Economic and Environmental Benefits of a Deposit System for Beverage Containers in the State of Washington Dr. Jeffrey Morris, Sound Resource Mgt. Rick.

Economic and Environmental Benefits of a Deposit System for Beverage Containers in the State

of Washington

Dr. Jeffrey Morris, Sound Resource Mgt.

Rick Hlavka, Green Solutions

Bill Smith, City of Tacoma

Background

• City of Tacoma planned to transition to a fully automated curbside recycling system

• Decision required to add glass to recycling or not collect it curbside anymore– Glass is currently collected separately– Glass is a contaminant to the other

commodities– Pierce County recently dropped curbside

glass collection

History of Container Deposits in Washington

• Prior to 1970 deposit glass bottles were the norm

• Phased out by aluminum cans and “no deposit no return” bottles

• 1970 Citizen initiative to establish nation’s first container deposit system

• Industry responded with the “Model Litter Control Act” that established a litter tax

• Both initiatives were on the ballot in 1971• Deposit system defeated 51%-49%

States with Container Deposits

Economic Benefits of a Deposit System

• More Jobs– Recycling Creates jobs at a 7:1 ratio over

disposal

• Increased Revenues– More Recycling Revenues from increased

container recovery• Collectors• Residents• Businesses

• Decreased collection and disposal costs

Environmental Benefits of a Deposit System

• Reduced GHG Emissions

• Increased Public Health

• Reduced emissions of chemical substances into the air, water and land

• Retention of natural open spaces not needed for energy or resource production

• Reduced Litter

$ Economic Benefits for WA

• Unredeemed Deposits $ 36.4 million• Increased Material Sales $ 28.1 million• Decreased Collection Costs $ 1.8 million• Decreased Disposal Costs $ 3.5 million• Decreased Recycling Costs $ 4.0 million• Decreased Litter Costs $ 1.1 million• Increased Jobs $ Net Benefit• Total Economic Benefits $72.36 million

System Costs

Retail Stores Redemption Centers

Third Party Organization

Millions of Containers

3,643 3,643 3,643

Cost Per Container

$.0407 $.0162 $.0221

Total Cost (Millions)

$148.27 $59.02 $80.51

System Costs

• Costs at Retailers are the highest due to wages paid to store personnel.

• TPO costs based on small data samples due to difficulty obtaining cost data from the few that exist. – RBRC, Carpet Alliance

• Redemption Centers the least expensive due to some automation from reverse vending machines

$ Environmental Benefits

• Reduced GHG Emissions $11.3 million• Avoided Acidification $ 1.2 million• Avoided Eutrophication $ < $500• Reduced DALY $ 3.6 million• Reduced Human Toxicity$ 600,000• Reduced Ecological Toxicity $ 2.5 million• Reduced Disposal Impacts $ 300,000• Reduced Litter ↑ Health $ 1.4 million• Total Env. Benefits $20.9 million

Life Cycle Impact Categories & Estimated Costs of Releases

• Global warming: CO2 equivalents @ $36/ton• Human toxicity: lead equivalents @ $4,293/ton • Ecological Toxicity: 2,4-D equivalents @

$3,280/ton • Criteria air pollutants: DALYs (disability-adjusted

life years) @ $45,771 per year• Acidification: SO2 equivalents @ $260/ton• Eutrophication: N equivalents @ $4/ton

Total Energy Usage: SLO RLC vs. TLC

-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Recycling LifeCycle Energy

Usage

Total RecyclingLife Cycle

Energy Usage

Total TrashyLife Cycle

Energy Usage

Net Trashy LifeCycle Energy

Usage

Mill

ion

Btu

s P

er T

on

Co

llect

ed

.

Net EnergyImpact

LFG EnergyRecoveryOffsetLandfilling

VirginContentMfg.RecycledContentMfg.Shipping

Processing

Collection

Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing

Garbage Landfillingwith LFG EnergyRecovery

Net Energy Usage: SLO RLC vs. TLC

-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

RecyclingImpacts

Net RecyclingImpact

GarbageImpacts

Net GarbageImpact

Mill

ion

Btu

s P

er T

on

Co

llect

ed

.

