SWANA's continued success and its influence on regulatory and economic issues will depend on its ability to make use of the association's members' contact with elected officials.

By John H. Skinner

Whoever said we are not making progress? A recently issued United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report clearly demonstrates how far we have come in recovering value from MSW in North America and in actually reducing the amounts of solid waste being produced. This must be one of the best-kept secrets in America, given the often-heard laments about the sluggishness of recycling growth and our overdependence on landfills. The EPA report, Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1999 Facts and Figures, tells the real story and should set the record straight.

Chronicling solid waste generation and recovery rates over the past few decades, EPA finds that we currently recover value, in terms of materials or energy recovery, from more than 43% of the MSW stream. In addition, we have actually reduced waste generation by 22%. By my calculation, that results in a combined reduction and recovery rate well in excess of 50% (see table below).

Waste Reduction and Recovery Rate

Source: EPA, Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1999 Facts and Figures

This is a very important statistic that is not widely acknowledged and is frequently overlooked in our discussions about solid waste policy and in comparisons of practices in North America with the rest of the world. Here's how the EPA figures stack up.

Waste Generation and Reduction

In the US we generated about 230 million tons of MSW in 1999 (the most recent year for which data are available). According to EPA, however, 50 million tons of waste were prevented or reduced at the source. Had this not occurred, 22% more MSW would have been generated. Waste reduction (sometimes called source reduction) refers to actions taken to prevent the generation of waste in the first place. This 50 million—ton reduction was accomplished through changes in product designs to use less material and by changes in consumer practices that reduced the amount of MSW produced.

The EPA data also show that even though the economy grew dramatically over the last decade, the per-capita waste-generation rate has actually leveled off. The 1999 rate was 4.6 lb./day per person, up less than 3% from 1990. This suggests that waste generation continues to increase primarily because the population is increasing, not because of an increase in inherent wastefulness by consumers and industry.

These figures provide an excellent perspective on the goals of the zero-waste campaign recently being promoted by various waste-reduction and recycling advocates. Until we can demonstrate some real progress in reducing per-capita waste-generation rates, zero waste is clearly an unreachable goal. A more pragmatic goal, at least in the near term, would be to reduce per-capita rates to the point where they begin to offset the effect of population growth.

The EPA data also demonstrate the need for waste management as well as waste reduction. Considerable quantities of MSW will continue to be generated long into the foreseeable future, and it is imperative that we invest in the facilities and systems to manage them in an economically and environmentally sound manner. The zero-waste campaign can be a positive force to the extent that it focuses attention on waste reduction, encourages product stewardship, and identifies creative and practical means to reduce waste. However, it will be a damaging concept to the extent that it creates false expectations and discourages investment in waste management infrastructure.

Recycling and Composting

The EPA report shows that the recycling and composting rate in 1999 was 28%, and the good news is that this has increased from 16% in just the past nine years. Since waste-generation rates have been increasing too, we are now recycling and composting a larger share of a bigger pie. There are some concerns, however, that recycling might have hit a plateau.

With the depressed market for many recycled materials, a number of communities are questioning the economic viability of their recycling programs. From a local government perspective, recycling costs money, and the sale of recycled material often doesn't cover the costs of collecting and processing it. The problem is that the benefits of recycling accrue globally while the costs are borne locally.

Recycling will reduce the need for and the costs of long-term care of landfills. These are very real costs, and at some point they will fall squarely on future generations. Recycling also reduces the adverse environmental impacts of mining, harvesting, and processing virgin raw materials and significantly reduces the consumption of energy in the form of coal, imported oil, and natural gas. Recycling delivers real benefits. Unfortunately, these are not benefits that can be easily quantified and realized by local governments looking at the short-term bottom line.

To change the basic economics of recycling, it is imperative to deal with the basic policies that influence decisions about materials use. For decades, virgin materials have benefited from a full range of subsidies, tax incentives, depletion allowances, favorable capital gains treatment, and other policies to encourage their development and use. These policies have supported the development of a nationwide infrastructure to support the use of virgin instead of recycled materials. It is time for federal, state, and provincial policymakers to consider similar tax credits and other financial measures for recycled materials that would create meaningful incentives for recycling and enable local governments to keep and expand the recycling programs they offer.

Energy Recovery From WTE Facilities

In addition to materials recycling and composting, the EPA report indicates that about 15% of the MSW stream was processed by incineration with energy recovery. These waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities process 34 million tpy of trash and generate 2,800 MW of renewable energy–equivalent to the energy needs of 2.4 million homes.

EPA reports issued over the past year demonstrate that capital improvements at WTE facilities, resulting from the Clean Air Act regulations, ensure that WTE is one of the cleanest sources of power in the world. As EPA previously reported in its Mercury Study Report to Congress, mercury emissions from WTE plants have declined by more than 90% from 1995 levels. As a result, WTE now accounts for less than 3% of the US inventory of industrial mercury emissions. EPA also acknowledges that dioxin emissions from WTE plants had been reduced so dramatically that, in 2002, WTE would represent less than 1% of the known sources of dioxin.

All of these changes are a result of the significant financial investment made by owners and operators of WTE facilities in response to the Clean Air Act maximum achievable control technology standards promulgated by the agency in 1995. Also, in accordance with the federal law, WTE ash is tested under EPA's Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, and years of testing ash from every WTE facility in the country has proven ash safe for disposal and reuse.

Landfill Gas Recovery and Utilization

Not included in the above recovery percentages is the energy recovered from solid waste disposed in landfills from which landfill gas (LFG) is collected and used as a fuel. LFG, which is 50% methane, can be either used to generate electricity or processed for direct use as a fuel, supplementing or replacing fossil fuels. According to data from EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program, the 360 existing LFG-recovery projects nationwide currently produce the equivalent of 1,200 MW of power. EPA also estimates that there are 600-700 additional LFGTE projects that could be constructed nationwide with sufficient economic incentives.

LFG recovery and waste-to-electricity projects are often located in urban areas, allowing them to provide an additional benefit as distributed electric power sources to help improve the reliability of the region's power grid. Distributed power sources can also reduce the cost of electricity because transmission costs are lower.

By replacing fossil fuels, WTE facilities and LFG utilization projects reduce the buildup of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, such as methane and carbon dioxide. Methane is a GHG, and each ton of methane captured and used by an LFG project or eliminated by a WTE facility is equivalent to capturing 21 tons of carbon dioxide. The US Department of Energy has labeled LFG recovery and WTE technologies as major parts of a National Energy Plan to reduce GHG emissions in the US.

Rather than arguing which method of recovery is better than the others, a more constructive approach would be to press forward on all fronts: more waste reduction, more recycling and composting, more WTE, and more LFG recovery and utilization. Solid waste professionals should work to expand all of the options for reducing and recovering value from MSW. Maybe the goal should be zero wasted instead of zero waste. Besides, we are more than halfway there.

John H. Skinner, Ph.D., is executive director and CEO of the Solid Waste Association of North America.