produced is flint glass. (Amber glass is less sensitive to mixed colored cullet, and
C-7 •. > : '
-------
green glass is fairly insensitive.) Consumers generally will not tolerate color variations in glass
containers, so glass manufacutrers will use post-consumer cullet only if they are confident they
can get reliably high-quality cullet. Therefore, improved collection and beneficiation processes
are necessary to increase the percentage of postconsumer cullet used by glass manufacturers
(U.S. Congress, 1989).
Some glass plants have their own beneficiation facilities. These facilities grind the glass,
remove metals, and clean the cullet. There were 25 of these facilities in the U.S. in April 1988,
and 3 more were expected to be operational by the end of 1988. Such facilities cost $500,000 to
$1 million to build. As more glass is recycled, more of these facilities are expected to be built to
ensure consistent cullet quality (U.S. Congress, 1989). While these systems are good at
removing metal, they generally cannot remove all non-metal contaminants, and there is no
commercially successful equipment for color-sorting crushed glass (EPA, 1988c). Some
facilities use hand sorting to color sort and remove refractory materials. In general, source
separation is more effective for color sorting than separation at a MRF because of container
breakage at the facility (U.S. Congress, 1989).
Mixed-color cullet can be used in the manufacture of container glass to some extent.
Green glass is relatively insensitive to the presence of glass of other colors in cullet. Even flint
glass can tolerate some color contamination if enough pure cullet (e.g., from home scrap) is also
used. Also, chemical additives counteract the effect of the pigments hi green and amber glass,
but the composition of the cullet must be well known to use this approach.
The market value of cullet for container manufacturers depends on the degree of color
sorting and the geographic area of the country. In 1989, final market cullet prices were fairly
stable, around $40 to $60 per ton of color-sorted cullet. Proximity to a high concentration of
glass producers, such as in the New Jersey/Pennsylvania area, may increase the value of cullet.
Also, in California, state interventions in recycling have pushed the value of cullet up as high as
$132 per ton (Apotheker, 1989b).
The market for glass containers should continue to remain stable and possibly increase,
despite competition from aluminum and plastic, due to the high-quality image of glass, its
microwaveability, and its recyclability (U.S. Congress, 1989). Another factor in favor of
increased cullet use is the increasing price of industrial sand, the primary raw virgin material in
glass. These increased prices reflect higher mining costs and increasing demand (U S Congress
1989).
C-8
-------
C.2.2 Other Products
Most other products can be made from flat glass cullet as well as container glass. Flat
glass may be contaminated with putty and paint (from window glass), ceramics, and headlight
glass. This does not cause problems in some applications, like glasphalt, but does in others, such
as fiberglass (EPA, 1988c).
C.22.1 Glass Beads
In 1983, manufacturers used over 50,000 tons of cullet to make small glass beads or
microspheres for use in reflective paint for road signs. The manufacture of these beads uses
100 percent cullet in most cases and can use flat glass cullet as well as container glass cullet
There is an increasing market for these spheres for other applications (for example, to replace
glass fiber in reinforced plastics) (Papke, 1983).
C32.2 Glass Wool Insulation
Another existing use for cullet is glass wool insulation. Only one glass wool insulation
manufacturer uses cullet in 1983, with cuUet composing 20 to 50 percent of the inputs. The use
of cullet in glass wool manufacture was expected to expand rapidly as larger, more reliable •
supplies of cullet became available (Papke, 1983).
C.23,3 Glasphalt
Glasphalt is a substitute for asphalt that uses 30 to 60 percent glass cullet in place of rock
aggregate. The cullet need not be color sorted, only free of metal, plastic, and labels. Glasphalt
has been shown to wear well in test strips, but there is some indication that it is only appropriate
for lower speed roadways due to decreased traction at higher speeds. Glasphalt also "strips" for a
short period after it is applied, leaving small pieces of glass on the surface. While this poses no
threat, it is apparently disturbing to the public. The only widespread use of glasphalt has been in
Baltimore, Maryland, where it is used for aesthetic purposes (it sparkles, unlike regular asphalt)
in renovated areas of the city. The U.S. uses about 1 billion tons of asphalt each year, so the
potential of glasphalt would seem to be great. Nevertheless, there are economic barriers to its
use. The cost of rock aggregate, the raw material being replaced, is low ($2 to $6 per ton), so
that glass cullet has no greater value than rock aggregate in this application. The city of
Baltimore has actually found that glasphalt costs more than regular asphalt, but they have been
willing to pay more for glasphalt's aesthetic properties. Even with the aesthetic qualities of
C-9
-------
glasphalt, the use of glass in glasphalt probably will not increase unless the market for use of
glass in containers (where it has a much higher value) decreases (U.S. Congress, 1989).
O2.2.4 Building and Construction Uses
Gullet can be used in a variety of construction products, such as clay brick, tile, masonry
brick, glascrcte, lightweight aggregate for concrete and plastics, glass-polymer composites, and
foamglas. Gullet is used in crushed form in most of these applications and substitutes for rock or
clay aggregate. Glass cullet can increase strength and attractiveness while decreasing weight in
these products. This could potentially be a large market for cullet, but it will be limited by the
same economic realities as the glasphalt market: the rock aggregate being replaced generally has
a cost of only $2 to $6 per ton (Papke, 1983). One exception is the use of cullet as a fluxing
agent in clay brick. In this case, it not only replaces some of the raw materials, but allows the
bricks to be fired at a lower temperature, reducing energy costs (EPA, 1988c).
In-House Recycling
Industrially derived waste glass (produced largely by businesses that make, shape, or treat
glass) is often recycled in-house and is known as "runaround" scrap. In-house recycling efforts
separate glass by product type, rather than color. Because different types of flat "glass may have
significantly different chemical composition and melting properties, mixing different types could
produce cullet unusable for either type (EPA, 1988c).
C3 CURRENT AND HISTORICAL STATISTICS ON SECONDARY MATERIALS
Table C-3 shows the amount of glass discarded in MS W (after materials recovery, before
energy recovery) from 1960 to 1986, with projections for 1990 to 2000. The table breaks down
figures into container and noncontainer1 glass, further breaking down container glass into beer
and soft drink, wine and liquor, and food and other. In 1986, U.S. consumers discarded 11.8
million tons of glass, accounting for 8.4 percent of MSW. Glass containers accounted for 10.7
million tons (or 91 percent) of the total glass discarded and 7.6 percent of all MSW. The 11.8
" million tons of glass discarded does not include 1.1 million tons of glass recovered from MSW.
The 1.1 million tons recovered accounts for 8.5 percent of gross glass discards (12.9 million
tons) (Franklin Associates, 1988).
