PB-239 776
ANALYSIS OF SOURCE SEPARATE COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLE
SOLID WASTE-COLLECTION CENTER STUDIES
SCS ENGINEERS, INCORPORATED
PREPARED FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1974
DISTRIBUTED BY:
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
EPA/530/SW-95C.2
PB 239 776
4. Title and Subtitle
Analysis of Source Separate Collection of Recyclable Solid
Waste-Collection Center Studies
5. Report Date
1974
6.
7. Author(s)
SCS Engineers, Inc.
8. Performing Organization Rept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
SCS Engineers, Inc.
4014 Long Beach Boulevard
Long Beach, California 90807
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
EPA 68-01-0789
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Washington, D.C. 20460
13, Type of Report & Period
Covered
Final
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
This report summarizes a study that assesses the technical and economic
' /feasibility of operating collection centers for the recovery of recyclable materials.
TBiPteen recycling centers were studied and detailed case studies of each system
were summarized. Three basic types of centers were identified and analyzed: volunteer
centers, commercial centers, and municipal centers. In addition, a study of twenty
households was performed to quantify the time, cost, and storage impact on families
which participate in recycling. This report should be helpful to city officials and
volunteer groups interested in developing recycling centers.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Source Separation
Recycling Centers
Materials Recovery
I7c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
121. No. of Pages
20. Security Class (This
^UNCLASSIFIED
'ORM NTis-38 (REV. 10-73) ENDORSED BY ANSI AND UNESCO.
THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
USCOMM-DC 8285-P74
-------
ANALYSIS OF SOURCE SEPARATE COLLECTION
OF RECYCLABLE SOLID WASTE-
COLLECTION CENTER STUDIES
Final Report
This report (SW-95c.2) on Dork performed under
Federal solid Daste management contrast no. 68-01-0789
is reproduced as received from the contractor.
Volumes I and II Mere Dritten by SCS Engineers, Inc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1975
/'a
-------
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the
U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-95c.2) in the solid waste
management series.
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Section
I SUMMARY AND MAJOR CONCLUSIONS 1
II INTRODUCTION 3
III HOUSEHOLD SEPARATION OF RECYCLABLE
MATERIALS 5
Material Generation 8
Material Preparation 9
Material Storage 12
Material Delivery 14
IV COLLECTION CENTER PATRONAGE 17
Participation 17
Material Delivery Characteristics 18
V COLLECTION CENTER PERFORMANCE AND COSTS -21
Material Acceptance/Preparation 21
Collection Center Activities 21
Collection Center Elements and Costs 24
Revenue and Disposal Savings 37
VI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 45
VII REFERENCES 47
VIII APPENDICES 49
A - Incurred Material Preparation
Costs A-l
B - Labor Distribution and Productivity
for Selected Recyclable Materials B-l
C - Equipment Used at Collection
Centers C-l
D - Diverted Disposal Values D-l
111
-------
FIGURES
No. Page.
1 Collection center activities 6
2 Householder functions associated with
providing recyclable materials to a
collection center 7
3 Collection center functions and revenue
flow 23
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Quantities of Recyclable and Non-Recyclable
Materials 9
2 Summary of Household Time Requirements for
Material Preparation 10
3 Householder Separation Time Requirements
Versus Quantity of Recyclable Material
Generated 11
4 Householder Preparation Time Versus
Recyclable Material Value 11
5 Recyclable Material Preparation Costs 13
6 Recyclable Material Storage Space
Requirements 14
7 Time Requirements to Deliver Recyclable
Materials to a Collection Center 15
8 Collection Center Participation Rates 17
9 Summary Data on Collection Center Material
Deliveries 19
10 Average Composition of Materials Delivered 20
11 Collection Center Case Study Profile 22
12 Summary of Collection Center Labor
Requirements 25
13 Summary of Collection Center Labor Costs 28
14 Paid Labor Costs by Material 30
15 Summary of Collection Center Facilities 32
16 Typical Processing Equipment Costs 34
17 Average Equipment Costs for Transportation
of Materials to Market 35
18 Estimated Collection Center Equipment Costs 36
19 Summary of Collection Center Costs 38
v
-------
No. Page
20 Revenue Received by Collection Centers 39
21 Refuse Quantities Diverted by Collection
Centers 41
22 Effective Collection Center Costs/Savings 43
VI
-------
I
SUMMARY AND MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
Household Separation
Householder cooperation is necessary for source separation
of solid wastes. In order to quantify householder require-
ments, 20 volunteer households participated in special
studies during a two month period. Although the sampling of
households was too small to be deemed representative of any
specific municipality or region, the primary conclusion
drawn with respect to householder efforts is of significance:
Requirements for householder source separation
efforts consume minimal amounts of time and are
not costly.
Collection Center Patronage
Regular collection center patrofrs are drawn from relatively
short distances and are primarily from middle to upper-
middle class neighborhoods.
Collection Center Performance and Costs
Collection centers generally fall into one of three opera-
tional types: citizen, commercial or public (i.e.,
operated by a municipality). Regardless of type, each cen-
ter has three elementary requirements: labor, land, and
equipment. Voluntary labor was prevalent at citizen centers
while virtually all labor was paid for by commercial and
public centers. Collection centers were generally located
on donated land with size and location of secondary consid-
eration. Expensive and extensive equipment was used at
public centers while citizen and commercial centers used
donated/salvaged equipment. Although the collection centers
studied had individual idiosyncracies, the following major
conclusions were drawn:
Collection center operations in the case study
communities generally had no identifiable impact
on normal solid waste collection and disposal
costs.
Public collection centers were generally the least
efficient and most costly operations included in
the case studies.
-------
The most efficient collection centers 1) relied on
voluntary material processing by householders,
2) provided minimal patron assistance, 3) stored
collected materials in large roll-off bins,
4) transported materials by a private hauler or
secondary materials dealer.
Newspaper and glass were the most cost-effective
materials to handle, providing the greatest revenues
for the related costs. Aluminum was a minor con-
sideration at most centers, and other metals were
nearly always collected and processed at an eco-
nomic loss in the overall collection center opera-
tion.
-------
II
INTRODUCTION
Collection centers, or "recycling centers" emerged at the
grassroots level circa Earth Day 1970. From a few centers
established by several environmentally concerned groups at
the beginning of the decade, an estimated several thousand
citizen, municipal and commercial collection centers now
exist, and many thousands of people participate in center
associated recycling activities. As such, collection cen-
ters are facilitating movement of recyclable materials from
the home to secondary materials dealers for reuse.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs, Resource Recovery Division, (EPA)
contracted with SCS Engineers (SCS) to obtain information
on the performance and costs of operating these resource
recovery programs.
This report presents results of 13 collection centex case
studies performed throughout the nation. In addition to ob-
taining information on the performance and costs of oper-
ating the centers, information was also sought to determine
the time requirements for householders to separate„ prepare,
and deliver recyclable waste materials to the centers.
-------
Ill
HOUSEHOLD SEPARATION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
The activities associated with a collection center are
depicted in Figure 1. Characteristically, collection cen-
ters rely on significant amounts of voluntary householder
effort to separate, prepare, deliver, and deposit recyclable
waste materials. Once at a collection center, the materials
are processed and/or stored for eventual transport to
secondary materials dealers.
Householder cooperation is necessary for source separation
of solid wastes. Necessary householder activities are
depicted in Figure 2, and are determined by material separa-
tion and preparation requirements of the collection center.
For example, glass containers often must be cleaned, the
metal rings removed, and sorted by color; newspapers often
must be bundled or bagged; and metal containers may be
accepted only if cleaned and crushed, the labels removed,
and sorted by type of metal. Regardless of preparation
requirements, all separated materials require interim stor-
age at the home prior to delivery to the collection center.
In order to quantify these household activities, twenty SCS
and EPA volunteer households participated in special studies.*
General demographic information relevant to the partici-
pating households is summarized below:
The median gross annual household income was about
$20,000.
Twelve participants resided in single family-
detached houses, 5 in apartments, and 3 in con-
dominiums /townhouses .
The number of persons per household averaged 3.4.
The household survey period ranged from 4 to 10
weeks and averaged 7 weeks.
*It should be noted that the findings presented in this sec-
tion are derived from too small of a .sample to be deemed
representative of any specific municipality or region.
Rather, the findings are presented for general interest and
to express relative efforts and costs heretofore unquantified.
Preceding page blank
-------
HOUSEHOLD RELATED ACTIVITIES
COLLECTION CENTER RELATED ACTIVITIES
; HOUSEHOLDER FUNCTIONS
COLLECTION CENTER FUNCTIONS
/
yS
RESIDENTIAL^N
WASTE/
HOUSEHOLD
SEPARATION
RECYCLABLE
MATERIALS
HOUSEHOLD
NON-
RECYCIABLE
MATERIALS
HOUSEHOLD^
REFUSE )
H
1
)LOAD
VEHICLE
-
TRANSPORT
MATERIALS
TO
COLLECTION
CENTER
TRANSPORT
MATERIALS
SECONDARY
MATERIALS
DEALER
RETURN
TRANSPORT
UNLOAD
MATERIALS
Figure 2. Collection center activities.
-------
SEPARATION
PREPARATION
INTERIM
STORAGE
DELIVERY
RESIDENCE
/RESIDENTIAL^
V^SOLID WASTE J
HOUSEHOLD
SEPARATION
RECYCLABLE
MATERIALS
NON-RECYCLABLE
MATERIAL
(HOUSEHOLD^
REFUSE J
CLEANING
CONTAMINANT
REMOVAL
VOLUME
REDUCTION
SORT
MATERIAL
TRANSPORT TO
STORAGE AREA
OTHER
PROCESSING
(E.G., BUNDLING)
STORAGE
LOAD
VEHICLE
TRANSPORT
MATERIALS
TO
COLLECTION
CENTER
Figure 3 .
Householder functions associated with providing recyclable materials
to a collection center.
-------
Each household used prepared forms to record daily solid
waste generation data relevant to five recyclable waste
material categories:
Glass (by color);
Tin/bi-metal;
Aluminum;
Newspaper; and
All other solid waste (excluding yard trimmings).
The data forms were also used to record time requirements
per material associated with the activities shown in
Figure 2. Other data collected included storage require-
ments and supplies or resources used (e.g., twine for
bundling and water for cleaning).
