source separation for materials and energy recovery

Chapter 4

Source Separation for

Materials and Energy Recovery

Contents

Page

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..69Definitions and Issues Addressed. .. ...69Advantages, Disadvantages, and

Impedimentsto Source Separation. ...69TheTechnicalandRevenue,Potentials

of Source Separation. . . . . . . . . . .......70MaterialsRecovery. . . . . . . . . . .......71EnergySavings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....7IRevenue PotentialofSource Separation

programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......72Status of Source Separation Programs in

the United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . .......72Source Separation Methods andApproaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......72

Curbside Separate Collection Programs.73Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......73Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......74Inconvenience and Aspectsof

Householder Cost . . . . . . . . . .......75Separate Collection ofOneRecyclableat Curbside. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....76

Multimaterial Programs . . . . .......77Multimaterial Recoveryin Community

Recycling/Reclamation Centers, .. ....79Multimaterial RecoveryinIndustry

Sponsored RecyclingPrograms. .. ....80Wastepaper RecoveryThrough Office

Recycling Programs. . . . . . . . ., ......81Commercial and IndustrialMethods

of source separation. . . . . . . . . .........81Marketing Recovered Materials . . .......81Interaction of Source Separation and

Other Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....82Source Separation and Beverage

Container Deposits . . . . . . . . . .......82Source Separation and CentralizedResource Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,83

Source Separation and EconomicIncentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., .......85

Federal Policy and Source Separation ....86

PageNo Additional Federal Action . . .......86Direct Federal Action . . . . . . . . .......86

Mandated Source Separation ofMaterials by FederalAgencies .....86

Incentives for Investment inRecycling Facilities . . . . . . . .......86

Labor Tax Credits for RecyclingPrograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......86

Federal Support for Research,Development, and Designfor SourceSeparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Funding of DemonstrationProjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indirect Federal Action, . . . . . . . . . . . .Federal Procurement. . . . . . . . . . . . .Other Indirect Federal Actions . . . . .

Findings on Source Separation . . . . . . . . .References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tables

Table No.21. Major Source-Separable Components

22.

23.

24.25.

26.

27.

of MSW,1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Estimated Potential nergy SavingsFrom Source SeparationPrograms. . .Estimated Potential Gross RevenuesFrom Source Separation Programs. . .Separate Collection Programs . . . . . .Waste Components Recovered inMultimaterial Curbside SeparateCollection Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Impact of Beverage Container DepositLegislationon Potential SourceSeparation Revenues for Five BCDLScenarios . . . . . . . . . . . ... ..........Recovery Rates and Revenues for

. 86

. 87

. 87

. 87● 88. 88● 90

Page

. 72

● 73

● 74. 74

. 78

, 84

Three Resource Recovery Options ....85

Chapter 4

Source Separation forMaterials and Energy Recovery

Introduction

Definitions and Issues Addressed

s ource separation* is “the setting aside ofrecyclable materials at their point of

generation (e.g., the home, or places of busi-ness) by the generator. Once recyclable mate-rials are separated, they may be transportedto a secondary materials dealer or manufac-turer by the generator, municipal collectioncrews, private haulers, or community organi-zations.’”(l) Some familiar approaches tosource separation are curbside collection ofnewspapers, cans, and glass; commercial re-cycling of waste office paper, corrugatedcardboard, and computer cards; and commu-nit y dropoff centers,

By comparison with mechanical separationof collected mixed wastes in centralized re-source recovery plants, source separation islabor intensive, produces relatively uncon-taminated materials for recycling from a por-tion of the waste stream, and requires great-er cooperation by waste generators. Central-ized resource recovery, on the other hand, iscapital intensive, and can accept most kindsof collected waste thus reducing the need forcooperation. Because source separation canput a greater burden on collection, the mostcostly part of municipal solid waste (MSW)management, successful source separationprograms require considerable attention todesign and implementation strategies.**

*’*Source separation” is a misnomer, Rather thanseparation, householders and other generators ofwaste simply avoid mixing waste prior to collection.

**Design and implementation strategies for central-ized resource recovery plants, are discussed in detail inchapters 6, 7, and 8.

Four principal questions are addressed inthis chapter:

●

●

●

●

Is source separation an economicallyand technically feasible approach toresource recovery, and what are itspotentials for materials recovery andenergy savings?What issues and problems arise in con-nection with source separation?How does source separation interactwith other approaches to resource re-covery, recycling, and reuse?What Federal policy options are avail-able or necessary to facilitate, stimulate,or regulate source separation?

Advantages, Disadvantages, andImpediments to Source Separation

The advantages and benefits of the sourceseparation approach to recovery and recy-cling of materials are that it:

●

●

●

●

produces high-quality waste prod-ucts*** that can bring a premium priceif markets are available and if recoveredproducts meet market specifications;is the only method currently availablefor the recovery from MSW of recycla-ble newspaper, office paper, corrugatedcardboard, color-sorted glass, plastics,and rubber;conserves energy by recovering mate-rials whose production from virginsources is energy intensive;requires very little capital investment ascompared with centralized resourcerecovery;

***Curbside collected materials may need to be up-graded to meet market specifications.

69

70 ● Materials and Energy From Municipal Waste

. can be implemented with little delay incomparison with centralized resourcerecovery facilities; and

● may be the only way a small or remotecommunity could recycle materials if thepopulation is too small to support a cen-tralized resource recovery plant.

Some local independent trash haulers,scrap dealers, and scavengers might findsource separation more attractive than cen-tralized resource recovery because it pro-tects the part of their income derived fromsales of high-grade waste materials.

The possible indirect advantages of sourceseparation include:

Decrease air and water pollution fromlandfill activity.Net savings from avoiding negative im-pacts on the environment, on workerhealth, on energy, and on resources fromthe production of virgin materials.Improved balance of trade from substi-tuting recycled for imported virgin mate-rials.Communities with source separationprograms are seen to be forward-look-ing,Benefits from a sense of personal in-volvement in conservation activities.

Some of these benefits such as the reduceduse of virgin materials and of landfill spaceare also true for centralized resource re-covery.

The disadvantages of source separationare:

●

●

●

●

Only a portion of the waste generatedcan be recovered.It leaves a mixed waste residue that hasa somewhat lower fuel content than un-separated mixed waste.It strongly depends on individual par-ticipation and cooperation.It requires modification of the costly col-lection equipment used by both munic-ipal and private haulers.

The chief impediments to implementingsource separation are:

●

●

●

●

●

Uncertainty about cooperation in theshort- and long-term by householders,businesses, and others who generatewaste.The uncertainty of markets for recov-ered materials along with the reluctanceof consumers of recycled goods to signlong-term purchase contracts (in view ofuncertain community participation andthe problems associated with recycledmaterials meeting market specifica-tions).The costs of transporting recovered ma-terials from remote communities to thefabricating plants of potential pur-chasers.Inadequate attention by the Federal Gov-ernment to the innovative design of pro-grams, incentives, and contaminant con-trol research so that source separatedmaterials can meet market specifi-cations.The belief that low-income and urbanhouseholders will not cooperate withsource separation programs.

The rest of this chapter examines these ad-vantages, disadvantages, and impediments tosource separation and discusses possible pol-icies for dealing with them. -

The Technical and RevenuePotentials of Source Separation

F ive kinds of programs for source sepa-rating materials are: (i) separate curb-

side collection of materials from residences—newspapers only or multimaterials (paper,cans, glass); (ii) multimaterial recovery incommunity recycling/reclamation centers;(iii) industry sponsored recycling programs;(iv) office paper recovery programs; and (v)commercial and industrial source separationactivities. These types of programs makepossible the recovery from the waste streamof such materials as: newspapers, books andmagazines, corrugated paper, office paper,

Ch. 4—Source Separation for Materials and Energy Recovery ● 71

glass containers and other glass, steel con-tainers, aluminum containers, and yardwaste. The following sections examine sourceseparation’s potential for recovering materi-als, saving energy, and earning revenue.

Materials Recovery

The potential of source separation toachieve its main goals of reducing the flow ofsolid waste to disposal and of conservingnatural resources has been estimated byOTA. This estimate only attempts to conveythe sense of what might be accomplished. Itdoes not purport to forecast the actual futurelevels of source separation activities.

