vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water &
Waste Management
Washington DC 20460
SW822
December 1979
Solid Waste
M u It i material
Source Separation
in Marblehead and
Somerville, Massachusetts
Collection and Marketing
Volume II
V
±X*
e
BL
-------
An environmental protection publication (SW-822) in the solid waste
management series. Mention of commercial products does not constitute
endorsement by the U.S. Government. Editing and technical content of this
report were the responsibilities of the State Programs and Resource Recovery
Division of the Office of Solid Waste.
Single copies of this publication are available from Solid Waste
Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH 45268.
-------
MULTIMATERIAL SOURCE SEPARATION
IN MARBLEHEAD AND SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS
Collection and Marketing
Volume II
This report (SW-822) was prepared
under contract no. 68-01-3964
for the Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Cm/ire rfnr>~t;
-------
MULTIMATERIAL SOURCE SEPARATION REPORT SERIES
This volume is one in a series of reports about the
demonstration of multimaterial source separation in
Marblehead and Somerville, Massachusetts. The series
presents the key results of demonstration programs
initiated and funded by the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency in 1975. Intended to provide local
governments and the interested public with useful
information for planning, implementing, and operating
their own source separation programs, the reports in
the series cover a range of issues related to source
separation. The reports are:
The Community Awareness Program in Marblehead
and Somerville, Massachusetts (SW-551)
Collection and Marketing (SW-822)
Composition of Source-Separated Materials and Refuse (SW-823)
Energy Use and Savings from Source-Separated Materials
and Other Solid Waste Management Alternatives for
Marblehead (SW-824)
Citizen Attitudes toward Source Separation (SW-825)
Any suggestions, comments, or questions should be
directed to the Resource Recovery Branch (WH-563),
Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Resource Planning Associates, Inc. conducted the
studies and prepared this series under contract no.
68-01-3964.
U,S. BwfR3r*mg?rt3? Protection Agency
-------
Acknowledgements
It is di'fficult to acknowledge the great number of
people who contributed to the success of this study of
source separation in Somerville and Marblehead,
Massachusetts. However, we would like to thank the
following people for their help: Mr. Raymond Reed,
Marblehead Board of Health; Mr. John Clement, MATCON
Recycling; Mr. Pat Scanlon, Northshore Recycled
Fibers, Inc.; and Ms. Penelope Hansen, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
Henri-Claude Bailly, Project Director
Lawrence Oliva, P.E., Project Manager
-------
Contents
CHAPTER
PAGE
TITLE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 1 9
APPENDIX A
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED
MATERIALS
9
15
17
24
CHAPTER 2 31
31
34
39
Selecting Collection Equipment
Determining Collection Procedures
Problems With Collection
Overcoming Collection Problems
MARKETING SOURCE- SEPARATED
MATERIALS
Selecting Markets
Problems with Markets
Overcoming Marketing Problems
Material Recovery and Demonstra-
tion Program Costs and Savings
-------
Introduction
Communities across the nation are facing steadily
increasing problems with disposal of the solid waste
generated by their residents. As suburban areas grow,
landfill sites are becoming scarce and, therefore,
costly. Requirements for controlling pollution also
add to the cost of operating local incinerators and
landfills. In an effort to lower costs and to reduce
the 20- to 30-percent increase projected for the
national waste stream by 1985, local communities are
seeking solid waste disposal alternatives that conserve
material and energy resources and that can reduce the
amount of waste being disposed.
In the early 1970s, several communities established
recycling centers where residents could bring paper,
glass, and cans. Other communities tried collecting
newspapers that residents separated from their trash
and put at the curb. Many of these programs are still
operating. However, recycling centers generally
recover only about 2 percent of the paper, cans, and
glass available in the solid waste stream. Multimaterial
curbside collection programs can generate more
revenue and divert more waste from disposal than
either paper programs or recycling centers.
Multimaterial source separation involves separating
household waste into recyclable components, such as
paper, cans, glass, and refuse. It makes possible
the recycling of up to 25 percent of the waste
stream. Despite the apparent benefits of multi-
material collection, however, many communities fear
that a curbside multimaterial program would require
sophisticated collection equipment and arrangements
with several waste material buyers, and would be
inconvenient for citizens. As a result, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided to test
the feasibility of multimaterial curbside collection
by funding a demonstration project.
-------
INTRODUCTION
In June 1975, the EPA awarded 3-year grants to the
communities of Marblehead and Somerville, Massachusetts,
to demonstrate source separation through curbside
collection of paper, cans, and glass. These grants
provided sufficient funds to enable the two municipalities
to purchase the necessary equipment and to retain
planning, documentation, and reporting assistance.
The two communities offered EPA an excellent opportunity
to analyze the collection and marketing of a variety
of recyclable materials in an urban and a suburban
setting. EPA sought to determine whether a multimaterial
source separation program could attract high rates of
resident participation and be conducted economically.
Marblehead is an affluent suburban community in the
Boston metropolitan area with a population of 23,000
and a density of 5,200 persons per square mile.
Seventy percent of the families live in single-family
homes or apartments, and 85 percent own their residences.
The median income is $12,600 per year, and the median
education level is 13.2 years (1970).
Somerville is an urban community also within the Boston
metropolitan area, with a population of 90,000 and a
density of 22,600 persons per square mile, one of the
highest in the nation. Single-family homes house 10
percent of the families in Somerville; most of the
remaining people live in two-, and three-, and
four-family homes. Sixty-five percent of the families
rent their own homes. The median income is $9,600
per year, and the median education level is 11.6
years (1970).
Marblehead had previous experience with a multimaterial
collection program, and the demonstration had enabled
the town to increase its material recovery rates by
using a special collection vehicle. Although Somerville
had no previous recycling experience, it had been
designated an "All American City" by the National
League of Cities and Towns for its active community
participation in the local governing process. EPA
officials, therefore, felt that Somerville was a
prime target for an urban recycling program requiring
a high level of citizen participation.
-------
INTRODUCTION
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS
Although Marblehead had had an organized source-separation
program since 1972, the original program was limited to
monthly collection of each of four materials. One
week paper was collected; the following week, cans; the
next week, clear glass; and the fourth week, green
glass. During certain holidays, no materials were
collected. The collection schedule was confusing and
residents were required to carefully prepare materials
by washing bottles, removing labels and rings, and so
on. Publicity for the program was limited.
On January 12, 1976, Marblehead initiated a new,
substantially improved collection program: Recycle
Plus. The new multimaterial program was preceded by
extensive public education/public relations activities
and offered a much better collection service.
Although source separation was mandatory in Marblehead
under the old program, and still is, participation
since January 12, 1976 has more than doubled. This
indicates that good public relations are needed to
make a legislated program work.
In Marblehead, residents place three bundles -- flat
paper, clear glass and cans, and colored glass and
cans -- at the curb for collection on source-separation
days, which are different than regular trash collec-
tion days. As in Somerville, no other preparation is
necessary. Special crews with three-compartment
trucks pick up the materials. In addition to the
weekly collection of source-separated materials,
Marblehead has open bins at the site of the former
town landfill to which residents can bring their
materials. The success of Recycle Plus helped the
town to reduce the frequency of regular refuse
collection from twice per week to once per week. The
town also was able to reduce the equipment and labor
needs of its regular refuse collection program.
In Somerville, collection of source-separated materials
began on December 1, 1975. In Somerville, residents
put flat paper and a mixture of clear glass and cans
at the curb next to their other refuse on the regular
weekly collection day. In 1976, Somerville began to
-------
INTRODUCTION
collect colored glass as well. Residents were
required only to sort waste into categories. The
paper and the glass and can mixtures were then
picked up by special town crews. Somerville was
paid by the ton for the source-separated materials
it delivered to a secondary materials market.
Participation in the program by Somerville residents
was voluntary; public education/public relations
program encouraged participation.
Somerville suspended its source-separation program
for the winter early in December 1976, as a result of
collection problems caused by severe weather. The
program was suspended for two weeks in the summer of
1976 because of a labor strike and again during the
winter of 1977-1978. The political leadership in
Somerville changed in January 1977, and it was not
until April 24, 1977, that Somerville was able to
resume the source-separation program.
Both Somerville and Marblehead sold their recovered
materials to a broker who further separated, cleaned,
and compressed them for resale to industrial markets.
Intermediate processing simplified the collection
process: residents could put their materials at the
curb without having to remove labels from bottles or
separate ferrous from nonferrous cans and crews could
load materials without having to further sort them.
Intermediate processing made it possible for Marblehead
and Somerville to recover seven types of recyclable
materials: newspaper; mixed flat paper; clear,
green, and brown glass; ferrous cans; and nonferrous
cans. EPA was interested in evaluating the results
of intermediate processing, a new concept designed
especially as a market for Marblehead's and Somerville's
recyclables.
During the demonstration period, Marblehead consistently
recovered over 150 tons of recyclables per month,
including more than half of the newsprint and glass
from the town's waste stream. Marblehead's program
is still operating and saving the town money.
Somerville recovered about 200 tons per month or 8
percent of its waste stream in the first year; about
-------
INTRODUCTION
170 tons per month over 9 months the second year, and
only about 70 tons per month over 3 months in the
third year. Somerville's program was stopped in June
1978 because it lost the market for its materials,
and became a burden on the city.
After 2-1/2 years in the demonstration, Marblehead's
program had saved the town over $45,000 and Somerville's
program had lost $60,000. Between 55 and 60 percent
of the revenue from both programs was generated from
the savings in solid waste disposal costs. Marblehead's
disposal costs were $18.95 per ton, over twice as
much as those of Somerville: $9.40 per ton.* If
Somerville's disposal cost had been the same as
Marblehead's, its program would have lost only about
$5,000 over the demonstration period.
Salient features of the Somerville and Marblehead
programs are summarized below:
Somerville Marblehead
Program name "Somerville "Recycle Plus"
Saves"
Materials collected Flat paper Flat paper
Cans and mixed Cans and clear
glass glass
Cans and colored
glass
Recyclables collec- Weekly Weekly
tion frequency
Refuse collection Weekly Weekly
frequency
* Disposal costs include transfer, haul to landfill,
and landfill disposal services.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Recycling crews
Refuse crews
Collection vehicles
Two 3-man
crews, one 4-
man crew
Nine 3-man crews
Compartmentalized
trucks with rear-
loading hydraulic
Two 2-man crews
Three 3-man crews
Compartmentalized
trucks with rear-
loading hydraulic
buckets; 2 compart- buckets; 3 compart-
ments ments
Disposal cost
per ton including
cost of transportation
from the transfer
station to landfill
$9.40
$18.95
Conclusions on the
Program's Collection
and Marketing Systems
The demonstration tested innovative ways for communities
to collect and market paper, glass, and cans.
