EPA: Reducing GHGs Through Recycling and Composting

8/12/2019 EPA: Reducing GHGs Through Recycling and Composting

1/30


2/30

Acknowledgements

Thi s report was prepared on beh a lf o f the U.S. EPA Regio n 10 and the West Coast Climate andMater ials Ma nage ment Fo rum by the Forum s Ma terials Management Produ ct Stewa rd sh ipWorkgro up. Spec ial thanks to a ll of t he EPA s taff and Forum members who reviewe d d rafts offe red

r evisions, a nd co n tributed to the fi nal pr oduct. .specifica lly, we acknow ledge t he co n tribu ti o n s ofworkgroup le ad ers Bill Sm ith of the City of Tacoma Solid Was t e Management Division and J ohnDavis of t he Mojave Desert and Mo u nta in Recycl ing Aut h or i ty as we ll as EPA NNEMS FellowsMcKenna Morr igan a nd Evan J oh nson. Questions abo ut the report may b e directed to Ash ley Zanolli,Environmental Engi n ee r, U.S. EPA Re gion 10. To learn more abo ut the West Coast Cli mate an dMater ia ls Ma n age ment Fo r um, v is it http://w\Vw.e p a.gov/regiomojwestcoastclimate .ht m

Table of Contents

In t roduction ....... ................ .. .... ....... .............. ................. . . ........... ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 2

Sec tion 1. Objectives and Ratio na le for Our Project.. ..... . . .......... ............... ............... .. 4

Sec tion 2. Research Des ign and Met h odology .................... . .................................................................. 5

Sec t ion 3. Usi n g WARM t o Ident ify Pr io ri ty Ma te ri als for E mi ssions Reduc ti on ................................. 7

Sec ti on 4 . I mplications fo r Em iss ions Reduct ions and Carbon Offse t s ........... ............... ................ ... 10

Sec t ion 5 . Ad d itio nal Benefits o f Recycl ing and Composting Priorit y Materials ............. ................... 12

Sec t ion 6. Opportun ities fo r Reduc in g Em iss ions th ro ugh Recycling an d Co m posti n g ...................... 14

Sec t ion 7. Sum m ary Reflect ions and Nex t Step s .............. ................ ............... ............... .................. 20

AP P ENDIX A: State Waste Tonna ge Data by WARM Category .......... ........................................... .... 22

APPENDIX B: WA RM Per Ton Em iss ion s Est im at es for Alt erna ti ve Ma nag e m ent Scena ri os ............ 24

APPENDIX C: Co n ce rn s with WARM E m iss ions Factor for Carpe t Recycl in g .................................... 25

APPEN DI X D: Proport ions of Waste from Co mm ercial an d Residential Su bstrea ms .... ................ .. . 26

APPE N DIX E : Benef i ts a nd Lim ita t ions of WARM Model .............. ................ ............... .................. 27

List of Figures and Tables

Fig u re 1 Sector- based accou nt ing of U.S. G HG Em issio ns ............... ................ .............. .................... 4

Fig u re 2 Sys tems-based account ing o f US GHG Em issions .............. ................ .............. .................... 4

Ta b le : Ma te ri als with H ighest Pote nt i a l for GHG Em iss ions Reductio n , by Sta te .............................. 8

Figure 3: Net An n ual Em iss ions Red uctio n Pot e nt ial of Re cyc ling and Composting ........ ................... 9

Ta bl e 2: Emi ssions Reduct ion Goa ls Re lat ive to Potential s of Recy cl ing and Co m post ing ..................

Ta ble 3 : Ad ditional Revenue Potential fr o m Recy cl ing an d Composting ........... ............... ................. 13


3/30

ntroduction

Materials management is an approach to serving hum a nneeds by using and reusing resources mo st productively andsustain ably throughout their life cycles, minimizing theamount of materials involved and all the associatedenvironmental impacts.

- Defini t ion adapted from Sustainable MaterialsManagemen t: The Road Ahead (U.S. EP 2009)

The West Coast Cli m ate and Materia ls Ma na ge me nt Forum , an EP A-le d partnership of wes tern local,s ta te, an d tribal gove rnment s, esta bl is hed a Mate ri als Man ageme n t P ro d uct Stewardsh ipWorkgro up to identify key materials management s trate gies t ha t co uld be use d b y local gove rnment sto red u ce gree nhouse gas G HG ) e mi ssions in the nea r term.

The workgro u p b egan by foc us in g on t he life-cy cl e impacts of ma teri al s curre ntl y b ei ng disposed inlandfills and the GHG emissions reductions that a re poss ible by d iverting discarded materials fromlandfills thro ugh recycling a nd compost ing. A lthough ad d itiona l materials manageme nt approaches,includin g reu se, re man ufac turing , so u rce reduct ion, material reduction / s ub st itution ,enviro nment a lly prefer able purchasing, upst rea m design and manufacturing cha nge s, a lso promisesig ni fica nt emissions re d uctions, th e scope of thi s pa per is lim ited to eva lu a tin g only recycling an dcom posting. Future Workgroup projects will focus mo re on the emission s re du ct ion potential of theseot h er approaches.

Purpose of the Report

This report is inten ded to help governments a nd other organizat ions make informe d and s tr ategicdecisions a bo ut how to direct their li mited resources towa rd end -of-life m anageme nt of m aterialsth a t p rovi d es the most sig ni fica nt impact on life-cy cl e gree nhou se gas emissio n s. The re port a lsoprovides rationale, from a cli mate ac t ion , eco nomi c and poll ut ion prevention perspec ti ve, for localjuri sdictions to ad opt and im ple m ent recy clin g and co mp os tin g initiati ves in th eir co m m un ities.

We hope thi s report contin ues to build a unifi ed intellectual fo unda tion from which to consi d ercl im ate change in a mate ri a ls management co ntex t. We al so hope it op ens opport un ities for stra teg icregional coo peration to i m prove materia ls management a pp roac h es to re du ce emissions attribu t ableto goods and foo d throu gho ut thei r l ife cycle.

Report SummaryTh e an a lysis uses the U.S. EPA s Waste Red uc ti o n Model (WA RM) Calc ul ator to es t im ate the GHGemi ssio ns attribut abl e to materials in th e waste s tr ea m s of Ca lifornia, Or ego n , and Washi n gto n , andto ide nt i fy the materials with the greatest e mi ss ions reduction potent ial if recycle d or co m poste dra t h er tha n l an dfille d.

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Recycling and Composting 2


4/30

This report dr aws on the W RM results to h ighli gh t t en ma teria ls, broken into four pri ori ty m ate rialtypes with the greatest em issio ns reduct ion potential presented alphabetically):

Carpet

Core Recydab les

Corrugated containersOffice paper

luminum ca nsNewspa pe rMagazinesPET a nd HOPE o r mix ed plastics)Steel ca n s

Dimens ion al Lumbe r

Food Scraps

ec t ion of this repo rt outl ines t he objec ti ve and rationa le for our an a lysis .

ec t ion 2 d escribes th e research de s ign and m et h od ology used, incl u ding a bri ef introduction to theW RM Calc ulator an d how it ca n b e used.

ec t ion 3 prese n ts the findings of our an a lys is for eac h st a t e and across the three states .

ec t ion discusses the impli catio n s of ou r an a lys is and describes h ow the results relate to local andstate policy goals for e mi ss ions reductions.

ec t ion 5 highlights add itional benefits of recy cli ng and com posting these priority materials,in clud ing job creation, economic deve lopm e nt, and reduced land and ma r ine pollutio n .

ec t ion 6 briefly d escribes opportunities fo r reducing emissions through recycli ng/composti ng ofour four priority m ater ial types.

ec t ion 7 provides summa ry re flecti ons and co nclud es wit h commen ts about how th e MaterialsMa nagement workgroup will exp lore ways to furth e r reduce life-cycle emiss ions of m ate ri als throughresearch o n ad dition al susta inable materia ls management practic es.

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions throu h Recycling and ompost ing 3


5/30

Section 1. Objectives and Rationale for ur Project

Tradi t io n al, sec to r -b ased accou ntin g of GHG emi ss ions obscures the importan ce of ma te ri alsmanageme nt in a dd r ess in g g lob a l climat e c h ange. F igur e 1 depicts a t ypica l acco untin g o f GHGemissio ns, attribut ing th e m ajo ri t y of impa ct s to th e in d us trial , t ransportation , an d elec tr i c po we rsecto r s. In th i s acco untin g, m et ha n e e mi ss ions ge nera t ed by landfi lls (included und e r th eCommercial sec t or ) accou nt for 1.8 of total U.S. GHG emiss ion s. W hil e th e sec t or-based ap pr oac h i suse f ul for highl ight in g opportun iti es for e nd - oC-pipe em issions reduction s tr ateg ies, th i s acco untin gfail s to illu stra t e th e em iss ion s associated wit h th e li fe cycles of ma t eri al s and land ma n age me ntpractices .

In a Se pte m ber 2 9 report, Opportunitie s to Reduce Greenhouse Ga s Emissions through Ma teria lsand Land Management Pr ac t ices th e U.S. EPA em plo yed a sys t ems- based acco untin g m e thod tocategorize U.S. GHG e m iss ions. Figure 2 de p icts th e EPA 's approach. 2 Th e syste m s- bas e d accou ntin greve al s that 42 of e mi ss io ns resu lt from ma t e rial s management, i.e. th e ext rac tion of n a tu r a lresources , an d product io n , tr ans po r t and disposa l o f food and goo d s. 3

Figure 1 Figure 2

Sector-based accoun ti n g of u .S. GHG Emissions Systems-based accounting of US GHG Emissions

IrKluSlI),,,.

Indusll), . I' ~assenge r

Trllnsporl

Expanding the scope of the EPA's report, the Produ ct P olicy In stitute took EPA 's Nat ional Emi ss ion sIn ven t ory (NEI), s ub t r acted out the em iss ions assoc iat ed w ith ex port s and a dd ed in emi ss ion sassociated with imports to the US. Th i s pr ov ides a more accurate view of the emissio ns associatedwith goo d s used in the US . Unde r thi s g loba l vie w of emissions associated with the US eco nomy,overa ll GH G em issio n s are 12 hi gh e r th an d om es ti c emi ssions, and 44 ofthe t ot a l a re assoc iatedwith the prod uction , tr an sport, a nd end-of- Iife management of non-food materials alo ne. 4

I u.s. Inventory ofGHG Emissions and Sinks: 1990 2006 (US EPA, 2008).

2 Opportuni t ies to Reduce GHG Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices US EPA, 2009) .

l This percentage only accounts for emissions associa te d wit h domestic production. The fig u re would be much larger if it a lsomeasured emissions from th e int e rnation a l p roduction of goods that are consumed in the U.S.

4 Joshua Stolaroff, Products Packaging and US Greenhouse Gas m issions (product Po licy Inst itute, 2009).

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Em issions through Recycling an d Composting 4


6/30

Curre nt tr en ds in product ion, consu m pti on , and waste managemen t have led to eno rm ous emi ss ionsof heat-trapping greenhou se gases. The sources of suc h emissions are numerous, ran gi ng fro mcarbo n dioxide rele ased du rin g the extract ion and prod uction of new materials to methane from thedecom position o f o rganic waste in landfi lls.

