With the evolution of recycling, simplification of curbside collection is producing a new generation of programs.

By Darlene Snow

As multiple curbside sorts are being replaced by single- and two-stream recycling, the decision facing many communities now is not whether or how to recycle, but how to recycle better.

Improving collection efficiencies and increasing public participation and subsequent diversion rates are driving changes in our approach to recycling. Public works officials are considering whether to automate collection, reduce curbside sorting, introduce standardized collection carts, and modify processing lines to accommodate additional commingling of recyclables.

In some communities, cost savings from automated collection offset additional processing costs. In others, the cost of purchasing automated collection vehicles and carts is too big a hurdle. In addition, there is a real concern about losing market revenue if recyclable materials are degraded through further commingling, particularly when glass is mixed with fibers.

According to Mitch Kessler, president of Kessler Consulting Inc. in Tampa, FL, single-stream recycling is defined as "commingled collection of fiber and containers in a noncompartmentalized vehicle." Kessler stresses that it is critical to know the local markets and collection issues before committing to a particular approach. "The main thing is matching the capabilities of the processing facilities with materials that you have and the markets."

This article explores how several communities have made the decision to adopt single-stream or multistream approaches and factors that came into play for those that recently made a switch.

Some common factors include labor costs, workers' compensation concerns, recovery rates, collection volumes, availability of processing facilities, advancements in technology, contract terms and conditions, and end-market specifications. When considering a change to a new system, however, investment in existing systems and the costs for changing over - essentially incurring startup costs all over again - might be the largest factors.

With millions of dollars invested in existing collection and processing systems, converting to a new system, particularly if the current one is deemed "working," might not be a practical option. Instead, recycling planners are looking at critical points in the life cycle of a program - typically measured in equipment lifespan or contract terms - to find opportunities to upgrade technology, introduce new equipment, or switch to an entirely different approach.

For curbside collection, for instance, aging vehicle fleets present an opportunity to experiment with automated collection or compaction vehicles. Jim Lyons, national sales manager for SAC Recycling Trucks in South Windsor, CT, a manufacturer of manual-loading recycling vehicles, indicates that collection costs become a bigger factor as programs increase in size. "With hydraulic trucks costing well over $100,000, smaller communities have a harder time justifying the capital and maintenance costs for switching to a single-stream, automated collection route," he remarks.

In the food chain of recycling programs, smaller communities wishing to cut collection costs or make recycling more convenient might be able to take advantage of hand-me-downs from other programs by fashioning upgrades from used vehicles or secondhand processing equipment. According to Lyons, SAC Recycling helped Portland, ME, build and mount two new 20-yd. recycling bodies on old truck chassis for the city's island services program. By refurbishing the vehicles, Lyons claims SAC Recycling saved the city thousands of dollars.

Used equipment, however, will not solve possibly the biggest barrier to switching to a different collection program, which seems to be the cost of collection containers themselves. Purchasing and distributing standard recycling containers, for instance, for single-stream or multistream programs means a significant startup expense, exceeding in many cases the cost of new collection vehicles.

Evolution in recycling, however, is inevitable. While switching to automated collection or single stream might appear out of reach to many communities now, Kessler reminds us, "Years ago, many people thought that two-stream recycling would never work."

Whitewater, WI

The City of Whitewater, WI, began its curbside program in 1993. It initially used a two-stream approach with residents separating paper from commingled cans and bottles into 28-gal. bins. The city moved to single stream in 2002.

The impetus for switching to single stream came from the city's recycling and refuse contractor, John's Disposal Service, says Dean Fischer, director of public works. John's came to the city with a proposal to switch to automated collection using standard 96-gal. bins for refuse and recycling. In return, the company was seeking an extension on its contract to cover the capital costs of buying and distributing bins to the city's 2,230 households. In 2001, John's Disposal conducted a pilot project, and it implemented the full program citywide in 2002 with great results, reports Fischer. The city recycled 661 tons, or 32%, of a total wastestream of 2,039 tons in 2002.

He says the new system is a major improvement in two ways. First, it is more convenient, eliminating the need to sort recyclables into two streams, and is expected to lead to more recycling. Second, it gets rid of unsightly trash bags and cans that used to line the city streets five days a week.

"With the old system, we had refuse trucks operating routes five days a week," says Fischer. "Now, with biweekly recycling and bulky collection and weekly refuse, everything is collected on the same day - half the city gets recycling-refuse-bulky collection and the other half gets refuse only." He adds, "The new containers are cleaner and more attractive, and we've reduced the collection schedule to one day a week citywide."

