1/14/2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY

Study commissioned by the Glass Packaging Institute with the engagement from other stakeholders in the beverage container recycling industry

DISCLAIMER This Study was prepared for the client by Resource Recycling Systems (RRS), gathering and utilizing data from sources cited, using the metrics defined throughout the Report. To the extent that statements, information and opinions provided by the client or others have been used in the preparation of this report, RRS has relied upon the same to be accurate, and for which no assurances are intended and no representations or warranties are made. RRS makes no certification and gives no assurances except as explicitly set forth in this report. All known limitations to the Report are noted within, as appropriate. As noted in the Executive Summary, this Study is not intended to evaluate existing state recycling or deposit programs, nor is it intended to promote or advocate for any specific recycling system, and instead offers a path forward toward an optimized bottle bill. As with any recycling system, implementation of a system similar to the one outlined in the Study will require diligence to achieve success.

Executive Summary January 14, 2014

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY INTENT OF STUDY The Optimized Bottle Bill (OBB) analytical tool was designed to provide decision makers, both public and private sector, with information on the total system costs for various redemption schemes. The study assessed different scenarios for a newly-designed beverage container redemption system that utilizes cost-effective approaches and works collaboratively with other collection systems including curbside recycling. This summary outlines research and modeling profiling the OBB and allows users to evaluate a container recovery system that includes: •

A network of convenient container recycling depots where consumers can redeem their containers, thereby significantly reducing the burden on retailers.

•

A provision to compensate curbside collection programs and/or material recovery facilities (MRFs) for the beverage containers collected through those programs, thereby integrating those programs into the system.

•

Retention of the unclaimed deposits and the material values within the system to finance the redemption centers and other program costs.

Understanding Design and Intent of OBB Models What the models do:

What the models are not intended to do:

Provide useful information to stakeholders and decision makers in evaluating beverage container recycling options

Evaluate existing state programs

Assess how reimbursing current beverage container recyclers using unredeemed deposits affect overall costs

Propose specific, operational mechanisms for ensuring fair reimbursement to recovery partners

Quantify the costs of an optimized system and evaluate the impact of an OBB on curbside recycling

Quantify the system administration or recommend a management structure

Executive Summary January 14, 2014

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY

APPROACH Through data reviews and interviews, the OBB study evaluated actual capital and operating costs for curbside and OBB systems. The analysis utilized several container redemption schemes’ associated costs including the following elements: • Four types of redemption operations were assessed through interviews and document reviewsi: –

High Volume Redemption Centers;

–

Reverse Vending Machine (RVM) Redemption Center;

–

RVM Retail Location; and

–

Manual Retail Location.

TARGETED MATERIALS OBB focuses on PET, Aluminum, and Glass containers for carbonated beverages as well as noncarbonated beverages including: Carbonated soft drinks Beer Domestic sparkling water Domestic non-sparkling water (≤1 gal) Sports drinks Flavored and enhanced water Fruit beverages Ready-to-drink tea Energy drinks Domestic table wine Spirits (liquor)

•

A combination of possible redemption operations was assessed based on population density and transportation modeling assuming no more than 10 miles traveled to redeem containers. Larger centers were applied to high population areas.

•

A comparison of and the interaction of costs between an OBB and a high-performing single stream system.

The single stream model included all capital and operating costs related to the:  Collection of material curbside or drop-off.ii  Transfer and processing of material at a single stream material recovery facility (MRF).iii The OBB modelsiv included capital and operating costs related to thev:  Collection of material at redemption centers or from retail locations. Those costs include capital, operation and maintenance for RVMs and operational costs to run the collection system.  Processing and marketing of recovered containers. Note that the models assess direct operational costs and not legislatively imposed costs, including handling fees, associated with program design or oversight.vi No costs are included to pay retailers for labor or space associated with the OBB program. However, the net revenue available to compensate stakeholder for soft costs is included for each scenario, giving the ability to account for these costs in final system design. Additionally, no costs

