Stale and Local
Climate and Energy Program
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CLIMATE AND ENERGY STRATEGY GUIDES
Resource
Conservation
and Recovery
A Guide to Developing and Implementing
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Programs
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
2012
-------
EPA's Local Government Climate and Energy
Strategy Series
The Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series provides a comprehensive, straightforward overview of green-
house gas (GHG) emissions reduction strategies for local governments. Topics include energy efficiency, transportation,
community planning and design, solid waste and materials management, and renewable energy. City, county, territorial,
tribal, and regional government staff, and elected officials can use these guides to plan, implement, and evaluate their
climate change mitigation and energy projects.
Each guide provides an overview of project benefits, policy mechanisms, investments, key stakeholders, and other imple-
mentation considerations. Examples and case studies highlighting achievable results from programs implemented in
communities across the United States are incorporated throughout the guides.
While each guide stands on its own, the entire series contains many interrelated strategies that can be combined to create
comprehensive, cost-effective programs that generate multiple benefits. For example, efforts to improve energy efficiency
can be combined with transportation and community planning programs to reduce GHG emissions, decrease energy and
transportation costs, improve air quality and public health, and enhance quality of life.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CLIMATE AND ENERGY STRATEGY SERIES
All documents are available at www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/resources/strategy-guides.html.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Energy Efficiency in Local Government Operations
Energy Efficiency in K-12 Schools
Energy Efficiency in Affordable Housing
1 Energy-Efficient Product Procurement
Combined Heat and Power
Energy Efficiency in Water and Wastewater Facilities
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation Control Measures
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DESIGN
Smart Growth
Urban Heat Island Reduction
SOLID WASTE AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
Resource Conservation and Recovery
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Green Power Procurement
On-Site Renewable Energy Generation
Landfill Gas Energy
Please note: All Web addresses in this document were working as of the time of publication, but links may break over time
as sites are reorganized and content is moved.
-------
CONTENTS
Executive Summary _v
Developing and Implementing Solid Waste and Materials Management Programs v
Resource Conservation and Recovery v
Relationships to Other Guides in the Series vi
1. Overview __1
2. Benefits of Resource Conservation and Recovery __2
3. Resource Conservation and Recovery Practices and Technologies _5
Solid Waste Management Hierarchy 5
Source Reduction and Reuse 6
Recycling 7
Composting 8
Waste Treatment with Energy Recovery 8
Landfilling and Incineration without Energy Recovery 8
4. Key Participants _9
5. Foundations for Program Development 10
6. Strategies for Effective Program Implementation 12
Developing Goals and Tracking Results _ 12
Managing Logistics ._ 13
Encouraging Source Reduction and Reuse 15
7. Costs and Funding Opportunities 16
Costs 16
Funding Opportunities 17
Federal Funding 17
State Funding 17
Non-Government Funding 18
Tax incentives ._ 18
8. Federal, State, and Other Program Resources 19
Federal Programs ._ 19
State Programs 20
Other Programs __20
-------
9. Case Studies 20
City of Kansas City, Missouri 20
Program Initiation 21
Program Features 21
Program Results __22
Palm Beach County, Florida 22
Program Initiation 23
Program Features ._ 23
Program Results 24
10. Additional Examples and Information Resources 25
11. References 28
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Developing and Implementing
Solid Waste and Materials
Management Programs
Local governments have a significant opportunity to
reduce waste management costs, air pollution, GHG
emissions, and energy consumption through resource
conservation and recovery. They are typically respon-
sible for managing the waste generated within their
municipalities and can implement strategies to help
lower the costs to their communities. Solid waste
management uses energy and generates GHG emis-
sions, air pollutants, and air toxics. The impacts are
even greater when products are viewed from a life-
cycle perspective: the extraction, production, use, and
disposal of goods and materials are responsible for
an estimated 42 percent of U.S. GHG emissions (U.S.
EPA, 2009a).
Local governments can reduce these costs and emis-
sions by encouraging source reduction and the reuse
of products and materials, as well as composting and
recycling wastes generated by their communities.
These strategies are collectively known as resource
conservation and recovery. This guide describes the
process of developing and implementing resource
conservation and recovery measures, using real-world
examples.
Resource Conservation and
Recovery
This guide describes how local governments can work
with residents, private companies, and other groups
to decrease waste generation and divert more waste
from landfills and combustion. It is designed to be
used by local government agencies, mayors, city or
county councils, and local and regional waste
managers. This guide is intended to provide readers
with an understanding of principles, technical strate-
gies, and potential funding opportunities for resource
conservation and recovery.
The guide describes the benefits of resource conser-
vation and recovery (Section 2); technologies and
practices for resource conservation and recovery
(Section 3); key participants and their roles (Section 4);
RELATED STRATEGIES IN THIS SERIES
1 Urban Planning and Design: Smart Growth
Smart growth involves development that benefits the
economy, the community, the environment, and public
health. By reducing sprawl and developing along corri-
dors, communities can reduce the energy, and thus the
GHG emissions, associated with collecting and trans-
porting waste.
1 Renewable Energy: Landfill Gas Energy
Landfill gas energy technologies capture methane from
landfills to prevent it from being emitted to the atmo-
sphere, reducing landfill methane emissions by 60-90%.
Landfill gas energy projects can complement efforts
to reduce the quantity of landfilled waste, as part of a
comprehensive approach to reduce GHG emissions.
1 Energy Efficiency: Energy Efficiency inK-12
Schools
Like any other institution, schools consume large quanti-
ties of materials and generate significant waste (including
food waste) every day. Through source reduction, green
purchasing, recycling, and composting, schools can
further reduce their costs and environmental impacts,
complementing efforts to improve energy efficiency.
1 Energy Efficiency: Energy-Efficient Product
Procurement
Many local governments are saving energy by requiring
that the energy-using products they purchase meet ener-
gy efficiency criteria. Local governments can complement
this strategy and further decrease their environmental
impact by incorporating resource conservation and
recovery criteria into purchasing, such as minimum
recycled content in products.
1 Energy Efficiency: Energy Efficiency in Local
Government Operations
Local governments can implement energy-saving
measures in existing local government facilities, new and
green buildings, and day-to-day operations. They can
combine efforts to reduce energy use through resource
conservation and recovery with other energy-saving
measures to create a comprehensive municipal energy
efficiency strategy.
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
policies and other initiatives for launching resource
conservation and recovery programs (Section 5);
implementation strategies for effective programs
(Section 6); costs and funding opportunities
(Section 7); federal, state, and other programs that
could help local governments with information or
financial and technical assistance (Section 8); and
finally, two case studies of local governments that have
successfully implemented resource conservation and
recovery programs in their communities (Section 9).
Additional examples of successful implementation are
provided throughout the guide.
Relationships to Other Guides
in the Series
Local governments can use other guides in this series
to develop robust climate and energy programs that
incorporate complementary strategies. For example,
local governments can further reduce GHG emissions
associated with the waste generated in their munici-
pality by incorporating waste collection and transpor-
tation in smart growth planning and by capturing and
using landfill gas energy. Local governments can also
introduce resource conservation recovery strategies as
part of a broad effort to decrease energy use and GHG
emissions from local government operations that also
includes energy efficiency in K-12 schools, energy-
efficient product procurement, and energy efficiency
in local government operations. See the box on
page v for more information. Additional connec-
tions to related strategies are highlighted in the guide.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
-------
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery
1. OVERVIEW
Resource conservation and recovery offers significant
opportunities for local governments to reduce GHG
emissions while saving money. Local governments are
typically responsible for managing the waste gener-
ated within their municipalities. The cost of managing
municipal solid waste depends in large part on its
volume, which has increased by 184 percent in the
United States over the past half-century—from 88
million tons in 1960 to 250 million tons in 2010 (U.S.
