-------
                                        TABLE 35

                           MAXIMUM SCRAP CONSUMPTION POSSIBLE
                        IN STEEL FURNACES IN 1967,  IN 1,000 TONS*
Type of
furnace
Open hearth
Bessemer
BOF
Electric
Total
Metallic
inputs
82,413
242
49,578
19,150
151,483
Maximum tech-
nically feasible Maximum Actual
scrap consumption scrap scrap
in % of metallic consumption consumption
inputs
70 - 80
20
50 - 60
98
67 - 76
in year in year
57,689 -
48 -
24,789 -
18,767 -
101,293 -
65,930
48
29,747
18,767
114,492 62,962
*From Table 31 and Iron and steel  scrap consumption problems,  p.
                                        58-13

-------
                                  TABLE 36

                         SOURCES OF OBSOLETE SCRAP,
                                    1959*
Scrap source
Railroads
Auto wreckers
Demolition projects
Farms
Shipwrecking
% of total obsolete scrap
14.7
13.1
6.8
5.2
4.2
     Public utilities                                  2.1

     Government agencies                               1.6

     Miscellaneous—oil fields,
       refineries, mines, incinerators,
       dumps, housing repair and main-
       tenance, general collection                    52.5

       Total                                         100.0
*McGannon, The making, shaping, and treating of steel,  p.  224.
                                 58-1A

-------
                                TABLE 37

                      SCRAP CONSUMPTION IN 1967 BY
                             GRADE GROUPINGS*
Grade
Low phosphorous plate and
punchings
Cut structural plate
Steel car wheels
No. 1 heavy melting
No. 1 and electric furnace
"bundles
No. 2 and all other bundles
Turnings and "borings
Slag scrap (ferrous content)
All other carbon steel scrap
Alloy steel, excluding stainless
Stainless steel
Cast iron "borings
All other cast iron scrap
Total
Consumption
in 1,000 tons
4,051
1,212
179
28,049
7,213
5,354
2,914
2,940
14,659
3,004
863
1,595
13,320
85,361
%
of total
4.75
1.44
0.21
32.86
8.45
6.27
3.41
3.44
17.17
3.52
1.01
1.87
15.60
100.00
*Minerals yearbook 1967,  p.  631.
                                58-15

-------
                         TABLE 38

 QUANTITY OF TIN IN FERROUS METALS  IF ALL STEEL CANS ARE
   RECYCLED, IN TONS AND PERCENT OVERTIME, 1967 BASIS*
Year
Start
Year 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Tons of tin in
ferrous metals

27,032
37,885
42,248
43,998
44,705
44, 988
45,099
45,145
45,152
45,164
45,174
45,178
46,022
48,086
49,939
51,084
51, 725
52,049
52,195
52,271
52,299
52,309
52,338
52,339
52,349
52,353
Tin as $ of total
ferrous metals

0.0158
0.0221
0.0246
0.0257
0.0261
0.0262
0.0263
0.0263
0.0263
0.0264
0.0264
0.0264
0.0269
0.0281
0.0291
0.0298
0.0302
0.0304
0.0305
0.0305
0.0305
0.0305
0.0305
0.0305
0.0305
0.0305
*  From Midwest Research  Institute calculations.
                       58-16

-------
                                   TABLE 39


                PRICES OF WO GRADES OF SCRAP, ANNUAL AVERAGES,
                     1949 to 1968, IN DOLLARS PER NET TON*
                                                            No. 1 heavy
Year	No. 2 "bundles	      ffielting steel
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
20.99
26.18
37.83
38.25
30.73
19.89
27.99
38.27
33.60
25.57
24.91
19.78
22.07
18.25
17.73
20.26
20.39
19.47
18.24
17.96
25.55
31.56
38.52
37.41
35.63
25.66
35.50
47.73
42.06
33.76
33.66
29.42
32.40
25.21
24.21
30.07
30.67
27.57
24.66
23.08
   * Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel.  1969 Yearbook.   30th ed.  Washington,
1969<>  Based on composite price at Chicago, Pittsburgh,  and Philadelphia,  as
compiled by American Metal Market.  Conversion to dollars per net ton by
Midwest Research Institute.
                                   58-17

-------
                                                                                                      59
CHAPTER VI
                                NONFERROUS  METALS
              Overview  Discussion
   A convenient classification  of  nonferrous metals is
into: (I) common nonferrous metals,  aluminum, copper,
zinc, and lead; (2) exotic metals, nickel, cobalt, chromium,
titanium, zirconium, molybdenum, tungsten, columbium,
tantalum, and beryllium;  and (3) precious metals, gold,
silver,  platinum,   palladium,  rhodium,  and  iridium.
Magnesium and tin  might  be considered  as common
nonferrous  metals; however,  these  substances  were
consumed in  very  small quantities, around 90,000 tons
yearly versus a million or more for the others.
   Our  discussion  will  be restricted to the four major
common  nonferrous  metals,  with  special emphasis on
aluminum, which is consumed in greatest quantity overall
and is also the dominant nonferrous metal in waste.
   Common  nonferrous  metals  consumed  in   1967
weighed 9.8  million tons. In contrast to steel selling for
$130 per ton  and pig iron selling for $56 per ton, these
metals are expensive. Their values range from $277 per
ton for zinc to $764 for copper; the composite value of
these metals in 1967 was $517 per ton.  Scrap consumption
rates, measured as a percent of total consumption, range
from a high of 49.7 percent for copper to a low of 12.6
percent for zinc; the composite rate for all four metals in
1967 was 30.8 percent;  the rates shown above exclude
home scrap (Table 40). The comparable recycling rate for
iron and steel  was only slightly higher — 31.2 percent.61
   Although  the value of  these  metals is  high, they
appear  in  small quantities, often in combination with
other metals,  and require  considerable processing. Thus,
the basic observations that apply to other materials also
apply to nonferrous  metals;  namely, that scrap, to be
recoverable,  must  appear in  fairly clean form  and in
fairly large quantities before it can be recycled. The basic
difference between nonferrous metals and other  re-
coverable commodities is that their high value permits
relatively  more   processing and  the  acquisition  of
relatively small quantities.
   Nonferrous metals are about 0.6 percent of municipal
wastes,  or approximately  1.2  million  tons  of  the  194
million tons total collected in 1968.

              Aluminum Recycling
   The only  nonferrous metal that occurs in significant
quantities  in  municipal waste is aluminum,  principally
because this metal has become an important container
and packaging material, used in cans, foils, trays, and the
like.  Aluminum appears to be about  0.35  percent of
municipal  waste, or an estimated 678,000 tons in 1968; all
other nonferrous metals are about O.I percent, or about
194,000 tons  in 1968. This would indicate that roughly 14
percent of aluminum consumed but only 4 percent of all
other major nonferrous metals consumed enter municipal
wastes.
   Industry Characteristics.  The aluminum industry is
made up of  (I) integrated  primary aluminum producers
and  fabricators  who  convert bauxite  into  fabricated
aluminum  products/ (2) nonintegrated aluminum prod-
ucers who rely on scrap and  primary and  secondary
aluminum  ingot purchased on the open market, and (3)
secondary smelters who convert  scrap aluminum into
secondary ingot.
   The chief  consumers of scrap in 1969 were secondary
smelters (67  percent), followed by integrated producers
(19 percent)  and nonintegrated producers (14 percent).
Integrated producers generally obtain the  scrap they
consume  from  internal  source and  customer  scrap;
smelters and  nonintegrated producers buy scrap. Nearly
61  In 1967 , steel consumption was 105.9 million tons; obsolete and prompt scrap consumption excluding exports was
33.1 million tons.

-------
60
                             SALVAGE MARKETS
90 percent of secondary ingot produced by secondary
smelters is consumed by nonintegrated foundries. Thus,
there is considerable circular activity in scrap recycling.
   The aluminum industry resembles iron  and steel in
structure. Secondary  smelters  are analogous to electric
furnace operators; integrated producers to steel  prod-
ucers  with  blast furnace capacity; and nonintegrated
producers to the iron and steel foundries.
   Scrap Use Patterns. Aluminum scrap is obtained (1)
from internal primary aluminum production processes, (2)
from fabrication and conversion and (3) from obsolete
products. In 1967, an estimated 882,795 tons of purchased
aluminum scrap were consumed by the industry; about 60
percent of this tonnage passed through dealer hands on
its way back to furnaces. New scrap accounted  for
711,399 tons,  or 80.6 percent of the total; sweated pig was
63,604 tons,  or 7.2 percent of the total (Table 41, Figure
20).62 In 1967, independent foundries consumed 617,145
tons,  or  70  percent;   primary  aluminum producers
consumed  122,987 tons,  or 14  percent; and fabricators,
foundries, and chemical plants consumed 142,663 tons,
or 16 percent.63
   "New" scrap  comes in  three forms: borings and
turnings that occur in machining operations; clippings,
forgings, and other solids; and residues such  as dross,
skimmings,   and  slag   produced  in  various  melting
operations.
   "Old" scrap is obtained from junked airplanes, scrap
aluminum foil, dismantled automobiles, scrapped power
cables,  aluminum  cans,  and  discarded  household
products.
   Sweated  pig  is a  special  category, usually included
with old scrap. This is aluminum removed from iron and
steel by heating mixed scrap in sweating ovens until the
aluminum melts and runs out.
   In the 1950 to 1969 period, consumption of secondary
aluminum  grew at an annual rate  of 8.2 percent, and
production  of primary  aluminum at 9.2 percent. In the
last decade, secondary aluminum  has  begun to grow
faster than primary, at 10.0 percent a year in the I960 to
1969 period versus 7.3 percent for primary aluminum.
   Since  most secondary aluminum goes into castings,
the rapid growth of secondary aluminum is explained by
the growth of aluminum castings in the I960 to  1969
period at a rate of 9.2 percent yearly.
   Recovery  Economics. Unlike the situation in the
steel industry, where scrap and pig iron do not compete
on an equal basis for various reasons, scrap aluminum in
the form  of  secondary  ingot competes directly  with
primary  ingot in the nonintegrated segment of the
industry.  Secondary  ingot  is generally  cheaper than
primary.  For  example,   a  common  alloy,  No.  380,
produced from scrap has sold for an average of $63 per
ton lower than the same alloy produced from primary
aluminum in the  I960 to  1968 period. The price  of the
secondary alloy  was an  average of $470; that  of the
primary  alloy, $533 per ton in the  period.  Primary
aluminum, however,  is preferred  in  all cases  where a
high level of purity is required.64
   Economics favor secondary aluminum because the
production of primary   aluminum  requires  high  in-
vestments — $700 to $800 per ton of annual capacity —
and  the  process  requires electric power of 15,000  to
16,000 kilowatt hours per ton of aluminum.65 For this
reason, primary producers tend to locate near sources of
low-cost electricity. Power costs are usually low in areas
remote from  industrial centers, and  therefore primary
aluminum producers  have high  freight  costs, ranging
from $5 to $30 per ton.  Primary aluminum  production
costs, including freight to fabricators, range from $306 to
$470 per ton.
   Secondary smelters can  install capacity for $100  to
$120 per ton and  can locate  near scrap sources that are
also end-use consumption points. This saves freight costs.
Operating costs  are also lower  because the  principal
operation  is   scrap  melting  instead  of  electrolytic
reduction of alumina to aluminum. Expanding aluminum
castings markets,  favorable  secondary aluminum smelt-
ing economics, and ever more abundant scrap resources
have  contributed  to  a steady expansion of secondary
smelting — from 25 plants in 1941 to more than 90  at
present. Secondary smelter total production costs range
from $375 to $450 per ton.
   Secondary   Aluminum   Operations.  Scrap
aluminum is obtained and processed by nonferrous metal
dealers  and  constitutes  around  22  percent  of such
62 The 1967 data are based on coverage of about 84 percent of the industry; total scrap consumption for the industry is
estimated by the Bureau of Mines at 1,050,000 tons in 1967 and 1,229,000 tons in 1969.
63 See Table 41 for data sources.
64 Farin, P., and G.G. Reibsamen. Aluminum, profile of an industry. New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1969. p.35,41.
65 Farin, and Reibsamen, Aluminum profile, p.52.

-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                                61
dealers' throughput tonnage. The average scrap prep-
aration  cost is $44.40 per ton.66 Dealers pay anywhere
between $155 per ton (for aluminum borings) to $290 per
ton (clippings) for the metal to generators and collectors,
and they sell the metal to smelters on a delivered basis
for $280 per ton (borings) to $355 per ton (single alloy
clippings).67
   Processing of the aluminum scrap depends on the type
of scrap. New clippings need only be sorted to remove
nonaluminum materials.  Borings and turnings  must  be
shredded  and dried — the  presence of moisture can
cause explosion  hazards  in melting. Residues are milled
and nonmetallics  and oxides  are screened out. Old
castings and aluminum sheet are crushed and shredded,
passed through magnetic separators to remove iron, and
screened to remove  pulverized nonmetallics. Aluminum
occurring  in  combination  with iron  is separated  by
sweating. Obsolete aluminum cans must be handled like
borings  and turnings and must pass through magnetic
separation units following shredding.
   Aluminum  Can  Reclamation. The  largest non-
ferrous  metal component  in solid waste is made up of
aluminum  cans, foils, trays, and the like. Shipments of
aluminum   containers and packaging  in  1969  were
596,500 tons, with  metal and composite cans accounting
for 333,000 tons.68
   Aluminum container and packaging shipments grew
at a rate of 15.7  percent a year in the I960 to 1969 period
(16.3 percent in 1969 alone); waste generation is growing
at a rate of around 4 to 6 percent a year.6' Thus, the
proportion  of aluminum  in waste is on the increase. This
fact, plus the high  value of aluminum and the "visibility"
of aluminum cans in litter, has led to efforts on the part of
aluminum   producers and can users to  explore  the
possibility of obsolete aluminum  can and sheet recycling.
   The most prominent company  in obsolete aluminum
can  recycling has  been  Reynolds  Aluminum;  more
recently, Coors Brewing Company, Kaiser Aluminum, and
Alcoa have become involved.
   Reynolds had collected aluminum oil cans from filling
stations as far  back as  1958, a  program  that  was
discontinued  as fiber-based oil  cans  captured  this
market. Since the early I960's, the company has agreed to
buy back farm roofing and siding materials from buyers
for $200 per ton when these  materials become obsolete.
In  1967, the company launched an experimental can
reclamation program in Miami, Florida, in which a chain
of gasoline stations  acted  as  collection centers.  The
stations gave  coupons worth one-half  cent for each
aluminum  can  brought in; the coupon was redeemable
for oil or gas purchases. Next the company expanded the
program  to include  collection  points  at  a chain  of
grocery stores  in unattended Dempster Dumpsters; the
proceeds went to a local children's hospital.
   A third collection system was tried later that involved
Goodwill Industries. The public was asked to deposit cans
in  Goodwill collection boxes in various shopping centers.
Goodwill was paid a fee for collecting and shredding the
cans.  Total collections ran  about I ton per month, an
insignificant portion of the  aluminum cans occurring in
Miami. At  such  a  low volume, the costs of  collecting
relatively small quantities of aluminum were high relative
to the proceeds.70
   A  second experiment was begun in Los Angeles  in
1969. This  time, a single reclamation center was  set up,
and individuals and organizations were invited to bring
in  aluminum cans and other  aluminum scrap for a cash
payment  of $200  per ton  (10  cents  per pound).  The
operation  was calculated to  break even if 32  tons were
received monthly; this point was reached in October 1969
and  has  been  maintained since (see Chapter XI, Los
Angeles case study, for details).
   The success of the Los Angeles program  has led to a
decision by Reynolds to continue the  program  per-
manently and to expand it to other cities and states. By
mid-1970, the company had operations modeled  on the
Los Angeles center  in Miami,  Tampa,  and Houston.
Centers in  New York, San Francisco, and an unspecified
66 Industrial profile and cost factors in nonferrous scrap processing. New York, National Association of Secondary
Material Industries, Inc., [1969]. p.3,14.
67 Prices based on July 1969 quotations.
68 Aluminum statistical review, 1969.'New York, The Aluminum Association, 1970. 64 p.
69 Vaughan, R.D. National solid wastes survey; report summary and interpretation. In The national solid wastes survey;
an interim report. [Cincinnati], U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, [1968]. p.47-53.
70 Testin, R. F.  Recycling of used aluminum products. In Proceedings; Third Annual North Eastern Regional Antipollution
Conference, Reuse  and Recycle  of Wastes, University of Rhode Island, July 21-23, 1970. Stamford, Conn., Technomic
Publishing Co., Inc.  1971. p.7-9.

-------
62
                             SALVAGE MARKETS
location  in  the Pacific Northwest were planned.  In
addition, Coors beer distributors in 10 western states were
being organized to serve as collection points (as opposed
to processing points). Cans collected at these points are
sent to Golden, Colorado, to be processed on equipment
supplied  by Reynolds  except  in the Los Angeles area
where the Coors distributors are satellites of the Reynolds
processing center there. Reynolds officials expected that
can reclamation centers would be established in 16 states
by  the  end  of 1970 — either directly  operated by
Reynolds  or by other  companies  in cooperation with
Reynolds.7' Aluminum collected by Reynolds is shipped to
a Reynolds plant in  Sheffield, Alabama, or Richmond,
Virginia.
   Reclamation economics depend on  the delivery  of
aluminum to the Reynolds centers by individuals and
organizations and on a sufficiently high quantity to use
the processing  equipment  at the reclamation  plant
economically. Data released by Reynolds  indicate that
aluminum scrap delivered to their smelters costs $480 per
ton at current  collection quantities (excluding general
administrative expense and advertising) while the scrap is
valued at $530 per ton.
   Reynolds' experience shows that recycling of obsolete
aluminum cans is feasible  and profitable provided that
the material is delivered to a central processing plant for
no more than $200 per ton and further that at least 32
tons per month, or 384 tons per year, of aluminum can be
obtained.
   Because these programs are voluntary, the quantity of
aluminum cans ultimately  recovered will be between 5
and 30 percent of that reaching the market, according  to
Reynolds estimates. Recovery trends in the Los Angeles
center seem to indicate that in 1971 up to 10 percent  of
total cans reaching the market place will be recovered,
compared to the early 1970 rate of 2 percent.
   The  Kaiser  Aluminum  and Chemical  Corporation
announced the formation of a can reclamation program
in San Francisco in early 1970.72 Cans are accepted at  11
collection sites in the  San Francisco  area. Only all
aluminum cans are accepted. Payment  is $200 per ton (10
cents  a pound). Coors  distributors  in the area and the
Falstaff  Brewing   Company  are  participating   in the
program.
   Alcoa's  program  was  announced  in  September
1970.73  The  initial  program  is  based  in San  Diego,
California.  Cans may be delivered to three Coors beer
distributors, six major shopping centers, and a nonferrous
metal dealer  who also does processing. The llth Naval
District  and  Coca-Cola  of San  Diego  are  also co-
operating. Alcoa also pays 10 cents per pound. The metal
collected is shipped  to  Indiana,  where the scrap  is
converted into new aluminum  can stock. The San Diego
program will  be followed by similar efforts in Dallas and
Fort Worth, Texas.
   Programs  started  or operated by aluminum  prod-
ucers, brewers, and soft drink producers represent the
foundation  for  a  nationwide,  voluntary,  aluminum
packaging  recycling  system that  may well recover 30
percent  of aluminum  packaging ultimately. There are no
technical limitations  to recycling aluminum;  rather the
problem areas of recovery are separation and collection.
All of these programs rely on voluntary citizen collection
and delivery to a special site; in other words, they involve
presegregation and special handling. As yet no company
has  attempted  to tie aluminum  packaging  and  rec-
lamation directly to a municipal waste system, and we
found no processing system that sought the aluminum
content of mixed refuse in materials.

           Other  Nonferrous  Metals
   All other nonferrous metals occur in municipal waste
in very  small  quantities and,  consequently, at very low
concentrations.  Copper makes its  appearance in small
electrical household appliances in  mixed refuse and  in
major appliances in bulky wastes as copper wire; brass
and  bronze fixtures also introduce copper into wastes.
Zinc appears  as an alloy in bronze, brass, and aluminum,-
as a coating on steel;  in some automotive grilles; in toys
and small fixtures; in lithograph plates; in addressograph
plates,- and the like. Lead is introduced as solder in cans,
by batteries,  as type  metals,  as ballast in lamps, as an
alloy in bronze and brass fixtures, in plumbing fixtures,
and in collapsible tubes.
   With  the exception of  lead, virtually none  of the
nonferrous  metals now recovered have ever been in the
form  of  products   in  consumer  markets.  They  are
recovered  from industrial  wastes,  obsolete  industrial
71 Testin, Recyling of used aluminum products, p.7-9. Personal communication. R.F. Testin, Reynolds Metals Company, to
A. J. Darnay, Midwest Research Institute, Dec. 22,1969.
72 Kaiser's can-do recycling program. Secondary Raw Materials, 8(6):130-132, June 1970.
73 Aluminum Company of America. Press release, Sept. 23,1970.

-------
FOR  MATERIALS IN  SOLID WASTES
                                                 63
structures, or  governmental wastes  (such as cartridge
cases) and demolitions.
   Copper. Most obsolete copper scrap is wiring and
other electrical  fixtures obtained from  electric  utility
demolitions (34 percent of obsolete copper scrap). Spent
cartridges  (4 percent), railroad  car  dismantling  (4
percent), and automotive radiators (9 percent) are other
copper  grades that reveal their origin. A small quantity
of copper  wiring  and  copper-base alloys is obtained
from dumps by scavengers and by scrap yards that still
accept  appliances.   Nearly  65  percent  of  copper
consumed is made into  electrical wire, and this product,
in turn,  is used principally in industrial applications,
utilities, and motors, where the copper is recovered. Brass
mills,  which  account  for  nearly  34  percent  of  con-
sumption, produce  industrial  products such as boiler
condensers, ship propellers, industrial cocks and faucets,
artillery cartridge  cases, and similar  products that  are
normally salvaged.
   Small and  large  household appliances are the only
significant source  of copper in  municipal wastes. This
source  is no  longer economical  unless some  of  the
stripping and collection is subsidized in some way. Thus
much of it finds its way  into  municipal  waste  systems
today despite the high value of copper as scrap.
   Zinc. Nearly 80 percent of all zinc recycled is "new"
scrap, the major grades being  zinc skimmings and ashes
derived from zinc galvanizing operations, galvanizers'
dross, and chemical residues. "Old" zinc scrap consists of
roofing  zinc, organ pipes,  jar lids, and  boiler  plates;
engravers' plates are a special grade; and diecastings,
which include automotive grilles, aircraft forming dies,
and other castings, are a third obsolete zinc scrap grade.
The relatively low recovery rate for zinc is explained by
the manner in which this metal is used — as an alloying
agent and coating and  as small objects and  fixtures. All
of these applications make recycling difficult.
   Lead. In 1967, lead recovery from new and old scrap
was equivalent to 57.6 percent of lead consumption. In
actuality,  consumption  of lead  of  1.261 million  tons
included 247,000 tons of lead used in gasoline additives.
If  we  regard this  tonnage  as  lost for all practical
purposes, "solid" lead consumption was I  million tons, of
which 726,000 tons was supplied by scrap, or 71.6 percent
of solid lead consumption.
   Most  recovered  lead  (86.1  percent)  in  1967  was
obtained from obsolete materials, 625,000 of  726,000
tons.  Most of the  obsolete lead (72.6 percent,  454,000
tons)  comes from lead  battery  plates.  Recovery  of
batteries is usually  accomplished  by specialists. This
operation requires facilities for breaking  batteries, the
collection and  neutralization  of  battery  acid  prior to
discharge into sewers, and equipment to  crush battery
cases before hauling them to the dump. Specialists have
grown  in   importance  as  one-piece battery  covers
replaced multipiece covers. Batteries in one-piece covers
cannot  be  broken  by  being dropped,  and  special
breaking  equipment  is  necessary.74  In   addition  to
batteries (which come from  auto dismantlers, filling
stations,  garages,  and industrial, farm,  railroad,  and
military demolition), lead is also recovered from obsolete
lead-coated cable, a variety of other sources in industrial
plants and military  installations, and from type metal.
   Recovery of lead from obsolete batteries is at a very
high  rate.  In the  years  1966  to 1968, lead scrap from
batteries  was  equivalent  to 91.4 percent  of  lead
consumption for batteries.  Recovery of lead from  type
metals consistently exceeded consumption of lead in  type
in  the   period, reflecting  the  fact that type  lead
consumption has stayed relatively stable for more than a
decade while scrapping of type metals has increased as
lithography has displaced letterpress printing. Lead scrap
recovered from cable cover lead has been equivalent to
54.8 percent of consumption for  this application in the
1966-1968 period.  Unlike batteries and type, however,
cable lead has a longer life in use (Table 42).

           Scrap  Consumption  Trends
   Nonferrous scrap consumption  as a percent  of total
metals consumption remained  relatively unchanging in
the 1963-1967 period (Table 43). Scrap as  a percent of
consumption was 34.8 percent  in 1963 and 34.7  percent
in 1967; in 1965 it was 31.0 percent.
   Consumption of the four major metals grew at a rate
of 4.7 percent annually; the scrap consumption growth
rate  was  4.8  percent.  Aluminum and  lead scrap
consumption grew  at faster rates than total consumption
of these metals, 8.1  percent for aluminum scrap versus 7.2
percent for all aluminum and 7.3 percent for lead scrap
versus 2.1 percent for all lead.
74 A study of the secondary lead industry in the United States. New York, National Association of Secondary Material
Industries, Inc., [1969]. p.3-4.

-------
64
                             SALVAGE MARKETS
   Scrap consumption trends in aluminum are already
high and are expected to stay high as more aluminum
becomes available  as  scrap. The  economics of scrap
remelting  are  favorable  over  primary production.
Aluminum consumption in 1942 was 726,000 tons; in 1967
it was 4.0 million tons, better than a fivefold increase,
which  means  that each year a larger tonnage  of
aluminum becomes available. The industry is still far from
reclaiming all obsolete aluminum scrap that occurs. The
metal has an estimated life-in-use of 22 years. In 1945,
943,000 tons were  shipped,  equal to the tonnage  of
obsolete aluminum  that should have  been available in
1967.  In 1967,  however, only 172,000  tons of obsolete
aluminum  scrap  was recovered, or 18 percent  of  the
tonnage theoretically available. The availability of scrap
aluminum  and the  fact that bauxite  is an  abundant
natural resource  indicate that an aluminum shortage is
not likely to occur in the foreseeable future.
   Copper, zinc, and lead  are all  materials in short
supply worldwide. An estimate published in 1965,75  put
known free-world reserves of these metals at 43 years for
copper, 27 years for zinc, and 15 years for lead. The high
rate of copper and lead recovery are in part a reflection
of this shortage,  and we expect recovery of these metals
to increase.
75 Fangel, H. An expert forecasts future metal needs. Engineering and Mining Journal, 166(3):100,Mar. 1965.

-------

                                        o
                                        b
   .»
 Q_Q_
                                       —     to
                                              " £
                                        o
                                       6
o
         "
 S "5
 u  0)
to Q       I
 5?
                                             «
                                          E  >
    IX
    o
                                           CO
                                           CN
                                                            .05 CN
                                                            "8
                                                            s
                  o
                  
-------











«\
9
3

^i
i
§
w
II
p ^
M M
tj ^ j
O
§
CO
SB"
s ^
gg
Su ^
S •*
1 1
O £H
l^j
,.8
CD O
3 H
p4 £5
0 H

S"j
fC
CO

|














O •>
•efc. §
•H
W -P
05 ft
«5 W
0 0
CQ O







bp
£j
,0
CO
•
o5
&



•H

|
CQ
§
O
ft
05
£^
0
CO

























ft
SPS
•H O
•g M
H 0
O S
X 0

CH
° a
•~j3 g
•H
CO +3
o5 ft
ft 3
o5 w
CJ O
CO O
§•
CO
o
co
0 0
fl 1 1 ^
(1) ?H
U 0)
•H ft
f-l
H
05
-p
O

-rf
C^


Is
(L> -f3
^5 O


B ^J


C
« 0
•H -P
0) fc
3s
> -69-
§
•H
-P
ft

co
cl
5
o




-p


to r^ CD co
oo* en c\j en
H -=r H -^
oo
0
CO






o en to CD
CM ^ in c*-
CM "^ H in
•^
^



o o o o
to CM CM o
CM en H CM
i i i i
o o o o
•^ 00 CO CD
H tO

Si-l TJI CD
^J1 ^ CM
co in CM r*-
*\
H
en
to
to"

CM CM H in
r- CD in CM
H CD CO

o
H
in
i-T

H in o i
CD co in
in f- H


CD
•\
H

^—
O TH to H
in en * o
CO
CO
to





8-^1 t^ O
CO t»- O
in r~ CM to
•H-



en en 01 H
8 — O CD
en i^ CM^
•^ oT r-T r-T
tA
JS^
r^;
ar\





el
3 d
fi M W
'a ft o >ri o
3 ft C oJ EH
H O T* 0)
< O N i-^

(U
JI
4-J
^
0)
m
1 1
w
0)
-a
c
3
W
O.T3
(0 >-
U I/)
(0
E 0
3 C
C
— TD
e c
3 (D
C
«*- ro
O CJ.
c o
o o
+-> u
1°
tn c
C OJ
O —
u a.
ra jz
o
—
• 4-*
|s
3 TD

"o —
C U

U
in a>

a. m
(U —

O 4J
in (u
-C
\o c a.
en •— (o
o to a>
o 
>~-C 2 . en
— c en 
-------

























*

t--

^j.

u
H

o
EH

§
CQ
P

•5J
qj ^
S
H o
hH CO
CO
|

f-f
Q
CO
S
o
£H
S
<3




&H


















la)
ft

J)
ttf
d)
c/3
ft
a

o

T3
O

,
3
O
EH
CO
" bC
m S
CO -H
o s

^ jj
« W
05 *rl T^
& O C
CJ piq CTJ
CO
O *tf

CO
W trf)
tip c

^ *H
o 3
CQ -P


w
id
O
CO


c^
o
•H

1
a
o
o
rH 0)
(S M
-P CO
O C3
EH C
o
EH











0)
r|
CO
a
o
o
ft
fn
O
CO


H 10
•* rH
OJ H
•* OJ


to en
I- rH
r- 0
K^ •*
O

H CO
tO CD
O O

~f OJ



O OJ
r- rH
H in
O CT>
rH *°





in o
CD 05
in 05

o in"
in R
H


CD CD
CD CD
rH CO
o" •*"
H CO
OJ rH


en H

en o
CD tO





!8 S
H CD

c- in
rH CO
CO OJ
01
-P
H
CO
•H
•51
>» w

O M
O pj
to o
•P JH
d u
- 4)
                                                 u  in

                                                 in -C
                                          c     3 H
                                          ID    T3
                                                 C

                                          O         in
                                                 4)  4)
                                          4)    J=  C
                                          O  •  O M-
                                          l_ Q.     o
                                          Q. ID  +J
                                             U  C  3
                                          E O  4)  ID
                                          3 in  U  4)
                                          C     I-  U
                                         •— in  4)  3
                                          -     Q.DO
                      •3  O
                     .—  I- -3-  4)
                     <  1- CO JZ
                          4)      4-1

                      C  C .—  X
                      4)  O  4) -O
                      E  C  4J
                      to     ro r*^
                      in M-  E vO
                     -Q  O — -  >-
                         —  Q. o
                     "O +•*  O. M—
                      C  U  ID
                      ID  4)      in
                         — M-  C
                       -—  O  O   •
                      CO      +->  >-
                     —  O  4)     —
                      1-     OlO  C
                      ID  4)  ID O  O
                     U- J=  >- O
                         4->  4)   -  E
                             > O  3
                     (T>  •- O LTV  C
                     VO 4J  O O —
                       4)  4-1  4-1  ID
                      S  I.  I-  ID
                      4)     O .   T3
                     —  >- CL-O  4)
                      >  u  4)  4)  u
                      
                         •-  in  E  O
                     —  E  4) —  O
                      ID —  C  4J  4)

                     — Us:  4)
                      *->  1_          4->
                      in o. M-  in  o
                     ._     o —  c
                      ID  O  3
                      4-> JQ  0)
                      in  E  4)


                      l"  "

                     1?  _
                      E  fO  O
                      3
                                                         a.
                                                         ID
                                                 3  3
                                                m T).
                                                     4)
                                                        c
                                                        4)
                           s
< -*  4)
     U  in
 ..  C  ID
r-~  d>  -a  o  c
NO jc     **—  o
-
.*   -    —  o
 O  C  (0  +-> •—
 o  o  +-1  a.—
-Q "D  ID  E  ID
 1-  L.  T3  3
 (DO      in »—
 4) O  4)  C —
 >•     in  O  ID
    "D  4)  O
 in  c  .c      4)
•—(01—  O.T3
 ID         ID  3

 4)  £ ••  O 13
 C  «-  4)  U)  C

Z  in  O —
*   3  Z  (0  (0
    "O      4-1 4J
     C      O  ID
    —     I- -a
-------
                                   TABLE 42

                 CONSUMPTION OF LEAD IN SELECTED APPLICATIONS
                   AND RECOVERY OF OBSOLETE LEAD FROM THOSE
              APPLICATIONS, 1966-1968, IN 1,000 TONS AND PERCENT*
                                                                   Average
                                               Year                  for
Product	1966	1967      1968      period

Batteries
  Consumption                        472        467       512       484
  Recovery of obsolete "batteries     442        454       430       442
  Recovery as percent of
    consumption                       93.6       97.2      83.9      91.4

Type metals
  Consumption                         30         29        28        29
  Recovery from obsolete sources      37         35        33        35
  Recovery as percent of
    consumption                      123.3      120.7     117.9     120.7

Cable covering
  Consumption                         66         63        54        61
  Recovery from obsolete sources      33         34        33        34
  Recovery as percent of
    consumption                       50.0       54.0      61.1      55.7
    ^Minerals  yearbook  1967; Annual revtew.  The U«S. lead industry—1968.
 New York,  Lead  Industries Association,  Inc.  19 p.
                                   64*4
-------
                                  TABLE 43

                CONSUMPTION AND RECOVERY OF SELECTED NONFERROUS
                METALS IN THE 1963-1967 PERIOD, IN 1,000 TONS*
Material	1963      1964      1965      1966	1967

Aluminum
  Scrap consumption           648 t     712 t     817 t     8961     8831
  Aluminum consumption      3,040     3,216      3,73**    4,002     4,009
  Scrap as percent of
    total                      21.3      22.1      21.9      22.4      22.0

Copper
  Scrap consumption         1,360     1,513     1,735     1,868     1,541
  Copper consumption        2,573     2,779     2,921     3,200     2,913
  Scrap as percent of
    total                      52.9      5^. J*      59.4      58.4      52.9

Zinc
  Scrap consumption           202       226       264       263       244
  Zinc consumption          1,414     1,536     1,742     1,807     1,592
  Scrap as percent of
    total                      14.3      14.7      15.2      14.6      15.3

Lead
  Scrap consumption           641       705       748       741       726
  Lead consumption          1,163     1,202     1,241     1,324     1,261
  Scrap as percent of
    total                      55.1      58.7      60.3      56.0      57.6

Composite of above
  Scrap consumption         2,851     3,156     3,564     3,768     3,394
  Metals consumption        8,190     8,733     9,638    la,333     9,775
  Scrap as percent of
    total                      34.8      30.1      31.0      30.5      34.7
   ^Minerals yearbooks 1963; 196A;  1965;  1966;  1967..   Includes  borne scrap.
   tOnly purchased aluminum scrap is included.   Total  consumption of
aluminum scrap is understated by the tonnage of new home aluminum scrap  that
is recycled within the plant or company and not sold.
                                   64-5
-------
-------
                                                                                                         65
CHAPTER VII
                                                 GLASS
   The glass industry has its roots in antiquity. The basic
composition of glass has remained essentially the same
throughout its  history.  Glass  scrap,  called cullet, is a
desirable input material; it is usually at least 10 percent of
input tonnage  and  may  make   up a  much  higher
percentage of certain types of glass products. Since cullet
consumption   is  usually  a   routine  part of  in-plant
processing, few data on actual cullet consumption have
been reported recently in industry statistics.
   All forms  of glass  represent 6 to 8 percent on the
average of the  materials found  in municipal  waste.
Recovery of glass from waste is very low. Glass is among
the  lowest in recycling ratios when in-plant  scrap  is
excluded; it is comparable with  rubber, plastics, and
textiles.  In  1967, total glass production was 12.8 million
tons and purchased cullet consumption was 0.58 million
tons, or 4.7 percent of output. Purchased cullet use varied
from I.I  percent for glass containers to 14.9 percent for
pressed  and  blown  glass. The analysis in this chapter
focuses  on cullet  recovery  external  to the glass man-
ufacturing process and on recent activity of *his industry
in solid waste recovery.

             Industry  Characteristics
   Structure.  The  glass  industry consists  of   three
segments, containers (bottles and  jars), flat glass,  and
pressed  and blown glass. In terms of relative importance,
glass containers far outrank the other two on a tonnage
basis. Comparing basic raw materials consumption (sand
and soda ash) for 1967,  containers  accounted for 73
percent, pressed and blown for 12 percent, and flat glass
for 15 percent of total.
   The glass container segment of the industry consists of
about 40 companies with 112 plants in 27 states.76 By
contrast, the pressed and blown segment consists of 185
plants and flat glass of 64 plants according to the 1967
Census of Manufacturers data. Glass plants tend to be
located close to their customer or consuming markets
(food  packers);  however,  the  source of  basic raw
materials (sand) is also a factor in plant location. Glass
container plants are concentrated in 10 states: California,
Oklahoma, Texas, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia,
Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey.
   Process Characteristics. Glass manufacture is a
fully  integrated "one step"  process  in the sense that
manufacturers start with the basic raw materials and end
with  the finished product  at the same location. The
exception is specialized products accounting for a small
part of the  total  tonnage  output of  the  industry —
mirrors, etched and ornamental glassware, and bent and
laminated glass.
   The  principal  raw  materials of glass are sand, soda
ash, and limestone (or dolomite) plus feldspar and other
materials used in small  quantities. In addition, nearly
every  type  of glass  consumes scrap in the  form  of
internally generated cullet (rejected product, trim waste,
and intentionally produced cullet).
   In the glassmaking process, cullet is a technically and
economically  functional   input  material.  It  aids  the
melting process and  liquefies at a lower  temperature
than the other raw materials. These properties  increase
the productivity of batch preparation  by reducing fuel
requirements, reducing air pollution emissions, extending
the life of furnace linings, and producing a "melt" faster
than if only  virgin raw materials are used. Depending on
the ratios used, cullet increases the "stiffness" or viscosity
of the  molten  glass.77 Cullet utilization  varies widely,
from 8 percent by weight to 100 percent; the average  is
76 Glass containers 1970. New York, Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Inc., May 1970. p.ll.
77 Scholes, S. R. Modern glass practice. Chicago, Industrial Publications, Inc., 1941. p.289.
-------
66
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
estimated to be  14 to 16 percent for glass containers.
Manufacturers strongly favor internally generated cullet
because  they have no  question  about the  chemical
composition and quality of the cullet.

    Production  and Consumption  Patterns
   Containers.  The  packaging  sector of  the glass
industry  accounts for the  greatest tonnage of glass
production and represents glass products intended  for
transitory one-time use followed by discard to waste. The
exception is the returnable bottle used in beer and soft
drink packaging.
   In the  last decade, consumption of glass containers
has increased at  5.2 percent per year on a  unit basis,
from 21.67 billion units in 1959 to 36.15 billion units in 1969.
End-use data show important changes taking place in this
sector of  the industry (Table 44).78 Beverage containers
have  now become the  dominant type of  container,
reaching  51 percent of total industry output on a unit
basis in 1969 compared to 26 percent in 1959, when  the
big  switch  to  nonreturnable  beer  and  soft  drink
containers got under way. The other important end use,
food packaging containers, is growing modestly, while
drug,  cosmetic, and chemical container markets have
stagnated or are declining. Other materials (plastics,
aluminum, and steel) have been intensive competition for
glass in recent years. The glass container industry's future
growth  appears  to be  tied directly to its success  in
nonreturnable  beer  and  soft  drink  containers. The
tremendous growth  in beer and soft drink nonreturnable
containers is  documented  in  Table  45.  Since 1967
returnable glass has declined from 72.8 percent of fillings
in soft drinks to 56.1 percent in 1970; in beer the decline
has been  from  36.5 percent to 28.7 percent. However,
glass  has had to  share  this  tremendous  growth  in
nonreturnable containers with metal cans.
   For all intents  and purposes, the entire output of  the
glass container industry is discarded to municipal  waste
systems. Even the  returnable container output represents
replacement of unusable or lost returnable containers.
Only a  minute  portion of glass containers is  recovered
for cullet use, most  of  which  comes  from  bottling
operations involving liquids (beer, soft drink, water). We
estimate that no more than I percent, or 100,000 tons, of
the waste glass containers are recovered as purchased
cullet annually. As will be discussed later, the nature of
discard  makes  most glass unrecoverable for economic
and technical reasons.
   Pressed  and  Blown Glass.  This  sector of the
industry  accounts  for  the output of various types of
products that are classified in three categories: (I) table,
kitchen,  art,  and  novelty,  which  include  tumblers,
stemware,  tableware,  and cookware plus ornamental
and decorative products, novelty products, and ashtrays;
(2) lighting  and electronic glassware of all types such as
light bulbs  and tubes, television tubes, and the like; and
(3) glass fiber for insulation and manufactured products.
   Based on materials consumption for 1967, we estimate
that output is about 1.7 million tons of products that have
highly varying  use cycles and  lifetimes —  from glass
tumblers and light bulbs to  television tubes, insulation,
and sporting goods.
   Most of the pressed and blown glass products make
their  appearance  eventually  in  municipal  waste; the
principal exception is fiberglas waste. For the most part,
pressed  and  blown  glass  is  indistinguishable  from
container glass in appearance.
   In  addition to consuming  internally generated cullet,
this segment of the glass industry consumed 256,000 tons
of purchased cullet in 1967, or an estimated 12 percent of
its raw materials input.
   Flat Glass. This section of the industry accounts for
three  general types of product: (I) sheet glass or window
glass; (2) plate or  float glass  used in  automobiles,
construction (doors), appliances, and other applications;
and (3) laminated glass. In 1967 production is estimated to
have been  2.1 million tons, and shipments, 1.9 million tons
based  on  raw  materials consumption.  Plate and float
glass is about 72.0 percent; laminated glass, 27.7 percent;
and  sheet  glass, 0.3 percent, based on  square feet of
glass  shipments in  1967.  The production of flat  glass
results in a high generation of cullet, some of which gets
into commercial trade and is handled by cullet dealers.
   Flat  glass  is associated  predominantly with trans-
portation vehicles (cars, trucks) and construction (offices,
factories, homes).  When it makes its  appearance as
waste, it is not normally associated with municipal waste;
even  when it is, the glass may be a part of another
product such as an appliance.  Thus, its appearance  in
waste is generally not recognized in the municipal waste
78 More detailed coverage of glass containers is provided in Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. The role of packaging in
solid waste  management, 1966 to 1976. Public Health Service Publication No. 1855. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1969. p.32-43,130-131. Table 44 updates historical data.
-------
 FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                                 67
 category.  The  significant  exceptions  are  industrial
 conversion waste and windows broken by householders.
    In addirion to consuming internally generated cullet,
 this segment of the industry consumed 244,000 tons of
 purchased cullet in 1967, which is about 10 percent of its
 raw materials input.

          Cullet  Consumption  Patterns
    In-Plant Cullet. There is a scarcity of published data
 about  cullet  consumption  in  the  glass  industry.  The
 internal consumption of cullet takes place routinely and
 in  widely varying percentages depending on a number
 of  factors. In  general, glassmakers consume what they
 produce  internally  through  rejection  of  "off  spec"
 products  and  trim  scrap.  Often,  excess  production
 capacity  at  a  plant  is  devoted  to the  deliberate
 production  of cullet for recycling back into the glass
 furnaces. Some  companies make interplant transfers of
 cullet  to balance  their needs from plant to plant. The
 consumption  of internally generated  cullet is strongly
 motivated by  economic and technical considerations. In
 general it can  be said that the glass industry, especially in
 glass containers, consumes all its internally generated
 cullet.
    Purchased  Cullet. Purchased cullet consumption  is
 another matter. Its relative status in the industry can be
 understood  by  the  terminology  applied  to purchased
 cullet — it is referred to as "foreign" or "tramp" cullet.
    Trends in the use of foreign cullet by the glass industry
 have been steadily downward over the years. The glass
 container segment, which accounts for over 70 percent of
 the tonnage output, purchases perhaps I percent of its
 raw materials as foreign cullet; this is about 100,000 tons.
 Most of the  purchased  cullet is old  glass  containers
 obtained from beer and soft drink bottling operations via
 a cullet dealer. The ratio of overall cullet consumption in
 glass making,  however, has not necessarily declined over
 the years; rather,  glass  container  plants  have simply
 turned  to  the  use  of more and  more  cullet  that  is
 internally generated.
    A small amount of purchased cullet still goes into  a
 number of  secondary   products,  for  example,  the
 manufacture  of  glass  beads for  highway  signs,  for
 luminescent paints, and for other end uses.
    The  flat glass and pressed and blown glass sectors of
 the industry generate large amounts of cullet in their
operations — especially electric  lights  and  electrical
products such as tubes and plate glass. Much of this goes
back  into the production cycle directly or as purchased
cullet, which averages about 10 percent of input  materials
for these two sectors of the glass industry.
   An approximate  flow of  the  materials  in  glass
manufacture is  shown in Figure 21. Internally generated
cullet has been omitted. Glass container  manufacturers
consume the least amount of purchased cullet on both a
percentage  and actual  tonnage basis. Glass container
producers also account for nearly 90 percent of all glass
discarded  as   waste.  Purchased  cullet  consumption
compared  to  production is  shown  in Table  46,  and
indicates that consumption is I.I percent in containers, 11.3
percent in flat glass, and 14.9 percent in pressed and
blown glass.

               Cullet  Use Factors
   The  use of  purchased  cullet in  glass  container
manufacture has declined for many technical, economic,
and intangible reasons. Both the cullet consumer —the
glass  plant —  and the cullet broker/dealer face  some
rather rigid realities.
   Glass Plant. As viewed by the glass plant  manager
or company management,  the following  factors  are
relevant to purchased cullet.
   (I)  The  basic  raw materials  (sand, soda  ash,  and
limestone) are low  in cost and readily available.  Raw
materials costs average $16 to $20 per ton for a glass
container batch, with sand costing in the range of  $5.20
per ton delivered.79 Some industry experts say that cullet
use saves the plant $2 to $3 per ton of input because it
produces a faster melt and reduces fuel consumption and
furnace deterioration. If so, cullet can sell for $18 to $23
per ton  and be  competitive with virgin materials.  A
purchased cullet price that violates this basic economic
parameter raises the costs of glass production in a highly
competitive  business.  In  Chicago and New York,  the
current prices per ton  for cullet are $22.50 and $18.00 for
flint, $17.75 and $17.00 for amber, and $16.10 for  green (in
New York). These  prices are high by virgin raw material
standards yet the dealers lose money on  the transaction if
all their costs are considered.
   (2) Purchased cullet is an "unknown  quality" in  glass
batch formulation and must be  compatible  with  the
technical parameters of the glass. This is usually not a
"problem"  as  much  as  a variable  to be dealt  with
because  the manufacturer has no  control over the
 79 Values from 1967 Census of Manufacturers data and MRI interviews.
-------
68
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
purchased  cullet.  Specifically, the cullet must  be:  (a)
chemically  acceptable, (b) color sorted into flint (clear),
amber,  or  green,  with container glass  separate  from
plate glass,  (c) clean —  free  of dirt and  organic
contaminants  —  and  crushed  into 1-inch  or  smaller
pieces, (d) free of metallic contaminants,  especially iron
and aluminum (which are often present as  closures on old
containers).80  It is  particularly important that flint glass
cullet not have significant quantities of colored glass in it
or it is not usable for flint glass. These "unknowns" do not
crop up in the use of internally generated cullet.
   (3) A steady, trusted, and reliable source of cullet is
needed to give continuity  to the production process and
batch mixtures. Physical facilities to handle cullet are not
difficult to  install nor do  they require extensive capital
investment.
   (4) Purchased cullet is  not a  necessary raw material
substitute and  intangible  factors sometimes govern its
use:  risk of  batch losses because of contaminants; its low
status as a  raw material; reliance on single independent
suppliers,  (cullet dealers  whose  own  sources  may  be
unreliaable  or variable).  These  latter factors  have led
some companies  by  policy  to avoid  foreign cullet
altogether.   Many  companies purchase  cullet only to
supplement  internal cullet when  their  production  rates'
and  "pack  to melt"81  ratio is highly efficient  and does
not  yield  sufficient internal cullet. A few companies
depend heavily on purchased cullet. For example, MRI
documented cases where water bottle manufacturers and
ashtray manufacturers use  100 percent cullet.
   Cullet Dealers. There are probably fewer than 20
cullet dealers82 left in the  United  States. In fact,  only 17
can  be accounted for by  the  Glass  Container Man-
ufacturer  Institute  and  MRI.83  Their sad  states and
gradual demise can  be attributed  to changes in the
economics  and conditions of recovery and factors that
have been  set out above.  They face the following rather
formidable problems.
   (I) The best sources of container cullet have gradually
dried up. These are bottling operations  for soft drink,
beer, water, and milk. There is a relatively large supply
of amber and green glass but less flint, the most desirable
type. This  is  because  beverage  containers are  pre-
dominantly green  or amber while milk bottles have all
but disappeared. The best type of glass is the returnable
container  rejected from a  bottle washing operation;
however, this source is declining as nonreturnables take
over. Containers rejected at the end of a filling cycle may
be  full  of  the product  and have  the closure attached
firmly.   Plants  find it  difficult and  uneconomical  to
segregate reject bottles  from  other waste  for  dealers.
Refuse  is not a good  source for cullet dealers  because
most of it is picked up in mixed form and the practice of
home separation has declined substantially.
   (2) Dealer collection and delivery costs have risen and
so  have processing costs,  principally  because  these
operations  are highly  labor intensive. Dealers remove
cullet and pay the  generator, however, if the source is a
good one.  For other generators, they remove the cullet
free of charge which in  essence is a free refuse  removal
service for the bottling plant.
   (3) Dealers operate obsolete cullet plants that  have
not been maintained; the sorting, crushing, washing, and
contaminant  removal systems are old and inefficient.
Sorting  by hand is  the rule. The plants operate far under
capacity and  their throughput volume does not justify
new capital  investment. By contrast, few  glass plant
managers have been  willing to install in-plant washing
and crushing systems for processing purchased cullet.
   (4) Dealers  cannot  open up new sources of cullet
because of inadequate capital and lack of technology to
substitute for labor in  processing and because economic
supply sources do not exist.
   In effect, rising  costs  and  declining sources  of good
quality  cullet supply have worked  against the  cullet
dealer. Most dealers who physically handle cullet have a
profitable operation only if they operate with essentially
no  capital  costs,   minimum maintenance, and  by pro-
viding a large increment of the labor themselves. Many
years ago when individual scavengers were willing to
80 Aluminum creates streaks in the bottles and small black spots that are not acceptable. Ferrous additives are used to
make amber glass so ferrous content is unacceptable in flint glass. Flint glass is about 50 percent of the industry's output
and many glass container plants produce only flint glass.
81 An industry term expressed as a ratio of the output of acceptable containers to the molten glass input; at 90 percent
"pack," the plant is making 9 good containers for every 10 possible.
82 See Chapter XI, "Case Studies," for detailed discussion of cullet dealer operations  in  Chicago, Cincinnati,  Los
Angeles, New Orleans, and New York.
83 Private communications with MRI and MRI interviews.
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN  SOLID WASTES
                                                 69
work for "a  dollar a day and a bottle of wine," some
cullet was reclaimed from municipal disposal sites  by
hand picking. This practice has virtually disappeared.
   Dealers who  have  a brokerage  business may  be
faring somewhat  better.  If  they can  work  as  the
middleman   between a  glass  plant  generating and
another buying cullet, without  handling the cullet, they
are able to recover a brokerage fee without incurring the
high handling and  processing costs.
   Technical Criteria. Cullet  use in glass of various
types can vary from 8 percent to 80 percent, excluding
the cases where 100  percent cullet is used. Foreign cullet
is considered a  raw  materials  substitute,  not  a raw
material.  The actual technical  limits are well  above
current  industry   practices.  For  example,  container
manufacturers use from  8  percent to 20  percent cullet
with the  industry-wide average probably 15 percent of
input tonnage. Industry experts have  indicated that the
technical limits are far above current practice. In fact, 30
percent cullet use is now a commonly accepted "goal" of
the Glass Container Manufacturers Institute. If the glass
container  industry were  using an additional 15 percent
purchased  cullet,  this would mean  it would  be using
about 1.8 million tons annually compared to only 100,000
tons estimated in 1967.
   Purchased cullet has  no particular attraction perse. If
additional cullet were necessary, glass companies might
well build  a plant just to produce cullet because  this
would represent a predictable cost and quality material.
   Market Factors. The real limits of tapping foreign
cullet sources lie  in  the economic and supply factors.
Plant managers are  reluctant  to  seek foreign cullet
because  of  its relatively high cost,  low quality, and
unavailability in steady  volumes. In addition, they have
drifted away from reliance on single-source cullet dealer
operations that are  marginal  at  best.  Single-source
arrangements for  cullet are not viewed with favor, yet
the market will not support a viable competitive dealer
system.

         Cullet  from   Municipal  Waste
   Availability.  Glass, especially  in  the  form  of
containers, is present in quantity in  mixed  municipal
waste. Waste composition tests show that glass appears
to range from 3.5 percent to 12.7 percent of municipal
refuse by weight. The  composite  average  is about 6
percent. If this percentage is applied to waste collection
of 193.7 million tons in 1968, glass  in waste was 11.6
million tons that year; applied only to 165.8 million tons
of residential and commercial waste, it would have been
9.95  million  tons.  These  lower figures  confirm our
estimates based  on industry output and discard for 1967
of 10.0 million tons (Figure 21). Glass containers occur in
wastes in  reasonably "pure" form in that they are not
physically combined with other materials, as for example
are  auto glass, construction glass,  and light  bulbs.
However,  they  often contain contaminating  residues  of
the product they carried to the final consumer.
   At present, glass containers are neither  economically
nor technically accessible because of the nature of their
occurrence in waste.  They  appear mixed in with a good
deal of other waste. There is effectively no  market for
cullet through the traditional dealer system.  Experimental
technology has  been  used  to sort mixed, crushed glass in
municipal  refuse by  color,  but  there  is no  operating
system in  existence.84 The interesting  prospect  is that
large quantities of glass  could  be  used  in  a primary
recycling application  if such systems were available.
   Recent Developments in Cullet Recovery and
Utilization.  The glass  container  industry through  its
association, the Glass Container  Manufacturers  Institute
(GCMI), has been a  leader in exploring the solid waste
management  problems  associated  with  glass.  GCMI
launched a  rather broadly  based  environmental pro-
gram aimed  at  solid wastes  in 1967.85 GCMI's work
encompasses  research on  uses of cullet both  inside and
outside  the   glass industry.86 Most recently,  various
companies,  individually  and  through  GCMI,  have
adopted a glass collection center concept similar to that
initiated  by  Reynolds  Metals  for  the  recycling  of
aluminum containers.
   The glass container industry's sudden flurry of activity
in solid waste management and recycling stems from two
strong forces. First, the glass  industry has faced intensive
materials and package  configuration competition in  its
traditional  markets.   This  is  particularly  evident   in
84 See the discussions on the Bureau of Mines incinerator residue work and on the Sortex system in Chapter 3.
85 See Glass makers launch solid waste program. Environmental Science & Technology, 3(1):17-18, Jan. 1969.
86 Abrahams,  J.H. Utilization of waste glass. In Proceedings; Second Mineral Waste  Utilization Symposum, Chicago,
Mar. 18-19, 1970; U.S. Bureau of Mines, and Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute, p.363-368; Malisch, W.R.
Use of waste glass for urban paving. In Proceedings; Second Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium, p.369-373.
-------
70
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
medicinal and health  and  household and  industrial
chemicals where plastics have made substantial inroads.
"Conquering of a last great frontier"the nonreturnable
beverage container markethas  kept  the  industry from
going into decline. This latter market is where the action
is. Both steel and aluminum cans have made inroads here
so that  the glass manufacturers have had to compete
strongly to develop the market.
   The second factor is that it is the very markets that are
"up  for  grabs"beveragesupon  which  the public has
focused  intensive  environmental  attention.  The  glass
industry has long received attention and has been active
in antilitter activities, and now interest in these containers
has spilled  over  into the solid waste area. Attacks by
environmentalists   seem   to   have  focused   dis-
proportionately on  beverage  containers  as the con-
sumption  of "no  return"  bottles expands  by leaps and
bounds. Legislative  threats at the  state and  local level
abound.   It  is  not surprising, therefore, that  glass
container manufacturers have responded  with positive
action steps in the  environmental  field  to protect what
has become their major market.
   Individual companies have begun  to seek sources of
foreign  cullet  from traditional sources87 as  well  as
focusing attention on citizen action programs in the form
of special public collection centers usually located on the
property of individual glass plants. Glass plant managers
are preparing their  plants to handle color-sorted foreign
cullet in  significant volumes.  Time-honored  negative
views of foreign cullet have  been set aside, and the glass
container industry  has  set a goal  of using 30  percent
cullet in its input materials. More could probably be used;
in fact, the  upper limit is well above the limits usually
cited in public releases.88
   The collection  centers have several  features: the
public  is asked to deliver clean, color-sorted  containers
free of metallic closures to collection sites. Individuals are
paid 1 cent per pound  ($20 per  ton). In Ann Arbor,
Michigan, a remote collection center, (far from a glass
plant) pays one-half cent per pound or $10 per ton for
glass containers.89 This center was established by Owens-
Illinois in connection with an environmental action group
called ENACT.
   The collection  center concept has several positive and
negative features. A center is easy to establish and start
up; it seeks voluntary citizen participation; it depends on
a "subsidized" and inefficient presegregation, collection,
and  processing system (delivery of clean,  color-sorted
containers to a central point); and  it is of  very limited
value as an effective recovery system. Because of a  low
level of citizen interest, it cannot tap a large percentage
of the used containers generated. Even so, at $20 per ton,
the industry participants  are absorbing costs that could
not be |ustified in a narrow economic sense. One industry
spokesman indicated their  costs are nearly $50 per  ton
and  must be treated  as  a "social  tax" at present.
However,  many   companies  expect  to  have  vastly
improved economics of collection, crushing, transporting,
and  in-plant  handling  as the collection center concept
develops. As  yet,  no  collection  center involves  par-
ticipation of a cullet dealer, although a GCMI spokesman
reports  they are "working with them and keeping them
informed." We believe the collection center  concept is at
best  an interim measure not likely to make  a significant
impact on recovery of glass from waste.

