Mixed Paper: An Emerqinq Commoditv in the Recvclinq lndustrv Timothy M. Gormley, Environmental Coordinator; U.S. Postal Service

ABSTRACT

This document is a compilation of current and historical data as it pertains to "Mixed Paper" recycling. Forecasts of demand and commodity pricing are presented based on trend analysis and industry estimates. Drivers, such as government legislation have been analyzed to determine the effect on future growth of recycling infrastructure. Barriers to future recycling efforts in the United States, such as the cost of implementing and maintaining a recycling collection program, have been analyzed to determine their impacts. Emphasis is placed on evaluating the feasibility of residential curbside collection of Mixed Paper.

This paper is intended to serve as a source document and to increase the

materials included in a recycling program. It is intended that paper intensive industries that promote recycling, specifically in the mailing and packaging industry sectors, will utilize this information to further public education and the promotion of the recycling collection infrastructure.

. awareness of those involved in the assessment and selection of recycled

The need to re-evaluate current recycling programs and to consider additional recycling program design crtiera is presented in support of cost efficiencies and revenue generation. The argument to make Mixed Paper an integral part of every residential curbside program is encouraged where market demand for the commodity exists or can be developed.

I N TRODUCTION

Throughout this decade the demand for paper materials that are recyclable' has increased dramatically. Much of this demand has been stimulated by recycle content2 laws and mandates issued in the form of procurement specifications. The paper and packaging industries are two primary industry groups that have responded to the increased demand for recycle content materials. The demand is expected to continue to grow through the end of the decade. According to the American Forest and Paper Association, the paper industry will invest $1 0 billion dollars by the year 2000 in new mills and paper recovery facilities that process

~ ~ ~~ ~~

Materials, classified as recoverable resources, that still have useful physical or chemical properties after sewing their original purpose and that can be reused or remanufactured into new products. - New products and materials that contain a minimum percentage (usually 25% or more) of recycled material.

1

777

recycled waste paper. The creation of new demand for recycled fiber, this year alone, is estimated at 2.5 million tons in US markets and 10 million tons worldwide. The current demand has outpaced traditional sources of higher and preferred grade paper fiber found in computer printout (CPO), sorted white ledger (SWL), old newsprint (ONP), and old corrugated containers (OCC). Market prices for recycled paper reflect these trends as prices for higher grade waste paper increased as much as 700% in 1994 before returning to historical levels in late 1995 '. Higher prices and the shortage of readily available feedstock has forced the industry to look at non-traditional sources for the higher grade papers and to seek out applications of recycled paper that contain lower grade fibers.

Studies conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency estimate that paper and paperboard comprise nearly 40% by weight, and 30 % by volume, of all municipal solid waste (MSW)' generated. The commercial and industrial sectors generate an average of 33 million tons per year (3545%) of "waste-paper" while

'the volume generated from residences average 50 million tons per year (55- 65%). Traditionally the best source for high grade recycled paper has been the commercial and industrial sectors that generate large quantities of paper as part of their process or business practices. The less traditional and more difficult source of recycled papers to capture is the residential sector. To capture the waste paper from residences requires a more complex and costly recycling system that includes capital equipment and facilities, labor intensive collection methods and expensive processing facilities .

The cost of implementing and maintaining a residential curbside collection program has become an issue of great concern for recycling haulers. A survey conducted by SioCyde estimates that 7,265 curbside collection programs operate in the United States and serve over 108 million people. The costs of operating these programs consistently exceeds the traditional cost of collection and disposal and has forced recycling operators to frequently re-evaluate the benefits of their programs. Recycle programs, designed for efficiency, are beginning to emerge from an era where landfill diversion demands coupled with regulatory and social pressure have been the stimuli for residential and commercial recycling start-ups. Along with improving efficiency, the recycling industry needs to acknowledge and monitor market conditions for recycled materials.

As prices of recycled paper have escalated and demand continues to grow, a -_ new commodity has emerged in the paper manufacturing industry known as

Process by which materials otherwise destined for disposal are collected. reprocessed or 3

remanufactured, and reused. ' ----- "Yellow Sheet". official Board Markets. New York: Advanstar Communications 1995. 5 Essentially residential. commercial, and non-process industrial soid waste (see glossary definitions).