Fischer says John's Disposal's argument for automating collection was to cut down on labor costs and on-the-job injuries from manually lifting heavy loads of trash and recyclables into collection vehicles. In exchange for a refuse and recycling contract extended by four years, the contractor purchased new automated collection vehicles and carts for the city. The monthly cost to the city for the automated system is $3.59 per unit for recycling and $7.03 per unit for refuse and bulky collection.

Under an existing city code, residents are required to keep refuse and recycling containers out of sight until collection day. Fischer says this is no longer practical with the larger standardized bins since many residents simply do not have the space to store the containers out of sight. He expects the ordinance to be revised to reflect the new system. Residents who have difficulty maneuvering the larger container are given the option of using smaller standardized containers.

Fischer says his goal is to eventually get the entire city on one schedule where everyone has refuse collection one week and refuse/recycling/bulky collection the following week.

According to Brian Jongetjes, president of John's Disposal Service, the biggest issue that arises with switching to automated collection is the cart size. John's Disposal originally offered the 96-gal. Toter wheeled carts with a 32-gal. option for senior citizens, but it received complaints that the 32-gal. cart was too small. The company switched to a 64-gal. cart but found that it essentially had the same dimensions as the 96-gal. cart and consequently received complaints that the cart was too big for storage off the curb. Finally, it offered a 48-gal. cart, which is smaller for storage and easier to maneuver for senior citizens. "The 48 is right in the middle and seems to be working."

The second reason why carts present the biggest issue, states Jongetjes, is expense. Switching to an automated system, using standard wheeled carts, for an initial 20,000 homes cost close to $2 million. John's Disposal services 30 municipalities in Wisconsin, amounting to 40,000 households. To date, 20,000 homes have been switched to automated collection with single-stream recycling, with another 10,000 homes slated to switch in the fall of 2003. "Our total capital investment at the MRF [material recovery facility] for processing equipment has been about $250,000, so in comparison, carts are a much bigger expense," Jongetjes points out.

John's also invested in a new fleet of collection vehicles for the switch. For the pilot program, the company purchased and rebuilt a few used 24-yd.³ automated trucks. The 10-year-old used trucks cost less than $20,000 each, notes Jongetjes.

With the success of the pilot project behind it, John's Disposal purchased five new 28-yd.³ Heil 7000 bodies on existing Crane Carrier chassis for about $100,000 apiece. The same vehicles are used for refuse and recycling collection, where the collection crews do a refuse run first, empty the truck, and return to collect the recyclables. Bulky waste is collected separately using the old rearloaders and noncompaction recycling collection trucks.

Single-stream recyclables - a mixture of fibers, cans, and bottles - are taken to John's Disposal's processing center, which currently operates from two separate buildings. The materials are tipped at a primary sort facility for screening into two categories: fibers and containers. This facility was added in 1991 to accommodate the shift to single-stream recycling. The commingled cans and bottles are moved over to the original MRF, which opened in 1998 to process materials from the two-stream system, for additional sorting and processing. "My father John designed and built the whole MRF. It is a state-of-the-art dual-stream system," says Jongetjes. The facility uses custom-made conveyors, bunkers, glass crushers/screens, and air classifiers. It also has an Excel Manufacturing baler, a Logemann baler, Lubo USA disc screens, and a Dings Co. cross-belt magnet and eddy-current separator. Jongetjes says the company made the switch to single stream for its customers. "People love this. They love their Toters. They love single stream." He says it is more convenient, has cleaned up the entire collection process, and lowered his workers' compensation claims.

With fewer trucks on the road, John's Disposal has cut collection costs significantly. By reducing recycling collection to biweekly (from weekly collection before) and switching to automated collection, the company can service more homes on fewer days. "Now our trucks can pick up refuse from 800 homes and return to collect recyclables from 400 homes, all in one day."

The savings in collection costs is used to offset the additional costs. "We are spending all the money we saved," says Jongetjes. Once the startup costs are recovered, however, he expects to see cost savings from the new program. "We should start seeing some huge savings in about four to five years."

Ann Arbor, MI

The City of Ann Arbor, MI, has used the same recycling collection contractor since the 1970s, Recycle Ann Arbor, one of the original volunteer-based recycling nonprofits. Since that time, the city has seen the program grow with community support and technology. Initially the city had a monthly collection program, but in 1991 it made the transition to weekly collection of two streams - paper and containers - and added multifamily households. In 1995, the city opened a new processing facility and awarded a 20-year processing contract to FCR Ann Arbor, a division of FCR Casella Inc. in Charlotte, NC.

