xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water &
Waste Management
Washington DC 20460
SW 822
December 1979
Solid Waste
Multi material
Source Separation
in Marblehead and
Somerville, Massachusetts
Collection and Marketing
Volume II
-------
An environmental protection publication (SW-822) in the solid waste
management series. Mention of commercial products does not constitute
endorsement by the U.S. Government. Editing and technical content of this
report were the responsibilities of the State Programs and Resource Recovery
Division of the Office of Solid Waste.
Single copies of this publication are available from Solid Waste
Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH 45268.
-------
MULTIMATERIAL SOURCE SEPARATION
IN MARBLEHEAD AND SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS
Collection and Marketing
Volume II
This report (SW-822) was prepared
under contract no. 68-01-3964
for the Office of Solid Waste
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1979
-------
MULTIMATERIAL SOURCE SEPARATION REPORT SERIES
This volume is one in a series of reports about the
demonstration of multimaterial source separation in
Marblehead and Somerville, Massachusetts. The series
presents the key results of demonstration programs
initiated and funded by the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency in 1975. Intended to provide local
governments and the interested public with useful
information for planning, implementing, and operating
their own source separation programs, the reports in
the series cover a range of issues related to source
separation. The reports are:
The Community Awareness Program in Marblehead
and Somerville, Massachusetts (SW-551)
Collection and Marketing (SW-822)
Composition of Source-Separated Materials and Refuse (SW-823)
Energy Use and Savings from Source-Separated Materials
and Other Solid Waste Management Alternatives for
Marblehead (SW-824)
Citizen Attitudes toward Source Separation (SW-825)
Any suggestions, comments, or questions should be
directed to the Resource Recovery Branch (WH-563),.
Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Resource Planning Associates, Inc. conducted the
studies and prepared this series under contract no.
68-01-3964.
-------
Acknowledgements
It is difficult to acknowledge the great number of
people who contributed to the success of this study of
source separation in Somerville and Marblehead,
Massachusetts. However, we would like to thank the
following people for their help: Mr. Raymond Reedf
Marblehead Board of Health; Mr. John Clement, MATCON
Recycling; Mr. Pat Scanlon, Northshore Recycled
Fibers, Inc.; and Ms. Penelope Hansen, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
Henri-Claude Bailly, Project Director
Lawrence Oliva, P.E., Project Manager
-------
Contents
CHAPTER
PAGE
TITLE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 2
11
1
9
9
15
17
24
31
31
34
39
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED
MATERIALS
Selecting Collection Equipment
Determining Collection Procedures
Problems With Collection
Overcoming Collection Problems
MARKETING SOURCE-SEPARATED
MATERIALS
Selecting Markets
Problems with Markets
Overcoming Marketing Problems
APPENDIX A
Material Recovery and Demonstra-
tion Program Costs and Savings
-------
Introduction
Communities across the nation are facing steadily
increasing problems with disposal of the solid waste
generated by their residents. As suburban areas grow,
landfill sites are becoming scarce and, therefore,
costly. Requirements for controlling pollution also
add to the cost of operating local incinerators and
Z^on113' In an effort to lower costs and to reduce
the '20- to 30-percent increase projected for the
national waste stream by 1985, local communities are
seeking solid waste disposal alternatives that conserve
material and energy resources and that can reduce the
amount of waste being disposed.
In the early 1970s, several communities established
recycling centers where residents could bring paper,
glass, and cans. Other communities tried collecting
newspapers that residents separated from their trash
and put at the curb. Many of these programs are still
operating. However, recycling centers generally
recover only about 2 percent of the paper, cans, and
glass available in the solid waste stream. Multimaterial
curbside collection programs can generate more
revenue and divert more waste from disposal than
either paper programs or recycling centers.
Multimaterial source separation involves separating
household waste into recyclable components, such as
paper, cans, glass, and refuse. It makes possible
the recycling of up to 25 percent of the waste
stream. Despite the apparent benefits of multi-
material collection, however, many communities fear
that a curbside multimaterial program would require
sophisticated collection equipment and arrangemenhs
with several waste material buyers, and would be
inconvenient for citizens. As a result, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided to'test
the feasibility of multimaterial curbside collection
by funding a demonstration project.
-------
INTRODUCTION
In June 1975, the EPA awarded 3-year grants to the
communities of Marblehead and Somerville, Massachusetts,
to demonstrate source separation through curbside
collection of paper, cans, and glass. These grants
provided sufficient funds to enable the two municipalities
to purchase the necessary equipment and to retain
planning, documentation, and reporting assistance,,
The two communities offered EPA an excellent opportunity
to analyze the collection and marketing of a variety
of recyclable materials in an urban and a suburban
setting. EPA sought to determine whether a multimaterial
source separation program could attract high rates of
resident participation and be conducted economically.
Marblehead is an affluent suburban community in the
Boston metropolitan area with a population of 23,000
and a density of 5,200 persons per square mile.
Seventy percent of the families live in single-family
homes or apartments, and 85 percent own their residences.
The median income is $12,600 per year, and the median
education level is 13.2 years (1970).
Somerville is an urban community also within the Boston
metropolitan area, with a population of 90,000 and a
density of 22,600 persons per square mile, one of the
highest in the nation. Single-family homes house 10
percent of the families in Somerville; most of the
remaining people live in two-, and three-, and
four-family homes. Sixty-five percent of the families
rent their own homes. The median income is $9,600
per year, and the median education level is 11.6
years (1970).
Marblehead had previous experience with a multimaterial
collection program, and the demonstration had enabled
the town to increase its material recovery rates by
using a special collection vehicle. Although Somerville
had no previous recycling experience, it had been
designated an "All American City" by the National
League of Cities and Towns for its active community
participation in the local governing process. EPA
officials, therefore, felt that Somerville was a
prime target for an urban recycling program requiring
a high level of citizen participation.
-------
INTRODUCTION
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS
Although Marblehead had had an organized source-separation
program since 1972, the original program was limited to
monthly collection of each of four materials. One
week paper was collected; the following week, cans; the
next week, clear glass; and the fourth week, green
glass. During certain holidays, no materials were
collected. The collection schedule was confusing and
residents were required to carefully prepare materials
by washing bottles, removing labels and rings, and so
on. Publicity for the program was limited.
On January 12, 1976, Marblehead initiated a new,
substantially improved collection program: Recycle
Plus. The new multimaterial program was preceded by
extensive public education/public relations activities
and offered a much better collection service.
Although source separation was mandatory in Marblehead
under the old program, and still is, participation.
since January 12, 1976 has more than doubled. This
indicates that good public relations are needed to
make a legislated program work.
In Marblehead, residents place three bundles flat
paper, clear glass and cans, and colored glass and
cans at the curb for collection on source-separation
days, which are different than regular trash collec-
tion days. As in Somerville, no other preparation is
necessary. Special crews with three-compartment
trucks pick up the materials. In addition to the
weekly collection of source-separated materials,
Marblehead has open bins at the site of the former
town landfill to which residents can bring their
materials. The success of Recycle Plus helped the
town to reduce the frequency of regular refuse
collection from twice per week to once per week. The
town also was able to reduce the equipment and labor
needs of its regular refuse collection program.
In Somerville, collection of source-separated materials
began on December 1, 1975. In Somerville, residents
put flat paper and a mixture of clear glass and cans
at the curb next to their other refuse on the regular
weekly collection day. In 1976, Somerville began to
-------
INTRODUCTION
collect colored glass as well. Residents were
required only to sort waste into categories. The
paper and the glass and can mixtures were then
picked up by special town crews. Somerville was
paid by the ton for the source-separated materials
it delivered to a secondary materials market.
Participation in the program by Somerville residents
was voluntary; public education/public relations
program encouraged participation.
Somerville suspended its source-separation program
for the winter early in December 1976, as a result of
collection problems caused by severe weather. The
program was suspended for two weeks in the summer of
1976 because of a labor strike and again during the
winter of 1977-1978. The political leadership in
Somerville changed in January 1977, and it was not
until April 24, 1977, that Somerville was able to
resume the source-separation program.
Both Somerville and Marblehead sold their recovered
materials to a broker who further separated, cleaned,
and compressed them for resale to industrial markets.
Intermediate processing simplified the collection
process: residents could put their materials at the
curb without having to remove labels from bottles or
separate ferrous from nonferrous cans and crews could
load materials without having to further sort them.
Intermediate processing made it possible for Marblehead
and Somerville to recover seven types of recyclable
materials: newspaper; mixed flat paper; clear,
green, and brown glass; ferrous cans; and nonferrous
cans. EPA was interested in evaluating the results
of intermediate processing, a new concept designed
especially as a market for Marblehead's and Somerville's
recyclables.
During the demonstration period, Marblehead consistently
recovered over 150 tons of recyclables per month,
including more than half of the newsprint and glass
from the town's waste stream. Marblehead's program
is still operating and saving the town money.