Material Generation
Table 1 presents the average quantities of recyclable and
non-recyclable materials generated per person per day, and
per household per week. The definition for recyclable mate-
rials was based on an initial screening of over 60 recycling
operations (separate collection programs and collection cen-
ters) and limited to those materials most commonly accepted
(i.e., glass, tin/bi-metal, aluminum, and newspaper). Thus,
excluding yard trimmings, non-recyclable materials were
defined as all other residential solid waste. Potentially
recyclable items such as corrugated cardboard, textiles, and
possibly food wastes are admittedly penalized under this
definition.
Tabular results show that nearly equivalent quantities of
recyclable and non-recyclable materials were generated
during the survey period.
Adding the daily per capita generation rates for recyclable
materials (0.78 Ibs) and non-recyclable materials (0.83 Ibs)
equates to a total of about 1.6 Ibs for the participating
households. This sum was significantly less than published
national figures of 2.5 Ibs per person per day, and a Los
Angeles figure of 2.1 Ibs per person per day (half of the
household studies were conducted in the Los Angeles area).
As previously defined, however, waste quantities excluded
yard trimmings. In Los Angeles, yard trimmings comprise
about 33 percent (by weight) of the total residential solid
waste collected and disposed.
Nationally, the American Public Works Association estimates
that average municipal refuse contains 12 percent (by
weight) of yard type waste.2 The percentage expressed in
terms of only the residential portion of municipal refuse
-------
TABLE 1
QUANTITIES OF RECYCLABLE AND
NON-RECYCLABLE MATERIALS*
Recyclable Materials (Ibs)
Non-
Recyl,
Mate-
Tin/bi- News- rials Total
Glass metal Alum, paper Total (Ibs) (Ibs)
Ibs/cap/day 0.19 0.07 0.01 0.51 0.78 0.83 1.61
4.5 1.7 0.3 12.2 18.7 19..8 38.5
Ibs/house-
hold/wk
*Excludes yard trimmings.
would likely be higher. Thus, the overall generation rate
recorded during the household study appears appropriate
when all factors are considered.
Thus, the separated material weight represented about one-
third of the solid waste emitted from each household.
Material Preparation
Weekly time requirements per household for the activities
associated with preparing recyclable materials are sum-
marized in Table 2. The total of 15.9 minutes per week to
prepare all the materials averaged to about 2 minutes per
day.
Table 3 presents a comparison of the preparation time
requirements in terms of material quantity. Newspaper
required the minimum amount of preparation time per unit
weight of material and was thus, the most efficient material
for the householder to separate. In essence, bundling was
the only significant time requirement. Bundling was nor-
mally accomplished in one of two ways: tying string or
twine around newspapers, or stuffing newspapers in grocery
bags.
Glass was the second most efficient material to separate.
Cleaning and contaminant removal were the major time con-
tributors. The least efficient materials to separate were
metallic. Aluminum containers were low generation items
although preparation time was proportionately high due to
cleaning, contaminant removal, and volume reduction
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF HOUSEHOLD TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR MATERIAL PREPARATION
Average Preparation Time
Material Preparation Operation
Clean*
Contaminant removal
Volume reduction
Bundle
Transport (in home)
Total
Glass
2.4
0.6
0.0
N.A.
1.6
4.6
Tin/Bi-Metal
2.3
1.1
2.2
N.A.
1.4
7.0
Aluminum
0.7
0.1
0.2
N.A.
0.3
1.3
(Min/Wk)
Newspaper
N.A.
0.1
N.A.
2.3
0.6
3.0
Total
5.4
1.9
2.4
2.3
3.9
15.9
N.A. = Not Applicable
*Includes time for material sorting
-------
TABLE 3
HOUSEHOLDER SEPARATION TIME REQUIREMENTS
VERSUS QUANTITY OF RECYCLABLE
MATERIAL GENERATED
Material
Glass
Tin/bi -metal
Aluminum
Newspaper
Householder
preparation
time
(% of total
time)
29
43
9
19
Quantity
separated
(% of
total
weight)
24
9
1
66
Time to
weight
ratio
1.2
4.8
9.0
0.3
activities being performed prior to storage. Tin/bi-metal
material preparation time requirements were highest because
of time required to flatten containers. While aluminum
containers were readily crushed/ flattening tin/bi-metal
containers necessitated removal of the can bottom.
Viewed in terms of material value, Table 4 shows that pre-
paration of newspaper and aluminum had the greatest worth
in terms of monetary return on invested householder prepara-
tion efforts - eight cents per min of preparation. Glass
preparation had half of the newspaper/aluminum worth, while
tin/bi-metal had the lowest worth ratio - less than a penny
per min of householder effort. Thus, in terms of efficiency
and worth, newspaper appears to be the optimum material in
terms of householder source separation requirements.
TABLE 4
HOUSEHOLDER PREPARATION TIME VERSUS
RECYCLABLE MATERIAL VALUE
Material
Glass
Tin/bi-metal
Aluminum
Newspaper
Material
value*
($/ton)
20
15
200
8
Householder
preparation
effort
(min/ ton)
500
2,000
2,600
100
Monetary return on
householder effort
($/min of effort)
0.04
0.01
0.08
0.08
*Based on typical revenue received by the case study
collection centers (April 1973 values).
11
-------
Material Preparation Costs. Material preparation costs were
defined as the incremental costs incurred by a householder
for supplies or resources used while separating and pre-
paring recyclable materials. Included in this definition
would be water used for cleaning, energy used if metal con-
tainer volume reduction was accomplished with the aid of
an electric can opener, and twine used when bundling news-
papers. Implied costs of householder time were excluded.
Participants in the household study did not use soap for
cleaning separated containers unless the soap was contained
in used dishwater. Similarly, mechanical dishwashers were
not used for cleaning containers. Thus, no incremental
costs were assigned for soap or dishwasher use.
Incurred material preparation costs are presented in Table 5,
The preparation cost per ton varied by material and ranged
from zero when no preparation activities were performed to
a high of about $2.30 per ton for cleaning and flattening
aluminum containers. Expressed as a household cost per
month, about $0.02 per month would be expended if all mate-
rial were prepared for separate collection. A detailed
derivation of the incurred costs is provided in Appendix A.
Comparing Tables 3 and 5 presents an interesting inverse
relationship. While newspapers were the most efficient
material to separate, they were also the most costly to pre-
pare. At about one penny per month, however, the cost of
preparation should not deter household participation.
Material Storage
The floor area used to store separated materials during the
household study was defined as the amount of floor space
consumed by containers used to store materials or to stack
newspapers. Consequently, the storage area requirement was
a function of separated material generation rates and the
accumulation time between material transport to a collec-
tion center. The type of material and the amount of volume
reduction practiced were also factors in storage area re-
quirements. Newspapers, for example, when bundled and
stacked, do not require any additional floor space for a
one-week versus a one-month accumulation period. Glass
accumulations, however, usually required additional floor
space for storage as the accumulation period lengthens
because it is potentially hazardous to practice glass
volume reduction in the home. Tin/bi-metal and aluminum
materials storage space requirements were dependent on the
amount of volume reduction practiced.
12
-------
TABLE 5
RECYCLABLE MATERIAL PREPARATION COSTS
Material
Glass
Tin/bi-metal
Aluminum
Newspaper
Range in Material
Preparation Cost
($/ton)
0 to 0.53
0 to 1.45
0 to 2.33
0 to 0.43
Average
Material
Generation
Rate*
(Ibs/mo)
19.3
7.2
1.3
52.8
Time Required
to Accumulate
One Ton of
Material Per
Household"1" (mo)
104
278
1,538
38
Range in Material
Preparation Cost
( $ /household/mo)
0 to 0.005
0 to 0.005
0 to 0.002
0 to 0.011
*Based on generation rates determined from household study.
+Rounded to nearest month.
-------
Based on household study data, Table 6 presents the average
floor space required for storage of each type of separated
material. The household accumulation period averaged one
month. Data were not amenable to further breakdown.
TABLE 6
RECYCLABLE MATERIAL STORAGE
SPACE REQUIREMENTS
(One Month Accumulation
Period)
Glass
Tin/Bi-Metal
Aluminum
News-
paper
Volume No volume Volume No volume
reduction reduction reduction reduction Stacked
(sq ft) (sq ft) (sq ft) (sq ft) (sq ft) (sq ft)
2.2 1.6 2.8 1.8 1.9 3.3
Incurred Material Storage Costs. Based on the household
study and information obtained during the nationwide case
studies, storage containers used by householders for sepa-
rated materials were generally of a makeshift nature (e.g.,
cardboard boxes or grocery bags). Similarly, existing
space was used for storage of recyclable materials. Thus,
for all practical purposes, there were no incremental costs
incurred by householders for storage of separated materials.
Material Delivery
Household activities involved in delivering separated mate-
rials to a collection center include loading materials into
a vehicle, transporting materials to a collection center,
parking and/or waiting time at the center, unloading and
depositing materials, and return transport to the household.
With the exception of transport times, each activity was a
wholly incremental requirement. The transport requirement
may be partially or wholly attributable. For example, if
delivery of separated materials was performed in conjunction
with shopping or taking children to school, only the "out-
of-the-way" time was assigned. If the trip was made
specifically for the purpose of delivering separated mate-
rials, the entire time was assigned.
Based on this consideration, Table 7 presents the average
incremental time requirements to deliver separated materials
14
-------
to a collection center as determined by the household study.
The frequency of delivery averaged about once per month
during the study.
TABLE 7
TIME REQUIREMENTS TO DELIVER RECYCLABLE
MATERIALS TO A COLLECTION CENTER
Material delivery
function
Time requirements (min/mo)
Tin/ News-
Glass bi-metal Aluminum paper Total
Load vehicle
Transport to center
Park /wait
Unload/deposit
Return transport
1.3
-
-
1.1
-
0.9
-
—
0.7
-
0.6
_
_
0.5
-
1.5
_
_
1.2
-
4.3
2.9*
0.4*
3.5
2.9
Total time required
14.0
*Total not identified by material type.
Incurred Material Delivery Costs. Material delivery costs
were defined as encompassing only the incremental vehicle
operating costs incurred by a householder for the .out-of-
the-way distance while driving to and from a collection
center. As determined by the household study, out-of-the-
way mileage averaged about four miles per round trip.
Assuming fuel to be the major incurred cost attributable to
material delivery and that a typical vehicle used for de-
livery gets 15 miles per gallon, incurred material delivery
costs were estimated to be about $0.16 per trip based on
fuel costs of $0.60 per gallon. In that materials were
transported at the rate of once per month, incurred delivery
costs equate to an average of about $3.70 per ton based on
the average monthly generation rate of 80 Ibs.
