A Penny Saved

A Report By Clean Wisconsin Institute

Written by Claire Schmidt
Research by Claire Schmidt and Amy Schultz

Copyright 2001 WEDI
(Text Only)

Executive Summary

There is no question that metals play an important part in our society. From electrical wires to coins to computer parts, metals are necessary to our everyday life. However, this doesn't mean that we need to open new mines around the country or in our state. In fact, the need for metals has dropped drastically since the end of the Industrial Era. Instead of opening new mines, we should consider stepping up our use of the metal that we already have.

Mining is a very toxic business. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's 2000 Toxic Release Inventory, mining is the top toxic polluter in the U.S. In 1997, mining in the state of Nevada alone released nearly twice as much toxic waste as the entire chemical manufacturing industry.1 Toxic spills of chemicals and chemical-laden ore from mines have devastated water bodies and destroyed wildlife all over the world. One of the more recent and frightening mining disasters occurred in Romania in February of 2000, when toxic cyanide spilled into the Tisza River, severely polluting over 300 miles of river and causing a massive fish kill as far as the Danube River.2 Although pollution control technology exists, it is never one hundred percent foolproof, as evidenced by dangerous, ongoing pollution.

It has been suggested that metallic mining in Wisconsin's northwoods will turn its depressed economy around. This argument has evolved into a battle of jobs vs. the environment. However, instead of opening new mines, increased metals recycling will do both�create jobs and help the environment.

Recycling metal is not a new idea; scrap dealers have flourished in our country since the mid-1800s, while the idea of recycling metal is even older. In 1998, United States metal recycling contributed about 80 million tons of metal, worth about 17.7 billion dollars.3

Wisconsin has deposits of copper, zinc, gold and other metals.4 This report focuses primarily on the potential for additional copper and zinc recycling. Copper is one of the easiest to recycle metals. However, in the United States, only 33% of the copper supply is composed of recycled copper.5 This is partly because there is an excess of new copper on the market. Prices for new copper as well as old have continued to fall since 19804, partially a result of too much available copper. Companies that refine used copper have been going out of business primarily because of low prices.3 The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that about 45% of copper is available for recycling6, while the remaining 55% stays in the infrastructure. Only 30% of the world's zinc supply is composed of recycled zinc.7 The USGS estimates that around 500,000 tons of zinc is landfilled every year8; at the same time only 368,000 tons of zinc is recycled.7

Recycling is very important to our economy. In 1996, the remanufacturing industry in the United States employed 10 times as many workers as metals mining did. At the same time, it earned $53 billion�more than the entire consumer durables industry combined.9 In Wisconsin, direct recycling provides 30,976 jobs. In comparison, only 26,000 jobs are directly associated with the important lumber and wood products industry. In addition, 25,839 indirect jobs and 24,729 induced jobs are made possible by the recycling industry. Direct recycling jobs provide $1 billion in identifiable wages, and sales from recycling total about $5.7 billion.10

Increased metals recycling means more jobs in Wisconsin. It means fewer new, devastating mines. If the United States sets the example of recycling to full potential, developing nations will follow suit, expanding their economies in a sustainable direction.

It is important to note that complete information on the potential for increased recycling is not available at this time. Clean Wisconsin calls upon our governments to conduct studies to ascertain the complete facts about metals recycling.
 

Background
Metallic minerals have been a part of civilization since the Bronze Age. From jewelry to weapons, the human race has always relied on the earth's mineral deposits to meet its needs. The metals industry has gone through some ups and downs in the most recent centuries. The Industrial Revolution marked a large upswing in the use of virgin metal on a large scale. Between 1750 and 1900, world mineral use increased tenfold as world population doubled.11 The majority of mineral use was concentrated in richer nations, whereas the majority of mineral extraction began to be focused on developing nations. However, beginning in the 1970s, the demand for minerals slackened. This was due in part to the 1973 oil crisis and the subsequent slow growth of industrial economies. At the same time, heavy industry was giving way to high tech industry, which tends to use different materials such as plastics or ceramics. The basic infrastructure of  industrial nations is now complete, further reducing the need for metals extraction. It is becoming clear that the world's reduced mineral needs can be met by increased metals recycling and reduced mineral extraction.
 

