United States Office of Water & SW-776
Environmental Protection Waste Management July 1979
Agency Washington DC 20460
Water
<>EPA A National Survey
of Separate Collection
Programs
-------
-------
A NATIONAL SURVEY OF
SEPARATE COLLECTION PROGRAMS
This report (SW-778) was written
by DAVID M. COHEN
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1979
-------
An environmental protection publication (SW-778) 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 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.
-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
To Municipal Officials:
The purpose of this publication is to provide you with
a comprehensive overview of separate collection program
activities throughtout the United States. This information
should be particularly helpful to those of you who are
interested in implementing a separate collection program.
Moreover, we view this publication as complementing the
more in-depth technical assistance which can be provided
through the Technical Assistance Panels program mandated
by the recently enacted Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976.
Since the Environmental Protection Agency began
tracking nationwide newspaper recovery activities/ we have
seen the number of separate collection programs increase
from two programs in 1970 to 218 programs in 1978. Separate
collection programs have successfully helped to reduce
municipal waste quantities and, in turn, extended the life
of our sanitary landfills. At the same time, separate
collection has also helped to conserve resources having
significant economic value.
We hope that this publication will be an informative
and useful document for both you and your community.
Sincerely yours,
Steffen W. Plehn
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Chapter
I. SUMMARY
The National Picture 1
Markets 2
Collection Practices 3
Ordinances 4
Publicity 5
II. INTRODUCTION 6
III. THE NATIONAL PICTURE 14
Program Location 14
Materials Collected 17
Multimaterial Programs 19
Program Initiation 21
Participation Rates 23
Diverted Disposal Quantities 25
Socioeconomics and Program Success 28
IV. MARKETS 33
Sale of Recovered Materials 33
Sale Approaches 33
Contract Length 36
Contract Provisions 38
Additional Trends 39
Recession 40
Historical Background 40
Program Discontinuance 43
Effect on Existing Programs 45
V. COLLECTION PRACTICES 50
Responsibility for Collection 50
Methods of Collection 52
Rack 52
Trailer 54
Separate Truck 56
Compartmentalized Vehicle 59
Collection Method Breakdown 61
Collection Area Size 63
Frequency of Collection 65
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Chapter Page
VI. ORDINANCES 67
Separate Collection Ordinances 67
Mandatory/Voluntary Breakdown 69
Mandatory Ordinance Enforcement 70
Relationships with Participation and 73
Diversion Rates
Antiscavenging Ordinances 74
Scavenger Ordinance Breakdown 76
Scavenger Ordinance Enforcement 78
VII. PUBLICITY 80
Publicity Before Implementation 8^
Publicity After Implementation 8^
Publicity Effectiveness 84
VIII. REFERENCES 89
IX. APPENDICES
A. Municipal Waste Generation and Composition^"1
in the United States, 1975
B. Separate Collection Programs B-l
(May, 1978)
C. Multimaterial Separate Collection c-1
Programs (May, 1978)
D. D-l
IV
-------
FIGURES
Figure Pagt
1 - Growth of Separate Collection Programs 15
2 - Map of Separate Collection Programs in 16
the U.S.
3 - Map of Multimaterial Programs 20
4 - National Market Prices for Newspaper 42
and Mixed Wastepaper
5 - Material Prices With and Without Contracts 49
6 - Picture of Rack Method 53
7 - Picture of Trailer Method 55
8 - Picture of Separate Truck Method 58
9 - Picture of Compartmentalized Vehicle 60
10 - West Orange, NJ Enforcement Letter 71
11 - Example of Publicity After Implementation 85
v
-------
TABLES
Table Page
1 - Materials Collected 18
2 - Reasons for Program Initiation 22
3 - Participation Rates 25
4 - Newspaper Tonnages Diverted per Thousand 26
People per Month
5 - Mixed Paper Tonnages Diverted per Thousand 27
People per Month
6 - Median Age 28
7 - Median Education 29
8 - Mean Income 29
9 - Population Densities 30
10 - Sales Approaches 36
11 - Contract Length 37
12 - Contract Provisions 39
13 - Program Discontinuance 44
14 - Effect of Recessionary Economy on 46
Separate Collection Programs
15 - Responsibility for Collection 51
16 - Methods of Collection 62
17 - Collection Area Size 64
18 - Frequency of Collection 66
19 - Voluntary/Mandatory Programs 70
20 - Mandatory Ordinance Enforced 72
21 - Scavenger Problems 77
22 - Scavenger Ordinance 77
23 - Scavenger Ordinance Enforced 78
24 - Publicity Before and After Implementation 81
25 - Estimated Effectiveness of Publicity 87
Before Implementation
26 - Estimated Effectiveness of Publicity 88
After Implementation
vi
-------
I. SUMMARY
THE NATIONAL PICTURE
The number of separate collection programs
increased from 118 programs in August 1974
to 218 programs in May 1978.
The majority of separate collection programs
are located in the northeastern, mid-Atlantic,
mid-western, and mid-Pacific sections of the
United States. More than one-half of all programs
are found in the northeastern and mid-Atlantic
sections of the United States. It appears that
the regional solid waste disposal problem in these
areas has prompted many communities to initiate
programs.
Ninety-nine percent of the programs surveyed
collected some form of wastepaper (76 percent
collected newspaper, while 23 percent collected
mixed wastepaper). Glass was collected by
16 percent of the programs surveyed, while
metal was collected by 14 percent of the programs.
The number of multimaterial separate collection
programs increased from two programs in 1974 to
40 programs in 1978. The majority of multi-
material programs are located in the northeastern
and western sections of the United States. The
formation of an intermediate processing industry
in the Northeast and the abundance of glass
plants and metals markets on the West Coast have
prompted communities in these areas to initiate
multimaterial programs.
Forty-six percent of the communities surveyed
cited a desire to conserve resources as a
major reason for separate collection program
initiation. Forty-one percent of the programs
cited community interest in recycling, 16 percent
cited a desire to reduce solid waste volumes, and
15 percent cited a desire to reduce landfill costs
as their major motivation.
-------
Significantly, 42 percent of the communities in
the Northeast cited the need to reduce solid
waste volumes as a major reason for starting
separate collection as compared to only 18
percent of the midwestern communities and 16
percent of the communities in the Washington,
D.C.-Maryland-Virginia area.
Forty-two percent of the programs reported
participation rates of 20 to 49 percent.
Twenty-seven percent of the communities
had participation rates of 50 to 100 percent.
Thirty-one percent of the communities had
participation rates of less than 20 percent.
Although not a strong relationship, participation
rates were found to be significantly related to
the mean income and the median education of
residents in a separate collection community.
Likewise, newspaper diversion rates were also
significantly related to the mean income and
median education of residents in a separate
collection community. Therefore, it appears
that the likelihood of higher participation
rates increases as the income and education
of residents rises.
MARKETS
Thirty-nine percent of the programs surveyed
had contracts with materials dealers or
manufacturers to sell the recyclable materials.
A majority of the material contracts pertained to
the sale of newsprint and mixed wastepaper.
More than 75 percent of the contracts signed by
communities surveyed had a duration of 1 year.
Approximately 11 percent had contracts of 2 years,
the remaining 13 percent had contracts of 3 years
or more.
Forty-five percent of the programs signed
contracts with both a floor price and a floating
price above the floor price. Thirty-seven percent
of the communities signed contracts with only
fixed price provisions.
-------
The recession in the United States between
August 1974 and July 1975 severely affected
separate collection programs. Thirty-eight
separate collection programs were discontinued
between 1974 and 1975. More than one-third of
the 38 communities cited the lack of markets
for newspaper as their major reason for stopping
the program. One-fourth of the 38 communities
cited declining newspaper prices as one of
several reasons for discontinuing their separate
collection program.
Approximately 75 percent of the programs that
continued separate collection throughout the
recession responded that material prices were
reduced during that period.
Nineteen percent of the programs could not find
markets interested in purchasing wastepaper
during certain periods of the recession. These
programs continued collection and either stored
or landfilled the paper until markets were found.
Communities holding contracts with paper
dealers and manufacturers during the recession
reported much higher prices than the majority
of those programs that did not have material
contracts.
COLLECTION PRACTICES
Municipalities were responsible for collecting
recyclables in 57 percent of the programs
surveyed. The remaining 29 percent and 12
percent of collection responsibilities were
undertaken by private collection firms and
community organizations, respectively.
Approximately 72 percent of all separate
collection programs use the separate truck
approach to collect recyclables, 22 percent
of the programs use the rack method, 5 percent
use the trailer method, and 2 percent use the
compartmentalized vehicle method. Since 1974,
use of separate truck method decreased by
12 percent, while use of the rack method
increased 7 percent.
Forty percent of the programs surveyed collected
recyclables at a frequency of once a week.
Approximately 29 percent of the programs collected
recyclables at a frequency of once a month.
-------
ORDINANCES
Twenty-four percent of the programs surveyed
had ordinances mandating that residents separate
desired recyclable materials from mixed refuse.
It appears that most separate collection ordinances
are not enforced. Enforcement of separate collection
ordinances, when it was reported, ranged from phone
calls to residents who failed to separate recyclables
from mixed refuse to refusal of the collector to pick
up mixed refuse.
The likelihood of a high participation rate
appears greater in a mandatory program than in a
voluntary program, given similar socioeconomic
characteristics of residents, collection fre-
quency, and publicity campaigns. Fifty-nine
percent of the mandatory programs had partic-
ipation rates of 50 percent or more, while only
19 percent of the voluntary programs had
participation rates in the same category.
Similarly, only 11 percent of the mandatory
programs had participation rates of 19 percent
or less as compared to 36 percent of the voluntary
programs.
The likelihood of high newspaper diversion
rates also appears greater in mandatory pro-
grams than in voluntary programs.
Approximately two-thirds of the programs
surveyed stated that scavengers were a problem,
especially when market prices for wastepaper
were high. However, only 51 percent of the
programs had an antiscavenging ordinance.
Sixty-one percent of the 51 communities
responding to the ordinance enforcement question
stated that the ordinance was enforced. However,
results of scavenger ordinance enforcement appear
questionable given the large number of communities
that did not respond to the question. Many
of the 39 percent of those communities that
claimed the scavenger ordinance was not enforced
stated that the ordinance was not enforceable.
-------
PUBLICITY
Approximately 99 percent of the programs
surveyed publicized their separate collection
programs prior to its implementation.
Newspaper publicity, usually in the form of
advertisements and articles about program
operation, was used by 91 percent of the commu-
nities before implementation. Circulars and
announcements to civic groups, announcing
the start of the program, were used by 51 percent
and 31 percent of the programs, respectively.
A letter from the mayor or other elected
official, perceived to be the most effective
publicity to generate participation, was used
by 21.7 percent of the programs before
implementation.
Local environmental groups, garden clubs, and
neighborhood organizations played a large role
in setting up publicity campaigns.
Publicity campaigns after implementation of
separate collection programs were very similar
to the types of publicity used prior to
implementation. However, many communities
significantly reduced the amount of publicity
going to its residents once separate collection
had begun. In addition, many communities used
less expensive forms of publicity once the pro-
gram had started.
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
Municipal solid waste management is a significant
problem for municipal governments.*
o Presently, collection, transportation, and
disposal of one ton of solid waste averages
$43. By 1985, collection, transportation, and
disposal costs are expected to increase to $50 per
ton of solid waste because of escalating landfill
disposal costs, costs associated with strict
antipollution requirements, and general inflation.
Collection, transportation, and disposal costs
currently exceed $55 per solid waste ton in
Washington, B.C., and New York City.
o Municipal solid waste generation in the U.S. has
doubled since the early 1950's and is expected to
2
grow substantially over the next 10 to 15 years.
o Many communities are finding it increasingly difficult
to locate new landfill disposal sites because of
rising land costs and public opposition toward
landfill siting.
