US Market Values for Pre-Processed Recyclable Materials
($/ton, July 2003)
Type of Recyclable Material Low Avg High
= Metals
a Steel (cans, white goods) $10* $33* $51*
a Aluminum $25 $31 $40
» Glass
a Flint $15 $24 $33
a Amber $5 $16 $30
a Green ($20) ($2) $5
= Plastics
a PET $10 $12 $18
a Natural HDPE $15 $17 $17
a Colored HDPE $8 $12 $13
= Paper (baled mixed) $31** $35 $46**
Source: Based on delivered price data for five US cities (New York, Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles)
reported in Waste News magazine, 07 & 21 July 2003.

* In comparison, one of the US largest metal recyclers (Metal Management Inc, chicago) reported $142/ton average
selling price for post-processed recycled ferrous metals in first quarter of 2003 (Waste News, 12 Aug 2003).
Other metal prices (scrap & virgin) are available at http://www.metalprices.com

**Low and high paper prices represent range over first seven months in 2003.

arenth nd neg p payment to recovery fa ty.to tak

63



— eee a

e e e
State MSW Recycling Goals (38 states w/goals)

70% MA (2005) RI (None*)

65% NJ (2000*)

55% ME (2003)

50% CA (2000*) HI (2000) IN (2001) 1A (2000)
MN (1996) NE (2002) NM (2000) NY (1997)
OH (2005) OR (2009*) SD (2001) VT (2005)

WA (1995) WV (2010)

45% DC (2000*)

40% CT (2000*) MD (2005) MO (1998) NH (2000)
NC (2001) ND (2000) TX (1994)

35% PA (2003) SC (2005*)

30% DE (None) FL (1994*) KY (2010)

25% AL (None) LA (1992) MI (2005) MS (1996)
NV (None) TN (2003*) VA (2000*)

Source: BioCycle magazine, Dec 2001, Table 14, p.54 (data represent year 2000 state recycling policies).
Year in parenthesis indicates goal deadline. * Indicates mandatory goal (10 of 38 states with goals). 29

eT a


Disclaimer

This document presents the findings of an exploratory study
conducted Summer 2003, involving a literature review, secondary
data collection, and secondary analysis (Le. analysis of reports,
documents, books, and journal articles authored by other persons
with goals generally different from the objectives of this study).
Because of its exploratory nature, the contents of this study
document do not represent official US EPA policy, nor do the
references contained in this document constitute endorsement of
particular authors, organizations, methods, information or data.
The individual author identified on the title page is solely
responsible for the scope, design, analyses, findings, format and
contents of this document.

N

e @ @


Other National Annual Recycling Benefits

Sustainable economy: Meet economic and environmental
sustainability objectives such as:
provide future generations with same resource opportunities as
current generation,
() don’t exceed ecological “carrying capacity’, and
«) reduce “ecological footprint” of economy.

Industrial ecology: Achieve symbiotic, closed-loop, material
flow connections between households and industrial
processes, whereby discarded household materials (“garbage”,
“wastes’”) are recovered by industry as inputs rather than
discarded/disposed into the environment (i.e. Zero waste).



| 2D.5
Enhancing Recycling’s Economic Potential

“Recycling is more expensive for communities than it
needs to be, partly because traditional recycling tries to
force materials into more lifetimes than they were
designed for — a complicated and messy conversion, and
one that itself expends energy and resources. Very few
objects of modern consumption were designed with
recycling in mind. If the [recycling] process is truly to
save money and materials, products must be
designed from the very beginning to be recycled or
even “upcycled” — a term we use to describe the return to
industrial systems of materials with improved, rather than
degraded, quality.”

Source: William McDonough & Michael Braungart, “The Next Industrial Revolution’, The Atlantic 83
Monthly, Vol. 282, No. 4, Oct 1998, pp.82-92; http:/Avww.theatlantic.com/issues/98oct/industry.htm



e e e
Recycling & Related Concepts (USEPA definitions)

= Waste recycling: the series of activities by which discarded materials
are collected, sorted, processed, and converted into raw materials and
used in the production of new products; excludes the use of these
materials as a fuel substitute or for energy production.

= Waste generation: amount of materials and products that enter the
wastestream (e.g. from residential, business/commercial, institutional,
and industrial sources) before recycling, reuse, composting, landfilling,
or combustion takes place.

= Waste reuse: use of a product or component of waste in its original form
more than once (e.g. refilling glass or plastic bottles, repairing pallets).

« Waste recovery: removal (capture) of materials from the wastestream
for diversion from disposal into recycling, composting, or reuse.

« Discards: materials remaining in wastestream after recovery.

« Waste disposal: ultimate disposition (emission) of discards (non-
recovered materials) into the environment (air, land, water) as “sink”.



Maximum Economically-Beneficial Recycling “Net Cost” = $225/ton
(projection of X-Y plot based on LB, ML, UB pooled data in cost & benefits pages)

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR)

2.0

1.0

Maximum Economically-Beneficial Recycling Net Cost for BCR > 1.0

—

a

—

$0

$25

$50

$75

Recycling Program Net Cost (Collection + MRF Processing - Materials Revenue)

$100

$125 $150 $175 $200 $225

$250 $275 $300

R-square = 0.748 #pts=3
y = 6.71 + -0.0247x

78



2A.3
Materials Recycled



| Municipality MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)

Municipality MSW Recycling Rates Compared to Per-Capita Recycling Budget
60%
oo
Es 50%
2 3
an
iy
= °o
> 40% ry o
2 °
a ven wat
2 30% 5 o —___—~- ——
8 } _ cee wm Spr mets
« ga
= 20% — S
a a
= é ° °
Q 10% -—--
Q yf i ° °
i
om |
$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00
City Budget Per-Capita Spending on Recycling Programs (2001 or 2002)
R-square = 0.166 #pts = 20
y = 0.104 + 0.0751 (Inx)

107



2B. MSW Recycling Infrastructure

2B.1 Statewide Population Coverage
2B.2 Urban & Rural Penetration

2B.3 Comparison of Recycling Rates & Infrastructure

43



National Annual Recycling Benefits Category #2

= Benefit #2A: Avoided annual costs for MSW collection & landfilling:
(Note: this avoided cost estimate does not include possible “negative externalities” to the
environment associated with MSW landfills & MSW combustors, thus may understate this
benefit)***

LB ML UB
If cost of garbage collection program* is ($/ton): $43 $69 $167
and garbage disposal cost** is ($/ton): $30 $36 $58
then total avoided garbage mgmt cost ($/ton): $73 $105 $225
incremental benefit of 35% goal is (million/year): $876 $1,260 $2,700

= Benefit #2B: Avoided foregone future land use from expanded landfill sites:
Incremental 12 million tons/year to achieve 35% would otherwise consume up to:
(12 mill.tons) x (2.7 to 8.9 CY waste/ton) x (8 to 22 acres landfill per mill.CY waste) =
260 to 2,350 acres/year (0.4 to 3.7 sq.miles/year)

* Source: EPA-530-R-01-018, Nov 2001 (garbage costs based on sample of 40 US communities; excludes disposal cost).
** Source: Year 2002 landfill tipping fees from http://wasteinfo.com/data.htm (LB=landfills, ML= weighted-avg if 55.3%landfill
& 14.5%combustion; UB= combustion (waste-to-energy).

*““" The European Commission identified (Oct 2000, 88 pp.) six categories of negative externalities from landfills: (a) gas
emissions to air, (b) soil, surface water & groundwater contamiration from leachate, (c) future land-use opportunity cost,
(d) disamenities (odor, vermin/insects, visual intrusion); (e) fire/explosion hazard, (f) post-closure monitoring & clean-up
costs http://eur .inttcomm/environ tle /cowi from_landfill.

LB = lower-bound estimate (-1 std.dev) ML= most likely UB = upper-bound (+1 std.dev)

68



2A.4
Recent Policy Decisions
and Future Policy Options
for Affecting MSW Recycling Rates

39



| National Annual Recycling Benefit Category #5

Benefit #5: Health & Environment: Net reduction in environmental pollutant releases
compared to manufacturing with virgin materials:

« Avoided atmospheric emissions (GHG carbon, CO, CH, NOx, SOx, PM)
a Avoid 491 million tons/year pollutant emissions to air*
a  @$1 to $13,500/ton unit benefit (avoided mortality) = $625 million/year

« Avoided waterborne emissions (BOD, COD, phosphate, solids, metals)
a Avoid 30 million tons/year pollutant emissions to water*
a @§$0.81 to $2.44/ton unit benefit (avoided water treatment cost) = $44,000/year

= Avoided future land disturbance & future natural resource extraction:

a Avoid harvesting (logging) trees for pulpwood:
. (12 mill tons waste/yr) x (45.4% paper**) x (14 trees/ton***) = 76 mill. trees/year equivalent avoided harvested
. (76 mill. trees/year) x (1 acre pulpwood fores per 400 trees*****) = 190,000 acres/year avoided forests harvested

a Avoid mining land for metal ores = 187 to 336 million tons/year mining hidden flows avoided
. Total metals: (12 mill.tons/yr) x (35.4% metals**) = 4.2 mill.tons/year recycled metals
. Ferrous metals: (4.2 mill.tons/year) x (72%**) x (48.4 tons hidden flows/ton ore****) = 146 mill.tons
. Aluminum: (4.2 mill.tons/year) x (13%**) x (59.8 tons hidden flows/ton ore****) = 33 mill.tons
. Other metals: (4.2 mill.tons/year) x (15%**) x (12 to 249 tons h.flows/ton ore****) = 8 to 157 mill.tons

*Source: Based on USEPA Office of Research & Development life-cycle inventory emissions multipliers in 22 Nov 2002 Tellus Institute memo to
OSW (Scott Palmer):

** Source: EPA-530-R-02-001, Table 6, p.43, June 2002,

hitp:/www.epa.goviepaoswer/non -hw/muncpl/msw99,.htm
*** Source: Ratio recycled paper type (EPA-530-R-02-001, June 2002, Table 4, p.36) of 80% groundwood paper @24trees/ton & 20%non-GW paper
@12 trees/ton trom: http /iwww conservatree.org/learn/Enviro_lssues/TreeStats shim!

** Source: Artti Juutinen, "Industrial Ecology of the Metal Sector", Table 1, 2000,
Hidden flows = all material flows needed in metals mining & processing based ona life-cycle inventory approach.
**Source: trees/acre recycled paper equivalency from:

71



EE EEO OE
e @ @

Municipality MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont’d)
Municipality MSW Recycling Rates Compared to Dropoff Site Density (Measure #1 of 2)

e

Zz 60%

z

% 50%

oO ‘Oo

= b o

4 40% ° o Oo

na °

D ue memescon

£ 30% fs ee —— ee

a o° ee

bs _—

x 20% a

= aS

a

= 10%

8

o

SZ 0%

8

S 0 1 2 3 4

City Population Per Recycling Dropoff Site
Millions
R-square = 0.13 # pts = 22
y = 0.013x‘0.213

108



| As of 2000, 13 States Lack Knowledge (Data) About
Fraction of Population Served by Recycling Programs

a Arkansas (na) a Montana (na)

a Colorado (n/a) a Ohio (232)

a DC (1) a South Dakota (na)
a Georgia (459) = Tennessee (na)

a Idaho (20) a Utah (7)

m Louisiana (25) a West Virginia (51)
a Missouri (177)

Source: BioCycle magazine, Dec 2001, Table 6, p.47
Na = data not available from state in 2001 survey.

Numbers in parentheses indicate count of state curbside recycling programs (year 2000).

49


State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots

State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to State Population Densities

_ 0%
co)
3
S 60% bs
@
S
3 50%
a 3
Vy
3 4% boo»
a > So °
y 2 ° avons nepnette tele omg
5 Po rN ©. gyeemngg omen -_
3 20% rs .
o ° 6 3
3 10% Loo 3
= °
0%
0 200 400 600 300 "00 oo

Population density (1997 people per square miles land area)

R-square = 0.0135 # pts = 44
y = 0.22e40.000377x

1



|

International MSW Recycling Ideologies: Two Contrasting Examples

= Pro (Japan): In June 2000, the Government of Japan began implementing
“The Basic Plan for Establishing a Recycling-Based Society’, providing a
10-year program to promote comprehensive and systematic policies aimed
at changing unsustainable patterns of production and consumption: “to
reduce the amount of resources that are removed from nature as much as
possible, and to reduce the amount of things that are finally discarded in
nature as much as possible by inputting things once used in society as
recycled resources.” [http:/Awww.env.go.jp/recycle/circul/kihonho/law-e. pdf].

= Con (Sweden): In Nov 1999, the Swedish Government Finance Department
published a report titled “Recycling: Not Worth The Effort’, which concluded:
‘The social value of recycling beyond the level motivated by market forces
rests solely on its positive contribution towards environmental standards, or
to sustainability if depletion is a problem. Environmental evaluations reveal
that paper burning and glass and metal landfilling, for example, are superior
to recycling in environmental terms, so the net effect of additional recycling
of these waste flows is detrimental to the environment. Cost-effective
policies to improve environmental conditions should aim at directly
enhancing these conditions, and only in rare cases would recycling across
the board emerge as an efficient policy tool”
[http://finans.regeringen.se/eso/PDF/ds99_66.pdf].

@ @ e


OSW MSW RECYCLING POLICY
ISSUE:

Is OSW’s Year 2005 GPRA National Goal of
35% MSW Recycling Achievable?



