The Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM)&

Full Cost Accounting (FCA) ToolsCommunity Recycling Still Makes Dollars and Sense

Gary Epperson, Clark County Solid Waste Coordinator

BJ Bland, Recycling & Local Assistance Branch

George Partridge, Recycling & Local Assistance Branch

Goals of Our PresentationI. To present a more positive perspective regarding the future of recycling

and the importance it will make in the future of our economy considering current market conditions.

II. Introduce tools developed for EPA Region 4 states to help justify and advocate for increased recycling initiatives within the context of integrated solid waste management.

III. Present how our Branch has validated and demonstrated the usefulness of the EPA Region 4 tools by working with Gary Epperson, Solid Waste Coordinator to use Clark County/Winchester as a Case Study.

IV. Show how those tools can help you select the approach to recycling that will best work for your county and to conduct the associated cost-benefit analysis with assistance and guidance from the Recycling and Local Assistance Branch.

The Path Forward

Where we have been and where we are today: Clark County; A Case Study

FCA-Full Cost Accounting&

ISWM-Integrated Solid Waste Management

Recycling & Resource Conservation for Communities

Market Modeling Predictions

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

To use the stock market as an example!

The Path ForwardRegion 4 States [Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North

Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee] partnered with EPA to develop Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) evaluation tools to help communities evaluate, justify, and advocate for increased recycling.

Tools prepared in collaboration with RRS [Resource Recycling Systems].

Two tools were developed and distributed by SERDC:

Introduction Guide and FCA EXCEL Spreadsheet to Assist with

Funding and Accounting.

Recycling Program Scenario

ISWM EXCEL Based Model.

Resources at: https://www.serdc.org/ISWM

Integrated Solid Waste Management

What is Integrated Solid Waste Management?

“Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) is a comprehensive waste prevention, recycling, composting, and disposal program.”

“ISWM involves evaluating local needs and conditions, and then selecting and combining the most appropriate management activities for those conditions.”

Funding and Full Cost Accounting [FCA]What is Full Cost Accounting?

“Full Cost Accounting (FCA) is a method of identifying and reporting the costs of providing ISWM services to communities.”

What are the benefits of Full Cost Accounting?I. It takes into account past and future expenditures, overhead and

support services costs, and operating costsII. Provides a complete picture of the cost to manage our waste streams,

including collection, composting, recycling, landfilling and waste-to-energy.

III. It can be used to compare the cost of different program options, consider changes to services, establish rates and user fees that are sufficient to recover the full costs of the services provided, and clarify the costs of recycling versus the costs of landfilling.

The Path Forward: Using ISWM Model and FCAA THREE STEP PROCESS!

Run the EXCEL Based ISWM Model to Determine the Best Waste Management Scenario (Plan) that includes Recycling disposal Options

Work in progress!

Complete the FCA – Full Cost Accounting Tool to Identify, Collect, Track, and Analyze both Present Costs and Future Costs for the

Scenario Predicted by the ISWM Model

Develop Implementation Plan – Steps to take for aBright Future in Recycling

Single or Dual Stream?Single Stream: Known as “fully commingled” or “single-sort.” A recycling system in which all paper fibers, plastics, metals, and other containers (i.e., glass) are mixed in a collection truck instead of being sorted by the waste generator (resident, etc.) into separate commodities (fiber related waste and containers, for instance). Combining all “recyclables” introduces the potential for reduced collection efficiency by the MRF and the potential for higher contamination levels received by the post-processor.

Dual-Stream: Residents (waste generator) separates the wastes into more than one collection bin, segregating fibers for instance from other wastes such as containers (with a hybrid system where for instance glass related waste may be excluded or kept separate from all other wastes).

General Points on ISWM Collection Model

Implementing Dual Stream Program Using 18 Gallon Bins

Implementing a Single Stream Residential Curbside Program Using 65 Gallon Carts

Implementing Dual Stream ProgramUsing 65 Gallon Carts

Collection FrequencyWeekly Every Other Week

Comprehensive Drop-Off

Five ISWM Model ScenariosI. Comprehensive Recycling Drop-Off Program

Single-Stream Dual Stream Serviced on a Regular Schedule Collected materials taken to an existing regional MRF that is within 15 minutes

of the location.

II. Dual-Stream Program Using Bins Split-Bodied Manual Real Load Trucks Two 18-Gallon Open-Topped Containers Provided One container collects fibers: cardboard, paperboard, newspapers, and

magazines. Second container collects metals, plastics & glass: tin and steel cans, plastic

jugs and tubs, and glass bottles

III. Dual-Stream Program Using Carts Two 65 Gallon Lidded and Wheeled Carts Full Automated Side Loading Trucks

IV. Single-Stream Curbside Program Using Carts

Minimum of Three Roll-Off Containers

Collection: Weekly or Every Other Week

Collection: Weekly or Every Other Week

ISWM Mode Scenarios

V. Development of Hub-and-Spoke Program

Direct haul of recyclable materials to a processor. Developing a new Spoke (Transfer Station) Developing a new Hub (Dual Stream MRF) Develop a new Hub (Single Stream MRF)

Transfer stations are the “Spokes” of the wheel and the MRFs are the “Hubs.”

