United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
(5306W)
EPA530-R-97-002
September 1997
http://www.epa.gov
Source Reduction Program
Potential Manual
A Planning Tool
$$ Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent postconsumer fiber.
-------
Contents
About This Manual v
Glossary v
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
What Is Source Reduction? 1
What Is Program Potential? 1
What Is a Program Potential Factor? 2
Chapter 2: Program Potential 3
Gathering Data 3
Calculating Program Potential 3
Chapter 3: Residential Source Reduction Options 5
National Program Potential 5
Grasscycling 5
Home Composting—Food Scraps 6
Home Composting—Yard Trimmings 7
Clothing and Footwear Reuse 8
Chapter 4: CII Source Reduction Options 11
National Program Potential 11
Office Paper Prevention 11
Reducing Office Paper Through Duplex Copying 12
Reducing Office Paper Through Computer Networking 12
Converting to Multi-Use Pallets 13
Paper Towel Reduction 14
Chapter 5: Local Applications 17
Introduction 17
Program Potential Factors 17
Scenarios 17
Scenario 1: Anywhere 18
Scenario 2: Commuterburgh 19
Scenario 3: Fullville 20
Chapter 6: Worksheets 23
in
-------
List of Tables
Table 2.1 The 1994 National Solid Waste Stream 3
Table 3.1 National Program Potential for Residential Source Reduction Options 5
Table 4.1 National Program Potential for CII Source Reduction Options 11
Table 5.1 National Program Potential for Six Source Reduction Options 17
Table 5.2 Program Potential Factors 18
Table 5.3 Default Waste Composition (Percent by Weight)—National Default Data 18
Table 5.4 Waste Generation—National Default Data 18
Table 5.5 Anywhere—Waste Composition 19
Table 5.6 Anywhere—Program Potential 19
Table 5.7 Commuterburgh—Grasscycling 19
Table 5.8 Fullville—CII Waste Composition 20
Table 5.9 Fullville—CII Program Potential 21
Table 5.10 Fullville—Net Savings of an Office Paper Prevention Program 22
Table 6.1 Standard Program Potential Factors 27
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 The Procedure for Estimating Program Potential for Source Reduction 4
Figure 3.1 Program Potential for Grasscycling 6
Figure 3.2a Program Potential for Home Composting Food Scraps 7
Figure 3.2b Program Potential for Home Composting Yard Trimmings 8
Figure 3.3 Program Potential for Clothing and Footwear Reuse 9
Figure 4.la Program Potential for Office Paper Reduction (Duplexing) 12
Figure 4.1b Program Potential for Office Paper Reduction (Networking) 13
Figure 4.2 Program Potential for Converting to Multi-Use Pallets 14
Figure 4.3 Program Potential for Reducing Paper Towels 15
IV
-------
About This Manual
his manual is designed to help local solid waste managers determine the potential impact of
various source reduction options. The manual examines the program potential, or the portion
of a waste stream category that could be addressed by a specific source reduction program.
Analyzing program potential can help solid waste managers decide whether to include source
reduction in their integrated solid waste management plans.
Using data on the national municipal solid waste stream, this manual calculates the program poten-
tial for six source reduction options: three residential options (grasscycling, home composting, and cloth-
ing reuse) and three commercial, industrial, and institutional options (office paper reduction, converting
to multi-use pallets, and paper towel reduction). It then shows managers how to calculate program
potential locally by applying their own data.
While the manual acts as a planning guide for source reduction programs, it does have some limita-
tions. First, the manual is limited to estimating the potential of source reduction programs. The actual
tonnage reduction achieved by a source reduction program will depend on the effectiveness of the pro-
gram's implementation. Second, the manual is not a "how to" document for designing and implement-
ing a source reduction program. Finally, the manual does not specifically address reducing the toxicity
of the waste stream.
To make it easier to calculate program potential, companion software is also available. To order, call
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Hotline at 800 424-9346.
Glossary
he following is a list of terms that appear frequently throughout this manual. Readers may
wish to keep this list handy so they can refer to it as they proceed through the document.
Applicability Factor: This factor narrows the tonnage of the general waste category to that of the specif-
ic waste category relevant to the source reduction option.
CII: Solid waste activities associated with the commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors.
Feasibility Factor: This factor narrows the tonnage of the specific waste category to reflect only the por-
tion that could feasibly be reduced.
Program Potential: The portion of a waste stream category that could be addressed by a specific source
reduction program.
Program Potential Factor: A percentage that, when applied to the tonnage of a general waste category,
yields the program potential of a specific source reduction option.
Source Reduction: Activities designed to reduce the volume or toxicity of the waste stream, including
the design and manufacture of products and packaging with minimum toxic content, minimum volume
of material, and/or a longer useful life.
Technology Factor: This factor accounts for any waste that might remain in the waste stream, as a result
of technical or physical limitations, even after the source reduction option is implemented successfully.
-------
-------
I r\ S~*f y~\'f/-\T% I
v_/IlQpLC3I I
Introduction
n February 1989, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) published the report
The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action.
This report called for the adoption of "a new
solid waste management ethic" reflected in what
has come to be referred to as the "solid waste man-
agement hierarchy." While acknowledging varia-
tions in local conditions, the hierarchy established
a preferred order to municipal solid waste (MSW)
management. Source reduction was at the top of
the hierarchy, followed by recycling (including
composting) and disposal (including combustion
and landfilling).
What Is Source
Reduction?
EPA defines source reduction as activities
designed to reduce the volume or toxicity of waste
generated, including the design and manufacture of
products with minimum toxic content, minimum
volume of material, and/or a longer useful life.
Source reduction is fundamentally different from
the other elements of the solid waste hierarchy.
Recycling and disposal options all come into play
after goods have been used. Source reduction, in
contrast, takes place before materials have been
identified as "waste." To implement source
reduction, solid waste managers need to promote
practices that reduce waste before it is generated.
A variety of practices exist to promote source
reduction in local communities. These practices
affect both the residential and the commercial,
industrial, and institutional (CII) sectors. This
manual focuses on six source reduction options:
Residential Sector Options:
» Grasscycling
« Home composting
« Clothing and footwear reuse
CII Sector Options:
« Office paper reduction
« Converting to multi-use pallets
• Paper towel reduction
These six options were chosen because they
have been implemented in communities across the
country and, in some cases, have contributed sig-
nificantly to local solid waste management efforts.
What Is Program
Potential?
Before implementing a source reduction pro-
gram, managers need to determine the portion of
their waste stream that could be addressed by
source reduction. This manual refers to this por-
tion as "program potential."
Understanding program potential helps man-
agers determine whether a specific source reduc-
tion program makes sense for their community.
This decision is ultimately based on whether a
program has the potential to reduce a significant
portion of the waste stream in a cost-effective
manner. Calculating program potential is the first
step in determining whether to implement source
reduction programs locally.
-------
Chapter 1
What Is a Program
Potential Factor?
This manual develops program potential fac-
tors, or percentages, based on the national pro-
gram potential results. To calculate the program
potential for their local waste stream, solid waste
managers can multiply the tonnage of a specific
component of their local waste stream by the cor-
responding program potential factor from Table
5.2. For example, the grasscycling calculation in
Chapter 3 identifies the national tonnage of yard
trimmings that could be prevented if homeowners
left their grass clippings on the lawn. The program
potential factor represents the national program
impact in tonnage, 9.1 million tons, as a percent-
age, 33.1 percent, assuming that all homeowners
left their grass clippings on the lawn.
