PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE

COMPARING RECYCLING PROGRAMS IN MAJOR UeSe CITIES

The author assembles data comparing solid waste program budgets, organics diversion methods ... and other key numbers.

David Biddle

L ARGE urban solid waste and recy- cling programs represent significant investments by city governments in the United States. Even with rela- tively low landfill tip fees (compared to the late 1980s), solid waste bud- gets in our nation's largest cities are

generally in excess of $40 million annually. Balancing composting, trash and recycling programs in a fiscally responsible manner represents a big challenge for local govern- ment in America. And while the watchwords of 21st century urban sanitation programs are "integrated waste management," typi- cally local governments compare trash dis- posal costs with waste diversion expendi- tures. The result all too often casts recycling and composting in an unfavorable light com- pared to landfilling and incineration.

However, comparing components of large urban waste management systems to each other puts policymaking into a different con- text. Which city has the highest recycling rate? Which commercial recycling programs recover the most material? How much do cities spend on recycling per household? What percentage of each city's solid waste budget goes to recycling programs? The list of comparative questions is long.

There is no question that program man- agers need to know how well their pro-

grams are doing in comparison to other programs around the country. But, as the data presented here suggests, a t this time comparative analysis and evaluation of ur- ban solid waste programs inevitably means an apples and oranges situation. In this re- gard, research has not been undertaken in order to rank programs based on recycling rates or other waste diversion indices. Rather, this information is intended to pro- vide a new context by which program man- agers and policymakers can gain perspec- t ive on t h e possibi l i t ies for program development.

This article presents a summary of the initial phase of a five-year data collection ef- fort intended to determine whether i t is even possible to meaningfully establish a comparative framework for evaluating large urban recycling programs. This study is di- rected a t understanding the idiosyncrasies and specifics of each urban program.

Information in this article is provided only for cities in the database with popula- tions greater than one million residents. A final report providing details on the top 25 cities in the country is to be published a t the end of this year. Data offered in this article for each city is for 1999. Continuing collec- tion of information over the next five years will not only allow for ongoing program

Table 1. Solid waste data for nine major U.S. cities

New L 0s Phlla- San San C~ty York Angeles Ch~cago Houston delphla Phoenlx Antonlo Dlego Dallas

Populat~on 7,420,000 3,823,000 2,783,726 1,865,605 1,432,287 1,263,895 1,171,700 1,277,168 1,075,894 Total number of households 3,350,000 1 21 9,770 1,025,174 389,932 565,000 460,510 31 0,000 453,515 402,060 People/household (calculated) 2 2 3 1 2 7 4 8 2 5 2 7 3 8 2 8 2 7 No of households served w ~ t h

clty collection of munlclpal so l~d waste (MSW) 3,350,000 720,000 735,000 259,701 547,135 325,000 288,056 270,000 232,000

No of households served by clty for recycl~ng 3,350,000 720,000 735,000 232,000 533,771 325,000 288,056 270,000 232,000

Percentage of households recelvlng lnunlc~pal collection 100°/~ 5 9 '10 72% 59% 94% 71 % 93% 60% 58%

Tons of MSW - publrc sector 3,702 176 850 889 871,080 525,505 646,766 573,834 325,671 443 970 493,000 Tons of MSW - private sector 3 213,600 2,673,470 1,762,020 N A 1,718,820 N A 21641 1,266,389 461,697 Total MSW - Publ~c/Pr~vate

(calculated) ---

6,915,776 3,524359 2,633,100 525,505 2,365,586 573,834 347,312 1,710,359 954,697 - - - - -- - -- -

spray irrigated or is discharged to service water. Anywhere from quarterly to annual maintenance is required depending on the local governmental unit and manufacturer. Maintenance includes inspecting all compo- nents, flow meters, pump, recirculation tank, recirculation pump, distribution, me- dia, effluent quality and cleaning and re- pairing when needed. In particular, the flow meter should be read to determine if the application rates are within the design limits. The spray heights on the pressure distribution system should be inspected to a s su re t h a t even d is t r ibut ion i s s t i l l achieved over time. A visual inspection of the effluent should be done and often a lab analysis of effluent is required. Over time,

amount of w a s t e ~ a t e r \ ~ i i ~ a t e s a large veg-

excellent

Drip distributio 'works on the &me basic principles as any o, her soil based treatment system: filtering nd bacterial deco'mposi- tion ofwaste. Ho ever, the method of appli- cation of the was ewater to the soil is differ- ent. The goal in a i drip distribution system is to distribute the effluent evenly over a large area, so no single location receives excess ef- fluent, to maxiq!ize soil contact.

