OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000CEO\tiff\20013NGX.tif): Unspecified error
-------
K
CONTENTS
Acknowledgement
Executive Summary , D/aiLA*^ VfiXAS
Introduction
I . Methodology 2
A. Recycling Data 2
B. Latitude/Longitude Coordinates for Each Facility 4
II. Massachusetts: The Northeastern State Selected for 5
Study
A. Recycling Facilities 5
B. Generation 6
C. Commercial/Industrial Tax Rates 6
D. Unemployment Rate 7
E. Land Use 7
F. Population Density 8
G. Transportation and Ports 8
H. Other Potential Coverages 9
III. How Data is Filed and Can Be Accessed 10
IV. Analysis 10
A. Market Analysis for a Given Facility 11
B. Siting a Recycling Manufacturing Facility 12
C. Siting a Recycling Processing Facility 14
D. Transportation of Recyclables to Secondary Markets 15
V. Conclusions and Recommendations 17
Footnotes 18
Appendix l - Contacts 22
Appendix 2 - Survey Letter 32
Appendix 3 - Total Tons per Employee Estimate 34
Explanation of Figure 1 35
Figure 1 - Map of Processors and Manufacturers in the Ten
Northeastern States
Figure 2 - Map of Processors and Manufacturers in
Massachusetts
Figure 3 - Map of Tons of Glass Recycled per Massachusetts
Town
-------
Figure 4 - Hap of Commercial Property Tax Rates
Figure 5 - Map of Unemployment
Figure 6 - Map of Potential Manufacturing Sites
Figure 7 - Map of 100 Mile Buffer Zone
Figure 8 - Map of Efficient Transportation via Road
Figure 9 - Map of Efficient Transportation via Rail
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author would like to acknowledge Jim Fritz of ROW
Environmental Sciences, Geographic Information System contract
staff for the Environmental Protection Agency - New England, who
provided technical assistance for this project.
DISCLAIMER
The following report has been prepared by Chris Benjamin
under the National Network of Environmental Management Studies
program funded by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) New England. Inclusion of, reference to, or
evaluation of any specific organization, product, trade name or
service does not represent an implied or actual endorsement or
recommendation for use by EPA. The report does not represent EPA
opinion, policy or guidance unless specifically indicated. Any
views expressed in the report do not necessarily represent the
views of EPA or of the United States government.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Northeast's recycling infrastructure that processes and
manufactures new products from recycled materials includes more
than 1500 facilities that handle thousands of tons of recyclables
each day. However, this network of facilities could be expanded
and could handle more material more efficiently. Suggested sites
for new facilities, optimal transportation routes to and from
facilities, and information about the supply and demand of
materials could be used to improve the infrastructure. To address
this challenge, EPA Region 1 sponsored a project to use the
Geographic Information System (CIS) Arc-Info to improve the
market development of recyclables and determine better
transportation routes for recyclables. This project focused on
the four most commonly recycled materials: glass, paper, metal
and plastic.
CIS is a tool that allows a user to manipulate spatially
referenced data. A variety of sources were used to generate
recycling data, which were incorporated into CIS coverages. The
base map coverages were recycling facilities maps for each state
in the Northeast. Transportation coverages were also developed as
part of this project for each Northeastern state. For the
analysis, more detailed coverages were needed. These analyses
focused on Massachusetts (MA) and several MA town coverages were
created: 1) tons per type of material, 2) commercial property
tax, 3) unemployment rate, 4) population density per block for
the town of Natick. Existing land use and transportation
coverages for MA were also used.
For the analysis part of the project, GIS was used to do the
following: l) determine suitable locations for a plastic
manufacturer using various siting criteria, 2) perform a market
analysis to show the potential supply available for an expanding
paper manufacturer, and 3) find optimal routes from a processor
to a manufacturer using major roads and from a processor to the
nearest port using railroads.
Each type of analyses includes many important factors, yet
does not account for every influencing factor. For example, in
the siting analysis, site availability, proximity to
transportation routes, supply and demand of recyclables and cost
were considered. Other data were not included primarily because
they did not exist or were difficult to represent spatially. The
analyses main contribution is that it demonstrates several ways
GIS can be used for recycling.
Because so little work has been done in this area, there is
tremendous potential for CIS-related applications for recycling.
As more data becomes available, the challenge will be to use this
body of work to inspire new and more sophisticated contributions
using GIS for recycling.
ii
-------
INTRODUCTION
Although some states in the Northeast report recycling rates
of 30% and above, the region's recycling infrastructure that
processes and manufacturers new products from recycled materials
needs improvement. In some cases, new processing and
manufacturing facilities are needed. In others, better
transportation routes to and from processors and manufacturers
are required. Finally, in order to maintain existing recycling
businesses, important recycling information such as potential
supply and optimal transportation routes to and from facilities
should be made available. In response to these needs, EPA Region
I sponsored this project to use the Geographic Information System
(GIS) Arc-Info to determine where investments can be made in the
Northeast to enhance the market development of recyclables and
make the transportation of recyclables more efficient.1
This project is intended to introduce professionals from
government and industry to how GIS can be used for recycling,
particularly individuals in the fields of solid waste, economic
development, private business and GIS technology. In its
analyses, the project incorporates recycling data from many
sources, but does not include all influencing factors. For this
reason, the project serves more as a demonstration of GIS
applications for recycling than as a comprehensive recycling
analysis.
GIS is a tool that allows a user to manipulate spatially
referenced data. In simpler terms, GIS makes it possible to
represent data in a map layer, or coverage. Different coverages
can be combined, or overlayed. Once overlayed, a user can perform
analyses on these map coverages. A recycling facilities map for
each Northeastern state was created for this project (see Figure
1). In addition, five maps of Massachusetts (MA) were made
showing the location of its recycling facilities (Figure 2), the
tons per type of material per town (Figure 3), the commercial
property tax rate per town (Figure 4), the unemployment rate per
town (Figure 5), and the population density per block map of a
particular town (Figure 6). In addition, a map was created
showing a 100 mile buffer around a paper mill (Figure 7), and
optimal transportation routes using major roads (Figure 8) and
railroads (Figure 9). Two other pre-existing coverages were used
showing land use and the transportation network of MA.
GIS was used to perform three types of demonstration
analyses for this project: 1) siting criteria was used to
determine suitable locations for a new recycling facility, 2) a
market analysis was performed for a given facility, and 3) the
most efficient routes from a processor to a manufacturer and to a
port were determined. This project focused on the four most
commonly recycled materials: glass, paper, metal and plastic.
Although there is great potential for GIS to improve the
1
-------
market development and transportation of recyclables, the
technology has its limitations. Certain information, such as
public attitudes, is difficult to represent spatially. In
addition, GIS is a means of presenting and analyzing data;
without good data, it is impossible to produce meaningful
results.
I. METHODOLOGY
A. RECYCLING DATA
Federal and state solid waste officials, economic
development specialists, GIS experts, statistical agencies, and
trade associations were consulted to determine the types of
recycling data that exists for each Northeastern state (Appendix
1) . The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) provided the name,
address, phone number, fax number, and materials handled by each
recycling facility in the Northeast. Efforts were made to
determine the exact location, the tons handled per day, and the
number of employees for each of these facilities by telephoning
each company. On the generation side, the tons of each material
(glass, paper, metal and plastic) handled per town was also
requested from each state's recycling office.
Although each Northeastern state collects recycling data,
very few states collect the type of data mentioned above.
