• A community’s recycling rate does not appear to be negatively influenced by a WTE plant’s demand for municipal waste or by the existence of put-or-pay contracts. Ten of the 12 communities contacted (83%) with put-or-pay contracts also reported that their recycling programs are expanding. Further, two of the three WTE communities reporting no recycling growth do not have put-or-pay contracts.
• Ninety-five percent of the WTE communities contacted specifically reported that their WTE plant has not limited the community recycling rate.
• Ninety-five percent of the WTE communities reported that their investment in WTE capital infrastructure has not limited their investment in recycling infrastructure.
• When asked to comment on the notion that WTE is not compatible with recycling since it burns paper and plastic, all but one WTE community provided a response indicating that the two are compatible.
• The theory that communities with pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) waste reduction programs will have high recycling rates (or conversely, that communities without PAYT programs will have low recycling rates) drew mixed results among the 19 WTE communities surveyed (i.e., seven of whom reported having PAYT programs in the service area). The stated theory held true in 47% of the WTE communities surveyed and failed (i.e., some communities without PAYT had high recycling rates, etc.) in 58% of the cases.
• The theory that WTE communities will have a high recycling rate only if the WTE service fee is high and there is no put or pay contract in place (or conversely, that the WTE community recycling rate will be low if the WTE service fee is low, and a put or pay contract is in place) does not hold up well among the 17 communities for which complete data were available. More specifically, the stated theory did not hold true for 76% of the communities surveyed and held true in 24% (i.e., 4 communities) of the cases. For purposes of this analysis, a high recycling rate was assumed to be greater than EPA national average of 31%, and a high WTE service fee (i.e., tip fee plus transportation cost) was assumed to be greater than the service fees of alternative disposal options in the greater region.
• Several communities noted that if the objective is to maximize recycling, one may have to guard against the perception that WTE should manage the entire wastestream, including recyclables, plus that the community must sometimes be willing to pay more to recycle if the WTE tip fee is low.
• All recycling coordinators, municipal officials, and waste management professionals responding to the compatibility portion of the survey indicated why they believe recycling and waste-to-energy are compatible in their community.

This serves as a follow-up to a national assessment on the topic published in the May/June 2003 issue of MSW Management.

Survey Methodology
An Internet search was first completed to discover the primary issues of concern expressed by environmental groups about the compatibility issue.

This was followed by telephone conversations with a number of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials to further define areas where WTE and recycling may not be compatible.

The primary noncompatibility allegations include:

• The constant demand for MSW to operate WTE plants at full capacity forms a disincentive to recycle.
• The existence of put-or-pay contracts (i.e., where a community must deliver a guaranteed amount of MSW to the WTE plant or otherwise pay) forms a disincentive to recycle.
• Recycling rates tend to be higher where WTE tip fees are high, and there is no put-or-pay contract in place.
• Investment in WTE capital infrastructure does not leave a lot of capital for a community to also invest in recycling infrastructure.
• Recycling rates tend to be higher where innovative waste reduction programs such as PAYT programs (i.e., where households are charged for waste collection based on the amount of waste they throw away) are in place. WTE communities would not be expected to have such programs; and
• WTE is not compatible with recycling since it burns recyclable materials like paper and plastic.

With these and other questions in hand, a two-part survey was conducted by e-mail and telephone among the selected WTE communities.

The first part was directed to 18 WTE plant operators to determine:

• The type and amount of materials being recovered onsite at the WTE plant for subsequent recycling and beneficial use.
• Their opinion on why, historically, the average WTE community recycling rate has been higher recycling than the national EPA average.
• If a put-or-pay waste supply contract is currently in place at the WTE plant.