                   Conclusions
   Our  analysis of glass as a recyclable material has led
to several conclusions.
   (1) As opposed to other materials studied, there exists
today unfilled demand for cullet because technical and
economic problems of  cullet  supply  have  not  been
overcome.  Purchased cullet consumption in containers
has died away because the use of virgin raw  materials
and  internal  cullet has been a much more satifactory
source of raw materials supply.
   (2) A large quantity of  cullet is present  in municipal
waste. The technical requirements of glass  manufacture
indicate that  20 to 40 percent of glass now occurring in
87 See Chapter XI, "Case studies," New York.
88 An internal company memo of a glass container manufacturer dated Mar. 20, 1970, given to MRI contains the
following statements: "A review of the glass container industry's past production in use of cullet shows that both glass
quality and high production can be maintained while using cullet levels from a low of 10 percent per batch to a high of
50 percent." The latter cullet level being used to augment the melting  capacity of the furnace. "Based on the above
item, glass quality can  be maintained regardless of the cullet level so long as the level is held relatively constant so that
batch patterns, melting rates, and the thermal history of the glass produced are uniform."
89 Owens-Illinois. Press release, Aug. 1970. Toledo, Ohio.
-------
FOR MATERIALS  IN SOLID WASTES                                                                 71


municipal  waste could be  used for recycling  in glass       (3) It is practical to tap this resource only via  new
containers. The problems of recovery of glass from waste    technology  that produces technically and economically
lie in cost, collection, and  preparation  in competition    usable cullet in conjunction with a comprehensive waste
with  readily  available  low-cost virgin  materials,  for    processing system.
which no shortage is forseen now.
-------
  ,8 S


  1 2


  |oL
      s
        Jj
        5 U
LO IO Q O
CN r*^ o o



r^. ^ CN*
O
  -S uj !&

•g|i^
ISsa

     r~
     i
                    •~i
                      i
               4-

               81?
               "1 Si'
               -
             8
             	I
                                       -o

                                       £
       8T*
      — ^C LU
      (_) O

      -g ^ £



      |i|

      I 20
                            r
             "I  s
               I  -.
                            ^ O

:=  £
iu  ^2


~*

  I
                                          O
                  L.
T
 I
 I
                                                            I J
                                                            's s
                                                                  g
                                                                  o
                                                                  O
                                                                  O
                                                                  .s
                                                                  to

                                                                  i-l

                                                                  rt
                                                                  4-1

                                                                  CO
                                                                  i
                    71-1
-------
                                     TABLE  44

SHIPMENTS OF GLASS CONTAINERS BY END USE, 1967-1970, IN MILLION UNITS AND PERCENT*
                    	Units		Percent	
  Category	1967    19681   1969    197Qt   1967   1968   1969   197(1

  Food             11,872   11,183   11,901  11,814   36.0   35.0   32.9   31.5

  Beverages        14,709   15,411   18,431  20,333   44.7   48.2   51.0   54.1

    Liquor          1,980   1,731   2,003   1,784    6.0    5.4    5.6    4.8

    Wine              822     829      975      988    2.5    2.6    2.7    2.6

    Beer            6,408   6,460   7,356   7,598   19.5   20.2   20.3   20.2
      Returnable      624     475      480      350    1.9    1.5    1.3    0.9
      Nonreturnatile 5,784   5,985   6,876   7,248   17.6   18.7   19.0   19.3

    Soft  drinks     5,499   6,391   8,097   9,963   16.7   20.0   22.4   26.5
      Returna-ble    1,913   1,747   1,640   1,603    5.8    5.5    4.5    4.3
      Nonreturna-ble 3,586   4,644   6,457   8,360   10.9   14.5   17.9   22.2

  Medical and
    health          3,255   2,887   3,355   3,176    9.9    9.0    9.3    8.5

  Toiletries and
    cosmetics       2,290   1,842   1,817   1,694    6.9    5.8    5.0    4.5

  Chemicals           816     624      647      540    2.5    2.0    1.8    1.4

   Total            32,942  31,947   36,151  37,557   100.0   100.0   100.0   100.0
     *Current Industrial reports.  Glass containers.   Series M32G.   1967;
   1968; 1969; 1970.
     tShipments were affected by a 51-day strike.
     ^Estimated by MRI on the basis of 8 months data.
                                     71-2
-------
                             TABLE 45

         BEER AND SOFT DRINK FILLINGS AND CONTAINER CONSUMPTION,
                      1967-1970 IN MILLION UNITS*
                               1967
                                         1968
                                                  1969
                             1970 +
 Soft drink:

  Glass closures                32,715    31,046    36,133     35,349
  Metal cans                    7,290    10,028    11,764     12,856
  Glass container shipments:
    Returnable                   1,915     1,747     1,640      1,603
    Nonreturnable                5,586     4,644     6,457      8,560
  Total fillings^               40,005    41,074    47,897     48,205

  Market share $:
    Metal cans                    18.2      24.4      24.5      26.6
    Returnable bottles §           72.8      64.5      62.0      56.1
    Nonreturnable bottles           9.0      11.3      13.5      17.5

  Avg. no. trips, returnable
    bottlesll                       16       15        14      n.a.
 Beer:
  Glass  closures
  Metal  cans
  Glass  container shipments:
    Returnable bottles
    Nonreturnable
  Total  fillings^

  Market share $:
    Metal cans
    Returnable bottles? §
    Nonreturnable bottles

  Avg. no. trips, returnable
    bottlesll
17,005
15,769
624
5,784
16,092
15,342
475
5,985
17,834
16,708
480
6,876
17,747
18,864
350
7,248
30,772
  44.7
  36.5
  18.8
    19
31,434
  48.8
  32.2
  19.0
             20
34,542
  48.4
  31.7
  19.9
                      20
36,611
  51.5
  28.7
  19.8
                                                             n.a.
   *Current  Industrial  reports.   Glass  containers.  Series
M32G;  Metal  cans.   Series  M3^D;  Closures for containers.
Series M34H.  1967;  1968;  1969;  1970.   Annual  report-
metal  can  shipments-"1968.  Washington,  Can Manufacturers
Institute.
   tEstimated by MRI  on  the basis of 8  months  data.
   fTotal  fillings  is total crowns and  other closures  for
glass  bottles plus  total metal cans for the beverage
category.
   §Calculated as a percent of total fillings,  not putput
of returnable containers.
   HEstimates by Glass  Container Manufacturers  Institute
in Glass Containers,  1970.
                            71-3
-------
                                  TABLE 46
           GLASS PRODUCTION AND PURCHASED GULLET CONSUMPTION,  1967*
                                                Purchased
                                                 collet
                         Production            consumption      Purchased
Industry segment
Containers
Flat glass
Pressed and. "blown
Total
in 1,000 tons
8,950
2,150
1,720
12,820
in 1,000 tons
100
244
256
600
cullet, percen
1.1
11.3
14.9
4.7
   *U.S. Bureau of the Census.   1967 Census  of manufacturers.   Preliminary
reports:  glass containers, SIC 3221;  flat glass,  SIC  3211;  pressed  and
blown glass, SIC 3229.  Washington,  19&9.   Production  estimate  for flat
glass and pressed and blown glass is by MRI;  external  cullet consumption
in containers, MRI estimates.
                                   71-4
-------
                                                                                                        73
CHAPTER VIII
                                              TEXTILES
                    Overview
   In  1968,  5.7  million  tons of  textile  fibers were
consumed  in  the  United States. Synthetic  fibers rep-
resented the  bulk (46 percent), followed by cotton (35
percent), wool (4 percent), and all other (15 percent).
   These materials went into clothing (40 percent), home
furnishings (30 percent), other consumer products (11
percent), and industrial uses (19 percent).
   In  making textiles,   fiber wastes occur; these  are
analogous to "home" scrap in the steel  industry. When
finished  textiles are converted to  clothing and other
products, cuttings and clippings are generated; these are
analogous to "prompt" scrap.  Used clothing articles
represent the chief source of obsolete textiles.
   Waste products recovered in the textile industry and
from obsolete clothing  collections are: (1) consumed in
the making of paper and board products; (2) recovered
into new textile products; (3) used  as stuffings, fillings,
backings, and paddings; (4) exported; (5) converted into
wiping materials; and (6) resold in secondhand stores to
reenter the waste stream at a later date.
   In this section, we shall be concerned mainly with the
recycling  and reuse  of  finished textiles  as opposed  to
textile wastes generated  in the making of textiles. We are
thus concerned with fabrication wastes, especially those
of the apparel industry, and with the  collection and
disposition of obsolete clothing articles.
   Reliable quantitative information  on textile waste
generation and consumption  is  scarce  and  must be
derived  by various computations from isolated bits and
pieces of data. Very little textile  scrap  is recycled (put
back to  use in a new manufactured product). Most textile
wastes  are  either exported (and  they  may  then be
recycled), converted  to wiping material, or resold for
further grading as wools, cottons for paper making,  or
rags for roofing mills. Used clothing marketing activity is
in  the  hands of social welfare agencies  and  small
commercial shops, and these agencies do not have the
detailed  record keeping  practices that  would  permit
insight into their activities.

          Textile  Consumption Trends
   The best data on textile consumption are published by
the Textile Economics Bureau, Inc. (New  York)  in its
Textile Organon magazine. This source regularly reports
consumption  data  by weight, although the tonnages
given  do not necessarily represent weight of finished
products  delivered  to consumers, because  the data
include conversion  losses and exclude weight of  such
things  as buttons  and zippers.  The Organon surveys
measure  consumption as close to the conversion point as
possible  and are therefore the best single measure of
actual  consumption available.
   Domestic consumption of textiles rose from a level of
3.9 to  5.7 million  tons  in the 1960 to 1968  period, a
growth rate of 4.2 percent yearly (Table 47). Per  capita
consumption in this  period rose from 43.6 to 57.4 pounds
a  year.  These  figures  include  textiles  imported  for
consumption  and exclude  textiles exported.  However,
they do  not  include  imports  of  clothing nor do  they
exclude finished clothing exports.
   The single most significant change in the 1960 to 1968
period has been the  phenomenal growth of synthetic,
man-made fibers at the expense of cotton and wool. In
1960, cotton was still King,- by 1968, cotton had declined.
The share of  various  fibers in the past 2 years was as
follows:
   In  actual  tonnage consumed,  cotton barely main-
tained  itself  at a  no-growth rate; wool consumption
declined;  man-made  fiber consumption nearly tripled;
and  consumption of other textiles like silk, linen,  jute,
sisal, and others grew very modestly.
   The decline  in the  share of the market held by wool
and cotton has had  a significant impact on textile waste
-------
74
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
recovery,  as will  be discussed. The advent of synthetic
fibers, however, has been  significant not only because
they captured  markets that were in cotton and wool but
also because  synthetics have reached  the  market in
combination with other fibers, thus contaminating these
latter from a recovery viewpoint and making the job of
textile sorting more and more difficult.

                     End   Uses
   Most textiles,  by weight, are  consumed  in clothing
articles, and though men will find this surprising, more
textiles  are consumed  in  men's  and  boys'  wear  ap-
plications   than  in   women's,  misses',  children's,  and
infants' wear. The apparel categories together accounted
for 39.5 percent of textile  consumption in 1968. Home
furnishings accounted  for  30.3 percent,  including  such
things  as  bedding,  blanketing, towelling, curtains,
draperies, upholstery, carpets, and rugs. Textiles in other
consumer  products accounted for  11.4 percent of textile
consumption. This category includes fabrics  and  yarns
that are  used to  make clothing at home;  linings in
manufactured  clothing,90 textiles used in shoes, slippers,
luggage, handbags, and toys, and medical, surgical, and
sanitary  textiles.  Industrial  uses accounted  for  18.8
percent of  consumption, The  single  largest industrial
category  is tire cord textiles,  which  accounted for  6
percent of total textile consumption,- other applications
are in reinforced plastics, rope and cordage, bags and
bagging, sewing thread, tents, transportation upholstery,
belting, and the like  (Table 48).
   The relative consumption share of  end-use markets
remained  about the same in the 1960 to 1968 period, the
only change worth noting  being a small increase of
textiles co'nsumed in  home furnishings.

                Textiles  in  Waste
   In 1968, textiles  in  municipal wastes  collected are
estimated   to  have   weighed  1.2 million tons,  or 0.6
percent of 193.7  million tons. The low rate of apparent
textile occurrence in waste  relative to total consumption
(average for the  1960 to 1968 period being 4.7 million
tons a year) cannot  be completely explained,  but a
partial explanation includes the following:
   (1) A portion of textiles is lost in laundering.
   (2) Waste composition  samples are frequently taken
from compactor trucks at incinerator pits where carpets
and rugs, tires,  furniture,  draperies, and  other bulky
materials that contain textiles normally are not present.
   (3) A  portion  of  textiles is combined with plastics,
leather,  and rubber and is probably not recognized as
textile  in waste  analyses  or  cannot  be  practically
separated from adhering materials.
   (4) A  portion  of  textiles (clothing) is diverted from
residential sources to social welfare agencies and  then
into industrial applications such as wiping rags, and may
then be disposed of in industrial incinerators.
   (5) A portion of old textiles is exported.
   These facts  suggest that  the  textile proportion in
collected wastes is probably understated or that textiles
are retained by owners for long periods following useful
life of these products, and such materials appear in waste
from time to time in "shock" loads rather than being
discarded as they reach obsolescence in a day-to-day
manner, as does  paper.91 It appears that both of these
explanations are true and account for the relatively low
textile content  of municipal wastes as measured in
composition analyses.

           Textile  Production Wastes
   Textile Mill  Wastes.  Wastes generated in  textile
mills, the portion of such wastes utilized,  and the portion
of that utilized sold have been estimated by survey and
projection for 1965.92  The  waste  utilized for that  year
was 462,000 tons; if this tonnage grew at the same rate as
textile consumption in the 1965 to 1968 period (3.7 percent
a year), the 1968 tonnage was 515,000.
   These wastes  include a  variety of fibrous materials,
such as  cotton linters, vegetable fibers, jute, man-made
fibers, and wool wastes. These materials are used in three
waysi (I)  they are exported (1968  exports amounted to
90 Included here by Textile Organon because use of linings cut across all clothing consumption categories.
91 If a nonscientific opinion is admissible, it appears that there are few households that lack large accumulations of
obsolete textiles,  retained either for sentimental reasons (Dad's uniform), as a hedge against hard times, or because
disposal is difficult to accomplish (carpets). These accumulations are, of course, eventually disposed of,  but disposal
may be collected during a spring clean-up drive. Sampling is unlikely to capture such waste loads, and the analyst may
even reject the load as unrepresentative.
92 Combustion  Engineering,  Inc. Technical economic study of solid waste disposal needs and practices. Public Health
Service Publication No. 1886. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969 p.98,99,116.
-------
 FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                                 75
 104,000 tons); (2) they are consumed in paper, board, and
 pulp mills (estimated 1968 consumption, 167,000 tons); and
 (3) they are used  in the textile  industry itself as felted
 products,   stuffing  materials, backings, and the  like.
 Tonnages consumed are not available but are assumed
 to be  equivalent to fiber wastes sold less exports and
 paper industry consumption, i.e., 244,000 tons in 1968.
   Apparel  Industry  Wastes.  One  estimate  of
 process wastes sold in  1965  by  the  apparel  industry is
 143,000 tons.  In  1968, such  wastes amounted  to  an
 estimated 160,000 tons.93 These are principally cuttings
 and  clippings but also  include some defective products
 that  cannot be salvaged, such  as soiled items,  ripped
 clothing, cutting errors, and the like. The apparel industry
 as here defined includes clothing and other  fabricated
 textiles but excludes industrial textile users. It should be
 noted  that the  tonnage  shown  here  is that sold, not
 necessarily generated wastes.
   Apparel industry conversion  wastes  normally  enter
 the paper industry as rags, are converted to wiping cloth,
 or are exported. Data on consumption of finished textile
 wastes, however, do not permit  differentiation between
 conversion wastes and  obsolete  wastes, and these are
 therefore treated as a whole  later in this chapter.
   Textile mill and apparel conversion wastes do not, of
 course, represent  the total  "new" scrap produced in
 textile consumption. These two  activities, however, are
 the only ones where some indication of waste generation
 and sales is available.
   We shall not further concern ourselves with  textile mill
 wastes — essentially the industry's home scrap — but
 want to note here that these fibrous materials, much like
 textile  wastes,  pass through  the hands of  secondary
 dealers and  represent  roughly  half  the  tonnage  of
 materials they handle.

          Textile  Recycling  and  Reuse
   Textile  wastes obtained from industrial sources and
 from  the  collection  of  used clothing by social welfare
 agencies  are  channeled  through secondary materials
 dealers with  portions  going to  the paper and board
 industry, to export, and into wiping rags. The tonnage
 entering  the  paper industry  is  recycled in  the usual
 meaning  of  the  word; that  is, it  is  made  into new
 products.  Wiping rag applications are a form of reuse:
The textiles are merely delayed on their way to the dump
and  pick  up oils, chemicals,  and dirt  in  the process.
However, use of old textiles in wiping applications keeps
other, virgin materials out of the waste that would have
to be used in their stead.  Exported textiles, of course,
leave the country; some of these are recycled, the rest are
sold as clothing.
   In 1968, an  estimated 574,000 tons of textiles were
sold; the secondary materials industry acquired between
642,000 and I.I  million tons of textiles in order to satisfy
the  demand  (Table  49)  for  reasons to  be developed
below. Obsolete  clothing collections by  social  welfare
agencies were  between 759,000 and 1.8 million tons to
support the secondary textile industry at an output level
of 574,000 tons.

          Waste  Processing Sequence
   Textile wastes resulting from conversion operations
are  collected  by secondary  materials dealers.  Textile
wastes from private households are collected by social
welfare agencies, which collect textiles in order to obtain
resalable  clothing articles. The  proportion of clothing
collected  that  is  actually sold varies  from agency to
agency. Our best estimate, based on the experience of
such agencies in  Cincinnati, Houston, and New York, is
that 45 percent  of collections is sold in secondhand stores
and the remainder  is sold  as mixed rags to secondary
textile  dealers.  Thus, an initial separation of  obsolete
textiles into "resalable" and "rag" portions takes place
within the social service agency.
   Mixed  rag  bundles  normally  include  all  clothing
articles  judged unsalable  by  social   welfare  agency
sorters. Torn and excessively soiled items, unrepairable
items, clothing  that is out of style,  and items that could
not  be  sold  in secondhand stores are  all "ragged."
Depending on the size and resources of an agency, more
or less repair  of  clothing may. be undertaken.  Smaller
agencies tend to send more of their clothing to rags than
larger  ones. Rag bundles appear  to have roughly  the
same proportions of the major fibers as new textiles.
   Rag bundles may next go to rag sorting organizations
where the textiles are manually graded into four basic
grades: clothing for export, textiles for wiper stock (pure
cottons), pulp substitute rags (small cotton pieces), and
roofing  rags (low quality rag wastes). Some sorting for
woolens  may  also  be accomplished.  The  rag  sorting
organization may also be a wiping cloth manufacturer.
   The  wiping  grade cottons are sold to wiping cloth
manufacturers  who may:  (I)  further sort into different
93 Technical-economic study, p.100,101,116.
-------
76
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
wiping grades (white  sheeting, colored cotton slacks,
etc.);  (2) launder  the  cottons;  (3) remove all  buttons,
zippers, and  other trim and cut open trouser legs, shirt
sleeves, and  so forth; and (4)  bale  and package the
wipers for shipment to  consumers.  All  other  grades
obtained from mixed rag bundles may be sold directly to
final consumers by the rag sorting organization or may
be sold to another dealer, such as an export specialist.
   New textile clippings, obtained directly  by the dealer,
usually come in presegregated form. Cotton clippings are
sold to the paper  industry. Synthetic fiber clippings are
sold to respinners provided these are pure basis materials
— dacron, orlon,  nylon, etc. If they are blends, they are
sold to be  used as stuffing and backing materials. Old
synthetic textiles are  not recycled because  the nature of
the fiber in such items cannot be adequately identified. A
very small quantity of "respinning wool" is also handled
for recycling.  Respinning wool  may  be from obsolete
clothing articles.
   The disposition  of  waste  textiles  handled  by  the
secondary materials industry is shown in Figure 22.
   The  Wiping  Cloth Cycle. On  the  basis  of
interviews with various participants in the industry, we
infer that to obtain I  ton  of wiping materials between  6
and 12 tons of  used clothing  must be collected from
households. The numbers  are derived, and the basis for
them is as follows.
   The source  of  wiping materials is almost entirely
mixed  rag bundles  obtained  by dealers from  social
welfare agencies.  Cottons suitable for conversion  into
wiping  cloths (not  all of the cotton in  bundles)  are
believed to be between 15 and 30 percent by weight of
mixed rag bundles. Assuming a 30 percent level, 3.3 tons
of mixed rags are  needed to yield I ton of wiping grade
cotton. Mixed rags represent 55 percent of social welfare
agency collections. Thus,  6 tons of clothing collections
will yield the  requisite quantity of mixed  rags, cottons,
and wipers. If  the cotton  content of mixed  rag bundles  is
15 percent, the quantitites  are twice as great.
   Wiping  rag consumption  in 1969  was estimated to
have been  150,000 tons by the National Association of
Wiping Cloth Manufacturers (this estimate was obtained
in a personal interview).  The growth rate of wiping rag
consumption  is estimated  to be 3 percent annually. This
would  indicate that in  1968, 146,000 tons of textile wipers
were  used  and  that this  tonnage necessitated  the
consumption  of 482,000  to 978,000 tons of mixed  rag
bundles and social welfare agency collections of 891,000
to 1.8 million  tons. The actual collection rates cannot be
established but are  believed to be somewhere between
the extreme ranges.
   These estimates indicate (Table 49) that the secondary
textile industry has an excess of intake over output of at
least 68,000 tons and possibly as much as 564,000 tons a
year — for which it must pay and which it must store or
dispose of but which it cannot sell. This raises its costs for
the commodities that can be sold.
   The partly unsalable materials are man-made fabrics
and wool. The three markets for these materials  (paper
and  board,  exports, and reprocessors) have  no  re-
quirements for more than they already consume of these
fibers, which is far under the available supply of rags. On
the other hand, the textile dealers are forced to  accept
these  additional  textiles  in order to obtain the  cotton
materials that they can sell.
   This situation has led to the progressive decline in the
price  paid by dealers for mixed rag bundles, from
around $120 to $140 per ton in the mid-1960's to $55 to  $65
per ton  in 1969 and  1970. In addition to inability to sell all
the man-made and  wool  textiles,  two other forces have
contributed to depressing prices: (I) the decline in pure
cotton content of  mixed rag  bundles and (2) the steadily
rising costs of manufacturing wipers from mixed rags.
   The costs of preparing wiping  cloth were an average
of $267  per  ton  in 1969,  according  to an  unpublished
survey made by  the  National Association  of Wiping
Cloth Manufacturers.94 This  cost  was up from $242 in
1968.  Additionally,  raw  materials  costs were  up 14
percent,  and freight costs rose by 13 percent between
1968 and 1969. The industry raised prices by 8 percent to
compensate for these increases.
   The economics of wiper  manufacturing  can best be
illustrated by an example. The dealer buys a mixed  rag
bundle  for $60 a ton.95  If  cotton is 30  percent and
assuming that none of the other materials can be sold, his
cost per ton of cotton is $199.80. His pick-up cost will be
$3.50 per ton of mixed rags, or $11.66 per ton of  cotton.
His processing cost is $267  per ton  of cotton; and his
freight cost to the consumer is $35.80 per ton. His total
cost thus is $514.26 per ton of wiping rag plus disposal of
94 The survey excludes initial sorting costs which we added based on interview data obtained from processors. Sorting
costs for both years are included at a level of $60 per ton.
95 Actual price quotations are by the pound.
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                                 77
that portion of other textiles he cannot sell. If he cannot
sell any of these materials, he incurs an additional cost
per ton of cotton sold  of $19.39.96 Given this extreme
case, his  total cost is  $533.65  per ton  of cotton.  The
average selling price for wipers is $420 per ton.
   In order to break even, the dealer must sell a portion
of the man-made  and woolen  textiles and the cotton
textiles that cannot be  made  into wipers. In the export
trade, textiles are valued at $240 per ton. To make up the
difference between his cotton  preparation costs and his
wiping rag selling price ($113.65), the dealer must sell 916
pounds of textiles in export, worth $109.92 ($240 per ton);
to this is added a saving on disposal cost of $3.81. If he
incurs shipping costs to a port or must pay brokerage
fees, he must, of course, sell proportionately more than
916 pounds. If the textiles are sold as roofing rags for
between $15 and $20 per ton or as pulp substitute grades
for between $100 to $200 per ton, the quantities must also
be higher to justify wiping rag operations.
   If  usable  cotton is  only  15  percent  of  mixed  rag
bundles, the dealer's cotton wiper costs will be $776 per
ton.  His loss will be $356 per ton and he will have to sell
1.4 tons of textiles in export for every ton of wiper cloth
he sells to break even.
   In 1968, textile  dealers sold 268,000 tons of obsolete
textiles in  addition to wiping rags, equivalent to 1.84 tons
per ton of wipers sold. Of this  total, 123,000 tons went
into  the export trade, 144,000 to the domestic consumers.
If cotton was 15 percent of mixed  rag bundles in 1968,
dealers  had  to sell these  nonwiping obsoletes for an
average of $186 per ton to break even; if  cotton was 30
percent, the break-even sales price had to be $54 per ton.
The value of  textiles in the export trade was $240 per ton
in 1968.  Thus, ot the 15 percent cotton content  level, the
average domestic sales  price  per ton had  to be $140 per
ton; at the 30 percent cotton content level, dealers could
have lost $105 per ton on domestic consumption and still
have had a break-even year.97
   Wiper  manufacturers are  beginning  to feel strong
competition from producers of new wiping materials —
both textile wipers and paper products.  One  reaction
within  the industry is "if you can't fight 'em, join 'em."
Wiper   dealers  are beginning  to  act as  middlemen
between new  wiper producers and wiping rag  con-
sumers. Dealers find that new wipers, which cost more
than old rag wipers, are beginning to be competitive in
overall  cost with  old  wipers.  Old  rag wipers  are
sometimes reacted because  nonabsorbent textiles  are
inadvertently included.  For new wipers,  handling costs
may be cut to the bone because the dealer may have the
wipers shipped  directly to the customer. In addition, the
cost of  old wiper production  is   rising  for  reasons
explained above.
   Textile  Consumption in  Paper  and  Board.
Textile waste, once an  important input material to the
paper  industry,  has steadily declined in  importance. In
1956, only 0.9 percent of all fibrous materials inputs to the
paper  industry  were rags.98 After that year, textiles  are
not separately  reported  in fiber consumption statistics.
Assuming that  the ratio of rags to "all other" fibers
consumed in the 1952-1956 period has held unchanged,
rag consumption in 1968 was 0.4 percent  of total fibrous
inputs,  or 225,000 tons, down from 298,000 tons in 1956.
Long-term trends appear to indicate that waste textiles
will eventually  disappear as paper and board  industry
inputs.
   There are two basic forces at work here: (I) the decline
in  the use of waste materials in paper, of which rags are
one portion; (2) the decline in the availability of textile
waste grades acceptable to the paper industry as well as
the slow  change  in  demand for rag  content  paper.
Cotton, the  vegetable fiber based textile used in large
quantities, is in a  no-growth  situation and is an ever
lower proportion of total textiles. Furthermore, more and
more  of the cotton is used in blends with man-made
fibers, which cannot be  processed by the paper industry.
An additional  problem  is the  use of non-water-soluble
adhesive'tapes in the fabrication of textile products; such
tapes contaminate  cotton clipping wastes and make their
reuse  impossible without  prohibitively  costly  manual
sorting.
96 Disposal cost is around $5 per 1,200 pound bundle, $8.32 per ton, and $19.39 for 2.33 tons of unsalable textiles.
97 At the 15 percent level, wiper losses would be $356  X  146,000 tons, or $51.976  million; sales of 268,000 tons of
additional textiles will save disposal costs (268,000  X  $8.32) of $2.230 million, leaving a net loss of $49.746 million; to
cancel this will  require a sales price per ton of (268,000 divided by $49.746 million) $185.62. If 123,000 tons are sold for
$240 per ton in export ($29.250 million), 144,000 tons need to generate only $140.46 per ton (144,000 divided by $20.226
million). The same logic is used for the 30 percent level; losses at that level are $114 per  ton of wipers.
98 The statistics of paper, 1964.  New York, American Paper and Pulp Association, p.21.
-------
78
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
   Reprocessing of Textiles.  A specialized segment
of the textile industry engages in the conversion of textile
wastes  into  respun fibers,  paddings,  backings,  and
similar products. This industry appears to be  declining.
The number of establishments dropped from 183 in  1958
to 141 in 1963 and to 138 in 1967. The number of employees
dropped from 4,600 in  1958 to 4,300 in 1967. Value of
shipments was $93.5 million in 1958, $87.5 million in 1963,
and $88.9 million in 1967. Total waste materials  consumed
by the industry declined from 115,500 tons in 1963 to 71,800
in 1967, a 38 percent decline in the  period. The use of
textile wastes dropped from 38,800 tons in 1963 to 19,800
tons in 1967, a 49 percent drop in consumption.
   Three factors  explain  the  decline in  textile  re-
processing: (I) the products of this industry are competing
against  new  chemical-based materials —  principally
foam rubber; (2) wool consumption is dropping, and the
proportion  of secondary  wool that  can be  consumed
(around 4 percent of total consumption) is also declining;
(3)  acceptable textile  waste materials supplies  are
decreasing  in  quantity because of "contamination" by
chemical blending  of fibers. The  costs of acceptable
materials have risen as a consequence, and reprocessors
thus  face fading  markets and  new  competition  with
products that cost  more.  In 1963,  for instance,  re-
processors paid $280 per ton for  new and used textile
wastes; in 1967, they were  forced to pay $520 per ton for
these input materials.
   Export Markets. Confronting declining domestic
markets  for  waste  textiles,  the secondary  materials
industry  has   long  viewed  the export  market as  a
promising outlet for its commodities. The export picture,
however, is not particularly cheerful. Export markets must
take up all commodities that cannot be sold domestically,
and  this largely  means those  portions of mixed  rag
bundles that cannot be sold as wiping rags. While wiping
rag consumption  has  grown at a  rate of  3 percent
annually, exports  since 1955 have grown at a  rate of 1.8
percent yearly, from 148,100 tons in 1955 to 190,800 tons in
1969 (Table 50).
   Not all exports are obsolete textiles. The Bureau of the
Census  stopped   reporting obsolete  and new  exports
separately in  1965, and in earlier periods, only  the cotton
and wool portions  were reported  by origin. In 1964, 53
percent of cottons  exported and  95 percent of wool
exports were obsolete; the two grades combined yield an
obsolete ratio of 68 percent. In making our estimates for
1968, we  assumed that this ratio was applicable to all
grades.
   In  1968, 182,300  tons were exported, containing an
estimated  123,000  tons  of  obsolete  textiles. Of the
obsolete portion, cotton was 42,000 tons; wool, 38,000;
man-made fibers, 23,000; and all other textiles, 20,000. If
we  assume that all the obsolete wool came from mixed
rag bundles  (which  is to be expected) and that the  1968
bundles represent textiles  consumed in  1963  (five years
earlier) when  wool was  6.4 percent  of total  textile
consumption, then  the exported  wool  required the
collection  of 604,000 tons of mixed rags — roughly  in
the  middle between the low and high estimates presented
earlier (Table 49)."
   Trends  in export indicate that  export demand for
man-made textiles  and  other textiles  is  increasing,
demand for cotton is stable, and demand for wool  is
dropping. Textile  dealers have experienced this  and
report that woolen textiles cannot be sold at  generation
rates.
   U.S. waste  textiles  are consumed in more than 50
countries.  The single largest buyers, in descending order
of  importance,  are:  Italy,  Spain,  Canada,  France,
Nigeria,   Phillipines,  Iraq,  Belgium,   England,  West
Germany, Tunisia,  Lebanon, Pakistan,  Cameroon, and
Japan.
   Consumption  patterns by  commodity type reveal that
the  largest consumers of cottons are developed nations;
of woolens,  developing nations; of  man-made  fibers,
industrialized countries; and of "other  textiles," de-
veloping nations — always  excepting Italy, which leads
in the consumption of all but one type of textile waste.
   Textile  dealers point out  that the decline in woolen
sales  (and the slow growth  rate of textile  exports  in
general) is explainable by: (I) the development of strong
virgin textile industries in southern Europe, especially in
Italy; (2) the consequent decline in the demand for used
clothing  in  southern  Europe; (3) affluence  in  Europe
leading to the generation of textile wastes there; and (4)
the  consequent  rise in competition for waste  textile
markets in the Near East and Africa.
   These   developments  have  hurt wool exports es-
pecially, which  go largely to African and Near Eastern
countries and Italy.  U.S. dealers can least afford to lose
their  wool  markets   because woolens  are  a  dis-
99 It appears from this that mixed rag consumption must have been higher than 604,000 tons in 1968 because nearly all
dealers report that they are unable to sell all of their obsolete wool acquisitions.
-------
FOR  MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                                79
proportionately  large  part of mixed rag bundles and
because domestic markets for wool are very limited.
   Consumption  trends, as presently established, do not
appear to be responsive to unilateral intervention by the
U.S. Government, and  dealers can do little to influence
the foreign demand.
   The  Wool  Controversy.  The  textile  industry
consumes around 10,000 tons of reprocessed wool yearly,
equivalent  to around  4  percent  of total  wool con-
sumption. Since woolen articles can  be separated and the
wool can be rewoven  (a process known as garnetting),
there is no limit to the quantity of wool that could be
recycled. Little is recycled, and dealers blame the  1940
Wool Labelling Act, which requires that manufacturers of
woolen articles  label garments and other materials to
show the percentage of reprocessed wool used.
   This has destroyed the reprocessing of wool because
consumers, in part conditioned by  advertising, have an
aversion  to  reprocessed  woolens,  preferring- "pure"
virgin wool.100
   Textile dealers believe that elimination of the labeling
requirement  would  cause an increased  use of re-
processed wool  because  economics inherently  favor
reprocessed wool and the quality of products made from
waste woolen textiles would not be affected. We are not
certain that removal of the labeling requirement would
in  itself  succeed in boosting wool  recycling.  Sheep
growers,  already seriously worried by the decline in wool
consumption, would undoubtedly exert as much pressure
as  possible (by  trimming  costs and  by advertising) to
maintain  wool's image. Sheep growers in Australia, New
Zealand, and  South Africa launched a scheme as far
back as 1956 to give virgin wool an international image.
The scheme consists of an international trademark, called
"Woolmark."  which  is granted to manufacturers who
make products in which the reprocessed wool fraction is
no  more than 0.03 percent.101 "Woolmark" promotion
may be used effectively to negate any beneficial effects
of a repeal of the Wool Labelling Act.

                   Conclusions
   The  large   quantities  of  textiles  collected  from
households by social welfare agencies do not translate
into a  large recycling  rate. Most  social  welfare  textile
collections are resold;  portions that are  sent to dealers
are reused and  exported, with only a small  tonnage
being recycled.
   In 1968, the recycling rate for textile  wastes was 7.5
percent of consumption (428,000 tons of recycling, 5.7
million tons of consumption). This includes exports under
the  "recycling" category. If exports (some of which are
sold as clothing) are excluded, the recycling rate was 4.3
percent of consumption in 1968, or 246,000 tons.
   Recycling is declining, in part because textile wastes
are  used at decreasing rates in paper and board and in
part because the most desirable fraction of textile wastes,
pure cotton, is decreasing.
  Reuse of textiles, although not a direct utilization of
these fibers in new products, has a beneficial effect on
waste processing nevertheless by keeping wastes down.
(For instance, reused textiles doing service as wiping rags
could have been thrown away as obsolete textiles and, in
addition, the waste stream could have been loaded with
new materials in wipers.)
100  One exasperated  industry observer comments: "Most consumers see a virgin product as something esthetically
clean. But have you ever seen a sheep?" J. Mighdoll, Executive Director, National Association of Secondary Materials,
Inc., quoted in: Turning junk and trash into a resource. BusinessWeek, No. 2145:67, Oct. 10,1970.
101 Stansfield, J. R. Textile reclamation in practice. Secondary Raw Materials, 7(10):96, Oct. 1969.
-------
                  Households
                                                                  I ndustry
                 Used Clothing
                                                             Clippings and Rejects
1


Secondhand Cannot be
Store Sold ,







1 '
Mixed Rag Large
Bundle
\
1
\ \

Export Roofing ^ 	 Wiper ^ 	
i
Rags
1
Wastes Cot



1
Cotton We
1
, *
'ieces Small
Pieces

Wastes

\


' i

>ol Synthetics

k
Pure



i



i

t
Blends



i




Sold to  Exported  Sold to        Sold to
Public            Construction   Industry
                 Paper Mi I Is    and
                               Government
Sold to   Sold to        Sold to         Sold as Stuffing
Paper     Respinners     Respinners      and Backing
Mills     and Exported   and Exported    Material to
                                     Industry and
                                     Exported
          Figure  22.   Schematic of commercial  disposition of waste  textiles.
                                               79-1
-------
                                   TABLE 47

                    CONSUMPTION OP FIBERS FOR DOMESTIC USES
             IN THE U. S., 1960-1968, BY TYPE OF FIBER, IN 1,000
                               TONS MD PERCENT*
                                                 Man-
       Total   _._   Cotton        Wool       	made       	
Year    vt.	vt.	%     vt.    j>	vt.	jo     vt.	%


1960   3,895   1,965   50.45   283   7.27     950   24.39   697   17.89


1961   3,974   1,951   49.09   281   7.07   1,041   26.20   701   17.64


1962   4,352   2,015   46.30   282   6.48   1,200   27.57   855   19.65


1963   4,560   2,012   44.12   290   6.36   1,376   30.18   882   19.34


1964   4,738   2,092   44.16   256   5.40   1,557   21.86   833   17.58


1965   5,088   2,144   42.14   270   5.30   1,773   34.85   901   17.71


1966   5,234   2,161   41.29   260   4.97   1,951   37.27   862   16.47


1967   5,182   2,068   39.91   233   4.50   2,100   40.52   781   15.07


1968   5,672   1,994   35.16   239   4.21   2,598   45.80   841   14.83
    ^Textile fiber end use survey.   Textile  Organon, ^l(l):   1-23,
 1970.  Excludes fibers produced for export  consumption; excludes  imports
 of finished garments.
    tRepresents imports of silk, linen,  jute,  sisal, and oth?r fibers
 imported for consumption.
                                  79-2
-------
                                        TABLE 48

                          END USE DISTRIBUTION OF 1968 TEXTILE
                               CONSUMPTION, IN 1,000 TONS*
                           Category
  Wt.
j> of total
Men's and boys' wear

Women's, misses',  children's, and infants' wear

Home furnishings
  Bedspreads, quilts,  blankets, sheeting, etc.
  Carpets and rugs
  Curtains
  Drapery, upholstery,  slipcovers
  Miscellaneous

Other consumer-type products
  Linings, piece goods,  fabrics, yams
  Shoes, slippers, luggage, handbags
  Toys
  Medical, surgical, sanitary
  Miscellaneous

Industrial
  Transportation upholstery and auto seat covers
  Tires
  All other '

     Total
  957
  952
4,833
  19.80
  19.70
 100.00
     *Textile  fiber end use  survey, Textile Organon, Jan.  1970.  Excludes imported
 silk,  linen,  jute, sisal, and other fibers that are not allocated  by end use  in
 source.
                                         79-3
-------
                                   TABLE 49

                       TEXTILE RECOVERY AND REUSE,  1968,
                                IN 1,000 TONS*
                        Item	   	          Tonnage
      Materials  sold
        Wiping rags—largely cotton                      146
        Paper and board mills--vegetable  fiber-
          based  textiles,  some  synthetics,  and wool      225
        Exports--all fibers                               182
        Reprocessors—wool and  synthetics                 21

                 Total                                    574

      Materials  acquired
        Clippings and other  new wastes                    160
        Mixed rags from social  service  agencies          482 -  978

                 Total                                    642 -  1,138


   *Estlmated by  Midwest Research  Institute;  see text  for  explanations of
derivations.   Quantities on mixed  rags from  social  service agencies are
based on two  levels of cotton content and  are derived  from mixed wiping
rag sales.
                                 79-4
-------
                                  TABLE 50

                 EXPORTS OF  TEXTILE WASTES, 1955-1969, BY TYPE,
                          IN 1,000 TONS AND PERCENT*
Year
   Cotton
Tons    <1a-
Wool
                                           Man-made
                                            fibers     All otherf-
Tons
                                         Tons
.Tons
                                     Total
1955          58.8   39.7    78.3   52.9                 11.0    7.4    148.1

1956          60.0   44.6    64.8   48.1                  9.8    7.3    134.6

1957          66.5   43.0    79.2   51.2                  9.0    5.8    154.7

1958          62.6   46.5    55.4   41.1                 16.7   12.4    134.7

1959          68.1   41.4    72.6   44.1                 23.8   14.5    164.5

1960          75.4   43.4    72.6   41.8                 25.6   14.8    173.6

1961          78.7   46.3    70.3   41.3                 21.1   12.4    170.1

1962          88.4   50.0    67.5   38.2                 20.9   11.8    176.8

1963         106.4   51.8    74.1   36.0                 25.2   12.2    205.6

1964         117.1   55.5    67.5   32.0                 26.4   12.5    211.0

1965          90.6   45.7    61.9   31.2   23.5   11.9   22.3   11.2    198.3

1966          91.1   46.5    57.3   29.2   28.3   14.4   19.4    9.9    196.1

1967          83.5   46.0    48.3   26.6   28.9   15.9   21.0   11.5    181.7

1968          79.1   43.4    40.4   22.2   33.8   18.5   29.0   15.9    182.3

1969          70.7   37.0    38.9   20.4   48.4   25.4   32.8   17.2    190.8

Average for period

1955-1959     63.2   42.9    70.1   47.6                 14.1    9.5    147.4

1960-1964     93.2   49.7    70.4   37.6                 23.8   12.7    187.4

1965-1969     83.0   43*7    49.4   26.0   32.6   17.2   24.9   13.1    189.9
     *U.S.  Bureau of  the  Census.  U.S.  exports—schedule B  commodity
  and country.   Report  FT^IO.  Washington, U.S. Government  Printing
  Office,  197*4;  1965;  1969.
     tlncludes  man-made fibers,  1953-1964.
                                 79-5
-------
                                                                                                        81
CHAPTER IX
                                    OTHER  MATERIALS
                      Rubber
   In  1969, the rubber industry102 consumed 3.2 million
tons of  rubber,  including 279,800 tons of reclaimed
rubber.  Tires  accounted  for 67  percent  of rubber
consumed, the remainder being distributed  to a  large
number  of  other applications  (Table  51).  Reclaimed
rubber, overall, represented 8.8 percent of consumption.
In addition to  reclaimed rubber, 752,000 tons of old tires
were  consumed by  retreaders and 7,000 tons by tire
splitters,103 for a total recovery in 1969 of 1.0 million tons
(Table 52).  Tire  splitting  is  a clear  case of  reuse,
analogous to  wiping cloth production from old textiles.
Retreading is  a more  ambiguous  case and could  be
viewed either  as  recycling or reuse. If retread tires are
viewed as recycling, then  the weight of retread tires
(0.752  million  tons) must be added to  recycled  tonnage
and  to   consumption,  in  which  case total  rubber
consumption is increased from 3.19 million to 3.94 million
tons in 1969. Recycling as a percentage of consumption is
increased from 8.8 percent to 26.2 percent in that year.
   Rubber  Reclaiming. Rubber products  are  re-
claimed  in 20 plants across  the United States with a
capacity   of  412,500  tons  per  year.  The  reclaiming
industry's input products consist of obsolete tires, tire
parts (from tire splitters among others), retread  buffings
(from   retreaders), inner tubes,  and  similar  obsolete
products  (43.7  percent of   inputs  in  1968),  rubber
manufacturing scrap (7.5 percent), and  other industrial
rubber scrap  (48.8  percent).  Rubber  reclaimers used
about 71,000 tons of old tires in 1968. The prices paid by
reclaimers vary from nothing to $10  per ton  for tires
delivered to them.
   Obsolete and new rubber wastes are reduced to a
uniform size by shredding and cracking; metals and
fibrous materials are removed; the rubber is mixed with
reclaiming  oils, softened, and mixed with compounding
agents; and after further refining and milling operations,
the reclaimed rubber is sold in slabs or bales.
   Reclaimed rubber production has averaged 297,000
tons  a year in the 1958 to 1968 period. Production data
(Table 53) do not show a clearly discernible trend in the
direction of growth or decline. Reclaimed rubber as a
percentage of total rubber consumption has definitely
declined in the period,  from 19 percent in 1958 to 9.3
percent in 1968, 8.8 percent in 1969, and a projected 8.5
percent level in 1970.
   The  no-growth  production  pattern  of  reclaimed
rubber viewed against the  backdrop of an expanding
economy and rubber industry suggests that  reclaimed
rubber is  meeting stiff  competition from  natural and
synthetic rubber and other materials. This, in fact, is the
case.   Some new  tire-rubber  formulations   are   in-
compatible with reclaimed rubber. This has kept reclaim
consumption in tires at a plateau. Rubber in a variety of
other applications,  such as floor  mats, hosing, belts,
footwear,  and the  like,  has been  in competition with
plastics. The only application in  which reclaimed rubber
has exhibited a strong growth pattern is in  cements and
dispersions; but these materials were only 3.5 percent of
total reclaimed rubber in 1969.
   Retreading. Automotive  and truck  tire retreaders
are responsible for keeping a significant tonnage of tires
out of the waste stream — 734,000 tons in 1968 and
752,000 tons in 1969. The retreader usually buys unsorted
102 Pettigrew, R. J., and F. Roninger. Rubber reuse and solid waste management. [Public Health Service Publication No.
2124.] Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office.
103 Tonnage based on output of these industries rather than input; thus waste produced in retreading and fire splitting is
excluded as a by-product sold to rubber reclaimers and new rubber purchased by retreaders.
-------
82
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
tires from  retailers at a price that  brings his cost per
usable tire to less than $1.00, probably around $0.75. At
times when  tires are  in short supply, he may pay a tire
carcass wholesaler or tire  broker from $1.25 to $3.00 a
unit.  Sorting of  tires acquired  usually  results in the
rejection of  50 to 80 percent of the tires collected. After
sorting,  retreaders  remove the  remaining tread  by
buffing and apply a  new  tread to the tire carcass. The
buffings usually become waste, but a small quantity is
recycled through reclaimers. Most of the rejected tires
must be disposed of by the retreaders at costs of $7 to $10
per ton or higher.
   Unlike reclaimed rubber, consumption of retreaded
tires has grown in  the 1958 to 1969 period  at a rate of 2.1
percent yearly. This rate, however, has been slower than
new tire consumption, which grew at an annual rate of
6.8  percent. Thus,  in  1958, 136.1  million tires  were
produced, including 37.2 million retreads, or 27.3 percent
of total; by 1969, tire  production  had increased to 251.2
million  units; retreads were 46.5 million units, or 18.5
percent (Table 54).
   The decreasing use of retreads, relative to total tire
consumption,  is  a  reflection  of  growing affluence,
competition  from  synthetic  rubber  tires  specifically
designed  and priced to be competitive in the retread
market, and technical problems within the retreading
industry which have caused costs to increase.
   Tire Splitting. The tire splitting industry, consisting
of three companies, engages in the production of various
industrial products die-cut  from  obsolete tires. Typical
products  are  gaskets,  shims,  insulators,  doormats,
conveyor rollers, belt pieces, and the like. This industry
takes in around 29,000 tons of tires, of which around
7,000 tons go out as various products, 18,000 tons are sold
to rubber reclaimers, and 4,000 tons go to waste.
   Waste Rubber Trading. Rubber wastes, usually in
the form of obsolete tires and inner tubes, are handled by
secondary materials dealers; some are rubber specialists,
but this is a disappearing breed because rubber waste
handling  is  not  a  very  profitable business.  Rubber
dealers,  who once paid  waste generators for tires, are
converting their operation to a new basis — whereby
the generators pay them to remove the tires. Tires bring
anywhere  from  $5  to  $14  per ton  delivered  to  a
reclaimer's plant. Tire splitters pay $15 per ton. Since tires
occur in relatively small concentrations at garages and
filling stations, the sales price  is usually insufficient to
cover a dealer's costs of picking up tires, removal and
disposal  of  unacceptable tires (excessively worn tires,
studded  snow tires,  steel-wire reinforced  tires), and
delivery or freight to the reclaimer. He must be paid for
the removal service in order to stay in business.
   Reclaimers, who can best use rubber wastes that are
already free of metals and fibers, pay considerably more
for such wastes than for tires. Thus retread buffings bring
$25 to $35 per ton, natural rubber inner tubes $120 to
$160, and butyl rubber inner tubes $100 to $120 per ton.
   Conclusions.  Conventional recycling and  reuse of
rubber products is a  limited  activity at present. Rubber
waste recycling and reuse is growing  very slowly, and
what  little growth there  is comes as a result of retread
tires sales; retreads are of declining importance in the tire
industry. The  bulk of rubber  production  reaches  the
discard  state in the form of tires which, though largely
rubber,  are composites of several  materials,  including
textiles and metals. The  reprocessing of this rubber by
removal  of impurities is  less  costly than production  of
virgin rubber, but the cost advantages are not sufficiently
great in  light  of the technical limitations of reclaim, to
cause increased use of reprocessed rubber.
   Rubber in mixed municipal wastes usually also occurs
as a  component of products —  soles and  heels  on
footwear, rubber  backings  on textiles,  wire  coatings,
gaskets  and  insulation  in small appliances,  etc. Some
rubber is pure (water bottles, rubber bands, toys) but this
is an insignificant portion of the total. Removal of these
materials  from  mixed wastes  for recovery  appears
impractical.
   The most  practical use-for  rubber,  particularly old
tires, appears to be raw materials recovery by distillation
or energy recovery; such technology is unproven in the
marketplace  today. In addition, a critical  cost and
logistics  problem  is the  collection of  tires  to central
processing locations.

                      Plastics
   The  growth  of plastics  production  continues  at
impressive  rates.  In the  I960 to  1970  period,  plastics
production increased  at a rate of 11.8 percent  annually,
from 3.07 million to 9.35 million tons; forecasts place 1975
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID  WASTES
                                                  83
consumption at 13.55 million tons and 1980 consumption
at 19.0 million tons.104 The greatest uses for plastics are in
construction and packaging (Table 55).
   Today plastics are still only a small percentage (I.I
percent) of solid waste — an estimated 2.1 million tons in
193.7 million tons of collected wastes in 1968. For 1970, the
total was estimated at 2.55 million tons of  plastic waste
collected, of which packaging was 1.8 million tons and all
other products  were 0.75 million  tons.105 Assuming a
growth  rate for solid waste of 4 percent yearly  and for
plastics at the rates given above, by 1975 plastics will be
1.5 percent and by 1980, 1.8 percent of collected waste.
The  proportion  may  be  even  higher because  con-
sumption of  plastics packaging  and  housewares  is
growing  more rapidly  than plastics  consumption as a
whole.
   The term "plastics" is an umbrella term that includes a
vast variety of chemical substances. Polyethylene (PE) is
the  most common  plastic, accounting  for  around  31
percent  of total  tonnage;  polystyrene,  18 percent,  and
polyvinyl chloride (PVC), 20 percent, are other materials
used in  large  quantities. Most  plastics  begin with oil
refinery  byproducts  or  natural gas  purification plant
products  from which ethylene  is  produced in a pe-
trochemical  plant.  Polymerized  ethylene  yields  pol-
yethylene; ethylene   and chlorine  yield vinyl  chloride
monomer which  is polymerized  to PVC; ethylene  and
benzene are combined to make styrene monomer and, in
turn, polystyrene.
   Approximately 80  percent of plastics can be remelted
again after forming and are labeled "thermoplastics."
The  remaining  20 percent  "set" after forming and are
labeled "thermosetting" plastics.  This category includes
phenolics, polyesters,  epoxy,  and  other  materials.
Thermoplastics  are   at  least theoretically  recyclable;
thermosets cannot be recycled with known technology.
   Plastics Recovery. There are no data available to
indicate  the quantities  of plastics recycled.  Our  in-
vestigations,  conducted predominantly  through  local
interviews and  correspondence,  revealed  that waste
production in  plastics fabrication is quite high, ranging
from 5 to 15 percent for all  thermoplastics and from 10 to
30  percent  for all  thermosets.  Thermoset wastes, of
course,   cannot  be  remelted  and  go  to  disposal.
Fabrication waste reuse related to thermoplastic prod-
uction varies from  operation  to  operation and  from
company to company. We  could discern  no pattern.
Once  plastics  leave fabrication  points,  they are not
recovered  (there is one exception  that we shall discuss),
and there is no recovery from obsolete products.
   Fabrication   wastes,  unless  they  are  immediately
reused in the plant where they occur or are disposed of,
are acquired by plastics scrap processors who specialize
in regrmding scrap, color blending, and remelting. These
processors   frequently  operate on  a  contract  basis,
returning wastes to the organization that provided them,
reformulated into a  product that  can be reused. These
processors   also  supply  manufacturers that use scrap
plastics as  an input material. We were able to identify 13
such companies in the United States.
   Plastic scrap, as prepared by processors, is consumed
in  the  toy  industry,  in  the  manufacture  of cheap
housewares, in the manufacture of plastic pipe,  in the
production  of   artificial  flowers,  and in similar  ap-
plications where (I) plastics properties and performance
are not  paramount; (2) relatively  noncritical processes
are used (compression molding or  heavy extrusion); and
(3) the cost of plastic resin is a high proportion of total
product cost.
   We  know of  only  one  instance  where a plastics
product is recycled after doing service in the home. The
project involves a San Diego dairy that uses polyethylene
milk bottles. Following  Earth Day activities in  the San
Diego area, the  dairy worked out  an arrangement, with
the help of  Dow Chemical, producer  of polyethylene
resins, whereby  bottles returned through the milkman or
placed into special supermarket bins were ground by the
dairy and  the material  was sold to a manufacturer of
drainage tile. Approximately 8 percent of the bottles
were  returned;   consumers  were not paid  for  the
plastic.106
   Plastic fabrication wastes are worth $10 to $20 per ton
for clear polyethylene, $40  to $60  per ton for clear
polystyrene, $90 to $110 per ton for clear vinyl, and $120
to $160 for  clear cellulose acetate.  These are prices paid
by processors. Virgin  plastics sell for around $225 to $400
per ton for polyethylene, $310  to  $350 for polystyrene,
104 Forecast  by Society of Plastics Industry, Inc., transmitted in private communication dated  Feb. 4, 197); 1970
production estimated by SPI.
105 Plastics in waste for 1970 estimated by Society of Plastics Industry.
106 Milk bottles to tiles. Chemical & Engineering News, 48(35):! 1, Aug. 24,1970.
-------
84
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
$240 to $400 per ton for vinyl chloride resins, and $1,240
per ton for cellulose acetate.
   Problems of Plastics Recycling. Among the major
factors  that  combine  to minimize  interest in plastics
salvage and to limit severely the extent of recycling are
the following.
   (I)  Techniques  for  separating  plastics  from  mixed
wastes are not available.
   (2) Identification of  plastics is difficult. Segregation of
waste plastics by resin type  appears impossible. There
are currently over 700 different grades of polyethylene
alone.
   (3) Degradation  of resin properties and performance
occurs during the initial fabrication, through aging, and
in any reclamation process.
   (4) The technology for purification and upgrading of
contaminated, degraded, and colored  plastics simply
does not exist.
   (5) Economics of collecting and shipping plastics to
points of reuse are generally unfavorable.
   (6) Effective market mechanisms for trade in reclaimed
plastic materials have not developed.
   (7) Standard grades and specifications for reclaimed
or salvaged plastics are not established or not widely
accepted.
   (8) Plastics  users distrust  the uniformity of reclaimed
plastics  and  are  generally  unwilling to  risk adding
another variable to the "inexact science of molding."
   A fundamental obstacle to plastics recovery and reuse
springs  directly  from the  synthetic origin  of the  resins.
Because resins are  created  in a relatively pure form, it
has not been  necessary to develop  the technology for
purifying and refining plastics.
   Unlike  the  metals production process,  which begins
with an impure ore which is progressively concentrated,
smelted, refined, and freed from impurities to create the
desired  alloy, plastics processing begins with high purity
virgin polymer to which various nonresinous additives,
colorants, and  reinforcements are added.  All plastics
processing is downhill  from  pure  and uniform resin to
blended, colored, shaped, and partially degraded plastic
products.
   The  recovery of metal scrap  is  made possible  by
decades of metallurgical technology designed to up-
grade ores and concentrates.  Likewise,  paper  stock
recovery is supported by the traditional steps of fiber
separation, refining, washing, and bleaching cycle which
also converts  cut  timber  into  papermaking  furnish
although  it  is  accomplished  in  different  types  of
equipment than virgin pulp making. Production processes
based  upon  purification, refining, and upgrading  of
crude  materials are  capable  of accepting scrap  as
though it were partially processed ore or charge stock.
   No  analogous technology for plastics processing has
yet developed.  Thus plastic scrap is  never  purified;
rather, the regrind is colored darker and used for less
critical products. Practical means of removing unwanted
contaminants are largely nonexistent.
   The general  rule governing the reuse of plastic scrap
seems to be:  "If plastic leaves  the machine on which it
was formed, it is no longer usable scrap; it's waste!"
   The dominant pattern of plastics recycling, for these
reasons, is one in  which the wastes of a  process using
high quality  resin  are  either  blended back  into  the
process in limited quantities or are resold for use in a less
exacting  application,  sometimes  passing  through  a
secondary  materials  operation where color blending,
repelletizing,  and  similar scrap preparation steps are
undertaken.
   Value Recovery from  Plastics. The  rapid growth
of plastics and the very major barriers to their recovery
suggest that  plastics in waste may  best be  used  by
recovering their latent energy by incineration  followed
by heat recovery. Plastics in waste (largely the packaging
portion) have a BTU value per pound of 15,770, thus the
highest BTU of any material in waste.107 The BTU value of
solid waste as a whole is around 5,500 BTU per pound
and rising as  the  proportion  of  paper and  plastics
increases.  Insofar  as heat  recovery will  become  an
accepted  means of obtaining  value  from  waste,  the
presence  of  plastics  in  wastes will  be beneficial —
provided  that  polyvmyl  chloride  materials,  whose
combustion  in   the  presence  of  moisture  results  in
corrosive hydrochloric acid vapors, can be eliminated or
equipment can be shielded from their corrosive effects.

                     Organics
   Organics  recovery  includes  animal  and   poultry
slaughtering  waste  recovery,  food  processing waste
utilization, reuse of lumber and saw mill wastes, recycling
107 Kaiser, E. R. Incineration of packaging wastes with minimal air pollution. In Proceedings; First National Conference
on  Packaging Wastes, University of California at Davis, Sept. 22-24,  1969. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1971. p.184.
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                                 85
of textile fiber wastes (briefly discussed in Chapter VIII),
hog   feeding   with  garbage  from  commercial  and
institutional sources, composting of municipal wastes to
produce a soil-building  material, compost  mixed with
sewage sludge or synthetic nutrients for some fertilizer
value, and manure utilization.
   Slaughter Waste Rendering. Rendering is a fairly
large waste processing activity that consumed 10.5 million
tons of  organic wastes in 1969 and converted these to 5.0
million tons of various products.108
   Rendering  industry inputs  come from slaughtering
plants,  breaking  plants (where  carcasses are cut into
retail cuts),  food  stores,  restaurants,  and from  the
collection of dead animals. Industry outputs are grease
and  tallow (41.5 percent), meat meal (48.6 percent), bone
meal (3.4 percent), feather  meal (2.2 percent), and other
(4.3 percent).
   Animal  fats sold domestically  (approximately  two-
thirds of total) are made into soap (24.4 percent), fatty
acids (23.3 percent), animal  and poultry  feeds (41.2
percent), lubricants (3.6  percent),  and  other uses (7.2
percent).
   Protein  products are used  almost exclusively in the
domestic  animal  feed industry. Only  feather  meal is
exported in substantial quantities, but this material is a
small percentage of total.
   Industry shipments were 5.3 million tons  in 1963, 6.5
million  tons in 1967 (Table 56), and an estimated 5.0
million tons in 1969.
   Using  estimates  of  input  materials  consumed  by
renderers  and production  of end  products from inputs
provided  by  the National  Renderers  Association, it
appears that 2 tons of inputs are'required  per ton  of
output,  the difference being moisture and product loss in
rendering. Value of products shipped was an average of
$89  per ton  in  1967 and  the cost of materials to  the
industry was $54 per ton of shipments, or about $27 per
ton of input. Although we could not get confirmation for
this, we conclude from  the above that prices paid for
organic wastes range from $15 to $35 per ton depending
on  quantities  obtainable from  a source,  distance  to
rendering plant, and other similar factors.
   In 1967, 588 establishments employing 13,800 people
comprised  the rendering industry. Roughly half  these
were independently owned, half were affiliated with the
meat and poultry industries. The majority were livestock
waste rendering operations.
   Food  Processing.  The food processing  industry,
excluding meat  and poultry  processors, generates a
variety of food wastes, some of which occur in solid form
(eggshells, fruit, peelings, bran, and coffee grounds), and
some of  which  are usually viewed as  liquid wastes,
(whey).  With  isolated  exceptions,  food  wastes  are
disposed  of  since  their recovery  is uneconomical,
impractical, or in violation of sanitation standards.
   Some food plant wastes are  used in hog feeding
operations.109  Approximately  one-third of  the 800,000
tons of whey solids produced  in dairy operations yearly
is  sold  to formula-feed companies and  farmers  for
animal  feeding.110  California peach  canners convert
peach  stones   into  charcoal  by pyrolysis.1''   Phar-
maceuticals  are  made from citrus fruit wastes,112 and
there are also recovery operations that convert cereal
grain processing wastes into animal feeds.
   Although there are no data available on  the total
quantities of food wastes recovered, all indie ations are
that the tonnage is quite small. The chief reasons for this
appear to be the following.
   (I) Food wastes can  best be  processed  into animal
feeds, where high protein or  oil content is desired  at
relatively low cost. Fruit  and vegetable wastes are low in
protein;  high  protein  animal   wastes  are  already
recovered by the rendering industry.
108 Based on estimates and observations provided by Personal communication. O. H. M. Wilder, National Renderers
Association, Inc., to A. J. Darnay, Midwest Research Institute, Nov. 1969.
109 Systems analysis for solid waste disposal by incineration. Prepared by FMC Machinery/Systems Group, Engineering
Systems Division, FMC Corporation, for the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara, Nov. 1,1968. p.32.
110 Burch, J. E., E. S.  Lipinsky, and J. H. Litchfield. Technical and economic factors in the utilization of waste products.
Food Technology, 17(10).-59, Oct. 1963.
1'' Mercer, W. A. Industrial solid wastes; the problems of the food industry. In Proceedings; National Conference on
Solid Waste Research, Chicago, Dec. 1963. American Public Works Association, 1964. p.56.
112 Sales from scraps. Chemical Week, 95(20):94, Nov. 14,1964.
-------
86
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
   (2) The use of pesticides, which tend  to show up in
vegetable and fruit skins  (the waste products) render
these wastes undesirable in animal feeds.''3
   (3) Recovery of proteins from food wastes is costly.
Ionics, Inc., estimated114 that the cost per ton  of protein
produced from organic urban refuse in the form of torula
yeast would be  between $276 and $356; this compares
with $164 to  $252  per ton of protein in  animal  meal.
Production of  dried press cake, a dewatered  byproduct
of tomato  juicing and canning, was  estimated to cost
$160  per ton in 1952;115 this  material  contains  22.5
percent protein; thus cost per ton of protein was $516.
   Waste recovery is beginning to arouse new interest in
the food industry — not because profitable new markets
for such products beckon but because costs of disposal of
both solid and liquid wastes  are increasing.  One  food
industry  research scientist  has proposed conversion of
bran  into  a  coarse  plastic,  recovery of  lactose and
protein  from  whey  by  use  of  a  molecular  sieve,
conversion of  coffee grounds into molded products, and
conversion of eggshells into  thermosetting  insulation
materials.1 l6Such proposals are still only bandied about.
Technical feasibility does  not ensure the  presence of
markets for such converted products.
   Agricultural Wastes. Less than  1 percent of  crop
residues  produced in  1952 (200 million tons in that year
and an estimated 550 million tons in 1968) were used for
various  types  of building  boards,  in  paper, as soil
conditioners, animal feeds, poultry house litter, furfural,
in  alcohol  production,  in sugar  solutions, in  yeast
production,  as  packing  material, and  as  sweeping
compounds.117 Since  1952, the consumption  of  such
residues in at least two  applications (building boards and
paper) is known to have declined substantially. Most crop
residues  are  left on  the  field,  however, and  being
degradable they eventually return to the soil and are not
a municipal solid waste management problem. Animal
manures, produced at an estimated rate of 1.5 billion tons
in 1968, occur largely in rural settings where they continue
to  have some use  for fertilizer. There is  also  some
composting of agricultural wastes. In  general, the trends
to  heavily  populated animal  feed  lots and  new farm
management techniques are tending to accentuate the
solid waste  disposal problems where they  might have
been of minor concern in earlier times.
   Wood.  Wood wastes occur  in  logging  operations
and  analogous  urban tree-trimming  and  tree-cutting
activities,  in lumber mills,  in  lumber conversion,  in
construction,  and  similar  operations  that   harvest  or
convert wood.  Discarded wood  products in municipal
waste is around 2 percent by weight.'
   Wood wastes are used  in essentially four areas: (I) as
agricultural mulches, cushioning agents (under fruit trees
and on ski slopes) weed control agents (weeds will  not
grow  in an  area  such as  the center strip of a highway
covered  with  wood chips),  poultry  litter, and  similar
agricultural  and  horticultural  applications;118  (2)  as
inputs to building board mills and paper mills; (3) as a
fuel,  both  by  generators of the waste and others,
including conversion of wood wastes to charcol, burning
of  special wood species (hickory, maple, birch,  beech,
oak, gum,  walnut)  in meat smoking, in the  baking of
special foreign pastries, tobacco  curing, brooder heat-
ing,  and   in  household  uses;  and  (4)  in  chemical
applications such as distilleries, vinegar manufacturing
(to  provide  bacterial aeration), gas purification (sulfur
removal by  use of iron oxide impregnated hardwood),
and  tanning.119 A substantial portion  of  the  paper
industry in the Pacific Northwest is  based on sawmill
wastes for its raw materials.
   Data on waste generation and reuse for three wood-
using   industries   (sawmills,   wood   container   man-
113 Meller,  F. H.  Conversion of organic solid  wastes into yeast. An economic evaluation.  Public Health Service
Publication No. 1909. Rockville, Md., U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1969. p.25.
114 Meller, Conversion of organic solid wastes, p.148.
115 Burch, Lipinsky, and Litchfield, Technical and economic factors, p.59-60.
116 Salvaging profit from waste. Chemical Week, 101 (12):109, Sept. 16,1967.
117 Meller,  Conversion of organic solid wastes, p.26, citing Dale, A. C. Agricultural residues. In Proceedings; Seventh
Industrial Waste Conference, Lafayette, Ind., May 7-9, 1952. Purdue University Engineering Extension Series No. 79.
p.12.
118 Utilization: wood wastes find new uses. American Forests, 72(6):38-40, June 1966.
119 U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Uses for slabs, edgings, and trims. U.S. Forest Service Research Note No. FLP-038.
Madison, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1964. p.9-11.
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                                 87
ufacturers, and wood  furniture manufacturers) were
developed  by  survey  for 1965  by  Combustion  En-
gineering, Inc.120 The same research also resulted in an
estimated weight of wood  of 8.1 pounds per board foot,
a  board  foot  being  the standard measure  of  lumber
consumption.121 Although  the weight  measure  is  not
strictly applicable to all types of wood, it does provide
an approximation of the weight of lumber consumed in
1965170.5 million tons.122 Waste production in the same
year was as follows: sawmills, 9.630 million tons; wood
container  manufacturers,  2.488  million  tons;   wood
furniture manufacturers,  2.099 million  tons, for  a total
waste  production  of  14.2  million tons.123 These three
industries reused 66, 51, and 26 percent of their  wastes,
respectively, or a total of 8.2 million tons, equivalent to
4.8 percent  of  consumption in 1965. These industries do
not represent all the wood-using operations that produce
wastes and  reuse  portions  of them. Furthermore, waste
reuse here includes burning of wood as fuel, a form of
"reuse" not associated with other materials covered in
this report. Thus the reuse to consumption ratio used here
should not be compared to that of other materials.
   Tree-cutting  wastes generated in muncipal operations
are sometimes chipped and used as mulch in  city parks.
Lumber wastes are sometimes recovered from dumps and
landfills (especially in small towns) and used as fuel or
reused  in  various  structures  (fencing,  repair, etc.).
Individuals frequently cart  off lumber  from incinerator
sites where  it  is  accumulated for disposal  either  by
hogging,-incineration or by  landfill if pieces are too large
for the furnaces and no hogger is available. Demolition
companies also salvage wood for reuse as lumber or for
sale  as firewood. Such recovery of "obsolete"  wood,
while practiced, is an extremely minor activity.