Number of Curbside Recycling Programs Per State

Count of Curbside Recycling Programs Per State

° 2) ° ro)
q - =

(e}ep/M 1€10) Gy=U) SAIEIS Jo IUNDD

O0Sb 9} OSPL<
OSrl 9 00PL<
OOP 9} OSEL<
OSEL 9} O0EL<
O0CL 9} OSZL<
OSZL 9 00ZL<
00Zb 9} OSLL<
OSL 9} OOLL<
OOLL } OSOL<
OSOL 0} 000L<
000} 9) 0S6<
0S6 9} 006<
006 0} 0S8<
0S8 03 008<
008 9} OSZ<
0SZ ©} 002<
002 9} OS9<
0S9 93 009<
009 ©} OSs<
OSS 0} 00S<
00S 9} 0SP<
OS 9} 00P<
00r 9} OSe<
OSE 3 00E<
O0E 93 OS7<
OSZ 9} 002<
002 93 OSL<
OS} 9} 00L<
OOF 0} 0S<

0S 040

Count of Curbside Recycling Programs Per State (1999 BioCycle)

46



eee

; ; « 29 444
| 2D.1 Estimate of Recycling “Net Cost” (Pooled Data from 30 Cities)
Pooled Data (3 data sets): MSW Recycling “Net Cost" (Collection Cost + MRF Processing Cost - Material Revenues)
A. Reference Data: Normalized to 2002$:
A B Cc D E (DIB) F(B+C-D) G A 7 J K L MN (K+L-M) O(K+L)
Recycling RecyclingMaterials Revenue Recycting Recycling Recycling Materials Recycling Recycling
Data rogram costprocessingrevenues offset net cost Data Data rogram cos processing revenues net cost total cost
item ($tton) (Son) __($/ton)_ percentage _($/ton)__year Data source Type item $/ton) ($/ton) ($/ton)__($/ton) ($iton)
1 $73.00 $14.00 $9.07 12.4% $77.93 1996$ EPA-530-R-99-013 Curb+dropoff] 1 $82.57 $15.84 $10.26 $88 $98.41
2 $38.72 included $7.98 20.6% $30.74 1996$ EPA-530-R-99-013 Curbtdropoff] 2 $9.03
3 $46.00 $55.00 $4.81 10.5% $96.19 1996$  EPA-530-R-99-013 Curb+dropoff] 3 $52.03 $62.21 $5.44 $109 $114.24
4 $88.91 $100.00 $17.01 19.1% $171.90 1996$ EPA-530-R-99-013 Curb+dropoff] 4 $100.57 $113.11 $19.24 $194 $213.68
5 $51.29 unknown $16.99 . 33.1% $34.30 1996$ EPA-530-R-99-013 Curb+dropoff} 5 $58.02 $19.22 $39 $58.02
6 $128.00 unknown $10.61 8.3% $117.39 1996$ EPA-530-R-99-013 Curb+dropoff] 6 $144.78 $12.00 $133 $144.78
7 $118.00 $42.00 $1265 10.7% $147.35 1996$ EPA-530-R-99-013 Curbtdropoff]| 7 $133.47 $47.51 $14.31 $167 $180.98
8 $196.00 included $14.64 7.5% $181.36 1996$ EPA-530-R-99-013 Curb+dropoff] 8 $16.56
9 $36.00 excluded $36.00 100.0% $0.00 1993$ EPA-G600-R-95-109 Dropoff 9 $43.53 $33 $43.53 $33 $76.34
10 $17.16 excluded $17.16 100.0% $0.00 1993$ EPA-G600-R-95-109 Dropoff 10 $20.75 $33 $20.75 $33 $53.55
4 $23.99 excluded $23.99 100.0% $0.00 1993$ EPA-600-R-95-109 Dropoff "1 $29.01 $33 $29.01 $33 $61.81
12 $4.94 excluded $4.94 100.0% $0.00 1993$ EPA-G00-R-95-109 Dropoff 12 $5.97 $33 $5.97 $33 $38.78
3 $4.22 excluded $4.22 100.0% $0.00 1993$ . EPA-600-R-95-109 Dropoff 13 $5.10 $33 $5.10 $33 $37.91
14 $7.71 excluded $7.71 100.0% $0.00 1993$ EPA-600-R-95-109 Dropoff 14 $9.32 $33 $9.32 $33 $42.13
1S $4.13 excluded $4.13 100.0% $0.00 1993$ - EPA-600-R-95-109 Dropoff 15 $4.99 $33 $4.99 $33 $37.80
16 $3 excluded $0.01 0.5% $2.69 2002$ Naste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff:
7 $187 excluded $18.91 10.1% $168.33 2002$ Waste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff] 16 $187 $33 $18.91 $201 $220.04
18 $64 excluded $2.49 3.9% $61.36 2002$ Naste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff] 17 $64 $33 $2.49 $94 $96.65
19 $210 excluded $2.46 1.2% $207.65 2002$ Naste News Feb 2003 Curbtdropoff| 18 $210 $33 $2.46 $240, $242.91
20 $17 excluded $1.00 5.8% $16.35 2002$ Naste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff} 19 $17 $33 $1.00 $49 $50.16
21 $98 excluded $26.84 27.3% $71.58 2002$ Naste News Feb 2003 Curbtdropoff| 20 $98 $33 $26.84 $104 $131.22
22 $12 excluded $3.53 28.2% $8.96 2002$ Naste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff} 21 $12 $33 $3.53 $42 $45.29
23 $41 excluded $37.66 91.6% $3.44 2002$ Waste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff| 22 $41 $33 $37.66 $36 $73.90
24 $135 excluded $0.58 0.4% $134.05 2002$ Waste News Feb 2003 Curbtdropoff] 23 $135 $33 $0.58 $167 $167.43
25 $92 excluded $4.33 4.7% $87.53 2002$ Naste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff] 24 $92 $33 $4.33 $120 $124.67
26 $34 excluded $0.04 0.1% $34.43 2002$ Naste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff} 25 $34 $33 $0.04 $67 $67.28
27 $84 excluded $13.04 15.5% $70.88 2002$ Waste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff} 26 $84 $33 $13.04 $104 $116.72
28 $124 excluded $17.11 13.8% $107.33 2002$ Waste News Feb 2003 Curb+dropoff] 27 $124 $33 $17.11 $140 $157.24
29 $120 excluded $44.45 36.9% $76.01 2002$ Waste News Feb 2003 Curbtdropoff] 28 $120 $33 $44.45 $109 $153.27 |
30 $167 excluded $32.10 19.2% $134.95 _2002$ Naste News Feb 2003 Curbtdropoff] 29 $167 $33 $32.10 $168 $199.85° !
Min= $2.71 $0.01 0.1% $0.00 Min = $5 $16 $0.04 $33 $38
Max = $210.11 $44.45 100.0% $207.65 Max= $210 $113 $44 $240 $243
Median = $57.57 $9.84 §7% % $66.12. Median = ...$64 % $12
Mean = $74.27 $13.22 36.0% $68.09 Mean $77 $
Std.dev =
Median -1SD



2D.6
Role of Recycling in Environmental Protection

“Even as we applaud the desirability of the recycling movemert, it
is nonetheless true that it has become a symbolic act of political
correctness that in some cases convinces individuals, firms,
interest groups, and government entities that they are doing all
they need to do for the environment. In this sense, [recycling] can
serve as somewhat of an “inoculation” against catching the fully
virulent contagious form of environmentalism... Putting all faith
and energies into recycling, since that de facto allows a full-scale
embrace of the consumer society, might allow us to be lulled
dangerously to sleep at a time when the appropriate action might
be to adjust or cancel an action at the outset. The mindset which
urges us to $0 ahead and do it, and we'll simply recycle all
materials” will be patently inadequate, even with the most
comprehensive of recycling plans... In summary, recycling is
vitally important, but viewed in this manner it reminds us that
it is merely a necessary but partial solution to the jigsaw
puzzle of sustainability.”

Source: “Recycling in Theory and Practice”, Chapter 5 in Reuniting Economy & Ecology in
Sustainable Development, Russ Beaton & Chris Maser, Lewis Publishers, 1999, pp.73-84; 86
http:/Avww.chrismaser.com/bk-reesd.htm



Exploratory Study

Assessment of OSW’s 35%
Municipal Solid Waste Recycling
National GPRA Goal for 2005

Mark Eads, Economist (703-308-8615; eads.mark@epa.gov)
Economics, Methods & Risk Analysis Division
Office of Solid Waste
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mailstop 5307W
Washington DC 20460 USA
05 Sept 2003



Neen eee eee ee

Exploratory Comparison Between Average Recycling Cost ($/ton)
& Municipal Land Area (n=19 municipality sample 2001)

Municipal Recycling Costs Compared to Municipal Land Area
Source: Based on analysis of 19 city year 2001 data from Waste News magazine annual “Municipal Recycling Survey”
$250
$200 °
5 }
3 5 °
B
8 $150
2 °
3 ° °
a
@ $100 3 ~~ <= —
a © ° we one
2 ye an °
3S $50 —=
= ° ° °
“ >
} °
$0 a
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Municipal Land Area (Square Miles)
R-square = 0.0434 #pts = 19
y = 13.5x40.288



Summary

OSW's RCRA solid waste authority assigns resource recovery (e.g. waste recycling) responsibilities

to state government planning (i.e. RCRA Subtitle D resource recovery), and to the US Dept of
Commerce (i.e. RCRA Subtitle E development of materials recovery technologies & commercial
markets). However, in 1988, OSW challenged the nation to recycle 25% of MSW by 1992, and in
1996 proposed a 35% goal for 2005. The purpose of this exploratory study is to assess the feasibility
and economics of achieving the 35% goal relative to the 2000 national MSW recycling baseline of
30% to 32% (i.e. 70 to 130 million tons recycled of 232 to 409 million tons generated, respectively),
using existing published data on US state- and US city-wide MSW recycling performance measures.

As of 2000, state MSW recycling rates ranged from 1% (OK) to 59% (DE), and the 25 largest US
cities ranged from 2% (Dallas) to 56% (San Francisco). Statewide MSW curbside recycling program
population coverage ranged from 0% (AK) to 100% (CT), averaging 52% of the US population.

Based on +/-1 standard deviation statistical intervals from a pooled data sample of 30 city-wide MSW
recycling program costs (@$35 to $162/ton), and five recycling benefit categories (@$226 to
$544/ton), this study estimates that an incremental $420 to $1,900 million in annual cost is needed to
recycle an additional 12 million tons/year of MSW to reach the 35% goal, which would generate $2.3
to $4.6 billion in additional annual net benefits, representing a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 3.4 to 6.4.

This study projects an economically-beneficial recycling “net cost” threshold of 225$/ton (for
minimum BCR =1), and projects a future potential national MSW recycling rate ranging between 40%
to 45% based on meeting current unmet statewide goals, to 46% to 49% from expanded program
coverage to all large + small urban populations.

4


Exploratory Comparison Between Average Recycling Cost ($/ton)
& Annual Quantity Recycled (n=19 municipality sample 2001)

Municipal Recycling Cost ($/ton) Compared to Annual Quantity MSW Recycled
Source: Based on analysis of 19 city year 2001 data from Waste News magazine annual “Municipal Recycling Survey”

$250

sz00 P.

$150

Municipal Recycling Cost ($/ton)

$100
°
$50
7 _ ania 2 saint 2 “ve
$o j
t) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Annual Quantity MSW Recycted by Municipality (2001)

Millions

R-square = 0.403 #pts = 19
y = 8.56e+003x4-0.444

113



MSW Recycling Rates for 25 Most Populous US
| Municipalities (2001/2002)

. San Francisco
. Chicago

. San Diego

. San Jose

. Los Angeles
. Philadelphia
. Seattle

. New York

. Jacksonville
10. Austin

11. Baltimore
12. Milwaukee
13. Memphis

OONDAAWN

R+C
48.0%
NA
44.0%
42.0%
NA
38.5%
37.9%
35.7%
33.0%
NA
28.7%
NA
NA

R
38.0%
44.3%
NA
NA
39.0%
5.5%
48.5%
19.8%
35.0%
29.5%
NA
26.8%
25.6%

Source: Waste News, 17 Feb 2003.
NA = not available.

Cc
56.0%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
36.7%
44.0%
43.0%
NA
NA
NA
NA

14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

25

R = residential recycling rate

Phoenix
Wash DC
Columbus
Boston
Indianapolis
San Antonio
Detroit
Nashville
Houston
Denver

EI Paso

. Dallas

R+C
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.0%
NA
NA
2.5%
NA

R
21.0%
18.2%
13.0%
13.0%
11.8%
10.1%
7.2%
8.0%
7.0%
6.7%
NA
2.2%

C = commercial recycling rate

Cc

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

34



cee a

State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)

MSW Recycling Rate (Biocycle 2000)

70%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to Land Area Per Recycling Establishment

oe
2 co
oe”
08 o% ° °
D e > oS
Rann Orem 2
%® o>

Y oS

°

LQ
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
State Land Area Per Recycling Establishment (square miles per 1997 facility)
Thousands

R-square = 0.00517 #pts=43
y = 0.316x"-0.0377
Data in this graph exclude Alaska (1 recycling establishment)

93



Appendices A & B: Exploratory X-Y Statistical Plots

= Recycling infrastructure indicators: The following graphs display X-
Y data plots of recycling rates and recycling costs ($/ton),
compared to recycling infrastructure indicators (e.g. coverage,
participation) for states and municipalities:

a Measures of population & population density served by recycling
programs/facilities

a Measures of land area & count of municipalities served
a Recycling budgets
a Measures of households served

= Indicator associations: Best-fit data curves are displayed for each
X-Y plot to test “goodness-of-fit” between recycling rates/costs and
infrastructure indicators, based on four alternative mathematical
formulations (linear, logarithmic, exponential, power). Data curves
are tests for degree of statistical associations, not for causality.

88



Secondary Information Sources Consulted/Collected

Sources: Categories:
= MISWD staff = Peer-reviewed academic

journal articles
Recycling news
Trade/industry magazines

= Franklin Associates
= EMRAD staff

= OSW Regional EPA reports
Implementation Team White papers (e.g. local/state

(RIT) conference call  9ovt's, NGOs)
= Internet search = State technical guidance

. a Case studies (e.g. cities,
» EPA HQ library recovered material markets)

a Interlibrary loans US regional studies (e.g. NE)
s International items

16



2C.1
MSW Recycling Costs



State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont’d)

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%

20%

2000 MSW Recycling Rate

=
3

State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to Prevalence of Curbside Recycling Programs (measure #3 of 4)

0% 2

o—
°

x

im 05 ©

LP “> eo 6

bo

of ° a ee - @.
© o ° ee

o_o v Ma °

200

100 250

Number of State Households Per Curbside Recycling Program
Thousands

R-square = 0.107 #pts = 42
y = 0.627 + -0.0359(Inx)

100



2D.2
National MSW Recycling Rate Potential for Year 2010, Implied by
33.2 Million Tons/Year Unmet & Future State Recycling Goals

Franklin Associates data) BioCycle magazine data:
a 69.9 million tons/year ws 130.5 million tons/year

MSW recycled (2000) MSW recycled (2000)

a 69.9 + 33.2 = 103.1 a 130.5 + 33.2 = 163.7
MTY MSW recycling MTY MSW recycling
potential year 2010 potential year 2010

w (103.1 MTY m (163.7 MTY
recycled)/(231.9 MTY recycled)/(409.0 MTY
MSW generated in MSW generated in
2000) = 45% 2000) = 40%

79



Examples of Recent Developments Which May Increase the Near-
Future MSW Recycling Rate

Recycling (Materials) Supply Factors:
= — In 2002, the Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County implemented a single-stream curbside recycling
program to raise the city’s 8% recycling rate to 25% by 2004.

= In 2003, Seattle Public Utilities launched a program to increase multi-family recycling from 22% (2001) to 37% in 2008.

=» NY enacted a law May 2003 to clean-up scrap tires & encourage markets for recycling, and created a fee ($2.5 per
new tire sold) to fund tire recycling.

Recycling (Materials) Demand Factors:
= = In 2003, Waste Management Inc formed the new recycling organization “Recycle America Alliance”

{hitp:/iwanw recycleamencaalliance com), to combine assets and operations with other domestic recycling processors
and marketers; s first partner is The Peltz Group (Milwaukee WI), the largest privately owned US recycler.

= The US paper industry (AF&PA) decided in 2002 to boost the recovered fiber recycling rate from 48% (current) to 55%
in 2012, by collecting more used paper from offices and schools.

= Starting in 1999, Albertson's US grocery chain (2,300 stores) is pushing its suppliers to use non-waxcoated boxes to
boost box recycling beyond 85%.

= In 2003 the California State Senate Appropriations Committee approved a bill that would require electronics
manufacturers to develop and finance a free and convenient system to recycle end-of-life electronics. As of May 2003,
26 states introduced 52 bills on electronics recycling, according to State Recycling Laws Update from Raymon
Communications, Inc. (http://www.raymond.com/state/).

= In June 2003 the New York State Assembly passed a bill (147-0) requiring the recycling of wireless phones.