Net EnergyImpact

LFG EnergyRecoveryOffsetLandfilling

Virgin Mfg.Offset

RecycledContentMfg.Shipping

Processing

Collection

Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing

GarbageLandfillingwith LFGEnergyRecovery

Net Greenhouse Gas: SLO RLC vs. TLC

-7500.0

-5000.0

-2500.0

0.0

2500.0

RecyclingImpacts

Net RecyclingImpact

GarbageImpacts

Net GarbageImpact

Gre

en

ho

use G

as E

mis

sio

ns P

er

To

n C

olle

cte

d

.

Net Green-house GasImpactLFG EnergyRecoveryOffsetLandfilling

Virgin Mfg.Offset

RecycledContentMfg.Shipping

Processing

Collection

Recycling

with ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing

Garbage

Landfillingwith LFGEnergyRecovery

Pounds of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents

Net Acidification: SLO RLC vs. TLC

-50.0

-25.0

0.0

25.0

RecyclingImpacts

Net RecyclingImpact

GarbageImpacts

Net GarbageImpact

Aci

dif

yin

g E

mis

sio

ns

Per

To

n C

olle

cted

.

NetAcidifica-tion ImpactLFG EnergyRecoveryOffsetLandfilling

Virgin Mfg.Offset

RecycledContentMfg.Shipping

Processing

Collection

Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing

GarbageLandfillingwith LFGEnergyRecovery

Pounds of Hydrochloric Acid Equivalents

Net Eutrophication: SLO RLC vs. TLC

-0.150

-0.075

0.000

0.075

0.150

RecyclingImpacts

Net RecyclingImpact

GarbageImpacts

Net GarbageImpact

Nu

trif

yin

g E

mis

sio

ns

Per

To

n C

olle

cted

.

NetNutrifica-tion ImpactLFG EnergyRecoveryOffsetLandfilling

Virgin Mfg.Offset

RecycledContentMfg.Shipping

Processing

Collection

Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing

GarbageLandfillingwith LFGEnergyRecovery

Pounds of Phosphate Equivalents

Net DALYs: SLO RLC vs. TLC

-400.0

-200.0

0.0

200.0

RecyclingImpacts

Net RecyclingImpact

GarbageImpacts

Net GarbageImpact

Mic

roD

AL

Y L

oss

es P

er T

on

Co

llect

ed

.

Net Micro-DALYs Lost

LFG EnergyRecoveryOffsetLandfilling

Virgin Mfg.Offset

RecycledContentMfg.Shipping

Processing

Collection

Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing

GarbageLandfillingwith LFGEnergyRecovery

DALY=Disability Adjusted Life Year (losses from criteria air pollutants)

Net Human Toxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

-1500.0

-1000.0

-500.0

0.0

500.0

RecyclingImpacts

Net RecyclingImpact

GarbageImpacts

Net GarbageImpact

Hu

man

To

xic

ity P

ote

ntial P

er

To

n C

olle

cte

d

. Net Human

ToxicityImpactLFG EnergyRecoveryOffsetLandfilling

Virgin Mfg.Offset

RecycledContentMfg.Shipping

Processing

Collection

Recycling

with ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing

Garbage

Landfillingwith LFGEnergyRecovery

Pounds of Toluene Equivalents

Net Ecotoxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

RecyclingImpacts

Net RecyclingImpact

GarbageImpacts

Net GarbageImpact

Eco

log

ical

To

xici

ty P

ote

nti

al P

er T

on

Co

llect

ed

. Net

EcoToxi-city ImpactLFG EnergyRecovery

Landfilling

Virgin Mfg.Offset

RecycledContentMfg.Shipping

Processing

Collection

Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing

GarbageLandfillingwith LFGEnergyRecovery

Pounds of 2,4-D Equivalents

Net Energy Usage: SLO RLC vs. TLC

-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

RecyclingImpacts

Net RecyclingImpact

GarbageImpacts

Net GarbageImpact

Mill

ion

Btu

s P

er T

on

Co

llect

ed

.

