xEPA
United States Solid Waste and
Environmental Protection Emergency Response
Agency (5305)
EPA530-R-92-015
February 1994
Waste Prevention,
Recycling, and
Composting Options:
Lessons from 30
Communities
Portland, OR • King County, WA - Seattle, WA • West Linn, OR • Lincoln, NE • Dakota County, Ml\! • La Crescent, MN • Fennimore, Wl
Providence, Rl • Bowdoinham, ME • West Palm Beach, FL • Upper Township, NJ • Berlin Township, NJ • Newark, NJ • Wapakoneta, OH
> Printed on paper that contains at least 50 percent recycled fibe
-------
-------
EPA530-R-92-015
ERRATA SHEET
The following acknowledgments and notice were omitted from the attached report Waste
Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities.
Acknowledgments
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities was
prepared under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grant number X-81757-01-0 by the
Washington, DC-based Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Institute for Local Self-Reliance
research staff included Brenda Platt, Naomi Friedman, Carolyn Grodinsky, Pia MacDonald,
and Margaret Suozzo. U.S. EPA participants included William MacLeod, Truett DeGeare, and
George Garland.
EPA would also like to acknowledge the assistance of the following reviewers, whose comments
on previous drafts helped to refine this report:
Steve Apotheker
Pavitra Crimmel
Lauris Davis
Sam Doctors
Shelly Dresser and Michael Alexander
Michael Frisch
Margaret Gainer
Jim Glenn
Eric Lombardi
Kathleen Meade
Steve Sargent
Frank Sudol
John van der Harst
Marica Williams
Resource Recycling
Garbage Reincarnation
EPA Solid Waste Program
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Northeast Recycling Council
Center for the Biology of Natural Systems
Gainer & Associates
BioCyde
Eco-Cycle
National Solid Wastes Management
Association
Rumpke, Inc.
City of Newark Division of Engineering
Bring Urban Recycling to Nashville Today
Consultant, Browning-Ferris Industries
These individuals and their organizations do not necessarily endorse the ideas or findings
expressed in this report.
Notice
Readers interested in the details of community recycling operations are encouraged to obtain a
copy of the case studies on which this report is based. These case studies are published as In-
Depth Studies of Recycling and Composting Programs: Designs, Costs, Results, a book available in
three volumes: Rural Communities, Suburbs and Small Cities, and Urban Areas. These volumes are
available from The Institute for Local Self-Reliance (2425 18th Street, NW, Washington, DC
20009, 202-232-4108) and starting in 1997 also from the National Technical Information Service
(5825 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, 703-487-4650).
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling,
and Composting Options:
Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
-------
-------
EPA530-R-92-015
ERRATA SHEET
The following acknowledgments and notice were omitted from the attached report Waste
Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities.
Acknowledgments
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities was
prepared under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grant number X-81757-01-0 by the
Washington, DC-based Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Institute for Local Self-Reliance
research staff included Brenda Platt, Naomi Friedman, Carolyn Grodinsky, Pia MacDonald,
and Margaret Suozzo. U.S. EPA participants included William MacLeod, Truett DeGeare, and
George Garland.
EPA would also like to acknowledge the assistance of the following reviewers, whose comments
on previous drafts helped to refine this report:
Steve Apotheker
Pavitra Crimmel
Lauris Davis
Sam Doctors
Shelly Dresser and Michael Alexander
Michael Frisch
Margaret Gainer
Jim Glenn
Eric Lombard!
Kathleen Meade
Steve Sargent
Frank Sudol
John van der Harst
Marica Williams
Resource Recycling
Garbage Reincarnation
EPA Solid Waste Program
Center for Business & Environmental Studies
Northeast Recycling Council
Center for the Biology of Natural Systems
Gainer & Associates
BioCyde
Eco-Cycle
National Solid Wastes Management
Association
Rumpke, Inc.
City of Newark Division of Engineering
Bring Urban Recycling to Nashville Today
Consultant, Browning-Ferris Industries
These individuals and their organizations do not necessarily endorse the ideas or findings
expressed in this report.
Notice
Readers interested in the details of community recycling operations are encouraged to obtain a
copy of the case studies on which this report is based. These case studies are published as In-
Depth Studies of Recycling and Composting Programs: Designs, Costs, Results, a book available in
three volumes: Rural Communities, Suburbs and Small Cities, and Urban Areas. These volumes are
available from The Institute for Local Self-Reliance (2425 18th Street, NW, Washington, DC
20009, 202-232-4108) and starting in 1997 also from the National Technical Information Service
(5825 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, 703-487-4650).
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
Table of Contents
List of Tables iv
List of Charts „ vi
Abbreviations viii
Chapter One
Introduction 1
Chapter Two
Demographics and Materials Generation and Recovery Levels 5
Demographics and Yard Debris Affect Waste Generation Rates 5
Smaller Communities Recover More of Their Solid Waste 5
Large Cities Can Build on the Experience of Smaller Communities 8
High Disposal Costs Lead to Higher Recovery Levels 9
Conclusion 11
Chapter Three
Waste Prevention Strategies 13
Overview 13
Source Reduction Education 14
Backyard Composting 16
"Grasscycling" Programs 16
Backyard Composting Programs 16
Vermicomposting 17
Salvage and Reuse 18
Variable Refuse Rates 19
Regulating Packaging and Other Materials 22
Conclusion 22
Chapter Four
Comprehensive Source-Separation Composting Programs 25
Overview 25
Collection, Processing, and Marketing Strategies 25
Collection 25
Curbside Collection 27
Drop-off Collection 30
Processing and Marketing Strategies 30
How Can Communities Increase Composting Levels? 33
Table of Contents i
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons front 30 U.B, Communities
Frequent and Curbside Collection 35
Target All Residential Buildings for Yard Materials Collection 36
Target a Wide Range of Materials for Collection 37
Composting Food Discards 37
Legislative Mandates and Economic Incentives 38
Encouraging Businesses and Landscapers to Compost 40
Conclusion 41
Chapter Five
Improving Residential Recycling Levels 43
Overview 43
Providing Convenient Collection Service 47
Curbside Collection 47
Collection Frequency 49
Collection Day 50
Offer Service to All Households 50
Recycling in Multi-Unit Buildings 52
Curbside Set-out and Collection Methods 53
Provision of Recycling Containers 57
Drop-off Collection 59
Targeting a Wide Range of Materials for Recovery 60
Waste Paper 60
Other Materials 62
Securing High Levels of Participation 63
Establishing Economic Incentives 65
Comprehensive Educational and Promotional Programs 66
Identifying Outlets for Collected Material 68
Chapter Six
Improving Commercial and Institutional Recovery Levels 71
Overview 71
How Communities Can Increase Commercial/Institutional Recovery Levels 74
Economic Incentives 76
Avoided Costs and Cost Savings 76
Shared Savings and Rebates 78
Tax Incentives 1. 78
Targeting a Wide Range of Materials for Recovery 78
Mandating Participation in the Commercial/Institutional Sector 80
Enforcing Recycling Mandates 81
Planning and Reporting Requirements 81
Technical Assistance 82
Awards 82
Assisting Businesses and Haulers with Marketing Recyclables 82
Municipal Collection 84
Conclusion '. 86
Table of Contents
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options*, Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
Chapter Seven
Targeting Construction and Demolition Debris for Recovery 89
Reuse Operations 90
Asphalt and Concrete Recovery 92
Wood Waste Recovery 92
Lower Value Uses 92
Economic Incentives and Legislative Initiatives 93
Chapter Eight
The Costs of Recycling and Composting 95
Overview 95
Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs 95
The Effect of Program Design on Costs 116
Drop-off Versus Curbside Collection 117
Service Provider: Public Versus Private 118
Segregated Versus Commingled Collection and Processing 121
The Effect of Labor on Cost 129
Reducing Program Costs 130
Contracted Programs , 131
Competitive Bids 132
Nonprofit Organizations 132
Revenue Sharing 132
Retaining Flexibility to Reduce Refuse Costs in Refuse Contracts 133
Reducing Costs in Publicly-run Programs 133
Maximizing Participation and Tonnage Recovered 133
Unloading Frequency and Distance to Processing Facilities... 134
Yard Waste Composting Programs 136
Outside Processing and Composting Facilities 137
Integrating Materials Recovery into Solid Waste Systems 140
Refuse and Materials Recovery Costs 140
Conclusion 142
Appendix A: Data Definitions and Methodology 145
Appendix B: Community Contacts 149
Appendix C: Waste Generation Calculations 157
Appendix D: Procurement 163
Appendix E: Guelph, Ontario's Wet/Dry Collection System:
Results and Projected Costs 165
Table of Contents
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; lessons from 30 U»S, Communities
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Selected Recycling and Composting Programs 2
Table 2.1: Demographic and MSW Recovery Data 6
Table 2.2: Residential, Commercial/ and C&D Materials Generated and Recovered 7
Table 3.1: Waste Generation Rates and Source Reduction Programs 15
Table 3.2: Communities with Volume-based Refuse Rates 21
Table 4.1: Yard Debris Collection Characteristics 26
Table 4.2: Curbside Set-out and Collection Method for Yard Debris 28
Table 4.3: Compost Site Characteristics 32
Table 4.4: Compost/Mulch End Products 34
Table 5.1: Residential Materials Generated and Recovered 44
Table 5.2: Select Residential Recycling Program Characteristics 45
Table 5.3: Residential Curbside Recycling Program 46
Table 5.4: Curbside Collection Methods for Recyclables 48
Table 5.5: Seattle's Curbside Recycling Program By Section 49
Table 5.6: Recyclables Set-out and Collection Method 54
Table 5.7: Materials Recovered from Public and Private Drop-off Sites 61
Table 5.8: Materials Recovered at Curbside from the Residential Sector
for Recycling and Composting 64
Table 6.1: Commercial and Institutional Waste Generated and Recovered 72
Table 6.2: Commercial/Institutional Recovery Activities 73
Table 6.3: Commercial Refuse Tipping Fees 77
Table 6.4: Materials Collected from Commercial/Institutional Establishments
at Curbside/Alley by the Public Sector 81
Table 6.5: Materials Privately Collected at Curbside/Alley from
Commercial/Institutional Establishments 83
Table 7.1: Construction & Demolition Debris Recovery 91
List of Tables
-------
, Waste Prevention f Recydiagt mA Composting Options*. Lessons front 30 JJ.S, Communities
Table 8.1: Communities' Capital Costs for Recycling and Composting 96
Table 8.2: Capital Costs Per TPD Recovered 97
Table 8.3: Communities' Per Ton Annualized Capital Costs for Materials Recovery 98
Table 8.4: Communities' Capital and O&M Costs for Collecting Recyclables 99
Table 8.5: Communities' Capital and O&M Costs for Processing Recyclables 102
Table 8.6: Communities' Capital and O&M Costs for Collecting Yard Waste 105
Table 8.7: Communities' Capital and O&M Costs for Composting... ».108
Table 8.8: Communities' Total Materials Recovery Operating & Maintenance Costs Ill
Table 8.9: Communities' Recycling Operating & Maintenance Costs 112
Table 8.10: Communities' Composting Operating & Maintenance Costs ....113
Table 8.11: Total Per Ton Costs for Recycling and Maintenance 114
Table 8.12: Communities' Total Per Ton Recycling and Composting Costs ....115
Table 8.13: Communities' Total Recycling Costs 118
Table 8.14: Advantages and Disadvantages Between Public and Private
Service Providers 120
Table 8.15: Advantages and Disadvantages Between Commingled and Segregated
Set-out and Collection Systems .....122
Table 8.16: Public Sector Curbside Recycling Collection and Processing O&M Costs 124
Table 8.17: Costs and Characteristics of Intermediate Processing Facilities 126
Table 8.18: Communities Providing Employment Opportunities for
Low-Skilled, Handicapped, or Prison Workers 131
Table 8.19: Factors Affecting Collection Efficiency and Costs 136
Table 8.20: Shared, Pre-existing, and Retrofitted Equipment 141
Table D: Communities with Procurement Programs 164
Table E.I: Results of Pilot Collection Program and Proposed Collection
and Processing for Full-Scale System 165
Table E.2: Projected Costs for Guelph, Ontario's
Two-Steam Wet/Dry Collection Program 167
List of Tables v
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options! Lessons from BO US.Communities
List of Charts
Chart 1.1: Location of the Study's 30 Materials Recovery Programs 4
Chart 2.1: Per Capita and Per Household Residential Waste Generation in
Rural, Suburban, and Urban Communities 8
Chart 2.2: Average Per Capita Residential Waste Generation
in Rural, Suburban, and Urban Communities 9
Chart 2.3: Population and MSW Recovery Levels 10
Chart 2.4: Landfill and Incinerator Tipping Fees and MSW Recovery Rates 11
Chart 3.1: The Effect of Volume-based Refuse Rates
on Per Capita Residential Waste Generation 20
Chart 4.1: Percent of Municipal Solid Waste Recovered 35
Chart 4.2: Percent of Residential Waste Composted 36
Chart 4.3: The Effect of Composting Landscapers' Yard Debris on
Composting Levels 40
Chart 5.1: Residential Recycling Levels 43
Chart 5.2: Net Household Participation and Residential Recycling Rate .51
Chart 5.3: Curbside Set-out-Requirement and Participation Rate 56
Chart 5.4: Residential Materials Recycled, Percent by Weight 62
Chart 5.5: Residential Materials Recycled, Pounds per Household 63
Chart 5.6: Household Participation Rates in Voluntary and Mandatory Programs 66
Chart 5.7: The Effect of Volume-based Refuse Rates on Residential Recovery Levels ....67
Chart 6.1: The Contribution of Commercial and Institutional Waste to
MSW Generated 71
Chart 6.2: The Contribution of Commercial and Institutional Waste
Recovered to MSW Recovery 75
Chart 6.3: The Contribution of the Commercial/Institutional Sector to
Waste Generated and Recovered 76
Chart 6.4: Commercial/Institutional Materials Recovered 79
List of Charts
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options* Lessons from 30 IT
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options? Lessons jrom 30 U.S.Canmunities
Abbreviations
ANJR — Association of New Jersey Recyders
ARA — American Rock & Asphalt
BFI — Browning Ferris Industries
CCA — Container Corporation of America
CCC — Community Conservation Centers, Inc.
CCRF — Camden County Recycling Facility
C&D — construction and demolition
C-E — Combustion Engineering
CEI — Citizens for Environmental Improvement
CFC's — chlorofluorocarbons
CMCMUA — Cape May County Municipal Utilities Authority
comm — commercial
CRC — Community Rehabilitation Center
CSEC — Central States Educational Center
cy — cubic yard
DEM — Department of Environmental Management
DEQ — Department of Environmental Quality
DO — drop-off
DOC — Department of Corrections
DPW — Department of Public Works
EOF — Environmental Defense Fund
ENCORE — Environmental Container Reuse
F — Fahrenheit
FCR — Fairfield County Recycling
FY — fiscal year
GPI — Glass Packaging Institute
HDPE — high-density polyethylene
ILSR — Institute for Local Self-Reliance
instit/inst — institutional
IPC — intermediate processing center
IFF — intermediate processing facility
Ib — pound
LDPE — low-density polyethylene
MARC — Monroe Area Recycling Committee
MRC — Master Recycler/Composter
MRF — materials recovery facility
MSW — municipal solid waste
NA — not available
Abbreviations
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
NARC — Naperville Area Recycling Center
NHRRA — New Hampshire Resource Recovery Association
O&M — operating and maintenance
OCC — old corrugated cardboard
ONP — old newspaper
OSCAR — Ocean State Cleanup and Recycling Program
PET — polyethylene terephthalate
PP —polypropylene
PRO — the Philadelphia Recycling Office
PRTC — Philadelphia Transfer and Recycling Center
PS — polystyrene
PSU — Portland State University
PVC — polyvinyl chloride
R — rural
RCC — Recyclables Collection Center
RFP — request for proposal
RRT — Resource Recycling Technologies
S — suburb or small city
Sa/R — salvage/reuse
SFCR — San Francisco Community Recyclers
SFRP — San Francisco Recycling Program
SLUG — San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners
SRMG — Sound Resource Management Group
SWA — Solid Waste Authority
SWMA — Solid Waste Management Authority
SWMC — Solid Waste Management Centers or Solid Waste Management Corporation
SWMP — Solid Waste Management Plan
TPD — tons per day
TPY — tons per year
TURF — Total Urban Recycling Facility
U.S. EPA — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
WMI — Waste Management, Inc.
Abbreviations
-------
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
Chapter One
Introduction
Spurred by closing landfills and rising disposal
costs, recycling and composting programs have
swept the nation during the last 5 years. Nineteen
states either require municipalities to pass
mandatory recycling ordinances or to develop
recycling programs. By the end of 1991, there were
nearly 4,000 curbside recycling programs in
operation—a growth of more than 250 percent since
1988. Yard waste is being diverted to more than
2,000 composting sites. As of the early 1990's, some
communities have achieved recycling and
composting levels of 40, 50 and even 60 percent.
U.S. municipalities are embarking on a new phase
in solid waste management in which materials
recovery is increasingly becoming a center of
activity rather than an afterthought.
This report analyzes the actual operating
experience of 30 diverse communities—some with
high materials recovery rates, others with model
waste reduction initiatives—and draws lessons for
communities wanting to strengthen their own
programs. Most of the data presented in this report
come from in-depth case studies of these 30
communities written by the Institute for Local Self-
Reliance.1 The 30 communities range from rural
towns of 2,000 people to metropolitan areas
approaching 2 million people. Eight are on or near
the West Coast, another eight are in the Midwest,
nine are in the Northeast, four in the South, and
one in the mid-Atlantic region. Almost half were
chosen because of their high recovery levels, either
in the residential, commercial/institutional, or
construction and demolition debris sector. The
other communities were chosen because of their
location, population density, or instructive program
characteristics, including public or private
collection, segregated or commingled set-out,
sorting en route versus sorting at an intermediate
processing center, curbside versus drop-off, bottle
bill, mandatory or voluntary participation, volume-
based or flat refuse collection rates. Communities
studied included 4 counties and 26 municipalities;
there were rural, suburban and urban, large and
small communities. These case studies on which
this report is based are published by the Institute
for Local Self-Reliance as In-Depth Studies of
Recycling and Composting Programs: Designs, Costs,
Results, a book available in three volumes: Rural
Communities, Suburbs and Small Cities, and Urban
Areas. Readers interested in the details of
community operations are encouraged to obtain a
copy of the case study reports.
Table 1.1 lists the communities studied, their
populations, and materials recovery rates. Chart
1.1 displays their locations. The methodology and
terminology utilized in this report are outlined in
Appendix A. For instance, construction and
demolition debris is excluded from municipal solid
waste, and recovery rates for this type of waste are
reported separately. Appendix B lists the
community contacts who provided the information
set forth in the case studies. Materials recovery
rates were calculated by the Institute according to
the uniform definitions in Appendix A and based
on tonnage data provided by state and municipal
recycling officials, private waste haulers, waste
composition studies, and other community contacts.
In a few instances, materials recovery rates utilized
in this report differ from those calculated by
communities. Appendix C lists any estimates made
to calculate waste generation rates, and what waste,
if any, was excluded from these calculations. This
report considers both recycling and composting to
be elements of materials recovery. Recycling refers
to recovering discarded products for reuse and/or
processing into new products, and composting
refers to recovering discarded organic materials,
such as leaves and brush, for processing into a soil
amendment or mulch. The comprehensive tables
throughout this report summarize program features
for each community; the text highlights those select
programs that provide the most instructive
illustration of how communities can increase the
recovery of recyclable and compostable materials.
Introduction
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 3Q U.S. Communities ^
Table 1.1
Selected Recycling and Composting Programs
Community
Population
Year Data
Collected
Residential
Recovery
Rate
Commercial
Recovery
Rate
MSW Total
Recovery Recovery
Rate Rate
Rural Communities
Bowdoinham, ME 2,189 FY90 NA
Fennimore, Wl 2,378 1990 51%
La Crescent, MN 4,305 1990 41%
Monroe, Wl 10,220 1989 32%
Peterborough, NH 5,239 1990 42%
Sonoma County, CA 388,222 1990 15%
Upper Township, NJ 10,861 1990 50% (a)
Wapakoneta, OH 9,214 9/89-8/90 NA
Suburbs/Small Cities
Berlin Twnshp, NJ 5,620 1990 56%
Boulder, CO 88,000 1990 33%
Columbia, MO 69,101 FY90 11%
Dakota County, MN 274,016 1990 29%
King County, WA 991,060 1990 19%
Lafayette, LA 90,000 : FY90 13%
Lincoln Park, NJ 10,978 1990 49%
Naperville, IL 85,351 1990 32%
Perkasie, PA 7,878 1990 52%
Takoma Park, MD 16,900 1990 36%
West Linn, OR 16,557 1990 NA
West Palm Beach, FL 62,530 4/90-3/91 22%
Urban Areas
Austin, TX 465,622 FY89 7%
Berkeley, CA 102,724 FY91 NA
Lincoln, NE 191,972 1990 3%
Mecklenburg Co., NC 511,433 1990 7%
Newark, NJ 275,221 1989 10% (a)
Philadelphia, PA 1,633,826 FY90 6% (a)
Portland, OR 440,000 1990 NA
Providence, Rl 160,728 1990 10%
San Francisco, CA 723,959 1990 37%
Seattle, WA 516,259 1990 45%
NA
25%
9%
27%
4%
10%
34% (b)
NA
61%
12%
NA
24%
36%
8%
70%
NA
NA
NA
NA
0%
NA
NA
25%
22%
46% (b)
NA
13%
18%
40%
54%
38%
29%
28%
19%
11%
NA
20%
57%
22%
NA
28%
30%
11%
62%
NA
NA
NA
50%
13%
NA
22%
12%
16%
NA
12%
33%
11%
26%
40%
53%
NA
41%
50%
18%
11%
43%
NA
NA
16%
13%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
46%
12%
15%
38%
52% (c)
NA
30%
11%
NA
NA
27%
NA
Key: FY * fiscal year MSW = municipal solid waste NA = not available
Notes: Total waste is the sum of municipal solid waste and construction and demolition (C&D) debris. Recovery rates include
material recycled and composted. MSW Recovery Rate may take into account tonnages that cannot be broken down into
commercial and residential, such as bottle bill tonnages or landscapers1 waste. All recovery rates represent proportions by weight.
See Appendix A for definitions of recovery rates calculated above.
(a) Publicly collected waste.
(b) Privately collected waste.
(c) Based on 133,167 tons of C&D utilized as landfill cover. If this tonnage is excluded from waste recovered and disposed
recovery rate drops to 30%. '
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
The case study approach allows us to gather
specific information about the individual programs
and to understand the interconnection of different
program elements. However, the limited nature of
our sample means that the lessons identified in this
report should be viewed as tentative findings, not
statistical conclusions.
One of our principal findings is that any
program, even the best, can do better. Consider
the Borough of Lincoln Park, New Jersey, which
in 1988 reported a 40 percent materials recovery
rate—a rate that increased to 53 percent in 1989,
and to 62 percent in 1990. Lincoln Park continues
to expand its recycling efforts.2 Lincoln Park's
success demonstrates that materials recovery rates
of 60 percent and higher are technically achievable
for communities that integrate the best features of
the best programs.
Factors that contribute to reaching high
recovery levels include targeting a wide range of
materials for recovery, offering convenient service
(curbside and drop-off collection are both
important), employing collection and processing
techniques that encourage resident participation as
well as yield high-quality materials, establishing
strong economic incentives—particularly volume-
based refuse rates, collecting source-separated yard
waste for composting, encouraging backyard
composting, and extending programs beyond the
residential sector to the commercial and
institutional sectors.
Market development is essential if collected
materials are actually to be utilized. While this
report does not examine marketing strategies,
Appendix D describes local government programs
to procure recycled goods. Today, conventional
wisdom about recycling dictates that it can be
connected to local economic development through
remanufacturing, producing new products from
recovered materials. While we strive to build a
national scrap-based manufacturing industry, we
must first ensure efficient, cost-effective recovery of
materials from our waste stream.
Notes
*Data from the 30 communities is usually not referenced; data from other research are typically referenced and placed
in side boxes within the text.
2In an effort to further increase its recycling rate and to augment its municipal drop-off collection program, Lincoln
Park will begin curbside collection of a wide range of recyclable materials in August 1992.
Introduction
-------
Chart 1.1
Location of the Study's 30 Materials Recovery Programs
SKI FrandMO,CA
pop: 724,000
Lincoln Puk, NJ
pop: 11,000
Perluito, PA
pop: 7,900
Ptillidelphli, PA
pop: 1,633. -"
Bowdolnri«m,ME
pop: 2,200
. Peterborough, NH
~—5,200
. Providence, Rt
pop: 160,700
Nowvk,NJ
pop: 275,200
Berlin Townhlp, NJ
pop: 5.600
UpparTcwmhlp,NJ
pop: 10,900
WmtPnlmBflich, FL
pop: 62,500
-------
Waste Preventionl.RecydMgt and Composting Optionee Lessons framW U.S. Communities %
Chapter Two
Demographics and Materials
Generation and Recovery Levels
Tables 2.1 and 2.2 present demographic
information, including community type, population,
average income, waste generation, and recovery
rates for the 30 communities studied. These
communities range in size from the rural Town of
Bowdoinham, Maine, with a population of 2,189,
to the large urban center of Philadelphia, with a
population of 1.6 million. Nine are urban areas,
ten are suburbs or cities with populations under
100,000, seven are rural towns, and the remaining
four are counties, which contain either rural,
suburban, and/or urban areas. Communities
selected for study also represent widely divergent
socioeconomic levels and geographical regions,
from the small-scale manufacturing and agricultural
community of Wapakoneta, Ohio to Naperville,
Illinois, a wealthy suburb of Chicago. Income
levels range from $8,000 per capita in Newark, New
Jersey to $22,000 per capita in Peterborough, New
Hampshire.1
Demographics and Yard Debris
Affect Debris Generation Rates
Tables 2.2 and 3.1 (page 15) list per capita
residential and municipal solid waste generation for
each community in our study where available.2
Waste generation rates vary greatly among
communities.3 The rural communities within our
sample generally have the lowest waste generation
levels. (See Charts 2.1 and 2.2.) Residents in rural
communities may generate less waste due to
different eating and buying habits. In such
communities, residents may grow and prepare a
good portion of their food at home, reducing the
generation of packaging waste. Most of the rural
communities in our sample also have volume-based
refuse collection rates (which provide residents with
an incentive to reduce waste generation), have
extensive backyard composting programs, and in
some cases, burn waste in yards and fireplaces. For
example, in the rural community of La Crescent,
Minnesota, waste burning is permitted for residents
living on more than 40 acres.
The waste generation levels of suburban
communities and small cities vary greatly. Those
generating large volumes of yard debris—
particularly those with mature deciduous trees,
spacious yards, and extensive landscaping—tend
to have higher per capita residential waste
generation. Suburban residential waste generation
rates range from 1.8 pounds per capita per day in
the sparsely vegetated community of Boulder,
Colorado, to 6 pounds per capita per day in West
Palm Beach, Florida and in the heavily foliated
community of Berlin Township, New Jersey.
Communities in the south, such as West Palm
Beach, may have higher than average waste
generation levels due to the year-round generation
of yard debris. A high percentage of yard debris
in the waste stream offers the potential to reach
high composting levels. Indeed, both Berlin
Township and West Palm Beach have high
composting rates.
Smaller Communities Recover
More of Their Solid Waste
Chart 2.3 provides information on the
relationship of community demographics to the
percentage of materials recovered from residential,
commercial/institutional, and overall municipal
solid waste.4 The suburban communities of Berlin
Township and Lincoln Park, New Jersey; Perkasie,
Pennsylvania; and West Linn, Oregon; and the rural
communities of Bowdoinham, Maine and Upper
Township, New Jersey have the highest recovery
levels among the 30 communities. Almost 80
percent of the 13 communities with residential,
commercial, MSW, or total recovery rates above 40
percent have populations under 20,000. Although
most of the communities with the highest levels of
Demographics and Materials Recovery
-------
Table 2.1
Demographic and MSW Recovery Data
Population
Density Median Year MSW MSW MSW MSW %MSW %MSW %MSW
c— , r ^ ess -si- -sr js- -sr -wr °rr TT s*r "ssr -ssr
•say? s as a? us SB ss «& ss KS as s
B.rttoT.wn.Mp.NJ S 6,620 1.606 $11,420 NA. 1990 7669 2OT ££ 1*7 S
™UI™'CO s ®.«» * S.«26 -^t.?*) NA 1990 62809 11402 2925 13»7 in
seas s . ss ,£ ssz t as . s 1 - 1 ' 1 I
SKsr-1 ^,"BS?,S «jr .„£.« *«' -1/41 -1 B4
E3£5£A T ."S, ,„£ .Wt f7'5^' ^«S v ^s f305^ lo°S >57^ ' 2
!£22V .1 -- *M I'195 ' *14-164- $23.961 WS'^ T^S ? 5,S^ ' 2,211 '''* 77^1' ^
Unewln.NE „ t) ; t* 181,872 , ^3.000 il«067^ $33561 1690 22o«u - te mft 5*rU s *»'ii.« ,.
{SilE^JJ1^ s 10-978 1** !5K '* NA S" IJS^ ?S !»•'- 1-J2- * *2-
SS T-'sff •':«''««' "SS'VB; Iffl «ts.= «>«», 5..
S^ !• ^S-,SS-%2-- -R--S- XA S!- S-'-'K^K
Pj^ughm R •' 5:239' ul ^oSo- S5*' S;' 5^ ^" • "*'••• « -• >». -
SBT t^ra:^"^*1^^":^"^ "*'
2asr~ u 'TS ^ $15'1?^ $28-^ «"" JSK-IT/JS^'-.S^'--.^^?^^
Sonoma County <*' R ^^222 ' *S ^ I^S * K ^S''"*' 2J?2 ^2S ^JS^ ^SS" ' * S * ' "
tafcoHW Par*t«0 ; $ ^ 1^,900 - 7662 -> MA<* - NA - «as« -5 K?A - **** -•.•.- }'*£ ,« '^T <. 1
sssa1"' -s isi ' ' 2 $s" K/ 2" *# v ^'^•s*" *S^^K^:
SHI, S ' iSSJ ^'***S' sss?-^r* -»'-j«: ts :}»^2
WtatPfehnftM^^^ 62,^30 _ ',11.421^, MA,, NA ^4^3/91 T taaW S *" tt'S - M5417 "^ ^2^-
tty: " ' fts° ' * { ''• -"'•
NA = Not available R = Rural; S = Suburban TPY = Tons per Year U = Urban
(a) Cities with populations greater than 1 00.000 are classified as urban.
(b) Per capita and median household Income figures represent the fastest year for which data are available
(c) Commercial/Institutional wastedteposed contains C4D and industrial waste. Thus, an MSW recovery rate cannot be calculated.
NA
3
30
4
11
NA
7
13
7
8
3
1
30
0 ^
3
NA
,NA
0
\ o
3
1 ""
, 7 ,
0
NA
5
20
10 ;>
f not
NA
22
57
22
54
NA
28
36
30
28
11
62
16
28
NA
NA
NA
19
12
33
11
26
11
NA
NA
20
50
13
-------
I
Table 2.2
Residential, Commercial, and C&D Materials Generated and Recovered
Community
Per Capita
Residential
Waste
Generation
(Ibs/day)
Residential Com/lnst Total Residential Com/lnst
Waste Waste C&D Waste Materials Materials
Generated Generated Generated Generated Recovered Recovered
(TPY) (TPY) (TPY) (TPY) (ByWt.) (ByWt.)
% Total
% C&D Waste
Recovered Recovered
(ByWt.) (ByWt.)
Austin, TX
Berkeley, CA
Berlin Township, NJ
Boulder* CO
Bowdolnham, ME
Columbia, MO (a)
Dakota County, MN
King County, WA
L» Crescent, MN
Lafayette, LA
Lincoln, NE
Lincoln Park, NJ
Monroe, Wl
Nupervllte.lL
Newark, NJ
Perk**!*, PA
Peterborough, NH
teiWu tuit^i nfcl • PA
•fi mmwuivirjWty m
Portland, OR
Providence, Rl
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Sonoma County, CA
Takoma Park, MD
Upper Township, NJ
West Linn, OR
West Palm Beach, FL
3.0
NA
5.9
1,8
1.5 (b)
2,4
2.3
1.5
4.4
1,4
2.1
3,9
3.9
3,1
2.2
3,2
NA
, 2.4
2.1
4.0;
NA
3,0
2.3
3,2
1.8
3,8
NA
, NA
2.1 (b)
6.1
254,464
NA
6,035
29,294
NA
30,85?
113,487
648
646,109
1,109
34,651
135,360
7,750
292,69?
3,802
39,020
146,654
3,133
2,003
928,054
NA
80,67?
308,099
256,219
124,845
6,689
6,879
NA
NA
69,713
NA
NA
1,853
33,605
NA
51,971
114,010
631
541,116
683
39,005
62,989
4,608
425.678
8,858
WA
195,556
NA
2,998
1.132,079 ^
NA
67,000
392,764
307,315
340,297
NA
5,733
MA
NA
51,004
NA
59,6.26
0
26,766
12
NA
NA
NA
NA
919
NA
206.146 -
NA
NA
6,142
NA
NA
NA
NA
431.684
NA
NA
27,504
NA
131,501
NA-
NA
1,977
11.966
526,791
163,6CH
0
88\5?5
618
84,116
NA
NA
NA
2,711
NA
426,330
NA
NA
18,802
NA
342,210
NA
NA
2,491.617
NA
NA
746,372
NA
596,643
NA
12,612
NA >
9,881
132,683
7
NA
56
33
NA
11
29
51
19
41
13
,3
49
7 -
32
32
10
52
42
, 6
NA
" 10
37
45
15
36
50
^ NA
NA
22
NA
NA
61
12
NA
13
24
25
36
9
8
25
70
22
27
NA
46
NA
4
, 16
NA
13
18
, 40,
10
NA
34
NA,
NA
0
0
66
0
A
1
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
65
NA
94
NA
NA
96
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
45
NA
11
NA •
NA
NA
30
0
15
38
NA
16
53
13
NA
NA
NA
41
NA
52
NA
NA
50
NA
30
NA
NA
11
NA
NA
27
NA
11
NA
43
NA
46
12
Key:
C&D = Construction and Demolition Debris Com = Commercial Inst = Institutional
NA = Not Available TPY = Tons per Year Wt. = Weight
Note*:
Total waste is the sum of residential, commercial/Institutional, and C&D waste. See Appendix A for definitions of terms used above and Appendix C for description of waste
generation calculations. Due to rounding, numbers may not appear to add to totals. In Philadelphia and Upper Township, figures for residential waste actually represent
waste handled by the public sector (and may include some commercial waste), and figures for commercial/institutional waste actually represent waste handled by the
private sector (and may Include some residential waste).
(a) Columbia's total waste recovery rate represents recycling rates as yard waste tonnages were not available.
(b) Bowdolnham's per capita residential waste generation rate is based on MSW generation which contains material from 15 businesses; West Linn's per capita rate is based
on estimates provided by the City's recycling coordinator on the percentage of MSW disposed that Is residential.
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U.S,.Communities
Chart 2.1
Per Capita and Per Household Residential Waste Generation
in Rural, Suburban, and Urban Communities
H Per Capita
B Per Household
Rural Areas
Suburbs and Small Cities
Urban Areas
materials recovery are suburban or rural, Chart 2.3
shows that urban communities can also achieve
significant recovery levels. Seattle, with a
population of half a million, recovered 40 percent
of its municipal solid waste stream and 45 percent
of its residential waste in 1990. San Francisco is
not far behind with a 1990 residential recovery rate
of 37 percent While Newark, New Jersey's public
sector or residential recovery rate is fairly low at
10 percent, its private sector rate is significant at
46 percent. Several factors contribute to reaching
high recovery rates: targeting a wide range of
materials for recovery, establishing economic
incentives, collecting source-separated yard waste
for composting, extending program service beyond
single-family households to apartment buildings
and to the commercial and institutional sectors, and
securing high levels of participation (through such
strategies as offering convenient curbside and drop-
off service, mandating recycling, and establishing
economic incentives). While the few communities
that have integrated these key strategies tend to be
small towns, large cities have also implemented
them. (See Chapters 4, 5, and 6 for discussions on
how communities reach high recovery levels.)
Large Cities Build On the
Experience of Smaller Communities
Large metropolitan areas may consist of one
or two relatively large and dense central cities and
dozens or even hundreds of smaller suburban or
even rural communities. The same, of course, is
true for counties. The reader might find it useful
to approach the information contained in this report
and in the case study volumes by thinking of his
or her metropolitan area or county not as a single
entity but as dozens of small cities. Thus, the
experience of a community like Berlin Township,
New Jersey, may be instructive for a suburb outside
Los Angeles, or even a neighborhood in Atlanta.
New York City is currently conducting an intensive
recycling project in a medium density, ethnically-
mixed neighborhood of Park Slope, Brooklyn. The
City is currently recovering 35 percent of the waste
Demographics and Materials Recovery
-------
Waste PreventionfRecyeKng, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.S, Communities
generated in the pilot area, and has a goal of
recovering 60 percent. By comparison, the citywide
recovery level is only 6 percent. (For more
information, see side bar, "New York City's
Intensive Recycling Project," in Chapter 4.)
There are, of course, major differences of scale,
demographics, and public service operations
between small towns and large urban areas.
Suburbs and rural areas tend to be more
homogeneous, with most residents living in single-
family homes. Urban areas have a more diverse
socioeconomic mix, more residents living in multi-
unit buildings, and generally a higher proportion
of commercial and institutional waste. Cities that
want to build on the experience of the successful
recovery programs in small towns will need to take
these differences into account.
Densely populated communities may, for
example, have to use special outreach materials to
encourage the participation of their non-English-
speaking and transient residents in recycling
programs. Providence, Rhode Island doubled
participation in its curbside recycling program
(from 30 to 60 percent) in certain multi-lingual
neighborhoods by using special educational
programs and foreign-language informational
brochures on recycling.
Chart 2.2
Average Per Capita Residential Waste Generation
in Rural, Suburban, and Urban Communities
4 -i-
'a.
1 -.
Rural Areas
(6 communities)
Suburbs and Small Cities
(12 communities)
Urban areas have tremendous potential for
restructuring their solid waste systems and
redirecting investment from disposal systems
towards materials recovery. Large cities can secure
dependable markets by guaranteeing brokers and
end users large, steady quantities of secondary
materials. Commercially generated recyclables,
which are abundant in urban areas, can be a stable
source of high-quality materials, depending on
collection systems. Urban areas can also attract end
users of such material to locate within or near their
jurisdictions, especially if they demonstrate to
potential investors a serious and long-term
commitment to recycling. Since Philadelphia
passed its mandatory recycling ordinance in 1987,
at least 35 recycling companies have started up or
expanded operations in the greater metropolitan
area.
High Disposal Costs Lead to
Higher Recovery Levels
Disposal costs in the form of tipping fees at
landfills vary widely across the country.5 Chart 2.4
compares MSW recovery rates with landfill and
incinerator tipping or disposal fees among our 30
communities. With some exceptions, which are
discussed below, those with
the highest recovery rates
also tend to have the highest
tipping fees, while those with
low tipping fees tend to have
low recovery levels. In many
cases, high disposal fees have
spurred the initiation of
comprehensive materials
recovery programs. Lincoln
Park, New Jersey, for
example, has the highest
MSW recovery level—62
percent in 1990—among our
30 communities; it also had
the highest disposal fee for
refuse in 1990—$119 per ton.
Nowhere in the country has
the effect of shrinking
disposal capacity and rising
disposal fees been felt more
profoundly than in the
Northeast. (Five of the six
HI Average
D Standard Deviation
Urban Areas
(7 communities)
Demographics and Materials Recovery
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
Chart 2.3
Population and MSW Recovery Levels
Rural Areas, Suburbs and Small Cities
eo% -
£ 50%-
8 40% -
> 30% -
•^ 20% -
6?
10%.
rm. .
n
;
'. £ •
ft - • - 1" -
Bowdoinham
Fennlmora
La Crescent
60%.
8 40%.
to
o 20%.
..
S: -f~l
\
X
Peterborough
Berlin Township
Peikasia
E551
-•:
\s
r~i
V
-
••
"
: x
" :
";":
""
*
* :
I 1 f -g J
s § s °- 2
Urban Areas
/
•— •'
/
nT
7
:"-n
-"K
Takoma Paik
West Palm
Beach
%
^
Colunnbia
Naperville
ii
" .
/ -
-s -.
""
_ -1
•••iSt
&.
••§
"" ^ r
"* •• X
^\
^
X?s^
;•*--
s1- \ .
— •
^^
*-•*
/ '
/
r*"
-. v. :
.. . ~~
™
& 8 — •£ •*> ceg-|
°~ f- ft"
mmmi MSWRecc
• — Population
Notes: Total waste recovery levels are utilized for Upper Township, Columbia, Newark, a
C&D cannot be separated from MSW. Residential recovery levels are utilized for Perka
Park, and Naperville as data on commercial waste generated and recovered are not av
1 - - 90,000
. . 80,000
. . 60,000 %
- - 50,000 flf
- - 40,000 3
- - 20,000
• - 10,000
- 1,600,000
- 1,400,000
- 1,200,000 Tl
• 1,000,000 E.
• 600000 o'
• 600,000
• 400,000
• 200,000
0
vered
nd Austin as
sie, Takoma
ailable.
communities with the
highest disposal fees are
in the Northeast) As a
result, many of the most
successful programs
currently operating are in
the Northeast region, and
many of these are in New
Jersey.
While communities
in other parts of the
country, such as the
South, have been
shielded from high
disposal fees and thus
have been slower to
initiate programs, many
of their programs show
great promise and are
already increasing
recovery levels. Disposal
fees are rising in many
areas of the country not
previously affected. West
Palm Beach, Florida, for
example, paid $47 per ton
to dispose of waste in a
local landfill in 1989. In
1990, when the City
began to incinerate its
waste, tipping fees
jumped to $84 per ton.
The Palm Beach County
Solid Waste Authority is
giving the development
of recycling, composting,
and source reduction
programs top priority.
Thus, we might expect
recovery rates in West
Palm Beach to increase in
the near future.
In some communities,
such as Monroe and
Fennimore, Wisconsin
and Naperville, Illinois,
tipping fees are low but
recovery rates are fairly
significant. Landfill bans
on certain recyclable
Demographics and Materials Recovery
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options? lessons fromSO US, Communities
materials and State recycling requirements have
provided impetus for recovery activities in these
cases. The need to extend the life of its landfill
has also spurred recycling activities in Monroe.
While Newark and Philadelphia have
comparatively low overall MSW recovery levels
and high disposal costs, these cities are actively
implementing recycling programs. Newark's
private sector is recovering 46 percent of the waste
it handles, and the public sector provides curbside
collection to approximately 90,000 households, or
abput 90 percent of total households in the City.6
The City of Philadelphia offers curbside service to
169,000 households—more than any other
municipality in our study. Taken together, the
public and private sectors in Philadelphia are
recovering more than 260,000 tons a year—an
amount close to Seattle's yearly tonnage recovered.
While Peterborough, New Hampshire's high
disposal costs have not led to a high overall MSW
recovery rate, the Town's residential recovery level
is significant at 42 percent in 1990.
Conclusion
Residential waste generation varies widely from
community to community. Rural areas appear to
generate far less waste per person than suburban and
urban areas. Yard waste contributes to high waste
generation levels in many suburban communities;
several of these have achieved high composting levels.
While most of the half dozen communities recovering
50 percent or more of their residential or municipal
solid waste have populations under 20,000, larger
cities can also implement the key strategies
contributing to high recovery levels. The following
chapters describe these in more detail.
Chart 2.4
Landfill and Incinerator Tipping Fees
and MSW Recovery Rates
70%
Percent MSW Recovered
Landfill or Incinerator Tipping Fees ($/ton)
$120
Notes: Percent of total waste recovered is used for Austin, Columbia, Newark, and Upper Township; and percent of residential waste recovered is
used for Naperville, Perkasie, and Takoma Park. MSW recovery rates are not available for these communities.
Demographics and Materials Recovery 11
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U*& Communities
Notes
J1990 per capita income figure for Naperville is not available. Naperville's 1987 per capita income was $18,691; its
1990 median household income was $61,000.
2While Table 3.1 provides both per capita residential and municipal solid waste generation, we use only per capita and
per household residential waste generation in Charts 2.1 and 2.2, as residential waste is directly dependent on population,
unlike commercial/institutional waste. Readers interested in comparing waste generation levels to the national average
of 4 pounds of waste per capita should use the munkipal solid waste figures provided in Table 3.1. By and large,
waste generation rates are based on tonnage figures provided by recycling coordinators and other local officials, who
may have estimated the data or relied on other sources, such as private haulers. In several cases, communities measure
materials in cubic yards and use conversion factors to calculate tonnage figures. In a few cases, ILSR staff have estimated
tonnage recovered using commonly accepted conversion factors. In addition, figures may exclude untracked components
of the waste stream. Residential waste handled by the private sector, for example, is sometimes excluded from residential
figures. Total waste generation figures are divided by that portion of the population generating such material to arrive
at per capita figures. See ILSR's In-Depth Studies of Recycling and Composting Programs: Designs, Costs, Results for detailed
information on how tonnage figures were derived. Appendix C in this report provides a community-by-community
summary of which figures were estimated and how, and what, if any, component of the waste stream may be excluded.
3One factor affecting the wide variation in per capita residential waste generation is the different methodologies local
officials or haulers use to measure waste generation figures. ILSR staff have gone to considerable effort to make sure
that figures for residential waste (as well as for commercial/institutional and overall municipal solid waste) include
all the waste generated in that category. As mentioned above, any estimates or untracked/unmeasured components
of the waste stream are identified in Appendix C.
*See Appendix A, Data Definitions and Methodology, for definitions of and methodology for determining residential,
commercial, MSW, and total waste generation and recovery rates.
Dipping fees tend to vary by region. The National Solid Waste Management Association's 1990 landfill tipping fee
survey (based on almost 4 percent of the country's landfills) showed that average tipping fees were $65 per ton in
the Northeast, $41 per ton in the mid-Atlantic, $23 to $26 per ton in the West and Midwest, and $11 to $17 per ton
in the Southeast, Southwest, and the Plains. (Source: 1990 Landfill Tipping Fee Survey, National Solid Waste Management
Association, Washington, DC, 1991.) This survey is based on 219 landfills. By the end of 1991, there were 5,812 landfills
in the country.
6Newark has already noticed an increase in the amount of residential material collected since it increased recyclables
pick-up from biweekly to weekly in October 1991.
Demographics and Materials Recovery
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.S, Communities ,
Chapter Three
Waste Prevention Strategies
Overview
Although the current solid waste problem is
depicted principally as a waste disposal problem,
it is also a waste generation problem. The United
States is generating more waste now than ever
before. From 1960 to 1990, total U.S. MSW
generation increased 123 percent, from 87.8 million
tons to 195.7 million tons per year, while per capita
generation increased nearly 59 percent, from 2.7 to
4.3 pounds per person per day. At current levels,
the amount of waste generated is expected to reach
222 million tons in 2000, or 4.5 pounds per person
per day.1
At the root of this problem are the types and
amount of products and materials we use and
discard. Single-use products, which are designed
to be thrown away after one use, constitute a
substantial portion of total MSW. In 1990,, 33
percent by weight of all municipal solid waste
consisted of packaging and containers, and an
additional 27 percent consisted of nondurable
products, including paper products, plates, cups,
books, magazines, and clothing.2
Preventing waste generation saves
money in waste hauling, disposal, and
recycling fees; conserves valuable
landfill space; and reduces energy and
resource use.
EPA considers source reduction—the
reduction of the volume and toxicity of waste—as
the preferred waste management strategy.
Preventing waste generation saves money in waste
hauling, disposal, and recycling fees; conserves
valuable landfill space; and reduces energy and
resource use. While recycling diverts waste from
disposal, source reduction eliminates the amount of
material entering the waste stream.
This chapter describes and, where information
is available, evaluates the strategies that have been
implemented by communities in our study to
reduce waste generation. (Table 3.1 lists per capita
waste generation rates and the source reduction
programs of the 30 communities.)
To date, the success of these programs has been
difficult to measure. Few communities conduct
annual waste generation studies.3 The quantification
of waste reduction is also difficult because total and
per capita waste generation or composition rates
are on the rise. Waste reduction should be
considered in terms of reduction below future rates
as well as below existing rates. In addition, certain
source reduction programs, particularly education
programs, may not lead to changes in individual
purchasing and waste generation behavior until a
few years after initiation. It takes time for residents
to develop new purchasing practices, and
manufacturers time to redesign products. States
and communities would benefit by expanding the
type of source reduction programs offered as well
as by improving their methods of quantifying such
achievements.
Few communities have established
comprehensive source reduction programs, partly
because source reduction is more difficult to
measure than waste diversion through recycling
and composting. States' waste reduction goals,
which frequently determine local goals, rarely
include measurement of source reduction. In many
instances, communities do not receive credit toward
their state waste diversion goal for implementing
source reduction programs. In addition,
communities frequently lack control over decisions
regarding product design and manufacture, and
have little guidance on how to bring about changes
in the waste stream.
j Waste Prevention 13
-------
Waste Prevention, Recyclingf and Composting Options: tessons from 30 U.S, Communities
Nevertheless, communities can play an active
role in diverting materials from disposal and
reducing waste generation rates. A few
communities, such as Berkeley, California, have set
source reduction goals, and a number have
implemented programs to reduce waste, which
include:
• educating citizens about source reduction,
emphasizing change in purchasing practices
and product reuse;
• implementing a backyard composting program;
• establishing or encouraging the establishment of
salvage and reuse operations;
• implementing volume-based refuse collection
fees; and
• regulating packaging or other materials sold and/
or used within their jurisdiction.
What actually constitutes source reduction is
not well defined. True waste prevention literally
means that we do not generate waste. This
involves using reusable and durable rather than
disposable products, and using less resources per
product at the manufacturing level. Little has
actually been done to avoid generation of waste on
a community wide level, although individual
businesses have undertaken successful efforts.
While salvage/reuse operations and backyard
composting are often considered forms of source
reduction, these strategies do not actually prevent
the generation of discards. We include backyard
composting as source reduction because organic
materials composted in backyards never enter the
municipal waste stream. We also include examples
of salvage/reuse operations because, by extending
the useful life of products, they may result in the
use of fewer total products, thus indirectly
preventing waste generation.
Source Reduction Education
Local communities are implementing source
reduction education programs to teach citizens
about general solid waste issues, as well as specific
changes in their purchasing and disposal practices.
Communities are also supporting local
organizations that promote source reduction
concepts. Source reduction education can target
children through in-school curricula, consumers
through supermarket shelf labeling and
informational brochures, and businesses through
waste audits and other technical assistance. A
number of communities, most notably Berkeley and
Sonoma County, California; Newark, New Jersey;
Boulder, Colorado; and Monroe, Wisconsin, have
implemented such education programs. Source
reduction and environmental shopping programs
have been well received by citizens, and some
manufacturing and retail companies are responding
to consumer demand for "environmentally
preferable" products. (See side bar "The
Environmental Consumer Movement.")
In 1989 the City of Berkeley implemented a
large-scale campaign, known as "precycling," to
urge consumers to prevent the generation of waste
through environmentally minded purchasing. The
Berkeley precycling program encourages residents
to purchase products packaged in recyclable
materials, avoid purchase of disposable products
and products in multiple layers of packaging, and
buy in bulk. Residents are also encouraged to
reuse and repair products. Drawing on
information provided by local environmental and
recycling groups, the Berkeley Department of
Public Works promotes the precycling concept
through fliers and newspaper advertisements. The
City also encourages local merchants to offer
discounts to customers who bring their own
containers, and use reusable napkins and
silverware.
Other communities, such as Newark and
Boulder, have initiated precycling campaigns
modeled after Berkeley's program. Based on
responses from 2,000 shoppers, Boulder's
precycling campaign successfully increased
consumer awareness about ways to reduce waste
generation. Of the shoppers surveyed, 84 percent
claimed they were familiar with the program, 54
percent could identify precycle concepts, and 74
percent said the campaign helped them reduce
waste.
Information disclosure at the point of purchase,
including shelf and product labeling, encourages
consumers to select products that advance source
reduction and recycling goals. Some states, such
as Rhode Island and New York, have implemented
labeling programs to identify and promote
products that are reusable, recyclable, and/or made
from secondary materials. In one "Model"
Waste Prevention
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
Table 3.1
Waste Generation Rates and Source Reduction Programs
Community
Type Population
Per Capita
Residential
Waste
Generation
(Ibm/day)
(a)
Per Capita
MSW
Waste
Generation
(Ibs/day)
Household
Residential
Waste
Generation
(Ibs/day)
(a)
Source
Reduction
Program
(b)
Austin, TX
Berkeley, CA
Berlin Township, NJ
Boulder, CO
Bowdoinham, ME
Columbia, ttO
Dakota County, MN
Fennlmom, W|
King County, WA
La Crescent, MN
Lafayette, LA
Lineoih,NE
Lincoln Park, NJ
ilecMenburgCo,NC
Monroe, Wl
U
U
S
s
R
&
S/R
R
'S/R '
8
S
U
s
um
R
465,622
102,724
5,620
88,000
2,189
69.1&1
274,016
3,378
991,060
4,306
90,000
1&1,97£
10,978
511,433
10,220
3.0
NA
5.9
1.8
1.5
2.4
2.3
1.8
4.4
1,4
2.1
3.9
3.9
3.1
2.2
NA
S.S
7.7
3,9
1.5
NA
4.6
2,6
7.6
2.3
4.5
7,1
6.3
7,7
6.8
7.0
MA
18.4
4,6
3.8
&<6
6.2
3,7
11.5
3-£
6.4
10,0
9.4
7,4
5.3
Sa/R (c)
{JfPjSa/RtV (d$
None
E,P
Sa/R,V
None
V
0Y&0
BY,V
Sa/RtV
None
£
None
None
E,BY
R
U
U
U
U
U
R
&
R
B
S
95,351
275,221
7,878
5,239
1,833,826
440,000
160,728
723,959
516,259
388,222
16,900
10,861
16,557
62,530
3,2
NA
2.4
2.1
3.7
NA
3.0
2.3
1^8
3.8
NA
2.1
6.1
NA
NA
NA
5.2
8,9
7.6
$.3 &
5.4
7,8
6.6
NA
NA
2.6
10,6
NA
4,9
6.1
NA
7,fi
5.1
4^3
&,2
NA
MA
5.7
16.6
- BY
B,E,P,Sa/R
V
None
B,V
£
E,P,V
B,E,Sa/R,V
None
None
V
BY,V
None
BY = Backyard Composting
P = Precyding or Environmental Shopping
S = Suburban or Small City
-Not Applicable
E = Extensive Source Reduction Education
R = Rural
U = Urban
Newark, NJ
P*rka«le,PA
Peterborough, NH
Philadelphia, PA
Portland, OR
Prottidanca, fll
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, W%
Sonoma County, CA
Takonut Park, MO
Upper Township, NJ
Wapakoneta.OH
West Unn, OR
W»«tP*JmS*acri,FL
K*y:
B = Material/Product Ban
NA-= Not Available
Sa/R » Salvage/Reuse Programs
V = Volume-based Refuse Rates
Not**:
(a) Per capita and per household waste generation figures were calculated for that portion of the population for which waste generation data
were available. In the communities of Napervllle, IL; Perkasie, PA; Philadelphia, PA; Providence, Rl; and Takoma Park, MD, per capita
waste generation was calculated based on the tons of waste generated in the refuse collection district divided by the estimated number of
residents In the same district. Per capita and per household residential waste rates may underrepresent actual generation levels in some
instances. For example, in some cases such as San Francisco and West Linn they exclude self-haul and bottle bill tonnages. In King
County and Seattle, per capita and per household waste generation figures include residential self-haul tonnages. For some cities ILSR
calculated the average number of people per household to arrive at a per capita figure. See Appendix C for community-specific descriptions
of residential waste calculations. Tonnages composted In residents' backyards are excluded for all cities except San Francisco. Tonnages
collected through salvage/reuse operations are Included In above figures where available.
(b) While a number of cities provide source reduction educational materials In schools and/or to residents, only cities with extensive programs
are listed. Only comprehensive salvage reuse operations are listed; thrift shops and second-hand stores, common in most communities, are
excluded.
(c) In 1992 Austin will implement variable-based refuse rates.
(d) In 1991 Berkeley instituted a backyard composting program.
(e) Fennimore requires residents to purchase refuse bags for $0.07 per bag, however because this fee is so low, we do not consider it a
volume-based refuse rate.
(f) In 1991 Philadelphia funded a master backyard composting program.
(g) Since the residential waste generated by households in buildings with more than six units is untracked, this per capita MSW waste
generation figure is estimated by adding commercial/institutional waste generated per capita to the 3 Ibs. per capita generated by residents
In buildings with six or fewer units.
Waste Prevention
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
Supermarket established by the Central States
Education Center (CSEC), a nonprofit organization
located in Champaign, Illinois, hot pink labels on
designated shelves identify products with the least
packaging, products that are packaged in recyclable
containers, and products that contain no toxic
properties ("safer earth").4
Research from Europe, where national
environmental labeling programs are well-
established, indicates that residents are aware of the
presence of environmental labels and that these
labels have increased up to 40 percent the sale of
identified products. Manufacturers are extremely
interested in being awarded such labels.5
While there is some evidence that
environmental shopping and labeling programs
have increased consumers' awareness about waste
reduction issues, and that manufacturers are
responding to consumer demand, there is as yet no
proof that, such programs have changed
communities' waste generation rates. Berkeley, for
example, has not tracked its waste generation rates
or waste composition since 1989, and thus cannot
accurately determine how its precycling program
has changed the composition or volume of the
waste stream.
There is evidence, however, that source
reduction programs have changed waste generation
rates at the institutional or business level. In the
CSECs Model Schools, for instance, students are
encouraged to minimize the amount of packaging
in their lunch boxes. One Illinois school reports
that average lunchroom garbage decreased by one-
third, from 60 to 40 pounds per day. Many
children now bring their lunch in reusable rather
than disposable containers.6
Monroe, Wisconsin is actively encouraging local
businesses and institutions to reduce waste
generation. Through educational outreach alone,
the Monroe Area Recycling Committee convinced
area schools to switch from disposable to reusable
trays. One elementary school estimates that this
switch has reduced by 75 percent the volume of
trash generated on an average day. (See side bar,
"Waste Reduction at Institutions and Businesses.")
Backyard or Home Composting
At least one-quarter of municipal solid waste
consists of yard debris and food scraps,7 much of
which is generated by individual households and
can be successfully and inexpensively recovered at
the point of generation. Through backyard or home
composting programs, residents can convert organic
waste into a high-quality soil amendment suitable
for house plants, seedling transplants, and general
garden use. At-home recovery of organic materials
reduces communities' waste collection and
composting costs. Seattle, for example, estimates
that it saves $20 in avoided yard debris collecting
and tipping fees for each ton of material composted
in residents' backyards.
A number of the communities have
implemented backyard composting programs. (See
Table 3.1.) The most noteworthy include Seattle
and King County, Washington; San Francisco,
California; Naperville, Illinois; and West Linn,
Oregon. Other communities, such as Monroe and
Fennimore, Wisconsin, also encourage their
residents to compost organic materials in their
yards and/or leave grass clippings on the lawn.
At-home composting programs can be grouped into
three categories: "grasscycling" programs, backyard
composting programs, and vermicomposting (worm
bin composting).
"Grasscycling" Programs
Home waste reduction systems may be as
simple as leaving grass clippings on a mowed lawn.
A thin layer of grass clippings and leaves will
improve the moisture retention ability of soil and
act as a natural fertilizer, reducing the need for
commercial fertilizers. In order to encourage
participation in backyard composting and
"grasscycling" or "Don't Bag It" programs,
Naperville began charging residents $1.50 per bag
of yard waste set out at curbside for collection.
Other communities promoting grasscycling
programs include Austin, Texas and Montgomery
County, Maryland.
Backyard Composting Programs
A number of communities promote backyard
composting of organic materials by providing
residents with composting bins at no charge or at
subsidized rates.
Waste Prevention
-------
Waste PreventionfRecydingf and Composting Options*, Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
The Environmental Consumer Movement
The U.S. is experiencing what has been termed an environmental or green consumer
movement. In the last few years, American citizens have become Increasingly aware of and
concerned about environmental problems, and are expressing their willingness to change behavior-
such as purchasing practlces^to mitigate environmental problems. For example,- a recent Gallup
report indicated that 76 percent of consumers consider themselves "environmentalists" What's
more, a 1990 CBS/New York Times poll reported that 74 percent of those surveyed said that
the environment must be protected regardless of cost—up from 45 percent in 1981.
Manufacturers and retailers are responding to citizens' environmental concerns. The number
of new products introduced with environmental claims Jumped from 24 in 1985 to 160 in 1988,
and then to 262 in 1989—a growth of 64 percent in one year. Procter and Gamble, for instance,
has developed a 21.5-ounce milk carton-type container to hold concentrated fabric softener,
replacing the 64-ounce rigid plastic bottle formerly used, ttsjabel boasts that the new container
is "better for the environment ... less packaging to throw away." Another product change in
response to consumers' concerns about solid waste generation is the recent decision by the
Recording Industry Association of America (representing 95 percent of the recorded music sold
in the U.S.) to replace the long cardboard or plastic display boxes in which it sells compact disks
with packaging no bigger than the small plastic container that holds the disk.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assessing the Envtrortmentaf Consumer Market, Office of Policy, Planning,
and Evaluation, Washington, DC, April 1991; "Greenwave," The Boston Globe, October 9, 1990, p, 41; and Shelia Bute,
"Smaller CD Boxes Promised Amid Clamor About Waste," The New York Jimest February 28, 1992.