Using this percentage, or program potential fac-
tor, managers can convert their waste stream gen-
eration tonnage into program potential. For
example, by multiplying the tonnage of yard trim-
mings generated locally by 33.1 percent, managers
can estimate the program potential for diverting
grass clippings from the waste stream in their
community. Managers interested in customizing
the analysis to better reflect local conditions may
want to review the assumptions underlying the
calculation of the national program potential and
make adjustments to the program potential fac-
tors, as appropriate. The worksheets in Chapter 6
will help managers with these calculations.
Program Potential
Factors
Program potential factors represent the
impact of a source reduction program
option as a percentage rather than as a
tonnage. To arrive at a quick estimate of
program potential, solid waste managers
can multiply the tonnage of a specific
component of their local waste stream by
the corresponding program potential fac-
tor. For managers interested in developing
customized program potential factors
based on local data, Chapter 5 describes
the method for calculating program
potential factors.
-------
Program Potential
o calculate program potential, solid
waste managers will need to:
« Gather or estimate data on the tonnage and
composition of their MSW stream.
« Apply a set of program potential factors to their
local waste stream data.
Gathering Data
Program potential can be calculated using
either national or local data. Chapters 2,3, and 4
of this manual explain how to calculate program
potential using national data. Chapter 5 and the
companion software show managers how to calcu-
late program potential using local data or a combi-
nation of national and local data.
The basic source of national data on the MSW
stream is EPA's Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1994 Update (the '94
Update,) and 1995 Update (the '95 Update). These
documents present current information on the vol-
ume and composition of MSW, as well as projec-
tions for the future. Table 2.1 summarizes the
information for 1994 presented in the '95 Update.
Most of the information in the '95 Update is not
based on direct measurement (i.e., sampling mea-
surement). Instead, it is developed from a "cradle-
to-grave" analysis of the materials flow in the U.S.
economy. Managers unfamiliar with this approach
may wish to consult the '95 Update. Understanding
the methods used in the '95 Update is not required
for using this manual.
Calculating Program
Potential
Program potential can be calculated using the
equation shown in Figure 2.1. This equation limits
the tonnage of a general waste category to the por-
tion of a specific waste category that could be
addressed by a source reduction program, or the
program potential.
Table 2.1. The 1994 National Solid Waste Stream*
General Waste
Category
Paper and
paperboard
Glass
Metals
Plastics
Wood
Food scraps
Yard trimmings
Other
Total
Residential Waste
Generated
(Million Tons)
36.4
10.7
10.3
15.3
3.5
7.0
27.5
10.0
120.7
CM Waste Generated
(Million Tons)
44.9
2.5
5.5
4.5
11.1
7.1
3.1
9.6
88.3
All
Waste Generated
(Million Tons)
81.3
13.2
15.8
19.8
14.6
14.1
30.6
19.6
209.0
* EPA's Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1995 Update.
-------
Chapter 2
For example, consider a source reduction pro-
gram intended to keep grass from entering the
MSW stream. Grasscycling programs simply
encourage homeowners to leave grass clippings
on their lawns rather than bag and dispose of
them. To develop an estimate of program poten-
tial for grasscycling, the first step is to narrow the
tonnage of grass in yard trimmings that is resi-
dential. Next, the applicable grass tonnage is fur-
ther narrowed to reflect an estimate of the portion
of grass cut with nonmulching mowers and the
portion of grass clippings left on the lawn under
current grasscycling programs. Finally, technolog-
ical limitations must be taken into consideration.
The program potential calculation yields a value
representing the amount of material available for
source reduction by a given program.
The program potential equation shown in
Figure 2.1 involves four steps:
» Step 1: Identify the general waste stream cate-
gory relevant to the source reduction option
being considered and specify its tonnage. For
example, when estimating the program
potential for grasscycling, the general waste
stream category is yard trimmings. Its ton-
nage is shown in Table 2.1.
• Step 2: Multiply by an "applicability factor."
The applicability factor reduces the tonnage
of the general waste category to a specific
waste category directly relevant to the option
under consideration. For grasscycling, this is
the portion of yard trimmings that is grass
generated by the residential sector.
• Step 3: Multiply by a "feasibility factor." This
factor reduces the portion of the specific
waste category to the tonnage that feasibly
could be reduced through source reduction
efforts. For grasscycling, this involves esti-
mating the portion of grass reduced through
current grasscycling programs.
» Step 4: Multiply by a "technology factor."
This factor takes into account any technical or
physical limitations to the option under con-
sideration. For grasscycling, there are no limi-
tations—that is, all of the portion identified in
Step 3 could be addressed by a source reduc-
tion program.
Multiplying the general waste category ton-
nage by these three factors results in a tonnage
of waste that could be addressed by a source
reduction program, assuming 100 percent
participation in the program.
Calculations performed in Chapters 3 and 4
make use of national data to estimate program
potential; local data may differ. Chapter 5 pro-
vides an opportunity to incorporate local data
into the calculations.
Figure 2. 1. The procedure for estimating program potential for source reduction.
General Waste
Stream Data
Detailed Information on Waste Stream
and Potential Program Participants
Limitations of the
Technology
I
General Waste
Category
I
Technology
Factor
Program
Potential
-------
/-\7"»
Residential Source
Reduction Options
National Program
Potential
his chapter presents estimates of national
program potential for three residential
source reduction program options: grasscy-
cling, home composting, and clothing
reuse. As Table 3.1 shows, the national program
potential associated with these three options in
1994 is 23.7 million tons.
Grasscycling programs are one of the simplest
ways to divert organic materials from the MSW
stream. This manual focuses on how mulching mow-
ers are used in residential grasscycling programs.
Grasscycling programs encourage homeowners
to leave grass clippings on their lawns rather than
bag and dispose of them. According to the
Composting Council and many other community
programs, grasscycling not only diverts a signifi-
cant portion of the waste stream, but also
provides an excellent source of nutrients for the
lawn. Grasscycling can be accomplished with the
help of mulching mowers. Mulching mowers' fine
chopping blades help speed up grass clipping
degradation. Many mowers sold today are capa-
ble of mulching, and old mowers can be retrofit to
mulch or re-cut grass clippings.
Historically, most grasscycling programs rely on
public education to encourage households to
grasscycle. This typically involves developing and
distributing pamphlets that explain the various
benefits of grasscycling. These benefits include
decreasing homeowners' fertilizer and water bills,
saving the time and energy spent bagging and
hauling grass clippings, and reducing the amount
of material in the waste stream. Press releases,
brochures, and newspaper, radio, and television
advertisements are all means of communicating
the benefits of grasscycling programs.
Program Potential
» General Waste Category. The general waste cat-
egory addressed by grasscycling is yard trim-
mings. As shown in Table 2.1, the yard
trimmings tonnage reported in the '95 Update is
30.6 million tons.
Table 3.1. National Program Potential for Residential Source Reduction Options
Source Reduction
Option
Component of MSW
Reduced
Program Potential
(Million Tons)
Grasscycling
Yard trimmings
9.1
Home composting
Food scraps & yard
trimmings
13.0
Clothing and footwear reuse
Other
1.6
Total
23.7
-------
Chapter 3
Applicability Factor. This factor reduces the
general waste tonnage to reflect only the ton-
nage of grass generated by the residential sec-
tor. Data in the '95 Update show that
approximately 50 percent of yard trimmings
are grass clippings. The '94 Update states that
90 percent of the grass clippings are generated
by the residential sector. Therefore, the applic-
able portion of yard trimmings is 45 percent
(0.5x0.9).
