U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
PB-264 214
Optimization of Office Paper Recovery Systems
SCS Engineers, Long Beach, California
Prepared For
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
1977
-------
OPTIMIZATION OF OFFICE PAPER
RECOVERY SYSTEMS
This final report (SW-135c) describes work performed
for the Federal Office of Solid Waste under contract
no. 68-01-3192 and is reproduced as received from
the contractor.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1977
-------
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 the mention of commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-135c) in the solid
waste management series.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 1. Report No. 2.
SHEET ' •
4. Title and Subtitle
Optimization of Office Paper Recovery Systems
7. Author(s)
SCS Engineers
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
SCS Engineers
4014 Long Beach Boulevard 11800 Sunrise Valley Drive
Long Beach, California 90807 Reston, Virginia 22091
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipient's Accession No.
5. Report Date
6.
8. Performing Organization Rept.
No.
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
EPA-68-01-3192
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Final
14.
IS. Supplementary Notes
16k Abstracts
This study assesses source-separation of paper as a viable resource recoverv
option in office buildings. Three basic approaches to office source separation
are analyzed in terms of economics and performance based on their performance
at 12 case study locations. The report gives an overview of source separation -
operations and solid waste management activities, and analyzes the manor factors
involved in implementing and running a source separation program. This is fol-
lowed by an examination of program economics prior to and after implementation
of the source separation subsystem using both the incremental and fullv allocated
approaches. This study concludes that source separation is practicable and
economically viable, and that separation of high-grade white paper using the
desk-top container approach is the most effective method. _- -
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17o. Descriptors
I
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Paper Recycling
Source Separation
Materials Handling
Collecting Methods
Materials Recoverv
17c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASS1FI
J21. No. of Pages
im.
(This
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
FORM NTIS-38 (REV- 10-73)
ENDORSED BY ANSI AND UNESCO.
THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
USCOMM-DC 828S-P74
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FIGURES iii
TABLES iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi
I SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1
Economics 1
Performance 2
Recommendations 3
II INTRODUCTION 4
III SOURCE SEPARATION OPERATIONS 6
Overview 6
Solid Waste Management Activities 11
Office Waste Characteristics 14
Source Separation 17
Program Administration 17
Publicity/Education 20
Participation 20
Paper Preparation 23
Diverted Disposal 26
On-Site Storage 29
On-Site Collection 30
Processing 34
Central Storage 37
Transportation 39
IV SOURCE SEPARATION ECONOMICS 40
Methodology 40
Startup Costs 41
Administration 41
Equipment 41
Labor 42
Operating Costs 44
Program Economics 45
Office Building Type 45
Source Separation Approach 48
Paper Grade 48
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
V OPTIMIZATION ANALYSIS 52
Data Development 52
Optimization Analysis Results 55
REFERENCES 58
APPENDICES 59
A Paper Stock Definitions/Historic Prices A-l
B Cost Data for Optimization Analysis B-l
IV
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 Typical Desk Top Container 10
2 Typical Dual Basket Configuration 10
3 Typical Central Containers 12
4 Solid Waste Management Activities With
and Without Source Separation 13
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Source of Motivation for Implementing Paper
Separation Programs 7
2 Reasons for Implementing Paper Separation
Programs 7
3 Case Study Site Demographics 8
4 Employee Solid Waste Generation by Building Type 15
5 Composition of Office Solid Waste by Building
type 16
6 Initial Administrative and Clerical Labor
Requirements 18
7 Ongoing Administrative and Clerical Labor
Requirements 19
8 Initial and Ongoing Publicity/Education Costs 21
9 Employee Participation Rate 22
10 Contamination Level of Source Separate Paper 25
11 Waste Quantities Diverted Through Source
Separation ' 27
12 Labor Utilization for Paper Collection 33
13 Time Requirements for Collection of Source
Separated Paper 35
14 Central Storage Approach and Space Requirements 38
15 Incremental Source Separation Program Startup
Costs for Equipment and Labor 43
16 Typical Revenues Received for Source Separated
Office Paper 46
17 Impact of Source Separation on Overall Office
Building Solid Waste Management Costs by
Building Type 47
VI
-------
TABLES (Continued)
No. Pag<
18 Impact of Source Separation on Overall Office
Building Solid Waste Management Costs by Source
Separation Approach 49
19 Impact of Source Separation on Overall Office
Building Solid Waste Management Costs by
Paper Grade 50
20 Cost Analysis of Alternative Source Separation
Approaches/Schemes 56
vii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The assistance, in the conduct of this study, of represen-
tatives of the Resource Recovery Division of the Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency is gratefully acknowledged. In particular, Ms.
Penelope Hansen, Project Officer, established an excellent
liaison between SCS Engineers and other representatives
within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Her know-
ledge of and sincere interest in office building resource
recovery provided encouragement to members of the project
team.
Special recognition is given to the companies and agencies
who served as the case study sites which served as the basis
for this analysis*:
Bank of America
Donaldson Company, Inc.
National Bureau of Standards
New Jersey Bell
Oregon State Capitol
Sentry Insurance Company
University of Oregon
Washington State Capitol
. Wells Fargo Bank
Western Electric
. World Trade Center
Individually, the assistance of many office building managers,
project coordinators, custodial personnel, and
paper dealers furnishing solid waste management and/or
recyclable paper data also deserves to be acknowledged.
In addition we wish to express our sincere gratitude to
Shade Information Systems, Inc. for coordinating case study
visit arrangements with representative companies/agencies
using the desk top system.
* One company requested total anonymity as a prerequisite
for serving as a case study ,site. We respect their desires
and acknowledge their participation in this study.
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Office building solid waste generally contains mixed paper of
varying grades and types which, by weight, accounts for 85 to
95 percent of the waste stream. In the past, the hetero-
geneous nature of this paper fraction has discouraged waste-
paper dealers from regarding office buildings as a primary
source of paper stock. Recyclable paper, however, can be
separated from prohibitive contaminants such as carbon paper,
bottles, cans, and organic materials at the point of waste
generation. Such source separated quantities are then
marketable.
The objective of this study was to assess source separation
as a viable resource recovery option in office buildings.
Three basic approaches to office building source separation
were investigated at 12 case study locations:
Desk top - Each employee is provided with a small desk
top container for isolation of source
separated paper.
Dual basket - Each employee is provided with two
"wastebaskets," one of which is desig-
nated for source separated paper.
Central container - Employees carry source separated
paper to large containers conven-
iently placed throughout an office
building.
In all instances, source separation of recyclable paper was
performed by individual office workers on the accepted
premise that employees will voluntarily contribute small
amounts of time daily to a separation program without
interruption of work routines or a reduction of overall office
productivity.
Economics
The economics of all source separation programs studied were
favorable, although variations were noted from program to
program. Major independent variables included the method
of separation, type of paper separated, building type and
configuration, occupancy status Cown/lease), and custodial
arrangements (employee/contract). In general, however, the
following economic conclusions can be made:
-------
Source separation is practicable and economically
viable in office buildings. Overall solid waste
management costs were effectively reduced by up to
59 percent; an average reduction of 12 percent was
achieved.
Startup costs averaged about 15 cents per employee
and entailed expenditures for initial publicity/
education, equipment, and, to a lesser extent, labor.
Publicity/education costs averaged 13 cents per
employee, of which 3 cents were out-of-pocket
expenditures far materials.
Incremental equipment costs were site specific,
but averaged about 1 cent per employee.
Incremental labor costs at program inception were
also site specific, depending on the degree to
which paper collection could be absorbed in
ongoing activities. Using monthly incremental
labor costs as a proxy for startup costs, ini-
tial expenditures ranged from zero at seven case
study sites to an average of 1 cent per employee
per month at the five remaining sites.
Program management was absorbed into existing work-
loads and entailed no out-of-pocket costs. Required
administrative time at program inception ranged from
5 to 380 hours and averaged about 120 hours (equiva-
lent to 3 minutes per employee), about 100 hours of
which were absorbed by administrative personnel and
about 20 hours by clerical employees. Ongoing program
management required from 2 to 110 hours per month
and averaged about 25, equally divided between adminis-
trative and clerical personnel.
Performance
Initial and ongoing publicity/education is an
absolute necessity of any source separation program
to ensure employee participation and minimize con-
tamination.
Employee response to source separation was immediate
and rapidly became habitual.
Source separation programs attained high employee
participation rates. Voluntary employee participa-
tion was as high as 95 percent and averaged 80
percent.
-------
Source separation can divert substantial portions
of office building solid waste from disposal.
Diverted quantities were as high as 78 percent and
averaged 34 percent.
Source separation programs were able to restrict
contaminating materials to acceptable levels.
Programs with the highest participation rate and the
lowest contamination levels limited source separation
to white high-grade paper (computer tab cards,
computer printout, and white ledger).
Recommendations
Based on 12 case studies of alternative source separation
and paper recovery schemes, the desk top method with exclu-
sive separation of white high-grade paper is recommended for
office building implementation. Compared with alternative
approaches, the recommended method:
Most effectively reduced solid waste management
costs;
Incurred the lowest startup costs;
Achieved the highest employee response;
Experienced the lowest level of contamination;
Was most easily incorporated into normal office
routines.
-------
II
INTRODUCTION
Contemporary business and governmental practices require
the collection, preservation, and dissemination of a truly stag-
gering amount of information--generating a sea of paper. In
recent years, this "information explosion" has increased the
demand for high grade paper beyond domestic supply capacity.
In the flourishing economy of the 1960's, paper demand was
met by large, small, and specialized paper mills. During
1969 and 1970, however, total output dropped; operating ratios
fell to about 90 percent of capacity, followed by the demise
of many small and/or specialized paper companies. Shortly
afterwards, several inhibiting factors compounded the paper
production crisis. Price controls in the United States
caused a low rate of return on paper sold domestically.
Low profits discouraged capital expansion; as paper demand
climbed, many companies were caught with inadequate production
capacity. Pollution abatement devices, necessary under
federal and local laws, called for unplanned capital
expenditures and increased operating costs. Shortages
of raw materials and chemicals only increased the problems
faced by American paper manufacturers. The energy crisis
and a troubled economy created an uncertain situation
in which manufacturers were reluctant to promise that future
deliveries would be able to meet demands.l»2
Demand exceeds supply; the situation will become increasingly
aggravated unless remedial conservation action is taken and
paper control measures are adopted by business firms. Con-
trol could be achieved in one of two manners:
Recycling of used paper products, and
Source reduction.
This report focuses on the paper recycling measures that can
be adopted in general office buildings.
Paper generated in office buildings primarily consists
of four grades: mixed, newspaper, corrugated, and pulp
substitutes/high grade deinking stock. This paper can com-
prise over 80 percent by weight of all office building solid
waste. In view of the quantity generated, office buildings
would appear to offer a primary source of reusable paper.
-------
However, a 1970 survey of the paper stock industry by
the National Association of Recycling Industries indicated
that only one out of four paper stock dealers handled paper
from office buildings.3 Dealers were obviously interested
in industries generating large volumes of homogeneous grades
of relatively uncontaminated paper. The heterogeneous
paper wastes which characterize office buildings cannot be
directly reused in high grades manufacture without some
degree of separation. If source separated into homogeneous
grades, however, discarded paper would be marketable.
It was with respect to the unquantified aspects of office
building source separation that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency contracted with SCS Engineers to obtain
detailed information on the performance and costs of such
resource recovery programs. This report presents the results
of 12 case studies performed on representative source
separation programs throughout the nation. Since many variables
between case study locations could not be controlled, the
relationships developed and presented herein should be consi-
dered as best estimates from the empirical data available.