Now the city's program reaches 45,000 households (22,000 single-family and 23,000 multifamily), as well as businesses. Single-family households are provided with two 12-gal. stackable containers from SCL A-1 Plastics Ltd. for recycling. Multifamily complexes are given two 105-gal. Toter bins for each 25 units to share. In addition, single-family households are provided with weekly yardwaste collection from April through November.

Ann Arbor's two-stream approach has yielded a 50% diversion rate with only 3% residuals at the processing facility, according to Tom McMurtrie, recycling coordinator for the City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Department.

On the commercial side, where the city offers paper recycling, the diversion rate is lower - about 20% - according to McMurtrie, but the city hopes to improve this number.

Although the city's program is working, McMurtrie notes that a single-stream program would be easier for residents and would probably increase participation. "There's no real reason for us to change. Our system is working fine, and at this point it would be too big a cost."

Reeducation of the public is not seen as a major issue or cost factor for switching, adds McMurtrie. Instead, he explains that purchasing and distributing new containers for single stream would be a bigger issue. "Maybe when the current MRF is worn out, say in 30 years, we could consider switching."

According to Melinda Uerling, executive director for Recycle Ann Arbor, switching to single stream is not a viable option. "This [multistream] system works well for us. The residents are used to it." Uerling points out that a drawback to a single-stream approach is the subsequent push to eliminate glass that goes with it. She says this trend is being fueled by a combination of a drop in glass in the consumer marketplace and poor markets for recycled glass.

The City of Ann Arbor represents the quandary many communities might face when reviewing their programs. Investments in existing programs are too substantial to consider a switch to another approach, whether from multistream to single stream or the other way around. Instead, changes can be made gradually as equipment wears out or contracts expire. In Ann Arbor's case, Uerling remarks that Recycle Ann Arbor is working with the city to evaluate split packers with compaction for recycling collection. According to McMurtrie, in 1991 with the help of a state grant the city made its initial investment in its fleet of 12 Lodal Inc. side-loading, dual-compartment, semiautomated, one-person recycling vehicles, which it leases back to Recycle Ann Arbor. "Trucks generally last about seven years. We've pushed some of ours to 12 years, so it's time to look at replacing these vehicles."

He says the city also hopes to start benchmarking its recycling costs. Since Ann Arbor has always bid out these services, the city would like to better understand what factors are driving the costs. "Labor, maintenance, and equipment operation are probably our biggest costs," he estimates.

The city pays its recycling collection contractor $2.54 per household for single-family residences and $11.94 per cart for multifamily units. For processing, the city pays its MRF contractor an average of $19-$20/ton using a formula-based tipping fee. This fee is adjusted monthly. "We get a certain percentage of the average net revenue," says McMurtrie.

According to Curtis Curavo, plant manager for FCR Ann Arbor, the MRF receives about 100 tpd, 60-65% of which is from the city of Ann Arbor. The city also has contracts with other cities to process their recyclables at its MRF. FCR processes this material as well as some materials from individuals that it contracts with, says Curavo.

The MRF has three sorting lines. Two lines process the residential materials - one for plastics, glass, aluminum, and tin and one for mixed paper. The third line processes corrugated cardboard from the commercial recycling routes.

Changing to single stream at this point would be frustrating to the residents, says Curavo. "Ann Arbor is really happy with where they are with customer training. There's no reason to switch." He indicates that switching to single stream would also mean incurring startup costs, which the city has probably just recovered, all over again. It would involve reeducating the public, changing the facility, and changing the markets for recyclables (due to new levels of contamination). Instead, Curavo says the focus should be on how to make the existing system more cost-effective and efficient. "We need to look at improving our sorting efficiencies and saving money within the existing system."

Portland, ME

The City of Portland, ME, launched its first curbside program in 1999 with the introduction of its pay-as-you-throw pricing system. Prior to this point, residents used a drop-off recycling facility and the city achieved a 7% recovery rate. With a combination of multistream recycling collection and pay-as-you-throw, Portland was able to increase its residential recovery rate to 35%, according to Troy Moon, solid waste coordinator for the city.