A drip distrib~tion system has four main ent device, a pump tank,

device depends on the type of drip tubing and the manufacturer's recommendations. Some drip systems require advanced pre- treatment, but some systems have been put in with only a septic tank. All systems may have problems due to plugging without a good filtering device. The type of pretreat- ment will help to choose the type of filter necessary. Several pretreatment devices are available including aerobic treatment units, sand, peat, textile, single pass recirculating filters, and constructed wetlands. Most of these pretreatment devices will use a septic tank for primary treatment.

Sara H. Clzristoplzerson is a n exte~zsion educa- tor and engineer at tlze University of Minneso- ta i ~ z S t . Paul. For more infornzation visit www.bae.umn.edulseptic.

Circle these important dates on your calendar. Watch for program information and complete details in upcoming issues

of BioCycle and your mail.

BioCycle (610) 967-4135 www.biocycle.net biocycle@jgpress.com

Table 2. Aggregate data for recycling and organics collection (in tons)

City New Los Phila- San San York Angeles Chicago Houston delphia Phoenix Antonio Diego Dallas

Mun~c~pal curbs~de recycling 671,530 180,801 90,498 54,371 44,435 106,900 25,450 31,277 7,632 Munlclpally collected organlcs 9,040 175,627 167,389 37,054 6,183 15,685 23,559 84,412 N A Munlclpally collected tons of recycllng* 684,130 356,430 258,227 93,066 53,071 142,383 49,453 115,689 8,674 Organ~c % of recyclables 1 3% 49 3% 64 8% 39 8% 117% 110% 47 6% 73 0% N A Privately collected tons of recycling 89,600 N A 844,089 N A 161,855 N A N A N A N A Construct~on & Dernolltlon 5,143,800 0 1,197,831 0 407,385 0

PA

0

* Includes more than curbside and organics - white goods, drop-offs, municipal building office recycling are also included in this number

comparisons but also will allow for prograin tracking over time.

THE BASICS Table 1 provides a summary of some of the

main inputs to this study for the top nine cities in the country. As the table shows, New York City's public collection system is by far the largest in the U.S. Besides New York's size, i t is the only major city provid- ing direct recycling collection services to all residential households - both single-family homes and multifamily complexes. New York's solid waste budget itself is larger than most total operating budgets for a number of the cities in this survey.

Table 1 also provides information on the tremendous variability in waste generation figures for the public and private sectors. It is not clear whether the private sector num- bers provided by cities are accurate or not, but using the numbers given, New York and Dallas appear to have a 50:50 split between the two sectors. Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia and San Diego, on the other hand, all provided information that would indicate private sector waste far exceeds public sector. Houston and Phoenix, do not collect information on commercial solid waste quantities a t this time.

Municipal collection services a re not available to 100 percent of the households in most cities primarily because most cities do not provide collection services to multi- family housing. Multifamily housing is typ- ically serviced by private sector haulers, which creates a significant data gap for an- alysts and program managers.

Of note here as well is the fact that virtu- ally all of the cities surveyed indicated that the residential sector publicly serviced for MSW collection also receives recycling ser- vices. This is significant because just three years earlier, many of these programs did not provide recycling collection to all of the houses serviced for trash.

RECYCLING AND ORGANICS Table 2 provides aggregate numbers for

municipal and commercial recycling. Only three cities were able to fully document pri- vately collected recycling. New York City's figures are artificially low since they are only able to capture data for recycling and transfer facilities within their jurisdiction.

Most commercially recovered material for New York is delivered and processed outside the city, where the city has no jurisdiction. Municipal officials indicate that this num- ber is likely five to six times higher.

Chicago and Philadelphia were able to provide verifiable figures for commercial re- cycling due to the fact that each city has im- plemented a commercial recycling ordi- nance requiring the private sector to report on their efforts. Clearly, the lack of private sector data for other municipalities makes it difficult to compare and evaluate programs on this level. One of the intentions of this preliminary research phase was to identify data gaps. It is hoped that these gaps can be addressed over time as analysis continues.

ORGANICS COLLECTIONS SYSTEMS Table 2 also presents aggregate figures for

organics collection systems. While most pro- grams were able to provide data for organ- ics, the variability between them is consid- erable. For both Los Angeles and Chicago, organics collection represents around 49 percent and 65 percent respectively of the material diverted by public sector recovery programs. Both programs have invested heavily in weekly residential yard trim- mings collection. Chicago's so-called "blue bag" cocollection prograin includes provi- sions for organics as well as paper, bottles, jars and cans. In addition, Chicago's sophis- ticated mixed waste processing facilities have been designed to cull out the organic "fines" during material separation resulting in a large quantity of automated organics re- covery from mixed waste. San Diego's fig- ures for organics collected (84,400 tons or 73 percent of the total municipally collected materials) include yard trimmings dropped off a t processing facilities by commercial landscapers, and they too have a regular curbside program for household yard triin- mings.