                    Inorganics
   The two major classes of inorganic materials that are
significant from a municipal waste management stand-
point and  have not been  discussed  to this  point are
building  rubble and ashes. Mine tailings, probably  the
single  largest inorganic waste material category (1968
generation was an estimated I.I billion tons), do not occur
in municipal wastes.
   Building Rubble. Except for portions composed  of
asphalt, paper, wood, plastics, textiles, and other organic
materials, building rubble consists of concrete, bricks,
rock,  masonry, plaster, clay, glass, nonferrous metals,
and  steel.  These  materials occur  when  buildings and
other structures  are torn  down, roads  are taken out,
sewer systems are changed, and other constructions are
altered.
  Combustion  Engineering, Inc., in its previously cited
report,  estimated  that in  1966,  19.1  million  tons  of
demolition wastes were generated  and that virtually all
this material went to disposal without salvage.
   Salvage  is practiced, of course,  but it is losing  its
importance  except  in  those   instances  where  large
quantities of a valuable material can be recovered (steel,
from steel frame buildings and nonferrous metal fixtures
and installations). The nonmetallic  inorganic fraction  of
demolition wastes is becoming less  and less desirable to
salvage;  the  solvable  items  include brick and stone;
concrete  (much  like thermosefting plastics)  is useless
except perhaps as fill material. The scarcity of semiskilled
labor necessary to justify  the considerable hand  labor
needed for  salvage and rising  labor costs is probably
responsible for the demise of demolition salvage.
   Inorganic  building  rubble  is used  for  landfill  in
preference  to organic wastes. It provides  a  good
substructure for  subsequent construction when  used  in
combination with other fill materials.
   Ashes. If incinerator ashes  are clean  inert  residue,
they can  be used as landfill cover by municipalities. This
is  the most  common   "use"   of  incinerator   residue.
However,  most   incinerator  residue  from  operating
incinerators needs cover because  the  burn-out is not
complete. In Amarillo, Texas, incinerator residues, free of
cans, were for a time sold  to a railroad, which used the
material  in  road-bed maintenance. Other cities use a
portion of this residue for fill material in municipal public
works jobs.
120 Technical-economic study of solid waste disposal needs and practices, p.116.
121 Technical-economic study, p.27.
122 Consumption in 1965 was 42.1 billion board feet; this amount at 8.1 pounds per board foot is 170.5 million tons.
Consumption data from U.S. Bureau of the Census. Pocket data book. U. S. A.  1969. Table 304. Lumber. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. p.233.
123 In addition to wood, these wastes  include such things as upholstery wastes, styrofoam, sandpaper, etc., in unknown
proportions.
-------
88
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
   Fly   ash,  produced  by  electrical  utilities  in  the
combustion   of   coal,  is  reused  in  many  types  of
applications. In  1965,  20 million  tons of fly ash  were
produced in the United States in the combustion of 226
million tons of coal. Fly-ash utilization in the same  year
was 1.3  million tons, or 6.5 percent of production. In that
same year, the utilization rate in England was 39 percent
of production, in France 50 percent, and in Germany 27
percent.124
   Fly ash has four major uses in the United States: (I) in
concrete; (2) in road construction as a soil stabilizer and a
material to strengthen the road base immediately under
the paving;  (3) as an asphalt paving filler; and (4) in the
production  of  lightweight  aggregate.  Its  minor  uses
include  its  use  as an  additive  to  foundry sands, an
additive to masonry mortar, use as a blasting compound,
use in acoustical blocks, a constituent in heat insulating
cement, as a soil  conditioner, and as a filler in roofing
materials, fertilizers, soap,  paper, rubber, asphalt tile,
and the  like.125
   Fly ash  reuse  is increasing in the  United States, not
only  absolutely  but also in proportion to total prod-
uction. In 1963, sales were 739,000 tons;126 in 1965, 1.30
million tons; and  in 1967, 1.56 million tons.127 During this
period,  fly-ash production  has been just  at or below  20
million tons.
   The technical  advantages of fly ash  in construction
materials  are  well  known  to  specialists,  but  the
knowledge is not widespread in the construction industry.
Fly ash is useful in concrete because it reacts with calcium
chloride at  normal temperatures to form products  with
binding   properties,  such  as  calcium  silicates.  The
compactness of concrete is increased and its tendency to
shrinkage and breakage is decreased by use of fly ash as
a  concrete component.  In  addition  to  these char-
acteristics of fly ash concrete, it is also easier to pour and
mold than ordinary concrete, has an improved resistance
to thermal shock and chemical attack, and is generally $1
per cubic yard cheaper than regular concrete.128
   Acceptance of fly ash as a concrete additive appears
to be  a slow process  in the United States. European
countries have also found that penetration of tradition-
bound  construction markets takes time. Europeans  have
been more successful in selling fly ash, however, in part
because  of the  need to use  all available  resources in
rebuilding  Europe following World War II  and the fact
that fly ash sales and utilization research is in the hands
of  large  government-  operated electrical generation
industries that coordinate such efforts for entire countries
(England and  France).129 All indications are that U.S.
efforts   to  sell  fly  ash will  succeed  in  keeping  an
increasing proportion of this material out of waste. Since
the  mid-1960's,   intensive  efforts  have  been  made,
especially  by  the  utility  and  the coal  industries,  to
establish a framework  for coordinated buyer education
and promotion of fly ash.
   In addition to fly ash, utilities also generate  bottom
ash — heavier ash particles that collect at the bottom of
furnaces.  Production of this  material in  1967 was 9.2
million  tons;  recovery was  2.3  million  tons,  or  25
percent.130 Bottom ash goes into the same markets as fly
ash except for  aggregates.  The   largest  tonnage  of
bottom ash is sold as a construction fill material, while fly
ash has the most tonnage as  a concrete additive (Table
57).
124 Brackett, C. E. Availability, quality and present utilization of fly ash. Combustion, 38(11):41, May 1967.
125 Brackett, Availability, quality and present utilization of fly ash, p.44-45.
126 Capp, J. P. Fly ash utilization. Combustion, 37(8):36, Feb. 1966.
127 Meikle, P. G.  Fly ash and bottom ash. Mining Engineering, 21(1):61, Jan. 1969.
128 Bender, R. J. More intensive utilization of flyash. Power, 109(6):94, June 1965; Roman, G. H. You can save money with
fly ash, Coal Age, 73(8):62, Aug. 1968.
129 Bender, R. J. Fly  ash utilization makes slow progress. Power, 111(5):116,118,120, May 1967. This source also points
out that France experienced a serious cement shortage in the early 1960's during which fly ash was used extensively and
became "institutionalized."
130 Meikle, Fly ash and bottom ash, p.61.
-------
                                TABLE 51


            NEW AND RECLAIMED RUBBER CONSUMPTION IN 1969,  IN
          1,000 TONS,  PERCENT, AND BY MAJOR INDUSTRY SEGMENT*

New rubber Reclaimed rubber Total
Segment
Tires
Wire-cable
Foams
Footwear
Mechanical goods
All other
Total
Tons
1,950.3
29.1
101.9
174.6
451.2
203.8
2,910.9
% Tons
67.0 188.6
1.0
3.5
6.0 2.8
15.5 16.5
7.0 71.9
100.0 279.8
% Tons
67.4 2,138.9
29.1
101.9
1.0 177.4
5.9 467.7
25.7 275.7
100.0 3,190.7
%
67.0
0.9
3.2
5.6
14.7
8.6
100.0

   *1969 review, 1970 preview.  Rubber Age,  102(l):l»7-6l,  Jan.  1970.
Pettigrew, R. J., and F. Roninger.   Rubber reuse and  solid waste  manage-
ment.  [Public Health Service Publication No.  2124.]  Washington,  U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1971.  120 p.
                                  88-1
-------
                           TABLE 52

                 RUBBER RECOVERY FOR SPECIFIC
            USES IN 1968 AND 1969, IN 1,000 TONS*
Type of user
Reclaimers
Ret readers
Tire Splitters
Total
1968
287.85
733.80
6.99
1,028.64
1969
279.80
752.05
7.00
1,038.85
*Pettigrew, and Roninger,  Rubber reuse and  solid waste management.
                              88-2
-------
                           TABLE 53

                 RECLAIMED RUBBER PRODUCTION,
                   1958-1969, IN 1,000 TONS*

Year
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
Tonnage
290.8
228.7
328.0
295.5
314.2
315.2
309.4
313.9
310.7
272.9
287.5
280.0

*Pettigrew, and Roninger,  Rubber reuse and  solid  waste management.
                              88-3
-------







1

H
B
O

ra
o
g
s
s
H

«\
O)
CD


EH
.. CO
S to
to g
3 •>
PQ CO
EH 
h
-P













W
tf
05
CD
1 1

«















CO

•ri
EH
jj
4)














i-^
OS
-P
O
-p
CH
O

H
05
-p
g


H
-P
O
EH
M
cj
^i
-p

•d
05
co

«

^
0)
of

CO
CQ
S
H
05
-P
O
EH


M
y
2
-p
*H
05

co
pq

JH
cu

cu
co
CO




fH
05

£H



tO IO >-l O
P- co ^ to
OJ OJ OJ OJ



H to co en
CO OJ P- P-
to to in to


oj o o to
P- O CO CO
to •* to to





tO CD •* CO
p- p- p- p-






CD ^i' co cn
en oj o H
OJ to tO IO

Ol to CO -^
co OJ Cn co
en I~H i"H r~i
H H r-i





OJ O O> O>
co 10 to tQ
rH rH f~l *^







P- M p- to
in' p-' to ^K
oo en Q Q
r~i inn




CO O> O rH
in in to CD
(Ji O> O5 05
^\ t~i P" i i^



OJ
OJ



p-
•*
H


CM
OJ
<«





P-
P-






to
•^
to

to
OJ





r-
in
H







co
a
H




OJ
CO

r-{



O
OJ



to
CVJ
cO


oo
"?






to
p-






10
CO
to

in
CO





CO
CD
H







°l
H
OJ
H




to
CD
0^
H



CD
SI



•«*
•*
s


o
^1
^





o
CO






o
CO
to

Tfl
g





to
oo








H
OJ




-#
CO
en
H



to
s



to
OJ
H
OJ


CO
jn






CO
p-






O
CD
to

en
00
S





^
o
OJ







to
3




to
CD
en
H



o
8



0
p-
H
OJ


to
*0






o
oo






to
to
to

P-
to
p-
H





P-
OJ
OJ







o
•
H




CD
CD

H



H co in
O co oo
OJ i~t rH



•sf to OJ
CO ^ H
H •* in
OJ OJ OJ


co to to
to to co
"





IO P- O
en en o






to co to
•^t in co
to to to

CO O P-
cvj en •*
P- en o
H H OJ





oo ' to •*
H in P-
OJ OJ OJ







O P- 10
• • »
H to P-
m P- P-




P- oo en
CD CO CD
en en en





.
QL
O
C
o
4-1
to
o
o
in
in
<
in
0)
4-1
o
to
It

c

z +-•
c
4) 0)
^— E:

JD CD
o  «-
4)
"D -Q
C J3
(0 3
a:
U)
O 1.
re 4)
c
4) .-
— C
— O
-Q OL
E T3
. 4-> re
"^ s*
O 4)
P^ L.
CT» CJ1
•K *-"
4-»
4)
Q.
88-4
-------
                              TABLE 55


      CONSUMPTION OF PLASTICS, 1967 TO 1969, TOTAL AND SELECTED
                MAJOR END USE MARKETS, IN 1,000 TONS*

End Use Market
Consumption in selected markets :
Agriculture
Appliances
Transportation
Construction
Electrical
Furniture
Housewares
Packaging
Toys
Total consumption
1967

75t
198
109
1,070
396
250 t
313
1,121 t
208
6,550
1968

85
238
334
1,215
452
273
373
1,508
243
7,558
1969

95
234
536
1,327
567
328
425
1,729
269
8,535
Percent 1969

1.1
2.7
6.3
15.5
6.6
3.8
5.0
20.3
3.2
100.0

   *The statistics:  1969.  Modern Plastics,  47(1):69-80,  Jan.  1970.
The plastic industry in 1968.  Modern Plastics  Pamphlet, Jan.  1969.   New
York, McGraw-Hill, Inc.
   tMRI  estimates made to provide comparable  data for  year;  source  provided
only 1965 data.
   Note:  This consumption pattern does not include all  plastic  uses.
Construction accounts for about 25 percent of end use  applications  and
packaging about 20 percent.   Thus construction  is somewhat underreported
by these sources.
                                 88-5
-------
                               TABLE 56


                 RECOVERY OF ANIMAL ORGANICS, 1963 AND
                 1967, IN 1,000 TONS AND VALUE PER TON*

1963
Organic category
Grease and tallow
Protein meals
Total
Weight of
shipments
2,353
2,973
5,326
Value
per ton
112.28
82.98
95.91
1967
Weight of
shipments
2,692
3,797
6,489
Value
per ton
112.82
72.35
89.13

   *1967 Census of manufacturers,   v. 2.   Industry statistics,   pt.  1.
Major group 20H.  Food and kindred products;  fats  and  oils—animal  and
marine fats and oils.  Washington, U.S.  Government Printing Office,  1971.
                                 88-6
-------
                           TABLE  57


           UTILIZATION OF ASH IN UNITED STATES, 1967,
                  IN 1,000 TONS AND PERCENT*

Markets
Road and construc-
tion fill
Concrete additive
Lightweight aggregate
Stabilization for
road base
Cement manufacture
Asphalt filler
Miscellaneous
Total utilized
Total collected
Fly
Tons

300
600
150

120
150
120
120
1,560
18,500
ash Bottom
$ Tons

19.2 1,150
38.5 200
9.6

7.7 50
9.6 50
7.7 35
7.7 820$
100.0 2,305
8.4 9,200
ash t Total
% Tons

43.3 1,450
15.2 800
150

2.2 170
2.2 200
1.5 155
35.6 940
100.0 3,865
25.1 27,700
%

37.5
20.7
3.9

4.4
5.2
4.0
24.3
100.0
14.0
*Meikle, Fly ash and bottom ash, p. 60.
tlncludes boiler slag.
tlncludes blasting grit, ice control, agriculture,  and roof filler.
                              88-7
-------
                                                                                                      89
CHAPTER X
            LEGISLATIVE  AND  POLICY  CONSIDERATIONS
   In this chapter we shall outline some of the key issues
and problems that need to be considered in the framing
of legislation or policy to bring about a proportionally
higher rate of secondary materials consumption.
   In  general,  we  favor  a  "global" or  "systems"
approach to  recycling  policy  in  which all pertinent
aspects of recycling are  given a fair hearing. Thus we do
not see  recycling solely as a  materials conservation
activity or only as a solution to solid waste management
problems  but broadly  under  the  rubric of "resource
conservation," with  "resource" understood  to  include
both tangible and intangible values.
   Today  roughly  25 percent  of paper, metals, glass,
textiles,  and  rubber are recycled  through  the  market
(Table 58), around 48 million tons of materials that need
not be handled as solid waste. If other materials are also
included, such as plastics, wood, ashes, stone, brick, and
the like, the recycled proportion is much lower, of course,
but we have no reliable estimates of the quantitites of
these latter materials involved.
   Why can't we  recycle a larger proportion  of  our
wastes and  thus  unburden  our waste management
systems? The reason is that demand for scrap materials is
limited. These commodities compete with virgin  natural
resources  whose use  and  processing  have  become
rationalized and institutionalized in large part because in
earlier decades  wastes were not available in sufficient
quantities to  satisfy demand for  materials  while virgin
materials were abundantly available.  Scrap recovery
techniques  —  in  the   broad  sense  of  acquisition,
upgrading, processing, and  distribution — have  not
changed   significantly   in  the   20th  century.   In  the
meantime, the  mining or harvesting,  purification,  up-
grading,  and processing of virgin materials have made
dramatic technological and economic strides forward.
   Today scrap use is frequently uneconomical because
the productivity of labor associated with acquisition and
processing  of virgin  materials is  greater than  labor
productivity  in scrap acquisition  and processing.  For
instance, a steel producer finds it cheaper (I) to  mine,
beneficiate, and  ship ore; (2) to mine  and  transport
fluxing materials; (3) to produce coke from coal (which
was also mined and moved); (4) to produce pig iron from
these  materials; and (5) to  produce steel from pig iron
(sometimes using  oxygen extracted in air liquefaction
plants) than  to acquire,  remelt, and reformulate steel
scrap.
   In  addition to greater labor productivity consequent
upon  use of advanced materials processing technology,
processors  of virgin materials also  enjoy  depletion
allowances when  extracting  virgin materials. Where
these  processors do not meet air, water, and solid  waste
standards in manufacturing — or where these standards
are leniently  set — the processors do not pay the  full
environmental costs created  by  pollution and  waste
generation associated with their virgin  materials uses.
Many raw materials, also, come principally from foreign
sources  (like  bauxite) and their use contributes to a
foreign trade  imbalance.
   By contrast, secondary materials are not credited with
conserving  natural  resources, get  no credits  for con-
tributing favorably to our foreign trade balance, get no
credit for removing materials from the waste stream, nor
credits for providing materials whose processing usually
pollutes  the  environment  less  than the  comparable
processing of virgin materials.
   When all  of  the  costs of virgin materials use —
including those usually disregarded — and  all of the
benefits of secondary materials are considered, sec-
ondary materials  would  probably  turn  out to be less
uneconomical  than they  appear  to be from an  ex-
amination of  the  status quo. As yet, information  is not
available to  establish whether or  not this judgment is
accurate  and, if  it is, how it can reorder our economic
-------
90
                             SALVAGE MARKETS
accounting  structures to  bring  about greater use of
secondary  materials. Public  policy can be  directed
toward  gaining a more comprehensive  knowledge of
total  costs,  both tangible and  intangible,  of  various
materials processing systems.131

     Fundamental  Legislative/Policy  Issues
    Why   Policy   Considerations?  Legislation  to
 increase  the  quantities  of  waste  materials  recycled
 appears justified if the total socioeconomic costs of using
 virgin  raw  materials  are higher  than  costs of  the
 alternative  use  of  secondary  materials.  Given  our
 traditional economic accounting methods, manufacturers
 experience  only  a portion of the  real or total costs of
 their materials; some part of total costs occurs externally
 to industry and externally to the seller-buyer relationship
 wherein the market value of materials is determined. Any
 costs that are not incurred directly in a formal financial
 accounting  sense go unrecognized  in the commercial
 system. In this sense, the cost of environmental pollution
 may be passed along to  the population in dirty water,
 air,  and  land  if the dollar cost of physical control  of
 effluents is not borne by the polluting industry. Thus.the
 market mechanism is not a sufficient guarantor that those
 materials will be used that have the lowest total cost. It is
 in these instances where  governmental  intervention  is
 desirable  so  that  the  best use  is  made  of  natural
 resources. l32
   Resource  Versus  Materials Conservation. In
line with this analysis, it appears that public policy aimed
at increasing  the proportion  of  secondary materials
recycled must be considered within  a larger context than
that  of  materials recovery  or solid waste management
alone.  The  appropriate  context  is  that of resource
conservation, whereby  resource  is defined broadly to
include  all substances,  energies, manpower, and con-
ditions that we value.
   Given a resource conservation context, some products
are probably "cheaper" if made from virgin materials;
others,  cheaper if made  from secondary materials. It
would clearly be undesirable, for instance, to recycle an
abundant material if in so doing two or three times more
energy,  water,  and  manpower are  expended  and
pollution  is  generated  than  in obtaining the  same
material  from natural deposits. Materials conservation is
not necessarily identical with resource conservation.
   The concept  of  resource conservation also  permits
taking into consideration certain intangible values that
are not  usually  counted in normal  cost estimates. For
instance, maximum  recycling may require an extremely
high degree of governmental  intervention in  industrial
decisionmaking. While this may be desirable in order to
conserve fossil fuels, scarce materials, and environmental
purity, the Nation's commitment to a  free-enterprise
economic system may be viewed  as a value or resource
too great to be sacrificed.

   The  Problem  of  Comprehensive  Economic
Accounting. When is it "cheaper" to use secondary
materials? The answer would be easy to give if the total
costs,  tangible  and  intangible,  costs  of producing,
distributing,  using,  and disposing  of  materials  were
known.
   Today,  financial  accounting  practices,  industrial
reporting practices and  census survey practices do not
permit the tracing of a material all the way from a mine
to the terminal disposal point, showing at each step in the
process, the energy consumed  and the energy effluents
produced, the water consumed and the quality of the
liquid effluent, the solid waste generated, the manpower
inputs required, and the like — both in production and
transportation steps. These are  measurable external cost
elements but they are not available today.

   Such data are  not  readily available  because they
were not heretofore needed. Meaningful environmenta1
analysis,  however,  requires  data  on  the total  en-
vironmental impact of a product or material.
   To  compare the solid waste  generation associated
with a steel can, for instance, versus a glass bottle, it is
not enough to  know what each one weighs  and how
much space each occupies.  One also needs to know the
quantity  of  mine tailings generated  in  mining  raw
131 The Resource Recovery Act of 1970 is an example of very recent legislation that moves in this direction. Resource
Recovery Act; Public Law 91-512, 91st Congress, H.R. 11833, October 26,1970. [Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1970.] 9 p.
132 This concept is gaining some currency at present. For example, a trade press article that was concurrent with the
writing of  this chapter is:  Spofford, W.  O. Jr., Closing the gap  in  waste management. Environmental Science  &
Technology, 4(12):1108-1114, Dec. 1970.
-------
 FOR MATERIALS  IN SOLID WASTES
                                                 91
 materials, unusable residues generated in raw materials
 conversion, quantities of unsalable fabrication wastes
 generated, and the like. Solid waste generation is only
 one of the many dimensions of external costs.
   To  develop  meaningful  public  policy to  advance
 recycling, the first step is to acquire such data for at least
 major material groupings (including secondary materials)
 and product categories within each. Some of the types of
 data needed are the following.
   (I) Materials compositions  of major product classes,
 including proportions of materials in  blends (cotton-
 synthetic textiles).
   (2)  Detailed  transportation data  on  materials and
 products, on a comparable basis for air, water, rail, and
 truck modes, by type of fuel consumed in each mode, ton-
 miles of movement, and similar data.
   (3) Solid wastes generated  in production of materials
 and products, by type of material, showing portions sold,
 reused internally, and disposed of.
   (4) Fuel consumption, by type of fuel and  conversion
 system, stationary and  mobile,  in  all  major mining,
 harvesting, processing, and fabrications operations.
   (5) Gaseous effluents generated in various  types of
 transportation  and  production operations,  related  to
 output tonnage.
   (6)  Water use in transportation  and  production
 operations, related to output tonnage, including data on
 intake,  discharge, and  consumption and  on  water
 impurities in influent and effluent waters.
   (7)  More  detailed  "materials  consumed"  data  by
 industry classification, in comparable units of  measure
(pounds  or  tons,  instead  of  square  inches of  glass,
 number  of  chickens, board  feet 'of  lumber, yards  of
clothing, etc.) with detailed indication of  types of waste
 materials consumed.
   (8) Detailed data on processing losses "not accounted
for" in gaseous, water, and solid waste effluents.
   (9) Detailed cost breakdowns in transportation and
 production,  insofar as these are not available,  showing
costs of  manpower,  materials, energy, water, etc. —
especially on captive production  operations  such  as
primary aluminum smelting, pig iron production, wood
pulping, and  the like.
   Data  collection should be  by actual  survey, should
result in national averages and ratios related or relatable
to specific  materials  by weight, and should be  com-
parable  for  all   production  sectors, whatever  their
outputs. Data collection should be continuous and should
be institutionalized in the appropriate Federal agencies
—  Commerce,  Interior,  and  Agriculture.  The  En-
vironmental  Protection Agency  and  its  Solid  Wastes
Management Office provides a focus and has the need
for such data, while the National Materials Policy Act of
1970 provides legislative sanction.
   Once such data are available and are analyzed in
combination with information on  exports and imports of
materials,  natural resource inventory data, population
and production forecasts, national defense materials  and
energy requirement  forecasts, and other measurable
factors, an  important step  has been taken to determine
the  relative costs  of  using secondary  versus  virgin
materials.
   This still leaves the problem of establishing priorities
for different types of values. For  instance, what is more
desirable, to import fossil fuels at the expense of foreign
trade balance and domestic production and employment
while conserving the national resource or to maintain  a
favorable trade balance and domestic production at the
expense of depleting the  domestic stockpile? These are
questions   that  must necessarily be  resolved by  the
political process.
   Cost Allocation Issues. Public policy to increase
recycling,  framed  within  the  context  of  resource
conservation,  will  necessarily be based on  the  as-
sumption or finding that on a national basis, if not on an
industry basis,  recycling is less costly than use of virgin
materials.
   Clearly  also, new legislation will be necessary only if
the higher total costs of virgin materials are not reflected
in the  market  value  of  materials  and  therefore a
legislative reallocation of costs will be required. Pollution
control  legislation, requiring manufacturers to clean their
gaseous and liquid effluents;  changes  in import/export
regulations  and  legislation;  and  a  host  of  other
legislative changes  whose  objective is something other
than  recycling  of  wastes  may  gradually result in a
reallocation of  costs,  which in turn  may be reflected in
the market value of products and ultimately may increase
recycling.  Changes  in economic  factors such as price
increases for fuels, virgin raw materials, or transportation
brought about  by  scarcity, technological changes, or
increased'labor costs may also result in a shift in values
favoring secondary materials. Barring  such  "natural"
changes,  however,  legislated cost reallocation  will
become necessary  to achieve  resource  conservation
desired  by the Nation.
   In order to bring about the recycling of secondary
materials,  cost allocation must necessarily work  out so
-------
92
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
that the internal as well as external costs of materials use
will  be  internalized  by  industry.  This  means  that
manufacturers (and  in turn final consumers) must pay
(directly or indirectly) costs created by their materials use
that arise  from environmental  quality  preservation,
material  and  energy conservation,  defense  posture,
social welfare, or other considerations.
   Such cost criteria are already recognized by man-
ufacturers;  one  example is the  minimum wage.  Leg-
islation requiring recognition of external costs not now
borne  by  industry  would  thus  be  the  extension  of
precedents already  established.  From industry's view-
point, of course, any such legislation would represent a
further constriction  of the  magic circle within whose
boundaries freedom of economic choice is still possible.
   Always assuming that total cost of virgin materials use
is greater than secondary materials use, legislation will
necessarily have the  effect of restricting virgin materials
use by rendering its use actually more expensive than use
of  waste  commodities. This can be  accomplished,  in
practice,  (I) by making the acquisition, processing, and
distribution of virgin-based  products more expensive in
some way while maintaining the costs of secondary raw
materials  unchanged or (2) by putting on the market
secondary  materials technically equivalent  to virgin
materials at a cost sufficiently low so that manufacturers
can avoid waste use only at their economic peril.
   Raising  virgin  material  prices  vis-a-vis secondary
material prices can be achieved directly in the form of a
tax on any material  obtained from natural resources or
indirectly by forcing the manufacturers to spend more in
the form of pollution  control expenditures, transportation
charges,  environmental  maintenance (mine-site land-
scaping,   for  example),  higher  energy  cost,  longer
depreciation schedules, lower depletion allowances, etc.
   However  achieved,  higher  virgin materials costs
would also  require  some control  over secondary
materials costs as well. Otherwise, secondary materials
prices might simply rise in proportion to virgin materials
prices as a result of increased demand and stabilize at a
new and higher level without net changes  in  the actual
consumption  ratio of secondary to virgin materials. The
net effect would then be higher prices for the consumer.
This  requirement  implies at  least  some  additional
governmental  control  (direct  or  indirect)  over  the
secondary  materials  industry — at least  during  the
period of transition between the current situation and
one  where waste materials are used in a  significantly
higher proportion.
   The other major  approach  — that of  creating a
supply of technically acceptable secondary materials at
irresistibly low prices relative to virgin materials—can
be achieved by  fostering the development and  use of
technology to acquire and process such materials and by
achieving an economic relationship on the price of such
materials so that they are cheaper than equivalent virgin
materials. The amount of subsidy that may legitimately
be made available for this purpose should be no more
than  the  difference  between  market  cost  of  virgin
materials and  their real  or total cost including external
cost.1"
   It is clear from this line of reasoning that adequate
data on total costs of materials (a  "materials policy") is
the best way to justify legislative  intervention. Lacking
such data, the Government is certain to be accused of
arbitrary behavior and of artificially raising the cost of
materials. Thus the National Materials Policy Act of 1970
is a key piece of legislative authority for working toward
a meaningful materials policy.

       The Need  for  Demand  Creation
   Demand for  waste commodities  is limited; the low
demand  is not caused by a lack of supply but by other
factors.  This is  not  generally understood. Rather,  we
frequently encountered the opinion, in the course of this
study, that  "if  only waste  commodities were  made
available, they  would be consumed."  This opinion is
quite natural. People have a  "gut feel" that wastes must
be   cheaper and  that   consequently  they must   be
preferable to manufacturers.
   We found that the supply of waste commodities is not
the critical aspect of secondary materials use. Instead, the
critical parameter is the demand for waste commodities
relative to virgin resources. Unless secondary materials
are viewed more favorably as a raw materials supply by
industry  and  unless  the relative  value relations  are
 133 Example: if the market cost of a virgin material is $100 per ton but its total cost including external considerations is
 $150 per ton, acceptable secondary material supplies can be subsidized at the rate of $50 per ton (less any external
 costs attributable to the secondary materials). Every time a ton of secondary material is sold to displace a ton of virgin
 material, $50 in external costs is saved; these savings are used to create resources from waste. If the waste resources can
 be made available for $40 per ton, then $10 in "resources" has been conserved.
-------
 FOR MATERIALS IN  SOLID WASTES
                                                 93
changed to help bring this about, then the demand for
waste materials will remain stationary in relation to total
consumption (at best) or it will decline.
   In such  a  situation, programs to remove saleable
materials from municipal wastes may actually succeed
— but they will do so by taking existing markets from the
secondary  materials  industry. This is illustrated by the
following hypothetical situations. The situations assume
conditions of steady need or demand for 100 units of  a
given product.134
   Situation One (Figure  23) represents a  hypothetical
condition today  where  total need  or demand  for  a
product is 100  units. After the 100 units are discarded, the
manufacturing sector recovers 10 units for recycling while
90  units  are added to the municipal  disposal inventory.
Manufacturing withdraws 90  units from  the  virgin
material  inventory for manufacture  and  distribution to
customers of 100 new units for use and discard; the cycle
repeats.
   In Situation Two  (Figure 24), the  municipal  waste
sector invests sufficient capital in technology to recover 5
units from its 90 units of waste stream in order to  effect
"resource recovery"  and reduce solid waste disposal
quantities. Since demand for recycled units remains at a
grand  total  of  10  units,  the  traditional  secondary
materials handling  system loses markets for 5 units that
can  no longer be sold to industry. Thus, the 5 units no
longer economically recoverable by industry are instead
diverted  into  the waste stream. The waste system then
must really  process a total of 95 units (instead of  90) of
which it disposes of 90 just as before and recovers 5 units,
which it sells to industry. The net result is that the  waste
system must handle 5 more units of waste and must still
dispose of the same quantity as before. The  secondary
materials industry loses its ability to collect and process 5
units.
   The point of Situation Two is that the expenditure  of
capital   and  the  development of  waste  processing
technology do not necessarily lead to greater recovery of
secondary materials and  may lead to greater quantities
handled  by  the waste system while the supply  of
recovered secondary materials remains unchanged  in the
whole  system. Simply making  a supply  of material
available does not  assure its consumption.  Demand for
this material must increase in concert with or in advance
of the actual recovery or the system does not change the
total waste disposal quantities.
   In Situation Three (Figure 25) demand for recycled
units is increased to 20 units while total product demand
remains at 100 units. A new situation now arises.
   In this case, the manufacturing sector has a demand
for 20 recycled units. The effects are as profound as in
Situation  Two. Assume  the  traditional secondary  ma-
terials industry  sector  can  recover  economically  an
additional 5 units  bringing its recovery to 15 units. The
waste system's load is then reduced to 85 units collected
instead of 90 units. In addition, assume the waste system
invests capital in technology to recover 5 units so that it
then disposes of 80 units and can sell 5 units to industry. If
the system is to stay in balance, the virgin materials sector
of manufacturing gives up 10 units and now supplies 80
units compared to 90 previously.
   Obviously, in Situation  Three,  the burden on solid
waste systems is reduced substantially, and both the solid
waste  and   traditional  secondary  materials   sectors
recover more materials. The  virgin materials producers
are  penalized because they must give up 10  units  of
output but  the  system still  supplies the  100 units  of
demand.  The recovered materials  consumed  for a
complete cycle reduce the waste disposal inventory by 10
units over the original condition while 10 virgin material
units  need  not be taken  from  the virgin  material
inventory. Both disposal  capacity and virgin resources
are "conserved" by  increasing the number of recycled
units.
   At present, it  appears that far  too  few  people
recognize the importance of the demand parameter and
far too many place blind faith in technology and capital
to increase  the supplies of secondary  materials not
needed or demanded by the materials processing sectors
under  current economic  relationships  and  industry
structures. Recognition of demand as an  unforgiving
system element in the whole recycling question is simply
not present to the degree necessary in the current rush to
"recycle  resources."  What looms then  is  a  potential
imbalance of supply  and a shift or dislocation of supply
of secondary materials from "traditional" systems  to
waste management systems and an even greater burden
on  solid  waste  management  systems  as a  whole.
Simplistic  assumptions  about demand "taking care of
134  The same results hold true if total demand increases or grows as is the case of the American economy. Only the
number of units handled by each sector changes although basic relationships described do not change under the given
conditions.
-------
94
                                                                                     SALVAGE MARKETS
itself" or being simple to change are not realistic. This
"supply push" approach is analogous to "pushing on a
string" when, in  fact, it  appears that "demand pull"
would more effectively bring about the desired increase
of secondary materials consumption.
   To bring about a desirable change (Situation Three)
requires  that virgin  material use  be displaced. In a
situation  of  increasing consumption,  this means that
waste recycling must  grow faster than virgin materials
use. Today the reverse is the case. Since the proportions
of waste  to primary materials are ultimately determined
by the relative cost of each as set in the market, creation
of demand necessarily dictates that the cost structure of
virgin and  secondary materials be changed in relation to
each other.
   The role of waste  processing technology in meeting
increased demand  depends on the manner in which
demand is  increased. If virgin resources are made more
costly or  scarce, by whatever means, manufacturers will
seek secondary  raw  materials  and  will  develop  the
technology, if needed, for processing and upgrading
such wastes to increase the secondary materials supply. If
demand  is  increased  by  making  secondary materials
available at a cost below  that of virgin materials and of
a quality equivalent to that of virgin materials, then the
waste commodity sellers  and possibly the solid waste
management establishment will have to develop and  use
the processing  technology for materials  upgrading. In
any  case,  waste  processing technology  is a  vitally
important part of increased recycling.
   The key point about  waste  processing technology
deployment is that its use will not of and in itself bring
about an increase in demand but must be accompanied
by actions that will bring about a change in the relative
consumption  ratios of virgin and secondary materials —
in favor of waste commodities.

     Other Aspects  of  Legislation/Policy
   The foregoing discussion leaves out of account some
aspects of recycling  policy that are implicit in the above
but that we wish to identify explicitly.
   Intermaterials  Competition. Legislation to bring
about recycling in one material  category must take into
account the relative competitive position of that material
with respect  to  other  materials.  Perhaps  the most
important single trend  in  materials used today is  the
penetration  of   synthetic  materials  based  on  hy-
drocarbons  into  markets  dominated  by  traditional
substances  — cotton,  wool, paper, wood, glass, steel.
Unilateral legislation aimed, for instance, at paper alone
may well simply intensify the competition between paper
and  plastics,  making the latter materials, which are not
now recycled in  any significant  quantity,  more  com-
petitive in paper markets.
   The complexity of relationships  between materials,
especially the substitutability of the amazing plastics for
virtually  any  other  material, suggests that  recycling
legislation must be comprehensive and must be based on
a materials policy that can be effectively enforced.
   Labor Force Displacement. In a situation where a
high percentage  of materials consumption is satisfied by
secondary materials, the materials "mine" would become
the city where a  large number of people live in close
proximity to each other and thus make  waste collection
for recycling practical.  In  today's situation, the  labor
forces  engaged  in the mining and harvesting  of raw
materials  are predominantly in  rural areas, and such
activities are the only economic magnet of many regions.
Recycling  legislation  may well  intensify  urbanization by
shifting labor requirements for mining and harvesting
from rural areas to cities.
   Commercialization of Sanitation. Unless prac-
tical means  can  be found  to  induce  consumers to
separate materials into many different categories at the
household level, collection and processing of wastes for
recycling will necessarily become the job of sanitation
departments and private refuse haulers  that now collect
the waste in mixed form. Recycling legislation may thus
impose on city,  township,  and county governments a
commercial  activity  that  they  are not by  tradition
equipped to handle.  Our urban areas are governed by a
large number of independent jurisdictions that are only
now beginning  to  learn  to plan  jointly.  Recycling
legislation must bring about changes in local government
waste  management practices if recycling is to succeed.
Private sector waste  collection practitioners would also
be an  important factor  in any  move  to bring about
further recycling.
   Obsolescence.  One  way to reduce solid  waste
generation is to use materials for longer periods of time.
If  a  refrigerator is used for 15 years, instead of  10, its
continuation  in use represents reduction of waste at the
source, a form of recycling —  without any  materials
collection,  scrap  processing,  materials  reprocessing,
fabrication, or redistribution having taken place. Efforts
to increase the life-in-use of products would thus result in
"resource recovery."  The classic example of a long-lived
and short-lived product in an identical application is the
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN  SOLID WASTES
                                                 95
use of returnable  and nonreturnable containers in soft
drink and beer  packaging.  New design criteria  for
products (such as modular components) that make repair
rather than replacement more attractive would have the
same effects.
   Energy Recovery. Combustible materials need not
be recovered  as materials; their resource value may be
extracted in the form of heat energy. This is a particularly
appropriate way  to  use  materials whose recycling in
more conventional ways is impractical, such as plastics,
wood, and paper products contaminated by  laminants,
coatings,  and adhesives.  In  this type  of  recovery,
combustible materials would displace fuels — coal, gas,
and  oil.  Because  energy demand  is large and growing
and  low-sulfur fuels are  in short supply, the  impact of
energy recovery from waste would have little effect on
traditional energy industry alignments; the alternative of
recycling such materials as materials would have a far
greater impact on present industry structures.
   Secondary Recycling. Materials produced by one
industry  need  not  necessarily reenter the same industry.
Waste rubber and waste glass could be used  in road
construction,   for   instance,  displacing  asphalt  and
concrete. Organics like rubber can be converted to crude
oil by pyrolysis and could displace well oil. Organics can
be composted  and used to displace a portion of soil
conditioners used. The key is that a product  is created
from  waste that competes  with  or displaces  another
product  used  in   other applications.  To bring about
secondary  recycling  of  materials  will be equally as
difficult as effecting  their primary recycling, but such
programs are nevertheless a distinct legislative  option.

                   Conclusions
   To  develop  an  effective  solid waste  recycling
mechanism it  is necessary to view the  problem in  the
broad context of resource conservation in which all costs
and benefits are expressed. We, therefore, conclude that
the following  are relevant  to  any public policy con-
siderations in this field.
   (I)  Resource  conservation  is  a  concept  entirely
separate from materials conservation and recycling. To
effect  true  resource  conservation  a  comprehensive
systems analysis must be developed in which all the costs
and  benefits —  tangible  and  intangible  — are
measured in traditional materials consumption practice.
   (2) The supply  of  secondary materials  is not  now
limited by technological inaccessibility  but  by  relative
cost constraints. The  demand does not exist for large
quantities  of  materials that could  be made  readily
available on  a  cost competitive basis  from municipal
waste streams. Institutionalized practices in exploitation
of virgin  raw materials assign greater  value to virgin
materials  than secondary  materials. The basic relations
must  be  changed  through the demand mechanism  io
achieve a significant reversal of recycling trends in force
today.
   (3) More attention needs to be given to  developing
demand  for  secondary materials within the industrial,
governmental, and  private sectors. Primary recycling is
only one option. Other important options are: secondary
recycling  and reuse applications for waste materials;
energy recovery; design criteria to reduce obsolescence
and  obsoleting of  products and to increase their life
cycle; and development of new products  from waste
materials  that  might  substitute for other materials  in
commercial markets.
   (4)  The  development   of  technology  to  recover
secondary materials from waste is moving forward under
the impetus of Federal and private efforts.  The social,
political,   and  economic  capabilities  of  institutional
establishments  (solid  waste  management,  secondary
material suppliers, and industrial consumers) are  lagging
behind the technological  competence  to  supply sec-
ondary  materials.  These factors need  more attention
before any substantial  new resource recovery  can be
accomplished.
   It  is  within this broad context that public  policy
considerations should take place to  avoid  undesirable
displacements and side effects and to develop positive
workable  resource conservation. This, we believe, is the
most  important point at which the conclusions of this
study can be directed.
-------
100
^

Product Use
and Discard
100 Units

100

90^
10

Disposal -
Add to Waste
Inventory
90 Units

Recovered by
Secondary
Materials
Industry
10 Units

10

Natural
Resources
Inventory Adds
Virgin Material
90 Units
^90
Manufacturing
of New Product
90 Virgin
10 Recycle
100 Units

100
i
Figure 23.  Situation One:  Constant demand 100 units; recycle 10 units,
                            95-1
-------
100
«i 	

Product Use
and Discard
100 Units

100

95
5

Recovery From
Waste - 5 Units
Disposal - Add
to Waste Inven-
tory - 90 Units

Recovered by
Secondary
Materials
Industry
5 Units

5
5 ,
, 10

Natural Resource
Inventory Adds
Virgin Material
190 Units
^90
Manufacturing
of New Product
Oft Virnin
7V v irgin
10 Recycle
100 Units

100
1
Figure 24.  Situation Two:  Constant demand 100 units; recycle 10 units,
                           95-2
-------




100










Product Use

and Discard
100 Units







100







85





1 c
1 3


Recovery From
Waste - 5 Units
Disposal - Add
i \A/ i.
to Waste
Inventory
80 Units


Recovered by
Secondary

Materials
Industry
15 Units

5






1 C i
15 '










20


Natural
Resource
Inventory
Add* Vfrain
Material
80 Units

80
Manufacturing
of New Product
80 Virnin
20 Recycle
100 Units








1 Art
IUU


Figure 25.  Situation Three:  Constant demand 100 units; recycle 20 units,
                          95-3
-------
                             TABLE  58


    DOMESTIC PROMPT AND OBSOLETE SCRAP CONSUMPTION IN SELECTED
    COMMODITIES,  1967, 1968, OR 1969,  IN 1,000  TONS AND  PERCENT*

Material Year
Paper and board 1967
Ferrous metals 1967
Nbnferrous metals 1967
Glass 1967
Textiles 1968
Rubber 1969
Total
material
consumption
1,000 tons
53,110
105,900
9,775
12,820
5,672
3,943
Prompt and
obsolete
scrap con- Recycling as
sumption for percent of
re cycling- 1,000 tons consumption
10,124
33,100
3,006
600
246
1,032
19.0
31.2
30.8
4.2
4.3
26.2
      Total
                            191,220
48,108
25.2
   *From Midwest Research Institute;  for detailed  discussion  and  sources,
see various materials chapters.  Excludes exports  of scrap  materials;
but in some instances includes imports of scrap  for domestic  consumption;
excludes scrap materials reused (such as textile wastes  for wiping  rags);
nonferrous metals include only aluminum, copper, zinc, and  lead;  rubber
recycling includes tires retreaded for resale as tires.
                                 95-4
-------
-------
                                                                                                       97
CHAPTER XI
                                         CASE  STUDIES
          Introduction  and Overview
   Case studies of salvage practices were carried out in
14 areas  across the United States to discover by actual
discussions with  public and private agencies the history
and current status of recovery and recycling operations.
   The surveys consisted of interviews with local public
officials,  with  executives of private  refuse removal and
secondary  materials   companies,   officials of  social
welfare  agencies,  with officers of  companies   that
purchase  secondary  materials, and with individual
scavengers and waste gatherers. Research team members
spent between I and 3 weeks in each community with the
exception of Atlanta,  Louisville, New Orleans, and St.
Louis; in these last-named cities, we conducted I or 2 days
of interviewing to get first-hand information on specific
projects.
   The survey communities were selected on the basis of
prior  knowledge of their salvage activities, gained by
perusal of the literature and examination of the raw data
of the 1968 National Survey of Community Solid Waste
Practices. We  wished  to visit only  those communities
where some form of salvage was known to be practiced.
Within that limitation,  we attempted to select cities  in
most important geographical regions of the Nation and
to select  small, medium, and large  communities. These
are individual  case studies, however, and extrapolation
from the data presented here is not advised.
   We encountered a number of serious problems in this
survey that must  be identified to qualify our findings: (I)
good documentation on current and past practices was
difficult to find; (2) we were refused access to information
by some  respondents for various reasons; (3) movement
of secondary materials was so complex in some instances
that we were unable to form a good picture of the total
"system"; (4) authoritative price information was  with-
held in many instances to protect the competitive position
of respondents; (5) base data necessary for  establishing
perspective (total waste  processed, number of  refuse
removal firms) were often not available, especially for
that portion of the waste  handled by the private sector;
(6)  individuals with  knowledge  of events or practices
crucial for understanding a situation could sometimes not
be located because they were one-man operations, often
without office facilities, or because they had moved.
   Although the  conditions encountered  in each  city
were  unique, a number of general observations about
salvage activities in the  case study communities as  a
whole can be made here to give an overview of the
survey universe.
   Reclamation of waste materials and obsolete products
is practiced in the following seven major modes.
   (I)   Retrieval  of   commodities from  mixed   refuse
deposited  at dumps and  landfills; this  is usually an
activity carried out  by very poor people, using manual
labor   sometimes  under  some sort  of  contractual ar-
rangement with the city, but usually without a legal basis.
Metals  and  repairable,  reusable  products are  the
commodities sought by dump scavengers.
   (2) Recovery of metals from incinerator residues; this  is
accomplished in one of two ways: either the incinerator
operator himself  recovers metal,  usually steel cans, or
incinerator residues  are  delivered  to  a  private cor-
poration that processes residues to obtain  metal. In the
latter  case, the contractor normally pays a  standard fee
to the city.
   (3) Retrieval of commodities from mixed wastes before
or during  waste collection; this activity is carried  on by
scavengers who  precede collection vehicles on  waste
collection days and remove newspapers from waste cans
set  out by householders  or by  collection crews who
separate newspapers  and other  valuables in the  act of
collection,  storing such items in bins or baskets attached
to trucks.
-------
98
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
   (4) Recovery  of  commodities — usually  only  cor-
rugated board — from commercial or industrial wastes;
this is practiced by private refuse haulers.
   (5) Separate collection of scrap from commercial and
industrial sources by secondary materials dealers or junk
men. This is the conventional mode of operation of the
secondary materials industry.
   (6) Separate collection of newspapers by schools and
civic groups; this is the traditional "paper drive," which
involves  delivery of newspapers by  householders to a
central place or door-to-door collection by youngsters,
followed by pick-up of the paper by a  dealer.
   (7) Separate collection of obsolete commodities from
residential sources,  followed  by  resale of a portion of
such commodities in second-hand stores and sale of the
remaining portion as secondary materials (as a rule only
textiles are involved); this activity is carried out by social
service agencies.
   With  the  exception  of  incinerator  residue  rec-
lamation, these salvage modes can be found in  nearly
every city or area; they are more or less developed and
more or less intensively practiced depending on local
demand for secondary materials.
   As a rule of thumb, traditional, contractual  recovery
activities involving municipalities have been terminated
in  the last few years, or they are being phased out. Dump
salvage is  discouraged, and supervision  over landfill
activities is tightening. Salvage by private refuse haulers
seems to be on the increase, however; we found several
such operations, most  of them fairly new; this activity
primarily involves cardboard and newspaper recovery.
   Paper sales and social welfare agency  collections
account  for the only  large-volume  recovery  of com-
modities  from residential  sources, and both  of these
modes  are  separate   collection  modes.  The  textile
recovery business depends almost  entirely on  social
service  agency  collections and  thus,  ultimately,  on
residential   sources.  A preponderant  proportion of
newspapers  is collected from residential sources.
   With the exception of these commodities, little if any
waste  materials  derived  from  municipal  wastes is
recovered  in  quantity. Steel can  recovery from in-
cinerator  residues  was the  only  fairly widespread
example of  commodity reclamation from  mixed wastes;
the tonnages  involved, in comparison with total steel
recovery, are minimal.  The overwhelming percentage of
all  secondary  materials are  separately collected from
commercial  and  industrial sources by secondary ma-
terials dealers and their agents.
   We encountered  a  scattering  of  "new-fashioned"
salvage operations (aluminum and glass recovery in Los
Angeles and newspaper collection in Madison) which are
based on voluntary materials segregation by the public
and subsidized collection, in the case of aluminum and
glass, where the public contributes transportation. We
also encountered survivals of very old-fashioned salvage
practices that are rapidly disappearing: large scale,
uncontrolled dump salvage and recovery of hair and
feathers.
   Observations about  the economics of salvage and
salvage operations  can  be  summed  up  under the
following points.
   (I)  Salvage  is  severely limited  by  the absence  or
disappearance of cheap labor for sorting and collection
of commodities. The  limit is not declining scrap prices,
which have been  relatively stable  over time,  but the
proportional increase in wages paid  to  labor. Sorted
materials of homogeneous composition  can be sold with
some exceptions provided that a buyer is located within
an economical transportation  radius of the generation
point. Sorting  is encountered only where one of the
following conditions  is met: (a) the value  of the waste
commodity is high (nonferrous metals and IBM cards); (b)
cheap labor is available because workers are employed
who could not otherwise find jobs (social service agency
labor); (c) sorting is  accomplished  by an  entrepreneur
(scavenger) who  need  not  pay himself  the minimum
wage;  and (d) the commodity is  presorted and only
occasional foreign objects need to be removed.
   (2)  Successful  salvage  operations  depend  on  a
favorable  transportation arrangement.  For best results,
salvage must ride piggyback on a transport system whose
economics  are independent  of salvage  income. This
criterion is most applicable to salvage commodities that
occur in small quantities per stop and  loses  its force in
cases  where large quantities of salvage are obtainable
with each stop.
   (3) Low value commodities, up to $30 per ton, usually
cannot  be  collected  and  sold  economically  unless
transportation  charges to the buyer are at or below $7 to
$10 per ton. In  practice this means that a bulk commodity
will not be collected in an area unless there is a buyer
within 300 to 500 miles of the area; usually the buyer is
within 100 miles. The exception to this is a case where the
generator pays the dealer for removing the waste — a
usual  instance being  rubber tires. As  the value  of a
commodity increases, its ability to absorb transport costs
increases, so that pulp substitute grade papers (around
-------
 FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                                 99
$80 per ton) and metals like aluminum ($200 per ton) are
sold to buyers who may be 1,000 miles away.
   (4) The same commodity, cardboard, for instance, will
bring a  higher price  when  derived from  commercial
sources than it will fetch if sorted from mixed refuse;  in
the latter case contamination is virtually  unavoidable
and this results  in a penalty.
   (5)  Wherever technology  is  used with  a salvage
operation, the  economics  of  salvage usually improve.
High  density  baling  equipment,  for instance, whose
operation, including amortization, costs  around $2 per
ton, can save up to $5 per ton in transport charges on a
500-mile haul of waste paper. A city that operates its own
residue reclamation system as  part  of  its incinerator
operations can  expect to sell  steel cans with a modest
profit;135  where the residue  is sold unprocessed, the
operation seldom survives.
   The  case   studies  that follow  are  presented   in
alphabetical order by community. In each case study
report, a  brief summary of the significant findings  is
given  first,  followed by discussion  of  particulars. All
statements made refer to the  time of the survey itself,
indicated  in each case by footnotes. An overview of the
case studies is presented in Table 59.