*Appendix A presents a breakdown of the municipal solid waste
stream.
6
-------
Solid Waste Management Alternatives
A variety of alternatives can be considered by local
communities in reducing the amount of solid waste which must
be disposed of. Although each alternative has its
advantages and disadvantages with regard to the costs associated
with collection, transportation, and disposal of municipal
solid waste, no alternative by itself provides an all
encompassing solution to the solid waste problem.
Reduction
Some States have chosen to reduce their solid waste
volumes by using mandatory deposits on beverage containers,
product design regulations, or disposal taxes. Waste stream
reduction generally results in reduced costs for solid waste
collection, transportation, and disposal.
Resource Recovery Systems
Some municipalities have constructed resource recovery
facilities. Most large-scale resource recovery systems recover
energy from the organic fraction of waste and ferrous metals
from the inorganic fraction. A few municipalities have also
attempted to recover glass and aluminum from the waste stream
(these subsystems are still in the developmental stages).
7
-------
Source Separation
Many municipalities have implemented source separation
programs. Source separation is defined as the setting aside
of recyclable materials at their point of generation (home,
place of business, etc.) by the generator. Once recyclable
materials are separated, they may be transported to a secondary
materials dealer or manufacturer by the generator, municipal
collection crews, private haulers, or community organizations.
The success of source separation programs depends heavily
on gaining resident cooperation in separating the desired
recyclable materials. Two methods of source separation are
currently practiced by municipal governments in the U.S.:
reclamation centers and separate collection programs.
Reclamation centers were first established circa Earth
4
Day 1970 by environmentally concerned community organizations.
The reclamation center method of souce separation asks residents
to set aside and transport recyclable material to a central
storage point, e.g., warehouse, storage yard.
Because each recyclable material is housed in a different
storage container, reclamation centers can choose to accept
an unlimited number of recyclable materials depending on the
8
-------
availability of local material markets. The quality of
recyclable materials at a reclamation center is generally
very good because of the considerable amount of handsorting
by the center management and by the resident. Startup and
operating costs of reclamation centers are very low in
comparison to resource recovery plants.
The first city-wide separate collection program was
started in Madison, Wisconsin, in 1968. The separate collection
method of source separation asks residents to set aside and
place recyclable materials out for collection. Materials
are collected by either municipal collection crews, private
haulers, or community organizations.
The likelihood of resident participation is significantly
greater in separate collection programs than in reclamation
centers because residents are provided the convenience of
having their recyclable materials collected from their homes.
As a result of the greater expected resident participation,
it is also expected that solid waste disposal quantities and
costs on a per ton basis would be substantially more reduced
in separate collection programs than in reclamation centers.
However, contamination levels of materials are frequently
greater in separate collection programs than reclamation
centers because of the greater volumes of materials recovered
and decreased amounts of hand sorting.
9
-------
The number of separate collection programs increased
substantially between 1970 and 1974. In 1970, San Francisco,
California and Madison, Wisconsin were operating the only
separate collection programs in the U.S. In August of 1974,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a
telephone survey and identified 118 separate collection programs
in the U.S. Also at that time, EPA received detailed information
on the performance and costs associated with 22 separate
collection case study locations.
Since August 1974, however, no specific research
has been conducted on the growth and operation of separate
collection programs in the U.S. Because of the perceived
growth of separate collection programs since 1974, EPA
decided in June 1977, to perform an in-house national study
on separate collection programs.
10
-------
Purpose and Scope
This report presents the results of a national telephone
survey of 205 separate collection programs* throughout the
country from July 1977 to September 1977. Using a survey
sample of 177** programs, this report sought:
o To describe national and regional trends in separate
collection program growth since August 1974.
o To describe trends in separate collection program
design markets for recovered materials, publicity,
collection practices, and ordinances.
o To determine which aspects of separate collection
program design encourage high resident participation
and high solid waste diversion rates.
o To inform municipalities interested in starting
a separate collection program how communities
are presently operating programs.
*For purposes of this study, a separate collection program
was defined as scheduled collection (once per week, twice per
month, etc.) of separated recyclable waste material(s) from
residences and/or commercial establishments. The definition
pertains to all political jurisdictions.
**As of September 1977, 205 separate collection programs had
been identified by EPA. Only 177 of the 205 programs had
enough information to be included in the sample. Since
September 1977, an additional 13 programs have been located
by EPA. The additional 13 programs were not included in the
survey.
11
-------
Chapter III, THE NATIONAL PICTURE, provides a general
overview of separate collection program growth; program
location; materials collected; multimaterial programs;
reasons for program initiation; participation rates; diverted
disposal quantities; and relationships between socioeconomic
characteristics of communities and program success.
Chapter IV, MARKETS, reviews those practices used by
communities to sell recyclable materials. In particular,
this chapter provides information on the number of communities
holding contracts with material dealers, the duration of material
contracts, and material contract provisions. Chapter II also
documents the effect that the 1974-75 recession had on
separate collection programs and their material markets.
Chapter V, COLLECTION PRACTICES, describes the procedures
communities are using to collect separated recyclable materials.
More specifically, Chapter III outlines collection respon-
sibilities, collection area size, methods of collection, and
frequency of separate collection.
Chapter VI, ORDINANCES, provides information on the
number of communities with separate collection ordinances
and how these ordinances are enforces. Chapter IV also looks
at the effect that separate collection ordinances have on
12
-------
participation rates and waste diversion rates. In addition,
this chapter provides information on the number of communities
with antiscavenging ordinances and methods for enforcing
these ordinances.
Chapter VII, PUBLICITY, describes and evaluates the
publicity methods used by separate collection communities
throughout the U.S.
13
-------
III. THE NATIONAL PICTURE
As of May 1978, EPA had identified 218 separate collection
programs operating in the United States (Appendix B). The
1978 total represents an 82 percent increase over the 118
programs operating in August 1974 (Figure 1). Approximately
140,000 tons of wastepaper*, 13,000 tons of glass**, and 9,000 tons
of metal*** were recycled in 1977 through these programs.
Program Location
The majority of separate collection recycling programs
are located in the northeastern, mid-Atlantic, mid-western,
and mid-Pacific sections of the U.S. (Figure 2). In
particular, strong wastepaper markets in New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and California have
encouraged many communities to initiate separate collection
programs.
More than one-half of all separate collection programs
are found in the northeastern and mid-Atlantic sections of the
U.S. In addition to the strong markets for wastepaper, it
*3ased upon estimates from 156 oroarams collectina was-i-epaper.
Estimate does not include the unknown quantity of xvastepaper
collected by unauthorized scavengers and volunteer efforts.
**Bascd upon 2stinuteG from 22 programs collecting glass.
***Based upon estimates from 16 programs collecting uetals.
14
-------
FIGURE 1
SEPARATE COLLECTION PROGRAMS
(1970-1978)
70 '71 '72 '73 '74 '75 '76 '77 '78
15
-------
FIGURE 2
CO
u
LU
OL
LU
CO
-------
appears the abundance of programs in the northeastern and
mid-Atlantic regions is also a result of the regional solid
waste disposal problem. The need to reduce solid waste disposal
volumes has become acute because: 1) many existing landfills
are near capacity; 2) new landfill sitings within or
near municipalities are very difficult due to political and
social opposition; and 3) many communities are experiencing
increased costs associated with longer hauling distances to
new landfill sites.
Although little separate collection activity has taken place
in the southeastern section of the U.S., it appears that a
large paper manufacturer's recent decision to locate its plant
in Dublin, Georgia will influence many communities to
implement separate collection programs there. Since October of 1977,
six separate collection programs have begun in the Southeast.
The lack of separate collection activity in the remaining
sections of the U.S. can largely be explained by either the
lack of material markets, competition from recycling centers,
and/or a lesser need to reduce solid waste volumes.
Materials Collected
Approximately 99 percent of the 177 programs surveyed
collected some form of wastepaper (Table 1). More
specifically, newspaper* was collected by 76 percent of the
*Consists of old newspaper recovered from residential sources,
17
-------
programs. Mixed wastepaper* was collected by 22.9 percent of
the 177 programs surveyed. Only three of these programs did not
collect any type of wastepaper, but solely collected glass and/or
metal.
TABLE 1
RECYCLABLES COLLECTED
Number of Programs Percentage
Recyclables
Newspaper
Mixed wastepaper
Glass (mixed and
sorted)
Metal (aluminum,
tin)
Collecting Recyclables
133
41
color 28
bi-metal, 24
(177 programs)
76.0
22.9
15.8
13.5
Of the 133 programs collecting newspaper, 110 (82.7 percent)
solely collected newspaper and no other recyclables. Likewise,
32 (78 percent) of the 41 mixed wastepaper programs only
collected mixed wastepaper. The high percentage of communities
collecting only one type of wastepaper and no other recyclables
points to the growing desire of communities to remove that
portion of the waste stream with the greatest volume. In
addition, when compared to other recyclable materials, wastepaper
markets are most readily available.
*Consists of approximately 80 percent old newspapers (by weight)
and 20 percent unsorted mixed papers (by weight).
18
-------
Glass was collected by 15.8 percent of the programs
surveyed, while metal was collected by 13.5 percent of the
programs. As mentioned above, only three programs solely
collected glass and/or metals.
Multimaterial Programs
The number of multimaterial separate collection
programs, i.e., programs where two or more recyclables are
collected, significantly increased from two programs in 1974
to 40 programs in 1978. Of the 177 programs surveyed,
approximately 20 percent were conducting multimaterial programs.
Appendix C is a listing of multimaterial program locations
in the U.S. and the materials collected.
Multimaterial separate collection programs are concentrated
in the northeastern and western sections of the U.S. (Figure 3).
The formation of an intermediate processing industry in the
Northeast has provided communities with the opportunity to
collect a mixture of sorted glass (by color) and cans.
The intermediate processing industry purchases the glass and
can mixture from separate collection programs and prepares the
recyclables for the final market through an operation of
magnetic can separation and glass crushing and screening.
The abundance of multimaterial programs in the western U.S.
19
-------
00
FIGURE 3
O
O
u
LU
in
a.
LU
CO
20
-------
is partially a result of the large number of glass plants
and metals markets in this section of the country. More
importantly, communities can collect a mixture of clear, green,
and brown glass because wineries in California do not
require that glass be sorted by color.
Program Initiation
Table 2 presents the reasons communities initiated
separate collection programs. A desire to conserve resources
was cited by 46.3 percent of the separate collection programs.
Forty-one (41) percent of the programs cited community
interest in recycling as their reason for separate collection
initiation. The desire to reduce solid waste volumes and the
desire to reduce landfill costs (Table 2) were cited by 16 percent and
15 percent of the programs respectively. Taken together,
these two reaons for separate collection initiation highlight
local concern over increased solid waste transportation and
disposal costs. Only 10 percent of the 177 programs cited
the desire for financial profit as a reason for starting a
separate collection program. Significantly, the majority of
these programs were operated by community organizations,
unsupported by public funds.
21
-------
TABLE 2
REASON FOR STARTING PROGRAM
Number of Percentage Percentage
Reason Programs* of 177 Respondents** Responding
Conserve
resources
Community interest
in recycling
Reduce solid waste
Landfill costs
Financial profit
82
73
41
39
26
46.3
41.2
23.1
22.0
14.7
31.4
28.0
15.7
14.9
10.0
TOTAL 261 - 100.0
*177 programs responding. However, multiple reasons cause the
sum to exceed the total number of respondents.