Lexington Recycle Center DataCost Benefits for Recycling

https://www.lexingtonky.gov/recycling

General Points on ISWM Hub & Spoke Model

Direct Haul of Recyclables to Materials Processor

Develop of a New Hub (MRF)10,500 tons/year minimum for Dual Stream22,500 tons/year for Single Stream

Transfer Stations Sizes Considered in ModelSmall: Design capacity of 2,500 tons per yearMedium: Design capacity of 10,000 tons per yearLarge: Design capacity of 52,000 tons per year

ISWM Model Inputs

Answer Eleven (11) Questions in an ECCEL Spreadsheet Model

1. Community name.

2. State – select Kentucky.

3. Number of households in your community.

4. Estimate of the level of participation in your recycling program.

5. Community type: Rural → Suburban → Urban (one of three choices).

6. Will glass be included? (Default is to include glass!)

7. Participation by residents (Low → Medium → High); High implies residents fill their containers to between 75 % and 100 % of capacity.

8. Landfill tip fee? Default value is state average for EPA Region 4 States.

9. Recycling processor gate fee or revenue? Default is state average.

10. Distance municipality is to transfer station, MRF or recyclables processor. Default distance is 15 miles.

11. Distance to the MRF (Materials Recovery Facility) one uses or would use to process recyclable materials if a transfer station was built. Default distance is 75 miles.

KEY POINT: 11 Inputs from Annual Report Data

ISWM Collection Model Outputs

1. Tons of Recycling Per Year: The total tons recycled in the community per year. This does not include large multi-family, commercial or industrial sectors. Note: Contamination in the stream is accounted for in the Hub and Spoke outputs.

2. Pounds of Recycling Per Household Per Year: The total number of pounds recycled in the community per year, divided by the total number of households.

Total Collection Costs

3. Annual Net Cost (Total): The total annual cost to run the program. The breakdown of the cost considered are shown in the next slide.

ISWM Collection Model: Annual Net Cost Breakdown

Purchase of containers, assembly, delivery, inventory, change outs, maintenance, and replacement for carts or bins.

Purchase of vehicles, operations, insurance and fees, fuel, maintenance, and mileage (collection, support, and back-up vehicles).

Collection staff including outreach activities.

Contingency for capital and operations expenses.

Cost of serving loans (7 year payback period at 3.00 % interest).

Savings at the landfill achieved from not landfilling recyclables (landfill diversion)

ISWM Collection Model Outputs (Continued)4. Annual Net Cost (Operations & Maintenance only): Removes the

purchase and loan servicing costs of all capital equipment (vehicles and containers) from the Annual Net Cost (Total).

5. Cost per Household per Year: The Annual Net Cost (Total) divided by the total number of households in the community.

6. Costs per Ton Recycled: The Annual Net Cost (Total) divided by the total tons recycled per year. This allows comparison of the cost per ton for each program option!

7. Capital Cost (Total): The total cost for all equipment.

8. Total Number of Vehicles: Includes collection (spit bodied read load or fully automated side load), back-up vehicles, and manager and support vehicles for cart delivery and maintenance.

ISWM Collection Model Outputs (Continued)9. Total Number of Staff: Considers collection, route supervisors, and

maintenance personnel.

10. Total Number of Drop-Offs: Number of recycling drop-off locations.

11. Capital Cost Vehicles: The total cost of all vehicles, including interest.

12. Capital Cost Containers: The total capital costs of containers, including interest.

13. Annual Cost for Drop-Off Sites (Total): The total annual cost to build and outfit enough drop-off sites to adequately service the entire community (includes paving, signage, and a minimum of three roll-off containers).

ISWM Hub & Spoke Model OutputsThe results allow the model user to compare the impacts and costs of direct haul, building a transfer station and transferring to a MRF, versus a building a regional MRF, either dual stream or single stream.

1. Costs per Ton Including Revenue: The cost per ton of recyclables collected to transport, build, operate, and maintain each option in the hub and spoke model. The model takes into account contamination in the recycling stream based on the collection method. A ‘NOT FEASIBLE’ output indicates that there are not enough tons in the system to cost-effectively build a MRF.

2. Cost per Household per Year: The total annual costs divided by the total number of households in your community.

ISWM Hub & Spoke Model Outputs

3. Annual Costs (Capital + Operating) without Revenue: Does not include land purchase or capital replacement. Details provided below.

4. Additional Tons to Make Next Level Efficient: Additional tons needed to reach the next level of efficiency (larger transfer station or larger MRF). The goal of this output is to assist the user with understanding the impact of regionalization. Results are included for transfer station, dual stream, and single stream MRF options.

Hub & Spoke Model Output: Annual Cost Breakdown Amortized construction costs.

Loan payback plus interest.

Staff

Insurance

Operations

Maintenance

Fuel

MRF Revenues

Tip Fees

Cost or loss of revenues associated with contamination.