Backyard composting is an integral part of King
County's 1989 comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan.8 Since June 1989, the County
has provided residents with bins at a subsidized
rate ($8.75), and with technical assistance through
the Master Recycler/Composter Program, the
Nursery Composting Demonstration Program, and
a recycling and composting information telephone
line. Through a written survey, the County
determined that residents receiving bins were
composting at least 50 percent of their yard debris.
Two-thirds of all participants reported composting
at least 75 percent of their yard waste. Assuming
that each household generates an average of 800
pounds of yard waste per year, the County
recovered an estimated 4,220 tons of yard materials
through backyard composting in the first year of
the program (with 16,000 participants), and
approximately 9,000 tons in its second year (with
a total of 35,000 participants).9
In the second year of the program's operation,
King County purchased and distributed 19,017 bins.
The bins cost the County $20 each, about half of
which was reimbursed by participating households.
Assuming that the County spends no additional
funds per composter after the first year, and that
these 19,017 households compost yard debris for 7
years (the estimated lifespan of the bin), the County
will incur a cost of only $14 per ton of yard debris
composted in backyards.10
Vermicomposting Programs
While some communities instruct residents to
compost food scraps out-of-doors, others, such as
San Francisco and Seattle, also encourage residents
to use worm bins. Vermicomposting can be
successfully implemented indoors even in an
apartment unit. This process involves the use of
special worms, Eisenia fetida or Lumbricus rubellus
(redworms), which thrive on food scraps. Worms
can digest food quickly and produce a top-quality
fertilizer, "vermicompost," in 4 months. Redworms
need a dark, cool, well-aerated container, and thrive
on moist bedding made from sources such as peat
moss, shredded cardboard, or newspaper. If the
bins are properly maintained, odor problems will
not occur.11
Waste Prevention
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; lessons from 30 U&Communiiies
The San Francisco Recycling Programs (SFRP)
developed a home composting program in 1988
with the San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners
(SLUG). During the summer of 1990, SLUG began
vermicomposting workshops. Participants pay $35
for instruction, a worm bin, and worms. SFRP also
offers multilingual workshops in backyard
composting. In 1990 the City estimated that
residents were composting 4,414 tons of food scraps
(7 percent of residential food scraps generated that
year), and 2,164 tons of yard debris at home.
(While the potential for food scrap recovery is
great, very little is being done. Where
communities, such as San Francisco, have
encouraged food waste recovery, the
impact has been very slight.)
Volume-based refuse rates can
encourage backyard composting. For
example, communities with successful
backyard composting programs, such as
West Linn, Oregon also have variable
refuse rates (see Table 3.1). Even Seattle
and King County can partially attribute
their success with backyard composting
to their yard waste collection fee
structure.
scale reuse operations generally cost very little for
collection (since most materials are dropped off)
and little for processing. Operations that salvage
materials before they enter the refuse collection and
disposal system not only save a community
collection and processing costs, but also raise
revenue in some cases. Private repair and reuse
operations can net considerable profit as well as
provide jobs for the local community. Communities
can actively promote private salvage/reuse
operations through written listings and other types
of publicity.
King County, Washington
recovered an estimated 4,220
tons of yard debris through
backyard composting in the
first year of its program (with
16,000 participants), and
approximately 9,000 tons in
its second year (with a total
of 35,000 participants).
Salvage and Reuse
Reusing materials in-house at the
residential or commercial level prevents
these discards from entering the
municipal waste stream and therefore
costs a community no money for
collection or processing. Community-
Waste Reduction at Institutions
.and Businesses
Disposable beverage containers and dinnerware
represent a significant portion of th'e waste stream,
especially at institutions with large food service
operations. The Associated Students of UCLA, for
example, operate several on-campus dining programs
that encourage the washing and reuse of durable
utensils and mugs. At the University of lllinois-
Urbana/Champaign, and at Rutgers University in New
Jersey, most meals are served on reusable tableware*
Bowling Green State University in Ohio offers 5 and
10 cent rebates, respectively, for the purchase of fo-
and te-ounce beverages in reusable rather than
disposable containers* Serving a campus population
of 20,000, the University documented a net annual
savings of more than $33,000 after accounting for the
avoided disposal costs, and the cost of purchasing
new glasses and washing them*
The Boston Park Plaza .Hotel, has implemented
an "ecological travel alternative," The hotet
established a 25-member employee "green team" to
address solid waste reduction, water conservation,
educational awareness, and reduction of hazardous
waste. As a result, the hotel now has a recycling
program, buys 100 percent postconsumer recycled-
content paper, and has eliminated single-use
tableware in Its food service area. Future plans
include replacing individual containers for soap,
shampoo, and other toiletries with refillable dispensers,
Sources: Resource Integration Systems, Ltd, S3 Simple Things
Universities and Colleges Can Do to Reduce Waste, May 1991;
and Recycling Today, November 1991, p. 26.
18 Waste Prevention
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
Although local solid waste managers have
given considerable attention to startup of curbside
recycling programs, they have given little attention
to salvage and reuse as a serious waste reduction
strategy. Several communities run salvage
operations at public disposal sites where recyclables
are either dropped off already sorted or attendants
must sort through the refuse. However, most of
these operations are recovering minimal amounts
of the waste stream. A few programs stand out
as models. These include Garbage Reincarnation
in Sonoma County, California and Urban Ore in
Berkeley, California.
In Sonoma County, California, Garbage
Reincarnation, a local nonprofit organization,
operates two "recycling/reuse/resale" depots at the
landfill and transfer station, under contract with the
County. Residents or businesses self-hauling refuse
to these facilities may stop at the depots and drop
off any salvageable items, including appliances,
bicycle parts, books, tires, wine bottles, batteries,
and building materials. Many items are either
repaired or set out "as is" in the yard. Repair
shops regularly buy appliances, television sets,
lawn mowers, and bicycles. Flea market vendors
buy bulky items to repair for resale. Homeowners
and contractors purchase used building materials.
A mattress refurbishing company buys used
mattresses, which it sterilizes and recovers.
Recovered paint is given away free to residents.
According to Garbage Reincarnation, start-up costs
for a salvage/reuse business are minimal, and on-
site sales start the first day. In 1990 Sonoma
County salvaged 1,483 tons of residential items,
equivalent to 8 percent of all residential materials
recycled and 1 percent of all residential waste
generated that year.
Urban Ore is a materials salvage business,
which operates two drop-off sites in Berkeley.
Nearly 90 percent of the materials Urban Ore
recovers and resells are dropped off by residents
and local businesses; the remainder are recovered
from the City's transfer station. The City of
Berkeley supports this recovery operation by
publicizing it and leasing Urban Ore land and
buildings.
In 1990 Urban Ore recovered an estimated
5,390 tons of materials.12 Of these, 1,123 tons were
household goods, including electronics equipment,
clothing, and kitchen appliances. The other 4,267
tons were building materials, including cabinets,
furniture, doors, windows, and white goods.
Urban Ore recovered 68 percent, or 674 tons, of the
991 tons of white goods estimated to be generated
in Berkeley in 1990. It recovered approximately 25
percent, or 3,369 tons, of the 12325 tons of wood
waste generated, and approximately 50 percent, or
1,123 tons, of the reusable items discarded in
Berkeley that year.
Urban Ore's 1990 gross operating and
maintenance costs totaled $702,242 ($130 per ton),
and its revenue totaled $729,996 ($135 per ton). It
earned $27,754 in profit, employed 16 people, and
paid local residents and businesses $95,000 for
reusable goods. Urban Ore's capital costs total
approximately $211,900 (1990 dollars), less than
$15,000 per ton-per-day (TPD) recovered, far below
those of many intermediate processing centers
(IPC's). (See Table 8.17)
Variable Refuse Rates
Twelve of the 30 communities utilize variable
refuse collection rates, charging residents higher
fees for greater volumes of refuse set out. Most
cities either charge residents a flat fee for refuse
disposal or incorporate such costs into the
municipal tax base. In contrast, variable rate
(volume- or weight-based) systems charge residents
on the basis of the amount of waste they generate,
providing an immediate incentive to reduce the
amount of waste set out for disposal. Chart 3.1
displays per capita residential waste generation
levels for cities with and without volume-based
rates. Communities with volume-based refuse
rates, such as La Crescent, Minnesota; San
Francisco, California; West Linn, Oregon; and
Perkasie, Pennsylvania, are among those with the
lowest per capita waste generation levels. As
discussed in Chapter 2, demographic factors also
affect waste generation rates.
Volume-based refuse collection systems were first
introduced in Washington State: in Olympia in 1954, in
Tacoma in the 1970% and in Seattle in 1981.13 Since
then, variable refuse rates have been implemented in 200
cities around the nation, including rural communities
(such as Bowdoinham, Maine and La Crescent,
Minnesota), suburbs (such as Perkasie, Pennsylvania and
West Linn, Oregon), and urban areas (such as Portland,
Oregon and San Francisco).14
Waste Prevention
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options? Lessons from 30 IT.S. Communities
1
1
33 3 -
1
°" 2 -
•j .
s
",
••
1
I
s
i*
v\
s
Berlin Township
Chart 3.1
Per Capita Residential Waste Generation in Communities
with Volume-based and Flat Refuse Rates
__ Volume-based
H Refuse Raies
S
is M 3 r^ Flat-fee Refuse
~ Pll^^ U Rates
1 * ** * Hi! fl U U R = Rural
: 1 x- •• 1 S s u <5 D o S = Suburb or
1 %nHfflHnonRSn Small City
1 ^ - 1 ^ x -I * TLliAi— u=urban
CM N 1 ^ ~ IP 1
1 *1 1 i i I 4 1 i ! ! 1 f 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 i
f Til1*!!3*1!**!*! aiji]
"~ 15 (OS °- o
s m
There are two basic types of volume-based
refuse systems. In one, residents are charged a per-
bag fee and must purchase special bags or tags to
place on bags. In the second, residents choose
among refuse containers with varying capacities,
and pay substantially more for set-out of the larger
containers. See Table 3.2 for a list of volume-based
programs utilized by the communities studied,
including the rates charged. West Linn, with one
of the steepest fee structures, has a low per capita
waste generation level.
Some evidence exists that volume-based rates
encourage recycling and backyard composting, and
may also reduce overall per capita residential waste
generation.15 In direct contrast to the national trend
of increasing generation levels, some of the study
communities with volume-based refuse rates
experience reductions in or stabilization of per
capita waste generation.
Perkasie has a successful variable rate system.
In 1988 the Borough implemented a volume-based
refuse collection system, requiring residents to
place refuse in special 20- or 40-pound bags sold
by the Borough for $0.80 and $1.50 respectively.
(In 1991 bag prices increased to $1.00 and $1.75.)
This per-bag fee program replaced a flat annual
fee of $120 per residence for refuse collection and
disposal. In 1988 residential waste generated by
the sector the Borough serves dropped 26 percent,
down to 1,868 tons from an average of 2,522 tons
per year between 1985 and 1987. The Borough
attributes this reduction to increased public
awareness of waste generation and disposal habits,
resulting in improved purchasing habits;
commercial customers switching to private haulers
due to the bag program;16 waste burning in
backyards, fireplaces, and wood stoves;17 and
exporting of waste from the Borough or depositing
Waste Prevention
-------
Table 3.2
Communities with Volume-based Refuse Rates
Program
Community System Initiation Price Paid by Residents Administrator
Austin, TX (a) per can Pilot 19917 $6/month/30-gallon container public
Citywide 1 992 $1 2/month for 90-gallon container
Berkeley, CA per can 1984 $4.60/month/13-gallon container public
$12/month/32 -gallon container
$24/month/64-gallon container
$36/month/96-gallon container
Bowdoinham, ME per bag 1989 $1/30-gallon bag public
Dakota County, MN per bag/ NA Varied fees lor 33-galton bags and 30-, 60-, and 90-gallon private
per can containers
King County, WA per can NA Monthly refuse/recycling rates in unincorporated areas public
$5.60-$8.05/20-galton container
$7.47-$1 1 .65/32-gallon container
$9.73-$17.20/lwo 32 -gallon cans or one 60-gallon can
La Crescent, MN per bag 1989 $1.35/30-gallonbag public
Perkaslt, PA per bag 1988 $0.80/20-pound bag public
$1. 50/40-pound bag (c)
Portland, OR (d) per can NA $1 2/month for one 32-gallon can private
$22 for set-out of two cans
San Francisco, CA per can NA $8.03/month/20-gallon mini-can public
$9.35/month/32-galton can + $4.24 for each additional can
$7. 1 9/month for residents 65 years old or older
Seattle, WA per can 1981 $10.70/month/19-gallon mini-can public
$13.75/month/32-gallon can
$22.75/month/60-gallon can
$31 J5/monlh/90-gallon can
Sonoma County, CA per can NA $4.05 to $10 per 30- or 32-gallon can public
Wapakoneta, OH per bag 1990 Beyond the $6/household monthly fee residents pay public
West Linn, OR per can NA $1 1 .55/monlh/one 20-gallon mini-can public
$13.70/month/one 32-gallon container
$27.40/montMwo 32-gallon containers
Service
Provider
public
public
private
private
private
private
public
private
private
private
private
public
private
Apartments
Served
no
yes
not applicable (b)
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
not applicable
yes
Notf*:
Administrator = Type of organization that Initiated the program, collects the funds, and In most cases, sets the volume-based refuse rates.
Although Fennlmore, Wisconsin requires residents to purchase special refuse bags, because this fee Is so low (at $0.07 per bag), we do not term their program volume-based.
(a) Austin tested volume-based refuse rates In a small portion of the City In summer 1 991 . It plans to Implement dtywlde volume-based rates In 1 992.
(b) Residents in the Town's single multi-unit building haul their refuse to the landfill.
(c) In 1 991 the Borough Increased bag fees to $1 /20-pound bag and $1 .75/40-pound bag.
(d) Listed rate structure represents activities In 1 990. The City has since restructured Its volume-based system, and under the new program, the City will regulate the rate structure and require
haulers to offer a "mini-can* at a substantially reduced rale:
n
I
D
s-
a
§
to
o
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options} Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
of residential materials in commercial dumpsters
(only four such instances were reported in 1988).
The success of Perkasie's per-bag fee program is
evident by comparing growth of households to
growth of waste. While the number of households
served by the Borough has increased 35 percent
from 1987 to 1990, residential waste generated has
increased by only 13 percent.
Illegal dumping or burning of refuse is a
possible adverse effect of variable refuse rates. This
has rarely presented an ongoing problem, however,
since communities have found a variety of ways
to stop illegal dumping. After experiencing
increased illegal dumping during a period of
rapidly rising user fee rates, Seattle in 1987
introduced a pre-paid sticker to handle additional
waste generation, and hired inspectors to monitor
complaints from customers and contractors.18 In
Perkasie, where there were four reports of illegal
dumping in 1988, the offenders' names were
reported in the local newspaper. Illegal dumping
was not a problem in 1989.19 Houston County,
Minnesota, in which La Crescent is located, charges
offenders $0.68 per pound of illegally dumped
materials.
(See Chapter 5, "Improving Residential
Recycling Rates," for discussion of how variable
rates encourage recycling.)
Regulating Packaging and
Other Materials
Some communities, such as Berkeley,
California; Newark, New Jersey; and Portland,
Oregon have passed local ordinances to ban use
and/or sale of certain types of materials. In some
cases, product bans lead to the substitution of one
disposable material for another, and thus do not
decrease the overall volume or weight of the
waste stream. In other cases, however,
nonrecyclable products are replaced with recyclable
or reusable materials. For example, the City of
Newark has worked with local retailers and
cafeterias to switch from disposable to reusable
utensils, plates, cups, and carry-out containers.
Through product or material bans and taxes,
communities can encourage manufacturers to
redesign products so as to facilitate recycling and
source reduction.
Conclusion
There are a variety of techniques available to
control the ever-burgeoning tonnage of waste.
Public education, reuse operations, and economic
incentives have been implemented on a local level
to encourage residents, institutions, and businesses
to generate less waste. Backyard composting helps
prevent organic materials from entering the waste
stream, and salvage/reuse operations may
indirectly help avoid waste generation. Cities are
also supporting independent community-based
source reduction efforts. Communites would
benefit by developing ways to measure the success
of source reduction programs.
Waste Prevention
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options*, Lessons from 30 U.S, Communities
Notes
1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1992 Update, Office
of Solid Waste, EPA/530-R-92-019, July 1992, 2-2, 4-15, 5-2.
2Ibid, 2-29.
3The City of Berkeley, which has implemented a number of source reduction programs and has set a source reduction
goal of 13 percent, has not conducted a waste generation study since 1989. Berkeley measures the amount of waste
diverted from disposal by quantifying such things as the number of tons per week of disposable diapers not landfilled
as a result of resident use of cloth diaper services. King County, Washington has estimated, through a survey, the
number of tons of yard waste diverted from disposal through backyard composting.
4Joe Schwartz, "Shopping for a Model Community," Garbage Magazine, May/June, 1990, pp. 35-38.
5Naomi Friedman, Certified Green: An Examination of Product Labeling and its Application to Environmental Protection (Tufts
University, February 1991), 101-103.
6Becky Stanfiel, /Towards a Model Community," Model Community Update, Central States Education Center, Champaign,
Illinois, September 1991.
?Yard debris comprises on average 18 percent of the nation's municipal waste stream, while food waste comprises
an additional 8 percent. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Characterization of Munkipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1990 Update, Office of Solid Waste, June 1990.)
While the City of Seattle is located in King County, all King County data and programs listed in this report exclude
the City of Seattle.
'These estimates credit the County with all tonnages composted in the backyards of program participants, even if
such individuals had previously composted. The County determined through a survey that 62 percent of first-year
participants had composted previous to the distribution of backyard composting bins. However, once the program
expanded into the cities in the second year, of operation, the percentage of individuals who had composted previously
may have dropped. Composting rates for King County reported in this report exclude these estimated tonnages
recovered through backyard composting.
10King County spent $682,239 on capital and operating expenses for its backyard composting program in the second
year of the program's operation (April 1990 to March 1991). Most of the costs associated with backyard composting
are one-time implementation expenditures, such as bin purchase and distribution, and technical assistance. The County
spent $380,334 to purchase 19,017 bins (approximately $20 each) and was reimbursed $195,460 by participating
households. Thus the County's net outlay for compost bins came to $184,874 in 1990-91. Program operating expenses
totaled $301,905. Of this, $114,304 was spent on program operations, $91,491 on marketing, $66,625 on bin distribution,
$22,370 on program administration, $4,464 on monitoring and surveys, and $2,651 on a bin brochure.
"Robert Kourik, "As the Worm Turns," Garbage, January/February 1992. See also Mary Appelhof, Worms Eat My
Garbage (Kalamazoo, Michigan; Flower Press, 1982).
12This tonnage actually covers the period July 1990 to June 1991.
"Lisa Skumatz, "Garbage By the Pound: The Potential of Weight-based Rates," Resource Recycling, July 1991. Seattle,
Washington and Farmington, Minnesota have tested or plan to test residential weight-based refuse collection rates.
14Lisa Skumatz (Synergic Resources Corporation, Seattle, Washington), personal communication, March 1992.
15It is difficult to determine the effect of variable refuse rates in many instances, since communities do not always
track tonnages generated before and after the implementation of these rates. Also, while per capita generation rates
may continue to rise after the implementation of variable rates, such rises may be less than would have otherwise
occurred.
"Attrition of commercial customers is responsible for at least a 3.1 percent reduction in waste collected. Perkasie's
residential waste includes some material collected from a small number of businesses.
17In 1988 the Borough did not enforce an ordinance banning backyard burning, but there were no complaints of smoke
or odor.
"Lisa Skumatz, et al. Variable Rates in Solid Waste: Handbook for Solid Waste Officials, Volume U (Washington, DC: NTIS
Document No. EPA 910/9-90-012b, June 1990).
^Approximately five incidences of illegal dumping, mostly involving placement of refuse in private dumpsters, were
reported in 1990.
! Waste Prevention
-------
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
Chapter Four
Comprehensive Source-Separation
Composting Programs*
Overview
Our case-study communities with
comprehensive source-separation composting
programs are diverting significant amounts of
organic materials from disposal facilities. Most of
the communities recovering more than 30 percent
of their municipal solid waste (MSW) are
composting at least 11 percent of their waste.
While 28 of the 30 communities studied have some
type of composting program, some are more
comprehensive than others. Communities with
composting rates greater than 11 percent typically
provide frequent and convenient collection, target
a wide range of organic materials, serve a high
percentage of households, and offer incentives to
encourage composting. Set-out and collection
methods, composting techniques, and marketing
strategies vary widely among communities. By
comparing the operating experience of these
communities, this chapter discusses program
features that help to maximize recovery of organic
materials, one of the largest components of the
municipal waste stream. The first section of this
chapter details collection, processing, and marketing
strategies. The second describes policies
implemented on a local level to increase
composting levels. (See Table 2.1 for each
community's municipal solid waste composting
recovery rate.2)
Collection, Processing,
and Marketing Strategies
Yard trimmings are a fairly homogeneous
component of the waste stream that can be
composted in residents' backyards, at community-
scale composting sites, or in regional facilities.
Food discards, another significant portion of the
waste stream, can also be composted in residents'
backyards or composted on a community level.
Finished compost serves as a soil amendment or
mulch, improving the physical, chemical, and
biological properties of soil. In the case-study
communities with source-separation composting
programs, the supply of and demand for compost
are usually well-balanced. In some cases, demand
exceeds supply.3
Communities with composting rates
greater than 11 percent typically provide
frequent and convenient collection,
target a wide range of organic materials,
serve a high percentage of households,
and offer incentives to encourage
composting.
Collection
Tables 4.1 and 4.2 describe yard trimming
collection program characteristics during the base
year of study, including program initiation year,
curbside versus drop-off service, types of materials
collected, and set-out and collection methods.
During the base year two communities, Providence,
Rhode Island and Peterborough, New Hampshire,
did not have composting programs.
As indicated in Table 4.1, many communities
are encouraging backyard composting and "don't
bag it" programs to reduce yard waste collection
and processing costs. Many of the listed
communities report that a substantial number of
residents are employing such techniques. For
example, the City of West Linn, Oregon estimates
that 15 to 20 percent of all yard debris generated
in 1990 was composted in residents' yards. (See
Chapter 3 for a discussion of backyard composting
programs.)
Composting
-------
Table 4.1
Yard Debris Collection Characteristics
Households
Year Curbside Yard Compost Private/ Materials Coll. Materials Coll.
Data Initiation Waste Program Collection Public at Curbside for at Drop-off for
Community Applicable Year Mandate Initiation Strategies Collection Composting Composting
(a)
Austin, TX FY89 1988 None 1988 CS.DO.BY Public/Pvt. [L] [L.GC.CT]
Berkeley, CA FY&1 187$ Nona 1989(0} C$,00 puWia |L,<30.8ft,CT] fjLGO-BR.OI'b
Berlin Township, NJ 1990 1976 SS.LB 1976 CS.DO Public L.GC.BR.WW.CT L.GC.BR WWCT
Bould»r,CO 1990 ' 19B9 , None " '1989 ^ DO,BY PuWIc [BfM Km
Bowdoinham, ME FY90 -- None 1990 DO - - [LGC]
Columbia, M0 , FYSfl^ , 198ft -' None pBM«5$ -, C$,80 •• . PutHic. - {C?J ILOOOT1
Dakota County, MN 1990 1989 LB, HR 1989 CS.DO.BY Private [L.GC.BR.CT] [LGCBRCT1
F«mtoK>»»Wf ,f 1990 1889 SSLLB 1989 CS.DO.SY $ Pubfe , L USCFW
King Co., WA 1990 ^Varies None NA CS.DO.BY Varies [L.GC.BR.CT] " [L.GC.BR.WW.CT]
Lafayette, LA FY90 1990 None" 1990 CS.DO "^Contract "(L.GC.BR.CT] [L.GC.BR.CT]
Lincoln, NE § ••^'J^" 1990 /•• 1988{P^ None-^ 1986'' v CS.DO s Contract *&•. sv [L,GC1BR] --J [L<3CflRpT)
Lincoln Park, NJ 1990 1976 SS(g) " 1976 " CS.DO Public " "* L.GC.BR.CT L.GC.BR.CT
Monroe, Wl 1989 1981 SS 1981 CS.BY Public L GC BR [CT] - *
NaparvlltaJL 1990 ^1975 s LB , 1975 CS,BY - PuWfe %, i,GeFBR.CT
Newark, NJ 1989 1986 SS.LB 1986 CS Contract (i) L,GC,BR,[CT]
Periwle, PA ^1990 \t8$& Nona," 1909, , OS % PuWie >< ftBftOTi
Peterborough, NH 1990 -- None 1991 (j) - - "'" J
PhHaddlphfaj PA x » s- FY90 ^ 1978 ^ SS - ,r 197S CS.BY | PuWJt i x , L, {Cf| *i ~
Portland, OR 1990 1973 (k) None 1973 CS.DO.BY^ Private [L.GC.BR.CT.FW] (I) [L.GC.BR.CT.FW]
Providence, fH ^ J990 .» h Non^ •> None ™ , -.- ^, - t „ ,s
San Francisco, CA 1990 - None 1988 ' DO.BY -- - [CTI
SwrtM^WA , J990 ^,1989 SS , , 1989 ;cS.DO)8Y'e Contract t,t5C,BiRWW LGCBRVWW
Sonoma Co., CA 1990 1990 (P) None 1990 CS.DO " Private ' [L.GC.BR.CT]' " [CT] ?
Upper Township, NJ 'l99o' *%1972 'SS. LB '''''w2 *' CS '" Publro "\ [GC.BR.WW.CT] t. [GC BR WW CT]
Wapakor«ta,OH ,9/89-8/90 >1970 s LS | 1&71 ,' CS.IK> ,- PuWte - n.i ' {BROef *
West LJnn, OR 1990 1985 HR 1985 CS.DO.BY Private [L.BR.CT] * [L,GC,BR.WW,CT] '
Key:
Materials endosed In brackets [ ] are those for which set-out or drop-off Is voluntary. Participation Is mandatory for all other materials.
BR. Brush BY = Backyard Composting Coll. - Collection
CS- Curbside CT- Christmas Trees DO = Drop-off
FW. Food Waste GC - Grass Clippings HR . Hauler Requirement
L« Leaves LB = Landfill Disposal Ban NA « Not Available
P - Pilot programs represent dties serving less than 5 percent of their total residential households with curbside collection of yard debris
SS - Residential Source-Separation WW = Wood Waste -« Not Applicable
Served w/
Curbside
Collection
110,000
2,600
1,800
'• 18 500
" 70^000
^ 970
NA
27,500
1", 2,000
2.772
"3,900
1 24,500
NA(i)
„' 3,6QQ x
* 45,000 -"
NA
&fe ^ nv %
"' 94.805.
1,200
\ * 4,100- 4
3,860
' 3,548 ^
5,300 (m)
Percent of
Total
Percent of
Pounds/
Households Households Household/
Served
w/ Curbside
Collection
(b)
55
e
100
NA
72
Tft-
70
400
NA
, NA
93
3
65
91
S 79
NA
7 "
NA
-, "^ 1 $
,> 38
1
"" "lOO
,100
86
t 75--
Served
In Refuse
District
(c)
O : ; •'"'" O %i
o:
-------
,aiilzSs!lsl5;
There are two ways to collect source-separated
yard waste for composting at community-scale or
regional sites: curbside or drop-off.
Curbside Collection
Twenty-four of the 30 communities studied
have curbside collection programs. However, some
of these service only a limited number of
households and/or provide only fall leaf or
seasonal Christmas tree collection. To collect yard
debris and trimmings, communities often utilize
existing public works equipment such as front-end
loaders, refuse packers, and dump trucks. Packer
trucks have the advantage of compacting material,
reducing the frequency of unloading. Some
communities purchase new equipment such as
vacuum leaf loaders. The loaders can either be
hooked up to existing packer or dump trucks, or
can be purchased as a self-contained truck and
vacuum loader unit. Leaf loaders, used in
conjunction with existing vehicles cost
approximately $10,000 to $20,000 each; self-
contained vacuum loaders cost approximately
$100,000. (See Chapter 8 for a discussion of how
using existing equipment can reduce capital costs.)
Collection methods vary depending on the type
and amount of yard materials collected. During
the fall months of heavy leaf generation many
communities collect leaves loose, using front-end
loaders or vacuum attachments, to relieve residents
of the task of bagging leaves. In northern cities,
temporary crews are often hired or shifted from
other departments to collect fall leaves. In Takoma
Park, Maryland, for example, four five-person
crews collect leaves in November and December;
10 crew members are temporary employees and 10
are assigned from the Streets and Parks
Department. One worker drives the collection
vehicle, one prepares leaves for vacuuming, one
operates the vacuum, and two rake the leaves into
the vacuum. Leaves are blown into a leaf collection
box located behind the vacuum loader. In Monroe,
Wisconsin, the Streets Department picks up fall
leaves utilizing a retrofitted jeep with a push broom
attached to the front. Drivers push leaves to street
corners and a front-end loader scoops the material
into a packer truck. Berlin Township switched
from vacuum collection to front-end loader
collection after designing a scoop—a 2-cubic-yard
Composting 27
-------
Table 4.2
Curbside Set-out and Collection Method for Yard Debris
Community
Same
Pick-up Day Collection Set-out Method
Frequency Collection Period for Leaves
Set-out Method for
Gross Clippings
Brush, Wood Waste
Collection
Vehicles
Number
of Crew
Members
per Truck
Austin, TX
Berlin Township, NJ
Bowdolnham, ME
Dakota County, MN
King Co., WA '"
Lafayette, LA
Uncolft, M6 -i;:,.
Lincoln Park, NJ
1N**J«<*«liC&wJ«
Monroe, Wl
Newark, NJ
Peterborough, NH
Portland, OR
San Francisco, CA
Sonoma Co., CA
TickniftA 3Dtai>lf ttft v* ^
MWwW- * •Wfl^ fWp "•• ^
Upper Township, NJ
West Linn, OR
Weekly Yes Nov-Dec/Feb-Apr
SfflNmW^ J8rV& /'i' "WtftyWfe^'
Weekly NA Year-round
Bagged (b)
Packer
Loose
Cans or Bagged
*
Loader/Dump Truck
3
1
1-3
Bagged or Loose
CansorToters
Weekly ' *Yes''* " Year-round" Bagged or Bundled
Semi-weekly ^ Vanes" 'Apr-May, OctNov '"Bagged or Loose
Weekly Varies (e) Seasonal (ef ' Loose
?#?• ttodfap ,f>, SA ,„ Apr-fetey|?s.^ " s4oo6» ">^
Weekly No Oct-Jan Bagged or Loose
Bagged or Loose
Cans, Toters, or Paper Bags'
Bagged or Bundled
Packer
N»BWM
Packer
^ +H%
Packer
Varies
v% t -«. »
' " ^ '
Bagged or Loose Vacuum/Dump Truck/Packer
Bagged
-*tto - \<> > Noy-&ec\x": - loose t" *•
Weekly NA Nov-Apr Bagged or. Loose '
y"j +Hn * ^ % H+ *^^ » J- •• , % , +F^- ?-»
Bagged or Loose
. . . _ ..
:H
Bagged or Loose
Broom/Loader/Packer
Loader/Packer/DumpTrucks
1
NA
NA
Weekly
Weekly
m
On-call
No Year-round 90-gallon Cans
r \ ; Ife^ ; ^ ;T V4»«Eowfe, & #- lao^, ,)|
NA Year-round/Seas Bagged & Loose (g)
- ^W;y* Noy-Dec, - - Loese %,;
- Year-round Bagged
Packer
, , Factor
90-gallon Containers " Packer
CWf Or &Wtf s s ' Pack$r,orVa
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
container with the end cut out—to attach to the rear
of the refuse vehicle. The Recycling Coordinator
claims this scoop enables the crew to collect 50
percent more leaves in a day than with the vacuum
loader.
Case-study communities with year-round
collection of yard trimmings usually request
residents to place trimmings in cans or in plastic or
paper bags. Crews generally collect bagged
materials in packer trucks. Plastic bags are not
accepted in Naperville, King County, and Takoma
Park because of problems associated with
debagging the yard materials. The City of Monroe
recommends that yard debris be placed in
transparent plastic bags to ensure that residents
separate yard waste from refuse.
West Palm Beach, Florida collects yard debris
year-round using an alternative method. Fine-
toothed loaders shaped like clamshells are attached
to cranes. The loaders pick up both bagged and
loose yard trimmings at the curb and dump the
material into compactor trucks.
How Berlin Township, New Jersey and Seattle, Washington
Achieve High Composting Levels
Berlin Township, a suburban community with primarily single-family residences, is prohibited by
State law from landfilling leaves. The Pmelands Commission, a State-run board with Jurisdiction over
a protected area that encompasses part of Berlin Township, bans the landfiliing of grass clippings.
While Berlin Township currently has approval to compost only leaves at this site, it is applying for
a permit to compost additional materials there. These legislative measures have prompted the
Township to implement a comprehensive yard trimmings collection program. Berlin Township provides
weekly, year-round curbside collection for four types of yard waste: leaves, grass clippings, wood
waste, and brush from all of its households. Additionally, it collects and chips Christmas trees.
Residents and businesses may also drop off materials free of charge at the regional composting
facility located in the Township. In addition to weekly residential pick-up, workers collect loose leaves
at curbside twice per month on average during November and December with a retrofitted scoop*
a front-end loader, and a compactor truck. Loose leaves are also collected in April, In 1990, the
Township composted 39 percent of its residential waste-
Seattle has one of the best materials recovery programs in the country. In order to meet Its
1998 goaf of 60 percent municipal solid waste recovery, Seattle plans to compost 99 percent of its
residential yard waste (excluding self-haul waste) and 93 percent of yard waste sett-hauled by residents
and businesses. By 1991 Seattle was composting 95 percent of the 42,726 tons of residential yard
waste generated and 90 percent of self-haul yard waste. Since 1989 source separation of yard
waste has been mandatory for City residents receiving curbside collection of refuse. In addition,
the City's volume-based refuse rate provides a direct incentive to source separate yard waste. The
City's contracted waste haulers collect leaves, grass clippings, and brush at curbside. The north
section receives year-round collection; the south section receives twice monthly collection from March
through October and monthly collection during the rest of the year Residents without curbside refuse
service self-haul yard waste (as they do refuse) to the City's two transfer stations. Residents are
charged $4 per carload of yard waste and $5 per carload of mixed refuse. Yard waste is composted
at the Cedar Groves Compost Facility, a 26-acre site located 30 miles southeast of Seattle. Material
is shredded with a tub grinder and then formed into piles. Finished compost sells for $6 per cubic
yard to wholesalers; retailers and wholesale outlets sell the compost in 1-cubic-foot bags for ap-
proximately $3 per bag. Since 1986 Seattle has also implemented a successful backyard composting
program that has served as a model for communities around the country. In 1990 Seattle composted
14 percent of its residential waste.
Composting
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options? Lessons from 30 l£s< Communities
'••• : ; ' j-j s JT JW^M^I -S *-J~J^
A study conducted in Bristol, Connecticut
found that collecting bagged leaves requires less
time and is more cost-effective than collecting loose
leaves using a front-end loader.4 However, our
data indicate that both methods are cost-effective
when large amounts of material are recovered.
Therefore, communities might consider utilizing a
set-out and collection method that maximizes
resident participation in the program. (Chapter 8
provides a full discussion of the costs of
composting collection and processing.)
In communities that provide curbside
refuse collection, curbside yard waste
collection is needed to divert large-
volume materials (such as fall leaves
and spring and summer grass
clippings), but drop-off programs can
play a crucial role in capturing
additional organic waste off-season.
Drop-off Collection
Drop-off collection of yard debris can be
practical and cost-effective. In rural and smaller
communities, particularly in those where residents
self-haul refuse, drop-off programs have recovered
significant amounts of yard waste. In communities
that provide curbside refuse collection, curbside
yard waste collection is needed to divert large-
volume materials (such as fall leaves and spring
and summer grass clippings), but drop-off
programs can play a crucial role in capturing
additional organic waste off-season. Mobile drop-
off centers can serve several municipalities on a
rotating basis. These sites may also provide the
only opportunity for private businesses such as
landscapers to divert their yard trimmings from
disposal. Communities can provide residents and
private haulers maximum incentive to deliver their
yard debris to drop-off sites by locating these at
disposal facilities and accepting source-separated
yard waste free of charge or at a reduced tipping
fee. Volume-based refuse rates can also encourage
residents to use drop-off sites.
The rural community of Bowdoinham, Maine,
for example, has a yard debris drop^off site at the
landfill, where two-thirds of the residents self-haul
refuse for disposal. Residents pay volume-based
rates to drop off refuse and no fee to drop off yard
trimmings. In fiscal year 1990, Bowdoinham
diverted 11 percent of its MSW through composting
leaves and grass clippings at this site.
Although residents in West Linn, Oregon can
receive curbside yard waste collection, they pay a
lower fee ($0.50 per bag of leaves and $3 per cubic
yard of brush) to drop off yard waste at the drop-
off center than to have it collected at curbside ($3.50
for each bag of leaves and $7.50 for each bundle
of brush). The City composted 21 percent of its
municipal waste in 1990. Only an estimated 4 of
the 1,552 tons composted were collected at
curbside.
Processing and Marketing Strategies
Communities compost yard debris using a
variety of techniques some requiring little or no
maintenance, others requiring more intensive
intervention. Each system has its own advantages
and disadvantages. Instead of composting yard
trimmings, communities may choose to grind them
for a mulch product or spread them directly on
agricultural land. Table 4.3 compares some of these
methods. The amount of residual material
(including plastic and other noncompostable
materials) rejected from composting or mulching
sites utilized by our communities is generally low,
from 0 to 2 percent by weight. West Palm Beach,
Florida reported a very high reject rate of 26
percent in 1990, which it attributed to careless set-
out and collection methods.5 The City was not
required to pay a tipping fee at the mulch site that
year and did not actively remind residents to keep
refuse out of yard materials.
Finished compost or mulch is given away to
residents free of charge in 13 communities and sold
in 12 communities. Through the sale of compost
or mulch end products, communities can recoup
some of the costs associated with yard debris
collection and processing. Selling compost or
mulch end products also emphasizes to residents
and landscapers the value of such material. (Table
4.4 lists the compost and mulch end products and
per ton revenues.)
Composting
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling? and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U.S, Communities
Many of the rural communities that compost
their yard debris use low-technology systems,
which require less intervention, and are thus
generally less expensive. However, materials take
longer to compost in low-technology systems, and
a lack of adequate oxygen in the compost pile can
result in the generation of malodorous compounds.
Turning a pile more frequently can reduce odor
problems.6 In addition, because yard debris and/
or finished compost is often not screened or ground
in low-technology systems, the finished product
may not be as uniform as that produced with other
methods. Low-technology composting systems are
often used in communities that have secluded
composting sites, much available land, limited
available capital equipment and labor, and little or
no intention of selling the finished product. All
the communities studied that processed yard
trimmings using low-technology methods,
including Takoma Park, Bowdoinham, La Crescent,
and Monroe, did not sell the finished compost but
allowed residents to take it free of charge.
Through the sale of compost or mulch
end products, communities can recoup
some of the costs associated with yard
waste collection and processing. West
Linn, Oregon earned $16,000 in 1989
from the sale of compost products.
Of the communities studied, fifteen compost
yard debris in windrows (elongated piles) using a
medium level of technology. Contaminants (such
as plastic and paper) are removed, and material
may be screened or ground prior to forming into
windrows. In medium-level systems, windrows are
turned a minimum of four times per year to control
oxygen levels and temperature, and to hasten
decomposition. After the decomposition process,
windrows are often formed into curing piles until
the microbial activity slows down to the point at
which the compost is deemed stable. An end
product, suitable for landscaping and gardening
purposes, is complete in less than 1 year, and often
in 4 to 8 months. Five of the communities that
utilized a medium processing technology sold their
compost. For example, Cape May County, New
Jersey sells its compost for $7 per cubic yard. West
Linn, Oregon earned $16,000 in 1989 from the sale
of compost products, which it sells to residents for
$5 per cubic yard or $0.50 per 3-cubic-feet bag.
High-technology systems are utilized in three
of the communities studied: Austin, Texas;
Berkeley, California; and Naperville, Illinois.
(Austin co-composts leaves and sewage sludge.) In
higher-technology composting systems, windrows
are turned frequently (e.g., once per week), internal
windrow temperatures are monitored daily, and
nutrients and/or water are added as needed to
hasten decomposition. Higher-technology systems
can handle more material per year than lower-
technology systems on the same amount of land
because the compost is complete in much less time.
High- and medium-technology composting systems
are often used in urban and suburban communities,
where high volumes of yard debris combined with
a shortage of space demand a time-efficient process.
These systems offer an additional advantage for
urban- and suburban-based composting sites, which
are often located near populated areas; the more
frequent turning aerates windrows and reduces
odor problems.
Both medium- and high-technology composting
systems can produce higher-quality mulch and
compost end products that are more readily mar-
ketable. Two of the three cities with high-technol-
ogy systems, Austin and Berkeley, sell their fin-
ished compost, while five of the communities with
medium levels of technology give the finished
product away for free. Austin sells its compost end
product under the trade name "Dillo Dirt." The
Wastewater Treatment Department received $12,000
in 1990 from the sale of compost products.
Finished compost can also be utilized by the
municipality. A number of public works depart-
ments use mulch and finished compost in parks
and recreation areas, and alongside highways. An
estimated 80 percent of Newark, New Jersey's
compost is distributed to 266 community gardens
and 540 backyard gardens through Rutgers
University's Urban Gardening Program. A small
amount of Newark's compost is sold to private
businesses for $2 per cubic yard.
Landfill cover represents a lower-value use for
finished compost, as practiced in several commu-
nities. In 1991 Bowdoinham, Maine began to
Composting
-------
Community
Austin, TX
Berlin Township, NJ
BowKJet, CO ,
Bowdolnham, ME
Columbta.MO
Dakota County, MN
King Co., WA
:Le CwwonJ, MN '• -
Lafayette, LA
Uneohvrils
Lincoln Park, NJ
ItecktsnburgCo., NO
Monroe, Wl
HipervilleJL s '•
Newark, NJ
PwkasHf, PA
Peterborough, NH
PhltadftlphtofPA $.,
Portland, OR
Providence, Rl
San Francisco, CA
Settle, WA
Sonoma Co., CA
TakomBP«rk,MD
Upper Township, NJ
W«p8fconet«,OH
West LJnn, OR
West Ptrtm Beach, FL(I)
Key:
BR = Brush Med ~ Medium
Public/
Private
Compost
Site
Public
Private
Public
Publfe
Public
Putofc
Public/Private (f)
Public
Private
* .. Putrfte -
Public
5 Public
Public
Public
Public
Public ,
Public
, *>Mb.lte/Pvt "
-
» Public -
Private
__
1 .. Private *,'
Private
I ; Public
Public
': " Public s
Public
- - Public -'
NA- Not Available
Table 4.3
Compost Site Characteristics
Mulching/
Composting
Operation
(a)
Windrow
Windrow
Windrow
1 Mutchod
Pile
Mulcted '
Pile
Wlrrtftow/FajTOs^g)
Varies
,. ^ Pte
Windrow
Matefted -
Windrow
Mulched ,
Pile
; „ Windrow ,
Windrow
Windrow *
—
Windrow
Varies
Windrow
Windrow
s Windrow/Pite
Windrow
Farm
Windrow
Mutebed
Technology
(b)
Hi/Co-composting
H«h
Med.
Low
Low
Low
Med.
, - Msd.
Varies
tow , ,>
Med.
Med.
Med.
>_ Med.
Low
•,
-------
Notes:
(a) Windrow - Collected organic materials are placed In one or more rows for decomposition; Farm(s) - Organic materials are tilled Into or spread over fields at one
or more local farms; Mulched -- Materials are ground and distributed without further processing; Pile -- Organic materials are placed into one or more large piles.
(b) Low technology -- Materials are placed In piles or windrows (either screened or not) and turned up to four times per year. Materials take at least 1 year to compost.
Medium technology - Materials are often ground or shredded and sometimes watered before forming Into windrows or piles. Windrows or piles are turned
approximately four times per year, and compost Is ready In 4 to 8 months.
High technology - Material Is screened and/or watered before forming Into windrows or piles. Additional nutrients can be added to speed the compost process.
Temperature Is measured frequently, and windrows or piles are turned with machines approximately once per week. The final product Is screened and ready
In 1 to 4 months.
(c) The percentage of composted yard waste consisting of contaminants that require disposal.
(d) Local sites service the municipality; regional sites service a number of jurisdictions.
(e) Commercial businesses In Berlin Township, Bowdolnham, Fennimore, La Crescent, Mecklenburg County, Sonoma County, and Upper Township can use
the composting sites free of charge. Commercial businesses In Berkeley pay $25 per ton, in West Linn businesses pay $12 per ton for brush, and businesses
In Dakota County pay fees ranging from $3.50 per cubic yard for loose yard waste to $5.50 per cubic yard for bagged yard debris.
(f) Dakota County owns two compost sites that are privately operated. Three additional sites are privately owned and operated.
(g) Yard waste brought by residents to the drop-off site is wlndrowed; leaves collected at curbslde are spread on local farms.
(h) Seattle's contract fee at the Cedar Groves Compost Facility covered the first 24,000 tons only; the City was charged an $18 per ton tipping fee for tons delivered
above 24,000. The contract was renegotiated In 1992.
(I) Palm Beach County's Solid Waste Authority (SWA) charges the City of West Palm Beach a tipping fee of $37 per ton for yard waste dropped off at Its sludge
co-composting facility, which began operations in October 1991. The data given above are for the SWA's 5-acre mulch site at the North County Landfill.
-------
Community
Austin, TX
Berkofoy, CA
Berlin Township, NJ
Sowtder, CO
Bowdolnham, ME
CotumWa.MO *
Dakota County, MN
Fennlmor*, W
King Co., WA
Ln Crescent, MN ''
Lafayette, LA
JjocQta, N£ I .'.
Lincoln Park, NJ
:M«*)»nlH(rg Co., NC
Monroe, Wl
NspejrvBl*, IL
Newark, NJ
Perktwfe.PA
Peterborough, NH
Phll«d»)phl8, PA *
Portland, OR
Providence, Rl
San Francisco, CA
^BoMM WA is
,$*wUW> WA *
Sonoma Co., CA
TakonwPark, MB
Upper Township, NJ
Wapatroneta, OH ;
West Unn, OR
West Palm 8e»ch, FL
Kay:
Compost or
Mulch
End Product
Compost
Compost, Mutch
Compost
Mufch , ,,
Compost
, . Mulch, Wildlife Habitat
Compost, Mulch
Compost, Mulch
"*'$ ••: * Ooropost
Compost for Public Facilities
s"; *: Compostfor Land&l, Mulch «
Compost, Mulch
; Corapoet, Muk^i {
Compost
„ ,, v , Oompost, MOfefe^
Compost, Mulch
WJ FarmAppfioation,Muteh ,
—
**$ , Corapos*, Mu(* ,\,
Compost, Mulch
Compost, Mulch
i* •"!' - OoiHpost ' T.
Compost
'* Compost, Mulch, Wildlife Habita'
^ faros AppScattort s
Compost, Mulch
|i Mufch - - ;
Table 4.4
Compost/Mulch End Products
Compost or
Mulch
End User
Landscapers, Retailers
Whofesaters, Wurseries, eusteesses, Flestde«ts.^
Residents
flesidente, Public Fadttttes
Residents
Residents, Landscapers
Privately marketed
, /c^w Resfetente - v\ ^_
Public Facilities
'£ .. ^ taodfii tafldscapefs, %
NA
"f - -. Reskteots, Lan ; Lawtecapere, Farm , " }
„
t ^Restetents, tandscapers, Oomrourlfy Gardens ,f
Residents, Landscapers, Nurseries
Retail and Residents
9, .<• ;f fletaffanrfWhotesafeOuffets >
Landscapers, Farmers, Residents
^ fckj(crt^3-S8 tot
NA
1 ^1 "Compost $1(M?¥, Mulch $4-$6/cy'
$0
Compost: $0 for residents, $2/cy for businesses
..
» $0
Varies; $10/cy for food waste compost
Compost "Zoo Doo" NA, Mulch $0
x ^6/cy(wflotesate),$3/cuWofooti3ag (retail)
$15-$25/cy
$0
Compost $7/cy, Mulch $10/cy
$0
$5/cy or $3/3 cubic-feet
••' $o
cy = cubicyard NA = Not Available -- = not applicable
I
ff
•T3
s-
a
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options' Lessons from 30 U.S, Communities
Chart 4.1
Percent of Municipal Solid Waste Recovered
Percent Recycled
Percent Composted
Notes: Total waste recovery level is utilized for Austin, Newark, and Upper Township. In 1990 Columbia did not track yard debris tonnages mulched.
MSW recovery rates are not available for Naperville, Perkasie, and Takoma Park.
percent of its residential waste stream in 1990.
Communities with extensive landscaping, mature
deciduous trees, and spacious yards generally have
the potential to reach higher composting levels than
other communities.
The following activities have proven success-
ful in enabling communities to divert large portions
of their waste through composting:
• provide frequent curbside collection of yard
debris for composting;
• target all residential buildings for yard debris
collection;
• promote and encourage backyard
composting and "don't bag it" programs;
• offer collection of a variety of yard debris
materials;
• start pilot programs collecting food discards for
composting;
• increase residential, commercial, and institutional
participation (strategies include mandates and
economic incentives); and
• encourage landscapers and businesses to compost.
Frequent and Convenient Collection
The frequency of yard debris pick-up affects the
level of participation and consequently the level of
composting. Setting out yard trimmings for
composting needs to be as convenient for residents
as setting out their refuse. Weekly year-round
curbside collection of organic waste for composting
has proven effective in reaching high recovery
levels in Berlin Township, Takoma Park, West Palm
Beach, and Lafayette. Until June 1990, Takoma
Park collected leaves during the fall months only.
When it added year-round collection of leaves and
grass clippings to its seasonal fall leaf collection
program, the percentage of residential waste
composted increased from 18 percent in 1990 to 24
percent in 1991.
Communities recovering large amounts of yard
debris have collection programs that mirror yard
debris generation patterns. In Southern cities, such
as West Palm Beach and Lafayette, year-round
collection is essential to reach high composting
levels. Lafayette implemented a year-round,
weekly collection program in May 1990 for leaves,
grass clippings, branches, and brush. The program
Composting
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options? Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
was so effective that during the first year of its
operation, the City composted 18 percent of its
residential waste.8 West Palm Beach recovered 18
percent of its residential waste from April 1990
to March 1991 through year-round, twice monthly
yard debris collection. In fiscal year 1989,
Mecklenburg County collected an estimated 1,176
tons of yard debris at its drop-off site. Charlotte,
which has 80 percent of the County's population,
implemented a weekly, year-round curbside
program in January 1991. With the addition of
this program, the County recovered 15,881 tons
of yard debris during the first 6 months of 1991—
almost 14 times the amount collected in 1989.
In northern climates, frequent seasonal
collection can be an effective alternative to year-
round collection. Naperville, Illinois composted
13 percent of its residential waste in 1990 through
weekly collection of grass clippings and garden
trimmings 8 months of the year. The City
collected leaves and brush
during three seasons, an
average of three times each
season. Lincoln Park
composted 30 percent of its
municipal waste in 1990
through mandatory
curbside collection of
leaves, brush, and grass
clippings, at least twice per
month, in the spring and
fall. The Borough
augments seasonal
collection with a dropoff
site at the recycling center
that accepts yard materials
year-round. Sixty percent
of all residential material
composted in 1990 was
collected at curbside; the
remainder was accepted at
the drop-off site. In
contrast, the City of
Philadelphia, which collects
leaves only once per year in
the neighborhoods
considered to have the
highest tree density,
composted less than 1
percent of its residential
waste in fiscal year 1990.
Target All Residential Buildings for
Yard Materials Collection
The three communities collecting yard debris
at curbside from 100 percent of their households—
Fennimore, Upper Township, and Berlin
Township—composted between 13 and 39 percent
of their residential waste.9 The four municipalities
targeting the lowest percentage of their total
households with curbside pick-up, Berkeley (6
percent served), Philadelphia (7 percent served),
Sonoma County (1 percent served), and Lincoln (3
percent served), are among the communities with
the lowest composting rates. Santa Rosa is the
sole city providing curbside yard debris collection
in Sonoma County. However, the pilot curbside
program provides service to only 1 percent of Santa
Rosa's population. The City collected 50 tons of
leaves and 33 tons of wood waste in 1990, less than
1 percent of residential materials recovered.
Chart 4.2
Percent of Residential Waste Composted
50%,
45%,
40%
35%
2 15%
•s
o 10%
.g1 5%
ffi 0%
Notes-. Bowdoinham's composting level is based on its municipal solid waste, which is largely residential.
Lafayette's 6% composting level is based on the program's first 5 months of operation. After the first 11
months the City composted 18% of its residential waste. For Upper Township, Newark, and Philadelphia,
composting levels represent that portion of the waste handled by the public sector. For these
communities, compost tonnage thus may include some commercial waste, and exclude residential waste
handled by the private sector.
36 Composting
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options? Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
Target a Wide Range of Materials
for Collection
Communities collecting more types of organic
waste for recovery generally have higher
composting levels. The seven communities
composting at least 15 percent of their residential
waste stream composted at least three different
types of organic materials. Of the 12 communities
composting more than 10 percent of their
residential waste stream, 9 collect grass clippings
at curbside. Berlin Township composted 30 percent
of its municipal waste in 1990 and collected five
types of organic materials—leaves, grass clippings,
brush, wood waste, and Christmas trees—year-
round at curbside. Austin, which collected only
one type of organic waste at curbside, composted
only 2 percent of its residential waste. Table 4.1
specifies the types of organic materials collected.
Berlin Township composted 30 percent
of its municipal waste in 1990 and
collected five types of organic waste—
leaves, grass clippings, brush, wood
waste, and Christmas trees—year-round
at curbside.
Problems can arise as communities expand the
number of materials targeted. For example, in
response to a statewide yard debris ban, Naperville,
Illinois began to collect and compost grass
clippings, leaves, and brush. However, the City
received some complaints from residents near the
compost site about odor problems, which had
developed due to composting an unbalanced ratio
of grass clippings, leaves, and brush. Because grass
clippings are high in nitrogen, they decompose at
a faster rate than other yard trimmings. Odor can
be avoided by providing an adequate supply of
oxygen and a higher percentage of leaves, which
are high in carbon. (Leaves collected in high-
volume months, can be reserved to compost with
grass clippings generated primarily in spring and
summer.) In addition, "grasscycling" and backyard
composting programs can obviate the need for
large-scale composting of grass clippings. (See
Chapter 3 for more information on these programs.)
Communities without accessible markets for
mixed paper can compost these materials.
Bowdoinham residents separate mixed paper such
as junk mail, high-grade paper, paperboard, and
paper towels from other recyclables. These
materials are composted along with food discards
at the landfill; the compost will be used as a landfill
cover when the landfill closes in June 1992.
Composting Food Discards
Food discards constitute approximately 8
percent of municipal solid waste generated
nationwide, and a larger percentage of residential
waste. Some cities generate higher amounts. An
estimated 31 percent of residential waste and 19
percent of commercial waste generated in San
Francisco is food waste.
Recovery of food discards through composting
can elevate waste diversion rates. Communities
both within our sample and outside have diverted
large amounts of food discards from disposal
through composting programs. In addition,
communities that encourage backyard composting
of food scraps (excluding meat scraps and bones)
or vermicomposting (the use of worms to digest
and convert food waste into a fertilizer product),
can reduce their waste collection and disposal costs
and can increase recovery rates by reducing the
amount of solid waste generated. Residents can be
instructed in backyard or home composting
techniques to ensure optimal compost processing
and to avoid odor and vermin problems.
Backyard composting of food discards is
practiced in rural, suburban, and urban
communities. While cities such as Newark, New
Jersey encourage backyard composting of food
scraps, other cities such as San Francisco encourage
vermicomposting. In 1990 San Francisco estimated
that residents were composting 4,414 tons of food
discards and 2,164 tons of yard materials at home,
an amount equivalent to 6 percent of all material
recovered from the residential sector that year. (See
Chapter 3 for a discussion of backyard composting
programs.)
Food discards can also be collected at curbside.
Private New Jersey hog farmers collect food scraps
from residents in Philadelphia and Kodiac
Recycling collects food scraps from residents in
Composting
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U£. Communities
Peterborough for recovery as animal feed. In 1990
Sunflower Recycling Inc., a private hauler in
Portland, Oregon, collected and composted food
scraps from 105 City households. Sunflower
provided residents with used 5-gallon paint or soap
buckets free of charge, and charged residents an
additional $2 for collecting the food scraps. Food
scraps, including bones and fat, were collected in
a separate side bin on a refuse hauling packer
truck. To process the material. Sunflower mixed
food scraps with sawdust (in a ratio of 2:1) in two
7-cubic-yard retrofitted cement mixers. The food
waste could be finished in 2 to 3 weeks; however
workers tended not to turn the material frequently,
so the composting process took 2 months on
average. The finished compost was sold at $10 per
cubic yard. Sunflower collected an estimated 5 tons
of food scraps per month in 1990.
Food waste can also be collected at
curbside. Private New Jersey hog
farmers collect food waste from
residents in Philadelphia and Kodiac
Recycling collects food waste from
residents in Peterborough for recovery
as animal feed.
The Town of Bowdoinham composted food
scraps collected from a local college cafeteria with
either mixed waste paper or leaves from the Town,
in order to compare the resulting finished
composts. Although the Town no longer composts
food scraps from the college, Bowdoinham
composts food scraps dropped off by residents
each Saturday at the Town's Recycling Barn.
King County, Washington, including Seattle,
is actively pursuing new ways to recover food
discards. In FY 1992 the County allocated $800,000
to research the potential for food scrap composting.
King County collected and composted food scraps
generated during its 1990 County Fair in order to
determine whether a consistent compost could be
produced and whether it was feasible to compost
food scraps on a large scale.
See side bars "New York's Park Slope
Neighborhood Intensive Recycling Project" and
"Lessons from Abroad" for additional discussion of
food waste recovery programs.
Legislative Mandates and
Economic Incentives
Communities have implemented economic and
legislative incentives to encourage residents and
businesses to source-separate organic materials, and
to encourage haulers to collect them for recovery.
Of the eleven communities with composting rates
of at least 7 percent, three (Berlin Township,
Lincoln Park, and Fennimore) require residents to
participate in source-separation programs, six (West
Linn, Bowdoinham, La Crescent, Dakota County,
Perkasie, and King County) charge volume-based
refuse rates, and Seattle has both variable refuse
rates and requires the source-separation of yard
debris. West Linn and Dakota County require
haulers to collect source-separated yard debris from
their refuse customers. (See side bar on Dakota
County's User Fee Schedule.) West Palm Beach
alone among the top eleven has a voluntary
program without volume-based rates. West Palm
Beach can attribute its high composting rate to
twice monthly, year-round curbside collection of
yard trimmings from 75 percent of its residents.
Volume-based refuse rates are at the heart of
West Linn's successful composting program. In
cooperation with the City, the private refuse and
recycling hauler charges less for the collection of
source-separated leaves and brush than for the
collection of refuse. In order to avoid the fee for
curbside collection of refuse and yard debris, many
residents choose instead to compost yard debris in
their yards (an estimated 15 to 20 percent of all
yard debris was composted in yards in 1990) or to
deliver materials to the composting site. Leaves,
grass clippings, brush, and wood waste are
accepted at the drop-off site for a lower fee than
that charged by the private hauler for curbside
pick-up. In 1990 West Linn composted 20 percent
of its municipal waste (excluding backyard
composted tonnages), primarily through drop-off
collection.
King County, Washington has developed
several types of drop-off collection programs for
areas not serviced with curbside collection of yard
materials. The County's experience with its mobile
Composting
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options' Lessons fromSQ U.S. Communities
, Lessons from Abroad
Information generated from a number of European communities provide well-tested models for
U.S. food scrap composting programs. Due to problems marketing finished MSW compost, many
European cities are now targeting collection and composting of segregated "biowaste" (yard debris
and food discards and sometimes soiled waste paper). In 1988 at least 71 source-separation projects
were operating in West Germany* Approximately 430,000 households, which composted an estimated
200 pounds per person per year, were served by these projects. The largest program, in Heideiburg,
serviced over 100,000 residents.
Residents of single- and multi-family households in some cities in the Netherlands keep food
and yard materials segregated from refuse by placing these organic materials in bins ranging in
size from 10 to 140 liters. Two workers operate automated collection compactor vehicles, which
empty two containers simultaneously into the trucks. The average loading time for the two containers
is 24 seconds. Refuse is either co-collected with food and yard materials in compartmentalized
vehicles or collected on alternating days. A "bio bin" system developed in Germany recovers organic
yard and food materials only, using an automated two-bin collection system for organic wastes and
refuse. Most residents take recyclables to local drop-off sites.
Following the lead of Europe, cities in Canada are beginning to initiate extensive organic material
recovery programs, The metropolitan Toronto area located in Ontario, Canada^ initiated a 12-month
wet waste pilot project in November 1991. Approximately 1,500 households in Toronto receive
separate collection for recyclables, food and yard materials, and refuse. Separation of the wet waste
is expected to reduce household waste 30 percent by weight in addition to the 15 percent being
diverted through the recycling program,
, Guelph, Ontario implemented a pilot wet and dry recovery program. Residents place alt wet material
(including food scraps, yard debris, soiled paper, and disposable diapers) in one container and dry recyclables
and waste in a second. Wet materials are composted, while dry recyclables are sorted and marketed.
Participation rates have been extremely high (99 percent), arid these systems have recovered between 83
and 96 percent by weight of all organic materials. Guelph has expanded its wet and dry program, and
will service all City households by the end of 1993. (See Chapter 5 and Appendix E for further information
on wet and dry recovery systems and their costs.)