                Amarillo, Texas136
   Summary.  Amarillo is located near copper mines
and could  sell all its steel can wastes to mines. An
operation to recover cans from incinerator residues had
been  in  existence  but was discontinued. Textiles  are
collected  and  sold  by the Salvation Army.  A dump-
salvage contract is in force.
   Introduction. Amarillo's economy is based on cattle
ranching,  small-scale  agricultural product  processing,
and fertilizer production. There are no glass, steel, iron,
or paper manufacturing facilities in or near Amarillo. No
rubber reclaiming is practiced in the vicinity. The city  is
situated in the center of an industrial desert (the nearest
major metropolitan area, Dallas, is 360 miles away), and
salvage activity, therefore,  is minimal. At the same time,
Amarillo  is close  to  several major copper  mining
operations in Arizona,  New Mexico, and Utah. Amarillo
enjoys  one  of  the  most attractive  freight rates  for
shredded steel cans to  copper  mining  points among the
cities in our  survey,  and consequently it is one of the few
communities where the recovery  and sale of steel  cans
could be practiced profitably. The metropolitan area has
a population of 193,000, and Amarillo proper; 138,000.
   Waste  collection  and  disposal  in  Amarillo  is ac-
complished by the Amarillo Sanitation Department and
three private refuse haulers. The  city's forces collect
56,500 tons of waste yearly — nearly all the residential
tonnage and about 90 percent of  all commercial and
institutional wastes. Three private refuse haulers collect
an estimated 2,600 tons, mostly commercial wastes with a
sprinkling of residential wastes.
   The total waste tonnage collected in the city only (just
under  60,000 tons)  is equivalent  to 2.38 pounds  per
capita per day.
   The  city  incinerates  52,000 tqns of  waste in an
incinerator  with  a  capacity  of   350  tons per  day.
Combustion is at a high temperature (1800° F) and the
residues we inspected contained  very  little unburned
organics.  The  city also delivers 4,500 tons of waste
directly to the municipal landfill site and hauls 11,500 tons
of incinerator residue to the fill. Private refuse haulers
deliver  their wastes directly to the landfill. About 2,600
tons of waste are dumped by private haulers. In  addition,
private  citizens deliver wastes to the fill site, but the total
quantity is not known.
   The  landfill  is located  about  3 miles  from  the
incinerator  and consists  of a 140 acre site;  8  years  of
useful life remain in the fill, which will be converted to a
golf course. Wastes  are  deposited  into cavities dug in
advance  and  are  covered within 20  minutes  after
discharge from trucks.
   Current  Salvage  Practice.  Salvage  activity  in
Amarillo is very limited at present. We identified the four
following  specific  instances of recovery  from municipal
wastes.
   Municipal Salvage Contract with  a  Private  Con-
tractor.  This contract became effective December 1969;
however,  a similar contract had been maintained with
another individual  previously.
   This operation,  carried out by one person, consists of
retrieving  usable or saleable  items from  wastes dumped
at the municipal landfill  before they are  covered. The
contractor  has  20 minutes  in which  to  salvage —
thereafter the waste is buried.
   The contractor keeps no records but claims to remove
one load  of salvage daily — a  pickup truckfull —
working 5, more often 6 days a week. We estimate that
135 Provided, of course, that the city is within economic transport range of the buyer.
136 Survey concluded in January 1970.
-------
100
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
he removes 130 tons of salvage in a year. He concentrates
on recovering "usables" (toys, clothing, umbrellas, pots
and pans, etc.) in preference to scrap. Aged 57 and with
a heart condition, he is unable to handle heavy objects
like motor blocks or large pieces of steel.  He plans to
convert his home to a secondhand store where he will sell
usable items he recovers.  He stores and accumulates
metallics at  his home and sells these in batches to the
leading scrap merchant in the city.
   He has an exclusive right to salvage at the landfill —
a privilege he obtained by competitive bidding. He pays
the city $237 a month ($2,844 per year) for this right. He
estimated that he  can gross between $525 and $630 a
month from  salvage or net, after paying the city, $288 to
$393 a month. He supports a wife and four children.
   His predecessor, who retired in  1969, had a contract
with the city  paying $1500 a year for salvage privileges.
   Sanitation officials in Amarillo have divergent views
on the probable success or failure of this venture. The
assistant superintendent holds that the operator will lose
money on the contract. The director believes that gross
returns will  be $15,000 to $20,000 a year. Based on our
discussion with the contractor, inspection of his salvage
products,  and interviews  with second-hand product
stores in Amarillo, we believe the operator will find it
difficult to meet the city payments let atone- realize a
large  profit. His first  payment to the city was overdue at
the time of our survey.
   Unauthorized Salvage at the Landfill. Gatemen at the
municipal landfill  report that five to eight people, in
addition to  the authorized contractor, salvage from the
landfill  in winter; with the onset of warm weather, the
number of scavengers increases. Enforcement of the "no-
salvage" rule is lax. Apparently gatemen pity  the needy
scavengers who haunt the landfill to make a living. The
salvage contractor stated that this "competition" does
not seriously affect him. He considers himself  an expert
scavenger who  learned his  business from his  father.
Others  at   the .landfill  site  do  not possess his dis-
crimination  and  consequently do  not pick  up valuable
items of scrap; they hunt "usables." In the winter months,
he avers, there  are  few  usables  in the waste. In the
summer,  however, usables  increase and he plans to
complain  to the gatemen if he  notices unauthorized
scavengers leaving with useful commodities.
   Salvage  by Private Haulers During  Collection.  Two
one-truck  private refuse  haulers  reportedly salvage
commodities from waste on their collection routes and
then sell usable  items to second-hand stores and scrap
materials  to secondary  materials dealers.  We were
unable to contact these companies for interviews about
quantitites and types of wastes recovered. They were
under way servicing their routes.
   Reuse of Discarded Products and Textiles. In 1969, the
Salvation Army facility in Amarillo acquired 300 tons of
materials; of  this  20 tons were discarded  as  waste;
commodities weighing 186 tons were sold in the Salvation
Army Retail  Store (clothing, appliances,  toys, furniture)
and 94 tons  of mixed rags were sold to a rag dealer in
Dallas, Texas.
   Total  revenues  of the operation  (Table  60) were
$37,000 ($132.14 per  ton  of  salvage sold);  operating
expenses were $39,100 ($139.64 per ton), for a net loss of
$2,100 ($7.50 per ton). However, the operation must  also
support a transient hotel. The salvage operation, taken
alone, appears to be self-supporting but would not break
even on a commercial basis. The wages paid employees
average $2,428 per year per employee.
   Collection activity extends  beyond the borders of
Amarillo.  In  addition to that city, the Salvation Army
collects in Vega and Canyon, Texas, west and south of
Amarillo, respectively, and accessible by  major highway
routes. One truck  and  driver constitute the  collection
system.
   Two  sorters separate the  loads  brought  in  by the
driver, prepare  textiles  for shipment,  and  carry on
restoration and repair work on other commodities under
the supervision, and with the help of, a warehouse
foreman. Textiles are not sorted; they are  baled as mixed
rags and shipped.  The  facility receives $2.75  per
hundredweight ($55  per ton)  but must  absorb  freight
charges of $15.95 per ton to Dallas.
   Steel Can Recovery. In January 1967 an operation
began in Amarillo to recover steel cans from incinerator
residues. The operation closed in November 1968, but the
debris left behind — physical and organizational —
was not cleared up until January 1970. In this period less
than 1,000 tons of shredded steel were actually shipped.
The details of this operation illustrate the problems  that
can  be  encountered in  any  enterprise to salvage
materials from municipal wastes.
   History. Late in 1966, the Sanitation  Department of
Amarillo signed a contract with Apco Metals  Company.
According to  the terms of the  contract, Apco  Metals
would undertake removal of all incinerator residues from
the city  in  exchange for (I)  exclusive  salvage rights
encompassing  both the residue and the wastes dumped
at the landfill  and  (2) payment of $0.50 per ton for any
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                               101
material sold. The contract was for 5 years. Apco Metals
was required to post a $10,000 performance bond. No
arrangements  were made  for  disposal  of  the  un-
recoverable incinerator residues.
   In January 1967, Apco Metals began hauling the city's
residues, using four trucks. The wastes were delivered to
a scrap yard north of the incinerator  for a brief period.
Another  site was selected  soon thereafter.  The  can
processing  plant, a mobile unit,  was transferred there.
The city undertook to bury the wastes left behind at the
original site free of charge.
   At this time Apco had a can processing plant designed
by  the company's  president,  but it  did not  have an
operational hammermill for  shredding the  cans. A
hammermill of the company's design  was on order, but
delivery was delayed for 5 months. Consequently, Apco
processed  the residues  through  the  plant, segregating
cans from other materials. The cans were not shredded,
however, and were piled up on the lot  in the open air.
   While   awaiting  the  hammermill,  the   company
salvaged other ferrous and nonferrous metals from the
residue and had a  team stationed  at  the landfill  to
recover salvage.  These materials were sold through a
scrapyard owned by Apco's president.
   Negotiations were conducted for sale of the steel cans
during this period with Proler Steel Company (Houston)
and  copper mines  in  Miami, Globe,  and Winslow,
Arizona.
   Shredding of steel cans started in  June 1967  with the
arrival of  the  hammermill.  Apco's  former president
reports that initially the shredded tin  was sold to  Proler
for $20 per ton. Only a few carloads were sold,  however.
Next Apco began delivery to copper mines at $55 per
ton. This  continued  for I month.  The  1967 copper strike
began  in July of that year, and copper mines refused to
take delivery.
   During this brief operational period, Apco appears to
have shipped  between  640 and 960 tons of shredded
steel. Apco is now defunct and the memories of various
participants are  vague about  details. The low figure is
derived from an audit of Apco's records conducted by
the  city;  according to these  data, Apco's  sales were
$35,000, or 636 tons at $55 per ton. The higher figure is
based on an estimate by a company official that 80,000
pounds of metal were processed daily, 6 days a week, for
about 4 weeks.
  With the conclusion  of the copper strike in March'
1968, Apco  attempted to resume can shipments but could
not  negotiate any sales. One-time Apco officials did not
wish  to  specify the  nature of the arrangements the
company had with mines. Apparently the shredded cans
delivered by Apco  were  of  poor quality — highly
oxidized and fragile; Apco had  no firm contracts with the
mines but shipped in  response to purchase orders; mines
could  accept  or  reject  shipments  upon  inspection;
following the strike, abundant quantities of high  quality
shredded metals were available, and  Apco could  no
longer compete.
   For another  10 months — March 1968 to January 1969
—- Apco hauled incinerator residues from the incinerator
to its site. Attempts to market the steel were carried  on
without  success. In February 1969, the operation was sold
to a new owner who placed a $5,000 bond with the city;
the former owner  of Apco was refunded  his  $10,000
bond. The  new owner continued to haul residue until
April 1969,  when he declared bankruptcy  and forfeited
his bond. The city resumed residue hauling.
   The plant reverted to the former owner of Apco but
was  not operated; the new owner could  not meet  his
payments.  In January 1970, the owner was forced to
remove  the accumulation of cans and dirt from the plant
site to the  landfill; the city had concluded that the site
was  a potential health  hazard and planned to  let a
contract  for $30,000  tr>  remove the waste. Rather than
being assessed  such   a  charge, the owner  elected  to
undertake the removal job himself.
   Financial Basis. The can reclamation operation was a
failure for three reasons: (I) the delay in acquisition of the
shredding equipment, (2) the onset of the copper strike,
and (3) failure to regain  the market lost after the  copper
strike ended. In 2 years  of operation, the company lost
between $100,000 and $150,000 by our estimates.
   Our objective here is not  to trace the financial aspects
of this venture  as it actually unfolded — the detailed
data for that are not  available — rather, we would like
to establish whether or not this operation could have
been economically viable if conditions  had been more
favorable.
   This analysis  is based  in part on data from a city audit
of Apco's books, in part  on  the recollection of company
officials,  in  part on published freight date, and in part on
generally accepted industrial overhead and cost factors.
Apco s overall operations are difficult to understand. The
company,  owned  by  a   Lubbock,  Texas,  investor,
consisted of a scrapyard and the salvage plant. It was
managed by another individual who had no equity in the
business.  This manager could not differentiate in detail
between  the scrapyard and can  plant operations  in
-------
102
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
trying to recall specific numbers. The books were kept by
a part-time accountant who was employed at the bank
that financed Apco's operations;  the  accountant  pur-
chased the scrapyard owned by Apco when the company
folded. For these reasons, what follows should be viewed
as impressionistic estimates.
   In. making  estimates, we are  using reported cost data
on  the  plant but  are assuming that:  (I) 4,000 tons of
shredded steel could have been processed yearly; (2) the
plant could  have  been  operating  during the entire
period;  (3) the product of the plant could have been of
acceptable quality if it had been processed and shipped
immediately;  and  (4)  the  company could have  been
protected from the effects of a copper strike by suitable
contract provisions.
  Apco's can processing  plant was sized to  produce
around  23 tons of shredded metal  in an 8-hour day, or
just  under 6,000 tons a  year  operating  260 days.  It
appears to have had the appropriate  capacity for the
metal likely to be found in the incinerator residue,  with
enough  additional capacity to permit maintenance and
reasonable growth.
   Fixed assets of the company related to can reclaiming
only were $98,100, or about $4,500 per ton of daily (8-
hour  basis) capacity. We estimate that total capital-
related  charges.were $21,700 a year ($5.41 per ton of
product), operating costs were $60,000 ($15.00 per  ton),
general overhead was $25,000 ($6.25 per ton), and other
expenses (freight and payments to  the city) would have
been $91,600 ($22.90 per ton). This results in a total cost of
production and delivery of $198,300 a year, or $49.56 a
ton, yielding a gross, before-taxes profit of $5.43 a ton or
$21,700 a year. Cost elements are displayed in Table 61.
  These estimates provide only a modest salary for the
company president, who had other interests and income;
office help consisted of one part-time bookkeeper whose
fee   is  included  under  capital-related expenses.  Mis-
cellaneous expenses include disposal fees for deposition
of about 6,000 tons of residue at $1.00 per ton; transport
of residues to the dump site is included  under operating
costs.
   In actual practice, Apco also realized income from its
scrap operations and from the salvage of metals other
than steel cans at the plant  site and at  the municipal
landfill and sold an indeterminable number of carloads
of clean residue to the railroad for $200 a carload (about
$5.00 per ton).  Such  income  is not reflected in our
tabulation  because  we could  not get base data for
estimates. It  is clear, however, that if the company had
been properly operated its profits could have exceeded
those in our estimates.
   The Secondary  Materials Industry.  The  sec-
ondary materials industry in Amarillo consists of five
metal scrap processors who collect and process copper,
brass, steel, cast iron, and aluminum in the immediate
vicinity of Amarillo  and sell  the  metals  to  users or
middlemen in Lubbock, El Paso, Houston, Dallas, and Fort
Worth in Texas and in Colorado. There are also three or
four part time scrap operators who bid on military and
industrial salvage packages  and deliver metals directly
from the source to users or middlemen.
   There is a shortage of metal scrap in the Amarillo area
and an oversupply of operators who derive a living from
scrap —  hence, keen competition between all interests
involved in the metal scrap business.
   The leading company insures its supplies by posting a
standard price list. Prices  paid by  the  company are
higher across the board than prices paid by competing
yards. The company maintains its buying price regardless
of  market fluctuations and in  this  manner attracts
materials.  The company also usually achieves a higher
selling price than its competitors  by marketing directly
and because it handles a significantly higher quantity of
metals than other yards —  about 800 tons of metals a
month versus  35  to 146 tons handled by  others. The
company's predominance is also assured by its ability to
post large bid bonds on salvage packages, while the
financial circumstances of other processors do not permit
this.
   Two of the five  scrap processors  derive the bulk of
their revenues from  the sale of usable items and operate
retail  outlets. A  number of  much  smaller  shops in
Amarillo's ghetto area  also sell usables derived  from
municipal  wastes. A typical usable product is a kitchen
sink, purchased for $1.00 and sold for $1.25 to $2.00.
   Scrap processors in  Amarillo  view metals derived
from municipal waste as a nuisance. Such materials are
purchased, however, because scrap available from  other
sources is scarce.
   Discussions with  numerous  individuals revealed an
interesting  pattern   of  personnel  circulation  in the
Amarillo scrap  business.  Apparently  the  precarious
financial condition  of smaller yards frequently forces
their owners to sell out or to take out bankruptcy. Few of
these men  take  up other lines of work;  usually   they
become brokers, scavengers or, if they have a truck,  part-
time scrap dealers. As part time dealers or brokers
(unencumbered with the cost of facilities and a payroll)
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN  SOLID WASTES
                                                103
they are able to outbid established scrap processors for
specific salvage  packages.  In this  manner,  they ac-
cumulate  capital  and  reemerge again as scrapyard
owners. Those who fall  hardest engage in the salvage of
commodities from  the municipal landfill and other dump
sites around the area.
   In the  Amarillo  area,  there  are  no  dealers  in
secondary  paper,  rubber, plastics, organics, and glass.
One paper dealer was listed in the telephone  book;
investigation showed that the company had gone out of
business after  a short  period of operation; none of the
individuals concerned with the venture could be located
in Amarillo.
   Conclusions and Observations. In Amarillo the
possibilities exist for the  recovery of virtually all  steel
cans  from  municipal   wastes  —  at least  from  the
technical and economic  point of view. The municipal
incinerator can be operated at the desirable temperature
to achieve good, clean, burned cans (1200° to 1400°  F).
The  incinerator could be equipped with can reclaiming
machinery  for $75,000  to  $100,000,  according to an
independent engineering estimate obtained by the city.
Freight  charges   for  shredded  steel  are  low.  The
incinerator is located near a rail line.
   Textile salvage  is a possibility if segregated collection
of  textiles were  undertaken. This  would require a
publicity campaign and would  call for installation  of
small hoppers or baskets on municipal collection  trucks
(see  Madison case  study). Reclaiming of  nonferrous
metals would be possible and these could be sold readily
to the local scrap processing industry.
   The city's experience with metal can salvage has been
unfortunate;  recent  attempts to  interest  local  scrap
dealers in can reclaiming have been unsuccessful. Scrap
processors view this business as hazardous because of the
dominant  position of  Proler Steel in the  market and
because the city's approach has been to write a contract
for  residue removal, which would involve  processors in
residue separation  and can shredding.
   The financial situation of the city does not, at present,
permit capital  investment in can reclaiming equipment at
the   incinerator  site.  The  technical  skills  necessary
successfully to  operate  such a system are also absent, in
our opinion. Consequently, this resource is not likely to be
exploited in the near future.
   Even  if equipment  would  be purchased and qual-
itatively  acceptable product  could be  derived from
residues, the city would be in a poor position to sell the
shredded steel directly to  copper mines, lacking  ex-
perienced marketing people. The product would have to
be  sold  through  a middleman, assuring  the city only
meager profits on the operation.

               Atlanta,  Georgia137
   Summary.  In  Atlanta  recovery  of steel cans is
practiced at two municipal incinerators; on a 1968 basis,
6,282 tons of tin cans were recovered and sold for $10.27
per ton, or $64,516 total; can reclaiming operating costs,
including amortization, were $10.01 per ton, for total net
revenues of $1,633 for the  reclamation facilities. Steam is
also generated at  one incinerator and sold to a utility.
   Introduction. Atlanta was not one of the scheduled
survey cities. City officials were interviewed to obtain
facts on Atlanta's can reclamation operation only.
   Atlanta had an estimated  population of 513,000 in
1969.  Wastes are  collected  by  municipal and  private
forces. Disposal processing of 90 percent of the kitchen
refuse (garbage and small residential wastes) is through
two  incinerators;  trash (yard refuse, bulky wastes) is
hauled directly to six public and three private landfills. In
1968,  242,000 tons of kitchen refuse were burned in the
municipal incinerators.
   Salvage  Practice. Steel cans are separated mag-
netically  from the residues of the city's two municipal
incinerators; the cans are reduced in size by hammermills
after washing. The shredded steel is loaded on railroad
cars (minimum loading  of  50,000 pounds per car) and is
shipped to the El  Paso facility of Proler Steel Company,
buyer of  the metal. The steel is ultimately sold to copper
mines.
   Approximately  2.6 percent by weight of the  refuse
received  at the incinerators is sold — 6,282 net tons in
1968.  Given an average national  per capita steel can
consumption of 52 pounds a year and a population of
513,000, the city appears to be recovering for sale half of
the steel cans occurring  in the community.
   Recovery  Economics. The   city  negotiated  a
contract with Proler Steel Company in 1966, whereby the
city received $15.70 per net ton138 of shredded steel; the
buyer  paid transportation  costs.  In  1968, the  buyer
137 Survey concluded in August 1969.
138 The city's records are kept on the basis of gross (long) tons; all figures here are shown in net (short) tons for the sake
of consistency.
-------
104
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
reduced the price to $10.27 per ton, citing product quality
deterioration (excessive dirt, rust) as the reason.
   It costs the city $10.01 per ton to process salvage metals
for shipment, as broken down in Table  62. The city
consequently realizes a profit of $0.26 per ton of metal
processed or $1,633 profit in 1968.  City officials indicate
that can  recovery would be  continued even if the cans
would have to be sold at a loss. Discontinuation of metal
salvage would  necessitate removal  of the  metal to
landfill at a cost of $5.67 per ton, or $35,620 per year; the
removal  cost includes labor costs and  residue  truck
amortization,  but  excludes fuel, maintenance,   and
landf illing costs. In other words, the city could lose $5.66
per ton of metal sold (a selling price of $4.35 per ton) and
still expend less on removal of this waste than it would
spend by the alternative route of landfilling the metal.
   Steam  Recovery. At the city's Mayson incinerator,
steam is generated and sold to a utility company. The city
is  required to produce 260,000 pounds of steam every
24 hours, failing which, the city is penalized. In 1968, the
city sold 300 million pounds of steam, receiving $0.20 per
1,000  pounds or  $60,000.  City officials  state that this
operation loses  money;  the city's  costs to  produce the
steam are around $0.23 per 1,000 pounds.

               Chicago, Illinois139
   Summary.   Chicago,  the  Nation's second  most
populous  city,   operates a  large public  solid  waste
collection and disposal system for residential wastes. The
private refuse collection and disposal establishment is
also sizable. Most of Chicago's waste passes through
incinerators.  Steel cans  and other steel  products are
recovered at both municipal and "private  incinerators.
Steam is  also  sold  from  municipal  and  private  in-
cinerators. One scrap dealer in the area specializes in the
disassembly and processing  of metallic products  nor-
mally found in residential wastes —appliances, radios,
and the like. The city is an active waste paper market
area. A glass cullet dealer operates in Chicago.  Textiles
are recovered. A waste rubber processor is also active in
the area.
   Introduction. Chicago,  with  a population of  3.3
million people,  is  a  major center  of  industrial  and
commercial  activity   in  the  United States.  Sanitation
services  are  handled  by  the city  of  Chicago  for
household  refuse  of all types and by  private refuse
haulers who serve  the industrial and commercial sectors
of  Chicago  and  many of  the   adjacent  suburban
communities.  These operations depend  principally on
incineration for volume reduction although there are  a
number of landfills in operation in Chicago.
   The city operates  three  incinerators, two  transfer
stations, and one (overfull) landfill.  A fourth incinerator
was nearing completion at  the time  of the  survey.
(Combustible material averages 77 percent of refuse by
weight and 90 percent by volume.)  In addition, the city
has  access  to  privately  operated  incinerators  for
disposal.  Packer truck tonnage is  growing at  2 to  3
percent per year while bulky refuse is increasing at the
rate of 5 percent per year.
   Refuse  collection and disposal  in Chicago for 1969
amounted  to  1,914,000 tons.  Of this  amount,  the city
collected 1,244,000 tons, and private forces collected an
estimated 670,000 tons. The waste collected is equivalent
to 3.15 pounds per capita per day. Of the waste collected
by  fhe city,  14  percent was  disposed  of at  private
incinerators and  landfills, the remainder in  its  own
facilities.  Of the tonnage  disposed of by the  city, 61
percent was incinerated. The city's sanitation budget was
$34  million in 1969, excluding capital  improvements,
amortization,  and  equipment maintenance  — $27.8
million for  collection and $6.5 million for disposal. The
city collects residential wastes only;  173 licensed  private
haulers service industrial and  commercial accounts and
large private apartment complexes.
   Municipal Salvage Operations. The city derives
income from three types of salvage  activities: (I) the sale
of steel cans from  incinerator residues; (2) the sale  of
sheet metal from bulky wastes; and  (3) the sale of steam
from one of its incinerators.
   Incinerator Residue Recovery. In  1963, a scrap dealer
approached the city and proposed to build a processing
plant to  recover  steel cans  in  the  city's  incinerator
residues. The city asked for competitive bids covering the
steel cans in  its residues. The  dealer was the successful
bidder, the plant  was  built, and  incinerator  residue
processing began and continues to this day.
139 Survey concluded in June 1970.
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                                105
   According  to the contract, the city is paid $10.07 per
ton  of  steel  cans,  based  on  actual loaded  rail-car
shipping weights.140 The  city  delivers residue to the
dealer's plant, which is near the Southwest Incinerator. In
addition, the city back-hauls unsalable residue (tailings)
separated during processing. The city reserves the right
to extract nonferrous metals but makes  no attempt  to
salvage them. In fact,  various individuals recover this
material as  time  permits,  including one  independent
scavenger, who spends  all  his time at the can processor's
plant, and city truck drivers,  who  remove nonferrous
metals during their residue runs.
   The  dealer's  intent  was to receive  screened  or
magnetically separated residues —  in other words, the
residues minus ash.  This would have minimized double
handling of  tailings. The city can screen residues at only
one  of  its  incinerators, Southwest. Residue  from the
Medill Incinerator is not  received by the dealer because it
consists  almost entirely (90 percent) of tailings and thus is
too expensive for the city to back-haul after can removal.
The  Calumet  Incinerator,  which also lacks  screening
equipment,  was  delivering  residue to the processing
plant because the quality of the residue was somewhat
better  than   that  of  the  Medill  facility;   magnetic
separation  equipment  was planned  at  the   Calumet
facility for the fall of 1970.
   Only  the  Southwest Incinerator  has consistently
delivered  residue to the plant. Residues from the Medill
facility were  refused by the dealer, because of high
tailing content, in the second year of the program, and
the city  readily concurred to save hauling costs. Residues
from the Calumet Incinerator were rejected in the period
1967  through  1970,  initially because the  copper  strike
destroyed demand  for  the cans and later because the
residues were too "dirty" and excessive processing and
back-haul of  tailing were  needed  to obtain  an ac-
ceptable product.
   At the outset of the program, the city's revenues were
as high as $160,000  per  year. In 1968, 11,297 tons of cans
were sold  and an income of $113,764  was realized by the
city; in 1969,9,214 tons brought $92,781.
   The can processing facility is close to the Southwest
Incinerator, which  makes residue and tailing haul costs
relatively low for the city. The'city removes only the reject
tailings to the  landfill for ultimate disposal. No detailed
cost analysis of this operation was available,  but it  is
certain that the city has a profitable operation at the
Southwest Incinerator.
   At the incinerator itself, one man is stationed at the
discharge conveyor to remove bulky metallic objects that
would cause problems in the screening operations.  A
rotating  screen is used  to separate the ash from larger
pieces  of   residue  metallics  and  nonmetallics.  No
magnetic separation takes place. City personnel report
that only during the copper strike, when much of the
stockpiled cans oxidized and had to be hauled back as
tailings,  did relations between the city and the dealer
become somewhat strained. Otherwise, the arrangement
has been satisfactory.
   By  our  estimates steel can sales  from  Southwest
Incinerator for 1969 amounted to 3.3 percent of incoming
tonnage  and 8.7 percent of residue; according to 5 test
made in  1968, incoming  waste contained 8 percent metal
by weight. Of this, cans may be 6 percent, but this is only
an estimate. Based on waste delivery, the metals content
was 22,000 tons in 1969, giving a recovery of 41 9 percent
of the metals (Table 63). The  "loss" is accounted for by
nonferrous metals, large ferrous pieces and wire rejects,
incineration "fines," oxidation,  and other losses prior to
shipment.
   While the amount of metal actually recovered for sale
is not large compared to total waste input or incinerator
residue,  the city  does  realize  a savings in costly and
virtually  nonexistent landfill  space as well as  revenue
equivalent to about 14 percent of its disposal budget.
   Sheet Metal Recovery. The city collected 381,530 cubic
yards (about 47,700 tons) of bulky waste in 1969, of which
perhaps  40  percent consisted of metallic items such as
appliances.  Bulky  waste  is handled by separate col-
lections on open-body trucks. For about 5 years, portions
of the metallics have been sold to local  metal  dealers.
Salvage is done at two transfer stations and the landfill.
   This recovery operation depends on hand labor and
mechanical loading equipment stationed  at the transfer
stations and the fill. At the transfer stations this amounts
to hand  sorting of metals and separate accumulation
during periods when  transfer  trailers  are not being
loaded.  Recovery  of the bulk  metals is dependent on
availability  of  the  loading  equipment  to  move, ac-
cumulate, and load.
140 This price has remained effective since the inception of the program, which is now in its second 5-year contract
period. Actual price is $11.28 per long ton, but all data in  this report are presented in short tons for the sake of
consistency.
-------
106
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
   Metals are hauled to the dealer's yard by truck, where
they are weighed and unloaded.  The dealers shred or
grind the metal, which then  becomes a part of No.  2
bundles sold  to the steel industry. The price received by
the city is based on the Iron Age weekly price quote for
No.  2  dealer bundles. The city  receives the difference
between the  Iron Age quote and a fixed price bid by the
dealers. If, for instance, the dealer's fixed bid is $20 per
ton and the  Iron  Age quote is $22 per ton,  the  city
receives $2 per ton. If the  Iron Age quote is also $20 per
ton, the city receives nothing. At the time of our survey,
the city had two contracts with dealers for fixed prices of
$17.86  and $14.28 per ton. Revenues to the city have
ranged between  $2  and  $17 per ton, depending on
market conditions. Location of the dealer's yard plays an
important part in determining  the best dealer bid; the city
hauls to  the yards  as close as  possible to  the  ac-
cumulation points. The condition  of the metal collected is
of little  consequence  to  the dealers,  although  high
nonmetallic  content  is not acceptable. Revenue from
sheet metal was $7,166 in 1968 and $16,516 in 1969.  The
1969 revenue represented  approximately  1,500 tons of
metal.
   The city will soon  start using a special  grinder at its
Goose  Island transfer  station  to reduce the volume of
bulky  refuse, but handling   of solvable  metals  will
continue to be dependent on hand labor. A magnetic
separation unit was planned,  but expected revenues do
not appear to justify the capital investment of $150,000
required to put it into operation. Four men are employed
in salvaging  at  the Goose Island  transfer  station.  The
operation is  clearly uneconomical in  light of present
costs, the' low level  of  mechanization, and  revenue
realized. The  main benefit of the operation is to preserve
landfill  space. The dealer taking  the  metal from  the
Goose  Island  transfer station  estimated he was receiving
20 tons per week and indicated that this was a marginal
quantity for his operation.
   Steam  Sales.   Chicago's  Southwest Incinerator is
equipped to  sell waste heat in the form  of steam to
outside customers. The equipment includes four waste
heat boilers  with auxiliary  fuel  burners for standby
operations to  meet the  contract'volumes when  the
calorific  value of  the  waste  is too low to provide the
steam.  At present,  the city  has a contract to furnish steam
to the nearby Central Produce Terminal. (Sales data are
in Table 64.)
   City  officials  believe  that  this  is a  profitable
operation;  however, no detailed cost evaluation of the
operation has been  made. We did not attempt to pursue
this item further because of its marginal interest for the
salvage study.  Two  observations raise  some questions
about  the  value of  heat recovery: (1) the city must
frequently supplement its  heat load with auxiliary fuel
and experiences mechanical problems, and (2) a private
refuse  incinerator nearby found  steam sales  to be a
constant operating problem and a deficit operation.
   Salvage of noncombustible materials is viewed with
favor by Sanitation Department officials, not only as a
source of revenue but also as a way of preserving scarce
landfill space. With the startup of its new incinerator, the
city will be nearly fully committed to volume reduction by
incineration. Officials believe that a salvage program to
recover combustible  material could cause severe prob-
lems, especially if it involved paper reclamation. Paper is
more than 50 percent by weight of the tonnage collected,
and  the heat  value of the paper is important for the
proper operation of incinerators.141
   Steel Can Processing. The steel can processing plant,
built  in  1963,  is  located near  Chicago's  Southwest
Incinerator. The plant receives 75  percent of its inputs
from the city, the balance from two private incinerators,
can manufacturers,  and detinners. The  processed cans
are shipped to the Southwest and  the West, where they
are used for copper precipitation.
   The plant manager reports that cans obtained from
the Southwest  Incinerator are  of excellent quality,- they
are thoroughly burned, properly screened to remove ash,
and the tailings consist largely of nonferrous metals. Cans
from the Calumet Incinerator are poor  in quality; they
are not burnt out properly and  are accompanied by
tailings equivalent to 75 percent of input weight.
   Although  the plant  manager refused  to  reveal
detailed operating information, the plant appears to be
economical: a second can processing line was installed in
1969, bringing total  investment cost of  the plant to $2
million; the operator is seeking out new sources of cans;
residues from  the Calumet facility are now accepted
after a hiatus of several years, although  poor in quality,
because the operator needs  additional quantities to
operate his equipment efficiently.
141 One waste paper dealer reported that the city had once purchased reject waste paper from his company for use as
fuel during a period of very wet weather to overcome incinerator difficulties at one of the municipal incinerators.
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                                107
   The  plant  manager cites the following major  op-
erational   problems  at the  can  plant:  (1)  extreme
maintenance problems (50 percent downtime) because
iron  oxides  and  residues  cut the fittings on  the
equipment; (2) air  pollution arising from burning and
shredding  of the cans, which has resulted in the levy of
fines by the Chicago air pollution control authorities; (3)
rail cars are  frequently unavailable, especially when
operations are  at  full  scale, and  the resultant delays
cause serious oxidation of stock-piled cans; and (4) wire
in the residue hangs  up in the equipment and requires
elaborate operations for removal.
   Operating  steps are as  follows: (1)  materials  are
loaded by  magnetic crane into feed hoppers; (2) material
passes through  a  magnetic  separator  to  eliminate
nonferrous metals and ash; (3) four hand  pickers pull out
deleterious materials such as  wire; (4) cans are shredded
in a hammermill; (5) shredded materials are magnetically
screened a second  time; (6) cans are then burned in a
rotary kiln at 1800  F to  remove  coatings,  ash, and
contaminating residues from mixed refuse incineration;
(7) cans are loaded  into rail cars or stored; (8) tailings are
loaded into city dump trucks for  removal to the landfill.
   In  addition to these operations,  considerable sca-
venging takes place. An independent scavenger collects
rejected ferrous and nonferrous metals falling out of the
magnetic separation unit and sells  these to local scrap
dealers, earning  between $40  and  $60 per week. City
truck  drivers  scavenge for nonferrous  metals  while
loading and unloading operations take place.
   Salvage at  Private Incinerators. The Chicago
area has three large  privately  owned incinerators used
by private  refuse haulers. All of them sell steel cans and
sheet  metal  as  a  part of  their  normal  operations.
Operators  state that salvage  reduces space taken up in
landfill  and  is  a  profitable or at  least  break-even
proposition financially. These factors must be present to
make salvage feasible. Two private incinerator operators
were visited.
   Incinerator,  Inc.  This facility  is  the  oldest private
contractor-owned incinerator m the United States, dating
to 1958; ownership is  by 30 private refuse haulers. The
incinerator has a rated capacity of 500 tons per day and
normally operates at  or above this  level. The  company
accepts any refuse delivered and charges a disposal fee
based  on  weight.  It receives  a  wide  mixture   of
residential,  commercial,  and  industrial waste  from
Chicago  and  nearby  suburban  cities.  Everything  re-
ceived, including  noncombustible bulky  items, is proc-
essed through the incinerator.
   This operation has three salvage systemssteel can,
                                          A
sheet metal, and  heat recovery. The facility  manager
reports that each recovery  operation has its  problems
and that the rewards are  entirely  dependent upon
balancing costs  against contractually set or fluctuating
revenues. Steel can recovery data are presented in Table
65.
   Incinerator,  Inc.,  operates a  can processing plant
located immediately behind  the incinerator building; the
plant is owned by St. Louis Carbon Company, purchaser
of the cans. Incinerator, Inc., receives a fee for operating
the plant. Ultimately, the cans are shipped to  Montana
copper mines.  The  equipment  is  plagued by severe
operational and  maintenance problems and the operator
speculates  that  it is not a  profitable operation for St.
Louis Carbon. There  are other problems associated with
the can  reclamation program, namely,  obtaining suf-
ficient  volume  of  cans; high   cost associated  with
numerous handling steps (running the cans through the
processing step twice to reduce the dirt content); inability
to load  directly  for shipment;  rail car shortage; and
insufficient product quantities to avoid a freight penalty.
Also, the plant  location is  not  advantageous for rail
shipment because several rail lines may be involved in a
single shipment.  Offsetting this is the fact that the plant is
adjacent to the incinerator and there are no hauling costs
for Incinerator,  Inc., to absorb; the haul of residue to
landfill  is reduced.  Financial data  were not available
beyond those given above. It seems clear, however, that
Incinerator, Inc.,  finds the recovery of cans a satisfactory
operation. The company plans to continue this activity
after its current contract expires in 1971, although other
options will be evaluated at that time.
   Bulky sheet metal  items are set aside for sale to scrap
iron  dealers after incineration. The company does not
wish to process this scrap for sale. Prices of bulky metals
vary according to the market fluctuation for No. 2 dealer
bundles, and the company's income varied from $3.57 to
$14.28 per ton in the last year. At the low end, it does not
recover delivery  costs, but at the high end, the operation
is  profitable.  The bulky metal   is  "dirty" metal and
represents a wide variety of  productsdrums, appliances,
engine blocks, sheet steel, etc. Sales m  1969 averaged
$0.0092 per ton  of waste received  and we estimate <
recovery of  1,400  to 2,000 tons or  about 1  percent of
input  tonnage; in  1970 the yield had jumped to $0.021
-------
108
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
per ton largely because  of higher scrap prices in early
1970.
   The incinerator residue ash is technically an excellent
roadbed base  when mixed with lime. However, the
company  has  not been able to  commercialize this
application, despite one attempt  to  do so, because
traditional materials (gravel and concrete) are so readily
available locally. The ash is given away for the asking.
Private fills account for what little demand exists; they
use the ash as fill cover.
   Paper recovery makes no  economic sense  to the
operator in the highly developed Chicago waste paper
market. Three barriers existcontamination and cost of
removal; fuel value in  incineration;  desire  of  some
customers to  have financial  records or  commercial
products (outdated encyclopedias) completely destroyed.
   Incinerator, Inc., sells  1 million pounds of steam per
day to a nearby industrial plant. Until recently, this was
an ideal arrangementboth the incinerator and the steam
consuming  plant  operate continuously 7 days a week.
Heat recovery,  however, proved  to be only marginally
profitable over 9  years of operation because original
design performance and costs were never realized.
Steam  generation  and  sale brings  pressure on the
operator to orient  operations toward consistent steam
output and  therefore  incineration practice  does not
necessarily  conform to actual  waste flow or its heat
content. The $1.25 million steam recovery operation was
plagued with fly ash coating of heat exchange  tubes that
cut efficiency  substantially and also required  more
supplemental fuel  than that anticipated; no condensate
return  line was  originally  installed, and  thus  water
requirements  were large. The operation became more
efficient in recent years, but the receiving plant will have
internally  produced  steam  available  in  late   1970.
Incinerator,  Inc.,  plans  to phase-out  the  waste heat
recovery operation and to sell the  heat  recovery
equipment rather than to seek a new customer.
   Van  Der  Molen Disposal  Company.  This  private
incineration  operation  has a  facility with a   rated
capacity of 700 tons per day and now processes 600 tons
per day in its incinerator; another 1,000 tons per day are
sent  directly  to  landfills.  All types of solid  waste are
handledresidential, commercial, and industrialand refuse
       A                                 A
delivered by cities nearby is also accepted, on a disposal
fee basis.
   All  incoming  refuse  is incinerated,  including bulky
metallic items; then a separation of the  residue is made.
Bulky metallic items are segregated by hand for sale. The
balance of the residue is processed through a magnetic
separator supplemented  by a hand picking operation
and  a crusher that compacts the steel cans  prior to
loading into a trailer for delivery to a dealer. A company
manager estimates that salvage of the cans reduces the
volumes of the residue  by 50 percent.
   Steel can sales run  an average of 225 tons per month,
or 2,700 tons per year. This is about 1.2 percent of refuse
incinerated. The price paid is  $11  per ton based on
railroad  weight  tickets reported from  Butte,  Montana,
apparently the ultimate destination of the cans. The  bulk
of the cans go  to  the local dealer servicing the city
incinerators.  In  addition, the company has  recently
begun dealing with  another  scrap purchaser  whose
payments per ton of steel cans delivered  are higher.
   Sheet metal is sold  in volume to a scrap dealer based
upon Iron Age  listings for No. 2  dealer  bundles. In
general,  revenues are about $13.50 per ton under the
weekly price listing. Average recovery is 350 to 400 tons
per  month,  4,200 to  4,800 tons per year, or about 2
percent of refuse incinerated. Sheet metal is separated
ahead of the can processing operation by hand. Sheet
metal is hauled to the dealer's yard in a trailer truck.
   Van Der Molen has one man per shift working on the
salvage  operation (cans  and sheet metal);  company
officials estimate that  one truck driver  spends half-time
on the hauling operation. We estimate  that direct labor
costs  of  $36,000 per  year are  involved  in  salvage,
excluding equipment maintenance and  amortization for
which we have no estimates but which would likely equal
direct  labor costs. Income from cans and sheet metal
based on $11 per ton  for cans and $12  per ton average
for sheet metal would  be about  $84,000.  Thus, the
salvage operation  is profitable as long as  sheet metal
prices stay at or above $10 per ton (in fact, they fluctuate
between $3.50 and $14.50).
   The company also has an arrangement to sell steam to
the nearby rail yard of the Chicago and Northwestern
Railroad  from which it rents its incinerator site. A small
profit is realized on the operation.142
   The company finds  its metal salvage  operations to be
very desirable  because  of  landfill space  saved  and
income realized.  In addition, the company has begun to
142   Three  contractor  owned  and   operated  incinerators  service  metropolitan  Chicago.  Solid
Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 11 (5):12, May 1968.
                                            Wastes
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                               109
explore  ways  to  salvage old  corrugated  containers
because  some  of the firm's collections have very high
concentrations of old corrugated boxes.
   Summary.  Based on our  Chicago interviews,  we
estimate  that salvage of cans from waste by the city and
by  three  privately  operated  incinerators  probably
generated in the neighborhood of 20,000 to 25,000 tons
per year of cans, all of which are consumed in copper
mines; other sources of cans not derived  directly from
refuse would come from local can manufacturing plants,
but this  tonnage is  probably minor. Of the total can
tonnage, well over half is acquired by one dealer.
   Other Metal  Salvage.  Dealers handling a con-
siderable volume  of sheet  metal  from   disposal site
salvage  operations  were  interviewed.  Most  of the
material  derived from  waste  consists of old appliances,
water  heaters, construction panels,  and  the  like. The
large capacity auto  body shredders are best suited for
processing this type  of material because they knock off
undesirable  enamel  and porcelain and produce a  clean
scrap.  Traditional  methods of  size  reduction, such as
shearing,  followed   by  bundling produce acceptable
scrap despite the fact that appliance sheet steel does not
"clean up" completely. Occasionally tin-coated or lead-
coated material may be  introduced in small volumes.
Apparently the steel  companies (the ultimate purchasers)
do  not face technical problems  if small  quantities of
contaminants are introduced, but their cost per ton of the
purchased scrap may be higher based on ferrous metal
content because the presence of  contaminants reduces
the total usable weight.
   The scrap derived from waste is usually a small part of
a  dealer's   operation.  For example, one dealer who
acquires  about 1,000 tons of  scrap per day receives an
average  of 3 tons per day from the city; however, many
of his other  operations  are based on obsolete scrap such
as auto bodies, engine blocks, mixed iron, and the like.
Sheet steel derived  from "white goods" is no longer a
significant part of the  business because collection and
freight costs are prohibitive at today's market prices. By
contrast,  waste  sources  of  sheet  metal,  especially
household discards,  may  be  economically feasible to
salvage as a part of waste collection for these reasons-. (1)
the collection cost is a part of refuse removal service; (2)
the delivery  distance may be less to a scrap dealer than
to a  landfill;  (3)  mechanized separation may  keep
segregation  costs low (however, those observed by us in
Chicago were labor intensive).
   Competition among dealers for sheet metal in waste
does not appear to be keen. Few dealers are equipped to
handle  this scrap, and  distance  from scrap  sources
appears to favor a few dealers.
   One dealer interviewed noted that by far his largest
volume was in ferrous metals. The operation  specializes
in unusual items for the scrap metal trademotor blocks,
other auto components (starters  and generators),  and
many items rich in nonferrous components such as radio
and T.V. chassis, aluminum motors, and "copper-bearing
scrap."  The ferrous metal trade provides high  volume
and low profit while the nonferrous metals, at about 1.5
percent of the tonnage, provide the attractive and highly
profitable  part  of  the   operation.  This  dealer  had
developed his own technology for breaking up the scrap
and carefully guards the low cost processing techniques;
almost all of his equipment was adapted from existing
commercially sold  machinery but featured special low-
cost  modifications that allowed him  to process items
other dealers considered worthless. Most of this material
was acquired from other dealers over the United States
who would sell such "undesirable" products at or barely
above their freight costs. The  special processing  ma-
chinery varied from machines with a capability to break
up 2,000 engine blocks per  day to machines that could be
used to disassemble radio chassis.
   The  dealer contended  that  a private scrap dealer
could efficiently operate a large-scale salvage operation
based  on  municipal refuse. To do so, he felt the  city
should finance  the installation  and capital  equipment
and  pay  the dealer a  fee to  operate the  plant;  the
recovered  material could be  sold by open bid.  This
dealer  left  the  distinct  impression  that   consuming
industries  will  knowingly  or  unknowingly accept and
successfully use many  low grade and  "contaminated"
metals;  and the technical barriers are not  controlling
parameters. (Another large dealer, however,  contended
that municipal  refuse is too low quality and expensive to
process under any conditions.)
   The dealer's operations were very well managed and
efficient; the processing sites were neat and well kept.
One operation at  his yard illustrates what can be done
with  hand labor willing to accept poverty wages.  The
"fines"  or dirt from his processing belts Were hauled to
one corner of his yard and given to a self-employed
scavenger. This  man spent his day recovering and
grading nonferrous pieces of metal less than 1  inch in
diameterrhainly  brass,  copper,  and  aluminum.  The
scavenger  is paid by the pound and manages to earn  $60
-------
110
                             SALVAGE MARKETS
to $70 per  week. The residue "fines" of  this  sorting
operation are  then  hauled to  a disposal  site.  The
scavengers  entire capital equipment consisted of a 3-
foot-by-3-foot  house,  shovels,  and variously  sized old
steel drums.
   Industrial Metal  Consumer. Many  scrap consuming
companies do not hold obsolete  scrap in high regard.
This is exemplified by one of the largest steel companies
in the United States interviewed in Chicago. According to
the  company,  where a  company is fully or  partly
integrated back to  raw materials sources, it uses scrap
selectively and may avoid obsolete scrap entirely; it must
use captively  held  raw material sources  to operate
equipment  properlyequipment that  represents  high
capital investment and requires high operating rates to
keep unit costs low.  In the case of the company visited, it
buys prompt scrap from three sources: (1) fabrication
scrap generated by  its  own customers;  (2) factory
bundles,  a high quality  prompt  scrap grade; and (3)
prompt scrap from scrap dealers. Thus, while it has a high
scrap consumption  near  Chicago, none comes  from
obsolete scrap sources. Occasionally it sells mill revert to
its competitors to get rid of it. It  also sells slag. At one
time, the company had tried steel  cans derived from city
incinerator residue as an  input material but found  them
of unsatisfactory quality because of poor burn-out.
   Individuals contacted  made it  clear that they would
seek  obsolete  scrap  only if forced  to  do  so  by
government  edict (or  perhaps the prospect  of  same)
because  such   activity  would  hurt  their  established
investments  in virgin raw materials handling capability.
Their  size  also  prevents  them  from  maneuvering
efficiently in the highly active and volatile scrap markets,
although they influence its volatility by their own normal
scrap activities.  This policy and attitude toward obsolete
scrap varies widely among steel  companies, of course,
but that described by this Chicago area firm is typical of
other companies and other industries  heavily committed
to captive virgin raw materials supplies.
   Paper Recovery. Chicago is one of  the key waste
paper collection  centers in the United States. There  is
substantial local paper mill demand, but Chicago is a net
exporter of paper because of its highly developed dealer
collection system and proximity to the waste  paper
consuming mills of Ohio and Indiana. In all, there are at
least 75 waste paper dealers in the city.  It is  estimated
that only about 15 of these have paper mill connections;
the remainder channel through the larger dealers and
are considered junk dealers. They  handle  small volumes
and many materials. Within a 50-mile radius of Chicago,
there are 10 paper mills and 5 board mills; all the board
mills are based on waste paper consumption. In addition,
two more board mills are located within 75 miles of
Chicago.
   Illinois produces about 900,000 tons of paper per year
from 25 paper and board mills. Virgin pulp consumption
is 300,000 tons. Waste paper consumption in Illinois must
therefore be 600,000 to 700,000 tons per year. Thus, most
mill capacity in Illinois is based on secondary fiber. Of
this total, perhaps 400,000  tons are consumed within 75
miles of Chicago. Total waste  paper sales in the area
exceed  1.5 million tons, based  on the  1963  wholesale
trade census (sales of $38.5 million worth of waste  paper
in  the Standard  Consolidated Area [SCA] of Chicago,
and $22 average price per ton. An unknown amount of
double counting is involved, however,  because dealers
sell to each  other as well as to mills.) The Chicago SCA
accounted for 56 percent of the dollar volume in  waste
paper in the east North Central region in 1963.
   Chicago has two major sources of waste paper: (1) the
large    paper    converting    industryprinting    and
publishingand paper product manufacturers and (2) the
         A
commercial  and private sector that provides the bulk
grades of news, corrugated, and  mixed. Almost all the
paperstock   is  collected  by  the  traditional  dealer
collection system, although a few private refuse haulers
have become interested in selling loads of corrugated.
The traditional attitude of private refuse haulers is that
paper loads are unsaleable if they acquire them. Haulers
observe that  commercial organizations sell their  paper
when  demand is good and waste quantities diminish at
such times. When demand  is poor, the_paper appears as
waste and  cannot be sold. They also  find that  waste
paper dealers must dispose of mixed paper and news as
refuse at private disposal  sites when  supply exceeds
demand.
   Paper converting operations almost always bale and
sell their wastes.  One large printing operation reported
the use of 30 balers in one location and a multitude of
grades; their output goes to 28 fine paper mills and they
sell paper for $1  to $40 per ton, depending on the  grade
and volume accumulated.  Some of  the paper is  given
away.
   The bulk grades come from obsolete products; the
mixed from  offices and small plants; old corrugated is
collected from stores, shopping centers, warehouses, and
the like that have sufficient volume to bale  their own;
newspaper is derived principally from private residences
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                                111
with collection done by social service organizations, Boy
Scouts, churches, schools, individuals, and scavengers.
   One large dealer reports that his newspaper volume
is 110,000 tons  per year, of which  no more than 15
percent is over-issue news. He operates through smaller
dealers and local  paper  drives for  which trailers or
collection bins are furnished. The newspaper deinking
mill  in Alsip, Illinois, has an  output capacity of 85,000
tons per year, which means it consumes old news at the
rate of about 95,000 tons per year. In fact, the presence
of  this  mill  has brought reasonable  stability  to the
Chicago waste   news  market  despite fluctuations in>
demand by other consumers  of waste news, such as the
construction  product mills.  To  maintain  supplies the
dealer  responsible  for  this mill's  waste paper  supply
offers $8 per ton to private groups for unbaled news at
collection points, in  spite of  the fact that selling prices
had dropped substantially in  recent months and the top
price for  news  was $20 per ton. Most dealers  barely
break even at a spread of $12 ($20 selling price and $8
buying price).143
   There are signs in Chicago that waste paper dealers
are edging  into refuse hauling while  refuse haulers are
getting  interested in waste paper  sales. This is a recent
development and its magnitude  is difficult  to  judge.
Demand for corrugated in Chicago may  also increase
when selected dealers install expensive ($120,000) high
density  baling equipment; one such installation is  near
completion.  Such facilities will permit baling of  loose
corrugated  at  densities that will  make  freight   rates
attractive  for long shippingperhaps even from Chicago
to the  South. One company is making a study of office
building waste to determine if its content and acquisition
cost would  make it attractive for combination  board
manufacturers.
   Companies contacted  see little possibility that Chi-
cago will become  a major  center for paper salvage
based  on mixed municipal waste  as a source. Waste
paper consumption will  continue to depend on demand
for bulk grade wastes.
   Glass Recovery. Chicago has one cullet dealer, a
combination  processing and brokerage operation. All
cullet acquired  locally  is obtained  from  bottling op-
erations  (beer  and  soft  drink  bottlers).  No  glass  is
obtained  from  residential sources or  refuse  disposal
operations.  The dealer  furnishes  to its  customers
containers that are filled with discarded containers, all of
the same color. The glass is picked up free of charge by
the dealer and hauled to  his plant. Processing, which is
through an ancient and deteriorated plant, consists of the
following steps: (1) collection drums are dumped into
piles by color (flint,  amber, green); (2) a front-end loader
transfers the glass to a conveyor that moves the glass to
the top of a tower; (3) crushing takes place by gavity fall
through a grate; (4) the glass  is then moved by conveyor
belt past picking stations where debris (especially metals)
and glass of the wrong  color are removed by hand; (5)
washing  takes place through a spiral classifier and the
cullet is dumped on the ground. The dealers must follow
this procedure  two or three  times to obtain a "sound
grade." The whole operation  uses 14  sorters on  3 lines (6
on flint, 3 on amber, and 5 on green); in addition, there
are 7 other employees  involved in the operation. The
whole processing operation appears very inefficient.
   The  plant processes about 500 tons of cullet per
month. Flint glass brings $22.50 per ton and amber $17.50
per ton. The dealer claims to be just breaking even on the
glass that he must handle himself, and based on average
wage rates of  $2.94 per hour,  we  can  confirm this
assumption. Cullet buyers are container manufacturers in
the area.
   About  95 percent  of  the dealer's business  is in
brokerage, which is a profitable operation.l44 The owner
places manufacturing cullet (including plate glass cullet)
with consumers of cullet without actually handling the
material.  His task  is to  locate buyers for cullet.  He
receives a  brokerage fee for this service. Several years
ago bead  makers purchased cullet (to make highway
reflector  markers),  but they no longer do so; today his
only outlet for glass cullet is container manufacturers.
143 An interesting comment can be made here involving two cities we surveyed. A low level of concentration activity has
created an over-supply of news in Chicago. Yet newspaper obtained in the Madison recovery experiment continues to
come into  Chicago:  It is a "favored source" because of its unique link to solid waste problems and relatively high
quality. This tonnage, however, is displacing paper tonnage generated in Chicago. Thus, less newspaper is collected by
dealers  in Chicago (or more is sent to disposal sites) because the Madison paper recovery operation exists. This means
there is solid waste displacement but no net reduction in total waste disposal because total demand for waste paper has
not increased.
144 This  is the only glass brokerage operation we encountered in the entire survey.
-------
112
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
   Since the dealer does not pay for waste glass and only
breaks even on the processing, he is in essence reducing
disposal costs for his sources and fills  local demand for
cullet as  a service to good  brokerage customers.  Such
conditions suggest that cullet derived from refuse would
be  uneconomical  and  impractical  to recover without
introduction  of  sophisticated recovery and  processing
technology at low cost. The dealer expressed no interest
in  low  grade  sources  of "tramp  cullet"  because
substantial  supplies  are still   untapped  from   high
concentration sources — manufacturing and bottling
operations.
   We contacted  two  industrial  glass  manufacturing
plants  in  the  Chicago area.  Neither  uses  outside
purchased cullet in its operations.  One plant  manager
reported  that his cullet requirements are equvalent to 8
to 12 percent of input tonnage but all this demand is filled
by  interna'ly generated glass cullet; a typical batch
contains 400  pounds of cullet and 1,000 pounds of sand.
Output of the plant is 350 tons per day. One reason for
the  reluctance to  use purchased cullet is that it  costs
$22.50 per ton and virgin materials cost less;  however,
the  company plans to participate  actively in the Glass
Container Manufacturers  Institute's redemption  center
program   when  it comes to Chicago. The  company's
distance from the collection  points will restrict its intake;
nevertheless,  the  plant  manager anticipated  some
problems  in  maintaining product quality using foreign
cullet, even in small quantities.
   The other plant  was  a maker of  specialty glass
products  for  the  pharmaceutical  industry. It uses 15 to 50
percent cullet, all  of which  is generated  internally. The
plant manager could  not recall ever using purchased
cullet although  other plants in  the same company do
consume it.
   Rubber  Reuse.  Virtually  all  scrap rubber  con-
sumption in the  Chicago area is accounted for by one
company.  It  derives  its raw materials from  old  tires
collected  primarily from large tire  dealers, trucking
companies,  scavengers,  and those factory  rejects ac-
cumulated  by tire manufacturers. The dealer sometimes
pays  up  to 10
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                                113
purchase  mixed  rags for grading.  Textile mill  waste
accounts for no more than 10 percent of total volume,
while reclaimed  household rags, which  are items that
would otherwise be a part of the municipal waste stream,
account for 90 percent.
   Chicago  had 15 to 20 rag graders in past years; today,
perhaps two survive. Wiping cloth grades keep them in
business. Chicago  is  a net importer of wiping cloth
material, however, with much of it  coming from New
York, Baltimore, and the South.
   The association represents about 75  percent of the
trade by dollar volume but only about one-third of the
500-plus firms in the United States. Many companies are
now  handling  wiping cloths  only as  a sideline.  In
Chicago, there are 63 wiping cloth dealers listed  in the
telephone   directory   while association  membership
consists of  10  companies.  By contrast there are only 37
waste cotton, wool, and rag dealers listed, many of them
junk dealers handling many other materials (these are not
rag graders  previously mentioned).
   Wiping  cloth  makers  have  low  capital  investment
requirements,  especially  in  the distribution of their
product. The principal  processing consists of washing the
rags and cutting them  into wiping cloths. The principal
markets  are  industrial  manufacturers,  garages,  and
filling stations. Operating cost data were not available
from wiping cloth  makers in Chicago, and we could get
no estimate of total consumption in the Chicago area.
Cost  data are available  from association surveys and
given in the special section on textiles elsewhere in  this
report.