Somerville recovered about 200 tons per month or 8
percent of its waste stream in the first year; about
-------
INTRODUCTION
170 tons per month over 9 months the second year, and
only about 70 tons per month over 3 months in the
third year. Somerville's program was stopped in June
1978 because it lost the market for its materials,
and became a burden on the city.
After 2-1/2 years in the demonstration, Marblehead's
program had saved the town over $45,000 and Somerville's
program had lost $60,000. Between 55 and 60 percent
of the revenue from both programs was generated from
the savings in solid waste disposal costs. Marblehead's
disposal costs were $18.95 per ton, over twice as
much as those of Somerville: $9.40 per ton.* If
Somerville's disposal cost had been the same as
Marblehead's, its program would have lost only about
$5,000 over the demonstration period.
Salient features of the Somerville and Marblehead
programs are summarized below:
Somerville
Marblehead
Program name
Materials collected
Recyclables collec-
tion frequency
Refuse collection
frequency
"Somerville
Saves"
Flat paper
Cans and mixed
glass
Weekly
Weekly
"Recycle Plus"
Flat paper
Cans and clear
glass
Cans and colored
glass
Weekly
Weekly
* Disposal costs include transfer, haul to landfill,
and landfill disposal services.
-------
INTROnnCTTON
Recycling crews
Refuse crews
Collection vehicles
Two 3-man
crews, one 4-
man crew
Nine 3-man crews
Compartmentali zed
trucks with rear-
loading hydraulic
buckets; 2 compart-
ments
Two 2-man crews
Three 3-man crews
Compartmentalized
trucks with rear-
loading hydraulic
buckets; 3 compart-
ments
Disposal cost
per ton including
cost of transportation
from the transfer
station to landfill
$9.40
$18.95
Conclusions on the
Program's Collection
and Marketing Systems
The demonstration tested innovative ways for communities
to collect and market paper, glass, and cans.
Somerville and Marblehead found that the compartmental-
ized collection vehicle was an excellent vehicle to
recover paper, cans, and glass from the curb. To
improve its performance, they made several changes in
the design of the compartments and dumping mechanism.
Collection crews were most efficient in Marblehead,
where recyclables were collected on a different day
than refuse. In Somerville, where refuse and recyclables
were collected on the same day, crews often lost time
opening containers to identify their contents. In
order for refuse and recyclables to be collected
separately, however, residents had to be able to
store their refuse between collections. Marblehead
residents could store their refuse for a week;
Somerville residents required biweekly collection.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Somerville and Marblehead found that they could
maximize the volume of recyclables they collected by
selling them to an intermediate market. Householders
were more willing to separate recyclables that did
not require any special preparation. The intermediate
market, however, paid lower prices than those that
industrial buyers paid for purer materials. The
revenue that Somerville and Marblehead received for
mixed cans and glass were approximately one-third
what these products would have brought had they not
been mixed. For Marblehead, revenues from the
market, coupled with high disposal cost savings, were
sufficient to offset the costs of the program's
special equipment and labor. For Somerville, which
had lower disposal costs and collected a smaller
volume of recyclables, they were not.
The experiences of the two communities showed that
aggressive public education, coupled with realistic
planning, can make or break a successful program. In
Marblehead, extensive public relations and improved
collection doubled participation from its previous
program. In Somerville, collection delays could have
been prevented had the program been implemented in a
section of the city before being implemented citywide.
Provisions to collect recyclables after snowstorms,
or to inform residents at the start of the program
that collection would be suspended, would have
relieved much confusion. A later campaign to inform
residents when and how the program would be resumed
would have revived public interest and made possible
continuing participation.
The communities' selection of equipment, their
collection systems, their collection problems, and
ways to resolve these problems are described in
Chapter 1. Chapter 2 covers the intermediate process-
ing concept and the problems and solutions of marketing
the materials collected. Appendix A provides data
tabulations on the quantities of recyclable materials
recovered, and the costs and savings of the programs
over the demonstration period.
-------
-------
1
COLLECTING SOURGE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
In designing the collection system for their source
separation programs, Somerville and Marblehead officials
considered Marblehead's previous recycling program,
citizens' preferences, and the advice offered by EPA
and the consultants to the program. After collection
began, both communities experienced numerous problems
in 1) implementing the program, 2) dealing with
difficulties independent of the program, and 3) using
the new equipment. Municipal officials, EPA, and the
program consultants corrected or took note of problems
as they arose in order to prevent other communities
from repeating them.
SELECTING COLLECTION EQUIPMENT
Municipal officials in Somerville and Marblehead were
anxious to make their source separation programs
convenient and simple for residents. Therefore, they
decided to collect materials once a week and studied
equipment such as racks mounted on existing refuse
trucks, rear-loading compactor trucks, and compartmen-
talized vehicles (Exhibit 1.a) to determine which
would be best suited for weekly collection.
Racks mounted on existing refuse trucks are inexpensive;
refuse crews can easily collect and unload paper set
at the curb. But the racks, which have a limited
capacity of 1 to 2 cubic yards each and fill much
faster than the refuse portion of the truck, can be
used only for newspaper collection. Rear-loading
compactor trucks, to collect recyclables separate from
refuse, are reliable, but they can pick up only one
material at a time. This requires crews to travel
-------
Exhibit 1.a
Collection Equipment Options
OPTION
DESCRIPTION
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Color coded bags
Compartmentalized vehicle
(With compaction)
Compartmentalized vehicle
(No compaction)
Container train
Open dump truck
Racks
Rear loading packer
Side loading packer
Trailer
Different materials are put In plastic bags
according to a color code, then collected
together in a separate truck.
Refuse and materials are picked up during
regular collection and put in a truck which
has two distinct parts.
Materials are separately collected by a truck
that has two distinct parts.
Materials are picked up during regular
collection and put in a trailer holding
several containers.
Materials are separately collected by open
dump trucks.
Materials are picked up during regular
collection and put onto racks located on
the sides of the truck.
Materials are separately collected by rear
loading packers.
Materials are separately collected by side
loading packers.
Materials are picked up during regular
collection and put into a trailer hauled by the
collection truck.
No investment in equipment is necessary
Protects papers from rain
No disturbance of actual collection system
Minimize incremental collection time
High capacity
Costs roughly identical to above
Permits collection of two or more materials
Safe and efficient operation
Best for many levels of separation
Easy to unload in transfer locations
Lowest cost for separate collection
Well adapted for high-density materials
Small investment required
NO additional work force required
Fits into present system
Low loading height :
Can use spare refuse packers
High capacity
Can be used by one-man crew
Less expensive than rear loading packers
Can use spare refuse packers
No capacity limit as with racks
Fits into present system
No additional work force required
Bags can burst, resulting In a mixing and a
contamination of materials
No visual inspection of material quality
Unloading and sorting is labor-intensive
Bags could be confusing to collectors
Important investment in new vehicles
(not yet available commercially)
Replacement of present fleet required
Equipment is available but not technically
proven
Hampers rear loading
Difficulty of maneuvering
Crew safety problems
Refuse and recyclable disposal points should
be closely located
Limited capacity
High loading height
Littering risk (paper in particular)
Multiple pass required for several categories
of recyclables
Only adapted to small and dense materials
Operational problems when the rack fills
up before the refuse container
Can service at most two categories of
recyelables
Vehicles expensive to purchase new and to
maintain
Multiple pass required for several categories
of. materials
High cost to maintain
Multiple pass required for several categories
of materials
Loading time longer than with racks
Hampers rear loading
Difficulty of maneuvering :
Crew safety problems
SOURCE: Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
11
their routes once for each recyclable material collected,
Somerville would have needed four compactor trucks to
collect two categories of materials from its residents,
and Marblehead would have required even more trucks to
collect three categories of materials. Furthermore,
recyclable materials are dense and do not need to be
compacted.
Municipal officials decided that, for their needs,
compartmentalized vehicles were the most efficient,
safe, and cost-effective. The vehicles can be used to
collect more than one material at a time, allowing
residents to put all their recyclables at the curb on
one collection day. In addition, the crews could make
one trip to the materials market with a large load of
several kinds of recyclables.
Somerville and Marblehead paid $20,000 for each of
their compartmentalized vehicles from Rendispos
Corporation of La Rose, Illinois, which is about the
same price as that of a compactor truck of comparable
size. The trucks would now cost about $30,000. These
vehicles were designed to carry butcher meat renderings,
but their size and operating characteristics were
appropriate for the demonstration programs. The
vehicles had standard chassis and cabs but the bodies
were specially fabricated for Marblehead by the
manufacturer to include two movable aluminum partitions
forming three compartments; Somerville's vehicles had
one partition forming two compartments. A hydraulically
raised compartmentalized bucket was used to dump
recyclables into the truck. (See Exhibit 1.b for
vehicle specifications, and Exhibits 1.c and 1.d for
diagrams of the communities' vehicles.)
Based on estimates of the productivity of these
vehicles and the amount of materials to be collected,
Somerville officials decided that they would need two
20-cubic-yard trucks. Marblehead officials, based on
their experience with their previous source separation
program, bought two 18.8-cubic-yard trucks. Because
Marblehead's streets are narrow and have many sharp
corners, the truck cabs were mounted over the engine
to make the vehicles shorter than Somerville's.