Extraction
Time and time again, the mining industry has been proven to be one of the most dangerous, wasteful and heavily subsidized industries in the United States. Due to the outdated mining laws of 187212,  mining companies are given financial assistance and special treatment by the United States government. Without these heavy subsidies, the mining industry would have a much more difficult time competing in the modern business world.

Metallic mining is an extremely wasteful process. Though both processes generate immense amounts of refuse, surface mining produces more waste than underground mines. The amount of refuse, often toxic, resulting from the mining process is phenomenal. Up to 90% of metal ore winds up as tailings (the residue left over once the ore is extracted). Using 1990 data, that means it can take 110 tons of ore to produce 1 ton of copper.13

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's 2000 Toxic Release Inventory1, mining is the top toxic polluter in the U.S. In 1997, the entire chemical manufacturing industry reported 797.5 million pounds of toxic releases nationwide. In 1998, Nevada mining alone reported 1.3 billion pounds of toxic releases. Thanks to its mines, Nevada topped the polluter list, surpassing even Texas. Not to be outdone, the Cyprus Miami copper mine in Arizona released twice as much toxic waste (123 million pounds) as all the waste generated by New York State (60 million pounds).

Mining pollution is derived from many sources. Sulfide mines produce acid drainage which arises naturally when sulfides are exposed to air and water. Toxic tailings, contaminated with cyanide or other reagents, can leach into ground water when they are back filled into a mine shaft. Air pollution attributable to mining can arise from crushing and grinding processes, tailings dams, greenhouse gas emissions and smelting. Worldwide, smelting releases about 6 million tons of sulfur dioxide. Non-ferrous smelters (smelters processing non-iron metals) emit dangerous amounts of arsenic, lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals, although this can be avoided with high-efficiency pollution controls.14

All this pollution is dangerous for the people working in the mines as well as the people living near a mine site. Mine employees are particularly at risk. Their jobs can entail handling dangerous chemicals and residues, inhaling particulates and fugitive emissions, exposure to chemicals (such as asbestos, cyanide or mercury), as well as heat and excessive noise. In addition to these risks, the constant danger of on-site physical injury is very real.

The reputation of the mining industry has been damaged by high profile disasters in the last few decades. Most famous, perhaps, is the Superfund site that once was the Summitville gold mine in Colorado. During the 1990s, the large-scale leakage from this sulfide mine cost the taxpayers of the United States hundreds of millions of dollars in environmental clean up in a formerly beautiful area.

In addition to sulfide leakage, cyanide use in mines poses an increased risk of disaster. In early February 2000, 300 miles of the Tisza River system (including the Danube River) were devastated by an enormous cyanide spill at the Aural gold mine in Romania.2,14 The Grouse Creek gold mine in Idaho, lauded as a state-of-the-art facility during its time in operation (1993-1997) is now facing the possible collapse of a pond holding cyanide-contaminated water into the Salmon River.15
 

Jobs vs. the Environment?
Here in Wisconsin, concern for the quality of our ground and surface water is high. The tourism and fishing industries depend on the health of the lakes and rivers; residents depend on potable ground water wells. At the same time, the mining industry is working to open mines, primarily copper and zinc, in northern Wisconsin. Mining proponents argue that jobs created by these mines will help (though on a small scale) the area's flagging economy. Because of Wisconsin's large quantities of ground and surface water, the possibility of lasting environmental contamination in exchange for short term economical gain is high. For some, this conflict has been reduced to jobs vs. the environment. However, it isn't that black and white. Upon closer review it is evident that metallic recycling promotes the environment and jobs.
 

Recycling: An Old Solution to New Problems
Recycling has been a part of our culture for longer than many might realize. The prophet Isaiah was an early proponent of metals recycling when he said, �we shall beat our swords into plowshares and spears into scythes.� The thrifty farmers of decades past perfected their own version of recycling, reusing everything from flour sacks to leftovers from dinner.

