LIBRARY
MIchIgan State
Untverelty .

M

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

WE"! ‘ " II I

r—w
PEELJ
Kit—TI:
‘W If
r—wn

MSU Is An Affirmative ActiorVEqual OpportunIIy Institution
enormous-m

      

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL OF INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL, AND
INSTITUTIONAL SOLID WASTE AND POLYSTYRENE FOAM:
RESULTS OF A SURVEY
By

Kirk Arrowood

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

School of Packaging

1992

ABSTRACT
RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL OF INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL AND
INSTITUTIONAL SOLID WASTE AND POLYSTYRENE FOAM:
RESULTS OF A SURVEY
By

Kirk Arrowood

Commercial, industrial, and institutional facilities in southeast Michigan were
surveyed regarding solid waste and polystyrene (PS) foam disposal volume, recycling
volume, and their attitudes and perceptions about current solid waste issues. 194
firms of various Sizes from 16 industry groups responded. Companies reported that
they feel recycling is important. Problems with recycling were linked to education,
transportation, and costs. Respondents opposed incineration. Currently, respondents
say little environmental pressure is felt from employees, consumers, or outside
environmental groups. Respondents expect future PS foam demand to increase, but
some have considered, or switched to, alternative materials to PS foam. No sizeable
problems that may affect PS recycling, such as food contamination, were reported.

Companies report the largest volume of their waste stream is paper/wood,
followed by plastics, " others " (comprised of food, yard, and all other waste), and
metals. The largest volume currently recycled is paper/wood, followed by " others ",
plastics, and metals. By the year 2000, recycling is expected to almost triple. Plastics
recycling iS expected to have the largest individual increase, but the expected increase
in paper/wood products will have the largest impact on waste stream reduction.

Overall, these recycling efforts could reduce current waste stream volume by 41%.

Dedicated to

My loving parents, Harrison and Ethel Arrowood

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank the following, without them, this thesis would not have been possible:

Dr. Diana Twede, my major professor, for her energy, humor, personable nature and
expertise.

Dr. David Johnson, for his knowledge, guidance and friendship.

Dr. Sue Selke, for her time, intelligence and advice.

Mike Martin, of Michigan State University ' s Industrial Development Institute, Dr.
David Closs, of The Marketing and Transportation Department, and Vivek Bhargava
for the hard work, advice, and statistical help in the analysis of this research.

The Michigan Chemical Council, for proposing this research.

The State of Michigan ' s Department of Natural Resources, and The Council for
Solid Waste Solutions, for providing the funding for this research.

Cara Colon and Bryan DeGayner, my best friends, for their friendship, humor,
support and inspiration that kept me going.

Finally, I thank my immediate family, for their love, guidance and support in the
decision to continue my education.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ............................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................ ix
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................... 1
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................... 4
Solid Waste Measurement Methods and Waste Stream Size ......... 4

Solid Waste Disposal Methods and Issues ...................... 7
Incineration ............................................ 11
Recycling .............................................. 13
Evolution of Recycling Programs ............................ 17
Separation of Solid Waste ................................. 18

PS Foam Waste Management Issues ......................... 19

PS Foam Recycling ................................. 19

Virgin and Recycled Uses and Markets for PS Foam ........ 21

Alternative Materials to PS Foam ...................... 23

Future PS Demand ................................. 26

Seasonality of PS Foam and Solid Waste ................. 27

Curbside Collection of PS Foam and Solid Waste .......... 28

PS Foam Recycling, Processing and Transportation Costs ..... 31
Environmental Attitudes and Perceptions ...................... 35
Socio-economic Recycling Program Participation Factors .......... 36

3.0 RESEARCH METHOD ..................................... 39
Limitations ............................................ 45

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................... 47
Waste Disposal Methods and Costs .......................... 47
Current Waste Stream Volume-In Cubic Yards ................. 51
Current Waste Stream Volume-In Percents .................... 54
Current and Future Recycling Percentages ..................... 60
Current and Future Recycling Volume ........................ 61

PS Foam Related Issues ................................... 73

PS Foam Uses ..................................... 73

PS Foam Seasonality Estimates ........................ 75

Problems Associated with PS Foam ..................... 76

Potential Alternatives for PS Foam ..................... 77

Types of PS Foam Contamination After Use .............. 79

Predicted Increases in Future PS Foam Consumption ........ 80

Acceptable Costs of Recycling and Transportation Issues ..... 81

Industry Perceptions and Attitudes About PS Foam .............. 83
Willingness to Separate Materials for Recycling ............ 83

Compacting of Materials for Recycling at End-user Locations . 84

Attitudes About Incineration .......................... 85

Reciprocal PS Foam Recycling Agreements ............... 86

Industry Perceptions and Attitudes About Solid Waste ............ 87

Solid Waste Problems Within Companies ................. 87

Solid Waste Problems Within Communities ............... 88

Primary Reasons for Industrial Recycling ................. 89

Primary Inhibitors to Industrial Recycling ................ 90

Summary of Results ...................................... 92

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................. 97
Conclusions ............................................ 97
Suggestions for Future Research ............................ 100
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................ 102
APPENDICES ............................................... 105
Appendix A. PS foam and Solid Waste Survey .................. 104

Appendix B. Questions 18-25, Results Reported by Bach SIC Group . 112

iv

Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.

Table 16.

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Materials Generated in US. MSW by Weight and Volume, 1988 . . . 7
Management of MSW in the US, 1988 ...................... 8
Resource Recovery Goal ................................. 9
Curbside Recycling Programs in the Nation's 10 Largest Cities . . . 15

Estimated 1995 US. Waste Generation and Recovery for

Recycling ........................................... 17
US. Polystyrene Resin Sales by Process (mil. lbs. /yr.) .......... 23
Raw Material Summary for Hot Drink Containers .............. 25
Polystyrene World Demand in 1993 ........................ 27
Curbside Polystyrene Collection Pilot Program, 1990 ........... 30
Site Separation Recovery Level .......................... 34
SIC Code Groups .................................... 43
Sales Code Groups ................................... 44
SIC Groups separated by Sales Groups .................... 45
Solid Waste Disposal Handling .......................... 48
Solid Waste Sold, Incinerated, Recycled and Re-used .......... 49
Monthly and Yearly Disposal Tonnage and Costs ............. 51

Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
Table 21.
Table 22.
Table 23.
Table 24.
Table 25.
Table 26.
Table 27.
Table 28.
Table 29.
Table 30.

Table 31.

Average Yearly Disposal Costs ........................... 51
Waste Stream Volume Analysis by Company Size ............. 53
Current Recycling Estimates (Percentage) .................. 61
Year 2000 Recycling Estimates (Percentage) ................ 61
Current Recycling Estimates (Volume by Company Size) ....... 63
Year 2000 Recycling Estimates (Volume by Company Size) ..... 66
Major Uses for PS Foam ............................... 74
PS Foam Seasonality Consumption Estimates ................ 75
Potential Problems Associated With PS Foam ............... 76
Percent of Respondents Considering PS Foam Alternatives ..... 77
Potential Alternatives for PS Foam ....................... 78
Potential PS Foam Contamination After Use ................ 79
Predicted Increases in PS Foam Consumption ............... 80
Necessary Costs of PS Foam Recycling to Induce Participation . . . 81
PS Foam Recycling Transportation Costs Companies Will Incur . . 82

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure 1. Waste Stream Analysis by Percent- Total of all Respondents ..... 57
Figure 2. Waste Streams of Ret., Banks, Entmnt., Educ., and Member. SIC
Groups ............................................ 58
Figure 3. Waste Streams of Const., Mfg, Wsle. Non-Dun, and Hshld. SIC
Groups ............................................ 59
Figure 4. Recycling Amounts for Const. and Mfg. SIC Groups ........... 68
Figure 5. Recycling Amounts for Wsle. Non-Dur. and Hshld. SIC Groups . . 69
Figure 6. Recycling Amounts for Ret. and Banks SIC Groups ........... 70
Figure 7. Recycling Amounts for Entmnt. and Educ. SIC Groups ......... 71

Figure 8. Recycling Amounts for Member. and Totals for all SIC Groups . . 72

1 I D N

Decreasing landfill space, groundwater contamination, public relations, and
escalating solid waste disposal costs are just a few of the environmental problems
that we face as the let century approaches. With half of current US landfills to be
closed by 1995, careful waste management is a necessity. Environmental disasters
caused by corporations and nature have added public relations and political twists to
solid waste issues. Reduce, re-use and recycle have become integral parts of our
solid waste solutions. Americans are struggling to figure out which mix of waste
management methods is best. Recycling programs for consumers and industries are
growing. Waste reduction programs are also widespread. Alternatives such as
incineration and waste to energy are controversial. Transportation costs related to
solid waste disposal options are critical. Even when methods are deemed
economically feasible, consumers and industry professionals may not be willing to
participate.

Although many companies have adopted environmental awareness programs,
there is sometimes very little information available to use for program
implementation. We are approaching an age when solid waste management is no
longer just a "socially right" thing to do. Because of physical changes in the

environment, companies will be forced to make critical solid waste management

2

choices. This research will examine some of these choices and give a perception
from waste professionals in companies about what is important to them in the future.

Polystyrene foam, commonly referred by the Dow Chemical trade name
"styrofoam", for their insulation, and sometimes referred to as EPS (expanded
polystyrene), has become a material facing many environmental issues. Although PS
foam can be easily recycled, McDonald ' 5 recent substitution of PS foam with a paper
based product has manufacturers and users questioning its environmental
"friendliness". In addition, legislation has banned or limited the use of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) in foams and other products such as cooling agents.
Legislation will soon prohibit CFCs all together. Companies and academia have
been studying the recyclability of PS foam and comparing it to other plastic and
paper based products. Groups such as the National Polystyrene Recycling Company
(NPRC), formed by the world's seven largest polystyrene manufacturers, have been
emerging to help educate the public and guide the recycling efforts for PS foam.
Dart Container located in Mason, MI currently picks up PS foam free of charge from
transfer stations and high users of the product. The material is returned to their
facility and recycled, currently at breakeven cost. The following literature will
present many other examples of industrial and consumer concern for solid waste,
including PS foam.

In 1991, Michigan State University was funded by the State of Michigan's
Department of Natural Resources to develop a business plan and complete research
for the feasibility of a polystyrene recycling facility for southeast Michigan. As part

of the research, a survey was developed and sent to 2000 randomly selected

3

companies; 194 responded. The survey was a component of the business plan and
asked questions about solid waste and PS foam disposal and recycling. The topics
covered included perceptions about various current issues as well as waste stream
breakdowns. This research explores and statistically analyzes waste stream

breakdowns, environmental attitudes, and perceptions obtained from the survey.

2 LITERA REVIEW

The following sections outline issues related to industrial and post consumer
solid waste and more specifically, PS foam. The first section will discuss solid waste
measurement methods and waste stream sizes. This will be followed by a discussion
of solid waste disposal methods and issues, incineration, recycling, evolution of
recycling programs, and separation of solid waste. Various PS foam related issues
presented include waste management issues, PS foam recycling and waste stream
contribution, virgin and recycled uses, PS foam alternatives, future demand,
seasonality, associated disposal and processing costs, and curbside collection. The
literature review ends with a section related to solid waste environmental attitudes,

perceptions, and participation issues.

li W m n M h n m iz
Waste generation rates are available for some residential, commercial and
industrial waste streams. Sometimes residential and commercial may be combined.
Institutional generation rates are usually included in commercial estimates.
Construction and demolition, and industrial special waste generation rates have also
been estimated. Residential, i.e. single family and multi-unit housing, waste

generation estimates are usually more accurate than commercial, industrial, and

5

institutional estimates because they have minimal variance with more measurable
populations. Residential rates are usually measured on the basis of
pounds/ capita/ day (PCD), though pounds/ household/ day may be calculated. Rates
are based on 365 days/year (Resource Recycling Systems Inc., 1990).

Commercial, industrial and institutional waste measurement requires analysis
of the activity level for many different market areas. The most frequent activity
measure is employment (lbs/ employee / day or PED). Floor space, land use acreage
and sales are occasionally used.

Industrial, commercial, and institutional rates can be separated by Standard
Industrial Codes (SIC). These codes identify the industry a particular company
belongs to. If waste stream composition could be correlated to SIC code and an
activity measure, census data could be used to aggregate industrial and institutional
market activities into measurable waste generation rates. Annual sales is another
way to measure solid waste streams. In this type of analysis, companies are
separated into categories that represent various levels of annual sales.

For reporting waste stream size, two types of measurement may be presented-
size by weight, and size by volume. Although solid waste is usually characterized by
weight, information about volume is important for such issues as determining how
quickly landfill capacity is being filled and identifying the rate at which the volume
of various materials in the waste stream is changing (US. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1990).

Table 1 compares materials generated in US. municipal solid waste in 1988

by weight and volume. Column three of this table gives a ratio of volume to weight

6

for each material. A ratio of 1.0 means that the material occupies the same
proportion by volume as by weight. Values greater than 1.0 mean that the material
occupies a larger proportion of volume than weight. Plastics, metals, and "others"
all have ratios greater than 1.0. By contrast, yard waste and glass each have ratios
less than .6, indicating these materials are quite dense and occupy proportionately
less volume than weight in landfills (US. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990).

Volume estimates of solid waste are more difficult to make than weight
estimates. A pound of paper is a pound of paper whether it is in flat sheets,
crumpled into a wad, or compacted into a bale, but the volume occupied in each case
will be very different. Table 1 presents estimations of the volume of materials as
they would typically be found in a landfill (a significant amount of compaction occurs
in a landfill). These estimates are based largely on empirical data that are then used
to estimate density factors (pounds/ cubic yard) for components of solid waste under
simulated landfill conditions, with corroboration from actual landfill studies (US.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1990).

By volume, the paper and paperboard category ranks first in volume of MSW
discarded (34 percent). Plastics rank second in volume, at 20 percent of the total,
and yard wastes are third, at 10 percent. Paper and plastics combined account for
over one-half of the volume of MSW discarded in 1988. By weight, the largest
component of MSW is also paper and paperboard, at 40 percent of generation.
However, by weight, yard wastes are the second largest component (roughly 18
percent of generation), and four of the remaining categories- glass, metals, plastics,

and food wastes- range between 7 and 9 percent each by weight of total MSW

7

generated (US. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990).

1312111. Materials Generated in US. MSW by Weight and Volume, 1988

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Material: Percent and amount Percent and Amount Ratio
of MSW Stream of MSW Stream (vol%/
by Weight: by Volume: wt%)
Paper: 40% 34.1% .85
71.8 million tons 136.2 million yds3
Plastics: 8% 19.9% 2.5
14.4 million tons 79.7 million yds3
Metals: 8.5% 12.1% 1.4
15.3 million tons 48.3 million yds3
Yard Wastes: 17.6% 10.3% .59
31.6 million tons 41.3 million yds3
Glass: 7% 2% .29
12.5 million tons 7.9 million yds3
Other: 11.6% 18.4% 1.6
20.8 million tons 73.4 million yds3
Total: 179.6 million tons 400 million yds3
(U .8. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990)
Watkins:

 

The available capacity and operating costs for waste disposal facilities will be
strongly affected by state and federal regulatory initiatives. This includes eliminating
facilities that are environmentally unsound and increasing the requirements for
location, design and operation of new disposal facilities. As a result, landfills are
becoming scarce across the nation, and landfill disposal costs will continue to
increase (Resource Recycling Systems Inc., 1990).

Table 2 illustrates the management of MSW in the US. during 1988.

Landfilling represented nearly 73% of the handling of MSW. Recovery of materials

8

for recycling was 14% of the total generation, and recovery for combustion was 14%

(US. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990).

Table 2. Management of MSW in the US, 1988

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

METHOD: PERCENTAGE: TONNAGE:
landfill 72.7% 130.5 million tons
Recovery 13.1% 23.5 million tons
Incineration 14.2% 25.5 million tons

.5. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990)

The Environmental Protection Agency has defined a hierarchy for waste
disposal goals that many states and industries are adopting. First is the reduction of
waste stream size. Second is the reuse of materials. Third is recovery for recycling,
fourth is recovery for or incineration. Recovery for recycling and incineration are for
those materials that cannot be reused or eliminated from processes. Last on the list
is landfilling.

The State of Michigan has a Solid Waste Management Policy, with the goal
of promoting waste reduction, reuse, composting, recycling, and incineration with
energy recovery, while limiting landfill use. Landfilling of solid waste is the last
choice of the Michigan solid waste management policy. However, landfilling is
necessary for handling residuals that are not diverted to reuse strategies, and for
incineration residues. Landfilling is not a popular waste disposal method and a
stronger focus will be on recycling in the future. Table 3 shows a range of solid

waste alternative goals, to be achieved by the year 2005. These are expressed as the

9

percent of the solid waste stream which should be diverted to each method.

W. Resource Recovery Goal

 

 

Technology: Range:

Waste Reduction .................. 8 - 12%
Reuse .......................... 4 - 6%
Composting ..................... 8 - 12%
Recycling ........................ 20 - 30%
Incineration w/ energy recovery ........ 20 - 30%
Landfilling (current. 85-90%) ......... 10 - 20%

 

 

 

 

(Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Resource Recovery Section, 1987)

All of these goals are considered integral components of a comprehensive
solid waste management system. Note that they also follow the EPA ' s hierarchy of
goals, from waste reduction to landfilling, in which the first priority for receiving state
funds should be the simplest, most cost-effective alternative.

Many companies and states have continued to follow patterns contradictory
to the EPA hierarchy. When considering waste disposal methods in an effort to
reduce costs, long range transportation to lower cost landfills is usually the first
option. Next is incineration in waste-to-energy facilities. Finally, they will consider
waste reduction, recycling, and composting. Therefore, the main factor in the trend
toward increased recycling will be rising cost of waste disposal (Michigan Department
of Natural Resources, Resource Recovery Section, 1987).

From 1982 to 1987 some 3,000 landfills closed in the US; 50% of the landfills
now in use will close in five years. Landfills are designed to be in use for only 10
years and they are not being replaced. Texas was awarding 250 permits per year in

the seventies, now they award only 15 per year. Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia,

10

Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, New Jersey, and New York will run out of landfill
space in less than five years (Glenn, 1990).

Even landfills deemed safe can be found to contain toxic materials, as this
occurred in Delaware. In the congested Northeast, or areas with a high water table,
there may be no room for additional sites. Landfilling issues are twofold: One
concern is economic, which includes transportation and landfilling costs; and one is
political. Citizens and politicians are sometimes placed into groups such as
"NIMBY" (Not in My Backyard), "GOOMBY" (Get Out of My Backyard),
"LULU" (Locally Undesirable Land Use), and "NIMEY" (Not in My Election
Year) (Glenn, 1990).

While most plastic recycling has occurred at the industrial level, the recovery
of post-consumer plastics is becoming more common. Qirrently, most PS foam is
landfilled due to the lack of recycling programs (Franklin Associates, 1987). In 1988,
only about 1.1 percent of all plastic waste was recycled. The bulk was polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE). In some instances,
states such as Michigan recover high amounts of PET due to state deposit laws.
Most programs were exclusively drop-off. However, today curbside recycling
programs are being implemented regularly in communities. As community demand
adds an increased variety of recovered plastics, this number will continue to increase
(Franan Associates, 1987).

In Michigan, each community is allowed to use the mix of technologies that
best fits its needs and preferences. After selection, the community works closely with

the state government to interpret and adjust the statewide goals to meet local

11

problems and opportunities. By evaluating their county's waste composition data,
present and projected disposal costs, and availability and distance to recycled
materials sources, each community can determine the most appropriate goals for its

plan (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Resource Recovery Section, 1987).

n in ion

Combustion of MSW ranks behind recycling and composting in the solid waste
management hierarchy. Most of the MSW combustion in the US. incorporates
recovery of an energy product (generally steam or electricity); sale of the energy
helps to offset the cost of operating the facility. In past years, it was common to
burn municipal solid waste in incinerators as a volume reduction practice; recovery
of energy started to become more prevalent in the 19705. Combustion of MSW has
increased rapidly since 1985, with numerous new facilities coming into operation. It
was estimated that 24.5 million tons of MSW were combusted with energy recovery
in 1988 (US. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990).

When MSW is combusted, a residue (usually called ash) is left behind. Years
ago this ash was commonly disposed of along with MSW, but combustor ash is no
longer classified as MSW. As a general " rule of thumb", MSW combustor ash
amounts to about 25 percent (dry weight) of unprocessed MSW input. This
percentage will vary from facility to facility depending upon the types of waste input
and the efficiency and configuration of the facility (US. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1990).

Incineration can be compared to landfilling and other methods of disposal by

12

cost, energy producing potential, and environmental concerns. Incinerators
sometimes attract as much negative attention as landfills. Recovery of energy, when
compared to economic benefits of recycled materials, especially plastics, is not
currently beneficial. In 1988, approximately 155 incinerators were in operation,
including at least three in Michigan, but 64 had been blocked or canceled. Their
problems were part economic, with construction costs up to $500 million with non-
competitive energy production. They were also in part technical, including the
toxicity of residuals such as volatile and ash (Kampouris, Papaspyrides and Lekakou,
1988).