EPA, 201 le). Additionally, the extraction, produc-
tion, use, and disposal of goods and materials are
responsible for an estimated 42 percent of U.S. GHG
emissions (U.S. EPA, 2009a). Every stage of a product's
life-cycle (illustrated in Figure 1 at right) contributes
to climate change due to the emission of GHGs during
the use of natural resources, the consumption of fossil
fuels for energy, and the decomposition of organic
waste.
Local governments can reduce these emissions by
implementing resource conservation and recovery
practices, which involve avoiding, delaying, or
decreasing the raw materials required to produce
new products. As described in Section 3, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Practices and Technologies,
the greatest emission reductions and cost savings come
from avoiding waste in the first place through source
reduction and reuse. For materials that reach the end-
of-life disposal stage, recycling and composting are the
most environmentally preferable options, while waste
treatment with energy recovery and landfilling are the
least environmentally preferable options.
Local governments are making good progress in
reducing the amount of waste generated per capita (see
Figure 2 on page 2) and increasing recycling. The
national average recycling rate grew from 6 percent
in 1960 to 34 percent in 2010 (U.S. EPA, 201 le).
However, many cost-effective opportunities still remain
untapped.
EPAs Sustainable Materials Management approach (see
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/smm/) focuses on
reducing materials use and associated environmental
impacts over the entire product life-cycle. Sustainable
Materials Management encourages activities such as
substituting services for products, increasing material
efficiency in the supply chain, redesigning products
and packaging, and a range of other actions. Local
governments benefit from these activities by reducing
the amount of waste they need to manage and making
better use of those materials they do receive for
disposal.
This guide describes how local governments have
planned and implemented resource conservation and
recovery initiatives, addressing upstream (e.g., source
reduction) as well as downstream (e.g., recycling
and composting) aspects of the product life-cycle.
It includes an overview of the benefits and costs
of resource conservation and recovery, sources of
funding, and case studies. Links to sources for more
information are provided in Section 10, Additional
Examples and Information Resources. The text box on
page 3 defines key terms related to resource conser-
vation and recovery used in this guide.
O While much of the information in this guide
focuses on reducing GHG emissions through
waste management, it also provides informa-
Upstream
tion on practices and strategies to reduce
emissions from earlier stages of product life-cycles.
This information is highlighted with the "upstream"
icon shown here.
FIGURE 1. THE MATERIALS LIFE-CYCLE
Resource
Extract!
Source: EPA 2009d.
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
1. OVERVIEW
-------
FIGURE 2. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES, 1960-2010
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY TERMS
Anaerobic Digestion
a process that uses bacteria to break down organic wastes in an oxygen-free environment. The process produces biogas, which can be
used to generate energy.
Combustion
a controlled burning process of municipal solid waste to reduce waste volume. Also known as incineration. Combustors, when properly
equipped, can recover energy from waste to convert water into steam for fueling heating systems or generating electricity.
Composting
collecting organic waste (e.g., food scraps and yard trimmings) and storing it under conditions designed to help it break down naturally
so that the resulting compost can be used to enrich soil.
Downstream
the life-cycle stages that a product goes through after it leaves a manufacturing plant, such as use, reuse, recycling, or disposal.
Energy Recovery from Waste
the conversion of non-recyclable waste materials into usable heat, electricity, or fuel. Also known as waste-to-energy. Processes for
recovering energy from waste include combustion, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas recovery.
Landfills
engineered areas where waste is placed into the land. Landfills usually have liner systems and other safeguards to avoid polluting the
groundwater. As organic waste degrades in landfills it produces methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
Landfill Gas Recovery
the act of capturing landfill gas (which includes methane, a potent greenhouse gas) and using it to generate energy.
Life-cycle
a term for the collective stages a product goes through before, during, and after its intended use. While the specific stages of a
product's life-cycle will vary, most product life-cycles include raw materials acquisition, transport, manufacturing, use, and end-of-life
management.
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
everyday items people use and then throw away, such as product packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps,
newspapers, appliances, paint, and batteries. MSW is generated in homes, schools, hospitals, and businesses. MSW is commonly known
as trash or garbage.
Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT)
a way of paying for solid waste services based upon the amount of trash discarded rather than through the tax base. PAYT provides an
economic incentive to help motivate residents to change their behavior and conserve natural resources.
Recycling
the recovery of useful materials, such as paper, glass, plastic, and metals, from trash to make new products, reducing the amount of
new raw materials needed.
Resource Conservation and Recovery
avoiding, delaying, or decreasing the raw materials required for the production of new products through source reduction, reuse,
recycling, composting, or energy recovery.
Reuse
preventing or delaying a material's entry in the waste collection and disposal system.
Solid Waste Management
permanently handling MSW (e.g., recycling, composting, landfilling, combustion). Also known as end-of-life (EOL) management or
disposal.
Source Reduction
making product purchase decisions and designing products to reduce the amount of waste that will later need to be thrown away. Also
known as waste prevention.
Tipping Fee
the charges assessed for dumping MSW at a disposal facility. They range from about $20-$150/ton with a national average of $44/ton.
Upstream
the stages of a product's life-cycle that take place before manufacturing, such as materials extraction and processing.
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series 2. BENEFITS
-------
Reduce dependence on virgin materials. By reusing
and recycling materials local governments can reduce
the need for manufacturers to extract virgin natural
resources. Reducing reliance on virgin resources can
also provide other benefits. For example, avoiding the
need to cut down trees for paper and other products
can increase carbon sequestration, which is the uptake
and long-term storage of atmospheric carbon.1
Support economic growth through job creation and
market development. Local governments that invest
in resource conservation and recovery can stimulate
the local economy, encourage development of recycling
and composting markets and businesses, and create
jobs. According to the Tellus Institute, increasing the
national average recycling rate in the United States
(currently about 34 percent) to 75 percent by 2030
could create more than 2.3 million jobs, approxi-
mately 2.7 times the number of jobs in this sector in
2008 (Tellus Institute, 2011). Local governments can
encourage economic development in their communi-
ties by establishing or expanding reuse centers and
recycling collection, and by hosting recycling or
composting processing facilities.
>\ If communities in Oregon, California, and
1 FflF Washington recycled or composted half of the
IHl] core recyclables and food scraps currently in
their waste streams, they could generate nearly $1.6
billion in additional salaries and wages, more than
$800 million in additional goods and services
produced, and more than $300 million in additional
sales of recycled goods across the West Coast (U.S.
EPA, 201 Ik).
Reduce waste collection and landfilling costs. When
local governments encourage residents to divert waste
from landfills, they save money by spending less on
collecting waste, transporting it to landfills, and paying
a fee to landfill each ton. In 2008, the average U.S.
tipping fee (a fee for landfilling waste) was approxi-
mately $44 per ton, and Americans generated an
average of 1.28 tons of waste per person (van Haaren
et al., 2010). Assuming these national average values,
annual tipping fees alone for the waste generated
by a town of 50,000 residents would cost more than
$2.8 million. If that town were to initiate a recycling
program with a diversion rate of 50 percent, it would
avoid $1.4 million in tipping fees. Not all of these
1 Trees sequester carbon by converting CO2 in the atmosphere to carbon in
their biomass.
savings would be realized, however, due to a parallel
increase in costs associated with diversion of waste for
recycling and composting.