The metal scrap industry has flourished, often thanks to wars, since the inception of the country. Scrap dealing has expanded from the small immigrant scrap dealers of the 1800s to a billion dollar export industry in the 1990s. China is the world's largest scrap importer, receiving around 45% of the world's scrap exports.3 Today, as in decades past, the industry tends to be made up of small, family owned and operated businesses instead of enormous corporations.16 Recycling makes good economic and environmental sense. In 1996, recycling aluminum cans in the United States saved enough electricity to power the city of Philadelphia for one year.9 According to a 1995 Worldwatch Institute report, if the United States recycled 60% of its solid waste, it would save the energy equivalent of 315 million barrels of oil each year.11
 

Metals Recycling
In this report, we intend to focus primarily on copper and zinc recovery and recycling, as Wisconsin is most directly affected by copper-zinc deposits and mines. We will also look briefly at gold recycling, as gold mining in Wisconsin has had a significant impact on the environment and people of Wisconsin.

The statistics shown below are taken from the United States Geological Survey's 1999 Minerals Yearbook3. The statistics are for January to December, 1999. For clarification, �new scrap� is essentially comprised of leftovers from manufacturing (i.e. preconsumer), whereas �old scrap� comes from products that have completed their useful life (i.e. postconsumer). �Primary� means virgin material directly from mines; �secondary� means recycled materials, including used products and leftovers from manufacturing. All numbers are shown in metric tons (t). Percent recycled is the percent of the current supply of the metal available for use.
 

Copper:
Wisconsin has a long history of copper mining. Copper has been used by northwoods residents for thousands of years, but only within the last hundred years has copper extraction caused serious problems for Wisconsin and its people. With the advent of modern mining technology, minerals extraction became a booming industry. Wisconsin has several abandoned copper mines, some of which leak toxins into the environment despite assurances from the mining industry that the pollution controls were adequate.17 There are four pinpointed locations in Wisconsin that are projected to contain copper deposits; the potential for new mines in Wisconsin is very high.4

Today, copper is used in building construction (41%), electric and electronic products (27%),  transportation equipment (12%), industrial machinery (10%) and miscellaneous products (10%).5  Because of its properties as a metal, copper can be recycled over and over. Because of its reusable nature, it is one of the more commonly recycled metals.3

Copper Recycling Statistics in the U.S. for 1999:3,5,6

Because of an overabundance of copper on the market, copper recycling has continued a downward trend since its peak in 1980 (a time of particularly high copper prices), except in 1997 when copper prices rose slightly.3 Low prices discourage scrap collection. In 1999, old scrap generation fell to around 520,000t, below the 1995-1998 average of 600,000t and far below the 1989 average of 770,000t.3 Copper prices have continued to fall, lowering profit margins from copper recycling. Since high copper prices mean higher old scrap collection rates, the depression in price has caused a decrease in available secondary scrap. However, the amount of copper recovered from alloys and chemicals has risen by 30,000t  or 3% in 1999.3 It makes little sense to open new mines in a time of low metals prices. Increased recycling can provide the same commodity with less work.
 

Zinc:
In addition to its copper-rich sites, Wisconsin has several zinc deposits.4 Zinc is used in galvanizing (56%), for zinc-based alloys (19%), brass and bronze (13%),  and other miscellaneous products (12%). Zinc compounds are heavily used in the agriculture, chemical, paint and rubber industries.7 Less common than copper, zinc is used and recycled on a smaller scale.