However, many scientists believe that incineration can work safely, that too
many operators see the environmental issues as public relations concerns, rather than
serious calls for upgrading practices. DuPont Corporation says that energy from
burning waste currently landfilled in Canada could run every vehicle and heat every
home in the country for two weeks every year. Canada currently produces some 32
million tons per year of waste, of which only 5% is burned. DuPont claims that the
technology exists for the safe incineration of tires, plastics, and other wastes, and to
capture a significant part of the energy released. In 1988, 15% of MSW was burned
in the US. (Hocking, 1991).

In Japan, incineration processes combust cleanly, and are widespread due to
limited space. However, of more than 2000 incinerators in operation, relatively few
are designed to convert waste to energy. Many professionals agree that energy from
combustion is important, and if implemented, more useful than material recovery.

Contrary to common perceptions, technology to incinerate safely has progressed

13

considerably in recent years (Hocking, 1991).

Incineration is opposed by Pollution Probe, a Canadian environmental group,
on the grounds that it is so capital intensive that it will work against the goals of
reduction, reuse and recycling, by creating a demand for garbage. It is also opposed
on the grounds that it will contribute to global warming, by putting more carbon
dioxide in the air. DuPont, which currently incinerates about 84% of its waste,
counters with the obvious point that by burning waste, less oil and natural gas will
be burned (Hocking, 1991).

Solid wastes represent a potential source of raw materials as difficulties arise
in the proper utilization of depleting resources. For plastics, although they constitute
a small proportion of the domestic refuse (5-7%), large economic losses are involved
because of their high cost. In fact, though plastic wastes can serve directly as a
combustion aid for burning other organic refuse, their value as reclaimed plastic is
considerably greater than their value as an energy source. Accordingly, well known
destructive techniques, such as incineration or pyrolysis, seem quite wasteful.
Incineration will remain a heavily disputed issue for years to come (Kampouris,

Papaspyrides and Lekakou, 1988).

Recycling
Recycling is the alternative many consumers and companies alike are currently
choosing. Since it poses little if any additional environmental danger and has been

found to be economically feasible in many communities, many consider this to be a

good near term alternative to solid waste problems. This is especially apparent in

14

industries where waste reduction and reuse cause difficulties. Recycling is rapidly
becoming popular throughout the country. Nine of the ten most populous cities now
have curbside collection, with the exception of Detroit which currently has high
utilization of an incineration facility and is proposing the construction of another.
This also illustrates how residential waste recycling has become a political necessity
in every big city. The combined recycling budget for the 10 largest cities totals more
than $162 million (Watson, 1990). New recycling projects are getting started and the
government is becoming more involved.

Table 4 explores curbside recycling program development in large US. cities.
In some cities like New York and Los Angeles, programs are well established and
are growing at a fast rate. Other cities like Chicago and Houston have started pilot
programs which are also expanding. The expected growth of residential recycling
programs in the 10 biggest cities over the next 3 years is tremendous. The increase
in targeted households is approximately 48% for New York, 600% for Los Angeles,
and 580% for Chicago, with high figures for the others as well (Watson, 1990). This
trend has an important implication for companies starting recycling programs. With
the expected growth in recycling programs, there will be a great amount of publicity
influencing more people to recycle. Thus, firms starting recycling programs now will

have an environmental and public relations advantage.

15
131219 4. Curbside Recycling Programs in the Nation's 10 Largest Cities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current Households
CITIES households targeted for 1993
targeted
New York 1,800,000 3,400,000
Los Angles 100,000 720,000
Chicago 62,000 651,000
Houston 27,000 400,000
Philadelphia 169,000 Undetermined
San Diego 80,000 Undetermined
Dallas 14,000 Undetermined
Phoenix 11,000 At least 21,000
Detroit None None
San Antonio 16,100 Undetermined

 

(Watson, 1990)
Note: Participation figures are for standard curbside materials such as paper, metal,
glass and plastic containers. Yard waste collection is not included. New York ' 5 total
includes collection from high-rise apartments.

Economic considerations, which are a driving force toward increased recycling
include: the need to develop alternative sources of raw materials, the dollar value
from the sale of recovered materials, the avoidance of disposal costs, the increasing
cost of landfill development and operation, and the existing or potential hidden costs
of landfilling such as groundwater contamination and cleanup costs.

In Michigan, recycling could work effectively in every part of the state
according to 11 recycling feasibility studies that were conducted under the Clean

Michigan Fund program. However, most county 641 plans did not accept recycling

as a viable technology because of poor markets for recycled materials. This was

16
partly due to the recession, when the data was originally gathered (Wright, 1987).

The mix of collection technologies used in each region, county, and
municipality may include curbside collection, collection at multi-family dwellings,
drop-off centers, buy-back centers, mechanical and / or labor intensive sorting
operations, centralized processing facilities, office paper recycling, used oil recycling,
battery recovery and recycling, and textiles recovery and recycling.

Depending on the geographic, social, and economic factors of the community,
certain technologies will work better than others (Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Resource Recovery Section, 1987). For recycling collection programs, the
key issues in the decision to collect a particular material include source availability,
accessibility of markets, materials shipping and processing requirements of buyers,
market price and market demand. Most plastic recycling has occurred at the
industrial level (Kent County Board of Public Works, 1990).

Table 5 shows U.S. waste stream generation, divided into four major
categories that is estimated to be recovered for recycling by 1995. These categories
are paper/wood, plastics, metals, and "others"- which represents all other waste
stream materials recovered for recycling. By weight, paper/wood is expected to be
the largest component recycled, at about 29 million tons. "Others" is expected to
be second at 19 million tons, metals third at 4 million tons, and plastics last at .9
million tons. Note that although plastics is the third largest waste stream component,
it is the smallest component expected to be recovered for recycling in 1995.
Therefore, it will be important to focus on plastics recycling in the future, especially

packaging materials, which comprise a large portion of plastics waste generation

17
(US. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990).

Table 5. Estimated 1995 US. Waste Generation and Recovery for Recycling

 

CATEGORY WASTE RECOVERY

GENERATION FOR

(million tons) RECYCLING
(million tons)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paper/wood 85.5 29.45
Others 62.2 18.6
Plastics 18.6 .9
Metals 16.2 4
TOTAL 182.5 52.95

 

(U.S. Envfionmental Protection Agency, 1990)

l i f R lin ms

Municipal involvement in recycling generally focuses on residential collection.
Established firms then purchase the materials for shipping, further processing, or
recycling into new products. In general, collected materials are processed further
before being recycled by a manufacturer into a new product. This is most often by
an intermediate firm which removes contaminants and densifies the material, or
performs other processing. Participation tends to increase as programs mature and
publicity increases (Lansky, 1991). Various plastics trade associations are available
to help start plastic recycling programs. They include: The Plastics Recycling
Foundation, National Association for Plastic Container Recovery, Council on Plastics
and Packaging in the Environment and The Council on Solid Waste Solutions.

Marketing of secondary materials in general is often handled by brokers, who

determine which manufacturers purchase recovered materials, and provide market

18

specifications to the seller. Manufacturers generally prefer to deal with brokers
because quality control is better ensured and significant volume is guaranteed.
However, material collectors may be able to deal directly with manufacturers if a

large enough volume can be assembled.

i n f Ii W

The separation of recyclable materials from the waste stream can be done
either at the source (household, office, or business) or on a larger scale at collection
or processing facilities (site-separation). Source separated collection systems include
drop-off and buy-back centers, curbside collection, and multi-family or commercial
office collection services (Resource Recycling Systems Inc., 1990). Separation
enables recyclers to conveniently pick-up and transport materials for recycling. If
materials are not separated, recyclers face the additional task of sorting through solid
waste to locate materials for recycling. Levels of participation vary by industry and
company size.

In order to divert substantial amounts of residential solid waste, curbside
collection of recyclables is necessary. To sustain high participation rates, public
education and promotion are needed. There are increased opportunities for local
waste haulers to provide this service. Haulers can encourage recycling by using a
variable collection fee for recyclables or by providing separate collection of recyclable
materials (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Resource Recovery Section,
1987).

The waste management industry is recognizing that in the future, recycling can

19

be an essential component in any "least cost" solution. It is compatible with other
disposal system options, results in reduced transportation costs at transfer stations,
reduces landfill costs, and can eliminate several types of pollutants from waste to
energy facilities. As a result, more waste management firms are creating the
capability to offer recycling programs to their target sources (Resource Recycling

Systems Inc., 1990).

M m n 1

Residential waste generation rates for PS foam in Michigan are not available.
PS foam is a small component of MSW (municipal solid waste). Residential
recycling studies Show that it can take weeks for a household to collect enough PS
foam to fill a bag, and have estimated that only 2% of the plastics collected are PS
foam. In addition, there have not been any studies of industrial, commercial and
institutional generation of PS foam. However, estimates from total MSW studies
indicate between .5% to 2.1% of total MSW is polystyrene (all types) (Hocking,

1991).

Was

For PS foam, The National Polystyrene Recycling Company has defined the
following as potential sites for PS foam collection: corporations, military bases,
cafeterias, restaurants, community drop-off centers and curbside collection, stadiums,
hospitals, school districts, universities, fast food restaurants, prisons, airports,

manufacturing plants, retail stores and shopping malls. The NPRC recommends

20

implementing a PS recycling program in phases. The first is to target high volume
users like schools and universities, and launch heavy public awareness programs. The
second phase is in fast food and where festival types of events take place. This is
because a separate type of education is required. The third phase is voluntary drop-
off and curbside collection as these require the most advanced consumer awareness
and education (National Polystyrene Recycling Company, 1991).

A recycling plan is never successful without the participation and acceptance
of the audience. To reduce the myths about PS foam, education is crucial. The PS
recycling program should be planned in advance and information about the start of
this program should be publicized effectively.

Students and employees should be involved as much as possible. It is a good
idea to give student bodies and work force teams the responsibility for planning and
carrying out the promotion of the program. Newsletters should be used, and as many
people as possible should be involved (National Polystyrene Recycling Company,
1991). Children in over one hundred schools are learning about recycling at lunch
when they separate their polystyrene cups, trays and glasses in different containers.
Students participate by stacking their polystyrene trays in special designated areas
(The Polystyrene Packaging Council, 1991).

In companies and institutions, an enthusiastic campaign should be developed
by creating a display of recycling literature, and products made from recycled
polystyrene. Employees should be made aware of the start of the program and if
possible, they should be involved in running the program. Choosing an effective

recycling group is very important for the effectiveness of the program. The group

21

should be able to take over day to day responsibility of operation after initial start-
up. People who have a high level of environmental consciousness and motivation

should be selected (The Polystyrene Packaging Council, 1991).

WWW

Although polystyrene is technically recyclable, the economic feasibility is
questionable. Residential collection of PS foam is rare. This is because there is little
polystyrene available in residential areas, and transportation and sorting are costly.
It is important to perform a cost-benefit analysis before starting a residential
polystyrenecollection program. A nine month (April-Dec. 1990) PS foam recycling
pilot project has been successfully implemented in a regular residential curbside
collection program in Fitchburg, Wisconsin (Gruder-Adams, 1990).

FDA regulations limit food applications for recycled materials, but there could
be significant applications of recycled PS foam for packaging, insulation and
construction. This is particularly significant since packaging and construction use
24.2% and 19.6% of plastics respectively (Heathcote, 1991). PS foam can also be
recycled back into use as office trays, building construction, splinterless lumber,
flower pots, speed bumps, picnic tables and insulation in winter coats. For example,
Lin Pac is producing CFC-free insulation blocks from reclaimed PS foam, however,
the loss of McDonald ' s as a supplier may affect this application (Heathcote, 1991).

Virgin applications of foamed polystyrene are in cups, bowls, plates, trays and
"clamshell" containers. PS foam is also used as protective packaging for fragile

items like electronics. The primary PS foam consumer product packages include the

22

trays for meats and produce, egg cartons, and containers for various kinds of
processed food. Since many of these containers package food items, environmental
concerns could affect their use as recycled products, limiting their growth. Growth
limitations for recycled PS foam content in food products may be solved by
increasing non-food PS markets. For example, allowing appliance components to
replace acrylo-nitrile-butadine-styrene (ABS) with PS foam would increase a non-
food PS foam market. Other food applications, such as placing a recycled layer of
recycled PS foam to be in between two virgin PS foam layers, have been considered.
Although not FDA approved, some Hardee ' s restaurants currently use this material
in their clamshells (Lashinsky, 1991).

Table 6 shows that both virgin non-foamed and foamed PS have large
markets. Therefore, recycled markets may also have large potential. Non-foamed
polystyrene can be used for food packaging such as yogurt and cottage cheese
containers, and clear plastic salad bar containers. It also has consumer uses in video
cassettes, hangers, flower pots, office equipment, TV and computer housings, auto
parts and marine construction materials. Other large non-foamed polystyrene uses
include park benches, speed bumps, playground equipment and traffic signs (The

Polystyrene Packaging Council, 1991).

23
IEILILQ. U.S. Polystyrene Resin Sales by Process (mil. lbs/yr.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year: 1988 1989
Molding (solid PS): 1849 1829
Extrusion:

Solid PS ....... 1380 1375

PS foam ....... 799 781
Expandable Bead: 633 733
Export: 161 208
Other: 202 258
TOTAL 5027 5184

 

(Modern Flashes, 1990)

Alternative Materials 19 PS Feam

Alternative, more " environmentally friendly" materials may be considered
when developing waste management solutions. Although PS foam is recyclable,
companies have explored other options. The current price ofiered for recycled PS
foam is approximately $.20 per 1b., while virgin material is about $.50 per lb. In order
to maintain quality standards, PS foam should contain no more than 20% recycled
product. This percentage should increase as the technology improves (Hocking,
1991).

Polypropylene (PP) is becoming a major competitor against many types of PS
food applications. Currently, major competition occurs in the non-foamed sheet
product with PP replacing PS foam in cups, containers for dairy products, and lids
of all types. Because of the competition, the non-foamed uses are forecasted to grow

slower than the total polystyrene consumption. Consumption of this form of PS foam

24
packaging has been predicted to decline in the 1990's (Hocking, 1991). Companies

are considering polypropylene ' 5 price per 1b., slightly below 50 cents, and its
environmental friendliness, which underestimates polystyrene ' s recyclability.
Meanwhile, polystyrene competitors continue to promote polypropylene as a better
environmental alternative.

Other polymer competition occurs in packaging, which accounts for a third of
polystyrene consumption. The other major packaging uses require foamed forms,
which are initially fabricated as foamed sheet and expandable beads. Polypropylene
has already been introduced as an alternative, another alternative is non-recyclable
paper-based products. Many argue that paper-based these products favor waste
reduction. However, in the case of recyclability and energy consumption, they are
not viable substitutes. Table 7 compares paper-based cups and PS foam cups in ~
terms of raw material usage, utility usage, water effluent and disposal. Results show

that paper-based materials are not as environmentally friendly as consumers perceive

them to be (Hocking, 1991).

25

Iablel. Raw Material Summary for Hot Drink Containers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM PAPER CUP" POLYFOAM CUP"

RAW MATERIALS/CUP:

Wood and Bark(g) 33 (28-37) 0

Petroleum fractions(g) 4.1 (2.8-5.5) 3.2

Finished Weight 10.1 1.5

Wholesale Cost 2.5x x

UTILITIES/ METRIC TON:

Steam (kg) 9000-12,000 5000

Power (kWh) 980 120-180

Cooling Water (m3) 50 154

WATER EFFLUENT:

Suspended Solids (kg) 35-60 Trace

BOD (kg) 30-50 0.07

Organochlorines (kg) 5-7 0

AIR EMISSIONS:

Particulates (kg) 5-15 0.1

Pentane (kg) 0 35-50

Recycle potential after use: Low, hot melt High, resin reuse in other
adhesive and applications
coating difficulties

ULTIMATE DISPOSAL:

Proper Incineration Clean Clean

Heat Recovery (MJ/kg) 20 40

Mass to Landfill (g) 10.1 1.5

Biodegradability Yes No, essentially inert

 

‘ Made from fully bleaaied kraft pulp
" Made from molded polystyrene foamable beads.
(Hocking, 1991)

 

26
W

Increases in US. demand for polystyrene have been 2 to 2.5% per year, below
the historical average of 3%. However, new polystyrene manufacturing plants
continue to be built, and some existing plants are adding capacity. Added capacity
combined with depressed demand means that extra capacity is not used. To regain
unused capacity, manufacturers are expected to lower selling prices for most grades
and kinds of polystyrene through the early 1990's (C & EN, 1989).

Interpolymer competition in packaging has contributed to the slowdown in
consumption of all kinds of polystyrene. Competition from other alternative
packaging materials such as paper and paperboard, polypropylene and reusable
tableware, could further cut into polystyrene ' 5 growth.

Table 8 illustrates the estimated demand in 1993 for all kinds of polystyrene.
World demand for polystyrene is expected to grow an average of 4.6% annually
between 1989 and 1993. In 1988, world demand increased 6-7%, to 16.4 billion lbs.
By 1993, world demand for polystyrene will total 20 billion lbs., with 85% of this
demand from North America, Western Europe, and the Asian/ Pacific area. World
capacity to make polystyrene is expected to grow 8.4% annually between 1989 and
1993, which is slightly faster than demand, amounting to 22.6 billion lbs (C & EN,

1989).

27
Iable_8. Polystyrene World Demand in 1993

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Region: Pounds-
billions:

Asia/Pacific 6.0
North America 6.0
Western Europe 5.0
Eastern Europe 1.8
Africa/Middle East 0.6
Latin America 0.6

TOTAL 20.0

(C &EN, 1 189)

Asia/ Pacific, North America and Western Europe combine for 85 % of the
estimated 1993 world polystyrene demand. However, based on estimates of
production and capacity, the average operating rate will slip to about 87% of
capacity, down from about 90% during 1988. Capacity utilization will drop further
in the 1990 ' s to about 80% unless some is shut down. Industry sources speculate
that some of the smaller and older units of both large and small producers could shut

down during the 1990 ' 5 due to lack of specialty grades that sell for higher prices (C
& EN, 1989).

Seaebaality bf 25 Ebam and Selig Waste

Seasonal variations in waste generation and recyclable material rates must be
considered in planning facilities to meet peak processing requirements. Although no
information exists for PS foam, peak solid waste disposal times occur during the fall.
Some of the factors affecting variation include cycles in industrial production and

retail activity, periods of school attendance, periodic special pickups for large, bulky

28

items, higher generation of grass clipping during summer months, and collection of
leaves in the fall. In general, waste generation rates peak with business cycles, in the
fall (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Resource Recovery Section, 1986).
Seasonality has been estimated for some SW Michigan counties. Oakland
County has estimated a peak monthly generation rate at 130% of average monthly
waste generation, with a minimum at 70% of average monthly generation rate.
Oakland County was shown to peak in November and it bottomed out in February.
Seasonality was also tracked at landfills in three other Michigan counties, which
included Washtenaw, Wayne and Macomb. The results from these counties were
similar to Oakland county. Waste generation peaked in the fall, and the smallest
waste generation occurred in the winter (Michigan Department of Natural Resources,

Resource Recovery Section, 1986).

i l ' F li

In the Fitchburg, WI research, the recycling coordinator testified at a state
hearing that from a municipal standpoint, PS foam could be called " recyclable " only
if the costs of collection, processing and transport were offset by revenue from
material sales (Gruder-Adams, 1990). This nine-month curbside collection project
for all kinds of waste was funded by Amoco. Its purpose was to learn more about
the amount of PS recovered from the residential sector. Measurement methods
included weight and volume, participation as assessed by using bar coding and
computer scanner, and set-out frequency. How PS recycling affects collection

efficiency and route / time factors, contamination levels, and processing needs for

29

residential PS foam were also analyzed.

Fitchburg ' s over 3000 households are currently in their third year of
separating newsprint, mixed paper, glass, steel aluminum, HDPE, and PET for
collection purposes. For the PS foam project, residents were requested to rinse any
PS foam package and place it in a plastic bag in reserved plastic bins. Residents set
out polystyrene egg cartons, meat / produce trays, packaging material, clamshells, cups
and rigid containers. Residents received environmental education through packets
containing information brochures. In addition, they were given 35 clear 17-gallon
bags with instructions and a logo printed on them. All the PS foam bags were kept
separate on the truck and were taken to the Madison Recycling Center where they
were stored in pallet boxes. When processed, PS foam was debagged and sorted, the
contaminated portion was washed and dried, then the scrap was granulated. Some
of this end product was used locally with the rest exported to China (Grader-Adams,
1990).

In the F itchburg, Wisconsin PS recycling project, the number of bags of PS
foam that were collected fluctuated between 937 and 1621 (See Table 9), and within
the first four months 2.64 tons of PS were recovered. 83% of the households
participated in the pilot project, while 11% of the households set out materials in the
bags weekly. The set out rate was low because it can take months for a household
to accumulate enough PS to put out a bag. The frequency with which residents
participated in setting out PS foam was lower than any other material collected

(Gruder-Adams, 1990).

30
Iable_2. Curbside Polystyrene Collection Pilot Program, 1990

 

 

 

 

 

 

Month: # of Bags Volume (cu. Weight Participation
yds) (lbs) Rate

April 937 937 50 26%

May 1,621 1,656 60 59%

June 1,298 1,306 50 73%

July 1,512 1,550 43 83%

Total 5,368 5,449 202 83%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Gruder-Adams, 1990)

Commitment and understanding the value of PS foam by all residents, and
grocery and fast food retailers played an important part in making the program a
success. Of the majority of the population participating, 61% put out PS foam one
time in 15 weeks, 24% put it out twice in the same period, and 8% set out material
three times. The highest number of PS foam set-outs by any household was nine
times in 15 weeks.