15
-------
IV
COLLECTION CENTER PATRONAGE
Case study collection center personnel sporadically main-
tained information to categorize or describe patrons of
their respective centers.
Participation
Participation estimates were available from 7 of the 13 case
study locations and are summarized in Table 8. Where ranges
are shown, the low estimate represents the regular patrons
and the high estimate represents the regulars plus sporadic
patrons. Overall, participation at the seven centers listed
was estimated at about 15 percent of the tributary community.
TABLE 8
COLLECTION CENTER PARTICIPATION RATES
Estimated
Center location participation
Corvallis , Ore. 1-5
No. Hempstead, N.Y. 25-30
Palo Alto, Calif. 15
Palos Verdes, Calif. 12
St. Petersburg, Fla. 20
San Clemente, Calif. 10-25
Scottsdale, Ariz. 10-15
Average 15
In general, the majority of patrons were stated as being
from middle to upper-middle class neighborhoods. This
generality corresponds to socio-demographic research per-
formed at the University of Wisconsin with respect to cate-
gorizing users and non-users of the Madison, Wisconsin, col-
lection center. ^ The results are of significance and should
be considered when assessing the feasibility of establishing
a collection center. The study concluded that the major
differences between users and non- users were:
The majority of the non-users had gross annual
incomes of under $10,000 while the majority of
the users earned over $14,000.
Preceding page blank
17
-------
Occupation of the family head was strongly related
to collection center use. Thirty-nine percent of
the user family heads were professionals (i.e. law-
yer, medical doctor, professor, engineer, etc ) as
compared to 10 percent for the 'non-user families
Education of the family head and wives revealed the
Se °f US6r criteria examined
evenvthr
percSnTnf ?h Percent.of th* family heads and 59
W1VG ln USer h°mes had four
varof ™ n mes a our or ™>re
years of college. Comparatively, 34 percent of the
SaTfour familY ^^ and 22 Pe^ent o? the w?ves
had four or more years of college. Further 41 ner-
h?Sh ^h^? non:user fa»ily heads had four years^f
use'r 8f2S? °hlS aS C°^ared to » percent of the
Material Delivery Characteristics
ass zsr*
as delivered
As shown, glass andnewspaper comprise d^Soufpn1" ^^ 10'
the recyclable deliveries by weiqht Sh? ?° percent of
closely with the quantities aene?^ ?6?e VaJU6S correlate
18
-------
TABLE 9
SUMMARY DATA ON COLLECTION
CENTER MATERIAL DELIVERIES
One-way
distance Travel
traveled time
Location (mi.) (min.)*
Berkeley, Calif.
Corvallis, Ore.
Modesto, Calif.
No. Hempstead, N.Y.
Palo Alto, Calif.
Palos Verdes, Calif.
St. Petersburg, Fla.
San Clemente, Calif.
Washington, D.C.
Average (all centers)
Household study
3
6
2
1
3
4
1
4
3
3
2
10
12
4
2
6
8
2
8
6
6
5
Materials
Quantity
' (Ibs)
79
NA
34
NA
51
116
NA
56
NA
67
80
delivered
Estimated..
value ($)*
0.60
NA
0.25
NA
0.47
0.75
NA
0.65
NA
0.54
0.50
*Estimated using 30 mph average speed, except Berkeley.
*Based on March 1973 revenue rates.
NA: No estimate available.
19
-------
TABLE 10
AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF
MATERIALS DELIVERED
Average quantity delivered
{Ibs/patron trip)*
Material
Glass
Metal
Aluminum
Newspaper
Other+
Total
Case studies*
24
7
1
34
1
67
Household study
19
7
1
53
_0
80
*Frequency of delivery was once per month
in both instances.
*Data from five centers only.
+Generally consisted of corrugated cardboard
and/or magazines.
20
-------
V
COLLECTION CENTER PERFORMANCE AND COSTS
The thirteen collection centers visited during the study are
summarized in Table 11 with respect to location, type of
operation, and type and quantities of materials accepted.
As shown, six of the case study sites were operated by citi-
zen groups, one was a commercial operation, and six public
centers were operated by municipalities.
Material Acceptance/Preparation
Newspaper was accepted at 10 of the 13 centers visited.
Bundling was required at seven locations while two locations
provided the patron with the option to bundle or bag the
material. One center accepted loose newspaper.
Four centers accepted flattened corrugated cardboard con-
tainers without waxed surfaces. Three accepted magazines
kept separate from other paper types while two accepted
mixed paper bundled separate from newspaper.
Every location except Scottsdale accepted glass. This loca-
tion experienced injury problems with broken glass and the
nearest market for glass was several hundred miles distant.
Nine centers required that the glass be cleaned and sorted
by color. Only one center required removal of paper labels.
Metal containers of one type or another were accepted at
every center. Eight locations required sorting by type
(i.e., tin/bi-metal and aluminum) while seven required the
containers to be flattened prior to delivery. Removal of
labels was required at three locations to aid detinning
processors.
Only the Los Angeles center accepted plastic containers.
Collection Center Activities
The functions associated with a collection center once
materials are delivered are diagrammed in Figure 3. Patrons
are often assisted upon center arrival unless the center is
unmanned - or functions as a satellite drop-off station.*
*Satellite systems accept materials at several locations
throughout the community. Materials deposited are col-
lected and transported to a large central facility for
storage/processing and subsequent transport to secondary
material dealers.
21
-------
to
to
TABLE 11
COLLECTION CENTER CASE STUDY PROFILE
Center location/
type
Citizen
Berkeley, Calif.
Corvallis, Ore.
Modesto, Calif.
Palos Verdes, Calif.
Scottsdale, Ariz.
Washington, D.C.
Ave rage ci ti zen
Commercial
San Clemente/ Calif.
Public
Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.
Los Angeles, Calif.
No. Hemps tead, N.Y.
Palo Alto, Calif.
St. Petersburg, Fla.
Seattle, Wash.
Average public
Average center
Materials collected (tons/mo)
News- Corru-
paper gated
88 *
2
15 2
69 *
55
34
52 2
42
^ •_
- -
40
107 11
109
52
77 11
61 5
Glass
99
9
34
24
-
27
39
4
20
24
41
83
38
41
41
37
Tin/ Alum-
bi-metal inum
22
4
5
3
3
—
7
-
2
5
13
20
6
68
19
14
2
neg.
1
1
1
neg.
1
neg.
_
1
neg.
3
1
—
1
1
Total
211
15
57
97
59
61
83
46
22
30
94
224
154
161
114
95
*Corr\igated total not separable from newspaper.
neg. = negligible
-------
RECYCLABLE
MATERIALS
(COLLECTION^"
CENTER 1
__ >^"
^ REVENUE)
RETURN
TRANSPORT
PATRON
ASSISTANCE
UNLOAD
MATERIALS
ON- SITE
TRANSPORT
PROCESS
MATERIALS
STORE
MATERIALS
TRANSPORT
MATERIALS
TO
SECONDARY
MATERIALS
DEALER
M
MATERIALS )
DEALER J
Figure 3 . Collection center functions and revenue flow.
-------
Delivered materials are transported to appropriate con-
tainers at a fixed center or transported to a central loca-
tion when a network of satellite centers is operated. The
materials are then processed and stored until accumulations
warrant transport to a secondary materials dealer.
Collection Center Elements and Costs
Regardless of differences in mode of operation (e.g., single
site versus a satellite system) collection centers have
three common elements: labor, land, and equipment. The
following sections discuss these elements as they pertain
to the 13 case study centers.
Labor. Labor activities at a collection center generally
fall into one of four basic categories:
Patron assistance - helping to unload patron vehi-
cles, directing patrons to appropriate unloading
locations, and answering questions regarding mate-
rial preparation requirements.
Material processing - sorting improperly deposited
materials and/or reducing the volume of delivered
materials.
Transportation - gathering materials within the
collection center complex and transporting the
materials to a central location (satellite opera-
tions) and/or to a secondary materials dealer.
Administration - supervisory and/or clerical
activities.
Labor Required. Table 12 summarizes monthly labor
distribution at each collection center by labor activity
regardless of whether labor was voluntary or paid. Produc-
tivity (person-hours per ton) is also tabulated by activity.
A material by material breakdown of labor distribution and
productivity is included in Appendix B for interested
parties.
Distribution of labor summarized in Table 12 characterizes
the type of service offered at each center. Assistance when
delivering recyclable materials to a center was offered to
patrons at five locations. The level of assistance gen-
erally was less the 2 person-hours per ton of material de-
livered although the Los Angeles network of collection
centers provided patron assistance at the rate of about 14
person-hours per ton using labor funded via the Federal
Emergency Employment Act.
24
-------
to
Ul
TABLE 12
SUMMARY Or COLLECTION CENTER LABOR REQUIREMENTS
Labor Activities (person-hrs)
Center location/
tvoe
Citizen
Berkeley, Calif.
Coryallis, Ore.
Modesto, Calif.
Palos Verdes, Calif.
Scottsdale, Ariz.
Washington, O.C.
Material
collected
211
15
57
97
59
61
Patron
Assistance
per
mo
26
0
0
134
0
0
per
ton
0.1
_
1.4
-
-
Material
processing
per
mo
1,031
210
66
0
0
32
per
ton
4.9
14.0
1.2
_
0.5
On-site
transport*
per
no
0
0
572
0
18
0
per
ton
_
_
6.5
0.3
Transport
to dealer
per
wo
387
67
20
0
0
0
per
ton
1.8
4.4
0.4
_
-
Administration
per
rxj
244
84
65
22
33
43
per
ton
1.2
5.6
1.1
0.2
0.6
0.7
Total
labor
per
mo
1,688
361
523
156
51
75
per
ton
8.0
24.0
9.2
1.6
0.9
1.2
Average Citizen
Conartjrcial
83
475
7.5
San Clemente, Calif.
Public
Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.
Los Angeles, Calif.
No. Hempstead, N.Y.
Palo Alto, Calif.
St. Petersburg, Fla.
Seattle, Hash.
