Exploratory Study
Assessment of OSW's 35%
Municipal Solid Waste Recycling
National GPRA Goal for 2005
Mark Eads, Economist (703-308-8615; eads.mark@epa.gov)
Economics, Methods & Risk Analysis Division
Office of Solid Waste
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mailstop 5307W
Washington DC 20460 USA
05 Sept 2003
-------
Disclaimer
This document presents the findings of an exploratory study
conducted Summer 2003, involving a literature review, secondary
data collection, and secondary analysis (i.e. analysis of reports,
documents, books, and journal articles authored by other persons
with goals generally different from the objectives of this study).
Because of its exploratory nature, the contents of this study
document do not represent official US EPA policy, nor do the
references contained in this document constitute endorsement of
particular authors, organizations, methods, information or data.
The individual author identified on the title page is solely
responsible for the scope, design, analyses, findings, format and
contents of this document.
-------
Table of Contents
Summary
I. OSW MSW Recycling Policy Issue:
a MSW Management Big Picture
a Recycling Historical Trend in US
a International Recycling Benchmarks
5
6
7
11
II. Assessment of MSW Recycling:
a Issue #1: Recycling Rate Measurement
a Issue #2: Recycling Rate Stimulation
22
a 2A. Recycling Baseline (year 2000)
a 2B. Recycling Infrastructure
a 2C. Benefit-Cost Analysis of 35% Recycling Goal
a 2D. Potential for Recycling Beyond 35%
Appendices:
A: State Recycling Rates & Infrastructure (exploratory X-Y graphs)
B: Municipal Recycling Rates & Infrastructure (exploratory X-Y graphs)
C: Four Alternative Study Plan Options for This Assessment
14
17
24
43
57
76
87
89
103
118
-------
Summary
OSWs RCRA solid waste authority assigns resource recovery (e.g. waste recycling) responsibilities
to state government planning (i.e. RCRA Subtitle D resource recovery), and to the US Dept of
Commerce (i.e. RCRA Subtitle E development of materials recovery technologies & commercial
markets). However, in 1988, OSW challenged the nation to recycle 25% of MSW by 1992, and in
1996 proposed a 35% goal for 2005. The purpose of this exploratory study is to assess the feasibility
and economics of achieving the 35% goal relative to the 2000 national MSW recycling baseline of
30% to 32% (i.e. 70 to 130 million tons recycled of 232 to 409 million tons generated, respectively),
using existing published data on US state- and US city-wide MSW recycling performance measures.
As of 2000, state MSW recycling rates ranged from 1% (OK) to 59% (DE), and the 25 largest US
cities ranged from 2% (Dallas) to 56% (San Francisco). Statewide MSW curbside recycling program
population coverage ranged from 0% (AK) to 100% (CT), averaging 52% of the US population.
Based on +/-1 standard deviation statistical intervals from a pooled data sample of 30 city-wide MSW
recycling program costs (@$35 to $162/ton), and five recycling benefit categories (@$226 to
$544/ton), this study estimates that an incremental $420 to $1,900 million in annual cost is needed to
recycle an additional 12 million tons/year of MSW to reach the 35% goal, which would generate $2.3
to $4.6 billion in additional annual net benefits, representing a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 3.4 to 6.4.
This study projects an economically-beneficial recycling "net cost" threshold of 225$/ton (for
minimum BCR =1), and projects a future potential national MSW recycling rate ranging between 40%
to 45% based on meeting current unmet statewide goals, to 46% to 49% from expanded program
coverage to all large + small urban populations.
-------
I. OSW MSW RECYCLING POLICY
ISSUE:
Is OSW's Year 2005 GPRA National Goal of
35% MSW Recycling Achievable?
-------
Big Picture Snapshot of MSW Management (US Year 2000)
Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Based on 231.85 Million Total Tons MSW Generated (US 2000)
Source: USEPA Office of Solid Waste, EPA-530-R-02-001 ("Franklin Report"), June 2002, Table 29, p.126
Landfill
128,250,000
55.3%
Recycling
69,870,000
30.1%
Combustion
33,730,000
14.5%
-------
Future Projection #1 of 2:
— Franklin trendline suggests 35% in 2018 w/out re-measurement or stimulation
40
^ 35
0)
O)
S
1 30
o
Q.
~B 25
13
1 20
o
1 15
w
5 10
ro I"
0
'•«-»
z 5
0
Trend line
Historical
Franklin Associates: National MSW Recycling Rate Estimates
Based on Third-Order Curvilinear Multiple Regression of 11 Historical Data Points (1960-2001)
,-ntr- -
***
f
9./
P - . - -•- "I"'""
OCS.*«>»ON«««0«y*g«0
-------
Future Projection #2 of 2:
— BloCycle magazine historical trendline suggests 35% by year 2003!!!
Q>
ro
O)
"o
o
-------
Overlay of Franklin & BioCycle Historical Data Series
Franl
40
35
"aT
en
| 30
0)
B
CD
°- «
£
m
OL
= 20
o
>.
u
0)
|15
w
1 10
o
••§
0
Overlay of Franklin & BioCycle Historical MSW Recycling Rate Data
klin Data: 11 Historical Data Points (1960-2001); BioCycle Data: 12 Historical Data Points (1989-2000)
•i'"'
s* ^ — ^
sji*?*
I
vf
^t^'*
l—~—^ °
-
O(OOOO(N«OOO(NTr(OOOOC4TfCOOOC
O)O>O>O>O>O>O>b)O)O>O)O>O)O>O>O>O)O)O)O>OOoOOOOoOOC
FraniJin data
BioCycIa data
Franklin trendline
BioCycle trendline
>
I
I
-------
Which Future Recycling Rate Projection is "Correct"?
Franklin Associates data
> 35% recycling by year 2018
Baseline (2000 data year; all states):
- 30.1%MSW recycled
- 231.9 million TRY MSW generated = 0.82
TPY/person
69.9 million tons recycled
- Increment to 35% = (35%-30.1%) x 69.9 =
11.4 million tons/year
Data (Measurement) Scope:
Includes:
- Composting (but not backyard composting)
Commercial
Institutional
Industrial office/food/packaging
Excludes:
Construction & demolition debris
Biosolids (sewage sludge)
Scrap autos
Motor oil
Agricultural
Industrial process wastes
BioCvcle magazine data
> 35% recycling by year 2003
Baseline (2000 data year; 47 states):
. 31.9% MSW recycled
. 409.0 million TRY MSW generated = 1.45
TPY/person
130.5 million tons recycled
• Increment to 35% = (35%-31.9%)x409.0 =
12.7 million tons/year
Data (Measurement) Scope:
Excludes:
. Composting
Includes:
C&D debris (wood, asphalt, concrete)
Biosolids (9 states)
Scrap autos (2 states)
Motor oil (11 states)
Agricultural (14 states)
• Commercial (47 states)
Institutional (43 states)
Industrial process residuals (24 states)
to
-------
Benchmark: Recent International MSW Recycling Rates
Europe:
• Austria (1999) 64%
• Belgium (1998) 52%
• Germany (1999) 48%
• Netherlands (1999) 47%
• Denmark (1999) 39%
• Finland (1997) 33%
• Sweden (1998) 33%
. Spain (1999) 27%
• Italy (1997) 16%
• France (1998) 14%
• U. Kingdom (1999) 11%
• Portugal (1999) 9%
• Greece (1997) 8%
Other Countries:
• Canada (2000)
• Japan:
a 1992
a 1995
a 2002
24%
4%
10%
65%
Note: The basket of wastes included in recycling rates varies between countries.
-------
International MSW Recycling Ideologies: Two Contrasting Examples
Pro (Japan): In June 2000, the Government of Japan began implementing
"The Basic Plan for Establishing a Recycling-Based Society", providing a
10-year program to promote comprehensive and systematic policies aimed
at changing unsustainable patterns of production and consumption: "to
reduce the amount of resources that are removed from nature as much as
possible, and to reduce the amount of things that are finally discarded in
nature as much as possible by inputting things once used in society as
recycled resources." [http://www.env.go.jp/recycle/circul/kihonho/law-e.pdf].
Con (Sweden): In Nov 1999, the Swedish Government Finance Department
published a report titled "Recycling: Not Worth The Effort", which concluded:
"The social value of recycling beyond the level motivated by market forces
rests solely on its positive contribution towards environmental standards, or
to sustainability if depletion is a problem. Environmental evaluations reveal
that paper burning and glass and metal landfilling, for example, are superior
to recycling in environmental terms, so the net effect of additional recycling
of these waste flows is detrimental to the environment. Cost-effective
policies to improve environmental conditions should aim at directly
enhancing these conditions, and only in rare cases would recycling across
the board emerge as an efficient policy tool"
[http://finans.regeringen.se/eso/PDF/ds99_66.pdf].
12
-------
II. ASSESSMENT OF MSW
RECYCLING
13
-------
Required Orientation for National Assessment of Recycling
The Resource Conservation & Recovery Act
(RCRA) assigns primary responsibility for recycling
and all non-hazardous waste policy decisions to
state governments. Consequently, recycling
initiatives and recycling programs in the US are not
uniform, since they are designed and implemented
at the state and local levels. This in turn means that
any economic analysis of recycling must rely on
local observations and, to assure that the results
can be generalized, must control for community-
and region-specific influences and factors.
Source: Scott Callan & Janet Thomas, Bentley College, "The Impact of State and Local Policies
on The Recycling Effort", Eastern Economic Journal. Vol. 23, No. 4, Fall 1997, p.411. 14
-------
MSW Recycling Goal Assessment Methodology
Timeframe: Initial two-month timeframe (April & May 2003) set by OSW
MISWD recycling team, for EMRAD to conduct this assessment; scope
of EMRAD part-time work on this study expanded thru Aug 2003, as
new literature sources became available from inter-library loan sources.
i Scope: Evaluation "Option 2" was initial EMRAD study scope &
framework for this assessment; evaluation scope expanded to include
internet info/data search (per "Option 3"), and benefit-cost analysis (per
"Option 4"); Appendix C contains the four study plan options.
i Staff: One EMRAD staff economist (Mark Eads) conducted this project
in-house (no contractor support). Information contributions by MISWD
staff, MISWD contractor (Franklin Associates), and OSW Regional
Implementation Team (RIT).
i Data: Recycling assessment limited to secondary information sources
on recycling baseline, recycling infrastructure, & recycling costs/benefits
(no new data collected).
15
-------
Secondary Information Sources Consulted/Collected
Sources:
• MISWD staff
• Franklin Associates
• EM RAD staff
• OSW Regional
Implementation Team
(RIT) conference call
• Internet search
• EPA HQ library
• Interlibrary loans
Categories:
• Peer-reviewed academic
journal articles
• Recycling news
• Trade/industry magazines
• EPA reports
• White papers (e.g. local/state
govt's, NGOs)
• State technical guidance
• Case studies (e.g. cities,
recovered material markets)
• US regional studies (e.g. NE)
• International items
16
-------
ASSESSMENT ISSUE #1:
Recycling Rate Measurement
17
-------
Caveat Emptor:
Recycling Rate Measurement Variability
"Currently, not everyone defines recycling or the
processes that constitute recycling in the same way.
Definitions of MSW [municipal solid waste] also vary.
There is no standard approach for how or where to
collect the needed data. The methods used to
calculate a recycling rate also differ from one area to
another. All of these factors can make it difficult to
collect and analyze data and to compare the
effectiveness of recycling programs from one region to
another."
Source: USEPA Office of Solid Waste, "Measuring Recycling: A Guide for State and
Local Governments", EPA-530-R-97-011, Sept 1997, 160 pp.
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/recycle/recmeas/download.htm
18
-------
Recycling & Related Concepts (USEPA definitions)
Waste recycling: the series of activities by which discarded materials
are collected, sorted, processed, and converted into raw materials and
used in the production of new products; excludes the use of these
materials as a fuel substitute or for energy production.
Waste generation: amount of materials and products that enter the
wastestream (e.g. from residential, business/commercial, institutional,
and industrial sources) before recycling, reuse, composting, landfilling,
or combustion takes place.
Waste reuse: use of a product or component of waste in its original form
more than once (e.g. refilling glass or plastic bottles, repairing pallets).
Waste recovery: removal (capture) of materials from the wastestream
for diversion from disposal into recycling, composting, or reuse.
Discards: materials remaining in wastestream after recovery.
Waste disposal: ultimate disposition (emission) of discards (non-
recovered materials) into the environment (air, land, water) as "sink".
19
-------
Standard MSW Recycling Rate (USEPA definition)
(quantity MSW recycled)
MSW recycling rate (%) = x 100
(quantity MSW generated)
20
-------
Recycling Rate Measurement Issues Implied From
14 May 2003 Franklin Assoc. Briefing to OSW
• Recycling Sources: EPA's scope for MSW not exclusively "municipal";
includes commercial, institutional, & some industrial (e.g. wood pallets);
could be revised as four separate category sensitivity analyses.
• Recyclable Materials: Excludes a number of waste streams that others may
classify as MSW: construction & demolition debris, used oil, medical waste,
pre-consumer waste; could be included as sensitivity analysis.
• Materials Reuse/Energy: Excludes materials reuse (e.g. retreaded tires),
source reduction substitution (textiles or container reuse), waste-to-energy
(e.g. pallets), backyard composting, and land applications; could be
included as sensitivity analysis.
• Assumptions: Some key numerical assumptions for estimating the annual
recycling rate, were formulated in early-1990s; could be updated.
• Uncertainty: Possible to introduce uncertainty ranges in numerical values of
some key assumptions, and carry-thru ranges to annual recycling rate
estimates, rather than single point estimates each year.
21
-------
Recycled Quantity Divided by MSW Generated — "Recycling Efficiency"
MSW Generated Divided by Consumer Goods Production = "Recycling Availability
Comparison of MSW Generation* & Recycling* Quantities to US Consumer Goods Production Index
Consumer goods index data points
Recycling index data points
MSW generation index data points
MSW generation trendline (RA2=99.8%)
Recycling trendline (RA2=99.2%)
150
100
ti
r-
x
0)
TJ
50
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
* MSW generation index in this table only includes material products; excludes yard trimmings, food, misc inorganics (soil, stones, concrete), & other non product materials.
MSW generation & recycling data source: EPA-530-R-02-001 (Tables 1 & 2); http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm
IPI data source: Economic Report of the President, Feb 2003, Table B-52; http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/pdf/2003_erp.pdf
-------
ASSESSMENT ISSUE #2:
Recycling Rate Stimulation
23
-------
2A. MSW Recycling Baseline (2000)
2A.I Statewide Recycling Rates & Goals
2A.2 City Recycling Rates
2A.3 Materials Recycled
2A.4 Recent Policies & Options for Affecting Rates
24
-------
2 A.I
Statewide Recycling Rates & Goals
25
-------
MSW Recycling Rates for States (2000)
1. DE59%
2. AR45%
3. NY 42%
4. CA42%
5. MN 42%
6. ME 40%
7. OR 39%
8. NJ38%
9. MA 38%
10. MO 38%
11.MD37%
12.WI36%
13. IN 35%
14. WA35%
15. TX 35%
16. IA35%
17. TN 34%
18. PA 33%
19. VT33%
20. SC31%
21.KY30%
22. VA 29%
23. FL 28%
Source: BioCycle magazine, Dec 2001,
Table 3, page 45
Note: states vary in what they include
(measure) in their recycling rates.
