United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
(5306W)
EPA530-R-01-018
November 2001
Multifamily Recycling
A National Study
Printed on paper that contains at least 30 percent postconsumer fiber.
-------
-------
Foreword
tiltifamily Recycling: A National Study was prepared by the U.S. Conference of
Mayors and ECO DATA, Inc., under a cooperative agreement from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
This study was undertaken to discover the extent to which multifamily recycling pro-
grams have been implemented in the United States and to attempt to discern factors that have
been associated with successful programs. A Multifamily and High Rise Recycling Assessment was,
mailed to all member communities of the U.S. Conference of Mayors with a population greater
than 25,000 people. The results and analysis presented in this report were drawn from a select-
ed sample of respondents indicating they had implemented multifamily recycling programs.
EPA is making this document available to increase the dissemination of this informa-
tion to elected officials and municipal solid waste management professionals. This expanded
distribution will help promote a better understanding of the potential for increasing the num-
ber of multifamily recycling programs nationwide.
-------
-------
Contents
Executive Summary.
PART1
General Survey Results
Chapter 1
What is Multifamily Recycling? 13
Separate Multifamily Recycling Service 13
Differentiated Multifamily Recycling Service 13
Undifferentiated Multifamily Recycling Service 14
Chapter 2
Scale of Multifamily Recycling Programs 15
Extent of Service—Sample Communities 15
Projection of Sample Results Across the United States 17
Distribution of Responses and National Potential Diversion Projection 17
Chapter 3
Program Organization 19
Organizational Arrangement 19
Set Out Practices/Container Type 20
Collection Frequency 21
Commodities Collected 22
Chapter 4
Diversion Percentages 23
Chapter 5
Costs 25
Costs Per Ton 25
Costs Per Household 25
Cost Trends Over Time ... ...26
PART 2
Characteristics of Successful Multifamily Recycling Programs
Chapter 6
Measuring Success 29
Program Efficiency and Effectiveness 29
Interrelationship of Measures of Success 29
Contents
-------
Measures of Program Success 30
Diversion Rates 32
Collection Efficiency 33
Cost Per Ton Collected 35
Cost Per Household Served 37
Households Per Crew Shift 38
Chapter 7
Elements of Successful Programs 39
Factors Affecting Collection 39
Containers 40
Setouts 40
Commodities Collected 42
Recordkeeping 43
Costs 43
Fees 44
Chapter 8
Lessons Learned 47
Low Participation 47
Contract Provisions 51
What They Would Do Differently 51
Complaints Received 51
Contamination 51
Enforcement Activities 51
Education 52
Chapter 9
Summing Up Success 53
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Methodology 57
Sample Program Selection Process 57
Comparsion of Selected Sample to Entire Population 61
Data Collection 62
Data Analysis 62
Measuring Tons 63
Consideration Using the Per Captia Method 63
Appendix B
Definitions 65
Appendix C
Individual Program Information 67
Contents
-------
TABLES AND FIGURES
ES Table 1
40 Sample Communities Selected For Analysis 2
ES Table 2
Productivity Measures and Multifamily Diversion Rates 3
ES Figure la
Single Family: Diversion and Total Discards/Household 6
ES Figure Ib
Multifamily: Diversion and Total Discards/Household 6
ES Figure 2a
Single Family: Diversion and Cost/Ton 7
ES Figure 2b
Multifamily: Diversion and Cost/Ton 8
ES Table 3
Characteristics of Successful Multifamily Recycling Programs 9
Table 1
Multifamily Recycling—Sample Community Program Descriptions 16
Figure 1
Organizational Arrangements for Multifamily Recycling Collection 20
Figure 2
Containers for Multifamily Recycling 21
Table 2
Multifamily and Single Family Diversion Rates 24
Table 3
Cost/Ton and Cost/Household Multifamily and Single Family
Recycling and Refuse 26
Table 4
Productivity Measures and Multifamily Diversion Rates 31
Figure 3
Multifamily: Diversion and Total Discards/Household 32
Figure 4
Single Family: Diversion and Total Discards/Household 33
Contents
-------
Table 5
Multifamily Recycling Program Efficiency Measures 34
Figure 5
Multifamily: Diversion and Cost/Ton 35
Figure 6
Single Family: Diversion and Cost/Ton 36
Figure 7
Multifamily: Diversion and Total Cost/Household 37
Figure 8
Single Family: Diversion and Total Cost/Household 38
Table 6
Elements of Successful Multifamily Recycling Programs 41
Table 7
Successful Multifamily Programs—How Materials Are Collected 42
Table 8
Materials Included in Multifamily Recycling Programs by Diversion Rate 44
Table 9
Successful Multifamily Recycling Programs Fees and Charges 46
Table 10
Comments About Multifamily Recycling Programs by Diversion Rate 48
Table 11
Characteristics of Successful Multifamily Recycling Programs 53
Table A-1
Sampling Proportions from Each Geographic Quadrant 58
Table A-2
Responses to Multifamily and High-Rise Assessment as of June 12, 1997 58
Table A-3
Cities with Multifamily Recycling Programs 60
Table A-4
Comparsion of Selected Cities to Regions as a Whole 61
Table C-l
Individual Program Information 68
Contents
-------
vfi
Purpose
ultifamily recycling is often over-
looked by public sector planners.
The reasons for this omission are
many, but perhaps the most important is the fact
that multiple dwelling units are often considered
part of the commercial sector, and many local
governments exercise little control over this sec-
tor. Where refuse is collected under individual
contracts between landlords and competing pri-
vate firms, recycling is often similarly unregulat-
ed. Another reason is the perception that
apartment dwellers are less likely to participate in
recycling programs than are single family
dwellers. Nonetheless, many communities have
established and maintained successful multifamily
recycling programs.
This report is the result of the first national study of
multifamily recycling programs. Funded by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and conducted by
the U.S. Conference of Mayors and ECODATA, Inc.,
the study's three main goals include:
• To discover the extent to which multifamily recycling
programs have been implemented in U.S. communi-
ties.
• To describe the programs that presently exist, includ-
ing an analysis of the cost and diversion rates.
• To identify factors that have been associated with
successful programs.
This section summarizes the results from this study,
including a description of services provided, a presenta-
tion of measures indicating the effectiveness of these
programs, and a discussion of factors that were associat-
ed with those programs that achieved the highest diver-
sion rates.
The study's findings are based on a 1997 Multifamily
and High Rise Recycling Assessment, which was mailed to
all member communities of the U.S. Conference of
Mayors with a population in excess of 25,000. Of the
227 communities that responded to the assessment, 118
reported having had a multifamily recycling program in
place for at least 12 months. This study is based on
detailed information obtained from 40 communities
selected from those 118 communities (see ES Table 1).
The objectives for choosing the samples were to provide
representation from all geographic sectors of the United
States, to include both large and small communities, to
include only those communities whose programs have
been in existence for at least a year, and to allow for
potential projections to the entire national multifamily
population.
Executive Summary
-------
ES Table 1
40 Sample Communities Selected For Analysis
Alameda, CA
Altoona, PA
Bridgewater, NJ
Broward County, FL
Cherry Hill, NJ
Dayton, OH
Daytona Beach, FL
Diamond Bar, CA
Durham, NC
East Brunswick, NJ
East Orange, NJ
Fountain Valley, CA
Frankfurt, KY
Greenfield, Wl
Hillsboro, OR
Jacksonville, FL
Lakewood, OH
Lancaster, OH
Laredo, TX
Largo, FL
Lima, OH
Maple Grove, MN
Miami, FL
Newport News, VA
New York City, NY
North Tonawanda, NY
Old Bridge, NJ
Olympia, WA
Placentia, CA
Portland, OR
Roswell, GA
Saint Paul, MN
San Jose, CA
Seattle, WA
Syracuse, NY
Tamarac, FL
Tampa, FL
Vista, CA
University City, MO
Wallingford, CT
Methodology
To achieve the objectives of the study, programs were
selected at random from each of the four U.S. Census-
defined geographic sectors of the United States, with the
proportion of programs sampled determined by the sec-
tor's relative share of all multifamily housing in build-
ings with 10 or more units. Of the 40 communities
selected for this study, 10 are in the Northeast, 8 are in
the Midwest, 12 are in the South, and 10 are in the
West. Data were obtained and confirmed from these
communities through the following methods:
• Mail contacts with recycling coordinators.
• Telephone followup with collectors (e.g., private sec-
tor firms and public sector managers), program
administrators, and processors, as appropriate.
• Various internal consistency checks after initial col-
lection (e.g., refuse plus recyclables per household
was computed as a data reliability check).
• Re-contacts and data confirmation for communities
with unlikely results.
While the study focused on multifamily recycling
programs, data also were gathered on multifamily refuse
collection in order to calculate diversion rates. In addi-
tion, for comparison purposes, statistics were gathered
on single family recycling, refuse, and yard waste pro-
grams in the 40 communities.
Since multifamily refuse is frequently collected in the
same trucks and on the same service routes as large
commercial customers, estimation—either of multifamily
refuse or recyclables—was often necessary in order to
calculate the program's diversion rates. Indeed, many
communities did not have data on their collected
amounts of multifamily refuse or recyclables. In these
cases, estimates were made using either the volume/den-
sity method or the per capita allocation method. For
more information on these methods, see Appendices A
and B. To find out which estimation method was used
for each community, see Appendix C.
General Findings
This report includes information on how the programs
are organized, their diversion rates, and costs (see ES Table
2). In some instances, where averages are calculated for all
40 communities, New York City's (NYC) statistics are
omitted to avoid skewing the data. When individual per
ton or per household costs or other factors are consid-
ered, however, NYC data are included. Following are
some of the highlights from the overall results; more
detailed information can be found in the full report.
Executive Summary
-------
^^^ Productivity
Measures and Multifamily
Diversion
Rates
Multifamily Curbside Diversion
Value
Number of Observations
Collection Cost/Ton
Multifamily Recycling*
Multifamily Refuse
Single Family Recycling
Single Family Refuse
Single Family Yard Trimmings
Collection Cost/Household/Year
Multifamily Recycling
Multifamily Refuse
TOTAL PER MF HOUSEHOLD
Single Family Recycling
Single Family Refuse
Single Family Yard Trimmings
TOTAL PER SF HOUSEHOLD
Households/Crew Shift
Multifamily Recycling
Multifamily Refuse
Single Family Recycling
Single Family Refuse
Tons/Household/Year
Multifamily Recycling
Multifamily Refuse
TOTAL MF Municipal Solid Waste
Single Family Recycling
Single Family Refuse
Single Family Yard Trimmings
TOTAL SF Municipal Solid Waste
Curbside Diversion Rates
Multifamily Recycling
Single Family Recycling
Single Family Yard Trimmings
Complaints/Household/Year
* Excludes two cities with very high per ton
<10%
13
$251.00
$43.13
$151.80
$47.48
$75.03
$16.63
$45.17
$61.80
$21.65
$58.69
$16.05
$96.39
2,333
1,205
1,561
618
0.061
1.023
1.084
0.139
1.312
0.317
1.768
6.04%
9.25%
16.94%
0.017
costs, in the less
10-20%
16
$159.00
$72.60
$131.70
$60.28
$51 .48
$20.56
$72.34
$92.90
$30.96
$64.71
$20.67
$116.34
2,246
1,537
1,549
1,142
0.145
0.934
1.079
0.260
1.123
0.258
1.641
13.93%
17.70%
15.90%
0.040
than 10% diversion group
>20%
11
$113.00
$66.39
$81 .64
$101.32
$127.16
$21.81
$36.01
$57.82
$24.73
$84.01
$15.89
$124.63
1,676
2,144
1,629
3,962
0.211
0.595
0.806
0.297
0.951
0.209
1.457
27.76%
20.39%
12.48%
0.017
Statistical
Significance**
40
Yes-95%
Yes-99%
Yes-99%
Yes-99%
No
No
No
No
Yes-90%
No
No
No
No
Yes-90%
Yes-99%
Yes-95%
Yes-95%
Yes-99%
Yes-95%
No
Yes-95%
Yes-99%
Yes-99%
No
No
** Indicates whether or not the difference in values is statistically significant, and the confidence level with which the null
hypothesis of no difference can be rejected.
Executive Summary
-------
Scale of Multifamily Recycling
Programs—Sample Communities
Including NYC, the 40 sample communities provide
curbside recycling to 3-9 million multifamily house-
holds. Without NYC, the sample communities serve
887,558 multifamily households, a figure that represents
7-7 percent of the total 11.5 million multifamily house-
holds in the United States. In each sample community,
an average of 96,993 multifamily households are served,
with a range of 301 to 2,992,169 households (includes
NYC) and a mean of 22,758 (excludes NYC). In com-
parison, an average of 44,069 single family households
receive recycling service in each sample community.
Scale of Multifamily Recycling
Programs—Nationwide
The data obtained from the 40 communities repre-
sent a national sample that can help determine the
extent of multifamily recycling service in communities
across the nation. It is possible to project the initial
assessment survey data and acquire a reasonable estimate
of the number of multifamily households served
throughout the nation. Before the 40 sample communi-
ties are separated out, the 118 survey respondents with
households with multifamily recycling programs (52
percent of the total 227 respondents) serve an estimated
23-4 percent of the 11.5 million multifamily households
in buildings with 10 or more dwellings in the United
States. The number of multifamily recycling programs
could serve more than 23-4 percent of all multifamily
households if some communities with programs did not
respond to the assessment survey. If the survey data are
applied nationally, then nearly 52 percent of U.S. multi-
family households might currently be served by recy-
cling programs. (Considering that communities with
multifamily recycling programs were probably more
likely to respond to the survey, the last figure is probably
an upper bound estimate.)
Initial responses to the survey indicated that 37 per-
cent of communities responding from the Midwest had
multifamily recycling programs. The percentages of
communities with multifamily recycling programs
responding from other geographical quadrants in the
United States were 68 percent in the West, 64 percent
in the Northeast, and 45 percent in the South. An esti-
mate of the potential for increased diversion also can be
determined for each geographical region by applying the
unserved percentages to the region's total number of
multifamily housing units. In the Northeast, for exam-
ple, where there are 3-46 million households in build-
ings with 10 or more units, if 36 percent do not receive
service, then, at an average diversion rate of 0.14 tons
per multifamily household per year (the figure calculat-
ed in this study), an additional 174,384 tons could be
diverted from this region. Nationally, this methodology
yields an estimated 847,205 additional tons that could
be diverted from disposal. This figure for potential
diversion might be even higher in reality, as the estimate
of the percentage of households receiving recycling ser-
vice is an upper bound.
Organizational Arrangement
Examining the 40 sample communities reveals a
great deal about how multifamily recycling programs are
encouraged, organized, and implemented. Compared to
single family recycling programs, the multifamily recy-
cling programs are slightly less likely to be mandatory
(61.5 percent versus 64.1 percent), were more recently
established (average inception in 1991 versus 1989), and
generate slightly fewer complaints per household served
(0.028 versus 0.034 per household per year). Private
firms provide 67-5 percent of the multifamily recycling
collection, while public sector collectors provide 32.5
percent. Most of the private collection for multifamily
recycling falls under a contract or exclusive franchise
agreement between a firm and a local government; only
17-5 percent of multifamily programs rely on subscrip-
Executive Summary
-------
tion agreements between private firms and customers.
In comparison, single family programs use municipal
employees for 30 percent of their programs, while 60
percent use exclusive franchise or contract arrangements
with a private firm and 10 percent use subscription
services.
For multifamily households, the average number of
recycling collections per week is 0.98, with a range of
0.5 to 2. For single family households, the average num-
ber of recycling collections per week is 0.9- The 40 sam-
ple programs accept anywhere from 1 to 16 different
commodities in their multifamily recycling programs; all
collect old newspapers.
Diversion Percentages
The organization of service in the sample communi-
ties becomes even more important when considered
next to the level of diversion that service achieves. In
this report, diversion was determined by computing the
tonnage of multifamily refuse generated and recyclables
collected, and computing the ratio of per household
multifamily recycling to the sum of per household mul-
tifamily recycling and refuse. The multifamily diversion
rates presented below are what would be achieved if all
households that receive refuse collection were included
in the recycling program (see ES Figures la and Ib).
• An average 0.14 tons of multifamily recyclables and
0.87 tons of refuse were collected per household per
year.
• The average multifamily recycling program diversion
rate is 14.6 percent, with a range of 0.5 to 37-3 per-
cent (diversion increases to 15-7 percent when drop-
off tonnages are included). In comparison, the
average single family curbside diversion rate is 16.0
percent, with a range of 6.0 to 36 percent (diversion
increases to 17-1 percent when drop-off tonnages are
included).
Multifamily households, with typically fewer persons
per household than single family households, generate
less refuse and recyclables than do single family house-
holds. Although the diversion rates for multifamily and
single family programs average 14.6 percent and 16.0
percent, respectively, the recycling tonnage per house-
hold is 65 percent greater for single family households
than for multifamily households. In both the multifami-
ly and single family recycling programs studied, howev-
er, the following phenomena were observed when
diversion rates increased:
• The quantity of materials recycled increased.
• The quantity of materials discarded as refuse
decreased.
• The total discard stream (recyclables plus refuse, for
multifamily households, and recyclables plus refuse
plus yard waste, for single family households)
decreased.
It is possible that this decrease in the aggregate dis-
card stream is due to households actually reducing their
discards as they become attuned to recycling. Similarly,
the decrease in the household discard stream (as diver-
sion increases) might be a result of increased source
reduction as residents actively participate in a recycling
program. If true, these correlations would greatly
enhance the economic viability of recycling.
Costs
In addition to the materials a recycling program
diverts, a key factor in any recycling program is its cost.
Of all collection services studied (including multifamily
and single family recycling and refuse, and yard trim-
mings collection), multifamily recycling has the highest
average, minimum, and maximum cost per ton (see ES
Figures 2a and 2b). In this study, the refuse collection
costs per ton collected are the net of disposal expenses
and processing costs. The following unit costs for the
sample communities were obtained:
Executive Summary
-------
ES Figure 1 a
Single Family: Diversion and Total Discards/Household
o
I
1_
0)
Q.
V)
c
p
<10% 10-20% >20%
Diversion Percentage
Tons/HH Recycling
Tons/HH Refuse
Tons/HH Yard Trimmings
ES Figure 1b
03
v>
o
X
<5
Q.