Feasibility Factor. Since there are no national
data on the number of households that cur-
rently grasscycle, several assumptions must
be made to take current practices into
account. First, the lawn mower manufacturer
Toro estimates that 99 percent of residential
households use power mowers to mow their
lawns. According to Toro, 26 percent of the
power mowers used are mulching mowers.
In addition, local grasscycling programs
encourage people without mulching mowers
to grasscycle. Lacking any national data on
these programs, it is assumed that 10 percent
of the people currently using nonmulching
mowers are grasscycling. Therefore, the por-
tion of residential grass feasible to be source
reduced through grasscycling is 66 percent
(0.99x0.74x0.9).
Technology Factor. The technology factor
is 100 percent, because all grass that is left on
lawns is removed from the waste stream.
Program Potential. The national program
potential is 9.1 million tons per year.
Home composting programs are an increas-
ingly popular residential source reduction pro-
gram option. By composting, households can
divert large percentages of their food scraps and
yard trimmings from the waste stream.
Home composting programs are typically
organized at the county or city level and involve
educating homeowners about proper compost-
ing practices and encouraging the diversion of
all organic materials. Many communities with
backyard composting programs implement pub-
lic education and outreach programs to encour-
age homeowners to compost. These entail
distributing flyers and brochures, producing
videos and radio advertisements, and display-
ing home composting bins with instructions and
information at public events, gardens, and home
gardening stores.
In addition, many communities develop
"Master Composter Programs." In these pro-
grams, a compost specialist trains a group of vol-
unteers, who become "Master Composters."
They in turn train others in the community on
proper composting techniques.
Program Potential
Unlike the other source reduction options
considered in this manual, home composting
applies to two major categories of the waste
stream—food scraps and yard trimmings. To
estimate the program potential for home com-
posting, the contribution of these two categories
Figure 3.1. Program potential for grasscycling.
General Waste
Category
Yard trimmings
generated
Applicability
Factor
Grass as percentage
of yard trimmings
generated by
residential sector
Feasibility
Factor
Percentage of grass
that is not currently
grasscycled
Technology
Factor
All grass left
on a lawn is
source reduced
Program Potential
9.1 million tons
per year
30.6 million tons
-------
Residential Source Reduction Options
needs to be addressed separately. The calculation
for food scraps, shown in Figure 3.2a, is presented
here in detail. The analysis for yard trimmings,
shown in Figure 3.2b, is summarized at the end of
this section.
• General Waste Category. The general waste cat-
egory addressed by home composting is food
scraps. As shown in Table 2.1, 14.1 million tons
of food scraps were generated by the residential
and commercial sectors in 1994.
• Applicability Factor. This factor reduces the
waste tonnage to reflect only the tonnage of
residential food scraps that are compostable.
According to a waste composition study by
William Rathje, Director of the Garbage
Project at the University of Arizona, 72
percent of food scraps are compostable. This
exempts meat, fish, cheese, milk, and fats and
oils. In addition, the '94 Update estimates that
50 percent of food scraps are generated by the
residential sector. Therefore, the portion of
waste that is generated by the residential
sector and is compostable is 36 percent (0.72 x
0.5).
» Feasibility Factor. The residential tonnage is
narrowed further to reflect only food scraps that
could feasibly be home composted. According
to the Statistical Abstract of the United States,
approximately 75 percent of the population
lives in one to four unit residences and is likely
to have the space to home compost. Absent
actual data on food scrap composting, it is
assumed that 1 percent of households in the
nation currently compost in their backyard and
that 99 percent do not. Therefore, the portion of
food scraps that feasibly could be reduced is 74
percent (0.75x0.99).
Technology Factor. The technology factor is 100
percent, because backyard composting removes
all of the food scraps that are composted from
the waste stream.
Program Potential. The program potential for
home composting of food is therefore 3.8 mil-
lion tons per year.
In the analysis of home composting of yard
trimmings, only the general waste category and
applicability factor need to be changed. The yard
trimmings tonnage, as shown in Table 2.1, is 30.6
million tons. Based on the '94 Update, 90 percent
of yard trimmings come from the residential sec-
tor. Making a 10 percent allowance for large items,
such as tree trunks and large limbs that are not
easily compostable, the applicability factor for
yard trimmings is 81 percent (0.9 x 0.9). The feasi-
bility and technology factors developed for food
scraps apply equally well to yard trimmings. Also,
for this example, the 9.1 million tons of program
potential for grasscycling is excluded to avoid
double counting. The national program potential
for composting yard trimmings is 9.2 million tons
(30.6x0.81x0.74x100-9.1).
Combining the program potentials for home
composting of food scraps (3.8 million tons) and
yard trimmings (9.2 million tons) yields a
national program potential for home composting
of 13.0 million tons. However, if the program
potential for grasscycling is not excluded, the
national program potential for yard trimmings is
22.1 million tons a year.
Figure 3.2a. Program potential for home composting food scraps.
General Waste
Category
Food scraps
generated
Applicability
Factor
Percentage of
compostable
food scraps
generated by the
residential sector
Feasibility
Factor
Percentage of
residences that
could feasibly
home compost
but currently
do not
Technology
Factor
All composted
food scraps are
source reduced
Program Potential
3.8 million tons
per year
14.1 million tons
-------
Program Potential
A residential textile collection program
provides an efficient and convenient opportuni-
ty for residents to extend the useful life of
unwanted textile goods, such as clothing and
footwear. Communities can establish drop-off
collection sites, offer periodic curbside
collection, or integrate textiles into their on-
going curbside collection programs. This manual
assumes that all collection approaches for
textiles have the same source reduction program
potential.
This manual focuses solely on the collection
of clothing and footwear for reuse. Most
residential collection programs, however, collect
other textiles as well, such as sheets, towels, and
draperies. Reuse opportunities for clothing and
footwear include reuse as secondhand clothing,
both domestic and foreign, and as wiping or
polishing rags.
Local agencies that have instituted residential
textile collection programs concur that public
education is a key component to success. Many
communities encourage residents to first donate
items to local charities, and then give what these
nonprofits cannot use to the local collection pro-
gram. This often results in increased donations to
charities, as well as a high level of residential
collection.
General Waste Category. The general waste
category addressed by textile collection is other
waste. As shown in Table 2.1, 19.6 million tons
of other waste were generated in 1994, as
reported in the '95 Update.
Applicability Factor. This factor reduces the
general waste tonnage to reflect the portion of
other waste consisting of residential clothing
and footwear that is currently not recovered.
According to the '95 Update, 4.5 million tons of
clothing and footwear are generated annually,
representing approximately 23 percent of other
waste. The '94 Update estimates that 60 percent,
or 2.7 million tons, of clothing and footwear is
generated by the residential sector.
According to the Council for Textile Recycling
(CTR), approximately 1.25 million tons of
postconsumer textiles are recovered annually.
This figure represents all types of textiles from
various sources. CTR describes the flow of
textiles as first being donated to nonprofit,
charitable organizations, such as Goodwill
and Salvation Army, which in turn sell any
unusable textiles to businesses, such as textile
dealers and brokers.
Of the 1.25 million tons of textiles recovered, the
portion that is only clothing and footwear donat-
ed by households must be derived. Goodwill
estimates that 95 percent of the textiles it receives
Figure 3.2b. Program potential for home composting yard trimmings.