Somerville and Marblehead found that the compartmental-
ized collection vehicle was an excellent vehicle to
recover paper, cans, and glass from the curb. To
improve its performance, they made several changes in
the design of the compartments and dumping mechanism.
Collection crews were most efficient in Marblehead,
where recyclables were collected on a different day
than refuse. In Somerville, where refuse and recyclables
were collected on the same day, crews often lost time
opening containers to identify their contents. In
order for refuse and recyclables to be collected
separately, however, residents had to be able to
store their refuse between collections. Marblehead
residents could store their refuse for a week;
Somerville residents required biweekly collection.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Somerville and Marblehead found that they could
maximize the volume of recyclables they collected by
selling them to an intermediate market. Householders
were more willing to separate recyclables that did
not require any special preparation. The intermediate
market, however, paid lower prices than those that
industrial buyers paid for purer materials. The
revenue that Somerville and Marblehead received for
mixed cans and glass were approximately one-third
what these products would have brought had they not
been mixed. For Marblehead, revenues from the
market, coupled with high disposal cost savings, were
sufficient to offset the costs of the program's
special equipment and labor. For Somerville, which
had lower disposal costs and collected a smaller
volume of recyclables, they were not.
The experiences of the two communities showed that
aggressive public education, coupled with realistic
planning, can make or break a successful program. In
Marblehead, extensive public relations and improved
collection doubled participation from its previous
program. In Somerville, collection delays could have
been prevented had the program been implemented in a
section of the city before being implemented citywide.
Provisions to collect recyclables after snowstorms,
or to inform residents at the start of the program
that collection would be suspended, would have
relieved much confusion. A later campaign to inform
residents when and how the program would be resumed
would have revived public interest and made possible
continuing participation.
The communities' selection of equipment, their
collection systems, their collection problems, and
ways to resolve these problems are described in
Chapter 1. Chapter 2 covers the intermediate process-
ing concept and the problems and solutions of marketing
the materials collected. Appendix A provides data
tabulations on the quantities of recyclable materials
recovered, and the costs and savings of the programs
over the demonstration period.
-------
1
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
In designing the collection system for their source
separation programs, Somerville and Marblehead officials
considered Marblehead's previous recycling program,
citizens' preferences, and the advice offered by EPA
and the consultants to the program. After collection
began, both communities experienced numerous problems
in 1) implementing the program, 2) dealing with
difficulties independent of the program, and 3) using
the new equipment. Municipal officials, EPA, and the
program consultants corrected or took note of problems
as they arose in order to prevent other communities
from repeating them.
SELECTING COLLECTION EQUIPMENT
Municipal officials in Somerville and Marblehead were
anxious to make their source separation programs
convenient and simple for residents. Therefore, they
decided to collect materials once a week and studied
equipment such as racks mounted on existing refuse
trucks, rear-loading compactor trucks, and compartmen-
talized vehicles (Exhibit 1.a) to determine which
would be best suited for weekly collection.
Racks mounted on existing refuse trucks are inexpensive;
refuse crews can easily collect and unload paper set
at the curb. But the racks, which have a limited
capacity of 1 to 2 cubic yards each and fill much
faster than the refuse portion of the truck, can be
used only for newspaper collection. Rear-loading
compactor trucks, to collect recyclables separate from
refuse, are reliable, but they can pick up only one
material at a time. This requires crews to travel
-------
10
c
o
'+*
a.
0
c
05
g.
'5
CT
in
c.
a O
1 .22
r r
uj U
til
o
<
VANT,
Q
<
in
Q
05
111
O
<
z
<
>
Q
Z
g
H
Q.
CC
U
M
UJ
Q
0
1-
D.
0
03
"p >^ CD
C71 CD C n
If 1 11
^ ro c <"
^ C C - D
^ b o t *=
y -tr -.3 o £
- ° cjj "8
to Q Q- "2 01
13 '43 C CD -D
c -E ra S3
CD C D T3 O
O ±: VI CD O
cn c n ~ cn
CD o u -Tr ro
CO 0 Z O CO
, ,
E
i I
O ^_
C M O
~ ^ CD
c ai £
c & rc
S Q- "2
> G K
.E £ '-a
o ° o
Z a! Z
ai~O
-Q o
y -2
ro 8
"a c
.E .£1
*- *~1 TJ
0.73 E
CD 0 ^
ro *~ m
Is s
aj QJ
£ lfj c
4-j O) ~
o -f; ^
ai ^- "£
?= 8 01
Q CD S
a
n
1
§
0
0
O
.
1
in new ve
mercially
f 8
£ ^
OJ -Q
>
CO
II
E c
0)
^
|
.S
CJ
C
CD
E >
CD ^
tl &
E _CI
- 21
^ X
^ §
"o."o
3 2
"S "*""
CJ C
5_'~
0) ^
ro
c t^
CD ^ a
F o c
"O ~ "
c o "n
CD *- ^
oo CT3 g
^ 1) «
cc S? ji
OJ
"o
!c
^
O
tD -(-^
O Q_
II
P i^
o g
.
"g
CD
CD
CD
CD
a
C
laceme
Q.
CD
CC
>
CD
CJ
c
u
o
13
_Q
n
ro
ro
>
00
~
CD
0- c5
D" !_
LU a
"ro
^
p
O)
1 E
° 0
s 1 |
^ c °
T3 ° c
- - CD
D^ 8 ^
2 2 c
^ E a>
Q J- *~
U o_ ty)
CJ
ro
>-
-D
₯
CD
O W
u t;
-^ Q.
m u
ro
Q- £
cp
oo -a
CD <:
^
ro J^
>-* -C
^ ro
2 ^£
03
13
"5
T3
09
~ ^
TO O
« S
E a.
c E
£8
| 0
O ^
.
& ro £ ~a jy 5 5
c '"0 °- >- ro 5 § o
_ CD c/) CD . "O en CJ 5
-5^ e'S s-S
i 6 o II J I B 1-5 5ol(§l
ro
m C
eg g £ -D
1 § i ^. 1
S ^ "g z 2
O C CD , D C CD
-2 S S » S' ^ 5.
§ t^ tu J= >--£>
CD (/) i ^^ ^ *-*
i I || |||
£ ^ O o CD O Q
o 2 K^ £ 1 2
t- > > ~ "ro ~
Q) m O "^ F O ^
QQ Lu | ^ c/5 Z LL
c
0) C
Q. n
i_ CT 0 ^
3 £ _> 3 "§
CD 7> "D CD U
^ _^ CD ^ O
C CD ^ C -V
S 5 o 'D c^
T3 ^ u "D *-
CL pj _> Q. 2
"O ~ tc T3 C U
"U o ^ Q. "o "^ *"
°- "O .- ^ °- TD ^z
roro"c ro"^ rn034"
Co ~i C ^
ro cc +-J ro CD
Ccjro ^-Q. ^o"5
ro~> ro^ CO~:rClJ
I>cjw ^ "D ^o"£
U
. 2
£ a
I I
"O
(Q 1
^? CD
aj L
^- W ,n
x ro
CD Q. 'TJ
co C Oj -
.5? S t3
- c ^ ^
CD °3 ^ ^~
CD
O
-^ CD
cn ^+~
CD £
^
c | S
S 8* §"
~ =3
n C C1
I /j -j-
2^
>-
-Q
^
U
CD
-^
U
_>-
"ro
a
oo ^
^ U
^ CD
"CD cn
C C
£-0
s
0
U
o.
c
^
_o
I
CC
.
1
cn
CD
CD
CD
>
a>
E "8
CD >-
1 1
E ^
O ^ on
s ^ S
0 .9- ra
f 11
&
u
a
c
U O CD
C >- CJ
g ^ a
cb c gj
C _c ^
-D > (D
^ ^ Q.
^ x i
JD ^ D
C (J? C
Jj 1 fj
(?)
>~
-o
CD
O
CD
^
O
>
CD
CD
a
wi q3
OJ _V
ro
"CD CP
~ c
ro CD
»
^
ra
0>
1
J
09
"O
c/5
.
o
ro
JZ
i
c ^
CD :=
t" CT > c
« - 2 u
? "g c S
0 C g O
"L Q.
P ^ "n >-
^1 ^ 03
C CD Zl M
TD Q - 5
-J I Q (J
-D
.V '
S £
r CD
T3 r; O
5 CD ^0
*~j o
i S g
> i S
,t± Cl O
I £ i
S ~ "ra
O ^ O
~7 \\_ ~7
I
^ ~o
3
a?-c
^ i-
c
13 t
"0 CO
a c
T5 E
CD +_,
O- -Q CJ
^ ro ^
c c
"ro - -
ro 7S ~
_Q)
H
.
CJ
c:
CD
C3
CJ
O
<
CT
CI
[I
C
ID
0_
(D
E£
3
(3
(D
CC
LLJ
CJ
IT
"D
O
C/)
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
their routes once for each recyclable material collected.
Somerville would have needed four compactor trucks to
collect two categories of materials from its residents,
and Marblehead would have required even more trucks to
collect three categories of materials. Furthermore,
recyclable materials are dense and do not need to be
compacted.
Municipal officials decided that, for their needs,
compartmentalized vehicles were the most efficient,
safe, and cost-effective. The vehicles can be used to
collect more than one material at a time, allowing
residents to put all their recyclables at the curb on
one collection day. In addition, the crews could make
one trip to the materials market with a large load of
several kinds of recyclables.
Somerville and Marblehead paid $20,000 for each of
their compartmentalized vehicles from Rendispos
Corporation of La Rose, Illinois, which is about the
same price as that of a compactor truck of comparable
size. The trucks would now cost about $30,000. These
vehicles were designed to carry butcher meat renderings,
but their size and operating characteristics were
appropriate for the demonstration programs. The
vehicles had standard chassis and cabs but the bodies
were specially fabricated for Marblehead by the
manufacturer to include two movable aluminum partitions
forming three compartments; Somerville's vehicles had
one partition forming two compartments. A hydraulically
raised compartmentalized bucket was used to dump
recyclables into the truck. (See Exhibit 1.b for
vehicle specifications, and Exhibits 1.c and 1.d for
diagrams of the communities' vehicles.)
Based on estimates of the productivity of these
vehicles and the amount of materials to be collected,
Somerville officials decided that they would need two
20-cubic-yard trucks. Marblehead officials, based on
their experience with their previous source separation
program, bought two 18.8-cubic-yard trucks. Because
Marblehead's streets are narrow and have many sharp
corners, the truck cabs were mounted over the engine
to make the vehicles shorter than Somerville's.
Somerville's vehicles were mounted on standard truck
chassis.