Net EnergyImpact

EnergyRecoveryOffsetIncineration

Virgin Mfg.Offset

RecycledContentMfg.Shipping

Processing

Collection

Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing

GarbageIncinerationwith EnergyRecovery

Net Greenhouse Gas: SLO RLC vs. TLC

-7500.0

-5000.0

-2500.0

0.0

2500.0

RecyclingImpacts

Net RecyclingImpact

GarbageImpacts

Net GarbageImpact

Gre

en

ho

use G

as E

mis

sio

ns P

er

To

n C

ollecte

d .

Net Green-house GasImpactEnergyRecoveryOffsetIncineration

Virgin Mfg.Offset

RecycledContentMfg.Shipping

Processing

Collection

Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing

GarbageIncinerationwith EnergyRecovery

Pounds of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents

Net DALYs: SLO RLC vs. TLC

-400.0

-200.0

0.0

200.0

RecyclingImpacts

Net RecyclingImpact

GarbageImpacts

Net GarbageImpact

Mic

roD

AL

Y L

oss

es P

er T

on

Co

llect

ed

.

Net Micro-DALYs Lost

EnergyRecoveryOffsetIncineration

Virgin Mfg.Offset

RecycledContentMfg.Shipping

Processing

Collection

Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing

GarbageIncinerationwith EnergyRecovery

DALY=Disability Adjusted Life Year (losses from criteria air pollutants)

Net Human Toxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

-1500.0

-1000.0

-500.0

0.0

500.0

1000.0

RecyclingImpacts

Net RecyclingImpact

GarbageImpacts

Net GarbageImpact

Hu

man

To

xici

ty P

ote

nti

al P

er T

on

Co

llect

ed

.

Net HumanToxicityImpactEnergyRecoveryOffsetIncineration

Virgin Mfg.Offset

RecycledContentMfg.Shipping

Processing

Collection

Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing

GarbageIncinerationwith EnergyRecovery

Pounds of Toluene Equivalents

Net Ecotoxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

RecyclingImpacts

Net RecyclingImpact

GarbageImpacts

Net GarbageImpact

Eco

log

ical

To

xici

ty P

ote

nti

al P

er T

on

Co

llect

ed

. Net

EcoToxi-city ImpactEnergyRecoveryOffsetIncineration

Virgin Mfg.Offset

RecycledContentMfg.Shipping

Processing

Collection

Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing

GarbageIncinerationwith EnergyRecovery

Pounds of 2,4-D Equivalents

Why Now?

• We are experiencing the “perfect storm” of economic forces– Plastic recyclers are begging for materials

Most is now going to China, especially from the West Coast and even from the Midwest

– Rising Oil prices are making recycling products made from oil more important

• Plastic recycling is now a national and economic security issue

Why Now?

• Aluminum production uses a tremendous amount of energy– Recycling one can takes only 5% of the

energy that it would take to make the can from scratch

– 71% of the electricity produced in the US still comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

Fuel Sources for Electricity Generation

What’s Happening Now

• Beverage Producer Environmental Council– NRC and beverage producers have been

meeting since 2003 to come up with ways to reverse the declining recovery rate

– Announcement expected at national conference in early August

• Beverage Product Stewardship Team– 5 State governments working with the Product

Stewardship Institute to come up with creative solutions

What’s Happening Now

• Northwest Product Stewardship Council encouraging the formation of a task force in the State to address the issues brought forward in the report– Currently not much interest due to most of the

parties benefiting from the status quo• Litter Tax generates $6 million per year which

funds many environmental cleanup programs• Tax rate on the industry has not increased since

1971

What Can You Do?

• If your State has a container deposit, work with the environmental community to increase the deposit and expand the type of containers subject to the deposit.

• If your State does not have an existing container deposit system, work with the environmental community to adopt one.

• Assist your local product stewardship organization with economic studies and reports.

Contact Information

• Northwest Product Stewardship Council– www.productstewardship.net

• Product Stewardship Institute– www.productstewardship.us

• Dr. Jeffrey Morris– www.zerowaste.com