Although the di rec t GHG emi ss io ns reduc tion s ac hi eved by landf ill div er s ion are limit ed, thepote n tial up s tr ea m i mpacts a re m uc h hi gher , if t he e nd-of-lif e s tr ategies u sed a re a bl e to reducefut u re em issions gene rat e d throu gh the provisi on of goods an d food. For exa m ple, di vers ion ofalum inu m from landfill s for recycli n g offers minima l reduction s in landfill emi ssions, but th e use o frecyc led alum inum r educe s e mi ss ions by reus ing th e ma teria l. The energ y input of prod llc ing a ton o falu minum wh ich is d irectly linked to emissions o utput , is 96 lower w h en recycle d a luminum isuse d. T h is is d ue to the eli min ation of the mi n ing and sme lti ng process requi red fo r vir gi n

5al um inum . Thu s, en d-of-lif e mate r ia ls ma nagement st r ategie s suc h as rec yc ling ca n lead tosig nificantl y lower e m iss io ns from ea rly s ta ges in the materia l life cycle incl udi ng materialex tra ction, man ufa cturin g and dist rib uti on.

This report seeks to quant ify those p otential lif e-cy cl e em issions reductions th a t cou ld be ach ieved by

recycli ng or composti ng waste cu rr en t ly be ing landfill ed in Ca liforni a, Oregon, a nd Washington. Byid en ti fyi ng the m ater i als with th e g reates t emi ss ions reduction pot en t ial , the a n alys is reveals th atsome of the se emiss ion reduction s can be achieved in the sh ort term through existi ng recycli nginfrastructur e, while others will require new infrastructure and pro grams to dive r t these pr ioritymateri ,a ls from di sposal.

Section 2. Research Design and Methodology

Our anal ys is uses recent, s ta t e- leve l waste ch arac teriza ti on data from Ca li fo rni a, Or ego n , a ndWashington. 6 7 8 l t is i mportant to note t h at t h e thi s analysis uses da ta o n the am ount of m ateri als

cur r entl y being disposed of and does not ana lyze the emiss ions red u ct ions of mate ri als a lr eady be in gdiver t ed fro m disposal. Wh ile it is possib le to es ti ma te th e em issions reduc ti ons from ex ist ingrecycli ng and co m post ing programs , the goal of thi s report is to identify the ad dit ional e mi ss ionsre d uction pote ntial possib le throu gh recycl ing and composting ma teria ls s till bei ng discarded aswas te so only data on mate ri als cu rr ently disposed are incl uded. To identify the top te n mater ials byemiss io ns red ucti on potent ia l based on quan tit y of mat e ri al avai la ble for recove ry we used th e WasteRedu ctio n Model (WA RM) crea ted by th e u.s. Env ir onmenta l Protectio n Age n cy (EPA).

Th e EPA created WARM to help so lid was te planne rs and organiza tion s estimate gree nhouse gas(GHG) emiss ion reduct ions from seve ra l d ifferent was te mana geme nt practices. WARM is availableas a We b -base d ca lculator format and as a M icro so ft Excel spre ad sheet. Both ve rs ions of WARM

are available on the EPA 's Web s ite.9

WARM calc ul ates G HG emi ss ions b ased on a compariso n of a ba se lin e a n d a lt e rn ative waste

S Tel us Institute Packaging Study Te llus Ins t it ute, 1992).

b California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study Cascadia Consulting Group for CIWMB, 2009).

7 2009 2010 Waste Composition Study: Preliminary Or egon Departmen t of Env ironmental Qualitv, 2010).

8 2009 Washington Statewide Waste Characteri za t ion Study C a sc ad ia Consulting Group for WA Department of Ecology, 2010).

9 http://www epa gov/WARM

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Em issions through Recycling and Composting 5


7/30

ma nageme n t practice, including source reduct ion, recycling, combustion, composti ng, a ndland filling. The model calculates emissions in metric ton s of carbon equivalent (MTCE) or metrictons of carbon dioxide equ ivalent (MTC02E) across a wide range of material types commonly foundin municipal soli d waste (MSW). WARM users can construct various scenarios by simply enteringdata on the amou nt of waste h and led by material type and by management practice. WARM then

automatically applies m ate ri al-specific e mi ss ion factors for eac h management pract ice to calcu latethe GHG emissio ns and energy use of eac h sce nario.

Several key inputs, su ch as landfill gas recove ry pra cti ces and t ransportat ion di stances to MSWfaci liti es, ca n be m od i fied by th e user. Fo r thi s analys is, es timat ed tons of mater ials d isposed, draw nfrom each sta te's waste ch aracterizat ion s tud y, were entered into the WARM Calculator . Th e WARMCalcu lator quantified the GHG e mi ssions redu ctio ns com parin g two waste manage m ent sce narios: I)all of the materials are depos it ed in 1andfills; and 2) a ll of th e materials are instead recycled orcom p osted. Altho u gh a small amount of waste d ispo se d of in California, Oregon and Washi n gton isincin e ra t ed, the large m ajo rit y is d ispo sed of in landfill s, making thi s a reaso n ab le, si mp lify ingassumption .

The em issions reduct ion potentia l of recycling or composting the ma terials disposed of i n each st a tewas then ranked from highest to lowest and resu lt s from a ll three state s were then compared .

The resu ltin g list of pr ior ity m ate ri als includ es th e top t en materials from each sta te's list. For allother WARM inputs, th e default settings were used . This includes wh ether Landfill Gas (LFG) contro lsys te m s are in place, what percentage of methane is capture d , whether collected methane is flared orrecovered for energy, and t he assumed mo is ture con dition s an d associated bulk deca y rate ofdis pose d waste, (all of wh ich affect the rate of methane emissions from lan dfi lls), as wen as theassumed tran spo rt distances for land filli ng, recycling, and composting, which a ffe ct the emissio nsassociated with t hese various end-o f-life management op t ions.'o ,

Seve ral difficulti es pers ist for the accu rate co mpari son of st a t e waste measure m ents. Fi r st , wastepolicies differ ac ro ss states and loca 1i ties, lead ing to differences in the types o f mater ials collected.Second, how waste characte ri zat io n stud ies define materi a l categories an d ga ther dat a varies ac rossstate s. For instance, California and Washington specif y plastic by pol ymer type (i.e. PET , HOPE ,etc.), while O rego n spec ifies it by container type (i.e. bottle , t ub) and by whether it is accep ted incur bsi d e recycling programs. Both Oregon and Was hi ngton specif y 15 different types of paper, brokeninto packagi n g and non-p ac ka gin g sub ca tego ri es, while California lum ps these together andincludes fewer categories altoget h er. Even the 15 paper type s differ somew hat between O rego n andWashington, frust rat i ng co mpa risons. Third , the categories and d efi nition s inclu d ed in the WARMCalcu lator do not always corres pon d with state waste characterization st udie s. WARM u se rs face t hecha llenge of reconcil i ng thei r mate r ials ca tegory definitions wi th those the model em ploys. Ou r

reconciling of catego r ies for th is analysis is presented in Appendix A .

1 The WARM Calcu lator allows users to customize a number of settings that affect the emissions associated with end-of-lifemanagement options. These incl ude whether Landfill Gas LFG) control systems are in place, what percentage of m et hane iscaptu red whether col lected methane is flared or recovered for energy, the assumed moisture conditions and associated bu lkdecay rate of disposed waste and the assumed tran sport distances for the various end-of -life management scenarios. T he defaultscena rio (which is what we used) ca lculates emiss ions based on the estimated proportions of landfills w ith LFG control in 2008.

II Transportation d istances only affect the mo d e l if the t ransportat ion required for the a lternat ive scenar io is significant lydifferent from the basel i ne scenario (e.g. recycling means sending materials to a nearby MRF, whi le landfill disposal requirestrucking waste to a land fi ll hundreds of miles away). However, it is worth noting that most emissions impacts of materials areupstream and the transportation emissions related t o any end-of- life management approach are minima l in comparison.



8/30

These di screpa ncies m ake it cha lleng ing to es timat e th e em issions reduction oppo rtu nities across sta teand loca l gove rnm ents. Neve rth eless, we believe th at comparing WARM results for California, Oregon,and Washington illustrates t he opportun ity for a common set of st ra tegies for GHG emissions reductionthrough recycling and compost ing in va rious governmen t a renas. Th e WARM results, whic h showedremarkable sim ilari ty across the states in te rms of materia ls, appear to su pp ort thi s belief.

Sect ion 3 Using WARM t Identify Priority Materials

The following sec tion prese nt s the WARM resu lt s for eac h ofthe three st a t es featu red in th is report.Despite incongruities be tween state measu res and WARM features, as we ll as diff erences between thesta t es themselves, commona li t ies of top mate rial s w ith emissions re duction potential among thesta t es are unamb iguous . Tab le 1 ident ifies t he top ten mater ials w ith th e h ighest em iss io ns reductionpote nt ial for each s tat e. Each state s WARM output is di spl ayed grap hic ally in Figur e 3, wh ich s howthe emissions reduction benefits of recyc ling the listed ma t eria ls (or composting, i n the case of foodscra ps), calcu lated aga in st a ba se lin e em issions sce nario in which they are landfi lled.

The WARM res ult s suggest that th e g rea tes t poten ti al for em issio ns redu ct ion ac ro ss a ll th ree st a tescan be achieved throu gh bette r end-o f-Iife managemen t of ten materia ls, broken into four prio rit ymateri.a l types:

Carpet

Co re Recyc1ab les

Co rru ga te d co nt aine rsOffice pape rAluminum ca nsNewspa pe rMagaz in esPET and HOPE (o r mi xed p lastics)Steel ca ns

Dim ensional Lumber

Food Sc rap s

Carpet , dim ens iona l lumb er, and food sc rap s a pp ea r in th e top ten fo r a ll th r ee s tates. S ix of th eseven m ater ials co mpri s ing co re recyc1ab les also appear on a ll th r ee lists . Of not e a mong th e co rerecycla bl es is co rr ugated conta iners, o r ca rdb oard, w hi ch a lone cons titut es half of th e total pot enti alof a ll co re recyc lab les in California and Or ego n and roughl y one third of emiss ions reduc ti onpotential of core recyclables in Wash ington.

Th ere are two factors that determine wh ich materials rank highe st in terms of emissio ns reduct ionpotential: first, the G H G em iss ion s redu ct ion potentia l of recycling or compos tin g each m ate ri al on aper ton basis acco rdi ng to WA RM ; second, th e overa ll tonna ge of eac h ma teria l tha t is disposed,

The waste characterization data us e d in this ana lys is provide estimated tonnage for all ca rpet d isposed in ea ch state.However, our emissions factors are for c ar pet m ade wit h nylon fibers only, resulting in some d ifference in t he em issionsreduc tion potential reported here a nd t he actua l emissions reduction potential in each state, depending on what proportionof disposed carpet is mad e with nonny lon fib er. In its 2009 Annu al Report, the Carpet Amer ica Recovery Effort est imat e sthat 76 of ca rpet material recycled na t ionally in 2009 was nylon {49 N6, 27 N66).

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Recycling a nd Composting 7


9/30

relative to the tonnag e of other m at e ria ls disposed in the st a te. Most of the mate ri als list ed aboverank high in GHG e mi ss ions reduction potential on a per ton basis , even th ough th e y make up are lative ly small proporti on of tota l wa ste disposed.

