The State Of Garbage In America Part II

From BioCycle
Journal of Composting &Organics Recycling
November 2000, Page 40

12th ANNUAL BIOCYCLE NATIONWIDE SURVEY
THE STATE OF GARBAGE IN AMERICA
Recycling and composting are holding their own in a national municipal
solid waste management landscape heavily seeded with landfill capacity.
Part II
Nora Goldstein and Celeste Madtes

IT WAS Kermit the Frog who sang the song, “It’s Not Easy Being Green,” and in this day and age of abundant disposal capacity and relatively low landfill tip fees, staying the green course with recycling and composting is trickier than it was a decade ago. After surveying the 50 states and the District of Columbia, however, the bottom line is that the nation hasn’t gone into reverse on the inroads made with diversion. Instead, it is moving forward steadily, albeit at a pace that frustrates those who see a lot more in the waste stream to recover than dispose.

In 2000, the State of Garbage in America report has been divided into two parts. Part I, which ran in the April issue, looked at the disposal and incineration side of the MSW management picture. The number of landfills declined by 98 to 2,216 between 1998 and 1999, while there was a slight rise in the number of incinerators (from 119 to 122). The overall amount of MSW (with some states including other fractions) generated in the U.S. rose from the 374,631,000 tons reported for 1998.

Part II of the 2000 State of Garbage in America shifts to the diversion side of MSW management, focusing on recycling, composting and wood recovery. Traditionally, this data was presented in a spring issue of BioCycle. After surveying states about when recycling and composting data are collected and compiled, it was decided to move our survey to later in the year. Starting in 2001, the entire annual State of Garbage in America report will appear in the late fall.

AND THE NATIONAL NUMBERS ARE....

BioCycle collects data for State of Garbage in America by surveying state officials via questionnaire, with follow-up phone calls or emails in many cases for clarifications or additional details. We extend our thanks and appreciation to everyone who provided us with information. Every state but Wyoming responded to the Part II survey. In 2000, a total of eight states (including Wyoming) did not have information on how much (by percent) of MSW generated is recycled and composted, incinerated and landfilled. State officials in Colorado, Michigan and Tennessee could not provide any data at all for the entire survey. Four other states — Georgia, Idaho, Oklahoma and Wisconsin — do not have any data that enables them to calculate, or even estimate, percentages.

The total amount of MSW generation in the U.S. in 1999 (which in some cases includes industrial, construction and demolition debris (C&D) and agricultural waste), tallied for this November report, is 382,594,000 tons. This total is 7,345,000 tons less than the 389,939,000 tons reported in Part I because six states gave different amounts in the second survey. The differences are attributed primarily to states’ use of more current data.

The national recycling, incineration and landfilling rates are based on MSW generation numbers from only those states reporting (43 out of 51 — the District of Columbia is counted as a state for simplicity purposes). BioCycle has calculated that the recycling rate, which includes yard trimmings composted, in the United States is 33 percent. The amount of MSW landfilled is 60 percent, with seven percent incinerated. This reflects a 1.5 percent increase from the 31.5 percent recycling rate reported in the 1999 State of Garbage in America survey. Table 1 provides a summary of the nation’s MSW generation total, and recycling, landfilling and incineration rates from the 1990 through 2000 survey reports. Table 2 gives the state by state breakout of this data (for 1999 activity).

To perhaps provide a better comparison of any change in the past year, BioCycle editors used the percentages reported in 1999 by seven of the states not included in this year’s calculation (Idaho did not report percentages in the 1999 survey either). Using those percentages, but this year’s MSW generation number, the national recycling rate is 32 percent. The percent of MSW landfilled is 61 percent (same as the 1999 survey), and incineration is seven percent (7.5 percent was reported in the 1999 survey). Given the rise in the amount of solid waste generated between 1998 and 1999, it is likely that the national recycling rate is closer to 32 percent than the 33 percent calculated based on 43 states reporting.

Of the 43 states giving percentages, 23 broke out what amount of the total recycling rate is attributed to composting. South Carolina has the highest percentage (14%), followed by Nebraska (12%), Maryland and Washington (11%), Connecticut and North Dakota (9%), Alabama (8%) and Maine (6%). Fifteen noted that composting accounted for five percent or less of the total recycling rate.

