Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Source Re Duct
Source Re Duct
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v
Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
What Is Source Reduction? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
What Is Program Potential? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
What Is a Program Potential Factor? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
iii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 The 1994 National Solid Waste Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Table 3.1 National Program Potential for Residential Source Reduction Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Table 4.1 National Program Potential for CII Source Reduction Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Table 5.1 National Program Potential for Six Source Reduction Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Table 5.2 Program Potential Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Table 5.3 Default Waste Composition (Percent by Weight)—National Default Data . . . . . . . . . . .18
Table 5.4 Waste Generation—National Default Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Table 5.5 Anywhere—Waste Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Table 5.6 Anywhere—Program Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Table 5.7 Commuterburgh—Grasscycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Table 5.8 Fullville—CII Waste Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Table 5.9 Fullville—CII Program Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Table 5.10 Fullville—Net Savings of an Office Paper Prevention Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Table 6.1 Standard Program Potential Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 The Procedure for Estimating Program Potential for Source Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Figure 3.1 Program Potential for Grasscycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Figure 3.2a Program Potential for Home Composting Food Scraps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Figure 3.2b Program Potential for Home Composting Yard Trimmings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Figure 3.3 Program Potential for Clothing and Footwear Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Figure 4.1a Program Potential for Office Paper Reduction (Duplexing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Figure 4.1b Program Potential for Office Paper Reduction (Networking) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Figure 4.2 Program Potential for Converting to Multi-Use Pallets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Figure 4.3 Program Potential for Reducing Paper Towels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
iv
About This Manual
T
his manual is designed to help local solid waste managers determine the potential impact of
various source reduction options. The manual examines the program potential, or the portion
of a waste stream category that could be addressed by a specific source reduction program.
Analyzing program potential can help solid waste managers decide whether to include source
reduction in their integrated solid waste management plans.
Using data on the national municipal solid waste stream, this manual calculates the program poten-
tial for six source reduction options: three residential options (grasscycling, home composting, and cloth-
ing reuse) and three commercial, industrial, and institutional options (office paper reduction, converting
to multi-use pallets, and paper towel reduction). It then shows managers how to calculate program
potential locally by applying their own data.
While the manual acts as a planning guide for source reduction programs, it does have some limita-
tions. First, the manual is limited to estimating the potential of source reduction programs. The actual
tonnage reduction achieved by a source reduction program will depend on the effectiveness of the pro-
gram’s implementation. Second, the manual is not a “how to” document for designing and implement-
ing a source reduction program. Finally, the manual does not specifically address reducing the toxicity
of the waste stream.
To make it easier to calculate program potential, companion software is also available. To order, call
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Hotline at 800 424-9346.
Glossary
T
he following is a list of terms that appear frequently throughout this manual. Readers may
wish to keep this list handy so they can refer to it as they proceed through the document.
Applicability Factor: This factor narrows the tonnage of the general waste category to that of the specif-
ic waste category relevant to the source reduction option.
CII: Solid waste activities associated with the commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors.
Feasibility Factor: This factor narrows the tonnage of the specific waste category to reflect only the por-
tion that could feasibly be reduced.
Program Potential: The portion of a waste stream category that could be addressed by a specific source
reduction program.
Program Potential Factor: A percentage that, when applied to the tonnage of a general waste category,
yields the program potential of a specific source reduction option.
Source Reduction: Activities designed to reduce the volume or toxicity of the waste stream, including
the design and manufacture of products and packaging with minimum toxic content, minimum volume
of material, and/or a longer useful life.
Technology Factor: This factor accounts for any waste that might remain in the waste stream, as a result
of technical or physical limitations, even after the source reduction option is implemented successfully.
v
Chapter 1
Introduction
Residential Sector Options:
I
n February 1989, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) published the report ● Grasscycling
The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action.
This report called for the adoption of “a new ● Home composting
solid waste management ethic” reflected in what ● Clothing and footwear reuse
has come to be referred to as the “solid waste man-
agement hierarchy.” While acknowledging varia- CII Sector Options:
tions in local conditions, the hierarchy established ● Office paper reduction
a preferred order to municipal solid waste (MSW)
management. Source reduction was at the top of ● Converting to multi-use pallets
the hierarchy, followed by recycling (including ● Paper towel reduction
composting) and disposal (including combustion
and landfilling). These six options were chosen because they
have been implemented in communities across the
country and, in some cases, have contributed sig-
What Is Source nificantly to local solid waste management efforts.
Reduction?
What Is Program
EPA defines source reduction as activities
designed to reduce the volume or toxicity of waste Potential?
generated, including the design and manufacture of
products with minimum toxic content, minimum Before implementing a source reduction pro-
volume of material, and/or a longer useful life. gram, managers need to determine the portion of
their waste stream that could be addressed by
Source reduction is fundamentally different from source reduction. This manual refers to this por-
the other elements of the solid waste hierarchy. tion as “program potential.”