**Multiple responses cause the sum to exceed 100 percent.
Total Missing Cases; 0
Significantly, 42 percent of the communities in the
Northeast cited the need to reduce solid waste volumes as
a major reason for starting separate collection, as compared
to only 17.8 percent of the midwestern communities and
16 percent of the communities in the Washington, D.C.,
Maryland, and Virginia area. Landfills are also apparently
nearing capacity on the West coast, as 32 percent of these
communities noted that they began a separate collection program
to reduce the volume of solid waste. As expected, 32 percent
22
-------
of the communities in the Northeast and 24 percent of the
communities in the New York/New Jersey area cited rising
landfill costs as a major reason for starting a separate
collection program. In comparison, only 16 percent of the
communities in the Washington, B.C., Maryland and Virginia
area, 18 percent of the communities in the Midwest, and
11 percent of the communities on the West Coast cited rising
landfill costs as a major reason for starting separate collection,
Participation Rates
As mentioned earlier, the success of separate collection
programs depends most heavily on getting residents to separate
the desired recyclables from mixed refuse. Participation
rates of residents help the program sponsor determine the
community response to a separate collection program.
Participation rates can be measured using two major
methods:
o Determining the percentage of residents who
place recyclables out each collection day.
o Determining the percentage of residents who
place recyclables out during a given time period,
e.g., weekly or monthly.
23
-------
The percentage of persons placing recyclables out each
collection day is usually less than the percentage of
residents placing recyclables out over a longer time period,
e.g., week, month, because most individuals do not
participate in the program each collection day. Participation
rates are also affected by the frequency of separate
collection. Therefore, the decision to use one method of
measuring participation rates over another should be
tailored to the information needs of the program.
Few of the separate collection programs surveyed kept
adequate participation rate records because of the time
and expense involved in collecting the data. Therefore, the
majority of the separate collection programs estimated,
rather than calculated, the participation rate.
Table 3 is a breakdown of monthly participation rates
based on the responses of 124 programs. Participation rate
was defined as the percentage of residents who placed out
recyclables at least once per month, regardless of collection
frequency. The majority of the 124 separate collection
programs (42 percent) reported monthly participation rates
between 20 and 49 percent. Approximately 31 percent of the
programs reported participation rates of less than 20
percent. Twenty-eight (28) percent of the programs had
participation rates of 50 percent or more. Participation
24
-------
rate estimates from 24 separate collection programs were
classified as "bad data" and not used in the study. Estimates
from these 24 programs were totally unrealistic, given the
reported material tonnage recycled each month and the
reported collection area size (Table 3).
TABLE 3
PARTICIPATION RATES
Participation
Rate (percent of persons
placing out recyclables Number of
at least once per month Programs Percentage
High (50-100)
Medium (20-49)
Low (less than 20)
34
52
38
27.4
41.9
30.7
TOTAL 124 100.0
Bad Data: 24
No Answer: 29
Total Missing Cases; 53
Diverted Disposal Quantities
One of the best methods for measuring the performance
of separate collection programs is to calculate the quantity
of waste that is diverted from disposal . Unfortunately,
reliable waste disposal data was not available from the
25
-------
majority of the communities surveyed. Table 4 presents
the quantity of newspaper diverted per month per 1,000
persons. Newspaper diversion rates were computed for
114 programs and categorized according to poor, fair, good,
or excellent diversion rates (Table 4). Approximately 32 percent of
the 114 programs had diversion rates of less than .44 tons per
1,000 persons per month. Twenty-eight (28) percent of the
newspaper programs had diversion rates from .45-1.11 tons of
per thousand people per month. Approximately 25 percent of
the newspaper programs had diversion rates from 1.12-2.09
tons per thousand people per month. Only 15 percent of the
newspaper programs had diversion rates of more than 2.10 tons
per thousand persons per month.
TABLE 4
NEWSPAPER TONNAGES DIVERTED
PER THOUSAND PERSONS PER MONTH
Tons Diverted
per Thousand
Persons per Month
Poor
Fair
Good
(£.44)
(.45-1.11)
(1.12-2.09)
Excellent (>2.10)
Number of
Programs
36
32
29
17
Percentage
31.6
28.1
25.4
14.9
TOTAL 114 100.0
No Answer: 21
Not Applicable: 42
Total Missing Cases; 63
26
-------
Table 5 presents the quantity of mixed wastepaper
diverted per month per thousand persons. Approximately
21.7 percent of the mixed wastepaper programs diverted less
than 0.35 tons per thousand persons per month. The majority
of mixed wastepaper programs (37.8 percent) had diversion
rates from .86-2.01 tons per thousand persons per month.
Sixteen (16) percent of the mixed wastepaper programs had
diversion rates of 2.92-2.79 per thousand persons per month.
Approximately 24 percent of the mixed wastepaper programs
had diversion rates of more than 2.8 tons per thousand
persons per month (Table 5).
TABLE 5
MIXED PAPER TONNAGES DIVERTED
PER THOUSAND PERSONS PER MONTH
Tons Diverted
per Thousand
Persons per Month
Poor (0.85)
Fair (0.86-2.01)
Good (2.02-2.79)
Excellent (>2.8)
Number of
Programs
8
14
6
9
Percentage
21.7
37.8
16.2
24.3
TOTAL 37 100.0
No Answer: 3
Not Applicable: 137
Total Missing Cases; 140
27
-------
Socioeconomics and Program Success
Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 present 1970 census data describing
median age, median education, mean income of individuals, and
population density in approximately 165 separate collection
^i
programs. Because separate collection programs
generally only collect from single family residences,
an attempt was made to collect socioeconomic data from
single family residences in each of the program locations.
Unfortunately, census data was only available for the general
population in each separate collection location.
TABLE 6
MEDIAN AGE
Median Age (years)
Less than 24.9
25-29.9
30-34.9
More than 35
Number of
Programs
25
54
54
33
Percentage
15.1
32.5
32.5
19.9
TOTAL 166 100.0
Missing Data: 11
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. General population
characteristics, 1970 Census of Population, Bureau of the
Census, Washington, D.C. 1972.
28
-------
TABLE 7
MEDIAN EDUCATION
Median Education
(school years completed
of persons 25 years
or older)
Less than 11.9
12.0-12.4
12.5-13.4
More than 13.4
Number of
Programs
18
63
56
28
Percentage
10.9
38.
33.9
17.0
TOTAL 165 100.0
Missing Data: 12
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. General population
characteristics, 1970 Census of Population, Bureau of the
Census, Washington, D.C. 1972.
TABLE 8
MEAN INCOME
Mean Income
(gross $ per year)
Less than $10,499
$10,500-13,499
$13,500-16,499
More than $16,500
Number of
Programs
21
60
39
45
Percentage
12.7
36.4
23.6
27.3
TOTAL 165 100.0
Missing Data:
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. General population
characteristics, 1970 Census of Population, Bureau of the
Census, Washington, D.C. 1972.
29
-------
Density (persons
per square mile)
0-2634
2635-4568
4569-7430
Above 7430
TABLE 9
DENSITY
Number of
Programs
48
51
43
25
Percentage
28.7
30.5
25.8
15.0
TOTAL 167 100.0
Missing Data: 10
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. General population
characteristics, 1970 Census of Population, Bureau of the
Census, Washington, D.C. 1972.
This study tested the relationhip between socioeconomics
and program success. It was hypothesized that median age,
median education, mean income and population density played
a role in determing participation rates and waste diversion
rates. No significant relationship was found to exist between
the median age of residents in a separate collection community
and participation rates. Likewise, there was no relationship
found between density of a separate collection area and
participation rates.
30
-------
Although not a strong relationship, the mean income
(Tau C = .26) and the median education (Tau C = .24) proved
to be significant.* Forty-four percent of the programs with
mean incomes of $16,500 or more per year had participation
rates of 50 percent or more. Forty-three percent of programs
with mean incomes of $10,500 to $13,499 and fifty percent of
the programs with mean incomes of less than $10,499 per year
had participation rates of less than 20 percent. Likewise,
forty-eight percent with a median education of 13.4 years or
more had participation rates of 50 percent or more.
Fifty-eight percent of the communities with a median education
of 11.9 years or less had participation rates of less than
20 percent.
Median education (contingency coefficient = .46)** and
mean income (contingency coefficient = .53)*** were found to
be correlated with newspapaper diversion rates. Thirty-five
percent of the programs with mean incomes of $16,500 per
year or more had newspaper diversion rates in the highest
category (more than 2.1 tons per thousand people per month).
In contrast, sixty-seven percent of the programs with mean
incomes of less than $10,499 per year had newspaper diversion
rates in the lowest category (0-.44 tons per thousand people
per month). Thirty-seven percent of the programs with a
*Income and education were significant at the .001 level.
**Median education was significant at the .001 level.
***Mean income was significant at the .0000 level.
31
-------
median education level of 13.4 years or more had newspaper
diversion rates in the highest category. Seventy-three
percent of the programs with median education levels of
11.9 years or less were in the lowest newspaper diversion
rate category.
Median education and mean income were not found to be
significantly correlated with mixed wastepaper diversion
rates. Likewise, median age and density were not found to
be correlated with newspaper and mixed wastepaper diversion
rates. However, when mean densities for each of the ten EPA
regions were compared, it appears that densities could be
related to the number of programs in a particular region,
i.e., as the population density of an area increases, the
likelihood that an area will initiate a separate collection
program to reduce solid waste quantities also increases.
32
-------
IV. MARKETS
This chapter will review practices used by separate
collection communities to sell recyclable materials. In
addition, this chapter will outline the effect the 1974-75
recession had on recyclable material markets and separate
collection programs.
Sale of Recovered Materials
Sale Approaches
There are two major approaches to recyclable material
sales: 1) the open market approach; and 2) the contract
approach. In the open market approach, the program sponsor
compares the prices offered by materials dealers and either
sells the materials to the dealer offering the highest price
or sells to the same dealer on a regular basis. In the contract
approach, the program sponsor contracts to regularly sell
materials to a single dealer for a specified period of time.
A predetermined price and/or a percentage of the market price
is always included in the contract.
The open market approach provides for flexibility. If
several materials dealers are competing for recyclables, the
33
-------
program sponsor can shop for the highest market price.
Assuming that a stable demand for recyclables exists and
that the program sponsor has the time and money to shop the
market, higher prices may be received in certain months or weeks
using the open market approach rather than the contract approach.
In addition, if a poor business relationship develops between
the program sponsor and a materials dealer, the sponsor has the
option of switching to another materials dealer.
The major disadvantage of the open market approach is the
possibility of severe financial losses could be experienced during
periods of low market demand. For instance, wastepaper prices
during the recession were substantially reduced because of
an oversupply of wastepaper coupled with little or no wastepaper
demand. Communities subscribing to the open market approach
to materials sales may find that the advantage of slightly
higher material prices during high market demand is more than
offset by the disadvantage of very low prices during periods
of little or no market demand (especially wastepaper). In
periods of little or no market demand, communities may find
that they cannot even give wastepaper away.
Unlike the open market approach, the contract approach
to material sales guarantees that the recyclable materials
will be purchased, at a predetermined price, under all
34
-------
market conditions. The contract also guarantees that the
buyer will receive a predetermined minimum tonnage of materials
at certain material specifications.
Although the contract approach provides for stable
market prices during periods of unstable market demand, contract
provisions are sometimes inflexible during the entire contract
period. Communities signing a materials contract cannot
take advantage of high market prices to the same extent as
communities subscribing to the open market approach of
supplying wastepaper to its market. Some communities with
contracts have also found that the incidence of load rejections
and downgradings due to contamination tend to increase during
periods of low market demand.
Table 10 presents a breakdown of separate collection
programs which signed contracts with secondary materials
dealers or manufacturers to sell recyclable material(s).*
Thirty-nine of the programs responding to
the contract question had contracts to sell waste materials.