= Waste Management Inc. decided in 2003 to open a second plastic bottle recycling facility in Chicago in 2004 that will
handle 100 million pounds of plastic a year, duplicating a plant in North Carolina that started operating early last year.

a China’s demand for US exports of recovered paper fiber projected to grow from 1 million (1995) to 6 million tons (2003)
40



21% Rural Population: Economically-Beneficial MSW Recycling
May Require Population Density to Avoid High Collection Costs
Distribution of State Rural Populations
(Year 2000 US National Average Urban:to:Rural Population = 79%:to:21%)
10
9
9
5 8
is}
= 7
wo
& 6
8 5
£
oO 4
3
€ 3
>
8 2
1
° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x ss ss ss s& SF 38 SF SF SF SF SF SF SF CF SF F€ EF CK
* © & 2 &§ 8 8 8 $8 8 8 8 & & B BB BB
£222 2222 2 2 282 82 8 seg eex2ee?e F
S 2x 2 8 8 8 8 8 8 BF FF SF FB EF BF 8 BF BF
io ° ro) o oc ® & © ® °° » oO b S&S h & 8
‘Se FR RR RFR RRR ER RRR B
Percent of State Population Which is Rural (Year 2000)
(Rural = Population Residing in Places With <2,500 Population)



2C. Benefit-Cost Analysis of 35% Goal

2C.1 Recycling Costs
2C.2 Recycling Benefits

2C.3 Recycling Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR)
2C.4 Recycling Impact on National Employment

57



Large & Medium Cities (“Urban Areas” >50,000 Population) in
State Served by MSW Recycling Programs (2000)

Large & Medium Cities Served by MSW Recycling Programs

nN
a

39 w/data)
NS
i~]

=
a

10

Count of States (n

0% to 5%

>5% to 10%
>10% to 15% |
>25% to 30% |
>30% to 35%
>35% to 40%
>40% to 45%
>45% to 50% |
>60% to 65%
>70% to 75%
>75% to 80%
>85% to 90%
>90% to 95%

>95% to 100%

Percentage of Large & Medium City Populations in State Served by MSW Recycling Programs

Source: Based on curbside population served from BioCycle magazine, Dec 2001, Table 6, p.47, supplemented by up to 10% dropoff estimate.

53



2D.4
Sample of Opinions on Maximum Recycling Rates

1990 opinion: Institute for Local Self-Reliance: From “Beyond 40 Percent: Record-Setting Recycling &
Composting Programs” (1990): “When our first volume ‘Beyond 25 Percent’ was published in May 1989,
only 33% of the 15 best recycling and composting programs were recovering more than 40% of their waste
streams. Of the 17 programs in this study concluded only one year later, 60% are recovering 40% or
more... All the programs documented in this report -- even the best — can increase their materials recovery
levels.”

1997 opinion: Finnish Forest Research Institute: “A Post-Consumer Waste Management Model for
Determining Optimal Levels of Recycling & Landfilling” (1997): “The present study examines the optimal
recycling rate for MSW. The benefits from recycling are included in the simulation using the results of a
recent contingent valuation study. The results of the present research Suggest that mandates achievin

50% recycling in municipalities are not far-fetched and are both economically and environmentally justified.”

1999 opinion: City of Los Angeles Solid Resources Collection Division: “Los Angeles recently conducted a
study that indicated recyclable materials comprised 40% of the total [Los Angeles] waste stream... We
know it's not possible to recycle the entire 40%, but we’re confident we can reach a 30% residential
recycling rate.”

1999 opinion: New York City Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse & Recycling: “People are beginning to
see that 25% may be a limit for cities... It’s a different situation in, say, Seattle, where there is an
enormous amount of yard waste; when you look at what's available in a residential sector's trash and what
has a market, you’re looking at an upper limit close to 25%.”

2003 opinion: Franklin Assoc.: From “Recycling — Is 50% A Reasonable Goal?’ (2003): “[Wle believe it will
not be possible to reach a 50% recovery rate by 2010 without draconian measures... If some products
generated in large quantities (i.e. yard trimmings, food wastes, mixed papers) could be pushed to higher
recovery levels, 40% might be achieved with a good deal of effort.”



State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont’d)

State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to State Land Area

70%
Se 60%
[=]
oS
N
2 50%
oO
s >
40% 3 2 3° = °
8 @ o%? °
XL 399 es
> 30% | -2e- Ma
3 aA See
3 20% 2s ~ a
ia & °
B 10% 2 O55 S
= °

EO — —

0 100 200 300 400 500 600
1997 State Land Area (square miles)

Thousands

R-square = 0.111 #pts = 45
y = 0.638 + -0.0347(Inx)



ion Coverage

tion

State Popula

MSW Recycling Services

Percentage of State Population Served by Curbside & Dropoff Recycling

—
|
_——

oy + o n

(ejepmm sajeis ge = u) Sajeig Jo yUNED

%S1 OF %OL<

WOOL OF %SE<

SE 01 %06<

06 93 %SB<

SB O %OB<

%0B 0} WSL<

WSL WAIL

WOLF WEI<

WEI} WOI<

%09 0} %SS<

SS OF %OS<

HOS OF %S¥<

Sd 8 %OV<

OP OF %SE<

Percentage of State Population Served by Curbside Recycling

RSE 8 YOE<

WE 08 YSZ<

YSZ 3 YOZ<

YZ 3 %Sb<

OL OF %S<

%S OF %0

‘Source: OSW estimate based on curbside recycing poputation coverage from BioCyde magazine, Dec 2001, Table 6, p.47, supplemented with additonal 10% dropotl assumption,

47



eT eee

Exploratory Comparison Between Average Recycling Cost ($/ton)
& Municipal Population (n=17 municipality sample 1996)

Comparison of Total Recycling Cost ($/ton) With Muncipal Population
(Based on 17 municipalities ranging 1,908 to 873,300 population (1996); source: EPA-530-R-99-013, June 1999)
$250
g
o
3
= $200 s 2
aod Io ae
ey ese
g
° a
8 $150 — =
2 ° ee
3 ° asm °
5 ° o | °
= $100 eee
g 1
Oo
2 °
5
2 2

g@ $60
g
2

$0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
Municipal Population
Thousands
R-square = 0.331 #pts=17
y = 89.9 + 0.00012x

117

@ $ ®



Table of Contents

Summary 4
|. OSW MSW Recycling Policy Issue: 5
a MSW Management Big Picture 6
Q Recycling Historical Trend in US 7
| Q International Recycling Benchmarks 11
ll. Assessment of MSW Recycling: 14
a Issue #1: Recycling Rate Measurement 17
a Issue #2: Recycling Rate Stimulation
22
a 2A. Recycling Baseline (year 2000) 24
a 2B. Recycling Infrastructure 43
a 2C. Benefit-Cost Analysis of 35% Recycling Goal 57
a 2D. Potential for Recycling Beyond 35% 76
Appendices: 87
A: State Recycling Rates & Infrastructure (exploratory X-Y graphs) 89
B: Municipal Recycling Rates & Infrastructure (exploratory X-Y graphs) 103
C: Four Alternative Study Plan Options for This Assessment 118

eee


NE eeeeEeEeeeeeeEeeeeeeOEL
e e ®

Municipality MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)

Municipality MSW Recycling Rates Compared to City Recycling Budget
we 60%
=
®
z
Ly
2 50% rs
O
= $6 °
@ 40% > = =
e © ae
2 30% |° =
o © > oe cn enn
8 —_ a
° ae
= 20% |- 2
a
= ° °°
wn 10% d
3 oo 0°
Q
S 0% —
s 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percentage of City Solid Waste Budget for Recycling |
R-square = 0.146 #pts = 18
y = 0.18 + 0.447x

110



ee eee
@ e @

National Annual Recycling Benefit Category #4

= Benefit #4: Energy: Net reduction (savings) in upstream & downstream
lifecycle manufacturing energy consumption, through substitution of recycled
for virgin materials (source: Denison, 1996, p.213, based on 1994 Franklin

Assoc Btu multiplier):

a (12.0 million tons/year) x (18.326 million Btus/ton) =
220,000,000 million Btus/year*
(0.220 quad* Btus = 37.8 million barrels crude oil equivalency**)

Q @$8.41/million Btu, the additional savings = $1,850 million/year

* Does not include net energy change from the recycling collection/processing compared to garbage collection with
landfilling or incineration, to avoid double-counting with unit costs of Benefit #2 compared to recycling unit costs.
Recycling collection + MRF processing or recycla les consumes 1.525 million Btus per ton of MSW managed,
compared to 0.527 million Btus per ton for MSW garbage collection + landfilling; source: Denison, 1996, p.213).

** 4 quad Btu = 1 quadtrillion Btus = 1 x 10E15 Btus (172.4 million barrels crude oil energy equivalency). US consumed
99.315 quads energy in 2000, consisting of 38.404 quads from crude oil & gas lant liquids (6.62 billion barrels/year
or 181 ow barrels/day), of which 26.046 quads crude oil imported (2.130 billion barrets, or 5.84 million

arrels/day).

70



ee

2B.3
xploratory Statistical Comparisons of Statewide & City MSW Recycling
Rates & Recycling Infrastructure (see graphs in Appendices)

The following are the apparent strongest statistical (X-Y plot) associations exhibited
for possible drivers behind MSW recycling rates & costs (negative sign
indicates inverse association; % is trendline fit to data displayed in Appendices)

a State Recycling Infrastructure Comparisons (based on 1 data set):
a 51%: Recycling rate compared to state count of incorporated places divided by state count of
recycling programs (-)
a 35% Recycling rate compared to state recycling budget per capita (+)
a 35%: Recycling rate compared to state land area divided by state count of recycling programs (-)
a 34%: Recycling rate compared to state population divided by state count recycling programs (-)

a Municipality Recycling Infrastructure Comparisons (based on 2 data sets):
40%: Recycling cost ($/ton) compared to annual quantity MSW recycled by municipality (-)
33%: Recycling cost ($/ton) compared to municipal population (+)

21%: Recycling rate compared to municipal population density (per square mile) (+)

19%: Recycling cost (&/ton) compared to municipal population density (-)

19%: Recycling cost ($/ton) compared to municipal recycling rate (-)

17%: Recycling rate compared to municipal gov’t budget per-capita spending on recycling
programs (+)

15%: Recycling rate compared to percentage of municipal budget spent on recycling programs (+)

ococcoce

oO

56



ee

Municipality MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots

Municipal Recycling Rates Compared to Municipal Population
a Top-25 Most Populous US Cities
o
= 60%
7)
N
S 509
x 50% 3
Zz 40% > S > —= ae
2 ee _—— °
& , ° —
Ss 30% F —
@ 3 ee
S _—-
a 20% =
= é
3 10% | 2%
2 f o © re
"9 °
= 0%
= 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Municipal Population (2000 Census)
Millions
R-square = 0.111 #pts =25
y = -0.774 + 0.0732(Inx)

105



Summary of State MSW Recycling Goals

State MSW Recycling Goals as of Year 2000 (37 states + DC)

15

14

Count of States With MSW Recycling Goal

25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 65% 70%
State MSW Recycling Goal

Source: BioCycle magazine, Dec 2001, Table 14, page 54.

30 |



MSW Recycling Rates for States (2000)

1. DE 59% 13. IN 35% 24. IL 28% 35. AZ 17%
2. AR 45% 14. WA 35% 25.NC 26% 36.LA17%
3. NY 42% 15. TX 35% 26.WV 25% 37.MS 16%
4. CA 42% 16. IA 35% 27. RI 24% 38. NV 14%
5. MN 42% 17. TN 34% 28. HI 24% 39. ND 11%
6. ME 40% 18. PA 33% 29. AL 23% 40. WY 10%
7. OR 39% 19. VT 33% 30.NE 23%  41.NM 9%
8. NJ 38% 20. SC 31% 31.CT 23%  42.CO9%
9. MA 38% 21. KY 30% 32.NH21% 43. KS 9%
10.MO 38% 22.VA29% 33.0H 21% 44. AK 8%
11.MD 37% 23.FL28% 34. MI 18% 45. UT 5%
12. WI 36% 46. OK 1%
Source: BioCycle magazine, Dec 2001, Data not available from source for GA, ID,
Table 3, page 45 MT, SD

Note: states vary in what they include
(measure) in their recycling rates.



Municipality MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)

Municipality MSW Recycling Rates Compared to City Recycling Dropoff Density (Measure #2 of 2)
—~ 60%
a
5
2 %e
2 50% b
ze feo
2 40% oo >
x > se
© 309
3 30% © ° a
3 °
20% Oe
@ ©
8 10% Fe
& “ 9
8 o% \&
0 100 200 300 400 500
1996 Square Miles of City Land Area Per 2001/2002 Recycling Dropoff Site
R-square = 0.0401 #pts = 22
y = 0.151e%0.00183x

109



Historical Trends in Materials Recycling Categories

40-Year US Historical Trends in 11 Materials Recycling Categories

60.0%

Yard
+
Paper
°
Metals
~~
Glass
ray
Other
=
Textile
°
Rub/leath
~
Plastic
—
Wood
eo
Food
—~
Misc inorg
Cael

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

8

MSW Recycling (Recovery) Rate (Franklin Assoc)

0.0%

14960 1970 1980 1990 1995

38



en

refs

E fort

Who
perform
s work?

FTE
duraue

Data
Collects

Output

MSW
recyclin

8
poliey
questio
as
address
ed

National Goal for Municipal Solid W aste Recycling

OPTIO® 1D Minimum
datalanalyses

1 EMRAD in-house (Eads)

LE OMUESWD only transmits MSW
datatinfo matersals (reports,
memos, spreadsheets} to EMRAD

1 tio a weeks

to miswo stare

MISWD provides EMRAD with
relevant materials (e.g. EPA
reports, intermal memos, gray
literature. ete ). comcerning MSW
recycling tn general, and
concerning OSW % 35% goals
particular

S EMRAD drafts 10 10 20 page
briefing package containing
taventory of information sources,
data gaps. possible conclusions
about 35% goal. and list of
options for expanded economic
analyses

ToMISWD reviews/ edits
package

1 EMRAD & MISWD present
briefing to OSW management for
decision about next step options

L What is orsgin/tationale behind
OSW's 38% goal?

1 What analytic options does
OSW have lo evaluate the 35%
goal?

@PTION 2 Enhanced
Oatavanalysig

{ EMRAD in-house (Eads)

! MISWD supports EMRAD
throwgh in-house Coam meetings
wath EMRAD to inform/stecr data
collection and analysis

| 4 tok weeks tdepends upon

Level of data and info details
discoveredidesired)

1 EMRAD & MISWD staff
(A) EMRAD conducts verbal
tateriews with MISWD staff to
collect taformation on prior MSW
reeveling topres in general, and on
OSW's 35% goal in particular
(eg preor stakeholder meetings,
prior conference calls with
regions/ states, prior internal
analyses. prior EPA studies. and
prior published or gray literature
studies by academics, NGOS
states, munveipalrtics)

(RB) EMRAD participates in
vpcoming MISWD RIT
conference call (25 March) (1) to
desersbe OS W's new economies
analysis project options
concerning the 33% goal, and (2)
to leverage regions for feedback
suggestvons/ inputs (an opinion
poll approach)

1 EMRAD drafts 10 10 50 page
briefing package to present
vecbally to OSW management in
early of late April 2003 meeting
TOMISWDrecrews/ edits
package

{ Pachaye contains overview of
existing datavinfo & gaps, findings
about economic feasibility of 35%
Boal. and any next steps for OSW
management decision

1 1s the 35% goal economically
feasible?