Executive Summary January 14, 2014

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY are attributed to residents driving to redemption centers or retail locations as those costs would not be borne by the OBB operator. Material revenue for the single stream system was based on average commodity revenue for a standard blend of materials including a 5% reduction when bottle bill materials are removed.vii Tonnage was based upon average recovery rates for strong performing and comprehensive single stream collection.viii MRF processing costs are based on national averages.ix

KEY OUTCOMES OBBS RESULT IN INCREASED RECOVERY OF MATERIAL: OBBs are estimated to increase statewide recovery by at least 11% over a comprehensive single stream system and recovery of bottle bill materials by 162%. OBBS OFFER COMPARATIVE COST STRUCTURES: OBBs can be comparable in cost to single stream if material revenues are kept by the operator, and in some cases even if unredeemed deposits are not kept in the system.x Because OBBs reduce the number of containers being processed by a MRF by diverting them to the OBB redemption system, the OBB structure designates that a portion of unredeemed deposits should be refunded to MRFs for reduced material revenue. Even with that revenue reinvestment, OBBs still show lower costs and stronger financial return than single stream alone.xi 5¢ DEPOSITS RESULT IN STRONGEST ECONOMIC RETURN: While 10¢ deposits do drive recovery, they also lessen the unredeemed deposits available for reinvestment into the system.xii REDEMPTION CENTERS REDUCE PRESSURE ON RETAILERS: Redemption centers reduce the material returned to retail by an estimated 50-80%xiii depending upon population density. Reducing the impact on retailers has the potential to reduce the overall cost of a system once it is implemented. OBB SYSTEMS EMPLOY SUSTAINABLE FUNDING MECHANISMS: If unredeemed deposits are reinvested into the recycling infrastructure, then OBBs may increase recovery while also creating a sustainable funding source for recycling. Though MRFs and communities experience a reduction in material and thus material revenue, OBBs experience system-wide funding equality by returning otherwise reduced revenue to MRFs and, through those MRFs, to communities. On a cost per ton basis, the OBB/single stream combined system is 20-30% lower cost if unredeemed deposits are kept in the system and MRFs are kept cost neutral.xiv

Executive Summary January 14, 2014

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION START-UP COSTS: Capital investments vary by redemption scenario. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES AND OPERATIONAL TRANSPARENCY: Layers of operational oversight add management costs that deplete funds available for return to MRFs and local governments. SUPPORT FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT COLLECTION: The OBB includes a partial return of unredeemed deposits and material value back to the MRF. However, clear parameters that direct how reimbursement funding flows from MRFs back to communities are necessary if the overall container recycling system is to be operationally successful. ACCOUNTABILITY: Protocols and procedures that protect against fraud and ensure accountability of containers sold within the state.

OBB Supports Reinvestment in the Single Stream Recovery Infrastructure

Executive Summary January 14, 2014

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY APPENDIX ONE: SUPPORTING RESEARCH & INFORMATION NOTE: The majority of the cost justification is in the Endnotes and Appendix of the Presentation.

Curbside Collection Costs The curbside collection costs for residents within 30 minutes and those within 30-60 minutes oneway drive time to a single stream MRF or transfer station are based on internal RRS collection models. The models include capital costs for containers and trucks (including backup vehicles), operating costs including labor, maintenance, fuel and administration costs to run a collection program. Additional assumptions for the average number of stops per route were incorporated based on RRS data from numerous projects.

Modeled Curbside Collection Costs Service Area 30mins or less

$ 187.05

$/ton

Service Area 30-60mins

$ 278.42

$/ton

Data for Containers Available for Redemption Source: "2010 Beverage Market Data Analysis," The Container Recycling Institute, 2013. Vermont-specific container redemption inputs and calculations Category Containers Sold

Total 320,900,000

Redeemed % Recovery (units) Tons Sold Tons Recycled % Recycled (tons) Unredeemed # Unredeemed tons

287,763,100 89.7% 18,102 16,671 92% 33,136,900 1,431

Redeemed % Recovery (units) Tons Sold Tons Recycled % Recycled (tons) Unredeemed # Unredeemed tons