Curbside recycling programs have associated costs and strategies to increase
participation and reduce costs. The costs associated with the Fitchburg program
included bags, collection, intermediate processing, shipping, densifying, pelletizing,
and marketing. In the pilot project, polystyrene was collected weekly with other
recyclables. Participation tends to increase with frequency in pick-up, e.g. weekly vs.
monthly. Participation will also increase when recyclables are picked up on regular
trash day. The PS collected during the first four months of the above project was
analyzed with the following results. 24% collected was trays from meat, 12%

collected was takeout containers, 6% was plates and 6% was egg cartons. All other

31
categories of PS foam were negligible (Gruder-Adams, 1990).

Residential PS foam collection is not being done by many recyclers. This is
because there is less polystyrene available in residential areas and it takes time for
people to participate in these programs. It is important to perform a cost-benefit

analysis before starting a residential polystyrene collection program.

lin P in n r i 11

Companies show mixed attitudes about the extent to which they will incur the
costs of recycling and related transportation methods. With solid waste landfilling
options physically limited, recycling costs will not have to be drastically low to offset
the increasing costs of landfilling. Transportation costs for recycling should remain
proportional with those for landfilling. Legislation could act as a catalyst to
stimulate landfilling alternatives. The Michigan Solid Waste Management policy,
which was adopted by the Michigan Natural Resources Commission on May 26, 1988,
emphasizes reuse, waste reduction, recycling and composting as the primary focus of
state funding (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Waste Management
Division, 1987).

Although the policy is primarily concerned with non-hazardous materials, it
recommends legislation and state financial assistance to encourage the expansion of
household and commercial waste management programs. This plan is a long-term
strategy that emphasizes the responsibility of business leaders and citizens. The
strategy depends on positive and incentive approaches, not on a set of mandatory

requirements. However, mandatory requirements may be pursued if major changes

32

in behavior do not occur voluntarily (Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
Resource Recovery Section, 1987).

In many cases, recycling facilities do not have to pay for the materials
collected for recycling. For example, the University of Miami (Ohio) now receives
$.20/lb. for PS collected, up substantially from $.04/lb. (Lansky, 1991). In 1989,
Plastics Again in New York, paid 5 cents a pound for deliveries that were at least
98% polystyrene by weight. It accepted less than clean containers which may have .
been contaminated by a wide variety of foods, textiles and metals, but charged a fee
of up to 24 cents a pound for fast-food restaurants that performed little sorting. The
key equipment in the design of Plastics Again ' s facility is a $500,000 twin screw
extruder. Their work-force is largely Vietnamese immigrants supplied by an
employment agency at $7.50 an hour (Feder, 1990).

There are many factors to be considered when evaluating recycling costs.
Recycling technologies that are used in the collection of materials may include a mix
of curbside collection, drop-off, or buy-back centers, multi-family collection,
commercial collection, on-call collection, or site separation of mixed waste. The
appropriate mix of technologies to be used will depend on the community involved.

Commingled curbside programs are believed to recover more and better
quality material while requiring less support to operate. Collection costs to be
accounted for include route rate, average miles in the route, route velocity, site stops,
pick-up quantity, productivity, product density, trailer rental, trailer capacity,
interplant distance, and waste rate. On-road collection costs can dramatically effect

operational costs. Scheduling routes by computer to minimize haul and travel time

33

for institutional, residential, retail, and industrial areas is most effective (National
Polystyrene Recycling Company, 1991).

PS recycling requires a different marketing approach than initially conceived.
In the past, recycled PS foam marketing primarily utilized a "pull" strategy which
assumed that the market would initiate demand for recycled PS, and beat a track to
the recycler. This did not happen for a number of reasons including: lack of
awareness, concerns about quality, and poor understanding of the economics. This
market strategy should shift to more of a "push" effort if PS foam recycling is to be
viable as a stand-alone enterprise. This "push" effort should include more active
marketing, sales and education efforts. This implies that marketing, sales, and
education must be adequately budgeted for when developing a PS foam recycling
model. Marketing and sales efforts Should work to develop long term contracts. The
contracts must focus on quality and consistency as well as price (National Polystyrene
Recycling Company, 1991).

Processing and collecting materials for recycling is simplified by the use of
densifying (compacting) machines. In Mason, MI, Dart Container Corporation has
created a densifying machine that may be leased or purchased outright by interested
recycling participants. The machine serves to make PS foam more compact for back-
hauling purposes, thereby reducing transportation costs dramatically. Densifiers are
also used for other materials that are recycled such as aluminum cans. Many
facilities now have the option of cheaper disposal methods, such as contracting for
landfilling. Therefore, densifiers are not very popular.

Source and site material separation for recovery of materials for recycling is

34

also useful. The most cost effective method for site separation is when it occurs at
the source of the disposed materials. However, site separation of recyclable
materials is usually conducted at processing facilities, landfills or transfer stations.
Manual labor and/ or processing equipment is used to sort materials. Commercial
loads are usually targeted for sorting due to greater volume of certain materials. Site
separation programs normally target old corrugated containers, although glass, metals
and other paper products are recovered by some. A few examples of site separation

facilities and the amount of material recovered are shown in Table 10.

m. Site Separation Recovery Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location: Type: Total Waste Total Waste Percentage
Received Separated
(tons / day) (tons/ day)
Grand Rapids, Landfill 28 13 46.4%
MI
Eureka, CA Landfill 200 16 8.0%
St. Catherines, Landfill 300 10 3.3%
Canada
Ocala, FL Transfer 200 23 11.5%
Station
Seattle, WA Transfer 450 14 3.1%
Station
Huntington Transfer 1,100 40 3.6%
Beach, CA Station
(1V. ichigan Department of Natur I Resources,

 

 

Resource Recovery Section, 1986)

35
vi n n l A i n P i n

Attitudes and perceptions companies and consumers have about the
environment and solid waste are important when considering whether programs such
as reduce, reuse and recycle will work. Costs, landfill space, education, public
relations, and legal mandates are important issues companies face. Environmental
education is the most critical key to success of reduce, reuse and recycle programs
(Gruder-Adams, 1990).

Long range publicity campaigns are now necessary when opening landfills or
incineration facilities. Consumers and industry professionals seem much more
focused on reduce, reuse and recycle, than landfilling and incineration alternatives.
They are interested in the R-R-R hierarchy, but admit lacking a complete
understanding of how these programs work and what the best options are (Gruder-
Adams, 1990). This reinforces the need for strong environmental education programs
within companies and communities.

Studies of recycling behavior indicate that participation also varies by pick-up
frequency, income, education and age, economic incentives, promotion and program
maturity. The promotional strategy is particularly important in commercial,
industrial, and institutional recycling programs.

One study was conducted to find the most effective recycling collection
method for capturing the most recyclables, while also encouraging the highest
participation rate. This study was conducted in the City of Everett, Washington. The
first concern was weekly vs. monthly pickups. Should the material be picked up on

weekly basis or monthly basis depending upon supply and number of pickup trucks?

36

The study found that participation increased with weekly pickups, especially when

combined with regular trash pickup (Operational Research Society, 1987).

Wham—PW

Other participation factors consider socio-economic groups. This studies the
different levels of income and education, spending power, and changes in
consumption patterns. Socio-economic variables can determine the amount of
materials that may be collected within a certain residential area. For example,
results of data collection from Metro-Detroit found that residents from lower socio-
economic neighborhoods contributed more recyclable materials per household under
weekly collection with buy-back methods than residents from higher socioeconomic
test areas. Lower socio-economic groups also had a greater participation rate in
programs that had deposit laws for returnables such as cans, glass and plastic
beverage containers. However, overall participation rates in environmental collection
programs were greater in the higher socio-economic groups (Michigan Department
of Natural Resources, Resource Recovery Section, 1986).

Participation rates of large vs. small businesses have not been studied.
However, a correlation may be drawn to the geographic position of a business. For
example, a business in a low socio-economic neighborhood may be less likely to
participate in recycling programs than a business in a higher socio-economic area.
The size of a business ' parent company may also affect participation rates. Larger
organizations tend to have more mature environmental programs. Therefore,

participation in recycling programs will tend to be better within a business that has

37

more environmental education (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Waste
Management Division, 1987).

Participation will increase when special recycling containers are provided, as
recycling programs mature, and if programs pick recyclables up at their source.
Businesses prefer pick-up vs. drop-off recycling programs. Where drop-off is the only
option, the distance from the business to the recycling facility or transfer station is
a large participation factor. In general, business participation begins to decline when
recyclables have to be transported to facilities more than 8-10 miles away. Increasing
promotion in a recycling program will also increase participation (Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Waste Management Division, 1987).

Participation can be increased in communities where businesses and residents
are charged on a variable basis for garbage collection, i.e. per bag, by allowing
reduced charges for recyclables. A Kent County, MI study found a higher
participation rate for residents who use the City Refuse Collection service, which uses
a bag and tag system, and offers recycling bags at a lower cost as an incentive. In
addition, mandatory recycling ordinances may increase participation by two-times the
voluntary level with little enforcement, mostly due to media coverage (Kent County
Board of Public Works, 1990).

However, legislation can have negative effects if implemented with poor
planning. This was illustrated in Minneapolis, Minnesota. In 1989, legislation was
passed that required all food products sold within the city limits to be packaged in
an " environmentally acceptable" manner. According to the definition in the

ordinance, environmentally acceptable meant returnable or recyclable packaging.

38

At the time, Minneapolis had a recycling program that could handle glass,
paper, and aluminum, but not plastics. Therefore, to salvage the use of plastics in
packaging, Minneapolis was forced to immediately come up with a plastics recycling
program. Fortunately, a successful recycling program, including a $100,000 plastics
collection vehicle was implemented on time. But a question remained: Had
Minneapolis achieved a net gain for the environment?

Participation did increase dramatically, from 22% to 62%. However, political
disputes prevented the construction of a materials reclamation facility (MRF)- the
facility required to sort, clean, and prepare plastics for resale to end users.
Minneapolis was left with plastics that couldn't be resold for use. With no
connection to the marketplace, Minneapolis had problems deriving revenues that
would offset the cost of the recycling program. Since the plastics were never
converted to new products, there was no environmental gain- the plastics would still
be disposed of as garbage. The lesson here is that authority without competence will
not create environmental solutions. Programs must be planned very carefully (Lodge

and Rayport, 1991).

REEARHMETH D

This research was sponsored as part of a larger project, conducted by the
Michigan State University's Industrial Development Institute. The purpose of the
larger project was to construct a computer model and business plan to evaluate the
economic feasibility of a PS foam recycling facility for southeast Michigan (the
Metro-Detroit area).

The role of the survey was to estimate the volume of PS foam available from
various industrial, institutional and commercial sources. In addition, for the purpose
of this thesis, questions were included regarding other waste stream components,
recycling expectations, and attitudes about disposal. The larger project ' s group
process imposed some constraints, but the financial support and intellectual input
were invaluable to the completion of the survey.

The questionnaire was largely based on the literature reviewed in Chapter 2.
Development was an iterative process, with input from the Industrial Development
Institute ' 5 project group, this thesis committee, the MSU Center for Survey
Research, and industry representatives. The survey consisted of 27 questions in the
following areas: solid waste disposal methods and volume, disposal costs, incineration,
recycling methods and volume, separation of materials, transportation and recycling

costs, and participation and attitudes about environmental issues in general. Other

39

40

questions focused on various PS foam issues including: PS foam recycling feasibility
and participation, waste stream composition, recycled uses, alternatives, future
demand, seasonality, and potential contamination.

A random sample of 2000 companies was drawn from a Dunn & Bradstreet
on-line database. This database contained all companies currently listed in southeast
Michigan. The sample was stratified by SIC codes; half was drawn from firms
expected to be "heavy users" of PS foam, like educational institutions and
restaurants, and half from "light users", like banks and legal services.

The mail survey was administered to key informants at each site. The
respondents were selected by first calling the firm and asking for the name of the
person who purchases waste disposal services. About 8% of the companies contacted
were no longer in business or chose not to participate.

The survey was professionally printed in booklet form. When mailed, all
surveys were enclosed with a personalized and hand-signed cover letter, and printed
return postage paid envelopes. After the surveys were mailed, a postcard was sent
to all participating companies within four weeks as a reminder to return them, as
recommended by Dillman.

The response rate was 10% or about 200 companies. For this type of
research, professionals in the field of survey research deemed this response
acceptable for statistical analysis. Since the people that responded were waste
professionals within their companies, the results obtained from the survey are likely
to be as accurate as possible. The people who responded were willing to take the

extra time to compile the information.

41

The returned surveys were entered into a database compatible with the
software used to analyze them. This was completed by Michigan State University ' 5
Center for Survey Research. The data was then statistically analyzed for this thesis,
using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), Version 3.1. Analysis
was completed using cross-tabulations, mean tables, and frequency tables. Cross-
tabulation statistics show the number of respondents from a particular group (i.e.
sales or SIC) that chose a particular answer. Mean tables present means and
corresponding variations. These were used in waste stream and other quantified
analysis. Frequency tables Show the percent of the entire responding population that
chose a particular response.

Appendices are included after conclusions and recommendations (Chapter 5).
Appendix A presents the original survey. Appendix B shows individual SIC analysis
to questions that were presented with aggregate totals. For example, cross-tabulation
may analyze a question by all 16 SIC groupings, but the results and discussion
(Chapter 4) may present only aggregate results of the entire responding population.
To explore the entire question containing individual results from all 16 SIC groups,
refer to Appendix B.

Respondents may be categorized into SIC (standard industrial code), yearly
sales, or aggregate frequency groups. When questions were analyzed, the category
best suiting the question was used. An "SIC group" refers to the general industry
a company belongs to. There are 16 different SIC groups used; each group may
consist of one or a combination of SIC codes. In many cases, similar SICS were

combined into groups to make results more statistically valid. Table 1 1 shows the

42

name for each group, the members of that group and the percentage that group
comprised of the entire sample. The names given to groups of SICS are only to assist
the reader when interpreting results, and may not necessarily represent the entire
group. In general, questions that relate to perceptions about issues such as recycling,
the environment, employees, etc. were analyzed by SIC groupings.

The second way questions were analyzed is by 6 sales groups, numbered 1-6.
Each represents a different sales range. Group 1 has the smallest sales (<$99,000),
and group 6 has the largest (>$1,021,000,000). Table 12 shows these ranges. This
research analyzed questions requiring quantified analysis by sales ranges. For
example, questions relating to the amount of solid waste disposed of by a company,
the amount of materials that are recycled, etc. As illustrated by Table 11, the rather
small sizes of individual SIC groups that responded to the survey prohibited waste
stream volume analysis by industry. Therefore, to reduce variation as much as
possible, waste streams and quantified questions were analyzed by the sales groups,
which represent larger group sizes.

In some cases, it was not possible to gain statistical validity of a question for
analysis by either SIC or sales groups. In this case, aggregate frequencies are
presented. These simply represent the percent of the entire population that circled
or filled in a certain response.

Each question is discussed and followed a table showing the statistical results.
Method of analysis, i.e. sales, SIC, or frequency, will be listed at the top of the table.
All tables have a row at the bottom to illustrate how many people from a particular

group responded and how many people overall responded to that question.

Table 11. SIC Code Groups

43

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group Name: Size: % of Members:
Total:

Const. 13 7% General building by contractors, heavy
construction and trade construction.

Mfg. 37 19% Food products, textile, apparel, lumber
wood, furniture, food containers,
printing, chemicals, rubber, leather,
glass, metal, industrial machinery,
electronics, transportation equipment,
instruments and misc. manufacturing.

thle. Dur. 3 2% Air transportation, communications
and wholesale durable goods.

thle. Non-dur. 15 8% Wholesale nondurable, building and
garden materials.

Hshld. 19 10% Food stores, service stations, apparel
and home furnishing stores.

Rest. 7 4% Eating and drinking places.

Retail 12 6% Miscellaneous retail.

Banks 17 9% Depository institutions, NOW
depositories, brokers and real estate.

Entmnt. 22 11% Hotels and lodging, business services,
auto services, motion pictures,
amusement and recreation services.

Health 1 .5 % Health services.

Legal 2 1% Legal services.

Educ. 9 5% Education services.

Social Service 6 3% Social services.

Member. 21 11% Membership organizations, engineering
and management services.

Public Safety 1 .5% Justice, public order and safety.

Others 9 5% All others.

TOTAL: 194 100%

 

 

44

Table 12 presents the number and size that corresponds to the given yearly
sales figure. Groups were aggregated to obtain comparable group sample sizes, while
maintaining a fair separation of sales figures.

fl'able 12. Sales Code Groups

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sales Group: Size: % of Yearly Sales (in $):
Total:
1 36 19% O to 99,999
2 46 24% 100,000 to 499,999
3 25 13% 500,000 to 999,999
4 37 19% 1,000,000 to 9,999,999
5 12 6% 10,000,000 to 1,021,000,000
6 38 20% GREATER than 1,021,000,000
TOTAL: 194 100%

 

Waste stream volume analysis presented in results and discussion (Chapter 4)
was performed by separating respondents into the sales groups listed in Table 12.
As previously noted, the size of the population that responded to the survey
prohibited analysis by industry type. Table 13 shows the complete breakdown of the
responding population. Each SIC group is listed with its respondents separated into
the six sales groups. Note that the number of respondents per SIC sales group is
rather small. This shows that waste stream analysis by industry (the SIC groups in
Table 11), separated into sales groups (the sales groups in Table 12) would not be

possible without a much larger response rate.

45
labial}. SIC Groups separated by Sales Groups

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sales Group:

Group Name: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Row
Total

Const. 2 6 1 1 1 2 13
Mfg. 2 7 3 15 4 6 37
thle. Dur. 1 1 1 3
thle. Non-dur. 3 4 2 2 1 3 15
Hshld. 5 7 5 1 1 19
Rest. 2 1 1 1 2 7
Retail 3 4 1 2 2 12
Banks 3 6 1 1 2 4 17
Entmnt. 7 5 4 3 3 22
Health 1
Legal 1 1 2
Educ. 1 2 4 1 1
Social Service 2 2 2 6
Member. 11 5 2 1 1 1 21
Public Safety 1 1
Others 9 9
Column Total 36 46 25 37 12 38 194
mi i

The response size was large enough to report statistical means, standard
deviations, cross-tabulation results, and frequency statistics. However, in many cases,
it was not large enough to report, with confidence, comparisons between individual
groups to see if one group differed significantly from the rest of the responding

groups. These statistics would include analysis of variance (AN OVA), and chi-square

46

for normal distributions, and Kruskal-Wallis analysis for populations following non-
normal distributions.

Statistical analysis between groups would be most useful if they were
categorized by SIC groups, not sales groups. For example, SIC categorization could
be used to see if manufacturing waste streams differ significantly from retailing
industry waste streams. To increase statistical validity, questions had to be grouped
according to company size, not SIC groups. Therefore, these comparisons were not
possible. In addition, to perform analysis and view the differences between individual
sales groups would not be useful for most of the questions presented. Finally,
variances for most questions were very large. If individual comparisons between

sales groups were made, it would be difficult to report them with confidence.

4 RE LT ANDDI ION

Wis

Table 14 shows that most respondents (84%) currently contract to have their
waste transported to landfills. Therefore, many may not be able to supply
transportation vehicles for waste disposal purposes. When transportation for
recycling is introduced, twice as many companies, or 19%, contract for pick-up, versus
the 8% who use their own transportation. 23% of the respondents recycle office
paper and manufacturing materials internally. Table 14 also illustrates as company
size increases, no more large companies transport waste for disposal than small
companies.

Many companies of all sizes are contracting for waste and recycling disposal.
In the future, transportation costs that contractors pass on for waste disposal and
recycling will be an important concern. If recycling facilities can reach breakeven to
cover overhead expenses, recycling may become a waste disposal favorite in economic
terms. However, since companies are very dependent on contractors, recycling will
have to gain strong contractor support. Many contractors own the landfills, and they

may resist recycling efforts.

47

48

fI'able 14. Solid Waste Disposal Handling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q1. How does your facility handle solid waste now?
(Indicate a” that you amently use.)

GROUP (BY SALES)
RESPONSE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOT
1. We collect and transport
our waste to landfills . . . . 4% 9% 15% 15% 9% 12% 11%
2. We collect and transport
waste to recyclers ...... 15% 7% 5% 6% 0% 9% 8%
3. We contract with a
collection company for
disposal to landfills ..... 79% 77% 83% 94% 91% 82% 84%
4. We contract with a
collection company for
recycling ............. 4% 11% 30% 15% 64% 26% 19%
5. We recycle internally . . 26% 23% 30% 15% 27% 24% 23%
GROUP TOTAL ....... 27 44 20 34 11 34 170

 

Table 14 illustrated that a large number of companies currently contract for

disposal to landfills. In addition, Table 15 shows that a very large percentage (74%)

of their total waste stream is reaching landfills.

Currently, only 10% of all

respondents sell or give materials for recycling. Although large companies may have

more resources available to participate in environmental programs, they reported no

higher participation than smaller companies.

The amount of solid waste reaching landfills will have to be reduced

dramatically in the very near future. Waste stream reduction, re-use of materials,

recycling, and incineration are important components for future waste stream

management.

 

49

Iab1e_1_5. Solid Waste Sold, Incinerated, Recycled and Re-used

 

02.