Food scra ps are the except io n, in that WARM does not assign them a particularl y high emissionsreduction pote nti al per ton, b ut they nonetheless appear in the top ten beca use they m ake up asig ni fica nt port ion of disposed waste. The pe r ton emissions factors used in th e WARM calculationsare listed in Appendix B.

Table 1: Materials with Highest Potential for H Emissions Reduction by State

CALIFORN I OREGON WASHINGTON

MTC0 1e MTC0 1e T O e

Reduction Est. Reduction Est . ReductionMaterial Type Est . Tons Potential Material Type Tons Potential Material Type Tons Potential

Carpet Carpet Carpet{WARM) 1 ,285 ,473 9 ,3 24,721 WARM) 67,610 49 0 ,438 {WARM) 14 5 ,282 1,053,864Carpet Carpet Carpet{Sound Resource Sound Resource {Sound ResourceM ~ n ~ernent 1,285,473 2,892,314 ~ n ~ ernenl 67 ,610 152 , 123 ~ n ~ e rne nl 145,282 326 ,885Core Core Core

Recydables 3 ,90 4 , 101 12 , 217 ,563 Recydables 180 ,860 526 ,229 Recydables 495 ,334 1,616,408

Aluminum Cans 47,825 652,558 Aluminum Cans 2,537 40 096 Aluminum Cans 28 085 383,414Corrugated Corrugated CorrugatedContainers 1-505 897 6 061 274 Containers 75,266 235,367 Containers 185 205 601 724

Magazines 283 069 750 902 Magazines 15 030 39 870 Magazines 46,149 122 420

Newspaper 499 960 913,943 Newspaper 18 640 34 074 Newspaper 82,682 151,145

Office Paper 731,298 3 053 523 Mixe d Plastics 28 035 43 041 Office Paper 45,667 210 128P T 155,643 310 425 Office Paper 22,794 96,435 P T 48 075 74,758

Steel Cans 236 405 434 140 Steel Cans 18,158 33,346 HOP 51,467 72,819Dimens ional DimensIonal Dlmens lona)Lumber 1,184,375 2,123,138 lumber 71 ,5 5 5 12 8 , 271 Lumber 51,929 93 ,089

Food Scr:aps 6 ,15 8 , 120 5 ,8 37,189 Food Scraps 457,709 433 ,8 55 Food Scr:aps 92 0 ,676 872,695

U The first estimate of emissions reduction potentia) for carpet is based on the WARM Calc u )ator factor for open loop recyclingof carpet (into carpet pad, molded plastic parts, and carpet tile backing). Because of concerns raised by several members ofthe Forum about the assumptions on which the emissions factor is based, we also include an estimate of emissions reductionpotential for closed loop recycling from Sound Resource Management. For a detailed e ~ p a n a t i o nof the concerns with theWARM factor, see p p e n d i ~C.

14 The second estimate of emissions reduction potentia l for carpet is based on the emissions factor for recycling carpet intocarpet (closed loop recycling) deve loped by Dr. Jeffrey Morris of Sound Resource Management in a report for Seattle PublicUtilities titled, ~ E n v ir o n m e n t a l l m p a c t sfrom Carpet Discards Management Methods: Preliminary Results. N April 26, 2010.

Re d u cing Greenhouse Gas Emissions t h rough Recycling and Compost ing 8


10/30

Figure : et nnual Emissions Reduction Potential of Recycling and Composting

California 2 8 MTC 2e Reduction Potential

-6,061,275-5,837 , 189

-3,093,923-2,892,314

2,123,138

Carpet WARM)

Corrugated ContainersFood ScrapsOffice PaperCarpet Sound Resource Management)Oimens iona l lumber

913,942 - Newspaper 750,902 - Magaz ines/Third -class mail-652 ,958 _ Alum inum Cans

-434,140 _ Steel Cans

-310,425 . PET

-10,000,000 -8,000,000 -6,000 ,000 4,000,000 -2,000,000

Oregon 2 9 MT 2e Reduction Potential

4 9 4 3 8

433,855-239,367

-152,123-128,271

-96,435

Carpet WARM)Food ScrapsCorr ugated ContainersCarpet Sound Resource Manageme nt)Oimensiona l lumberOffice Paper

-43,04 1 - Mixed Plastics-40,096 - Alum inum Cans-39,870 - Magaz ines/th ird -class mail 34,074 - Newspaper-33 ,34 6 - Steel Cans

-600,000 -500 ,000 -400,000 300,000 -200 ,000 -100,000 a

-1,294,774

Washington 2 9 MTC 2e Reduction Potential

872 ,695-601,724

-383,414 326,885

210,128

Carpet WARM)Food ScrapsCorrugated Containers

Alum inum CansCarpet Sound Resource Ma nagementOffice Paper

-151,145 - Newspaper-122,420 - Magaz ines/th ird-class mail

-93,089 - Oi mensiona l lumber-74,758 - PET-72,8 19 - HOPE

-1,500,000 -1,200 ,000 -900 ,000 -600,000 -300,000 o



11/30

Section 4. Implications for Emissions Reductions and Carbon Offsets

All three West Coast states have set go a ls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Our analysis showsth a t recycling an d compost ing can produce sign ificant emissions red u ct ions, and are thus compell ingtools to incl ude in cl imate plans. It is wort h recogniz ing th a t some of the life-cycle em issio ns fo r

was te d isposed in Cali fo rn ia , Oregon, and Washing t on t h at are calcu lat ed u si ng WARM are notgenerated exclus ively (or even predominantly) in th ese states. Emissions fro m resource extraction,ma n u fact ur i ng and transportat ion associa ted wi t h materia ls u sed and discarded here so m etimesocc ur outside of the reg ion and wou l d not be captured by most current state GHG inventory methods.To account for boundary issues, alternate me t hods for conducting inventories are being deve loped inseveral juri sd icti ons, includ ing the State of Oregon and King Cou nty (WA) , wh ich a re develop in gconsump ti on -based inventor ies that account for emissions genera t ed ou t side th e ir bou n da ri es as aresu lt of consu m pt ion wit h in t he ir bounda ri es. The Inven t ory Workgro up of the Wes t Coast Cli m atean d Ma terials Manage me n t Foru m h as developed a toolkit for o t her jurisdictions in terested inincluding consumpt io n-based methods into emissions inventories. 5

Even in ju ri sdictions that have not ye t adopted cons u m p tion-based inve n t ory m ethods, some GHGemissions associate d wit h m ater ials managemen t , suc h as from long- dis ta n ce trucks delive ri ng goodsan d ha u li ng sol id waste out of state, a re undo ubted ly genera t ed wi t hin t hese st a t es and a re includedin existing st a t e GHG em issions invento r ies. In t hese cases, reduc ti ons in t hese emi ss ions due torecycling a nd co m post ing would be captured by t he states inventories and contribute towa rdemissions reduct ion goals . I n addit ion, me t h ane emissions reductions d ue to diversion of food scrapswo u ld likely be captured, as these em iss ions are o ft en coun t ed in conventional inve n to ri es.

missions Reduction

Diversion of food scraps from landfi ll s offers the greatest quantity of in-state GHG emissionsre d uctions . Food scraps are responsible for a large sh are of methane emissions ge nerated by landfills,

an d whi le la n dfill emissio ns co m pri se only a sm a ll port ion of life-cycle emissions att ri butable togoo d s an d food, they nonetheless represent a real op por t unity for emissions re d uct io n. Th is is la r gelydue to t he large quantities of food that is wasted and se n t to landfi ll s.

Accordi ng to our a nalys is, the e mi ss ions reduction p otentia l of d iver t ing one year s worth of foodscraps from la ndfi lls through co m postin g is equal to approximate ly 1. 5 of Cali fo rn ia s 2050emissions red uct ion goal, 0.8 of O regon 's goal, an d 1. 8 of Washing ton s goal. Note t h at these aren ot on e- to-one co m pa ri sons- the 2050 emi ss ions reduc ti on goals ar e the em issions that must bere d uced on an an n ua l basi s, wh ile the em issions reduct ions qu an ti fied by the WARM Calculato r arelife-cycle emi ssions that occu r over many yea rs based on a single year's food waste-bu t are s implyn tended to provid e a sense of sca le.

S For more information about this, visit http : captoolkit .wikispaces .com

16 While the em issions reduction in 2050 from composting food waste in 2050 would be much smaller than the numbers shownin Table 4.1, em iss ions reductions in 2050 would a lso inclu de emissions reductions result ing from food waste compo st ing in2049, 2048, 2047, and previous years. The sooner putrescib le wastes a re diverted from 11 ndfills, the sooner em issio nsreductions can begin accumulating.



12/30

Table 2 : Emissions Reduction Goals Relative to otentials of Recycling and Composting

California Oregon Washington

State 2050 annual emissions80% below 1990 levels 17 75% below 1990 levels lS 50 Ai below 1990 levets I9

goal(%)

1990 annual emissions427,000,000 55,811,000 78,500,000

M TC0 2e)

Current annual emissionsM TCOle) 4 7 7 7 ~ 68,058,000 21 88,200,000 ll

Based on most recent data 2D08 emissions 2 7 emissions 2 4 emissions

available

State 2050 annual emissions85,000,000 13,952,750 39,250,000

goal (MTCOle)

2050 a nnual emissions

reduction equivalencyDifference between current (392, 700,000) (54, 105,250) (48,950,000)

emissions and 2 5 annual

emissions gaal

lifetime emissions reduction potentials of materials wasted In one year (MTC0 2e )

Carpet , core recyclables , and (17, 233,016-23,665,424) (806,623-1,144,938 ) (2,036,382-3,004,271 )

dimensional lumber 4-6 a f 2 5 annual 1 -2 0 /2050 annual 4 -6 of 2 5 annuol(combined) emissions reduction emissions reduction emissions reduction

(5,8 37,189) (433,855) (872,695)

Food scrap s 1.5 of 2 5 annual 0.8 of 2 5 annual 1.8 of 2 5 annual

emissions reduction emissions reduction emissions reduction

Th e Cal iforn ia Environmenta l Pro tect ion Agency A ir Reso ur ces Boar d has recently iss ued a d raftcom post em issions reduc tio n factor (CE RF) as part of its r ulemaking process fo r its A B 32 Mandatory

23Commercial Recycl ing regula tions. W hereas th e WARM emiss ion s facto r fo r co m pos t o nly cons ide rsthe carbon storage e ffects, t he C ERF includes emissions re du ctions du e to d ecrease d water use,decreased so il eros ion , an d reduced fertili ze r and h erbic id e use, as well as i ncreased car b on storage

11 Office of the Governor of California, Execut ive Order 5-3-05 (June 1, 2005).

IS Oregon H.B. 3543, 2007. http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measpdf/hb3500.d ir/hb3543.en.pdf

19Revised Code of Washington RCW) 70.235 .020. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?c ite:70.235.020

20 uTrends in California Gre enhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2008. (Cal iforni a Air Resources Board, May 2010).http://www.arb.CiI.gov cc/inventory data/ta bles/ ghg _inventory t r e n d s_ ~ O D _2010 -05-12. pdf

21 UOregon G reenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990 -2007. (Oregon Departmen t of Energy, 2010).http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/GBLWRM/Oregon_Gross_GhG_ lnventory_1990-2007.htm

22 St ace y Waterman-Hoey and Greg No t hs t ein, Greenhouse Gases in Washington Sta te: Sou rces and Trends. WA Departmen tof Communi t y, Trade Economic Deve lopment, D e cember 2006).

n Proposed Method for Est imati ng Greenhouse Gas Emission R e ductions from Compost from Commercial Organic Waste.PlanninK and Technical Support Division, A ir Resources Board. (California Environmen t al Protection Agency, August 31, 2010).



