MSW Management | Recycling on the Move

SUBSCRIBE

COMMENT
ON THIS
ARTICLE

CREATE A LINK
TO THIS ARTICLE
ON YOUR SITE

By all measures, recycling diversion continues to move upward.

By Lynn Merrill

According to a recent report from the EPA, in 2005 the national recovery rate for recycling, including composting, was 32.1%. For the same period, we generated 1.6 million tons fewer than the year before. A press release from the EPA, issued in October 2006, stated that “the decrease is due in part to the decline in individual waste generated to about 4.5 pounds per person per day, representing a 1.5% decrease from 2004. In addition to generating less waste, individuals recycled nearly 1.5 pounds per person per day.” If you factor in combustion with energy recovery, the national recovery rate is around 45.7%.

Around the same time in another press release, California announced that it “now diverts 52% of the 88 million tons of solid municipal wastes it generates.” Florida, on the other coast, reports that in 2003, the statewide recycling rate was 28%, with Dade County, the most populated county in the state, reporting 19% of its MSW being recycled. Further up the Atlantic Coast, Pennsylvania reports that in 2003 of the 10.9 million tons of MSW generated, 4.5 million tons were recycled for a 40.9% diversion rate. Some states even report diversion numbers closing in on 60%, while others have barely scratched the surface.

By all measures, recycling diversion continues to move upward, but even with this good news, such organizations as the Container Recycling Institute are reporting that the number of PET beverage bottles and aluminum cans being recycled is declining and that the number of these containers that could be recycled but aren’t is increasing each year. We’re generating less trash and recycling more of what we generate, but we’ve still got a ways to go.

Theoretically, diversion in the range of 60% to 70% is achievable, and some areas are quickly closing in on this number. But challenges and barriers abound. Stand in a state-of-the-art material recovery facility (MRF) and watch a load of materials being processed. Compared to even five years ago, the ability to recover the multiple grades of fibers through screens and sorting techniques has improved significantly, resulting in marketable end products. With optical sorting technology expanding rapidly, various grades of plastics are now recoverable and marketed—and not just bottles, but plastic toys, dairy racks, and sheet films.

But stand at the other end of the line and watch the materials that aren’t recovered. As good as our recovery technology is, small items slip through and end up in a concentrated load of odds and ends that have very little recovery value. These can include the shredded paper from homes and businesses, half-eaten sandwiches tossed in with the newspaper at the end of lunch, and the myriad objects from our daily lives that the technology can’t catch at this moment. We can get the large objects, but the small fragments continue to slip through.

The cost of recovering more materials from the diversion stream when balanced against the value of the recovered materials is still lopsided. One manufacturer recently said that the technology is available to automate the entire recovery process inside a MRF but the average company couldn’t afford it.

Around the country, achieving diversion goals continues to be the main challenge. But along with that are the challenges of putting economically viable, effective collection programs in place that address the unique challenges of construction and demolition wastes, multiple-family residences, foodwastes, and electronics. In some places, simply getting curbside collection for single-family residences is still a struggle. But the diversion trend continues upward, and 32% in 2005 is only one point on the path.

City of Cincinnati
The City of Cincinnati provides solid waste garbage collection and yardwaste collection to approximately 110,000 customers. The city runs approximately 40 regular garbage routes; it also runs 12 yardwaste routes on a seasonal basis and a call-in service for yardwaste from the middle of January to the first of April. “We have a private contractor who collects our commingled recyclables,” says Patricia Davis, supervisor of collection for the city. Within the greater Hamilton County area, which includes Cincinnati, the combined residential and commercial recycling rate is 35%, while the county’s industrial recycling rate is 47%. “Education is always a main issue,” states Davis. “I don’t think there are enough commercial offices that are recycling, but I think public education is the biggest thing as far as getting people to do it and participating. I think we need to expand where we collect to get more of an increase, like maybe including more residential above the five-family limit.”