Average Public
Average Center
46
22
30
94
224
154
161
114
— r7c
95
0
0
417 13.9
30 0.3
75 0.3
0 - '
0
145
24
0
412
493
150
0
3.1
1.1
4.4
2.2
1.0
0
0
0
264 2.8
0
1,064 6.9
0
20
9
345
182
60
19
87
0.5
0.4
11.5
2.0
0.3
0.1
0.5
4
2
150
218
7
14
3
0.1
0.1
5.0
2.3
0.1
169
35
912
1,106
635
1,247
90
671
542
3.7
1.6
30.4
11. 8
2.8
8.1
0.5
9.2
8.0
•Transporting materials from satellite locations to a central location.
-------
Material processing was generally performed at a rate of
less than five person-hours per ton. - Processing, when per-
formed, varied from center to center but encompassed such
activities as baling newspaper (Berkeley and San Clemente),
glass crushing to increase transport density (most centers),
and metal can crushing (most centers). An inordinately
large processing factor occurred in Corvallis primarily due
to scale problems (i.e., a large number of hours spent on
small quantities of materials). Conversely, the Palos
Verdes, Scottsdale, Los Angeles and Seattle centers per-
formed no material processing.
The on-site transportation activity was limited to satellite
center operations — i.e., transporting deposited materials
from a network of drop-off stations to a central location.
Two citizen centers (Modesto and Scottsdale) and two public
centers (North Hempstead and St. Petersburg) operated
satellite systems. (Los Angeles maintained a network of
six centers, each of which functioned independently.) The
Scottsdale program, however was atypical. In Scottsdale,
container trains were used for residential collection in
portions of the city; spare containers were placed in four
locations to receive tin/bi-metal and aluminum containers.
(Glass was not collected and newspaper bins were provided
by a paper stock dealer.) When full, the containers were
integrated with residential collection activities and hauled
to the city yard, thus minimizing time requirements.
The labor required to perform the "on-site transport" func-
tion at the Modesto, North Hempstead, and St. Petersburg
centers ranged from about 200 to 1,000 person-hours per
month with associated productivity factors ranging from 6 to
9 person-hours per ton of material transported to a central
site. Another measure of productivity is tabulated below
in terms of person-hours per satellite station:
Inter-center
transport Number Labor per
labor satellite satellite station
Center location (pers-hrs/mo) stations (pers-hrs/station)
Modesto, Calif. 372 6 62
No. Hempstead,
N.Y. 264 9 33
St. Petersburg,
Fla. 1,064 68 16
26
-------
Although factors such as quantities generated and distance
from the central site must be considered, labor per satel-
lite station decreased with the number of stations. Ap-
parently economies of scale were achieved. For example,
roughly half of the St. Petersburg satellite stations were
located at apartment houses and received newspaper only.
The apartment house collections were sufficient such that a
route was designed to minimize distances traveled and col-
lection labor required. Collection of materials from multi-
material satellite stations in St. Petersburg also benefited
from economies of scale.
Several collection centers reached agreement with secondary
materials dealers and/or private haulers for transportation
of some or all collected materials to market. Under the
agreements, large material storage bins were provided by
the hauler in conjunction with transport services. In ex-
change for this service, centers often received defrayed
revenue. This approach reduced the amount of labor expended
by center personnel. In terms of labor productivity asso-
ciated with center-provided transport, only Berkeley, Cor-
vallis, and Los Angeles spent over one person-hour per ton.
Each of these centers provided their own transportation of
materials to market.
Administrative and clerical labor was less than 3 person-
hours per day at 10 of the 13 centers visited. Berkeley,
Los Angeles, and North Hempstead spent the equivalent of
one person-day or more per week performing administrative
functions.
As summarized in Table 12, labor at citizen centers was
generally more productive than at public collection centers
(5.7 versus 6.6 person-hours per ton, respectively). The
citizen group is heavily weighted by the Berkeley program
which was inordinantly labor intensive in relation to the
other citizen collection centers studied. Without Berkeley,
the citizen center productivity ratio reduces to 3.3 person-
hours per ton of material collected, which is virtually
equivalent to the commercial center in San Clemente which
was, more or less, operated as a citizen center.
Labor Costs. Labor costs generally varied in relation
to the center type. As summarized in Table 13, citizen
centers received more volunteer labor than did commercial
or public centers. The citizen centers, which were heavily
influenced by the large Berkeley program, paid for three of
every four hours at an average wage of $2 per hour. Ex-
cluding the Berkeley program, about half of the hours were
paid and half volunteered. In relation to the quantities
27
-------
TABLE 13
SUMMARY OF COLLECTION CENTER LABOR COSTS
Center location/
type
Total
labor
(pers-hr/
mo)
Paid
labor Percent
(pers-hr/ paid
mo) labor
Paid
labor Materials Paid
cost collected labor
($/mo)* (tons/mo) ($/ton)#
CO
Citizen
Berkeley, Calif.
Corva.llis, Ore.
Modes to, Calif.
Palos Verdes, Calif.
Scottsdale, Ariz.
Washington, D.C.
Average citizen
Commercial
San Clemente, Calif.
Public
1,688
361
523
156
51
75
475
169
1,688
168
200
43
18
43
360
169
100
46
38
28
35
5J7
76
100
3,400
320
400
100
40
725
330
211
15
57
97
59
61
83
46
16
21
7
1
1
JL
9
Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.
Los Angeles, Calif.
No. Hempstead, N.Y.
Palo Alto, Calif.
St. Petersburg, Fla.
Seattle, Wash.
Average public
Average center
35
912
1,106
635
1,247
90
671
542
33
912
971
630
1,247
87
647
478
94
100
88
99
100
97
96
88
130
4,400
4,970
2,090
2,600
600
2,460
1,500
22
30
94
224
154
161
114
95
6
147
53
9
17
4
39
22
*Rounded to nearest $10.00
^Rounded to nearest $1.00
-------
of material accepted, the citizen centers paid for labor at
a rate of $9 per ton. Without the Berkeley program, paid
labor averaged $3 per ton.
The commercial center at San Clemente also paid wages of
$2 per hr which resulted in paid labor averaging about $6
per ton. With the exception of Scottsdale, all labor costs
incurred by citizen and commercial centers were incremental
— i.e., directly attributable to center operations.
Revenue from the sale of materials paid for labor in Berke-
ley, Palos Verdes, and San Clemente and partially in
Modesto. Grants or federal work-study programs paid for
labor in Corvallis, Modesto, and Washington, D.C. In
Scottsdale, city employees performed administrative and
labor functions in support of the citizen center.
At public centers, virtually all labor was paid for at an
average wage of about $4 per hr which equated to about $24
per ton of material accepted. Labor used at Briarcliff
Manor and half of the labor at the North Hempstead center
was derived from existing sources and, therefore, not in-
cremental to collection center operations. All other paid
labor listed in Table 13 was incremental to the respective
programs and paid by city funds or via the federal Emergency
Employment Act (all of Los Angeles and half of North Hemp-
stead) .
Table 14 delineates paid labor on the basis of material
type accepted by each center. Labor costs associated with
newspaper were the least on a cost per ton basis. The range
of costs from less than $1 per ton to $23 per ton has a
rational explanation. Each of the four programs with costs
of less than $1 per ton utilized roll-off bins provided by
paperstock dealers for patron deposit of newspaper. Thus,
aside from negligible patron assistance, there were virtually
no costs associated with newspaper handling or transporta-
tion. The San Clemente and Berkeley programs, at $6 and $8
per ton, respectively, employed the use of balers to facili-
tate handling and to increase revenue. The two centers with
the highest newspaper handling costs — St. Petersburg ($10
per ton) and North Hempstead ($23 per ton) operated satel-
lite collection centers which necessitated collection of
newspaper and transport to a central location.
Labor associated with glass had similar rationale. In
order to reduce transportation frequency, glass was normally
crushed (manually or mechanically). Briarcliff Manor and
Palos Verdes circumvented this labor intensive requirement
by placing large storage bins at the base of an incline with
a metal chute running up to ground level. Volume reduction
was achieved by the breakage that occurred upon impact with
29
-------
TABLE 14
U)
o
PAID LABOR COSTS BY MATERIAL
Center location/
type
Paid labor costs ($/ton)
News-
paper
Corru-
gated
Glass
Tin/
bi-metal
Alum-
inum
Total*
Citizen
Berkeley, Calif.
Corvallis, Ore.
Modesto, Calif.
Palos Verdes, Calif.
Scottsdale, Ariz.
Washington, D.C.
#
24
4
f
13
18
6
1
49
19
22
7
8
159
61
22
12
16
21
7
1
1
1
Commercial
San Clemente, Calif.
Public
14
Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.
Los Angeles, Calif.
No. Hempstead, N.Y.
Palo Alto, Calif.
St. Petersburg, Fla.
Seattle, Wash.
-
-
23
<1
10
4
-
-
-
3
-
—
2
92
27
5
23
4
46
245
39
71
54
4
**
950
1,112
68
325
**
6
147
53
9
17
4
*Weighted average over all materials
^Included with newspaper
+Negligible quantities
**Mixed with tin/bi-metal
-------
the bin and/or contents. Consequently labor costs were $2
per ton or less. Seattle and Palo Alto opted not to crush
glass and had labor .costs of $5 per ton or less. Transpor-
tation to and from satellite centers accounted for the $23
to $27 per ton labor costs associated with centers at North
Hempstead and St. Petersburg. In Los Angeles materials were
independently transported to market from each of the six
centers. As a result, labor costs associated with glass
were inordinantly high at $92 per ton.
Due primarily to economies of scale, tin/bi-metal 'labor
costs were high. Volume reduction of these metallic mate*
rials required about the same amount of time as glass al-
though the weight of tin/bi-metal was about one-third that
of glass at the average center (14 tons per mo versus 37
tons per mo). Seattle, Palo Alto and Scottsdale opted to
accept cans in the condition delivered by patrons, and had
the lowest labor cost ratios (ranging from $4 to $8 per ton).
Aside from the Los Angeles program which had labor.costs
averaging $245 per ton for the reasons previously stated,
costs associated with tin/bi-metal ranged from about $20 to
$70 per ton.
Economies of scale also influenced labor costs associated
with aluminum. Scottsdale and Palos Verdes, respectively
at $12 and $22 per ton, had the lowest cost ratios. Again
each of these locations accepted aluminum as delivered and
performed no further volume reduction. Volume reduction of
aluminum was not practiced at the Los Angeles or North
Hempstead centers although labor for transporting the small
quantities was $950 and $1,100 per ton, respectively.
In general, the labor cost ratios were lower at the citizen
operated centers. The two public centers with the highest
cost ratios (Los Angeles and North Hempstead) were both
heavily staffed with labor funded via the federal Emergency
Employment Act. Although the out-of-pocket costs to these
two municipalities was low, the inordinate use of labor was
apparent.