In addition, the scope of work bounding the research performed
did not encompass assessment of recycling mill capacity to
absorb additional quantities of source separated office paper.
-------
Ill
SOURCE SEPARATION OPERATIONS
Overview
In the course of this study, 12 source separation programs
were assessed to obtain operational and cost information.
Reasons and motivation for implementing source separation
programs differed from site to site, as summarized in Tables
1 and 2. Program motivation was primarily from the management
levels although employee impetus was also important at many
of the sites visited. One program was initiated in response
to a legislative mandate. Ecological concern was cited
as the reason for starting a paper separation program at
92 percent of the case study locations. Waste disposal cost
reduction and the related financial profit provided the second
most prevalent motive for program initiation. A significant
42 percent of the case study sites used separation programs
to create employment opportunities.
Table 3 provides descriptive information on the case study
sites. The buildings studied were located throughout the
nation and selected from three types of office buildings:
Bank/Insurance Company buildings including two
major banks and two major insurance companies.
General Office buildings encompassing two state
government complexes, two communication companies,
and a federal government office complex.
Multi-disciplined buildings including a manufacturing
firm, a university, and a building housing tenants
from a cross-section of business types.
The number of employees at case study locations ranged from
550 to 9,000 with a median employment of 1,800. The
number of individual buildings at case study sites ranged
from a single building to as many as 70.
Total solid waste generated at the case study sites ranged
from 16 to 240 tons per month with a median generation of
62 tons per month.
All case study sites had conducted source separation
programs for a minimum of one year. The average program
had been in existence about three years; one program had
been in operation for seven years.
-------
TABLE 1
SOURCE OF MOTIVATION FOR IMPLEMENTING
PAPER SEPARATION PROGRAMS
Response
Source
Number
Percent
Management
Only
5
42
Empl oyee/
Management
4
33
Employee
Only
2
17
Legisl ative
Mandate
1
8
TABLE 2
REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTING
PAPER SEPARATION PROGRAMS
Response
Reason
Number*
Percent"1"
Ecological
11
92
Reduce
Disposal
Costs>-
7
58
Financial
Profit
7
58
Create
Empl oyment
Opportunities
5
42
Legisl ative
Mandate
1
8
*12 total respondents (i.e., case study sites). Multiple reasons cause
sum to exceed total number of respondents.
+Multiple responses cause sum to exceed 100 percent.
-------
oo
TABLE 3
CASE STUDY SITE DEMOGRAPHICS
General Building Information
Building
Type/
Number
Geographic
Location
Number of Number of
Employees Buildings
Solid Waste
Generation*
(tons/mo)
Year of
Program
Initiation
Source Separation Approach
Quantity .
Desk Dual Central Recovered*
Top Basket Container (tons/mo)
Paper
Grades
Computer
Tab
Cards
Print-
out
Recovery
Recovered
Ledger
News- Corru-
Whlte Colored* paper gated
Gra
Mi
Bank/Insurance
Company
1
2
3
4
Northeast
West
Midwest
West
9,000
1,200
1,700
1,180
3
1
4
1
240
49
17
59
1971
1971
1974
1968
P 175
P,S 9
P 14
P,S 42
X
X
X
X
*
*
X
X
X X
X
XX X
K
General Office
5
6
7
8
9
Rocky Mtn.
East
Northwest
Northwest
West
1,200
2,000
7,500
6,040
1,900
6
1
18
16
7
25
16
118
134
65
1971
1974
1973
1972
1972
P 7
P 7
P 20
P 38
P 11
X
X
*
*
X
X X
)
)
>
Multl-
*
+
disciplined
10
11
12
Computer
Includes
Midwest
Northwest
East
550
1,200
7,000
printout included in white
"mixed ledger"
grade (white
3
70
1
ledger.
46
89
105
1974
1972
1974
P 3
P 8
P,S 19
X
X
X
P: Primary source separation
and colored ledger
S: Secondary sort conducted
*
X
X
X
XXX
)
by office personnel.
to separate by grades.
mixed together).
Rounded to nearest ton.
-------
In addition to business type, source separation approach
was an important criterion in the selection of case study
sites. Three basic approaches to office building source
separation were studied:
Desk-Top* - Each employee working at a desk is
provided with a small container (Figure 1) for the
purpose of holding separated paper. Collection of
the separated paper can be performed in several
manners. The remaining solid waste is deposited
in a wastebasket on the floor and collected for disposal
in a conventional manner by custodians. Three desk-
top programs were studied.
Dual Basket - Each employee is provided with two
baskets, one for recyclable paper and one for all
other solid waste (Figure 2). The custodial staff
separately or simultaneously collects the contents
of each. Three dual basket programs were included
in this analysis.
Central Container - Desk employees separate paper
and accumulate it in a receptacle of their own
choice (desk drawer, one shelf of an "in-out"
circulation basket, etc.). Accumulated paper is car-
ried by the individual employee to a centrally
located container (Figure 3). The central container
approach is also used in departments where employees
are not desk oriented and where large quantities of
uncontaminated paper are generated (e.g., computer
rooms, filing rooms). All other solid waste is
placed in wastebaskets and handled conventionally.
Six central container programs were selected for
case study.
* As studied, the desk-top approach to source separation is
offered by Shade Information Systems, Inc. Shade is a
private firm primarily involved in the manufacture and
sale of office paper (bonded ledger, computer printout,
carbonless forms and bond made from recycled paper).
Within the last 2 years, Shade has developed a complete
desk-top office paper separation program offered to
customers and other interested companies as an ecologi-
cally advantageous and cost-effective recycling system.
The "Waste-Not® " program includes provision (at no
direct charge) of all necessary desk-top containers,
initial promotional/educational materials, and transpor-
tation of separated paper from office complex to paper
stock dealer. The program, as operated, accepts white
paper only (tab cards, printout, and ledger) and has been
implemented in over 300 office buildings.
-------
FIGURE 1. Typical Desk-Top Container
FIGURE 2. Typical Dual Basket Configuration
10
-------
As indicated in Table 3, all 12 sites relied on employees
to perform the initial source separation task: that is,
to separate desirable paper from office waste. Three
case study sites conducted secondary sorting (i.e., post-
employee sorting) to remove residual contaminants and to
separate by grade the paper recovered from initial employee
separation.
Two case study sites (Buildings Nos. 1 and 4) restricted
employees from eating lunch at their desks so that paper
contaminants such as bottles, cans, organic lunch wastes,
etc., did not enter desk waste baskets. Without these
contaminants, both sites were able to fully or partially
market unseparated office waste as a low grade paper mix.
At all other case study sites, only those materials reclaimed
through employee separation efforts were marketed.
The paper quantity and grade(s) separated at each case study
location are shown in the last set of columns in Table 3.
Computer tab cards having the highest market value were gener-
ally isolated from other wastepaper grades. Computer print-
out was generally included with white ledger unless a high
degree of secondary sorting was performed. Similarly,
colored ledger, unless secondarily sorted, was composed of
a mixture of both white and colored ledger. Newspaper was
separated at two case study locations, corrugated at one.
At five locations, a mixed grade of paper was source separated.
The cumulative quantities separated at each of the 12 case
study locations ranged from 3 to 175 tons per month.
Solid Waste Management Activities
Each of the activities associated with managing solid waste
from the point of generation through disposal is defined as a
unit process. Unit processes associated with typical
office building solid waste management are diagrammed in
Figure 4. As seen, source separation is the only signi-
ficant unit process variation between a system designed to
collect and dispose all solid wastes generated and one which
recovers recyclable paper from the waste stream. Thus,
many of the unit processes associated with a source separation
program can be integrated with ongoing waste management
activities. With integration, however, paper contamination
could be a problem if the system is not properly conceived
and implemented. For example, receptacles on the floor
(baskets, boxes, central containers) may have a "waste
connotation," while elevated receptacles have a "recovery
connotation." Container confusion could produce paper
contamination.
11
-------
Canvas Cart
Used Corrugated Box
Wheeled Container FiberBarrel
Figure 3. Typical Central Containers
12
-------
•DESK. TOP
•DUAL BASKET
• CENTRAL
CONTAINER
FIGURE 4. Solid Waste Management Activities With and Without Source Separation
-------
Office Waste Characteristics
Certain parameters must be considered in the incorporation of
a source separation subsystem. Solid waste characteristics
such as generation rate and composition differ from location
to location. Office buildings are no exception. Attempts
were made to correlate waste generation rate with such
variables as number of employees (aggregate and by adminis-
trative/clerical job categories), useable floor space, and
paper generating facilities (print shop, reproduction, compu-
ter) . Short of a multiple regression analysis which was
beyond the scope of this study, the aggregate number of employees
was determined to be that variable most highly correlated
with office building waste generation. Table 4 presents
the relationships developed by building type. As shown,
bank/insurance company buildings had solid waste generation
rates ranging from 0.90 to 4.49 Ibs per employee per day
and categorically averaged 2.31 Ibs per employee per day.
General office building employees generated from 0.72 to
3.14 Ibs of solid waste per day, averaging 1.55 Ibs daily.
Source reduction efforts were conducted in conjunction with
source separation at the two case study sites with the
lowest generation rates:
Building No. 3 (0.90 Ibs per employee per day)
reduced paper consumption/waste generation by using
both sides of computer printout paper.
Building No. 6 (0.72 Ibs per employee per day)
instituted a paper reduction/conservation program
with the aid of a reproduction machine company.
The building types included in the multi-disciplined cate-
gory were too diverse to develop meaningful generation
estimates.
Waste composition also varies by business type. Table 5
presents the results of representative waste sampling
conducted at three bank/insurance companies (Buildings Nos. 1,
2, and 3) and three general office buildings (Building No. 9
and references No. 4 and 5).* As shown, paper is the pre-
dominant waste; recyclable grades total 87 percent by weight
in bank/insurance companies and 74 percent in general
offices. In each instance, white high grades (tab cards,
printout, and ledger) constitute the greatest portion of the
recyclable paper. These grades command substantially higher
market prices than colored ledger or lower grades such as
newspaper, corrugated, and "mixed" (see Appendix A).
* Sampling was not conducted at multi-disciplined case study
sites due to building type/solid waste diversity.
14
-------
TABLE 4
EMPLOYEE SOLID WASTE GENERATION BY BUILDING TYPE
Building Type/
Number
Bank/Insurance
1
2
3
4
Average
General Office
5
6
7
8
9
Average
Mu Hi -Disciplined
10
11
12
Average
Office
Employees*
(no.)
9,000
990
1,700
2,200
1,040
2,000
7,440
6,040
1,880
550
1,200
7,000
—
Building
Solid Waste
Generation
(Ibs/day)
21 ,820
4,450
1,540
5,360
2,270
1,450
10,730
14,730
5,910
4,180
8,090
9,540
Average Employee
Generation Rate
(Ibs/employee/day)
2.42
4.49
0.90
2.44
2.31
2.18
0.72
1.44
2.44
3.14
1.55
7.60
6.74
1.36
5.23
* Office workers only, does not include field personnel
-------
TABLE 5
COMPOSITION OF OFFICE SOLID WASTE
BY BUILDING TYPE*
Generation/Building Type (Ibs/employee/day)
Bank/Insurance Co.