With a low average recycling rate of approxi-
mately 22 percent, South Carolina spent
approximately $15 million in fiscal year 2009 to
landfill recyclables. If local governments in the state
had recycled those materials instead, they could have
earned $52 million in potential revenue (SCDHEC,
2009;U.S.EPA,2010f).
Demonstrate leadership. Local governments can
demonstrate environmental, fiscal, and societal leader-
ship by adopting resource conservation and recovery
policies in their own operations. Policies that mandate
specific waste reduction goals, promote recycling
and composting, or set minimum recycled content
requirements for product purchasing can reduce waste
collection and disposal and encourage the growth
of local recycling and composting businesses. These
policies can reduce environmental and health impacts,
save money, stimulate economic development, and
encourage residents and the private sector to adopt
resource conservation and recovery practices.
lvH§ I ffl 11 Honolulu, the capital and largest
city in Hawaii, adopted a "lead by
• •a • I n WiM example" law in 1990 to mandate
Climate Showcase Communities
Local ai™t8 and Enorg, p^m recycling by the city government
(City of Honolulu, 1990). City employees have recy-
cled more than 250,000 pounds of paper annually
since the beginning of the city's office paper recycling
program. Honolulu mulches or composts all yard
trimmings and grass from city parks and grounds,
and the Honolulu Zoo has become a showcase for
recycled products such as benches, sculptures, and
pavement. The city is also paving some of its streets
with glasphalt, an asphalt mixture containing
crushed glass collected from residential and commer-
cial recycling programs. Honolulu's total landfill
diversion rate was over 66 percent in 2011, placing it
among the top cities in the United States for waste
diversion (City of Honolulu, 2012).2
2 To learn about other efforts by Honolulu to reduce GHG emissions, visit
its Climate Showcase Communities profile at http://www.epa.gov/statelo-
caldimate/local/showcase/margmalized-commumties.html. The Climate
Showcase Communities Program is an initiative ofEPAs Local Climate and
Energy Program.
2. BENEFITS
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
-------
Improve public health. Resource conservation and
recovery reduces air and water pollution, providing
significant human health benefits. By reducing waste,
resource conservation and recovery also reduces the
amount of landfill capacity needed, allowing local
governments to close existing landfills earlier and
convert them into beneficial public spaces.
With financial support from EPA's Tribal
Program and technical support from EPA's
Responsible Appliance Disposal (RAD)
Program, the Yakama Nation in south-central
Washington collected 192 old refrigerators and
stand-alone freezers from residents during a two-
month period in 2010. Some of the units were
more than 40 years old. The tribe worked with an
appliance recycler to recover 80 pounds of ozone-
depleting refrigerants and more than 160 pounds
of ozone-depleting foam-blowing agents for safe
destruction. Depletion of the Earth's ozone layer is
linked to an increased risk of skin cancer, cata-
racts, and immune suppression in humans. The
recovery effort also prevented the environmental
release of toxic and hazardous substances,
including used oil and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs),3 and avoided the emission of more than
700 metric tons of CO2 equivalent,4 comparable to
the annual emissions of more than 130 passenger
cars (U.S. EPA, 20111).
For more information on EPA's RAD Program,
see page 19.
3 If released into the environment, used oil can leak into groundwater and
major waterways and pollute drinking water sources. PCBs are regulated by
EPA as toxic substances; they may cause cancer and liver damage and can
have negative impacts on the neurological development of children, the human
reproductive system, the immune system, and the endocrine system.
4 Carbon dioxide equivalent is a measure used to compare the emissions
from different GHGs based on their respective global warming potential
(GWP). Carbon dioxide equivalents are commonly expressed as metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCOf). The carbon dioxide equivalent for a gas
is derived by multiplying the tons of the gas by the associated GWP. In other
words, MTCOf = (metric tons of a gas) * (GWP of the gas).
3. RESOURCE
CONSERVATION AND
RECOVERY PRACTICES
AND TECHNOLOGIES
Resource conservation and recovery involves two
complementary approaches:
1. Reduce the quantity of waste generated through
practices such as source reduction and reuse.
2. Manage waste effectively through practices such as
recycling and composting to recover materials and
minimize environmental impacts.
EPA's Solid Waste Management Hierarchy prioritizes
the individual practices that local governments can use
to implement these two approaches.
Solid Waste Management
Hierarchy
EPA created the Solid Waste Management Hierarchy
to provide guidance to local governments on how
and where they can most sustainably allocate their
waste management resources. The hierarchy, shown
in Figure 3, presents the most common solid waste
management practices and technologies in priority
order to maximize resource efficiency and sustain-
ability. Reducing the quantity of waste generated via
source reduction and reuse is the most preferred
method for managing waste, since it helps to prevent
waste in the first place. The remaining options involve
the effective management of waste materials, starting
with recycling and composting, followed by waste
treatment with energy recovery. The least-preferred
methods are landfilling and incineration without
energy recovery.
Communities will likely need to use a combination
of the practices and technologies shown in the Solid
Waste Management Hierarchy. They can achieve the
greatest environmental and financial benefits by priori-
tizing their actions according to the hierarchy.
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
3. TECHNOLOGIES
-------
FIGURE 3. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
HIERARCHY
Source Reduction and Reuse
Recycling and Composting
Waste Treatment with
Energy Recovery
Including Combustion and
Anaerobic Digestion
Landfilling
and Incineration
without
Energy
Recovery
T
Least
Preferred
Source: U.S. EPA, 2010J.
SOURCE REDUCTION AND REUSE
OOf all the practices and technologies in the
Solid Waste Management Hierarchy, source
reduction and reuse have the greatest poten-
tial for reducing GHG emissions and saving
money. By reducing waste at the source, local govern-
ments can avoid life-cycle GHG emissions from the
extraction, processing, manufacturing, transport, use,
and disposal or recovery of materials and products. If
the United States were to cut back its waste generation
to 1990 levels—a 17 percent reduction from the level in
2010—it could eliminate 41 million tons of waste and
48 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MMTCO2e) annually. That reduction would be equiv-
alent to the annual emissions from nearly 9.5 million
cars (U.S. EPA, 201 le).
Preventing food waste, unsolicited mail, beverage
packaging, metals, and other materials conserve more
natural resources and reduce more GHG emissions
than any other MSW practice, by avoiding the produc-
tion and resource extraction impacts described above.
Minimizing food waste has the highest environmental
impact savings due to avoided upstream production
emissions and the methane emissions generated when
food decomposes in a landfill (Gentil, 2011).
Reusing materials to make new products significantly
reduces the energy requirements for manufacturing
and production. For example, reusing aluminum sheets
and glass jars requires only 5 percent and 65 percent,
respectively, of the energy needed to make these
products from virgin materials (Morris, 2005). Source
reduction and reuse also avoid the costs and emissions
associated with transporting goods from manufacturer
to market, and to waste disposal sites at the end of their
useful life.
Communities can also achieve significant economic
savings and reduce impacts in the area of Construction
and Demolition (C&D) materials (e.g., bulky debris,
concrete, wood, metals, glass, etc.) generated during
the construction, renovation, and demolition of build-
ings, roads, and bridges. Reducing and reusing C&D
materials lessens the environmental impact of
producing new materials, creates jobs, conserves land-
fill space, and can reduce overall building project
expenses through avoided purchase and disposal costs
(U.S. EPA, 2012b).