Recycling and disposal options all come into play
after goods have been used. Source reduction, in Understanding program potential helps man-
contrast, takes place before materials have been agers determine whether a specific source reduc-
identified as “waste.” To implement source tion program makes sense for their community.
reduction, solid waste managers need to promote This decision is ultimately based on whether a
practices that reduce waste before it is generated. program has the potential to reduce a significant
portion of the waste stream in a cost-effective
A variety of practices exist to promote source manner. Calculating program potential is the first
reduction in local communities. These practices step in determining whether to implement source
affect both the residential and the commercial, reduction programs locally.
industrial, and institutional (CII) sectors. This
manual focuses on six source reduction options:
1
Chapter 1
What Is a Program
Potential Factor? Program Potential
This manual develops program potential fac- Factors
tors, or percentages, based on the national pro-
Program potential factors represent the
gram potential results. To calculate the program
impact of a source reduction program
potential for their local waste stream, solid waste
option as a percentage rather than as a
managers can multiply the tonnage of a specific
tonnage. To arrive at a quick estimate of
component of their local waste stream by the cor-
program potential, solid waste managers
responding program potential factor from Table
can multiply the tonnage of a specific
5.2. For example, the grasscycling calculation in
component of their local waste stream by
Chapter 3 identifies the national tonnage of yard
the corresponding program potential fac-
trimmings that could be prevented if homeowners
tor. For managers interested in developing
left their grass clippings on the lawn. The program
customized program potential factors
potential factor represents the national program
based on local data, Chapter 5 describes
impact in tonnage, 9.1 million tons, as a percent-
the method for calculating program
age, 33.1 percent, assuming that all homeowners
potential factors.
left their grass clippings on the lawn.
Using this percentage, or program potential fac-
tor, managers can convert their waste stream gen-
eration tonnage into program potential. For
example, by multiplying the tonnage of yard trim-
mings generated locally by 33.1 percent, managers
can estimate the program potential for diverting
grass clippings from the waste stream in their
community. Managers interested in customizing
the analysis to better reflect local conditions may
want to review the assumptions underlying the
calculation of the national program potential and
make adjustments to the program potential fac-
tors, as appropriate. The worksheets in Chapter 6
will help managers with these calculations.
2
Chapter 2
Program Potential
T
o calculate program potential, solid documents present current information on the vol-
waste managers will need to: ume and composition of MSW, as well as projec-
tions for the future. Table 2.1 summarizes the
information for 1994 presented in the ‘95 Update.
● Gather or estimate data on the tonnage and Most of the information in the ‘95 Update is not
composition of their MSW stream. based on direct measurement (i.e., sampling mea-
surement). Instead, it is developed from a “cradle-
● Apply a set of program potential factors to their to-grave” analysis of the materials flow in the U.S.
local waste stream data. economy. Managers unfamiliar with this approach
may wish to consult the ‘95 Update. Understanding
the methods used in the ‘95 Update is not required
Gathering Data for using this manual.
Program potential can be calculated using
either national or local data. Chapters 2, 3, and 4
of this manual explain how to calculate program
Calculating Program
potential using national data. Chapter 5 and the Potential
companion software show managers how to calcu-
late program potential using local data or a combi- Program potential can be calculated using the
nation of national and local data. equation shown in Figure 2.1. This equation limits
the tonnage of a general waste category to the por-
The basic source of national data on the MSW tion of a specific waste category that could be
stream is EPA’s Characterization of Municipal Solid addressed by a source reduction program, or the
Waste in the United States: 1994 Update (the ‘94 program potential.
Update) and 1995 Update (the ‘95 Update). These
* EPA’s Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1995 Update.
3
Chapter 2
For example, consider a source reduction pro- waste category directly relevant to the option
gram intended to keep grass from entering the under consideration. For grasscycling, this is
MSW stream. Grasscycling programs simply the portion of yard trimmings that is grass
encourage homeowners to leave grass clippings generated by the residential sector.
on their lawns rather than bag and dispose of
● Step 3: Multiply by a “feasibility factor.” This
them. To develop an estimate of program poten-
factor reduces the portion of the specific
tial for grasscycling, the first step is to narrow the
waste category to the tonnage that feasibly
tonnage of grass in yard trimmings that is resi-
could be reduced through source reduction
dential. Next, the applicable grass tonnage is fur-
efforts. For grasscycling, this involves esti-
ther narrowed to reflect an estimate of the portion
mating the portion of grass reduced through
of grass cut with nonmulching mowers and the
current grasscycling programs.
portion of grass clippings left on the lawn under
current grasscycling programs. Finally, technolog- ● Step 4: Multiply by a “technology factor.”
ical limitations must be taken into consideration. This factor takes into account any technical or
The program potential calculation yields a value physical limitations to the option under con-
representing the amount of material available for sideration. For grasscycling, there are no limi-
source reduction by a given program. tations—that is, all of the portion identified in
Step 3 could be addressed by a source reduc-
The program potential equation shown in
tion program.