Table 21 shows the amounts of majorsource separable materials in MSW alongwith estimates of the amounts recoverable ateach of two national average levels of par-ticipation. * These estimates suggest that at50-percent participation as much as 37.4 mil-lion tons, or 27 percent by weight, of the grossdiscards of MSW might be recovered. Ac-cording to estimates by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), only 6.3 million tonsof MSW were actually recycled in 1975.

The potential of source separation may beunderestimated in table 21 because productssuch as plastics, paper packaging, and otherpaperboard might be added to the list. In ad-dition, wastes such as miscellaneous glass,noncontainer iron and steel, and aluminumfoil could be recovered with the basic com-ponents. It should be noted, however, that themost successful source separation programsrecover only 2 or 3 categories of materials ata time from the waste stream. A total of 26,1

*Participation is used here to mean the fraction ofeach waste component that is recovered. Thus, 25-per-cent participation would occur if one-fourth of the pop-ulation recovered all of the recoverable components ofits waste or if half of the population recovered half ofthe recoverable components of their waste on the aver-age. Since the major recoverable components make up55 percent of total waste (see table 21), 25-percent par-ticipation in a comprehensive program would result inrecovery of one-fourth of this 55 percent, or about 14percent of total waste. Likewise, 50-percent participa-tion would recover about 28 percent of total waste.

million tons of yard wastes have been in-cluded in table 21. Much of this waste(leaves, grass clippings, garden waste, etc.)can be separately recovered for conversion tocompost and mulch, providing both a soil con-ditioner and a partial substitute for chemicalfertilizer. At even 25-percent participation inthe separate collection of yard waste, theMSW total could be reduced by 6,5 milliontons (about 5 percent).

From the estimates for recoverable mate-rials in table 21 it can be seen that whilesource separation can substantially reduce acommunity’s total wastes, more than half willstill have to be disposed of by other methods.Thus, source separation can only serve aspart of of a community’s waste managementprogram,

Energy Savings

In order to produce basic materials (fromvirgin or secondary materials) energy isneeded to process and transport fuels, tomine and process raw materials, to operatewaste collection and separation plants, toheat and light operating facilities, etc.Recovering materials for recycling by meansof source separation can save energy. Theenergy saved would come from the differencebetween the energy needed to produce agiven amount (e.g., 1 ton) of a basic rawmaterial (e. g., steel) from virgin raw mate-rials and the energy needed to produce anequal quantity of the same basic materialfrom recycled raw materials. Estimates of thepotential savings in million 13tu per ton ofrecovered materials are summarized in col-umn 2 of table 22. From the data, it can beseen that a large amount of energy is saved inrecycling aluminum, somewhat less with steeland paper, and considerably less with glass.Table 22 also shows the energy that could besaved per ton of waste generated for both 25-and 50-percent participation in source sepa-ration programs. Energy savings comparedwith landfilling range from 0.7 million to 1.4million Btu per ton of generated waste. (Theinteraction of centralized resource recoveryand source separation is discussed later in

72 . Materials and Energy From Municipal Waste

Table 21.-Major Source-Separable Components of MSW, 1975

Amount recoverableby source separation Recycling experience in

Amount in MSWa (million tons) 1975 (All methods)a25% 50%

Material Percent Million tons participation participation Million tons ‘ % r e c y c l e d

Newspaper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $.5 8.9 2.2 4.5 20Books and magazines...., 2.3 3.1 0.78 6 8Corrugated paper . . . . . . . . . 9.2 12.5 3.1 , ::: 22Office paper . . . . . . . . . . ., . . : : ; 13Glass containers . . . . . . . . . ; : : 1::: ;:: HSteel containers . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 1.4 2.8 : : ; :Aluminum containers. . . . 0.4 0.14 0.27 0.08 15Yard waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.0 6.5 13.0Total major source-separable materials . . . . . 55.1% 74.2 18.5 37.4 6 . 3d

source; Table 4 .Latest year for which data are available.Includes all aluminum cans and aluminum parts of bimetallicp cansAn unknown amount of yard waste is collectedseparatly and used as compost or mulchan additional 1.7 million tons of other materials from MSW wererecycled in 1975NOTE: These estimates assume no action to institute product disposal charges, madatory cotainer deposits, or centralized resource recovery plants.

this chapter. ) For the entire Nation these sav-ings are equivalent to 0.1 to 0.2 Quad* an-nually or to 0.14 to 0.28 percent of the Na-tion’s energy use.

Revenue Potential of SourceSeparation Programs

The chief direct economic benefits ofsource separation programs are the proceedsfrom selling the recovered materials and thecredits for avoiding part of the cost of dis-posal by landfill or other means. In this anal-ysis, disposal credits are assumed to be pro-portional to the weight of waste removed;that is, average landfill costs are used in theirestimation.

The potential gross revenues from sourceseparation programs can be estimated bymultiplying the estimates of recoverablequantities of materials in table 21 by esti-mates of scrap prices. Table 23, which sum-marizes such revenue estimates for 25- and5C)-percent program participation, shows thatthese are highly dependent both on realizablescrap prices and on participation. It furthershows that no single waste component pro-duces a large share of the total revenues,although various paper types together ac-count for well over half of them. Depending

*One Quad equals 1015 Btu = 1.055 EJ.

on local landfill costs, credits for avoideddisposal costs can be significant.

A complete economic analysis of sourceseparation must take into consideration all ofthe following factors: the direct costs of pro-motion and collection and the direct benefitsof revenues from recovered materials andavoided disposal fees; also the indirect costsof consumer inconvenience and the indirectbenefits of energy and materials savings andenvironmental protection. The economic im-plications of the interactions among sourceseparation, centralized resource recovery,and beverage container deposit legislationmust also be considered. No direct cost dataare available for constructing a cost tableanalogous to table 23. Cost data for specificrecovery programs are discussed in subse-quent sections of this chapter.

Status of Source Separationprograms in the United States

Source Separation Methods andApproaches

s ource separation programs vary depend-ing on the sponsorship, the types of ma-

terials collected, the frequency of collection,and whether materials are collected at curb-

Ch. 4—Source Separation for Materials and Energy Recovery “ 73

Table 22.—Estimated Potentiai Energy savings From Source Separation Programs

Potential energy Potential energy savings per ton of MSWsavingsa generated (million Btu/ton)

Material (million Btu/ton) 25% participation 50% participation

Newspaper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 0.08 0.17Books and magazines . . . . . 5.2 0.08 0.17Corrugated paper.. . . . . . . . 5.2 0.08 0.17Office paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 0.08 0.17Glass containersfJ . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.03 0.06Steel containers. . . . . . . . . . 7.8 0.08 0.16Aluminum containers . . . . . 259.4 0.26 0.52Yard waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0c Oc w

Total energy savings. . . . 0.69 1.42OTA estimates based on data in reference(2),(3), and(4).

In this report recovery of yard waste in source separation programs Is assumed to produce only landfill Credits and neitherenergy savings norr net revenues. This choice is made becauae yard waste is quite varied seasonally and geographically andbecause experts disagree widely about the viability of yard waste utilization or sale. The effects of this choice are to under-estimate by a small amount the economic and energy potentials of source separation.

side or delivered to a recycling center. Fivemethods of source separation are discussedbelow: (i) curbside separate collection pro-grams; (ii) multimaterial recovery in commu-nity recycling/reclamation centers; (iii) indus-try sponsored recycling programs; (iv) officepaper recovery; and (v) commercial and in-dustrial methods of source separation.

Curbside Separate Collection Programs

STATUS

In curbside separate collection programs*recyclable materials are conveniently col-lected at curbside, rather than having to betransported by householders, businesses, orother generators of waste to a recyclingcenter. Such programs fall into two cate-gories, those that collect only one recyclablematerial, in most cases some form of waste-paper; and those that collect two or more. Ina recent survey, EPA estimated that as ofMay 1978, there were 218 curbside separatecollection programs in the United States. (See

*This section discusses only curbside collection pro-grams sponsored by municipalities or private collectorson a regular basis, There is a significant amount of ac-tivity, primarily for newspaper, in occasional curbsidecollection by voluntary organizations and in house-to-house collection by private entrepreneurs. No statisticsare available on the extent of this activity, althoughtotal newspaper collection statistics suggest it is large.

table 24.) Of the programs surveyed,** 99percent collected some form of paper (76 per-cent collected newspaper and 23 percent col-lected mixed wastepaper), glass was col-lected by 16 percent, and metal by 14 per-cent. Collection was the responsibility ofmunicipalities in 57 percent of the programsand of private collection firms and communi-ty organizations in 29 and 12 percent of theprograms, respectively.(5)

In most communities, collection programsdivided household waste into two, three, orfour segments. Division into two segmentsseparates newspapers from the remainingwaste. (Some cities collect a mixed flat papersegment instead of newspapers alone. ) Divi-sion into three segments separates cans andbottles as well as newspaper from the re-maining waste; and into four segments sepa-rates newspapers, clear glass and cans, andgreen and brown glass and cans from the re-maining waste.