24. IL 28%
25. NC 26%
26. WV 25%
27. Rl 24%
28. HI 24%
29. AL 23%
30. NE 23%
31. CT 23%
32. NH21%
33. OH 21%
34. Ml 18%
35. AZ17%
36. LA 17%
37. MS 16%
38. NV 14%
39. ND11%
40. WY 10%
41. NM 9%
42. CO 9%
43. KS 9%
44. AK 8%
45. UT 5%
46. OK1%
Data not available from source for GA, ID,
MT, SD
26
-------
Provision of MSW Recycling Services (US 1995)
National Prevalence*
Provider of Service Curb Com Drpoff Proc
• Local government program 40% 14% 16% 9%
• Local gov't contractor 42% 15% 25% 30%
• Gov't franchise to single firm 9% 6% 4% 5%
• Private firms w/out gov't $ 16% 47% 8% 7%
* Source: Based on 1995 sample of 1,071 medium-sized north-central cities with MSW
recycling programs consisting of: (1) residential curbside collection, (2) commercial
collection, (3) drop-off facilities, and/or (4) recyclables processing facilities
(Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper 02-35, June 2002, Table 2, p. 17).
Curb = residential curbside collection Comm = commercial collection
Drpoff = drop-off facilities Proc = Recyclables processing
27
-------
State MSW Landfill Disposal Bans (2000)
Nr. states
Material Category w/ban % states
• Vehicle batteries 32 63%
. Whole tires 30 59%
• Yard trimmings 21 41%
• Motor oil 19 37%
• White goods 17 33%
• Other materials 12 24%
Source: BioCycle magazine, Dec 2001, Table 12, p.51 (40 states have
at least one landfill ban; %'s above relative to 51 states + DC).
28
-------
State MSW Recycling Goals (38 states w/goals)
70% MA (2005) Rl (None*)
65%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
NJ (2000*)
ME (2003)
CA (2000*)
MN(1996)
OH (2005)
WA(1995)
DC (2000*)
CT (2000*)
NC(2001)
PA (2003)
DE (None)
AL (None)
NV (None)
HI (2000)
NE (2002)
OR (2009*)
WV(2010)
MD (2005)
ND (2000)
SC (2005*)
FL(1994*)
LA (1992)
TN (2003*)
IN (2001)
NM (2000)
SD(2001)
MO (1998)
TX(1994)
KY(2010)
Ml (2005)
VA (2000*)
IA (2000)
NY (1997)
VT (2005)
NH (2000)
MS (1996)
Source: BioCycle magazine, Dec 2001, Table 14, p.54 (data represent year 2000 state recycling policies).
Year in parenthesis indicates goal deadline. * Indicates mandatory goal (10 of 38 states with goals).
29
-------
Summary of State MSW Recycling Goals
15
CO
o
0
at
1 10
-------
Unmet State MSW Recycling Rate Goals
Additional Recycling Quantity Implied by State Recycling Goals
(34 of 38 States With Unmet Goals Incremental to Year 2000 State Recycling Rates)
CO
0
c
o
ro o)
O |
Is
o
5-
0)
E
3
O
| Unmet goals
BioCycle Increment*
' Franklin increment*
1992 1994
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
State's Recycling Goal Deadline {Voluntary or Mandatory)
2008 2010
Source: Based on state MSW recycling goals from BioCyde magazine, Dec 2001, Table 14, p.54. benchmarked to year 2000 actual recycling rate & recycled waste quantity (Ions).
* Incremental annual MSW quantity needed to increase national average from 30% (2000) to 35%.
31
-------
Regional Summary of <35% Recycling Rate States
EPA Region Nr.states Nr.<35% %lagging
• 1 (Boston)
• II (NYC)
• III (Phil.)
• IV (Atlanta)
• V (Chicago)
• VI (Dallas)
• VII (Kansas C.)
• VIII (Denver)
• IX (San Fran.)
• X (Seattle)
Totals =
6
4
6
8
6
5
4
6
6
4
55
4
0
3
7
3
3
2
4
2
1
29*
67%
0%
50%
88%
50%
60%
50%
67%
33%
25%
53% to 64%*
* Based on BioCycle 2000 recycling rate data for 45 states.
32
-------
2A.2
City MSW Recycling Rates
-------
MSW Recycling Rates for 25 Most Populous US
Municipalities (2001/2002)
R+C
1 . San Francisco 48.0%
I. Chicago NA
3. San Diego 44.0%
\. San Jose 42.0%
5. Los Angeles NA
3. Philadelphia 38.5%
7. Seattle 37.9%
3. New York 35.7%
3. Jacksonville 33.0%
10. Austin NA
11. Baltimore 28.7%
1 2. Milwaukee NA
13. Memphis NA
R
38.0%
44.3%
NA
NA
39.0%
5.5%
48.5%
19.8%
35.0%
29.5%
NA
26.8%
25.6%
C
56.0%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
36.7%
44.0%
43.0%
NA
NA
NA
NA
Source: Waste News. 17 Feb 2003.
MA = not available.
14. Phoenix
15. Wash DC
16. Columbus
17. Boston
18. Indianapolis
19. San Antonio
20. Detroit
21. Nashville
22. Houston
23. Denver
24. El Paso
25. Dallas
R+C R
NA 21.0%
NA 18.2%
NA 13.0%
NA 13.0%
NA 11.8%
NA 10.1%
NA 7.2%
7.0% 8.0%
NA 7.0%
NA 6.7%
2.5% NA
NA 2.2%
C
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
R = residential recycling rate
C = commercial recycling rate
34
-------
Regional Summary of <35% Recycling Rate For 25 Most Populous
Municipalities
EPA Region
• 1 (Boston)
• II (NYC)
• Ill (Phil.)
• IV (Atlanta)
• V (Chicago)
• VI (Dallas)
• VII (Kansas C.)
• VIII (Denver)
• IX (San Fran.)
• X (Seattle)
Totals =
Nr. cities
1
1
3
4
5
4
0
1
5
1
25
Nr.<35%
1
0
2
3
4
4
0
1
1
0
16
%laao;ing
100%
0%
67%
75%
80%
100%
NR
100%
20%
0%
64%
35
-------
2A.3
Materials Recycled
36
-------
Baseline Materials Recycled (2000)
2000 Generation (million tons)
1. Paper & paperboard 86.7
2. Yard trimmings 27.7
3. Food 25.9
4. Plastics 24.7
5. Metals 18.0
6. Glass 12.8
7. Wood 12.7
8. Textiles 9.4
9. Rubber & leather 6.4
10. Other materials NEC 4.0
11. Misc inorganic wastes 3.5
Total = 231.9
Recovery as % of Generation
1. Yard trimmings 56.9%
2. Paper & paperboard 45.4%
3. Metals 35.4%
4. Glass 23.0%
5. Other materials NEC 21.3%
6. Textiles 13.5%
7. Rubber & leather 12.2%
8. Plastics 5.4%
9. Wood 3.8%
10. Food 2.6%
11. Misc inorganic wastes 0.05%
Total = 30.1%
Source: Franklin Assoc. (EPA-530-R-02-001), Table ES-4, page 7.
37
-------
Historical Trends in Materials Recycling Categories
40-Year US Historical Trends in 11 Materials Recycling Categories
60.0%
_ 50.0%
o
o
40-0%
30.0%
3
I
8
f 20.0%
o
>,
o
-------
2A.4
Recent Policy Decisions
and Future Policy Options
for Affecting MSW Recycling Rates
39
-------
Examples of Recent Developments Which May Increase the Near-
Future MSW Recycling Rate
Recycling (Materials) Supply Factors:
• In 2002, the Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County implemented a single-stream curbside recycling
program to raise the city's 8% recycling rate to 25% by 2004.
• In 2003, Seattle Public Utilities launched a program to increase multi-family recycling from 22% (2001) to 37% in 2008.
• NY enacted a law May 2003 to clean-up scrap tires & encourage markets for recycling, and created a fee ($2.5 per
new tire sold) to fund tire recycling.
Recycling (Materials) Demand Factors:
• In 2003, Waste Management Inc formed the new recycling organization "Recycle America Alliance"
(http://www.recvcleamericaalliance.com). to combine assets and operations with other domestic recycling processors
and marketers; WMI's first partner is The Peltz Group (Milwaukee Wl), the largest privately owned US recycler.
• The US paper industry (AF&PA) decided in 2002 to boost the recovered fiber recycling rate from 48% (current) to 55%
in 2012, by collecting more used paper from offices and schools.
• Starting in 1999, Albertson's US grocery chain (2,300 stores) is pushing its suppliers to use non-waxcoated boxes to
boost box recycling beyond 85%.
• In 2003 the California State Senate Appropriations Committee approved a bill that would require electronics
manufacturers to develop and finance a free and convenient system to recycle end-of-life electronics. As of May 2003,
26 states introduced 52 bills on electronics recycling, according to State Recycling Laws Update from Raymond
Communications, Inc. (http://www.raymond.com/state/).
• In June 2003 the New York State Assembly passed a bill (147-0) requiring the recycling of wireless phones.
• Waste Management Inc. decided in 2003 to open a second plastic bottle recycling facility in Chicago in 2004 that will
handle 100 million pounds of plastic a year, duplicating a plant in North Carolina that started operating early last year.
• China's demand for US exports of recovered paper fiber projected to grow from 1 million (1995) to 6 million tons (2003)
40
-------
Examples of Recent Developments Which May Decrease the Near-
Future National MSW Recycling Rate
Recycling (Materials) Supply Factors:
• The year 2002 "Green Gauge" survey reported that the biggest drop in American's participation in
environmentally-friendly activities is for recycling: 45% regularly return bottles to a store or recycling
center, and 36% take part in a curbside recycling program, down 6 and 9 points respectively from
2001.
• Iowa state legislature voted in 2003 to remove a landfill ban on yard waste
(http://www. wastenews.com/headlines2.html?id=1054241503): but on 12 June 2003, Iowa Gov. Tom
Vilsak vetoed this legislation. "Bans on disposal of yard trimmings in landfills have made it possible to
essentially double the overall diversion rate and are absolutely vital to achieving America's recycling
goals, which is why 21 other states have also enacted laws banning disposal of yard trimmings," said
Neil Seldman, president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.
• Since the mid-1980s, the popularity of cell phones has soared from 340,000 people in the US owning
cell phones, to 130 million cell phones — complete with batteries and chargers — will be pitched each
year by 2005, adding an annual 65,000 tons of garbage to the nation's solid waste stream, mostly for
landfilling and incineration.
• The aluminum can US recycling rate has dropped for the 5th straight year from 67% (1997) to 53%
(2002).
Recycling (Materials) Demand Factors:
• MA launched a recycling center at Univ of MA in 1995 to stimulate manufacturers' use of recycled
materials, but is closing it June 2003 due to lack of continued funding.
41
-------
Policy Options for Stimulating Recycling Implied From Baseline Data
Target attention/assistance to major municipalities:
a Up to 16 of 25 most populous cities <35% goal (R+C)
Target attention/assistance to states:
a Up to 29 of 45 states <35% goal
a At least 20 states <53% state population coverage national average
Target attention/assistance to EPA Regions:
p Regions I, IV, VIII >65% average lag for states under jurisdiction
a Regions I, IV, V, VI, VIII >65% average lag for top-25 municipalities within jurisdiction
Target materials recycling categories:
a 8 of 11 materials <35% goal
a Metals, glass, & rubber/leather recycling rates declining since 1998
a Plastics, wood, and food <5% recycling rates.
Facilitate/expand municipal & state recycling initiatives:
a Promote initiatives/programs in other jurisdictions (e.g. single-stream pickup, schools,
multi-family apts, grocery stores, electronics)
a Implement national guidance or national RCRA legislation (e.g. yard waste landfill
bans only in 23 states as of 1997).
42
-------
2B. MSW Recycling Infrastructure
2B.1 Statewide Population Coverage
2B.2 Urban & Rural Penetration
2B.3 Comparison of Recycling Rates & Infrastructure
43
-------
Overview of MSW Recycling Infrastructure
In 1997 51 % of US population had access to curbside recycling programs.
In 2000 there were 9,250 curbside recycling programs (represents a 39% maximum coverage for
23,435 total US municipalities; aka Census "places").
In 1997 there were 12,700 drop-off centers for recyclables, compared to 23,435 total 1990
municipalities in the US (represents a 54% maximum coverage).
National ratio of communities (and tonnage) with curbside:to:drop-off recycling = 90%:to:10%
in 1997 there were 1,540 solid waste collection/hauling establishments selling recyclable materials
($414 million receipts; NAICS code=562111, NAICS RL code=4450).
Waste/scrap shipped an average of 164 miles in 1997.
In 1997 there were 765 establishments involved in sorting MSW recyclable materials ($1.3 billion
receipts, 10,900 employees; NAICS=562920).
30 states reported annual state government budgets for recycling (including composting) totaling $173
million in 2000 (PA leads at $6.17/year per resident).
• Of the 25 most populous cities, San Diego leads municipal government recycling budgets at
$15.04/year per resident.
38 states have recycling goals: 26 states have set state-wide recycling goals >35% for achievement by
1994(TX) to 2010 (MA&VW); 12 states set recycling goals <35%.
44
-------
2B.1
MSW Recycling Infrastructure:
Statewide Population Coverage (2000)
45
-------
Number of Curbside Recycling Programs Per State
Count of Curbside Recycling Programs Per State
8
o
o o
o in
m
o o o o o o
T- CM CM
O O O
m
co
o m
A T-
m
TV
8
oooooo
jS-*5«S«'«'*'
o m
10 to
000
o
o
§
- _ in o
h- 00 CO 0)
O O O O O O O
10
O)
o
<»S
CM CM CO CO
A A A A
O O O O
o m o in
o o o o o
- -- o
N.
A
S 8
Sin
(O
o o o
o in o
g
T"
Q
i
A
o o
m o m o in o m
o
o
oo
CO CO
*- T- ^
OOQ
o o
3 8
ooooooooo
o m o in o m
oin
ro
T-
A
Count of Curbside Recycling Programs Per State (1999 BioCycle)
46
-------
MSW Recycling Services: State Population Coverage
as
T3
2
in
co
CO
B
§
O
&
5?
s«
o
T-
2
Percentage of State Population Served by Curbside & Dropoff Recycling
in
*-
o
CM
2
5?
5?
in
o
CM
A
in
CM
A
S
o
p>
A
3?
in
u>
f
in
2
in
2
2?
o
2
s?
in
5?
u>
m
2
ss
o
A*
§
^
2
Percentage of State Population Served by Curtside Recycling
Source OSW estimate based on curbacte recydng population coverage from BioCyde magazine. Dec 2001. Table 6. p.47, supplemented Mtti adMonsi 10% (tnpoff assumption.