Figure 2.1 involves four steps:
Multiplying the general waste category ton-
● Step 1: Identify the general waste stream cate-
nage by these three factors results in a tonnage
gory relevant to the source reduction option
of waste that could be addressed by a source
being considered and specify its tonnage. For
reduction program, assuming 100 percent
example, when estimating the program
participation in the program.
potential for grasscycling, the general waste
stream category is yard trimmings. Its ton- Calculations performed in Chapters 3 and 4
nage is shown in Table 2.1. make use of national data to estimate program
potential; local data may differ. Chapter 5 pro-
● Step 2: Multiply by an “applicability factor.”
vides an opportunity to incorporate local data
The applicability factor reduces the tonnage
into the calculations.
of the general waste category to a specific
Figure 2.1. The procedure for estimating program potential for source reduction.
4
Chapter 3
Residential Source
Reduction Options
help of mulching mowers. Mulching mowers’ fine
National Program chopping blades help speed up grass clipping
Potential degradation. Many mowers sold today are capa-
ble of mulching, and old mowers can be retrofit to
T
his chapter presents estimates of national mulch or re-cut grass clippings.
program potential for three residential Historically, most grasscycling programs rely on
source reduction program options: grasscy- public education to encourage households to
cling, home composting, and clothing grasscycle. This typically involves developing and
reuse. As Table 3.1 shows, the national program distributing pamphlets that explain the various
potential associated with these three options in benefits of grasscycling. These benefits include
1994 is 23.7 million tons. decreasing homeowners’ fertilizer and water bills,
saving the time and energy spent bagging and
hauling grass clippings, and reducing the amount
Grasscycling of material in the waste stream. Press releases,
brochures, and newspaper, radio, and television
Grasscycling programs are one of the simplest advertisements are all means of communicating
ways to divert organic materials from the MSW the benefits of grasscycling programs.
stream. This manual focuses on how mulching mow-
ers are used in residential grasscycling programs.
Grasscycling programs encourage homeowners
Program Potential
to leave grass clippings on their lawns rather than ● General Waste Category. The general waste cat-
bag and dispose of them. According to the egory addressed by grasscycling is yard trim-
Composting Council and many other community mings. As shown in Table 2.1, the yard
programs, grasscycling not only diverts a signifi- trimmings tonnage reported in the ‘95 Update is
cant portion of the waste stream, but also 30.6 million tons.
provides an excellent source of nutrients for the
lawn. Grasscycling can be accomplished with the
Table 3.1. National Program Potential for Residential Source Reduction Options
Source Reduction Component of MSW Program Potential
Option Reduced (Million Tons)
Grasscycling Yard trimmings 9.1
Home composting Food scraps & yard 13.0
trimmings
Clothing and footwear reuse Other 1.6
Total 23.7
5
Chapter 3
6
Residential Source Reduction Options
needs to be addressed separately. The calculation ● Technology Factor. The technology factor is 100
for food scraps, shown in Figure 3.2a, is presented percent, because backyard composting removes
here in detail. The analysis for yard trimmings, all of the food scraps that are composted from
shown in Figure 3.2b, is summarized at the end of the waste stream.
this section.
● Program Potential. The program potential for
● General Waste Category. The general waste cat- home composting of food is therefore 3.8 mil-
egory addressed by home composting is food lion tons per year.
scraps. As shown in Table 2.1, 14.1 million tons
of food scraps were generated by the residential
and commercial sectors in 1994. Home Composting–
● Applicability Factor. This factor reduces the
waste tonnage to reflect only the tonnage of
Yard Trimmings
residential food scraps that are compostable.
In the analysis of home composting of yard
According to a waste composition study by
trimmings, only the general waste category and
William Rathje, Director of the Garbage
applicability factor need to be changed. The yard
Project at the University of Arizona, 72
trimmings tonnage, as shown in Table 2.1, is 30.6
percent of food scraps are compostable. This
million tons. Based on the ‘94 Update, 90 percent
exempts meat, fish, cheese, milk, and fats and
of yard trimmings come from the residential sec-
oils. In addition, the ’94 Update estimates that
tor. Making a 10 percent allowance for large items,
50 percent of food scraps are generated by the
such as tree trunks and large limbs that are not
residential sector. Therefore, the portion of
easily compostable, the applicability factor for
waste that is generated by the residential
yard trimmings is 81 percent (0.9 x 0.9). The feasi-
sector and is compostable is 36 percent (0.72 x
bility and technology factors developed for food
0.5).
scraps apply equally well to yard trimmings. Also,
● Feasibility Factor. The residential tonnage is for this example, the 9.1 million tons of program
narrowed further to reflect only food scraps that potential for grasscycling is excluded to avoid
could feasibly be home composted. According double counting. The national program potential
to the Statistical Abstract of the United States, for composting yard trimmings is 9.2 million tons
approximately 75 percent of the population (30.6 x 0.81 x 0.74 x 100 - 9.1).
lives in one to four unit residences and is likely
Combining the program potentials for home
to have the space to home compost. Absent
composting of food scraps (3.8 million tons) and
actual data on food scrap composting, it is
yard trimmings (9.2 million tons) yields a
assumed that 1 percent of households in the
national program potential for home composting
nation currently compost in their backyard and
of 13.0 million tons. However, if the program
that 99 percent do not. Therefore, the portion of
potential for grasscycling is not excluded, the
food scraps that feasibly could be reduced is 74
national program potential for yard trimmings is
percent (0.75 x 0.99).