               Cincinnati, Ohio145
   Summary. Cincinnati is located  in an  excellent
market  area  for  secondary paper,  glass,  and  metal
products. In spite  of this,  salvage of commodities from
municipal  waste is not practiced. Acquisition of waste
commodities before discard, however, is undertaken by a
number of  private  for-profit  and  not-for-profit  or-
ganizations.
   Introduction.  Cincinnati  is  a  diversified  man-
ufacturing city with a  population of around 1.4 million in
the  metropolitan  area and  503,000 in  the core city.
Within 200  miles of the metropolitan area, there are 14
paperboard mills, the principal consumers of secondary
paper, especially bulk paper grades. A glass container
plant is located at Lawrenceburg, Indiana, 20 miles from
the city. Three steel  production  plants are in  or  near
Cincinnati, and the city is favorably located in relation to
other steel scrap consuming centers in Ohio.
   In  1968, an estimated  455,000 tons of  waste were
disposed of in the city by incineration and public and
private landfill. Of this total:
   98.5 percent originated in the city
   73.7 percent was incinerated by the city
   26.3 percent went directly to landfill
       (public and private)
   56.0 percent was collected by private
       forces
   44.0 percent was collected by public
       forces
   The total excludes demolition wastes  and park wastes.
Considering  only  wastes originating  in the city  and
population of the core city, the disposal rate per capita
per day was 4.96 pounds in 1968.
   Four incinerators with a combined capacity to handle
1,400  tons  per day are operated.  The city owns one
landfill and uses two private fills.
   Current Salvage Practices. Once solid wastes are
collected by public or private waste removal forces, little
if any of the waste is recovered. At the time of the survey,
the city had  a contract with a scrap dealer to remove
oversized  metallics separated from incinerator residues;
the dealer was negotiating with  the city to cancel the
contract because his hauling costs exceeded the price he
could get  for the metal. At one private dump, which
receives only  industrial and commercial wastes, paper
and metal  are recovered  intermittently when loads are
received that contain solvable materials  in high  pro
portions.  An  estimated  500 tons of materials  are
recovered annually.
   Most of the salvage activity in tne  city  is based on
segregated collection  of  solvable commodities. Glass
cullet  is collected from  bottling operations only; scrap
metals are derived  from  industrial sources; paper  is
collected  both from  residential  and  industrial  and
commercial sources;  textiles are obtained  almost ex-
clusively from residential sources.
   Paper Recovery. The city's location in an area with
numerous paperboard plants has as a result a high level
of paper and board collection activity. Boy  Scouts and
schools  are  principally involved  in the collection of
newspapers; the Volunteers of America and the Salvation
Army  also actively seek newspapers; Goodwill Industries
145 Survey concluded in February 1970.
-------
114
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
accepts (but  does not  like to  handle)  news.  News
collected  by these organizations are  sold  to  paper
dealers who bale them and deliver them to board mills.
Old  corrugated boxes are acquired by paper dealers
directly or from collectors and are handled in the same
manner as news.
   Data on  total demand and supply in the area could
not be assembled as  part of this survey. Not only are
there numerous sellers and buyers in the area, but paper
is  both imported  into the area (from as  far away as
Texas)  and paperstock is exported (usually  to East Coast
mills).
   The largest  processor of paper  in  the city  has a
capacity to shred and bale approximately 62,000 tons of
bulk grade papers a year. His actual production was not
available; however, he  processes equal quantities of
news and corrugated. If  the  processor operates at full
capacity, he handles 31,000 tons of news. At an average
collection  rate  of  25 tons per school drive, 1,240  school
drives would be necessary in the Cincinnati  metropolitan
area to generate such a tonnage of news.
   Costs to transport paper from source points to waste
paper processing plants are reported by one respondent
to average $4 per ton for all grades. Processing (sorting,
shredding, and baling) costs $180 per ton, of which half is
labor and half  is all other expenses, including equipment
amortization.  Product shrinkage  costs  $1  per  ton of
output. Collectors  (schools, scouts, scavengers) are paid
$10 per ton for news and corrugated if the paper must be
picked up, $14 per ton if the  paper is delivered. News Is
sold  for $20, corrugated for $23 to $30 a ton in times of
good demand;  the buyer pays transportation costs to the
mill;  these are an average of $3 to $4 per ton.
   Another respondent reports  a  pickup cost  of $3 per
ton,  shredding  and baling costs of $2.40 per ton, and
sorting costs before shredding and baling of $0.60. This
organization  is a social  welfare agency that  issues
certificates or receipts to  suppliers of the paper in lieu of
cash; the company may take a tax credit for a charitable
donation based on the "fair market value"  of the paper.
The social welfare agency does not pay income  taxes
and, being a sheltered workshop, it pays only half the
standard wage rate applicable to the labor category on
the open market. If in spite of these advantages, the costs
of this organization are comparable to the costs of the
first  respondent,  it is explained by  the small tonnage
handled by  this agency —  approximately 1,600 tons a
year.
   Using national per capita discard figures, more than
252,000 tons of paper are discarded in the Cincinnati
metropolitan area yearly. Of this total, 45,000 tons are
news  and  61,000  tons  are corrugated. A fairly high
proportion  of  both these bulk grades appears to be
collected and recycled.
   Metals Recovery. Metals  are sorted from industrial
wastes delivered to one  private dump  in the area, but
only if the quantity of metal available justifies the effort.
The Salvation Army facility in the city sells between 9 and
12 tons of metals per working day, or 2,250 and 3,120 tons
a year; these metals are acquired from the public in the
form of appliances and other metal goods. Income from
the sale of  metals is approximately $18 per ton. With the
exception of these two  operations,  scrap metals are
acquired by the  secondary  materials  industry from
industrial sources and from automobile dismantlers.
   The recent installation  in the area of an automotive
shredder with a 400 ton  per day capacity  (8 hour shift)
has created demand for automotive hulks;  furthermore,
appliances  that were not acceptable to scrap dealers in
the city  are now  accepted at the shredder facility, if
delivered there.
   Discussions with secondary materials dealers indicate
that transportation expenses are the chief barrier to the
recovery of metals from wastes. It is uneconomical to
send a truck to  pick up a small quantity of metal whose
quality is marginal when the same  truck can be used to
collect uniform  prompt scrap from industrial sources. If
the metals are delivered to the scrap yard site, they are
accepted.
   Glass Recovery. One  of the Nation's few glass
cullet  dealers is located in Cincinnati. He acquires 5,900
tons of broken glass a year from three breweries, two soft
drink  bottlers,  and two liquor bottlers.  This  tonnage
shrinks to 4,200 tons in  processing and is sold  for an
average of  $19 a ton.
   The dealer knows only a few of the processing costs
he  incurs, these being costs of acquisition, processing,
and delivery. These estimates are only approximate and
appear to be low.  Depending on circumstances, his costs
range  from $12.25 to $14.70 per ton, broken down as
follows: acquisition cost per ton of product sold, $4.25 to
$5.70;  processing costs,  including  labor, power,  water,
and shrinkage,  $6.00; delivery cost, $2.00  to $3.00 per
ton.
   The glass is acquired free. The dealer's cost consists of
providing and  maintaining suitable containers for the
waste  glass  and  collecting  and transporting their
-------
FOR  MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                                115
contents to his plant. The glass acquired contains at least
10 percent by weight of trash — dirty rags, boxes, lunch
sacks, and the like. Shrinkage in processing (loss of fines)
is 20 percent. Consequently, there is a loss of 30  percent
of incoming tonnage.
   Glass is processed through a glass grinder  and washer
followed by magnetic separation of ferrous metal wastes
and a screening to remove aluminum in the glass stream.
The operation  is  in an open-air plant that cannot be
operated in very cold weather  or  at night. Three men
operate the  plant;  one  man  drives  the pickup  and
delivery truck; the owner supervises the operation  and
carries out the necessary administrative work.
   On  the face of it, this business appears profitable with
a differential between costs and sales price of $4.30 to
$6.75 per  ton. If oil costs were counted, the operation
would   probably  be  a  financial  failure.  Equipment
depreciation  is not charged; the plant is 22 years old  and
in poor repair.  Maintenance  is  restricted to  fixing
breakdowns.  Inert wastes  are  deposited on the  site;
combustible wastes are burned  in the open air. Water
used in  washing cullet  is discharged untreated; it carries
most of the lost glass in  the form of suspended fines.
   The owner reports that most of his input glass tonnage
is derived from  bottling plants that process returnable
glass containers; wastes consist of scratched  and broken
returnables  that  can  no  longer  be  used. With  the
introduction of one- way glass bottles, waste generation
has been declining and he forsees a time when he will be
unable to acquire  a sufficient tonnage of cullet to stay in
business.
   The  glass  is  sold   to  a  container producer  ap-
proximately  20  miles  from the cullet  plant at Law-
renceburg,  Indiana. The  nearest  other plants  are m
Zanesville,  Ohio,  and in  Indianapolis, Indiana. Much
more glass could be sold, the owner stated, if supplies
could be secured. However, salvaging of glass at dumps
is no longer  practiced. (Cullet dealers have  never been
involved in acquiring glass at dumps, but they purchased
glass picked up by scavengers.)
   In Cincinnati, an estimated 57,150 tons of container
glass are  discarded annually by the population; total
annual cullet  demand at the Lawrenceburg plant ranges
between 14,600 and 18,250 tons; of this total, half is in the
form of in-house cullet, half in the form of purchased
cullet. Consequently, total demand for obsolete  glass is
between 7,300 and 9,125 tons a year. Roughly half  this
demand is already satisfied by bottling plant  wastes,
leaving very little demand for glass containers discarded
after use by the public.
   Textile Recovery. Recovery of  textiles from  res-
idential sources  is carried out  exclusively  by  social
welfare agencies, such as  Goodwill Industries, Salvation
Army,  and Volunteers of America.  These  three or-
ganizations collected  a total of 7,080 tons of textiles in
1969; of this total, 3,860 tons were sold as rags to  textile
dealers at an average  price of $62; the remainder were
sold in secondhand outlets  as used clothing.
   The rag bundles (1,000 pound bales) are sold to  textile
dealers on the East Coast; freight of $20  per ton is paid
by  the  buyer.  The dealer sorts the rags into "wiper."
"export,"  and  "roofing rag"  components. Wipers  are
prepared by the dealer in additional sorting, cutting, and
laundering operations  from cotton  fabrics. Exports are
usable or  repairable clothing items  that are shipped out
of the country. Roofing rags are unusable textiles and
wiper trimmings sold to manufacturers of roofing papers.
   The  social  welfare  agencies  collect   a variety  of
discarded  objects  from collection  boxes  and by  op-
eration of  door-to-door  truck routes.  The  incoming
materials are unloaded at  the plant docks and are  sorted
into general categories (shoes, toys, textiles, etc.); these
material streams are then further sorted (into usables and
rags,  usables into 30  or more categories such as  men's
overcoats,  ladies' cotton dresses, toweling, etc.).  Given
these  integrated operations, the agencies have difficulty
isolating costs associated with the collection, sorting, and
other processing of specific waste commodities.
   One agency estimated  that the labor component only
of textile sorting,  including rag baling, is  $13.29 per ton;
of this, 10 percent is attributable to rag operations. Most
of the sorting effort is expended on separating  men's and
women's clothing into 34 categories. Sorting labor in this
sheltered workshop is  paid  an average  hourly rate of
$1.10. The  costs cited above do not include overhead or
supervision. Another agency, also a sheltered workshop,
pays sorters $1.29 per  hour; commercial rates are $2.58
per hour.
   Prices received for rags by these agencies have been
steadily declining — from $120 per ton in  1965 to $76 per
ton in mid-1969 to $55 per ton in February 1970; the  $55
per ton price was the price received by the agency with
the lowest tonnage; the agency with the highest tonnage
received  $65   per  ton,  and the  agency  with  the
intermediate tonnage achieved a $60 per ton price. All
individuals interviewed expected further price declines in
the near future.
-------
116
                             SALVAGE MARKETS
   Reasons for  the price decline are twofold: First, the
percentage by  weight of pure cottons in rag bundles  is
declining; one source estimated that 15 to 20 percent of
rags are cotton now compared with 30 to 35 percent in
1965; another source said that cotton content is 25 to 30
percent today;  cottons are the most desirable textiles in
rag bundles. Second, the demand for used clothing and
rags in foreign countries is declining.
   Plastics  Salvage.  We encountered one curious
instance of plastics salvage. A private refuse removal
firm serviced a plastics producer delivering  wastes to  a
suburban  private dump. The dump operator retrieved
semirigid and rigid plastics  and sold them to the public.
The plastics producer discovered this operation because
the dump operator advertised his plastic  products in
suburban  newspapers. The  plastics producer thereupon
required  the  waste hauler  to deposit plastics waste in
another dump and further required a guarantee that the
wastes would not be retrieved and sold.
   Past Salvage Practices. l46  The operator of the
area's  largest private dump  maintained a  major hog
feeding operation (1,500 animals) in the early  I950's. Hogs
were fed on residential wastes after inedible components
were  removed  by  pickers. Wastes were moved  past
pickers  on a  moving belt; paper, cardboard,  wood,
textiles, and metals were removed by hand and sold. The
operation was  closed aftc  a few years because health
department requirements to boil the garbage before  it
was fed  to  hogs  made this  hog raising  operation
uneconomical.
   During World  War  II,  one company in the  area
acquired steel cans from dump scavengers,  residential
sources, and canning operations; the cans were detinned.
Cans that had  passed through an incinerator could not
be detinned; oxides formed  during combustion could not
be  removed.  The detinning  operation was closed down
with the  end  of the  war.  The   company, however,
continued to receive steel cans until 1964. The cans were
shredded and sold to a ferroalloy  producer. In 1964, the
operation became uneconomical; declining scrap prices
and abundant supplies of higher quality metals appear
to have made steel can scrap unattractive.
              Connecticut Area147
   Summary.  In  four  smaller  communities  in  Con-
necticut, we encountered only dump salvage operations
— scavenging  at  landfills and  dumps. The survey had
three  points  of interest, however: (I) we found one
instance of hair and feathers recovery, (2) we visited one
hog farm  operator, and (3) we  interviewed one of  the
few remaining rubber dealers in the country.
   Introduction. In the National Survey of Community
Solid Waste Practices, salvage operations at incinerators
were  reported  at  Darien,  Berlin,  and New  Canaan,
Connecticut,  and at a  hog  farming  facility  in  Marl-
borough,  Connecticut.  The  combined  annual income
from salvage  at these facilities was reported to be nearly
$6,500. For this reason, we decided to conduct one of the
case studies in this area of Connecticut. As it turned out,
however,  the salvage  activities were not actually in
existence.
   The case study was conducted in Darien, Berlin, New
Britain, and  New  Canaan. Interviews were  also con-
ducted in  Bridgeport, Canton, Glastonbury, and Stam-
ford, Connecticut, with waste  collectors and processors.
The communities surveyed are small and near each other.
Collections are  handled exclusively by private forces;
most  private  haulers  are  small  (one-  or  two-truck
operations); open  burning is practiced at the dumps.
Incinerators are operated by  Darien, New Canaan, and
New Britain; these range in quality from one fairly sound
installation to one incinerator in a state of near collapse.
Records on  operations are  sparse   and incomplete.
Salvage was practiced legally at two dumps and illegally
at two others.  Table 66 presents  the waste  handling
profiles of the four communities.
   Current Municipal Salvage  Practices. Salvage
of commodities  from municipal wastes is restricted to the
removal  of  metaJs  and  usable  items  from wastes
deposited  at  dumps.  The City of Darien has a contract
with a  scavenger who, for a payment of $500 a year, is
permitted  to  remove  materials from the city dump. The
scavenger  could not be reached for an interview.  He
reportedly  removes bulky items  such  as  refrigerators,
stoves, and  the like  in  a  small pickup truck, stores
materials'at his  home, and sells metals to a scrap dealer
in Stamford. The city is interested in salvage as a means
146 Resource recovery from incinerator residue; analysis of factors that affect economic recycling of ferrous metals and
other inorganic material contained in municipal incinerator  residue, v. 1. Findings and conclusions.  APWA-SR-33.
Chicago, American Public Works Association Research Foundation, Nov. 1969. p.l 1,14-15.
147 Survey concluded in April 1970.
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                               117
of conserving dump space; salvage is not viewed as an
income-producing activity.
   In  New Canaan, a  city employee at the dump, with
additional  duties as gateman, retrieves and sorts metal
wastes deposited at the city dump. The waste is sold to a
scrap dealer in  Stamford who pays the city directly. This
program results in the recovery of 60 tons of metal yearly
and a gross salvage income to the city of $1,200. Less than
I  percent  of  the  waste  deposited at  the dump  is
recovered; the dump receives wastes yearly.
   New Britain  operates disposal facilities for Berlin and
Newington as well as for its own population. At present,
no  salvage is  permitted  at  New Britain's  facilities.
However, we observed five scavengers working at one of
New  Britain's two dumps. They recover usables, metals
(sold to a  scrapyard less than a mile from the  dump),
wood (about 5  tons per week in winter months), and
rubber tires (about 1 ton per week is removed and sold to
a tire maker). The gateman at the dump reported he felt
sorry for the scavengers and allowed them to work if they
did not  interfere with dumping operations. We estimate
that, at most, 150 to 200 tons are removed annually by
scavengers.
   Other Salvage Activities. There are a number of
secondary  materials dealers in the communities,  but we
were  refused interviews  by these dealers. Individuals
contacted  stated on the telephone that the secondary
materials business  in the area was fiercely competitive
and  consequently  they preferred not to  discuss  their
operations. Interviews  with salvage  dealers,  however,
were  conducted in  Bridgeport and Stamford,  Con-
necticut, from which the following picture emerges.
   The secondary materials dealers in the area are fairly
small. They handle metals,  paper, and rags. The metals
are  derived  from automobile  hulks  and   industrial
sources.  Paper,  in  the form of corrugated board,  is
acquired from commercial  sources (stores, warehouses).
Newspapers  are  not  handled  or  are  handled  by
exception only.  Rags are obtained from social welfare
agencies such  as  the  Salvation  Army and Goodwill
Industries. Demand for and prices of secondary materials
are low. Although we could not obtain data on tonnages
handled  or prices  received, we were  left with  the
impression  that the depressed conditions of salvors was
the result of the available and abundant cheap supplies
of secondary materials in  the New York metropolitan
area  (50  miles  away),  the  distance  to  the  nearest
concentrations  of the steel  industry (western New  York
and Pennsylvania), and the absence of paperboard mills
(there are only two in the State, both located in the New
Haven area).
   Rubber Salvage. Connecticut is unique in  that it is
one of nine States in which a rubber reclaiming company
has a  plant. The plant is at Naugatuck. From the area
covered  by our case  study, approximately 30,000 tires
are removed and reclaimed by a  scrap rubber dealer
every  year, equivalent to  approximately  300  tons of
rubber according to the dealer's estimate.
   Tires are acquired from commercial sources such as
filling stations, salvage yards, and auto dismantlers. The
dealer is paid 15 
-------
 118
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
others elsewhere, ranging from $240  per ton for white
cotton wipers to $8  per ton for mixed paper. Salvage
materials  are sold  to secondary materials  dealers  in
processed form — baled or bundled.
   Textiles. Approximately 90  percent of  all  textiles
received are  sold as rags; a portion passes through the
secondhand stores  before  it is "ragged." The bulk of
textiles, however, is sent to rag bundles  immediately after
receipt. Unlike some social welfare organizations, the
Bridgeport Goodwill sorts textile rags  into a  number of
categories rather than selling all textiles as mixed rags;
this  additional sorting  improves income from  textile
salvage somewhat. The agency achieves $70  per ton for
textile salvage, $5 to $10 above that experienced by other
organizations we have visited.
   Paper.  The organization sorts and sells paper only
because costs of dumping exceed the costs of sorting the
paper. Only newspapers and mixed papers are handled.
Although  corrugated board sells for $24 per ton in the
area (versus news at $20 per ton), the facility does not
receive  a  sufficient  quantity of corrugated  board to
attract dealer interest.
   Bedding Materials. At this Goodwill Industries facility
we encountered the  only instance in our survey of hair
and feather  recovery —  two commodities that, like
bones and grease, seem to  have disappeared as articles
of commerce in the  secondary  materials business. Hair
and feathers  are  taken from  bedding  materials —
mattresses and pillows. The materials are sold  to a dealer
who exports  them  through New York. Mattresses and
pillows  are split; the hair is classified  by type; hair and
feathers are bundled for shipment. Cotton materials are
sold as  textile salvage. These commodities sell at a low
price ($18' to  $22 per ton);  the organization director
believes that recovery of hair and feathers is  possible at
his facility only because of the low wages paid in this
sheltered workshop.
   Past  Salvage Practice. In this area of Connecticut, as
elsewhere, more salvage activity has taken place in the
past than currently. Tires were recovered from the Darien
dump up  to 1967; the city paid a salvor 20
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN  SOLID WASTES
                                               119
and surrounding communities. The  city's industries  fall
into the light manufacturing category.
   Gainesville  has a  population  of 68,000.  The  sur-
rounding built-up area of Alachua County adds another
28,600 to the population for a total  of 96,600 people in
the area.
   In  1969, 69,380  tons  of waste were collected from
residential and commercial sources by public and private
agencies (Table 69); wastes collected were equivalent to
3.93 pounds per capita per day.
   In Gainesville proper, the city collects both residential
and  commercial  wastes  with  its  own forces.   The
University  of Florida  has  its  own collection forces,
however, and some private concerns within the city limits
transport  their own  wastes  directly to  the municipal
landfill. In  Alachua County, two private refuse haulers
remove all wastes under contract with the county. In 1969,
wastes  were disposed  of at the  compost plant  (49
percent), at the university's landfill (II percent), and at the
municipal landfill (40 percent).
   In January 1970, the compost plant was shut down. The
Federal Government, which had contributed $145,000 a
year in operating funds to the compost plant in the form
of demonstration  funds, withdrew  its  support in 1970,
thereby reducing  operating  funds  by  two-thirds. The
compost plant, which had been losing money m spite of
Federal support, had to be closed. Salvage activity in the
city thereupon came to a halt.
   Nature  of  Gainesville  Salvage Markets.
Gainesville, like Amarillo, is  located in an area where
demand for secondary materials is weak. Within a 100-
mile radius  of  Gainesville, there are five paperboard
mills and  two glass container  production plants. The
nearest  steel  furnaces are In Tampa, Florida; Atlanta,
Georgia;  Montgomery,  Alabama;  and  Birmingham,
Alabama. The city is located some distance from areas of
industrial concentration where textiles are in demand for
making wiper rags. For these  reasons, along with others,
salvage activity at the Gainesville compost plant has not
contributed substantially to the income of the operation.
   Salvage  Activities at the Compost Plant.  In
1969,  paper  and  textiles equivalent to 6.6 percent  of
incoming waste tonnage were removed from the waste
by manual labor and were sold (Table 70). Metals  were
also removed to insure a desirable compost product,  but
the city could not find markets  for the waste metals.
   The paper  removed was  sold to manufacturers  of
construction board and felt products in Jacksonville for
an average price of $16.50 per ton  in 1969, down from
$18.28 per ton in 1968. A small quantity of rags (1.37 tons)
was also sold to one of the manufacturers of construction
products for $18.00 a ton.  In all, the city realized an
income of $37,393 in 1969 from the sale of 2,255 tons of
materials.
   The  city was able to identify the  following  costs
associated with paper and rag salvage.  In  1969, salvage
figure includes equipment amortization, labor, and all
other incidental  expenses.  In addition, the city  was
required to pay the licensor  of the compost process one-
third of the gross revenues from the sale of products. This
amounted to $5.50 per ton of paper sold. The city's total
cost, therefore, was $14.14 per ton. Cost of textile sorting
and preparation was $8.67  'per  ton sold; licensor's fee
was $5.49 per ton, for a total cost of $14.16 per ton. Thus,
the city  had costs of $31,936 and sales of $37,393, leaving
a  profit  of $5,457,  or  $2.42   per  ton  of  salvage
commodities sold.
   Paper  Salvage.  According  to estimates of  the
Gainesville Municipal Compost Authority, approximately
24 percent of the paper delivered to the plant (4,240 tons
in 1969) was salvageable; most of this paper (2,680 tons)
was corrugated board. The  authority sold  2,254 tons in
1969, 53 percent of the quantity deemed  salvageable by
the authority.  Poor product  quality and weak demand
kept sales low. The authority sold paper directly to users
without  making use of the services of a paper dealer or
broker.
   The  quality of paper and rag products from  the
compost  plant was poor according to buyers.  One buyer
cited these specific items.
   (I) The  paper  is  mixed  with garbage  and  con-
taminants.
   (2) Wet  shipments  are  more  common with paper
extracted from mixed refuse than with paper obtained
from  commercial  sources;   wet  loads increase  the
likelihood of spontaneous combustion  and, in turn,  can
cause increases in insurance rates.
   (3) The percentage  of hot-melt  glues and other water
resistant resins is high and  causes pulping problems.
   (4)  Mixed  paper  from  municipal   waste sources
contains a high proportion of shorter fibers; this reduces
the strength of the final product.
   Our  examination  of  paper  bundles  stored at  the
compost  plant substantiated  the  buyer's  claim that the
paper contains contaminants. We saw plastics (films and
bottles) and glass containers in the paper  bundles.  The
need to  pull items off the conveyor belt quickly and the
desire to avoid the high costs of  a second sorting were
-------
120
                             SALVAGE MARKETS
responsible for the presence of contaminants. A sorter at
the plant, for instance, pulled all corrugated boxes from
the waste as it passed by his station at the rate of 20 feet
per second. This was the only sorting performed. If the
box had some bottles or cans in it, these items became
part of the paper bundle.
   Because  paper products  derived from mixed  mu-
nicipal  waste sources are  low in quality,  such  com-
modities can  only  be  used in limited  quantities by
repulpers.  The Gainesville  paper was  used to make
gypsum board liner  paper and construction paper —
two paper products with low quality requirements. In
these   applications,  the  Gainesville paper  bundles
represented the  lowest  quality secondary  materials
inputs.
   Construction activity in Gainesville, as  elsewhere, was
at  low  tide  in  1969; this in turn meant cutbacks in
construction materials production. At the time of our visit
in early 1970, for example, the gypsum board  man-
ufacturer was operating at 80 percent of 1969 production
and had terminated all purchases of municipal  waste
paper. Low grades of secondary paper, especially mixed
office paper,  were  in oversupply. Paper buyers, who
depend for their secondary paper shipments on com-
mercial  dealers,  were reluctant to  antagonize  these
suppliers by buying  municipal waste paper direct at a
time when  higher  quality  paperstock  was  in excess
supply.
   In  the  Gainesville market area, as elsewhere, used
paper  buyers repeatedly  made the point  that they
depend on  and  must work with middlemen. Buying
directly from  waste  generating  sources  is  attractive;
savings  may be as high as $5 per ton. The buyers cannot
acquire more than a small proportion of their supplies by
direct  purchases  (unless,  of  course, they  enter the
secondary paper business).  For this reason, direct buying
is held to a minimum and is done only when  demand is
high. At the same time, the quality of municipal waste
paper  derived from  mixed refuse is so  poor that the
buyer can afford to buy it only if it is very cheap. Dealers
and brokers, always  plagued with an oversupply of low
quality  paper, are not interested in handling  municipal
waste paper. Thus, direct buying of such  commodities is
the only practical alternative.
   Textile Salvage. In 1969, more than 900 tons of textiles
were processed through the Gainesville compost plant. A
manufacturer  of  construction  materials  had  indicated
willingness  to purchase all textiles  retrieved from the
waste. In spite of this, the authority sold only 1.4 tons of
textiles. The problem was in sorting out the materials.
   Textiles are only 2.7 percent by weight of Gainesville
waste (compared with 52.6 percent of paper). The textiles
are mingled with other wastes and are difficult to see.
The sorting  belt moves too rapidly to allow effective
textile separation.  Slowing  down the belt would  yield
more textile  salvage but would also seriously impair the
efficiency of the total composting operation.
   Other Salvage Operations Considered at the
Compost Plant. Although only paper and textiles were
sold from the compost plant, metals were also removed
from the waste and attempts to sell these materials were
made.
   Ferrous Metals.  In 1969,  2,300 tons of ferrous metals
were removed from the  incoming waste. Bulky items were
set aside when delivered; smaller ferrous  metals  were
removed ballistically from waste and magnetically from
nonferrous metals.
   Attempts  to sell  the metals were made in Jacksonville,
Tampa,  and St. Petersburg, Florida, and in Birmingham
and Emco, Alabama. The metals could only be sold after
burning   and  crushing. Prices  offered  included  the
following: (I) $4.00  per ton delivered at Tampa; (2) $4.50
per ton  delivered into railroad cars at Gainesville; and
(3) $20.00 per ton delivered to Emco, Alabama.
   At  these  prices, sale of the metal was considered
uneconomical for the following reasons.
   (I) Total  cost of removing the metals  from waste,
burning  them, and crushing them was estimated by the
authority to  be at least $2.56 per ton; this cost excluded
air  pollution  control  costs  for  the  metal  burning
operation.
   (2)  Additional handling of the metal — from plant
site to railroad — was necessary because the compost
plant had no rail spur.
   (3)  Transport cost to Tampa was estimated to  be $5
per ton  (which  we consider too  low);  and  to  Emco,
Alabama, freight charges were  $13.84 per  ton (actually
quoted as $15.50 per long ton).
   (4) One-third of gross revenues were payable  to the
compost process licensor.
   Given these circumstances, the  authority would have
lost money on all three offers made. We learned  of  no
attempt  to compare the magnitude of losses sustained in
salvaging with magnitude of costs for the alternative of
landfilling metals separated  in the composting process.
   In the Florida area, there is no market for burned tin
cans for use in copper precipitation. The bulk of ferrous
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN  SOLID WASTES
                                               121
metal delivered to the Gainesville compost plant was tin
cans  (between  80 and 90  percent  by weight). The
remainder  was  bulky  metallics (stoves, refrigerators),
toys,  auto  parts,  household  goods,  and  the  like.
Consequently, scrap dealers  in the region showed little
interest  in  buying  the  ferrous  metals  which  were
contaminated with tin which could only be sold if mixed
in small quantities with other scrap.
   Nonferrous Metals. No special efforts were made by
the  authority   to  market  nonferrous metals.  Ap-
proximately 260 tons of such metals were delivered to the
compost  plant,  in part as components of bulky  waste
products. Area scrap  dealers showed no interest in this
resource  because excessive sorting and disassembly, such
as stripping of  electric motors to separate  cast iron,
aluminum, and copper, would  have  been necessary to
obtain a small quantity of nonferrous metals.
   Glass  Recovery. Glass container manufacturing plants
accessible from  Gainesville are located at Jacksonville,
Lakeland, and Tampa, Florida; Hapeville, Georgia; and
Montgomery,  Alabama. Approximately  1,900 tons of
glass and ceramics (but mostly glass) were received at the
compost plant. The glass plants in the area could absorb
such a tonnage  as  cullet provided the glass  was color
sorted and free  of  metallic impurities. No attempt was
made by the authority to separate glass from incoming
waste.
   Secondary  Materials  Industry. Gainesville  is
located near two large secondary materials centers —
Jacksonville  and  Tampa,  Florida.   Scrap   materials,
especially metals and textiles, are exported from these
cities. Gainesville secondary commodities must compete
againt sources closer to the export shipping points while
absorbing freight of $6 to $10 per ton. As a consequence,
collection  and  processing  of commercial  secondary
materials  are limited.  The  city  has one  secondary
materials dealer  who concentrates his  efforts on ferrous
and  nonferrous  metals  and reusable, repairable  prod-
ucts. In addition, two or three individuals  engage in
scavenging activities in the city on a part-time basis.
   The city's dealer ships  nonferrous metals  as  far as
Philadelphia in the  East and  Cleveland in the Midwest.
The bulk of his collections are exported from the ports of
Tampa  and Jacksonville.  Cast  iron  is shipped  to
Birmingham.  Approximately  13,000 tons of  materials
were recovered from the Gainesville area by the dealer
in 1969. Junked automobiles and fabrication wastes make
up the company's inputs.
   Social  welfare  agencies do  not collect discarded
products in Gainesville.150 There is no paper dealer in
the city, and  area schools consequently do not hold
paper drives.

                Houston,  Texas151
   Summary.  Markets exist for  secondary  materials in
Houston, even for  such low quality products as burned,
tin-coated steel cans.  Paper, rags, steel cans, and other
scrap  were  removed from mixed wastes processed
through a  compost plant. Steel cans and  other scrap
metals  had  been  recovered from  incinerator residues.
Social welfare agencies in the area are active in textile,
paper, and scrap  collection from residential sources. A
rendering operation, which had accepted dead animals
from the city, was visited.
   Introduction.  Houston, with a population of  1.8
million, is a large  industrial city on the Gulf of Mexico.
The city's largest industrial employers are chemical and
hydrocarbon  processors,  steel  manufacturers,  mining
companies,  machinery  producers,  medical  product
manufacturers, and food processors.
   Approximately 1.25 million tons of waste are collected
by public and private haulers in the city, equivalent to
3.72 pounds per capita per day. Of this total, 350,000
tons are residential wastes; the remainder is commercial
and industrial  waste.  The city's own forces remove  33
percent of the waste; private agencies handle 67 percent.
Wastes are disposed  of in two public and  one private
landfill  and  in  a  compost plant.  The  city  has five
incinerators; four are  permanently closed, and the fifth
closed  down for extensive repairs. The most recently built
unit (1967) had a rated  capacity to burn 800 tons of waste
per day.
   Salvage of steel cans from mixed municipal wastes
had been taking place at the city's new incinerator and
could   presumably  be  undertaken again  when  the
incinerator is once  more operational. At the time of our
visit, the facility was down for  extensive repair  of
damage caused by  corrosion and slagging.
   Paper, textiles, and metals were removed  from wastes
delivered to the compost plant, owned and operated  by
150 This explains the relatively high textile content of wastes at 2.7 percent by weight compared with that found in the
wastes of other cities of a round 0.6 percent.
151 Survey concluded in February 1970.
-------
122
                             SALVAGE MARKETS
a  private  company.  We were denied  detailed  in-
formation about salvage activities at the compost plant
on the basis  that data were proprietary. At the time of
our survey, the future of the compost plant was uncertain.
The  operation was  losing money according to  plant
officials and had also encountered public opposition.
   Houston  had a  serious solid waste problem in the
early part of 1970. Its two public landfills were exhausted;
at one,  wastes  were  stockpiled   into  the   vertical
dimension. Its incinerators were shut down. The city was
in process of finding new arrangements to handle its
waste tonnage.
   Houston  as a  Secondary Materials  Market.
There are, in or near  Houston, industrial operations
capable  of  absorbing considerable  quantities  of sec-
ondary  materials.  There is  a   large integrated steel
operation in  the city, including both open  hearth and
electric  furnaces.  Other steel centers are located in the
State.  The largest  scrap user   in  Houston purchases
approximately 600,000 tons of scrap yearly. There is a
glass container plant in Houston and five other glass
container producers are located within a 250 mile radius
of the city. One paperboard mill is located in the city;
three others are within 150 miles of Houston. In addition,
two large manufacturers of building products in the city
are also buyers of waste paper. One of these  acquires
68,000  tons  of waste paper annually, the other, 6,000
tons. The city is located close  enough to copper mines in
the Southwest to permit economical shipment of steel
cans to  copper  mines  for copper  precipitation. The
presence  of  a rendering industry in the city  permits
disposal of dead animals via rendering. Finally, Houston
is an  exporter of scrap materials through its ports.
   The  secondary materials industry in Houston  consists
of 35 salvage yards,  most of these being metal processing
facilities. Wastes are acquired directly from commercial
and  industrial sources, from individual scavengers, and
from social welfare agencies.
   Salvage  at  the Compost  Plant. In  1969, 92,512
tons of mixed refuse were delivered for processing to the
city's compost plant, operated by Metropolitan Waste
Conversion Corporation,  a private firm. The city paid the
company  $4.03  per  ton for  the  waste  delivered.
According to samples taken by the Refuse Division, Public
Works Department,  City of Houston, composition of the
waste by input weight was determined (see Table 71).
   In the course of our survey, we were able to ascertain
only  that the metals removed are sold — steel cans for
$15 per ton and other metals for $8 per ton. A portion of
the paper  is removed from the  waste as it enters the
plant. Experimental bundles of the paper product have
been sent out to various consumers of secondary paper in
Houston and elsewhere. In the Houston area, we were
unable to  locate any company that had  bought the
paper, although companies interviewed had received
trial bundles and had  decided against buying the paper
because of its unacceptably high moisture content (above
6 percent) and foreign materials content (15 percent by
weight),  approximately 10  percent above maximum
specification  levels. According to city  officials,  some
paper had  been sold  (for  $10  per  ton) as well as some
textiles (for $40 per ton).
   The metals  removed  from the  waste are  loaded
directly onto railroad cars and are shipped to a steel can
processor who  burns,  shreds, and tumbles the products
and ships the shredded steel to Arizona copper mines.
   We learned that attempts to market glass cullet in the
Houston  area  had been  unsuccessful  —  principally
because the operator  of the local glass container plant
prefers to use only cullet generated within the plant.
   Steel  Salvage at the Incinerator.  The  city's
newest incinerator, which  has a design capacity of 800
tons per day, was brought into operation in August 1967,
and operated, with one interruption (all of February 1968)
until  May 1969. In the period from November 1967 to
March  1969,  steel  cans and other metal scrap  were
removed  from  the residue and  sold  to a local scrap
processor.
   According to city records, during the period of metal
salvage 144,021 tons of waste were incinerated and 8,107
tons  of steel cans were recovered,  equivalent to 5.6
percent of input tonnage (Table 72). Additionally, 80 tons
of other  metal scrap  were recovered (0.06  percent of
Input).
   Terms  of the contract between the city and the scrap
processor called for a  payment of $13 per ton for all steel
cans  received  and $6 per ton for  miscellaneous scrap
received.
   Initially,  residues coming from  the  incinerator fur-
naces were tumbled to separate ashes and fines from the
metal.  Later,  magnetic separation equipment,  put in
place at the  incinerator by  the scrap  processor  and
operated at his expense, was used to separate the metal
from  other  residues.  Because wire  and  other  bulky
materials were causing difficulties in the operation of the
magnetic separator,  the  city employed, at its own
expense,  two sorters who removed  such  items manually
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN  SOLID WASTES
                                               123
before  the  residue  stream  reached   the  magnetic
separator.
   The scrap processor  was required to pay a $50 per
month rental for placement of the magnetic separator
and  was required to  pay for  energy consumed  in
operating the separator. Additionally, he was required to
post  a $10,000 performance  bond and to maintain
property and accident insurance policies. The processor
also supplied containers for the steel products and was
responsible for all transportation.
   According to the agreement between the city and the
processor, the processor was responsible for determining
the tonnage of  materials received and to submit sworn
statements detailing quantities of steel cans and  other
metals received. This arrangement led to  o  dispute
between  the   city and  the  processor, which  was
unresolved at the time of our survey.
   According to the processor, the wastes placed into his
containers contained  a  high percentage  of nonmetallic
residues,  up to 50 percent. Consequently, he has not paid
the city for metals removed and allegedly owes a total of
$54,670 to the city for the period of metals reclamation.
At  the time of our survey, the city was  contemplating
legal action against the processor to obtain payment.
   The city's figures appear reasonably accurate, in our
opinion.  During the  period  in question,  steel   cans
recovered from  residues never exceeded 7.24 percent of
the input tonnage in  any I month,  were as  low as 4.18
percent of input in I month, and averaged 5.63 percent of
input tonnage in the period. Analyses of Houston waste
delivered to the compost plant showed that steel cans in
Houston waste were 7.5 percent of total weight.'52
   A  2-day test conducted  by the city  in  June  1968,
indicated that incinerator residues were composed of tin
cans (58.8 percent by weight); wire and other metallics
(2.9 percent); and ashes, glass, and the like (38.3 percent).
Using these figures and assuming that residues were only
20  percent  of  input  tonnage, 28,804  tons  of residue
would have  been produced,  of which 16,937 tons would
have been steel  cans.  The city claimed less than half this
tonnage as shipments to the processor.
   Unfortunately,  physical  examination  of  residues
actually placed  into the  processor's containers was not
possible because the operation had been terminated  at
the time of our survey because of incinerator failure.
   The steel cans recovered from the incinerator were
further  processed  by  the  scrap processor. Processing
steps, according to the processor, included shredding in a
hammermill, magnetic separation, burning at 1000° F in a
kiln,  shaking  (to  remove fines),  washing, a  second
magnetic separation, and loading into railcars.
   The processor has operations in Houston and El Paso,
Texas, and in Chicago, Illinois. He identified costs for all
of his steel can operations as follows:
                                 Cost per ton
   Acquisition cost          $16.00 (delivered to plants)
   Loss of metal in processing   7.70 (shipped)
   Processing cost             12.00 (shipped)
   Average freight costs      17.80 (shipped)
   Total cost                 53.50 (shipped)
   We estimate the  selling price to be $55 to $60 per ton
delivered to the buyer.
   Salvage Activity  by Social Welfare Agencies.
In Houston, we visited only the Salvation Army  facility.
Goodwill  Industries, Volunteers of America, and the
Society of St. Vincent de Paul have operations similar to
that of the Salvation Army in Houston.
   The  Salvation Army in Houston acquires products
from residential sources in door-to-door collections using
nine trucks. The Salvation  Army also  obtains products
from  124 dropoff boxes placed at appropriate points
across the city.
   In  1969, the Salvation Army acquired 4,253  tons of
commodities.  Of this, 1,289 tons were sold as secondary
materials in Dallas and Houston; the remainder were sold
in the five Salvation  Army Thrift Stores  around the
metropolitan  area.  Income obtained was $290,380, or
$68.28  per ton of  material  acquired.  Income  from
commodities sold as salvage was $26,380, or $20.46 per
ton (Table 73). Expenses were $270,000, or $63.48 per ton
of material acquired.
   Approximately 56  percent  of incoming textiles are
judged  unsuitable for  resale.  These items (337  tons in
1969) are sorted out, baled, and sold to  a textile dealer in
the Dallas, Texas, area for $60 per ton; freight is paid by
the dealer.
   Paper received (210 tons in 1969) is baled and sold as
mixed paper to a paper dealer in Houston; waste paper
brings $8 per ton. The paper is a mixture  of newspapers,
corrugated boxes, and  miscellaneous paper found in the
incoming loads.
152  In 30 waste composition analyses of municipal wastes published in various sources since 1939, the lowest weight
percentage for "metals" is 5.2 percent, the highest is 14.5 percent, and most tests are at or above 8 percent.
-------
124
                             SALVAGE MARKETS
   Metallic scrap sold by the Salvation Army (742 tons in
1969) consists of appliances judged to be beyond repair
and assorted metallic products such as toys, furniture or
furniture parts,  household goods, and  the like.  The
materials bring $6 per ton from a Houston scrap dealer
and represent 2 percent of his purchases.
   The Salvation  Army employs 29 people, including II
drivers  and  4 sorters. The total  payroll  in  1969  was
$156,800, or an average of $5,406 per employee.153
   Organics Recovery. Three rendering companies in
Houston  receive  and  process  dead  animals,  butcher
wastes,  and other meat wastes into tallow and animal
feed supplements. Until the end  of 1967,  one of these
companies had an arrangement with the city according
to which it picked up and disposed of dead animals at
the city's dog pound and other animals found dead
within the city limits. The arrangement had no financial
aspect: the city benefited by getting rid of dead animals;
the rendering company benefited by  acquiring  raw
materials.
   The arrangement was terminated because the costs of
picking up dead  animals and the value of these animals
as organic product achieved equilibrium in 1966 and, in
1967,  costs  began to exceed value  according to  the
company's   president.  Quantities of organic  wastes
picked up were low — a dog or cat at any one time; at
the same time special trips were required to pick up these
small loads.
   The city now disposes of dead animals (some 16,000
yearly)  in a  small,  gas-fired,  120 pounds  per hour,
pathological waste incinerator.
   Concluding  Comments.  According  to estimates
made by the  city, composition of all municipal waste in
Houston is similar to  that in other large cities (Table 74).
With an annual  waste load of 1.25 million tons, the city
would  appear to  generate more than 460,000 tons of
paper,  93,000  tons  of ferrous  and 6,000  tons of
nonferrous metals, 18,000 tons of textiles, and 125,000 tons
of glass in waste.
   Approximately 13 percent  of the paper (60,000 tons)
would probably  be saleable if we assumed that sorting,
as practiced  in  Gainesville,  Florida,  until recently, is
practiced. The local  market could absorb  this tonnage,
but the municipal waste  paper would  displace other
mixed paper grades that are now recycled.
   The metals occurring  in  the  waste could be  sold,
including tin-coated steel cans, without disturbing local
salvage practices. In fact, recovery of these metals would
be viewed with favor by metal dealers and buyers alike
who are  experiencing a shortage of scrap in the area.
The biggest scrap user in Houston imports scrap from as
far away as Mississippi to the east and Oklahoma to the
north.
   The market for textile wastes  is very  limited  in
Houston.  Approximately 1,200 tons of roof ing grade rags
are consumed. Most textiles  collected are shipped to
Dallas  and Fort Worth. It is doubtful that these markets
could accept as much as 18,000 tons of waste textiles from
Houston.
   We estimate that the maximum market for glass cullet
in  the area  (always  assuming  a  clean,  color-sorted
product free  of metallic impurities)  is around 15,000 to
20,000 tons, considerably below the available quantity.
In  order to achieve even the sale of  this fraction  of total
glass waste,  local glass producers  would have to  be
convinced to  change their cullet use  policies, which now
exclude use of purchased cullet.

           Los Angeles,  California154
   Summary.  Los Angeles  is  the  only  major  met-
ropolitan  area where segregated collection of  wastes
from residential sources has been practiced recently (the
mid-1960's) for purposes of recovering waste materials.
The city's proximity to copper mines, which consume
shredded steel, and the presence of a number of glass
container  manufacturing plants in the area,  made this
massive salvage operation  possible. Today segregated
collection is  no  longer practiced.  Salvage  activity  is
conventional  (recovered  materials  are derived  from
commercial  and  industrial  sources). A sizeable export
market for waste  paper and metal scrap exists. A rubber
tire reclaimer is located in the city.
   Introduction. The Bureau of Sanitation, City of Los
Angeles, collected 1.215 million tons of  waste in the fiscal
year ending  June 30,  1969, of which 6,714  tons  were
commercial wastes.155 The Bureau serves a population of
2.9 million;  waste  collections are  equivalent to 2.28
pounds per capita per day, up from 2.08 pounds in fiscal
year 1959-1960. This tonnage includes all residential waste
collected within the city limits, dead animals,  and  20
153 Estimated in part by Midwest Research Institute.
154 Survey concluded in April 1970.
155 In Los Angeles, "commercial wastes" includes apartment house wastes.
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN  SOLID WASTES
                                               125
percent  of  organic  commercial  wastes  (restaurant
garbage).
   No reliable information could be obtained on wastes
collected by private organizations. The American Public
Works Association has estimated that 2.5 million tons of
wastes are collected annually in the City of Los Angeles
by  private forces.156 This tonnage, combined with the
tonnage collected  by  the  city,  results in total waste
removal rate of 3.715  million tons,  or 6.96 pounds per
capita per day.
   Publicly collected wastes are disposed  of in  four
landfills. Privately collected wastes are transported to
any  one of 24 privately operated landfills. Wastes are
also reduced in on-site incinerators at a few industrial
establishments, hospitals, and high-rise apartments.
   Los Angeles does not engage in salvage operations.
Salvage is prohibited at landfills and the  prohibition is
strictly  enforced. Perhaps  10 percent of private refuse
haulers do salvage according to one  estimate;  this
activity usually  consists of  picking up and delivering
commodities  already sorted by the waste generator or
recovering corrugated  board from waste when demand
for such materials exists.
   Salvage  Operations, 1930-1964. As  in many
other cities of the United States, in Los Angeles salvage
and  recovery  of wastes was an accepted part of waste
processing  activity in the past. In the period from 1930 to
1957, rubbish (exclusive of garbage) generated  by the
people  was burned  in backyard burners.  Between  1930
and  1951, the city collected the residues and sold these to
a salvage operator;  in  the period from 1951 to 1957, the
company was paid  10 
-------
126
                             SALVAGE MARKETS
was $11.01 per ton (25 
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                               127
   Annual collection of waste paper is estimated to be
590,000 tons; about 15 percent of this amount is exported.
Paper  is consumed  in  Los Angeles and San Francisco
board  and paper mills  and construction paper mills, and
is used in miscellaneous  applications such as wrapping
paper for movers.
   The collection of corrugated boxes is well organized.
Many  chain  stores  recover  their corrugated  wastes.
Safeway Stores, for instance, uses trucks  employed in
delivering merchandise from  the  central warehouse to
bring back  empty corrugated cartons which are then
baled at a central location. This technique, pioneered by
Safeway,  is being watched by most larger chains in the
area, but with depressed prices for  corrugated, many
chains  could  discontinue  corrugated salvage and move
to other methods of solid waste handling. In-store baling
is also practiced.
   Corrugated  boxes are also salvaged directly  from
commercial   waste   by  private   refuse haulers.  One
organization  in the  area conducts such salvage on  a
large scale  and  in  a  highly systematic manner.  The
company  makes  an empirical  determination  of  the
salvageable  contents  of  the  waste  of a  commercial
account,  and  then  calculates the relative  economic
attractiveness  of the account from a salvage point of
view  by  correlating  data  on  salvageable contents,
proximity of  the pickup point to the salvage plant  and
the nearest landfill, accessibility  of waste containers to
the pickup crew and truck, and other  information. By
using a computerized  routing system,  the company is
able to route  more or  fewer  trucks to its salvage plant
depending on the demand for paper. This organization is
exceptional. Most  private  haulers who salvage do so
intermittently and haphazardly depending on demand
for corrugated and  time available for the  additional
chores of pulling out cardboard from other wastes.
   Newspapers are obtained  by paper sales and from
social welfare organizations that  pick up  paper in the
course  of normal collections from the population. When
demand  for  paper is high, individual scavengers  also
engage m recovery of  newspaper.  Their technique  is to
follow  the  routes  established  for  municipal  waste
collections very early  in  the  morning  and to retrieve
newspaper bundles, usually placed on top of trashcans
set out the night before,  before the city collectors arrive.
   Some  of the newsprint obtained is converted  to new
uses  rather  than  being  repulped.  Unprinted  news
obtained by one processor from the Los Angeles Times is
cut to 8.5 by II inch size and is sold as school paper; this
grade  is  also  sold  to  moving companies for  use  as
dunnage.
   Metals  Recovery.  A small portion  of  metals
discarded  by  the  population  in the form of  old
refrigerators, driers, washing  machines, and the like,
appears  to be recovered in Los Angeles. The Goodwill
Industries facility, for instance, sold 1,850 tons of mixed
metals in 1969 for an average price of $6 per ton; the bulk
of this tonnage was derived from appliances. It is not
known how  many other agencies are engaged in similar
activities.
   The only other recovery of metal from  residential
sources   is  the  aluminum  can  reclamation  project
sponsored by Reynolds Aluminum Company.
   Reynolds  Aluminum  Reclamation  Program.160 The
Reynolds Los Angeles Can Reclamation Center (RCRC) is
the original  and  largest of nine reclamation centers
operated  by this company  in the United States. It  is
centrally located in Commerce, an industrial suburb of
Los Angeles. The center consists of a roofed-over, open-
sided,  6,000 square-foot area and  a  small enclosed
office.  Individuals  arriving  at  the center unload  the
aluminum into specially  designed mobile  bins, which
resemble  over-sized  supermarket  carts. The bins are
maneuvered to a hopper where they are automatically
dumped onto a conveyor that has equipment to separate
magnetically any ferrous metals from the aluminum and
then to  weigh and automatically record  the  actual
weight of aluminum  received.  The individual takes the
printed weight receipt to the cashier and receives 10 
-------
128
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
greater Los Angeles area. In this sense, the Los Angeles
program follows the  mode of operation of  Reynolds'
other centers throughout the United States.
   Based on 1970 year-end data, aluminum received by
the  RCRC  is  derived  from  off-the-street  collections
(individuals), which amount to about 52 percent; satellite
collection  points  (brewery  and soft drink operations),
which  amount  to 45  percent;  and other miscellaneous
sources, which  amount to about 3  percent  of the
collections. The yield of aluminum  per  unit  weight
received averages more than 90 percent, which results in
Reynolds paying approximately 11 
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                                129
   (5) The relatively high costs of acquisition, processing,
and  transport can be justified only if the value  of the
product to the buyer  is higher than the costs. Aluminum
scrap has a very high value when compared to other
materials occurring in waste in quantity.
   Glass Recovery. Glass recovery in the Los Angeles
area is difficult to describe because the  "system" is in
process  of  transformation.  There  are  eight  large
manufacturers of glass containers and two manufacturers
of glass specialty products in the area. One glass cullet
dealer operates in the city, the survivor of five others who
had  gone out of business through the years because of
dwindling  sources  of cullet  that  could  be obtained,
processed, and sold at costs competitive with those of
virgin  materials. Until the spring  of  1970, the glass
industry in the area  had passed through a protracted
period  during  which sources  of  external  (purchased)
cullet were disappearing, cullet dealers were going out
of business, and the  remaining supplies of cullet could
only be obtained at  increasing  cost. In 1970, a glass
recovery program was initiated under the leadership of
the Glass  Container  Manufacturers Institute (GCMI); this
program appears to  be  successful. In what follows, the
situation in 1969 and in 1970 will be described separately.
Activities  in  1969,  In  1969,  the  city's  cullet  dealer
processed 3,600 tons of  cullet, a  lesser quantity than in
previous years. His plant is capable of handling 40,000
tons  per year.  In 1969, by the dealer's estimate, 60,000
tons  of cullet could  have  been absorbed by the glass
industry (in addition to  cullet generated  in the glass
plants). By our estimates, 190,000 tons of container glass
were discarded by  the Los Angeles area population in
that  year.  Thus  the glass  present in waste was more than
three times the cullet requirements of the local glass
plants.
   However,  the waste  glass was not  accessible  to
industry. The dealer  obtained 75 percent of his cullet
from  a  window glass  manufacturer  in  Sacramento,
California. The remainder was obtained  from  bottling
plants  in  Los Angeles. A minute  quantity of glass was
brought in by scavengers who picked glass from refuse at
outlying  dumps in  the county. Virtually  all the glass
containers  reaching  Los  Angeles  residences were dis-
carded.
   The  shortage of  cullet in the  area had  several
consequences. Most glass plants in the area adjusted to
the situation and limited  their inputs of purchased cullet
to a minumum. Prices of cullet increased to $20 to $23 per
ton because the glass had to be  obtained from remote
locations. All but three glass companies stopped buying
cullet  except at infrequent intervals when  technical
reasons demanded  that more cullet be used than was
available in-plant. Two of the companies that continued
to purchase cullet,  an ashtray  manufacturer  and  a
container producer,  used  only cullet as input materials.
Infrequent buyers  of cullet were  sometimes forced to
import cullet from as far away as Mexico because a local
supply was not available.
   Glass company officials stated that much more cullet
would have been purchased if it had been available free
of metals, in appropriate color grades, and at a cost per
ton no higher than virgin raw materials plus a $2 per ton
differential (the approximate value of fuel and refractory
savings obtained with cullet). Raw materials cost between
$15 and $17  per ton,  indicating a cullet cost of $17 to $19
per ton.
   In Los Angeles County,  cullet use is required to satisfy
air pollution control regulations, and this  requirement
overrides technical and economic considerations. The Los
Angeles  County Air Pollution Control District specifies
minimum levels of cullet that must be used by each glass
manufacturer. The  more  cullet is used,  the lower the
emission  of sulfurous pollutants. For this reason, minimum
cullet  use  ratios  are specified,  with  the   quantity
dependent on the chemical characterics of effluent gases
produced by a company's raw  materials.  Some com-
panies need not use cullet  at all; most are required to use
15 percent (calculated as  a weight  percentage of total
input charge); some must use as much as 35 percent cullet
in the furnace charge.
   The situation in   1969,  then, can be summed  up  as
follows: Approximately 900 tons of  cullet, equivalent to
0.5 percent of total  container glass waste  occurring, was
recovered  as bottling  plant breakage.  Other  cullet,
weighing 2,700 tons from  flat glass sources, was brought
in from  outside areas.  Approximately 60,000  tons  of
cullet, equivalent to 32 percent of glass occurring, could
have been sold under the  most favorable  circumstances.
Activities in  1970. In April  of 1970, eight glass container
manufacturers  in the area initiated  a glass  recovery
program  aimed at  the general  population. All eight
plants organized facilities to receive  glass containers
from  the public. Initially,  the companies paid 0.5 
-------
130
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
   The  program  began  with radio  and  newspaper
advertisements. News coverage of the program gave the
activity additional publicity. Advertising  expenditures
have been cut back without affecting collections.
   In the first week of the program, a record 720 tons of
glass (2.9 million containers) were collected. Quantities
subsequently dropped but have been increasing steadily
since, reaching  175 tons (700,000 containers) per week in
July  1970.  In  July, glass was  accepted on  Tuesdays,
Thursdays, and  Saturdays between 9 a.m. and  2 p.m. at
eight locations.
   Glass Container Manufacturers  Institute  officials,
seconded by glass company officials,  believe that the
program will  ultimately result in the  recovery of 30
percent of the glass containers consumed (about 57,000
tons on a 1969 basis) in the area.
   Even  if  the  GCMI  forecast  is not achieved,  the
program already  appears  to  have eased the  cullet
shortage situation  in Los  Angeles. If'a collection rate of
175 tons  per week is sustained in 1971, the glass industry
will recover, as a result of this program alone, 9,100 tons
of cullet, more than 10 times the quantity recovered from
sources in  Los  Angeles  in 1970. Actual recovery  rates
should  be  higher  as   glass  recovery  becomes  in-
stitutionalized, which appears in prospect.
   Contrary  to  GCMI  expectations, the  majority  of
individuals  bringing  bottles for  redemption  are  not
youngsters; they are people in their early  40's who  cite
concern  for  the environment as the motive  for their
participation. A few people participate for the income
provided. Among institutions, the Girl Scouts have been
most active. One group  in Orange County  set 'up five
collection centers  for glass, manned by volunteers, as
part of a fund raising drive. Transportation of the glass to
the receiving plants was donated. GCMI reports that
several  communities  in the area are contemplating
institution of separate collections of glass wastes as a
means to supplement sanitation budgets.
   The  glass  recovery  program  is not  economically
justified at present. Glass companies pay $20 per ton for
the cullet, which is estimated to be $1 more per ton than is
justified  by  process economics. In addition, handling of
this cullet is also more costly than  the handling of in-
house cullet or  cullet purchased from a dealer. Initially,
much dirty glass was received  (half-empty mayonnaise
jars,  for  example) which had to  be washed to prevent
public health problems. This was overcome by asking the
public to bring in clean glass  only. The problem  of
metallic contaminants, especially aluminum rings around
bottle necks, remains. Laborers have to be employed in
separating aluminum from cullet. This sometimes involves
manual  breaking of bottles  to remove  the neck to which
aluminum adheres; some glass is lost to waste in this
operation.
   GCMI  officials  express  the  view  that  recovery
economics will  Improve as  increased quantities of glass
are obtained and glass plant personnel learn to handle
this resource in  the most economical way. Modifications
of aluminum twist-off closures that leave a ring of metal
on the bottle are also being discussed to deal with  the
aluminum contamination problem.
   The  glass recovery  program  in  Los Angeles  was
initiated  with  the  full  support  and at the express
command of glass company chief  executives who direct
local  plant  managers to  participate  in  spite of  the
somewhat adverse economics of the program. Since all
the area's   large  container manufacturers  are   par-
ticipating,  the  additional   raw  materials  costs  are
experienced by all the plants and  the recovery program
does not adversely affect the competitive position of any
company.
   Textile  Recovery.  In  Los Angeles as elsewhere,
textiles recovered from residential sources are collected
by social welfare agencies such as Goodwill Industries.
Our   survey  data  on   textile  recovery come  from
interviews with the Goodwill Industries facility serving
southern California and  with the  city's leading wiping
materials dealer.
   Goodwill Industries of southern  California operates in
four counties — Kern, Ventura, Los Angeles, and Santa
Barbara. Materials are deposited  by the population in
829 collection boxes distributed over the area, some of
which are emptied  daily. A total  of 45 truck routes are
used for servicing the boxes  and to make residential
pickups. In 1969, 98,358 residential  and  177,226 box pick-
ups were made; each box pick-up  yielded an average of
18 bags (Table 76).
   This collection system  brought in 3,542 tons of textiles
that  were  sold as rag  bundles, or  approximately 2
pounds  per  residential call or per bag  deposited in a
box. Although data on total textile collections were  not
available, on  the  basis of  the  experience  of other
Goodwill agencies, it is safe to assume that rag textiles
represent half of all textile pickups.
   The agency keeps good records on the number of
pickup calls made, costs of pickup, and sales of salvaged
and  other  materials.  Unfortunately,  the tonnage of
materials acquired  is not recorded; consequently, it is
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                                131
impossible to calculate  what  proportion  of  materials
acquisition costs apply to those fractions that cannot be
sold  in  secondhand  stores  and  are therefore  either
discarded or sold as salvage.
   In 1969, the agency's materials acquisition costs were
$3.43  per call  made   (residential  and  box pickups
combined). This cost includes all transportation  expenses,
including labor, as  well as the costs of operating the
communications  center   where  residential calls  are
received and processed.  Income from all salvage (paper,
metal, and textiles)  came  to $1.08  per call. Clearly,
operation of the routes  for purposes of salvage alone
would not be economical. Salvage, however, represents
only  7  percent  of the  agency's income; 85 percent is
derived from the sale of  reusable articles, and 8 percent
comes from donations and rehabilitation service fees.
   The agency's income per ton of salvage is $53.62. The
figures  on tonnage of  materials sold   in  secondhand
stores were not  available, but we infer  on the basis of
information available from other similar  operations that
the agency collected  nearly  11,000 tons of materials in
1969, realizing an  income of around $675 per ton from
store sold goods.162 On  the  basis of these estimates, it
appears  that the acquisition cost of all materials is  nearly
$87  per  ton,  given an annual collection  expenditure of
$945,253. This would mean that store sales  subsidize the
salvage operation. It is impossible to reject nonusables at
collection points, which means that collection amounts to
everything deposited whether it has value or not.
   Prices received  by Goodwill for textile rags increased
from $70 per ton in 1967 to $75 per ton in 1968 and  to $80
per ton in 1969.  By mid-1970,  prices were beginning to
drop steadily,  the reported  reason being a serious
cutback of secondary wool purchases in Italy.
   Agencies like Goodwill bundle all textiles judged to
be  unsaleable; these mixed  rag bundles  are sold  to
graders who sort the textiles into cotton wiper and export
grades. The wipers are sold to wiper dealers for $160 per
ton.  The  wiper manufacturer inspects and  launders the
cottons   and   then prepares  them  for shipment  by
removing all buttons, zippers, collars, cuffs, and the like.
After processing,  the  wipers are  sold  in  bundles  of
varying weight for  an average of $420 per ton.
   Processing costs run approximately $180 per ton; in
addition, costs are incurred in shrinkage of materials (lost
in  laundering  and in wiper  trimming),  rejection  of
shipments for  inadvertent inclusion of perma-press and
drip dry fabrics,  and in delivery of the material to the
consumer.
   The  city's leading  wiper merchant was pessimistic
about  the future of  wipers derived from residential
textiles. Textile treatments used on cottons decrease the
absorbency of the wipers. In  specialized wiping  ap-
plications, synthetic resins made part of the cotton fabrics
react with  chemicals used  in manufacturing and cause
the cottons to  disintegrate. To avoid reactions,  such
fabrics must be removed, which adds costs at a time of
rising labor costs.  Raw  material costs are also rising
because woolen garments used for respinning the wool
(garneting) are no longer finding a market in Italy. The
Phillipines, which once  were an  outlet  for wearable
clothing, are being lost as a market; Japan can  deliver
new clothing to the Phillipines cheaper than the United
States  can  deliver secondhand clothing.  Cottons  are
decreasing as a  percentage of  total  textiles collected.
Dealers  who   sort  mixed  rag  bundles  must,  as  a
consequence of  these  developments, place a  higher
proportion of their costs on cottons, which are saleable.
   For these reasons, the merchant plans to convert his
operation to the  distribution of  new disposable wipers.
Disposables cost more today than wipers  obtained from
used textiles; the  merchant  believes, however, that the
differential is narrowing and that disposables will in time
be more economical than used-textile wipers. With new
wipers, the merchant stated, there are no rejections, no
labor problems, no processing, no product shrinkage —
only purchase and distribution.
   This merchant, one of three large operators in  Los
Angeles,  distributes 2,400 tons  of wipers yearly. Since
these materials are pure cottons and cottons  represent 30
percent of mixed rag bundles, the  merchant's annual
tonnage  requires 8,000 tons of mixed rags. Since rag
textiles usually represent approximately half the textiles
collected  by  social  welfare  agencies,  total  textile
collections  from  residential sources  of 16,000  tons are
required  to create the supply of this merchant.  Textile
162 Quantities collected  are estimated on the basis of  the experience of the Goodwill agency in Bridgeport, the
Salvation Army facility in  Houston, and the Volunteers of America agency in New York. Average pickup load weight for
these agencies is 79 pounds per call; this weight times 275,584 calls made by the Los Angeles Goodwill in 1969 results in
10,886 tons, of which 5,552 tons are known to have been salvage materials.
-------
132
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
consumption  in the Los Angeles area is approximately
176,000 tons a year;163 the activity of this one merchant
alone, consequently, partially supports the collection for
reuse of 9.1 percent of textiles assumed to be ready for
discard by the population. We estimate that total textile
collections are probably around 64,000 tons a year in Los
Angeles,  approximately 36 percent of total new  fibers
consumed.164
   Rubber Recovery. Los Angeles is the site of one of
the 20  rubber  reclaiming  plants in the  Nation. An
interview with the plant's general manager and data on
national and  regional rubber waste generation yield the
following picture.
   In the  Los Angeles area, 176,700  tons of consumer
rubber products are discarded annually  by the  pop-
ulation; of this tonnage, roughly 109,500 tons are used
rubber tires,  including truck, bus, and passenger  tires.
This  tonnage  translates to 8.36  million tires when we
account for the difference in weight between passenger
and truck tires and  deduct tire wear losses from  new tire
weights.165
   The area rubber reclaimer has a capacity to handle 90
tons of waste rubber per day (260 day year  basis) but is
now operating at 50 percent  capacity, receiving 11,700
tons  of waste rubber  yearly.  Only 24.5  percent  of
reclaimer inputs across  the Nation are old tires;166 the
reclaimer, therefore, receives an estimated 2,870 tons of
old tires, equivalent to slightly over 220,000  units, or 2.6
percent of tire discards in the Los Angeles metropolitan
area. In addition to this tonnage, the reclaimer  receives
an estimated  2,250  tons of rubber from other reclaiming
operations, such as tire retreading,  tire splitting, and
salvage yards that separate innertubes. The remainder of
the input is  estimated to be from industrial sources. It
appears, then,  that this operation  results  in  the rec-
lamation of 3,120 tons of rubber derived from consumer
products,  or  2.8  percent of  total consumer  rubber
product discards.
   Tires received  by the reclaimer are concentrated at
filling  stations;  from  here  they  move back to  tire
manufacturers and  in turn to the reclaimer, or the tires
are acquired by salvage companies that process them for
resale.  Two companies in the area specialize  in  tire
collection  and  are  paid  $4  per ton by filling  station
operators  for this service  according to city officials.167
The  reclaimer  declined  to  discuss acquisition  costs,
limiting his comment to the statement  that prices  paid
were "nominal"; that is, probably in the $5 to $10 per ton
range.

             Louisville,  Kentucky168
   Summary. Steel cans  and other ferrous metal scrap
are recovered from Louisville's incinerator and sold. A
private refuse hauling and salvage operation in the city
recovers paper and metals from commercial wastes.
   Introduction. Louisville was not one of the survey
cities.  Interviews  were scheduled in Louisville  to de-
termine the specifics of a  municipal steel can recovery
operation  and to visit a private salvage operation.
   Louisville  has  a   population  of  about  400,000.
Residential wastes are collected by city forces. These are
processed  through one rotary grate incinerator with a
daily capacity of 700 tons. Wastes collected by private
forces  are also accepted at the incinerator. Nearly half
the waste  incinerated is delivered by private haulers. The
city maintains a landfill for receipt of bulky wastes and
incinerator residues. One large  landfill  is operated by a
private corporation that concentrates on commercial and
industrial waste removal.
   In  1968, the city incinerated 258,000 tons of waste,
equivalent to 3.53 pounds per capita per day. This does
not represent all waste collected and disposed of in the
163 Basis is 49.5 pounds of new textile consumption per capita (1968) and on area population of 7.1 million people.
164 Basis for estimate: each of the city's three large merchants handles an equivalent amount; all other dealers handle a
quantity equivalent to that of one of the large merchants.
165 Basis of calculation (using Pettigrew and Roninger, Rubber reuse and solid waste management): (1) rubber waste
generation in California is given at 49.7 pounds per capita; tire wastes are 62 percent of total (p.42); (2) new tire weights
are shown  as 22 pounds for passenger and 75 pounds for truck tires (p. 13); (3) total number of tires in 1968, (170 million
passenger, 22  million  truck) derived from figure on p.15; (4) total new tire weights in 1968, 6.25 billion pounds, came
from figure on page 16; (5) annual tread loss in 1968 of 434 million pounds was given on page 43. From these data we
derived a composite used tire weight of 26 pounds, 20 pounds for passenger and 70 pounds for truck tires.
166 Pettigrew and Roninger, Rubber reuse and solid waste management, p.51.
167 We were unable to confirm this by discussion with the companies involved.
168 Survey concluded in July 1969.
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                               133
city, however. Quantities of wastes disposed of by city
forces directly at the landfill and quantities disposed of in
private facilities were not available.
   Recovery of  Metals at  the Incinerator.  The
Louisville  incinerator  is equipped with  a  materials
handling  system that  separates,  cleans, and shreds
ferrous metals in the incinerator residue.
   The incinerator has two  rotary kiln type furnaces that
operate at temperatures between 1400° and  1800° F.
Organic wastes are completely burned. Glass melts and
glass containers are not recognizable in the  residue.
Residues are  quenched  and then moved  on  conveyors
past two pickers who remove large metal objects  and
wire. Next, the  residues are tumbled in rotating drums;
ashes and fines  fall through  perforations in the drums,
and the material stream leaving the  tumblers consists
almost entirely  of steel cans. These are sprayed with
water as they move up a conveyor past two additional
pickers who remove wire  missed by the first pair.  The
cans then  pass into a  hammermill  via  a magnetic
separator. They are shredded and fed by a gravity chute
into a rail car. In appearance, the cans are completely
burned, shiny black, and clean of ash.
   Approximately 4,700 tons of steel cans are recovered
and sold  yearly,  equivalent to  1.8  percent  of input
tonnage. The cans bring $12.50 per ton. They are sold
through a St. Louis, Missouri, broker to an electric furnace
operator in North Carolina.  Freight is paid by the buyer.
   Larger  metal  pieces separated from the residue are
sold to a local scrap dealer for $4 a ton. Around  1,900
tons are sold annually.
   Although the  city had not undertaken a detailed cost
analysis of   the  metals recovery operation,  the  su-
perintendent of incineration believed that the operation
breaks even. As we observed  in Atlanta, however, a
break-even operation is probably beneficial to the city
when compared  to the alternative of removing the metal
residues to landfill.
   Private Salvage  Operations.  A private refuse
removal company  in Louisville has an  operation where
commercial  wastes  containing  at least  25  percent
salvageable  materials  are  sorted and processed.  The
company recovers paper, primarily corrugated boxes,
ferrous metals,  and nonferrous metals.  The  paper is
manually sorted  on moving belts, is shredded or baled,
and is sold to a paper dealer in Columbus, Ohio. Metals
are sorted manually and are processed for sale through a
scrapyard owned by the company and adjacent to the
salvage operation.
   The  company  also  receives concentrated  loads  of
used lumber, glass, and Fiberglas. At the time of our visit,
the company was seeking markets for  shredded wood
made by hogging the lumber wastes. Glass could not be
sold and was dumped at the company's leased landfill.
The  organization had  a contract  study under  way to
discover uses for Fiberglas which, being worthless, was
dumped.
   Company officials  said  that the  best sources for
salvageable waste loads are large industrial plants and
warehouses. Waste loads containing food wastes and
mixed commercial wastes such  as office building wastes
were not considered  sufficiently  rich  in  recoverable
materials for salvage.
   Data  on quantities  of  materials collected  and
recovered and  information  on sorting and processing
costs and manpower levels were considered proprietary
information and could not be obtained.

