Residential
Paper
Recovery
A Municipal
Implementation
Guide
-------
RESIDENTIAL PAPER RECOVERY
A Municipal Implementation Guide
This publication (SW-155) was written
by PENELOPE HANSEN
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1975
-------
Graphics and layouts for this publication were pre-
pared by National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc.
as part of the work done under Grant No. T-900516-01-0.
-------
A Municipal Implementation Guide
Paper recovery from the home
through source separation enables
this material to be reintroduced
into the manufacturing process.
Source separation is defined as
the setting aside of recyclable waste
materials (such as paper, glass, and
metal containers) at their point of
generation (the home, office, or
other place of business) by the
generator. This separation is fol-
lowed by transportation of the
recyclable materials from their
point of generation to a secondary
materials dealer or directly to a
manufacturer. Transportation may
be provided by the generator, city
collection vehicles, private haulers,
scrap dealers, or by voluntary
recycling organizations.
The source separation technique
of most interest to municipal
government decision-makers is
separation by the generator fol-
lowed by regular municipal or pri-
vate collection. This technique is
the one used most widely for paper
collection. Glass and can separa-
tion has been tried in only a few
communities on a monthly basis.
The economic balance of these
systems has been poor to date.
The U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) is currently in
the process of demonstrating a
weekly collection system in which
all recyclable elements of house-
hold waste will be simultaneously
collected. The projected econo-
mics of this system appear to be
excellent, and it will be demon-
strated and evaluated in 1976.
As most of the demonstrated sepa-
rate collection data relates to paper
at this time, only the methods of
separately collecting paper are dis-
cussed here.
Source separation of paper is
feasible primarily for newspapers
from homes, corrugated containers
from commercial and industrial
establishments, and printing and
writing papers from offices. It is at
these points that recyclable grades
are generated in a relatively homo-
geneous and concentrated form.
Since the latter two situations are
typically handled by private haulers
who collect commercial and indus-
trial wastes, a municipality is
mainly concerned with newspaper
source separation by residents. In
cases where an appropriate market
exists, mixed paper from resi-
dences can be separated and col-
lected with the newspaper.
More than 120 cities in the
United States are now conducting
separate paper collection programs
(Table 1 j, while only two such pro-
grams existed in 1970. This signifi-
cant increase is due to the: (1) in-
crease in disposal costs; (2) in-
crease in environmental awareness
and concern; (3) realization that
separate collections are more effec-
tive in removing materials from the
waste stream and far less costly
than recycling centers operated by
municipal employees.
-------
TABLE 1
LISTING OF KNOWN COMMUNITIES WITH
NEWSPAPER RECOVERY COLLECTION PROGRAMS AND
COMMUNITIES PLANNING FOR A COLLECTION PROGRAM
AUGUST 1974'
Abington, Pa.
Albany, N. Y.
Alexandria, Va,
Allen town, Pa.
Ann Arbor, Mich.
Arlington, Texas
Arlington, Va.
Atherton, Calif.
Aurora, 111.
Austin, Minn.
Avon-by-the-Sea, N. J.
Baldwin, N. Y.
Bedford, Mass.
Belmont, Calif.
Benton County, Tenn.
Berkeley, Calif.
Beverly, Mass.
Bowie, Md.
Briarcliff Manor, N. Y.
Brookhaven, N. Y.
Burlingame, Calif.
Cambridge, Mass.
Cincinnati, Ohio
Clifton, N.J.
Columbus, Ohio
Dallas, Texas
Dayton, Ohio
Dobbs Ferry, N. Y.
East Palo Alto, Calif.
Elizabeth, N.J.
Freeport, N. Y.
Floral Park, N. Y.
Fort Lee, N.J.
Fort Worth, Texas
Foster City, Calif.
Fullerton, Calif.
Garden City, N. Y.
Great Neck, N. Y.
Green Bay, Wis.
Separate Collections
Greenbelt, Md.
Grecnburgh, N. Y.
Greenville, S. C.
Half Moon Bay. Calif.
Harrison, N. Y.
Haverhill, Mass.
Hempstead. N. Y.
Hillsborough, Calif.
Huntington Woods, Mich.
Irvington, N.J.
Irvington, N. Y.
Joliet, 111.
Larchmont, N. Y.
Lawrence, N.J.
Lawton, Okla.
Long Beach. N.J.
Louisville, Ky.
Lynchburg, Va.
Lynn, Mass.
Lynnbrook, N. Y.
Mamaroneck, N. Y.
Manchester, Conn.
Manhasset, N. Y.
Marblehead, Mass.
Millburn, N.J.
Menlo Park, Calif.
Modesto, Calif.
Mount Kisco, N. Y.
Neenah, Wis.
NewCastle, N. Y.
Newport Beach, Calif.
New Rochelle, N. Y.
Newton, Mass.
New York, N. Y.
North Bergen, N.J.
North Hempstead, N. Y.
North Salem, N. Y.
North Tarrytown, N. Y.
Norwalk, Conn.
*U,S. Environmental Protection Agency. Unpublished data.
Oceanside, Calif.
Oceanside, N. Y.
Ossining, N. Y.
Oyster Bay, N. Y.
Pacifica, Calif.
Peekskill, N. Y.
Pelham, N. Y.
Pelham Manor, N. Y.
Phoenix, Ariz.
Pleasantville Village, N. Y.
Portola Valley, Calif.
Princeton, N. J.
Redondo Beach, Calif.
Redwood City, Calif.
Ridgewood, N. J.
Rochester, Minn.
Rochester, N. Y.
Rockville, Md.
Rolling Meadows, 111.
Salem, Va.
Salt Lake City, Utah
St. Matthews, Ky.
San Bernardino, Calif.
San Carlos, Calif.
San Diego, Calif.
San Mateo, Calif.
Santa Maria, Calif.
Santa Rosa, Calif.
Shorewood, Wis.
Summit, N. Y.
Tarrytown, N. Y.
Tustin, Calif.
Union City, N.J.
University City, Mo.
University Park, Texas
Villa Park, 111.
Washington, D. C.
West Hartford, Conn.
Wethersfield, Conn.
Wyoming, Ohio
-------
Rack Collections
Madison, Wis.
Rockford, III.
Casa Grande, Ariz.
Covina, Calif.
DeKalb County, Ga.
Denver, Colo.
Durham, N. C.
Fenwick, N.J.
Glen Rock, N.J.
Ingle wood, N. J.
Lexington, Mass.
& '
Lyndhurst, N.J.
Miramar, Fla.
Planning Programs
San Francisco, Calif.
Sheboygan, Wis.
New York, N.Y.
Norman, Okla.
Ontario, Calif.
Ocean Township, N. J.
Paterson, N.J.
Rutherford, N.J.
Pasadena, Texas
Tenafly,N.J.
Toledo, Ohio
Tucson, Ariz.
Wayne, N.J.
Whittier, Calif.