Please break down by percentage what happens to your facility ' s solid
waste. If percentages are not available, please give your best estimate:

 

GROUP (BY SALES)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOT
1. Amount of MEAN: 78% 74% 74% 70% 74% 76% 74%
solid waste that
reaches landfills . STD-

DEV.: 29% 38% 33% 35% 27% 34% 33%
2. Amount that is MEAN: 6% 8% 10% 9% 0% 1% 6%
Incmerated ..... STD.

DEV.: 20% 23% 25% 24% 0% 4% 20%
3. Amount sold MEAN: 6% 10% 9% 10% 6% 16% 10%
or given to
companies for STD.
recychng ------ DEV.: 12% 23% 17% 24% 13% 28% 21%
4. Amount that is MEAN: 9% 1% 5% 8% 14% 4% 6%
office paper in
recycling STD.
programs ------ DEV.: 21% 3% 16% 23% 19% 15% 17%
5. Amount that is MEAN: 1% .5% 4% 2% 2% 0% 1%
reused in
manufacturing . . STD-

DEV.: 5% 2% 17% 4% 6% 1% 7%
6. Other methods MEAN: 1% 5% .5% 1% 2% 0% 2%

STD.

DEV.: 4% 22% 2% 5% 5% 1% 11%
GROUP TOTAL ........ 31 39 24 32 11 37 174

 

 

50

Table 16 shows that, in general, the tonnage of waste discarded by companies
increases with their size. The disposal costs (Table 17) also increase with their size.
Hence, a direct relationship between company size and disposal costs is found. Since
large companies are facing serious environmental hurdles in the very near future, it
is essential that programs are implemented. They currently report no more recycling
participation than companies of much smaller sizes. Large companies have more
resources to divert into environmental programs. In order to successfully avoid
enormous future disposal costs, these resources should be used wisely.

The average yearly waste disposal cost (Table 16) divided by average yearly
tonnage disposed (Table 17) yields a current (1991) disposal cost of $155 /ton. As
recently as 1988, disposal costs were reported at only $40-50/ ton (Resource Recycling
Systems, 1990), which were considered high at that time. In general, the largest
companies pay about five times more for waste disposal than the smallest companies.
Note, however, that these averages do have large associated variances. Since landfill
space is diminishing, the cost of landfilling will continue to increase dramatically. It
is very important to focus on creating breakeven recycling and incineration processes.
Strategic locations for transfer stations and facility location near source markets will
help. The use of reduction, and reuse will also reduce a company ' 5 annual waste
disposal quantities. Therefore, the total system of reduce, reuse, recycle and
incineration vs. landfilling could help to have enormous impact on future annual

disposal costs.

51
Iabl_e_1_6. Monthly and Yearly Disposal Tonnage and Costs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q4. In the waste industry, it is common to measure waste by tonnage as
well. If possible, please estimate many tons of waste your facility generates
per month or year in tons.
GROUP (BY SALES)

RESPONSE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOT
1. Tons per MEAN: .2 .5 1 2.5 7 5.5 2.3
month: ST.

DEV.: .5 1 2.3 3.6 3.8 16 8
2. Tons per MEAN: 2.1 14 21 14 103 23 19
year: ST.

DEV.: 3 49 31 28 152 53 55
GROUP TOTAL ........ 22 26 13 13 6 21 101

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 112. Average Yearly Disposal Costs

 

05. How much do you pay per year for all solid waste collection and
disposal services?

 

GROUP (BY SALES)
RESPONSE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOT

1. Amount per MEAN: 2644 932 1555 2601 5852 5918 2939
year: (dollars)

 

 

 

 

 

ST.
DEV.: 8475 1823 1664 3132 6952 1 1588 6949
GROUP TOTAL ...... 28 37 14 32 8 30 149

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l I i r
Volume analysis was completed by multiplying annual waste quantities by
percentages that companies reported for each waste stream category. For volume
analysis, statistics accompanied less deviation when comparing companies by size

rather than SIC groups. The entire population that responded for volume analysis

52

was 194 companies. Table 18 reports the average waste stream size at 883 cubic
yards of waste per year. For most categories, companies with higher sales generated
more waste. By volume, the largest component of waste streams was wood and
paper, at 622 cubic yards. The second largest category was "others", which is
comprised of glass, food, yard, and all other waste, with a mean of 108 cubic yards.
Companies reported that annual plastic waste was the third largest waste stream
component, at 106 cubic yards. Metals, which included ferrous and non-ferrous, had
the lowest volume reported at 47 cubic yards. These rankings supported results
found in 1988 waste stream analysis (US. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990).
Companies in respective sales groups reported a wide variation in the amount of
waste they generated. In part, this is due to the size and location of the market area
they serve. Therefore, although the reported waste stream volume illustrates trends
similar to those found in literature, the large variation associated with their means

reduces their validity.

53

M. Waste Stream Volume Analysis by Company Size

 

Q3 and Q6. Please estimate the how much of your waste stream volume is
composed of the following materials:

 

GROUP (BY SALES)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE (in yards3): 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOT
PLASTICS: MEAN: 75 45 156 185 52 121 106
(PS foam,

films and all ST.

others) DEV.: 125 103 284 657 71 245 329
WOOD: MEAN: 285 474 794 554 555 1066 622
(wood,

corrugated,

office paper ST.

and other DEV.: 527 1717 1836 872 731 2342 1585
papers).

METALS: MEAN: 19 12 111 16 24 113 47
(ferrous and

non-ferrous ST.

metals) DEV.: 62 44 303 35 55 338 193
OTHERS: MEAN: 48 27 186 202 37 151 108
(glass, food

waste and yard ST.

waste) DEV.: 85 50 456 662 58 420 382
MEAN WASTE STREAM PER COMPANY ................... 883
GROUP TOTAL ...... 31 45 22 33 10 36 177

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54
W mVlm-InP n

The following analysis discusses solid waste streams by percent. The nine SIC
groups that had the largest response rate, and therefore the most statistically valid
results, were analyzed. Unlike volume analysis, waste stream percentage analysis can
obtain valid statistics for SIC groups. The entire responding group for percent
analysis was 194 companies.

Figure 2 illustrates waste stream analysis in percentages (not volume) that the
top 9 responding SIC groups reported. When comparing retailing, banks,
entertainment, education, and membership organizations- retailing, membership, and
banking industries had the highest waste disposal of paper and wood products at
88%, 77% and 73% of waste stream composition respectively. For these industries,
high wood/paper use for office supplies is common.

Educational institutions had an even proportion of their waste stream
represented by paper/wood products (28%), plastics (36%), and "others" (36%).
The percentage of metals comprising their waste stream was negligible. Although
paper products are common in the education category, plastics and "others" also
represent a large part of their waste stream. Plastics are very common for cafeteria
use and supplies. "Others", which includes food waste, would also represent a large
portion of their waste stream. Entertainment industries reported only 57% of their
waste stream as paper/wood products, with an even split around 14% for the
remaining categories.

Figure 3 compares the next 4 largest responding SIC groups, construction,

manufacturing, non-durable goods wholesalers, and household goods. The largest

55

portion of the paper/wood waste stream category was reported by the manufacturing
industry at 86%. Since paperboard packaging, and pallets would comprise a large
portion of waste that is disposed, it is not surprising that plastics, metals, and
"others" did not comprise as large a portion of the manufacturing group's waste
stream. These combined for the remaining 14% of waste stream composition. This
indicates that there is more packaging being disposed of than manufacturing scrap.

The second largest SIC for the paper/wood category was the construction
industry, reporting this as 71% of their waste stream. Projects such as
industrial / urban development in the construction industry dispose large quantities of
paper/wood products. The construction industry reported 14% of their waste stream
as "others", and 12% as plastics.

The two remaining SICs, wholesalers of non-durable goods and household
products manufacturers reported 66% and 67% respectively for paper/wood
products, with a fairly even split around 11% for the remaining categories. Since
wholesalers and household goods manufacturers deal primarily with consumer
products (e.g. toothpaste, shampoo, food products, etc.), materials included within
"others", plastics, and metals will comprise sizeable portions of their waste streams.
Therefore, in addition to paper/wood packaging, these companies dispose large
amounts of various packaging materials associated with the products they
manufacture.

Figure 1 shows total aggregate waste stream analysis. Paper/wood products
were reported as the largest component of the waste stream at 70%. Plastics and

"others" represented 12%, and metals 6%. These figures are inconsistent with 1988

56

direct waste stream measurement research performed by the EPA. For volumes by
percent, the EPA reported paper/wood at 34%, plastics at 20%, "others" at 35%,
and metals at 12% (US. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990). Although
respondents ' waste streams are inconsistent with the EPA estimates, respondents '
waste streams are for businesses, which represent only a segment of the population.

The EPA report was for aggregate waste stream composition, which also included

households.

57

 

.3328 b. éwmem midway mamme—OSD
. Hog: Om m: wmmvosamsnm

9‘

A. ea <3um midi: 5:525

 

«ON

Ace... r

MEN --

NON 1

_3.o\c -

 

 

 

 

36.... -. .11. il-..-.ii.11
.e?...\€co; 3.058;. EcmZGm Eng—m 0:53

23:3.” 4.1m mmnwmmmnmm m: m5 awozvm.

«1110.13 313 auo sntaseadeu .IBq Ijong :oIoN

 

 

 

 

CD
a:
:3
w
w

W - '1"wa 1:1

JOQLUOW Egg?

 

 

8191qu Range“ spilpond [10(er .hHIRd

8401'“)

l Z0
- Z08
Z017

58

'1 Z09

4 Z08

Z 00 l

 

   

  
  
 

   

(\\\\\‘.;\\\\\\\i§\.\\\\\\\\\\\ \W .--

  

\\\‘ N‘NR‘.‘.\.\‘.\.‘\\\\§\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\\\\\\\\\

W ,\\\\'

 

   
    

 

 

   
  
  

  
 
  

       
 

4, ,3/ // // -‘ [bill/1",. VI /’,’
C}/”/'x’/,/"V//}5 ll-Vf/II’IV’Q I, / /’ I “

.....
.....
eeeee

0.00.0000...clot-ooo-onoouooou oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

 

 

 

; \1

  
   
   

econ...u.nnocoon-unnouuo-ooeno-ncuan-eoooue-e-o-oonoeI...ee-once-oouo-~enoooo~eeoowo

  

       

Z80

means OTSBM JO '2,

 

 

 

sanJB 313 9 IO} 3111133qu OTSBM g: 9.111.813

.1 :a)()N

'
b

'(Inorfi DIS auo siuosardar .qu Ijoe

 

'an—uoN '91s,“ :3

 

 

WOO -

 

'fiJBI

'pIqfiuIIIIII

 

 

SIBIE’W SON-99h]

3.131110

s-pupoad pooM/Jadnd

59

 

N A 03 co 3

O O O O O 3

'c\‘£ N N N 6‘51 3:
7 j z

 
  

    
    

  
  

   

                  
  

k8\\\\, NNQ:\§1~ \‘\. .. . \\\\\\ \\

    

  

, -,/" w ,4 . 7,], . , [1,7, ,
”<7” / “ / //' C fink/("'41,214/193’244/ / 477a» ’ 1’ 52.7
W474“ / " I/ f '/ // V/w’ 7, '
:%£%%%%22622%2%226/
’flZ/2/Z;m;¢:/2IYZ/y/i//z,,’ '/

 

 

 

   

l

 
   
  
  
 

A

      
 
  
  
    
   

O:
O)

.. .vM __.-_. _.....-— -.-.. ._

—.——. .._.—_. .2- .4. _~_ - ._._-.___.--

 

 

IIIBOJTS OTSBM JO %

 

sclnofif 915; ~17 .IO} SUIBOJTS O’ISBM '8 9.1112513

60
F R lin n

The EPA reported a 13% rate of material recovery for recycling of total US.
MSW generation in 1988. In this research, companies said in 1990 they recycled 15%
of their waste stream. Table 19 shows that all sales groups reported consistent
means around 15 %. However, these estimates accompanied large standard deviations.
When dividing the current waste stream volume that companies reported they recycle
(189 cubic yards) by the mean total waste stream volume they reported (881 cubic
yards), this figure increases to just over 21%. However, this type of analysis is less
accurate because of the variations associated with both waste stream volume and
recycling volume. Table 20 shows that by the year 2000, companies expect recycling
efforts to nearly triple, from 15 % to 41%. This estimate for the year 2000 had a
standard deviation of 14%. The EPA reported that by 1995, recycling should
increase to 24%.

The estimated increase in recycling of 26% would reduce waste Stream volume
from 881 cubic yards to 651 cubic yards, assuming solid waste disposal quantities and
company size do not change. If the cost recovering materials for recycling and
processing can be made economical, increases in total waste disposal costs may
stabilize. However, recycling facilities are expensive to start, and disposal costs will
continue to increase until economies of recycling are met. Considering the escalating
costs of disposal for landfilling, even without cost effective recycling processes, the

reduction in waste stream volume may offset the initial expense of recycling.

61
Table 12. Current Recycling Estimates (Percentage)

 

Q7. What percentage (by volume) of your facility' 5 total solid waste stream
is recycled?

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUP (BY SALES)
RESPONSE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOT
PERCENT MEAN: 14 13 17 15 17 17 15
RECYCLED: ST.

DEV.: 24 25 20 28 18 29 25
GROUP TOTAL ........ 30 42 21 35 11 33 172

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 20. Year 2000 Recycling Estimates (Percentage)

 

Q26. Currently, approximately 13% of all municipal solid waste is
recycled. What percentage of all municipal solid waste do you expect
to be recycled by the year 2000?

RESPONSE OF 180 RESPONDENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEAN ............................ 41%
STANDARD DEVIATION ............. 14%
n n F lin V l m

Table 21 shows that the volume of materials recycled does not follow trends
proportional to the amounts of waste companies generate. For example, by volume,
"others" and plastics were close second and third largest waste stream components
at 108 and 106 cubic yards respectively. The smallest component was metals at 47
cubic yards. However, for current volume that is recycled, metals were second with
19 cubic yards recycled, "others" third with 9 cubic yards, and plastics were last with
only 8 cubic yards recycled per year.

Considering the fact that most plastics are recyclable, this category has room

62

for considerable increase in recycling since only about 8% of waste stream plastic was
reported being recycled. "Others", which includes glass and yard waste, is another
category that contains many recyclable and compostable materials. This category
also reported only 8% being recycled, and has potential for future increases in
recovery for recycling and composting.

The exception to this trend is wood and paper, with a reported mean of 162
cubic yards currently recycled. Wood and paper were the largest component of
respondents ' waste streams (622 cubic yards), and 162 cubic yards was the largest
component by volume recycled. This yields an average of 26% of 622 cubic yards of
discarded wood/paper recycled. The EPA reported that in 1988, paper and wood
products were also the largest component recycled- with an average of 31% of
paper/wood waste generation recycled. However, "others" were second- with an
average of 30% of "others" generation recovered for recycling; metals were third-
with an average of 25 % of metal generation recycled; and plastics were last- with 5%
of plastic generation recycled. Respondents' rankings of paper/wood as the largest
waste stream component recycled, and plastics as least recycled are two categories

that were consistent with the rankings reported by the EPA.

63

IabLe_21. Current Recycling Estimates (Volume by Company Size)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q3 and Q8. Please estimate the how much of your waste stream volume is
recycled for each of the following materials:

CURRENTLY GROUP (BY SALES)
RECYCLED (1991)

RESPONSE (in 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOT
yards3):

PLASTICS: MEAN: 15 .4 30 4.6 0 4 8
(PS foam,

films and ST.

3110mm)- DEV.: 50 2 119 13 o 16 47
WOOD: MEAN: 25 19 145 91 286 473 162
(wood,

corrugated,

office paper ST.

and other DEV.: 79 57 388 315 693 1163 612
papers).

METALS: MEAN: 15 8 30 7 17 39 19
(ferrous and

non-ferrous ST.

metals) DEV.: 69 47 85 16 52 199 104
OTHERS: MEAN: 21 12 11 2 0 5 9
(glass, food

waste and ST.

Yard waste) DEV.: 85 50 455 662 58 420 382
MEAN TOTAL WASTE STREAM VOLUME RECYCLED . . . . 189
GROUP TOTAL . . . . 24 37 18 29 9 31 148

 

 

64

Table 22 reports that by the year 2000, respondents tend to agree that more
plastics, glass, and yard waste will be recycled or composted. Amounts anticipated
to be recycled become more in proportion with the amount of the total waste stream
a particular category consumes. For example, in the year 2000 respondents expect
that wood and paper products will remain the largest component that is recycled,
with an estimate of 433 cubic yards per year recycled. However, plastics will become
the second largest category recycled, estimated at 43 cubic yards, and metals and
"others" will be a close third and fourth at 30 and 26 cubic yards per year
respectively.

The results for volume recycled, currently and in the year 2000, have large
standard deviations. This indicates that various companies of the same size provided
large differences in their estimates. This may be explained by the fact that all
industry groups combined individual sales groups, and by the size of the market
individual companies may serve. These figures represent volume that will be
recycled in the year 2000 and do not reflect the possibilities of company growth or
reduction in size. Therefore, the amounts reflect no changes in the current waste
stream size.

By the year 2000, companies expect to recycle 41% of the plastics in their
waste stream. This was the largest estimated percentage increase of all categories.
This represents a 400% increase over the 8% currently recycled. Metals had the
smallest increase at 60%. Since metals represent the smallest waste stream
component and are already highly recycled, this will not reduce the waste stream very

much.

65

Although plastics are expected to have largest increase in amounts that will
be recycled, the expected increase in recycling from 26% to 70% of paper/wood
products will have the largest impact on waste stream reduction. This increase alone
could reduce overall waste stream volume by 30%. Plastics recycling will have the
second largest impact by reducing waste stream volume an additional 8%. The
recycling increases of metals and "others" will combine to reduce waste stream size
an additional 2%.

If companies are recycling all four waste stream components by the amounts
predicted for the year 2000, overall waste stream volume could be reduced by 40%.
Current estimated costs per year for disposal had a mean of $3000. Assuming waste
stream size is proportional to disposal costs, savings incurred by reducing waste
stream volume could be 40% or $1200 per year. However, this estimate makes an
important assumption that recycling processes will become self supporting, and that
the costs for recycling will be less than disposal costs. Currently, this is not the case
with many recycling programs.

Similar to analysis for waste stream volume, recycling volume was calculated
by multiplying the percentages reported per waste stream category by the current
volume of that category. Volume analysis variances were smaller when comparing

companies by size rather than SIC group.

66

131219.22. Year 2000 Recycling Estimates (Volume by Company Size)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q3 and Q8 (Part 2). Please estimate the how much of your waste stream
volume is expected to be recycled by 2000 for each of the following:
PROJECTED AMOUNT GROUP (BY SALES)

BY 2000

RESPONSE (in yards3): 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOT
PLASTICS: MEAN: 68 15 88 26 0 58 43
(PS foam,

films 311d all ST.

other-9- DEV.: 125 43 214 82 0 159 125
WOOD: MEAN: 168 154 640 469 447 795 433
(wood,

corrugated,

office paper ST.

and other DEV.: 326 329 1843 1294 1163 1946 1298
papers).

METALS: MEAN: 4 9 50 6 17 84 30
(ferrous and

non-ferrous ST.

metal-9- DEV.: 15 49 168 14 52 243 134
OTHERS: MEAN: 14 7 91 19 0 27 26
(glass, food

waste, yard

waste and all ST-

ANTICIPAT'ED VOLUME RECYCLED IN 2000 .............. 506
GROUP TOTAL ...... 20 36 19 27 9 30 141

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figures 4 through 8 illustrate percentage analysis of recycling estimates (i.e.
excluding volume and reporting only percentages) for SIC groups. Figure 4 shows
substantial recycling increases (about 55%) expected by construction and
manufacturing industries for paper/wood. A large percentage of this increase may

be attributed to an increase in pallet and paperboard packaging recycling. Similarly,

67

they also expect large increases in plastics recycling, which again may be linked to
plastics used for packaging and the unitization of materials.

Figure 5 shows large increases expected in wood/paper recycling for
wholesalers of non-durable goods (88%), and household goods manufacturers (29%).
These industries also have a high utilization of packaging materials in manufacturing
and distribution processes, which may be recovered for recycling. In figure 8,
membership organizations report an expected 58% increase in paper /wood recycling,
which should come from office paper recycling. They also report a 60% increase in

plastics recycling, most likely from cups and other plastic food packaging.

