Making apartment recycling work

Table 1 - Total materials collected, November 1984 through June 1990

Volume Material Tons (cubic yards) Newspaper 5,032 16,770 Glass containers 388 1,293

Steel cans 8 106 PET/~DPE containers 12 799

by ‘Timothy Forker Timothy Forker is the waste management program director for the Envirunmental Action Coalition, a nonprofit environmen- tal education and recycling organization in New York City. He has coordinated EAC’s Apartment House Recycling Pro- gram and co-managed the Institutional Paper Recycling Program. Currently he is conducting EAC’s Household Hazardous Waste Education Program and its Recy- cling Education Program, while develop- ing a “Buy Recycled” service for busi- nesses and institutions.

A New York City program shows that a voluntary program, with strong links to the private sector, can offer a notable example.

One of the more vexing questions facing recycling efforts in New York City has been how to motivate participation. Dur- ing its six years of operation, Environmen- tal Action Coalition’s Apartment House Recycling Program succeeded in show- ing how to do so in a high density residen- tial environment.

Accomplishing this was not a matter of using the right publicity or educational tools alone; it also required establishing a sustainable system at each site.The main ingredients for making that a reality were developing a highly visible collection sys- tem with participants being highly in- volved, working intensively with building management to design individual pro- grams, providing the necessary “hard- ware” to operate programs efficiently, ensuring access to reliable markets and collection services in the private sector, and obtaining feedback on performance from collectors, markets and participants.

Working under three different contracts with the New York City Department of Sanitation, AHRP began in November 1984 and continued through June 1990. AHRP’s major objectives were to create an efficient recycling system for the city’s high density dwellings and to demon- strate the overall feasibility of conducting apartment house recycling collection. During that time, the three AHRP staffers began programs at over 400 buildings at 212 sites, encompassing about 60,000 apartment units.

AHRP participation levels grew steadily until April 1989, when many large sites were transferred to programs operated by the Department of Sanitation. During its peak period (March 1988 to March 1989), about 110 sites with 35,000 units were active in AHRF? AHRP serviced a variety of site types and sizes, ranging from a single-building rental site with 20 housing units to a redevelopment cooperative site with 20 buildings and about 6,000 units.

Collected tonnage AHRP designated the following materials for recycling collection: newspapers, glass containers, aluminum cans, steel cans, and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and high density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic containers. However, dur- ing the first two years of the program, only newspapers were collected. In 1986, AHRP surveyed participants and found that a majority were willing to recover glass containers and other materials as well; at that time, the program expanded its list of designated recyclable materials to include all those that were marketable locally.

AHRP’s monthly collections achieved peak levels of about 150-200 tons per month. After transferring operation of many sites to DOS-operated programs in March 1989, this tonnage dropped to 50 to 90 tons per month - levels not experi- enced since the program’s early growth stages in 1986. Table 1 shows the total

33 Resource Recycling November 1991

ferred to DOS programs and AHRP effi- ciency diminished.

At the start of the program, costs aver- aged around $4 per household per month, but by the time the program had reached critical mass, costs were well below $1 per household each month. Dur- ing the November 1986-October 1988 period, the average cost was $0.52 per household; between March 1988 and March 1989, the average cost was only $0.40 per household per month. Between November 1988 and July 1990, when the program ended, costs per household rose to an average of $1.09 per month, due largely to the diminished efficiency of col- lections after sites were transferred to DOS programs.

Program operations To see how the program worked, it must be understood that participation in the program was always completely volun- tary. During most of this time, there was no requirement for buildings to have recy- cling programs. Educating the building management and residents about the solid waste crisis and recycling was, thus, a priority to facilitate acceptance of the program. Providing this conceptual

A Leader in Recycling Equipment Since 1978

Master Can Buying System

Magnetic Separator Tin Can Crusher Conveyors Quality Service Value

Aluminum Can Crushers

2 3 And a Full One-Year Warranty

I

Glass Breakers

Plastic Perforator Compactor wlFeed Conveyor

(509) 487-6966 6512 N. Napa CALL DON OR MIKE TODAY! FAX (509) 483-5259

Spokane, WA 99207 Circle 165 on RR service card

35 Resource Recyding November 1997

framework for AHRP participants, offer- ing intensive operational assistance, col- lecting materials on a consistent basis providing consistently good collection services, and receiving weekly feedback from the markets, collectors and partici- pants, all functioned to drive the high level of participation for the program. The source separation requirements created a level of involvement by participants that resulted in capturing large quantities of high quality materials.

