North Carolina MSW Management: Tonnage and Trends Debra L. Kantner Bryan Staley, PhD PE Data & Policy Program Manager President and CEO

EREF Programs Research Grants Scholarships Education Data & Policy Analysis (Internal Research) 1 min

Talk Overview Waste Generation and Management in the U.S. Study Premise & Methodology National Results Facilities and Tonnage N.C. Waste Management by End Point Landfilling Recycling Waste-to-Energy (incineration w/ energy recovery) Composting Anaerobic Digestion Summary 1 min

Study Premise & Methodology

Existing Waste Data U.S. EPA Solid Waste Facts & Figures materials flow analysis based on production, import/export makes various assumptions (e.g. time before discard) minimal reliance on actual waste management facility data Biocycle State of Garbage Report last published in 2010 (using 2008 data) but discontinued 2011 data available in Master’s thesis primarily based on state agency data recycling & composting data held by states is incomplete 1 min

Goal: Create a national inventory of U.S. MSW generation Study Objectives Goal: Create a national inventory of U.S. MSW generation Evaluate relative fractions of materials going to: Landfills Recycling Facilities Waste-to-energy Facilities Composting Operations Anaerobic Digestion Understand materials flow dynamics related to: Recycling Composting Anaerobic digestion 1 min

Methodology Overview Facility based, ‘bottom up’ approach Facility lists generated first Key data (e.g. tonnage) acquired via: State agencies and other databases where data deemed reliable (e.g. landfills) Direct contact with facility Data adjusted to account for potential sources of error Facilities only handling non-MSW materials Non-MSW materials/organics (e.g. agricultural biomass) Front-of-gate vs. processed tonnage

Waste Management National Picture

Number of Facilities ~43% are recycling facilities, but 9% are MRFs 3,913 3,494 1,540 UTD-DK Omparison to1 min 799 MRFs 81 ~43% are recycling facilities, but 9% are MRFs 81% of waste facilities do either composting or recycling

Facility Ownership Majority of MSW facilities are privately owned Majority of MSW tonnage is managed at privately-owned facilities This trend holds for NY (and the majority of states)

U.S. Waste Management Tonnages 347 million tons of MSW managed in 2013 6.0 lbs/person-day Majority is landfilled Collectively, about 27% is recycled or composted 73 million tons recycled 1.2 lbs/person-day Omparison to1 min

North Carolina MSW Management

Active MSW Facilities (2013) Facilities Managing MSW 186 Active MSW Facilities were identified in N.C. Most facilities (79%) associated with material recovery Recycling (58%) and Composting (21%) 16% of recycling facilities are MRFs Active MSW Facilities (2013) N.C. N.C. (%) U.S. (%) Landfill 39 21% 17.1% Recycling 108 58% 43.3% MRFs 30 16.1% 8.6% Composting 38.7% Waste-to-Energy - 0.9% TOTAL 186 100%

N.C. Waste Management Tonnages 9.7 million tons of MSW managed in 2013 5.4 lbs/person-day Majority is landfilled Collectively, about 24% is recycled or composted 2.1 million tons recycled 0.8 lbs/person-day Omparison to1 min

Import and Export Import and Export of MSW across NC state line Net exporter of MSW 5.2% of collected MSW was exported In 2013, 4 states exported more than 20% of MSW Tons MSW (2013) MSW Managed at NC Facilities 9,688,313 Imported MSW 192,424 Exported MSW 528,627 Estimated MSW Collected in NC 10,024,515

Landfilling

Landfilling in N.C. The majority of MSW managed in N.C. is via landfill (76%), managed at 39 MSW landfills By # facilities: 85% public By tonnage: 58% private The 5 largest landfills in N.C. managed 51% of the landfilled MSW 2013 Values # Open MSW Landfills Identified 39 Tons of MSW Managed 7,352,965 Per-capita to Landfill (lb/capita-day) 4.1 National per-capita landfilling (lb/capita-day) 3.9

Landfill Gas Management Tonnage Basis Landfill gas collection and beneficial use was examined: On tonnage basis, 81% of N.C. waste is managed under gas capture

Recycling

21% of MSW managed in N.C. was recycled Recycling in N.C. 2013 Values # MSW Recycling Facilities 108 Tons of MSW Managed 2,071,059 Per-capita to Recycling (lb/capita-day) 1.1 National per-capita Recycling (lb/capita-day) 1.3 21% of MSW managed in N.C. was recycled Southeast Region: 18% State rates ranged from 4% to 42%

MRF Owner/Large Hauler End User (e.g. paper mill) Mass Balance of Recyclables North Carolina MRF Owner/Large Hauler (most Residential) Commercial Non-MRF 31% 69% 1 min UPDATED- DK End User (e.g. paper mill) MRF

MRFs By State 1 min UPDATED- DK High MRF density relates to access to materials end user (e.g. ports)

Recycling Facility Residual Generation Current rate (EREF, 2013) = 12% Range: 3% to 51% Previous rate (Berenyi, 2007) = 7% Range: 3% to 11% (source separated) (single stream) Residual rate nearly doubled in last 7 yrs Variability appears to be much higher Likely to due increase in single stream, acceptance of more materials, etc. Omparison to1 min