I/)
O
Multifamily: Diversion and Total Discards/Household
1.2
1.0 _
0.8 _
0.6 _
0.4 _
0.2 _
0
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
7
/
/
i
/
/
/
/
i
/
/
/
/ /
10-20% >20%
Diversion Percentage
Tons/HH Recycling
Tons/HH Refuse
Executive Summary
-------
• Multifamily recycling costs an average of $177 per
ton collected, with a range of $62 to $622. In com-
parison, single family recycling costs an average of
$127 per ton, with a range of $11 to $420.
• Multifamily refuse collection costs an average of $63
per ton, just slightly less than single family refuse
collection, which averages $69 per ton.
Collection costs per household served, for both sin-
gle and multifamily households, however, tend to show
the inverse relationship observed for costs per ton col-
lected: the refuse collection figures are higher than the
recycling figures. The following per household costs
were obtained for the sample communities:
Multifamily recycling costs an average of $20.50 per
household served, with a range of $7-20 to $42.70.
This compares to an average cost per single family
household of $28.76, with a range of $6.04 to
$64.82.
Multifamily refuse collection costs an average of
$53-69 per household per year, compared to an aver-
age of $68.23 for single family refuse collection. The
cost per household receiving yard trimmings collec-
tion (typically a single family service) is $18.56.
ES Figure 2a
Single Family: Diversion and Cost/Ton
S£
JO
8
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
D--
<10% 10-20% >20%
Diversion Percentage
Cost/Ton Recycling
~ Cost/Ton Refuse
Cost/Ton Yard Trimmings
Executive Summary
-------
ES Figure 2b
Multifamily: Diversion and Cost/Ton
S2
JO
"o
Q
300
250
200
150
100
50
<10% 10-20% >20%
Diversion Percentage
Cost/Ton Recycling
Cost/Ton Refuse
Successful Multifamily Recycling
Programs
While these general data are an invaluable part of
assessing the current status of multifamily recycling pro-
grams and their operations, another beneficial aspect of
this study deals with program success and how it is
attained. To help communities learn how to create or
maintain a successful program, this report identifies and
highlights the program characteristics that are associated
with high diversion rates. The first step in this endeavor,
though, is defining success. One definition of a success-
ful multifamily recycling program might be any pro-
gram that achieves a diversion rate higher than the 14.6
percent average calculated in this study. A more strin-
gent definition, however, was applied during this
research. Only communities that achieve a diversion rate
of 20 percent or higher are considered successful in this
study. Using this definition, the 40 communities can be
grouped as follows:
• High Diversion (20 percent and up): 11 communities
• Medium Diversion (10 to 20 percent): 16 communities
• Low Diversion (less than 10 percent): 13 communities
Throughout this report, the terms high, medium, and
low are used to describe the programs that fall into these
three categories. Two important factors play into the
success of a recycling program: efficiency and effective-
ness. Efficiency refers to measures of the productivity of
collection crews and effectiveness refers to how well a
program meets policy objectives. A program can be very
effective (i.e., high-diversion rate) and not very efficient
(i.e., high unit costs). The most successful programs
meet both of these criteria. The productivity measures
for multifamily recycling used in this study are cost per
ton collected, annual cost per household served, number
of tons of recyclables collected per household per year,
and diversion rates.
Executive Summary
-------
ES Table 3
Characteristics of Successful Multifamily Recycling Programs
Program
Element
What Happens In High-Diversion
Communities?
Percentage of High-
Diversion Communities
With This Practice
Management
Collection
Participation
Conduct recycling through a private firm under
contract or exclusive franchise to local government.
Collect multifamily recyclables on the same routes
as single family recyclables, using the same
truck and crew.
Ensure compliance through mandatory participation,
with sanctions available to local governments for
enforcement.
Commodities Include more recycled commodities: mixed waste
paper, OCC, magazines, and phone books in
addition to ONP, glass, plastics, and steel and
aluminum cans.
Containers
Fees
Provide container with capacity of at least 90 gallons.
Collect materials in sets of containers, with one set
per 15-20 households and two to three containers in
the average set.
Charge monthly flat fee (usually $2 or more) to units
for recycling. Charge variable fee for refuse (reduced
solid waste fee as more materials are diverted
to recycling). Average fee is lower in high-diversion
communities.
82% of high-diversion
group
61% of high-diversion
group
90% of high-diversion
group
82% of high-diversion
group
64% of high- and
medium-diversion
groups
63.6% of high-
diversion group
What are the benefits of attaining that high-diversion
level? Successful recycling programs often see the follow-
ing results:
• Unit cost of collecting recyclables decreases. The
average cost per ton to collect multifamily recycling
in the low-diversion group is $177 versus $113 in
the high-diversion group.
• Quantity of refuse set out for collection decreases. As
diversion rates increase, however, the cost per ton to
collect refuse increases from $43 per ton in the low-
diversion group to $66 per ton in the high-diversion
group-
Decreases in refuse setouts exceed the increase in
recycling, implying that waste reduction also is
occurring in communities with the most successful
recycling programs.
Executive Summary
-------
-------
Parti
General Survey Results
Chapter 1
What is Multifamily Recycling?
Chapter 2
Scale of Multifamily Recycling Programs
Chapter 3
Program Organization
Chapter 4
Diversion Percentages
Chapter 5
Costs
-------
-------
At present, no universal definition of
what constitutes a multifamily recycling
program exists. Some or all multifamily
dwellings within a community can receive recy-
cling and refuse service as part of the regular sin-
gle family service, for example. They also can
receive service as part of the commercial sector.
In some jurisdictions, multifamily units are served
separately, distinct from either single family ser-
vice or service for the commercial sector.
Because so many variations exist, this study
defines multifamily programs as the recycling ser-
vice provided to multifamily dwellings, distinct
from that provided to single family establish-
ments, if such a distinction exists. Examples of
how this definition was applied during the
research phase of this study are described in this
chapter.
What is Multifamily
Recycling?
Separate Multifamily Recycling
Service
Some multifamily units in a community receive
recycling service as part of their regular single family
curbside recycling program, while other larger complex-
es receive separate service. Alameda, California, for
example, includes duplexes in its single family curbside
recycling program; triplexes and up are included in its
multifamily recycling program. For this study, the mul-
tifamily program is defined as the service provided to
triplexes and up.
Differentiated Multifamily Recycling
Service
In many communities, the multifamily recycling
program is differentiated in some way (other than the
number of units per complex) from the single family
recycling program. This differentiation can be by collec-
tors of recyclables, container types, collection frequen-
cies, fee structures, or other elements. In cases where
this distinction occurs, this study defines multifamily
recycling as the service provided to households served by the
differentiated program. Multifamily households receiving
single family service (i.e., no differentiation in container
type, collection frequency, etc.) are included in the sin-
gle family service.
Townhouses, for example, frequently receive single
family 18-gallon recycling bins, while larger multifamily
complexes receive sets of 90-gallon carts. This study,
therefore, includes the larger complexes in the multi-
family recycling program and the townhouses in the sin-
gle family program. Those units not included in either
program are considered unserved.
What is Multifamily Recycling?
-------
Undifferentiated Multifamily Recycling
Service
In a few communities, all households and establish-
ments are included in the same recycling program. For
these cases, this study defines the multifamily house-
holds by allocating the tonnages of recyclables collected
proportionately to population in the single family
households and in the multifamily households. For
undifferentiated service, since multifamily and single
family households are served on the same routes and by
the same trucks, households per truck shift were calcu-
lated by dividing the total number of both multifamily
and single family households by the total number of
truck shifts. In this case, the number of households
served per truck shift would be the same for multifamily
and single family service. Households not included in
the program are considered unserved.
What is Multifamily Recycling?
-------
This study gathered information on multi-
family recycling and refuse services, as
well as single family recycling, refuse,
and yard trimmings services, for all 40 sample
communities. All of the communities provide sin-
gle family recycling programs in addition to their
multifamily service. Throughout this report, single
family data gathered from the sample communi-
ties are included for comparison purposes.
Unless otherwise indicated, references made to
single family and multifamily data pertain to this
same group of 40 communities. For more details
on the study's methodology, see Appendix A.
Scale of Multifamily
Recycling Programs
Extent of Service—Sample
Communities
The average number of multifamily households
served in each sample program is 96,993, with a range
of 301 to 2,992,169- The high-end estimate includes
New York City (NYC); the mean without NYC is
22,758 households.1 In comparison, the average number
of single family households receiving curbside service in
these communities, 44,069, is about twice as large.
These data are displayed in Table 1.
Most multifamily households in the sample commu-
nities receive recycling service. In 27 out of the 40 com-
munities, all of the multifamily households are included
in the recycling programs. This means that in 67 per-
cent of the communities with a multifamily recycling
program, all multifamily households are served. In the
remaining 33 percent of the communities, some multi-
family households are not included in the program. The
average number of multifamily households not included
in each recycling program is 4,199, with a range of 0 to
45,125 (including NYC). In comparison, an average of
1,144 single family households are not included in the
single family recycling programs.
The 40 communities collected an average of 14,714
tons of recyclables from multifamily households (2,665
excluding NYC). This compares to an average of 9,966
tons of recyclables collected from the single family
households in these same communities. Including NYC,
the 40 sample communities provide 3-9 million multi-
family households with curbside recycling. Without
NYC, the remaining 39 communities provide 887,558
multifamily households with curbside recycling. This
figure represents 7-7 percent of the total 11.5 million
multifamily households living in dwellings with 10 or
more units in the United States (excluding NYC).
1 In some instances, where an average of tonnage or total cost is calculated for the 40 communities, New York City's data are omitted in the
interest of representative analysis. When per ton or per household costs or other factors are considered, however, New York City data are
included.
Scale of Multifamily Recycling Programs
-------
HI Multifamily Recycling — Sample Community Program
Item
Scale of Program:
Number of HHs served
Excluding New York City
Number of HHs not served
Excluding New York City
Tons collected
Excluding New York City
Service Provided:
Year program started
Percent mandatory
Number of set outs
Number of containers/set
Number of HHs/set
Percent to MRF
Complaints/HH/year
Number of collections/week
Type of container:
Can or bag
Cart, 90-1 00 gal
Dumpster
Bin < 20 gal
Can or 60 gal cart
Who provides container:
City
Private firm
Customer
Number of Items Recycled
Mean
96,993
22,758
4,199
4,307
14,714
2,665
1991
61 .5%
2.6
2.4
20.5
85.0%
0.028
0.98
0.0%
50.0%
17.5%
17.5%
15.0%
57.5%
35.0%
7.5%
9.4
Multifamily
Minimum
301
301
0 (n=27)
0 (n=26)
36
36
1982
0.0%
0
1
1
1 00.0%
0
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
Single Family
Maximum
2,092,169
385,316
45,125
45,125
484,640
44,773
1996
100.0%
7
7
200
100.0%
0.21
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16
Mean
44,069
44,069
1,144
1,144
9,966
9,966
1989
64.1%
2.3
1.6
1
88.0%
0.034
0.92
5.0%
2.5%
0.0%
72.5%
20.0%
60.0%
27.5%
12.5%
NA
Scale of Multifamily Recycling Programs
-------
Projection of Sample Results Across
the United States
The data obtained from the 40 sample communities
represent a national sample. By calculating the number
of multifamily households served in these communities,
it is possible to project this information and obtain a
reasonable estimate of the number of multifamily
households served nationwide. If the 118 communities
with multifamily recycling programs (out of the total
227 communities) that responded to the assessment sur-
vey have an average size that parallels that of the 39
sample communities (excluding NYC), then approxi-
mately 2.68 million multifamily households are served
by the 118 respondent communities. Following this
logic, how prevalent is multifamily recycling in the
United States? Consider the following assessments:
• The 118 communities (with multifamily recycling pro-
grams) that responded to the assessment are estimated
to provide recycling service to 23-4 percent of 11.5
million multifamily households (living in buildings
with 10 or more dwelling units) in the United States.
• The percentage of multifamily households receiving
recycling services could exceed 23-4 percent, if some
communities with programs did not respond to the
assessment survey.
• Since 52 percent (118 out of 227 total respondents)
of those communities responding to the assessment
survey reported a multifamily recycling program, and
if this fairly represents all communities in the United
States, then nearly 52 percent of U.S. multifamily
households might currently be served by recycling
programs.
As communities with a multifamily recycling program
were probably more likely to have answered the assess-
ment survey than were communities without such a
program, 52 percent is probably an upper bound esti-
mate of the percentage of multifamily households with
access to recycling in the United States.
Distribution of Responses and
National Potential Diversion Projection
A total of 118 communities indicated they had a
multifamily recycling program. The following list shows
the percentage of communities (in each region) that
indicated they had such a program:
• Midwest: 37 percent
• South: 45 percent
• Northeast: 63 percent
• West: 68 percent
It is possible these responses are skewed toward those
communities with recycling programs for multifamily
housing since they were more likely to have responded
to the assessment survey. Care should be taken, there-
fore, in generalizing as to the frequency of these pro-
grams across the nation.3
Statistics on the current diversion attained in the 40
sample communities enable a prediction of the potential
for multifamily recycling's future national growth and
diversion achievement. An estimate of the potential for
increased diversion can be determined for each geo-
graphical region by applying the unserved percentages
to the region's total number of multifamily housing
units. In the Northeast, for example, where there are
The sampling methodology utilized selects programs in proportion to the entire universe of large multifamily housing units in each sector.
This approach enables a reasonable projection to the entire universe of multifamily units, assuming full-scale adoption of recycling programs
for these units. So, for example, the average diversion per multifamily unit, as predicted from the sampled programs, can validly be projected
as the potential for the entire country, assuming recycling in multifamily housing were adopted everywhere.
The sampling approach enables reasonably valid national projections to be made. The approach determines sample size per region based upon
the regional distribution of multifamily units in the United States, not the regional distribution of multifamily recycling programs. Thus, the
sampling approach does not provide an equal chance of all programs being included in the sample. Programs in a region with few cities pro-
viding multifamily recycling and many multifamily units are more likely to be selected for this study than are programs in a region with many
multifamily recycling programs. Selection was most likely in the Northeast, where 10 out of 15 programs in existence for more than a year
were selected. Selection is least likely in the West, where 10 out of 46 programs were selected. In the Midwest, 8 out of 21 programs were
selected; in the South, 12 out of 27 programs were selected. In the actual sampling, numbers were assigned to all eligible programs in each
geographic sector, and the desired number of samples was drawn at random.
Scale of Multifamily Recycling Programs
-------
3.46 million households in buildings with 10 or more
units, if 36 percent do not receive service, then, at an
average recycling rate of 0.14 tons per multifamily
household per year, an additional 174,384 tons could be
diverted from these households. Nationally, this
methodology yields an estimated 847,205 additional
tons that could be diverted from disposal. This figure
for potential diversion might be even higher in reality. It
is likely that cities with multifamily recycling programs
were disproportionately likely to respond to the assess-
ment survey, making the percentage of all communities
with multifamily recycling programs significantly less
than the regional figures cited above. In that case, the
potential diversion from disposal possible by increasing
coverage of multifamily recycling would only increase
from the estimate presented above.
Scale of Multifamily Recycling Programs
-------
multifamily or single family recycling
program is typically defined by the
following characteristics:
Organizational arrangement for collection
of recyclables
Materials collected
Set-out practice
Containers used by households
Frequency of collection
Collection methodology
Processing of materials
Marketing of materials
Program financing arrangement
Program Organization
Organizational Arrangement
For all collection services, there is a basic differentia-
tion between services provided by employees of a local
government (i.e., municipal service) and services provid-
ed by employees of a private firm (i.e., private service).
Private service includes the following: contract service,
franchise service, and subscription service. For a more
detailed definition and explanation of these terms, see
Appendix B.
Figure 1 describes the types of organizational
arrangements for multifamily recycling programs found
among the 40 sample communities. The key findings
are as follows:
• Private firms perform most of the multifamily recy-
cling collection (67-5 percent).
• Only 32.5 percent of the communities have public
sector recycling collection for multifamily complexes.
• Most private collection is under a contract or exclu-
sive franchise agreement between the firm and the
local government.
• Only 17-5 percent rely on subscription agreements
between private firms and customers. Communities
with subscription arrangements tend to be located in
states such as Connecticut, where it is mandated that
all refuse customers be provided with recycling services.
• 61.5 percent of the programs are mandatory.
• The average year of program inception was 1991.
• The average number of complaints per household is
0.028.
Compared to multifamily collection services, the
study found that single family recycling services are:
• About as likely to be provided by municipal employ-
ees (30 percent).
Program Organization
-------
Figure 1
Organizational Arrangements for Multifamily Recycling
Collection
Municipal (32.5%)
Subscription (17.5%)
Contract (27.5%)
Franchise (12.5%)
NE Franchise1 (10.0%)
NOTE: See Appendix B for definitions of organizational arrangements.
1 NE Franchise is nonexclusive franchise.
• Significantly more likely to be under exclusive fran-
chise and contract arrangements (60 percent).
• Less likely to be controlled by subscription arrange-
ments (10 percent).
These findings are consistent with the observation
that communities often consider multifamily units to be
a part of the commercial sector, and commercial garbage
and recycling services are less frequently provided under
municipal, contract, or exclusive franchise arrangements.
Compared to single family recycling programs, the
multifamily recycling programs are slightly less likely to
be mandatory (61.5 percent versus 64.1 percent), more
recently established (average inception in 1991 versus
1989), and generate slightly fewer complaints per house-
hold served (0.028 versus 0.034 per household per year).
Setout Practices/Container Type
According to the results from the sample communi-
ties, multifamily households are typically not provided
with individual containers for their recyclables. Instead,
sets of containers are shared, with each set serving an
average of 20.5 households. A set of containers ranges
from 1 to 7 receptacles, with an average of 2.4 contain-
ers per set. The number of containers, not surprisingly,
corresponds almost exactly to the number of set-outs
required: an average of 2.6, with a range of 0 (a com-
munity with a dirty materials recovery facility) to 7- In
some cases, a material, such as old corrugated card-
board, may be placed alongside, instead of actually
inside, the recycling containers.
Approximately 58 percent of local governments pay
for the sets of containers provided for their multifamily
programs. The most widely used multifamily recycling
container, appearing in 50 percent of the sample communities,
Program Organization
-------
is the 90- to 100-gallon wheeled cart. The second most
widely used containers, tied at 17-5 percent each, were
Dumpsters (typically 1 to 4 cubic yards) or traditional
rectangular plastic boxes of approximately 20-gallon
capacity. The remaining 15 percent of the programs use
a 60-gallon cart or large garbage can. Figure 2 shows the
distribution of containers used for multifamily recycling
collection. Note, these types of containers are loaded
into the recycling vehicle, and are not provided to each
multifamily household.