1 TJe "on
-------
I
o
td
I
H
6
8
!S
Q
W
U
23
Q
en
3
OS
32
ON
g
VO
o
•8
oo
o
~* o\
CJ
"O
- o
-H in
-0
oo
1-'
00
^< « o
2 o vd
SI
f-N O
0
0
oo
10
0
VO
o\
V)
pi
.•a
I
1
I
m
p
g
pi
pi
PJ
PJ
pi
pi
Tf
PJ
O
pi
O\
OO
oo
es
2«
ss
o
o «?»
2 oo
o
s
—
°A
"
PI
pi
en
00
PJ
pi 05
-oo
00
PJ
en O\
K-t O
S -4
«o
\o
e
ery.
.
ections.
entofMSW.
% T3 01 -•
|i.||
l^ll
8 es &<
i^-i
1^ II
X, 0
« J3 Z OO
C-ll
-------
There are no data on how much glass remains in the MSW stream after energy recovery.
Glass is noncombustible and abrasive to processing equipment, and it forms a slag in the furnace
(EPA, 1988c).
The amount of all glass discarded to MSW increased from 1960 to 1981, then decreased
until 1986. Container glass accounted for most of this increase; noncontainer glass discards were
stable between 1981 and 1986. Container glass discards were predicted to jump between 1986
and 1990, then gradually decrease until 2000. Noncontainer discards are predicted to continue to
be stable until 2000. As a percentage of all MSW, container glass peaked at 10.6 percent in 1975
and is now declining. Noncontainer glass has consistently accounted for about 0.8 percent of all
MSW since 1970 (Franklin Associates, 1988).
These patterns for container glass reflect the popularity of glass bottles in the 1970's and
the increased competition from aluminum and plastic in the 1980's. Glass offers several qualities
that should help to maintain its market share:
• high consumer acceptance,
• image of purity and prestige,
• use in microwave ovens,
• barrier properties, and
• recyclability.
A 1987 consumer survey indicated that 34 percent prefer glass bottles for soft drinks and
60 percent prefer glass bottles for beer. (By comparison, 31 and 34 percent expressed a
preference for metal cans for soft drinks and beer respectively) (EPA, 1988c).
C.4 RECENT MARKET INTERVENTIONS BY FEDERAL AND STATE
GOVERNMENTS
C.4.1 Beverage Container Deposit Legislation (Bottle Bills)
Bottle bill laws require the consumer to pay a deposit on beverage containers, which can
be redeemed by returning the bottles to the retailer. Such laws have replaced once-common
bottler-promoted deposit programs. Nine states (Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont) have enacted bottle bills and 23
others are considering such legislation. Decreased Uttering and increased awareness of recycling
behavior are usually cited as the advantages of bottle bill laws. One study suggests that up to
90 percent of discarded glass containers have been diverted from the MSW waste stream by
bottle bill legislation (EPA, 1988c).
C-12
-------
Bottle bills, however, appear to have a negative effect on the glass industry. Bottle bills
tend to encourage a shift from glass containers to plastic and aluminum, for two reasons: most
retail outlets do not have adequate storage space on the premises to handle returned glass bottles,
and consumers in states with bottle bills also seem to prefer the easier handling of lightweight
plastic and aluminum. Thus, while one goal of bottle bills is to divert glass from landfills and
encourage recycling, bottle bills instead encourage a market shift to less recyclable products
(plastic) (EPA, 1988c). Bottle bills may encourage a shift to refillable glass bottles, as in New
York in 1984, when the market share forrefillables increased from 5.1 percent to 6 percent.
Nevertheless, nonrefillables suffered a much greater loss of market share, from 27.9 percent to
18.9 percent (EPA, 1988c).
Another result of bottle bill legislation is that glass markets may flood, sharply decreasing
the price for waste glass. Some experts say that only green glass markets flood, while flint glass
markets remain stable. Regional differences in these phenomena exist; for example, West Coast
states do not seem to have experienced the market flooding and container purchase shifts that
states on the East Coast have (EPA, 1988c).
Bottle bill legislation removes glass, a secondary commodity for which proven recycling
technologies exist, from the waste stream without significantly decreasing the solid waste stream.
In addition, excluding beverage containers from a mandatory curbside collection program can
have a significant cost, because glass is an important commodity for such programs (EPA
1988c).
C.4.2 Summary of State Recycling Programs
Table 04 summarizes current state glass recycling programs in nine states and the
District of Columbia. The states included are California, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Most of these programs rely
on public information and education to promote voluntary collection or buyback. Where
statistics are available, the programs have a discernible effect. Another eight states are
considering such programs: Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, and Texas.
C-13
-------
Fourteen states2 have enacted legislation encouraging or requiring municipalities to
implement community recycling programs. Three states3 have mandatory source separation
programs.
The New Jersey law is an example of government intervention that stimulates a reliable
supply of marketable cullet. New Jersey passed the Mandatory Statewide Source Separation and
Recycling Act in April 1987. This law requires counties to appoint a district recycling
coordinator; identify three recyclables (in addition to leaves) as designated recyclables for the
district; and develop a strategy for collecting, marketing, and depositing the source-separated
materials in each municipality. Counties must solicit proposals for processing and marketing
recycled materials and enter into contracts on behalf of the municipalities for these activities.
The law requires municipalities to appoint a local recycling director, provide a collection system,
and adopt ordinances requiring generators of MSW to separate the designated recyclables at the
source (EPA, 1988c). Because source separation remains one of the most effective ways to color
sort glass cullet, such programs should increase not only the quantity of cullet recycled, but the
quality of the cullet as well. Color-separated cullet has a much higher market value than mixed-
color cullet.
2 Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York Oregon
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin. '
3 Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.
C-14
-------
TABLE C-4. SUMMARY OF STATE GLASS RECYCLING PROGRAMS
California
• California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act
- Effective September 1, 1987.
- Guarantees consumers at least 1 cent per recycled beverage container.
- Mandates 65 percent recycling rate.
- Mandates establishment of certified recycling centers in each of 2000 "convenience
zones (an area within a half mile of any grocery store doing over $2 million worth of
business per year).
• California Glass Recycling Corporation
- Sponsored by the glass industry.
- Over 500 collection banks operated statewide.
- Public information and technical assistance programs.
- Phoenix Program: collection from commercial establishments, such as bars and
restaurants. Earning establishments $20/ton.
Florida
• Florida Glass Recycling Program
- Established spring 1986.
- Supported by glass industry.
- Educational programs directed at school children to promote voluntary recycling.
- Theme-related recycling centers; Goodwill Industries opened one with an agricultural
theme and collected 2 million tons of glass in one year. Goodwill plans 15 more.theme-
related centers statewide.
• Florida Business and Industry Recycling Program
- Statistics show increase of 19 percent in glass collections hi 1986.
- Brought about by 57 recycling organizations.
- Revenues to recyclers for collected glass in 1986 estimated at $1.6 million.
Indiana
• Indiana Glass Recycling Association
- Established summer 1987.