Zinc Recycling Statistics in the U.S. for 1999:3,7

Zinc recycling processes vary greatly because of the wide variety of zinc character and content in scrap. New scrap generally requires only resmelting, but old scrap in the form of nonferrous shredded metal scrap requires zinc separation using a floatation method or hand or magnetic separation.3 Zinc prices vary according to quality, presence of other components, transportation difficulties and other factors. The United States Geological Survey estimates that approximately 500,000 tons of zinc scrap is landfilled every year, although a portion of this scrap is eventually recovered. Per year, about 300,000 tons of zinc is unrecoverable because of its use (e.g. zinc oxide).8
 

Gold:
Though Wisconsin isn't as famous for its gold deposits as, say, California, Wisconsin has a significant amount of ore containing gold. In order to extract this gold, Wisconsin mines have proposed using cyanide leaching to dissolve the gold away from the ore. Though this process allows mining companies to obtain hitherto unrecoverable amounts of gold, it is extremely dangerous both to humans and the environment.

Because it is so valuable, gold has been recycled on a consistent basis for thousands of years. However, gold is recycled at rates comparable to those of copper or zinc. This is because a great deal of the world gold supply is in the form of official stocks held by central banks, or owned privately in the form of coins, bullion or jewelry. It is thought that, throughout the history of gold mining up until the present day, only about 15 percent of all the gold mined has been lost or is unrecoverable.18

1998 Gold Recycling Statistics in the U.S.:18

It is clear, from these statistics, that the United States is not recycling to its full potential. Instead of shifting the trend from raw mineral extraction to efficient utilization of already available  materials, we seem to be endorsing expensive, dangerous and outdated practices. Copper recycling rates have fallen steadily for the last 20 years. With recycling incentives, we can increase recycling rates and cut down on our wasteful materials extraction habit.
 

Where Does Wisconsin Fit in?
Although Wisconsin has some mining potential, it has perhaps greater  (and less explored) metals recycling potential. Despite hundreds of scrap dealers ranging from tiny family businesses to large haulers with offices throughout the state,19 Wisconsin has no facilities that actually process recycled metals.8 The closest copper and zinc smelters are located in Chicago and St. Louis.
 

How metal is recycled:
The recycling process begins with the consumer. After an object containing metal has completed its useful life, it becomes scrap. This scrap is collected by the thousands of scrap haulers and processors. These collection businesses range from the very small, with sometimes only one or two employee-owners foraging for old junk with a hidden value, to large, long-standing family business empires, owning huge scrap yards around the state.19 The scrap collected by these haulers is purchased from a wide variety of suppliers, depending on the material. Gradually, sales from individual consumers are being replaced by large scale sales from industry.16 Old copper wiring or pipes from torn down buildings, aluminum lawn chairs, electronics, and auto parts are just a few of the items brought to scrap yards by individuals and companies. This metal is broken down, sorted, compacted and sold to refining companies as secondary (postconsumer) scrap.

Secondary smelting facilities generally specialize in one specific metal but may have the ability to process other metals. For example, secondary copper scrap may contain other metals or �trailer items� such as tin, lead, platinum or gold, so many copper facilities are equipped to process these other metals as well.20 Primary smelting uses preconsumer scrap (primary scrap) left over from the initial manufacturing processes. Both types of scrap are melted down and reused in thousands of products. Gradually industries are developing new ways to make the same objects with a higher recycled metal content.

Currently there are no facilities in Wisconsin that process primary or secondary scrap copper or zinc.20 Although the zinc resmelting industry remains fairly stable, copper refining facilities all over the country are closing their doors. Due to low copper prices, low profit margins, competition from foreign scrap consumers and necessarily expensive environmental controls, the number of secondary refineries continues to drop.3 Eight secondary smelters refined old copper into like-new refined copper in the United States in 1985. By 1999 there were only two secondary copper smelters of this kind left in the United States. As of 2001, there is only one operational secondary copper smelter in the U.S.3,6
 

Recycling and the Economy
Recycling plays an important part in our economy. The United States' consumption of virgin materials was 17 times greater in 1989 than in 1900.11 Clearly this rate of consumption is not sustainable. A greater reliance on the recycling industry will temper our need for virgin materials.