The factors a community must weigh in de-ciding the number of segments to collect in-clude: anticipated participation, the com-parative cost of centralized separation, the

A*AS of September 1977, the EPA had identified ZOSseparate collection programs, Only 177 of these con-tained enough information to be included in the sample.Since this date, the EPA has located an additional 13programs. These were not included in the survey,

48-786 0 - 79 - 6

—. -.


Table 23- Estimated Potential Gross Revenues From ServirceSepartation Programs

Potential Unit Potential revenue per tonrevemie of MSW generated ($)

Material ($/ton) 25% participation 50% participationNewspaper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3390.73 0.88-1.48Booksand magazines . . . . . 0.0%0.12 0.08-0.23Corrugated paper . . . . . . . . . I L ? 0.35=1.04 0.702.07Office paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . 75-120 0.71 -1.14 1.43-2.28Glass containers . . . . . . . . 0.48-0.89 0.92=1.38Steel containers. . . . ● . . . . . 0.200.40 0.404.80Aluminum containers. . . . . 0.30 0.80Yard waste . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total revenues . . . . . . . . . 2.384.42 4.77-8.82Credits for disposalavoidance. . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10 0.28-1.38 0.55-2.76

Grand totalrevenues andcredits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.88-5.80 5.32-11.58

Revenues must be reduced to account for freight.OTA esto,ates based on various industry sources. Ranges indicate

j~; cm % -W of y~w~ }n H W ~ ~n ~wrama IS aaaumed to produoa only Iandfill oredlts and n@thW

energy aavinga nor net revenues. mm choke is nmda boouJaa Yard waata la ~tto vmOd 8gia00m Iy @ gaograptucauymt

bacauae experts dlaagrae wldaty about the vlabttlty of yard waate utllkatkn or aala. The effects of this choke m to under.estimate by ● amall mount the economic and energy potentials of aouroe aapafation.

United States Numbers of programsRqionl•...•‘ . . . . . ● .,.. 48R e g i o n | | 74Region IIIf~ w , v ’ ” “ • ●

12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Region V. ● . . . . . . . ● . . . ;-~.**** *J•*•• o

● * 9 4Re@%t-w...•• ● ● . . ..* ● . $Raf#qnv&. . * * ,, ● . ?-,, $ ●

@3@@n#f* ● .-* . . ● . . . ..* .’ * 29~fh .; -- ~~•

SOUftOE: W on OaWt M. OOIW, SW&MQ CWaotkn PrWW?WA-iVetiO/W$Umy, Us. Em, w%, aw5ndlx B.

value of the materials, and the product de-mand. Tradeoffs are involved in the decision.On the one hand, as the number of segmentsto be separated is increased there is a drop-,off in participation and an increase in thecomplexity and thus cost of the equipment.On the other hand, however, the cost of sub-sequent processing is reduced and the qualityand value of the products improve.

PARTICIPATION

Communities need to be sensitive to trade-offs between material quality specificationson the one hand and household convenienceand participation on the other. For example,programs that require the removal of labelsand metal rings from glass containers, orresidual organic matter from all containersmay seriously deter cooperation. Reducedparticipation is traded against the fact thatcontaminated materials bring lower prices.

Some communities have designed specialcontainers for newspaper disposal that aredistributed to each household. Such contain-ers reduce the time needed by each house-hold, protect the papers in case of rain, andhelp remind each household of the separatecollection program’s objectives. Some pro-grams, which separate waste into three orfour segments, use a trash receptacle withseveral compartments. One such containerwas developed by a recycler in New Hamp-shire and marketed briefly by Sears, Roebuck& Company.

Ch, 4—Source Separation for Materials and Energy Recovery ● 75

Various approaches have been suggestedfor increasing the participation in separatecollection programs. One is to provide color-coded plastic bags for different waste seg-ments, Another is to charge lower fees forcollection of separated wastes, This latter ap-proach was tested in an experimental l-yearstudy by the Seattle Recycling Project under agrant from the Washington State Departmentof Ecology. In one of the project’s test groupsa monetary rebate was offered which was ap-proximately equal to the estimated reductionin collection and disposal costs from sepa-rated wastes. One of the study’s conclusionsindicated that while the monetary incentivewas most effective with respect to voluntaryparticipation at the project’s inception, it didnot have a continuing effect through the en-tire test period.(6)

To stimulate participation, communitieshave also tried a variety of advertising andpublic awareness campaigns, Typical meth-ods include development of a recycling pro-gram logotype to help citizens identify withthe program, placing information in news-papers and community newsletters, utilizingneighborhood organizations to distribute pro-gram information, buying time on radio andtelevision to announce the start of programsor changes in the pickup schedule, postersfeaturing program information, communitycalendars containing pickup schedules, and/or a letter to each household from the mayoror leading city official endorsing the sourceseparation program. Leadership by electedofficials is important, and personal contactby community volunteers can help explainprograms and encourage participation,(7)

Another method for increasing public par-ticipation in separate collection programs isto pass ordinances that require participationand levy fines for noncompliance. EPA’s na-tional survey of separate collection programsfound that 24 percent of the programs sur-veyed had ordinances mandating that resi-dents separate recyclable materials frommixed refuse. It was found that with resi-dents of similar socioeconomic characteris-tics, and using the same collection frequency

and publicity campaigns, the likelihood ofparticipation is greater in mandatory pro-grams, At the same time, however, most com-munities indicated that separate collectionordinances are not strictly enforced owing tothe difficult y of apprehending violators.

Scavengers— unauthorized persons whopick up recyclable material before the munic-ipal or private collector arrives—also createproblems for many separate collection pro-grams, Their impact is the greatest whenscrap material prices are high. Some com-munities have enacted antiscavenging ordi-nances, These usually state that it is unlawfulfor any unauthorized person or firm to collectthe separated material or materials. Fines fornoncompliance range between $25 and $250.Such ordinances need not necessarily pre-vent service, charitable, or religious organi-zations from collecting such items as news-papers in volunteer drives.

A number of communities have passed or-dinances requiring that all collected MSW bedelivered to a specified location as a means ofassuring a steady flow of waste to a central-ized resource recovery facility, This has beendone, not to protect public health, but to guar-antee the economic viability of centralizedresource recovery plants in the face of com-petition from separate collection programs orlower cost landfill. According to the informa-tion presented above, it appears that such or-dinances are unnecessary if adequate atten-tion is paid in advance to the complementaryroles of various disposal options. Further-more, such requirements may act as a bar-rier to adoption of economically preferredrecovery and disposal methods, (See chapter8 for a discussion of current legal challengesto such ordinances.)

INCONVENIENCE AND ASPECTS OFHOUSEHOLDER COST

To participate in sepa’rate collection pro-grams, residents must devote time, equip-ment, and storage space, whose costs arelargely unknown and controversial. Oneproblem is to differentiate clearly between

76 ● Materials and Energy From Municipal waste

the costs of handling mixed waste and sepa-rated waste. Another is to put a value on boththe time and the residential space requiredfor waste segregation, since it is difficult todetermine the value of alternative uses ofsuch time and space.

Under an EPA grant, the League of WomenVoters of Newton, Mass., kept a record of thetime required to separate recycled materials,above the time normally required to disposeof waste. They found that it took an averageof 15 minutes per week per family (range 1 to20 minutes).(7) It has been argued, however,that the time spent in waste separationshould be given a positive value since it maybe associated with good feelings about con-tributing to conservation of resources, or itmay be done by children and have some edu-cational value. There is no agreement on theanalysis or interpretation of these costs.