- Backed by five major glass manufacturers in the state.
0^ and promotional materials to increase number of recycling centers that
- Distributes the "Great Glass Caper" school curriculum to fourth-grade classes. The
°f **" ^^ tO pr°m°te *"*«* and Pupation in
continued
C-15
-------
TABLE C-4. SUMMARY OF STATE GLASS RECYCLING PROGRAMS
(CONTINUED)
Maryland, Virginia, District of Columbia
• Mid-Atlantic Glass Recycling Program
-Established in 1987.
- Goal is to increase public awareness and participation in existing glass recycling
activities.
- Maryland: 13 buyback centers, 32 voluntary drop-off locations, pilot curbside collection
program in Anne Arundel County. State legislation mandates municipal solid waste
reduction through source separation and recycling.
- Virginia: 29 buyback centers, 19 voluntary drop-off locations in 1987.
- Washington, DC: Operation Igloo—Glass Recycling. Places glass drop-off sites at
local churches, revenues benefit host churches.
North Carolina,'South Carolina
• Carolina Glass Recycling Program
- Established June 1986.
- In 1986 only 9 recyclers in both states accepted recycled glass.
- Established glass recycling network of 65 organizations in 1987.
- In 1986, about 1 million glass containers recycled per month. In 1987, up to 8 million.
Pennsylvania
• Pennsylvania Glass Recycling Corporation (PGRC)
- Established in late 1985.
- Pennsylvania has 2nd largest number of glass manufacturing plants in U.S. (behind
California); ready market and skyrocketing waste disposal costs led to establishment of
PGRC.
- Delaware County, May 1987, placed Igloo containers at 22 sites. By December 1987,
•82 tons of cullet were collected. By spring 1988,48 Igloos placed.
- Theme-based recycling center operated by Goodwill in Harrisburg.
- Buyback centers encouraged; one collected the equivalent of 1.1 million 12-ounce
bottles from summer 1986 to winter 1987.
- Involved in bringing a glass processing facility to Chester, Pennsylvania, where glass is
cleaned, crushed, and checked for contaminants.
Wisconsin
• Wisconsin Glass Recycling Program
- Established April 1987.
- Established a cooperative agreement between glass manufacturing plants and recycling
organizations to guarantee market for recycled glass.
- Existing recycling centers encouraged to accept glass.
- "Great Glass Caper" curriculum distributed throughout the state.
C-16
-------
APPENDIX D
ALUMINUM INDUSTRY PROFILE
The primary aluminum industry produces aluminum alloys in three basic categories:
wrought alloys, casting alloys, and extrusion alloys (Alter and Reeves, 1975). Each category
comprises a variety of different alloys, defined by the percentage of non-aluminum elements
such as silicon, iron, manganese, magnesium, copper, titanium, zinc, and chromium. For
example, in 1975 there were 150 registered wrought alloys and 75 registered casting alloys (Alter
and Reeves, 1975). Small differences in an alloy's composition can affect its properties
significantly, and specific alloys may be patented. Aluminum alloys are produced in a variety of
forms, including ingot, sheet, billet, hot metal, notched bar, and shot (JACA, 1977a). In 1989,
the primary aluminum industry produced about 4.4 million tons of aluminum. U.S.
manufacturers imported another 1.7 million tons, primarily from Canada (U.S. Bureau of Mines,
1989). Table D-l shows primary production and import levels for aluminum for 1985 through
1989.
TABLE D-l. ALUMDJUM PRODUCTION, IMPORTS, AND EXPORTS, 1985 TO 1989
(MILLIONS OF TONS)
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
Production
Primary
Secondary
Total
Imports
Exports
3.9
0.9
4.8
1.6
1.0
3.3
0.9
4.2
2.2
0.8
3.7
0.9
4.6
2.0
1.0
4.3
1.1
5.5
1.8
1.4
4.4
1.2
5.6
1.7
1.7
Apparent Consumption3 5.7
5.7
6.0
5.9
5.6
K£^nSaTPtJ°" 7 P™wyProdK*»> + secondary production + net import reliance. Net import reliance
includes an adjustment for Government and industry stock changes. «!*"«;
Source: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1989.
D-l
,). i
-------
Manufacturers use primary aluminum to produce a wide variety of products in the
following major categories:
• packaging,
• transportation,
• building and construction,
• electrical, -
• consumer durables, and
• other.
Packaging consumes 31 percent of domestic production and includes food and beverage cans,
semi-rigid foil containers, and aluminum foil. Transportation uses consume 24 percent of
domestic production and includes parts for automobiles and aircraft. Building and construction
claims 20 percent of production for products like aluminum siding. Electrical accounts for
10 percent of consumption and includes aluminum wire. Consumer durables account for
9 percent of consumption for products like appliances. Finally, other uses consume 6 percent of
domestic production for products like lawn furniture (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1989; all figures
1989).
Packaging in general and used beverage cans in particular account for most of the
aluminum in municipal solid waste (MSW); in 1988 used beverage cans accounted for 76 to
79 percent of all aluminum in MSW. Other packaging, appliances, and lawn furniture accounted
for the remainder (U.S. Congress, 1989). Aluminum from the other product types listed above is
fairly uncommon in MSW; therefore, this profile will focus on packaging products.
Within the aluminum packaging sector, 82 percent of shipments in 1988 (about 1.8
million tons) were used to manufacture can sheet for beverage and food cans. The rest was used
to produce foil for semi-rigid containers, packaging, and consumer use (U.S. Congress, 1989).
D.I RAW MATERIALS
Primary aluminum is produced from bauxite, an ore containing, 30 to 50 percent hydrated
aluminum oxide (JACA, 1977a). Dissolving the bauxite in a strong alkali solution produces
alumina, which is an important intermediate in aluminum production. Next, a procedure called
smelting is used to process the alumina into aluminum. In the smelting process, the alumina is
dissolved in a molten bath of cryolite, which is a sodium-aluminum-fluoride compound, and then
converted to 99.7 percent pure aluminum by electrolysis with an anode paste of petroleum coke
and coal tar pitch. The pure aluminum is then alloyed with various other elements to produce
D-2
-------
aluminum alloy. The procedure requires about four to five pounds of bauxite to make two
pounds of alumina, which make about one pound of aluminum (JACA, 1977a).
The U.S. relies heavily on imports for the raw materials to produce aluminum. In 1989,
only three companies in the U.S. owned bauxite mines, with a combined production of about 0.7
million tons. By comparison, the U.S. imported 13.9 million tons of bauxite (primarily from
Guinea, Jamaica, and Australia). The U.S. produced about 5.6 million tons of alumina from
domestic and imported bauxite, while importing 4.7 million tons of alumina (primarily from
Australia) (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1989). Although substitutes do exist for bauxite in the
production of alumina (clay, alunite, anorthosite, coal wastes, and oil shale), none are
economically feasible on a commercial scale (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1989; JACA, 1977a).