Regardless of center type, the least labor costs were
exhibited by centers which minimized processing and/or had
private haulers provide storage bins and transportation
services.
Land. Land used for collection center operations was lo-
cated adjacent to landfills and at municipal sanitation
yards, schools, city parks, auto garages, and shopping cen-
ters. The amount of land used and the space under roof at
each case study location is summarized in Table 15. The
amount of land used ranged from 400 to 40,000 sq ft with an
31
-------
TABLE 15
SUMMARY OF COLLECTION CENTER FACILITIES
Center location/
type
Open space
(sg ft)
Space under roof
(sq ft)
Donated Paid for Donated Paid for
Citizen
Berkeley, Calif. 20,000
Corvallis, Ore. 1,900
Modesto, Calif. 11,800
Palos Verdes, Calif. 40,000
Scottsdale, Ariz. 10,000
Washington, D.C. 800
Average citizen 14,080
Commercial
San Clemente, Calif.
Public
4,400
1,500
($120/mo)
8,000
($320/mo)
4,750
1,000
($50/mo)
Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.
Los Angeles, Calif.
No. Hempstead, N.Y.
Palo Alto, Calif.
St. Petersburg, Fla.
Seattle, Wash.
Average public
Average center*
400
6,000
21,600
14,600
7,000
1,500
8,520
10,770
250
1,100
400
2,100
960
2,050
*Average for both donated and paid for facilities,
32
-------
overall average of about one-quarter of an acre. The wide
variance was virtually unrelated to any specific parameters.
Rather, with the exception of the commercial operation in
San Clemente, collection centers were located where donated
land was made available. Consequently/ property size was of
secondary importance.
Open areas were used by most centers. However, seven cen-
ters had small buildings for office space and/or warehouses
for materials storage. Again, donated facilities were pre-
dominant. Aside from the commercial operation, only Modesto
paid rent for "under roof" space. The Corvallis expendi-
tures were limited to initial construction costs for a pro-
cessing/storage facility.
Equipment. Collection centers utilized a variety of equip-
ment for storage, processing and transportation.* All cen-
ters necessarily required the use of storage containers,
while processing equipment requirements varied with the
operations performed at the centers. Some of the centers
owned or rented their own transportation equipment while
others paid outside agencies to haul separated materials
to secondary dealers.
Storage Equipment. On-site storage for materials was
normally provided by makeshift containers such as 55 gal
drums and wooden boxes and/or storage bins with capacities
ranging from 1 to 40 cu yd. In general citizen collection
centers were able to obtain storage equipment without capi-
tal expenditures while storage equipment purchase or rental
was prevalent among the public centers.
Specific storage equipment used by the 13 case study centers
varied so greatly that efforts to arrive at a "typical cen-
ter" were discouraged. On a material by material basis,
however, newspaper (and cardboard where accepted) was gen-
erally stored in large capacity roll-off bins (15 to 40 cu
yd capacity) provided by secondary materials dealers while
glass and metals were stored in donated 55 gal drums at
about half of the accepting centers and in bins at the other
half.
Processing Equipment. Donated or constructed (i.e.,
"homemade") processing equipment was used at all citizen
centers performing material processing. Conversely, public
centers generally purchased or rented processing equipment.
*Appendix C lists all storage, processing, and transporta-
tion equipment used at each case study site.
33
-------
Glass crushers were the most frequently used processing
equipment. Glass crushing was performed to increase storage
density and to minimize transportation requirements. As
previously noted the Palos Verdes and Briarcliff Manor cen-
ters circumvented the need for crushing equipment by placing
storage bins at the base of an incline with a metal chute
running up to ground level. Volume reduction of glass.was
thus achieved by the breakage that occurs upon impact with
the bin and/or contents.
Can crushers were used in Corvallis, North Hempstead, and
St. Petersburg. At all other centers, patrons were either
requested to flatten the cans prior to delivery, or compac-
tor trucks were used to make collections (Los Angeles and
Seattle), thus achieving some degree of volume reduction.
At Briarcliff Manor, cans were dumped at the city yard and
crushed by the city highway roller. Center patrons were
not requested to separate metallic containers at North Hemp-
stead and St. Petersburg. These two centers purchased mag-
netic separators to increase the revenue received.
A donated shredder was used in Modesto to increase the
revenue received for aluminum. Donated paper balers were
used in Berkeley and San Clemente for the same rationale.
Typical processing equipment costs are summarized in Table 16
based on the costs reported by the case study locations.
TABLE 16
TYPICAL PROCESSING EQUIPMENT COSTS ^^^
Equipment Capital investment Operating and
($) maintenance costs
($)
Annual Monthly
Glass crusher
Can crusher
Magnetic separator
Paper baler
Can shredder
3,000
900-4,000
3,000
2,000-5,000
3,000
300
360-650
200
100-200
600
25
30-50
20
10-20
50
Transportation Equipment. Collection centers employed
two basic modes for transporting recyclable materials to
market. Transportation was provided either by using trans-
port equipment and personnel of the collection center itself,
or of a private hauler or secondary materials dealer. •
34
-------
Citizen centers generally used donated pick-up and/or stake
trucks to transport glass and metal while transport of paper
products was accomplished by secondary materials dealers
using tilt-frame trucks. City-owned tilt-frame and com-
pactor trucks were the primary transportation equipment for
public centers.
As evidenced in Table 17, equipment costs for transportation
provided by the collection center were higher than those
provided by a private hauler for materials with the greatest
generation rate (i.e./ newspaper and glass). This occurred
primarily because centers providing their own transportation
for large quantities tended to utilize less efficient and
smaller vehicles and containers for hauling. Therefore,
additional trips were made taking more time and increasing
mileage greatly. Conversely, the smaller vehicles were
more suitable for transporting tin/bi-metal and aluminum.
TABLE 17
AVERAGE EQUIPMENT COSTS FOR
TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIALS
TO MARKET
Transportation Material: Equipment cost ($/ton)
mode
Collection center
Private hauler
Glass
16
6
Tin/
bi-metal
6
8
Aluminum
33
31
Newspaper
6
4
Table 18 summarizes initial equipment purchase, operating
and maintenance, and rental costs repprted by each center.
Start-up costs (i.e., initial equipment costs) varied from
nothing at four centers to almost $40,000 at St. Petersburg.
Purchasing equipment was the last avenue explored by citizen
centers who minimized start-up costs by using donated and
salvaged equipment. As a result all citizen centers had
start-up costs of under $1,000. Public centers were gen-
erally at the opposite end of the initial cost spectrum.
Expensive processing equipment and/or trucks were purchased
at three of the public centers visited. The other three
public centers were able to use existing city-owned equip-
ment to minimize start-up costs.
Equipment operating costs, including depreciation and rental
costs where applicable, averaged $270 per mo at citizen
35
-------
UJ
TABLE 18
ESTIMATED COLLECTION CENTER EQUIPMENT COSTS
Center location/
type
Citizen
Berkeley, Calif.
Corvc.llis, Ore.
Modesto, Calif.
Palos Verdes, Calif.
Scottsdale, Ariz.
Washington, D.C.
Average citizen*
Commercial
San Clemente, Calif.
Public
Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.
Los Angeles, Calif.
No. Hemps tead, N.Y.
Palo Alto, Calif.
St. Petersburg, Fla.
Seattle, Wash.
Average public
Average center*
Materials
collected Initial
(tons/mo) ($)
211
15
57
97
59
61
58
46
22
30
94
224
154
161
114
85
Cost
980
700
0
0
0
210
1,000
300
0
19,400
900
39,500
33,000
15,520
7,920
Equipment costs
0 & M Rental
($/mo) (S/mo)
data not available
250
240 60
0 520
30
250
160
510
1,220
1,200
1,050
530
590
Total
operating
($/mo)
250
300
520
30
250
270
160
510
1,220
1,200
1,050
530
590
850
550
Monthly
cost
($/ton)
17
5
5
1
4
6
3
23
41
13
5
3
4
15
10
*Does not include Berkeley program due to lack of data.
-------
centers versus an $850 per mo average at public centers.
The commercial center had an operating cost of $160 per mo.
The citizen-public discrepancy was again due to the more
extensive and expensive equipment used at public centers.
In terms of materials collected the relationship was still
evident with equipment costs averaging $5 per ton at citizen
centers versus $8 per ton at public centers. Regardless of
the discrepancies, however, economies of scale were evident.
With the exception of San Clemente, centers collecting under
50 tons per month had monthly equipment costs ranging from
$17 to $41 per ton. Exclusive of North Hempstead, centers
collecting over 50 tons per month had a corresponding range
of $1 to $5 per month.
Total Costs, A summary of labor, land and equipment costs
is presented in Table 19. Citizen centers and the commer-
cial center generally had less costs than did the public
centers although the economies of scale discussed earlier
were evident.
Revenue and Disposal Savings
Revenue from collected materials and savings from materials
diverted from ultimate disposal should be credited to col-
lection center costs to determine the effective savings
and/or costs. As discussed below, quantities diverted from
the residential solid waste stream were insufficient to
have any quantifiable impact on refuse collection operations.
Revenue. Revenue received from sale of collected materials
is summarized in Table 20 for each case study location.
The differences in newspaper revenue received between citi-
zen ($5 per ton average) and public centers ($9 per ton
average) are believed to be due more to local market condi-
tions than discrepancies between center types. For example,
lack of proximity to a market was the primary reason for
Scottsdale receiving only $3 per ton for newspaper. The
local paper dealer paid this low sum because of high trans-
portation costs to the consumer located in Oklahoma. At
the opposite end of the newspaper revenue spectrum was San
Clemente which received $18 per ton for the baled material.
Glass revenues fluctuated very little. In general, glass
revenue to citizen centers was $20 per ton while public cen-
ters generally received $15 per ton. Mixed glass such as
marketed by Palos Verdes and North Hempstead received lower
revenue. Only in Modesto did glass revenue exceed $20 per
ton. A large winery and bottling operation located in
Modesto contracted with the center to purchase all glass
collected without color separation, provide transportation,
and pay $25 per ton.
37
-------
Ul
oo
TABLE 19
SUMMARY OF COLLECTION CENTER COSTS
Center location/
type
Citizen
Berkeley, Calif.
Corve.llis/ Ore.
Modesto, Calif.
Palos Verdes, Calif.