STATE AND REGIONAL ANALYSIS

Eleven of the 43 states showed no change in their recycling rates between the 1999 and 2000 surveys. Eighteen states had an increase. States with the largest increases are Delaware (+35%), Arizona and Indiana (+9%), the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania (+7%), and Missouri and Montana (+6%). Fourteen states reported a decline in their recycling rates. Florida and South Carolina each lost 11 percent, followed by North Dakota (-6%), and Illinois and Virginia (-5%). In terms of incineration, states reporting the highest percentages are the District of Columbia (70%, down 22% from the 1999 survey), Connecticut (65%), Massachusetts (43%), Maine (40%) and Hawaii (35%). Overall, nine states reported a higher incineration number in 2000, while 13 had declines. Twenty-one states reported the same incineration rate as last year.

At 90 percent, New Mexico reports the highest landfilling rate in the country, followed by Montana and Nevada (89%), Kansas (88%) and Mississippi (84%). Connecticut has the lowest rate at 11 percent, followed by the District of Columbia (15%), Maine (18%) and Massachusetts (19%). These are the same four states with the highest incineration rates in the country.

Overall, nine states had the same landfilling rate in the 2000 survey as they did in 1999. Sixteen states have higher rates, with Virginia increasing the most (+14%), followed by Florida and South Carolina (+11%), Washington (+8%) and North Dakota (+6%). Eighteen states had a decline in landfilling between the 1999 and 2000 surveys. Delaware dropped the most (-14%), followed by Arizona and Hawaii (-9%), and Missouri (-6%).

Regionally, the Mid-Atlantic states lead the nation with a 40 percent recycling rate, followed by the Midwest and West (35%), New England (34%), South (28%), Great Lakes (26%) and Rocky Mountains (19%). In the 1999 report, the Mid-Atlantic also was the top recycling region, followed by the South, Midwest, New England, West, Great Lakes and Rocky Mountains. If data from the 1999 survey are plugged into those states not reporting in 2000, the number two, three and four spots shift (West—35%; New England—34%; and Midwest—33%). The other regions maintain their same rankings.

There was little change in the regional rankings for incineration. New England leads the pack with 43 percent, followed by Mid-Atlantic (15%), South (7%), Great Lakes (5%) and Rocky Mountains and West (1%). The Midwest essentially has no incineration of MSW.

On the landfilling front, the Rocky Mountain region tops the list with 80 percent, followed by the Great Lakes (69%), South and Midwest (65%), West (64%), Mid-Atlantic (45%) and New England (23%). In the 1999 report, the Rocky Mountains and Great Lakes also were the top landfilling regions, but third place went to the Midwest, followed by the West and South. The Mid-Atlantic and New England brought up the rear last year as well.

A more detailed analysis of state and regional landfilling and incineration trends was discussed in Part I of the 2000 State of Garbage in America report. The rest of Part II focuses on recycling and composting, including curbside collection, yard trimmings diversion, wood recovery, landfill disposal bans, total tonnages recycled, state recycling/diversion goals, and program funding.

CURBSIDE RECYCLING

This year, in addition to curbside collection programs, BioCycle editors asked state officials about the number of municipalities and counties that rely solely on dropoff recycling sites and Pay As You Throw (PAYT) programs. The following summarizes the data collected:

Curbside Collection Programs: Table 3 provides a summary of residential curbside recycling activity. Nationwide, a total of 9,247 curbside collection programs were reported — but that is with six states not providing information. On the surface, that is a drop of 102 from the 1999 survey report (and the first time that a decline has ever been reported in the State of Garbage survey). It is fairly safe to note that in all likelihood, there wasn’t a decline in the number of curbside recycling programs in 2000. Why? Take South Carolina, for example. The state knows that there are 174 curbside programs for solid waste collection. It also knows that of those 174 programs, 656,000 households receive curbside recycling service, while close to 296,500 only get MSW collection. What it doesn’t know, however, is how many of those MSW collection programs offer curbside recycling service; therefore the state did not provide a number. But given that data, we can determine that 69 percent of the households are getting recycling services or 48 percent of the population. Presumably, a number of those 174 collection programs include recycling service. Overall, the six states not reporting curbside collection program data (Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming) accounted for 313 curbside programs in the 1999 State of Garbage in America survey.