Local governments have many opportunities to
decrease waste generation by implementing source
reduction and reuse. For example, municipal govern-
ment offices, schools, and fire and police services can
modify their purchasing practices to adopt economic
incentives and support extended producer respon-
sibility initiatives that encourage source reduction
and reuse.
To decrease waste generation and encourage
recycling, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts,
adopted a PAYT program, which charges
residents a fee for each container of waste they set
out for landfilling. In the first year of the program,
the town generated 25 percent less overall material
(waste and recycling combined). The town's recy-
cling rate increased to 34 percent, and the amount
of waste hauled for incineration decreased by
more than 40 percent, leading to $260,000 in
avoided disposal fees (U.S. EPA, 2010f).
3. TECHNOLOGIES
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF BUILDING REUSE
A recent report from the National Trust for Historic
Preservation (NTHP) describes the environmental benefits
of reusing buildings instead of demolishing them and
constructing new ones. The report concludes that reuse
yields savings of between 4 and 46 percent across a variety
of environmental impacts—including GHG emissions,
resources use, human health, and ecosystem quality-
compared with new construction. In most cases, the
GHG emissions associated with building demolition and
reconstruction even outweigh the emissions avoided by
replacing old buildings with new ones that are more energy
efficient. The study found that it can take 10 to 80 years for
a new building to offset the emissions from demolition and
construction, assuming an improved building efficiency of
30 percent.
For example, the city of Portland, Oregon, could save
roughly 230,000 MTCO2e by retrofitting and reusing the
commercial offices and residential homes otherwise
slated for demolition over the next 10 years. These savings
would achieve 15 percent of the CO2 emissions reduction
goal established by the City of Portland and Multnomah
County. It would take roughly 42 years for an efficient,
new commercial building in Portland to overcome the
climate change impacts from demolition and construction,
whereas reuse would offer nearly immediate GHG savings.
Other types of reuse (such as converting a warehouse to
an office building or multifamily residence) would achieve
smaller savings, suggesting that the best candidates for
reuse are buildings that require minimal material inputs
during the renovation process.
Source: NTHP, 2012.
RECYCLING
Recycling is the second-most-preferred solid waste
management method. As denned by EPA, recycling
involves recovering and reprocessing usable materials
that might otherwise become waste and transforming
them into other products. When a material is recycled,
it can be used in place of virgin resources in the
manufacturing. Recycling therefore reduces energy
and GHG emissions across multiple phases of product
life-cycles:
Recycling avoids upstream GHG emissions from the
extraction, harvesting, and manufacturing stages of
virgin resources.
Recycling avoids downstream GHG emissions from
waste disposal in landfills and combustion facilities.
Figure 4 illustrates how recycling can reduce GHG
emissions compared with landfilling materials.
FIGURE 4. REDUCTION IN GHG
EMISSIONS FROM RECYCLING VS.
LANDFILLING
•s
c
p
O
O
Source: U.S. EPA, 2010m.
Many communities have developed successful recy-
cling programs to reduce the costs and environmental
impacts of traditional disposal methods such as
landfilling and waste combustion. Local governments
can achieve additional energy savings, GHG emissions
reductions, and other benefits by expanding existing
recycling programs and sharing their knowledge
and experience with other communities that do not
currently recycle.
In June 2004, the City Council of Falls Church,
Virginia, adopted a 20-year initiative with a
goal to raise the city's recycling rate to 65
percent. To reach that goal, the city contracted with a
hauler to collect curbside recyclables in a single
stream (i.e., all recyclable materials mixed together)
once per week. As of November 2010, the city had the
highest recycling rate in Virginia, with residents recy-
cling nearly 58 percent of their waste compared with
the state average of nearly 39 percent. The city reports
that recycling saves more than $100,000 in disposal
costs per year (Falls Church Office of
Communications, 2010; City of Falls Church, 201 la).
In 2011, Falls Church also adopted a PAYT program
requiring residents to purchase $1 "excess trash" tags
for any bags beyond their allotment of city-supplied
trash bags or for bags that do not fit within their
assigned carts (City of Falls Church, 201 Ib).
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
3. TECHNOLOGIES
-------
COMPOSTING
Composting, sometimes referred to as the "recycling"
of organic waste, stands with recycling as the second-
most preferred solid waste management method after
source reduction. Composting involves collecting
organic waste, such as food scraps and yard trim-
mings, and actively managing it under conditions that
help it break down naturally. The resulting compost
can be used in landscaping and gardening, and as a
soil amendment for horticultural and agricultural
applications. Composting diverts organic wastes from
landfills, reducing the methane released when these
materials decompose. It also diverts some materials
from incinerators and thus reduces GHG emissions
from waste combustion. When used as a natural
soil amendment, compost can help avoid the GHG
emissions and groundwater pollution associated with
synthetic fertilizers.
In 2010, compostable organic materials were the largest
component of MSW in the United States, with paper
and paperboard accounting for 29 percent, and food
scraps and yard trimmings accounting for 27 percent
(U.S. EPA, 201 le). Local governments have an oppor-
tunity to divert a large portion of these organic wastes
toward composting. Organics diversion programs can
take several forms, including curbside collection of
household organic waste and curbside collection or
drop-off of yard trimmings.
IlEfjII In 2006, Tompkins County, New
York5, partnered with Cayuga
i • ffi • IB WSM Compost on a six-month pilot
Climate Showcase Communities
Local Climate and Energy Program foo(J wasfe collection pTOgram.
This program provided county businesses with
55-gallon bins for organic waste, collected weekly
and transported to a composting facility. Cayuga
Compost composted food scraps along with yard
waste collected by the county, diverting roughly 200
tons of food waste from disposal during the six-
month program. The program avoided roughly 176
MTCO2e, comparable to the annual emissions of 127
passenger vehicles. Following the success of the pilot
program, Tomkins County expanded the food
compost program in 2007, which now includes waste
collection from additional businesses, institutional
settings, and public events (Tompkins County,
Undated).
5 To learn about other efforts by Tompkins County to reduce
GHG emissions, visit its Climate Showcase Communities profile at
http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/local/showcase/tompkins.html.
The Climate Showcase Communities Program is an initiative ofEPA's Local
Climate and Energy Program.
WASTE TREATMENT WITH ENERGY
RECOVERY
The next solid waste management practice in the
hierarchy is waste treatment with energy recovery.
Technologies include waste combustion with energy
recovery and landfilling with energy recovery. Energy
recovery avoids some of the GHG emissions associ-
ated with waste incineration and the anaerobic decay
of organics in landfills, as well as the use of fossil fuels
associated with electricity and heat generation.
Waste-to-energy combustion facilities process MSW
and burn it in a combustion chamber. They use the
heat released from combusting the MSW to produce
steam, which turns a steam turbine to generate elec-
tricity. At a few facilities in the United States, the steam
is used directly for heating (EPA 2010d).
Landfilling with energy recovery extracts methane-rich
landfill gas generated from organic waste decay using a
series of wells and a blower/flare (or vacuum) system.
The collected gas is then directed to a central point
where it is processed and treated. Landfill gas energy
facilities can combust the gas to generate electricity
for internal use or to sell to the grid; combust the gas
to generate process heat to be used in industrial and
manufacturing operations; or upgrade it to pipeline-
quality gas, which may be used on-site or distributed
for any number of applications, including use as an
alternative vehicle fuel (EPA 201 Id). For more infor-
mation on landfilling with energy recovery, please see
EPAs Landfill Gas Energy guide in the Local Govern-
ment Climate and Energy Strategy Series.
