Curbside clash: experts debate single-stream vs. dual-stream systems at a recent industry conference.

During the recently concluded recycling conference sponsored by the New York State Association for Reduction, Reuse and Recycling (NYSAR3), several speakers at a well-attended workshop on dual and single-stream recycling touched on many of the dynamics involved in this complex and much-debated section of the recycling industry.

The cornerstone of the debate was focused on the true overall cost difference between a single-stream collection program vs. a dual- or multi-stream system.

A report produced for the American Forest & Paper Association focused on the additional costs resultant from a single-stream system. The report, prepared by Jaakko Poyry and Skumatz Economic Research Associates, looked at the overall cost of switching to a single stream.

The report information derived from interviews and studies on about 200 single- and dual-stream systems, 45 MRFs and 24 paper mills throughout the country.

While the report acknowledged that moving to single stream from a source-separated arrangement would increase the volume of material being collected for recycling, the cost savings of collecting larger quantities would be offset by the additional costs for processors and mills.

The report's key findings include that while single-stream systems save from $10 to $20 per ton at the collection end, processing the material resulted in additional costs of from $5 to $15 per ton. Paper mills also incurred increased costs of from $5 to $13 per ton to handle single-stream material.

The net result, the report's authors say, is a decrease in value of $3 per ton once the full process has been completed.

The report's executive summary reads, "After collection and processing, we estimated that there was a net increase of all materials recovered in curbside recycling of between 1-3 percent. However, because of the higher level of prohibitives in recovered fiber from single-stream programs as found in an R.W. Beck study commissioned by the AFPA in 2002, about 1 percent more recovered fiber would be required to generate the same quantity of recycled paper and board. The net after residue removals at the mills could not be estimated, so no overall conclusion can be drawn regarding paper volumes.

The findings of the report run counter to the belief that by moving to a single-stream method the amount of recovered fiber (along with other recyclable materials) would sharply increase.

Christian La Pointe, vice president of LaBrie, a truck manufacturer that markets collection vehicles for collection programs, however, noted that single-stream collection programs continue to grow, with more demand coming from the Northeast and Midwest.

He said one issue is that some processing centers are attempting to retrofit equipment that was originally set up for dual-stream systems. This, he theorized, is one reason for the higher level of contaminants in some single-stream operations.

Processing centers that are designed and built with single stream in mind would show a much lower contamination level, thus improving the value equation.

Other factors should be considered as well. La Pointe noted that for a privately owned collection company or a government entity, the savings could be significant, especially if a customer opts for a fully automated system for pickup.

Not only would this allow the collector to operate with a single employee, reducing labor costs, but also to sharply curtail the workmen's compensation costs, an area that has been spiraling ever higher.

In his presentation, Andrew Bell, director of sales and marketing for Sonoco, Hartsville, S.C., noted that while paper recycling is "an American success story," challenges remain. Bell touched on concern about the degradation of fiber quality. In his presentation, Bell noted that the cost to use contaminated recovered paper is increasing. These higher costs directly affect the paper industry, he added.

While Bell finds higher costs having a negative affect on the domestic paper industry, the research report analyzes the different costs using a single-stream method, a dual-stream method and a modified single-stream method.

Bell noted that an important issue people should be aware of is the total cost differences between a dual-stream system and a single-stream system. Despite the collection savings, processing costs at the recycling center, as well as at the paper mill, tend to be higher. Also, with an increase in contaminated materials, many mills are incurring increased disposal costs.

For processing, the report noted that significant investments in single-stream MRFs have been made across the nation, including facilities in California, Arizona, Illinois, Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina. Additionally, a corporate commitment to single stream has been made by several large collection/processing companies, nationwide and regionally.

The study made the following determinations:

* Processing costs are higher, on average, but vary considerably based on the age of the facility, age and type of equipment, number of processing steps and other factors.