As in past years, New York reported the highest number of curbside programs (1,472), followed by Pennsylvania (892), Minnesota (758), Wisconsin (600) and Iowa (583). It should be noted that New York State has provided the same number of curbside programs since 1996, whereas the other states in the top five are reporting 1999 data. California and New Jersey have over 500 programs each.

Twelve states reported no change in the number of curbside programs, 19 had an increase and 14 had a decrease. On a regional basis, the Mid-Atlantic has the greatest number of residential curbside collection programs, followed by Great Lakes (2,637), Midwest (1,199), South (1,019), West (747), New England (585) and Rocky Mountains (32).

In two cases — Illinois and Michigan — statewide data on recycling programs came from state organizations (the Illinois Recycling Association and the Michigan Recycling Coalition). The latter has grant funding from U.S. EPA Region 5 to conduct a Recycling Measurement Project, and is working toward calculating a state recycling rate. In both cases, state officials referred us to the recycling organizations for data. In Colorado, the Colorado Association for Recycling is gathering statewide information, which should be available in 2001.

Population Served By Curbside Programs: Nationally, the 2000 State of Garbage survey found 133,165,000 people served by curbside recycling programs, which also is a drop from last year’s report (139,415,000). The most logical explanation for the difference is that last year, only three states did not report a population served number. In 2000, 13 states did not provide a number. (Adding together last year’s numbers for 11 of those 13 missing states equals close to 13 million people.)

California, with 19.1 million people getting curbside recycling service, takes the top spot in the nation on that count. It is followed by New York (17.2 million), Florida (12 million), Pennsylvania (8.8 million), Illinois (8 million), and New Jersey (7.3 million). It should be noted that excepting for California and Pennsylvania, which are reporting numbers for 1999, the rest of the states other than New York (1996 data) provided data from 1998. Overall, eight states had no change in population served, 22 had an increase and seven had a decrease. Regionally, the Mid-Atlantic has the greatest number of people served by curbside programs (37.3 million), followed by the West (26.7 million), South (25.8 million), Great Lakes (16.8 million), Midwest (13.5 million), New England (10.1 million) and Rocky Mountains (2.9 million).

On a percentage basis, the 133.2 million people receiving curbside service in the U.S. represent 61 percent of the nation’s population. Looking at the percentages state by state, Connecticut is on top with 100 percent (100 percent of the population has access to curbside recycling), followed by New York (95%), Pennsylvania (90%), New Jersey (90%), and Nevada (87%). Twenty states report that 50 percent or more of their population gets curbside recycling service. Six states had no change in the percent served since the 1999 State of Garbage report, 21 had an increase and nine had a decrease. Regionally, the Mid-Atlantic serves 89 percent of its population with curbside programs, followed by New England (75%), Great Lakes (61%), West (60%), South (55%), Rocky Mountains (43%) and Midwest (35%).

Dropoff and PAYT: Information was collected on the number of municipalities and/or counties in each state that rely solely on dropoff programs to provide recycling service to its citizens. (Because the question was too open ended, it isn’t possible to report a nationwide number.) Thirty states answered the question. States with over 100 programs include Pennsylvania (533), Georgia (382), Maine (375), Iowa (368), South Carolina (348), New Hampshire (196), Missouri (194), Texas (174), Massachusetts (173), North Carolina (121) and North Dakota (100 to 120).

Twenty-seven states indicated that municipalities and/or counties have PAYT variable rate programs. Sixteen didn’t have a count available. Wisconsin has the most communities with PAYT rates (305), followed by Iowa (200), Pennsylvania (131), Massachusetts (95), Minnesota (87) and Maine (85). Delaware noted that all communities in the state use a PAYT rate structure.