-------
12
Exhibit l.b
Approximate Vehicle Specifications
Marblehead
Somerville
Overall Vehicle Dimensions
Length (including cab) 26'8"
Width 8'0"
Height, riding 10'2"
Height, loading 14'10"
Height, tipping 15'7"
Gross Vehicle Weight 25,000 Ib
Engine Size V8-389
Delivered Cost $20,192
Body Dimensions
Length, at top 12'10"
28'4"
8'1"
10'3"
14'4"
27,500 Ib
V8-400
$21,295
13'5"
Length, at bottom
Width
Height, walls
Height, partitions
Compartment Ratios
Body Capacities, total
Paper
Clear glass and cans
Colored glass and cans
Bucket Dimensions
Length
Width
Height, at front (modified)
Height, at rear
Bucket Capacities, total
Paper
Clear glass and cans
Colored glass and cans
14'5"
6' 10"
6'2"
5'8"
50/17/33
18.8yd3
9.4 yd3
3.2yd3
6.2 yd
2'8"
6'5"
5'0"
2'9"
1.75yd3
0.85yd3
0 30 yd3
0.60yd3
16'1"
6'1 1"
6'2"
5'8"
50/50
20yd3
10yd3
>10yd3
2'2"
6'5"
4'0"
3'0"
1.8yd3
09yd3
> 0.9 yd3
SOURCE Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
-------
Exhibit 1.c
Marblehead Vehicle
13
2'
r
5" ^
3'
2"
1"
2"
I
2'
-., Colored Glass and
Cans Compartment
1>2., Clear Glass and
Cans Compartment
3'
3" 'Paper Compartment
1 2'6"
.
£ ' y>
Vi *
^
^
^
H
6'
10" !
10' 2"
SOURCE Resource Planning Associates, Inc
-------
Exhibit 1.d
Somerville Vehicle
14
6'5"
3' 3'/j" Paper Compartment
24' 5"-
10'3"
SOURCE Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS 15
DETERMINING COLLECTION PROCEDURES
The municipalities conducted a telephone survey to
determine the kind of collection service that would be
acceptable to residents. Residents responded that
they preferred weekly collection of recyclables and
wanted to spend as little time and effort as possible
preparing materials.
Marblehead residents said that the biggest problems
with their previous program had been removing labels,
caps, and metal rings from bottles and storing materials
for a month between collection days. In addition, the
collection schedule had been confusing. Collection
took place on the following schedule: first week in
the month, paper; second week, clear glass; third week,
green glass; and fourth week, cans. The results of
this program were disappointing; an evaluation of
the program conducted in 1973 showed that the quantities
of glass and cans recovered were very small. In
addition the program was losing about $43,000 per year.
Therefore, the town decided to try weekly collection of
all recyclables and to allow residents to mix glass and
Cans. The town also found a market to purchase the
recyclables that did nut require special preparation.
Somerville's citizens indicated that they were willing
to recycle paper, glass, and cans if the materials were
collected each week. Most housing units in Somerville
were multifamily (4 and 5 families per unit) and many
families did not have basements or garages to store
materials. Therefore, weekly collection was needed to
encourage participation. The compartmentalized
vehicles and the market for recyclables allowed
residents to put clear glass, cans, and bundled paper
at the curb without special preparation.
The residents of both municipalities wanted recyclables
to be picked up on the same day as their refuse. This
would make collection days easier to remember and
would enable residents to put recyclables and refuse
out at the curb at the same time. Marblehead collected
refuse twice per week and collected recyclables on the
second refuse day in the week. Somerville collected
refuse and recyclables once per week.
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
Both communities used labor available from their refuse
collection programs to collect source-separated
materials, rather than hire additional staff. Because
Marblehead previously had a collection program and was
smaller than Somerville, officials there had no
problem assigning labor to the source separation
program. As crews became accustomed to the new
program and productivity improved, the town eventually
reduced recyclables collection crews from three men
to two. Once the town was recovering 25 percent of
the waste stream through source separation, one of the
two weekly refuse collection days was eliminated,
yielding further labor savings. Somerville officials,
on the other hand, had to decide how to select and
train staff from the refuse program for the recycling
program. Somerville's collection staff had difficulty
attaining the levels of workload and efficiency that
program officials had hoped for.
At the program's start, Marblehead used two recycling
crews, each consisting of a driver and two collectors,
but eliminated one collector per vehicle as the
workload decreased. No formal crew training, except
a demonstration of the new vehicles, was conducted
in Marblehead because several staff members had
worked on^ the previous monthly IQCyC-Iing program and
were faiilllidr with their responsibilities. Further-
more, Marblehead frequently switched staff between
recycling and refuse collection and a training
program for all staff seemed unnecessary.
Somerville officials analyzed their existing refuse
collection system to determine whether or not labor
could be transferred from refuse collection to
recyclables collection. They found that the most
productive trucks carried 1.3 times as much refuse
as the average trucks and 3 times as much as the
least productive trucks, and that many routes had
unnecessary U-turns and extensive off-route distance.
They found that improved routing could save about 17
minutes per truck and about half a truck-day, and
that if 10 percent of the waste stream were recycled
and residents used only large garbage containers,
about 1.2 truck-days could be saved. Therefore, if
two trucks with two-man crews collected recyclables,
net labor and equipment required for refuse and
recyclable collection could be about the same as for
Somerville"s existing refuse program. Somerville
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
also had other spare labor available for the program
and could use three-man crews to collect recyclables
without hiring new personnel. Three-man crews were
needed because of Somerville's high residential
density, which increased the amount of refuse and
recyclables to be collected along the curb. Because
Somerville's streets were moderately narrow, crews
could collect from both sides of a street simultane-
ously. One collector collected materials, one drove
the truck, and the other operated the truck loading
device.
Somerville had had no previous experience with
multimaterial collection, and officials felt that
recycling personnel should be trained in advance to
place the separated recyclables in the appropriate
bucket compartment and to clean up after accidental
spills. Early plans called for collectors to advise
residents who failed to sort materials correctly.
Unsatisfactorily sorted materials would be rejected
with an explanatory note attached. As part of their
training, the recycling collection staff met with
representatives of the sanitation department, public
education and public relations staff, the municipal
employees union, and the planning consultants.
These specialists taught them the environmental
importance of recycling, its economic benefits to
the community, and the importance of the collection
staff's role in ensuring the program's success.
PROBLEMS WITH COLLECTION
Municipal officials expected some problems at the
start of the source separation programs, particularly
in Somerville where recycling was a new idea.
Delays in Somerville's schedule for purchasing
equipment and conducting a citywide public education
campaign caused severe start-up problems that
continued to disrupt the program after its implementa-
tion. Somerville also had continuing problems, such
as labor strikes and bad weather, that were independent
of the program but that nevertheless affected its
success. Finally, since the collection equipment
was untested, several minor mechanical failures
occurred.
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS 18
Implementation Problems
Somerville officials underestimated the problems
they would have in implementing the program, and
their problems were exacerbated by bad timing and
poor management decisions. Marblehead had fewer
problems because it had a smaller population and was
experienced in source separation.
Before the program began, delays in getting the
grant application approved by EPA and in advertising
for bids for the trucks caused the schedule to slip.
As a result, the start-up date was changed from early
fall to December 1975 for Somerville and January
1976 for Marblehead. The programs could have been
delayed until better weather in the spring, but city
officials felt that the public education programs,
which had begun in the summer, would have lost
momentum.
EPA and the program planners believed that the grant
money for public education in Somerville could best
be spent on a large media campaign that would
publicize a citywide program. However, they did not
expect a recovery rate greater than 10 percent or
serious collection problems. When delays in starting
the program actually increased public awareness and
participation, citizens left more materials at the
curb than the collection system could handle (over
12 percent of the city's waste stream). The program
never got back on schedule.
Residents became frustrated when their recyclables
were not picked up on time, even though three
additional crews using small refuse compactors and
open trucks were used during the first week of the
program. This emergency measure was inefficient and
confusing and, as a result, collections remained a
day or more behind schedule. Citizens continued to
set out materials in high quantities during the
second and third weeks, and collections continued to
lag behind. A severe snowstorm hit Somerville in
the fourth week, delaying refuse collection and
forcing suspension of the recycling program for two
weeks. This disruption in service and the initial
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS 19
collection delays severely reduced citizen participa-
tion, and the quantity of materials did not again
reach the level achieved in the first three weeks.
Delayed collection also affected the morale of
recycling crews, since they had long workdays.
Accustomed to a 5-hour workday on the task incentive
system, they quickly became disgruntled by the
8-hour days. Those men who had not volunteered, but
who had been assigned to the program when it fell
behind schedule, were particularly dissatisfied.
Productivity of the collection crews affected
program costs. Crew productivity in Marblehead was
consistently good, although two-man crews were often
used. Productivity in Somerville, however, fell
below expectations. Although Somerville's housing
density was higher than Marblehead's, the amount of
recyclables picked up per home was less, and recycling
trucks had to make more stops per load.
In 1976, Somerville's three crews averaged 3.6 tons
per day in a 6.9-hour work day. Assuming that
approximately two-thirds of this work day consisted
of collection time, the recycling crews' average
productivity during 1976 was only 0.9 tons per
collection hour as opposed to 3.1-4.1 tons per
hour for the refuse collection crews. As partici-
pation fell off in 1977, this difference grew
larger. Somerville's 10 men collected an average of
10.1 tons per day or slightly over 1 ton per man-
day. By comparison, Marblehead's 6 men collected
7.33 tons per day or more than 1.2 tons per man-
day .
Equipment Problems
Experience with the compartmentalized vehicles
revealed some unforeseen design and structural
problems. Somerville also used open-bodied trucks
for their program. These trucks were inefficient
and difficult to load.
Although compartmentalized trucks had been used in
the meat-rendering industry for many years, they had
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS 20
never been used to collect glass, cans, or paper.
Their rear buckets generally could hold the recyclables
of 8 to 10 households. It took from 45 seconds to one
minute, however, to unload the bucket into the truck,
far longer than the design specification of 30 seconds
or less. In addition, the bucket extended 5"4" beyond
the body of the vehicle, and when raised, extended two
feet above the top of the truck (see Exhibit 1.e).
The length of the bucket caused safety problems. Its
height caused it to touch low tree limbs and electrical
wires, to litter on windy days, and to spill materials
from one compartment into another. As a result of
these bucket problems, crews wasted time in loading
materials and in picking up litter from the street.
The communities solved the litter problem by extending
the partitions in the bucket and the body to reduce the
gap between them.
The size of loads collected by Somerville vehicles
during the first week of operation was low and
compounded collection delays. One full load weighed
only 3,400 pounds, about 30 percent of the truck's
capacity, because the interior body partition was
poorly positioned. It left half the truck body for
paper and half for glass and cans, even though
residents were setting out larger volumes of newspaper
than of other materials. Furthermore, corrugated
cardboard and the crews' tendency to pile materials in
the center of the truck body rather than spread them
evenly reduced the density of the loads. The city
then changed the partitions, asked citizens not to
recycle cardboard, and told the crews to empty the
bucket into a different part of the truck to spread
the load. By the third week payloads increased to as
much as 7,200 pounds.
