NRC Annual Congress & Expo: Measuring Success

Representatives from Washington D.C. and New York shared the results of studies of their waste management and recycling programs and how those studies helped them better understand recycling opportunities at the National Recycling Coalition (NRC) Annual Congress & Expo recently held in Pittsburgh.

In 2007, the Department of Public Works for Washington D.C. embarked on a waste study to determine how much of its waste stream was recyclable. “We’d had enough of everyone telling us 50 to 60 percent of what you collect is recyclable,” said Hallie Clemm, deputy administrator of Solid Waste Management, who discussed the case study. “We decided to test that.”

In 2007, the department collected 133,000 tons of solid waste and 24,380 tons of recyclables, according to Clemm. The department conducted a waste sort of both solid waste samples and recyclables to help determine the makeup of both streams. They hoped the results would help determine if the department should expand the recycling program and provide guidance on how to tailor the marketing message to encourage more recycling.

The sort showed that the there was an additional 23,800 tons of recyclable material still being thrown away, Clemm said. She added that two-thirds of what is still being thrown away is paper. “Diversion rate is not the only metric that matters,” she said. “Capture rate is also key.”

As a result, the city found it needs to capture more of existing program recyclables—which include newspaper, OCC (old corrugated containers), mixed paper, glass, plastic bottles and aluminum and steel cans—and look to expand the program as well.

Natalie Starr and Ted Siegler of DSM Environmental Services Inc., Windsor, Vt., also introduced attendees to a study the company performed on recycling and waste management costs in New York. The two-year analysis of the Department of Sanitation helped address a persistent argument that recycling is more expensive than disposal, Siegler said.

New York has a dual-stream system. In areas with an extremely dense population, separate single compartment trucks are devoted to collecting one kind of recyclable. In less-dense areas, dual-compartment trucks will collect both paper and containers.

DSM found that the sanitation department lumped certain recycling costs together, which threw off comparisons between the cost of recycling vs. the cost of refuse collection, according to Starr. She said for instance, the city lumped the costs of Freon removal from curbside appliance collection and the composting program at Riker’s Island in with curbside recycling costs. The city also included snow and ice removal costs with recycling since refuse vehicles are used for snow removal as well.

The company found ways to reallocate some costs to get a purer comparison and found that the cost per ton to recycling is very close to that of refuse collection: $284 per ton vs. $267 per ton. Furthermore, as costs to export the city’s waste increase, the difference will continue to shrink, Starr said.

The NRC Annual Congress & Expo was held Sept. 22-24 in Pittsburgh. More information is available at www.nrc-recycle.org.