TABLE 2
MUNICIPAL WASTE GENERATION AND
COMPOSITION IN THE U. S., 1973*t
Component
Paper
News
Corrugated
Office Paper
Other
Glass
Ferrous Metals
Nonferrous Metals
Food Waste
Yard Waste
Other
Total Tons in the
Waste Stream
in Millions of Tons
(as discarded)
44.2
8.0
11.8
5.4
19.0
13.2
11.0
1.4
22.4
25.0
17.2
Percentage
Composition
(as discarded)
33.0
6.0
9.0
4.0
14.0
9.9
8.2
1.0
16.6
18.5
12.8
TOTAL
134.4
100.0
*Smith, F. A., Environmental Protection Agency. Unpublished data.
tAverage per capita generation = 134.8 million tons + (210,000,000 people x
365 days) = 3.52 Ibs per person per day.
Quantity of Materials
Obtainable Through
Source Separation
The average national municipal
solid waste stream is composed pri-
marily of paper (about a third by
weight) together with food, yard
wastes, glass, and metal wastes
(Table 2). The average per capita
waste generated is 3.52 Ibs. per per-
son per day. These waste genera-
tion data include wastes generated
in households, commercial and
business establishments, and insti-
tutions (schools, hospitals, etc.);
excluded are industrial process
wastes, agricultural and animal
wastes, construction and demolition
wastes, mining wastes, abandoned
automobiles, ashes, street sweepings,
and sewage sludge. Wastes now
being recycled are also excluded.
By using the national average
for waste composition, a city can
roughly estimate the quantity of
materials which might be recovered
through a source separation pro-
gram. Specific generation and com-
position data for a given city would
permit a more accurate prediction.
The amount of discarded news-
paper varies from house to house,
neighborhood to neighborhood,
and city to city. This variation is
related to such factors as individual
household purchasing habits, size
and number of newspapers pub-
lished in a particular area, and the
socioeconomic level of the residents.
The waste newspaper generation
rate in a high-income neighborhood
may be two or three times that of
medium-to-low income neighbor-
hoods in the same area.
On a national average, news-
papers comprise about 19 percent
of discarded paper and about
6 percent of total municipal solid
wastes. For a city of 100,000
population with a 50 percent par-
-------
ticipation rate, the approximate
quantity of recoverable newspapers
can be determined as follows:
100,000 persons x 3.52 Ibs. per per-
son per day x 0.19 x 0.31 x 0.5 =
10,366 Ibs. per day or about 5
tons per day. At a price of S15
per ton, the weekly revenue would
be $525.
Alternate Methods
of Separate Paper
Collection
There are two basic methods for
separate paper collection presently
in use. The most common system
utilizes separate vehicles to collect
the paper, while the other method
uses a rack attached to the regular
refuse collection vehicle.
SEPARATE TRUCK
System Description
Trucks. Standard packers, usual-
ly taken from the standby fleet,
are the most common vehicle for
separate collection (Figure 1). Van
and open-bodied trucks may also
be used (Figure 2), although they
are more expensive to operate than
a standard packer because they re-
quire an extra crew member to
stack the paper inside the truck.
Crew Size, One man for a side-
loading packer and two for a rear
loader are sufficient to collect pa-
per. As mentioned above, a third
worker is needed if trucks other
than packers are used. Because of
the higher cost of backyard collec-
tion, curbside or alley collection ser-
vice are generally employed.
Routing. The paper collection
vehicle can cover three to five nor-
mal collection routes each day. This
is due to such factors as: (1) having
fewer items to handle per stop; (2)
no requirement to return containers
to the curb; (3) usually less than
Figure 1. These bundles of wastepaper are being loaded into a
separate collection packer truck in the town of Hempstead, N.Y.
Figure 2. Van and open, stake-type trucks are also used for col-
lecting source-separated newspaper.
Figure 3. Separately collected newspapers from the town of Hemp-
stead, N.Y., are being unloaded at a local wastepaper dealer.
-------
100 percent participation; (4) the
fact that participating households
may not place the paper at the curb
every collection day.
Unloading Point. If the paper-
stock dealer is within a reasonable
distance, the truck can unload di-
rectly at his facility (Figure 3). Pa-
per dealers in distant locations usu-
ally place a large van at the transfer
station or disposal site into which
the paper is loaded. This van re-
mains at the site until it is full, at
which time the dealer removes it
and replaces it with another.
Frequency of Collection. Col-
lections are usually monthly, bi-
weekly or weekly. EPA data indi-
cate that the overall level of par-
ticipation, and thus the total quanti-
ty of paper collected, will be greater
for programs with more frequent
collection (e.g., weekly or biweekly)
than for monthly collection pro-
grams. Collection costs, however,
are correspondingly higher.
Standardization of Collection.
To achieve maximum cooperation
from the householder, collections
must be conducted on a regular
basis. Also, citizens must be fully
informed of what is expected of
them (e.g., newspapers to be
wrapped with twine or placed in
paper grocery sacks, etc.) and know
exactly when the truck will be
there.
System Requirements
Capital Investment. Capital is
required only for any additional
collection vehicles required by the
program. Actual case studies con-
ducted for EPA have shown, how-
ever, that only one of ten cities
studied actually purchased a vehicle
(a small, used packer in this case)
for its program. f Most of the ve-
*SCS Engineers. Analysis of
source separate collection of recycl-
able solid waste; separate collec-
tion. (Environmental Protection
Publication SW-95c.l. U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency
1974. Distributed by National
Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Va., as PB-239775.)
hides used for separate collections
have been either standby packers
normally used when a breakdown
in the regular fleet occurred,
older trucks retained after new
packers were purchased, trucks re-
tained after re-routing, or simply
trucks owned by the city and not
fully utilized.
Two communities, which regu-
larly collected refuse four days a
week, instituted separate collection
on the fifth day using the same
trucks normally used in their regular
collection. In the cities studied,
the institution of separate collection
resulted in increased utilization of
existing equipment rather than the
purchase of new equipment. The
fact that this form of resource re-
covery can often be implemented
with little or no additional capital
investment is one of the most ap-
pealing aspects of separate collection
and an obvious reason for its rapid
proliferation.
Maintenance, Operating and
Overhead Costs. When a vehicle
is used for separate collection, these
costs are incurred just as they are
for any collection operation. In ad-
dition, the costs for establishing
and maintaining public participa-
tion by means of a public informa-
tion program must be taken into
account.*
Labor. Separate collection re-
quires that more hours be spent on
the collection route. Noteworthy,
however, is that in all but two of
10 cities studied, no additional
labor was hired to implement
separate collection. In these two
cities, part-time personnel were
employed for periods of heavy
volume. It should also be noted
that in every case studied, three-
man crews were used only because
it was standard collection practice
to have three-man crews. As noted
above, two-man crews are sufficient
^Residential Paper Recovery; A
Community Action Program. Wash-
ington, U. S. Government Printing
Office, 1975. (In press.)
for paper collection. The additional
labor hours - and cost - to the cities
would have been considerably less
had they not included this un-
needed crewman.
RACK SYSTEM
The rack, or "piggyback," sys-
tem of separate collection has been
used by a private collector in San
Francisco since 1962. It has re-
ceived the most publicity in Madi-
son, Wis., where piggyback collec-
tion was instituted by the city in
cooperation with the Paper Stock
Conservation Committee of the
American Paper Institute (API).