General Waste
Category
Yard
trimmings
generated
30.6
million tons
Applicability
Factor
Percentage of
compostable yard
trimmings
generated by
residential sector
Feasibility
Factor
Percentage of
residences that
could feasibly
home compost
but currently
do not
Technology
Factor
All composted
yard trimmings
are
source reduced
National
program
potential
for
grasscycling
9.1
million tons
Program
Potential
9.2
million tons
per year
*excluding the national program potential for grasscycling.
-------
Residential Source Reduction Options
consists of clothing and footwear. In addition,
Goodwill also estimates that 90 percent of its tex-
tile donations come from households. Applying
this figure for all nonprofits accepting textiles,
85.5 percent (0.95 x 0.90) of the textiles recovered
is clothing and footwear from households, which
translates to 1.07 million tons annually. By sub-
tracting the amount of clothing and footwear
donated by households from the total amount of
residential clothing and footwear generated, 1.63
million tons, or 60 percent, could be targeted for
a source reduction program. Therefore, the
applicable portion of other waste generated is 8.3
percent (0.23x0.60x0.60).
Feasibility Factor. To derive the feasibility
factor, the portion of recovered residential cloth-
ing and footwear that is available for reuse
must be calculated. Of the clothing and
footwear donated to nonprofits, a portion is
reused and the remainder is sold to businesses.
Goodwill estimates that 50 percent of the cloth-
ing and footwear received is sold in its stores
and reused. The remaining 50 percent is sold to
businesses. What these businesses do with the
textiles must also be considered. CTR estimates
that these businesses reuse and reprocess 94
percent as secondhand clothing, wiping and
polishing cloths, or are used to make similar
textile items. Thus, the feasibility factor is 97
percent [0.50 + (0.50 x 0.94)].
Technology Factor. The technology factor is
100 percent, since clothing and footwear cap-
tured via a residential collection program
and reused is removed from the waste
stream.
Program Potential. As shown in Figure 3.3,
the national program potential for a residen-
tial clothing and footwear collection program
is 1.6 million tons per year.
CASE STUDY:
Montgomery County,
Maryland
In 1993, Montgomery County, Maryland, ini-
tiated a textile collection program consisting
of a drop-off site for residents and "curb-
side" collection for five charities. The county
developed a brochure that described the
program and also listed charities, shelters,
consignment shops, and used clothing stores
accepting textile donations. The brochure
was made available at libraries and county
offices and also mailed to residents upon
request. The county collects approximately
156 tons of textiles annually. Dumont, a tex-
tile dealer, pays the county a flat rate of
$80.00 per ton for the collected textiles.
Figure 3.3. Program potential for clothing and footwear reuse.
General Waste
Category
Other
waste
generated
19.6 million tons
Applicability
Factor
Percentage of other
waste that is
residential clothing
and footwear
X
Feasibility
Factor
Percentage of
residential clothing
and footwear
recovered that can
be reused
X
Technology
Factor
Percent of
residential clothing
and footwear that is
diverted by
recovery and reuse
Program Potential
1.6 million tons
per year
-------
-------
Chapter 4
CII Source
Reduction Options
National Program
Potential
his chapter presents estimates of national
program potential for three CII source
reduction program options: reducing
office paper, converting to multi-use
wooden pallets, and reducing paper towels. Table
4.1 shows that, for 1994, the national program
potential associated with these three options is 3.1
million tons.
Table 4.1. National Program Potential for CII
Source Reduction Options
Source Component of Program
Reduction MSW Reduced Potential
Option (Million Tons)
Office paper
prevention
Paper and
paperboard
1.3
Converting to
multi-use
pallets
Wood
1.6
Paper towel
reduction
Paper and
paperboard
0.2
Total
3.1
J
To calculate the program potential for reducing
office paper, two source reduction strategies were
assumed:
» All office copy paper could be subject to a
duplex copying initiative.
» For those businesses that have some computer
network capability, the amount of paper cur-
rently used in laser printers can be reduced
through electronic mail, electronic postings, and
document sharing via common files. While
increased use of networking could itself reduce
the demand for copying, this manual does not
include the effect of this complex interaction.
The results from the two strategies are com-
bined to represent an approximate total program
potential for reducing office paper.
Office paper reduction programs often entail
setting a corporate goal for paper reduction, publi-
cizing that goal through posters, flyers, and com-
pany newsletters, and encouraging employees to
adopt specific paper reduction strategies.
CASE STUDY:
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Launched in 1994, EPA's Paper-Less Office
Campaign set a goal to reduce the amount
of white office paper used throughout the
Agency by 15 percent. The campaign
encouraged employees to use specific
strategies such as making duplex copies
and increasing the use of computer net-
working. EPA exceeded its goal in 1995 by
reducing photocopying by 16.1 percent.
11
-------
Program Potential
General Waste Category. The general waste cat-
egory addressed by office paper reduction is
paper and paperboard. As shown in Table 2.1,
the paper and paperboard tonnage reported in
the '95 Update is 81.3 million tons.
Applicability Factor. This factor reduces the
waste tonnage to reflect only the tonnage of
paper and paperboard used for photocopying.
According to CAP Ventures, a trade association
that tracks office paper use, 2.12 million tons of
office paper were used in photocopiers in 1994.
This represents about 2.6 percent of the paper
and paperboard waste reported in the '95
Update. Therefore, the portion of applicable
paper is 2.6 percent.
Feasibility Factor. The office paper tonnage is
narrowed further to identify the portion of copi-
er paper that could be duplexed easily.
According to INFORM Inc., a nonprofit research
organization, 1.1 percent of copier paper is used
in copy machines that have no duplex capabili-
ties. An additional 26 percent of copier paper is
used by copiers with limited duplex capabili-
ties, so only 73 percent of copier paper is used
in machines with complete duplexing capabili-
ties. Also, 20 percent of copies from machines
with duplex capabilities have already been
printed on both sides. Therefore, 58 percent
(0.73 x 0.8) of copier paper could feasibly be
source reduced.
Technology Factor. With maximum participation,
an office could use approximately 50 percent less
paper by duplexing instead of single-siding copies.
Therefore, the technology factor is 50 percent.
Program Potential. As shown in Figure 4.la, the
program potential for reducing office paper use
through duplex copying is 613,000 tons per year.
Program Potential
General Waste Category. As in the analysis of
duplex copying, the general category of waste
addressed by office paper reduction through
computer networking is paper and paperboard.
As shown in Table 2.1, the paper and paper-
board tonnage reported in the '95 Update is 81.3
million tons.
Applicability Factor. This factor reduces the
waste tonnage to reflect only the tonnage of
office paper used in laser printers. According to
CAP Ventures, 1.3 million tons of paper were
used in laser printers in 1994. This represents
about 1.6 percent of paper and paperboard gen-
erated. Thus, the portion of applicable paper is
1.6 percent.
Feasibility Factor. This factor reflects the per-
centage of businesses that have computer net-
working capabilities. Based on the information
from a 1994 survey by the Electronic Messaging
Association, 65 percent of the branch offices of
Figure 4.1a. Program potential for office paper reduction (duplexing).
General Waste
Category
Paper and
paperboard
generated
81.3 million tons
Applicability
Factor
Percentage of
paper and
paperboard that
is used in
photocopiers
Feasibility
Factor
Percentage of
copier paper
used in copiers
with good duplexing
capacity that is
not duplexed
Technology
Factor
Duplexing copies
saves half the
amount of paper
used for
single-sided
copies
Program Potential
613,000 tons
per year
12
-------
CII Source Reduction Options
Fortune 2000 companies have local area net-
works (LANs). In the absence of data on
networking capabilities throughout the CII
sector, the 65 percent figure is used to represent
networking capabilities in offices. It is further
assumed that 10 percent of computer printer
paper use is already being prevented by compa-
nies' use of networks to reduce printing.