22.1 million tons a year.
7
Chapter 3
8
Residential Source Reduction Options
consists of clothing and footwear. In addition, ● Technology Factor. The technology factor is
Goodwill also estimates that 90 percent of its tex- 100 percent, since clothing and footwear cap-
tile donations come from households. Applying tured via a residential collection program
this figure for all nonprofits accepting textiles, and reused is removed from the waste
85.5 percent (0.95 x 0.90) of the textiles recovered stream.
is clothing and footwear from households, which
● Program Potential. As shown in Figure 3.3,
translates to 1.07 million tons annually. By sub-
the national program potential for a residen-
tracting the amount of clothing and footwear
tial clothing and footwear collection program
donated by households from the total amount of
is 1.6 million tons per year.
residential clothing and footwear generated, 1.63
million tons, or 60 percent, could be targeted for
a source reduction program. Therefore, the
applicable portion of other waste generated is 8.3 CASE STUDY:
percent (0.23 x 0.60 x 0.60).
Montgomery County,
● Feasibility Factor. To derive the feasibility
factor, the portion of recovered residential cloth- Maryland
ing and footwear that is available for reuse In 1993, Montgomery County, Maryland, ini-
must be calculated. Of the clothing and tiated a textile collection program consisting
footwear donated to nonprofits, a portion is of a drop-off site for residents and “curb-
reused and the remainder is sold to businesses. side” collection for five charities. The county
Goodwill estimates that 50 percent of the cloth- developed a brochure that described the
ing and footwear received is sold in its stores program and also listed charities, shelters,
and reused. The remaining 50 percent is sold to consignment shops, and used clothing stores
businesses. What these businesses do with the accepting textile donations. The brochure
textiles must also be considered. CTR estimates was made available at libraries and county
that these businesses reuse and reprocess 94 offices and also mailed to residents upon
percent as secondhand clothing, wiping and request. The county collects approximately
polishing cloths, or are used to make similar 156 tons of textiles annually. Dumont, a tex-
textile items. Thus, the feasibility factor is 97 tile dealer, pays the county a flat rate of
percent [0.50 + (0.50 x 0.94)]. $80.00 per ton for the collected textiles.
9
Chapter 4
CII Source
Reduction Options
For those businesses that have some computer
National Program ●
network capability, the amount of paper cur-
Potential rently used in laser printers can be reduced
through electronic mail, electronic postings, and
document sharing via common files. While
T
his chapter presents estimates of national
program potential for three CII source increased use of networking could itself reduce
reduction program options: reducing the demand for copying, this manual does not
office paper, converting to multi-use include the effect of this complex interaction.
wooden pallets, and reducing paper towels. Table The results from the two strategies are com-
4.1 shows that, for 1994, the national program bined to represent an approximate total program
potential associated with these three options is 3.1 potential for reducing office paper.
million tons.
Office paper reduction programs often entail
setting a corporate goal for paper reduction, publi-
Table 4.1. National Program Potential for CII cizing that goal through posters, flyers, and com-
Source Reduction Options pany newsletters, and encouraging employees to
Source Component of Program
adopt specific paper reduction strategies.
Reduction MSW Reduced Potential
Option (Million Tons)
Office paper Paper and 1.3
prevention paperboard
Converting to Wood 1.6
multi-use CASE STUDY:
pallets
U.S. Environmental
Paper towel Paper and 0.2
reduction paperboard Protection Agency
Total 3.1 Launched in 1994, EPA's Paper-Less Office
Campaign set a goal to reduce the amount
of white office paper used throughout the
Agency by 15 percent. The campaign
Office Paper Prevention encouraged employees to use specific
strategies such as making duplex copies
To calculate the program potential for reducing and increasing the use of computer net-
office paper, two source reduction strategies were working. EPA exceeded its goal in 1995 by
assumed: reducing photocopying by 16.1 percent.