Pennsylvania is the only Northeastern state that has used
latitude/longitude coordinates to map its recycling facilities
and has created a coverage containing about 30% of its
facilities; this coverage was not used in this project because it
was not made available. MA has mapped its paper mills, glass
processors, and plastics processors, but only in the appropriate
towns, not using exact latitude/longitudes. Connecticut (CT),
Rhode Island (RI), and New York (NY) provided this project with
the tons of recyclables handled for some of the facilities
located in those states. No state was able to provide the number
of employees per facility as this data did not exist or was
confidential. Finally, New Jersey (NJ) and MA provided the tons
of materials recycled per town, and CT provided the tons recycled
per material per town. Because of time constraints, only MA data
was entered into the GIS.
In addition, contacts were asked to supply potential study
areas based on market development information, transportation
data, collection and marketing opportunities, and GIS data. MA
was the only state from which this information was collected. The
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP)
shared GIS coverages including the recycling facilities map and a
map of the types of collection program (curbside or drop-off) for
-------
each town. The recycling facilities coverage was used to verify
NERO's list. The EPA Region 1 Solid Waste Library provided
transportation and market development information. Specifically,
literature was provided that discussed different modes of
transportation (truck or rail) and the current market for paper,
glass, plastic and metal.
1. RECYCLING FACILITIES MAP
Although it is a simplistic approach, this project divided
all Northeastern recycling facilities into two categories:
processors and manufacturers. A processor is defined as a
facility that sorts, bales, separates, crushes or cleans recycled
materials and prepares them for market. A manufacturer is
characterized as a facility that uses post-consumer paper,
plastic, glass or metal to make a new product. A recycled
material like a soda bottle may pass through many stages before
it reaches a processor from the consumer to a drop-off center
to a transfer station. In fact, it may not reach a processor at
all. However, this project assumes that most recycled materials
pass through a processor before being used to make a new product.
Thus, this project does not consider all of the stages before the
processors but still capturers the bulk of recyclables.
NERC's list of the processors and manufacturers in the
Northeast contains approximately 1500 facilities. The facilities
are divided into nine categories: glass processors and
manufacturers, metal processors and manufacturers, plastic
processors and manufacturers, paper processors and manufacturers,
and multi-material processors. Some states have more facilities
than others. New York (491 facilities), Pennsylvania (463), and
New Jersey (267) contain the most and greatly outnumber states
like Rhode Island with 18 facilities.
As indicated above, for each facility, NERC provided the
name, address, phone number, fax number, and materials handled.
The materials handled were divided into the following categories:
paper HG (high grade), MIX (mixed grade), CARD (old
corrugated cardboard), OMG (old magazines), ONP (old
newspaper), PULP SUBS (pulp substitutes);
plastic PET (polyethylene terepthalate), HDPE (high-
density polyethylene), LDPE (low-density polyethylene), PVC
(polyvinyl chloride), PP (polypropylene), PS (polystyrene);
metal FERR (ferrous), NON-FERR (non-ferrous);
-------
glass GLASS.
Due to time constraints, this project only created a
detailed map (with a reference list and corresponding numbers
beside each facility) of the recycling facilities in MA as a
prototype. This map is discussed later. Coverages exist for the
other Northeastern states, but detailed maps were not created for
each separate state. In addition, a map of the entire Northeast
was created, showing the location of each recycling facility.
Both maps represent facilities with a symbol so they can be
easily identified. It is easy to distinguish processors from
manufacturers since processors are represented by solid symbols
and manufacturers by the outlines of symbols. See Figure One for
a list of how each type of facility is symbolized.
2. QUESTIONNAIRE
A questionnaire was sent to all processors and manufacturers
of recyclables in VT, DE, and RI asking for the tons of
recyclables handled per day and the number of employees (Appendix
2). The other seven Northeastern states did not participate for
various reasons, primarily because they had just requested
information from recycling facilities. At the time of this
writing, few questionnaires have been returned; many businesses
consider the information proprietary and are unwilling to share
it. Because so few have been returned, the results from the
questionnaires will not be included in this report. However, as
information is collected, it will be added to the recycling
facilities coverages.
B. LATITUDE/LONGITUDE COORDINATES FOR EACH FACILITY
In order to obtain the latitude/longitude coordinates for
each facility on NERC's list, various methods were considered.
These included searching the EPA's RCRA database, sending each
facility a map and asking them to identify their location on the
map, calling each facility and finding its location on a
1:250,000 or 1:24,000 7.5 X 15 Minute Quadrangle U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) Topographical map as an employee described the
location over the phone (the "USGS" method), hiring a consultant
to find coordinates, or searching through the Dun and Bradstreet
directory of businesses.2
Searching the Dun and Bradstreet directory was determined to
be the most efficient method, and was then used to obtain each
facility's latitude/longitude coordinate. A search was conducted
of the Dun and Bradstreet directory using 8 Standard Industrial
Codes (SIC).3 This search captured about 65% of the facilities.
For the rest of the facilities, coordinates were obtained by
searching the directory for each facility separately.
-------
Surprisingly, the facilities were classified under seventy other
SIC codes ranging from 5181 (Beer and Ale) to 5033 (Roofing,
Siding and Insulation).4
The Dun and Bradstreet directory also contains the number of
employees per facility. This data was collected for each
facility.
II. MASSACHUSETTS: THE NORTHEASTERN STATE SELECTED FOR STUDY
This project focused on one state, MA, since a ten state
region was too large an area to study. MA was selected for
practical purposes MA data was easiest to collect since this
project was done in Boston. In addition, the MA DEP collects a
considerable amount of recycling data, particularly on the
publicly owned Springfield Materials Recovery Facility, and the
total tons and types of materials recycled by each town. This
project used MA as a model; the same analyses can be done for any
other state if the data exists.
For MA, Dun and Bradstreet data was used to obtain
latitude/longitude coordinates for 60% of the facilities. The
other 40% were located using the "USGS" method. This method
produced accurate latitude/longitude coordinates, usually within
one quarter of a mile of a facility's location. The USGS method
was also used to verify a random sample of thirty Dun and
Bradstreet coordinates.5
Seven types of coverages were created for the MA analysis
portion of this project: 1) a recycling facilities coverage, 2) a
tons per type of material per town coverage, 3) a coverage
showing commercial property tax rates per town, 4) an
unemployment rate per town coverage, 5) a population density per
block coverage of the town of Natick, 6) a coverage showing a 100
mile buffer around a paper mill, and 7) a coverage indicating
optimal transportation routes using roads and railroads. Existing
land use and transportation coverages were also used. Below is a
description of each of these coverages and of potential
coverages.
A. MASSACHUSETTS RECYCLING FACILITIES COVERAGE
In addition to the symbology for facilities described above,
each Massachusetts facility is assigned a number. Along the right
hand side of the map, a reference list gives the name and number
of each facility, making it easy to identify each facility by
name.
-------
The MA facility coverage also contains the following data
obtained from phone calls made to the facilities: tons of glass,
paper, plastic and/or metal handled per day. Additionally, in
order to verify the Dun and Bradstreet employee data, firms were
also asked to report the number of employees. The Dun and
Bradstreet data proved to be relatively accurate, although it was
not used if employee data were received over the phone.
Eighty-six of the 131 facilities reported both their tons
handled per day and the number of employees at the site. These
figures were used to estimate the average tons per day per
employee for each type of facility (Appendix 3). A similar
technique was used by Roy F. Weston, Inc. in Value Added to
Recyclable Materials in the Northeast, a study conducted for
NERC. All calculations were based on 250 working days per year.
Interestingly, this reports' estimates are close to those found
in Weston's report.
B. GENERATION - TONS OF PAPER/ GLASS, PLASTIC, ALUMINUM AND
STEEL PER TOWN COVERAGE
The tons of paper, glass, plastic and metal recycled per
town was estimated using the 1994 Massachusetts Solid Waste
Master Plan (MA SWMP) . * Using this data, a map was created which
shows the estimated tons of glass recycled by each town's
residential sector. The more glass recycled by a town, the darker
the color assigned to that town. As expected, the map indicates
that the most glass was recycled in areas of high population,
such as Boston, Worcester and Springfield. However, it was
interesting that large quantities of glass were recycled in
Attleboro and Chicopee, towns with populations of 38,383 and
56,632 respectively. The data exists to create similar maps for
the tons of residential paper, plastic, aluminum and steel
recycled per town.
C. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY TAX PER TOWN COVERAGE
In Massachusetts the operator of a privately owned or
operated "resource recovery facility" is required to pay a state
tax of approximately one dollar per ton of solid waste processed
at their facility. A resource recovery facility is defined as "a
solid waste disposal facility utilizing processes for reclaiming
the materials or energy values from solid wastes," and refers to
both processors and manufacturers of recyclables. The one dollar
per ton fee is paid "in lieu of all taxes, fees, charges or
assessments imposed by the city or town in which the said
facility ... is located, except for real estate taxes.7" Thus, a
town's commercial/industrial property tax is a factor that an
owner must consider when deciding where to locate their recycling
facility and so a map was created showing the
6
-------
commercial/industrial property tax rate per MA town. The MA
Department of Revenue supplied Fiscal Year 1994
commercial/industrial tax rates for every town but two, Hancock
and Norwood.
On the map, the towns are shaded based on their property tax
rate; the higher the rate, the darker the color. The highest
property taxes are found in the most urban areas, as can be
expected considering that commercial property in these areas is
in higher demand. Notable exceptions are Clinton and Florida.
D. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE PER TOWN COVERAGE
A fourth coverage shows the unemployment rate for each MA
town. The purpose of this map is to highlight areas that MA's
state government may want to target for economic development.
Through tax assistance and other incentives, MA can help locate a
recycling facility in an economically depressed area. This map
used the most recent MA unemployment rates, May, 1994, obtained
from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS). The BLS calculates unemployment by polling a random sample
of households across Massachusetts, surveying employers, and
accessing the state unemployment insurance system. According to
the BLS, an unemployed person is someone over the age of 16,
jobless, available for work and looking for work.8
The map assigns a light color to all towns with an
unemployment rate below 6%, since these are areas at or slightly
above the state's mean rate of 5.8%. Darker colors are assigned
to higher unemployment rates with a dark blue representing towns
with a rate greater than 20%. Interestingly, only Provincetown
and Gay Head have rates above 20%. Aside from these two towns,
the map indicates that western, southeastern and northeastern
Massachusetts are the regions with the highest unemployment
rates. Lawrence, Chester, Monroe and Rowe warrant special
attention since all have a rate greater than 12%.
E. LAND USE DATA LAYERS
Land use coverages for 55 of Massachusetts' 351 towns were
available for this project, mostly for towns in Northeastern MA.9
This limited the scope of the facility siting analysis. The data
layer uses 22 possible categories, ranging from cropland to
recreation, to describe the land use of each town. The
information was mapped by the Resource Mapping Project at the
University of Massachusetts, Amherst in 1985 using photo-
interpretation and automation.
This project was most interested in the regions zoned for
commercial purposes, defined as "light and heavy industry," since
-------
they would be areas where a new recycling facility would be
sited. Of the 55 available towns, only 16 towns had at least 200
acres of commercially zoned land.10
P. POPULATION DENSITY
Using 1990 census data, a map was created that shows the
population density of each block in Natick, MA. This map is part
of the siting analysis discussed later in which Natick was
selected as a potential site for a plastic facility. The data
exists to create a map that shows population density across MA by
block, block group, or census tract. Population density is
defined as the number of people in residence per square
kilometer. A block is "a small area bounded on all sides by
visible features such as streets, roads, streams, and railroad
tracks, and by invisible [political] boundaries such as a city
[line] 11
Many studies have documented the "Not In MY Backyard
(NIMBY)" phenomena, where people strongly oppose living near an
industrial facility. The population density map aims to avoid
NIMBY opposition by indicating sparsely populated areas, regions
where a recycling facility would have the best chance of being
sited.
The 1990 Census data could also be used to estimate the tons
of materials recycled per town. EPA has estimated that an average
person produces 4.3 Ibs of garbage per day.12 This figure could
be multiplied by a town's population and 365 days per year to
estimate the total municipal solid waste produced by a town in a
year. A recycling rate, such as 28%, can be applied to this
number to estimate the total tons recycled by a town.
Furthermore, a process like the one described in estimating the
tons of glass per town map of MA could be used to estimate the
tons of paper, glass, plastic, steel and/or aluminum recycled by
each town in the US.
6. TRANSPORTATION AND PORTS COVERAGES
Maps of the major roads, railroads and ports in the
Northeast were used in the transportation analysis and facility
siting sections of this project. The road coverage used divides
MA's roads into several categories: primary, secondary, and road
or street. The map was created by the USGS and is a 1:100,000
scale digital line graph map, meaning it contains line map
information in digital form. In addition, a map of the major
railroad lines in MA was used. The railroad coverage is also a
8
-------
USGS 1:100,000 digital line graph map. Finally, the ports
coverage includes seventeen major ports on the east coast.13
H. OTHER POTENTIAL COVERAGES
1. WAGE RATES
Wage rates are another factor that a business owner must
consider when deciding where to locate their facility.
Periodically, the BLS conducts surveys of randomly selected
employees in five areas of Massachusetts to calculate an average
wage rate for various jobs. The five regions are the Boston
Metropolitan Area, the Worcester Metropolitan Area, the Lawrence-
Haverhill Metropolitan Area. Western Massachusetts, and
Southeastern Massachusetts. 4 The BLS surveys used were conducted
between March and October of 1993.
This project was interested in the average wage rate for
"material handling laborers" and "maintenance electronic
technicians," jobs comparable to those at a recycling facility.15
The wage rate for material handlers was highest in the Boston
area ($10.87 per hour), followed by Lawrence-Haverhill ($10.66),
Western MA ($10.42), Worcester ($7.78) and Southeastern MA
($7.76). The wage rate for Level III (of VI levels) technical
workers varied in almost the exact same way with the highest
wages in Boston ($15.00), followed by Western MA ($14.47),
Lawrence-Haverhill ($14.37), and Southeastern MA ($13.42). Only
level I and II information was available for Worcester. This data
was used in the project's analyses although a map was not
created. It would not be difficult to create this map; each
area's towns would be assigned an average wage rate and shaded
accordingly.
2. UTILITY RATES
Utility rates are yet another factor that a recycling
business must consider when deciding where to locate. Phone calls
were made to various utility companies and trade associations in
an effort to create a map that shows how utility rates vary
across Massachusetts. Unfortunately, it was not possible to
create this map because each company offers several rates for
different levels of use, making it difficult to determine a
generic recycling facility rate. In addition, different types of
facilities use different amounts of electricity a glass
manufacturer, being more industrial-based, uses more electricity
than a glass processor, which may rely more heavily on human
labor. However, if each type of facility was considered
separately and an average wattage figure was estimated for each,
it may be possible to create a utility rate map.
9
-------
3. ABANDONED INDUSTRIAL SITES
It would have been interesting to create a map showing the
location of the abandoned industrial buildings in the Northeast.
In many cases, it is less expensive to renovate an abandoned
building than to build a new recycling facility. EPA Region I's
librarian has actively searched for the addresses and/or
latitude/longitude coordinates of states' abandoned industrial
buildings but has been unable to find this information.
4. OTHER RECYCLING PROCESSORS
Other coverages showing transfer stations and/or regional
drop-off centers could be created using the USGS method if the
locations are known. Such coverages would make possible the
collection analysis discussed later.