The second part of the survey was sent to 19 WTE community recycling coordinators, municipal officials, waste management authority personnel, or other public sector contacts. (Note: The extra survey was sent to the recycling coordinator in Saco, ME, to gain further insight about the political dynamics surrounding recycling programs in the immediate area serviced by the Maine Energy WTE plant located in Biddeford.) This WTE community survey was sent to determine:

• What the current community diversion rate for recycling is.
• Whether the existing community recycling program is expanding.
• To what degree the community believes WTE and materials recycling are compatible.
• Whether there is any evidence to suggest that the WTE plant has limited the community diversion rate for recycling.
• Whether there is any evidence to suggest that the development of WTE infrastructure has limited the establishment of materials recycling infrastructure.
• Whether communities in the WTE service area have PAYT waste reduction programs.
• How the total cost per ton of MSW managed (i.e., tip fee plus transportation cost) at the WTE plant compares with other disposal facility options in the greater region.
• • Feedback on the notion that WTE is not compatible with recycling since it burns recyclable materials like paper
  and plastic.

Profiled WTE Communities
Selection of the WTE communities was based on the following criteria:

• They represented the full range of WTE technologies (e.g., mass burn, refuse-derived fuel, and modular).
• They were geographically spread out across the country
• They represented both small (i.e., 35 tpd to 250 tpd) and large (i.e., >250 tpd) unit facilities.
• They represented both public and privately owned and operated facilities.
• The WTE plant recovered materials on-site for subsequent recycling and/or beneficial utilization (e.g., WTE ash).
• A fully functioning community recycling program was in place.
• They had not been profiled in-depth by the author during previous related research efforts.

The 2005 survey yielded a 100% response rate. Table 1 summarizes key components about the WTE facility in each featured community.

Onsite Materials Recovery
Table 2 summarizes how much material tonnage was recovered on-site at each WTE plant during 2004 for subsequent recycling and/or beneficial use.

Table 2 reveals that, among the WTE facilities polled, more than 1.6 million tons of material was recovered for recycling and/or beneficial use during 2004. More than 16% of this total was recovered precombustion and nearly 84% was recovered postcombustion.

Nearly 74,000 tons of ferrous metals, 6,500 tons of white goods, nearly 3,800 tons of non-ferrous metal, almost 800 tons of cardboard, and 5 tons of plastic were recovered for recycling precombustion.

An additional 179,500 tons of biomass fuel created at the Miami-Dade WTE plant were sent to offsite alternative fuel powered facilities.

Among those materials recovered post-combustion, more than 1.2 million tons were associated with combustion ash designated for beneficial use, more than 136,000 tons were ferrous metals, and nearly 3,500 tons were nonferrous metals.

On Higher WTE Rates

Since 1992, the author has documented that WTE communities (i.e., where the WTE plant is located and/or the area serviced by the plant) have, on average, a higher recycling rate that the national EPA average.

To shed further light on this historic trend, WTE plant operators where asked why they believed this has been the case. Table 3 highlights comments provided by select facility operators.

Put-or-Pay Contracts
The WTE facility operators were also asked whether there was a put-or-pay waste supply contract currently causing waste to be delivered to the facility. Among the 18 plants surveyed, 67% reported Yes, and 33% reported No.

At the Delaware Valley RRF in Chester, PA, the WTE plant has a base service agreement with Delaware County. In the case of the Maine Energy Recovery Company facility in Biddeford, Plant Manager Ken Robbins reports that this merchant facility secures about 25% of its waste through put-or-pay contracts. Robbins notes that, “The put-or-pay program allows an out for recycling programs.”

He adds, “This means that so long as the community can document that waste is being diverted for recycling, it will not be penalized for not delivering such tonnage to the WTE plant.”

By comparison, Bill Wilson, facilities manager in Polk County, MN, reports that, “The county’s WTE plant used to have put-or-pay contracts; however, now that the facility is debt-free, the put-or-pay contracts have expired.” In Utah, Nathan Rich, executive director of the Wasatch Energy System, notes that their WTE plant does not rely on put-or-pay contracts to cause waste to be delivered, but that “a flow-control ordinance is in place.” In addition, Carl Bishop, operator of the Harrisonburg, VA, WTE plant, reports that, “There is no put-or-pay contract in place, since the facility is city owned and operated.”

