Is single stream recycling--or down-cycling?
To search this forum for keywords, type your keywords in the "Forums Search" box on the right. To search specific forum topics, click the "Advanced Search" link on the right.
On our campus like many others there is a discussion of the legitimacy of single stream recycling as a viable option. Some contend that while single stream may increase apparent campus recycling rates, that may not be the whole story. Others think it's the best thing since, well, recycling was introduced 40 years ago.
For instance, it is clear that apparent recycling rates go up with single stream. It is also clear that contamination rates appear to go up too. That is, there are more non-recyclable contaminants in single stream collections because people tend to through everything in. In our County MRF, contamination rates went from ~4% to ~25% when single stream was introduced, for instance. In short, there is garbage in single stream that has to be removed by the MRF. By the way, the "out-throw" tonnage should be added back into campus landfill rates calculations otherwise a incorrect diversion rate will be calculated.
The other result of garbage in the single stream may be that papers have to be downgraded if they are contaminated with food, drink or broken glass. This may fly in the ideal value of recycling materials to their "highest and best use." Hence, office bond paper that, if kept separate, could be recycled up to seven times back into bond paper is downgraded. This drives the market for more virgin materials. Indeed, I am reading reports that the trend to single stream is constricting the recycled fiber market that paper recyclers need in order to produce recycled-content bond paper.
Single stream is clearly a cheaper process in terms of collections. The sophisticated MRFs that must sort it are not inexpensive, however. In short, it must take more effort to unscramble a mixed materials stream after the fact than it does to source separate it to begin with. But the waste companies are depending on volume to make up the difference, so they cut prices. In fact, our County MRF retrofitted single stream not because it was a good idea, they did it because haulers were threatening to take their loads to a neighboring MRF that was single stream. If our County MRF lost the business, they would lose the revenues to which their debt is pledged. So, it was self defense.
In defense of single stream, it is clear that collections efforts are eased--so it is easier to collect new materials (such as compost) with the freed up collections assets. That could be a very valuable new effort.
However, one could make the argument that single stream may be part of the race to the bottom. We are increasingly concerned that what is being touted as a cure to low recycling rates may in fact be worsening the problem, not fixing it.
Thoughts? Contrasting points of view?
In addition to the problems mentioned above, the single-stream operators often ship all the #3-#7 to China! And when the market for recycled materials is down, they have been known to simply take the recyclables to the landfill. Unless your contract with them is set up so that this is a breach of contract and subject to a penalty, there is no assurance that anything but the highest-value materials are really being recycled.
Although single-stream can reduce waste-disposal costs, it always amazes me to see an institution of higher education admit that they can't teach their students to recycle! [Including source-separating the various products.]
Peter
Peter Crownfield
Campus Sustainability Initiative
Alliance for Sustainable Communities-Lehigh Valley
Bethlehem, PA 18015
610 866-8933 (H)
At my smaller institution (I was hired 6 months ago), there are only two bins in most classrooms and office areas. However, the College practices duel stream recycling. The two aforementioned bins are for clean paper and waste. The bottle/can receptacles are only in certain hallways and the cafeteria. You can imagine that this causes some confusion.
Due to substantial budget cuts, we are without funds to purchase additional bins (my first recommendation). Thus, we are relabeling our bins and contracting to a single stream waste hauler. The result will hopefully be a clearly marked, waste and recycables container system.
Additionally, we are hoping to get 15 new outdoor recycling bins through a grant.
Thoughts are appreciated.
If your only option is to have two receptacles in a classroom, one for paper and the other for waste, then it seems to me you're backed into going with a single-stream system. All you'll need to do is label the recycling bin to allow for the new materials. However, none of us have a lot of money and recycling is always at the bottom of the pile because the thinking has been that it's not worth it. I'm at a large state university but also have no money. We use recycling boxes in the hallways outside classes, which cost about $5.00 each with lids, and small under-desk boxes that cost about a dollar apiece. The hallway boxes are white with the green chasing arrows on them, and we put liners in them and print out content labels which we stick on the lid near the opening. It's pretty cheap, I think. I personnally don't like single-stream, especially for schools or universities or offices, because those environments seem more conducive to keeping the materials separated, generally speaking. Office workers are more apt to put recyclable office paper or newspaper into a box labled for such if it's made available to them. Same for bottles/cans, I think. Single-stream was really developed for municipalities, for trucks driving through neighborhoods where the thinking was that it cost too much for sanitation workers to pick-up separate containers, and that citizenry wouldn't separate it in the first place (or, at least there'd be an increase in recyclables because single-stream is more 'convenient'. Not true, but the way, if you take into account the increase in contamination or devalued recyclables).