Material
Paper
Computer Tab Cards
Computer Printout
White Ledger
Colored Ledger
Newspaper
Corrugated
Other*
Garbage
Metal
Glass
Plastic
Textile
Wood
Miscellaneous
Total
Range
0.28-0.53
0.60-0.74
0.67-0.74
0.05-0.16
T+-0.16
0.05-0.07
0.11-0.16
T -0.07
0.02
T -0.02
0.02-0.05
T -0.02
T -0.02
T -0.02
—
Average
0.39
0.70
0.70
0.12
0.07
0.05
0.14
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
2.31
%
17
30
30
b
3
2
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
'1
100
General Office
Range
0.02-0.11
T -0.17
0.31-0.62
0.05-0.19
0.19-0.36
0.11-0.17
0.14-0.22
0.05-0.12
0.02-0.05
T -0.06
0.02-0.09
T
T
T -0.06
—
Average
0.05
0.11
0.51
0.09
0.25
0.14
0.17
0.09
0.03
0.03
0.05
T
T
0.03
1.55
%
3
7
33
b
16
9
11
6
2
2
3
T
T
2
100
* Based on representative solid waste sampling conducted at
six buildings during study; does not include cafeteria
waste
+ Trace
# Generally non-recyclable paper: carbon paper, wax coated or
impregnated paper products, etc.
16
-------
By bui ding type, white high grades generated in bank/
insurance companies ranged from 1.55 to 2.01 Ibs per employee
per day. Corresponding daily figures for general office
buildings ranged from 0.33 to 0.90 Ibs with an average of
0.67 Ibs. Greater use of computers and the resulting
generation of tab cards and printout accounts for the
larger quantities estimated in bank and insurance complexes.
Source Separation
As practiced, initial separation of desirable paper from
the waste stream does not require additional personnel.
All 12 case study sites relied upon employees to perform
this initial separation. It was assumed that employees would
voluntarily contribute small amounts of time each day to
paper separation without interruption of regular work
routines or reduction of office productivity. Adequate
initial and ongoing administration, including a publicity/
education program, is required if positive employee response
is to be gained ensuring enthusiastic participation and
proper separation/preparation of paper.
Program Administration. Proper planning at program onset
was universally stated as a necessary aspect of a success-
ful source separation program. Initial efforts fell into
two basic groups: (1) administrative tasks (e.g., assessing
collection labor alternatives, designating container
locations, negotiating paper purchase contracts, etc.);
and (2) publicity/education. Initial administrative and
clerical labor required to accomplish these efforts is
delineated in Table 6 by building type and source separa-
tion approach. Due to case study site variables, each
categorical tabulation contains a considerable range of
requirements. With one exception (Building No. 11),
all time was absorbed into existing workloads. Overall,
initial required administrative and clerical time ranged
from a low of 5 hrs to a high of 380 hrs, with a 12 case
study average of 117 hrs. Computed in terms of time per
employee, required time ranged from less than one minute
to almost 13 minutes, averaging about 3 minutes per employee.
Ongoing administrative and clerical requirements are
summarized in Table 7 with respect to building type and
source separation approach. Ongoing program management
required an average of 24 hrs per month. These labor
requirements were also absorbed, again with the exception
of Building No. 11. The minimal ongoing administrative
requirements associated with the desk top (3 hrs per month)
and central container-(9 hrs per month) approaches are
especially noteworthy. Larger ongoing administrative require-
-------
TABLE 6
INITIAL ADMINISTRATIVE AND CLERICAL LABOR REQUIREMENTS
-By Building Type-
GO
Personnel Requirements
Building Type/
Number
Bank/Insurance
1
2
3
4
Average**
General Office
5
6
7
8
9
Average
Multi -Disciplined
10
11
12
Average
Overall
Average**
Pub.
Adm.
25
10
15
4
10
80
40
20
20
11
34
4
40
40
28
26
/Ed.
* Clr.+
8
10
3
0
T
3
2
10
10
28
TT
2
20
0
7
8
Admin
Adm.
#
40
100
1
~4T
165
4
40
350
50
122
13
40
35
29
76
•
Clr.
#
40
0
0
0
6
10
0
2
~4
0
20
0
7
7
(hrs/mo)
Total
Adm.
#
50
115
5
~57
245
44
60
370
61
156
17
80
75
57
102
Clr.
#
50
3
0
T7
3
8
20
10
30
T5
2
40
0
14
15
-By Source Separation Approach-
Personnel Requirements
Approach/
Building No.
Desk Top
3
5
10
Average
Dual Basket
Pub. /Ed.
Adm.
15
80
4
33
7 20
8 20
11 40
Average 27
Central Container
1
2
4
6
9
12
Average**
Overall
Average**
25
10
4
40
11
40
2T
26
Clr.
3
3
2
3
10
10
20
TT
8
10
0
2
28
0
"8
8
Admin.
Adm.
100
165
13
93
40
350
40
T43
#
40
1
4
50
35
"26
76
Clr.
0
0
0
~0
10
0
20
TO
#
40
0
6
2
0
TO
7
(hrs/mo_l
Tota'
Adm.
115
245
17
126
60
370
80
T70
#
50
5
44
61
75
47
102
1
Clr.
3
3
2
3
20
10
40
23
50
0
8
30
0
18
15
* Administrative personnel
+ Clerical personnel
# No estimates available; personnel responsible for program initiation no longer employed
** Building No. 1 not included
++ Categorical averages may not be conclusive due to limited number of case studies
and multiple independent variables
-------
vo
TABLE 7
ONGOING ADMINISTRATIVE AND CLERICAL LABOR REQUIREMENTS *
-By Building Type- -By Source Separation Approach-
Personnel Requirements
Building Type/
Number
Bank/Insurance
1
2
3
4
Average
General Office
5
6
7
8
9
Average
Multi-Disciplined
10
11
12
Average
Overall
Average
Pub. /Ed.
Adm.*
5
10
1
1
4
1
2
8
0
5
3
1
40
1
14
6
Clr.+
0
10
1
1
3
1
0
3
0
5
2
0
40
0
13
5
Admin.
Adm.
5
0
1
1
2
1
2
28
26
3
12
1
20
1
7
7
Clr.
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
13
52
1
13
0
10
0
3
6
lhrs/mo)
Total
Adm.
10
10
2
2
6
2
4
36
26
8
15
2
60
2
21
13
Clr.
0
10
2
2
4
1
0
16
52
6
15
0
50
0
16
11
Approach/
Building No.
Desk Top
3
5
10
Average
Dual Basket
7
8
11
Personnel Requirements
Pub. /Ed.
Adm.
1
1
1
1
8
0
40
Average 1 6
Central Container
1
2
4
6
9
12
Average
Overall
Average
5
10
1
2
5
1
4
6
Clr.
1
1
0
1
3
0
40
14
0
10
1
0
5
0
3
5
Admin.
Adm.
1
1
1
1
28
26
20
25
5
0
1
2
3
1
2
7
Clr.
1
0
0
13
52
10
25
0
0
1
0
1
0
<1
6
Jhrs/iu,,
Total
Adm.
2
2
2
2
36
26
60
41
10
10
2
4
8
2
6
13
Clr.
2
1
0
1
16
52
50
39
0
10
2
0
6
0
3
11
* Administrative personnel
+ Clerical personnel
# Categorical averages may not be conclusive due to limited number of case studies and
multiple independent variables
-------
ments associated with the dual basket approach (80 hrs per
month) may be more attributable to the multiple building
aspect of the three case study sites and not solely to the
approach (Buildings Nos. 7, 8, and 11 respectively include
18, 16, and 70 individual buildings).
Publicity/Education. A wide variety of initial publicity/
education approaches were used at case study locations,
including video-tape presentations, posters, memos, leaf-
lets, company newsletters, etc. Program announcement and
associated publicity outlining program goals and objectives
preceded the implementation date by about a month. Publi-
city also included a description of the approach used and
identified acceptable and unacceptable paper grades, a criti
cal point for successful implementation.
Employee participation quickly became habitual and was
easily incorporated into daily working habits. As a conse-
quence, ongoing publicity/education generally documented
program accomplishments and served to remind participants
of the need to adhere to paper preparation requirements.
All 12 case study sites provided estimates of initial
and ongoing publicity/education expenditures. Table 8
presents the aggregated administrative, clerical, and
material costs for these efforts. Initial publicity/
education costs for the 12 sites averaged 13 cents per
employee, ranging from 3 to 72 cents. Out-of-pocket costs
were limited to materials; administrative and clerical costs
were absorbed in all instances. As a rule of thumb,
material costs generally accounted for 20 to 30 percent of
the expenditures listed in Table 8 for initial and ongoing
efforts.
Ongoing publicity was basically limited to articles in
company newsletters. Costs for ongoing efforts averaged
2 cents per employee per month; little variation in average
expenditures per employee per month was reported.
Participation. Project coordinators at each case study
location stated that employee response to source separation
was immediate; among those employees who chose to partici-
pate in the programs, paper separation quickly became habi-
tual. Table 9 presents employee participation rates by
building type and source separation approach, as estimated
by the respective project coordinators. With the noted
exceptions, four out of five employees were estimated to
participate continuously in the average paper recovery
program.
20
-------
TABLE 8
INITIAL AND ON-GOING PUBLICITY/EDUCATION COSTS*
Building
Type/
Number
Bank/Insurance
1
2
3
4
General Office
5
6
7
8
9
Mul ti-Discipl ined
10
11
12
Overall Average
Publ i city /Education
Costs*
Initial On-Going
($) ($/mo)
520
90
380
100
860
1 ,090
230
260
1,030
30
290
770
$70
70
90
10
10
10
20
80
0
160
10
250
20
60
Total
Employees
(no. )
9,000
1,200
1 ,700
1,180
1 ,200
2,000
7,500
6,040
1 ,900
550
1,800
7,000
3,590
Cost per
Initial
($)
0.06
0.08
0.22
0.08
0.72
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.54
0.05
0.16
0.11
0.13
Employee
On-Going
($/mo)
0.01
0.08
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
-0-
0.08
0.02
0.14
0.01
0.02
*Administrative, clerical
+Rounded to nearest $10.
and materials costs.
-------
TABLE 9
EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION RATE*
- By Office Building Type -
- By Source Separation Approach -
fO
Building
Type/Number
Bank/Insurance
1
2
3
4
Average
General Office
5
6
7
8
9
Average
Multi-Disciplined
10
11
12
Average
Overall Average
Participation
Rate (%)
75
10*
80
63
77
95
93
67
70
80
8T
95
80
2L
JQ
Approach/
Building Number
Desk Top
3
5
10
Average
Dual Basket
7
8
11
Average
Central Container
1
2
4
6
9
12
Average
Overall Average
Participation
Rate (%)
80
95
95
67
70
80
77
75
10*
63
93
80
+
78"
80
*Not included in averages. Program concentrated in areas with few employees/
heavy wastepaper generation; efforts to increase building-wide participation
were being initiated at time of case study.
+Estimate of participation not available.
#Categorical averages may not be conclusive due to limited number of case
studies and multiple independent variables.
-------
participation rates vary by building type, more
significant variations appear between source separation
approaches. The average desk top program attained a 90
percent participation rate. Central container and dual
basket programs achieved significantly lower participation
rates of 78 and 72 percent, respectively. Three possible
explanations for this disparity are suggested:
Publicity/education. Although a wide range of
expenditures and other independent variables is
represented, initial publicity/education cost per
employee (from Table 8) appears to correlate with
participation rate:
Publicity
Participation Expenditures
Approach Rate ($/Employee)
Desk top 90 0.37
Central container 78 0.15
Dual basket 72 0.05
Level of separation required. The desk top pro-
grams studied accepted only white grades of paper which
can be easily distinguished by an employee. Dual
basket and central container programs generally
sought to recover multiple grades and required
employees to make additional distinctions among
grades.
Convenience. It is simply more convenient to place
separated paper in a desk top container rather than
in a basket on the floor or a central container.
Paper Preparation. Office building waste is chiefly com-
posed of paper,43 to 77 percent of which is high grade
white paper, depending on business type (see Table 5).