Although bauxite has no economic substitute in the production of alumina, scrap
aluminum is a readily available, highly economic substitute for alumina. Scrap aluminum can be
melted down and alloyed to produce secondary aluminum, which is indistinguishable from
primary aluminum. [Aluminum is referred to as primary or secondary to identify the process by
which it was made (U.S. Congress, 1989)]. Using domestic aluminum scrap reduces U.S.
dependence on foreign virgin materials for aluminum production (Alcoa, 1989a through 1989e).
Table D-l shows secondary aluminum production from 1985 through 1989.
Using aluminum scrap to produce aluminum also offers several other economic benefits.
Primary aluminum production is an energy- and capital-intensive process. Electricity can
account for up to half the cost of producing primary aluminum from alumina. Using scrap
aluminum to make primary aluminum saves about 90 to 95 percent of the energy costs, or about
7.5 kwh per pound of aluminum (Alcoa, 1989a through 1989e). In addition, energy is required to
mine, beneficiate, and transport raw materials for production of aluminum from alumina.
Transporting foreign raw materials to the U.S. costs between $3 and $18 per ton (U.S. Congress,
1989). Clearly, using scrap aluminum results in significant energy cost savings, as well as
capital cost savings. A facility to melt scrap aluminum and produce secondary aluminum takes
about half the time to build and costs about one-tenth that of a primary aluminum production
facility of the same size (Alcoa, 1989a through 1989e). The average world cost to build a new
primary aluminum plant is $2,700 to $3,600 per ton of capacity. By comparison, the cost of
three new secondary plants currently being built in the U.S. is $123 to $417 per ton of capacity
(U.S. Congress, 1989; Solid Waste Report, 1989).
Purchased aluminum scrap is generally divided into two categories: new scrap and old
scrap. New scrap consists of industrial scrap such as clippings, forgings, borings, turnings,
D-3
-------
drosses, and skimmings. Old scrap consists of discarded consumer products and also may be
called postconsumer scrap (Kusik and Kenahan, 1978). Because this report focuses on the
recovery of materials from MS W, this profile focuses on old or postconsumer scrap.
D.I.I Recovery of Aluminum from MS W
Packaging comprises most of the aluminum in MSW, with lawn furniture and appliances
accounting for the rest (U.S. Congress, 1989). EPA specifications for aluminum recovery from
MSW recommend recovering two fractions: aluminum cans and foil and miscellaneous
extrusions, castings, etc. (Alter and Reeves, 1975). The specifications for the can and foil
fraction (the more valuable of the two) are as follows:
• 100 percent retained on a 12 mesh screen
• Free of heavy media
• Dried before shipment
• Not obviously corroded
• Appropriate alloy composition
Methods for processing MSW to recover aluminum include source separation, heavy media
separation, eddy current separation, and electrostatic separation. In addition to these processes, a
magnetic sorter is used to remove steel and other ferrous (i.e., magnetic) metals.
Source separation is the simplest way to remove aluminum from MSW. Residents
separate aluminum and take it to a recycling center or to a drop-off area, where they may receive
about 26 cents per pound Or aluminum may be picked up by curbside recycling programs.
Most aluminum recycling centers only accept beverage cans (by far the largest source of
aluminum in MSW), although some accept other aluminum packaging and lawn furniture. Steel
cans are removed by magnetic sorter (Siberg, 1982). Source-separated aluminum contains steel
cans, but this contaminant is easily removed. Where the contamination is greater, as in one-
stream and two-stream recycling programs, the removal of contaminants is more sophisticated.
Heavy media separation uses differences in specific gravity to separate aluminum from
other materials in MSW. The materials to be separated are placed in a liquid with a specific
gravity greater than some materials and less than others so that some materials sink and some
float Aluminum is separated from other MSW through three steps: (1) water (specific gravity =
1) to clean and remove very light materials; (2) ethylene dibromide (specific gravity = 2) to
remove organic materials; and (3) one of several liquids with a specific gravity around 2.8 in
which aluminum, some glass, and some stones float and all other MSW sinks. The float from the
D-4
-------
last step is crushed to break up glass and stones, then screened to isolate the aluminum (Siberg,
1982).
Eddy current separation removes non-ferrous metals (primarily aluminum, but also some
copper and zinc). Generally, paper, light plastics, ferrous metals, glass, ceramics, dirt, and food
waste have already been removed prior to eddy current separation, leaving a mixture of non-
ferrous metal, wood, cardboard, heavy plastic, rubber, and rags. These are ground to a uniform
particle size and moved down a slide through a magnetic, or eddy current, field. Because non-
ferrous metals are electrical conductors they are affected by the field and deflected to one side,
where they can be captured separately. Eddy current separation generally removes about
70 percent of the non-ferrous metal in a sample and produces a product that is greater than
90 percent pure non-ferrous metals. An eddy current separator can process about three tons of
waste per hour per meter of slide width (Siberg, 1982; Schloemann, 1982).
In electrostatic separation, particles of nonferrous metal, wood, etc. are dried and placed
in a grounded drum equipped with an electrode. Particles receive a positive charge and adhere to
the drum. Electrical conductors (i.e., non-ferrous metals) quickly lose the charge, drop off, and
are collected. Remaining material is scraped off the drum and rejected. The output of this
process may include some copper, zinc, and iron, as well as aluminum (Siberg, 1982).
D.2 PRODUCTS CONTAINING RECYCLED POSTCONSUMER MATERIALS
The aluminum beverage can is by far the largest component of aluminum in MSW, and
by the same token it is the dominant product of recycled aluminum. Recyclers generally return
used beverage cans directly to can sheet manufacturers to be made into more cans. Other forms
of reclaimed aluminum are generally used to make secondary aluminum, which can be used to
make virtually any product that can be made from primary aluminum. The U.S. also exports
aluminum scrap and secondary aluminum, primarily to Japan and Mexico.
D.2.1 Beverage and Food Cans
In 1988, manufacturers shipped 78 billion aluminum beverage cans to retailers;
consumers returned 54.6 percent of these (43.5 billion cans) for recycling (for 0.8 million tons of
aluminum). Used beverage cans account for 76 to 79 percent of the aluminum in MSW, and the
aluminum recovered from MSW comes almost entirely from used beverage cans. Can sheet
manufacturers used 93 percent of the used beverage cans recovered from MSW in 1988 to make
new can sheet (U.S. Congress, 1989).