In comparison, single family recycling programs are
overwhelmingly likely to use a rectangular plastic bin for
holding recyclables (72.5 percent); the next most popular
container for single family recycling programs is the 60-
gallon cart. In contrast to multifamily recycling programs,
where only 7-5 percent of customers must provide their
own containers, in single family programs, 12.5 percent
of communities require the generator to provide cus-
tomers with the recycling container.
Collection Frequency
Recyclables are collected more frequently in multi-
family dwellings than in single family households, per-
haps because storage space is limited and relatively
expensive in multifamily complexes. For multifamily
households, the average number of recycling collections
per week is 0.98, with a range of 0.5 to 2. Frequency is
lower for single family programs than for multifamily
programs; the average number of single family collections
Figure 2
Containers for Multifamily Recycling
Can or bag (0.0%)
90 + gal. cart (50.0%)
Dumpster (17.5%)
18-20 gal. bin (17.5%)
Can or 60 gal. cart (15.0%)
Program Organization
-------
is 0.9 per week. Approximately one in five communities
collects single family recyclables every other week while
four in five provide weekly collection. In comparison,
only one of the 40 communities studied collected recy-
clables every other week in multifamily programs.
Commodities Collected
The 40 sample programs collected an average of 9-4
commodities, with a range of 1 to 16. The following list
details the number of sample communities collecting dif-
ferent numbers of commodities:
• 1 community collects 1 item (old newspapers)
• 1 community collects 5 items
• 2 communities collect 7 items
• 7 communities collect 8 items
• 11 communities collect 9 items
• 4 communities collect 11 items
• 5 communities collect 12 to 16 items
The commodity most frequently recycled is old
newspapers (ONP), with 100 percent of communities
recycling this material.
The other materials are listed in descending order of
prevalence:
• Aluminum and ferrous cans and clear and green glass
(95 percent each).
• Brown glass (92.5 percent).
• Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic (87-5 percent).
• High-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic (85 percent).
• Old corrugated cardboard (OCC) (67-5 percent).
• Mixed waste paper (42.5 percent).
• Magazines and phone books (37-5 percent).
• Others—usually aseptics, gable tops, etc. (22.5 percent).
• Plastics other than #1 and #2 (12.5 percent).
• Fibers (i.e., textiles and fabric), ferrous scrap, and
used oil (5 percent each).
Program Organization
-------
As an indicator of success, diversion is
calculated for each of the sample com-
munities. In multifamily recycling pro-
grams, diversion is determined by computing the
tonnage of multifamily refuse generated and
recyclables collected, and then computing the
ratio of per household multifamily recycling to the
sum of per household multifamily recycling and
refuse. The per household approach allows for
the fact that a different number of households is
often included in the recycling and the refuse col-
lection programs. The multifamily diversion rates
computed in this study, therefore, are what would
be achieved if all households that receive refuse
collection were included in the recycling pro-
gram. An alternative diversion rate, which would
be lower in virtually all cases, would be the annu-
al multifamily recycling tons divided by the sum
of the annual multifamily recycling and refuse
tons. For more information on how diversion
rates were calculated, see Appendix B. Diversion
rates, shown in Table 2, are as follows:
Chanter 4:
Diversion Percentages
Multifamily households included in multifamily
recycling programs set out an average of 0.14 tons
per household per year for recycling; this compares
to an average of 0.23 tons per household receiving
single family service.
Refuse collected from multifamily households aver-
ages 0.87 tons per year; compared to an average 1.13
tons per year for single family households.
By computing the ratio of tons recycled to the sum
of all discards, the diversion rate for multifamily
recycling can be computed. The average diversion
rate for multifamily curbside recycling is 14.6 per-
cent, with a range of 0.5 percent to 37-3 percent.
Single family curbside diversion averages 16 percent
with a range of 6 percent to 36 percent. Yard trim-
mings diversion ranges from 0.7 percent to 32.8 per-
cent of single family discards, with a mean of 16.2
percent.
These diversion rates show an upward trend for sin-
gle family service, compared to 1993 data, where
diversion rates of 13 percent for single family recy-
cling and 15-4 percent for yard trimmings were
obtained.
When materials delivered to local government drop-
off facilities are added to tonnages collected at the
curb, diversion rates increase. Multifamily diversion
jumps to 15-7 percent, while the single family curb-
side diversion rate increases to 17-1 percent.
Yard trimmings diversion actually decreases when
drop-off center data is included, but this is attribut-
able to a decrease in the number of communities for
which data are available.
4 Survey conducted by ECO DATA, 1994. The data for 1993 can be found in Stevens, Barbara, "Recycling Collection Costs by the Numbers,"
Resource Recycling, Vol XIII #9 (September 1994), 53-60; and in Stevens, Barbara, "What Does It Cost to Collect Yard Debris?" Resource
Recycling, Vol XIII #10 (October 1994), 22-24.
Diversion Percentages
-------
Participation in the multifamily recycling programs
varies, yet the average multifamily program achieves a
diversion rate just 1.4 percent below the average diver-
sion rate achieved by single family curbside programs.
The multifamily diversion rate is as high as it is because
multifamily households, with typically fewer persons per
household than single family households, generate both
less refuse and less recyclables than do single family
households. Thus, though the curbside diversion rate for
multifamily programs averages 14.6 percent compared
to 16.0 percent for single family programs, the recycling
tonnage per household is 65 percent greater for single
family households than for multifamily households. In
terms of tonnages, single family households set out 0.23
tons of recyclables, and 0.28 tons of yard trimmings and
1.13 tons of refuse per household per year.
^g Multifamily and
Item
TONS/HH— CURBSIDE
Multifamily Recycling
Multifamily Refuse
Single Family Recycling
Single Family Refuse
Yard Waste
% diverted— MF
% diverted— SF Curbside
% diverted — SF Yard Trimmings
TONS/HH— CURBSIDE + DROP OFF
Multifamily Recycling
Multifamily Refuse
Single Family Recycling
Single Family Refuse
Yard Waste
% diverted— MF
% diverted— SF Curbside
% diverted — SF Yard Trimmings
Single Family
Mean
0.14
0.87
0.23
1.13
0.28
14.6%
1 6.0%
1 6.2%
0.15
0.87
0.25
1.14
0.27
15.7%
17.1%
15.7%
Diversion
Minimum
0.01
0.29
0.05
0.55
0.01
0.5%
6.0%
0.7%
0.01
0.29
0.05
0.55
0.01
0.5%
6.0%
0.7%
Rates
Maximum
0.42
2.44
0.66
2.44
0.65
37.3%
36.0%
32.8%
0.42
2.44
0.79
2.44
0.65
37.7%
32.3%
38.7%
n
40
40
39
39
27
40
27
27
40
40
39
27
25
40
24
25
Diversion Percentages
-------
Another important aspect of any collec-
tion program, in addition to its organi-
zational and structural elements, is its
cost. In this study, for comparison purposes, data
were collected on the various costs reported
from each sample community for multi- and
single family recycling and refuse programs.
Definition—Cost of Service—the actual cost of municipal service or
the payment to the private firm, in the cases where service is pro-
vided by a private firm. For recycling service, costs include costs to the
local government—municipal costs or payments to a private firm less
recycling revenues remitted to the local government, if any. For refuse
collection, costs of transfer, if any, or disposal are not included. Thus, no
profit is included for municipal service, whereas, the cost includes any
profit the private firm might earn.
For municipal service, costs are defined as the sum of wages of person-
nel on vehicles used for the service, wages of persons supervising those
crews, fringe benefits for the above personnel, vehicle operating and
maintenance expenses (including labor), other operating expenses (includ-
ing billing customers, office expenses, etc.), and depreciation of vehicles
and containers. Backup personnel and vehicles also are included in the
cost of the service. Depreciation of vehicles is computed on a 7-year
straight-line basis, and depreciation of containers is computed on a 10-
year straight-line basis.
Chanter 5
Costs
Costs Per Ton
Table 3 displays the unit costs (or costs per ton) of
refuse collection and recycling for the multi- and single
family programs of the 40 sample communities.
Multifamily recycling costs an average of $177 per ton
collected, with a range of $62 to $622. In comparison,
single family recycling costs an average of $127 per ton,
with a range of $11 to $420. Out of all collection ser-
vices studied (including multi- and single family recy-
cling and refuse, and yard trimmings collection),
multifamily recycling has the highest average, mini-
mum, and maximum cost per ton. Multifamily refuse
collection costs an average of $63 per ton, just slightly
less than single family refuse collection, which averages
$69 per ton. The refuse collection costs per ton collect-
ed are the net of disposal expenses and processing costs.
Costs Per Household
Multifamily recycling costs an average of $20.50 per
household served, with a range of $7-20 to $42.70. This
compares to an average cost per single family household
of $28.76, with a range of $6.04 to $64.82. Multi- and
single family refuse collection cost an average of $53-69
and $68.23, respectively, per household per year. The
cost per household receiving yard trimmings collection
is $18.56. Collection costs per household served, for
both single and multifamily, tend to show the inverse
relationship to costs per ton collected: the refuse collec-
tion figures are higher than recycling figures when the
productivity measure is cost per household served.
These data also are displayed in Table 3-
In several cases, very low tonnages in multifamily
recycling programs were reported and reconfirmed dur-
ing research. These communities then became associated
with very high unit collection costs. In the final analysis,
two communities (with collection costs per ton in excess
of $2,000) were excluded from reported collection cost
Costs
-------
^Hl Cost/Ton and Cost/Household Multifamily and Single Family
•jjjjjfil Recycling and Refuse
Item
COLLECTION COST/TON
COLLECTED:
Multifamily Recycling*
Multifamily Refuse
Single Family Recycling
Single Family Refuse
Yard Trimmings
COST/HH/YEAR, COLLECTION
Multifamily Recycling
Multifamily Refuse
Single Family Recycling
Single Family Refuse
Yard Trimmings
* Excludes two communities with very low
Mean
$177.00
$63.00
$127.00
$69.00
$74.00
$20.50
$53.69
$28.76
$68.23
$18.56
tonnages (and high
Minimum
$62.00
$16.00
$11.00
$16.00
$17.00
$7.20
$16.53
$6.04
$8.86
$2.91
cost/ton).
Maximum
$622.00
$171.00
$420.00
$286.00
$195.00
$42.70
$266.08
$64.82
$189.00
$47.32
n
38
36
35
38
19
38
36
35
38
19
data. These two communities had a similar profile. Each
community had average costs per household served but
abnormally low quantities of recyclables collected,
which explains the high cost per ton collected. In both
cases, little public information or onsite instruction was
made available. Neither community tracked quantities
of recyclables collected from multifamily establishments.
While costs are an important element in considering
a multifamily recycling program's success, many other
factors can influence the effectiveness and efficiency of a
program. Part Two of this report assesses the many vari-
ables and measures of success.
Cost Trends Over Time
In comparison to 1993 data collected from a nation-
al survey of single family refuse, recycling, and yard
trimmings programs, single family recycling costs have
decreased from a level of $170 per ton. This appears to
be attributable to increased participation in recycling,
with a slight increase in tonnage of recyclables and yard
trimmings and a decrease in refuse collected per house-
hold. The per ton cost for yard trimmings collection
averaged $74 in 1997, compared with $73 in 1993-
Refuse collection costs for single family service were $54
per ton in 1993, whereas, in this study the costs are
$68.23 per ton.
Also, over this period, the quantity of recyclables and
refuse per household changed. In 1993, the tons of
refuse collected per household averaged 1.36, compared
to 1.13 in 1997- Recyclables collected per household
have increased from 0.21 tons in 1993 to 0.23 tons in
1997- Thus, the diversion rate for single family recycling
increased from 13 percent in 1993 to 16 percent in
1997- This is probably attributable to a combination of
factors including increased inclusion of commodities,
such as mixed waste paper, in recyclable collection, edu-
cation of households, and, potentially, source reduction
of waste. Yard waste is included in the denominator of
these diversion percentages.
Survey conducted by ECO DATA, 1994. The data for 1993 can be found in Stevens, Barbara, "Recycling Collection Costs by the Numbers,'
Resource Recycling, Vol XIII #9 (September 1994), 53-60; and in Stevens, Barbara, "What Does It Cost to Collect Yard Debris?" Resource
Recycling, Vol XIII #10 (October 1994), 22-24.
Costs
-------
PART 2
Characteristics of Successful Multifamily Recycling Programs
Chapter 6
Measuring Success
Chapter 7
Elements of Successful Programs
Chapter 8
Lessons Learned
Chapter 9
Summing Up Success
-------
-------
A successful recycling program can be
defined as one that achieves a high
diversion rate, avoiding the disposal of
a large percentage of the discard waste stream.
One definition of success, then, could be any pro-
gram that achieved a diversion rate higher than
the 14.6 percent average calculated in this study.
This study applied a more stringent definition,
however, by considering only those communities
that achieve a diversion rate of 20 percent or
higher as successful. Using this definition, the 40
communities can be grouped as follows:
High Diversion (20 percent and up):
11 communities
Medium Diversion (10 to 20 percent):
16 communities
Low Diversion (less than 10 percent):
13 communities
Throughout this report, the terms high, medium,
and low are used to describe the programs that
fall into those three categories.
Chanter 6:
Measuring Success
Program Efficiency and Effectiveness
Successful recycling programs also can be defined in
terms of efficiency or effectiveness. Efficiency measures
determine whether resources are used efficiently in pro-
ducing the program's outputs. For refuse and recycling
collection services, typical measures of efficiency involve
the productivity of collection crews, such as households
served per crew shift, households served per crew labor
hour, or percentage of time vehicles are available for
duty (i.e., not down for maintenance). If all other pro-
gram elements are equal, increases in variables such as
these imply a more efficient collection operation, per-
haps attributable to more efficient routing, vehicle
maintenance, scheduling and deployment of personnel,
and the location of off-loading facilities and yards.
Other measures of efficiency include cost measures, such
as the cost per ton collected or the cost per household
served. For these measures, the key words are: other
things being equal. Other things being equal, decreases in
the cost per ton collected and cost per household served
can be associated with increases in program efficiency.
Effectiveness measures indicate the extent to which
the program meets policy objectives. If a state has a
recycling goal of 50 percent, for example, then a pro-
gram's effectiveness is measured by the extent to which
it diverted waste from disposal. A program can be very
effective (i.e., high diversion rate) and not very efficient
(i.e., high unit costs). Obviously, the most successful
programs are those that are both effective and efficient,
or those characterized by high diversion rates and low
unit costs.
Interrelationship of Measures of
Success
Effective and efficient programs, however, must take
into consideration many interrelated variables. The vari-
ous measures of effectiveness and efficiency of a recy-
cling program need to be considered together, not in
Measuring Success
-------
isolation. A particular program can be identified as effi-
cient and effective only by considering many variables.
The costs of a program, for example, are dependent
upon factors that are both within and beyond the con-
trol of local government officials. Population density,
prevailing wages, weather patterns, and income levels
can affect travel times between collection stops, quanti-
ties of materials set out at each stop, operation of a vehi-
cle (vehicles are more prone to breakdowns in areas with
severe winters), and the basic cost of a collection crew.
Frequency of collection and location of pickup (almost
always at curbside for recyclables, but sometimes in the
backyard), also are elements of service not typically
determined by the manager of collection operations
(especially if the manager is a private firm hired under
contract to the community).
These type of multivariate evaluations of local gov-
ernment services have been conducted in the past, for
services ranging from solid waste collection to recycling
to traffic signal maintenance, to wastewater treatment.6
In multivariate analysis, the total cost function for deliv-
ering a particular local government service is estimated
as a function of local geographic, economic, and demo-
graphic factors; service level features; and characteristics
of local population. More than 85 percent of the vari-
ance in total costs of a refuse or recycling collection pro-
gram, for example, can be explained by scale of
operations (tons collected), density of stops, quantity of
material per stop, frequency of collection, location of
pickup, and prevailing wages. The logic for each of these
relationships, assuming all other variables are equal, is as
follows:
• Economic factors: the higher the local prevailing
wages, the higher the program costs.
• Geographic factors: the higher the density per curb
mile, the less time spent traveling between stops, and
the lower the program costs.
• Demographic and income factors: the higher the
amount of material set out for collection at each
stop, holding constant the total amount of material
collected, the lower the program costs.
• Scale of operations: the larger the total quantity of
materials to collect, the higher the program costs.
• Service level: the more frequent, and less accessible to
the road (e.g., backyard service), the collection ser-
vice, the higher the program costs.
Consider the relationship between two measures of
efficiency: cost per ton collected and cost per household
served. For a constant number of households and a con-
stant quantity of recyclables per household, programs
with lower per ton costs are more efficient than pro-
grams with higher costs. Looking at just the cost per
household without considering the quantity of materials
recycled per household, however, can be deceptive. If the
program provides weekly service but there is little partici-
pation, with crews driving the routes and finding setouts
every tenth house instead of every other house, then the
costs per household will be low but the cost per ton col-
lected will be high. On the other hand, as a program
becomes very effective in diverting a large portion of the
discard waste stream, the cost per household may
increase but the cost per ton collected may decrease, as it
is less costly to collect larger quantities of material from a
given number of stops than to collect small quantities of
materials from a given number of stops, other things
being equal. Further analysis of the data collected in this
study could include multivariate analysis, but such analy-
sis is beyond the scope of this study.
Measures of Program Success
Table 4 presents the following productivity measures
for multifamily recycling programs:
• Cost per ton collected.
• Annual cost per household served.
• Number of households served per crew shift.
• Number of tons of recyclables collected per house-
hold served per year.
• Diversion rate.
6 See, for example, Barbara}. Stevens, "Scale, Market Structure, and the Cost of Refuse Collection", Review of Economics and Statistics, LX, #3,
(August 1978), 438-448, for a report on an econometric estimate of cost functions for solid waste collection, based on a sample of more than
300 randomly selected cities in the United States; Barbara}. Stevens, "Comparing Public- and Private-Sector Productive Efficiency: An
Analysis of Eight Activities", National Productivity Review, Volume 3, #4, (Autumn 1984), 395-406, for a summary of research on eight local
government services, each of which was analyzed with multivariate econometric techniques; and Roger Patrick, et. al. 1997 Benchmarking
Wastewater Operations: Collection Treatment and Biosolids Management, Project 96-CTS-5, Water Environment Research Foundation,
Alexandria, Virginia, for a multivariate analysis of wastewater collection and biosolids treatment.