LANDFILLING AND INCINERATION WITHOUT
ENERGY RECOVERY
The least preferred waste management practice in the
hierarchy is waste disposal by landfilling or incinera-
tion without energy recovery. Organic waste disposed
in landfills decomposes anaerobically and produces
methane, a GHG that is 25 times more potent than
CO2, which is released into the atmosphere and
contributes to climate change. Methane emissions
from landfills in the United States in 2010 contributed
roughly 100 MMTCO2e. Waste incineration produces
emissions of CO2 and nitrous oxide, a GHG that is 310
times more potent than CO2 (IPCC, 2007). Communi-
ties may miss an important opportunity to use the
inherent energy of waste by landfilling or incinerating
it without energy recovery.
3. TECHNOLOGIES
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
-------
4. KEY PARTICIPANTS
Local governments that want to develop resource
conservation and recovery initiatives can increase their
likelihood of success by involving key stakeholders to
help mobilize resources and ensure effective imple-
mentation. Important stakeholders may including the
following:
City or county council. Resource conservation and
recovery activities are often initiated by city, town,
and county councils or boards. Securing support from
members is important to ensure that initiatives receive
the resources necessary to produce results. City or
county councils can also set waste reduction or recy-
cling rate goals.
Mayor, town manager, or county executive. The
mayor, town manager, or county executive can
provide increased visibility for resource conservation
and recovery activities. High-level local govern-
ment officials have been the driving force behind
many successful resource conservation and recovery
programs.
y\ In Louisville, Kentucky, Mayor Jerry E.
JQ] f Abramson played a lead role in the city's 2005
IHl] Cantucky Derby program, which collected
approximately 75 tons of aluminum cans. The
program saved more than 15 billion BTU of energy
and avoided GHG emissions of more than 1 million
MTCO2e. To promote the program, Mayor
Abramson held a press conference announcing the
project at the Louisville Zoo (the site of a prominent
can collection and education center), sent emails to
city employees encouraging recycling at city offices,
and promoted the program on his five regular weekly
call-in radio shows (U.S. Conference of Mayors,
2005).
Local waste and public works departments and
local-level staff. Waste management authorities,
departments of public works, or other local or regional
waste entities are usually responsible for collecting
and managing waste. It is important to engage these
government bodies and their employees for their
perspective and input when seeking changes to MSW
operations and during program implementation.
>\ In 2007, the City of New York implemented a
1 ffl f P^°* program for recycling paper and commin-
gled metals, glass, and plastic at six New York
Climate Showcase Communities
City parks and two transit hubs. In order to service
the recycling bins, the city had to ensure close collab-
oration and coordination across three municipal
departments: sanitation, parks and recreation, and
transportation. The three departments held a series
of meetings to clarify roles and responsibilities,
equipment capacities, and needs. Under the project,
the city collected more than 31,000 pounds of recy-
clables over the 13-week pilot period, avoiding
roughly 4.5 MTCO2e—equivalent to the GHG emis-
sions from the electricity use of two homes for an
entire year. Based on the successes of the pilot
program, the city has expanded public space recy-
cling to 500 bins at 137 locations (DSNY, 2007).
With grant support from EPA's
Climate Showcase Communities
Program, the Gila River Indian
*-*
Community of Arizona developed
a pilot curbside recycling program as part of a range
of projects to reduce GHG emissions. To provide staff
support, the Gila River Department of
Environmental Quality established a Climate
Projects Specialist position. One of the Climate
Projects Specialist's duties is to coordinate a recycling
team to implement a demonstration curbside recy-
cling program. The team promotes the program to
community members through presentations and
information materials. Between May and December
201 1, the community collected 49 tons of recyclable
material, and is considering expanding the pilot
program to include other residential communities
and a commercial pick-up route (U.S. EPA, 201 Ig).
For more information about the Climate Showcase
Communities Program, visit: http://www.epa.gov/
dimateshowcase.
Private waste collection companies, incinerators,
and material recovery facilities. Private companies
contracted by municipalities to collect, sort, landfill,
recycle, and incinerate MSW may have valuable experi-
ence in resource conservation and recovery that can be
used to inform local initiatives.
The City of Hartford, Connecticut, partnered
1 ffl f ^k a Priyate company that awards residents
IHil points for recycling. The points are redeemable
for discounts and deals at local and national busi-
nesses. Hartford and the company collaborated on a
single-stream recycling program that debuted in
2008 as a pilot program and expanded citywide a
year later.
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
4. KEY PARTICIPANTS
-------
Private businesses. Like residences, private businesses
generate waste that can be reduced or diverted for recy-
cling or composting. Local governments can educate
businesses about resource conservation and recovery
options and facilitate the recycling and composting of
commercial waste.
/\ Washtenaw County, Michigan's Waste Knot
1 ffl F Vrogpam provides value-added education,
IHl] organization-specific technical assistance, and
community-wide recognition to more than 200
partner businesses and other organizations that are
taking extra steps toward excellence in waste reduc-
tion. Partners receive free support, such as waste
audits and consulting services, free print media and
radio advertising, and eligibility for environmental
excellence awards. Washtenaw lists partner busi-
nesses in an online directory organized by sector and
location, encouraging customers to support sustain-
able businesses. Individually, partners have saved up
to $120,000 a year through their waste reduction
programs (Washtenaw County, 2011).
General public, community organizations, and
non-profit organizations. The success of resource
conservation and recovery programs often depends
on the ability of community members to change their
waste management habits. It is important to engage
them early and often with opportunities to offer ideas
and feedback on resource conservation and recovery
proposals. Interest groups can also be important
partners in gathering support for resource conserva-
tion policies: they can reach out to their members and
stakeholders to raise awareness about the benefits of
resource conservation and recovery.
When starting a citywide recycling challenge,
the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, reached out to
neighborhood groups to find out what they
needed and what challenges they faced. The first 100
groups that signed up for the challenge received free
recycling barrels, which also gave city staff the oppor-
tunity to discuss the challenges and the benefits of
recycling with the neighborhood groups in more
detail (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2005).
Industry and utility companies. Local governments
can partner with private companies, including utili-
ties, to create mutually beneficial projects to finance
resource conservation and recovery projects. For
example, industries can contribute organic wastes
to be combined with municipal organic wastes and
processed at composting facilities or anaerobic
digesters. Utilities can partner with the communities to
buy the energy generated at anaerobic digesters fueled
from local organic wastes.
In Columbus, Ohio, Kurtz Bros., Inc., part-
nered with quasar energy group to create the
Organic Waste Recycling and Recovery System
plant. The plant, partially funded by a $250,000
Market Development Grant from the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division
of Recycling and Litter Prevention, will process
biosolids from the City of Columbus, and food waste,
fats, oil, and grease collected from municipalities
throughout the region to generate 1 megawatt-hour
of electricity each hour. The plant is expected to
divert 45,000 wet tons of organic waste annually
while generating enough electricity to power 725
Ohio homes each year (ODNR, Undated).
5. FOUNDATIONS FOR
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
There are many ways to implement resource conserva-
tion and recovery measures, including the following:
Local government initiatives. Local government
leaders can use their oversight and budget powers to
influence government operations, and can promote
resource conservation and recovery strategies to city
residents. City councils may set goals for recycling rates
or waste reduction, which establish quantifiable goals
and raise awareness and motivation for implementing
sustainable materials management programs.
