Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
,
A thesis to studv: The Impact of Recycling on Jobs
in North Carolina by Michael James Shore
A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in the Department of Environmental Science and Engineering School of Public Health
Chapel Hill, 1994
Approved by ( r Advisor p ,@e Whhngton
P
Reider Dr Alvis Turner
eader Dr John Villani "
... .. ...
.d
(.' , '
r
ABSTRACT
This study researches the impacts recycling has on employment in North
Carolina. Recycling's impacts on employment are assessed in two ways. First,
recycling-related jobs in various sectors are aggregated to give an estimate of total
recycling jobs in North Carolina. Second, a model is created to explore recycling-related
jobs within the context of the entire economy in which recycling occurs. Examining
recycling within the context of the entire North Carolina economy enables this study to
evaluate and compare both job creation and job loss due to recycling. Major findings of
the study are that: (1) recycling is a significant industry in North Carolina, supporting
over 8,700 jobs, or about .27% of the State's total employment; and (2) recycling is a net
job creator for North Carolina.
s
,-
I :: , ...: \ . . - , ,. :
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Impact of Recycling on Jobs in North Carolina
1 . Introduction ............................................ 1 1 . 1 Reasons for Study .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Outline of Study ................................................... 4
2 . Background ............................................ 9 Solid Waste and Recyclables Flow ................................. 9 2.1
2.2 Integrated Material Flow System ................................. 13 2.3 Bounding the Study .............................................. 16
3 . Recycling Jobs Model ................................. 19 3.1 Basic Functioning of Model ...................................... 19 3.2 Mathematical Representation ..................................... 20 3.3 Model Assumptions .............................................. 27
4 . Surveys and Other Data Sources ...................... 29 4.1 Data Sources for Model ........................................ 29 4.2 Business Survey ................................................ 30 4.3 Local Government Survey ....................................... 31 4.4 Recycling Compared to Other Industries ......................... 32 4.5 Recycling Wages ................................................ 37 4.6 Material Flows .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4.7 Other Studies .................................................... 40 4.8 Virgin Material Extraction Data ............................ I . . . . . . 42 4.9 Modified Material Flow Diagram .................................. 46
. .............................................. 5 Analysis 47 i 5.1 Model Results ................................................... 47
5.2 Material Flow Diagrams .......................................... 48 5.3 Model Predictions ................................................ 52 5.4 Sensitivity Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6 . Conclusions .......................................... 59 6.1 Impacts of Recycling on Employment ............................ 59 6.2 Jobs as a Benefit ................................................ 60 6.3 In closing ........................................................ 61
Appendices .............................................. 63 Appendix A: Business Survey and Results
A.1 Methodology .................................................... 64 A.2 Survey Implementation .......................................... 65 A.3 Business Survey Results ........................................ 72
Appendix B: Govemment Survey and Results .................... 82 B.l Methodology .................................................... 83
8.2 Local Government Survey Results ............................... Appendix C: Virgin Labor Coefficients and Displacement Rates .... 112
C.1 Displacement Rates ............................................ 112
C.2 Labor Coefficients in Virgin Fields .............................. 114 Appendix D: Previous Studies Relating Recycling and Jobs ...... 117 Appendix F: Material Flow Diagrams .......................... 132 Appendix G: North Carolina Waste Stieam ..................... 139 Appendix H: Job Creation ................................... 142
...................... 64
89
Bibliography ................................................ 145
Glossary ................................................... 146
I. Introduction
.. . , ~. .~ . . . . . ..>
1.1 Reasons for Study
One of the main objectives the North Carolina Solid Waste Management Act of
1989 was in "promoting the recycling of solid waste "' Since the passage of this
watershed legislation, residential recycling in North Carolina has increased 153%' from
fiscal year (FY) 90-91 to 92-93 while the number of local government recycling
programs has increased 37%' Figure 1-1 shows the trend of increased residential
recycling in North Carolina Also, during FY 90-91 to 92-93 North Carolina has reduced
its waste stream by 6 4%4
Residential Recycling Tonnages for North Carolina
I 616,000
FY 9091 FY 91-92 FY 92-93
Figure 1-1
' North Carolina's Act to Improve the Management of Solid Waste. Exact wording is as follows: "It is the purpose of the part to . . , promote the reduction. recycling, reuse. or treatment of solid waste . . . in lieu of disposal of the waste." North Carolina Solid Waste Management Annual Reports, FY 1990 - 199 1 and FY 1992 - 1993
bid. Complete data for waste disposal for North Carolina is not available before FY 91-92. ' bid. '
Y
Increased recycling offers a number of environmental benefits for North Carolina
Recycling reduces the amount of waste that requires disposal, thus decreasing ground
water pollution associated with landfills, air pollution associated with incinerators and
other adverse impacts caused by these undesirable land uses Also, recycling reduces
dependency on virgin resources, thus , decreasing environmental problems
associated with activities such as
logging or mining. Like most
environmental policies and programs,
increased recycling also has ancillary
economic impacts. The impact of
environmental policy on jobs has been
a hot political topic in the 199O's,
manifesting itself in issues such as the
loggers versus spotted owls debate in
the Northwest of the United States in
which the loggers contend that
environmental restrictions cost jobs.
Timothy Wirth, the Under Secretary
for Global Affairs underscores the
I Timeline of Events Critical to Recycling 1 I in North Carolina I
s Solid Waste Management ct established a waste
management hierarchy for managing solid waste which promotes reduction
perceived dichotomy between jobs and the environment in a speech which he said the
following: "Unhappily, for far too long, conkem about the environment has been
regarded as a peripheral, soft issue that can be treated as a luxury in the context of
prosperity. Far too many will nod their head, saying, Yes, I'm for the environment. . . us
long as it doesn't cost jobs. Id
In response to general charges that protecting the environment reduces jobs,
environmental groups have sponsored studies to show that protecting the environment, in
Wirth. Timothy E., U.S. Under Secretary for Global Affairs, in an address before the National Press club, Washington, DC, July 12. 1994. .
r
3
fact, creates jobs6. If environmental protection efforts create jobs, environmentalists can
bypass the jobs versus environment debate as an obstacle in pursuing their agenda and
may garner political support for environmental protection efforts. In this same vein, a
number of state and municipal governments and non-profit groups have produced reports
that support the supposition that increased recycling creates jobs for a region. Steven
Brown, Director for the Centers of Health and Environment at the Council of State
Governments advocated the job creation tendencies of recycling when he wrote:
“Perhaps the most notable growth in environmental employment comes with the
recycling industries. Although recycling carriers its share of environmental benefits,
many direct economic benefits also are realized through employment in research and
development, collection, processing, manufacturing, construction and exporting.”’ On
the other hand, it may argued that job creation burdens businesses and should not be a
goal of govemment policy. Regardless of the whether job creation is viewed as a benefit
or a burden, it is important to keep the recyclingandjobs issue in perspective. The goal
of recycling policy is to reduce waste and improve environmental quality, not to create
jobs.* Nonetheless, it is still valuable for a government to understand the economic
impacts of its policies.
The North Carolina Office of Waste Reduction, a Division of the Department of
the Environment and Natural Resources, is responsible for promoting recycling in the
State. The Office of Waste Reduction sponsored this study in order to obtain reliable
information on the impacts of recycling on jobs in North Carolina.
Bezdek. Roger H., Environment and Economy, Environment Magazine, Volume 35, Number 7, September. 1993. This article cites numerous studies that show environmental protection creates jobs. Brown. R. Steven, Environmental Development: Merging Environmental Protection and Economic Development Priorities in fhe 199O’s, The Book of the States, the Council of State Governments, 1993. This North Carolina study is a quantitative assessment and does not consider the pros and cons of job creation in detail in the main body of the report. However, this important issue should not be ignored when considering a policy’s impacts on jobs. Therefore. a short discussion of the relative importance ofjob creation is presented in Appendix H.
’
*
r 4
1.2 Outline of Study
This study attempts to assess the impact recycling has in two ways First,
recycling-related jobs in many different sectors are aggregated to give an estimate of
total recycling jobs in North Carolina. Second, a model is created to explore
recycling-related jobs within the context of the entire system in which recycling occurs.
This study differs significantly from any others to date9 in that this research approaches
recycling’s impact on jobs as part of an integrated system in which management of
recyclables, solid waste, and virgin materials are all linked in the economy. Examining
recycling within the context of an integrated system enables this study to evaluate both
job creation and job loss due to recycling. Major findings of the study are that:
recycling is a significant industry in North Carolina, supporting over 8,700 jobs, or about .27% of the State’s total employment
recycling does not have a net negative impact on jobs in North Carolina and probably results in a net job gain in the State
Information and results of this study are presented in five chapters following the
introduction, each of which is introduced below.
1.2.1 Chapter 2: Background
This chapter describes the context in which recycling and jobs are evaluated
including basic information about solid waste’and recycling in North Carolina; material
flows in an economy; and the role of labor in the various sectors along the material flow.
The path through which material resources flow in an economy can be classified
into two categories: (1) unidirectional and (2) recycled. Unidirectional material flow
involves the extraction of virgin materials from the environment which are then used in
an industrial process, and finally used by a consumer. During or after any point in this
process, materials may become waste and be reentered into the environment, generally
’ Discussion of other studies on this topic is presented in Appendix D.
with undesirable environmental consequences. A general representation of the
unidirectional flow is presented in Figure 1-2.
Material Flow in an Economy (with no recycling)
Figure I-2
On the other hand, recycling attempts to limit the inputs directly from the
environment as well as reduce reliance on the environment to absorb the residuals of
industrial and consumer use. Hence, the material flow diagram that includes recycling is
shown in Figure 1-3.
/ \ Kecycllng \
Material Flow in an Economy (with recycling)
Figure I-3
Y
6
Recycling generally provides a more efficient use of natural resources, reduces
the costs of raw materials, and/or reduces costs associated with disposal or treatment As
is illustrated in Figure 1-3, recycling creates a distinct material path flow from the
unidirectional material flow system This distinct recycling path requires a different
infrastructure, including a different set of jobs. As the material flow along the recycling
path increases, employment related to the material flow may be effected in three ways
jobs are created along the recycling material flow infrastructure
jobs are lost in the unidirectional material flow infrastructure especially in the resource extraction and waste disposal ends
+ jobs in the industrial use stage are transformed to handle recycled raw materials in lieu of virgin resources
In this study, the paths that connect one sector to another are referred to as links, and
sectors along the material flow system for which jobs change due to recycling are called
criticdsectors. Any impacts of recycling on a critical sector is dependent on the specific
material stream. For example, recycling of glass may effect jobs differently than
recycling of paper.
(.’
1.2.2 Chapter 3: The Recycling Jobs Model
A spreadsheet model developed for this study and known as the Recycling Jobs
Model calculates recycling related jobs given worker-to-output ratios and quantities of
materials in a waste stream. This chapter describes the Recycling Jobs Model in detail in
terms of both mathematical equations and qualitative description.
.A
The Recycling Jobs Model correlates the number of workers necessary to perform
various functions to tons of materials managed in order to estimate jobs impacted by
quantitative changes in flows. The model mirrors materials flows in the North Carolina
economy so that the major sectors and links in the economy are represented. Thus, the
model not only reflects the recycling sector, but also incorporates changes in material c.- 3
:.. . ,1, , . .: ..r .,. ,
flows in the solid waste and virgin extraction fields due to recycling. By using this
systems approach, the Recycling Jobs Model estimates both job gain and loss associated
with recycling. The model uses a series of linear equations to calculate jobs for various
solid waste, recycling, and virgin extraction functions. In these equations, material flow
quantities for each sector are multiplied by worker-to-output ratios in order to estimate
workers required to manage materials in each sector of the economy. The
worker-to-output ratios are known as labor coeflcients for purposes of this study.
1.2.3 Chapter 4: Surveys and Other Data Sources
The main source of data for the Recycling Jobs Model comes from two mail
surveys, one sent to recycling businesses in the state and the other sent to local
government recycling programs. This chapter presents information synthesized from
these surveys as well as data from other sources and assumptions made in this study. The
surveys were designed to obtain the labor coefficients (worker-to-output ratios) for solid
waste and recycling functions as well as tabulate number of recycling jobs in North
Carolina. The labor coefficients are used in the Recycling Jobs Model. Additionally, the
survey responses provide data on material flows for specific recyclable materials as well
as indications of the quality of recycling and solid waste jobs in terms of wages. For
businesses that did not complete the survey, job and wage data could garnered from
North Carolina Employment Security Commission data which is useful in totaling the
number of recycling jobs in North Carolina. However, this source does not provide data
on quantities of material recycled, so the Employment Security Commission data is not
useful in developing labor coefficients for the Recycling Jobs Model.
The response rate for the government survey was 78% while the response rate for
the business survey was 62% with data available on an additional 20% of the business
through North Carolina Employment Security Commission data.
Y
8
1.2.4 Chapter 5: Analysis
This chapter presents results from running the Recycling Jobs Model.
1.2.5 Chapter 6: Conclusions
Final conclusions about recycling's impacts on jobs are drawn, and these
conclusions are put in context for North Carolina.
1.2.6 Appendices and Key Terms
The appendices present raw results from the surveys and other data sources; show
calculations used to arrive at values that are used in the Recycling Jobs Model; and
provide detailed discussion of issues requiring hrther elaboration. As there are many
terms that may be either ambiguous in meaning or unfamiliar outside of the recycling
industry, a glossary of terms is included after the appendices
r 9
2. Background
2.1 Solid Waste and Recyclables Flow"
Managing waste is a common thread across the United States across all household
and all businesses. Households and businesses have limited options in managing their
waste streams and, in the United States most waste generated goes to landfills. In order
to promote waste reduction, the state of North Carolina has created a hierarchy of
priorities for managing waste materials (see figure 2-1) in which landfilling is designated
the least desirable option. This emphasis of reduction, reuse, and recycling over disposal
is permeating waste management practices of households and businesses across North
Carolina.
I,
1. Waste Reduction at the Source 2. Recycling and Reuse 3. Composting 4. Incineration with Energy Production 5. Incineration for Volume Reduction 6. Disposal in Landfills
1
North Carolina Waste Management Hierarchy
Figure 2-1"
lo For the purposes of this study, solid waste is defined as material that is destined for disposal in incinerator and landfills, and recyclables are defmed as waste materials that are used to make a useful product. The "waste stream" includes both solid waste and recyclables. This study does not address liquid or hazardous wastes. North Carolina. House Bill 1109,1991. ' I
r
10
i The waste stream can be divided into three sectors industrial, commercial, and
residential (see Figure 2-2 for a percentage breakdown in waste generated by sector in
North Carolina.) Industrial and commercial waste comprise the business sector of North
Carolina and together account for the vast majority of waste generated in State
North Carolina Waste Generation by Source Sector
u induskal 34%
Figure 2-2"
A diagram of general residual flows which includes waste generation from both
business and residential sectors is presented on the following page (Figure 2-3.)
North Carolina Solid Waste Management Plan. 1992
Y
End-users 7 Recycling Processing Business
Sector
Residential Recycling Sector Collection
I I
Incineration Landfill
Waste Stream Material Flow
Figure 2.3
r
12
-~ : Each stage of managing solid waste and recyclables presented in Figure 2-3 are discussed
below: .
.
0 .
0
.
Residential and Business Sectors: These are the points of generation for solid waste and recyclables. Each business and household is responsible for organizing its waste so that it can be collected. Generally, recyclables are separated from the solid waste. For households this responsibility generally involves either setting material at the curbside on a given day or bringing material to a central drop-off point. Small businesses may be treated similarly. Businesses that generate greater quantities of waste generally have dumpsters, compactors, or other containers on site.
Solid Waste Collection: Collection is the act of transporting solid waste to its disposal destination. For households, generally the local government and/or private haulers are responsible for collection. Although, in some instances individuals may haul their own waste or recyclables directly to a disposal or recycling processing facility. Business collect their solid waste material via private contractors, local govemments, or in-house programs.
Landfillinq: Landfills provide the burial place for solid waste.
Incineration: This disposal process involves the combustion of solid waste in order ,.,: .,"; , >". I , :..:, 1 ... ,,.:: ..
to generate energy and/or reduce the volume of waste that requires landfilling. The three North Carolina incinerators average about thirty-one tons of ash generated for every one hundred tons of material bumed.I3 This residual ash requires landfilling.
Recvclins Collection: The function of recycling collectors is very similar to that of solid waste collectors except the destination is different. In additional to hauling, recycling collectors may also be responsible for separating the waste into material categories. The Ofice of Waste Reduckon defines a collector (a.k.a. handler) as a. company that collects and/or recovers recyclable material directly from individuals or companie~.'~
Recvclins Processing: Processing involves transforming materials so that they can be more easily utilized or transported. In other words, processors add balue to material by making it more marketable. Processing workers may sort material, remove contamination, and bale or compact material. processed, but not all. Once material is processed, it is generally sent to an
Most recyclables are
l 3 North Carolina Solid Waste Management Annual Report. 1992 I' North Carolina Office of Waste Reduction. Directorv of Markets for Recyclable Materials. 1994. L
Y
13
end-user or a secondary processor. The Office of Waste Reduction defines processing as enabling "recyclable material to meet the specifications required by end-users. ""
End-user: According to the Office of Waste Reduction an end-user is: "a company that incorporates recycled materials into products it uses and/or manufactures." End-users are generally industries.
Each sector along the flow has a proportionate number of laborers associated with its
activity with the exceptions of the household sector and instances when volunteers
perform a function. It is of key importance to understand that recycling and disposal are
mutually exclusive, i.e. one cannot both dispose of something and recycle it. Thus, for
any given level of waste generation, the recycling and solid waste disposal activities are
competing with each other in terms of jobs. If the percentage of the waste stream that is
recycled increases, solid waste jobs will decrease by a proportional amount, and vice
versa.
2.2 Zntegrated Material Flow System
By only examining disposal and recycling, one does not view a complete picture
of material flows in an economy. When examining a unidirectional system, the quantity
of waste disposed has no impact on preceding stages in a material flow. However, when
recycling is added to the system and flows are accurately portrayed all stages are linked
so that changes in the proportion of materials that are disposed compared to those
recycled may affect all other sectors in the system, including the virgin material
extraction sectors. This concept can be used to update the previous material flow
diagram to present a truer representation of material flows in an economy. In Figure 2-4,
the virgin material sector has been added; the business sector has been more precisely
divided into industrial and commercial sectors; and sectors are linked according to
material flows
Virgin Material Extraction
A Industrial
I I
'A
Solid Waste Collection
.A
T. Commercial A
3 Recycling Residential ....
,....' Collection
7
T..
7
Incineration
Basic Material Flow System Figure 2 - 4
3 A . Landfill
..~. . ~. . ~ . ~. , . ......
>
Y
15
In the Figure 2-4, an integrated system has been diagrammed by adding and linking the
following sectors:
Industries: In this study, industries are broadly defined as manufacturers that convert raw materials into a usable product. Industries that use recyclables are the driving force in the recycling loop because they create the market demand that makes recycling possible. Industries or other facilities that use recycled materials are known mend-users (described in the previous set of definitions on page IO.) Most industrial outflow is designed to be sold to commercial entities but some may skip straight to households and residuals may be collected for disposal, recycling , or on-site recycling.
Commercial: Commercial entities take manufactured products from industries and convert the products or present the products so that they can be sold to consumers which may be other businesses or households. Commercial entities include wholesale and retail stores and restaurants.
Virgin Material Extraction: This sector supplies virgin raw materials to economy. Virgin material workers may harvest trees for paper making, mine sand for the
glass industry, mine ores for metal indushy, or perform other resource extraction functions. Virgin sectors may be effected by the recycling sector as these two raw material providers may compete for markets. For example, if a paper mill purchases recycled paper, their need for virgin wood may decrease. The proportion of virgin material displaced by a quantity of recycled material is known as the displacement rate for this study.