Measuring Success
-------
^^^^^1 Productivity Measures and
Multifamily Diversion Rates
Multifamily Curbside Diversion
Value
Number of Observations
Collection Cost/Ton
Multifamily Recycling*
Multifamily Refuse
Single Family Recycling
Single Family Refuse
Single Family Yard Trimmings
Collection Cost/Household/Year
Multifamily Recycling
Multifamily Refuse
TOTAL PER MF HOUSEHOLD
Single Family Recycling
Single Family Refuse
Single Family Yard Trimmings
TOTAL PER SF HOUSEHOLD
Households/Crew Shift
Multifamily Recycling
Multifamily Refuse
Single Family Recycling
Single Family Refuse
Tons/Household/Year
Multifamily Recycling
Multifamily Refuse
TOTAL MF Municipal Solid Waste
Single Family Recycling
Single Family Refuse
Single Family Yard Trimmings
TOTAL SF Municipal Solid Waste
Curbside Diversion Rates
Multifamily Recycling
Single Family Recycling
Single Family Yard Trimmings
Complaints/Household/Year
* Excludes two cities with very high per ton costs
<10%
13
$251 .00
$43.13
$151.80
$47.48
$75.03
$16.63
$45.17
$61.80
$21 .65
$58.69
$16.05
$96.39
2,333
1,205
1,561
618
0.061
1.023
1.084
0.139
1.312
0.317
1.768
6.04%
9.25%
16.94%
0.017
, in the less than
1 0-20%
16
$159.00
$72.60
$131.70
$60.28
$51.48
$20.56
$72.34
$92.90
$30.96
$64.71
$20.67
$116.34
2,246
1,537
1,549
1,142
0.145
0.934
1.079
0.260
1.123
0.258
1.641
13.93%
17.70%
15.90%
0.040
1 0% diversion
** Indicates whether or not the difference in values is statistically significant, and
hypothesis of no difference can be rejected.
>20%
11
$113.00
$66.39
$81 .64
$101.32
$127.16
$21.81
$36.01
$57.82
$24.73
$84.01
$15.89
$124.63
1,676
2,144
1,629
3,962
0.211
0.595
0.806
0.297
0.951
0.209
1.457
27.76%
20.39%
12.48%
0.017
group.
the confidence level
Statistical
Significance**
40
Yes-95%
Yes-99%
Yes-99%
Yes-99%
No
No
No
No
Yes-90%
No
No
No
No
Yes-90%
Yes-99%
Yes-95%
Yes-95%
Yes-99%
Yes-95%
No
Yes-95%
Yes-99%
Yes-99%
No
No
with which the null
Measuring Success
-------
This chapter examines each of those measures in
detail and how they are affected by the success of a multi-
family recycling program (i.e., as the diversion rate
increases).
Diversion Rates
A key measure of the success of a recycling program
is the diversion rate it achieves.
Based on this study's results, the following observa-
tions can be made about diversion rates for multifamily
and single family households in the sample communities
(see Table 4):
• The quantity of materials recycled increases as diver-
sion rates increase.
• The quantity of materials discarded as refuse or
garbage decreases as diversion rates increase.
• The aggregate discard stream (i.e., recyclables and
refuse for multifamily households and recyclables,
refuse, and yard trimmings for single family house-
holds) decreases as diversion rates increase.
The decrease in the aggregate discard stream is par-
ticularly interesting and has two possible explanations.
First, it is possible that higher diversion rates occur in
communities with smaller households than in commu-
nities with larger households. In this case, the per capita
discard stream would not decrease with increases in
diversion rates. Second, it is possible households actually
reduce their discards as they become attuned to recy-
cling and achieve high recycling diversion. In this sce-
nario, there would be little difference between the
persons per household in the high- and low-diversion
communities, and discards per capita would decrease
with increases in diversion.
Figures
Multifamily: Diversion and Total Discards/Household
o>
V)
o
0)
Q.
tfl
O
1.2
1.0 _
0.8 _
0.6 _
0.4 _
0.2 _
0
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
t
/
/
I
/
/
/
I
7
/
/
/
/
<10% 10-20% >20%
Diversion Percentage
Tons/HH Recycling
Tons/HH Refuse
Measuring Success
-------
Figure 4
Single Family: Diversion and Total Discards/Household
o>
V)
0)
Q.
tfl
c
.0
1.8
1.6 _
1.4 _
1.2
1
0.8 _
0.6 _
0.4 _
0.2 _
0
<10% 10-20% >20%
Diversion Percentage
Tons/HH Recycling
Tons/HH Refuse
Tons/HH Yard Trimmings
As shown in Figure 3, in communities with low-
diversion rates, the aggregate discard tons per multifami-
ly household is 1.084. For communities with high
diversion rates, the aggregate discard amount per multi-
family household is 0.806 tons. For single family house-
holds, the aggregate discard stream reduction is 1.768
tons for households in communities with low-diversion
rates and 1.457 tons for households in communities
with high diversion rates (see Figure 4). These findings
may indicate source reduction occurs as a byproduct of
active participation in recycling programs—a fact that,
if true, would greatly enhance the economic viability of
recycling.
Collection Efficiency
Households per crew shift is a frequently used pro-
ductivity measure. Table 5 shows the households served
per crew shift for multifamily recycling, multifamily
refuse, single family recycling, single family refuse col-
lection, and yard trimmings collection (typically, a single
family service). The number of households served per
crew shift tends to increase or decrease based on the fol-
lowing variables:
Collection Frequency—for a given quantity of recy-
clables, the more frequent the collection, the smaller
the quantity to collect at each scheduled pickup. Less
collection time is required per stop, and the number
of households served per crew shift increases.
Program Participation—as fewer households partici-
pate in a recycling program, the percentage of stops
at which collections are made decreases, thereby
decreasing the average collection time per stop, and
the number of households served per crew shift
increases.
• Quantities Collected—as the quantity of materials
set out at each collection stop decreases, so does the
time spent at each stop. This increases the number of
households that can be served per crew shift.
• Collection Operation—as crew deployment becomes
more efficient (e.g., reducing dispatch time from 30
minutes to 5 minutes or switching from a rear loader
to a side loader with a low entry cab), the time avail-
able on route to service stops increases. This increases
the number of households that can be served per
crew shift.
In light of these observations, it follows that more
Measuring Success
-------
^^^^H Multifamily Recycling Program Efficiency Measures
Item
HOUSEHOLDS/CREW SHIFT
Multifamily Recycling
Multifamily Refuse
Single Family Recycling
Single Family Refuse
Yard Trimmings
COLLECTION COST/TON
COLLECTED:
Multifamily Recycling*
Multifamily Refuse
Single Family Recycling
Single Family Refuse
Yard Trimmings
COST/HH/YEAR, COLLECTION
Multifamily Recycling
Multifamily Refuse
Single Family Recycling
Single Family Refuse
Yard Trimmings
Mean
2,167
1,559
1,566
924
No Data
$177.00
$63.00
$127.00
$69.00
$74.00
$20.50
$53.69
$28.76
$68.23
$18.56
* Excludes two communities with very low tonnages (and high
Minimum
395
16
427
480
—
$62.00
$16.00
$11.00
$16.00
$17.00
$7.20
$16.53
$6.04
$8.86
$2.91
cost/ton).
Maximum
5,156
4,372
3,587
3,066
—
$622.00
$171.00
$420.00
$286.00
$195.00
$42.70
$266.08
$64.82
$189.00
$47.32
n
31
20
26
26
—
38
36
35
38
19
38
36
35
38
19
Measuring Success
-------
households would be served per crew shift for recycling
than for refuse collection, as the latter service usually has
more material set out for collection and higher partici-
pation. This is true for the sample communities, with
multifamily recycling programs serving an average of
2,167 households per crew shift and multifamily refuse
collection programs serving an average of 1,559 house-
holds per crew shift. In comparison, single family pro-
grams served an average of 1,577 households for
recycling and 924 for refuse collection. The figures are
lower for single family service than for multifamily
because more containers must be emptied per ton col-
lected. While households served per crew shift is of
interest to managers evaluating their collection opera-
tions, it does not, in itself, serve to identify an efficient
and effective recycling program.
Cost Per Ton Collected
In multifamily recycling, collection costs per ton tend
to decrease as the tons to collect at each stop increase.
Communities with fewer collection points serving many
households, communities with high participation rates,
and communities that include many materials in their
recycling programs would all be expected to have lower
collection costs per ton than communities with the
opposite characteristics. Indeed, multifamily recycling
costs per ton decrease as the diversion rate increases,
from an average of $251 per ton for those communities
with a low diversion rate to $ 113 per ton for those com-
munities with a high diversion rate.
The opposite cost relationships occur with multifam-
ily refuse collection. The cost per ton increases as the
diversion rate increases. As multifamily diversion
increases, the tons of refuse per household tend to
decrease (from 1.023 tons per household in communi-
ties with low diversion rates, to 0.595 tons per house-
hold in communities with high diversion rates). This
explains the fact that the refuse collection cost per ton is
$43 in communities with the lowest diversion rate and
Figure 5
Multifamily: Diversion and Cost/Ton
V)
o
Q
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
<10% 10-20%
Diversion Percentage
>20%
Cost/Ton Recycling
Cost/Ton Refuse
Measuring Success
-------
$66 in communities with the highest diversion rate.
Figure 5 shows how the cost per ton for multifamily
refuse and recyclables varies according to diversion rates.
In this graph, as the diversion rate increases for multi-
family recycling from less than 10 percent to greater
than 20 percent, the difference between the per ton cost
of providing refuse collection and the per ton cost of
providing recycling collection decreases from approxi-
mately $200 to approximately $50. At low diversion
rates, the cost per ton to provide multifamily recycling
service is about five times the cost per ton to provide
refuse collection service. At high diversion rates, the cost
per ton to provide multifamily recycling service is less
than twice as much as the cost to provide refuse collec-
tion service. The decrease in the difference is mostly due
to a decrease in the cost of providing recycling service.
Return to Table 4 on page 31 to find data for single
family recycling and refuse programs, again separated
into categories of communities according to the multi-
family diversion rate. This separation was made to deter-
mine if a correlation could be made between successful
single family programs and successful multifamily pro-
grams. The average diversion rates for both multi- and
single family programs in the three diversion categories
are as follows:
LOW
Average multifamily: 6.04 percent
Average single family: 9-25 percent
MEDIUM
Average multifamily: 13-39 percent
Average single family: 17-7 percent
HIGH
Average multifamily: 27-76 percent
Average single family: 20.39 percent
Figure 6
Single Family: Diversion and Cost/Ton
V)
JS
"5
Q
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
n
-n-
CD"
<10% 10-20%
Diversion Percentage
>20%
Cost/Ton Recycling
~ Cost/Ton Refuse "'
Cost/Ton Yard Trimmings
Measuring Success
-------
Communities with "successful" multifamily recycling
programs also have lower costs per ton for single family
recycling. For the lowest category of multifamily diver-
sion, the collection cost per ton for single family recy-
clables is $151 (refuse collection cost per ton for this
group is $47)- For communities in the medium range of
multifamily diversion rates, the single family recycling
cost per ton decreases to $132 (refuse collection cost
increases to $60 per ton). For the group with the high-
est multifamily diversion rate, the collection cost per ton
for single family recyclables is $82 ($101 per ton for
single family refuse). For the highest multifamily diver-
sion group, the collection cost per ton for single family
recyclables is actually less than the cost per ton for single
family refuse. Figure 6 provides a single family graph
comparable to that provided for the multifamily data in
Figure 5.
Cost Per Household Served
On a cost per household basis, multifamily recycling
costs increase as diversion rates increase, indicating it
costs more to collect more materials from a stop.
Conversely, multifamily refuse collection costs per
household decrease with increases in diversion rates.
It is interesting to examine the total cost of serving a
household with refuse collection and recycling services.
Figures 7 and 8 present this information graphically, for
multifamily and single family households, respectively.
For multifamily households, the total costs of providing
both refuse and recycling service increase for medium
diversion rates and are approximately equal for high and
low diversion rates. From this information, it could be
concluded that a successful program—which for recy-
cling means a somewhat more expensive program—can
be just as cost-effective as an ineffective program. While
this study did not examine the reasons for this finding,
it is possible it takes a while for successful programs to
be recognized as such and for customers to adjust the
cost of their refuse service downward. Refuse costs per
household, therefore, might be higher in the medium-
diversion communities than they are in the high-diver-
sion communities for that adjustment period.
In comparison, the pattern of costs per household for
single family programs is somewhat different. Single fami-
ly recycling costs per household do not vary significantly
with the diversion rate of multifamily recycling programs.
As displayed in Figure 8, however, the per household cost
of single family refuse collection increases from $58 to
$84 as the multifamily diversion rate increases from the
Figure 7
Multifamily: Diversion and Total Cost/Household
100 _
S2
JS
"o
Q
<10% 10-20% >20%
Diversion Percentage
Cost/HH Recycling
Cost/HH Refuse
Measuring Success
-------
lowest to the highest category. Here, refuse collection
costs increase on a per household basis, even as diversion
increases. Thus, the overall costs of providing refuse, recy-
cling, and yard trimmings services increase as diversion
increases. This finding might be due to the nature of the
refuse service provided to single family households: the
individual stop and minimal frequency of collection (e.g.,
once per week in most cases) means that a given percent-
age reduction in the quantity of materials will not result
in an equal percentage reduction in costs. Indeed, the cost
of service per household increases as the quantity of refuse
set out for collection decreases. This is the driving force
behind the overall increase in per household service costs
as diversion rates increase.
Households Per Crew Shift
If other things are equal, a recycling or refuse pro-
gram is considered more efficient if it serves a greater
number of households per crew shift, whether they are
single family or multifamily households. In any collec-
tion operation, many nonparticipating households can
be served on a drive-by basis in a single crew shift. As
there are more non-participating households in low-
diversion communities than in high diversion commu-
nities, it would be expected that households served per
recycling crew shift would decrease with increases in the
diversion rate. This is certainly the case for multifamily
recycling, with the number of households served per
crew shift decreasing from 2,333 for the group with a
low diversion rate to 1,676 for the group with a high
diversion rate. There seems to be no distinct pattern in
households per crew shift for single family recycling,
perhaps because the grouping is according to multifami-
ly diversion rates.
The converse pattern is found in households served
per crew shift for refuse collection, for both multifamily
and single family service. Here, as the quantity of mater-
ial to collect at each stop decreases (a consequence of
increased diversion), the number of households that can
be served per crew shift increases. The increase is due to
a reduction in the number of trips required to the dis-
posal site, as more households can be served before the
collection truck becomes full, and also to the reduced
load time per stop.
Figure 8
Single Family: Diversion and Total Cost/Household
120 VI
S
"5
Q
<10% 10-20% >20%
Diversion Percentage
Cost/HH Recycling
Cost/HH Refuse
Cost/HH Yard Trimmings
Measuring Success
-------
Chapter 7
;*> /^ Elements of Successful
Programs
Table 6 displays basic data about multi-
family recycling programs, according
to three levels of diversion achieved.
Examination of trends in each element, as the
diversion in the programs increases, identifies
factors associated with more or less successful
programs. This methodology does not show
causality but, rather, association. Although
causality is not proved, it also is not ruled out.
The final column in Table 6 indicates whether the
pattern of data for the variable, across the three cate-
gories of multifamily recycling programs, is statistically
significant. Statistical significance is indicated, as is the
level of significance (e.g., 90 percent, 95 percent, or 99
percent). The level of statistical significance means the
degree to which one can be confident that the difference
in values among the groups did not arise by chance.
Factors Affecting Collection
Who collects the recyclables from multifamily house-
holds is the first element. Of the low-diversion pro-
grams, more than 61 percent have municipal collection;
only 18.8 percent of the programs with medium or
high-diversion rates have municipal collection. Contract
and exclusive franchise collection—where one firm is
awarded the right to collect all multifamily recyclables—
is the most common arrangement for those communi-
ties with high-diversion rates; 63-6 percent use this
system, compared to about 30 percent that have this
arrangement in the other categories. The pattern of
organizational arrangement is statistically significant.
Programs with high diversion rates, therefore, are more
likely to:
• Rely on a private firm to collect the recyclables.
• Award one private firm the exclusive right to collect
the recyclables.
In most communities, multifamily units are consid-
ered hybrid customers. Those buildings with fewer (two
to six) units may be considered single family units,
receiving refuse and recycling services as though they
were single family units. Those in buildings with more
than the cutoff number of housing units are often con-
sidered to be commercial customers, and their refuse is
often collected according to the prevailing arrangement
for commercial customers. Recycling for these customers
Elements of Successful Programs
-------
also might be mandated by the local government and
allowed to occur according to the arrangement prevail-
ing for commercial customers (e.g., the system in
Connecticut), or the local government might contract
for services, creating a different arrangement for multi-
family recycling as compared to multifamily refuse col-
lection.
Table 7 indicates the manner by which sample com-
munity multifamily recyclables are collected. The data
suggest the following:
• Only 25 to 38 percent of programs collect multifam-
ily recyclables on separate multifamily routes.
• Collection of multifamily recyclables along with
commercial recyclables is associated with the sub-
scription arrangement for collection.
• A large percentage of programs collect multifamily
recyclables on the same routes as single family recy-
clables, using the same truck and crew to serve both
types of customers on a single route.
Almost all of the programs tip the recyclables at a
materials recovery facility (MRF) rather than hauling
source-separated commodities directly to market.
Between 76 and 94 percent of all programs haul to a
MRF (see Table 6).
Containers
Most communities provide containers to the com-
plexes (not, typically, to the individual households) for
storage of commodities. Although this relationship is
not statistically significant, it appears that providing a
container to the complex (rather than requiring the cus-
tomer to provide the container) and having the local
government rather than the private firm provide the
container are factors associated with higher diversion.
The type of container used, however, does have signif-
icant bearing on the diversion rates achieved. High-
diversion programs, as compared to the other programs,
are more likely to use 90-gallon carts. They are less like-
ly to use cans or 60-gallon carts or to use 18- to 20-gallon
plastic bins (the typical single family container).
The 90-gallon (or more) wheeled cart has several
advantages, including mobility on site, low square
footage required for siting, and compatibility with the
semi-automated side loading compartmentalized trucks
frequently used for single family recycling. Many
communities use the same type of trucks for single and
multifamily recycling, serving both multi- and single
family units on the same routes with this type of truck,
thus maximizing route density.
Setouts
In terms of household preparation for recycling,
there is a positive relationship between the number of
setouts (i.e., sorts) required and the diversion rates
achieved. The programs with the highest diversion rates
average 3-2 setouts, while programs with the lowest
diversion rates average 2 setouts. As diversion rates
increase, the number of containers per recycling site
increases, from 1.5 in the low-diversion rate group to
3.3 in the high-diversion rate group. Also, as diversion
rates increase, the number of communities with totally
commingled setouts (i.e., just one container per set)
decreases from 61.5 percent to 45-5 percent.