A majority of the material contracts pertained to the sale
of newsprint and mixed wastepaper because glass, bi-metal,
and aluminum markets are relatively new and undeveloped.
*Appendix D is a listing of programs with material contracts,
35
-------
TABLE 10
SALES APPROACHES
Response
Contract
Open Market
Number of Programs
66
103
Percent
39.0
61.0
TOTAL 169 100.0
No Answer: 8
Total Missing Cases: 8
Forty-five percent of the municipally collected programs
had contracts, compared to the 39 percent of municipally
collected programs in August 1974. It appears that the 6 percent
increase in municipal contracts since 1974 is partially
attributable to municipal concern over the historically unstable
market for newspaper. In addition, it appears that long-term
contracts with attractive floor and floating price provisions
have influenced many communities to sign contracts.
The majority of separate collection programs with contracts
are found in the mid-Atlantic and western portions of the
United States, particularly in New Jersey and California. It
appears that the abundance of material contracts in these areas
is a result of a large paper manufacturer's demand for a steady
supply of uncontaminated newspaper. In return for the steady
supply of paper, the manufacturer guarantees its communities in
New Jersey and California, through its paper dealers, floor/floating
pricing provisions in all market situations.
36
-------
Contract Length
More than 75 percent of the contracts signed by 53 programs
had a duration of 1 year (Table 11). A total of 11.3 percent
of the 53 programs had contracts of 2 years, while the remaining
13 percent had contracts of 3 years or more. If a long-term
contract (2 years or more) is negotiated, some material dealers
or manufacturers will often provide material storage equipment,
publicity, and technical assistance for the separate collection
program.
The majority of communities signing contracts for 2 years
or longer were found in the State of California. Until
recently, the State of New Jersey limited the duration of
material contracts to 1 year.
TABLE 11
CONTRACT LENGTH
Length (years)
1
2
3
5
6 or more
Number of Programs
40
6
2
4
1
Percent
75.5
11.3
3.8
7.5
1.9
TOTAL 53 100.0
No Answer: 13
Not Applicable: 111
Total Missing Cases: 124
37
-------
Contract Provisions
Contracts sometimes provide for "fixed" prices,
guaranteeing the same price per material ton sold during
each month of the contract period. Another type of contract
provides for "floating" prices, which are determined by an
agreed upon percentage of the price index quoted in weekl^
material trade journals. The most common type of materials
contract provided for both a "floor" and a "floating" price.
A floor price is the minimum price that the program sponsor
will receive during any market condition. The floor price
protects the program sponsor from low market prices, i.e.,
when the floating price drops below a certain price level.
Table 12 presents the responses of 59 separate collection
programs to the contract provisions question. Forty-four and
one-tentn percent of the programs signed contracts with both a
floor price and a floating price above the floor price
determined by a set percentage of the weekly material market
price. Thirty-seven and three-tenths percent of the proarams
signed material contracts with fixed price provisions.
38
-------
TABLE 12
CONTRACT PROVISIONS
Contract Type Number of Programs Percentage
Fixed Price 22 37.3
Floor/Floating Price 26 44.1
Floating Price 11 18.6
TOTAL ' 59 100.0
No Answer: 7
Not Applicable: 111
Total Missing Cases: 118
Although the communities which signed contracts with
fixed price provisions are protected against a significant
drop in market demand, the fixed price contract does not
afford communities the opportunity to share larger revenues
from material sales when prices increase. Contracts with
both floor and float provisions, however, provide communities
with a minimum price for materials when demand is low, and
a higher price above the floor price when market demand
increases. Thus, the floor/float price contract is much more
flexible than both the fixed or floating price contracts.
39
-------
Recession
EPA's Third Report to Congress noted that although
precise data were not available, it appeared tha the
recession severely affected the economics of existing separate
collection programs. This section will briefly review the
wastepaper market prior to and during.the recession. In
addition, the section will offer a detailed account on the
recession's effect on separate collection recycling programs.
Historical Background
To a greater extent than the prices of most commodities
bought and sold in the United States, recyclable material prices
are determined by supply and demand in the market place. Market
prices for waste glass and waste aluminum cans have remained
relatively stable since 1970.
In contrast, because industry demand for wastepaper
depends in large part on the production of boxboard and wallboard,
fluctuations in the U.S. economy will impact most heavily on
wastepaper prices (Figure . Given that most separate collection
programs collect wastepaper, it is important to understand the
effect that widely fluctuating paper prices have on the prolif-
eration and operation of separate collection programs.
40
-------
The market price for waste newspaper remained low but
relatively stable from 1970 through 1972, averaging $5 to $10
per ton. However, in 1973 wastepaper prices increased
significantly. Wastepaper inventories at this time were
severely reduced because of scarce supplies of market pulp,
along with dramatic increases in wastepaper exports and
9
domestic wastepaper use. Consequently, when wastepaper
demand began to increase in June of 1973, wastepaper prices
jumped to their highest level since the Korean War.
Although wastepaper prices declined slightly and then
stabilized by the beginning of 1974, municipalities were
paid $20 to $40 per ton for loose newspaper in the first
six months of that year. Responding to increased wastepaper
prices, many communities initiated separate collection
programs. More than 75 separate collection programs were
begun between June 1973 and the summer of 1974. By
August of 1974, 118 sepaprate collection programs were
operating in the United States.
41
-------
FIGURE 4
100
SO
z
o
IT
ui
a.
VI
C
o
o
100
so
NO. 1 NEWS
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
NO. 1 MIXED WASTEPAPER
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
SORTED WHITE LEDGER
1975
1976
1976
I l i l I I i i I II I
1B74 ' 4O-M *
-M-
so »
1970 1971
WASTE CORRUGATED
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Market prices for wastepaper were subject to extreme fluctuations during the 1973-76 period. Plotted on the graphs are
vreeMy price quotes appearing in Official Board Markets for four important wastepaper grades since 1970. The price range pre-
sented for each grade reflects the spread of the high weekly quoted prices among four representative market areas: New York,
Chicago, Los Angeles, and the South (sic). (Prepared by SCS Engineers and EPA staff.)
42
-------
Unfortunately, by October 1974 the recessionary
economy had severely reduced the demand for wastepaper. The
home building industry, a large purchaser of wastepaper for
the production of wallboard and roofing felt, and the* boxboard
industry slowed during this period. In addition, the recession
abroad caused a curtailment of wastepaper exports. Because of
severely reduced demand along with replenished supplies of
wastepaper, No. 1 waste newspaper prices decreased from a range
of $38 to $60 per ton in the first half of 1974, to $5 to $25
per ton a few months later. '*
Program Discontinuance
Between August 1974 and September 1977, 38 separate
collection recycling programs were discontinued. It appears
that a majority of program discontinuance is a direct result
of the recessionary economy in the U.S. between September 1974
and June 1975.
Table 13 presents a breakdown of responses from 38
communities whose separate collection programs were discontinued.
Thirty-seven percent of the 38 communities responding cited
*Official Board Markets (OEM) price for No. 1 newspaper.
43
-------
TABLE 13
PROGRAM DISCONTINUANCE
1974-1975 (38 programs)
No. of
Reason Programs Percentage
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
No market for newspaper
Poor participation
Newsprint price declined, scavenger
problems
Newsprint price declined, poor
participation
Newsprint price declined, labor costs,
poor participation
Newsprint price declined, competition
from community groups
Scavenger problems, poor participation
Labor problems and/or labor costs
Poor collection economics
Inadequate equipment
Community group pressure against program
Poor weather
Transfer of city program to community
organization
14
6
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
37
16
8
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
38 100.0
44
-------
the lack of a market for newspaper as their major reason for
stopping the programT and 23.6 percent of the communities
cited declining newspaper prices as one of several reasons
for discontinuing separate collection. Poor participation
from residents was cited by 16 percent of the communities
as a major reason for discontinuing separate collection.
Effect on Existing Programs
Table 14 presents responses from those programs that
continued separate collection throughout the recession. Slightly
more than one-half of the respondents stated that the recession
did affect the separate collection program (Table 14, Question 1).
More specifically, 73 percent
of the programs responded that material prices were reduced
during the recession (Table 14, Question 2). Madison, Wisconsin
collected approximately the same volume of newsprint in
1975 as it collected in 1974. However, the average price
per ton of newsprint decreased from $23.41 in 1974 to $10.32
•[ ^
in 1975. ^ Birmingham, Michigan received $34 per ton for
newsprint during January and February of 1974. By December of
1974, the newsprint price dropped to $3 per ton and averaged
$3.25 per ton from January through August of 1975.13 North Haven,
Connecticut only received $2 per ton for newsprint in
45
-------
TABLE 14
EFFECT OF RECESSIONARY ECONOMY
ON SEPARATE COLLECTION PROGRAMS
NO. Of
Yes No Respondents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Did the recession between
1974 and 1976 have any
effect on your program?
Were material prices reduced
during the recession?
Were material markets
reduced during the
recession?
Did markets stop purchasing
materials during the
recession?
Was the volume of recovered
materials reduced during
the recession?
76
(52%)
93
(73%)
38
(31.4%)
23
(19.2%)
24
(19.2%)
70
(48%)
35
(27%)
83
(68.6%)
97
(80.8%)
97
(80.8%)
146
(100%)
128
(100%)
121
(100%)
120
(100%)
121
(100%)
46
-------
February 1975. Likewise, Rolling Meadows, Illinois received
$40 per ton for newsprint from January to March of 1974,
14
but could not find a wastepaper market in January of 1975.
Winety-seven of 120 programs
responding stated that the volume of recovered material was
not reduced during the recession (Table 14, Question 5).
Interestingly enough, 15 of the 97 programs mentioned above
responded that wastepaper tonnages had in fact increased
during the recession because competing community organizations
and scavengers could not find markets for the paper.
Consequently, paper that was normally collected by community
groups and scavengers went instead to the separate collection
programs.
Approximately one-third of the programs responded that
material markets for wastepaper were reduced during the
recession (Table 14, Question 3). The data suggests that
these programs had to find new markets for watepaper and
accepted substantially lower prices. Although the majority
(80.0 percent) of separate collection programs did locate
buyers for recovered wastepaper, 19.2 percent could not find
markets interested in purchasing wastepaper (Table 14,
Question 4). These programs continued collection and either
stored or landfilled the paper until wastepaper markets
were found.
47
-------
Communities holding contracts with paper dealers and
manufacturers during the recession received much higher
prices than the majority of those programs that did not
have material contracts (Figure ). Like many other separate
collection recycling programs in April of 1974, Rockford,
Illinois received $35 per ton for newspaper. However, when
newspaper demand dropped late in 1974 and the prices communities
received for newsprint fell below $10 per ton, Rockford"s
contract with a large paper manufacturer guaranteed
the city $20 per ton for newspaper.
48
-------
FIGURE 5
L
Q
z:
<
£
o
to 2
•M +-»
£ c
2 o
£ O
§ o
oz
"I
k
h-
(/)
r^
y o
Eb
HI >
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
CD
in
(7)
LO
CO
o
CO
L
O
CM
in
uoi/$
49
-------
V. COLLECTION PRACTICES
This chapter will describe the procedures communities
are using to collect separated recyclable materials. In
particular, this chapter will outline collection responsibilities,
collection area size, methods of separate collection, and
frequency of separate collection.
Responsibility for Collection
Municipalities were responsible for collecting
recyclables in 56.5 percent of the 177 programs surveyed.
The remaining 29.4 percent and 12.4 percent of collection
responsibility were undertaken by private collection firms
and community organizations respectively (Table 15).
Municipal collection responsibility percentages closely
parallel the collection responsibility percentages of
separate collection programs in August 1974.