Somerville's vehicles were mounted on standard truck
chassis.
-------
Exhibit 1.b
Approximate Vehicle Specifications
12
Overall Vehicle Dimensions
Length (including cab)
Width
Height, riding
Height, loading
Height, tipping
Gross Vehicle Weight
Engine Size
Delivered Cost
Body Dimensions
Length, at top
Length, at bottom
Width
Height, walls
Height, partitions
Compartment Ratios
Body Capacities, total
Paper
Clear glass and cans
Colored glass and cans
Bucket Dimensions
Length
Width
Height, at front (modified)
Height, at rear
Bucket Capacities, total
Paper
Clear glass and cans
Colored glass and cans
Marblehead
26'8"
8'0"
10'2"
14'10"
15'7"
25,000 I b
V8-389
$20,192
12'10"
14'5"
6'10"
6'2"
5'8"
50/17/33
18.8yd3
9.4 yd3
3.2yd3
6.2 ydd
2'8"
6'5"
5'0"
2'9"
1 .75 yd3
0.85 yd3
0.30 yd3
0.60 yd3
Somerville
28'4"
8'1"
10'3"
14'4"
27,500 Ib
V8-400
$21 ,295
13'5"
16'1"
6'11"
6'2"
5'8"
50/50
20yd3
10yd3
MO yd3
2'2"
6'5"
4'0"
3'0"
1.8yd3
0.9 yd3
j> 0.9 yd3
SOURCE: Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
-------
Exhibit 1.c
Marblehead Vehicle
13
6-5"
~.... Colored Glass and
Cans Compartment
12'6"
21 '-V-
10' 2"
SOURCE: Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
-------
Exhibit 1.d
Somerville Vehicle
14
6*5'
11" 8' 1"
3' 3V4" Paper Compartment
2'6"
24' 5"-
10' 3"
SOURCE; Resourca Planning Associates, Inc.
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
15
DETERMINING COLLECTION PROCEDURES
The municipalities conducted a telephone survey to
determine the kind of collection service that would be
acceptable to residents. Residents responded that
they preferred weekly^ coilect-ion_o.f^_recyclables and
wanted to spend as little time and effort ~as~poSsrble- -
preparing materials.
Marblehead residents said that the biggest problems
with their previous program had been removing labels,
caps, and metal rings from bottles and storing materials
for a month between collection days. In addition, the
collection schedule had been confusing. Collection
took place on the following schedule: first week in
the month, paper; second week, clear glass; third week,
green glass; and fourth week, cans. The results of
this program were disappointing; an evaluation of
the program conducted in 1973 showed that the quantities
of glass and cans recovered were very small. In
addition the program was losing about $43,000 per year.
Therefore, the town decided to try weekly collection of
all recyclables and to allow residents to mix glass and
cans. The town also found a market to purchase the
recyclables that did not require special preparation.
Somerville's citizens indicated that they were willing
to recycle paper, glass, and cans if the materials were
collected each week. Most housing units in Somerville
were multifamily (4 and 5 families per unit) and many
families did not have basements or garages to store
materials. Therefore, weekly collection was needed to
encourage participation. The compartmentalized
vehicles and the market for recyclables allowed
residents to put clear glass, cans, and bundled paper
at the curb without special preparation.
The residents of both municipalities wanted recyclables
to be picked up on the same day as their refuse. This
would make collection days easier to remember and
would enable residents to put recyclables and refuse
out at the curb at the same time. Marblehead collected
refuse twice per week and collected recyclables on the
second refuse day in the week. Somerville collected
refuse and recyclables once per week.
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
16
Both communities used labor available from their refuse
collection programs to collect source-separated
materials, rather than hire additional staff. Because
Marblehead previously had a collection program and was
smaller than Somerville, officials there had no
problem assigning labor to the source separation
program. As crews became accustomed to the new
program and productivity improved, the town eventually
reduced recyclables collection crews from three men
to two. Once the town was recovering 25 percent of
the waste stream through source separation, one of the
two weekly refuse collection days was eliminated,
yielding further labor savings. Somerville officials,
on the other hand, had to decide how to select and
train staff from the refuse program for the recycling
program. Somerville's collection staff had difficulty
attaining the levels of workload and efficiency that
program officials had hoped for.
At the program's start, Marblehead used two recycling
crews, each consisting of a driver and two collectors,
but eliminated one collector per vehicle as the
workload decreased. No formal crew training, except
a demonstration of the new vehicles, was conducted
in Marblehead because several staff members had
worked on the previous monthly recycling program and
were familiar with their responsibilities. Further-
more, Marblehead frequently switched staff between
recycling and refuse collection and a training
program for all staff seemed unnecessary.
Somerville officials analyzed their existing refuse
collection system to determine whether or not labor
could be transferred from refuse collection to
recyclables collection. They found that the most
productive trucks carried 1.3 times as much refuse
as the average trucks and 3 times as much as the
least productive trucks, and that many routes had
unnecessary U-turns and extensive off-route distance.
They found that improved routing could save about 17
minutes per truck and about half a truck-day, and
that if 10 percent of the waste, stream were recycled
and residents used only large garbage containers,
about 1.2 truck-days could be saved. Therefore, if
two trucks with two-man crews collected recyclables,
net labor and equipment required for refuse and
recyclable collection could be about the same as for
Soraerville's existing refuse program. Somerville
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
17
also had other spare labor available for the program
and could use three-man crews to collect recyclables
without hiring new personnel. Three-man crews were
needed because of Somerville's high residential
density, which increased the amount of refuse and
recyclables to be collected along the curb. Because
Somerville's streets were moderately narrow, crews
could collect from both sides of a street simultane-
ously. One collector collected materials, one drove
the truck, and the other operated the truck loading
device.
Somerville had had no previous experience with
multimaterial collection, and officials felt that
recycling personnel should be trained in advance- to
place the separated recyclables in the appropriate
bucket compartment and to clean up after accidental
spills. Early plans called for collectors to advise
residents who failed to sort materials correctly.
Unsatisfactorily sorted materials would be rejected
with an explanatory note attached. As part of their
training, the recycling collection staff met with
representatives of the sanitation department, public
education and public relations staff, the municipal
employees union, and the planning consultants.
These specialists taught them the environmental
importance of recycling, its economic benefits to
the community, and the importance of the collection
staff's role in ensuring the program's success.
PROBLEMS WITH COLLECTION
Municipal officials expected some problems at the
start of the source separation programs, particularly
in Somerville where recycling was a new idea.
Delays in Somerville's schedule for purchasing
equipment and conducting a citywide public education
campaign caused severe start-up problems that
continued to disrupt the program after its implementa-
tion. Somerville also had continuing problems, such
as labor strikes and bad weather, that were independent
of the program but that nevertheless affected its
success. Finally, since the collection equipment
was untested, several minor mechanical failures
occurred.
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
18
Implementation Problems
Somerville officials underestimated the problems
they would have in implementing the program, and
their problems were exacerbated by bad timing and
poor management decisions. Marblehead had fewer
problems because it had a smaller population and was
experienced in source separation.
Before the program began, delays in getting the
grant application approved by EPA and in advertising
for bids for the trucks caused the schedule to slip.
As a result, the start-up date was changed from early
fall to December 1975 for Somerville and January
1976 for Marblehead. The programs could have been
delayed until better weather in the spring, but city
officials felt that the public education programs,
which had begun in the summer, would have lost
momentum.
EPA and the program planners believed that the grant
money for public education in Somerville could best
be spent on a large media campaign that would
publicize a citywide program. However, they did not
expect a recovery rate greater than 10 percent or
serious collection problems. When delays in starting
the program actually increased public awareness and
participation, citizens left more materials at the
curb than the collection system could handle (over
12 percent of the city's waste stream). The program
never got back on schedule.
Residents became frustrated when their recyclables
were not picked up on time, even though three
additional crews using small refuse compactors and
open trucks were used during the first week of the
program. This emergency measure was inefficient and
confusing and, as a result, collections remained a
day or more behind schedule. Citizens continued to
set out materials in high quantities during the
second and third weeks, and collections continued to
lag behind. A severe snowstorm hit Somerville in
the fourth week, delaying refuse collection and
forcing suspension of the recycling program for two
weeks. This disruption in service and the initial
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
19
collection delays severely reduced citizen participa-
tion, and the quantity of materials did not again
reach the level achieved in the first three weeks.
Delayed collection also affected the morale of
recycling crews, since they had long workdays.
Accustomed to a 5-hour workday on the task incentive
system, they quickly became disgruntled by the
8-hour days. Those men who had not volunteered, but
who had been assigned to the program when it fell
behind schedule, were particularly dissatisfied.
Productivity of the collection crews affected
program costs. Crew productivity in Marblehead was
consistently good, although two-man crews were often
used. Productivity in Somerville, however, fell
below expectations. Although Somerville's housing
density was higher than Marblehead's, the amount of
recyclables picked up per home was less, and recycling
trucks had to make more stops per load.