There is not necessarily a distinct delineation between each of the above sectors; a
business may be at the same time both an industrial and commercial enterprise, a
collector of recyclables may also process the materials as well. Also, as shown in Figure
2-4, material flows do not occur only in a defined political boundary, such as a state.
Rather, material flows in different states and different regions are interrelated.
.A
For this study, data was collected on the tons, labor coefficients and numbers of
workers at each of the critical sectors shown in Figure 2-4. While numerous studies have
documented the jobs created in the recycling sector, none have examined recycling in
Y
16
context of an entire state economy.'6 Through compiling and analyzing the system of /
material flows, this study presents a more accurate portrayal of recycling's impacts on
jobs.
2.3 Bounding the Study
In order to make this study more manageable and its conclusions more focused,
this study has been bounded in three ways:
North Carolina Material Flows: As the goal of this research is to determine recycling's impacts on jobs in North Carolina. materials flows and jobs are only considered if they occur within the state borders. Solid waste and recyclables that leave the state are considered outside the bounds of this study.
Residential Waste: This study concentrates on the segment of the material stream passing through the residential sector (especially in the development of the Recycling Jobs Model.) As solid waste management reporting requirements have thus far concentrated on the residential waste stream managed by local governments, the level of available data is significantly more for residential than the business sectors. Figure 2-5, shows a breakdown of the North Carolina residential waste stream flow.
Suecific Material Streams: Eight materials comprise over 95%" of the materials recycled by North Carolina's residential sector. These materials are: glass bottles, plastic bottles, aluminum cans, steel food cans, other scrap metal, paper, and yard waste. All other material shall be known as less common& recyckd materials. A breakdown of North Carolina's residential waste stream is presented in Figure 2-6.
*;*. . *.;>p
.,.. +:.;;I
-i
I' Government and other institutions which have previously studied recycling and jobs include: Bioqcle Magazine, Texas, Massachusetts, Caliomia, Boston, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Philadelphia. Clean Washington Center, Minnesota, Maine, New York, American Plastic Council Study. and the Northeast Recycling Council. Each of these studies is reviewed in Appendix D. North Carolina Solid Waste Management Annual Report, 1993. ~ I'
17
Commercial Residential Industrial 35% 32% 33%
. ,.. ,::;
. c y .. . . . .,
in North Carolina
Collection for Recycling
15%
curbside
Processed & .A
Recycled
Collection for D i s p o s a 1
85%
I - 7 curbside [e] Incineration
Landfill 98%
Residential Material Flow Including Portions of Waste Siream per Destination
Figure 2-5
Y
18
North Carolina’s Residential Waste Stream
Aluninum
& SteelFwdCans
Figure 2-6
- !
Y
19
3. Recycling Jobs Model
. .. :.: .~) . . . ;
.-
3.1 Basic Functioning of Model
As discussed in the introduction, this study goes beyond any other recycling aod
jobs study to date as it creates a model to estimate job levels and it incorporates a systems
approach to evaluate job loss and job gain due to recycling. The Recycling Jobs Model
accounts for each of the critical sectors (sectors for which employment is impacted by
recycling) of the economy to evaluate how jobs are impacted by changes in direction or
quantity of material flows. The Recycling Jobs Model incorporates four types of data to
calculate recycling related jobs in North Carolina:
estimated tonnages of material in North Carolina's waste stream
percentages of recyclables and waste which pass through different material flow paths including curbside collection, drop-off collection, processing of recyclables, landfilling, and incineration
labor coefficients (worker-to-output ratios) for solid waste, recycling, and virgin extraction job functions
virgin extraction displacement rates by recyclables
.A
A mathematical representation of the model is described below, but the basic
concepts are given here: material flow data is used to calculate the quantities of materials
passing through critical sectors in the economic system. These quantities are multiplied
by labor coefficients yielding workers required at each critical sector for each type of
material. For recyclables, the workers are calculated in terms ofjobs gained while for
solid waste and virgin extraction workers are calculated in terms of jobs that would have
been needed had recycling not decreased material flows to these sectors (i.e. jobs lost.)
These calculations are performed for the following types of materials in the residential
Y
20
waste stream: aluminum, steel food cans, scrap metal (including appliances), paper
(including office paper, newspaper, and magazines), corrugated cardboard”, glass
bottles, plastic bottles, and yard waste.
As paper products and glass are derived from natural resources which are
extracted in North Carolina, the model calculates changes in employment in these
industries due to changes in recycling rates Quantities of material recycled are corrected
for (1) industrial displacement rates for the virgin material by the recycled material and
(2) percent of virgin material which comes directly from virgin sources Similar to the
recycling and solid waste calculations, these quantities are multiplied by labor
coefficients to calculate job loss in each virgin sector
causes no net impact in jobs are not included in the model (see Section 3.3 Model
Aksumptions )
Sectors for which recycling
The Recycling Jobs Model has one variable, recycling rates (all other numbers in ..
I the model are fixed though they may be changed to perform sensitivity analysis.)
Estimates of future (or past) recycling rates may be inputted into the model in order to
assess impacts of changes of recycling rates on employment in North Carolina.
3.2 Mathematical Representation
The Recycling Jobs Model contains a series of linear equations in a computer
spreadsheet program. Mathematical represenption of the model is presented below.
Cormgated Cardboard jobs are calculated separately from other paper because its processing requirements are significantly different from the other paper types In the case of paper production, not all virgin pulpwood comes directly from forests 62.2% of virgin fiber comes directly from timber harvesting. while the balance of wood fiber is provided from wood and forest waste such as saw mills (Paper Recycling: A Primer, American Paper Institute,
l9
Washington, 1990.) .. ~
Y
21
3.2.1 Definitions
Variables, coefficients, superscripts, and subscripts are defined as follows for the
North Carolina waste stream:
Variables R = recycling rates (Le. percent of a
material that is recycled) Q = quantity in waste stream F = percent of stream handled by given
solid waste and recycling function (such as curbside collection)
by recycled resource at industry level
directly from virgin resources (Le. not wood industry scrap)
D = displacement rate of virgin resource
E = percent of pulpwood that comes
W = workers
Labor Coefficients K = worker:output for solid waste,
recycling and virgin extraction functions
SuDerscriDts - material twes a = aluminum cans s = steel food cans
m = scrap metal P = paper o = cardboard g = glass 1 = plastic
y = yard waste T = total (all material aggregated)
Subscripts - function twes a = curbside collection for recycling b = drop-off collection for recycling c = curbside for solid waste d = drop-off collection for solid waste 1 = Landfill i = Incineration p = Processing r = Processing twice
T = total (all functions aggregated) S = Solid Waste R = Recycling V = Virgin Extraction
3.2.2 Examples
For exampre,
R" = recycling rate for aluminum cans in North Carolina
Q' = the total tons of plastic in North Carolina's waste stream, including recycled
I? = of all glass recycled, the percent of glass collected through recycling curbside programs in North Carolina
r
22
W i = the number of workers required to perform recycling drop-off collection of aluminum cans in North Carolina
FVi = the number of workers required to recycle all materials in North Carolina
K,” = worker:output for landfilling solid waste
3.2.3 Mass Balance
The above definitions are assigned such that the following mass balances equations hold
true.
1. The percent of total solid waste plus total recycled equals one:
F;+F,’=I . .
2. The percent of total solid waste collected plus total recyclables collected equals one:
F:+F;= I
3. The percent of landfilled solid waste plus incinerated solid waste equals one:
F;+F,T= I
4. The percent of total solid waste collected via curbside and recycling equals one:
F:+F:= I
5. The percent of recyclables processed once plus the percent of recyclables processed
twice equals one less the percent of recyclables not processed at all.
F,’ + E= 1 - no processing
Y
23
6 . As thirty-one percent of waste burned in North Carolina's incinerators still must be
buried as ash, material sent directly to landfills plus ash generated by incinerators
equals total tons of waste landfilled:
Qr + 3 l%Qr = total tons landfilled
Note that all of the above equations hold true for each material in the waste stream as
well as for totals.
7. The quantity of each of the recyclable materials in the waste stream plus the less
commonly recycled materials equals total quantity of discarded material in North
Carolina:
Qq + 0" I i Q" i 0 p I i @ + Q g + 0' I i Q-"+ less commonly recycled materials = total waste
3.2.4 Calculations of Jobs
The Recycling Jobs Model calculates the quantitative impact recycling has on jobs
through the sets of calculations listed below. .For all cases, jobs are calculated by
multiplying labor coefficients Cjobs/tons/year) times quantities of material handled
(tons/year.) Job creation is represented as a positive number and job loss is represented
as a negative number.
?-
24
1. Solid Waste Jobs Lost Due to Recycling
solid waste workers that would have been required to manage recycled aluminum cans are calculated as follows (Le solid waste jobs lost)
- solid waste workers are similarly calculated for each of the other recycled materials.
jobs lost for each material are aggregated to obtain total solid waste jobs lost:
2. Recycling Jobs Gained Due to Recycling
- recycling workers required to manage recycled aluminum cans are calculated as follows (i.e. recycling jobs gained):
recycling workers are similarly calculated for each of the other recycled materials.
~ +.. i ..
. recycling workers for each material are a&egated to obtain total recycling jobs gained:
w,: = + ws, + + W'R + wc, + w; + w; + w;
i i I'
, ~. . .. ' . '"
3. Virgin Extraction Jobs Lost Due to Recycling
(jobs only lost in paper, corrugated cardboard, and glass sectors)
- virgin extraction workers that would have been required to harvest trees displaced by recycled fiber are calculated as follows (Le. virgin extraction jobs lost):
virgin extraction workers no longer needed are similarly calculated for corrugated cardboard.
virgin extraction workers that would have been required to mine the sand displaced by cullet (recycled glass) are calculated as follows:
~ " y = ~g x Q~(K;D~)
. workers no longer required to extract virgin resources for each material are aggregated to obtain total virgin jobs lost:
W', = w""+ W"+ w",
4. Net Jobs
.A - Net Jobs are calculated by subtracting job loss from job gain:
W; = w; - w; - w',
The above sets of equations are represented in Figure 3-1.
r
x Fc
Recycling Rate (R) for each material
m 0 x F d x Fl x F, c
I x Q for each material I
x K' F3
x K* x Kl x K , $
.,.. i
\ J L I I I I
Y
27
3.3 Model Assumptions
Besides bounding this study by specific material in North Carolina’s residential
waste stream, the most important assumption made in creating the Recycling Jobs Model
is that Employment at the industry level does not significantly fluctuate with changes in
the recycling rate.” This is assumed because after virgin materials and recyclable
materials have been processed they are essentially equal in terms of labor needed from
the manufacturers point of view Whether a glass facility receives sand or cullet (crushed
glass ready to be recycled), each material must be similarly stored, transported, measured
and mixed. Whether an aluminum can sheet mill receives metal ingots derived from
virgin or recycling sources makes little difference in terms of labor. At a paper mill,
pulp produced from virgin sources is treated very similarly to recycled pulp.” Of
course, this assumption is not entirely true. For example, in remanufacturing recycled
paper, recycled fibers must generally be deinked, a step that is not required in handling
virgin wood. Similarly, virgin fiber must be chipped and treated, steps not necessary for
recycled fiber. Various recycled and virgin processes that occur at the manufacturing
level may or may not offset each other in terms of jobs. Recycling’s exact effects at the
manufacturing level would require a detailed study of each industry involved and is
beyond the scope of this research.
Similar to the above assumption, it is assumed that changes in material flow due
to recycling do not affect the commercial sector. Also, the model does not take into
account economy of scales nor the marginal Igbor needs, as solid waste, recycling, and
virgin material flows change. The model does not incorporate changes in population in
North Carolina. Also, the model ignores many job sectors only marginally associated
with recycling, solid waste and virgin extraction. These include employment for the
following: landfill and recycling facility construction; recycling, solid waste, and virgin
*’ This assumption simplifies the model as it avoids the need to calculate specific impacts recyclmg bas on jobs in the end-user sector. However, as the Recycling Jobs Model does not incorporate end-users into its calculations, it does not solve for total recycling jobs, only net job creation According to four North Carolina paper mill representatives interviewed, employment was essentially unaffected by displacing virgin feedstock with recycled fiber.
Y
28
extraction equipment manufacturing, sales of equipment, consulting for recycling and
solid waste, hauling of virgin or processed materials, and research and development The
model does not take into account jobs loss due to energy savings associated with
recycling
I
Finally, the model ignores minor and trace constituents of glass and paper
22 For example, manufacturing a l u " cans or glass bottles from virgin resources is much more energy intensive than manufacturing these products from recycled feedstock.
Y
29
Data types
4. Surveys and Other Data Sources
Description
4.1 Data Sources for Model
As stated in the previous chapter, recycling rates are variable in the Recycling
Jobs Model. The four types of fixed data used in the model and their sources are
presented in Table 4-1
Jabor 2oefficients
worker-to-output ratios for solid waste, recycling, and virgin functions
&antities quantity of material by
waste and recycling function
)isplacement lates
virgin extraction displacement data and worker-to-tonnage ratio$
Sources Office of Waste Reduction
+ North Carolina Solid Waste
Government Recycling
Data
Annual Reports
Survey Government Recycling
Recycling Business Survey + Other Recycling Jobs Studies
Manufacturers and Mining
+ North Carolina Division of
+ US Forest Service, Southeast
Survey
Census
Forest Resources
Research Station + Industrial Representative
Interviews
Data Types Used in the Recycling Jobs Model and Their Sources
Table 4-1
r
30
Material quantities and muterialflow byfirnction data is mostly provided by
North Carolina Solid Waste Management Annual Reports or other Office of Waste
Reduction data and such data has been presented and discussed in the various tables and
figures in Chapter 2. The remaining crucial data required for the model calculations are
the labor coefficients for the various solid waste, recycling, and virgin sectors. In order
to obtain labor coefficients, surveys were developed and sent to all recycling businesses
and local governments in North Carolina. This chapter presents the basic findings of the
business and local government surveys along with discussion of other data used in the
Recycling Jobs Model.
4.2 Business Survey
The business survey was designed to obtain: (1) an estimate of the number of
recycling jobs in businesses in North Carolina, (2) jobs added since the promulgation of
North Carolina‘s Solid Waste Management Act of 1989; (3) data on recycling wages, and - 1 .. (4) labor coefficients for collection and processing of recyclables. A copy of the
Recycling Business Survey and its results are included in Appendix A.
The business surveys were sent in June of 1994 to all known recycling collectors,
processors, and end-users as well as brokersz3 and some in-house recyclers.z4 The
response rate is presented in Table 4-2.’’ .A
*’ Brokers are individuals or f m s that locate markets for recyclable materials and perform associated business transactions. In-house recyclers are businesses that recycle a portion of their waste stream. This is actually an extremely vast category. In-house recycles were not the target audience of this swey, but some were in the databases that were used to create the mailing list for this survey. A more detailed description of the response rate is presented in Appendix A. L
I Quantity I % of Total 1 Cumulative Response I
Surveys Returned by Mail
(adjusted) Rate
145 29% 29% mail response rate I
Survey Responses by 166 Phone Data Gathered from Employment Security Commission Database No Response and No Data Available
33% 62% total response rate
19% 81% total data availability rate
19%
ITotal Survey I 504 I 100% I Population
Response Rate for Recycling Business Survey
Table 4-2
4.3 Local Government Survey
Relative to the wide range of industries and business involved in recycling, local
government programs are fairly homogenous, resulting in a simpler survey design. The
local government survey was designed to obtain: (1) an estimate of the number of
recycling jobs at the local government level inporth Carolina; (2) workers required for
recycling and solid waste functions (which would then be merged with Solid Waste
Management Repor?6 tonnage data to calculate labor coefficients); and (3) estimates of
material flows paths for the various residential recycled materials. This survey is
included in Appendix B.
26 Local govemments are required to complete the N o h Carolina Solid Waste Management Annual Reports. In this questionnaire, local govemments report types and quantities of materials recycled and disposed. Thus, for local governments, tonnage data is available through these annual reports. The surveys for this study, therefore, only needed to obtain numbers of workers in order to calculate labor coefficients.
Y
32
_r - Of the 617 local govemments in North Carolina, the govemment survey was sent I
to the 360 local govemments which operate recycling programs.” 279 of the local
govemments returned the survey, constituting a 78% response rate.
4.4 Recycling Compared to Other Industries
The survey data indicate that recycling supports 7,597 employees in the private
sector and 1,100 employees in the public sector. This totals 8,707 employees in all or
about .27% of total employment in North Carolina.28 (Note that this number does not
include all recycling related jobs in North Car~lina.’~) Government employees account
for 13% of all recycling workers in the state while the remainder of the employees are
supported by the private sector (see Figure 4-1 .)
.A ” The number of North Carolina local governments with recycling programs is determined from the Solid Waste Annual Report, 1993. Total employment is based on figures in the Employment Security Commission’s Emulovment and Wages in North Carolina. 1992.
Due to the content of the existing databases used to generate the survey population, the target group for the business survey, and an effort to streamhe the sample to include only companies directly involved in managing typical recyclables, the surveys do not document or only partially document recycling related employment in the following sectors: auto wrecking and salvage (126 jobs according to Employment Security Commission data), private contractors who extract and recycle freon from appliances, consultants, non-profit recycling education organizations (approximately 24 jobs according to data compiled in the Guide to North Carolina‘Environmental Groups, 1994-1995, published by the Environmental Resource Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), recycling equipment manufacturers and sales personal. Also, all end-users of recycled materials have yet to be documented by the Office of Waste Reduction. Considering these omissions, the surveys likely underestimate the number of recycling related employees in the state.
29
c..
s
33
Recycling Employment by Sector
Public Sector 1 3%
Private Sector 87%
Figure 4-1
The total number of recycling employees identified by this research is useful
because as recycling spans many industries and SIC'S, these numbers have not been
previously aggregated for North Carolina. Comparing recycling employment in the state
to other industries shows recycling to be a significant employer in North Carolina (Figure -1
4-2.)
s
34
Employment in Selected lndutries North Carolina
FJrnmre8 Fxtures 1 Tobacco R O d u C t s
Agriculture Oops i
i
I i
Recycling ~
Livestock
0 10000 20000 30000 40000
#of Jobs
Figure 4-Z3'
By far the largest two digit SIC sector in North Carolina is the textile industry
with over 200,000 employees, and it is not included in Figure 4-2 as it would dwarf the
other categories. From this graph, it can be seen that recycling is a significant" industry
in terms of the number of jobs it supports for North Carolina; it ranks behind such major
as tobacco, furniture, and paper, but in the same range as of agriculture crops and
livestock. .A
Another indicator of employment in recycling is its growth rate. According to the
surveys 26% of business recycling jobs and 24% of local government recycling jobs were
lo Besides rec,vcling, the data for this graph is found in the North Carolina Emolovment and Wages, 1992, an annual report published by the North Carolina Employment Secmity Commission. Besides recycling. each of the categories presented in Figure 4-2 represent employment in a two digit standard industrial code (SIC.) Naturally. this statement is dependent upon a d e f ~ t i o n of "signifcant." In this case, significant simply means that the number of recycling jobs in North Carolina is similar to sizable industries in the state such as agriculture crops and livestock. L
35
created since 1989, the year North Carolina passed its Solid Waste Management Act.
Similarly, SIC 5093, titled Scrap and Waste Materials, which mostly includes recycling
companies may also be used to indicated growth in recycling jobs3' Growth in SIC
5093 over the same time period was 30%. Meanwhile growth in employment in
non-recycling fields was much more moderate. In the private sector, job growth was 4%
over the five-year period and local govemment employment grew at a rate of 10%.
Figure 4-3 shows the trends of employment in the business sector from the various
sources and compares them to increases in employment across all private sector SIC'S for
the same period while Figure 4-4 compares the trend of recycling jobs in local
govemment to all North Carolina local government jobs.