Scottsdale, Ariz.
Washington, D.C.
Average citizen"1"
Commercial
San Clemente, Calif.
Public
Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.
Los Angeles, Calif.
No. Hempstead, N.Y.
Palo Alto, Calif.
St. Petersburg, Fla.
Seattle, Wash.
Average public
Average center4"
Materials
collected
(tons /mo)
211
15
57
97
59
61
58
46
22
30
94
224
154
161
114
85
Cost elements ($/mo)
Labor
3,400
320
400
100
40
90
190
330
130
4,400
4,970
2,090
2,600
600
2,460
1,340
Land
0
120
320
0
0
0
90
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
Equipment
N.A.
250
300
520
30
250
270
160
510
1,220
1,200
1,050
530
590
850
550
Total
3,400*
690
1,020
620
70
340
550
540
640
5,620
6,170
3,140
3,130
1,190
3,310
1,930
Cost ratio
($/ton)
16*
46
18
11
1
6
16
12
29
187
66
14
20
7
54
35
+Berkeley not included due to lack of all applicable data.
fBased on labor costs only.
-------
u>
vo
TABLE 20
REVENUE RECEIVED BY COLLECTION CENTERS
Center location/
type
Citizen
Berkeley, Calif.
Corvallis, Ore.
Modesto, Calif.
Palos Verdes, Calif.
S co t tsd ale , Ar i z .
Washington, D.C.
Average citizen
Material revenue ($ per ton)
News-
paper
4
-
5
9
3
_6
5
Corru-
gated
^
8
0#
-
—
-
8
Glass
20
20
25
13
-
20.
20
Tin/
bi-metal
20/10*
10
20
17
20
-
15
Alum-
inum
200
200
240
200
200
-
208
Weighted
average"*"
($ per ton)
14.70
17.50
22.50
12.10
4. 80
12,40
14.00
Commercial
San Clemente, Calif. 18
Public
20
200
*Tin revenue/bi-metal revenue.
tNo revenue in exchange for bin usage.
+Weighted by material collected at each center.
18.00
Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.
Los Angeles, Calif.
No. Hemps te ad, N.Y.
Palo Alto, Calif.
St. Petersburg, Fla.
Seattle, Wash.
Average public
Ave rage cente r
^^
-
10
10
7
14
10
9
^m
-
—
17
-
-
17
12
20
15
5
15
13
15
14
17
12
10
20
18/10*
12
10
13
14
200
200
200
200
200
—
200
204
19.50
16.60
9.40
15.50
10.20
12.40
14.00
14.00
-------
Revenue for tin/bi-metal ranged from $10 to $20 per ton and
again were subject to local conditions.
With the exception of Modesto, all centers received $200 per
ton for aluminum. Modesto shredded aluminum and received
$240 per ton.
Weighted by the quantities of material collected, both citi-
zen and public collection centers had overall average reve-
nues of $14 per ton. The extremes, relevant to previous
market discussions, were $5 per ton at Scottsdale to $22
per ton at Modesto.
Disposal Savings. Table 21 estimates the impact of collec-
tion center quantities on overall residential solid waste
management. The average center diverted about 2 percent of
the total residential solid waste generated within the sur-
rounding community. Briarcliff Manor (8 percent) and San
Clemente (7 percent) were the most successful programs in
terms of diversion percentage. Both were communities of
less than 20,000 population. Also quite successful was the
Berkeley program (6 percent) which was located in a highly
environmentally conscious community of over 100,000 resi-
dents. In general, however, the rate of diversion decreased
with a rise in population.
In none of the collection center communities were refuse
collection operations modified to account for diverted quan-
tities of waste. Briarcliff Manor, however, initiated a
municipal collection system with respect to the collection
center and a separate newspaper collection program. Also,
the Berkeley center receives annual monetary and service
support amounting to $65,000 from the city refuse collection
division in recognition of the center effectiveness in
reducing disposable wastes.
Disposal savings, as developed in Appendix D, were estimated
in terms of first-and-second party ownership. First party
ownership represents the case where the center is located in
a municipality which owns the disposal site. Thus, only a
portion of disposal costs attributable to reduced operating
expenses are applicable to diverted materials. Second party
ownership represents the situation where the center is
located in a municipality which pays a second party for
disposal. Thus, each ton diverted represents a unit cost
savings. The disposal savings are summarized in Table 22.
Effective Costs. Table 22 presents the effective collec-
tion center costs and/or savings by deducting revenue and
40
-------
TABLE 21
REFUSE QUANTITIES DIVERTED BY COLLECTION CENTERS
Total materials
Center location/ Population collected
type (1,000) (tons/mo)
Citizen
Berkeley, Calif.
Corvallis, Ore.
Modesto, Calif.
Palos Verdes, Calif.
Scottsdale, Ariz.
Washington, D.C.
Average citizen
Commercial
San Clemen te, Calif..
Public
Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.
Los Angeles, Calif.
No. Hemps te ad, N.Y.
Palo Alto, Calif.
St. Petersburg, Fla.
Seattle, Wash.
Average public
Average center
117
37
100
65
85
760
18
8
2,840
236
57
235
515
211
15
57
97
59
61
83
46
22
30
94
224
154
161
114
95
Total residential
refuse Percent
(tons/mo) diverted
3,550
1,410
3,800
3,470
3,230
83,330
680
280
105,400
12,500
8,330
25,000
19,580
5.9
1.0
1.5
2.8
1.8
0.1
2.2
6.8
8.0
negligible
0.8
2.7
0.6
0.8
2.2
2.5
-------
diverted disposal savings from the estimated operating
costs.
Collectively, the citizen operated centers broke even al-
though most were operating at profits ranging from $3 to
$8/ton due primarily to donated labor and/or minimal mate-
rial processing and transportation. It should also be noted
that the centers would have been "profitable" even without
diverted disposal credit.
Similarly, the commercial center operated at a profit of
$7/ton.
Only two public centers operated profitably. Both Palo Alto
and Seattle performed very little material processing. In
fact/ the Seattle program provided no services except for
transporting materials to market. Los Angeles and North
Hempstead, each supplemented with labor from federal pro-
grams, again exemplifying the impact of excessive labor on
costs. Due primarily to these two programs, the average
public center operated at a loss of $34 per ton after
diverted disposal savings were credited.
42
-------
TABLE 22
EFFECTIVE COLLECTION CENTER COSTS/SAVINGS
Center location/
type
Citizen
Berkeley, Calif.
Corvallis , Ore .
Modesto, Calif.
Palos Verdes, Calif.
Scottsdale, Ariz.
Washington, D.C.
Average citizen
Commercial
San Clemen te, Calif.
Public
Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.
Los Angeles, Calif.
No. Hempstead, N.Y.
Palo Alto, Calif.
St. Petersburg, Fla.
Seattle, Wash.
Average public
Average center
Collection
center
operating
costs
($/ton)
N.A.
46
18
11
1
_6
16
12
29-
r!87
^6fr
14
20
7
54
35
Revenue
from
materials
collected
($/ton)
15
18
22
12
5
ii
14
18
20
17
9
16
10
L2
14
14
Diverted
disposal
savings
($/ton)
0*
8
1
2
1
2
2
1
8
1
7
1
2
JL^
3
3
Effective
cost
(savings)
($/ton)
N.A.
20
(5)
(3)
(5)
(8)
0
(7)
1
c^ireT^
50
(3)
8
_J6J_
34
16
N.A. - Not available due to lack of
*No charge made under operator/city
all applicable data.
agreement.
-------
VI
ACKNOWLE DGEMEN TS
We gratefully express our appreciation to representatives of
the Resource Recovery Division of the Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, for
their encouragement and assistance in the conduct of this
study. Ms. Penelope Hansen, Project Officer, provided
excellent guidance throughout the study. Her dedication
and sincere interest in resource recovery provided helpful
encouragement to members of the project team.
The assistance of the many concerned citizens, public works
administrators, private refuse collection firms, and second-
ary materials dealers who contributed information to the
case studies comprising the basis for this study is grate-
fully acknowledged.
Preceding page blank
45
-------
VII
REFERENCES
1. "Recycling Solid Wastes in Los Angeles," unpublished
report by the Bureau of Sanitation, Department of
Public Works, City of Los Angeles, California, May
1971.
2. Refuse Collection Practice, American Public Works
Association,third edition, 1966.
3. Peters, William H., "Who Cooperates in Voluntary
Recycling Efforts?" unpublished paper presented at
the American Marketing Association Conference,
August 1973.
4. Water and Power Facts, Department of Water and Power,
City of Los Angeles, California, 1972.
5. Analysis of Source Separate Collection of Recyclable
Solid Waste, prepared by SCS Engineers for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, Resource Recovery Division under
Contract No. 68-01-0789, August 1974.
6. Sorg, T.J. and H.L. Hickman, Jr., Sanitary Landfill
Facts, Report Number SW-4ts, U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, Bureau of Solid Waste
Management, 1970.
7. Municipal Refuse Disposal, American Public Works
Association, 1970.
Preceding page blank
47
-------
IX
APPENDICES
Section Page
A Incurred Material Preparation Costs A-l
B Labor Distribution and Productivity
for Selected Recyclable Materials B-l
C Equipment Used at Collection Centers C-l
D Diverted Disposal Values D-l
Preceding page blank
49
-------
APPENDIX A
INCURRED MATERIAL PREPARATION COSTS
Material preparation costs incurred by a householder may
include costs for water used when rinsing or cleaning mate-
rials, energy used if metal container volume reduction
requirements are accomplished with the aid of an electric
can opener, and the amount of time used when bundling news-
paper. Data to estimate the incurred costs were obtained
during the voluntary household study conducted in conjunc-
tion with the primary study. This Appendix delineates the
amount of supplies and resources used and estimates the
householder costs incurred for each of three material pre-
paration activities: cleaning, volume reduction, and
bundling.
Cleaning
The average time spent cleaning separated containers totaled
5.4 person-minutes per week. On a material by material
basis the average weekly cleaning time and material amounts
cleaned were as follows:
Average weekly Average weekly
cleaning time generation rate
Material (min.) (Ibs)
Glass
Tin/bi-metal
Aluminum
2.4
2.3
0.7
4.5
1.7
0.3
Total 5.4 6.5
The average rate of water flow used during rinsing and
cleaning of containers was computed to be approximately one
gallon per minute (gpm). The cost of residential water was
estimated to be $0.0005 per gallon based on a survey of
water rates in the sixteen largest cities in the United
States4. (Note: Case studies were conducted in nine of
these cities.) Water used during cleaning is dependent on
the portion of time that water was actually used for cleaning
purposes. For example, if dishwater was used both for con-
tainer cleaning and for washing dishes, no incremental water
cost was assigned for cleaning. Conversely, if tap water
was kept running throughout the cleaning exercise, the total
quantity of water was attributed to cleaning.