Voi: there a more appropri
MSW recycling goal?
UW hat ore OSW's polrey options
for achieving 35% ( whieb
waste categories to target, how to
provide marhet encentives)?

te

OPTION 3 Expanded data
rescaech & analysis

EMRAD or contractor
performs warktasks

t MISWD supports EMRAD
on consultation basis such as
for deafting supplementary
pieces, and‘ac as WAM Cor
contractor

Fo wea 2 weeks

1 EMRAD in-house of
contractor

{A) Collect data as deseri
tn Option 2

(B) Search intermet and
published Isterature for
additional materials relevant
to MSW reeveling ceonomics

1 EMRAD 1a-house of
contractor

Prepare a draft briefing
package as described to

© plion 2, supplemented with
extramural datas information

1 What are the characteristics
of the US national MSW
recycling marhet(e g

Cons/y eat reeveled, count of
tecycling entities, waste types
teeyeled, recycled material
prices, recveling costs,
recycling budgets, regional of
majot muncerpal differences in
reeyeling marker}?

Itermative Approaches for Evaluating the Economic Feasibility (Benefits & Costs) of Achieving 35%

@PTION 4 National ceonomic
benefit-cost aoalysis

! actor performs all worktashs
{ EMRAD or MISWD directs!
reviews work a contractor WAM

1 16 10 3 weeks (or longer)

! Contractor

(Al Collect extant data per Option 3
(B) Collect mew data as necessary (e.g
survey <I entitves each of municipal
govt's. recycling companics. MSW
collector companies)

(C) Transfer at otherwise formulate
reasonable assumptions to plug data
BAPs (numerical sragle porat valucs or
numerical uncertainty canges)

1 Contractor

(A) Deliverable #1 Draft a
comprehensive report (109 to 300
pages) desceibing data sources
methodology, findings, and
recommendations of this study

(B) Deliverable #2 (optional) Drafia
10 Lo 50 page briefing package for use
by EMRAD and MISWD to present
the study (indings ané national policy
options 10 OSW management

1 W hatare nateomal aggregate annual

benefits & costs associated with

achieving the 35% goal?

1 W bat sre the disaggregate benefits

& costs (e g by waste category, dy
Se industry. by region, by major

munievpality). and assocrated feasible

contributron towards the 35% goal?

{ W hat are the Lechmical constraimis to

the 35% goal”

{ How many years may it taketo

achieve the 35% goal?

ee
social benefirsicosis?

119



Market Value of Pre-Processed Recyclable Materials Collected ($/ton)

Municipal Revenues (Market Value) for Collected Recyclable Materials
Pooled Data For 31 Communities Reporting >$0/ton From Three Studies: 1995, 1999, 2003

@ Median = $10/ton

Count of Municipalities Reporting Data

$45

$1 $5 $9 $13 $17 $21 $25 $29 $33 $37 $41
Average Revenue to Municipality (Market Value) for Recyclable Materials ($/ton)

Sources: (a) EPA-600-R-95-109 July 1995; (b) EPA-530-R-99-013 June 1999; (c) Waste News magazine 17 Feb 2003; all data normalized to 2002$

62



Ca

Exploratory Comparison Between Average Recycling Cost ($/ton)
& Municipal Household Density (n=17 municipality sample 1996)

Total Recycling Cost (excluding recovered material value offset)

$250

$200

$150

$100

”
&

2
°

Comparison of Total Recycling Costs ($/ton) to Household Density
(Based on 17 municipalities ranging 1,908 to 873,300 population (1996); source: EPA-530-R-99-013, June 1999)

2
° °
°
°
°
° 9 ° °
conan taming cee nett “
ne
°
°
2 %
°
500 1,000 4,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,800

Household Density (households per square mile)

R-square = 0.0222 # pts = 17
y = 63.5x*0.0673

116



Pei fing Penetration:
A 2 (10%xC/90%] _E (C+D). F (B/D) H(E/G) 1 (Gx it<s00%)[ K(G+s) LEM) M (xt)
"1 Bretyele OSW estimale ISW estimate - 7
~~ 2000 ‘curbside ‘of dropoff total recycling’ of poplt] Urbanized “% of UA UA poplin | Urbanized _ % of UAFUC UC poplin
housing 2000 population _ population population - served by| area 2 (UA) served by served by _feluster (UC), UA+UC served by | served by ve
i te units_population | served 2000" __10,0% served | recycling jon recycling recycling “| population “population . recycling | recycling | population _ % rural _ recycling
1 Alabama 1,963,711 4,447,100; 1,100,000 TEE ADE STR] A OUT DE BO 1,222,222] 524,465 2,465,673 49.6% ‘Of 1,981,427 44.6% 0.0%
2 Alaska 260,978 626,932 0 0 0 0.0% 277.670 0.0% of 133.587 411,257 0.0% 0) 215.675 34.4% 0.0%
3 Arizona «2,189,189 §,130,632 2,430,000 270,000 2,700,000. 52.6%/ 3,908,163, 69.1% 2.700.000] $15,372 4.623.535 59.7% 0) 607,097 11.8% 0.0%
4 Arkansas . 1,173,043, 860,747 $43,432) 1.4 1,269,221 47.5%
5 California 12,214,549 39,146,006 © 33,148,000 92.0%] 29.980.008 104.0% 29,980,008] 2.099688 31'280.00 97.4% 1,195,992] Nantes “Sex 0.0%
6 Colorado 1,808,097 3.212.849 9,238 3,222,087 4,079,174 25.1%
7 Connecticu 1,385,975 3,405,565 0 3,405,565: 100.0%] 2,848,497. 119.6% 2,848,497! 139,562 2,988,059 114.0% 139.562] 417,506 12.3% 100.0%
8 oC __ 274/845 531,032 531,032 44,027 7.2%
9 Delaware 343,072 4,000 444 4444 (0.6% 572,059 0.8% 4.444] 96,726 668,785 0.7% 0} 114.815 14.7% 0.0%
10. Flori 7,302,947 8,500,000 944,444 9.444.444 59.9%] 13,470,104 70.1% 9,444,444] 799,916 14,270,020 66.2% 0] 1,712,358 10.7% 0.0%
11 Georgia 3.281.737 5,010,117 854,046 §,864.163 2,322,200 28.4%
12 Hawaii 460,542 400,000 44,444 444,444 36.7% 935.912 63.2% ‘444aaa] 272.313 1.108.225” 40.1% 0] ‘103.312 85% = — 0.0%
13. Idaho 527.824 603,808 255,689 859.497 434,456 33.6%
14 Minois 4,885,645 8,051,000 894,556 8,945,556. 72.0%] 9,737,473 91.9% 8,945,556] 1,172,047 10,909,520 82.0% | 1,509.73 122% 0.0%
15. Indiana 2,532,319 4,170,000 463,333 4,633,333: 76.2%] 3,410,932" 135.8% 3,410,932] 893,079 4.304.011 107.7%: 893,079] 1.776.474 18.5%
16 lowa 4,232,591 1.983,000 220.333 2,203,333; 75.3%] 1,114,790 197.6% 1,114,790] 671,979: 1,786,769 123.3% 671,979] 1,130,555 36.6%
17 Kansas 4,131,200 1,223,000 135,889 1,358,889 © 50.5%| 1.207.832 112.5% 1.207.832] 712,837 1.920669 70.8% 151.057] 767,749. 0.0%
18 Kentucky 1,750,927 590,000 65.556 655,556 16.2%] 1,566,760 41.8%. 655,556] 687.040 2,253,800 29.1% 0) 1,787,969 0.0%
19 Louisiana 1,847,181 , 2,535,614) 710,051 3,245,665 4,223,311
20 Maine 651,901 487,000 54111 544411) 42.4%) 313.952) 172.4% 313,952]" 198,926 $12,878 105.5%” 198,928] 762.045 3.7%
2t Maryland 2,145,283 3.600,000 400,000 4,000,000 75.5%! 4.247.989 94.2% 4,000,000| 310.679 4,558,668 © 87.7% 0) 737.818 0.0%
22 Massachus 2.621.989 4,832,000 936,889 5,368,889 84.6%] 5,635,129 95.3% 5,368,889] 166.238 5,801,367 92.5% 0] _ sa7,730 0.0%
23 Michigan = 4,234.279 2.951.000 327.889 3,278,869' | 33.0%| 6,578,451, 49.8% 3.278.889] 641,006 7,419,457 44.2% | 0) 2,518,987 0.0%
24 Minnesota 2.065.946 4.919.479" 3.700.000 ainis1  attiit 83.6% 2,711,750) 151.6% 2.741,750| 778,308" 3.490.059 117.8% — 778,308] 1,429,420 43.4%
25 Mississippi 1,161,953 2,844,658 325,000 36.311 361.119 12.7%) 679,928 53.1% 36rt1i] 707,423 1.387.351 26.0% 0) 1.457.307 0.0%
26 Missouri 2.442.017 5.595.211 3,090,644 792,798 3,883,442 4,71.789
27 Montana 412,633 902,195 234,195, 253,683 487.878 414,317 45.9%
28 Nebraska «722,668 1,711,263 $00,000 55.556 555,556 32.5% 805.111 69.0% $55,556] 388,614 1,193,725 46.5% 0} 517.538 30.2% 0.0%
29° Nevada 827.457 1.998.287 1.622.000 180,222 1,802,222 90.2%| —1,676.309 107.5% 1,676,309] 152,337 1,828,645 «98.6% +—«125,913] 169.611 8.5% 0.0%
30 NewHamp: 547,024 1,235,786 511,000 56,778 567,778 45.9% 551.828 102.9% 951,828] 180.486 732,314 77.5% 15,950] 503.472 40.7% 0.0%
31 New Jersey 3,310,275 8.414.350 7.500.000. 633,333 8,333,333 99.0%] 7.753.792 107.5% 7.753.792] 185,295 7,939,087 108.0% 185,295] 475,263 5.6% 83.0%
32 New Mexic: 780.579 1,819,046 400,000 4a4dg 446444 24.4% 862.344" 51.5% 444.444] 501.157 1,363,501 32.6% 0) 455.545 25.0% 0.0%
33 New York 7.679.307 18,976,457 _17.230,000 O 17,230,000 90.8% 18,504,619 111.1% 18,504,619] 1.097.963 16,602,582 103.8% 1,097,963] 2.373.875 125% 26.4%
34 North Carol 3,523,944 8,049,313 3,500,000 388,889 3.888.889 48.3%} 3,760,871 103.4% 3.760.871] 1.088.611 4.849.482 802% 128,018] 3.199.891 398% 0.0%
35 North Dako 289.677 642,200 100,000 AAMT TBAT 17.3% 230,797 48.1% 114.111] (128,161 358.958 31.0% 0) 263.242 44.1% 0.0%
36 Ohio 4,783,051 11,353,140 7,311,293 1,473,036 8,782,329 2.570.811 22.6%
37 Oklahoma 1.514.400 3.450.654 1,057,000 117,444 1,174,444 34.0%] 1,483,638 79.2% 1,174,444] 770,925 2,254,563 52.1% 0} 1.196.091 34.7% 0.0%
38 Oregon 1,452,709 3,421,399 2.633.000 292,556 2.925.556 85.5%] 1.976.124 148.0% 1,976,124] 718,020 2,694,144 108.6% 718,020] 727.255 21.3% 31.8%
39 Pennsylvan 5.249.750 12,281,054 8,800,000. 977,778 9,777,778, 79.6%] 8,210,985 119.1% 8.210.985] 1,263,116 9.464.101 103.3% 1,253,116] 2.816.953 229% 11.1%
40 Rhodelsiat 439.837 1,048,319 890,000 98,889 988,889 94.3% 928.119 106.5% 928.119] "28,027 953.146 103.7% © -28,027| 95.173 9.1% 937.6%
41 SouthCaro 1.753670 4,012,012 1,676,000 186.222 1.862.222 46.4%] 1,873,821 99.4% 1,862.22] 553.303 2.427.124 76.7% a] 1,584,688 0.0%
42 SouthDake 323,208 754,844 194,584 196.843 391,427 363.417
43 Tennessee 2.439.443 5,689,283 2.984.722 655.296 3,620,018 2,069,265
44 Texas 8,157,575 20,851,820 5,000,000 $55,556 5,555,556 26.6%] 14,795,862 37.5% 5,555,556| 2,408,419 17,204,281 32.3% 0} 3.647.539 0.0%
45. Utan 768,594 2.233.169 1,748,080 222.264 1,970,344 262,825
46 Vermont 294,382 608.827 325,000 36111 364411 59.3% 105,365 342.7% 105,365] 127,083- 232,448 15.4% 127,083] 376.379 61.8% 34.2%
47 Virginia 2,904,192 7,078,515 1,144,000 127.111.271.111, 18.0%] 4,713,302 27.0% 1.271.111] 456,653 $,169,955 24.6% 0] 1,908,560 27.0% 0.0%
48 Washingtor 2.451.075 §,894.121 4,787,000 531,889 5.318.889 90.2%] 4,303,803 123.6% 4,303,803] 527,303 4.831.106 110.1% + $27,303] 1,063,015 18.0% 45.9%
49 West Virgir 844.623 1,808,344 312.427 320,353 832,780 975,564 53.9%
50 Wisconsin 2,321,144 5,363,675 3.173,000 382,556 3,525,556 65.7%] 2,842,494 124.0% 2,842,494] 824,149° 3,663,643 96.2% © 683,062] 1,700,032 31.7% 0.0%
S1_Wyoming ___223,854\ 493,782 20,000 2,222 22,222 4.5%| 6: 22,222| 195,423" 321,344 6.9% ol 172,438 34.9% __0.0%
United States 115,904,641 261,421,906 109,765,565 9,776,000 149,541,565] 63.1% 136,594,292 |29,624,033 221,948,757 8,915,653) 89,473,148 21.1% 1.4%
49.7% 3.5% 53.1% 10.5% 78.9% 5,419,776 REASON 21.1% 853,775
Bureau of Census definitions: UA = contiguous census block groups usually >1,000 ppsm & together >50,000 total population; UC = block groups usually <1,000 ppsm & together 2.500 to 60,000 total population. au



Regional Summary of <35% Recycling Rate States

EPA Region Nr.states Nr.<35% %lagging
a | (Boston) 6 4 67%
a ll (NYC) 4 0 0%
a Ill (Phil.) 6 3 50%
s IV (Atlanta) 8 7 88%
= V (Chicago) 6 3 50%
a VI (Dallas) 5 3 60%
a VII (Kansas C.) 4 2 50%
a Vill (Denver) 6 4 67%
m IX (San Fran.) 6 2 33%
a X (Seattle) 4 1 25%
Totals = 55 29* 53% to 64%*

* Based on BioCycle 2000 recycling rate data for 45 states.