30%
Percent Increases in Private Sector Jobs in North Carolina
-SIC 5093 + Rwate Sector (all)
1*9 1990 199 1 1992 1993 -5% .*
Year
Figure 4-3''
'' The Census of Wholesale Trades defies this SIC as: "Establishments primarily engaged in assembling, breaking up, sorting, and whole sale distribution of waste and scrap material." This SIC is not entirely reflective of the recycling industry. Although the large majority of companies listed in SIC 5093 are recycling businesses, some waste processing are included as well. Waste haulers are not included in this SIC; they are included in SIC 4212. Recvcling business employment rates in the graph are derived from data in obtained thmugh the recycling business survey. Employment rates for SIC 5093 and the private sector are obtained from the Employment Security Commission's Emolovment and Wages, years 1989 through 1992.
"
The
s
36
Percent Increases in Local Govemment Jobs in North Carolina
70%
60%
8 50% g 40% Recycling
al 20%
n 10% 0%
Ql Local Governmnt
C - - C 3 0 % _ - Local Governmnt (all)
i
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Year
Figure 4-434
Although the above two graphs indicate significant growth in the recycling sector,
this graph only relates one portion of recycling impacts on jobs as it does not reflect
other sectors in the economy to which recycling is linked. Results from the Recycling
Jobs Model presented in the following chapter should more accurately assess recycling's
overall impact on jobs. .A
~
reqvcltng business data points for the years 1990 through 1992 are estimated by equal6 distributing known increases from 1989 to 1993. Also, the private sector data point for 1993 is obtained by assuming jobs increased in the same proportion as in the previous year. The data points for localgovernment recycling jobs was obtained through the local govemment surveys while the all localgovemment jobs were obtained by the Employment Security Commission's annual reporis, EmDlOvment and Waees in North Carolina. years 1989 through 1992 The localgovernment recycling data points for the years 1990 through 1992 are estimated by equally distributing known increases from 1989 to 1993. Also, the local government (all) data point for 1993 is obtained by assuming jobs increased by the same proportion as in the previous year.
34
\ _
Y
3 1
4.5 Recycling Wages
As well as quantifying the number of jobs created through recycling, it is
important to assess the quality of the jobs created. This study uses wages as a surrogate
for job quality. An indicator of the wage quality is a comparison of recycling wages to
average wages in North Carolina as well as to wages for the particular industries
adversely affected by recycling. These wage comparisons are presented in Figure 4-5.
Wagesfor Recycling and Other Sectors in North Carolina
Sand Mning
Logging
Recycling Businesses
LD Local Governmnt e 0 Recycling
m Landfillhg (local'governmnt)
MinhmWage
North Carolina Average (all SIC)
$0.00 $2.00 s4.m 56.w $8.00 a1o.w $12.00 $I
wage per hour
0
Figure 4-535
.A
As can be seen from Figure 4-5, recycling wages are below average wages in
North Carolina36. However, landfill and forestry wages, two sectors whose employment
'' Wages for logging and North Carolina's Average come from the Employment Security Commission Report, North Carolina Emlovment and Wages, 1992. The information was not available for the sub-category of sand mining so the average wage for this sector comes from national data found in the U.S. Bureau's Census of Mining, 1987. So the mining wage estimate may be biased high because it represents national averages which are probably higher than averages for North Carolina and, at the same time, this wage is biased low due to inflation between 1987 and 1992. Other data for this graph are derived f" the recycling and business surveys developed for this study. The recycling business and local govemment wages are likely biased low compared to wages gathered from Employment Secnrity Commission data as this data incorporates overtime earnings into the average hourly wage.
36
38
may be adversely affected by recycling, are also below the state average The average r-
wage for all recycling employees (business + local government) is $9 04, a value
comparable to landfill wages ($9 16 I hour) and forestry wages ($8 96 /hour ) Recycling
wages are considerably lower than wages in the sand mining sector ($12 15 / hour) Any
jobs lost in the sand mining sector will not be entirely offset (in terms of wages) by job
creation in re~ycling.~’ Recycling wages are considerably higher than minimum wage
jobs
Another indicator of relative quality of recycling wages is to compare the wages
for solid waste and recycling employees for local governments that operate both
programs. Forty-four percent of the local governments that responded to the survey
operate both recycling and solid waste programs Of these responses, the vast majority
of employees fall into the same wage category. For thirty percent of the responses, solid
waste wages were higher and for only six percent were recycling wages higher. These
results can be seen graphically in Figure 4-6 One reason for the lower average recycling
wages may be that recycling jobs tend to be newer than landfill jobs so recycling t.
employees have not had as long an opportunity to climb the pay scale ladder as their
solid waste counterparts
. I
” As shall be seen from the Recycling Jobs Model, a minimal number of jobs are lost in sand mining due to recycling.
'i
39
I, T'i . . , . , . ~., . . . . :..
Comparison of Recycling and Solid Waste Wages for North Carolina Local Governments
Recycling Wage Higher 6%
Solid Waste W e Higher 30%
Figure 4-6
4.6 Material Flows
As discussed in section 2.2 on the ZntegratedMaterial Flow System, all material
that is recycled may not necessarily travel in straight path from collection to processing
to end-use. In some cases, materials may skip a processing step and travel straight to an
end-user while in other cases material may beprocessed more than once. The local
government surveys indicate that very few residentially collected materials strayed from
the straight-line path of collection to processing to end-use. Cormgated cardboard and
plastic showed the highest deviation from this norm with only ten percent of these
materials being processed twice.
r
40
4.7 Other Studies
The main purpose of the business and local government surveys was to obtain
labor coefficients for various solid waste and recycling functions. Averages were
obtained for recycling collection and processing as well as solid waste collection and
disposal. These averages, their standard deviations and other statistical information are
presented in Appendices A and B along with the results from the surveys.
this study, previous studies on recycling and jobs have estimated worker-to-output ratios
for recycling and solid waste functions or provided enough data so that labor coefficients
could be calculated. These values from other studies are helpful as they may be used to
compare results from this North Carolina study. Table 4-3 presents the labor coefficients
garnered from the government and business survey along with worker-to-output rations
from five other studies. Results from other studies along with brief descriptions of them
are presented in Appendix D.
In addition to
Y
41
Collection of Recyclables
Collection of Recyclables
Collection of
Processing
Collection of Solid Waste (pop.> 20,000 I
Drop-off Collection of
Landfilling
Govern ment
Survey
41
216
54
13.2
31
10 4
2.4
1.5
5.8
Busi- ness
Survey
-
85.1
- 40.7
-
Institute for Local
Self- Reliance
4.8
6
0.51
1.34
Mean Labor Coeficienis for Recycling and Solid Waste Function (all uniis are in terms ofjobs / 10,000 tons)
Table 4-3
The results from North Carolina are relatively close to the other studies, although
higher than their counterparts in most cases. As no study in this area has been
comprehensive, it is impossible to decide which sets of data are closest to the truth. This
42
glass bottles
higher tendency of the North Carolina coefficients may be due to the fact that the North
Carolina study represents a range of efficiencies in performing recycling and solid waste
functions from very small to very large local governments and businesses, while the
other studies tended to gather their information from larger, established (and thus perhaps
more efficient) entities.
sand Yes
4.8 firgin Material Extraction Data
Between the surveys and Office of Waste Reduction documents, all of the
recycling and solid waste data needed to run the Recycling Jobs Model are available
However, other avenues must be used to gather data about material flows and labor
coefficients in the virgin sectors Every ton of material that is recycled displaces a
proportional amount of the virgin raw materials no longer required to manufacture a
product. For example, every ton of aluminum cans that is recycled reduces the need to
mine a proportional amount of bauxite ore. As recycling increases, North Carolina virgin I
1 extraction jobs will only be effected for virgin materials that are found naturally within
the state Table 4 -4 lists the common residential recyclables along with their major
constituents and whether or not North Carolina is a significant source for these raw
materials
Paper
No -1 aluminum cans, steel food cans, scrap metal
bauxite, ferrous, and other metal ores
trees Yes . plastic bottles natural gas and No
petroleum products
Table 4-43h i \- ” Whether or not North Carolina is source of a raw material was determined by referencing the North
Y
43
According to the Employment Security Commission data,39 North Carolina
supports no jobs in metal mining, and only seventy-one jobs in oil and gas e~traction.~'
Thus, for metal mining associated with manufacturing of aluminum cans, steel food cans,
and other metal products, recycling of these materials causes no job loss. Similarly, as
the oil and gas extraction industry is so small in North Carolina, it is assumed that
recycling of plastic bottles has no impact on employment in this sector for North
Carolina.
As indicated in Table 4-4 , the virgin extraction industries that may be effected by
recycling are forestry and sand mining for industrial purposes. According to
Employment Security Commission data, there are 3,883 insured workers in the forestry
industry in North Carolina and between 250 and 500 people involved with mining sand
for industrial purposes (only a fraction of which mine sand for the glass industry.) Thus,
in order to assess potential impacts recycling has on virgin extraction jobs in North
Carolina, it is necessary to examine the paper and glass industries, whose raw materials
come from North Carolina. Recycling may cause virgin extraction job loss in other
industries as well, but these jobs are not lost in North Carolina.
4.8.1 Displacement Rates
Since paper and glass are the manufacturing industries of interest for this study, it
is important to estimate recycled paper and glds displacement rates of virgin resources.
One ton of paper recycled does not translate to a displacement of one ton of trees, When
producing paper from trees not all of the fibers, lignin, and bark are transformed into
paper. For example, approximately 50% of an original tree is converted in to paper pulp,
while the other 50% is converted into byproducts, energy, and residual^.^' Recycled fiber
Carolina Manufacturers Handbook. Employment Security Commission data, the Manufacturing and Mining Census, and the book, North Carolina: Its Geoloev and Mineral Resources by Jasper Stucky.
Employment Security Commission, Employment and Wages in North Carolina. 1992 The Mining Census. U.S. Census Bureau. 1987.
''
Y
44
is also not 100% efficient as inks, contaminants, and short fibers are removed from the ,,
process. Similarly, the displacement ratio for glass is not one to one.
Paper making can be divided into to two main processes mechanical and
chemical Chemical processes, the most common of which is known as the Kraft
process, chemically removes wood fibers from lignin The lignin adds little bonding
power to the fibers and thus if not removed, weaker paper is produced Through a
sophisticated process, wood fibers are converted to pulp which is then either directly
converted into a paper product or transported to another mill which converts the pulp to
paper The Kraft and other chemical processes produce cormgated cardboard, paper
bags, most office paper, and many other types of strong paper Mechanical paper making
is similar to the Kraft process except the wood or wood chips are ground and pulped
directly without any removal of lignin, producing a paper that is weaker than Kraft
Mechanically produced papers include newspapers and magazines There are few or no
mechanical pulp mills in North Carolina. Thus, all mechanically pulped paper that is
being recycled back into these products leaves the state, beyond the bounds of this study
The glass bottle industry is more homogenous than the paper industry and there
are fewer glass bottle manufacturers in North Carolina than pulp and paper mills. High
quality sand constitutes about 75% of a glass bottle and other constituents include
feldspar, soda ash, blast furnace slag, and coloring agents.42 Crushed glass bottle
feedstock (known as cullet) consists of essen6ally the same ingredients in the same
proportions as the feedstock for making glass bottles from virgin materials. Thus, it is a
relatively simple process to include cullet in the bottle making process. Glass molecules
never degrade so glass can be recycled indefinitel~.~~ Displacement rates for both the
paper and glass industries are calculated in Appendix C.
'I Telephone interview with representative of North Carolina State's Pulp and Paper Science program (July, 1994 ) Ofthe ingredients that are used to manufacture glass only sand comes from North Carolina Telephone interviews with a representative from Owens-Brockway, Inc , a glass bottle manufacturer near Winston-Salem, North Carolina and a representative fmm Foster-Forbes, Inc , a @ass bottle manufacturer in Wilson, North Carolina (September, 1994)
'* "
li
45
Sand for Glass Bottle Production
. .,. . . .<. . ..,r,: i.,..
.,:.:E.)
1:1.18 1.28
4.8.2 Labor Coefficients in Virgin Fields.
In addition to estimating displacement rates for virgin materials in North
Carolina, it is also necessary to know productivity rates for the material extraction fields
in order to estimate employment impacts. Unlike labor associated with various
recycling functions which are dispersed among many SIC types, the SIC for timber
harvesting and sand mining are homogenous. Thus for logging, Employment Security
Commission data provides the number of workers in a given year and the U.S
Department of Agriculture provides estimates of tons of wood harvested in North
Carolina. These two numbers are used to calculate labor coefficients for timber
harvesting Similarly, the Census of Mining& provides data on both sand mining
workers and quantities of material mined. The calculations used to determine labor
coefficients for timber harvesting and sand mining industries are presented in Appendix
C. Table 4-5 presents both the displacement ratios and labor coefficients used in the
Recycling Jobs Model for the virgin extraction sectors
Paper Production
Virgin Extraction Data Used in the Recycling Jobs Model
Table 4-5
US. Census Bureau
Y
46
4.9 Modified Material Flow Diagram
As data from the surveys provides labor coefficients for the various functions in
the economy, the basic material flow diagram is presented again (see Figure 4-7) to
include the labor coefficients at each of the critical sectors (sector in which jobs may be
effected by recycling) in the economy. Also, the assumptions listed in Section 3.3 are
incorporated in this figure so that the material flow diagram is (1) bounded by flows
within North Carolina and (2) the sectors unaffected by recycling (in terms ofjobs) are
left as rectangles while the crifical secfors are represented as ovals.
r
Virgin Extraction Kp=3.5, K”1.3
ycling C o l l e c t i o A \ ciirbside KT= 55 drop-off KT = 30
- \ id Waste Collection \ curbside KT = 30
diop-off KT = 2 4
Basic Material Flow Diagram as Inco<rmrated in Reccycling .Jobs Model
Figure 4-1
5. Analysis
Recycling Solid Waste
Aluminum 42 -4
Steel Food Cans 31 -3
Scrap Metal 269 -32
Paper 1,216 -132
Corrugated Cardboard 271 -24
5.1 Model Results (Present Day)
Given present day recycling rates, the number of jobs estimated by Recycling
Jobs Model are presented in Table 5-1. In this table, solid waste jobs lost refers to jobs
no longer required to manage a given amount of solid waste as this material is recycled
Solid waste jobs lost are associated with curbside collection, drop-off collection,
landfilling, and incineration of solid waste. Recycling jobs refers to employment gains
associated with curbside collection, drop-off collection, and processing of recyclables as
recycling increases. Virgin material jobs lost represents job loss in the virgin material
field required for glass, paper, and cardboard production. Thus, base on this model,
Virgin Net Jobs Created
0 38
0 28
0 231
-62 1,022
-1 1 236
present day residential recycling employment in North Carolina is about 3,028 people.45 e*;;:<> ~ . , 5 , . , . , ~ )*. *:,<..,,
Glass Plastic Yard Waste Total
308 -28 -4 216
91 -8 0 83
800 -92 0 708
3,028 -323 -17 2,628
48
Given that the model only calculates jobs for a portion of the waste stream (see
footnote on previous page) and the number of recycling jobs in the state has already been
estimated from direct totaling of survey result^,^ the significance of the model results is
not in calculating the number of jobs. Rather, the model results show that jobs creation
due to recycling outweighs job loss in solid waste and virgin sectors. For every one
hundred jobs gained through recycling, ten jobs are lost in the solid waste management
and three jobs are lost in virgin fields. For the virgin fields, less than two percent of the
forestry jobs are affected by recycling and less than two-tenths of a percent of sand
mining jobs are affected.47
5.2 Material Flow Diagrams
The basic material flow diagram from Chapter 2 can now be updated to
incorporate results from the
presented for aluminum and paper as two examples. Material flow diagrams for the
remaining materials are presented in Appendix F. In the diagrams, ovals represent
sectors for which there is a net job change due to recycling, while rectangles represent
sectors for which it is assumed that recycling has no impact on the number of jobs (see
Section 3.3 on Model Assumptions.) For each sector affected by recycling, the diagram
contains the quantity of material flowing through that sector along with the number of
workers required to manage the flow. A dotted line beneath any of the virgin sectors
indicates that the virgin material is derived strictly from out-of-state sources.
In Figures 5-1 and 5-2, material flow diagrams are
.A
There are about 8,700 total recycling jobs in North Carolina, see section 4.4 on Reqvcling Compared to other Industries. These percentages are derived by dividing the number of virgin jobs generated by the model by the total number of jobs in !hat field as provided by Employment Security Commission data. Data used in the yard waste material flow diagram was obtained from the North Carolina Composting and Organics Recycling Council Needs Assessment Survey, North Carolina Recycling Association 1994.
"
''
49
The percentages along the links represent the division of a material flow between i'- t
multiple destinations Multiple links emanating from a single sector always add up to
one hundred percent. The larger of the two links that connect recycling collection to
processors represents material that is processed one time, while the smaller percentage
marked with an asterisk (*) represents material which is processed twice. For the paper
and cardboard material flows, the link connecting tree harvesting to wood industries
only represents the proportion of the material that is converted to wood scrap and
subsequently sent to pulp and paper mills.
that job gain through &-inking roughly cancels jobs loss through primary wood
production. Similarly, for aluminum cans, it is assumed that jobs in the melting sector
(after recycling processing) roughly equals the number ofjobs to smelt aluminum 49
Also, for paper and cardboard, it is assumed
~ '' This assumption is not entirely true as there is only one smelting mill in North Carolina which produces aluminum that may be converted into alnminum cans while there are at least eleven
Model to underestimate net job creation due to recycling for aluminum cans. . . j ~ ~ _ .
foundries or other melters of recycled aluminum. Thus. this assumption causes the Recycling Jobs !
Aluminum Can Material Flow in North Carolina
Bauxite Ore Mined
, . .. .. . . . . . ... . . . . .
or other processing
Sheeting or Ingot Mill
4,161 tons-- 14 workers Can Manufacturer (three in NC)
Canning Facility (up to 49 in NC)
Recycling Collection curbside: 1,794 tons -- 14 workers drop-off: 2.690 tons -- 15 workers
Retail
A Solid Waste Collection .. curbside: 9,143tons -- 9 workers drop-off. 9,143 tons -- 4 workers
17.703 tons -3 workers
r
Paper Material Flow in North Carolina
Tree Harvesting
62 jobs lost Wood Industry scrap generated
Primary Wood modifications
Pulp & Paper Mills (eighteen in NC)
Paper Converters (ninety-four in NC)
139,845 tons -- 264 workers
I
Recycling Collection
1 Secondary Manufacturer (e.g used in printing or packagng)
I
Retail
Waste.Collection curbside: 303,483 tons -- 310 workers drop-off: 303,483 tons -- 121 workers
587,623 tons -- 88 workers
'i
52
Increase in Recycling Rates Recycling Solid Waste (over present- Jobs Created Jobs Lost
day rates) 0% 3.028 -323
5.3 Model Predictions
The Recycling Jobs Model can not only determine present recycling employment
levels but can predict future employment given changes in recycling rates. In other
words, the model helps answer the question: What impact will increased recycling rates
have on jobs in North Carolina?
Virgin Jobs Net Jobs Lost
-77 2.628
Predictive Results are presented in two formats: (1) as percentage recycling
increases of present day recycling rates for North Carolina or (2) as an overall percentage
recycling rate for all materials in North Carolina. In the first scenario, it assumed that
the base recycling rates are present day levels. The model results of increasing recycling
are presented in Table 5-2.
10% 20% 30%
3,331 -355 -a5 2,890 3,634 -388 -93 3,153 3.937 -420 -101 3.416
40% 50%
60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
4,239 -452 -108 3,679 4,542 -485 -116 3,941 4,845 -51 7 -124 4,204 5.148 -549 -1 32 4,467 5,451 -582 -1 39 4,730 5,753 -614 -147 4,993 6.056 -646 -1 55 5.255
150%
Projected Numbers of Jobs with Growth in Recycling Rates
Table 5-2
7,570 -808 -1 93 6,569 200% 9,084 -969 -232 7.883
Y
53
As can be seen in Table 5-2, it is no surprise that as recycling increases, solid waste and
virgin extraction employment decreases, and employment associated with recycling
increases. The important statistic is the net jobs trend which increases commensurate
with recycling rates. This data is presented is Figure 5-3.