In 1976, Somerville's three crews averaged 3.6 tons
per day in a 6.9-hour work day. Assuming that
approximately two-thirds of this work day consisted
of collection time, the recycling crews' average
productivity during 1976 was only 0.9 tons per
collection hour as opposed to 3.1-4.1 tons per
hour for the refuse collection crews. As partici-
pation fell off in 1977, this difference grew
larger. Somerville's 10 men collected an average of
10.1 tons per day or slightly over 1 ton per man-
day. By comparison, Marblehead's 6 men collected
7.33 tons per day or more than 1.2 tons per man-
day.
Equipment Problems
Experience with the compartmentalized vehicles
revealed some unforeseen design and structural
problems. Somerville also used open-bodied trucks
for their program. These trucks were inefficient
and difficult to load.
Although compartmentalized trucks had been used in
the meat-rendering industry for many years, they had
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
20
never been used to collect glass, cans, or paper.
Their rear buckets generally could hold the recyclables
of 8 to 10 households. It took from 45 seconds to one
minute, however, to unload the bucket into the truck,
far longer than the design specification of 30 seconds
or less. In addition, the bucket extended 5'4" beyond
the body of the vehicle, and when raised, extended two
feet above the top of the truck (see Exhibit 1.e).
The length of the bucket caused safety problems. Its
height caused it to touch low tree limbs and electrical
wires, to litter on windy days, and to spill materials
from one compartment into another. As a result of
these bucket problems, crews wasted time in loading
materials and in picking up litter from the street.
The communities solved the litter problem by extending
the partitions in the bucket and the body to reduce the
gap between them.
The size of loads collected by Somerville vehicles
during the first week of operation was low and
compounded collection delays. One full load weighed
only 3,400 pounds, about 30 percent of the truck's
capacity, because the interior body partition was
poorly positioned. It left half the truck body for
paper and half for glass and cans, even though
residents were setting out larger volumes of newspaper
than of other materials. Furthermore, corrugated
cardboard and the crews' tendency to pile materials in
the center of the truck body rather than spread them
evenly reduced the density of the loads. The city
then changed the partitions, asked citizens not to
recycle cardboard, and told the crews to empty the
bucket into a different part of the truck to spread
the load. By the third week payloads increased to as
much as 7,200 pounds.
The vehicles had other minor, but annoying, structural
problems. For example, rear door hinges failed on each
truck from the outward pressure of the load and because
the open doors hit the ground when the body was tipped
up for unloading. One of Marblehead's vehicles lost
part of its load when a rear door hinge failed during a
haul. Wider hinges with larger pins were installed
and door latches also were enlarged and strengthened,
-------
Exhibit I.e
Somerville Source Separation Vehicle Bucket Clearance
5'4"
SOURCE: Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
22
but the doors must still be redesigned to prevent
them from striking the ground during unloading. The
truck's bucket cycle is as long as 43 seconds because
of the truck's insufficient power take-off (PTO) drive
ratio of 70 percent. A preferable ratio of 100 to 110
percent would have been provided by a larger PTO pump,
but the city could not afford this expensive modification.
Because both Somerville and Marblehead had good
vehicle maintenance programs and because the vehicles
were new, little time was lost to repairs. Maintenance
problems caused a few minor delays in Marblehead's
program, however. These problems ranged from hydrau-
lic leaks and failure of the brake safety computer
system to replacement of wheel studs, repairs to
rear door hinges, and lost mud flaps. Somerville
had similar problems and others that affected
transmissions, clutches, and engine carburetion.
In the first few months of its program, Somerville
supplemented the compartmentalized vehicle with a
stakebody flatbed truck with a four-man crew con-
sisting of a driver, two collectors, and a man who
was positioned in the truck body to pass containers
up and down, distribute materials evenly, and keep
paper separate from glass and cans. The crew's
productivity was low because the crew had difficulty
lifting materials into the truck and had to unload
the truck frequently. Furthermore, because they
gathered refuse and recyclables on the same day,
collectors had to identify materials at the curb.
The stakebody truck and other inefficient vehicles
were used when the recycling trucks failed. Somerville
used standard packer trucks and open trucks to
replace recycling vehicles and Marblehead used
either spare 16-cubic-yard packers or small pickup
trucks. When a replacement truck was used, some
residents became angry because they mistakenly
believed that their recyclables had been discarded.
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
23
Other Problems with the
Collection System
Somerville had other problems that were not specific
to multimaterial collection but that nevertheless
affected the program. These problems included
scavenging, litter, and program interruptions.
Scavenging was a problem in the first week of the
program, when many large stacks of newspapers
accumulated by residents were stolen by unauthorized
collectors. Articles and letters were published in
the local newspapers to discourage scavenging, and
the police department asked several scavengers not
to take materials. These informal enforcement
measures seemed effective; there was less incentive
to steal papers as residents set out smaller accumula-
tions of newspapers on a weekly basis. By the third
week of the program, scavenging was no longer a
problem.
Litter was a problem on windy days. The problem was
caused by poorly bundled paper, unsuitable containers
for cans and glass (such as paper bags), spillage
during collection, and vandalism. The problem
worsened when collection crews failed to pick up
materials on the same day they were put on the curb.
As residents learned better ways to bind paper and
began to buy containers for recycling glass and
cans, litter was reduced. The collection truck's
bucket design was also changed to eliminate spills
while dumping materials.
Somerville's program was frequently interrupted,
first for a month during the summer of 1976 because
of a labor strike, and next for the winter months in
1977 and 1978 because of bad weather. Marblehead,
where staffing was more flexible and snow removal
easier, continued to provide service during those
periods, although collection sometimes fell behind
schedule. However, Marblehead had to cancel collec-
tion for three days during the summer of 1976 when a
hurricane threatened to pass through the area and
during a severe winter storm in February 1978.
-------
COLLECTING
24
Participation dropped significantly in Somerville
after each interruption in the program. As public
interest declined, and along with it the interest of
management and the collection staff, the volume of
recovered materials dropped and loads became more
contaminated. Poorly bundled recyclables that were
left in snow became frozen or soaked and were
difficult to collect. Somerville had more on-street
parking than Marblehead, and snow piled around and
between cars made refuse collection difficult.
Somerville officials decided to suspend recycling in
the winter months. But the suspensions proved to
further hamper the program's momentum, even though
officials had expected that uncertain recycling
service would be worse than none.
OVERCOMING COLLECTION PROBLEMS
Both communities improved their collection equipment
by modifying the loading and unloading operations of
the trucks. The experience of both communities also
demonstrated that collection procedures could be
improved by gradually implementing source separation
programs in large urban areas, maintaining reliable
collection, and improving collection productivity as
crews become more familiar with program operations.
Improving Equipment
The communities made several modifications to the
truck compartments and to the loading bucket to
reduce the mixing of materials and spillage while
unloading the bucket. Initially, Marblehead removed
one of the partitions in the body of the truck,
leaving one compartment for paper and the other for
a mixture of clear and colored glass and cans.
However, the change violated the EPA demonstration
grant agreement which specified that three categories
of materials be recovered, so the partition was
reinstalled. Instead, Marblehead raised the partitions
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
25
between compartments and extended the partitions in
the bucket to reduce the distance between the bucket
partitions and the compartment partitions during
dumping. The change eliminated spillage, but mixing
still occurred. Somerville extended the bucket
partitions only; since their trucks had only two
compartments, mixing was not as great a problem.
Future vehicles should be designed to minimize the
clearance between the bucket and the body by shaping
the rear of the truck body to correspond with the
arc of the bucket's movement. Newton, Massachusetts
is now using a Rendispos vehicle with this design
change and has had few problems with mixing and
spillage. Reducing the gap between truck and bucket
facilitates maneuvering the truck and prevents the
bucket from hitting the ground when the truck is
driven up a steep hill. Finally, to ensure even
loading and thereby maximize capacity, the bucket
pivot point and lifting arm should be redesigned to
allow the bucket to dump more easily into both the
front and rear sections of the body.
The vehicles came equipped with movable partitions
that could be positioned to accommodate changes in
the volume of paper, glass, and cans collected.
Since the volume and composition of a community's
waste changes seasonally, this design feature was
very helpful. Both communities continued to adjust
compartment volumes to maximize their loads.
Improving Collection Procedures
Marblehead's program was successfully implemented.
largely because the town had previous experience in
recycling and was a small community with manageable
collection routes. As Somerville lacked these advan-
tages, it should have implemented its source separation
program gradually, either by starting in one part of
the city or by initially collecting only one material.
The collection crews, program managers, and citizens
would thus have had more time to become accustomed
to the program. Somerville's program should not have
been started in the winter, because the disruptions
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
26
caused by snowstorms drastically reduced participation.
As Marblehead's experience showed, continuous improvement
of collection productivity and reliable collection are
crucial to a successful program.