Sources; Office of TechnbiogyAssessment, Facing America's Trash: What's Next for Municipal Solid Waste (Washington, D,C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1989), 188-189; Anne Scheinberg et at., "European Food Waste Collection and
Composting Programs," Resource Recycling, December 1990; and^Wet Waste Collection Pilot Launched by Metro,* BioCycfe,
December 1990,
drop-off depots, which rotate to different sites,
emphasizes the importance of convenience and
financial incentives for maximizing residents'
participation in such programs. Drop-boxes—
located at refuse disposal sites—serve rural areas,
while a mobile yard debris collection program
serves certain suburban and urban locations. In
1989, the first year of the program, residents could
deliver yard debris for free one week per month
at one of five mobile drop-off depots. Over a 6-
month period that year, King County recovered a
total of 2,801 tons of material at five mobile units
(an average of 560 tons per unit). In 1990 the
County instituted a $5.25 per cubic yard tipping fee
(estimated at $42 per ton10)—almost as much as the
refuse tipping fee of $47 per ton—reduced service
at its mobile units from one week to one weekend
per month, and cut back from five mobile units to
four. During a 6-month period in 1990, the County
recovered only 683 tons (an average of 171 tons per
mobile drop-off unit), almost 76 percent less than
in the 6-month period the previous year.11
Yard debris disposal bans can lead to high
composting recovery rates. By February 1992, 15
states, plus the District of Columbia, had enacted
yard waste bans. (Connecticut, New Jersey and
Composting 39
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 IT,S, Communities'
Chart 4.3
The Effect of Composting Landscapers'
Yard Debris on Composting Levels
35%..-
30%. -
25%. .
20%. .
15%. -
10%-.
5%. .
Lincoln Park
Upper
Township
d Residential Yard Debris Corrposted
p| Landscapers' and Commercial Yard Debris Composted
Hour. For Upper Township, percentages are based on total waste generated.
For Lincoln Park, percentages are based on MSW generated. Landscapers'
waste consists of stumps and togs collected by tree trimming companies in
Lincoln Park. Residential yard waste contains some commercial waste delivered
to the drop-orl site.
Pennsylvania ban leaves only.)12 These bans have
proven extremely effective in spurring the
implementation of yard debris collection and
composting programs.
In April 1990, for example, Naperville
implemented weekly collection of garden trimmings
and grass clippings in response
to Illinois' yard debris landfill
ban, which became effective in
June of that year. In 1992, in
order to encourage residents to
compost at home and thus
reduce collection and
processing fees, Naperville
began charging residents $1.50
per bag of yard debris set out.
Encouraging Businesses
and Landscapers to
Compost
In some communities, yard
materials generated by business
establishments and professional
landscapers constitutes a
substantial portion of total yard
debris generated. By allowing private haulers to
deliver their yard materials to drop-off sites for free
or at reduced tipping fees, communities can attract
haulers to composting sites and greatly increase
composting levels. Chart 4.3 indicates the
contribution of landscapers' waste to overall
composting levels in Upper Township and Lincoln
Park, New Jersey. Cape May County, in which
Upper Township is located, allows businesses and
residents to drop off leaves and grass clippings free
of charge at the County-owned and -operated
composting site. Lincoln Park recovered 1,876 tons
of stumps and logs—equivalent to 12 percent of the
MSW generated by the Borough—from tree
trimming companies in 1990. These companies
could drop off materials free of charge. Seattle's
two transfer stations accept yard debris, including
leaves and brush up to 12 inches in length, from
residents and businesses at reduced tipping fees.
Through this program, Seattle composted 15
percent of all waste self-hauled to disposal sites.13
In Dakota County, Minnesota, residents,
landscapers, and haulers can drop off leaves, grass
clippings, garden trimmings, and prunings up to
6 inches in diameter at one of the five compost sites
in the County year-round. They pay a lower
tipping fee at the composting site than at the
landfill. In 1990 residents and landscapers dropped
off 2,489 tons of yard materials at County sites,
User Fee Schedule Helps Dakota County, Minnesota
Receive Loose Yard Debris
in order to encourage private haulers,. lartdscapers, and residents ,
to deliver loose rather than bagged yard debris to its three composting
sites (to reduce compost processing labor and operating costs),
Dakota County has implemented a slidfng-scale tip fee, which ft calls
fts User Fee Schedule; . .„ „ , „_, „ , - ;
User
Haulers
Landscapers
Residents
Loose Yard Debris
$3.50/cubbyard
$3.75/cubfcyarrf
$3.00/cubfc yard of brush
" SS*f",S 'f""t?3$'t
$3.75/ajbicyard
$2,00/cublc yard of brush
Bagged Yard Debris
ff ffyt$f).f f f fj *f
$5.50/cubfeyard
$5,5Q/cubfcyard
$0,15/bag
Jn 1990 Dakota County composted 16,602 tons Of yard debris,
equivalent to 58 percent of the yard debris generated.
Composting
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options' Lessons from30 U.S, Communities
New York City's
Intensive Recycling Project
New York City Is currently conducting an intensive recycling pilot project in which a wide range
of materials, including food scraps, is collected for recovery from 3,500 households in Park Slope,
Brooklyn, Residents participating in the Park Slope recycling project are instructed to place all
food waste in cellophane-lined paper bags distributed by the City, Each multi-unit building is provided
with a sealed plastic bucket in which residents place bags of food scraps at their convenience.
(One- to three-unit buildings are provided with 8-gallon buckets; buildings with more than three units
are provided 20-gallon buckets.) The City collects materials weekly in a 25-cubic-yard rear-end
packer and composts the food and paper bags on 1 acre of land, located on a 40-acre composting
site at the Fresh Kills Landfill. Leaves and wood chips are added as bulking agents. Materials
were initially combined in a ratio of 3 parts leaves to 1 part food, but to reduce odors, the ratio
was changed to 5 to 1.
By March 1992, 5 months into the food waste pilot, the City was collecting an average of 41
tons of food scraps per week from the 3,500 households. Food waste collection has been proceeding
smoothly, with no complaints from residents about odor or vermin problems. (The City will continue
to monitor this situation over the summer months.) Food waste comprises 13 percent of the waste
generated in the pilot area; of this, the City estimates that it is capturing 41 percent. (The overall
waste recovery rate in the intensive recyling district is estimated at 35 percent.) The material
delivered to the site is relatively uncontaminated, probably due to the size of food waste bags (they
are too small to hold other refuse) and the prominent instructions that appear in both English and
Spanish on the side of the bags* Community volunteers encourage participation through the
distribution of leaflets and in-person education. However, in some instances residents have run
out of bags at a faster pace than anticipated, and some buildings have found their central containers
to have inadequate capacity.
Source; Tom Outerbridge (Recycling Programs and Planning Division, The City of New York Department pf Sanitation), personal
communication, January to April 1992.
representing 4 percent of MSW recovered and 15
percent of the total materials composted in the
County that year.
Since October 1990, Lincoln, Nebraska has
allowed residents and landscapers to drop off brush
and other yard materials at its transfer station for
$4 per pick-up load. Although the City only
composted 1 percent of its MSW in 1990,80 percent
of this amount was yard debris self-hauled to the
transfer station.
In some communities, nonprofit organizations
and community groups operate composting sites
that accept commercially generated materials. In
Austin, Texas, residents and landscapers can bring
leaves and grass clippings year-round to a 6-acre
compost site operated by Austin Community
Gardens, a nonprofit horticultural organization.
Residents drop off material free of charge, while
landscapers pay a $35 annual fee. In 1989
landscapers contributed an estimated one-half of the
materials composted that year. The compost is
applied to the 23 public gardens operated by Austin
Community Gardens. In 1989 this organization
composted 5,628 tons of yard debris—67 percent of
total yard debris recovered in Austin.
Conclusion
By integrating the best features of the best
composting programs listed above, communities can
divert a significant percentage of their waste from
disposal while producing a valuable and marketable
Composting
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U.S.
soil amendment. Because yard and food materials
constitute a significant portion of the municipal
waste stream, communities need to target these
organic fractions of both the residential and
commercial waste streams in order to maximize
recovery.
Notes
1This report examines source separation of yard debris and food scrap composting only. It does not provide an overview
or an assessment of mixed MSW or sludge composting.
2In many cases, communities do not weigh yard materials, but rather convert volume to weight using local, regional,
or national conversion factors. See Appendix C for sample conversion factors.
3In contrast, Portland, Oregon, which opened its mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) composting facility in April 1991,
has yet to produce a marketable end product. At the end of January 1992, Portland's composting facility, the nation's
largest operating MSW composting system, stopped accepting garbage due to persistent odor problems. Tests have
shown lead content in the end product exceeding the acceptable standard of 250 parts per million.
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options} lessons from 30 &$« Communities
Chapter Five
Improving Residential
Recycling Levels
Overview
The nation has experienced tremendous growth
in residential recycling opportunities in the last few
years. In 1988 there were a little over 1,000
curbside recycling programs (full-scale and pilot)
operating; by 1991 there were nearly 4,000—a
growth of more than 250 percent in 3 years.1
Drawing on the experience of the 30 communities
studied, as well as model initiatives both in the
United States and abroad, this chapter describes
how municipalities are achieving high residential
recycling levels. (Composting programs, which are
also critical to reaching high levels of materials
recovery in the residential sector, are discussed in
Chapter 4.) This chapter discusses the range of
design options (including set-out method, frequency
of collection, containers, and materials targeted),
and outlines the features that increase participa-
tion and the amount of material collected for
recycling.
Tables 5.1 and 5.2 list residential recycling,
composting, and recovery rates, and select program
characteristics for the 30 communities studied. As
indicated in these tables and Chart 5.1, communities
are recycling up to 42 percent of their residential
waste.2
45%
Chart 5.1
Residential Recycling Levels
Notes: These rates exclude residential materials composted. For Philadelphia and Newark, residential material is publicly collected waste. Bowdoinham's
tonnage includes waste generated from a small number of businesses. For Wapakoneta and West Linn, recycling rates represent MSW recycling rates.
In Naperville and Takoma Park the recycling rate represents that for the city-service area (which includes less than 60% of households), not the whole city.
Residential Recycling 43
-------
Table 5.1
Residential Materials Generated and Recovered
Community
Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential
Year Waete Materials Materials Materials Materials Materials Materials Materials Materials Materials
Data Generated Recycled Composted Recovered Recycled Composted Recovered Recycled Composted Recovered
Collected (TPY) (TPY) (TPY) (TPY) (ByWt.) (ByWt.) (ByWt.) (Ibs/HH/yr.) (Ibs/HH/yr.) (Ibs/HH/yr.)
Austin, TX
BwkaJsy.CA
Berlin Township, NJ
Boulder, CO
Bowdolnham, ME
CglwnWa,MO
Dakota County, MN
F*nntm9tw>wi
King County, WA
U Crescent, HH
Lafayette, LA
UncpJn,NE
Lincoln Park, NJ
MecktenburgCo,,NC
Monroe, Wl
Najwrvlll*. It
Newark, NJ (b)
PertuwisvPA •.;
Peterborough, NH
PhJtadeIphl»^PA{b) >
Portland, OR
Providence, Rl •,
San Francisco, CA
FY89
mi
1990
1890
FY90
FY8&
1990
1990
1990
1990
FY90
1890 I
1990
1990
1989
1990
1989
1990"
1990
FY96
1990
% ;18BQ,*
*1990
254,464
NA
6.035
29,204
NA
30,85?"
113,487
€40 .>
646,109
1/W9/
34,651
| 135,860 ;
7,750
292,897
3,802
39,020
146,654
s.isa
2,003
- 828,054
NA
-.» - is \ ttl,-677 •-,
308,099
13,387
NA
' 1,053
, 7,265
NA
. 3,242 .
18,976
1$4
77,328
3Q9S
2,440
' 4,* I
NA
,, , $,19.1 ^ .
113,739'
5
•. NA
17
,,' 25,
NA
i' 11 '
17
^X 25
12
>:•'' i- t&
7
'•• < '1 85
18
"/ ' 7
21
', \'st
5
, $ -. ' 31
42
•> ' •• ^ •" g
NA
!•* H:,10V ,
35
2
NA
39
- - 8
NA
' , NA
12
25 %
7
13 '
6
, •• , 0
31
NA
11
..I3
5
2t
0
- 0
NA
> i •, 0
2
7
NA
56
33
NA
11
29
, 51
19
41
13
1 3
49
7
32
32
10
52
42
6
NA %
10 "•
37
135
NA
1,170
415
NA
252
380
337
408
,394'
165
"153
662
-186
376
* 431
133
494
941
- 16.7
NA
267, <•
650
42
NA
2,599
131
NA
NA
282
348
254
184
150
12
1,121
0
195
316
145
335
0
5
NA
, 0
43
177
NA
3,769
547
NA
252
662
596
662
578
315
115
1,782
1S6
572
BOB
278
829
941
172
NA
267
693
Sonoma County, CA
Takoma Park, MD
Upper Township, NJ (b)
West Unn, OR
1990°
1990
1-890* •
1990
9/89-8/90
1990
124,845
6*879
NA
69,713:'
18,571
M 1,269'
2,527
MA
1,507
36,780
402
884
NA
1,474
12,484
18,973
2,475',
3,411
NA
2,981
: -15,245
15
37
NA
0
i. 181
13
NA
NA
18
45
15
,38
50
NA
NA
22"
634
232
1,309
NA
489
230
HH - HousehhoM NA - Not Available TPY - Tons Per Year Wt. -Weight
295
5
343
458
NA
478
1,017
929
237
703
1,767
NA
967
1247
Key:
FY - Fiscal Year
Note*:
Residential tonnages above may exclude some waste generated by the residential sector, such as waste generated by apartment buildings (e.g. in Takoma Park, Philadelphia, Providence and Newark), and self-haul waste
(e.g. Seattle and Austin). For community-specific explanation of waste generation see Appendix C.
(a) Based on total households in the community.
(b) All tonnage figures and recycling, composting, and recovery rates represent materials handled by the public sector. Because public sector material in Upper Township includes recydables collected from 222
businesses, which is over 5% of households served, figures for Upper Township are excluded from all graphs in this chapter. See Appendix A for definition of public sector waste.
-------
1
[
1
Table 5.2
Select Residential Recycling Program Characteristics
Residential MSW Volume-based
Year Recycling Recycling Refuse Type Container # of Private
Data Rate Rate Mandatory Collection of Recycling Deposit * of Public DO Sites/
Community Collected (%bywt.) (%bywt.) Program Rates Program Legislation DO Sites Scrap Yards
(a) (») <« (c)
Austin, TX FY89 5 NA No No CS,DO,BB,Sa/R No 0 33
B*rli#toy,CA FY91 NA - ZCt No Y«s -, CS.DQ.BB.Saffll Yes 1 5
Berlin Township, NJ 1990 17 28 Yes No CS.DO No 1
BouJder.CO 1S» & 1& No *fc ; CS.DOJ3B Nft ft 22$)
Bowdoinham, ME FY90 NA 43 No Yes CS,DO,Sa/R Yes 2(e) 0
Columbia, «0 ,FY90 tt NA No i*to CSJ3O,BB ¥«s 0 7
Dakota County, MN 1990 17 20 No Yes CS,DO.BB,Sa/R No 1 Numerous
Fwntnw*, 1H , 19» 25 3$ Yes ' ,*fc 65,00 /No' * 0
King County, WA 1990 12 22 No Yes CS.DO No 7 49
U CfMWrt, MN 1990 \ " & 81- Nft ¥*$ - CfcQQ,5#H Na 2 0
Lafayette, LA FY90 7 8 No No CS.DO.BB No 0 5
LmcaiitpajkjJiu ia» " ; a, ; , 11 Y«S ,;j*3 es.DO ^ND 1 q
Lincoln, NE 1990 18 32 No No CS.DO.BB No 16
Mecklenburg Co, ttC 19» - , - 7 16 , No - ; tto BB>Sa!fl No 16 21
Monroe, Wl 1989 21 25 Yes No CS.DO.BB No 1 1
ftapetvHto.tt M£6< t: m • < , (s(A % f4» ' , , **$ 6S,£3C5 No G f
Newark, NJ 1989 5 (f) NA Yes 'No CS,DO,BB,Sa/R No 1 50+
P«ri«rie»l»A 18» ' tf- NA , Yes v ; ¥BS CS.OO " No 1 " 0
Peterborough, NH 1990 42 19 Yes(g) No DO(h) No 1 0
Philadelphia, PA FYS6 ^ 6(f) , , & ;; Yes Na CS,DO,BB,Sa/R % Ho * 30
Portland, OR 1990 NA 29 No Yes CS.DO.BB Yes 0 147
?««*»»«*,» im *0 N* Nft ' Yes ^ , 8fr CS^OM ^ ' N» Mi)
San Francisco, CA 1990 35 25 No Yes CS.DO.BB Yes 0 30+
StisMtetWA t 1990 _ „ ^ 3t ^ m << m , , Y6S : 05,00,86,8^(1 • , No 2 100*
Sonoma County, CA 1990 15 11 No Yes CS.DO.BB.Sa/R Yes 5 10
T«kom»P»fh,MB nm-f,^-- 1» s'*Nft, Yes - - ,«o - CS,00 ^Nft t 0
Upper Township, NJ 1990 37 (f) NA Yes No CS.DO No 1 0
WtpakofWt^OH - mwm : NA ** -" 15 No , ' Ye$ DO 'M» ^ 1 o
WestUnn,OR 1990 NA 30 No Yes CSDO Yes 1 0
W<^FWm8»aeft,JV ,4«04«91 < ^4 - - ' 2> 1 -No ?*>. 08,00,88^^- No 4 , 4
/f.y;
BB - Buy-back center(s) CS - Curbside collection DO - Drop-off site(s) FY . Fiscal Year
NA- Not available Sa/R - Salvage/reuse operation(s) wt.. weight -- Not applicable
Note*:
(a) Recycling rates exclude material composted. MSW recycling rates only are available in the cities of Berkeley, Bowdoinham, Portland, Wapakoneta, and West Linn.
(b) Residents must source-separate certain materials. Haulers in Dakota County, Portland, and West Linn are required to collect recyctables but set out by residents is voluntary.
Residents in Peterborough utilizing the Town dump must segregate recydables; however some residents choose not to self-haul refuse to the Town dump.
(c) The number of private drop-off centers may exclude numerous deposit container depots.
(d) An additional 225 sites are located on the University of Colorado campus.
(e) In 1991 Bowdoinham closed one of the dropoff sites.
(f) Represents recycling level of only publicly collected waste (see Data Definitions in Appendix A).
(g) Source separation of recydables is mandatory for residents utilizing the town refuse/recycling center. Approximately 70% of residents utilize the center.
(h) Two private haulers offer curbside collection to 1 00 to 200 households.
(i) This site accepts only motor oil.
{
i
K
^
1
1
f
a
a
*n
8
P
JO
-------
Table 5.3
Residential Curbside Recycling Program
Community
Curbside
Initiation
Year
(.)
Total
House-
holds
House-
holds
Served
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No'
Ves'
No "
NO
F
MWW
V
A.V
F
V
V •{
None
F
ton
F
ton
F
"None
V ,
F
' V
V
V
F
40
m
97
60
95
,62
75
100
80
74';
62
% 95
85
i 75
16
80
93 ,r
74
»%tr
83
: 54 ( FP
Public
Public -.'' -
Private (v) FP
Bid.-Building
NP - Nonprofit company
F - Fines
V- Volume-based refuse rates
FP - For-profit company
wk - week
FY. Fiscal Year
- - Not Applicable
Kay:
A-Awards
NA-Not Available
Notn:
This chart excludes the communities of Peterborough, NH and Wapakoneta, OH, which operate drop-oil programs. Two private haulers otter curbside recycling collection to a limited number of Peterborough
residents. Lincoln Park, NJ offers residents curbside collection of newspaper only.
(a) Berkeley began curbside collection of newspaper in 1973. Other materials were first collected at curbside in 1978. Ten of King County's 29 municipalities initiated curbside programs in 1989. Lincoln,
NE has initiated only a pilot-scale recycling program. In Naperville, IL, one-quarter of the City received curbside service in 1986; citywide service began in 1989. In San Francisco, CA, 1 percent of
the City's households received curbside service from 1981 to 1986. In Columbia, MO, a pilot program servicing 3,700 households was initiated in 1985. The program went citywide in 1986. In Newark,
NJ, a pilot program for newspaper recycling began in December 1987.
(b) Households served by municipal or County curbside program.
(c) Number of households receiving municipal or public service refuse collection.
2.6
&8
20.9
7.0
NA
5.7
NA
NA
5,7
3.4
4.6
6.1
5.3
12X)
2.2
5.9
4.4
5.6
14.5
WA'
11.9
' NA
7.7
hh . Households served
-------
IfUJI!
1 8 c •_
i5<2|iliii^^ffSIol^ i
S S S S S S « ^ S S S S S S
j-
s'i is
gl|£
•s-s- *•
While communities employ a variety of
techniques to recover residential recyclables, those
recycling large portions of their residential waste
typically employ the following strategies:
• providing convenient collection services to all
types of households;
• targeting a wide range :of materials for recovery,
particularly those that comprise a significant
percentage of the waste stream;
• securing high levels of participation in recycling
programs (such as mandating residents recycle,
implementing strong economic incentives, and
conducting a comprehensive educational and
promotional program); and
• identifying outlets for collected materials.
Providing Convenient
Collection Service
Communities utilize a variety of methods to
collect residential recyclables and prepare them for
market. Collection strategies fall into two general
categories: curbside and drop-off. Residents are
most likely to participate in a recycling program
if doing so is as convenient as disposing of their
refuse. To make participation in recycling
programs as convenient as possible, and thus
maximize the amount of material collected,
communities are:
• providing weekly curbside collection of
recyclables if weekly curbside collection of refuse
is provided;
• offering service to all households;
• utilizing set-out and collection methods that
encourage resident participation as well as yield
high-quality, readily marketable materials;
• providing adequate containers for storage and
set-out of residential recyclables; and
• establishing recycling depots or drop-off sites at
disposal facilities if residents self-haul refuse.
Curbside Collection
Tables 5.3 and 5.4 describe curbside recycling
programs, including program initiation year,
number and type of households served, and service
provider. Of the 30 communities documented, only
Residential Recycling
-------
Table 5.4
Curtside Collection Methods for Recyclables
Community
Pick-up
Frequency Pick-up Sams
for Frequency Day Col lee -
Recyclables for Refuse tlon
(a)
Containers
Provided
(Gallons)
(b)
Container
Type
Commlng.
Set-out
(c)
Segre-
gallons
Required
(d)
Sort
En-
Route
(e)
Truck
(Design/Capacity)
Crew
Members
per Vehicle
Austin, TX
Berlin Township, NJ
Weekly
WeeWy
Weekly
Semiweekly (g)
Weekly
Weekly
Yes
Ye*
Yes
Bowdolnham, ME
Weekly
Weekly
Dakota County, MN
Fennlmore, Wl
King County, WA
t*Cra*cw(,IM
Lafayette, LA
Lincoln, ME
Lincoln Park, NJ
Weekly
fltwaakty
Varies
Weekly
Weekly
NA
Weekly
Varies
Semiweekly
Monthly
Monroe, Wl
Naporwllte. IL
Newark, NJ
Philadelphia, PA
Portland, OR
Providence, Rl
Sar»FrariCtoeo,CA
Seattle, WA (north)
Weekly
>> Weekly,
Biweekly (m)
Varies (n!
Weekly
Weekly
Wftetty
Weekly
Semiweekly
NA
Weekly
Weekly
Varies
Weekfy
Weekly
V&t'm
Weekly
Yes
NO
Varies
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
,• No
No
Yes
Yes
Yto
Yes
No
Sonoma County, CA
TakomaPark.MD
Upper Township, NJ
Wa«tUnn,OR
W. Palm Beach, FL ;
Weekly
(P)
<• {p} -
Semiweekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weakly
Semiweekly
Yes
l\. Yes
No
'>>< No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No (I)
Vas
20
14
No
' Few oj
21
45
33,42,90 (j)
20
34
Mo.
No
,14
12
" No
8
NO
6
(6)
14
M «
36
' ,60
Varies (q)
*«
No
t4
18
Bucket
Waxed Cardboard Sin
Bin
Bftt
Bin
attackable Bins,. Bin
3 Stackable Bins
^ flTo
3 Stackable Bins
Bin
Bin
Bucket
Bucket
Bin
Sift
3 Stackable Bins
3 Stackable Bins (q)
Bucket
Bin
Bin
Yes 2 No Eager Beaver 15-cy Recycler 6 Trailers 2
No 3 Yes 13-cy, 15-cy lodalTrucks 1-2 (a)
Yes 3 Yes 15-or 23-cy Eager Beaver Truck and a 10-ton Dump Truck NA(h)
No 3 Yes Retrofitted Compactor Truck 2]
Yes 5 No 1-ton 15-cy Dump Trucks 1
m 6 Yes wool Trailer attached 10 Truck z
No 4 Yes Varies Varies
Yes 5 Yes ilsad Beer/Pop Truck 2
Yes Varies No Varies 1
No 4 Yes Retrofitted Vehicle 3
No 3 Yes 15-cy Eager Beaver Trailers 3
Yes (k) 2 Ma Retrofitted Packer, Trailer 1 :
- Dump Truck 3
Yea 2 No 28-cyLodal Trucks 1 ^
Yes 3 No Modified Dump Truck 1
No ;8(l) Yes Compartmenlafized Trailer pulled by a 1-lon Truck 3
Yes 2 No 23-cy Eager Beaver Trucks and Eager Beaver Trailer 3
Vanes Vades Y« Traitor 4
Yes 2 No 23-cy and 32-cy Lodal Trucks 3
No 7 Yes Varies 2
Yes 2 No 31-cy Labrie Trucks 1
i Yes 2 NO 31 cyLodaf Truftks 1
Yes 4 Yes 18-and 31-cy Trucks 1
>• Yea i f No Packers 1 =
Yes 3 Varies 44- and 50-cy Loaders with 3 Compartments 1
, Yes 3 No * 20-eyKann Qurb Sorter Truck 3
Yes 3 No Two 20-cy Packer Trucks 3
No x ; S Yes v 3-cy and Ifr-cy Packer Trucks 3
Yes 2 No 30-cy Labrie Truck 1
Biweekly - every other week cy-cubicyanj NA - Not available Semlwaekly »twice per week -- Not applicable
Natsa:
(a) Recyclables are collected on the same day as refuse collection.
(b) Total capacity.
(c) "Commingled set-out* means thai at a minimum, glass and metal food and beverage containers are set out in one recycling container.
(d) The number of segregations citizens must make when setting out recyclables at the curb, excluding the set-out of appliances, white goods, tires, car batteries, and motor oil. Often plastic containers are placed in the same container.
(e) Haulers place commingled or separated recyclables into more than two material-specific compartments on recycling vehicle.
(I) A limited number of households received recycling containers in 1990. In 1991, Austin began to distribute 14-gallon containers; 22 percent of eligible households received containers in that year. In 1992 Austin will collect refuse once per w<
(g) Two-thirds of all routes are serviced by two crew members, one-third is serviced by one crew member.
(h) A total of eight workers collect refuse, recyclables, and yard waste.
(i) Residents are charged afee for 14-gallon recycling bins; 200 residents, 3 percent of households receiving curbside service, had purchased bins by the end of 1990.
(j) In King County bin size varies from city to city. Generally one crew member operates each collection vehicle.
(k) Once ferrous cans and glass were added to the list of recyclables in 1991, residents were required to segregate (rather than commingle) recyclables.
(I) Naperville switched recycling contractors in 1991, and required commingled set-out of recyclables in 3 segregations.
(m) Commingled bottles and cans are collected one week, newspaper and magazines are collected the following week.
(n) Glass and aluminium are collected weekly. Newspaper, magazines, advertising mail, and corrugated cardboard are collected once per month. Recycling containers are available through the Borough.
(o) Some haulers offer 14-gallon containers for free.
(p) The majority of residents receive same day refuse collection.
(q) Recyclable materials are set out commingled in most cities. In Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Heakteburg, and Rohnert Park, residents set out recyclables in 3 Stackable bins. In other cities, residents receive two 5-gallon buckets.
(r) Takoma Park began once per week collection of refuse in 1991 and began to distribute 14-gallon recycling bins.
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 US, Communities
Material
Newspaper
Mixed Paper
Glass
Aluminum
Tin
PET
Total
Frequency of Collection
Recycling Containers
Table 5.5
Seattle's Curbside Recycling Program By Section
North Section South Section
(Tons, 1990) (Tons, 1990)
9,057.2
9,687.8
4,874.2
358.5
745.3
64.0
24,787.0
Material Set-out
Weekly
Three 12-gallon
stacking containers
Commingled glass, aluminum, and
ferrous cans, and PET containers
in one bin; mixed waste paper in a
second bin; newspaper in a
third bin; corrugated cardboard on side.
Collection Vehicle(s)
Avg. No. of HH Served (a)
Participation Rate (b)
Avg. Pounds per HH per Year
Avg. Pounds per HH per Week
Compartmentalized
Recycling Trucks
60,256
89.6%
822.7
15.8
8,315.8
7,514.0
4,222.7
236.6
561.4
99.0
20,949.5
Monthly
One 60- or 90-gallon toter
All glass, PET containers,
aluminum and tin cans,
newspaper, and mixed
waste paper in one
container.
Rear-loading Packers
61,290
77.3%
683.6
13.1
Total
(Tons, 1990)
17,373.0
17,201.8
9,096.9
595.1
1,306.7
163.0
45,736.5
121,546
83%
752.6
14.5
Notes:
Seattle believes that socioeconomic factors (in addition to collection frequency) may contribute to the difference in participation. The north end of
Seattle is considered the University section, and, in general, is a higher income area than the south end.
(a) Seattle records the number of households signed up for the curbside program on a monthly basis. The average number of households served is
the average of these numbers over 12 months of the year.
(b) Participation rate is defined as the sign-up rate—the ratio of the number of households registered for the program to the number of households
eligible. As of June 1991, the participation rate increased to 92.3 percent in the north and 80.4 percent in the south section. In 1989,89.3 percent of
households in the north section and 67.3 of the households in the south section were registered.
Wapakoneta does not provide the option of
receiving curbside recycling service.3
Collection Frequency
The majority of communities in this study with
curbside recycling programs have weekly collection
(see Table 5.4).4
In fact, most of the programs with high
participation and recovery rates have weekly
collection of recyclables. In communities with both
weekly and monthly collection of recyclables,
neighborhoods with weekly collection have higher
participation rates. Participation in Portland's
monthly collection programs averages 23 percent,
while participation in its weekly programs averages
57 percent. In 1990 the north end of Seattle
achieved a 90 percent participation rate in its
weekly program, while the south side experienced
only a 77 percent participation rate in its monthly
program. (Table 5.5 compares participation rates,
tonnage data, and program characteristics for
Seattle's two curbside program).5 Similarly, in
communities that have switched from monthly to
weekly collection, participation rates have
increased. When Naperville switched from
Residential Recycling
-------
Wosfe Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
biweekly to weekly collection in May 1990, overall
monthly program participation increased from 54
percent in 1989, to 75 to 80 percent in 1990.
When participation increases, the amount of
materials collected tends to increase. The tonnage
of recyclables collected in Naperville after its switch
from biweekly to weekly collection increased from
an average of 436 tons per month (for the first 4
months of 1990) to an average of 750 tons per
month (for the subsequent 5 months)—an increase
of 72 percent. The same number of households
were serviced and the same types of recyclables
were collected. When Berkeley, California switched
from monthly to weekly curbside collection during
1988 and 1989, curbside tonnages jumped
significantly, from 2,044 total tons collected at
curbside in FY 88 to 5,984 tons in FY 90. The same
materials and households were targeted both years.
Newark switched from biweekly to weekly
collection of recyclables in October 1991; 20 percent
more material was recovered in November 1991
than in November 1990.
More frequent collection can also increase the
set-out rate and reduce the amount of material set
out per household per collection day. This requires
a collection vehicle to make more stops before
filling up, thus decreasing collection efficiency.
With the switch from biweekly to weekly service
in Naperville, for example, the number of set-outs
per collection day increased by 152 percent, while
the weight of each set-out decreased by an average
of 25 percent. (The total amount of material
recovered from each household grew from 61
pounds per month to 71 pounds per month.)
Additionally, the amount of certain materials
recovered, including corrugated cardboard and
HOPE plastic containers, increased
disproportionately. The Naperville Area Recycling
Center (NARC) explains that the bulkiness of these
materials makes them inconvenient to store. When
recycling collection became more frequent, storage
was no longer a problem and setting out such
materials for recycling collection became as
convenient as setting them out for refuse collection.6
Weekly collection of recyclables appears to be
especially important in communities with weekly
or twice weekly collection of refuse, since residents
may be inclined to dispose of recyclable materials
with refuse, particularly if storage is a problem.
Collection Day
Collecting recyclables on the same day as refuse
does not necessarily increase participation rates or
residential recycling rates. Establishing a consistent
recycling collection day, and conducting an effective
promotional program that instructs residents to set
out recyclables on the designated day, appears to
be more important than collecting recyclables on
the same day as refuse. The cities of Perkasie,
Seattle, and Fennimore, which collect recyclables on
a different day from refuse, all record high
participation and recycling rates. The City of
Portland has concluded that its low participation
rates result from confusion regarding the collection
day as much as from infrequent (monthly)
collection of recyclables in some parts of the City.
While the fact that recyclables are not collected on
the refuse collection day in parts of the City
contributes to this confusion, a more substantial
cause is the lack of a routine collection day within
neighborhoods. Households on the same block
may have different haulers and therefore different
recycling collection schedules. Thus, setting out
recyclables on collection day is not reinforced by
the observed behavior of one's neighbors.
Offer Service to All Households
The more households that receive curbside collection
of recyclables, the more residential materials a
community will recover. Many of these communities
with the highest residential recycling levels, such as
Berlin Township, New Jersey; Fennimore and Monroe,
Wisconsin; La Crescent, Minnesota; Perkasie,
Pennsylvania; and West Linn, Oregon, collect recyclables
from at least 90 percent of their households. (See Table
5.3.) Many of the communities with lower residential
recycling rates collect recyclables from a limited number
of households. In 1990 Philadelphia serviced only 28
percent of households in its public service area, and
recycled only 6 percent of its publicly collected waste.
Communities wishing to raise recycling levels
not only target all households with recycling
collection, but also secure the participation of
serviced households. Chart 5.2 compares net
participation rates (the percent of total households
serviced multiplied by the participation of serviced
households) with residential recycling rates.
Austin serviced only 55 percent of households with
recycling collection in FY 1989; of these, only 40
Residential Recycling
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 UVS. Communities
Chart 5.2
Net Household Participation and Residential Recycling Rate
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
I 0
I i
i I
S. I
% of Total Households Recycling
Residential Recycling Rate
38
S
g
9 S.
o
J3
Notes: Net household participation represents the percent of total households receiving curbside recycling collection multiplied by the participation
rate. For Providence, Philadelphia, Takoma Park, Naperville, and Perkasie recycling rate represents that in the City refuse collection jurisdiction
only, in which 100% of households are serviced. For Philadelphia, the net participation rate represents that in City refuse collection area only. See
Tables 5.2 and 5.3.
percent participated. This resulted in a 22 percent
net participation rate, which explains Austin's
residential recycling rate of 5 percent. The
communities of Berlin Township, New Jersey and
Fennimore, Wisconsin have high participation rates
of 97 and 100 percent, respectively, and are
recovering (recycling and composting) more than
half of their residential waste stream. Participation
in these communities' programs is required by law.
Providence is servicing 94 percent of its
households (100 percent of the City's refuse
collection district), but has achieved a moderate
participation rate of 74 percent. (In addition,
during the base year of study, Providence collected
fewer types of materials for recovery than many of
the communities with higher recovery rates.) In
1990 Providence recycled only 10 percent of its
residential waste. Providence is working to
increase program participation through education
and publicity materials.
On the other hand, the cities of San Francisco,
Seattle, and Boulder are recycling at least one-
quarter of their residential waste streams despite
the fact that their curbside programs serviced only
36, 60, and 73 percent of households, respectively.
In these communities residential recyclables are also
collected through many private drop-off and buy-
back sites.7 Seattle's 31 percent residential recycling
rate is also attributed to the large amount of
material collected at curbside per serviced
household (14.5 pounds per household per week),
primarily due to the collection of many grades of
mixed waste paper.
Residential Recycling
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
Some cities already have plans to expand their
curbside programs. Austin, for example, began
collecting recyclables from an additional 1,500
households in 1991.
Recycling in Multi-Unit Buildings
In many communities, particularly urban areas,
a large percentage of residents live in multi-unit
buildings. Because refuse collection from these
buildings is largely left to the private sector, many
cities overlook large multi-unit buildings in setting
up their residential recycling programs. (See Table
5.3.) However, cities with a large proportion of
residents living in multi-unit buildings will have
difficulty reaching high materials recovery levels
without targeting multi-unit households for
recyclables collection. The City of Austin, for
example, recycled 5 percent of its residential waste
in FY 89 by collecting recyclables from one- and
two-family households; nearly 40 percent of
residents did not receive collection, since they lived
in buildings with three units or more.
Recovering recyclable and compostable
materials from multi-unit buildings is typically
more challenging than collecting recyclables from
single-family units. Variables such as space and
layout, waste hauling contracts, length of resident
tenancy, and janitorial work agreements differ from
building to building. Cities also often hesitate to
intervene in apartment buildings' private waste-
hauling arrangements. Yet programs currently
Model Rural, Suburban, and Urban Residential Recycling Programs
Bowdoinham, Maine, Perkasie, Pennsylvania, and Seattle, Washington represent rural,
suburban, and urban communities, respectively, that have successfully matched recycling strategies
to their individual needs and existing solid waste systems. , ' \ , /
The rural Town of Bowdoinham (pop. 2,189) relies primarily on drop-off refuse collection/ After
experiencing little success with a vountary drop-off recycling program'instituted tn 1985, the Town
established a landfill user fee in 1989, which charges residents $1 per 30-gallon bag of refuse disposed
of at the landfill but no fee to drop off recyclable materials. The town's two private refuse haulers,
which service approximately one-third of the community, offer their refuse customers co-Collection of
source-separated recyclable materials at no charge. These economic incentives have proved extremely
effective; in 1990 Bowdoinham recycled 43 percent and composted 11 percent of its municipal solid
waste. . . - '-' -"'"„' -;,'-,, "'/'
The Borough of Perkasie (pop. 7,878) began its curbside recycling program in January 1988.
By the end of 1989, it was recycling 30 percent and composting 14 percent of its'residential waste.
Perkasie collects a wide range of recyclable materials from all sirjgle-family households, including
newspaper, magazines, third class mail, corrugated cardboard, glass, and aluminumfcans'. Participation
in this suburban community's recycling program is mandatory, and is further encouraged by the
Borough's volume-based refuse collection system. In 1990 Perkasie recycled"31 percent and
composted 21 percent of its residential waste. Furthermore, residential waste generation levels have
been stabilized. " ~ > ;' - "- " - -'"" — > --
The City of Seattle (pop. 515,259) has established a goaf of 60 percent municipal solid waste
recovery by 1998. Using an econometric forecast modef, the City determined that ft could meet
this goal through implementation of a comprehensive program that included curbside recycling arid
yard waste collection, apartment building recycling, transfer station drop-off sites, commercial sector
paper diversion, and backyard composting, The City is well on its way to meeting this ambitious
goal. In 1990 the City recovered 40 percent of its MSW, recycling 31 percent" and composting 14
percent of its residential waste, Seattle believes that convenient collection service,., strong economic
incentives, and an extensive recycling education program are responsible for the success of its program.
The City is currently working to expand recycling activities in multi-unit households and to recover
food waste. " " ',-"-." v -"- "/,";"<•'
Residential Recycling
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
operating indicate that multi-unit buildings can
achieve high levels of materials recovery. Local
government can play an important role in
facilitating these recycling efforts. Our case study
communities' efforts to promote multi-unit recycling
include the following:
• establishing provisions that multi-unit buildings
comply with residential recycling requirements
and recover designated materials;
• providing collection service or requiring private
haulers to provide this service;
• offering haulers economic incentives to collect
recyclables;
• providing buildings with recycling containers and
other equipment;
• offering buildings technical assistance, including
waste audits;
• encouraging building owners and managers to
take an active role in planning and promoting the
program; and
• encouraging buildings to establish recycling
systems that closely parallel existing refuse
collection systems.
Portland, Oregon is currently working to
expand the delivery of recycling collection services
to multi-unit households. Refuse haulers in the
City are required to collect recyclables from only
one- to four-unit buildings. As a result,
approximately one-quarter of all households in the
City receive no recycling collection. (In addition,
15 percent of one- to four-unit households do not
receive collection.) The City has contracted with
Portland State University (PSU) to set up recycling
collection systems in selected multi-unit buildings.
As of June 1991, 330 buildings had been supplied
with recycling systems. The City provides technical
assistance and supplies recycling containers (such
as 90-gallon carts), which PSU delivers to the site.
The hauler selected by the building collects and
markets the materials. (Buildings are not charged
an additional fee for the collection of recyclables.)
Many buildings have set up central recycling
depots in parking lots, while others instruct
residents to bring individual bins to the curbside.
The City budgeted $162,000, equivalent to $27 per
multi-unit household, to set up recycling systems
at 170 buildings containing a total of approximately
6,000 apartment units in 1992.
Portland State University conducted a 3-year
research and demonstration project on multi-unit
recycling. By closely studying 20 representative
multi-unit recycling systems, PSU reached the
following conclusions:
• Both depot and individual collection systems
operate well, but the recycling systems are
generally most effective when they parallel refuse
collection systems. For example, in one building
where newspaper recycling depots were
conveniently located on each floor near garbage
chutes, but other recyclables were collected in the
basement parking garage, one-half of those who
recycled reported that they recycled only
newspapers.
• Participation and diversion levels vary with the
program's user friendliness, the location of the
recycling depot within a building/complex, and
the degree to which the manager promotes the
recycling program.
Over 80 percent of randomly surveyed tenants
reported participating in their buildings' recycling
program. Actual measurements of recycled
materials at representative sites indicated that over
30 percent of waste by weight was diverted. (This
excluded deposit containers and other material
taken to drop-off or buy-back sites.)
(See side bar, "New York City's Intensive
Recycling Project" in Chapter 4 for a description
of a comprehensive multi-material apartment
building recycling program.)
Curbside Set-out and Collection Methods
When implementing a recycling program, an
important first step is to determine which materials
to target for collection and how such materials will
be collected and prepared for market. These steps
are interrelated. Available markets and processing
capabilities will determine which materials to
collect. Targeted materials and market
specifications will influence how recyclables should
be collected and processed.
, A variety of curbside collection systems are
available for recyclable materials. Each collection
and processing system has advantages and
disadvantages. Sorting materials in the household
or on the collection route minimizes the amount
of sorting that must be performed at a processing
Residential Recycling
-------
Community
Table 5.6
Recyclables Set-out and Collection Method
Set-out Method
I
sr
Austin, TX
Berkeley, CA
Berlin Township, NJ
Bowdolnham, ME
CofumbJa»MG ,
Dakota County, MN
F*flnbnon»,WI
King County, WA
LaCW«e*{rt,ilN ..
Lafayette, LA
UneoftvNE
Lincoln Park, NJ
Mecw«niwrfleo,N
Monroe, Wl
NajXMYlll«,IL
Newark, NJ
Two segregations: 1 ) OCC, ONP bundled/bagged; 2) A.F.G commingled in a separate container
\ Ifcree segregations; f}ONPJn(rMitedprbaggerf;2}A,Fini»faxsdOCObox;3}Gtti anolherQCCbox (a)
Four segregations: 1) A.F.G.P in a 20^gal!qn bin; 2\ OCC, PB crushed and bundled together; 3) ONP bundled; 4)MP bundled
, " ..T&Be segresa&nk t} A^; 2) ©; 9}<3NP; eftn^at^^baaged'wparaiielsrir) a&jr» '
Rve segregations, all bagged: 1) ONP, 2) OCC, 3) glossy paper, 4) mixed paper, 5) A,F,G,P,SM,X bagged
" Sx$egtt>gajians: 1)QNP*$0gftd/buadt6dj$
Three segregations: 1) ONP bagged; 2) A.F.P bagged; 3) G bagged in bin
% Five seefegafiQfl&r *) ONP h»tftc$Ff>h) bir»; 3) A,F,3 in bet;4j MPfcagged; 5) OCO seJt?eade,blh6
Either one bin for commingled recyclables or 3 segregations: 1) ONP; 2) MP; and 3) A.G.P
4.<$*$W<»gatfcm$ 1)Sbag)^^A^b^(Q^^i>6a^;4)HPlONPbtindteci*
Three segregations: 1 ) G,P in bin; 2) A,F in bin; 3) ONP in bin
ONP bundled
Philadelphia, PA
ParJtatKLQR 1, |
Providence, Rl
San Francisco, CA *
Seattle, WA
Sonoma County, CA
Takoma Park, MD
West Linn, OR
Four segregations: 1) MP.ONP bundled; 2) OCC bundled; 3) HP boxed/bagged; 4) A.F.G.P.SM commingled in bin
s^ci J*na segregatiM*: IJOJ^fiafiged; 2}QCC bundled; a^a MP;4)OOO; $-5^ color-sorted 0
Two segregations: 1) A,F,G,P in bucket; 2) ONP bundled/bagged
ti -:^&f&i segr^gafions; 1^
-------
Community
Table 5.6
Recyclables Set-out and Collection Method (continued)
Collection Method
Austin, TX
Beriwrtey^CA
Berlin Township, NJ
Bowdolnham, ME
Columbia, HO
Dakota County, MN
King County, WA
Lafayette, LA
Lincoln, HE ':
Lincoln Park, NJ
Mackl*nburQCo,NC
Monroe, Wl
Newark, NJ
Philadelphia, PA
Portend, OR ::
Providence, Rl
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Sonoma County, CA ,
Takoma Park, MD
Upper Township, NJ
West Linn, OR
We»t Palm Beach, Ft
Two sorts: 1) OCC.ONP; 2) A.F.G in compartmentalized Eager Beaver Trailer.
Three sorts: 1J0NP: 2JA(F; 3)f3foacompartrner)lali2edLodaJtrock,
A,F,G,P commingled in Eager Beaver truck; OCC, PB in dump truck, second dump truck for ONP, MP
Tfcrse sorts; JJONP in rear; £) Son skte; 8J A,F on other sftfe, <
All segregated materials are placed in front or rear portion of a dump truck
Materials placedsegregated in cortipanmenteliZBd trailer, OCC in a packer truck
Compartmentalized vehicles vary by hauler
Varies
ti
IS
sf locator-sotted G; 4}A,F; SJ P; 6JQCC; 7* MP; 9) MP,ONP
Three sorts: 1) G,P; 2) A,F; 3) ONP in compartmentalized trailer
IVvo sorts for A and ONP, placed in bin& retrofitted oft to refusa vehlctes
ONP placed in a dump truck
Trtf«re#5rte;J}A>F,air»c^cqmp^^
Four sorts: recyclabtes are separated in different areas on a dump truck
One sort: A.F.G collected commingled one week, ONP the following in Eager Beaver trucks
Poor sorts mcomparftrreiaaized vebtete; 1>5cotor-8orled^4} A,*^,ONP irtapacker; OCC m second packef
Two sorts: 1) A.F.G.P in one compartment; 2) ONP in another on a Lodal or Eager Beaver vehicle
Varied cornpartmentalfeedveWdeS
Two sorts: 1 ) ONP placed on one side; 2) A,F,G,P on other side of a dual side-loading vehicle
. two sorts: 1 J HQ.MP.OW In one compartment; 2) A,G,Pin second cm compartmentalized Lodal truck
Compartmentalized vehicles for segregated recyclables, packers for commingled materials
Three sorts m varierf compartmenftized v^htctes {three compartmjsrtte) , ^
Two sorts: 1) OCC and ONP in rear compartment; 2) A.F.G in front compartment of Kann Curbsorter truck
two sjart^ i) MF*jD«P in picRdf tftJCk; 2) A,F(G,P in sftOOnd packer
Six sorts: 1 ) ONP; 2-5) Color-sorted G; 6) A.F separated in modified garbage truck or Kann Curbsorter
Two sorts: 1}ONP;2) A.S.P irt Utoterecycltng truok
Key:
A = Aluminum CS = Curbside F = Ferrous cans G = Glass HP = High-grade Paper MP = Mixed Paper
OCC = Corrugated Cardboard ONP = Newspaper P = Plastics PB = Paperboard SM = Scrap Metal
X = Other materials including textiles
S
1
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U& Communities
center, and frequently results in lower overall
breakage and reject rates, increasing the net amount
of material marketed. Sorting materials at a
processing center may increase program
participation and speed up collection, but often
requires construction of a more capital-intensive
facility, which may be difficult for a community to
finance.
Table 5.6 details the set-out and collection
methods utilized by the 30 communities studied.
These represent a wide range of strategies, from an
entirely commingled set-out and collection
procedure used on the south side of Seattle, to an
eight-sort set-out system utilized by Naperville,
Illinois, in 1990. Eight of the communities studied
require minimal separation on the household level;
that is, segregation into only two fractions: paper
in one container, and commingled food and
beverage containers in a second container. (In this
report, we have called collection programs
"commingled" when residents are required to set
out food and beverage containers in a single
container.) Four communities require complete
segregation of materials, including color separation
of glass.
Set-out requirements may affect program
participation. Chart 5.3 indicates that while both
programs with simplified set-out arrangements and
those with more complicated requirements achieve
participation rates of 80 percent or higher, all three
of the cities that require more than five segregations
(including color-sorting of glass) have secured the
participation of 75 percent or fewer households.8
These lower participation rates may also be
attributed to factors such as voluntary participation
(all three programs are voluntary) and collection
schedules. The fourth city requiring color-sorting
of glass, West Linn, has an 86 percent participation
rate. Its steep volume-based rates may be more of
a recycling incentive than the color-sorting is a
deterrent. In fact, this may be the case with
programs requiring four and five sorts. Five out
of six of these have volume-based refuse rates.
Many of the cities with the lowest participation
rates are actually those that require commingled
set-out with only two segregations. This can be
explained by the fact that many of these are large
cities with diverse populations, where securing
resident participation can be a challenging task.
Chart 5.3
Curbside Set-out Requirement and Participation Rate
Participation Rate
Number of
Segregations
Residents must
color-sort glass
SB Residential Recycling
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons front 30 UJ$< Communities
Set-out and collection systems affect the overall
recovery of materials. Within the 30 communities
studied, processing facilities that accept segregated
materials report low residue rates of 0 to 4 percent
by weight, while those that accept commingled
materials often rely on mechanized sorting and
report higher residue rates of 0.5 to 16 percent by
weight, largely due to glass breakage.9 If, for
example, the amount of recyclable material
disposed of as residue from Rhode Island 's
processing facility (which has a residue rate of 14
percent) is subtracted from Providence's collected
tonnage and added to their tonnage disposed, the
City's recycling rate would drop from 10 percent
to 9 percent. To increase the value of recyclables
collected, Seattle is requiring its recycling hauler
who services the south end of the City (which
previously utilized a fully commingled system) to
color-sort glass en route; paper contaminated with
broken glass was becoming increasingly difficult to
market. Sorting materials at the household level
or on the truck can increase the net tonnage of
material marketed. (See Chapter 8 and Table 8.17).
In the effort to increase materials recovery rates,
a few communities in Europe, Canada, and the
United States are pilot testing and/or implementing
"wet/dry" collection systems. These programs
typically target more materials for recovery in order
to achieve higher overall recovery rates. However,
due to the commingled collection system utilized,
a larger proportion of collected recyclables and
organics may be contaminated than is the case with
more traditional recycling systems. (See side bar,
'Wet/Dry Collection Systems.")
Provision of Recycling Containers
Providing suitable containers to households for
storage and set-out of recyclable materials may
increase participation and recycling levels. The
majority of the 30 communities studied distribute
recycling containers to households. Table 5.4 lists
container type and size. Storage containers serve
several purposes: (1) they publicize a recycling
program and remind individuals to source-separate
material, thereby increasing program participation;
(2) they assist drivers' identification of recyclable
materials and loading of materials onto vehicles;
and (3) they may increase the amount of material
residents set out per collection day by providing
a convenient and attractive place to store
materials.10
All the communities with the highest
participation rates (over 80 percent), except Upper
Township and Bowdoinham, distribute recycling
containers to residents. In Upper Township,
residents are required by law to source-separate
materials, and set-out is made convenient (only
three segregations are required). In Bowdoinham,
the per-bag refuse fee provides residents an
economic incentive to participate in the recycling
program. Many of the communities with low
participation rates (including Newark, Austin, and
Lincoln) did not distribute containers to residents.
Newark, with the lowest participation (estimated at
16 percent in 1989), had distributed recycling
containers to only 15,000 households.11
Within the 30 communities studied,
processing facilities that accept
segregated materials report low residue
rates of 0 to 4 percent by weight, while
those that accept commingled materials
often rely on mechanized sorting and
report higher residue rates of 0.5 to 16
percent by weight, largely due to glass
breakage.
Container size may influence recycling rates.
Small containers may limit the amount of material
recovered. A container must not only be large
enough to accommodate current levels of material,
but must also accommodate substantial program
growth. Communities have found 5-gallon bins
suitable during the early stages of a recycling
program, but inadequate once new materials are
added to a collection program. Berlin Township's
experience with different containers provides a
striking example of the importance of container
size. When the Township replaced its 5-gallon
buckets with 20-gallon buckets to accommodate
recycling of plastic containers, the amount of
commingled recyclables collected, excluding
plastics, increased 49 percent by weight with the
distribution of the larger buckets.
Residential Recycling 57
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.S* Communities
Wet/Dry Collection Systems
In parts of Europe and Canada, communities have tmptemenFecFa new
recovery system known as "wet/dry" collection. These systems collect all refuse, recyclable, and
compostable components in two or threelractions. In tfie ^o-sjre^m^m$hod7 residents place
all wet wastes, including food scraps, yard waste, and soiled paper, in one container, and all
dry waste, including recyclable components, in a second container. Wet and dry fractions are
collected in one dual-compartmentalized vehicle* Recyclables are separated from the dry fraction
at a processing center; inorganics are screened out of the wet fraction at a composting facility;
and the remaining material is composted* Residuaf materials from the wet and dry fractions,
which came to less than 40 percent of totai materials in the pilot studies conducted in Ouelph,
Ontario and Kokomo, Indiana, are tandfilled. In the three-stream system, residents separate organic
yard and food waste into one bin, dry recycfables into a second, and residual materials into
a third. Materials are collected in two separate vehicles; generally, organic waste and refuse
are co-collected in one vehicle, and commingled recyctabtes are collected in a'second "vehicle,
Wet waste is composted; recyclables are removed from the dry waste; and the refuse is landfilled
In some European countries, residents bring recyciables, such as glass, paper, and batteries,
to igloos or other depot sites, " ,• '"
Wet/dry collection systems typically achieve high' maferials'recoyery rates of over 60'p"ercent
A 10-week wet/dry pilot study conducted in Kokomo, Indiana, forexampJe, recovered 82 percent
of all waste generated, Residents in the 70 participating households were extremely surprised
to discover the small quantity of material needing to be disposed in the refuse bag destined
for the landfill. > _ _ _ * - „/,,*-,'
Appendix E outlines the results of the wet/dry collection study -conducted in 'GuelprC Ontario,
a city of nearly 90,000, - , -~ ,4 *•" -\; ,*; * * , '
•' * " ""'
Michael Gibson (Waste Management Technician, City of Guelph, Ontario), persona) Communication, February
1991; (City of Guelph Wet/Dry Pilot Pfojectt Summary of Preliminary Findings), April 1991; Anne Scheinberg; et al.,.
"European Food Waste Collection and Composting Programs," Biocycte, December 1990, 76-80; Tom Watson, "The Utest
European Import: Wet/Dry Collection Systems/ Resource Recycling, April 1991,19-23; Dart Hoornwed et al., "Wet/Dry
Household Waste Collection,' BioCyCle, June 1991, 52-54; and Thomas High, Kokomo's Recycling DefnonStfatlon Prografn.,
Kokomo Municipal Sanitation Utility, KoRomo, Indiana, n.d.
Small containers may increase the frequency
with which residents set out recyclables, but
decrease the amount of materials per set-out, thus
decreasing overall collection efficiency. A study of
2,200 households in a southern California
neighborhood found that households utilizing the
largest of the four container systems tested—a set
of three stackable recycling bins—had the lowest
set-out rate (while still achieving high participation)
and the greatest amount of material per set-out.
Collection efficiency was highest with the stacking
containers, averaging a collection time of 20
seconds per stop. Blue boxes, on the other hand,
had an average loading time of 28 seconds per stop.
While participation among households using blue
boxes was quite high, residents reported that the
rectangular boxes had inadequate capacity for their
materials.12
Inadequately sized containers appear to be
hampering the success of New York City's pilot
project to collect a wide range of recyclable and
compostable materials from 7,000 multi-unit
households in Park Slope, Brooklyn. The City has
supplied one- to three-unit buildings with a single
17-gallon container for waste paper; a 20-gallon
container for commingled plastic, metal, and glass;
and an 8-gallon bucket for food and yard waste.
Although the amount of recyclables recovered
increased after the distribution of recycling
containers, one-quarter of the inquiry calls received
Residential Recycling
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
from residents have been complaints regarding
small containers.13
In most instances, cities provide bins free of
charge. To cover the cost of purchasing bins, cities
sometimes charge residents for these items.
However, requiring residents to pick up and
purchase bins, particularly in voluntary programs,
can decrease program participation. The City of
Columbia, for instance, charges residents $5 for
bins. At the end of 1990, 5 years into its voluntary
curbside program, the City had distributed
recycling bins to only 200 households (representing
3 percent of enrolled households) and had secured
the participation of only 62 percent of enrolled
households.
Drop-off Collection
As indicated in Table 5.2, most of our study
communities utilize some form of drop-off
collection. While curbside collection is generally a
more effective way to maximize the amount of
recyclable materials collected, drop-off collection
can augment curbside and serve as the primary
method of recyclables collection in communities in
which residents self-haul refuse. Convenient
placement of sites, and economic incentives (such
as payment for recyclables, or variable refuse rates)
increase residents' participation in drop-off
programs.
There is great variation in the type of drop-off
opportunities offered. Some sites collect a wide
range of materials, while others collect only bottle
bill containers or scrap metal. Some sites operate
unstaffed, while others are staffed. Some pay
individuals for materials, while others accept
materials at no charge. Table 5.7 lists the materials
collected at public and private drop-off sites.
Drop-off sites are a particularly viable and cost-
effective alternative to curbside collection in rural
or suburban communities in which residents self-
haul refuse to disposal sites. Communities such as
Peterborough, New Hampshire; Bowdoinham,
Maine; Seattle, Washington; and Sonoma County,
California operate successful drop-off sites at
transfer stations and landfills. Peterborough, for
instance, recovered 42 percent of its residential
waste through drop-off collection alone.14 All
residents and private haulers utilizing the Town
refuse and recycling center must source-separate a
wide range of recyclable items, including many
grades of paper, glass, metal, reusable items, and
food waste, and deposit all material generated or
collected, not just nonrecydable (refuse) items or
materials with a low market value. The rural
community of Bowdoinham successfully recycled
43 percent of its municipal waste (which is largely
material from the residential sector), primarily
through two publicly run drop-off sites, one of
which was located at the Town landfill.15
Bowdoinham's volume-based refuse rates provide
residents the incentive to self-haul recyclables to the
Center.
Sonoma County and San Francisco, California
and Seattle and King County, Washington utilize
drop-off collection for those households not
serviced by curbside collection, or for those self-
hauling refuse to the landfill. Seattle, for example,
recovers recyclable and compostable materials
through hundreds of private drop-off sites (in
addition to its curbside program) and two public
drop-off centers, one each at the City's two transfer
stations. The City's volume-based refuse fees
provide residents ample incentive to source-
separate and deliver recyclable materials to drop-
off sites. Philadelphia has implemented a "block
corner" recycling program to service those
households not provided with curbside collection.
(See side bar, "Philadelphia's Block Corner
Recycling Program.")
Seven of the 30 communities studied are
located in jurisdictions with container deposit
legislation. Beer and soft drink containers
constitute on average 4.1 percent of the municipal
solid waste stream. States with container deposit
legislation realize return rates of 72 to 98 percent
for such material,18 enabling communities to recycle
between 2.9 and 4.1 percent of their waste without
spending any municipal funds. In 1977 Columbia
enacted the nation's first and only local bottle bill.
An estimated 85 percent of all glass, aluminum, and
PET plastic deposit containers are returned through
this legislation. While Columbia has a limited
recycling program (only 27 percent of households
received curbside collection service in 1990, and 33
percent received such service in 1991), the City
recycled 13 percent of its total waste in FY 1990.
Twelve percent of recycled material consisted of
deposit containers.
Residential Recycling 59
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U.S, Communities
Targeting a Wide Range of
Materials for Recovery
Table 5.7 lists materials collected through drop-
off sites. Table 5.8 lists residential recyclable and
compostable materials collected at curbside.
Communities with the highest recycling levels are
generally those that target a large number of
materials for recovery, particularly those materials
that constitute a significant percentage of the waste
stream. The six communities recycling 28 to 42
percent of their residential waste target between 5
and 15 types of recyclable materials for citywide
collection. The three communities recycling 35
percent or more of their residential waste—
Bowdoinham, Peterborough, and San Francisco—
are each collecting between 9 and 14 materials.17 On
the other hand, Newark, with a residential recycling
rate of 5 percent, was collecting only four recyclable
materials at curbside in the base year. Lincoln,
Nebraska has the lowest residential recycling rate—
3 percent—and targets only two materials,
newspaper and aluminum cans, for curbside
collection.