The ISWM Model: Inputs for Case Study

Winchester/Clark County

The ISWM Model Results: CollectionWinchester/Clark

County

The ISWM Model Results: Hub & Spoke

Winchester/Clark County

To maximize collection of recyclables → Single Stream Carts

(Historical Progress: Drop-Off →Single Stream in Schools → Non-mandatory Single Stream at Curbside)

Should we consider “weekly” or “every other week collection”? Weekly collection maximizes the total tons of recyclables collected per year, but how much is it costing us for the extra tonnage? Cost per ton increases by $ 87 to get an additional 330 tons per year when compared to collecting recyclables every other week we collect 2,020 tons for only $ 98. Therefore to we have reached a point of diminishing returns! → Every-Other Week

Does it cost to recycle? Yes; But also cost us to landfill wastes, both now and in the future! The question is if it is more cost effective? → FCA

Spoke and Hub considerations: Dual stream MRF not feasible with present tonnage. Build single stream MRF not applicable since one is in Lexington within 15 miles of the present transfer station. Additional tonnages required for next level: 1,700 for a new transfer station and 21,700 for another MRF.

Winchester/Clark County: Model Validation – A Case Study

The Path Forward

Step 1:The ISWM Model identifies the scenario your community or county should consider to optimize recycling.

Step 2:The next step is to develop detailed cost estimates to justify and support the path forward using the FCA – Full Cost Accounting Tool.

Users Guide

Example Page

Full Cost Accounting (FCA) ToolEXCEL Spreadsheet with Appendices A→H for Each Budgeting Category:

9 Worksheets that can be edited to best fit your county!

The Path Forward

Full Cost Accounting (FCA) Tool

EXCEL Spreadsheet with Appendices for Each Budgeting Category:

Appendix Form A: Physical Asset Inventory

Appendix Form B: Wages & Benefited

Appendix Form C: General Operations & Maintenance

Appendix Form D: Capital Outlay

Appendix Form E: Amortization of Future Outlays

Appendix Form F: Indirect & Overhead Costs

Appendix Form G: Cost Summary

Appendix Form H: Cost Allocation

Full Cost Accounting (FCA) Tool

Appendix Form I: Unit Costs

[Per Ton; Per Household; Non-Residential & Commercial (Per Ton)] Collection Disposal Recycling Composting Total

Full Cost Accounting (FCA)

Marketing & Education: Recycling/Waste Management

Type of Activity Description

Community Litter Pickup Events, River Sweeps, Downtown Sweeps, Spring Cleanups

Involve Boy & Girl Scout Troops, Civic Groups, Church Youth Groups, Neighborhood Associations – Learning First Hand the Impact of Littering!

Newspaper Articles Documenting Community Activities

Spring/Fall Steel/White Goods Roundup

Education and Collection of Items Including Batteries and Paint

International Outreach – Hosting Visitors to Kentucky

Introduced Ukrainian Visitors to Waste Management Practices in United States

Winchester & Clark County: 1997 - 2019

Marketing & Education: Recycling/Waste ManagementType of Activity Description

Presentations Elementary including County Schools, YMCA Summer Camps & Camps of Various Organizations, Community Organizations, Science Fairs, 4H Environmental Education Camp

Brochures and Booths Held at: Schools, County Fairs, Music & Community Festivals, Earth Day

Music- Art – Videos Utilized at Community Events, Local Radio Stations, School Assemblies, Concerts by Guest (Environmental Activists)

Contests Contests between Schools, etc. for Collected Recyclables.

Marketing & Education: Recycling/Waste Management

Type of Activity Description

Community Recycling – Single Stream Collection Centers

Located at All Schools: Paper (fiber), Plastics (resin), and Can (aluminum and steel)

Fundraisers Collection of Recyclable Items (Pop Can Tabs)

Service Events – Agricultural Rise and Return Program

Collection of Containers to be Chipped.

Enforcement Educational Program Education to Responsible Parties about Laws and Regulations and Consequences of Illegal Activities.

Public Service Videos Production with Children using Dance, Music, Visual Effects & Acting to Education on Proper Waste Management and Litter Prevention.

Marketing & Education: Recycling/Waste Management

Type of Activity Description

Incentives to Get Public Involved During Clean-Up Weeks Paying Bounty of $ 2 or More for Each Bag of Trash Turned In.

Parades Christmas Parade Recycling Entry

Pre-School Recycling Program Wee Recycling Program to Provide Educational Activities to Very Young Children.

Surveys 900 Randomly Selected Clark County Residents on Recycling, Landfills, and Solid Waste Issues.

Adopt A High Way Program Getting Businesses, Schools, and Organizations Involved in Community.

Lets Get Started!Correspondence with County Solid Waste Coordinators

Each SWC will be receiving a cover letter with a table listing ISWM Model Tool Input Information required.

We Can Do It! Lets Work Together!

????????????????????????

Recycle! “A Dollar Saved is a Dollar Earned!”