295,314,800 92.0% 1,763 1,531 87% 25,585,200 232

Executive Summary January 14, 2014

Glass PET 70,300,000 46,500,000 5 cent Deposit 65,800,800 35,619,000 93.6% 76.6% 16,497 1,606 15,441 1,230 93.6% 76.6% 4,499,200 10,881,000 1,056 376 10 cent Deposit 65,800,800 35,619,000 93.6% 76.6% 1,061 702 993 538 93.6% 76.6% 4,499,200 10,881,000 68 164

Aluminum 204,100,000 186,343,300 91.3% 3,081 2,813 91.3% 17,756,700 268 193,895,000 95.0% 3,081 2,927 95.0% 10,205,000 154

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY Vermont-specific container redemption inputs and calculations with Expanded Bottle Bill Category Containers Sold

Total 515,064,000

Redeemed % Recovery (units) Tons Sold Tons Recycled % Recycled (tons) Unredeemed # Unredeemed tons

442,050,524 85.8% 29,190 26,110 89% 73,013,476 3,081

Redeemed % Recovery (units) Tons Sold Tons Recycled % Recycled (tons) Unredeemed # Unredeemed tons

449,987,024 87.4% 4,537 3,717 82% 65,076,976 820

Glass PET 94,000,000 206,564,000 5 cent Deposit 87,984,000 158,228,024 93.6% 76.6% 22,058 7,132 20,646 5,463 93.6% 76.6% 6,016,000 48,335,976 1,412 1,669 10 cent Deposit 87,984,000 158,228,024 93.6% 76.6% 1,419 3,118 1,328 2,389 93.6% 76.6% 6,016,000 48,335,976 91 730

Aluminum 214,500,000 195,838,500 91.3% 3,238 2,956 91.3% 18,661,500 282 203,775,000 95.0% 3,238 3,076 95.0% 10,725,000 162

Minnesota-specific container redemption inputs and calculations Category Containers Sold

Total 3,071,610,175

Redeemed % Recovery (units) Tons Sold Tons Recycled % Recycled (tons) Unredeemed # Unredeemed tons

2,605,041,977 84.8% 114,926 89,883 78% 466,568,197 25,043

Redeemed % Recovery (units) Tons Sold Tons Recycled % Recycled (tons) Unredeemed # Unredeemed tons

2,778,725,474 90.5% 114,926 100,347 87% 292,884,701 14,579

Executive Summary January 14, 2014

Minnesota Container Redemption Glass PET 402,059,748 596,006,026 5 cent Deposit 321,647,798 417,204,218 80.0% 70.0% 94,348 20,579 75,478 14,405 80.0% 70.0% 80,411,950 178,801,808 18,870 6,174 10 cent Deposit 361,853,773 447,004,519 90.0% 75.0% 94,348 20,579 84,913 15,434 90.0% 75.0% 40,205,975 149,001,506 9,435 5,145

Aluminum 2,073,544,401 1,866,189,961 90.0% 31,302 28,172 90.0% 207,354,440 3,130 1,969,867,181 95.0% 31,302 29,737 95.0% 103,677,220 1,565

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY Minnesota-specific container redemption inputs and calculations with Expanded Bottle Bill Category Containers Sold Redeemed % Recovery (units) Tons Sold Tons Recycled % Recycled (tons) Unredeemed # Unredeemed tons Redeemed % Recovery (units) Tons Sold Tons Recycled % Recycled (tons) Unredeemed # Unredeemed tons

Minnesota Expanded Bottle Bill Container Redemption Total Glass PET Aluminum 3,992,015,088 539,318,717 1,280,384,219 2,172,312,152 5 cent Deposit 3,282,804,864 431,454,974 896,268,953 1,955,080,937 82.2% 80.0% 70.0% 90.0% 170,766 126,557 44,208 32,793 132,192 101,246 30,946 29,514 77% 80.0% 70.0% 90.0% 709,210,224 107,863,743 384,115,266 217,231,215 38,574 25,311 13,263 3,279 10 cent Deposit 3,509,371,554 485,386,845 960,288,164 2,063,696,545 87.9% 90.0% 75.0% 95.0% 170,766 126,557 44,208 32,793 147,058 113,901 33,156 31,154 86% 90.0% 75.0% 95.0% 482,643,534 53,931,872 320,096,055 108,615,608 23,708 12,656 11,052 1,640

Understanding Costs Applied to the OBB Models The following chart highlights handling fees associated with current bottle bill programs found nationally. Note that because they vary widely in their effort to cover marginal operation costs, handling fees are not included in the OBB calculations. In the majority of the systems, redemption entities are not retaining scrap values.