'0003 pun 1661 ~10} 31313 35100-13

313 auo Tuosaadar saaq 10 133 11093 ‘910N

 

 

(1661) “firm [:1
(1661)"18IIOQ -

(0003) am -

(0003) qsuog Z

     

/
.72

 

 

319191111 SOITSBId

snaqqo

Stonpord DOOM/Jaded

68

Z001,

 

 

   

 

 

 

   

(\3 .a. C3 CO
C C O O O
N s: N N N
1 I 1 T
:3:
\\\\\\\\‘\\\\\\"\\\\\‘l\\\\\\\\i‘ 1 6° ‘
' N 9
O
N
\\\\\\\\\\\\\§\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ V "e.
\\ \ \ if,
C:

 

. \ W 8:
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘\I\\1 N

  
    
  

a
N
\ \\.\,\.\

\\ \ .\\\
\\‘
\\‘\‘~1\\\‘\‘\\)§k\\‘4\\.\ a:

     
    

 

 

 

papKoar irrauodtuoo means 3139.11 10 04

0008 PuB 1661 10.21
STIIIIOIIIV EUIIOKOOH '1; 9.111313

 

69

 

'0003 [me 1661 .101 eiep s,dno.Ifi
(I66I)'pIrISH [:3

DIS auo Tuasaadaa s.qu go 133 “neg :aToN

(()008)'Plllsll -

 

nun..- m-
.u....~
.fi___
r»

Z081

 

._ Z001

 
   

 

    

 

 

   
        

   

  

  

   

  
  
  
       

N A c: on
o c o o
N '53 53 N N
:3 l 1 T l
I e e
g N
\ \ . W ,‘,.\\.\.:‘.,'.‘..;.:“.:. 13.-V .‘.\ ‘.\_‘n ‘4 .. \. \
,. - 8\\\\\8\\\8\\N\\\\\\\\N\\\
.2. 8 \ \\\\\\\\)\\\\\)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘\\\\\\
m o. 1 ca
2 "U '-
o 3 ,,
E 5. // ,2 ,7 5275.99,. ”:25: /%//é// ‘
:1 U)
A A
p—s
co
8 N .
a. 3 wwwxggggwhthe i‘
8 .\\ \ \\\h§~i€:¥\\\\\\\ a:
r— 1 c:
8' ' t.
a, .
:5
2'; 2
6° 9.
z 9: so
.9 5:" =3
7 Ex?
c
E
3;
N
O
O
3
E: .\\\\‘\\';\3 a?
6 :2.
-: I A
m ‘3
5‘1

 

 

Z001

 

paloKoar Tuauodmoa means OTSBM JO 04

0002 Due 1661 4051
snrnomv finnofoaa '9 arrtfirfl

 

 

'70

Emfiwm a. meowozbm 5,3055%
me. xx: mDQ Nooo

 

N 0». $568 magma ooawosmvn neoVSmQ

 

  

  
  

 

 

 
 

 

 

mow.
wow. 1 3%. EN
W
EN 1 NW
9mm. W
mew. , , . W
mow. . W
N\
EN NW , aw. _ a“
WW. wN 11%..
0% WW _ ON I,. ,, cN cN_ _ ON N fl

vmvmw\£ooa 13936 2338 Zoom—m 03.63

 

I war. :8: W m2. 383 D 33$ 2%: I mes—8 $83

Ill?

 

 

 

'9'...

2099 moo: m3 0.: cmwm nmvnmmmso one ma
«nosed amnm n3. am: 35 mass.

 

71

 

“0003 pue 1661 .101 map 351110.18

31s auo Tuasaadaa saeq JO Tas qoeg :aioN

 

Z081

 

 

     

 
 
    
    

 

 

  

m A 25
o c o c
N N N N
"U a 1 1
DD
1: co
E I s: .4
\ t—t
:21 m a \ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\ o
a. r: g N\\ \\\\\\\\\ \ <3,
8 g e ..
' "U
7: .5- 3
:2 A g. :;;i C
_ r— O -,
4.. § a.
N
a (\ \ \ N
E: .—
8 N
I
tr: :2: i1
2' E. z \\W\ 51
o g 2. \\\\\N 0‘3
° 1— 9?
”:3 F“ 57 N
g A 9,7,, co
3 2:3 797' /:;:; CO
C C 712% 453/ l ,/ 33
3
A
\., y...
o \\\\\\\ as
S- N ‘ N
53 o
a: N
A
N

 

 

 

 

pOIOKOOJ Tuauodmoo means aTseM JO %

0008 PUB 1661 10d
STUnomV EUIIOzfoaH '4 aTIIB'Id

 

 

72

 

Z081

 

   
      
     

       

    
         

 

on
w E
O c-v-
.5 re b
m' :13 N 4:. c) a o
no 0 o C O o o o
g 8" N N N N N N
5" '1: f I I I I
U) m w
" a D I '° N
o F" 2
"I
9.. \
_ 3
co 93: O m o
h
m m E a a.
D a CD a :56
GNU A ,1 o
o G CO H c ,
o ”’ co co 9
m _ co 6
P :5 V _ m
9 v
o
D
m
5’3 :2
a a
R
H.
0
U)
\
N
\\ to
N
a z \\\\ \ \\ \\\\\\\\M\;\V \ gov
2 (b 2 \\\N \\\Ҥ\\\\\1
3‘ 5 2- N x N
a; g m g
— O
"‘ an
A V
N A o
c N c)
o c a;
3 8 N
v
N
O NNNNV NNN
:7- ~ NW“ \‘ visusS-N N
a
v-z
U)
to
f 33
N

 

 

 

 

paloxoad 1uauodmoo means 3139M J0 %

0008 pure 1661 10d
sumomv finnofioag '9 alnifid

 

 

 

73
1 In

The following discussion reports survey results from various PS foam related
issues. These include uses, associated problems, potential alternatives, seasonality,
and predicted future consumption of the material. It will also discuss industry
perceptions about issues like separation of PS foam for recycling, incineration of PS

foam, and reciprocal recycling agreements.

Wm

Table 23 shows that most PS foam is purchased and consumed in food related
uses. 30% of food use is PS foam for food service ware, and 5% is for food storage
trays. The second largest use is packaging forms to protect products (17%), and
packaging fillers such as peanuts (18%); these two combine for 35% of PS foam
usage. Overall, these four categories combine for 70% of PS foam use.

Industries that reported high usage of PS foam in these forms include the
construction industry (80%), manufacturing industry (40%), household goods
manufacturers (53%), retailers (78%), restaurants (64%), and entertainment
industries (54%). Therefore, PS foam recyclers should target these facilities, which

report a large usage of PS foam in the above mentioned forms, for PS foam recovery.

TQM. Major Uses for PS Foam

74

 

Q9.

The following are types of PS foam you may be discarding. What
percentage of the total PS foam you discard is comprised of each type?

 

GROUP (BY SALES)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOT
1. Fire retardant MEAN: 1% 2% 1% 1% 14% 0% 2%
PS foam:

ST.

DEV.: 4% 8% 2% 6% 35% 2% 9%
2. Non fire retardant PS foams:
A.Packaging MEAN: 20% 13% 19% 14% 21% 17% 17%
forms to protect
electronics, mfg.
goods or ST~
B. Packaging MEAN: 13% 19% 5% 16% 29% 26% 18%
filler (e.g.
peanuts) ...... ST-

DEV.: 26% 30% 10% 25% 33% 32% 28%
C. Insulation MEAN: 5% 10% 7% 1% 7% 2% 5%
(refrigeration
units, buildings) ST-

DEV.: 14% 27% 21% 3% 17% 8% 17%
D. Food service MEAN: 24% 29% 40% 28% 36% 30% 30%
(bowls, plates,
clamshells,
including ST-
cafeteria) ..... DEV.: 39% 40% 42% 39% 42% 41% 40%
E. Meat, MEAN: 1% 9% 13% 2% 2% 6% 5%
produce or
bakery trays 5T~

DEV.: 3% 25% 30% 5% 3% 18% 18%
F. Mfg. scrap . MEAN 1% 5% 4% 0% 2% 0% 2%

ST.

DEV. 2% 22% 12% 0% 3% 0% 12%
TOTAL ............... 33 40 17 29 9 36 178

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W

Companies said they dispose equal amounts of PS foam year round. This
provides a base for consistent yearly supply of PS foam to recycling facilities.
However, in Table 24, the highest individual percentages of PS foam use were
reported for the summer season by Sales Groups 1 and 3. Overall, these estimates
are contrary to business cycles and solid waste cycles, which tend to peak in the fall
(Watson, 1990).

Table 24. PS Foam Seasonality Consumption Estimates

75

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q10. Last year, what was the percentage breakdown (by season) of all PS
foam you disposed of? (Year total = 100%)
GROUP (BY SALES)

RESPONSE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOT
1 Fall ..... MEAN: 15% 18% 22% 21% 20% 21% 19%

ST.

DEV.: 11% 11% 12% 11% 10% 10% 11%
2. Winter . . . MEAN: 17% 18% 19% 24% 21% 23% 20%

ST.

DEV.: 16% 12% 11% 13% 11% 14% 13%
3. Spring . . . MEAN: 18% 20% 21% 19% 22% 21% 20%

ST.

DEV.: 13% 12% 10% 11% 11% 12% 11%
4. Summer . . MEAN: 24% 21% 27% 20% 17% 21% 22%

ST.

DEV.: 20% 17% 24% 13% 12% 13% 17%

LGROUP TOTAL ...... 29 35 18 25 8 31 146

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

76

BMW

The largest problem associated with PS foam is its high volume to weight
ratio, which adds sizeable volume to waste containers. This is the largest problem
listed in Table 25 for both major use categories. For the cups and food containers
category, 14% of the respondents said that additional volume is a problem. For the
packaging materials or other PS foam uses category, 20% said additional volume is
a problem. Surprisingly, respondents reported that they felt employee and consumer
complaints were not much of a problem. Only 5% said they were for cups and food
containers, and 4% for packaging materials or other PS foam uses. Overall,
estimates for all listed responses were relatively low, indicating no considerable
problems associated with PS foam.

13121122 Potential Problems Associated With PS Foam

 

Qll. Listed below are two categories of PS foam uses. One is cups and
food containers and the other is packaging or other uses you may have for PS
foam. Please indicate if your facility is experiencing any of the problems
listed for each category.

 

CATEGORY (BY FREQUENCY)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TYPES OF PROBLEMS: CUPS / FOOD PACKAGING
CONTAINERS MTL/ OTHERS
A. Employee complaints ....... 6% 4%
B. Consumer complaints ....... 5% 3.5%
C. Adds sizable volume to disposal
containers ................. 14% 20%
E). Collection problems ....... 8% 6%
[3. Increased costs for disposal . . 4% 8%

 

 

 

 

 

DID NOT ANSWER ......... 50 50
GROUP POPULATION TOTAL 194 194

 

WM

77

Most (66%), of the responding group has not considered alternatives. Since

companies in general are not facing any problems with PS foam, some are not likely

to consider alternatives. This indicates a large percentage of the respondents have

material loyalty for PS foam. In addition, Table 26 also shows that 14% reported

they have PS foam alternatives in use, and another 20% are considering them.

However, within the two largest sales groups (5 and 6) only 6% have switched to

alternatives. Regardless, these figures may represent a significant loss in market

share for PS foam manufacturers.

13121126. Percent of Respondents Considering PS Foam Alternatives

 

Q12. Are you presently considering any alternatives to PS foam?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUP (BY SALES)
RESPONSE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOT
YES, We already have them
in use ............... 30% 9% 6% 27% 0% 6% 14%
YES, We are considering
them ................. 17% 15% 22% 15% 20% 31% 20%
NO .................. 53% 76% 72% 58% 80% 63% 66%
GROUP TOTAL ........ 30 34 18 26 10 35 153

 

 

78

If an alternative material for PS foam must be chosen, most respondents say
that paper and paperboard materials are the clear favorites for the categories of cups
and food containers, and packaging materials (see Table 27). 63% chose
paper/paperboard as cups and food container substitutes, and 47% chose
paper/paperboard for the packaging materials or others category. Reusable food
service tableware was a popular alternative for food containers as well; 32% chose
this alternative. Unlike switching to alternative materials, reusable food service
tableware does not add to the waste stream. This could eliminate part of the PS
foam waste stream and reduce associated disposal costs. Since complaints are rare
(Table 25), respondents probably chose reusable tableware based on concerns to

reduce their waste stream instead of concerns to increase public relations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

w. Potential Alternatives for PS Foam
I Q13. If you discontinued using PS foam, what alternative materials for
cups/food containers and packaging materials or other uses would you
substitute for it?
CATEGORY (BY FREQUENCY)
TYPES OF ALTERNATIVES: CU PS / FOOD PACKAGING
_ CONTAINERS MTL/ OTHERS
A Paper or paperboard ......... 63% 47%
iReusable food service tableware 32% NA
£Other plastics ............. 4% 3%
£Starch based materials ........ NA 6%
E. Wood-based materials (i.e.
\eicelsior, sawdust) ............. NA 12%
gr) NOT ANSWER ........... 61 61
@OUP TOTAL .............. 194 194

 

 

 

 

 

f 'nin

Table 28 lists various damage that may occur to PS foam during use. Material
changes and damage that may occur to PS foam during use had low estimates. This
indicates material integrity exists to a large extent after PS foam use. Therefore, the
recyclability of post-industrial PS foam remains high. 15% of the respondents listed
food contamination, which increases the cost of recycling by adding an additional
rinsing process, as a slight problem for the PS foam cups/food containers category.

About 11% listed severe crushing as another type of damage occurring. However,

79

1’

these figures are low, and all other categories of damage had negligible results.

M. Potential PS Foam Contamination After Use

 

014. From the time your facility receives PS foam to the time you dispose of
it, do any of the following occur that affect the characteristics of the PS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

foam?
CATEGORY (BY FREQUENCY)
TYPES OF CONTAMINANTS: CUPS/ FOOD PACKAGING
CONTAINERS MTL/ OTHERS
Color change ............... 3% 2%
Food contamination .......... 15% 0%
Severe heat exposure (over 200F) 3% 2%
Severe crushing due to heavy
objects, long storage, etc ........ 13% 10%
Chemical contamination ........ 0% 0%
DID NOT ANSWER .......... 60 60
GROUP TOTAL ............. 194 194

 

 

F r

80

i

With little variance, respondents said that they will increase their PS foam

consumption by 6% in 1991 and 1994, and 5% in 1996. This signals that PS foam

may have strong demand in the future (see Table 29). All sales groups reported

roughly the same estimates, indicating that small and large companies alike expect

these increases. However, PS foam producers expect only a 2.5% increase in PS

foam production for 1992 (C & EN, 1989). In part, this may be due to the loss of

market share from companies choosing to switch to alternatives.

M. Predicted Increases in PS Foam Consumption

 

015. PS foam production is expected to increase by about 2.5% next year.
Please circle the estimated percentage that your consumption will increase or
(decrease) this year, in three years and in five years.

 

GROUP (BY SALES)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOT
1. This year: MEAN: 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
ST.
DEV.: 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1%
2. In three years: MEAN: 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6%
ST.
DEV.: 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 2% 2%
3. In five years: MEAN: 5% 6% 5% 5% 6% 6% 5%
ST.
DEV.: 2% 2% 3% 2% 0% 2% 2%
GROUP TOTAL ........ 24 28 16 23 9 32 132

 

 

81
f R lin Tr i I

If recycling can be made cost effective, company participation in recycling
programs will more than double. Respondents were split on the relevance of costs
for recycling; some (30%) said costs would not matter, (see Table 30), which
indicates a strong interest in recycling and environmental solutions. However, 28%
said that recycling must not exceed current disposal costs. This indicates that many
respondents are still concerned with waste disposal and recycling costs. Therefore,
it is very important to focus on developing recycling processes that are competitive
in cost with landfilling.

13121130. Necessary Costs of PS Foam Recycling to Induce Participation

 

016. When compared to your current method of
disposal, what would the cost of recycling (that

your facility will incur) have to be for your
facility to recycle PS foam? (aware the one that

 

 

is closart to your firm '5 attitude)
RESPONSE: TOTAL
1. Recycling cost will not matter . . . 30%

 

2. Recycling cost could be much
greater than disposal cost ......... 6%

 

3. Recycling cost could be somewhat
greater than disposal cost ......... 17%

 

4. Recycling cost must at least equal to
disposal cost ................... 28%

 

5. Recycling cost must be somewhat
less than disposal cost ........... 9%

 

6. Recycling must be considerably less
than disposal cost ............... 10%

GROUP TOTAL ............... 150

 

 

 

 

 

82

Most companies do not transport their own waste. Therefore, they require
that waste materials for recycling to be picked up at their facility (Table 31). When
transportation costs for PS foam are considered, most (52%) of the respondents said
that PS foam must be picked up at their facility. In general, about as many (16%)
would be willing to transport PS foam if costs are lower than current disposal costs,
as those who would contract for pickup if costs were lower (13%). Therefore, even
if personally transporting waste costs less than contracting for pickup, many

companies will still not have the means to transport waste and will continue to

contract for pickup.

Table 31. PS Foam Recycling Transportation Costs Companies Will Incur

 

017. If a recycling facility for PS foam were available, how
much of the transportation costs would you be willing to incur?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Choose only 221: mm)

RESPONSE: TOTAL
1. Would transport PS foam if the cost is less than

our current cost of disposing PS foam ......... 16%
2. Would not transport PS foam, but would hire

someone to transport it if the cost is less than our
current cost of disposing PS foam ............. 13%
3. Would not transport PS foam, it must be picked

up at our facility ......................... 52%
4. Would hire someone to transport PS foam,

willing to incur costs up to _ miles ........... 5%
5. Would transport PS foam, willing to incur costs

up to _ miles ........................... 14%
GROUP TOTAL ......................... 140

 

 

83
'nnAi A P m

Currently, little non-technical information exists regarding industry perceptions
about issues such as separation, incineration, recycling, education, legislation, and
other important environmental issues. This section analyzes how companies
responded to questions about their perceptions and attitudes regarding these issues.

Since perceptions and attitudes are most useful when viewed by industry,
analysis was done by SIC groups. The discussion will present results from particular
industry groups, as well as total results for each issue. In addition, complete SIC
response breakdowns are available in Appendix B. Since some SIC groups had few
companies responding, results are more valid when presented in aggregate. These
results analyzed responses from five point Likert scales: 1 represented strongly agree,

and 5 strongly disagree. 3 represented a neutral response.

Wigwam

Respondents are very confident that employees would be willing to place PS
foam into separation bins for recycling. This indicates a strong cooperation in
recycling processes expressed by respondents. Most (74%) of the respondents
strongly or somewhat agreed, with 49% strongly agreeing, only 11% strongly or
somewhat disagreed, and 15% remained neutral. These results are very decisive that
respondents feel their employees would be willing to take the time out of their work
schedule to separate PS foam for recycling.

Respondents also feel managers will promote separation. Most (80%)

strongly or somewhat agreed that management will promote separation, with 52%

84

strongly agreeing, only 8% strongly or somewhat disagreed. 13% were neutral. As
with all decisions, it is important to have managerial support.

Since respondents feel separation will gain strong managerial and employee
support, the problem of space availability may be easy to overcome. However, when
asked about space availability for separation, companies did express split opinions,
48% strongly or somewhat agreed it was available, and 32% strongly or somewhat
disagreed, and 20% remained neutral. Therefore, there is a greater problem
associated with floor space availability for separation than with employee and
management support.

Manufacturing, wholesalers of non-durable goods, households goods
manufacturers, and retailing industries had some of the highest responses in
agreement with employee and management willingness for separation. This is
important due to the large amounts of their waste that is packaging, and in most
cases, recyclable. Manufacturing, households goods manufacturers, and retailing
industries also had high responses in agreement with space for separation availability.

Wholesalers of non-durable goods reported little space was available for separation.

in ' r in E - ti
Compacting materials for recycling at their source makes pickup for recycling
more convenient. The idea of purchasing machinery for this purpose received
negative responses. Respondents say that added costs for compacting machines to
densify material for recycling is not feasible. Most (86%) either strongly or

somewhat disagreed they would purchase a densifying machine, and 72% strongly

85
disagreed. Only 3% strongly or somewhat agreed. Restaurants (17%), and

educational institutions (11%) were the only two industries that somewhat agreed
they would be willing to purchase a compacting machine. Since many of the waste
materials in these industries have large volume/weight ratios (e.g. food PS foam
packaging), a compaction machine would be useful to them.

Compactors or densifiers are a recent introduction to the PS foam recycling
process. For example, one densifier can compact 8000 eight ounce cups into a
cylinder of 15 square inches. However, densifiers do come at a cost (one current
model leases for around $300 a month or can be purchased for around $20,000).
These machines may be used to compact other recyclable materials as well.

The actual amount of PS foam or other compactable materials respondents
are disposing of may be an important consideration. If the amount is low, there is
no justification to purchase expensive equipment. Even if the amount is high,
respondents do not favor spending a lot of money to support the recycling efforts for
only select materials. It will be important that recyclers and manufacturers of these
machines provide excellent marketing and educational support of the benefits in

purchasing compaction machines.

Very few respondents support the idea of incinerating PS foam or other
materials. A large number of the respondents, 43%, Strongly or somewhat disagreed
with incineration. Of these, 29% strongly disagreed. However, a large percentage

(43%) were neutral. This indicates that a sizeable number of people may lack

86

information on the benefits versus the problems associated with incineration. Even
though a large number remain neutral, an equally large number are against
incineration. Only 3% strongly agreed with incineration, and 12% somewhat agreed.
The construction industry agreed most (34% strongly or somewhat) that incineration
is a good method of disposal. Manufacturing, retailing and wholesale industries
disagreed most with incineration.

Recently, burning PS foam for energy has been getting a lot of attention. Few
companies said this is an efficient way to dispose, and the majority contends there
are negative concerns. These results indicate a strong interest in methods of waste

disposal other than incineration.

BMW

Although they lack information about reciprocal recycling services, companies
do express an interest in services that may help solve waste stream problems.
Reciprocal recycling services create markets for materials that have been recycled
into useful products. Currently, some recycling companies collect used PS foam, and
make useful products such as office supplies such as paper filing trays. Facilities that
supply used PS foam pay a fee, and in return they receive the recycled product.
When asked to consider this reciprocal service, a large percentage (45%) of the
respondents remained neutral.