(Incineration w/ energy recovery) Waste-to-Energy (Incineration w/ energy recovery)

U.S. MSW Incineration (2013): 30.7 million tons WTE Incineration By Region Regional Results U.S. MSW Incineration (2013): 30.7 million tons 1 min UPDATED- DK Primarily in the Northeast 58% of facilities in the Northeast 65% of tonnage

Composting

Composting in N.C. 39 MSW composting facilities identified, managing 3% of MSW in 2013 By # facilities: 72% private Average MSW content to N.C. composting operations is 65% National average to MSW composting facilities is 88% MSW 2013 Values # Open MSW Landfills Identified 39 Tons of MSW Managed 264,289 Per-capita to Landfill (lb/capita-day) 0.1 National per-capita landfilling (lb/capita-day) 0.37

Feedstock Composition MSW composition primarily grass clippings/green waste Feedstock Constituent National Composition Tonnage Managed Green Waste 90% 22,542,294 Food Waste 8% 2,003,759 Mixed Waste, Other MSW 2% 500,900

Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic Digestion As part of the study, we identified: 180 facilities accept MSW organics 3 primary classes of facilities Type Portion of Total Facilities Tonnage Managed Stand-Alone* 16 % 52 % Co-Digestion: On-Farm WWTP 84 % 48 % 18 % 29 %

Feedstock Composition MSW Organics Managed (2013): 784,037 tons Average Throughput (tons/month-facility): 1,639 stand-alone 237 WWTP 160 on-farm

Feedstock Composition Facilities also accept non-MSW Average MSW content to stand-alone operations is 83% On-Farm: 23% WWTP: 11% MSW composition primarily food and processing waste Feedstock Constituent Percent Composition Tonnage Managed Food Waste 87% 682,110 Fats, Oils and Grease 8% 62,723 Green Waste 5% 39,202

Summary

Key Take Aways Landfilling continues to be the primary way MSW is managed Recycling infrastructure includes variety of facilities in addition to traditional MRFs Organics management is a focus: Composting increasing, primarily managing yard waste Anaerobic Digestion growing, handle food waste Omparison to1 min

Acknowledgements EREF Interns Kristopher Blanco Ryan Duckett Patrick Greenhalgh Mackenzie Hart Brianna Holland Ashley Kabat Jessica Myers James Wallace Alma Beciragic Stephen Reece Megan Rodgers Heather Troutman

From the EREF Data & Policy Report: MSW Management in the U.S.: Thank you! Debra Kantner dkantner@erefdn.org www.erefdn.org From the EREF Data & Policy Report: MSW Management in the U.S.: 2010 & 2013 Proceeds are used to provide college internships!

Number of Facilities Type of Facility 2013 EREF Previous Estimate* EREF & Previous Estimates Type of Facility 2013 EREF Previous Estimate* Composting 3,494 3,285 Recycling 3,913 1,652 MRFs 799 590 Landfills 1,507 1,802 Waste-to-Energy 81 94 TOTAL 9,028 6,833 Omparison to1 min * Sources: ILSR State of Composting, Waste Business Journal, and Berenyi MRF database. EREF facilities are verified active operations that process MSW components in some form.

Average Processing Capacity per Facility 383 144 71 at MRFs Omparison to1 min 18 6 Recycling includes MRFs and Non-MRFs, but MRFs nearly 3 times higher than the average

EREF Estimate (million tons)1 EPA Estimate (million tons) EREF & US EPA Difference by End Point Type of Facility EREF Estimate (million tons)1 EPA Estimate (million tons) Percent Difference Landfills 221.8 134.3 65 % Recycling 89.1 64.7 38 % Waste-to-Energy 30.2 32.6 7 % Composting 25.0 22.4 11 % TOTAL 366.2 254.1 44 % A large difference for landfill tonnage has been observed in other studies: Biocycle State of Garbage reports: state-provided statistics Powell et. al. (2015): facility data from GHG reporting tool

Study Estimate (million tons) EPA Estimate (million tons) MSW to Landfills Comparison of Studies Independent lines of research suggest material flow methodology used by the EPA underestimates MSW sent to landfill EREF study one of the first to: Use comprehensive facility-data to correct for non-MSW materials Contact landfills without reporting data to fill in data gaps Data Year Study Study Estimate (million tons) EPA Estimate (million tons) Percent Difference 2008 Biocycle 269.8 132.4 103 % 2010 EREF 224.3 135.7 65 % 2011 Shin, D.1 247.0 131.8 87% 2012 Powell et al2 288 134 115 % 2013 221.8 134.3 1Shin, Dolly (2014). Generation and Disposition of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in the United States- A National Survey. MS Thesis, Columbia University. 2Powell, J.T., Townsend, T.G., and Zimmerman, J.B. (2015) “Estimates of solid waste disposal rates and reduction targets for landfill gas emissions” Nature Climate Change