-------
-------
RECYCLING
Assessment & Prospects
for Success
by ARSEN DARNAY
Philosophical Perspectives
Our Relationship to Nature. Since the 19th century, Western
man has exhibited a strangely ambiguous attitude toward
nature—anxious to imitate her ways and to unravel her mys-
teries, eager at the same time to reap her fruits and to exploit
her resources. This polarity of attitude is still with us: on the
one hand advertising messages tell us how this or that product
improves upon nature's way of doing things; on the other hand
our maladaptation to the natural environment that feeds and
shelters us is proclaimed by a rising chorus of voices.
We Are Maladapted. Today those who tell us that we are
maladapted to nature and those -who question the fitness to
survive of our industrial society are still a minority. The ortho-
dox religion of our day—believed in by millions—is that sci-
ence and technology are capable of improving upon nature and
of removing the adverse effects of past industrial practices. It is
still largely heresy to insist that what's wrong with our way
of life is not this or that specific problem—like solid waste
mismanagement or urban decay—but a fundamental maladap-
tation to the long-range requirements of survival on this planet.
Yet, as the consequences of our highly industrialized, chem-
icalized, urbanized, and congested way of life become more and
more obvious and more and more threatening, so does our
awareness grow that something fundamental is wrong and that
19th-century man, who set in motion the industrialization of
Environmental Protection Agency
Library, Region V
1 Horth Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
-------
Since earliest history the circle, in Nature and of man's devising, has symbolized renewal or
recycling. The illustrations in this publication, drawn from both sources, are intended to
reflect that process.
the world, had reason enough to feel a vague anxiety about
nature and her ways.
Is there really cause for concern? Are we really maladapted?
Are we poisoning ourselves? Are we running out of resources?
I believe the answer is definitely yes to all of these questions.
What is surprising to me is that so few realize what the impli-
cations of our current modes of behavior are. Nature is built
around a balance of forces. Rabbits and foxes keep each other
in balance. All the rivers flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full,
as the Preacher says in Ecclesiastes. All is balance; cause is
followed by effect, and each effect becomes a cause, so that
survival is possible. Every waste product is a food source; every
chemical substance formed by nature has a corresponding sub-
stance designed to break it down. Every expenditure must be
paid for; every infraction of the rules is followed by appro-
priate consequences.
If you examine the life patterns of the industrialized world,
especially those of the United States, you see patterns that spell
imbalance. We are far out on a limb, but we are unaware of
it. Our total consumption of energy in 1968 was equivalent to
11 tons of coal for every man, every woman, and every child.
Our population is increasing at a rate of about 1.5 percent
yearly, yet our consumption of products grows between 4 and
6 percent a year. Approximately 200 million tons of paper,
iron, steel, glass, nonferrous metals, textiles, rubber, and plas-
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
tics flow through the economy yearly, and materials weighing
roughly the same leave the economy again as waste.
This is a situation of imbalance and maladaptation. Most of
the energy and many of the materials we use are derived from
nonrenewable deposits: we are consuming our capital, rather
than our earnings.
The Myth of the Perpetual Motion Machine. Why aren't
we more worried about this situation? Throughout history man
has dreamed of getting something for nothing. While this is
impossible, of course, the dream is persistent, taking ever new
forms. In medieval times people tried to build perpetual motion
machines. We have our equivalent dream. We believe in the
infinite potential of science and technology to get us out of the
fix we are in. Nuclear power will get us out of the box, we
believe, and later fusion power will give us unlimited energy.
So why worry? The fact is that everything has a cost, perpetual
motion machines don't work, and science will not allow us to
transcend the laws of nature; the job of science is to help us
understand those laws.
The Need for New Adaptations and the Role of Resource
Recovery. Today we know enough to know that the royal
orgy of industrialization will be followed by a guilty and sober
morning-after of general reassessment and—ultimately—
change. We must adopt a new attitude toward nature. We must
find our way back to the Middle Path where the potential for
survival is greatest.
Recycling or resource recovery is but a small part of a gen-
-------
eral program to get back off the limb we are on. Moreover, it
is an interim step in that program. As far as resources are con-
cerned, the ultimate aim must be reduction of our consumption.