Given these facts, two options can be considered in planning
a source separation program:
Maximize paper recovery by separating all recyc-
lable grades
Maximize revenue by separating high grade paper only.
For each of these options, it must be determined whether
the recovered paper is to be: (1) marketed in the employee -
separated condition; or (2) sorted further and marketed by
specific grade. As summarized below, seven case study
sites sought to maximize recovery, thus minimizing paper
23
-------
revenue; five, to selectively reduce disposable waste
to maximize paper revenue. Nine of the" 12 buildings studied
marketed paper as separated by employees, with little or
no secondary sorting; three sites performed secondary sorting
to improve marketability.
Number of Case
Source Separation Objective Study Sites
Maximize recovery/Minimize paper revenue
Employee separated only 5
Secondary sorting 2
Reduce disposal/Maximize paper revenue
Employee separated 4
Secondary sorting 1
Once the grade of paper to be source separated has been
selected, adherence to paper stock specifications is
imperative for market acceptability. Specified contamination
levels, expressed in terms of weight, generally range from
1 percent for high grades to 10 percent for low grades.
Accordingly, employee education must emphasize the importance
of proper separation/preparation to ensure that:
A secondary sort is either not required or can be
easily performed.
Separated paper is not downgraded, resulting in a
reduced revenue and making it necessary for the
paper dealer to resort prior to mill acceptance.
Table 10 presents the estimated contamination level of
source separated paper at the case study sites in terms of
building type, approach, and type of paper separated.
Desk top programs separating white paper only had
an average post-employee contamination level of 3 percent,
about one third that of the dual basket or central container
programs, which averaged 9 and 8 percent, respectively.
The relatively low contamination level of desk top programs
may be attributed to a combination of two factors: (1)
highest categorical expenditures for employee education;
and (2) only easily identifiable white paper was source
separated. A third, unquantifiable factor may also have
contributed to the low contamination levels in desk top
programs: placement of the container for separated paper on
the desk (value connotation) rather than on the floor
(waste connotation).
24
-------
TABLE 10
[SJ
en
-By Building Type-
CONTAMINATION LEVEL OF SOURCE SEPARATED PAPER*
-By Source Separation Approach- -By Paper Grade-
Contamination
Building Level Approach/
Type/Number (%) Building Number
Bank/Insurance
1
2
3
4
Average
General Office
5
6
7
8
9
Average
Multi-Disciplined
10
11
12
Average
21
10
5
1
— g—
2
1
10
2
3
4
1
15
5
7
V^B^^«»^^_
Desk Top
3
5
10
Average
Dual Basket
7
8
11
Average
Central Container
1
2
4
6
9
12
Average
Contamination Contamination
Level Paper Grade/ Level
(%} Building Number (%)
5
2
1
3
10
2
15
~9~
21
10
1
1
- 3
5
8
-
White Only
3
5
10
Average
White, Colored
2
6
12
Average
White, Colored, Mixed
1
4
Average
Mixed Only
7
8
9
11
Average
5
2
-i
10
1
5
~T"
21
_J
10
2
3
15
8
Overall Average
Overall Average
Overall Average
* Categorical averages may not be conclusive due to limited number of case studies and
multiple independent variables
-------
Case study sites using dual basket or central container approa
ches generally sought to maximize paper recovery by
source separating and marketing a mixed grade or secondarily
sorting into specific grades prior to marketing. Source
separation of a mixed grade in Buildings Nos. 1, 2, 7,
and 11 was apparently interpreted by employees as accep-
tability for all and any paper products; this resulted in
post-employee contamination levels ranging from 10 to 21
percent. Secondary sorting was conducted at three of the four
buildings to remove contaminating materials, for the
most part newspaper and carbon paper. The five remaining
dual basket/central container programs had contamination
levels comparable to desk top programs, indicating opera-
tional viability of these methods. However, intensive
employee education is essential when a mixture of paper grades
is to be recovered, so that program participants recognize
and remember unacceptable items.
Post-employee contamination levels achieved compared with
paper stock dealer acceptance levels (see Appendix A) are
summarized below on the basis 'of the paper grades separated
at case study sites:
Acceptable Case Study Site
Contamination Contamination
Grade (%) (%)
White only 2 3
White, colored 2 8
Mixed 10 8
As shown, contaminants in white only programs exceeded
the acceptable level. Acceptable white ledger requirements
were achieved with minimal sorting, generally performed
by collection personnel.* Contamination in mixed ledger
(i.e., white, colored) programs was far in excess of
accpetable levels; in mixed (i.e., high-low grade mix)
programs, contamination levels fell within acceptable
limits.
Diverted Disposal. The amount of paper diverted from total
solid waste disposal averaged 34 percent by weight for the
12 sites studied. Individual and categorical diversion
rates are cross-tabulated in Table 11 according to business
type, source separation approach, and paper grade separated.
An average of 60 percent of office waste was diverted in
bank/insurance company buildings through paper separation.
* As practiced, contaminants were easily spotted by collec-
tion personnel when the desk top approach was used.
26
-------
TABLE 11
WASTE QUANTITIES DIVERTED THROUGH SOURCE SEPARATION
-By Building Type-
Building
Type/Number
Bank/Insurance
1
2
3
4
Average
General Office
5
6
7
8
9
Average
Multi -Disciplined
10
11
12
Average
Diverted
Disposal
(%*)
73
19
78
70
60
29
42
17
28
17
2T
7
9
18
11
Overall Average
34
-By Source Separation Approach-
Approach/
Building Number
Desk Top
3
5
10
Average
Dual Basket
7
8
11
Average
Central Container
1
2
4
6
9
.12
Average
Diverted
Disposal
(**)
78
29
7
38"
17
28
9
W
73
19
70
42
17
18
40
Overall Average
34
-By Paper Grade-
Paper Grade/
Building Number
White Only"*"
3
5
10
Average
White, Colored*
2
6
12
Average
White, Colored,
1
4
Average
Mixed Only
7
8
9
11
Average
Overall Average
Diverted
Disposal
(«*)
78
29
7
38
19
42
18
26
Mixed**
73
70
72
17
28
17
9
W
34
* Percent of total residual generation # Ledger
+ Computer tab cards, printout, and ledger ** Multi-grade
++ Categorical averages may not be conclusive due to limited number of case studies
and multiple independent variables
-------
General office buildings were able to divert an average of
27 percent of the waste stream; multi-disciplined buildings
diverted an average of 11 percent. By using categorical
waste sampling data from Table 5 as a proxy for maximum
potential recovery, an effectiveness rating was calculated,
averaging 75 percent for bank/insurance companies and
40 percent for general office buildings:*
Paner in Wa«;t-P m+ Recovery
Paper in Waste C%) Effectiveness
Business Type Available Recovered (%)
Bank/Insurance 80 60 75
General Office 68 27 40
The high effectiveness rating in bank/insurance companies
is due in part to "natural" paper separation produced as a
result of record retention policies, periodic file purging,
and highly computerized business management operations.
These functions generate large quantities of paper
amenable to source separation.
Desk top and central container programs had average diver-
sion factors of 38 and 40 percent, respectively. In terms
of overall effectiveness, however, desk top programs would
rate an edge, since similar quantities of paper are diverted
from less available material. That is, the desk top pro-
grams sought only to recover white paper, which comprises
a lower portion of the total solid waste stream than that
available to central container programs recovering multiple
grades. The diversion rate of 18 percent for dual basket
programs was considerably lower than either alternative
approach.
Assessing diverted disposal in terms of paper grade also
yielded significant findings. At two case study sites
(Buildings Nos. 1 and 4), recovery was maximized by
implementing a dual recovery system. Central containers
were used to recover mixed high grades. At the same time,
employees were not allowed to eat at their desks. The resulting
"desk waste" was entirely marketable as a low grade mix at
Building No. 1 and partially marketable at Building No. 4.
* Sampling data for multi-disciplined office buildings were
unavailable. Bank/insurance company and general office
building categories represent a variety of source separation
approaches, custodial arrangements, recovered paper types,
etc. It therefore appears that business type was the key
variable explaining recovery effectiveness.
Recyclable portion only.
28
-------
This dual system approach resulted in an average diversion
rate of 72 percent, as indicated in the "white, colored,
mixed" grade category on table 11. Of the 10 remaining
locations which conducted skimming programs, the three
programs recovering white paper only using the desk top
approach were the most effective, diverting 38 percent of the
total waste. The three programs recovering white and
colored diverted an average of 26 percent of the total solid
waste from disposal. The four programs designed to maximize
recovery through separation of a low grade mix managed to
divert only 18 percent.
Summary. On the basis of participation, contamination, and
diverted disposal, and acknowledging independent variable
uncertainties, the desk top approach was found to be
decidedly preferable to either the dual basket or central
container methods as a means of skimming recyclable paper
from the waste stream. The total recovery approach used
at two case study sites was highly effective. However,
conditions enabling employee participation (adequate lounge
and cafeteria space) and an available market for low grade
mix are necessary for implementation.
On-Site Storage
Mixed Waste. Storage of mixed waste at an individual desk
or in an area occupied by several non-desk oriented
employees (computer room, file room, print shop) was com-
parable at all case study locations. Desk employees were
each issued a 2-3 gal wastebasket to discard used materials.
Areas such as computer rooms received one or more 20 to
50 gal containers (typically cardboard boxes), depending on
the number of non-desk employees and the amount of waste
generated.
Separated Paper. As previously defined, three methods of
separated paper storage were assessed at the case study
sites:
The desk top approach entailed use of a small desk
top container for storage of source separated paper.
In addition, cardboard boxes were placed in areas
with high paper generation (computer room, file
room, print shop, reproduction area, etc.) for on-
site storage.
The dual basket approach provided a second waste-
basket for storage of source separated paper.
High generation areas received one or more 15-to-45
gal containers to store separated paper.
29
-------
The central container approach provided large
containers (20 to 50 gal) throughout an office
building for on-site storage.
On-Site Collection
Mixed Waste. Collection of mixed waste from office buildings
was performed in a similar manner at all case study sites:
custodians made daily rounds to collect refuse from each
wastebasket in the building. Wheeled carts with drums,
sacks, or bags attached were used to contain collected
waste. When filled, the drum/sack/bag was wheeled to the
nearest waste receptacle or processing area, the contents
emptied or the full container discarded and replaced.
The custodian then returned to his route. For high rise
buildings, this sequence was modified to enable custodians
to leave collected waste by the service elevator to be trans-
ported by a porter to the appropriate receiving area.
Time spent by custodians performing mixed waste collection
activities prior to and after implementation of source
separation programs is summarized below in terms of
custodial time per day and custodial time per employee per
month.
Mixed Waste Collection Time
Range Average
(hrs/ (hrs/
(hrs/ employee/ (hrs/ employee/
day) mo) day) mo)
Prior to source
separation 0.5-4.3 0.16-1.40 1.6 0.44
After source
separation 0.5-3.2 0.12-1.05 1.4 0.35
The reduction in mixed waste collection time revealed in
this summary can be directly attributed to paper separation.
Smaller volumes of mixed waste require fewer custodial trips
to the waste receiving area. If, however, waste and separated
paper are collected simultaneously after implementation of
a source separation program, the number of trips required
should remain identical. Total collection time may possibly
increase. Such an increase was noted at two of the four
case study sites that implemented simultaneous collection
systems:
30
-------
On-Site Gathering Time
(hrs/custodian/day)
After
Prior to Implementation
Source Implementation (Mixed Waste
Building Separation (Mixed Waste and Separated
Number Approach Only) Paper)
2 Central
container 1.0 1.0
4 Central
container 0.5 0.5
5 Desk top 1.0 1.1
7 Dual basket 1.4 1.7
Differences in participation rate, quantities collected,
and building configuration make it impossible to determine
if a particular source separation approach is more adaptable
in terms of overall waste collection time. It is extremely
important, however, that incremental times were absorbed
into ongoing custodial operations, a key factor in optimizing
source separation.