The vehicles had other minor, but annoying, structural
problems. For example, rear door hinges failed on each
truck from the outward pressure of the load and because
the open doors hit the ground when the body was tipped
up for unloading. One of Marblehead's vehicles lost
part of its load when a rear door hinge failed during a
haul. Wider hinges with larger pins were installed
and door latches also were enlarged and strengthened,
-------
21
03
U
c
CO
I.
CO
_03
O
u
3
CQ
J)
O
03
O
ra
a
3
O
CO
.£ 03
I E
O
CC
O
CO
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS 22
but the doors must still be redesigned to prevent
them from striking the ground during unloading. The
truck's bucket cycle is as long as 43 seconds because
of the truck's insufficient power take-off (PTO) drive
ratio of 70 percent. A preferable ratio of 100 to 110
percent would have been provided by a larger PTO pump,
but the city could not afford this expensive modification,
Because both Somerville and Marblehead had good
vehicle maintenance programs and because the vehicles
were new, little time was lost to repairs. Maintenance
problems caused a few minor delays in Marblehead's
program, however. These problems ranged from hydrau-
lic leaks and failure of the brake safety computer
system to replacement of wheel studs, repairs to
rear door hinges, and lost mud flaps. Somerville
had similar problems and others that affected
transmissions, clutches, and engine carburetion.
In the first few months of its program, Somerville
supplemented the compartmentalized vehicle with a
stakebody flatbed truck with a four-man crew con-
sisting of a driver, two collectors, and a man who
was positioned in the truck body to pass containers
up and down, distribute materials evenly, and keep
paper separate from glass and cans. The crew's
productivity was low because the crew had difficulty
lifting materials into the truck and had to unload
the truck frequently. Furthermore, because they
gathered refuse and recyclables on the same day,
collectors had to identify materials at the curb.
The stakebody truck and other inefficient vehicles
were used when the recycling trucks failed. Somerville
used standard packer trucks and open trucks to
replace recycling vehicles and Marblehead used
either spare 16-cubic-yard packers or small pickup
trucks. When a replacement truck was used, some
residents became angry because they mistakenly
believed that their recyclables had been discarded.
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS 23
Other Problems with the
Collection System
Scwnerville had other problems that were not specific
to multimaterial collection but that nevertheless
affected the program. These problems included
scavenging, litter, and program interruptions.
Scavenging was a problem in the first week of the
program, when many large stacks of newspapers
accumulated by residents were stolen by unauthorized
collectors. Articles and letters were published in
the local newspapers to discourage scavenging, and
the police department asked several scavengers not
to take materials. These informal enforcement
measures seemed effective; there was less incentive
to steal papers as residents set out smaller accumula-
tions of newspapers on a weekly basis. By the third
week of the program, scavenging was no longer a
problem.
Litter was a problem on windy days. The problem was
caused by poorly bundled paper, unsuitable containers
for cans and glass (such as paper bags), spillage
during collection, and vandalism. The problem
worsened when collection crews failed to pick up
materials on the same day they were put on the curb.
As residents learned better ways to bind paper and
began to buy containers for recycling glass and
cans, litter was reduced. The collection truck's
bucket design was also changed to eliminate spills
while dumping materials.
Somerville's program was frequently interrupted,
first for a month during the summer of 1976 because
of a labor strike, and next for the winter months in
1977 and 1978 because of bad weather. Marblehead,
where staffing was more flexible and snow removal
easier, continued to provide service during those
periods, although collection sometimes fell behind
schedule. However, Marblehead had to cancel collec-
tion for three days during the summer of 1976 when a
hurricane threatened to pass through the area and
during a severe winter storm in February 1978.
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERTAT.fi 24
Participation dropped significantly in Somerville
after each interruption in the program. As public
interest declined, and along with it the interest of
management and the collection staff, the volume of
recovered materials dropped and loads became more
contaminated. Poorly bundled recyclables that were
left in snow became frozen or soaked and were
difficult to collect. Somerville had more on-street
parking than Marblehead, and snow piled around and
between cars made refuse collection difficult.
Somerville officials decided to suspend recycling in
the winter months. But the suspensions proved to
further hamper the program's momentum, even though
officials had expected that uncertain recycling
service would be worse than none.
OVERCOMING COLLECTION PROBLEMS
Both communities improved their collection equipment
by modifying the loading and unloading operations oE
the trucks. The experience of both communities also
demonstrated that collection procedures could be
improved by gradually implementing source separation
programs in large urban areas, maintaining reliable
collection, and improving collection productivity as
crews become more familiar with program operations.
Improving Equipment
The communities made several modifications to the
truck compartments and to the loading bucket to
reduce the mixing of materials and spillage while
unloading the bucket. Initially, Marblehead removed
one of the partitions in the body of the truck,
leaving one compartment for paper and the other for
a mixture of clear and colored glass and cans.
However, the change violated the EPA demonstration
grant agreement which specified that three categories
of materials be recovered, so the partition was
reinstalled. Instead, Marblehead raised the partitions
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS 25
between compartments and extended the partitions in
the bucket to reduce the distance between the bucket
partitions and the compartment partitions during
dumping. The change eliminated spillage, but mixing
still occurred. Somerville extended the bucket
partitions only; since their trucks had only two
compartments, mixing was not as great a problem.
Future vehicles should be designed to minimize the
clearance between the bucket and the body by shaping
the rear of the truck body to correspond with the
arc of the bucket's movement. Newton, Massachusetts
is now using a Rendispos vehicle with this design
change and has had few problems with mixing and
spillage. Reducing the gap between truck and bucket
facilitates maneuvering the truck and prevents the
bucket from hitting the ground when the truck is
driven up a steep hill. Finally, to ensure even
loading and thereby maximize capacity, the bucket
pivot point and lifting arm should be redesigned to
allow the bucket to dump more easily into both the
front and rear sections of the body.
The vehicles came equipped with movable partitions
that could be positioned to accommodate changes in
the volume of paper, glass, and cans collected.
Since the volume and composition of a community's
waste changes seasonally, this design feature was
very helpful. Both communities continued to adjust
compartment volumes to maximize their loads.
Improving Collection Procedures
Marblehead's program was successfully implemented
largely because the town had previous experience in
recycling and was a small community with manageable
collection routes. As Somerville lacked these advan-
tages, it should have implemented its source separation
program gradually, either by starting in one part of
the city or by initially collecting only one material.
The collection crews, program managers, and citizens
would thus have had more time to become accustomed
to the program. Somerville"s program should not have
been started in the winter, because the disruptions
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS 26
caused by snowstorms drastically reduced participation.
As Marblehead's experience showed, continuous improvement
of collection productivity and reliable collection are
crucial to a successful program.
Somerville officials could have avoided several
problems if they had implemented the program first
on a small scale, in a test area of the city. This
would have enabled the city to make better estimates
of citizen participation and of the need for equip-
ment. Since residents had saved recyclables from
the beginning of the public education campaign, they
placed high volumes at the curb initially and, since
the equipment was untested and crews were inexperienced,
the city should have made a concentrated effort to
"work the bugs out" of the system before trying to
run a citywide program. If there were start-up
problems, such as collection delays, only the test
area would have been affected.
Somerville might also have considered collecting
only newspapers before starting a complex multimaterial
program. The city could have used the same collection
system, but there would have been enough time and
spare capacity in the vehicles to provide collection
without delays. Once the program began to operate
smoothly, the city could have started collecting
glass and cans.
A dense urban area such as Somerville has severe
problems in clearing snow from narrow city streets
because of on-street parking. Refuse collection
falls behind schedule because street cleaning is
given a higher priority. Therefore, Somerville's
decision to suspend recyclables collection during
winter was reasonable. If this procedure had been
planned for and scheduled, however, it would have
disrupted the program less than it did as an emergency
decision.
Advance publicity is needed to get residents back
into the habit of recycling after suspending a
program for the winter. Program funds should be set
aside for annual public awareness campaigns similar
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS 27
to, but smaller than, the public education programs
used to launch a city's program. These campaigns
might make use of: newspaper articles, a letter from
the mayor, and the help of community organizations.
Marblehead collection crews became more efficient as
they became accustomed to the program over the first
year. Marblehead kept data on collection time,
households served, and weight of recyclables collected
for its recycling and refuse collection crews from
five months before the start of the collection program
(January 1976) to November 1976. These data were
sufficient to compare the collection productivity of
the demonstration program with that of the former
recycling program.
For the first month of the new program, Marblehead's
crews averaged 0.36 minutes per home. Collection time
decreased consistently over the next ten months while
the tonnage of recyclables collected increased slightly
over the same period (see Exhibit 1.f). As expected,
more time was needed to collect three categories of
materials in the new program than was needed to
collect one recyclable in the former program (0.20
minutes per home). Only half as many homes were
served by a crew in the new program. More recyclables
were placed at the curb for collection, however, and
the actual tons collected by a crew, 1.3 tons per
collection hour, did not change from the former
program to the new program.
Since one-fourth of Marblehead's waste was being
recycled, the town was able to reduce its refuse
collection from twice to once per week. Refuse crews
were spending more time collecting refuse; productivity
dropped from 2.2 to 1.7 tons per collection hour. Less
refuse was collected per stop and collectors had to
take additional time to distinguish refuse from recy-
clables. To overcome this problem, the town eliminated
the second weekly refuse collection and established one
day for refuse collection and one day for recyclables
collection. As indicated by a telephone survey, the
town's residents were not opposed to the change, as it
would save the town money.
-------
28
Exhibit 1.f
Marblehead Collection Workload
and Productivity
0.60 <
0.50
040 '
Collection
minutes/ 030 ,
home served
(solid line)
020 .
0.10
^ s>
-5.0
4.0
-3.0
2.0
-1.0
Tons/
crew day
(dashed line)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
SOURCE Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
-------
COLLECTING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERJTALS^ 29
A reduction in refuse collection service would have
received much opposition in Somerville because its
residents have less space to store waste. In addition,
the town did not recycle enough materials to substitute
a recyclables collection for the second refuse collection.
-------
2
MARKETING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS 31
While establishing a collection system, community
officials also looked for a market that would buy
their recyclables. They hoped to generate revenue
from the sale of recyclables and to reduce the amount
of solid waste in the community's refuse stream. As
had collection, marketing posed a variety of problems.
Markets and prices vary greatly by region; they
depend on the local industries' demand for materials.
Somerville and Marblehead found that marketing
problems could best be overcome by producing high-
quality recovered materials and by designing collection
programs to meet local market needs.
SELECTING MARKETS
Municipal officials in Somerville and Marblehead
needed to find a market that would accept mixed cans
and glass and mixed paper. They sought a market
close to home, that would guarantee them a fixed
floor price for materials and that would agree to
work with the communities through the early stages of
their programs. The market would also have to
upgrade the materials, using intermediate processing
equipment, before they could be sold to industrial
processors.