Table 2 provides telling documentation for why materials recovery is successful in Los Angeles, San Diego and Chicago. All three of these cities have made organics col- lection a significant component of their waste diversion systems. Cities with lower recovery levels tend to have less developed organic recovery programs.

Table 2 also shows that New York City re- covers by far the most material of the nine

-- - --

Virtually all of the cities surveyed indicated that the residential sector publicly serviced for MSW collection also receives recycling services.

Table 3. Budgets, recycling allocations and households served (in dollars)

City New L os York Angeles

Phila- Chicago Houston delphia

San San Phoenix Antonio Diego Dallas

Municipal solid waste budget Recycling allocation Recycling allocation as a percentage

of the municipal solid waste budget Cost of municipal solid waste1

household served Cost of recycling/household served

One of the factors which helps create the success New York has achieved is the fact that much of the city's service territory is high density, multifamily housing where program participation and outreach is often more effective.

cities in this study. This high recovery rate has been accomplished without an invest- ment in an organics collection system (due to small fraction of waste attributable to yard trimmings). According to city officials, New York's high recovery rate is attributable to many factors and will likely always be a mis- nomer in comparative studies. Part of New York's recycling collection strategy is to allow residents to place bulk metal on the street for curbside collection along with the more tra- ditional food and beverage cans and paper. According to city officials, paper recovery ac- counts for about 58 percent of their recycling program and metal, glass and plastic account for 42 percent. Since adding bulk metal, New York's program has increased the amount of material it recovers by nearly 200,000 tons.

One of the factors which helps create the success New York has achieved is the fact that much of the city's service territory is high density, multifamily housing where program participation and outreach is often more effective. In addition, New York also has committed a significant level of re- sources for public education and program communications. The closure of the city's main disposal option, Fresh Kills Landfill, also has put solid waste on the front burner of the city's media outlets. Without a doubt, this is the most challenging program in the country, but it is also one of the most suc- cessful. Table 3 shows that New York in- vested approximately 11 percent of its total 1999 solid waste budget ($725 million an- nually) in recycling programs.

Table 2 also shows that of the cities sur- veyed only New York, Chicago and Philadel- phia were able to provide data for construc- tion and demolition material recovery. New York's reported recovery levels are exceed- ing high. Of the nearly six million tons re- ported by the city, 479,000 tons were mu- nicipally collected and 4,664,400 tons were collected by private haulers and processed a t transfer stations in the city. All three cities in question have well-developed C&D material processing infrastructures and the economics of materials recovery tends to be competitive with disposal methods.

ECONOMIC FINDINGS

composting and other forms of waste diver- sion. Figures range from a high of 23 percent down to four percent. A very simple policy question needs to be asked here. What is the optimal percentage of investment in recy- cling? More to the point, if there is a city- wide goal (mandatory or voluntary) of, for instance, 25 percent recycling, why are most budgets far below that percentage? To date, there have been no studies correlating recy- cling success with solid waste budget ratios.

Answering these and related budget ques- tions is not easy. As with many other aspects of this research, MSW collection systems and recycling coexist on an apples and or- anges basis. In cases where municipalities invest in automated recycling processing systems andlor organic materials facilities, investments in waste diversion tend to be high. In other cases, municipalities have only invested in collection systems. In yet other situations, municipalities operate us- ing subscriber t rash and recycling pro- grams, meaning that citizens pay for mate- r ia l s collection - pay-as-you throw situations where there may be a direct in- centive to recycle. In addition, recycling re- quires the added cost of education and out- reach. It often also necessitates technology and systems experimentation - costly R&D compared to relatively established trash col- lection. All of these factors, plus many more, need to be considered when comparing recy- cling budgets to overall solid waste budgets.

Another important element in this analy- sis is the cost of total MSW systems per household served for a given city. For the nine cities in question, this number ranges from $217lhousehold down to $144lhouse- hold. The reasons for this broad range like- ly can be found in a host of variables, in- cluding local disposal costs, equipment and human resource allocation policy, housing density, competitive service industries (or the lack thereof), and breadth of recycling programs. Some programs listed here are in bottle bill states where a t least a portion of the beverage containers are recovered by means other than curbside collection. All of these factors play into the cost of recycling per household served.