50
-------
TABLE 15
RESPONSIBILITY FOR COLLECTION
Collector Number of Programs Percentage
Municipal 100 56.5
Private 52 29.4
Community Organizations 22 12.4
Municipal/Private 3 1.7
177 100.0
Total Missing Cases: 0
Many of the 52 privately collected separate collection
programs were operated by municipalities, i.e., the municipality
either paid the private hauler a flat fee to collect recyclables
or allowed the hauler to keep a predetermined percentage of
the material revenues. Some separate collection programs, however,
were organized and operated by private haulers or community
organizations. In this situation, the hauler/community
organization received support from the municipality, e.g.,
program publicity, scavenger ordinance, but the program was
ultimately controlled by the sponsor. By aiding the hauler/
community organization in a separate collection program,
the municipality benefits by reducing its solid waste disposal
volumes without having to finance a recyclable collection. The
hauler/community organization benefits from the sale of
recyclables.
51
-------
Methods of Collection
Four methods of separate collection are practiced
in the U.S.: l)rack; 2) trailer; 3) separate truck; and
4) compartmentalized vehicle.
Racks
The rack or "piggyback" method of separate collection
stores recyclables in racks that are attached to packer trucks.
Racks can be installed for side, rear, or overhead loading
of materials (Figure 6). The small capacity of racks dictates
that only one material can be collected, usually newspaper.
The rack method allows for simultaneous collection of
mixed refuse and recyclables. Thus, operating costs are
minimal because additional collection crew members and trucks
are not needed to collect recyclables. Simultaneous collection
of mixed refuse and recyclables also encourages resident
participation. Residents have the option of placing out
bundled newspapers every collection day, thus reducing storage
requirements on the resident and minimizing the likelihood
that a separate collection schedule will be forgotten. Startup
costs are very low in comparison to other collection methods,
averaging $80 to $250 per truck for rack fabrication and
52
-------
Figure 6. Rack methods
of collection
53
-------
-Lb
installation in 1974. Although racks are not commercially
available, public works departments have found that racks can
be easily fabricated and tailored to the type of truck body.
The rack methods allows a community to measure resident
participation in a program prior to making large investments
in more expensive collection equipment.
Because of their small storage capacity, 0.5 to 1.5 cubic
yards, racks often fill to capacity before the packer truck
reaches its mixed refuse capacity. Therefore, the time and
money spent on hand loading and unloading of the racks will
increase as participation rates increase. Another problem
associated with the rack approach is that side racks are
sometimes not adaptable to all packer trucks because of the
placement of gas tanks and hydraulic equipment.
Trailer
The trailer method of separate collection also provides
the opportunity for simultaneous collection of mixed refuse
and recyclables. Recyclables are placed in a trailer that is
mounted to the rear of a refuse collection vehicle. However,
Storage capacity of trailers is much larger than racks,
ranging from 4 to 6 cubic yards (Figure 7). Because of its
ability to simultaneously collect mixed refuse and recyclables,
the trailer method also has low operating costs and encourages
54
-------
Figure 7. Trailer method of collection
55
-------
resident participation. Many trailers can be mechanically
unloaded, thus producing a great savings in time. Finally,
trailers can be modified for the storage of two or more
materials.
One of the major problems associated with the trailer
method is that maneuverability could be difficult and perhaps
dangerous, especially when collection occurs on narrow streets
and alleys. Presently, many States forbid the use of trailers
because of the safety problems associated with maneuverability.
Capital costs for the trailer method are considerably higher
than rack methods, ranging from $3,000 to $3,500.
Separate Truck
In 1974, the majority of separate collection programs in
the U.S. used the separate truck method. The separate truck
method requires the use of an independent truck and crew to
collect recyclables (Figure 8). Startup costs are generally
very low because, in many cases, existing mixed refuse
vehicles and crews can be diverted to collect recyclables.
For example, in 1974 only three separate collection programs
purchased vehicles for separate truck collection out of a
total of 100 separate truck operations. Those communities that
purchased a compactor vehicle in 1974 paid about $40,000 per
vehicle, significantly more than other communities using other
56
-------
collection methods. Storage capacity of separate trucks is
significantly greater than the storage capacity of the rack
and trailer collection methods. Storage capacities will vary
according to the type of compaction and/or noncompaction truck
used.
Although startup costs for the separate truck method
can be very low, operating costs may be high. Most
communities using the separate truck method must divert
enough recyclable_.jmaterial to offset the cost of operating
the separate collection system. Several communities noted
that their volume of recyclables div~-ted from the mixed
refuse collection was enough to justify reducing the amount
of trucks and crews needed for mixed refuse collection.
Therefore, trucks and crews that were customarily used for
mixed refuse collection could be diverted to the separate
collection program.
Most communities using the separate truck method, however,
must collect recyclables on a day other than mixed refuse
collection so that trucks can be borrowed for the separate
collection program. Unless recyclable collections are performed
on a given day of the week, e.g., every Monday, collection of
recyclables on a day other than regular refuse collection often
makes the collection schedule confusing to residents. Therefore,
participation may be decreased. If noncompactor trucks are used
for collection, recyclables must either be unloaded by hand or
by using a forklift at a storage area or market, thus increasing
57
-------
Figure 8. Separate truck
approach to collection
58
-------
collection time and cost. Generally, only one material can
be collected using an uncompartmentalized separate truck method
because of the difficulty in isolating separated materials in
the truck body.
Compartmentalized Vehicle
The compartmentalized vehicle is the newest method for
collecting two or more recyclables. Presently, there are
two major kinds of compartmentalized vehicles: a separate
collection truck which is divided into 2 or 3 material
compartments; a trailer housing 2 or 3 storage bins which
is pulled behind a pickup truck (Figure 9 ). The former type of
compartmentalized vehicle is being used in Newton, Marblehead,
and Somerville, Massachusetts, while the latter type is being
used by Project SORT in San Luis Obispo, California.
The major advantage of the compartmentalized vehicle
method is that it allows for simultaneous collection of
two or more recyclables. If a standard compactor were used,
each material would have to be collected on alternating weeks
because of the inability to segregate materials in the truck
body. Thus, collection costs on a per ton basis are significantly
lower using the compartmentalized vehicle than a standard
compactor. The compartmentalized vehicle also encourages
resident participation. By providing simultaneous collection
59
-------
Figure 9. Collection
by a compartmentalized vehicle
60
-------
of materials on the same day each week, residents become
familiar with the collection schedule and are therefore wore
likely to participate.
Although collection costs on a per ton basis are
less using a compartmentalized vehicle than a standard
compactor, capital costs of the compartmentalized vehicle
are significantly higher than other collection methods.
In 1976, the compartmentalized vehicle cost approximately
$20,000.
Collection Methods Breakdown
Approximately 72 percent of all separate collection
recycling programs use the separate truck approach (Table 16).
The 72 percent represents a 12 percent decrease in separate
truck use since August of 1974. Hack collection of recyclable*,
however, increased from 15 percent in Augusl; 1974 to 21.5
in September of 1977. Likewise, the trailer approach is
becoming increasingly popular for the collectipn of recyclable
materials.
61
-------
TABLE 16
METHOD OF COLLECTION
Method
Separate Truck
Rack
Trailer
Compartmentalized Vehicle
No. of Programs
127
38
8
4
Percentage
71.8
21.5
4.5
2.2
ITT 100.0
Total Missing Cases: 0
The increased use of racks, along with the decreased
use of separate trucks, signals an apparent trend in the
way communities view the economics of separate collection
recycling. Communities are becoming increasingly conscious
of both the labor and capital costs associated with recyclable
collections.
Successful separate truck economics requires that
a program collect enough recyclable tonnage to justify
diverting labor and equipment from mixed refuse collection
operations. For example, it was found that approximately
27 percent of the separate truck programs had participation
rates of 19 percent or less. Given the costs associated with
62
-------
wages for additional collection crews along with low material
revenues because of low material diversion rates, the economics
of separate truck programs with participation rates of 19 percent
or less are questionable.
Although 52 percent of the programs using the rack
method had participation rates of 19 percent or less, the
economics of these programs appear more favorable than programs
using the separate truck method. Capital costs for rack
programs are very low. In addition, no additional labor costs
are incurred by programs using the rack approach. It can be
concluded, therefore, that more communities are using the
rack method because it is in many cases a relatively low risk,
cost effective method of a separate collection program. Commurities
are afforded the opportunity to measure participation rates and
material diversion rates without making an intensive commitment
to capital and labor.
Collection Area Size
Table 17 presents a breakdown of collection area sizes
based on a sample of 168 programs. Approximately 70 percent
of the programs had collection area sizes of less than 50,000
persons, with only 14.3 percent of the programs having collection
area sizes of 100,000 persons or more. The data suggests
63
-------
that MMll communities are interested in separate, collection
programs because of the perceived ability of programs to
reduce predominate portions of the waste stream, e.g., wastepaper,
at a relatively small cost.
TABLE: 17
COLLECTION AREA SIZE
&9,,(fc«ft*w»)
Un*«r 9,999
10,000 to 24,999
25, tOO to 49,000
50,000 to 99,999
100,000 to 500,000
Above 500,000
Number of Programs
29
57
30
28
20
4
168
Percentage
16.4
33.9
17.9
16.7
11.9
2.4
100.0
No Answer: 9
total Missing Cases:
64
-------
Frequency of Collection
Sixty-eight percent of the 175 separate collection
programs surveyed collected recyclables at a frequency of
at least twice a month (Table 18). The majority of programs
had separate collection frequencies of once a week. Monthly
collection of recyclables is undertaken by approximately
28.6 percent of separate collection communities.
A study conducted in 1974 found that separate collection
frequency was positively related to diverted disposal
volumes, i.e., material volumes increased as collection
frequency increased. The study concluded that residents
are more willing to separate larger quantities of recyclables
if storage requirements are reduced. In this study, however,
no significant relationship was found between the participation
rate and collection frequency data (Tau C = .114,
significance .0685). The lack of a significant relationship
can be partially explained by the difficulty in controlling
for the effect of other variables on participation rates
(e.g. publicity, ordinances, socio-economics, number of
materials collected). Although no relationship was seen
in this study, it is still believed that participation
rates are related to the frequency of separate collection.
65
-------
TABLE 18
FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION
Collection
Frequency
Twice/week
Once/week
Once/2 weeks
Twice/month
Once/month
Other
Number of
Programs
14
70
13
22
50
6
Percentage
8.0
40.0
7.4
12.6
28.6
3.4
Total 175 100.0
No Answer: 2
Total Missing Cases: 2
66
-------
VI. ORDINANCES
.-'&
This chapter will provide information on the number
of communities with separate collection ordinances and
antiscavenging ordinances and methods employed by those
communities to enforce these ordinances. In addition, this
chapter will look at the effect that separate collection
ordinances have on participation rates and waste diversion rates,
Separate Collection Ordinances
The majority of separate collection programs
in the United States are presently voluntary, i.e., citizens
are "requested" to separate one or more recyclable materials
from mixed refuse. However, in attempting to increase
participation and waste diversion rates, many communities have
adopted ordinances which "mandate" that certain materials be
separated from mixed refuse.
Most separate collection ordinances state which geographic
areas and/or persons within a refuse collection area must
participate in the program. In addition, most ordinances
state the type of material(s) being collected in the program
and the procedure for properly separating and preparing
recyclables for collection. For example, the following
67
-------
paragraphs were part of the North Hempstead, New York's
separate ordinance for newspaper recycling:
Section 3-A. After adequate notice has been published,
posted, and publicized for a garbage and refuse district
or for a particular collection area, it shall be mandatory
for persons who are owners, leasees, or occupants of
residential dwellings in the town to separately bundle
newspapers for collection and recycling. Said newspapers
shall be placed in kraft bags or tied securely with rope
or cord in packages not exceeding fifty (50) pounds, and
said packages shall be placed separately at the curb for
collection on days specified by the Commissioner of
Public Works under the rules and regulations prescribed.