D-5
-------
The aluminum beverage can was introduced in 1963. In 1964 it claimed 2 percent of the
market share of canned beverages; in 1989 it held 96 percent of the canned beverage market
(99.9 percent of canned beer and 93 percent of canned soft drinks). Bimetal steel cans (steel
body, aluminum end) hold the remainder of the canned beverage market (Alcoa, 1989a through
1989e). In the entire beverage container market in 1988, aluminum cans had a 50 percent market
share. The remaining 50 percent was divided among glass (25 percent), plastic (20 percent), and
steel (5 percent) (U.S. Congress, 1989). Market share growth for aluminum cans is expected to
slow, partly due to capacity restraints on the production of can stock and partly due to increased
competition from plastic. The amount of competition from plastic containers will depend on
manufacturers' success in increasing the recyclability of plastic (U.S. Congress, 1989; Phoenix
Quarterly). Demand for aluminum beverage cans is expected to remain strong; aluminum is a
cost-effective packaging material that chills quickly, preserves flavor, and is light, strong,
unbreakable, and stackable (Alcoa, 1989a through 1989e; U.S. Congress, 1989).
Aluminum can sheet also is used to make food cans, although aluminum has not
penetrated the food can market to the extent it has the beverage can market Aluminum food
cans account for about 10 percent of the 28 million food cans shipped in 1989. Food products
commonly packed in aluminum cans include seafoods, meats, snacks, pudding, soups, fruits,
vegetables, and pet foods. The advantages of aluminum food cans include convenience, product
compatibility, stackability, recyclability, strength, dent resistance, and competitive cost. As a
result of these factors, aluminum is expected to gain an increasing market share of the food can
market (Alcoa, 1989a through 1989e).
Used beverage cans enjoy a very stable market in the manufacture of new can sheet.
Using scrap aluminum as a substitute for virgin materials has strong economic incentives (as
discussed previously) to produce aluminum products, especially when the composition of the
scrap is well known, as it is for scrap from used beverage cans. Therefore, aluminum can sheet
manufacturers virtually always buy aluminum can scrap (Alcoa, 1989a through 1989e).
D.2.2 Other Secondary Aluminum Products
* *
Reclaimed aluminum that is not used directly by can sheet manufacturers is used by
secondary smelters to make secondary aluminum. About 90 percent of secondary aluminum is
made into casting alloys; of these, about 60 percent are die-casting alloys. These alloys are used
mainly by the automobile and machinery industries (JACA, 1977a). Used beverage cans are not
the best components for these alloys due to high cost and high manganese and magnesium
D-6
-------
content (Phoenix Quarterly). Secondary aluminum also may be used to make wrought alloys or
as a deoxidizer in steel making (Kusik and Kenahan, 1978).
D.23 Exports
In 1988 the U.S. exported 536.4 thousand tons of aluminum scrap, consisting of 434.7
thousand tons of aluminum waste and scrap, 4.3 thousand tons of used beverage cans, and 97.4
thousand tons of remelt scrap ingot (Phoenix Quarterly). Japan is the largest recipient of this
exported aluminum scrap, using it to manufacture can sheet, as a deoxidizer in steel mills, and for
engine and other auto parts in the automobile industry (Furukawa, 1985).
D.3 CURRENT AND HISTORICAL STATISTICS ON SECONDARY MATERIALS
In 1989, about 1.1 million tons of postconsumer scrap aluminum was recovered,
accounting for about 20 percent of apparent consumption of aluminum (U.S. Bureau of Mines
1989).
Aluminum comprises only about one percent of MS W by weight because it is so light;
however, aluminum is probably the most valuable commodity recoverable from MS W. About 76
to 79 percent of the aluminum in MSW is used beverage cans; other packaging, appliances, and
lawn furniture account for the rest In 1986, consumers discarded 2.4 million tons of aluminum,
of which 1.3 million tons were used beverage cans, 0.4 million tons were other aluminum
packaging, and the remainder (0.7 million tons) was non-packaging aluminum. Of the 2.4
million tons of aluminum discarded as MSW, 0.6 million tons were recovered (consisting almost
entirely of used beverage cans), for an overall recovery rate of 25 percent of all aluminum
discarded, 35.3 percent of aluminum packaging, and 46.2 percent of beverage cans (EPA,
1988a). Table D-2 shows trends in aluminum discarded to MSW (after materials recovery) from
1960 through 1986, with projections through 2000. The trend toward increasing aluminum
discards is expected to continue.
As discussed previously, used beverage cans are the dominant variety of aluminum in
MSW and account for nearly all aluminum recycled. Table D-3 shows trends in used beverage
can recycling from 1985 to 1988; Figure D-l shows those trends graphically from 1976 to 1988
(Note that these data come from two different sources, so the figures do not agree exactly)
Except for a slight dip in 1986, the used beverage can recycling rate has increased steadily since
1976. The potential exists for still higher recycling rates for used beverage cans; in California,
D-7
-------
I
1
e
B
0
0\
£
o\
8
o
oo
o\
in
VO
OS
o\
-
8
-9 -"9
§
V-4 »-H
do
-9
oo °>
do'
<—" O O i
l>
'O
t-4 O O(
oo oo
09
Qd
00
o o
-------
TABLE D-3. USED BEVERAGE CANS SHIPPED AND RECYCLED, 1985 TO 1988
Year
1985
1986
1987
1988
Cans
Shipped
(billions)
64.9
68.3
72.5
77.9
Cans
Reclaimed
(billions)
32.8
32.2
36.6
42.5
^=^=1=
Recycling
Rate
(percent)
50.5
47.1
50.5
54.6
Cans per
Pound
26.6
27.0
27.4
28.3
=====
UBC
Reclaimed
(millions of
tons)
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
Billions of Cans Recycled
45
National Recycling Rate
for Aluminum Can
87 88
Figure D-1. Aluminum Beverage Can Recycling Growth in the U.S.
Source: Alcoa, 1989a through 1989e, Rigid Container Sheet.
D-9 ; )
-------
Texas, and some Southern states, the recycling rate for used beverage cans is as high as 60 to
70 percent (Alcoa, 1989a through 1989e). The aluminum industry wants to increase the national
recycling rate for used beverage cans to 75 percent by 1995 (Phoenix Quarterly).
Most aluminum recycling occurs through private collection efforts. In 1989, there were
nearly 10,000 aluminum recycling centers in the U.S. One industry source estimates that over
10 million people regularly recycle aluminum (Alcoa, 1989a through 1989e). The primary
incentive for recycling aluminum is to earn money; aluminum recycling centers pay about 26
cents per pound (about a penny a can) for used beverage cans. In 1989, recyclers earned an
estimated $900 million from recycling aluminum, compared to $90 million in 1980 (Alcoa,
1989a through 1989e).
The outlook for aluminum recycling is excellent Annual production of aluminum
beverage cans is expected to continue to grow, reaching 120 billion cans by 1995. The market
for recycled aluminum is strong and stable, and consumers have a financial incentive to recycle.
The growth in recycling rates seen over the last decade should continue.