Judging from these data, it appears requiring multi-
family households to place their recyclables in three or
more containers (e.g., mixed containers, ONP, and
OCC) is positively associated with increased diversion.
Perhaps the sorting of recyclables into several containers
reduces the temptation to contaminate the containers
with garbage. This result is counterintuitive, as one
would expect less sorting would be easier for households
than more sorting, and participation and diversion
would consequently be higher for those communities
with the easiest, least time-consuming setout require-
ments. There is, however, probably a correlation
between the number of materials collected and the
number of setouts, and accepting many materials is a
key element in achieving a high-diversion rate. Also, at
least some sorting may reduce contamination, which is a
frequent problem in multifamily recycling.
Higher diversion programs also serve fewer house-
holds per set of recycling containers than lower diver-
sion programs. Less sharing of containers means each set
is located closer to each apartment unit, making it more
convenient for residents to drop off their recyclables.
Compared to low-diversion programs, high-diversion
programs:
• Have more containers (more than 3) per set.
• Have a set of recycling containers for each 15 to 19
households, as compared to a set for each 26 house-
holds in the low-diversion programs.
Elements of Successful Programs
-------
^^^^^^1 Elements of Successful Multifamily Recycling Programs
Multifamily Curbside Diversion
Elements
Number of Observations
Recyclables Collected By:
Local government employees
Contractor
Exclusive franchise
Nonexclusive franchise
Subscription
Total
Number of collections/week
Types of Container Used:
Can or 60 gallon cart
90+ gallon cart
Dumpster
<20 gallon bin
Total
Containers Provided By:
Local government
Private firm
Generator
Total
Recyclables Tipped At:
MRF
Hauled directly to market
Transfer station
Total
System Configuration:
Percent mandatory
Number of setouts required
Number containers/set
% with 1 container (commingled)
Number of HHs/set
of containers
<10%
13
61.50%
15.40%
15.40%
0.00%
7.70%
100.00%
0.96
30.77%
23.08%
15.38%
30.77%
100.00%
61.54%
23.08%
15.38%
100.00%
76.92%
15.38%
7.69%
100.00%
30.80%
2.0
1.5
61.50%
26.7
1 0-20%
16
1 8.80%
1 8.80%
12.40%
25.00%
25.00%
100.00%
1.00
12.50%
62.50%
1 8.75%
6.25%
100.00%
37.50%
56.25%
6.25%
100.00%
93.75%
6.25%
0.00%
100.00%
68.80%
2.6
2.6
43.80%
15.7
* Indicates whether or not the difference in values is statistically significant, and the
hypothesis of no difference can be rejected.
>20%
11
18.18%
54.55%
9.09%
0.00%
18.18%
100.00%
0.96
0.00%
63.64%
18.18%
18.18%
100.00%
81.82%
18.18%
0.00%
100.00%
81.82%
0.00%
18.18%
100.00%
90.00%
3.2
3.3
45.50%
19.1
confidence level
Statistical
Significance*
40
Yes-95%
No
Yes-99%
No
No
Yes-99%
Yes-99%
Yes-99%
Yes-99%
No
with which the null
Elements of Successful Programs
-------
^Hl Successful Multifamily Recycling Programs — How Materials
Multifamily Curbside Diversion
Collection Characteristics
Number of Observations
How Recyclables Are Collected:
Separately
With single family materials
With commercial materials
With multifamily & commercial refuse
Total
How Tons Are Determined:
Separate data
Per capita allocation
Volume based
Avg. volume & per capita
Other*
Total
* Other includes information obtained from a rate
conducted by ECODATA, and data from previous
<10%
13
38.46%
61 .54%
0.00%
0.00%
1 00.00%
38.46%
61 .54%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1 00.00%
review document,
studies performed
10-20%
16
25.00%
43.75%
25.00%
6.25%
100.00%
31.25%
43.75%
12.50%
0.00%
12.50%
100.00%
>20%
11
36.36%
36.36%
18.18%
9.09%
1 00.00%
27.27%
27.27%
27.27%
0.00%
18.18%
1 00.00%
information from previous consulting
by another consulting firm.
** Indicates whether or not the difference in values is statistically significant, and the
hypothesis of no difference can be rejected.
Statistical
Significance**
40
No
Yes-95%
engagements
confidence level with which the null
Commodities Collected
If more materials are included in a program, a higher
percentage of the waste stream can potentially be recy-
cled. As the number of materials accepted increases,
diversion will increase, so long as participation does not
drop off. Table 8 (on page 44) shows the commodities
included in multifamily recycling programs, according
to the diversion rate achieved. Following are some con-
clusions that can be made from these data:
• Most programs (81.8 percent) include the "standard"
list of newspapers, aluminum and bimetal cans,
HDPE and PET plastics, and glass.
• Communities with high diversion rates are more
likely to include each of the above listed materials in
their recycling programs.
• Communities with high diversion rates include more
materials in their multifamily recycling programs, an
average of 10.3 materials, compared to 8.2 materials
in the communities with low-diversion rates.
Communities with high-diversion rates are more
than twice as likely to include mixed waste paper (73
percent versus 23 percent in the low-diversion pro-
grams) and other plastics (18 percent versus 8 per-
cent in the low-diversion programs).
Communities with high-diversion rates are much
more likely to include OCC, (82 percent versus 46
percent in the low-diversion programs) and maga-
zines and phone books (46 percent versus 31 percent
in the low-diversion programs).
Of the communities with high-diversion rates, 10
percent included the following additional materials:
other fibers (textiles and paper), other metals, and
used oil. None of the communities in the low-diversion
category collected these materials.
Elements of Successful Programs
-------
Recordkeeping
As shown in Table 7 (on page 42), only in a minori-
ty of cases are separate data available for multifamily
recycling tonnages. Approximately 30 percent of the
communities have separate data available for multifami-
ly recyclables collection. These communities are distrib-
uted relatively evenly across the three categories of
diversion rate levels. When these materials are collected
on the same routes that service single family households
or commercial accounts, the reported tonnages would
be for the aggregate of customers on the routes. Some
allocation is necessary to estimate the tonnage attribut-
able to just the multifamily units. For more information
on the various methodologies used in determining
quantities of multifamily recyclables and refuse, see
Appendices A and B.
Communities with data that allow either a volume-
based estimate or a separate recycling tonnage estimate,
however, are more likely to be in the high-diversion
group than communities that use a per capita estimate.
Since the per capita methodology is used only when
other data sources are unavailable, it is indicative of
weak recordkeeping. The use of the volume-based or
separate estimate indicates the community gave greater
administrative attention to the performance of the pro-
gram, and availability of such information might itself
be an indicator of success. For example, communities
that know where containers have been distributed and
how often they are emptied are better able to target
their program promotions, education efforts, and out-
reach elements, which encourage participation. The
analysis showed the following:
• Only 27 percent of communities with high-diversion
rates lacked enough data to require the use of the per
capita estimation method.
• More than 60 percent of communities with low-
diversion rates had no data available to compile recycling
tonnages by any other means than the per capita
method.
• Keeping track of the performance of a program (in
terms of the number of setouts, number of contain-
ers distributed, how often the containers are emp-
tied, number of households in complexes receiving
service, number of complaints registered and service
violation notices issued, and quantity of materials
collected) is itself a probable causal factor in achiev-
ing high or improved program performance.
• As in virtually any activity, keeping track of achieve-
ments is usually a key element in making progress.
While recordkeeping for single family recycling is
less of an issue than for multifamily recycling—as single
family service is typically provided by dedicated crews—
good records and regular tracking of progress are still
typically associated with high single family program per-
formance. Seattle, Washington, and San Jose, California,
for example, are two cities with high-diversion rates.
Both keep excellent records, not just on tons collected
but also on households served. They require this infor-
mation to be provided by their contractors for both sin-
gle family and multifamily refuse and recycling service.
Costs
Table 9 (on page 46) displays data regarding multi-
family recycling collection costs and fees. The total
annual costs for multifamily recycling service averaged
just under $100,000 for the group of communities with
low diversion rates and just over $350,000 for the com-
munities with high diversion rates. The medium diver-
sion rate included NYC, so the average costs are
deceptively high. With NYC, the average total collec-
tion cost for this middle group is $3,783,471; without
NYC, it is $613,839-
Elements of Successful Programs
-------
HI Materials Included in Multifamily Recycling Programs
Multifamily Curbside Diversion
Items
Number of Observations
Number of Items Collected
Commodities Collected:
Old newsprint
Old corrugated cardboard
Mixed waste paper
Other fibers
Aluminum
Ferrous bimetal cans
Other ferrous
HOPE plastic
PET plastic
Other plastics
Glass, clear
Glass, brown
Glass, green
Magazines, phone books
Used oil
Other*
<10%
13
8.23
100.00%
46.20%
23.10%
0.00%
92.30%
84.60%
0.00%
84.60%
84.60%
7.70%
84.60%
84.60%
84.60%
30.80%
0.00%
15.40%
10-20%
16
9.80
1 00.00%
75.00%
37.50%
6.30%
93.80%
1 00.00%
6.30%
87.50%
93.80%
12.50%
1 00.00%
1 00.00%
1 00.00%
37.50%
6.30%
25.00%
* Other includes aseptics and gables (3), textiles (2), garbage— for a dirty MRF — (2);
(1 each).
** Indicates whether or not the difference in
hypothesis of no difference can be rejected.
values is statistically
significant, and the
>20% Statistical
Significance**
11 40
10.27 Yes-90%
1 00.00%
81 .80%
72.70%
9.10%
1 00.00%
1 00.00%
9.10%
81 .80%
81 .80%
18.20%
1 00.00%
90.90%
1 00.00%
45.50%
9.10%
27.30%
books or Kraft or styrofoam
confidence level with which the null
Municipal collection is most likely in the group with
the lowest diversion rate, so a cost estimate was the most
common method of determining recycling costs in this
group. The cost estimate involves determining how
many truck shifts are dispatched each day, including
number of operators and supervisors. From this basic
information, wages for the identified personnel are
noted, plus fringe benefits, operating and maintenance
expenses for the noted trucks and percentage of time
they are used for this service, depreciation for vehicles
and containers (straight line 7 years for trucks and
straight line 10 years for containers), provision for back-
up vehicles and replacement workers for absences, super-
visory workers, and other general office expenditures.
The estimated cost is the total of all these elements.
Elements of Successful Programs
For communities where service is provided by a pri-
vate firm, the cost of recycling service is the payment to
the firm, less the cost of processing the recyclables, after
subtracting any revenues received by local government.
This option for determining costs was most commonly
used for the group with high diversion rates, accounting
for 75 percent of the communities in this group.
Fees
Multifamily recycling programs can present a chal-
lenge for funding. In those communities where multi-
family refuse collection is considered a service to be paid
for by the apartment complex, typically through a con-
tract between the property manager and a private hauler,
-------
there is no governmental expenditure for solid waste
services to this category of customer. Implementing a
recycling program to these customers, via any system
except mandated subscription service, generally requires
government funding. This can be derived from the gen-
eral fund, or from a fee or tax. Of course, charging units
to recycle is often politically difficult to justify. For sin-
gle family units there is often a single refuse fee, which
covers the costs of refuse collection, refuse disposal, and
recycling services. Generally, a specific fee for single
family recycling is found only in cases of subscription
service.
As the data in Table 9 indicate, just over half of the
communities report a separate fee for multifamily recy-
cling. As diversion rates increase, the percentage of com-
munities with a fee below $2 per month decreases, and
the percentage of communities with a fee in excess of $2
per household per month increases.
Higher fees and a greater likelihood of a fee for mul-
tifamily recycling is associated with higher diversion
rates. Seventy percent of those communities with high-
diversion rates charge multifamily households for recy-
cling, compared to only 50 percent of communities
with low-diversion rates. The proportion of communi-
ties paying for this service from taxes decreases from 50
percent of those with the lowest diversion rate to 27
percent of those with the highest diversion rate. The
most common charge is a monthly flat fee, generally per
household or per complex. This fee system exists in 37-5
percent of communities with the lowest diversion rate,
46.2 percent of communities with average diversion
rates, and 63-6 percent of communities with the highest
diversion rates. A smaller percentage of communities
charge for recycling based on the size of the containers
used for recycling.
In contrast to the fees for multifamily recycling, vir-
tually all of the sample communities have a fee for mul-
tifamily refuse collection, with just four communities
reporting that multifamily refuse collection is paid for
from taxes. The most typical refuse fee is a volume-
based fee. The average volume-based fee is lower for the
communities with high-diversion rates than for those
with low- and medium-diversion rates. It is important
to note there is more often a variable-based fee for mul-
tifamily refuse in communities achieving a high-diver-
sion rate. The variable-based fee for refuse collection
provides the opportunity for customers to reduce the
overall cost of waste and recyclables service by active
participation in recycling, so as to reduce the size of the
refuse container and, thus, the refuse collection fee.
Elements of Successful Programs
-------
^Hl Successful Multifamily Recycling Programs Fees and
Multifamily Curbside Diversion
Type of Fee or Charge
Number of Observations
Average Total Collection Costs
Excluding New York City
How Collection Costs Determined:
Contractor payment
Payment to firm less processing
Cost estimate
Other*
Total
Fee/HH for Recycling:
Zero
< $2.00/month
>$2.00/month
Total
Type of fee for recycling:
Monthly flat fee
Variable fee— volume based
In taxes
Total
Fee for Multifamily Refuse
Fee for:
Refuse only
Refuse & recycling
Refuse, recycling, &
yard trimmings
In taxes
Total
Type of fee:
Monthly flat fee
Variable fee— volume
based (cubic yards)
In taxes
Total
* Other includes information obtained from a
<10%
13
$99,832
$99,832
7.69%
30.77%
61.54%
0.00%
100.00%
58.33%
25.00%
1 6.67%
100.00%
37.50%
12.50%
50.00%
100.00%
$7.19
50.00%
30.00%
1 0.00%
1 0.00%
100.00%
40.00%
50.00%
1 0.00%
100.00%
rate review document
1 0-20%
16
$3,783,471
$613,839
18.75%
56.25%
18.75%
6.25%
1 00.00%
57.14%
21 .43%
21 .43%
1 00.00%
46.15%
23.08%
30.77%
1 00.00%
$7.26
42.86%
28.57%
14.29%
14.29%
1 00.00%
14.29%
71 .43%
14.29%
1 00.00%
information from
>20%
11
$358,444
$358,444
58.33%
1 6.67%
25.00%
0.00%
100.00%
45.45%
18.18%
36.36%
100.00%
63.64%
9.09%
27.27%
100.00%
$4.72
77.78%
11.11%
0.00%
11.11%
100.00%
11.11%
66.67%
22.22%
100.00%
previous consulting
Statistical
Significance**
40
NA
NA
Yes-99%
No
Yes-90%
No
No
No
engagements
conducted by ECODATA, and data from previous studies performed by another consulting firm.
** Indicates whether or not the difference in values is statistically significant, and the
hypothesis of no difference can be rejected.
confidence level with which the null
Elements of Successful Programs
-------
IKIft
In addition to the factors mentioned earlier,
program success also can depend on the
tactics used to solve problems during start-
up and operations. Representatives from the 40
sample communities were asked their opinions
about their multifamily recycling programs,
including what they would have done differently,
what they would recommend to other communi-
ties, what data needs they perceived, what tac-
tics were used to deal with contamination, and
what role the local government played in enforc-
ing participation according to their community's
rules. Results of these conversations have been
tabulated according to the most frequently cited
responses. They are presented in Table 10,
where all responses are recorded and subdivid-
ed according to the diversion rates achieved. In
general, the most common sample community
problems, in descending order of frequency,
include:
Lessons Learned
Low participation—35 percent.
Problems with contractor cooperation (e.g., haulers
would not share data and/or the contractor stopped
reporting quantities)—15 percent.
Tenant/apartment complex communication problems
(e.g., turnover by tenants, non-English speaking ten-
ants, and/or uninterested property managers)—15
percent.
Reduced commodities collected due to low prices—
10 percent.
Low Participation
The most frequently cited difficulty in multifamily
recycling programs, low participation, appeared more
often in communities with high-diversion rates. What
was cited as low participation ranged from 10 percent of
households participating (probably low in anyone's
opinion), to 65 percent (probably considered good or
excellent by many). Communities with the lowest diver-
sion rates were likely to cite external problems; for
example, an inability to get the haulers to provide data,
problems with scavengers, or a narrow avoidance of a
lawsuit. One community that experienced difficulty
retaining the same list of recyclable materials when mar-
kets plunged has a subscription service and no local gov-
ernment ordinance (specifying which materials are to be
included in the program). The haulers are free to change
the list of acceptable materials as market prices indicate,
even if this confuses or discourages participation in the
recycling program.
Lessons Learned
-------
^Hl Comments About Multifamily Recycling Programs By
Multifamily Curbside Diversion
Comments
Number of Observations
Difficulties encountered in establishing a
multifamily recycling program:
• Turnover of tenants
• Non-English speaking tenants
• Contractor stopped reporting quantities
• Lack of concern on the part of property
managers
• Haulers won't share data
• Almost had a lawsuit
• Low participation (10% to 65%)
• Mayor lost election after trying to set a fee
• Public upset about ending drop-off program
• Wait list to get on program— complaints
• Reduced commodities due to low prices
• Scavengers
TOTAL
What would the community do differently
if setting up the program today?
Container & Truck Issues
• Use different containers
• Different containers — Dumpsters
instead of sheds
• Provide containers
• Use carts & automated collection
• Make customer provide the container
• Change truck to avoid manual loading
System Design Issues
• Less frequent collection
• Change system— stop putting bags
of recyclables in garbage Dumpster
• Fewer setouts
• Let each building set up own internal system
Contractual Provisions
• Would try to get better data
• Make recycling mandatory
• Make MF & SF part of unified system
• Stop splitting revenues with hauler
Other
• Might like a drop-off yard trimmings program
• Include more materials
• Would change nothing
TOTAL
<10%
13
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
20.00%
20.00%
40.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
20.00%
1 00.00%
0.00%
0.00%
12.50%
12.50%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
12.50%
0.00%
12.50%
25.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
12.50%
12.50%
1 00.00%
1 0-20%
16
8.30%
8.30%
8.30%
8.30%
8.30%
0.00%
16.60%
8.30%
8.30%
8.30%
16.60%
0.00%
99.60%
9.10%
0.00%
9.10%
9.10%
9.10%
9.10%
0.00%
9.10%
0.00%
9.10%
18.10%
9.10%
0.00%
0.00%
9.10%
0.00%
0.00%
1 00.00%
>20%
11
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
28.50%
0.00%
14.30%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
14.30%
0.00%
0.00%
28.60%
14.30%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
All
40
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
1 0.00%
5.00%
35.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
1 0.00%
5.00%
100.00%
3.80%
7.80%
7.80%
1 1 .50%
3.80%
3.80%
0.00%
3.80%
3.80%
7.80%
1 1 .50%
1 1 .50%
7.80%
3.80%
3.80%
3.80%
3.80%
99.90%
Lessons Learned
-------
^Hl Comments About Multifamily Recycling Programs By
^H|H Diversion Rate (Continued)
Multifamily Curbside Diversion
Comments
Number of Observations
What is done to avoid contamination?