Many mandatory collection ordinances also state that
mixed refuse containers holding clean newsprint will not be
serviced until the clean newspaper has been removed. Some
communities threaten fines for failure to separate recyclables
from mixed refuse. Other communities affix a tag or sticker
to the refuse container which explains the violation to the
separate collection ordinance and requests that the householder
separate recyclables from mixed refuse.
Political opposition to the enactment of a proposed
mandatory ordinance is sometimes common. Politicians often
oppose a mandatory separate collection ordinance because they
perceive that residents will object to a change in refuse
preparation habits. Therefore, many municipalities choose
to support a voluntary
68
-------
approach until the collection operation is stable and public
acceptance is evident. However, in attempting to sell the
mandatory approach to separate collection program, many
communities have developed community awareness campaigns
which explain the benefits of the program, the need for a
mandatory approach, and the need for community support.
Mandatory/Voluntary Breakdown
Table 19 presents a breakdown of voluntary and mandatory
separate collection programs.* As expected, voluntary programs
exceed mandatory programs by 3 to 1. The mandatory/voluntary
breakdown remains relatively unchanged from the August 1974
survey.
The majority of mandatory separate collection programs
are found in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern sections of
the United States. It appears that the concentration of
mandatory programs in this section of the United States is
a result of the need to reduce waste tonnages because of
reduced landfill space and increased solid waste hauling
costs. A particularly high percentage of mandatory programs
is found in New Jersey. In addition to a desire to reduce
disposal volumes, the abundance of mandatory programs in
*Appendix D is a listing of programs with mandatory ordinances.
69
-------
New Jersey is a result of a large paper manufacturer's
desire for guaranteed large volumes of used newspapers from
its contracted communities.
TABLE 19
MANDATORY/VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS
Type
Voluntary
Mandatory
Total
Total missing cases:
Number of Programs
134
43
177
0
Percentage
75.7
24.3
100.0
Mandatory Ordinance Enforcement
Slightly more than one-half of the mandatory programs
responded that ordinances were enforced (Table 20). Enforcement
methods ranged from phone calls to residents who failed to
separate recyclables from mixed refuse to refusal of the
collector to pick up mixed refuse. In the latter enforcement
method, many communities placed circulars or stickers on
trash bags and cans explaining why the mixed refuse had not
been collected (Figure 10 ) .
70
-------
TOWN OF WEST ORANGE, NEW JERSEY
Department of Waste Management
Town Hall
66 Main Street
West Orange, N.J. 07052
Dear Resident,
On a quantity of was
found in your garbage at .
Perhaps you are not aware of Town ordinance #406-76,
ll:10-3a which states "...it shall be mandatory for all
persons who are owners, lessees, or occupants of residential
premises within the Town of West Orange having interior or
exterior curbing to separate used newspapers and glass from
all other solid waste produced on such premises." At your
optionj, you may dispose of your newspapers and glass by any
lawful means. However, as you know, the Town provides you
with a regular curbside collection service of newspaper and
glass so that these items may be recycled. If you have
misplaced your schedule of these collections in your
neighborhood, please call 325-4159 and request another.
We would like this letter to serve as a general reminder
because, although we have the authority to write a summons
which requires a court appearance and possible fine, we only
employ it as a last resort. The program is of great value
to our environment alone. Fuel oil savings from recycling
newspapers is 40%, and energy savings from glass recycling
can be as high as 30%. Furthermore, every ton of recycled
newspapers means 17 trees need not be cut down. Besides,
the Town receives a rebate from the regular garbage
contractor of $6.00- for each ton of newspaper and glass it
recycles.
So please, don't throw away something that can be
re-used, AND THEN PAY TO HAVE IT BURIED! If you have
any questions, please contact the Department of Waste
Management at 325 - 4159. Your anticipated cooperation is
greatly appreciated.
Cordially,
The Department of Waste Management
Tel. 325 - 4159
71
-------
TABLE.20
MANDATORY ORDINANCE ENFORCED
Response
Yes
No
Total
No answer: 15
Total missing cases:
Number of Programs
15
13
28
15
Percentage
53.6
46.4
100.0
Although it appears from Table 20 that slightly more
than one-half of the mandatory programs were enforced, this
conclusion is questionable in light of the fact that more
than one-half of the mandatory programs chose not to respond
to the "enforcement" question. The majority of mandatory
programs that did not respond to the enforcement question
appeared reluctant to state that the ordinance was not
enforced. Given the abundance of no responses to the
mandatory ordinance enforcement question, along with the
time and expense involved in checking each refuse can and
bag for recyclables, it should be concluded that most separate
collection ordinances are not enforced.
72
-------
Relationships with Participation and Diversion Rates
The study hypothesized that participation rates and
waste diversion rates would be related to a mandatory/voluntary
approach to separate collection, i.e., mandatory programs
will promote higher participation and waste diversion rates
than voluntary programs. Sixteen of the 43 mandatory
programs were not included because they either had bad
participation rate data (as defined in Chapter I), or did not
respond to the participation rate question. Likewise, 37 of
the 134 voluntary programs were also not included because of
the same reasons.
Although not a strong relationship, participation rates
appear to be related to mandatory/voluntary approaches
(Tau C = .32).* Fifty-nine percent of the mandatory programs
had participation rates of 50 percent or more, while only
19 percent of the voluntary programs had participation rates
in the same category. The majority of voluntary programs
(45 percent) had participation rates between 20 and 49
percent. However, only 11 percent of the mandatory programs,
as compared to 36 percent of the voluntary programs, had
participation rates of 19 percent or less.
*Significant at .0000 level.
73
-------
Newspaper diversion rates also appeared to be related
to mandatory/voluntary approaches to separate collection
(Tau C =0.36).* Thirty-eight percent of the mandatory
programs were in the highest newspaper diversion rate
category (more than 2.1 tons per 1,000 people per month),
while only 7 percent of the voluntary programs were in the
same category. Seventy-one percent of the voluntary programs
were in the two lowest newspaper diversion rate categories
(0 to 1.11 tons per 1,000 people per month), as compared to
only 28 percent of the mandatory programs in the same
category. Thirty-five percent of the mandatory programs
fell into the good diversion rate category (1.12 to 2 .,09 tons
per 1,000 people per month), as compared to 22 percent of
the voluntary programs. When wastepaper diversion rates
were tested against the mandatory/voluntary program approach,
no significant relationship was found (Tau C =0-13, significant
at the .2 level).
Antiscavenging Ordinances
Many separate collection recycling programs are plagued
with scavenger problems. Scavengers** are unauthorized per-
sons picking up recyclable material before the authorized
municipal or private collection truck arrives. If the goal
*Significant at .0000 level.
**In some areas in the U.S., licensed haulers are termed
"scavengers."
74
-------
of a separate collection program is primarily to reduce the volume
solid waste going to the landfill, scavengers do not pose a
18
problem. However, if the program goal is to obtain revenues
from material sales, scavengers can severely reduce the
volume of separated recyclables and, therefore, reduce
revenue.
The probability of scavenger problems occurring in a
given community is greater when material prices are high
then when prices are low. In the summer of 1974, Hempstead,
New York received $9 per ton for newspaper collected and
delivered to the paper stock dealer. Although no scavengers
were evident at the $9 price, when paper prices increased to
$17 per ton, the city lost about 40 percent of its newsprint
19
to scavengers.
In response to actual or anticipated scavenger problems,
many communities have enacted antiscavenging ordinances or
added provisions pertaining to scavengers within existing
mandatory and mixed refuse collection ordinances. Antiscavenging
ordinances usually state that it is unlawful for any unauthorized
person or firm to collect the separated materials(s).
Most antiscavenging ordinances state fines for scavenging
ranging from $25 to $250.
75
-------
Although most antiscavenging ordinances claim municipal
title to the recyclables once they are placed at curbside,
antiscavenging ordinances do not restrict residents from
giving their recyclables to volunteer organizations. Many
service organizations for example, sponsor newspaper drives
several times per year as a way of earning extra revenue for
the organization. To avoid confusion, a municipality should
indicate where recyclables for volunteer drives should be
placed.
Scavenger Ordinance Breakdown
Approximately two-thirds of the 174 programs responding
stated that scavengers were a problem, especially when mar-
ket prices for wastepaper were high (Table 21). However,
only 51.1 percent of the 174 communities surveyed had an
ordinance to deter unauthorized individuals from collecting
separated materials before the authorized collector arrived
(Table 22) .* The percentage of separate collection programs
with scavenger ordinances in September 1977 remained rela-
tively unchanged from those programs in August 1974.
*Appendix D is a listing of programs with antiscavenging ordinances,
76
-------
TABLE 21
SCAVENGER PROBLEMS
Response Number of Programs
Yes 114
No 60
Total 174
No answer: 3
Total missing cases: 3
Percentage
65.5
34.5
100.0
TABLE 22
SCAVENGER ORDINANCE
Response
Yes
No
Total
No answer: 3
Total missing cases:
Number of Programs
89
85
174
3
Percentage
51.1
48.9
100.0
77
-------
Scavenger Ordinance Enforcement
Approximately 61 percent of the 51 communities responding
to the scavenger ordinance enforcement question, 60.8 percent stated
that the ordinance was entorced, while 39.2 percent stated that, the
ordinance was not enforced (Table 23). Enforcement methods
ranged from fining the scavenger(s) to publicizing the scavenger's
name in the local newspaper. However, results of scavenger
ordinance enforcement appear questionable in light of the
fact that close to one-half of the 89 communities with
scavenger ordinances did not respond. In addition, many of the
39.2 percent of those communities that claimed that the
scavenger ordinance was not enforced stated that the ordinance
itself was not enforceable.
TABLE 23
SCAVENGER ORDINANCE ENFORCED
Response
Yes
No
Total
Number of Programs
31
20
51
Percentage
60.8
39.2
100.0
No answer: 38
Not applicable: 88
Total missing cases; 126
78
-------
Like the mandatory separate collection ordinance,
antiscavenging ordinances are difficult to enforce for
several reasons. The major enforcement problem lies in the
time and expense involved in spotting scavengers while they
are collecting materials. Therefore, most separate collection
programs rely on citizens to report scavengers to the police
before separate collection begins. Secondly, although most
antiscavenging ordinances cite several persons and/or departments
which are responsible for enforcing the ordinance, it is
usually never clear who has the major responsibility for
enforcing the ordinance and prosecuting the scavenger.
Finally, many municipal judges are reluctant to impose fines
on scavengers because they view the crime as insignificant.
79
-------
VII. PUBLICITY
Ongoing publicity about separate collection is essential
in encouraging and retaining resident participation in the
program. This chapter will describe and evaluate the publicity
methods used by separate collection programs.
Publicity Before Implementation
Publicity before implementation of a separate collection
program provides residents with a rationale for the program
20
and instructions on how they can participate. The program
rationale explains why a separate collection program is
important, e.g., conservation of materials and energy, decreased
disposal costs, increased life of landfill, economic benefits.
The participation instructions describe the procedure for
separating, preparing, and placing the materials out for
collection and inform residents of the separate collection
schedule.
Approximately 99 percent of 156 separate collection
programs publicized their separate collection program prior
to its implementation. Table 24 presents numerous types of
publicity used by 156 programs before implementation of the
80
-------
TABLE 24
PUBLICITY BEFORE AND AFTER IMPLEMENTATION
Type of Publicity
Number and Percent of Number and Percent of
Programs Using Programs Using
Type of Publicity Type of Publicity
before after
Implementation* Implementation+
Newspapers
Circulars
Announcements from/to
civic groups
*156 programs responding.