Programs and Rates
As previously mentioned, all of the 19 WTE communities surveyed are linked to offsite recycling programs. Such programs typically include a combination of curbside collection, dropoff centers, material recovery facilities, or yard waste management. In addition to the typical metals, glass, plastic, and paper from household and commercial sources, the communities reported that there are other recycling programs in place, and that many other materials are being recycled. These range from batteries, used oil, and e-waste, to household hazardous waste, public and school outreach programs, and tires management, to scrap metals, food waste, and artificial reef construction projects. All 19 communities surveyed have a combination of these kinds of recycling programs. According to the EPA, the latest national average municipal recycling rate reported for 2003 is 31%. By comparison, the average recycling rate for the WTE communities included in this survey is 41%. Table 4 summarizes the recycling rate for each of the participating WTE communities.

Diversion Rate For Recycling
It should be noted that the materials included in each community’s recycling rate are subject to variation, depending upon how they define recyclables, what their state credits as acceptable recyclable material, etc. All 19 communities include household metals, glass, plastic, and paper in their rates, and all but North Andover, MA, include commercial metals, glass, plastic, and paper. Further, 89% of the communities include scrap metals and white goods in their diversion rates for recycling, 47% reported that C&D waste is included, and 32% reported the inclusion of auto bodies. Other items reported include asphalt (26%), waste reduction credits (21%), WTE ash (21%), and other miscellaneous materials.

Expanding Programs
Among the 19 WTE facility communities surveyed, 15 (79%) reported that their recycling programs are in the expansion mode, 3 (15%) said that their programs were not expanding, and one community (i.e., Miami –Dade, FL) was not sure, since their recycling program was in the process of being re-bid. One example of recycling program expansion is provided by Pinellas County, Florida. Kelsi Oswald, waste-to-energy program manager with the Pinellas County Utilities (PCU) says, “The PCU provides staff and funding for Pinellas Partners in Recycling to educate the community and promote waste reduction and recycling programs.”

She adds, “New programs include paper recycling in all public schools, “Cutting Waste at Work” (a business assistance program), and grants to assist municipal reduction and recycling programs throughout the County.” In Charleston County, SC, Rick Field, the assistant director of solid waste, says, “Nothing is stopping us from expanding our recycling program except for our imagination and technology.” He is also proud to point out, “Participation in our curbside collection program recently increased by 20%, following an education campaign.”

Other examples of recycling program expansions occurring in WTE communities include:

• Long Beach, CA—Just rolled out new, larger carts for its curbside recycling program.
• Hartford, CT—Just added mixed paper and junk mail to their curbside program
• Lee County, FL—Recently added e-waste collection and a 65-gallon split toter to their curbside collection program.
• North Andover, MA – A cardboard recovery program was initiated this year to divert such material from the residential wastestream.
• Dutchess County, NY—New commodities like sheet rock and batteries have been added to their recycling program.
• Delaware Valley, PA—Added cell phone recycling in libraries and municipal buildings last month, plus ink/laser jet cartridge recycling for the plastic and unprocessed ink.
• Layton, UT – In the process of marketing new mulch products, and recently opened a household hazardous waste drop-off facility.

On the other hand, reasons cited by the three communities who indicated their recycling programs were not expanding include:

• Lack of funding (Biddeford, ME).
• Just completed their recycling equipment upgrades (Harrisonburg, VA).
• The program expanded about five years ago and has since stagnated. State grant funding has been cut drastically and the community is just trying to maintain what is already in place (Polk County, MN).

WTE Impact on Recycling Rates and Infrastructure
In response to the question of whether there is any evidence to suggest that WTE has limited the community’s recycling diversion rate, 18 WTE communities (95%) said no and one community, Biddeford, ME, said yes. In the case of Biddeford, Guy Casavant, Director of Public Works says that the combination of a low WTE tipping fee and the plant’s close proximity has limited the City’s recycling rate (Note: the State reported a 48% recycling rate for Biddeford during 2003).

“When our recycling program was started, members of the Solid Waste Council asked why should we do this since we can burn the waste for $40 per ton,” says Casavant. “So long as WTE is the cheapest alternative, Council is not inclined to recycle more or invest in additional recycling infrastructure,” he adds.