Each household and apartment dwellings in buildings with fewer than nine units receive one 17-gal. Norseman bin for weekly recycling collection. Residents are asked to sort into three streams: commingled containers, mixed paper, and corrugated cardboard and chipboard. Containers are placed into the bins. Paper can either be placed loose or bagged on top. Cardboard and chipboard must be cut to smaller than 3 x 3 ft. and can be placed under the bin or bundled alongside. Surplus recyclables can be placed in bags or similar boxes at the curb or taken to the recycling drop-off center. Although recycling bins are initially distributed free of charge to residents, new and replacement bins are $5. Residents are also permitted to use similar bins of their own.

The city purchased a new fleet of recycling trucks in 2003. "We purchased six new Volvo trucks with Volvo diesel engines that are low-entry cab-overs with dual-side steering. The chassis are G-S Products [Model] G-S 5700s, with 31-cubic-yard capacity," says Moon.

The trucks, which cost around $120,000 each, have onboard compaction and load from both sides. Moon says both features were vital for efficient collection. They have three compartments. Two of the streams, mixed containers and cardboard, are compacted. Mixed containers are only lightly compacted to help deflate the plastic bottles.

Prior to 2003, the city contracted with a private firm for collection. When the contract was put out to bid, Portland's Department of Public Works submitted its own bid and won the contract. Including the amortized costs for the six recycling trucks, the collection costs for recycling add up to about $550,000, including wages, benefits, vehicle maintenance, and fuel, according to Moon.

All solid waste and recyclable materials are transported to a processing facility operated by Regional Waste Systems (RWS) of Portland, a quasi-municipal agency comprising 21 towns and cities in Maine. RWS also operates a waste-to-energy plant for the communities. There is no tipping fee charged at the gate for recycling, but participating municipalities are assessed as part of the annual budgeting process to cover any shortfalls experienced by the operation, notes Moon. "Historically the assessment has been a wash. In some years the MRF has generated revenues and in others a deficit. The amount we've been assessed has been nominal." In contrast, the city pays $88/ton for waste disposal at the regional waste-to-energy facility, a fee that offers a strong incentive to boost recycling numbers.

According to Moon, the MRF was upgraded in 1999, from a smaller version that had been operating since 1987, to handle Portland's new program. "We're the largest city participating in the regional facility, so when we added curbside collection, the MRF was upgraded."

The decision to go with a multistream system was driven by the MRF, notes Moon. Since Portland already was committed to an existing facility, what it could collect and how the materials were collected were decided by the sorting capabilities of the MRF and its end markets. "We wanted to minimize sorting as much as possible and make the curbside system as simple as possible."

While the city continues to work with RWS on ways to improve the system, it is not considering a move to single stream. "We're getting tremendous participation, over 90%, from instituting pay-as-you-throw, so switching to single stream would not have many benefits for us." Instead, Moon believes that oversimplifying the program might cause residents to be less attentive to what is recycled, increasing contamination and potentially harming relationships with end markets. "We deliver a very clean stream with the current system."

St. Paul, MN

Eureka Recycling in St. Paul, MN, conducted a pilot program in 2002 in partnership with the City of St. Paul and the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance to evaluate various options for curbside sorting. The study looked at total system costs over a five-year period, factoring amortization of new equipment purchases into the analysis.

Eureka Recycling has a contract to operate St. Paul's recycling collection and processing programs until 2013. According to Tim Brownell, co-president and chief operating officer, it looked at five scenarios: (1) the existing source-separation program incorporating new public-education materials; (2) two-stream, biweekly collection using 35-gal. carts; (3) two-stream, biweekly collection using 18-gal. bins; (4) two-stream, weekly collection using 18-gal. bins; and (5) single-stream, biweekly collection using 64-gal. carts. Each pilot program comprised 400 households, ran for four months, and was coupled with an adjacent control area of another 400 households. Each household in the pilot program (excluding the control areas) also received new public-education materials.

Brownell explains that Eureka Recycling currently operates a recycling program for the city where residents separate recyclables into six categories at the curbside. The collection crew further separates glass by color at the curb, resulting in an eight-category sort. This program services about 80,000 households and 28,000 multifamily dwellings.

As a result of the pilot, Eureka will launch a two-stream program in January 2004, providing weekly collection using two 18-gal. bins. For the program, Eureka Recycling purchased 14 new Labrie Equipment Ltd. adjustable, compartmentalized collection vehicles for about $1.5 million. Eureka Recycling also plans to purchase at least one additional 18-gal. bin per household, although under the new system residents will continue to use the 18-gal. bins they already have, notes Brownell. The new bins will cost more than $200,000 to purchase. Residents will be asked to use two bins to sort paper from containers. The two-stream system also involves constructing a new processing facility, which Brownell estimates will cost about $3.5 million.