/\. In June 2009, the City of San Francisco enacted
1Q] f the nation's first mandatory composting law. As
L~J a result, restaurants in the city and nearby
Contra Costa County partnered with the Oakland,
California-based East Bay Municipal Utility District
(EBMUD) to process their food waste at anaerobic
digesters, generating green renewable electricity and
compost. EBMUD's anaerobic digester processes 90
tons per week of food waste from restaurants and
food processing facilities, with plans to more than
double the amount of food waste processed to its
maximum capacity of 200 tons per day. At its current
capacity, the facility avoids roughly 4,100 MTCO2e
per year, equivalent to the annual emissions of almost
3,000 passenger vehicles (ENS, 2009).
10
5. FOUNDATIONS
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
-------
Local government resolutions. City councils or citizen
advisory groups can pass local resolutions that fund or
mandate studies or implement resource conservation
and recovery strategies. By adopting PAYT programs
or by mandating recycling or composting, local
government resolutions can make resource conserva-
tion and recovery a local policy priority.
King County, Washington, has established
clearing and grading regulations for site
development that require permit holders to
restore soils to specified standards, preventing
costly environmental and landscape impacts.
Permit holders can meet these standards by
adding compost to existing soil. Compost can
improve the health of soil, providing benefits
such as better erosion control, reduced need for
water and chemicals, less stormwater runoff, and
better water quality, as well as more marketable
buildings and landscapes. King County's regula-
tions encourage the development of compost
markets by creating a demand for compost. In
areas without commercial composters, demon-
strating a demand for compost is the first step
toward establishing a commercial composting
operation (King County, 2005).
State government programs. Some municipalities
have implemented resource conservation and recovery
strategies under broader efforts coordinated by state
governments. States can provide funding or other
resources that help municipalities to expand their
resource conservation and recovery efforts beyond
what would be possible on their own. For example,
states can facilitate collaboration with other communi-
ties or private industry, or encourage local govern-
ments to participate in statewide waste reduction or
recycling challenges.
With an investment of $2.2 million in grant
funding from its Solid Waste Trust Fund
(SWTF), the state of Georgia developed four
regional recycling collection hubs to reduce trans-
portation and separation costs faced by low-
volume rural recycling programs. These facilities
accept truckloads of recyclables from surrounding
communities and transfer them to long-haul
transport vehicles bound for large, efficient mate-
rials recovery facilities. The four hubs have
projected an average 185 percent increase in recov-
ered materials in their communities, which trans-
lates to roughly $514,500 savings in avoided land-
fill tip fees at the current statewide average tip fee
of $35 per ton. Hub communities and Georgia's
strong recycling markets will also benefit from the
increase in recovered materials, with projected
annual revenues of $370,000. For this project, the
estimated return on the SWTF grant is less than
three years. The hub concept has proved so
popular that private sector partners developed a
fifth recycling hub (U.S. EPA, 2010c).
Public-private partnerships. Local government agen-
cies can partner with businesses to expand commu-
nications or provide funding to study or implement
resource conservation and recovery strategies.
In April 2009, Philadelphia Mayor Michael
Nutter worked with BigBelly Solar, Inc., to
replace 700 traditional litter baskets with 500
solar-powered trash compactors and 210
companion single-stream recycling units in public
spaces throughout Center City, Philadelphia. The
single-stream recycling units allow for collection
of clean paper, metal cans, plastic bottles, and glass
jars all in one container. The compactors and recy-
cling containers allowed Philadelphia to reduce
waste collection trips, leading to $720,000 in
annual operating savings (City of Philadelphia,
2009).
State and local Pay-As-You-Throw programs. With
PAYT, residents pay directly for the amount of trash
they throw out rather than strictly through the tax
base or a flat fee. This shift creates a strong financial
incentive for residents to prevent waste, reuse and
recycle materials, and compost organics. More than
7,000 municipalities in the United States have adopted
PAYT programs, leading to the diversion of roughly
6.5 million tons of waste that otherwise would have
been landfilled, and avoiding GHG emissions of 8 to
13 MMTCO2e annually (Skumatz & Freeman, 2006).
While PAYT systems are usually adopted at the local
level, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Minnesota have laws
mandating implementation of PAYT programs in some
or all communities.
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
5. FOUNDATIONS
11
-------
In 2009, the City of Concord, New
Hampshire, implemented a PAYT program
as a way to reduce the impact of rising
disposal fees. Concord's contract with a nearby
waste-to-energy facility had expired, and the city's
tipping fees per truckload were scheduled to
increase by 35 percent. The city council created a
solid waste advisory committee, composed of a
mix of city officials, city staff, and local residents,
to determine the best way to cover the rising fees.
The committee recommended a PAYT program,
finding that it would be cost-effective and equi-
table and would change residents' waste disposal
practices over the long term. Concord imple-
mented the program, which reduced the city's
annual waste collection from 15,000 tons to 8,500
tons of MSW and increased its annual recycling
from 2,700 tons to 4,200 tons (U.S. EPA, 2010f).
Neighborhood, interest, or citizen group efforts.
Non-government groups can help build momentum
for resource conservation and recovery by developing
program plans and committing themselves to imple-
mentation. They can also propose resource conserva-
tion and recovery strategies to local governments and
encourage their approval.
In March 2008, Anne Arundel County,
Maryland, initiated its 50/50 Recycling
Challenge, an effort to increase the county's
curbside recycling rate to 50 percent. To get the
county's citizens involved in the program, the
county appointed a residential recycling advisory
committee. The committee, made up of 20 citizens,
met monthly and presented a final report to the
County Department of Public Works at the end of
their term. Among other suggestions, the
committee strongly recommended that the county
decrease trash collection from twice a week to
once a week as soon as possible, and to collect
trash and recycling on the same day each week
(Anne Arundel County, 2010).
6. STRATEGIES FOR
EFFECTIVE PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION
This section discusses strategies for implementing
resource conservation and recovery initiatives based on
case studies and successful approaches to overcoming
barriers.
Developing Goals and Tracking
Results
Create a baseline. By estimating their baseline waste-
related emissions, local governments can compare the
GHG impacts of the waste they generate with those of
other emissions sources. Estimating baseline emissions
also helps communities measure emissions reductions
from resource conservation and recovery strategies.
Local governments can compare waste-related GHG
emissions in future years to the baseline to determine
emissions avoided through resource conservation and
recovery efforts.
Incorporate resource conservation and recovery into
climate action and sustainability plans. Many cities
and counties have adopted climate change action plans
to implement a range of policies that reduce GHG
emissions and track progress toward their goals. Local
governments can achieve significant tangible and
quantifiable GHG reductions by integrating resource
conservation and recovery sections strategies into these
plans.
tBroward County, Florida, developed a climate
change action plan that includes reducing land-
fill disposal by 75 percent by 2020 by increasing
the recycling rate by 50 percent and converting 25
percent of waste to energy using renewable energy
technology. The combined impact of these two goals
would reduce the county's GHG emissions by an esti-
mated 480,000 MTCO2e per year. The county plans to
implement single-stream recycling in all of its munic-
ipalities and is considering a variety of methods to
increase the recycling of residential, organic, business
and institutional, and construction and demolition
waste. The county also plans to adopt environmen-
tally preferable purchasing policies that use the
collective buying power of local governments to
purchase products made with recycled materials and
reduce packaging and toxicity (Broward County,
2010).