D.4 RECENT MARKET INTERVENTIONS BY FEDERAL AND STATE
GOVERNMENTS
Aluminum recycling is unusual hi that it is dominated by private collection efforts. The
literature offers little information on government interventions affecting the aluminum market;
however, two types of program could have some effect
D.4.1 Mandated Source-Separation Programs
New Jersey passed a mandatory curbside recycling law in 1987 that requires counties to
identify three recyclables for curbside collection. The aim is to reduce solid waste by 25 percent
in two years and increase voluntary recycling (Alcoa, 1989a through 1989e). Consumers who
already recycle aluminum via private buy-back centers are likely to continue to do so (because
they would not get paid for aluminum recycled by the curbside program). Curbside collection
could encourage aluminum recycling by other consumers who do not currently do so. Therefore,
mandatory source-separation programs may increase aluminum recycling.
D.4.2 Beverage Container Deposit Legislation (Bottle Bills)
Bottle bill laws require the consumer to pay a deposit on beverage containers, which can
be redeemed by returning the containers to the retailer. Nine states (Connecticut, Delaware,
Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont) have enacted bottle
' D-10 • • } •
-------
bills, and 23 others are considering such legislation. Bottle bills tend to cause a shift away from
glass toward plastic and aluminum in the beverage container market (EPA, 1988c). Therefore,
bottle bills could increase the availability of aluminum for recycling. It is not clear exactly what
effect such legislation would have on aluminum recycling practices.
D-ll
-------
-------
APPENDIX E
COSTS AND CREDITS OF THE MATERIALS SEPARATION REQUIREMENT
FOR SELECTED GROUPS OF COMBUSTORS
The tables in Appendix E compare the costs and credits of the materials separation
requirement for many different groups of combustors. To ease comparison, the tables
have the same format Each table gives the identified cbsts-and credits of the modeled
materials separation programs. The costs are the costs of collecting recyclables, while the
credits are the avoided landfill cost, avoided refuse collection cost, combustor downsizing
credits, and revenue from the sale of recyclable materials. The difference after the credits
are subtracted from the costs is given as the total cost This total cost is also reported per-
metric-ton separated and per-metric-ton combusted. Except as noted below, the tables
exclude the District of Columbia and certain states because they have laws that require at
least 25 percent materials separation (see Section 2.2).
The tables are divided into eight groups. The first two groups give the costs and
credits for each model program. Group 1 gives costs and credits by program type for
planned combustors (regulated under the New Source Performance Standards); group two
gives costs and credits for existing combustors by program type (regulated under the
Emission Guidelines). Because there are many programs, and hence many tables in these
groups, each group has a matrix showing which table applies to which community and
program (Figures E-l and E-2). The row at the top of each figure shows the combinations
of community population and population density. The column at the left of each figure
shows the three program possibilities; two-stream option 1, two-stream option 2, and
multiple stream. The intersection of the column and row gives a letter that corresponds to
the table with that combination of community and program.
The next two groups of tables include only one table each. Table E-3A gives the
aggregate national costs and credits for all planned combustors, while Table E-4A gives
the aggregate national costs and credits for all exiting combustors.
The fifth group of tables (E-5A through E-5F) gives national costs and credits for
each material that would be separated under the requirement There are six materials:
newspapers, glass, plastic, aluminum, ferrous metal, and yard wastes. Figure E-3 lists
each material and its corresponding table. The allocation of costs and credits to each
material was accomplished by proration on the basis of weight, with one exception. The
exception is yard waste. The collection and processing of yard waste occurs separately
E-l
-------
from the collection and processing of the other materials; therefore, the cost reported for
yard waste is the cost of collecting yard waste and composting. The reported costs for
newspapers and containers cannot be used to determine the incremental cost of collecting
and processing one type of material. For all materials, credits for downsizing, avoided
garbage collection, and avoided landfUling are prorated by weight
The sixth, seventh, and eighth groups of tables give the national totals for various
subgroups of combustors. Each group consists of one table. Table E-6A gives the
aggregate national costs and credits for all combustors with a capacity at least 35 MgPD
(megagrams per day) for all states. Table E-7A gives the national totals (excluding the
nine states and the District of Columbia ) that have a 100 MgPD capacity or greater.
Table E-8A gives the national totals (excluding the nine states and District of Columbia)
for combustors with a 35 MgPD cutoff and with a different assumption regarding
composting programs. In the previous seven groups of tables, the net cost of composting
reflects the assumption that some communities will not operate composting programs,
some will operate backyard composting programs, and some will operate centralized
composting programs. In Table 8, it is assumed that all communities operate centralized
composting programs, and, consequently, the estimates of composting cost and the
magnitude of credits increase.
E-2
-------
-
Two Stream,
Option 1
Two Stream,
Option 2
Multiple
Stream
A
(VS/L)
Community^
B
(VS/M)
C
(S/L)
D
(S/M)
E-1A
E-1B
E-1C
" E
(M/M)
E-1D
E-1E
F
(H/M)
E-1F
E-1G
E-1H
G
(H/H)
E-11
E-1J
Communities classified as follows:
Population:
VS (very small) P ^ 20,000
S (small) 20,001 ^ P ^ 100,000
M (medium) 100,000 z P < 200,000
H (high) 200,001 z P
Density (persons/square mile):
L (low) D <: 400
M (medium) 401 <, D < 800
H (high) 801 < D
FIGURE E-1. GUIDE TO TABLES IN GROUP 1 (COSTS AND CREDITS BY
PROGRAM FOR PLANNED COMBUSTORS)
E-3
-------
TABLE E-1A. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