13/30

in soi l. As a res ult, the CERF places the emi ss ions reduc t ion p oten t ia l of co m pos t at 0 . 4 2MTC02e/ to n of food scraps, more t h an twice as h igh as t he WA RM fac tor of 0 .2 MTC02e/ton . I f th isreport s ca lculations were done us ing t h e CE RF, th e tota l emissions red uction po ten t ial o fcomposti ng food sc raps would be even h ighe r.

The WARM Calc ulato r on ly evalua tes the re la ti ve me th ane emissio ns red u ctions of ope n windrowcom p osti ng, bu t GHG e mi ss ions reduc ti ons can also be ach ieve d by ma n aging food sc raps th roughalt ernative composti ng m et hods (suc h as sta t ic ae ra ted piles or en close d syste m s) a nd b y anaerobicdigestio n . Whe n anaero bi cally digested, food sc raps can al so be used as an alt ern a ti ve en e rgy source.Th e methane genera ted du r ing decom pos iti on can be cap tured an d conver ted to a na tur a l gasequ iva len t fue l, or used to powe r a tu r b ine to ge ner a t e e lec t ricity .

Carbon Credits/OffsetsIn additio n to di rectly reduc ing em iss ions, co m pos ti ng an d anaerobic diges ti on o f food scraps mayalso provide t he opportunity to generating emissions offset cre d its . The C lim ate Act ion Rese rve,North A m er ica's largest ca rb on offset reg is tr y, iss u ed an O rgan ic Was te Diges ti on P rotocol in 2 0 0 9

an d recently esta b lish ed a n Orga ni c Was te Com pos t ing Protocol. These p ro tocols se t standards forthe qu an t ificatio n and veri fication ofG HG em issions red u ctions from com posti ng a nd anaerob icdigestio n pro jects. 24 Projec ts ad heri ng to th e pro toco l and listed by the Reserve are eligible to se llcarbon offset credits, kn own as CRT s, gene ra ted from the p rojects an d reve nu e from CRT sales canhelp su p por t pr ivate i nvest ment in co mpost ing and anae ro b ic d igestio n . 5

Section 5. Additional Benefits of Recycling & Composting Priority Materials

The WARM results of th is analys is revea l th at mate r ials management can he lp states ach ieveemissions reduc tions_ In addition, recycl ing and compos t ing can contribu te to othe r state and loca l

po licy goals, such as jo b creat ion, economic deve lopment , and red ucing la nd and m ari ne pollution.

Job Creation and Economic DevelopmentAccordi ng to, Recycl ing and Eco no mi c Deve lopme nt , a lit era ture rev iew cond ucted by Cascad iaConsulting Group fo r King Cou nty So lid Was te Division's Lin kUp ~ i o g r a minc reas ing recycl ing canh ave po s iti ve bene fit s for jo b creat io n an d econom ic deve lo p men t .

Dur ing a pe ri od i n wh ich many t rad iti ona l m an ufact u ring indus tr ies h ave bee n l os ing jo bs in the U .S.,severa l studies show that recycl ing h as crea ted m an ufact uri ng jobs, as we ll as jo bs in recycl ing

4 For m ore informa tion , vis it www .elima t eactionreserve .org/ h ow/protoco ls/adop ted/organic -wastedigestion/current/ orw ww .elima teac t ionreserve org/how/protocols/adop te d or gan c-waste-co m p os ti n g / cu r r en t /

2 ~ h efirst compos ting offse t pr oject, Z-Bes t F ood Was te Compos ting, was listed by the Climate Action Reserve onFeb ru ary 2. For mo re info rmat ion, visit www.caw recycles.o rgl filesJzanker.pdf

6 Cascadia Consul ting G roup Recyc ling a nd Eco nom ic De velopm e nt: A Re vie w o f E xist ing l i te ra tu re on Job C rea tion,Capita l Invest ment, a n d Tax Reven ues. (King County So lid W a s te Division n kUp, April 2009).



14/30

"rocessing. Addit ional research on the U.S. labor marke t suggests that recycling results in ten ti mes"he jo bs of waste disposal. And jobs in the recycling industry pay more, on average, th a n that

national ave rage wage. "In 20 0 1, CalRecycie (forme rly the Ca li forn ia Integrated Waste Managemen t Board) released a studysh owi n g t ha t di ver ti ng a ton of recyclab le o r compos t ah le materia l h as approximately tw ice t heeconomic impac t of sen di ng it to a lan d fil l. According to the report, diverting o ne additio nal ton ofwas te wo uld pay 10 1 more in salar ies and wages, pr od uce 275 more in goods a nd services, a nd

'enerate 135 mo re in sales than dispos ing of it in a landfill.

Using these figures, if just half of core recyclab les and food scraps repor ted here that are currently inthe waste streams of California , Oregon, and Was hington were recycled , that would result it al most

1.6 billion in additional sala ries and wages, 818 million in addi tional goods and services produced,and 309 millio n in a dditional sales ac ross the t hree states. These gai ns wou ld t ra n slate intoad d itio nal revenue for state and local gove rn m en ts as well, t h rough income , p roperty, a n d sales ta'{es.

Table 3: Additional Revenue Potential from Recycling and Compos ting

TOTAL CALIFORNIA OREGON WASHINGTON

Co re Rec vtlable s Est . Ton s 4 ,580 , 295 3,904,101 180 ,860 495,334

Foo d Scr a ps Est . Ton s 7,536, 505 6,158,120 457,709 920,676Additi o nal Salaries and Wa ges $611 ,898 ,400 $508,142,161 $32,247,735 $71,508,505Additi o nal Goo d s and Ser v ice s $1 ,666 ,060,000 $1 ,383,555,388 $87,803,238 $194,701,375

Additi o nal Sale s $8 17,88 4,000 $679,199,918 $43,103,408 $95,580,675

Market values of seve ral recyclab le mate rials, such as card board and aluminum, have increasedsu bs tantially i n t he ten yea rs s ince the CalRecycie ana lysis was cond ucted, mea ni ng that t he figures

"bove are lowered th a n mi ght be expected today. Es tima t es of the job and eco nom ic be nef its are notavai labl e fo r ca rpet or dim ension a l lumber recycling, bu t they would also likely a dd hundreds ofm ill ions more to these fi gures.

Reduced Land and Marine PollutionAccordi ng to the 2004 Was hi ngton State Litter S tudy, 1 125 tons of plastic or metal beve rage co n ta ine r s,card board, newspape r, magaz ines, food waste, carpe t an d wood were deposited on Wash in gto n

32road ways. Together these m ateria ls accounted for 17.8% of t he tota l materia l litte red .

21 DSM Environmental Services and MidAt lantic Solid Waste Consultants (MSW). ~ R e c y t l i n gEconom ic Information StudyUpda t e. n Prepared for the Northeast Recycling Council NERC, 2009).

28 Seidman, Neil, Ph.D. "Recycling Sector Has 30Year Record of Impressive Growth. n Institute for Local Self Reliance, 2002).

29 R.W. Beck, "U.S. RecyciinE Economic Information Study." Prepared for the National Recycling Coalition (NRC, 2001).

30 Goldman, George and Aya Ogish i, ~ T h eEconomic Impact of Waste Disposal and Diversion in Californ ia." (California Integrate dWaste Management Boa rd, April 4, 2001). h t t p : a r e b e r k e l e y e d u / e ~ t e n s i o n / E c o n l m p W a s t e p d f

31 Market prices for recyclilb e milterials are pub lished monthly by Resource Recovery.

31 Washington 2004 State Litter Study , ~ l i t t rGeneration and Composition Report. " Publication 05-07-029 WA Solid Waste andFinancial Assistance Proi ram, March 200S).



15/30

Marine poll ut ion , de m onst rated most visib ly by th e G rea t Pacific Ga rbage Patch in th e northernPacific gy re , is now a major envi ronmenta l concern. Researc h ha s foun d that the mass o f plastics inthe gyre now excee d s the tota l mass of living c reatures (plankton) by 6 to 1. Worldwide, plasticscom pri se 60 to 80 percent of marine de b ris on average, with some ar eas as high as 90 to 95 pe rcent.Ur ban runoff-material entering the water via storm drains or bein g swe pt or blown into the water-

33

is the primary so urc e of marine de br i s and litt e r i s the major so ur ce of trash in ur ba n runoff. Litt e rmakes i t s way to the ocean throu gh the sto rm d ra inage systems an d waterways, by win d action a nd byd irec t di sposa l into the water.

Any efforts tha t incre ase recyc lin g and compost ing and red uce di sposa l and litterin g wil1 h el p reducethe a m ount of m ate ri als that en d up in ou r wa terwa ys and oceans a n d red u ce th rea ts posed to thean ima ls tha t call th e ocean th eir h ome.

Section 6 Opportunities for Reducing Emissions through Recycling andComposting of riority Materials

I. CarpetAlth ough ca rpet comprises on ly 3% of t he waste st ream in terms of tonnage in California, O rego n,and Washi ngton , it is a mate ri al wit h one of the hi gh est emissions red uction pot en t ials throu ghecycli ng in a ll th ree st a tes. Ca rp et is made from natura l gas and petro le um products a nd requi res a

grea t d ea l of e nergy to produce. Most ca rp et in the U.S. is manufactured i n Southe rn states, whereenergy is deri ved large ly from coal. The tr em endo us fossil fuel int ensity of carpe t in puts andprod uction makes the e mi ss io ns of ca rp et manufact uring extreme ly high.

For ma n y yea rs, recycli n g ca rp et was tec hni ca lly ch allenging, expens ive, a nd im practical. Howeve r ,n ew tech niqu es a n d advances in recy clin g infras t ructure are making recycl ing carpe t mo re viable.

Seve ral carpet ma nu f actu rers have developed pr ocesses for turnin g used carpe t int o new ca rp et, withmuch lower life-cycle e mi ss ions th an m anu fac t ur ing w it h virgin conte n t. Carpe t can also be recy cledin to ot h er pro d ucts, such as ca rp et pad or molded plastic p ar t s (ofte n for a uto m ob iles), also lead ingto sig nifi can t em iss io ns reductions. Howeve r, carpe t recycling requires source separat io n for clean,hi gh-va lue feeds tock, wh ich requ ires participation from private construction an d d em olit io n (C&D)firm s .

Th e U .S. carpet i nd ustry has had volu ntar y recycling programs in place for over a de cade but recycl in grates remain rela ti vely low. In 2002, members of the carpet industry, representatives of govern mentagencies at the federal, st a te and loca l leve ls, and non-governmenta l orga ni zat ion s s ign ed aMemoran d u m of Und erstand ing for Ca rp et Stewar dship (MOU ) to improve carpet d ive rsion an d

recycli ng through volunt

ary p roduct

s teward ship. Produ ct s tewards hip is a produ ct-cente red app roa chto env i ro n me nt al protection that ca ll s o n th ose in the p rodu ct life cycle-manufac tu re rs, reta ile rs,users, and d ispose r to sh a re res pon sibilit y for r ed ucing t he environmen tal i m pacts o f produ cts.

