Other Issues

Other Communities in North Carolina can carry out

similar estimations for their communities. A solid waste

planner might want to consider that one thing that the

numbers in the Orange County analysis and the analysis of

the studies do not illustrate is the fact that source

reduction often occurs due to a shift in container mix after

a BCDL is passed. All of these studies assumed that the

container mix would remain the same before and after BCDLs

'^^Franklin 52.

were enacted. Therefore, the actual environmental benefit

may be higher.

The benefit of increased recycling was not quantified. The actual cost increase, the resources saved by recycling and source reduction, education, and other issues like

litter reduction must be considered when determining if

beverage container deposit laws are worth the cost. These

values will be different for each community.

All these studies assumed that all the materials

returned would be recycled. In reality, however the market

for recyclables may be saturated. Due to the instability of markets, it may also be cheaper for the wholesaler or the

brewer to just dispose of the materials collected through

the BCDL. The revenues from the sale of recyclables can help

offset some of the cost of the BCDL.

In the nine states that have BCDLs they are very

popular. Table 4.1 shows the popularity ratings of BCDLs in

several states.

Table 4.1 Public Support for State Deposit Laws47

1 state

Year _{Percent Approval}

1 Iowa

1979

56 1

Maine 1979* 84

1 Massachusetts

1989

78 1

Michigan 1987 90 Oregon 1975 90 Vermont 1989 83 * Referendum Results

One other issue is similar legislation. The California

47,

system was briefly discussed in Chapter 1. The beverage

industry supports the California system because more of the

burden is put on the state which runs the reclamation

centers. Critics of the California system feel that the

administrative burden and the financial stability of the

center make the viability of this system guestionable.**

In Florida they have implemented a system in which all

containers, not just beverage containers, will have disposal

fees levied on them if they do not reach specific recycling

goals. The containers included are glass, plastic, plastic-

coated paper, aluminum and other metals.*' Other

alternatives are mandatory recycling goals such as the ones

in New Jersey. The communities discussed above showed that

mandatory recycling and BCDLs are compatible. These all

represent other options and must be considered when facing

the solid waste crisis.

BCDLs are one method of increasing recycling. They can

be economically viable and coexist with curbside recycling.

However the taxpayer will pay for the system through

increased administrative costs and increased product costs.

They do increase the cost of running a curbside program, but

almost proportionately increase the amount of materials

entering the system.

*°0ffice of Technology Assessment, Facing Americans Trash.

What Next for Municipal Solid Waste? (Washington, D.C.: 1989)

320. *

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, Frank and Todd Schatzki. Bottle Bills and

Municipal Recycling; A Preliminary Cost Analysis.

Boston: Tellus Institute, 1990.

Barlas, Stephen. "Beverage Industries Support Bottle Bill

Challenger." Beverage World June 1991: 65.

Boyd, Steven D. and Finis E. Williams. Throwaway Containers: No Return for North Carolina. A study of the Impact of Minimum Deposit Legislation -Economic. Environmental and Energy Consequences for North

Carolina. Durham, NC: NC Public Interest Research Group, March 1975.

Container Recycling Institute. Beverage Container Deposit Systems in the United States Washington D.C.: Container Recycling Institute, 1992.

Fenner, Thomas W. and Randee J. Gorin. Local Beverage

Containers Laws A Legal and Tactical Analysis. Stanford, CA: Stanford Environmental Law Society, 1976. Franklin Associates, LTD. The Role of Beverage Containers in

Recycling and Solid Waste Management. A Perspective for the 1990s. Praire Village, KS: Franklin Associates, LTD., 1989.

Franklin, Patricia F. "Bottle Bill: Litter Control Measure

in a New Role?" Solid Waste and Power February 1991:

44-52.

Franklin, Patricia F. Critique of the Franklin Associates.

LTD. Study.Washington D.C.: Container Recycling

Institute, 1989.

Franklin, Patricia F. "Curbside Recycling and Deposits— Removing More From the Waste Stream for Less" Paper presented at the Windstar in Washington Conference.

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. Impact of Container Deposits on Curbside Recycling: Two Case Studies. Falls Church, VA: Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.,

1991.

Gottovi, The Honorable Karen (D, Wilmington). Computer

Search completed by the North Carolina Capital Library. July 1, 1991. 9:30.

Government Accounting Office. Solid Waste; Trade-offs Involved in Beverage Container Deposit Legislation.

Washington: GAO, November 1990.

HDR Engineering, Inc. of N.C. Final Report; Solid Waste

Management Feasibility Study Orange and Durham Counties for the Regional Solid Waste Task Force. Raleigh; Regional Solid Waste Task Force, 1988.

Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Beyond 40%; Record- set±irg Recycling and Composting Programs. Washington D.C.: Island Press., 1991.

Lesser, William and Ananth Madhavan. "Economic Impacts of a

National Deposit Law: Cost Estimates and Policy

Questions." Journal of Consumer Affairs 21.1 (1987):

132.

Mandell, Lee M. and Matthew R. Banks. What Are We Doing With Garbage? Results of the 1990 NCLM Solid Waste Practices and Finances Survey of North Carolina Municipalities. Chapel Hill: NCLM Report # 224,

September 1990.

Moore, Kent and David L. Scott. "Beverage Container Deposit

Laws; A Survey of the Issues and Results." The Journal

of Consumer Affairs 17.1 (1983); 57-79.

Porter, Richard C. "Michigan's Experience with Mandatory

Deposits on Beverage Containers" Journal of Land Economics 65.2 (1983): 177-194.

Public Papers of the Fund for the City of New York Vol. 4 #3 (Nov 85:1).

"Soft Drink Trends" Beverage Industry Annual Manual (1989 - 1990); 22.

Temple, Barker & Sloan/Clayton Environmental Consultants. Economic Impact of a National Beverage Container Deposit Law. Lexington, MA; Temple, Barker, & Sloan/Clayton Environmental Consultants, 1991.

Litter Reduction in States with BCDLs

BCDLs have been enacted as litter control measures. Table 1.1 showed that a 76% to 86% decrease in beverage container litter

occurred. Total litter was reduced between 30 and 61%^ In Oregon,

a study conducted by Applied Decision Systems showed that beverage

container litter declined by 66% piececount (66% by volume) and

that total litter declined 11% by piececount (21% by volume). All

other litter excluding beverage containers increased 13% by volume

and piececount.^

An article in the Journal of Consumer Affairs, written by W.K Moore and D.L. Scott shows the variety of studies conducted on

litter in Oregon.^ A study conducted by the Oregon Environmental

Council showed that after the second year of implementation, container litter decreased 83% and all litter was down by 39% by piececount and 42% by volume. A study conducted by the Oregon

Journal compared roads with comparable traffic volume in Oregon and

Washington and found that Oregon roads had 7.5% less litter. Critics claim that this was due to stricter enforcement of litter

laws and greater expenditures to clean streets in Oregon. A study

by ADS reports that during the first year of the BCDL, Oregon spent 10.7% more on litter pick-up. However, a study from the

Environmental Action Foundation claimed that the costs of pick-up remained constant from 1970-1974.'^

h study of Michigan highways showed that deposit litter was

down 82%, and total litter was reduced by 41% A study by the Institute for Applied Research showed that while beer and soft

drink litter decreased 87.4% on a piececount basis, actual litter

increased 5.6%.^ 99 locations were surveyed for a two-year study

and showed a litter decrease of 87-93% and a 4% decrease in overall

^Franklin 46.

^Steven D. Boyd and Finis E. Williams, Throwaway Containers;

No Return for North Carolina. A Study of the Impact of Minimum Deposit Legislation- In Economic. Environmental and Energy Conseguences for North Carolina (Durham, NC., 1975) 14.

%.Kent Moore is Assistant Professor of Management, Valdosta

State College, Valdosta, Georgia. David L. Scott is Professor of

Finance, Valdosta State College, Valdosta, Georgia.

^W.K. Moore and D.L. Scott, 64.

decreased cleanup cost per mile by 13.2%. If this figure is multiplied by the total miles of roads in Michigan, the resulting

savings are $1,000,000,000.^

A study from Maine showed that beverage container litter declined 69-77% and total litter declined by 34-64% by piececount.

A Department of Transportation study showed that container litter

was down 55% in 1978 and 56% in 1979% while total litter was down 15% in 1978 and 10% in 1979. This study stated that the reduction in litter was responsible for cutting the cost of highway clean-up

in half.8

In Vermont beverage containers accounted for 40% of all

roadside litter before the BCDL. This percentage decreased to 14%

after the laws implementation. In Iowa litter decreased 48%, the

year after the BCDL was enacted. In Des Moines' parks, the time

spent collecting litter was decreased from 22,024 hours to 20,712 hours (a 6% decrease). In 1976 an mandatory deposit experiment was conducted at Yosemite National Park which resulted in a 50%

decrease in litter and a corresponding increase in recycling.'

