As a nation, are we truly reducing the amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) that ends up in landfills? Are we recycling more? How do recycling rates compare across the different regions of our country? Does the future for recycling look positive?

Since curbside collection of waste can either be sorted and recycled or carted off to landfills, governing municipalities and contracted private waste haulers greatly influence where our collected trash ends up. While recycling legislation and economic incentives help to steer waste disposable decisions to the recycling stream, lack of such provisions leave waste disposable options up solely to the local authorities. Often local decision makers must choose between two types of green: the “green” almighty dollar or the “green” recycle symbol. When market forces are not economically favorable for recycling, trash often goes to landfills.

According to an article recently published in MSW Management, when it comes to landfills, “solid waste quantities are down. Reports vary throughout the country … but reductions of 15%, 25% 30%, or greater are common”. For anyone who is passionate about reducing the use of landfills in our country, this is encouraging news. So, how have these reductions come about? Are we recycling more or simply generating less waste? EPA data for MSW through year 2008 shows that for the past decade MSW generation has been relatively flat and even on a slight decline. While nationally recycling reached a 33.2% rate in the year 2008; some recently published figures for various states may put that number now closer to 30%. No matter how you look at it, we still have a long way to go to substantially reduce landfill usage and increase the recycling rate.

Three public corporations: “Waste Management, Inc.” ,“Republic Services, Inc.” , “IESI-BFC Ltd.” control 75% of the MSW landfill capacity in the USA. With only 25% of landfills under the direction of municipalities, landfill management remains largely under pressure to make profits and keep Wall Street happy. With 1, 812 landfills in the continental US, 10 in Hawaii, and 300 in Alaska, there are a lot of facilities to run and maintain. Compare these numbers to the number of Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFS). There are 545 in the continental US, 2 in Hawaii, and 1 in Alaska. Where does the emphasis seem to be? To date, landfills still hold the bulk of our waste.

Although landfills still rule when it comes to waste disposal, the above graph illustrates that landfill usage is on the downswing. In such a capital intensive industry, declining landfill demand translates into over capacity, idle equipment, lost jobs and lower profits. Now, that’s not good for any municipality or corporation. It’s not only the “Greening of America”, but the risk of future business loss that is spurring corporations like Waste Management, Inc. to invest in recycling. As more states enact “green” legislation the business of recycling will continue to strengthen. In my opinion, there is no reason why our national recycle rate must hover in the low 30% range. We need to aim much higher.

And, aiming higher is just what some regions of our country have done. But, how do we compare recycling rates between regions? Although no national standard exists, the EPA does issue recycling rate calculation guidelines. However, all recycling rates are not created equal. According to the EPA, discrepancies arise due to the following factors:

How a state defines recycling. (Some states allow communities with waste-to-energy facilities to additionally credit their recycling rates for these operations).

What is counted in the recycling rate. (Some states put limits on what can be counted while other states allow everything to be counted, e.g. automobiles and farm animal waste).

How MSW is defined. (Some states include bio-solids and industrial wastes).

What year is used to calculate the recycling rate. (Some jurisdictions calculate the recycling rate based on MSW generated during a specific “base year” rather than the current year).

How volume is converted to tons. (Conversion factors vary greatly).

Although recycle rate calculations are not perfect, overtime these rates do serve to benchmark our recycling efforts. Compiled below are recycling rates by region. These figures were generated using 2010 Census data and recently published state recycle rates (mostly 2009 and 2010). Sources for the recycling rates included state websites, publications, and recycling organizations. To have a benchmark to compare to, the recycling regions were defined exactly the same as in a report released by ,“BioCycle” ,“The State of Garbage in America”. The BioCycle report contains 2006 data.

For ease of reference, I have listed both the recently calculated recycling rates and the 2006 figures. The new RecyGal data uses only standard recycling materials in the rate calculations and excludes waste-to-energy credits. How a state calculates its recycle rate can make a substantial difference in the final number reported. For example, the State of Maryland publishes a recycle rate of 43.9%, but when adjusted for EPA guidelines, the rate is 36.2%. Personally, whenever I see a published recycle rate, I normally allow for plus or minus 5% of the stated value.

For the most part, the recycle rate differences between 2006 and 2010 are within 5%. Larger differences between the two reports are seen in the regions of New England and the West. When reviewing the data, it is important to know that in the year 2007 (after the BioCycle data was published), recycling rates fell sharply across the country due to the economic crisis and the loss in Asian demand for recyclable materials. Currently, our weak economy is still depressing some regional recycle markets. To keep things simple, when mentioning individual states, the “abbreviated” form is used.