778

Mixed Paper. This new source of “fiber” is quickly becoming a replacement for virgin materials and the more traditional recycled paper feedstock. It is important for businesses, local governments, solid waste haulers. and other related organizations to understand the growing market capacity and end-user definition of Mixed Paper. This knowledge will allow residential curbside and drop-off collection programs to be tailored to prioritize material selection and to separate materials for maximum marketability.

WHAT IS MIXED PAPER?

The commodity known as Mixed Paper has, historically, been characterized by a composite of waste paper common to residential and commercial waste. More recently, mixed paper has been seperated, by the paper industry, into residential and office characterizations. The “mix” within the residential sector is classified as residential mixed paper (RMP). Materials in the residential mix, as selected by local haulers, (that have included it in curbside collection programs) has been defined as a mix of white ledger, computer paper, discarded envelopes, boxboard, magazines and catalogues. This definition differs from the recently created Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) Recycables Exchange6 definition for RMP. Their definition, which is supported by organizations such as the National Recycling Coalition, defines RMP as a combination of CPO, white ledger, colored ledger, envelopes, coated paper and coated paperboard. This definition specifically excludes OCC, ONP and old magazines (OMG) that are predominantly made up of groundwood fiber (discussed in further sections). Commingling these recovered papers will degrade the overall quality and marketability of the material according to the CBOT specifications.

The difference in definition demonstrates the inconsistencies that exist in defining recycled materials sold as commodities within the paper industry. standard industry definition of Mixed Paper does not exist at this time. To enhance marketability, recycling collection programs need to be designed flexible and geared toward the end-user.

A

to be

The paper industry looks at RMP as a secondary fiber source to be used in the production of new paper and paperboard. The applications as a paper making furnish’ have increased significantly as a result of improved technology and its desirability as a lower cost material. Residential Mixed Paper is primarily being used as a replacement fiber for more expensive recovered fiber in the

--6 Chicago Board of Trade : Recvclables Exchange. Chicago Board Of Trade Recyclables Exchange Seminar. Dallas, Texas. September 29, 1995.

A paper millsfurnish is the stock consisting of various pulps. dyes. additives. and other materials that are blended together in the preparation area on the mill to eventually produce the paper or paperboard.

779

production of a diverse range of new paper and paperboard applications. The price of higher grade, and more traditional, recovered paper has driven paper mills to increase the applications of RMP.

MIXED PAPER APPLICATIONS

I + Newsprint + Container Linerboard

1 + Corrugated Containers + Folding Carton Packaging + Converting Paperboard + Plain Chipboard + Industrial Paperboard

The number of applications of Mixed Paper in the production of new paper products has increased dramatically in the last ten years.

Technological advancements in de-inking and contaminant removal makes the capture of fiber from Mixed Paper feasible. In state-of-the-art, de-inking and ‘pulping operations, Mixed Paper is becoming an integral part of the mills furnish. In a dissolved air flotation (DAF) de-inking operation, clay and ash, common in Mixed Paper coatings, serves as a “sink in the DAF process attracting the ink molecules away from the paper fiber. The ink is attracted to the clay and ash as it is floated to the surface and skimmed off. Mixed Paper, in this instance, is viewed as an enhancement to the de-inking process.

Residential Mixed Paper, like all recovered paper, is characterized by the type of paper in the mix and the “quality” of the fiber that makes up the material. All paper fiber originates from wood pulping processes that fall into one of two primary categories, chemical or mechanical pulping technologies. The paper fiber that originates from mechanical pulping processes (commonly termed “groundwood” because the wood chips are mechanically ground) varies significantly from chemical pulp in terms of quality, strength, and brightness leading to different applications and usefulness.

The predominant application of chemical pulp (virgin and recycled) is for higher quality papers such as stationary, ledger paper, laser printer paper, copy paper, book printing, magazines, and manuals. Mechanical, or groundwood pulp, is used for newsprint, telephone directories, catalogues, kraft paper, linerboard, corrugated cardboard, and packaging applications.

Recycled paper containing fiber originating from chemical processing has a wider range of applications making it more marketable. Separation of chemical pulped papers from groundwood pulped papers will yield a higher economic value from the paper industry. Realizing that RMP contains a degree of chemical pulp, which can be separated on the collection route or at a material recovery facility (MRF), will enhance the overall economic contribution of RMP in the residential curbside collection program.