But as we retrace our steps, the first step can and should be to
use again the materials we have already used.
Recycling Today
The Materials Cycle. Where do we in the United States
stand today so far as resource recovery is concerned? Every year
we consume roughly 190 million tons of major metals, paper,
glass, rubber, and textiles. Of this consumption, 48 million tons
are satisfied from recycling operations, and 142 million tons
come from virgin resources. Thus the recycling rate for those
materials we do recycle is 25 percent of consumption. It is im-
portant to realize that most of the materials recycled come from
industrial processing, fabrication, and manufacturing opera-
tions rather than from obsolete products. These are wastes that
occur in relatively pure form and are not contaminated and
mixed with materials undesirable to the waste buyer.
In addition to the materials suitable for recycling, large ton-
nages of other substances are consumed that pass through the
economy without recovery. For example, food products are
consumed; the wastes are processed into sludges that nobody
wants—not because these sludges are without value but be-
cause they can't compete with cheap synthetic fertilizers in the
agricultural market. Fly ash from utilities and slags from cer-
tain metallurgical operations are also good plant nutrients but
have no markets. In this perspective, a 25 percent recycling
rate for a selected grouping of materials is no cause for
rejoicing.
Proportionately to consumption, resource recovery has been
steadily losing ground in virtually every materials sector. Con-
sidering all aspects of materials-use—technical, locational,
economic, and product-quality-related aspects—it is more de-
sirable today to use virgin natural resources than secondary
materials derived from waste. We import raw materials across
thousands of miles of ocean and use them within a few miles
of places where those same resources, in already processed form,
are being dumped or landfilled. Clearly, industrial materials-
-------
use decisions do not take into account a number of factors that
should correct this situation.
There are no economic or technical events on the horizon
that would indicate a reversal of this trend. The economic sys-
tem, if allowed to continue to operate as it does, will continue
to select virgin raw materials in preference to wastes. This fact
should be etched into the awareness of those who look to re-
cycling as a way out of the solid waste management dilemma.
At the same time, there are public initiatives on the horizon
to breathe new life into resource recovery.
Resource Recovery, Pollution, and Energy Use. While the
current situation is not encouraging, information is emerging
slowly to show that resource recovery is a beneficial activity
for more than one reason: if two production systems are com-
pared, one using virgin materials, the other secondary mate-
rials, the system using wastes causes less air and water pollu-
tion, generates less solid waste, and consumes less energy. This
is true if the environmental impacts of all activities in a system
are measured—mining, processing, fabrication, manufacturing,
and disposal and transportation steps between these. For a
waste material, collection of the waste is equivalent to mining,
and recovery of the waste is equivalent to disposal. If the costs
of the environmental impacts and energy-use associated with
virgin materials-use were reflected in production costs, there
would be more recycling. But we are yet counting those costs.
A base of evidence is thus being constructed to show that
there is an excellent justification for resource recovery. The job
now is to ensure that the economy begins to reflect the bene-
ficial nature of recycling by using more secondary materials.
-------
There are basically two current approaches to bringing this
about: one relies on technological means, the other on in-
centives.
Resource Recovery Technology. The technological ap-
proach is based on the assumption that the reason for our
declining recycling rate is the inaccessibility of secondary re-
sources. Technology is needed, the argument runs, to make
•wastes available to industry or agriculture. If only we could
get the paper or glass out of the waste, industry would gladly
receive it,,
This argument is partially sound. We do need to make waste
commodities accessible. But creating a supply will not ensure a
demand. Technology is only part of the solution, and not even
an absolutely necessary part.
Studies conducted with U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) support and the experience gained in a number
of demonstration programs show that there are no markets for
certain commodities, and making them simply results in pour-
ing dollars into useless products still needing disposal. The
costs of technological waste processing are high. Regardless of
the technology used—dry or wet sorting, pyrolysis, heat re-
covery after combustion, composting, or other systems—at a
daily capacity range of 500 tons per day, the system will cost
more to operate than it will realize in income. Net costs, the
remainder after revenues are deducted from operating costs,
are likely to range from $2.80 to $6.30 per ton. This kind of
cost per ton exceeds disposal costs in all but the most hard-hit
communities. Given the chronic fiscal problems of cities, do you
suppose that the decision to subsidize a resource recovery system
will be easy?
