Recycling 101

Recycling 101 - Facts & Details - Household Hazardous Items - Schedule - Locations

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:

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.

Benefits of reduced energy consumption include reduced costs and reduced dependence on foreign suppliers.

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.

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

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.

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).

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. 

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.

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.