A key factor hurting single stream in the evaluation was the cost of the 64-gal. carts, explains Brownell. Since the pilot program studied system costs over only a five-year period, the startup costs of a single-stream program were significantly higher. Although single-stream programs might begin experiencing significant cost savings after the initial capital costs are recovered due to improved collection efficiencies, the pilot program did not look at long-term system costs. Brownell says this is because, historically in St. Paul, collection contracts extend only five years. Unless the city owned the recycling carts, it would risk having to finance startup costs (for container purchase and distribution) again in five years if it switched to a different collection contractor. "Within our own market, when we looked at per-ton system costs, the two-stream approach resulted in $65 per ton for weekly collection, whereas the single-stream approach was $76 per ton for biweekly collection."

Cart costs, however, were not the only factor eliminating single stream from consideration. "We also looked at the processing side, the value of materials, and residual rates," says Brownell. "The most damaging [factor] to single stream was the increase in processing costs and the loss of material revenue." He explains that with single stream the city would lose a valuable market for glass since the only use for mixed glass in the region is for landfill cover. Since alternative daily cover is not considered in the city's recycling rate calculations, diverting recovered glass for this use would result in more than 25% residuals at the processing facility and a much lower recycling rate, says Brownell. Since glass comprises 13% of materials set out at the curb, this is significant.

The complete pilot-program study can be obtained from Eureka Recycling's Web site at www.eurekarecycling.org.

Los Angeles, CA

In Los Angeles County, refuse and recycling is operated under a system of nonexclusive franchise agreements in the unincorporated areas, amounting to an open market for residential collection. Without long-term or exclusive contracts, this has resulted in a variety of collection scenarios, although hauling companies are bound by the county's requirements with regard to providing collection for three streams - refuse, recycling, and yardwaste - says Tommy Ouzoonian, director of sales and marketing for Athens Services in City of Industry, CA. Athens Services received a waiver from the county's prescribed approach to implement a pilot program for collection of one stream - commingled refuse, recycling, and yardwaste - for processing at its transfer station and processing facility.

According to Ouzoonian, Athens used a marketing campaign to sign up customers in the San Gabriel Valley area for its new program, which began in October 2000. In the first year, the company went from zero to 2,000 customers. The program now serves 10,000 households with plans to expand into additional unincorporated areas. Under this approach, residents use their own container to place refuse at the curb, standard front-loading refuse trucks are used for collection, and the mixed waste is brought back to the company's processing facility for sorting into three dozen categories, resulting in a 30% diversion rate.

The company reminds its customers that their waste is being recycled by distributing public-education materials that describe how the processing facility works. According to Ouzoonian, the program is popular because it is convenient for residents and eliminates truck traffic. Under the county's prescribed program, neighborhoods often receive collection of three wastestreams, with three different trucks, from one or more companies each week. In contrast, Ouzoonian says Athens Services tends to be the only hauler in the areas that it services, resulting in only one waste truck per week in a neighborhood.

The savings in collection costs - from reduced collection routes and eliminating an investment in carts and vehicles - offsets the additional processing costs, says Ouzoonian. "Recycling is still more expensive than landfill - tipping fees are only $18 to $20 per ton in the region - but mixed-waste recycling is less expensive than source separation."

Los Angeles offers its own set of unique variables, however, which drive these economics. A favorable climate and relatively inexpensive labor pool reduce processing-facility costs compared to areas with harsher climates and expensive labor. Ouzoonian estimates the average hourly rate for sorting personnel to be around $8, with entry-level positions starting at minimum wage. The plant employs 600 people and a combination of manual and mechanical sorting to operate and process 1,900 tpd of mixed waste, its permitted capacity. Athens Services is hoping to expand its permit to allow for up to 8,000 tpd.

Alternative daily cover for landfill is also included in diversion rates, providing low-end marketing outlets - for yardwaste, for instance - that might not count as diversion in other areas, such as St. Paul.

Ouzoonian also indicated that the processing facility has limited storage space. Consequently, materials that are processed tend to be shipped out the next day. This is a type of forced efficiency. Ouzoonian says it limits the company's ability to play the market for recyclable materials. "We're on a tight piece of land with no room for storage. We have to move materials quickly. Something that's baled today is gone tomorrow. This means we can't store. We can't play the market. We have to be very efficient."

Darlene Snow is a writer based in Los Angeles, CA.

MSW - September/October 2003