47
-------
State Population Coverage Statistics (prior graph)
1. CT 100%
2. NJ 99.0%
3. Rl 94.3%
4. CA 92.0%
5. NY 90.8%
6. WA 90.2%
7. NV 90.2%
8. OR 85.5%
9. MA 84.6%
10. MN 83.6%
11. PA 79.6%
12. IN 76.2%
13. MD 75.5%
14. IA 75.3%
15. IL72.0%
16.WI65.7%
17. VT 59.3%
18. FL 59.1%
19. AZ 52.6%
20. KS 50.5%
21. NC48.3%
22. SC 46.4%
23. NH 45.9%
24. ME 42.4%
25. HI 36.7%
26. OK 34.0%
27. Ml 33.0%
28. NE 32.5%
29. AL 27.5%
30. TX 26.6%
31. NM 24.4%
32. VA 18.0%
33. ND 17.3%
34. KY 16.2%
35. MS 12.7%
36. WY 4.5%
37. DE<1%
38. AK 0%
Source: OSW estimate based on curbside recycling population served data
from BioCycle magazine (Dec 2001, Table 6, p. 47), supplemented with
additional 10% assumed dropoff recycling population served (per 90:to:10
overall national ratio); 13 states do not have data on population coverage.
48
-------
As of 2000,13 States Lack Knowledge (Data) About
Fraction of Population Served by Recycling Programs
Arkansas (na)
Colorado (n/a)
DC(1)
Georgia (459)
Idaho (20)
Louisiana (25)
Missouri (177)
Montana (na)
Ohio (232)
South Dakota (na)
Tennessee (na)
Utah (7)
West Virginia (51)
Numbers in parentheses indicate count of state curbside recycling programs (year 2000).
Source: BioCycle magazine, Dec 2001, Table 6, p.47
Na = data not available from state in 2001 survey.
49
-------
2B.2
MSW Recycling Infrastructure:
Urban & Rural Penetration (2000)
50
-------
Urban:to:Rural US Population (Total = 281.4 million year 2000)
Urban:to:Rural US Population (Year 2000)
Rural
21.1%
Urban Clusters
10.5%
Urban Areas
68.3%
51
-------
21% Rural Population: Economically-Beneficial MSW Recycling
May Require Population Density to Avoid High Collection Costs
Distribution of State Rural Populations
(Year 2000 US National Average Urbamto:Rural Population = 79%:to:21%)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
in
n
c
if>
0>
ro
•4-^
CO
c
D
O
O
a?
in
8
I I I
I I I
I
I
•
I I
I I
II
0000000
55
O
u>
A
5?
in
3?
o
3?
o
CM
O
m
5?
in
o
CM
A
o
eo
u>
CM
A
5?
in
CO
o
CO
A
5?
in
in
CO
A
s?
o
in
m
*t
A
in
in
in
A
o
(O
m
in
A
m
(O
o
to
A
o
h.
O
in
A
o
o
in
en
A
Percent of State Population Which is Rural (Year 2000)
(Rural = Population Residing in Places With <2,500 Population)
52
-------
Large & Medium Cities ("Urban Areas" >50,000 Population) in
State Served by MSW Recycling Programs (2000)
Large & Medium Cities Served by MSW Recycling Programs
m
o
vP xP
e"- o*"
m o
T-
A
5?
O
55
in
o>
A
Percentage of Large & Medium City Populations in State Served by MSW Recycling Programs
Source: Based on curbside population served from BioCycle magazine, Dec 2001, Table 6, p.47, supplemented by up to 1 Q% dropoff estimate.
53
-------
Small Cities/Towns ("Urban Clusters" 2,500 to 50,000 Population)
Served in State by MSW Recycling Programs (2000)
Small City/Town Populations Served by MSW Recycling Programs
to
s?
ss
IO
o
O O
•«-> a
10 o
A T-
A
o
(M
tf>
to
(M
0
O
d
A
O
CO
u>
CM
A
10
CO
O
CO
A
5? S?
O IO
Tf Tf
to
CO
A
O
to
u>
U)
IO
O
IO
A
o
(0
o*- eT*
IO O
CO h-
eT"
IO
^0 ^p ^p
o~ 5s- o"*
IO O IO
IO
-------
Rural Areas (<2,500 Population) Served in State by MSW Recycling
Programs (2000)
Rural Populations Served by MSW Recycling Programs
3? 3?
IO O
2 o
0"
o
5?
m
o
**
•xP
>o
A
5?
o
CM
IO
T-
A
s-
IO
CM
s-
O
CO
IO
CM
A
IO
CO
5?
O
CO
A
s-
O
to
CO
A
-
•O
5?
"
O
10
5?
IO
3?
10
10
IO
A
O
CD
10
IO
A
10
(D
5*-
O
CD
A
O
h-
IO
tO
A
IO
o
O
f-
A
OO
O
IO
r--
A
to
oo
0*
o
oo
A
O
O)
IO
oo
A
IO
O)
O
a>
A
o
o
10
o>
A
Percentage of Rural Population in State Served by MSW Recycling Programs
Source: Based on curbside population served from BioCyde magazine, Dec 2001, Table 6, p.47, supplemented by up to 10% dropoff estimate.
55
-------
2B.3
Exploratory Statistical Comparisons of Statewide & City MSW Recycling
Rates & Recycling Infrastructure (see graphs in Appendices)
The following are the apparent strongest statistical (X-Y plot) associations exhibited
for possible drivers behind MSW recycling rates & costs (negative sign
indicates inverse association; % is trendline fit to data displayed in Appendices)
a State Recycling Infrastructure Comparisons (based on 1 data set):
a 51 %: Recycling rate compared to state count of incorporated places divided by state count of
recycling programs (-)
a 35% Recycling rate compared to state recycling budget per capita (+)
a 35%: Recycling rate compared to state land area divided by state count of recycling programs (-)
a 34%: Recycling rate compared to state population divided by state count recycling programs (-)
Municipality Recycling Infrastructure Comparisons (based on 2 data sets):
40%: Recycling cost ($/ton) compared to annual quantity MSW recycled by municipality (-}
33%: Recycling cost ($/ton) compared to municipal population (+)
21%: Recycling rate compared to municipal population density (per square mile) (+)
19%: Recycling cost (&/ton) compared to municipal population density (-)
19%: Recycling cost ($/ton) compared to municipal recycling rate (-)
17%: Recycling rate compared to municipal gov't budget per-capita spending on recycling
programs (+)
15%: Recycling rate compared to percentage of municipal budget spent on recycling programs (+)
LI
y
u
56
-------
2C Benefit-Cost Analysis of 35% Goal
2C.1 Recycling Costs
2C.2 Recycling Benefits
2C.3 Recycling Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR)
2C.4 Recycling Impact on National Employment
57
-------
2C.1
MSW RecycHng Costs
58
-------
MSW Recycling Cost Dataset (Drop-off Programs in 14 Cities, 1995)
DROP-OFF RECYCLING UNIT COSTS
Source: Table 11-5, EPA-600-R-95-109, July 1995 (1993$)
* Total cost = annualized capital cost + O&M cost + education/admin cost
Case
study City
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Santa Monica
Southeast
Largo
Tampa
Blue Ash
W.Greenwich
Falmouth
Free port
Queen Village
Cedar Park
Chesterfield
Petersburg
Henrico
Norfolk
;
1990?
State population
CA
CO
FL
FL
OH
Rl
ME
ME
PA
PA
VA
VA
VA
VA
Min =
Max =
Mean =
Median =
86,905
111,727
38,400
229,712
13,629
2,749
7,610
7,043
9,443
13,461
225,100
38,400
230,000
261,229
2,749
261,229
91,101
38,400
Total cost*
Public Annual net of
or tons revenues
private collected
public 3,214.2
private 1,324.0
public 2,040.0
public 3,272.7
private 701.0
private 156.0
private 338.0
private 320.0
public 250.0
public 202.0
private 3,081.8
private 357.2
private 3,402.8
public 982.8
Std.dev=
Tons-wtd avg =
Skewness =
-68% conf. =
+68% conf. =
Updated to
Min =
Max =
Mean =
Median =
• Std.dev='
Tons-wtd avg =
Skewness =
-68% conf. =
+68% conf. =
O&M O&M as % overhead
($/ton) ($/ton) total cost
$73.83
$71.73
$81.43
$95.24
$51.36
$86.28
$87.22
$155.30
$60.00
$60.00
$41.35
$36.59
$41.36
$86.00
$36.59
$155.30
$73.41
$72.78
$30.41
$67.79
1.24
$43.00
$103.82
year 2002$;
'••:$#&&
£*$&$)'
$88.77
$88.01
$36.77
$81.98
$1.50
$52.00
$125.54
$50.57
$68.71
$23.16
$59.03
$25.68
$73.46
$67.49
$91.21
$60.00
$60.00
$40.57
$35.50
$33.95
$80,75
$23.16
$91.21
$55.01
$59.52
$20.85
$47.61
68.5%
95.8%
28.4%
62.0%
50.0%
85.1%
77.4%
58.7%
100.0%
100.0%
98.1%
97.0%
82.1%
93.9%
28.4%
100.0%
78.4%
83.6%
22.1%
74.1%
(Won)
$23.26
$3.02
$58.27
$36.21
$25.68
$12.82
$19.73
$64^09
$0
$0
$0.78
$1.09
$7.40
$5.25
$0.00
$64.09
$18.40
$10.11
$21.34
$20.18
Recycled
materials
revenues
($/ton)
$0
$36.00
$17.16
$0
$0
$0
$0
$23.99
$0
$0
$4.94
$4.22
$7.71
$4.13
$4.13
$36.00
$14.02
$7.71
$11.08
£X:..H99
f»-$43.53.
$16.96
$9.32
59
-------
MSW Recycling Cost Dataset (Curbside) Compared to Garbage Collection Costs
CURBSIDE COLLECTION RECYCLING UNIT COSTS
Source: Table 3, page 26, EFVV530-R-01-018, Nov 2001 (2000$) j
Unit costs based on "full cost accouting" method, including transportation + fringe
Multi-family
Single-family
2001 Nafl
Proportion Min Mean
24% $62 $177
76% $11 $127
Weighted = $23 $139
Updated (2002$) = $142
Price decline for single-family curbside recycling:
Year $/ton
1993 $170
2000 $127
Average annual rate = -4.08%
Max
$622
$420
Skewed interval method
-68% conf. +68% conf.
$120 $400
$69 $274
$81 $304
REFUSE (GARBAGE) COLLECTION UNFT COSTS
Source: Table 3, page 26, EPA-530-R-01-018, Nov 2001 (2000$)
Multi-family
Single-family
2001 Nafl
Proportion Min
24% $16
76% $16
Weighted = $16
Updated (2002$) =
Mean
$63
Max
$171
$259
Skewed interval method
-68% conf. +68% conf.
$40
$43
$42
$43
$117
$178
$163
$167
ENR Building cost index update factor (2002/2000) = 1.024
60
-------
MSW Recycling Direct Cost Compared to Two Cost Offsets
Direct costs for operating recycling programs usually exceed cost offsets:
Cost Offset Example #1 (40 cities, 2002$); -1 SD Mean +1 SD
. Recycling program net cost* ($/ton) $83 $142 $311
. Avoided garbage collection cost offset* ($/ton):$43 $69 $167
- Avoided garbage disposal cost offset** ($/ton): $30 $36 $58
Total cost offset ($/ton) = $73 $105 $225
Recycling net cost w/offset ($/ton) = $10 $37 $86
Offset as % of recycling cost = 88% 74% 72%
Cost Offset Example #2 (30 cities, 2002$):
Recycling program total cost*** ($/ton)
- Offset value of recyclable materials*** ($/ton): <$0.1
Recycling net cost w/offset ($/ton) =
Offset as percentage of recycling cost =
$4
<$0.1
$3
<1%
$64
$10
$54
16%
$124
$44
$80
35%
Data Sources & Notes (SD = standard deviation):
* EPA-530-R-01-018, Nov 2001, Table 3, p.26; based on data ranges for 40 communities ranging from 28,000 to 8.0 million population (median =
70,000); net cost = cost to local government, minus any recycled material revenues.
** Year 2002 landfill tipping fees from http://wasteinfo.com/data.htm (LB = landfills; ML= wtd avg if 55.3% landfill + 14.5% combust; UB= combust).
*** Based on pooled data points for 31 communities ranging from 1,900 to 6.0 million population, from three reports (EPA-600-R-95-109 July 1995,
EPA-530-R-99-013 June 1999, & Waste News magazine17 Feb 2003) for curbside and dropoff recycling programs; normalized by OSWto
2002$ (Mid = median).
• Collection transportation (hauling) reportedly constitutes 39% to 62% of total annualized cost.
On average, capital investment reportedly represents 22% and annual O&M 78%, of total annualized cost.
Single-family household curbside recycling costs have declined an average of 4.1% per year between 1993 & 2000.
61
-------
Market Value of Pre-Processed Recyclable Materials Collected (ft/ton)
Municipal Revenues (Market Value) for Collected Recyclable Materials
Pooled Data For 31 Communities Reporting >$0/ton From Three Studies: 1995,1999, 2003
$1
$5
$9
$13 $17 $21 $25 $29 $33 $37 $41
Average Revenue to Municipality (Market Value) for Recyclable Materials ($/ton)
Sources: (a) EPA-600-R-95-109 July 1995; (b) EPA-530-R-99-013 June 1999; (c) Waste News magazine 17 Feb 2003; all data normalized to 2002$
$45
62
-------
US Market Values for Pre-Processed Recyclable Materials
ton, July 2003)
Type of Recyclable Material
• Metals
a Steel (cans, white goods)
a Aluminum
• Glass
a Flint
a Amber
a Green
• Plastics
a PET
a Natural HOPE
a Colored HOPE
• Paper (baled mixed)
Low Avg
$10*
$25
$15
$5
($20)
$10
$15
$31
**
$33*
$31
$24
$16
($2)
$12
$17
$12
$35
High
$51*
$40
$33
$30
$5
$18
$17
$13
$46
**
Source: Based on delivered price data for five US cities (New York, Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles)
reported in Waste News magazine. 07 & 21 July 2003.
* In comparison, one of the US largest metal recyclers (Metal Management Inc, Chicago) reported $142/ton average
selling price for post-processed recycled ferrous metals in first guarter of 2003 (Waste News. 12 Aug 2003).
Other metal prices (scrap & virgin) are available at http://www.metalprices.com
**Low and high paper prices represent range over first seven months in 2003.
Parenthesis indicate negative price (i.e. payment tn recovery facility to take recyclable
63
-------
Recycling Cost Offset From Recyclable Material Revenues
Recycling Cost Offset From Collected Recyclable Material Revenues (Market Value)
Pooled Data For 30 Communities Reporting >$0/ton From Three Studies: 1995,1999, 2003
(0
D
o>
t
o
in
0)
I4
Q.
'o
§ 3
o
•E 2
U
O
O
5%
I I I I
Median = 10%
15%
25% 35% 45% 55% 65% 75% 85% 95%
Percentage of Recycling Program Total Cost Offset by Recyclable Material Revenues
Sources: (a) EPA-600-R-95-109 July 1995; (b) EPA-530-R-99-013 June 1999; (c) Waste News magazine 17 Feb 2003.