H Gordon, M. Eliminatinilland-based dischariles of marine debris in California: a plan of action from the plast ic debr is project.State Wa te r Resources Con tr o l Board (California Coas t al Commission, 2006).

4 Although there is some debate about the exact emissions reduction potential (see Appendix C), regardless o f the em issionsfa ct or used, carpet recycling cl ea r ly offers tremendo us emissions reduction potential.



16/30

The ag ree men t set an off icia l goa l of 40% landfill dive rs ion , including a 20-25% recycli n g rate forpost-consumer ca rp et , by 2012, a nd estab lished the Carpe t American Re covery Effort (CARE) toachieve these targets . An annua l report pub lished by CA RE in 2009 , however, revealed a g rowin g gapbetwee n the yearly goals for diversion and recyc li ng and the actual leve ls repor ted. In 2009, forexample, the recycling rate missed CA RE 's 13% goa l by 8 .8%, with only a 4 .2% rate bein g ach ieved .

Overall di vers io n (i nclud ing co mbusting ca rpet for energy production) totaled only 5.3%, 15.7 po int s35low er than the 21% goal.

To ac hieve h igher diversio n rates, seve ra l state s ha ve beg u n exploring mandatory pro d uctstewar dship policies and in October 2010, the Ca lifornia legis lature pa ssed the fir st carpet productstewar dship bill in th e country. AB 2398 requ ires every produ cer of ca rp e t sold in th e state ofCalifornia, indi vid ually or th rough a des ign a ted stewards hip organization, to submit a s t ewards hipplan, including a fu ndi ng me ch an ism th at prov ides sufficient fu nding to ca r ry out the plan, a nd todemonstrate co nti nuous mean ingfu l imp rovement in the rates of recycling and diversion a nd otherp ecified goa ls in orde r to be in co mpli ance.

n the No rthw est, a si mil ar bill , S 8 5110 ,was considered in th e 2011 Washi n gto n leg islat ive sess ion.

In addition, state and loca l govern m ent gro up s ha ve formed the Nort hw est Carpe t RecyclingWorkgroup in 2009, which is act ive ly working to increa se demand for carpet recycli ng an d productsmade with recovered carpet fiber , and to encourage carpet processing facilities to become establishedn the north west for econo mi c develop me nt and eas ier car p et recycling. The effort , alo n g w ith the

sig nificant co n tribut ions of pri vate i ndustry, has been successf ul an d n ew carpet recycli n g facil it ieshave opened in the a rea.

In 200 9 CARE ini t iat e d another round of negot iat ions to develop a new te n -yea r MOU agreementamong stakeho lder s towa rd setting and meeting ne w car p et landfi ll diversion goals .

. Core RecyclablesSince the fi rst municipal recycling programs began in th e 1970'S, cur bs ide co llec tion of recyclab leshas sprea d throu ghout the West Coast and ac ro ss the United States . A rece n t sur vey esti mates that

3974% of the U.S. popu lat ion curren tl y has access to c u rbside recycling co llection. Although the typesof materials include d in cur bside recycl ing varies from pla ce to pla ce, most programs cove r a core setof recyclable materia ls including alum inum and stee l food an d beverage contai n ers, newspapers,magazi nes, high-g rade pape r, co rr ugated ca rdboard conta iners, and 1 and #2 plast ic bottles. Manycurb s id e recycl ing programs also accept glass conta iners and a wider array of paper an d plast ic types.

Cities with the m ost successful cur bs ide recycl ing pr ograms have use d variable rate pr ici ng structureso in cen ti vize recycli n g participatio n . Th is approach, often ca lled Pay As You Throw, or PAYT, se ts

3S UA Decade of New Opportunities: Deve loping Market - Based Solutions for the Recycling and Reuse of Post -ConsumerCarpet. (CARE, 2009).

36 UFact Sheet _ AB 2398 (Per ez, 2010) Carpet Produce r Re sponsibility.ff (California Prod uct Stewa rdshi p Council, 2010).

3 For the text of SB 5110, viSit http://apps.leg.wa.gov biliinfo s ummary.aspx?bill ' 'SllO&year:2011

38 For more information about the No rt hw e st Carp et Recycling Workgroup, visithttp://your kingcou nty gov solidwaste/li n kup/ ca rpet/project .asp

39 u2008 ABA Community Survey. Produced for t he Americ a n Beverage Association, (R.W. Beck, September 2009).

40 Canterbury, Janice and Sue Eisenfe ld, The Rise and .. Rise of Pay-As-YouThrow . (MSW Management, 2006).

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions t h rough Recycling and Compost ing 15


17/30

garbage collec t ion cha rges on a per un it o r weight basis, rather th an chargi ng a flat fee for unli mi tedgarbage collection . I n addit ion, most PAIT programs provide recycling co llection at free o r reducedrates, making it economically attractive for waste gene rators to d iver t recyclable mater ials fro mlandf ill d isposal. Com munit ies wit h PAIT programs in place h ave reported sig n ificant increases inrecycling a nd reductions in waste. Overa ll , PAIT program s have been shown to reduce d isposal by

bout 17%, with 5-6% bei n g di rect ly d ive rt ed to recycling.West Coas t cities have b ee n leaders in ins tit uti ng PAYT p rograms , and as a result these prog rams arewid esprea d throughout the region. In fact, a recent survey of PA YT progra ms for the EPA esti matesthat vir tually all co m munities i n Wash ington and Oregon have PAIT progra m s in place, while h alf of

alifornia communities have t he m .

Cur bsi de reside nt ial recycl ing p rogra m s in Wes t Coas t sta t es conti nu e in n ova ti ng to i ncreasepa r t icipatio n a nd reduce co ntam ina t ion th rough pub lic information and o utreach, includ ing focusedsoc ial ma rketi n g. And Los Angeles rece n tly began p ilot ing a rewar d s- bas e d approach i n pa r tne rsh ip

it h Recycleba nk. Recycle b ank has been successful in increasing diversion ofrecyclables inPh ilad elph ia, Cin cinn at i, and ot her l arge citi es.

Alth ough Cali fornia, O rego n , and Was h ing ton h ave high diversion ra tes of recyclable mate ri alscom pared to the nat io nal ave rage, increas ing recy cl ing of core recycla bl es in these states can st illdeliver i mpo rtant bene fi ts, suc h as e mi ssions reduc tion, cos t savings, and jobs . As this a nalys issh ows, recycla ble m at eri als sti ll ap pea r in the disposed waste stream of West Coast st ates. InCalifornia, O rego n , and Was hi ngton, co re recyclab les make up 7-10% of disposed waste by weig ht,an d are responsible fo r 33 -55% o f a ll emi ss ions fou nd in this analysis to be attri but a b le t o the top tenmate ri a ls in each state. T his sugges t s th at there remains significan t room for improveme nt inrecycli ng prog rams and pol icies ta rget ing d ive rsion of core recyclables.

Alth ough already recycled at h igh r ates, corr ugated containe rs con ti nue to appear in t he wastest reams of all t h ree states in la rge quantities. Corr ugated containers em body the th ird greatestemissions red uct ion potent ial o f all materia ls curren tly landfi lled , and represe nt a valua ble recyclab lecommodity. An analys is of the waste cha racte riza ti on stu dies in Ca lifornia an d Washi n gto n , whi chbreak th ei r state waste data in to su b st rea m s by source, reveals tha t corrugated con ta iners co mepredo m ina nt ly from com m erc ial gene rators.

In Ca li forn ia, although co m me rcial sources are responsib le for on ly 50% o f t otal was te, t hecommercial su bst rea m gene rates 75% of a ll co rr uga ted containers. In Washi ngton , the commercia lsector generates 44% o f total waste but 55% o f a ll corr ugated containers.

While resi d en ti al recycling prog ra ms are manda tory in many p laces, commercial recycl ing re mainslargely volun tary, mak ing it d ifficult for loca l and state governme n ts to in c rease the dive rsion of

4 SkumatI, Lisa, Variable -Rate or 'Pay -As-You -Throw' Waste Management: Answers to Frequent ly Asked Questions. PolicyStudy #295 (Reason Pub lic Pol icy Institute, 2002).

41 SkumatI, Lisa and DaYid Freeman, Pay a s you Throw (PAYT) in the US : 2006 Update and Ana lyses. Prepared for US EPA andSERA, (Sku matI Econom ic Research Associates, December 2006) .

43 Carpenter, Susan, LA Will Reward Recycling Through New Recyclebank Program. LA Times, February 24, 2010.http: / / latimesblogs .latimes .com/greenspace/1010/02/recyci ing -r ewards losange les .ht m l

44 See Appendix 0 for a breakdown of tonnage in California and Washington by commercial and residential substreams.

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions throu h Recycling and Composting 16


18/30

recycla bl e materials from the commerc ial waste s tr eam. Recognizing the pot ential of i ncreasedrecycling to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Ca lifornia h as begun takin g steps to mandatecommercia l r ecycling statewide. Th e Mandatory Commercia l Re cyclin g Measure , bein g de veloped byCalRecycle as part of its implementati on of the California Global Warming Solutions Act o f 2006(AB 32), would require bu sinesses gene ratin g 4 or more cubic yar ds of trash an d /or recyclables for

week ly co lle ction to rece ive recycling services. Thi s measure is intended to achieve GHG reduct ionsof 5 million MTCQ2e .

III. Dimensional Lumber

Dimensional lumber is among the most easily diverted woo d t ypes , and is nonetheless disposed of ins uffi cien tl y large volu me to rank among the top ten materia ls with emissions reduct ion potentia l ineach of the th ree West Coast states. Wood co mpri ses a surprisi ngly lar ge portio n of o rga ni c materia lsdis p osed of i n landf ill s. Th e br oad category of wood in waste ch aracter ization studi es in cludes manydifferent types o f mate ri als, such as ~ c l n (unpain ted /u ntreated ) lum ber, pa inted / tr eat ed lumb er ,ho gfuel, pa llet s, crates, and wood furnitu re. Some of the se woo d typ es, s u ch as cle an lumber, cou ld bemore easily di verte d fro m disposa l th roug h r ecyc ling than others. Because of th is, the WARM

Calcu lator-a n d thus t hi s analysis-focuses on ly on clean dimensional lum ber.

Dimensional lum ber is a construct ion and demo liti on (C D) was te wi th r elatively good recycl ingoptions. Accordi n g to CalRecycle (formerly Ca li fornia Integrated Waste Ma n agement Bo a rd ), th istype of wood waste is highl y desi rabl e and is so ught by p rocessors .45 Lumber scraps ge nerated du ri ngconstr u ction make an exce llent feedstoc k for engineered woo d , and can al so be recycled into productssu ch as lam in ates, pa rquet, p a llets, counte rt op s, shel ving, f u rnit u re, m u lch, wood pellets, andfib er board. 46 So me di m ens iona l sc raps can be reused in non-load bearin g cons tr u cti on .

Much processed lumb er currently e nd s up as biomass fuel. and is not recycled back into woodproducts. Thi s prevents the em ission of me than e from woo d was te aerobically decomposing inlandfill s, and can replace tbe need for f oss il fuels, but does not offer the benefit in reducing theimpact of man ufa cturin g of new wood produ cts that recycling doe s.

