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

Recycling Today, Dec, 2004 by Dan Sandoval

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study made the following determinations:

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