Somerville officials could have avoided several
problems if they had implemented the program first
on a small scale, in a test area of the city. This
would have enabled the city to make better estimates
of citizen participation and of the need for equip-
ment. Since residents had saved recyclables from
the beginning of the public education campaign, they
placed high volumes at the curb initially and, since
the equipment was untested and crews were inexperienced,
the city should have made a concentrated effort to
"work the bugs out" of the system before trying to
run a citywide program. If there were start-up
problems, such as collection delays, only the test
area would have been affected.
Soraerville might also have considered collecting
only newspapers before starting a complex multimaterial
program. The city could have used the same collection
system, but there would have been enough time and
spare capacity in the vehicles to provide collection
without delays. Once the program began to operate
smoothly, the city could have started collecting
glass and cans.
A dense urban area such as Somerville has severe
problems in clearing snow from narrow city streets
because of on-street parking. Refuse collection
falls behind schedule because street cleaning is
given a higher priority. Therefore, Somerville's
decision to suspend recyclables collection during
winter was reasonable. If this procedure had been
planned for and scheduled, however, it would have
disrupted the program less than it did as an emergency
decision.
Advance publicity is needed to get residents back
into the habit of recycling after suspending a
program for the winter. Program funds should be set
aside for annual public awareness campaigns similar
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
27
to, but smaller than, the public education programs
used to launch a city's program. These campaigns
might make use of: newspaper articles, a letter from
the mayor, and the help of community organizations.
Marblehead collection crews became more efficient as
they became accustomed to the program over the first
year. Marblehead kept data on collection time,
households served, and weight of recyclables collected
for its recycling and refuse collection crews from
five months before the start of the collection program
(January 1976) to November 1976. These data were
sufficient to compare the collection productivity of
the demonstration program with that of the former
recycling program.
For the first month of the new program, Marblehead's
crews averaged 0.36 minutes per home. Collection time
decreased consistently over the next ten months while
the tonnage of recyclables collected increased slightly
over the same period (see Exhibit 1.f). As expected,
more time was needed to collect three categories of
materials in the new program than was needed to
'collect one recyclable in the former program (0.20
minutes per home). Only half as many homes were
served by a crew in the new program. More recyclables
were placed at the curb for collection, however, and
the actual tons collected by a crew, 1.3 tons per
collection hour, did not change from the former
program to the new program.
Since one-fourth of Marblehead's waste was being
recycled, the town was able to reduce its refuse
collection from twice to once per week. Refuse crews
were spending more time collecting refuse; productivity
dropped from 2.2 to 1.7 tons per collection hour. Less
refuse was collected per stop and collectors had to
take additional time to distinguish refuse from recy-
clables. To overcome this problem, the town eliminated
the second weekly refuse collection and established one
day for refuse collection and one day for recyclables
collection. As indicated by a telephone survey, the
town's residents were not opposed to the change, as it
would save the town money.
-------
28
Exhibit l.f
Marblehead Collection Workload
and Productivity
0.60
0.50 I**
0.40
Collection
minutes/ 0_30
homo served
(solid line)
0.20
0.10
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
Tons/
crew day
(dashed line)
-1.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
SOURCE: Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
-------
COLLECTING SDURCE-SEPARATEn
29
A reduction in refuse collection service would have
received much opposition in Somerville because its
residents have less space to store waste. In addition,
the town did not recycle enough materials to substitute
a recyclables collection for the second refuse collection,
-------
-------
2
MARKETING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
31
While establishing a collection system, community
officials also looked for a market that would buy
their recyclables. They hoped to generate revenue
from the sale of recyclables and to reduce the amount
of solid waste in the community's refuse stream. As
had collection, marketing posed a variety of problems.
Markets and prices vary greatly by region; they
depend on the local industries' demand for materials.
Somerville and Marblehead found that marketing
problems could best be overcome by producing high-
quality recovered materials and by designing collection
programs to meet local market needs.
SELECTING MARKETS
Municipal officials in Somerville and Marblehead
needed to find a market that would accept mixed cans
and glass and mixed paper. They sought a market
close to home, that would guarantee them a fixed
floor price for materials and that would agree to
work with the communities through the early stages of
their programs. The market would also have to
upgrade the materials, using intermediate processing
equipment, before they could be sold to industrial
processors.
Both municipalities solicited bids for intermediary
processing of the materials. No local scrap dealers
were readily equipped to process mixed materials for
resale, but a new company, Recor, Inc. (now Matcon,
Inc.) was formed by Newark Boxboard and an entrepreneur,
John Clement. The company, located in nearby Salem,
Massachusetts, presented the highest bid to become
the market and intermediate processor for the two
-------
MARKETING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
32
communities. The subsequent marketing agreement
between Recor, Inc. and the municipalities included
one-year contracts with fixed floor prices. Floor
prices were lower for Somerville than for Marblehead
because Recor agreed to provide hauling service to
that city.
Each of Marblehead's two collection vehicles made two
deliveries a day to Recor, 5 miles away. Marblehead
also kept three recycling storage containers at the
former town dump where residents could drop off
recyclables. Marblehead paid a private contractor to
haul the bins to Recor a few times each month.
Somerville collection crews delivered materials to a
temporary transfer station at the former city incinera-
tion plant, where they used front end loaders to dump
materials into Recor's 40-60-cubic-yard containers.
Recor processed the paper, scrap, steel, aluminum,
and broken glass (or cullet) it received from the two
towns and other sources (see Exhibit 2.a) and sold the
materials for reuse in New England. Recor shipped
cullet by truck to Glass Container Corporation (GCC)
in Dayville, Connecticut and to other northeastern
glass container plants. It shipped paper by truck or
rail to paper mills throughout New England, and as far
away as Indiana, which used the recovered paper to
manufacture boxboard. Ferrous cans were transported by
rail to several operators, primarily detinners, who
chemically remove tin from the cans and ship the steel
to steel mills for scrap or to copper refiners for use
as a precipitating agent. Aluminum travelled by rail
primarily to Reynolds Aluminum Corporation in New
Jersey for remelting into aluminum ingot.
The company employed five persons for a single shift,
five days a week to process glass and cans. The
maximum daily throughput for glass and cans was 60 to
80 tons per day. The cost of the system's equipment was
$250,000. Yearly costs were as follows: management
and labor, $125K; operation and maintenance, $170K;
transportation $100K; raw material acquisition, $300K.
Revenues from sales were approximately $60OK. The
business lost money initially but the owners hoped that
increased throughput, increased demand, and rising
prices for recovered materials would enable them to
make a profit in the future.
-------
Exhibit 2.a
Original Recor Glass and Can Process Line
Mixed cans
glass and
rubbish
Rubbish
and glass
Hand
sort
Sllii
stnii
Rubbish discarded
-------
MARKETING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
34
PROBLEMS WITH MARKETS
The price an intermediary will pay for recovered
materials depends on industrial processors' demand
for the materials and the quality of the materials.
The price of clean, color-separated glass cullet
is over $45 per ton, but if the glass shipment is at
all contaminated by ceramics, the price drops to
near zero. Similarly, when the aluminum content in
a shipment of tin cans approaches 2.5 percent, a
sharp drop-off in price occurs.
Prices for waste paper are always quite low in New
England. During 1976 to 1978 prices in the Middle
West, West Coast and the Middle Atlantic States were
almost double those received by Marblehead and Somerville,
Recor paid Somerville and Marblehead a fraction of the
prevailing industrial market prices for each of their
recyclables. For paper, Recor initially paid Marblehead
a rate of $8/ton less than the price published by the
Official Board Markets (OBM) for No. ,1 News in the
Boston market, with a floor price of $5/ton. It paid
Somerville $14/ton less than the OBM quotation, with a
floor price of $2/ton. Metal prices were derived from
scrap steel prices quoted in Iron Age Magazine for
Number 2 Dealer Bundles in the Philadelphia market.
Marblehead received prices ranging from $43/ton for an
Iron Age quote of $80-85/ton, to a floor price of
$10/ton for quotes under $45. Somerville received $2
less per ton of metal than Marblehead and was guaranteed
a floor price of $5/ton. Recor made no distinction
between the price of clear and colored glass, and
contracted to pay Marblehead $7 less per ton for its
glass than the price offered for "contaminated cullet"
by GCC in Dayville, Connecticut. Recor guaranteed
Marblehead a floor price of $12/ton. Somerville
received $9 less than the GCC price, with a floor
price of $10 ton.
When time came in December 1976 to renegotiate the
one-year contract, Recor lowered the prices it offered
both Marblehead and Somerville because the materials
had been more contaminated than expected. Marblehead's
-------
MARKETING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
35
price for paper dropped to $10/ton. The new Somerville
price formula for paper and metal follows:
Official Board Markets Quote
for No. 1 News, Boston Market
$50 or greater
$45 to less than $50
$40 " " " $45
$35 " " " $40
$30 " " " $35
Less than $30
Price Paid to
Somerville by Recor
$25
$20
$15
$10
$ 5
$ 5
Iron Age Quote for No. 2
Dealer Bundles, Philadelphia Market
$160 or greater
$150 or less than $160
$140 " " " $150
$130 " " " $140
$120 " " " $130
$ 90 " " " $120
Less than $ 90
Price Paid to
Somerville by Recor
$15
$14
$13
$12
$11
$10 -
- $ "8
The communities were unable to agree to these
schedules; nevertheless, they accepted whatever
Recor would pay for individual loads of materials,
without a contract.