Separated Paper. Depending upon which source separation
approach is used, varying amounts of labor and equipment are
required to collect the separated paper and transport it
to a central storage or processing area. Collection and
transport of the paper was accomplished at case study
sites using the approaches outlindd below:
Desk Top Programs
Custodians collected separated paper from desk
tops and/or central containers while on routine
waste collection rounds. The paper, after a quick
review for contaminants, was either placed on a
custodial cart shelf or in an extra sack or barrel
carried on the cart. When the mixed waste container
was filled, waste and recovered paper were simul-
taneously transported to a central storage area where
the paper was placed in used corrugated boxes.
Variations of this routine included (1) dropping
full bags of paper in hallways for subsequent col-
lection by another custodian with a large wheeled
cart; and (2) dropping full bags of paper down a
central waste chute to the storage area.
Mail delivery personnel collected paper from the desks
and reviewed it for contaminants while making multi-
31
-------
daily deliveries. Collected paper was stored on the
mail cart and transported back to the mail room
where it was stacked in used corrugated boxes. Full
boxes from the mail room and supplementary containers
placed in high generation areas were transported by
custodians to the central storage area.
Part-time personnel were hired to perform the
entire process: collecting paper from desk tops
and central containers, reviewing it for contaminants,
and transporting it to the central storage area.
Dual Basket Programs
During normal daily waste collection, custodians
emptied the contents of each basket into the appro-
priate sack or container on custodial carts. When
the mixed waste container was filled, the cart was
transported to the storage area. The separated paper
container, whether or not it was full, was also
exchanged for a new one at this time.
Each participant was responsible for emptying the
paper basket into one of many central containers,
conveniently located throughout the facility. When
full, central containers were transferred to a main
storage location, emptied into larger storage
containers, and returned to their original location.
Central Container Programs
Custodians transported central containers to a main
storage area and returned empty containers to replace
those collected while performing routine waste
handling duties. Rather than transferring the
entire container, custodians sometimes "topped off"
the mixed waste barrel with paper from a central
container, leaving the paper at the appropriate
storage area enroute to dump mixed trash. In either
instance, collection was generally provided according
to generation rates; containers accepting heavy
loads were serviced daily, light generation areas
being serviced less frequently.
Table 12 shows that seven of the case study sites were able
to use existing personnel to collect paper; five programs
integrated paper collection with custodial functions, while
one used mail distribution personnel and another, general
service personnel. Five programs were unable to absorb
32
-------
TABLE 12
LABOR UTILIZATION FOR PAPER COLLECTION
- By Labor Category -
Labor
Category
Custodial
General service
Mail distribution
Students
Rehabilitation
Total
Labor Uti
Total By
Category
8
1
1
1
J_
12
lization (no.
Existing
Resources
5
1
1
-
__
7
programs)
Incremental
Requirements
3
_
_
1
J_
5
- By Source Separation Approach -
Approach
Desk Top
Dual Container
Central Container
Labor Util
Total By
Approach
3
3
6
ization (no.
Existing
Resources
2
1
4
programs)
Incremental
Requirements
1
2
2
Total
12
33
-------
paper collection activities;* three of these required
additional custodial labor, one program used part-time
work-study students, and another used personnel from a local
social rehabilitation program. Tabulation by source separa-
tion approach indicates that labor can be more easily
absorbed in desk top and central container than in dual
basket programs. Although additional personnel may not be
needed, time requirements for collection of source separated
paper may increase, as suggested by Table 13. Comparing
categorical time requirements with diverted disposal rates
also indicates that desk top and central container programs
were more efficient than dual basket programs:
Collection Time Diverted Disposal Rate
Approach (hr/employee/mo) (% of total waste)
Desk top 0.07 38
Dual basket 0.07 18
Central container 0.08 40
Processing
Mixed Waste. Mechanical processing of mixed wastes was
performed at four case study locations. Banks (Buildings
No. 2 and 4) and state government complexes (Buildings No.
7 and 8) shredded confidential material to destroy legibility.
Shredding was not integrated within the routine waste
management system. In fact, based on data from Building
No. 8, shredded material was about three times less dense
in a loose state than other paper waste and required corres-
pondingly more time and space to handle.
Stationary compactors were used to densify mixed waste at
Buildings No. 1, 10, and 12. For organizations generating
large volumes of waste, this processing technique cuts down
the need for frequent collection by private or municipal
haulers.
At one bank (Building No. 4), a baler was used to reduce
storage space requirements, necessitated by company policy
of retaining office waste for ten days prior to disposal.
* Contracted custodial service agreements required renego-
tiation to account for labor requirements associated with
separated paper collection. Of the three case study sites
with contractual service, one was able to circumvent
incremental labor requirements by effectively using under-
time of two general service employees; at the other two
sites, the addiitonal labor was accepted as a condition
for program implementation.
34
-------
TABLE 13
TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR COLLECTION
OF SOURCE SEPARATED PAPER
Approach/
Building
Number
Desk Top
3
5
10
Average
Dual Basket
7
8
11
Average
Central Container
1
2
4
6
9
12
Average
Overall Average
Col
Time
0.08
0.06
0.08
07TT7
0.06
0.06
0.09
TToT
0.02
0.11
0.23
0.02
0.02
*
OTW
0.08
lection Requirements
(hr/employee/mo)
Absorbed
X
X
TTOT
X
OTDT
X
X
X
X
OTTTF
0.08
Incremental
X
OTOIT
X
X
O8~
X
*
OTDT
0.06
*Not estimable.
35
-------
At the end of this period, the bales were scanned for contami
nants that would restrict recycling as a low grade mix.
Eighty percent of the bales were determined to be overly
contaminated and were subsequently disposed.
Separated Paper. Source separated paper was manually and/or
mechanically processed at five case study sites.
As previously stated, nine of the twelve programs studied
opted to market employee-separated paper with minimal or no
secondary sorting. Significant post-employee sorting to
improve marketability was, however, conducted at Buildings
No. 2, 4, and 12. Each of the three buildings used the
central container approach. The mixed grade recovered through
source separation was again sorted by hand into specific
grades. Sorting was performed by incrementally hired
personnel. Data from Building No. 12 were not amenable to
analysis; approximately 10 to 20 hours were required to
produce one ton of sorted paper at the other two sites:
Sorting Time
Building (person-hrs/ Sorted Paper Time Per Ton
Number month) (tons/month) (hrs)
2 129 6.1 21.1
4 352 35.9 9.8
Mechanical processing of separated paper by means of
densification was performed at Buildings No. 1, 4, and 5.
Buildings No. 1 and 4 both used central container programs to
recover mixed high grades. As noted above, both buildings
requested employees to refrain from disposing of paper
contaminants such as organic wastes and bottles in desk
waste baskets.* At Building No. 1, reduced disposal costs
supplied employee incentives, induced by a local demand for
mixed low grade used in the manufacture of roofing paper
and wallboard. A stationary compactor was provided by a
local paper dealer to density "desk wastes."
Elimination of at least the organic fraction from desk
refuse at Building No. 4 was necessitated by the ten-day
retention of all office waste. A baler was used to densify
desk waste for retention; 20 percent of the bales (125 Ibs
each) were sufficiently free of contamination to be marketed
as mixed low grade.
* Based on representative sampling conducted at Building
No. 1, employees adhered to the request; contaminants
were found to be only one percent by weight.
36
-------
At Bu-lding No. 5, a baler was used to densify white ledger
recovered using the desk top approach to facilitate storage.
The agreement between Building No. 5 and the paper purchaser
provided an economic penalty for transporting accumulated
paper quantities of less than 5 tons. Purchase of a baler
minimized storage space and handling requirements during
the time required to accumulate the minimum tonnage.
Central Storage
Mixed Waste. A wide variety of central storage approaches
were used at case study locations: compaction containers
with from 10- to 42-cu yd capacities, roll-off containers
with capacities ranging from 20- to 30-cu yd, bulk bins with
capacities of 1.5- to 3-cu yd, and an open trash room. The
amount of space required for mixed waste varied according to
many factors, including waste generation rate, number of
buildings/collection points in a complex, amount of paper
separated, loose or densified waste storage. Comparisons
between buildings, therefore, have little meaning.
Separated Paper. Availability of space to store paper is
often critical to the successful implementation of a source
separation program - especially when office building designers
tend to minimize the importance of mixed waste storage
requirements and rarely consider the need for separated
paper storage.6*7
Central storage containers were provided by paper dealers
at seven case study sites. Container types provided ranged
from 30-gal drums to a 42-cu yd compaction container. Where
buildings opted to market specific grades, individual
containers were generally provided. In all seven instances,
the containers were provided at no direct cost.
Until storage became a problem at Building No. 5 (at which
time baling was initiated), all three desk top programs used
old corrugated boxes to store recovered paper. The boxes
were stacked and banded on pallets for shipment. This
procedure also diverted a portion of corrugated waste from
disposal. At the two remaining case study sites, central
storage containers were purchased or custom built.
Table 14 summarizes central storage space requirements for
mixed waste and separated paper. The only meaningful inter-
pretation that can be derived from this data concerns the
ratio of space required for separated paper to that needed
for mixed waste. This ratio was equal or greater at over
80 percent of the locations studied. It is likely that
this ratio reflects the makeshift methods often used to
accommodate paper accumulations.
37
-------
oo
TABLE 14
CENTRAL STORAGE APPROACH AND SPACE REQUIREMENTS
Residual/
Storage Approach 1
Mixed Waste
Stationary Compactor 500
Roll -Off Container
Bulk Bin
Trash Room
TOTAL 500
Separated Paper
Stationary Compactor 500
Roll -Off Container
Bulk Bin* 625
Drums
Palletized Boxes
Open Area
TOTAL 1,125
Paper Space: Waste
Space 2:1
Space Requirements/Building Number (square feet)
234
600
100 150
600 100 150
60 90
400 60
1,650
60 400 1 ,800
<1:1 4:1 12:1
5
300
300
60
410
150
620
2:1
6 7 8 9 10 11
130
400 420
1 ,600 240 200
250
250 2,000 240 420 130 200
420
430
200 2,700 580 450
50
40 470
240 2,700 1,060 420 470 450
1:1 1:1 4:1 1:1 4:1 2:1
12
1,500
1,500
480
480
«1:1
* Includes canvas gurneys/carts
+ Rounded to nearest integer
-------
Transporation
Mixed Waste. Buildings No. 7, 8, and 11 provided their own
service for mixed waste collection and hauling. All other
case study sites received contractual or municipal service.
In either case, mixed waste was collected at regular inter-
vals and transported to a local disposal site. Seven of
the twelve case study sites reduced the number of bins
required to store mixed waste and/or reduced collection
frequency as a result of source separating paper.
Separated Paper. Separated paper was transported by the
purchaser at each case study location. With the desk top
approach, a service charge was levied for quantities under
5 tons at Buildings No. 3, 5, and 10. Otherwise, frequency
of collection varied from daily to bi-weekly, depending
upon agreements reached between the office building and the
paper dealer.
39
-------
IV
SOURCE SEPARATION ECONOMICS
Methodology
Solid waste management cost data were gathered at each case
study site to reflect costs prior to and after implementa-
tion of the source separation subsystem. As defined and
exemplified below, these data were analyzed according to
two cost accounting methods:
The incremental method, which attributes costs or
savings to a source separation program only if such
costs or savings exceeded or reduced the amounts
budgeted for solid waste management prior to program
implementation. For example, if paper collection
requirements were absorbed within existing labor
allocations, incremental costs were not attributed.