SMALL POPULATION, MEDIUM DENSITY COMMUNITY
TWO-STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM: OPTION 1
PLANNED MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in $106)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Sales Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
13.9
(7.4)
NA
(2.1)
(5)
(0.6)
(6.3)
(1)
15.3
(7.4)
V • V
NA
(0.7)
\v" * /
(.1.6)
5.6
58.5
9.2
TABLE E-1B. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
SMALL POPULATION, MEDIUM DENSITY COMMUNITY
TWO-STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM: OPTION 2
PLANNED MWCS
(Annualized Cost in SIO6)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Sales Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
Estimate One
••^^••^H
4.5
(2.3)
NA
(0.6)
(1.8)
(0.2)
(10.1)
(1.7)
Estimate Two
m*^BH«
4.9
(2.3)
NA
(0.2)
(0.6)
1.8
57
9.6
E-4
-------
TABLE E-1C. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
SMALL POPULATION, MEDIUM DENSITY COMMUNITY
MULTIPLE STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM
PLANNED MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in $10^)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
8.4
(4.2)
NA
(1.1)
(2.7)
0.4
8.1
1.3
9.1
(4.2)
NA
(0.3)
(0.9)
3.7
74.9
11.8
TABLE E-1D. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
MEDIUM POPULATION, MEDIUM DENSITY COMMUNITY
TWO-STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM: OPTION 2
PLANNED MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in 3106) ~"
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
1.1
(0.6)
NA
(0.2)
(0.6)
(0.3)
(21.5)
(3.5)
1.3
(0.6)
NA
(0.3)
(0.1)
0.3
45.4
7.4
E-5
-------
TABLE E-1E. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
MEDIUM POPULATION, MEDIUM DENSITY COMMUNITY
MULTIPLE STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM
PLANNED MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(AnnuaHzed Cost in S106)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
0.1
4.8
0.7
2.8
(1.1)
NA
(0.1)
(0.3)
1.4
70.6
10.3
TABLE E-1F. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
HIGH POPULATION, MEDIUM DENSITY COMMUNITY
TWO-STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM: OPTION 1
PLANNED MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(AnnuaUzed Cost in S106)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing •
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
40.9
(19.7)
NA
(10.3)
(21.1)
(10)
(22.6)
(3.3)
48.2
(19.7)
NA
(2.5)
(6.7)
19
43.1
6.3
E-6
-------
TABLE E-1G. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
HIGH POPULATION, MEDIUM DENSITY COMMUNITY
TWO-STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM: OPTION 2
PLANNED MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in S106)
Total Separation
Cbnibustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
9
(3)
NA
(2)
(5)
(0.9)
(9.1)
(1.5)
57.7
9.5
TABLE E-1H. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
HIGH POPULATION, MEDIUM DENSITY COMMUNITY
MULTIPLE STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM
PLANNED MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in $106)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
13
(4)
NA
(2.6)
(5.3)
1
10.9
1.6
14.8
(4)
NA
(0.6)
(2.6)
9
76.5
11.2
E-7
-------
TABLE E-1I. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
HIGH POPULATION, HIGH DENSITY COMMUNITY
TWO-STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM: OPTION 1
PLANNED MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in $10°)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
(15.7)
(17)
(2.3)
66.8
(36)
NA
(5.4)
(12)
13.4
47.4
6.4
TABLE E-U. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
HIGH POPULATION, HIGH DENSITY COMMUNITY
TWO-STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM: OPTION 2
PLANNED MWCs
Estimate One
Total
(7)
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in $106)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
34
(13)
NA
(8.1)
(19.6)
39.7
(13)
NA
(1.9)
(6.2)
19
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
(17.2)
(2.7)
49.6
7.8
E-8
-------
Two Stream,
Option 1
Two Stream,
Option 2
Multiple
Stream
A
(VS/L)
E-2A
E-2B
Community3
B
(VS/M)
C
(S/L)
E-2C
E-2D
D
(S/M)
E-2E
E-2F
E
(M/M)
E-2G
E-2H
E-2I
F
(H/M)
E-2J
E-2K
E-2L
G
(H/H)
E-2M
E-2N
Communities classified as follows:
Population:
VS (very small) P £ 20,000
S (smalj) 20,001 £ P z 100,000
M (medium) 100,000 £ P < 200,000
H (high) 200,001 £ P
Density (persons/square mile):
L (low) D £ 400
M (medium) 401 < D < 800
H (high) 801 <; D
FIGURE E-2. GUIDE TO TABLES IN GROUP 2 (COSTS AND CREDITS BY
PROGRAM FOR EXISTING COMBUSTORS
E-9
-------
TABLE E-2A. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
VERY SMALL POPULATION, LOW DENSITY COMMUNITY
TWO-STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM: OPTION 2
EXISTING MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in $106)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
0.5
NA
(0.08)
(0.03)
(0.1)
0.29
166.3
34.9
0.5
NA
(0.04)
(0.02)
(0.3)
0.14
236.3
49.6
TABLE E-2B. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
VERY SMALL POPULATION, LOW DENSITY COMMUNITY
MULTIPLE STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM
EXISTING MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in $106)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
1.4
NA
(0.3)
(0.1)
(0.3)
0.8
139.6
27
1.4
NA
(0.1)
(0.06)
(0.09)
1.15
210.1
40.4
E-10
-------
TABLE E-2C. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
SMALL POPULATION, LOW DENSITY COMMUNITY
TWO-STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM: OPTION 2
EXISTING MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in $10$
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
12
NA
(4)
(2)
J5)
1
23.4
4.9
13.1
NA
(1-9)
(0.5)
(1.5)
8.2
115.3
24.2
TABLE E-2D. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
SMALL POPULATION, LOW DENSITY COMMUNITY
MULTIPLE STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM
EXISTING MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in $106)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
29
NA
(7.3)
(3.5)
J8.5)
9.7
60.5
11.7
31.6
NA
(3.7)
(1)
(2.7)
24.2
148.9
28.8
E-ll
-------
TABLE E-2E. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
SMALL POPULATION, MEDIUM DENSITY COMMUNITY
TWO-STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM: OPTION 1
EXISTING MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in $106)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
0.5
28.3.