With no competition, Recor had substantial control
over the prices it paid to the communities for materials,
Not only did Recor gradually lower its prices, but.
after the first year it refused to give the communities
a fixed floor price. Without the power to negotiate
higher prices, the communities received less money for
materials and had more loads rejected because of
contamination (see Exhibits 2.b-2.d for fluctuations
in paper, glass, and metal prices).
-------
Exhibit 2.b
Paper Prices
36
so r
Dollars/
ton
DJ FMAMJJASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAWIJ
10
SOURCE: Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
-------
Exhibit 2.c
Glass Prices
30
20
Dollars/
ton
10
\
V
V
37
i Marblehead
Somerville
DJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJ
1976 1977 1978
SOURCE: Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
-------
38
Exhibit 2.d
Metal Can Prices
30 t
Dollars/
ton
DJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAW1JJ ASONDJ FMAMJ
10
Marblehead
Somerville
SOURCE: Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
-------
MARKETING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
39
Recor's inefficient glass process line produced a
glass cullet with relatively high amounts of contam-
inants (ceramics, stones, metals and other trash).
GCC bought the contaminated glass at low prices and
cleaned it at its own plant. As contamination grew
worse, GCC urged Recor to revise their glass and can
processing system to provide cleaner glass cullet,.
OVERCOMING MARKETING PROBLEMS
As a market, Recor was suited better to Marblehead,
which recovered high volumes of recyclables, than to
Somerville. Recor paid a lower price for glass arid
cans than other local markets but accepted less pure
materials. This made it easy for citizens to partici-
pate in the program; high volumes of recyclables were
recovered. Although Marblehead received less for mixed
glass and cans from Recor, this was compensated for by
the high disposal savings ($18.95 per ton) Marblehead
gained by diverting recyclables from the waste stream.
Somerville's recycling program, on the other hand,
saved less in disposal costs ($9.40 per ton) and
needed to accumulate more revenue from the sale of
materials to offset its program costs. Somerville
generated enough revenue to offset program costs
only six months out of the first year of the program
(see Appendix A). Those months were ones when Recor
paid a high price for cans and paper. Somerville's
program could have made a consistent profit if those
high prices had been sustained.
Because Recor had mechanical problems with its glass
process line, it paid lower prices for the towns'
materials. The company modified its glass processing
methods to yield a cleaner, more marketable product
(see Exhibit 2.e). The new process line increased
the density of the finished product from 1,000
pounds per cubic yard to 2,000 pounds per cubic yard
(see Exhibit 2.f) and reduced shipping costs.
In the new process, materials were unloaded onto a
concrete pad, and then placed on a conveyor where
ferrous materials were magnetically separated,
flattened, and stored for shipment. The nonferrous
materials and glass were then conveyed past workers
who removed aluminum from the belt by hand for
flattening and storage and discarded ceramics,
-------
Exhibit 2.«
Revised Glass and Can Processing System
Mixed cans
glass and
rubbish
Magnetic
drum
separator
Flattened
by front-
end loader
Hand sort
aluminum
rubbish
and
ceramics
Rubbish discarded
Rubbish and
ceramics discarded
Rubbish, metal caps,
and labels discarded
Ferrous caps
discarded
o
SOURCE: Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
-------
Exhibit 2.f
Densities of Processed Materials for Recor's Initial Process Line and New Process Line
Arriving at Recor Density (Ib/y )
Cans and Glass Mostly beverage and 400
food containers
Initial Process
Leaving Recor
Ferrous cans, minus
3" particles
Aluminum cans,
minus 3" particles
Density (Ib/y3)
700
200
New Process
Leaving Recor
Ferrous cans
flattened
Aluminum cans
flattened
Density (Ib/y3)
800 - 900
250
Clear and colored
glass, minus 2" cullet
1,000
Clear and colored 2,000
glass, minus 5/8" cullet
Paper
Mostly newspapers,
some bags, magazines,
other paper
400
Baled shredded-paper
bundles
750
Baled shredded paper
bundles
750
SOURCE: Matcon, Inc. (Formerly Recor, Inc.)
-------
MARKETING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
42
off-color glass containers, and other obvious
contaminants from the conveyor. The remaining glass
mixture was inspected for quality and reduced to
small particles (cullet) in a hammermill. A 5/8-inch
vibrating screen then separated metal rings, caps,
paper, and other nonbrittle contaminants from the
cleaned cullet. A final magnetic separation step
removed the small amount of ferrous materials that
had passed through the 5/8-inch screen. Lower
quality materials were diluted with better quality
glass cullet after processing. The finished product
was ready for glass furnaces.
As a market, Recor was exceptionally willing to
design its operation to meet the needs of the
communities it served. Even so, it lowered its
prices and refused to guarantee a fixed floor price
for materials after the first year. Communities
ideally should sell materials to competitive markets,
but in the absence of competition, communities will
have to design their programs to meet local market
specifications. If Somerville and Marblehead had
not been supported by an EPA grant, they would have
had to design a collection system that separated
glass by color and that separated cans from glass in
order to take advantage of existing markets for
those materials.
In any case, communities should develop a good
business relationship with their markets because
they can benefit from the dealers' expertise. Recor
was willing to experiment with the communities; it
helped them conduct their public education program
and solve initial implementation problems. Recor
should have given the communities more information
about how to deliver pure loads, however, rather
than accept contaminated loads of materials and
dilute them with purer materials. This would have
helped the communities to pinpoint and to overcome
their contamination problems.
-------
Appendix A
43
MATERIAL RECOVERY AND DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM COSTS AND SAVINGS
Monthly material recovery and demonstration program
costs and savings were monitored by EPA from January
1976 through June 1978.
Exhibit A.a shows the recovery rates for 13 recyclable
components in the waste stream. For example, Marble-
head's source separation program recovered an average
of 66.9 percent of the newsprint available in its
waste stream in 1977 and 1978.
The quantities of paper, glass, and cans recovered on
a monthly basis are shown in Exhibit A.b and A.c.
Exhibits A.d and A.e provide a summary of the programs'
monthly costs and savings. Detailed cost backup
sheets (Exhibits A.f and A.g) for June 1978 shows how
the program costs were derived. The costs are tab-
ulated on full cost and actual cost bases. Pull costs
reflect the total recycling program budget, including
all equipment and labor. Actual costs are the real
incremental costs of the program. Actual costs exclude
labor and equipment carried over from the original
refuse program.
-------
44
Exhibit A.a
Average Recovery Rates (1977-1978)
(Percent)
Marblehead
Newsprint 66.9
Magazines 44.4
Corrugated paper 6.6
Other paper 3.0
Clear glass beverage 67.5
Green glass beverage 50.7
Brown glass beverage 33.9
Other clear glass 55.4
Other green glass 61.1
Other brown glass 50.3
Ferrous beverage 43.4
Other ferrous 37.8
Nonferrous beverage 51.0
Other nonferrous 12.9
Somerville
Newsprint 16.9
Magazines 1.6
Corrugated paper 7.0
Other paper 0.3
Clear glass beverage 2.2
Green glass beverage 2.4
Brown glass beverage 6.5
Other clear glass 1.7
Other green glass 2.9
Other brown glass 4.1
Ferrous beverage 2.2
Other ferrous 3.6
Nonferrous beverage 2.7
Other nonferrous 1.9
75
-------
45
Exhibit A.b
Materials Recovered Over the Demonstration Period Marblehead
300 ?
250
200
Recovered
materials 15°
(tons)
100
J FMAMJ J ASONDJ FMAMJ J ASONDJ FMAMJ
Cans and glass
lllllJlllllllJll Paper
SOURCE: Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
-------
46
Exhibit A.c
Materials Recovered Over the Demonstration Period Somerville
300
250
200
Recovered
materials 150
(tons)
100
J FMAMJ J ASONDJ FMAMJ J ASONDJ FMAMJ
Cans and glass
SOURCE; Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
-------
Exhibit A.d
Marblehead Monthly Program Costs and Savings, 1976
Month
January
February
March
April
May
Jurie
July
August
September
October
November
December
Program 1976
Recycled Materials
Savings (dollars)
Disposal
Revenues Credits
1,866
2,563
3,791
3,499
3,397
3,726
3,277
3,831
3,092
2,319
2,642 -.