Employment with Increases in Recycling
6,000 I 5,000 t 4,000
n 3,000
0 2,000
1,000
0
(D
0 7 - i
-1,000 J I
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%increase in Recycling
1 lzzzl Solid Waste Jobs Lost
1 -Recycling Jobs Created
I-Virgtn Jobs Lost ~ + Net Jobs I I
Recycling Impact on Employment in North Carolina
Figure 5-3
.* An increase in residential recycling of 10% over present-day rates yields an
additional 249 employees for North Carolina. Table 5-3 lists the net jobs created due to
increases in recycling from 10% - 200%.
Y
54
hercent I NetJob t
50% 1,034 I 100%1 2.5861
Table 5-350
Another way of presenting the results from the Recycling Jobs Model is to place
estimated, overall recycling rates on the x-axis. This enables the model user to input any
recycling rate regardless of present-day North Carolina rates. This analysis is presented
in Figure 5-4.
I Employment v e m s Tolal Recycling Rates
8,000
7,000 n 6,000
5,000
4,000
0 3,000
2,000
1,000
0
-1.000
7 c
x
.A 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Total Recycling Wtes
azd Solid Waste Jots Lost 0 Recyclng Jabs Created -Virgin Jots Lost
The Impuct of Recycling on Jobs with Increasing Recycling Rates
Figure 5-4
The results represent only those jobs associated with materials that have passed through the residential sector. Although it can not be definitively confirmed, recycling in the commercial and industrial sectors will likely have similar job creation tendencies. Since residential waste represents about one third of all waste, the net job increase creation displayed in Table 5-3 can be tripled to obtain a ballpark estimate of total job creation due to recycling.
n
55
The model results presented in Figure 5-2 are similar to those presented in Figure
5-1 except that employment increases appear more dramatic Every 10% increase in the
North Carolina's recycling rate adds 1,473 jobs to the state. Presenting results according
to universal recycling rates is less accurate than the previous method of presentation as it
does not take into account variations in the success of recycling for different materials
In the sensitivity analysis, all model results are presented using the first method, as an
increase in present-day recycling rates
5.4 Sensitivig Analysis Results
As discussed in Section 4.1 Data Sarrces for Model, there are four types of data
used in the Recycling Jobs Model: quantities, material flow to each sectors, virgin
displacement rates, and labor coefficients. The two former sets of data come directly
from Office of Waste Reduction records and are likely relatively accurate. The two latter
sets of data are derived from the business and local government surveys as well as
interviews of industry representatives. The variance of the values used for labor
coefficients and displacement rates may be high so a sensitivity analysis was performed
on these numbers.
To perform the sensitivity analysis, labor coefficients and displacement rates were
altered to favor and disfavor recycling's job creation potential. A chart of the most likely
values (Le. the values used in the Recycling Jobs Model) of the labor coefficients and
displacement rates are presented in Table 5-4 along with low and high estimates for each
of the values. The high and low estimates were generated from one of three ways:
Standard Deviations: One standard deviation is added to and subtracted from the mean to calculate high and low estimates. The standard deviations are calculated from the survey results as presented in Appendices A & B. High and low estimates are calculated with standard deviations are marked with an "(s)" after the number.
r
56
. . . . " . . . ..
Other Studies: Labor coefficients derived from other studies are represent high and low estimates of the means used in the model. These alternative labor coefficients are discussed in Appendix D and concisely presented in Table 4.3 of Section 4 7 on Other Studies. High and low estimates derived from other studies are marked with an "(0)" after the number.
+ Doubling: Values for which standard deviations or other studies' estimates are not available are simply doubled and/or halved to estimate highs and lows respectively. High and low estimates calculated by doubling are marked with a "(d)" after the number.
When both standard deviations and other study estimates were available, the most
extreme value was used.
Two sensitivity analysis were performed for this study. In the first scenario, all
labor coefficients and displacement rates are replaced with the estimates that minimize
recycling's job creation potential. These values are in the thick-walled cells of Table 4-3.
In the second scenario, all labor coefficients and displacement rates were replaced with
the high or low estimates which maximize recycling's job creation potential. The results
from these two scenarios are presented following Table 4-3.
r
Low Estimate
57
Most Likely High Estimate Value
- Curbside Collection 12 (0) 41 - 5 1 ( ~ )
> 20,000 ~
Curbside Collection 12 (0) 216 395 (s) < 20~000
Drop-off Collection 5.0 (s) 54 103 (s) ~
Processing 4.0 (s) 31 58 6)
Processing 1.7 (s) 11 20 6) multi-material
scrap metal
Processing 2.8 (s) 4.6 6.4 (s) ~
paper _ . ~
Composting & 5.2 (0) 13.2 20 (s) Mulching
Labor Coefficients for Solid Waste Curbside Collection 3.8 (s) 8 12 (SI
Curbside Collection 3.0 (s) 22 41 6)
Drop-off Collection 2.5 (s) 4 5.5 (s)
> 20,000
< 20,000 ~~~
Paper Industry I .95 (d) 1.9 3.8 (d) Glass Industrv I 0.6 (d) 1.2 2.4 (d)
I
High and Low Estimates of Variables Used in the Recycling Jobs Model
Table 4-3.
Y
58
The results of the sensitivity analyses are as follows: The most likely scenario estimates that net job creation due to recycling is: 2,628 The worst case scenario for recycling's job creation potential estimates that net job creation due to recycling is: -359 The best case scenario for recycling's job creation potential estimates that net job creation due to recycling is: 5,083.
The results of the best case and worst case scenarios show that recycling likely is
responsible for a net creation of jobs, but it is possible in a most extreme case scenario
that recycling could cause a small amount of job loss. However, as the worst and best
case scenarios bias the labor coefficients for solid waste and recycling in opposite
directions" these extremes seem very unlikely, increasing the probability that recycling
creates jobs.
Also, it is questionable just how much of the potential job loss in the timber
harvesting industry due to recycling is actually realized in North Carolina. As pulpwood
purchases decrease, timber harvesters may substitute other outlets for their products such
as plywood, chipboard, or fence post manufacturers in lieu of pulp mills.52 Lastly, the
Recycling Jobs Model likely overrates job loss due to timber harvesting. Most of the
paper recycled in North Carolina is comprised of paper manufactured through
mechanical pulping processes (e.g. newspaper and magazines.) As North Carolina has
few or no mills that employ mechanical ground pulp, most North Carolina newspaper
that is recycled leaves the state. Thus, displacement of virgin material occurs
out-of-state, with only a proportion (if any) of the loss affecting North Carolina .A
pulp-wood production.
51 It may be possible that results from the local government and business survey are biased, i.e. they consistently overestimate or underestimate labor coefficients. If there is some bias, however, it is likely that it is consistent between solid waste and recycling functions. Thus, if the sweys overestimate labor coefficients for recycling, they surveys would overestimate labor coefficients for solid waste functions as well. It is improbable that the surveys would overestimate labor coefficients for one but not the other. The only scenario in which recycling causes net job loss is when the survey results overestimate recycling labor coefficients while underestimating solid waste labor coefficient, an very unlikely scenario. Information on timber markets was gathered from a telephone conversation with a faculty member 52
from North Carolina State University's Department of Forestry \
r
59
6. Conclusions
6.1 Znrpacts of Recycling on Employment
Employment due to recycling is significant in North Carolina as over 8,700 jobs
in the State are recycling-based Even when the impacts of recycling jobs across the
entire economy, including job creation and job loss, is considered recycling has a positive
impact on employment for North Carolina According to the Recycling Jobs Model,
recycling at the residential level has created over 2,500 jobs in North Carolina to date,
and as recycling increases it could create thousands more 53 As recycling rates increase,
this sector will likely contribute to job growth in the future The recycling Jobs Model
uses results from surveys which were sent to all North Carolina recycling businesses and
local government recycling programs Even when the results from these surveys are
replaced by extreme case scenarios, recycling still proves to be a net job creator for the
state Sectors that may be hurt by recycling, in terms of jobs lost, are solid waste
collection anddisposul and forestry This study uses wages as a surrogate for job
quality Recycling wages ($9 06 per hour on average) are significantly higher than
minimum wage jobs, but below the average yage for North Carolina Except for the few
jobs lost in the sand mining sector due fo recycling, r~cycling wages are comparable to
the wages in sectors that lose jobs due to recycling Hence, there is no evidence of
degradation in job quality due to recycling
Compared to other industries, recycling proves itself to be significant in North
Carolina. Recycling generates less employment than such major North Carolina
~~ ’’ This estimate includes potential job losses associated with recycling as well as job gain. Overall job impacts of recycling in the comqercial and industrial sectors are not included in this mdy but are likely similar to fmdings for the residential sector. . .
s
60
industries as tobacco, fumiture, and textiles, but about the same as livestock and
agriculture crops. Of all jobs created by recycling, 87% are supported by the private
sector and 13% are supported by local governments.
Much of the virgin material that is displaced due to recycling does not impact
jobs in North Carolina as virgin materials such as metals and natural gas come from
outside of the state. Even some of the virgin feedstock for the paper and glass industry
comes from outside of North Carolina. Thus, by replacing virgin raw materials extracted
from outside the state with feedstock that comes from within the North Carolina,
recycling serves to localize the economy. This creates local jobs at the expense of jobs
elsewhere as well as strengthens the North Carolina economy.54 According to model
results, recycling of paper and glass is a net job creator even including job impacts
outside of North Carolina.
6.2 Jobs as a Benejit
The conclusion that recycling creates jobs in North Carolina is a double-edged
sword.s5 The fact that recycling creates jobs also means that local governments may have
to hire a larger staff to manage recyclables compared to landfilling all waste. For
example, using survey results, the following collection ratios were calculated.
7 times as many people are required to collect a ton of recyclables curbside compared to a ton of solid waste 13 times as many people are required tdcollect a ton of recyclables from a drop-off program compared to a ton of solid waste
For the public sector, the increased costs associated with hiring more people to recycle
may be partially or totally offset by savings associated with the high cost of incinerating
and/or landfilling waste. In developing recycling programs, local governments may be
replacing land and capital inputs associated with disposal with labor inputs.56 Although
" Aside from jobs, the state economy is strengthened because industrial raw materials that were once purchased from out-of-state sources are now provided locally or regionally. See Appendix H for a discussion of the relative importance of job creation "
61
recycling creates jobs, it is not possible to assess its overall economic impact for North
Carolina local governments without researching net costs for local governments which
implement recycling programs. This is a subject in need of further study.
On the other hand, in the business sector, recycling is market driven and the
market is generally efficient5' Recycling collectors, processors, and brokers supply
manufacturers with whatever recycled materials that the manufacturer demands. Jobs are
created because outputs of the recycling companies are growing and the industry can
sustain more jobs. In other words, a business will generally only hire more recycling
employees if it helps the bottom line. Thus, with the exception of mandated recycling,
recycling creates jobs in the private sector without raising the cost of doing business.
6.3 In closing
The issue of job creation due to recycling needs to be kept in perspective. As the
environmental economist Paul Portney points out: "Counting jobs created or destroyed is
simply a poor way to evaluate environmental policies."" Thus, despite recycling's
positive impact on jobs, the success of recycling policies should not be judged on criteria
associated with jobs; they should be evaluated on their success in reducing waste and
improving environmental quality. Hopefully, this research will enable decision makers
to implement recycling policies on the merits of their effectiveness in reducing waste,
without fear that these policies will cost jobs. 4
J6 See Appendix H. I' Recycling is market driven except in the cases of mandated recycling such as material bans from
IanXills and minimum content requirements. Portney, Paul R., "Does Environmental Policy Conflict with Growth," Resources, Resources for the Future. Issue 115, Spring 1991. (.
r
62
Appendices
Appendix A: The Recycling Business Survey
Appendix B: The Local Govemment Recycling Survey
Appendix C: Calculations of Virgin Labor Coefficients and Displacement Rates
Appendix D: Previous Studies Relation to Recycling Employment
Appendix F: Material Flow Diagrams
Appendix G: North Carolina Waste Stream
Appendix H: Job Creation
1
63
Appendix A:
Business Survey and Results
This appendix is divided into the following sections:
+ A description of the methodology used for the survey, including a discussion of sample selection, survey development, and survey implementation The survey instrument along with the introductory letter and follow-up post card
+ Cumulative results of the survey
Y
64
A. I Methodology
The business survey was designed to obtain: (1) an estimate of recycling jobs in
businesses in North Carolina; (2) jobs added since the promulgation of North Carolina's Solid
Waste Management Act of 1989; (3) data on recycling wages; and (4) labor coefficients for
collection and processing of recyclables.
A.1.1 Selecting the Sample
This survey attempts to sample the entire population of businesses along the recyclable
material flow in North Carolina. A near comprehensive database of recycling business has been
compiled for this research by combining three existing databases (1) The Office of Waste
Reduction's Recvcling Market Directow, which contains about 200 in-state recycling
businesses; (2) the membership directory of the North Carolina Recycling Association, a trade
organization whose members include recycling business; and (3) companies listed in the
Employment Security Commission records, SIC 5093, titled Scrap and Waste Materials The
Employment Security maintains employment records on all employers in North Carolina
organized by Standard Industrial Codes (SIC). SIC 5093 mostly includes scrap metal dealers
and some recycling processing companies. Also included in the mailing list are North Carolina
members of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISM), listings from the Lockwoods
Directory of Paper Manufacturers and a few random records. As the survey database was
compiled from these existing databases, not all businesses included were appropriate to receive
this survey Thus, once a master database was developed, business classifications were removed
that were either tangential to the main recycling material flow or the company was not involved
in recycling. Business types removed were: auto salvage yards, automobile crushers,
consultants, recycling equipment sales companies, companies that recycled chemicals, and paper
converters. After deletions the data base consisted of collectors, processors, brokers; end-users,
and in-house recyclers ''
The roles of collectors. processors. and end-users have been discussed in Chapter 2. Brokers and in-house recyclers are also involved in recycling but their role is beyond the bounds of the Recycling Jobs Model so they are not discussed in detail. A recycling broker is an agent or a f m that locates markets for recyclable materials and carries out the associated business transactions. In-house recyclers are companies that recycle a portion of their waste stream. In-house recyclers may include a large fraction of all businesses in North
59
r
65
A.2 Survey Implementation" ('-
In order to maximize response rates, all members of the sample received notification by
mail before the survey was sent, as well as considerable follow-up. The steps used to bolster the
response rate are as follows:
Introductorv Letter: On June 17, 1994, an introductory letter to all businesses in the sample notifying them that they would receive a survey in the mail in the next week, who the survey was from, and why they should take the time to complete it. Mail Survey: The survey was mailed on July 1. The return "envelope"61 was
pre-addressed and pre-stamped. An attempt was made to find correct addresses to re-mail all surveys that were returned by the post-office. Post-card: On July 15, two weeks after the original survey was sent, a post-card was mailed to those who had not already returned their survey. TeleDhone follow-uD: At least one attempt was made to reach every business who did not complete their survey. In a short telephone conversation, the number of employees at the facility was ascertained as well as information on productivity rates.
.- .. , .: \:'; .;,;:
The survey was not a simple questionnaire for businesses to complete. Many companies do not ..,,,L,
keep records on tonnages of materials that they handle nor do they have accurate data on wages
or even numbers of employees at a facility. Thus, it was expected that many companies would
not complete all responses related to their recycling function. Such surveys were not useful in
developing the Recycling Jobs Model but still allowed for calculations of the total number of
jobs in the recycling field. This data is usefid as it enables the disparate recycling field which .A
Carolina. However, only a few large in-house recyclers are included in the sample selection (those gamered from the North Carolina Recycling Association membership list.) All five of these recycling business categories are discussed in detail in the survey results. Steps for maximizing response fates were performed in accordance with methodology suggested in Mail and Teleuhone Surveys by Don Dillman as well as direct advice from the University of North Carolina Institute for Research of Social Sciences. A retum envelope per se was not included with the survey. Rather. the questionnaire was printed on the page in such a manner that the address label was adhered to a panel of the survey and it was folded into thirds like a sideways brochure. To retum the snrvey, the person needed to fold the panel of the brochure-like survey underneath a pre-addressed, pre-stamped panel This survey format avoided the need for mailing and retum envelopes which saved money and reduced waste, and the address label stayed with the survey ensuring that the respondent was known.
''
9
66
spans a wide array of Standard Industrial Codes to be compared to other major more
homogenous industries in the state.
Concomitant to sponsoring my research on recycling and jobs in North Carolina, the
Office of Waste Reduction was working with the Self-Help Credit Union on researching
financial and other needs of recycling business across the state. For this study, the Self-Help
Credit Union6' planned to survey all recycling businesses in the state. As it would be
unpalatable for North Carolina businesses to receive two Office of Waste Reduction sponsored
surveys within one month, the employment survey was combined with the Self-Help Credit
Union survey so that a seven page questionnaire was sent. Part I of the questionnaire is related
to jobs and is presented in the following pages along with the introductory letter and follow-up
postcard.
The Self-Help Credit Union contracted responsibility for this study to Kirkworks, a Durham, North Carolina environmental consulting company.
Y
67
North Carolina Recvcling Business Survey
The recycling industry is a growing sector of North Carolina's economy. The following survey will help to document both the effects recycling has on employment and the business needs of recycling firms. Therefore, the North Carolina Office of Waste Reduction and the Self-Help Credit Union very much appreciate your completion of this survey. Your responses should be for your facility only, including all company operations at this location. If you do not know exact answers to questions, please give your best estimates. All information will remain confidential, and results will only be released in combination with data from other companies. Please call Allan Rosen at (919) 683-3016 if you have any questions.
Part A: The Impactof Recycling on Employment
1. Facility and Company Informution
a) yourname phone ##.
company name company SIC (if known) - _ _ _
b) Does your company have other facilities in North Carolina?
2. Job Creation due to Recycling
a) How many full-time equivalent* employees current work at your facility?
0 Yes 0 No , I ~ / i :
, ,,' r , , ,~'
.,>.,.
*Full-time equivalent employees include all full-time employees and those employees who work part-time. For example, if an employee works 20 hours a week, he/she would count as 112 of a jull-time equivalent employee for this survey.
b) Is your facility's existence dependent solely on recycling? 0 Yes 0 No .A
c) How many full-time equivalent employees at your facility are dedicated to recycling jobs? _ Please include employees with administrative, collection, marketing, hauling, processing, and manufacturing responsibilities as well as other jobs that exist because of recycling.
How many of these full-time recycling jobs have been added since 1989?
Zfvou do nof know the number ofrecwclinp jobs, please estimate the percentage of your business devoted to recycling:
less than5% 0 5%- 19% 0 20%-39% 40?'w59% 60% - 79% 0 80%-99% 0 100%
68
(a) (b) employees dedicated
to this type of recvcling collection
e) How many of these recycling jobs were added since 1989?
0 none 0 some 0 half 0 most 0 all
( 4
YO of total collected tonnage
f) What is the average hourly wage of recycling employees at your facility?
0 $4.35 - $5.00 0 $5.01 - $8.00 0 $8.01 - $11.00 0 $11.01 - $14.00 0 above $14.00
~
0 residential curbside
0 residential drop-off
0 industrial/commerciaI/institutional
4. Recycling Processing
a) Does your facility sort, bale, densify, shred, or otherwise process recyclable materials to meet
i
specifications required by end-users or manufacturers? 0 Yes 0 No
Zf you answered No to this question, then go to question 5.
b) How many tons of recyclable materials does your facility process per year7
c) How many full-time equivalent employees are dedicated to processing recyclables?