Both municipalities solicited bids for intermediary
processing of the materials. No local scrap dealers
were readily equipped to process mixed materials for
resale, but a new company, Recor, Inc. (now Matcon,
Inc.) was formed by Newark Boxboard and an entrepreneur,
John Clement. The company, located in nearby Salem,
Massachusetts, presented the highest bid to become
the market and intermediate processor for the two
-------
MARKETING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS 32
communities. The subsequent marketing agreement
between Recor, Inc. and the municipalities included
one-year contracts with fixed floor prices. Floor
prices were lower for Somerville than for Marblehead
because Recor agreed to provide hauling service to
that city.
Each of Marblehead's two collection vehicles made two
deliveries a day to Recor, 5 miles away. Marblehead
also kept three recycling storage containers at the
former town dump where residents could drop off
recyclables. Marblehead paid a private contractor to
haul the bins to Recor a few times each month.
Somerville collection crews delivered materials to a
temporary transfer station at the former city incinera-
tion plant, where they used front end loaders to dump
materials into Recor"s 40-60-cubic-yard containers.
Recor processed the paper, scrap, steel, aluminum,
and broken glass (or cullet) it received from the two
towns and other sources (see Exhibit 2.a) and sold the
materials for reuse in New England. Recor shipped
cullet by truck to Glass Container Corporation (GCC)
in Dayville, Connecticut and to other northeastern
glass container plants. It shipped paper by truck or
rail to paper mills throughout New England, and as far
away as Indiana, which used the recovered paper to
manufacture boxboard. Ferrous cans were transported by
rail to several operators, primarily detinners, who
chemically remove tin from the cans and ship the steel
to steel mills for scrap or to copper refiners for use
as a precipitating agent. Aluminum travelled by rail
primarily to Reynolds Aluminum Corporation in New
Jersey for remelting into aluminum ingot.
The company employed five persons for a single shift,
five days a week to process glass and cans. The
maximum daily throughput for glass and cans was 60 to
80 tons per day. The cost of the system's equipment was
$250,000. Yearly costs were as follows: management
and labor, $125K; operation and maintenance, $170K;
transportation $100K; raw material acquisition, $300K.
Revenues from sales were approximately $600K. The
business lost money initially but the owners hoped that
increased throughput, increased demand, and rising
prices for recovered materials would enable them to
make a profit in the future.
-------
33
0)
c
03
O
O
<£
c
CO
O
o
c
CO
v>
TO
o
o
a)
CC
.^
CO
C
'5s
-------
MARKETING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS 34
PROBLEMS WITH MARKETS
The price an intermediary will pay for recovered
materials depends on industrial processors' demand
for the materials and the quality of the materials.
The price of clean, color-separated glass cullet
is over $45 per ton, but if the glass shipment is at
all contaminated by ceramics, the price drops to
near zero. Similarly, when the aluminum content in
a shipment of tin cans approaches 2.5 percent, a
sharp drop-off in price occurs.
Prices for waste paper are always quite low in New
England. During 1976 to 1978 prices in the Middle
West, West Coast and the Middle Atlantic States were
almost double those received by Marblehead and Somerville.
Recor paid Somerville and Marblehead a fraction of the
prevailing industrial market prices for each of theLr
recyclables. For paper, Recor initially paid Marblehead
a rate of $8/ton less than the price published by the
Official Board Markets (OEM) for No. 1 News in the
Boston market, with a floor price of $5/ton. It paid
Somerville $14/ton less than the OEM quotation, with a
floor price of $2/ton. Metal prices were derived from
scrap steel prices quoted in Iron Age Magazine for
Number 2 Dealer Bundles in the Philadelphia market.
Marblehead received prices ranging from $43/ton for an
Iron Age quote of $80-85/ton, to a floor price of
$10/ton for quotes under $45. Somerville received $2
less per ton of metal than Marblehead and was guaranteed
a floor price of $5/ton. Recor made no distinction
between the price of clear and colored glass, and
contracted to pay Marblehead $7 less per ton for its
glass than the price offered for "contaminated cullet"
by GCC in Dayville, Connecticut. Recor guaranteed
Marblehead a floor price of $12/ton. Somerville
received $9 less than the GCC price, with a floor
price of $10 ton.
When time came in December 1976 to renegotiate the
one-year contract, Recor lowered the prices it offered
both Marblehead and Somerville because the materials
had been more contaminated than expected. Marblehead's
-------
MARKETING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS 35
price for paper dropped to $10/ton. The new Somerville
price formula for paper and metal follows:
Official Board Markets Quote Price Paid to
for No. 1 News, Boston Market Somerville by Recor
$50 or greater $25
$45 to less than $50 $20
$40 " " " $45 $15
$35 " " " $40 $10
$30 " " " $35 $ 5
Less than $30 $ 5
Iron Age Quote for No. 2 Price Paid to
Dealer Bundles, Philadelphia Market Somerville by Recor
$15
$14
$13
$12
$11
$10
$ 8
The communities were unable to agree to these
schedules; nevertheless, they accepted whatever
Recor would pay for individual loads of materials,
without a contract.
With no competition, Recor had substantial control
over the prices it paid to the communities for materials,
Not only did Recor gradually lower its prices, but
after the first year it refused to give the communities
a fixed floor price. Without the power to negotiate
higher prices, the communities received less money for
materials and had more loads rejected because of
contamination (see Exhibits 2.b-2.d for fluctuations
in paper, glass, and metal prices).
$
$
$
$
$
$
1
1
1
1
1
60
50
40
30
20
90
or
or
"
11
"
"
greater
less
i
1
i
i
Less
i
1
i
i
than
"
"
11
11
than
$
$
$
$
$
$
1
1
1
1
1
60
50
40
30
20
90
-------
Exhibit 2.b
Paper Prices
36
30 T
20 <>
Dollars/
ton
10 "
DJ FMAMJ J ASONDJ FMAMJ J ASONDJ FMAMJ
SOURCE Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
-------
Exhibit 2.c
Glass Prices
30
20
Dollars/
ton
10
\
V
\
37
Marblchead
Somerville
DJ FMAMJJASONDJ FMAMJJASONDJ FMAMJ
1976 1977 1978
SOURCE Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
-------
38
Exhibit 2.d
Metal Can Prices
Dollars/
ton
i Marblehead
\
i Somerville
DJ FMAMJ J ASONDJ FMAMJ J ASONDJ FMAMJ
1976 1977 1978
SOURCE Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
-------
MARKETING SOURGE-SEPARATED MATERIALS 39
Recor's inefficient glass process line produced a
glass cullet with relatively high amounts of contam-
inants (ceramics, stones, metals and other trash).
GCC bought the contaminated glass at low prices and
cleaned it at its own plant. As contamination grew
worse, GCC urged Recor to revise their glass and can
processing system to provide cleaner glass cullet.
OVERCOMING MARKETING PROBLEMS
As a market, Recor was suited better to Marblehead,
which recovered high volumes of recyclables, than to
Somerville. Recor paid a lower price for glass and
cans than other local markets but accepted less pure
materials. This made it easy for citizens to partici-
pate in the program; high volumes of recyclables were
recovered. Although Marblehead received less for mixed
glass and cans from Recor, this was compensated for by
the high disposal savings ($18.95 per ton) Marblehead
gained by diverting recyclables from the waste stream.
Somerville"s recycling program, on the other hand,
saved less in disposal costs ($9.40 per ton) and
needed to accumulate more revenue from the sale of
materials to offset its program costs. Somerville
generated enough revenue to offset program costs
only six months out of the first year of the program
(see Appendix A). Those months were ones when Recor
paid a high price for cans and paper. Somerville's
program could have made a consistent profit if those
high prices had been sustained.
Because Recor had mechanical problems with its glass
process line, it paid lower prices for the towns'
materials. The company modified its glass processing
methods to yield a cleaner, more marketable product
(see Exhibit 2.e). The new process line increased
the density of the finished product from 1,000
pounds per cubic yard to 2,000 pounds per cubic yard
(see Exhibit 2.f) and reduced shipping costs.
In the new process, materials were unloaded onto a
concrete pad, and then placed on a conveyor where
ferrous materials were magnetically separated,
flattened, and stored for shipment. The nonferrous
materials and glass were then conveyed past workers
who removed aluminum from the belt by hand for
flattening and storage and discarded ceramics,
-------
40
o "O
-o j, S
S c "o
S | §
££ -
JS >-°
u- -Q £
c
E
3
w
£
U
O
CC
O
T3
CC
ii
LLJ CC
T3
cu
^
o i:
*= c 3
sis
o) i- re
re 7 Q.
n
CC
u ra .2
T3 -g
m (A ^
X JS =
s01
-------
41
H-
N
Exhibit
0)
c
II]
CO
CO
0)
U
O
ol
O)
z
re
0}
c
CO
HI
U
o
ol
Is
'E
..CO
O
U
0)
CC
i_
O
CO
"re
CO
1
CO
8
o
Q.
O
O)
'to
CD
Q
ew Process
z
rocess
Q.
^
,>.
IS
"~" '
^.
^
'
c
CD
Q
eaving Recor
^c
~
.?
c
CD
O
o
u
(U
CC
c"
ro
CD
_l
M~*
>>
^
"^
"«
C
(U
Q
o
u
0)
CC
K
Ol
c
1
O)
o
o
00
errous cans
attened
1 1 ~
0
0
D
C co
CC <&
" CJ
I) t
O CC
t °-
CD :
UL CO
o
0
c
ly beverage a
containers
K T3
II
_ra
O
^
(Q
C
(0
o
0 R
LO 0
CM O
CM
CJ
Juminum cans
attened
lear and colors
0 0
0 0
CN O
<
CO
CD "O
co'73 £
c - o
CD t:
"co q
|:^ "R
C CD
1 § *
_2 .E a>
< E o
^,
CD
r"
CO
In
CO
c
I
co~
CO
CD
en
CD
D
CM
C
E
CO
CO
CO
CT
0
CD
D.
CO
Q.
aled shredded
CD
o
LO
^
CD
Q.
CC
CL
T3
CD
TJ
~O
CD
"co
"D
CD
CC
CD
O
0
CO
c/)
CD
T3
C
_D
CD
"D
C
D
_Q
CD
C
ly newspaper
i bags, magaz
' paper
o
1
£
E^
8 o
0
c
O
cr
QJ
E
o
LL
' '
6
c
o
o
"ro
UJ
SOURC
-------
MARKETING SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS 42
off-color glass containers, and other obvious
contaminants from the conveyor. The remaining glass
mixture was inspected for quality and reduced to
small particles (cullet) in a hammermill. A 5/8-inch
vibrating screen then separated metal rings, caps,
paper, and other nonbrittle contaminants from the
cleaned cullet. A final magnetic separation step
removed the small amount of ferrous materials that
had passed through the 5/8-inch screen. Lower
quality materials were diluted with better quality
glass cullet after processing. The finished product
was ready for glass furnaces.