Therefore, 59 percent (0.65 x 0.90) of printer
paper can feasibly be source reduced.
Technology Factor. It is assumed that 90 percent
of paper used in laser printers can be reduced
through computer networking, leaving 10 per-
cent of a company's documents as being neces-
sary to be printed out for review, distribution,
or similar purposes. Therefore, the technology
factor is 90 percent.
Program Potential. As shown in Figure 4.1b, the
program potential for reducing office paper
through the use of increased computer network-
ing is estimated to be 690,700 tons per year.
Wooden pallets are used extensively in trans-
portation packaging. Most of these pallets are
designed to be used a number of times, yet a sub-
stantial number are still "single-use." This section
focuses on promoting the replacement of single-use
wooden pallets with reusable or multi-use wooden
pallets.
Multi-use wooden pallets are typically used in
closed-loop delivery systems, such as in grocery
stores—the largest users of multi-use pallets. Closed-
loop systems help guarantee that the multi-use
pallets, which are more durable and expensive than
single-use pallets, are reused as often as possible. The
nature of a delivery system places constraints on
whether a multi-use pallet is a feasible alternative to
single-use pallets. These limitations are addressed in
the discussion below. Recent studies by the National
Recycling Coalition and other organizations have
mentioned alternatives to pallets, including strap-
ping and slip sheets. While these do represent
options for source reduction, the analysis here is
focused on reductions associated with converting to
multi-use pallets.
Program Potential
« General Waste Category. The general waste cate-
gory addressed by converting to multi-use wood-
en pallets. As shown in Table 2.1, the wood ton-
nage reported in the '95 Update is 14.6 million tons.
* Applicability Factor. This factor reduces the
waste tonnage to reflect only the fraction of
national wood generation that is wooden pallets.
According to the '95 Update, 70 percent of wood
generated is wood packaging. Further, 94 percent
of wood packaging generated is pallets. Thus,
the amount of applicable wood waste is 65 per-
cent (0.70 x 0.94).
« Feasibility Factor. The wooden pallet tonnage is
narrowed still further to identify the amount that
feasibly could be reduced. According to the '95
Update, about 48 percent of pallets are single-use.
In addition, not all single-use pallet users can con-
vert to multi-use pallets due to various con-
straints. In theory, all single-use pallets could be
reused. In reality, however, one of the major logis-
tical limitations to developing a multi-use pallet
program is the back hauling necessary to reuse
Figure 4.1b. Program potential for office paper reduction (networking).
General Waste
Category
Paper and
paperboard
generated
81.3 million tons
Applicability
Factor
Percentage of paper
and paperboard that
is used in laser
printers X percentage
of paper used by
CII sector
Feasibility
Factor
Percentage of
businesses/
agencies connected
to LANs that are not
using them to
source reduce
Technology
Factor
Percentage of office
paper that can be
avoided through
networking
Program Potential
690,700 tons
per year
13
-------
pallets within a closed-loop system. Based on this
limitation and similar logistical requirements
involved with establishing such a program, it is
estimated that 50 percent of single-use pallet users
can convert to multi-use pallets. Thus, the portion
of wooden pallets that could feasibly be source
reduced is 24 percent (0.48 x 0.5).
Technology Factor. According to the U.S. Forest
Service Laboratory, multi-use wooden pallets
have a 15 percent loss rate. Single-use pallets,
by definition, have a 100 percent loss rate.
Therefore, a system using only multi-use wood-
en pallets will require only 15 percent of the
pallets of a system using only single-use pallets.
This does not mean that reusable pallets have a
technology factor of 85 percent; an adjustment
must be made for the fact that reusable pallets
are heavier than single-use pallets. According to
the National Wooden Pallet and Container
Association, a multi-use pallet is twice as heavy
as a single-use pallet. The technology factor for
multi-use wooden pallets is 70 percent (1.00 -
[0.15x2.0]).
Program Potential. As shown in Figure 4.2, the
program potential for converting to multi-use
pallets is 1.6 million tons per year.
The CII sector can prevent waste by looking
into paper towel options in restrooms. Source
reduction efforts can include installing roll paper
towel dispensers, cloth towel dispensers, or hot air
dryers. This manual focuses on the program
potential for using roll paper towel dispensers as
one example of a paper towel reduction program.
CASE STUDY:
Cambridge,
Massachusetts
The city of Cambridge, Massachusetts,
recently performed a study to calculate
the potential paper and cost savings for a
paper towel reduction program imple-
mented at its city offices, where it employs
2,605 people. Currently, the city uses
multi-fold paper towels. It estimated that
in order to switch to roll paper towels, it
would need to install 135 dispensers, at
$35.00 each, including the labor required
to install them. The total cost of imple-
mentation would be $4,725.00. Potential
cost savings were estimated to be
$12,488.00 per year. The amount of waste
prevented would be 1.68 million square
feet of paper towels, or 7.5 tons.
Program Potential
General Waste Category. The general category
of waste addressed by paper towel reduction is
paper and paperboard. As shown in Table 2.1,
the paper and paperboard tonnage reported in
the '95 Update is 81.3 million tons.
Applicability Factor. This factor reduces the
waste tonnage to reflect only the tonnage of
national paper and paperboard generation that
is paper towels. According to the American
Forest & Paper Association, 2.0 million tons of
paper towels were produced in 1993. This
Figure 4.2. Program potential for converting to multi-use pallets.
General Waste
Category
Wood
generated
14.6 million tons
Applicability
Factor
Percentage of wood
that is wooden
pallets
Feasibility
Factor
Percentage of
wooden pallets that
are single-use
pallets that can
be replaced by
multi-use pallets
Technology
Factor
Percentage of
savings in wood
tonnage if substitute
multi-use for
single-use pallets
Program Potential
1.6 million tons
per year
14
-------
CII Source Reduction Options
represents about 2.4 percent of total paper and
paperboard waste generation. According to the
'94 Update, 40 percent of paper towel waste is
generated by the CII sector. Thus, the portion of
applicable waste is 1 percent (0.024 x 0.4).
Feasibility Factor. The paper towel tonnage is
narrowed further to identify the percentage that
feasibly can be reduced. According to paper
towel distributors, approximately 60 percent of
paper towel production for the CII market are
multi-fold towels. It is also assumed a small
percentage of establishments will not switch to
roll towels for a variety of reasons. Therefore,
the portion of paper towel waste that could fea-
sibly be reduced is 60 percent.
• Technology Factor. The technology factor
reflects the amount of paper towel reduction
due to switching from multi-fold to roll paper
towels. In a 1994 newsletter article by the
Building Owners and Managers Association
(BOMA) of New York, a paper industry offi-
cial presented a method for estimating the
waste preventable by switching from multi-
fold to roll paper towels. It is estimated that
switching to roll paper towels could reduce
waste by up to 50 percent.
• Program Potential. As shown in Figure 4.3, the
program potential for reducing paper towels by
replacing multi-fold towels with roll paper tow-
els is estimated to be 243,900 tons per year.
Figure 4.3. Program potential for reducing paper towels.