-_

780

Understanding the marketability and end-user demand for materials that can be collected in a residential recycling program will lead to the development of a cost effective and efficient program . This will be achieved through maximized revenue generation from the sale of materials and by designing collection around the most marketable materials that are the least expensive to collect.

WILL RECYCLING MANDATES CONTINUE TO DRIVE RECYCLING?

Since the 1970’s, federal and state government have adopted legislation that has lead to the establishment of mandates and goals for recycling as well as the creation of markets for recycle content materials and products. Much of this legislation has come in the form of state solid waste management plans (and mandates) specifically intended to reduce the impact of solid waste disposal within each state. The best overall approach to managing municipal solid waste has been in the form of an integrated waste management hierarchy: waste reduction, recycling including composting, waste-to-energy conversion and finally disposal. Waste reduction and diversion (a combination of recycling and waste-to-energy) goals were introduced as state mandates as early as 1989 with many of the deadlines for achievement of the goals between 1995 and the year 2000.

The federal government has taken an active role to reduce pollution and control disposal of solid waste through legislative mandates and regulatory oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency. In 1976, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) that has served as cornerstone legislation in the control, handling and disposal of solid and hazardous waste. In 1984, through the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA), Congress increased expectations and placed more responsibility in the hands of state government for proper management of hazardous and non-hazardous waste in the United States. Of ten subtitles that make up the act, Subtitle D, implies that “the state is responsible for the regulation of non-hazardous waste and that states be encouraged to develop solid waste management plans in their respective states.”

I

Through the availability of federal grant funds (patterned on Section 208 of the Clean Water Act), most states developed solid waste management plans and

--incorporated existing state pollution prevention and waste reduction efforts into plans. Traditionally a state’s Solid Waste Manasement Plan includes program elements such as planning, supervision and regulation of solid waste management activities. The plans contain strategies for siting of new landfills, reduction of landfill disposal costs, establishment of standards for landfill design

78 1

and operation, and permit issuance. Program elements that pertain specifically to waste reduction and recycling include:

a enhanced purchasing practices, at the state and local government levels, to require recycled content materials and to reduce the use of unnecessary materials such as over packaging,

= providing tax incentives, loans, and grants for new business and market development that encourages the use of recycled content materials in the manufacturing of new products,

=r incentives for infrastructure development that enhances recycling collection and processing,

3 promotion of composting through controlled yard waste mandates, 3 development and implementation of education and promotional programs

that increase awareness about waste reduction and recycling of residential and commercial waste.

Local governments and municipalities are usually responsible for the design and implementation of solid waste management plans consistent with state requirements and the development of residential and commercial recycling programs that contribute to state goals.

A recent survey, conducted by BioCyc/e*, showed that forty-one states have comprehensive waste reduction laws in place and forty-four states have adopted recycling and waste reduction goals. The survey reports that five states (California, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and Ohio) have achieved their 1995 goals of 25% or higher. The remaining states that have mandated goals and have not reached deadlines (or are approaching deadlines) are finding that the goal achievement by the specified dates is not achievable. In addition, it has come to light that many state mandates and goals do not carry definitive penalties for failure to achieve the “mandated” goals thus leading to a relaxation of requirements. The State programs are further impeded by increased fiscal and administrative constraints such as restricted enforcement capability.

In light of this downturn, it is important to emphasize that the results of federal and state legislative efforts over the last 20 years have been instrumental in controlling landfill requirements, developing recycling infrastructure and developing markets for recyclable materials. The percentage of MSW ending up in landfills, as last reported by the EPA, has dropped from 83% in 1985 to 62% in 1993. The number of landfills that accept MSW has decreased

-.

8 Steutville. Robert. “The State of Garbage in America. Part I”. BioCvcle. Volume 36. Number 4. April 1995.

from over 8000 in 1988 to an estimated 3500 in 1994 and over 45 million tons of materials per year are recovered through recycling and composting. question that is challenging state diversion strategy is one of continued goal achievement when funding and state commitment continues to erode. Funding, through state budget appropriation, has become a measurement of state commitment to achievement of state solid waste management objectives and the desire to achieve state goals.