As a market, Recor was exceptionally willing to
design its operation to meet the needs of the
communities it served. Even so, it lowered its
prices and refused to guarantee a fixed floor price
for materials after the first year. Communities
ideally should sell materials to competitive markets,
but in the absence of competition, communities will
have to design their programs to meet local market
specifications. If Somerville and Marblehead had
not been supported by an EPA grant, they would have
had to design a collection system that separated
glass by color and that separated cans from glass in
order to take advantage of existing markets for
those materials.
In any case, communities should develop a good
business relationship with their markets because
they can benefit from the dealers' expertise. Recor
was willing to experiment with the communities; it
helped them conduct their public education program
and solve initial implementation problems. Recor
should have given the communities more information
about how to deliver pure loads, however, rather
than accept contaminated loads of materials and
dilute them with purer materials. This would have
helped the communities to pinpoint and to overcome
their contamination problems.
-------
Appendix A
43
MATERIAL RECOVERY AND DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM COSTS AND SAVINGS
Monthly material recovery and demonstration program
costs and savings were monitored by EPA from January
1976 through June 1978.
Exhibit A.a shows the recovery rates for 13 recyclable
components in the waste stream. For example, Marble-
head's source separation program recovered an average
of 66.9 percent of the newsprint available in its
waste stream in 1977 and 1978.
The quantities of paper, glass, and cans recovered on
a monthly basis are shown in Exhibit A.b and A.c.
Exhibits A.d and A.e provide a summary of the programs'
monthly costs and savings. Detailed cost backup
sheets (Exhibits A.f and A.g) for June 1978 shows how
the program costs were derived. The costs are tab-
ulated on full cost and actual cost bases. Full costs
reflect the total recycling program budget, including
all equipment and labor. Actual costs are the real
incremental costs of the program. Actual costs exclude
labor and equipment carried over from the original
refuse program.
-------
44
Exhibit A.a
Average Recovery Rates (1977-1978)
(Percent)
Marblehead
Newsprint 669
Magazines 444
Corrugated paper 6 6
Other paper 3 0
Clear glass beverage 675
Green glass beverage 50 7
Brown glass beverage 33 9
Other clear glass 55 4
Other green glass 61 1
Other brown glass 50 3
Ferrous beverage 43 4
Other ferrous 37 8
Nonterrous beverage 51 0
Other nonferrous 129
Somerville
Newsprint 169
Magazines 1 6
Corrugated paper 7 0
Other paper 03
Clear glass beverage 2 2
Green glass beverage 2 4
Brown glass beverage 6 5
Other clear glass 1 7
Other green glass 29
Other brown glass 4 1
Ferrous beverage 2 2
Other ferrous 36
Nonferrous beverage 2.7
Other nonferrous i 9
75
-------
45
Exhibit A.b
Materials Recovered Over the Demonstration Period Marblehead
300 f
250
200 |
Recovered
materials
(tons)
150
J FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJJ ASONDJ FMAMJ
100
-------
46
Exhibit A.c
Materials Recovered Over the Demonstration Period Somen/ille
300
250
200
Recovered
materials 150
(tons)
100
J FMAMJ J ASONDJ FMAMJ J ASONDJ FMAMJ
1976 1977 1978
Cans and glass
lUlim Paper
SOURCE Resource Planning Associates, Inc
-------
47
CD
1^
05
CO
CX3
oo
O
U
E
CO
O)
o
O
CO
-q _g
< jj
i -s
ro
03
at Was
c
OJ
-D
c/i
V
tr
cr
_c
"c
g
01
c:
v>
re
QJ
re
^
D
1
C
0>
re
re
0
1-
1
a
i/:
^ D
1e
i 1
£ Q)
0 0
o o
CD '«
^- ro
» oa
"p u 0
fe < 0
Net Savings (doll
Full Costal
Basis
CO
"re
s
u
<
CM
1
LL
1)
Recycling
Bins
C
^ c
2 I
» S
S 0
0 U
o
t-
I "«
2 S
_ .11
i2 D U
"o
2 £
S 5
c g
1 S
CO tt
Month
CD<-COCNlDCO^^-CNCDLn^r
>-co(Dr^O)rocMrMi^^cor~-
LOr^ror^r^^r^CNOOf^ocD
^COCOCMCOCDCOCDCOCNLOCNJ
i-^CM(NCNCMCNCMCMCNCN(N
o^ojo-^-Lnr^cocooocN^r^
CDCOCOOCOUOLO^TOlDCNCD
O)^COOCDOO)OO^TCNCOCM
tn/^o)Of-roocV' OCNCD
i^oicococoDoocD^r^^r^
aO)COCOCDr-COr--c£)tDCDO
Lno)r^^cor~-co»3-^r<*cD
CO^COCMCslrOCMCOCMCNCNCO
coin^-LOcnr^cocD^'j'-cN
cococ\icocococQO'=tir>a>a)
OTcooaDcncnLDOcorO'-
r-CNCOCMCslrOCxlrOCXI^CM
?r
CO OCNCOOlDcO<3"Oi^C>^
aico mOLDcocsi^ocDCN
-- n «t T- r- ^r co in 05
-" £N
r^OCDCNOCDCOCOCOCOOOCD
cMr^'d-i^LDnM-ro-^-copOfv
O5in^^rco(Nocsiocoa)CN
cNco^r^co^^r^^-coco^r
ininincoood'^-coOT^oicN
CD^-CDOTCO^ CTi^CncOCO'^-
i^^'^-^^rr-r^^r^cDCDOJ
^rcor^i^co^cDf^cococor^
ooinaiOoooiDoiDO
^-^rr^oocor-co' inom
LD^-^-CO^f'd-^f^fTCMCOIN
L^LOO^oco-^raD^r-^-^rcN
LDi^mcococorocococacocn
CMCDOCOOCOCOCDCOCOCOCJ)
^-LOCDCDCDCDCDCDtDCDCDCD
om^r^aicor-cNaj^a)'-
CDmtDCOCO^rO^COCOCNCN
coCT>^r<-^Lr>cocNcocN^co
^rLnr^r^cDr-cDf^comcD^t
^tCNCDCOCN^^-' I^COJ^O)
oo^cocD^rm^o^T-cocM
cncocDcocococo^cNai^i^
cNcocococorococomcsirocM
CDCO^Oll^-CDr^^CMO^CNlCNJ
CDCDCnCTja)CN^COO3^^r-O5
cOLOi^-s-ror^rMooococoir)
CNCOCOCOCOCOCOCOlNCNlt
> 1 ^ 1 s
>fe^ - E | f f
§2"S"E>^>IS"°§11!
c^roaTC-^'g-oCoj
^^5<5^^
T*
N
in
03
S
1
Tf
S
co
r.
»±
8
co
o
CO
t
-------
q
<
x
LU
o>
c
T3
co
O
O
c
o
(C
a>
.£
(5
W
O
H
s
g-
Q
E -
to ^!_
O "w ^r
o S 2
°- B 5
^ o
Q) ^
u. £
D >» 5
T, K =
*y o o
CC o O
IA
8-
_LD
« a
>- 3 "»
*-* S
= « 3
0 < j:
"D
VI
O>
1 ^5
"> «
| a'i
Z UL J3
CN Jrt
3^1
** trt O
S o-o
< o^i
"n
*j
o
H
o»
c
= ?«
-s » .s
S tt -o
"o
o
S §
| 1
3 O
U. O
~m
Q
H
"<5
_ (/» (A
£ a!
2 «^
S1 Q o
0 j;
Q. 2
o> o
C T3 n
! i 1
£ 1 1
j:
S
o
ID
r^
CN
CT"
CM
0)
CD
CO.
co"
8
*
^"
ro
^T
co
CT
M'
sr_
CN
in
r^
^r.
^r"
CM
CT
in
r^
CM
r^
O
CN
CO.
CD"
CO
T
ID"
o
M-
CN
CT
CO
r-
cq
1
January
cn
CO.
*_'
CM
in
CD
<*.
r^
8
*
*j
ro
5
in
in
cn
CM"
CM
in
CM
CO
-"
*~
O
CT
CN
CO
CM.
co"
CD
r~-
CM
CM
cn
cn
CT"
CM
CO
in
r~-"
CM
r^
0
CM
CO.
co"
S
CN
r~-~
CD
CO
in
*"
CO
CD
CO.
CM"
0)
c
3
)
m
cn
r*~
o
CM
ID
CD
CD
cn"
o
CT
o
CJ)
in
o
in
CB
CN"
CM
cn
CT).
CT"
CM
CT
in
r^-
CM
r^
0
CM
CO
CD"
CM
CO
in
^r~
0
CO
CO.
CN"
CN
o
r^
'
>-
D
)
CM
CJ)
CM.
CM
CN
CM
CO
r-"
"~
0
CT
r^
*
r-"
CJ)
.
CM"
CN
cn
en
co"
CM
CT
in
r^
CM
r~-
o
CM
CO,
CD"
CO
CO
3".
in
cn
^
^r
CT
=j
o.
CM"
£
g,
3.
CD
in
°°,
CM
CO
CN
r~-.
o"
"~
o
CT
^3-
CN
CT
r-~
CO
CM.
CM
CN
CJ)
CJ)
co"
CM
CT
in
rC
CM
r^
0
CM
CO
CD"
CO
CT
ID"
S
CT
co"
CN
CO
CJ)
""
0)
Septemb
O)
^t
CM
T-T
CM
CJ)
0
"~
0
CT
in
CT
o
^-"
ID
O
in
CN
CM
CJ)
cn
CT"
CN
CT
in
r-
CM
r~
o
CN
CO.
co"
r~
CM
0
in
in
CO
CT"
CM
CO
CO.
""
October
S
r^
r
CM
-3-
r^
in
o"
o
CO
CM
* .
CM"
cn
f.
^,
CM
CJ)
cn
CT"
CN
CT
in
r^
CM
r-.
o
CM
CO.
CD"
CT
<
co"
CO
r^
ro
CT
o
M-
r~.
CM"
,_
Novembe
T 00
cn 3>
^ in
0 0
CM |^
CM
CD M
CT cn
cn" ro
N
0 Tt
S
<~" (O
* ^
^
CO 00
LD 00
CO ps
CM to
T~
r- 0
CO ro
cn oo
CT" cn
t
CM «t
CT OD
in R
r-~ o"
o>
S §
r-- u>
oo"
0 0
CM ^t
CO. 00;
CD f
00
in ^i
T CM
CT tO
^ §
ID «t
co" »-"
*
0 O
CM ^
co. in
^ S
!_
1 E
E 2
" o £
s ii
48
O
Q
~j
o
CJ
_>
^l
C
c
e
rr
CO
u"
CJ
£
CL1
CT
C
CJ
>~
o
QJ
C
-a
£
sumables u;
c
o
CJ
-o
c
03
C
GJ
E
CL
'D
a
o
J3
0
"o
«
o
CJ
13
a_
^~
backup sh
-t-1
o
CJ
GJ
QJ
E
ro
CT
O
Q
cr>
c
"o
>
CJ
CD
o
GO
D
T)
omrnunity
CJ
^.