64
-------
National Annual Dkect Cost of Achieving 35% Goal
Incremental Tonnage: 12.0 million tons/year additional recycling needed to achieve
35% (average of Franklin & BioCycle increments calculated relative to 2000 baseline).
Unit Cost for Recycling (30 cities; 2002%):
a Recycling collection: data sample* mix of curbside & dropoff programs ranges from $4 LB to $124
UB per ton (median = $64/ton) Note: this excludes societal cost Tor (a) household waste sorting
time, (b) household container/space cost, & (c) household travel costs to recycling drop-off
locations.
a Recycling processing: Cost for processing collected recyclable material at an MRF (material
recovery facility) = $14/ton LB to $95/ton UB (median = $55/ton); based on data for four cities
from EPA-530-R-99-013.
a Total cost (collection + processing) = $35/ton LB to $162/ton UB (median = $98/ton).
National Incremental Cost: Applied to the 12.0 million t9ns/year incremental recycling to
achieve 35%, produces a national incremental cost estimate of ($millions/year):
Estimate range** $/ton Capital (22%) O&M (78%) Total
Lower-bound: $35 $92 $328 $420
Most-likely: $98 $259 $917 $1,176
Upper-bound: $162 $428 $1,516 $1,944
LB = lower-bound = (mean or median - 1 SD); UB = upper-bound = (mean or median + 1SD).
* Based on pooled data points for 30 communities ranging from 1,900 to 6.0 million population, from three reports (EPA-
600-R-95-109 July 1995, EPA-530-R-99-013 June 1999, & Waste News magazine17 Feb 2003) for curbside and
dropoff recycling programs; normalized by QSWto 2002$ (Mid = median).
** Estimation range (lower-bound and upper-bound) represents +/-1 standard deviation about most-likely value (i.e. 68%
confidence interval).
65
-------
2C.2
MSW Recycling Benefits
66
-------
National Annual Recycling Benefits Category #1
The national economic cost (i.e. societal cost) for MSW recycling may be
formulated as the direct annual cost to municipalities (capital investment
costs + annual O&M costs) for operating recycling programs, plus the annual
costs to households for participation (waste sorting time + household waste
storage + waste drop-off travel costs), minus the following five recycling
benefits to society at large which offset the municipal and household direct
costs:
Benefit #1: Market value of pre-processed recyclable materials
LB ML UB
If average value* of recyclable materials is ($/ton): $6 $10 $25
incremental benefit of 35% goal is (million/year): $72 $120 $300
* Average values ($/ton) shown above are for recyclable waste "as collected" from the wastestream
(e.g. metal "scrap"), rather than for the resale value of recycled materials "as marketed" after
recovery processing at a materials recovery facility (e.g. metal "ingots"). Percent of collected
recyclable waste retained in the recovery stage for marketing reportedly ranges from 88% (lumber,
fiberboard), to 90% (glass, plastics), 91% (office paper), 95% (newspaper, magazines, books), to
100% (aluminum, steel, corrugated cardboard); source: USEPA "Solid Waste Management and
Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks", Exhibit 4-3, p.59, EPA-
530-R-02-006, May 2002, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/ghg/greengas.pdf
LB = lower-bound estimate (-1 std.dev)
ML= most likely
UB = upper-bound (+1 std.dev)
67
-------
National Annual Recycling Benefits Category #2
Benefit #2A: Avoided annual costs for MSW collection & landfilling:
(Note: this avoided cost estimate does not include possible "negative externalities" to the
environment associated with MSW landfills & MSW combustors, thus may understate this
benefit)***
LB ML UB
If cost of garbage collection program* is ($/ton): $43 $69 $167
and garbage disposal cost** is ($/ton): $30 $36 $58
then total avoided garbage mgmt cost ($/ton): $73 $105 $225
incremental benefit of 35% goal is (million/year): $876 $1,260 $2,700
Benefit #2B: Avoided foregone future land use from expanded landfill sites:
Incremental 12 million tons/year to achieve 35% would otherwise consume up to:
(12 mill.tons) x (2.7 to 8.9 CY waste/ton) x (8 to 22 acres landfill per mill.CY waste) =
260 to 2,350 acres/year (0.4 to 3.7 sq.miles/year)
* Source: EPA-530-R-01-018, Nov 2001 (garbage costs based on sample of 40 US communities; excludes disposal cost).
** Source: Year 2002 landfill tipping fees from http://wasteinfo.com/data.htm (LB=landfills. ML= weighted-avg if 55.3%landfill
& 14.5%combustion; UB= combustion (waste-to-energy).
*** The European Commission identified (Oct 2000, 88 pp.) six categories of negative externalities from landfills: (a) gas
emissions to air, (b) soil, surface water & groundwater contamination from Teachate, (c) future land-use opportunity cost,
(d) disamenities (odor, vermin/insects, visual intrusion); (e) fire/explosion hazard, (f) post-closure monitoring & clean-up
costs http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/enveco/waste/cowi ext from landfill.pdf
LB = lower-bound estimate (-1 std.dev) ML= most likely UB = upper-bound (+1 std.dev)
68
-------
National Annual Recycling Benefit Category #3:
Household Willingness-to-Pay for Recycling Civic Duty
• 1999 survey* of households "willingness-to-pay" for recycling was 74% more
than garbage collection cost (+/-1 std.dev. range of 46% to T20%).
Household reasons for WTP: 53% good for environment; 13% civic duty; 33%
unknown.
If garbage LB ML
collect cost is 46% 74%
$43/ton $20/ton $32/ton
Lower-bound:
Most-likely:
Upper-bound:
UP
120%
-------
National Annual Recycling Benefit Category #4
Benefit #4: Energy: Net reduction (savings) in upstream & downstream
lifecycle manufacturing energy consumption, through substitution of recycled
for virgin materials (source: Denison, 1996, p.213, based on 1994 Franklin
Assoc Btu multiplier):
a (12.0 million tons/year) x (18.326 million Btus/ton) =
220,000,000 million Btus/year*
(0.220 quad* Btus = 37.8 million barrels crude oil equivalency**)
a @$8.41/million Btu, the additional savings = $1,850 million/year
Does not include net energy change from the recycling collection/processing compared to garbage cojlection with
landfilling or incineration, to avoid double-counting with unit costs of Benefit #2 compared to recycling unit costs.
Recycling collection + MRF processing or recyclaoles consumes 1.525 million Btus per ton of MSW managed,
compared to 0.527 million Btus per ton for MSW garbage collection + landfilling; source: Denison, 1996, p.213).
* 1 quad Btu = 1 quadrillion Btus = 1 x 10E15 Btus (172.4 million barrels crude oil energy equivalency). US consumed
99.315 quads energy in 2000, consisting of 38.404 quads from crude oil & gas plant liquids (6.62 billion barrels/year
or 18.1 million barrels/day), of which 26.046 quads crude oil imported (2.130 billion barrels, or 5.84 million
barrels/day).
70
-------
National Annual Recycling Benefit Category #5
Benefit #5: Health & Environment: Net reduction in environmental pollutant releases
compared to manufacturing with virgin materials:
• Avoided atmospheric emissions (GHG carbon, CO, CH, NOx, SOx, PM)
a Avoid 491 million tons/year pollutant emissions to air*
a @$1 to $13,500/ton unit benefit (avoided mortality) = $625 million/year
• Avoided waterborne emissions (BOD, COD, phosphate, solids, metals)
a Avoid 30 million tons/year pollutant emissions to water*
a @$0.81 to $2.44/ton unit benefit (avoided water treatment cost) = $44,000/year
• Avoided future land disturbance & future natural resource extraction:
a Avoid harvesting (logging) trees for pulpwood:
(12 mill.tons waste/yr) x (45.4% paper**) x (14 trees/ton***) = 76 mill, trees/year equivalent avoided harvested
(76 mill, trees/year) x (1 acre pulpwood fores per 400 trees*****) = 190,000 acres/year avoided forests harvested
Avoid mining land for metal ores = 187 to 336 million tons/year mining hidden flows avoided
Total metals: (12 mill.tons/yr) x (35.4% metals**) = 4.2 mill.tons/year recycled metals
Ferrous metals: (4.2 mill.tons/year) x (72%**) x (48.4 tons hidden flows/ton ore****) = 146 mill.tons
Aluminum: (4.2 mill.tons/year) x (13%**) x (59.8 tons hidden flows/ton ore****) = 33 mill.tons
Other metals: (4.2 mill.tons/year) x (15%**) x (12 to 249 tons h.flows/ton ore****) = 8 to 157 mill.tons
'Source: Based on USEPA Office of Research & Development life-cycle inventory emissions multipliers in 22 Nov 2002 Tellus Institute memo to
OSW (Scott Palmer): http://www.epa.gQV/epgQswer/non-hw/muncpl/ghg/greengas.pdf
** Source: EPA-530-R-02-001, Table 6, p.43, June 2002, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/flrisw99.htm
*** Source: Ratio recycled paper type (EPA-530-R-02-001, June 2002, Table 4, p.36) of 80% groundwood paper @24trees/ton & 20%non-GW paper
@12 trees/ton from: http://www.conservatree.org/learn/Enviro_lssues/TreeStats.shtml
**** Source: Artti Juutinen, "Industrial Ecology of the Metal Sector", Table 1, 2000, http://www.cc.jyu.fi/helsie/pdf/juutinen.pdf
Hidden flows = all material flows needed in metals mining & processing based on a life-cycle inventory approach.
*****Source: trees/acre recycled paper equivalency from: http://www.rirrc.org7site/educationat/rguide_paper.asp
71
-------
Other National Annual Recycling Benefits
Sustainable economy: Meet economic and environmental
sustainability objectives such as:
o) provide future generations with same resource opportunities as
current generation,
(b> don't exceed ecological "carrying capacity", and
(C) reduce "ecological footprint" of economy.
Industrial ecology: Achieve symbiotic, closed-loop, material
flow connections between households and industrial
processes, whereby discarded household materials ("garbage",
"wastes") are recovered by industry as inputs rather than
discarded/disposed into the environment (i.e. zero waste).
72
-------
2C3 ($millions/year)
Benefit-Cost Analysis of OSWs 35% MSW Recycling Goal
LB
ML
Net benefits of 35% goal ($million/year):
a Annual incremental direct costs =
a Net benefits (benefits minus costs) =
Benefit-Cost Ratio (benefits/costs)
**
6.45 3.35
UB
Incremental total benefits of 35% goal ($million/year):
a #1 Market value of recyclable materials $72
a #2 Avoided garbage mgmt costs $876
a #3 Household WTP (@13% civic duty) = $31
a #4 Downstream energy reduction* =
a #5 Life-cycle pollutant reduction* =
Total annual benefits (if non-duplicative) = $2,711 $3,935 $6,530
$120 $300
$1,260 $2,700
$80 $312
$1,295 $1,850 $2,405
$437 $625 $813
$420 $1,176 $1,944
$2,291 $2,759 $4,586
3.36
LB = lower-bound estimate (-1 std.dev) ML= most likely UB = upper-bound (+1 std.dev)
* LB and UB estimates assigned to benefit categories #4 and #5 based on -/+30% of ML value, respectively.
** In comparison to this national benefit-cost ratio estimate, one published study estimated a rural county-wide benefit-cost
ratio of 8.8, based on a county dropoff recycling program cost (1992) of $0.46/month per household, relative to a survey
household willingness-to-pay of $4.05/month for rural non-recyclers; Kelly Tiller et al., "Household Willingness to Pay for
Dropoff Recycling". Journal of Agricultural & Resource Economics. Vol.22, No.2, pp.310-320, 1997.
73
-------
2C.3 (ft/ton average)
Benefit-Cost Analysis of OSWs 35% MSW Recycling Goal
LB ML UB
• Incremental total benefits of 35% goal ($/ton):
a #1 Market value of recyclable materials $6 $10 $25
a #2 Avoided garbage mgmt costs $73 $105 $225
a #3 Household WTP (@13% civic duty) = $3 $7 $26
a #4 Downstream energy reduction* = $108 $154 $200
a #5 Life-cycle pollutant reduction* = $36 $52 $68
Total annual benefits (if non-duplicative) = $226 $328 $544
• Net benefits of 35% goal ($/ton):
a Annual incremental direct costs = $35 $98 $162
a Net benefits (benefits minus costs) = $191 $230 $382
• Benefit-Cost Ratio (benefits/costs)**: 6.45 3.35 3.36
LB = lower-bound estimate (-1 std.dev) ML= most likely UB = upper-bound (+1 std.dev)
* LB and UB estimates assigned to benefit categories #4 and #5 based on -/+30% of ML value, respectively.
** In comparison to this national benefit-cost ratio estimate, one published study estimated a rural county-wide benefit-cost
ratio of 8.8, based on a county dropoff recycling program cost (1992) of $0.46/month per household, relative to a survey
household willingness-to-pay of $4.05/month for rural non-recyclers; Kelly Tiller et al., "Household Willingness to Pay for
Dropoff Recycling". Journal of Agricultural & Resource Economics. Vol.22. No.2, pp.310-320, 1997.
74
-------
2C.4
Potential Impact of 35% Recycling Goal on US Employment
A. Employment Baseline Reference Data (source: 1997 Economic Census):
MSW Mgt NAICS
Recycling 562920
Landfill 562212
Combust. 562213
Column totals =
1997
estabs.
765
1,403
105
2,273
1997
workers
10,846
27,454
2,976
41,276
1997
revenue
(billions)
$1.299
$5.493
$1.129
$7.921
1997
payroll
(millions'!
$283.5
$887.1
$132.6
$1,303.1
1997
tons MSW
managed
59.03
125.54
34.79
219.36
1997
tons/yr
per worker
5,443
4,573
11,689
5,314
1997 avg
revenue
per ton
$22.01
$43.76
$32.44
$36.11
1997avg
worker
payroll
$26,136
$32,311
$44,554
$31,572
Note: Solid waste collection services (NAICS 562111) employment not analyzed; assumes MSW collection quantity is unchanged.
B. Potential Impact on Employment (2001 update year; parentheses indicate decrease):
35% increment
MSW Mat (mill, tons/vrt
Recycling 12.0
Landfill (9.5)
Combust. (2.5)
Column totals = 0
Change in
employment
(workers)
2,208
(2,079)
(215)
(86)
Change in
revenues
(Smillions)
$288
($453)
($89)
($253)
Change in
payroll
(Smillions)
$76
($89)
($13)
($25)
Note: One published study postulates the following macroeconomic implications of recycling: "(Expansion of recycling will reduce dependence on
imports and thus improve the balance-of-payments. Furthermore, and autonomous reduction in imports is then assumed to create a multiplier
effect, as there is a net injection to the circular flow of income, causing GNP to rise. Finally, the higher GNP is assumed to create an expansion
in the requirement of labor, thus reducing unemployment." This study examined two countries and estimated 0.29% and 2.3% annual
increases in GNP from 5% and 40% recycling rates, respectively (for Italy), and 0.88% and 176% annual increases in GNP from 5% and 10%
recycling rate increases, respectively (for United Kingdom); V. Rich et al., "Macroeconomic Implications of Recycling: A Response to Di
Resources Policy. Vol.25, pp. 141-142, 1999.