@.
R


State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont’d)

State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to Prevalence of Curbside Recycling Programs (#1 of 4)

70%

60% ©

a
8
S

40% Pee,

30% [Ao

20% |--2 se

2000 MSW Recycling Rate
SK,
°

10% |-$—» > A me >

Us) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
1997 State Population Per Count of 1998 State Curbside Recycling Programs
Thousands

R-square = 0.34 # pts = 44
y = 0.309e*-3.15e-006x

98

eee



II]. ASSESSMENT OF MSW
RECYCLING



Lee

2D.3

Puture National Recycling Rate if Expand Population Coverage
A. Proportion of US Population Served by MSW Recycling Programs (2000):

2000 US Population
Population population served by
category (millions) recycling” Unserved gap
Large urban 192.3 136.6 71% 55.7 29%
Small urban 29.6 8.9 30% 20.7 70%
Rural 59.5 0.9 1.4% 58.6 98.6%
TotalUS= 281.4 146.4 52% 135.0 48%

B. Potential Future National MSW Recycling Rate if Expand Population Coverage:
Potential Rate

Expanded population 2000 Baselines
Urban category served (millions) Franklin BioCycle
If 100% large urban 146.4+55.7 = 202.1 (72%) 42% 44%
If 100% large + small 146.4+55.7+20.7 = 222.8 (79%) 46% 49%
If 100% urban + rural** 281.4 (100%) 58%** 61%**

* Based on BioCycle magazine, Dec. 2001, Table 6, p.47.

** In many states, expansion of recycling programs to 100% rural coverage may not be economically-
beneficial because of higher truck collection costs for longer travel distances in low-density population
areas; although one state (CT with 12.3% rural pop.) reports 100% of population served in 2000.8!



eee

Appendices

» Appendices A&B: Exploratory X-Y Statistical Plot
Graphs to Compare State & City MSW Recycling
Infrastructure Indicators & Unit Costs
a Appendix A: State Recycling Infrastructure (1 data set)

a Appendix B: Municipal Recycling Infrastructure (2 data
sets)

= Appendix C: Four Alternative Study Plan Options
for this Assessment

87



e @ e
Overlay of Franklin & BioCycle Historical Data Series

Overlay of Franklin & BioCycle Historical MSW Recycling Rate Data
Franklin Data: 11 Historical Data Points (1960-2001); BioCycle Data: 12 Historical Data Points (1989-2000)

40

35

30

25

Franigin data

on data
Franklin trendline
BioCycle trendline

20

15

10

National MSW Recycling Rate (Percentage)

1960
1962
1964

966

968

970

972

974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020



eee

| 17 City Dataset from 1999 USEPA Study
17 Cities in MSW Recycling Cost Dataset from EPA-530-R-99-013, June 1999 (1996
A DD E(F-C-D) F G H (F-G)
Household Recycling Recycling Recycling Recycling Materials Recycling:
1996 density collection processingadmin/OH total cost. revenues net cost
Item City State population (per sq.mile) _($/ton) ($/ton) ($/ton) ($/ton) ($/ton) ($/ton)
4 Ann Arbor Mi 112,000 2,875 $73 $14 $15 $101.85 $9.07 $93
2 Bellevue WA 103,700 1,451 $10 $139.13 $0 $139
3 Chatham NJ 8,007 1,363 $1 $38.72 $7.98 $31
4 = Clifton NJ 75,000 2,583 $46 $1 $8 $54.61 $4.81 $50
5 Crockett TTMX 8,300 523 $14 $100 $75 $188.91 $17.01 $172
6 Dover NH 25,042 400 $8 $75.00 $0 $75
7 Falls Church VA 10,000 2,108 $21 $62.00 $0 $62
8 Fitchburg Wl 17,266 216 $36 $117.00 $0 $117
9 Leverett MA 1,908 28 $7 $0 $44 $51.29 $16.99 $34
10 Loveland co 44,300 744 $112 $0 $16 $128.00 $10.61 $117
11 Madison wi 200,920 1,257 $115 $42 $3 $160.10 $12.65 $147
12 Portland OR 503,000 1,437 $72 $196.00 $14.64 $181
13 St. Paul MN 496,068 1,268 $34 $115.00 $0 $115
14 San Jose CA 873,300 1,539 $7 $206.29 $0 $206
15 Seattle WA 543,700 2,706 $30 $120.78 $121
16 Visalia CA 92,677 1,009 $61 $29 $24 $114.19 $0 $114
17 Worcester WA 169,759 1,696 $5 $54.06 $0 $54-
Min = 1,908 $7 $0 $1 $39 $0 $31
Median= 92,677 $61 $14 $16 $115 $2 $115)
Max = 873,300 $115 $100 $75 $206 $17 $206:
Min if >0 = $5
Median if >0 = $12
Data count if >0 =. 8
Percent of data >0 = 47%
115



Economic Incentives for Enhancing Recycling:
Empirical Results from 1997 Study* of All 351 Towns in Mass.

Unit pricing: A community implementing a quantity-based unit pricing system, rather
than a flat monthly fee, for MSW garbage collection can expect its annual recycling rate
to be 6.6 % points higher than if it had used an alternative garbage collection pricing
approach. Because flat fees are not quantity-dependent, they give households no
incentive to economize on waste generation or disposal, a classic market failure.

Curbside service: An additional increase of 5.5 % points in the annual recycling rate
(totaling 12.1 % points) is predicted if the MSW garbage unit pricing system is
accompanied by the provision of curbside recycling services, which by itself should
increase the annual recycling rate by 4.2 % points.

Disposal cost: Similarly, if policy initiatives elevate the cost of garbage disposal, the
relative cost of recycling falls, and aggregate annual recycling rates should rise.
Conversely, the public provision of free MSW garbage collection decreases the
opportunity cost of disposal relative to recycling, thereby lowering the annual recycling
tate (MSW landfill tipping fees in 2003 average only $30/ton).

MRE: A community using a state-funded materials recovery facility (MRF) can expect to
achieve an average increase of 9.5 % points in its annual recycling rate, because free
access to a state-funded MRF may allow relatively small communities to experience
savings in recycling costs typically associated only with more densely-populated
communities, translating into higher recycling levels.

Education: Each additional grant dollar awarded per household for recycling education
should increase a community's annual recycling rate by 2.6 % points.

Equipment: Grants for recycling equipment should encourage public provision of
recycling services by lowering the cost of doing so, which should in turn lower resident's
opportunity cost of recycling, leading to a higher recycling rate.

* Source: Scott Callan & Janet Thomas, “The impact of State & Local Policies on The Recycling Effort”, Eastern Economic

Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4, Fall 1997, pp.411-4: 85


ee

Exploratory Comparison Between Average Recycling Cost ($/ton)
& Municipal Population Density (n=19 municipality sample 2001)

Municipal Recycling Cost Compared to Municipal Population Density
Source: Based on analysis of 19 city year 2001 data from Waste News magazine annual "Municipal Recycling Survey”, 17 Feb 2003
$250

~ °

S $200

3 °

8 °

oO $150

Ee °

® %

2 =

a $100 -— o

~ °

2 . - °

S550 2.
id —

=z ° 7 .
~ a 4.
° somo a
$0 re?
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Municipal Population Density (Residents per Square Mile)
Thousands
R-square = 0.193 #pts = 19
y = 108e*-8.2e-005x



e @ @

State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont’d)

2000 MSW Recycling Rate (BioCycle)

State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to Household Poverty Rates

70%
60% >
50%
°
40% o., o
$° 9 o® - °

30% fom ¢ @

fo OS ES NTT ara erro

ee ae oe
20% o_° e ° oem
%P

10% SoS © >
0% a —— _

5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%

1996-98 Percentage of State Households in Income Poverty

R-square = 0.0211 #pts = 45
y = 0.338 + -0.535x

96



een eee

Recycling Cost Offset From Recyclable Material Revenues

Recycling Cost Offset From Collected Recyclable Material Revenues (Market Value)
Pooled Data For 30 Communities Reporting >$0/ton From Three Studies: 1995, 1999, 2003

BB Median = 10%

Count of Municipalities Reporting Data
>

5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55% 65% 75% 85% 95%
Percentage of Recycling Program Total Cost Offset by Recyclable Material Revenues

Sources: (a) EPA-600-R-95-109 July 1995; (b) EPA-530-R-99-013 June 1999; (c) Waste News magazine 17 Feb 2003.

64



OO

| MSW Recycling Cost Dataset (Curbside) Compared to Garbage Collection Costs

CURBSIDE COLLECTION RECYCLING UNIT COSTS
Source: Table 3, page 26, EPA-530-R-01-018, Nov 2001 (2000$)
Unit costs based on "full cost accouting" method, including transportation + fringe
2001 Nat! Skewed interval method
Proportion Min Mean Max 68% conf. +68% conf.
Multi-family 24% $62 $177 $622 $120 $400

Single-family 76% $11 $127 $420 $69 $274
Weighted= $23 $139 $468 $81 $304
Updated (2002$) = i $142. $83, $311
Price decline for single-family curbside recycling:
Year $/ton
1993 $170
2000 $127

Average annual rate = -4.08%

REFUSE (GARBAGE) COLLECTION UNIT COSTS
Source: Table 3, page 26, EPA-530-R-01-018, Nov 2001 (2000)

2001 Naf! Skewed interval method

Proportion Min Mean Max 68% conf. +68% conf.
Multi-family 24% $16 $63 $171 $40 $117
Single-family 76% $16 $69 $286 343 $178
Weighted= $16 $68 $259 $42 $163
Updated (2002$) = $69 $43 $167

ENR Building cost index update factor (2002/2000)= 1.024

60



Recycled Quantity Divided by MSW Generated = “Recycling Efficiency”
MSW Generated Divided by Consumer Goods Production = “Recycling Availability”

Comparison of MSW Generation* & Recycling* Quantities to US Consumer Goods Production index

— Consumer goods index data points —#~ MSW generation index data points ~~ Recycling trendline (R“2=99,2%)
 ©> Recycling index data points ——~ MSW generation trendline (R*2=99.8%)
150
S 100
2
W
i
8
=
*
3
Zz 50
1g
0

1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 4992 1996 2000

* MSW generation index in this table only includes material products; excludes yard trimmings, food, misc inorganics (soil, stones, concrete), & other non product materials.
MSW generation & recycling data source: EPA-530-R-02-001 (Tables 1 & 2): http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncplimsw99.htm
IPI data source: Economic Report of the President, Feb 2003, Table B-52; http://w3.access.gpo.gow/usbudget/fy2004/pdf/2003_erp.pdf

iS
is)

@ @ e



Urban:to:Rural US Population (Total = 281.4 million year 2000)

Urban:to:Rural US Population (Year 2000)

Rural

Urban Clusters
10.5%

Urban Areas
68.3%

51



Rural Areas (<2,500 Population) Served in State by MSW Recycling
Rural Populations Served by MSW Recycling Programs

Programs (2000)

= I HOO 0 %S6<
oO} %S6 % %06<
o} %06 9% %S8<
- | %SB 0} %OB<
o} %08 0 %S2<
of} %S2% %0L<
o} %02 0% %S9<
oO} %S9 % %09<
o} %09 9} %SS<

of} %SS % %0S<

%OS 0} WSv<
ASP OF WOv<
WOv 0} WGE<
WE 0} WOE<
WOE OF WSZ<
AZ OF WOZ<
W0Z OF YSL<
WSL OF WOL<

POL 0} WS<

%S OF %O

i-J wo So wo i=) wo i=]
oO N N = -

(e]epym BE=U) S9}e}S JO JUNOD

55

Percentage of Rural Population in State Served by MSW Recycling Programs

Source: Based on curbside population served from BioCycle magazine, Dec 2001, Table 6, p.47, supplemented by up to 10% dropoff estimate.



Enhancing Recycling’s Economic Potential (cont'd)

“Economic welfare analysis tells us that the amount of recycling

undertaken by consumers will be less than optimal for two reasons:

a First, recycling creates a positive externality in that everyone benefits from my
recycling efforts (saving landfill space and reducing landfill costs). In the
absense of a one-to-one correspondence between those who make the effort
and those who reap the benefit, many will not make the effort voluntarily.

a Second, recycling is an intergenerationa!l public good. Our recycling efforts

today will help to eliminate a potential problem in the future. Given the myopic
time preference of most individuals, people will undervalue the current benefits

of recycling.
The above two factors cause the private marginal benefit from recycling
to be less than the social marginal benefit. From society’s perspective,
not enough recycling will be done by individuals because they cannot
capture, or are not compensated for, all of the benefits of their efforts.
Therefore, any large scale recycling program must be government
initiated, either through mandatory regulations or economic
incentives. Considering the magnitude of the problem, it is only a matter
of time before legislation is introduced to implement recycling on a national
evel.

Source: Vilaya puagal et al., School of Management, Widener Univ., “Recycling: An Economic
Analysis”, Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. XVII, No. 3, July-Sept 1991, p.352.) 84



ASSESSMENT ISSUE #1:
Recycling Rate Measurement

17



a

MSW Recycling Cost Dataset (Drop-off Programs in 14 Cities, 1995)

DROP-OFF RECYCLING UNIT COSTS
Source: Table II-5, EPA-600-R-95-109, July 1995 (1993S)

*

Total cost = annualized capital cost + O&M cost + education/admin cost,

Total cost* Recycled

Public. Annual net of materials

Case 19907 or tons fevenues O&M O&Mas% overhead . revenues
stud! Ci State population private__ collected. ton. yton) total cost on) ($/ton)

1 Santa Monica CA 86,905 public 3,214.2 $73.83 $50.57 68.5% $23.26 $0

2 Southeast co 111,727 private 1,324.0 $71.73 $68.71 95.8% $3.02 $36.00

3 Largo FL 38,400 public 2,040.0 $81.43 $23.16 284% $58.27 $17.16

4 Tampa FL 229,712 public 3,272.7 $95.24 $59.03 62.0% $36.21 $0

5 Blue Ash OH 13,629 private 701.0 $51.36 $25.68 50.0% $25.68 $0

6 W.Greenwich RI 2,749 private 156.0 $86.28 $73.46 85.1% $12.82 $0

7 Falmouth ME 7,610 private 338.0 $87.22 $67.49 774% $19.73 $0

8 Freeport ME 7,043 private 320.0 $155.30 $91.21 58.7% $64.09 $23.99

9 Queen Village PA 9,443 public 250.0 $60.00 $60.00 100.0% $0 $0

10 Cedar Park PA 13,461 public 202.0 $60.00 $60.00 100.0% $0 $0

11 Chesterfield VA 225,100 private 3,081.8 $41.35 $40.57 98.1% $0.78 $4.94
12 Petersburg VA 38,400 private 357.2 $36.59 $35.50 97.0% $1.09 $4.22

13 Henrico VA 230,000 private 3,402.8 $41.36 $33.95 82.1% $7.40 $7.71
14__ Norfolk VA 261,229 public 982.8 $86.00 __ $80.75 93.9% $5.25 $4.13
Min = 2,749 $36.59 $23.16 28.4% $0.00 $4.13

Max = 261,229 $155.30 $91.21 100.0% $64.09 $36.00

\Mean= 91,101 $73.41 $55.01 784% $1840 $14.02

Median = 38,400 $72.78 $59.52 83.6% $10.11 $7.71

Std.dev= $30.41 $20.85 22.1% $21.34 $11.08
Tons-wtdavg= $67.79 $47.61 741% $20.18
Skewness 1.24
68% conf. $43.00
4+68% conf, = $103.82
Updated to year 2002$:
Min 25
Max 38
Mean= $88.77
Median = $88.01
* Stddev= $36.77
Tons-wid avg= $81.98
Skewness = $1.50
68% conf.= $52.00 3
+68% conf. = $125.54



Big Picture Snapshot of MSW Management (US Year 2000)

Management of Municipal Solid Waste
Based on 231.85 Million Total Tons MSW Generated (US 2000)
Source: USEPA Office of Solid Waste, EPA-530-R-02-001 (“Franklin Report"), June 2002, Table 29, p.126

Recycling
69,870,000
30.1%

Landfill

Combustion
33,730,000
14.5%

6



2D. Potential* for Recycling Beyond 35%:

2D.1 Maximum economically-beneficial recycling “net cost”
2D.2 Potential impact of meeting unmet state goals (2010)

2D.3 Potential impact of expanded recycling population coverage
2D.4 Sample of opinions on maximum recycling rates achievable
2D.5 Enhancing national recycling rates

2D.6 Role of recycling in environmental protection

* Note: The following slides present a “supply-side” portrayal of MSW recycling potential; achievement of
future potential depends upon “demand-side” complementarity (i.e. capacity of industries to purchase and
utilize increasing annual quantities of recyclable materials).