The costs cited are related to the prices currently paid for
waste materials. If these prices were to rise, resource recovery
economics would improve. Similarly, if disposal costs were to
rise, recycling, even at current price levels for commodities,
would be easier to justify.
The economic data cited are not the final word. These data
are derived in many instances from estimates, extrapolations of
information obtained from pilot-plant operations, and assump-
-------
V
tions that a plant's total product output can actually be sold.
Since making these early studies, we are now obtaining scat-
tered evidence that capital and operating costs may in some
instances be higher than originally estimated. At the same time,
there is the hope that resource recovery techniques will be per-
fected and will mature, and as they do mature that their eco-
nomics will become more attractive. Today there is no compre-
hensive recycling system in existence in this country operating
on mixed municipal wastes that has a capacity range of several
hundred tons a day; thus every report on recycling techniques
is provisional .
Resource Recovery Incentives. However marvelous the
machinery is, the real test of resource recovery is the sale of the
product of the machine. In the past several years, there have
been hopeful stirrings in industry, indicating at least a willing-
ness to accept waste products back. So far there is only willing-
ness to accept, not yet a concerted industrial drive to seek out,
waste resources. The only incentive for most industrial sectors
to recycle wastes is negative—the fear that legislation will be
passed taxing or banning various materials or packages. To
avoid this threat, and also to show a genuine desire to help
-------
solve social problems, industry has been willing to take back
the very small tonnages of wastes recovered in neighborhood
recycling centers and scattered, small urban waste recycling
operations. In some instances, the use of such resources by
industry is suspected to be uneconomical.
Before resource recovery becomes viable on a large scale,
incentives for industrial use of waste materials must become
much greater. This means that secondary materials must become
cheaper than equivalent virgin resources or that virgin re-
sources must become more expensive relative to raw materials
derived from wastes.
Providing secondary materials at lower cost is not likely to
be achieved by technological means, as I have indicated. Even
if recycling technology makes giant strides forward, it is un-
likely soon to catch up with or to overtake virgin material
processing technology. And recycling technology does not now
yield products competitive on a cost basis with virgin resources.
If we 'wish to bring about recycling—and there is no ques-
tion in my mind that we should wish to do so—incentives must
be created or, to put it bluntly, recycling must be subsidized
for whatever period is needed to wean the Nation from a nearly
exclusive reliance on virgin resources. Part of our national
surplus must be allocated to bring about a change in our
materials-use patterns.
Because the institution of incentives is essentially a political
rather than technical job, any attempt to predict whether or not
incentive programs will be instituted and, if yes, how soon, is a
speculative endeavor. EPA's incentive studies program, how-
ever, will be discussed and should give some indication of
directions.
Recycling and Solid Waste Management. Thus far, I have
said little about the interaction between solid waste manage-
ment and recycling. The two subjects, in my opinion, are only
-------
tentatively related. Almost none of the recycled materials ton-
nage used today comes from solid waste. Once a product is in
the waste can, it is almost certainly destined for disposal. All
those commodities sought by industry are presegregated from
waste, rerouted from the solid waste system, as it were, by-
passing or avoiding it.
If recycling should become a new alternative to solid waste
disposal, it will also be a new type of recycling activity—not
an extension of current recycling practices. Proponents of solid
waste recycling should clearly understand that they advocate
the formation of new enterprises, new •ways of materials-
handling, with all attendant uncertainties, risks, and barriers.
Some people act as if the recycling of mixed wastes was a
promising solution that had somehow been overlooked, but
now that we have hit upon this idea, all is well. Quite the
contrary is true.
Keeping in mind my assertion that increased resource recov-
ery will depend on new incentives, consider for a moment what
might happen if incentives were actually in place and were of
such a nature to cause strong industrial demand for a variety
of waste commodities. One of the most likely consequences
would be an intensification of waste collection, commodity by
commodity, by the secondary materials industry, by private vol-
untary organizations, and by municipalities, before these com-
modities are thrown into the waste stream. We would, in other
words, see a considerable amount of diversion of waste from
the conventional solid waste channel. This would occur at the
initiative of a variety of groups who would stand to benefit
from recycling as a consequence of the incentive system used.