But again, at a small school with very limited means, you may have no choice. I think it comes down to 'best practice', which must take into account all of the intangibles. If you can increase recycling with single-stream, do it. But if you can find cheaper bins/boxes, have the personnel to keep it neat and organized, and also have the support from administration and a place that will pick-up the separated materials, which I suspect would need to be baled?, then consider that option.
Finally, think carefully about placement of recycling bins: too many trash cans in close proximity creates a disincentive for people to recycle.
Good luck,
Dave
Since every one else seems to think it's a bad idea, I'll definitely let you know how much of a success it's been in Maine. EcoMaine.org is a great resource for any questions or concerns about single sort. They have successfully converted over to single sort recycling and are seeing the advantages quickly. So, here at the University of Southern Maine we are now single sort as well since EcoMaine is our waste management company. We'll be introducing new bins in the fall to make single sort recycling more apparent, but we've already done some brief, successful education tables. I am confident that this will increase recycling on campus and make it much easier for our students, faculty, and staff to recycle more, more often. Good luck!
To evaluate whether single stream is right for you, I think it is important to understand what single stream is and what it is not.
Single stream is the commingling of paper, cardboard, and bottles and cans into a single waste "stream" as opposed to collecting those as 2 or more separate streams.
A lot of the promotion of single stream recycling included benefits from things that have nothing to do with single stream.
Going from manual collection to automated or semi-automated hydraulic collection is NOT a function of single stream. It can be done with dual stream or almost any level of segregation. Automated or semi-automated collection will bring tremendous collection efficiencies and greater recycling rates regardless of what type of system you add them to.
Doing a strong public outreach campaign after years of not doing one is a good thing and will give you significant benefits whether you are single stream, dual stream, or multi-stream.
Adding #3-7 plastic bottles, or mixed rigid plastics, or any other material, is NOT a function of single stream. Those can just as easily be added to dual stream or fully segregated programs.
Really, the question comes down to convenience vs the value of the commodity you are collecting. In this market, mixed paper, which is typically the lowest value of the materials going into a single stream mix is selling for about $120/ton. For most schools, their "mixed paper" with a couple of tweaks (keeping out cereal and pizza boxes and only taking sheets of paper) could sell as a sorted office paper (SOP) which is currently selling for more like $200/ton. If you go single stream, I have not heard of anyone getting more than about $30/ton for their material, and many programs are not even seeing that return.
Paper mills are having very legitimate problems with single stream. Glass shards in the paper act as as sandblaster and can destroy equipment at the mill (and as an aside if you have to collect glass separately to prevent that, then I would argue that you are no longer single-stream). However, paper mills are also having problems with other programs as well. The bigger issue is a trend toward downcycling in the name of zero waste. If people are selecting zero waste as a goal, I would urge your to make sure you are not trying to achieve those goals by dumping marginal or contaminated materials into mills and making them throw it away just so you can feel good about not throwing it away yourself. Doing so doesn't increase recycling or sustainability, it threatens to destroy existing recycling markets and prevents manufacturers from investing in the equipment and systems that would let them utilize recycled feedstocks.
Forums Supporters
AASHE would like to thank the American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment for support in developing the Forums, and recognize and thank the organizations below as official Campus Sustainability Discussion Forums Supporters:
Single-stream is rife with problems. From a municipality view, it appears that material rates do go up, but then so does the contamination. For example, if you can imagine a big blue compacting recycling truck pulling up to the big blue bin at your curb, listen to the sound of glass breaking as it goes in. Then, imagine what glass isn't broken initially getting compacted. Next, imagine it being pushed out onto a concrete floor at the MRF. Fully 60%, according to some experts, is either lost to trash or down-cycled to roadway bedding.
But many campuses don't deal with glass, so that isn't their issue. The issue for them is contamination at the source. You're right, people do put trash into "single-stream" bins, and soda residue, food, mixed materials contaminate otherwise good, clean office paper. Why not continue with dual-stream, basically keeping bottles/cans from cardboard/paper. Two bins are better than one, because you'll have greater control in keeping contamination down.
Single-stream messes up clean paper bins, clean recycling boxes, and, unless you're compacting it, you're shipping mostly air to the MRF, not exactly fuel- or cost-efficient. A 30 yard roll-off of cardboard, even collapsed, amounts to less than one standard size bale.
Read archive articles in WasteAge and MSW magazine, and google the NationalBottleBill.org research. Single-stream is not a perfect solution.
Dave