1. RecyclingPartnership.org 1 Recycling Rate vs Recovery Rate MEASURE. Scott Mouw NC Department of Environmental Quality, Recycling and Materials Management Section Chief; Recycling Partnership, Technical Council Member On behalf of Keefe Harrison, Executive Director

2. RecyclingPartnership.org 2 THANK YOU TO OUR FUNDERS: The Recycling Partnership is a national nonprofit that works hand-in-hand with those seeking to strengthen recycling. We do this to benefit the environment, the economy, and local communities.

3. RecyclingPartnership.org 3 2015 RESULTS SUMMARY Just the beginning of delivering measurable and lasting impacts… 115,000 CARTS DELIVERED WITH 80,000 MORE COMING 1.2 Million CONTRACTED HOUSEHOLDS 7:1 LEVERAGE OF FUNDING 71 ACTIVE COMMUNITY PARTNERS $11MM TOTAL RECYCLING INVESTMENT COMPLETED

4. RecyclingPartnership.org 10 Year Projected Benefits from New Material Recovered by Recycling Partnership’s 2014/2015 Grantees 4 Water: 1.3 Billion gallons saved Energy: 7 MMBtus saved GHG: 568,000 Metric tons of CO 2 e saved Economic Value: $18.5 Million CHAMPION BUILDING EDUCATIONOPERATIONSGRANTS

5. RecyclingPartnership.org Strengthening the System An accurate gauge of recycling programs PERFORMANCE and EFFECTIVENESS Recyclables Recovery Rate Benchmark data needed: Amount and type of recyclable material an average single family household generates annually Recyclables in the recycling stream + recyclables in the disposal stream Recyclables Recovered Total Amount Recyclables

6. RecyclingPartnership.org Is the “recycling rate” an accurate measure of recycling performance? How well are curbside recycling programs performing? Current Measure: Recycling Rate Recycling rate measures diversion performance rather than recycling performance If recyclables are 60% of waste stream, recovering ALL (100%) recyclables equals 60% recycling rate not 100% Recyclables Total Waste ()

7. RecyclingPartnership.org Two views of 450LBS / HH Annual Residential Discards (LBS/HH) Recovery Rate = 53%

8. RecyclingPartnership.org  Review of concept  Possible steps forward  Thoughts/suggestions? January 2015 Resource Recovery Magazine By Ted Siegler Table 6 – Comparison of recovery rates and recycling rates by sampled routes WorcesterMeasured Recovery Rate Measured Recycling Rate High Income8138 Medium Income8128 Low Income7624 Averages79%30% A Case for Recovery Rates

9. RecyclingPartnership.org Recyclables Recyclable Portion of Waste * Total Recyclables in a Household * Recyclable Portion of Waste Discernable through Waste Composition studies

10. RecyclingPartnership.org The Big Picture Starting To Develop 10 CommunityPounds of Recyclables / Year Apex, NC964 Asheville, NC849 Austin, TX854 Cary, NC925 Cincinnati, OH963 Fayetteville, NC757 Fort Worth, TX804 Fuquay-Varina, NC889 Garner, NC750 Holly Springs, NC856 MA subscription (rural)856 MA subscription (suburban)839 Minneapolis, MN896 Raleigh, NC810 Saint Louis Park, MN827 Tucson, AZ880 Worcester, MA (high income)1,005 Worcester, MA (med. Income)857 Average866

11. RecyclingPartnership.org Sampling the Details 11 Raleigh, NCCincinnati, OHTucson, AZ Material Lbs. in Waste Lbs. in Rcy Total Lbs. Lbs. in Waste Lbs. in Rcy Total Lbs. Lbs. in Waste Lbs. in Rcy Total Lbs. Newspaper 34.592.1126.638.483.9122.358.193.7151.8 OCC 38.961.5100.471.857.8129.769.564.6134.1 Mixed Paper 181.352.8234.2215.471.3286.7154.979.6234.5 PET 27.317.644.938.416.855.215.118.833.8 HDPE 14.411.025.435.110.445.415.111.626.6 Rigid Plastics 25.91.026.951.81.653.40.01.8 Other Plastic Containers 25.90.326.360.13.263.394.73.698.2 Glass 44.6112.2156.858.492.5151.049.5103.4152.9 Steel 20.135.956.125.010.535.521.511.733.2 Aluminum 7.25.012.216.74.120.88.64.613.2 Total 420.3389.5809.7611.2352.1963.3486.9393.4880.3 Looking at the Commodity Details

12. RecyclingPartnership.org Exploring the Gaps in Recovery  Two high-performing cities: Asheville, NC and Austin, TX  Why the gap?  Non-recycling: participation has tapped out at a certain level  Under-recycling: lack of understanding or laziness inside households  Data could be wrong  What should Asheville and Austin do with this data?  If these are some of the best performers, what does this say about the general state of recycling in the U.S.? 12 Lbs per Single Family HH available Single Family HH Lbs recovered Single Family HH Recycling Rate Austin85447355.4% Asheville84959269.7%

13. RecyclingPartnership.org Applying the Data to the National Picture  How can this kind data be synced with the EPA National Waste Characterization Report? How could that Report be changed to produce these kinds of data points? 13 # of Single Family HHs85,551,560 Recyclable Lbs per HH Generated866 Total Generated SF HH Recyclable Lbs74,087,650,821 Total Generated SF HH Recyclable Tons37,043,825 Projections for ALL HHs - Combining Single Family and Multi-family (Multi-family assumed at 600 lbs/year) Total Generated HH Recyclable Lbs92,122,844,517 Total Generated HH Recyclable Tons46,061,422 Commodity Example: How many Tons of Aluminum Cans are Generated by U.S. HHs? 500,592 out of 1,270,000 generated (EPA)

14. RecyclingPartnership.org Metrics: Recyclables in the trash and recycling Contamination level in the Recyclables MASSACHUSETTS: Contamination Reduction Programming 94%: “I recycle!” 2,800,000 Households Toolkit to assist Commonwealth in reducing contamination and increasing participation

15. RecyclingPartnership.org MASSACHUSETTS: Contamination Reduction Programming Recyclables Recovery Rate = 58% Sort Conducted 2/5/16 by DSM Environmental Services Sample Baseline Results

16. RecyclingPartnership.org Recyclables Recovery Rate = 58% Sort Conducted 2/5/16 by DSM Environmental Services MASSACHUSETTS: Contamination Reduction Programming Sample Baseline Results

17. RECYPartnership recyclingpartnership the-recycling-partnership recyclingpartnership Keefe Harrison  864.760.8828 kharrison@recyclingpartnership.org TOOLS ● IDEAS ● RESOURCES