III. HOW DATA IS FILED AND CAN BE ACCESSED
All of the recycling facility data was built in Dbase III
and then converted to an Info file for use in Arc-Info. For every
state but Massachusetts, a Dbase III file exists with the name,
address, phone number, fax number, latitude longitude coordinate,
number of employees and materials handled (HG, MIX, HDPE, etc.)
by each facility. There is also a field which indicates whether
each facility is a processor (P) or a manufacturer (M) and
handles paper (PA), glass (GL), metal (ME), plastic (PL) or
multi-materials (MU). The Massachusetts Dbase file contains all
of this information as well as the tons of paper, glass, metal,
plastic and/or multi-materials handled be each facility. All
latitude/longitude coordinates were projected to NAD 1983 albers,
a commonly used map projection.
The tons per town data was calculated in Lotus 2.3,
converted to Dbase III and then to an Info file. The data was
then related to a pre-existing Massachusetts town coverage so it
could be used in Arc-Info. The property tax and unemployment per
town information was entered directly into an Info file and was
also related to the Massachusetts town coverage.
IV. ANALYSIS
CIS has far-reaching potential as an analytical tool,
particularly in the recycling domain. As more data becomes
available, the number of GIS applications will grow indefinitely,
hindered mainly by the user's imagination. However, there are
limits to what can be accomplished through GIS since certain
information is difficult to represent spatially or may not be
available.
This project presents three ways that a GIS can be used to
assist in or improve the market development of recyclables.
10
-------
Although the analyses focuses on Massachusetts, the same type of
analyses can be used for other states if the data exists.
A. PERFORMING A MARKET ANALYSIS FOR A GIVEN FACILITY
A GIS can be used to show an area's supply and demand of
recyclables and help perform a market analysis for a given
facility. For example, in addition to showing the location and
type of each recycling facility, the MA coverage contains the
total materials supplied by MA's processors and demanded by its
manufacturers. Although the data may have inaccuracies and may
not capture all of the materials recycled in MA, it provides a
good estimate of the supply and demand in MA.
A GIS can also be used to provide important information to
recycling facilities data that could be made available through
state recycling offices. For example, suppose a paper mill in MA
is considering expanding its operations and accepting an
additional 100 tons of post-consumer paper per day. A GIS can
help show whether such a move is feasible, considering the
existing supply and demand of recycled paper and competing
facilities in the area.
As a demonstration, the American Tissue Mill of MA located
in Templeton, MA was selected because it is the most centrally
located paper mill in MA. The mill currently uses approximately
91 tons of post-consumer paper per day to make tissue paper
products. It receives almost every type of post-consumer paper
available: high grade, low grade, mixed paper, old newspaper, old
magazines, old corrugated cardboard, and carbon paper. The ARC
command CALCULATE was used to add each processor's totals and it
was estimated that the supply of paper per day in MA is 1,757
tons. Likewise, the estimated demand in MA, including the 91 tons
demanded by American Tissue, is 2,256.8 tons per day. The tons of
paper handled per day was collected for all 22 paper
manufacturers and 31 of the 33 paper processors in MA.
According to this data, the American Tissue Mill should
contact paper processors outside of MA, since the current demand
inside MA exceeds supply. A GIS can help in this search by
identifying all processors within a 100 mile radius of the mill
(see Figure 7). One-hundred miles was selected because it is a
reasonable distance for a supplier to travel to the mill an
approximately two hour drive by truck. To perform this analysis,
a buffer of 100 miles was created around the American Tissue
Mill. This buffer was overlayed onto a map of the paper
processors and manufacturers in MA, CT, RI, NY, NH and VT.
If the tons of paper handled per day were available for each
11
-------
facility within the buffer zone, it would be possible to
calculate the total supply and demand within 100 miles of the
mill (some of this data exists for CT although it was not entered
into CIS and made available for this analysis). Instead, it is
only possible to provide the names, addresses and phone numbers
of potential suppliers and competitors.
Within the buffer zone, there were 20 paper processors in
CT, 1 in RI, 11 in NY, 11 in NH and 4 in VT. Without tonnage
figures, it is difficult to determine which state offers the most
potential supply, although CT appears to have the most facilities
and probably more supply because of its high population. Of the
33 processors in MA, only three process at least 150 tons but 10
process at least 100 tons, indicating that large processors exist
within a relatively short distance. A total of 18 competitors
were within the zone, 5 in CT, 1 in RI, 6 in NY, 2 in NH and 4 in
VT. A CIS can also be used to calculate the tons of paper
generated by the residential sector in every MA town at
366,957.92 tons. A map was not created to show which towns
generated the most paper, although the towns with the highest
populations probably generated the most.
Thus, due to a lack of data on the tons handled by each
facility, it is unclear whether the American Paper Mill should
expand its operations by 100 tons. Information concerning the
flow of paper from processors to manufacturers is also lacking,
which further limits the analysis. Because of its proprietary
nature, data on the flow of recyclables may be impossible
collect. Finally, this analysis does not consider the price and
availability of virgin wood fibers, which would also be a
competing interest. Nevertheless, once more data becomes
available, this type of GIS analysis could provide a business
with valuable information.
B. SITING A RECYCLING MANUFACTURING FACILITY
In order to make the Northeast's recycling infrastructure
more effective and efficient, new recycling facilities are
needed. A GIS can help determine what types of facilities are
needed and where those facilities should be located.
Based on discussions with recycling officials, it was
determined that before an owner of a facility settles on a
location, there are four major factors to consider: the supply of
recyclables, site availability, access to transportation routes,
and the costs (such as taxes and wage rates) associated with
12
-------
locating in an area. Below is a description of how GIS was used
to consider these factors and find a site for a plastic
manufacturer.
1. PLASTICS DEMONSTRATION - HOW TO LOCATE A MANUFACTURING
FACILITY USING A GIS
Natick was selected as a potential site for a plastic
manufacturer because of its close proximity to major roads and
railroads, its considerable acreage of land zoned for
commercial/industrial purposes, its low commercial property tax
rate and its location relative to plastic processors.
Using CALCULATE, it was estimated that 555 tons of post-
consumer plastic is processed each day in MA, a conservative
estimate since data was collected from 10 of 14 processors. Only
56.2 tons of post-consumer plastic is used by MA's manufacturers
each day. These figures suggest that MA may be a suitable state
for a new plastic manufacturer. The following analysis shows how
a GIS can be used to identify a specific site in MA for the
facility.
As indicated above, there appears to be an adequate supply
of post-consumer plastic in MA. The MA recycling facilities
coverage shows that 536 of the 555 tons are processed in Eastern
Massachusetts (East of Sturbridge). The region between Worcester
and Boston (near Framingham) is a roughly the center of Eastern
MA, making it a good potential site for a facility.
If land use data had been available for each MA town, GIS
could have been used to calculate the total acres zoned for
commercial/industrial purposes for each town. Land use data was
only available for 55 towns, but eleven of these towns were in
the Framingham area. The GIS command RESELECT was used to show
that seven towns in this area had at least 150 acres of land
zoned for industry: Shrewsbury (196 acres), Northborough (169),
Hudson (258), Marlborough (269) , Westborough (154), Hopkinton
(190) and Natick (272) . Natick deserves special attention since
it has the most land zoned for industry.
In addition to its land use, a business owner must consider
a town's commercial property tax rate. According to the
commercial property tax map, of the seven towns listed above,
Shrewsbury has the lowest rate at 12.73%. Natick has the next
lowest tax at 14.92%, followed by Northborough (15.97%),
Westborough (16.53%), Hopkinton (16.70%), Hudson (27.50%) and
Marlborough (27.50%). Again, Natick appears to be a good
potential site.