* Newer single-stream facilities appear to produce materials that meet and exceed the quality of many of the poorer and older dual-stream facilities.

* Dual-stream facilities tend to be older. If retrofitted with similar equipment, contamination at new dual-stream facilities might be lower than those achieved at new single-stream facilties. On average, contamination at single stream facilities is higher than dual-stream facilities, though there is considerable variation by age and type of processing facility. This reduces the recycling tonnage gains after collection and processing to a net increase of 1 to 3 percentage points.

The study focused on the quality differences between single stream and dual stream, and few mills regularly measure quality of recovered fiber in a comprehensive way. The 2002 AFPA study served as a basis for quality in the absence of mill-specific data on quality. Within that study, ONP prohibitives were measured to be 2 percent and 3.3 percent for dual stream and single stream, respectively; residential mixed paper prohibitives were measured to be 1.1 percent and 1.7 percent for dual stream and single stream, respectively.

The report analysis shows that if single-stream methods were implemented universally across all curbside collection, assuming the quality differences per the 2002 R.W. Beck study, the total industry cost for the U.S. mills producing grades that use curbside ONP and RMP will increase about $50 million per year. A portion of this cost is because mills would need to buy more recovered fiber and ultimately dispose of more rejects in light of the lower quality of single-stream material, according to the report.

The impact on newsprint producers that use some recycled fiber is estimated to average about $3.50 per ton of newsprint. While the average recovered fiber use of these producers is roughly 55 percent. The average cost for recycled board mills is about $4.50 of recycled board. However, a caveat is that only a portion of their fiber is from curbside collected material.

The impact on newsprint producers that use some recycled fiber is estimated to average about $3.50 per ton of newsprint. The report notes that the average recovered fiber use for these producers is roughly 55 percent. The average cost for recycled board mills is about $4.50 per ton of recycled board. Again, only a portion of their fiber is from curbside material.

Expressed on the basis of curbside recovered fiber, the impact is estimated to be between $5 and $13 per ton of recovered fiber for newsprint and recycled board produced, respectively, averaging about $8 per ton.

ONP and RMP delivered prices to mills have generally ranged between $40$100 per ton historically, depending mainly on grade, region and freight considerations. Remembering that producers can use a mixture of curbside material within their process, the estimated cost impact of single stream over dual stream is between 6 percent to 18 percent of the purchased fiber cost, averaging 11 percent.

In a report that looked at the various ways to collect and process recyclables in one city, Eureka Recycling, a non-profit recycling company located in St. Paul, Minn., along with the city of St. Paul and the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, performed a study to find out the most effective way to improve the city of St. Paul's recycling program.

After completing the 14-month study, the group recommended the following steps:

* Move to a two-stream recycling sorting system, with papers and rigid containers in separate streams;

* Add PET and HDPE plastic bottles to the curbsides collection; and

* Provide 18-gallon recycling bins with weekly collection. Although recycling carts net a greater diversion, the cost of the carts is a barrier to this method. Residents ranked this as a low funding priority. Blue bins that are collected weekly provide the same storage capacity as carts that are collected every other week.

The study results clearly indicate that the greatest potential for diversion can be achieved through organics collection.

CURBSIDE MANDATE CONSIDERED

The Delaware Department of Natural Resources (DNR) herd four public comment meetings in November looking for feedback to the concept of mandatory curbside recycling for all state residents.

Under the proposed program, developed by the Recycling Public Advisory Council in cooperation with the DNR and the Delaware Solid Waste Authority, the residential recycling rate is expected to increase from the current 12 percent recycling rate to a goal of 30 percent.

Monthly recycling costs are expected to be $3 to $7 per household. Draft recommendations for the program include: collection of the recyclables in a single curbside container, excluding glass; collection of materials through current trash haulers, municipal collection services or self hauler drop-off centers locating throughout the state; and separate collection of yard waste.

The author is Internet and senior editor of Recycling Today and can be contacted at [e-mail].