As with carpe t , recycl ing d im ens iona l lu mb er requ ires so ur ce se paration for clean , high-value feed stock,and th us req uires partic ipation fro m pri va te C D firm s. This can be challenging for th ese firm s, espec iallyduri ng demoli tion , when clean, reusable lumber and unr ecyclabl e debri s ar e often i nter mi ngled.

Loca l and state gove rnment s can improve lumber recycling practices by establishing C D recyclingrequir ements , prov idi ng educat ion and information abou t th e recycling process and ava ilablemarkets , and by s uppo rti n g inn ovat ion in C D pro cesses that improve recycling opportunities.

For example, Cal iforn ia 's new CalGreen stat ew id e bui lding cod e req u ires at least 50 pe rce ntconstr u ction materials diversion from eac h residentia l or commercia l project. 47 Governments can a lsos uppo rt market development of p roduct ion of and demand for recycled wood products us in g loca llyrecovered an d processe d dimen s ional lumber. Go ing beyond lumber recycling, gove rnment s ca n

4S ~ C h ap t e r9: Wood Organic Waste, from Best Practices in Waste Reduction (California Integrated Wast e ManagementBoard, 2009). www.calrecyde.ca.gov Vid eo/2009/BestPracCh9 pdf

46 Sherman-Huntoon, Rhonda, Wood Was te Study Provides Clues t o Recyding S u c c e s s ~BioCycJe vol. 42, n.7, p.68 (Ju ly 2001).

7 For more information, vi sit www.cal recyde.ca.gov/LGCentraI/Library/canddmodel/instruction/faq.htm#d ive rsion

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions t h rough Recycling and Compost ing 17


19/30

promo te decons tr u ct ion, an alte rn at ive met hod for buildin g removal that preserves materials andencourages the reuse of wood pr oduc ts. 8

IV Food ScrapsAs men ti oned previously, food sc raps are a maj or so ur ce of me thane emissio ns fro m land fill s.

Beca u se food d eco mp oses re lat ively quickly, food scrap s often beg in releasi ng m eth ane b efo re landfillme th ane colle ctio n systems ca n be insta lled. Sta tes can reap meaningf ul a nd di rect e mi ssionre d uc t ions from alte rn at ive manage m ent of food scra ps. Food scraps are the si ngle l argest volume ofmateria l, by weight, d isposed in landfill s in Ca li fornia, Oregon , and Was h ington.

More th an 9 0 town s a nd cit ies in th e U.S. offe r sing le-fam ily reside ntial foo d was te collect ion fo rcompos ti ng and Wes t Coast cit ies lead th e pack.49 Many of these commu n iti es also ha ve co m merc ialcompos t ing prog rams in place as we ll . Co mm er cial so urc es can be used to initiate comp os tingprograms, as th ey offer la rge vo lumes o f sou rce-sep arat ed food, a mo del follo wed by San F ranc isco andoth er commu nities in Californi a . Food scra p com po stin g not on ly de livers emiss ions re d uct ions, itoffers pot enti al cost sav in gs as well. Seatt le Publi c Util ities estim at es tha t it s program costs a bout 20%

less per load th an landfillin g. In 2 0 0 9 thi s tr anslated into a saving s of a p prox im ately $25 0 , 0 0 0 . 50

Compos t produced by food sc raps offers seve ral additiona l b enefits durin g its use, includin g reducing o reliminating th e nee d for chemica l fert ilizers, improv ing so il porosity and water retentio n, facilitatingreforestat ion and habitat restoration , and b io remedia t ion , and promoting hig her yiel d s of agricultu ralcrops. As mention ed above, th e WA RM em iss ions factor leaves out a numb er of benefits fr omcompos ti ng, includi ng e mi ss ions red u ction s from dec reased wa ter use, decrease d soil eros ion, andred uce d fertilize r and he rbicide use. Jf th ese compo nent s were inclu ded, as th ey are in the Californi a AirReso ur ces Board's methodolo gy, the emi ss ions red uct ion po tentia l of food sc rap s woul d be eve ngrea te r ' . ARB's a nalys is es timat es 0 . 4 2 MTC0 2e red uct ion for every to n composte d , without cons ider inglandfil1 me th ane avo id ance. For furt h er discussion of WARM an d composting, see Appe ndi x E.

As discussed earlie r, GHG emissions reductions can al so be ach ieved by diverti ng food scraps toanaerobic di ges tion. The em issions reduct ion po tentia l of anaerobic d igestion is not p resente d h erebeca use it is not included in the WARM Ca lculator. On t h e Wes t Coast, th e East Bay Mu nicipal Ut ilit yDis tr ict is cur rently inv es tiga tin g the po ss ibilit y of o f ana ero bicall y co-digesting food waste a t it s mainwas tew at er t rea tm en t pla nt .52 And, in Wash ington, Cedar Grove Com posti n g is seeking a perm it to useana ero b ic di ges tion to conve rt food and ya rd scrap s into bioga s to p rodu ce elec tri city a nd n atural gas. 53

Envi ro nm ent Ca nada co mmi ss ioned an eva luati on of th e lif e-cycle GHG b enefit s of co m post in g andana erob ic di ges ti on, and found tha t i f one co n siders th e car bon sto rag e benef it s of co mpo st,

48 For more information , visit www.epa .gov/osw/conse rve / rrr/im r/cdm/reuse.htm

49 Yespen , Rhodes, U.S. Residential Food Wa s te Collec t ion and Composti ng. NBiocyde vol. SO, n .12, p.35 (Dec e mber 2009).

so Bloom, Jonathan, America n W a steland .N p. 295 (Da Capo Press, 2010).

SI Proposed Method for Est imati ng Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Compos t from Commercial Organ ic Was te .

Planning and Techn ica l Support Division, A ir Resources Board. C a liforni a Environmental Protect ion Agency, August 31, 2010).

Sl U.S. EPA, Turning Food W a ste int o Energy at t he East Bay Municipal Ut ility Dis tr ict (E8MUD).http: / /www epa .gov/region9/waste/features/foodtoenergy

Sl NCedar G rove Composti n g Annou nces Partnership with BIOFerm. NBIOFerm blog July 7 , 2010).http://www.biofermenerf:i.com/u s/blog/?p 22 5

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions th rough Recycling and Compos t ing 18


20/30

composti ng is pr eferabl e to anae robic di ges tion , although both red uce e mi ss ion s rela tiv e tolandfillin g (give n average Canadian condit ions).54 Food anaerobic digestion operations can combinedigestion with compost ing taking advantage of the carbon storage ro le of com po st a nd avoidinglandfill d isposal of digestion res idual s . A prop ose d San Jo se facility wo uld combine dry ferm en tat ionanaerobic di ges tion with in-ve sse l compost ing. 55

How ever, compost faciliti es ca n b e problematic if not operated optimally. This ca n lead to emi ss ionsofVOCs, as we ll as odo r and vector is sues, undermining community s upport. Best practice s havebeen d eve lop ed by th e U.S. Compos ti n g Counci l und e r a g rant from the EPA that sugges t how tominimize odor and other pot ential i ss ues throu gh prop er aera ti on, feeds t ock man age me nt ,carbo n / nitro ge n b ala nce and cove rin g rows wi th fini sh ed compost. 6 Howe ve r, in some reg ion s,anaerobic di gestion of food waste may be a better o pti on. s7

Also, a lthou gh not measured in t he WARM Ca lculator , ther e ar e opportunities to r ecy cle food b ydiver ti ng what is di sca rd ed by gro cery s to r es and commercial food serv ice opera ti ons to food banksand so up kitch ens. So-ca lled food rescue pr og rams exis t in many communitie s for coor din ating t hecolle ct ion a nd distr ib utio n of discard ed pre-con sumer food waste. sa These progra ms d eli ver the

be nefit s of was te pr eve nti on wh ile providin g a valuabl e reso urc e to peo pl e in n ee d.

Of co ur se, as with all of the top ten materials, reduc ing th e amount of food was ted ove rall deliverspowerf ul emi ss ion s reduc tion s as well. In a successf ul examp le from abroad, th e UK 's Lov e Food,Hat e Waste campaign, spea rhe aded by the Briti sh government. ha s engaged cit ize ns withinformation a nd educat io nal outreach on how to waste less food. Since its launch in 2009, thecampa ign est imates that it h as reduced 2.8 million MTC0 2 e. s9

Estima t es for th e U.S. sugges t that be tw ee n 26 and 40 % of all ava ilab le food is wasted. 60 Pr eve ntin gthat was te is a huge opportun it y for emi ss ion s reductions and cost savings for in dividuals andgovernme n ts alike.

54 1CF Consul t ing, De te r mina tion of the Imp a ct of W a ste Management Ac t ivit ies on Greenhouse Gas Emi ssions: 2005 Upda te,Final R e p o r t ~Prepared for Environmen t Canada and Natu ral Resources Canada (October 2005).

55 For more information, visit http://zerowasteenergy.com/content/sa njose-anaerobic-digestioncomposting-p ant

56 Christiansen, Eva, Best Management Practices for Incorporation Food Residuals into Ex isting Yard Wast e Compo5tingOperations. U.S. Compos ti ng Counci l, 2009).

57 Ca lRecycle's final Program Env ironmenta l Impac t Report for a na erob ic d igest ion facilities will be published in May 2011. This

Program EIR assesses the en vironmenta l effects that may result from the development of anaerobic digestion facilities inCalifornia. The results o f the Program EIR wi ll inform future policy considerations related to anaerobic dig e stion facilities a ndprovide background in formation on te chn ologi e s, po t ential impac t s, and mitigation measures. For more in fo rma tion, visi thttp://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Compostables/AnaerobicDig/default.htm

58 Examp les of these programs in c lud e Food Life lin e 's Groce ry Rescue program in W e stern Washington and Metro s Fork It Overprogram in the Portland metropolitan area .

59 Personal communica t io n wi th Andrew Parry, Household Food Waste Program me Mana ger, WRAP UK. January 20, 2011.

6 Kantor, lisa Scott et al. Estimati ng and Addressing America's Food Losses, Food Review January-April 1997, pp.2-12 (USDAEconomic Research Serv ice, 1997).

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Recy cling a nd Composting 19


21/30

Section 7 Summary Reflections and ext Steps

The WARM results presented in t h is rep ort provide poli cymakers and materials mana ge m entprofessionals in California, Oregon, and Was hi ngton a good idea of which mater ials carry the greatestpotential for emissio ns reduct ion if d ive rted from landfill di sposa l through recycli ng o r composti ng

At a time when limit ed resources are ava ilab le for meeting mu lt ip le ur gent poli cy goals, progra mstha t focus o n divert ing t hese pri o ri t y m a te ri al types from l andfi ll disposa l t hrough recycl ing o rcom p osti ng ca n deliver emi ss ions reductions and con t ribute to climate actio n goals, while producingother mo re wid ely accepted benefits suc h as resource conservation, cost savi ngs, job creation andeco nomi c developme nt .