76



Unmet State MSW Recycling Rate Goals

Additional Recycling Quantity Implied by State Recycling Goals
(34 of 38 States With Unmet Goals Incremental to Year 2000 State Recycling Rates)

35
= 30
oO
3
Ss 25
2
& » 20
6 unmet goais
: Bicycle increment*
2 Franklin increment"
5 15
oy
oO notte 6 eewnenniome se swore
iv
o 10
2
&
z
5 5
is)
0

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
State's Recycling Goal Deadline (Voluntary or Mandatory)

Source: Based on state MSW recycling goals from BioCycle magazine, Dec 2001, Table 14, p.$4, benchmarked to year 2000 actual recycling rate & recycled waste quantity (tons).
* Incremental annual MSW quantity nesded to Increase national average trom 30% (2000) to 56%.

31



—_— Eee
@ @ @

2C.3 ($/ton average)

Benefit-Cost Analysis of OSW’s 35% MSW Recycling Goal
LB ML «UB

a Incremental total benefits of 35% goal ($/ton):

a #1 Market value of recyclable materials $6 $10 $25
a #2 Avoided garbage mgmt costs $73 $105 $225
a #3 Household WTP (@13% civic duty) = $3 $7 $26
a #4 Downstream energy reduction* = $108 $154 $200
a #5 Life-cycle pollutant reduction* = $36 $52 $68
Total annual benefits (if non-duplicative) = $226 $328 $544
= Net benefits of 35% goal ($/ton):
a Annual incremental direct costs = $35 $98 $162
a Net benefits (benefits minus costs) = $191 $230 $382
= Benefit-Cost Ratio (benefits/costs)**: 6.45 3.35 3.36
LB = lower-bound estimate (-1 std.dev) ML= most likely UB = upper-bound (+1 std.dev)

* LB and UB estimates assigned to benefit categories #4 and #5 based on -/+30% of ML value, respectively.

** In comparison to this national benefit-cost ratio estimate, one published study estimated a rural county-wide benefit-cost
ratio of 8.8, based on a county dropoff recycling program cost (1992) of $0.46/month per household, relative to a survey |
household willingness-to-pay of $4.05/month for rural non-recyclers; Kelly Tiller et al., “Household Willingness to Pay for

Dropoff Recycling”, Journal of Agricultural & Resource Economics, Vol.22, No.2, pp.310-320, 1997.

74



a

National Annual Recycling Benefits Category #1

The national economic cost (i.e. societal cost) for MSW recycling may be
formulated as the direct annual cost to municipalities (capital investment
costs + annual O&M costs) for operating recycling programs, plus the annual
costs to households for participation (waste sorting time + household waste
storage + waste drop-off travel costs), minus the following five recycling
bene its to society at large which offset the municipal and household direct
costs:

= Benefit #1: Market value of pre-processed recyclable materials

LB ML UB
If average value* of recyclable materials is ($/ton): $6 $10 $25
incremental benefit of 35% goal is (million/year): $72 $120 $300

* Average values ($/ton) shown above are for recyclable waste “as collected” from the wastestream
(e.g. metal “scrap”), rather than for the resale value of recycled materials “as marketed” after
recovery processing at a materials recovery facility (e.g. metal ingots ). Percent of collected
recyclable waste retained in the recovery stage for marketing reportedly ranges from 88% (lumber,
fiberboard), to 90% (glass, plastics), 91% (office paper), 95% (newspaper, magazines, books), to
100% (aluminum, steel, corrugated cardboard); source: USEPA “Solid Waste Management and
Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks”, Exhibit 4-3, p.59, EPA-
530-R-02-006, May 2002, http:/Awww.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/ghg/greengas.pdf

LB = lower-bound estimate (-1 std.dev) ML= most likely UB = upper-bound (+1 std.dev)
67



2A. MSW Recycling Baseline (2000)

2A.1 Statewide Recycling Rates & Goals

2A.2 City Recycling Rates

2A.3 Materials Recycled

2A.4 Recent Policies & Options for Affecting Rates



| Examples of Recent Developments Which May Decrease the Near-
Future National MSW Recycling Rate

Recycling (Materials) Supply Factors:

a The year 2002 “Green Gauge” survey reported that the biggest drop in American’s participation in
environmentally-friendly activities is for recycling: 45% regularly return bottles to a store or recycling
gonter, and 36% take part in a curbside recycling program, down 6 and 9 points respectively from

« _ lowa state legislature voted in 2003 to remove a landfill ban on yard waste
(http:/Awww.wastenews.com/headlines2.html?id=1054241503); but on 12 June 2003, lowa Gov. Tom
Vilsak vetoed this legislation. “Bans on disposal of yard trimmings in landfills have made it possible to
essentially double the overall diversion rate and are absolutely vital to achieving America’s recycling

goals, which is why 21 other states have also enacted laws banning disposal of yard trimmings,” said
leil Seldman, president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

= Since the mid-1980s, the popularity of cell phones has soared from 340,000 people in the US owning
cell phones, to 130 million cell phones — complete with batteries and chargers — will be pitched each
year by 2005, adding an annual 65,000 tons of garbage to the nation’s solid waste stream, mostly for
landfilling and incineration.

. (oom can US recycling rate has dropped for the 5" straight year from 67% (1997) to 53%

Recycling (Materials) Demand Factors:

= MA launched a recycling center at Univ of MA in 1995 to stimulate manufacturers’ use of recycled
materials, but is closing it June 2003 due to lack of continued funding.

41



MSW Recycling Direct Cost Compared to Two Cost Offsets

Direct costs for operating recycling programs usually exceed cost offsets:

Cost Offset Example #1(40 cities, 2002$): -1SD Mean +1SD
» Recycling program net cost* ($/ton) $83 $142 $311
+ Avoided garbage collection cost offset* ($/ton):$43 $69 $167
- Avoided garbage disposal cost offset** ($/ton): $30 $36 $58
Total cost offset ($/ton) = $73 $105 $225
Recycling net cost w/offset ($/ton) = $10 $37 $86
Offset as % of recycling cost = 88% 74% 72%
Cost Offset Example #2 (30 cities, 2002$):
Recycling program total cost*** ($/ton) $4 $64 $124
- Offset value of recyclable materials*** ($/ton): <$0.1 $10 $44
Recycling net cost w/offset ($/ton) = $3 $54 $80
Offset as percentage of recycling cost = <1% 16% 35%

Data Sources & Notes (SD = standard deviation):
* EPA-530-R-01-018, Nov 2001, Table 3, p.26; based on data ranges for 40 communities ranging from 28,000 to 8.0 million population (median =
70,000); net cost = cost to local government, minus any recycled material revenues.

** Year 2002 landfill tipping fees from http://wasteinfo.com/data.htm {LB = landfills; ML= wtd avg if 55.3% fandfill + 14.5% combust; UB= combust).

*** Based on pooled data points for 31 communities ranging from 1,900 to 6.0 million population, from three reports (EPA-600-R-95-109 July 1995,
EPA-530-R-99-013 June 1999, & Waste News magazine17 Feb 2003) for curbside and dropoff recycling programs; normalized by OSW to
2002$ (Mid = median).

. Collection transportation (hauling) report Institutes 39% to 62% of total. alized cost.

. On average, capital investment reportedly represents 22% and annual O&M 78%, of total annualized cost.

. Single-family household curbside recycling costs have declined an average of 4.1% per year between 1993 & 2000.

61



e @ @
Provision of MSW Recycling Services (US 1995)

National Prevalence”
Provider of Service Curb Com_ Drpoff Proc
a Local government program 40% 14% 16% 9%
= Local gov't contractor 42% 15% 25% 30%
» Gov't franchise to single firm 9% 6% 4% 5%
a Private firms w/out gov't $ 16% 47% 8% 7%

* Source: Based on 1995 sample of 1,071medium-sized north-central cities with MSW
recycling programs consisting of: (1) residential curbside collection, (2) commercial
collection, (3) drop-off facilities, and/or (4) recyclables processing facilities
(Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper 02-35, June 2002, Table 2, p.17).

Curb = residential curbside collection Comm = commercial collection
Drpoff = drop-off facilities Proc = Recyclables processing

27

er



State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)

State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to Environment Spending
70%
3 60% zy
N
S 50%
3 gy
@ 40% | 2 o>
o Co 8
g Von, ad ©
> 30% Pag
i; o,% er
F 20% 2 r SS
& °° nn
% 10% COO 2 © ea
2 }° oH ag
0% & —
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500
1998 State Gov't Per-Capita Spending on Environment
R-square = 0.079 #pts=45
y = 0.307 + -0.000525x

94



EEO
@ @ @

State Population Coverage Statistics (prior graph)

1.CT 100%  11.PA 79.6% 20. KS 50.5% 30. TX 26.6%
2.NJ 99.0% 12. 1IN 76.2% 21. NC 48.3% 31.NM 24.4%
3. RI 94.3% 13. MD 75.5% 22. SC 46.4% 32. VA 18.0%
4.CA 92.0% 14.1A 75.3% 23. NH 45.9% 33. ND 17.3%
5. NY 90.8% 15. IL 72.0% 24. ME 42.4% 34. KY 16.2%
6.WA 90.2% 16. WI 65.7% 25. HI36.7%  35.MS 12.7%
7.NV 90.2% 17. VT 59.3% 26. OK 34.0% 36. WY 4.5%
8.OR 85.5%  18.FL 59.1% 27.MI 33.0% 37.DE<1%
9.MA 84.6% 19. AZ 52.6% 28. NE 32.5% 38. AK0%
10. MN 83.6% 29. AL 27.5%

Source: OSW estimate based on curbside recycling population served data
from BioCycle magazine (Dec 2001, Table 6, p. 47), supplemented with
additional 10% assumed dropoff recycling population served (per 90:to:10
overall national ratio); 13 states do not have data on population coverage.

48



Appendix A:
State Recycling Rates & Infrastructure

(exploratory X-Y plot graphs based on one
data set)

89



2C.2
MSW Recycling Benefits

66



abase for Exploratory X-Y Plots
hics i L : : !
B MSW R
AB cc o E F S HEAT J kK
. Site [ MSW MSW

5 Healabsemployees payed, _maruns 1997 Skate | nd aun planes. 2000 cart ‘densiy| ale
wtem_Sato___1957_ 1987 __1000,__ ($1000, _popuiion _(eqrriles) 1990 _househotis._ 1957 | 200
0 UStel 75 10808 2RI47E 1200030267,743.5053,505042 19289 105400,10T 76) Wh
1 Astera 8 SD 448 ARIS TDD 17STOD | HH.
2 Aska 1 «019 Wied Withed eS 573%]
3 Amora 12 171 48 16667 4563209 113642 1M «Ol 1H
4 Ateneas 5S 37 C2829 2873185 OTS a, DEH a] 2%, 4% 206600. i $0 $6380 172% $6317
5 Calforia «631000 4G 114340 AZIEZI1S 155973 4B ADEM «BL 2% «4H OH IONNOO OH 0 $374 163% SIZ
6 Cobra = 11 5001999 Wheld Watheld 1OQ70 ST 1BZH BLT GEHSOO $0 $929 93% $57,168
7 Comediot 12 160 69722661 325720 4S HANS GM) 2% MH 3ZMOOD 100% «= SAND SAH HSA
8 Ddwwe 4 01019 Wield Withed 735431955 ST 887 21% SHH 205000 1% «$400 $5729 SERS
9 Fete 47 O13 2418 9248S 14677181 GT 7D Tl A MAM 5% KIQOWO $1 139% SOSD
10 Geoga 21 187 5190 1801 74mg 57919 SH 30083 tw] a 10236000 SO S54E4 143% SADIE
11 Hawel 2 i139 Winhed Withheld 1,192,057 6423. 0 4820 85] 23% 24% 1.884000 3% 9 $7301 123% KORG
12 keto 1 Ot 19 WahheH! Wirheld 1208065 @2751 AD 41S] 10% | 1196000 $0 $583 132% STM
13 nots 30 729 19762 B35 11982 BEG 17 ASOT 26] 2% WK 15102000 GH AMMO $237 11.1%
“inde 12 8 2321 12828 SREABT HED ES ZKHKS i] 2% «MH IBSTION 79% «SICNOOD B44 8% $3100
15 be 15 8 191 9811 285450 BE BOOZE SI] OH 6% $0 $7689 94% $7751
16 Karses = BO 19. Wihhetd a7 18 1078 = 1% «=H KONO 4% S1SNKOD O12 101% SHI
47 Kertxky 7 218 6B 18,110 3910305 AT BISOOGAT «= Hl 1% MH ATTEND 15% © $IEDIOD $6149 155% SRO
18 Lora 8 23 4get 23031 a $0 S82 186% S77 BRB.
Mere 195 454 25804 1281805 SR 2ST DO] WHAM, «18D 3% HEN ATI «8% STE
20 Mayferd 10 124 420424012 SoaKe2d 77S 15H] ZMH SMH GBH 7% 0 SAD 8% SHE
21 Messatus 20 5} ATS 62644 GIA «7EB | D 24KI5HO OL 3% 28%, 8.1410 78% «STON SOT 103% S418
2 Metin 174 6216 28355 977994 «BRD SM B7EHRE! 172] 25% 18% 1871700 3% = SOHO S384) 108% S701
23 Minesta 21 494 1618 76,753 4687408 REIT OA 185.127 | 40% ARH SMO 75% SI4ONO SHIH AH SHAT
24 Messissppi 4 St R175 27 OIA HE 12% 16% 4400000 12% $0000 $02 189%
5 Meson 2 72 14% 7285 SABd55 BBE OR 2104504 25% 38% 10785000 $4546 104% $31,384
2% Mrtra 2 O19 Withheld Withheld 878720 145556 18 | _SERGST Sh ‘T8700 $0 $6831 164% 24772
27 Nebraska «= 3 20199 Withed Witheli 1657009 76873 5H GER. TEA 2% 2 1B 2% 40ND $8179 108% EG
28 NewHarps 10 43 1954382 1172100 8 GB ATK GOS TSIL 21% 1.068000 41%, FOOD $2770 84% SATE
2 New Jersey 33 464 1058S S124 BNET 7419 DD (SORES 1 2% — % 9200 W% SNAOKOO $73 90% HEE
30 NewMedco 5 2 BN 307 7S WIS BETIS 14] 1% MH BATIBO 21% % $012 24% $748
MM NewYok 47 S82 UTR TATA 18145200 47224 G19 20S BH AM BTID 95% SO $1888 186% 45358
‘2 NofhCach 2 680 15373 TAA77 7ACOG7S 44738 SH «3132013153 2% 20% ITSO 46% $1Z00000 SEOBD 125% $31 088,
33 NothDekot 3 201099 Withed Witheld 640965 68904 TAZ 9] 7% 1% «= SBD 16% = SENN SIM 3 SME
34 Ohio ZB 680 19017 6688 11.1052 4093 HAMAS 7B 15% «7% 14535000 % $755 116% SD5B
36 Otto 7 $8 142 1137 BRIS BE FL 1322G 48] 17% «= 1% «3 7BTPLO 31% © SIONAL 8% SEB
%Oegn 9 164-2255 13062 320272 «BOB 173 A] IH HH 4544000 7% —$BIBNOD $HISS 128% STIG
37 Pemspert 0 28 G12 02 1201 77B AD 12477 BL «KH NEO «7% $TAUSOD «210 11.3% SHON
38 Rrodelsen 3 201093 Withekd Witheld 987253 10458 MRAM OH] ZI% 24% 1561000 8% $0 $819 118% SEIS
38 SoshCach 8 6 254 14,742 3788119 ITT MSI 1] 77%, «31% 4483000 AN $5010 BD 18.3% RID
40 Sunda S 2 3 2761 TTS RB 3 | OMS 10] 514000 $10803 130% s24n02
41 Terese 12 153 3503 19.168 3716 4170 HOD HH] aH «34% 5200000 $258 145% OSE
Tes 44 52 9458 57,773 19985600 BIN4 1171 TRO 7a] 14% 3G 4471000 2% S282 16.1% $49
43 Uch 4 201099 Wtheld Wainheld 2065001 62163 2B ZB] 19%) 24300 sas aH $2979
44 Verrant =} (0119 ithe Witheld 5882920951 2006 Ga] 0%) KH STRODE © SBROOD $ID 106% SUBST
4S Vigna 15, 13-3150 11823 673749 BEB 2] 27S Wi Ph OGM 16% «$1800000 $2189 113% SEIT
46 Washingt 19 49651 70869 5614151 S82 B27] HH’ —7OTZOND A $0 $8763 100% S708
47 West Vigri 6 26 B30 1815231 24087 738481 13% 26% 1500000 $1900000 S771 17.6% S26888
48 Weonen 77 22 ABH 17261 SAIS SAB |B CEASAA | 4% 36% «TION BMIOND sada Bem SE
49 Worrg 1 0t019 Wihhed Withheld = 490043 97,105 gw mee Mm Wh FB 4%  SMB4O 120% SIRES
Other not sted = 3856000