+168 programs responding.
142 (91.0%)
79 (50.6%)
48 (30.7%)
127 (75.5%)
67 (39.8%)
56 (33.3%)
Radio spots
Posters
School programs
Speeches
Letter from mayor or
elected official
Television spots
Calendar showing
collection dates
Notices in utility
billings
Contests
Buttons
42
36
35
34
32
24
24
21
11
4
(26.
(23.
(22.
(21.
(20.
(15.
(15.
(13.
( 7.
( 2.
9%)
0%)
4%)
7%)
5%)
3%)
3%)
4%)
0%)
5%)
45
32
43
42
26
20
10
25
9
4
(26.
(19.
(25.
(25.
(15.
(11.
( 6.
(14.
( 5.
( 2.
7%)
0%)
5%)
0%)
4%)
(%)
4%)
8%)
3%)
3%)
81
-------
separate collection program. Newspaper publicity, ususally
in the form of advertisements and/or articles about the
program operation, was used by 91 percent of the communities.
Circulars and announcements to/from civic groups, announcing the
start of the program, were used by 50.6 percent and 30.7 percent
of the programs respectively. Public service radio announcements
and/or radio interviews were used by 26.9 percent of the
programs. A letter from the mayor or other elected official,
perceived to be the most effective publicity to generate
participation, was used by only 20.5 percent of the programs
before implementation.
Most communities did not have the personnel or money to
coordinate large-scale publicity programs. Many communities
received help from local environmental groups, civic and
neighborhood organizations, garden clubs, and boy scout
troops in carrying out the separation collection publicity.
Groups like the local League of Women Voters often gave
speeches, made posters, distributed circulars and organized
school programs at little or no cost to the community.
Publicity After Implementation
Publicity campaigns after implementation of the program
were very similar to the types of publicity used prior to
82
-------
implementation of separate collection (Table 24). Requests
for participation were most frequently found in newspaper
articles and advertisements, circulars, and announcements to
civic groups.
However, many communities significantly reduced the amount
of publicity going to residents once the separate collection
program was started. Approximately 11 percent of the
168 programs surveyed did not publicize the program at all
once separate collection had begun. By comparing the amount and type
of publicity before and after starting the program, it appears
that publicity costs and personnel are the major reasons for
reduced publicity after implementation of the separate collection
program. Cost-intensive types of publicity, e.g., newspaper
advertisements, circulars, posters, and calenders, were used
by fewer communities after program implementation than before
implementation. In contrast, less expensive types of publicity,
e.g., announcements from and to civic groups, school programs, notices
in utility billings, and speeches were used by more communities
after implementation than before implementation of separate
collection.
Although the amount of publicity decreased after program
implementation, many communities saw the importance of
encouraging resident interest and participation in the
83
-------
program. Some communities publicized the quantity of material
being recycled each month and the amount of revenue being
received for the recovered materials (Figure 11).
Publicity Effectiveness
This study attempted to estimate the effectiveness
of publicity in motivating resident participation. Based
on the publicity effectiveness results of surveys conducted
in Marblehead and Somerville, Massachusetts, and other similar
surveys, 13 publicity methods were evaluated and assigned a value
of 1 to 6, according to their estimated effectiveness in
motivating participation, as follows:
Effectiveness
Categories (point values) Publicity Methods
6 Letter from local government
5 Circulars, calendars, notices
in utility billings
4 ' Newspaper articles or advertisements
3 Contests, speeches, announcements
to/from civic groups, school
programs
2 Radio/television spots
1 Posters, buttons
Additional point values were added to take into consideration
communities that used a variety of publicity methods. Publicity
effectiveness scores were tallied for each community and four
"publicity effectiveness" categories were established: poor,
fair, good, and excellent.
84
-------
FIGURE 11
•^^^andjarsS?^ '*>&£.&i* m:;
fcy
^itugaaiiuni^ans
-,, ,, ..._, . -
ndletf newspapers
-1' - • ••••
. • .
of Selectmen thaiilbs
oTyour cooperation.^'^ ;;: .y^H*:
^^.^4t^^J^^^
AS A REMINDER...
TACS( OP THIS SIDE
ALL GLASS CONTAINERS
(attached metal okay)
MUSTARD
ALL METAL
CANS (including
Aluminum TV
Dinner Trays etc.)
EI mffl
NEWSPAPERS
(untied)
REGULAR
REFUSE
ALL OTHER
TRASH
AND PLASTICS
(including plastics and
untied newspapers)
FOR INFORMATION CALL 861-0361
EXT. 238 OB 239
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
85
-------
Table 25 is a breakdown of the estimated effectiveness
of publicity before implementation of the separate collection
program. Twenty-seven and five-tenths percent of the programs had
"poor" publicity campaigns before program implementation. Publicity
from these programs was generally limited to announcements
in local newspapers or door-to-door circulars. Another 27.6
percent of the programs had "fair" publicity campaigns, using
combinations of newspapers and circulars, newspapers and letters
from the mayor, or newspapers and one of the publicity methods
from Effectiveness Category 3 (see Figure 13). Twenty-seven
percent of the programs had "good" publicity campaigns.
Good publicity campaigns generally involved the use of
three or four publicity methods. Combinations of newspapers,
circulars, and several publicity methods in Effectiveness
Categories 2 or 3 were usually found in good publicity
campaigns. Sixteen percent of the programs produced "excellent"
publicity campaigns prior to implementing the separate collection
program. Combinations of newspaper publicity, circulars, letters
from the mayor or an elected official, and several publicity
methods from Effectiveness Categories 4, 5, and 6 were
generally found in "excellent" publicity campaigns.
86
-------
TABLE 25
ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS OF
PUBLICITY BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION
Estimated
Effectiveness
No publicity
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
No Answer: 21
Total Missing Cases: 21
Number of
Programs
2
43
43
43
25
156
Percentage
1.3
27.5
27.6
27.6
16.0
100.0
Table 26 is a breakdown of the estimated effectiveness
of publicity after implementation of 168 separate collection
programs. The majority of the programs had "fair" publicity
campaigns, using combinations of newspapers and circulars,
newspapers and a letter from the mayor, or newspapers and one
of the publicity methods from Effectiveness Category 3
(see Figure 13). Twenty-three (23) percent of the programs
had "good" publicity after implementation of separate collection.
Combinations of newspapers, circulars, and several publicity
methods in Effectiveness Categories 2 or 3 were usually found
in good publicity campaigns. Approximately 21 percent of the
87
-------
programs produced "poor" publicity campaigns, usually limited
to occasional announcements in the newspaper or circulars.
Fifteen (15) percent of the publicity campaigns after separate
collection implementation were considered "excellent."
TABLE 26
ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS OF
PUBLICITY AFTER IMPLEMENTATION
Estimated
Effectiveness
None (no publicity)
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
No Answer: 9
Total Missing Cases: 9
Number of
Programs
18
36
49
39
26
168
Percentage
10.7
21.4
29.2
23.2
15.5
100.0
-------
VIII. REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. "Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction; Third
Report to Congress." Environmental Protection
Publication SW-161. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1974. 96 p.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. "Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction; Fourth
Report to Congress." Environmental Protection
Publication SW-600. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1977. 142 p.
3. Hansen, P. "Residential Paper Recovery; A Municipal
Implementation Guide." Environmental Protection
Publication SW-155. [Washington], U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 26 p.
4. SCS Engineers, Inc. "Analysis of Source Separate Collection
of Recyclable Solid Waste; Collection Center Studies."
Environmental Protection Publication SW-95 c.2.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974 [75 p.].
(Distributed by National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia, as PB-239 776.).
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Unpublished data.
6. SCS Engineers, Inc. "Analysis of Source Separate Collection
of Recyclable Solid Waste: Separate Collection Studies."
Environmental Protection Publication SW-95 c.l. (Distributed
by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia,
as PB-239 775.).
7. Howard, S. E. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Unpublished data.
8. U.S. Department of Commerce. "General Population
Characteristics, 1970 Census of Population." Bureau of
the Census, Washington, D.C. 1972.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Resource Recovery
and Waste Reduction." p. 50.
10. Hansen. "Residential Paper Recovery." p. 12.
89
-------
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Resource Recovery
and Waste Reduction." p. 32.
12. Duszynski, Director of Public Works, Madison, Wisconsin,
to Cohen, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 1977.
"Resource Recovery Fact Sheet", January 20, 1977.
13. Hunter, Superintendent of Public Works, Birmingham, Michigan,
to Cohen, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 1978.
14. York, Acting Superintendent, Public Works Department,
Rolling Meadows, Illinois, to Cohen, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, September 26, 1977.
15. Anderson, Deputy Commissioner, Public Works Department,
Rockford, Illinois, to Cohen, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, August 31, 1977.
16. SCS Engineers, Inc. "Analysis of Source Separation Collection",
[v. 1], p. 82.
17. Hansen. "Residential Paper Recovery." p. 24.
18. SCS Engineers, Inc. "Analysis of Source Separation Collection",
[v. 1], p. 27.
19. Ibid.
20. Resource Planning Associates, Inc. "Source Separation; the
Community Awareness Program in Somerville and Marblehead,
Massachusetts." Environmental Protection Publication SW-551d.
Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 1976.
p. 5.
90
-------
APPENDIX A
MUNICIPAL WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION
IN THE U.S., 1975*
Total Tons in the
Waste Stream in
Millions of Tons
Percentage
Composition
Component
Paper
News
Corrugated
Office paper
Other
Glass
Metla
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other
Food waste
Yard waste
Other
(as discarded) (as discarded)
37.2 29.0
6.9 5.4
9.9 7.7
4.5 3.5
15.9 12.4
13.3 10.38
12.2 9.52
10.8 8.4
0.9 .7
0.4 .3
22.8 17.8
26.0 20.3
16.6 12.96
Total
128.2
100.0
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste,
Resource Recovery Division, and Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Revised February 1977. Details may not add due to rounding.