11
Chapter 4
12
CII Source Reduction Options
Fortune 2000 companies have local area net- pallets, which are more durable and expensive than
works (LANs). In the absence of data on single-use pallets, are reused as often as possible. The
networking capabilities throughout the CII nature of a delivery system places constraints on
sector, the 65 percent figure is used to represent whether a multi-use pallet is a feasible alternative to
networking capabilities in offices. It is further single-use pallets. These limitations are addressed in
assumed that 10 percent of computer printer the discussion below. Recent studies by the National
paper use is already being prevented by compa- Recycling Coalition and other organizations have
nies’ use of networks to reduce printing. mentioned alternatives to pallets, including strap-
Therefore, 59 percent (0.65 x 0.90) of printer ping and slip sheets. While these do represent
paper can feasibly be source reduced. options for source reduction, the analysis here is
focused on reductions associated with converting to
● Technology Factor. It is assumed that 90 percent
multi-use pallets.
of paper used in laser printers can be reduced
through computer networking, leaving 10 per-
cent of a company’s documents as being neces-
sary to be printed out for review, distribution,
Program Potential
or similar purposes. Therefore, the technology ● General Waste Category. The general waste cate-
factor is 90 percent. gory addressed by converting to multi-use wood-
● Program Potential. As shown in Figure 4.1b, the en pallets. As shown in Table 2.1, the wood ton-
program potential for reducing office paper nage reported in the ‘95 Update is 14.6 million tons.
through the use of increased computer network-
● Applicability Factor. This factor reduces the
ing is estimated to be 690,700 tons per year.
waste tonnage to reflect only the fraction of
national wood generation that is wooden pallets.
Converting to Multi-Use According to the ‘95 Update, 70 percent of wood
generated is wood packaging. Further, 94 percent
Pallets of wood packaging generated is pallets. Thus,
the amount of applicable wood waste is 65 per-
Wooden pallets are used extensively in trans- cent (0.70 x 0.94).
portation packaging. Most of these pallets are
● Feasibility Factor. The wooden pallet tonnage is
designed to be used a number of times, yet a sub-
narrowed still further to identify the amount that
stantial number are still “single-use.” This section
feasibly could be reduced. According to the ‘95
focuses on promoting the replacement of single-use
Update, about 48 percent of pallets are single-use.
wooden pallets with reusable or multi-use wooden
In addition, not all single-use pallet users can con-
pallets.
vert to multi-use pallets due to various con-
Multi-use wooden pallets are typically used in straints. In theory, all single-use pallets could be
closed-loop delivery systems, such as in grocery reused. In reality, however, one of the major logis-
stores—the largest users of multi-use pallets. Closed- tical limitations to developing a multi-use pallet
loop systems help guarantee that the multi-use program is the back hauling necessary to reuse
13
Chapter 4
14
CII Source Reduction Options
represents about 2.4 percent of total paper and ● Technology Factor. The technology factor
paperboard waste generation. According to the reflects the amount of paper towel reduction
‘94 Update, 40 percent of paper towel waste is due to switching from multi-fold to roll paper
generated by the CII sector. Thus, the portion of towels. In a 1994 newsletter article by the
applicable waste is 1 percent (0.024 x 0.4). Building Owners and Managers Association
(BOMA) of New York, a paper industry offi-
● Feasibility Factor. The paper towel tonnage is
cial presented a method for estimating the
narrowed further to identify the percentage that
waste preventable by switching from multi-
feasibly can be reduced. According to paper
fold to roll paper towels. It is estimated that
towel distributors, approximately 60 percent of
switching to roll paper towels could reduce
paper towel production for the CII market are
waste by up to 50 percent.
multi-fold towels. It is also assumed a small
percentage of establishments will not switch to ● Program Potential. As shown in Figure 4.3, the
roll towels for a variety of reasons. Therefore, program potential for reducing paper towels by
the portion of paper towel waste that could fea- replacing multi-fold towels with roll paper tow-
sibly be reduced is 60 percent. els is estimated to be 243,900 tons per year.
15
Chapter 5
Local Applications
potential factor for residential grasscycling is 33.1
Introduction percent, or
T (
he results presented in Chapters 3 and 4
indicate that the program potential for
9.1 million tons (national program potential)
27.5 million tons (residential yard trimmings) ) x 100
source reduction at the national level
could be quite large. Table 5.1 summarizes Table 5.2 presents the program potential factors
the national program potential for the six source for all MSW, residential waste, and commercial
reduction options discussed in this manual. waste.
Chapter 5 builds on the previous chapters by With these program potential factors in hand,
examining how national program potential can be local managers can use any mixture of national
applied at the local level. This chapter provides and local data to estimate source reduction pro-
three examples illustrating how solid waste man- gram potential for their communities. Tables 5.3
agers can calculate the source reduction program and 5.4 provide default data taken from the ‘94
potential for their own local programs. Update. Managers will need to use these tables as
they proceed to develop their local source reduc-
tion program potential estimates.