The inconvenience of storing recyclablematerials depends on the frequency of collec-tion. A biweekly collection program wouldcreate a smaller storage problem than onethat collected on a monthly basis. EPA’ssurvey of separate collection programs in-dicates that approximately 70 percent of the177 programs surveyed collected recyclableat least twice a month, with the majority ofprograms collecting once a week.(8)

The value per square foot of the additionalresidential storage space that might beneeded for the wastebaskets to be used forseparate collection programs has been raisedas a potential cost. For example, if separatecollection of recyclable requires two extracontainers that each occupy one square foot,the cost of extra waste container space for afamily of four who pay $400 per month for adwelling space of 1,200 square feet ($4 persquare foot per year), would be $3.13 per tonof generated waste. (It should be noted that itwould take this family approximately one-half year to generate a ton of waste.) It can beargued, however, that this cost is not real be-cause there is a question about whether suchwastebaskets would actually require addi-tional residential space.

The cost of extra containers for separatecollection programs can also be estimated.Two extra permanent containers might cost$4 each and last for 3 years. For a family offour, this would be equivalent to $1.04 per tonof generated waste. Separate collection pro-grams might also require additional consum-er expenditures for plastic trash bags, de-pending on the design of the system and thefrequency of collection.

According to these estimates, the total ad-ditional consumer costs would be approxi-mately $4 per ton. But the out-of-pocket costswould be much less, perhaps as little as $1.00per ton for extra containers.

SEPARATE COLLECTION OF ONERECYCI.ABLE AT CURBSIDE

The majority of separate collection pro-grams in the United States collect just onerecyclable material. EPA’s data from its na-tional survey on separate collection programsindicate that approximately 99 percent of the177 programs surveyed collected some typeof wastepaper.(9) Twenty-three percent ofthe programs surveyed collected some formof mixed wastepaper. Of the 133 programsthat collected newspapers, 110 collected noother recyclable but newspapers. In addi-tion, 32 of the 41 programs that collectedmixed wastepaper collected only this onerecyclable c o m p o n e n t . A p p a r e n t l y , alarge number of communities only recyclenewspapers because wastepaper marketsare more readily available than markets forother recyclable, and because newspapersconstitute a large and easily separable partof the waste stream. By removing them thelifetime of a community’s landfill is in-creased. It should be noted that EPA’s surveyindicated that only three of the programs sur-veyed collected just glass or metals.

Various methods are used by municipal-ities and private haulers when collecting onematerial separately. These include using:separate trucks, racks attached to packertrucks, and trailers attached to the rear of arefuse collection vehicle.

Ch, 4—Source Separation for Materials and Energy Recovery ● 77

The majority of programs (72 percent) useseparate trucks, usually on a different daythan the one for regular waste collection.This method has the advantage of low startupcosts. Some of its disadvantages are: (a) recy-clable must be collected on a separate dayfrom regular waste collection—perhaps con-fusing residents about the waste collectionschedule: (b) high operating costs—the reve-nue obtained from the collected recyclablematerial must offset the costs of collecting it:(c) trucks can be used for the collection ofonly one material at a time unless they aremodified for the purpose: and the materialmust be unloaded by hand if noncompactingtrucks are used.

A second method, referred to as the piggy-back system, is used by 22 percent of the pro-grams. One recyclable—usually newspa-per— is collected in a rack attached to apacker truck. Startup costs for racks rangefrom $80 to $250,(11) and operating costs arelower than for other collection methods.

A third method, used by 5 percent of theseparate collection programs, is the use oftrailers that have sufficient storage space (4to 6 cubic yards) and can be unloaded me-chanically, which are attached to the rear ofa refuse collection vehicle. This method alsopermits the recyclable and the mixed refuseto be collected at the same time. Its operatingcosts are relatively low, but startup coststend to be quite high, ranging from $3,000 to$3,500 for each trailer. There may also be aproblem with maneuverability.

Madison, Wis,, has been recycling news-paper since 1968 when it initiated a pilotseparate collection program involving halfthe city, The rest of the city joined the pro-gram in 1gi’o. At the start, the city madeseparate collection trips for newspapers. Butcollection costs were too high, so the piggy-back method was adopted. Even though Madi-son does not mandate separation, in 1977about 13 percent of the population partici-pated. In that year 1,365 tons of newspaperwere collected for which the gross revenueswere $43,982. The cost of collecting the

newspaper was $4.36 per ton, and the “prof-it” from its sale was $27.86 per ton.(12)

MULTIMATERIAL PROGRAMS

In May 1978, about 40 multimaterial pro-grams collected two or more recyclable mate-rials at curbside. (The programs are listed intable 25.)(10) These included some combina-tion of newspapers, magazines, corrugatedpaper, glass, and aluminum and steel cans.The majority of the multimaterial collectionprograms are located in the northeastern andwestern sections of the United States becauseof both the unusually high landfill costs anclthe availability of markets for the recoveredmaterials in these regions.

Most of the programs that collect bothcolor-mixed glass and cans handle either astream combining the mixed glass and thecans or a stream of the mixed glass and astream of the ferrous and nonferrous cans.Programs that collect both color-separatedglass and cans collect at least two streams ofglass; one clear and the other colored (amberand green). Both glass streams are usuallymixed with cans. A third stream consistingonly of cans may also be handled. Mostmultimaterial curbside programs use com-partmentalized trucks, others use trailers at-tached to the rear of a refuse collection vehi-cle. An advantage of using compartmental-ized trucks is that their operating cost isrelatively low because recyclable materialsare collected at the same time as mixed ref-use. A disadvantage is that the startup cost isrelatively high. In 1976, a compartmentalizedtruck cost approximately $20,000.

Two of the best known of the 40 multimate-rial curbside collection programs are those inSomerville and Marblehead, Mass. In 1976,these communities were assisted by EPAgrants to recover glass, cans, and paper fromhouseholds. Marblehead is a relatively af-fluent suburban community that has been in-volved with recycling activities for some time.Somerville is a less affluent, densely popu-lated urban community with no previous re-cycling experience. Marblehead passed an

Ch. 4—Source Separation for Mater/a/s and Energy Recovery ● 79

ordinance requiring source separation of re-cyclable, while Somerville’s program wasvoluntary. A full-scale public education pro-gram was undertaken in both areas. Bothcommunities obtained contracts for sale ofthe materials through competitive bidding.

In the first 9 months of operation, Marble-head recovered 23 to 33 percent of its resi-dential waste each month, while Somervillerecovered 7 to 9 percent.(12) In 1977, recov-ery rates for the residential waste streamaveraged 25 percent in Marblehead and 5percent in Somerville. These results implyparticipation rates considerably greater thanthese fractions, since only portions of thew a s t e s t r e a m s w e r e t o b e r e c o v e r e d .Overall costs for solid waste managementwere reduced in Marblehead as a result ofthe separate collection program. Before theprogram was initiated Marblehead used fourvehicles to collect waste twice per week. Acontractor’s report prepared for EPA foundthat because of the reduction in the amount ofwaste to be collected as a result of the sepa-rate collection program, Marblehead wasable to change its collection frequency toonce a week in May 1977 and to eliminate oneof its four crews and one of its refuse-collec-t i o n v e h i c l e s .

During 1977 Somerville received a total of$10,938 for the sale of its recycled materialsand saved $14,456 by avoided landfill costs.Marblehead obtained $25,540 for its recycledmaterials and saved $41,084 through avoideddisposal costs. (14)

Program costs and savings for both Somer-ville and Marblehead in 1977 were as fol-lows:*

Somerville: Spent $146,470 for recyclingprogram. However, some of thecosts of personnel and equipmentfrom the refuse-collection programcould be transferred. Thus actualcosts to the city were $80,122.

Somerville’s program showed anet loss of$12 1,076 on a ‘‘full-cost”basis (full cost of labor, equipment,

*The cost figures are based on reference (17).

Marblehead:

and consumables used in recyclingservice: reflects recycling budget),and a loss of $54,728 on an “actual-cost” basis (additional costs actu-ally incurred by community due torecycling program).

Spent $90,394 for its multimaterialprogram, Actual costs, however,were $49,836.

Marblehead’s program showed anet loss of $23,760 on a full-costbasis, but a net gain of $16,788 onan actual-cost basis.