The first step in bringing a building into the program was to make contact with the building’s management. AHRP staff sent informational packages, made written and oral presentations, and discussed the program with the appropriate manage- ment person or liaison. It was very impor- tant to have a recycling coordinator desig- nated, either formally or informally, so AHRP had a contact person with whom to work. Often the initial contacts were with cooperative or condominium board mem- bers, property managers or building superintendents. These contacts usually remained involved in the program, but the day-to-day operations became the re- sponsibility of the building managers or

superintendents. Finally, AHRP required that a site’s management formally approve the recycling program.

Operational issues for a building’s waste management system became very successful motivating factors. AHRP staff soon realized that setting up source sep- aration programs significantly stream- lined waste handling procedures in build- ings, and in many cases made the sys- tems more orderly and less hazardous to maintenance workers. The AHRP staff stressed that recycling did not increase the amount of total waste, but that it avoided wear and repair labor on trash compactors, reduced the use of plastic bags and prevented injuries to mainte- nance workers (e.g., through elimination of broken glass in the garbage).

AHRP staff worked in a “hands-on” fashion with the building management and staff to design and implement pro- grams that conformed to building and fire codes. The design of programs attempted to be convenient for maintenance staff, residents and collectors alike.

Education of participants began with the initial contact with the management and staff of a site and continued through-

out the life of the site’s program. Residentt education consisted mainly of informa- tional flyers delivered to each apartmentt and signs posted at every collection loca- tion within the building. Flyers gave pre- cise preparation instructions and the! major environmental and waste manage- ment reasons for recycling. Posters; marked the exact locations of collectioni bins and indicated which materials were! to be placed inside.

The most important aspect of the! AHRP’s education and training efforts; focused on the building management andl maintenance staff. Once a site hadl agreed to participate, this consisted1 primarily of AHRP staff working on-site! with building managers and staff ini designing the internal collection system.. AHRP’s organizing staff instructed the! building operators in setting up the collec- tion and sorting systems, showed how tor use certain equipment, explained source: separation recycling, and pointed out the! occupational safety and efficiency! benefits of segregating certain parts off the waste stream for recycling.

Collection scheduling and routing were? coordinated by AHRP staff, while actual1

Recycling Recove

If you have a problem in size reduction processing, Prodeva can cut it down to size! Our 32-year experience in this highly, specialized field has made us a pioneering leader

(aluminum or steel), plastic, glass and fluorescent tubes. All are soundly engineered for rugged use and profitable operation. All are state-of-the-art in design; for ease in operation and maintenance to ensure a long trouble-free service. All major components made in America and carry a 1-year written warranty.

IC

If you have any questions about our equipment, their capacities, installation or suitability for your needs, just call or write Steve Bunke, National Sales Manager. (Detailed literature with complete specifications available).

r Disposal crap

Circle 159 on RR service card

100 Jerry Drive, Jackson Center, OH 45334 Phones: 1-800-999-3271 FAX 513-596-5145

#EVA INC. 51 3-596-671 3

36 Resource Recycling November 1991

pickups were made by private waste paper dealers or independent jobbers (ex- cept in certain emergency situations, when AHRP staff made pickups). Basing the system on the value of the recycla- bles, these services were provided at no charge to participating sites. The program was basically market-driven: source sep- aration was required and minimum quan- tities were set for each collection.