Collection Actions
• Pull containers— if necessary, stop service
• Collect as garbage
• Leave materials at stop
• Truckside sorting eliminates this problem
• Make them pay twice (1X refuse/1 X recycle)
Education Actions
• Sort materials to identify offenders
• Write letters to complexes with problems
• Use containers with slits and slots
• Place clear signs & labels on containers
• Leave a notice if there is a problem
• Place cameras in problem areas (county)
General Reactions
• Not a problem — no MRF rejections
• Dirty MRF system— people bag
putrescibles such as pet waste.
Separate restaurant collection
• Big problem
TOTAL
What role does the community play in
enforcing regulations and compliance?
• Little role, as it is not mandatory
• Issues violation notices, fines and/or liens
• Fine graded by size of complex*
• Places a property lien if don't pay bill
• Health Dept. can fine, but has not done so
• New program — will be separate billing;
payment is mandatory
• 3 contacts with each complex**
• Must have a trained recycling captain
• Issue citations if haulers pick up at wrong
time of day
• Failure to submit a quarterly report—
$300 fine to hauler
• Contractor supervision very active
• Pull containers if don't do a good job
TOTAL
<10%
13
1 0.00%
1 0.00%
20.00%
0.00%
1 0.00%
1 0.00%
1 0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1 0.00%
0.00%
1 0.00%
0.00%
1 0.00%
100.00%
60.00%
20.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
20.00%
100.00%
1 0-20%
16
1 3.30%
6.70%
1 3.30%
1 3.30%
6.70%
0.00%
0.00%
6.70%
1 3.30%
1 3.30%
0.00%
6.70%
0.00%
6.70%
100.00%
0.00%
20.00%
1 0.00%
1 0.00%
0.00%
1 0.00%
1 0.00%
1 0.00%
1 0.00%
1 0.00%
1 0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
>20%
11
11.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
11.10%
11.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
22.30%
33.30%
11.10%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
60.00%
0.00%
0.00%
20.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
20.00%
0.00%
100.00%
All
40
12.12%
6.06%
12.12%
6.06%
6.06%
0.00%
6.06%
3.03%
6.06%
9.10%
6.06%
18.18%
3.03%
6.06%
100.00%
15.00%
30.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
1 0.00%
5.00%
100.00%
* Fine is $1 00 <25 units; $200 for 26-1 00 units; $300 for 1 01 + units.
** Contacts are office worker, board member, and recycling
captain.
Lessons Learned
-------
^Hl Comments About Multifamily Recycling Programs By
^H|H Diversion Rate (Continued)
Multifamily Curbside Diversion
Comments
Number of Observations
What public education practices are followed?
• Multilanguage brochure for property
managers
• Brochure for recycling & yard trimmings
• Use same education materials for MF and
SF programs
• Quarterly newsletters — to each apartment
•Annual recycling handbook
• Biannual recycling cards mailed
• Technical assistance — visit complexes
• Labels*
• Display trucks and give financial incentives
to recycle
• Intergovernmental preparation of materials
• Television, radio commercials
• Telephone company prints information
at beginning of phone book
• Each complex chooses 3 commodities in
addition to 2 mandated commodities
• Ask haulers to include flier in bills
TOTAL
* Have had to improve labels to avoid confusions such BRN
<10%
13
28.50%
14.30%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
14.30%
14.30%
14.30%
14.30%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1 00.00%
GLASS means
1 0-20%
16
15.40%
7.70%
0.00%
23.00%
0.00%
0.00%
15.40%
0.00%
0.00%
7.70%
7.70%
15.40%
0.00%
7.70%
1 00.00%
brown glass, not
>20%
11
0.00%
0.00%
1 4.40%
14.40%
28.40%
0.00%
28.40%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
14.40%
0.00%
100.00%
broken glass.
All
40
1 6.00%
8.00%
4.00%
12.00%
8.00%
4.00%
16.00%
4.00%
4.00%
4.00%
4.00%
8.00%
4.00%
4.00%
100.00%
Lessons Learned
-------
Contract Provisions
Contract provisions are the next most frequently
cited areas for improvements in multifamily recycling.
Here are just a few of the lessons learned about con-
tracts:
• Make the program mandatory (for complexes, not
for households).
• Make the contractor provide better data.
• Simplify the contract by eliminating a revenue split
with the contractor.
• Specify which materials should be recycled.
Some communities wanted to make their programs
mandatory and place the responsibility on each com-
plex, while others would place responsibility on the
refuse collector to provide recycling service to all cus-
tomers.
What They Would Do Differently
Perhaps the greatest number of responses addressed
what the community would do differently if it were set-
ting up the multifamily program now. The most fre-
quently cited areas to revisit were containers and trucks.
More than one third of the communities would use dif-
ferent containers and try to avoid manual loading.
Although the preferred container differed from commu-
nity to community, no one indicated a desire to switch
to single family bins or cans. A majority of those com-
munities citing this element indicated a desire for auto-
mated or semi-automated loading of carts.
With regard to system design, the communities
made the following comments:
• None of the communities suggested less frequent col-
lection.
• One indicated a desire to reduce the number of set-
outs required.
• One expressed dissatisfaction with the system that
required bags of recyclables to be deposited in
garbage Dumpsters.
• Two expressed interest in letting complexes set up
their own individualized system for getting the mate-
rials from the apartments to the collection points in
the complex.
Complaints Received
Return to Table 4 (page 31) to see the number of
complaints received per household per year. This aver-
ages out to about 2 per 100 households served each
year, or, if a household is served once a week, about 2
per 5,200 collections. Clearly, there is not a significant
number of complaints about the services being provided
to multifamily households by their recycling collectors.
Contamination
Contamination was another frequently cited prob-
lem, although one third of the communities with high
diversion rates reported this was not a problem in their
program (see Table 10 on page 49). Collection actions
to deal with contamination ranged from stopping the
service (pulling containers), tagging and leaving the
materials, treating the material as garbage, or sorting at
truckside and leaving the unacceptable materials.
Most communities attempted to avoid contamina-
tion through public education and detective work. One
community, for example, reported it discovered the hard
way that "BRN GLASS" can reasonably be interpreted
as broken glass, rather than brown glass, and that clear
labeling goes a long way to avoid contamination. Other
communities try to identify the individual households
responsible for contamination (e.g., via sorting through
the rejected materials to look for addressed objects or, in
one case, by video taping the collection area) and con-
tact them to explain the recycling rules. Communities
with all levels of diversion were equally likely to cite
active programs to avoid contamination.
Enforcement Activities
Communities play varied roles in enforcing their
local regulations regarding multifamily recycling. In
general, communities with low-diversion rates report
less enforcement activities, and those with high-diversion
rates are more likely to report the use of fines, liens, or
other sanctions against rule breakers. One community
levies a fine against complexes that do not recycle prop-
erly—$100 for complexes with up to 25 units, $200 for
complexes with 26 to 100 units, and $300 for complex-
es with 101 units or more. Other communities have
extensive education programs, including increased con-
tacts at each complex, and requiring any participating
complexes to have a trained recycling captain.
Lessons Learned
-------
Education
Finally, communities were asked about the practices
they use to educate multifamily households about recy-
cling rules. It is often difficult to reach the individual
households in an apartment complex, especially in a
high rise or mid-rise. Sixteen percent of the communi-
ties rely on the property manager to distribute educa-
tional materials to individual households. An equal
percentage make personal visits to apartment complexes
to help set up recycling programs. Mailings to the indi-
vidual households range from an initial move-in flyer to
materials mailed biannually, annually, or quarterly.
Those communities with high diversion rates are more
likely to have more frequent mailings to individual
households, while communities with lower diversion
rates tend to have less frequent mailings and rely more
on the property managers. Various other public educa-
tion techniques, mentioned less frequently, include pub-
lic relations at public fairs and gatherings, television
commercials, including information at the beginning of
telephone books, and intergovernmental arrangements
for the preparation of educational materials.
Lessons Learned
-------
IKIft
Summing Up
Success
Table 11
Program
Element
Characteristics of Successful Multifamily Recycling Programs
What Happens In High-Diversion
Communities?
Percentage of High-
Diversion Communities
With This Practice
Management Conduct recycling through a private firm under
contract or exclusive franchise to local government.
Collection Collect multifamily recyclables on the same routes
as single family recyclables, using the same
truck and crew.
Participation Ensure compliance through mandatory participation,
with sanctions available to local governments for
enforcement.
Commodities Include more recycled commodities: mixed waste
paper, OCC, magazines, and phone books in
addition to ONP, glass, plastics, and steel and
aluminum cans.
Containers
Fees
Provide container with capacity of at least 90 gallons.
Collect materials in sets of containers, with one set
per 15-20 households and two to three containers in
the average set.
Charge monthly flat fee (usually $2 or more) to units
for recycling. Charge variable for refuse (reduced
solid waste fee as more materials are diverted
to recycling). Average fee is lower in high diversion
communities.
82% of high-diversion
group
61% of high-diversion
group
90% of high-diversion
group
82% of high-diversion
group
64% of high- and
medium-diversion
groups
63.6% of high-
diversion group
Benefits of high-diversion rates in multifamily recycling:
• Unit cost of collecting recyclables decreases. The
average cost per ton to collect multifamily recycling
is $177; this drops to $113 for communities with
diversion rates in excess of 20 percent.
• Quantity of refuse set out for collection decreases. As
diversion rates increase, however, the cost per ton to
collect refuse increases from $43 per ton in communi-
ties with diversion rates of 10 percent to $66 per ton
in communities with diversion rates of 20 percent.
Decreases in refuse setouts exceed the increase in
recycling, implying that waste reduction is also
occurring in communities with the most successful
recycling programs.
Summing Up Success
-------
-------
Appendices
Appendix A
Methodology
Appendix B
Definitions
Appendix C
Individual Program Information
-------
-------
The Multifamily and High Rise Recycling
Assessment was mailed to 1,100 member
communities of the U.S. Conference of
Mayors (with populations in excess of 25,000) in
April 1997. By June 12, 1997, 227 communities
responded to the assessment. Of those, 118
reported having had a multifamily recycling pro-
gram in place for a least 12 months. From that
pool of 118 communities, 40 were selected to
serve as samples for this study.
endix A:
Methodology
Data were obtained from the 40 sample communi-
ties for a variety of specific program elements via U.S.
mail with recycling coordinators and via telephone with
collectors (i.e., private sector firms and public sector
managers), program administrators, and processors, as
appropriate. After initial data collection, various internal
consistency checks were run (e.g., tons of refuse and
recyclables per household were computed as a data relia-
bility check) and communities with unlikely results were
recontacted to confirm statistics.
Sample Program Selection Process
The objectives of the sampling were to provide rep-
resentation from all regions of the United States, includ-
ing large and small communities; to include only those
communities whose programs had been in existence for
at least a year (so as to have adequate data); and to allow
for projections to the entire multifamily population in
the United States.
To achieve these objectives, programs were selected
at random from each of the four U.S. Census-defined
geographic sectors of the United States, with the pro-
portion of programs to be sampled determined by the
sector's relative share of all multifamily housing units in
buildings with 10 or more units. Table A-l displays the
proportion of programs sampled from each of the geo-
graphic areas.
Appendix A—Methodology
-------
Sampling Proportions from Each Geographic Quadrant
Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
TOTAL
Number of Multifamily
Units in 10+
Unit Buildings
(Millions)
3.46
2.47
4.07
3.16
13.16
SOURCE: 1990 Census of Population and Housing: Summary
(1990CPH-1-1) issued March 1992, Table 4 Page 176.
Percent of Total
Multifamily
Units in 10+
Unit Buildings
26.3 %
18.8%
30.9 %
24.0 %
100.0%
Number of
Programs to
Select
(40 Total)
10
8
12
10
40
Population and Housing Characteristics. US GPO
The total number of responses from which sampling occurred was 227- These included 27 responses from the
Northeast, 60 responses from the Midwest, 66 responses from the South, and 72 responses from the West. Two
responses also were received from Puerto Rico. Table A-2 presents the responses by region and state.
Table A-2
Responses to Multifamily and High Rise Recycling Assessment,
as of June 12, 1997
Region
Northeast (ME, NH, VT,
MA, Rl, CT, NY, NJ, PA)
Midwest (OH, IN, IL, Ml,
Wl, MN, IA, MO, ND, SD,
NE, KS)
South (DE, MD, DC, VA,
WV, NC, SC, GA, FL, KY,
TN, AL, MS, AR, LA, OK,
TX)
West (MT, ID, WY, CO,
NM, AZ, UT, NE, WA,
OR, CA, AK, HI)
Puerto Rico
Number of Multifamily
Recycling Programs
< 1 > 1
Year Year All
2 15 17
1 21 22
3 27 30
3 46 49
000
Number with
No Multifamily
Recycling
10
38
36
23
2
TOTAL 9 109 118 109
SOURCE: Responses to U.S. Conference Multifamily and High Rise Recycling Assessment,
Total Percentage of
Responses Responding
Communties
with Multifamily
Recycling
Program
27 63%
60 37%
66 45%
72 68%
2 0%
227 52%
U.S. Conference of Mayors, June 12, 1997.
Appendix A—Methodology
-------
The percentage of respondents with multifamily
recycling programs ranged from 37 percent in the
Midwest to 68 percent in the West, with the Northeast
reporting multifamily recycling programs 63 percent of
the time and the South reporting multifamily recycling
programs 45 percent of the time. Communities with
recycling programs for multifamily housing might have
been more likely to respond, which would skew the
data. Care should be taken, therefore, in generalizing as
to the frequency of these programs across the nation.
In the sampling methodology, the number of pro-
grams was selected in proportion to the entire set of
large multifamily housing units in each region. This
approach allows for a reasonable projection to the entire
set of multifamily units, assuming full-scale adoption of
recycling programs for these units. The average diver-
sion per multifamily unit, for example, as predicted
from the sampled programs, can be projected as the
potential for the entire country, assuming recycling in
multifamily housing was adopted everywhere.
The sampling approach enables reasonably valid pro-
jections to be made. This approach determined sample
size per region based on the regional distribution of
multifamily units in the United States, not the regional
distribution of multifamily recycling projects. Therefore,
this approach does not provide an equal chance of all
programs being included in the sample. Programs in a
region with few cities providing multifamily recycling
and many multifamily units were more likely to be
selected for this study than were programs in a region
with many multifamily recycling programs but fewer
total units. Selection favored programs in the Northeast,
where 10 of 15 programs in existence for more than a
year were selected. Selection was least likely in the West,
where 10 of 46 programs were selected. In the Midwest,
8 of 21 programs were selected; in the South, 12 of 27
programs were selected.
In the actual sampling, numbers were assigned to all
eligible programs in each geographic sector, and the
desired number of samples was drawn at random. Table
A-3 presents the list of cities from which the surveyed
cities (in bold type) were randomly selected.
Appendix A—Methodology
-------
Table A-3
Cities with Multifamily Recycling Programs
Cities selected for analysis are in bold type.
SOUTH:
Boca Raton, FL
Broward County, FL
(Unincorporated)
Charlottesville, VA
Daytona Beach, FL
Deerfield Beach, FL
Durham, NC
Fayettesville, VA
Frankfurt, KY
Goldsboro, NC
Greensboro, NC
Greenville, NC
Hallandale, FL
Jacksonville, FL
Laredo, TX
Largo, FL
Louisville, KY
Miami, FL
Melbourne, FL
Newport News, VA
Orlando, FL
Roswell, GA
Saint Petersburg, FL
Sumter, GA
Tamarac, FL
Tampa, FL
Titusville, FL
Washington, DC
WEST:
Alameda, CA
Antioch, CA
Bellevue, WA
Bellingham, WA
Bremerton, WA
Carmarillo, CA
Chino, CA
Chula Vista, CA
Contra Costa Co., CA
Dana Point, CA
Diamond Bar, CA
Dublin, CA
Everett, WA
Fountain Valley, CA
Glendale, CA
Hillsboro, OR
Honolulu, HI
Kent, WA
La Mesa, CA
Laguna Niguel, CA
Lakewood, CA
Longview, WA
Pittsburgh, CA
Mesa, AZ
Milpetos, CA
Mission Viejo, CA
Olympia, WA
Oxnard, CA
Phoenix, AZ
Placentia, CA
Portland, OR
Rialto, CA
San Francisco, CA
San Jose, CA
San Louis Obispo, CA
San Ramon, CA
Santa Cruz, CA
Santa Fe, NM
Seattle, WA
Simi Valley, CA
Tacoma, WA
Town of Apple Valley,
CA
Vancouver, WA
Ventura, CA
Vista, CA
Whittier, CA
NORTHEAST:
Altoona, PA
Bridgewater, NJ
Cherry Hill, NJ
East Brunswick, NJ
East Orange, NJ
Gloucester, NJ
Jamistown, NY
Lancaster, PA
Manchester, NH
Middletown, CT
North Tonawanda, NY
New York City, NY
Old Bridge, NJ
Syracuse, NY
Wallingford, CT
MIDWEST:
Dayton, OH
Des Plains, IL
Brookfield, Wl
Brooklyn Park, MN
Chillicothe, MO
Eden Prairie, MN
Greenfield, Wl
Lakewood, OH
Lancaster, OH
Lima, OH
Madison, Wl
Maple Grove, MN
Menton, OH
Milwaukee, Wl
Orland Park, IL
Royal Oak, Ml
Saint Paul, MN
Skokie, IL
University City, MO
Upper Arlington, IL
Appendix A—Methodology
-------
Comparison of Selected Sample to
Entire Population
Table A-4 shows how the selected cities in each
region compare in number of multifamily housing units
in structures with 10 or more units and in number of
units included in the multifamily curbside recycling
programs. In the Northeast, the presence of NYC has
such a dramatic influence on the total and average data,
that the information for this region is shown with and
without the inclusion of NYC.