System Description
Truck Modification. To employ
this system, racks, varying in capa-
city from Vi to I1/! cubic yards, are
installed beneath the body of a
standard packer. Because of place-
ment of auxiliary gas tanks and hy-
draulic equipment, however, not all
packer trucks, are adaptable to this
type of rack (Figures 4 and 5).
Collection Procedures. As in the
separate truck method, bundled
newsprint is placed at the curb.
Collection of mixed paper by this
method is not recommended due to
the space constraints of the racks.
A major advantage of the rack
system is that the householder
need not be concerned with which
day is paper collection day. The
bundled paper is placed next to
mixed refuse containers on any
normal pickup day. Refuse and
paper are thus collected simult-
aneously.
Overloading. Compared with
separate truck collection, the rack
method has apparent advantages in
that the route must only be covered
once, when regular collection is per-
formed. A drawback to the piggy-
back system is the tendency of the
racks to become filled before the
body of the truck has been filled
with waste. Madison, with a 60
percent participation rate (i.e.,
about 60 percent of the residents
place newspapers at the curb on
any given collection day), must
-------
Figure 4. This is a special rack installed for holding bundled newspapers collected from residents in Madison, Wis.
(left) and San Francisco, Calif, (right).
Frame of 1/8" x 2" x 2" L angle iron
4-3/8"
1/8" flat stock
side and bottom
welded to frame
3/4" flat wire mesh
welded to 1' x 5' door
frame and hinged to
rack frame with piano hinge
Figure 5. This is a detailed sketch of the newspaper rack used in
Madison, Wis. Source: City of Madison Wis., Department of Public Works.
off-load the paper bins one or two
times before the compactor body
is full. To accomplish this with the
least delay, the public works de-
partment stations bulk contain-
ers at strategic points in the col-
lection areas. The crew members
unload the paper into the bulk
containers and proceed along the
route. In Madison, approximately
10 minutes off the route are re-
quired for each unloading (driving
time plus unloading). Although the
amount of time spent on the route
has been longer, no overtime costs
have been experienced.
New Equipment Developments.
Cities and waste haulers are now
experimenting to improve the pig-
gyback system by means of a rack
designed to hold a greater quan-
tity of newspapers, thus reducing
time off the route.
-------
One equipment manufacturer,
Maxon Industries, Inc., has de-
signed and is now testing a two-
component truck for separate col-
lection (Figure 6).* The paper
compartment is designed to have a
capacity of about three cubic yards,
or 10 percent of the truck's volume.
This compartment is loaded by a
hydraulically operated bin located
behind the truck's cab. Unloading
of the material is done automatical-
ly, after the mixed refuse has been
off-loaded. The volume of the
extra compartment is large enough
so that the truck does not have to
leave its regular collection route to
off-load filled racks. The device
is expected to add approximately
$2,000 to the cost of Maxon's
"Shu-Pak" model trucks.
An elevated rack is being used
in Rockford, 111. (Figure 7). With
this rack — developed by Bynal
Products, Inc., — the material is
thrown up into the rack by the
collection crew as mixed refuse is
collected.
While the size of this rack is
larger than that used in Madison,
its advantage lies in the fact that it
need not be manually unloaded.
When the rack is filled, the truck
backs up to a stationary compac-
tor or bulk bin and lowers the rear
wall of the rack. This reduces un-
loading time to a minimum.
These developments, if proven
to be operationally feasible, could
significantly improve the economics
of separate collection.
System Requirements
Capital Investment. Costs for
materials and installation of the
standard, "under-the-truck" rack
range from $80 to $250 per rack.
Madison's cost of $170 was about
average. As noted previously, when
participation reaches 20 to 30 per-
cent, bulk containers may be
needed. In this case, the additional
Figure 6. A bi-compartmental truck is now being tested by Maxon
Industries, Inc., in Huntington Park, Calif.
Figure 7. An elevated rack is being developed in Rockford, III.
^Mention of commercial pro-
ducts does not imply endorsement
by the U.S. Government.
-------
cost for the bulk container(s) and
truck will have to be included.
In Madison, the cost for a bulk
container was 1550, while the
initial cost of the truck was $7,000.
Labor. Time/motion studies
conducted in Madison and San
Francisco show that between 10
seconds (Madison) and 14 seconds
(San Francisco) are required to pick
up and load bundled newsprint at
each stop in addition to the
approximately 5 to 15 minutes
required for off-loading the paper
when the racks are filled.* In all
cases studied, no additional labor
costs are actually experienced be-
cause employees were not working
a full day in normal waste collec-
tion. Nonetheless, either the
existing collection system must be
able to absorb the additional incre-
mental time requirements when
instituting the rack collection sys-
tem, or the revenue from the paper
and/or diverted disposal costs must
offset incremental costs. Additional
labor is required to collect off-
loaded newspapers placed in lugger
boxes. For Madison, this has
amounted to one tc three man-
hours per day per truck for ser-
vicing the lugger boxes.
Public vs. Private
Separate Collection
Private collection of wastepaper
by a scrap dealer or waste hauler -
popular on the West Coast - is one
of the newer arrangements cur-
rently being tried in a number of
communities. This system involves
the least amount of time, money,
and manpower on the part of the
city. For cities which contract for
regular waste removal services, pri-
vate collection of paper may be
their only option.
*SCS Engineers, Source separate
collection of recyclable waste.
City management may have no
involvement at all, as in the case of
San Francisco where the private
waste hauler carries out all facets of
the program. Other communities
have decided to share both the re-
sponsibility and the income from
the program. With this mode of
operation, the city requests bids
from private scrap dealers and/or
waste haulers for the privilege of an
exclusive contract to pick up source
separated paper. In return for a
percentage of the income, the city
usually agrees to support and publi-
cize the program and to prohibit
others from removing paper
through an anti-scavenging ordi-
nance.
COSTS
Due to the large number of vari-
ables, it is difficult to give meaning-
ful average costs for separate col-
lection. Its economic viability de-
pends to a large extent on such
factors as the: (1) type of regular
collection practiced (i.e., frequency
of collection, size of crews, etc.);
(2) disposal costs; (3) revenue re-
ceived for the paper; (4) participa-
tion rate of residents; (5) avail-
ability of under-utilized men and
/or equipment; (6) efficiency with
which the separate collection is
carried out; (7) extent to which
regular vehicles are re-routed to
take advantages of reduced waste
volumes.
Separate Truck Systems
EPA has studied the collection
costs for mixed refuse and separate-
ly collected paper for 10 communi-
ties utilizing separate trucks for
paper collection (Table 3). The re-
sults shown reflect actual costs.
The analysis included labor, owner-
ship and maintenance of equipment,
and overhead costs for both the
regular waste collection system and
the separate collection sub-system.
Credit was given for revenue from
the sale of the paper and for a pro-
portionate percentage of the variable
disposal cost for landfill and in-
cineration. In cases where the com-
munity paid a second party for dis-
posal, the entire unit disposal
charge was deducted for each ton
of paper sold. Important trans-
portation savings may also result if
recovered newspapers are hauled to
a nearby off-loading point or mar-
ket instead of a remotely located
disposal facility. These savings have
also been considered, where appro-
priate.