Newspaper collections at large com- plexes were handled by private waste paper firms. Loose newspaper was stored in standard 16-bushel canvas ham- pers that were provided at no charge by the collector. Pickups were made on a

jobbers' feedback on building volumes and materials marketability was crucial for continued success.

Participant surveys From surveys, the program learned much about participants' knowledge and opin- ions about recycling. The most methodo- logically sound survey was conducted in 1990 and asked participants to respond to 17 items. Among other questions, partici- pants were asked if they were aware of the recycling program in their building; if they used the program; what reasons they had for participation; how frequently they

participated; what materials they now separated; what other materials they would be willing to recover; and what effect recycling had on their entire gar- bage stream.

More than 50 of the sites active at that time were included (subject to the man- agement's approval) with a response rate of 33 percent. The results showed that 96 percent knew of the recycling program and 93 percent said they participated in the program. Use of the recycling pro- gram was also high: 25 percent said they used the program daily, while another 70 percent used it at least twice each week.

AHRP. Some larqe sites tried glass recy- cling using a similar method. Glass was crushed mechanically into steel drums until the minimum number of drums needed for a collection had been filled. This was not a successful strategy, because of storage limitations, quality control difficulties for crushed material, and unacceptable noise levels made dur- ing crushing.

At most of the sites, collections were performed by independent jobbers, who marketed materials directly through multi- material buy-back centers or by door trade with scrap dealers. Recoverable Resources/Borough Bronx 2000 was the primary market for AHRP, since it accepted a wide range of materials. Job- bers required a minimum of 1,000 pounds of bundled newspaper per collection. Whatever amounts of other recyclables that had been accumulated were also picked up at that time. Jobbers worked very hard making collections, since they went into the buildings and brought the materials out themselves.

As can be imagined, this was a feature of the program that contributed to the AHRP's value in the eyes of the building maintenance workers. Even though AHRP sought to place the central storage of recyclables as near to a convenient building exit as possible, there were cases where materials had to be moved up stairways and around labyrinthine basements. Most of the work to move materials out of the building was done using handtrucks; however, certain larger buildings used mechanical means, such as small tractors or elevating platforms.

The routes assigned to each collector Were designed to meet the individual's time and volume capacity. Most jobbers used vans or step-vans and resupplied bags and twine. Burlap bags and twine were stocked by AHRP at R262's facility and taken as needed by the jobbers. The

IS PLASTIC SCRAP

I'RECYCLI" BECOMING A WASTE

PROBLEM? Series 300. Model 1236 with cuslom hopper and feed roll assembly mounted on a low base for blower evacuation

Then why not let ALSTEELE show you how one of our complete line of "TOUGH" granulator-grinders can solve your problem We have a machine to do the job. whether it's for small plastic bottles and thin wall tubing or bulky 10-inch thick sections

Series 900 Model 1009 Beside-the-press granu- lator, available with 5 to 20 h p ,/

If you really want dependability, dura- btlity and performance as well as follow-through service, then you should be talking to us. Write or call ALSTEELE prod- uct manager today and tell h im about your problem and we're sure he will have tomor- row's soliitton for you.

L

Series 500 "Hog" Model 1224 with stan- dard hopper and high base, 200 h p molor direct drive

BY ENTOLETER, INC.

PO. Box 1919 New Haven, CT 06509

Tel: 203-787-3575 Fax: 203-787-1 492

~-

Circle 72 on RR service card

37 Resource Recycling November 1991

--

The future of recycling was also explored: over 90 percent said they would recover newspapers and glass; 88 per- cent, plastics; 78 percent, household hazardous wastes; and 73 percent, mixed paper. Fifty-five percent said they would compost food wastes.

Depending on the materials, 50 to 60 percent said they were willing to set out materials within their building; 13 to 25 percent said they would be willing to place materials at curbside; and 5 to 9 percent were willing to go to a neighborhood drop- off center.

The educational effects of the recycling program were also examined. Forty per- cent said that recycling had reduced the quantity of their regular garbage; 18 per- cent said recycling had affected their pur- chasing habits.

The reasons for recycling also showed the values and knowledge that motivated participants to recycle: 45 percent said it was for an environmental reason; 18 per- cent said it was part of civic duty or local responsibility; 8 percent said it was because of waste management prob- lems; and 5 percent said it was due to the building’s requirements.

n From an operational perspective, it is making each building’s internal collectior

noteworthy that the majority of respon- system as convenient as possible for thcz dents indicated that they used their build- residents. Coupled with little willingnesE ing’s recycling program many times each toward bringing materials to the curb, thiE week. This confirmed the importance of information points to the need for an alter

The Prodeva

GLASS CRUSHER DELIVERS SIZE OF 80% VOLUM

Rated capacity 01 over 600 glass bottles per hour.

Crushes up to and in- cluding 1-gallon size glass iugs or bottles.

Lightweight: easily moves from one drum to another. Fits over 30 and 55-gallon drums.

Special hardened steel Impellers give maximum resistance to wear.

Machine crushes elti- ciently as last as operator can lend it.

Factory-direct parts and service.

Save time, money, labor and space with this new improved crusher from PRODEVA We’ve made our popular. original design even better with more features. Machine is ideal for bottlers. recycling centers. cafeterias. restaurants, taverns, municipalities and institutions. Users like the big savings and convenience in removal and handling costs. Like all PRODEVA Droducts our Model 95-2 is made for hard use. trouble-free ooeration and dependability for years in service

In A Hurry - Cal l Toll-Free 1-800-999-3271 Ask Far Steve Bunke. Fax 513-596-5145 / 513-596-6713

100 Jerry Drive, Jackson Center, Ohio 45334 VA

WANTED: Bl-METAL CANS

Cast Iron m 2 Plate & Structural Punchings Batteries Waste Paper

GORDON WASTE CO.. INC. Front & Bridge Streets Columbia, PA 17512 Phone 71 7/684-2201 FAX: 71 7/684-0162

Affiliated Company: Hildor Wire Products

Supplying: Baling Wire SteeVPoly Strapping

Paper Balers Stretch Film Garylord Boxes Scrap Choppers

Circle 205 on RR service card Circle 396 on RR service card

38 Resource Recycling November 199 1

Sorting systems allow janitorial staff to assist in the easy collection of recyclable materials (1). Sorted glass, plastics, etc., bundled in burlap sacks, await pickup (2).

It is also important that 18 percent said their purchasing habits were changed through participation in the recycling effort. This attests to the high visibility that AHRP had, not to a message that AHRP preached.

Just as striking was the knowledge that motivated participants. With environmen- tal reasons and civic responsibility form- ing the major reasons for participation, the survey shows that a well-informed populace will contribute significantly to solutions. Thus it is not legal requirements and enforcement set up to coerce partici-

2 pation that will be successful in the long the environment is also compelling. Since run; rather it is education of participants AHRP never attempted to educate partici- that will produce lasting results. pants about waste reduction or preven-

aware of a reduction in waste for disposal. As a pilot program, Environmental Action

native to curbside collections for apart- ment houses in the city’s overall recycling strategy.

about recycling, waste management and What participants knew or learned tion, it is significant that 40 percent were Conclusions

~~

Circle 134 on RR service card

39 Resource Recycling November 1991

Coalition’s Apartment House Recycling Program achieved impressive results in showing how source separation recycling can be operated effectively at high density residential sites in New York City. Working from a market-driven design, AHRP reached high levels of participa- tion, material diversion and cost effective- ness - all under a voluntary system.

The implications of AHRP’s results and the survey responses are enormous. Paramount is AHRP’s experience that aggressive, police-style enforcement is not necessary to get excellent results. While rules for handling materials are needed, the method to gain compliance is education.

AHRP spent no money on enforce- ment, even at sites that experienced prob- lems with quality control of materials. Instead, providing hands-on assistance, information and reliable collection serv- ices to participants and site managers proved to be effective. In addition, having a person or group serving as recycling coordinator at each site and giving them a personal contact at AHRP’s office facili- tated feedback to the AHRP staff. Through this communication, necessary changes could be made in site collection mechanisms and pickup schedules rapidly.

Equally important was AHRP’s ability to work with the private sector to obtain col- lection, processing and marketing serv- ices. Cutting these elements out of AHRP’s list of direct services minimized costs for handling a wide range of mate- rials. The key for obtaining these services - and, by extension, for creating the basis for a sustainable recycling program - was source separation.

Through source separation, AHRP was able to divert nearly 5,500 tons of the available designated materials and meet end-use market specifications with the bare minimum of processing costs (e.g., baling and crushing) to the materials broker. Collectors were thus able to obtain relatively stable prices for materials and operate in the black without resorting to high fees. In addition, quality standards for source separation almost completely eliminated residue from the collected materials. Thus, AHRP collectors weren’t in effect hauling garbage, and the pro- gram did not feed into the creation of sec- ond-rate recycling markets that require tainted goods, such as mixed glass cullet for “glasphalt.”

Source separation also had another benefit in its educational effect on the par- ticipant. Even though AHRP did not pro- mote waste reduction through its pro-

INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR THE 90’s Ramada Hotel

West Palm Beach, FL February 27-29,1992

Learn from the experts. See real integrated processing in action. Visit a MRF, RDF plant, state-of-the-art composting facility. See ash and ferrous recovery, special waste and biomass handling & recycling. Hear about new curbside techniques. Visit a landfill being turned into a public park. West Palm Beach is a true pioneer in integrated waste management. Meet and learn from the planners, consultants & officials who led the way and made it happen.

FOR DETAILS, CONTACT: Richard Will, The Coordinate Group, Inc.

69 Lee Highway, #200, Warrenton, VA 22186 (800)627-8913 (703)347-4500 FAX (703)349-4540

RESOURCE RECOVERY REPORT is the original newsletter on recycling. solid waste management. and energy-from-waste, with a 16 year track record of mnase reponing on topical issues

Frank McManus. Edltor 8 Publisher

Circle 349 on RR service card

gram, 18 percent of participants changed their buying habits because of the recy- cling program. This is attributable to the relatively high level of program visibility and the individual involvement required to achieve source separation for up to eight different materials.

While a variety of government spon- sored programs are needed in order to facilitate the development of local proc- essing and marketing infrastructures (such as multi-material buy-back cen- ters), AHRP’s experience shows that col- lection systems can be operated effec- tively around private markets that insist on high quality standards. Large-scale pro- grams can be operated that maximize the inherent value of materials, rather than degrading that value through commingl- ing materials. Thus, revenue generated by the collected materials is maximized and program costs for processing are minimized. At the same time, source sep- aration facilitates achievement of long- term goals such as participant education on waste reduction and the creation of sustainable recycling markets.

While the Department of Sanitation continues to invoke the need for conven- ience to pursue its policy favoring com- mingled and mixed waste collections for recycling, AHRP’s experience shows that source separation is a very viable alterna- tive. AHRP’s relatively high diversion rates and positive responses indicate that source separation can be organized to capture a large amount of material. This system benefits the overall recycling strat- egy by minimizing the need for large sort- ing and processing fac comitant siting problems) and maximizing the inherent value of the secondary mate- rials. The success of the source separa- tion scenario tested by AHRP suggests that it be included as a recycling model in New York’s - and other cities’ - solid waste management plans. RR

A complete report on the Apartment House Recycling Program, including case studies and worksheets, is available from EAC, 625 Broad- way, New York, NY 10012; (212) 677-1601.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the cast of thousands who participated in or contributed to the operation of the Apartment House Recycling Program. In addition, he wishes to acknowledge the contribution of Michelle Marean, who con- ducted the survey discussed in the article. For detailed information about the survey methodol- ogy and results, contact her at New York Univer- sity, 35 W. 4th St., New York, NY 10003.

- 40 Resource Recycbng November 199 1