A-l
-------
APPENDIX B
SEPARATE COLLECTION PROGRAMS
(May 1978)
Region I
Bloomfield, CT
East Hartford, CT
East Lyme, CT
Greenwich, CT
Newington, CT
Norwalk, CT
Stamford, CT
Wethersfield, CT
West Hartford, CT
Manchester, CT
Waterford, CT
Durham-Middlefield, CT
Enfield, CT
Hartford, CT
Tewkesherry, CT
Waltham, MA
Lexington, MA
Springfield, MA
Andover, MA
Bedford, MA
Newton, MA
Pittsfield, MA
Somerville, MA
Topsfield, MA
Rocky Hill, CT
North Haven, CT
Waterbury, CT
Marblehead, MA
Cambridge, MA
Beverly, MA
Peabody, MA
Che Iras ford, MA
Hamilton, MA
Brookline, MA
North Andover, MA
Salem, MA
South Hadley, MA
Stoughton, MA
Hampton, NH
New Market, NH
Barrington, RI
Lincoln, RI
Tiverton, RI
Northfield, VT
Winchester, CT
New Hartford, CT
Region II
Mount Kisco, NY
New Cassel, NY
Ossining, NY (town)
Pleasantville, NY
Harrison, NY
Tarrytown, NY
Oceanside, NY
Bronxville, NY
Ardsley, NY
Hastings, NY
Ossining, NY
White Plains, NY
Yonkers, NY
Lynbrook, NY
Carmel, NY
Ithaca, NY
Rye, NY
Dobbs Ferry, NY
Millburn, NY
Summit, NY
Union City, NJ
Ridgewood, NJ
Clifton, NJ
Tenafly, NJ
Lyndhurst, NJ
Leonia, NJ
Hasbrouck Heights, NJ
Bergenfield, NJ
Bloomfield, NJ
B-l
-------
East Windsor, NJ
Glen Rock, NJ
Paramus, NJ
River Edge, NJ
Closter, NJ
Ocean, NJ
Plainfield, NJ
Shrewsbury, NJ
Fair Haven, NJ
Little Silver, NJ
Rumson, NJ
Wharton, NJ
Ramapo, NY
Great Neck, NY
North Hempstead, NY
Briarcliff Manor, NY
Garden City, NY
Floral Park, NY
Irvington, NY
Mamaroneck, NY
Mamaroneck-Larchmont, NY
Pelham Manor, NY
New Rochelie, NY
Peekskill, NY
Pelham, NY
Oyster Bay, NY
Rockville Center, NY
Courtland, NY
North Tarrytown, NY
New York, NY
Rutherford, NJ
West Orange, NJ
Upper Saddle River, NJ
Bound Srook, NJ
Pasaic, NJ
Ringwood, NJ
Franklin, NJ
Somerville, NJ
Princeton, NJ
Hackensack, NJ
Lodi, NJ
Montclair, NJ
Teaneck, NJ
Palisades Park, NJ
Metuchen, NJ
Region III
Alexandria, VA
Falls Church, VA
Fairfax, VA
Vienna, VA
Allentown, PA
Abington, PA
Swarthmore, PA
Darby, PA
Clifton Heights, PA
Greenbelt, MD
Bowie, MD
Rockville, MD
Region IV
Boca Raton, FL
Oakland Park, FL
South Miami, FL
Signal Mountain, TN
Temple Terrace, FL
St. Matthews, KY
Lexington, KY
Birmingham, AL
Macon, GA
Region V
Shorewood, WI
Madison, WI
Sheboygan, WI
Racine, WI
Bayside, WI
Milwaukee, WI
Menasha, WI
Two Rivers, WI
Appleton, WI
Oshkosh, WI
Huntington Woods, MI
Birmingham, MI
Brooklyn Center, MN
Mankato, MN
Columbia Heights, MN
North Mankato, MN
B-2
-------
Wyoming, OH
Indian Hill, OH
Rolling Meadows, IL
Rockford, IL
Aurora, IL
Bloomington, IN
Atlanta, IN
Wabash, IN
Speedway, IN
Greencastle, IN
Glendale, OH
Franklin Park, IL
Whitefish Bay, WI
Region VI
El Paso, TX
Dallas, TX
Unioncity Park, TX
Garland, TX
Region VII
Crestwood, MO
University City, MO
Sioux City, IA
Region VIII
Glenn, CO
Boulder, CO
Fargo, ND
Salt Lake City, UT
Sioux Falls, SD
Helena, MT
Region IX
San Mateo, CA
Downey, CA
Palo Alto, CA
Santa Barbara, CA
Fresno-Clovis Metro Area, CA
El Cerrito, CA
San Francisco, CA
Fullerton, CA
Ontario, CA
Berkeley, CA
San Diego, CA
Santa Maria, CA
Foster City, CA
Burlingame, CA
Hillsborough, CA
San Mateo, CA
Belmont, CA
Half Moon Bay, CA
San Bernardino, CA
Pacifica, CA
Davis, CA
Palm Springs, CA
Sacramento County, CA
San Luis Obispo, CA
Santa Rosa, CA
Newport Beach, CA
San Anselmo, CA
Modesto, CA
Arcata, CA
Tuscon, AZ
San Carlos, CA
Redwood City, CA
Atherton, CA
Ilenlo Park, CA
Region X
Omak, WA
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C
MULTIMATERIAL SEPARATE COLLECTION PROGRAMS
East Lyme, CT (np,* magazines, glass, cans)
Newington, CT (np, clear glass)
Durham-Middlefield, CT (np, glass)
Hartford, CT (np, metal)
Waltham, MA (np, corrugated, glass, cans)
Bedford, MA (np, glass, cans)
Hamilton, I1A (np, glass, cans)
Marblehead, MA (np, glass, cans)
Newton, MA (np, glass, cans)
Somerville, MA (np, glass, cans)
Waterbury, CT (cans, glass)
Ithaca, NY (aluminum, glass, metals)
Summit, NJ (paper, glass)
Rutherford, NJ (np, clear glass)
West Orange, NJ (np, glass)
Bound Brook, NJ (np, glass)
Abington, PA (np, clear glass)
Greenbelt, MD (np, aluminum)
Bowie, MD (cans, clear glass)
Rockville, MD (np, metals)
Clifton Heights, PA (paper, glass)
Brooklyn Center, MN (np, cans, rags)
Mankato, MN (np, cans)
Atlanta, IN (np, magazines, glass, cans)
Wabash, IN (np, glass, cans)
Boulder, CO (np, glass, aluminum cans, tires)
Davis, CA (np, cans, glass)
San Luis Obispo, CA (np, glass, cans)
San Anselmo, CA (np, corrugated, tin, aluminum)
Modesto, CA (np, cans, glass, motor oil)
Downey, CA (np, cans, glass)
Omak, WA (np, glass, cans)
Fresno, CA (np, cans, glass)
El Cerrito, CA (np, cans, glass, magazines, corrugated)
Arcata, CA (glass, corrugated, tin)
Livermore, CA (glass, corrugated, tin)
Andover, MA (paper, clear glass, colored glass, cans)
Topsfield, MA (np, corrugated, cans, glass)
Winchester, CT (paper, glass, cans)
New Hartford, CT (paper, glass, cans)
*np = newspaper
C-l
-------
APPENDIX D
PROGRAM DESIGN VARIABLES
(October 1977)
Region 1
Bloomfield, CT
East Hartford, CT
East Lyme, CT
Greenwich, CT
Newington, CT
Norwalk, CT
Stamford, CT
Wethersfield, CT
West Hartford, CT
Manchester, CT
Water ford, CT
Durham-Middlefield, CT
Enfield, CT
Hartford, CT
Rocky Hill, CT
North Haven, CT
Waterbury, CT
Tewkesberry, MA
Waltham, MA
Springfield, MA
Andover, MA
Bedford, MA
Newton, MA
Pittsfield, MA
Somerville, MA
Marblehead, MA .
Cambridge, MA
Beverly, MA
Peabody, MA
Chelmsford, MA
Hamilton, MA
Swampscott, MA
Arlington, MA
Hampton, NH
New Market, NH
Dover, NH
Harrington, RI
Lincoln, RI
Tiverton, RI
Northfield, VT
NP = newspaper
mixed = mixed wastepaper
glass = mixed or color so
cans = aluminum and bi-m
A = bulk aluminum scr
M = bulk metal scrap
Materials Collected
NP Mixed Glass Cans A
*
*
*
is
*
*
*
*
1s
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
:ted
stal
ip
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
M
*
Collection
Method
R T C S
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Material
Contract
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Hand.
Ord.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Antiscav.
Ordinance
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-------
APPENDIX D
PROGRAM DESIGN VARIABLES
(October 1977)
Region 2
Millburn, NJ
Summit, NJ
Union City, NJ
Ridgewood, NJ
Clifton, NJ
Tenafly, NJ
Leonia, NJ
Hasbrouck Heights, NJ
Bergenfield, NJ
Bloomfield, NJ
East Windsor, NJ
Glen Rock, NJ
Paramus , NJ
River Edge, NJ
Rutherford, NJ
West Orange, NJ
Bound Brook, NJ
Pasaic, NJ
Ringwood,_ NJ
Franklin, NJ
Somerville , N J
Princeton, NJ
Lodi, NJ
Montclair, NJ
Teaneck, NJ
Metuchen, NJ
Mount Kisco, NY
New Cassel, NY
Ossining, NY (town)
Pleasantville, NY
Harrison, NY
Tarry town, NY
Oceanside, NY
Bronxville, NY
Ardsley, NY
Hastings, NY
Ossining, NY
White Plains, NY
Yonkers, NY
Lynbrook, NY
Carmel, NY
Ithaca, NY
Rye, NY
Dobbs Ferry, NY
Ramapo, NY
Great Neck, NY
North Hempstead, NY
Materials Collected
P Mixed Glass Cans A
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
£
*
*
it
*
*
*
*
&
r
*
*
*
*
it
t
fc
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
i
*
*
*
*
*
M
*
Collection
Method
R T C
*
*
*
S
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
is
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
it
*
*
Material
Contract
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
it
Mand.
Ord.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
it
Antiscav.
Ordinance
*
*
it
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
it
-------
APPENDIX D
PROGRAM DESIGN VARIABLES
(October 1977)
Region 2 (continued)
Briarcliff Manor, NY
Garden City, NY
Floral Park, NY
Irvington, NY
Mamaroneck, NY
Mamaroneck-Larchmont ,
Pelham Manor, NY
New Rochelle, NY
Peekskill, NY
Pelham, NY
Oyster Bay, NY
Rockville Centre, NY
Courtland, NY
New York, NY
Region 3
Greenbelt, MD
Bowie, MD
Rockville, MD
Allentown, PA
Abington, PA
Swarthmore, PA
Darby , PA
Clifton Heights, PA
Alexandria, VA
Falls Church, VA
Fairfax, VA
Vienna, VA
Region 4
Boca Raton, FL
Oakland Park, FL
St. Matthews, KY
Lexington, KY
Materials Collected
NP
Mixed Glass Cans A
M
*
*
*
NY
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Collection
Method
R T C S
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Material
Contract
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Mand.
Ord.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Antiscav.
Ordinance
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
it
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-------
APPENDIX D
PROGRAM DESIGN VARIABLES
(October 1977)
Materials Collected
Region 5
Rolling Meadows, IL
Rockford, IL
Aurora, IL
Franklin Park, IL
Bloomington, IN
Atlanta, IN
Wabash, IN
Speedway, IN
Greencastle, IN
Huntington Woods, MI
Birmingham, MI
Brooklyn Center, MN
Mankato, MN
North Mankato, MN
Wyoming , OH
Indian Hill, OH
Glendale, OH
Shorewood, WI
Madison, WI
Sheboygan, WI
Racine, WI
Bayside, WI
Milwaukee , WI
Menasha, WI
Two Rivers, WI
Appleton, WI
Oshkosh, WI
Whitefish Bay, WI
Region 6
El Paso, TX
Dallas, TX
University Park, TX
Garland , TX
Region 7
Crestwood, MO
University City, MO
NP
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Mixed Glass Cans A 1
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Collection
Method
R T C S
*
•k
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
it
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Material
Contract
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Mand.
Ord.
*
*
*
*
Antiscav .
Ordinance
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-------
APPENDIX D
PROGRAM DESIGN VARIABLES
(October 1977)
Collection Material Mand. Antiscav.
Ord. Ordinance
Region 8
North Glenn, CO
Boulder, CO
Sioux Falls, SD
Salt Lake City, UT
Region 9
Tuscon, AZ
Downey, CA
Palo Alto, CA
Santa Barbara, CA
Fresno-Clovis, CA
San Francisco, CA
Fuller ton, CA
Ontario, CA
Berkeley, CA
San Diego, CA
Santa Maria, CA
San Bernardino, CA
Pacifica, CA
Davis, CA
Palm Springs, CA
Sacramento County, CA
San Luis Obispo, CA
Santa Rosa, CA
Newport Beach, CA
San Anselmo, CA
Modesto, CA
Region 10
Omak, WA
NP Mixed Glass Cans A M
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
R T C S
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Iiol743
SW-778
ft U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1979 628-612/2115
-------
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 94105
415-556-4606
U.S. EPA, Region 10
Solid Waste Program
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
206-442-1260
-------
------- |