Household waste segregation is a probable consequence of in-
centives. Schools, Scouts, such organizations as the Salvation
Army and the Goodwill Industries, municipal public works de-
partments, voluntary organizations, and secondary materials
dealers would all be motivated to convince the housewife to
separate fractions of the waste stream that are more conven-
iently and cheaply recycled if received in separate form.
The quantity of waste generated as mixed waste would
decrease, and the waste discarded would be those portions
least likely to find markets—contaminated paper, small rubber
-------
products, plastics, wood, garbage, yard wastes, ashes, synthetic
textiles, and dirt. To recycle these wastes as materials com-
modities will be even more difficult than the recycling of
today's waste stream which has not been "picked over," as it
were. But recycling of this type of waste as energy might be
attractive, especially since the removal of metals and glass will
result in an increase in the heat value of the incoming waste
stream.
To underline this point, let me reformulate it: recycling will
be brought about by incentives. Incentives are likely to cause
diversion of saleable materials from the waste stream. The dis-
carded residue is likely to be recoverable only as energy or a
fuel. In the long run, the impact of a successful national recycl-
ing program on waste management is thus most likely to be a
reduction in waste discards and the possibility of using residual
wastes as a source of energy.
The Prospects for Recycling
General Program Directions. What are the elements of a
national recycling program and what is the probable EPA role
in this program? A national program must result in appropri-
ate incentives to use waste materials in an environmentally
desirable way. This requirement sounds innocent enough, but
its implications are vast and mean radical transformations in
our ways of doing business. This becomes clear when you con-
sider where the wastes must go and the potential resistance to
their acceptance.
Organic wastes—sewage sludges, animal wastes, crop wastes,
and food wastes—and high-nutrient mineral wastes must be
returned to the soil, implying the displacement of synthetic
soil nutrients.
10
-------
Metals must be returned to the industries that generate them,
implying the displacement of ores and associated raw materials.
Materials made of natural fibers—wood, paper, paperboard,
and some textiles—can be returned to their originating indus-
tries, implying the displacement of pulp wood, sheep's wool,
cotton, and so forth. These and synthetic materials like syn-
thetic textiles, plastics, and rubber can be converted directly
to energy or into fuels—displacing fossil fuels.
Glass, ceramics, ashes, mine wastes, and similar minerals
must move into construction materials; they must compete in
an industry traditional in its structure and practices. Glass,
of course, can be directly recycled.
This recital should be enough to indicate that an incentive
system that produced the desired result would be complex
and require years of persuasion and tinkering to bring about.
The implementation is itself likely to take many forms: tax
credits to waste users, taxes on virgin materials, Federal pur-
chase specifications, changes in transportation rates, regula-
tion of international trade, and so forth.
Incentives, once in effect, will require time to take hold:
facilities need to be modified, waste acquisition systems must
be developed, some research and developmnt must be accom-
plished. Thus we are dealing here with relatively long time
frames, at least in terms of total impact on the materials-use
patterns of the United States. In some areas, for instance in
paper recovery, various pressures—especially Federal, State,
and institutional purchasing policies—are very likely to lead
to results fairly soon.
Because the reorientation of materials-use patterns will not
be painless economically, success of a national recycling pro-
gram will depend to a very significant extent on popular sup-
port of environmental initiatives at all levels in the society.
I am convinced that such support is there and that it will grow.
If this support is strong, we shall achieve the objectives rapidly;
if it is weak, the result will be mixed—a few selective incen-
tive programs, a scattering of resource recovery plants, and a
few thousand voluntary recycling center operations that oper-
ate on the fringes of the real materials economy, which will
11
-------
still be heavily dependent on virgin resources and headed
toward extinction. "You pays your money and takes your
choice,,"
The EPA Program. What is EPA doing about recycling?