Y
69
5. Recycling Brokering
a) Does your facility broker recyclable materials? 0 Yes 0 No
If you answered No to this question, then go to question 6.
b) How many tons of recyclable materials does your facility broker per year?
c) How many full-time equivalent employees are dedicated to brokering recyclables?
6. End-using of Recyclables to Make a New Product
a) Does your facility use recycled materials in its manufacturing processes?
If you answered no, then go to question 7.
b) What recycled material do you use in your process?
c) How many tons of this recyclable material do you use in a year?
d) What product do you produce using this recyclable material?
e) How many full-time equivalent employees are dedicated to incorporating recycled material
0 Yes 0 No
into your process?
7. Administration
a) How many full-time equivalent employees are dedicated to the administration of all of your facility's recycling related business?
8 Please check each of the materials that your facility collects, processes, brokers, or utilizes in manufacturing:
4
0 aluminum cans 0 newspaper 0 textiles
0 steel food cans
0 other metal scrap
0 glass bottles 0 other paper 0 reusable consumer goods
0 plastic bottles (#1,#2) 0 oil 0 salvage
0 other plastic scrap 0 tire & rubber 0 other
0 corrugated cardboard
0 white office paper
0 construction & demolition
0 woody & organic material
i
Y
70
Text of introductory letter:
June 17, 1994
We are writing to ask you to help foster the recycling indushy in North Carolina. You will soon be receiving a survey that will help with two efforts:
A study of the number of recycling related jobs in the state being conducted for the NC Office of WasteReduction (NC OWR) by Michael Shore. The survey information will help the state assess the economic impact which recycling is having on the labor market in North Carolina, and will be used for future planning purposes.
An assessment of the financial, technical and business assistance needs of recycling firms being conducted for the NC OWR and the Self-Help Credit Union, North Carolina's community development bank. This assessment is being conducted by David Kirkpatrick of Kirkworks and Allan Rosen of Self Help.
Why should you complete the survey, when it arrives? Because
Your will help document the significant job impacts recycling is having across the state. You will provide guidance for the soon to be formed Recycling and Reuse Business Assistance Center at the NC OWR and for the Self-Help Credit Union in assisting businesses like yours. You will receive, at your request, the final report of these studies and the NC OWR Directorv of Markets for Recvclable Materials.
All information will remain confidential, and results will only be released in combination with data from other companies. The survey should be completed by the manager or owner of your company of facility. If there is someone else a t your company who should complete the survey, please call us with their name and address. Contact Allan at (919) 683-3016 ext. 216 or David at (919) 220-SO65 to make any name and address corrections or if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Sincerely
Michael Shore Allan Rosen David Kirkpatrick
71
Text of follow-up postcard:
July 12, I994
Earlier this month the North Carolina Office of Waste Reduction and the Self-Hlep Credit Union sent you a survey concerning your company's business needs and recycling related employment. If you have yet to complete and retum the survey, please do so today. Your input is vital to developing a better understanding of the recyclng industry. If you have already returned the survey, please accept our thanks. If you did not receive the survey, please call Allan Rosen at (919) 683-3016.
Than you very much for your time and effort
Sincerely,
Michael Shore David Kirkpatrick Allan Rosen
P
72
A.3 Business Survey Results
A few introductory remarks are necessary before presenting results from the business as
well as government surveys. Many responses are aggregated and directly presented. Other
responses are averaged so that the results can be used in the Recycling Jobs Model. As
businesses were asked to estimate the quantity of recycled materials they manage in a year, (data
for which accurate record may or may not be maintained), it is expected that some percentage of
the respondents would complete the surveys with incorrect tonnage responses. In order to
mitigate the effects of these occasional data points, the few highest and lowest data points were
removed as outliers when calculating the averages to be used in the model. However averages,
medians, and standard deviations will be presented for the data before and after potential outliers
were removed.
Also, not all respondents should count equally when determining averages to be used in
the Recycling Jobs Model. For example, the labor coefficients should not be weighted equally
for a company with fifty employees and a company with one employee. Thus, along with the
regular mean, a weighted mean to be used in the Recycling Jobs Model is calculated for all
averages, giving greater emphasis to businesses with more employees. The weighted mean for
each set of labor coefficients is calculated as follows:
C(workers /ton x ## of workers) C # of workers
Weighted Mean =
.A
Lastly, in order to accurately count all jobs associated with a function, administrative
jobs documented in the surveys were added to the jobs listed in the four recycling functions of
collection, processing, brokering, and end-using. Businesses which perform more than one of
these recycling functions have administrative jobs divided among the different functions in
proportion to the number employees working in each function. All labor coefficients are
presented on the basis of 10,000 tons (Le. worker:10,000 tons) to make numbers more readable.
73
A.3.1. Response Rate
After removing duplicates and companies that did not recycle from the database, the
sample size was 512 companies. Also, after efforts were made to re-mail all incorrectly
addressed surveys, there were still eight businesses for which correct addresses were not
available. These businesses likely folded or moved. Given the adjusted survey size, the response
rates is presented in Table A-I.
rvey Responses by 62% total response rate
Employment Security
No Response and No Data Available
Response Rate for Recycling Business Survey
Table A-1
A.3.2 Job Creation Due to Recycling (Question #2)
The Business Survey revealed that there are at lea? 6,154 recycling employees in the
private sector in North Carolina. As the surveys represent only 81% of sample, there could
possibly be another 1,443 recycling employees in the businesses that did not respond to the
survey, or 7,597 employees total (assuming, of course, that the 81% of businesses for which b\
Y
74
employment data is available is representative of the entire population of recycling businesses )
Based on the content of existing databases, the target group for the Business Survey, and an
effort to streamline the sample to include only companies directly involved in managing typical
recyclables, the surveys do not document or only partially document recycling related
employment in the following sectors auto wrecking and salvage (126 jobs according to
Employment Security Commission data), private contractors who extract and recycling freon
from appliances, consultants, non-profit recycling education organizations (approximately 24
according to data compiled in the Guide to North Carolina' Environmental Groups63), recycling
equipment manufacturers and sales personal Also, all end-users of recycled materials have yet
to be documented by the Office of Waste Reduction. Considering these omissions, the survey
likely underestimates the number of recycling related employees in the State Of the 6,154
recycling jobs in the state, 1,554, or 25% have been created since 1989, the year that North
Carolina passed its Solid Waste Management Act
A.3.3 Recycling Wages
With data on 50.8% of the companies surveyed, the average wage for recycling
businesses was $8.96 per hour with a median wage of $9.50 and a standard deviation of 3.14.
Weighting the mean according to the number of employees at a facility raises the average to
$9.24 per hour. Question #2e was designed so that respondents checked one of five ranges for
the average wages at hidher business. For businesses in SIC SO93 that did not return the survey,
Employment Security Commission data provided wage data which was, for consistency sake,
categorized the same as the survey responses. A histogram of wage responses is presented in
Figure A-1
Environmental Resource hogram, "Guide to North Carolina's Environmental Groups, 1994-1995", University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, 1994. This guide was compiled by surveying environmental p u p s in the state. The survey asked for paid employees as well as issues of involvement which included recycling. Recycling employees were determined by multiplying the number employees at a nonprofit with the fraction of their interest dedicated to recycling. The number does not include nonprofit businesses nor the plethora of volunteers involved with recycling in North Carolina.
75
Histogram of Wage Responsesfor Recycling Businesses
I 34.9%
17.0%
~
% 35 S O % §a oe $1100- s14 00 00 §a 00 161100 $14 00
Figure A-1
A.3.4 Collection, Question #3
Of the forty-two companies from the database whose primary function is to collect
recyclables, data was available for twenty-nine companies, fifteen of which were via mail
response. Of these fifteen, there were only eight instances for which business provided both jobs
and collection tonnage data, four for residential curbside collection and four for residential
drop-off collection. For curbside collection, the mean is 89.8 workers per 10,000 tons, with a
median of 26.6 workers, a standard deviation of 14 workers and a weighted mean of 85.1
workers per ton. For drop-off collection, the mean is 48.4 workers per 10,000 tons, with a
median of 35 workers a standard deviation of 49.7 workers and a weighted mean of 40.7
workers / ton.
collected, but these numbers were for collection from the commercial and industrial sectors and
thus are not relevant to the Recycling Jobs Model which is based on residential recycling flows.
.A
An additional thirty-seven companies provided data on workers and tonnages
There are at least two reasons for the small number of data points available to calculate
worker-to-tonnage ratios for residential recycling collection: (1 ) The survey is more difficult for
haulers to complete than for other categories of recycling businesses. Although jobs are not
76
Mean Medium Standard Range Weighted Mean Deviation
Original 34.0 15.7 47.7 0.55 - 200 26.7 n=2 1 4
Without 22.4 15.7 26.7 4.0 - 91.6 31 Out1 iers n=17
necessarily difficult to establish, the survey also asks for tonnages of recyclables collected. If a
hauling company has accounts to haul for many different municipalities, counties, industries and
other customers, it is very difficult to aggregate tonnages, even if these records are kept. (2)
Waste and recycling hauling is an extremely competitive business for North Carolina so haulers
are very reluctant to share any proprietary information that they believe may help their
competitors.
There were not enough data points from the business surveys for the collection results to
stand on their own. Fortunately, collection statistics are more easily obtained from the
govemment survey since local governments only have their own program to follow and are
obliged to maintain accurate records. However, business collection data can still be used to
corroborate collection data from the local govemment surveys.
A.3.5 Processing
Both worker and tonnage values were available for fifty-six companies including
seventeen scrap metal processors. Of these fifty-six businesses, nineteen companies processed
(1) the types of recyclables that pass through the residential sector and (2) more than one type of
recyclable. The statistics on theses nineteen companies are presented in Table A-2.
Histograms of the results for labor are presented in Figures 2 & 3. The former graph relates all
responses and the latter has outliers have been removed.
Y
77
Interval width = 19.9450 Multiply class midpoint by 100.000 12
.l .3 .5 .7 .9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9
Histogram for RATIO (by classes)
Histogram of Results for Labor Coeficients for Processing Businesses (all responses - based on I0,OOO tons of material)
Figure A-2
Interval width = 8.7667 Multiply class midpoint by 10.000
.8 1.7 2.6 3.5 4.3 5.2 6.1 7.0 7.9 8.7
Histogrom for RATIO (by closses)
Histogram of Resultsfor Labor Coeficients for Processing Businesses (outliers removed - based on 10,000 tons of material)
Figure A-3
1(
78
Not all materials require equal processing time. For example, processing of plastic
bottles is more labor intensive than processing of gIass bottIes and firms that process many
materials may be less productive in terms of labor than firms that concentrate on a single
material. Most materials, however, are processed by firms that handle multiple materials, so it
is not possible to assess labor coefficients for each material from the business survey. Scrap
metal, on the other hand, is frequently managed by companies dedicated only to this material.
Of the 123 scrap metal dealers that were surveyed, jobs and tonnage information were available
for eighteen, The statistics for the scrap metal dealers are presented in Table A-3. There were
also enough responses from companies that process only paper (including corrugated cardboard)
to calculate a labor coefficient for this material (which is also presented Table A-3.) From the
values in Table A-3, it can be seen that scrap metal and paper processing workers tend to be
more productive than the average multi-material processing facility. This efficiency is likely
due to: (1) the economies of scales achieved from the recycling of extremely large quantities of
scrap metal and paper; (2) the focus of a facility on the management of one type of material; (3)
the more mature nature of the scrap metal and paper recycling businesses compared to other
recycling industries; (4) recycling plastic is notoriously labor intensive and raises the average
labor -to-worker ratio at multi-material processing fac i l i t i e~ .~ The Recycling Jobs Model
incorporates the lower labor coefficients for scrap metal and paper as presented in Table A-3. It
is assumed that (1) all scrap metal is managed by processors dedicated to managing only scarp
metal and (2) fifty percent of paper is managed by processors dedicated to managing only
paper.65 Histograms of the processing results for scrap metal and paper processors are presented
in Figures A-3 & A-4. .A
The Northeast Recycling Council study shows that processing of plastic recyclables to be nine times more labor intensive than the average residential recycled material. See discussion of this study in Appendix D. The vast majority of scrap metal dealers manage only this material. On the other hand. paper is commonly managed by designated and multi-material processors but the flow between the two types of processors is unknown. Fifty percent to each represents an educated guess.
6J
79
Mean Medium Standard Range Weighted Mean Deviation
IScrao Metal Original n=18
35.1 12.8 91.5 0.02 - 400 20.5
'Without Outliers n=14
Statistics on Metal and Paper Recycling Processors Table A-3
13.7 12.8 9.3 .3 - 33 10.7
IntewoI width = 3.3033 Multip) closs midpoint by 1O.WO
Paper Original 4.2 n=7 Without 3.9 Outliers n=5
.2 .5 .9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.2
Histogrom for RATIO (by classes)
Histogram of Results for Labor CoefSients for Scrap Metal Processors (outliers removed - based on IO, 000 tons of material)
Figure A-3
4.2 3 .5 -9.4 5.6
4.2 1.8 1.7 - 6.1 4.6
4 - - - - -
3 . -
3
0 ‘1 .9 1.8 2.7 3.6 4.5 5.4 6.3 7.2 8.1 9.0
Histogram for RATIO (by classes)
Histogram of Results for Labor Coeflcients for Paper Processors (all responses included - based on IO, 000 tons of material)
Figure A-3
A.3.6 Brokering
All businesses and local governments that collect and process recyclables, market the
material if they do not end-use it in-house. Thus, marketing recyclables can be seen as an
ancillary function to collecting and processing. But there are few companies that are in the
business of marketing the materials without processing or changing the materials in some
fashion. These businesses are known as brokers. Fifteen businesses in the sample broker
materials and perform no other recycling function. All of these brokers manage materials
coming from the commercial and industrial sectors and do not manage materials that pass
through the residential sector. According to survey responses, these brokers commonly manage
industrial plastic, metal, or textile scrap. Since brokers are not significant in managing
residential recyclables, they were not included in the Recycling Jobs Model.
4
81
A.3.1 End-use
Of the eighty-eight end-users in the database, twenty-three responded. These companies
use a wide array of recycled materials including metal, plastic, food waste, paper, wood, and
others.% End-users are the driving force behind recycling. If a manufacturer or other end-user
has demand for a recycled material, a market for that material will develop. It is assumed that
end-users require approximately the same number of jobs to utilize virgin materials as recycled
materials so this category is also not included in the Recycling Job Model 67
For more detailed discussion of end-users in North Carolina see the Office of Waste Reduction guidebooks: North Carolina Monufacturers of Recycled Products and The Directory ofMarkets for Recvclable Materials See Section 3.3 onModel Assumptions for a more detailed discussion of this assumption
, 67
?(
82
Appendix B:
Government Survey and Results
This appendix is divided into the following sections:
+ A description of the methodology used for the survey, including a discussion of sample selection, survey development, and survey implementation
+ The survey instrument along with the follow-up post card Aggregated results for each question in the survey
Y
83
B. I Methodologv
Due to the more homogenous nature of local government's role in recycling, the
survey developed for local governments was simpler than the business survey The local
government survey is intended to obtain (1) an estimate of recycling jobs at the local
government level in North Carolina, (2) workers required for recycling and solid waste
functions (which would then be merge with Solid Waste Management Report tonnage
data to calculate labor coefficients, and (3) estimates of material flows paths for the
various residential recycled materials.
B.l.l Sample Selection
Taken from Office of Waste Reduction records, the sample included the entire
universe of local government recycling programs. Of the 620 local governments in
North Carolina, the 360 local governments which operate recycling programs received
surveys.
,a>;* <:5:+&~ ,">??&
B.1.2 Maximizing Response Rates ,'I , I ..e..
Mail Survey: As the business recycling survey was financially supported by both the Office of Waste Reduction and the Self-Help Credit Union, there were more funds available to raise response rates. Due to the tighter budget for the local government survey, no introductory letter was sent and the return envelope was not pre-stamped. The survey was sent on July 8, 1994. Post-card: On July 19, eleven days after the original survey was sent, a post-card was mailed to those who had not already returned their survey.
.A
Due to the fact that local governments were in the habit of completing reports for the
Office of Waste Reduction and the survey was considerably shorter and less complicated,
a higher response rate was expected from the local governments compared to the
businesses Also, it was expected that many local governments would contract out all
their recycling and or solid waste services so that their responses would not be helpful in
developing a model A copy of the local government survey and the follow-up postcard
are presented on the following pages
w
84
July 12, 1994
Dear Local Government Official,
The North Carolina Office of Waste Reduction is in the process of estimating the number of recycling related jobs in the state. Such information will help the state assess the impacts recycling has on the labor market in North Carolina and will be used to assist in the development of markets for recycled materials. Therefore, it is very important that you complete the following survey, and promptly retum it in the enclosed pre-addressed envelope to:
Office of Waste Reduction 3825 Barrett Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
attn: Michael Shore
In the next few weeks, Michael Shore, a graduate student at UNC - Chapel Hill, will be contacting those local governments whose surveys have not been received. Please feel free to call him at (919) 542-5573 or Matt Ewadinger at the Office of Waste Reduction at (919) 571-4100 if you have any questions. Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Mary Beth Powell Manager, Solid Waste Reduction Program
Y
85
Survey to Assess The Impact of Recycling on Employment
in North Carolina
I . County or Municipality:
your name: phone number:
2. In the table below: (a) check the recycling functions that are currently performed by your local govemment
(b) list the number of local govemment full-time equivalent* employees dedicated to that staff (do not check functions that are performed by contractors) and
function.
*Full-time equivalent includes all fill- andpart-time employees and those who only work a percentage of their time in recycling. You may use fractions when filling out number of employees. For example, in the first square of column b, if your local government has 1 empIoyee who works 20 hours a week in curbside recycling collection, you should enter .5 in the answer box.
0 collection of recyclables from drop-off centers
0 staf€ing of collection centers
0 processing of recyclables**
(staffed & unstaffed)
0 composting and/or mulching .A
0 administration, education, & marketing associated with recvclinp.
I I
0 other recycling functions:
Total of all recycling employees = (This number should equal the number of
employees on your local govemment's recycling staff)
* * Processing includes sorting, baling, compacting, shredding, crushing, or otherwise transforming recyclable materials to meet specifications required by end-users or other markets. Do not include tire management or salvage operations in your responses.
v
86
3. Of the total number of recycling employees listed in question #2, how many have been
added since 1989?
0 aluminumcans
0 steel food cans
4. In the table below: (a) check the materials that your local government collects (do not check materials
(b) check the types of processing performed, if any; (c) for material you do process, estimate labor hours per week dedicated to processing (do
(d) check whether your local government sends a material to a processor or a
collected by contractors);
not include collection time); and
manufactwedend-user.
0 sort 0 bale 0 processor 0 compact 0 manufactwedend-user 0 sort 0 bale 0 processor 0 comuact 0 manufacturedend-user
0 whitegoods
0 glass bottles
I I I
0 other metal scrap 10 sort 0 bale I 10 processor
0 Freon removal O processor 0 component removal 0 manufacturer/end-user 0 sort 0 crush 0 processor
0 manufacturedend-user
I 10 compact I 10 manufactwedend-user I
0 PETE plastic (#1)
0 HDPE plastic (#2)
0 sort 0 bale 0 processor 0 compact 0 shred 0 manufacturedend-user 0 sort 0 bale 0 processor 0 compact 0 shred 0 manufactwedend-user
0 newspaper
0 corrugated cardboard
0 office paper
0 sort 0 bale 0 processor El manufacturedend-user
0 sort 0 bale 0 processor 0 compact 0 manufactwedend-user 0 sort 0 bale 0 processor
0 manufactwedend-user 0 magazines 0 sort 0 bale 0 processor
0 manufactwedend-user
(r
87
(a) Solid waste functions
4. What is the average hourly wage earned by the recycling employees of your local government?
( b) # of full-time
equivalent employees i
0 $4.35 - $5.00 0 $5.01 - $8.00 0 $8.01 - $11.00 0 $11.01 - $14.00 0 above $14.00
0 collection of solid waste from drop-off centers (collectors of staffed & unstaffed sites
-- do not include collection center on-site staff) 0 disposal of solid waste in landfill
0 disposal of solid waste by incineration
D administration .A
6. In the table below: (a) check the solid waste functions that are currently performed by your local government
(b) list the number of local government full-time equivalent* employees dedicated to that staff (do not check functions that are performed by contractors) and
function.