             Madison,  Wisconsin169
   Summary. Madison has little industrialization and
the area is essentially a white collar employment region
most notably influenced by the University of Wisconsin
and the State capital. The secondary materials markets of
Madison are of little importance. The city, however, is
close enough to  Chicago and  Milwaukee to support a
modest  metals trade. Accessibility to paper mills makes
paper  recovery attractive, although  it too is of little
importance.  The  city of Madison, in a  special salvage
program,  recovers  and  sells   a  high  proportion  of
residential newspapers  discarded. These are voluntarily
separated by citizens for pickup with  household refuse.
Charitable  organizations in  Madison  engage only  in
processing old clothing, some  of which is sold as rags,
and usable secondhand  merchandise.
   Introduction.  Madison, Wisconsin, is  located  in
Dane County, Wisconsin, about 150 miles northwest of
Chicago. The population  of  the city in 1969 was about
169,000 persons, making it a relatively small metropolitan
area. Dane County has  about 273,000 persons,  including
Madison. It  is an area with low industrialization and
boasts  only a  small amount  of  manufacturing. The
University of Wisconsin  with  34,670 students is easily the
single largest "commercial" activity in Madison.
169 Survey concluded in March 1970.
-------
134
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
   Solid waste management in Madison is split between
private refuse haulers and city services. The city operates
a combined collection system (rubbish and garbage) with
weekly pickup.  Collection service is  offered to private
residences,  apartments,  and  commercial  buildings.
Private haulers take care of large commercial (shopping
centers, supermarkets), industrial, and apartment com-
plexes. Refuse trucks are owned and operated by the city,
which must confine its activities to the city limits. Bulky
items are picked up separately for disposal at the landfill
sites; however,  no  building  or demolition material is
accepted at city landfills.
   Within the city limits, there are four land disposal sites
all operated by the city. At present, private refuse haulers
may for  no charge deposit  loads there, which the  city
handles along  with city-collected refuse. One landfill
does not accept privately collected refuse and one site is
used for burning only brush and trees.
   The  city,  like many  other political  jurisdictions, is
rapidly depleting existing disposal sites and  is seeking
new locations.  To  date, it  has  been  unsuccessful in
overcoming citizen opposition to various sites, especially
those outside  the city limits in the township jurisdictions.
   Refuse collections for 1968 and 1969 are as follows.
   Category         1968 — tons   1969 — tons
   City collected        44,200        52,100
   Private collected     67,000        74,700
   Total                 111,200        126,800
   This  is 4.11  pounds  per  day  per  person for 1969
compared to 3.63 pounds per day in 1968.
   The  city, through  its  Director  of  Public Works,  has
sought  to try  new approaches and ideas for solid  waste
disposal.  In  this  regard, Madison  has  two notable
programs under  way,  both  of  which have  involved
private industry working with the city.
   One program has been under way since June 1,1966. It
is a pilot demonstration of refuse milling prior to landfill.
Participants in the milling program are the Heil Company
of Milwaukee (equipment), the University of Wisconsin
(engineering evaluation), and  the city of Madison. Partial
funding was obtained through a demonstration grant of
the Bureau of Solid Waste Management together with
financial participation of the Heil Company and the City
of  Madison.  The  3-year budget was $555,000.  The
objective  of  the  program   included  technical  and
economic evaluation  of  waste volume  reduction  by
milling;  sanitary parameters of milled refuse; feasibility
of  depositing   milled  refuse  without  earth  cover;
economic feasibility of salvage; and characterization of
physical changes of milled and unmilled wastes in the fill
site.
   The salvage objective was  never pursued actively
because of lack of interest of local secondary materials
dealers. The milling operation,  however, was termed a
technical success, and all compactor truck refuse at one
disposal site is now being milled before deposit on the
landfill. Milling achieves'a compacted density of 1,000
pounds per cubic  yard versus  800 to 850 pounds per
cubic yard for unmilled refuse, and earth cover is not
required. Some technical and economic problems of the
installation persist, but these were being worked out in
late  1970. (Because full and  detailed reporting on the
project is  provided in  other Solid  Waste Management
Office publications,  this report makes  no attempt  to
evaluate this project in detail.)
   The  Forest  Products Laboratory  (USDA)  is  using
Madison's  milled  refuse  as a starting point  in ex-
perimental ballistic separation and recovery of various
paper grades for recycling.
   Newspaper  Recovery Program.  In  Madison,
Sanitation  Division  trucks  collect  newspapers  from
residential sources, the paper is separately bundled on a
voluntary  basis by  the public for pickup with refuse, then
placed in  baskets attached to compactor trucks (with two
exceptions of  old  trucks that cannot be outfitted with
baskets);  and  finally  sold to the  secondary materials
industry for recycling.
   This is  a well-known project, one usually held up  to
view as an example of what can be achieved in recovery
of wastes. Our analysis indicates  that the project has
several  aspects that demonstrate  that care should  be
taken by  any sanitation department contemplating a
waste recovery program.
   Key  points about  various aspects of the  Madison
program are the following:
   (I)  The  city collections provide a steady, predictable,
and continuous supply  of high-quality waste newspaper
that can be used for newspaper deinking processes.
   (2) The  project  has the pledged support of several
paper companies,  including  the Nation's largest waste
paper dealer/broker, and is given preferential treatment
for its purchase.  In  other words,  the project is partly
protected  from the full impact of market  competition
forces (but not from price fluctuations).
   (3) In the absence of new demand for paper collected
in this  type of  program  or  collected  in times   of
incrementally lower demand for waste newspaper, the
paper collected preferentially in Madison displaces some
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                               135
waste paper normally collected in other cities. The result
is a shift in the solid waste burden, but no net reduction in
solid waste disposal if the total regional market for waste
newspaper is considered.
   (4) The city has lost money on the project, although a
break-even operation appears achievable. In the period
January  1969 through July 1970, the city lost a total of
$14,585 on the recovery of 1,989 tons of  paper, or $7.33
per ton. In the latest period (April through July 1970), the
operation has been profitable, bringing  the city $1.12 per
ton net gain.
   This program was initiated by  the  National Com-
mittee  for Paper Stock  Conservation (NCPSC), a com-
mittee of the Paperboard Division of the American Paper
Institute. The city of Madison,  with advisory support from
the NCPSC, operates the program, bears its costs, and
receives  all the revenue  from  sales  of the old news-
papers.
   The NCPSC objectives were: to reduce the amount of
newspapers being discarded  as solid waste, to .recover
and reuse secondary fiber to  conserve trees, and to help
assure  a continuing supply of  secondary fiber as raw
material for the  paperboard  industry. The NCPSC is also
interested in determining if residential refuse separation
is practical  and  what  the  technical  and  economic
parameters and feasibility are  for the participants (the
sanitation  agency,  the  waste  paper  dealers,  and
consuming   paper  mills).  The  city's  objectives  were
threefold:  to  conserve   space in  rapidly  depleting
landfills;  to reduce  nuisance of windblown papers  at
landfills (and related clean-up  costs);  and to recycle a
marketable portion of the solid wastes collected by the
city.
   A  key  question  that  both  parties  had  was  the
economic feasibility of  such  a collection program  for
both the city and the paper purchasers (mills).170 This
could be  answered  best  by  actual  experience  in  the
program.
   Geographically, the city is  separated into an east side
and a west side by Lake Mendota and Lake Monona. The
two sides are roughly comparable in population and
area; the east side is populated predominantly by blue
collar and medium  income white collar laborers. The
west side is predominantly an affluent upper and middle
class residential area. The  program  began on the east
side in September 1968, and was extended to the west
side in March 1970.
   East Side Program. Citizens on the east side were
asked to bundle their newspapers voluntarily and  to set
them at the curb with their weekly waste  accumulation.
Initially,  open  body trucks  with  crews  followed  the
packer  trucks  and  collected  paper separately.  This
method  was  much  too  costly to  ever  hope  to be
profitable, so all but 2 of the 12 packer trucks operating
on  the  east  side were  equipped  with 1.0 cubic  yard
baskets, installed at a cost of $170 to $300 each. (The two
trucks without baskets are still followed by a dump truck
because  they  have no space on  the  curb side to
accommodate the baskets.)
   Baskets  are  emptied  into the  dump  trucks at  the
disposal  site  or earlier if  necessary. If baskets fill up
before a truck is full, the dump truck is called by radio to
meet the packer; transfers  are  made at mid-day, at a
common meeting point.
   The paper accumulation is delivered daily to a  local
paper  dealer who  sorts and processes the paper;  the
paper is picked up in baled form by a large Chicago
dealer/broker  who delivers it to a newspaper deinking
mill located in Alsip, Illinois.
   According  to the original contract with  the  local
waste  dealer  (which terminated 6  months  after  the
project  start-up but  whose terms  are  still  in force by
verbal agreement), the city  receives the market price for
No.  I News  (Chicago  market price) less  $14  per ton;
however, the dealer must accept the paper even if  the
price drops below $14 a ton, a  condition that has  not
occurred throughout  the history of the project. In effect,
the city absorbs all price fluctuations.
   In the period from January 1969 through July 1970, the
city was paid an average of $7.90 per ton for east side
paper  collected and delivered  to the dealer. In this
period,  the  city's  additional  operating  costs related
directly to paper collection  were $21.83 per ton of paper
sold, for a loss of $13.93 per ton. By adding $2.25 per ton
landfill  disposal  credit to  income  received, a  total
average benefit of $10.15 per ton results, and the net loss
170 Wisconsin is a large paper producing state with 3.0 million tons of production in 1968; it consumed 2.2 million tons
of pulp and an apparent 0.8 million to 0.9 million tons of waste paper as raw materials. There are 36 paper mills within
a 100-mile radius of Madison both to the north and east  and 83 paper mills within a 200-mile radius. Both paper and
board mills consume waste paper in Wisconsin, although only board mills and construction  mills and one newspaper
deinking mill near Chicago use waste newspaper.
-------
136
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
in the  period  is $11.68 per ton (Table 77). In this period,
1,483 tons of paper were collected and sold on the east
side, an average of 78 tons per month, 936 tons per year.
The recovered  paper was equivalent to 32.2 percent of
newspaper delivered to the east side and 3.8 percent of
waste collected on the east side (Table 78).
   Citizen  participation  was obtained by a  low-cost
advertising  program,  which  consisted  of  doorknob
hanger distribution and essentially  free  newspaper,
radio, and television publicity. Citizen participation was
and is excellent, although some participants continue to
include magazines and paper sacks with newspapers and
to tie  bundles  with wire, rope, and nylon stockings
instead of the  recommended string or twine. (Tieing is
requested to keep  papers from blowing away before
pickup and to facilitate rehandling of the bundles.)
   The local dealer reports a weight loss of 2.5 to 5.0
percent as a result of non-news inclusions and upgrading
to a "super-news" grade, for which a premium of  $4 to
$5 per ton is paid.  Newspapers collected by the city of
Madison  are reported to be very "clean" by waste paper
standards and therefore a desirable material for paper
mills consuming secondary fibers of this type. In fact, the
principal consumer  of the Madison newspaper has been
the newspaper deinking mill previously mentioned.
   The paper  tonnage  varies seasonally, as does total
waste volume. In the winter, tonnage declines with bad
weather  and home consumption of paper in fireplaces.
The tonnages remained remarkably consistent, however,
for comparable months a year after the program began.
Newspaper collections average 20 tons per week, or 4
tons a day. Per ton costs vary  significantly on the east
side; however, since the labor and truck input costs  are
essentially fixed within  the tonnage  limits normally
experienced, a low tonnage runs cost per ton up rapidly,
while  the same leverage  brings costs down rapidly on
high tonnage days.
   West Side Program. On March 30,1970, Madison
extended its newspaper collection program to the west
side. By a coincidence of timing, the program was aided
by Earth  Day  publicity (April 22).  In  the 4 months for
which  we have data (April through July 1970), the  city
collected 506 tons of news, an average of 126.5 tons per
month and 1,518 tons a year (if collections are maintained
at this level). Collections were equivalent to 43.7 percent
of newspaper  occurring on the west side and 5.4 percent
of west side waste tonnage (Table 79).
   The west side  program was also profitable in  this
period. Revenues were  $7.53 per ton plus a $2.25 per ton
disposal credit; costs were $4.37 per ton; the net benefit
was $5.41 per ton. Differences between the two programs
explain  the  relatively  more attractive economics of this
operation (Table  80). Differences are the following:
   (I)  All west side packer  trucks are equipped with
separate paper baskets, and operation of a dump truck
for collection is unnecessary.
   (2) Paper is unloaded into trailers at the disposal site;
the trailers are provided and  picked up by the buyers.
Therefore, the city has no delivery costs.
   (3) For a very limited time, some paper was  sold to a
building  insulation mill for a price considerably above
the average received on the east side.
   The city was unable to execute a contract with a local
dealer for acceptance of the paper collected on the west
side. (The two local dealers closest to the disposal site are
not currently handling the paper  as originally intended.
One dealer has committed his  baling capacity to higher
value materials, such as aluminum scrap; the other dealer
has only limited storage space,  which results  in  extra
handling for the  city and a delivery cost that makes the
haul  unattractive.)  The  Chicago  dealer/broker  who
backed  the  project agreed to provide a trailer at the
disposal  site and to service the trailer under a financial
arrangement identical to that on the east side. This means
that the city had lower handling  costs because it did not
have to deliver the product to a dealer's yard. The dealer
upgraded (processed and baled) the west side paper in
his Chicago plant before transferring it to the deinking
mill.
   In the first 4 months of the program, the city has also
been able to sell about 130 tons (I month's collection) of
paper to a manufacturer of insulation for $12 a ton. The
manufacturer also provided a trailer at the disposal site.
This organization was  unable  to absorb the city's total
west side paper  tonnage on a  continuous basis because
of the relatively low level of housing construction activity
at the time.
   These factors mean that the  west side operation  is
profitable  whereas  the  east side  project is a loss
operation. For what period  of time the dealer/broker
will  continue  to leave and  pick up  trailers of  loose
newspaper for transport to Chicago is not known. If the
price  is changed  in favor of the dealer or if the city has to
deliver the paper to a salvage yard, the economics of this
operation will also become marginal. The city has  no
formal written contract with any dealer for sale  of its
paper and sells  under a verbal  agreement that has no
legal force.
-------
 FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                                 137
   In the 4-month period from April to July 1970, the total
 paper recovery  program  (east  and west  sides) was
 profitable for the city. On the west side, 506 tons were
 sold for an average profit of $5.41 a ton, and on the east
 side, 387 tons were sold at an average loss of $4.50 per
 ton; a net  benefit of $1.12  per ton was realized for the
 total tonnage (Table 81). In  this period, 42 percent of all
 newspaper occurring in Madison and 4.7 percent of all
 waste was  recovered as a result  of this operation (Table
 82).
   Analysis of the Total Program.  Cost data and
 cost  history available on  the Madison paper recovery
 program indicate that the total operation will probably
 be profitable for the city in the long run. Costs of paper
 collection on the east side have gone down and could be
 forced down further by equipping the last two trucks that
 still  operate without baskets  with baskets. The 19-month
 period covered here has  been  one of eroding paper
 stock prices. At the time when prices were high, the  city
 experienced excessively high operating costs, which have
 been brought under control since. As waste paper prices
 rise, the program will become more profitable, and, over
 a  longer  period,  the  city should realize  benefits
 consistently.
   The overall value of the program, however, cannot be
 established  by  looking  only at its  relative  costs  and
 benefits for the city of Madison.  The paper recovered in
 Madison has  been displacing newspaper that would
 have been collected elsewhere,  although by the more
 conventional techniques of paper sales and  charitable
 collections. The program  was not initiated to  fill  new
 demand  for the paper stock, although at the time  the
 program was  initiated a newspaper deinking mill built
 near Chicago  had recently  created an  8,000  ton  per
 month increase in demand.  Conversely,  the Madison
 program did prove to be a  continuous source of high
 quality waste  newspapers that met the requirements of
 the  Alsip,  Illinois,  deinking  plant better  than many
 conventional collections.171 Because the program has the
 support of the NCPSC and specific companies, the paper
 could be sold at a time when total  demand for waste
 newspaper was below supply from conventional  sources,
 with  the consequence that paper  sources nearer  the
 Alsip, Illinois, receiving mill were forced from the market
 and  the tonnages recovered in Madison "reappeared" in
the wastes of other cities. A key paper dealer in Chicago
 171 This mill also draws waste newspaper from Detroit,
arrangements for its waste newspaper supply.
   verified that considerable waste paper collected there
   was being  sent to waste disposal sites. However,  the
   decline in  demand has  been limited  to  construction
   product mills and  combination board  mills; there  has
   been no  comparable decline in demand  at  the news-
   paper deinking mill at Alsip, Illinois, for which Madison
   newspaper is purchased. The high quality of the Madison
   newspaper  helped  to sustain the favored treatment of
   this supply.
     The  program  illustrates  a number  of  positive and
   negative factors related to municipally operated salvage
   programs.
     Generally positive factors include the following. ^
     (I) Presegregation of waste materials  can be made to
   work;  the  citizens are  voluntarily  subsidizing   the
   operation by  hand separation  of  newspapers. Citizens
   respond to low-cost publicity and appeals.
     (2) Low-cost solutions  to  collection problems can be
   found. Normal refuse collection costs, however, subsidize
   secondary materials collection costs. Apparently, solid
   waste  managers can  adapt collection and disposal
   systems to limited salvage without significant operating
   inefficiency  or loss of departmental mission.  "Positive"
   attitudes of public officials are very important to this type
   activity.
     (3) Very  good  secondary materials  quality can  be
   obtained without special processing.
     (4) A municipality  can realize significant savings in
   landfill  space and  nuisance reduction  along with  the
   associated costs.
     (5) Favorable arrangements with dealers or materials
   consumers can (and must) be made and can result in a
   continuous sale  of  salvaged materials in  a fluctuating
   market. Industry  and  local  governments that do  not
   commonly link in business activity can do so successfully.
     Generally negative factors include the following.
     (I) Special  handling and  transfer costs go up very
   rapidly  in the absence  of  convenient, short distance
   materials  transfer.  Costs vary  inversely with recovery
   tonnage  because collection  costs  are not volume-de-
   pendent within normal ranges.
     (2) Collection equipment  manufactured today is  not
   designed or readily adaptable to accommodate volume
   collection  of segregated materials and mixed refuse.
     (3)  A  municipality  needs  favored treatment  (a
  guaranteed market or  outlet) by dealers and industry to
Michigan,  and Louisville, Kentucky, as a  result  of special
-------
138
                             SALVAGE MARKETS
cope with waste paper market fluctuations to keep the
system   in  continuing  operation.  Low market  prices
received result in economic loss or marginally profitable
operations. Capital costs, market  vagaries, and basic
mission  orientation of sanitation discourage acquisition
of salvage processing equipment and "competition" in
normal secondary materials markets.
   (4) Low cost, labor intensive salvage from residential
waste is limited to simple materials categories, such as
newspapers and magazines; demands subsidized pre-
segregation;  and  cannot  be  readily expanded  to
numerous  materials.  This  approach, however, can  be
very attractive  for  application  under  the   proper
conditions  because  it  taps  large  municipal  waste
components.
   Private Refuse Haulers. More than 50 percent of
Madison refuse is hauled by private organizations. They
pick up  refuse  from  commercial,   industrial,  and
apartment  house  dwellings.  The only  salvage  we
discovered by  private  waste haulers was occasional
loads of data processing  cards from a Federal military
complex at the University  of Wisconsin. This material is
hauled away free and brings about $24 per ton from a
local dealer (data processing cards are perhaps the most
desirable waste paper grade commonly sold to  paper
mills).
   Few  if  any segregated  loads of  corrugated  are
recovered;  if they are mixed, they are of no value and
are dumped  at a city  landfill.  One refuse hauler also
reported that supermarkets make an attempt to salvage
corrugated. This, however, is often not done and they
end up  hauling it away anyway, often because a truck
driver failed  to load it into an empty delivery  trailer
returning to a central warehouse. A few in-store  balers
exist in  Madison.  It appears that commercial salvage is
very minor; private refuse  haulers have little incentive to
salvage as long as loads consist of mixed refuse and
disposal fees do not exist in Madison.
   Private Salvage Activity. Madison is not a major
metropolitan  area  and has  very  little manufacturing
activity. As  a consequence,  its secondary  materials
dealers  are relatively small and do not specialize  by
materials.  (They would be termed  junk dealers in more
populous  areas.)  All  of  them,  however, concentrate
primarily on ferrous and nonferrous metals because these
are more profitable and available  than lower  valued
items such as paper and rags. All their recovery in metals
is from industrial and commercial sources, with the bulk
of it obsolete scrap rather than prompt scrap. They also
accept paper,  but once again they service  only a small
number of commercial accounts for  corrugated.  One
dealer specializes in school or Scout paper drives, which
yield  perhaps  30 tons  per month  recovery;  another
handles the city-collected newspapers from the east side.
The dealers in turn  sell both to consuming mills and to
other dealers on a brokerage arrangement.'72
   Social service institutions, such as  the Salvation Army
and Goodwill  Industries, restrict their  activities to used
items, collected from residences and  sold as secondhand
merchandise.   All  these  organizations  refuse  large
appliances that  are  not  in  operating order and only
Goodwill has labor to repair small appliances. All avoid
newspapers and other secondary materials per se.
   This  means that the  social  service organizations
transfer much of the material collected to disposal sites.
In fact, they are caught in a squeeze  now — people use
appliances and   other items  until  they break  down
completely and their own labor costs prevent economical
repair of such items which have a low resale  price.
   The collection of old clothing means, however, that a
significant volume of mixed rags is available. These are
baled and sold in Milwaukee through  a broker. Goodwill
Industries  is the  only organization  with a reasonably
large operation in Madison; it carries on a  training and
rehabilitation   program  for  the  handicapped. Even
Goodwill  does not attempt to grade rags, but it  did
acquire its own  baler about a  year ago. Goodwill
officials estimate that 250 tons of mixed rags (1,000 pound
bales; 40,000-pound carloads) are sold a year for which
the organization receives $40 to $50 per ton or $12,500 a
year.'73 Rag prices are down from a  level of $140 to $160
per ton a few years ago. Goodwill's  labor costs are low
because it is a  sheltered workshop and pays from $0.97
to $1.60 per hour. Since much of the  agency's activity  is
training and rehabilitation, officials consider rag baling
profitable, even at current market levels.
172 Because of the local dealers' orientation to metals, none are particularly well equipped to handle paper. In fact, the
dealer who takes east side paper has an inefficient handling, sorting, and baling procedure using one man full time.
173 Salvation Army sells possibly another 50 tons of rags a year.
174 Survey concluded in May 1970.
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                               139
              Mobile,  Alabama174
   Summary. The city of Mobile, Alabama, operates a
composting  plant  intermittently;  paper and  metals are
salvaged from this operation. The market demand for
bulk  grade  waste  papers  in  Mobile exceeds  local
supplies, an unusual situation not encountered elsewhere.
Mobile  is an active textile collection and  processing
center.
   Introduction. The city of Mobile has a population of
250,000; it is surrounded  by suburban  communities with
an additional 156,000 inhabitants.
   Within the city itself, 174,000 tons of waste were
collected in 1969, equivalent to 3.81 pounds per capita per
day.  Municipal  forces collected 98,880 tons;  private
forces, 75,120 tons. Wastes collected by  private forces are
derived from commercial and industrial sources; private
haulers, however,  also remove I percent of  residential
wastes.
   In  1969, 164,400 tons of waste were delivered to two
landfills for disposal, and 9,600 tons of waste (5.5 percent
of that  collected) were processed through the  compost
plant. Of the quantity of materials processed,  837 tons of
paper and metal were sold as salvage, 5,593 tons were
sold as compost, and 3,170 tons were landfilled as waste
at a site adjacent  to the compost plant. Excluding the
compost, 0.47 percent of the city's  collected municipal
wastes were recovered.
   Historical Salvage  Activity in Mobile. In 1965,
the city  of Mobile stopped salvaging at its Hickory Road
municipal dump where, up to that time, as many as 100
people had lived and worked, supporting themselves by
salvage and by eating  food  found in the waste. The
unsanitary conditions at  the dump and the large rat
population it  supported  in  addition  to people finally
forced closing of the facility. According to poor people
who lived at the dumpsite in tents and shacks built from
wastes, Mobile's  dump was one of the  best in the region
— there  was  no  harassment from officialdom.175
Opportunities for  making a living existed: the  people
earned  dimes and  quarters for unloading wastes from
private  cars, collected stale bread  which they sold  to
farmers  for hog  feeding, and salvaged paper,  metals,
rags, bottles, and usable commodities. At one time, paper
recovery at  the dump was  a well-organized activity
operated under the auspices of a paper dealer who had
at the site 8 by 5 by 8 feet wire cages that were filled with
different grades  of  paper  by the  scavengers; filled
baskets were transported to the paper dealer's facilities
and the contents were baled for shipment to customers.
   The city constructed  its composting plant to provide
an alternative to the Hickory Road landfill, and, in part,
to be  able  to  realize  salvage income. Attempts were
made  to rehabilitate  the people who  were displaced
from the dump when it was closed. Since 1965, all salvage
activity at the city's two landfills is prohibited and the
prohibition is rigidly enforced; for instance, an employee
is  posted  at landfill  gates 24 hours a  day to prevent
nighttime entry to the sites.
   Mobile  Salvage Markets. Mobile  has one box-
board  manufacturing plant and two construction papei
producers; these companies consume nearly 30,000 tons
of bulk grade waste  paper yearly; demand for paper,
therefore, is good.  Steel producers  are  located  in
Jackson, Mississippi,  and in   Montgomery  and  Bir-
mingham, Alabama,  within economical transportation
range  of Mobile for  scrap steel. One  container glass
producer is  located at Gulfport, Mississippi, two are at
Jackson, Mississippi,  and one  is at Montgomery,  Al-
abama. Mobile  is also  a port from which secondary
materials  can  be shipped to  domestic  and  foreign
consuming centers.
   Salvage at  the Compost Plant. The Mobile
compost plant is designed to receive 300 tons of refuse in
an 8-hour work day. Since its construction in 1964-1965,
the plant has not operated continuously for a variety of
reasons, including equipment failure and absence  of
markets for  the plant's  compost products. In  1969,  the
facility was in operation for 4 months; 9,600 tons of waste
were  processed  through the  plant.  In this period,
approximately 80  work days,  an average of 120 tons
were handled daily, less than half of plant capacity.
   In all, 817 tons of  materials were removed from  the
mixed waste for resale (160 tons of paper and 657 tons of
steel  cans), or 8.5 percent of input tonnage. Sale of these
materials brought $5,182 in revenues, $7 per ton of paper
and $6 per ton of steel cans (Table 83).
   The  paper  is  sold  directly  to  a manufacturer  of
building products. At the outset of  salvage,  attempts
were made to sell the paper to a dealer; the dealer who
handled the  product for a few months ir 1966 reports that
the paper was high in contaminants, ranging from 8 to 12
percent, and excessive resorting labor was required to
174 Survey concluded in May 1970.
175 Connell, M. They "scuffle" for life, and live, on city dump. Mobile Press Register, p.3E, Mar. 3,1953.
-------
140
                             SALVAGE MARKETS
prepare compost plant products for paper buyers. The
building  products  producer, who converts rags, waste
paper, and ground  wood pulp into roofing felts, can
accept a small quantity of low quality paper as inputs.
   Steel cans, separated  from  the  waste by magnetic
means, are burned,  sold  to a local scrap dealer,  and
delivered to a steel mill in Birmingham, Alabama, for $12
a ton. The  steel  mill  can accept small quantities of tin-
coated product,  which is blended with other scrap as a
furnace charge material.
   No market was found for the glass that occurs in the
waste, although glass is separated from the waste. At the
time of our survey, an estimated 200 tons of mixed cullet
was stockpiled near  the  plant.  This material is being
landfilled.
   Estimates of the costs of salvage alone, or of any one
unit process  within  the  compost plant,  were  not
available. Paper is sorted  manually;  cans  are separated
magnetically. The operation as a whole  appears to be
losing money. Total  plant revenues for 4  months of
operation were $36,995. Total 1969 operating budget for
the compost plant was $207,447, or $69,143 for a 4-month
period,  more than twice revenues  received.  The op-
erating  budget  excludes amortization   of  plant  and
equipment, which is estimated to be $100,000 per year on
the basis of a 20-year depreciation cycle.
   Paper Salvage. With 406,000 people in the Mobile,
Alabama, area,  the yearly consumption  of paper in all
forms is around 110,000 tons. Of this  total, roughly 15,000
tons are   newspapers,   22,300 tons are corrugated
containers,  and 8,500 tons are  printing and publishing
papers.176  The last three categories, amounting to an
estimated 45,800 tons in Mobile, are the sources for bulk
grade paperstock.'77
   In the city, 29,060 tons of bulk grade paper stock were
consumed in  1969, equivalent to about 63 percent of the
bulk grade papers estimated to be available. In spite of
this, only 14,035 tons of bulk grade papers were collected
in Mobile,  and the city's three  waste paper consuming
plants brought in more  than 15,000 tons of paper from
other areas to satisfy their needs (Table 84).
   The current situation  in paper recycling is viewed as
transitional  by the area's dealers  and  paper  buyers.
Before 1965,  between 8,000 and 10,000  tons of waste
paper  were  recovered  from  mixed  wastes  yearly,
primarily from the Hickory Road landfill, handpicked by
its scavenger inhabitants. In 1969, only 160 tons of paper
came from mixed  refuse  sources.  Since 1965, various
schemes  have  been tried by businesses  in the area to
increase  inputs of  obsolete paper, and  some of these
attempts  promise to  increase the  quantity of paper
recovered from Mobile  residents and businesses, albeit
before rather than after discard of the paper and board.
   The area's largest waste paper consumer, a container
board manufacturer, has instituted  a program whereby
individuals and peddlers are paid in S&H Green Stamps
or cash for paper. The company advertised its program
extensively and, in 1969,  it obtained nearly 10 percent of
its paper requirements by this program, some 2,100 tons.
The Green Stamps proved especially useful in attracting
participation by the public.
   The city's largest bulk grade paper  dealer  is in the
process of organizing a  paper collection  system that will
involve schools, churches, and civic organizations at the
gathering, collection end and  a new paper processing
facility at the processing end. Although details were not
disclosed, the  dealer is attempting to  overcome the
typical problems encountered in using institutional paper
collectors, namely  the  unreliability of  the  groups in
supplying paper at specific intervals, the unpredictability
of the quantities  and quality  of the product,  and the
fragmented nature of the sources. The dealer hopes to
revolutionize  waste paper  collection in Mobile by  his
new approach.
   On the average,  paper dealers in the Mobile area in
1969 paid  $12.00  per  ton  for  newsprint,  $13.67 for
corrugated,  and  $6.22  for mixed  paper.  Paperstock
buyers on the average  paid  $20.45 per ton for news,
$24.89 for corrugated;  and $13.00  for  mixed papers.
Average  price  paid for all bulk grade papers by dealers
was $12.30 per ton and by final consumers $21.02 per ton.
One dealer, who disclosed his financial records to  us,
realized a profit equivalent to 0.5 percent of sales in 1969.
The dealer's cost accounts did not differentiate between
bulk grade and high grade papers, but total processing
costs, including all expenses except purchase price of the
paper, averaged out to $6.59 per  ton. Processing  costs
176 The remainder is made up of noncorrugated packaging papers, sanitary paper, industrial paper and boards, and
construction papers.
177 Figures in paragraph based on per capita per year consumption rates as follows: total paper, 0.271 ton; newspaper,
0.038 ton; corrugated containers, 0.055 ton; printing and publishing papers, 0.021 ton.
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                               141
associated with bulk grade papers are higher than this
average.
   High  grade  waste  papers, of  course,  are  also
collected and  sold in Mobile. We could not construct a
picture of transactions in this waste paper grade; dealers
buy such stocks in distant areas as well as in Mobile and
they ship pulp substitute  grades as  far away as New
York; their records, insofar as they were made available
to us,  did  not permit determination of the  quantities
originating  in  Mobile. Using national  averages  for
printing and packaging conversion wastes, which are not
very reliable when applied to a single community, one
can roughly  estimate that around  9,000 tons of high
grade  waste  papers  occur   yearly  in the  Mobile
metropolitan area.
   Metals  Salvage.  At present,   the  only   metals
recovered from  municipal wastes are steel cans proc-
essed from wastes delivered to the compost plant. Based
on the plant's 1969 inputs and steel can sales,  steel cans
account for  6.8 percent of waste tonnage entering the
compost  plant. If the  plant were operating  at  design
capacity  of 300 tons per day, 260 days a year, 5,300 tons
of cans would be recoverable. According to the present
buyer of  this metal, such tonnage could also be sold —
and at a  higher price than  the city now obtains ($6.15 per
ton). The steel cans,  as  they emerge from the compost
plant, are exceptionally clean and well prepared; they
are hammermilled and burned and are virtually free of
contaminants. This type of  steel could be sold  to copper
mines  for precipitation iron; Mobile is located near
enough to  copper mines  so  that freight rates  would
permit  shipment of the cans to mines within economically
acceptable limits. The current  low price obtained for the
cans is the  result of the  small  quantity of such steel
available from the compost plant.
   Textile  Salvage. In Mobile, as  elsewhere,  textiles
are collected by Goodwill Industries and the  Salvation
Army. Attempts to establish total quantities diverted from
wastes were unsuccessful because of the record keeping
practices of participating concerns.
   One construction  paper producer buys 1,200  tons of
roofing rags yearly, paying $10 per ton for this product.
All  other textiles collected  in the  area are sold as
secondhand   clothing  in  area stores,  exported,  or
converted to wiping materials.
   In Mobile, we encountered the only instance, in our
survey, of a  Goodwill  Industries facility that converts
used clothing into wiping rags, thereby placing itself in
competition  with  wiper  manufacturers.  The  Mobile
facility prepares clothing articles that cannot be sold into
five rag grades — white rags, soft white, colored mixed,
synthetic, and cottons. These are sold directly to users
(construction  companies,  janitorial supply  houses, ga-
rages, etc.) and to wiper suppliers who simply resell them.
Buttons  and  zippers removed from clothing articles in
wiper preparation are packaged and sold in Goodwill's
secondhand  stores.  The facility obtained $10,763  in
income from textile salvage sales in 1969. Prices obtained
ranged from $45 to $700 per ton depending on grade.

          New  Orleans,  Louisiana178
   Summary.  Two  contracts between  the city and a
salvor  had been in  effect in the  1948-1968 period. At
present  there is no  organized  recovery of municipal
wastes. One glass cullet dealer operates in the city.
   Introduction. We visited New Orleans as part of
our preliminary review for this study in the  company of
researchers for the American Public Works  Association.
We were particularly interested in past salvage contracts
between the city of New  Orleans and a private salvage
company.
   Based on 1967 data, 711,750 tons  of  waste  were
collected in New Orleans by public and private forces.
With a population of  675,100, waste pickup rates in New
Orleans appeared to be 5.78 pounds per capita per day
in 1967. Wastes collected  are  processed through  five
municipal incinerators. Residues and wastes  that are not
burned are deposited  at two municipal and one private
landfill.
   Past Salvage Practice.  In the 1948  to 1958 period,
the city had a contract with a private salvage  company
according to which the salvor, for a payment of $16,000
per year, was entitled to recover solvable goods from all
municipal  disposal  sites. Recovery of materials from
incinerator  residues  was  included. According  to the
salvor, the  contract  was unfavorable to the  company
from the outset; the metals and  paper recovered did not
cover total salvage costs; the salvor continued to operate
under the contract in spite of adverse economics because
one of his partners, engaged  in the paper recovery end
of the salvage contract, found it politically beneficial to
continue. Details of the rationale were not revealed, but
obviously considerations that extended beyond the pure
profitability of the contract overrode economics.
178 Visit was made in September 1969.
-------
142
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
   A second  contract, covering the 1958 to 1968 period
was  signed  upon  conclusion  of  the first one.  This
arrangement  was more narrow in focus. In exchange for
a payment of $10,000 per year, the city was obligated to
deliver all incinerator residues to the salvor's facilities for
processing. Apparently the  parties  encountered  dif-
ficulties in  the fulfillment of this contract also, and  the
arrangement  was terminated in 1963 because it was  "to
the mutual advantage  of all  concerned"  to do  so,
according to the salvor.
   In the salvor's view,  the city  (I) failed to deliver all
residues   to   his  processing   yard;  (2)  permitted
unauthorized  salvage  of  residues; and  (3) delivered
residues that  contained  a high percentage of unburned
organics so that economical processing of the waste was
sometimes impossible.
   City officials concede the  truth of  these allegations,
adding that unauthorized salvage was nearly impossible
to prevent and  that residue hauling costs generally
exceeded  income from  the contract. At the same time,
demand for residues by  other city agencies for road and
parkfill existed.
   During the life of these contracts, metals and paper
were recovered  from New Orleans' municipal wastes.
For a brief period, steel cans were shipped to copper
mines  in   Nicaragua  for  precipitation.  The   copper
company  introduced a  new  process  for copper leach
solution recovery soon after the  salvor began shipping,
and the market for shredded steel cans disappeared.'79
   Present Salvage Activity. We gained some insight
into  current  salvage activities  (or their absence) in
interviews with  the city's largest  private refuse  removal
firm, with a glass cullet  dealer, and  with  a  glass
company.'  The  refuse  hauling   company president  is
interested in salvage, but the company does not recover
anything  now   because  salvage  is  viewed  as  an
uneconomical, venture.  The organization  operates a fill
facility. At the same time, the company disposes of some
potentially salvageable commodities from industrial and
commercial concerns.
   Metals.  The  refuse hauler receives very little in  the
way of metallic wastes from its commercial and industrial
accounts.  These  commodities are received by  local
scrapyards for sale in the domestic market and overseas,
with Japan being the principal buyer. Since metals are a
small percentage of total waste tonnage, their recovery
appears  uneconomical  in  the  opinion of  the  refuse
hauler. The company acquires bulky items such as stoves,
refrigerators, and automotive hulks in its waste removal
activity. Automotive hulks are given to scrap dealers free
of charge. Appliances are landfilled. The only source of
concentrated metal wastes  is  can manufacturers who
dispose of a steady stream of reject cans. No attempt is
made to recover this waste or to sell it; the aluminum tops
on  reject  beverage  containers  make the total  can
manufacturing waste  unsalvageable, according to the
company.
   Paper. There is paper recovery in the city, but demand
has not been sufficient to motivate grocery stores and
retail   warehouses   to   install   paper   compaction
equipment. The refuse hauler acquires cardboard from
many such accounts in sufficiently large quantities so that
the company has studied  the  possibility of  paper
recycling. At present, however, such a project appears to
lack feasibility because  of  the high investment  costs
required to process the paper.
   Glass. The refuse hauling  firm regularly picks up and
deposits  in  its  landfill  broken  glass  from  bottling
operations, charging $2.00 per cubic yard to do so, this in
spite of the fact that a cullet dealer operates in the city.
   Total  demand  for purchased cullet  in the  New
Orleans area is estimated to be at most 5,000 tons a year.
Approximately 18,000 tons of glass are discarded in New
Orleans annually.
   The local cullet  dealer's operation is small, consisting
of the owner and two laborers. The dealer has two sales
accounts, a glass producer who buys only flint glass and
a producer who buys  Georgia green  and flint glass. The
dealer pays bottling plants to color sort and store broken
glass or defective  bottles in barrels that are picked up
periodically. A small quantity of glass is obtained from
peddlers who, in  turn,  obtain the  glass from  large
restaurants and bars. Glass salvaged at dumps was once
the chief source  of  the  dealer's glass  supplies.  The
incoming glass is washed and crushed; metallic impurities
are removed; and  the glass is then shipped to buyers in
trucks. No cost  or quantitative information  could  be
obtained on this operation.
   An  interview with one  of  the dealer's customers
revealed that approximately 16 percent of  total  input
179 This company was responsible for building the can recovery facilities at the Louisville municipal incinerator. The
system was built to recover cans for the Nicaragua mines; however, the market collasped before the Louisville facility
was completed, and Louisville consequently had to find a new outlet for its recovered steel cans.
-------
 FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                                143
tonnage to the glass plant  is cullet; of this amount, 10
percent  is  generated in the  plant and 6  percent is
purchased. The company buys an estimated 2,200 tons of
cullet yearly.
   Other Materials. During our visit to  New Orleans we
did not  interview processors of textile  wastes, organics,
and other theoretically solvable materials.

            New York,  New York'8°
   Summary. In New  York City and its surrounding
areas, considerable  salvage activity  is  taking place:
paper, metals, textiles, glass, and rubber are  recovered
and  sold  to both  domestic and  foreign  users.  We
encountered here one of the few large  dump salvage
operations  in the country about which  at least some
records are kept.
   Introduction. To obtain a clear picture  of salvage
activity  in  New  York  City  is a well-nigh  impossible
undertaking  thanks  to the sheer size of  the  city (an
estimated 8.3 million people  in New York and an equal
number  in  adjacent communities); its density (26,000
people per square mile of territory); the  unique character
of  New York as a  mercantile, financial,  and com-
munications  center;  and  the fact  that  much  salvage
material generated elsewhere flows through  New York
ports to foreign markets. Further, New  York is unique in
that more than 60 percent of the textile-garment business
is located there.
   In  the fiscal  year 1969,  New York's Department of
Sanitation  disposed of more than 6.3  million tons and
handled  nearly 7.1  million tons of waste.181 City forces
collected approximately 57 percent of the total, private
haulers, called "cartmen" in New York, collected most of
the remainder. The tonnage disposed of is equivalent to
4.2 pounds per capita per day but does not represent all
waste collected in the city: a certain quantity is hauled to
private landfills in New Jersey.
   In  fiscal  year 1969, 31  percent of waste received was
processed  through  incinerators;  the  rest,  including
incinerator  residues,  was  buried  in  seven  landfills
accessible  by  truck  ("truck fills") and   two  landfills
serviced  by barge. A certain quantity of construction
rubble  was  ocean-dumped.  Throughout  this complex
system, salvage was practiced at only one location, the
Fountain Avenue truck fill in Brooklyn. As a result of this
operation,  3,371  tons of waste  (0.5 percent of  total
received) were removed for resale, and the city received
$5,200 in income.182
   Municipal Waste  Recovery  in Perspective. In
the 1950's, salvage was conducted at three 500 ton per
day incinerators in New York as well as at several of the
city's  truck fills. The incinerators were equipped  with
special pits, moving belt systems, and bins for receiving
recovered commodities. The equipment was city owned.
   Private concerns were invited to  bid once a year for
the privilege  of operating the salvage facilities. Winning
bidders were  required to pay a weekly use fee and to
maintain salvage equipment  in exchange for materials
removed.  Newspapers,  cardboard,  metals, glass,  and
rags were removed manually by contractor employees.
   Over the  years, annual bids came in at ever lower
figures. Equipment  was  not  maintained well by  the
contractors, and  in  disputes  between the city and  the
contractors, responsibility for failures could seldom be
assigned to the latter. As  a result  of poor maintenance,
salvage equipment at the incinerators broke down in the
1955-1956  period.  The  city  decided  that repair  or
replacement of the facilities was not justified in light of
the low contract  bids,  and the salvage operations at
incinerators were consequently terminated.
   Salvage activity  at  the city's truck fills  continued
thereafter, and, as already mentioned, one such contract
was still in force at the time of our survey. Bids for landfill
reclamation contracts, however, were also successively
lower each year, and the  last invitation to bid to which
we have access, issued  in June 1969, brought in only a
single bid for one of the four sites at which reclamation
could  be practiced. This  last bid, for $100 per week, was
the lowest ever received by the city.
   The  decline of  private sector interest in  salvage,
manifested  by low bids or complete absence of bids, has
led the city to consider nontraditional  approaches to
salvage. Heat  recovery is viewed as a modern approach
to value recovery from waste.
180 Survey was conducted in July 1969 and in June 1970.
181 The first figure refers to waste received, the second to waste handled, including rehandling of wastes in the form of
incinerator residues.
182 The city had disposal costs in 1969 of $3.78 per ton; thus total benefit to the city was a disposal savings of $12,743
and an income of $5,200, a total of $17,943, equivalent to 0.07 percent of the city's disposal budget of $23.8 Million. In
addition, the city's collection costs were $94.2 million, or $27.28 per ton (excluding that tonnage collected privately).
-------
144
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
   The Fountain Avenue Salvage Operation. The
city's   last   reclamation  contractor   operates  at the
Fountain Avenue landfill in Brooklyn. In consideration  of
a $100 per week  payment, the contractor is allowed  to
maintain labor and equipment at the disposal site and to
remove valuables from the waste  before it is buried. His
operations may not interfere with disposal operations.
   The contractor usually has a crew of seven men at the
site, including one of the  owners of the company who
supervises activities and participates  in the work. Two
small  crane-equipped trucks are used on the site to lift
heavy objects. All materials are loaded into a closed-
body  truck  for hauling materials from the fill to the
contractor's nearby salvage yard.
   Pickers at the site are paid by load or by weight of a
particular commodity removed. They earn an average of
$15 to $25 a day but tend  to work only a few days each
week.
   Records kept by the city on materials acquired by the
scavengers show  some categories of materials that are
no  longer   meaningful (Table 85).  For instance, the
scavenger is said to remove "tin"; upon closer inspection,
tin  turns out  to   be enamel-covered sheet steel and
complete refrigerators, stoves, dryers, and the like, which
include other  materials; materials listed under  "brass"
include not only all  copper- containing metals but also
nonferrous  metals such as zinc, aluminum, lead, silver,
and gold. The category of  "satinettes"  actually means
horse  and  cattle  hair products, with the  bulk  of this
category being represented  by rug paddings. "Rags"
includes  all  textiles.  "Iron"  includes all  ferrous metals,
cast or rolled, except enamelled products.
   Because the reporting forms use antique designations
and because no great care is  exercised to insure that
each  outgoing load contains only one type of material,
data  on the composition   of wastes  removed  are not
reliable. Data on tonnages are reliable because outgoing
loads  are weighed on the landfill scales. In addition  to
materials already identified, the scavenger also extracts,
albeit in small quantities, such items as loose copper wire,
rubber   innertubes,  occasional  pieces  of  furniture,
mattresses, and a  bewildering variety of tools,  fixtures,
and   parts.  In  addition,  much foreign  material  also
adheres  to  metals removed (for example, plaster  or
balsa-wood backing to aluminum panelling materials).
   Salvage  operations  at the landfill  appear to  be
orderly and, according to  supervisors at the site, do not
interfere with disposal work.
   Wastes  retrieved  are trucked to a  salvage facility,
consisting  of a two-story building and an open yard.
Here some  of the materials are further sorted, separated,
graded, cleaned,  and prepared  for shipment. Iron  and
steel  are  sold  to  a  scrap  dealer  without  further
processing.  Aluminum,  textiles,  and  hair are baled.
Virtually  all other items are  resorted  or disassembled.
Appliances are taken apart and all components, with the
exception   of  plastics  and  Insulation  (if  any),  are
recovered.  Thus, for  instance, cooling units are sold as
aluminum;  wiring  is stripped  to recover copper; motors
are separated  into cast iron, cast aluminum, and copper
fractions; and sheet metal is sold as ferrous scrap.
   By our observation, wastes derived from the landfill
are separated into at least 100 special grades, most of
these being metal scrap grades. These are stored until a
sufficiently  large  quantity  of  one  grade has  been
accumulated to justify  a  shipment  to  a scrap dealer.
Disassembly,  cleaning,  sorting, and  related work are
done by  four  men, including the owner. All  operations
are batch  operations,  and  unit  costs  as these  might
pertain to, say, motor stripping, could not be determined.
A  considerable quantity of waste is generated  in the
operation,  indicating a shrinkage in  weight  of  com-
modities between  extraction at the fill and sale. Wastes
are trucked back  to the fill and are disposed of free of
charge.
   For various reasons — poor or misleading records,
the nature of sorting and disassembly operations, and the
fact that the contractor is also engaged in the processing
of  marine  |unk obtained from  other  sources — the
economics  of  the operation cannot be precisely de-
termined.  The owner declined to make his corporate
records  available for  analysis  but  stated that the
operation was only  marginally  profitable. The owner
and his brother have been  engaged  in this operation
during their entire working life and continue in it because
no better alternative seems open at present.
   Our own analysis,  based on data  supplied by the
owner  and  augmented  by  estimates,  supports  the
contention  that  the  operation  is  only  marginally
profitable.  Assuming  landfill  or  that  shrinkage  is
balanced out  by  upgrading of low-value salvage  into
higher value goods by disassembly, the company realizes
an  income  of  $30.29 per ton  of material removed from
the landfill  (Table 86).
   The company's investment in equipment  is  $50,700,
which results  in capital-related  expenses of $5,700  a
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                               145
year, assuming 8 percent money and taking the varying
life expectancies of items into consideration (Table 87).
   If we assume that the two supervisors each earn $800
per month and nine laborers average $100 per week, a
total payroll of $85,000 a year results, using a 30 percent
payroll burden figure.
   These expenses, plus the $5,200 a year payment to the
city,  yield a total of $95,900 a year or $28.45 per ton. This
processing cost excludes  insurance, maintenance, ad-
ministrative burden, fuels and  supplies, general office
overhead,  and property leasing costs. Quite clearly the
operation  is  economically marginal and could not be
replicated on a profitable basis if all costs conventionally
charged to an industrial operation were applied.
   Mixed Waste  Reclamation  by  Private  Hau-
lers. With the exception of a few isolated instances (an
occasional hauler who sometimes delivered waste loads
almost entirely made up of corrugated board to a paper
dealer), private refuse haulers did not engage in salvage.
We visited one corporation, however, that was building
a waste separation and reclamation plant, to be supplied
by private haulers servicing commercial and industrial
accounts.  At  the time of our visit,  equipment was being
installed. The facility was designed  to accept 400 tons per
day of waste.  A 20-hour a day,  7-day a week operation
was planned.
   Concept.  The  company will  accept waste  from
private haulers, charging a fee  of $2.15 per cubic yard,
the amount charged by the city; 25 percent of the fee will
be  rebated   to  the  Queens  County Trade Waste
Association, Inc., to be used for research. The association
has undertaken to interest its member companies in the
venture.  The waste will  be  automatically sorted on a
system consisting of belts to separate corrugated paper.
Some manual removal of objects will be  necessary.
Corrugated will  be shredded, baled,  and sold.  The
remainder,  75 percent   of  waste  receipts,  will  be
compacted for transport to the city's landfill. Later, a
pyrolysis  unit  will  be  used to reduce the nonsalvable
residues to an inert ash.
   Technology.  The heart of  the  operation  is  a
patented system for  separating  corrugated from  mixed
wastes. The system was developed by Waste Reclamation
Corp., of Los Angeles. The separator consists of a waste
receiving  station from which  wastes run over  13 belts,
spaced approximately 5  inches  apart,  to  a salvage
receiving station. The belts are set on an inclined plane
with the angles  of each belt unit slightly different from
that of the  others. The belt-bearing mechanism is rigged
in such a  manner that the belts can  yield to weight
pressure or bulky and heavy ob|ects. A 5-gallon metal
can, for instance, can force the belts apart so that it drops
below the  belted system. Smaller  items drop  down
between the belts and are conveyed to  a compactor for
baling.  The corrugated bridges the gaps between belts
and stays on top,  moving by conveyor belts to  paper
shredders and balers. "Foreign" objects carried with the
corrugated are thrown out by hand  before  shredding.
Company  officials claim  that 80 percent of the cor-
rugated in  a waste load will stay on the belt system and
that 90  percent of the material delivered by the belts will
be saleable.
   Economics.  Company officials  estimated that the
400-ton-per-day  installation,  representing  a  capital
investment  of $600,000, will realize an income of $6,000
daily, against which  expenses of $4,000 daily will  be
charged, for a daily profit of $2,000 (Table 88).
   We are  in no position to comment authoritatively on
these  economics, not having had access to feasibility
analyses. The following observations, however, can  be
made. The  company will receive a net subsidy of $7.50
per ton from  refuse  haulers, assuming that the  waste
density of 430 pounds per cubic yard is realistic. In New
York,  some waste haulers regularly achieve densities of
700 to 1,000 pounds per cubic yard. If densities are higher
than those  assumed,  a likely possibility, subsidy per ton
would drop without increasing the income from salvage.
Income  from  the sale of corrugated  is estimated at $30
per ton. In  New York, mills were paying $23 per ton for
this product; dealer buying prices were as high as $15 per
ton. The company's total operating  cost estimate is $10
per ton  of input;  if 75 percent of incoming waste must be
disposed of (300  tons per day), dump charges alone will
run' $3.23 per input ton.'83 To this amount would have to
be added hauling, sorting, shredding, and baling costs,
plus amortization and overhead.
   Prospects. This facility will go into operation  in the
near future  according to company spokesmen. According
to company estimates, the  New York area will support 10
such  plants which  could handle  50  percent of  the
commercial and industrial waste in the area. Ultimately,
the  company  plans to acquire its own  pulp mill,  linear
183 Basis: $2.15 per cubic yard; 600 cubic yards daily with density of 1,000 pounds per cubic yard; for a total charge of
$1,290 per day; this divided by 400 tons of input yields $3.23 per ton.
-------
146
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
board plant, and box plants, which would be supplied by
reclamation activities. At present, however, all this is still
very much dependent on the economic success of the first
reclamation plant.
   Other Reclamation Proposals. At the time of our
survey, a trade association was engaged in the feasibility
evaluation  of an  integrated 500  tons per  day waste
reclamation plant to  be  located  near New York or
Washington,  D.C. Early estimates showed a  capital
investment  of $12.81  million, operating costs  of $1.99
million a year,  and  income from the sale of garbage,
aluminum,  glass,  ferrous metal, paper fiber, cellulose,
and  electricity of $2.36 million a year.  Engineering and
economic  feasibility  studies  were under way. No
likelihood  of near-term startup existed.
   Reynolds Aluminum Corporation was planning to start
an aluminum can  recovery system modelled on its Los
Angeles Center.
   The  Glass Container  Manufacturers Institute  was
active in the organization of a glass recovery system  in
cooperation with a citizen's group.
   Social Agency  Activities. We interviewed  three
social welfare  agencies in New  York: Volunteers of
America, Salvation Army, and Goodwill Industries. All
three agencies  participate in  the  secondary materials
business  by collecting textiles from residential sources
and  selling textiles that cannot be resold in secondhand
stores as rags. Volunteers of America and Salvation Army
are  also active  collectors  of  waste paper  from com-
mercial   and  industrial  sources;  Goodwill  Industries
occasionally  sells  paper wastes  accumulated in its
operation but does not seek paper from its sources. All
three agencies are, of course, primarily dependent on
sales of usable soft goods and hard goods in secondhand
stores. Salvage activity is not their principal occupation.
   Textile  Operations.  The  three agencies sell
between 2,500 and 2,700 tons of textiles as rags yearly
(Table 89).  This represents approximately 60 percent of
their  textile  collections.   The remainder  is   sold  in
secondhand stores.
   Prices received for  textiles  range from $40 to  $65 a
ton.  Costs  of collection and processing of the ragged
portion  of textiles cannot be isolated with any precision
in that these activities are part of operations that service
secondhand stores.
   Volunteers of  America estimates  that  a  truck must
bring in at least $30 worth of merchandise to break even.
Drivers  are paid  1 
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                               147
the other grades are obtained  from commercial and
industrial sources.
   Companies  contributing  paper  to the Volunteers
receive receipts for the paper donated, ranging from $6
per ton for mixed paper to $52.50 for IBM cards (Table
90). The tax credit basis is anywhere from $2 to $16.50
below  the  price   received  by  the Volunteers;  the
differentials in favor of  the Volunteers  are meant to
cover pickup and sorting  expenses. From  the agency's
point of view, of course, acquisition cost is equivalent to
their pickup costs.
   The agency pays its laborers (driver, helpers) a total of
$6  per  ton  of  paper  collected.   Three  trucks  are
continuously engaged in paper collections. A minimum of
2 tons of paper are brought in daily; a single stop may
yield anywhere from 500  pounds to  4.5 tons of paper.
Paper  acquired  is  sorted and  baled in the  agency's
warehouse and sold to dealers and brokers who  arrange
for delivery of the merchandise to mills.
   By contrast with the   Volunteers  of  America,  the
Salvation Army paper acquisition activity in New York is
quite  modest; in all, 106  tons  were acquired in  the
October 1969 to September 1970 period;186 income from
the sale  of this paper averaged out to  $32  per ton,
indicating that high grade  papers (IBM cards,  ledger)
were sold in some quantities as well as bulk grades (news,
corrugated,  and  mixed).  The  low collections  and
relatively  high  income achieved in New York  are  not
representative for the Salvation Army as a whole. In the
same  period in  Newark  across  the  river, the agency
collected an estimated 1,813 tons of paper, achieving an
income of nearly $19 per ton.
   In New York, as  elsewhere, social service  agencies
compete directly with secondary paper dealers  for most
of the paper they collect, using tax credit certificates in
place of cash to make their acquisitions. Their activities
are not viewed with favor by dealers. These agencies,
however,  do  in some instances acquire paper from
sources  too  small  to be  economically  serviced  by
commercial  organizations;  the  agencies can  do  this
because of their low labor costs. At least to sources in  this
category,  the  tax credit  is a welcome contribution to
income  (by  reducing  tax  liability), whereas  the  al-
ternative of hauling the waste paper  to dumps  is a cost
item. Of course if it could be sold by the waste generator,
it would be a contribution to net income.
   Miscellaneous Comments. The agencies also collect
other items  that are  sometimes sold as salvage,  most
notably  metals. Volunteers of  America reports  that
occasionally appliances are picked up which cannot be
sold in  the stores;  sometimes it is possible to sell  such
metals  as scrap. This agency  also sells unrepairable
mattresses to an organization that  repairs  and resells
them. During  our  visit,  agency  employees were un-
loading half a truck full of obsolete, wired panels whose
original function could not be determined.  The ware-
house supervisor believed  these could  be  sold some-
where. We also saw a large accumulation of sheet plastic
rolls, acquired  some years in the past, presumably also
with the  hope that  they  would find  a buyer.  Both
Salvation  Army and  Goodwill  Industries report  that
nearly  all the  women's  shoes  acquired by them are
discarded as unsaleable and unsalvageable because the
typical donors are slender, well-to-do women;  the typical
buyers are poorer  heavyset women who require larger
shoes than those contributed. Goodwill Industries reports
that collections in the wealthiest areas of Manhattan  tend
to  be  meager:  domestic servants  and employees of
apartment houses  remove the best items before the
agency can pick them up.
   Paper Recycling. Within a  40-mile area around
New York City there are  17 paperboard mills and  13
papermills and  an unknown  number of construction
board mills, many of which are waste paper consumers.
New  York consequently  is an excellent waste paper
market area. Total demand in the area for waste paper is
around  1.5 million tons a year. Approximately 100 paper
dealers operate in New York City alone.
   Two  of the  largest dealers  in New  York gave the
following picture of paper recovery in the city.
   A strong demand for newsprint exists in the area, in
large part because  of the steadying influence of constant
news  demand of the Garden State Paper   Company,
which operates a news deinking plant in Garfield, New
Jersey. About 10 percent  of news acquired is overissue;
the remainder is collected by individual collectors from
apartment houses;  a small quantity of  news is acquired
by scavengers who retrieve newspapers from trash cans;
and news is also collected by social service agencies.
Paper dealers pay around $8 per ton to scavengers and
collectors for loose  paper. This material is then sorted
and baled, usually sold through a broker (brokerage fee;
$2 to $3 per  ton), and delivered to the mill. The deinking
186 Extrapolated from data for October 1969 to April 1970.
-------
148
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
mill pays about $22 per ton for the grade, plus $3 to $4
per ton in transport costs; this is for well sorted news from
which magazines are removed. Other mills may pay less
but accept  the  normal magazine content of  collected
news.
   Corrugated  board   is acquired  from warehouses,
department  stores, retail stores, and  supermarkets.  One
dealer has  initiated a program whereby his  company
encourages  waste haulers  to  deliver waste  loads
consisting entirely or nearly entirely of corrugated to the
company's plant. Response to this appeal has been good.
Haulers receive $14 to $15 per ton for the loose board. The
board  is baled and sold for $21 to $23 per ton, excluding
transportation costs.
   Dealers  can  afford to service only  generators  of
corrugated  who  store at least a truck trailer load  of
board. Smaller  accounts are serviced  by  individuals,
scavengers,  junk  shops, or social service organizations
— if at all.
   The most desirable  paper wastes  are pulp  substitute
grade  conversion  wastes,  for  instance,  cups  and
envelope clippings, which bring anywhere from $80 to
$110 per ton.  Least desirable is mixed paper, derived from
office buildings. The presence of unacceptable materials,
especially carbon paper, plastic, and garbage,  makes
this grade difficult to move at any time.
   Waste  paper travels  an  average of 50 miles  to
market; some trips as far as 400 miles away are made,
but these are unusual.
   According to  the dealers interviewed,  it is impossible
to generalize about prices paid to generators of waste
paper because the conditions of purchase vary. Elements
that determine the price include the following: (I) grade
and  quality of   scrap  paper,-  (2) quantity  of  paper
generated  per  unit of  time; (3) form  in which  it is
available (baled, loose); (4) service required (frequency
of pickup,  distance,  congestion around pickup  site,
access  to paper); (5) demand for the paper at time of
purchase; (6) market price of the paper.
   In general, published prices are used only to get a
"feel"  of the market; they do not necessarily reflect what
goes on in actual transactions between individual dealers
and buying mills.
   Metals Recovery.  Recovery of metals from  mu-
nicipal wastes  or residential sources  is  virtually non-
 existent.  The  landfill salvage  operation earlier de-
scribed is an exception. In the recent pasta corporation
approached the city of New York with the proposition to
process the city's incinerator residues in order to reclaim
the metal.  The company wanted  to build a  recovery
operation  at the  city's  Fresh  Kill marine  landfill  in
Richmond  Borough, which would  receive the residues
from  barges  and  deliver  ash and  other   unusable
components to the fill. The offer was withdrawn when the
company realized that  costs would exceed  projected
income.
   Recovery of  nonferrous  metal  in the city follows
traditional  patterns;  metals  are  acquired  from the
following sources: (I) auto dismantlers;  (2) garages and
shops (primarily  batteries and  radiators  obtained by
small  peddlers  for  resale  to  dealers); (3)  industrial
accounts; (4) utilities (especially lead-covered cable and
copper  wiring); (5) government (all types  of metals,
usually acquired by dealers by advertised bid).
   Glass   Recovery.  There  is  no  glass  container
manufacturing  plant in   New York City, but in neigh-
boring New Jersey there are eight container makers, four
of which are  supplied with  cullet  by  a  cullet  dealer
located in Jersey City just across the river from New York.
   After a relatively lean year in 1969, this dealer found
business very good in  1970, in part as a result of attempts
by  the  glass  industry to increase quantities of glass
recycled. The dealer sold an average "of  8,126 tons  of
cullet in the 1966 to 1969 period, achieving  his highest
sales in 1967 (11,662 tons) and lowest in 1969 (5,019 tons). He
received an average price of $18.46 per ton, lowest in
1966 ($17.35) and highest in 1969 ($20.26) (Table 91).
   In  1970,  sales of cullet expanded sharply. The dealer
estimated that 1970 sales  would at least double those  of
1969,  and  might do much better than  this. The  dealer
stated that efforts by the  Glass Container Manufacturers
Institute to  induce  higher  cullet  use  rates  by their
members are  directly responsible  for  the expanded
demand.187
   The dealer obtains plate glass (windowglass)from 12
accounts and container  glass (flint, green, and amber)
187 In fact, the actual events leading up to the sudden upsurge in demand were reported to us by another source as
follows: the cullet dealer contacted  his cullet sources to inform them that he could no longer accept their glass because
of  low  sales.  The bottlers, thus  facing  high  waste removal  costs by  private refuse  haulers,  turned to the glass
manufacturers. With pressure from their customers and increasing public awareness of solid waste problems, the glass
container manufacturers began purchasing cullet in increased quantities.
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                                149
from  35 accounts — breweries, soft-drink bottlers, and
food  processors. The glass is sold to four container
manufacturers  in  New  Jersey188  and  a  light-bulb
manufacturer.
   Some of the glass is acquired free, in compensation
for its removal. Large accounts require payment of $7 to
$12 per  ton for flint and $5 per ton for green and amber.
The dealer receives an average of  $18 per ton for flint,
$16.10 for green,  and $17 for amber. Freight, which will
run around $2  to  $3 per ton, is  paid  by  the buyer.
Approximately half of all acquisitions are made in New
York, half in New  Jersey.  All sales are to New Jersey
glass  plants.
   The  dealer has  never calculated his operating costs.
His monthly payroll,  including  a  30 percent payroll
burden, is estimated to be  $6,500 for two drivers, eight
plant employees, and two supervisors;189 the investment
in plant and equipment is $90,000, which translates to a
monthly amortization  charge  of $1,120 at  8  percent
interest  and an estimated 10-year life for the  equipment
packages. Site lease is $295 per month; refuse removal is
$160 per month; fuel costs  are at least $100 per month;
and  maintenance,  insurance,  administrative expense,
and property taxes add about $100 per month. This comes
to a  total of $8,275 per month  or, using the average
monthly tonnage of 677 (4-year history), $12.22 per ton.
To this must be added payments for glass, shrinkage  of
glass  in  handling, utilities, and general office overhead.
   With demand up, the dealer is rapidly depleting his
stockpiles of glass accumulated in past years and faces a
glass  shortage  if demand persists at current levels. The
dealer hopes that one of several glass collection schemes
discussed  in New York that will involve citizen groups,
acting  as  intermediaries   between  the  dealer  and
residential glass generators, will become reality.
   The  main  technical problem encountered  by the
dealer is the presence of aluminum rings around bottle
necks. A good deal of manual sorting (using rakes) must
be done to eliminate this contaminant as well as paper,
cans,  and other rubbish typically encountered in a load
ofcullet.
   Textile  Recovery. We  interviewed   three  or-
ganizations  engaged in textile recovery (in addition  to
social welfare agencies) and learned the following.
   The starting  point for most  textile recovery is the
social  welfare agency  that collects textiles  from  res-
idential sources.  Conversion wastes are also obtained
from industrial sources, but these wastes play a relatively
modest role in the field. Mixed rag bundles are prepared
by social  welfare agencies and contain all items these
organizations  cannot resell as used clothing. Mixed rags
may be  sorted  several mcire  times: (I) by mixed  rag
graders who in turn sell cotton to wiper manufacturers,
wool to wool specialists, and synthetics to roofing mills;
(2) by a cotton  wiper manufacturer into cottons and other
textiles (woolens, synthetics); (3) by a wool specialist into
various grades of woolens, some for reuse and some for
reweaving, and into synthetics; (4) by foreign sorters into
various grades  of  synthetics;  these materials are  not
sorted  in  the United States;  (5) by foreign  sorters  who
receive mixed woolens from the United States.
   At the time  of our survey, the only commodities selling
on the market in any quantity were cotton wipers. The
absence  of markets for  woolens  and synthetics  was
creating a special problem for wiper producers, as can
be seen in the following analysis.
   Mixed  rag  bundles contain  only about 30  percent
cotton. This grade is  purchased  by the  wiper man-
ufacturer for $60 a  ton; he must  buy 3.33 tons of mixed
rags to get I ton of  cotton. If he cannot sell the 2.33 tons
of woolens and synthetics acquired with the cotton, his
real outlay for the cotton is $200 per ton (3.33 tons times
$60).  In   addition,  he must dump  the  woolens  and
synthetics, which costs $5 per 1,200 pound bundle, $8.32
per ton, and $19.39  for 2.33 tons of unusable textiles. The
total cost of the cotton, therefore, is $219 per ton. To this
must be added sorting, washing, trimming, and baling
costs of $240 per ton of Cotton (Table 92), plus pickup of
mixed  rag bundles  at $2 per ton, which comes to $6.66
per ton of cotton (3.33 tons  times $2). The total  price is
$466 per ton of cotton, which exceeds the average price
received by wiper manufacturers for wipers by some $46.
To  break even, the manufacturer  must sell  a ton of
woolens or synthetics, for $40 per ton, for every ton of
cotton he sells.
   The price paid for mixed rag bundles in New York,
and elsewhere, has  declined  from a  range of $80 to $120
per ton a few years ago as a direct result of the decline of
188 Includes a new account acquired in 1970, a company that has not purchased cullet from this leader in the past 16
years.
189 Drivers are paid $2.50 an hour; laborers $1.80 an hour; supervisor salaries were conservatively estimated at $800 a
month; a third driver is used part time.
-------
150
                             SALVAGE MARKETS
wool  scrap demand in  overseas  markets. Ultimately,
dealers report, the current problems of the textiles waste
industry can be traced back to the 1940 Wool Labelling
Act which  required  the  identification  of all products
made of reprocessed wool. Rewoven products acquired
a bad image; domestic reweaving virtually disappeared;
and the value of used woolens declined. Foreign markets
took up some of the slack, but now foreign markets are
fading: virgin wool industries are developing overseas,
labor rates are increasing, and obsolete woolens from
the United States  must compete with  European scrap
textiles for African markets, where labor is still cheap and
local textile industries  have not yet developed. Dealers
believe  that  current  trends,  if  they  continue,  will
eventually  cause  the disappearance of the secondary
textile industry.
   Wipers, while still moving strong, are also threatened
by  competing  materials  whose economics  are  not
dependent  on   the  wool  scrap  trade,  namely  mill
remnants,  paper towels, nonwoven fabrics, and synthetic
wipers. These wiper  types are generally higher in cost
than wipers made from obsolete materials, but the gap is
closing as costs of obtaining obsolete materials increase.
   One  exporter,  a  firm  based in  Garden City,  Long
Island, is  introducing another element  into the  textile
scrap business which other dealers eye with anxiety. This
company  has organized  or has a business agreement
with a textile sorting and preparation operation in one of
the African countries. He  is buying mixed rag bundles
locally for export  and offering prices generally higher
than domestic dealers can offer. His African labor cost is
$1  a  day per man, and he can therefore afford to buy
bundles at  a  higher  price, ship  overseas,  sort and
prepare, and even ship back commodities that will sell in
the domestic market (wipers). The activity of this single
company has resulted, according to local dealers, in a
shortage of rag bundles and an upward pressure in price.
   We found dealers unanimous in their conviction that
textile recovery can be increased (or at least stabilized)
only if the Wool Labelling Act is repealed and rewoven
wool can once again be sold as new wool.
   It was apparent from our interviews and observations
that  several  other   problems   could   plague   textile
reclamation even if woolens could  be sold in quantity.
Sorting  and grading of  textiles is a hand operation
accomplished by  labor paid the minimum wage or just
above minimum. Sorting and grading runs 2 
-------
FOR MATERIALS IN SOLID WASTES
                                               151
   Introduction. The city of St. Louis has a population
of 680,000. Residential refuse removal is handled by the
Refuse Division of the Department of Streets. In 1968, city
forces collected 226,000 tons of waste,191 equivalent to
1.82 pounds per capita per day. The wastes collected
exclude  all  commercial,  institutional,  and  industrial
wastes192 as well as wastes from apartment houses that
containerize  their wastes and must consequently use
private haulers. Wastes are burned  in two  municipal
incinerators; residues  are  used to fill an empty  quarry.
Bulky wastes are collected and transferred  to a private
hauler who conveys them to a private landfill.
   Residue Reclamation Program. From April 1968
until March 1969, the city had a contract with a  private
corporation whereby  the city  received  a standard
monthly fee in exchange for which  incinerator residues
were  delivered to the company's facilities; the city was
also required  to pick up residues at the company plant
after these had been processed.
   In  the  period April to  December 1968, the-city was
paid  $27,000,  at  the rate  of $1,500 per month per
incinerator.  In  January   1969,  the  company  stopped
receiving residues from one of the incinerators; payment
dropped to $1,500 a month; in March 1969 the operation
closed.
   Approximately  12,000 tons of residue were delivered
to the salvage contractor monthly in 1968 and 5,200 tons
per month in 1969. Of the input materials, an estimated
18% was recovered"3, 7% was lost as moisture or fine,
and 75% required disposal in a landfill.
   The residues were magnetically sorted into a ferrous
metal stream and a stream containing all else. Metals
were shredded by hammermilling and loaded on railcars
for shipment, presumably to copper  mines. Company
officials  could   not  be  reached  to  establish  final
destination of the metal..
   The operation was closed down, according to the city,
because the contractor could  no  longer sell the metal
extracted for $10 per ton. Their price was reduced  to $6
per ton, a price at which the company could not make
money.
   If 18 percent of the incoming  residue was  saleable
metal,  the  company  obtained   2,160  tons of  metal
monthly, paying $3,000 for the total amount, or $1.39 per
ton. We estimate that operation of  the residue plant itself
probably  cost  $7.31  per ton of product (using the
experience of the  city of Atlanta) and plant amortization
cost of $2.70 per ton. this results in a cost of $11.40 per ton
of product. The company  may have  (I) extracted  more
metal, (2)  had lower operating costs, and (3) had lower
plant  and  equipment  costs  than those used  here.  It
remains fairly certain, however, that the company could
not have earned its costs at a $6 per ton selling price.
191 Based on 13-month summary.
192 Exceptions being one hospital and the city market.
193  Basis is analysis of incinerator residues prepared by Bureau  of Mines: Kenahan, Sullivan, Ruppert, and Spano,
Composition and characteristics of municipal incinerator residues, p.l 0.
-------