Based on the high wastepaper
market prices of March 1974, the
overall level of collection and dis-
posal costs for these 10 cities
ranged from a decrease of 23 per-
cent to an increase of 16 percent
(an average decrease of just under 5
percent). During a low wastepaper
market period (April 1973), the
same 10 cities showed an overall
collection cost decrease of 4 per-
cent to an increase of more than 16
percent (an average increase of 2.6
percent). Many of the cities ex-
perienced little change in overall
costs. It should also be noted,
however, that many of the pro-
grams were relatively new and few
had been refined to any significant
degree.
Interpretation of these results is
difficult without additional know-
ledge of conditions in each com-
munity studied. However, using a
modeling approach, comparison has
been made of regular mixed refuse
collection with separate collection
based on assumed collection costs
for an "average" city (t-'igure 8).
The impact of the separate collec-
tion was shown for various collec-
tion frequencies: once each week,
once every two weeks, and once
each month. The cost line between
S20 and $21 per ton represents
estimated mixed waste collection
costs for once per week collection,
with 20-cubic-yard packer, a 3-man
crew, and a long (45 minute one-
way) haul to the disposal site.
The cost line between $15 and $16
per ton indicates the same mixed
waste collection conditions with a
short (15 minute one-way) haul.
The cost impact of adding separate
collection with a 20-cubic-yard
packer and a 2-man crew is com-
pared with the mixed waste collec-
tion cost. The curves represent:
(a) different levels of disposal
10
-------
TABLE 3
IMPACT OF SEPARATE COLLECTION ON OVERALL
RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS
-SEPARATE TRUCK APPROACH-*
Case Study Location
Collection and Disposal Cost
Prior to Implementation of
Separate Collection
Collection and Disposal Cost
After Implementation of
Separate Collectiont
Dallas, Tex.
12.10
Great Neck, N. Y " 36.00
Greenbelt, Md. ' ' 27.20
Newton, Mass. 32.40
13.50
11.60
&fJlft
38.70
y?:,?'o.";
27.40
:;25j^:
32.20
'; |*^;
13.40
-4.1
;-°*|&
+7.5
' f*#
+Q.1
:'W3;}
-0.6
;*t%-
-0.8
9.30 -23.1
i'ii >&Q ,
-------
o
x
8
C3
o"
i °
to
fc c
CL §
•M *"
O O
O
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
Paper market at time
of case studies
(April 1973): $8/ton
Assumed paper market
S25/ton
1 Wk Separate
Collection
Frequency
_|_ I I _L 1 L J I
Diverted Incinerator Costs
Diverted Landfill Costs
1/2 wk Separate
Collection
Frequency
I I I I I I 1 I
Combined Collection Cost
for Long Haul
u Combined Collection Cost
for Short Haul
I I
1/Mo Separate
Collection
Frequency
I i L I 1 L
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
PERCENT PARTICIPATION
Figure 8. A modeling analysis of the impact of separate paper collection on collection costs: 3-man mixed
refuse collection performed once per week compared with a combination of 3-man mixed refuse collection per-
formed once per week and 2-man separate collection at various frequencies.
Separate Collection
Success Factors
MARKETS
Shortages of woodpulp, increased
wastepaper exports and other fac-
tors created a strong market for
used newsprint, corrugated con-
tainers and even mixed paper in
1973. By the end of 1973, prices
for wastepaper were at histori-
cally high levels. Forecasts by the
American Paper Institute predicted
a 7 percent increase in domestic
consumption of old newsprint from
the beginning of 1974 through
1975, a steady but not dramatic
growth.
In addition, exports of old
newsprint were expected by most
observers to increase, while several
domestic paper companies were re-
portedly considering building mills
to make newsprint from old news-
papers. An adequate supply of
old newsprint seems to be their
primary concern.
The advent of the recent re-
cession dramatically altered the
booming wastepaper market in the
second and third quarters of 1974.
The production of such construc-
tion materials as roofing felt and
wallboard, which utilize waste-
paper, slowed during this same
period with the decline in new
home building. Also, the produc-
tion of boxboard, the largest user
of reclaimed newsprint, fell some
33 percent between December
1973 and December 1974, in
keeping with the general sales de-
cline. Recession abroad, causing
curtailment of wastepaper exports,
compounded the domestic market
problems. It is now the consensus
of EPA, the American Paper Insti-
tute, and various paper-producing
industries that wastepaper prices
and demand will rise and level off
as the economy improves.
What is more important for the
municipal decision-maker in rela-
12
-------
TABLE 4
IMPACT OF SEPARATE COLLECTION ON OVERALL
RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS
-RACK APPROACH-*
Case Study Location
Collection and Disposal Cost
Prior to Implementation of
Separate Collection
($/Ton)
Collection and Disposal Cost
After Implementation of
Separate Collection
Low Paper Market
(average $8 per ton)
($/Ton) (% Change)
High Paper Market
(average $25 per ton)
($/Ton) (% Change)
Madison, Wis.
New York, N.Y.t
Sheboygan, Wis.
22.30
53.50
32.00
22.00
53.40
31.80
-1.3
-0.2
-0.6
20.50
53.50tt
31.50
8.1
-0-
-1.6
*SCS Engineers, Source separate collection of recyclable waste.
f Queens District 67 only.
ft The small quantities of newspaper separately collected had an insignificant effect on overall costs.
tion to markets is not to try to pre-
dict price fluctuations, but to deter-
mine the minimum price that he
can receive and still have a break-
even program. He should then
negotiate a contract of a year or
more duration with that minimum
price as a floor. If the price rises
above that level, so much the better.
It is incumbent upon any city
considering resource recovery,
therefore, to conduct a market
study as the first order of business.
In a small city or suburban com-
munity, this may take the form of
a few phone calls to wastepaper
dealers or to local manufacturers
who utilize wastepaper to manu-
facture such products as boxboard,
chipboard, insulation and roofing
materials, and newsprint.
These contacts should be
followed by meetings with those
dealers and manufacturers who
show interest in buying the re-
covered paper. At these meetings,
the quality specifications of the
buyer, shipping and hauling
arrangements, and other require-
ments which both the city and pur-
chaser must meet can be clarified.
Larger cities are advised to con-
duct a more formal market study,
and to seriously consider requesting
bids from prospective buyers.
(Sample Bid Specifications, Ap-
pendix A.) To proceed further
with the project, cities are advised
to procure letters of intent from
reputable dealers (Appendix B).
If the results of further investi-
gation into the other aspects of a
source separation program are
deemed to be positive and the pro-
ject is approved, it is advisable to
enter into a formal contract with
the buyers (Sample Contract, Ap-
pendix C). If possible, the con-
tract should first guarantee that the
paper will be purchased for a speci-
fied period of time (this is usually 1
year, although some companies
have offered contracts of 5 and 10
years); secondly, it should guaran-
tee a minimum or floor price which
the city considers reasonable. The
price received by the city may float
above the floor price and is usually
determined by the weekly quota-
tions in Official Board Markets. *
This publication reports wastepaper
prices by grade in 12 major cities.
*Official Board Markets.
ago, III.