13
-------
A town's average wage rates is yet another factor to
consider, specifically rates for material handling laborers and
mid-level (level II) technicians. Shrewsbury, Westborough, and
Northborough are in the Worcester Metropolitan Area where the
average laborer's wage is $7.78 per hour (range: $6.90 - $8.52)
and technician's wage is $14.17 per hour. Natick, Hopkinton,
Hudson and Marlborough are in the Boston Metropolitan Area with
an average laborer's wage of $10.87 (range: $9.36 - $11.70) per
hour and a technician's wage of $12.35 per hour (range: $11.50 -
$13.10). Compared to the Worcester area towns, Natick has high
laborer's wages and low technician's wages; statistics taken from
Boston where rates are high may have skewed both averages,
though.
A map was created of Natick showing the areas zoned for
commercial/industrial purposes, major roads, railroads, and
population densities per block. Major highways such as 1-90 and
Route 9 pass through the town, providing trucks with easy access
in and out of town and to the nearby Boston port. The map also
shows railroads passing through the center of town, within close
proximity of several commercial zones. This gives a facility the
option of shipping recyclables by rail. The population density
information indicates which parcels of commercially zoned land
are surrounded by few people. The map also indicates the size of
each parcel of commercially zoned land. When this map is
overlayed with the property tax and the recycling facilities
maps, it is clear that Natick is the best site in the Framingham
area for a plastic manufacturer, given that not all of the area's
land use coverages were available.
More specifically, the Natick map suggests that the parcel
in the Northwest corner of the town is the best site. It is the
largest site, 113.492 acres, and has direct access to railroads
and major roads. The population density data also indicates this
is the best site, since it's surrounded by the fewest people. At
least theoretically, locating a site there would minimize the
impact of the facility on Natick's citizens.
Although limited by the lack of land use data and other
information, this analysis demonstrates how a GIS can be used to
help site a recycling manufacturer; for a more complete analysis,
other factors would have to be considered. The analysis would be
made stronger by incorporating regional utility rates and the
location of abandoned industrial buildings, etc. as part of the
spatial representation. A siting decision would also need
additional subjective information such as public attitudes.
C. SITING A RECYCLING PROCESSING FACILITY
14
-------
The same basic procedure can be used to site a processing
facility, since land use restrictions, wage rates, access to
roads and railroads, and population density are still relevant
considerations. In siting a processor, however, it is important
to measure supply by how much different towns are generating. The
tons per material per MA town has been entered into a GIS and can
be used to find areas where large quantities are recycled, making
them suitable locations for a processor.
Similarly, a GIS can help identify potential sites for a
multi-material regional processing facility once the
participating towns are identified. Such cooperation lowers
transportation costs to secondary markets and provides larger,
more reliable quantities of materials to processors. This
analysis would require a map layer containing the region's
transfer stations. Suitable sites would be selected based on
proximity to each town's transfer station and other previously
mentioned criteria.
1. GOVERNMENT-ASSISTED SITING OR EXPANSION OF A RECYCLING
FACILITY
Most, if not all, state governments have programs to provide
assistance to economically depressed areas. For example, the
Massachusetts Office of Business Development (MA OBD) has
developed a Municipal Economic Development Incentive Program
which has targeted sixteen areas for assistance. Through a
combination of municipal tax benefits and investment tax credits,
the MA OBD hopes to attract businesses to the designated areas.
Recycling facilities are one type of business that can provide
jobs and an increased tax base to a distressed community. State
efforts to encourage existing facilities to expand in these areas
would achieve similar ends.16
The map of a state's unemployment rate per town and
recycling facilities can help policymakers identify where to
locate a recycling facility. In addition, a map can be created
portraying a state's economic target areas and recycling
facilities to further enhance policymakers' efforts. Other
previously mentioned criteria such as access to transportation
routes and ports, land use restrictions, population density, and
wage rates should be considered.
D. TRANSPORTATION OF RECYCLABLES TO SECONDARY MARKETS
When shipping recyclables to a manufacturer it is imperative
that a processor minimizes his transportation costs. A GIS can be
used to help determine the most efficient and cost-effective
route from a processor to a manufacturer. To illustrate this,
Clean Environment Company, a recycling processor of glass and
15
-------
metal located in Chicopee, MA, north of Springfield was selected.
Clean Environment Co. primarily processes glass, 30 tons a day,
although 8 tons a day of metal is also processed. The GIS was
used to find the most efficient route from Clean Environment Co.
to MA's only glass manufacturer, Foster-Forbes, located in
Milford. The GIS was also used to find the best railroad route
from Clean Environment Co. to the Boston port for the metals.
To do this analysis, the computer is first told where to
begin its journey (Clean Environment Co.) and where to end it
(Foster-Forbes). The GIS command PATH instructs the computer to
consider all available major highways between the two locations
in search of the "least-distance," or shortest distance route.
Figure Eight shows the selected route between Clean Environment
Co. and Foster-Forbes using major roads. GIS showed this path to
include Route 20, Route 21, Route 1-90 and Route 140, and the
CALCULATE command determined that the route is about 65 miles
long. Figure Nine shows the least-distance route between Clean
Environment Co. and the Boston port, a distance of approximately
104 miles.
MA DEP has developed a cost model that determines the
approximate cost of shipping recyclables given the distance
traveled. A similar cost model could be developed to estimate the
cost of shipping recyclables by rail, incorporating that rail is
a less expensive means of shipping heavier loads longer
distances. As indicated above, a GIS could provide the distances
traveled for the road and rail routes, which could then be
entered into the cost model to estimate dollar values.
A GIS can also be used to determine the "least-cost" route
between two points another way. First, the computer must be
programmed to assign a different "cost value" to the various
routes (highways, secondary roads, streets, and railroads) based
on how much it costs in dollars to ship recyclables using those
routes. When the computer finds the least-cost route between two
locations, it simply chooses the transportation route that
accumulates the lowest total cost value. Determining the relative
cost values between highways, secondary roads, streets and
railroads is difficult but can be done a group of businesses
could be asked how much they pay to ship recyclables by these
various routes. From this data, cost models could be developed.
Finally, many rural recycling programs have inefficient
collection routes. A GIS can be used to determine "least-
distance" or "least-cost" routes to collect recyclables from
given locations, saving the hauler time and money. For example, a
GIS could help a hauler find the most efficient route between
16
-------
five rural drop off centers, once those locations have been
entered into the computer.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Improving the market development of recyclables in the
Northeast is a complex and challenging task. This project has
demonstrated how a GIS can be used to help meet this challenge,
through siting new manufacturing and processing facilities,
assisting existing ones and determining optimal transportation
routes. Because so little work has been done in this area, there
is tremendous potential for further GIS applications for
recycling.
By mapping the Northeast's recycling facilities and
describing various types of analyses, this project broke new
ground. However, it was limited by the lack of recycling data
available for the Northeast. Specific information about the tons
handled by recycling facilities, the flow of recyclables, and the
amount generated by the commercial sector is difficult to
collect, and will continue to limit the use of a GIS for
recycling. In addition, this project's analyses do not intend to
account for every influencing factor; instead, the project serves
as an initial demonstration of how a GIS can be used when some of
the factors are available.
One challenge for those who continue in this area is to
maintain and update the coverages developed for this project. In
addition, states should continue to improve their data collection
efforts, because as more recycling data is available, GIS
technology could be used to make additional contributions to
recycling.
17
-------
FOOTNOTES
1. Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
2. Dun and Bradstreet uses five methods to determine coordinates.
BLOCKFACE is the most accurate method. Given a street address,
the computer searches a street segment dictionary file created
from the Bureau of Census' TIGER files. When the matching segment
is found, the computer interpolates a latitude/longitude based on
the house numbers in the street segment. BLOCKFACE usually
provides a coordinate within 0 to 250 meters of the actual
location. BLOCKFACE works best in urban areas, where roads are
most carefully mapped. The second method, STREETSEG, is similar
to BLOCKFACE but is used when there are no house numbers for the
street segment in the dictionary file. An average
latitude/longitude coordinate is calculated for the entire
segment. Coordinates found using STREETSEG are usually within 500
meters of the actual site.