General Waste
Category
Paper and
paperboard
generated
81.3 million tons
Applicability
Factor
Feasibility
Factor
Percentage of
multi-fold paper
towels feasible
to target
Percentage of
paper towels that
are multi-fold
Technology
Factor
Percentage of
paper saved by
switching from
multi-fold to roll
paper towels
Program Potential
243,900 tons
per year
15
-------
-------
Chapter 5
Local Applications
Introduction
he results presented in Chapters 3 and 4
indicate that the program potential for
source reduction at the national level
could be quite large. Table 5.1 summarizes
the national program potential for the six source
reduction options discussed in this manual.
Chapter 5 builds on the previous chapters by
examining how national program potential can be
applied at the local level. This chapter provides
three examples illustrating how solid waste man-
agers can calculate the source reduction program
potential for their own local programs.
Program Potential Factors
The first step in calculating local estimates for
source reduction program potential is to develop
program potential factors. Program potential fac-
tors are derived by dividing the national program
potential for a specific source reduction option
(e.g., grasscycling), as shown in Table 5.1, by the
total waste generated from the corresponding
waste category (e.g., residential yard trimmings),
as shown in Table 2.1. Therefore, the program
potential factor for residential grasscycling is 33.1
percent, or
9.1 million tons (national program potential) \
27.5 million tons (residential yard trimmings)/
Table 5.2 presents the program potential factors
for all MSW, residential waste, and commercial
waste.
With these program potential factors in hand,
local managers can use any mixture of national
and local data to estimate source reduction pro-
gram potential for their communities. Tables 5.3
and 5.4 provide default data taken from the '94
Update. Managers will need to use these tables as
they proceed to develop their local source reduc-
tion program potential estimates.
The following three examples help illustrate
how program potential factors can be applied to
local conditions. They explain how to estimate
local waste stream composition, and then how to
compute local program potential.
Table 5. 1. National Program Potential for Six Source Reduction Options
Source Reduction Option
Grasscycling
Home composting
Clothing reuse
Office paper prevention
Converting to multi-use pallets
Paper towel reduction
TOTAL
Component of MSW
Yard trimmings
Food scraps & yard trimmings
Other
Paper and paperboard
Wood
Paper and paperboard
National Program Potential
(Million Tons per Year)
9.1
13.0
1.6
1.3
1.6
0.2
26.8
17
-------
Chapter 5
Table 5.2. Program Potential Factors
Source Reduction General Waste
Option Category
Program Potential Factors (Percent) for
All MSW Residential Commercial
Waste Waste
Grasscycling
Home composting
Clothing reuse
Office paper prevention:
Duplexing
Networking
Total
Converting to multi-use
pallets
Paper towel reduction
Yard trimmings
Food scraps
Yard trimmings
Other
Paper and paperboard
Wood
Paper and paperboard
29.7
26.9
30.1
8.2
0.8
0.8
1.6
11.0
0.3
33.1
54.3
33.5
16.0
1.4
1.5
2.9
14.4
0.5
Table 5.3. Default Waste Composition (Percent by Weight)—National Default Data
Composition (Percent)
Waste Category
Residential
CM
All MSW
Paper and paperboard
Glass
Metals
Plastics
Wood
Food scraps
Yard trimmings
Other
30
9
9
13
3
6
23
7
51
3
6
5
13
8
4
10
39
6
8
9
7
7
15
9
Total
100
100
100
Table 5.4. Waste Generation—National Default Data
Generation Rate (Tons/Year)
Sector
Per Person
Per Household
Residential
0.5
1.3
All MSW
0.8
2.2
Scenario 1: Anywhere
Background: In Anywhere, the local solid waste
manager handles the entire MSW stream amounting
to 40,000 tons a year. The manager has no local data
on waste stream composition. However, as its name
suggests, Anywhere's waste stream can be expected
to be similar in composition to the national average.
The manager can apply national waste composition
data to the program potential factors for 'All MSW
to estimate program potential for the six options.
Determine the Waste Composition: Because
Anywhere's solid waste manager does not know
the current waste composition, he can use national
waste composition data from the '95 Update (see
Table 5.3) to estimate local waste composition. The
solid waste manager applies the percentages to the
40,000 tons to determine his annual waste composi-
tion. The results are presented in Table 5.5.
18
-------
Local Applications
Table 5.5. Anywhere — Waste Composition \
General Waste Waste Waste
Category Composition Composition
(Percent) (Tons)
Paper and
paperboard 39 15,600
Glass 6 2,400
Metals 8 3,200
Plastics 9 3,600
Wood 7 2,800
Food scraps 7 2,800
Yard trimmings 15 6,000
Other 9 3,600
Total 100 40,000
Apply the Program Potential Factors: The manager
estimates the local program potential for the six
source reduction options included in this manual by
applying the 'All MSW program potential factors
from Table 5.2 to the waste composition calculated in
Table 5.5. His calculation is shown in Table 5.6.
Program Potential: The total program potential
for Anywhere is 4,702 tons, or about 12 percent of
Anywhere's waste stream.
The only subtle point in Table 5.6 is the devel-
opment of the tonnage of yard trimmings avail-
able for home composting. To avoid double
counting, the 1,782 tons of grass that might be
grasscycled is removed from the 6,000 tons of yard
trimmings to which home composting might oth-
erwise apply.
The general approach taken for Anywhere
does not depend on managing all MSW. This
two-step approach can also be taken if the local
Table 5.6. Anywhere — Program Potential
Source Reduction General Waste
UP"°" Category
Grasscycling Yard trimmings
Home composting Food scraps
Yard trimmings
Clothing reuse Other
Office paper prevention Paper and paperboard
Converting to multi-use Wood
pallets
Paper towel reduction Paper and paperboard
Total
Table 5.7. Commuterburgh — Grasscycling •
Population 50,000
Tons per person per year x 0.5
Waste generation (tons) = 25,000
Yard trimmings (percent) x 0.23
Yard trimmings (tons) = 5,750
Program potential factor (percent) x 0.331
Program potential for grasscycling (tons/yr) = 1,903
Program Program
Potential Potential
Tonnage Factor (Percent) (Tons)
6,000 29.7 1,782
2,800 26.9 753
4,218 30.1 1,270
3,600 8.1 292
15,600 1.6 250
2,800 11.0 308
15,600 0.3 47
4,702
manager knows the tonnage from the residential
or CII sectors. Waste composition percentages
and program potential factors for the 'residential'
or 'CII sector' would simply be used in place of
the 'All MSW' data.
Scenario 2: Commuterburgh
Background: In Commuterburgh, population
50,000, a group of local citizens is interested in
promoting grasscycling to reduce the residential
19
-------
Chapter 5
waste stream. The group can use national data on
generation, composition, and source reduction,
together with their limited local data, to evaluate
the savings possible from grasscycling.
Determine the Waste Composition: Without any
information on local waste generation available, the
group can use national data to estimate the local
program potential for grasscycling. The composi-
tion and generation data used in Table 5.7 are taken
from Tables 5.3 and 5.4.
Apply the Program Potential Factors: The group
then multiplies the total tons of yard trimmings by
the program potential factor for residential grass-
cycling to estimate the program potential.
Program Potential: The program potential for grass-
cycling in Commuterburgh is 1,903 tons per year.
Scenario 3: Fullville
Background: In Fullville, the local solid waste
manager is responsible for residential and CII
waste. She is interested in applying several of the
CII program potential factors to the 10,000 tons of
CII waste she manages. Unlike the manager in
Anywhere, the manager knows the composition
data and even knows that there are 200 tons of
pallets in the waste stream.