Philadelphia's Block Corner
Recycling Program
Philadelphia utilizes a "block corner" collec-
tion program for areas of the City not yet ser-
viced with curbside collection- The program*
initiated by a neighborhood group in 1985, is a
cross between curbside and drop-off service
and costs about a third of curbside collection.
Residents from 30 to 150 households in each
block cornerzone bring newspaper, glass, and
aluminum cans to designated street corners for
weekly or biweeky collection. Over a 3-hour
period, City crews pick up material from 25
street corners. Materials are fully segregated at
the curb, including glass separated by color,
and require no further sorting. Neighborhood
groups play a very active role in initiating and
maintaining the program, but depend on the
City for pick-up. Revenue from the sale of
material is returned to the neighborhood to fund
community projects. City costs for running this
program were $58 per ton in 1990.
Charts 5.4 and 5.5 provide a breakdown of
residential materials recycled, as a percentage of
residential waste generated and in pounds per
household. While the breakdowns in Chart 5.4 are
affected by the relative weight of the other
components of the residential waste steam, the per
household breakdowns in Chart 5.5 are not.
Waste Paper
Paper, the largest single component of the
waste stream, also accounts for the largest portion
of residential recyclables. Paper comprises between
50 and 80 percent by weight of all residential
materials recycled in the majority of these
communities.
While newspaper comprises the bulk of this
waste paper, other grades of paper, such as high-
grade paper, mixed waste paper (including
advertising mail, magazines, and paperboard
packaging), and corrugated cardboard, can
comprise a substantial percentage. The cities with
the highest waste paper recycling levels, San
Francisco and Seattle, are recovering 29 percent and
24 percent of their residential waste streams,
respectively, through waste paper recycling alone.
Both recover a wide range of paper grades,
including newspaper, magazines, advertising mail,
and corrugated cardboard.
As indicated on Chart 5.4, the recovery of
mixed waste paper, which composes approximately
13 percent by weight of MSW nationally, plays an
important role in reaching high recycling rates. All
of the six communities recycling between 28 and
42 percent of their residential waste target mixed
waste paper for collection. None of the eight
communities with the lowest residential recycling
rates are recovering mixed paper from the
residential sector.
The City of Seattle has determined that mixed
household waste paper comprises 19 percent of its
residential waste. (Approximately half of which is
not targeted for collection as it is coated or
contaminated.) Of this mixed paper, it recovered
nearly 30 percent in 1990. The City collects
magazines, advertising mail, coupons, fliers,
wrapping paper, used envelopes, cereal boxes,
phone books, tube board, paper egg cartons, and
brochures, in addition to corrugated cardboard and
newspaper. The only paper that it does not collect
Residential Recycling
-------
Table 5.7
Materials Recovered from Public and Private Drop-off Sites
PHONE FH OTHH LNDSCPRS' MATS MATS TOT
ONP OCC HP MP BKS ALUM CAN SM GLASS PET HOPE PLA8 WG OIL FOOD BATT TIRES OTHR FOOD GRS LVS WW BRUSH CT WASTE RECY COMP MATS
(«) («> M
AinUn,TX
Berlin TowmMp,NJ
BouJdW.CQ
Bowdohth*m,ME(c)
D«koUCo.,MN(d)
f^nnfnMHbWI *
King Co., WA
Ut Cnt&M, MM. (*>
Ufeyrtte, LA
Lincoln P*rtc,NJ(f)
MofHWi Wl
Ntwwk.NJ
Peterborough, KH(I)
PMbuMoHftriPA ffi ''
Portland, OH •
Upper TownehJp,HJ
WfttAitttWM- OH-(fl^
WeetUnn,OR(o)
V
V
M
V
V
V
v
tt
v
M
V
V
M
".V,
M
, V
M
»,
M
•;•;, 1*^
V
v,
v
% .. .
M
f 'V'"'
M
¥
M
V
V
V
M
V
M
V
M
V
M
y
M
M
M
f/\j.
V
V
V
"M
%t
v
V
V
V
_v
v
V
v
M
V
,y
V
VI
M
V
M
vV\"
M
M
•" %«
V
V
;V .
V
% %
M
V
!;=!:<
II 1
I I
V
V
tt - _'
V
V
V
M
V f V
M
V %
v
.,
M
V
V
v, -%
V
y ^
M
y " & ^
V
V -^ 4»%
v
V
M
, V
V
- V
v
tt
V
tt
V
' M
V
M
; -y
M
•. s w
' M
- M
V
V
--," v*
V
'•', ,
M
"$'* y &
" V
V
V
M
V
V
V
V
M
V
M
V
M M
V
t
V
i, ,; V
V V
\ ^ •*-.< jj
f \t\
v
V V
V V
••
y v
v
M
y
v
v
•, f
M M
V - V"\" ,
v
•••• :^ vx -
V V
*" >!• % ^ ^ "••.
f f
ff f
V
V
M
V
% V
v
M
V
, V
V
V
M
V
%>
*
M
V
-.
M
V^
V
M'
V
V
V
M
V
V
V
M
V
V
v
¥
M
¥
*•
-
M
V
; j;
jj
v'
"*
M
-•M-
V
v y
M M
V
" tt M
V V
'
V
v
M M
V
; \^
" M ••
V V
V ,,-M>
V
'
r,r M ,
V V
V V
V
M V
V
^y v
v v
v v
v
v
v v
M
X *•
1;
^ ••'•
v.
V
V
'••'<>, s
V V
V
11
1Q
11
1*
16
16
9
11
18
13
12
15
16
13
13
11
7
16
12
11
- > 1
13
14 s
14
9
9
• s It
10
4*i
3
4
5
t
2
4
4
5
2>
4
4
5
a
0
0
0
ft
0
3 -
4
0
1
4
$
3
9
5
14
W
16
18
U
20
t3
16
ts
17
16
20
19
13
13
11
7
16
16
15
1 ,
14
tB
18
3
12
14
15
-ia
Kty:
ALUM - Aluminum
HP - High-grade Paper
MP-Mixed Paper
PET - Polyethylene Terephthalate
; V; >•' v ,
Ban - Batteries CT - Christmas Trees
L-Leaves . LDPE - Low Density Polyethylene
OCC - Corrugated Cardboard
SM - Scrap Metal TOT MATS - Total Materials
's\
, FR CANS -Ferrous Cans
LNDSCPRS1 WASTE - Landscapers' Waste
ONP - Newspaper
WG-White Goods
GRS-Grass Clippings
MATS COMP - Materials Composted
OTHR PLAS - Other Plastics
WW-Wood Waste
HOPE - High-density Polyethylene
MATS RECY - Materials Recycled
OTHR - Other, Including textiles,
furniture, small household goods
M - Source-separation of material by residents is mandatory.
V - Source-separation of material by residents is voluntary.
Note»:
Total materials recycled and recovered may be underestimated In some cases as mixed paper can Incude several grades of paper. Landscapers' waste and phone books are not included in the number of materials composted or recovered.
(a) Materials recycled and materials composted represent the number of types of materials
recycled and composted, respectively. Total materials recovered Is the sum of the number of
materials recycled and composted.
(b) Other includes household tome such as furniture.
(c) Other materials collected are clothing, furniture, and rags.
(d) Other materials collected are household Items Including toys, clothing and books.
(e) Other materials Includes furniture.
(f) Other Is all plastic that held liquid.
(g) Other plastics Include polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, and scrap plastics.
(h) Recycles all types of plastic.
(I) Other materials include salvaged items and textiles.
(j) Collection of corrugated cardboard Is mandatory for businesses and voluntary for residents.
(k) Other plastics are polystyrene packaging peanuts.
(I) Other materials collected are clothing, small appliances, and paint.
(m) The food waste collected Is grease.
(n) Other plastics are polystyrene trays.
(o) Other plastic collected Includes LDPE film and polystyrene.
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
Chart 5.4
Residential Materials Recycled, Percent by Weight
ui!l*:.MSW tonnase data- wnicn contains material recycled from 15 businesses, is utilized in lieu of Bowdoinham's residential tonnage data—
which is unavailable. For Newark and Philadelphia, residential waste represents publicly collected material. "Other" includes white goods tires
food waste, and reusable items. Deposit containers for Bowdoinham are included under "other." Deposit containers for Sonoma County and
San Francisco are included under material type. Mixed paper collected in Berlin Township is included under "other paper"
from the residential sector is food-contaminated
paper or paper coated with wax, plastic, or metal.
On the other hand, Dakota County, which estimates
that mixed waste paper comprises 10 percent of its
residential waste, recovered none of its mixed
paper in 1990. While Seattle recycled 31 percent
of its residential waste in 1990, Dakota County
recycled only 17 percent.
A number of communities have found that
adding mixed paper to materials collected at
curbside increases curbside tonnages. In 1990
Naperville, Illinois collected high-grade paper, box
board (such as cereal boxes and tissue boxes), and
magazines in addition to corrugated cardboard and
newspaper. In 1991 its new hauler also began to
collect advertising mail and all types of paperboard.
The addition of these materials is partially
responsible for the substantial increase in average
monthly tonnages collected.18 When Monroe,
Wisconsin added telephone books, catalogues,
paperboard packaging, and glossy inserts (in
addition to PVC and PS plastics) to its curbside
program in 1990, its curbside tonnages jumped
from 537 tons in 1989 (the year of study) to 650
tons in 1990 and an estimated 748 tons in 1991.
Other Materials
As Chart 5.4 indicates, tires, white goods, glass,
and metals can comprise a substantial percentage
of residential recyclables. Targeting all these
materials for collection helps raise recovery levels.
For instance, 16 percent of the materials
Peterborough recycled through its Town drop-off
center in 1990 consisted of glass. To achieve its
31 percent residential recycling rate, Seattle recycled
59 percent of all residential glass waste generated
in 1990, and 43 percent of all metal waste.
A number of communities target plastics for
collection. See Tables 5.7 and 5.8. These include
Berlin Township, Bowdoinham, Monroe,
62 Residential Recycling
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
Naperville, San Francisco, West Palm Beach, and
Providence. While PET soda bottles and HOPE
milk containers are the most common plastics
recovered, some communities collect PVC,
polystyrene, and LDPE film as well. Naperville,
Illinois, with a, residential recycling rate of 20
percent, collects all types of HOPE and PET
containers, clean polystyrene containers, and LDPE
six-pack rings. While plastics are light weight and
thus add little to the weight of recovered materials,
recovering such materials can reduce the volume
of solid waste, as well as provide a feedstock for
industry.
Food waste recovery has untapped potential.
While food waste comprises a significant
percentage of residential waste, few U.S.
communities are recovering it. Food waste can be
used as livestock feed, composted into a high-
quality soil amendment, or manufactured into such
products as perfumes and soaps. (See Chapter 4
for information on food waste composting in the
U.S. and abroad.)
Hog farmers in
New Jersey have
provided Philadelphia
residents the
opportunity to recycle
their food waste for
over 80 years. In fiscal
year 1990, hog farmers
collected an estimated
30,000 tons of food
waste from Philadelphia
residents, equivalent to
3 percent of the
residential waste
generated and 53
percent of municipally
sponsored materials
recovered. (See side bar,
"Urban and Rural
Communities Collect
Food Waste for Use as
Animal Feed.")
Most communities
have overlooked the
recovery of reusable
items. Reusable goods
may compose up to 5
percent of the total waste stream.19 Among the
communities studied, Berkeley and Sonoma
County, California have most effectively targeted
this component of the waste stream for recovery.
Berkeley, for example, recovered an estimated 68
percent of the white goods disposed of in the city
through a private salvage/reuse operation. Please
see Chapter 3 for further discussion of salvage and
reuse.
Securing High Levels of Participation
Many of the programs with high participation levels
are mandatory. In fact, most of the communities
recovering 40 percent or more of their waste have
mandatory programs. Chart 5.6 examines
participation rates for 38 mandatory and voluntary
programs, including 10 communities from Beyond
40 Percent: Record-Setting Recycling and Composting
Programs (ILSR, 1990).20 Chart 5.7 shows that of
the nine communities in our study recovering over
40 percent of their residential waste, four mandate
participation, three have volume-based refuse rates
Chart 5.5
Residential Materials Recycled, Pounds per Household
1200
sS 1000 -K
8.
2 800 4
I 6004
2. 400
I
I. 200
U Other
H Plastic
gg Glass
rj Metal
• Paper
ii 11 !%,, r
t
! I
i
c
I
8
1
Notes: Communities for which the number of households generating recycled tonnage is unknown
are excluded from this chart. For Austin, Berkeley, Columbia, Naperville, Providence, and Seattle,
tonnages are those collected at curbside only. For West Linn, deposit containers are excluded from
residential material. "Other" includes white goods, tires, and food waste.
Residential Recycling
-------
Table 5.8
Materials Recovered at Curbslde from the Residential Sector for Recycling and Composting
YEAR DATA PHONE FH OTHH NO MATS
COLLECTED ONP OCC HP MP BOOKS ALUM CAN SM GLASS PET HOPE PLAS WB OIL FOOD BAIT TIRE OTHR GRS LVS WW BRUSH CT RECYCLED
Austin, TX FY89 V V VVV V
Berlin Township, NJ 1990 M MM M MM M MM V^M ^U 'u ""M 'M
Bowdokihtfli, ME (c) * FY90 V V V V VVV V VVV "" " "\l '" v V
Columbia, *Q ," FroO^.. V^^V ", Vv § "\ 'v - •"> ^f y v¥ ,„•., , *v^>yJ! ,\ , •- *\t ''f I tv '
DakoUCo., MN 1990 VV VV^VVVV V ^ * V V
Kbig Co., WA (d) 1990 V V V* V " V V VVV *' V V
fc# Crcstmt, m {«} ,1WO } M ,M -V Vi" ," «*""*«; - ,.TM.t M Ms V"" - -"" , -• ,•,
L»(«y«tt., LA FY90 V VV V V V % VV
Lincoln Park, NJ ^1990 M ' " "' * " ' MM
Home'- m 1989 'MMMM "M M *M M M ' V " J M V 'M "M "" " M' M
Hip»fVlH«> ft. flf v % )9.»D V 'V V ,V , ,- ¥ V " >V - V - V V V V* " " , - M^M
Newark, NJ 1989 M M M M " '"MM"
PsikMto, ¥*. (ft) '^- 1&8Q M -M ¥ , c-U s" '", M, -- ; " , v
Peterborough, NH (h) 1990 VVVV VV VVV VVVVV
PhwwWflitill'j I*A "• fjy) $^ ••^$^1' M^tM-'^V-' Irf i/-. jut--
Portland, OH (1) 1990 VVV VVVV V VV VV
ftw««Re»(BI ^ *JHB» M ,M.; M M^ M M , ^
San Frsnelsco, CA 0) 1990 VVVVV VVVVV
S**ttto, WA "• i9«0 V tf V V V V V V M «
Sonoma Co., CA (k) 1990 V VVVVV
T»kpn»»ft(rtl,»D 1990 ,M¥ «VM V tfv
Uppw Township, NJ 1990 MMMM MMVMMM VV VV VM
W«p«kon«t«, OH a«9-8/30
West Linn, OR 1990VV VVV V * V
Wwt P*te» Bwb, PI 4/6o-a/9l V VV VVyf VV
^"J^TS Ban-Banerles CT . Christmas Trees FR CANS - Ferrous Cans
^,Tn* fl aper L- Leaves LDPE - Low Density Polyethylene MP - Mixed Paper
OTHR. Other, including textiles, OTHR PLAS . Other Plastics PET - Polyethylene Terephthalate SM - Scrap Metal
furniture, small household goods WW- Wood Waste
V - Set-out of material by residents Is voluntary. M - Set-out of material by residents is mandatory.
Nodi:
Total materials collected may be underestimated In some cases as mixed paper can Include several grades ol paper
(a) Only 2,600 of the 40,000 households, or 1%, receive yard waste collection.
(b) The Public Works Department collects brush over a 3-week period during spring cleanup.
wls^hH^'^^!±^^^lWC?IS^,' G^
(0) Six of thirteen titles have curbsidecolecHon of PET and HOPE plastic contalnera; nine received yard waste collection In 1990
(o) Other plastic Includes por/vinyfchbflde, polypropylene and all other plastic.
(I) Other plastic Includes polystyrene, LOPE and six-pack rinos
(g) H Is not mandatory for residents to recycle junk mal.
(h) In 1980. 100 households received curbskte recycling service. Other plastic collected Is polystyrene.
(i) Some haulers collect HOPE m* jufls or mixed waste paper; food waste was collected for composting from an estimated 105 households In 1890
fl) A smal sector of the C»y roceHres cuAdde colection of Christmas trees.
(k) The County began a plot curtxMe program h 1990 to collect leaves, grass, arrfyari waste from I^MhcirieD; some areas have eu*sto Christmas UM
*• \t '" '" Ty-
V^A V «•
M M M
*X v " "-,1
^ i- %--> V
* V. '
v * v
Vw
V
<•
V V ^
^ '- v , \\ ?
M M
M V
i* .5 11- •• M *•>
^ ^ W- n f vn
V V
. v V -.
-. * •. ™
^ v/
Vw
v
\ "••,
VV V
V V
V V
tf V V
HOPE
occ-
5
' ^ f A
;X *
1. 7 i&'s *"
,. -f ..*•*• \
9
«&,'
9
6
a'a -
1
1 4
4
14
1 0
8
1 A
1 **
•0
6
7
NO. MATS NO. MATS
COMPOSTED COLLECTED
1
5
•• "* < -t sv
' •- > "-^ ••
4
^ j /\ %*~
<
4
4
Jf 3
4
4
-. i
•* ?
0
*
5
1
3
1
'
5
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, md Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
Urban and Rural Communities Collect
Food Waste for Use as Animal Feed
New Jersey hog farmers have collected food
waste from Philadelphia residents for over 80
years. The City has reimbursed hog farmers for
this service for 25 years. Currently farmers are
paid af ee equivaientto the landfill tipping charge,
which was $67 per ton in fiscal year 1990.
Because the City avoids the cost of collection,
this program is cost-effective.
Residents in over three-fourths of the City
are eligible for food waste collection. Food
Scraps are set out at curbside in tightly covered
5- or 10-galion containers, twice a week. Farm-
ers unload the food waste into their sealed rear-
loading vehicles. The City reports no fly or odor
problems, The U.S. Department of Agriculture
requires that food waste be heat-sterilized, or
Cooked for 30 minutes at a core temperature of
212 degrees Fahrenheit, before use as an ani-
mal feed. Some of the farmers' vehicles heat the
food waste en route. Farmers also^collect large
quantities of food waste from businesses such
as bakeries and groceries.
The rural community of Peterborough, New
Hampshire lias recovered food waste through
the Town Recycling Center since 1987. In 1990
approximately 4 percent of materials collected at
the drop-off site (32,84 tons) consisted of food
waste, Residents store food scraps, including
meat and fat, in plastic bags, which they deposit
in 55-gallon drums at the Center. According to
the Town Administrator, nearly all residents who
use the Center—an estimated 64 percent of the
Town's residents—drop off food waste, A local
pig farmer collects the food scraps twice a week
in the summer and once a week in the winter,
One local hauler in Peterborough, Kodiac
Recycling, collects food waste from 100 house*
holds in a customized recycling vehicle, All
residents who receive refuse/recycling collec*
tionfrom Kodiac must separate food waste from
refuse. Food waste is placed in a lined com-
partment of the vehicle, The hauler recom-
mends storing the materials in close-fitting con*
tainers or bags, which are collected and brought
to the Town Recycling Center.
(which provide a strong economic incentive to
recycle), and the other two do both.
Recycling mandates, however, may be weak
without proper enforcement.21 In Newark, New
Jersey, enforcement of the 1987 mandatory source-
separation ordinance has noticeably increased
recovery rates. Beginning in January 1991, three
municipal enforcement officers have performed
spot checks for recydables in residential refuse. As
of July 1991, 863 warnings had been issued. After
two warnings, residents are subject to a fine of $25
per violation. The Office of Recycling credits this
new enforcement policy with the 20 percent
increase in recyclables collected in the first quarter
of 1991 (over 1990 rates).
Establishing Economic Incentives
Communities in our study are using economic
incentives such as high tipping fees at disposal
sites, low or no tipping fees at recycling or
composting facilities, volume-based refuse collection
rates, and contest awards to increase participation
in recycling programs and reduce overall waste
generation rates. (See Chart 5.7 and Table 5.3.)
Twelve of our 30 communities utilize volume-
based refuse collection rates through which
residents are charged higher fees for greater
volumes of refuse set-out. In most instances,
residents are not charged for set-out of recyclable
or compostable materials, or are charged a reduced
fee. Such rates, also known as variable rates,
provide a direct economic incentive to generate as
little waste as possible and recycle as much as
possible.
There is some evidence that volume-based rates
encourage recycling and waste reduction. Many
of the communities with the highest recycling rates
in the nation have volume-based refuse rates (see
Chart 5.7). In 1985, 3 years before the start-up
of Seattle's curbside recycling program, the City
recycled 22 percent of its waste through small-scale,
independent recycling centers. This recycling level
is attributed to the City's variable can rate. Since
the implementation of Seattle's variable can system
the weighted average number of cans subscribed
to by a single-family household decreased from 3.5
in 1981 to 1.4 in 1988. A significant increase in
Seattle's refuse collection rates between 1985 and
1989, and the start-up of the City's curbside
Residential Recycling
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
recycling program in 1988, has led to an even more
significant reduction in waste disposed than during
the program's earliest years. Seattle recovered 40
percent of its municipal solid waste in 1990.
Since June 1990, Wapakoneta, Ohio has charged
households $0.70 per bag of refuse in addition to
a $6 per month flat trash collection fee. During
the first year of the program's implementation, the
City reported a decrease in the volume of waste
disposed from 20 to 30 percent. Municipal pick-
up of refuse has been reduced from 5 days to 4
days per week. Wapakoneta attributes this decline
to increased recycling activities, backyard
composting, and compaction of waste by residents.
Attrition of approximately 20 commercial customers
from municipal refuse collection may also
contribute to this decrease. (See Chapter 3 for
further discussion of variable refuse rates.)
Comprehensive Educational and
Promotional Programs
In order to motivate residents to participate in
source-separation programs and instruct them how
to comply with collection requirements, many
communities undertake comprehensive educational
and promotional programs. Educational outreach
appears to be most critical for obtaining high
participation rates in urban areas.
Virtually all 30 communities studied promote
recycling. To target as wide an audience as
possible, communities utilize techniques such as
recycling information sheets, newsletters, posters,
and utility bill inserts. Many communities take
advantage of print and broadcast media, with their
potential for reaching the broadest segment of the
population. Monroe, Wisconsin reports the success
Chart 5.6
Household Participation Rates in Voluntary and Mandatory Programs
U Voluntary Program
Mandatory Program
*
£tf
j 11m 6 s
= Bir"S'J;-s'°;5 8—9-81?.$
sl^iiri^liil
—i iH i§ * n °-
^8 o> -a
till
3 111
.a
-•§
6 5r c A- £
il-Si 18
Nolf. Communities documented in ILSR's report Beyond 40 Percent: Record-Setting Recycling and Composting Programs are included in this
chart. Two communities are excluded. Wapakoneta—for which a participation rate is not available, and Peterborough—for which an exact participation
rate to unavailable and participation cannot easily be classified as mandatory or voluntary (64% of residents self-hauling refuse to Town dump
and an additional 6% of residents utilizing select private refuse haulers must source-separate recyclables. Other residents are not required to.)
Residential Recycling
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.S*Conmunitie$
Chart 5.7
Volume-based Refuse Rates and Residential Recovery Levels
Flat-fee Refuse
Rates
Volume-based
Refuse Rates
M = Mandatory
Participation
V = Voluntary
Participation
8.
Notes: Recovery rates include recycled and composted material. MSW recovery rates are utilized in Bowdoinham, Wapakoneta, and West Linn, as
residential breakdowns are not available and MSW is largely residential. Wapakoneta instituted volume-based refuse rates in June 1990 but because
tonnage data were collected from Sept. 1 989 to August 1 990, it is listed as a flat-fee program.
of local recycling efforts in a local newspaper
column. Local cable stations in Takoma Park,
Maryland;,Monroe, Wisconsin; Wapakoneta, Ohio;
and Naperville, Illinois run programs highlighting
solid waste management issues. Some communities
promote recycling and composting through in-
person education, which can be particularly
effective. In-person includes door-to-door visits,
staffed recycling booths at city or county fairs, or
block leader programs.
Block leader or block captain programs actively
promote recycling through neighbor-to-neighbor
communication. Boulder, Colorado successfully
initiated a block leader program in 1980. Designed
by a psychology professor at the University of
Colorado, Boulder's block leader program is
currently run by Eco-Cycle, a community-based
recycling company. During the first year of the
program, a study revealed that participation rates
in the neighborhoods with block leaders were over
two times those without such programs. Boulder
currently spends $30,000 per year on materials and
labor to coordinate its block leader program.
Communities as widespread and diverse as
Minneapolis, Minnesota; Seattle Washington, and
Austin, Texas have replicated the block leader
program.
Similar in design are the Master Recycler/
Composter programs, through which volunteers
are trained to educate friends, neighbors, and co-
workers about home composting, source reduction,
and recycling. King County, Washington conducts
three 2-month training sessions each year;
participants agree to contribute 40 hours each to
community outreach initiatives. Capital
expenditures for the program included $10,000 for
training manuals and curricula, $6,000 for outreach
tools, and $10,000 for the construction of two
demonstration sites. The County spends $15,000
on training and equipment for each training
session.
Education programs directed at school-age
children play a vital role in the long-term success
of a recycling program. Many communities utilize
formal or informal recycling curricula to teach
recycling concepts. The Ecology Center in Berkeley,
Residential Recycling 67
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.$. Communities*
California developed "the Recyclones," lovable
cartoon characters that reinforce recycling concepts.
Newark, New Jersey created the Recycling Rangers
to encourage students to spread the word about
recycling to their parents. To generate enthusiasm
for recycling, several communities conduct
recycling poster contests, which use either a
recycling theme or recycled materials.
Demographic factors play an important role in
determining the amount of money a community
must spend on recycling educational programs, and
the types of programs implemented. Cities with
transient populations and diverse ethnic groups
face the greatest challenges in securing broad
participation, and must typically spend more
money on recycling education. Smaller
communities, on the other hand, can rely on
volunteer efforts, and word-of-mouth to ensure
participation in recycling programs. Peterborough
and Monroe, for example, report spending no
money on education, yet both enjoy high residential
recovery levels at 42 percent and 32 percent,
respectively.
Educational outreach has played an important
role in elevating recycling rates in large cities.
Providence, Rhode Island, for example, increased
participation in its curbside recycling program in
the south side of the City (which has a large
multilingual population) from 30 percent at the
startup of the program to 60 percent one year later,
using foreign-language brochures and other
materials. Newark, New Jersey hired a local
minority public relations firm to initiate a
promotional campaign. Newark translates most
mailings and bulletins into Spanish and Portuguese
to reach its minority communities. Jersey City,
New Jersey distributes recycling information
pamphlets in Arabic, Hindi, Spanish, and Korean.
San Francisco informs its Latino residents about its
recycling program via Spanish-language radio and
television stations. San Francisco also offers
backyard composting workshops in Spanish and
Cantonese.
By enlisting the help of community volunteers
and school teachers, communities are implementing
very successful educational programs without
spending large sums of money.
Identifying Outlets for
Collected Materials
Collecting materials for recycling is a
challenging task, but perhaps one of the most
difficult yet fundamentally important tasks is
finding an outlet for the collected material.
Identifying markets, securing agreements with
materials brokers and end users, and meeting buyer
specifications are all part of this task. Recycling
collection programs can only be as successful as a
recycling marketing program. Consequently
market analysis will be both a planning and
ongoing activity.
Identifying outlets for collected recyclables is an
important component of all of the 30 recycling
programs evaluated as part of this project. Many
of these communities rely on private processors to
find end users. Others undertake this legwork
themselves. Municipal recycling coordinators and
private processors are finding different end uses for
the same material and using a variety of strategies
to keep materials moving to those who can
manufacture new products from them.
Wapakoneta, Ohio, sells its newspaper directly
to a local manufacturer of insulation, whereas in
Bowdoinham, Maine, a local farmer shreds the
Town's old newspaper at no charge for animal
bedding. In Sonoma County, California, some old
newspaper is shipped to the Far East for deinking
and reprocessing. The private processor of the
County facility that Upper Township uses, sells
some of its glass to manufacturers of new glass
containers, and the rest is delivered to a
manufacturer of glassphalt. Often communities sell
their collected materials to brokers who resell the
materials to manufacturers. Wapakoneta, for
example, sells its baled PET to a broker in Minster,
Ohio, who resells the containers to a firm in
Cleveland for manufacturing into plastic lumber.
In Monroe, Wisconsin, the Monroe Area
Recycling Committee (MARC) has secured a
number of in-state brokers and end users for the
City's recyclables. Much of the materials collected
through the curbside program is sold locally to the
Green County Salvage Yard, which resells it to
various end users. MARC is considering selling
more of the City's recyclables directly to end users,
such as paper mills. MARC seeks additional
markets when the supply of recyclables exceeds the
Residential Recycling
-------
"' Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options! Lessons from 30 U
-------
W™tePrewntion,Recycling, and Composting Options; lesson$from3Q U& Communities
* "* * V f ff '• * 3fcfSf ff" ;
In the base year of study (1990), only 20 percent of San Francisco's residential recyclables were collected at curbside.
With the curbside program fully phased in, the City estimates that it is recovering 55,000 tons per year at curbside
two and one-half times the amount recovered at curbside in 1990. In Boulder, the University, which comprises
approximately 25 percent of the City's population, has 225 drop-off sites for recyclables on campus.
"Generally a household is considered a participant in a recycling program even if it sets out only one or two materials.
Thus, participation rates do not indicate if all materials are set out.
'Glass breakage occurs on the collection vehicle as well as in the processing center. For example, the operators of
the facility that processes Providence's commingled recycables report that approximately 20 percent of glass entering
the plant arrives broken. . °
"Before Monroe implemented its citywide curbside program in 1986, it conducted a study to gauge residents'
participation rates and the suitability of recycling containers. The City observed that the type of collection container
used had a direct effect on the amount of recyclables collected. During the pilot study, households that received
a reusable plastic recycling bin set out an average of 4.94 pounds of recyclables each week. Households that received
a plastic bag set out an average of 2.18 pounds per week.
"In order to increase participation rates, Newark distributed an additional 5,000 8-gallon bins in 1990, and budgeted
for 12,000 bins to be distributed in 1991. The City is requiring its new recycling contractor, who services one-third
of the City, to supply residents with recycling bins.
"Jennifer S. Gitlitz, "Curbside Collection Containers: A Comparative Evaluation," Resource Recycling, January/February
1989*
Outerbridge (Recycling Programs and Planning Division, New York DEP), personal communication, February
AIlda CulVer (Center for the Biol°gy °f Natural Systems, Queens College), personal communication, March
"Two private haulers in Peterborough collect recyclables and refuse at curbside from 100 to 200 households requesting
this service, and bring materials to the Town drop-off center.
"In 1991 Bowdoinham closed the landfill drop-off site in order to avoid transporting materials the 6 miles from the
landfill to the processing center. The City now collects most of the Town's recyclables at the processing center.
AccountinS Office' "SoM Waste: Trade-offs Involved in Beverage Container Deposit Legislation," November
"the number of materials targeted for collection may under represent the actual number of material types collected.
Mixed paper, for example, contains several types of materials. Perkasie, for example, collected two types of mixed
paper-magazines and advertising mail. Recycling rate excludes tonnages recovered through composting activities.
including composting, 11 communities are recovering 35 percent of their residential waste, and 9 of these are recovering
more than 40 percent. °
180ther factors responsible for the jump in curbside tonnages collected in Naperville, from an average of 750 tons
per month from April to August 1990, to an average of 940 tons per month from April to August 1991, were the
increased publicity for recycling as a result of the City's securing a new recycling hauler, and the change in set-out
requirements, from eight sorts under the old system to three sorts under the new contract.
"Urban Ore, Inc. (Salvage/reuse business), Berkeley, California, personal communication, June 1991.
*°The Institute for Local Self-Reliance's 1990 publication, Beyond 40 Percent: Record-Setting Recycling and Composting
Programs, documents 17 materials recovery programs recovering between 32 and 57 percent of their solid waste.
21Cities may choose to give residents a grace period before beginning enforcement measures, to allow residents time
to adjust to recycling requirements.
Residential Recycling
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and CompostingOptionsi Lessons from BO U.S. Communities
Chapter Six
Improving Commercial and
Institutional Recovery Levels
Overview
Commercial and institutional waste is often a
significant portion of municipal waste, even in
small cities and suburbs.1 (See Chart 6.1.) For our
sample, commercial waste generated ranged from
23 percent of municipal solid waste (MSW) in the
suburban community of Berlin Township, New
Jersey to over 50 percent of MSW in cities such as
Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle. Unlike
most residential waste, however, commercial
material is usually collected by the private sector,
and municipalities have been slower to target this
waste stream for recovery. Many communities now
realize that commercial and institutional recycling
and composting efforts play an important role in
meeting high waste recovery goals.
Table 6.1 lists figures for commercial and
institutional waste generated and recovered in the
Chart 6.1
The Contribution of Commercial and Institutional Waste to MSW Generated
I
15
100%
90% -
80% -
70% -
60% -
50% -
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-: • •:•••:•'. • •:•:•:• • :•:•:•: • :•:•:• •
o
2
i 5
I
.3
S Q
Rural
Suburban
II f I
Urban
S
E?
Self-Haul Waste
Residential Waste
Commercial/
Institutional Waste
Notes: Residential and commercial breakdowns in the cities of Wapakoneta, West Linn, Bowdoinham, Berkeley, and Portland were not available. Total
recovery rates were used in Austin, Columbia, Newark and Upper Township as C&D waste is not tracked separately from MSW. Commercial waste in Newark
and Upper Township is privately collected material and residential waste is publicly collected material. Naperville, Perkasie, and Takoma Park are excluded
as commercial waste generation data were not available. Self-haul waste includes materials generated by the residential and commercial sectors; a
breakdown between these sectors is not available in these cities.
Commercial and Institutional Recovery
-------
Community
Table 6.1
Commercial and Institutional Waste Generated and Recovered
% % %
Com/lnst Com/lnst Com/lnst Com/lnst Com/lnst Com/lnst Com/lnst
Year Waste Materials Materials Materials Materials Materials Materials
Data Generated Recycled Composted Recovered Recycled Composted Recovered
Collected (Tons)
Austin, TX
Berkeley,. CA
Berlin Township, NJ
BouW«r,CO i
Bowdolnham, ME
Columbia, MO* . •, "',
Dakota County, MN
Fennlmore, W ' *
King County, WA
Ln Crescent, J4N **
Lafayette, LA
Llncoh^NE ,
Lincoln Park, NJ
Mecjktcnburg O*<» HU
Monroe, Wl
.,Nepejy|§»-,ft, ,
Newark, NJ (a)
Berks*!*, PA
Peterborough, NH
PMiadeiphla, PA (a)
Portland, OR
Prowldenee, Rl ;
San Francisco, CA
*V^_KA»_ 4*4 A
FY89
FY&I
1990
> >-^-<,, ' 199Q
FY90
>\ v * 'i'*-,} iFYflQ
1990
V^'*\ v 1999
1990
*'-V", w v1890 «
1989
* * o^ ! '' t$8o *•
1989
-•wV^u , 19^0,
1990
s ^^._ 'f ^ * FY80<
" 1990
.4- ^', J* fl990%
1990
NA
NA
1,853
33,€05
NA
f. '< f v % 51,971*
114,010
s ',-- "631 »* 0
541,116
*' >>s 683 ;
39,005
If i V 32.989
4,608
- 5---.-s'|«25,67«:s^t
8,858
,v 4 >. v NA^ '%s
195,556
'"' $>- \ NA
2,998
\*!* ^^132,079 5 A|'
NA
*<:C& «7,000 *^|
392,764
(Tons)
13,312
NA
1,124
, 4,137 ^
NA
', '6,«7i; ^
27,748
^-x tsfr ^^
159,439
i5&
3,125
j, 21,027^ ; ,
3,193
^ 82,526? ' -
2,359
»• NA Y>^
87,350
> NA ""•-
120
^'f81,S5& * S ^
NA' '
§ • NA ?
68,971
(Tons) (Tons)
0
NA
0
25 %
NA
NA
0
^ ? 0 ,
34,528
or
0
0;
20
oW
0
••v %l^ ^'^
2,172
> NA ^
0
•^ > 0 s ,
NA
' " NA - t.
1,858
13.312
NA
1,124
NA
€671
27,748
" 158
193,967
59
3,125
21,027 <
3,213
92,520 ^
2,359
;5- NA
89,522
C NA,
120
* 161,959 j
NA
8,700 A
70,829
(ByWL)
NA
NA
61
12
NA
13^
24
29
9
8
s 25
69
-5 22 ;
27
1«,NA ,'
45
" ^NA A
4
p fit 16 % ^
NA
18
(ByWt.)
NA
J)A
0
NA
WA
0
6
0
G
0
,* t* ' NA |>
0
!, ;„ MX ;
1
^ <, " NA
0
•"» 0
NA
0
(By Wt)
NA
MA
61
12
NA
13
24
v ' ' " 25
36
•• 9
8
25
70
•• s\ 22
27
, ••; SlA ^
46
r NA,
4
Ifi ' '
NA
*
18
Sonoma County, CA
TakomaParkjMO
Upper Township, NJ (a)(b)
West Linn, OR
..:;,
1990
1990
!ffl9-&9
1990
340,297
5,733 ^
NA ;:
NA
32,319
4
547
340
3,444
1,570
0
1,409
0
78
a
33,889
1,9574
NA
417
174.
9
No
NA
1 i
0
25
;NA
NA
Key:
Com = Commercial
Notes:
Inst - Institutional NA = Not Available WL = weight
40
10
34
,NA
NA
•* 0
(<=)
2Pa I°)er!ff ^T P'"'316 ^tof "^'"O activities were not tracked during the base year and thus listed date may not reflect all private
? TndU< ° TJ JTS* explanat"!r ot «?at ™» w ™y «« te included in •>«• commerciaWnstitutional figures, and, if applicable, how tomage
SnSTf TSS?* l£andscaPefs ^ an^ baveraBe contai'1«s «*°ve«*' "^er bottle bills are excluded as this tonnage cannSt be broken into
al/institutional. Self-hauled materials are similarly excluded.
(a) Figures represent tonnage handled by private sector, which may include some residential waste
(b) The commercial/institutional recovery activities undertaken by the public sector are not reflected in these figures
diS^ 'ZT^r^l0"81 T*l*S?* ar«,m>t aVaHable> thUS a "n™«W«««Mtoial recovery rate cannot be calculated. According to estimates of waste
disposed provided by the Cily's Recycling Coordinator. West Linn recovered approximately 45% of its commercial waste.
-------
Table 6.2
Commercial/Institutional Recovery Activities
Community
Total
Businesses/
Institutions
Businesses/
Institutions
Served w/CS
Institutions/
Businesses
Privately
Served Mandatory
(b)
• Materials
Mandated for
Separation
Economic
Incentives
to Haulers
tel
Economic
Incentives
to Bus/lnstn.
(d)
Technical Number of
Assistance to Private
Businesses Haulers
(e)
Austin, TX
Kr*»»»y,CA
Berlin Township, NJ
MA
3,31$
280
Bowdolnham, ME
Columbia, ft*?
Dakota County, MN
15
King County, WA
Ltt.Cr**c*nt,MK
Lafayette, LA
Uncofn,N£
Lincoln Park, NJ
44,227
10*
49,000
..< "205-
7,654
Monroe, Wl
Nafwnflta, It
Newark, NJ
Peterborough, NH
PhUacWphlarPA
Portland, OR
195
rt&s£
437
^3,113
4,642
»
267
26&S
NA
San Francisco, CA
Sf*tf», WA
Sonoma County, CA
Upper Township, NJ
w«|Mton«<*,QH
West Linn, OR
62,135
30,000 '
15,000
245- ,? y
261
* 456 ^
379
' 2,77$ ,
0
25ft
200
v a-
0 (i)
*
0
W
NA
V
0
, *
195
5?
0
-6
70
^IS
0
NA{n$
"NA
o
0
0
0
",$
222
0
-30
350
NA
80
15ft &j
4
SOU
NA
9
NA
19 s
25
350
10
NA
NA
NA
15
NA
NA
NA ''-
NA
^«A •,
NA
. NA
38
50
No
*fo,
Yes
No
No
, N0
No
y*$
No
xNP
No
(to
Yes
»te,
NoO)
*«a
Yes
to,
No
,Vas '
No
Y66 -
No
-'«0
No
NO ':
Yes
NO ' '
No
'NO
None
Nona
ONP,OCC.A,F,S,G,P(I)
Now
None
Norn*
None
None
NOW
None
None
None
None
BC
NF.RC
None
None
None
RS
None
None
Nott»
ONP,OCC,HP,A,G
None
Non*
ONP.OCC.HP,A,F,G
Non»
None
QGC,HP,A,L ^
None
None
NOW
NF
None
None
NF
None
NF.RC
BFfB
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
' • • - ' ' •• f •• SSW& -•
30 communities studied, and Table 6.2 describes
these communities' commercial/institutional waste
recovery programs. Chart 6.2 shows the
importance of commercial/institutional waste
recovery in reaching high MSW recovery rates.
Communities that achieved MSW recovery rates
greater than 30 percent, recovered between 25 and
70 percent of their commercial waste streams.
How Communities Increase
Commercial/Institutional
Recovery Levels
The number and type of commercial recycling
opportunities vary greatly among the communities
studied. As Tables 6.1 and 6.2 and Charts 6.3 and
6.4 indicate, some communities, such as Lincoln
Communities Employ Multiple Strategies to
Encourage Commercial Sector Recycling
Lincoln Park and Newark, New Jersey and Seattle, Washington have achieved high*'
commercial/industrial recovery rates using a variety of the techniques described in this chapter.
Seattle successfully recovered an estimated 40 percent of its commercial and institutional waste
In 1990. Without commercial/institutional waste recovery activities, Seattle's MSW recovery rate
would have been 18 percent rather than 40 percent. Two private franchised haulers collect all
commercial refuse in the City. Both offer their customers curbside^collection of source-separated,
recyclables at rates 25 to 40 percent lower than those for, refuse'copectiqn, A number of other
for-profit and nonprofit recycling companies also collect recyclabfeslrom a*large number of commercial
establishments. To encourage recycling collection, Seattle^ exempts recycling revenues from the
City Business and Occupation Tax that haulers pay "on garbage' collection revenues. Haulers are
able to pass on these savings, as well as the savings from avoided tipping fees, to their customers.
Hundreds of private drop-off and buy-back centers throughout Seattle! as well as the two public
drop-off sites operated by the Solid Waste Utility, accept commercial recyclables free Of charge.
The Solid Waste Utility has published the Commercial Waste Audit Manual to aid businesses in
evaluating their waste streams and their current'recycling'prbgrafns, and to help them develop waste'
reduction and recycling programs. '- /-",- ,, , '" " ,
,, ,: '_ , . - ' "•"•"" ,,/vz,tf$tr%$££''""-?" '^J''?''?, " ™,->?•"?"
Lincoln Park requires commercial establishments to recycle grass, aluminum, high-grade paper,
newspaper, and corrugated cardboard. It encourages businesses to use the public recycling depot
by allowing them to deliver materials there free of charge. Most of the Borough's 195 businesses
and institutions utilize the drop-off site, and thus avoid the $118.80 per ton refuse tipping fee. Larger
^ businesses contract with private haulers to collect recyclables or sell materials directly to market
In 1990 Lincoln Park recovered 70 percent of all waste generated by the commercial and institutional
sector. '': '.-*''"••; .*••"?„- ;,,, -..-"r.',*,,>, '4\-&
•" .v "V * - f s v- %% •" Wff
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options', Lessons jram3Q U-Sx Communities
Park, Newark, and Seattle, are successfully
encouraging businesses to recycle, while many
others are not. (See side bar, "Communities
Employ Multiple Strategies to Encourage
Commercial Sector Recycling.") In many instances,
expanded commercial and institutional recycling
efforts have been hampered by a lack of knowledge
about the components of the commercial waste
stream that are recyclable and compostable; few
incentives for businesses to arrange separate
collection for recyclable materials; and a lack of
private sector recycling collection services. The
following State and local government initiatives
have been used to spur the development of private
sector recycling programs in these and other
communities:
• instituting economic incentives targeted at
businesses and private haulers, such as high
tipping fees at refuse disposal sites, reduced or
no tipping fees at recycling drop-off sites and
materials processing centers, recycling start-up
funds, and rebates and tax relief for haulers
who recycle commercial wastes;
• targeting a wide range of materials for recovery;
• mandating that businesses and institutions
recover a wide range of recyclable and
compostable materials (or prohibiting disposal
of specific materials such as yard waste);
• requiring businesses to write and submit
recycling plans;
• providing technical assistance, such as waste
audits and listings of drop-off sites and
private recycling services;
• assisting businesses and haulers with
marketing of recovered materials by informing
them of different marketing options, allowing
them to bring materials to public processing
Chart 6.2
The Contribution of Commercial and Institutional Waste
Recovered to MSW Recovery
8
8,
70%
60% -
50% - - -
40% - i. - -
30% - <• - -
8.
20%
10%
r^i Residential and Self-
iii! haul Waste
Recovered
.gas Commercial and
HI Institutional Waste
Recovered
Notes: k breakdown for residential and commercial materials recovered werenotavailable in Berkeley, Bowdoinham, Portland, and Wapakoneta. Naperville,
Perkasie, and Takoma Park were excluded as only residential waste recovery data was available in 1990. Self-haul waste in Austin and San Francisco
includes materials generated by the residential and commercial sectors; a breakdown is not available, and these materials are included under residential
materials. Commercial/institutional waste recovered from self-haul sites In King County and Seattle is included in commercial waste recovered. Commercial/
institutional recovery figures for Upper Township, Newark, Columbia, and Austin are a percent of total solid waste (including C&D) as MSW figures are not
available. In Upper Township and Newark commercial tonnages represent privately-collected waste only (see Appendix C for information on what this waste
includes).
Commercial and Institutional Recovery
-------
Waste PreventionrE£cycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 ILS» Communities
Chart 6.3
The Contribution of the Commercial/Institutional Sector to
Waste Generated and Recovered
Commercial/Institutional Waste Generated
[ Commercial/Institutional Waste Recovered
canters, and sharing losses if materials revenues
fall below a designated threshold; arid
• providing municipal pick-up of commercial/
institutional recydables and/or convenient drop-
off depots that accept materials generated by the
commercial and institutional sector.
Economic Incentives
Economic incentives, such as high refuse
disposal costs, reduced tipping fees for delivering
recyclable and compostable materials to drop-off
sites, rebates, revenue from the sale of recydables,
and tax incentives, encourage businesses to recyde
and haulers to offer collection of recyclable
materials.
Avoided Costs and Cost Savings
In cities with moderate to high tipping fees,
recycling can be extremely cost-effective for
businesses. Recycling reduces the size of refuse
containers businesses may need and/or the
frequency of refuse collection, thereby saving
businesses money in disposal costs. Alerting
businesses to the potential cost savings is one way
communities are assisting commercial recycling
efforts. Some communities with lower tipping fees
are making the economic climate for recycling more
favorable by further reducing tipping fees for the
delivery of source-separated recyclable and
compostable materials. (See Table 6.3 for a list of
tipping fees.)
West Palm Beach recovered less than 1 percent
of its commercial waste during the base year April
1990 to March 1991. In 1990 refuse tipping fees
increased drastically to $84 per ton from $47 per
ton in 1989. To alert businesses to the potential
cost savings through recyding, and to encourage
sustained recyding efforts in the commercial sector,
the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority
(SWA) implemented a 1-year pilot bar and
restaurant recycling program in 1990. At the end
Commercial and Institutional Recovery
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from SO U,S, Communities
of the pilot study, the SWA provided each
participating business a cost analysis showing how
it could reduce refuse disposal fees through
recycling. By recycling corrugated cardboard and
glass, some businesses were able to reduce waste
volume 24 percent, and switch from an 8-cubic-
yard trash dumpster costing $1,088 per
month to a 6-cubic-yard dumpster that cost
$816 per month. Taking into account the
costs of renting three 95-gallon containers for
glass at $17 each per month, and one 8-cubic-
yard dumpster for cardboard at $55 per
month, these businesses have been able to
save $165 per month, or $1,980 per year.
Many communities now realize
that commercial and institutional
recycling and composting efforts
play an important role in meeting
high waste recovery goals.
A number of communities, including Lincoln
Park and Cape May County, New Jersey (in which
Upper Township is located), and Bowdoinham,
Maine allow private haulers and/or businesses to
drop off source-separated recyclable and
compostable materials at waste handling sites free
Private haulers in Providence, Rhode
Island pay a $49 per ton tipping fee at the
State's central landfill for commercial refuse.
Businesses in the State are required to recycle.
Two-thirds of Rhode Island's large businesses
that have completed mandatory recycling
reports have either saved money or
maintained their previous costs as a result of
recycling. Businesses have reported net
savings of up to $108,000 per year, while net
costs reported for recycling programs ranged
from $200 to $5,175 per year. Many of these
costs include one-time implementation
expenses. The grocery store chain "Stop and
Shop," which reported the $108,000 cost
savings, reduced its waste stream by 41
percent through corrugated cardboard and
office paper recovery. The Brown & Sharpe
Manufacturing Company, which
manufactures precision metrology products,
recovers high-grade paper, newspapers,
magazines, wood waste, polystyrene peanuts,
and coolant. During the first year of program
implementation, the company diverted almost
53 percent by weight of its waste from landfill
disposal and reduced its disposal costs 51
percent from $66,000 to $33,820.2
Table 6.3
Tipping Fees for Commercial Refuse
Community
% Com/lnst
Materials
Recovered
(ByWt.)(a)
Commercial
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
Lincoln, NE 25% $8
Columbia, MO 13% $10
Boulder, CO 12% $11
Monroe, Wl 27% $15
Sonoma County, CA 10% $17
Lafayette, LA 8% $20
Mecklenburg Co., NC 22% $26
San Francisco, CA 18% $45
Fennimore, Wl 25% Free/$32.00 (b)
Seattle, WA 40% $31.50 to $62 (c)
King County, WA 36% $47
La Crescent, MN 9% $43
Providence, Rl 13% $49
Dakota County, MN 24% $55
Berlin Township, NJ 61% $65
Philadelphia, PA 16%(d) $70
West Palm Beach, FL 0% $84 (e)
Peterborough, NH 4% $85
Upper Township, NJ (a)(b) 34% (d) $89
Newark, NJ 46% (d) $109
Lincoln Park, NJ 70% $119
Notes:
(a) Percentage of commercial/Institutional waste generated.
(b) From January to March 1990, refuse was tipped for free at the
City-owned landfill, after March waste was Incinerated for $32/ton.
(c) Seattle's 1990 tipping fee at the landfill was $32fton; haulers paid
$62/ton at City transfer stations, and $58/ton at private transfer stations.
(d) Figures are based on the tonnage handled by the private sector, which
may Include some residential waste. The commerdal/instituUonal
recovery activities by the public sector are not reflected in these figures.
(e) West Palm Beach's tipping fee Increased from $47/ton in 1989
to $89Aon in 1991.
Commercial and Institutional Recovery
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, tmd Composting Options! Lessons from 30 U£* Communities
of charge. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
encourages businesses to recycle at the County
landfill by allowing private haulers to dispose of
refuse free of charge provided they separate out at
least one-half of their loads for recycling. Private
haulers can also avoid the $26 per ton tipping fee
at County disposal sites by dropping'bff recyclables
at publicly run drop-off sites. Such measures have
proven very successful. In 1990 Lincoln Park
recovered 70 percent of its commercial waste;
Upper Township recovered 34 percent of its
privately collected waste; and Bowdoinham
recovered 54 percent of its MSW. (Commercial
figures for Bowdoinham are unavailable.)
Mecklenburg County recovered only 22 percent of
its commercial waste in 1990; however, commercial
waste comprised 81 percent of all waste recovered
in the County that year.
While businesses may be able to save money
in the long run through waste reduction and
recycling practices, savings are not always realized
immediately. This is particularly the case when a
business contracts separately for refuse and
recycling collection, and refuse contracts have
established, nonvariable rates. In Boulder,
Colorado, for example, many refuse accounts are
based on 3-year contracts; cost savings cannot be
achieved until the contract is renegotiated. At that
time, a business can reduce the size of its refuse
container or the frequency of collection.
Shared Savings and Rebates
Some refuse haulers pass on a portion of the
savings from avoided tipping fees, and of the
revenues earned from material sales, to those of
their customers that recycle. This provides
businesses an immediate incentive to recycle.
Modern Clean-up Services of La Crescent,
Minnesota will pay businesses for corrugated
cardboard when its price reaches a certain level. In
1990 the hauler collected 52 tons of cardboard from
10 businesses. Although none of the businesses
received revenues from the sale of the cardboard
in 1990 or 1991, the hauler provided cardboard
dumpsters free of charge and charged businesses
only $5 per month for weekly cardboard collection.
Modern Clean-up Services' tipping and hauling fees
for refuse typically range between $53 and $60 per
ton.
The City of San Francisco provided local
haulers Golden Gate Disposal and Sunset Scavenger
a matching grant to initiate a bar and restaurant
recycling program. In 1990 approximately 300 bars,
restaurants, and hotels separated glass bottles and
aluminum cans in a variety of containers (including
60- and 90-gallon plastic wheeled bins, and 1-cubic-
yard-and 1.5-cubic-yard metal containers) loaned by
Golden Gate at no charge. Haulers collect these
materials up to four times per week. Until
September 1991, high-volume generators received
rebates from their hauling fees for separating glass
from refuse. The rebate ($36.50 per ton in mid-
1990) proved a very effective recycling incentive.
In 1990 the two haulers collected an estimated 3,500
tons of glass and cans and paid over $100,000 in
rebates to bars and restaurants.3 The haulers
discontinued the rebates in September 1991 due to
a decline in the market price for glass containers.
The rebate may be reinstated when market
conditions improve.
Shared savings and material rebates offered by
private haulers are highly variable and directly
depend on the tipping fees and materials revenues
in that region of the country.
Tax Incentives
Communities are providing tax incentives to
haulers to collect commercial recyclables, and to
businesses to purchase recycling equipment.
Seattle, for example, charges garbage haulers a tax
on collection revenues, but excludes the collection
of commercial recyclables from this tax. The City's
two primary refuse haulers offer recycling services
to all customers. Fees for the collection of source-
separated corrugated cardboard, office paper,
computer paper, magazines, aluminum and ferrous
cans, and plastic and glass containers are 25 to 45
percent less than the fees for refuse collection. The
haulers pass on this savings, plus the savings from
avoided tipping fees, to their customers.
Targeting a Wide Range of
Materials for Recovery
While there is great similarity in the
composition of the residential waste stream from
residence to residence, the commercial waste stream
78 Commercial and Institutional Recovery
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options, Lessons fremSO U,S, Communities
can vary significantly with the type of business. Yet
within a single business establishment, the waste
stream is often homogeneous. Office waste is
composed mostly of paper; restaurant waste
contains a large percentage of food scraps; and
shopping malls generate large volumes of
corrugated cardboard. In order for communities to
reach high commercial recovery rates, businesses
need to identify the recoverable components of
their waste streams and find markets for these
materials. As described in this chapter, legislative
mandates, technical assistance, and planning
requirements are spurring businesses to identify
and recover recyclable and compostable materials.
(See Tables 6.4 and 6.5 for a listing of publicly and
privately collected commercial/institutional
materials, and Table 5.6 for a listing of materials
recovered from public and private drop-off sites.)
Paper is the largest single component of most
communities' commercial and institutional waste
streams, and is generally the largest component
recovered (see Chart 6.4). Cities with high
commercial/institutional recovery levels typically
have strong paper recovery programs. Lincoln
Park recycled 61 percent of its commercial waste
stream in 1990 through paper recycling alone. The
Borough not only required commercial recycling of
high-grade paper, newspaper, and corrugated
cardboard, but also accepted mixed paper at its
drop-off site. Seattle, which recovered an estimated
40 percent of its commercial waste in 1990, has a
successful paper recovery program. Approximately
68 percent, or 266,600 tons, of Seattle's commercial/
institutional waste stream consists of paper. Of this
amount, the City recovered an estimated 136,554
tons (51 percent) in 1990. In contrast, neither San
Francisco nor Dakota County, Minnesota is
recovering as large a volume of commercial waste
paper; consequently, these communities have lower
overall commercial recovery levels. Paper
comprised 49 percent of San Francisco's commercial
waste4 and 57 percent of Dakota County's
commercial waste, in 1990. Yet San Francisco
recovered 23 percent, and Dakota County 39
percent (25,147 of an estimated 64,885 tons),5 of
commercial waste paper generated.
In 1990 Mecklenburg County recovered 22
percent of its commercial waste stream; nearly all
of this material consisted of corrugated cardboard,
collected by the private sector. The County hopes
Chart 6.4
Commercial/Institutional Materials Recovered
70%
White Goods,
Scrap Metal,
Batteries, Tires,
Food Waste,
Motor Oil, &
Yard Waste
Glass, Aluminum,
Plastics, &
Ferrous Cans
Other Paper
Corrugated
Cardboard
Commercial and Institutional Recovery
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options? Lessons from 30IL5* Communities
to substantially increase its commercial recovery
rate by targeting other paper types in 1993, when
a new processing facility, designed to process
primarily waste paper from the commercial/
institutional sector, will come on line. (Businesses
will be charged a tipping fee to drop off materials
at this facility.)
Communities are elevating commercial
recovery levels by encouraging businesses to
recover a wide range of materials, including glass,
aluminum, ferrous metal, and food scraps. For
example, 45 percent of the commercial materials
recovered in King County in 1990 consisted of
glass, plastics, metals, tires, motor oil, batteries,
textiles, yard and wood waste, and food
waste. (See side bar, "Commercial Food
Waste Recovery Programs.")
Mandating Participation in the
Commercial/Institutional Sector
By mandating businesses and institutions
to recycle, communities encourage the
establishment of a private sector recycling
infrastructure.
Six of the 30 communities in our sample
require businesses to recycle a designated list
of materials. These include many of the
communities with the highest commercial/
institutional recovery rates, such as Lincoln
Park (with a 70 percent commercial/
institutional recovery rate), Newark (with a
46 percent private sector recovery rate), and
Upper Township (with a 34 percent private
sector recovery rate).6
Essex County, in which Newark is
located, has mandated that municipalities
provide, at a minimum, drop-off sites for
corrugated cardboard and high-grade paper.
In addition to these materials, Newark
requires businesses to recycle newspaper,
glass food and beverage containers, and
aluminum and bimetal cans.
Monroe, Wisconsin has required
businesses to recycle a wide range of
materials (including newspaper, corrugated
cardboard, glass containers, aluminum and
ferrous cans and scrap, lead-acid batteries,
tires, motor oil, and grass clippings) since July
1990. The City's two primary refuse haulers offer
their refuse customers curbside/alley collection of
recyclable materials. One of the haulers conducts
waste audits for its commercial businesses before
initiating recycling collection. Because refuse fees
are based on per-container charges, some
businesses save money through recycling.
According to State law, haulers in West Linn
and Portland, Oregon are required to pick up
recyclable materials from businesses, and may not
charge businesses more for refuse and recycling
collection than they charge for refuse collection
alone. (Many haulers in Portland, however, have
not informed their customers of this option.)
Comprehensive Prison
Recovery Program
Spurred by rapidly escalating labor costs, the
New York Department of Corrections (DOC)
currently recycles several materials at 64 Of its 68
facilities and composts food waste at 32 facilities.
As a result of all waste recovery activities, the DOC
is saving a total of $55,000 to $75,000 per month
in avoided tipping and hauling fees!
fnmates ("recycling porters") source-separate
recyclable corrugated cardboard, high-grade paper,
newspaper, ferrous cans, plastic containers, and
polystyrene. Food waste is collected daily from the
kitchens and delivered to a compost pad- The food
fe mixed with wood chips and leaves,, using a front-
end loader, and formed into windrows. Operators
monitor windrow temperatures and turn the
windrows as needed.
At two facilities, Shawangunk and Wyoming,
with 547 and 1,389 inmates respectively, corrugated
cardboard, office paper, newspaper, bimetal cans,
and plastic are recycled, and food waste is
composted, in 1991 Shawangunk recovered 30
percent of its waste through recycling and 11
percent through composting, yielding a total
recovery rate of 41 percent Wyoming recovered
20 percent through recycling and 18.5 percent
through composting.
Sources "Integrated Recycling Pays off at Prison Facilities,"
BioCycle, May 1991; and Jim Marion (Resource Management
Director, Fallsburg, NY) personal Communication, February 1992.
Commercial and Institutional Recovery
-------
Waste Prevention, Recyctingfemd Composting Options'. Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
Enforcing Recycling Mandates
Many communities have established
enforcement measures to ensure program
participation. Enforcement measures for mandatory
programs include warnings, penalties, fines, and
refusal to collect refuse containing recyclables. The
manager at Monroe County's landfill, for instance,
periodically inspects refuse. If recyclables are
found, the manager photographs the material and
reports the offense to the Department of Public
Works, which advises the offender how to comply
with the recycling regulations. As of fall 1991,
three businesses had been found to be in
noncompliance with Monroe's recycling regulations,
which went into effect in July 1990.
Newark may issue fines of $25 for
noncompliance with commercial recycling
requirements. However, no enforcement fines had
been levied as of mid-1991.
In large cities, it may not always be practical
for public works officials to examine refuse for
compliance with recycling regulations. City
officials use other mechanisms such as requiring
each business to fill out a recycling planning report
detailing the operation of its recovery program.
Planning and Reporting Requirements
Through waste audits and planning efforts,
communities are setting in motion and tracking
commercial recycling.