State

Handling Fee per Container

California

.859¢

Connecticut

Beer 1.5¢, other beverages 2.0¢

Hawaii

Variable fee of 2.0–4.0¢ paid to redemption centers from the state

Iowa

1¢, paid by distributor to retailer or redemption center

Massachusetts

3.25¢ (redemption centers); 2.25¢ (retailers)

Maine

4¢ (0.5¢ less if part of qualified commingling agreement)

Michigan

None

New York

3.5¢

Oregon

None

Vermont

4.0¢ for brand-sorted containers and 3.5¢ for commingled brands

Executive Summary January 14, 2014

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY Model Output for OBB Operation Costs Shows Profitability The following charts represent the model’s interpretation of cost as applied to Minnesota and Vermont.

MINNESOTA

Return to Retail

Redemption Centers

Total Cost

Cost/Ton

Total Cost

Cost/Ton

$50.6M

$318

$61.9M

$389

Material Value

($58.1M)

($365)

($58.1M)

($365)

Net Cost

($7.5M)

($47)

$3.7M

$24

Unredeemed Deposits

($35.5M)

($223)

($35.5M)

($223)

Net Cost

($43.0M)

($270)

($31.7M)

($199)1

$11.6M

$73

$11.6M

$73

($31.4M)

($197)

($20.1M)

($126)

Collection/Processing

Payment to MRFs Net Cost



Total Tons: 159,099 based on 5¢ bottle deposit. The system has between $32M and $43M to pay the MRFs for lost material value and others for soft costs. This equates to 1.0¢ – 1.3¢ per container available. Once the MRF and community is kept cost neutral there is 0.7¢ – 1.0¢ per container available to pay other soft system costs (See Endnote v for detail on costs included and excluded) 1

Executive Summary January 14, 2014

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY VERMONT

Return to Retail

Redemption Centers

Total Cost

Cost/Ton

Total Cost

Cost/Ton

$6.7M

$232

$7.9M

$274

Material Value

($7.4M)

($255)

($7.4M)

($255)

Net Cost

($0.7M)

($23)

$0.5M

$15

Unredeemed Deposits

($3.7M)

($126)

($3.7M)

($126)

Net Cost

($4.4M)

($149)

($3.2M)

($111)2

$1.9M

$65

$1.9M

$65

($2.5M)

($85)

($1.3M)

($46)

Collection/Processing

Payment to MRFs Net Cost

The economics of the system are less positive in VT due to a higher projected generation and recovery of glass. Total Tons: 28,853 based on 5¢ bottle deposit. The system has between $3M and $4M to pay the MRFs for lost material value and others for soft costs. This equates to 0.7¢ – 1.0¢ per container available. Once the MRF and community is kept cost neutral there is 0.7¢ – 1.0¢ per container available to pay other soft system costs (See Endnote v for detail on costs included and excluded). 2

Executive Summary January 14, 2014

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY APPENDIX TWO: END NOTES

iDescription

 