H O
.V?
d'° S
ra w «
!p
1
•H
W
«
I
|
c
CO
(U
f-
1




























B




cti













H

•H
CJ

Q)
I
4i
agency
collec

-P 45
at o
to Q>
CO H
ft H
Q) O
W O

1 tH
•H -P
o al
M.cj


-p

o -g


O H
o ft

^
fH
H

 at
CU Q)
CO CO



















QJ
-P
CO















«
o
r-l
QJ
0)






cd
-P

H
-P
P 0)
0> (H
d -H
CO -P
ft
" -P
H QJ
CD H
£3
co a








„
QJ at
OJ CU











H
QJ
QJ
-P
co


6
cfl
CD
-P



CO
QJ
to
•H
-p


X
B
-P
a>
<-i
1
w
i
aj Q
QJ CU
•P -P
w w
M tf















r-i CO

•P rQ O

BUS
- «
tu) cu
ctf •> ^

S-H Ol O
at cu o



w
QJ

-P
Tf
QJ

1





i
i a
QJ C
m Tt
QJ f-H
ft cd
ca o
ft ,Q
-p
d
CJ
-p
o

3





















co

to -H r-l
QJ -P Cd
ft M -P
ca 
ft -P S





















M
•a




to
to
QJ G
^ 8
to ti
QJ h
ft d
tO O

OJ
H
H
Q>
(5
•H
S
H
cd

cu
S


QJ
ft
cd
ft
w
QJ
" H
m -H H
S.-S5
a^ %





1
o
Q) CU
QJ QJ
w n


CO
QJ

to -H H
QJ -p at
ft H -P

& -p a










-H
s









X
'e




-
i
O
rH H
0) QJ
{LI 1J
W CO
h -a
CO 0
ft ^



g
-p

1
H
cd




to
QJ
ft







1
CJ
Q) CU
n vi




































.
1
CU 0)
-p -p
CO CO
to Tj
QJ to

ft ,0

cu
H
•H
•H
O
-,
D


ft

CO CO
QJ CO
CO
CU
iis
Cu B Si
•Pan



H co
cd co
4^ td




V
H
•H
1
H
a
-p
CU
0


w
as







i
a
QJ
OJ
w









QJ
•p
•H



cd

















-p
0)
H
o

S
o
r-l
CD
OJ
-P
CO
*
0



cu
S

I
H co

-P cd

a M

f-l W
QJ OJ
ft ^P
W
QJ
d h
«l
-------
                                TABLE 60

            REVENUES AMD EXPENSES OF AM&RILLO'S SALVATION ARM-
                             FACILITY - 1969*
	Category	Amount	
Revenues:
          Sale of rags (at $2.75 per hundredweight)    $ 5,145

          Revenue of the retail store                   51,855

               Total revenue                                      $37,000

Expenses;

          Rent                                         $ 3,530

          Utilities                                        900

          Wages--? people                               17,000

          Wage-related expenses                          2, 900

          Food                                           2,000

          Shop equipment                                 1,200

          Freight charges on rag shipments               1,500

          Miscellaneous (transport and related waste

            disposal,  repair of salvage,  etc.)          10,070

               Total expenses                                     $39,100

               Net loss                                          ($2,100)



     *From Salvation Army Facility,  Amarillo,  Texas.
                                  151-2
-------
                                                  TABLE 61

                             ESTIMATED INCOME AND EXPENSES OF A STEEL CAN RECLAIMING
                                         OPERATION III AMARILLO, TEXAS*
Useful Amortization
life- factor at
Category Cost years 8la interest
Capital-related expenses
Land $20,000 - 0.08
Warehouse 5,000 20 0.102
Can shredding plant 55,000 10 0.149
Trucks 7,600 5 0.250
Loader 10 ,500 5 0.250
Subtotal $98,100
Maintenance (4$ of investment excluding land)
Insurance (l$ of investment excluding land)
Administrative and general expenses (1% of total investment)
Property taxes (2$ of total investment)
Subtotal
Total capital-related expenses
Operating costs
Lease of rail siding
Payroll, including payroll burdens
Fuel and lubricants
Total operating expenses
General overhead expenses
Office salaries
Utilities
Supplies
Miscellaneous
Total general overhead expenses
Other expenses
Freight on 4,600 tons
Payment to the city for 4,600 tons of product
Total other expenses
Total expenses
Total income
Gross profit
Annual
cost

$ 1,600
510
8,195
1,900
	 2,625
$ 14,830
$ 3,124
781
981
1,962
$ 6,848
$ 21,678

$ 12,000
44,000
4.000
$ 60,000

$ 12,000
2,000
3,000
8.000
$ 25,000

$ 89,600
2,000
$ 91,600
$198,276
$220,000
$ 21,722
Cost per
tons of
product ,
4,000 tons
oer year












5.41




15.00





6.25

22.40
0.50
22.90
49.56
55.00
5.43
*  From APCO Metals Company,  City of Amarillo,  Texas, and Midwest Research Institute estimates.
                                                     151-3
-------
                               TABLE  62


      COST TO PROCESS ONE NET TON OF SALVAGE METAL FOR SHIPMENT*
Category
Labor
Power
Maintenance labor
Parts replacement
Original equipment amortization (20 years)
Cost per ton
$ 4.82
.80
.81
.88
2.70
     Total cost                                                $10.01

Selling price                                                  $10.27
   *From Atlanta Sanitation Department, internal  study,  February 20,  1969.
   Note:  Excludes costs of potable water used to wash cans;  water costs
are treated as a single expenditure item by the city and costs are not
allocated down to operating department.
                                   151-4
-------
                               TABLE 63




      RESIDUE- RECOVERY AT THE CHICAGO SOUTHWEST INCINERATOR, 1969*






 Category	Units	



Refuse delivered                      274,960 tons




Metals average 8.0$                    21,997 tons




Residue                               208,318 cu. yd.




Residue average 1,500 Ib/cu. yd.      156,238 tons




Dry residue (32$ quench moisture)     106,241 tons <	(38.6$ of input)




Sales of cans                           9,214 tons«	 (8.7$ of residue)








          *  From Department of Sanitation, Chicago, and Midwest Research




Institute estimates.
                                  151-5
-------
                               TABLE 64





             STEAM SALES OF CHICAGO'S SOUTHWEST INCINERATOR*
Year	Steam sold--lb.	Revenue




1968                         247,065,810                       $167,296




1969                         238,344,081                       $159,062







          *  From:  Department of Sanitation, Chicago.
                                   151-6
-------
                             TABLE 65

        STEEL CAN RECOVERS, INCINERATOR, INC., 1969 AM) 1970*




Year	Revenue/input ton         Tons sold      Revenue/ton sold
1969
1970
(5 mo.)
$0.23
$0.156
4,870
N.A.
$7.55t
$5.25
   *From Incinerator,  Inc.,  Chicago,  Illinois.
   tCalculated  by  MRI  based  on  throughput  tonnage  reported by company.
                                 151-7
-------
a
o -d
•H 1>
>d J3 -P
0 > TH
•rl O
rl rl ft
(0 O <0
PH CH M

_j
ro
(U
co
4n ft
O M
•H
0) C -d
So o> o
co s -p a)
> O -P
r-l 0 r) CO
aj n 
H bo 0)
C8 ffj S
s > o
d H o
3 o$ c
< CO -H


rl rl
f\\ flt
*U tjy
ft ft r4
CD
co fl co
-do 0
5 co ft
3 rl !>» M
O d -H
0) H O
03 CD Co
O ft 
CD CD
CT> cn
H i-t






•* H
O r^
• »
0 0





0 0
o o
in oj
•\
H






c^ in
co r-
o3 in




CO O
•9R O
o m
•^ «\
SH 3










8 8
o o
•V •*
to o
CU H




s
CO


0) U
•H
h *
to v
Q !=:
cn o>
to CD
to to
i i
§ §
~^f "5""






8

0





in
05
oo
•^
r-l






•**> r-
OJ «D
•^H CVJ




CD r-
t~- O5
in cvi
•* »x
co r-
to










80
0
0 0
•\ »K
co in
00 r-l



c
•H
at
«0
-P
•H
rl C
pq -H
r-l
& rl
a; b
3 «





































































9)
§
O
C
•rl
1
I
r-l
Of
co
••*
co
ttj
•H
•P
•H
r-l
•H
cS
* ^
fe Q>
PP
*













•
CT)
co
0>
r-l
>?
i
0)
8
•H
•d
(U
2
c
•rl
-P
G
0
o
w
•H
•d



>


•H
rl
(1)
•d
151-8
-------
                               TABLE 67

                   COLLECTION .AND REVENUES OF GOODWILL
                INDUSTRIES, INC., BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT,
                                  1968*
Type of commodity
collected
Wt. in
net tons
Revenues in
dollars
Revenues per ton
in dollars
Store usables
  Soft goods                    98.5
  Hard goods                   289.5
    Total usables              388.8

Salvage
  Rags, mixed                  989.4
  Cottons                       19.2
  Special rags                   2.4
  Hair and feathers              4.3
  Paper (news and mixed)       188.6
    Total salvage            1,202.9

Unusable materials
  dumped                       397.5

Total collections            1,989.2
               400,490
                69,460
                   318
                   585
                   492
                 5,155
                74,010
                 1,030.07
                    70.20
                    16.56
                   243.75
                   114.41
                    16.73
                    61.53
               474,500
                   238.54
          *  From Goodwill Industries, Inc., Bridgeport, Connecticut,

organizational records.
                                  151-9
-------
                               TABLE 68

                 PRICES RECEIVED FOR SALVAGE COMMODITIES
                BY GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, INC., BRIDGEPORT
                           CONNECTICUT, 1968*
Type of community                         Price per net
                                          ton in dollars
Mixed rags
Special rags
White wipers
White cottons
Mixed cottons
Cattle hair
Feathers
Horsehair
Folded newspapers
Mixed papers
$ 65.00 - $ 70.00
130.00
240.00
100.00
45.00
20.00
18.00
20.00
20.00
8.00

          *  From Goodwill Industries, Inc., Bridgeport, Connecticut,

organizational records.
                                 151-10
-------
                                  TABLE 69

      TONNAGE OF WASTE COLLECTED AND DISPOSED IN GAINESVILLE AEEA IN 1969*+



                                          Wastes delivered to
                               Compost   University   Municipal landfill     Total
Wastes delivered by	plant	landfill	of Gainesville	disposal
Municipal collection forces
  from Gainesville (exclud-
  ing University of Florida)   26,350       --              11,090          37,4=40

Private contract haulers
  from Alachua County
  (excluding Gainesville)       3,030       --               6,320           9,360

University of Florida forces
  from'University of Florida
  properties                    4,680      7,500             —•             12,180

Private forces of corpora-
  tions and  individuals         --          —              10,400          10,400

Total                          34,080      7,500            27,810          69,380
          *  From records of the Gainesville Municipal Waste Control Department, the

Gainesville Municipal Compost Authority, and estimates made by the owners of Mallard

Garbage Service and Mallard Trash Hauling Service, both of Gainesville, Florida.

          +  Includes all residential, commercial, and industrial wastes.
                                      151-11
-------
                               TABLE 70
 CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTE ENTERING GAINESVILLE COMPOSTING PLANT IN 1969*
Type of waste
Paper
Ferrous metals
Nonferrous metals
Textiles
Glass and ceramics
Plastics, leather
Wood
Garden waste
Food
Ashes
Miscellaneous
Total
% of weight"1"
52.59
6.75
0.77
2.69
5.59
4.38
2.70
11.56
6.36
5.24
1.37
100.00
Tons in
1969 #
17,923
2,300
262
917
1,905
1,493
920
3,940
2,167
1,786
467
34,080
Salvaged and sold in 1969
% of 1o of
Tons material total input
2,254 12.58 6.61


1.37 0.15 0.004







2,255 — 6.61
          *  From unpublished records of Gainesville Metropolitan Waste




Conversion Authority.




          +  Based on samples taken on January 24, July 8, and August 21,




1969, and samples taken during the week of September 10-16, 1969; all told,




2,960 pounds of waste were removed for sampling.




          #  Breakdown of tonnage calculated by using compositional percentages




and applying these to data on total tonnage delivered to the compost plant.





                                 151-12
-------
                        TABLE 71




           HOUSTON REFUSE COMPOSITION BY WEIGHT*

Material category
Paper
Textiles
Steel cans
Other metals
Glass
Conrposta'ble
organic s
Inert residues
Total
Composition-^
44.9
3.2
7.5
0.6
7.5
32.8
5.5
100.0
Estimated 1969 tonnage
41,538
2,960
6,938
555
6,938
30,344
3,238
92,512+

*  From Public Works Department, City of Houston.




+  Subtotals fall short of total because of rounding.
                        151-13
-------
                                    TABLE 72

                  WASTE RECEIVED AND STEEL SCRAP RECOVERED
               AT THE HOLMES ROAD  INCINERATOR, HOUSTON,  TEXAS
                        NOVEMBER 1967 TO APRIL 1969*
Date
November 1967
December
January 1968
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total, 1968
January 1969
February.
March
Grand Total
Waste
received
( tons )
7,369
8,256
6,627
--
3,354
11,257
11,162
7,169
10,256
11,365
8,513
6,136
7,977
9,557
93,344
12,374
11,588
11,081
144,201
Steel cans
Steel cans as % of
recovered input
( tons ) tonnage
314
576
349
INCINERATOR
243
643
745
414
598
650
535
405
405
535
5,522
695
639
463
8,107
4.26
6.98
5.26
CLOSED
7.24
5.71
5.78
5.77
5.83
5.72
6.28
6.60
5.07
5.61
5.91
5.62
5.51
4.18
5.63
Other metal
scrap recovered
( tons )
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
12
14
13
10
7
12
7
75
--
5
80
          *  From incineration records of Public Works Department, City of
Houston, Texas.                   151-14
-------
                                   TABLE 73

                      COIJJECTIONS AND SALES OF SALVATION
                     AEMf FACILITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS, 1969*
Type of commodity
collected
Store us able s
Clothing
Other
Total useables
Salvage
Textile rags
Mixed paper
Mixed metal scrap
Total salvage
Total usables and salvage
Wt. in
tons

264
2,700
2,964

337
210
742
1,289
4,253
Revenues Revenues per
in $ ton in $



264,000 89.07

20,246 60.00
1,680 8.00
4,454 6.00
26,380 20.46
290,380 68.28

          *  From:  Salvation Array facility headquarters, Houston Texas;

tonnages were computed from monthly averages and adjusted to annual income

in 1969 sales prices received for salvage goods.
                                  151-15
-------
                                   TABLE 74

                  COMPOSITION  OF ALL HOUSTON MUNICIPAL  SOLID
                    WASTES IN  WEIGHT PERCENT AND ESTIMATED
                    TONNAGE  OF MATERIALS  IN WASTE IN  196 9*
Type of vaste
Paper
Ferrous metal
Nonferrous metal
Textiles
Glass
All other
Total
wt.
37.0
7.5
0.5
1.5
10.0
43.5
100.0
Estimated
tons of material
in waste in 1969
462, 500
93,750
6,250
18,750
125,000
543,750
1,250,000

   »From estimates of Refuse Division,  Public Works Department, City of
Houston, Texas.
                                 151-16
-------
                                   TABLE  75

                        ALUMINUM RECEIVED BY REYNOLDS
                    CAN RECLAMATION CENTER IN LOS ANGELES
                        AUGUST 1969 TO DECEMBER 1970*
                                                        Tons of aluminum
Year	Month	    received

 1969                      August
                           September
                           October
                           November
                           December

                           Total, 1969                       138.97

 1970                      January                            33.02
                           February                           33.74
                           March                              32.63
                           April                              32.45
                           May                                52.26
                           June                               80.05
                           July                               81.13
                           August                             79.33
                           September                          90.21
                           October                            96.40
                           November                           78.15
                           December                          108.55

                           Total, 1970                       807.90
          *  From Reynolds Metals Company records.
                                  151-17
-------
                                  TABLE 76

                  SUMMARY OF DATA AND ESTIMATES CONCERNING
                 SALVAGE OPERATIONS OF GOODWILL INDUSTRIES,
                 INC. OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.  1967 to 1968*

Item
Collection
Number of residential pickup calls
Number of booth pickups
Total pickups
Booths on location
Bags collected from booth
Collection expenditures, total
Collection expenditures per pickup
Tons of material collected
Metal scrap
Waste paper
Rag textiles
Total salvage
Tons of other materials collected
and sold in stores (est.)
Total collected
Revenues
Metal scrap
Waste paper
Rag textiles
Total salvage revenues
Store sales (est.)
Donations and services (est.)
Total
1967

94,827
154,701
248,988
759
3,'174,816



2,500
144
3,061
5,705

3,130
8,835

$20,000
1,728
214,270
$235,998



1968

94,716
177,463
272,278
769
3,248,568



2,100
151
5,084
5,335

5.420
10,755

$8,400
2,718
231,300
$242,418



1969

98,358
177,226
275,584
807
3,234,635
$945,253+
$3.43

1,850
160
5,542
5,552

5,554
10,886

$11,100
3,200
283,360
$297,660
3,614,440
340,180
$4,252,280

          *  From Goodwill Industries, Inc., of Southern California and

Midwest Research Institute estimates.

          +  Extrapolated from 5 months of data.

                                151-18
-------
                                            TABLE  77

   ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OP MADISON NEWSPAPER RECOVERY PROGRAM, EAST SIDE,  JANUARY 1969 to 1970,
                                      IN DOLLARS PER  TON*
Month Year
January 1969
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December 1969
January 1970
February
March
April
May
June
July 1970
Total for period
(1)
Extra
collection
costs of credit
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
(2)
Special
handling and
transport costs
58.39
44.85
34.35
26.33
23.18
23.64
21.80
19.72
19.84
17.13
17.18
23.24
21.88
15.87
13.58
11.30
12.03
13.13
14.67
21.83
(3)
Disposal
cost saved
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
(4)
Price
paid to
Madison
14.00
14.00
12.00
9.00
7.00
7.00
9.00
9.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
7.90
(5)
Apparent
profit or
(loss) to city
(42.14)
(28.60)
(20.10)
(15.08)
(13.93)
(14.39)
(10.55)
( 8.47)
(10.59)
( 7.88)
( 7,93)
(13.99)
(12.63)
( 6.62)
( 4.33)
( 3.05)
( 3.78)
( 4.88)
( 6.42)
(11.68)
          *  From Sanitation Department, City of Madison; Midwest Research Institute.

          Notes:  Column (l) - Extra collection costs are not discernible for basket-

equipped trucks.  Column (2) - These are direct labor and truck costs and exclude

supervision, administrative overhead, and amortization-   Column (3) - These are direct

costs based on 1968 experience.  They include salary, fringe benefits, equipment operating

costs and amortization, and disposal site costs (roads,  fences, etc.).  Excluded are

administrative overhead, drainage, and land costs.


                                           151-19
-------
                                          TABLE 78

          MADISON NEWSPAPER RECOVERY PROGRAM, ANALYSIS OF EAST SIDE TONNAGE DATA,
                                 JANUARY 1969 to July 1970*
Month Year
January 1969
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December 1969
Total, 1969
January 1970
February
March
April
May
June
July 1970
Total, 7
months
Total for period
Newspaper
circulation -
tons
246.0
224.9
254.4
239.2
246.8
244.9
237.4
243.2
235.1
245.8
248.9
246.3
2,912.9
246.3
225.4
225.2
239.8
256.0
253.3
237.7

1,695.3$
4,608.0
Newspaper
recovery
by city - tons
65.92
64.78
69.04
85.81
88.65
83.60
79.19
67.21
71.85
81.19
66,56
70,78
894.58
59.65
6S.97
79.05
99.94
95.37
99.72
91.56

588.26
1,482.84
Total refuse
collected by
compactor
trucks - tons+
1,898
1,577
1,627
2,254
2,196
2,393
2,310
2,137
2,070
2,104
1,892
J.,934
24,392
1,812
1,537
1,809
2,414
2,436
2,493
2,241

14,742#
39,134
Newsprint
recovery
$ of news
26.8
28.8
27.1
35.9
35.9
34.1
33.7
27.6
30.6
33.0
26.7
28.7
30.7
24.2
27.9
31.0
41.7
37.3
42.4
38.5

34.7
32.2
Newsprint
recovery
$ of refuse
3.5
4.1
4.2
3.8
4.0
3.5
3.4
3.1
3.5
3.8
3.5
3.7
3.7
3.3
4.1
4.4
4.1
3.9
4.2
4.1

4.0
3.8
        •  *  From Madison Newspapers, Inc.; Sanitation Department, City of Madison;

Midwest Research Institute.

          +  Includes newspapers collected and sold by city.

          $  Apparent newspaper content of waste is 11.5 percent.
                                         151-20
-------
                                            TABLE 79

            MADISON NEWSPAPER RECOVERY PROGRAM,  ANALYSIS OF WEST SIDE TONNAGE DATA,
                                  APRIL 1970 - JULY 1970*
Month Year
April 1970
May
June
July 1970
Total, 4
months
Newspaper
circulation -
tons
285.3
304.7
282.2
287.4
1,159.6**
Newspaper
collected
by city - tons
138.86
125.23
129.78
112.58
506.45
Total refuse
collected by
compactor
trucks - tons#
2,400
2,427
2,555
2,058
9,400**
Newsprint
recovery
% of news
48.7
41,1
46.0
39.2
43.7
Newsprint
recovery
is of refuse
5.8
5.2
5.1
5.5
5.4
         *  Prom Madison Newspapers, Inc.; Sanitation Department, City of Madison; Midwest

Research Institute.

         +  West side collection program initiated along with local publicity.

         #  Includes newspapers collected and sold by city.

         ** Apparent newspaper content of waste is 12.3 percent.
                                            151-21
-------
                                            TABLE 80

            ECONOMIC ANALYSIS  OF MADISON NEWSPAPER RECOVER!  PROGRAM, WEST  SIDE,
                        APRIL 1970 -  JULY 1970,  IN DOLLARS  PER TON*
                      (1)                 (2)                          (4)          (5)
                     Extra             Special           (3)         Price      Apparent
                   collection        handling and     Disposal    paid to     profit  or
   Month   Year   costs  of credit    transport costs    cost  saved  Madison    (loss) to city
April 1970
May
June
July 1970
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
3.82
4.43
4.94
4.35
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
6.00
6.00
12.00
6.00
4.43
3.82
9.31
3.90
          *  From Sanitation Department, City of Madison; Midwest Research Institute.

          Notes:  Column (l) - Extra collection costs are not discernible for basket-

equipped trucks.  Column (2) - These are direct labor and truck costs and exclude super-

vision, administrative overhead, and amortization.  Column (3) - These are direct costs

based on 1968 experience.  They include salary, fringe benefits, equipment operating

costs and amortization, and disposal site costs (roads, fences, etc.).  Excluded are

administrative overhead, drainage, and land costs.  In addition, the refuse milling

operation on the West side costs nearly $6.50 per ton (milling and disposal) under

conditions existing at the time of this study, but have been excluded here as a credit.
                                           151-22
-------
                               TABLE 81

                 SUMMARY OF PROFIT AND LOSS  OF MADISON
         NEWSPAPER RECOVERY PROGRAM,  JANUARY 1969  TO JULY 1970*
Month Year
January 1969
February 1969
March 1969
April 1969
May 1969
June 1969
July 1969
August 1969
September 1969
October 1969
November 1969
December 1969
Total 1969
January 1970
February 1970
March 1970
April 1970
May 1970
June 1970
July 1970
Total, January -
July 1970
Total, April -
July 1970
Tons of
newspaper
sold by city
65.92
64.78
69.04
85.81
88.65
83.60
79.19
67.21
71.85
81.19
66.56
70. 78
894.58
59.65
62.97
79.05
238.80+
220.60
229.50
204.14

1,094.71

893.04
Profit or
(iqss) to
city $/ton
$(42.14)
(28.60)
(20.10)
(15.08)
(13.93)
(14.39)
(10.55)
( 8.47)
(10.59)
( 7.88)
( 7.93)
(13.99)
$(15.73)
$(12.63)
( 6.62)
( 4.33)
1.50
0.53
3.14
( 0.73)

$( 0.47)

$ 1.12
Total profit
or (loss)
to city $
$(2,777.87)
(1,852.71)
(1,387.70)
(1,294.01)
(1,234.89)
(1,203.00)
( 835.45)
( 569.27)
( 760.89)
( 639.78)
( 527.82)
( 990.21)
$(14.073.60)
$(753.38)
(416.86)
(342.29)
310.33
117.88
721.62
(148.76)

$(511.46)

$1,001.07
          *  From City of Madison Sanitation Department Records$   calculations

by Midwest Research Institute,  from Tables 77,  78,  79,  and 80.

           +  Program expanded to city-wide collection.

                                151-23
-------
                                          -TABLE 88

      MADISON NEWSPAPER RECOVERY PROGRAM, ANALYSIS OF TONNAGE DATA, TOTAL CITY,
                               APRIL TO JULY 1970*
Month Year
April 1970
May
June
July 1970
Total, 4
months
Newspaper
circulation -
tons
525.1
560.7
517.5
525.1
2,128.4
Newspaper
collected
by city - tons
238.80
220.60
229.50
204.14
893.04
Total refuse
collected by
compactor
trucks - tons
4,814
4,863
5,048
4,279
19,004
Newsprint
recovery
$ of news
45.5
39.3
44.3
38.9
42.0
Newsprint
recovery
% of refuse
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.8
4.7
          *  From Madison Newspapers, Inc.; Sanitation Department, City of Madison;

Midwest Research Institute.
                                         151-24
-------
                                  TABLE 83


    MOBILE COMPOST PLANT WASTE INPUTS, OUTPUTS, AND REVENUES FOR 1969*
                                          Inputs and              Revenues
         Category	outputs, tons
Total waste received
Paper separated and sold
Steel cans separated and sold
Compost produced
Residue waste landfilled
Total
9,600
163
674
5,593
3,170
9,600

1,140
4,042
31,813
— _
36,995
          *  Prom Mobile Compost Plant and Department of Budget and Revenue,

City of Mobile.
                                  151-25
-------
                                   TABLE 84

   BULK GRADE PAPER RECOVERED AND CONSUMED IN MOBILE> ALABAMA, 1969*
Materials and
sources
Newsprint dealers
Old corrugated dealers
Tons
collected
3,810
6,615
Tons
consumed
10,560
13,550
Apparent
imports (tons)
6,750
6,935
Mixed paper or grade unknown

     Dealers                 1,350

     Compost plant             160

     Direct sales "by public  2,100
       and peddlers

     Total mixed                  5,610         4,950           1,540

Total                            14,035        29,060          15,025


          *  From estimates or records of John Gault, H. A. Norden, and

Marine Junk (dealers); Stone Container Corporation, National Gypsum, and

Rubbermaid Corporation (consumers); and Mobile Municipal composting plant.
                                  151-26
-------
                        TABLE 85

        TYPES AND QUANTITIES OF MATERIALS REMOVED
          BY A RECLAMATION CONTRACTOR FROM THE
        FOUNTAIN AVENUE LANDFILL, NEW YORK CITY,
             JULY 1, 1968 TO JUNE 30, 1969*
Type of material	Quantity removed, in tons

Iron                                      793.6

"Tin"+                                  1,862.8

"Satinettes"+                             229.4

Rags                                      255.9

"Brass"+                                  229.2

        Total                           3,370.9
*  From records of Department of Sanitation, City of New York.

+  See explanatory comments in text.
                        151-27
-------
                                   TABLE 86

                  PRICES RECEIVED BY RECLAMATION CONTRACTOR
                   FOR SELECTED COMMODITIES AND ESTIMATED
                       ANNUAL INCOME FROM THEIR SALE*



Type of commodity
Iron and steel
Enamel- coated steel
Horse and cattle hair
Nonferrous metals
Textiles
Total
Estimated
quantity
sold, per
year, tons
793.6
1,862.8
229.4
229.2
255.9
3,370.9


Price, per
ton, $
23.00
8.00
32.50
290.00
60.00
30.29
Estimated
annual
income
realized, $
18,252.80
14,602.40
7,455.50
66,468.00
15,334.00
112,112.70
        * From records of Department of Sanitation,  City of New York,

Votta, Inc., and Midwest Research Institute estimates.
                                  151-28
-------
                                 TABLE 87

                  TYPE,  VALUE,  AND  ESTIMATED USEFUL LIFE  OF
                 EQJTJMENT OWNED BY RECLAMATION CONTRACTOR*

Type of equipment
Crane trucks (2)
Closed body truck
Crane
Shears (2)
Baler
Wire stripper
Front-end loaders (2)
Total
Value, $
6,000
5,000
17,000
7,100
6,000
1,300
8,300
50,700
Estimated
useful life,
years
5
5
10
10
15
10
15

Capital
recovery
factor at
8% interest
0.250
0.250
0.149
0.149
0.117
0.149
0.117

Annual
cost, $
150
125
2,533
1,058
702
194
971
5,733

          *  From Votta,  Inc.,  New York,  New York,  June  1970;  Midwest

Research Institute.
                                 151-29
-------
                                  TABLE 88

                ESTIMATED DAILY INCOME, EXPENSES, AND PROFIT
             OF A 400 TONS PER DAY WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY*
Category
Daily income
Disposal fees at !
Sales of 100 tons
$30/ton


$2.15/cubic yard+
of corrugated at
Total income
Per day

$4,000.00
3,000.00
$7,000.00
Per ton
of input

$10.00
7.50
$17 .50
Expenses

  Contribution to special research fund
    of a waste trade association,
    25 percent of fees                        $1,000.00          $ 2.50

  Operating expenses, including
amortization
Total expenses
Profit
4,000.00
$5,000.00
$2,000.00
10.00
$12.50
$ 5.00

          *  From Intergeneral Industries, Inc., Brooklyn, New York,

June 1970.

          +  Assumes 430 pounds per cubic yard.
                                 151-30
-------
                                  TABLE 89
                     RAG SALES OF THREE SOCIAL SERVICE
                        AGENCIES IN NEW YORK CITY*
Agency
Time period
Tons sold
Price received
   per
Volunteers of
America
Salvation Army
Goodwill Industries
Average year
10/1969; 9/1970+
Average year
520-720
777
1,200
$65
61
40-60
          *  From Volunteers of America, Queens, New York; Salvation Army,

New York, New York; Goodwill Industries, Inc., New York, New York.

          +  Extrapolated from 7-month data, October 1, 1969 to April 30,
1970.
                                  151-31
-------
                            TABLE 90
         SALES VALUE RECEIPTS BY VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA
FOR WASTE PAPER AND PRICES RECEIVED BY THE AGENCY FROM DEALERS*

Type of paper
IBM cards
White ledger
Colored ledger
Corrugated
Mixed paper
Newspapers
Sales value
per ton - $
$52.50
30.00
20.00
15.00
6.00
--
Price received
per ton - $
$69 .00
42.00
30.00
18.00
8.00
24.00







    *  Volunteers of America, Qieens, New York, 1970.
                           151-32
-------
                                  TABLE 91

                       GLASS GULLET SOLD BY HEW JERSEY
         DEALER IN 1966, 1967, 1968, AND 1969, IN TONS AND DOLLARS*

Tons sold in
jj^ype of glass sold
flint
Vindow glass
Green
Amber
Total
Jtollar sales in year
Average price per ton
1966
3,723
872
957
1,790
7,342
$127,397
$17.35
1967
2,134
5,185
1,060
3,283
11,662
$202,837
$17 .39
1968
1,605
3,444
1,046
2,386
8,481
$168,178
$19
1969
460
1,035
758
2,766
5,019
$101,699
.83 $20.26

          *  From records of New Jersey Gullet Supply Corporation, Jersey

feity, New Jersey.
                                  151-33
-------
                                 TABLE 92

                     REPRESENTATIVE PROCESSING COSTS  OF
                   A WIPING RAG MANUFACTURER IN NEW YORK*
Operation
Cost per pound
of cotton sold
    in j
Cost per ton
    in $	Comments
Sorting
Washing and drying

Trimming
Packaging/b aling
         Total cost
5

3
       120
                         60
                        100
                         60
                         20
   $240
               Includes grading

               Includes losses

               Includes losses
                 of trimmed
                 •material

               Includes packing
                 materials
          *  From Dean Wiping Cloth, Brooklyn, New York, 1970.
                                  151-31*
-------
                                                                                                      153
CHAPTER XII
                                MAIL  SURVEY   RESULTS
   As  part  of this  research,  and  in  fulfillment  of  a
contractual  requirement to develop a  "catalog"  of
municipal salvage activities, we conducted a mail survey
of communities with populations of 10,000 and above to
determine how many communities had officially spon-
sored salvage and recovery programs.
   A  total  of 1,950  questionnaires  were  mailed;194
responses were received from 944 communities in time to
be  tabulated,  or 48.4  percent.  The responding  com-
munities'  total population is  53.4  million  people —
approximately  27 percent of the total  United  States
population  and  roughly  40  percent  of  the  urban
population.
   Of the number of communities  responding, 890 (94.3
percent)  had no salvage program and 54 (5.7 percent)
did. On  a population basis, negative responses  were
turned in on behalf of 47.9 million people (89.7 percent)
and positive responses on  behalf of 5.5 million people
(10.3 percent) (Table 93).
   The case study cities (Chapter XI) covered by field
survey by MRI  gave additional information not detailed
by answers to the questionnaire. In the 10 case study cities
not answering the questionnaire, a  total population of
21.1  million people was covered, with waste collection
and disposal of 11.2 million tons and salvage recovery of
20,800  tons   from   municipal  waste.   Salvage  from
municipal waste  is carried out  currently in Chicago,
Illinois;  three   Connecticut  communities;  Mobile, Al-
abama; and New York,  New  York. (Atlanta, Georgia;
Houston,  Texas;  Louisville, Kentucky;   and  Madison,
Wisconsin, were surveyed in the field and also replied to
the questionnaire so  their responses are included in the
tabulated replies in this chapter.)
   Thus, in total, this  study covers the municipal salvage
practices of 956 communities, 74.5 million people, and 57
communities  with  some  type of  current  municipal
salvage,  representing   17.5 million  people  in  those
communities.
   Only 25 of the 54 cities responding positively to the
questionnaire gave sufficient information for analysis. In
these  cities,  waste  commodities equivalent  to  3.68
percent  of solid  waste disposed of were recovered,
chiefly by recovery of materials at  landfill sites. Total
identifiable tonnage recovered by the 25 cities that gave
detailed  information  was  59,500  tons  a year.  If we
assume that all 54 cities reporting positively recovered at
the same rate (on  a population basis) as the 25 cities that
gave  tonnage data, total recovery from all responding
communities was  121,200 tons yearly, or 4.5 pounds per
capita. This, extrapolated to a population of 200 million,
would indicate a total  recovery of commodities from
municipal waste sources of 450,000  tons a year, or  less
than I  percent of total materials recycled.

    Municipalities  with  Recovery  Programs
   Responses  by  the  54  communities  with  recovery
programs are displayed in  Tables 94 and 95. Table 94
shows the communities that  gave a sufficiently complete
response to permit comparative analysis (25 cities); Table
95 shows the remainder (29 cities). The discussion below
refers only to data given in Table 94.
   The 25 communities with programs and a reasonably
complete response to all key questions had a population
of 2.8  million. These communities collected 1.3 million tons
of waste (2.6 pounds per capita per day) and disposed of
1.6 million tons of waste in community operated facilities;
the excess of disposed tonnage over collected tonnage is
accounted for by  privately collected  wastes disposed of
in municipal facilities.
194 See Appendix C for a copy of the questionnaire used.
-------
 154
                                                                                     SALVAGE MARKETS
   All  told,  these  cities  recovered  59,525 tons  of
 commodities from waste, equivalent to 3.68 percent of
 disposal tonnage. Of the total, 36,225 tons were given by
 type  of  material recovered or product in the case  of
 compost. Proportions were:
                               Percent
                                48.75
                                28.13
                                 1.47
                                 1.88
                                 0.06
                                 0.03
Paper/board
Iron/steel
Other metals
Glass/ceramics
Plastic/rubber
Textiles
Organics, other
  materials for
  compost

       Total
   Six cities recovered materials by separate collection
only,  14  recovered  at  landfill  sites  only,  two  at
incinerators  only, one at a compost plant, one by both
separate collection and at an incinerator, and one  by
both separate collection and at a landfill site.
   Ten of the 25  cities carried out salvage by contract
with salvors; the remainder employed their own forces.
Payments to the city ranged from a low of 2$ per ton
salvaged to a high of  $9.83 per ton; the average was
84
-------
a
*-\




























u£]
1
*2*
o
B
CO
to w
O> P
Qr
1 8
59
§ CO
&5
s
CQ

PH




























X
CM 43
O co
H
•P 3
cr ft
0) O
0 ft
in
0) H
ft CO

O
43



fl
O
•H
43
CO
H
P




H H
«5
O
43




>
O
(3D

43
0)
o
43
•H
j^
3
rt
§
O
0








r- to o
03. C) O
00 H O
H






§05 t^-
CVJ O3
CO H t«-
•V * «\
H 05 O
O IO CO
O) Tjl IO

if " 1 18






to t^ o
5P "5 °*
O5 O
H







o -*| •*
§ S| S






|
M g
o S
PJ £jQ
O
>> h
fn ft
(D
^ ^^
O £i
O 0)

S o
o
a s

C"| JJJ
43 43

CO CO
-------
S
9
r-l           O

OJ   i  H  OJ      I  OJ   I    I  1O   I    I
                                                                                                            X         O      X
                                                                                                                       O
                                                                                                            *,  o to      o
                                                                                                            "  LO rH      O
                                                                                                                OJ CO      OJ
                                             wnOo   MOoiwwOwOOwOOOOOOwowO
                                                                                                        r-  r~-  t*- to  O  o  to •
                  OOOJOT(tO>HOOJOJCJOLOQr-1**1"*

                      dj                            W

                      o


                  OOr-iO&OOf-40OOOJOOOlOOOQOcoOOO
                  t^-tOtOOOOOJtC~""*'   ~  —  —  —   ..  ~   Jk  .-  -   -~_  —
                      *^.     O O  00      W
                      •^       «v   «v   •.
                      OJ      H (D  tO
                                                                              O
                                                                              irt
                                                                                         OJIOI^-     t^-tfCOH
                                         OOtOOOOOOO^OO^Ot-tOOOOt^OOOOO


                                             -H     OJLOlOrHcoK)mOJCOr-llOCO         UJLOtOH      rHtOtO
                  OOtOOOOOOO-^OO^Ot^tDOOOI^-OOOO

                  COOJOJOOCT>O4COOOOHOOHCT)tOcnOJlO-*lOlOO   I
                      rH      Tj)COOJr-i^iHlOOJODHtOCO          tOLrttOH     HOJ
                                                 lO
                                                        OOoi

                                             X
                                          O  ^
                                                         CU-H
                                                        HH
                                                         eOffl
                                                        WO
                                                                                                                    H .C   O  flj  «
                                                               154-2
                                                                                                                   s

                                                                                                                   g
                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                  •H
                                                                                                                                  bO
                                                                                                                                  P
                                                                                                                                  O
                                                                                                                                                                ,0

                                                                                                                                                             a   S
                                                                                             OJ  _  ft
                                                                                             fn  C  05
                                                                                             0)  O -H
                                                                                             H  -P  <0

                                                                                             •H  Q  -H

                                                                                              13         V
                                                                                                                                       >s CO  £n
                                                                                                                                  +3  £>     ft   •
                                                                                                                                   CO      ft     P



                                                                                                                                      •P  fi  W i-(
                                                                                                                                   W   CtJ  O  a  PH
                                                                                                                                   Qj  rH  -H
                                                                                                                                  4J   O  p  P p
                                                                                                                                   flj   ft CJ  W  W
                                                                                                                                   CJ   CO  flj  O  O
                                                                                                                                  .H   h  ^  ft  pn

                                                                                                                                  "S  "&  o  o  I
-------
0,00
0) (J QJ

to  H
I  (Q 0)

w w -P
•H O *H
  •H -P

  c "
   > i •
   (U 4>


   £ a,

     +5

CO (y   (0
      P
      xxxxxxx
        XXXXOX

              in
                            XXX
                      a
      O IO O  O


      CVI r^ O  Q
                                          x    x
                                                    XX
                                            O
                                            s
                                                  »
                                       *

                                       o
                                            OJP-
                                              cn
                                              01
                                                     ooo

                                                     888
                                *
                                to

       OOO  O  O  OOt*-HGO  OCVIOOO    O    OO    OOO
                  l§§£
                                               §

       aaaB8aisaiss588
                     vi *«
                     *^O
               iw&^oS-o
                                             a aa ass 58
                                                  (-
                                            C   C>,,-ISS
                                       X   BC   C>,
                                       O   QOMO-P
                                       -H   43-PC*>-r4
-------
                                                    TABLE 96





                                        CITIES WITH NO RECOVERY PROGRAM
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kans as
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Worth Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Unidentified
communities*
Total
Population
represented Communities with
by reply no present program .
584,478
75,000
932,500
330,265
6,811,263
737,504
554,400
39,135
1,355,459
359,500
65,000
1,690,553
149,460
1,639,528
1,056,977
856,968
198,270
1,210,450
164,759
1,981,183
1,283,183
1,557,157
1,308,953
65,000
1,801,822
46,200
740,695
238,112
179,500
905,255
374,247
1,223,273
855,709
191,090
4,335,188
441,257
985,400
1,401,943
202,900
386,700
137,506
463,251
2,895,316
61,000
76,000
683,259
822,664
133,500
981,930
90,900

2,240,106
47,901,668
8
2
7
10
62
8
12
2
?9
13
1
50
5
19
IS
21
9
10
5
9
31
27
32
4
27
3
11
2
5
31
7
38
19
6
54
15
6
30
2
8
6
8
65
4
3
11
19
5
29
2

§9
833
Communities
with programs in past
Yes
1
1
1
-
11
1
1
-
1
-
_
2
-
2
5
2
-
-
-
1
2
5
1
-
1
_
2
1
-
1
2
5
-
-
8
3
-
2
-
1
_
-
18
-
-
2
3
1
1
-

4
92
Ho
7
1
6
9
47
6
11
2
26
10
1
45
5
17
7
18
9
10
4
8
27
22
28
4
25
2
9
1
5
24
5
31
17
6
42
12
6
23
2
7
6
8
45
4
3
9
15
3
28
2

23
693
No response

-
-
1
4
1
-
-
2
-
_
3
-
-
3
1
-
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
1
I
-
-
-
6
_
2
2
-
4
_
-
5
-
-
„
-
2
-
-
_
1
1
-
-

_2
48
Communities
allowing scavenging
Yes
1
1
1
5
9
1
3
-
1
1
_
2
-
5
1
6
2
-
2
2
5
3
1
1
7
_
2
1
1
3
1
10
3
2
1
1
2
4
-
-
1
4
2
1
1
_
2
-
6
-

_3
111
No
5
1
6
4
46
7
9
2
22
9
1
43
S
14
12
14,
6
6
3
7
25
23
23
3
18
2
8
1
4
21
6
27
14
4
53
12
3
22
2
8
5
4
59
3
2
11
11
4
23
2

22
647
Ho response
2
-
-
1
7
_
-
-
6
-
_
5
-
-
2
1
1
4
-
-
1
1
8
-
2
1
1
-
-
7
.
1
2
-
-
2
1
4
-
•
.
-
4
-
-
-
6
1
-
-

_4
75
*  Community was not identified on the questionnaire or by envelope postmark.
-------
                                                                                                 155
APPENDIX A
          WASTE  COLLECTIONS,   COMPOSITIONS,  AND
             MATERIAL  CONSUMPTION  RELATIONSHIPS
   A national  survey conducted  by the  Solid Waste
Management  Office in  1967-1968 through state solid
waste  agencies  provided,  for  the  first  time, some
indication of the total solid waste collected by public and
private forces in  1968 on a national basis. These data
indicate a collection rate of 5.32 pounds per capita  per
day, which extrapolate to 193.7 million tons a year using
a population of 199.5 million people (Table 97).
   Tonnages of waste collected are difficult to reconcile
with data on waste compositions developed by various
observers (Table 98) and data on materials consumption
available from Bureau of the Census and other industrial
sources. The problem can be illustrated by a look at
paper.
   In 1968, the proportion of paper in municipal waste in
various cities ranged from 34.9 percent to 61.8 percent,
equivalent to  67.6 to 120.0 million tons, assuming that
total collections were 193.7 million tons. In the same year,
by our estimates, a minimum  of around 36.6 million tons
of paper and a maximum of  40.0 million tons went into
the waste stream. Even  if we assume that the paper
contained 30 percent moisture by weight, the resulting
tonnages (52.3 to 57.2  million  tons) fall below  the
calculated  ranges apparently collected  for paper in
waste.  Moreover,  other  quantities  of paper  are  not
collected because of self disposal, burning, and similar
occurrences.
   In an attempt  to reconcile these divergences,  we
analyzed composition data for other materials as well
and compared the apparent tonnage of these  materials
in total waste collected with tonnages consumed in those
applications that can reasonably be expected to occur in
routinely  collected  wastes  soon  after  consumption
(paper, packaging materials) or to appear in roughly the
same proportions as consumption (rubber goods, textiles,
metallics in appliances and implements). The  data  are
shown in Table 99.
   If waste collections are around 194 million tons yearly,
then composition analyses  appear to overstate  the
presence of paper and metals if the lowest percentages
in waste are used and to overstate the presence of all
materials except  plastics and  rubber  if the  highest
percentages are used. This discrepancy could arise from
the fact that  most composition analyses are  made of
packer truck loads delivered to incineration  pits from
residential or commercial sources; these would not be
representative  of  total municipal waste  composition.
Thus the methods  of orientation of most sampling tests
could  very well   obscure  the  true material content
because of the exclusion from the sampling of  industrial
and other types  of  waste not  commonly found  with
household waste loads.
   We extended the analysis further by asking: Suppose
that the paper percentages are correct but total tonnage
collected is significantly lower than the National Survey
shows; how then would material tonnages in waste line
up in relation to consumption? The results are also shown
in Table 99.
   We assumed that paper actually discarded in 1968,
36.6 million tons,  contained moisture at the 30 percent
level and  thus weighed  52.3 million tons at time of
discard. If  this  paper  was 34.9 percent of waste, total
-------
156
                              SALVAGE MARKETS
waste collected would be 149.9 million tons, equivalent to
4.10 pounds per capita, per day, a rate not unusual in
municipal collections.195  If paper is, 44.9  percent  of
waste, the total collected waste is 116.5 million tons.  •
   At the 149.9 million ton level, the presence of paper in
quantities equivalent to consumption (plus  moisture) can
be justified. At the same time, the quantity of metal, glass,
and  rubber in waste also looks mdre proportional  to
consumption  than  at the higher waste collection  level.
Plastics  in waste appear to be understated at both  the
low and high level, and so does the presence of textiles.
   Although conclusions on the basis of such data are
risky  at best, we are  inclined to believe  that  waste
collection  data are somewhat inflated and that actual
waste collection rates (as contrasted to generation rates)
ore probably closer to 4.0 pounds  per capita per day
than 5.3 pounds  per capita per day. Alternately, the
presence of moisture and "moisture  rich"  materials such
as garbage and yard wastes must be much higher than
th£ composition surveys indicate. In  either event the
presehce of manufactured materials is apparently not
quantitatively what the average waste composition tests
would  indicate if applied to total collected tonnage as
documented by the National Survey.
195 Most of the case study cities covered in this report in Chapter XI are in this range or somewhat lower according to
records of sanitation officials (see Chapter XI).
-------
                                 TABLE 97

                          SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
                    RATES, PER CAPITA AM) TOTAL, 1968
                                                     Million
                               Pounds                tons in
           Waste             per capita               1968,
          source	per day*	us+
        Household

        Commercial

        Combined

        All other

               Total
   *Black, R. J., A.  J.  Muhich,  A.  J.  Klee,  H.  L. Hickman, Jr., and
R. D. Vaughan.  The national  solid  wastes  survey; an  interim  report.
[Cincinnati], U.S.  Department of Health,  and Welfare,  [1968].  p.13.
   tExtrapolated by Midwest Research institute  using  a  population  figure
of 199.5 million for May 1968.
                                 156-1
-------
                                                              TABLE 98


                                                   COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL WASTES












Origin and
references Date
New York City£/ 1939

Chandler, Az.^/ 1953
Chicago, Ill.S/ 1957
1957
1958
1958
Oceanside, N.Y.^/ 1966
1966
Cincinnati, OhioS/ 1966
Wayne, H.J.S/ 1966
Passaic, N.J.S/ 1966
Clifton, N.J.£/ . 1966
Patterson, N.J.£/ 1966
Quad-City, N.J.-' 1966
Oceanaide, S.X.-/ 196?
Flint, Mich.-' 1967
Johnson City, Term.3./ 1967

Russell H. SusagS/ 1967

San Diego, Calif.-/ 1967
Flint, Mich. */ 1967
Berkeley, Calif.i/ 1967
Raleigh, N.C.£/ 1967
Santa Clara County,
Calif .y 1967
1967
Flint, Mich.^/ 1968
Weber County, Wan*/ 1968

Johnson City, Tenn.-/ 1968
New Orleans, L&.J 1968
Alexandria, Va.5/ 1968

Atlanta, Oa.£/ 1968
1968
New Orleans, La.-' 1969
John Belli/ 1959-62

Composition - Percent bv weight

OJ
bo
at
p
ta

in

to


1

17.0

21.8
3.2
2.3
1.5
0.8
9.6
10.2
28.0
22.5
21.4
26.8
20.2
21.0
16.7
29.1
21.1

25.7

0.8
24.0
25.1
31.8

2.1
45.9
36.0
6.5

34.6
18.9
7.5

12.3
17.5
11.0
12.0


CQ
0)
43
3

a

£ J

21.9

42.7 0.4
53.3
59.3
63.7
54.7
32.8 2
39.8 3
42.0 1.6
53.7 2.4
44.4 2.3
46.8 2.3
39,8 3.0
46.0 2
53.3 3
13.0 1
59.8 0.9

41.2 0.7


h

£
a

V

(8 W

3 *H
' 1
K IH



1.0 1.9




.4 3.0
.4 3.3
1.4
1.7
7.8
2.2
5.1
.0 4.0
• 5 2.2
• 9 0.3
0.6 1.3



46.1 0.3 4.7 3.5
57.0 1.0 1.0
44.6 1.9 0.3 1.1
38.9

36.2 1.5


1.1 1.3
28.6 0.4 3.6
0.3
4.2

2.3
9.2
9.5

1.6
2.8
9.8
12.0

21.1 2.6 0.8
61.8 2.5 2.0

34.9 3.4

2.4 2.0
39.4 1.5 2.6
55.3 3

58.6 3
53.2 2
44.9 3
42.0 0.7

.1 3.7

.0 1.8
.6 2.0
.5 3.2
0.9 0.6





in
V
1
t4
8

ta
CQ
ti
H
o

5.5

7.5
5.9
6.5
5.8
3.5
9.7
9.5
7.5
5.4
5.2
3.7
10.0
7.0
11.9
12.7
7.0

12.8

8.3
6.0
11.3
11.9

10.9
5.8
23.2
4.6

9.0
16.2
7.5

10.3
6.5
9.5
6.0











rt
(0
•p
*

6.8

9.8
9.3
5.2
8.1
6.2
8.0
8.2
8.7
7.0
8.7
7.0
12.9
8.0
10.6
14. b
7.5

2.7

7.7
6.0
8.7
9.2

7.4

14.5
8.4

10.4
12.2
8.2

8.6
8.8
8.1
8.0












tJ

2.6

2.3




1.2
6.6
2.7
1.7
3.6
3.2
3.4
3.0
1.5
1.0
0.3

12.8

7.5
2.0



4.2
0.8
2.2

0.8

1.7

0.4
3.2
3.1
2.4

•H
•a
* 3
o o
p ftj
§

3 8
ll V)
•° "jj

W "O
1s

43.0

11.3
8.6
23.0
20.9
0.4



6.2
8.6

7.0
8.0

0.6



3.0
7.1


0.5
11.5
0.7
5.9

O.S

3.4

3.4
3.4
6.9
15.4













Type of waste and
comments
Municipal - year's average
based on monthly sample
Residential only
Municipal - April
Municipal - November
Municipal - April
Municipal - June
Municipal - June
Municipal - June
Residential - October
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal - regional composite
Municipal - February
Residential - June
Residential and commercial -
October
One week's accumulation of a
family of six - June
Residential and commercial
Commercial - estimate
Residential and commercial
Domestic refuse

Residential
Supermarket wastes
Residential - January
Residential and commercial -
April
Municipal - July
Municipal
Residential and commercial -
May
Municipal - December
Municipal - December
Municipal - February
Composite based on several
city surveys
a/American Public Works Association.  Municipal  refuse disposal.  2d ed.
~ Chicago, Public Administration Service,  1966.  p. 47, <|8, 52.
b/Kaiser, E. R. Composition and combustion of  refuse.  In Proceedings; HECAR
"Symposium; Incineration of Solid Wastes, New York, Mar. 21,  1967. Metro-
politan Engineers Council on Air Resources,  1967.  p.  1-9.
c/ttuad-city solid wastes projects; an Interim  report, June 1,  1966 to May 31,
~ 1967.  Cincinnati, U.S. Department  of  Health,  Education, and Welfare,
  1968 [181 p.]
d/Bureau of Solid Wast* Management.  Unpublished data.
e/Susag, R. H.  Developing classifications for refuse.   Solid Wastes Manage-
~ ment/Refuse Removal Journal, 11(3); 20,  37.  Mar.  1968.
f/Gplueke, C. G., and P. H. McGauhey. Comprehensive studies of solid wastes
~ management; first annual reports.  Berkeley, Sanlt»ry_Engineerlng Research
  Laboratory, School of Public Health, University  of California,  1967. p. 3*.
g/City of New Orleans.  Unpublished data.  May  13,  1968.
R/Department of Public Works, City of Raleigh.  Evaluating alternatives  In
~ refuse disposal; progress report, Jan. 1, 1967-Dec.  31,  1968.   Unpublished
  data.
I/Systems analysis for solid waste disposal by incineration.   Prepared by
~ FMC Machinery/Systems Group, Engineering Systems Division, FMC  Corporation,
  for the City of San Jose and the County  of Santa Clara, Nov.  1,  1968.  167 p.
j/Bell, J. M. Characteristics of municipal refuse.  Presented  at  National
  Conference on Solid Waste Research, University of  Chicago Center for
  Continuing Education, Chicago, Dec. 2-4, 1963.  American Public Works
  Association, Special Report No. 29.  p.37.