5.4
3
NA
(0.4)
(0.1)
(0.3)
2.1
113.1
21.6
TABLE E-2F. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
SMALL POPULATION, MEDIUM DENSITY COMMUNITY
TWO-STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM: OPTION 2
EXISTING MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in $106)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
0.3
18.6
3.9
2.7
NA
(0.4)
(0.1)
(0.3)
1.9
109.2
22.9
E-12
-------
TABLE E-2G. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
MEDIUM POPULATION, MEDIUM DENSITY COMMUNITY
TWO-STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM: OPTION 1
EXISTING MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in S106)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided LandfHling
Avoided Regular Refuse
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
(0.4)
(415)
(0.8)
19
83.2
14.7
TABLE E-2H. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
MEDIUM POPULATION, MEDIUM DENSITY COMMUNITY
TWO-STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM: OPTION 2
EXISTING MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
.(Annualized Cost in 3106)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
(1)
(12.9)
(2.6)
6.2
76.3
15.3
E-13
;s
-------
TABLE E-2I. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
MEDIUM POPULATION, MEDIUM DENSITY COMMUNITY
MULTIPLE STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM
EXISTING MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in S106)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
5.5
NA
(0.8)
(0.2)
(0.5)
106.7
18.9
TABLE E-2J. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
HIGH POPULATION, MEDIUM DENSITY COMMUNITY
TWO-STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM: OPTION 1
EXISTING MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in $106>
Costs of Collecting Recyclables
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
80.7
NA
(40.1)
(20.3)
(41.7)
- (21.4)
(24.3)
(4.3)
95
NA
(20.5)
(4.9)
(13.3)
56.3
63.9
11.3
E-14
-------
TABLE E-2K. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
HIGH POPULATION, MEDIUM DENSITY COMMUNITY
TWO-STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM: OPTION 2
EXISTING MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in $106>
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
(7.8)
(29.8)
(6)
16
60.6
12.2
TABLE E-2L. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
HIGH POPULATION, MEDIUM DENSITY COMMUNITY
MULTIPLE STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM
EXISTING MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in $106)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
25.2
89.2
1518
E-15
-------
TABLE E-2M. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
HIGH POPULATION, HIGH DENSITY COMMUNITY
TWO-STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM: OPTION 1
EXISTING MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in $10°)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
(22.5)
(23.6)
(3.8)
101.8
NA
(22.3)
(5.7)
(12.6)
61.2
64.0
10.3
TABLE E-2N. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
HIGH POPULATION, HIGH DENSITY COMMUNITY
TWO-STREAM RECYCLING PROGRAM: OPTION 2
EXISTING MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in $106>
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection "
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
46.5
NA
(23.3)
(11.1)
(26.8)
(13.7)
(28.5)
(5.5)
54.3
NA
(11.9)
(2,7)
(8.6)
31.1
61.1
11.8
E-16
-------
TABLE E-3. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
NATIONAL TOTALS FOR ALL PROGRAMS
PLANNED MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in S106)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
XUuU
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
^
208
(90)
NA
(50)
(100)
(32)
(15)
(2)
244
(90)
\"* v/
NA
(12)
V •*"•*/
(32)
110
53
7
TABLE E-4. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
NATIONAL TOTALS FOR ALL PROGRAMS
EXISTING MWCs
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in S106)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Residential Refuse Collection
Materials Separation Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
357
NA
(161)
(81)
(168)
(54)
(15)
(3)
413
NA
(82)
(20)
(54)
(256)
(73)
(13)
E-17
r'
-------
Newspaper
Glass
Aluminum
Ferrous
Plastic
Yard Waste
E-5A
E-5B
E-5C
E-5D
E-5E
E-5F
FIGURE E-3. GUIDE TO TABLES IN GROUP 5
(COST AND CREDITS BY MATERIAL
SEPARATED)
E-18
-------
TABLE E-5A. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
NATIONAL AGGREGATE TOTALS BY MATERIAL
NEWSPAPERS
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in $106>
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
• Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Sales Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
184
(17)
(30)
(25)
_(47)
63
11
2
199
(17)
(15)
(6)
(6)
-i^—^™
154
27
5
TABLE E-5B. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
NATIONAL AGGREGATE TOTALS BY MATERIAL
GLASS
Estimate One
(Annualized Cost in $106>
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Sales Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
125
(11)
(21)
(17)
_(58)
17
3
0.5
Estimate Two
^••^•••B
141
(11)
(10)
(4)
99
18
3
E-19
-------
TABLE E-5C. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
NATIONAL AGGREGATE TOTALS BY MATERIAL
ALUMINUM
(Annualized Cost in S106)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Sales Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
Estimate One
12
(1)
(2)
(1)
(83)
(75)
(13)
(2)
Estimate Two
28
(1)
(1)
(4)
(41)
(16)
(3)
(0.5)
TABLE E-5D. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
NATIONAL AGGREGATE TOTALS BY MATERIAL
FERROUS METAL
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in S106)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Sales Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
32
(3)
(5)
(4)
(16)
0.6
0.1
30
5
0.9
E-20
-------
TABLE E-5E. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
NATIONAL AGGREGATE TOTALS BY MATERIAL
PLASTIC
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in SIO6)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Sales Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
55
(5)
(10)
(7)
(64)
(31)
(6)
(1)
70
(5)
(5)
(2)
(13)
(46)
(8)
(1)
TABLE E-5F. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
NATIONAL AGGREGATE TOTALS BY MATERIAL
YARDWASTE
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in SIO6)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Sales Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
156
(52)
(92)
(75)
(0)
(63)
(11)
(2)
171
(52)
\mf~/
(47)
\-ri j
(18)
\ •**-'/
(0)
54
10
2
E-21
-------
TABLE E-6. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
NATIONAL AGGREGATE TOTALS
COMBUSTORS WITH AT LEAST 35 MGPD CAPACITY, ALL STATES
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annuafized Cost in S106)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Sales Revenues
Total
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
(116)
(20)
(5)
915
(125)
(133)
(44)
(120)
492
62
14
TABLE E-7. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
NATIONAL AGGREGATE TOTALS
COMBUSTORS WITH AT LEAST 100 MGPD CAPACITY
Total
Estimate One
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
(92)
(17)
(3)
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in SIO6)
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Sales Revenues
541
(88)
(155)
(128)
(261)
631
(88)
(79)
(31)
(83) :
342
63
10
E-22
Z'l
-------
TABLE E-8. MATERIALS SEPARATION COSTS
NATIONAL AGGREGATE TOTALS
COMBUSTORS WITH AT LEAST 35 MGPD CAPACITY,
ORIGINAL COMPOSTING ASSUMPTION
Estimate One
Estimate Two
(Annualized Cost in $106>
Total Separation
Combustor Downsizing
Avoided Landfilling
Avoided Garbage Collection
Materials Sales Revenues
Total
617
(103)
(184)
(150)
(269)
709
(103)
(94)
(37)
(86)
$ per Mg Collected
$ per Mg Combusted
(89)
(14)
(3)
390
60
11
E-23
-------
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
,'rlease read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
EPA-450/3/91-002
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
Air Pollution Emission Standards and Guidelines
for Municipal Waste Combustors: Economic Analysis
of Materials Separation Requirement
5. REPORT DATE
November 1990
6..PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Brian J. Morton, Christine D. Ellestad, Denise C. Byrd
Don W. Anderson,.Chris C. Chapman, and Anne E. Crook
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
RTI Project Number
233U-4853-28
IE AND ADDRESS
Center for Economics Research
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1A1153C003
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO."
EPA Contract
68D80073
iGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
53C
IY NOTES
A companion report is ". . . .Revision and Update of Economic Impact Analysis
and Regulatory Impact Analysis," EPA-450/3-91-003 (November 1990).
The new source performance standards and emission guidelines for municipal waste
combustors mandate separation of 25 percent of municipal solid waste prior to
combustion. This study investigates the residential recycling programs that
communities of different populations and population densities may operate to
comply with the requirement. The study predicts that two-stream-and multiple-'
stream recycling programs, along with centralized composting, will be most
frequent. The probability that a community will operate a certain program
depends on the type of community and type of program. The study also predicts
the relationships among the type of program, the type of community, and the
diversion rates. The study calculates the total diversion of each separated
material, the change in prices of these materials, the cost of each recycling
program, and the national cost of the separation requirement. Cost-savings from
planned combustor downsizing, avoided landfilling, and avoided garbage collection
were also calculated. The estimate of net cost includes annualized capital,
operations, and maintenance costs, cost-savings, and revenues.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS /This Report I
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
232
20. SECURITY CLASS IThis page/
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R»v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION us OBSOLETE
-------
------- |