The recycling business has gone from a new industry to a mature, growing industry. From 1991 to 2000, the U.S. has gone from 40 materials recovery facilities to 468.21 This growth and maturation has occurred in the face of exclusionary policies  and subsidies that favor material extraction over recycling. It is important to recognize the potential economic benefit of increased recycling. In 1996, the remanufacturing industry in the United States employed 10 times as many workers as metals mining did. At the same time, it earned $53 billion�more than the entire consumer durables industry combined.9 While other areas of recycling are growing, it is important not to lose site of those that are not, such as copper recycling. Appropriate assistance to this portion of the industry could benefit more than just the industry itself.

Mining has been cited as the cure-all for the depressed economy of the Wisconsin northwoods. Proponents ignore the boom-and-bust nature of the mining industry which would leave communities worse off than they were initially. The time has come to consider metals recycling as another solution to our flagging economy. If the recycling industry received the same preferential treatment as the mining industry currently enjoys, the need for minerals extraction would seem to be lessened. Certainly recycling has a cost. In Wisconsin, the state average cost is $93.81 per ton�almost identical to the cost of landfilling or incinerating garbage  ($90.37 per ton).22 According to a 1998 Department of Natural Resources survey, 98 percent of Wisconsin households report that they are committed to recycling.22 If appropriate initial subsidies to assist metal refineries with installing adequate pollution controls were given, recycled metals could eclipse the need for minerals extraction here in Wisconsin.
 

Wisconsin Recycling: A Big Piece of the Pie
It is necessary to understand how important the recycling industry is to our state. According to a June 2000 study conducted for the Department of Commerce's Recycling Markets Development Board10, direct recycling provides 30,976 jobs in Wisconsin. In comparison, only 26,000 jobs are directly associated with the lumber and wood products industry�one of the state's most valuable industries. Direct jobs include those in pulp mills, collection and processing, foundries, repair shops, steel mills, used and second-hand goods, and many others. In addition, 25,839 indirect jobs  and 24,729 induced jobs are made possible by the recycling industry. Indirect and induced jobs are calculated using a model.10  Direct recycling jobs provide $1 billion in identifiable wages, and sales from recycling total about $5.7 billion.10 Not only would increased recycling activity in the state cut down on landfill waste and destructive mineral extraction, but it would also help build the economy in a new, sustainable and permanent direction.

The State of Wisconsin has already begun to further recycling market development here. Since 1989, nearly $51 million has been set aside for loans, grants, rebates, technical assistance and education in Wisconsin. Thanks to these state loans, rebates and early planning grants, 1,287,514 tons of material are now diverted from landfills annually.10

The majority of these state dollars have gone toward advancing the less-developed areas of recycling. Of the $50,786,308 spent on developing recycling markets, plastic recycling received $18,451,574, paper recycling received $6,197,117, construction/demolition and wood recycling received $5,352,721, and food and organics recycling received $4,054,511. In comparison, metals recycling received only $403,638 in state funding.10 This is in part due to the relatively stable and matured nature of the metals recycling markets. However, with an increased focus on metals recycling as an alternative to increased minerals extraction, we may realize new avenues to promote Wisconsin's economy in tandem with the recycled metals industry.
 

Better Here than There?
Many United States mining proponents argue that it is better to open new mines here rather than depend on minerals from foreign mines in developing countries. They argue that because of better pollution-control technology and stricter mining laws in the U.S. mining here will actually prevent pollution from third-world mining. However, the metals market is currently at saturation. This is, in part, due to the recent influx of copper and other metals from mines in Russia, China and South America. Copper prices have continued to fall since 1980.3 It is difficult to argue that we need increased mining anywhere, here or in less developed nations. With such an overabundance of virgin metal already on the market, it simply makes no sense to expand metals extraction. Because of the environmental risk involved in opening new mines, as well as the long-term environmental damage of closed mines, increased use of recycled metals makes the most economic sense.