Conversely, personnel specifically hired to collect/
sort separated paper and/or incremental equipment
purchases provided costs wholly attributable to the
program.
The fully allocated method, which attributes costs
or savings to a source separation program on the
basis of apportionment.* For example, collection of
separated paper by specially hired personnel some-
times reduced the amount of custodial time spent
collecting mixed waste. The fully allocated method
would assign a cost to paper collection personnel
and attribute a savings to reduced custodial time,
even if overall budgeted costs remained unchanged.
The incremental cost approach was deemed by the research
team and case study site personnel to be at once the most
practicable and realistic indicator of expenses and/or
savings accruable to a solid waste management system incor-
porating a source separation program. Therefore, source
separation economics herein presented reflect this method-
ological approach.
Fully allocated costs, while valuable aids to illuminate
such variables as labor commitments, often distort true
* The source separation effort by office personnel was
excepted from consideration. Time to place separated
paper in the appropriate container was assumed to be no
greater than if waste was discarded in a wastebasket.
40
-------
costs.* Readers interested in the fully allocated costs at
each case study site may refer to the report addendum for
further discussion and individual estimates using this cost
accounting procedure.
Startup Costs
Startup cost elements associated with source separation
programs include administration, equipment, and labor.
Administration
As defined in Section III, initial program administration
encompassed administrative and clerical efforts for planning
and publicity/education. In general, the only out-of-
pocket expenditures went for publicity/education materials,
and averaged three to four cents per employee. Although
absorbed, the importance of administrative planning cannot
be underestimated. The average of three minutes per
employee should be viewed as the minimum required to attain
a viable program. A well conceived and well planned
program will reduce ongoing administrative requirements.
Equipment
Incremental equipment and labor costs are summarized by
source separation approach in Table 15.+ Although site
specific as discussed below, initial out-of-pocket equip-
ment expenses at the sites studied ranged from zero at four
locations to $16,400 at Building No. 8. Excluding Building
No. 8, which individually accounted for nearly half of the
total equipment expenditures at all case study sites, the
average program incurred initial equipment costs of about
$1,300. Restated in terms of median employment, incremental
equipment costs averaged about one cent per employee.
* For example, at Building No. 8, two laborers were
hired specifically to collect source separated paper.
As a result, custodial time to collect mixed waste was
estimated to have been reduced by one-half hour per
custodian per day. The custodial staff size and corres-
ponding budget, however, remained unchanged. Attributing
a cost savings of one-half hour per day to each of the
197 custodians employed at Building No. 8 would not
indicate true program costs or savings.
+ No trends were apparent when startup requirements were
compared by type of building.
41
-------
Desk top programs were best able to minimize incremental
startup equipment requirements. All desk top containers were
provided without direct cost by the paper purchaser. Used
corrugated boxes were utilized to store separated paper at
all sites. In addition, a baler and central paper storage
containers were purchased at Building No. 5 to reduce the
space required to store up to 5 tons of paper prior to market
transport.
Dual basket programs generally incurred the expected
equipment expenses for separated paper collection. At
Building No. 7, significant outlays were necessary to
modify custodial carts to accommodate separated paper
collection. A half-ton van was needed at Building No. 8
to collect accumulated paper quantities. Building No. 11
acquired a van at no cost for similar purposes. Building
No. 8 also spent substantial amounts for central containers
and customized central storage bins.
Startup expenses for central container programs involved
the purchase of the containers themselves. At Building
No. 4, a baler was also purchased to reduce the volume of
the office waste. At Building No. 12, modification of
several custodial carts required a small expenditure.
Labor
Incremental labor expenses were site specific. As an
indication of initial out-of-pocket costs, Table 15 shows
the monthly cost for incrementally hired personnel. As
shown, incremental labor costs at seven sites ranged from
$86 to $2,811 per month. Due to the variety of incremental
labor requirements, averages are without meaning.
Collection labor requirements were most easily absorbed in
the desk top programs. Building No. 10 used two part-time
work-study students to collect separated paper. Incremental
collection personnel were required at two of the three dual
basket programs where custodial workloads were unable to
absorb a separate paper collection task. Building No. 8
hired two full-time laborers to collect separated paper from
throughout the 16-building complex. Similarly, a full-time
project coordinator was responsible for the collection of
separated paper throughout the 70-building complex at
Building No. 11. The existing custodial staff at Building
No. 7, comprised of 18 individual buildings, was able to
absorb the paper collection function.
Incremental labor was required at four of the six central
container programs. At Building No. 2, part-time help was
hired to sort separated paper into specific grades. At
42
-------
TABLE 15
INCREMENTAL SOURCE SEPARATION
PROGRAM STARTUP COSTS
FOR EQUIPMENT AND LABOR
- By Source Separation Approach -
Approach/
Building No.
Desk Top
3
5
10
Dual Basket
7
8
11
Central Container
1
2
4
6
9
12
On-Site
Storage
4,200
3,600
2,040
1,196
480
Equipment Costs ($)
Central
Collection Processing Storage Total
0
2,000 280 2,280
0
1,125 1,125
500 11,700 16,400
0
3,600
0
3,310 3,310
2,040
1,196
310 790
Labor Costs ($/mo)
Collection Sorting
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
*
Total
0
0
86
0
2,811
745
0
515
1,032
0
200
1,067
Monthly costs shown as proxy for initial out-of-pocket costs
-------
Building No. 4, two full-time laborers were hired to sort
paper. The custodial contract at Building No. 9 was
increased by two person-hours per day to cover additional
time spent to collect separated paper. Labor at Building
No. 12 for paper collection and sorting was supplied from
a social rehabilitation program.*
Operating Costs
Analysis of all operating costs affecting solid waste
management (equipment, labor, administration, disposal,
paper revenue) was performed before and after source
separation implementation to assess program viability.
The site specific nature of incremental equipment and labor
costs carried over into operating costs. The equipment
costs shown in Table 15 were assumed to be depreciated on
a straight-line basis over a five-year period. On these
terms, the incremental equipment operating costs of source
separation ranged from zero at four sites to almost $500
per month at Building No. 8. Again excluding Building No.
8 on the assumption that equipment expenditures were
inordinately high at that site, incremental equipment
operating cost for the eleven remaining programs ranged from
zero to $60 per month, averaging about $20 per month.
Incremental labor operating costs were presented in Table
15 and discussed in the preceeding section.
Incremental administrative costs were limited to ongoing
costs for publicity/education materials; administrative and
clerical labor costs were absorbed into existing workloads.
Waste disposal cost reductions were also site specific.
Seven sites were able to reduce the number and size of
storage containers and/or cut back collection frequency.
In such instances, a diverted disposal savings was realized.
Disposal savings were not realized at five sites for one or
more of the following reasons:
Insignificant waste reduction.
Local health regulations required a minimum collec-
tion frequency if putrescible organic wastes were
included with other office refuse.
* Building No. 12 paid one-third of the personnel cost; the
remaining portion was paid through state and federal funds
44
-------
At sites comprised of multiple buildings, standard-
sized bins were required at each building to
minimize custodial collection duties. Waste
reduction at each building did not effect overall
collection requirements.
Revenue from sales of source separated paper served to
defray/cover incremental operating costs. Table 16
summarizes typical revenues received by each case study
site for specific grades separated. With the exception of
Building No. 9, all sites with computer facilities kept
tab cards separate from other grades. Computer printout
was generally included with white ledger (bond, reproduction
paper, etc.) except at Buildings No. 4 and 12, where
additional employees were hired to sort recovered paper into
specific grades. The notable decline in low grade sales
price in conjunction with the relative quantities generated
(refer to Table 5) makes low grades questionable for economi-
cal recovery. The same consideration applies to colored
ledger.
Program Economics
Analysis of collection and disposal costs before and after
implementation of source separation programs revealed that
solid waste management costs were effectively decreased
at nine of the twelve case study sites. In terms of percent
change, the net costs ranged from a decrease of 35 percent
to an increase of 7 percent, with an overall average decrease
of 12 percent. Categorical assessments are made below on
the basis of building type, source separation approach, and
grade(s) of paper marketed.
Office Building Type
Table 17 summarizes the impact of source separation on
overall solid waste management costs in terms of building
type. Incremental collection costs were generally highest
at banks and insurance companies; however, the impact of
source separation was usually greatest due to large volumes
of readily separable high grade wastepaper generated at
these facilities. Two interrelated factors affected
program economics at Building No. 2: (1) source separation
was implemented in a portion of the office complex only;
(2) the cost for a part-time worker hired to sort paper
exceeded disposal and revenue savings. Revenue and disposal
savings exceeded incremental costs by 28 to 35 percent at
each of the three remaining buildings.
Overall solid waste management costs were reduced by 7 to
25 percent at four of the five general office buildings.
45
-------
TABLE 16
TYPICAL REVENUES RECEIVED FOR
SOURCE SEPARATED OFFICE PAPER
]
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
* No
+ Con
Manila
165
no
120
96
140
120
148
High Grades
Computer Paper
Tab cards Printout
Colored Mixed
18
45 70
70
70 60
104 95
Sales Revenue ($/ton)
Ledger
White Colored Mixed
35
36+ 23
50+
40 30
60+
65* 60
30
5
59+
30
70 40
Low Grades
Newspaper Corrugated Mixed
0*
1 2
10 20
10
10
26
collection cost in exchange for paper
(muter nrintntit inrlnH«»H in whito Ipriapr
-------
TABLE 17
IMPACT OF SOURCE SEPARATION ON OVERALL
OFFICE BUILDING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS**
-By Building Type-
Solid Waste Manage-
ment Cost ($/ton)
Prior to
Building Type/ Source
Number Separation
Bank/ Insurance
1
2
3
4
Average Change
General Office
5
6
7
8
9
Average Change
Multi-Disciplined
10
11
12
Average Change
34
61
92
53
—
107
315
74
412
77
--
47
75
134
--
After
Source
Separation
23
64
60
38
—
80
294
67
419
70
—
43
80
132
--
Incremental Cost Factors (% Change*)
Net
Effect •
-32
* 5
-35
-28
-22
-25
- 7
- 9
* 2
- 9
-JO
- 8
+ 7
- 1
- 1
Collection*
* 1
+23
+12
+46
+21
+ 2
+ 1
0
+ 6
+ 5
+ 2
+ 4
+12
+ 8
+ 8
+ Disposal + Revenue
- 7
- 6
0
-15
- 7
- 5
- 4
0
- 2
-12
- 4
0
0
0
0
-26
-12
-47
-59
-36
-22
- 4
- 9
- 2
- 2
- 8
-12
- 5
- 9
- 9
Overall Average
Change
-12
+10
- 4
-18
* Change as a percent of total solid waste management cost (per ton) prior to Implementation
of source separation.
# "Collection" encompasses equipment and/or labor to store, collect, and/or process
source separated paper.
** Categorical averages may not be conclusive due to limited number of case studies
and multiple Independent variables.
47
-------
Paper revenue (mixed grade) and diverted disposal savings
were not sufficient to overcome incremental equipment and
labor costs at Building No. 8, resulting in a two percent
increase.
Source separation had the least effect on costs at multi-
disciplined buildings. Two of the three programs achieved
some cost reduction; at Building No. 11, however, the
incremental expense of paper collection labor was not
compensated for by revenues from the mixed grade that was
marketed. Due to the relatively small quantities of solid
waste diverted by the multi-disciplined buildings (average
of 11 percent), none of these programs accrued disposal
cost savings.