The Fund for the City of New York conducted litter surveys during the summer of 1983, before the BCDL was enacted, and during

the summer of 1984, a year after the BCDL was enacted. They found

a half million fewer discarded beverage containers and a dramatic reduction in broken glass. They did not find similar reductions in

other type of litter.^" The decrease in returnable beverage

containers was 80%. The overall decrease in container litter was

62%. 99.9% of that was the decrease in returnable bottles. For

the 500,000 fewer returnables, there were only 500 less

nonreturnables." An increase in the recycling of aluminum, glass,

and plastic resulted in a 4% monthly cutback in landfill tonnage.^^

Those who took part in both surveys felt it was much easier to ^oore and Scott 65.

^Richard C.Porter, "Michigan's Experience with Mandatory

Deposits on Beverage Containers," Journal of Land Economics 65.2

(1983) 178.

''ibid.

'Moore and Scott 66.

^"Public Paper of the Fund for the City of New York Vol 4 #3 (Nov 85:1).

^^Public Paper 4.

^^Public Paper 2.

The data from the states with BCDLs clearly illustrates that beverage container litter decreases after a BCDL is enacted. The reason total litter decreases as well is that beverage container litter comprises between 19.7 and 31.6% by piece count

and 62% by volume of total litter.^'

^^Thomas W. Fenner and Randee J. Gorin, Local Beverage

Container Laws. A Legal and Tactical Analysis.(Stanford, Stanford

Environmental Law Society) 6.

Appendix B: Reductions in Solid Waste in Michigan and Maine

Michigan's annual amount of solid waste is approximately 7 million tons. In Michigan, approximate 95% of beverage

containers have been diverted from the solid waste stream.

This means a 4.5% reduction in solid waste which represents a

$10 million dollar solid waste cost saving.^^Another study of

the effect of the bottle bill on Michigan's solid-waste showed

a 6% reduction in solid waste by weight. It estimated that the cost per ton, for the 10 million tons generated per year, was $30. They estimated a saving of $18 million per year in

solid-waste cost due to the BCDL.^^

In Maine the National Wildlife Federation concluded that solid waste was reduced at least 6% by volume." Municipal officials observed a significant decrease in the volume of

solid waste going into the landfill. "^^

^^Porter 178.

"porter, 179.

Appendix C: Recycling Rates and Revenue for the Franklin Associates Model

This model is very complicated. Amounts recycled,

operating and processing costs, and capital costs were

estimated based on a weighted average based on estimates made for municipal populations. The processes used for Vermont and New York were identical so only the New York process is discussed. The model was developed by calculating the capital cost, the operating costs and the revenues for three different sized communities. The programs served communities of 500,000

people (200,000 households), 100,000 persons (40,000

households) and 10,000 people (4,000 households). The amounts of recyclables were calculated separately for New York and Vermont. For example, New Yorkers consume more newsprint per

capita. Also New York has many more multi-dwelling units.

Amounts of recyclables were determined from estimates made by industry groups. For example the amount of newspaper collected was determined by data from the American Newspaper Publishers Association and American Paper Institute. It was adjusted to include other uses of newsprint like advertising

indexes, sunday magazines, comics and small news papers, etc.

The model was estimated for 90% participation rates and 80% participation rates. Capture rates (rate of recyclables minus broken or unusable materials) were calculated based on rates from existing and planned programs in the Northeast. These

values are shown Table C.l. The flow charts that determine

the amount of materials collected in each program and the way

the material revenues were calculated are also shown in Table

C.2. Tables C.3 show the average price paid for each material and the total revenues. For a more complete breakdown of the

materials captured in each community and the equations used see Appendix E of The Role of Beverage Containers in Recycling and Solid Waste Management. A Perspective for the 1990s.

(In percent of availible materials at residenses)

90% Participation 80% Participation

Materials/ Percent Percent Percent Percent

Product Capture Total Capture Total

Rate Recovery Rate Recovery

Newspaper 85 76.5 70 56

Glass (beer &s.d.) 75 67.5 60 48

Glass (other) 75 67.5 40 32

Aliiminum UBC 85 76.5 80 64

PET 75 67.5 60 48

HDPE 75 67.5 40 32

* Excludes materials directly separated into private voluntary

programs from residences.