-------
2D. Potential* for Recycling Beyond 35%:
2D.1 Maximum economically-beneficial recycling "net cost"
2D.2 Potential impact of meeting unmet state goals (2010)
2D.3 Potential impact of expanded recycling population coverage
2D.4 Sample of opinions on maximum recycling rates achievable
2D.5 Enhancing national recycling rates
2D.6 Role of recycling in environmental protection
* Note: The following slides present a "supply-side" portrayal of MSW recycling potential; achievement of
future potential depends upon "demand-side" complementarity (i.e. capacity of industries to purchase and
utilize increasing annual quantities of recyclable materials).
76
-------
2D.1 Estimate of Recycling "Net Cost" (Pooled Data from 30 Cities)
Pooled
Data (3 data sets): MSW Recvclinq '
Net Cost"
(Collection Cost + MRF Processing Cost - Material Revenues)
A. Reference Data:
A
Data
item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
B
Recycling
C D
Recy cl i ng M ate rials
srogram costprocessingrevenues
($fton)
$73.00
$38.72
$46.00
$88.91
$51,29
$128.00
$118.00
$196.00
$36.00
$17.16
$23.99
$4.94
$4.22
$7.71
$4.13
$3
$187
$64
$210
$17
$98
$12
$41
$135
$92
$34
$84
$124
$120
$167
Min = $2.71
Max
Median
Mean
= $210.11
= $57.57
= $74.27
($/ton) (Sfton)
$14.00 $9.07
included $7.98
$55.00 $4.81
$100.00 $17.01
unknown $16.99
unknown $10.61
$42.00 $12.65
included $14.64
excluded $36.00
excluded $17.16
excluded $23.99
excluded $4.94
excluded $4.22
excluded $7.71
excluded $4.13
excluded $0.01
excluded $18.91
excluded $2.49
excluded $2.46
excluded $1.00
excluded $26.84
excluded $3.53
excluded $37.66
excluded $0.58
excluded $4.33
excluded $0.04
excluded $13.04
excluded $17.11
excluded $44.45
excluded $32.10
$0.01
$44.45
$9.84
$13.22
E (D/B)
Revenue
offset
F (B+C-D)
Recycling
net cost
percentage ($/ton)
12.4%
20.6%
10.5%
19.1%
33.1%
8.3%
10.7%
7.5%
100,0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100,0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.5%
10.1%
3.9%
1.2%
5.8%
27.3%
28.2%
91.6%
0.4%
4.7%
0.1%
15.5%
13.8%
36.9%
19.2%
0.1%
100.0%
17%*
36.0%
$77.93
$30.74
$96.19
$171.90
$34.30
$117.39
$147.35
$181.36
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.69
$168.33
$61.36
$207.65
$16.35
$71 .58
$8.96
$3.44
$134.05
$87.53
$34.43
$70.88
$107.33
$76.01
$134.95
$0.00
$207.65
$66.12
$68.09
G
Data
year
1996$
1996$
1996$
1996$
1996$
1996$
1996$
1996$
1993$
1993$
1993$
1993$
1993$
1993$
1993$
2002$
2002$
2002$
2002$
2002$
2002$
2002$
2002$
2002$
2002$
2002$
2002$
2002$
2002$
2002$
H 1
Data source Type
EPA-530-R-99-013 Curb+dropoff
EPA-530-R-99-013 Curb+dropoff
EPA-530-R-99-013 Curb+dropoff
EPA-530-R-99-013 Curb+dropoff
EPA-530-R-99-013 Curb+dropoff
EPA-530-R-99-013 Curb+dropoff
EPA-530-R-99-013 Curb+dropoff
EPA-530-R-99-013 Curb+dropoff
EPA-600-R-95-109 Dropoff
EPA-600-R-95-109 Dropoff
EPA-600-R-95-109 Dropoff
EPA-600-R-95-109 Dropoff
EPA-600-R-95-109 Dropoff
EPA-600-R-95-109 Dropoff
EPA-600-R-95-109 Dropoff
/Vaste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff
/Vaste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff
/Vaste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff
/Vaste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff
/Vaste News Feb 2003 Curta+dropoff
/Vaste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff
/Vaste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff
/Vaste News Feb 2003, Curb+dropoff
/Vaste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff
/Vaste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff
/Vaste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff
/Vaste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff
/Vaste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff
/Vaste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff
/Vaste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff
3. Normalized to 2002$:
J K
Recycling
Data orogram cos1
item ($/ton)
1 $82.57
2
3 $52.03
4 $100.57
5 $58.02
6 $144.78
7 $133.47
8
9 $43.53
10 $20.75
11 $29.01
12 $5.97
13 $5.10
14 $9.32
15 $4.99
16 $187
17 $64
18 $210
19 $17
20 $98
21 $12
22 $41
23 $135
24 $92
25 $34
26 $84
27 $124
28 $120
29 $167
Min= $5
Max= $210
Median = ~, .j$S4 ';•'£,',<'
Mean = $77
: Std.dev = $60
Median -1SD =' ' '£"$4 1-?'"
Median + 1SD =;;.• .$j\24:3f>'.
L
Recycling
processing
($/ton)
$15.84
$62.21
$113.11
$47.51
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$16
$113
•..Ji.$5$|i :
$60 "
$41
^^l41ff-"-~
•.,ii$95li*;:w
M
Materials
revenues
'(Won)
$10.26
$9.03
$5.44
$19.24
$19.22
$12.00
$14.31
$16.56
$43.53
$20.75
$29.01
$5.97
$5.10
$9.32
$4.99
$18.91
$2.49
$2.46
$1.00
$26.84
$3.53
$37.66
$0.58
$4.33
$0.04
$13.04
$17.11
$44.45
$32.10
$0.04
$44
'Iis512ik:r
$15
$13
p:'$6W":
!:$2'5ii.fc
N (K+L-M)
Recycling
net cost
($/ton)
$88
$109
$194
$39
$133
$167
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$33
$201
$94
$240
$49
$104
$42
$36
$167
$120
$67
$104
$140
$109
$168
$33
$240
Mfe$94a.,,:v
$96
$63
l|5$32l£"':J
S^$15l;"-: :r
O (K+L)
Recycling
total cost
($/ton)
$98.41
$114.24
$213.68
$58.02
$144.78
$180.98
$76.34
$53.55
$61.81
$38.78
$37.91
$42.13
$37.80
$220.04
$96.65 :
$242.91
$50.16-
$131.22
$45.29
$73.90
$167.43
$124.67
$67.28
$116.72
$157.24
$153.27
$199.85'
$38
$243
i;J$$8jP-.?
' $111 ""'
$63
1 1
-------
Maximum Economically-Beneficial Recycling "Net Cost" = $225/ton
(projection of X-Y plot based on LB, ML, UB pooled data in cost & benefits pages)
Maximum Economically-Beneficial Recycling Net Cost for BCR > 1.0
7.0
6.0
CL
° 5 0
CD °-u
O
"5
* 4.0
W
O
O
CD
CO
3.0
2.0
1.0
O
"v
$0 $25 $50 $75 $100 $125 $150 $175 $200 $225 $250 $275 $300
Recycling Program Net Cost (Collection + MRF Processing - Materials Revenue)
R-square = 0.748 # pts = 3
y = 6.71 + -0.0247X
78
-------
2D.2
National MSW Recycling Rate Potential for Year 2010, Implied by
33.2 Million Tons/Year Unmet & Future State Recycling Goals
Franklin Associates data:
• 69.9 million tons/year
MSW recycled (2000)
• 69.9 + 33.2 = 103.1
MTY MSW recycling
potential year 2010
• (103.1 MTY
recycled )/(231.9 MTY
MSW generated in
2000) = 45%
BioCycle magazine data:
• 130.5 million tons/year
MSW recycled (2000)
• 130.5 + 33.2 = 163.7
MTY MSW recycling
potential year 2010
• (163.7 MTY
recycled)/(409.0 MTY
MSW generated in
2000) = 40%
-------
Urban & Rural MSW Recycling Penetration (2000)
A. State Total MSW Recycling Penetration:
Item State
1 Alabama
2 Alaska
3 Arizona
4 Arkansas
5 California
6 Colorado
7 Connecticu
8 DC
9 Delaware
1 0 Florida
1 1 Georgia
12 Hawaii
13 Idaho
1 4 Illinois
15 Indiana
1 € Iowa
17 Kansas
18 Kentucky
19 Louisiana
20 Maine
21 Maryland
22 Massachu:
23 Michigan
24 Minnesota
25 Mississippi
26 Missouri
27 Montana
28 Nebraska
29 Nevada
30 New Hampi
31 New Jersey
32 New Mexici
33 New York
34 North Carol
35 North Dako
36 Ohio
37 Oklahoma
38 Oregon
39 Pennsylvan
40 Rhode Islar
41 South Caro
42 South Dak(
43 Tennessee
44 Texas
45 Utah
46 Vermont
47 Virginia
48 Washingloi
49 West Virgir
50 Wisconsin
51 Wyoming.
United States
Bureau of Census
A
2000
housing
units
1,963,711
260,978
2,189.189
1,173,043
12.214,549
1 ,808.037
1,385,975
274,845
343.072
7.302.947
3,281.737
460,542
527,824
4,885.615
2,532.319
1,232,511
1,131,200
1,750.927
1,847,181
651,901
2,145,283
2,621.989
4,234,279
2,065.946
1,161,953
2,442.017
412,633
722,668
827,457
547,024
3,310,275
780,579
7.679.307
3,523,944
280,677
4.783,051
1.514,400
1,452,709
5.249,750
439.837
1.753,670
323.208
2.439,443
8.157,575
768.594
294,382
2,904,192
2,451,075
844,623
2,321,144
223,854
115,904.641
definitions:
BCD (lOWxC/gOU) E (C*D) i F (E/D)
i BioCycle OSWestimateDSW estimate
: curbslde of dropoff total recycling*, of pophr
2000 population population population ; served by
population 1 served 2000 10.0% "served i recycling
4,447.100; 1,100.000 122,222 1,222.222 27.5%
626,932 000 0.0%
5,130,632 2.430.000 270.000 2,700,000 52.6%
2,673,400r ' ;
33,871,648: 31,146,000 0 31.146,000 92.0%
4,301.261
3,405.565 3,405,565 0 3,405.565 100.0%
572,059:
783,600 4,000 444 4.444 0.6%
15,982,378 8.500.000 944,444 9.444.444 59.1%
8.186.453
1,211.537! 400,000 44,444 444,444 36.7%
1,293.953
12,419,293 8.051,000 894.556 8,945.556 72.0%
6,080.485 4.170.000 463,333 4,633.333: 76.2%
2,926,324' 1.983,000 220.333 2,203.333: 75.3%
2,688.418 1.223,000 135.889 1,358.889 50.5%
4,041.769 590,000 65.556 655,556 16.2%
4,468.976
i.274.923'- 487,000 54.111 541,111 42.4%
5,296,486 3.600,000 400.000 4,000.000 75.5%
6,349.097 4.832,000 536.889 5,368.889 84.6%
9,938,444 2,951.000 327,889 3,278.889 33.0%
4,919.479 3,700.000 411,111 4,111.111 83.6%
2,844,658 325,000 36.111 361.111 12.7%
5,595,211
902,195
1,711.263 500.000 55.556 555,556 32.5%
1.998,257 1.622.000 180,222 1.802.222 90.2%
1,235,786 511,000 56,778 567,778 45.9%
8,414.350 7,500.000: 833,333 8,333.333 99.0%
1.819.046 400.000 44.444 444,444 24.4%
18,976,457 17.230,000 0 17.230.000 90.8%
8.049,313 3,500.000 388,889 3.888.889 48.3%
042,200 100,000 11,111 111.111 17.3%
11,353,140
3.450,654 1.057,000 117,444 1,174,444 34.0%
3.421.399 2.633.000 292,556 2.925,556 85.5%
12.281,054 8,800,000 977,778 9,777,778 79.6%
1,048,319 890,000 98,889 988.889 94.3%
4.012,012 1.676.000 186.222 1.862.222 46.4%
754,844
5.689,283
20.851.820 5,000,000 555,556 5.555.556 26.6%
2,233,169
608.827 325,000 36,111 361,111 59.3%
7.078,515 1,144,000 127,111 1.271,111 18.0%
5.894,121 4.787.000 531,889 5,318.889 90.2%
1,808,344
5,363,675 3.173,000 352,556 3,525,556 65.7%
493.782 20,000 2,222 22,222 4.5%
281,421.906 139,765,565 9.776.000 149,541.565| 53.1%
49.7% 3.5% 53.1%
B. Large Urban Recycling Penetration:
G
Urbanized
area (UA)
population
1.941,208
277.670
3,908,163
860,747
29.950,008
3,212.849
2,848,497
531,032
572,059
13,470,104
5,010,117
835.912
603.808
9,737,473
3.410.932
1,114,790
1.207,832
1,566,760
2,535,614
313.952
4,247.989
5,635,129
6^578,451
2,711,750
679,928
3,090,644
234,195
805.111
1.876.309
551.828
7,753.792
862.344
15,504.619
3,760.871
230.797
7.311,293
1.483,638
1.976,124
8,210,985
928.119
1.873.821
194,584
2,964,722
14.795.862
1.748,080
105,365
4.713,302
4.303,803
512,427
2,842,494
125,921
192.323.824
68.3%
H (E/G) 1
% of UA
served by
recycling
63.0%
0.0%
69.1%
104.0%
119.6%
0.8%
70.1%
53.2%
91.9%
135.8%
197.6%
112.5%
41.8%
172.4% "
94.2%
95.3%
49.8%
151.6%
53.1%
69.0%
107.5%
102.9%
107.5%
51.5%
111.1%
103.4%
48.1%
792%
148.0%
119.1%
106.6%
99.4%
37.5%
342.7%
27.0%
123.6%
124.0%
17.6%
71.0%
UA = contiguous census block groups usually > 1,000 ppsm & together >50,000 total population
(GxH if<100%)
UA poplin
served by
recycling
1.222,222
0
2,700,000
29.950,008
2.848,497
4,444
9,444,444
444,444
8.945,556
3.410,932
1.1 14,790
1.207,832
655.556
313.952
4.000,000
5,368.889
3.278,889
2.711,750
361.111
555.556
1.676.309
551,828
7.753.792
444.444
15,504,619
3.760.871
111,111
1,174,444
1,976,124
8,210.985
928,119
1,862,222
5,555,556
105,365
1.271,111
4,303,803
2,842,494
22,222
136,594,292
:. Small Urban Recycling Penetration:
J
Urbanized
cluster (UC)
population
524,465
133,587
615,372
543,432
2.039.655
9,238
139.562
0
96.726
799,916
854,046
272.313
255.689
1.172,047
893.079
671,979
712,837
687.040
710,051
198,926
310.679
166.238
841,006
778,309
707,423
792,798
253.683
388,614
152,337
180.486
185,295
501,157
1,097.963
1.088.611
128,161
1.471,036
770,925
718,020
1,253,116
25.027
553.303
196.843
655.296
2,408.419
222.264
127,083
456.653
527,303
320.353
821,149
195.423'
29.624.S33
10.5%
; UC - block groups usually
K(G+J)
*
UA + UC
population
2,465,673
411.257
4,523,535
1,404,179
31,989,663
3,222,087
2,988,059
531,032
668,785
14,270,020
5,864,163
1.108,225
859,497
10,909,520
4.304,011
1,786,769
1,920,669
2.253,800
3,245,665
512,878
4.558,668
5.801,367
7,419,457
3.490.059
1.387,351
3.883.442
487.878
1.193,725
1,828,646
732,314
7.939,087
1.363.501
16.602.582
4,849,482
358.958
8.782.329
2,254.563
2.694,144
9.464.101
953.146
2.427.124
391,427
3.620.018
17,204,281
1.970.344
232,448
5,169,955
4.831.106
832,780
3.663,643
321.344
221.948.757
78.9%
<1.000 ppsm &
L (E/K) *
:
of UA+UC
served by i
recycling i
49.6%
0.0%
59.7% :
97.4%
114.0%
0.7%
66.2%
40.1%
82.0%
107.7% :
123.3%
70.8%
29.1%
105.5% :
87.7%
92.5%
44.2% :
117.8%
26.0%
46.5%
98.6%
77.5%
105.0%
32.6%
103.8%
HO 2%
31.0%
52.1%
108.6%
103.3%
103.7%
76.7%
32.3%
155.4%
24.6%
110.1%
96.2%
6.9%
5,419.716
together 2
M (KxL-V)
UC popltn
served by
recycling
0
0
0
1.195.992
139.562
0
0
0
0
893,079
671,979
151.057
0
198,926
0
0
0
778,309
0
0
125,913
15.950
185,295
0
1.097.963
128,018
0
0
718,020
1.253.116
25.027
0
0
127,083
0
527,303
683,062
0
8,915,653
!IF^3Q^I$&-
D, Rural Penetration:
N (B-K)
Rural
population
1.981.427
215.675
607,097
1,269,221
1.881.985
1.079.174
417.506
41,027
114.815
1,712,358
2,322,290
103.312
434,456
1.509.773
1.776.474
1.139,555
767,749
1,787.969
1,223.311
762.045
737.818
547.730
2,518.987
1,429.420
1.457.307
1.711.769
414.317
517,538
169,611
503,472
475,263
455.545
2.373,875
3,199.831
283,242
2,570.811
1,196.091
727,255
2,816,953
95,173
1,584.888
363,417
2,069.265
3,647,539
262,825
376,379
1 ,908,560
1,063.015
975,564
1 ,700.032
172,438
59,473.149
21.1%
500 to 50,000 total popu
O(N-B) P1E-KWN
% of rural
served by
% rural recycling
44.6% 0.0%
34.4% 0.0%
11.8% 0.0%
47\5%
5.6% 0.0%
25.1%
12.3% 100,0%
7.2%
14.7% 0.0%
10.7% 0.0%
28.4%
8.5% 0.0%
33.6%
12.2% 0.0%
29.2% 18.5%
38.9% 36.6%
28.6% 0.0%
44.2% 0.0%
27.4%
59.8% 3.7%
13.9% 0.0%
8.6% 0.0%
25.3% 0.0%
29.1% 43.4%
51.2% 0.0%
30.6%
45.9%
30.2% 0.0%
8.5% 0.0%
40.7% 0.0%
5.6% 83.0%
25.0% 0.0%
12.5% 26.4%
39.8% 0.0%
44.1% 0.0%
22.6%
34.7% 0.0%
21.3% 31.8%
22.9% 11.1%
9.1% 37.6%
39.5% 0.0%
48.1%
36.4%
17.5% 0.0%
11.8%
61.8% 34.2%
27.0% 0.0%
18.0% 45.9%
53.9%
31.7% 0.0%
34.9% 0.0%
21.1% 1.4%
853,775
alion.