*Full-time equivalent includes all fill- and part-time employees and those who only work a percentage of their time in solid waste. You may use fractions when filling out number of employees. For example, in the first square of column b, if your local government has I employee who works 20 hours a week in curbside solid waste collection, you should enter .5 in the answer box.
I I ~ , ,~, .. , t ,~, . , i,.:,, .1 10 curbside collection of solid waste
c1 other solid waste functions
Total of all solid waste employees = (This number should equal the number of employees on
your local government's solid waste staff)
7. What is the average hourly wage earned by the solid waste employees of your local government?
0 $4.35 - $5.00 0 $5.01 - $8.00 0 $8.01 - $11.00 0 $11.01 - $14.00 0 above $14.00
Y
88
.. ....., .. , . . . ,,.,.
. . ..' ,,:. .. . . i.
Text of follow-up postcard:
Earlier this month the North Carolina OMice of Waste Reduction sent you a survey concerning your local government's recycling-related employment. If you have yet to complete and retum the survey, please do so today. Your input is vital to developing a better understanding of the recycling labor market. If you have already retumed the survey, please accept our thanks. If you did not receive the survey, please call Scott Mouw at (919) 571-4100 to have one sent.
Thank you very much for your time and effort
Sincerely.
Michael Shore
1(
89
8 2 Local Government Sunfey Results
Similar to the results from the business surveys, results from the local government
surveys also require introductory remarks Many responses are aggregated and directly
presented. Other responses are averaged so that the results can be used in the Recycling
Jobs Model. As local govemments were asked to estimate the quantity of recycled
materials they manage in a year, (data for which accurate records may or may not be
maintained), it is expected that a percentage of the respondents will complete the surveys
with incorrect tonnage responses In order to mitigate the effects occasional data points
may have, the few highest and lowest data points were removed as outliers when calculating
the averages to be used for the model. However averages, medians, and standard deviations
are presented for the data before and after potential outliers are removed.
Also, not all respondents should count equally when determining averages to be
used in the Recycling Jobs Model For example, the labor coefficients should not be
weighted equally for a local government with fifty employees and a company with one
employee Thus, along with the regular mean, a weighted mean to be used in the Recycling
Jobs Model was calculated for all averages, giving greater emphasis to local govemments
with more employees. The weighted mean for each set of labor coefficients was calculated
as follows
X(workers I ton x # of workers) X # of workers
Weighted Mean =
.A
Lastly, in order to accurately count all jobs associated with a function,
administrative jobs documented in the surveys were added to the solid waste and recycling
job functions Local governments which perform more than one of these recycling or solid
waste functions have administrative jobs divided among the different functions in
proportion to the number employees working in each function All worker to ton ratios are
presented on the basis of 10,000 tons (i e worker.l0,000 tons) to make numbers more
readable for the model user.
Y
90
B.2.1. Response Rate
Of the 620 local governments in North Carolina, the government survey was sent to
the 360 local governments which operate recycling programs.6x Of these 360 surveys, 279
local governments returned the survey, a 78% response rate.
B.2.2 Total Recycling Jobs (Question #2 and #3)
Survey results account for 850 recycling employees at the local government level.
Assuming that the 78% of the local governments that responded are representative of the
entire population, there may be an additional 240 employees in the local governments that
did not respond, totaling 1090 local government recycling employees statewide. The ten
recycling employees at the State Office of Waste Reduction brings the total of government
recycling employees to 1100. According to the government survey, 64% (540 out of the
850 local government recycling jobs) were created after 1989. The local government jobs
divided by function type are presented in Figure B-1.
Recycling Employment by Function
adnininstrationl other education 3% curbside collection
10% 18%
corposting 1 5%
drop-off collection 15%
processing 14%
staffing of collection centers
25%
Figure B- I ~~ ~ ~
as The number of North Carolina local governments with recycling programs is determined from the Solid Waste Annual Report
Y
91
Mean Medium
B.2.3 Recycling Labor Coemcients (Question #2)
Standard Range Weighted Mean Deviation
The number of local government employees for each function can be linked with the
quantities of material these employees manage using data from the North Carolina Solid
Waste Management Annual Reports. Table B-1 gives the averages and other statistical
information for the labor coefficients for each of the recycling functions. Following the
table are histograms for each of the recycling coefficient results along with discussion of the
data presented in Table B-1.
Original 47 12 96 1.0 - 383 52 Outliers 20 12 19 3.1 - 63 28 Removed Composting & Mulching Original 20.3 8.6 33.7 2.1 -429 7,208 Outliers 11.9 10.2 7 4.2 - 23.3 13.2 Removed
Original 63 49 45 n=7 Outliers 49 48 10 Removed n=6
28-164
28-57
s
92
,, . . , . .: ,. . ~,.:. . .. . .... . .. . .
Interval width - 198.6803 Multiply c1035 midpoint by 1000.000 28 ,
.1 .3 .5 .7 .9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9
Histogram for RATIO (by closses)
Histogram of Results for Labor CoefJicients for Local Government Curbside Collection (all responses included - based on lO.000 tons of material)
Figure B-2
B.2.3.1 Curbside Collection of Recyclables
Figure B-2 presents a histogram of all results for curbside collection. Upon
inspection of the data, however, there is a relationship between the labor coefficients and the
size of the local governments. Local govemment larger than 20,000 people tend to employ
more workers in curbside, manage more recyclables and have lower labor coefficients.
Thus, labor coefficients for curbside programs are divided into two groups, based on local
populations. The local governments with populations greater than 20,000 constitute about
80% of the material recycled in North Carolina.@ The Recycling Jobs Model incorporates
both sets of labor coefficients along with the percent of material recycled by large and small
local governments. The high labor coefficients for small local governments may be due to
an inability to achieve very good economies of scales. Their labor coefficient also indicates
4
69 This figure is calculated from tonnage data from the thiiy-seven local govemments whose response were used to calculate labor coefficients.
Y
93
that small local governments may be able to reduce the labor costs if they combine recycling
collection efforts with other local governments or contract for this service. I
The histograms for local governments with populations over and under 20,000 people
are presented below. For local governments with a population over 20,000, the histogram
presents all responses and the outlier can clearly be identified. For local governments with
populations under 20,000 people, the outliers are removed as their inclusion compacts the
rest of the responses into too few groups and distorts the perception of the distribution of
responses.
x 0 c a, 3 u
LL Y
Interm1 width = 13.6703 Multiply claas midpoint by 100.000
.3 .5 .6 .8 .9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6
Histogram for RATIO (by classes)
Histogram of Results for Labor Coefficientsjor Local Government Curbside Collection of Recyclables
(population > 20,000 -- all responses include4
Figure 8-3
94
12 - - - . -
9 - - . - -
6 - - - - -
3 -- - - - - .
0 -
.. ... . . -. ..
--
--
I .5 1.1 1.8 2.4 3.1 3.7 4.4 5.0 5.7 6.3
Histogrom for RATIO (by closses)
Histogram of Results for Labor CoefJicients for Local Govemment Curbside Collection of Recyclables
(population < 20,000 - outliers removed) Figure B-4
B.2.3.2 Drop-off Collection of Recyclables
The histogram of responses for drop-off recycling collection is presented in Figure
B-5. The act of collecting materials from a drop-off program are much more efficient in
terms of labor than collection from a curb-side program. However, whereas curbside
collection programs are mostly operated by municipalities, drop-off collection programs are
mostly operated by counties. The higher lab& coefficient for drop-off collection compared
to large local govemment curbside collection programs (see Table B-1) is due to the fact the
counties collect materials over a much wider geographic area than municipalities. Thus,
much labor time is dedicated to driving from one collection point to anotherpcross the
county. Municipalities do not have to cope with this inefftciency.
indication of differences of labor efficiencies due to population for drop collection programs.
The data revealed no
Y
95
Interval width = 18.6680 Multiply class midpoint by 100.000
.1 .3 .5 .7 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Histogram for RATIO (by closses)
Histogram of Results for Labor Coeficients for Local Government Drop-off Collection of .'>: ,, ..,, Recyclables
(all responses included - based on 10,000 tons of material) ~ .!. , , , , , ,, ,.
Figure B-5
B.2.3.3 Processing of Recyclables .,
This recycling function is generally performed by the private sector instead of local
govemments, thus, the labor coefficient gathered from the business survey (see Section
A.3.4) is used in the Recycling Jobs Model.
the local government surveys can be used to corroborate the business survey labor coefficient
as the two values are within 10% of each other. The histogram of the of local government
processing responses is presented in Figure B-6 In this graph the outliers are removed as
their inclusion compacts the rest of the responses into two groups distorting the perception of
the distribution of responses
However, the labor coefficient derived from
Y
96
. .. ,.. . ... . ,,,., :. , " . .
lntervol width = 5.9525 Multiply class midpoint by 10.000. 8
.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.4 6.0
Histogrom for RATIO (by classes)
Histogram of Results for Labor Coeflcients for Local Government Processing of Recyclables
(outliers removed - based on IO, 000 tons of materia0
Figure B-6
B.2.3.4 Discussion for Composting
Composting is still an immature industry in North Carolina (even compared with
other recycling industries), and as it has the pdtential to absorb large quantities of the waste
stream, it is likely to grow at a fast rate. Thus, as composting increases in North Carolina its
labor coefficient may fluctuate more so than the other labor coefficients calculated for this
study. This histogram for composting is presented in Figure B-7. No trend in labor
coefficients according to county population were discernible for this function.
Y
97
Interval width = 42.6441 Multiply closs midpoint by 100.000
I T
.2 .7 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.1
Histogram for RATIO (by classes)
Histogram of Results for Labor Coeficients for Local Govemment Composting (all responses included - based on 10,000 tons of material)
Figure B- 7
B.2.4 Wages (Question #5 & #7)
The wage question was designed so that the respondent checked one of five ranges 4
for the average wages at his business. With data on 78% of the local governments surveyed,
the average wage for recycling businesses was $7.54 per hour with a median wage of $6.50
and a standard deviation of 2.02. Weighting the mean according to the number of recycling
employees at a local government raises the average to $7.71 per hour. A histogram of
recycling wages is presented in Figure B-8.
98
' 60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
. . .... ,. : . . ... ".
Histogram of Wages for Local Government Recycling Employees
62.8%
$4.35- $5.01- $8.01- $11.00- >$14.00 $5.00 $8.00 $11.00 $14.00
Figure B-8
For comparison, local govemment wage information was also obtained for local government
solid waste workers (see question #7) which turned out to be higher than the recycling
wages. The mean wage for responses was $8.17 with a median of $6.50 and a standard
deviation of $2.05. Weighting the mean according to number of employees in local
government, the average wage raises to $9.16, almost $1.50 higher than the recycling
employee wage. The histogram for solid waste employees is presented in Figure B-9. -2
r 99
50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0% 20.0%
15.0%
10.0% 5.0% 0.0%
Histogram of Wages for Local Government Solid Waste Employees
49.3%
t +
38.8%
8.6%
0.7%
0 $4.35- $5.01- $8.01- $11.00- >$14.00 $5.00 $8.00 $11.00 $14.00
Figure B-Y
As averages may be skewed depending on which local governments operate recycling
and solid waste programs, a good indicator of relative recycling and solid waste wages is to
compare the wages for solid waste and recycling employees for local governments that
operate both programs. Forty-four percent of the local governments that responded to the
survey operate both recycling and solid waste programs. Of these responses, the vast
majority fall into the same wage category. Fgr thirty percent of the responses, solid waste
wages were higher and for only six percent were recycling wages higher. These results can
be seen graphically in Figure B-10.
Y
100
Compariran of Recycling and Solid Waste Wages for North Caroilna Local Governments
RBcychg Wage H s k r 6%
Figure B-IO
B.2.5 Material Flow (Question #4)
Question #I of the government survey was designed to help refine the material flow
diagrams for the recyclables streams being examined in this research. For each material that
local govemments collect, responses provide information on whether or not the local
governments process70 each material and whether the markets for the material is a processor
or end-user. For most recyclables, initial processing involves bailing or otherwise
compacting the materials. .A
It is was expected that after being discarded by residential users, most recyclables
travel through the following steps: collection to processing to end-user (see Section 2.2 on
Integrated Material Flow System.) However, it is also expected that a certain percentage of
the materials collected in North Carolina do not follow this straight path. Some end-users
accept materials straight from a collector which was common in the North Carolina glass
industry until a few years ago. On the other hand, some material is processed by a collector
'' hcess ing is def ied as physically changing the recyclables so that they can be more cheaply transported or more easily utilized by end-users. See Section 2.2 on Solid Waste undRecyclinp Flows for more detailed discussions of processing.
Y
101
and then reprocessed by another middleman For example, a local government may collect
corrugated cardboard and bale the material to reduce shipping costs The buyer of the
cardboard may then break the bales, remove possible contaminants and then re-bale the
cardboard according to its own specifications It is an imperfect science to determine exactly
how much material is processed more than once, and how labor intensive the initial
processing is compared to secondary processing Responses to question #4 should at least
give rough estimates of the paths materials take after they leave the residential sector It
should be noted that after primary processing, material may be again processed by an
end-user or another middle party which may include melting or chemical transformation of
the material Information on these tertiary processing stages were gathered from other
sources besides the government survey and are presented in the various material flow
diagrams in Section 5.2.2, Material Flow Diagrams.
Due to the complexity of manipulating data on tonnages for each material, the results
for Question #4 are presented in terms of the number of local governments; this should
provide an adequate surrogate for percentage flows in the recyclable waste stream Results
from Question #4 are presented in Table B-2 which requires some explanation According to
the Recycling Government survey design, material paths can be divided into four categories
(1) collected materials that are processed by the local government and then sent to an
end-user, i.e. processed once, (2) collected material that are processed by local governments
and sent to another processor, i e processed twice, (3) collected materials that are not
processed by local governments but sent directly to an end-user, i e. processed zero times;
and (4) collected materials that are not processed by local governments, but sent to a
processor, i.e also processed once. The number of local governments that responded in
each category is presented in the Material Path column of the table From these responses,
the number of times a material is processed is divided by the total number of local
governments to obtain a percentage for each category Note that this chart does not take into
account secondary processing that may occur closer to the end-user, for example chemical
transformations or melting of materials
102
Material # of Respondents
Collecting Material Path Material Path Material by Percent
Aluminum
Steel Food cans
Processed -+ Manufacturer: 6 Processed + Processor: 7 No Processed + Manufacturer: 7 No Processed + Processor: 77 Processed +Manufacturer: 4 Processed +Processor: 2 No Processed + Manufacturer: 3 No Prorewed Pmcecsnnn 27
% not processed: 7.2% %processed once: 85.6% %processed twice: 7.2%
%not processed: 1.7% %processed once: 88.3% %processed twice: lo.%
97
60
No Processed + Manufacturer: 7 %processed twice: 5.5% I No Processed + Processor: 72 I
Other Scrap Metal
Glass
PETE
HDPE
Newspaper
Cardboard
Processed + Manufacturer: 0 Processed + Processor: 2 No Processed -+ Manufacturer: 3 No Processed + Processor: 53
Processed + Processor: 7 No Processed + Manufacturer: 5 No Processed + Processor: 72
Processed + Processor: 13 No Processed +Manufacturer: 1 No Processed + Processor: 54
Processed + Processor: 13 No Processed + Manufacturer: 3 No Processed + Processor: 5 1
Processed -+Processor: 5
%not processed: 5.2% %processed once: 91.4% %processed twice: 3.4%
58
87 Processed +Manufacturer: 3 %not processed: 5.7% %processed once: 86.2% %processed twice: 8.0%
76 Processed + Manufacturer: 8 %not processed: 1.3% %processed once: 81.6% %processed twice: 17.1%
14 Processed -+ Manufacturer: 7 %not processed: 4.1% %processed once: 78.4% %processed twice: 17.6%
90 Processed + Manufacturer 6 %not processed: 7.7% %processed once: 86.7
Iffice Paper
73
57
Processed + Manufacturer: 6 Processed +Processor: 15 No Processed -+ Manufacturer: 5 No Processed + Processot: 47 Processed i ) Manufacturer: 3 Processed + Processor: 3 No Processed + Manufacturer: 2 No Processed + Processor: 49
%not processed 6.8% %processed once: 72.6% %processed twice: 20.5%
%not processed: 3.5% %processed once: 91.2% %processed twice: 5.3%
Magazines 36 Processed + Manufacturer: 4 Processed -+ Processor: 2 No Processed + Manufacturer: 3 No Processed + Processor: 27
%processed twice: 5.5% I %not processed: 8.3% %processed once: 86.1%
Material Flows for Recyclables
Table B-2
As PETE and HDPE plastic bottles account for over 90%” of all residential plastic
recycled in North Carolina, the processing values from Table B-2 for PETE and HDPE
plastic are averaged and used to represent all plastic recycled. Similarly, in the model, paper
products are divided into two categories, corrugated cardboard and all other types of paper
(which mostly includes newspaper, magazine, office paper and mixed paper.) Of the second
category, most of the paper types are handled similarly (notice the closeness of the
processing values in Table B-2 for newspaper, magazine, and office paper.) As newspaper
represents 70%’’ by weight of the second category of paper, its processing values are used in
the Recycling Jobs Model to represent the paper category.
It is interesting to note in the results presented in Table B-2 that the vast majority of
materials travel the common path of collection to processing to end-user, and alternative
routes tend not to be very significant The variations from this common, straight-line path
are further reduced in reality because, like all data collected from the government surveys,
the values in Table B-2 do not include local governments that collect a material via a
contractor. Contractors generally collect materials from many different government entities
which enables them to combine volumes and achieve economies of scale when managing
recyclables The relatively large quantities of materials that contractors manage makes it
more likely that they process materials in order to minimize transportation costs, but the
materials are rarely processed twice Thus, it is assumed, for private contractors that one
hundred percent of the material is processed one time As private contractors collect about
half of all recyclables from the residential ~ector,’~ the figure from Table B-2 are averaged
with assumed material flows from private co&actors when incorporated in the Recycling
Jobs Model
Additionally, Table B-2 does not include white goods which require a unique
handling system. All appliances that contain refrigerant are required by the Clean Air Act of
1990 to have their freon removed. After removal of the gas, appliances are handled similarly
71
” bid. ”
North Carolina Solid Waste Annual Report, FY 92-92
According to data from the Solid Waste Management Annual Reports, 1993, fifty& percent of local government recycling programs are operated by private contractors.
%
104
to scrap metal. This study does not estimate labor coefficients for Freon removal, the
percentage of appliances that require Freon removal, nor the percentage of local
govemments which actually comply with the law. All appliances are treated like other scrap
metal in the Recycling Jobs Model and hence the model slightly underestimates job levels.
Finally, there may be error in this table as local governments may not be sure of the function
of the market to which they send their material. For example, Reynolds Aluminum is a
famous end-user of aluminum cans. However, they are also a primary processor of
aluminum cans. A local government which sends its aluminum to Reynolds may have
wrongly indicated they were sending material to an end-user. Finally, question #4 was
designed to obtain labor data for processing specific materials. Although, quality data may
be available from the labor responses for the specific materials, this data is beyond the scope
of the Recycling Jobs Model and is ignored.
B.2.6 Solid Waste Labor Coefficients (Question #6)
Question #6 was asked to obtain labor coefficients for the solid waste functions of
collection and disposal. Results from the question can not be aggregated to determine total
solid waste workers in the state as the surveys were only sent to local governments which
operate recycling programs, not all local governments.
coefficients for solid waste functions, the number of local government employees for each
function are merged with the quantities of material these employees manage from data from
the North Carolina Solid Waste Management ,&nual Reports. Table B-3 gives the averages
and other statistical information for the labor coefficients for each of the solid waste
functions. Following the table are histograms of results for each of the recycling coefficient
results.