(90% participation) Recovered Material Newspapers Glass Alunninum UBC Plastics PET HOPE TOTAL No BCDL • 90% Participation Average

Quantity* Price** Revenue

(1,000 tons) ($/ton) ($1,000) 792 536 31 28 74 35 35 1,200 100 100 1.461 27.720 18,760 37.200 2,800 7.400 93.880 80% Participation Quantity* Revenue (1,000 tons) ($1,000) 580 311 26 20 35 972 20.300 10.885 31,200 2.000 3.500 67,885 With BCDL - 90% Participation Average 80% Participation

Quantity* Price** Revenue Qua_ntity* Revenue

Recovered Material (1,000 tons) {$/ton) ($1,000) (1,000I tons) ($1,000)

Newspapers 792 35 27.720 580 20.300 Glass 306 35 10.710 145 5.075 Aluminum UBC 0 1.200 0 0 Plastics PEI 0 100 0 0 HOPE « 75 100 7.500 36 3,600 TOTAL 1.173 45.930 761 28.975

• Quantities expected from residential collection with 90% and 80% participation and the capture rates

developed in Table 4-6.

** Prices represent average prices F.O.B. shipper's dock in the northeast for fully prepared materials.

Table C.3 New York Recovery of

Potential wth Model Programs

\Um

t-'l 1_{1 <0I 1} 1 c 1 o

o CO CO f^ in S^ 1

11- 1 3

2S fe S «^

CO CO ^ ^ 1

ͣ* ^I

112 11

1 O y^ 1 hE tn 1

1 § «

1 » 1

M

1 ™_{1 k.}

spapers& S.D. Gr Glass

inum UB

_E

H 1

CO $ 5 ® fc 1- CL ti 1 S Z CD O < Q- X 1

^^

1 - 1

1 CD i 1 ^ i 1 « 1 ;i a 1 i — I

u

i c 1 c

1 H

i c

1 1-

1 ^ 1 B 1 ^

1 2

NewspapersBeer & S.D. Glass 373Other GlassAluminum UBC 57PET 43HOPE

^?<^|

1

1 •) 1

1 •£

1 eg 1

\^\

1 u 1

1 °^ t

f

1

i *"• r

1 'f' I c i 3 i o 1 x:

1 1-

1 w 1 '^ 1 £

1 s

Newspapers 1.035Beer & S.D. GlassOther Glass 454Muminum UBC

PETHOPE 111

1 t

ͣ

il

1

1 O) 1

1

1 a> t 1 ͣ(= 1 5 1 f 1 ^ i^ 1 ^

1 £

1 ^

Newspapers 345Beer & S.D. Glass

1 Other Glass 9

Aluminum UBC_PET1 HOPE 1

' 1 1 1 1 CO c: f1 1 3 c\j , CO . ml el 1 ii] 1 S 8 ' ^ pi i o £

PI S 1

K

SS 1

II 3 1

. ^ O 1 M L 1 c:? en 1 1:4 B 1

IJ o 1

E-'l i 1 15

1 '^

spapers&S.D.r Glass inum U

E

1 -2 1 (0

lllitfe

fI 1 :^ Z 03 O < Q- Xl r''^'':^^

\h'M

1 ' ^ i o II K1 c 1 1 f _•^ o . n 1 ml ͣ <»• ' o • pjI 11 r1 3 ͣ^ ^ 1 i O 1 £ i i a 11 H- CO 1 E' 1 > [ 1 CO 1

Mm

m ^ t

J S

JO • CO :::) 1

P

spape&S.DrGlasinum

E

|:;:l t_{1 ™} 1 V r;t 1

1 ^

i S $ m 2 E 1- Q-l z m o < Q- xl I Wie:

1 1

jiliill

₁

1 1

_{1 o} 1 c 1 o_{'^ . \Q • '~ 1} 1 3 ir- 1 tl 11 O 1 JC Il O 11 H (0 1 I'l ' ' 1 CO i Il ^ 1

§ S

1 ^ 1

spapers&S.D._{r Glass inumU}

E

1 « 1 "C

t-l 1

h

$ ^ o E u. B- 1S S £ 3 g Q 1

11 1_{1 > Z CD O < Q. X 1}

|s^"':w'AX;!)iv

Table D.l shows how Franklin Associates, Ltd. estimated

the net cost of a BCDL. The net cost is based on the costs

incurred by the beverage industry which are not offset by

recyclable revenues and unreedeemed deposits.