The multimaterial program in Andover,Mass., which collects residential newspaper,glass, and cans, showed a net additional costof $3.22 per ton recovered by source separa-t ion ($0.56 per ton of waste managed).However, the cost analysis was based onnewspaper revenues of $15 per ton, and anincrease to $20 per ton would have allowedthe program to break even. The Andover pro-gram covers a population of 26,000 that gen-erates 57’9 tons per month of solid waste. Atotal of 101 tons per month of glass, cans, andnewspapers were separately collected, for arecovery rate of 17.4 percent based on resi-dential waste only. (Participation rates aremuch greater than 17 percent. )

Multimaterial Recovery in CommunityRecycling/Reclamation Centers

Another approach to source separation isthrough multimaterial community recyclingcenters. These differ from separate collectionprograms in that the participant is requiredto deliver waste materials to a central collec-tion point. During the late 1960’s, as environ-mental awareness spread, thousands of col-lection centers for recyclable were set up inthe United States.

Just as with other source separation ap-proaches, however, there must be an aware-ness of the interplay between adequate mar-kets, the high cost of transporting recycledmaterials, the level of participation, and theprogram’s success. Startup and operatingcosts are relatively low for recycling centerscompared with those for high-technology re-


source recovery plants, and the quality of thematerials recovered can be high because theyare handsorted by residents, (Supervisionmay be needed to assure that components aren o t c o n t a m i n a t e d b o t h w h e n t h e y a r edropped off and during their processing.)

A community recycling center can be spon-sored by a municipality or by a private con-tractor, and can be run on either a manda-tory or a voluntary basis. While most centersgive local residents the opportunity to recyclea portion of their mixed refuse, they do notpay for recycled materials. Many of the cen-ters, particularly those in rural areas, re-cover material in the solid waste stream thatwould otherwise be lost. The closing of opendumps, as required by the Resource Conser-vation Recovery Act, may increase the valueto a community of a recycling center becausethe amount of mixed waste headed for itslandfill or incinerator is reduced.

In New Hampshire, the towns of Plymouth,Nottingham, and Meredith, have multimateri-al community recycling centers that combinerecycling with incineration of nonrecoveredm i x e d r e f u s e . R e c y c l i n g n e w s p a p e r s ,clean mixed paper, glass, metal, and otherrubbish is mandatory in both Plymouth andNottingham. Plymouth also recovers cor-rugated paper. Meredith only requires sepa-rating glass from the rest of the wastestream.

Each of the towns sorts and processes itsrecycled materials differently. In Notting-ham, glass is color sorted and the caps andrings are removed from glass bottles. Oncesorted, the glass is mechanically crushed andtransported to market. Both Plymouth, whichcolor sorts some of its glass, and Meredith,which does no sorting, have their recycledglass picked up at the centers by its pur-chasers. Plymouth and Nottingham mechan-ically flatten recovered cans, and in all thesystems the recovered corrugated paper andnewspapers are baled.

The participation of residents ranges fromabout 95 percent in Nottingham and Ply-mouth, which have mandatory programs, to

25 to 50 percent in Meredith. Town officialsfeel that when a “substantial” portion of thewaste stream is recovered through recycling,net costs are lower than they would be forany other environmentally acceptable systemthat does not involve recycling.

Multirnaterial Recovery in IndustrySponsored Recycling Programs

Source-separated materials are also recov-ered by industry-sponsored recycling centersin programs that vary from recovering onlyone material such as aluminum to multimate-rial recycling. Unlike community-sponsoredrecycling programs, industry programs payparticipants for recycled materials.

One multimaterial recycling program, theBeverage Industry Recycling Program (BIRP),has been operated throughout Arizona by thebeverage industry since 1971. It has 10 recy-cling centers (3 more are in the planningstage) that accept aluminum and steel cans,newspapers, and corrugated paper. During1977, 15,227 tons of materials were recov-ered, an increase of 70 percent, over 1976.(This is about I percent of Arizona’s totalwaste load. ) Par t ic ipants were paid$2,390,000, an increase of 82 percent.BIRP also has a number of recycling centersin various stages of development in New Mex-ico.

Recycling centers that recover one materi-al, aluminum, are operated by aluminum andbeverage companies, which pay 15 to 17cents per pound (about 23 cans). The firstaluminum can recycling centers were openedin 1967. As of May 1978 there were 2,300 col-lection points. The cans are collected atboth mobile and stationary centers and areshipped to secondary smelters.

The Aluminum Association estimated thatin 1977 about 6.4 billion cans weighing140,000 tons were returned for recycling.(In 1976, 1,312,006 tons of aluminum were re-cycled from all sources. ) Reynolds Metal Com-pany representatives forecast that in theabsence of beverage container deposit legis-


lation from 30 to 50 percent of the aluminumcans produced will be recycled by 1980 andfrom 50 to 70 percent by 1985.(22) With a na-tional beverage container deposit law, higherrecycling percentages would be anticipated,but containers would be recovered throughthe deposit system, (See chapter 9.)

Wastepaper Recovery Through OfficeRecycling Programs

Many companies and Government agenciesseparately collect high-grade wastepaperfrom offices. This wastepaper, called “whiteledger, ” consists of letterhead, dry copypaper, business forms, stationery, typingpaper, tablet sheets, and computer tab cardsand printout papers. Computer tab cards,which have a very high value, are usuallyboxed separately at computer centers andrecycled.

The most successful method used in recy-cling wastepaper from offices is called the“desktop” program. A container is placed ateach desk for high-grade wastepaper, whichis periodically collected and taken to a cen-tral location to be baled and shipped tomarket. The EPA reports that in 1976, 450organizations were participating in one re-cycling company’s desktop office paper col-lection program—60 percent more than in1975.(23) Approximately 100 Federal Govern-ment buildings, housing 125,000 employeeswere participating in such programs by Oc-tober 2, 1978.(24) In addition, some 20 Stategovernments, numerous cities, and the Cana-dian Government have all adopted this pro-gram.

An EPA-funded study of 12 private officewastepaper collection programs found a 12-percent average reduction in net solid wastemanagement costs. Cost savings were great-est in programs that only recover white, high-grade paper. Costs included publicity, equip-ment, and labor. Participation averaged 80percent for the programs studied, and rangedas high as 95 percent.

Commercial and Industrial Methods ofSource Separation

Over the past few years, supermarkets,shopping malls, airports, hospitals, privatebusinesses, and industrial facilities, such asauto assembly plants, have source separatedsuch products as corrugated paper. Themethod used depends on the amount of papergenerated, the space available for storage,and the investment required.

Data being prepared under contract forEPA indicate that most corrugated paper re-covery takes place locally through neighbor-hood supermarket chains. For example,Safeway Stores, Inc., a national chain ofsupermarkets, is source separating the cor-rugated portion of its waste stream at most ofits stores. One regional division, with 165stores in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,northern Virginia, and Washington, D. C.,source separated 23,000 tons of corrugatedpaper in 1977. This material was baled onsite and sold to private haulers.

The same study found that large airports;shopping malls, hospitals, and commercial es-tablishments were beginning to source sep-arate their waste. Airports recover ferrousmetals, while hospitals and shopping mallsmainly recover corrugated paper. Most of thematerial recovered by commercial establish-ments was found to be high-grade paper.

Marketing Recovered Materials

T he marketability of recovered materialsmust be taken into account by communi-

ties that undertake recycling programs. Bothcans and glass, as well as some wastepaper,need to be upgraded by cleaning, sorting, andother processing in order to meet marketspecifications. Local communities that spon-sor curbside recycling programs are facedwith the decision of processing the materialsthemselves or selling their recycled materialsto intermediate processors, which are firms

82 . Mater/a/s and Energy From Municipal waste

that purchase glass and cans from local com-munities and prepare them for the final mar-ket. Most communities are not doing the proc-essing themselves.

The EPA’s national survey of separate col-lection programs found that 39 percent of theprograms surveyed had contracts with mate-rials dealers or manufacturers to sell theirrecycled materials. Most of these contractswere for newspapers and mixed wastepaperand covered a period of 1 (75 percent) to 3 ormore years. Other contract stipulationsvaried from those with both a floor price anda floating price above the floor price to thosehaving only fixed-price provisions.