According to Davis, recycling is a popular and well-defended public service. “We were having some budget situations here; what city doesn’t? They were talking about going to every other week for the recycling collection, and the citizens had a fit. They dropped that idea. People in this area really do participate a lot. We only have recycling collection for very small businesses, like mom-and-pop stores, and residential up to five units. There are a lot of places that don’t have weekly curbside collection but really recycle anyway, and we have drop-off locations for them.”

Howard County, MD
Howard County’s Department of Public Works, Bureau of Environmental Services, has several divisions, including recycling operations, stormwater management, and collection. “We have contractors that do collection by zones here for both residential trash and recycling. We do have a separate route from the residential routes that is a cart route that services the county buildings, multifamily complexes, and small businesses. The county handles the residential trash- and recycling-collection management. We don’t have any incorporated municipalities within the county,” says Laura A.T. Miller, recycling coordinator for the county. “We have a lot of community associations.”

Maryland’s statewide rate is 40%, the same as Howard County’s. In July 2006, the county introduced single-stream recycling, which bumped the county’s recycling rate upward by an average of 5% through the remainder of the year. “We had a significant campaign before the changeover, and the single-stream also took place with our county-facility, multifamily, small-business route,” states Miller. The county has a population of 220,000 with 70,000 households.

According to Miller, the most significant challenge when it comes to recycling diversion is reaching those people who do not recycle and encouraging them to start. “We need to be going after those folks who are sitting on the fence,” comments Miller. “There are some people who will not recycle if you put a gun to their head. But I also think there are a lot of people on the fence. That is where you might see the potential for growth, and I think that has to do with outreach to different audiences that the industry hasn’t typically reached out to.”

Fairfax County, VA
Fairfax County, VA, currently recycles 30% of all solid waste produced within its boundaries (typically over 400,000 tons annually). The recycling rate is calculated and reported annually according to procedures from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Work is done by both the public and private sectors. Last year, legislation was passed by the state that allows jurisdictions to factor into their respective recycling rates some source-reduction programs, automobile bodies, and other materials not previously allowed in calculating the rate, such as construction and demolition debris. These changes to the statewide recycling program most likely will assist jurisdictions in improving and increasing their recycling rates.

Benjamin Boxer, public information officer for the county, explains, “Since 1992, Fairfax County has had a mandatory curbside recycling program in effect for residential properties, mostly single-family homes and town houses. In 1995, multifamily residential properties with over 100 units were required to recycle newspaper only, and commercial properties generating over 100 tons of refuse annually were required to recycle one principal recyclable material, usually paper.” In 2004, the Fairfax County Solid Waste Management Program conducted a comprehensive review of its solid waste–management practices to develop the Fairfax County 20-Year Solid Waste Management Plan. One of the issues identified through the plan was the need to reserve refuse disposal capacity for a growing population by recycling more. Since Fairfax County has a large concentration of office-oriented businesses, the program decided to concentrate on recycling paper and cardboard because they are the predominant recyclable materials generated in the county.

In July 2006, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors approved new local requirements that mandate non-residential and multifamily properties to recycle mixed paper and cardboard. The new requirements also require the inclusion of bottle and can recycling in newly constructed multifamily residential properties in Fairfax County.

Boxer says the most significant challenges to recycling and diversion in Fairfax County are limited MRF capacity in the county and the fact that recycling of construction and demolition debris (C&D) is a “new” concept to local builders.

In addition, “Language barriers prevent residents from understanding what recycling is and how it is conducted. Fairfax County is part of a transient region where workers live in rural areas where recycling is seldom practiced and work in an urban setting where local code requires recycling. As recycling is fairly well accepted throughout Fairfax County, our continuing challenge is to maintain our high level of service, find ways to keep the recycling message fresh in the public’s mind, and find and support popular opportunities for residents to recycle their materials. The true challenge with respect to recycling is making it into the targeted public’s daily routine.”