1,592
35,595
2,994
3,392
3,676
3,638
3,392
3,847
3,354
3,411
3,297
2,918
3,487
2,729
40,135
Total
4,860
5,955
7,467
7,137
6,789
7,573
6,631
7,242
6,389
5,237
6,129
4,321
75,730
Costs (dollars)(1)
Recycling
Collection Bins Full'2' Actual (3)
4,255
5,675
6,990
6,384
6,080
6,688
6,384
6,688
6,384
6,384
6,384
6,992
75,288
510
440
475
809
400
430
410
430
415
250
305
250
5,124
4,765
6,115
7,465
7,193
6,480
7,118
6,794
7,118
6,799
6,634
6,689
7,242
80,362
2,927
3,570
4,446
4,472
3,850
4,236
4,043
4,236
4,048
3,883
3,938
4,229
47,878
Net Savings (dollars)
Full Cost (5) Actual <6>
Basis Cost Basis "
93
(160}(4>
2
(56)
309
455
(163)
124 I
(410)
(1,397)
(560)
(2,921)
(4,682)
1,933
2,385
3,021
2,66"5
2,939
3,337
2,588
3,006
2,341
1,354
2,191
92
27,852
Remaining Residential Waste
Costs (dollars) <1)
Collection Disposal Total
8,547
1 1 ,599
13,988
12,768
12,160
13,376
12,768
13,376
12,464
12,464
12,464
13,607
149,581
5,969
7,182
9,380
10,004
11,635
13,057
10,953
12,848
1 1 ,408
10,252
12,621
9,267
124,576
14,516
18,781
23,368
22,772
23,795
26,433
23,721
26,224
23,872
22,716
25,085
22,674
274,157
1 See monthly cost backup sheet for details.
2 Full cost of labor, equipment, and consumables used in recycling services.
3 Additional costs actually incurred by community due to recycling program; see cost backup sheet.
4 ( ) means negative.
5 Net savings on a full cost basis are the materials revenues and disposal credits minus the full costs.
6 Net savings on an actual cost basis, the net economic effect for the community, are the materials revenues and disposal credits minus the actual costs.
-------
Exhibit A.d (continued)
Marblehead Monthly Program Costs and Savings, 1977
Month
January
February
March
April
May (7)
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Program
1977
Recycling Program
Savings (dollars)
Disposal
Rovonuoj credits Total
1.878 3,240 5,118
1,592 2,729 4,321
2,082 3,563 5,645
1,850 3,165 5,015
2,370 4,055 6,425
2,668 4,586 7,254
1,702 2,880 4,582
2,014 3,449 5,463
1,962 3,354 5,316
1,862 3,165 5,027
2,740 3,373 6,113
2320 3,525 6,345
25,540 41,084 66,624
Full costs (dollars)111
Recycling
Collsction bins Total
6,820 712 7,532
6,820 712 7,532
6,820 712 7,532
6,820 712 7,532
6,820 712 7,532
6,820 712 7,532
6,820 712 7,532
6,820 712 7,532
6,820 712 7,532
6,820 712 7,532
6,820 712 7,532
6,820 712 7,532
81,840 8,544 90,384
Actual
costs <2)
(dollars)
4,475
4,475
4,475
4,475
3,992
3,992
3,992
3,992
3,992
3,992
3,992
3,992
49,836
Net savings (dollars)
Full cost Actual cost
basis (4) basis (5)
(2(414){3) 643
(3,211) (154)
(1,887) 1.170
(2,517) 540
(1,107) 2,433
(278) 3,262
(2,950) 590
(2,069) 1,471
(2,216) 1,324
(2,505) 1,035
(1,419) 2,121
(1,187) 2,353
(23,760) 16,788
Refuse Program
Costs (dollars) HI
Collection (6> Disposal Total
14,406 8.869 23,275
14,406 7,485 21,891
14,406 12,602 27,008
14,406 10,574 24,980
11,130 10,972 22,102
11,130 11,825 22,955
11,130 9,665 20,795
11,130 11,162 22,292
11,130 10,726 21,856
11,130 10,119 21,249
11,130 10,574 21,704
11,130 9,361 20,491
146,664 123,934 270,598
1 Full cost of labor, equipment, and consumables used in recycling service. See monthly cost backup sheet for details.
2 Additional costs actually incurred by community due to recycling program; see cost backup sheet.
3 ( ) means negative.
4 Net savings on a full cost basis for the recycling program are the materials revenues and disposal credits minus the full costs.
5 Net savings on actual cost basis, the net economic effect for the community, are the materials revenues and disposal credits minus the actual costs.
6 Includes labor, equipment, and transfer station costs.
7 Refuse collection changed from twice per week to once per week. As a result, one refuse packer
vehicle was eliminated/from the fleet and its associated.costs were deducted from the recycling
program costs. The cost reduction is reflected in the recycling program's actual costs.
CO
-------
Exhibit A.d (continued)
Marblehead Monthly Program Costs and Savings, 1978
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
Monthly Average
1978
Recycling Program
Savings (dollars)
Disposal
Revenues credits Total
2,088 2,686 4,774
1,762 2,236 3,998
2,930 4,093 7,023
1,918 3,278 5,196
1,390 3,657 5,047
1,400 3,184 4,584
1,915 3,189 5,104
Full costs (dollars) '""
Recycling
Collection bins Total
7,145 712 7,857
5,196 712 5,908
7,469 804 8,273
6,495 639 7,134
7,145 674 7,819
7,145 604 7,749
6,766 691 7,457
Actual
costs <2>
(dollars)
4,417
3,407
4,539
3,887
4,246
4,176
4,112
Net savings (dollars)
Full cost Actual cost
basis (4) basis (5)
(3,083) (3) 357
(1,910) 591
(1,250) 2,484
(1,938) 1,309
(2,772) 801
(3,165) 408
(2,353) 992
Refuse Program
Costs (dollars) (1)
Collection (6) Disposal Total
11,660 7,735 19,395
8,480 6,547 15,027
12,190 8,865 21,055
10,600 11,408 22,008
11,660 12,848 24,508
11,660 12,829 24,489
11,041 10,039 21,080
I Full cost of labor, equipment, and consumables used in recycling service. See monthly cost backup sheet for details.
2 Additional costs actually incurred by community due to recycling program; see cost backup sheet.
3 ( ) means negative.
4 Net savings on a full cost basis for the recycling program are the materials revenues and disposal credits minus the full costs.
5 Net savings on actual cost basis, the net economic effect for the community, are the materials revenues and disposal credits minus the actual costs.
6 Includes labor, equipment and transfer station costs.
-------
Exhibit A.o
Somerville Monthly Program Costs and Savings, 1976
Month
December (1975)
January
February
March
April
May'
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Program 1976
Recyclnd Materials
Savings (dollars)
Disposal
Revenues Credits Total
1.242
718
2,082
3,887
3,353
3,602
3,8B8
1,464
4,268
3,182
2,406
2,387
1,507
33,956
2,670
1,460
2,891
3,260
3,348
3,525
3,938
1,475
3,570
3,348
3,304
3,466
3,407
39,662
3,912
2,178
4,973
7,147
6,701
7,127
7,796
2,939
7,838
6,530
5,710
5,853
4,913
73,617
Costs (dollars) f)
Transfer
Collection Station Fullu) Actual1 J|
11,312
6,119
9,360
1 1 ,628
11,088
10,584
1 1 ,592
5,040
1 1 ,088
10,584
10,584
10,584
10,080
129,643
730
629
958
1,128
1,070
1,022
1,120
478
1,071
1,022
1,022
1,022
973
12,263
12,043
6,748
10,318
12,756
12,167
1 1 ,606
12,712
5,527
12,159
11,606
1 1 ,606
11,606
11,053
141,907
7,277
3,568
5,286
6,930
6,504
6,201
6,792
2,953
6,497
6,207
6,207
6,207
5,904
76,533
Net Savings (dollars)
Full Cost (5) Actual'6'
Basis Cost Basis
(8,131,(4)
(4,570)
(5,345)
(5,609)
(5,466)
(4,479)
(4,916)
(2,588)
(4,321)
(5,076)
(5,896)
(5,753)
(6,140)
(68,290)
(3,265)
(1,390)
(313)
217
197
926
1,004
(14)
1,341
323
(497)
(354)
(991)
(2,816)
Remaining Residential Wasto
Costs (dollars)'11
Collection Disposal Total
21,126
14,523
29,812
35,958
34,452
32,886
36,018
15,660
34,452
32,886
32,886
32,886
31,320
384,865
27,289
15,075
32,907
39,353
42,451
44,545
44,958
17,597
40,341
42,170
38,394
39,633
30,960
455,675
48,414
29,598
62,719
75,311
76;,903
77,431
80,976
33,257
74,793
75,056
71,280
72,519
62,280
840,537
1 See monthly cost backup sneet tor details.
2 Full cost of labor, equipment, and consumables used in recycling services.
3 Additional costs actually incurred by community due to recycling program; see cost backup sheet.
4 ( ) means negative.
5 Net savings on a full cost basis are the materials revenues and disposal credits minus the full costs.
6 Net savings on an actual cost basis, the net economic effect for the community, are the materials revenues and disposal credits minus the actual costs.