3561

10415: 61541. 1270
180 29-5
9420 600 1482
oO 1955

402508

110 4654171

278 1B

8
£
a
8

i
:

FEELE
Sones
PETTY LEE

857, ORG
a)
PAZTS STABSS 40455
1006 12528
224 Zao 1
28 BEB 270
1781 3008110
9B11 415201 9585,
106867 255487
1404 13005 St
wes ®
374 35 12

5953: 121903 1647
82168 147500 S860
929 758 16
260 625
384 Sg BS
4015 azo QI

2 Bex Ot
FAS 240022 48553

wa Bonane

B= C007 B13 B= on HEBN OB OMN OB “won POS avo



e @ ®
| Regional Summary of <35% Recycling Rate For 25 Most Populous
Municipalities
EPA Region Nr.cities Nr.<35% Y%lagging
« | (Boston) 1 1 100%
» IL(NYC) 1 0 0%
Wl (Phil.) 3 2 67%
» IV (Atlanta) 4 3 75%
» V (Chicago) 5 4 80%
- VI (Dallas) 4 4 100%
» VII (Kansas C.) 0 0 NR
» Vill (Denver) 1 1 100%
« IX (San Fran.) 5 1 20%
« X (Seattle) 1 0 0%
Totals = 25 16 64%
35



Benchmark: Recent International MSW Recycling Rates

Europe: Other Countries:

« Austria (1999) 64% a Canada (2000) 24%
a Belgium (1998) 52% = Japan:

= Germany (1999) 48% a 1992 4%
= Netherlands (1999) 47% a 1995 10%
» Denmark (1999) 39% a 2002 65%
a Finland (1997) 33%

a Sweden (1998) 33%

= Spain (1999) 27%

a Italy (1997) 16%

= France (1998) 14%

a U. Kingdom (1999) 11%

a Portugal (1999) 9%

= Greece (1997) 8%

Note: The basket of wastes included in recycling rates varies between countries.

11



2B.2
MSW Recycling Infrastructure:
Urban & Rural Penetration (2000)

50



v—V—x—X EEE EE ee

Which Future Recycling Rate Projection is “Correct”?
Franklin Associates data BioCycle magazine data
> 35% recycling by year 2018 > 35% recycling by year 2003
Baseline (2000 data year; all states): Baseline (2000 data year; 47 states):
30.1% MSW recycled + 31.9% MSW recycled
231.9 million TPY MSW generated = 0.82 » 409.0 million TPY MSW generated = 1.45
TPY/person TPY/person
69.9 million tons recycled + 130.5 million tons recycled
Increment to 35% = (35%-30.1%) x 69.9 = + — Increment to 35% = (35%-31.9%)x409.0 =
11.4 million tons/year 12.7 million tons/year
Data (Measurement) Scope: Data (Measurement) Scope:
Includes: - Excludes:
Composting (but not backyard composting) - - Composting
Commercial Includes:
» Institutional » C&D debris (wood, asphalt, concrete)
Industrial office/food/packaging + Biosolids (9 states)
Excludes: » Scrap autos (2 states)
- Construction & demolition debris + Motor oil (11 states)
+ Biosolids (sewage sludge) - Agricultural (14 states)
+ Scrap autos - Commercial (47 states)
Motor oil + Institutional (43 states)
Agricultural » Industrial process residuals (24 states)
+ Industrial process wastes
10



Overview of MSW Recycling Infrastructure

+ In 1997 51% of US population had access to curbside recycling programs.

* — {n 2000 there were 9,250 curbside recycling programs (represents a 39% maximum coverage for
23,435 total US municipalities; aka Census “places”).

* In 1997 there were 12,700 drop-off centers for recyclables, compared to 23,435 total 1990
municipalities in the US (represents a 54% maximum coverage).

+ National ratio of communities (and tonnage) with curbside:to:drop-off recycling = 90%:to:10%

+ In 1997 there were 1,540 solid waste collection/hauling establishments selling recyclable materials
($414 million receipts; NAICS code=562111, NAICS RL code=4450).

* Waste/scrap shipped an average of 164 miles in 1997.

+ In 1997 there were 765 establishments involved in sorting MSW recyclable materials ($1.3 billion
receipts, 10,900 employees; NAICS=562920).

+ 30states reported annual state government budgets for recycling (including composting) totaling $173
million in 2000 (PA leads at $6.17/year per resident).

¢ Of the 25 most populous cities, San Diego leads municipal government recycling budgets at
$15.04/year per resident.

* 38 states have recycling goals: 26 states have set state-wide recycling goals >35% for achievement by
1994 (TX) to 2010 (MA & WV); 12 states set recycling goals <35%.

44



ASSESSMENT ISSUE #2:
Recycling Rate Stimulation



Caveat Emptor:
Recycling Rate Measurement Variability

“Currently, not everyone defines recycling or the
processes that constitute recycling in the same way.
Definitions of MSW [municipal solid waste] also vary.
There is no standard approach for how or where to
collect the needed data. The methods used to
calculate a recycling rate also differ from one area to
another. All of these factors can make it difficult to
collect and analyze data and to compare the
effectiveness of recycling programs from one region to
another.”

Source: USEPA Office of Solid Waste, “Measuring Recycling: A Guide for State and
Local Governments”, EPA-530-R-97-011, Sept 1997, 160 pp.

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/recycle/recmeas/download.htm



Future Projection #1 of 2:
-- Franklin trendline suggests 35% in 2018 w/out re-measurement or stimulation

Franklin Associates: National MSW Recycling Rate Estimates
Based on Third-Order Curvilinear Multiple Regression of 11 Historical Data Points (1960-2001)

40
— 35 |
3
8
§ 30 F,
& pat
@ 25 7
oO oO
sg 20 oct Mercjction
3
8 a
© 45
Es
3
z 10 7 a
sf.
0
on o oon o on ooaon oomoonrw eo onwt OOS
SEPPRS SSS REST SPSS GSES ERLE RES

Trend line “goodness-of-fit” R-squared statistic: 1st-order (straight-line) = 90.0%; 2nd-order (parabolic curve) = 94.3%, 3rd-order (S-curve) = 97.4% (100% = perfect fit of trendline to data).
Historical data source: USEPA Office of Solid Waste (Franklin Associates Inc. contractor), EPA-530-R-02-001, June 2002, Table 2, page 33: htip:/www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hwimuncpi/msw99.htm



Og S:’:CCSC
| @ @ ©

Exploratory Comparison Between Average Recycling Cost ($/ton)
& Municipal Recycling Rate (n=19 municipality sample 2001)

Municipal Recycling Cost ($/ton) Compared to Municipal Recycling Rate
Source: Based on analysis of 19 city year 2001 data from Waste News magazine annual “Municipal Recycling Survey”

$250 +
'
= 4
§ $200|—.
& ‘ :
B sreol
© $150 *r
2 °
3 Vo
& $100 er -
z ~
3 —
: aii
: 30 ro) ° ; —
> °

$0

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Municipal Recycling Rate (2001)

R-square = 0.194 #pts = 19
y = 23.4x*-0.535

114



2C.3 ($millions/yeat)

Benefit-Cost Analysis of OSW’s 35% MSW Recycling Goal

LB ML UB
a incremental total benefits of 35% goal ($million/year):

a #1 Market value of recyclable materials $72 $120 $300

a #2 Avoided garbage mgmt costs $876 $1,260 $2,700

a #3 Household WTP (@13% civic duty) = $31 $80 $312

a #4 Downstream energy reduction* = $1,295 $1,850 $2,405

a #5 Life-cycle pollutant reduction* = $437 $625 $813

Total annual benefits (if non-duplicative) = $2,711 $3,935 $6,530

a Net benefits of 35% goal ($million/year):

a Annual incremental direct costs = $420 $1,176 $1,944

a Net benefits (benefits minus costs) = $2,291 $2,759 $4,586
a Benefit-Cost Ratio (benefits/costs)**: 6.45 3.35 3.36
LB = lower-bound estimate (-1 std.dev) ML= most likely UB = upper-bound (+1 std.dev)

* LB and UB estimates assigned to benefit categories #4 and #5 based on -/+30% of ML value, respectively.

** In comparison to this national benefit-cost ratio estimate, one published study estimated a rural county-wide benefit-cost
ratio of 8.8, based on a county dropoff recycling program cost (1992) of $0.46/month per household, relative to a survey
household willingness-to-pay of $4.05/month for rural nonrecyclers; Kelly Tiller et al., “Household Willingness to Pay for
Dropoff Recycling”, Journal of Agricultural & Resource Economics, Vol.22, No.2, pp.310-320, 1997.

73



State MSW Landfill Disposal Bans (2000)

Nr. states
Material Category w/ban % states
: Vehicle batteries 32 63%
- Whole tires 30 59%
» Yard trimmings 21 41%
« Motor oil 19 37%
« White goods 17 33%
« Other materials 12 24%

Source: BioCycle magazine, Dec 2001, Table 12, p.51 (40 states have
at least one landfill ban; %’s above relative to 51 states + DC).

28

@ @
Deena ree



Required Orientation for National Assessment of Recycling

The Resource Conservation & Recovery Act
(RCRA) assigns primary responsibility for recycling
and all non-hazardous waste policy decisions to
state governments. Consequently, recycling
initiatives and recycling programs in the US are not
uniform, since they are designed and implemented
at the state and local levels. This in turn means that
any economic analysis of recycling must rely on
local observations and, to assure that the results
can be generalized, must control for community-
and region-specific influences and factors.

Source: Scott Callan & Janet Thomas, Bentley College, “The Impact of State and Local Policies
on The Recycling Effort’, Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4, Fall 1997, p.411. 14



2A.2
City MSW Recycling Rates



State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)

State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to Density of Curbside Recycling Programs

2000 MSW Recycling Rate

State Land Area Per State Curbside Reycling Program (square miles)
Thousands

R-square = 0.351 # pts = 43
y = 0.965x4-0.231

102



State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)

State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to State Recycling Budget Per Capita

nN
3S
x

a
g
x

MSW Recycling Rate (2000 BioCycle)

0% >
$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00

State Budget Per Capita for Recycling (including composting)

R-square = 0.35 #pts = 27
y = 0.317 + 0.0469(Inx)

95



e @ @
MSW Recycling Goal Assessment Methodology

« Timeframe: Initial two-month timeframe (April & May 2003) set by OSW
MISWD recycling team, for EMRAD to conduct this assessment; scope
of EMRAD part-time work on this study expanded thru Aug 2003, as
new literature sources became available from inter-library loan sources.

= Scope: Evaluation “Option 2” was initial EMRAD study scope &
framework for this assessment; evaluation scope expanded to include
internet info/data search (per “Option 3”), and benefit-cost analysis (per
“Option 4”); Appendix C contains the four study plan options.

s Staff: One EMRAD staff economist (Mark Eads) conducted this project
in-house (no contractor support). Information contributions by MISWD
staff, MISWD contractor (Franklin Associates), and OSW Regional
Implementation Team (RIT).

» Data: Recycling assessment limited to secondary information sources
on recycling baseline, recycling infrastructure, & recycling costs/benefits
(no new data collected).



ee

State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)

State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to Curbside Recycling Coverage (#4 of 4)
70%
@
60% f
2
2 50%
Qo
a —
= 0,
. © o. 8 -
; e © Qo reer
a 30% ; ;
: . eee So eS $
8 ct a or % ae os ;
S 20m | eee -
© } -
= 10% | 0 2, a
=
0% a ;
0% 20% 40% 60% won
Percentage of State Population Served by Curbside Recycling Programs
Resquare = 0.194 # pts = 37
y = 0.187 + 0.187x

101



EE EEE EE OO EEE EE
@ @ @

Municipality MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots

> Municipality MSW Recycling Rates Compared to City Population Density
s
2 60%
2
o —
w 9, el
= 50% re a
2 9, ° & ° caren ~
© 40% © v o en = °
£ 309% e ae
xs) ° o ry ——
> > 0
© 20% Qe onsen
= ee res
a
= 10% o °
gy ©
a 0% £
3
a
2000 City Population Density Per 1996 Square Mile
Thousands
R-square = 0.215 #pts = 25
y = 0.156 + 1.24e-005x

106



|

| National Annual Recycling Benefit Category #3:
Household Willingness-to-Pay for Recycling Civic Duty

= 1999 survey* of households “willingness-to-pay” for recycling was 74% more
than garbage collection cost (+/-1 std.dev. range of 46% to 120%).