While businesses in Providence are responsible
for arranging their own collection and recovery
programs, the State provides technical assistance
and tracks waste generation and recovery through
mandated waste reduction and recycling plans.
Businesses with more than 50 employees must
submit annual recycling reports and waste
reduction plans to the State according to a specific
timetable, hi 1990 each of these businesses was
required to complete a waste audit and submit a
plan to the State Department of Environmental
Table 6.4
Materials Collected from Commercial/Institutional Establishments
at Curbside/Alley by the Public Sector
ONP OCC HP
FR
MP ALUM CAN
SM GLASS PET HOPE WG OIL
Total
Materials
BATT TIRES Collected
B*rlwl«y,CA
t^fafawfliMp, H4
Fcnnlmor*, Wl
Newark, NJ
Perkaale, PA
Upper Township, N J
Wapakoneta, OH
V
M:
M
V
M
V
M
M
M
V
M
V
V V
M M
V
M M
V
M
M
V
M
V
M M
M
M V
V
K*
M
V
¥
M
M
V
M
M
-
V V V V V
7
8
9
1
5
$4,
1
ALUM. Aluminum
HOPE - High-density Polyethylene
OCC - Corrugated Caidboaid
SM - Scrap metal
BATT - Batteries
HP - High-grade Paper
ONP - Newspaper
WG - White Goods
FR CAN • Ferrous Cans
MP-Mixed Paper
PET - Polyethylene Terephthalate
V - Set-out of material by business or institutional establishment is voluntary,
M - Set-out of material by business or institutional establishment is mandatory.
Notn:
Communities listed represent only those cities offering municipal curbside collection of commercial materials. Total materials collected may be
underestimated in some cases as mixed paper can include several grades of paper. The City of Redman, located in King County, Washington,
collects high-volume, low-value material such as mixed waste paper.
Commercial and Institutional Recovery
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30ILS* Communities
Management detailing the amount of material
currently disposed, the amount and type of
material currently recycled, a waste composition
breakdown, and a proposed plan for reducing and/
or recycling each component comprising over 5
percent of the waste stream, including how
materials would be separated, collected, and
transported to market.7 Once recycling plans have
been approved by the DEM, businesses must file
annual reports on their recycling activities. As of
1991, all businesses with over 100 employees that
were required to submit recycling plans to the
DEM, had done so. While the DEM did not
enforce implementation of such plans until mid-
1991, it believes that the majority of large
businesses are currently recycling. (By 1991 neither
the State nor the City of Providence had
determined how much commercial waste was being
recycled in Providence; tonnages utilized for this
study were estimated and may under-represent
actual recovery levels.)
Berlin Township, with a commercial/
institutional recovery rate of 61 percent, reviews all
business recycling plans prior to issuing or
renewing a mercantile license.
Technical Assistance
Municipalities also encourage commercial
recycling through technical assistance. Eleven of
the communities studied, primarily the larger
communities and the counties, provide the
commercial/institutional sector with some form of
technical assistance. Such assistance may include:
• on-site assistance, including waste audits;
• business-specific informational exchanges and
round-table discussions; and
• listings of markets, haulers, and other commercial
sector publications.
While Lincoln, Nebraska recovered only 3
percent of its residential waste in 1990, it recovered
25 percent of it commercial/institutional materials.
(Seventy-seven percent of the MSW recovered in
Lincoln in 1990 consisted of commercially generated
materials.) The City Recycling Office and the
University of Nebraska Civil Engineering
Department have helped encourage such recovery
efforts through a waste assessment project. Ten
different types of businesses, including a hospital,
an office building, and a manufacturer, participated
in this voluntary program. An assessment team
conducted a waste audit for each business and
followed with a technical and economic feasibility
analysis for reducing each business's waste stream.
Participating businesses estimate that 30 to 65
percent by weight of their waste stream has been
diverted as a result of recycling.
The Philadelphia Recycling Office (PRO) has
published a pamphlet, entitled Commercial Recycling
Quick Reference to assist businesses in locating
recycling vendors. Another PRO publication,
Recycling at Work Profiles of Commercial Recycling,
highlights innovative business recycling programs,
and offers instructions on how to conduct waste
audits and start up a recycling program. PRO has
also organized a number of business-specific
information exchanges to promote recycling.
Awards
Prestigious awards can spur businesses and
institutions to recycle. Awards provide businesses
with free advertising and can be a valuable public
relations tool. A number of cities including
Newark and Lincoln, where businesses pay refuse
tipping fees ranging from $8 to $102 per ton,
distribute awards annually to businesses.
Assisting Businesses and Haulers
with Marketing Recyclables
Some municipalities are helping local haulers
and businesses locate markets for commercial
recyclables, and in some cases, accepting privately
generated material at public facilities. Mecklenburg
County, for example, plans to open a recycling
facility to process commercially generated waste
paper. The County will charge businesses a tipping
fee to drop off this material.
Private haulers in Providence have reported
some difficulty marketing commercially generated
recyclables. The State of Rhode Island allows
private haulers to use the State processing facility
as a market of last resort, however, it charges the
private sector a tipping fee equivalent to the tipping
fee at the State landfill.
Commercial and Institutional Recovery
-------
Table 6.5
Materials Privately Collected at Curbside/Alley from Commercial/Institutional Establishments
Year Tota,
Data FR OTHR Materials
Collected ONP OCC HP MP ALUM CAN SM GLASS PET HDPEPLAS WG OIL FOOD BATT TIRES TEX Collected
Austin, TX FY89 V V V V V V
Berlin Township, NJ 1990 M M M
Bou»if,Ca f99ft V V V V
Bowdolnham, ME FY90 V V V V V V
&iumbitai,|kji ';""'" % FY9Q V V V V ,
Dakota Co., MN(b) 1990 V V V V V V
King Co., WA 1990 V V V V V
LliCMwctfVt.MN ' f y&fy >. < ;y
Lafayette, LA FY90 V V V V V V
Jtinoolik»I ^ ^ " ,t99fr ,/ v , V V - ,
Lincoln Park, NJ 1990 M M M M
IMaeiAurgeo.,*^ ,,1996= \V
Monroe, Wl 1989 - v
NlVWVllO, )t(e} '',/' ^1990 V V V V V
Newark, NJ 1989 M M ,M V M M
Peterborough, NH 1990 V
PMW*phH,PA £' . {*{» W M^V M^V
Portland, OR 1990 V V V V V
•PNtVWWV^ Rt ' •:;>,-•<•, WW M M. $ * M % >Mjv;; fJt
San Francisco, CA 1990 V V V
S«*ttl»,WA ', S, r 10SO^A r •. .,]( V •• V 4v ' 'V;
Sonoma Co., C A 1990 V V V V
Takoma Park, MD t j 1990 --; •• ^
Upper Township, NJ 1990 M M M" M M M
WestUnn, OR 1990 V V V V
W««P«lto8w»Crj,FL(o} -4W>-3^81 V
Key:
ALUM - Aluminum BATT. Batteries
HP -High-grade Paper MP > Mixed Paper
OTHR PLAS -Other Plastics PET . Polyethylene Terephthalate
WG. White Goods
V - Set-out of material by business or institutional establishments is voluntary.
M - Set-out of material by business or institutional establishment is mandatory.
V
. V
V V V V V v
v v
V V V V
V
4
V V V
M
>V V , V V
V M v V V V
'< '•- - -
'$ V ' «V > ^ V V !
V V V V
, V M * M
t
s
IS
£
j«
Q
s
«.•
S"
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U,5» Communities^
A cooperative program in New Hampshire, run
by the Governor's office, the State Food Waste
Recycling Association, the University of New
Hampshire, and the State Veterinarian's Office,
helps local food producers locate food waste users,
such as pig farmers.8
Municipal Collection
In some communities, private haulers do not
offer businesses collection of recyclables. In such
cases, and in order to reach high recovery rates,
some municipalities become the primary hauler of
commercial recyclables. Municipalities either
provide businesses collection services, contract with
private haulers to provide such service, or establish
drop-off sites that accept recyclables generated by
commercial and institutional establishments.
In Berlin Township businesses are required to
recycle. The Department of Public Works collects
refuse from 20 of the 280 businesses located in the
Township but offers recycling service to 200. It
collects source-separated aluminum and tin cans,
glass, corrugated cardboard, HOPE and PET plastic
containers, newspaper, and scrap metal on a
weekly basis, for no charge from these 200
businesses. Upon request, the Township provides
bars and restaurants with 20- and 55-gallon drums
for glass storage, and with 20-gallon drums for
storage of aluminum, tin cans, and plastic
containers. In 1990 Berlin Township recovered 61
percent of its commercial/institutional waste
stream.
The City of Wapakoneta, Ohio collects
commercial and institutional refuse; since 1990 it
has also collected corrugated cardboard for
recycling. The City is restructuring its refuse fees
to provide businesses maximum incentive to
source-separate cardboard. It will charge
businesses $10, $12, or $14 per pick-up of mixed
Commercial Food Waste Recovery Programs
f fr * i *2f ff f S <• f * •.•-•. f j
For more than 10,000 years, people have kept swine and fed them food wastes.' This practice
continues today in many communities. In New Jersey, food scraps' from 12! food waste classes.,
are fed to swine. These include bakery waste, seafood residues, and residential food'scraps, as
well as waste from restaurants, institutions, dairies, processing plants? supermarkets, and camps, tit
Philadelphia, hog farmers collect an tintracked amount of food waste from bakeries, hospitals, prisons,
and supermarkets for use as a feed, " ^',,,„, , ^'--^/r/L, >, ,.-
Due to geographical and other factors, recovering food waste for animal teed is not always feasible.
Animal rendering operations are another means of food waste recovery* Renderers collect rneat
scraps from butchers and supermarkets for the manufacturesof J?oapr cosmetics, perfume^ and animal
feed. Standard Tallow, a company located in Newark, proyides'custbmers with barrels"!or food 'scraps,
which it collects up to two times per week. Approximately 2 percent by weight of the materials
collected through commercial (and other private sector) recovery efforts in 1989 consisted of food
- •• j SSSSW '** s , , r ^W-w
"'f •"
The large amount of food waste generated In institutions such as prisons and schools can also
be composted. Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island recovers food waste from dining halls.
The hog farmer picks up the food waste (estimated at 1,500 pounds'a day) every morning, 7 days
a week. Beginning in 1989 with a pilot project at two facilities, the New York Department of Corrections
(DOC) currently composts a good portion of the food waste produced at 32 of its 68 facilities, (See
side bar, "Comprehensive Prison Recovery Program.")"', - \V,, , ~«?
Businesses can donate unused food to shelters. City Harvest"in New York City delivers 10,000
pounds of food that restaurants, corporations, and cafeterias"would otherwise dispose of, to homeless"
shelters, day care centers, and other social service fa^ilitiei^Jll,, , / ,,,, TIT -.
Source: Jeffrey Suhr et a],, Feasibility of Food Waste Recycling in New 'Jerseys-Fourth Quarterly Draft Report to ihe"
New Jersey Office of Recycling, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, 1984; and inform Report$t Inform, (nc,, New York
City, Summer/Fall 1991, ,„ ., , - "'"' <-.,— --. -""•«,•,•,,•. ,,~~ -' '"fT'f^
Commercial and Institutional Recovery
-------
Waste Prevention, SecyeKngfandContpostingOptions^ Lessons from 3D IT.S, Communities
Hospital Recycling and Source
. Reduction Initiatives
Large institutions, such as hospitals, generate significant
amounts of solid waste. In some communities, hospitals are
beginning to target their waste for recycling and to substitute
reusable products for disposable ones. For example, twenty
of the twenty-three hospitals in the Seattle metropolitan area
are now using cloth diapers. Emerson Hospital In Boston
reported savings of approximately $1,000 annually by using
a cloth diaper service,
in Philadelphia, the Hospital of the University of
Pennsylvania established a recycling program in 1988. Thirty-
live departments, including the nursery, pharmacy, and many
laboratories, collect corrugated cardboard, high-grade paper,
clear glass, and aluminum cans for recycling under the
supervision of an area coordinator. Collection of corrugated
cardboard alone has decreased the volume of waste disposed
by an estimated 20 percent, saving the hospital an estimated
$25,000 to $30,000 per year, The hospital plans to add
polystyrene and PET and HOPE plastics to the program in
July 1992. The recycling program has not required hiring any
additional staff.
Hospitals in Monroe, Wisconsin are required by City few
to recycle a range of materials, including glass» many grades
of paper, and ferrous and aluminum cans. In order to meet
% these requirements, St. Clare Hospital purchased a baler 10
bale corrugated cardboard on the premises. Hospital
departments separate newsprint, high-grade paper, mixed
paper {including magazines), glass4 metal, four types of plastic,
and batteries. Materials are placed in separate bins in a
"recycling room" located near the loading dockx Hospital
personnel then haul these recyclables to the City recycling
center. In summer 1991, the hospital intends to switch from
disposable to cloth diapers, and from paper to doth drapes
in surgery rooms*
The Butterworth Hospital in Grand Rapids, Michigan
conducted waste audits in all its departments to Identify
opportunities for reducing and recycling fhe waste stream. The
hospital switched from disposable to autoclavable bed pans,
saving an estimated $1 5,000 per year in product expenditures
and $877 in disposal fees. Butlerworth has also been
recycling corrugated cardboard for over 10 years, and most
of its departments collect mixed office paper for recycling. An
estimated 70 tons of corrugated cardboard and 40 tons of
mixed paper are recycled per year at this 529-bed facility.
t Prall Culvlner, "Disposable Diapers -Do They Have a Future"?"' Waste ,
Ag&, May 1 991 ; Charles DiPietro Robbe. "Michigaft hospital creates 'Recycllcare'
program,' KoCycta, May 1991,
refuse, depending on container
size, but only $8 per pick-up of
segregated cardboard.
Businesses in Berkeley receive
municipal refuse collection
service. Refuse rates are based on
container size as well as on
frequency of collection service.
Businesses may receive municipal
curbside/alley collection of
recyclables for no additional fee.
(The City's cost for the separate
collection of recyclables is covered
by the refuse fees it charges
businesses.) In 1990 the City
collected recyclable materials from
250 businesses. By 1992, 600
businesses had signed up for
recycling collection service.
Sometimes private haulers
charge moderate fees for
collection of recyclables from
large-volume generators, but'
relatively high collection fees for
smaller generators. In some cases,
municipalities provide collection
service to smaller businesses. In
Newark, for example, private
haulers collect most commercial
wastes, but the City provides
smaller businesses with free
collection of corrugated cardboard
in all major business corridors.
This service costs the City $58 per
ton. Newark has expanded the
number of corrugated cardboard
customers from 70 in 1989 to 247
in 1991.
In some communities, private
haulers will not pick up high-
volume, low-value recyclable
materials. Communities can
encourage private haulers to offer
collection of such materials. For
example, in Redmond,
Washington (located in King
County), the City contracts with a
private recyder on a per ton basis
to pick up mixed paper and other
low-grade paper from small and
Commercial and Institutional Recovery
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options} lessons from 30ILS. Communities
large businesses. The fee paid to this hauler is
obtained from a waste surcharge that the City has
levied on all businesses. All businesses are, in
effect, paying for this service.
Many businesses, particularly smaller ones,
utilize drop-off and buy-back sites for recydables.
Cities can encourage commercial recycling efforts
by allowing businesses to drop off materials at
publicly run or contracted drop-off sites. Lincoln
Park, for example, encourages businesses to use the
public drop-off site. The Borough spends an
average of $54 per ton of
material collected and
processed through the drop-
off site. Businesses
primarily deliver corrugated
cardboard, which the
Borough was able to sell for
$12 to $15 per ton in 1990.
The Community
Conservation Centers Inc.
(CCC), a nonprofit company
in Berkeley, operates two
drop-offs and one buy-back
site. Businesses can deliver
newspaper, mixed paper,
glass containers, aluminum
and tin cans, refillable wine
bottles, and corrugated
cardboard to all three sites.
They are paid for materials
brought to the Berkeley Buy-
Back Center, which is
operated under contract
with the City. For the
$25,000 the City paid CCC
to operate the buy-back in
Recycling in a Resort Community
- Upper Township, a resort
community in Cape May County, New
Jersey, requires commercial and
residential^ recycling. TO assist
commercial recycling efforts, the
Township collects recyclable materials
from 222 of its 260 businesses. The
County has provided real estate
agents with recycling bins for motets
and rental apartments,^ and with
stickers in each unit instructing
vacationers how to recycle, Upper
Township supplies marinas,
campgrounds, bars, and restaurants
with 20»gal)on containers _ for
commercial recyclables, The'program
has been so successful that in the
summer of 1990 the Township had to
hire an additional crew to "col feet"
materials twice a week. In 1990
Upper Township recovered 43 percent
of its total solid waste.
FY 1991, it recovered a total of 2,386 tons of
material (from both the commercial and the
residential sectors) at a cost to the City of
approximately $10 per ton.
Conclusion
Cities are stimulating businesses and
institutions to recover a wide range of recyclable
materials. Commercial and institutional waste
recovery helps communities meet high recycling
goals. Communities,
particularly large cities, can
encourage commercial
recycling through legislative
mandates, technical
assistance, and recycling
planning requirements, and
by allowing private haulers
to deliver materials to public
processing centers.
Communities that collect
refuse from the commercial
and institutional sector may
find it cost-effective to
collect source-separated
recyclable and compostable
materials from this sector as
well. Communities with
such incentives and
programs in place are
already recovering 40 to 70
percent of their commercial
and institutional waste
streams and continue to
strive for still higher
recovery levels.
Commercial and Institutional Recovery
-------
Waste Prevention, RecycKngfan£ Composting Options? Lessons from 30ILS, Communities
Notes
IrThelarge percentage of commercial waste generated in certain rural communities is attributed to the relatively lowper capita
generation of residential waste. Due to backyard composting, waste burning, and other factors, per capita residential waste
generation is quite low in many rural communities, ranging between 1 to 2 pounds per person per day in many instances.
2John McCabe, "Commercial waste recycling: the experience in one state," Resource Recycling, November 1991.
3Although the haulers would like to continue the service, Golden Gate's Recycling Manager estimates that 30 percent by
weight of the commingled material was lost to theft in the beginning of 1990. In addition, the Company incurred several
thousand dollars in damages to toters and bins due to scavenging of materials. The Recycling Manager attributes these
problems to the increase in California's redemption value from 1.5 to 2.5 cents in January 1990. Customers have since been
asked to secure bins to prevent further scavenging. An estimated 15 percent of customers no longer receive the service due
to their inability to secure containers. The haulers have also enlisted the help of the local police to enforce the City's anti-
scavenging ordinance. As of mid-1990, seven arrests had been made.
^This estimate was calculated by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance based on data from Brown, Vence, and Associates. This
consulting company estimates that San Francisco generated 191,375 tons of waste paper in 1990. A total of 392,764 tons of
commercial waste were generated that same year, minus animal manure and inerts. (Brown> Vence and Associates, personal
communication, November 1991.)
^The tonnage of commercial waste paper generated was obtained from Franklin Associates, Ltd., Dakota County Generation and
Characterization Study, February 1991.
6New Jersey businesses are required by State law to recycle.
7In June 1992 the provisions of the mandated recycling plan were altered and streamlined.
^Resource Recycling, November 1991,22.
Commercial and Institutional Recovery 87
-------
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options', Lessons from 30 U,S, Communities
Chapter Seven
Targeting Construction and
Demolition Debris for Recovery
Construction and demolition (C&D) debris is
waste generated as a result of building activities,
including road repair projects. This waste includes
tree stumps and other treated and untreated wood
waste, bricks, concrete, asphalt, metal, roofing
shingles, dry wall, and other building materials.
The amount of C&D debris any given community
generates may fluctuate widely from year to year
as land clearing, construction, and demolition
activities vary over time. C&D often comprises a
significant portion of the total solid waste generated
by many communities. While this waste often
burdens local collection and disposal systems, much
of it is handled by the private sector; as a
consequence, tonnages generated are often
untracked and therefore unknown.1
Chart 7.1, which compares the amount of C&D
waste generated to the amount of municipal solid
waste generated for select
communities, illustrates how
much C&D debris generation
can vary among communities.
(C&D waste is neither
household nor commercial/
institutional waste. Thus the
tonnages of MSW generated
and recovered in this report do
not include C&D waste. C&D
waste is, however, included in
total solid waste tonnages. See
Table 2.2.) In the rural
community of Bowdoinham,
Maine, C&D debris made up 2
percent of the local waste
stream in fiscal year 1990, or
0.01 tons per capita. In
comparison, C&D totaled 1.07
tons per capita in the City of
Lincoln, Nebraska in 1990—
nearly 50 percent of the total
waste stream. As a result of
major street repair work in 1989,
the rural city of Monroe, Wisconsin, also generated
a large amount of C&D waste, equivalent to 0.60
tons per person.
Table 7.1 provides C&D waste generation and
recovery data for 13 communities (all those in our
study for which such information was available),
including which materials are reclaimed. Chart 7.2
shows the significant contribution recovery of C&D
materials makes to the total solid waste recovery
rate in Monroe, Wisconsin; Lincoln, Nebraska; La
Crescent, Minnesota; and Berkeley, California. In
our base year of study, the annual tonnage of C&D
materials recovered in these communities exceeded
that of MSW recovered. (See Tables 2.1 and 7.1.)
In fact, if the tonnage of C&D recovered is excluded
from total waste recovered and disposed, recovery
rates would drop from 38 percent to 22 percent in
Berkeley, from 41 percent to 29 percent in La
Chart 7.1
Contribution of Construction and Demolition
Debris to Total Solid Waste Generated
U MSW Generated
C&D Generated
Construction and Demolition Debris 89
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U,S, Communities
Crescent, from 52 percent to 12 percent in Lincoln,
and from 50 percent to 28 percent in Monroe.
Asphalt and concrete are currently the most
popular C&D materials being recovered. Some
communities recycle and/or compost wood waste,
and a few are recovering other C&D materials
through public or private operations. This chapter
describes C&D recovery strategies employed in
these communities. These include:
• salvaging bricks, wood waste, and other
discarded building materials for reuse,
• grinding asphalt, concrete, and bricks for use
as an aggregate, primarily in new roadbed
construction, or as landfill cover,
• recovering asphalt roofing waste for recycling
into a road repair asphalt material,
• recovering scrap metal for remanufacturing,
• grinding wood waste into a mulch product,
and
• using C&D for fill or landfill cover.
Materials Exchange for resale to local homeowners
and builders. In its 1991 fiscal year, Urban Ore
grossed $724,364 ($134 per ton recovered) from the
salvage and resale of C&D debris and other
household materials, earning a net profit of $27,754.
The Loading Dock, a nonprofit building supply
recycler located in Baltimore, Maryland, redirects
bulky material such as lumber, drywall, floor
covering, doors, paints, and windows from disposal
to end uses. Donated materials must be reusable.
The Loading Dock distributes these materials to
organizations that use them to build low-income
housing. The operation currently recycles 12,000
to 14,000 tons of materials per year.
The Town of Peterborough, New Hampshire
recovers an untracked amount of bulky items, such
as lumber, windows, and wire, at its Recycling
Center, and gives these away to residents.
According to the Town Administrator, the
Recycling Center has gained a reputation as a place
to find hard-to-obtain items. (See Chapter 3 for
further discussion of reuse operations.)
Reuse Operations
In a few communities,
public and private operations
recover a wide range of
materials from construction
and demolition projects,
including windows, doors,
wood waste, and shingles, for
reuse by professional
contractors and "do-it-
yourselfers." Of the nearly
40,000 tons of C&D debris
recovered in Berkeley,
California from July 1990
through June 1991 (66 percent
of C&D waste generated), an
estimated 3,590 tons were
salvaged by Urban Ore, a
Berkeley-based company.
That year, the company
salvaged 27 percent of the
12,325 tons of wood waste
generated in Berkeley. Urban
Ore recovers used building
materials, such as windows
and doors, at its Building
Chart 7.2
Construction & Demolition Debris
and MSW Recovery
70%
H MSW Recovered
C&D Recovered
Construction and Demolition Debris
-------
Table 7.1
Construction & Demolition Debris Recovery (a)
Community
Berkeley, CA
{tauldejvCiO
Bowdolnham, ME
jj, 0r*«««nt( W$
Lincoln, NE
JUncotrt, PwKStW
Monroe, Wl
NWMrktHJ
Philadelphia, PA
San Francisco, CA
Sonoma County, CA
Upper To wnuMptfM ..
West Linn, OR
Wwtl'ftlmaMic^FL
Key:
ASP .Asphalt
LS . Landscaping Material
Year Data
Population Applicable
102,724
88t000
2,189
4,305
191,972
IIMJOO
10,220
275,221
1,633,826
723,969
388,222
10,961
1,977
' •' **£& '
FY91
1900
FY1990
1990
1990
1990
1989
1989
FY1990
1990
1990
1900
1990
t»0-3/91
BLD. Building Materials
NA. Not Available
C&D Per Capita
Generated Generation
(Tons) (Tons/Year)
59,626
ySS,?^
12
910
206,146
NA
6,142
NA
431,684
VtjSM*
131,501
• - NA;'
1,977
132,684
0.58
0,90
0.01
0,21
1.07
NA
0.60
NA
0.26
&04
0.34
NA
0.12
: 2,12
C&D C&D
Recycled Composted
(Tons) (Tons)
39,593
942
(b)
600
193,167 (c)
522
5,875
1,873
19,088
12,428
14,089
0
593
0
0
£
0
Q
0
83
0
1,726
4,500
0
515
' 766
0
0
C&D = Undifferentiated C&D (including cinder blocks and brick)
RB = Roadbase
SM = Scrap Metal
C&D % C&D
Recovered Recovered
(Tons) (By Wt)
39,593
34S!
(b)
600
193,167
604
5,875
3,599
23,588
12,421
14,604
7<56
593
Q
CON . Concrete
WW. Wood Waste
66%
$%
(b)
65%
94%
NA
96%
NA(d)
5%
4S%
11%
NA((^,
30%
l0%
C&D
Materials
Recovered
ASP, BLD, C&D
SMjX
C&D
A$P
ASP, CON
ASP.WW
ASP
ASP.WW
ASP, CON, C&D, WW
ASP, CON
ASP, CON, WW
WW
C&D
None
LC = Landfill Cover
X = Carpet Pads
C&D
End Use
RB.BLD
NA
BLD
RB
LC.RB
NA
RB
NA
RB.LS
RB
NA
m
NA
W
(a) Most communities do not track tonnages of C&D generated and recovered. We obtained most of our tonnage data from the private sector and disposal facilities. Our figures may exclude some C&D
waste privately disposed or recovered. Other cities that recover C&D but do not track C&D tons generated include Berlin Township, Dakota County, Naperville, Peterborough, and Seattle. Although
C&D tonnages in Naperville were not available, ILSR estimated, using a County figure, that the City generated 35,826 tons of C&D in 1990. In 1990 the City asphalt paving recycling program recycled
an estimated 10,247 tons of asphalt
(b) Bowdoinham recycled less than 1 percent (less than 1 ton) of its C&D debris.
(c) 133,167 tons, 69 percent of C&D waste recovered, were used as a landfill cover.
(d) The percentage of C&D waste recovered cannot be calculated, as C&D waste disposed is not available.
(e) Although no C&D was recovered in West Palm Beach during 1990, the County Solid Waste Authority recovers some C&D waste such as large cement pipes which are used to form artificial reefs.
-------
Waste Prevention!, Recycling, and Composting Options} Lessons from 30 U^Conmuniijes
Asphalt and Concrete Recovery
Rubble such as concrete, bricks, dirt, and
asphalt is a common component of C&D waste. A
number of municipalities reprocess and reuse
asphalt and concrete from city street and sidewalk
repair projects. Using reclaimed materials avoids
disposal fees, and reduces the expense of producing
and buying paving materials. New asphalt sells for
approximately $30 per ton (in 1991 dollars) in the
Northeast, whereas recycled asphalt sells for $5 to
$10 per ton.2
Asphalt used for paving roads actually contains
95 percent aggregate and only 5 percent pure
asphalt. When roads are built, gravel is first laid
and then covered with roadbase material. The
roadbase, termed "cold mix," typically includes a
mixture of crushed asphalt, aggregate, and stone.
This layer is then covered with a protective coating,
or "hot mix." Most waste asphalt is generated
when existing paved areas are prepared for
repaving; this involves removing the top layer of
the old asphalt before replacing it with new asphalt.
Some of the old asphalt can be mixed with new
asphalt before being applied to the road surface.
However, recycled asphalt is more often used as
a roadbase or for shoulders on roads. With the
improvement of technologies and the strengthening
of secondary asphalt materials, the use of recycled
asphalt in the top layer could increase in the
future.3
Concrete waste, another component of C&D
rubble, is a byproduct of sidewalk construction and
repair, foundation pouring, and bridge building
and repair. "Concrete" is actually a combination
of concrete and an aggregate that contains crushed
stone, sometimes mixed with sand and grit.
Crushed concrete is primarily used as an aggregate
for roadbase material. It can also be used for many
other purposes, such as foundations or the concrete
layer used below the cold and hot mixes on
highway bridges. Reclaimed asphalt and concrete
can be reprocessed at the construction site where
they are generated or at a separate facility.4
La Crescent, Minnesota; Monroe, Wisconsin;
Lincoln, Nebraska; Naperville, Illinois; Berkeley,
California; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania reclaim
asphalt and concrete materials. In 1990 La Crescent
recovered 600 tons of asphalt (65 percent of C&D
generated that year), which was ground and relaid.
Monroe repaired its street beds in 1989, and a local
company reprocessed the resulting 5,875 tons of
asphalt for use in relaying the road bed. MSW
recovery activities diverted 19 percent of Monroe's
solid waste in 1989; C&D recovery increased this
diversion level to 50 percent. The City of Berkeley
recovered about 60 percent of the approximately
40,000 tons of C&D debris generated between July
1990 to June 1991 through two private C&D
recovery operations.
Wood Waste Recovery
Wood waste often comprises a significant
portion of the total C&D debris recovered by a
community. Often such wood waste is burned as
a fuel. While this may be an appropriate end use
for untreated wood, it is not considered recycling.
Wood waste from land clearing and other
construction and demolition activities can be
chipped or ground for use as a mulch product. In
1990 Lincoln Park recovered 1,876 tons of wood
stumps and logs, which were delivered to The Ox
Stump Factory in Ledgewood, New Jersey, for
composting/mulching. This tonnage represents 43
percent of the organic materials recovered in
Lincoln Park that year. (Tonnages of C&D
disposed are not available; thus, a C&D recovery
rate cannot be calculated for Lincoln Park.) The
Factory, which opened in 1989, accepts yard waste,
brush, and tree stumps for a fee of $8 per cubic
yard. Another 83 tons of wood waste from the
demolition of two houses were recovered and
composted in Lincoln Park by the private sector.
Berlin Township chips brush, tree stumps, and
clean lumber on a small area of its public works
yard with a Chipmore chipper. In 1990 the
Township recovered 640 tons (almost 22 percent of
the materials it composted or chipped) this way.
Lower Value Uses
While new construction projects may represent
the highest value use for asphalt and concrete,
some communities are diverting these and other
materials to other kinds of projects. Palm Beach
County uses clean concrete such as cement pipes
to form artificial reefs. Of the 193,167 tons of
construction and demolition debris recovered in
Lincoln, Nebraska in 1990, 133,167 tons were put
92 Construction and Demolition Debris
-------
Waste ^Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options' Lessons from SO U.S. Communities
to a low-value use as fill material to close the
landfill. (The other 60,000 tons of concrete and
asphalt were recovered by private haulers and used
for road resurfacing or to make new asphalt.)
Economic Incentives and
Legislative Initiatives
Some of the communities in our study use
financial incentives in the form of reduced tipping
fees to encourage haulers and businesses to
separate C&D materials for recovery. If haulers can
deliver the waste they collect to a private or public
recovery facility at a lower cost than a disposal
facility would charge, they will tend to do so. In
April 1990, Cape May County, New Jersey, opened
the Bulky Waste Sorting and Recycling Facility at
its landfill site to separate out scrap metal, tires,
commercial cardboard, bulky waste, and wood
waste. The County normally charges a landfill
tipping fee of $83.50 per ton, which can be reduced
to $60 per ton if private haulers separate out clean
wood waste. If more than 5 percent of the private
hauler's load contains unsorted recyclable materials
(that is, recyclables mixed with trash), the County
charges $200 in addition to the tipping fee.
The City of Lincoln encourages private haulers
to deposit construction and demolition materials at
the City's old landfill by not charging them a
tipping fee. In 1990 a total of 193,167 tons of C&D
(94 percent of C&D generated) were recovered at
this facility. Much of this material was used to
close the landfill.
Dakota County has a few private C&D
recovery operations. One such operation, 8KB (a
subsidiary of Carl Bolander & Sons), a C&D
demolition landfill, charges $4.50 per cubic yard for
clean and mixed loads of C&D debris—eight times
less than the charge to haulers at the local
municipal solid waste landfills. 8KB recovers
stumps, pallets, and dean wood from demolition
and construction sites, processes these materials
into a mulch, and sells them to landscapers and
residents. In 1990 the facility produced an
estimated 20,000 tons of mulch. 8KB also crushes
concrete, brick, and stone on site into materials to
be used as a road base. Reinforcing rods removed
at the processing plant are sold as scrap metal.
Communities also use legislative initiatives to
help spur C&D recovery. When Cherry Hill, New
Jersey contracts with private companies to repair
the roads, the contract stipulates that torn asphalt
be pulverized and used as a bottom layer on the
same street This process, called Pulverization
Stabilization Layover, resulted in the recycling of
19,413 tons of asphalt in 1989.5 In order to
encourage reclamation of C&D materials—
estimated to constitute 17 percent of its solid waste
stream—McHenry County, Illinois has proposed
requiring developers to submit a construction
material recovery plan as a condition for receiving
a building permit ordinance. After construction is
completed, the builder would have to document
what materials and what tonnages were recovered
before occupancy approval was issued.6
Notes
^ost communities do not track the tonnage of C&D generated and recovered. We obtained most of our tonnage
data from the private sector and disposal facilities. Our figures may exclude some C&D waste privately disposed
or recovered.
Christine T. Donovan, "Construction and Demolition Waste Processing: New Solutions for an Old Problem," Resource
Recycling, August 1991.
3Ibid.
4Ibid.
5Brenda Platt et al.. Beyond 40 Percent: Record-Setting Recycling and Composting Programs, (Washington, D.C.: Institute for
Local Self-Reliance, 1990).
6"C&D Targeted for Recovery," BioCycle, October 1991, p. 10.
Construction and Demolition Debris
-------
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from SO J3.S, Communities
Chapter Eight
The Costs of Recycling
and Composting
Overview
This chapter evaluates the costs of 30 diverse
recycling and composting programs. The first
section presents capital and operating and
maintenance cost data. The second section
examines the effect of program design on costs, and
in the third section, we draw upon the experience
of these 30 communities to offer suggestions on
how communities can reduce the costs of materials
recovery. The final section briefly compares
communities' materials recovery operating costs to
the costs they incur for refuse collection and
disposal.1
Capital and Operating and
Maintenance Costs
Communities incur two types of costs when
implementing a materials recovery program:
capital costs and operating and maintenance (O&M)
costs.
Capital costs are one-time expenditures
including equipment (e.g., vehicles, household
storage containers, conveyors, crushers, and balers),
land, and building construction and improvements.
Capital costs can be accounted for as one-time
expenses or amortized over the lifetime of the
equipment.
Table 8.1 lists the total capital investment in
recycling and composting made by each
jurisdiction. Capital costs that were picked up by
public agencies outside the jurisdiction, or by the
private sector, are not included in this study. Also
excluded is any equipment donated or owned
before the initiation of recycling and/or composting
programs. While we recognize that previously
owned equipment is an asset, which can be sold
for cash, used for its original purpose, or used for
recycling, the difficult and somewhat arbritrary task
of placing an accurate dollar value on older
equipment was beyond the scope of this report. In
addition, by excluding the value of previously
owned equipment, capital costs figures reflect the
benefit communities reap when they avoid
purchasing new equipment to start recycling
programs. By using previously owned equipment,
communities can recover materials without the cash
outlay to purchase this equipment new.
Communities doing this are benefitting from
reduced cash requirements as compared to
communities choosing to purchase new or
additional equipment. (See Integrating Materials
Recovery Into Solid Waste Systems, page 140.) All
the capital cost figures in Table 8.1 are expressed
in 1990 dollars and represent the costs incurred
only by the documented community. Table 8.2
lists capital costs on a ton-per-day recovered basis,
which, in cases where complete costs are given,
allows for comparison of capital investments both
within our sample, and between our communities
and communities employing other solid waste
management options. Table 8.3 lists annualized
capital costs per ton of materials recovered.2 Tables
8.4 through 8.7 present capital cost data broken
down into recycling collection and processing and
into yard waste collection and composting, and
indicate for each of these categories what these
costs include and what, if any, other equipment is
used for which the jurisdiction did not have a cash
outlay. (Table 8.17, presented later in the chapter,
lists the capital costs of intermediate processing
facilities.)
Annual O&M costs are ongoing expenses that
include such items as equipment leasing and
maintenance, utilities, labor, administrative
expenses, licenses, supplies, insurance, residue
disposal, marketing fees, contract fees, and publicity
programs. In this study, materials recovery O&M
costs are broken down into four basic categories:
collection, processing and marketing,
Text continues on page 116
-------
Table 8.1
Communities' Capital Costs for Recycling and Composting,
in Constant 1990 Dollars (a)
Community
Recycling Capital Costs
Collection Processing Subtotal
Composting Capital Costs
Collection Processing Subtotal
® GO
Total Capital
Costs
Austin, TX
Berlin Township, NJ
Bowdolnham, ME
Dakota County, UN
King County, WA"
Lafayette, LA
Lincoln Park, NJ
Monroe, Wl \
Newark, NJ
Peterborough, NH
Et
$503,735
<*702#65
$93,705
I*i7
|t%m
$7,750
Portland, OR
ProvWwv^RI
San Francisco, CA
Sonoma County, CA
Takanw Park, JIB ••?'"
Upper Township, NJ
WapaXofieta.OH ,*,4
West Linn, OR
$430,389
? $3,5<#:-
$70,440
$459,446:
r $23,008
$37,229
' $o'
882
$0
$0
$0
530
$60,394
$15,794
$0 $503,735
$0 *$93|705
, $p; $174,085,
^ $16,354 ^ $16,354
$43,574'
> *
3 $Q <
iov*
^$15,000 X
"$16|606
$33,144
$0
$0^
$o'
$0
$0
$51,324
^'$0
$430^389
:X'$2,SDG'
$85,440
$39*614
$37,229!
$72,994
$33,144
Q03--
$0
$0
$0
NA
$30,130'
WQ
jo
V
I j>2 **
$0^
$0 '
AA7 •-
$18^094"
;$^S95
$8,790
$0
$288,455
$Q
$13.239
$0
$0
$0.
$190JOOO
$19!488
NA
$43,369
> JJt4t375 '
>• x ,$° -
$oJ>"
,<| ,$3,112?;
$0
'"-: ,$24,153^;
NA
$1^072,403
$137,073
$93,908
$37,582
$7.308
$233,680
$191.325
$15,590
$0
$83,538 >,3
$60,394
$3l!384<"
$0
$0
$0
$0
~
$0
$84,053
'BB
$0
$0
$9,000 ^ ?,
$1,410
$0 v'
$70,595
$o ?^
$16,098
$191,325
$o'T,'^
$0 /
$0
$92,538 '*\>ro
$85,463
,'$19,486^; ^Vt
$70,595
$16,354
$19*332
$51,324
v $132,413
$0
v $32,867
$620,389
- $96,408,
$123,022
$1,956,974
$55,712
$466,740 *
$228,553
NA:
$33,144
NA
$0
$0;
$0
NA
$0
, $176,060
$145,856
$24,280
$101,979
NA
Kay:
NA = Not Available - = Not Applicable
Notes:
These capital costs represent those which are incurred by the jurisdiction and not necessarily a'! the costs of the equipment utilized for the progratnfs)
For example in Lafayette a private nonprofit group. The Recycling Foundation, operates the curbside program under contract with the
City The only collection costs incurred by the City were the contract fees and the cost of the bins. For the four counties listed above any equfament
purchased by muniapakies within these counties is excluded. Tables 8.4 to 8.7 provides detailed information on what costs cover
(a) For detaitedbreakdovvns_d[ equpment purchased, dates of purchase, and costs, see In-Depth Studies of Recycling and Composting Programs:
Des«rs.CostMlesu»s.-Vols.l.ll. and III (Wash.nglon, D.C.: Institute for Local SeK-Reliance. 1992). Each ckphalexpendituVewai converted
to constant 1990 dollars using producer price indices. Tables 8.4 to 87 provide detailed information on what costs cover
(b) The capital investment made for equipment used to collect materials for recycling or composting.
(c) The capital investment made for equipment used to process recyclable materials in preparation for marketing to end users. Processing typically
includes sorting, contaminant removal, and crushing or baling. n«*»iy
(d) The capital(investmentmade for equipment used to process - compost, chip, or mulch - organic materials. Processing or composting equfament
typically includes shredders or chppers and front-end loaders.
(e) Private hauler under contract with the City incur all the capital costs for curbside recycling. The CHy did purchase some equipment for its dropoff site
at the transfer station; these costs are not available. ^^
(I) A teal loader was not used during the base year but has been included, as costs of equipment used in base year are unavailable.
t
f
I
xW e
>«i
-------
Community
Austin, TX
Berkeley, CA
Berlin Township, NJ
Bouwer,co
Bowdoinham, ME
Dakota County, MN
King County, WA
Lafayette, LA
Lincoln, NE
Lincoln Park, NJ
Mecktoflburg Co., NC
Monroe, Wl
Newark, NJ
Peterborough, NH
PhllacWphta.PA
Portland, OR
ProVJclence, Rl ;
San Francisco, CA
gpnttto WA
Sonoma County, CA
Upper Township, NJ
Wapflkon.ta.OH
West Linn, OR
WM2.1fl2 $27.503
$0 $0 $0
$0 , $0 - $0- ,
$0 $0 $0
NA1 -
$6,214 $0 $6,214
$0 $*$5S $1,358^
$2,956 $79,476 $82,433 (b)
„ ' , VW*- - 16 58*0*3
Key:
NA = Not Available TPD = Tons Per Day ~ =
Uataa!
Table 8.2
Per TPD Recovered, in Constant
Composting
Collection Processing Subtotal
NA $54,664 NA
$Q $0 $0
$3,349 $1,472 $4,821
$13,173 $43 $13,217
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $6
$0 $0 $0
$4,788 $0 , $4,788
$0 $0 $0
$0 $43,60& $43,609
$0 $9.310 $9.310
$418 * $10,1*9 $10,806
$1,971 $2,123 $4,094
NA v. SA , NA'
$5,481^ " $4,557 $10,037
1 $12,894 % ,$11,866 $24,781
$0 $6,691 $6,691
'*!-, NA^ m - m .
- ^ m^ ^ m. «A- -
$0 $0 $0
; ^ ~-\ * J — •• _ \'
$0 $0 $0
$0 $&. $^
$0 $0 $0
„•. , $1«,D0& , $1,940: $1&,94d
$24.721 $415 $25,136
NA; s NA NA -
$0 $11,826 $11,826
NA, $0 NA\
Not Applicable
1990 Dollars
Total Total
Collection Processing
NA $8,258
$14,393 $7,594
$7,993 $855
, $10,870 $14
$0 $19,327
NA $6
NA $512
$19,974 $50,143
$0 $0
' % $6,026 $16,701
$14,446 $6,377
$585 $8,5*0
$5,968 $2,325
NA NA
$6,771 $5,092
' - $5.048 $4,646
$679 $3,489
-\ - NA NA
$0 $7,736
^ , t NA NA
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
NA $0
$0 $0
/ 0 ^$17,543 $94$ ,
$11,010 $107
j NA NA
$1,396 $13,979
; ^ m $0
Total
Materials
Recovery
NA
$21,988
$8,848
$10,884
$19,327
ft'IA
NA
NA
$70,117
$22,727
$20,823
$9,095
$8,293
h(A
NA
$11,863
$9,694
$4,168
NA,
$7,736
NA
$0
$0
tt/\
$0
(i IJL
NA
$0
$18.468
$11,118
NA
$15,375
NA
Capitai cost per TPD is calculated based on 260 days of operation per year (with the exception of Lafayette's composting costs, which are based on 5 months of
program operation). In actuality collection and processing schedules may vary from this. Some costs do not add up because the tonnage
collected differs from the tonnage processed. .
(a) Private haulers under contract with the City incur all the cap'ltal costs for curbside recycling. The City did purchase some equpment lor its drop-off
recycling she at its transfer station; these costs are not available.
-------
Community
Austin, TX
Berkley, CA
Berlin Township, NJ
Boulder, CO
Bowdolnham, ME
Columbia, MO
Dakota County, MN
King County, WA
Lafayette, LA
Lincoln Park, NJ
Mecklenburg Cb.^NC
Monroe, Wl
NapervHle,IL
Newark, NJ
Perkasfc^PA
Peterborough, NH
Table 8.3
Communities' Annualized Capital Costs
for Materials Recovery, in Constant 1990 Dollars Per Ton (a)
Total
Recycling Composting Subtotal Subtotal Materials
Collection Processing Subtotal Collection Processing Subtotal Collection Processing Recovery
$12 $0 $12 NA $21 NA NA $3
& $a $1? $0 |o $a $a $3
$8 $0 $8 $2 $1 $2 $4 $0
' $5 $0 $S , $7 $o $7 , ^ $6 $&
$0 $7 $7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7
f ' - $2 ,5 5 ,$£) ,< $2 v ^ - - -> $0r $0 $0 , NA NA
NA $0 NA $0 $0 ' $0 NA $0
$0 V^ *° \ $°" ^ $° '$0 "s " ""$0 ? * '""" $0 '' NA
$25 "*' " $0 "$25 --V-J x- jjQ '$4 "' " $4' * '$13^ ' $2
' $18" $1 " $19 ' $1" ' ° $1 $2 " $7 $1 *
lr-*;-$17^^ M< NA L , fA NA >'-\ v^vNA, , ' 5' NA* * ,f-< NA%|t-|,, NA NA"
$4 ^ $2 $6 $3 $2 $5 '" '$4 ' % $4 ' % ""
t*',& Jtiv*^$B - *"i $0 ,,|- 4^$S •, - ><\ !J5 3, $10, ' •" $3 - $5 -
$1^{, $0 $1 >1%V,^° $6 $6 $1 ' $2
. * ,i°r /f3/ 1 .w . /"r -v* - % - " $o $3^
NA
$5
»|F^/
$6
*r*<*
$7
f *
NA
NA
$0
$10
$15
$4
$8
NA
$8
ynj
$7
$3
NA
$3
PhHtddphla, PA j -»1W3 ^" NA - » £MA
Portland, OR
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 * NA «n '
Pr»v«d*iee, RI *3WiW, » / ' ? «OAJ &*; -5 "-- v ^ ~»v '- - /: K. ^' •• <* * £
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Sonoma County, CA
TaxOflMi P&rltg MO
Upper Township, NJ
Wapakonet*,GK
West Linn, OR
West Patra Beach, FL
f $0 ( x %^$0s $0 ^NA NA NA' '" NA" ' NA "
$o " *$o * ^ _ \ $0 J "$o $0 $0 " $0 " *"" ""$o
"-, ^"$s ip;jJv!j s ^$0 ^ < •>% $9 -v ^ ^ IV^O-1' ^ ^ ^i*1* $"i - s -.%$^i ** v^ ? ^ $tQ s ^ $1
$3 ^^ ^ $0 ^"^ $3 ^ "" """ $14/^ ^ $0 " " "$14" " S>"$6 " '$0
*^$2 "' * ^"$31^ ^ $32 (b{\'" % '^$0 %>s " $5S "$5 *w°*XSs 5$1 K '" " |35V '" "" ""
W: " * ' '"""'" " »- — * *< v™ -i*^
- = Not Applicable NA = Not Available
Note:
$0
«pv
$0
«phr
NA
NA
$0 "
£10
%$6 "
»pw
$37
(a) Per ton annualized capital costs equals annualized capital costs divided by the annual tonnage recovered that the costs cover.
Collection equipment was annualized over a 7-year period, while processing equipment was annualized over a 10-year period No discount
or financing rates were applied except in the cases of Austin, Philadelphia, Lincoln Park, and Newark where f inandng rates were incurred
For these communities, actual financing rates and payback periods were applied. In Austin, Eager Beaver truck and trailers were financed
wrth a 5-year loan at an interest rate of 10.67%. All equpment in Philadelphia was amortized over 5 years at an 8.5% interest rate.
The City of Newark floats bonds for the purchase of its equipment, which is amortized over a 5-year period. Lincoln Park issued bonds at
a rate of 6% for a 5-year period for the pucnase of one vehicle; all of its other equipment was paid in full at the time of purchase
(b) This applies to drop-off equipment and tonnage only, which represents 1% of the total amount of recyclables collected and processed
in the City in 1990.
:l
£
R-
!?
• 5a
: » "
5-
,«
f\
&
Sf
$»
B
j~.
f
3
&,
<3
*
1
r-
?s
=<>,
.. c
3
Cu
^
" {—
*-<
^ wi
; •
*1
*§ "
*§
= t:
1' *» ,.
iwi
•f
;•
s
i.
1 '
I: <
k
-------
Table 8.4
Communities' Capital and O&M Costs for Collecting Recyclables
Community
Austin, TX
Berkeley, CA
Berlin Township,
NJ
Boulder, CO
Bowdolnham, ME
Columbia, HO
Dakota County,
MN
Fennimoro, Wl
King County, WA
La Crescent, MN
Lafayette, LA
Lincoln, NE
Annual
Tonnage (a)
7,710
11,181
1,689
4,641
283
1,062
NA
322
1,965
232
2,440
454
House-
holds
Served
110,000
40,000
2,000
25,500
290
7,060
80,000
970
NA
1,568
27.500
622
Per Ton
O&M
Cost (b)
$96
NA
$43
$51
$23
$49
NA
$39
NA
$111
NA
$24
Capital
Costs
(1990S)
$503,735
$702,005
$83,705
$174,085
$0
$19,332
$7,750
$34,608
$0
$8,715
$430,389
$2,500
Description
Capital costs cover 13 trucks, 1 1 trailers, and 6,000 buckets, but exclude two trucks and 20,000 buckets
purchased and used after the base year. O&M costs include one dropoff at the landfill run privately under
contract with the City, and municipal curbside collection of five materials weekly with two-person crews.
Capital costs include six recycling trucks, one commercial recycling vehicle, 70 curbside truck bins, six
scales, and 50,000 waxed tote boxes. O&M costs in Table 8.9 cover one- to two-person nonprofit crews
under contract with the City to collect four materials weekly; municipal commercial curbside collection;
and one buy-back and two dropoffs under contract with the Crty. Collection and processing cost the City
$63 per ton in O&M; collection costs alone are not available.
Capital costs include seven trucks (shared between recycling, composting, and the DPW), one recycling
trailer, and one loader. O&M costs include collection of 13 materials weekly by public crews; there is one
public unstaffed dropoff site.
Capital costs include 31 ,500 recycling bins and exclude 4,000 bins purchased and used after the base year
and 10 privately owned trucks. O&M costs cover contract fees paid for two-person crews to collect four
materials weekly.
No capital costs are incurred for collection. O&M costs cover one dropoff center open three days per
week. (Dropoff center equipment is included under processing capital costs.)
Capital costs include one trailer and one pick-up truck. The cost incurred in 1 982 for a packer truck used
for recycling in 1990 is not included. O&M costs cover two-person public crews to collect seven materials
Capital costs cover a truck used for office paper collection. The County incurred $643,873 in O&M costs
paid to municipalities to support recycling collection programs. The tonnage recovered as a result of these
payments is not available.
Capital and O&M costs cover collection of 1 0 materials every other week with a two-person public crew in
a retrofitted truck, and one public dropoff center.
Recyclables are primarily collected by the private sector. The County spent $102 a ton to collect and
process 1 ,965 tons through its dropoff program; collection costs atone are not available.
Capital costs cover 1 ,400 recycling bins and exclude equipment used by the contracted hauler.
O&M costs cover contracted 3-person crews to collect 10 materials weekly. The County incurs the cost
of collection at the City dropoff sites (77 tons in 1 990).
Capital costs cover 78,000 recycling bins and exclude four trucks, and four trailers owned by the private
hauler, a local nonprofit group. O&M costs cover contract fees paid to this group to collect six materials
weekly with three-person crews. The City incurred $39 a ton for collection and processing.
Capital costs include 18,000 comstarch bags and exclude 10 EWI Fivestar rdoff bins purchased by the
private sector. The private sector incurs most of the capital costs for recydables collection. O&M costs
cover a one-person crew under contract with the City to pick up two materials weekly, and one dropoff
collection contract with the City.
-------
Community
Lincoln Park, NJ
Mecklenburg Co.,
NC
Monroe, Wl
NaporvMe,IL
Newark, NJ
Perka*te,PA
Peterborough, NH
Philadelphia, PA
Portland, OR
Providence, Rl
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Table 8.4
Communities' Capital and O&M Costs for Collecting Recyclables (cont.)
House- Per Ton
Annual holds O&M
Tonnage Served Cost
1.470 4,260
3.802 110,000
804 3,900
7.617 24.500
6.823 90,000
964 3,500
1,114 1,800
48,368 159,245
180,695 201,900
8,171 56,423
NA 169,000
53,775 121,546
Capitol
Costs
(1990$)
Description
$70,440 Capital costs include a
, one roll-off truck, 1 1 roll-off containers
™ ' "0 taS9ate- and mree self-dumping hoppers, but exclude one donated
OaM costs cover a three-person public crew to collect rwwspapefs monthly, and one public
NA (c) $459,446
$41
$73
$109
NA
$105
NA
$23,008
$37,229
$21,312
Capital coste include three front-end loaders, two Cube Vans, two roll-off trucks, one truck, one trailer, two
torWrfts. and 40 bins for the County's drop-off sites and its office building collection program O&M costs
which cover 16 drop-off sites, are not available because collection costs cannot be separated from
processing. (Charlotte incurs O&M costs of $96Aon for curbside collection and addtibnal capital costs.)
Capital costs cover 4,500 recycling bins and exclude two dump trucks and barrels purchased before the
onset of me program, as well as a Kann Curbsorter purchased and used after the base vear O&M costs
cover a one-person public crew to collect 14 materials weekly, and one public drop-off. '
Capital costs are incurred by private haulers under contract with the City. O&M costs cover contract fees
for a nonprofit three-person crew to collect 1 2 materials weekly .
$107 $1,788,882
i9 '!n9 V"£ide "3d to ?** up,, four different recycle materials collected on
' b£exdud8 a Packer fuck used to collect commercial corrugated cardboard purchased
rf£l£ P"*1^ as 'C* «• "P*"1 c0518 incuired bV contracted haulers. O&M costs
rr °? to two Pnvatejiauters collecting 47 percent of public sector materials weekly; and the
City s labor costs to run a drop-off site, and to collect commercial corrugated cardboard.
£a£1c°A«'?)ver.one traiter- modifications to a truck, a security fence, steel barrels, and recycling
ssssxss^^
The Town incurs no capital costs for collection. It incurs O&M costs of $45/ton for collection and
processing (covers dropoff only); collection cost cannot be divided from processing.
Capital costs cover 21 Lodalfrucks, 178,987 buckets, 13 Eager Beaver trucks, seven 15Kxibic-yard
ttucks^ a tractor trailer and 60 igloos. O&M costs cover the collection of six materials weekly 6y three-
sa?^
drc? Pnffs1teseCt0r primarily incurs ^^ and °&M cos!s- Ms!ro
-------
Table 8.4
Communities' Capital and O&M Costs for Collecting Recyclables (cont.)
Community
House- Per Ton Capital
Annual holds O&M Costs
Tonnage Served Cost (1990$)
Description
Sonoma County,
CA
Takoma Park, MD
Upper Township,
NJ
Wapakoneta, OH
West Linn, OR
West Pabn Beach,
FL
4,063
1,270
2,527
919
1,389
NA
4,100
4,082
3,548
6,165
$83,530
NA
$97
$71
NA
NA (d) $15,749
2,526 19,194
$148
$78,185
No capital costs are incurred by the County because recycling collection is carried out by the private
sector. The O&M costs cover die contract fees paid to operate the recycling centers located at the County
landfill and the transfer stations. Collection costs cannot be separated from processing costs; the County
incurred $12/ton for both.
Capital costs include 5,400 buckets and one Curb Sorter Truck, but exclude buckets and one recycling
truck purchased and used after the base year, as well as three compactor trucks used 10 percent for
recycling, which were owned prior to the City's recycling program. O&M costs cover three-person public
crews that pick up six materials weekly.
Capital costs cover 500 bins and a compactor truck but exclude another compactor truck bought after the
base year. O&M costs cover the collection of fourteen materials with a three-person pubic crew, and one
unstarfed public drop-off center.
Capital costs are not incurred by the Town. A packer truck bought prior to the program is used for
commercial recycling and is not included in the capital cost. O&M costs are incurred by the private
nonprofit dropoff but are unavailable because collection costs could not be separated from processing.
Capital costs include 5,300 collection containers but exclude a recycling truck, a packer at 20 percent use,
and a compactor owned by the private hauler as well as a Curbsorter truck purchased and used after the
base year. O&M costs for curbside collection ($114/ton) are not incurred by the City. O&M cost for drop-
off collection is incurred by the City but the costs for recycling cannot be separated from composting.
Capital costs cover 18,306 recycling bins and 147 containers but exdude 100 containers and 6 trucks
owned by the Solid Waste Authority. O&M costs cover one-person public crews picking up six materials
weekly.
MotM:
(a) Tonnage given above represents the annual tonnage collected that the costs cover in the base year and do not necessarily represent the total amount of materials recycled in the community.
(b) Per ton O&M costs reflect average annual O&M costs incurred in the base year d study divided by the annual tonnage collected that these annual costs cover.
(d) The City incurred $31 per ton in O&M costs to collect and process 51 tons of recyclabtes and 1,552 tons of yard waste at its drop-oft site.
-------
Community
Austin, TX
Berkeley, CA
Berlin Township, NJ
Bouktor.CO
Bowdolnham, ME
Columbia, MO
Dakota County, MN
Fennimore, Wl
King County, WA
La Crescent, MN
Table 8.5
Communities' Capital and O&M Costs for Processing Recyclables
Per Ton
Annual O&M
Tonnage Cost
(a) (b)
7,710
11,181
1,689
4,641
220
1,052
11,061
322
NA
309
NA
$10
$5 (c)
$124
(d)
NA
$0 (e)
Capital
Costs
(1990$)
Description
$0 Processing capital and O&M costs are incurred by foe private sector.
"*" jj^
^fet^
l^rSSE?^™^^*^ "» medium-technology
£apital,C<^ m covered ** **> Wvato sector. A baler, a truck scale, two forklifts, a front-end loader a
*£S£S%££%ffl' rS?rtn!?or traiiri a hopper' ^ «*° utili*trucks "» used ^ «he rntdiurn
tecnnology pnvate fadity. O&M costs cover the contract fee paid to a nonprofit group. '"OU1U"'
$15,835 Cap^««tecover a dual-axle traler, a bater. five storage bins, a loading ramp, two pallet trucks, a barrel
I8"1"]? ^^^ 81 P*1 brfwd a converted
$43,574
$94,692
.. — -—s, a shredder, two conveyor systems, two front-
s, and a truck scale are used at the medium-technology
—... ..„ „.„ „„„,,,, f/vm^raoou iu, m, uiivcttuiy operated medium technolonu
rs and two conveyors used for animal bedding -and represent only 18%o? the
*h. The contracted fadlity operator paid forfte other 82%. OaMoosSoowrS
tub^?'. a forklift, a sWdloader, a cardboard baler, a paper shredder a qlass
tal^
r; ?P^ and O&M costs are thus not available. The
r collecting and processing 1 ,965 tons through dropoff sites.
wMik . therefore, incurs no capital or
mann^^^f "i^9 (IP2)l a bobcal a P3"61 lifter- th1®6 balers, two shredders, a glass crusher a
magnetic separator, an aluminum blower and flattener, two self-dumping hoppers five scales aidaiher
equ,pmerrt such as hard hats, tools, forklifts, and grinders are usedaS t» mC-tectindS faa%
-------
Table 8.5
Communities' Capital and O&M Costs for Processing Recyclables (cont.)
Community
Lafayette, LA
Lincoln, NE
Lincoln Park, NJ
Mecklenburg Co., NC
Monroe, Wl
NapervUeJL
Newark, NJ
Perkaste.PA
Peterborough, NH
Philadelphia, PA
Portland, OR
Providence, Rl
Annual
Tonnage
2,440
30
1,470
18,610
804
7,617
6,823
964
1,114
48,368
180,695
8,171
Per Ton
O&M
Cost
NA
$15
$6
$3
$45
$43
SO («)
$10
NA
$8
(
$0
$0 (g)
Capital
Costs
(1990$) Description
$0 The City incurred no capital costs. O&M costs cover a contract fee paid to private processors but the
processing cost cannot be separated from the collection cost (the City incurred $39 a ton for both). A truck
scale, a vertical baler, a glass crusher, a conveyor belt, a CP Manufacture 600 Densor, and a forklift are used
at the private low-technology processing facility.
$0 Capital costs are incurred by the private sector. O&M costs cover the contract fee paid to the private
processor.
$15,000 Capital costs cover two used balers and a plastic compactor used at the drop-off. O&M costs cover minimal
processing before materials are delivered directly to markets.
$58,146 Capital costs cover two vertical balers and a forkNft(the tonnage these costs cover is not available) They
exclude balers, hoppers, three conveyors, three skid steer loaders, and two forklifts, all of which are owned
and used by the private contracted processor. O&M costs cover the tipping fee the County paid to the private
medium-technology processor for materials collected at curbside and at the drop-offs (18,610 tons) The
County's per ton O&M cost for processing another 2,545 tons of white goods and other recydables collected at
the landm are not available.