-D
-Q
QJ
3
O
C
^
"03
D
U
ro
oo
O
O
"ro
c
O
"O
r;
<
CM
GO
>
ro
CT
(15
means m
CO
o
a
"5
~o
d
ro
nues
CO
>
CO
ro
CO
ro
E
GJ
£
CL
ro
c^
0}
CT
O
a
CT
C
C1
>
CJ
GO
QJ
_C
s_
O
oo
03
_G
1
_
n
03
savings or
GO
'Z.
<:
QJ
ro
E
o
_c
QJ
ro
^
"c
D
E
E
o
CJ
QJ
JC
0
CJ
QJ
QJ
t economic
QJ
C
CD
_C
oo"
03
JD
O
CJ
"ro
13
O
C
o
to
CT
C
'>
03
00
Q
^
LO
v/3
r station co
QJ
C
03
"a
c
03
QJ
E
a
D
CT
GJ
O
ro
GJ
~O
12
CJ
-
CD
A;
CJ
ro
GO
D
Q-
C
O
z>
QJ
v
!S)
<
^
GJ
GJ
QJ
Q-
o;
CJ
o
3er week to
CD
CJ
£
£
o
a
GJ
CT
C
cc
n
u
Q
se collect
13
CD
CC
r^
O)
C
CJ
>
CJ
CD
-d
o
~O
CJ
13
-o
CD
13
CD
GJ
O
CJ
~O
QJ
Q
S
ro
"O
ca
QJ
QJ
QJ
E
o
7^
CD
ro
c
1
"GJ
in
03
£
QJ
U
.C
>
+-j
O
CJ
ro
CJ
oo
£
03
CT
O
Q.
CT
Tj
^
CJ
CD
OJ
.C
C
"S
1
QJ
cn
£-
o
U
D
"C
CD
?
CJ
GJ
_C
1-
oo
O
a
CD
CT
C
a
-------
00
O)
r-
If
I
a
c
CC
O
CJ
01
O
O
.
I -e
£ as
O)
0
CL
1
CC
m
1
a!
0)
_c
o
CC
.
CD
O
TD
(A
0
O
tn
CD
O
%
C
03
(A
.j
0)
Z
"w
D
0
^r
CD
O
(A
in
o
o
3
U_
ro
"o
"O
.
_c
&
CO
O
a
o
a
.2
Q
CD
c
g
o
01
"o
O
ts
0
o
LTJ
ro
3 _IA
< 5
*-*
o^
._
= 8
U. .0
CN "c/i
~~" CO
s "5
83
o
H
01
.c
73
g S
DC 5
c
0
s
"o
CJ
*co
^
*~
15
(A trt
o .*:
0.-D
.2 a>
Q u
1
a)
DC
£
C
o
in
cn"
m
CO
^
o
CD
CD.
-
1
in
CO
CO
CO
0
CO
^
5
LO
CO.
^
CN
LO
^J-
.
r^
^
r^
^
CD
CO
CD.
CN
CO
CO
o
CM"
ro
ro
CN
O
in"
in
CD"
0
CO
a-
co"
ro
in
0
cn
^
0
CO
CO
o
cn
LO
CN
CD
cn
r-
in
CO
en
cn
CO
CD
CM
CN"
CN
CD
<-"
ro
D
-Q
QJ
LL
LO
LO
0
CM
in
CD
CO
co"
0
on
CM"
CO
CN
O
in
CN
£
cn
CO
in
CO
CN.
co"
s
CO
cn
CD
^r.
i^
CO
CN
O
^
CO
cn
o
^
0
CO
en
CM"
ro
CO
o
0
CN"
CM
CO
o
,_~
^
0
o
CD
o"
cn
0
CO.
*-
CO
CO
cn
^
CO
c°.
CO
CO
^
cn
CO
CD
in
cn
^r
CD"
CD
cn
in
CO
CM
CO
CO
cn
<-'
Q.
CO
O
LO.
CN
CO
CO.
CM
0
CD
CD.
<-"
O
CO
CM
(^
CM"
CO
CM.
cn
CO,
^
CD
in
<^j-
' .
r-
|^
0
LO
in
CD.
co"
o
C35
CO
-"
CD
O)
CO
CM
CD
CM
CO.
CN"
0
CD
CD.
^-"
CO
O
m
CD
CO
CD
O)
1^
^
O
CD
in
^j-
^-.
r-
Nf
00
in
"*
CO
CO
0
o
<-"
a;
5
o
8
CM
cn
3
d
i
«-
tM
Si
CO
in
n
CM
r-
in
i^
iv
O)
(D
1**^
to
3
*~fc
1
ro"
in
^
OJ
CO
g co
49
T3
o
JD 3
II
ro c
E G
ro CD
O
tt c c
n O
8 '£ I
"
c E c
c O
" O 'J3
>- o ro
CD ^ fe
£ a,"
fe -5 ra
.!£ 'Z ~°
v> ro ci
ro _Q ro
CD CD ^
c c J-
o o o
aai
.c c
-------
50
CD
!».
O)
cc
C/5
o
c
rc
O
O
cu
k.
TO
O
o
s
I I
ui CO
09
TO
5
*re
C
03
TD
0)
CC
O)
£
'c
0!
CC
(A
(C
ffi
re
D
O
L-
01
CC
0
t-
"re
I/!
0
a-
~ 5
"c
05
1 1
in °
S =
0 0
0 0
t/t
CD 'K
- - (0
5 en
£ i/i
-S « o
fe < "
"5
T3
LO
o>-
'> 0
« U
« 3 10
Z U. CO
s
"re
u
<
"5
Li.
(1)
Transfer
Station
i2
CO
1 1
irt «
S =5
" 0
IB
0
1-
Is
£ o;
"C Q U
"o
0 M
0)
? 1
1 1
£
c
o
S
^cocn ^- cn<-r~~ n ai'jcn iNi^ocNincM
OOCDCN LO(Dr~-om^ir)--CNCN
^CNCDr^r^r^cocOf^-r^r^r^cD
CT)iDr^coT-Locor---t o^coo
cor^OLDLD^-LOcn^r^a)rocD
CNOCT)P'3^rir)CT>LncO'-rO<£)CT>
r-~LOc\ia)CM^r^rr-~ocNcocno
(N< c^cy)^j-^r^r-^-'a'-'-a)CNO^'g-cNa)LnO)
CNCOOO CN i a>o -^coc^ ^r C^OCT)
ro i-" ~ ^-" r-" ' ~
^~
» OtncDCDCTlCDOOt CDCDCOO
cor^^r ocor^-r- cocNr^-CDLn^j-
T-LOCO CD <3- ^ra) LOcoocor^-T
co^j-LnLDLO^r^j-CM^LnLnLncD
r^cocDO^j-^cNcoi^r^r^-r^^j-
r^cDcocooocDLncDoooo
CNLOCN OLncNr^ CD^-CNCNCNO^
r^COLOCDCDCDCDCNcDCDCOCDLO
iTICOCO CD r~^ CDCNI I^-CDCO CDCDCO
^^T'-tOCDO^CNLncDOOLO
or^co r^ ^-cor~- LDV-CDCDCDO
CNCDOCNCN'-CNLncN^r-^'-
OCTlCOCOOCNOCD^CNCNCNn
C^CNILD CN P-CNCN r-r~CNCNCNI~~
r^ CD O) -_ o_ o_ ^- M- o_ o o_ o en
cNoio coco ^I-CN oco^r ^r^ro
i-<-CD CNOO COCT) - co coo LOLD ootOLnino
"-CDCD <-- O <- LD.-OOOO
CNCOOO r^- i r^ CD ocooocneo
^r^i^ ^r ocNcn co co co < LO *-
O)^a> - i^^r~- cncxiLni^com
COCN^T 1^ CDr^r^ CNr^CDLDLO^r
OO' o COLOCO Lnoco^rcDi^
i^cDocD^rcNcor^i^^rocoo
cD'jco CN ooina) ^rLnroro^r^r
CN--CN co rococo "-corocococo
CNCOCN r^COCNOO M-COCNCD^r^
^T^-CO CO LOOLO CDCDCOOCOO
cNi^ocococDco^rcN'-^rroLn
< CNCOCOCOCO-^^rCOCNCN^
In
r-
C35
! E t , .fill
1 I ! 1 ! ! ! i ! I 1 1 1
ft
in
o
t
00
in
r~
to
g
»
in
§
^
8
3
co_
CM"
o
s
s
CO
CO
in
(O
r»
r^
o
en
t
CO
ID
-
C
> C
'
I
_ f g i
° "rc <" &. fe
K c E .E .E
° .- 5 £
c/5 L^ < _ Z Z
-------
o
co
O)
_c
ro
CO
T3
C
CO
O
O
E
2
Dl
I §
^
«J
o
3
g
F *"
(TJ """
o* "e
all
f « 5
a <5 3
fi
~-85
Wl CO "~*
*- 3 tfl
O 'ffl
-o ** -°
^
O)
> X "^
ft? S ~ '
"> _ o
2 u. 5
CN
VI
STS
- e
ro ^g
"1
3
o
1-
^ **- c
-5 c.2
jo 2
"o
TO
§ 0
o 5
£
~5 ~o
u. o
ro
o
E "S »
ra O .;
O3 w" "^
S "s a S
a. »
O3 "3
c 2 »
73 i/> 3
> c c
O *
0) > g
rv " M
DC (/) OC
-C
c
o
5
r- co
en ro
ro CN
CD r--
r- 03
CO CN
CN" CN"
r- CN
0 0
CD CD,
o" o"
in in
o o
0 0
o o
0 0
o o
0 0
o o
0 0
O 0
_^ S
CD v
~>. cT
u ro
ro D
i -o
1 £
o
CD
O)
CD
CD
CM
CN
co"
CM
CO
-
CO
o
ID
' '
5
CM
CO
01
CN"
CO
CO
o
cn"
o
CO
co"
CO
o
CO,
ro"
8
o
en"
00
CO
co"
CO
o
CN
CN"
en
CO
-C
CJ
to
o
CD
CD
0
O
CO
CM
O
CO,
ro
o
CM
ID"
0
CO
in
CN"
o
CO
CM,
co"
0
o
ID"
o
CO
CN
cn
o
CM
CO,
>-
0
in
CN"
ro
in
t
CM
O,
Q.