Alth ough recycli ng is an established practice in many West Coast communities th i s report s how s thatfurther progress can be made, bot h t o d ivert grea ter quantities of ma t erials curre n tly bei ng recycledan d t o es tablish n ew programs for ad d iti on a l materia ls. For some materia ls, s uch as ca rp et anddimensional lum b er, e ffective m ateria ls m anagemen t st ra t egies and mechanis m s a re rela ti vely newor still bei ng developed a nd more research and experimentation is n eede d to un de rstand how

comm uniti es ca n recycle the se mater ials mos t effectively. Likewise, food scrap m anage m e nt offersn ew an d rapidly evolvi ng opportun it ies. Further research an d eva luation of on-the-groun d resu ltsw ill b e impo r tant fo r helping comm uniti es de te rmi ne h ow best to divert food scraps from land fill sand reap the GHG e mi ss ion s reduc tion s benefi t s. Even bes t p rac ti ces fo r core recycla b les areunder going cha nge, su c h as a t rans iti on to s in gle-st ream co llec t ion and process ing sys t ems an dex pa n sio n of mandatory recycl ing to th e co m me rcia l sector.

Meeting the se opportu niti es will requi re expansion of processing, reuse, an d ma nu f actur inginfrastr uct ur e. The West Coast is deficient in foo d com p osting and anaero b ic digestio n facilitie s,although seve ral co m post ing and digestion facilitie s employing various technolog ies a re eitherplanned or under construc tion. Many traditiona l recycled materials are exported rather tha n util ized

domestically a t t he sa m e ti me that do m es tic recyclers are in need of more mate ri als. Wh ile inc reas ingdiversion a nd recycl ing of m ore m ater ials w ill genera te more job s domes t ically i n th e collec tion ,transport so rting a nd market ing areas the material will need to be recycled dome s ticall y to have thegrea t est im p ac t onjob cr ea t io n and econo mi c activit y Re u se opportuni t ies ca n also be expandedespecia lly for d econstructed b uilding m ate ri a ls.

These cha nges create challenges as we ll as oppo rtuniti es, and necessi t ate co nti nu ed innovat ion andimproveme nt s. The Materia ls Manage m ent Workgroup of th e West Coast Cli m a te a nd MaterialsMa nage m en t For um i s co mmi tted to con tinuin g to provide researc h and i nfo rm a t ion on cu r ren tstrategies a nd best p ractices in recycl ing and composting of th ese priority materials.

Materials Management Beyond Recycling and CompostingThe anal ys is feat ur ed h ere es tim ates the em iss ions red u ct i on po t enti a l of recycl ing and compostingvariou s ma t e ri als ve rsus deposit ing t hem in a landfill , but it do es not provide a compre h e n sivecom parison of other life- cycle m ateria ls management st ra t egies, su c h as gree n purchasing producerresponsi b ility, p roduct stewa rds h ip, and decreased co nsump tion , except to the exte nt that theses trategie s mi ght be used to ach ieve the rec yc ling results simu lated in the model s recycli ng sce nar io.



22/30

The anal ys is a lso fa l s to capture th e s ignifi can t GHG em issions redu ct ion that ca n be ac hi evedthrough changes to materials manageme nt -re lated issues su c h as transportation mod esmanufacturing practices distribution infrastructure energy sources and product d esign .

To full y understa nd the emi ss ions reduct io n p ot e ntial of sus tai nab le materials man age m en t theen tire spec trum of str ateg ies ava l ab le across th e e ntir e life y l e of materials must be exa min ed. Theworkgroup look s for ward to the opportunity to focus on th ese s tra tegies in future projec t s.



23/30

APPENDIX A: State Waste Tonnage Data by WARM Category

WARM v 11 California Oregon Washington

Material2008 CA Waste

2009 OR Waste2009 WA Waste

Characterization Est. TonsComposit ion Study

Es t. Tons Characterization Study, Est . TonsCategories

Study, Table SO Ta b le 9

Aluminum Cans Aluminum Cans 47,829 Aluminum Cans 2,937Aluminum CansCombined)

28,085

Alum inum Beverage Cans 23,031

Food Cans Coaled 5,054

Steel Cans Tin / Steel Can s 236,405 Steel (Tinned) Cans 18 ,15 8 Foo d Can s - Tinned 35 ,772

Gla ss Glas s Combined) 45 9 ,006 Gla ss Combined) 40 ,925 Glas s Combined) 73 ,517Cle ar Glass Bottles and

1 ,093 Depost Beverage Glass 6,818 C le ar Glass Contain e rs 42,353ContainersGree n Glass Bottl e s and

79,491N o ~ ~ s i tGlass

23,964 Gree n Glass Containers 8,592Contain ers Containe rsBrown Glass Bottles and

108 953 Flat Window Glass 10 143 Brown Glass Contain ers 17,490ContainersOther Glass Bottles and

40,570 Plate Glass 5 082Containers

Flat Glass 33,899HOPE HOPE Containers 157,779 not available . HOPE {Combined} 51,467

f2 HOPE Plastic Natural Sottles 12,547

f2 HOPE Plastic Colored Bottles 17,017f2 HOPE Plastic Jars &Tubs 20,020f2 HOPE Plastic Product s 1,883

LOPE n o t a vailab le . not a vailable N. LOPE omb in ed) 445f4 LOPE Plastic Packaging 'f4 LOPE Plastic Products 11

PETPETE Co ntaine rsCombined)

199,643 not available . PETE Combined) 48,079PETE Wat er Bottles 51,706 Ifl PETE Plastic Bottle s 33,344

PETE Sealed Containers 18,477 If PETE Plastic Non -Bottles 14,563Other PETE Contain er s 129,460 If PETE Plastic Prod ucts m

Mi xed Plastics not applicable NfAPlastic (recyclable)

28 ,035 not applicable NfAa cc eptable at curb

Corrugated Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard Co rr u gated Containe rsContainer s Co ntainers

1,90 5 ,897Combined)

75 ,266Combined)

18 9 ,205

Cardooard Packaging72,652

Cardooad/Kraft Pape r185,311Pape r Packaging

Wax ed Corrugat ed 2 614 Cardooa rd/Kraft Paper 3,894~ r d o o a r d PrOducts

Ma gazines l Magazine s and283,069 Magazines 15 ,030 Magazine s 46,149

Third-cla ss Mail Catalogs

Newspaper Newspaper 499,960 Newspaper 18 ,640 Newspaper Combined) 82,682N e w s p ~ pe 70,594

N e w s p ~ p e rPackaging 12 088

Office PaperOffice Pape r

73 1 ,298 Hig h Grade Paper 22 ,794High-Grade Pape r

49, 667Combined) Product s

White Ledge r Pa per 259 151

Other Office Paper 472,147

Phonebook sPhone Books and

Directories24 ,149 not a vailable . Other Groundwood PaperProduct s 13 ,8 74

Dimen s ional Clean DimensionalLumber Lumber

1, 18 4 ,375 Unpainted Lumber 71 , 555 Oimen s ionalLumber 51 ,929



24/30

WARM v Ca lifo rni a O reg o n Wa s hingt o n2008 CA State wi de

2009 OR Statewide 2009 W A State w ideM ater ia l W aste

Es t. Tons W aste Cha racte ri za t io n Est . Ton sst . Ton s W aste Compos it ionCate gor ies Cha racte r ization

Stud y Study Tab le 9Study TClbie 50

Food Sc ra p s Food 6 1 5 8 12 0 Foo d { mbined } 4 5 7 709 Foo d {Com bine d} 920 676Food not oth erw is e

254 896 Food - Vegetative 654 458s eciliedNon-packaged bakery

I .o:oods13 312 Food - Non-Vegetati\le 25 8 823

Packaged bakery goods 12 638 Fruit Waste 7 395

Non-packaged othe r 97 084vegetative loodPackaged oth er

30 609vegetative loodNon-packaged nOn 31 979vegetativ e loodPackaged non-veget3tiv e

17 191food

Yard Trim m in gsPrunin gs

an d 1 0 58 854 All Prun

ingsand

25 473 Pr u n in gs 26 9 41T rimmin gs S tump sGra ss n o t appl ica bl e NIA Gra ss Cli pp ings 4 0 737 ILeaves Lea ves a nd Grass 1 5 12 832 Le a ves/W e e d s 55 169 Lea ve s & Grass 203 909

Bran ch es Bra nc hes a nd Stump s 2 4 5 830 n o t av a ilable . ICa rp et Ca rp e t 1 285 4 73 Car p e t / Rugs 67 6 10 Ca rp et 1 45 282

Persona lComp ut e r-re lated

Computers &Ele ctro ni cs 32 931 4 77 6 Co mput e rs (Comb ine d ) 3 090

Comput e rs(Comb ined

Mon it o rs

Computer-r ela ted 2G 3S7 Computer Mon itors - RT 1 47GElectronics LargeComputer-related 6 574 Computer Mon itors - L D mEl ectronics-Small

Computers 1 292

Co nc re t e Co n cre te 483 367 Rock Co n c re t e 3 1 16 8 Co n cre te 10 917

Fly As h A. h 40 736 not av ailabl e . A. h 7 889Ti res Tir e s (Co mb ine d ) 6 0 180 T ires 4 773 Tir es & Rubbe r 15 21 6

Vehicle and Truck Tires 23 627

Other Tires 36 553

As phaltAsp h a lt Pav in g 129 83 4 Not Asp h a lt Pav in g 9 676

Concret e

Asp h a lt Shingl e sAs ph a lt Roo f in g

1 12 1 9 4 5As ph al t Roofing &

101 246 As ph a lt R oo f in g 6 2 21 5{Co mbined } Ta rpap e rAsphalt Composition 637 912Shin lesRoofing Tar Pa per/F elt 100 648

Roofing Mastic 18 559

Built-up Roofing 108 162Other < p h ~ tRoofing

256 664Material

Dryw allGypsu m Bo a rd

64 2 511 Gy psum W allboard 7 3 593 D rywa ll 13 1 4 7 5{Co mbine d}

Clean Gypsum Board 4 49 097Painted/Demolit ion 193 414G sum Board

TOTAL 1 8 502 0 2 3 1 1 55 5 9 4 2 208 157

RedUcing Greenhouse Gas Emi ss io n s through Recycling and Co mposUng 23


25/30

Appendix B: WARM Per Ton Emissions Estimates for AlternativeManagement Scenarios

GHG Emissions per GHG Em issions GHG Emissions GHG EmissionsTon Source per Ton per lon pe r Ton

Reduc e d Re cycled Landfilled Combustedte l MTC02E) MTC02E) MTC02E) MTC02E)

Alumin u m Cans 8 .26) 13.61) 0.04 0.05

Steel Cans 3 .19) 1.80) 0.04 1.55)

Copper W ire 7 .38) 4 .97) 0.04 0.04

Glass 0 .5 3) 0.28) 0.04 0.04

H OPE 1 .77 ) 1.38) 0.04 1.73

LOPE 2 .25) 1.67) 0.04 1.73

PET 2 .07) 1 .52) 0.04 1.50

Corrugated Conta iners 5 .60) 3 .10) 0.08 0.35)Magaz inesThird -cl ass ma il 8 .65) 3.07) 0.42) 0.24)

Newspape r 4 .89) 2 .80) 0.97) 0.40)

Office Pape r 8.00) 2 .85) 1.38 0.33)

Phonebooks 6 .29) 2.GS) 0.97) 0.40)

Te xt books 9 .13) 3.11) 1.38 0.33)

Oim a nlOiona l Lumb a r 2 .02) 2.46) 0.66) 0.42)

Me d ium-dens ityFiberboa rd 2 .23) 2 .47) 0 .66) 0.42)