In looking at the above table, the New England region has an overall recycling rate of 24%. While several states have rates exceeding 30%, NH, RI, and MA are 21%, 20%, and 18% respectively. Massachusetts is a good example of how waste-to-energy recycling credtis can greatly alter the overalll recycling rate. With waste-to-energy credits, the MA recycling rate is 27%; without these credits the recycling rate is 18%. The West region has the highest rate of all at 43%. All West states exceed 40% except for NV which comes in at 15%. For the continental states, the Rocky Mountain region has the lowest recycle rate at 9%. Alaska’s rate of 6% was extrapolated from information I received from Mary Fischer, Director of Alaskans for Litter Prevention (ALPAR). According to Mary, the city of Anchorage has a recycle rate of 17%. Since Anchorage has 37% of the Alaskan population and the only curbside recycling pick up in the state (started in 2008), I extrapolated Anchorage’s rate across the entire state. Obviously, this number is low because many towns in Alaska recycle using drop-off centers. A fairer value would probably be 10%. Recycle rates in the South are all under 20% except for VA (33%), SC (31%), and TN (26%).

Overall which states have the highest and lowest recycling rates?

Six states have recycling rates at 40% or higher. With only 12% of US states recycling at this level, others should look toward the best practices of these “high recyclers” for ideas and recycling strategies.

Five states sit at the bottom of the list. These states have not yet acheived a recycling rate of 5%. In the case of Mississippi, the state is not required to report a recycling rate so available information may not be currrent.

All in all, recycling is holding its own but has a long way to go. According to Recycling Works (a campaign advocating higher recycling rates) even today’s low recycle rate “conserves the equivalent of approximately 11.9 billion gallons of gasoline, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of taking one-fifth – or 40 million – of all U.S. cars off the roads every year. ” With landfill usage on the decline, it is now time to invest in recycling and to change our waste disposal habits. We need to reverse course and aim for a 70% recycle rate and 30% landfill use.

As always, I welcome any comments or input you may have about this report.

Happy Recycling!

© 2010 Recycle Life, LLC
RecyGal^© logo and the RecyGal character are registered trademarks of Recycle Life , LLC

References for this article were obtained from: “What’s Next for Landfills?”, Gardner, R, MSW Management, Vol. 20, No. 4, Applied Research Foundation, solid Waste Association of North America, “The Regional Privately-Owned Landfill Trend and Its Impact on Integrated Solid Waste Management Systems”, February 2007, p. 11, “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States Detailed Tables and Figures for 2008”, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, November 2009, “Recycling and Waste-to-Energy: Are they compatible?” 2009 Update, E. Berenyi, Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc, June 2009, http://www.wte.org/userfiles/file/2009%20Berenyi%20recycling%20update.pdf “Striving for Consistency: Standardizing Recycling Measurements”, H. Pillsbury, EPA, www.epa.gov, “Recycling Rates Rise in New Jersey but Still Don’t Meet Goal”, T. Bates, November 16, 2009, www.enviroguy.com, “Local Recycling Surviving after Market Collaspe”, C. Gaetano, Sentinel , December 23, 2008, “The State of Garbage in America”, P. Simmons, et.al., BioCycle, April 2006, Vol. 47, No.4, p.26, www.recyclingworkscampaign.org, http://www.maine.gov/spo/recycle/, http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/141734.html, http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/documents/greeningrhodeisland.doc, “Greening Rhode Island”, An Issues Paper by the Rhode Island Senate Policy Office, January 2008, http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/documents/greeningrhodeisland.doc, http://www.maine.gov/spo/recycle/, http://www.eagletribune.com/newhampshire/x1412996105/Low-recycling-rates-strain-town-budgets, http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2010/03/14despite_environmentalists_pleas_massachusetts_recycling_rate_stalls/, “Beyond Dipsoal and Recycling: Preventing Waste Generation”, G. Crombie, Vermont College Chapel, Montpeiler, VT, April 12, 2007, http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/R3/conference/crombiesolidwastespeech.pdf, http://www.des.nh.gov/media/pr/documents/081008.pdf, http://www/awm.delaware.gov/Pages/Recycling.aspx, http://www.americanobserver.net/2008/02/06/dc-recycling-fails-to-hit-its-mark/, http://www.green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/new-york-state-a-recycling-reprobate/,http://macredo.org/programs_md.php, http://www.state.wv.us/swmb/2009%20%State%20Plan/Appendix%201.pdf, http://www/environmentalistseveryday.org/docs/research-bulleting/Research-Bulletin-MSW-Recycling-10-05.pdf, http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/solwaste/branch_recycling/pdfs/report_state_of_recycling_2007_2008.pdf, “State of Recycling in Arkansas- 2007-2008″, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, January 2009, http://www.recyclingworkscampaign.org

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 20th, 2010 at 11:49 am and is filed under Helpful websites, Land Fills, MRFs, Recycling. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.