Ui
O
-------
Exhibit A.e (continued)
Somerville Monthly Program Costs and Savings, 1977
Month
January (6)
February (6>
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December'^'
Program
1977
Recycling Program
Savings (dollars)
Disposal
Revenues credits Total
0 0 0
0 00
1 ,469 2,209 3,678
1,027 1,513 2,540
1,149 1,777 2,926
1,384 2,077 3,461
1 ,274 1 ,523 2,797
1,240 1,579 2,819
1,144 1,466 2,610
1,112 1,391 2,503
1,139 921 2,060
0 00
10,938 14,456 25,394
Full costs (dollars) (D
Transfer
Collection station Total
000
000
13,002 3,608 16,610
11,820 3,280 15,100
12,411 3,444 15,855
13,593 3,772 17,365
12,411 3,444 15,855
13,593 3,772 17,365
12,411 3,444 15,855
12,411 3,444 15,855
13,002 3,608 16,610
000
114,654 31,816 146,470
Actual costs (2)
(dollars)
0
0
9,086
8,260
8,673
9,499
8,673
9,499
8,673
8,673
9,086
0
80,122
Net savings (dollars)
Full cost Actual cost
basis (4) basis (5)
0 0
0 0
(12,932) (3) (5,408)
(12,560) (5,720)
(12,929) (5,747)
(13,904) (6,038)
(13,058) (5,876)
(14,546) (6,680)
(13,245) (6,063)
(13,352) (6,170)
(14,550) (7,026)
0 0
121,076) (54,728)
Refuse Program
Cost (dollars) 0)
Collection Disposal Total
50,610 12,887 63,497
50,610 22,128 72,738
41,734 26,226 67,960
37,940 28,200 66,140
39,837 28,031 67,868
43,631 29,892 73,523
39,837 24,816 64,653
43,631 27,523 71,154
39,837 27,570 67,407
39,837 26,724 66,561
41,734 28,181 69,915
41,734 27,617 69,351
510,972 309,795 820,767
1 Full cost of labor, equipment, and consumables used in recycling services. See monthly cost backup sheet for details.
2 Additional costs actually incurred by community due to recycling program; see backup sheet.
3 ( ) means negative.
4 Net savings on a full cost basis are the materials revenues and disposal credits minus the full costs.
5 Net savings on an actual cost basis, the net economic effect for the community, are the-materials revenues and disposal
credits minus the actual costs.
6 The recycling program was suspended due to severe weather conditions..
-------
Exhibit A.a (continued)
Somerville Monthly Program Costs and Savings, 1978
Month
January '"'
February '^)
March
April
May
June
Monthly Average
Recycling Program
Savings (dollars)
Disposal
Revenues credits Total
0 00
0 00
0 00
60 94 154
672 1,053 1,725
455 855 1,310
198 334 532
Full costs (dollars)U)
Transfer
Collection station Total
000
000
000
11,820 3,280 15,100
10,758 3,608 14,366
8,080 3,280 1 1 ,360
5,110 1,694 6,804
Actual costs '2'
(dollars)
0
0
0
8,260
8,206
6,780
3,874
Net savings (dollars)
Full cost Actual cost
basis W) basis (6)
0 0
0 0
0 0
(14,946)(31 (8,106)
(12,641) (6,481)
(10,050) (5,470)
(6,272) (3,342)
Refuse Program
Cost (dollars) (D
Collection Disposal Total
39,837 22,222 62,059
34,146 10,180 44,326
43,631 29,486 73,117
37,940 31,396 69,336
41,734 31.340 73,074
41,734 33,840 75,574
39,837 26,411 66,248
1 Full cost of labor, equipment, and consumables used in recycling services. See monthly cost backup sheet for details.
2 Additional costs actually incurred by community due to recycling program; see cost backup sheet.
3 ( ) means negative.
4 Net savings on a full cost basis are the materials revenues and disposal credits minus the full costs.
5 Net savings on an actual cost basis, the net economic effect for the community, are the materials revenues and disposal
credits minus the actual costs. '
6 The recycling program was suspended during these months.
-------
Exhibit A.f \
Marblehead Monthly Cost Backup (June ;I978)
Activity
COLLECTION
Labor (D
Equipment '2)
Total
TRANSFER
STATION
BINS <4>
DISPOSAL COST
TOTAL COST .
Recycling Program
Labor cost Equipment
(dollars/clay) (dollars/day)
i
278.7.6
46 j
1
1
|
1
Collection Full costs Actual costs
(days/month) (dollars) <5) (dollars) (6)
22 6,133 3,066
22 1,012 506
7,145 3,572
604 604
7,749 4,176
7,749 4,176
Refuse Program
Labor cost Equipment Collection Costs
(dollars/day) (dollars/day) (days/month) (dollars)
400 22 8,800
69 22 1,518
10,318
61 22 1,342
12,829
24,489
I I
1 Labor costs consist of wages and fringe benefits'(20 percent of wages) for 3-man crews. The average labor cost for a recycling crew is $36,239.05 per year or $139 38 per
CrSW f*y;nnh6 TT iabor "r°St for/ refuse crew is $34,666.67 per year, or $133.33 per crew day. Two crews ($278.76 per day) are used for recycling collection, and three
crews ($400 per day) are used for refuse collection.
2 E,q*'Jiment C°StS COnS'St °f maintenance< consumables, and depreciation costs. The recycling fleet consists of two compartmentalized vehicles @$23 per day for a total cost
of $46 per day. The refuse fleet consists of three packer vehicles @$23 per day, for a total cost of $69 per day.
3 The labor cost for one operator is $15,850 per year, or $611 per day. "
4 Monthly rental for bins includes $21 for one newsprint bin!, $305 for one hydraulic packer for corrugated paper, and $36 for two bins .for glass and cans. The dumping
fee for each bin and packer is $35 per dumping. The bins v'vere dumped the following number of times: newsprint - 2; corrugated paper - 5; clear glass/cans - 2; and green
Qlsss/csns - u, -
5 Full costs reflect the total recycling program budget, including all equipment and labor. Publicity and administrative overhead costs are not included
6 Actual costs are the incremental costs of the recycling program. These costs reflect the savings associated with the transfer of men and one vehicle from the original
refuse program to the recycling program.
Ui
UJ
-------
Exhibit A.g
Somerville Monthly Cost Backup {June 1978)
Activity
COLLECTION
Labor (1)
Equipment (2)
Total
TRANSFER
STATION
Labor (3)
Equipment (4)
Total
DISPOSAL COST
TOTAL COST
Recycling Program
Labor cost Equipment Collection Full costs
(dollars/day) (dollars/day) (days/month) (dollars) <5)
342 20 6,840
62 20 1,240
8,080
114 20 2,280
50 20 1,000
3,280
Actual costs
(dollars) (6)
2,260
1,240
3,500
2,280
1,000
3,280
11,360
6,780
Refuse Program
Labor cost Equipment Collection Costs
(dollars/day) (dollars/day) (days/month) (dollars)
1,539 22 33,858
358 22 7,876
41,734
33,840
75,574
1 Labor costs consist of wages and fringe benefits (25 percent of wages) for 3-man crews. The average labor cost for one driver and two collectors is $44,460 per year, or
approximately $171 per crew day. Two crews ($342 per day) are used for recycling collection, and nine crews ($1,539 per day) are used for refuse collection.
2 Equipment costs consist of maintenance, consumables, and depreciation costs. The recycling fleet consists of two compartmentalized vehicles @$31 per day, for a total
cost of $62 per day. The refuse fleet consists of nine packer vehicles @ $39.80 per day, for a total cost of $358 per day. :
3 The labor cost for one front-end loader operator and assistant is $29,675 per year, or $114 per day.
4 Equipment cost consists of depreciation and maintenance for one front-end loader.
5 Full costs reflect the total recycling program budget, including all equipment and labor.
6 Actual costs are the incremental costs of the recycling program. These costs reflect the savings associated with the transfer of six men from the original refuse program
to the recycling program.
co-c
oo oo
ro oo
-------
-------
-------
EPA REGIONS
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Solid Waste Program
John F. Kennedy Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
617-223-5775
U.S. EPA, Region 2
Solid Waste Section
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007
212-264-0503
U.S. EPA, Region 3
Solid Waste Program
6th and Walnut Sts.
Philadelphia, PA 19106
215-597-9377
U.S. EPA, Region 4
Solid Waste Program
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Altanta, GA 30308
404-881-3016
U.S. EPA, Region 5
Solid Waste Program
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
312-353-2197
U.S. EPA, Region 6
Solid Waste Section
1201 Elm St.
Dallas, TX 75270
214-767-2734
U.S. EPA, Region 7
Solid Waste Section
1735 Baltimore Ave.
Kansas City, MO 64108
816-374-3307
U.S. EPA, Region 8
Solid Waste Section
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, CO 80295
303-837-2221
U.S. EPA, Region 9
Solid Waste Program
215 Fremont St.
San Francisco, CA 94' 05
415-556-4606
U.S. EPA, Region 10
Solid Waste Program
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
206-442-1260
-------
------- |