$16.606 Capital costs cover two balers and 10 dumping hoppers. O&M costs cover low-technology municipal
processing.
cover a contract fee paid to friis nonprofit group.
$0 The private sector incurs all capital and O&M costs.
$51 ,682 Capital costs cover a conveyor, a can crusher, and a recycling building. O&M costs cover low-technology
municipal processing. ^"
$33,144 Capital costs cover two downstroke balers, a conveyor, a forklift/truck, a used plastic granulator and a chop
saw, but exclude a donated band saw. The Town incurred $45 per ton in O&M costs for collection and
processing of materials delivered to the Town drop-off center. Processing costs alone are not available.
$0 Private processors incur all Capital costs. O&M costs cover the contract fee paid to the medum-technoloqv
processors.
$0 The private sector primarily incurs all capital and O&M costs. Metro (serving a multi-county area) owns two
drop-off sites in the City. '
$0 The State incurs all processing costs at its high-technology processing system, which employs Bezner
cxjuiprnGfit.
-------
Community
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Sonoma County, CA
Takoma Park, MD
Upper Township, NJ
Wapakoneta, OH
West Linn, OR
West Palm Beach, FL
Han:
Table 8.5
Communities' Capital and O&M Costs for Processing Recyclables (cont.)
Per Ton Capital
Annual O&M Costs
Tonnage Cost (1990$)
MA
53,775
4,063
1,270
2,527
1,369
51
2,526
Description
$0
NA (h)
NA
$15
$0 (i)
NA
NA (I)
$0 (k)
$0 The private sector incurs all capital and O&M costs.
"
$4,800
$15,590
»» pre-sortdd materials are general
/
separated from its composting costs.
is), but
directry to
*° "SSSSZSS 'nCUrS ** caPita'and 0&M c0815- A MM. a sweeper attachment, two bobcats a qraoole
ttt^vttss&sssatt&ses!£l§$**<
ers are used at the medium-technology facility.
-------
Communities'
Community
Austin, TX
Berkeley, CA
Berlin Township, NJ
Boulder, CO
Bowdolnham, ME
Columbia, MO
Dakota County, MN
Fennlmore, Wl
King County, WA
La Crescent, MN
Lafayette, LA
Lincoln, NE
Annual
Tonnage
(a)
1,372
1,500
2,339
2,250
7.5
41
11,051
169
2,023
144
2,211
2,302
House-
holds
Served
110,000
2,600
1,800
35,000
880
NA
70,000
970
NA
1.568
27,500
(e)
Per Ton
O&M
Costs
(b)
$4
$94
$7
$54 (c)
$0
$40
$0
$60
$71
$0
$73 (d)
$14 (f)
Table 8.6
Capital and O&M Costs for Collecting Yard Waste
Capital
Costs
(1990 ^ Description
NA Capital costs are not available because the Gay uses 1 to 40 compactor trucks (@ approx. $55,000 each) in a
given week. O&M costs cover three-person pubSc crews to collect bagged leaves weekly Nov.-Dec.
$0 A packer truck is used, but it was purchased prior to the initiation of the program, so the cost is not inducted.
O&M costs cover one-person public crews to collect leaves, grass dippings, brush, and Christmas trees in
bags or carts every other week.
$30,130 Capital costs cover four trucks (shared with recyding and the DPW) and two leaf loaders. O&M costs cover
two-person public crews collecting grass dippings and other yard waste in cans or bags weekly year-round,
and three-person crews collecting loose leaves in fall and spnng with a special scoop.
$1 14,000 Capital costs cover four front-end loaders and 20 trucks (both at six percent of the time) and five dump trucks
whose cost and purchase dates are not available. In addition, the City paid contractors for the use of 10 tractor
trailers (included in O&M). O&M costs cover City and contracted crews to collect brush during spring dean-up
over a three-week period.
$0 In the base year of study, the Town composted only 7.5 tons, which residents dropped off at the Town landfill.
The Town incurred no collection costs.
$0 The City incurred no capital costs. One packer is used when City crews collect Christmas trees.
$0 County does not incur capital or O&M costs. Private haulers collect yard waste bagged or loose in compactor
$3,112 Capital costs indude a dump truck used 10 percent of the time. O&M costs cover two-person public crews to
collect piled or loose leaves, brush, and wood waste. Brush and wood waste are collected monthly year-round
leaves are collected two to three times in the fall. Tonnages are for leaves only; brush and wood waste are
burned.
$0 The County dM not incur capital costs. O&M costs cover 1 ,323 tons of yard waste and 700 tons of Christmas
trees collected through various drop-off programs serving certain areas of the County. Costs for yard waste
collected at curbside from 200,000 households is incurred by the private sector.
$0 The City incurs no capital and O&M costs because yard waste is only collected at its drop-off site.
$0 Capital costs are not incurred by the City. The hauler owns three compactor trucks. O&M costs cover
contracted three-person crews to collect leaves, grass dippings, brush, Christmas trees bagged bundted or in
containers weekly, year-round.
$3,700 Capital costs cover 3,700 paper bags. O&M costs cover the collection of 372 tons of leaves, grass dippings
and brush at curbside by contracted one-person crews weekly July through Nov. 1 ,930 tons were collected at
municipal drop-off sites.
-------
Community
Table 8.6
Communities' Capital and O&M Costs for Collecting Yard Waste (com.)
House- Per Ton Capital
Annual holds O&M Costs
Tonnage Served Costs (1990$)
Description
Lincoln Park, NJ
Mecklenburg Co., NC
Monroe, Wl
Naperville, IL
Newark, NJ
Perfcasle,PA
2,387 (g)
NA NA
417 3,900
4,901 24,500
7,435 NA
664 3,500
$16 $18,094 Capital costs cover two vacuums and a dump truck used 30 percent of the time. O&M costs cover two-person
City crews to collect bagged leaves and grass clippings at least two times per month in April, May, October,
and November. Loose leaves are picked up as needed with a vacuum pulled by a dump truck. 40 percent of
yard waste was collected at the public drop-off site.
NA $22,595 Capital costs caver 50 percent of the maintenance service truck, which is shared with the recycling program.
The County operates a drop-off site for yard waste at the landfill, but O&M costs are not available.
$67 $3,790 Capital costs cover a jeep and a sweeper attachment but exclude a packer truck. O&M costs cover one-person
public crews to collect bagged grass clippings and brush weekly April to November, and to collect leaves
weekly from October 15 to Thanksgiving.
$77 (h) $243,060 Capital costs cover a J.D. Loader, four brush chippers, and two leaf loaders, but exclude two vacuum sweepers
at 20 percent use (punchasesd 1975) and any equipment used by the private contractors. O&M costs cover a
public crew to collect loose leaves and brush three times per year, and Christmas trees. O&M costs also cover
contract fees for collection of bagged grass clippings and olher garden waste weekly April through December.
$10
$36
Peterborough, NH
Philadelphia, PA
Portland, OR
Providence, Rl
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
0
1,571
411
0
172
36,781
0
45,000
NA
0
NA
94,805
-
NA
$0
-
$35
$65 (i)
$0 The City incurs no capital costs. O&M costs cover contract fees with three private haulers to collect leaves
grass clippings, brush, and Christmas trees at curbside weekly from October through January. All households
are served as needed.
NA Capital costs are not available. O&M costs cover three to five public workers to collect leaves with vacuums
and dump trucks weekly from late October through November, and brush monthly on an on-call basis.
-- Peterborough has no composting program. Brush and wood are burned.
NA Capital costs are not available, but two vacuum leaf loaders, six tractor and trailers, two large loaders, 10
mechanical brooms, and a compactor truck are used for composting and various Streets Department activities
Three- to five-person public crews collect leaves once in four neighborhoods November through December and
also collect Christmas trees. O&M costs are not available.
$0 The private sector incurs capital and O&M costs. (Only some haulers offer yard waste collection service.)
— Providence has no composting program.
$0 The City does not have curbside service for yard waste. $35 per ton figure covers the City's O&M cost to
collect and chip Christmas trees in 1990.
$0 The City incurs no capital costs. O&M costs cover contract fees. Two private contractors collect bagged,
bundled, or containerized leaves, grass clippings, brush using one-person crews and rear-loading packer
trucks. North section is serviced weekly year-round. South section is serviced biweekly March through
October and monthly the rest of the year.
-------
Community
Table 8.6
Communities' Capital and O&M Costs for Collecting Yard Waste (cont.)
House- Per Ton Capital
Annual hold* . O&M Co«t«
Tonnage Served Cost* (1990$)
Description
Sonoma County, CA
TakomaPanXMD
Upper Township, NJ
Wapakoneta.OH
WestUnn.OR
West Palm Beach, FL
83 1,200 $0 $0 The County does not incur capital or O&M costs. The City of Santa Rosa began a pilot curbside yard waste
collection program in Sept 1990. It served 1,200 households and collected 83 tons of wood and yard waste in
1990. Almost 2,000 tons of yard waste was composted in the County in 1990.
1,206 4,100 $76 $83,530 Capital costs cover three compactor trucks at 10 percent use, five leaf vacuums, and four 15-cubic-yard leaf
collection boxes. O&M costs cover three^person public crews to collect bagged leaves, grass dipppings, and
Christmas trees weekly year-round (starting June 1990) and five-person crews to collect loose leaves in the
fad.
884 3,860 $49 $84,053 Capital costs cover two leaf vacuums and a compactor truck. O&M costs cover two-person public crews to
collect leaves weekly year-round and grass clippings, wood waste, brush, Christmas trees weekly spring to
November. Loose leaves are coBected in November and December. Two-person crews collect and chip large
brush.
455 3,548 $45 $19,480 Capital costs cover a teaf loader truck and a dump truck at 8 percent use. O&M costs cover this collection but
also include some activities at the compost site. The City collects leaves at the curb during November and
December.
4 5,300 $0 $0 The City incurs no capital and O&M costs for curbside collection; these are picked up by a private hauler. In
total, 1,552 tons were collected in 1990 through curbside and drop-off (but only 4 tons through curbside).
16,703 18,306 $37 NA Capital costs are not available, but three compactor trucks, five cranes, and 10 Lightning Loader Trucks are
used. O&M costs cover two-person public crews to collect leaves, grass clippings, brush, wood waste, and
Christmas trees, two times per month, year-round.
-.Not Applicable
MXM:
MA « Not Available
(b) Per ton O&M costs reflect average annual costs incurred in the base year of study divided by the annual tonnage collected that these annual costs cover.
(c) Includes cost of composting.
(d) Contract tee Is based on a per household cost.
(e) 2,000 households were served by the pilot outside program.
(f) Curbside yard waste collection cost the City $32 per ton ($11,966). Drop-off collection of yard waste and Christmas trees cost the City on average $11 per ton.
(g) 1,424 tons of yard waste were collected at curbside from 2,772 households; the other 963 tons were collected at the drop-off site.
(h) Leaf and brush collection costs the City J64/ion and $84/ton, respectively. The private hauler Is paid the equivalent of $111 per ton for refuse and yard waste collection, and $120 per ton for Christmas tree collection.
(I) The City paid U.S. Disposal $84.29/ton to collect and compost yard waste in 1990, and General Disposal $56.36/lon for collection alone. U.S. Disposal collected 36,781 tons and General collected 10,645 tons.
-------
Tab!e8.7
Communities' Capital and O&M Costs for Composting
Community
Austin, TX
Berkeley, CA
Berlin Township,
NJ
Boulder, CO
Bowddnham, ME
Columbia, MO
Dakota County,
MN
Fennlmore, Wl
King County, WA
La Crescent, MN
Lafayette, LA
Lincoln, NE
Lincoln Park, NJ
Annual
Tonnage
(a)
1,372
1.500
2,339
2,250
8
NA
11,051
169
2,023
144
2,211
2,302
2,387
O&M
Per Ton
Costs
(b)
$58
$24.75 (c)
$2
NA
NA
NA
$33
$13
$25 (c)
$12 (d)
$17 (e)
$14
$3
Capital
Costs
(1990$)
$288,455
$0
$13,239
$375
$0
NA
$0
$0
$0
$24,153
$190,000
$90,208
$19,488
Description
Capital costs cover a windrow turner, a front-end loader, a conveyor, and screens. O&M costs cover a municipal high-
technology co-composting site, temperature testing, turning rows 2 times per week, and screening compost.
Capital costs are not incurred by the City. One packer truck is used 50 percent of the time. O&M cost listed is the
tipping fee paid to the private high-technology facility. Recycled Wood Products uses a tub grinder; material is
watered, screened, windrowed, turned weekly, temperature monitored, and tested.
Capital costs cover a chipper and exclude a windrow turner. O&M costs cover the medium-technology municipal site.
Windrows are turned once per month.
Capital costs cover 15 backyard composting bins. Brush is chipped with a tub grinder owned by a private contractor.
O&M costs for municipal brush chipping are not available because processing cost cannot be separated from
collection.
The Town had not incurred any capital costs through the base year, but has since purchased a shredder. A municipal
drop-off is located at the landfill where the compost is piled (low-technology processing), but O&M costs are not
available.
Capital and O&M costs are not available. There is a municipal drop-off site for low-technology mulch production.
Capital costs are not incurred by the County. Operator owns all equipment for the medium-technology processing
facility, including three conveyors, a trommel screen, a clump breaker, a tub grinder, a Seppi tree/brush chopper, a
skid-steer loader, a front-end loader, and a trackdozer. O&M costs are contract fees paid to the private company that
operates the two County-owned yard waste composting sites. Workers empty bags, mix contents with soil, use dump
breakers, pile, and repeat the process.
The City incurred no capital costs, although it uses one 1975 front-end loader, purchased prior to the program. O&M
costs cover medium-technology municipal processing. Dropped off yard waste is windrowed and turned each week.
Leaves picked up at curbside are spread on a local farm.
The County incurs no capital costs. O&M costs cover the tipping fees paid to four private composting sites with
varying processing technologies.
Capital costs cover a front-end loader used 40 percent of the time. O&M costs cover low-technology processing
(turning of the pile 3-4 times per year). Drop-off site is open from April through October.
Capital costs cover a tub grinder and front-end loader. O&M costs cover City-owned and -operated medium-
tecnnology site. The yard waste is unloaded on an asphalt pad, ground with a tub grinder, windrowed, temperature
monitorea, and reformed.
Capital costs cover a front-end loader (used 10 percent of the time) and a chipper. The medium-technology site is
owned and operated by the City. O&M costs cover rental of a tub grinder and the grinding, windrowing, and weekly
turning of yard waste.
Capital costs cover two chippers purchased in 1982 for brush, now used only for Christmas trees. O&M costs cover
tipping fees for yard waste at the medium-technology County processing facility. The Borough brings leaves and
grass clippings to two local composting facilities (one County facility at $3.71/cy and one municipal facility at no
charge) and brush to three private chipping/composting sites. The Ox Stump Factory charges $8/cy.
-------
Community
Table 8.7
Communities' Capital and O&M Costs for Composting (Cont.)
O&M Capital
Annual Per Ton Costs
Tonnage Costs (1990 $)
Description
Mecklenburg Co., NA
NC
Monroe, WI 417
Napervllle, IL 4.901
Newark, NJ 7,435
Perkasle, PA 654
Peterborough, NH 0
Philadelphia, PA 1,006
Portland, OR 19,054
Providence, Rl 0
San Francisco, CA 6,576
NA $1.416.787
Seattle, WA
Sonoma County,
CA
38,900
1,972
$18
$27
$11
$0
$89
$0
$13
$17
NA
$7,308
$223,680
$191,325
NA
NA
$0
Capital costs cover a pick-up truck, a tub grinder, a windrow turner, two tub grinders, a steer loader, a tractor loader, a
shredder, four dump trucks, and two wheel loaders but excludes two conveyors, a tractor loader, and a trommel
screen purchased and used after the base year. The county purchased most of this equipment as a result of
Hurricane Hugo. O&M costs are not available. The yard waste is windrowed, turned, and cured at the medium-
technology County facility.
Capital costs cover a chipper. O&M costs cover a tub grinder rental fee at the City-owned and -operated low-
tecnnology site. Materials are mixed, ground, and formed into a large pile, which is turned 4 times per year.
Christmas trees are chipped.
Capital costs include a dump truck, a windrow turner, and a tractor but exclude a spreader truck bought in 1977 (cost
is not available). O&M costs cover windrowing, temperature monitoring, turning as needed (once per week in the
summer), and watering as needed at the municipal high-technology site. Christmas trees are chipped.
Capital costs cover a chipper (6 percent use), a front-end loader, and a shredder-mixer. The medium-technology site
is municipally owned ana operated. O&M costs cover the rental of a screen-all and windrowing of leaves and grass
clippings, watering once per month, and turning every 2 weeks. Finished compost is screened. Christmas trees are
chipped with a borrowed chipper.
Capital costs are not available. The Borough delivers leaves to a farm 2 miles away, where they are windrowed and
turned with a back hoe (medium-technology processing). Some leaves are also delivered to a landscaping company.
Brush chipped at curbside is simply deposited in piles at local parks.
The Town had no composting program during the base year.
Capital costs are not available, but front-end loaders and a windrow composter are used. The medium-technology site
is City-owned and -operated. O&M costs cover the salaries of three employees but exclude the costs of fuel and of
windrowing and turning the leaves weekly, which are not available.
The City incurs no costs. There are at least two private composting sites in the metro area that accept yard waste
from residents and private businesses. Grimm's charges between $4 and $6.5/cy; MacFarland Bark charges $35 per
ton.
-- Providence has no composting program.
$0 The City incurs no capital costs. O&M costs cover a backyard composting program. In 1990 the City budgeted
$83,000 for backyard composting. The tonnage composted is estimated.
$0 Seattle incurs no capital costs. p&M costs cover the tipping fee ($5.47 to tip the first 24,000 tons and $18/ton for any
tonnage above that) paid to a private medium-technology processor for yard waste collected by the contractor,
Genera) Disposal. U.S. Disposal (the other contracted service provider) delivers yard waste directly to the privately
owned and operated medium-technology Cedar Groves Compost Facility.
$0 Capital costs are not incurred by the County. Yard waste is composted at the Bennet Valley Farm , where it is
screened and windrowed. The County also operates a Christmas tree chipping recovery program, but the per ton cost
is not available.
-------
Community
Table8.7
Communities' Capital and O&M Costs for Composting (Cont.)
O&M Capital
Annual Per Ton Costs
Tonnage Costs (1990 $)
Description
Takoma Park, MD 1,206
$2 $9,000
Upper Township,
NJ
Wapakoneta, OH
West Linn, OR
884 $12 $1,410
455 NA $0
1,552 $31 (0 $70,595
West Palm Beach, 12,404
$0
$0
Capital costs cover a backhoe (20 percent use) and exclude a wood chipper. O&M costs cover the low-technology
composting of fall leaves. Bagged leaves and grass clippings are taken to a medium-technology County composting
facility ana tipped at no charge. / i~ »
Capital costs cover a chipper (10 percent use) but exclude a front-end loader, screen-all, and tub grinder used at the
medium-technology County composting site. O&M costs cover tipping fees charged by the County for brush and wood
waste, leaves and grass clippings are tipped for free. The municipality does not incur any costs. No composting was
done in the base year.
In the base year, the municipality rented a manure spreader to land-apply some the organic matter. This cost is
included in its $45/ton O&M cost for collection and processing.
Capital costs cover composting equipment, land improvements, and a tub grinder/power unit. O&M costs cover
gnndmg wood matenal and windrowing and turning yard waste every 6 weeks at the medium-technology municipal
sito.
The City jncurs no costs. Yard waste and Christmas trees are delivered to a County composting site free of charge
Composting costs the County about $20 per ton. " a '
cy-ciifcyard N A. Not Available — Not Applicable
NottK
(a) Tomagefliwm aboverapresents the annual tonnage composted that the costs cover in the base year, and do not necessarily represent the total amount composted by either community or composting facility
(b) Per ion O&Mcosts reflect average annual costs incurred in the base year of study. •
(c) Represents tip fee paid
(d) Administration costs ($9,1 87) added another $64 per ton.
• (e) City charges WMI a $24 per ton lip fee.
& Includes collection and processing of 51 tons of recyclables at drop-off site.
-------
Community
Austin, TX
Berlin Township, NJ
Bowdolnham, ME
Dakota County, MN
King County, WA
Lafayette, LA
Uncoln,ME
Lincoln Park, NJ
.flfOCfUflHtrUFQ vO(p.J>K
Monroe, Wl
Napendiejft. ;
Newark, NJ
P^OHUMe) Wl
Peterborough, NH
Portland, OR
San Francisco, CA
Sonoma County, CA
Upper Township, NJ
West Unn, OR
Wwtt Palm Beach, FL
Table 8.8
Communities' Materials Recovery Operating & Maintenance
Costs (Recycling and Composting Combined)
Total Materials
Subtotal Recovery
Collection Processing Coll&Proc Admin Educ/Pub Costs
..$740,000 .$80,000 ..$820,000 $75,300 $40,400 $935,700
NA NA $879,000 $235,000: $25.000 $1,178000
$88,900 $22,304 $111,204 $3.000 $500 $114704
NA - NA $380,946 $45,000 $35,000 $460,946
$6,754 $27,184 $33,938 $10,401 $500 $44839
,-<<", NA -1 $1,040 NA - ;, $29,995 ; $8,650 > NA
^ $643,873 $1,256,210 $1,900,083 $330.000 $91,000 ' $2758904 (a)
^ ,- $22,650 . $56,826 $51,475 '\ $700 ; $500 ^ , $52676
NA NA $394,925 $135.000 $1,414,951 " $1,944876
,n "$25,723 : $1,715 $27,438 , .." $1,97T $561 f $29,865
, . NA NA $294,075 $130,000 $60,000 $484075
$43,743 $32,7*0^ $76,453^ $54,000 $8,566 " " ' •• , $139019
„ $11 1,500 $14,585 $126,085 $17,000 $1,000 " * $144,085
\\,^ NA NA NA -V ,- " |sfA NA<, r : • NA
$61,436 $43,638 $105,074 $10,203 $0 $115277
' , $931,013 -,,) $459,561 $1,390,574 ' /' $40.000- ', $8.500 » ", , $1,440^074
^ $815.159 $80.155 $895.314 $208,000 $90.000 $1 193314
, /> $71,454 -- , $:10,0?S -,- $8t,$^7 ^'^-!- $5,4?0 ' y $74i2 ;; ? 5 ' $ - $8?'?^ "
NA NA $50,000 $23,000 $0 " $73i(KX)
- ««. !° $° $° $612^250 $63^48 * $675,298
,/,: $957,343 ^ $0 $857,343 -*r * ' mm , < $1tD5Q I •• -*' $945146 ,
$6,000 $83,000 $89,000 $521.000 $290,300 " $900^300
: NA,,v NA ' $5,573,674 ' ',VA $600»000 -,, ^500,000 ? f ' &$79$?4
NA NA $48,020 $38.142 $5,450 ' $91*612
s\ .*' ,$219,830 $21,130 , $8H9$0 ,lv-r ,/ , $4£<800-, ^ $$000 v " f< *$• $89o'760 -,
f $222,607 $10,200 $232.807 $59,600 $3^200 ' $295607 " '
, V * NA < ^ NA ^ 98MW ^ ^ > '*. \ • m-" t>T NA '"- '\« : - $2^840 -
NA NA $49,464 $60,000 (b) $109464
$997,732% ' $6,, $997,732^ * $104,133 ^V $fj - : ^ ^-$1 lOl'sBS ,
Key: " " ' "
Admin = Administration Educ = Education O&M = Operating and Maintenance Pub = Publicity
ColUCoKection NA = Not Available Proc = Processir^ -= Not Applicable
Note*;
See Tables 8.4-8.7 for descriptions of what costs cover and what costs exclude. Figues in this table are based on those
provided in Tables 8.9 and 810 For more detailed information on what costs cover see, "In-Depth Studies of Recycling
and Composting Programs: Designs, Costs, Results' (Washington, DC: ILSR. 1992) necyamg
a Total materials recovery cost includes $437,821 paid to municipalities for recycling activities
(b) Education and publicity cost are included in adminstration costs.
'
•.
**
1
Jf
5
at
«
G.
1'
ft«
|
"1
1
-8
s-
3
Q>
^
S
IS
CJ
tt»
a
»
§•
-------
Community
Austin, TX
Berlin Township, NJ
SouW«r(CQ
Bowdolnham, ME
Columbia, HO
Dakota County, MN
King County, WA
Lafayette, LA
LlncolnVark, NJ
Monroe, Wl
Newark, NJ
Pwtawte.PA
Peterborough, NH
Portland, OR
San Francisco, CA
Sonoma County, CA
Upper Township, NJ
West Linn, OR
Wast Palm Beacn,FL
Table 8.9
Communities' Recycling Operating & Maintenance
Year
Data
Collected Collection Processing Coll&Proc Admin
FY89 $735,000 $0 $735,000 $65,300
FY91 NA NA ?70Q,OOG $275,000 ft)
1990 $72,684 $17,500 $90,184 NA
jMQ. , $235,000 $25,000 $260,000, $45,000 ,
FY90 $6,754 $27,184 $33,938 $10,401
1990 $643)873 $895.428 $1.539*301 $280,000
1$90 $12,500 4 $26,825.. < $39,125 $700, -<
1990 NA NA $200,000 NA
»8>"
1990 NA NA $50,000 $23,000
" 1990** * $0 " $0 $0 NA
* 1990 x t $957,949 ^ $4 & $957,949 $85,859"
""1990 $0 ()) $° (k)NX $° ^$494,500
1990 " * NA NA ' " '$48,020 ' NA"
t 1990* « $120,100 $18,430 ,. , ' $140,560 '\ $39,800 x
V" 1990 " $179,207 $0 (m) $179,207 $58,700
1990 ^ NA(n)' NA (i) NA $45,000
>"4/90-9®tK $374,641 |x< $0 (pj *- $3.74.641 v> $34,133 .Ux,
NA I Mot Available
Costs
Educ/Pub
$30,400
$25,000
NA
$35,000
$500
: $8,650
$81,000
, $500
NA
^ ; $551
^$50,000
$1)000
" $0
s $7,000
$72,000
$0
' NA
$251^620
$200,000
NA
v, $5,000
$3,000
^ $o
(o)
$0
Subtotal
$830,700
(A) $1,000,000
$90,184
$340,000
$44,839
: $88,939
$2,338,122 (c)
s $40,325
NA
$27,2t2
$243,200
4 $57,070 <
$98,485
$895,249 4
$77,777
; I $9ie,894
$1,004,023
d-^«^nb-jtrt **
» v $62,340
$73,000
< x , $6,114,510 v?
NA
J $945,146
$686,120
I-* -$3,097,650
NA
-- >- $180,960 -r
$240,907
18,440
NA
, *• ^ $408,774 < *x 4
This table represents costs incurred by the local jurisdiction only. See Tables 8.4 and 85 for descriptions of what costs includo and exclude.
(a) A small portion of these education/publicity and administration costs are spent on composting activities.
(b) The cost is incurred by Civic Recycling and is unavailable.
(c) Total materials recovery cost includes $437,821 paid to municipalities for recycling activities.
(d) The cost is incurred by Houston County and is $104/lon.
(e) The City of Charlotte incurred $1 .533,31 1 ($96/ton) in addition to the County's costs.
(f ) Mecklenburg County incurred a $7.50/ton tipping fee for processing.
(g) REI Distributers incurred between $490,000 and $690,000 (about $9/ton) for processing.
(h) These costs cover the curbside recycling program alone.
(i) The State incurree $32Aon.
(i) Golden Gate Disposal spent $7.512,305.
(k) The cost is incurred by the private sector and is unavailable.
(1) The City's costs include contract fees for collection and processing.
(m) Cape May County incurred gross costs of $80 per ton for processing. ;
(n) West Linn Disposal spent $153,109 to colled 1,338 tons of recydables.
(o) Education and publicity costs are included with administrative costs. ...,„„
(p) The Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach Co. incurred $26 perton in 1990;this decreased to $21 perton when its new facility cam online in 1991.
• . _ — ^^^ .__ _^_^^^^^^^_^^__^__^^^____^_^^^^^^_^^^^^_
ll\
i s- •
;|;
:.-a. :
::s- :
,»
0
f
e
>**
-------
Table 8.10
Communities' Composting Operating & Maintenance Costs
Year
Data
Community
Austin, TX
Berkeley, CA
Berlin Township, NJ
Boulder, CO
Bowdolnham, ME
Columbia, MO
Dakota County, MN
F^ntiinitQte, Wi
King County, WA
t£Cra*C&rii,MN
Lafayette, LA
UtKOftitNC;
Lincoln Park, NJ
MeckteftbUfB Co*, NC
Monroe, Wl
NajMryiHe, 1L
Newark, NJ
PwttMtejPA
Peterborough, NH
Phfladeiphte, PA
Portland, OR
Providence, Rl
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Sonoma County. CA
Takom. Partc, MD
Upper Township, NJ
Wapakoneta.OH ..
West Linn, OR
West Palm Beach, FL
Collected Collection Processing
FY89
FY91
1990
J990
FY90
FY&O
1990
J99Q •
1990
!$9Q
FY90
^ , $90
1990
me
1989
% - 199D
1989
1990, " -
1990
, - FY90
1990
$990
1990
'.. 1990
1990
' 1990 ^v 5
1990
••9/-89-8SMJ / .,,•',
1990
-' 4V90-3/&1 ,
Key:
$5,000 $80,000
HA NA
$16,216 $4,804
W f NA
NA NA
NA $1,040
$0 $360,782
$tOy150 " $2)200
$144.350 $50.575
$0 $1j>t5
$160.875 $37,500
$32$5fc , $32,260
$38,775 $6,825
5 HA ' NA
$28,125 $7,500
$37&,^fl ^$134,006 ;
$71,136 $80,155
$23,556 - $0 ,
- _
HA \ < $9Bt<300
$0 $0 "
_ , 5 _ ,
$6,000 $83,000
W s NA,
NA NA
$91,708 ,- $2,700 .
$43.400 $10,200
.NA NA %
NA NA
$623;091 $0 o
Admin - Administration Coll = Collection
NA = Not Available Proc = Processing
Mote:
Coll & Proc
$85,000
$178,000
$21,020
, $120,94$
NA
NA
$360,782
$12,i350
$194,925
' $1,71$
$198,375
' s $65^216
$45,600
NA
$35,625
$510,680
$151,291
$23,556 "
—
' NA
$0
a ">
$89,000
$3,036,022;
NA
$94,400
$53,600
$20,400 ,
NA
Admin
$10,000
* - NA
NA
$0
NA
$1,704
$50,000
$0
NA
$$38"
$32,500
$15,000
$0
NA
$1.875
$8,000
$20,000
$t,623
__
$10,000
NA
$86,500
$300,000 ,
NA
$13,000 ^
$900
NA'
$15,000
Educ/Pub
$10.000
HA
NA
$0
NA
$0
$10,000
$0
NA
$0
$10,000
$1,733
$0
HA
$0
$2,500
$18,000
$220
$0
NA
$38,680
$300,000
NA
$1,009
$200
$0
(a)
\ I
ft
Educ = Education -- =
Pub=Pubticily
Subtotal
$105,000
$179,000
$21,020
$120,94$
NA
NA
$420,782
$12,350
NA
$2,653
$240,875
$61,949
$45,600
NA
$37,500
$521,180
$189,291
$25,399
NA
NA
$214,180
$3,636,022
NA
t 1108,400
$54,700
$20,400
NA
Not Applicable
See Tables 8.6 and 8.7 for descriptions of what costs include and exclude.
(a) Education and publicity costs are included under administrative costs.
-------
Community
Table 8.11
Communities' Combined Per Ton O&M Costs for Recycling and Composting
Subtotal Total Materials Recovery
Collection Processing Coll&Proc Admin Educ/Pub Gross Revenue Net
(a)
Austin, TX $81 $9 $90 $8 $4 $103 $24 $79
BWfWfe&eA. *M NA i "' $6$ - 4 $15 - $1 $93 |0 $93
Berlin Township, NJ $22 $6 $28 $1 $0 $28 $2 $26
Bwifeft*,CO , ^ *JA , , fNA - .$&&£ - < ,„ $7 $£ '$$7 $0 ' $$7
Bowdolnham, ME $23 $124 $118 $36 $2 $156 $10 $146
CO««ftb{a»IK> • ' ? NA 1 NA | ,';NA* "J'- i - ;j$27, <- ; $0 -' NA $7 NA
Dakota County, MN NA $57 NA NA NA NA $11 NA
King County, WA ' "" NA" ' " NA "" "$99 ' J ' ^ "' NA \ NA" NA " " $0 NA
Lafayette, LA NA " ' NA " ' $63^ ^ $28 ' '$13 * $104 $0 * $104
Lincoln Park, NJ "" " $29*" * $4 * $33 ***'" ^ $4 * $0 $37" " " $3 % "$35
M*«W»«btWSCO,NOi;i/l«Ar\ 1 \& WK:\'f f-1 NA-' ,**l a" <\ M*U <- NA*1'^ ^: NA .1 \i , H» - ' NA"'- A
Monroe, Wl $50 $36 $86 $8 $0 $94 $23 $72
NepWVfllMt s , =!^l."$?4^ ^'»7 '',,.*f1t^,^ ^-:$3. ^^*S1"SI*S" rtS«S ^', . ftQ *- <. -, A1J5 ; ^'
Newark, NJ
Peterborough, NH
Portland, OR
San Francisco, CA
S*attt«,WA
Sonoma County, CA
Taken* Park, WD
Upper Township, NJ
West LJnn, OR
$57 $6 $63 $15 $6 $84 $4 $80
*7'^$44f , ,- ' $8 , '^•$5Q-',*&^is>M^^l$Vvff&^-. -"--$54 .^"M' ,'S % $48
NA NA $45 $21 $0 $66 $18 $48
; _W> jA/^S^VjIP NAl'^fe^JrtfW^ I/ -^ '- ^xNA-.t\ v%fl : , NA
$0 $0 ** NA NA NA 3° NA
NA '^ NA" ""/ NA"*"" " NA ' " . ^ NA X" NA '$0 NA
NA NA" $12 "^ "** $9* ™ " $1 " $22 ^ $0 ' ^""$22
'$65 * " " """ $3r"y 4 " '$68 '"*''"' '""""** $17*^ "*'$! '" "' $87 " ° '* $0 " ' $87
C_ NA v w
:' S-
:•?;
JX
£
&
§.
9
1
*
!
i
Y
s
Co
Q
C
*»•
0
§ '
«,;
-------
Table 8.1 2
Combined Per Ton Recycling and Composting Costs
(Annualized Capital and O&M)
Community
Austin, TX
Berlin Township, NJ
Boulder, CO
Bowdoinham, ME
Columbia, MO
Dakota County, MN
King County, WA
UCrwc*fU,||N
Lafayette, LA
yrtcDinr}4f£
Lincoln Park, NJ
Monroe, Wl
Newark, NJ
P«rlw»l*,PA
Peterborough, NH
Portland, OR
Providence,, Bf
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Sonoma County, CA
Upper Township, NJ
WxpakoneiK.OH
West Linn, OR
W**tP*l»B*«h,Fl
Recycling Composting
Capital O&M Gross Capital O&M Gross
$12 $108 $120
$12 •• $89 $102
$8 $53 ' $61
$5 $73 $79
$7 $156 $163
, / $2 $64 $36 -
NA NA NA
* _ ,$45 ' $125 " $170 "
$0 NA NA
! ' "" &'.. -$117 " 0$123 -
$25 $100 * $125
$19 $67 $86
k .- 1UA t ' klA s &1A f
>? •. NA.' NA fJA
$6 $97 $103
$1 $147 % $148
, $9 - $65 ^,....$73,,, -^- "
$3.y $66 $69
- * '$815 'jf $158 4, ;$243 ' , \$
$0 NA NA
$0 NA NA
^ .. Hb 'k $$6 -i " $S6^<
$0 NA NA
, '•• ' $8 ,„ $144 $-153 o-V'
$3 $95 $99
$32 NA NA
$4 ' $162 $166
Key:
NA $77 NA
$2 $9 $11
,$7 $54 $61
$0 NA NA
$0 NA NA
$0 $38 $38
$3 $73 $76
$0 NA NA
, $1? ^ $18 $35
$4 $109 $113
$4 $36 $40
$2 $19 $21
NAV NA ^ NA
$5 $90 $95
$6 $25 $32
NA\\ $39 ^% NA '
d>A KlA &IA
•1>U NA NA
NA ' NA NA
, $0 $73 ,-$7$
$0 NA NA
$14 ' $62 $76
$6 5 [ '$4S " , , NA ,
$5 NA NA
: m , $4f ' NA
Total Materials Recovery
Capital O&M Gross Revenue
NA $103 NA
$11 $93 $104
$5 $28 $33
$6 $67 $73
$7 $156 $163
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
$30 $107 , $138
$0 NA NA
$10 $79 $83
$15 $104 $119
$4 $50 $55
$8 $37 $46
NA NA NA
$8 $94 $102
$7 $115 $122
$3 $84 $87
NA % fs $54 s NA
$3 $66 $69
NA '- NA NA ^
$0 NA NA
$0 $116 , -.,$}!$
NA NA NA
NA $64 $64 - -
$0 $22 $22
$10 %W $|£8
$6 $87 $93
^ $3 $21 $24
$37 $51 $88
NA $57 NA
$24
$0
$2
$0
$10
$7
$22
$15
$0
$0
$0
$1
$3
$13
$23
$0
$4
$6
$18
$0
I
$0
Net
NA
$104
$31
$73
$153
NA
NA
$122
NA
$89
$119
$54
$43
NA
$79
$122
$83
NA
$51
NA
$116
NA
$64
$22
$128
$93
$24
$88
NA
NA = Not Available O&M = Operating and Maintenance - = Not Applicable
Not»:
wffr^ar;^
5S^32!^i"J±^^
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options? Lessons from 30 ILS, Communities
administration, and education/publicity. Most
O&M costs vary with the amount of material
recovered and labor hours spent. Some O&M costs,
such as insurance fees, heating costs, and publicity
costs, remain fixed despite the volume of material
handled. Tables 8.8 through 8.10 present annual
total gross O&M costs incurred by each jurisdiction
for recycling, composting, and total materials
recovery, including the costs for publicity and
education programs and for program
administration and overhead. These tables exclude
expenditures by public agencies other than the
community documented, as well as the value of
any volunteer labor.3 Tables 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, and
8.11 list per ton gross O&M costs for recycling
collection and processing and for yard waste
collection and composting, and indicate for each of
these categories what these costs include. Total
gross and net O&M costs for recycling and
composting are presented in Table 8.11.4 (Recycling
and composting costs include marketing costs, but
they should also take into account revenues from
the sale of materials. For comparative purposes we
generally use gross costs and thus exclude the effect
of higher sales prices, on average, for scrap
materials on the coasts than in the Midwest. Net
costs for these programs are often significantly
lower when revenues are factored in.)
Table 8.12 lists total materials recovery costs
(composting and recycling costs combined),
including annualized capital costs and O&M.
Capital costs typically comprise a small percentage
of total costs. Traditionally, community recycling
systems do not have large fixed investments, and,
as a result, are able to respond to near-term
changes in their operating environment (e.g.,
changes in the amount or composition of the waste
stream, better processing technologies, more
rigorous environmental standards). As indicated
in Table 8.17, some recycling systems have recently
become more capital-intensive.
We have made every effort to use a uniform
methodology for documenting and assessing costs.
Yet, due to the difficulty in gathering reliable and
consistent cost information, the figures presented in
this chapter do have some limitations. The
observations made are not based on rigorous
statistical data. In addition, the costs documented
focus on the costs incurred by the local government
or community studied. All the costs being incurred
by all the parties involved in recycling and
composting are not necessarily reflected in the
figures presented here. (The notes at the end of
each table help clarify what costs are excluded, as
do Tables 8.4 through 8.7.) While costs incurred
by the private sector are not documented in this
report, Table 8.16 does list gross operating costs by
all the public sector parties involved in curbside
recycling activities. Private sector recovery
enterprises operate as businesses and cover their
costs through the fees they charge and the materials
revenues they receive. (If private recycling
processors or composters do not charge local,
county, or state governments for handling
materials, these operators' costs are typically being
covered by materials revenues, not by the
taxpayer.) Readers interested in undertaking their
own cost analysis should review the raw cost data
as reported in In-Depth Studies of Recycling and
Composting Programs: Designs, Costs, Results.
The Effect of Program Design on Costs
Tables 8.1 through 8.12 indicate that capital and
O&M costs vary widely from community to
community. O&M costs (excluding revenues) for
recycling range from $9 per ton in Wapakoneta to
$162 per ton in West Palm Beach. O&M costs for
yard waste collection and composting range from
$9 per ton in Berlin Township to $109 per ton in
Lafayette. The capital investment made per ton-
per-day recovered also varies widely. Newark has
invested only $1,420 for every ton-per-day it
recycles, while Fennimore has invested $104,400.
Fennimore made the lowest investment in yard
waste collection and composting equipment at
$4,800 per ton-per-day composted, while Austin
made the largest at $54,660.s
Why do reported materials recovery costs vary
so much? How can communities avoid incurring
high costs? By answering the former question, we
can also address the latter.
Evaluating the economics of community
materials recovery programs is a challenging task.
Reliable and consistent data are often lacking.
Publicly funded programs may underestimate their
costs by including large volunteer efforts or
excluding expenditures made by other public
agencies, while private operations' data are often
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U,S, Communities
Chart 8.1
Gross O&M Costs Per Ton Recovered
Other
Collection and
Processing
CH Processing
• Collection
111 I'M riii i
II I I 111 I i!
•£ 8 i
I S e
l i
32
§
.£ M
& .
1 1
1 I
Q_
I
Iff!
1 I s f
li||
0 O
CD CO
Notes: This chart does not include communities for which total costs were unavailable. "Other" includes administration, education, publicity, and costs
that could not be broken down into the specific categories. In a few communities, costs cannot be broken down into collection and processing.
unavailable for public scrutiny. Collection and
processing systems vary widely from one
community to the next. Each system collects
different types and amounts of materials, requires
distinct set-out procedures, utilizes different
vehicles and crew sizes, and employs different
processing techniques. Moreover, programs differ
as to service provider. Some use public crews to
collect materials, others contract with private
haulers for collection. While there is no simple
formula for determining which system is more
advantageous, this section will examine the
relationships between different program types and
costs.
Drop-off Versus Curbside Collection
As we discussed in Chapter 5, there are two
basic strategies for collecting recyclable and
compostable materials: drop-off and curbside
collection. While curbside collection is critical to
maximizing participation and therefore recovery
levels, drop-off is cheaper. Chart 8.1 graphs gross
O&M costs per ton of material recovered. Charts
8.2a and 8.2b graph gross O&M costs for collection
and processing of recyclables and compostables,
respectively. In comprehensive curbside programs,
collection accounts for most of the total O&M costs.
The six communities whose costs in Charts 8.1 and
8.2 largely represent drop-off programs—Sonoma
County, Lincoln, Lincoln Park, Peterborough,
Wapakoneta, and West Linn—are those with very
low per ton collection costs.6 While Bowdoinham
is also largely a drop-off program, its expensive
processing costs ($124 per ton) elevate the total cost
of the program. The small throughput at its
processing facility accounts for this high per ton
processing cost.
Drop-off can work as a primary collection
strategy in communities in which residents self-haul
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options? Lessons from 30 UtS
Table 8.13
Communities' Total Recycling Costs
(Annuallzed Capital and O&M)
Annual tz»d
C«ptt«ICo«t O&MCMt GrottCoct
(Won) ($/ton) (Won)
S*«m*,WA(a)
Bould*r,CO
UCr»«c«nt,MN
Berkeley, CA
Providence, Rl
Napervllle, K.
Lafayette, LA
N»w»rk, NJ (b)
Peterborough, NH (DO)
Berlin Tcwn«nlp,NJ
PtrfcMli.PA
Monroe, Wl
Lincoln Park, NJ
Columbia, MO
Auatki.TX
UpperTownihlp, NJ
Lincoln, NE
Ftnnlmore, Wl
Bowdblnham, ME
Takome. Park, MO
W**t Palm Beach, FL
PhHadilphla, PA
NA
$5
$5
$12
$0
$0
$25
$1
$3
$8
$9
$6
$19
$2
$12
$3
$1
$45
$7
$9
$4
$85
$56
$73
$117
$89
$116
$121
$100
$147
$66
$53
$65
$97
$67
$84
$108
$95
$126
$125
$156
$144
$162
$158
$56
$79
$123
$102
$116
$121
$125
$148
$69
$61
$73
$103
$86
$86
$120
$99
$126
$170
$163
$153
$166
$243
Revenue
(Won)
$1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8
$18
$5
$12
$35
$7
$7
$29
$0
$0
$23
$13
$0
$0
$2
Net
(Won)
$56
$79
$123
$102
$116
$121
$125
$141
$51
$57
$61
$68
$79
$79
$91
$99
$126
$147
$150
$153
$166
$241
CoHoctor
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract
Contract/Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public/Contract
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Set-out
Collection
Method
Commingled
Segregated
Segregated
Segregated
Commingled
Segregated
Segregated
Commingled
-
Commingled
Segregated Comm
Commingled
—
Segregated
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Segregated
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
K«y: DO - Primarily drop-off program O&M - Operating & Maintenance - - Not Applicable
Notli:
(a) Private hautert under contract with the Ctty Incur all the capital costs for curbskJe recycling. The City did purchase some equipment for Ks drop-off recycling site at Its transfer
station. Although these latter costs are not available, net costs are calculated above because, according to Ctty officials their costs are accounted for in the City's O&M costs.
(b) The pubRdy run component of Newark's curbs ids program was more expensive, on a per ton basis, than the contracted segment of the program.
refuse to disposal sites. In 1990 Peterborough, a
small rural New England town, recycled 42
percent of its residential waste at its drop-off site,
incurring an O&M cost of $45 per ton for collection
and processing (see Tables 8.4, 8.5, and 8.11).
Drop-off collection supplements curbside
collection in a number of communities. By
enabling residents and/or business establishments
to drop off their recyclable or compostable
materials throughout the week, and by accepting
materials not collected at curbside, drop-off
collection not only reduces total per ton program
costs but also can increase the overall tonnage of
material collected. In West Linn, 36 percent of the
materials recovered in 1990 were collected and
marketed through the City's drop-off center at an
O&M cost of $31 per ton (see Tables 8.4 and 8.11).
In contrast to these costs, the City's private hauler
reports incurring $114 per ton to collect recyclable
material at curbside. Sonoma County contracts with
nonprofit and for-profit recycling companies to
operate drop-off sites at disposal facilities. In FY
1990 these contracts cost the County $12 for every
ton recycled (see Tables 8.4 and 8.11).
Philadelphia's Block Corner Program is another
effective and inexpensive recycling system. In 1990
recyclables were collected from 10 block corner
neighborhoods at an estimated cost of $58 per ton—
one-third the cost of the City's curbside program.
Revenues from the material sales are returned to the
community and used to fund neighborhood projects.
Service Provider: Public Versus Private
Either the public sector, the private sector, or
some combination of the two can undertake
collection and processing services for recyclables
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, anA Composting Options; Lessons jjrom30 U,S, Comawmties
Chart 8.2a
Recycling Collection and Processing O&M Costs
160
140
120
100 .
80 .
60
40
20
III I'll III I II
MI 11111 iii 11111111 ui,
I III I III I III INI III III
Chart 8.2b
Composting Collection and Processing O&M Costs
Atote: In a few communities costs cannot be broken
down into collection and processing.
H Collection and Processing
D Processing
• Collection
and yard waste. A little
over one-third of our 30
communities use public
crews to collect
recyclables; another
third contract with
private haulers to
provide this service; and
in the remainder private
haulers provide this
service independent of
the public sector.
Arrangements for yard
waste collection service
vary similarly. Table
8.13 lists communities'
total capital and O&M
costs for recycling
organized by service
provider.
As Table 8.13
indicates, costs vary
widely for systems with
both public and
contracted haulers.7 The
net recycling costs
(including collection,
processing, administra-
tion, education, and
annualized capital costs)
of programs with
contracted collection
service range from $56
per ton in Seattle to
$125 per ton in
Lafayette.8 The City of
Newark, which relies
primarily on contracted
service, incurred a net
cost of $141 per ton of
material recycled.
Communities using
public collection crews
incur net total costs
ranging from $57 per
ton in Berlin Township,
New Jersey to $307 per
ton in Philadelphia.9
The two least expensive
programs (Wapakoneta
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.& Communities
There is some
difference between
public and private
service providers in
regard to crew size.
Collection
and Peterborough) are publicly run drop-off
programs. The least expensive curbside program is
Seattle's, a contract system." The next least
expensive curbside program is Berlin Township's,
a publicly run system.
There are financial advantages and disadvan-
tages to each system. (See Table 8.14.) Commu-
nities with contracted recycling programs incur
fewer capital outlays than do communities that
provide service. By contracting out collection,
communities also re-
lieve themselves of the
responsibility of coor-
dinating the logistics
of collection, which
may lower their ad-
ministrative and over-
head costs. Yet con-
tractors may pass on
these costs and the
cost of their equip-
ment in the fees they
charge. As listed in
Table 8.11, many of
the communities with
the highest per ton
administrative costs
(over $14 per ton) are
those with publicly
run systems. How-
ever, communities
contracting out service
usually do not receive
the revenue from ma-
terial sales (which may
be of greater concern
when secondary mate-
rial prices rise). As
indicated in Table
8.13, revenue earned
from the sale of mate-
rials can substantially
lower the per ton costs
of publicly run materi-
als recovery programs.
Within our 30 communities, the average crew size
per collection vehicle is 2.4 people for public
collection programs and 1.8 people for private
collection. In some cases larger crews increase
costs, but in other cases they do not. Although
labor costs do make up a large portion of O&M
costs, total labor costs depend not on the number
of crew members per vehicle but on total labor
hours required. Larger crews may get the job done
more quickly. For instance, the Naperville Area
Recycling Center switched from two- to three-
Processing
Marketing
Efficiency
Labor
Financing
Other
Table 8.14
Advantages and Disadvantages of
Public and Private Service Providers
Public
Municipalities directly control the
number and types of materials
targeted.
Municipalities incur costs of
processing and are responsible
for finding markets, unless
counties or state agencies
provide this service.
Municipalities retain direct
control of the materials and
how these are marketed.
Municipalities retain control of the
materials revenue.
Municipal employees may not
be as efficient due to lack of
profit incentive. (Time
incentives may alter this.)
Public crews tend to be larger
than private crews.
Municipalities may have better
access to more capital to
purchase equipment.
Communities may have the
opportunity and ability to more fully
integrate recycling programs into
their solid waste management system
rather than having recycling as an
add-on cost to the system.
Private/Contracted
Municipalities can control the number and types
of materials targeted through contracts.
However, if contracts are not up for renegotiation,
municipalities may not have this flexibility.
Municipalities do not need to oversee the
logistics of collection, which will reduce
administrative overhead.
Municipalities do not need to oversee the logistics
of processing, which minimizes
administrative overhead.
Municipalities often pay no costs for
delivering materials to private processing
centers. They may have to pay a tipping
fee or they may even be paid revenue.
Municipalities may have less control over the
choice of end markets. (Contracts may
stipulate market preferences.)
Municipalities avoid the responsibility of
securing markets thus avoiding the potential
need to store materials until markets open up.
Relying on private processors/contractors
can ease the effect of market fluctuations
on smaller communities' budget.
Private sector may provide more efficient
services due to profit incentive.
Private crews tend to be smaller than
public crews.
Municipalities do not need to incur capital
costs for equipment. However, contractors
may pass these costs on in the fees they charge.
Communities can negotiate flexibility
into their contracts.
Community-based recycling businesses
provide benefits to the community beyond
recycling collection and processing services.
-------
Waste Prevention* Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from30 U.S. Communities
person crews to speed curbside collection of
materials and to minimize overtime pay. The City
of Philadelphia, which has the highest reported per
ton O&M curbside collection cost in our sample,
utilizes three crew members per vehicle. The City
asserts that reducing crew size would not increase
route efficiency. (Due to the high population
density of Philadelphia, the City claims that
recyclables are loaded more rapidly when the
driver remains on board and two additional crew
members follow behind to load materials.) The
City does agree that reducing crew size from three
to two in less dense regions, which represent
approximately 10 to 20 percent of the City, would
lower costs. In addition, the City is working to
increase the operating efficiency of its crews.
Whether collection is private or public,
municipalities have the opportunity to restructure
their overall solid waste management system by
shifting crews or vehicles from refuse collection to
materials recovery or by encouraging their
contractors to do so. Flexible contracts that allow
restructuring are more attractive than fixed
contracts, which do not allow the community to
shirt personnel and equipment to other tasks.
Perkasie, Pennsylvania and Takoma Park, Maryland
replaced their second weekly trash collection day
with recycling collection, using the same municipal
crews to collect trash and recyclables. In an effort
to encourage integration of recycling and refuse
collection, Newark has requested that its new
contracted hauler, servicing one-third of the City,
collect both refuse and recyclables.
Segregated Versus Commingled
Collection and Processing
Curbside set-out and collection methods vary
widely from community to community. (See Table
5.6 in Chapter 5.) Communities design their set-
out and collection methods to fit existing or
planned processing systems, which in turn are
designed to meet the material specifications
stipulated by end users. Overall O&M and capital
costs depend on both collection and processing
strategies. There are trade-offs between capital
investments and operating costs, and between
collection costs and processing costs. A community
may have an expensive collection system but an
inexpensive processing system, which may translate
to an inexpensive recycling program overall, or vice
versa. For example, a collection system in which
materials are sorted en route may obviate the need
for a processing facility or may only require one
with minimal processing equipment. Expensive
equipment may reduce labor requirements and thus
operating costs. However, the higher the capital
costs, the larger the debt a community generally
has to assume.
The reject rate, which results primarily
from excessive glass breakage, at high-
technology facilities can have a direct
effect on recovery rates and costs.
The number and types of materials targeted for
collection, the type of processing system available,
market specifications for sale of the material, and
level of service desired (customer convenience),
often dictate the nature of set-out and collection.
Over one-third of the 27 communities with curbside
collection programs utilize some form of segregated
set-out, with the number of sorts varying from
three to eight.11 (In this report, segregated systems
are defined as those in which residents are
requested to separate their glass from their metal
food and beverage containers.) In other programs,
residents are allowed to commingle at least some
materials, which are sorted either en route (partially
or completely) or at processing facilities.
Co-collection systems, in which source-
separated materials are collected at the same time
and with the same vehicle as refuse, may offer
communities the opportunity to reduce recycling
collection costs by eliminating the need for separate
recycling vehicles, crews, and routes. A number
of communities have tried these systems with
mixed results. (See side bar, p. 138.) A promising
type of co-collection is the "wet/dry" system—
which has demonstrated potential to achieve high
diversion rates. In wet/dry systems, dry
recyclables are segregated at set-out from wet
organic and compostable materials; these are
segregated from any remaining refuse, and all three
are collected either in the same vehicle or in
different vehicles. See Chapter 5 and Appendix E
for further discussion on wet/dry collection.
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 IT.S* Communities
Table 8.15
Advantages and Disadvantages Between Commingled and Segregated
Set-Out and Collection Systems
O&M Cost
Capital Cost
Reject Rate
Revenue
Labor
Commingled
The O&M cost to collect commingled
recyclables may be less since there
are usually only two different
containers or bags to pick up, but
processing costs may be higher.
Collection costs will increase if
processing center is located far away.
The capital cost for collection may be
less because specialized recycling
vehicles are not needed.
Processing facilities may be more
expensive to build since more sorting
equipment may be needed.
Materials entering the processing
facility are rejected (average 7 percent
with a range of 0.5-16 percent).
Materials may be more contaminated
resulting in a lower market value.
Less labor is required for collection.
More time is needed for crew to load
recyclables into collection vehicle.
Segregated
The O&M cost may be more due to the
slower speed of collection since there
can be many different containers or
bags to pick up, but processing costs
may be lower or avoided altogether.
Capital cost for collection may be
higher if specialized recycling vehicles
or several different vehicles are used.
Processing facilities will not need as
much sorting equipment.
Segregated materials entering the processing
facility have a lower reject rate
(average 1.2 percent with a range of 0-4 percent).
Materials may be higher quality and
have a higher market value.
More labor may be needed for processing.
Less labor may be needed for processing.
Of our 30 communities, two—Bowdoinham and
Lincoln—have used co-collection. In the small rural
town of Bowdoinham, a private hauler collects dear
bags of recyclables and clear bags of refuse in a
pick-up truck. In Lincoln two private haulers
retrofitted their packer trucks with bins for
collecting aluminum and newspapers. As the
private sector operates both these programs, costs
are not available.
The other 25 communities with curbside
collection systems collect either commingled or
segregated recyclables using dedicated recycling
vehicles. Communities within our sample that
utilize segregated collection systems are primarily
suburban or rural. In Naperville, Columbia,
Portland, and West Linn, residents set out their
recyclables completely segregated, and even color-
sort glass. In Fennimore and La Crescent, collection
crews color-sort glass. The programs in Berkeley,
Boulder, and Perkasie can also be considered
segregated collection systems. The majority of the
communities in this study, including many of the
largest cities such as Providence, San Francisco,
Charlotte (Mecklenburg County), Philadelphia, and
Seattle, utilize commingled collection systems. The
propensity of larger communities to select
commingled systems may be attributed to the
desire to speed collection; the desire to increase
program participation through convenient set-out
methods; the ability to support large, capital
intensive processing centers to sort recyclables; and
the ability to realize low operating costs as a result
of the economies of scale of these centers.
-------
VfostePreventionfRixyc8ngfand Composting Options? Lessons from 30 U.S,Communities -
There are advantages and disadvantages to
both commingled and more segregated set-out and
collection methods, as outlined in Table 8.15.
Commingled systems allow crews to collect
materials faster than segregated systems. Greater
collection efficiency translates into lower collection
costs. (It also might mean less capital cost
investment in collection equipment because
communities might be able to use existing collection
vehicles and need fewer trucks.) Processing costs
may be higher than those incurred by more
segregated systems, and depend on scale of
processing facility and equipment and labor
requirements. If commingled materials are sorted
at a central sorting facility, the community may
benefit from low operating costs that economies of
scale provide. Systems with highly segregated set-
out and those that require workers to do additional
sorting on the collection route can be expected to
have higher collection costs due to the increased
time needed to load the different materials. This
higher collection cost may be offset by lower
processing costs and lower materials reject rates,
which lead to lower disposal costs. (The costs of
collection in Fennimore and Columbia, however,
indicate that segregated collection systems do not
necessarily have high costs. Operating and
maintenance costs for collection in these
communities, where public crews color-sort glass
en route, are $39 and $49 per ton, respectively.)
Table 8.16 lists per ton O&M collection and
processing costs incurred by the public sector
including the community itself, the County, and the
State if applicable. (As mentioned earlier, previous
tables list only communities' direct costs.) Costs
vary widely. The gross operating costs of
segregated curbside systems, including collection
and processing, range from a low of $39 per ton
in Lafayette to a high of $215 per ton in La
Crescent. Of the communities with commingled
systems, Berlin Township has the lowest O&M
collection cost at $42 per ton ($58 per ton including
processing). Philadelphia has the highest at $173
per ton ($181 per ton including processing), and
West Palm Beach has the second highest at $148
per ton ($169 per ton including processing).
Because our sample of 30 communities consists
of very different programs across the country, we
cannot effectively compare costs among them to
determine whether commingled or segregated
systems are more cost-effective. Other variables—
amount of materials collected per household, tons
per day collected and processed, labor costs, and
basis of contract fees—may have a more significant
impact on operating costs than actual set-out,
collection, and processing methods. For example,
Philadelphia's and West Palm Beach's high
collection costs may have something to do with the
fact that both programs collect less than 6 pounds
of recyclable material per serviced household per
week. Berlin Township, on the other hand, which
has a low collection cost, collects nearly 20 pounds
per serviced household. Both Lafayette and La
Crescent contract out recycling collection service,
and thus these costs may not be representative of
the actual operating expenses of the programs.12 La
Crescent's high program costs can be attributed to
factors other than set-out and collection system.
These include the long distances (up to 40 miles
each way) that its contracted hauler must travel to
unload materials at the County processing center,
the relatively small amount of recyclables collected
per household, and the fact that payment to the
City's recycling hauler (which is also the City's
refuse hauler) is tied to the number of refuse bags
sold in the City, which may diminish the
company's incentive to increase the amount of
recyclables collected.
Nevertheless, by looking at some individual
programs and processing facilities we can illustrate
some of the strengths and weaknesses of
commingled and more segregated systems.
Most of the facilities accepting segregated
materials have lower capital costs than those
accepting commingled materials (see Table 8.17).
The high-technology 240 ton-per-day CRInc
facility—which processes commingled recydables—
in Montgomery County, Maryland cost $8.5 million
to construct. In contrast, the 72 ton-per-day
medium-technology processing center, which is
owned and operated by Eco-Cycle in Boulder and
processes segregated recydables, cost $687,500 (1990
dollars) to build and equip—one third the cost per
ton-per-day of installed capacity. The two
processing facilities in Seattle provide a striking
comparison of the cost difference between high-
technology systems and low- and medium-
technology systems. The hauler serving Seattle's
north section delivers semi-segregated recyclables
to the 300 ton-per-day Recycle America Processing
-------
Table 8.16
Public Sector Curbside Recycling Collection and Processing Gross O&M Costs
Lbs. Per PerTon
Serviced PerTon Public/ Number PerTon Public or Collection &
Household Collection Private Contract of Crew Processing Private Processing
Per Week Cost Collection Arrangement Members Cost Facility Cost
(«) (b)
Pt r Household
Collection &
Processing
Cost Per Year
Commingled
Collection
System
Austin, TX
BBffcatay.CA
Berlin Township, NJ
Boukfer.eO "
Columbia, MO
Oakda County, «N
Fennlmore, Wl
U Crescent, MH
Lafayette, LA
Mecklenburg Co., NC
Napervllle, IL
Perkasle, PA
Providence, Rl
San Francisco, CA
Seattle (North), WA
Sonoma County, CA
Upper Township, NJ
West Palm Beach, FL
2.6
&8
20.9
HA
5.7
6.4"
3.4
*6.1
S12.0
9\(l)
" 56
"15.8*
•Pl.1^, £
8.8
J*>:
s 7,71
5.3
0)
$98
NA
$42
'$49
"$39"''
NA
%96 ^
%73*"'
$5o"S(g)
$105'
" NA* W
$o"
m ' .
