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

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

4. 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

5. Study Premise & Methodology

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Waste Management
National Picture

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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

13. North Carolina MSW Management

14. 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%

15. 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

16. 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

17. Landfilling

18. 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

19. 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

20. Recycling

21. 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%

22. 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

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

24. Recycling Facility Residual Generation Current rate (EREF, 2013) = 12%
Range: 3% to 51%
Previous rate (Berenyi, 2007) = 7%
Range: 3% to %
(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

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

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

27. Composting

28. 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

29. 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

30. Anaerobic Digestion

31. 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 %

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

33. 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

34. Summary

35. 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

36. 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

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

38. 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.

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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