The 40 selected communities contain a total of 2.5
million housing units located in structures with 10 or
more dwellings. This is 19-3 percent of the total num-
ber of such dwelling units in the United States.
Table A-4 also shows the number of multifamily
households receiving curbside recycling services, by
region and for the United States as a whole. Not every
community selected provides multifamily recycling to
every multifamily dwelling in its boundaries. Seattle,
Washington, for example, provides multifamily recycling
to approximately 57 percent of the multifamily house-
holds in its jurisdiction. Alternatively, some communi-
ties provided multifamily recycling to more households
than are housed in structures with 10 or more units.
In projecting the results of this study to the nation as
a whole, each community is afforded equal weight by
using the average of each of the data items from all 40
communities. This methodology retains the original
emphasis in affording more weight to regions with more
multifamily housing, but prevents projections from
overemphasizing the results achieved by the largest
cities, such as NYC. An overemphasis would result from
using a projection method based on aggregate values.
For example, estimating the diversion rate by dividing
the tons recycled across all 40 communities by the total
waste tonnage of the 40 communities, would overem-
phasize the results of the larger communities and, conse-
quently, the regions in which these communities are
located. Equal weighting to the data of each community
enables valid projections to the nation as a whole.
Data Collection
To facilitate data collection, an initial memorandum
Comparison of Selected Cities to Regions as a Whole
Millions of Number of Number of MF Units in Percent of
MF Units* Communities 10+ Unit Structures Region's MF
Region Chosen Units
Mean Total
Northeast
With NYC 3.46
Without NYC 1 .80
Midwest 2.47
South 4.07
West 3.16
TOTAL
With NYC 13.16
Without NYC 11.50
10 170,089
9 4,672
8
12
10
40
39
7,606
50,775
17,215
63,580
22,675
1 ,700,897
42,053
60,851
609,297
172,158
2,543,203
884,359
* In structures with 10 or more dwelling units.
Number of Multifamily (MF) units in structures with 10 or more
Housing. Number of MF units provided with curbside recycling
vidual selected communities.
49.2 %
2.3 %
2.5 %
15.0%
5.4 %
19.3%
7.7 %
Number of MF Units
Provided With Curbside
Recycling
Mean Total
303,183 3,
4,407
8,369
46,288
22,547
96,993 3,
22,758
031 ,835
39,666
66,952
555,466
225,471
879,724
887,555
Percent of
Region's
MF Units
87.6 %
1.1 %
2.7 %
13.6%
7.1 %
29.5 %
7.7 %
units from 1990 Census of Population and
services obtained for this study from indi-
Appendix A—Methodology
-------
was mailed to each selected city or local government,
identifying the community as having been selected for
inclusion in this extended study of multifamily recy-
cling. Each community was asked to gather materials
relating to its multifamily recycling program, including
data on the name of the collector, households serviced,
tons collected, materials included in the program,
method of setout and containerization prior to pickup,
collection technology and number of trucks deployed
per week, method of marketing of recyclables, revenues
collected, public education information, and enforce-
ment. A copy of pertinent regulations and laws also was
requested. About half of the selected communities
responded to this request; in some cases, voluminous
materials, including solid waste reports, videos of pro-
grams, and computer printouts of detailed route infor-
mation, were submitted.
An 8-page data recording sheet was prepared, detail-
ing all the information to be obtained, ideally, from
each community. While the emphasis was placed on
multifamily recycling programs, multifamily refuse col-
lection data were gathered so a diversion rate could be
calculated. Data about single family refuse and recycling
programs also were obtained to answer the question
regarding the relative diversion rates of single family
recycling programs and multifamily recycling programs.
Finally, data were obtained for yard trimmings collec-
tion, which is typically provided to single family house-
holds; multifamily complexes typically rely on
commercial yard services for collection.
Using the data supplied by those communities that
responded to the initial data request, the data recording
sheet was filled out as much as possible. Telephone con-
tacts or in-person contacts (with community representa-
tives attending several conferences where the study was
introduced) then were initiated for each community.
Census data also were obtained for each community,
indicating the number of housing units in buildings
containing 1, 2 to 4, 5 to 9, and 10 and more housing
units. The populations in each of these categories were
obtained as well, so the persons per household could be
computed for each category of multifamily housing, as
defined in each community.
Telephone conversations were conducted with recycling
program administrators, solid waste supervisors, planners,
disposal facility operators, and private solid waste firms.
Solid waste collection firms often provided the prevailing
prices for refuse collection service to multifamily house-
holds and the typical service level (size of container and
number of times emptied per week) for several typical
apartment complexes. Often, the solid waste collectors
knew the number of apartments in each complex, but
sometimes it was necessary to call the apartment complex
itself to determine this information. It was then possible to
use this information to make an estimate of the quantity of
refuse a community generated, per multifamily housing
unit. The solid waste firm or municipal collection supervi-
sor also was interviewed about the management practices
employed in deploying the vehicles and crews used to col-
lect recyclables from multifamily establishments.
Finally, each community was asked how successful it
felt its program was. These were open-ended queries,
but the responses were grouped around several main
themes. Communities also were asked what they would
do differently and what they would recommend to
another community. The free-response section of the
conversations also discussed education practices, efforts
to avoid contamination, and enforcement programs.
Data Analysis
The data from the data recording sheets were sub-
jected to internal consistency checks. The tons of mater-
ial per household were computed, for example, as was
the cost per ton collected. Communities with excessively
high or low figures were contacted again, to verify infor-
mation. In several cases, special computer runs were
made to double check the data from the transfer station
or disposal facility. In two cases, however, the quantities
of multifamily recyclables collected were repeatedly
reported to be so low that the unit cost of collection was
extremely high (more than $2,000 per ton), and these
observations were omitted in computing the average
cost figures for collecting multifamily recyclables.
Data from free response questions were coded so
analysis could take place. Frequencies of each variable
were run, and the sample was subsequently divided
according to the diversion rate achieved. T-tests, statisti-
cal tests used in testing hypotheses about means of nor-
mal distributions when the standard deviations are
unknown, were computed across three categories to
determine the correlation between diversion rates and
factors associated with particular programs.
Measuring Tons
The difficulty of measuring the tons of multifamily
recyclables and multifamily refuse was somewhat antici-
pated in advance of this study. It was known, for exam-
Appendix A—Methodology
-------
pie, that each community typically has a unique defini-
tion of multifamily household, and very few had any
idea what their multifamily diversion rates might be, as
most did not know their multifamily refuse and recy-
cling tonnages. Typically, multifamily refuse was mixed
together in front-end loaders along with commercial
refuse. To overcome this problem, two methods of esti-
mating multifamily refuse quantities were adopted: the
volume method and the per capita method. For more
information on these methods, see Appendix B.
Considerations for Using the Per
Capita Method
To the extent that multifamily households might
generate more waste per capita than do single family res-
idences, the estimated diversion rates for multifamily
households might be somewhat overestimated. Existing
data, however, do not necessarily support making an
adjustment or indicate what the magnitude of such an
adjustment should be.
The literature on solid waste generation sometimes
indicates that per capita waste generation increases with
decreases in the number of persons per household. This
finding is discussed in the work of Franklin Associates,
where waste generation per capita is plotted against per-
sons per household over the period spanning I960 to
1993-1 Note that Franklin Associates, when projecting
residential wastes for purposes of estimating diversion
from residential and commercial waste streams, makes
no distinction between multifamily and single family
residential waste generation.2 This finding is pertinent to
all municipal solid waste, residential as well as commer-
cial, and results from an analysis of aggregate data over a
period of several decades. The finding could be attribut-
able to higher per capita waste generation in smaller
households or it could be capturing other waste genera-
tion effects which have occurred over the decades.
Several cross-sectional studies, for example, have estab-
lished that waste generation per employee is significantly
greater for small firms than for larger firms.3 If the size
of firms decreased over the same period in which house-
hold size decreased, the increase in aggregate per capita
waste generation could be wholly or partially attribut-
able to the change in the size distribution of commercial
firms. Whether the residential waste generation per
household at any one point in time is greater for house-
holds with fewer members than for households with
more members, however, cannot be determined from
the data used in the longitudinal studies such as that
conducted by Franklin Associates.
1 Franklin Associates, Ltd, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1994 Update. (Franklin Associates, Prairie Village, KS.
Prepared for Office of Solid Waste, US EPA Report No. EPA530-94-042: December 1994), pp. 129-130.
2 Franklin Associates, The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management to the Year 2000, Appendices. (Prepared for Keep America
Beautiful by Franklin Associates, Prairie Village, KS: September 1994), See Appendixes H and J.
3 Barbara Stevens and Thomas Kusterer, "Targeting Business Categories," Biocycle, (July 1995, Vol 36 #7), pp. 61-62.
Appendix A—Methodology
-------
-------
endix B
Definitions
This appendix provides definitions of
terms used frequently throughout this
report as well as the methodology
behind calculations, such as diversion rate. The
terms are listed alphabetically.
Cost of Service: The actual cost of municipal service, or
the payment to the private firm, in the cases where ser-
vice is provided by a private firm. Thus, no profit is
included for municipal service, whereas the cost
includes any profit the private firm might earn. This
definition is useful to public officials, as it indicates the
cost to the community of providing service via a public
or private entity.
Diversion Rate, Multifamily: For multifamily service,
the diversion rate is the ratio of tons of recyclables per
householder households in the multifamily recycling pro-
gram, divided by the sum of tons of refuse per house-
hold, for all multifamily households, plus tons of
recyclables per household, for households in the multi-
family recycling program. This definition gives a diver-
sion ratio that would typically be greater than would be
obtained by dividing the total tons of multifamily recy-
clables by the sum of the total tons of multifamily recy-
clables and multifamily refuse, especially in
communities where a significant percentage of multi-
family households do not receive recycling service. The
virtue of the definition, however, is it provides an idea
of the tonnages that could be expected to be diverted
were the services to be provided universally.
Diversion Rate, Single Family: A similar definition to
multifamily recycling is used for single family recycling,
except in this case the denominator includes yard waste
collected. A yard waste diversion ratio also is computed
for single family households, using yard waste per
household divided by the sum of the per household col-
lections of yard waste, recyclables, and refuse. The diver-
gence between this definition of diversion for single
family households and the ratio of the total tons is less
than for multifamily households, as most single family
recycling programs serve all households.
Effectiveness Measures: These measures indicate the
extent to which the program meets policy objectives. If
a state has a recycling goal of 50 percent, for example,
then a program's effectiveness would be measured by the
extent to which it diverted waste from disposal sites.
Efficiency Measures: These measures determine whether
there is efficient use of resources in producing the pro-
gram's outputs. Typical measures of efficiency involve
productivity of collection crews, such as households per
crew shift, households per crew labor hour, or percent-
age of time vehicles are available for duty. Other mea-
sures of efficiency include cost measures such as the cost
per ton collected or the cost per household served.
Measuring Tons, Per Capita Method: In some cases,
where the municipality provided refuse service but did
not have data on the containers in place or frequency of
collection, or where a private firm refused to cooperate,
the per capita method was used. Here, single family
refuse generation, plus recyclables generation, were
divided by the population in the single family resi-
dences. The number of persons per household in multi-
family units was determined from U.S. Census data,
and this figure was multiplied by the per capita genera-
tion derived from single family information.
Multifamily recycling was then subtracted from the total
discard stream to estimate multifamily refuse generation.
Typically, there are approximately two persons per
household in multifamily housing and approximately
three persons per household in single family housing, so
the per capita method adjusts for size of household but
not for propensity to comply with recycling program
requirements.
Measuring Tons, Volume Method: Several haulers were
contacted and asked about the service (container size
and frequency of collection) provided to typical apart-
ment complexes. The number of households in each
complex also was determined. Tonnages were estimated
based on 100 to 120 pounds per cubic yard, determined
from previous studies throughout the United States,
Appendix B—Definitions
-------
with the lower figure used for complexes involved in
glass recycling. A per household refuse figure was deter-
mined for each complex, these data were averaged and
applied to the total number of multifamily households
in the community, as an estimate of multifamily refuse.
Multifamily Household: Many communities have dif-
ferent definitions of multifamily household. One com-
munity might define multifamily as any building with
two or more units, while another might define a multi-
family building as one with four or more units or six or
more units. Very often, the community defines any
multifamily establishment not included in its single
family definition to be a commercial customer.
Municipal Service: Services provided by employees of a
local government.
Municipal Service Costs: For municipal service, costs
are defined on a full cost accounting basis, including
wages of personnel on vehicles used for the service,
wages of persons supervising those crews, fringe benefits
for the above personnel, vehicle operating and mainte-
nance expenses (including labor), other operating
expenses (including billing customers, office expenses,
etc.), and depreciation of vehicles and containers. Care
was taken to avoid any double counting of wages (e.g.,
where a fee for vehicle maintenance included mainte-
nance labor, no direct maintenance labor would be
added). Particular care was taken to allocate labor per-
forming several functions (e.g., single family and multi-
family recycling service) accurately. This was typically
accomplished according to the percentage of each work-
er's weekly time devoted to performing each service.
Backup personnel and vehicles also are included in the
cost of the service. Depreciation of vehicles is computed
on a 7-year straight-line basis, and depreciation of con-
tainers is computed on a 10-year straight-line basis. For
recycling, costs included processing of recyclables less
revenues remitted to the community. Disposal fees were
not included in the refuse collection costs.
Private Firm Cost: The cost of recycling is the payment
to the firm including the cost of processing the recy-
clables, less any revenues remitted to the community.
For refuse collection, disposal fees were subtracted from
private firm payment.
Private Service: Services provided by employees of a pri-
vate firm, including contract service, franchise service,
and subscription service.
• Contract Service: Occurs when a single firm is
hired by a local government to provide collection
services of specified materials to a group of cus-
tomers; the firm has the exclusive right to serve
all eligible customers in a specified territory. The
firm is paid by the local government, submitting
only one invoice per month to the government. Any
billing of customers that takes place is done by
the local government.
• Franchise Service, Exclusive: Exclusive franchise
service is the same as contract service, except the
selected firm bills customers directly for services
provided.
• Franchise Service, Nonexclusive: The same as
exclusive franchise service, except that more than
one firm is authorized to provide service in a
given geographical territory.
• Subscription Service: In this type of service there
is free competition between any licensed firm to
obtain the business of any potential customer.
There is typically no rate regulation whatsoever,
and the prices are set by the market forces of sup-
ply and demand.
Productivity Measures: These measures include the cost
per ton collected, the annual cost per household served,
the number of households served per crew shift, the
number of tons of recyclables collected per household
served each year, and the diversion rate.
Single Family Household: Usually consists of a building
with one family unit, but also depends on an individual
community's definition of multifamily household. Some
communities define a single family unit as any establish-
ment setting out six or fewer cans or bags for collection,
whether the customer be a commercial store or a resi-
dential establishment. Typically, a community oversees
programs for the collection of refuse and recyclables
from those establishments it defines to be single family
establishments.
Statistical Significance: Whether one can be reasonably
confident the pattern observed differs from what would
occur randomly. The level of statistical significance
means the degree to which one can be confident the dif-
ference in values among the groups did not arise by
chance.
Total/Aggregate Discard Stream: For multifamily
households, recyclables plus refuse; for single family
households, recyclables plus refuse plus yard waste.
L*L*J
Appendix B—Definitions
-------
lendix C:
Individual Program
Information
The following table provides a summary of
the recycling and refuse systems in the
40 sample communities and describes
which methods of estimation were required in
each community. The table also lists type of service
and collection logistics.