12
6. STRATEGIES
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
-------
LIFE-CYCLE ACCOUNTING VERSUS GHG EMISSIONS
INVENTORIES
Life-cycle GHG accounting evaluates and reports the full
life-cycle GHG emissions associated with raw materials
extraction, manufacturing or processing, transportation,
use, and end-of-life management of a good or service.
A life-cycle perspective accounts for all emissions
connected to the good or service, regardless of which
industrial or economic activities or sectors produce
these emissions (e.g., energy, mining, manufacturing, or
waste sectors), and regardless of when or where these
emissions occur over time.
This perspective is fundamentally different from that
of sector GHG inventories, which identify and quantify
human-caused sources and sinks of GHGs in order to
develop an accounting of overall GHG emissions for
a specific entity (such as a local government) over a
specified period of time. Local governments use GHG
inventories to establish baselines, track GHG emissions,
and measure reductions over time.
In its climate action plan, the City of Austin,
Texas, set a goal to make all city operations
carbon neutral by 2020. Among the initia-
tives contributing to that goal are a PAYT program
that has led to a 120-pound decrease in the city's
annual per capita waste disposal rate and a single-
stream recycling program that has resulted in
higher diversion rates using fewer city recycling
trucks in less time. The city is developing a plan for
zero waste by 2040 through a Zero Waste
Challenge for individuals, businesses, and organi-
zations. Participants can enter and track their
waste reduction efforts online. Judges rate entries
based on creativity and ingenuity, as well as on the
impact on waste output (U.S. EPA, 2008d).
Track program results and emissions reductions. By
tracking data and comparing them to baseline levels,
local governments can quantify resource conservation
and recovery program results, estimate how changes in
waste management are affecting GHG emissions, and
identify where improvements can be made. They can
also use these data for GHG inventories and life-cycle
accounting frameworks. The text box on page 14
describes a number of online tools and related
resources that local governments can use to help them
track waste generation and reduction, estimate GHG
emissions reductions, and quantify other benefits of
resource conservation and recovery practices.
In 2009, Lincoln County, Washington's Solid
Waste Department worked with Reardan-
Edwall Middle School, to conduct a school-
wide waste audit. The school used EPA's Waste
Reduction Model (WARM) to quantify its baseline
materials management emissions and the benefits
of recycling 5,460 pounds of cardboard, paper,
aluminum, and plastic. The school estimated that
its recycling efforts avoided 8 MTCO2e in GHG
emissions, roughly equivalent to the annual emis-
sions of six passenger vehicles (Washington Green
Schools, 2011).
Managing Logistics
Consider multiple funding options. While many
local governments may already have funding for
resource conservation and recovery initiatives in their
operating budgets, they may require additional sources
of funding for specific projects. Partnerships with
private companies can provide funding for projects
that benefit both entities. Local governments can also
pursue state, federal, and non-governmental grants for
further funding. For more information, see Section 7,
Costs and Funding Opportunities.
Conduct communications and outreach. The success
of resource conservation and recovery policies depends
largely on effectively communicating expectations
and benefits to the community. Many of the resource
conservation and recovery projects with the largest
environmental and financial benefits require members
of the community to reduce their waste generation,
recycle more of their waste, set aside their organic
wastes for composting, or change their behavior in
other ways. Local governments can help ensure the
success of new programs by reaching out to residents
using traditional methods such as community meet-
ings, local newspapers, bulletins, and mailers, as well
as by distributing information through email, local
government websites, and other digital means.
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
6. STRATEGIES
13
-------
TOOLS AND RESOURCES FOR ESTIMATING ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
• Materials Management Climate Action Plan (MMCAP) Toolkit
The MMCAP Toolkit is designed to help communities understand the implications of managing resources as they flow through the
economy from raw materials extraction to end of life. The toolkit provides information on the background and motivation for using
a life-cycle approach to materials management, developing a GHG inventory as a first step, developing climate action plans, setting
GHG reduction targets, and measuring results.
Website: http://www.captoolkit.wikispaces.com
• Cool Climate Calculators for Local Governments
The California Air Resources Board created this compendium of resources with links to tools that can help cities and counties
conduct GHG emissions inventories for government operations, waste, energy use, and transportation; quantify GHG reductions
associated with materials management activities; and model the potential reductions from waste reduction and other climate action
planning scenarios.
Website: http://coolcalifornia.org/article/cUmate-calculators
• WARM (Waste Reduction Model)
EPA created WARM to help solid waste planners and organizations track and voluntarily report GHG emissions reductions from a
variety of materials management practices and material types. WARM is available both as a Web-based calculator and as a Microsoft
Excel™ spreadsheet. Local governments can use WARM to compare their baseline waste management with alternative waste
management strategies to determine the most effective ways to reduce GHG emissions.
Website: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html
• ReTRAC
EPA's ReTRAC is a sophisticated data management and reporting system that helps track an organization's waste generation and
reduction activities. This web-based tool is freely available to participants in EPA's WasteWise program (a voluntary program that
helps organizations eliminate MSW and selected industrial wastes; see full description in Section 8, Federal, State, and Other Program
Resources), and allows local governments to quantify the environmental benefits of materials management-related activities,
including programs for waste prevention, recycling, composting, and procurement of recycled content. It also allows users to
generate reports on program performance and trends, GHG emissions reductions, equivalencies, and an EPA Climate Profile report.
Website: http://www.epa.gov/osw/partnerships/wastewise/retrac.htm
• ReCon (Recycled Content Tool)
EPA's ReCon is designed to help assess the life-cycle GHG emissions and energy impacts from purchasing or manufacturing
materials with post-consumer recycled content. Local governments can use ReCon to determine the environmental benefits of
procurement activities and quantify the impacts of strategies to increase procurement of recycled-content materials that meet
standards in EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines Program.
Website: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/ReCon_home.html
• SMART BET (Saving Money and Reducing Trash Benefit Evaluation Tool)
EPA's SMART BET is a decision-making tool to help community waste managers determine whether PAYT or unit-based pricing for
solid waste management is the right model for their town. The tool allows users to input annual levels of landfilled and recycled
waste as well as population statistics and landfill tipping fees. It combines this information with nationwide average waste disposal
data, typical PAYT results, and GHG emission factors to estimate the GHG and cost savings that a community could see after
implementation.
Website: http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/payt/tools/smart-bet
14 6. STRATEGIES Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
-------
Local governments often must address two groups
when conducting recycling outreach: those who recycle
and non-recyclers. When communicating with current
recyclers, local governments can focus on where, when,
and what to recycle—with less emphasis on promotion
and more on instruction. Appealing to non-recyclers
requires different promotional methods that encourage
them to begin recycling, emphasizing the ease of recy-
cling and the benefits it brings. With either group, it is
most effective to avoid heavy-handed environmental
messages and guilt-based approaches (U.S. EPA,
201 Ic).
In 2004, The City of Charlotte, North
Carolina, launched "Meta Un Gool
Reciclando" (Score a Goal Recycling), a
three-month grassroots public relations recycling
campaign aimed at increasing recycling in
Charlotte's Hispanic/Latino community. City offi-
cials partnered with Latin American groups to
gather feedback about the best ways to communi-
cate with the Hispanic population. The initial
pilot outreach campaign in 2004 resulted in a 12
percent increase in recycling rates in just three
months. City officials looked at ways to incorpo-
rate what they learned to launch a new, year-long
campaign during fiscal year 2007. The campaign
continues to focus on recycling messaging and
themes identified as top priorities to the Hispanic
community, including a clean environment, clean
space for gathering and meeting, sanitation, and
healthcare. (U.S. EPA, 201 Ic).