In the neighboring City of Saco, ME, Recycling Coordinator Sara Wojeoski reports that WTE has not interfered with their recycling efforts. “The community still offers a recycling program and would do so regardless of the disposal option,” maintains Wojeoski. Another who feels that WTE has not limited recycling diversion rates is a representative for the Hartford, CT, community. Paul Nonnenmacher, director of public affairs with the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, suggests that, “If folks don’t recycle it’s because they don’t bother to do so, not because there is a WTE plant in the community.” He continues, “There is no separate fee charged at the recycling operations.”

Some of the other communities that also feel that WTE does not limit recycling, and their justification, include:

• Pinellas County, FL—The county’s recycling rate is comparable to both the State’s average rate, and to that of other urban counties that do not have a WTE facility;
• Harford County, MD—Recycling rates keep increasing.
• Union County, NJ—The community has mandated recyclable materials like paper and plastic be separated from the wastestream and sent to different markets. The law ensures that materials go where they are supposed to go.
• Marion County, OR—We have continued to expand programs and, for the last couple of years, have been diverting over 50% of the recyclable materials from the waste stream.

With regard to recycling infrastructure, Biddeford, ME, was again the only community indicating that WTE had interfered with the development of such infrastructure (i.e., for the reasons already noted), and the remaining 18 WTE communities said that the WTE infrastructure has not limited the recycling infrastructure.

Here are some additional insights from select communities:

• North Andover, MA—The establishment of recycling infrastructure has grown and continues to grow over the 20 years of WTE plant operations.
• Kent County, MI—The WTE plant was deliberately sized at 625 tons per day of capacity to not consume all of the county’s waste. At least 2,000 tons per day of waste is generated and the county can pick and choose which materials go to recycling and elsewhere, versus WTE.
• Union County, NJ—There are a lot of materials that the WTE plant does not want. If a load is turned away at the facility (i.e., because it contains too much recyclable material), it must go elsewhere to recycling outlets. This results in an incentive to create such recycling infrastructure.
• Layton, UT—Even if the WTE plant was not built, the community would still not likely have built a MRF since there is not enough interest in curbside recycling to justify it. The community has otherwise invested $1 million in its green
  waste program.
• Harrisonburg, VA – The City recently added another processing line at the recycling center so the infrastructure has not been limited by WTE.

Burning Paper And Plastics
When asked to comment on the notion the WTE is not compatible with recycling since it burns recyclable materials like paper and plastic, all WTE communities, with the sole exception of Biddeford, ME (i.e., who offered no comment), provided some type of response indicating that WTE is compatible with recycling. A sampling of such responses is provided in Table 5.

PAYT Programs
When asked does your community have a PAYT waste reduction program, 37% (i.e., 7 out of 19) said yes, at least some communities within the WTE service area had this type of program, and 63% said No. More specifically, communities offering a Yes response had this to say:

• Long Beach, CA – Citizens are provided with a bin and can dispose of as much as will fit in that bin. If they need additional bins, they are charged.
• Hartford, CT—Some WTE service area towns have PAYT programs.
• Harford County, MD—The town of Aberdeen has a PAYT program.
• Kent County, MI—The City of Grand Rapids, the largest City in the WTE service area, has a bag-and-tag program where citizens are charged on a per-bag basis.
• Polk County, MN—Some cities within the WTE service area have a bag system.
• Union County, NJ—Clark and Plainfield, NJ, have programs whereby citizens can opt to have automated collection with 96-gallon or 30-gallon toters and pay different rates accordingly.

Relative WTE Cost
The WTE communities were also asked how they would characterize the total cost per ton of MSW managed (i.e., tip fee at disposal facility, transportation costs to move the material, etc.) associated with the WTE facility in their community compared with other disposal facility options (i.e., landfills, other WTE plants, etc.) in the greater region. In response, 42% indicated that cost associated with WTE was lower than other regional disposal options, 37% said that WTE was higher than other options, 16% said the WTE and other disposal options cost about the same, and one WTE community (Delaware Valley, PA)
was not sure.