A-l
-------
Participants in the household study did not use soap for
cleaning separated containers, unless soap was in used dish-
water. Similarly, mechanical dishwashers were not used for
cleaning containers. Thus, no incremental costs were as-
signed for soap or for dishwasher use.
Table A-l converts the time/quantity data above to incurred
cleaning costs at the average water cost rate.
Based on average generation rates, Table A-2 presents the
number of months required to produce one ton of each mate-
rial and converts the cleaning cost per ton to a cost, per
household per month.
Volume Reduction
Aluminum containers can be readily crushed without mechani-
cal assistance. Glass containers are not normally crushed
in the household due to the potential hazards of broken
glass. Therefore, tin/bi-metal containers were the only
separated material to which incurred volume reduction costs
were attributed.
Household studies indicated that when volume reduction was
performed, an average of 2.2 minutes were spent crushing
the 1.7 Ibs of tin/bi-metal plated containers generated
weekly. As an aid to volume reduction, the normal procedure
was to cut the top and bottom from the container and flatten
the resulting cylinder. Removing the container top is a
utilitarian procedure and was therefore not attributable to
material preparation costs. Removing the container bottom
for ease of crushing was not, however, and therefore an
attributable material preparation cost.
Bottom removal may be accomplished manually with a hand-held
can opener or mechanically with an electric can opener.
Removing the container bottom consumed about 90 percent of
the total crushing time with no significant time differences
between the two removal methods. Assuming typical electric
can opener has a rating of 160 watts, and electricity costs
$0.015 per KWH4, the weekly cost of electricity was approxi-
mately $0.00009 which is equivalent to about $0.10 per ton
of tin/bi-metal containers reduced in volume. As previously
estimated, 278 months would be required to produce one ton
of tin/bi-metal containers. Thus, when volume reduction
was accomplished with the aid of an electrical can opener,
the incurred household cost was about $0.0004 per month.
Conversely there was no incurred cost when manual aids such
as a hand-heId can opener were used (no hand-held can openers
were purchased specifically for volume reduction during the
household studies).
A-2
-------
u>
TABLE A-l
CLEANING COST CALCULATIONS
Material
Glass
Tin/Bi-metal
Aluminum
Total /Aver age
Material Cleaning
Weekly water cost conversion generation cost
(Gal/Wk)
2.4
2.3
0.7
5.4
x ($/Gal) =
0.0005 0
0.0005 0
0.0005 0
0.0005 0
TABLE A-
CLEANING COSTS PER
Material
Glass
Tin/Bi-metal
Aluminum
Cleaning
cost
($/ton)
0.53
1.35
2.33
Material
generation
Rate*
(Ibs/mo)
19.3
7.2
1.3
($/V7k) (Ibs/wk)
.00120 4.5
.00115 1.7
.00035 0.3
.00270 6.5
2
HOUSEHOLD
Time required to
accumulate one
ton of material
per household"*"
(mo)
104
278
1,538
($/ton)
0.53
1.35
2.33
0.83
Incurred
cost per
household
(S/mo)
0.0051
0.0048
0.0015
*Based on generation rates determined from household study.
+Rounded to nearest whole month.
-------
Bundling
Incurred bundling costs occur only when twine or a similar
material is used to bind newspapers. Bundling serves to
ease handling and reduces litter problems during collection
or delivery. Grocery bags may be used to accomplish this
purpose, however; no incremental costs were assigned if this
method was used.
About 30 percent of the household participants voluntarily
bundled newspaper with twine. About 2.6 ft of twine per
week was used to bundle an average of 12.2 Ibs of newspaper
generated weekly. The cost of twine was estimated to be
$0.001 per linear foot equating to a cost of $0.43 per ton.
At a rate of 12.2 Ibs per week (52.8 Ibs per month) approxi-
mately 38 months would be required to generate one ton of
newspaper. Thus, the incurred household cost per month was
$0.011, or about a penny per month if bundling was accom-
plished with twine.
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B
LABOR DISTRIBUTION AND PRODUCTIVITY FOR
SELECTED RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
The following tables provide a material by material break-
down of labor distribution and productivity for newspaper,
glass, tin/bi-metal, and aluminum.
B-l
-------
M
Newsprint
TABLE B-l
SUMMARY OF COLLECTION CENTER LABOR REQUIREMENTS AND PRODUCTIVITY
Labor requirement (man-hr/mo. )
Material
Center type/ collected
location (tons/no)
Citizen
Berkeley, CA 88
Corvallis, OR
Modesto, CA is
Palos Verdes, CA 66
Scottsdale, AR 46
Washington, DC 34
Conreerclal
San Clemente, CA 42
Public
Briarcliff Manor, NY
Lo« Angeles, CA
North Heaps tead, NY • 1»
Palo Alto, CA 101
Seattle, HA 52
St. Petersburg, FL 109
On- On- On-site
site site trans./
assist, proc. coll..
5
0
33
0
0
0
IS
10
0
0
315
(NONE ACCEPTED)
1
0
30
0
114
(NONE ACCEPTED)
(HONE ACCEPTED)
108
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
33
0
0
0 494
Trans.
to
dealer
0
5
0
0
0
16
0
0
28
0
Ada.
49
7
5
12
14
3
46
0.5
1
4
tabor productivity (ntan-hr/toni
On- Or.-
Total site site
assist, proc.
369 0.1 3.6
32 0 0.1
38 0.5 0
42 0 0.6
14 0 0
133 0 2.7
202 0.8 5.7
10.5 . 0.1 0
29 0 0
498 ft 0
On-site Trans.
trans./ to Ad.T. Total
coll. dealer
0 0 0.6 4.2
1.3 0.3 0.5 2.1
0 0 0.1 0.6
0 0 0.3 0.9
0 0 0.4 0.4
0 0.4 0.1 3.2
1.7 0 2.4 i0.6
0 00 J.I
0 0.5 0 -1.b
4.5 0 0 4.6
-------
TABLE B-l Continued
Aluminum
CO
U)
Labor requirement (man-hr/mo.)
Center type/
location
Citiren
Berkeley, CA
Corvallis, OR
Modesto, CA
Palos Verdes, CA
Trottsdnlc, AR
Washington, DC
Commercial
San Clemente, CA
Public
Briarcliff Manor, Ifif
Los Angeles, CA
North Hemps tead, HY
Palo Alto, CA
Seattle, MA
St. Petersburg TL
Material
collected
(tons/mo)
2.0
0.4
1.1
0.7
0.35
.02
0.3
0.7
0.2
2.9
lit
On-
site
assist.
5
0
0
30
0
0
0
(NOT
139
15
15
(MOT
0
On- On- site Trans.
site trans./ to Adm.
proc. coll. dealer
66
16
28
0
8
1
6
SEPARATED
0
129
43
SEPARATED
0
0
29
0
0
0
0
FROM
0
51
0
FROM
39
2
4
0
0
0
l.S
OTHER
9
12
0
OTHER
S 131 «
49
20
19
5
12
1
0
METALS)
50
42
0.5
MKTALS)
3
Labor productivity (man-hr/ton)
On- On- On-site trans.
Total site site trans./ to Adm.
assist, proc. coll. dealer
159 2.5 33.0 0
38 0 40.0 0
80 0 25.5 26.4
35 42.9 0 0
22 0 22.9 0
20 0 50
9.5 0 20.0 0
189 198.6. 0 0
249 75.0 645 255
58.5 5.2 14.8 0
141 D S.O 169.2
19.0 24.5
5.0 50.0
3.6 17.3
0 7.1
0 34.3
0 50
5.0 0
12.9 71.4
60 210
0 0.2
5.6 2.5
Total
79.0
95.0
72.
50.0
57.2
100
25. c
270.0
1245
20.2
121.7
-------
TABLE B-l Continued
Tin t bi-aetal
a
Labor requirement (nan-hr/no. )
Material
Center type/ collected
location (tons/no)
Cititen
Berkeley, CA
Corvallis, OR
Modesto, CA
Palos Verdes, CA
Scottsdale, AR
Washington, DC
Comae rcial
San Clementa, CA
Public
Briarcliff Manor, NY
LOB Angeles, CA
North Hecpstead, NT
Palo Alto, CA
Seattle, WA
St. Petersburg, PL
21.8
3.7
5.3
2.5
2.3
On- On-
site site
assist, proc.
11
0
0
30
0
256 .
48
10
0
0
On-aite
trans./
coll..
0
0
108
0
20
Trans.
to
dealer
174
18
10
0
8
Adn.
97
20
18
5
12
Labor productivity (man-hr/ton)
On- On- .
Total site site
. assist, proc.
538 0.5 11.7
86 0 13.0
146 0 1.9
35 12.0 0
40 0 0
On-site Trans.
trans./ to Adm. Total
coll. dealer
0 8.0 4.4 24.7
0 4.9 5.4 i..j
20.4 1.9 3.4 27. 5
0 0 2.0 14.0
8.7 3.5 5.2 17.4
(NONE ACCEPTED)
(NONE ACCEPTED)
2.0
5.8
2.4
19.6
C7.I
6.0
0
139
IS
25
0
0.
14
0
150
380
0
6
0
0
57
0
e
131
0
66
20
0
37
6
1
50
42
0.5
1
3
17 0 7.0
255 24.0 0
284 6.2 62.5
405 1.3 .19.4
38 0 0
146 -0 1.0
0 1.0 0.5 8.S
0 11.4 8.6 44.0
23.7 8.3 17.5 118.3
000 20.7
0 O.S 0 0.5
21.8 1.0 0.5 24.3
-------
TABLE B-l Continued
Glass
CO
cn
Labor requirement
Center type/
location
Citizen
Berkel'.y, CA
Corvallis, OR
Modesto, CA
Palos Verdes, CA
Scottsdale, AR
Washington , DC
Commercial
San Clements, CA
Public
Briarcliff Manor, NY
Los Angeles, CA
North Hemps tead, NY
Palo Alto, CA
Seattle, HA
St. Petersburg, FL
Material
collected
(tons/mo)
99
9
34
26
On-
site
assist.