$71 (g)
Public
Contract
Public
..Contract ^
Public
flatfaarpafHhf
1
Si
2
Public
'Contract
Public
'> -r Puwfe
Contract
»k, if
perHH
m
Public
Puttfe
Contract
Contract
Contract
Private
PuMe
Public
flat fee
flat fee, per HH
** %
per ton
$148
NA. Not! Available --Not Applicable
Public
2
•. ^
jf. «2-
3
'•'," 1
1
3 "'"
2-4
$0 (C)
$16 (d)
' $0, (c)
$83
Private
Private
Pub/Pri
Private
Private
NA
$1S ^
$8
*45 V, \-
$43
$10
, $32 \o)
^
$0^
4H mi
$80 (s)
$21 "(u)%
Public
Private'
Private
Private
Public
'"pub/Pri"
Private
Private
Pub/Pri
Pub/Pri
$98
$67
$58
$86
$49
- m:
$122
$21*,, 1
$39 ,(i)
^$104'"
$116 ''
'" $60*
a*»i 4- *.
$137
^ $52 Ip)
$0
"$151
"$169'
$7
$Jtt
$30
$7
$20
$3*
$2-
$16
$36
$17"
$21
$20
$19 ^
NA"
NA
$23
$23
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
..Wo
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yea
Varies
Yes
Yes
Ye* ,
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
Yes
HH - Household
Nottt:
Above costs are the per ton gross O&M curbside collection and processing costs incurred by the public sector, including the community itself, the County, or the State. These costs exclude any revenue received from sale of materials.
(a) Contract arrangement: 'Flat fee* indicates that the contracted curbside hauler is paid a flat yearly fee for service. "Per ton* or 'per household* indicates that the contracted service provider is paid on the specified basis only.
(b) Pub/Pri indicates publidy owned and privately operated facilities.
(c) Austin delivers recydables to a private processing facility and no tipping fee is incurred. Columbia's and Newark's materials are privately processed and the City incurs no cost.
(d) Processing cost represents Township's cost to market its waste paper and the County's cost to process the Township's food and beverage containers. This latter cost was reported as $25 per ton in 1990 in *1992-93 Materials Recovery a
(e) Boulder paid Western Disposal a flat fee to service a certain number of households and a per household fee for the households above that number.
(f) The City pays Eco-Cycls $5 per ton processed. (Eco-Cyde's 1990 gross O&M cost was $37 per ton.)
(g) Cost includes some drop-off collection.
(h) Houston County incurred this cost.
(i) This cost represents contract fees the City paid to The Recycling Foundation in FY 1990. Contract fees increased in FY 1991.
(j) The City of Charlotte incurred this cost, which is based on 6-month cost data
(k) The City collected materials from one-third of Newark for 6 months and contracted with two different groups to collect the remainder.
(I) Includes materials collected from 1S small businesses and the drop-off site.
(m) Cost excludes the compensation paid to farmers to colled food waste. If included, per ton collection cost would drop to $107.
(n) The City paid $30 per ton at the Philadelphia Transfer and Recycling Center and received $5 per ton at The Forge.
(o) The State incurs this cost.
(p) Seattle renegotiated its contract. In 1893 the City will pay one hauler $78 per ton and the other $84 per ton for both collecting and processing recydables.
(q) Cost largely represents City's fees to private hauler to market materials collected at curbside and at drop-offs.
(r) The Township also collects recydables from businesses; Ibs./riousehoW is not available.
(s) Cape May County incurs this cost.
(t) West Linn Disposal, the City's private hauler, incurs $114 per ton for collecting and processing recydables.
(u) The Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County incurs this cost, which represents processing costs at its new facility built after tl
-------
Waste Prevention f Recycling, and Composting Optionsi lessons framZQ U.S, Communities
Center, which cost an estimated $500,000. Since
recydables are partially separated by the generators
and are collected in compartmentalized trucks, the
facility is used primarily for baling and for sorting
commingled bottles and cans. In contrast, the
Rabanco Recycling Center, to which the hauler
serving Seattle's south section brings fully
commingled recyclables, is a 500 to 700 ton-per-day
facility that cost between $6 million and $8 million.
This facility uses a combination of conveyors,
trommel, disc screens, magnetic separation, air
classification, hand picking, and baling. The
Rabanco Recycling Center cost almost seven times
as much as the Recycle America Processing Center
on a ton-per-day of installed capacity basis.
On the other hand, because of the low
throughput of many of the facilities processing
segregated recyclables, these systems often have
higher capital costs per ton-per-day of installed
capacity than the typically larger commingled
facilities. Fennimore, for example, which has
relatively low collection costs, has relatively high
processing costs at $83 per ton. Two factors
contribute to Fennimore's high per ton operating
costs: only 1.62 tons per day are processed, and
the City's crews must travel 42 miles to market
glass and metals. In addition, processing facilities
with small tonnage throughputs, such as those
utilized by Bowdoinham, Fennimore, and Monroe,
have much higher per ton O&M processing costs
than larger facilities (such as those in Seattle,
Providence, or Montgomery County). The amount
of manual labor used at small facilities is one
reason for their higher per ton cost. Bowdoinham
employs two workers at its 2 ton-per-day facility
(or 120 employees per 100 tons per day processed).
Large facilities can process on the order of several
hundred tons per day with high-technology
equipment and relatively few employees. For
example, the Montgomery County facility employs
9 workers per 100 tons per day processed; the
Rhode Island facility utilizes 12.5 employees per 100
tons per day processed. Chart 8.3 shows the
relationship between the number of employees per
100 tons per day processed and the O&M
processing cost. As the number of employees per
ton-per-day processed increases, so does the O&M
cost.
Chart 8.3
Processing Facility O&M Costs and Labor Requirements
$140
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
/
r —
— *-
H3 Per ton Processing O&M Cost
— Number Employees Per 100 TPD
- 4
/
mum —
**•••*••*
m*m**:
^
jm—
'^m**
f jfftffS
^^mf
I 1
,mg^
^
^^.••*^~
;
:,,, ,
f
-s
180
. 160
. 140
. 1?0
. 100
.80
. 60
.40
.20
i If 6
'3- i<| B.1
II
•" •§ B
. ssl
g
-------
Table 8.17
Community
SEGREGATED
Berkeley, CA
Boulder, CO
Columbia, MO
D«kQl« County, MN
Fannlmore, Wl
L*Cr*sotni,MM
Lafayette, LA
flapsrvltle, IL
Parkasle, PA
Portland; Watt UnrvOB
COMMINGLED
Austin, TX
Austin, TX
Berlin Towns Wp, NJ
;Iowa*olnh*m, M6
Mecklenburg Co, NO
Monroe. W}
Newark, NJ
PhJtadtlpWe, PA
Providence, Ri
Smn Fmnci»cof CA '
Seattle, WA
Seattle, WA
Takoma Park, MD
TaJcomaParkjttD
Upper Township, NJ
West Palm Beach, FL{k)f
Costs and Characteristics of Intermediate Processing
Distance Days Per Design Through-
Facility to IPC Regional Year In Capacity put
Name (miles) Facility Operation (TPD) (TPD)
SWMC
gtt-Cryp)*
Civic Recycling
fSJO
Recycle Center
Houston County «"C
Recycling Foundation IPC
flAHC
Public Works Yard
K.6, Recva bug
ACCO
fiooktflyAcJkm
CCRF
> Bocydfna:Bsjn
FCR/Charlotte IPC
Munje^at Garage
Distributers Recycling
PIRC
MRF
WeetCW*l6dfv*gB
Recycle America PC
}&6$n$£R*eJe!«i9Qtr,.
Georgetown Paper Stock
MoBfBjWrtejJf CO. Rec-Cfr.
CMCMUAIPF
SWAflHF
L
L
5/L
—
1/L
1£M»
0-15
too. "
0-1 5/L
32,242
L
L.
10
1
NA
1ft,
1-20/L
MO/l
15
3-S/L
NA/L
NA/L
10
t3
1-15rt.
18-51
No
Yes
No
Nf>
No
Y«3
No
VBB
No
' Ya4
Yes
Vtei
Yes
N»
Yes
No
Yes
YBB
No
Yss
No
lie-" %
Yes
Yas
Yes
VBS
NA
:, ,&*
260
3Q7
200
235
305
" NA
-
312
280
250
250
156
255
NA
NA
260
260
NA
260
J*A\
281
260
256
302
75
NA
100
20
NA
8"
30
SO
NA
NA
400
23
80
NA
200
NA
NA
/1 00
'l'20
NA
300
' '600
500
240
225^
250
50
7%
75
40
1.6
2&
20
35*70
3
1$7
200
11
72
\A
80(9)
3
240
7$
190-240
490
<200
"gjSo
350-400
NA"
SO-90
'ilw'
Facilities
Dally
Tonnage Capital
Delivered By Cost
Community (1990$)
(a)
NA
35
5.8
™
1.6
1.$"
8
NA
-
NA
25
NA
1.5
1.4
73
NA'
NA
, 40
31
iSjDOQ
NA
NA
1.2
NA
10
B.4 '
$370,400
$887,500
NA
isjss.iflo
$94,700
$269,700
NA
.$75,000
$51 ,700
$1.500,000
NA
W
$781 ,400
$1fiy400
$700,000
$16,600
$1,250,000"
NA
$6,000,000
fclA
$500,000
$7,000,000
NA
' $S,SOO,OO&
$575,400
$6,300,000
Capital Cost
($m>Dof
capacity)
(b)
$4,900^
$9,500
NA
$11^800
$58,800
$53,900
NA
$1,500
" $16,200
$9,000
NA
NA
$9,800
$11,700
$3,500
NA
$5,200
NA
$25,000
NA
$1,700
$1l",700
NA
'f&i&af
r $2^600
"$^ClS00"
toy:
() Dono!»s ravanua received.
A-Aluminum
ACCO - ACCO Waste Paper Processing Center
B-Btftirits
CCRF - Camden County Recycling Facility
CMCMUAIPF - Cape May County Intermediate
Processing Facility
F - Ferrous Cans
G-Glass
FCR - Fairfield County Recycling
HP-High-grade Paper
IPC - Intermediate Processing Center
L - Located within city limits
M - Scrap Metal
MP - Mixed Paper
MRF - Materials Recovery Facility
No**:
"Segregated* designates IPCs that receive food and beverage containers pro-sorted into more than one stream.
"Commingled* designates IPCs that receive food and beverage containers unsorted in one stream.
Costs are not necessarily Incurred by the listed jurisdiction.
(a) In Naperville, West Linn, Portland, Mecklenburg Co., Newark, Takoma Park (Montgomery Co.), Seattle (both), and Providence, capital costs of IPCs are estimates based on the
year ol construction and therefore are not converted into 1990 dollars.
(b) For Fennimore, Monroe, Newark, Perkasie, Portland, and West Linn capital costs VTPD of capacity were calculated with the TPD throughput because the design capacity is not
available. The capital costs for the improvements of Naperville's facility are not included. In Providence, the MRF currently operates over two shifts; thus 240 TPD was utilized.
-------
Table 8.17 continued
Annual
O&MCost
($/ton)
NA
$37
NA
*38
$83
$104
NA
$43
$12
NA
Tip
Fee
tfrton)
$0
RR(e)
($33)
$0
$0
$0
^ $0
$0
HR
Revenue
Per Ton
$28
$53
NA
$36"
$23
$st
$37
$)A
$11
, NA
Revenue
Recipients
Operator
Opafatof
City/Operator
OpwaptfCounty
City
County
Operator
Op&ratof/CJty
Borough/Operator
Operator
Materials
Procossod
A,F,G,MP,ONP
A.8^^3>HPONP>P
A,F,G,HP,MP,OCC,ONP,P
A,6,FiG)HP,OCC[ONP>P>»G
A,F,G,OCC,ONP,P
A^AHP^MPtOdiCjONP.?
A,G.MP,OCC.ONP
APAM^AdcAOWP,)*
Re]ect
Rate (% by
weight)
(c)
1
1
NA
'1
0
1
1
£*
0
2,
Total
Number of
Employees
14
25
20
tlA
3
*
13
*&$&
NA
20
Number of
Employees
Per 100 TPD
Processed
28
35
27
NA
155
' IBS
65
33
NA
12
Tech-
nology
Type
(d)
Medium
•Medium
Medium
tfedlutn
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
NA
NA ,
$25 (f)
5124
NA
$45
$9
$32
NA
$30
NA
NA
NA.
$80
$21
($20)
NA
$0
$0
$8
$0
($12)
$0
NA
NA
NA
$20 (i)
• fcIA jj):
$0
ID
NA
NA
NA
StO
NA
$3$
NA
$29
NA
NA
MA
NA
ttfi
NA
MA
City
Operator
County/City
, '
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling,: and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U*S* Communities
One way to reduce materials recovery
processing costs is to deliver materials directly to
market without prior processing, and/or to perform
a minimal level of processing, such as color-sorting
glass, on the vehicle. In Berlin Township, Dakota
County, Lincoln Park, Perkasie, and Portland, some
materials are delivered directly to markets without
being processed. Berlin Township brings
newspaper and mixed paper directly to a paper
mill. Perkasie does not have a real processing
facility. Collection workers separate all glass and
aluminum at curbside, put them into a
compartmentalized trailer, and deliver them to the
pubic works yard, where vendors collect them.
Paper is collected separately and delivered directly
to markets. Because materials are sorted at the
curb or on the collection vehicle, material collected
through segregated systems require minimal to no
processing. In fact, a number of the communities
employing segregated systems, such as Naperville,
Boulder, and Perkasie, incur lower O&M processing
costs than collection costs. Processing costs are $43
per ton in Naperville, $5 per ton in Boulder, and
$10 in Perkasie.
Overall O&M and capital costs depend
on both collection and processing
strategies. There are trade-offs between
capital investments and operating costs,
and between collection costs and
processing costs.
Another way to reduce processing costs is to
take advantage of the economies of scale offered
by centralized sorting facilities. Many of the
communities utilizing commingled collection
systems rely on large County- or State-run
processing centers. (See Table 8.17.) Such facilities
usually are capital-intensive, but have relatively low
operating expenses. For example, Palm Beach
County processes West Palm Beach's recyclables in
its new $6.3 million processing facility, which
opened in mid-1991 and is designed to process 220
tons per day. The County pays private operators
$21 per ton to run the plant.
While large capital-intensive facilities benefit
from economies of scale and thus can have lower
operating costs, the extensive machinery utilized
often results in high material breakage rates.
Providence, one of the largest cities in this
study, provides a useful example of the advantages
and disadvantages of commingled systems.
Providence pays a private hauler $105 per ton to
collect commingled recyclables, and the State
spends $32 per ton to process the material at a
high-technology processing facility operated by
New England CRInc. The 200 ton-per-day facility
cost $6 million. The facility receives an average of
$29 per processed ton in materials revenue ($33 per
marketed ton), half of which is for the sale of
aluminum. However, over 40 percent of all glass
entering the facility breaks. Broken glass is
landfilled, as is other processing residue, which is
estimated at 14 percent by weight of all material
entering the facility. If we subtract the amount
rejected at Rhode Island's processing center,
Providence's per ton collection costs jump from
$105 per (collected) ton to $119 per (marketed) ton.
Operating costs for the processing facility are $37
per ton actually marketed ($32 per ton processed).
The State of Rhode Island estimates that in 1990
it incurred $1.3 million in disposal costs and lost
revenue collecting and processing glass containers
that ended up in the landfill.13
hi commingled systems, material can break or
be otherwise rendered nonmarketable during
collection and processing. For example, Rhode
Island reports that approximately 20 percent of all
glass collected breaks en route while another 20
percent breaks during processing at its high-
technology facility. Seattle also reports problems
with glass breakage en route and is currently
storing a large pile of mixed glass cullet in the hope
that market opportunities will open in the future.
(In its new recycling contract, Seattle is requiring
one of its haulers, who formerly collected all
materials in one stream, to color-sort glass. This
is predicted to reduce problems with glass breakage
as well as increase the value of paper, which
sometimes had been contaminated with broken
glass slivers.) Fennimore and La Crescent, on the
other hand, deliver color-sorted material to their
processing centers and lose next to no material;
nearly all collected tonnages are marketed.
Rhode Island is examining ways to retrofit
collection vehicles (which are generally Labrie
sideloading, dual-compartmentalized vehicles),
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options. Lessons front SO U,S, Communities
including installation of an interior net or baffling.
Such methods have proven successful in shortening
the fall of the glass containers and providing a
plastic cushion for the glass.14
Some communities with medium- and high-
technology processing facilities, such as Cape May
County, New Jersey, have secured markets for
broken glass. Approximately 50 percent of the
glass delivered to Cape May County's IPC is
broken by the time it reaches the facility. The
County's arrangement with the IPC's private
operators requires that they pay for the disposal of
residue materials if these exceed 5.5 percent of
commingled glass and cans. The operators market
broken glass to a local glassphalt manufacturing
company. In 1990 only 2.38 percent of all material
entering the facility was landfilled as residue.
Glassphalt, however, is not an optimum solution
to the glass breakage problem. Whereas clear glass
cullet was worth $42 per ton in 1991, a ton of
mixed cullet for production of glassphalt brought
in only $0 to $10.15
Collection and processing systems for
segregated recyclables result in low breakage and
reject rates. Reject rates at centers for segregated
materials range from 0 to 4 percent by weight, with
an average of a little above 1 percent. For
commingled facilities the range is 0.5 percent to 16
percent by weight, with an average of 7 percent.
Many of the communities with segregated
systems, such as Naperville, Berkeley, and Boulder,
have gained a reputation of having especially high-
quality materials. In some instances, end users
have approached these cities to purchase materials.
The Effect of Labor on Cost
The variation in the cost of materials recovery
is partially due to demographic and regional
factors. The cost of living, which determines the
average hourly wage paid to workers, varies
greatly across the country. Household density
affects the number of stops per collection route;
topography and weather can influence collection
efficiency as well as the number of crew members
required per vehicle. Even the price of gasoline,
which greatly affects transportation expenses, varies
across the country. However, the same
demographic factors that affect materials recovery
will affect refuse collection. Among these variables,
Chart 8.4
Public Sector Curbside Recycling Collection
and Processing O&M Costs
$250
$200 -
$150 -
$100
$50
Collection &
Processing
Processing
Collection
Notes: Costs represent the full public sector O&M collection and processing expenses for curbside recycling. Communities for which this information
is unavailable are excluded. These costs are not always incurred by the documented community, and may represent County or State expenses.
For West Linn, costs represent those incurred by the City's private hauler. Please see Table 8.16 for clarification.
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options? Lessons from 30 U,S* Communities
Chart 8.5
Percent of Recycling Collection
O&M Cost Spent on Labor
80% -
60% .
40%.
20%.
,- v-
; >
"
s
' ' ;
I
Notos: Many communities are missing because this information is not available. Monroe's figure
Is labor as a percent of total costs of recyclables and yard waste collection and processing.
labor expenses have perhaps the most significant
effect on costs.
In communities with comprehensive curbside
collection programs, collection costs account for the
largest portion of total operating and maintenance
costs. See Chart 8.4. Labor costs in turn account
for most of the costs of collection. One industry
report found that 69 percent of the total outlay for
residential collection consists of labor costs.16 Chart
85 shows labor costs as a portion of operating and
maintenance costs for those communities for which
this information is available. Hourly wages are
often higher in large cities and their suburbs than
in rural communities, or in cities in the South or
Midwest. Higher wages can lead to higher
collection costs. For example, Philadelphia pays its
workers $9.50 per hour; labor costs make up more
than 90 percent of its $173 per ton cost for
municipal curbside collection of recyclables. In
contrast, Austin pays its workers $7 per hour; labor
costs make up less than 60 percent of its $98 per
ton collection cost. Three workers operate each
recycling collection vehicle in Philadelphia, while
two operate the vehicles in Austin.
Labor costs have the same
effect on refuse collection costs
as on recycling and
composting costs. In West
Linn, where hourly wages are
almost $15, the private hauler
spends $114 per ton (75
percent of which goes for
labor) on curbside collection of
recyclables, and $144 per ton
for refuse collection and
disposal. In Philadelphia,
collection of recyclables costs
$173 per ton, while refuse
collection and disposal cost
$170 per ton.
Regardless of hourly wage
and crew size, the key to
keeping down the costs of
materials recovery is efficient
use of labor resources. Co-
collection systems are already
proving to be one way to do
this. (See side bar on co-
collection, page 138.)
While keeping down the costs of materials
recovery is an important goal, providing jobs is
important to communities as well. Recycling and
composting programs employ people in a variety
of capacities in both the private and public sectors.
For example, processing centers that handle
between 2 and 450 tons of recyclables per day
employ between 2 and 102 workers—6 to 195
workers per ton-per-day processed. (See Table
8.17.) In recycling, the largest opportunity for job
creation is actually in the remanufacturing field,
which offers high-paying jobs. Materials recovery
also provides employment for low-skilled,
handicapped, and prison workers. (See Table 8.18.)
Reducing Program Costs
Whatever program design a community selects,
there are ways to make recycling and composting
more successful and cost-effective. By studying and
comparing the costs incurred by our 30
communities, we have found that communities can
reduce their overall materials recovery costs by:
• negotiating favorable conditions in contract
arrangements,
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: lessons from. 30 U.S. Communities
Community
Table 8.18
Communities Providing Employment Opportunities for
Low-Skilled, Handicapped, or Prison Workers
Non-traditional Labor
Austin, TX
Boulder, CO
La Crescent, MN
Lafayette, LA
Monroe, Wl
Newark, NJ
Seattle, WA
Sonoma County, CA
West Unn, OR
ACCO Waste Paper Processing Center employs 20 developmental^ disabled people to hand sort
glass. Pn'son inmates remove leaves from plastic bags at the composting site.
Eco-Cycle employs five developmental!/ disabled people to sort recyclables.
The Houston County Processing Center employs three handicapped people to process recyclables.
In addition to paid employees, some prison laborers are used to separate recyclables.
Disabled workers from a local shelter are employed for approximately 8 months out of the year at or
below minimum wage to sort recyclables.
Several state prison inmates work at the composting site. The City also contracts with the Occupa
tional Center (OC) to service one third of the City with curbside collection. The OC is a community-
based nonprofit organization that trains and educates handicapped individuals.
The City contracts with Seadrunar Recycling, a nonprofit organization committed to drug rehabilitation
of juveniles and adults, for weekly pick-up of waste paper at Municipal offices.
Garbage Reincarnation uses volunteers from local schools, court-referral programs, and mentally
disabled to sort and prepare materials for market.
Inmates from correctional facilities occasionally work at the drop-off center.
' utilizing drop-off programs in rural areas where
curbside programs may not be co?t-effective, or
to supplement curbside programs,
1 maximizing the public's participation and the
amount of tonnage recovered,
' reducing the distance and time traveling to
materials recovery processing centers or markets,
1 utilizing collection vehicles with appropriate
capacities to avoid frequent unloading,
collecting source-separated yard waste for
composting,
taking advantage of private sector or regional
processing facilities,
sorting material en route to increase the quality
of material, reduce processing costs, and
minimize material rejected,
integrating materials recovery programs and
systems into the existing solid waste management
system (rather than viewing them as add-on
systems),
• utilizing appropriately designed co-collection
systems, and
• making use of existing equipment.
Contracted Programs
As discussed earlier, a little less than one-third
of the communities studied contract out for
collection and/or processing services. The
following strategies have proven effective in
reducing costs and maximizing recovery levels in
contracted situations:
• making use of competitive bids,
• including locally-based organizations and
entreprenuers in the bidding process,
• retaining some portion of materials revenues,
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 LLS* Communities
encouraging haulers to increase the amount of
materials collected (e.g., by basing a contract on
per ton fees), and
negotiating refuse collection and disposal con-
tracts that provide discounts for reduced refuse
volume due to recycling or source reduction.
Competitive Bids
Communities can ensure lower contract fees
through competitive bidding. Seattle has been able
to maintain low recycling collection costs ($47 per
ton in 1990) due to a 5-year contract obtained
through a competitive bidding process.17 Moreover,
because the contracts are based on tonnage
recovered, the haulers are provided with a strong
incentive to maximize the material they collect.
Newark's low per ton collection cost for yard
waste—less than $10—is due in part to competitive
bidding for yard waste collection. Philadelphia is
framing a competitive bid structure that will enable
both private companies and the municipal
collection crew's union and management to
participate in the bidding process.
Nonprofit Organizations
Six of the 30 communities contract with
nonprofit recycling organizations for some aspect
of their recycling collection or processing. Because
nonprofit groups do not operate with a profit
margin, communities that contract with such
groups may incur lower costs than they would with
for-profit companies. Nonprofit organizations
typically provide services that extend beyond
collection and processing. For example, many
engage in extensive recycling and source reduction
education programs.
Nonprofit groups in Berkeley provide cost-
effective recycling services. In 1990 the City of
Berkeley paid the Ecology Center the equivalent of
$67 for every ton it collected and processed under
its curbside recycling contract, and paid the
Community Conservation Center, Inc. (CCC) $10
per ton recycled to operate the Berkeley Buy Back
Center. The City also supports the activities of
these organizations by providing them equipment
and land.18
Boulder has one of the lowest processing costs
among our 30 communities—$5 per ton. It
contracts with Eco-Cycle, a local nonprofit
organization, to provide this service. The City
contracts with a private hauler to collect recyclables,
but stipulates in the contract that the hauler must
bring the materials it collects to Eco-Cycle for
processing. The revenues from materials sales are
then split between the two groups. Eco-Cycle
keeps its costs down by using retrofitted
equipment, and by assigning prison and
community service laborers to certain processing
tasks. Both Eco-Cycle (Boulder) and the Ecology
Center (Berkeley) lead extensive educational
programs in their cities.
Revenue Sharing
Communities can reduce the net costs of
materials recovery by writing revenue-sharing
agreements into recycling contracts. For instance,
Urban Ore, a for-profit salvage/reuse drop-off
operation in Berkeley, is required through a license
agreement to pay the City 10 percent of its monthly
gross revenues.19 The contract fee paid to
Berkeley's nonprofit curbside collection provider,
the Ecology Center, is tied to the door price of
newspaper, and is designed to cover the difference
between the program's cost and the revenues
earned from the materials sold. The City of
Naperville receives 50 percent of the profit realized
by the contractor. (In 1990 no profit was earned.)
Columbia receives 50 percent of the average
monthly price for aluminum and glass based on
figures published in Recycling Times, and 70 percent
of the indexed price from the Paper Stock Report for
corrugated cardboard. (In addition, the City pays
the processor a $15 per ton processing fee for
newspaper.) Dakota County and Montgomery
County receive some revenue from the sale of
materials even though they contract with private
firms to operate and maintain their processing
facilities. The private operator of the facility in
Montgomery County receives 25 percent of gross
revenue, and the County receives 75 percent. Also,
as an incentive to use local markets, the operators
are responsible for 25 percent of the cost of
transporting processed materials to market.
Cities can not only lower recycling costs through
revenue-sharing agreements, but they can also help
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options*. Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities "
ensure profitable or break-even contract
arrangements for private haulers in light of highly
variable market conditions. Seattle's new recycling
contract stipulates that the City will share all market
risk with its contractors. If prices for recyclables
rise above predetermined levels, the City will receive
all of the extra revenue in the form of reduced per
ton payments. If prices fall, the City will cover all
of the loss through higher per ton payments.
Retaining Flexibility to Reduce Refuse
Costs in Refuse Contracts
Cities can retain the flexibility to shift resources
between materials recovery programs and refuse
collection through proper negotiating of refuse and
recycling contracts. For example, when Naperville
signed its last 5-year refuse collection contract, it
was just beginning a pilot curbside program. A
clause in the contract stipulated that after 1 year,
the hauler, the recycling center, and the City would
negotiate a rebate for the City from the hauler
based on the volume of material diverted from the
landfill by the recycling center. As a result of this
clause, the City's refuse hauler gave Naperville a
diversion credit of $35 for each ton of materials
recycled in 1990. This credit was based on avoided
tipping fees, trips to the landfill saved, and
collection time saved. The value of the latter two
was calculated by estimating the reduction in labor
and vehicle costs. (Listed recycling costs for
Naperville do not include this $35 per ton diversion
credit.) Naperville further reduced its refuse
collection costs in 1990 by eliminating one of its
two weekly refuse collection days, and instead
providing weekly collection of refuse, recyclables,
and yard waste. In 1991 the City paid 20 percent
less to collect and dispose of refuse.
Newark has requested bids for a new recycling
collection contract in one-third of the City. It
prefers that the future contractor pick up both
recyclables and refuse from these zones so that
collection infrastructure and equipment can be
shared between these two functions.
Reducing Costs in Publicly-run
Programs
Over one-third of the communities studied
provide municipal pick-up of recyclables and/or
yard waste. The following techniques have proven
helpful in keeping down the costs of such
programs. Some of these techniques may be
applicable to privately operated programs as well.
Maximizing Participation and Tonnage
Recovered
Communities that target a wide range of
materials for collection (particularly items that
comprise a significant percentage of the waste
stream, such as residential mixed paper and yard
waste), and secure the participation of all waste
generators in collection programs, are able to reach
waste recovery rates of 40 percent and above. (See
Chapter 5.) Similarly, communities that maximize
the amount of material collected, often have low
per ton recycling and composting costs. A truck
must travel the same route length regardless of
how many residents participate in the program.
Recycling collection systems become most cost-
effective when the amount of material collected at
each stop is maximized.
Chart 8.6 compares per ton curbside collection
costs for recyclables to pounds recycled per week
per household served. Although at first glance
there may appear to be no direct correlation, note
that six of the nine communities with costs above
$80 per ton—Austin, Newark, West Palm Beach,
Providence, La Crescent, and Philadelphia—are
among those that recover the lowest amount of
recyclables per household—all less than 6 pounds per
week. In contrast, six of tine eleven programs with
costs lower than $80 per ton—Perkasie, Seattle,
Naperville, Fennimore, Berlin Township, and
Boulder—are recycling more than 6 pounds per
week.
Austin collects relatively few materials at
curbside: newspaper, corrugated cardboard, glass,
aluminum, and ferrous cans. West Palm Beach,
Providence, and Philadelphia collect only
newspaper and food and beverage containers.
These four communities are among those with the
highest per ton costs. In comparison, Seattle,
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 3d U*S*CammunitJe$
Chart 8.6
O&M Collection Costs for Curbside Recycling
Programs and Pounds Per Household Recycled
$180
S160
$140
$120
$100
$10
$60
$40
$20
$0
7; . 20
~] 1.15
- 5
25
. - 10
I I Per Ton O&M Curbside Collection Cost
—•— Curbside Ibs. Per Household Per Week
Notts: Berkeley's, Lafayette's, and Seattle's costs include processing. Fennimore's,
Monroe's, and Perkasle's cost figures cover the collection of a small amount of drop-off
materials. Mecklenburg County's costs represent the City of Charlotte's curbside collection
costs.
Naperville, Fennimore, and Berlin Township collect
many types of low- and high-grade paper in
addition to food and beverage containers.
Naperville also collects scrap metal, clean
polystyrene containers, and LDPE 6-pack plastic
rings. Fennimore and Berlin Township collect all
types of PET and HDPE containers.
Because participation rates play a role in
increasing recovery levels, they also affect per ton
collection costs. Seattle, Fennimore, Berlin
Township, and Perkasie, with participation rates of
83 percent, 100 percent, 97 percent, and 100 percent,
respectively, all have low per ton recycling
collection costs. On the other hand, Austin,
Providence, and La Crescent have higher collection
costs and participation rates of 40 percent, 74
percent, and 74 percent respectively.
Chart 8.7 presents similar
information for yard waste
collection. The three programs
collecting the most yard waste per
household have the lowest per ton
costs. Berlin Township and West
Palm Beach collect more than 11
pounds per household per week at
curbside and have inexpensive
collection programs ($7 and $37 per
ton, respectively). On the other
hand, Lafayette, Monroe,
Fennimore, Naperville, and Takoma
Park collected less than 11 pounds
of yard waste per household per
week and have much higher costs.
The City of Austin attributes its
low per ton costs to limited yard
waste service by a few of its
haulers (who collect bagged leaves
in their refuse packer trucks during
portions of their refuse collection
routes) and to the shorter distance
haulers have to travel to unload
yard waste as compared to refuse
or recyclables. If only a few
materials are collected, the costs of
the existing waste handling system
may not be greatly impacted. As
communities collect more, they
incur additional costs to collect and
process recyclables and yard waste
above the costs incurred for their
traditional refuse collection and handling systems.
The more materials communities collect, the more
these additional costs can be offset by reduced costs
of managing solid waste destined for disposal, and
the more costs per ton will decrease. Nevertheless,
Austin's and Lincoln's low costs indicate that while
the amount collected per household per week may
have some correlation to cost per ton, other factors
are at play (such as labor costs and set-out and
collection method).
Unloading Frequency and Distance to
Processing Facilities
Table 8.19 lists curbside collection cost, number
of crew members per collection vehicle, number of
times the truck must unload per day, truck type
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons fromSQ US. Communities
and capacity, and distance to the processing center
or transfer station—all of which impact curbside
collection efficiency.
The distance to the processing center or transfer
station and the number of times a truck must
unload appear to have the most substantial impact
on curbside collection costs of these variables.
Traveling time costs a city money in labor expenses,
fuel fees, and truck maintenance. In contrast to
driving a collection route to pick up materials,
traveling to unload materials is unproductive time
and can be considered an add-on cost.
Depending on the collection route, Newark's
collection vehicles must travel up to 20 miles to
unload recyclable materials; furthermore, the trucks
must unload three to four times a day. Newark
incurred a curbside collection O&M cost of $140 per
ton in 1989. La Crescent incurs a curbside
collection cost of $111 per ton; haulers must travel
between 10 to 40 miles to the County processing
center, and the trucks unload
twice per day. In Providence,
where the curbside collection
O&M costs are $105 per ton,
haulers must drive at least 15
miles one to two times per day to
unload recyclables at the State
processing center. In contrast,
Fennimore has a low curbside
collection O&M cost of $39 per
ton; although the service provider
has to unload about six times a
day, he travels only 1 mile to the
City processing center. Perkasie's
per ton collection O&M costs are
about $50. Its trucks travel less
than a mile to deliver aluminum,
steel, and newspapers; 10 miles to
deliver plastic; and 15 miles to
deliver corrugated cardboard.
(While Perkasie's trucks may
travel a number of miles to
deliver its paper, they do not do
this every day. Unlike in the
other communities mentioned
above, Perkasie delivers materials
directly to markets, not to a
processing facility.)
increase collection efficiency, thus reducing costs.
Factors affecting unloading frequency include the
capacity of collection vehicles, the density of
materials collected, and whether or not materials
can be compacted en route.
Some communities are using compactor trucks
to collect recyclables, especially waste paper.
Compacting material increases truck tonnage
capacity and reduces the unloading frequency; this
in turn improves collection efficiency, which
reduces costs. The fact that Perkasie, Boulder, and
Upper Township compact significant portions of
their recyclables may contribute to their relatively
low recycling collection costs. Perkasie collects
mixed waste paper and corrugated cardboard in
two different packer trucks, and incurs collection
costs of about $50 per ton. Boulder and Upper
Township similarly collect paper in separate packer
trucks; their collection costs are $51 per ton and $71
per ton, respectively. Columbia uses a packer truck
Reducing the number of times
vehicles must unload can also
Chart 8.7
Yard Waste O&M Curbside Collection Costs and
Pounds Collected Per Household
$80
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
[:•:•:•:•:]
E=34ir
•<
^
«,
e
• ••
• -
..
• •
.••
^*
.••
•^
",
.•'
'
y
B/
^
r—i
I 1
/
•
r~
/ -
w
. 45
• 35
• 30
• 15
- 10
• 5
•i
3 I
Per Ton O&M Curbside Collection Costs
Curbside Ibs. Per Household Served Per Week
Notes: Pounds per household per week was calculated on a 52 week year even for cities with
seasonal collection. Fennimore's pounds collected at curbside may include some drop-off material.
Lincoln Park, Berlin Township's, and Monroe's curbside costs include a small amount of drop-off
expenses. Lafayette's annual tons are prorated based on 650 tons per month for 5 months while
the program was in operation. And, its costs also cover the collection of 963 tons at the drop-off.
West Palm Beach's curbside costand tonnage includes asignificant amount of residue material that
was not composted. Excluding this residue, the City composted 26 IbsVper household at a cost of
$50/ton.
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U*& Communities
Community
Fennlmore, Wl
Monroe, Wl
Boulder, CO
Seattle (north), WA
Perkasle, PA
Berlin Township, NJ
Berkeley, CA
Upper Township, NJ
Napervllle, IL
L» Crescent, MN
Takoma Park, MD
Providence, Rl
Newark, NJ
West Palm Beach, FL
Philadelphia, PA
Lafayette, LA
K»y:
Factors
Curb si do
Collection
O&M Cost
($/ton)
$39
$50
$51
$54
$58
$58
$63
$71
$73
$111
$97
$105
$140
$148
$173
NA
Table 8.1 9
Affecting Collection Efficiency and Costs
Number of
Distance Times Truck
to IPC
(miles)
0.5
1
0(a)
NA(b)
0-15 (c)
10
0-4
0.5-15
0.25-15
10-40
4-12
15
1-20
16-51
1-10
0-15
cy - cubic yard IPC - Intermediate Processing Center NA =
Notts:
Unloads
Per Day
6
3
NA
2
1
1
1-2
1-2
1-2
2
1-3
1-2
3-4
1
1-2
2-4
Not Available
Truck Type
Used BeerPop Truck
Modified Dump Truck
Retrofitted Packer Truck
1 8- and 31 -cy Trucks
Trailer
Eager Beaver Truck
Lodal Trucks
20-cy Packer Truck
1-ton Truck with Trailer
Retrofitted Vehicle
Kahn Sorter Truck
31 -cy Lab rie Truck
23-cy Eagar Beaver Trucks & Trailers
30-cy Labn'e Truck
23-cy and 32-cy Lodal Trucks
1 5-cy Eagar Beaver Trailers
Number
of Crew
Members
2
1
2
1
4
1-2
1-2
3
2-3
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
Number
of Stops
Per Day Per
Vehicle
400-500
750-900
NA
400
280
600
NA
400
NA
500
800
NA
NA
NA
NA
400-900
For details on per ton collection costs, see Table 8.13.
(a) Site is within city limits.
(b) Trucks take one hour for a round trip.
(c) Distance is 10 miles for plastics and 15 miles for newspaper.
to collect old corrugated cardboard; its collection
costs are $49 per ton.
Since plastic wastes are a low-density material,
collecting them can reduce efficiency. To meet this
challenge, several communities such as Monroe20
and areas of Portland are using plastics compactors
on their collection vehicles. The hauler providing
collection service in West Linn, which began
plastics collection in 1991, uses an on-board
compactor. An alternative to the plastic compactor
is the on-board plastic grinder, which combines
different resins en route; the resins are later
separated through a flotation process. This method
is being used in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and is being
tested by waste haulers in Portland in conjunction
with Partek Inc. in Vancouver, Washington, which
developed the system.21 (Before investing in a
plastics grinder, communities should ensure that
ground plastic meets the specifications of targeted
markets.) In communities that target a wide range
of materials for collection, including plastics—Berlin
Township, Fennimore, Monroe, Naperville, and
Upper Township—per ton collection costs remain
below $80 per ton.
While seven of our 30 communities have bottle
bills in effect in their areas, curbside collection costs
are available only for two of these: Berkeley ($67
per ton including processing) and Columbia ($49
per ton)—both in the moderate range. Collection
costs in these bottle bill communities might be low
as a result of avoiding the collection of high-volume
beverage containers.
-------
Waste Prevention, Kecydingfand Composting Options', Lessons fram.30 U.S, Communities
Yard Waste Composting Programs
Yard waste collection costs vary widely among
our 30 communities, but tend to be lower than
recycling collection costs. See Tables 8.4 and 8.6.
Yard waste is more homogeneous than the various
types of recyclables; it can be compacted; and it can
be collected in one vehicle. Thus, yard waste
collection systems can be very efficient. In
addition, a number of our case-study communities
have avoided investments in equipment for
collecting yard waste by using existing collection
vehicles for this purpose. By targeting yard waste
for collection, cities can reduce total per ton
materials recovery costs.
Several communities collect yard waste with
low operating costs. Berlin Township, for example,
collects bagged leaves and grass clippings weekly
year-round with dump trucks, and loose leaves in
the fall with a specially designed scoop. Its average
O&M collection costs in 1990 were $7 per ton.22 In
Lincoln Park, bagged leaves and grass clippings are
picked up twice a month in the spring and fall with
packer trucks. Loose leaves are picked up as
needed in the fall with a vacuum pulled by a dump
truck. In addition, 40 percent of the yard waste
collected in 1990 was collected through the drop-
off site. The Township's O&M cost for yard waste
collection that year averaged $16 per ton. The City
of Newark contracts with three private haulers to
collect leaves, grass dippings, brush, and Christmas
trees at curbside weekly from October through
January. Haulers use packers and dump trucks.
The City's cost is $10 per ton. In Lincoln, the City
incurred $14 per ton in yard -waste O&M collection
costs. Private haulers under contract with the City
collect leaves, grass clippings, and brush using
packer trucks. These materials are set out in 90-
gallon toters weekly July through November. Two
of the three contracted haulers chose to replace one
of their two weekly refuse collection days with yard
wa$te collection, and charged the City only $8 per
ton of material collected. (If participation in this
voluntary program had been mandatory, this fee
probably would have covered costs; however,
because the program was voluntary and
participation low, the City provided the haulers
additional reimbursement based on a
nonparticipation formula.) These two haulers
determined they could offer yard waste collection
service to residential households for $2.70 per
month, which is equivalent to the cost of adding
a second weekly refuse collection day.
Upper Township and West Palm Beach also
have relatively inexpensive yard waste collection
programs, at $49 per ton and $37 per ton,
respectively, for O&M costs. Both towns collect
yard waste year-round using two-person crews
with compactor trucks. Takoma Park's program is
more expensive/with average O&M costs of $76
per ton in 1990. It collects yard waste year-round,
but uses three- to five-person crews. Seattle,
Naperville, and Lafayette contract with private
haulers for yard waste collection. Lafayette's
contract is based on a per household fee and
Seattle's on a per ton fee. Naperville pays its
hauler the equivalent of $111 per ton for weekly
collection of grass clippings and other garden
trimmings, April through December. The City
undertakes fall leaf collection and brush collection.
The following year, the City established a new yard
waste collection system in which residents were
charged directly per bag of yard waste set out.
Composting costs, like processing costs for
recyclables, are highly influenced by the technology
utilized, the amount of material composted by the
facility, and the number and wages of employees.
Many communities are avoiding composting costs
by relying on county or private facilities that charge
minimal or no tipping fees. For those that are
composting their yard waste at local facilities,
composting operating costs range from $2 per ton
in Berlin Township to $89 per ton in Philadelphia,
with most costs in the $15 to $30 range. Capital
costs per ton-per-day composted are relatively
inexpensive, ranging from virtually $0 in Fennimore
to $54,660 in Austin. At Austin's site, a front-end
loader mixes yard waste with sewage sludge; the
combined material is turned with a windrow turner
twice a week, and after several months of
composting and curing, is screened. On the other
hand, the only equipment Fennimore uses is a 1975
front-end loader to turn windrows.
Communities can substantially reduce both
collection and processing costs by promoting
backyard composting of organic materials and
leaving grass clippings on lawns. (See Chapter 3
for a description of backyard composting
programs.)
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons jrom30U>$. CommmUies
Outside Processing and
Composting Facilities
Local communities can avoid and/or reduce
capital and operating costs by sending recyclables
and yard waste to processing facilities owned by
County or State agencies, or by private firms.
(Regional facilities benefit from economies of scale,
and the overall operating expenses of such facilities
are frequently cheaper than those of municipally
scaled facilities. In many instances, total capital
costs of regional facilities are higher.) While
municipalities typically pay low or no tipping fees
to use such facilities, drawbacks include additional
transportation costs, little control over the types of
materials accepted, and little control over where
materials are marketed.
Clearly, if municipalities take advantage of
other publicly operated facilities, the costs of these
facilities may still be borne by the taxpayer.
County and state operations may be funded
through such sources as taxes, bond issues, landfill
surcharges, and, of course, materials revenues.
Private sector recovery enterprises, on the other
hand, operate as businesses and cover their costs
through the fees they charge and the materials
revenues they receive. (If private recycling
processors or composters do not charge local,
Co-Collecting Recyclables and Mixed Waste: Problems and Opportunities
Co-collection is an alternative curbside collection method in which refuse aridL spurce:separatecf
recyclables are collected simultaneously using'the'same vehicles/ fcesjdents place their recyclables in
rigid containers or special bags. Haulers collect all materials af the same'time, placingthem in the refuse
compartment, retrofitted recycling bins, ortrailers. There are two basicmethp'dsforco-coWctiori; thebag "
method and the bin method. In the bag method, residents commingle recyclables in one ormore color;
coded bags and set the bags out at curbside with their refuse. (Some communities are using blue bags;
others are using yellow or clear bags.) Haulers collect the bags of recyclables and the bags of refuse
together in traditional packer vehicles, in the bin method, residents, s,eXout their recyctabtes in rigid
containers alongside their bags of refuse. Haulerscollecttherecyclablesandrefuseincollectionvehicles
that have been retrofitted with recycling bins ortrailers. At least 14 communities inthe UnitedStates have
tried either pilot or full-scale co-collection systems. Nine of these are bag systems and five are bin^
systems, - - -- - - - ,;" ' "*"-
Co-collection may provide a simple, low-cost approach to the curbside collection of recycfabfes. In
rural areas co-collection may be the only cost-effective option for a curbside program, because collection
routes are long and the distance between households is too great to warrant separate collection vehicles.
Whether co-collection systems are cheaper than dedicated curbside recycling systems is riot yet
clear. Trade-offs in costs occur between collection and processing. Operating and maintenance costs
for collecting recyclables will likely be cheaper in a co-collection system*Wprdcesslng recyclables will
be more expensive, especially for the bag system. Bags of recyctables must be sorted from the bags of
refuse and then sorted fay material. In all the bag systems currently operating, bags of recyclables are
manually sorted from bags of refuse. For systems with minimal recycling, handling costs may be few.
Removing a few color-coded bags of recyclables from a truck may not impact costs too greatly; as these
bags increase in number, the handling cost to separate them from refuse bags will increase. Thus;;jn
communities that plan to maximize recycling, the extra cost of double:riaridling bags of refuse and ^
recyclables on sorting floors may be high. The processing stage for bagged recyctables is either tabor- ;
intensive or capital-Intensive, depending on whether sorting is done primarily by hand orby machine. On
the other hand, separate collection of recyclables using the bin method or dedicated recycling trucks may"
require much less sorting and materials preparation, depending on the level of en route sorting.
In Omaha, Nebraska, which uses a bag co-collection method, the p'er ton collection cost for refuse
and recyclables is $32, Omaha's cost to process bagged commlngfed'recyclables is $96 perton, up from
-------
Waste Prevention Recydingtond Composting Options' Lessons from BO U,$, Communities
county, or state governments for handling
materials, these operators' costs are typically being
covered by materials revenues, not by the
taxpayer.)
Providence, La Crescent, West Palm Beach,
Austin, San Francisco, Berlin Township, Upper
Township^ Takoma Park, Newark, and Columbia
all avoid the costs of processing recyclables. The
State of Rhode Island pays for processing of
Providence's recyclables. The counties in which La
Crescent, Berlin Township, Upper Township,
Takoma Park, and West Palm Beach are located
own and operate processing facilities, and do not
charge a tipping fee.23
In Austin, San Francisco, Newark, and
Columbia, processing facilities are privately owned
and do not charge a tipping fee. The City of
Newark actually received $12 for each ton it
delivered to the private processing facility during
the base year of study. Relying on private
companies for processing recyclables has kept
processing costs low in Boulder, Lincoln, and
Philadelphia. Their processing costs are $5, $15,
and $8 per ton, respectively.24
Composting, too, is often undertaken by the
private sector or county agencies. Private facilities
often charge tipping fees, but by using these
facilities communities can avoid incurring capital
$42 a ton in 1991. The City;s contracted processor cites the labor-intensive nature of sorting recyclables
as the primary reason forthe increase in costs. On top of this, the processor charges $6aton to separate
bags of refuse from bags of recyclables, in Hamburg, New York, where conventional; trash trucks pull
trailersior sorted recyclables, collection costs for refuse and recyclables are $63 perton, While processing „
adds another $41 for every ton recycled, landfllling costs $45 for every ton disposed.
The main disadvantages of the bag co-collection method include glass breakage and material
contamination, which may result in lowerrecovery rates. <5lassbreakage, lr» particular,mpromise$ the
qualify of the materials collected, Communities with bag programs report that from 10 to 25 percent by
weight of the collected glass breaks, Pullman, Washington sofved this problem by requiring residents to
set out glass in separate bags from other recyclables; haulers then place the glass in a side rack on the
packertruck. However, other communities have hadfo reduce the compaction nateorttheirgarbage irucfcs
in orderto mitigate material contamination and bag breakage problems. This, of course, reduces vehicle
tonnage capacity and increases unloading frequency, which in turn will increasecosts. Participation rates
for programs requiring residents to buy bags at focal stores have been fewer than for programs providing
recycling containers. As a result, less tonnage will be collected for recycling and per ton recycling costs.
may be higher than in similar programs with higher participation.
Unlike the bag method, the bin method of co-collection Involves an mitial capital investment lor the
purchase and installation of collection bins. This investmentissmall compared tothecosts of new recycling
vehicles needed for dedicated curbside recycling programs. A haulercan expect to spend about $20,000
to convert an existing refuse truck to co-collection (including cost of bins, extending frame, and reducing
packer area), Similarto more segregateddedicated recycling collection systems, bin co-colFectron systems
have experienced fewer problems with material contamination and processing than the bag co-collection
systems. One problem with the bin method has been the inflexibility of compartment capacities. One
compartment of one bin may fill up more quickly than the other compartments or the refuse area. (This,
of course* also occurs with compartmentalized recycling vehicles.) Loveland Colorado operated a pilot
program for several months Jn which if experienced these problems: different neighborhoods setvouf
different quantities of recyclables and refuse, making it difficult for the City to develop accurate volume
estimates for its vehicles. Loveland addressed this problem by designing compartments large enough to
handle half of each truck's assigned daily collections rather than designing a truck with compartments that
would till up simultaneously.
Soww; Brenda Plattand Jilf Zacbary, Co-GvlleGting ftecycfeWes awf MwecWaste: PtoWm »?^C|ppw«'w»e's
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U&. Communities
costs for equipment and be relieved of operating
and marketing responsibilities.
Takoma Park, Upper Township, and West Palm
Beach use County composting facilities that charge
no tipping fees for a large portion of their yard
wastes. While Takoma Park composts the leaves it
collects during the fall at a City site and Upper
Township incurs costs for brush recovery, the use
of County facilities keeps O&M and capital costs
low in both these municipalities.
Dakota County avoided capital investments in
composting equipment by contracting with a
private company to operate two County-owned
composting sites. The operator owns all the
equipment. In 1990 composting fees were relatively
low at $33 per ton.
Berkeley and Seattle also use private
composting facilities. Berkeley pays $24.75 per ton
of yard waste delivered, and Seattle pays $5.47 per
ton for the first 24,000 tons delivered and $18 per
ton for any tonnage above that.
As Tables 8.1, 82, and 8.7 indicate, the capital
cost of the typical composting facility is relatively
low, and communities may find it more cost-
effective (particularly when considering
transportation costs) to operate their own facility
rather than pay tipping fees at private sites. Berlin
Township, for instance, is applying to a local
commission for the right to compost grass dippings
and brush on a local site, so as to avoid the $7 per
cubic yard tipping fee that it is currently incurring.
Integrating Materials Recovery Into Solid
Waste Systems
When implementing materials recovery
programs, cities generally incur additional capital
and operating expenses. These additional costs can
be offset by reduced costs of managing solid waste
destined for disposal. While some additional
expenses cannot be avoided, communities can
reduce such costs by shifting staff and equipment
away from refuse collection to materials recovery.
Materials recovery programs serve as substitutes for
refuse collection and disposal systems not
additional programs. Berlin Township, for
example, has one of the least expensive curbside
recovery programs in our study and utilizes the
same staff and much of the same equipment for
refuse and recycling activities. Rather than adding
a whole new collection system, some communities,
such as Perkasie, Naperville, and Takoma Park,
have replaced one of their two weekly refuse
collection days with recyclable and/or yard waste
collection. Takoma Park reorganized its Sanitation
Division at the beginning of its curbside program
to avoid hiring additional personnel" to collect
recyclables. The City reduced the number of trucks
collecting refuse and converted one of its three-
person crews to a recycling crew. After reaching
a 36 percent recovery rate in 1990, Takoma Park
reduced refuse collection from two days a week to
one day in 1991, and split sanitation crews evenly
between recycling and .refuse collection.
Many communities in our study have avoided
new equipment purchases by using pre-existing or
shared equipment. In Berkeley, Berlin Township,
Fennimore, Columbia, Lincoln, and Monroe,
equipment used for collecting refuse or other public
works functions (such as front-end loaders and
dump trucks) are also used for collection of
recyclables and yard waste, and in several cases for
processing these materials as well. Table 8.20 lists
equipment that communities use for recycling and/
or composting that was owned before the initiation
of the program.25 Much of this equipment
continues to serve several functions, with recycling
and composting accounting for a small percentage
of the time they are in operation.
Co-collection systems present another way to
more fully integrate recycling into solid waste
management. (See ! side bar "Co-collecting
Recyclables and Mixed Waste," page 138.)
Refuse and Materials
Recovery Costs
While there is certainly variation in the cost-
effectiveness of different materials recovery
programs and much room for such programs to
lower costs and increase efficiency, the operating
cost of materials recovery is less than for refuse
collection and disposal in most of our 30
communities for which this information is available.
Chart 8.8 compares materials recovery O&M
collection and processing costs to refuse collection
and disposal costs. For most of the communities,
refuse collection and disposal costs are significantly
-------
Table 8.20
Shared, Pre-existing, and Retrofitted Equipment
yt CA
Berlin Towiwhlp, NJ
Berkeley uses a packer truck, which predates the program, for yard waste collection.
For collection, a loader is used 5% for recycling and 95 percent for DPW use; a 1-ton dump truck is used 20
percent for recycling and 80 percent for composting; a Ford 555 backhoe loader is used 35 percent for
recycling, 15 percent for composting, and 50 percent for DPW use; a dump truck is used 35 percent for
recycling, 15 percent for composting, and 50 percent for DPW use; a Ford F800 dump truck is used 35
percent for recycling, 15 percent for composting, and 50 percent for DPW use; a 3/4-ton dump truck is used
50 percent for recycling and 50 percent DPW use; a stake body dump truck is used 50 percent for recycling
and 50 percent for DPW use.
Four front-end loaders are used six percent of the time and 20 trucks are used six percent of the time for
mulching. The remainder of the time, the equipment is used by the DPW.
A converted Chevy fire truck, which was purchased prior to the onset of the program, is used for processing
recydabtes.
A 25-cubic-yard packer truck, which was used by the DPW for refuse collection prior to the initiation of the
recycling program, is utilized for collection of recydabtes and compostables.
For the office paper collection program, a used truck was purchased.
For collection of recydabtes, a beer^op truck was purchased and retrofitted. A dump truck is used 10
percent of the time for compost collection; the rest of the time it is used by the DPW. An end-loader,
which was purchased prior to the onset of the composting program, is used for composting.
A front-end loader is used for compost 40 percent of the time; the rest of the time it is used by the DPW.
A front-end loader is used for composting 10 percent of the time. The rest of the time, the loader is used by
the DPW.
A dump truck is used 30 percent for collecting recyclabtes and 30 percent for collecting yard waste. The
remainder of the time it is used by the DPW.
Two Mack roll-offs are used 75 percent of the time/and three 24-cubic-yard front-end loaders are used 90
percent of the time at the recycling drop-off. The rest of the time, the equipment is used by the DPW.
Two dump trucks used for collecting recydables were owned prior to the onset of the recycling program; a
packer truck utilized for yard waste collection is used 75 percent of the time (the rest of the time it is used by
the DPW) and was purchased before the onset of the composting program.
A dump truck is used for composting and street maintenance. Two vacuum sweepers are used for yard
waste collection 20 percent of the time; the rest of the time they are used by the DPW.
A 31-cubic-yard packer truck, which was purchased before the onset of the program, is used for collecting
recydables. A chipper is used for composting six percent of the time; the rest of the time it is used by the
DPW.
Three compactor trucks are used 10 percent of the time for collecting recydables and 10 percent for collecting
yard waste. The rest of the time, they are used by the DPW. The equipment was acquired before the
program began.
A chipper is used for composting 10 percent of the time and the rest of the time by the DPW.
A dump truck is used for yard waste collection 10 percent of the time (the rest of the time it is used by the
DPW). A 20-cubic-yard packer truck, bought prior to the onset of the commercial waste recycling program, is
used for collecting old corrugated cardboard.
A 20-cubic-yard packer truck is used for collecting recydables 20 percent of the time; the rest of the time it is
used by the DPW.
A flat-bed truck is used for collecting recydables 40 percent of the time; the rest of the time it is used by the
DPW.
Bouldw.CO
Bowdoinham, ME
Columbia, MO
Dakota County, MN
Fwinimora, WI
LaCnraoant, MN
Lincoln, NE
Unoohi Park, NJ
Macktenburg Co, NC
Monrov, WI
Napervllle, N.
Newark, NJ
TakomaPark,MD
Upper Township, NJ
Wapakoneta, OH
Waat Linn, OR
WM« Palm Beach, FL
Not*:
"Percent of tie time* refers to the proportion of time the equipment is in use.
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, tart Composting Options; Lessons from 3QU&Cammunttie$
Chart 8.8
Net O&M Cost for Materials Recovery Collection and Processing
Versus Refuse Collection and Disposal
$180
S160
HH Per Ton Refuse
Hi Collection and
Disposal Cost
P^l Per Ton Materials
Ilill Recovery
Collection and
Processing Cost
Nolfs: Some communities are missing from chart because either their refuse collection and disposal costs or their net O&M per ton collection
and processing cost were not available. The per ton refuse collection and disposal cost and the net per ton O&M costs for materials recovery
exclude administrative overhead.
higher than the costs for recovery of recydables and
compostables, especially in areas where tipping fees
are high, such as Lincoln Park, Upper Township,
and West Palm Beach, where 1990 per ton tipping
fees were $119, $89, and $84, respectively. In the
few areas where costs were lower for refuse
collection and disposal than for the materials
recovery program, tipping fees were generally quite
low—$14 per ton in Providence (1990), $10 per ton
in Austin (1989), free for 3 months in 1990 and $32
per ton the remainder of the year in Fennimore,
$15 per ton in Monroe (1989). Worth noting is
Monroe's calculated savings of $154,000 per year
through the 15-year life extension of its landfill due
to recycling as well as waste compaction at the
landfill.
In Berlin Township, the collection cost for
materials recovery is the same as for refuse
collection and disposal, but the Township has to
pay to market its waste paper ($10 for every ton
recycled). Thus, the cost savings are really in the
avoided tipping fee, which was $65 per ton in 1990.
When the Report on Future Expansion of the City
of Philadelphia Recycling Curbside Collections was
issued in July 1991, Philadelphia's per ton cost for
recycling was beginning to decrease, approaching
that for refuse collection and disposal. The total
cost for recycling was $134 per ton in the northeast
section of the City and $201 per ton in the
northwest section. Refuse collection costs were
$134 per ton and were projected to increase to $137
in FY 1992. Since July 1991, the cost of recycling
has dropped further and come within range of the
cost of collecting refuse, spurring a decision to
expand curbside collection into a new section of the
City. The realization that recycling can be cost-
effective compared to refuse collection and disposal,
has also led Philadelphia to research methods of
increasing its recycling program's efficiency.
-------
Waste Prevention, RecycKng^and Composting Options: Lessons fromSO U.S. Communities
Conclusion
This chapter has examined the major factors
that determine how much a community will have
to spend to recover its waste. While there is much
variation in the cost of materials recovery,
communities can lower the cost of their recycling
programs, and consequently their solid waste
systems, by improving the efficiency and design of
these programs. While in most cases cities incur
additional capital and operating expenses when
implementing materials recovery, as the tonnage
recovered increases, materials recovery no longer
operates as an add-on program but rather can begin
to replace a city's refuse collection and disposal
infrastructure. Improved market conditions for
recydables, resulting from increased demand for
recycled goods, will also serve to lower net
materials recovery costs. Yet, materials recovery
programs do not have to pay for themselves.
Eliminating refuse collection and disposal costs are
driving the cost-effectiveness of recycling and
composting programs. Where disposal costs
remain low, collecting and processing recydables
alone may not be cost-effective. Waste prevention
initiatives, yard waste composting, and attracting
local manufacturers to use collected scrap may help
improve the cost-effectiveness of overall recovery
programs.
Notes
1This chapter does not provide a comprehensive assessment of the costs of other solid waste systems, nor does it
detail all the monetary, environmental, and social benefits associated with materials recovery.