Source Separation Approach
The impact of source separation on overall solid waste
management costs according to approach is presented in
Table 18. As shown, the desk top programs effectively
reduced solid waste management costs from 8 to 35 percent,
with an average reduction of 23 percent. The desk top
approach was the only system in which revenue alone exceeded
incremental collection costs. That is, diverted disposal
savings were not required for the program to be "profitable."
This is an important consideration, especially for companies/
agencies occupying leased buildings in which diverted
disposal savings revert to the building owner.
Two of the three dual basket programs effectively increased
overall solid waste management costs by 2 and 7 percent;
in the third program, overall costs were reduced by 9
percent. At those buildings where costs increased (Buildings
No. 8 and 11), incremental collection costs were not covered
by marketing a mixed grade of paper. Conversely, Building
No. 7 was able to market a mixed grade and reduce overall
costs because all collection functions and costs were
absorbed.
Overall, central container programs effectively reduced
solid waste management costs by an average of 12 percent.
Five of the six programs achieved cost reductions ranging
from one to 32 percent; at Building No. 2, costs increased
five percent, due to sorting costs which exceeded revenue
and diverted disposal savings.
Paper Grade
Table 19 summarizes the economic impact of source separa-
tion in terms of paper grade(s) marketed. The two case
48
-------
TABLE 18
IMPACT OF SOURCE SEPARATION ON OVERALL
OFFICE BUILDING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS**
-By Source Separation Approach-
Solid Haste Manage-
ment Cost ($/ton)
Prior to
Approach/ Source
Building No. Separation
Desk Top
3
5
10
Average Change
Dual Basket
7
8
11
Average Change
Central Container
1
2
4
6
9
12
Average Change
Overall Average
Change
92
107
47
—
74
412
75
—
34
61
53
315
77
J34
After
Source
Separation
60
80
43
--
67
419
80
—
23
64
38
294
70
132
--
Incremental Cost Factors ($ Change*)
Net
Effect -
-35
-25
- 8
-23
- 9
+ 2
+ 7
0
-32
+ 5
-28
- 7
- 9
. 1
-12
-12
• Collection
+12
+ 2
+ 4
+ 6
0
+ 6
+12
+ 6
+ 1
+23
+46
+ 1
+ S
+ 8
+14
+10
+ Disposal
0
- 5
0
- I
0
- 2
0
- 1
- 7
- 6
-15
- 4
-12
0
- 8
- 4
+ Revenue
-47
-22
-12
-27
- 9
- 2
- 5
- 5
-26
-12
-59
- 4
- 2
- 9
-18
-18
* Change as a percent of total solid waste management cost (per ton) prior to Implementation
of source separation.
* "Collection" encompasses equipment and/or labor to store, collect, and/or process
source separated paper.
** Categorical averages may not be conclusive due to limited number of case studies
and multiple Independent variables.
49
-------
TABLE 19
IMPACT OF SOURCE SEPARATION ON OVERALL
OFFICE BUILDING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS**
-By Paper Grade-
Sol Id Waste Manage-
ment Cost ($/ton)
Grades Marketed/
Building Number
White Only
3
5
10
Average Change
White. Colored
Z
6
12
Average Change
White. Colored. Mi
4
Average Change
Mixed Only
7
8
9
11
Average Change
Overall Average
Change
Prior to
Source
Separation
92
107
_4Z_
61
315
134_
ixed
34
53
74
412
77
75
~
—
After
Source
Separation
60
80
43
64
294
132
23
28
67
419
70
80
--
--
Incremental Cost Factors (X Chanae*)
Net
Effect
-35
-25
- 8
-23
+ 5
- 7
- 1
- 1
-32
-28
-30
- 9
+ 2
- 9
+ 7
- 2
-12
= Collection*
+12
+ 2
+ 4
+ 6
+23
+ 1
+ 8
+11
+ 1
+46
+23
0
+ 6
+ 5
+12
+ 5
+10
+ Disposal
0
- 5
0
- 2
- 6
- 4
0
- 3
- 7
-15
-11
0
- 2
-12
0
- 3
- 4
+ Revenue
-47
-22
=12_
-27
-12
- 4
- 9
- 9
-26
-59
-42
- 9
- 2
- 2
- 5
- 4
-18
* Change as a percent of total solid waste management cost (per ton) prior to implementation
of source separation.
"Collection" encompasses equipment and/or labor to store, collect, and/or process
source separated paper.
** Categorical averages may not be conclusive due to limited number of case studies
and multiple independent variables.
50
-------
study sites in the "white, colored, mixed" category each
source separated high grade mixes, also marketing unseparated
"desk waste" as a low grade mix. As mentioned above, waste
contaminant control was accomplished by prohibiting employees
from eating at their desks. This systemized approach
reduced solid waste management costs by an average of 30
percent. Moreover, at Building No. 4, revenues from high
grade separation exceeded the cost of two full-time sorters.
Programs skimming white paper only (all desk top) reduced
costs from 8 to 35 percent, with an average reduction of 23
percent.
As a category, "white and colored" programs only marginally
lowered solid waste management costs. Building No. 6
achieved a seven percent cost reduction by marketing white
and colored paper in the employee-separated condition. Both
of the other programs in this category sorted employee-
separated paper into specific grades. Building No. 2 was
unable to recover the sorting cost from sales revenues. At
Building No. 12, a marginal reduction was achieved; however,
only one-third of sorting personnel received wages, others
being paid through a social rehabilitation program.
Sales of the "mixed only" grade provided the lowest revenue
of any category. Buildings No. 8 and 11 were unable to
recover the cost of supplemental paper collection personnel
hired on a full-time basis. At Building No. 7, where the
paper collection function was absorbed, and Building No. 9,
which accepted a minor contract increase for paper collec-
tion, a source separation program was implemented while
achieving overall cost reductions of seven and nine percent,
respectively.
51
-------
OPTIMIZATION ANALYSIS
Case study analyses indicate that source separation in office
buildings is economically viable. As noted throughout this
report, however, implementation approaches, personnel and
equipment requirements, and paper market values varied from
site to site. Therefore, an analysis to assess the optimal
impact of source separation on overall solid waste manage-
ment costs has been developed for a hypothetical general
office building. This analysis was constructed using rele-
vant data and/or inferences from the case study sites and
assumes observed practices and operations to be typical.
Comparisons were made of four alternative source separation
schemes:
Scheme 1: Source separation of white paper grades
using three alternative approaches: desk
top, dual basket, and central container.
In each instance, computer tab cards were
assumed to be manila and to be kept
separate from computer printout and
white ledger; the latter two grades were
jointly marketed as white ledger.
Scheme 2: Source separation of mixed high grade
using the optimum approach determined
from the Scheme 1 analysis. Computer
tab cards were assumed to be indepen-
dently separated.
Scheme 3: Source separation of mixed low grade
using the optimum approach determined
from the Scheme 1 analysis. Computer
cards were assumed to be independently
separated.
Scheme 4: Source separation of all recyclable
paper (i.e., mixed low grade) using the
optimum approach determined from the
Scheme 1 analysis, with secondary sorting
into specific grades for marketing.
Computer tab cards were assumed to be
independently separated.
Data Development
Evaluation of the alternative source separation schemes
entailed the estimation of waste generation and composition
52
-------
and evaluation of five cost elements: labor, equipment,
overhead, disposal, and savings.
Waste Generation/Composition
The hypothetical general office building analyzed was
assumed to house 1,800 employees (the median employment
figure at the case study sites). Total solid waste genera-
tion for this building was estimated at 30 tons per month,
based on the average general office building generation rate
shown in Table 4.
The hypothetical waste composition for a general office
building was derived from Table 5. The recoverable portion
of each paper type was adjusted on the basis of the average
employee participation rate for alternative source separation
approaches.* Available and adjusted quantities are shown
below:
Paper Recoverable Portion (tons/mo)
Availability DesTt BualCentral
Paper Type (tons/mo) Top Basket Container
Computer tab cards 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9
Computer printout 2.1 1.9 1.5 1.6
White ledger 9.9 8.9 7.1 7.7
Colored ledger 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.4
Corrugated 2.7 2.4 1.9 2.1
Newspaper 4.9 4.4 3.5 3.8
Labor
Custodial labor was used on a daily basis to collect and
transport discarded office waste to a central storage
location. In the hypothetical building, 18 custodians were
assumed to have been required. This figure was based on the
median case study ratio of one custodian to each 100 employees
prior to source separation implementation. Again based on
case study data, custodians were assumed to have spent 1.6
hours per day performing solid waste-related activities.
Custodian wages averaged about five dollars per
hour, including fringe benefits.
Labor to collect source separated paper was absorbed at
some case study sites, incremental at others, and varied by
separation approach. Incremental paper collection tasks
* Desk top, 90 percent participation; dual basket, 72
percent; and central container, 78 percent.
53
-------
were assumed to have been conducted by custodians at the
following rates:
Incremental Paper
Source Separation Collection Requirements
Approach [hours per day")
Desk top 0.1
Dual basket 0.9
Central container 0.1
Sorting mixed grades of source separated paper into specific
grades at the case study sites typically required 10 hours
per ton of sorted paper. Sorters received burdened wages
of about four dollars per hour.
Equipment
Based on a five-year straight line depreciation, the average
cost for equipment such as wastebaskets, custodial carts,
plastic bags, etc., averaged 10 cents per employee per month,
or $180 per month for the hypothetical building. Incremental
costs for equipment required to implement a source separation
program varied by approach. For example, desk top containers
were assumed to be supplied at no direct cost; dual basket
programs generally entailed custodial cart modification
costs and/or costs for containers; central container
programs generally required purchase of the central containers
themselves. Assuming processing, i.e., baling of separated
paper was not to be performed, the average incremental
equipment costs are summarized below:
Incremental Equipment
Source Separation Cost
Approach ($/mo)
Desk top 2
Dual basket 32
Central container 21
Overhead
Overhead expenses for administration, building, and land
were assumed to be five percent of equipment and labor
costs.
Disposal
Solid waste disposal costs averaged $27 per ton at the case
study sites.
54
-------
Savingj
Solid waste management cost savings realized through source
separation can accrue as a result of diverted disposal
and/or revenue from the sale of separated paper.
Disposal Savings. Disposal savings are generally not
reduced in direct proportion to the quantity of waste
diverted.* For example, the amount of paper diverted from
disposal averaged 34 percent by weight at the case study
sites, while disposal costs were reduced by an overall
average of 18 percent. In other words, monetary savings
averaged about half that of the disposed quantity reduction
when both factors are expressed as percentages. This factor
was used as a proxy for diverted disposal savings in the
optimization analysis.
Revenue. The following paper stock prices typify prevailing
markets and were used in the assessment:
Market Price
Paper Grade ($ per ton)
Computer tab cards 100
Computer printout 60
White ledger 50
Colored ledger 25
Corrugated 10
Newspaper 10
Mixed low grade 5
Optimization Analysis Results
Table 20 summarizes the analysis of the alternative approach/
schemes.**
Optimum Approach
Each of the approaches analyzed in Scheme 1 effectively
lowered overall solid waste management costs. The desk top
* If the building is rented or leased, diverted disposal
savings are not likely to be gained by the occupant, as
would be the case if the occupant was also the building
owner. For the purposes of this analysis, the hypotheti-
cal building was assumed to be owned by the occupant, as
was the case at 10 of the 12 sites studied.
+ Prices estimated assume that the dealer provides the
necessary central storage containers and transportation.