5
0
0
30
On-
site
proc.
394
122
25
0
(man-hr/mo.)
On-site
trans . /
coll-
0
0
212
0
Trans.
to
dealer
174
41
0
0
Adra.
49
20
19
5
Total
622
183
256
35
Labor productivity (man-hr/ton)
On-
site
assist.
0.1
0
0
1.2
On-
site
proc.
4.0
13.9
0.7
0
On-site Trans.
trans . / to
coll. dealer
0 1.8
0 4.7
6.2 0
0 0
Adm.
0.5
2.3
0.5
0.2
Totai
6.3
20.9
7.6
1.4
(NONE ACCEPTED)
27
4
20
24
17
83
41
38
0
0
0
139
15
25
0
0
111
24
7
0
60
91
0
130
0
0
0
0
123
0
0
247
0
4
0
270
0
0
22
6
28
1
1
SO
46
0.5
1
3
139
29
8
459
244
116.5
23
386
0
0
0
5.8
0.9
0.3
0
o-
4.0
5.9
0.3
0
3.5
1.1
0
3.4
0 0
0 1.0
0 0
0 11.2
7.2 0
0 0
0 0.5
6.5 0.2
1.0
0.2
0.1
2.1
2.7
0
0
0.1
5.1
7.1
0.4
19.1
14.3
1.4
0.6
,0.2
-------
APPENDIX C
EQUIPMENT USED AT COLLECTION CENTERS
The specific type and size of equipment used for storage,
processing, and transportation at each of the case
study collection centers is tabulated in Table C-l.
Tables C-2 through C-4, respectively characterize how stor-
age, processing, and transportation equipment was acquired
by each center (i.e., donated, purchased, rented, etc.).
C-l
-------
TABLE C-l
COLLECTION CENTER EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Location
Center activity
Storage
Processing
Transportation
Berkeley, CA
o
K)
15 cu yd roll-off
bins
Small containers
Fork lift
Mule
Baler
Block & tackle
Can flatteners
Flat-bed truck
Light trailer
2-ton dump truck
Several pick-up
trucks
Stake truck
Compactor truck
Covered trailers
Flat-bed truck
w/lift gate
Tilt-frame truck
Corvallis, OR
4x4x7-1/2 wooden
boxes
300-50 gal drums
30 cu yd roll-off
bin
Can crusher
Glass crusher
Hand trucks
Fork lift
2-2 1/2 ton flat-
bed trucks
-------
TABLE C-l Continued
Center activity
Location
Storage
Processing
Transportation
Modesto, CA
35-55 gal drums
20 cu yd roll-off bin
40 cu yd roll-off bin
Alum, can shredder
22-ft van
1/2 ton pick-up
truck
o
W
Palos Verdes, CA 6-40 cu yd roll-off
bins
Scottsdale, AR
3-40 cu yd roll-off
bins
10-5 cu yd trailer
train bodies
2-8 cu yd bins
Tilt-frame truck
32 cu yd compac-
tion truck
Pick-up truck
San Clemente, CA 12-1 ton news bins
50-55 gal drums
Fork lift (1/2 ton)
Baler (50 ton)
1 truck
Seattle, WA
6-25 cu yd roll-off
bins
1 tilt-frame
truck
-------
TABLE C-l Continued
o
i
Location
Briarcliff Manor, NY
Los Angeles, CA
Washington DC
Center activity
Storage
Processing
3-10 cu yd lugger
boxes
3-20 cu yd lugger
boxes
2 wooden bins
5-55 gal drums
64-3 cu yd bins
1-20 cu yd roll-off
bin
1-10 cu yd dumpster
1-16 ft. Flatbed
truck
2-55 gal drums
2-Skip loaders
Dump truck
Roller
Compactor trucks
1 Glass crusher
Transportation
2 Compactor trucks
1 Van
Palo Alto, CA
10-15 cu yd roll-off
bins
4-8 cu yd bins
Can crusher
Forklift
Tilt frame
-------
TABLE C-l Continued
Center activity
Location Storage
No. Hempstead, NY 3-12'xl2'x61 wood
bins
Processing
Magnetic
Separator
Transportation
Pick-up truck
Dump truck
o
in
St. Petersburg, PL
2-16'xl6'x6' wood
bins
l-24'xl2'x6I wood
bin
90-55 gal drums
12-1.33 cu yd bins
500-55 gal drums
21-1 cu yd containers
180-55 gal drums
Can crusher
2 Glass crushers
Forklift (3 ton)
Conveyor system
Skip loader
23 cu yd compactor
truck
2 Stake trucks
-------
TABLE C-2
STORAGE EQUIPMENT USED AT COLLECTION CENTERS
O
Center location/
type
Citizen
Berkeley, Calif.
Corvallis, Ore.
Modesto, Calif.
Palos Verdes, Calif.
Scottsdale, Ariz.
Washington, D.C.
Commercial
San Clements, Calif.
Public
Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.
Los Angeles, Calif.
No. Hempstead, N.Y.
Palo Alto, Calif.
St. Petersburg, Fla.
Seattle, Wash.
*Aluminum, tin, bi-metal
Storage equipment
Newspaper Glass Metal*
Make- Make- Make-
shift Bins shift Bins shift Bins
D C D D
D C
S D R C
S S S
R D
S R D
P D D
C R
D D
C D D
S R R
P D D
P P P
Key:
C - Constructed by center
D - Donated to center
P - Purchased by center
R - Rented by center
S - Provided to center by secondary
Other
Make-
shift Bins
D
S
S
S
S
D
D
C
S
materials dealer
-------
TABLE C-3
PROCESSING EQUIPMENT USED AT COLLECTION CENTERS
Processing equipment
Center location/
type
Paper
baler
Can
shredder
Can
crusher
Magnetic
separator
Glass
crusher
?
Citizen
Berkeley, Calif.
Corvallis, Ore.
Modesto, Calif.
Washington, B.C.
Commercial
San Clemente, Calif.
Public
D
C
D
No. Hempstead, N.Y.
Palo Alto,- Calif.
St. Petersburg, Fla.
P
R
P
P
D(2)
P
Key:
C
D
P
R
Constructed by center
Donated to center
Purchased by center
Rented by center
-------
n
00
TABLE C-4
TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT USED AT COLLECTION CENTERS
Center location/
type
Transportation equipment
Pick-up
Flat bed/ Tilt
stake frame Compactor
Other
Citizen
Berkeley, Calif.
Corvallis, Ore.
Modesto, Calif.
Palos Verdes, Calif.
Scottsdale, Ariz. .
Washington, D.C.
D
P
D
R
P/D
D
R
R
R
R
D
D
Commercial
San Clemente, Calif.
Public
Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.
Los Angeles, Calif.
No. Hempstead, N.Y.
Palo Alto, Calif.
St. Petersburg, Fla.
Seattle, Wash.
D
R
P
Key: D - Donated to center
P - Purchased by center
R - Rented by center
D
P
-------
APPENDIX D
DIVERTED DISPOSAL VALUES
Materials diverted by collection center activities have a
diverted disposal value. Although not received by a center,
the value should be considered when assessing program
viability.
Savings in diverted solid waste disposal costs are dependent
on whether the municipality in which the center is located
operates its own disposal facility or pays a second party
for disposal. In a secondary sense, the savings value
varies with the cost of the disposal method employed.
In twenty-two separate collection case study locations made
in conjunction with this overall study-*, disposal was
either by sanitary landfill or incineration. If the munici-
pality pays a second party for disposal, the entire disposal
cost per ton can be recovered through separate collection.
If the disposal facility is owned and operated by the muni-
cipality, however, only a portion of the disposal cost can
be saved. None of the case study locations in the latter
category had attempted to quantify the portion of cost
applicable to diverted disposal. Therefore, diverted dis-
posal savings for landfill and incineration operations were
estimated in the manner discussed below.
Sanitary Landfill. Benefits of separate collection on
sanitary landfill operations include a decrease in the rate
of use of remaining landfill space and a decrease in land-
fill equipment usage. Based on the case studies, reported
sanitary landfill ownership and operating costs ranged from
$0.85 to $7.50 per ton with an average of about $2.50 per
ton. Land costs were assumed to represent $0.50 of the
total cost based on the disposal of 10,000 tons per acre and
a net land cost of $5,000 per acre. Thus, diversion of
recyclables was assumed to potentially save $0.50 per ton
in land costs at the sanitary landfill.
The remaining $2 of the total $2.50 per ton was attributed
to operating costs. Assuming a track dozer can spread and
compact up to 80 tons of solid waste per hour6 and that
equipment and operator costs average $25 per hour, an addi-
tional operating cost savings of about $0.30 per ton can be
attributed to wastes diverted by separate collection. Thus,
a total diverted disposal cost savings of $0.80 per ton was
assigned to a collection center when the municipality with-
in which the center operated, owned and operated its own
D-l
-------
sanitary landfill while the total.disposal cost per ton was
assigned in cases where the municipality paid a second party
for disposal.
Incineration. The diversion of materials from incineration
through collection center activities can be expected to
reduce equipment usage and residue disposal requirements.
Incineration costs reported for the case study locations
ranged from $7.20 to $17.40 per ton with an average of $10.50
per ton. A breakdown of incinerator operating costs was
provided for Chicago, Illinois? (a case study location).
Table D-l presents an estimated breakdown of incinerator
cost elements believed to be affected as a result of refuse
tonnage diverted via collection center operation.
Assuming applicability of the tabulated data to the case
study locations, estimated savings from diverted materials
amounts to 51 percent of the cost for incineration.
TABLE D-l
INCINERATION COST ELEMENTS AS A
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PLANT
OPERATING COSTS
Applicable
Percent of total to diverted
Operating cost element operating cost tonnage
Operating less residue
disposal
Maintenance and repair
Administration and
supervision
Pension
Fuel and utilities
Amortization
Miscellaneous
27
22
8
4
2
20
17
27
22
0
0
2
0
0
100 51
In addition, ash residue must be hauled for final landfill
disposal. Residue transport costs vary with many factors,
but for purposes of this study, savings were assumed to
average $0.50 per ton of residue. Disposal costs of residue
at the landfill was valued at $0.80 per ton for a munici-
pally owned landfill and the total cost per ton for second-
party ownership based on the preceding landfill discussion.
D-2
-------
A 95 percent reduction in weight of material was assumed
for paper processed through an incinerator. No weight
reduction was attributed to glass and metal if processed
through an incinerator.
D-3
------- |