Chic-
13
-------
PUBLIC EDUCATION
The success of a source separa-
tion program depends heavily on
citizen awareness, cooperation, and
concern. None of these is possible
without a vigorous public education
campaign to explain the goals and
methods of the program. Such a
campaign should begin well in
advance of the institution of the
program. Information dissemina-
tion techniques such as radio and
TV spots, newspaper articles and
advertisements, posters. door
hangers, flyers, and oral presenta-
tions are the usual modes of publi-
city. The active participation of
local environmental and service
organizations is an excellent means
of developing public interest.
These organizations can be ex-
tremely effective through their con-
tacts with schools and other civic
groups. They are usually willing to
give speeches, make posters, and
conduct door-to-door canvassing at
no cost to the city.
Public education must continue
after the program has begun. Occa-
sional flyers inserted in public
utility bills as well as weekly or
monthly newspaper follow-up arti-
cles are recommended. Continued
support of citizen organizations is
most helpful in sustaining interest
and increasing participation. One
large Eastern city includes informa-
tion on the program with each
house title and lease to assure that
new arrivals in the community are
informed of their efforts in
resource recovery.
EPA has available a brochure
which describes how a community
can plan, implement and sustain an
ongoing publicity campaign. (Resi-
dential Paper Recovery; A Com-
munity Action Program). Washing-
ton, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1975. (In press.)
HOUSEHOLDER IMPACT
Home separation is neither ex-
pensive nor time-consuming for
the householder. In a recent study,
15 families kept detailed records of
22
21
o
-C
0)
tn
D
O
I
o
o
o
o"
£-2 20
-C O
1°
^ tst
!_ T3
Q- CD
«" 3
i/5 ^
o o
c
o
o
o
CD
o
.c
CP
C/3
3
O
I
O
o
o
o
£ _5
O- ro
tt 3
O O
c — -
o
o
CJ
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
Long
Haul
Point where incremental
U— time requirements prevent
crew from returning to
collection route for second
(or partial) load.
Paper market at time of
case studies (April 1973):
$8/ton
Assumed paper market:
S25/ton.
Short
Haul
Combined
Refuse
Collection
Cost
| Points where I
I off-route I
transfer of
newspaper is
i required.
Combined
Refuse
Collection
Cost
0 10 20
30 40 50 60 70
Percent Participation
80 90 100
Figure 9. A modeling analysis of the impact of rack collection
of separated newspapers on total collection costs (3-man crew).
14
-------
all factors impacting on the separa-
tion of glass, cans, and newsprint in
their homes for a period of six
weeks.* Incremental costs (twine
for bundling, water for washing,
etc.) were two cents per month per
family. The average time spent on
these activities was about 15
minutes per week. The separate
bundling of newspapers, which is
the separation activity that seems
most universally acceptable, took
only 2.3 minutes per week and re-
quired less than one cent per month
in out-oi-pocket costs. A recent
survey of housewives' attitudes on
solid waste found that 73 percent
of those interviewed felt home
separation would be "easy" to
"very easy" for them to carry out.f
SCAVENGERS
Due to the value of secondary
materials, many cities have ex-
perienced difficulties with unauthor-
ized persons picking up source-
separated materials before the
authorized truck arrives. This does
not represent a legal problem for
municipalities which have chosen
to grant an exclusive franchise to a
private firm for waste collection.
In such municipalities, sanctions
which normally exist to discourage
collection by firms other than the
licensee may be brought to bear on
scavengers. In communities in
which such sanctions do not exist,
an anti-scavenging ordinance should
be passed. Judicial precedent indi-
cates that in most states it is per-
missible for municipalities to grant
exclusive contracts for the collec-
tion of solid waste and to prohibit
collection by all but city employ-
ees or licensees. This authority,
*SC5 Engineers, Source separate
collection of recyclable waste.
'National Analysts, Inc. Metro-
politan housewives' attitudes
toward solid waste disposal. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
1972. 120 p. (Distributed by
National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-213
340).
combined with the municipalities'
traditional power to protect public
health and safety, should provide a
legal basis for such an ordinance.
Anti-scavenging ordinances do
not preclude volunteer groups from
collecting newspapers as one of
their traditional revenue producers.
If residents prefer to save their
newspapers for such volunteer
drives, they should not be discour-
aged from doing so; however, to
avoid confusion as to the ownership
of the material, accumulated paper
for these drives should not be set
at the curb. This distinction can
be made clear in the anti-scavenging
ordinance so that the paper drives
of volunteer groups are not threat-
ened (Sample Anti-Scavenging Or-
dinance, Appendix D).
The anti-scavenging ordinance
passed in Hempstead, New York, in
1971 has been used as a prototype
in many communities. The ordin-
ance states that all waste placed at
the curb becomes the property
of the city. Stringent fines are
imposed upon scavengers. Strict
enforcement, particularly at the
beginning of a program, is strongly
urged. As much publicity as pos-
sible should be given to enforce-
ment efforts in order to discour-
age potential offenders.
Voluntary Paper
Separation vs.
Mandatory
Requirement
Most separate collection pro-
grams are voluntary in that they
"request" citizen support. An
increasing number of cities, how-
ever, are passing ordinances which
"require" separation. A recent
study of 17 cities found that man-
datory programs received coopera-
tion from 60 percent (average) of
the population, while voluntary
programs had a participation rate of
30 percent.* These numbers are
misleading, however, in that most
of the systems have only recently
begun. Other data from the same
study indicate that participation
rises over time, and that as these
systems reach the two- and three-
year level, the relative difference
between voluntary and mandatory
programs will probably diminish
(Sample Refuse Disposal and Col-
lection Ordinance Including the
Mandatory Consideration, Appen-
dix H).
*SCS Engineers, Source separate
collection of recyclable waste.
Pilot vs. Full-Scale
Programs
Most programs begin with a pilot
area and expand later. This pro-
cedure allows the city to adjust
gradually to the new system,
and to experiment with methods
which might reduce costs and mini-
mize risk. It also allows time for
the market to adjust to the new
source of supply.
The duration of a pilot program
should be no less than six months.
Because waste in our society has
been so long ignored, the handling
of it is largely a mindless function.
Time is needed to change the habits
of citizens, and to acquire their
cooperation in any new program.
A 1- or 2-month program will
demonstrate little on full-scale
economics, because as time passes
participation increases, with re-
sultant increases in tonnage and
revenues. An analysis of 10 cities
at various points in time show a rise
in participation rates for at least a
15
-------
year (Figure 10). Participation may
continue to rise after that if a strong
publicity and awareness program is
maintained.
CONCLUSIONS
Recovery of secondary materials
through source separation and
municipal collection on a regular
basis is a new phenomenon, having
been practiced only in isolated
instances until 1970. Since that
time, it has grown rapidly as a
means of recovering paper — pri-
marily newsprint — from municipal
waste.
Separate collection requires care-
ful planning and administration on
the part of the city as well as the
cooperation of citizens. Special
efforts must be made to educate
and inform residents as to the goals
and procedures of the program.
The public information aspects of
the program cannot be overempha-
sized. A system which is properly
sustained through a continuing
public education program will
attain a growing rate of participa-
tion, while placing few demands
on citizens. To date, participation
in existing programs - when pro-
perly organized, implemented, and
sustained - has been encouraging.
The characteristics and require-
ments for separate collection of
paper have been determined and
data have been gathered on costs.