= Household reasons for WTP: 53% good for environment; 13% civic duty; 33%

unknown.
If garbage LB ML UP
collect cost is 46% 74% 120% <WTP
Lower-bound: $43/ton $20/ton $32/ton $52/ton
Mostlikely: $69/ton $32/ton $51/ton $83/ton
Upper-bound: $167/ton $77iton  $124/ton $200/ton

a Annual household WTP for recycli ng (note: only 13% of this WTP applied as
a benefit in a following slide to avoid possible double-counting with Benefits

#4 & #5): LB ML UB
If range in household average WTP is (S/ton): $20 $51 $200
then incremental benefit of 35% goal is (mill./yr): $240 $612 $2,400
And the 13% civic duty component is (mill/yr): $31 $80 $312

* Source: Thomas Kinnaman, eaning the Growth in Municipal Recycling Programs: The Role of Market and Nonmarket Factors”, Public Works
Management & Policy, Vi July 2000, pp.37-51.

In absolute measure, two other published studies estimated household “willingness-to-pay” (WTP) for recycling: (a) Williamson County TN 1992

survey for drop-off program surcharge: $11.74/month (suburban recyclers), $7.07/month (rural recyclers), and $4.05/month (rural non-

recyclers), Kelly Tiller et al., “Household Willingness to Pay for Dropoff Recycling”, Journal of Agricultural & Resource Economics, Vol. 22,

$0.52 to $3. somo) incremental to their ‘monthly Garbage collection bill, with 72% of residents willing to participate (probability range & 66% t to
78%), "David Aadland et al., “Household Valuation of Curbside Recycling’, Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, Vol. 42, No.
6, pp.781-799, 1999... 69



2C.4
Potential Impact of 35% Recycling Goal on US Employment

A. Employment Baseline Reference Data (source: 1997 Economic Census):

1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 avg 1997 avg
1997 1997 revenue payroll tons MSW tons/yr revenue worker
MSW Mgt NAICS estabs workers. Lbillions) millions) dmanaged ber worker Dec ton payroll
Recycling 662920 765 10,846 $1.299 $283.5 59.03 5,443 $22.01 $26,136
Landfill 562212 1,403 27,454 $5.493 $887.1 125.54 4,573 $43.76 $32,311
Combust. 562213 105 2,976 $1.129 $132.6 34.79 11,689 $32.44 $44,554
Column totals = 2,273 41,276 $7.921 $1,303.1 219.36 5,314 $36.11 $31,572

Note: Solid waste collection services (NAICS 562111) employment not analyzed; assumes MSW collection quantity is unchanged.

B. Potential Impact on Employment (2001 update year; parentheses indicate decrease):

Change in Change in Change in
35% increment employment revenues payroll
MSW Mat (mill. tons/yr) (workers) ($millions) ($millions)
Recycling 12.0 2,208 $288 $76
Landfill (9.5) (2,079) ($453) ($89)
Combust. (2.5) (215) ($89) ($13)
Column totals = 0 (86) ($253) ($25)

Note: One published study postulates the following macroeconomic implications of recycling: “(E]xpansion of recycling will reduce dependence on
imports and thus improve the balance-of-payments. Furthermore, and autonomous reduction in imports is then assumed to create a multiplier
effect, as there is a net injection to the circular flow of income, causing GNP to rise. Finally, the higher GNP is assumed to create an expansion
in the requirement of labor, thus reducing unemployment.” This study examined two countries and estimated 0.29% and 2.3% annual
increases in GNP from 5% and 40% recycling rates, respectively (for Italy), and 0.88% and 1.76% annual increases in GNP from 5% and 10%
recycling rate increases, respectively (for United Kingdom); V. Rich et al., “Macroeconomic Implications of Recycling: A Response to Di Vita5,
Resources Policy, Vol.25, pp.141-142, 1999.



Standard MSW Recycling Rate (USEPA definition)

(quantity MSW recycled)
MSW recycling rate (%) = ----------------------------------- x 100
(quantity MSW generated)



Appendix B:
Municipality Recycling Rates &
Infrastructure

(exploratory X-Y plot graphs based on two

separate data sets)

103



2A.1
Statewide Recycling Rates & Goals



eT EE
@ e @

Small Cities/Towns (“Urban Clusters” 2,500 to 50,000 Population)
Served in State by MSW Recycling Programs (2000) |

Small City/Town Populations Served by MSW Recycling Programs

20

Count of States (n=39 w/data)

0% to 5%
>5% to 10%
>10% to 15%
>15% to 20%
>20% to 25%
>25% to 30%
>30% to 35%
>35% to 40%
>40% to 45%
>45% to 50%
>50% to 55%
>55% to 60%
>60% to 65%
>65% to 70%
>70% to 75%
>75% to 80%
>80% to 85%
>85% to 90%
>90% to 95%
>95% to 100%

Percentage of Small City Populations in State Served by MSW Recycling Programs

Source: Based on curbside population served from BioCycle magazine, Dec 2001, Table 6, p.47, supplemented by up to 10% dropoff estimate.

54



Leen

State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)

State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to Curbside Recycling Prevalence (measure #2 of 4)

70%
» 0% ~
ot
& 50%
D
£
S 40%
o A
ia x
= O*K
2
© 20%
Q
a

10%

0% SS . ;
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Number of State Incorporated Places Per Curbside Recycling Program
R-square = 0.514 #pts = 43
y = 0.319e*-0.0357x

99



e @ @
Baseline Materials Recycled (2000)

2000 Generation (million tons) Recovery as % of Generation
1. Paper & paperboard 86.7 1. Yard trimmings 56.9%
2. Yard trimmings 27.7 2. Paper & paperboard 45.4%
3. Food 25.9 3. Metals 35.4%
4. Plastics 24.7 4. Glass 23.0%
5. Metals 18.0 5. Other materials NEC 21.3%
6. Glass 12.8 6. Textiles 13.5%
7. Wood 12.7 7. Rubber & leather 12.2%
8. Textiles 9.4 8. Plastics 5.4%
9. Rubber & leather 6.4 9. Wood 3.8%
10. Other materials NEC 4.0 10. Food 2.6%
11. Misc inorganic wastes 3.5 11. Misc inorganic wastes 0.05%
Total= 231.9 Total= 30.1%

Source: Franklin Assoc. (EPA-530-R-02-001), Table ES-4, page 7.

37

QQ OQ OL


Recycling Rate Measurement Issues Implied From
14 May 2003 Franklin Assoc. Briefing to OSW

Recycling Sources: EPA’s scope for MSW not exclusively “municipal”;
includes commercial, institutional, & some industrial (e.g. wood pallets);
could be revised as four separate category sensitivity analyses.

Recyclable Materials: Excludes a number of waste streams that others may
classify as MSW: construction & demolition debris, used oil, medical waste,
pre-consumer waste; could be included as sensitivity analysis.

Materials Reuse/Energy: Excludes materials reuse (e.g. retreaded tires),
source reduction substitution (textiles or container reuse), waste-to-energy
(e.g. pallets), backyard composting, and land applications; could be
included as sensitivity analysis.

Assumptions: Some key numerical assumptions for estimating the annual
recycling rate, were formulated in early-1990s; could be updated.

Uncertainty: Possible to introduce uncertainty ranges in numerical values of
some key assumptions, and carry-thru ranges to annual recycling rate
estimates, rather than single point estimates each year.



| National Annual Direct Cost of Achieving 35% Goal

= Incremental Tonnage: 12.0 million tons/year additional recycling needed to achieve
35% (average of Franklin & BioCycle increments calculated relative to 2000 baseline).

» Unit Cost for Recycling (30 cities; 2002%):

a Recycling collection. data sample* mix of curbside & dropoff programs ranges from $4 LB to $124
per ton (median = $64/ton) Note: this excludes societal cost for (a) household waste sorting

time, (b) household container/space cost, & (c) household travel costs to recycling drop-off
locations.

a Recycling processing’ Cost for processing collected recyclable material at an MRF (material
recovery facility) = $14/ton LB to $95/ton UB (median = $55/ton); based on data for four cities

from EPA-530-R-99-013.
a Total cost (collection + processing) = $35/ton LB to $162/ton UB (median = $98/ton).

= National Incremental Cost: Applied to the 12.0 million tons/year incremental recycling to
achieve 35%, produces a national incremental cost estimate of ($millions/year):

Estimate range** $/ton Capital (22%) O&M (78%) Total

Lower-bound: $35 $92 $328 $420

Most-likely: $98 $259 $917 $1,176

Upper-bound: $162 $428 $1,516 $1,944
LB = lower-bound = (mean or median — 1 SD); UB = upper-bound = (mean or median + 1SD).

* Based on pooled data points for 30 communities ranging from 1.900 to 6.0 million population, from three reports (EPA-
600-R-95-109 July 1995, EPA-530-R-99-013 June 1999, & Waste News magazine17 Feb 2003) for curbside and
dropoff recycling programs; normalized by OSW to 2002$ (Mid = median).

** Estimation range (lower-bound and upper-bound) represents +/-1 standard deviation about most-likely value (i.e. 68%
confidence interval).

65



Appendix C:
Four Alternative EMRAD Study Plans
(Options) for This Assessment

118





Future Projection #2 of 2:
-- BioCycle magazine historical trendline suggests 35% by year 2003!!!

BioCycle Magazine Annual Survey: National MSW Recycling Rate Estimates
Based on Third-Order Curvilinear Multiple Regression of 12 Historical Data Points (1989-2000)

Histopical data

US National MSW Recycling Rate
nN
o
BS

va
| Best-fit projection
YY}
15% -
10%
5%
0% = ae =
i i~J = Nn oO t » o ind o o i-J bad Nn oO 2 wo o nd [J a c=)
o a a ci a a a a c-23 a i227 o i= o Oo oO i=] i=J o o So os
oD a a Oo a oO oO a o oo oo So 7 Qo o r—¥ o o o o i=} o
ee TF | er SF ee ere KrF Ke HEN MH NKR REN KN NN NN

Trend line "goodness-of-fit" R-squared statistic. 1st-order (straightline) = 95.6%: 2nd-order (parabolic curve) = 97.2%: third-order (S-curve) = 98.3%
Historical data source: "13th Annual BioCycle Nationwide Survey", BioCycle magazine, Dec 2001, Table 1, page 43, htip:/www.environmental-center.com/articles/article 1 130/article1 130. htm#article2



State MSW Recycling Rates: Exploratory Scatter Plots (cont'd)

State MSW Recycling Rates Compared to State Average Salaries

@ 70%
ES
S 60% ;
3
> 50%
2 ©
x 40% 3 ;
: Clo
2 % » a 50 OO =
E me oS ae a
Sn rr Sr 5
© prey Be
© 20% ener ty TD g 5 ;
5 ao ° ° > 5
na =
Son ° ° 4 ° co
8 rs
S 0%

2000 State Average Annual Pay for All Workers Covered by Unemployment Insurance
Thousands

R-square = 0.134 #pts =45
= -2.72 + 0.288(Inx)

97



Policy Options for Stimulating Recycling Implied From Baseline Data

= Target attention/assistance to major municipalities:
a Up to 16 of 25 most populous cities <35% goal (R+C)

= ‘Target attention/assistance to states:
a Up to 29 of 45 states <35% goal
a Atleast 20 states <53% state population coverage national average

= Target attention/assistance to EPA Regions:
a_ Regions |, IV, VIll >65% average lag for states under jurisdiction
a Regions ], IV, V, VI, Vill =>65% average lag for top-25 municipalities within jurisdiction

= Target materials recycling categories:
a 8of 11 materials <35% goal
a Metals, glass, & rubber/leather recycling rates declining since 1998
a Plastics, wood, and food <5% recycling rates.

=  Facilitate/expand municipal & state recycling initiatives:

a Promote initiatives/programs in other jurisdictions (e.g. single-stream pickup, schools,
multi-family apts, grocery stores, electronics)

a Implement national guidance or national RCRA legislation (e.g. yard waste landfill
bans only in 23 states as of 1997).



| Municipality Recycling Dataset (Top-25 Most Populous Cities)

Estimate of US National A\ MSW. Collection Cost & Materials Revenues Waste News 2003 ‘
i A Bo: Cc D@c) Ee Fe) GCE H | J K LOUK) M NK)
: 2003 suvey_ Amount budgetas’ : 2001/2002" Recycing Recycing
Top-25 most MSWrecyd = City ‘Lerdera Neo Popuiation Landarea spenton %ofsoid Recycing Recyding recycing meferas revenue

Pops tate for popaon (ones), Rapin pes: perdrop per dop weoeing weste budget 2 vouTe ag oot prt agvde
—— Saas saat
wes 1267410 259602 3 2,146,321 9 9

6 $1504 234%  $18400000 98270 $187 $1,858363 $1891

Los Angeles 39.0% 366480 4674 795 1 3,694,820 467 $1148 507%  $42400000 66404 $4 $1654730 $249
Phiadeiphia §=385% = 1,517,560 12360 11,168 3 505850 45 $534 93% $8,100.000 38551 $210 . $4830 $246
Seattle 37.9% 563374 1448 see 2 281687 72 4919

New Ya 3.7% soe7e = RNB. 2sges «64 = 2002070 8 = $1292 99% = $103,438.905. 5960496 $17 $5,960778 $1.00

Jacksorvile 33.0% 7667. 7586 c:) ' 506229 $1,600,000 $3.16
10 Austin 295% ees2 = 1160 5@60 6652 116 $775 126% $5000621 51,72 $8 $1,388220 1684

1
11 Baimoe =. 287% = sist Siw GC(itiCiBG 1381.36 15% = SBB7,14B 20475 SO
12 MMeukee =. 26.8% 6974 58 6231 2 28487 48 $9.05 252% $5,400,000 677
13. Memphis 25.6% 660,100 2770 237 = 3 216700 9 $2.00 30% $1,300000 104087 $12 $368988 $353
14 Phoenix 21.0% 1,321,045 467 263 «3 440348 182 $3.47 94% $4583286. «(111621 41 $4200000 $37.66
15 WeshDC 182% 572,080 683 e32 «1 572009 «68 $6.44 9368350927360) $135 $15942 $058
16 Coumbus 13.0% T1470 2033 3600 49 14520 4 $2.95 64% $2,100,840. 51,605 $41
17 Boston 13.0% 589,141 412 12482 «1 589,141 47 $5.94 92% $3,500,000 38100 $2 $165000 $4.33
18 Indianapolis 11.8% 791,908 620 2250 27 29331 13 $1.50 3.1% $1,188,000 UA BA $1511 $0.04
19 SanAnionio 101% 114468 600 31e 3 381549 120 $338 204%  $3863405 46037 SH $600525 $1304
20 Detroit 72% 970,196 1430 67 1 970,196 143 42.649
21 Nashville 70% 9801 5330 4080 12 47491 44 $1479 258% $8429863. $200,000
22 Houston 70% 4953631 S940 309 12 162803 50 $205 67%  $4000000 22144 $124 $550000 $17.11
23 Denver 67% SAG 1546 3588 $359 10.1%  $1991792 16534 $120 —$735000 $4445
24 ~ElPaso 25% ‘563662 2474 2778 (15 57 16 $2.13 51% $1,201,229 7,191 $167 $230,796 $3210
25 _Deks 22% 4.188.580 3780 314 W476 __ 10 $2.04 48% $2426604 14033 $173
= 237% 6487 517,767 74 $580 = 13.1% = $1222
. Medan= 256% . . 3,896. . 286644. 48 $3.53 94% . . Meden= $4. . BS
Popwdavg= 287% Torswd avg= $19 $168

Dataponis= 5 a 2 2 2 2 18 20 24 19 18 \ 7
104



2B.1
MSW Recycling Infrastructure:
Statewide Population Coverage (2000)

45