In order to calculate labor
Mean Medium Standard Range Weighted Mean Deviation (Labor Coefficients)
Curbside Collection @opulation >20,000)
Original 10 9 7.9 1.2 -32 10.5 n=16 Outliers 8 9 9 4.2 3.6 - 15 8 Removed n=12 Curbside Collection @opulation <20,000)
Original 59 22 195 n=65 Outliers 26 22 19 Removed n=57 Drop-off Collection
1.6 - 1535 40
4.3 - 76 22
Original 3.2 1.5 3.6 . I9 - 13 4.3 n=27
Outliers 2.7 1.5 2.5 .35 - 8.2 4 Removed n=23 Landfilling
i
Original 1.6 0 .9 1.8 .24 - 10.4 1.6 n=35
Outliers 1.3 0.9 0.8 .44 - 3.05 1.5 Removed n=3 1
Statistics of Local Government Collection and Disposal Table B-3
Original "
n=l 5.8 d a d a nla 5.8
"(
106
B.2.6.1 Curbside Collection of Solid Waste
Judging from scatter diagrams, it seems that there is a relationship between local
government population and labor coefficients for curbside collection of solid waste which is
similar to the curbside collection of recyclables. The statistics for curbside collection of
solid waste are calculated in two categories using the same delimiter of populations greater
and less than 20,000 people (see results in table B-3.) The local governments with
populations greater than 20,000 constitute about 84% of the material recycled in North
Car~lina. '~ The Recycling Jobs Model incorporates both sets of labor coefficients along
with the percent of material recycled by large and small local governments. The lower labor
coefficients for larger local governments is likely due to achieving superior economies of
scale.
The histograms for local governments with populations over and under 20,000 people
are presented below. For local governments with a population over 20,000, the histogram
presents all responses as the outliers can be clearly identified. For local governments with
populations under 20,000 people, the outliers are removed as their inclusion compacts the
rest of the responses into too few groups which distort the perception of the distribution of
responses.
'* This figure is calculated from tonnage data from the eighty local governments whose responses were used to calculate labor Coefficients.
Y
107
lntervol width = 3.1538 Multiply closs midDoint by 10.000
.3 .6 .9 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1
Histogram for RATIOL (by classes)
Histogram of Results for Labor Coeflcienis for Local Govemment Curbside Collect of Solid Waste
(ppuiaiion > 20,000 - all responses included - based on IO, 000 tons of material)
Figure B- I I
.8 1.5 2.2 2.9 3.6 4.4 5.1 5.8 6.5 7.2
Histogram for RATIOS (by classes)
Histogram of Results for Labor CoefJicients for Local Government Curbside Collect of Solid Waste
(population <20,000 - outliers removed - based on I0,OOO tons of materia0
Figure B-I2
B.2.6.2 Drop-off Collection of Solid Waste
The data does not show an obvious tdnd between labor coefficients and populations.
The histogram for drop-off collection of solid waste is presented in Figure B-13.
y:
109
I f l t e ~ ~ I width = 1.3392 Multiply closs midpoint by 10.000
.1 .2 .4 .5 .6 .8 .9 1.0 1.2 1.3
Histogram for RATIO (by classes)
Histogram of Results for Labor Coeficients for Local Government Drop-oflCoNection of Solid Waste (all responses included - based on 10, 000 tons of materia4
Figure B-13
B.2.6.3 Landfilling of Solid Waste
There are 104 publicly operated landfins in North Carolina, and the labor coefficients
are based on data available for thirty-five of these landfills. Though data indicates that there
maybe a relationship between labor coefficients for landfills and local government
population, the trend does not seem significant enough to pursue for purposes of the
Recycling Jobs Model. The histogram for of landfilling labor coefficients is presented in
Figure B-14.
r
110
Intervol width = 1.01 80
. .8 1.8 2.8 3.6 4.8 5.8 6.9 7.9 8.9 9.9
Histogram for RATIO (by closses)
Histogram of Results for Labor Coeficienis for Local Government Lad$lling of Solid Waste
(all responses included - based on I O , 000 tons of material)
Figure B-I4
B.2.6.4 Incineration of Solid Waste
Of the three publicly operated incinerators in North Carolina, only one local
government listed the number of workers at their facility. The labor coefficient for
incineration is calculated from the one incinerator. 165,500 tons75 or 2.44%, of the North
Carolinas municipal solid waste stream goes to North Carolina's three incinerators.
Combusting of the 165,500 tons generated 50,600 tons of ash, thirty percent by weight of the
original solid waste. The tonnages of ash are aggregated with other landfill quantities to
estimate total landfilling jobs. As can be seen in Figure B-15, incineration only accounts for
a very small percentage of disposal in North Carolina, so, at this time, its impacts on
employment in the state are minimal.
This and following data on incineration are derived from the North Carolina Solid Waste Management Annual Report.
s
111
Solid Waste Disposal in North Carolina I
I
Ash landfilled (after imineration)
0.7%
Incinerated 2.3%
Landfilled 97.0%
Figure B-15
Appendix C:
Virgin Labor Coefficients
and Displacement Rates
C l Displacement Rates
In order to estimate the labor that is impacted by recycling, it is necessary to
know the amount of virgin material that is no longer required due to recycling
However, one ton of paper recycled does not displace one ton of trees, and similarly one
ton of glass recycled does not displace one ton of sand. Both virgin material and
recycled material have different efficiencies when converted through industrial processes.
Using known conversion efficiencies, displacement rates for paper and glass can easily
be calculated.
C.l.l Paper Processes
Conversion efficiency of trees to paper: 40% - 50%76 (The residual 5096660% of the trees is composed of lignin, cellulose, and other materials which are converted into various by-products andor converted to energy) .A
Conversion eficiency of recycled paper to paper: 80% - 90%77 (The residual 1096620% of the recycledpaper is composed of too shortflbers and contamination such as plastic "stickies", paper clips, etc.)
76 These estimates are for Kraft and chemical paper making processes (as opposed to mechanical processes) which account for almost all pulp and paper mills in North Carolina. These estimates were Drovided by a representative of North Carolina State University's Pulp and Paper Science pro&. These-estiktes were also similar to estimates provide bytwo php mill representatives
" bid.
113
Given the above conversion rates, it is possible to calculate displacement rates.
For Kraft paper making:
1 ton virgin wood @ 45% efficiency produces .45 tons of virgin fiber
1 ton of recycled paper @ 85% efficiency produces .85 tons of recycled
The ratio between these two efficiencies is::
1.89 tons of trees 1 tons reycled paper
- 1 ton of trees .45 tons virgin fiber
.85 tons paper X -
1 ton recycled paper
Therefore, 1 tons of recycled paper displaces 1.89 tons of virgin pulpwood for
the Kraft paper making process.
C.1.2 Glass
Conversion efficiency of sand to glass: 85%78
Conversion efficiency of cullet (broken bottles ready for recycling) to glass: 1 0 0 % ~ ~
This figure was provided by a representative of Owens-Brockway, a glass bottle manufacturer and confimed by a representative from Foster-Fqrbes, another glass bottle manufacturer. The 15% inefficiency, known as fusion loss. is from loss of &on dioxide and other gasses to the atmosphere. Some of the gasses may be lost from the other minor constituents of glass as well as the sand. bid. This value does not take into account contamination such as labels and caps that must be removed before d e t can be recycled.
18
' 9
Y
114
Given the above conversion rates, it is possible to calculate displacement rates
For glass bottle manufacturing:
1 ton sand @ 85% efficiency produces .85 tons of glass bottles
1 ton of cullet @ 100% efficiency produces 1 ton of glass bottles
The ratio between these two efficiencies is:
ltons glass bottles - 1 ton sand - lton cullet 1.18 tons cullet X
1 ton sand .85 tons glass bottles
Therefore, 1 ton of recycled glass displaces 1.18 tons of virgin sand in glass
production.
C2 Labor Coefficients in Virgin Fields
In addition to estimating displacement rates for virgin material in North Carolina,
it is also necessary to know productivity rates for these material extraction fields in order
to estimate employment impacts. Unlike labor associated with various recycling
functions which are dispersed among many SIC types, the SIC for timber harvesting and
sand mining are homogenous. Thus, available data on SIC 241, Logging, and SIC 1446,
Sand Mining, can be used.
4
Y
1 I5
C.2.1 Tree Harvesting
According to the Employment Security Commission", in 1991 there were 3,870
workers in SIC 241, Loggers, and an additional 770 employees in SIC 08, Forestry". In
the same year, pulpwood production in the Southeast was 4.83 million chords (1 chord
equals about 2.75 tons) about 10% of which was harvested in North Carolina". Thus
workers divided by production yields :
= ,000349 workers per tons 4,640 workers 4.83 million chords 2.75 tons
= 3.49 workers to harvest 10,000 tons of trees.
3.49 workers per 10,000 tons is used in the model as the most accurate means of
determining a worker to tonnage ratio However, calculations were performed to obtain
this ratio from other data sources, and all were very close Other timber harvesting labor
coefficients are 2.6lS3, 4.6gS4, and 1 21g5, but these value are not used, either because
they are likely out of date or the source was unreliable It should be noted that there is
tremendous variance in harvesting timber according to age of trees, terrain, equipment
used, types of harvesting, and other factors 8o Employment Security Commission, Emoloyment and Wages for North Carolina. 1991.
This SIC includes labor associated with managing timber tracks and foreshy services. As these jobs are supported by the extraction i n d w of supply paper mil ls with raw materials these jobs should be aggregated with logging jobs in calculating labor coefficients. If standard industrial codes were not included, the productivity rate for timber production would be 8.02 workers per 10,000 tons of trees harvested. Howell, Michael, "Southern Pulpwood Production, Southeastern Forest Experiment Statiop Forest Service, U S . Department of Agriculture, 1991. Clark, James, D., "Harvesting Systems of the Future," from Forest Products Research Society conference proceeding entitled People and Productivitv: Keys to a Successful Harvesting beration. Madison, Wisconsin, 1984, p. 125. Worker to tonnage ratio converted from Clark's productivity figure for Atlantic Region of ,563 hours I cubic meter. Irland, Lloyd, C., Manoower - Forest Industrv's Kev Resource, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, 1975, p. 53. Worker to tonnage ratio converted from Lloyd's productivity rate of 35 cubic feet per hour. Worker to tonnage ratio converted from chords per hour data provided by personal interview of a logging crew.
82
8,
L,
v
116
C.2.2 Sand Mining
Labor coefficients for sand mining are calculated very similarly to those of tree
harvesting. According to the 1987 Census of Mining,86 there were 3900 mining workers
nationwide that provided sand for the glass industry. Of these 3900 workers,
approximately 83.1% or 3,241 workers (this number is estimated from available value of
shipment data) are involved in sand mining sectors for which quantities of material
mined are available. The tons of sand mined by these workers equals 25.3 million tons.
Thus, labor coefficients for sand miners is easily calculated as follows:
3’241 = ,000128 works per ton 25.3 million tons
= 1.28 workers per 10,000 tons of sand mined
Table C-1 summarizes the data on paper and glass that is used in the Recycling
Jobs Model to calculate job loss due to recycling.
Virgin Statistics Used in Recycling Jobs Model
Table C-l
. ..
86 Census of Mining, US Department of Congress, Department of the Census, 1987. Although the 1992 census is presently being completed. this data is not yet available.
Y
117
Appendix D:
Previous Studies Relating
Recycling and Employment
Many previous recycling undjobs studies have been performed in recent years
The presentation of the studies help show that this is a timely issue for North Carolina,
and many of these studies provided insight or methodologies used in the North Carolina
study The recent plethora of studies include studies in or by the following states, cities
and organizations: Texas, Massachusetts, California, Boston, Institute for Local
Self-Reliance, Philadelphia, Clean Washington Center, Minnesota, Maine, New
York, American Plastic Council Study, and the Northeast Recycling Council. These
studies will be reviewed in order of date published and discussion will cover the
following points
Goal of the study Methodology Useful components of the study that haye been helpful in designing and implementing the North Carolina study of recycling and jobs
Y
118
1. Biocycle, March 1988
Title Employment Impact of Recycling Produced by: Biocycle Magazine Author: Jim Quigley Date. March, 1988
This is apparently the first study that attempts to quantify jobs associated with
recycling. The author totals numbers of workers in various recycling programs and
divides this figure into the quantity of materials handled by each program to arrive at the
numbers of tons recycled required to create one job The average of all programs
together yields one job created for every 465 tons of material that is recycled. Table D-1
presents all the data points used for the Biocycle study. The second to last row of the
table shows the average for each function, and the last row inverts the number so that it is
in terms equivalent to those used in this North Carolina study The figures in the last row
for collection and processing are used for comparison of the North Carolina data (see
Section 4.6 on Other Studies.)
Table D-I
Y
119
Though the data used in this study is not necessarily representative of all
recycling programs, this study does make a first good estimate of recycling’s impacts on
jobs and even discusses the winners and losers in terms ofjobs. This study is significant
not only because it is the first organized study that correlates jobs and recycling, but its
ton-to-worker ratios have been used by other recycling andjobs studies.
2. Austin and Surrounding Area, Texas
Title Creating Local Jobs from Environmental Protection Focus on recycling
Author Paul Robbins, Pamela Overeynder, Jacqueline Thomas Date March, 1992
and Small Business
As is stated “This report seeks to direct individuals, businesses, and governments
looking for opportunities to address environmental and economic concerns through
business development The report explores potential business opportunities which could
be created by recycling Discussion of jobs is not the focus of this study, but for each
business opportunity, potential job creation is mentioned According to the study, a few
hundred jobs could be created in the Austin area by taking advantage of opportunities
presented by recycling
3. Massachusetts .A
Title: Value Added by Recycling Industries in Massachusetts Produced by: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Author: Rob Ingenthron, Willa Small Kuh Date: July, 1992
This study aims to justify recycling over landfilling by calculating value added associated
with recycling. In so doing, they also cite that Massachusetts recycling industry
1
120
supports nearly 10,000 jobs most of which are manufacturing jobs. Data for this study is
based on a previously performed "census" of private recycling companies for the state.
4. California
Title: Jobs and the Environment Produced by: Planning and Conservation League Author: Jill Shirley Date: August, 1992
This paper attempts to show that environmental protection creates jobs for
California. This report contains one short chapter on recycling in which is sites the
California Employment Development Department statistics which show that California
recycling supports over 14,000 recycling workers.
Other California reports on recycling andjobs exist. The Regional Roundtable on
Recycling and Community Economic Development produced a short paper titled: "Jobs
in California's Recovered Materials Economy." This report cites many different studies
(most reviewed elsewhere in this appendix) on recycling's positive impact on jobs, but
presents no primary research of its own. One study cited, conducted by Resource
Management Associates, claims that one job per 854 tons of material is created for the
collection of residential recyclables*'. This ratio is also developed for the North Carolina
study and thus the California figure can be used for comparison. .A
~ *' Resource Management Associates. "Jobs Related to the Collection and Processing of Recyclable materials," (unpublished draft) 1993. The report was not directly reviewed but referenced from a footnote
?I
121
5. Boston
Title: Environmental Jobs for the Future Produced by: Boston's Economic Development and Industrial Cooperation Author: not listed Date: September, 1992
This paper is a description of "how Boston can create more than 10,000 new jobs . . . by
expanding the city's environmental industry." The paper reports future recycling
opportunities for the City, and uses the worker to ton ratios provided by the Jim Quigley
article (see the Biocycle Article above) to project future job growth associated with
recycling business growth.
6. National
Title: The Economic Benefits of Recycling Produced by: Institute for Local Self-Reliance Authors: Brenda Platt and David Morris Date: January, 1993
The purpose of this study is to counteract claims that criticize recycling as a
high-cost waste management strategy. The study attempts to support this view by first
showing that recycling and composting are cheaper alternatives than landfilling or
incinerating waste. Additionally, the study develops the argument that recycling
functions on average employ more people per ton than landfilling or incinerating waste
Jobs per ton at landfills and composting facilities were based on phone interviews
apparently performed by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Jobs per ton for
processing facilities and were based on statistics gathered in another report, the
"Materials Recovery and Recycling Yearbook (New York: Govemmental Advisory
Associates, Inc., 1991 and 1992.)
The study advocates the economic benefits of recycling, including its tendency to
create jobs. Unfortunately, there are no detailed summaries of the raw data, so it is
difficult to assess its accuracy. The Material Recovery and Recycling Yearbook that was
r
122
:omposting
omposting facilities 'acilities
10,000 tons /year
cited in the report is published by a for profit business which was unwilling to share its
results. Nonetheless, this report is useful as it estimates worker productivity rates in
terms of jobs per ton for many recycling and solid waste functions which can be
compared figures derived in the North Carolina study. The values used in the Institute
for Local Self-Reliance Study are presented in Table D-2. Inherent differences in the
types of facilities that were sampled for these studies and facilities in North Carolina may
bias this data compared to the North Carolina population of recycling entities
26 233,800 111 4.75
6 4
omposting facilities : 10,000 tonslyear !and fills
1.33 - 51.3
20 14
15 7,O 0 0,O 0 0 354 0.51 0.2 - 2.0
icinerators incinerators
> 300,000 tons / year
incinerators < 300,000 tons /
year
22 8,300,000 1,116 1.34
11 -A 1.2
11 2.27
.53 - 3.3
Worker to Weight Ratios for D ipsa l and Recycling Functions
Table D-2''
Y
123
7. Philadelphia
Title: "Economic Development Through Recycling" Produced by: The Philadelphia Recycling Office Author: not stated Date Published: February, 1993, follow up to research performed one year earlier
As is stated in the report, the goal of Philadelphia's Recycling Office was to see if
recycling "produced economic development through either business expansion or new
business development." As a related goal, this report strives to quantify the number of
jobs that are created due new or expanded businesses. This is the first study that uses
surveys to systematically quantify recycling jobs in a region
The report says that businesses were surveyed to obtain job data, but it does not
explain the type of survey that was used (mail, phone, or interview.) The study explores
recycling companies that were initiated since 1986 simply totals jobs created. For
businesses that have other non-recycling functions, the study only counts recycling
related positions when totaling the number of employees. As well as aggregating the
number of jobs created through new and expanded recycling businesses in Philadelphia,
the study make an effort to explore job loss through the closure of recycling business,
though they only have such data available since 1991, compared to 1986 for job creation.
The study finds that recycling has created 733 jobs in Philadelphia since 1986 through
new expanded recycling related businesses. It also finds that through recycling business
closure that 1 1 1 jobs were lost since 1991, although this figure is not listed in the report
summary along with the job creation number.
R8 Numbers presented in Table D-2 were gathered from material Recovery and Recycling Yearbook and used in the Institute for Local Self-Reliance study except for the values for processing and composting which come directly from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance research.
u
124
8. Washington State
Title: State of Washington Recycling Based Employment Produced by: Clean Washington Center Author: Bryan Sherman Date: February, 1993
The main purpose of the Clean Washington center research is to document
information regarding manufacturers that utilize recycled materials (i.e. end-users). The
Clean Washington Center mailed surveys to manufacturers in the state of Washington
gathering information on recycled products, capacity for recycled materials, capital
investments, and employment. It seems that information was gathered for internal use
and no formal report was published relating the results. Although data gathered was
apparently used to help in developing a state report called. "Strategic Direction for
Recycling. "
Research found that approximately 5,000 job in the state of Washington are
recycling based including collectors, processors, and end-users. Sixty percent of the jobs
identified are supported by the manufacturing sector. Despite an economic downturn in
the state, jobs in recycling have increased since 1989. Apparently, this study will be
redone annually so that the Clean Washington Center can assess trends. The study does
not explore job loss associated with recycling. This study was useful in developing the
North Carolina study as it provided a first blueprint of a recycling business survey. .A
9. Minnesota
Y
125
Title: Minnesota Forecasting and Simulation Model Produced by: Minnesota Office of Waste Management Author: Christopher Cloutier, Market Development Specialist Date: March, 1993
This research is presented in the form of a memorandum and is not a detailed
study The study is based using an economic model, REMI This model was originally
developed at the University of Massachusetts and is now owned by a private corporation,
Regional Economic Model, Inc The Minnesota's economic development office has
purchased and modified this model for its state In order to assess the economic impacts
of its grants, low interest loans, and time investments to private firms, the Minnesota
Office of Waste Management worked with its sister economic development agency to run
the model According to Christopher Cloutier, this model incorporates many economic
variables and can accurately predict changes in manufacturing output, value added,
employment, wages, and other economic indicators In fact, a version of this model is
presently being used by EPA in the Research Triangle Park in North Carolina to assess
impacts of environmental regulation on the economy.