The United States secondary metals market will benefit from increased facilities for processing used metals, such as copper, into refined copper (virtually identical to virgin, or primary, copper). As more secondary metal is refined, the need for virgin metal is reduced. This may, in time, reduce the push for more mines in developing nations. Many poorer countries cannot afford the environmental controls on their mining facilities, creating long term environmental damage for short term economic benefit. However, if the demand for secondary copper increases, secondary copper exports will increase at the same time. If it becomes more economically and environmentally feasible to export copper scrap than virgin copper, that will act as an incentive to mine less and recycle more. If more developed countries like the United States emphasized increased metals recycling instead of increased metals extraction, less developed nations would almost definitely follow suit. In 1995, the World Bank had already lent its support to �Clean and Beautiful� (Lanais Ganda), a network of scrap collectors in Manila who sort the city's garbage and castoffs for recyclable or resuseable materials. Because of this program, hundreds of impoverished citizens have been empowered to start their own businesses.11

 

As stated above, metallic mining is a dangerous, dirty industry. Before Wisconsin digs itself into a hole (so to speak), we as citizens owe it to future generations to make a concerted effort to explore our options. As of the writing of this report, there is not enough data to fully analyze the potential of increased metals recycling. However, what data exists indicates that too much metal is being landfilled and not enough is being reused. Although the mining industry has a long history in Wisconsin, our natural resources tell a story that goes much further back than any industry.
 

Recommendations


 1. US EPA. Toxic Release Inventory, 1998 Releases. May, 2000 (summary) http://www.mineralpolicy.org/publications/pdf/TRI-millsite-3809.pdf

 2. Moran, Robert, Phd: More Cyanide Uncertainties: Lessons from the Baia Mare Romania Spill-Water Quality and Politics. Mineral Policy Center Issue Paper. 2001 http://mineralpolicy.org/publications/issuepapers.php3?.nav=4

 3. U.S. Geological Survey. U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook: Recycling-Metals-1999 http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/recycle/

 4. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/es/science/mining/infosheets/cml-imp/cml-imp.htm

 5. Edelstein, Daniel: U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2000, 2001 Copper. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/copper

 6. U.S. Geological Survey. Daniel Edelstein, Copper Specialist. (703) 648-4978

 7. Plachy, Jozef: U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries, February 2000, 2001 Zinc http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/zinc

 8. U.S. Geological Survey. Jozef Plachy, Zinc Specialist. (703) 648-4982

 9. Earthwatch Institute. Raw Materials Use and the Environment. 1998

10. Hendren, John: Recycling Economic Impact Study. ReThink Development. June, 2000

11. Young, John and E, Sachs, Aaron: The Next Efficiency Revolution: Creating a Sustainable Materials Economy. Worldwatch Institute. Worldwatch Paper 121. 1995

12. Mineral Policy Center. The Last American Dinosaur: The 1872 Mining Law. 2000 Fact Sheet. http://www.mineralpolicy.org/publications/pdf/LastAmericanDinosaur.pdf

13. Young, John: Mining the Earth. Worldwatch Institute. Worldwatch Paper 109. July, 1992

14. United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics. 2000. Mining and Sustainable Development II: Challenges and Perspectives. Industry and Environment. Volume 23. ISSN 0378-9993 Pgs 4-8

15. http://www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/drillbits/5_14/2.html

16. Krajick, Kevin: Mining the Scrap Heap for Treasure. Smithsonian Magazine. May 1997

17. Vanden Brook, Tom: Former Copper Mine Leaking Acid, Metals. Milwaukee Journal Sentinal. July 7, 1999

18. Amey, Earle B: Gold Recycling-A Materials Flow Study. U.S Geological Survey. Open-File Report 00-195-A http://pubs.usgs.gov/openfile/of00-195a/

19. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Waste Management Program: Wisconsin Recycling Markets Directory. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/apps/markets

20. Jenson, Mike. Samuels Recycling Center, Madison, WI

21. Resource Recycling. March, 2001

22. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/aw/wm/recycle/index.htm Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: October 1998, PUBL CE-248 98

Copyright 2001 WEDI

For more information or a copy of this report, contact Claire Schmidt at Clean Wisconsin (608) 251-7020 or schmidtc@environmentaldecade.org