Since this type of service is new and unfamiliar to many people, respondents
probably had difficulty deciding on the issue. However, 36% did Strongly or

somewhat agree, indicating a strong interest in this type of service, and only 19%

87

somewhat or strongly disagreed. In addition, companies such as retailers, restaurants,
entertainment industries, and membership organizations strongly supported these
services. These companies would have many uses for recycled products, especially

office supplies.

I P i n n A i A li

The following sections discuss results that respondents reported for issues
about solid waste in general. The first two sections discuss solid waste problems
within companies, and within the community of southeast Michigan. These are
followed by a discussion of reasons to recycle that respondents said were important,

and potential inhibitors of industrial recycling.

W l i hi m

Respondents were asked about the following solid waste problems at their
facility: costs, environmental agencies, and public pressure. They reported that the
prevalent problem is cost. 47% of the respondents Strongly or somewhat agreed that
solid waste costs are a problem, 27% remained neutral, and 26% somewhat or
strongly disagreed. In particular, manufacturing companies, wholesalers of non-
durable goods, banks, and retailing industries expressed the strongest concern about
the cost of solid waste. Since most of these industries dispose large quantities of
packaging materials, costs associated with solid waste will be of large concern to
them.

External regulatory agencies have been known to pressure companies with

88

regards to solid waste issues. Respondents were split when environmental pressure
from outside agencies was introduced as a potential problem: 37% Strongly or
somewhat agreed, 30% remained neutral, and 33% strongly or somewhat disagreed.
Manufacturing firms and wholesalers of non-durable goods reported the strongest
concern about regulatory agencies. Overall, respondents also felt that regulatory
agencies were providing more pressure than the public. Most (43%) of the
population strongly or somewhat disagreed that public pressure is a problem; of
these, 35 % strongly disagreed, and the remaining 36% were neutral. Restaurants
expressed the largest concern about public pressure. In general, it is clear that public
pressure is not a primary catalyst for facilities to solve waste problems. It may seem
that the public has provided a lot of pressure for companies to do something about
the solid waste issue, but most respondents do not feel their companies. are
threatened by the public.

Regardless, costs remain a larger concern than both public pressure and
regulatory agencies. Concern about costs will probably drive companies to reduce
waste streams more than their concern about regulatory agencies and legislation.
Pressure from agencies may ease as facilities move to solve waste stream problems

because of increasing costs.

Solid Waste Problems Within Communities
When reporting perceptions about community solid waste problems, most
(72%) strongly or somewhat agreed solid waste is a problem in their community, and

only 10% somewhat or strongly disagreed, with 18% remaining neutral. It is clear

89

that a very large number of respondents feel their community, which is southeast
Michigan (the Metro-Detroit area), faces solid waste problems. Industries that
manufacture goods to be sold through stores (i.e. retail, household goods, etc.), and
restaurants had the largest concern about solid waste within their community. Given
the current recycling efforts of the 10 largest US. cities (Watson, 1990), this result

is fairly representative of large metropolitan communities.

Pri an: Reasens fer Industrial Regeling

Of eight choices listed as reasons to recycle, respondents said that limited
landfill space, groundwater contamination, and increasing costs of solid waste
disposal were the most important. Nearly all the respondents (91%), strongly or
somewhat agreed that landfill space was a problem. Most (85 %) strongly or
somewhat agreed that groundwater contamination was a problem, and most (77%)
strongly or somewhat agreed that the increasing costs of solid waste disposal is a
good reason to recycle.

Respondents said other, less important, reasons to recycle included: Industrial
recycling reduces manufacturing costs, public relations, and recycling makes people
feel good about themselves. 52% strongly or somewhat agreed that recycling reduces
manufacturing costs. 62% strongly or somewhat agreed that public relations is a
good reason. 66% strongly or somewhat agreed that it makes people feel good about
themselves.

Oment legal mandates are of even less concern to the respondents; only 43%

strongly or somewhat agreed that mandates are a good reason to recycle. In part,

90

this may be due to the fact that there are no current legal mandates in the Detroit
area.

These results support an important hypothesis. With costs and contamination
concerns so high within companies, the push for legislation to force environmental
solid waste solutions may not be as important as first believed. It seems that
currently, even without strong legal mandates, companies will begin making concerted
efforts to recycle their waste Streams because of other, more primary reasons.

Although potential legal requirements pose a threat, these may not have to
come about to force environmental change. In contrast, the results may be negative
as companies may feel they are being forced into certain Situations. For example,
incineration may be mandated when a company is willing to recycle and feel that
recycling is the best solid waste reduction for their facility. If legal mandates are
enforced, very careful planning must accompany their implementation as illustrated
by the legislation passed in Minnesota (Lodge and Rayport, 1991). Finally, almost
all (86%) of the respondents strongly or somewhat disagreed that recycling is not

important which Shows a positive attitude toward recycling, regardless of the reason.

' i In ' 1
Of five reasons listed that may be possible inhibitors to industrial recycling,
respondents said that the biggest issue is that consumers lack education. Most (62%)
strongly or somewhat agreed consumers lack education, and 20% remained neutral.
For recycling or any solid waste reduction program to be successful, education about

the program will be very important.

91

Respondents were split when lack of public participation was introduced as
an inhibitor. 34% strongly or somewhat agreed the public will not participate, 40%
strongly or somewhat disagreed, and the remaining 26% were neutral. Those in
agreement that the public will not participate may be linking public participation to
lack of education or socio-economic concerns. For example, people may not know
that recycling drop off centers exist in their community. Others may have greater
concerns than taking time to recycle. Those disagreeing that lack of participation is
an inhibitor probably see a strong concern expressed by the general public with
regards to future solid waste management.

Although recycling programs are not inexpensive to implement, respondents
did not foresee the costs of recycling or associated complications with recycling as
inhibitors. Most (52%) strongly or somewhat disagreed that recycling costs are a
problem, with 28% remaining neutral. Also, most (55 %) strongly or somewhat
disagreed that recycling is too complicated, with 21% neutral. Respondents do have
confidence that recycling will become feasible from a cost and technical feasibility
viewpoint.

Since these possible inhibitors are important considerations with new recycling
programs, companies that overcome educational barriers and promote their programs
Should be able to develop successful recycling programs. Finally, respondents said
that recycling is feasible and that the benefits do outweigh the problems. Nearly all
(79%) strongly or somewhat agreed with this statement and another 15 % remained
neutral. This further supports the notion of the willingness of respondents to support

recycling programs in their company and community.

92
of 1

In general, the larger the company, the larger the waste stream and its
associated costs. limited landfill space will increase future costs for disposal. In
addition, since most companies now contract for disposal to landfills, increased
transportation costs will also be critical solid waste considerations.

Waste stream breakdowns show wood/paper products to be the largest
component, followed by "others" and plastics (very close second and third), and
finally, metals. Presently, respondents do not recycle proportional amounts of
materials in their waste stream. For example, although plastic is currently the
number three waste stream component, it is the least recycled component. However,
respondents said that by the year 2000, amounts recycled will be more in proportion
with the amount of the waste Stream a particular material consumes. At that point,
they say that wood /paper will still be the number one component recycled, followed
by plastics, others and metals. Plastics are predicted to have the largest increase of
all materials that will be recycled. Although plastics will have the largest increase,
an increase from 26% to 70% for paper/wood products will have the largest impact
on waste stream reduction. Alone, this increase could reduce waste streams 30%.
The combined amounts of recycling expected for the other categories could increase
this to 40%.

When respondents were asked to predict a specific amount of their waste
Stream that would be recycled by the year 2000, the mean of this response was 41%.
Current literature Shows that about 13% of all municipal solid waste is recycled.

Respondents said that their companies currently recycle about 15 % of their waste

93

stream. Therefore, respondents expect recycling efforts to nearly triple over the next
decade.

When respondents reported their waste stream compositions, no unusual or
unexpected results were found. Of all SIC groups, retailing and manufacturing
industries reported the largest amount of their waste stream composed of
paper/wood at 86% and 88% respectively. These groups contribute large amounts
of used logistical packaging (shipping containers and pallets) into the waste stream.
For plastics, the second largest waste stream component, education and household
products SIC groups reported that it comprised 36% and 19% of their waste Stream
respectively. These were the two largest SIC groupings for this category. In general,
most service providers reported a very large portion of their waste stream as
paper/wood products, where the manufacturing sector reported their waste streams
as containing more plastics, metals and " others ". Although average amounts in
cubic yards are available for waste streams and recycling amounts, they had very
large standard deviations, and were judged to be unreliable self-reported results.

Most respondents said they currently contract for disposal pick up and that a
large portion of their waste stream is landfilled. Therefore, reducing transportation
costs and making recycling a breakeven process to increase participation will be
important in the near future. This is further supported by the rather large disposal
cost incurred by companies for waste disposal that will continue to increase.

Most (70%) of PS foam is used for food service ware, storage trays, packaging
filler and packaging forms to protect products. These results provided an industry

target for interested recyclers. Respondents said that additional volume to waste

94

containers was the largest problem associated with PS foam. Employee and
consumer complaints were near negligible categories. Most respondents also said
that they are currently not considering alternative materials to replace PS foam, but
14% have them in use and 20% are considering them. These figures may represent
a substantial market loss for PS foam producers. When asked to choose alternatives,
paper and paperboard and reusable food service tableware were the favorites. No
sizeable amount of post-use material damage was reported by respondents, except
for some crushing due to storage, and food contamination.

Respondents said that they expect to increase the amount of PS foam they
currently use by an annual rate of 6%. This is 3.5% higher than reported for PS
foam production in the forthcoming year. These results support material loyalty and
continued usage in the future by companies choosing not to switch to alternatives.
Respondents said that no seasonality exists with their consumption of PS foam, which
contradicts business cycles, and indicates strong supply year round for recyclers.

Respondents were very closely split on how much cost of recycling would have
to be for them to participate. 30% said cost would not matter, and about 30% said
that recycling must at least be as inexpensive as disposal. For transportation of PS
foam to recyclers, respondents are no more willing to transport materials to recyclers
than they are to transport waste for disposal. This is probably due to lack of
transportation vehicles.

Respondents felt that both employees and management would be willing to
promote and participate in the separation of materials into bins for recycling.

However, there was concern about the availability of space. If considerable

95

management and employee support exists, this issue may be easy to overcome.
Respondents said that paying an additional fee for PS foam compactors was out of
the question. This is contradictory to the fact that they said a problem with PS foam
is that it adds additional volume to their waste stream. No interest in this type of
machine is an indicator of strong concern about costs, and a low volume of PS foam
in waste streams.

Very few respondents favored incineration. However, a large percentage of
the respondents remained neutral. This may be sign of lack of knowledge about the
process. The large number of respondents against incineration indicates that many
do not agree with the process. .These results are more conclusive when compared
to positive support respondents gave to recycling.

For solid waste issues, respondents said one of the most important reasons to
recycle, and the largest problem they are having with solid waste is associated with
costs, not government agencies or public pressure. Respondents also decisively
agreed that solid waste was a problem in their community. For this survey, the
community was Metropolitan Detroit. In addition, decreasing landfill space and
groundwater contamination were also very important reasons given to recycle. From
this, it was deduced that landfills running out of space and increased costs could lead
a motivation to recycle. The move to recycle industrial, commercial, and institutional
solid waste may not need as much of a current legislative push as believed. The
State of Michigan supports a waste stream reduction program, and the community
of southeast Detroit currently has little environmental legislation. Legislation and

public relations may not necessarily have to be introduced as catalysts to force

96
recycling.

Lack of consumer education was listed by respondents as the largest inhibitor
for recycling to work. . Recycling costs and associated complications were not found
to be problems that respondents thought would inhibit recycling. Overall,
respondents decisively agreed that the benefits of recycling more than offset the
problems associated with it.

Respondents felt their companies were very concerned about costs, landfill
space and environmental education. For PS foam, respondents gave positive
expectations about its uses and future consumption rates. Materials recycled in the
future are expected to increase dramatically for all waste stream categories. In
general, respondents said the public, employees and current legislation are not
applying a lot of pressure on their companies to participate in waste stream reduction
programs. Decreasing landfill space alone may force companies into waste reduction

programs without legislation.

5.0 QQNQLUSIQNS AND REQQMMENDATIQNS

mm:

Reducing waste, reusing materials, and recycling are becoming popular solid
waste solutions for the future due to a number of factors. Environmentally safe
waste disposal is no longer simply a "politically correct" consideration that
companies choose only for good public relations. Actually, respondents do not feel
much pressure coming from the public. Rather, they are more concerned about
rising disposal costs, groundwater contamination problems, and are realizing that very
soon many landfills will be closed.

Although legislation is sometimes a good method to force policies into action,
legal mandates on certain waste disposal methods may not be necessary. Since
respondents said increasing costs and limited landfill space are the most important
solid waste issues, legislation could be used as more of an incentive than a rule. If
legislation to induce participation must be introduced, it may be best to simply
increase costs, or reward companies for following environmental policies. For
example, the State of Michigan recommends facilities and communities follow the
reduce, reuse, recycle hierarchy. They are considering rewarding more environmental
funding to those that follow the hierarchy (Michigan Department of Natural

Resources, Resource Recovery Section, 1987).

97

98

When searching for waste management solutions, companies have many
important factors to consider. Most important is environmental education of their
employees. This means more than simply placing recycling containers in offices, and
hanging banners in manufacturing facilities. It will be necessary to announce and
support programs, issue newsletters, put together environmental teams and
departments, and continually follow up on a waste management program's progress.

In particular, it is very important that large companies start, monitor, and
guide waste management programs to success. On average, large companies reported
disposing and paying as much as 5 times more for waste disposal than small
companies. Furthermore, small companies pay a higher per ton rate than large
companies. These figures will continue to escalate as the cost of waste disposal
increases in the future. Therefore, educating employees and promoting waste
management programs in companies of all sizes is important.

Recycling and waste management facilities also face very important decisions.
Since costs are such a large factor to companies that dispose of waste, recycling
facilities will be competing on cost and the number of services they can provide.
Efficient pick up routes and scheduling will be essential to keep transportation costs
to a minimum. Also, since so many companies report their inability or unwillingness
to transport waste for recycling, picking up waste for recycling at its source will
remain a necessity. Although the popular choice for disposal is to landfill it, space
is running out, and waste management firms that currently pickup waste solely for
landfills will be forced to explore pick up for recycling as an additional service.

Recyclers will have to strategically target sources that contain the highest

99

volume materials, such as paper/wood products and plastics, to overcome operating
and high transportation costs. Industries such as construction, manufacturing,
retailing, wholesaling, and all service industries reported the highest disposal rates
of paper/wood products. Industries such as restaurants, educational institutions,
construction, and household goods manufacturers reported high plastic disposal
volume. Picking up discarded materials at their source may become convenient, as
respondents report their willingness to source separate materials.

Respondents report the largest increase in their recycling efforts will come
from plastics recycling. This indicates large sources for plastics recyclers. Recyclers
of paper/wood products will see a dramatic increase in the availability of these
materials as well. Companies report that the increase in paper recycling alone will
amount to a 30% reduction in their waste stream. Strategically recycling facilities
and transfer stations to handle this large influx of materials will be critical.

Proposals to implement incineration facilities into communities continue to
face opposition. Respondents overwhelmingly report their disapproval of
incineration. Education is a very important factor for recycling. If incineration
facilities expect approval, education, and promotion will be just as important. The
consensus feeling of respondents is that reduce, reuse, and recycle are better near
term waste management solutions than incineration.

PS foam attitudes and perceptions were better than the general public may
believe. This is good news to PS producers. Companies that do not plan to switch
to PS foam alternatives expect increases in consumption over the next five years.

However, many companies have considered alternatives (20%), and some already

100

have them in use (14%). The expected increase in consumption will help offset the
loss of PS foam market share. Recyclers will continue to face problems with food
contamination, and to a lesser degree, loss of material integrity due to crushing and
storage. Compacting the volume of PS foam (and all recyclables) at their source will
be an important issue for recyclers.

Companies report that public relations concerns, and employee complaints
about PS foam are negligible. They say they will continue to demand more of the
material in the future. Again, this is good news to recyclers and PS foam producers.

Costs, environmental education, and awareness will continue to be the most
important issues for all waste management solutions. Many respondents express a
strong interest in the environment by stating the cost of recycling will not matter.
However, if recycling can be made cost effective, participation in programs may
double. Recycling and waste management firms will face important pickup and
transportation issues to reach breakeven economies. It will be important to target
key sources and companies that dispose high volume of waste to minimize their costs.
The future success of waste management programs will depend on communication,

cooperation, and the willingness of all involved parties to work closely together.

WM

Important future recommendations were drawn from this research. To
conduct a survey that will analyze companies within specific industries, it is very
important to obtain high response rates for statistical validity. Due to low response

rates of many SIC groups, it was not possible to analyze waste stream volume by SIC

101

codes.

It may be difficult for respondents to answer questions about current issues
(i.e. incineration, reciprocal recycling programs, etc.). This is supported by the fact
that many questions had large "neutral" responses. It is best to provide brief, non-
biased background information for each question, and to make surveys as "user
friendly" to complete as possible. In addition, statistical analysis is much easier when
response choices are closed ended and do not vary widely in nature.

This survey focused on two issues, PS foam and solid waste. It was very
important to let respondents know when issues changed. If possible, it is best to
focus on a single issue. If this is not possible, it is important to make the transition
from topic to topic easy for the respondent and limit the number of topic changes.

To obtain valid quantified analysis of topics like waste Stream disposal
amounts, recycling rates, and various costs, a survey conducted to only one SIC
(industry) would be useful. This would allow detailed analysis of an individual SIC
by sales groupings. Therefore, it would be possible to perform analysis of variance
(ANOVA), mean separation, and chi-square statistics, to see if differences between
groups within a population exist. In addition, regression analysis to view trends
would also be useful. These are just a few of the important statistics that could not
be performed due to the limitations of the survey. Since this survey was mailed to
a large number of SIC groups, small individual SIC response rates prohibited this
type of analysis. The survey was also dependent on self reported volume, not direct
measurement. This created large variances, and also limited statistical capabilities.

SPSS Version 3.1, used in this research for analysis, was capable of completing all

102

types of recommended analysis mentioned in this thesis.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLI RAPHY

QEN. 1989. "US. Polystyrene Demand Growth Holding Below Average", pp. 9-
10.

Dillman, Don A. Mail and {Ifelephene Surveys; The flfetal Design Methed (New
York: Wiley & Sons), 1978.

Feder, Barnaby J. 1990. "Giving Polystyrene Another Chance." The New Yerk
Times, 30 July, 5(B).

Franklin Associates, Ltd. 1987. 'n F i ili f h .

Detroit.
Glenn, Jim. 1990. "Progress In Plastics Recycling." Liegele, December, pp. 50—52.

Gruder-Adams, Sherrie. 1990. "Residential Polystyrene Recycling. " Researee
Begging, October, pp. 72-79.

Heathcote, Mary. 1990 "PS Industry Moves to Hot Up Recycling Pace." Plastiesand
MY. December 1. PR 1-2-

Hocking, Martin B. 1991. "Paper vs. Polystyrene: A Complex Choice." Me,
February, pp. 504-505.

Kampouris, E. M. ,Papaspyrides, C. D., Lekakou, C. N. 1988. "A Model Process for the

Solvent Recycling of Polystyrene." Wine, April, pp. 534-
537.

Kent County Board of Public Works. Act 641 Planning Committee. 1990. fleet
W Grand Rapids MI

Lansky, Debi. 1991. "Less Rocky Than It Used To Be." Wfite Age, February, pp.
75-78.

Lashinsky, Adam. 1991. " Recycled PS is Sandwiched in Burger Box." W,
25 March, p. 1.

102

103

Lodge, George C. and Rayport, Jeffrey B. 1991. " Knee Deep and Rising: America's
Recycling Crisis" The Hagard Basiness Review, September-October, pp. 128-139.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Resource Recovery Section. 1986.

R lin F i ili i , Volume 2. Lansing, MI.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Resource Recovery Section. 1987.

W. Lansing, MI.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Waste Management Division. 1987.

Implementing a Reeyelingzgzempesting Pregtam in Year Cemmanity. Lansing, MI.
Medern Plasties. 1990. "US. Resin Sales by Process and Market, " January, p.103.

National Polystyrene Recycling Company. Hew te Reeyele Pelystflene. Lincolnshire,
IL.: National Polystyrene Recycling Company, 1991.

Operational Research Society. h in V ' r R 11 i Vol 3, pp.
233-239, 1987.

The Polystyrene Packaging Council. W. Massachusetts: The
Polystyrene Packaging Council, 1991.

Resource Recycling Systems, Inc. 1990. WWW
We. Detroit-

U S Environmental Protection Agency WWW
W June 1990

Watson, Tom. 1990. " Municipal Programs Booming in the 10 Biggest Cities,"
Researee Regeling, December, pp. 29-34.

Wright, T. 1987. -111... . 01' . ‘31-! ' - F'V '1- '1'. ' . h 0‘ .1“
Mteflanagemeatjflaas. Grand Rapids, MI.: Kent County Act 641 Planning

Committee. pp. 1-14.