The survey questionnaire asked if the PAYT approach is a growing trend in their states, and if PAYT is resulting in increased recycling and composting. Not all states with programs answered, but of the 31 responding to the trend question, 15 answered yes and 16 answered no. Twenty-two states answered whether PAYT is a diversion booster; 18 said yes and four said no.

YARD TRIMMINGS COMPOSTING

Across the United States, the 2000 State of Garbage in America survey found 3,804 yard trimmings composting facilities, with five states not reporting. In 1999, BioCycle reported 3,807, with every state providing a number. We feel fairly confident in saying that if all 50 states gave us a number (the District of Columbia doesn’t have a facility), the total for 2000 would be higher than it was in last year’s survey report. One other complicating factor in 2000 is that several states indicated that the number provided includes operations primarily handling the woody fraction of the yard trimmings stream, which are producing mulches or wood chips, not compost. There wasn’t enough time to investigate this more closely, but it will be explored in future years.

Ohio reported the largest number of yard trimmings composting sites (501), followed by Minnesota (447), Pennsylvania (313), Massachusetts (285) and Michigan (173). Overall, eight states had no change between the 1999 and 2000 surveys in the number of composting facilities, 23 had an increase and 15 had a decline. Those states with the largest gains are South Dakota (106), California (96), Michigan (53), South Carolina (50) and Ohio (43). States with the biggest drop include Georgia (131), New York (120) Wisconsin (55) and New Hampshire (40). Regionally, the Great Lakes have the largest number of yard trimmings composting facilities (1,377), followed by Mid-Atlantic (606), Midwest (586), Northeast (517), South (404), West (215) and Rocky Mountains (99).

States also were queried about the number of communities in the U.S. with bin distribution programs for home composting. Of the 14 states providing data, Massachusetts reports the highest number of communities with bin distribution programs (230), followed by Vermont (190), Connecticut (84), Pennsylvania (60) and Oregon (40).

WOOD RECOVERY

BioCycle editors used the opportunity of a nationwide survey to collect baseline data on wood recycling in the United States. Survey questions asked about tracking of generation and recovery, wood recycling capacity and end markets and uses for recovered wood. Of 41 states answering the tracking question, 33 said they do not gather data on wood generation and/or recovery. Eight states responded yes. Seven noted the following data are collected (categories listed on the questionnaire were new construction, repair and remodeling, demolition, deconstruction and primary timber processing residues). Delaware has recovery data on wood for all five categories. Georgia and Kentucky have generation data on primary timber. Nevada has recovery data on all categories except primary timber. New Hampshire has recovery data on demolition and deconstruction activities. North Carolina has generation data for all categories except deconstruction, while Oregon has generation and recovery data for all categories except primary timber.

Twelve states provided a number of wood recycling (grinding/screening/marketing) facilities, which together totalled 322. Ten states had information on wood fueled biomass plants, for a total of 92. In terms of end markets and uses for recovered wood, mulch production was most frequently mentioned by states (27), followed by compost (25), recycled pallets (20), biomass (15), furniture production (9) and paper production (7).

QUANTITIES RECOVERED FOR RECYCLING

Table 4 provides a breakout of the actual tonnages of materials recovered via recycling and composting in 1999. Twenty-six states provided data. The survey also asked states about recycling market development initiatives. Procurement preferences are the most popular tool for government purchasing offices. Eight states (Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Texas and Washington) report having green building initiatives to build markets for recycled materials. Six states have programs to establish recycling market development zones or ecoindustrial/recycling parks (typically using tax incentives and low interest loans to attract businesses that use recycled materials as feedstocks). Five states (Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, Texas and West Virginia) note that their state Departments of Transportation have specifications for compost use.

The State of Garbage survey also asked states to estimate, by percent, how much of the following organic fractions of the solid waste stream — food residuals, wood from the MSW stream, wood from C&D, and yard trimmings — are being recovered for recycling, composting or other beneficial uses. Twenty states responded, but only a few had estimates for all four fractions. For food residuals, 15 states responded. Fourteen (Arizona, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin) estimated that less than ten percent is recovered. New Jersey estimates that 30 to 50 percent are recovered.