Program Potential Factors
The first step in calculating local estimates for Scenarios
source reduction program potential is to develop
program potential factors. Program potential fac- The following three examples help illustrate
tors are derived by dividing the national program how program potential factors can be applied to
potential for a specific source reduction option local conditions. They explain how to estimate
(e.g., grasscycling), as shown in Table 5.1, by the local waste stream composition, and then how to
total waste generated from the corresponding compute local program potential.
waste category (e.g., residential yard trimmings),
as shown in Table 2.1. Therefore, the program
Table 5.1. National Program Potential for Six Source Reduction Options
National Program Potential
Source Reduction Option Component of MSW (Million Tons per Year)
Grasscycling Yard trimmings 9.1
Home composting Food scraps & yard trimmings 13.0
Clothing reuse Other 1.6
Office paper prevention Paper and paperboard 1.3
Converting to multi-use pallets Wood 1.6
Paper towel reduction Paper and paperboard 0.2
TOTAL 26.8
17
Chapter 5
Composition (Percent)
Waste Category Residential CII All MSW
Paper and paperboard 30 51 39
Glass 9 3 6
Metals 9 6 8
Plastics 13 5 9
Wood 3 13 7
Food scraps 6 8 7
Yard trimmings 23 4 15
Other 7 10 9
Total 100 100 100
18
Local Applications
Table 5.5. Anywhere—Waste Composition Apply the Program Potential Factors: The manager
estimates the local program potential for the six
General Waste Waste Waste source reduction options included in this manual by
Category Composition Composition applying the ‘All MSW’ program potential factors
(Percent) (Tons) from Table 5.2 to the waste composition calculated in
Paper and Table 5.5. His calculation is shown in Table 5.6.
paperboard 39 15,600 Program Potential: The total program potential
Glass 6 2,400 for Anywhere is 4,702 tons, or about 12 percent of
Anywhere’s waste stream.
Metals 8 3,200
The only subtle point in Table 5.6 is the devel-
Plastics 9 3,600
opment of the tonnage of yard trimmings avail-
Wood 7 2,800 able for home composting. To avoid double
Food scraps 7 2,800
counting, the 1,782 tons of grass that might be
grasscycled is removed from the 6,000 tons of yard
Yard trimmings 15 6,000 trimmings to which home composting might oth-
Other 9 3,600 erwise apply.
Total 100 40,000 The general approach taken for Anywhere
does not depend on managing all MSW. This
two-step approach can also be taken if the local
Table 5.7. Commuterburgh—Grasscycling manager knows the tonnage from the residential
Population
or CII sectors. Waste composition percentages
50,000
and program potential factors for the ‘residential’
Tons per person per year x 0.5 or ‘CII sector’ would simply be used in place of
Waste generation (tons) = 25,000 the ‘All MSW’ data.
Yard trimmings (percent) x 0.23
Yard trimmings (tons) = 5,750 Scenario 2: Commuterburgh
Program potential factor (percent) x 0.331 Background: In Commuterburgh, population
Program potential for grasscycling (tons/yr) = 1,903 50,000, a group of local citizens is interested in
promoting grasscycling to reduce the residential
19
Chapter 5
waste stream. The group can use national data on wood waste is pallets. Multiplying by the feasibili-
generation, composition, and source reduction, ty (24 percent) and technology (70 percent) factors,
together with their limited local data, to evaluate and dividing by the percent commercial waste cat-
the savings possible from grasscycling. egory (see Table 6.1) or 76 percent, the manager
figures the custom program potential factor of 4.2
Determine the Waste Composition: Without any
percent shown in Table 5.9.
information on local waste generation available, the
group can use national data to estimate the local Program Potential: For Fullville’s CII waste, the
program potential for grasscycling. The composi- local program potential for three source reduction
tion and generation data used in Table 5.7 are taken programs is 249 tons per year.
from Tables 5.3 and 5.4.
Having completed the analysis of program
Apply the Program Potential Factors: The group potential, the manager also wishes to consider the
then multiplies the total tons of yard trimmings by
Table 5.8. Fullville—CII Waste Composition
the program potential factor for residential grass-
cycling to estimate the program potential. General Waste Final
Waste Composition Composition
Program Potential: The program potential for grass- Category (Percent) (Tons)
cycling in Commuterburgh is 1,903 tons per year.
Paper and 60.0 6,000
paperboard
Scenario 3: Fullville Glass 2.5 250
Background: In Fullville, the local solid waste Metals 4.6 460
manager is responsible for residential and CII
Plastics 4.1 410
waste. She is interested in applying several of the
CII program potential factors to the 10,000 tons of Wood 10.6 1,060
CII waste she manages. Unlike the manager in Food scraps 6.5 650
Anywhere, the manager knows the composition
data and even knows that there are 200 tons of Yard trimmings 3.3 330
pallets in the waste stream. Other 8.4 840
Determine Waste Composition: The development Total 100 10,000
of the CII waste composition for Fullville is shown
in Table 5.8.
savings that might be achieved if a source reduc-
Apply Program Potential Factors: In Table 5.9, the tion program were implemented for office paper.
tonnage of general waste is drawn from Table 5.8. In preparing an analysis of cost savings, Fullville’s
With the exception of converting to multi-use pal- manager needs to estimate the following:
lets, the program potential factors are the CII fac-
tors from Table 5.2. For multi-use pallets, the ● The percentage of the program potential that
program potential factor needs to be customized could be achieved during the first year of
to reflect the fact that there are 200 tons of pallets implementation. Based on experiences with oth-
in the local waste stream. er source reduction programs, the manager feels
that Fullville could achieve 30 percent of the
Based on the information from Chapter 4, program potential for the community.