of each of the redemption locations and data source: High Volume Redemption Center (RC) – The highest capacity location is modeled after Oregon’s Pilot program and is placed in optimal locations where a minimum of 2.5 M containers per year would be available. Cost data was developed based on conversations with local experts. RVM Redemption Center (RC) – This facility is similar to a California Convenience Center in that it is a stand-alone facility with RVMs. In the model, this type of facility is used as the central facility for an area where a minimum of 750,000 containers per year would be available. Cost data was based on direct costs only from the report for Businesses and Environmentalists Allied For Recycling in 2002 by RW Beck. RVM Retail Location – Similar to retail locations in Michigan and Vermont that have RVM machines inside their stores. The model only places these in retail locations in stores that are over 10,000 square feet or have a significant amount of employees (over 20-40 employees) if under 10,000 square feet. Additionally, the location must have enough population nearby to support at least 10,000 containers per year. Cost data was based on direct costs only from the report for Businesses and Environmentalists Allied For Recycling in 2002 by RW Beck. Manual Retail Location – Similar to retail locations in Michigan and Vermont that manually handle redemption containers. All retail locations that do not fit into the Retail RVM Location criteria are characterized as handling manually with distributer take-back. Cost data was based on direct costs only from the report for Businesses and Environmentalists Allied For Recycling in 2002 by RW Beck.

The single stream model included all capital and operating costs related to the collection of curbside or drop-off material. ii

Executive Summary January 14, 2014

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY

The single stream model included all capital and operating costs to collect material curbside or drop-off and transfer and process material at a single stream MRF. iii

Optimized Single Stream System Costs Minnesota

Vermont

Total Cost

Cost/Ton

Total Cost

Cost/Ton

Collection

$95.6 M

$185

$11.9M

$167

Transfer/Processing

$45.3M

$88

$10.3M

$145

Market Value

($59.4M)

($115)

($8.2M)

($115)

Net Cost

$81.4M

$158

$14.0M

$197

iv

v

Costs included in the OBB models are as follows:

Executive Summary January 14, 2014

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY

Costs included in the OBB models

Costs not quantified as part of this project

Direct costs for purchase and operation of RVMs at retail locations.

Space costs to the retailers for the RVMs and incidental labor including handling the material and cleaning the areas. These costs in many cases would not be incremental for the retailers or be reduced if the RVMs are removed. Administration costs for government or other to provide oversight and auditing of the program or legislatively directed costs including handling fees.

Direct costs to manage the collection and processing of the material including direct program administration and accounting.

Redemption centers reduce the material returned to retail by an estimated 50-80% depending upon population density. Current redemption center schemes do show a per container cost higher than return to retail schemes. See Endnote i for source of cost per container estimates. vi

Average Collection-Processing Costs of Current Bottle Bill Schemes Location Type

Manual Retail Location

RVM Retail Location

RVM Redemption Center

High Volume Redemption Centervi

Range of Containers Processed Cost per Container

1 – 10,000

10,000+ (depends on scenario) 1.71¢

750,000 – 2,500,000

2,500,000+ (no upper limit)

2.03¢

2.00¢

1.10¢

Material Revenue for the system is based on an average Commodity Revenue for a Standard Blend of Materials over a five-year review. Reducing amounts of glass, aluminum and PET in the single stream mix increases the relative amounts of other commodities. Average ton of single stream material is estimated to be 5-8% less with an OBB. vii

Executive Summary January 14, 2014

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY

5 Year National Average Pricing by

Price/ton

% of 1 MRF ton

% of 1 MRF Ton (w/OBB)

ONP

$

90

38%

44.7%

Mixed Paper

$

80

15%

17.6%

OCC

$ 118

12%

14.1%

Glass (Tri-mix)

$ -

24%

14.1%

Aluminum Cans

$1,486

1%

0.2%

Steel Cans

$127

2%

2.4%

PET

$411

3.5%

1.6%

HDPE

$501

2.5%

2.9%

Mixed Plastics

$ -

1%

1.2%

Carton/aseptic

$19

1%

1.2%

$104.86

$99.11

Material (FOB Single Stream MRF)

Totals

The OBB incorporates tonnage based upon average strong and comprehensive single stream recovery rates. viii

Single Stream Recovery Weight per Household Household Type

With Bottle Bill

MN - No Bottle Bill

VT - No Bottle Bill

Units

Curbside Single-Family Household

515

556

554

lbs/HHLD

Curbside Multi-Family Household

350

391

389

lbs/HHLD

Drop-off Household

350

391

389

lbs/HHLD

Household recovery projections based on RRS database of program performance and "2010 Beverage Market Data Analysis," The Container Recycling Institute, 2013.

ix

MRF processing costs are based on the following national averages.