-------
2D.3
Future National Recycling Rate if Expand Population Coverage
A. Proportion of US Population Served by MSW Recycling Programs (2000):
Population
category
Large urban
Small urban
Rural
Total US =
2000 US
population
(millions)
192.3
29.6
59.5
281.4
Population
served by
recycling*
Unserved gap
55.7 29%
20.7 70%
58.6 98.6%
135.0 48%
136.6 71%
8.9 30%
0.9 1.4%
146.4 52%
B. Potential Future National MSW Recycling Rate if Expand Population Coverage:
Potential Rate
2000 Baselines
Franklin BioCycle
42% 44%
46% 49%
Urban category
If 100% large urban
If 100% large + small
If 100% urban + rural**
Expanded population
served (millions)
146.4+55.7 = 202.1 (72%)
146.4+55.7+20.7 = 222.8 (79%)
281.4(100%)
58%**
61%**
Based on BioCycle magazine, Dec. 2001, Table 6, p.47.
**
In many states, expansion of recycling programs to 100% rural coverage may not be economically-
beneficial because of higher truck collection costs for longer travel distances in low-density population
areas; although one state (CT with 12.3% rural pop.) reports 100% of population served in 20u0.81
-------
2D.4
Sample of Opinions on Maximum Recycling Rates
1990 opinion: Institute for Local Self-Reliance: From "Beyond 40 Percent: Record-Setting Recycling &
Composting Programs" (1990): "When our first volume 'Beyond 25 Percent' was published in May 1989,
only 33% of the 15 best recycling and composting programs were recovering more than 40% of their waste
streams. Of the 17 programs in this study concluded only one year later, 60% are recovering 40% or
more... All the programs documented in this report ~ even the best - can increase their materials recovery
levels."
1997 opinion: Finnish Forest Research Institute: "A Post-Consumer Waste Management Model for
Determining Optimal Levels of Recycling & Landfilling" (1997): "The present study examines the optimal
recycling rate for MSW. The benefits from recycling are included in the simulation using the results of a
recent contingent valuation study. The results of the present research suggest that mandates achieving
50% recycling in municipalities are not far-fetched and are both economically and environmentally justified."
1999 opinion: City of Los Angeles Solid Resources Collection Division: "Los Angeles recently conducted a
study that indicated recyclable materials comprised 40% of the total [Los Angeles] waste stream... We
know it's not possible to recycle the entire 40%, but we're confident we can reach a 30% residential
recycling rate."
1999 opinion: New York City Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse & Recycling: "People are beginning to
see that 25% may be a limit for cities... It's a different situation in, say, Seattle, where there is an
enormous amount of yard waste; when you look at what's available in a residential sector's trash and what
has a market, you're looking at an upper limit close to 25%."
2003 opinion: Franklin Assoc.: From "Recycling - Is 50% A Reasonable Goal?' (2003): "[W]e believe it will
not be possible to reach a 50% recovery rate by 2010 without draconian measures... If some products
generated in large quantities (i.e. yard trimmings, food wastes, mixed papers) could be pushed to higher
recovery levels, 40% might be achieved with a good deal of effort."
82
-------
2D.5
Enhancing Recycling's Economic Potential
"Recycling is more expensive for communities than it
needs to be, partly because traditional recycling tries to
force materials into more lifetimes than they were
designed for - a complicated and messy conversion, and
one that itself expends energy and resources. Very few
objects of modern consumption were designed with
recycling in mind. If the [recycling] process is truly to
save money and materials, products must be
designed from the very beginning to be recycled or
even "upcycled" - a term we use to describe the return to
industrial systems of materials with improved, rather than
degraded, quality."
Source: William McDonough & Michael Braungart, "The Next Industrial Revolution". The Atlantic
Monthly. Vol. 282, No. 4, Oct 1998, pp.82-92; http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98oct/industry.htriii
.83
-------
Enhancing Recycling's Economic Potential (cont'd)
"Economic welfare analysis tells us that the amount of recycling
undertaken by consumers will be less than optimal for two reasons:
a First, recycling creates a positive externality in that everyone benefits from my
recycling efforts (saving landfill space and reducing landfill costs). In the
absense of a one-to-one correspondence between those who make the effort
and those who reap the benefit, many will not make the effort voluntarily.
a Second, recycling is an intergenerationa! public good. Our recycling efforts
today will help to eliminate a potential problem in the future. Given the myopic
time preference of most individuals, people will undervalue the current benefits
of recycling.
The above two factors cause the private marginal benefit from recycling
to be less than the social marginal benefit. From society's perspective,
not enough recycling will be done by individuals because they cannot
capture, or are not compensated for, all of the benefits of their efforts.
Therefore, any large scale recycling program must be government
initiated, either through mandatory regulations or economic
incentives. Considering the magnitude of the problem, it is only a matter
of time before legislation is introduced to implement recycling on a national
level."
Source: Vijaya Dugqal et al., School of Management, Widener Univ., "Recycling: An Economic
Analysis", Eastern bconomic Journai. Vol. XVII, No. 3, July-Sept 1991, p.352.)
-------
Economic Incentives for Enhancing Recycling:
Empkical Results from 1997 Study* of All 351 Towns in Mass.
• Unit pricing: A community implementing a quantity-based unit pricing system, rather
than a flat monthly fee, for MSW garbage collection can expect its annual recycling rate
to be 6.6 % points higher than if it had used an alternative garbage collection pricing
approach. Because flat fees are not quantity-dependent, they give households no
incentive to economize on waste generation or disposal, a classic market failure.
• Curbside service: An additional increase of 5.5 % points in the annual recycling rate
(totaling 12.1 % points) is predicted if the MSW garbage unit pricing system is
accompanied by the provision of curbside recycling services, which by itself should
increase the annual recycling rate by 4.2 % points.
• Disposal cost: Similarly, if policy initiatives elevate the cost of garbage disposal, the
relative cost of recycling falls, and aggregate annual recycling rates should rise.
Conversely, the public provision of free MSW garbage collection decreases the
opportunity cost of disposal relative to recycling, thereby lowering the annual recycling
rate (MSW landfill tipping fees in 2003 average only $30/ton).
• MRF: A community using a state-funded materials recovery facility (MRF) can expect to
achieve an average increase of 9.5 % points in its annual recycling rate, because free
access to a state-funded MRF may allow relatively small communities to experience
savings in recycling costs typically associated only with more densely-populated
communities, translating into higher recycling levels.
• Education: Each additional grant dollar awarded per household for recycling education
should increase a community's annual recycling rate by 2.6 % points.
• Equipment: Grants for recycling equipment should encourage public provision of
recycling services by lowering the cost of doing so, which should in turn lower resident's
opportunity cost of recycling, leading to a higher recycling rate.
* Source: Scott Calian & Janet Thomas, "The Impact of State & Local Policies on The Recycling Effort", Eastern Economic
Journal. Vol. 23, No. 4, Fall 1997, pp.411-423. ^~
-------
2D.6
Role of Recycling in Environmental Protection
"Even as we applaud the desirability of the recycling movement, it
is nonetheless true that it has become a symbolic act of political
correctness that in some cases convinces individuals, firms,
interest groups, and government entities that they are doing all
they need to do for the environment. In this sense, [recycling] can
serve as somewhat of an "inoculation" against catching the fully
virulent contagious form of environmentalism... Putting all faith
and energies into recycling, since that de facto allows a full-scale
embrace of the consumer society, might allow us to be lulled
dangerously to sleep at a time when the appropriate action might
be to adjust or cancel an action at the outset. The mindset which
urges us to "go ahead and do it, and we'll simply recycle all
materials" will be patently inadequate, even with the most
comprehensive of recycling plans... In summary, recycling is
vitally important, but viewed in this manner it reminds us that
it is merely a necessary but partial solution to the jigsaw
puzzle of sustainability."
Source: "Recycling in Theory and Practice", Chapter 5 in Reuniting Economy & Ecology in
Sustainable Development. Russ Beaton & Chris Maser, Lewis Publishers, 1999, pp.73^4; 86
http://www.chrismaser.com/bk-reesd.htm
-------
Appendices
Appendices A&B: Exploratory X-Y Statistical Plot
Graphs to Compare State & City MSW Recycling
Infrastructure Indicators & Unit Costs
a Appendix A: State Recycling Infrastructure (1 data set)
a Appendix B: Municipal Recycling Infrastructure (2 data
sets)
Appendix C: Four Alternative Study Plan Options
for this Assessment
87
-------
Appendices A & B: Exploratory X-Y Statistical Plots
Recycling infrastructure indicators: The following graphs display X-
Y data plots of recycling rates and recycling costs ($/ton),
compared to recycling infrastructure indicators (e.g. coverage,
participation) for states and municipalities:
a Measures of population & population density served by recycling
programs/facilities
a Measures of land area & count of municipalities served
a Recycling budgets
a Measures of households served
Indicator associations: Best-fit data curves are displayed for each
X-Y plot to test "goodness-of-fit" between recycling rates/costs and
infrastructure indicators, based on four alternative mathematical
formulations (linear, logarithmic, exponential, power). Data curves
are tests for degree of statistical associations, not for causality.