Figure 4.2 shows that the program potential for
converting to multi-use pallets is the product of ● The cost of the source reduction program.
applicability, feasibility, and technology factors. Fullville’s manager has budgeted $500.00 for
The applicability factor is the “percentage” of the costs of an office paper prevention program.
wood that is wooden pallets. Here the manager ● The avoided system costs of a source reduction
knows the actual tonnage. To figure the percent- program. A source reduction program will
age, the manager divides the total number of tons affect the tonnage of materials recycled and dis-
of pallets by the total number of tons of wood posed of. For instance, the revenue currently
waste. Based on the waste composition shown in being generated in Fullville for its office paper
Table 5.8, 19 percent (200 ÷ 1,060 = 0.19) of the recycling program will decrease after a source
20
Local Applications
Program Program
Source Reduction General Waste
Potential Potential
Option Category Tonnage Factor (Percent) (Tons/Yr)
Office paper prevention Paper and paperboard 6,000 2.9 174
Converting to multi-use Wood 1,060 4.2* 45
pallets
Paper towel reduction Paper and paperboard 6,000 0.5 30
Total 249
*Custom program potential factor (see page 20).
reduction program is in place. Whether this lost To determine the financial impact of an office
revenue is included in the net savings calcula- paper program, Fullville’s manager considers the
tion depends on the perspective of the program current waste management costs.
implementor. Other costs, such as collection and
The Fullville manager decides that the collec-
processing costs, may also fluctuate, since there
tion costs are insignificant and is not factoring in
will be fewer materials for trash and recycling
these costs. Collection costs could include labor,
crews to collect. These costs will vary in each
vehicle maintenance, gasoline use, and other bud-
community, and will have to be estimated by
get concerns.
managers if actual figures are not available.
Then, the manager considers avoided disposal
In order to estimate the net savings of a pro-
costs. Since Fullville currently recycles 20 percent
gram, Fullville’s manager will also need to ana-
of its office paper, it is assumed that 80 percent is
lyze the following:
disposed of. Therefore, 80 percent of the estimated
— The percentage of office paper that is current- source reduction of office paper, or 41.8 tons (52.2
ly recycled. Fullville estimates that it is recy- x 0.8), will not be disposed of. Given a tipping fee
cling 20 percent of its office paper. of $35.00 a ton, the Fullville manager multiplies
the amount of paper source reduced by the dispos-
— The price per ton (revenue or net benefit)
al cost, which equals $1,463.00 (41.8 tons x $35.00).
from an office paper recycling program.
Fullville is receiving $10.00 a ton for office The Fullville manager knows that the business
paper. community recycles 20 percent of its office paper.
To derive the amount of paper that will no longer
— The tipping fee or disposal costs for the com-
be recycled due to a source reduction program, the
munity. The tipping fee at Fullville’s landfill
manager multiplies the amount achievable by the
is $35.00 a ton.
percent currently being recycled. This is 10.4 tons
When estimating net savings, the manager (52.2 tons x 0.2). She also knows that the paper
begins with the local program potential factor for recycling program is profitable, generating a net
office paper prevention. The program potential for revenue of $10.00 a ton. Once the source reduction
office paper prevention in Fullville is 174 tons. program is implemented, Fullville will no longer
Based on her professional judgment, Fullville’s receive the revenue from this portion of the paper
manager feels that the community could achieve reduced. Thus, with the office paper source reduc-
30 percent of the program potential. To derive the tion program in operation, Fullville will not gener-
potential tons preventable, the manager multiplies ate $104.00 (10.4 x $10.00) a year in revenues.
the program potential by the percent achievable to
obtain 52.2 tons (174 x 0.3).
21
Chapter 5
Total $1,359.00
Total:
Net Savings $ 859.00
Next, the manager plans to engage in a pro- In accounting for current waste management
gram of educational outreach, informing the busi- costs, the cost for composting would be similar to
ness community about the savings it could achieve those for recycling. First, the manager would esti-
through office paper reduction. She budgets mate the percentage of materials that are currently
$500.00 for the first year’s program. being composted. This percentage, multiplied by
the tonnage to be prevented by a source reduction
Finally, the manager computes the net impact of
program (52.2 tons) would yield the total tonnage
the source reduction program, taking into account
composted. The associated cost impact can be
the loss of recycling revenues as well as the avoid-
found by multiplying the tonnage composted by
ed disposal costs. The result is $1,359.00 ($1,463.00
the net cost or revenue due to composting the
- $104.00). Subtracting the program costs, the man-
paper. This cost would be added to the estimate of
ager finds that the town will save $859 per year
the program impact on current waste management
($1,359 - $500).
costs.
22
Chapter 6
Worksheets
Managers who use the third option will need to
Introduction specify the unit (population or households) on
The five worksheets included in this chapter are which the calculation will be based. Their choice
used to calculate: will be based on the availability of local data. Tons
of waste generated per resident (or per household)
● Waste generation can be based on the national EPA default data, as
● Waste composition shown in Table 5.4, or on local data.