The price for recycled newspapers andmixed wastepaper has fluctuated throughoutthe history of separate collection programs.EPA found that during the 1974-75 recession,separate collection programs were seriouslyaffected. Many were discontinued. Thosecommunities that continued the programs re-ported that the price for recycled materialshad been reduced.

A detailed discussion of the issues andproblems related to marketing recycled mate-rials can be found in the marketing section ofchapter 3.

Interaction of Source Separationand Other Policies

Source Separation and BeverageContainer Deposits

s ource separation and beverage containerdeposits are both designed to reduce the

amount of high-quality used products that getthrown away. An interesting consideration iswhether establishing both approaches in thesame region might detract from the attrac-tiveness of either of them. Put another way,should source separation and beverage con-tainer deposits be viewed as competing orcomplementary?

Source separation and mandatory bever-age container deposits might interact in sev-eral ways. A successful beverage containerdeposit law would reduce the glass and metalcontent of the solid waste stream and conse-quently the potential revenues from sourceseparation would be reduced. A successfulbeverage container deposit law, however,would recover largely green and amber glass,leaving clear glass from food containers to berecovered by other means. Thus, a sourceseparation program might recover only clearglass, which would have a higher market val-ue than would a mixed-glass fraction contain-ing green and amber glass as well.

If a residential source separation programis established, consumers who have returnedbeverage containers for environmental andconservation reasons may become less likelyto do so. They may decide that separate col-lection is an acceptable alternative to land-fill, even though glass bottles recovered in acurbside source separation program are like-ly to be broken and not reusable. Consumerswho are motivated to return containers in re-sponse to the financial incentive of a depositsystem are likely to continue to do so even if asource separation program is established.

In this analysis, it is assumed that, on bal-ance, a source separation program will notaffect the return rates and market shares forcontainers. Therefore, the focus is on the re-duction in potential revenues from sourceseparation if beverage container legislation isimplemented.

The effect that beverage container depositlegislation (BCDL) might have on potentialsource separation revenues is estimated inthe following way. In chapter 9, five scenar-ios are presented for the performance of thebeverage delivery system under mandatorydeposit legislation. Scenario I represents theactual situation in 1975. Changes in MSWcomposition are estimated for four other setsof return and recycle rates and marketshares for containers, assuming that BCDLhad been fully implemented in 1975. These

Ch. 4—Source Separation for Materials and Energy Recovery “ 83

estimates are used here to evaluate the im-pact of BCDL on potential source separationprogram revenues in 1975 for each of thefour scenarios, assuming a 50-percent parti-cipation in source separation for each compo-nent of the waste, and assuming average rev-enues per ton of the recovered material. *

Table 26 summarizes the calculation of po-tential revenues and credits from source sep-aration using the five BCDL scenarios. (Thistable presents only revenues and not the ef-fects of BCDL on the cost of separate collec-tion, which would be small). For the base casewithout BCDL, the potential revenues andcredits total $8,36 per ton of waste gener-ated. Each of the four other scenarios showsa reduction in revenues and credits. The rev-enues and credits with BCDL range from$7.58 to $7.81 per ton, for a reduction of 7 to9 percent in revenues and credits per ton ofwaste generated. Since total waste tonnagedecreased by as much as 3.6 percent, totalrevenues and credits might decrease by asmuch as 13 percent.

These reductions in source separation rev-enue with BcDL are relatively small becausethe contribution of container materials torevenues is, at most, only $2.29 per ton ofgenerated waste. Beverage containers repre-sent only a fraction of this, and BCDL is notexpected to remove all beverage containersfrom MSW under any circumstances. ln fact,container revenue drops no lower than $1.41per ton under any scenario.

Finally, it should be noted that the fourBCDL scenarios span a wide range of systemresponse from an all-glass-refillables system

*For all the scenarios it is assumed that the com-ponents of MSW other than beverage containers arethe gross discards (waste as discarded before recycl-ing) presented in table 4. For Scenario I, the actual situ-ation in 1975, beverage container waste componentsavailable for source separation are assumed to be in-cluded in the gross discards. For the four scenariosunder BCDL, the beverage container waste componentsavailable are assumed to be the “net waste disposedof” because the remainder are returned through thedeposit channel for reuse or direct recycling. In eachcase, the percentage composition of the waste is ad-justed to reflect the new totals.

to a system with a high can-market share.Should BCDL be ineffective and return ratesbe very low, potential source separation reve-nues might remain the same or actually in-crease.

The preceding analysis is based on theadoption of a comprehensive residential andcommercial source separation program. Fora program limited to residential source sepa-ration, the impact of deposit legislation onsource separation revenue would be more sig-nificant. Based on the data in table 24, a pro-gram picking up only newspapers, glass, andmetal cans has a potential revenue of $3.35per ton of generated waste without a depositlaw and $2.51 to $2.75 per ton with a law.The maximum difference of 84 cents per tonof MSW generated corresponds to a drop inthe potential gross revenue of 25 percent.

Source Separation and CentralizedResource Recovery

Source separation removes a fraction ofmaterials from the waste stream. It maytherefore reduce the potential revenue of anexisting resource recovery plant. On theother hand, an effective source separationprogram can reduce the volume of waste tobe disposed of and thus allow a smaller re-source recovery plant to be built, while simul-taneously reclaiming some resources ofhigher quality and value (particularly paperfiber, which, in many cases, has a highervalue as a raw material than as a fuel).

The local economics of source separationand centralized resource recovery should becarefully investigated in order to judgewhether either approach alone, or some com-bination of both, would be the most attrac-tive. ** Nevertheless, some insight into therevenue and resource recovery implicationsof a dual system can be gained by examiningthe following example.

**Th e question of Compatibility between source sep-aration and centralized resource recovery systems iscurrently being examined in detail by EPA in responseto section 8002(e) of the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act of 1976.


Suppose that each person in a city with apopulation of 500,000 discards 3.5 poundsper day of MSW which has the national aver-age composition. The city is considering threeresource recovery options:

1. Construction of a centralized resourcerecovery plant to recover materials andrefuse-derived fuel (RDF).

2. A multimaterial residential and commer-cial source separation program that re-covers each of the materials included intable 21.

3. A combination of 1 and 2.

Estimates of materials and energy recoveryand of revenues are summarized for each op-tion in table 27. (It should be noted that thistable only presents gross revenues and doesnot present the effects of various options oncollection costs. )

Under option (l), an RDF plant with anaverage daily capacity of 875 tons is re-quired. It would produce average daily reve-nues and disposal credits totaling $14,085.

Under option (2), if 50-percent participa-tion occurs, a source separation program re-

covers 239 tons per day of materials and pro-duces daily revenues and credits of $7,381.

Under option (3), if 50-percent participa-tion in source separation occurs, an RDFplant with a daily capacity of 636 tons isneeded. This option will produce combinedrevenues and disposal credits of $17,116, or$3,031 more than for option 1. At a process-ing cost of $15 per ton (see table 46), dailyRDF processing costs are $3,585 less for thecombined system than for the RDF systemalone. If the additional costs for operating thesource separation program are less than$6,616 per day ($3,031 plus $3,585) the com-bination in Option 3 is economically prefer-able to centralized resource recovery alone.Note that $6,616 per day is equivalent to$7.56 per ton of MSW collected and thatsource separation is generally thought to costless than this to implement.

The input data for these comparisons areestimates and the results are by no meansdefinitive. In addition, table 27 assumes thatthe technologies listed work, that the partici-pation rate needed in Options 2 and 3 isachieved, and that there are markets for the


Table 27.—Recovery Rates and Revenues for Three Resource Recovery Option

option 1 Option 2 Option 3Impact measure RDF & materials source separation combinat ion

RDF facility size (tpd). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875 636Ferrous recovery (tpd) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 67Aluminum recovery. . . . . . . . . . . : ; 1.8 4.1Glass recovery (tpd). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Nonferrous recovery (tpd). . . . . . . . . . 04;6 O.766Paper recovery (tpd). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 96Yard waste recovery (tpd) . . . . . . . . . . : 84 84RDF productionc(tpd) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834 0RDF production (10* Btu\d). . . . . . . . . 7.88 0 4 5 4Materials revenues ($/day). . . . . . . . . . 3,693 5,947~ 8 , 6 0 3 e —

Energy revenues ($/day). . . . . . . . . . . . 5,910 0 3,893Landfill credits ($/day @ $6/ton) . . . . . 4,482 1,434 4,620Total revenue & credits ($/day) . . . . . . 14,085 7,381 17,116

materials recovered, Nevertheless, the tablesuggests that a combination of source separa-tion and centralized resource recovery is onan almost equal, if not better, economicfooting than centralized resource recoveryalone. If this is true, there is no reason for acommunity to reject the possibility of a well-integrated source separation and resourcerecovery program on economic grounds, Fur-thermore, the joint program will require alower total capital investment, and will pro-duce revenues from the source separationprogram and reduce landfill costs almost im-mediately while construction of the resourcerecovery plant proceeds. In addition, sourceseparation material revenues may grow morerapidly than those from centralized resourcerecovery owing to their higher quality. Ofcourse, the success of resource recovery,either through centralized resource recoveryor through source separation is highly de-pendent on the ava i lab i l i ty o f ex i s t ingmarkets for the recovered materials.