Determine Waste Composition: The development
of the CII waste composition for Fullville is shown
in Table 5.8.
Apply Program Potential Factors: In Table 5.9, the
tonnage of general waste is drawn from Table 5.8.
With the exception of converting to multi-use pal-
lets, the program potential factors are the CII fac-
tors from Table 5.2. For multi-use pallets, the
program potential factor needs to be customized
to reflect the fact that there are 200 tons of pallets
in the local waste stream.
Based on the information from Chapter 4,
Figure 4.2 shows that the program potential for
converting to multi-use pallets is the product of
applicability, feasibility, and technology factors.
The applicability factor is the "percentage" of
wood that is wooden pallets. Here the manager
knows the actual tonnage. To figure the percent-
age, the manager divides the total number of tons
of pallets by the total number of tons of wood
waste. Based on the waste composition shown in
Table 5.8, 19 percent (200 + 1,060 = 0.19) of the
wood waste is pallets. Multiplying by the feasibili-
ty (24 percent) and technology (70 percent) factors,
and dividing by the percent commercial waste cat-
egory (see Table 6.1) or 76 percent, the manager
figures the custom program potential factor of 4.2
percent shown in Table 5.9.
Program Potential: For Fullville's CII waste, the
local program potential for three source reduction
programs is 249 tons per year.
Having completed the analysis of program
potential, the manager also wishes to consider the
Table 5.8. Fullville— CII Waste Composition
General
Waste
Category
Paper and
paperboard
Glass
Metals
Plastics
Wood
Food scraps
Yard trimmings
Other
Total
Waste
Composition
(Percent)
60.0
2.5
4.6
4.1
10.6
6.5
3.3
8.4
100
Final
Composition
(Tons)
6,000
250
460
410
1,060
650
330
840
10,000
savings that might be achieved if a source reduc-
tion program were implemented for office paper.
In preparing an analysis of cost savings, Fullville's
manager needs to estimate the following:
• The percentage of the program potential that
could be achieved during the first year of
implementation. Based on experiences with oth-
er source reduction programs, the manager feels
that Fullville could achieve 30 percent of the
program potential for the community.
• The cost of the source reduction program.
Fullville's manager has budgeted $500.00 for
the costs of an office paper prevention program.
• The avoided system costs of a source reduction
program. A source reduction program will
affect the tonnage of materials recycled and dis-
posed of. For instance, the revenue currently
being generated in Fullville for its office paper
recycling program will decrease after a source
20
-------
Local Applications
Table 5.9. Fullville—CII Program Potential
Source Reduction
Option
Office paper prevention
Converting to multi-use
pallets
Paper towel reduction
Total
"Custom program potential
General Waste
Category Tonnage
Paper and paperboard 6,000
Wood 1,060
Paper and paperboard 6,000
factor (see page 20).
Program
Potential
Factor (Percent)
2.9
4.2*
0.5
Program
Potential
(Tons/Yr)
174
45
30
249
reduction program is in place. Whether this lost
revenue is included in the net savings calcula-
tion depends on the perspective of the program
implementor. Other costs, such as collection and
processing costs, may also fluctuate, since there
will be fewer materials for trash and recycling
crews to collect. These costs will vary in each
community, and will have to be estimated by
managers if actual figures are not available.
In order to estimate the net savings of a pro-
gram, Fullville's manager will also need to ana-
lyze the following:
— The percentage of office paper that is current-
ly recycled. Fullville estimates that it is recy-
cling 20 percent of its office paper.
— The price per ton (revenue or net benefit)
from an office paper recycling program.
Fullville is receiving $10.00 a ton for office
paper.
— The tipping fee or disposal costs for the com-
munity. The tipping fee at Fullville's landfill
is $35.00 a ton.
When estimating net savings, the manager
begins with the local program potential factor for
office paper prevention. The program potential for
office paper prevention in Fullville is 174 tons.
Based on her professional judgment, Fullville's
manager feels that the community could achieve
30 percent of the program potential. To derive the
potential tons preventable, the manager multiplies
the program potential by the percent achievable to
obtain 52.2 tons (174x0.3).
To determine the financial impact of an office
paper program, Fullville's manager considers the
current waste management costs.
The Fullville manager decides that the collec-
tion costs are insignificant and is not factoring in
these costs. Collection costs could include labor,
vehicle maintenance, gasoline use, and other bud-
get concerns.
Then, the manager considers avoided disposal
costs. Since Fullville currently recycles 20 percent
of its office paper, it is assumed that 80 percent is
disposed of. Therefore, 80 percent of the estimated
source reduction of office paper, or 41.8 tons (52.2
x 0.8), will not be disposed of. Given a tipping fee
of $35.00 a ton, the Fullville manager multiplies
the amount of paper source reduced by the dispos-
al cost, which equals $1,463.00 (41.8 tons x $35.00).
The Fullville manager knows that the business
community recycles 20 percent of its office paper.
To derive the amount of paper that will no longer
be recycled due to a source reduction program, the
manager multiplies the amount achievable by the
percent currently being recycled. This is 10.4 tons
(52.2 tons x 0.2). She also knows that the paper
recycling program is profitable, generating a net
revenue of $10.00 a ton. Once the source reduction
program is implemented, Fullville will no longer
receive the revenue from this portion of the paper
reduced. Thus, with the office paper source reduc-
tion program in operation, Fullville will not gener-
ate $104.00 (10.4 x $10.00) a year in revenues.
21
-------
Chapter 5
Table 5.10. FuHvifle—Net Savings of an Office Paper Prevention Program
Net Savings Calculations
Source Reduction Option:
Program Potential
Percent Achievable
Amount Preventable
Impact on Current Waste Management Costs:
Impact on collection costs
Impact on disposal costs
Impact on revenues from recycling
Total
Program Costs
Total:
Net Savings
Office Paper Prevention
174 tons
30%
52.2 tons
$0.00
$1,463.00
($ 104.00)
$1,359.00
($ 500.00)
$ 859.00
Next, the manager plans to engage in a pro-
gram of educational outreach, informing the busi-
ness community about the savings it could achieve
through office paper reduction. She budgets
$500.00 for the first year's program.
Finally, the manager computes the net impact of
the source reduction program, taking into account
the loss of recycling revenues as well as the avoid
ed disposal costs. The result is $1,359.00 ($1,463.00
- $104.00). Subtracting the program costs, the man-
ager finds that the town will save $859 per year
($1,359-$500).
In accounting for current waste management
costs, the cost for composting would be similar to
those for recycling. First, the manager would esti-
mate the percentage of materials that are currently
being composted. This percentage, multiplied by
the tonnage to be prevented by a source reduction
program (52.2 tons) would yield the total tonnage
composted. The associated cost impact can be
found by multiplying the tonnage composted by
the net cost or revenue due to composting the
paper. This cost would be added to the estimate of
the program impact on current waste management
cosls.
22
-------
Chapter 6
Worksheets
Introduction
The five worksheets included in this chapter are
used to calculate:
« Waste generation
« Waste composition
« Program potential
« Net savings
« Custom program potential factors
The first three worksheets are designed to help
managers calculate the local program potential for
source reduction. The last two worksheets allow
managers to evaluate associated savings and
develop 'custom' program potential factors. For a
copy of the companion software that allows the
user to perform these calculations automatically,
contact the RCRA Hotline at 800 424-9346.
These worksheets enable managers to calculate
the tonnage of waste generated in the sector (e.g.,
residential, CII, or all MSW) they are analyzing.