The

A survey of state recycling programs, conducted by Waste Age's Recycling Times', showed that 28 of the 45 reporting states had decreased or not changed their budget appropriation between the 1993-1 994 fiscal year and the 1994-1 995 fiscal year. In projections for the 1995-1 996 fiscal year, the number of states anticipating appropriation to remain the same or decrease jumped to 36 of the 45 states reporting. State support of recycling programs, like many other state programs, have been impacted by fiscal restraints being placed on all government spending.

According to representatives of the U. S. Conference of Mayors, fiscal restraints and the high cost of operating a recycling program have made local government officials leery about initiating new recycling efforts or expanding existing ones. The high costs of operating a recycling program coupled with reduced commitment at the state and local level could put future expansion of recycling at risk.

Reducing the cost of operating a recycling program has become a priority in the recycling industry. Recycled commodities, like Mixed Paper, need to become an integral part of the evaluation. Each commodity needs to be evaluated based on its immediate and long term marketability, as well as their contribution to diversion goals. The cost of collection and processing of each commodity needs to be evaluated to determine which are the most cost effective to include in the program.

UNDERSTANDING THE DEMAND AND MARKET FOR MIXED PAPER

The use of recovered paper by the paper industry for the production of new paper is driven by domestic and world economies as well as government and consumer preferences. The predominant economic force is an overall demand

-, for new paper and paperboard in domestic and foreign markets. The demand for paper is directly tied to increased economic growth. Other economic factors that affect demand for recovered paper include the availability and cost of virgin

9 Baird. Carolvn et al. "State Recycling S w e y Chart" Waste Ane's RecvclinE Times Volume 7. Number 12. June 13. 1995

783

wood pulp. Federal and state governments have affected demand through the establishment of “recycled content” minimums for paper products purchased and used by government agencies. Social drivers stimulated by the “environmental movement” have further created a demand for recycled content paper materials.

Paper and paperboard production trends in the United States are directly affected by economic conditions and are directly related to changes in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Since 1970, GDP has increased 1 13% (1 994 figures) or an average of 8.07% per year. During the same period of time, paper and paperboard production in the United States has increased at an average rate of 1.58 million tons per year (tpy) or 2.97% per year to levels in excess of 85 million tpy. Between 1989 and 1993, paper production increased from 38.2 million tpy to 41.7 million tpy and paperboard production increased from 38.5 million tpy to 43.2 million tpy. World paper markets and production continue to grow with dominance in Asia and Western Europe.

The United States is the predominant paper producer and consumer in the world. In 1993, according to Pulp and Paper International, the United States produced 30.4% of the world’s paper and paperboard while consuming 32.7% of the world’s production. This trend is expected to continue through the year 2000.

US Paper and Board Production Source: h e r Forest & Paper Assoc

Year

- P A M

- P A M BOARD

-TOTAL P A M BOARD

-Linear (TOTAL P A W BOARD)

Production Trends show increased growth into the 2 7 st century.

NEW PRODUCTION CAPACITY - A MEASURE OF INCREASED DEMAND

Growth in the paper and paperboard market is often measured by increased production capacity or enhanced capability. Increased capacity is defined and

784

measured in terms of new or expanded production facilities that are coming on- line. Enhanced capability is defined by existing facilities that have been retrofit to produce different types of paper or enhance existing operations with new technology (e.g. de-inking capability). New capacity and capability are measured in tons per year attributed to new mills, expanded or modified mills, as well as pulping and de-inking operations. Major mill construction and expansion requires several years providing a reasonable forecast model for growth in the industry. In 1994, paper making capacity in the United States was estimated at 93.0 million tpy. The 36th Annual Capacity Survey prepared by the American Forest and Paper Association (December 1995) projects capacity in the United States to reach 103.1 million tpy in 1998. This reflects an average annual growth rate of 2.5 percent, consistent with the average annual growth trends between 1985 and 1994. The United States maintains 28.5% of the world’s paper making capacity.

Since 19 70, actual paper and paperboard production has kept up with capacity growth in the United States.