BLOCKGROUP or "block group centroid" is the third geocoding
method used by Dun and Bradstreet. It is used if a street address
is outside the TIGER street network but within a block group. A
block group has roughly 300 households. The latitude/longitude
coordinate for the center of the block group is assigned to the
address. CENSUS or "census tract centroid" is the next most
accurate method and is used if a street address is outside the
TIGER street network but within a census tract. If this is the
case, the latitude/longitude coordinate of the center of the
census tract is assigned. A census tract contains roughly 1200
households. ZIP or "zip code centroid" is the final and least
accurate geocoding method. This method assigns the same
latitude/longitude coordinate to all addresses within a given zip
code.
Most of the recycling facility coordinates were obtained
using STREETSEG, BLOCKFACE and BLOCKGROUP; thus, most of the
coordinates used are within 2 miles of the actual location. If a
facility could not be located in Dun and Bradstreet's directory,
the latitude/longitude coordinate of a business from the same
street and in a few cases, the same city was used.
3. 5093 (Scrap and Waste Materials), 4953 (Refuse Systems), 2621
(Paper Mills), 2679 (Converted Paper/Paperboard Products), 3089
(Plastics, Products), 3221 (Glass Containers), 3229 (Glass and
Glassware), 3312 (Steel Works, Blast Furnaces and Rolling Mills)
and 5085 (Industrial Supplies)
4. 9511, 5531, 2086, 5181, 3564, 2493, 5046, 5399, 7389, 8741,
2652, 8742, 8731, 7819, 3411, 5099, 6719, 4212, 5149, 2671, 3339,
5013, 2679, 2676, 2499, 3321, 3341, 5113, 6531, 2631, 5033. 5039,
5084, 3081, 5531, 8221, 3365, 2819, 3356, 5199, 4952, 4226, 1795,
18
-------
3599, 6221, 5032, 8748, 5023, 2899, 8111, 9532, 9121, 9111,
3353,3082, 3229, 7519, 3949, 2951, 2842, 5191, 1799, 3499, 8732,
7538, 3547, 3364, 3354, 5149, 4225.
5. The USGS method showed BLOCKFACE to be the most accurate
geocoding method, as the Dun and Bradstreet literature suggests,
producing points very close to the USGS locations. STREETSEG and
BLOCKGROUP also proved to be accurate geocoding methods, within
one-half mile of the USGS positions.
6. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
Massachusetts Solid Waste Master Plan. 1994 Update.
The SWMP contains data on the total waste generated by the
residential sector in each town in 1992. To get an estimate of
the total residential tons generated per town, a 28% recycling
rate was applied to the 1992 data. Twenty-eight was selected
because it is approximately halfway between MA's 1992 reported
recycling rate of 23% and 1996's goal of 34%.The tons of paper,
glass, metal and plastic recycled by each MA town was estimated
from these numbers.
The SWMP lists the total tons of glass, aluminum, paper,
steel, and plastic recycled by MA's residential sector. The
Master Plan also indicates the materials (glass, steel, aluminum,
old newspaper, cardboard, and plastic) that each town recycles.
The MA totals were used to create ratios between the amount of
materials recycled by each town. For example, Mattapoisett
recycles glass, steel, aluminum and plastic. A ratio was
developed between these materials using the Massachusetts totals:
40% glass, 40% steel, 6% plastic, and 14% aluminum. This ratio
was applied to the total materials recycled by Mattapoisett's
residential sector at 28% to yield an estimate of the total tons
of glass (836 tons), steel (836 tons), plastic (155.40 tons) and
aluminum (362.60 tons) recycled by Mattapoisett's residential
sector.
7. Massachusetts General Laws. 16:24A.
8. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. How the
Government Measures Employment. Report 864. March 1994.
9. Amesbury, Andover, Ashburnham, Ashby, Billerica, Boxford,
Chelmsford, Dracut, Dunstable, Groton, Groveland, Harvard,
Haverhill, Holden, Hopkinton, Hudson, Lancaster, Lawrence,
Leominster, Lexington, Littleton, Lowell, Marlborough, Maynard,
Merrimac, Methuen, Natick, Newburyport, North Andover,
Northborough, Paxton, Pepperell, Princeton, Rutland, Salisbury,
Sherborn, Shirley, Shrewsbury, Southborough, Sterling, Stow,
Sturbridge, Sudbury, Tewksbury, Townsend, Tyngsborough, Wayland,
West Boylston, West Newbury, Westborough, Westminster,
Wilmington.
19
-------
10. Andover, Billerica, Chelmsford, Haverhill, Hudson, Lawrence,
Leominster, Littleton, Lowell, Maryborough, Methuen, Natick,
Newburyport, North Adams, Tewksbury, Wilmington.
11. US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1990 Census
of Population and Housing. Summary Tape File 3.
12. US EPA. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States: 1992 Update. July 1992.
13. NH: Portland, Portsmouth; MA: Boston, Fall River, New
Bedford; RI: Providence; CT: New London, New Haven; NY: New York;
NJ: Newark, Jersey City; PA: Philadelphia; DB: Wilmington; MD:
Baltimore; Washington, DC; VA: Newport News, Richmond.
14. Boston Metropolitan Area: Suffolk County, 3 communities in
Bristol County, 4 in Essex County, 44 in Middlesex County, 26 in
Norfolk County, 16 in Plymouth County, and 9 in Worcester County;
Worcester Metropolitan Area: Worcester City and the
following towns in Worcester county: Auburn, Barre, Boylston,
Brookfield, Charlton, Clinton, Douglas, Dudley, East Brookfield,
Grafton, Holden, Leicester, Millbury, North Brookfield,
Northborough, Northbridge, Oxford, Paxton, Princeton, Rutland,
Shrewsbury, Spenser, Sterling, Sutton, Uxbridge, Webster, West
Boylston, and Westborough.
Lawrence-Haverhill Metropolitan Area: Haverhill, Lawrence,
and Newburyport Cities, and Amesbury, Andover, Boxford,
Georgetown, Groveland, Merrimac, Menthuen, Newbury, North
Andover, Salisbury, and West Newbury Towns in Essex County.
Southeastern Massachusetts: Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes,
Nantucket, Norfolk, and Plymouth Counties except cities and towns
included in the Boston and Pawtucket-Woonsocket-Attleboro
metropolitan areas.
Western Massachusetts: Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden,
Hampshire, and Worcester Counties, except cities and towns
included in the Boston, Worcester, and Pawtucket-Woonsocket-
Attleboro metropolitan areas.
15. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Regional Occupational Compensation Surveys.
material handling laborer: performs physical tasks to
transport or store materials or merchandise.
20
-------
maintenance electronics technician (level II): applies
comprehensive technical knowledge to solve complex problems by
interpreting manufacturers' manuals or similar documents. Work
requires familiarity with the interrelationships of circuits and
judgement in planning work sequence and in selecting tools and
testing equipment.
maintenance electronics technician (level III): applies
advanced technical knowledge to solve unusually complex problems
that typically cannot be solved by referencing manufacturers'
manuals or similar documents.
Below are the sample sizes of workers surveyed for the BLS'
survey in each region.
Hat. Handl. Laborer Technical Laborer
(level II) (level III)
Boston 802
Worcester 86
Lawrence-Haverhill 171
Southeastern MA 171
Western MA 934
830
25
28
N/A
N/A
844
N/A
36
65
88
16. Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. Massachusetts
Office of Business Development. Economic Development Incentive
Program.