88
-------
Appendix A:
State Recycling Rates & Infrastructure
(exploratory X-Y plot graphs based on one
data set)
89
-------
State MSW Recvcline Database for Exploratory X-Y Plots
State^^S^MSWtecudtoD^Con«}afflilDSt^B*>^l^'MyMl
AMyStafcta(h^19S7EccnDrr*CferBu5iNAKSS82a20J:
i A
WRF
km State 1997
0 USttt »
1 AttOTH 8
"2 Alaska ! 1
3 Arizona 12
4 Arkansas 5
5 Caiibmia 83
6 Cdoado 11
7 COTwcfaJt 12
8 DeSMsre 4
9 Fbicfa 47
10 Georgia 21
11 Ha*ei 2
12 Idaho 1
13 «nois 30
14 Mana 12
15 kMB 15
16 Kansas 8
17 Kentucky 7
18 Uusana 8
19 Mane 25
20 Vfeiytand 10
21 Massa*us 30
22 Wkhigai 32
23 Mhnesda 21
24 Mississippi 4
25 Mesouri 20
26 Mrtre 2
27 Netraste 3
28 l*wHampS 10
.29 NewJeraey 33
30 NewMexbo 5
31 NswYcrk 47
32 Ncrfl Carol 22
33 NortiDstot 3
34 Ohio 23
35 Ofehora 7
36 Cngai 9
37 Penreytari 30
38 Rhodelslan 3
39 South Cad 8
40 South D*a 5
41 Tensse 12
42 Texas 44
43 Utah 1
44 Venal 1
45 Vkgira 15
46 V\feshhgtn 19
47 \AfestV*grt 6
48 Warns* 27
49 Wyorrrg 1
Other not feted 3
B C
tJfSC HMSf
W™ IWV
employees pe»3l. -;
1997 51000)
10,848 283,476
50 735
Oto 19 VMhheU
171 4208
37 692
1,030 24,920
500t)999 VUtfteU
160 6,976
Oto19 WhheH
913 23,128
187 5,139
Oto 19 V»heH
Oto 19 VMNieH
729 19262
66 2321
89 1,971
Oto 19 VUhheti
218 6506
203 4981
196 4,854
124 4204
563 14,733
174 6216
494 16,188
51 338
72 1,470
Oto 19 Wtttieti
20 to 99 VMhheU
43 1,025
464 10,585
26 531
583 14,773
690 15,373
20to99 WHieH
680 19,017
SB 1,492
164 2255
263 6,129
20to99 WhheU
65 2594
29 363
153 3503
529 9,453
20 to 99 VMhheM
Oto 19 WlrtieH
133 3,150
294 9,651
24 493
262 4J846
Ok) 19 VWteti
D E
Nff
lomJBSJ, 1997 Sate
($1000) posuHtn (
F
State
sorties)
1299,033267,743,5953,536,342
4,480 4322,113
WHtield 609,665
16,667 4553249
2,929 2523,186
114340 32,182,118
Wtthett 3392,029
22,651 3267240
WBtield 735,143
92.485 14,677,181
18.001 7.489,982
Wtttidd 1,192,057
VMhheld 12C6,865
59,386 11,989352
12,828 5,864,847
9,811 2,854,330
Wlhhett 2,601,437
18,110 3.910,366
23,031 4,353,646
26,894 1241,895
24,012 5,034,924
62.644 6,114,440
26,355 9,779,964
76,753 4,687,406
1,735 2,731.644
7265 5.408,455
Wlhheld 878,730
Whheld 1,657,009
4,382 l,!72,140
51234 8,058,384
3,07$ 1,723,965
73,734 18.146200
73,177 7.430,675
Wthheti 640,955
66.868 11,192.932
11379 3,321,611
13,062 3243272
27,012 12,011278
VUhheU 987263
14,742 3,788,119
2,761 737,755
19.166 5,371,693
57,773 19,385,699
Withheld 2,065,001
VWihekJ 588.632
11.523 6.737,489
70,869 5,614,151
3,440 1.815231
17261 5201226
WlhheU 480,043
50.750
570374
113,642
52,075
155,973
103,730
4,845
1,955
53,997
57,919
6,423
82,751
wen
35,870
55875
81,823
39,732
43566
30,865
9,775
7,838
56,809
79,617
46,914
^8,8w
145,556
76,878
8,989
7,419
121 365
47224
48.718
68.934
40,953
68,679
95,003
44,820
1,045
30,111
75.898
41220
261,914
82,168
9249
39,598
66,532
24,087
54,314
97,105
G
Places
19SO
19289
433
152
85
487
45S
267
31
57
390
535
0
200
1279
535
9E3
627
438
301
22
155
33
.534
854
235
942
128
535
13
320
93
619
511
366
941
S92
241
1,022
8
270
310
336
1,171
228
51
229
266
230
533
97
H KEF)
SUe
P°f*l
2000 .cart densiy
haaehctfe 1997
105,480,101 76
1,737,060 85
221BCO 1
1,901327 40
1,042,686 48
11,502,870 206
1.653238 38
1,301,670 674
298,736 376
6.337,929 272
3.006,369 129
403240 186
469,645 15
4,591,779 216
2336305 164
1,149276 51
1,037,891 32
1,590,647 98
1,656,053 100
518200 40
1980,859 521
2,443,580 780
3,785,661 172
1,895,127 59
1,046/434 53
2,194,594 78
353.667 e
666.184 22
474,606 131
3,064,645 1.096
677,971 14
7,056.860 334
3,132,013 153
257,152 9
4.445.773 273
1,342293 48
1,333.723 34
4,777,003 263
408,424 915
1533054 126
290245 10
2232,906 130
7,393354 74
701281 25
240,634 64
2,693,173 m
2271,398 84
736,481 75
2,054,544 96
193,608 i
1 StoteWkteMSW Raevdta Date
J i
EPAOSWt
MSW
recydfiQr
rate
1936
20%
7%
14%
36%
26%
17%
23%
21%
40%
33%
23%:
10%
23%
23%
30%
11%'
18%
15%
33%
27%
33%
25%:
46%
12%
26%
S%!
26%
20%
43%
12%
32%
22%
27%
15%
12%
29%
20%
23%
27%
38%
40%
14%
19%
30%
35%
39%'
13%
40%
4%
K L . M i
fcCjete ;%por*s
MSW BtoCyde saved by
xydns HBN WB..;tu*sidB:,
rate.L recycled recyciig
yno .: orffi 2000
32% 409.029,000 L
23% 4.500,000 25%
8% 686,000 0%
17% 5,750,000' 47%
45% 2,066,000 i
42% 66.100,000: 89%
9% 6,535,000
23% 3234.000 100%
59% 2065.000 1%
28% 24,800,000 57%
10236.000
24% 1,884,000 33%
: 1,066,000
28% 15,102,000 65%
35% 13,571,000 73%
35% 2866,003 66%
9%: 3,000,000 46%
30% 4,376,000 15%
17% 3,361,000
40% 1,696.000 37%
37% 6268,000 70%
38% 8,141,000 78%
18% 18,717,030 30%
42% 5,634,01} 75%
16% 4.400,000 12%
38% 10288,000
757,000
23% 1.848.COO 29%
21% 1,068,000 41%
38% 9200,000 90%
9% 3.418,000 21%
42% 31.100,000 95%
26% 13,500,000 46%
11% 573,000 16%
21% 14,335000
1% 3,787,000 31%
39% 4,544,000 77%
33% 11,620,000 72%
24% 1,561.000 85%
31% 4,483,000 42%
514.000
34% 5200,000
35% 44,791,000 25%
5% 2,433,00>
33% 578,000 55%
29% 10,661,000 16%
38%- 7,072.000' 82%
25% 1,500.030
36% 3,710,000 60%
K)% 558,000 4%
3,856,000
NO P OR
SfeM Percapfa 19966B BioCydE
and 1996 slate househckfc Wtrter euMde
necycfcig budget hhctme mean recydnc
M#,'7-. WKW XHR : YINE);
State :
-------
State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots
_ 70%
o
° 60%
®
I 50%
S 40%
CO
a:
g> 30%
"o
I" 20%
or
w 10%
0%
(
State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to State Population Densities
o
o c oo
$ O^ a O
O O . „. • • "" '"'"" '
5
-------
State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)
CAO/
g- 60%
o
o
CM
to «?fl°/.
O
.2
ra
0^ <*AO/
30/0
c
o
^* *MIO/
o ZUyo
;S -in0/.
C/J IU /o
Oo/
/o
State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to State Land Area
O
O O 0
^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ v
"-•5^^
^ ^ § -~"-—-^,,.... ,,,,.,^m:_ _..,__
.. •••• "•"""•»,.™— ». -. ,„__ ~fc__._11__^__^_
AN? 0 "
O VQ Q A
O
9 100 200 300 400 500 6
1997 State Land Area (square miles)
Thousands
R-square = 0. 1 1 1 # pts = 45
y = 0.638 + -0.0347(lnx)
DO
92
-------
State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)
70%
1*J & AA/
O oU/o
CM
"" 50°/
0s
o
"co
^ 30%
0) 'iU/0
c
"o
>> ono/
o 20%
0)
cc
CO
State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to Land Area Per Recycling Establishment
v
> 0
ffU * * *
#L-Jt____L_
% o
ff *
0 20 40 60 80 100 1
State Land Area Per Recycling Establishment (square miles per 1 997 facility)
Thousands
R-square = 0.0051 7 # pts = 43
y = 0.316xA-0.0377
Data in this graph exclude Alaska (1 recycling establishment)
20
93
-------
State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)
70%
g 60%
o
CM
o 50%
fr
o
S 40%
o>
15
TO 30%
_c
"o
& 20%
o>
a:
| 10%
0%
3
State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to Environment Spending
^ ^ ^ ^
•%---x
-------
State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)
"oT
MSW Recycling Rate (2000 BioCycl
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
$0
State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to State Recycling Budget Per Capita
o
* <*, O
> v" oo __..,, - — • "
k O .,-..- v>
! o . ..— « «
'$C * o
>0 0
I Q
y
.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00
State Budget Per Capita for Recycling (including composting)
R-square = 0.35 #pts = 27
y = 0.317 + 0.0469(lnx)
95
-------
State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)
0)
0
O
o
DO
0)
m
&
O>
c
"Q
0s
(D
0)
S
O
o
0
CM
State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to Household Poverty Rates
70%
60%
50%
40%
^n%
ou /o
20%
10%
n%
\/
0
O 00
yv jy^^ \?
A V yy*' y,.
Xy ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
vy v^ ^^
.K.»-,--«. _«,, A yv
°™™™%ll™®^«™llrh^feMlw)WB|Jgiii^ _
/x A O v o ™**aK™^-™~-™™**«^.~^^
£} O ""'*'f)*rsl|J1Mi;*'-**-!l"""sl«ftrf»««SsHiiiw«i(,J
0 o<>o
A 0
^ v >X V
o
A
5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%
1996-98 Percentage of State Households in Income Poverty
R-square = 0.021 1 # pts = 45
y = 0.338 +-0.535X
96
-------
State
Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)
o
>>
0
GO
*•— •"
(0
D)
c.
O
J£
£
W
O
§
CM
State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to State Average Salaries
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
v
O
0 ° 00
S\ jTiiN /^ \S ^V , . - . v -
f> p ^ -^•'•'•^'"••^"
V A .B ,-..,f~ \j /\
^ . ._. ..<•££/•"'' JL
ia,,,.,..i»i-O3- ^ ^ ^ O
,-.-„- ^v
o ^
<>0 0 o v
0
A
$20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50
2000 State Average Annual Pay for All Workers Covered by Unemployment Insurance
Thousands
R-square = 0.134 #pts = 45
y = -2.72 + 0.288(lnx)
97
-------
State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)
70%
60%
3
(G
o: 50%
O)
_c
£ 40%
^
0*1 — .
^S^S "^xv •'-»
/> y. ' •••-•'—
A
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
1997 State Population Per Count of 1 998 State Curbside Recycling Programs
Thousands
R-square = 0.34 # pts = 44
y = 0.309eA-3.1Se-006x
98
-------
State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)
70%
60%
«j
K 50%
_c
|40%
>:^._
vO v «= , ^
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Number of State Incorporated Places Per Curbside Recycling Program
R-square = 0.514 #pts = 43
y = 0.319eA-0.0357x
99
-------
State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)
jl)
15
££
o
a:
^
0
CM
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
I
State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to Prevalence of Curbside Recycling Programs (measure #3 of 4)
0
-------
State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)
"oT
o
o
o
CD
O
o
Ci
CD
CD
o>
c
"o
£
9-..-~™
O A 0 /y ,,.,;i!/V
^ rt •' :"-"."J»: "••''"*''' "
X> _;_. ,.,,,...^ ^"^ • o
,;. o-^r—^- Q 0 J
. ,, ,:•!.'• -n^ Q
o ° o
* o
> v 0 O
^
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of State Population Served by Curbside Recycling Programs
R-square = 0.1 94 # pts = 37
y = 0.187 + 0.187x
101
-------
State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)
70%
o> 60%
ro
o:
o, 50%
.£
|40%
t/i.
P
U o
K
>^^:
. . A "' "":'" —•• ' ......... .. . . A
rpr> * v.. <:•>«..•• •:-..,it-....r.ret..,..™»rW, ^.......-.^^..^^^^ ^^f > ^ ...w. ^^^ W^™,,^^,V
o ' ' ~" " ""
^
D 10 20 30 40 50 60
State Land Area Per State Curbside Reycling Program (square miles)
Thousands
R-square = 0.351 # pts = 43
y = 0.965xA-0.231
102
-------
Appendix B:
Municipality Recycling Rates &
Infrastructure
(exploratory X-Y plot graphs based on two
separate data sets)
103
-------
Municipal!
Estimate of US National AVI
A
ty Recycling Data
stage MSW Recydng Cofectfon Co
B
\AfasteNevws
\ i 2003 suve/ :
Top25mostMSWrecyd Cty
i popubus rate for population
! Hem iruiidpales 2001/2002 2000
1 SanFranciso 48.0%
1 2 Chcago 44.3%
3 Sen Diego 44.0%
4 San Jose 42.0%
5 LosAngetes 39.0%
6 Phiadebhia 38.5%
7 Seattle 37.9%
8 NewYok 35.7%
; 9 Jacksonvfe 33.0%
10 Austin 29.5%
11 Batinore 28.7%
12 Mtaaukee 26.8%
13 MemphJs 25.6%
14 Phoenix 21.0%
15 Wash DC 182%
16 CoLnfcus 13.0%
17 Boston 13.0%
18 Indianapois 11.8%
19 SanAntonb 10.1%
20 Detroit 72%
21 Nashvte 7.0%
22 Houston 7.0%
23 Daw 6.7%
24 El Paso 2.5%
25 Dabs 22%
Mean= 23.7%
, Medan=. 25.6%
__ PepwUavg= 28.7%
776,733
£896,016
1223,400
894,943
3,694,820
1,517,550
563,374
8,008278
735,617
666,562
651,154
596,974
650,100
1.321,045
572,059
711,470
539,141
791,926
1.144,646
970,196
559,891
1,953,631
554,636
563,662
1.188,580
c
Land area
(sq.mies)
1936
461
2265
330.7
467.4
1360
144.6
3215
759.6
1160
80.3
95.8
277.0
4567
68.3
2033
472
35ZO
360.0
143.0
533.0
594.0
154.6
247.4
378.0
D(BC)
Population
density
16,849
12,674
3,699
4,960
7505
11,158
3,896
24,886
963
5,660
8,109
6231
2347
2893
8,382
3,500
12,482
2250
3,180
6,785
1,069
3289
3,588
2278
3.144
6,487
3,896
E •
Nr.of
dropofT
sites
20
10
55
1
3
2
4
1
6
2
3
3
1
49
1
27
3
1
12
12
15
39
set (Top
r«* 9 Dnmr4*iliL> U
SI & KBCyCtttHe M
F(B/E) G(OE)
-25 ft
bteriabRe
H
Amount
Population Land area spent on
per drop per drop recycing ;
off sites off sites per resident
38,837 2
289,602 23
22244 6
3,694,820 467
505,850 45
281,687 72
ZOOZ07D 80
656,562 116
108,526 13
296,487 48
216,700 92
440,348 152
572059 68
14,520 4
589,141 47
29,331 13
381,549 120
970,196 143
47,491 44
162,803 50
37,577 16
30,476 10
517,767 74
285,644. 48
$2.87
$15.04
$11.48
$5.34
$12.92
$7.75
$1.36
$9.05
$2.00
$3.47
$6.44
$2.95
$5.94
$1.50
$3.38
$14.79
$2.05
$3.59
$2.13
$2.04
$5.80
$3.53
/Lost Populous Cities)
venues (source: Waste News 2003 Sunny)
I
Recydhg
budget as
%ofsoid
waste
budget
23.4%
50.7%
9.3%
9.9%
126%
1.5%
252%
3.0%
9.4%
6.4%
92%
3.1%
20.4%
25.8%
6.7%
10.1%
5.1%
4.8%
13.1%
9.4%
J
Recycing
budoGt ;
$2231,988
$18,400,000
$42400,000
$8,100,000
$103,438,905
$5,090,621
$887,148
$5400,000
$1,300,000
$4583286;
$3,683,509
$2,100,840
$3,500,000
$1,188,000
$3,863,405
$8,429,863
$4,000,000
$1,991,792
$1201229
$2,426,604
To
K
MJYK)
2001/2002
Recycing recycing
\durre accost i
(tonsVear) ($/bn)
825,000
2,146,321
98270
636,000
664,045
38,551
43,919
5,960,496
506229
51,726
29,475
65,770
104,087
111,521
27,360
51,605
38,100
34,456
46,037
42,649
32,144
16,534
7,191
14,033
Mean*
Medan =
$3
$187
$64
$210 .