Managers have three options for developing this
tonnage:
1. Estimating generation directly.
2. Adding estimates of the tonnage recycled, com-
posted, and disposed of as trash.
3. Estimating the tonnage based on either the pop-
ulation or the number of households in their
locality. This option can be used only if man-
agers are analyzing the residential sector or all
MSW.
Options 2 and 3 require simple calculations.
Worksheets Al and A2 are provided for this
purpose.
Managers who use the third option will need to
specify the unit (population or households) on
which the calculation will be based. Their choice
will be based on the availability of local data. Tons
of waste generated per resident (or per household)
can be based on the national EPA default data, as
shown in Table 5.4, or on local data.
This worksheet enables managers to develop
waste composition data for the sector they are
analyzing.
Worksheet B has been designed to make use of
available local data on generation and waste stream
composition. At the bottom of the column headed
'Final Composition,' managers should enter their
estimate of the total tonnage of waste generated.
Next, the number of tons collected for any of the
eight waste categories, if known, should be entered
in the 'Known Composition' and 'Final
Composition' columns. If managers know the ton-
nage for each of these categories, they are finished
with Worksheet B once they enter the tonnages in
the 'Known Composition' and 'Final Composition'
columns.
Managers lacking local data will need to rely on
default data. Table 5.3 provides national default
data on the percent of the waste stream for each
waste category. In the column headed 'Default
Composition (Percent by Weight),' managers
should enter the default percentage for each waste
category. They can then multiply each percentage
by the total tonnage (shown at the bottom of the
'Final Composition' column) and enter the results
in the column headed 'Default Composition
(Tons/Year).' They are then finished with
Worksheet B.
23
-------
Chapter 6
C:
This worksheet enables managers to develop
estimates of program potential for the sectors they
are analyzing.
To use Worksheet C, managers should first
enter the waste tonnage to which each source
reduction option will apply. This tonnage can be
taken from the 'Final Composition' column on
Worksheet B. In the case of home composting,
managers may wish to adjust the composition
data. They can decide whether food scraps are
included in the home composting program. They
can also decide to reduce the portion of yard trim-
mings included in the program, by adjusting to
avoid double-counting with grasscycling, for
example. To do this, managers will need to com-
pute the program potential for grasscycling and
subtract the results from the tonnage of yard trim-
mings available for home composting.
Once the tonnage for each waste category is
specified, completing Worksheet C simply requires
selecting the program potential factors, as shown
in Table 5.2. Alternatively, managers can develop
custom factors for some or all of the source reduc-
tion options using Worksheet E.
This worksheet allows managers to estimate the
net savings they might expect through source
reduction. The worksheet is designed to address
one source reduction option at a time. The
Fullville scenario (see pages 20-22) takes the reader
through a step-by-step analysis of how to com-
plete this worksheet.
This worksheet provides an opportunity to
develop 'custom' program potential factors that
can be used in place of the standard factors shown
in Table 5.2. Solid waste managers may want to
develop custom program potential factors to
reflect local data or information. For instance, a
manager might want to change the technology fac-
tor in order to capture known information on a
community's current yard trimmings program. In
order to develop custom factors, managers must
change the inputs, or the applicability, feasibility,
or technology factors, in the standard program
potential factors. These inputs, as well as the
resulting standard factors, are shown in Table 6.1.
Continuing with the yard trimmings scenario, a
manager knows that he would want to change the
technology factor from 100 percent to 80 percent.
In order to customize the program potential factor,
the calculation is computed as follows:
0.45 x
(Applicability
factor)
0.66 x
(Feasibility
factor)
0.80 = 0.238
(Technology (All MSW
factor) factor)
To develop a residential program potential
factor for yard trimmings, the "All MSW" factor
must then be divided by 90 percent (to reflect the
percentage of yard trimmings generated by the
residential sector in Table 6.1), or 0.90, as
follows:
0.238 + 0.90 = 0.264
(All MSW factor) (Residential) (Residential grasscycling
factor)
If a manager wanted to develop a yard trim-
mings program potential factor for CII, then the
"All MSW" factor would then be divided by 10
percent.
Any of the other program potential factors pre-
sented in this manual may also be customized to
take advantage of known local data and expertise.
24
-------
Worksheets
Worksheet A1. Waste Generation
Total tonnage of garbage collected
Total tonnage of recyclables collected
Total tonnage of compostables collected
Total waste generated
Worksheet A2. Waste Generation
Number of units in your jurisdiction
Tons of waste generated per unit per year
Total tonnage of waste generated
X
Worksheet B. Waste Composition
Default Default Known Final
Waste Composition Composition Composition Composition
Category (Percent by Weight) (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year)
Paper and
paperboard
Glass
Metals
Plastics
Wood
Food scraps
Yard trimmings
Other
Total
Worksheet C, Program Potential
Source Reduction
Option
Grasscycling
Home composting
Clothing reuse
Office paper
Multi-use pallets
Paper towels
Total
General
Waste
Category Tons
Yard trimmings
Food scraps
Yard trimmings
Other
Paper and paperboard
Wood
Paper and paperboard
Program
Potential Program
Factor Potential
25
-------
Chapter 6
Worksheet D. Net Savings
Net Savings
Source Reduction Option
_tons
tons
Source Reduction Option:
A Program Potential
B Percent Achievable
C Amount Preventable
Impact on Current Waste Management Costs:
D Impact on collection costs $
E Impact on disposal costs $
F Impact on revenues from recycling (including composting) $
Total $
G Program Costs ($
Total:
H Net Savings $
Footnotes
A=Program potential estimate.
B=User estimate of first year program impact.
C=AxB
D=User estimate of the impact of the source reduction option on collection costs.
E=User estimate of the impact of the source reduction option on disposal costs.
F=User estimate of the lost revenues from recycling (including composting) due to the estimated impact of the source reduction
option.
G=Annual source reduction option operating cost or budget estimate.
H=D+E-F-G
26
-------
Worksheets
Table 6.1. Standard Program Potential Factors
Waste Stream Data
General
Source Waste
Reduction Option Category
% of General
Waste Category
Residential or Applicability Feasibility Technology
Commercial Factor Factor Factor
Program Potential Factors
(Percent) for
All Residential Commercial
MSW Waste Waste
Residential
Grasscycling
Home composting
Clothing reuse
Yard trimmings
Food scraps
Yard trimmings
Other
90%
50%
90%
51%
45
36
81
8.3
66
74
74
97
100
100
100
100
29.7
26.9
30.1*
8.2
33.1
54.3
33.5*
16.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Commercial
Office paper
Duplexing
Computer networks
Total
Multi-use pallets
Paper towels
Paper/paperboard
Wood
Paper/paperboard
55%
55%
76%
55%
2.6
1.6
65
1
58
59
24
60
50
90
70
50
0.8
0.8
1.6
11.0
0.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.4
1.5
2.9
14.4
0.5
: excluding the national program potential for grasscycling.
Worksheet E. Custom Program Potential Factors
Waste Stream Data
Program Potential Factors
(Percent) for
General
Source Waste
Reduction Option Category
% of General
Waste Category
Residential or Applicability Feasibility Technology All Residential Commercial
Commercial Factor Factor Factor MSW Waste Waste
Residential
Grasscycling Yard trimmings
Home composting Food scraps
Yard trimmings
Clothing reuse Other
Commercial
Office paper Paper/paperboard
Duplexing
Computer networks
Total
Multi-use pallets Wood
Paper towels Paper/paperboard
27
-------
-------
------- |