Narrowly viewed, EPA's job is spelled out in the Resource
Recovery Act of 1970, which directs the Agency, first, to study
and report to the President and Congress ways and means to
bring about greater resource recovery, including the investiga-
tion of a variety of incentives and disincentives and, second,
to demonstrate large-scale recovery of municipal and urban
wastes by support of the design, engineering, construction, and
one year's operation of such facilities. The EPA operation in
this area closely follows the Congressional mandate. The work
is divided into a resource recovery studies program and a dem-
onstration program within the Resource Recovery Division
of EPA's Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.
The nature of the resource recovery studies we are conduct-
ing should be fairly clear from the earlier discussion. In brief,
we are examining a variety of incentive options to evaluate
their ptossible effectiveness and impacts; we are also developing
the background information on current recycling markets,
economics, technology, and practices necessary to give a bal-
anced view of the subject.
Our demonstration program will be launched next week.
In light of my comments about the costs of resource recovery
technology and the weak market demand for the potential
products from such facilities, you can appreciate the fact that
we are starting this program with some sense of anxiety.
Man should learn something from experience. The nearest
analogy to resource-recovery facility construction programs is
the experience with compost plants. In the United States, com-
post plants have had a history of failure, and the chief weak-
12
-------
ness of compost plants has been the absence of market demand
for the humus product.
Now we are concerned that resource recovery demonstrations
may chalk up an equally dismal record unless the greatest
vigilance is practiced in the selection of locations, technologies,
and organizational deployment composing each demonstration.
In order to keep the risks to a minimum, we developed a
set of requirements and criteria that, if adhered to, should
result in economically healthy resource recovery facilities. Some
of these are as follows:
• The minimum plant size for systems receiving munici-
pal waste must be 150 tons per day.
• At least 60 percent by dry weight of incoming waste
must be converted into saleable products, fuels, or
energy.
• No more than 25 percent of the plant output may be
agricultural/horticultural products.
• Purchase commitments for at least half the plant's out-
put must be obtained in advance, consisting of purchase
contracts or letters of intent to buy.
• The net costs of the facility must compare favorably
with alternative disposal modes either as currently expe-
rienced or as projected five years hence.
There are more requirements, of course, but this selection
shows that we are entering upon this program with more than
usual advance programming.
We do not believe that demonstration programs are a sub-
stitute for incentive programs. Without new incentives, dem-
onstrations may not attract any imitators. Given our criteria,
it will be difficult to justify a resource recovery plant unless
it is very large, thus taking advantage of economies of scale,
is in an area where disposal costs as currently experienced are
already high, and is in an area accessible to markets for the
output waste commodities.
Given today's conditions, in other words, resource recovery
facilities are unlikely to be built in many locations, and even
where they are built, they are likely merely to cause a shift
in the source of wastes for the manufacturers rather than an
13
-------
increase in t_ .nd. If the demand in an area .., for 1,000 tons
a month of newspapers, it will not increase just because a
resource recovery facility is built. What is likely to happen
is that instead of getting the newspaper from paper drives con-
ducted by local schools, the manufacturer will get it from the
recovery facility.
The demonstration program is important as one of several
building blocks in a total program. We are still at a point in
the development of resource recovery where all conceivable
initiatives—from Girl Scout can collections all the way to the
deliberation of the National Commission on Materials Policy—
must be supported and fostered.
EPA's interest in resource recovery may also be viewed in
the broader context of the Agency's overall mission to protect
the environment. Here suffice it to say that recycling has been
shown to be environmentally beneficial in all instances studied
in detail. The recycling concept thus contributes to several
EPA missions in addition to the Agency's solid waste manage-
ment mission.
Conclusions
Recycling today is declining in importance in the market
even as interest in resource recovery is rapidly increasing.
Resource recovery is not viewed as a particularly attractive
solution to the solid waste problem in the short term, except
possibly the recovery of energy from mixed combustible wastes.
In the long run, resource recovery will become a necessary part
of our materials-use practices; this will be brought about by
the creation of new incentives.
Presented by Mr. Darnay, in March 1972, to a seminar sponsored by the Urban Drainage
and Flood Control District and the Denver Regional Council of Governments, Denver, Colo-
rado. Mr. Darnay is Director, Resource Recovery Division, Office of Solid Waste Manage-
ment Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
14
-------
-------
Envircnmsnt.al Protection Agency
Library, Region V
1 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
-------
-------
------- |