With the enactment of new legislation, the county fully expects paper recycling to increase. “Commercial and business properties in the county have not previously been involved in recycling to any depth,” says Boxer. “The county expects this untapped market to generate large quantities of mixed paper and cardboard for recycling. As our outreach and enforcement programs are implemented and eventually accepted by commercial operations, we anticipate results that will show increased quantities of paper and cardboard recycled in the county.”

Alaska
As a state with one of the lowest population densities, Alaska faces challenges providing basic recycling programs. Yet recycling in a variety of forms actually occurs.

“Curbside or mandatory recycling programs do not exist, even in the five major communities of Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Kenai Peninsula, Fairbanks, and Juneau,” says William Hawley, senior principal engineer with MACTEC Engineering and Consulting Inc. (Anchorage, AK). “There are four lined regional landfills, maybe 20 lined and unlined local landfills, and approximately 200 unlined ‘dumplings’ in villages. Most of the stuff that is shipped to villages in Alaska stays where it ends up—some cardboard, shipping wood, and paper is used for heating fuel. The major communities have voluntary and privately run recycling programs, but there are no recovery goals, nor are there published statewide diversion rates.”

In spite of the challenges, Hawley reports that the major communities and some of the off-road hub communities are beginning to work on implementation of recycling programs. For example, the Municipality of Anchorage has just sought solicitations for evaluation of recycling options, including curbside collection, while the Fairbanks North Star Borough recently completed a recycling plan although it has not implemented any new programs.

Hawley states that access to markets, transportation costs, and education are three of the biggest challenges facing the state. He says there needs to be basic policy issues and infrastructure developed, including the establishment of goals and the implementation of programs by larger municipalities, the development of appropriate technologies and access to markets, the procurement of backhaul transportation costs, etc., for smaller communities and education.

“Voluntary programs are becoming more popular, so diversion rates are increasing slowly in the major communities,” Hawley says. “Villages will not change unless programs are subsidized. Since we don’t have published rates, I won’t speculate how high it can go.”

Metro Portland
Metro is the regional government that serves more than 1.3 million residents in three counties and 25 cities in the Portland, OR, metropolitan area. Metro provides several functions, including transportation and land-use planning services, and oversees regional garbage disposal, recycling, and waste-reduction programs.

For the state of Oregon the recycling goal is 50% by the end of 2009, while the actual recovery rate by the end of 2005 was 49.1%. For the Metro region the goal is 64% by the end of 2009, and the actual recovery by the end of 2005 stood at 59%.

According to Jim Watkins, engineering and environmental services manager at Metro, and Lee Barrett, Metro’s waste reduction and outreach division manager, materials with the greatest possibility for increased recovery in the region include organics (foodwaste), paper and containers from businesses, and construction and demolition waste.

“Oregon is fortunate in that we have ready access to markets for the targeted materials, so that is not an issue for us,” says Watkins. “Education remains key to our increased recovery efforts. While many businesses already have programs in place to recover paper and containers, they do not recover as much material as they could. Studies have shown that Metro-region businesses throw away 102,000 tons of paper and containers a year, so an increased educational effort will be needed to capture these items.”

Barrett states that $700,000 has been budgeted for the next fiscal year on the Metro region’s business outreach program. “Those funds pay for our Recycle at Work program where individuals visit businesses to help them establish or increase their recycling programs.”

For Barrett, increased education of businesses and residents, increased cooperation between the independent haulers and the local governments, and more funds to support those actions are critical to improving the recycling programs and diversion rates.

“We certainly think Oregon will be able to meet its 2009 goal,” says Barrett. “It’s possible the state could achieve a rate of 51% or 52% by 2009. However, we don’t know if the Metro region will be able to meet its goal. The region has seen a steady, but gradual, increase of around 1% each year. At that rate, the 64% goal will not quite be met. Assuming that residential collection of foodwaste can begin within the next few years in the Metro region, and that the outreach efforts to businesses and C&D sites work, we feel the region could reach a recovery rate of something above 65%. Not by the end of 2009, but perhaps by 2015.”

California consultant Lynn Merrill is a frequent contributor to Forester publications.

MSW - Elements 2008