by Tracie Onstad Bills, Northern California Director, Sustainable Materials Management at SCS Engineers
For many years source separation was the primary method for recycling. However, technology has changed how recyclables are collected and processed. China, the largest importer of materials for recycling now strictly enforces regulations on importing contaminated materials for recycling into the country. China’s Operation Green Fence puts restrictions on what material China will accept, rejecting materials that don’t meet higher standards of cleanliness; that means rejected materials get buried in a landfill instead of being recycled.
Regardless of the type of recycling program, the biggest challenge here at home is now minimizing contaminated recycling material. Communities are struggling to meet diversion goals and provide materials to local recyclers that are free of common contaminants such as liquids left in containers or motor oil. My SCS team has assisted communities in the last few years to address contamination issues and I’d like to share what works best to kick start addressing the issue at home.
Recycling Assessments: Conduct a visual and physical characterization study to identify contamination levels using one of these two methods for the evaluation:
Recycling Technical Assistance: Meet with local businesses and perform a walk-through of their facility to collect baseline waste assessment and material collection infrastructure information. This information can then be used to provide customized recycling and composting recommendations, and implementation support such as employee training sessions, providing signage and collateral, referrals, and multi-lingual outreach services.
Review and Analysis of Community Recycling Programs: Review and analyze your recycling program. An environmental engineer can provide recommendations and assessments on how a recycling program can be enhanced to reduce the quantity of contaminated materials. Services typically include everything from examining outreach materials to the flow of the recycling from generation to transport to processing.
Planning and Implementation of Behavior Change Programs: There is value in providing comprehensive programs and explicit outreach materials for increasing the probability of cleaner recycling. Behavior change programs focus on planning and implementing programs that identify key triggers to encourage action in the community. These programs help communicate the importance and value of specific activities to the community and cross any age and cultural barriers.
Contamination is a global problem and is challenging, but there are steps to minimize the problem in your community.
About Tracie Onstad Bills
Tracie Onstad Bills has been in the Environmental and Resource Material Management Field for over 20 years. Her expertise revolves around commercial recycling technical assistance, environmental purchasing, large venue and event zero waste programs, research and sustainability planning, garbage hauler franchise compliance and review, construction and demolition program / ordinance analysis and writing, climate inventory compilation, research and feasibility studies to help clients with comprehensive waste prevention and zero waste programs. Ms. Bills has a BA in Environmental Science from San Jose State University, is a CRRA Board member and belongs to the SWANA Gold Rush Chapter, National Recycling Coalition and the Northern California Recycling Association. Contact Tracie here.
Learn more on the SCS service pages and read SCS project case studies from across the nation to help fine tune your program:
By Kevin D. Yard, P.E., BCEE, Marc Rogoff, Ph.D., with contributions from SCS’ Environmental Consultants
In view of recent media coverage about the costs of recycling, perhaps it is time to take a “fresh look” at the compatibility of waste diversion and ultimate waste management, i.e., landfilling. Whereas some suggest that Zero Waste enthusiasts and Landfill Management professionals have counterproductive goals, through our recent experience with integrated waste management systems we have a newfound appreciation of the common ground of the two groups.
Zero Waste proponents espouse many important goals such as behavioral changes in consumers (e.g., reducing the generation of waste, minimizing the use of products that contain toxins, reducing energy consumption, etc.). Others, in the “No Burn/No Bury” ZW camp, suggest setting a goal at zero waste of resources achieved through measures such as: bans on disposal of materials that can be beneficially used, mandatory recycling programs to address hard-to-reach constituents, separate collection of food scraps, extended producer responsibility of hard-to-handle materials, etc. Some ZW enthusiasts have stated, “We put a man on the moon, so surely we can achieve ZW”.
On the other hand, many solid waste management professionals realize that landfills represent an important component of integrated solid waste systems and that other waste management options that are sometimes viewed as alternatives to landfills (e.g., material recovery facilities, composting operations, household hazardous waste collection programs, waste conversion and waste-to-energy plants, etc.) are more properly considered as complementary waste management tools. Further, most solid waste managers understand that landfills will continue to be required for residuals from other components of integrated waste management systems for decades to come.
While recognizing that recycling is presently common and an important component of modern waste management systems, particularly in large metropolitan areas, two questions remain:
Whereas in some areas, recycling can be a break-even proposition, in most areas, implementing recycling can cost from $0.50 to $3 per household, per month. One might ask with public school budgets being reduced, the nation’s infrastructure needing extensive improvements, and forecasted water shortages warranting major water resource projects, what is the most appropriate method for determining how the costs of recycling should be born?
Perhaps the answers lie in addressing recycling goals in a manner that makes economic sense depending on the conditions of each community or, more appropriately, each waste-shed. When viewing the magnitude of the investment in a modern-day municipal solid waste landfill, one can gain a greater appreciation for the need for properly managing and amortizing such investments. Like any investment in infrastructure, the public’s investment in disposal capacity should be valued and optimized in the interest of taxpayers. For instance, in areas with limited remaining disposal capacity and limitations for developing additional disposal capacity, investing in a more aggressive recycling program may be much more desirable and cost-effective than for areas with over 20 years of disposal capacity.
As prudent taxpayers, we need to work together to assure that the assets of waste management systems are optimized in a manner that protects the environment. This, of course, includes thoughtful consideration of recycling goals, which can contribute to a more cost-effective utilization of the available landfill capacity. As recycling enthusiasts provide an ongoing impetus for further waste reduction and enhanced recycling, optimization of waste diversion will continue to evolve. This evolution will be site-specific consistent with the variable impact of evolving waste management technologies and changes in the markets for recovered products. Given that the dynamics of each waste-shed can vary dramatically, many cities will benefit from a review of waste management alternatives. Based on our experience, it has been shown that such a review can not only result in an optimization of current assets, but also a plan for continued cost-effective solid waste service for many years in the future.
SCS’ professionals provide assistance to many municipalities across the U.S. by devising programs that address all aspects of the comprehensive waste management systems: waste collection, recycling, composting, waste conversion, and landfilling. SCS’ solid waste professionals stand ready to assist additional municipal managers upon request. Please visit our website at www.scsengineers.com, call or drop us an e-mail:
Kevin Yard, P.E., BCEE, Dallas, TX: , 817-571-2288
Marc Rogoff, Ph.D., Tampa, FL: , 813-621-0080
Greg McCarron, P.E., Suffern, NY:, 845-357-1510
Anastasia Welch, P.E., Overland Park, KS: , 913-681-0030
Michelle Leonard, Pasadena, CA, , 626-792-9593
Leaders and National Experts at SCS Engineers
Corporate Headquarters