Table D.l Summary of Estimated Costs, Revenues, and Net Costs

of the Deposit System in New York

Costs Dollars

Wholesaler's cost @ 3.0<:/container

(1.5C handling fee to retailers plus

1.5C processing fee) § 74% redemption $165,962,000

Retailers' Costs @ 3.BC/container less

handling fee of 1.5<:/container 131.022 .000

Total Costs $296,984,000

Revenues

Sale of Materials 78,058,000

Unreedeemed deposits— 26% not redeemed

(1.30/container sold) 94.628,000

Total Revenues $172.686.000

Net Cost of the Deposit System $124,298,000

GBB examined the waste streams in Ann Arundel, Maryland

and Islip, N.Y. Both have recycling programs that are at

least a year old, have regular weekly contracted collection,

provide single-bin home storage, extensive public information

and educational programs and collect glass, plastic, tin, bi¬

metal containers, newsprint, and cardboard J^ Islip, New

York is also subject to a Beverage Container Deposit Law and

includes mixed waste paper in its recycling program which Anne

Arundel, Maryland does not. Various areas around the two

communities were targeted and matched according to

demographic data. Approximately 19,000 households in each

community were sampled. Every solid waste truck and recycling

truck had a random section of each load sampled for one week.

These samples were sorted and then divided into one of 35

waste categories.

The waste was then placed into one of three categories:

waste disposed, wasted recycled and waste redeemed. Waste

redeemed (the waste that was recovered in the BCDL system) was determined by subtracting the waste disposed and waste recycled from the waste generated. GBB then determined that the recycling rate in Islip was 18% and in Anne Arundel, Maryland 17.7%. The redemption rate in Islip was 1.6%.

This appendix shows the community profiles GBB conducted. It also show the materials collected during the sampling period and how these materials were disposed of. These data

were used to determine the amount of materials collected in

the generic analysis show in Appendix C. They were also used

to calculate the costs of the solid waste programs in Islip

and Ann Arundel.

Diversion

Town of islip, New York Waste Compost ion and

WASTB WASTB WASTB WASIB WASlB WASTB WASTB WASTE

GBNBRATBD GBNBRATBO RBDBBIAD RBDBBkfiD RBCYCLHD RBCYCI.BD DISPOSED DISPOSED MATERIAL _{(COMPOSI-TN) (lb*.Ak/yr)}

(») Oktjky^.) (*) ObtJkkJyr.) (%) Ofc../H^.)

GLASS-SOFT DRINK 0.2% 9.2 35.6% 3.3 14.7% 1.3 49.8% 4.6

ALUM. - SOFT DRINK_{Bl-.METAL - SOFT DR.} «.i* 7.« 58.6% 4.6 13.9% LI W.5« il

0.0% 0.1 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 100.0% 0.1

PET - SOFT DRINK a4« 19.1 39.4% 7.5 1X7% 2.4 47.9% 9.2

GLASS - BEER I.S% 67.1 78.8% 52.8 9.9% 6.7 11.3% 7.6

ALUMINUM - BOER 0.1% 6.6 36.2% 2-4 36.4% 2.4 27.5* L«

BI-KffiTAL- BEER 0.0% 0.5 d.0% 00 ao% ao 100.0% as

OTHER GLASS CONT. _2.»»

128.2 0.0% 0.0 51.9% 66.5 4«.1« 61,7

FERROUS CANS 1.4% 62.9 0.0% 0.0 46.1% 29.0 53.9% 33.9

IIDFE NATURAL 0.3% _{n.2 0.0% ao}

38.5% 4.3 61.5% 6.9

IIDPB COLORED 0.4% 18.9 0.0% ao 23.6% 4.5 76.4% 14.4

KET-NON-SOFT DR. 0.0« 1.5 0.0% 0.0 3X8% as 67JI% I.O

NON-COKT. GLASS 0.7% 31.4 0.0% 0.0 60.S% 19.0 39.5% 12.4

NEWS _I6J!«

713.6 ao% 0.0 72.5% 517i> 27J% I96ii

occ _5.7% 252.6 0.0% ao 40.2% 101.5 59.8% 151.2 OITICE PAPER _0.3% 14.0 0.0% 0.0 76.8% 10.8 23.2% 3.3 KRAFT 2.2% 9IJ.7 0.0% 0.0 18.5% 18.3 81.5% 80.4 MAGAZINES 2.7% 1213 0.0% ao _{48.1% 58.3 51.9%} 63.0 OTHER PAPER _{16.S% 726.6} 0.0% 0.0 13.1% 95.4 86.9% 631.2 OTHER PLAS^IICS _1.6% 333J 0.0% ao 1.3% 4.4 98.7% 328.9 LEAVES _{LS% 64.2} 0.0% ao ao% 0.0 100.0% 64.2 GRASS _{0,»% 40.3} ao% ao ao% ao _{100.0% 40.3} BRUSH 0.5% _{21.5 ao%} ao 0.0% ao 100.0% 2L5

wo||^

5.4% 236 Ji 0.0% ao 0.0% _{0.0 100i>% 216.6} FOdl^ _{7.0% 310.2} 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 100 Ji% 310.1

In document 1259.pdf (Page 68-101)