$17
$30
$32
$12
$41
$135
$41
$92
$34
$84
$124
$120
$167
$173
$90
$84 ,
$19
M N{MK)
Recycing Recydng
materials revenue
revenue avgvolue
(SVear) (Ston)
$10,603 $0.01
$0 $0
$1,858,363 $18.91
$1,654,730 $2.49
$94,830 $2.46
$5,960,778 $1.00
$1,600,000 $3.16
$1,388220 $26.84
$366,988 $3.53
$4200,000 $37.66
$15,942 $0.58
$165,000 $4.33
$1,511 $0.04
$600,525 $13.04
$200,000
$550,000 $17.11
$735,000 $44.45
$230,796 $32.10
$1222
. $3.53
$1.68
Data points = 25
25
22
22
22
20
18
20
24
19
18
17
-------
Municipality MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots
s^
"u>
i 30%
£
2 20%
0)
_c
>> 10%
0)
£E
1 0%
5 (
Municipal Recycling Rates Compared to Municipal Population
Top-25 Most Populous US Cities
O
0 0
o
o o v ,„,.-...• -••- •• —•••••- •
_____ ,... .- -- -*"•" """ o
O _.... - -.-—"•• :~' °~
jy ..,,.—•"
% ..,,•-•-
^fp
o
/o
/ <><*> .
i <> 0 0
0 0
)123456789
Municipal Population (2000 Census)
Millions
R-square = 0.111 #pts = 25
y = -0.774 + 0.0732(lnx)
105
-------
Municipality MSW Recycling Rates Compared to City Population Density
3
01
TO
"o
w
CM
O
§
o
Q
CM
60%
50%
40%
20%
10%
0%
A
o
v
0
10 15 20
2000 City Population Density Per 1996 Square Mile
Thousands
25
Municipality MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots
30
R-square = 0.215 #pts = 25
= 0.156 + 1.24e-005x
106
-------
Municipality MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)
60%
i/r
2 50%
I 40%
"re
o:
.E 30%
o
3-
0
1 20%
w
S 10%
Csl
8 0%
$0
Municipality MSW Recycling Rates Compared to Per-Capita Recycling Budget
O
0
0 V
O
o o
o .._—--•"• •"-"•
-------
Municipality MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)
Municipality MSW Recycling Rates Compared to Dropoff Site Density (Measure #1 of 2)
50%
40%
•§
o:
—
0)
o:
OJ
o
I
0
0
CNJ
20%
10%
0%
C>
> 0
00
12
City Population Per Recycling Dropoff Site
Millions
R-square = 0.13 #pts = 22
y = 0.013xA0.213
108
-------
Municipality MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)
Municipality MSW Recycling Rates Compared to City Recycling Dropoff Density (Measure #2 of 2)
60%
1
£ 50%
I
jg 40%
IS
cr
O)
£ 30%
o
0)
03
20%
S 10%
o
-------
Municipality MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)
'to
0)
(I)
(/)
ra
3
TO
cc
CO
o:
^
CO
o
o
o
o
CN
Municipality MSW Recycling Rates Compared to City Recycling Budget
60%
50%
40%
o no/
OU /o
20%
10%
0%
O
O
O .»*»•' ,.:*':K" "
,«,«tJ***S'^
O ^-uJ«-*~'
0
°_ - — ^
o
0 0
A
<^ o o
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percentage of City Solid Waste Budget for Recycling
R-square = 0.146 #pts = 18
y = 0.18 + 0.447x
110
-------
Exploratory Comparison Between Average Recycling Cost ($/ton)
& Municipal Population Density (n=19 municipality sample 2001)
$250
g $200
O $150
E
E
O)
8
o- $100
o>
c.
"
>-,
o
0)
a:
$50
$0
Municipal Recycling Cost Compared to Municipal Population Density
Source: Based on analysis of 19 city year 2001 data from Waste News magazine annual "Municipal Recycling Survey", 17 Feb 2003
O
O
10
15
20
25
30
Municipal Population Density (Residents per Square Mile)
Thousands
R-square = 0.193 # pts = 19
y = 108eA-8.2e-005x
111
-------
Exploratory Comparison Between Average Recycling Cost ($/ton)
& Municipal Land Area (n=19 municipality sample 2001)
o
O
o>
c
"o
S1
0)
a:
I
o
"c
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
Municipal Recycling Costs Compared to Municipal Land Area
Source: Based on analysis of 19 city year 2001 data from Waste News magazine annual "Municipal Recycling Survey"
100
o
200
300 400 500
Municipal Land Area (Square Miles)
600
700
800
R-square = 0.0434 # pts = 19
y=13.5xA0.288
112
-------
Exploratory Comparison Between Average Recycling Cost ($/ton)
& Annual Quantity Recycled (n=19 municipality sample 2001)
$250
J $200
.*-*
0 $150
O)
c
"o
f $100
ra
Q.
"o
§ $50
$0
Municipal Recycling Cost ($/ton) Compared to Annual Quantity MSW Recycled
Source: Based on analysis of 19 city year 2001 data from Waste News magazine annual "Municipal Recycling Survey"
>
O
r
A
\
\
i
O
0
o
' -•• - ••— - ,„...,,..... o
/^ ' ••" '••'••••• - -•••""•---• ... • .,._.....-. -, .....
1234567
Annual Quantity MSW Recycled by Municipality (2001)
Millions
R-square = 0.403 # pts = 19
y = 8.56e+003xA-0.444
113
-------
Exploratory Comparison Between Average Recycling Cost (ft/ton)
& Municipal Recycling Rate (n=l9 municipality sample 2001)
$250
$200
$150
w
0
D>
"o
>s
| $100
~ra
Q.
'o
§ $50
$0
0%
Municipal Recycling Cost ($/ton) Compared to Municipal Recycling Rate
Source: Based on analysis of 19 city year 2001 data from Waste News magazine annual "Municipal Recycling Survey"
10%
0
20% 30% 40%
Municipal Recycling Rate (2001)
50%
60%
R-square = 0.194 #pts=19
y = 23.4xA-0.535
114
-------
17 City Dataset from 1999 USEPA Study
17 Cities in MSW Recvclinq Cost Dataset from EPA-530-R-99-013, June 1999 (1996$)
A B C D E (F-C-D) F G H (F-G)
Household Recycling Recycling Recycling Recycling Materials Recycling i
1996 density collection processingadmin/OH total cost revenues net cost ;
Item City
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Ann Arbor
Bellevue
Chatham
Clifton
Crockett
Dover
Falls Church
Fitch burg
Leverett
Loveland
Madison
Portland
St. Paul
San Jose
Seattle
Visalia
Worcester
State population (per sq.mile) ($/ton) ($/ton) ($/ton)
Ml
WA
NJ
NJ
TX
NH
VA
Wl
MA
CO
Wl
OR
MN
CA
WA
CA
WA
Min =
Median =
Min
Median
Data count
Max =
if >0 =
if >0 =
if >0=,
112,
103,
8,
75,
8,
25,
10,
17,
1,
44,
200,
503,
496,
873,
543,
92,
169,
1,
92,
873,
000
700
007
000
300
042
000
266
908
300
920
000
068
300
700
677
759
908
677
300
2,875
1,451
1,363
2,583
523
400
2,108
216
28
744
1,257
1,437
1,268
1,539
2,706
1,009
1,696
$73
$46
$14
$7
$112
$115
$61
$7
$61
$115
$14
$1
$100
$0
$0
$42
$29
$0
$14;
$100
$15
$10
$1
$8
$75
$8
$21
$36
$44
$16
$3
$72
$34
$7
$30
$24
$5
$1
$16
$75
($/ton)
$101.85
$139.13
$38.72
$54.61
$188.91
$75.00
$62.00
$117.00
$51.29
$128.00
$160.10
$196.00
$115.00
$206.29
$120.78
$114.19
$54.06
$39
$115
$206
Percent of data >0 =
($/ton)
$9.07
$0
$7.98
$4.81
$17.01
$0
$0
$0
$16.99
$10.61
$12.65
$14.64
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2
$17
$5
$12
8
47%
($/ton) '•
$93
$139
$31
$50
$172
$75
$62
$117i
$34
$117
$147
$181
$115
$206
$121
$114
$54:
$31:
$1115!
$206
115
-------
Exploratory Comparison Between Average Recycling Cost (ft/ton)
& Municipal Household Density (n=17 municipality sample 1996)
I'250
o
Q)
75
>
Recycling Cost (excluding recovered material
*» 2 2 *
; s g s i
Comparison of Total Recycling Costs ($/ton) to Household Density
(Based on 17 municipalities ranging 1,908 to 873,300 population (1996); source: EPA-530-R-99-013, June 1999)
O
0 »
O
o
0
o o o °
™™™«.«w, -^^.^i&x*®^**********!**** P»*«&nui jw&»t»»y*^:*>a,w««/iS)«»«>«jw"">'iK-S^
M,,-».*»^ift«S«r~'™"-««™"l"«<**"S"»f-|» "*"'• ' :»»••:•:•::-:•— ^
fs»**~^~~'
O
-------
Exploratory Comparison Between Average Recycling Cost ($/ton)
& Municipal Population (n=17 municipality sample 1996)
Comparison of Total Recycling Cost ($/ton) With Muncipal Population
(Based on 17 municipalities ranging 1,908 to 873,300 population (1996); source: EPA-530-R-99-013, June 1999)
I
o
15
I $200
E
£ $150
O>
c
o
$
I $1°°
o
c
T3
tt
3
$50
$0
100
200
300 400 500
Municipal Population
Thousands
600
700
800
900
1,000
R-square = 0.331 # pts = 17
y = 89.9 + 0.00012x
117
-------
Appendix C:
Four Alternative EMRAD Study Plans
(Options) for This Assessment
118
-------
11
L c '
E fforl
Who
p c i f 0 r m
s i* o i k 1
e r n a t i v c Approaches for Evaluating the Economic Feasibility (Benefits & Costs) of Achieving 35%
National Goal for Municipal Solid W a s I e Recycling
! EMRAD tn-housc < E a d s >
! M t $ W l> only transmits M S W
d a t a •' i n T u materials (reports,
mcmos, spreadsheets) to EMRAD
0> P T I O K 2 Enhanced
data/analysis
! M M R A D in-house (bads)
! MIS W D supports EMRAD
ihrough in-house team meetings
w ith f M R A D 1 i> inform'stecr data
collection and analysis
o r T i o N
Tixpandcd data
! EMRAD or contractor
performs w o r k t a s k s
! M I S W D supports EMRAD
on consultaiion basis such as
for drafting supplementary
pieces, a n d '' o t as W A M for
c (i n 1 r a t I u r
W Tf D O 91 4
benc fi
National t e o n o r
! C o n ( r a t I o i petforms all v, o f k ( a 5 k s
1 EMRAD or MISWD directs'
r e t i t «• i work as contractor W AM
F T E
d u ra c i o
D 2 i a
C o I Ic c t i
a n
! M I S W D s t a f f
M I S W D provides EMRAD with
e I c v a n t materials (eg fc P A
c p o r t s , internal mcmos, g r a >
i t c r a t u r t , etc ), concerning M S W
e c y cling in general, and
onccrning OSW 's 15% goal in
p a t t i c u 1 a r
! 4 to K weeks (depends upon
level of data and info details
discovered/desired)
' EMRAD A MFS WD staff
(A) K M R A I> conducts verbal
i n i e r i c « s « , 1 h MISWD staff i o
collect information on prior M S W
recycling topics in general, and on
(1 S W ' $ 15 % go a 1 in particular
(« g prior stakeholder meetings,
prior conference calls with
r t g in n 5 / states* prior internal
analyses, prior EPA studies, and
prior published or gray literature
s t w d i c s by academics, SGOs:
states, municipalities).
< B > P M R A D participates in
upcoming MISWD R I T
conference call (25 March) {I) to
dcscTihc OSW's new economic
analysis project options
concerning the 3 5 V. goal, and (2)
1o leverage regions for feedback.''
suggestions/ inputs (an opinion
poll approach)
I
B t <
: c It s
to 3 ft ^ c c k s (or
longer)
! EMRAD i n - h o u s e or
c D n t t a c t o T
(A) Co Meet data as described
in Option 2
( R ) Search interne; and
published literature for
additional m a I c- r i a I s relevant
to M S W recycling economics
! Contractor
(A) Collect extant data per Option 3
( B ) Collect new data as n e c c s s a r \ (eg
s u r v t: > < 1 0 entities each of municipal
collector companies)
(C) Transfer ci i otherwise formulate
reasonable assumptions to plug data
gaps {numerical s r n g I c point values or
n a m t r i c a I uncertainty ranges)
O u t p i
Types
o f
M $ W
r e c y c I i n
g
policy
q u e s t i o
n $
address
ed
! EM RAD drafts 10 10 20 page
briefing package containing
inventory of information sources,
data gaps, possible conclusions
about 35% goal, and list of
options for expanded economic
analysts.
r MfSWDr«tiew9/ edits
pack age
F t M K A D & MISWD present
briefing to OSW management for
decision about n eit step options.
! What is origin/rationale behind
O S W s 3 5 % goal?
! What analytic options does
OSW have lo e\aluate the 35%
K o a i ''
1 R M R A D drafts 10 to 50 page
briefing package to present
verbally to OSW management in
early or late April 2003 meeting.
I MISWD reviews/ edits
package
t Package contains overview of
existing data/info & gaps, findings
aboul economic feasibility of 35%
goal, and any ne\t steps for OSW
management decision.
! Is the IS"/* goal economically
f e n s i b I e ''
! Is there a more appropriate
MSW recycling goal'1
I W hat are OSW's policy opiions
for achieving 35 % (e g. which
waste categories lo target, how to
pro^de market incentives)','
1 EMRAD in-house or
contractor
Prepare a draft briefing
package as described in
0 ption 2 , supplemented with
extramural data/ information
materials
! What are the characteristics
o f I n
r * c y c
Ions/
r e c y c
price
reeve
m a i o t
US national MSW
ing m a r k e t { e g.
e » r recycled, count of
-d, receded material
r e c v c I in g COSES,
ing budgets, regional <
municipal differences
recycling
1 a i L e t >''
! Contractor
(A) Deliverable "I Draft a
comprehensive report (I 00 (o 30 it
pages) describing data sources.
methodology, findings, and
recommendations of this study.
(B) Deliverable *2 (optional) Draft a
I 0 lo 5 5 % goal?
! W hat are (he disaggregate benefits
* costs (c g by \\aste category, b >
reuse industry, by region, h\ major
municipality), and associated feasible
contribution towards the 35% goal?
! W hat are the technical constraints to
I n e 3 5 % goat'1
! Ho t\' many years ma\ it lake to
achieve the M % goal"1
-I—M>i- L o i i n'-»* •g«P»n»>»Pnril,Bte &
al be
119
-------
------- |