Some of the data, however, are at
somewhat less precise levels than
data on other collection methods
which have been utilized for many
years. It is difficult to generalize
about costs, because of variations
from city to city. This is partly
due to the fact that separate col-
lection is usually implemented to
fit in with the collection system
that exists. However, the data indi-
cate that even for relatively new
systems, separate paper collection
can - depending on markets - be
accomplished with little or no in-
§
a
o
j_
^
c
0)
o
CD
Q_
IUU
90
80
70
60
50
40
?n
ou
20
10
n
-
—
(Great Neck)
ON
D N (West
.X
x^
.s
X^DN
(Bowie)
^r
Hartford)
ON (Briarcliff
(Marblehead) D N (Hempstead)
DP ^
^^^
OPlFt. Worth)
^XON (Dallas)
- ON^I Green Bay)
DP (Villa Park)
I I I I I I I
Vlanor)
Legend
0
Voluntary
D Mandatory
N
P
|
Program
Program
Newspaper
Mixed Paper
1 1
1
8 12 16
20 24 28
(months)
Program Duration
32 36 40 44 48
Figure 10. Participation vs. program duration for separate collection.
Source: SCS Engineers, Source separate collection of recyclable waste.
crease in costs to the city and
possibly even with a net savings.
This has been the case with rela-
tively new systems, for which citi-
zen participation and efficient
routing have not been achieved.
The economics of the program
depend upon a variety of factors.
Costs can be reduced by: (1) ef-
fecting a good public awareness
campaign to increase the partici-
pation rate; (2) obtaining an as-
sured market through competitive
bidding procedures and/or con-
tracts; (3) utilizing existing equip-
ment and manpower as much as
possible; (4) instituting and en-
forcing an "anti-scavenging" or-
dinance.
On the basis of these para-
meters and the experiences of
existing programs, it seems rea-
sonable to assert that a revenue of
$15 per ton (the floor price), F.O.B.
a nearby transfer point, should be
able to cover the costs of a news-
paper recovery collection program
in many instances. This presumes
that the newspapers are delivered
to market in a form and to a
specification agreed upon.
Source separation and collec-
tion of newspapers help to conserve
a resource with significant economic
value. At the same time, it effec-
tively reduces solid waste quantities,
which in turn, extends the life of
landfills and incinerators.
The U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency recommends that
separate collection of paper be
investigated and that implementa-
tion be given serious consideration
by any city in which markets are
found to exist.
16
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE BID SPECIFICATIONS
COUNTY
STATE OF.
DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION
NOTICE
The Purchasing Agent of County, , will
receive proposals in his office, Room , Bldg. , until ,
19 , a.m./p.m. Prevailing Time:
PURCHASE OF WASTE NEWSPAPERS SEPARATELY COLLECTED
UNDER CONTRACT FROM COUNTY
Plans, specifications, and standards for this work, as well as proposal forms may be obtained
in the office of the Purchasing Agent, (address) .
The description which follows is only a summary of the specifications.
The County specifies that the contractor shall guarantee for the period specified in the
contract to purchase on a daily basis, at the price as determined in the contract, all waste news-
papers collected under any contract from County which are
delivered to a mutually agreed upon site(s) located within the legal limits of
County.
The exact quantity of newspapers to be sold under this contract is unknown, but is esti-
mated for information purposes only to be about (No. of) tons per month.
The newspapers shall be delivered to the receiving site in an "as picked up" condition; no pro-
cessing of newspapers will be done by County or its collection contrac-
tors. All processing, transportation or service charges incurred after delivery of the newspapers
to the receiving site shall be the obligation of the newspaper purchaser.
The price per ton (ton equals 2,000 pounds) for purchase shall be the highest marked value
as determined by the "Paper Stock Prices Per Ton" for "No. 1 News" in the Market Area of the
City of as printed in the Official Board Markets ("The Yellow Sheet")
less a fixed charge to the object of this bid. The purchaser guarantees to purchase all accumu-
lated and delivered waste newspapers at a minimum price of $ per ton.
The term of the contract shall be for year(s), commencing , 19 —
and be renewable for year(s).
The County reserves the right to reject any and all bids.
Envelope to be clearly marked "Sealed Bid on Newspaper Purchase" in the lower left hand
corner.
Signed
Purchasing Agent
. County
17
-------
COUNTY
STATE OF
DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PURCHASE OF WASTE NEWSPAPERS
COLLECTED UNDER CONTRACT FROM COUNTY
STATE OF
The following specifications cover the proposed price agreement for purchase of waste news-
papers collected under contract from County, (State).
1. Guaranteed Purchase of Waste Newspapers: Not withstanding any reason, including but not
limited to work stoppages, the contractor shall guarantee for the period specified in the con-
tract to purchase on a daily basis (weekdays only, including holidays except for Christmas
Day and New Year's Day) at the price as determined in the contract all waste newspapers
collected under any contract from County which are delivered to a
receiving site mutually agreed upon by the purchaser and County at hours mutually agreed
upon by the purchaser and County. The receiving site shall be located in .
County (unless another place is specifically agreed to by purchaser and the County).
2. Quantity and Condition of Newspapers: The exact quantity of newspapers to be sold under
this contract is unknown. For its own purposes, County has esti-
mated that the quantity may be about tons per month. This estimate is furnished
for information only and in no way is given as a minimum, maximum, or average amount of
newspapers to be sold. The newspapers shall be delivered on the same day as they are col-
lected to the receiving site in an "as picked up" condition; no processing, bundling, or baling
will be done by County or its collection contractors and no adjustment in
price shall be allowed for the moisture content of the wastepaper due to inclement weather
conditions. All processing, bundling, baling, transportation or service charges incurred upon
or after delivery of the newspaper to the receiving site shall be the obligation of the news-
paper purchaser.
3. Verification of Waste Newspaper Weight: The purchaser shall deliver a certified weighing
slip to the County or its agent at the time of delivery at the receiving site and such weighing
slip may be verified by the County. The County reserves the right to challenge the weight
as determined at the receiving site and to verify same at weighing scales located at a County
weighing station. In case of discrepancy between weights determined at the receiving site
and County weighing station, the weight determined at the County station shall be used to
determine the price for said waste newspaper.
18
-------
4. Form for Bid: The price per ton (ton equals 2,000 pounds) for purchase shall be the market
value, or if a range of market values exists, the highest market value within the range, as
determined by the "Paper Stock Prices Per Ton" for "No. 1 News" in the Market Area of
as printed in the Official Board Markets ("The Yellow
Sheet") (published by Magazines for Industry, Inc.) less a fixed charge to be the object of
this bid. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary here before set forth, the purchaser
guarantees to purchase all accumulated and delivered waste newspapers at a minimum
price of $ per ton.
5. Term of Contract: The term of the contract shall be for year(s), commencing
, 19 ; the County shall have the option of extending the
contract for an additional year(s) period under the same terms and conditions.
The County shall give thirty (30) days notice prior to the expiration date of its exercise
of the option.
6. Compliance with Laws and Regulations: The contractor shall be responsible for the con-
duct of his employees in this service. All laws, Ordinances and Regulations pertaining to the
collection, transportation, and disposal of refuse shall be observed.