21
-------
Appendix 1
GIS CONTACTS
ME
Dan Walters
Maine Department of Conservation
State House Station #22
Augusta, ME 04333
207-287-3897
MA
Bill DiLibero
MA DEP
1 Winter Street
4th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
617-292-5500
MassGIS
EOEA Data Center
20 Somerset Street, 3rd floor
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 727-3888
VT
Diane Morse
Department of Environmental Conservation
103 Soth Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05671
802-241-3800
PA
Larry Holley
PA DER
Bureau of Waste Management
PO Box 8472
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8472
717-787-7382
FAX 1904-155
NH
Ken Gallagher
Office of State Planning
2 1/2 Beacon Street
Concord, NH 03301
603-271-2
22
-------
Geoge Hastings
NH DBS
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
603-271-3503
RI
Peter August
University of RI
Dept of Natural Resource Science
210 B Woodward Hall
Kingston, RI 02881
401-792-4794
5054 (lab)
2495 (admin)
John Stachelhouse
Department of Planning in Dept of Administration
Office of Municipal Affairs
One Capitol Hill
Providence, RI 02908-5873
Coordnates CIS in the State
401-277-6483
Lynn Carlson
Rhode Island DEM
Division of Water Resources
291 Prominade Street
Providence, RI 02908
401-277-3961
Chris Ordsey
RI DEM
410-277-2797
CT
Howie Sternberg
CT DEP Natural Resources Center
Ground Level
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
NJ
Athena Sarafides or Joe Carpenter
NJ DEPE, DSWM
Source Reduction, Market Development and County Planning
840 Bear Tavern Rd
CN 414
Trenton, NJ 08625-0414
609-530-8207
23
-------
NY
Larry Alber
Division of Management Planning and Information Systems
Development
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-2752
RECYCLING CONTACTS
Denise Lord
Director, Office of Planning
Maine Waste Management Agency
State House, Station #154
Augusta, Maine 04333
Jeffrey Lissack
Director
Recycling Market Development
Department of Environmental Protection
1 Winter Street, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
William Ferretti
Director
Office of Recycling Market Development
Department of Economic Development
One Commerce Plaza
Albany, New York 12245
William Golden, Chief
Waste Reduction and Recycling
Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-4015
Connie Saulter
Executive Director
Northeast Recycling Council
139 Main Street
Brattleboro, VT 05301
Kim Trella, Supervising Environmental Analyst
Waste Management Bureau
Department of Environmental Protection
165 Capitol Ave.
Hartford, CT 06106
Judy Belaval
Environmental Analyst
Waste Management Bureau
Department of Environmental Protection
165 Capitol Ave.
Hartford, CT 06106
24
-------
Mark Lennon
Recycling Coordinator
Department of Environmental Services
Waste Management Division
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
Janet Keller, Chief
Office of Environmental Coordination
Department of Environmental Management
83 Park Street
Providence, RI 02903-1037
Andrea Cohen, Chief
Recycling and Resource Conservation
Division of Solid Waste Management
Agency of Natural Resources
103 South Main Street
Waterbury, Vermont 05676
Carl Hursh, Chief
Recycling & Markets
Division of Waste Minimization & Planning
Bureau of Waste Management
Department of Environmental Resources
P.O. Box 8472
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8472
Guy Watson, Bureau Chief
Source Reduction & Market Development
Department of Environmental Protection SEnergy
840 Bear Tavern Road CN 414
Trenton, NJ 08625
Frank Peluso
Foreign Trade Representative
Market Development
Department of Environmental Protection & Energy
840 Bear Tavern Road CN 414
Trenton, NJ 08625
Tom Houska, Chief Planner
Solid Waste Authority
P. 0. Box 455
Dover, DE 19903-0455
25
-------
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONTACTS
CT
Carmen Rios
Assistant Development Agent
Department of Economic Development
865 Brook Street
Rocky Hill, Ct 06067
ME
Mary Faye LaFaver, Director of
Economic Development
Ofice of Business Development
Department of Economic and Community Development
187 State Street
August, ME 04333
MA
Richard Henderson, Director of
Economic Policy Research
Executive Office of Economic Affairs
1 Ashburton Place, Room 2101
Boston, MA 02108
NH
William Pillsbury, Director
Office of Business & Industrial Development
Department of Resources & Economic Develeopment
P.O. Box 1856
Concord, NH 03302-1856
NJ
George Nagel, Director
Office of Economic Research
Commerce Department
20 West State Street
CN 824
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
NY
William Ferretti, Director
Recycling Market Development
One Commerce Plaza
Albany, NY 12245
PA
Michael Rossman, Recycling
Office of the Governor's Response Team
Department of Commerce
Forum Building, Room 439
Harrisburgh, PA 17120
26
-------
RI
Kristin Toth, Administrative Assistant
Business Development & Environmental Affairs
Fiancial Services Division
Department of Economic Development
7 Jackson Walkway
Providence, RI 02903
VT
David Bradbury, Deputy Comissioner
Economic Development Department
Agency of Development & Community Affairs
109 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05609
NY
William Ferretti
Director
Office of Recycling Market Development
Department of Economic Development
One Commerce Plaza
Albany, New York 12245
DE
Larry Windley
Delaware Development Office
99 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19901
OTHER STATE CONTACTS
MA
Office of Business Development
Economic Affairs Office
1 Ashburton Place
21st Floor, Room 2101
Boston, MA 02108
Tel (617) 727-3206
Fax (617) 727-8797
Michael Hogan, Executive Director
Executive Office of Economic Affairs
1 Ashburton Place
21st Floor
Boston, MA
Tel (617) 727-8380
David Keto, Undersecretary for Policy
27
-------
Pat Deese Stanton, Assistant Commissioner
Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Waste Prevention
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
Tel (617) 292-5765
Massachusetts Department of Revenue
Division of Local Services
(617) 727-4545
John Mullin
Professor, Lanscape Architecture, Land Use Coverage Information
University of Massachusetts
(413) 545-6636
NH
Sharon Yergeau
Department of Environmental Services
Hazardous Waste Management Planning Bureau
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301-6509
(603) 271-2901
Elizabeth Bedard, Coordinator
Governor's Recycling Program
2 1/2 Beacon Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 271-1098
Fax: (603) 271-1728
Dana Draper, Executive Director
New Hampshire Resource Recovery Association
P.O. Box 721
Concord, NH 03302
(603) 224-6996
Fax (603) 26-4466
Janet Keller, Chief
Department of Environmental Management
Office of Environmental Coordination
83 Park Street
Providence, RI 02908
(401) 277-3434
Fax (401) 277-2591
28
-------
VT
William Shouldice, Director
Development and Community Affairs
Economic Development Department
109 State Street
Pavilion Office Building
Montpelier, VT 05609
(802) 828-3211
Fax (802) 828-3258
EPA CONTACTS
Kim Carr 202-260-7600 HQ
Jenine Tankoos 212-264-9638 Region II
Theresa Martella 215-597-7936 Region III
Research Library for Solid Waste
EPA Region 1, HER-CAN6
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 573-9687
OTHER FEDERAL CONTACTS
US Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Division of Occupational Compensational Pay and Employee Benefits
2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20212-0001
(202) 606-6220
US Department of Commerce
International Trade Administration
14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20330
TRADE ASSOCIATIONS
Recycled Products International Trade Assoc.
2044 Oak Dr.
St. Louis, MO 63131
(314) 966-7355
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI), Inc.
1627 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 466-4050
American Paper Institute (API)
260 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10016
(212) 340-0654
29
-------
Glass Packaging Institute
1801 K St., NW, Suite 1105L
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 887-4850
Partnership for Plastics Program
Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.
1275 K St., NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 371-5319
Aluminum Recyclers Association
1000 16th St., NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 785-0951
Aluminum Association
900 19th St., NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 862-5100
Steel Manufacturers Assoc.