The analysis also makes clear that theresource recovery plant revenues would besmaller with source separation in place andthat part of the revenues from the sourceseparation program would have to pay for thehigher net unit cost of resource recovery. Apreexisting resource recovery plant designed

to process the entire city’s waste would expe-rience a sharp decline in revenue if a sourceseparation program were successfully intro-duced after the plant was built. For example,an RDF plant that depends on a large amountof burnable wastepaper might be severely af-fected by a source separation program thatrecovered newspapers and/or mixed waste-paper.

Source Separation andEconomic Incentives

Source separation would be stimulated ifthe Federal Government implemented eco-nomic incentives to encourage recycling.Such incentives might include the establish-ment of a “product charge” on all productsentering the municipal waste stream, modifi-cation or repeal of the percentage depletionallowance, and/or the institution of a Federalincome tax credit for the purchase of recy-cled materials. These options are mecha-nisms to increase the demand for recycledmaterials by the producers of primary mate-rials. As a consequence, a wide range of recy-cling activities, including source separation,would be encouraged. (See chapter 8 for adiscussion of these economic incentives andtheir effectiveness in stimulating recyclingand reducing the rate of waste disposal.)

86 . Materials and Energy From Municipal Waste

Federal Policy andSource Separation

s ource separation can be a desirable localor regional approach to recovering a por-

tion of the solid waste stream. It is, therefore,of interest to consider the policy optionsavailable to the Federal Government for im-plementing or improving this approach. Suchoptions should permit a range of responses atthe State and local levels so that the differentroles that source separation could play undervarious circumstances would be recognized.

No Additional Federal Action

ln the limited number of cases for whichdata are available, source separation ap-pears to be self-sustaining, or nearly so, on aneconomic basis. Thus, there may be little needfor Federal action, other than assuring thatFederal agencies consider source separation,along with centralized resource recovery, asa viable component of solid waste manage-ment systems. In designing general policiestoward solid waste management and materi-als conservation, Federal agencies should notarbitrarily rule out source separation ap-proaches. For example, planning, demonstra-tion, or financial incentive programs shouldinclude source separation along with central-ized resource recovery.

Direct Federal Action

MANDATED SOURCE SEPARATION OFMATERIALS BY FEDERAL AGENCIES

The EPA issued guidelines in 1976 requir-ing separate collection of paper at any Feder-al agency that generates recoverable paperwastes , under the author i ty o f sec t ion209(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, asamended by the Resource Recovery Act of1970. The guidelines are recommended toState and local governments as well as to pri-vate organizations. They require that Federaloffice buildings with a minimum staff of 100,source-separate and recycle high-grade pa-per; that Federal facilities (such as militarybases) housing 500 or more families recycle

newspapers; and that corrugated containersfrom Federal facilities that generate 10 ormore tons per month must be recycled.

INCENTIVES FOR INVESTMENT INRECYCLING FACILITIES

Another option is to provide interest ratesubsidies, cash grants, or other incentives topublic agencies or to private firms for invest-ment in recycling facilities. (See chapter 2 fora discussion of the additional 10-percent in-vestment tax credit for recycling facilitiespassed into law in late 1978. ) Intermediateprocessing industries for source-separatedmaterial would be included as candidates forsuch incentives. Proposals have been madefor a bank that would lend funds for recyclingfacilities at 1 percent above the cost to theGovernment of lending the money. Such a pro-posal would help reduce interest rates onsuch loans thereby making investments in re-cycling facilities more attractive.

LABOR TAX CREDITS FOR RECYCLINGPROGRAMS

A corporate income tax credit for someportion of the wages of additional employeeshired to carry out recycling activities mightstimulate all types of recycling. Such a pro-gram would tend to favor private sectorsource separation over centralized resourcerecovery because separate collection is morelabor-intensive than other kinds of recycling.

FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH,DEVELOPMENT, AND DESIGN FOR

SOURCE SEPARATION

Another option is to fund research, devel-opment, and design for source separation. Ex-amples of possible project areas are: (a) de-veloping well-documented educational mate-rial to be used in informing communitiesabout source separation, (b) designing man-uals to be used by communities or offices insetting up source-separation recycling pro-grams, (c) developing mechanisms for moti-vating high participation rates for source sep-aration, and (d) devising ways to improve the


removal of contaminants from wastepaper,glass, and cans.

FEDERAL FUNDING OF DEMONSTRATIONPROJECTS

Funding for demonstration projects isanother option available to the Federal Gov-ernment. Such grants can be used to: (a) learnmore about a particular new program, prod-uct, or process— “policy-formulating demon-strations;” (b) promote the use of a program,product, or process— “policy-implementingdemonstrations;’ and (c) provide a politicalcompromise between those groups that pre-fer large-scale operating programs and thosetha t pre fer noth ing .

Demonstration grants could improve anumber of areas in the field of source separa-tion. A major demonstration program isneeded in a large eastern city, which wouldfocus on collection, public awareness, proc-essing/marketing, and waste utilization tech-niques. The purposes of such a programwould be to test both the viability of sourceseparation in a major metropolitan area andits interaction with other solid waste manage-ment options. Demonstration grants mightalso be provided to the intermediate process-ing industries in order to develop improvedmethods for removing contaminants fromwastepaper, glass, and cans.

Currently EPA is sponsoring a demonstra-tion grant to the Denver Regional Council ofGovernments for implementing a source sep-aration program in Boulder, Colo. Other im-plementation grants previously sponsored byEPA included programs in Somerville andMarblehead, Mass. , in Nez Pez County,Idaho, in Duluth, Minn., and in San LuisObispo and Modesto, Calif,

Indirect Federal Action

FEDERAL PROCUREMENT

The Federal Government’s expenditures onpaper and other goods, while large, are smallin comparison to those of the private sector.

However, many procurement practices of theFederal Government are widely adopted byStates, local municipalities, and industry.Consequently, a modification of Federal pro-curement specif ications and procurementpractices to require recycled paper or othergoods will have a positive effect on the use ofthese recycled materials. Specifications thatencourage greater use of recycled paperwould stimulate demand for source separa-tion programs, since recyclable paper can beproduced from wastepaper only if it is keptseparate from mixed MSW.

Section 6002 of the Resource Conservationand Recovery Act (RCRA) specifies that Fed-eral agencies will be required to choose prod-ucts that are composed of the highest per-centage of recycled materials practicable,consistent with maintaining a satisfactorylevel of competition, after October 21, 1978.However, in developing guidelines in re-sponse to the Act, EPA has had difficulty inprecisely defining a “recycled” material. TheRCRA only defines a “recovered” material. Itdoes not explicitly define the term “recy-cled. ” As a result EPA is working to developguidelines that will define, in some detail, theAct’s intent with respect to the use of homescrap , prompt scrap , and postconsumerscrap in the recycling process.

At present, EPA is trying to tie the date forcompliance by the Federal agencies to the is-suance of its guidelines. This action requiresthat an amendment to RCRA changing the Oc-tober 21, 1978 compliance date be passed, orthat an oral agreement be reached betweenthe affected Federal agencies and Congress.EPA’s proposed guidelines are expected to bephased-in during FY 1978 and FY 1979. Foursets of guidelines will be issued so that indus-try’s specific questions about what consti-tutes a “recycled” material can be answeredin detail. The guidelines will be broken downinto the following categories: (i) paper prod-ucts, sanitary paper, computer paper, etc.;(ii) fly ash used in the manufacture of cement;(iii) other construction materials; and (iv)composted sewage sludge.