                                                         156-2
-------
                                                     TABLE 99

                                  ANALYSIS OP WASTE COLLECTION, COMPOSITION, AND
                                                 CONSUMPTION DAXA
Reported
percent by
weight in
municipal
Material
Paper
Metals
Glass/Ceramics
Rubber
Plastics
Textiles
waste
34.9 -
8.1 -
6.5 -
0.3 -
0.3 -
1.8 -
44. 9S/
12 .2£/
16. 2S/
2.4^/
3.4*/
3.2-'
Millions of
tons in waste
class if total
collection is
193.7 million
tons
67.6
15.7
12.6
0.6
0.6
3.5
- 87.0
- 23.6
- 31.4
- 4.6
- 6.6
- 6.2
Quantity to be
expected In
municipal waste
based on
consumption,
In million
tons
37 - 4C£/
10 - 15^/
12 - 14S/
1 - 3^'
6- tfl
5 - s£/
Millions of tons
in waste class if total
collection is
149
.9
million tons
52.3 -
12.1 -
9.7 -
0.5 -
0.5 -
2.7 -
67.si/
18.3
24.3
3.6
5.1
4.8
:•
1(».S
million tons
40.7
9.4
7.6
0.3
0.3
2.1
- 52. Si/
- 14.2
- 18.9
- 2.8
- 4.0
- 3.7
           a/  Prom Table  98, using samples taken in Johnson City, Hew Orleans (two occasions)

and Atlanta (two occasions) in 1968.

           b/  Prom Table  98, using samples taken in Johnson City (two occasions), San Diego,

Berkeley,  and  Santa Clara County in 1967 and 1968; these data include residential and commercial

wastes only for low figures and municipal waste for high figures.

          £/  Data for 1968; includes tonnage going to waste (lower figure) and tonnage going

to waste plus a portion of tonnage diverted and delayed in discard (higher figure).  Total

consumption was 55.1 million tons for 1968 compared to an indicated minimum discard of 67.6

million tons, based on percentage in column 1, a relationship that indicates more is discarded

than is consumed.  Even allowing for 30 percent moisture content with adjustments for recycling

and "diverted use" application, the minimum figure for discard is too high.

          d/  Includes nonferrous metals used in packaging and steel consumed for packaging,

appliances,  and utensils (lower figure); higher figure is arbitrary; 1967 data.

          e/  Includes container glass and pressed/blown glass consumption (lower figure)

plus flat glass (higher figure);  1967 data.

          f/  Rubber consumption in 1969; lower figure excludes, higher Includes tires.

          g_/  Data for 1968; low figure includes all plastics  except that used in agriculture

transportation, and construction; higher figure includes total.

          h/  Data for 1968; low figure excludes,  high figure  includes industrial uses of

textiles.

          if  Including moisture at 30 percent by weight.


                                                156-3
-------
                                                                                                 157
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 APPENDIX B
A study of the secondary lead industry in the United States.
New York, National Association of Secondary Material
Industries, Inc., [1969].

Abrahams, J. H. Utilization of waste glass. In Proceedings;
Second Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium, Chicago, Mar. 18-19,
1970. U.S. Bureau of Mines, and Illinois Institute of
Technology Research Institute, p.363-368.
Abrahams, J. H., Jr. Wealth out of waste. Nation's Cities,
7(91:20-22, Sept. 1969.
Abrahams, J. H., Jr., and R. L. Cheney. The role of glass
containers in solid waste disposal. New York, Glass Container
Manufacturers Institute, Inc., Oct. 8, 1968. 8 p.
Adams, R. C. Recycling is the new watchword. Compost Science,
11 (3): 12-13, May-June 1970.
Altieri, A. M., R. C. Bradbury, C. R. Bragdon, J. L. Clouse,
et at. Deinking of waste paper. Tappi Monograph
Series No. 16. New York, Technical Association of
the Pulp and Paper Industry, 1956.
Aluminum Co. of America has unveiled its version of a
recycling aluminum can program. Chemical Week, 107(9):11,
Aug. 26, 1970.
Aluminum scraps find second life. Environmental Science &
Technology, 3(111:1157-1158, Nov. 1969.
API report shows low rate of capacity expansion for 1970-72.
Paper Trade Journal, 153(481:42-46, Dec. 1, 1969.
American Public Works Association Research Foundation. Resource
recovery from incineration residue, v. 1. Findings and
conclusions. American Public Works Association Special Report
No. 33. Chicago, Nov. 1969.
Anderson, E. V. Rubber. A $16 billion industry turns on
tires. Chemical & Engineering News, 47(29) :39-43, 45-46,
53...S3, July 14, 1969.
An experimental study of segregated rubbish collection using a
dual-compartment vehicle. Arcadia, Calif., Engineering-Science,
Inc., July 1960. [47 p.]
An improved method for separating copper and steel from
copper-containing ferrous scrap. Secondary Raw Materials,
6(7): 27-29, July 1968.
-------
..,.,.                                         Annual data 1969. Copper, brass, bronze; copper supply and
  8                                         consumption, 1949-1968. New York, Copper Development
                                            Association, Inc., 1969. 35 p.


                                            Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
                                            District of Alabama. George P. Schultz, Secretary of Labor,
                                            Appellant, and Instant Handling Inc., a corporation, and
                                            Joseph E. King, Appellees. Apr. 1969.


                                            Annual review. The U.S. Lead Industry-1968. New York,
                                            Lead Industries Association,  Inc. 19 p.


                                            Aronson, R. B. Cooking cash from old tires. Machine Design,
                                            42(141:46-47, June 11,1970.


                                            Ayres, R. U. An  incentive framework to facilitate solid waste
                                            management and control. Compost Science, 11 (2):4-7, Mar.-Apr.
                                            1970.


                                            Balint, A. Mineral beneficiation with optical separators.
                                            Presented at Society of Mining Engineers Fall Meeting, Rocky
                                            Mountain Minerals Conference, Las Vegas, Sept. 6-8, 1967. New York,
                                            American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum
                                            Engineers. 11 p.


                                            Ball, J. M., ed. Manual of reclaimed rubber. New York, Rubber
                                            Reclaimers Association, Inc., 1956.


                                            Bamberger, G. Polyethylene film scrap a problem? Modern
                                            Plastics, 37(8): 114-115,  186, Apr. 1960.


                                            Bender, R. J. Fly ash utilization makes slow progress. Power,
                                            111(5):116, 118, 120, May 1967.


                                            Benedetto, J. A., and R. A. Graham. Waste paper, its
                                            collection and usage. Paper Trade Journal, 135(20):276-278,
                                            Nov. 14, 1952.


                                            Bennett, K. W. Scrap sparks electric furnace charge. Iron
                                            Age, 200(25):36, Dec. 21,1967.
                                             Bergstrom, D. W. Economics of secondary fiber usage. Tappi,
                                             51(4):76A-77A, Apr. 1968.
                                             Bettendorf, H. J. The wastepaper industry. Chicago, Board
                                             Products Publishing Company, 1945. 28 p.
                                             Black, R. J., A. J. Muhich, A. J. Klee, H. L. Hickman, Jr.,
                                             and R. D. Vaughan. The national solid wastes survey; an interim
                                             report. [Cincinnati], U.S. Department of Health, Education,
                                             and Welfare, [19681. 53 p.
                                             Blackerby, L. H. Challenging times ahead: Hansberger. Pulp
                                             and Paper, 43(1):66-68, Jan. 1969.
-------
Blackerby, L. H. First deinked newsprint mill opens in west
with start of Garden State's second mill. Pulp and Paper,
41(14):24-29, Apr. 3, 1967.                                                                           159


Boettcher, R. A. Air classification for reclamation of solid
wastes. Compost Science, 11(61:22-29, Nov.-Dec. 1970.


Blown glass. Lubrication, 48(81:109-128, Sept. 1962.


Boggs, J. C. U.S. economy must shift to reprocess and reuse.
Solid Wastes Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 13(5):6,
74, May 1970.


Bolton, P. S. Four possible systems available for dispersion
of asphalt in waste paper. Paper Trade Journal, 144(37):50-51,
Sept. 12, 1960.


Bowers, J. S. Paper stock industry enjoys vigorous '68.
Paperboard Packaging, 54(81:58-67,  Aug. 1969.


Boyles, R. M., and D. J. Sullivan. Mechanical separation of
fiber in rubber reclaiming. Ruber World, 137(2):256-258,
Nov. 1957.


Brackett, C. E. Availability, quality and present utilization
of fly ash. Combustion, 38(11 ):39-45, May 1967.
Broughton, G. Widening the horizons of reused wool through a
long-term research program. Waste Trade Journal,
[47]:55, 57, [1951].
Brown, D. S. The use of secondary fibers in top liners of
folding boxboard. Paper Industry, 46(4):305-306, July  1964.
Burch, J. E., E. S. Lipinsky, and J. H. Litchfield. Technical
and economic factors in the utilization of waste products.
Food Technology, 17(101:54-60, Oct. 1963.
Bremser, L. W. Regional solid wastes management. Journal of
the Sanitary Engineering Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 93(SA5):45-49, Oct. 1967.
Brison, R. J., and O. F. Tangel. Development of a
thermoadhesive method for dry separation of minerals. Mining
Engineering, 12:913-917, Aug. 1960.
British composting firm gets research group backing. Compost
Science, 9(1):29-30, Spring 1968.
Brooks, S. The '70's beckon-will we enter them with a
half-hearted anti-pollution plan? Pulp and Paper, 44(1):96-98,
131, Jan. 1970.
Brown, C. Waste recovery pays-even in prosperity.
Engineering, 190:539, Oct. 27, 1960.
-------
160                                       Brown, S. Garbage as fuel. Engineering New-Record, 183(6) :6,
                                           Aug. 7, 1969.
                                           Brown, V. How much does composting cost per ton? Away from
                                           the "slop and ashes" of yesteryear. Compost Science,
                                           8(1):16-17, Spring-Summer 1967.
                                           Profits in antipollution measures. Building blocks from
                                           polluted air. Fortune, 72(3):223, 226, Sept. 1965.
                                           Bugher, R. D. Solid wastes research needs. American Public
                                           Works Association Special Report No. 24. Chicago,
                                           May 1962.

                                           Bureau attacks nation's solid waste. Environmental Science &
                                           Technology, 3(81:705-707, Aug.  1969.
                                           Burrows, H. Reclaimed materials in the seventies. Secondary
                                           Raw Materials, 7(11:61-62, Jan. 1969.
                                           Burrows, H, The next 30 years in secondary textiles. Secondary
                                           Raw Materials, 6(21:171-173, Feb. 1968.
                                           Bush, W. A. Converting garbage to feed, fertilizer and grease.
                                           Sewage Works Engineering, 18(51:248-251, May 1947.
                                           Business & Defense Services Administration. Iron & Steel scrap
                                           consumption problems. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
                                           Office, Mar. 1966. 52 p.
                                           Buyers' and sellers' guide. Secondary Raw Materials,
                                           7(41:40-41, Apr. 1969.
                                           Byrd, R. C. Fly ash: a waste product that can cut costs.
                                           Public Utilities Fortnightly, 78(61:15-18, Sept. 15, 1966.
                                           Byrd, J. F., and J. H. Walter. Joint municipal-industrial
                                           treatment of combined wastes. Chemical Engineering Progress,
                                           60(11:44-48, Jan. 1964.
                                           Bureau, W. H. Waste papers-our hidden forests. Graphic Arts
                                           Monthly, 37(3):96, 98, 100, Mar. 1965.
                                           California: housewives' revolt. Newsweek, 61(111:36, Mar. 18,
                                           1963.
                                           California task force completes its report. Solid Wastes
                                           Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 13(31:10, 44, 50, Mar. 1970.
                                           Callihan, C. D. How engineers are putting microbes to work.
                                           Chemical Engineering, 77(20)-.160-164, Sept. 21. 1970.
-------
Cammarota, V. A., Jr. Refining of ferrous metal reclaimed
from municipal incinerator residues. In Proceedings; Second                                          -  -
Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium, Chicago, Mar. 18-19, 1970.                                     '**'
U.S. Bureau of Mines, and Illinois Institute of Technology
Research Institute, p.347-355.


Capp, J. P. Fly ash utilization. Combustion, 37(8):36-40,
Feb. 1966.


Carpenter, E. L. Rubber in the 70's. Keen competition in tire
technology. Chemical & Engineering News, 48(18):31-32, 34,
36...B6, Apr. 27, 1970.


Carr, W. F. Value recovery from wood fiber refuse. In
Proceedings; Second Mineral Waste  Utilization Symposium,
Chicago, Mar. 18-19, 1970. U.S. Bureau of Mines, and Illinois
Institute of Technology Research Institute, p.263-270.


Cash in trash? Maybe. Forbes, 105(21:18-24, Jan. 15, 1970.


Chadwick, J. The use of reclaim under modern conditions.
Proceedings of the Institution of the Rubber Industry,
13(1):P15-P23, Feb.  1966.


Cheney, R. L. Statement. In Resource Recovery Act of 1969.
Part 5. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution of the Committee on Public Works, United States
Senate, 91st Cong., 2d sess., S. 2005, Mar. 4-5, 13, 31, 1970.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. p.2207-2222.


Claghorn,  A. U. The future of secondary fibers. American
Paper Industry, 51(1):30, Jan. 1969.


Claghorn,  A. U. The paperstock galaxy. Paperboard
Packaging, 47(81:110-111, Aug.  1962.


Claghorn,  A. U. What are the economics of secondary fiber
usage? American Paper Industry, 49(11):84,  86, Nov. 1967.


demons, N. L. Yesterday's newspaper finds a new use; it's
"laundered", made into today's paper. Wall Street Journal,
175(2):18, Jan. 5,  1970.


Cliff, E. P. Outlook for wood supply and demand in the United
States. Paper Trade Journal, 154(14):48-50, Apr. 6, 1970.


Closing plastics' cycle. Chemical  Engineering, 77(131:88-90,
June 15, 1970.


Cobb, G. B. The feasibility of salvaging materials from
municipal  refuse. M.S. Thesis, North Carolina State University
at Raleigh, 1969. 145 p.

Collins, C. Regional systems approach and market development
seen as key to waste recycling. Waste Age, 1(1) :20-22,
Apr. 1970.
-------
Combustion Engineering, Inc. Technical-economic study of
solid waste disposal needs and practices. 4 v. Public Health
Service Publication No. 1886. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1969. [705 p.]
Compost plant out. Houston Post, Mar. 17, 1970.
Conti, J. V. Scavengers scurry to recover the gold from
aluminum cans. Wall Street Journal, 174(26):1, Aug. 7, 1969.
Contractor serves Cincinnati. Refuse Removal Journal,
10(4):30-31, Apr. 1967.
Cservenyak, F. J., and C. B. Kenahan. Bureau of mines research
and accomplishments in utilization of solid wastes. U.S.
Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8460. Washington, U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1970. 29 p.
Cutler, H, The impact of the ICC's second iterim decision in
ex parte 259 on the iron and steel scrap processing industry.
Scrap Age, 25(1 2): 2, 39, Dec. 1968.
Chamberlain, L. B. Cylinder board: the new market climate.
Paperboard Packaging, 54(11):43-45, Nov.  1969.
Dale, E. L., Jr. The economics of pollution. The American
Way, 3(10):10-21, Oct. 1970.
Darnay, A., and W. E. Franklin. The role of packaging in
solid waste management, 1966 to 1976. Public Health
Service Publication No. 1855. Washington, U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1969. 205 p.
Day & Zimmermann, Engineers and Architects. Special studies
for incinerators; for the government of the District of
Columbia, Department of Sanitary Engineering. Public
Health Service Publication No. 1748. Cincinnati, U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1968. 80 p.
Driving on glass. Engineering News Record, 183(251:60,
Dec. 18,  1969.
Drobny, N. L., H. E. Hull, R. F. Testin, and G. F. Sachsel.
Recovery and utilization of municipal solid waste; a summary of
available cost and performance characteristics of unit processes
and systems. Public Health Service Publication No. 1908. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing C -f ice, 1970. 118 p.
Duffy, P. B. Packaging: its star will continue to shine;
plastic combinations will help. Pulp and Paper,
44(10):101-104,Sept. 1970.
Duffy, P. B. The paper industry looks at packaging in the
1970's. Pulp and Paper, 44(9):68-70, Aug. 1970.
-------
                                                                                                  163
Dlouhy, P. E., and D. A. Dahlstrom.  Food and fermentation waste
disposal. Chemical Engineering Progress, 65(11:52-57,
Jan. 1969.


Duncan, R. F. Economics of one-way glass beverage containers.
The Glass Industry, 50(5):254-256, May 1969.


Duszynski, E. [City of Madison: milling of refuse prior to
sanitary landfill.)  Presented at Sanitary Landfill Principles
[Seminar], Madison, Feb. 24-26, 1970. University of Wisconsin,
Engineerin; Extension Division. [15 p.]


Eastlund,  B. J., and W. C. Gough. The fusion torch-closing
the cycle from use to reuse. Washington, Division of Research,
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, May 15, 1969. 25 p.
(WASH-1132.)


Ehrich, T. L. Test puts new life into old beer cans; may cut
pollution. Wall Street Journal, 175(112):3, June 9, 1970.


Engdahl, R. B. Solid waste processing. A state-of-the-art
report on unit operations and processes. Public Health
Service Publication No. 1856. [Washington], U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1970. 72 p.


Environmental currents. Environmental Science & Technology,
4(10):801,Oct. 1970.


Erskine, W. Expanding use of secondary fibers. Scrap Age,
27(4):165-168, Apr. 1970.


Evans, J. C. W. An unusual waste paper cleaning and stock
preparation system. Paper Trade Journal,  150(31:42-43, Jan. 17,
1966.


Excerpts from the Twelfth TAPPI Deinking Conference,  St. Louis,
Oct. 11-13, 1967. New York, Paper Stock Institute of America.


Fair, G. M. The collection, treatment and utilization of
solid wastes: practice and research in the USA. Bulletin of the
World Health Organization, 20(41:717-724, 1959. (Notes.)


Farin, P., and G. G. Reibsamen. Aluminum profile of an
industry. New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1969. 172 p.


Felton, A. J. Pulp costs too high? Examine use of secondary
fibers. Pulp and Paper, 44(21:98, Feb. 1970.


Finkner, A. L. National study on the composition of roadside
litter. New York, Keep America Beautiful, Inc., 1969.
[150 p.]


First fragmentation plant in operation. Metallurgia,
76(4571:189-190, Nov. 1967.
-------
                                           Fly ash utilization makes slow progress. Power, 111(5): 116,
164                                       118, 120, May 1967.
                                           Franklin, W. E., and A. Darnay. The role of nonpackaging
                                           paper in solid waste management, 1966 to 1976. Public Health
                                           Service Publication No, 20art. Washington, U.S. Government
                                           Printing Office. 1971.
                                           Freedman, R. Economics factors affecting the scrap dealer.
                                           In Proceedings; Second Mineral Waste Utilization Synposium,
                                           Chicago, Mar. 18-19, 1970. U.S. Bureau of Mines, and Illinois
                                           Institute of Technology Research Institute, p.347-355.
                                           Fritton, W. J. Recent advances in reclaimed rubber. Rubber Age,
                                           94(2):282-285, Nov. 1963.
                                           Fussell, O. P. Selection and use of secondary fibers in
                                           cylinder board manufacturing. Paper Trade Journal,
                                           149(49): 78-81, Dec. 6, 1965.
                                           Fussell, O. P. What is the future for multi-ply board mills
                                           in the U.S.? Pulpand Paper, 44(3):78-81, Mar. 1970.
                                           Gantzhorn, E. Deinking: is it a delight or dilemma? Pulp
                                           and Paper, 41(4):18-21, Jan. 23, 1967.
                                           Gantzhorn, E. Economics, statistics, effluent control make the
                                           rounds in conference talks and papers. Pulp and Paper,
                                           41(431:23-24, Oct. 23, 1967.
                                           Glass. Chemical & Engineering News, 42(461:80-92, Nov. 16,
                                           1964.
                                           Glass containers 1970. New York, Glass Container Manufacturers
                                           Institute, Inc., May 1970. 64 p.
                                           Glass makers launch solid waste program. Environmental
                                           Science & Technology, 3(1):17-18, Jan. 1969.
                                           Goldstein, J. Garbage as you like it. Emmaus, Pa., Rodale
                                           Books, Inc., 1969. 243 p.
                                           Goldstein, J. Recycle paper and save the dump. Compost
                                           Science, 11(3):4-7, May-June 1970.
                                           Golueke, C. G., and P. H. McGauhey. Salvage. In Comprehensive
                                           studies of solid waste management; first annual report.
                                           Public Health Service Publication No. 2039. Washington, U.S.
                                           Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1970. p.105-117.
                                           Gorden, R. Paperstock review. Paperboard Packaging,
                                           55(8) :48-51, Aug. 1970.
-------
                                                                                              165
Gordon, R. L., G. H. Schenck, and W. A. Lambo. Preliminary
report; the collection of nonferrous scrap--a literature
review of the copper and aluminum sectors, 1968. University
Park, Pennsylvania State University. 74 p.
Gumpert, D. Efforts to save, reuse waste products slowed by
variety of problems. Wall Street Journal, 175(1221:1, 26,
June 23, 1970.
Gutenschwager, G. Intra-metropolitan industrial location:
the scrap industry in Chicago. Land Economics, 40(121:129-139,
May 1964.
Hair, D. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The prospective demand, supply, and price for timber
products. Presented at Rocky Mountain Forest Industries
Conference, Salt Lake City, Mar. 17, 1970.
Hair, D. Use of regression equations for projecting trends in
demand for paper and board. Forest Resource Report No. 18.
Washington, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Dec. 1967. 178 p.
Hale, R. W. The future of scrap iron in electric furnace
steelmaking. Secondary Raw Materials, 7(2):47-48, 50, Feb.
1969.
Harding, C. I. Recycling and utilization. Compost Science,
9(11:4-9, Spring 1968.
Harrison, W. D. The deinking picture in the fine paper field.
Paper Trade Journal, 146(261:26-27, June 25, 1962.
Hatfield, R. S. Statement. In Resource Recovery Act of 1969.
Part 5. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution of the Committee on Public Works, United States
Senate, 91st Cong., 2d sess., S. 2005, Mar. 4-5, 13, 31,  1970.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. p.2394-2396.
Heckroth, C. W. Pulpwoods' future is tremendous but problems
need more cooperative effort. Pulp and Paper, 43(131:141-144,
Dec. 1969.
Hersey, I. Fertility and waste: can we control the cycle?
Engineering Opportunities, 7(71:6-11, July 1969.
Hickman, H. L., Jr. Characteristics of municipal solid wastes.
Scrap Age, 26(21:305-307, Feb. 1969.
Houston forces compost plant shutdown. Refuse Removal Journal,
10(71:6, 36, July 1967.
How much will U.S. paper-grade chemical pulp grow by 1975?
Paper Trade Journal, 154(251:36-38, June 22, 1970.
-------
166
                                           Hutchins, J. R., Ill, and R. V. Harrington. The manufacture
                                           of glass. In Kirk-Othmer encyclopedia of chemical technology.
                                           2d rev. ed. v. 10. New York,  Interscience Publishers, 1966.
                                           p. 549-571.
                                           Hutchins, W. E. Secondary textile materials. Secondary Raw
                                           Materials, 6(41:128-132, Apr. 1968.
                                           ISA is on the vanguard of pollution control. Secondary Raw
                                           Materials, 7(8):72, 83, Aug. 1969.
                                           Incineration of Solid Wastes; Proceedings; MECAR [Metropolitan
                                           Engineer's Council on Air Resources], Symposium, New York,
                                           Mar. 21, 1967. Incinerator Committee, American Society of
                                           Mechanical Engineers Process Industries Division. 86 p.
                                           Industrial profile and cost factors in nonferrous scrap
                                           processing. New York, National Association of Secondary
                                           Material Industries, Inc., [1969].
                                           Industry arms for war on waste. Chemical Week, 102(4):79-80,
                                           Jan. 27, 1968.
                                           Ingram, W. T., and F. P. Francia. Quad-city solid wastes
                                           project; an interim report, June 1, 1966 to May 31, 1967.
                                           Cincinnati, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
                                           1968. [151 p.]
                                            Inserra, P., and M. R. Castagne. Garden State makes news.
                                            Pulp and Paper, 35(261:33-38, Dec. 25, 1961.
                                            Kurtin, H. Introspect and reappraise position of secondary
                                            textile industry. Secondary Raw Materials, 6(5):61-64, May
                                            1968.
                                           Josephson, H. R. Focus on pulpwood and other fiber resources.
                                           American Paper Industry, 51(11:19-21, Jan. 1969.
                                            Kaiser, E. R. Incineration of packaging wastes with minimal
                                            air pollution. In Proceedings; First National Conference on
                                            Packaging Wastes, San Francisco, Sept. 22-24, 1969. Clemson,
                                            S. C., Clemson University, p.181-190.
                                            Kaiser's can-do recycling program. Secondary Raw Materials,
                                            8(61:130-132, June 1970.
                                            Koplik, P. H. Outlook for expansion in the U.S. exports of
                                            secondary fibers. Paper Trade Journal, 154(10):37, Mar. 9,
                                            1970.
                                            Kearing, S. J., Jr. The politics of garbage. New York,
                                            3(151:29-32, Apr.  13,1970.
-------
                                                                                                167
Kenahan, C. B., P. M. Sullivan, J. A. Ruppert, and E. F.
Spano. Composition and characteristics of municipal
incinerator residues. U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of
Investigations No. 7204. [Washington], U.S. Department of
the Interior, Dec. 1968. 20 p.


Kessler, R.  Rag dealers plagued by a tattered image and
declining profits. Wall Street Journal, 174(24) :1, Aug. 5,
1969.


Kletter, H.  Recycling offers competitive advantage at ISA.
Waste Age,  1(1).'32-34, Apr. 1970.


Koller, T. The utilisation of waste products. London, Scott,
Greedwood & Son, 1902. 279 p.


Krever, E. The future of secondary fiber in Canada and the
United States. Paper Trade Journal, 154(221:54, June 1, 1970.


Laitin, H., R. H.  Dudley, and K. K. Hekimian. Some political
and economic implications of  industrial waste recovery; a
California study. Presented at  National Industrial Solid
Wastes Management Conference, Houston, Mar. 24-26, 1970.
Bureau of Solid Waste Management, and University of Houston.


Lassen, L. E., and D. Hair. Potential gains in wood supplies
through improved technology. Journal of Forestry,
68<7):404-407, 1970.

Laverick, B. No bulk buying of scrap. Secondary  Raw
Materials, 7(81:10-12, Aug. 1969.


Le Beau, D. S. Science and technology of reclaimed rubber.
Rubber Chemistry and Technology, 40(1):217-237, Feb. 1967.


Lepkowski, W. C. Environment. Chemical & Engineering News,
46(11):9A-17A,  Mar. 11, 1968.


Lilge, E. O. The conversion of city refuse  to useful
products. Compost Science, 11(41:20-24, July-Aug. 1970.


Lindsay, J.  V. Mayor of New York City joins in battle of
bottles. Solid Wastes Management/Refuse Removal Journal,
12(6):18, June 1969.


Lipkowitz,  I. A pioneer program in solid waste utilization.
Scrap Age,  26(101:55-58, Oct. 1969.


Lipsett, C. H. Industrial wastes and salvage. Conservation
and utilization. New York,  Atlas Publishing Co., Inc., 1963.
406 p.


Liquid and  solid waste collection treatment, disposal by the
city of Los  Angeles. Bureau of Sanitation, Department of
Public Works, City of Los Angeles. Undated.
-------
168
                                             Locke, E. A. Recycling of secondary fibres. Secondary Raw
                                             Materials, 8(3):80-84, Mar.  1970.
                                             Locke, E. A., Jr. Wanted: a unified strategy for
                                             environmental protection. Presented at Second Annual Meeting,
                                             American Forest Institute, Washington, Oct. 27, 1969. 11 p.
                                             Lonergan, R. P., and E. M. Herson. Solid waste--a natural
                                             resource? In Flack, J. E., and M. C. Shipley, eds. 9th Western
                                             resources conference book 1967; Man and the Quality of His
                                             Environment. Boulder, University of Colorado Press, 1968.
                                             p. 107-120.

                                             Low-temperature grinding reclaims vinyl scrap. Plastics
                                             Technology, 4(12): 1122-1123, Dec. 1958.
                                             Magness, W. R., and R. D. Burlingame. The implications of
                                             fragmentized ferrous scrap in electric furnace steelmaking.
                                             Journal of Metals, 17(5):558-560, May 1965.
                                             Malisch, W. R. Use of waste glass for urban paving. In
                                             Proceedings; Second Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium,
                                             Chicago, Mar. 18-19, 1970. U.S. Bureau of Mines, and Illinois
                                             Institute of Technology Research Institute, p.369-373.
                                             Marsh, P. G., E. T. Blakley, and D. E. Chupka. The Black
                                             Clawson Company. Processing of municipal refuse; a review
                                             and progress report. Unpublished data, Feb. 6, 1970.
                                             McDonald, P., Jr. The scrap metal industry: proper use of
                                             waste. American County Government, 34(2):18-21, Feb. 1969.
                                             McKela, J. Trends toward better waste paper utilization
                                             system. Paper Trade Journal, 146(401:40-43, Oct. 1, 1962.
                                             McLellan, R. Solid waste - a solid resource. Scrap Age,
                                             26(101:49, 51, 89, 105, Oct. 1969.
                                             Meikle, P. G. Fly ash and bottom ash. Mining Engineering,
                                             21(11:60-61, Jan. 1969.
                                             Meller, F. H. Conversion of organic solid wastes into yeast.
                                             An economic evaluation. Public Health Service Publication
                                             No. 1909. Washington, U.S. Department of Health,
                                             Education, and Welfare, 1969. 173 p.
                                             Mercer, W. A. Industrial solid wastes; the problem of the
                                             food industry. In Proceedings; National Conference on
                                             Solid Waste Research, Chicago, Dec. 1963. American Public Works
                                             Association Special Report No. 29, Feb. 1964. p.51.
                                             Meeting the challenge of package disposability. Where the
                                             action is now. Package Engineering, 15(61:57-63, June 1970.
-------
Mill trials show chemical compound effective dispersant for
asphalt. Paper Trade Journal, 144(31:45-46, Jan. 18, 1960.
Miller, W. H. Use of secondary fibers. Tappi
49(5):117A-120A, May 1966.
Mohrer, H. Z. New concepts in paper stock utilization.
Secondary Raw Materials, 6(11:56-60, Jan. 1968.
Mohrer, H. Z. Utilization of secondary materials in
paperboard mills. Tappi 550(9):109A-114A, Sept. 1967.
Monninger, F. M. Precipitation of copper on iron. Mining
Congress Journal, 49(10):48-51, Oct. 1963.
National Academy of Engineering-National Academy of Sciences.
Policies for solid waste management. Public Health Service
Publication No. 2018. [Washington], U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1970. 64 p.
Naturman, L. L. Extrusion coating and polyethylene recovery.
SPE [Society of Plastics Engineers]  Journal, 19(31:250-254,
Mar. 1963.
Neat, H. R. Scrap has a bundle of problems. Iron Age,
197(25):73-78, June 23, 1966.
Nelson, A. Z. Problems, potential of the paper stock
industry. Secondary Raw Materials, 6( 11): 56, 57, 59, 62,
Nov. 1967.
Ness, H. New technology and economic factors in the secondary
materials industries. In Proceedings; Second Mineral Waste
Utilization Symposium, Chicago, Mar. 18-19, 1970. U.S.
Bureau of Mines, and Illinois Institute of Technology
Research Institute, p.107-112.
New bottles from old? Chemical Week, 107(31:30, July 15,
1970.
New paper stock system at Liberty Industries. Scrap Age,
26(121:79, Dec. 1969.
Newsprint statistics, 1969. American Newspaper Publishers
Association, 27(61:11-22, Mar. 5, 1970.
New uses for organic solid wastes. Compost Science,
7(31:7-12, Winter 1967.
Nicholson, G. B. Consider the future of the cylinder
machine...can it survive the next 10 years? Pulp and Paper,
43(11:90-91, Jan. 1969.
1968 review, 1969 preview. Rubber Age, 101(1>:43-58, Jan.
1969.
                                                                                              169
-------
170
                                            1969 review, 1970 preview. Rubber Age, 102(1):47-61, Jan.
                                            1970.
                                            Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel. 1969 yearbook. 30th ed.
                                            Washington, 1969. 129 p.
                                           The third forest. 1969 pulpwood annual. Pulp and Paper,
                                           43(41:87-142, Apr. 1969.
                                            Noble, P., ed. Marketing guide to the paper and pulp
                                            industry. Fairfield, N. J., Charles H. Kline and
                                            Company, Inc., 1968. 148 p.
                                            Nuttall, E. P. Market trends. Paperboard Packaging,
                                            55(3): 17-18, Mar. 1970.
                                            Obrzut, J. J. Will steel buy scrap's new look? Iron Age,
                                            199(2):57-65, Jan 12, 1967.
                                            Olds, J. Houston compost plant-second year report.
                                            Compost Science, 9(1): 18-19, Spring 1968.
                                            One system treats sewage, solid wastes. Chemical &
                                            Engineering News, 48<12):44-45, Mar. 23,1970.
                                            Outlook for paper stock consumption-1970. St. Louis
                                            National Committee for Paper Stock Conservation, 1970.
                                            P.7.
                                            Paper industry current economic review and commodity trends.
                                            Paper Trade Journal, 153(481:48-50, Dec. 1, 1969.
                                            Paper stock standards and practices. New York, Paper Stock
                                            Institute of America, National Association of Secondary
                                            Material Industries, Jan. 1969. 7 p. (Circular PS-70.)
                                            Personal communication. M. R. Rosing, the Sesler Company, to
                                            C. L. Blanchand, J. S. Gibson, and T. D. S. Shepard,
                                            Public Works Committee of the Council, Los Angeles, California,
                                            Aug. 22, 1961.
                                            Personal communication. O. H. M. Wilder, National Renderers
                                            Association, Inc., to A. J. Darnay. Midwest Research Institute,
                                            Nov. 1969.
                                            Personal communication. R. F. Testin, Reynolds Metals
                                            Company, to A. J. Dornay, Midwest Research Institute, Dec. 22,
                                            1969.
                                            Peter Dixon's new denking plant has proven successful. Paper
                                            Trade Journal, 153(44): 52-54, Nov. 3, 1969.
-------
Peters, E., and F. Loewen. Pressure leaching of copper                                               171
minerals in perchloric acid solutions. Presented at Annual
Meeting of the Metallurgical Society of the American
Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers,
New York, Feb. 25-29, 1968. 23 p. (TMS Paper No. 68-33.)


Pettigrew, R. J., and F. Roninger. Rubber reuse and solid waste
management. [Public Health Service Publication No. 2124.] Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office.

Pikarsky, M. Chicago looks to refuse grinding. Public Works,
101(9):82-83, Sept.  1970.


Plant, A. Nickel steel and stainless steel scrap. Scrap
Age, 25(10):69-70, Oct. 1968.


Plastic packages and the environment. Cleveland, B. F.
Goodrich Chemical Company. 6 p.


Plastic refuse bags ready for take-off. Chemical &
Engineering News, 47(481:20-21, Nov. 17, 1969.


Plastic wastes yield to pyrolysis.  Environmental Science &
Technology, 4(6):473, June 1970.


Plastics' challenge in  packaging: disposability. Modern
Plastics, 47(31:50-54, Mar. 1970.


Plastics that disintegrate after being discarded may be a big
step closer. Chemical Engineering, 77(17):52, Aug. 10, 1970.


Pollution and the profit motive. Business Week, Whole No.
2119:82, 86, Apr. 11, 1970.


PVC plastic and the environment. Cleveland, B.  F. Goodrich
Chemical Company. 8 p.


PVC recovered from fabric scrap. Modern Plastics,
47(51:132, May 1970.


Post, H. A. The projected growth of paper stock. Scrap Age,
26(101:60-62, Oct. 1969.


Potts, J. E. Continuous pyrolysis of plastic wastes.
Industrial Water Engineering, 7(8):32-35, Aug. 1970.


Prasky, C. New developments in use of ferrous scrap. In
Proceedings; Second Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium,
Chicago, Mar. 18-19, 1970. U.S. Bureau of Mines,  and
Illinois Institute of Technology Research  Institute, p.59-66.


Proceedings; National Conference on Solid Waste Research,
Chicago, Dec. 1963. American Public Works Association,
Special Report No. 29, Feb. 1964. 228 p.
-------
172
                                             Proceedings; 1964 National Incinerator Conference, New York,
                                             May 18-20,1964. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
                                             180 p.

                                             Process may put scrap back in steel  mills. Science News
                                             Letter, 88(6):105, Aug. 14,1965.


                                             Process recovers fiber from plastic-coated secondary materials.
                                             Pulp and Paper, 44(11):131, Oct. 1970.


                                             Promotes collection of discarded aluminum containers.
                                             American City, 85(5):27, May 1970.


                                             Prugh, P. H. Thinking small. More steel users cut costs  by
                                             purchasing from tiny new mills. Wall Street Journal,
                                             176(83) ;1, 19, Oct. 26, 1970.


                                             Proper materials handling techniques for nonferrous scrap.
                                             New York, National Association of  Secondary Material
                                             Industries, Inc., [1962].


                                             Randies, L. C. The field of refuse salvage. Compost Science,
                                             4(2):5-10, Summer 1963.


                                             Raus, J. E., and H. J. Fralish. How one major molder handles
                                             scrap and regrind. Plastics Technology, 12(11 ):51-53,
                                             Nov. 1966.


                                             Reclafmed f ibers--50/50 board compares favorably with virgin
                                             kraft. Paperboard Packaging, 54(8):23, Aug. 1969.


                                             Reclaiming solid wastes for profit. Environmental  Science &
                                             Technology, 4(9)-.729-730, Sept. 1970.


                                             Recycling can head off pulp crisis. Paperboard Packaging,
                                             55(1):30-33, Jan. 1970.


                                             Recycling waste paper helps solve a  problem. Public Works,
                                             100(12):67-68, Dec. 1969.


                                             Reeves, O. T. The future of secondary fibers in paper mills.
                                             American Paper Industry, 52(5):62-63, May 1970.


                                             Refuse can yield profits, waste technologists say. Chemical
                                             & Engineering News, 48(15):38-39, Apr.  6, 1970.


                                             Regan, R. W., and J. S. Jeris. A review of the decomposition
                                             of cellulose and refuse. Compost Science, 11(1):17-20,
                                             Jan.-Feb. 1970.
                                             Reinhardt, J. J. City of Madison public works department
                                             takes active lead in finding solution to solid waste problems.
                                             Waste Age, 1 (5):20-24, 37, 40, Sept.-Oct. 1970.
-------
                                                                                                173
Renshaw, B. B. Outlook for secondary fibers in paper
industry. Secondary Raw Materials, 8(6): 157-159, June 1970.
Reprocessing is a science. Plastics World, 26(4):36-39,
Apr. 1968.
Reynolds, D. P. Recycling of aluminum: one answer to litter
and conservation challenges. Reynolds Review, p.8-9,
Nov.-Dec. 1968.
Reynolds Metals Company. Unpublished data, 1970.
Ritchie, J. L. Focus on pulpwood and other fiber resources.
American Paper Industry, 51(1):22, 24, Jan. 1969.
Rogus, C. A. Refuse collection and disposal in Western
Europe. Part III. Salvaging, landfillingand composting.
Public Works, 93(61:139-143, June 1962.
Rosato, D. V., W. K. Fallon, and D. V. Rosato. Markets for
plastics. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1969.
468 p.
Rose, S. The economics of environmental quality. Fortune,
81(21:120-123, 184-186, Feb. 1970.
Ruff, L. E. The economic sense of pollution. Public
Interest, Whole No. 19:69-85, Spring 1970.
Russell, W. M. Study of baling equipment and systems employed
in retail sales. File No. 11. Prepared for the Boxboard Research
& Development Association, Mar. 1, 1970. 32 p.
Sales from scraps. Chemical Week, 95(20) :94, Nov. 14, 1964.
Salvaging profit from waste. Chemical Week, 101 (12):109,
Sept. 16, 1967.
Schirmer, W. F. Paperstock industry regaining its vigor.
Paperboard Packaging, 53(101:49, Oct. 1968.
Scheiner, L. L. How to handle scrap and regrind. Plastics
Technology, 11 (8):37-47, Aug. 1965.
Scholes, S. R. Modern glass practice. Chicago, Industrial
Publications, Inc., 1941. 289 p.
Schroering, J. B. A method of reclamation and processing of
solid wastes. In Proceedings; Second Mineral Waste
Utilization Symposium, Chicago, Mar. 18-19, 1970. U.S.
Bureau of Mines, and Illinois  Institute of Technology
Research Institute, p.283-298.
-------
174
                                            Scrap comes of age. Business Week, Whole No. 1703:72-74,
                                            Apr. 21, 1962.
                                            Secondary fibers-many facets of processing and usage
                                            explored. Pulp and Paper, 43(131:109-112, Dec. 1969.
                                            Sharring, F. Outlook '68. Paperstock & policy. Paperboard
                                            Packaging, 53(1 ):17-20, Jan. 1968.
                                            Sheffer, H. W., and L. G. Evans. Copper leaching practices
                                            in the western United States. U.S. Bureau of Mines
                                            Information Circular 8341.  [Washington], U.S. Department of
                                            the Interior, [1968]. 57 p.
                                            Sherman, J. V. Sophisticated scrap; the metal reclaiming
                                            business has come a long way from the junkyard. Barron's,
                                            47(49):3, 10, 12, Dec. 4, 1967.
                                            Shilling, H. Paperstock section. 1. Confusing,
                                            satisfactory.... Paperboard Packaging, 52(8):47-55, Aug. 1967.
                                            Shredders are reshaping the scrap industry. Steel,
                                            159(241:60, 63, 65, 67-68, 73, Dec. 12, 1966.
                                            Shreve, R. N. Chemical process industries. 3d ed. chap. 11.
                                            Glass industries. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967.
                                            (McGraw-Hill Chemical Engineering Series), p.190-210.
                                            Silver, J. More bundles in steelmaking. Scrap Age,
                                            27(21:69-76, 156-163, 196, Feb. 1970.
                                            Simplified process recovers plastic-coated broke in
                                            conventional equipment. Paper Trade Journal, 147(431:32-33,
                                            Oct. 28, 1963.
                                            Simpson, H. E. The glass industry 1968. Part one. Glass
                                            Industry, 50(31:131-135, 151, Mar. 1969.
                                            Singer, W. A. Smelting industry leader predicts bright
                                            outlook for secondary aluminum. Modern Metals, 19(121:54-55,
                                            Jan. 1964.
                                            Slattery, R. Incinerator, Inc. serves Chicago's West Side.
                                            Waste Age, 1(21:10-11, 28-30, May 1970.
                                            Soentgen, E. J. The changing world of aluminum. Scrap Age,
                                            25(41:59, 100-105, Apr. 1968.
                                            Solid waste management. A comprehensive assessment of solid
                                            waste problems, practices, and needs. Washington, U.S.
                                            Government Printing Office, 1969. 111 p.
-------
Solid waste separator. Secondary Raw Materials, 7(12):36,
Dec. 1969.
Solid wastes pile up while laws crack down and engineers gear
up. Engineering News-Record, 182(24).-28-32, June 12, 1969.
Spendlove, M. J. A profile of the nonferrous secondary
metals industry. In Proceedings; Second Mineral Waste
Utilization Symposium, Chicago, Mar. 18-19, 1970. U.S.
Bureau of Mines, and Illinois Institute of Technology Research
Institute, p.87-106.
Spendlove, M. J., P. M. Sullivan, and M. H. Stanczyk. Solid
waste research. College Park, Md., U.S. Bureau of Mines,
College Park Metallurgy Research Center, 1970. 17 p.
Spooner, C. S. Solid waste management in recreational
forest areas.  [Public Health Service Publication
No. 1991.1 Washington, U. S. Government Printing
Office, 1971. 96 p.
Spotlight on scrap. British Plastics, 35(101:504-509, Oct.
1962.
Stafford, W. E., and B. H. Armstead. Present day manufacture
of reclaim. Proceedings of the Institution of the Rubber
Industry, 12(5):P208-P218, Oct. 1965.
Stanczyk, M. H., and J. A. Ruppert. Continuous physical
beneficiation of metals and minerals contained in municipal
incinerator residues. In Proceedings; Second Mineral Waste
Utilization Symposium, Chicago, Mar. 18-19, 1970. U.S. Bureau
of Mines, and Illinois Institute of Technology Research
Institute, p.255-263.
Standard classification for nonferrous scrap metals. New
York, National Association of Secondary Materials Industries,
Inc., 1966.
Staudinger, J. J. P. Disposal of plastics waste and litter.
S.C.I. Monograph No. 35. London, Society of Chemical Industry, 1970.
Stelzer, W. R., Jr. Don't throw it away, sell it!
Purchasing Magazine, 62(121:94-96, June 15, 1967.
Stinson, G. A. Statement. In Resource Recovery Act of 1969.
Part 5. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution of the Committee on Public Works, United States
Senate, 91st Cong., 2d sess., S. 2005, Mar. 4-5, 13, 31,
1970. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.
p.2396-2406.
Stone, J. K. Increasing scrap usage by the L-D process-theory,
practice and prospects. Iron and Steel Engineer, 40(61:67-78,
June 1963.
-------
17fi
                                            Story, W. S. ISIS presents scrap trade problems. Waste
                                            Trade Journal, 65(35):5, Aug. 30, 1969.


                                            Stovroff, H. Renewed interest in secondary fiber. Scrap
                                            Age, 27(41:161-164, Apr. 1970.


                                            Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. Summary of refuse salvage and
                                            reclamation study and research program on residential refuse
                                            collected by the city of Los Angeles. Unpublished data, Apr. 1963.


                                            Systems analysis for solid waste disposal by incineration.
                                            Prepared by FMC Machinery/Systems Group, Engineering Systems
                                            Division, FMC Co/poration, for the City of San Jose and the
                                            County of Santa Clara, Nov. 1, 1968. 167 p.
                                            Tarquin, A. J., and R. Zaltzman. Influence of waste paper on
                                            aerobic sludge digestion. Public Works, 101 (3):80-82, Mar.
                                            T970.
                                            Testin, R. F. Recycling of used aluminum products. In Reuse
                                            and Recycle of Wastes; Proceedings; Third Annual North
                                            Eastern Regional Antipollution Conference, University of
                                            Rhode Island, Kingston, July 21-23, 1970. Stamford,
                                            Technomic Publishing Company, 1971. p.12-27.
                                            Testin, R. F., and N. L. Drobny. Processing or recovery of
                                            municipal solid waste. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering
                                            Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
                                            Engineers, 96(SA3):699-714, June 1970.
                                            Textile fiber end use survey. Textile Organon, 41(1): 1-23,
                                            Jan. 1970.
                                            The dictionary of paper. 3d ed. New York, American Paper and
                                            -Pulp Association, 1965. 500 p.
                                            The Institute looks at out industry's environmental problems.
                                            Paper Trade Journal, 154(221:44-45, June 1, 1970.
                                            The making of steel. New York, American Iron and Steel
                                            Institute, 1964. 128 p.
                                            The markets: 1969. Modern Plastics, 47(11:81-96, Jan. 1970.
                                            The materials: 1969. Modern Plastics, 47(1 ):64-68, Jan.
                                            1970.
                                            The nonferrous scrap metal industry. New York, National
                                            Association of Secondary Material Industries, Inc., [1967] .
                                            [134 p.]
                                            The outlook: 1970-80. Modern Plastics, 47(1 ):97-102, Jan.
                                            1970.
-------
                                                                                              177
The plastics industry and solid waste management. New York,
Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., 1970. 11 p.
The plastic industry in 1968. Modern Plastics Pamphlet, Jan.
1969. New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc.
There's a future for scrap. Steel, 165(221:29-33, Dec. 1,
1969.
The return of the returnables? Newsweek, 76(121:70-71,
Sept. 21, 1970.
The scrap industry. Plastics, 34(381 ):867-868, July-Aug.
1969.
The statistics: 1969. Modern Plastics, 47(11:69-80, Jan.
1970.
They find gold in aluminum scrap. Chemical Week,
101 (61:83-84, Aug. 5, 1967.
The trade-offs for a better environment. Business Week,
Whole No. 2119:63,66, 71 -74, 78, Apr. 11,1970.
Three contractor owned and operated incinerators service
metropolitan Chicago. Solid Wastes Management/Refuse Removal
Journal, 11 (5): 12,16, 26, 70, 77, 78, May 1968.

Tires: disposal problem solved. Chemical & Engineering News,
48(24):12,June8, 1970.
Tuchman, S. G. The economics of the waste paper industry.
Ph.D. Thesis, New York University, June 1963. 327 p.
Tyrrell, M. E.,and I. L. Fe.ld. Structural products made
from high-silica fractions of municipal incinerator residues.
In Proceedings; Second Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium,
Chicago, Mar. 18-19,1970. U.S. Bureau of Mines, and Illinois
Institute of Technology Research Institute, p.355-362.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1967 Census of manufacturers.
Industry series. Animal and marine fats and oils. Preliminary
report MC67(p)-20H-4. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Dec. 1969. 5 p.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Pocket data book. U.S.A. 1969.
Table 304.  Lumber. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1969. p.233.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Solid Waste Management
Office. Proceedings; First National Conference on Packaging
Wastes, San Francisco, Sept. 22-24, 1969. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. 242 p.
-------
                                            U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Uses for slabs, edgings,
178                                        and trims. U.S. Forest Service Research Note No. FUP-038.
                                            Madison, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1964. [12] p.


                                            U.S. Public Land Law Review Commission. One third of the
                                            nation's land. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
                                            June 1970. 342 p.


                                            Utilization: wood wastes find new uses. American Forests,
                                            72(6):38-40, June 1966.

                                            Van Derveer, P. D. First modern mill designed for news from
                                            waste papers. Paper Trade Journal, 145(521:22-26, Dec. 25,
                                            1961.

                                            Waste control in finishing saves $50,000 a year. Textile
                                            World, 114(41:50-52, Apr. 1964.
                                            Waste makes strength. Engineering News-Record, 184(11):18,
                                            Mar. 12, 1970.
                                            Waste recovery: milk bottles to tiles. Chemical &
                                            Engineering News, 48(35): 11, Aug. 24, 1970.
                                            Ways, M. How to think about the environment. Fortune,
                                            81 (21:98-101, Feb. 1970.
                                            What are the basic realities of recycling? Solid Wastes
                                            Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 13(61:20, 59, June 1970.
                                            Wheelock, F. H. Why isn't more waste paper used in
                                            paperboard manufacture? Paper Trade Journal, 147(461:40-41,
                                            Nov. 18, T963.
                                            Will industry sell recycling? Modern Packaging, 43(91:46-49,
                                            Sept. 1970.
                                             Williams, L. E. The changing role of the paper stock
                                             industry. Secondary Raw Materials, 5(111:48, 50-54, 62,
                                             Nov. 1967.
                                             Williams, W, C. CCA makes corrugating medium at 1,100 ft/min
                                             from 100% waste paper. Pulp and Paper, 44(121:112-116, Nov.
                                             1970.
                                             Williams, W. C-. Use it/reuse it! Political, economic
                                             pressures brighten future for waste. Pulp and Paper,
                                             44(10) :61-65, Sept. 1970.
                                             Wilson, A. W. Industry environmentalists and top execs
                                             differ on recycling solid wastes. Pulp and Paper,
                                             44(10):69-73,Sept. 1970.
                                             Wolf, R. Old tires don't fade away. Rubber Age,
                                             100(2):68-73, Feb. 1968.
-------
Wolf, R. F. Reclaiming of glass cord tires. Rubber Age,
101(31:55-59, Mar. 1969.
Wolfson, D. E., J. A. Beckman, J. G. Walters, and D. J.
Bennett. Destructive distillation of scrap tires. U.S.
Bureau of Mines  Report of Investigations No. 7302.
[Washington] , U.S. Department of the Interior, Sept. 1969.
19 p.
Zacary, R. M. New Nadustco system at Buffalo Paper Stock.
Scrap Age, 26(121:81-83, Dec. 1969.
Zivnuska, J. A. The role of technology in changing wood
resources. Tappi, 52(61:1 1 15-1 117, June I969.
-------
MAIL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE




        APPENDIX C
             181
-------
APPENDIX C
                                                            MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
                                                                        425 Volker Boulevard
                                                                    Kansas City, Missouri 64110
                                                                     Telephone (816) 561-0202
August 19, 1970
Dear Sir:

The possibility of reusing solid waste materials  is now  in the minds  of
many people.  If municipalities and  industry can  salvage and  sell mate-
rials from their wastes, this would  not only reduce the quantities  of
waste requiring disposal but could also provide income to offset some of
the costs of waste management.

In order to determine how feasible it is for communities and  industry to
enter the salvage market, the Bureau of Solid Waste Management of the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has  sponsored an "Economic
Study of Salvage Markets for Commodities Entering the Solid Waste Stream"
by Midwest Research Institute.  The  study should  show how many U.S. com-
munities now perform or contract for salvage operations and give some
indication of how successful it is.

It would be much appreciated, therefore, if you or the appropriate  offi-
cial in your administration would fill in the attached survey form.   Even
if there has never been any organized salvaging from your community's
solid wastes, please return the form with the appropriate notations.

The results of the study should be of interest to you and other municipal
officials, and the Bureau will send  you a copy of the study if you  so
indicate on the survey form.

Very truly yours,
Arsen J. Darnay
Project Director

AJD:pa
Enclosures
                                     183
-------
                                             Budget Bureau No.  85-S-70019
                                             Expiration date:   Sept.  30,  1970
             MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SALVAGE PRACTICES SURVEY
For the purpose of this survey "salvaging" is defined as the controlled
recovery and removal of reusable commodities or materials for resale.   The
object of salvaging is usually that of providing income or,  at the least,
of offsetting some of the costs of solid waste management.

The uncontrolled picking over or searching of refuse fro usable materials
or objects, whether or not permitted by public authority, is called
"scavenging" and is not included in the term salvaging.

     General

     a.  Name of municipal agency or department responsible  for solid
         waste management.   	                       	
     b.  Name and title of person completing questionnaire.


     c.  Population of community served by the agency.


     d.  Does your community presently salvage (recover and remove com-
         modities/materials for resale) from solid wastes either directly
         or by contract?        Yes	        No	
         If "Yes," go on to Section 2 below.
         If "No," complete the questionnaire by answering only those
         questions in this section.

     e.  Did your community salvage commodities in the  past?
                                Yes	         No	

     f.  If "Yes" to e., when was the practice discontinued?  Year	

     g.  Why was the practice discontinued?	
     h.  Is scavenging by your employees or others permitted?
                                Yes	         No	

     i«  If  "Yes"  to h., estimate quantity of waste removed per year in
         tons	or cubic yards	.
                                 184
-------
2.  Check here	if you would like a copy of the final report  on
    salvage practices from the U.S. Bureau of Solid Waste Management.
3.  Community Solid Waste Practices

     a.  Does your community collect and transport wastes	;  dispose of
         wastes collected by own forces and others	;  dispose of wastes
         collected by own forces only	?  (Check one or more.)

     b.  Does your community handle residential wastes only	; commer-
         cial and industrial wastes only	j both	?   If both,  show
         approximate percentage of each:  residential	$>; commercial/
         industrial
     c.  Estimate quantity of wastes handled annually in tons or cubic
         yards.  Tons collected	; tons disposed of 	;  or, cubic
         yards collected	; cubic yards disposed of 	.

     d.  Estimate total annual expenditures on all solid waste management
         activities.  $               	
4.  Specific Salvage Practices

     a.  Is salvage practiced by your own community 	;  by others under
         contract with your conmunity 	; both 	?  Value of contract
         in dollars per annum (if applicable).  $	

     b.  Are commodities recovered from mixed refuse 	; by separate
         collection 	; both 	?

     c.  Check each type of facility where segregation is accomplished:
         incinerator	; land disposal site 	; transfer station 	;
         compost plant 	; conical (tepee) burner	,•  other (Specify):
     d.  Is segregation accomplished manually 	; mechanically
         combination 	?
         Please describe
     c.  What processing, other than segregation, is done?
                                    185
-------
     f.   Indicate quantities  of materials  recovered at each facility or
         in each operation per year.  Quantities given are in tons 	;
         cubic yards 	; (check one).
Land Conical Separate
Incin- Disposal Transfer Compost (Tepee) Collec-
Material efrator Site' Station Plant Burner tion
Paper/Paperboa rd
Iron/Steel
Other Metal
Glass/Ceramics
Plastics/ Rubber
Textiles




































Other (Specify)
                                        186
-------
     g.  Indicate in the following table salvage costs, prices received
         for salvaged materials and type of buyer for salvaged materials
         for your community's non-contract salvage operation.
   Material
Cost of
Salvage!/
| Per Ton
Price Received
 for Salvage
  | Per Ton
Type of
BuyeEE/
Paper/Pa perboa rd
Iron/ Steel
Other Metal
Glass/Ceramics
Plastics/Rubber
Textiles


















Other (Specify)
_!/  Include total costs of separate collection, processing and other
      functions related to salvage operation only.
2/  Show whether buyer is dealer, user (e.g., paper plant) or other
      (specify).

     h.  For approximately how many years has solid waste been salvaged?
         	 years.
     i.  Do you plan to continue this operation?  Yes 	; No
         Why? 	
      .  Is scavenging by your employees or others permitted?
                          Yes             No
PLEASE SEND THIS QUESTIONNAIRE TO MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 425 VOLKER
BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI  64110, ATTN:  A. J. DARNAY.


                                      ft U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1972 O - 474-078
                                     187
-------
-------
-------
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
  PROTECTION
   AGENCY
CjQj^L^t
DALtASfTEXAS


   LIBRARY
-------
-------