No figures were available for Chicago's re- Another important comparison essential ~ ~ c l i n ~ - ~ r o ~ r a m per se since that city's re-

for policymakers to understand is the per- cycling program is part of an integrated co- centage of each municipal solid waste bud- collection program. With their enormous get that is spent or invested in recycling, investment in mixed waste processing facil-

- = - y - - - x > ~ - * & --=-L - - - - -$23~";~g~-s2Es-1** x-2> sa:*~pps**-~zs~~< ----- - ~ - <

--- -- - - - -- ,A A=---= -- ..A - zg

L-*E -----*-& ,$I "-54 - <z< "" -=: - L!% -am - - s c * - - z . .&

I -* 3*<g ?-W - -

-* L3&

.+%Z --3w +:* -&s 3%- AzL= -&z 7- ---- ~$a

~ - Y ' A - tg-2 =-vz

27s h- ---=- T*-gq

.+W$+k ,mmkzg -*-+ - - Satellite Screensm

Up to 500 Cubic YardsIHour Ideal for Wet Material High Quality End Product 10-Minute Screen Change Fed by Grinder, Screen, Hopper, or Bucket

11-Foot Screen with Attached Conveyors

The versatile Satellite of sizes with capacitie Action enables better separation with minimal spiking. Compact with a small footprint, the Satellite is easily transported on-site or between sites. Call Fecon todav to qet a clearer picture of how our Satellite can meet your screenfng challenges.

'

A 1

PEERE

02001 Fecon, Inc

Resource Recovery Equipment & Systems

10350 Evendale Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45241 Toll Free: 800-528-3113 Fax: 513-956-5701 E-Mail: fecon@fuse.net www.fecon.com

Solid waste and recycling programs in the nation's largest cities are all meeting the challenge of creating integrated waste management systems.

ities, it is likely that the percentage of the to- tal solid waste budget would be relatively high, but such a figure would be practically impossible to accurately determine.

Significant differences between cities in funding for recycling points out the need for a much more defined scope of analysis in this part of the research. Future surveys will seek to break down recycling funding in terms of capital costs, labor, promotions, consulting, etc. so as to allow for a better un- derstanding of this mechanism.

CONCLUSIONS The figures presented in this article are

preliminary at best. All of the programs rep- resented here are highly dynamic. They are also directly affected by econolnic and demo- graphic trends as well as the huge technology advances this country is caught up in. Cali- fornia's recent energy problems and the trou- bles seen in the high-tech industries over the last year may well change the nature of that state's waste profiles over the next several years. Similarly, Philadelphia and Dallas, along with many other cities, are in the pro- cess of reinventing and growing their curb- side recycling programs. More to the point, as solid waste managers gain expertise in data collection methodologies, it is likely that the private sector side of the equation will begin to get filled in by some of the cities listed here.

One very difficult aspect of this research was the lack of basic demographic knowl-

edge by many municipal program man- agers. Of the nine municipalities studied, only four were able to provide definitive pop- ulation figures and only three were able to give the number of households served with confidence. These demographics were checked with census and housing databases available in other departments in the cities in question. This lack of confidence in basic demographics, coupled with insufficient data on commercial solid waste, and recy- cling for a number of programs, indicates a serious problem overall for municipal waste managers. In order to manage solid waste it is essential to be able to measure it. Over the five year course of this study, it is hoped that data gaps such as these will be filled in and that program coordinators for each city will continue to work closely with researchers in order to ensure that this research has value for planners throughout the country.

Solid waste and recycling programs in the nation's largest cities are all meeting the challenge of creating integrated waste man- agement systems. Some programs are sim- ply more developed than others. As program managers learn from each other and gain the wisdom of their peers, it is likely that all programs will continue to develop exten- sively over the next several decades. 1

David Biddle i s executive director of the Greater Philadelphia (PA) Commercial Recy- cling Council.

Peter J. Stoffella UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, FORT PIERCE, USA

OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY, STILLWATER, USA

The production, use, and economics of compost

the economic implications of compost utilization. make i t a valuable text for agricultural students ..." - Phi l Harris, B io log ica l A g r i c u l t u r e

Catalog no. LA4143, January 2001, 432 pp. ISBN: 1-5667-0460-X, $89.95 1 £59.99

a n d Hor t icu l tu re , 1999 Catalog no. LA0689, 1998, 328 pp. ISBN: 1-57504-068-9, $89.95 1 £59.99

THE PRACTICAL HANDBOOK OF COMPOST ENGINEERING WASTE AGE AND RECYCLING TIMES

RECYCLING HANDBOOK

Get the fundamentals of composting from principles to practice. This book presents descriptions and Authoritative coverage of recycling and waste man- requirements of composting systems, including agement. Topics include: collection of recyclables,

recycling costs, safety in recycling facilities, available

Catalog no. L373, 1993, 752 pp. ISBN: 0-87371-373-7, $129.95 1 f87 .00

Catalog no. L1068, 1995, 304 pp. ISBN: 1-56670-068-X, $84.95 1 £56.99