(202) 296-1515
American Forest and Paper Association
260 Madison Ave., 10 fl.
New York, NY 10016
(212) 340-0600
Aspectic Packaging Council
1000 Potomac St., NW, Suite 401
Washington, DC 20007
(202) 333-5900
NYNEX Information Resources Co.
Yellow Pages Publishers Assoc.
Contact: John Halenar, (212) 513-9815
American Plastics Council
1275 K St., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 223-0125
Association of Post-Consumer Plastics Recyclers
C/0 Wellman, Inc.. 1400 Broad St., Suite 302
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
(908) 542-7300
30
-------
National Association for Plastic Container Recovery (NAPCOR)
3770 NationsBank Corporate Center, 100 North Tryon St,
Charlotte, NC 28217
(704) 358-8882
The Council for Textile Recycling
(301) 656-1077
International Cartridge Recycling Assoc.
(202) 857-1154
Steel Recycling Institute
Foster Plaza X
680 Anderson Dr.
Pittsburgh, PA 15220
(800) 937-1226
31
-------
Appendix 2: Part 1
[Facility Name]
[Date]
Dear [Facility Name],
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
embarking on a project with the ten states in the Northeast to
enhance market development for recycling. The project is intended
to identify where investments can be made in the recycling
infrastructure and to address transportation inefficiencies. The
project will be an invaluable tool for EPA and the [State Solid
Waste Department] as we attempt to help businesses like yours be
more productive and efficient.
The project involves mapping the processors of recycled
materials and the manufacturers of recycled products in a
Geographical Information System. All processors and manufacturers
of glass, metal, paper and plastic in the Northeast will be
mapped. Existing transportation and population maps for each
state in the region will be combined with the recycling
facilities map. Different types of analysis will then be
performed to identify where assistance is needed in market
development.
I have included a simple survey on the reverse side of this
letter which requests information critical to the success of this
project. I ask that you fill it out as accurately as possible and
return it to my attention by [Date]. You can fax your response to
me at [fax number] or mail it to the above address.
Please feel free to contact either myself at [phone number]
or [Name], the EPA official assigned to the project, at [phone
number] with any questions or concerns. I encourage you to
participate in this worthwhile project. Thank you.
Sincerely,
[Name]
32
-------
Appendix 2: Part 2
If your company processes or manufactures recycled paper, glass, metal or plastic, please answer
the questions below and return this form by [Date]. If your company does not process or manu-
facture any of these recyclables, please note this in the comments section and still return this
form by [Date].
Name:
Company Name:
Please check:
Manufacturer a
Processor D
1. Estimate the average TONS/DAY handled by your facility, (the post-consumer material used to manufacture a
product if you are a manufacturer or the material processed for market if you are a processor) for each item listed
below. If you are unable to provide the information in the manner requested (i.e., clear, brown...), please provide
aggregate tonnages (i.e., all glass).
2. Enter the number of employees at your facility, if this information is available. No. Employees:
3. Enter "N/A" for materials that you do not handle.
4. Include any other pertinent information in the comments column.
OEM
GLASS
PLASTIC
METALS
PAPER
CLEAR
BROWN
GREEN
PET
HDPE
ALUMINUM
STEEL
HIGH GRADE OFFICE
MIXED GRADE OFFICE
OLD NEWSPAPER
CORRUGATED
OLD MAGAZINES
TONS/DAY
COMMENTS
GENERAL COMMENTS:
33
-------
Appendix 3
Data Collected for Total Tons Per Employee Estimates
Type of Facility
Paper Processors
Paper Manufacturers
Plastic Processors
Plastic Manufacturers
Metal Processors
Metal Manufacturers
Glass Processors
Glass Manufacturers CD
Multi-Material Processors (2)
Number of
Facilities
Providing
Data
17
17
4
2
22
5
2
1
N/A
Average
Tons/Employee/
Year
2.75
.60
1.62
.39
3.82
.88
33.00
10.52
N/A
(D Since there is only one glass manufacturer in MA, this average
ton/employee figure was not used to estimate any tonnages.
(2) All Multi-Material Processors reported tonnages, making it
unecessary to estimate a different ton/employee for each
material.
34
-------
REGIONAL MAP OF PROCESSORS AND MANUFACTURERS
FIGURE 1
Number of Processors and Manufacturers in the 10 States= 1,482
By material:
Processor - Paper =191
Manufacturer - Paper =151
Processor - Plastic = 84
Manufacturer - Plastic =46
Processor - Metal = 592
Manufacturer - Metal =46
Processor - Glass = 11
Manufacturer - Glass = 17
Multi-Processor =341
35
-------
LEGEND
£ 3
5s *J
s
en 3
I
8 i
I I
te -P *.
I 8 3
£ £ a!
o _
to m
1 i
B |
CD (0
2 i
Cfl 3
* 4-*
o o
£ £
Q.
05 W
$ i
i i
a o
H a H E H S
i
Figure 1
-------
o
£
I
1
8
I
§
Q
LEGEN
52
o
M
V
O
O
i
I
£
H
CO
acturer
4
co
2
CD
a
I
[o]
S2
g
(0
(D
I
U
K
co
E
30
2
b_
c
42
3
CO
s
o
tt
a
a.
0
£
o
CO
I
I
~&
s
5
E
M
1
3
co
^
c
CO
2
1
E
2
3
CO
CD
u
1
co
co
to
e>
l+"l
to
acturer
|
co
5
CO
co
CO
(D
s
e
o
CD
U
O
tx
'C
0)
£
'p
D
2
S
Fiwre 2
-------
D
H
'^
H
o
LU
LU
_l
co
CD
g
CD o CN
H "~
° '
CO O
C!
^J 1
^^
^J
^
D
8
in
'
g
CJ
0
0 §
in o
^S ^~
1 '
C5 ^D
\£) pN
§
,
0
I
o
8
,
o
s
^
I
o
8
CO
o
o
o
o
§
o
CO
I
§
CD
A
I
§
3
I
I
Figure 3
-------
'O
cu
£
CU
Ji
"3
2
05
o
J
I
I
5
s
f*ğ
i
o
Figure 4
-------
I
.-'>$',£
c .xF?::;
£$^1
m \^
-- . i ^ /
viV &
A.*" r* \ / J.,
*M- fL^'Ck
, ^ t . >^-^
V -A /Xx'-^ 3
- ^ \-^- ^ ^:" '1 r"*L."'
T > A-\ / V" \ f- 'v
"^Y / r>-r-^->f /
:v?^vr,>- V;
ğ- W 3
tO D ^- u
u. 12 o TJ
05 <> O tO m
g to
Q I S00D
^
1 ;,;" -l i : V-
i-"! rj v---A --- r">
r^u.--1- i; iv-"i ^
r-V/S r\ I'-.i^-
^'/t^~Vl^:Y-Vi
1 ^^-fe*--^Ği *!*
C V to 1^ CO O)
1 r~"l L '"=?j r"^
_ JQiil
I
Figure 5
-------
Potential Manufacturing Sites for Recycled Plastic
In Natick, Massachusetts
LEGEND
H Potential Sites:
Commercial/Industrial
Zoned Regions
Population Density
EH o - 100
LU 100 - BOO
H 500 - 1000
H 1000 - 4000
> 4000
Major Roads
Railroads
Population density figures
are from the 1990 Census
and represent the number
of people per square
kilometer for each census
block
Total acreage per
commercial/industrial par-
cel of land is indicated
by numbers inside parcel
Figure 6
Scale: 1 inch = 1 mile
-------
G
Z
LJJ
0
LLJ
_l
i
s
0)
ğ
(0
F
c
re
o
oi
<
B
^
0)
Processor
Manufactu
0> 0)
Q. a
a. a.
00
cessor
_
|?
2
-------
ğ!
------- |