2Per ton costs were calculated by dividing annualized capital costs by the annual tonnage recovered that the costs
cover. Collection equipment was annualized over a 7-year period, while processing equipment was annualized over
a 10-year period. Financing rates and actual pay-back periods were utilized only for those few communities incurring
such fees. In Austin, Eager Beaver truck and trailers were financed with a 5-year loan at 10.67%. In Lincoln Park,
roll-off truck was amortized over 5 years at a 6% interest rate; equipment for Philadelphia was amortized over 5 years
at an 8.5% interest rate.
3In most cases, data represent communities' actual recycling and composting expenses; in a few instances, communities
provided estimates of the percentage of their public works budget devoted to recycling and composting activities.
4In Table 8.11 per ton revenue represents the total revenue received by a community from the sale of recyclable and
compostable materials divided by the total tonnage of materials recovered.
5Lincoln Park's capital investment is lower than Fennimore's, but its costs only cover a chipper for Christmas trees.
'Costs shown in Chart 8.1 for West Linn represent drop-off program costs only, since curbside collection is carried
out by the private sector.
7Due to inadequate information, the costs for private collection are not evaluated here. These costs are incurred directly
by residents, and in most cases, are covered by refuse collection fees.
8Curbside recycling bins comprise a large percentage of Lafayette's capital costs. Many communities with contracted
service do not incur the cost of bins. This cost may become less significant as the program recovers more material.
*This excludes the cost and tonnage of the City's publicly sponsored but privately collected food waste recovery program,
which, at $67 per ton, would lower O&M recycling costs to $158 per ton and total costs to $242 per ton. Both recycling
totals exclude an unknown amount of administrative expenses incurred by the Department of Sanitation.
10Seattle recently renegotiated its contract. In 1993 Waste Management will receive $78 per ton and Rabanco will
receive $84 for the collection and processing of recyclable materials. These amounts will be adjusted in accordance
with changes in the market price for recyclables. The City anticipates that with predicted improvements in paper
markets, the actual per ton cost for recycling will be $71 to $72. ,
"Wapakoneta, Peterborough, and Lincoln Park have drop-off programs. The Borough of Lincoln Park collects newspaper
at curbside, and Peterborough has limited private sector curbside service.
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U.S. Communities
"Lafayette's low cost of $39 per ton does not represent actual program costs. The Recycling Foundation, a nonprofit
organization formed by two owners of a local bottling plant, renegotiated its contract with the City the following
year and its contract fee tripled.
13The average cost to collect and process recyclables in Rhode Island is estimated at $126 per ton; disposal of residue
cost $44 per ton; and lost revenue due to broken glass is estimated at $30 per ton in 1991. For every ton of glass
collected for recycling that is actually landfilled, Rhode Island loses $200. Janet Keller, "The nitty-gritty of glass recycling:
Reducing glass breakage in collection and processing," Resource Recycling, February 1992, 46-55.
"Ibid.
lsAccording to the Assistant Commissioner of Transportation in New York City, a City that uses glassphalt in paving
projects, glassphalt replaces a maximum of 10 percent of the total crushed aggregate added to paving material, and
virgin-material-based aggregate is valued at only $10 to $12 per ton. Clear cullet price is for the East Coast. Recycling
Today, Municipal Edition, February 1992; and Assistant Commissioner Most, New York Department of Transportation,
New York City, personal communication. May 1992.
""Privatizing Municipal Waste Services: Saving Dollars and Making Sense," National Solid Waste Management
Association, Washington, DC, undated.
17See footnote 10.
18In 1992 Berkeley negotiated a 7-year, $9.7 million contract with the Ecology Center for the provision of curbside
recycling services to the City.
"While this arrangement benefits the City of Berkeley, it has not always benefited Urban Ore, which has found that
surrendering 10 percent of gross revenues may cause a net loss, especially when gross costs approach gross revenues.
A fairer arrangement might be based on a percentage of net revenues.
^Monroe purchased a compartmentalized vehicle with an on-board compactor in October 1991.
""Portland Puts Plastic Grinders On Trucks," Recycling Today, June 1991.
^Berlin Township does not weigh its yard waste. It converts volume to weight using conversion factors supplied
by the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. See Appendix C. National conversion factors
are more conservative than these New Jersey figures. Using more conservative figures (500 pounds per 1 cy of
compacted leaves) would raise Berlin's collection costs to $9 per ton.
^Berlin Township does have to pay private waste paper recyclers to take its waste paper. The County facility does
not handle paper. Takoma Park did not start using the Montgomery County processing facility until September 1991,
soon after it opened. This facility also does not accept waste paper. The processing costs provided for Takoma Park
in Tables 8.13 through 8.17 and in Charts 8.1 and 8.2 reflect costs in 1990, when the City paid a hauler to recycle
its commingled food and beverage containers.
24The $8 per ton figure for Philadelphia is based on a weighted average. The City delivers its curbside recyclables
to two processing facilities. The City is charged $30 per ton at the PTRC and receives $5.08 per ton at The Forge.
^Pre-existing equipment is excluded from capital cost figures listed in this chapter.
-------
, ,,,Waste PreventionfBecyclingf and Composting Options? Lessons fromSD U.$, Communities
Appendix A
Data Definitions
and Methodology
The data presented in this report are extracted from detailed case studies of recycling and composting
programs in 30 U.S. communities. These case studies are published in three volumes by the Institute for
Local Self-Reliance as In-Depth Studies of Recycling and Composting Programs: Designs, Costs, Results. Each
case study presents detailed information on each community's demographics, annual solid waste generation
and recovery, recycling and composting activities in the residential and commercial and institutional sectors,
annual amount and breakdown of materials recovered, education and publicity, collection and processing
equipment and costs, operating and maintenance costs, and future solid waste management plans.
Communities may define the terms and calculate the amounts of waste and recycling in various ways.
To facilitate comparison among programs, we have utilized a uniform methodology wherever possible to
determine residential and commercial/institutional waste, municipal solid waste, and total waste generation
and recovery levels. See definitions given below. While this report goes to great length to ensure uniform
comparisons, in some cases due to the realities of communities' data keeping such comparisons are not
possible. Appendix C briefly details for each community any assumptions made to calculate waste
generation and recovery rates. In-Depth Studies of Recycling and Composting Programs provides more detailed
information. ..-.",.
Cost data presented in tables reflect the costs incurred by the jurisdiction documented and do not
necessarily include all the costs incurred for recycling and composting operations. In many cases, for
example, the private sector undertakes recovery activities independent of the public sector. All capital
cost data have been converted into constant 1990 dollars using producer price indices, except where
otherwise indicated.
The following definitions apply to this report only and are not meant to represent industry-wide
definitions.
AnnualLzed Capital Costs — capital costs have been converted to annual costs by assuming a 7-year
amortizaton period for collection equipment and a 10-year amortization period for processing equipment.
In most of the communities, equipment was paid in full at the time of purchase; thus in these we have
used no interest rate. For the few communities that did finance their equipment, we have used their actual
interest rates and pay-back periods. See Table 8.3 notes.
Base Year of Study — the 12-month period over which tonnage, cost, and other program characteristic
data apply. Tonnage and cost data are reported on an annual basis and are largely for fiscal year or
calendar year 1990, except where noted otherwise in tables. For example, see Table 1.1. In some cases,
recent changes in program design and operations are noted in table footnotes.
Co-Collection — curbside collection of refuse and source-separated recyclables simultaneously in the same
vehicles. See side bar, pages 138-139.
Collection Capital Costs — costs of acquiring equipment used to collect recyclable or compostable materials.
If equipment predated the program, its cost is excluded.
Appendix A: Data Definitions & Methodology 145
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options} Gssdns'from 30 il.$7CommumtJef
Commercial/Institutional Waste Recovered, Disposed, and Generated — the annual tonnage of waste
recovered, disposed, and generated by the commercial and institutional sectors (excluding medical wastes).
The commercial sector includes theaters, retail establishments, hotels, and restaurants. The institutional
sector includes hospitals and schools.
Commingled Collection — collection programs in which residents are required to place glass, metal and
plastic containers in a single receptacle.
Composted Waste — discarded organic materials processed into a soil amendment, fertilizer, and/or mulch.
Composting — recovering discarded organic materials for processing into a soil amendment, fertilizer, and/
or mulch.
Composting Rate — the tonnage of source-separated organic materials collected for composting divided
by the tonnage of waste generated (waste composted, recycled, plus disposed). West Palm Beach's
composting rate excludes noncompostable residue materials collected in yard waste collection routes.
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris Recovered, Disposed, and Generated — the annual tonnage
of waste recovered, disposed, and generated as a result of construction and demolition activities. This
waste may include concrete, asphalt, tree stumps and other wood wastes, metal, and bricks. (While C&D
waste often burdens municipal solid waste collection and disposal systems, the U.S. EPA and the National
Recycling Coalition exclude C&D debris from the definition of municipal solid waste.)
Deposit Containers Recycled — the annual tonnage of beverage containers recycled as a result of state
or local bottle bills.
Disposed Waste — waste landfilled or incinerated.
Generated Waste — sum of waste recovered and waste disposed.
Grasscycling — leaving grass clippings on mowed lawns in order to avoid collection and disposal of this
organic material.
Intermediate Processing — preparing collected recyclable materials for end-use manufacturing. Processing
typically includes sorting, contaminant removal, and crushing or baling.
Mandatory — whether citizens are required to source-separate materials for recycling. In several
communities, citizens may be required to set out certain materials at curbside for recycling. In others
it may simply be illegal to set these out with refuse. Not all materials collected are designated as mandatory.
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Recovered, Disposed, and Generated — sum of residential and commercial/
institutional wastes recovered, disposed, and generated. In some cases, MSW also includes deposit containers
recovered, yard waste composted from landscapers, and waste self-hauled to disposal and recovery facilities.
MSW excludes construction and demolition debris and manufacturing wastes.
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Recovery Rate — see Percent MSW Recovered.
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs — ongoing expenses that include such items as equipment leasing
and maintenance, utilities, labor, administrative expenses, licenses, supplies, insurance, residue disposal,
marketing fees, contract fees, and publicity programs. In this study, materials recovery O&M costs are
broken down into four basic categories: collection, processing and marketing, administration, and education/
publicity.
Participation Rate (%) — the portion of households served that take part in the curbside collection program
for recyclable materials. Refer to the case studies in In-Depth Studies of Recycling and Composting Programs:
Designs, Costs, Results (Washington, DC: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1992), for an explanation of the
specific method of calculation.
Appendix A: Data Definitions & Methodology
-------
Waste Preventiottt Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.S, Communities
Per Ton Costs — these represent costs on a per ton basis and are calculated by dividing the annual tons
recovered due to the program itself into annual program costs. For instance, Newark's per ton operating
and maintenance collection cost of $112 is based on the tonnage collected through publicly sponsored
recycling activities, not on the total tonnage recovered in the City. Tables specify what costs represent;
that is, total operating and maintenance costs, collection costs alone, total gross costs including annualized
capital costs, or net costs. Net cost was calculated by subtracting revenues from the gross cost.
Percent C&D Recovered — construction and demolition debris recycled and composted divided by the
total C&D debris generated (based on tonnages).
Percent Commercial/Institutional Materials Recovered — the sum of commercial and institutional materials
recycled and composted divided by the total commercial and institutional waste generated (based on
tonnages). See definition for Recovery Rate.
Percent MSW Recycled, Composted, and Recovered — the portion by weight of municipal solid waste
generated that is recycled, composted, and recovered (based on tonnages). See definitions for Recycling
Rate, Composting Rate, and Recovery Rate.
Percent Residential Materials Recovered — the sum of residential materials recycled and composted divided
by the total residential waste generated (based on tonnages). See definition for Recovery Rate.
Percent Total Waste Recovered — the sum of MSW and C&D materials recycled and composted divided
by the total waste generated (based on tonnages). See definitions for MSW, C&D, and Total Waste.
Private Sector Waste — waste collected by private haulers independent of the public sector. This typically
includes waste generated by commercial and institutional establishments and large multi-unit households.
Where indicated, private sector waste may also include C&D debris. See Appendix C for community-
specific information.
Processing Capital Costs (Composting) — costs of acquiring equipment used to process—compost, chip,
or mulch—organic materials. Processing or composting equipment typically includes shredders or chippers
and front-end loaders. If equipment predated the program, its cost was excluded.
Processing Capital Costs (Recycling) — costs of acquiring equipment used to process recyclable materials
in preparation for marketing to end users. Processing typically includes sorting, contaminant removal,
and crushing or baling. If equipment predated the program, its cost was excluded.
Public Sector Waste — waste collected by public crews or by private haulers under public contract. This
typically includes waste generated by single-family households and small multi-unit buildings. Public sector
waste may also include waste generated by small businesses. See Appendix C for community-specific
information.
Recovered Waste — sum of waste recycled and waste composted.
Recovery Rate — the sum of materials recycled and composted divided by the waste generated.
Recycled Waste — discarded products and packaging materials recovered for reuse and/or processing into
new products. (For two-thirds of the communities documented the tonnage of recycled waste represents
materials collected for recycling.)
Recycling — recovering discarded products and packaging materials for reuse and/or processing into new
products. In this report, recycling does not include composting.
Recycling Rate — the tonnage of material collected for recycling—generally including any material rejected
during processing—divided by the tonnage of waste generated. (If rejected material is subtracted, recycling
rates may drop by 1 to 2 percent for these communities. Approximately one-third of communities were
able to provide data on actual tonnages marketed after processing. For these communities, recycling rates
Appendix A: Data Definitions & Methodology 147
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; lessons from 30 U.S* Communities
were calculated using marketed tonnages. See Appendix C. No communities reported having to dispose
of collected materials, but a few reported needing to store certain recyclables until market conditions
improved.)
Refuse — waste destined for disposal facilities (incinerators or landfills).
Reject Rate — the percentage by weight of recyclables or compostable materials entering a processing or
composting facility that is disposed of as residue.
Residential Waste Recovered, Disposed, and Generated — the annual tonnage of waste recovered, disposed,
and generated from single-family and multi-unit residences and their yards. In some communities,
residential waste cannot be separated from commercial/institutional waste. See Appendix C for further
clarification.
Salvage/Reuse — the repair, refurbishing, washing, or just the simple recovering of discarded products,
appliances, furniture, and building materials for use again as originally intended.
Segregated Collection — programs in which residents are required to set out food and beverage containers
in two or more receptacles.
Self-hauled Waste — waste brought to recovery or disposal sites by residents or business/institutional
establishments. This waste cannot be divided into residential and commercial/institutional.
Source Reduction — waste prevention; that is, avoiding waste generation.
Source Separation — segregation of recyclable materials or yard waste from mixed waste on the household
or business level to facilitate recycling and composting of these materials.
Tipping Fees — the fees charged to haulers for delivering materials at recovery or disposal facilities.
Total Recovery Rate — see Percent Total Waste Recovered.
Total Waste Recovered, Disposed, and Generated — the sum of MSW and C&D debris recovered, disposed,
and generated.
Year Data Collected — indicates the base year of study. Data typically pertain to 1990. Where indicated,
data may represent 1989 or 1991 program year conditions.
148 Appendix A: Data Definitions & Methodology
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options? Lessons from SO U.S. Communities
Appendix B
Community Contacts
Austin, Texas .
Alan Watts, Manager, Waste Reduction Programs Environmental and Conservation Services Dept.
City of Austin Solid Waste Services
P.O. Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767, Phone (512) 472-0500, Fax (512) 482-0696
Jim Doersam, Composting Manager, Austin Wastewater Treatment Facility
2210 S FM 973, Austin, TX 78725, Phone (512) 929-1001
Barbara Nagel, Director, Austin Community Gardens
4814 Sunshine Drive, Austin, TX 78756, Phone (512) 458-2009
Peter Altman, Ecology Action
210 Industrial Blvd. # B, Austin, TX 78745, Phone (512) 326-8899
Gail Vittori, Chairperson, Austin Solid Waste Advisory Commission
C/O Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems
8604 F.M. 969, Austin, TX 78724, Phone (512) 928-4786
David Anderson, President, ACCO Waste Paper
P.O. Box 6429, Austin, TX 78762, Phone (512) 385-7600
Kimberly Thompson, Conservation Representative, Environmental and Conservation Services Dept.
City of Austin Solid Waste Services
P.O. Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767, Phone (512) 472-0500
Berkeley, California
James Liljenwall, Recycling Program Manager, City of Berkeley—Public Works Department
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, Phone (510) 644-6506, Fax (510) 644-8641
Kathy Evans, Program Director, Community Conservation Centers
2530 San Pablo Ave., Suite F, Berkeley, CA 94702, Phone (510) 524-0113
Chris Clarke, Recycling Information Coordinator, Ecology Center, Inc.
2530 San Pablo Ave., Berkeley, CA 94702, Phone (510) 548-2220
John A. Williams, Sales Manager, American Rock & Asphalt, Inc.
961 Western Dr., Richmond, CA 94801-3798, Phone (510) 233-8362, Fax (510) 970-7714
David Stern, Urban Ore, Inc.
1325 Sixth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710, Phone (510) 526-7080, Fax (510) 235-0191
Fred Remington, Manager of Southwest Operations, Recycled Wood Products
Berkeley, CA 94710, Phone (510) 525-4557, Fax (510) 525-6202
Nancy Skinner, City Council Member, City of Berkeley
2180 Milvia St., Berkeley, CA 94704, Phone (510) 644-6359
Appendix B: Contacts 149
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: lessons from BO LLS. Communities
Berlin Township, New Jersey
Mike McGee, Recycling Coordinator, Director of Public Works Township of Berlin
170 Bate Avenue, West Berlin, NJ 08091, Phone (609) 767-5052, Fax (609) 767-6657
Boulder, Colorado
Alison Peters, Assistant Director, Environmental Affairs, City of Boulder
P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306, Phone (303) 441-3090, Fax (303) 441-4478
Brad Landers, President, Green Mountain Recycling Services
2750 Spruce St., Boulder, CO 80302, Phone (303) 442-7535
Eric Lombardi, Executive Director, Eco-Cycle
P.O. Box 4193,5030 Pearl Street, Boulder, CO 80306, Phone (303) 444-6634
Jack Debell, Director, University of Colorado Recycling
Campus Box 207, Boulder, CO 80309, Phone (303) 492-8037
Suzanne Gripman, Recycling Coordinator, Western Disposal Services
5880 Butte Mill Road, Boulder, CO 80301, Phone (303) 444-2037, Fax (303) 444-7509
Bowdoinham, Maine
David Berry, Solid Waste Manager
RFD1, Box 1410, Bowdoinham, Maine 04008, Phone (207) 666-3228
Steve Dyer, Town Manager
P.O. Box 85, Bowdoinham, ME 04008, Phone (207) 666-5531
Columbia, Missouri
Cheryl L. Crafton, Waste Minimization Coordinator, City of Columbia, DPW
701E. Broadway, PO Box N, Columbia, MO 65205, Phone (314) 449-9641, Fax (314)874-7132
Dave Allen, President, Civic Recycling
3300 Brown Station Road, Columbia, MO 65205, Phone (314) 474-9526
Dakota County, Minnesota
Warren Wilson, Solid Waste Planner, Dakota County
14955 Galaxie Avenue, Apple Valley, MN 55124, Phone (612) 891-7030, Fax (612) 891-7031
Gayle Prest, Recycling Specialist, Dakota County
14955 Galaxie Avenue, Apple Valley, MN 55124, Phone (612) 891-7020, Fax (612) 891-7031
Fennimore, Wisconsin
Margaret A. Sprague, City Clerk City of Fennimore
860 Lincoln Avenue, Fennimore, Wisconsin 53809, Phone (608) 822-6119, Fax (608) 822-6007
150 Appendix B: Contacts
-------
Waste Preventionf Recydingf and Composting Options; Lessons fremiS) U«S, Communities
King County, Washington
Cheryl Waters, Project Manager, Backyard Composting Program
King County Department of Public Works, Division of Solid Waste Management
600 Yesler Building, 400 Yesler Way, Seattle, WA 98104, Phone (206) 296-4481, Fax (206) 296-0197
Jeff Gaisford, King County Public Works Solid Waste Division
400 Yesler Way, Room 600
Seattle, Washington 98104, Phone (206) 296-4484, Fax (206) 296-0197
Susan Gulick, Waste Reduction and Recycling Manager, Department of Public Works
400 Yesler Way, 6th Floor, Seattle, WA 98104, Phone (206) 296-6542, Fax (206) 296-0917
Glenn Boettcher, Recycling Coordinator, City of Mercer Island
9611 SE 16th St., Mercer Island, WA 98040, Phone (206) 236-5329, Fax (206) 236-3651
Mr. Tang Vu, Department of Ecology
Mailstop PV-11, Olympia, WA 98504-8711, Phone (206) 438-7875, Fax (206) 438-7789
La Crescent, Minnesota
Nick Nichols, Recycling Specialist, Houston County Recycling
105 North Grant, Houston, MN 55943, Phone (507) 896-2535
Dave Harter, Manager, Waste Management Inc.
415 Island, La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601, Phone (608) 784-1095
Jerry Martel, General Manager, Modern Qean-up Services
3019 Commerce Street, La Crosse, Wisconsin 54603, Phone (608) 781-6666
Marlene Butzman, City Clerk Administrator
315 Main Street, P.O. Box 142, La Crescent, MN 55947, Phone (507) 895-2595
Lafayette, Louisiana
Margan A. White, Supervisor, Solid Waste Reduction Programs/Recycling Specialist
City of Lafayette, Environmex\tal Quality Division
1515 E. University Avenue, Lafayette, LA 70502, Phone (318) 261-8544, Fax (318) 261-8041
Sheila Armsbruster, The Recycling Foundation
P.O. Box 92866, Lafayette, LA 70509, Phone (318) 234-0066, Fax (318) 234-6311
Lincoln, Nebraska
Gene Hanlon, Recycling Coordinator, Recycling Division of the Mayor's Office
555 South 10th Street, Lincoln, NE 68508, Phone (402) 471-7043, Fax (402) 471-7734
Lincoln Park, New Jersey
Richard Lovallo, Recycling Coordinator, Municipal Building
34 Chapel Hill Road, Lincoln Park, New Jersey 07035, Phone (201) 694-6100, Fax (201) 628-9512
Paul A. Sarames, Management Specialist and Deputy Recycling Coordinator
Municipal Building
34 Chapel Hill Road, Lincoln Park, New Jersey 07035, Phone (201) 694-6100, Fax (201) 628-9512
Appendix B: Contacts 151
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, md Composting Options* Lessons from 3b U.S* Gammunnies
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Bill Warren, Division Manager, Recycling, Mecklenburg County Engineering Department
700 N. Tyron Street, Charlotte, NC 28202, Phone (704) 336-3873, Fax (704) 336-3846
Wayman Pearson, Director, Solid Waste Services Dept, C.M.G.C.
600 East 4th Street, Charlotte, NC 28202, Phone (704) 336-3410, Fax (704) 336-3497
Paul O'Donnell, Facility Operations Manager, FCR/Charlotte
300 Dalton Ave., Charlotte, NC 28206, Phone (704) 358-9875
Monroe, Wisconsin
Wayne Stroessner, Volunteer Coordinator, Monroe Area Recycling Committee
W7708 Highway B, Browntown, WI53522, Phone (608) 966-3509
Nate Klassy, Director of Public Works
111018th Avenue, Monroe, WI 53566, Phone (608) 325-4101
Steven Oleson, Green Valley Disposal
P.O. Box 927, Monroe, WI, Phone (608) 325-4146
Naperville, Illinois
Kristina A. Kaar, Resource Recovery Manager, City of Naperville
P.O. Box 3020, Naperville, IL 60566-7020, Phone (708) 420-6088, Fax (708) 420-4100
Anne Aitchison, Executive Director, Naperville Area Recycling Center
P.O. Box 894, Naperville, IL 60566, Phone (708) 369-0860
Jeff Wilcox, Commercial Recycling Coordinator, Crown Disposal
1759 Elmhurst Road, Elkgrove Village, IL 60007, Phone (312) 242-1977
Amanda Rutter, Department of Environmental Concerns, Du Page County
421 North County Farm Road, Wheaton, IL 60187, Phone (708) 682-7130, Fax (708) 682-7374
Newark, New Jersey
Gregory Neverson, Municipal Recycling Coordinator, Office of Recycling
62 Frelinghuysen Ave, Newark, NJ 07102, Phone (201) 733-6683, Fax (201) 733-5961
Frank Sudol, Manager, Division of Engineering & Contract Administration Department of Engineering
920 Broad Street, Room 410, Newark, NJ 07102, Phone (201) 733-4356, Fax (201) 733-4772
George Wolfson, Recycling Enterprises, Inc., Distributors Recycling
PO Box 5250,100 Franklin Square Drive, Suite 105, Somerset, NJ 08875-5250, Phone (201) 824-0404
Perkasie, Pennsylvania
Neil H. Fosbenner, Recycling Coordinator/Director, Public Works Department
3119th Street, Perkasie, Pennsylvania 18944, Phone (215) 257-5065, Fax (215) 257-5010
152 Appendix B: Contacts
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 US, Communities
Peterborough, New Hampshire
John Isham, Town Administrator
1 Grove Street, Peterborough, NH 03458, Phone (603) 924-3201
David Boutwell, Waste Management, Inc.
PO Box 547, Peterborough, NH 03458, Phone (603) 924-6215
David Marshall, Governor's Recycling Program, Office of State Planning
21/2 Beacon Street, Concord, NH 03301, Phone (603) 271-2155
Glen Shaw, Shaw Farms
Box 427 Mason Road, New Ipswich, NH 03071, Phone (603) 878-1403
John Schlim, Kodiak Recycling
P.O. Box 603, Peterborough, NH 03458, Phone (603) 924-8791
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Michael Harvey, Materials Procurement Office, Philadelphia Transfer and Recycling Center
3605 Grays Ferry Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19146, Phone (215) 467-2000
Seymour Kasinetz, Sanitation Program Coordinator
Roger Lansbury, Garbage Collection Supervisor, Streets Department
840 Municipal Services Blvd., Philadelphia, PA 19102, Phone (215) 686-5520
Tom Klein, Director of Education and Promotion, City of Philadelphia Recycling Office
1650 Arch Street, Suite 1710
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone (215) 686-5586, Fax (215) 6865455
Jay Levin, Recycling Manager, Fairmount Park Composting Site, West Park
Philadelphia, PA 19131, Phone (215) 685-0109
Sam Lybrand, General Manager, The Forge, Inc.
Milnor and Bleigh Aves., Philadelphia, PA 19136, Phone (215) 335-0330
Robert Pierson, President, Queen Village Neighborhood Association
CH2M Hill, 1216 Arch St., Philadelphia, PA 19017, Phone (215) 563-4220
Robert Shisler, President, New Jersey Livestock Association
Fox Run Rd., Box 338, RD 4, Sewell, NJ 08080, Phone (609) 468-6915
Michael Smith, Manager of Resources and Special Projects
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104, Phone (215) 662-2584
Mjenzi Traylor, National Temple Recycling Center
1201W. Glenwood Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19133, Phone (215) 787-2760
Steve Tilney, Acting Director of Planning, Philadelphia Recycling Office
870 Municipal Services Building
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1683, Phone (215) 686-5513, Fax (215) 686-5455
Portland, Oregon
Terry Peterson, Senior Solid Waste Planner, Metropolitan Service District
2000 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201-5398, Phone (503) 221-1646, Portland, OR 97242
Appendix B: Contacts 153
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options} Lessons from 30 U*S. Communities '
•• > ff * ,:*/: *• '&fr?'-WSS4.y£'
Stan Kahn, Sunflower Recycling Cooperative
PO Box 42466, Portland, OR 97242, Phone (503) 238-1640
Bruce Walker, Recycling Program Manager, Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
1120 SW 5th Avenue, Room 400, Phone (503) 796-7772, Fax (503) 796-6995
Lissa West, Recycling Project Coordinator, Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
1120 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, OR 97204-1972, Phone (503) 796-7735
Providence, Rhode Island
John Reynolds, Recycling Coordinator, City of Providence
700 Aliens Avenue, Providence, RI 02905, Phone (401) 467-8855
Carole O. Bell, Principal Environmental Planner, Department of Environmental Management
83 Park Street, Providence, RI 02903, Phone (401) 277-3434, Fax (401)277-2591
Terri Bisson, Recycling Planner, Dept. of Environmental Management
83 Park Street, 5th Floor, Providence, RI 02903, Phone (401) 277-3434
Susan Sklar, Recycling Program Planner, Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corp.
West Exchange Center, 260 West Exchange Street, Providence, RI 02903,
Phone (401) 831-4440, Fax (401) 861-0830
Kent Waterman/Louis Vinagro, American Disposal
NEED/Vinagro Farms, 13 Greenville Rd., Johnston, RI 02919, Phone (401) 943-5719
Jim Simoneau, Macera Brothers of Cranston, Inc.
511 Pippin Orchard Rd., Cranston, RI 02921, Phone (401) 943-3330
San Francisco, California
Amy Perlmutter, Recycling Manager, San Francisco Recycling Program
1145 Market Street #401, San Francisco, CA 94103, Phone (415) 554-3400, Fax (415)554-3434
Maureen Hart, West Coast Salvage and Recycling
190017th Street, San Francisco, CA 94103, Phone (415) 621-3840
Shelly Reider, Recycling Project Coordinator, San Francisco Recycling Program
1145 Market Street #401, San Francisco, CA 94103, Phone (415) 554-3400, Fax (415)554-3434
Robert Besso, Sunset Scavenger, Tunnel Avenue & Betty Road
San Francisco, CA 94134, Phone (415) 330-1300, Fax (415) 330-1372
Marcia deVaughn, Solid Waste Planning Manager, City and County of San Francisco
Solid Waste Management Program
1145 Market Street #401, San Francisco, CA 94103, Phone (415) 554-3400, Fax (415)554-3434
Kelly Runyon, Sanitary Fill
501 Tunnel Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94134, Phone (415)468-2442
Carl Grimm, Education Director, San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners
Phone (415)468-0110
154 Appendix B: Contacts
-------
WastePreoeniwnfKecydmg,
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options! lessons from 30 U.S.Cammuniiie$
Diane Leonik, Planning and Development Coordinator, CMCMUA
P.O. Box 610, Cape May Court House, New Jersey 08210, Phone (609) 465-9026
Bridget O'Connor, Recycling Education Specialist, CMCMUA
P.O. Box 610, Cape May Court House, New Jersey 08210, Phone (609) 465-9026
Fran Simsik, Assistant Solid Waste Manager, Operations and Management, CMCMUA
P.O. Box 610, Cape May Court House, New Jersey 08210, Phone (609) 465-9026
Wapakoneta, Ohio
Bob Sabo, Coordinator, Auglaize County Scout Recycling Center
922 Aster Drive, Wapakoneta, OH 45895, Phone (419)738-4788
Rex Katterheinrich, Director of Public Service and Safety
102 Perry Street, Wapakoneta, OH 45895, Phone (419)738-6111
Robert Gedert, Coordinator, Auglaize County Solid Waste Management District
Auglaize County Courthouse, P.O. Box 330, Wapokoneta, OH 45895
Phone (419) 738-7112, Fax (419)738-4713
West Linn, Oregon
Pamela Bloom, West Linn Disposal
820 7th Street, Oregon City, Oregon 97045, Phone (503) 654-4048, Fax (503) 656-0320
Dennis Koellermeier, Operations Director of Public Works, City of West Linn
4100 Norfolk Street, West Linn, OR 97068, Phone (503) 656-6081, Fax (503) 656-8756
Kit Seeborg, Most Livable City Program, Multi-Family Recycling
4100 Norfolk Street, West Linn, OR 97068, Phone (503) 635-8085
Rob Gutheridge, K.B. Recycling
815 Washington Street, Oregon City, OR 97065, Phone (503) 659-7004
West Palm Beach, Florida
Kathy Duzan, Contract Compliance and Waste Statistical Management
Solid Waste Authority
7501 North Jog Street, West Palm Beach, FL 33412, Phone (407) 640^000, Fax (407) 683-4067
Richard Holliday, Assistant Director of Public Works
200 2nd Street, P.O. Box 3366,
West Palm Beach, FL 33402, Phone (407) 659-8047, Fax (407) 659-8039
Deborah Thatcher, Senior Program Coordinator, Office of Recycling Solid Waste Authority
7501 North Jog Street, West Palm Beach, FL 33412, Phone (407) 640-4000, Fax (407) 683-4067
156 Appendix B: Contacts
-------
, Waste Prevention, Kecyding, snA Composting Options; Lessons from3D U<$, Communities
Appendix C
Waste Generation Calculations
Waste generation rates used in this report are based on tonnage figures provided by recycling
coordinators and other local officials, who may have estimated the data or relied on other sources, such
as private haulers. In several cases, communities measure materials in cubic yards and use conversion
factors to calculate tonnage figures. ILSR staff have estimated tonnage recovered, using commonly
accepted conversion factors, in a few instances when communities did not calculate tonnage figures.
(The Sample Conversion Factors in this appendix lists all conversion factors used.) Waste figures may
at times exclude untracked components of the waste stream. For example, residential waste handled
by the private sector is sometimes excluded from residential figures. See ILSR's In-Depth Studies of
Recycling and Composting Programs: Designs, Costs, Results for further information on how tonnage
figures were derived. The following table provides a community-by-community summary of which
figures were estimated and how, and what, if any, component of the waste stream may be excluded.
Community
Description of Assumptions and Estimates Made for Calculating Waste Generation, and
Identification of Any Untracked Waste Stream Components
Austin, TX Total waste disposed is based on an average state waste generation rate of 6.2 pounds of residential, commercial, and
C&D waste per person per day (provided by the Texas Department of Health). While the City tracks tonnage figures of
waste disposed from single-family households, duplexes, and three- to four-unit buildings (excluding bulky items such
as furniture and tires), it does not track the tonnage disposed from condominiums, apartment buildings with more than
four units, from commercial and institutional establishments, or from construction and demolition sites. Waste generated
from buildings with more than four units (64,652 households—33 percent of total) is based on the following City of Austin
statistics and estimates: 2.2 persons per household and 2.35 Ibs./capita/day. The tonnage of Christmas trees recovered
is not tracked and thus is excluded from waste generation and recovery figures. Recycled tonnage represents marketed
material.
Berkeley, CA MSW generation figures provided by the City of Berkeley are based on 1988-89 annual data estimated from quarterly
waste composition samplings. Because no major demographic or economic changes occurred in Berkeley between 1989
and 1990, the City believes there has been no significant change in waste generation rates. Figures for waste recovered
are actual tonnage figures for FY 1991. MSW recycled tonnage represent marketed material. Annual tonnages of
concrete and asphalt recovered were estimated from 6 months worth of data. The City does not separately track
residential and commercial/institutional material.
Berlin Township, Total MSW is based on a per capita waste generation rate of 0.6 tons per year, which is based on actual waste sampling
N J undertaken at the Township's local landfill. The tonnage of commercial waste generated is untracked and is estimated
by subtracting residential waste figures from total MSW. Berlin Township estimates wood waste and brush using
conversion factors of 5.5 cubic yards/ton for wood waste and 8.0 cubic yards/ton for brush. The figures for grass clippings
mulched is based on a con version factor of 2.7cubic yards/uncompacted ton. The tonnage of leaves composted is based
on conversion factors of 2 cubic yards/ton of compacted leaves and 2.86 cubic yards/ton of vacuumed leaves.
Boulder, CO Although the City of Boulder does not track actual tonnages of waste disposed, the private contractor handling 80% of
the City's MSW and C&D disposed does track tonnages. Citywide figures are based on 125% of the contractor's
tonnages. Some of the materials collected at supermarkets for recycling are not tracked and thus excluded from waste
generation and recovery figures. The tonnage of brush chipped and recovered is based on a conversion factor of 300
lbs./cubic yard. The tonnage figure for food waste recovered is based on a conversion factor of 900 lbs./cubic yard. The
tonnage of Christmas trees is based on 20 Ibs./tree. Recycled tonnages represent collected material.
Appendix C: Waste Generation Calculations 157
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from 30 U&Cammuntties
s f f •. v."A-. , v, ,f., ;: JJ: J 'V <.<
Bowdotnham,
ME
The Bowdoinham Town Solid Waste Manager estimated the tonnage of MSW disposed from cubic yards using a
conversion factor of 250 IbsVcubic yard, which was based on weighing a 1-cubic-yard pallet box of refuse three times
during 1990. The tonnages of leaves and grass clippings composted are based on a conversion factor of 500 lbs./cubic
yard. The tonnage of recyclables includes 43 tons of deposit containers, based on a State estimate that 7% of total waste
generated is recovered through the State bottle bill. Recycled tonnage represents recycled material. Because MSW
contains material from only 15 businesses, Bowdoinham's MSW data is frequently used in this report in lieu of residential
figures, which are unavailable.
Dakota
County, MN
Fertnlmore, Wl
Columbia, MO MSW figures are not available as C&D material is not tracked separately from commercial/institutional waste. Tonnage
figures for waste landfilledare extrapolated from the results of a 4-week weighing period in August 1989. While curbside
recycling tonnages are tracked, the tonnages of residential waste recovered through drop-off sites, deposit containers,
and recyclables collected from the commercial sector are based on a study by a private consultant The tonnage of
Christmas trees collected at curbside for recovery, and of grass clippings and leaves dropped off by residents and
landscapes at the City's mulch site are untracked and thus excluded from waste generation and recovery figures. The
tonnage of 39,000 pallets recovered were estimated by a private consultant, who usedaconversion factor of 30 Ibs./pallet.
C&D disposed and recovered is notavailable. Landscaping waste recovered cannot be broken down into residential and
commercial/institutional but is included under total MSW. MSW includes tires. The tonnage of the 1,060 Christmas trees
recovered by private haulers is based on a County estimate of 15.1 lbs./tree.
MSW does not include bulky items such as tires and appliances. C&D is not tracked. Recycled tonnage represents
collected material. Grass clippings, some leaves, garden waste, and food scraps—which are dropped off by residents-
are composted together; tonnages are based on a conversion factor of 102 lbs./cubic yard. The tonnage of leaves
collected at curbside is estimated by ILSR staff using a conversion factor of 350 lbs./cubic yard and using estimates by
the City that there were 48 truckloads of leaves in 1990 and 7.5 cubic yards/truck.
King County. WA The Washington State Department of Ecology provided MSW waste recovered and disposed tonnage figures for King
County. (ILSR excluded 102,850 tons of ferrous scrap such as auto hulks that did not qualify as C&D or MSW.) C&D
waste figures are not available as this waste is handled by the private sector. The County estimated the tonnages of
residential, commercial/institutional, and self-hauled waste disposed by assuming 10% of total MSW disposed was from
self-haul sites, and 60% of the remaining tonnage was residential. Recycled tonnage typically represents marketed
material.
La Crescent, MN Bulky items disposed such as furniture are included with residential waste landfilled. Tires, collected for recovery, are
burned; tonnagesare included with residential waste incinerated. The tonnages of grass clippings and leaves composted
are based on weights of grass clippings and leaves measured separately for 2 weeks in summer and in fall, the percent
of participating households in the drop-off program, and the total number of households. Recycled tonnage represents
marketed material.
Lafayette, LA
Lincoln, NE
C&D is not tracked. Tires are included in waste disposed. Lafayette bases its yard waste tonnages on a conversion factor
of 500 IbsVcubic yard. Commercial/institutional recyclables contain a small amount of residential material recovered
through drop-off sites. Other commercial materials are recovered but not tracked (white goods, motor oil, batteries, and
scrap metal, plus old corrugated cardboard from many supermarkets). Recycled tonnage represents marketed material.
Some yard waste is self-hauled to a transfer station for composting; this tonnage is included in total MSW but not in
residential or commercial/institutional. Tires are included in residential and commercial waste disposed. The tonnage
of recyclables are extrapolated from 1990 Lancaster County tonnage data. The Lincoln Office of Recycling estimates
mat 85% of the recyclables recovered in Lancaster County are from the City of Lincoln. Recycled tonnage represents
collected material.
158 Appendix C: Waste Generation Calculations
-------
Waste PreventionfKecycKtigfand Composting Options*, Lessons from 30 U.S, Communities
Lincoln Park, NJ Residential tonnage recovered includes some commercial material brought to the drop-off sites and excludes 99 tons
. of recyclables collected by a private hauler from two condominiums. This latter tonnage is included under commercial/
. institutional waste, as is the corresponding waste disposed. Tires are included in residential and commercial/institutional
. waste recovered. Recovered tonnage excludes waste paper recycled by a printer as this material did not meet our
definition of MSW. The Borough uses a combination of conversion factors and actual weight samples to determine
: tonnages of yard waste. Conversion factors are 35 bags/ton of bagged leaves, 2.86 cubic yards/ton of vacuumed leaves,
2 cubic yards/ton of compacted leaves, 8 cubic yards/ton of stumps and logs, and 4 cubic yards/ton of wood chips.
Recycled tonnage represents collected material.
Mecklenburg Bulky items and tires are included in MSW. C&D is not available. Less than 4% of residential recyclables is actually
County, NC commercial waste collected at County drop-off sites. Hurricane Hugo greatly increased 1990 composting figures; FY 89
tonnage composted atdroproff sites is used and extrapolated from compostables collectedand weighed during a 7-month
period. Recycled tonnage represents marketed material.
Monroe, Wl Residential waste excludes waste from approximately 371 households (8% of total households) in buildings with three
or more units. The tonnage of recyclables collected through the drop-off was estimated by the City and is included in
residential waste figures. C&D tonnages are based on data provided by the largest commercial hauler and on the City's
data that the hauler collects 70% of its C&D waste. Recycled tonnage represents marketed material.
Naperville, IL Residential waste figures represent waste handled by the public sector only, which services one-to four-unit households
and condominiums. Residential waste excludes material generated by 6,500 multi-unit households (21% of total
households). Recyclables delivered to the drop-off by multi-unit households, businesses, and some other residential
sources, are not included in residential waste figures. Commercial/institutional waste disposed and recovered is not
tracked and are unavailable. The tonnage of leaves composted was estimated by the City based on volume amounts.
The tonnage of Christmas trees was estimated by ILSR staff, based on 20 Ibs./tree. Recycled tonnage represents
collected material.
Newark, N J Public sector figures exclude large multi-unit buildings served by private haulers and include a small amount of material
from the commercial sector collected at the municipal drop-off site. Private sector figures include multi-unit buildings and
some C&D. The figures for waste recovered and generated do not include 147,176 tons of metal scrap reported as
recovered by private haulers because this tonnage could not be confirmed as part of Newark's municipal solid waste or
C&D stream. The City of Newark calculated the tonnage of yard waste composted using a conversion factor of 8 cubic
yards/ton and the tonnage of brush and Christmas trees composted using a conversion factor of 4 cubic yards/ton.
Perkasie, PA Only tonnage figures for waste handled by the public sector are available. This is largely residential waste and excludes
waste generated by condominiums and apartments, but includes refuse and recyclables from 15 small businesses served
by DPW. Some bulky waste (such as mattresses and furniture) is included in residential waste figures, but tires and
appliances, which are disposed by a private hauler, are not. C&D debris is not tracked. ILSR staff estimated the tonnage
of brush, leaves, and Christmas trees Perkasie composts and chips based on volume amounts and -the following
conversion factors: 4 cubic yards/ton of brush, 350 Ibs/uncompacted cubic yard of leaves, and 20 Ibs./Christmas tree.
Peterborough, Waste generation and recovery figures are based on tonnage data from the Town Recycling Center and the hauler serving
NH both the commercial/institutional sector and 80% of those residents who do not use the Center. The breakdown of the
Center's materials into residential and commercial/institutional figures is based on estimates by the Recycling
Coordinator that 95% of recyclables and refuse are residential. The City's hauler also collects C&D waste; tonnage
figures for this waste were based on volume amounts using 364 lbs./cubic yard.
Philadelphia, PA Municipal solid waste can only be broken down into publicly collected waste and privately collected waste. Public sector
materials recovered are from 33% of all households up to six units in size, from block corners, drop-off sites, municipal
office buildings, and from City leaf collection programs. Waste disposed is collected from 524,505 single- to six-unit
households, businesses with less than six employees, and from municipal street sweepings. Private haulers serve
households with seven or more units and the commercial/institutional sector. Materials self-hauled to landfills are
included with private sector figures. The tonnage of recyclable materials self-hauled to drop-off centers or private scrap
yards is not tracked and thus not included in waste generation and recovery figures. Motor oil is collected throughout
the City for recovery; tonnages are also unavailable. Leaves and Christmas trees recovered are not weighed. Tonnage
figures are estimated by the City, based on the total number of trucks delivering leaves to the composting site.
Portland, OR Tonnages of waste recovered were calculated by City Recycling Office based on per capita recycling averages for the
metropolitan region. MSW includes deposit containers and bulky items such as white goods and wooden pallets but
excludes tires and construction debris. The tonnage composted represents source-separated yard waste composted
and does not include waste composted through the City's mixed waste composting facility in 1990. Recycled tonnage
represents marketed material.
Appendix C: Waste Generation Calculations 159
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options?'lessons from 30 U.$.Cammunitie$
Providence, Rl Residential waste recycled and disposed includes only materials collected from one- to six-unit buildings and public
housing, and excludes refuse and recydables from buildings greater than six units (tonnage for which is not tracked and
thus not included in waste generation and recovery figures). Commercial/institutional waste disposed and recovered was
estimated from 34 establishments that submitted recycling reports to the State. C&D waste is not tracked. Recycled
tonnage represents collected material.
San Francisco, Residential materials recovered include recyclable materials collected at curbside, through drop-off and buy-back
CA centers, and some bulky items self-hauled to the transfer station. Other recydables self-hauled to the transfer station
are induded in MSW but cannot be broken down into residential and commercial/institutional. Much of the data comes
from a waste composition study of the City's waste stream by a consulting firm.
Seattle, WA Commercial/institutional figures for waste recycled are based on City extrapolations from 1988 actual tonnages.
Materials self-hauled to the City's transfer stations are included in MSW but cannot be broken down into residential and
commercial/institutional. C&D waste disposed is not tracked. Recycled tonnage represents marketed material.
Sonoma MSW indudes most bulky items such as white goods, office furniture, and tires. The tonnage of tires recycled is estimated
County, CA based on the County Recycling Coordinator's estimate that 30% of tires recovered are retread or reused, and 70% are
incinerated. ILSR used a conversion factor of 20 Ibs./tire to calculate tonnage. Recycled tonnage represents collected
material.
Takoma
Park. MD
Only waste generation and recovery figures handled by the public sector, which is largely single-family residential waste,
are available. Residential waste figures indude buildings of 12 units or less (2,936 households are in buildings greater
than 12 units—42% of total households.) The City Recycling Coordinator estimated the tonnage of leaves composted
based on the number of full truck loads of leaves, the number of days leaves were collected, and a conversion factor of
500 IbsYcubic yard. Recycled tonnage represents collected material.
Upper Waste generation and recovery figures can only be broken down into publicly collected materials and privately collected
Township, NJ materials. Public sector figures include recyclable materials from 3,780 single-family households, 80 households in
duplexes, and 222 businesses. Public sector waste disposed excludes the 222 businesses, this waste is handled by the
private sector. Private sector materials indude C&D waste. Recycled tonnage represents collected material.
Wapakoneta, MSW figures cannot be broken down into residential and commercial/institutional. MSW excludes bulky items such as
OH tires and wood waste. C&D waste is untracked. MSW recycled indudes a small amount delivered to the recycling center
by out-of-town residents. The City estimated the tonnage of refuse and recydables collected from businesses by the
private sector. Tonnages of yard waste composted were estimated by the Ohio EPA and the City.
West Linn, OR MSW figures are based on the former City Recyding Coordinator's estimate that 80% of total waste is MSW. MSW waste
disposed cannot be broken down into residential and commercial/institutional. Figures indude waste disposed and
recovered from 60 households on the outskirts of West Linn and bulky items such as white goods. Per capita residential
waste generation rates have been calculated using an estimate provided by the former Recycled Coordinator that 87%
of MSW disposed is residential material. C&D is based on the former City Recyding Coordinator's estimate that 20%
of total waste is C&D, and that 30% of this is recovered.
W. Palrn Waste generated indudes bulky items such as tires and furniture. Tonnage recovered by private buy-back centers and
Beach, FL scrap yards is not tracked and thus not induded in waste generation and recovery figures. Recycled tonnage represents
marketed material.
160 Appendix C: Waste Generation Calculations
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling> and Composting Options', Lessons front SO U.$, Communities
Sample Conversion Factors
MIXED MSW (compacted)
Conversions Used By Communities:
785 Ibs/cy (0.39 tons/cy) or 2.55 cy/ton
Source: Solid Waste Management Plan Revision, Sonoma Co., CA, May 1990.
1 ton/3.2 cy or 1 cy/625 Ibs.
Source: Naperville, IL
Conversions Found in the Literature:
500 - 700 Ibs/cy (0.25 - 0.35 tons/cy) or 2.8 - 4 cy/ton
Source: Solid Waste Data: A Compilation of Statistics on Solid Waste Management Within the United States,
US EPA, August, 1981.
600 Ibs/cy (0.3 tons/cy) or 3.3 cy/ton
Source: Association of New Jersey Recyclers (ANJR), Directory, 1987.
MIXED MSW (uncompacted)
200 Ibs/cy
Source: Solid Waste Data: A Compilation of Statistics on Solid Waste Management Within the United States,
US EPA, August 1981.
MIXED YARD WASTE (average compaction)
Conversions Found in the Literature:
600 Ibs/cy
Source: Yard Waste Composting, US EPA, April 1989.
Conversions Used By Communities:
620 Ibs/cy
Source: Recycled Wood Products, Berkeley, CA
650-750 Ibs/cy
Source: Portland, OR
660 Ibs/cy
Source: West Palm Beach, FL
MIXED YARD WASTE (loose)
200-250 Ibs/cy or 9 cy/ton
Source: Portland, OR
LEAVES (average compaction)
500 Ibs/cy (320 - 500 Ibs/cy)
Source: Yard Waste Composting — A Study of Eight Programs, US EPA, April 1989.
450 Ibs/cy
Source: ANJR Directory, 1987.
1,000 Ibs/cy
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
LEAVES (vacuumed)
700 Ibs/cy
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Appendix C: Waste Generation Calculations 161
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U>S*Communitie$
LEAVES Goose)
250-350 Ibs/cy
Source: ANJR Directory, 1987.
CHIPPED BRUSH
500 Ibs/cy
Source: National Recycling Coalition, 1989
COMPOST (finished)
1,500 Ibs/cy
Source: Yard Waste Composting, US EPA, April, 1989.
CHRISTMAS TREES
20 Ibs/tree
Source: Summary of County-Wide Christmas Tree Recycling Project 1990-1991, Garbage Reincarnation, Inc.,
Sonoma Co., CA.
15.1 Ibs/tree
Source: Dakota County, MN
FOOD WASTE
500 Ibs/cy (residential)
800 - 1000 Ibs/cy (commercial)
Source: Suhr, J.L., Higgins, A.J. and Derr, D.A., Feasibility of Food Waste Recycling in New Jersey: Fourth
Quarterly Report to the Office of Recycling, 1984.
900 Ibs/cy (commercial)
Source: Asheville/Buncombe County Solid Waste Alternatives: Planning Workbook, ILSR, March 1985.
GRASS CLIPPINGS (Compacted)
1,090 Ibs/cy
Source: Naperville, IL
1,050-1,110 Ibs/cy
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
WATER
8.345 Ibs/gal
Source: Lindeburg, Michael R., Engineering Unit Conversions, 2nd ed., 1990.
USED MOTOR OIL
7 Ibs/gal (65 - 7.5 Ibs/gal)
Source: ANJR Directory, 1987. Range was arrived at by converting API gravity for 25-50% crude oil to
specific gravity (Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook, 6th ed.).
CONCRETE/ASPHALT (broken)
IS tons/cy
Source: American Rock and Asphalt, Richmond, CA.
MIXED WOOD WASTE (C&D)
364 Ibs./cy
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
162 Appendix C: Waste Generation Calculations
-------
. Waste Prevention* Recycling, and Composting Options; Lessons from SO U.S, Communities
Appendix D
Procurement
Because state and local government
expenditures represent approximately 13 percent of
the gross national product, local governments can
have substantial affect on the development of
recycled material markets.* Furthermore, by
purchasing recycled materials, local governments
can serve as models for local businesses to emulate.
Twelve of our communities have some type of
recycled-product procurement programs, ranging
from price preferences to requirements for
purchasing recycled or reusable materials. See
Table D. In Dakota County, Minnesota; King
County, Washington; Lincoln, Nebraska; Sonoma
County, California; and Newark, New Jersey, such
programs are mandated by law.
Model Procurement Program
As of December 1990, the City of Newark
adopted a comprehensive procurement ordinance
formalizing a mandatory preferential purchasing
policy. Purchasing Agents are required to review
their existing product and service specifications to
determine if the use of recycled and reusable
products is excluded. The agents must incorporate
to the maximum extent practicable recycled
materials, reusable products, and products designed
to be recycled. Newark's ordinance was adopted
to stimulate demand for materials it recycles. The
City uses, at the minimum, U.S. EPA guidelines in
its procurement process. The main products
targeted for procurement are paper, paper products,
retread tires, lubricating oils, and fly ash in cement
and concrete. For example, high-grade printing
and writing paper must have a 50 percent waste
paper content. For lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids,
and gear oils the minimum content is 25 percent.
In 1991 the City purchased over $200,000 worth of
recycled goods, or approximately 50 percent of all
purchases. It also purchases refillable laser
cartridges for laser printers.
In an effort to encourage the procurement of
products made from recycled materials, the City of
Newark and the New Jersey Public Interest
Research Group (NJPIRG) have joined forces to
promote this concept among mayors and municipal
purchasing agents throughout the State of New
Jersey.
"Schrader, Creating Markets: Key to Successful State and Local Recycling Programs, Center for Policy Alternatives, Washington,
D.C., November 1990, p. 4; and telephone conversation with Rich Braddock, Procurement Analyst, EPA, Washington,
D.C., January 1991.
Appendix D: Procurement 163
-------
Waste J?reaentionl'Rec\fclmg, and Composting Optionsf Lessons from 30 U*S+Comtmmitte$
Table D
Communities With Procurement Programs
Community
Required
By Law (a)
Type of Procurement Program
Austin, TX
Berkeley, CA
Boulder, CO
Dakota County, MN
King County, WA
La Crescent, MN
Lincoln, NE
Newark, NJ
Philadelphia, PA
Portland, OR
Seattle, WA
No
No
No
Yes/County
Yes/County
No
Yes/State
Yes/City
No
No
No
City agencies have a 10% price preference for purchasing recycled products.
The City has instituted a recycled product purchasing preference program.
The City has a 5% price preference to purchase recycled paper products.
Government offices are required to purchase recycled or reusable materials as
long as the cost does not exceed 10% of the purchase price of unrecycled
materials.
A County ordinance was adopted establishing rules and policies for the
procurement of a range of recycled products including paper products,
building insulation, retread tires, cement, cement concrete with fly ash,
and re-refined oil for County agencies.
The County allows a 10% price preference for the purchase of recycled paper
and other recycled products such as re-refined motor oil and recycled plastic
picnic tables.
City departments are required to purchase recycled paper.
There is a City ordinance requiring municipal agencies to purchase recycled
products to the maximum extent practicable.
The City allows a 10% price preference for recycled products for municipal
procurement.
The procurement policy directs the City to purchase recycled motor oil,
compost, bark dust and retread tires whenever appropriate and available.
The City also has a 5% price preference for the purchase of recycled paper
products.
All City departments are directed to print letterhead on 100% recycled paper. •
Seattle's municipal offices procure envelopes and copier paper made from
recycled paper fiber. .
Sonoma County, CA Yes/City (b) City offices are required to purchase recycled materials whenever practicable.
Wofos:
(a) Indicates If there are state, county, or locally mandated legislative requirements to procure supplies made from recycled materials.
(b) A requirement of only the City of Santa Rosa, and Rohnert Park.
164 Appendix D: Procurement
-------
Waste Prevention, BecycKng, and Composting Options: lessons from 30 U
-------
Waste Prevention,Racyaing, and Composting Optimist Lessons from 30 UJS.Gammmities
,. .,.dt.,,,l,........«........'.'.,V..'.".*.,.V,'c«,-.«.','..'.V. >. V. >.<,<. 1. W1.V. V «. t. -A «. WJJJ.1. „-. — w .'l.iwA'
Recovery
Two-Stream Separation (cont.)
89.9 percent of potentially recyclable
material recovered clean in dry
container (52 percent of dry waste
recyclable)
Three-Stream Separation (cont.)
78.1 percent of potentially recyclable
material recovered clean (68 percent
of dry waste recyclable)
Marketability
Diversion Rate
(with current markets)
Advantages/
Disadvantages
95.2 percent of recyclables recovered
were uncontaminated and marketable.
•Compost meets rigorous proposed
Ontario and Canadian standards.
68 percent (with carts)
• Recovered a larger percentage (14
percentage more) of organic materials
• Recovered a larger percent (15
percent more) of recyclables
• Recyclables slightly more
contaminated and less marketable (but
total recovery still higher in two-stream)
• Greater flexibility. If markets make it
unprofitable to recover a certain
material, sorting plant employees
can easily be trained not to pull
out this material
• Collection time and costs lower as
one vehicle is used to co-collect wet
and dry fractions
• Considered easier to implement in
multi-unit dwellings and commercial
settings
• Requires greater emphasis on
source reduction to reduce the
amount of nonrecyclable,
noncompostable, and hazardous
material in waste stream
• Requires separate collection of
household hazardous materials, since
all material is handled by workers.
Household hazardous can be more
easily diverted from landfill.
98.5 percent of recyclables recovered
were uncontaminated and marketable.
Compost meets rigorous proposed
Ontario and Canadian standards.
62 percent (with carts)
• Recovered a smaller percentage of
organic materials
• Recovered a smaller percent of
clean recyclables
• Recyclables slightly (3 percent) less
contamination and more marketable
(that is, no longer is placed in "garbage"
stream)
• Less flexibility in responding to
market changes; have to reeducate
population on sorting procedures
when an item becomes marketable
• Two collection vehicles utilized
• Considered more difficult to
implement in multi-unit dwellings
and commercial settings
• Less emphasis on source reduction,
since nonrecyclable and
noncompostable materials are
landfilled as a third stream
• Separate collection of household
hazardous materials recommended,
but not imperative. Household hazard-
ous placed in garbage means it will
ultimately be landfilled.
Source: Janet L. Laird, Waste Management Coordinator City Engineer's Department, Guelph, Ontario, personal communication,
February and July 1992.
166 Appendix E: Wet & Dry Collection
-------
;; " , , Waste Preoentiotti Recyclings and Composting Options*, Lessons from 30 U.$, Communities
Table E.2
Projected Costs for Guelph, Ontario's
Two-stream Wet/Dry Collection Program*3)
Number Serviced
Waste Generation
(projected for 2003)
Anticipated Diversion
(Marketed Material)
Collection
Capital and Operating
Processing Dry Stream
Capital Costs
Subtotal
Annual Throughput
Daily Throughput
(assuming 260 days of operation)
Capital Processing Costs
Processing Wet Stream
Capital Costs
Receiving
Processing
Subtotal
Annual Throughput
Daily Throughput
(assuming 260 days of operation)
Capital Processing Costs
Household Containers
130,000 people countywide (program will first be implemented in
Guelph, a city of 92,500 people and 24,000 single-family households)
93,700 tons (84,999 metric tonnes) dry waste
63,900 tons (58,000 metric tonnes) wet waste
156,500 tons (142,000 metric tonnes) total processable waste
50 percent (at least)
Divided automatic side-loading packer trucks will probably be utilized to collect
both wet and dry "fractions. Trucks are priced at $100,000 each. The City does
not currently know how many vehicles it will purchase, and may retrofit existing
trucks for some routes. Operating costs are anticipated to be the same as for
refuse collection. Each truck will be operated by one crew member and will
service an estimated 400 households per day. (Current refuse runs service 600
to 700 households per truck per day.)
$3.2 million ($3.6 million Canadian) building
$5.5 million ($6.2 million Canadian) equipment
$8.7 million ($9.8 million Canadian)
93,700 tons
360 tons
$24,200 per TPD processed
$0.5 million ($0.6 million Canadian) building
$1 million ($1.2 million Canadian) equipment
$2.2 million ($2.5 million Canadian) building
$1.4 million ($1.6 million Canadian) equipment
$.05 million ($.25 million Canadian) bio filter
$5.4 million ($6.2 Canadian)
63,900 tons
250 tons
$21,600 per TPD Processed
$97 each ($110 each Canadian)
Appendix E: Wet & Dry Collection 167
-------
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options! Lessons from 3QUt$*Cammunities
Grand Total Wet
and Dry Capital Costs
Annual Throughput
Daily Throughput (assuming 260
days per year of operation)
Grand Total Capital Costs
$8.7 million dry
$5.4 million wet
$2.4 million containers
$16.5 million
$34 million ($39 million Canadian) including land, administration building,
construction costs, mobile equipment, testing equipment, and household
hazardous waste drop-off site
156,500 tons (142,000 metric tonnes)
600 tons
$57,000 per TPD
Total Processing Operating
Costs for Wet and Dry (excluding
landfilling but including anticipated revenue
for recydabtes and a zero dollar
revenue for compost)
$5.9 million ($6.7 million Canadian) per year—including collection costs of
$2.9 million
$38 per ton
Notes: $1 Canadian = $0.88 U.S., 1 metric tonne = 1.1025 short ton
(a) Guelph has not yet finalized its decision to implement a two-stream rather than a three-stream collection program.
Source: Janet L Laird, Waste Management Coordinator City Engineer's Department, Guelph, Ontario, personal communication,
February and July 1992.
168 Appendix E: Wet & Dry Collection
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1994-517-348/80707
-------
-------
------- |