Chart Acronyms:
MF Multifamily
SF Single Family
HH Household
MRF Materials Recovery Facility
MWP Mixed Wastepaper
ONP Old Newspaper
Appendix C—Individual Program Information
-------
Table C-1
Individual Program Information
Community Refuse Collection
Recycling Collection
Alameda,
MF & SF
Service:
— Exclusive franchise
Collection Logistics:
— Collected mixed with commercial waste
Calculations:
— Estimate based on volume and persons
perHH
MF&SF
Service:
— Exclusive franchise
Collection Logistics:
— Different containers for MF & SF; same
trucks and same routes
Calculations:
— Number of MF & SF containers
collected known, tonnage allocated
based on volume ratio of containers
collected
Altoona, PA MF & SF
Service:
— Subscription
Calculations:
— Per capita estimate of MF refuse
tonnages based on SF per capita
estimate
— Haulers provided fees
MF&SF
Service:
— Mandated, provided by subscription
Collection Logistics:
— City provides Dumpsters for MF and
bins for SF
Calculations:
— Quantities estimated by container
volumes
Bridgewater,
NJ
MF&SF
Service:
— Mandatory subscription with several
haulers
Calculations:
— Estimate refuse from container size and
number of HHs
MF
Service:
— Provided by county
Collection Logistics:
— Buy Dumpsters and get a credit for 50
barrels/Dumpster; two Dumpsters per
every 50 HHs
Calculations:
— Single report on MF & SF tonnage
— Net container cost: $700 for 50 HHs
SF
Service:
— Provided by county
Collection Logistics:
— Barrels provided free
Calculations:
— Single report on MF & SF tonnage
L*L»J
Appendix C—Individual Program Information
-------
Table C-1
Individual Program Information (Continued)
Community Refuse Collection
Recycling Collection
Broward MF & SF
County, FL Service:
— Nonexclusive franchise
Calculations:
— Tonnage data mixed with commercial;
estimate MF tonnage using SF tonnage
and per capita method
MF&SF
Service:
— Nonexclusive franchise
Calculations:
— Separate tonnage reports for recycling
Cherry Hill, MF & SF
NJ Service:
— Contract service
Calculations:
— Separate tonnage reported
— Allocate contractor payment based on
number of HHs, then divide by tonnage
for cost per ton
MF&SF
Service:
— Mandatory, contract service
Collection Logistics:
— Toters for MF, pails for SF
Calculations:
— Used old separate contract to determine
MF recycling tonnage
— Saved 27 percent by combining SF &
MF into one service contract
Dayton, OH MF
Service:
— Subscription
Calculations:
— Used per capita method to estimate MF
tonnage
SF
Service:
— Municipal collection
Calculations:
— Costs determined based on labor,
fringe, other operating costs, overhead,
and depreciation
MF
Calculations:
— Per capita method to estimate tonnage
SF
Service:
— Municipal, includes 2- to 4-unit buildings
Calculations:
— Costs determined from labor, other cost
elements
Daytona MF & SF
Beach, FL Service:
— Exclusive franchise
Collection Logistics:
— Twice per week collection
Calculations:
— Estimate MF tonnage based on per
capita method
— Good data on number of customers, as
they are billed for service
MF&SF
Calculations:
— Separate tonnage and fees for MF and
SF
Appendix C—Individual Program Information
-------
Table C-1
Individual Program Information (Continued)
Community Refuse Collection
Recycling Collection
Durham, NC MF & SF
Service:
— SF municipal and MF largely municipal
Calculations:
— Estimated tonnage by volume and per
capita method
— Fees provided
MF&SF
Service:
— Contract with nonprofit organization that
operates the MRF; paid per HH
Collection Logistics:
— 90-gallon carts for MF, small stacks
(towers) for SF
Calculations:
— Tonnage separated for MF and SF
Diamond MF & SF
Bar, CA Service:
— Subscription
Collection Logistics:
— Dumpsters used for MF refuse
Calculations:
— Obtained total residential tonnage,
added recycling, and divided by
population to determine generation rate;
subtracted recycling to obtain refuse
tonnage for those who recycle
MF
Service:
— Voluntary, by subscription
Collection Logistics:
— 90-gallon barrels; list of six complexes
with recycling obtained, including
number of HHs per complex
SF
Service:
— Includes condos
Collection Logistics:
— 90-gallon barrels
East MF & SF
Brunswick, Service:
NJ — Same contract as for recycling
Collection Logistics:
— Contractor paid based on bid price per
ton
Calculations:
— Invoices show MF and SF tonnage
separately; 88lbs/cu yd=MF density
MF
Service:
— With SF in same contract as refuse
Collection Logistics:
— 96-gallon carts for MF collected weekly;
county pays for containers
Calculations:
— Invoices show total tonnage; used per
capita method to allocate
SF
Service:
— With MF in same contract as refuse
Collection Logistics:
— Bins collected every 2 weeks; county
pays for containers
Calculations:
— Invoices show total tonnage; used per
capita method to allocate
Appendix C—Individual Program Information
-------
Table C-1
Individual Program Information (Continued)
Community Refuse Collection
Recycling Collection
East MF & SF
Orange, NJ Service:
— Municipal contract and some private
subscription
Calculations:
— Direct tonnage data
— Cost data
MF
Service:
— Municipal service for complexes with
50+ units
Collection Logistics:
— Weekly
Calculations:
— Tonnage available
— Costs determined from cost elements
SF
Service:
— Contract for complexes with less than
50 units
Collection Logistics:
— Every 2 weeks
Calculations:
— Tonnage available
— Costs determined from cost elements
Fountain MF & SF
Valley, CA Service:
— MF has exclusive franchise with same
firm as commercial and SF; SF has a
contract with the same firm
Collection Logistics:
— Refuse and recyclables collected
commingled and sorted at a MRF;
public education program reminds HHs
to bag putrescibles to keep from
contaminating recyclables
Calculations:
— Per capita method used to estimate MF
refuse tonnage
— Given collection method, allocated per
ton after subtracting disposal and net
processing costs; added all processing
costs to yard waste and recycling
programs
— Good data on costs; fees to contractor
allocated between refuse and recycling
MF&SF
Service:
— Exclusive franchise to same firm as SF
Collection Logistics:
— See refuse
Calculations:
— See refuse
Appendix C—Individual Program Information
-------
Table C-1
Individual Program Information (Continued)
Community Refuse Collection
Recycling Collection
Frankfurt,
MF & SF
Service:
— Municipal service
Calculations:
— Tonnages allocated on per capita basis
— Cost computed by cost elements,
allocated by tonnage
MF&SF
Service:
— Municipal service
Collection Logistics:
— Inmate labor collects 4 days per week,
repair trucks on 5th day
Calculations:
— Tonnage determined using per capita
method
— Costs allocated by tonnage
Greenfield, MF & SF
Wl Service:
— Contract
Collection Logistics:
— Different fee rates for Dumpster and can
service
Calculations:
— Per capita method used to estimate MF
tonnage
— Used fees to determine costs
MF&SF
Service:
— Contract with private hauler
Collection Logistics:
— Toters for MF, bins for SF; same truck
serves MF & SF HHs
Calculations:
— Estimated percentage of payment for
yard waste and recycling based on
number of truck shifts per week
Hillsboro,
MF & SF
Service:
— Exclusive franchise collects 95 percent
of MF & SF refuse
Calculations:
— Good tonnage data for SF; used per
capita method to estimate MF tonnage
— Estimated fee allocations based on
number of truck shifts and cost per
truck shift
MF&SF
Collection Logistics:
— MF, ONP, and OCC collected
commingled with commercial
recyclables
— MF&SF mixed containers collected on
same routes
Calculations:
— MF&SF tonnages all together, tonnage
allocated on per capita basis
Appendix C—Individual Program Information
-------
Table C-1
Individual Program Information (Continued)
Community Refuse Collection
Recycling Collection
Jacksonville, MF
Service:
— Choice between municipal or contract
Collection Logistics:
— Municipal can/bag once per week
— Contractors to city serve 233,500 HHs;
another 89,000 HHs are served by
private firms
Calculations:
— Estimated tonnage on per capita basis
SF
Service:
— Three contracts and one municipal area
Collection Logistics:
— No user fee
MF
Service:
— Voluntary; private contract; 75 percent
to 80 percent have service
Collection Logistics:
— One-sort commingled set out
— Drop off locations (Igloos) collected 500
tons in 1996, but discontinued due to
lack of grant funds
Calculations:
— Tonnage estimated by container volume
— Little to no fees
SF
Service:
— Contract/municipal
Collection Logistics:
— Weekly collection of recyclables and
yard waste
Lakewood, MF & SF
OH Service:
— Municipal
Collection Logistics:
— MF and SF served by same trucks
Calculations:
— Used per capita method to estimate
tonnage; cost determined from cost
elements
MF&SF
Service:
— Municipal
Calculations:
— Used per capita method to allocate
tonnage
— Cost determined from cost component
buildup; cost per ton same for SF & MF,
but cost per HH varies
Laredo, TX MF & SF
Service:
— Municipal
Calculations:
— Used per capita method to estimate MF
tonnage
— Estimated costs per week and per truck
shift
MF&SF
Service:
— Municipal; no real separation between
MF&SF
Collection Logistics:
— Blue bags, picked up on second day of
refuse collection by same trucks as
refuse, but on a separate trip
Calculations:
— Little quantitative data available
Appendix C—Individual Program Information
-------
Table C-1
Individual Program Information (Continued)
Community Refuse Collection
Recycling Collection
Largo, FL MF
Service:
— Municipal
Collection Logistics:
— Collected with commercial
Calculations:
— Tonnage determined by per capita
method
— Cost determined from cost elements
SF
Service:
— Municipal
Calculations:
— Cost determined from cost elements
MF
Service:
— Municipal
Collection Logistics:
— ONP in Dumpsters, drop-off for other
materials; no ferrous collected
Calculations:
— Tonnage estimated; had to allocate
between Dumpster and drop-off
SF
Service:
— Municipal
Lancaster,
MF & SF
Service:
— All municipal
Calculations:
— Tonnage allocated between residential
and commercial, then on a per capita
basis between MF & SF
— Cost estimate from cost elements
MF&SF
Service:
— None provided to MF with Dumpster
refuse service
Collection Logistics:
— Same routes
Calculations:
— Good data on tonnages; had to allocate
between MF & SF on per capita basis
Lima, OH MF
Service:
— Subscription
Collection Logistics:
— Collected with commercial
Calculations:
— SF refuse per capita used to estimate
MF refuse
SF
Service:
— Contract covers refuse, recycling, and
yard waste
Collection Logistics:
— Separate monthly fees per HH
MF&SF
Service:
— Contract for both same as SF refuse
Calculations:
— Tonnage: estimated MF & SF split by
per capita method
Appendix C—Individual Program Information
-------
Table C-1
Individual Program Information (Continued)
Community Refuse Collection
Recycling Collection
Maple MF
Grove, MN Service:
— Subscription
Calculations:
— Has dumpster service levels for each
MF complex to estimate tonnage
SF
Service:
— Subscription
Calculations:
— Tonnage estimated by volume
— Good fee data for cost
MF&SF
Service:
— Contract
Calculations:
— Volume-based estimate of tonnage for
MF
Miami, FL MF
(Dade Service:
County) _ Subscription
Calculations:
— Used per capita and volume method
SF
Service:
— Unincorporated Dade County and three
cities provided with intergovernmental
contract for service by county
Collection Logistics:
— Twice per week
Calculations:
— Good data due to solid waste enterprise
fund
MF
Service:
— Mandated service for five materials;
haulers by subscription
Calculations:
— Good data on tonnages by material
from private sector haul reports
— Hauler provided fee estimates, recycling
billed separately
SF
Service:
— Unincorporated Dade County and 17 to
18 cities have contract with private hauler
Calculations:
— Good data on tonnages and costs
Newport MF
News, VA Service:
— Subscription, some municipal
Calculations:
— Allocate tonnage by per capita method,
extend tonnage to MF served by
subscription
SF
Service:
— Municipal
MF
Collection Logistics:
— Roll-off container with two
compartments at seven high rise sites
Calculations:
— Good data on tonnages
— Pay per pull
SF
Service:
— Contract includes garden apartments
Collection Logistics:
— Bins, curbside
Calculations:
— Good data on tonnages
Appendix C—Individual Program Information
-------
Table C-1
Individual Program Information (Continued)
Community Refuse Collection
Recycling Collection
New York, MF & SF
NY Service:
— Municipal
Collection Logistics:
— Less than 10 percent of HHs live in SF
Calculations:
— Good tonnage data
— Estimated costs from cost elements
MF&SF
Service:
— Municipal, all one system
Collection Logistics:
— Reliance on building staff to set out and
arrange systems
Calculations:
— Good tonnage data
— Estimated costs from cost elements
North
Tonawanda,
NY
MF&SF
Service:
— Municipal for SF and 95 percent of MF
Calculations:
— Tonnage allocated by per capita method
— Costs determined from cost-element
analysis
MF&SF
Service:
— Municipal
Calculations:
— Tonnage generation estimated on per
capita basis
— Costs determined from cost-element
buildup
Old Bridge, MF
NJ Service:
— Contract with private hauler
Collection Logistics:
— Fee information from hauler
Calculations:
— Estimated tonnage per HH from
apartment data provided by hauler
SF
Service:
— Subscription
Calculations:
— Estimated tonnage on a per capita basis
using data from MF
MF
Service:
— Contract with private hauler
Calculations:
— Good tonnage data from township
— Cost information provided by hauler
SF
Service:
— County contract with hauler
Calculations:
— Good tonnage, cost, and number of
HHs data
Appendix C—Individual Program Information
-------
Table C-1
Individual Program Information (Continued)
Community Refuse Collection
Recycling Collection
Olympia, MF
WA Service:
— Municipal
Collection Logistics:
— Collected with commercial
Calculations:
— Tonnage estimated by per capita
method
— Cost data allocated by tonnage, MF
versus commercial
SF
Service:
— Municipal
Calculations:
— Good tonnage and cost data
MF&SF
Service:
— Municipal
Collection Logistics:
— MF uses same trucks as SF, but
collected on different day
Calculations:
— Good separate MF and SF tonnage
data
— Cost allocation based on weekly
number of crew and shifts
Placentia,
MF
Service:
— Exclusive franchise
Collection Logistics:
— Large apartments have 3-cubic-yard
bins for refuse and recyclables that are
separated at dirty MRF
— Collected with commercial
Calculations:
— Costs based on fees less disposal
SF
Service:
— Exclusive franchise
Collection Logistics:
— Color coded cart system: black-refuse
— Includes condos
Calculations:
— Cost allocated to refuse, recycling, and
yard waste based on truck shifts
MF
Service:
— Exclusive franchise
Collection Logistics:
— Bagged and put in refuse bin for
separation at dirty MRF
Calculations:
— Tonnage estimated on per capita basis,
with 50 percent downward adjustment
(based on city input)
— Costs based on fees less disposal/net
processing
SF
Service:
— Exclusive franchise
Collection Logistics:
— Color coded cart system: green-
recyclables and brown-yard waste
— Includes condos
Appendix C—Individual Program Information
-------
Table C-1
Individual Program Information (Continued)
Community Refuse Collection
Recycling Collection
Portland,
MF
Service:
— Subscription
Calculations:
— Tonnage estimated by per capita
method
— Costs from Ecodata model for Portland
— Truck shifts from model
SF
Service:
— Exclusive franchises (49)
Calculations:
— Tonnage from annual report, rate audit
where sample of containers were
weighed
— Lists customers by type of service, fees
charged; lists truck shifts and volumes
collected
MF
Service:
— Subscription
— Mandatory collection of five materials:
ONP, MWP, and three others
Collection Logistics:
— Must be at least as convenient as
garbage set out location
Calculations:
— Tonnage estimated from per capita
method
— Costs estimated from cost model
SF
Service:
—12 exclusive franchises
Calculations:
— Tonnage from extended rate review of
haulers
— Costs from fees, less net processing
Roswell, GA MF
Service:
— Municipal
Collection Logistics:
— Collected with commercial
Calculations:
— Tonnage estimated by per capita
method
— Costs based on fees less disposal
SF
Service:
— Municipal, but collected separately from
MF
Calculations:
— Good tonnage data
— Costs from cost element buildup
MF
Service:
— Subscription
Collection Logistics:
— Complexes buy toters, then pay a small
monthly fee
Calculations:
— Per capita method used to determine
tonnage
SF
Service:
— Contract
Calculations:
— Good tonnage data
— Costs based on fee to contractor less
net processing
Appendix C—Individual Program Information
-------
Table C-1
Individual Program Information (Continued)
Community Refuse Collection
Recycling Collection
St. Paul, MN MF
Service:
— Subscription
Calculations:
— Tonnage estimated by per capita
method
— Fee-based costs (less disposal)
SF
Service:
— Subscription
Collection Logistics:
— Variable fee/volume based system
Calculations:
— Estimated tonnage and costs based on
distribution of container sizes
MF&SF
Service:
— Contract
Collection Logistics:
— MF collected with commercial
Calculations:
— Estimated tonnage based on volume
— Excellent data on tonnage, number of
HHs, number of buildings, and costs
San Jose,
MF
Service:
— Contract
Collection Logistics:
— Separate from SF and commercial
Calculations:
— Good tonnage data
— Cost based on number of truck shifts
SF
Service:
— Contract (1- to 4-unit buildings)
Collection Logistics:
— Variable-sized can; semi-automated
Calculations:
— Good tonnage and customer data
MF
Service:
— Contracts for 9+ units (4- to 9-unit
buildings can choose between MF or
SF contract)
Calculations:
— Good separate tonnage data; per capita
method used to estimate tonnage
— Allocate contractor payment between
refuse and recycling
SF
Service:
— Contract
Collection Logistics:
— Separate contract for yard waste
Calculations:
— Good separate tonnage data
Appendix C—Individual Program Information
-------
Table C-1
Individual Program Information (Continued)
Community Refuse Collection
Recycling Collection
Seattle, WA MF & SF
Service:
— Contract; single payment
Calculations:
— Allocate tonnage based on per capita
and volume basis at known Seattle
density-agreed closely
— Allocate costs based on truck shifts
MF
Service:
— Contract; fees paid to contractors
Calculations:
— Separate and clean tonnage data
SF
Service:
— Contract; fees paid to contractors
Calculations:
— Separate and clean tonnage data
— Separate data for yard waste
Syracuse,
MF
Service:
— Subscription for 10+ units
Calculations:
— Estimated tonnage and costs from fees
and service levels obtained from private
firm
SF
Service:
— Municipal
Calculations:
— Good tonnages
— Costs not fully obtained
MF
Service:
— Private firms for 10+ unit complexes
Collection Logistics:
— Two-sort program typical; separate
recycling bills
Calculations:
— Tonnage estimated by volume
— Obtained fees from housing complex
SF
Service:
— Municipal, includes yard waste
— Recycling mandated by county
Calculations:
— Good tonnage information
— Cost by cost buildup method
Tamarac, FL MF
Service:
— Nonexclusive franchise
Collection Logistics:
— Collected with commercial
Calculations:
— Tonnage estimated based on volume
— Costs based on fees less disposal
SF
Service:
— Exclusive franchise
Calculations:
— Separate tonnage data, from county
— Good cost data
MF&SF
Service:
— City owns recycling trucks, pays
contractor to collect
Calculations:
— Tonnage allocated based on per capita
method
— Costs based on fees
Appendix C—Individual Program Information
-------
Table C-1
Individual Program Information (Continued)
Community Refuse Collection
Recycling Collection
Tampa, FL MF & SF
Service:
— Some contract, 60 percent municipal
Collection Logistics:
— MF collected with commercial
Calculations:
— MF tonnage estimated by per capita
method
— Separate data for SF tonnage
— Costs estimated by contractor fees
MF
Service:
— Municipal to 5,000 units, no service to
38,000
Calculations:
— Separate tonnage data
— Cost estimated from cost buildup
analysis
SF
Service:
— Contract; yard waste by municipal
Calculations:
— Separate data and fees for costs
University MF & SF
City, MO Service:
— Municipal
Calculations:
— Tonnage allocated by per capita method
— Costs determined by cost buildup
MF&SF
Service:
— Municipal
Calculations:
— Tonnage provided directly; separate
data
— Costs determined by cost buildup
Vista, CA MF & SF
Service:
— Exclusive franchise
Collection Logistics:
— MF collected with commercial
Calculations:
— For MF, used per capita estimating
method for tonnage
— Costs based on fees allocated to SF by
truck shifts after subtracting disposal
MF&SF
Service:
— Exclusive franchise
Collection Logistics:
— MF uses sets of three carts
— Materials collected on same trucks as
SF, but with dedicated routes
Calculations:
— Separate tonnage data
— Costs based on MF fee per unit
Appendix C—Individual Program Information
-------
Table C-1
Individual Program Information (Continued)
Community Refuse Collection
Recycling Collection
Wallingford,
MF
Service:
— Subscription
Calculations:
— MF tonnage by volume
— Fees less disposal used to estimate
costs
SF
Service:
— Subscription
Calculations:
— SF tonnage available separately
— Fees less disposal used to estimate
costs
MF
Service:
— Subscription, mandatory ordinance for
all businesses and MF complexes
Collection Logistics:
— 14-gallon bin; materials collected with
SF
Calculations:
— Used per capita method of tonnage
allocation
— Costs based on fees
SF
Service:
— Subscription
Collection Logistics:
— 14-gallon bin; materials collected with
MF
Calculations:
— Used per capita method of tonnage
allocation
— Costs based on fees
Appendix C—Individual Program Information
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste (5305W)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
------- |