APPENDICES

AP NDI E
Apmadix A. PS foam and Solid Waste Survey

(COVER PAGE)

POLYSTYRENE FOAM
AND
SOLID WASTE
SURVEY

THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, EAST LANSING, MI 48824

104

105

Section I- This section of the questionnaire asks about the handling, amount and cost of
solid waste at your facility. Solid waste includes all materials that are landfilled, recycled
or added back into your manufacturing process. Please fill in or circle the appropriate
responses as accurately as possible.

Q1. How does your facility handle solid waste now?
(Circle all that you currently use.)

1. We collect and transport our waste to landfills ....................... l
2. We collect and transport waste to recyclers ......................... 1
3. We contract with a collection company for disposal to landfills .......... 1
4. We contract with a collection company for recycling ................... 1
5. We recycle internally ......................................... 1

Q2. Please break down by percentage what happens to your facility ' 5 solid waste. If
percentages are not available, please give your best estimate:
(Please list percent by volume)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Amount of solid waste that reaches landfills ......... %
2. Amount that is incinerated ..................... %
3. Amount sold or given to companies for recycling

(please specify materials) ....... %
4. Amount that is office paper in recycling programs . . . . %
5. Amount that is reused in manufacturing

(please specify materials) ....... %
6. Other methods, please Specify ..... %

Total waste disposed, recycled and reused . . . . ........... 100%

The following are common waste container sizes. In the first column below,
please indicate how many waste containers of each of the following Sizes are -
emptied per month at your facility. In the second column, state how full (on
average) these containers are when emptied.

# emptied Ave. %

per month full

A. 2 Cubic yard dumpsters ....................
B. 4 Cubic yard dumpsters . . _, .................
C. 6 Cubic yard dumpsters ....................
D. 8 Cubic yard dumpsters ....................
E. 8 Cubic yard dumpsters w/ compactors .........
F. 35 Cubic yard roll offs ..... . ................
G. 35 Cubic yard roll offs w/compactors .........
H. 40 Cubic yard roll offs ....................
1.40 Cubic yard roll offs w/compactors ..........
J. 60 Foot semi trailers
K. Standard plastic garbage bags ...............
L. Other, please specify
M. Other, please specify

llllllllllll
lllllllllllll

 

106

Q4. In the waste industry, it is common to measure waste by tonnage as well. If possible,
please estimate many tons of waste your facility generates per month or year in tons.
Use fractions if necessary.

_ tons/month tons/year

Q5. How much do you pay per year for all solid waste collection and disposal services?

3 /year

Q6. Please estimate the percentage of your waste stream volume that is
composed of the following materials.

% of volume

Plastics

A. Polystyrene foam

B. Plastic film

C. Other plastics ........................
Wood Products

D. Wood ..............................

E. Corrugated (e.g. Cardboard).

F. Office Paper .........................

G. Other Paper and Paperboard

Products ............................

Metals

H. Ferrous (i.e. iron and steel) ..............

I. Non-Ferrous (all others) .................
Others

J. Glass ...............................

K. Food Waste

L.YardWaste...........................

M. Other, please specify

 

N. Other, please specify

 

 

Q7. What percentage (by volume) of your facility ' s total solid waste stream is recycled?
percent
Section II - The purpose of this section is to examine the amount of PS foam your facility

discards, identify any problems PS foam may be posing, and examine what alternatives
could be used.

107

You have given an estimate of how much of your waste stream is composed

of the following materials. Now, please estimate the percentage of each of

these materials that is recycled or composted. In column two, estimate the

percentage you expect will be recycled or composted in the year 2000.

% recycled % recycled
in 2000

Plastics

A. Polystyrene foam

B. Plastic film

C. Other plastics ................
Wood Products

D. Wood ......................

E. Corrugated (e.g. cardboard).

F. Office Paper .................
G. Other Paper and Paperboard
Products ....................

Metals
H. Ferrous (i.e. iron and steel) ......
I. Non-Ferrous (all others) .........
Others
J. Glass .......................
K. Food Waste
L. Yard Waste ..................
M. Other, please Specify

 

N. Other, please specify

 

 

The following are types of PS foam you may be discarding. What percentage of the
total PS foam you discard is comprised of each type?

1. Fire retardant PS foam ..................................
2. Non-fire retardant PS foams:
A. Packaging forms to protect electronics, computers, manufactured
goods or components ..............................
B. Packaging filler (e.g. peanuts) ........................
C. Insulation (e.g. from refrigeration units, buildings) .........
D. Food service such as bowls, plates, cups and clamshells (please
include your cafeteria) .............................
E. Meat, produce or bakery trays ........................
F. Scrap from manufacturing ...........................
G. Other, please specify

 

TotalpercentageofdisposedPS........... ........ ..... 100%

108

Q10. Last year, what was the percentage breakdown (by season) of all PS foam you

Q11.

disposed of? (Year total = 100%)
1. FALL __ 3. SPRING _
2. WINTER __ 4. SUMMER __

Listed below are two categories of PS foam uses. One is cups and food containers
and the other is packaging or other uses you may have for PS foam. Please indicate
if your facility is experiencing any of the problems listed for each category.

 

(Circle all that apply)
Cups/food Packaging
containers mtls / others
(Types of problems)
A. Employee complaints ............................... 1 1
B. Consumer complaints ............................... 1 1
C. Adds sizable volume to disposal containers ............... 1 1
D. Collection problems ................................ l l
E. Increased costs for disposal ........................... 1 1
F. Other, please specify ......... 1 l
G. No problems ...................................... l 1
Q12. Are you presently considering any alternatives to PS foam?
(Circle one)
YES, We already have them in use ........... 1
YES, We are considering them .............. 2
N O .................................. 3
Q13. If you discontinued using PS foam, what alternative materials for cups / food
containers and packaging materials or other uses would you substitute for it?
(Circle all that apply)
Cups/food Packaging

containers mtls/ other
(Alternative materials)

 

A. Paper or paperboard .................................. 1 1
B. Reusable food service tableware ......................... 1

C. Other plastics, specify type ............ l 1
D. Starch-based materials ................................ 1
E. Wood-based materials (i.e. excelsior, sawdust) ............... 1
F. Other, please specify ............ 1 1

 

109

014. From the time your facility receives PS foam to the time you dispose of it, do any of
the following occur that affect the characteristics of the PS foam?

Color change

Food contamination ..........
Severe heat exposure (over 200F) ......................
Severe crushing due to heavy objects, long storage, etc .......
Chemical contamination .......

Other, please Specify

(Circle all that apply)

(hips / food Packaging
Containers mtls/others

(Cornwninwztr)

 

None .....................

Q15.

l-H—Il-tt-IHi-tl-t
HHHHHHH

PS foam production is expected to increase by about 2.5% next year. Please circle

the estimated percentage that your consumption will increase or (decrease) this year,

in three years and in five years.

(Percent change)
(decrease) increase
1. This year: -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
2. In three years: -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
3. In five years: ~10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Section III - The following questions will ask for your firm ' s perspective on various issues
determining PS foam, solid waste, recycling and future trends in recycling.

in121 lnl P m

Q16. When compared to your current method of disposal, what would the cost of recycling
(that year fag'lity m'll inear) have to be for your facility to recycle PS foam?

(Choose the one that is closest to your firm ' s attitude)

1. Recycling cost will not matter .............................
2. Recycling cost could be much greater than disposal cost .........
3. Recycling cost could be somewhat greater than disposal cost ......
4. Recycling cost must at least equal to disposal cost .............
5. Recycling cost must be somewhat less than disposal cost .........
6. Recycling must be considerably less than disposal cost ..........

Q17.

HHF‘HHH

If a recycling facility for PS foam were available, how much of the transportation

costs would you be willing to incur?

(Circle or fill in _o_n_e response)

1. Would transport PS foam if the cost is less than our current

cost of disposing PS foam . . .

............................. l

2. Would not transport PS foam, but would hire someone to transport it if the cost
is less than our current cost of disposing PS foam ............... 2

3. Would not transport PS foam, it must be picked up at our facility . . . 3

4. Would hire someone to transport PS foam, willing to incur costs up to _miles

5. Would transport PS foam, willing to incur costs up to

miles

 

110

Listed below are a number of statements. Please
indicate the extent that you agree or disagree with
each statement.

Q18. If separation bins were available .....

Q19.

Q20.

Q21.

Q22.

A. Our employees would be willing to separate

PS foam ...........................

B. Our facility ' s management would be willing
to promote separation .................

C. Our facility has space available for
separation bins ......................

Compactors or densifiers are a recent
introduction to the PS foam recycling process.
For example, one densifier can compact 8000
eight ounce cups into a cylinder of 15 square
inches. However, the densifier does come at a
cost (this model leases for around $300/month
or can be purchased for around $20K). Our
firm would be willing to pay for

this kind of machine. ...................

Recently, burning PS foam for energy has

been getting a lot of attention. Some say that
this is an efficient way to dispose, while others
feel that there are pollution concerns. Burning
PS foam is a good method of disposal ......

Some companies can collect used PS foam and
make office supplies such as paper filing trays.
Facilities that supply used PS foam pay a fee
and in return they receive the recycled
product.

We would consider participating in this
reciprocal service ......................

ini i l ' i
mfaeflity is facing solid waste problems
because of .....

A. Public Pressure .....................
B. Costs .............................

C. Environmental Pressure (agencies, etc.) . . .

STRONGLY
AGREE

STRONGLY
NEUTRAL DISAGREE

3 4 5

3 4 5

3 4 5

3 4 5

3 4 5

3 4 5
4

111

Listed below are a number of statements. Please

indicate the extent that you agree or disagree with flag” NEUTRAL TENSSE
each statement.
Q23. Solid waste is a problem in W . . 1 2 3 4 5

Q24. To what extent do you agree that each of the
following are good reasons for industrial
recycling?

A. Recycled Materials Reduce Manufacturing
Costs .............................

B. Increasing Cost Of Solid Waste Disposal . .
C. Landfills Are Running Out Of Space .....
D. Legal Mandates ....................
B. Public Relations ....................

F. Makes PeOple Feel Good About
Themselves ........................

HHHHHH
NNNNNN
MUD-303030)
A&A&&&
UIUIUIUIUIUI

G. Groundwater Contamination ........... 1
H. Recycling Is Not Important ............ 1

U!

Q25. Industrial recycling is not feasible because .....
A. Recycling Is Too Expensive ............
B. Recycling Is Too Complicated ..........
C. Consumers Lack Education ...........
D. The Public Will Not Participate .........

E. It Is Feasible; Benefits Of Recycling
Do Outweigh The Problems ............ 1 2 3 4 5

HHI-iI-fi
NNNN
bib-DUO)
hufihh
UIUIUIUI

Q26. Currently, approximately 13% of all municipal solid waste is recycled. What
percentage of all municipal solid waste do you expect to be recycled by the year 2000?

(Circle one)
0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 50-60% 60-70% 70-100%
1 2 3 4 S 6 7

112
Appendix B. Questions 18-25, Results Reported by Each SIC Group

The following results are complete SIC results for questions 1825 which were
scaled 1 through 5. 1 represents strongly agree and 5 represents strongly disagree.
3 is a neutral response. Each question (or each section of a question) will be
accompanied by three tables. These tables will present individual responses by SIC
group for that question. It is important to note the response size given in the table.
Some SIC groups may not have large response groups. Therefore, statistics may not
be as valid for that particular group. The last column of the third table aggregates
all of the groups into statistics that represent the entire responding population. The
results in the TOTAL column are the results that were covered in the Results and

Discussion section.

113

Q18. If separation bins were available .....

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. Our employees would be willing to separate P
GROUP (BY SIC)
RESPONSE: Const. Mfg. thle. thle.
Dur. N on-
dur.
STRONGLY 25% 57% 62%
AGREE:
SOMEWHAT 25% 20% 67% 30%
AGREE:
NEUTRAL: 25% 17%
SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 8% 3% 33% 8%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 17% 3%
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ......... 12 30 3 13
GROUP (BY SIC)
RESPONSE: Rest. Ret. Banks Entmnt. Health Legal
a
STRONGLY
AGREE: 33% 82% 38% 40% 50%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 33% 38% 20% 50%
NEUTRAL: 17% 18% 23% 33% J
SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 17%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 7% 100%
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ...... 6 11 13 15 1 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

114

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE: Educ. Social Member Public Others TOTAL
Service Safety

STRONGLY

AGREE: 22% 33% 67% 67% 49%

SOMEWHAT

AGREE: 33% 33% 22% 100% 22% 25%

NEUTRAL: 11% 6% 15%

SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE: 17% 6% 11% 5%

STRONGLY

DISAGREE: 33% 17% 6%

GROUP

RESPONSE

TOTAL ..... 9 6 18 1 9 166

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

115

Ql8. If separation bins were available .....
B. Our facility ' 5 management would be willing to promote separation.

 

  

 

 

  
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUP (BY SIC)
E
RESPONSE: Const. Mfg. thle. thle.
Dur. Non-
dur.
STRONGLY
AGREE: 25% 48% 66% 69%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 42% 34% 15%
NEUTRAL: 17% 10% 33% 15%
SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 3%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 16% 5%
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ......... 12 29 3 13 16
l % GROUP (BY SIC)
RESPONSE: Rest. Ret. Banks Entrnnt Health Legal
STRONGLY
AGREE: 57% 73% 38% 50%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 29% 18% 38% 38% 100%
"NEUTRAL: 14% 9% 23% 13% 100% l
lSOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 100%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE:
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ...... 7 11 13 16 1 2
_m—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

116

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE: Educ. Social Member Public Others TOTAL
Service Safety

STRONGLY
AGREE: 56% 66% 66% 56% 52%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 22% 100% 33% 28%
NEUTRAL: 11% 17% 11% 13% II
SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 22% 17% 6% 4%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 11% 6% 4%
GROUP
RESPONSE

9 6 18 1 9 166

TOTAL .....
.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

117

Q18. If separation bins were available .....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C. Our facility has space available for separation bins.
GROUP (BY SIC)
RESPONSE: Const. Mfg. thle. WhSle. Hshld.
Dur. Non-
dur.

STRONGLY

AGREE: 8% 39% 38%

SOMEWHAT

AGREE: 8% 29% 33% 13%

NEUTRAL: 25% 11% 8% 25%

SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE: 8% 7% 33% 31% 6%

STRONGLY

DISAGREE: 51% 14% 33% 51% 18%

GROUP

RESPONSE

TOTAL ......... 12 28 3 13 16
up

GROUP (BY SIC)

RESPONSE: Rest. Ret. Banks Entmnt. LHealth Legal
; STRONGLY

AGREE: 33% 45% 15% 33%

SOMEWHAT

AGREE: 17% 9% 23% 13% 100% 100%

NEUTRAL: 17% 36% 31% 27%

SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE: 15% 13%

STRONGLY

DISAGREE: 33% 8% 16% 14%

GROUP

RESPONSE

TOTAL ...... 6 11 13 15 1 2
km

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

118

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE: Educ. Social Member Public Others TOTAL
Service Safety

STRONGLY

AGREE: 11% 22% 33% 28%

SOMEWHAT l

AGREE: 11% 20% 28% 44% 20%

NEUTRAL: 11% 40% 33% 20%

SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE: 11% 20% 6% 100% 11% 11%

STRONGLY

DISAGREE: 56% 20% 11% 12% 21%

GROUP

RESPONSE

TOTAL ..... 9 5 18 1 9 162

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

119

Q19. Compactors or densifiers are a recent introduction to the PS foam recycling
process. For example, one densifier can compact 8000 eight ounce cups into a
cylinder of 15 square inches. However, the densifier does come at a cost (this model
leases for around $300/month). Our firm would be willing to pay for this kind of
machine.

L- _ L,WL_,__LLLLL_LM__L__-_______U]

I
i- WIP__ (BY IC)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i RESPONSE: Const Mfg . l
L- ____ l
l STRONGLY l
g AGREE: ;
. SOMEWHAT I
; AGREE: 9
i NEUTRAL: 10% 11% 8% 25% ;
% SOMEWHAT
- DISAGREE: 14% 8% 13% .
f STRONGLY }
. DISAGREE: 90% 75% 84% 62% 3
1 GROUP l
RESPONSE ;
TOTAL ......... 10 28 3 12 16 E

   

120

 

  

GROUP (BY SIC)

 

   
  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE: Rest. Ret. Banks Entmnt. Health Legal
STRONGLY

AGREE: 8%

[SOMEWHAT

AGREE: 17% 8%

NEUTRAL: 18% 8% 13%

SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE: 17% 23% 19% 50%
STRONGLY

DISAGREE: 66% 82% 53% 68% 100% 50%
GROUP

RESPONSE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
 

STRONGLY
AGREE:
I SOMEWHAT

   
   

 

AGREE: 11%
“NEUTRAL: 11%

SOMEWHAT
E DISAGREE: 22%

STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 56% 60% 83% 100% 67% 72%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 9 160

 

 

 

 

121

Q20. Recently, burning PS foam for energy has been getting a lot of attention.
Some say that this is an efficient way to dispose, while others feel that there are
pollution concerns. Burning PS foam is a good method of disposal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUP (BY SIC)

RESPONSE: Const. Mfg. thle. thle.

Dur. N on-

dur.

STRONGLY
AGREE: 17% 4%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 17% 7% 8% 19%
NEUTRAL: 8% 36% 33% 58% 38% J!
SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 11% 33% 17% 6%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 58% 43% 33% 17% 38%
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ......... 12 28 3 12 16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE: Rest. Ret J Banks Entmnt. Health Legal
STRONGLY

AGREE: 13%

SOMEWHAT

AGREE: 17% 10% 8% 6%

NEUTRAL: 17% 80% 33% 63% 100% 50% ll
SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE: 50% 42% 13%

STRONGLY

DISAGREE: 17% 10% 17% 6% 50%
GROUP

RESPONSE

ITOTAL ...... 6 0 12 16 1 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE: Educ. Social Member Public Others
Service Safety

STRONGLY

AGREE: 3%

SOMEWHAT

AGREE: 22% 17% 22% 12%

“NEUTRAL: 33% 33% 44% 100% 56% 43%

SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE: 44% 6% 14%

STRONGLY

DISAGREE: 66% 33% 22% 29%

GROUP

RESPONSE

TOTAL ..... 9 6 18 1 9 161

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

123

Q21. Some companies can collect used PS foam and make office supplies such as
paper filing trays. Facilities that supply used PS foam pay a fee and in return they
receive the recycled product. We would be consider participating in this reciprocal
service.

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUP (BY SIC)
m
Const. Mfg. thle. thle.
Dur. Non-
_— ’ dur.
STRONGLY
AGREE: 36% 7% 8%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 9% 4% 33%
NEUTRAL: 45% 74% 33% 33%
L1 SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 15% 66% 8%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 9% 17% 13%
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ......... 11 27 3 12 16

 

 

 

124

 

GROUP (BY SIC)

RESPONSE: Rest. Ret. Banks Entmnt. ! Health Legal
STRONGLY

  
  
  
  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AGREE: 17% 18% 9% 19%
SOMEWHAT

AGREE: 50% 36% 45% 13% 100% 100%
lNEUTRAL: 33% 27% 36% 56%

SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE:

STRONGLY

DISAGREE: 22% 9% 13%

GROUP

RESPONSE

TOTAL ...... 6 11 17 16 1 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

Educ. Social Member '
Service
? STRONGLY
i AGREE: 33% 11%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 11% 40% 28%
NEUTRAL: 44% 20% 22% 100% 33% 45%

 

   
    
 
 

SOMEWHAT .
DISAGREE: 11% 17% 11% 8%

STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 40% 22% 22% 11%

GROUP
, RESPONSE
. TOTAL ..... 9 5 18 1 9 158

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q22. Qajaeility is facing solid waste problems because of...

A.

125

 

E RESPONSE:

I STRONGLY
g AGREE:

 

3 SOMEWHAT
, AGREE:

 

 

NEUTRAL:

44%

54%

46%

 

SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE:

4%

33%

 

L STRONGLY
DISAGREE:

33%

36%

33%

W. I

 

GROUP
3 RESPONSE
g TOTAL ......

 

9

 

 

 

12

 

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE:

14%

17%

15%

 

 

STRONGLY
DISAGREE:

29%

25%

31%

 

GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ......