US PRODUCTION TO CAPACITY Source Amer Forest & Paper Assoc

100,OOO _ _ _ - _ I

~ . 0 0 0 I 80,000

5 70,000 = 60,000 50.000

m

I- 40,000

* 20,000 10,000

0

r 5 30,000

PAPERIBOARD CAPACITY

Q PAPER/BOARD PRODUCTION

DEMAND FOR RECOVERED PAPER

Recovered paper is defined as used paper, both pre and post consumer. Recovered paper is used primarily as an alternate to virgin pulp fiber in the manufacture of paper and paperboard. The application of recovered paper as furnish has increased over 30% in the last ten years and is expected to supersede virgin pulp as the primary source of pulp in the 1990’s. Recovered pgper fiber will not completely replace the need for virgin fiber because successive repulping reduces the quality and strength of fiber from recovered paper. The Institute of Paper Science and Technology has demonstrated that the strength behavior of paper, as measured in breaking length, is diminished exponentially reaching 31 % degradation by the fifth recycling. This weakening is

785

attributed to the affects of repeated drying and its impact on the fiber cell wall’s swelling capability in subsequent papermaking cycles.

The percentage of recycled paper used in the production of new paper and paperboard has continuously increased in the 1990’s after remaining fairly constant throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s. Since 1988, utilization of recovered paper has increased from 25.47% to a current rate of 36.05% by the paper industry. The use of recovered paper as secondary fiber, in the 199O’s, has been greatly influenced by environmental expectations and mandates as well as efforts to reduce the impact of paper on solid waste disposal facilities.

In 1994, use of recovered paper reached an all time high of 34.4 million tpy of which OCC made up 48.4 percent, ONP was 18.1 percent, and Mixed Papers represented 13.0 percent. Recovered paper usage is expected to reach 44% in 1995 with expectations to exceed 50 percent by the year 2000.

Recovered Paper Utilization source: AFdPA

I 1988 1994 1995 2Ooo

Recovered paper, used in the production of new paper and paperboard, is projected to replace half of virgin materials furnish by the year 2000.

AFBPAs annual Capacity Survey estimates that recovered paper utilization will grow at an average annual rate of 4.9 percent representing sharp increases of recovered paper as a furnish in new papedpaperboard production capacity.

According to the AF&PA, Mixed Paper has accounted for 11-13% of the total recovered paper used in the United States by the paper industry for the past 15 years. Total recovered volumes of Mixed Paper have increased from 1.7 million tons in 1982 to over 4 million tons today.

RECOVERED PAPER UTILIZATION Source: AF& PA

I,- I - _* - I 2 1 30,000

Mixed Paper (MP) accounts for a small percentage of all recovered paper used for the production of new paper products; increases are expected.

The percentage of total recovered paper specific to Mixed Paper has remained fairly consistent over the past fifteen years. Recent prices of higher grade fibers have driven many paper mills to increase the utilization of lower priced Mixed Paper. Record setting prices and limited availability of the higher grade papers in 1995, stimulated unprecedented growth in the demand for Mixed Paper. The results of the increased demand for mixed paper have not been fully recognized to-date and may lead to new forecasts for the twenty first century.

MARKET PRICES SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT DEMAND

Market price and the quality of different grades of recovered paper often dictates what a paper mill uses as feed stock to produce new paper products.. As market prices for the higher grade fibers found in ONP and OCC increase, the demand and utilization of lower grade fibers found in Mixed Paper (MP) increase significantly.

Historically, MP prices have trailed behind OCC and ONP in domestic markets. Prices for MP range $5-1 0 per metric ton while, comparatively, OCC sells for $25-40 per metric ton and ONP sells for $1 0-1 5 per metric ton.

787

I RECOVERED PAPER PRlCES Source: OEM "Yellow Sheet"

$1 40

$1 20 r

Recovered paper prices escalated to record levels in late 1994 and remained high through most of 1995. High prices for high grades increased demand and market for lower grades.

The demand for Mixed Paper, driven by price, was never more noticeably significant than in late 1994 through the third quarter of 1995. A strong domestic and international economy coupled with increased capacity worldwide drove recovered paper prices to record highs. Prices of OCC reached $170 per metric ton and MP exceeded $100 per metric ton in June 1995. Paper and paperboard mills were forced to introduce MP into their processes in order to maintain a competitive edge in the industry. Recovered paper prices rescinded back to 1993 levels in late 1995 due to slow downs in the economy and changing world markets but are once again expected to rise.

The demand for recovered paper remains strong and continues to trend upward. Stable or increasing market prices make recovered paper a very attractive commodity for the residential curbside program. Residential Mixed Paper can be marketed as a mix of lower grade paper or in most cases can be upgraded through sortation to bring a much higher price. Sortation of MP to segregate groundwood materials and to isolate the different "white paper" (chemical pulped paper) will allow the material to be marketed at prices for MOP or potentially SWL which averages in price from $75-100 per metric ton. In periods of depressed prices, the ability to upgrade MP helps to maintain it's marketability and demand.

Enhancing revenue generation, through effective commodity selection, is only one of several considerations for improving the cost effectiveness of recycling program. The cost of collection methods being used today by most recycling programs far exceed the revenue generated from the sale of materials. Understanding the costs associated with collection and evaluating material selection for its contribution to collection cost may further refine the recycling program.

-

788

BRINGING THE COST OF RECYCLING IN-LINE WITH DISPOSAL

The cost of operating a residential curbside recycling program is estimated between $80 and $1 82 per ton" of collected recycled materials. The costs vary significantly depending on the design and method of collection, geographic location and demographics of the area.

The method of collecting materials has a significant impact on collection efficiency and *productivity.

PRINCIPAL METHODS FOR COLLECTING RECYCLABLES

1) Drop-off Centers 2) Separate Curbside Collection of Recycla bl es

0 Source Separation by Generators 0 Truckside Sort by Crew 0 Commingled Collection & Central

Co-collection of Recyclables with Solid

0 Same Vehicle, Same Compartment

0 Same Vehicle, Different

Processing 3) Waste

(bagged garbage and recyclables)

Compartment 4) Mixed Waste Processing Source: Waste Aae

A recent study conducted by the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)" assessed total and incremental costs of an integrated municipal solid waste system. Six municipal programs from across the United States were analyzed for incremental cost variations to their baseline cost of landfill disposal. Recycling, waste-to-energy, and composting programs were assessed based on their individual impacts on program cost. The incremental cost of residential curbside recycling increased the overall cost of the integrated solid waste management system in all but one city of the four that operates a residential curbside program. Contribution to diversion goals, measured by weight, varied between 9% and 21 %.

Costs represent a range taken from numerous recycling studies and suneys listed in the reference - - materials. The lack of a consistent industry standard of accounting methodology limits the accuracy of

the data. 1 1 ----- Integrated Municiual Solid Waste Management: Sis Case Studies of Svstem Costs and Energy Use: Summm Reuort. Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA). Silver Springs. MD. November 1995.

IO

I

i

the material to recover the higher grade fibers will help to maintain revenue generation in periods of depressed market conditions.

Many recycling operators recognize the potential benefits that Residential Mixed Paper brings to the residential curbside collection program. A nationwide database maintained by the Steel Recycling In~t i tute’~ reports that 5,971 recycling collection programs have added magazines and catalogues to their programs, 3,969 programs have added direct advertising mail, and 2,645 have added boxboard. Adding Residential Mixed Paper to existing programs is seen as a way to reduce overall collection cost and to increase set-out volumes.

Six factors significantly contribute to the overall collection cost of a residential curbside recycling program.

Collection costs are directly affected by six primary factors; individually and collectively.

FACTORS AFFECTING COST OF COLLECTING RECYCLABLES

~~~~~~~~~

1. Population Density: distance and time between collection points 2. Crew Size: number of people working a route 3. Vehicle: type and size 4. Program Design: frequency of collection, type of materials, collection methods 5. Route Structure: layout and distance to MRF 6. “Capture” and “Set-out” Rates: total

potential volume, level of participation, volume per collection point.

I Source: Reason Foundation

The cost of collection is greatly influenced by the number of set-outs each crew can collect in a day and the volume collected at each location. The volume and density of materials collected greatly influences the total number of set-outs a vehicle crew can make without having to travel to the MRF to offload. Plastics, as an example, are voluminous usually requiring compaction on the route in order to achieve the same density achieved in paper collection. This increased cost of collection is demonstrated in a study conducted by the National Solid Waste Management Association’s (NSWMA) Waste Recyclers C0unci1’~ that shows the average cost to collect plastic on a “typical” route ranged from $987 per ton at a 75% set-out rate to $1,401 per ton with a set-out rate of 25%. Conversely, newspaper (representative of dense paper products) costs an average of $65 per ton at 75% set-out rate to $93 per ton at a 25% set-out rate.

_ _

Stuewille, Robert. “Curbside Recycling in it’s Glory”. BioCvcle. Volume 36, Number &. July 1995. Miller. Chaz. “The Cost of Recycling at the Curb“. Waste Age. October 1993.

14

I5

792

[note: these costs should not be considered an absolute measure of total cost but do effectively demonstrate the wide cost variance between materials]. A similar study of recycling programs in seven cities showed that newspaper accounted for 43% of the total volume of materials collected and 67-75% of the total weight of materials collected; a volume to weight ratio of .57 to 1 .I6 Plastics, on the other hand, accounted for 46% of volume of the total materials collected, but only 4 4 % of the weight. The ratio of volume to weight for plastics is nearly 10 to 1. The presence of high volume, low density materials in a recycling program increases costs and complicates collection methods to offset their impacts.

Similarily, costs of processing recycling materials at the MRF are effected by the volume to weight ratio. High volume, low density materials require more equipment and occupy more space at the MRF. The operating costs of the MRF are impacted by the type of materials collected and the amount, or lack of,

NSWMAs Waste Recyclers Council” showed that the average cost per ton of processing plastics can be five times the cost of processing paper.

- source separation that occurs on the route. A study conducted by the

Other collection cost factors such as population density, participation rates, and set-out rates influence the cost of recycling. The time spent between collection points is considered “non-productive” and increases with increased distance between stops. Poor participation and low set-out volumes further degrades productivity. Adding materials, such as RMP, to the collection route increases the total volume of materials collected per stop offsetting the costs of low population density and poor participation. Results of the waste characterization study conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1 99418, show that paper and paperboard materials account for the largest component of municipal solid waste (38%) . By comparison, glass, metals, and plastics account for 6% to 9% each of total municipal solid waste generation further supporting the position that a shift in recycling program design is worth considering.

SUMMARY

Residential Mixed Paper (RMP), as defined by the paper industry continues to grow in demand and price as a recovered material for recycling. The paper fiber that comes from RMP has become a desirable replacement for higher grade fibers found in other, more traditional, recycled papers. Continued price increases of higher grade recycled papers has created an unprecedented _ _

Scarlett, Lynn. “Recycling Costs: Clearing Away the Smoke”. Solid Waste and Power. July/August 16

1993. Miller, Chaz. “The Real Price of Processing“. Waste Age. October 1992. ----- Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update. EPA Publication

1-

18

No. EPA530-S-94-0-12. June 1994.

793

demand for RMP; a demand that is expected to continue into the twenty-first century. Recognizing this demand should warrant consideration by recycling operators to prioritize RMP in the collection of recycled commodities.

Recycling programs throughout the United States have been built on legislative and social preference to reduce waste disposal impacts and to conserve resources. In most cases, recycling has emerged as a strategy to address landfill diversion goals and have lacked design for efficiency and cost effectiveness (this premise is more predominant in recycling efforts in the residential sector than the commercial sector). As state and local governments are impacted by fiscal constraints, more attention is being given to enhancing collection and materials processing efficiency. The types of materials selected for collection are an integral part of direct collection cost and revenue offset. Selecting materials based on their “added-value” to the recycling program warrants more attention in the review process.