88 . Materia/s and Energy From Municipal Waste

OTHER INDIRECT FEDERAL ACTIONS

A number of other incentives that could beadopted by the Federal Government to en-courage recycling would stimulate sourceseparation. These include: (i) establishmentof “product charges” on all products enteringthe municipal waste stream; (ii) elimination ofthe capital gains tax treatment of incomefrom timber sales; (iii) equalization of freightrates for virgin and secondary materials; (iv)modification or repeal of the percentage de-pletion allowance; (v) placement of a tax onvirgin materials levied at the point of miningor harvest in proportion to some measure ofthe amount or value extracted, i.e., a sever-ance tax; and (vi) a Federal income tax creditfor the purchase of recycled materials. Noneof these options is unique to source separa-tion. However, they are all possible ways tostimulate a wide range of recycling activities,including source separation, by increasingthe demand for recycled materials by the pro-ducers of primary materials. These optionsare discussed in detail in chapters 3 and 8.

Findings on Source Separation

s ource separation for the recovery of recy-clable materials from MSW is widely

practiced in the United States today. It is theonly available method with which wastepa-per can be recovered for recycling into newpaper products. It is also used to recoverglass, ferrous and nonferrous metals, andyard waste for recycling. Nearly all of theMSW that is currently recovered for recy-cling is collected in source separation pro-grams.

Source separation can produce sizable rev-enues and energy savings from MSW, but hasonly a limited effect on the total solid wastestream. For example, at 50-percent participa-tion, a comprehensive residential and com-mercial program could recover around one-fourth of a community’s MSW, leaving three-fourths for recovery or disposal by othermeans. With such a program in place, a com-munity would still have ample opportunity toinstall a centralized system for materials

and/or energy. Depending on the level of par-ticipation and on market conditions, a care-fully planned combination of source separa-tion and centralized resource recovery maybe the optimal approach from an economicpoint of view.

Source separation programs currentlyoperated by municipalities, industry, and vol-unteer groups include curbside separate col-lection programs, multimaterial recovery incommunity recycling centers, industry-spon-sored recycling programs, and commercialand industrial methods of source separation.According to EPA, about 133 communitieswere collecting newspapers in curbside pro-grams in May 1978. Another 40 were collect-ing other kinds of paper and/or glass andcans. Industry-sponsored programs collected24.8 percent of all-aluminum beverage cansproduced in 1977.

Although source separation has grown inpopularity in the last decade, some programshave experienced technical or organizationalproblems. Many others, however, have failedowing to problems in marketing their prod-ucts, and still others have faced indifferenceor hostility from proponents of alternative ap-proaches. Nevertheless, a great deal of ex-pertise has been developed for designing andoperating such programs. Much of the activi-ty has occurred in small towns and in moder-ate-sized cities. A residential source separa-tion program encompassing a major urbanarea has yet to be demonstrated.

Nearly every potential Federal action toencourage recycling would stimulate sourceseparation activities, unless specific barriersto its inclusion are raised. Specific Federalefforts to assist source separation activitieswould include funding of systems research,innovative program design, and improvementof equipment for intermediate processing ormaterials upgrading. One important optionwould be for Federal assistance to demon-strate curbside source separation in a majorurban area in order to learn how to imple-ment such a program, and, presuming suc-cess, to show other cities what might be done.

Ch 4–-Source Separation for Material and Energy Recovery ● 8 9

Finally, there are no major inherent con- ble revenue problems, capital-intensive, cen-flicts among source separation. centralized tralized systems must usually be designed toresource recovery. and beverage container accommodate existing or future separate col-deposit legislation. However, to avoid possi- lection programs.

90 “ Materials and Energy From Municipal Waste

References

I. Cohen, David M., Separate Collection Pro-grams: A National Survey, U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency, 1978, p. 8.

2. Gordian Associates Incorporated, Envi-ronmental Impacts of Production of Vir-gin and Secondary Paper, Glass, and Rub-ber Products, Final Report (SW-128C) forthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-Cy, 1976,

3. Ziegler, R. C., S.M. Yaksich, R.P. Leonard,and M. VanLier, Environmental lm pactsof Virgin and Recycled Steel and A]umi-num, Final Report (SW-I17c) done by

4.

5.6.

7.

8.9.

10.11.12.

13.14.

Calspan Corporation for the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency, 1976.Bravard, J. L., H. B. Flora, and C Portal,Energy Expenditures Associated With theProduction and Recycle of Metals, OakRidge National Laboratory Report ORNL-NSF-EP-24, November 1972.Cohen, David M., op. cit., pp.1 and 3.Fremont Public Association and FremontRecycling Station No. 1, Seattle RecyclingProject Final Report 1977: A Pilot Study ofVoluntary Source Separation Home Col-

lection Recycling, performed for the Cityof Seattle, Department of Human Re-sources, pp. 3-22.League of Women Voters Education Fund,Final Report on Training Grant T900604-01-0 Between the Office of Solid Waste,U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyand the League of Women Voters Educa-tion Fund, 1977.Cohen, David M., op. cit., p. 47Ibid., p. 1.Ibid., p. 16.Ibid., p. 47.Conversation with T. Jagelski, Division ofEngineering, Department of PublicWorks, Madison, Wis., Jan. 3, 1978.Cohen, David M., op. cit., p. I,Unpublished memorandum from StephenE. Howard to Penny Hansen, Status ofGlass Recovery and Marketing ThroughSource Separation in the Northeast Corri-dor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-cy, Washington, D. C., July 26, 1978, p. 2.

154

16,

17.18,

19.

20.

21

22(

23.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Solid Waste Management Pro-grams, Resource Recovery and WasteReduction, Fourth Report to Congress,EPA Publication SW600, Washington,D. C., U.S. Government Printing Office,1977, pp. 35-37.Resource Planning Associates, Inc., Solid-Waste Recovery Programs in Somervilleand Marblehead, Massachusetts, Month-ly Reports: January 1977 Through Decem-ber 1977, Draft Report prepared for theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Jan. 20, 1978, p. 1.Ibid., p. 2.Monthly Solid Waste Management Costs,

Andover, Mass., oct. 27, 1977. Re-searched by Steve Howard, Office ofSolid Waste Management Programs, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, pre-sented at a Source Separation Conferencein Newton, Mass., October 1977.Jansen, Edmund F., Jr., and RichardTichenor, Recycling as an Approach toSolid Waste Management in New Hamp-shire: An Overview of Five Systems, NewHampshire Agricultural Experiment Sta-tion, University of New Hampshire, Dur-ham, N. H., in cooperation with Recyclingand Conservation, Inc., Kittery, Maine.Data based on conversation with JaneGallagher, staff member of Beverage In-dustry Recycling Programs (BIRP) inPhoenix, Ariz., October 1978; and Re-source Recovery Report, vol. 2, No. 4,March 1978, p. 3.Data provided through conversation withDiane Simmons, Aluminum Association,Washington, D. C., October 1978.Conversation with G. Bourcier, Managerof Resource Recovery Programs, ReynoldsMetals Company, October 1977.U.S. Environmental Protection AEencv,Office of Solid Waste Managemen~ Pr;grams, op. cit., p, 38.

24. Data based on conversation with Chas.Miller, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Solid Waste Manage-

Ch. 4—Source Separation for Materials and Energy Recovery . 91

25.

26.

27,

28,

ment Programs, Washington, D. C., Oct. 5,1978.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Resource, Recovery, and Waste Reduc-tion, op. cit., p. 39.Data obtained through conversation withEster Bowering, SCS Engineers, October1978.Data obtained through conversation withErnest Moore, Public Relations Manager,Washington Division, Safeway Stores,Inc., October 1978.F.R. 41, No. 80, 16950-16956, Apr. 23,1976.

29, Office of Technology Assessment, R&DProgram, The Role of Demonstrations inFederal R&D Policy, U.S. Congress,Washington, D. C., U.S. Government Print-ing Office, 052-003-00557-3, OTA-R-70,pp. ix-x.

30. Data based on conversation with JohnHeffelfinger, U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency, Office of Solid Waste Man-agement Programs, Washington, D. C.,January 1979.

source separation for materials and energy recovery

Documents