Degree Of Compatibility
The WTE communities were also asked to rank to what degree WTE and materials recycling are compatible in their community. A score of 1 indicated that the two are not compatible, a score of 3 indicated the two are somewhat compatible, and a ranking of 5 indicated they are very compatible. In addition, communities were asked to explain their selection. Among the communities polled, 74% stated that WTE and recycling are very compatible in their community (i.e., a score of 5), 10% gave a ranking of 4, and 16% said the two are somewhat compatible.

The overall average score among all the communities was 4.4. Here are some of the community responses:

• Long Beach, CA (gave a ranking of 5) —WTE reduces disposal costs and does not hamper recycling efforts.
• Miami – Dade, FL (4 ranking) – The WTE plant absorbs approximately 1/3rd of the total waste generated in the county and therefore does not compete.
• Pinellas County, FL (4 ranking)—We promote waste reduction as the primary waste management method, followed by WTE, then landfill. Tipping fee revenues fund recycling and other special waste programs (e.g., electronics and chemicals, artificial reefs, etc.), as well as public outreach materials. Drawbacks are, 1.) public perception—some believe (incorrectly) that recycling isn’t necessary because the WTE plant can handle all of our waste, it generates electricity, and metals are recovered from the ash, and 2.) our low disposal cost at $37.50/ton results in less financial incentive for recycling.
• Honolulu, HI (5 ranking)—We have a well-coordinated program and reuse, recycling, and WTE are all used to minimize what goes into the landfill, our overall goal.
• Saco, ME (3 ranking)—The put-or-pay contract at the WTE plant will not interfere with recycling diversion goals (i.e., there is plenty of waste).
• Polk County, MN (5 ranking)—Polk County owns the WTE, landfill, and MRF infrastructure. The waste management programs were built to support the infrastructure. Even with the MRF located on the front end of the WTE facility, it does not pull out enough materials to put a strain on the WTE plant operations.
• Layton, UT (5 ranking)—The two are more than compatible. We are now looking at implementing curbside collection of green waste. Grass clippings don’t burn well, can increase NOx emissions, and interfere with WTE plant operations. They are better used as part of a compost program. This will benefit both recycling and WTE.

WTE-Recycling Compatibility
The WTE communities were also asked, that if they believe WTE and recycling are compatible, what reasons actually apply in their community. To assist in their consideration of a response, a listing of compatibility reasons was provided (i.e., established from answers generated during previous compatibility research efforts). The top compatibility reasons cited by the 19 communities are as follows:

• WTE and recycling promotes self-sufficiency in terms of managing the community’s own waste stream (89%).
• Recycling and WTE work together to significantly reduce reliance on landfill disposal (89%).
• Even after recycling to a maximum extent, there is plenty of MSW for WTE (79%).
• Removal of non-combustible recyclables like metals and glass from the WTE materials feedstock result in fewer operations and maintenance problems at WTE (e.g., less clogging), and a cleaner fuel with higher energy content (i.e., improved waste fuel characteristics, less ash to manage, etc.) (79%).
• WTE is a form of recycling (e.g., energy from MSW is recovered for beneficial use) (74%).

In addition, a number of communities provided examples of how WTE promotes recycling by way of subsidies and incentives, along with some other insights:

• Lee County, FL—1.) Since recycling diverts materials from the WTE plant, WTE can better serve the on-going growing population in the local area; 2.) The WTE tip fee for burning confidential documents is set at twice the fee charged to shred and recycle them, thus encouraging recycling over WTE; and 3.) The county’s recycling facility receives its power from the WTE plant.
• Pinellas County, FL—1.) Recycling staff salaries are paid via the WTE tipping fee; and 2.) a revenue sharing arrangement is in place whereby some WTE revenues are returned to the community to promote recycling; and
• Kent County, MI—1.) The WTE tip fee surcharge helps subsidize recycling program costs (i.e., no tip fee is charged at the recycling facilities); and 2.) WTE directly funds the county’s battery recovery program (i.e., collection, processing, and disposal) and is accounted for as a line item in the WTE budget.