. Residential Mixed Paper is a desirable commodity to add to the recycling program because of its marketability,demand, and the fact that it is one of the least costly materials to collect. Adding RMP to the collection route has proven beneficial in many parts of the country and is expected to become an integral part of many more recycling operations.

To realize the full benefits of adding RMP to the commodities collected in a recycling program requires education of the public, recycling operators, and government officials to assure accurate assessment of the most economic and efficient recycling program. The responsibility of education cannot fall solely on the shoulders of local government and the recycling industry. Other key “stakeholders”, such as the packaging and mailing industries, need to take a vested interest in working with members of the recycling industry for the promotion and education of recycling. The continued promotion and social acceptance of recycling will further the development of recycling infrastructure while reducing the demand of scarce resources and the cost of new materials.

794

REFERENCE MATERIALS

I

----- Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Manaaement: Six Case Studies of System Costs and Energy Use: Summary Report. Solid Waste Association of North America (SWAN), Silver Springs, MD. November 1995.

----- Decision-Maker’s Guide to Solid Waste Management, Volume II. EPA Publication No. EPA530-R-95-023. August 1 995

----- Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1994 . Update. EPA Publication No. EPA530-S-94-042. June 1994.

----- Compendium of Solid Waste Management Terms and Definitions. Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA). Silver Springs MD. September 1991.

----- North American Pulp and Paper Fact Book. Miller Freeman, Inc., San Francisco CA. 1995 Edition.

----- “Yellow Sheet”. Official Board Markets. New York: Advanstar Communications. May- December 1995.

----- Chicago Board of Trade : Recvclables Exchange. Chicago Board Of Trade Recyclables Exchange Seminar. Dallas, Texas. September 29, 1 995.

------ Washington State Solid Waste Manaqement Plan. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication Number 91 -1. January 1991.

---- How to Collect Plastics for Recvcling: Lessons from the Model Cities Demonstration Program. American Plastics Council with The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. Washington, DC. 1995.

Apotheker, Steve. “Curbside Recycling Collection Trends in the 40 Largest U.S. Cities”. Resource Recvcling. December 1993.

Apotheker, Steve. “Saving the Best for Last: The Many Delights of Residential Mixed Paper Recovery”. Resource Recovery. June 1995.

_ _

Baird, Carolyn et al. “State Recycling Survey Chart”. Waste Aae’s Recvclinq Times. Volume 7, Number 12. June 13, 1995.

795

Elis, Dick. The Papermakina Process: Virqin or Recvcled Pu,~?. of Paper and Technology. 1995.

tlanta: Institute

Gies, Glenda. “Dropoff Recycling as a Low Cost Alternative”. BioCvcle. Volume 36, Number 3. March 1995.

Glen, Jim. “Efficiencies and Economics of Curbside Recycling”. BioCvcle. July 1992.

Gruder, Sherrie. “Improving Cost Efficiencies of Recycling Programs”. Waste Age’s Recvclina Times. Volume 7, Number 16. August 8, 1995.

McCreery, Patrick. “Some Towns Still Struggle to Make Recycling Pay, Survey Shows”. Waste Aae’s Recvclins Times. Volume 7, Number 12. June 13, 1995.

. Miller, Chaz. “The Real Price of Processing”. Waste Aae. October 1992.

Miller, Chaz. “The Cost of Recycling at the Curb”. Waste Aae. October 1993.

Miller, Chaz. “Recycling Efficiency: The Shape of Things to Come”. Waste Aqe. Volume 26, Number 9. September 1995.

Moore, Bill and Dorn, Betsy. “Should Communities Collect Residential Mixed Paper for Recycling?”. Waste Age. January 1996.

Owen, Melissa. “An Enterprising Approach to Residential Recycling and Waste Collection”. Resource Recvclinq. June 1 993.

Pferdehirt, Wayne., O’Leary, Phil. and Walsh, Patrick. “Alternative Methods for Collection of Residential Recyclables”. Waste Aqe. March 1993.

Scarlett, Lynn. “Recycling Costs: Clearing Away Some Smoke”. Solid Waste & Power. JulylAugust 1993.

Scarlett, Lynn. Solid Waste Recvclina Costs: Issues and Answers. Reason Foundation, Los Angeles CA. Policy Study No. 193. August 1995.

Seigler, Ted. Improving Collection Efficiencv Throuah Modelinq of Collection Stop Activities. DSM Environmental Services, Inc. SWANA 33rd Annual

-. International Solid Waste Exposition. October 23-26, 1995.

Stuetville, Robert., Freeborne, Jay. and Rockwell, Fulton. “Trends in Curbside Recycling”, BioCvcle. July 1994.

796

Steutville, Robert. “The State of Garbage in America, Part I ” . BioCycle. Volume 36, Number 4. April 1995.

Steutville, Robert. “The State of Garbage in America, Part 11”. BioCvcle. Volume 36, Number 5. May 1995.

Steutville, Robert. “Curbside Recycling in its Glory”. BioCycle. Volume 36, Number 7 . July 1995.

Steutville, Robert. “The State of Garbage in America, Part 11”. BioCvcle. Volume 36, Number 5. May 1995.

Stevens, Barbara J. “Lessons from High Achievers: Cities with Successful Curbside Recycling Programs”. Resource Recvclinq. October 1995.

Sullivan, Thomas P. Environmental Law Handbook. 13th Edition. Government Institutes, Inc. Rockville MD. 1995

797