CO
CD
cn
o.
co"
CN
ro
ro"
ro
R
£
in"
S
CN
cn
CM"
ro
CO,
co"
ID
ID
CO,
in
5
ro"
-
*d~
CN"
CO
CN
0)
CN"
r^
r^
i
CO
(13
ro
CN
in
CO
CN
O3
00
co"
CN
cn
CO
ro"
CO
cn
o
CD"
?
0
CD
ro"
o>
cn
cn"
in
CO
r^
CN
p;
co"
ro
in
cn"
CO
ro"
P;
o
CN"
S
O
CO
o
CT)
O O
(Q
CD
§o
CD
cn
CN O
o
CJ
cn
0 0
,
CN"
r- 0
ro
ro o
cn
-
S
CU CD
Jj j^
« 0
§ g
Z Q
5
o'
CM
oo
in
O3
o"
m
r-
=1
o
^
in
oo
CM
^
in
|^
O
w
tN
M
^
O
00
o
^
S?
r-
<0
T-
f»
CO
<*
k
2
,-
S
CO
in*
CM
3
^
^
*~
S
^»
O
r-
E
w
at £
s Si
0. t-
51
oj,
t CD
J>. E
CD CX
S c
I ^
2 P
l^>
ca w,
CD c
a .^
rj to
CT D
!-§
O m
-Q K
a o
o
§.2
<-> m
2 E
CU OJ
w m
o S
55 <- 43 :
o
. o
cu
o o
CJ o ro
"m TS -^
I CD
10 »01
c a) O
»a
O T ?
;« g »
a=-
o p > '>
"is c to to .
3
U_
iD CD
-------
oo
i^
Oi
O)
c
1
T3
CO
V)
O
O
co
b>
O
1 §
< £
.*: Q>
E
re
D)
a
0)
(A
1
E
n
O)
O
ct
O}
c
"o
>-
u
0)
EC
_
,
"e
CD
"o
0
o
1/1
CD
"o
73
vt
D)
£
'>
9
»
Z
CN
£
o
u
"re
3
U
^2T
m
CO
"o
(A
IA
O
u
_
"5
U-
to
CO
"o
"D
(A
D)
I
O
*s
Actual i
0
u
"5
u.
"£>
o
01
n
H
"«
V)
1
1
o
a
w
a
c
0
1
5
1
JD
g:
~l/>
'Z
s>
s
o
H
c
o
S
«
c
o
i
"o
o
o
1-
VI
o .t:
a -o
.2 a>
D
U
vt
0>
3
C
O
cr
c
CT>
in
o
CN"
CD
CN
CN
CN
CN"
CN
r--
co.
0)"
ro
o
o
0
o
o
0
o
o
o
co
>
CD
D
C
CD
3
CO
CN
CO
O
CO
o"
CD
CO
O
O
0
o
o
0
o
o
o
CO
^
CD
X)
cu
1^,
co"
8B
^f-
O)
CN
CD.
ro"
o
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
CJ
CD
CD
CO
en"
CD
CD
0)
ro_
00
o
s
cr>
s
0
co"
- .
CD
s
-a-"
o
CD
CN
co"
o
0
in
0
CO
CN
co"
0
CN
CO
,_r
-
in
o>
o
CD
Q.
^f
o
co"
o
CO
ro
00
r-
5
CO
CD
^
CD
CN
8
CN
CO
s
co_
*d"
"
8
CD_
co"
CO
m
p^
o"
in
CN
-"
00
in
q
<_r
CN
CD
CD
^f
in
in"
r-
o
CO
ro"
ro
ro
5
0
sf
in"
o
o
o"
o
CO
f^~
CD"
0
CD
ro_
T
^
0
CO
CN
tri
o
00
CD
co"
0
ro
in
in
co
in
in
CD
C
1
co
CO
to
-
^
co"
CO
00
en
CO
S
CO
CM
CM
(O
^
CO
co"
03
(O
0)
*o_
*~
o
T-
*~
U)
CM
CO
CO
CO
CO
en
a
a>
2
a)
"*
c
0
52
D
O
CD "
a -5
to Q.
O I!
O ^
^- O
^ CD
_CU c
fl
h
o >
" -Q
S
O
&
II
CU CD
J= -C
E >
8 2 £ ^
U CD CJ P
> 2 -50
c -P ^ ^
co CD r:
c c ^
^ ?
-C 4-> CD
CD ^2 C
p - ^
If !
8 8 I
3 E
O u 2
CD CD CD
C CD O
»5 a
o « |>
'Iff
sM
D -o
LL <
-------
CO
05
^
CU
13
D
Q.
3
O
re
CO
0
o
Z:
c
0
1
**"" r"
< 03
1 1
x «=;
uj ez~
V)
TO
11
J-
c c
B E
u ^
Q) W)
3l
- 1?
« 3
E *"
a £
11
re
D)
O ">
01 o "S
3 o -2
* §
wi
O
u3
= -o
E "^
Q. tt
'5 ^
E jjj J3
cn
o
111
o ° 2
> o -2
i!!
x
i
u
<
§00 CO
»- 1-
co in co_
CO <-" O~
CN CN
CN CN
O)
CD
O
O
CO CD CN
co O r-
O LD LD
ro" co"
CO CN LD
CO < *3"
* o ^~
co" ^ r^
CN CN
CN CN
CD
^
CO
CO
CN
? -
~
~ ~ ?
-; c =- r
C ""^ ~ K-
>J
CM
CN
CN
CO
~2^
~ i
Z<<
^ . -
-
O
CD
*
O
CD
^
V,
_
"
CD
CN
CO
CN
fD
^
O)
?
^
cc
_
c
a>
CM
CO
^r
ra
^
t-
O
°
<
O
a>
0) ^
w £ 0
0) CJ ^
»1 1 c? 1
4-^ Q. ^
Ol c ^ ^- ra
co o ra c ^ c
w u o -g ra
^ .£ u CM" o
0 o > rf o
- u to 1 t/i (
1 ? " M- ra ^
> = 01 c ° £
L_ -5 O. ro in .0
H s P i»
0 ^ @ ra - | o
S-2 S i^ E|
^ "g y CT m" o a;
CD ^ ^ ^- c ^
CO 0 0) _0 ^ ^ 0
69 £ _ m r- ra CD o cu ^-
a 2 & s °. § "
ro EN g -o M 5; S
o S o " - ^ ^
^ a s. . i- c i; -"
^5 > 0)Jj_ tjj;
o t ^,4 Sg c-±
00 ^ - Q S p>
^T 21- "J E
0§ K« T3C ^ -o
n ,5 s a 2 ra x
^H ccn rog -oS
o co ra c c r;
g,;i OW> D^ Sg
2-0 jo o r >g
> 5 a S ^ : o ^
-^ a; mO ^^~ cn
I " co ^£ ^ £
f ^ T)^5 o;C Q-ro
a > ^ -si = "
, o Z ^ c i- cj
> CO o _ ra CT o ^
>CO '- *> -^ r- ^ ^
o" J^s ^5 -2 1;
c" i- ""- 3 o -a ^
^ > 2 ^ "Z.
c -^ "^ "o ^ ^~
^° S - ^ c; |S
C3 ro ° S o - E ,9
^ > is °i ti
& S 3« >£ P £ ^
ra'~ sito^n3 _ l-
5£ &J^o' 15
^5 ~~ "^ ^_ c. -, c i
'*~}C!)^i'1~ CT"" ^~
^^r:~;OCO-,P ^"jX-
^ a1 - , LD ^ ^ ^
3^ "^ -' co i- -^ "^ ^- t/)
' i 3 S ' ' X, "~H->
"- tZ ^- S i:- ^ t/> j- c >5
-a « o c +- ~ - co )
CO---;L^^W ^^
x 0 S ^ "-" '^ f £ i
S" --- "' O ^" " ^- "; ~
^ V o- ~ -"/-=: ^ o
4I ^ ~r *r :- -" * T: ^ -_
^ " : ,;- " J ' : r, ~
--' ^ Q 1 ^ "" "r 1 ~ I J
i --* *?:''' ~ ~ r ^J ~
~ ~ f 'j ~~ ~ 1 f -
- ,- : r ''' ."" ; - ":
- - - - -
. . -,
53
-------
CO
05
*
c
ZJ
1
Q.
D
V
U
03
CO
to
O
O
i
0
^J
_aj
Exhibit A.g
Somervil
if IT
o 2
s:
c c
0 0
*~ E
CD i/i
Q re
OS
CO CD -sJ-
LO r-. co i
co co r~-
C0~ rC *-*
co <3-1
0 , ^
co in
S 15
OJ CM
CM CN I
i
~> j
£ ^
II
E
re
O)
o £
s
CO
ID
CO
> ~ re
°- o5
*§ °
EC _i 2
"~
§:L
re n
* 1
In
^ "w
o £
u re
^ "°
U. 2
C 1
0 O
S-l
= S
0 .ra
S &
» 5
.11
E ,§§
^
Ol
o
k.
Q. _
c JS "S
"5 u "«
III
Activity
S
^_-
000
CD ^f 0
CN CN in
CN -" 00"
o o o
t t 00
CD CM O_
CD >-" CO
0 0
CM CN
CN
CO
CN
CO
§ ^
1- _ c
LJ t CD
Uj C _
^ JD 3 C
O IB CJ r-
CJ 1 LU
0 0 O
00 O CXI
CN O_ CM
CN >-" CO"
0 0 O
CO O CD
CN O CM
CN <-~ CO"
0 0
Csl CN
O
^.
T
§
^H 1 i \
cc co 1= a h-
1 -J U.
to
0
U
DISPOSAL
§
(D
§
P)
^
(-
tn
TOTAL CO
O
Q
^- o >
O .p ro
CD u "C
£<§-
t- CO
5_ _CD
Q u
CD
U . Q
£S g
CD .^ O
CD <~
C CD .
0 O) P
O CD CD
CD CL ^
Q. Cs( _CD
in ^f -Q
CN CO CD
-S E
co -,
1 I o K
S fe °.'«
-° o
o '" CI
'D CD
CO _ c
.E ? fP
^ T3 &
CD 5 CD
« " a
!£-£>
"Jo
CQO
S S -
g1 cj O
5 CD ^
M- CL Z
o _ c
^ £ p
CO CO
; r~
j w
o
O
a
CJ
K 2 E!
O t CD ,
0 x E -
o °S
n Q. =
CD Q. cr
I CO LU
' o 5 s S S
-D E o ^
CD Q_ cj CD CD
"a, 5 = 3
.c cr 3 " 0
h- LU u_ < 2
pal 882
SW-822
-------
U.S. Envffonmrntaf Protection Agency
Region V, ','':rr-;/
230 Sout'i Dearborn Street
CWcago, Illinois 60604
-------
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
------- |