● Program potential
● Net savings
Worksheet B:
● Custom program potential factors Waste Composition
The first three worksheets are designed to help This worksheet enables managers to develop
managers calculate the local program potential for waste composition data for the sector they are
source reduction. The last two worksheets allow analyzing.
managers to evaluate associated savings and
develop ‘custom’ program potential factors. For a Worksheet B has been designed to make use of
copy of the companion software that allows the available local data on generation and waste stream
user to perform these calculations automatically, composition. At the bottom of the column headed
contact the RCRA Hotline at 800 424-9346. ‘Final Composition,’ managers should enter their
estimate of the total tonnage of waste generated.
Next, the number of tons collected for any of the
Worksheets A1 and A2: eight waste categories, if known, should be entered
in the ‘Known Composition’ and ‘Final
Waste Generation Composition’ columns. If managers know the ton-
nage for each of these categories, they are finished
These worksheets enable managers to calculate with Worksheet B once they enter the tonnages in
the tonnage of waste generated in the sector (e.g., the ‘Known Composition’ and ‘Final Composition’
residential, CII, or all MSW) they are analyzing. columns.
Managers have three options for developing this
Managers lacking local data will need to rely on
tonnage:
default data. Table 5.3 provides national default
1. Estimating generation directly. data on the percent of the waste stream for each
waste category. In the column headed ‘Default
2. Adding estimates of the tonnage recycled, com-
Composition (Percent by Weight),’ managers
posted, and disposed of as trash.
should enter the default percentage for each waste
3. Estimating the tonnage based on either the pop- category. They can then multiply each percentage
ulation or the number of households in their by the total tonnage (shown at the bottom of the
locality. This option can be used only if man- ‘Final Composition’ column) and enter the results
agers are analyzing the residential sector or all in the column headed ‘Default Composition
MSW. (Tons/Year).’ They are then finished with
Worksheet B.
Options 2 and 3 require simple calculations.
Worksheets A1 and A2 are provided for this
purpose.
23
Chapter 6
Worksheet C: Worksheet E:
Program Potential Custom Program Potential
This worksheet enables managers to develop Factors
estimates of program potential for the sectors they
are analyzing. This worksheet provides an opportunity to
develop ‘custom’ program potential factors that
To use Worksheet C, managers should first can be used in place of the standard factors shown
enter the waste tonnage to which each source in Table 5.2. Solid waste managers may want to
reduction option will apply. This tonnage can be develop custom program potential factors to
taken from the ‘Final Composition’ column on reflect local data or information. For instance, a
Worksheet B. In the case of home composting, manager might want to change the technology fac-
managers may wish to adjust the composition tor in order to capture known information on a
data. They can decide whether food scraps are community’s current yard trimmings program. In
included in the home composting program. They order to develop custom factors, managers must
can also decide to reduce the portion of yard trim- change the inputs, or the applicability, feasibility,
mings included in the program, by adjusting to or technology factors, in the standard program
avoid double-counting with grasscycling, for potential factors. These inputs, as well as the
example. To do this, managers will need to com- resulting standard factors, are shown in Table 6.1.
pute the program potential for grasscycling and
subtract the results from the tonnage of yard trim- Continuing with the yard trimmings scenario, a
mings available for home composting. manager knows that he would want to change the
technology factor from 100 percent to 80 percent.
Once the tonnage for each waste category is In order to customize the program potential factor,
specified, completing Worksheet C simply requires the calculation is computed as follows:
selecting the program potential factors, as shown
in Table 5.2. Alternatively, managers can develop 0.45 x 0.66 x 0.80 = 0.238
custom factors for some or all of the source reduc- (Applicability (Feasibility (Technology (All MSW
tion options using Worksheet E. factor) factor) factor) factor)
24
Worksheets
General
Program
Waste
Source Reduction Potential Program
Option Category Tons Factor Potential
Grasscycling Yard trimmings
Home composting Food scraps
Yard trimmings
Clothing reuse Other
Office paper Paper and paperboard
Multi-use pallets Wood
Paper towels Paper and paperboard
Total
25
Chapter 6
Net Savings
Source Reduction Option
Footnotes
A=Program potential estimate.
B=User estimate of first year program impact.
C=AxB
D=User estimate of the impact of the source reduction option on collection costs.
E=User estimate of the impact of the source reduction option on disposal costs.
F=User estimate of the lost revenues from recycling (including composting) due to the estimated impact of the source reduction
option.
G=Annual source reduction option operating cost or budget estimate.
H=D+E–F–G
26
Worksheets
Residential
Grasscycling Yard trimmings
Home composting Food scraps
Yard trimmings
Clothing reuse Other
Commercial
Office paper Paper/paperboard
Duplexing
Computer networks
Total
Multi-use pallets Wood
Paper towels Paper/paperboard
27