7. Payment: The contractor shall pay to County on a bi-weekly basis the
amount due for waste newspapers received at the receiving site. Payment shall be due and
payable within ten (10) calendar days from the date of receipt of the last waste newspapers
delivered during the bi-weekly period.
8. I'orin of Contract: The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract which
contains additional terms and conditions to carry out the foregoing.
This agreement shall be contingent on satisfactory performance.
19
-------
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE
LETTER OF INTENT TO BID FOR THE PURCHASE OF RECOVERED WASTEPAPERS*
WHEREAS, the Corporation (hereinafter called the
CORPORATION) endorses resource recovery from municipal solid waste as a means toward a
cleaner environment and preservation of natural resources, and
WHEREAS, the Jurisdiction(s) (hereinafter called the JURISDICTION)
is working toward establishment of a source separation of wastepaper program from municipal
solid waste,
THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed between the CORPORATION and the JURISDICTION to
work together as follows:
(1) The JURISDICTION is planning for the separate collection of tons per week
or more of source separated papers in a form usable and
acceptable to the CORPORATION according to the specification attached to this Agree-
ment and made part hereof.
(2) The CORPORATION will communicate to the JURISDICTION that information
about its use technology and business practices which the CORPORATION at its sole discre-
tion shall consider necessary so as to assure receipt of the recovered material in form and
cleanliness necessary for use by the CORPORATION. Such communication shall be on a
non-confidential basis, unless otherwise subject to a subsequent confidentiality agreement.
(3) The Specification for acceptance of the recovered product shall be as Attachment 1
and made part of this Agreement by reference.
(4) The CORPORATION, as an expression of its support of the wastepaper recovery
program, agrees to respond to a request for bid for the sale of all recovered pro-
duct resulting from the implementation of a separate collection program for an average of
tons per week by the JURISDICTION and delivered in accord with the above
specifications and according to "Additional Conditions" of the CORPORATION'S which
may subsequently be made part of this Agreement by reference as long as agreed upon by
both parties and according to the following points:
(a) the purchase order will be open for five (5) years.
(b) the CORPORATION has the right to reject any material delivered which does not
meet specifications, at the expense of the JURISDICTION.
(c) the monthly price paid shall be determined according to the listed prices for
(recovered wastepaper) as published in the last issue of the preceding month in (publica-
tion), using the mid-range (or high-side or low-side) of the quotation less $ (to be sub-
mitted at the time of bid) per ton, or $ (specified) per ton floor price, whichever is
greater, for the duration of the contract, f.o.b. location(s) within the JURISDICTION;
or
(c) the monthly price paid shall be determined according to the listed price for
(recovered wastepaper) as published in the last issue of the preceding month in (publica-
tion), using the mid-range (or high-side or low-side) of the quotation times (to be sub-
mitted at time of bid) percent or $ (specified) per ton floor price, whichever is greater,
for the duration of the contract, f.o.b. location(s) within the JURISDICTION.
(d) the bid will be subject to force majeur.
* Source: National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc., Washington, D.C.
20
-------
(5) For the wastepaper recovery program now being planned for the JURISDICTION,
this public body may be required to advertise for purchase of any recovered materials.
Should such public bids be advertised, this LETTER of INTENT may be entered as a re-
sponsive bid. This is not to preclude award to highest offer for purchase of the recovered
material which meets all other requirements of the request for bids.
(6) The JURISDICTION and the CORPORATION mutually agree to continue communi-
cation between this date, and the date of implementation of the wastepaper recovery pro-
gram. Implementation is now estimated at one year hence.
(7) This Agreement is contingent upon the JURISDICTION or other designated public
body proceeding with plans for implementation leading to procurement and construction
prior to (specified date), a mutually extendable date.
Witnessed by: JURISDICTION
By.
Witnessed by: CORPORATION
By.
ATTACHMENT TO APPENDIX B
Sample Specifications for Recovered Newspapers
1. Consists of old newspapers, including the normal percentage of rotogravure and
colored sections; collected and handled separately from regularly collected muni-
cipal solid waste; packed loose as received.
Source: Garden State Paper Company.
2. Consists of folded newspapers, including the normal percentage of rotogravure
and colored sections; packed in bales of standard dimensions, not less than 54
inches long, approximately 1000-1500 Ibs. per bale; Moisture: packed air dry;
Prohibitive materials: less than .5%; Outthrows: less than 2%; Water solubles:
less than 2% of the acceptable paper; Organic solubles: less than 2% of the paper.
Source: American Paper Institute.
21
-------
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE CONTRACT TO SELL USED PAPERS*
This Agreement entered into this day of 1974, by and between
WASTE PAPERS, INCORPORATED, a Corporation, with business
offices at , party of the first part, here-
inafter referred to as "Contractor," and THE COUNTY BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, a body corporate, party of the second part, hereinafter referred to as "County."
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, and
Ten Dollars ($10.00) in hand paid, each to the other, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Contractor agrees to purchase on a daily basis all waste newspapers collected on be-
half of Arlington County, Virginia, either by County or its collection agents, and delivered
daily to a mutually agreed upon receiving site located in Arlington County, Virginia; Alex-
andria, Virginia; or Washington, D.C.
2. Contractor agrees to accept delivery of all waste newspapers at its receiving site daily
(Monday through Saturday, including all holidays except Christmas and New Year's Day)
between the hours of A.M. through P.M.
3. It is mutually understood and agreed that County is not restricted as to either the mini-
mum or maximum quantity of waste newspapers to be delivered to Contractor and that no
adjustment shall be made on account of the moisture content of the waste newspapers due
to inclement weather conditions.
4. It is mutually understood and agreed that waste newspapers shall be delivered to the
receiving site in an "as picked up" condition and that no processing, bundling or baling of
newspapers will be done by County or its collection agents; but that all processing,
bundling, baling, transportation or service charges incurred after delivery of the waste news-
papers to the receiving site shall be at the expense of Contractor.
5. Contractor shall deliver a certified weighing slip to the County or its agent at the
time of delivery at the receiving site and such weighing slip may be verified by the County.
The County reserves the right to challenge the weight as determined at the receiving site and
to verify same at weighing scales located at the County Transfer Station. In case of dis-
crepancy between weights determined at the receiving site and County Transfer Station, the
weight determined at the County Transfer Station shall be used to determine the price for
said waste newspapers.
6. Contractor shall pay to County on bi-weekly basis the amount due for waste news-
papers delivered to its receiving site. Payment shall be due and payable within ten (10)
calendar days from the date of receipt of the last waste newspapers delivered during a bi-
weekly period. Such payment shall be accompanied by an itemized list of daily receipts.
7. It is mutually understood and agreed that the price per ton (2,000 pounds) to be paid
by Contractor to County shall be computed on the following basis:
The price per ton (2,000 pounds) of waste newspapers delivered during a calendar
week (Sunday through Saturday) shall be determined by reference to Official Board Mar-
kets ("The Yellow Sheet") published by Magazines for Industry, Inc. and shall be the
highest market value quoted in "Paper Stock Prices Per Ton" for "No. 1 News" in the
market area of "Philadelphia" less a fixed charge often dollars and fifty cents (110.50).