The Office of Waste Management inputted the following into the model: the
creation of six new firms that they helped finance through grants, loans, and technical
assistance. From these inputs the model predicted millions of dollars in new wages,
increases in the state gross economic activity, and 1,688 new jobs created. These
number are interesting and may be accurate, but not directly helpful for the North
Carolina study. The Minnesota project focused on the creation of new end-users and
how this would impact the state economy and jobs, while the North Carolina Study
examines material flows and seeks to find workers per ton ratios to different recycling
activities along the material flow diagram.
sophisticated and may be able examine worker to ton ratios as well. However, the model
is prohibitively expensive (over $lO,OOO), and so cannot provide direct insight in
developing the North Carolina model. This study is significant in that it is the only
previous study to explore recycling and jobs using a model.
Although, the REMI model is highly
Y
126
10. Maine
Title: Recycling and the Maine Economy Produced by: Maine Waste Management Agency Author: Land & Water Associates and Market Decisions, Inc. Date: April, 1993
This study aims to show that recycling benefits the Maine economy in three ways:
(1) it increases value added; (2) the multiplier effect of having recycling in the economy;
and ( 3 ) it increases qualifyjobs. This study is similar to the Massachusetts study in that
in concentrates on value added. Its data source is data previously gathered by the Maine
Waste Management Agency. The study’s graphs do not agree with its tabular results, but,
apparently, the study finds between 994 and 1,194 full-time equivalent recycling jobs in
Maine divided between recycling brokers and manufacturers. Sixty percent of these jobs
belong to the manufacturing sector.
hour and recycling manufacturers earn $10.84 per hour, although a indication of the
qualify of these jobs is not developed. This study provides the North Carolina study
with graphical formats for presenting job data.
Average wages for recycling brokers is $7.78 per
11. NewYork
Title: Exploring the Economic Development Opportunities in Recycling Produced by: Urban Research Center, New York University Author: Hugh O’Neill, Megan Sheehap Date: August, 1993
This report is similar to the Austin, Texas and Boston Reports in that it calls for
New York to take advantage of economic development opportunities that recycling
presents. Only a few pages of the 150 page report addresses jobs associated with the
recycling.
Waste Materials, to show that job growth is occurring in the recycling sector. This
method is similarly used in the North Carolina study.
This report uses state labor department statistics for SIC 5093, Scrap and
Y
127
12. Curbside Effrciency Study
Title: Plastic Recycling Produced by: American Plastics Council Author: Rob Bracken Date: September, 1993, summary article printed in "Resource Recycling"
The American Plastics Council funded a study in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel
Hill area, North Carolina, to assess the efficiency of adding plastic bottles to existing
recycling programs, especially curbside collection programs. They hired a consultant
company to perform efficiency studies in the field of handling materials curbside. The
study measured the time to perform various recycling curbside job functions. In doing
this study, the consultant established labor productivity rates (presented in Table D-3) in
terms of pounds per labor hour for three different curbside collection systems.
, . , ~ .'.' , , , . . . ' ,: .. ."
x
128
System Type Pounds / Labor Hour
for Each Trial
Mean Pounds/ labor Hour by System Typi
Sunshares
Durhaml 7061 Durhaml 8991
87!
~
Durham I 1,126 Durhaml 6811
Labrie Chauel Hill
7 3 970
I I
Chapel Hill1 1,0881
Eager Beaver
I Chauel Hill1 473 I
66:
I I
Chapel Hill1 471 I
Gamer 846 mean of three
systems = 764 pounds / hour
Gamer I 5071 Garner1 6761
4
Curbside Productivity Rates
Table 0 - 3
The average pounds of material collected per labor hour for the three types of collection
systems studied equals 764. This value can be converted to a labor coefficient through
the following equation:
129
X x 52 weeks = ,00126 workers per ton 1 labor hour 2000 P o ~ ~ l d s 764 pound tons 40 hours Year
= 12.6 workers per every 10,000 tons of recyclables collected
Although this result may be very accurate in examining productive time, it does not take
into account down time of vehicle, inefficiencies during the workday, or administrative
time. It should also be noted that the recycling collection was performed on
communities that whose populations all exceeded 30,000 people. This number will be
compared to values obtained through the North Carolina study.
13. Northeast
Title: Value Added to Recyclable Materials in the Northeast Produced by: Northeast Recycling Council Author: Weston Associates Date: May, 1994
Similar to the Massachusetts study, this study attempts to evaluate the economic
utility of recycling by calculating value added, except that this study is performed for a
ten state region. In order to calculate value added by recycling for the region, it needed
estimates of quantities of materials recycled ig the region for which good data does not
exist. The report attempts to estimate tons of material recycled via employment data
and productivity rates. In other words, the study multiplied the number of employees in
an industry by average ton-to-worker ratios to arrive at tons of material recycled in the
region. To gather employment data, the study tabulated and sent lists of all recycling
companies in each participating state to the respective state labor agencies which
provided estimates of the number of employees
of processing and manufacturers were gathered via telephone interviews.
productivity rates that are germane to the North Carolina study are listed in Table D-4
Ton-to-worker ratios for various types
Worker
130
Type of Number of Average Processing Firms Tons /Employee
Firm Providing Data I year Pauer 9 703
Average Number of Employees / 10,000 Tons
14 22
Metal Plastic Yard Waste Tire
50 709 14.1 3 64.2 155.76 7 2,992 3.34 8 352 28.41
Multi-material I 31 906 I 11.04
Productiviq Ratesfor Processing Recyclables
Table 0 - 4
The study does not provide ranges nor standard deviations and it is thus
impossible to know the quality of the productivity rates listed in Table D-4. However,
this studies ton-to-worker ratios can be converted to labor coefficients and compared to
the results gathered from the North Carolina study. Using a weighted mean of the labor
coefficients for paper, glass, metals, and plastic according to the percent each of the
materials comprise in the recycling stream of North Carolinas9, the average labor
coefficient is 18.3 workedton. .
89 North Carolina Solid Waste Management Annual Report, 1992. The breakdown of the recycling stream (not including organic material) is as follows: paper - 64%; glass - 14%; metal - 18%: and plastic - 4%.
131
Conclusions from Other Research
Most of the studies presented above draw one or two related conclusions
recycling has created jobs in the past and/or recycling can create jobs in the future The
studies that attempt to quantify recycling jobs depend upon direct survey of recycling
businesses and/or state labor department statistics The quality of the studies vary, and
all of the studies were produced by agencies or organization which are interested in
advocating recycling Most of the studies are also biased in favor of recycling jobs
creation potential as they do not explore job loss associated with recycling Only the
Institute for Self-Reliance report makes the case that recycling functions are more labor
intensive than their disposal counterparts, and only the Biocycle study explores job loss
in virgin extraction fields due to recycling. Some of the later studies provide data that
can be compared to values garnered in the North Carolina study Perhaps the most
significant conclusion that can be drawn from the array of reports written on recycling
undjobs is that so many studies have been conducted in such a short period indicating
that this issue has become a hot topic
'X.
132
Appendix F: Material Flow Diagrams
As discussed in Section 5.2.2, results from the Recycling Jobs Model enable the
generation of material flow diagrams for each specific recyclable material in the waste
stream. As examples, the material flow diagrams for aluminum and paper are included
in Section 5.2.2. Such diagrams for the remaining materials are included in this
appendix. Thus, the following pages present material flow diagrams for steel food cans,
scrap metal, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastic, and yard waste.
Steel Food Can Material Flow in North Carolina
Ferrous Ore Mined & Smelted
Foundry or Steel Mill
Can Manufacturer (one in NC)
Canning Facility
Retail Recycling Collection curbside: 1,272 tons -- 7 workers
1,908 tons -- 6 workers
h Solid Waste Collection .A
curbside: 14,616 tons -- 44 workers drop-off. 14,616 tons -- 4 workers
Incineration Landfdling 28,301 tons -- 4 workers 713 tons -- < 1 worker
Scrap Metal Material Flow in North Carolina
I
Mined & Smelted
W
curbside 14,656 tons -- 80 workers
curbside 78,180 ton% -- 235 workers drop-off 78,180 tons -- 19 workers
151,376 tons -- 23 workers
Corrugated Cardboard Material Flow in North Carolina
Tree Harvesting
73 jobs losi Wood Industry scrap generated
Primary Wood
25,769 tons -- 119 workers
Secondary Manufacturer (e.g. used in printing or pachging)
Recycling Collection curbside: 11,072 tons -- 60 workers
Solid Waste Collection curbside: 114,859 tong -- 345 workers drop-off. 114,859 tons -- 28 workers
5,605 tons -- 3 workers 222,397 tons -- 33 workers
. .. . . . . - ..
Glass Material Flow in North Carolina
Sand Mining
(7 Bottle Manufacturer
30,720 tons -- 126 workers Bottling Plant (up to 49 in NC)
Retail curbside: 13,044 tons -- 71 workers
Solid Waste Collection curbside: 69,042 ton$-- 207 workers drop-off: 69,042 tons -- 17 workers
133,683 tons -- 20 workers
Plastic Material Flow in North Carolina
Natural Gas and Petroleum Extraction not closed-loop recycling
Bottling Facility 9,023tons -- 40 workers
curbside: 3,706 tons -- 20 workers Retail
Solid Waste Collection .A
curbside: 22.463 tons -- 67 workers drop-off. 22,463 tons -- 5 workers
43.493 tons --7 workers
Yard Waste Material Flow in North Carolina
(landscapers, farmers)
Government (state, local, schools)
105,258 tons -- 139 workers
curbside 42,103 tons -- 230 workers drop-off 63,155 -- 189 workers
Residential
curbside 106,952 toks -- 32 workers drop-off 106,952 tons -- 26 workers
139
Appendix G:
North Carolina Waste Stream
The Recycling Jobs Model incorporates waste composition data for recyclable
materials in the waste stream. Although the North Carolina Office of Waste Reduction
maintains records of tons of material recycled, there are no exact figures of tonnages of
different materials in the North Carolina's residential waste stream However, using
existing national data, the Office of Waste Reduction has estimated these values for
North Carolina The Office of Waste Reduction has used several means of calculating
tonnages in the waste stream including. (1) multiplying national waste figures by North
Carolina's percent of the population, (2) determining expected waste through national
production rates; and (3) aggregating all solid waste and recyclables for North Carolina
and multiplying this figure by national waste composition percentages
estimates are relatively close (generally all estimates are within 20% of each other)
considering the very different means of trying calculating the same value. The Recycling
Jobs Model uses the tonnage estimates derived from the third method as these
calculations use State data more so than the other methods, and hence are probably
closest to actual tonnages for North Carolina. Using Office of Waste Reduction
The various
estimates, the tonnages of material in the state waste stream are presented in Table F-1
followed by Graph F-1 which represents the data in chart form. Also included in Table
F-1 is the tonnage of material recycled in 92-93 fiscal year by North Carolina local
governments.
w, Scott Mouw. Waste Management Supervisor for the North Carolina Office of Waste Reduction compiled a spreadsheet that estimates tonnages of materials in the states waste stream These estimates are derived using national waste stream composition estimates along with data provided by North Carolina's Annual Solid Waste Repom
140
Percent of Total Residential Waste Stream Waste in
NC = 2,277,002
Aluminum 1.4% 39,932
Tons of Material Recycled in NC
4,484
92-93
I
Steel Food Cans Scrap Metal & Appliances Paper
Corrugated Cardboard Glass Bottles Plastic Bottles W P E & PETE) Yard Waste Less Easily Recycled Materials
Waste Stream Composition, for North Carolina
Table F-1
1 3% 35,223 3,179
3 % 68,3 10 36,641
28% 637,561 151,676
9.5% 257,396 27,679
6.6% 170,694 32,611
.4% 409,860 9,264
18% 484,988 105,258
31.8% 724,087
141
North Carolina Residential Waste Stream
Aluminum 1.4%
Less easitv recvcled
Yard Waste 18.0% Glass I
6 6
G r q h F- I
It is interesting to note North Carolina recycling rates compared to supposed
national recycling rates as presented in Table F-2. The differences between the two rates
give an indication of the potential for future increases in recycling for North Carolina.
Residential Recycling Ratesfor North Carolina and National Table F-2
142
Appendix H:
Job Creation
Despite the topic of this research, it is important understand the value of job
creation for an economy and to keep the jobs and recycling issue in perspective. The goals
of the state Solid Waste Management Act and other recycling policy is to reduce waste in
North Carolina, not create jobs. This prompts two basic questions that need to be asked
about this research subject:
(1 ) Why should one care about recycling's impact on employment?
In developing policy, it is important to understand ramifications of possible courses of action. Frequently, a major consideration is the potential impact of a policy on the economy. Economic impacts can be understood by examining effects on various components of the economy such as tax revenue generated, value added, capital required, employment, and others. Through understanding such economic impacts policy-makers can responsibly implement policies balancing potential benefits against potential costs. Understanding recycling's impacts on employment in North Carolina enables policy makers to better understand one facet of its economic impacts. Though there is utility in resea+ching impacts of recycling on jobs, this issue should be kept in perspective. As the environmental economist Paul Portney points out: "Counting jobs created or destroyed is simply a poor way to evaluate environmental poli~ies."~' Similarly, one should not use impacts on jobs in evaluating the success of North Carolina's waste reduction policies. Furthermore, job creation should not be viewed as the sole indicator of the economic impacts of a policy.
Portney, Paul R., Does Environmental Policy Conflict with Growth, Resources newsletter, Resources for the Future, Spring 1994, issue 115.
143
(2) Is a policy that creates jobs really a benefit to the economy or the people of North
Carolina?
Employment seems to receive more attention than other economic indicators, probably due its direct impact on the public. Politicians undertake the task of creating jobs because they may feel this tact will be popular with their constituents Deciphering whether jobs should be a goal of public policy is a controversial point for economists. Generally, businesses main goals are focused on making money (which may take to form of maximizing profits, maximizing shareholder wealth, etc.) In order to maximize its wealth, a business must use its resources as efficiently as possible in order to maximize its outputs. Figure F-1 shows schematic input-output flow of a business.
Labor _____*
Industrial, Commercial, - orservice
Other inputs
Capital or Land
Figure F-1
As can be seen in this diagram, jobs are an input. Thus, a business may attempt to
minimize jobs (an input) to help reduce costs. If the government implements a
policy designed to create jobs, does this’hurt business? Possibly. For example, if
the government promulgates a regulation that requires landfill operators to cover
waste daily, a business that operates a landfill may be hurt, because it would be
forced to hire more labor to perform this function. However, from a societal point
of view, job creation may be good as employed people will pay taxes, be happier
citizens, and not burden welfare programs. Thus, policy makers and economist
who view job creation as a laudable goal of government policy may adjust the
Figure F-1 so that labor is not only an input but job creation is also an output as can \.. ..
144
be seen in Figure F-2. Such proponents ofjob creation policies may argue that job
creation can be increased without harm to business in a few ways: (1) increased
public spending creates new jobs that previously did not exist; or (2) government
policy is designed such that labor as an input substitutes for other inputs such as
capital or raw materials, and thus total inputs may decrease while job creation still
increases.
Industrial, Commercial,
Other inputs suchas 09
\ Capital or Land
Figure F-2
The answer to the question #2 of whether policies that create job is really a benefit
is: it depends. It depends on who benefits and who pays and other impacts of a policy.
This study does not try to prove this point one way or the other. The goal is this study is to
relate information about recycling's impacts on jobs and not broach the subject of whether
or not this is an economic benefit.
Y
145
Bibliography
See Appendix D for listing of thirteen previous studies relating recycling and employment. Additional sources used in this study include:
Dillman, Don A,, Mail and Teleuhone Survevs, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1978.
Collins, B., Elementan, Forestrv, ( SD373 c62 cl)
Goyette Arthur Vincent, Jr., Factors Influencing the Locations of Paper Mills in the South: The Examule of Carolina Mills, UNC - Chapel Hill Thesis, Chapel Hill, 1967.
Kneese, Allen, Brower, Blair, Environmental Oualitv and Residual Management, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1979.
.
Nissan, Alfred, H., Puluing Basics for Managers, TAPPI Press, Atlanta, 1982. Cassettes & Study Guide.
Patrick Ken L., Pauer Recvcline, Miller Freeman, San Francisco, 1991.
Spangenberg, Richard, Secondarv Fiber Recvcling, TAPPI, Georgia, 1993.
Stucky, Jasper Leonidas. North Carolina: Its Geoloev and Mineral Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, 1965.
Rance, H. F., The Raw materials and Processing of Pauer Making. Volume I, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 1980, New Yb;rk.
Rudin, Bo, Making Pauer, Vallingby, Sweden, 1990
I,
146
Glossary
The following are give definitions of terms as used in this study that are either ambiguous in meaning or unfamiliar outside of the recycling industry:
Brokering: Locating markets for recyclables without performing any processing on the material.
Collection: The act of transporting solid waste and/or recyclables to their disposal or recycling destinations.
ComDosting: The management of yard waste and other organic material that encourages decomposition and generates a final product that can be used as a soil amendment.
- Cullet: Crushed glass bottles used as a raw ingredient in manufacturing recycled glass bottles.
Critical Sector: A Sector of the economy whose employment levels are af€ected by recycling.
Disoosal: Landfilling or incineration of solid waste
End-users: An industry or other entity that incorporates recycled materials into products it uses and/or manufactures
Function: The type ofjobs in a sector of the economy
Incineration: The combustion of solid waste to generate energy andor achieve solid waste reduction. Ash from incinerators must be landfilled
.A
In-house Recvclinp: Business recycling of waste generated on on-site
Labor Coefficient: The ratio of workers to quantity of material that they handle. This study uses labor coefficients for recycling, disposal, and virgin extraction sectors. The labor coefficients are given in terms of number ofworkersper 10,000 tons of material managed
m: The material flow connections between sectors in the economy
,147
Landfilling: Burying of solid waste.
Local covernment: The government entity responsible for the counties, cities, and towns of North Carolina.
Material flow: The path in the economy through which raw material, products, and residuals flow.
Mulching: Processing (generally chipping or shredding) of woody material to be used as a soil amendment. Similar to composting except material are not biodecomposed.
Private sector iobs: Jobs that are not supported directly by government institutions, i.e. jobs supported by business. Contractors which may have accounts with government institutions are still considered private sector entities.
Processing: Transforming recyclables to a state in which they can be more easily utilized by end-users.
Public sector iobs: Jobs that are supported directly by govemment institutions. In this study, these jobs include state and local government jobs.
Recvclables: Materials that can be recycled
Recvcling Jobs Model: The model developed and used specifically for this study to calculate the net impact on jobs given specific recycling rates.
Residuals: The by-products of industrial, commercial, or other processes that are considered waste materials. Residuals can be recycled or disposed.
Solid Waste: Material that is destined for disposal in incinerators or landfills
Waste Stream: The material flow that includes solid waste and recyclables
Waste material: Solid waste and recyclables 4
Yard waste: Leaves, grass clipping, and brush.
