€SWREGULATORY FOCUS
-
to more than 2 7 0 0 in 1990. The number of yard waste composting facilities more than doubled, to about 1400, in the same period. Because of differences in commodity values and recycling infrastructures, the contributions of the materials found in MSW differ substantially. An overview of solid waste components will illustrate.
The waste stream Paper wastes make u p 40% by weight of the MSW stream. About 25% of waste papers are recycled: the industry goal is 40% by 1995. Glass makes u p about 8 % of MSW, with recycling largely confined to beverage containers, which are 40% ofglass wastes. About 20% of these containers are recycled. Plastics make u p about 7 % of MSW, and are now recycled at only a 1-26 rate. However, the industry bas set aggressive goals for recycling such items as PET bottles, polystyrene containers, and various polyethylene products. Aluminum wastes are about 2 % of MSW. with half being aluminum 1542 Enwron. So. Techno.. V d 25. No. 9. 1991
1
cans. Over 60% of these cans are now recycled. Ferrous metal wastes are about 7% of MSW. Steel food and beverage cans make U D 25% of these
mandates for paper, glass, steel, aluminum, a n d plastics. The ability of municipalities to report their recycling rates on a comparable basis will h e h in dialogue
and 3090. respectively, by’1995. Theso and other recycling rates are often compared s,a “apples and apples.” They are not. Florida allows only half of its goal to include yard wastes. California’s 50% can include 10% waste transformation [e.& waste to energy). New Jersey recently doubled its recycling rate by including high-volume items such as recycled asphalt. Because municipalities have to abide by state laws. their current obligation is to calculate recycling rates accwrding to these laws. However, the U.S.Conference of Mayors is considering a recycling index for the following reasons: People from various areas d o compare recycling rates, for instance when o p p o n e n t s of a planned waste facility indicate that “we wouldn’t need this facility if we recvcled at X% like city Y in state Z.” The US.Congress, in reauthorizing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. is discussing recycling rates of up to 50% by the year 2000, along with specific
Aiming for unrealistic recyclii rates will not only discourage tl. public. hut may load to a fool’s pa adise where needed landfills an waste-to-energy facilities are d missed. A national goal of 25-3( recycling is plenty ambitious for now. Also, we need to understand that local recvcling rates will vary significantly due to market conditions as well as costs of local wr4management alternatives. We’ve got a good thing goinc recycling. Let’s ride this wa? while and see what we can ratic ly do before trying to further I late the law of supply and derr Guest columnist 1. Winston Po wos EPA’s Assistant Administn for Solid Woste and Emergency n, sponse from 2985 to 1989. He now on environmentul consultor.. with Porter und Associates, in Sterling, I’A. He received his B.S. deeree in chemical engineering from University of Texos-Austin onc Ph.D. in the some field from the University oJColifornio-Berkeley.
0013-936Y~91D925~1542W2.5010 b 1991 Amerfcan Chemlcal Societv