Food Scraps 0.00 NA 0.75 0.07)

Ya rd Tr imminis 0.00 NA 0.11) 0.10)

Grass 0.00 NA 0.28 0.10)

leaves 0.00 NA 0.54) 0.10)

Branches 0.00 NA 0.66) 0.10)

Mi ed Paper N 3 .51) 0.05 0.35)

Mi) ed Meta ls N 5.40) 0.04 1.06)

Mi ed P last ics N 1 .50) 0.04 1.63

Mi) ed Recyc:lables N 2.87) 0 .05) 0.29)

Mi) ed Organ ics N NA 0.31 0.09)

Mi ed MSW N NA 1.15 0.05

Carpet 4 .02) {7.22)/ 2.2W 0.04 0.96

Personill Compute rs 55 .7B) 2 .26) 0.04 0.13)

Clay B r icks 0 .29) NA 0.04 N

Concre t e N 0.D1) 0.04 N

Fly Ash N 0 .87) 0.04 N

Tires 4 .34) 0.39) 0.04 0.51Asphalt Conc rete 0 .11) O .OB) 0.04 N

Asphalt Sh ing les 0 .20) 0 .09) 0.04 0.34)

Orywil ll 0 .22) 0.03 0.13 N

Vinyl Floo r ing 0 .63) NA 0.04 0.15)

Wood Floo r ing 4 .08) NA 0.07 0.55)

GHG Emissionspe r Ton

Compost e dMTC02E)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

0 .20)

0.20)

0 .20)

0 .20)

0 .20)

N

N

N

N

0 .20)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

NOTE: Ciltegor ies thilt appear i n paren t heses are n e t e missions reduct ions, wh ile o thers ilre ne t emissions inc r eases

See ppendix C for on explanation of the two emiss ions factors used for carpet recycJing

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Recycl ing and Composting 24


26/30

APPENDIX C : Concerns with WARM Emissions Factor for Carpet Recycling

Th e first emissio ns factor fo r ca rpet recyc ling (7.22 M TC02e net emissions reduc ti on) co m es fro mthe WARM Calc ulato r and assumes an open loo p recycling process. A n umber of indust ry andgovernme n t stakeholders have exp ressed concerns wit h t h e assum ptions use d in the development in

t he emissio n s fac to r. Speci fica lly, there are t h ree major concerns:

1) The WAR M facto r was developed us ing da t a a bou t th e ma teri al co m position of r es id entia lca r pet, wh ich is sig nifican tly d iffe rent from commercia l ca r pet. Beca use res id en ti al ca rpetm a kes up a m ino rit y of carpet in t he was te st ream (on ly 2 2 % of carpe t l andfi lled i n Cali fo rn iais from t he resident ial sec t or, a nd on ly 10% in Was h ing ton is ) , th e use o f reside n tial carpetda ta may be m islead ing.

2) The WARM fac tor calculat ion assumes t ha t carpet recycli ng is an ope n loop process, andt ha t ca rpet is recycled in t he fo llow in g propo rt i ons: 67% is recy cled into carpe t pa d , 25% isrecycled i n to molded p las ti c pa rt s, an d 8% is recycled into car pet til e backi ng. Th eseass u mp ti on s do not matc h t he lat es t r epo rt s from t h e carpe t ind u s tr y abo u t how ca rp e t i s

recycled. Accord ing to t he Ca rp e t Amer ican Recovery Effort (CA R E) 20 09 Annual Re port,ca r pet is recycled as fo llows: 45% is turn ed bac k in to ca r pet, 33% is recycled into plasticpelle t s (use d in plastic product m anufacturi ng), 12% is recy cled int o ca rpet pad, 5 isrecycled di rectly into molded plastic p a rt s, 4% is recy cl ed in to ot h er p rod uc ts, an d 1% is usedas eng ineered fuel.

3) The WARM facto r calcu lat io n ass um es t h at th e curren t mix of inpu t s for ca r pe tm a nu f act ur i ng is 100% v ir gi n mater ia ls. With 4 5% of a ll recycled carpe t be ing recycled backin to ca rpe t , th is is clearly not en ti re ly accu ra te. H oweve r , as of 2009, only 4.2% of a ll post-consumer carpet is recycled, so it is lik e ly th at most ca r pet manufac t ur i ng includes l ittl e ifany recycle d co ntent.

Th e U.S. EPA is aware of the lim itations and potent ia l flaws in t he WA RM em issions facto r f or ca r petrecycli ng a n d is work i ng with ex pe r t s in t he indust ry and a cademic comm u nity t o revise t hese factorsfor f u tu re ve rsions.

In t h e mea n ti me, we have chosen to ca lcu late the emissio n s red uct ion pot en ti al fo r carpet in twoways. F irst , we cont inue us in g t he WARM e mi ss ions fac t o [ for co nsiste n cy an d beca u se th eassump t ions an d calculations are t ranspa rent and free ly availab le for rev iew a n d critique ath Up :/Iwww.epa.gov/c limatec h a nge/wycd/waste/download sic rpet ch apte r 10 28 1O pd f

Second, we use an em iss ions facto r for closed loo p carpet recy cl ing (2 .21M TC02e n et e m iss ionsre d uc t io n f or ca r pet recycled b ack i n to ca r pe t ) deve lope d by Dr. Jeffrey Morr is of Sou nd ResourceMa nage m ent in a rep o rt to Seat tl e Pub lic Ut ili ties titl ed, Env ironmenta l Im pacts from Ca rpetDiscards Ma nage m en t Met hods: Prel im in ary Resu lts.

Beca use neither the assumpt ions used for WARM nor Dr. Morris's an a lysis acc urately reflect thena t ur e of the ca rpe t recycl ing market today, both emissions factors present skewe d es t imates of t heemissions reduct ion potent ial of recycling ca r pe t curren tly in t h e waste strea m i n WA, OR, and CA.Unfort u na tely, they represent the best es t im ates curre ntl y ava ilab le for public use . We h ope th at byprov id ing both in our analys is, we re flect t he range of es t ima t ed emissions red uct ion pote n tia l forca r pe t r ecycl ing.



27/30

APPENDIX D Proportions of Waste from Commercial and ResidentialSubstreams in California and Washington

CALIFOR NIA 200S 61

Mate ri a l A ll Sectors Co m m e rcial Res id e n tial Mult i-Fa mi l y Single - Fa mi lyCategories ( t ons) to n s) (ton s ) to ns) (t o n s)

TOTAL TONS 39 ,722,8 18 19,672 ,5 4 7 50 11 ,935, 1 7 4 30 3 ,351,428 8 8 , 5 8 3,746

Ca r pe t 1, 285 , 473 697,46 1 54 278,64 1 22 159 , 536 12 11 9 ,10 5Cor e Rec y cl a bl es 4 ,0 61,880 2 ,4 8 1,237 1 ,338 ,0 4 2 33 4 87,042 12 8 5 1, 0 0 0

Aluminum C a ns 47 , 829 20,169 42 26 ,171 55 4 , 561 10 21 ,610

Steel Cans 236-405 113,78.9 48 115,921 49 30 , 862 13 85,059HDPE 15 7 , 779 74,261 47 % 78 ,845 50 31,186 20% 47 ,659

LDPE 01 01 1 01 01 01 01 1 PET 19 9 , 643 89,176 45 10 5 ,169 53 34 , 922 17 70 ,247Co r r uga t ed

Containers 1,905,897 1,423,530 75 323,059 17 147 , 048 8 176,011

Maga zines 283 , 069 117,828 42 153,432 54 40 , 627 14 112 ,805

Newspaper 49 9 , 960 190,23 7 38 28 8 ,197 58 99 , 735 20 188,462

Offic e Pa p e r 731,298 452,247 62 247,248 34 98 , 101 13 149,147D imensionalLu mb er 11 84375 73 0 278 62 74,47 5 6 22663 2 5 1812

Food Sc ra p s 6 , 158, 12 0 3 ,0 32 , 8 0 5 49 3, 0 34,04 0 49 7 5 6, 8 46 12 2, 277 , 194

WASHINGTON 2009

Mate r ial A li Sectors Co m m ercia l Re sid en t ia lCategor ie s (tons) (to n s) (ton s )

TOTAL T O N S 4,97 8, 496 2, 17 4,075 44 1,826 , 5 2 1 37

Ca rp e t 14 5, 282 87 ,897 14 , 222 10

Co r e Re cycl a bl es 531,55 1 24 8 , 1 58 2 1 2, 76 8 40

Aluminum Cans 28,085 1 0,064 36 1 5 ,927 57

Ste el Cans 35,772 16,266 45 17 ,999 50 HOP E 51 , 467 25,016 49 22,745 44 LOPE 445 95 21 186 4 2 P ET 48 , 079 16,714 35 29 ,071 60 Corrugated

Containers 18 9 ,2 05 103,609 55 46 ,2 0 8 24

Magazines 46 ,1 49 16,108 35 23 ,302 50

Newspaper 82,682 31,615 38 38,6 4 3 47

Office Paper 49,667 28,671 58 18,687 38 Di m e ns io n a ll umb e r 5 1 , 929 16 ,9 4 2 33 1 ,551 3 Food Scraps 92 0 , 676 48 4,52 1 53 41 4 ,00 6 45

61 California 2 8 Statewide Waste Characteriza t ion Study (Ca scadia Consulting Group for CA Integrated Waste Managemen t

Boar d ,2009) .

22 ,

21

45

36 30

0135

,

40

38

20

4 37

61. 2 9 Washington Statewide Waste Characterization Study (Cascadia Consulting Group for W A Depar tment of Ecology, 2010) .

Reducing Greenhouse G a s Emissions through Recycling and Composting 26


28/30

PPENDIX E Benefits and limitations of W RM Model

From 'Materials Management Approaches for State and Local Climate Protec t ion

h ltp: captoolkit wikispaces com/WARM

EPA's Waste Red uction Model (WARM ) i s a t oo l for assessing th e GHG emi ss ions of a baseli ne a ndan alt erna ti ve waste management m e th od for handlin g any of 32 materia l s and 8 m ixed materi a lscatego ri es . I t was crea ted to h elp so lid waste plann ers and organizations track a nd volu nt a ril y repo rtGHG em iss ion s red uc tion s from seve ral d ifferent waste manage men t pr ac ti ces. WARM is publi clyavailabl e both as a We b-ba sed calcu lator and as a Microsoft Exce l sprea d s h eet.

WARM calc ulates a nd tot als GHG emi ss io ns o f ba se li ne and a lterna t ive was te m anage m ent pr ac ti ces(i. e. land fillin g, inciner ation , sou rce reduct ion , recycling, and com posting) . The model calcu la tesemi ss ion s in m etri c ton s of ca rb on eq u iva len t (MTCE ), metric tons of carbo n dioxide eq u iva len t(MTC02E), and energy units (m illion BTU) across 40 materia l types commo nly found in municipal

so lid waste (MSW). The em iss ion f ac to rs repr ese nt the GHG emissions associa ted with m anaging 1short to n of MSW in a s pe cified ma nn e r. GHG sav in gs m us t be calcula ted by compar in g the e mi ss ion sassociat ed with the alte rn ative sce na rio with th e em issions associated with the baseli ne sce nar io.Withou t th e compar iso n, pa rt o f the e mi ss ions sa

Documents

EPA: Reducing GHGs Through Recycling and Composting