 

  

 

 

12

 

13

 

 

 

 

126

fi

 

, RESPONSE:

  

[ AGREE:

, STRONGLY

33%

Others

7%

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 
 

SOMEWHAT

AGREE: 17% 33% 12% 14% 14%
NEUTRAL: “33% 33% 24% 100% 29% 36%
SOMEWHAT

i DISAGREE: 17% 6% 8%
STRONGLY

DISAGREE: 17% 53% 35%
GROUP

RESPONSE

TOTAL ..... 6 3 17 1 7 148

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

127
Q22.. W is facing solid waste problems because of...

 

    
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. Costs:
i GROUP (BY SIC)
RESPONSE: Const. Mfg. thle. thle.
Dur. Non-
dur.
STRONGLY
AGREE: 55% 21% 33%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 9% 18% 33%
NEUTRAL: 27% 32%
SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 4%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 9% 25% 33%
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ......... 11 28 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

128

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUP (BY SIC)
RESPONSE: Rest. Ret. Banks Entmnt. Healthj Legal
STRONGLY
AGREE: 17% 25% 33% 14% 100%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 33% 25% 20% 29%
NEUTRAL: 17% 33% 33% 36% 50% ll
SOMEWHAT
II DISAGREE: 7% 50%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 33% 17% 7% 21%
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ...... 6 12 15 14 1 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 
   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Member Public Others
Safety

_- L .. =====I=
STRONGLY
AGREE: 13% 17% 25%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 63% 100% 11% 25% 22%
NEUTRAL: 13% 22% 100% 25% 27%
SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 13% 6% 5%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 44% 25% 21%
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ..... 8 3 18 1 8 157

129

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

Q22. mataejljty is facing solid waste problems because of...
C. Environmental pressure (agencies,ec) __ __ 7
GROUP (BY SIC) .
3 RESPONSE: Const. Mfg. thle. thle. Hshld. ;
Dur. Non- '
dur. :
L. . _ ._L __ _ _ _____L_____. ______ _.__ ___ -____. _ .______._._ __ . _ ____ _ 1
» STRONGLY f
l AGREE: 30% 38% 15% 12% g
% SOMEWHAT ?
, AGREE: 16% 67% 15% 29% i
NEUTRAL: 30% 39% 23% 29% i
SOMEWHAT I
DISAGREE: 10% 3% |
STRONGLY ‘
DISAGREE: 33% 16% 33% 46% 29% ,
GROUP 1
RESPONSE 10 31 3 13 17 I
TOTAL ......... 9
. GROUP (BY SIC)
RESPONSE: Rest. TRet. Banks Entmnt. Health Legal
STRONGLY
_ AGREE: 33% 17% 12%
, SOMEWHAT
. AGREE: 38% 29% 100%
NEUTRAL: 17% 50% 31% 41% 50%
; SOMEWHAT
‘ DISAGREE: 17% 8% 8%
: STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 33% 25% 23% 18% 50%
gGROUP
RESPONSE
13 17 1 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

130

 

 

 

 
 

m

 

  

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 RESPONSE: Educ. Social Member Public Others TOTAL
5 Service Safety
5 STRONGLY
j AGREE: 33% 6% 11% 15%
3 SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 17% 67% 28% 100% 11% 22%
; NEUTRAL: 17% 22% 31%
l SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 17% 6% 11% 5%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 17% 44% 44% 28%
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ..... 6 3 18 1 9 162

 

 

 

 

 

 

131

Q23. Solid waste is a problem in ear eommaaity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUP (BY SIC)
RESPONSE: Const. Mfg. thle. thle. Hshld.
Dur. Non-
dur.
STRONGLY
AGREE: 45% 56% 33% 25% 44%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 18% 22% 33% 42% 28%
NEUTRAL: 27% 9% 33% 25% 28%
SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 3% 8%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 9% 9%
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ......... 11 32 3 12 18
! GROUP (BY SIC)
“7 1 E
RESPONSE: Rest. Ret. 1 Banks Entmnt. Health Legal
STRONGLY
AGREE: 71% 25% 47% 38% 50%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 14% 42% 20% 33% 100%
NEUTRAL: 14% 33% 33% 10% 50%
SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 5%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 14%
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ...... 7 12 15 21 1 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F—

1,-

' RESPONSE:

132

 

 

 

 

 

Educ. Social Member Public Others TOTALli
Service Safety
’— H———‘— G

STRONGLY ;

A:GREE 25% 40% 32% 44% 42% I
! SOMEWHAT (

AGREE: 50% 60% 32% 100% 22% 30% i
[ NEUTRAL: 13% 16% 11% 19% l

SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE: 11% 3%

STRONGLY

DISAGREE: 13% 11% 22% 7%

GROUP

RESPONSE

TOTAL ..... 8 5 19 1 9 176

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

133

024. To what extent do you agree that each of the following are good reasons for
industrial recycling?
A. Recycled materials reduce manufacturing costs:

  
 
 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUP (BY SIC)

=F =1

RESPONSE: Const. Mfg. thle. thle.
Dur. Non-

fi _ 7 dur.
STRONGLY
AGREE: 9% 21% 33%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 36% 30% 33% 54% 18%
NEUTRAL: 36% 27% 33% 31% 47%
SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 9% 18% 6%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 9% 3%
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ......... 11 33 3 13 17

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE:

STRONGLY

AGREE: 14% 8% 21% 48%

SOMEWHAT

I, AGREE: 29% 33% 57% 10%

NEUTRAL: 29% 33% 7% 24% 100% 100%
SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE: 29% 25% 14% 14%

STRONGLY

DISAGREE: 5%

GROUP

RESPONSE

TOTAL ...... 7 12 14 21 1 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l Educ Member Public Others

in; _____ Service Safety _

STRONGLY

; AGREE: 13% 40% 32% 22% 24%

l SOMEWHAT

, AGREE: 63% 40% 26% 22% 28%

? NEUTRAL: 13% 20% 26% 22% 28%

( SOMEWHAT 11% 11% 12%
DISAGREE: l
STRONGLY |
DISAGREE: 13% 5% 3%

EGROUP

* RESPONSE

* 1 9 175

 

 

 

 

 

 

135

Q24. To what extent do you agree that each of the following are good reasons for
industrial recycling?
B. Increasing cost of solid waste disposal:

 

 

 

  

 

 

 
 
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__ —— — T T" l
I GROUP (BY SIC) 4‘
' RESPONSE: thle. thle. Hshld.
Dur. Non-
, ____ __ dur. _ a
STRONGLY
AGREE: 58% 35% 66% 36% 37%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 17% 32% 33% 50% 26%
NEUTRAL: 8% 24% 7% 21% l
SOMEWHAT . '
DISAGREE: 8% 6% 7% l
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 8% 3% 16% i
GROUP ;
RESPONSE ‘
TOTAL ......... 12 34 3 14 19 f

 

 

 

 

136

 

GROUP (BY SIC)

 

 
   
   

  

 

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  
 
 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

} _

l

 

P—

l RESPONSE: Educ. Social

Public Others TOTAL
Service I Safety I

RESPONSE: Ret. Banks E___t Heal _Legal

STRONGLY

AGREE: 86% 42% 29% 53% I

SOMEWHAT ;
AGREE: 14% 42% 57% 11% 100% 100% i
f NEUTRAL: 16% 14% 32% l
; SOMEWHAT :

DISAGREE: l
a STRONGLY
I DISAGREE: 4% j

GROUP ‘
e RESPONSE I
- TOTAL ...... 7 12 14 19 1 1 ,

 

 

 

 

 

 

é STRONGLY .
l AGREE: 25% 40% 53% 56% 43% i
I
1 SOMEWHAT i
; AGREE: 50% 40% 32% 100% 33% 34% y
: NEUTRAL: 13% 20% 5% 11% 16% I
Z SOMEWHAT '
; DISAGREE: 2% l
STRONGLY =
! DISAGREE: 13% 11% 5%
:GROUP j
. RESPONSE :
i TOTAL ..... 8 5 19 1 9 178 j

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

137

Q24. To what extent do you agree that each of the following are good reasons for
industrial recycling?
C. Landfills are running out of space:

 

  
   

  
    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 
  

GROUP (BY SIC)

RESPONSE: Const. Mfg. thle. thle.

Dur. Non-

dur.

STRONGLY
AGREE: 77% 67% 66% 57%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 23% 22% 33% 21% 21%
NEUTRAL: 3% 7% 11% 1|
SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 3% 14%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 6% 5%
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ......... 13 36 3 14 19

 

 

 

 

 

 

138

 

  

RESPONSE:

 

Rest.

 

GROUP (BY SIC)

 

Ret.

Banks

Entmnt.

a
Health

   
  

 

   
 

STRONGLY
AGREE:

100%

58%

57%

71%

 
 

 

SOMEWHAT
AGREE:

25%

36%

24%

100%

 
 

 

NEUTRAL:

8%

7%

 

I SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE:

 

STRONGLY
DISAGREE:

 

GROUP
RESPONSE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 RESPONSE:

Member

 

 

: STRONGLY
AGREE:

88%

68%

 

SOMEWHAT
AGREE:

12%

21%

 

NEUTRAL:

 

 

SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE:

5%

11%

 

STRONGLY
DISAGREE:

5%

 

GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL .....

 

 

 

 

19

 

 

 

185

 

139

Q24. To what extent do you agree that each of the following are good reasons for
industrial recycling?
D. Legal mandates:

 

I___-M____ ____, ___ _*__ __ _____ ______

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
   
 
  

 

, GROUP (BY SIC) I
I" W " ‘ " ‘ — WWW—WW _ WW “WWW—W W ' WWW WW I
I RESPONSE: Const. "W I
' I
IL_ _ _____ LLLLL_LLLL_______._______ __I
i STRONGLY I
I AGREE: 31% 21% 33% 7% 5% ;
SOMEWHAT I
AGREE: 8% 24% 33% 36% 42% I
I
NEUTRAL: 38% 42% 33% 57% 42% I
SOMEWHAT I
DISAGREE: 15% 3% 5% I
STRONGLY I
DISAGREE: 8% 9% 5% i
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ......... 13 33 3 14 19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

140

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUP (BY SIC)

RESPONSE: Rest. Ret. Banks Entmnt. Health Legal
STRONGLY
AGREE: 29% 17% 14% 17%
SOMEWHAT ll
AGREE: 14% 8% 14% 17%
NEUTRAL: 57% 67% 57% 33% 100% 100%
SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 8% 7% 11%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 7% 22%
GROUP
RESPONSE

LTOTAL ..... 7 12 14 18 1 2
RESPONSE: Educ. Social Member

Service

I STRONGLY
AGREE: 13% 17% 29%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 50% 33% 24% 100% 44% 25%
NEUTRAL: 37% 17% 24% 41%
SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 17% 24% 11% 8%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 22% 7%
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ..... 8 6 17 1 9 177

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

141

. Q24. To what extent do you agree that each of the following are good reasons for
industrial recycling?
E. Public relations:

   

 

I STRONGLY
i AGREE: 38% 30% 33% 21% 21%

SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 8% 33% 33% 57% 47%

 

 

 

 

    
  

' STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 9% 5%

iGROUP
RESPONSE
7 TOTAL .........

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

142

 

 

RESPONSE:

 

STRONGLY
AGREE:

SOMEWHAT
AGREE:

II NEUTRAL: 43% 42% 21% 37% 100% 50%

SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: , 5%

STRONGLY J

 

 

 

 

   
  
   
   
       
   

 

DISAGREE: 16%

GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ...... 7 12 14 19 1 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE:

Social Member Public Others TOTAL
Service Safety

    

 

 

NEUTRAL: 13% 17% 39% 100% 30%

 

SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 13% 6% 3%

STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 6% 22% 6%

GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ..... 8 6 18 1 9 179

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

143

Q24. To what extent do you agree that each of the following are good reasons for
industrial recycling?
F. Makes people feel good about themselves:

 

     

 

 

 

   
 
   
   
  
   
    
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUP (BY SIC)
RESPONSE: Const. Mfg. thle.
Dur.
' STRONGLY
, AGREE: 25% 33%
; SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 25% 30% 66%
' NEUTRAL: 17% 33% 33%
SOMEWHAT
; DISAGREE: 17%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 16% 3%
GROUP
RESPONSE
; TOTAL ......... 12 33 3

 

 

 

144

 

I

GROUP (BY SIC)

 

FIESPONSE:

Rest.

Ret.

Banks

Entmnt.

Health

 

STRONGLY
AGREE:

57%

42%

43%

40%

I,

 

SOMEWHAT
AGREE:

14%

33%

21%

20%

100%

100%

 

NEUTRAL:

14%

25%

29%

30%

 

SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE:

7%

5%

 

STRONGLY
DISAGREE:

13%

5%

 

GROUP
RESPONSE

 

TOTAL ......

 

 

12

 

 

14

 

20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE:

Educ.

Social
Service

Member

Public
Safety

Others

TOTAL

 

STRONGLY
AGREE:

38%

66%

33%

44%

36%

 

SOMEWHAT
AGREE:

50%

33%

22%

11%

30%

 

NEUTRAL:

33%

33%

26%

 

SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE:

13%

7%

100%

3%

 

STRONGLY
DISAGREE:

5%

5%

 

GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL .....

 

 

lioo

 

 

18

 

 

 

 

179

 

 

 

145

Q24. To what extent do you agree that each of the following are good reasons for
industrial recycling?
G. Groundwater contamination:

 

 

I GROUP (BY SIC) i
RESPONSE: Const. I

I

I- __L_m____L_________________m _

7 STRONGLY

= AGREE 66% 66% 66% 50% 63%

 

SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 17% 20% 33% 36% 16%

INEUTRAL:16% 11% 21%

 

 

SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 3%

STRONGLY
DISAGREE:14%

GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ......... 12 35 3 14 19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

146

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUP (BY SIC)

t 'F'
RESPONSE: Rest. Ret. Banks Entmnt. Health Legal
STRONGLY
AGREE: 86% 66% 43% 55% 100% 50%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 14% 25% 50% 20%
NEUTRAL: 9% 7% 10% 50%
SOMEWHAT l
DISAGREE:
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 15%
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ...... 7 12 14 20 1 2 I
RESPONSE: Educ. Social Member Public Others TOTAL

Service Safety

4 i
STRONGLY
AGREE: 63% 33% 56% 78% 60%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 37% 50% 22% 100% 12% 25%
NEUTRAL: 17% 10%
SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 12% 6% 2%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 3%
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ..... 8 6 18 1 9 181

147

024. To what extent do you agree that each of the following are good reasons for
industrial recycling?
H. Recycling 18 not important:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUP (_BY SIG)
RESPONSE: Const. Mfg.
I__
I STRONGLY
I AGREE: 6% 5%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 3% I
INEUTRAL:17% 3% 16% I
I SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 8% 19% 33% 14% 16%
STRONGLY
I DISAGREE: 75% 69% 66% 86% 63%
IGROUP I
RESPONSE .
TOTAL ......... 12 32 3 14 19 I

148

 

   
 

RESPONSE:

Rest.

Ret.

Banks

GROUP (BY SIC)

==== _____ .

Entmnt.

Health

 

 

STRONGLY
AGREE:

17%

5%

 

SOMEWHAT
AGREE:

7%

 

NEUTRAL:

14%

 

SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE:

14%

17%

14%

24%

100%

 

STRONGLY
DISAGREE:

86%

66%

79%

57%

 

GROUP
RESPONSE

 

TOTAL .....

 

. 7

12

 

 

I RESPONSE: Educ.

STRONGLY
AGREE:

Social
Service_

 

 

Member Public
Safety

 

 

 

 

 

SOMEWHAT
AGREE:

13%

2%

 

NEUTRAL:

17%

6%

6%

 

SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE:

11%

100%

22%

16%

 

STRONGLY
DISAGREE:

87%

83%

83%

78%

71%

 

GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL .....

 

8

 

 

6

 

1

 

 

9

 

 

149

025. Industrial recycling is not feasible because...
A. Recycling is too expensive:

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
    

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 

 

 

  

 

  

 

 

 

 

GROUP (BY SIC)
I RESPONSE Const. Mfg. thle. thle.
Dur. Non-
durn I
STRONGLY
' AGREE: 8% 6% 16%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE 15% 12% 7% 5%
NEUTRAL: 31% 32% 29% 37%
I SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 15% 26% 100% 29% 11%
I STRONGLY
: DISAGREE: 31% 24% 36% 31%
GROUP
I RESPONSE 13 34 3 14 19
TOTAL .........
, GROUP (BY SIC)
1 RESPONSE: Rest. Ret. Banks Entmnt.
3 STRONGLY
AGREE: 14% 5%
3 SOMEWHAT
, AGREE: 14% 8% 21% 20%
‘ NEUTRAL: 14% 42% 36% 10%
; SOMEWHAT
; DISAGREE: 29% 25% 7% 25%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 42% 25% 21% 40%
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ...... 7 12 14 20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

150

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE: Educ. Social Member Public Others TOTAL
Service Safety

STRONGLY

AGREE: 13% 11% 6%

SOMEWHAT

AGREE: 40% 29% 14%

NEUTRAL: 38% 18% 100% 33% 28%

SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE: 25% 40% 29% 22% 24%

STRONGLY

DISAGREE: 20% 33% 28%

GROUP

RESPONSE

TOTAL ..... 8 5 17 179

 

 

 

 

.r—I

 

 

 

 

NH

025. Industrial recycling is not feasible because....
B. Recycling is too complicated:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ GROUP (BY SIC)
- RESPONSE: Const. Mfg. thle. thle.
Dur. Non-
_ _ dur.

, STRONGLY
‘ AGREE: 15 % 3%
= SOMEWHAT

AGREE: 15 % 23% 21%
' NEUTRAL: 23% 29% 14%
I SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE: 15% 14% 100% 21%
3 STRONGLY
. DISAGREE: 31% 31% 43%
IGROUP
I RESPONSE 13 35 3 14
‘ TOTAL .........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 

a STRONGLY
AGREE:

 

 
 

I AGREE:

 

  

NEUTRAL:

 

' SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE:

 

 

STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 43% 25% 36% 40%

 

'GROUP
RESPONSE
. TOTAL ...... 7 12 14 20 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J——- J

152

 

fi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE: Educ. Social Member Public Others TOTAL
Service Safety

STRONGLY

AGREE: 11% 4%

SOMEWHAT

AGREE: 25% 20% 18% 100% 11% 19%

NEUTRAL: 13% 12% 11% 21%

SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE: 25% 60% 41% 33% 23%

STRONGLY

DISAGREE: 38% 20% 29% 33% 32%

GROUP

RESPONSE

TOTAL ..... 8 5 17 1 9 180

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

153

Q25. Industrial recycling is not feasible because.... I

C. Consumers lack education:

  
  

 

  

 

 

GROUP (BY SIC)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mfg. thle. thle.
Dur. Non- .
_ r. _ I
STRONGLY I
AGREE: 38% 44% 33% 21% 37% I
SOMEWHAT I
I AGREE 8% 21% 33% 7% 37% I
II NEUTRAL: 31% 15% 33% 36% 21% I
SOMEWHAT '
DISAGREE: 8% 12% 14% 5%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 15% 9% 21% ;
GROUP :
RESPONSE I
TOTAL ......... 13 34 3 14 19 I

 

 

STRONGLY
AGREE:

 

 

 

 

_ _ _
—_-m--

 

I

I

 

 

 

NEUTRAL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE: 25% 7%

STRONGLY

DISAGREE: 17% 7% 14%

GROUP

RESPONSE

TOTAL ...... 7 12 14 21 1 2

 

Member

 

 

 

 

, STRONGLY I
AGREE: 38% 24% 33% 30% I
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 38% 66% 29% 100% 33% 32%
NEUTRAL: 13% 12% 20% I

 

 

STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 13% 17% 12% 23% 8%

GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ..... 8 6 17 1 9 181

 

 

 

 

 

SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 17% 24% 11% 10%

 

 

 

 

155

025. Industrial recycling is not feasible because....

D. The public will not participate:

 

 

 

 

 

  

   

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUP (BY SIC)
1 ‘
RESPONSE: Const. Mfg. thle. thle.
Dur. Non-
dur.
STRONGLY
AGREE: 15% 24% 7%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 8% 21% 33% 14%
NEUTRAL: 31% 32% 21%
SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 38% 15% 66% 28% 21%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 8% 8% 28% 4%
GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ......... 13 34 3 14 19
I GROUP (BY SIC) I
4‘” ”*‘I
IRESPONSE: Rest. Ret. Banks Entmnt. Health Legal
I STRONGLY
IAGREE: 17% 15% 50%
I SOMEWHAT I
IAGREE: 14% 43% 25% 100%
NEUTRAL: 25% 21% 25% 50%
I SOMEWHAT
IDISAGREE: 57% 25% 14% 5%
I STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 29%
GROUP
RESPONSE
; TOTAL ...... 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

156

 

_ |

Public Others TOTAL

Social Member
Service Safety I

  

 

; STRONGLY

 

 

I AGREE: 6% 11%
SOMEWHAT
AGREE: 38% 33% 12% 56% 23%
NEUTRAL: 25% 17% 41% 11% 26%

 

 

STRONGLY
DISAGREE: 12% 16% 12% 22% 17%

GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL ..... 8 6 17 1 9 180

 

 

SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE: 25% 33% 29% 100% 11% 23%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

157

QZS. Industrial recycling is not feasible because....
E. It is feasible; the benefits of recycling outweigh the problems.

 

GROUP (BY)SIC

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE: Const. Mfg.
I

STRONGLY

AGREE: 46% 49%

SOMEWHAT

AGREE: 38% 34%

NEUTRAL: 15% 11%

SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE: 3%

STRONGLY

DISAGREE: 2%

GROUP

RESPONSE

TOTAL ......... 13 35 14 18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
    
 

   

 

_GROUP (BY SIC)

  
 
 

 
  

    
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE began I
ISTRONGLY

AGREE: 86% 42% 36% 48%

SOMEWHAT *

AGREE: 14% 25% 50% 14% 100% 50%
NEUTRAL: 17% 7% 29% 50%
SOMEWHAT I
DISAGREE: 8% 7%
STRONGLY

DISAGREE: 8% 9%

GROUP

RESPONSE

TOTAL ...... 7 12 14 21 1 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE:
STRONGLY
AGREE:

I— _

Educ.

 

63%

33%

158

1

Social Member Public Others
Service H

 

SOMEWHAT
AGREE:

13%

50%

' 100%

 

NEUTRAL:

24%

 

SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE:

12%

 

  

STRONGLY
DISAGREE:

 

  
 
 

GROUP
RESPONSE
TOTAL .....

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS