BENEFITS OF RECYCLING
The alternative to recycling is waste, but that’s not
necessarily how it feels at the individual level.
Recycling at home or work generally involves expending additional
time, space, effort and even money. Low disposal fees make
throwing everything in the trash inexpensive, as well as easy.
Most Ohioans are charged a flat fee for trash-hauling services,
so few of us actually save money by recycling.
So it helps to consider the big picture. Recycling contributes
directly to environmental, public and economic health in Ohio
and beyond:
Saving natural resources and natural areas
Making products with recycled material slows the depletion
of non-renewable resources such as metal, oil and natural gas,
and reduces the encroachment of new mining and drilling operations.
Conserving renewable resources through recycling also helps
preserve undisturbed land and natural diversity by reducing
the amount of land needed for agriculture and timber production.
Saving energy It generally takes less energy to make products with recycled materials
than virgin materials, often significantly less. It takes 20 times more energy
to make aluminum from bauxite ore than using recycled aluminum.
Benefits of reduced energy consumption include reduced costs and reduced dependence
on foreign suppliers.
Reducing pollution Using less energy also means generating less air and water
pollution, and recycling reduces other forms of pollution as well: Runoff from
mining operations and farms, soil erosion and the toxic chemicals released when
raw materials are processed.
Conserving landfill space
Ohio won’t run out of landfill space any time soon, as was feared when
state government began pushing recycling in the 1980s, but conserving landfill
space now will help put off the need to build new or expanded landfills.
Creating industry and jobs
Recycling isn’t just good for the environment, it’s good for business.
Ohio firms are among industry leaders in research and development of recycled-content
products and mechanical and chemical systems for recycling material into new
products. As of 2000, almost 100,000 jobs in Ohio were directly dependent on
recycling; Ohio recycling resulted in $22.5 billion in sales and an annual
payroll of $3.6 billion.
Landfills and incinerators provide far fewer jobs.
“What’s In Our Garbage?”
Ohio’s Waste Characterization Study
Executive Summary
Study Overview
Study Purpose:
•Establish baseline statistics
•Characterize solid waste
generated and disposed of in Ohio
•Describe relative amounts of potentially recyclable materials
•Compare Ohio to the national solid waste profile
•Establish a 90% confidence level for the study
•Provide guidance for the division, Ohio’s solid waste management
districts and local recycling and litter prevention programs |
Purpose of the Study
In 2003, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recycling & Litter
Prevention initiated a comprehensive waste characterization study. The
purpose of the statewide study was to determine the types of solid waste Ohio
residents and commercial businesses are currently discarding and how much of
this solid waste can potentially be diverted from the state’s landfills.
In addition, statistics from the study will be used to establish a baseline
for assessing future progress and help identify changes that can be made at
both the state and local levels in order to meet Ohio’s solid waste reduction
goals.
Sites and Waste Sampled
Waste sorts of residential and commercial materials were conducted at 14 public
and private landfills and transfer stations within 11 solid waste management
districts in the spring and fall of 2003. In addition, 58 pure commercial
loads were sorted and analyzed separately at nine of these sites.
The sites were selected based on their size, location, and willingness to
participate. An effort was made to achieve a balanced representation
from all regions of the state. Data from the Waste Characterization Study
has been compiled for each participating solid waste district and for the state
as a whole.
Sampling Process
In April and May of 2003, staff from Engineering Solutions & Design, Inc.
(ES&D) visited each facility to explain the process and assess the facility’s
operations and waste flow. ES&D then developed a site-specific plan
for each facility detailing site logistics, safety procedures, and any unique
needs.
At each
location, the sorting process began by randomly selecting a collection vehicle
for load sampling and conducting an interview with the driver. Discussion
with the driver and a preliminary visual inspection helped ES&D staff assure
that loads and portions of loads sampled were representative of the entire
load and that the material sources were commercial and residential waste generated
in Ohio, as required for this study.
After the selected load was discharged from the collection vehicle, a detailed
visual inspection, which included two walks around the entire perimeter of the
load (clockwise and counterclockwise), was made to determine what portion of
the load would be sampled. The portion of the load to be sampled, 200 to
300 pounds, was randomly selected.
The Waste Characterization Study sampling was conducted at 14 facilities
throughout Ohio:
- Geneva Landfill, Ashtabula
- Athens Reclamation Center, Nelsonville
- Brown County Landfill, Georgetown
- Defiance County Landfill, Defiance
- Rumpke Landfill, Cincinnati
- Cherokee Run Landfill,
Bellefontaine
- Hoffman Road Landfill, Toledo
- South Transfer Facility, Dayton
- North Transfer Facility, Dayton
- Ottawa County Landfill,
Port Clinton
- Richland County Transfer
Station, Mansfield
- Jackson Pike Transfer
Station, Columbus
- Morse Road Transfer
Station, Columbus
- Franklin County Landfill,
Grove City
|
Once a load was selected and the portion to be sampled was determined, the
physical waste sort began. Waste was gathered from the designated load
portion and placed into sampling bins, which were weighed and taken to a sort
station. Waste was sorted by category and weighed; volume was measured by placing
each category of materials into containers of appropriate volumes and summing
up the total volume of each category.
At each sorting location, the waste sorting team was comprised of the project
manager, an individual to collect and record data, and a minimum of six additional
individuals to assist in the sorting process. In all, the study
team sampled 460 loads during 52 days of sorting. The spring sorts were
conducted on 208 loads in 25 days. Fall sorts were done on 252 loads
in 27 days.
Statewide Profile and Findings
Primary Components
The Waste Characterization Study defined the three standard recyclables, paper
fibers, plastics, and metals, as the major components of Ohio’s waste
stream. Within each of the major components, five to seven categories were
recognized. A number of other materials were considered as separate
categories: yard waste, textiles, diapers, food, glass, empty aerosol cans,
medical waste, fines and superfines. Other items, such as computer
parts and wood, were classified as miscellaneous.
The 2003 Waste Characterization Study found that the three major components
comprise more than 60%, by weight, of Ohio’s total waste stream. Paper
fiber was the number one component statewide (41% by weight and 44% by volume).
Six categories comprised the paper fiber component: corrugated paper, office
paper, mixed paper, newsprint, magazines, and paperboard. Within this
component, about 31% of the weight measured was mixed paper, newsprint, office
paper and corrugated paper. The remaining 9% (by weight) consisted of
the paperboard and magazines categories.
Plastic was second, comprising 16% by weight and 25% by volume. Plastics
were categorized as PET#1, HDPE#2, PVC#3, LDPE#4, PP#5, PS#6, and “other” plastics. HDPE#2
accounted for approximately 38% of the plastics component weight and 40% of
the total by volume. Nearly all of the remainder of the plastics component
was equally divided among four other categories: PET, LDPE, PS, and “other.” Very
little PVC#3 (2% by weight) and PP#5 (3% by weight) were measured statewide.
Of these three components, metals were third (4% by weight and 7% by volume).
Statewide Distribution of Major Components or Categories
by Weight |
Overall, food and yard waste also were present in notable weights
and volumes. Food comprised 15% by weight and 6% by volume. Yard waste
comprised 9% by weight and 8% by volume.
Large Items
Visual inspection was made of all 460 loads sampled to identify large items. These
inspections also yielded some interesting observations that should be helpful
to decision makers in their efforts to reduce waste. More than 75% of all loads
contained loose wood. Carpet was observed in 62% of the loads and construction
and demolition debris was seen in 52% of the loads. Additionally, 42% of
the sampled loads contained small appliances, while almost 30% of all loads included
wood furniture. More than 17% of the loads yielded computers.
Commercial Waste
Of the 460 loads sampled during the 2003 Waste Characterization Study, 58
loads were pure commercial loads, containing only waste generated by retail
businesses, offices, schools, nursing homes and/or medical centers. Pure
commercial load analyses were conducted at all of the sample sites except
for those located in the Brown County Solid Waste Authority and the Lucas
County Solid Waste Management District.
Paper fibers accounted for nearly 50% of the weight of pure commercial loads.
Within the paper component, the categories measured in the largest amounts
were corrugated paper, office paper, and mixed paper. The percentage
of total paper fibers in the commercial loads was 7.54% higher than in all
loads (49.18% compared to 41.64% in all loads).
Plastics represented a 1.85% higher content in the pure commercial loads
than in all loads (17.49% vs. 15.64% in all loads). Yard waste, textiles
and food waste were less evident in these pure commercial loads.
Sampling from these 58 commercial loads, combined with results from mixed
commercial/residential loads and interviews with drivers and facility staff,
point toward a need to focus commercial waste reduction efforts on corrugated
paper, office paper, mixed paper and plastics, especially HDPE #2 (33% by
weight and volume in the plastics category).
Individual Site Findings Table
The primary component column on the following page refers to materials that
comprised the largest part of the waste stream found during the actual
loads sampled and lists whether the material was the largest component
by weight or volume or both. The large items column refers to materials
seen in quantity during the visual inspections of every load sampled, and
are listed in order of estimated amounts seen. Items of note refers
to observations of unique materials or activities that may affect the characteristics
of the solid waste collected and disposed of at the listed facility.
District |
Region |
# Loads |
Primary Component |
Large Items |
Items of Note |
Ashtabula County Solid Waste Management District
(SWMD) |
Northeast |
28 |
Paper, weight and volume |
Loose wood,
appliances |
Significant Construction
and Demolition (C&D) debris |
Athens-Hocking
Joint SWMD |
Southeast |
27 |
Paper, weight and volume |
Plastic barrels, loose
wood,
C&D |
Significant commercial old corrugated cardboard
(OCC), industrial waste |
Brown County
Solid Waste Authority |
Southwest |
34 |
Paper, weight and volume |
Loose wood, carpet, C&D |
Limited commercial waste,
large amount of OCC |
Defiance-Fulton-
Paulding-Williams
Joint SWMD |
Northwest |
33 |
Paper, weight and volume |
Loose wood, carpet, C&D |
Significant food waste |
Hamilton County
SWMD |
Southwest |
69 |
Paper, weight and volume |
Loose wood, C&D,
carpet |
Greater than 5,000 tons
daily of industrial slag, raw materials, pallets |
Logan County SWMD |
West Central |
19 |
Paper, weight and volume |
Loose wood, carpet, appliances |
Significant food and
office paper during the spring sort |
Lucas County
SWMD |
Northwest |
31 |
Paper, weight and volume |
Loose wood, carpet, mattresses |
Yard waste during spring
sort - grills, lawn furniture, sporting goods during the fall sort |
Montgomery
County SWMD |
Southwest |
64 |
Paper, weight and volume |
Loose wood, carpet, C&D |
Yard waste during spring
sort |
Ottawa-Sandusky-
Seneca Joint SWMD |
Northwest |
26 |
Paper, weight and volume |
Loose wood, carpet, C&D |
Coastal tourist base – food,
paperboard from public areas |
Richland County
Regional SWMA |
North Central |
36 |
Paper, weight and volume |
Loose wood, carpet, plastic
barrels |
Significant commercial
OCC |
Solid Waste Authority
of Central Ohio |
Central |
93 |
Paper, weight and volume |
Loose wood, carpet, C&D |
Top single category – food
waste |
Applying the Results
One important product of this study is the County Comparison Worksheet. This
practical tool was developed to allow the 77 counties that weren’t
part of the study to correlate their specific situation to actual study results
for similar counties.
The study grouped participating counties by population, number of households
served, median age and household income, education and income levels, and
population density. For each county that did not participate in the
study, the worksheet determines how many correlations exist with a participating
county. In this way, county and district managers can determine which
results would most closely estimate waste disposal characteristics for their
own county. It is expected that this tool will be highly valuable in
program planning and decision-making.
Contact the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Recycling & Litter Prevention at (614) 265-6333 or Jan Voelker
at (614) 265-6368 for additional information or questions.