Executive Summary January 14, 2014

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY

Capital and Operating Cost per Ton ($/ton)

Single Stream MRF Cost per Ton for Processing all Material $160 $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $-

50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 Annual Throughput Capacity (Tons/Year)

250,000

Datapoints from RRS internal MRF models including capital and operating for single and two-shift operations.

OBBs can be comparable in cost to single stream even if unredeemed deposits are not kept in the system. Total collection and processing costs (including scrap value): Single stream - $85M, return to retail - $85M, redemption centers - $96M. x

If OBB systems use a portion of the unredeemed deposits to pay MRFs for lost material value, they can still be lower cost than single stream alone. Example below is from Minnesota. Vermont data is included in the PowerPoint presentation appendix. xi

Executive Summary January 14, 2014

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY

Millions

Minnesota: Net Cost Incl. Payments to MRFs for Lost Scrap Value $100 $90

$83.3M

$80

$69.6M

$70 $58.3M

$60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $-

Single Stream Only

SS with Return to Retail OBB SS with Redemption Center OBB

While 10¢ deposits do drive recovery, they also lessen the unredeemed deposits available for reinvestment into the system. xii

Executive Summary January 14, 2014

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY

Material Type

Vermont Recovery

Minnesota Recovery

Glass

5c: 93.6% 5c EBB: 93.6% 10c: 93.6% 10c EEB: 93.6%

5c: 80% 5c EBB: 80% 10c: 90% 10c EEB: 90%

PET

5c: 76.6% 5c EBB: 76.6% 10c: 76.6% 10c EEB: 76.6%

Aluminum

5c: 91.3% 5c EBB: 91.3% 10c: 95% 10c EEB: 95%

Material Weight per Container

Containers in Vermont System

Containers in Minnesota System

.469 lb.

5c: 65.8 M 5c EBB: 88.0M 10c: 65.8M 10c EEB: 88.0M

5c: 321.6M 5c EBB: 431.5M 10c: 447.0M 10c EEB: 485.4M

5c: 70% 5c EBB: 70% 10c: 75% 10c EEB: 75%

.069 lb.

5c: 35.6M 5c EBB: 158.2M 10c: 35.6M 10c EEB: 158.2M

5c: 417.2M 5c EBB: 896.3M 10c: 447.0M 10c EEB: 960.3M

5c: 90% 5c EBB: 90% 10c: 95% 10c EEB: 95%

.030 lb.

5c: 186.3M 5c EBB: 195.8M 10c: 193.9M 10c EEB: 203.8M

5c: 1,866.2 M 5c EBB: 1,955.1M 10c: 1,969.9M 10c EEB: 2,063.7M

Minnesota OBB model saw a 80% reduction in containers handled through the retail locations, while the Vermont OBB model saw a 50% reduction. The left bar in each chart represents the scenarios where redemption centers were placed where 750,000 containers were available in a 3-mile area. The right bar in each chart represents the scenarios where only retail locations were used and residents brought their material to the closest retail location. xiii

Executive Summary January 14, 2014

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY

Minnesota: Containers processed through each type of optimized bottle bill return site

68%

76% High Volume Redemption Center RVM Redemption Center RVM Retail Location

15% 9%

Manual Retail Location 24%

9%

Redemption Centers

Return to Retail

Vermont: Containers processed through each type of optimized bottle bill return site

34% 58% 20%

High Volume Redemption Center RVM Redemption Center

23%

RVM Retail Location 42%

Manual Retail Location

24%

Redemption Centers

Return to Retail

On a cost per ton basis, the system is 20-30% lower cost if unredeemed deposits are kept in the system and MRFs are kept cost neutral. xiv

Executive Summary January 14, 2014

CONTAINER REDEMPTION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION STUDY

Minnesota: Net Cost per Ton Incl. Payment to MRFs for Lost Scrap Value $180 $160

$157/ton

$140 $114/ton

$120 $95/ton

$100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $-

Single Stream Only

Executive Summary January 14, 2014

SS with Return to Retail OBB

SS with Redemption Center OBB