*Source: Arlington County, Virginia
22
-------
The issue of Official Board Markets to be used in determining the price per ton to be paid
by Contractor shall be the first publication date within each week. However, if no issue of
Official Board Markets is published during the week, the last issue thereof published the
preceding calendar week shall be used in determining the market value for the said week.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary heretofore set forth, Contractor guarantees
to purchase all accumulated and delivered waste newspapers at a minimum price of $10.00
per ton.
8. The initial term of this Contract shall be for a one-year period beginning
and County shall have the option of renewing the Contract for one
(1) additional year under the same terms and conditions by giving a 30-day notice prior to
the expiration date hereof.
9. Contractor shall not assign this Contract or any interest therein without the prior
written consent of the County thereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
, has executed this Agreement on behalf of the County
Board of Arlington County, Virginia, a body corporate, pursuant to a resolution of said Board,
duly adopted on ; and Waste Papers, Incorporated
has caused this Agreement to be executed in its corporate name by its
and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed, duly attested by its ;
said officers being thereunto duly authorized all as of the day, month and year first hereinabove
written.
ATTEST: WASTE PAPERS, INCORPORATED
By.
ATTEST: THE COUNTY BOARD OF ARLINGTON
COUNTY, VIRGINIA
By.
23
-------
APPENDIX D
SAMPLE OF SEPARATE COLLECTION ORDINANCE
INCLUDING AN ANTI SCAVENGING PROVISION*
SEPARATION, BUNDLING, BAGGING AND
PICK-UP OF NEWSPAPERS FOR RECYCLING
Section 3-A. After adequate notice has been published, posted, and publicized for a gar-
bage and refuse district or for a particular collection area, it shall be mandatory for persons who
are owners, lessees, or occupants of residential dwellings in the Town to separately bundle news-
papers for collection and recycling.
Said newspaper shall be placed in kraft bags or tied securely with rope or cord in packages
not exceeding fifty (50) pounds, and said packages shall be placed separately at the curb for col-
lection on days specified by the Commissioner of Public Works under the rules and regulations
prescribed.
After said newspaper bundles are placed in the vicinity of the curb for pickup collection
and recycling, it shall be unlawful and an offense against this Ordinance for any person, firm,
or corporation other than the owner, lessee, or occupant of a residential dwelling, or licensed
cartman for that area or district to pick up said newspaper for his own use.
*Source: Town of North Hempstead, New York, Effective September 1, 1971.
24
-------
APPENDIX E
SAMPLE REFUSE DISPOSAL AND COLLECTION ORDINANCE*
Definitions
A. GARBAGE shall mean all animal, fish, fowl, fruit or vegetable waste incident to and result-
ing from the use, preparation and storage of food.
B. REFUSE shall mean all waste or rubbish of any kind, including garbage, either combustible
or noncombustible in nature, having little or no value except as waste or rubbish, or as may
be determined through a recycling process.
C. NEWSPRINT shall mean a common and inexpensive machine-finished paper made chiefly
from wood pulp and used mostly for newspapers.
Refuse Preparation, Disposal and Collection
A. Preparation of Refuse for Disposal
1. Garbage. All garbage before being placed in a container for collection, shall be thor-
oughly drained and well wrapped. The burning of garbage shall be prohibited unless such
burning takes place in an auxiliary fired gas or electric incinerator approved by the Building
Inspector.
2. Miscellaneous Refuse. All unwrapped refuse shall be cleaned of garbage before placing
same in refuse containers.
3. Newsprint. Newsprint shall be separated from all other refuse and shall be collected
separately. It shall be tied in bundles or contained loosely in regular covered containers not
exceeding 32 gallons in capacity and placed next to the curb or adjacent to the alley in such
a manner that it will not be blown or scattered or become frozen to the ground. When so
placed, it shall be presumed that all such newsprint is left for collection by Village crews and
shall be considered property of the Village.
4. Miscellaneous Combustible Refuse. Combustible refuse, excluding newsprint, which
cannot be placed in a container, must be tied in bundles or placed in such a manner that it
will not be blown or scattered about or become frozen to the ground. Such bundled or con-
tained refuse shall be placed next to the regular collection containers convenient to Village
crews, in such a manner as to avoid being a nuisance to the neighbors or the area.
B. Collection of Refuse
1. The owner or occupant or every dwelling or place of business where refuse is accumu-
lated shall be required to provide metal or heavy duty plastic containers or containers ap-
proved by the Commissioner of Public Works or his designee, equipped with tight fitting
covers. Except as otherwise provided herein, all refuse shall be placed in said containers and
may be combined therein. A sufficient number of containers shall be provided to hold all
refuse accumulated between regular weekly collection periods.
*Source: Village of Shorewood, Wisconsin, January 1974.
25
-------
2. Except as otherwise provided herein, all refuse containers shall be placed outside of the
dwelling or building and near the alley or to the rear of a driveway convenient to the collec-
tors, in such a location so as not to be a nuisance to the neighbors or create a nuisance to
the area.
3. Refuse containers shall be of a size not to exceed 32 gallons capacity. A single con-
tainer when filled shall not weigh more than 60 pounds.
4. Covered containers for special newsprint collection will be designated by a daub of red
paint on the cover or by a red cloth attached to the cover handle. Containers shall be
replaced when leaking or in any way defective. Containers must be kept covered at all times.
5. There shall be no regular basement or in-building refuse collection. Basement or in-
building refuse collection, when requested, shall be provided, but shall be subject to a
monthly charge of $4.00; this monthly charge shall only cover the first 20 minutes each
week of collection time required for each property serviced; for any additional time required,
each week, to make such collection for each property serviced, additional charges shall be
imposed as enumerated under Section D 3 hereof. The conditions and provisions of Subsections
D 4 and 5 hereof shall be applicable to this Subsection, and shall govern herein.
C. Newsprint Collected Separately
Newsprint, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-602.-3 hereof and as herein set
forth, shall be collected separately beginning on the first working day of each month or on a
schedule established by the Commissioner of Public Works.
1. Containers used for regular weekly refuse collection which hold clean newsprint will
not be serviced until the clean newsprint has been removed therefrom unless the newsprint
therein has been used to wrap other refuse or is soiled. A red tag shall be affixed by Village
crews to such containers holding clean newsprint and other refuse, which tag shall note the
violation of the regulation requiring separation of newsprint from other refuse.
2. In addition, the Village shall provide containers for newsprint collection to be located
in various designated areas in the Village which shall be determined by the Commissioner of
Public Works. Residents may bring their newsprint to such designated areas at any time and
place it in the containers so provided.
3. Further, the Village will assist charitable fund raising organizations located within the
Village in their paper collection drives by servicing Village approved large commercial type
refuse containers suitable for mechanical dumping into Village packer trucks when located
in agreed upon areas in the Village. The revenue from said paper collected, less handling
charges assessed by the Village, will be returned to said fund raising organization.
Commissioner Authorized to Make Additional Rules and Regulations
The Commissioner of Public Works is hereby authorized to make additional reasonable rules
and regulations for the administration of the refuse collection services of all types performed in
the Village, provided no such regulations and rules contravene the specific provisions of this
article and are in no way inconsistent with the established policies of the Village Board.
26
-------
-------
U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\
ih\i
A
------- |