Ten states (Arizona, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah and Washington) reported that less than ten percent of wood from the MSW stream is recovered. New Mexico and Wisconsin report a 10 to 20 percent recovery rate; North Carolina and Oregon estimate that over 50 percent of wood is recovered from MSW. Nine states gave an estimate on the amount of wood from the C&D stream. Eight were under ten percent (Arizona, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah and Wisconsin). New Jersey estimates that 20 to 30 percent of wood in the C&D stream is recovered.

Nineteen of the 20 states responding provided an estimate for yard trimmings recovery. Eleven were under ten percent (Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island and Washington). Utah is in the ten to 20 percent range, Massachusetts estimates 20 percent, and Missouri estimates 30 to 50 percent. Five states — Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon and Wisconsin — estimate that greater than 50 percent of the yard trimmings generated are recovered.

To encourage more source reduction and greater recovery of recyclables and compostables, many states passed legislation over the past ten years (or longer) that bans disposal of certain materials in MSW landfills. Table 5 provides the responses received from the states for vehicle batteries, whole tires, yard trimmings, motor oil and white goods. Other materials banned are included in the footnotes.

RECYCLING GOALS, PROGRAM FUNDING

Table 6 summarizes the states with diversion or recycling goals, current recycling rates and the deadline for meeting the goal. We also asked if the goal is mandatory or voluntary on local governments. Out of the 49 states answering these question, 37 have goals. (Michigan and Tennessee, which didn’t respond this year, reported goals in last year’s survey.) Arkansas and Virginia have met the goals set; Maryland meets its 35 percent goal. States close to meeting their goals (four percent or less away from the goal) are Alabama, Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.

All but six states report that achieving the goal is voluntary. Of the six that are mandatory, two do not have any penalties if the goals aren’t met (District of Columbia and Virginia). California, New Jersey and Oregon have the authority to penalize local governments, while Florida cannot penalize but can use grant money as an incentive.

Table 7 asked states for information on sources of funding for their recycling and composting programs, the annual budget and the amounts of grants and loans for composting and recycling. There was a good response to these questions (47 states). The most common method of funding state programs is solid waste disposal fees/landfill surcharges, followed by budget appropriations. Pennsylvania has the highest annual budget ($46.9 million funded by a landfill surcharge), and put $35.3 million into grants and $1 million into loans in the past fiscal year. California has the next highest budget ($19.5 million),

followed by Georgia ($10.8 million), Massachusetts ($8.7 million) and Texas ($8.5 million). Other states with well funded grants programs include Wisconsin ($24.5 million), Florida ($20 million), California ($18.8 million), and Missouri ($6.5 million). Only eight of the 47 states fund loan programs.

BEEFING UP THE DATA

With so much data swimming around our heads and on these pages, it is challenging to get a broad view of the state of recycling, composting and wood recovery in the State of Garbage In America! One thing, however, is clear — the need for improvement in our industry’s data collection/measuring tools. The difficulty revolves around three general areas: lack of resources and/or initiatives to collect data, definitions and consistency. Some states don’t have the staff, budget or push from legislators or governors to collect recycling and composting information. The problem with definitions is directly connected to consistency, and the ability and accuracy of comparing data from state to state. For example, defining “municipal” solid waste is an ongoing debate. Trash generated by municipalities, commercial businesses and institutions falls into the same general fractions. The lines start to blur around such fractions as C&D debris and some very recyclable industrial waste. What states count toward their recycling rates is not clearly defined either. Some only count residential recyclables, while others include commercial (and even some industrial) materials. These are not new problems, but the impact was felt this year, especially with eight states not reporting what percentages of the MSW stream are recycled, incinerated and landfilled.

Despite these data reporting hurdles, many state officials and other recycling veterans said that BioCycle’s annual State of Garbage in America report — because of its 12-year history — provides an essential baseline both nationally and for individual states. One person noted, “It may not be the best data available, but it is the most consistent.” In future surveys, BioCycle — working with state officials, recycling organizations and industry groups — will work towards developing better and more consistent definitions and categories. This effort is important because when push comes to shove, if we don’t have the data to know where we are, we won’t have the ability to know where we need to go next on the road to recovery.

BIOCYCLE | IN BUSINESS | COMPOST SCIENCE |

HOME