**Detailed figures supporting Table 20 appear in Appendix B.
55
-------
TABLE 20
COST ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE
SOURCE SEPARATION APPROACHES/SCHEMES
-Hypothetical General Office Building-
Solid Waste Management Costs ($/Month)
After Source Separation/Scheme
Contributing Factors
Labor
Equipment
Overhead
Disposal
Paper Revenue
Net Solid Waste
Management Costs
Solid Waste Generation
(tons/mo)*
Net Cost per ton
($/ton)
Prior to
Source
Separation
3,168
180
167
810
--
4,649
30
155
Desk
Top
3,179
182
168
652
(630)
3,570
30
119
1
Dual
Basket
3,267
212
174
682
(520)
3,815
30
127
Central
Container
3,179
201
168
672
(555)
3,665
30
122
2
Desk
Top
3,179
182
168
630
(400)
3,759
30
125
3
Desk
Top
3,179
182
168
539
(186)
3,882
30
129
4
Desk
Top
4,039
182
211
539
(738)
4,233
30
141
* Total generation held constant for equitable comparison.
-------
approach proved to be more economical than either the dual
basket or central container approaches:
Collection and Disposal Cost
Prior to After
Alternative Source Implementation Implementation of
Separation of Source Separation Source Separation
Approach ($/ton) ($/ton) (% change)
Desk top 155 119 -23
Dual basket 155 127 -18
Central container 155 122 -21
Optimum Scheme
Using the desk top approach, each of the four separation
schemes effectively reduced overall solid waste management
costs in the analysis. Separation of white high grade
paper, however, proved to be more economical than separation
of either a high or low grade mix, with or without secondary
sorting:
Collection and Disposal Cost
Prior to After
Alternative Source Implementation Implementation of
Separation of Source Separation Source Separation
Scheme ($/ton) C$/ton) (% change)
1 (White high-grade
only) 155 119 -23
2 (Mixed high-grade
only) 155 125 -19
3 (Mixed low-grade) 155 129 -17
4 (Mixed low-grade/
sort) 155 141 -9
57
-------
REFERENCES
"The Paper Shortage . . . And What You Can Do About
It," Panorama, November 3, 1974, pg. 3.
"Paperwork Blizzard May Snow Under an Industry,"
Los Angeles Times, July 7, 1975, Part III, Pg. 9.
A Study to Identify Opportunities of Increased Solid
Waste Utilization, prepared by Battelle Memorial
Laboratories for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1972.
SCS Engineers, "Assessment of Source Separation of
Solid Wastes: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority," September 1975. Unpublished data.
SCS Engineers, "Solid Waste Composition Study, Water-
side Mall," September 1975. Unpublished data.
Herdman, William E., Designing for Solid Waste
Disposal: Some Reminders," Architectural Record,
May, 1975.
Knoll, Jr., William G., "How to Get Solid Waste Out
of Office Buildings," Specifying Engineer, September
1975.
58
-------
APPENDICES
Section Page
' A Paper Stock Definitions/Historic Prices A-l
B Cost Data for Optimization Analysis B-l
59
-------
APPENDIX A
PAPER STOCK DEFINITIONS/HISTORIC PRICES
Introduction
Price information for five paper stock grades typically
found in office buildings was obtained from Official
Board Markets for the period encompassing 1970 through 1975
1. Manila Tab Cards
2. Sorted White Ledger
3. No. 1 News
4. Corrugated Containers
5. No. 1 Mixed
Paper stock prices are given per short ton board mill
prices, F.O.B. trucks, cars at dealers'or producers'plant
exclusive of delivery, premium or distress lots, special
packing, or other special charges. Grades are defined
according to Paper Stock Standards and Practices. Circular
PS-74,as published by the Paper Stock Institute of
America, National Association of Recycling Industries,
Inc.
Four geographical areas were selected to represent
a cross-section of the nation and to plot historical price
ranges:
Geographical Representative
Area Market
East New York
Mid-west Chicago
South South*
West Los Angeles
Manila Tab Cards
Definition: Manila tabulating cards consist of printed
manila-colored cards, predominantely sulphite
or sulphate, which have been manufactured
for use in tabulating machines. This grade
may contain manila-colored tabulating cards
with tinted margins.
Official Board Market listing.
A-l
-------
Acceptable Contamination Level:
Prohibitive materials - none permitted
u
Total outthrows - may not exceed 1%
Price History:
Definition
Table A-l presents Manila Tab Card price
fluctuations from 1970 through 1975.
Prices remained relatively stable at $75 to
$95 per ton until 1973 when the market
rose sharply, peaking in mid-1974 at
$200 to $250 per ton. By early 1975 prices
had fallen to $125 to $150 per ton. At
year end, manila tab card prices had again
risen to $170 to $190, depending on
geographical area.
Sorted White Ledger
No. 1 sorted white ledger consists of printed
on unprinted sheets, shavings, and cuttings
of white sulphate ledger, bond, writing, and
other papers which have similar fibre and
filler content. This grade must be free of
treated, coated, padded, or heavily printed
stock (typical examples of acceptable office
paper include letterheads, including tissue
copies; Xerox or IBM copies; business forms;
stationery; and typing paper. Higher grades,
such as manila tab cards and computer print-
out, may also be included).
Acceptable Contamination Level:
Prohibitive materials: none permitted
Total outthrows: may not exceed 2%
Prohibitive materials: (a) Any materials which by their
presence in a packing of paper stock, in excess of the
amount allowed, will make the packing unusable as the
grade specified.
Outthrows: Outthrows are understood to be all
papers so manufactured or treated or are
in such form as to be unsuitable for consumption as the
grade specified.
A-2
-------
Pric ? History: Table A-2 summarizes sorted white ledger
price history from 1970 through 1975.
From 1970 through 1972 sorted white ledger
prices remained constant at $35 to
$50 per ton. Prices began rising in early
1973 and peaked in 1974 at a range of $100
to $160 per ton. Peak prices generally held
for about eight months, then declined to
the present level of $80 to $85 per ton,
$35 to $50 per ton higher than
1970 prices.
No. 1 News
Definition: Consists of baled newspapers containing less
than 5% of other wastepapers.
Acceptable Contamination Level:
Prohibitive materials - may not exceed 1/2 of 1%
Total outthrows - may not exceed 2%
Price History: As shown in Table A-3, prices for No. 1 news
generally oscillated between $18 and $22
per ton from 1970 to mid-1973. Prices
rose sharply during the following year,
peaking at a price range of $38 to $60
per ton. From peak prices, the No. 1 news
market plummeted and bottomed out at a
low of $5 per ton. Late 1975 market
prices have rebounded to 1970 price levels.
Corrugated Containers
Definition: Consists of baled corrugated containers
with linings of either jute or kraft.
Acceptable Contamination Level;
Prohibitive materials - may not exceed 1%
Total outthrows - may not exceed 5%
Price History: Table A-4 shows the corrugated container
price history from 1970 through 1975.
Prices generally ranged from $20 to $25
per ton from 1970 to 1973, at which time
prices rose, ranging from $46 to $60 per
A-3
-------
ton by early 1974. Thereafter, prices
fell to historic lows during the period
studied, ranging from $8 to $25 per
ton.
No. 1 Mixed
Definition: No. 1 mixed consists of a baled mixture of
various qualities of paper containing less
than 25% of groundwood stock,coated or un-
coated.
Acceptable Contamination Level;
Prohibitive materials - may not exceed 1%
Total outthrows - may not exceed 5%
Price History: No. 1 mixed historic prices from 1970
through 1975 are presented in Table A-5.
With the exception of a price dip in 1971,
No. 1 mixed had market values ranging
from $10 to $18 per ton from 1970 to mid-
1973. Prices rose for a ten month period
and peaked in early 1974 at a range of
$18 to $46 per ton. whereupon values sub-
sided to lows paralleling 1971. Late
1975 prices ranged from $5 to $18.
A-4
-------
300
i
en
e
DC.
UJ
Q.
CO
ce
o
Q
UJ
t_>
0£
Q_
O£
LU
250
200
150
100
50
MANILA TAB CARDS
-i—i—u
' ' I
1970
1971 1972 1973
YEAR
FIGURE A-l
HISTORICAL MANILA TAB CARD PRICES
1974
1975
-------
300
250
O
cr
UJ
200
o
a
v_x
150
02
Q_
UJ 100
Q_
-------
g
on
ui
Q.
Cd
3
300
250
200
150
100
50
NO, 1 NEWS
1970
1971 1972 1973
YEAR
FIGURE A-3
HISTORICAL NO. l NEWS PRICES
1975
-------
300
250
i
CO
UJ
Q.
CO
O
0
UJ
Q-
200
150
100-
CORRUGATFD CONTAINERS
—I—I—I—I—I—I—I
1970
1971
1972 1973
TEAR
1975
FIGURE A-4
HISTORICAL CORRUGATED CONTAINER PRICES
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
COST DATA FOR OPTIMIZATION ANALYSIS
B-l
-------
TABLE B-l
00
I
ro
COST ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCE
SEPARATION APPROACHES/SCHEMES
-Hypothetical General Office Building-
Contributing Factors
Prior to
Source
Separation
Solid Waste Management Costs ($/month)
After Source Separation
Scheme 1 Scheme 2 Scheme 3
Desk Dual Central Desk Desk
Top Basket Container Top Top
T
Scheme 4
Desk
Top
COSTS
Labor
. 18 custodians @ 1.6
hrs/day x $5/hr x 22
days/mo 3,168
. Desk top @ .1 hr/day
x $5/hr x 22 days/mo
. Dual basket @ .9 hr/
day x $5/hr x 22 days/mo
. Central container @ .1 hr/
day x $5/hr x 22 days/mo
. Sorters @ 10 hrs/ton x $4/
hr x 19 tons recovered
3,168 3,168 3,168 3,168
3,168 3,168
11
11
11
99
11
11
760
SUBTOTAL LABOR
Equipment
. Prior to source
separation
. After source separation
Desk top
Dual basket
Central container
SUBTOTAL EQUIPMENT
3,168
180
—
--
--
180
3,179
180
2
—
—
182
3,267
180
--
32
—
212
3,179
180
—
—
21
201
3,179
180
2
--
—
182
3,179
180
2
--
—
182
4,039
180
2
--
—
182
Continued
-------
TABLE B-1 (continued)
00
I
Solid Waste Management Costs ($/month)
After Source Separation
Contributing Factors
Overhead
. Administration
. Land
. Building
Disposal
TOTAL HANDLING
SAVINGS
Prior to
Source
Separation
Assumed @
. 5X of labor 167
and equip-
ment costs
810
COST
4,649
Desk
Top
168
652
4,181
Scheme
Dual
Basket
174
682
4,335
1
Central
Container
168
672
4,220
Scheme 2
Desk
Top
168
630
4,159
Scheme 3
Desk
Top
168
539
4,068
Scheme 4
Desk
Top
211
539
4,971
Revenue
. Tab cards @ $100/ton
Desk top/Dual/
Central @ 0.9 tpm
. Computer printout/white
ledger @ $50/ton
Desk @ 10.8 tpm
Dual 0 8.6 tpm
Central @ 9.3 tpm
. Computer printout @ $607
ton
Desk @ 1.9 tpm
. Colored ledger @ $25/ton
Desk @ 12.4 tpm
Desk @ 1.6 tpm
. Corrugated @ $10/ton
Desk @ 2.4 tpm
90
540
90
430
90
465
90
310
90
90
445
95
40
24
Continued
-------
TABLE B-1 (continued)
U3
I
Sol
id Waste
Management
Costs ($/month)
After Source Separation
Contributing Factors
. Newspaper @ $10/ton
Desk @ 4.4 tpm
. Mixed low grade @
$5/ton
Desk (<> 19.2 tpm
SUBTOTAL SAVINGS
------- |