O
Upstream
Encouraging Source
Reduction and Reuse
Promote initiatives that encourage reuse and waste
reduction. Local governments can encourage reuse of
existing products in order to avoid the need for local
residents to purchase new products. For example,
some cities offer centralized locations where residents
can drop off extra paint and household products,
which other residents can then pick up for free.
Local governments can also encourage residents to
reduce the amount of junk mail being disposed by
removing themselves from the mailing lists of direct
marketers and by contacting catalog companies to
ask to be removed from their mailing lists (NJDEP,
2011). Local governments can encourage municipal
organizations, private businesses, and local citizens to
participate in programs that encourage waste reduc-
tion, such as EPAs Waste Wise and Plug-In To eCycling
programs, among others. More information on these
and other programs that encourage reuse and waste
reduction is included in Section 8, Federal, State, and
Other Program Resources, and Section 10, Additional
Examples and Information Resources.
' Promote programs that provide financial incentives
for waste reduction. Beverage container deposit laws,
or bottle bills, which offer deposits on recyclables,
are well-known approaches used by municipalities
to encourage recycling. However, other programs
that promote recycling and waste reduction through
financial incentives have gained prominence in recent
years. Examples include volume-based fee programs
(i.e., PAYT) and companies that partner with commu-
nities to offer coupons and discounts to residents for
recycling.
1 Promote product stewardship. Product steward-
ship is a broad policy principle stipulating that
whoever designs, produces, sells, or uses a product
takes responsibility for minimizing the products
environmental impact throughout all stages of its
life-cycle. Governments can implement a product
stewardship framework through policy instruments
such as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR),
which extends a producer's responsibility to include
the discards management of its products. EPR typically
includes features such as take-back programs, which
are effective at increasing the recovery of products and
materials, increasing the safe handling of hazardous
materials, and shifting waste management costs from
local municipalities to producers.
Local governments, often in partnership with the
private sector and state and federal agencies, can foster
product stewardship, source reduction, and reuse
through a variety of policy instruments that place the
responsibility of the life-cycle environmental impacts
of products on producers. Examples of relevant policy
instruments include:
Product Standards and Labeling. Private enti-
ties, public agencies, or stakeholders and experts
from the public and private sectors can develop
product standards, including standards for
recycled content. Eco-labels are used to indicate to
consumers that products meet certain standards.
For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/
ooaujeag/standards/index.httnl.
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
6. STRATEGIES
15
-------
Government Purchasing Rules. Procurement
guidelines that require or encourage source reduc-
tion and the purchase of recycled-content products
can help drive markets and reduce waste. For more
information, visit http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/
conserve/tools/cpg and http://www.epa.gov/
greensuppliers/.
Carbon Footprinting. Local Governments can
follow carbon footprinting standards (e.g. ISO
14064 or EPAs Center for Corporate Leadership
guidance) to quantify and report their GHG
emissions and reductions, including those from
materials management and source reduction.
For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/
dimateleadership/reporting.
> Green Servicizing. Servicizing involves shifting
from a product-oriented business model to a
service-oriented model. An example would be
a car-share service that provides organizations
and households with an alternative to purchasing
their own vehicles. Green Servicizing emphasizes
services that provide environmental benefits
compared with "business as usual" and can lead
to reductions in materials use and waste. For
more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/osw/
conserve/tools/stewardship/green-service.htm.
7. COSTS AND FUNDING
OPPORTUNITIES
This section provides information on resource conser-
vation and recovery strategy costs, including their
magnitude and potential payback. It also identifies
financing opportunities that can help municipalities
manage the costs of these strategies.
Costs
Overall project costs and expected payback period.
The expected costs for resource conservation and
recovery programs can vary widely and depend on the
size, location, scope, and technologies used for each
program. It can be difficult to develop reliable estimates
of expected costs for broad resource conservation and
recovery technologies and strategies. Similarly, payback
periods for projects will depend on the regional
market for recyclables or compost or, in the case of
source reduction, the local government's current waste
management costs.
To help quantify cost savings associated with waste
management programs, local governments can
use existing tools such as EPAs Saving Money and
Reducing Trash Benefit Evaluation Tool (SMART
BET). This tool is designed to help city waste managers
decide whether PAYT programs are appropriate for
their communities. SMART BET and related tools are
described in the text box on page 14.
Research and planning. Many communities will
require input from outside firms on the most effec-
tive methods for adopting resource conservation and
recovery strategies. While investing in consulting
advice from a private company is not always neces-
sary, communities with more ambitious goals or those
with a small in-house staff may benefit from seeking
outside help. Municipalities can avoid spending money
in the wrong places and identify potential cost savings
by contacting outside experts or other cities with
experience.
Private contracting. Many communities contract with
private firms to carry out their resource conservation
and recovery strategies. Private contractors can use
their experience in the resource conservation and
recovery industry to save money for municipalities.
With the right amount of research beforehand, local
governments can negotiate a contract that allows the
community to meet its goals effectively and efficiently
The City of Decatur, Georgia, improved its
1 ffl f re(Tcung program by creating a hauler agree-
I — I ment that best suits the needs of its citizens.
Decatur opted for city-operated hauling of recycla-
bles until August of 1997 when it privatized collec-
tion of recycling. According to the city's calculations,
the introduction of privatized recycling coincided
with a 14 percent reduction in per-capita landfill
deposits. Decatur emphasizes hauler contracts that
encourage outreach to citizens and provide incentives
for the hauler. For example, in 2002, Decatur
switched from a contract requiring payment for recy-
cling pick-up services based on a fixed fee per house-
hold to a contract that pays the contractor based on
tonnage hauled. This arrangement gives the hauler an
immediate stake in a successful recycling program
and a direct economic incentive to recover as many
recyclable materials as possible. By ensuring that its
contract is incentive-based and allows for flexibility,
the City of Decatur is proactively improving its recy-
cling program and maximizing the potential for
future success (U.S. EPA, 201 Ic).
16
7. COSTS AND FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
-------
Public outreach. Public outreach to introduce resource
conservation and recovery initiatives are an important,
and often overlooked, aspect of creating a successful
program. Many municipalities choose to handle public
outreach themselves, dedicating a portion of the
program budget to raise awareness. Other communi-
ties seek assistance from outside consultants due to the
complexity of creating and administering a successful
outreach program.
Economic incentives. Communities often offer finan-
cial incentives to encourage businesses and citizens to
adopt resource conservation and recovery strategies,
as well as to influence consumer behavior and prefer-
ences. Many sustainability strategies put a price on
the amount of materials collected and disposed in
order to encourage source reduction, recycling, and
composting.
Fayetteville, Arkansas, has collected resi-
dential trash under a PAYT program since
2003, charging residents based on the
amount of trash that they throw away. Through
this incentive, Fayetteville residents have
achieved a recycling rate of 51 percent, annually
recycling more than 13,000 tons of waste.
Residential curbside recycling includes mixed
paper, newspaper, paperboard and cardboard,
plastics, aluminum, steel, and glass, in recycling
bins made of 50 percent post-consumer recycled
plastic. The city collects bagged yard waste, turns
it into mulch and compost, and then sells it back
to the community. Residents can drop off house-
hold hazardous waste for free and electronics
waste for a small fee. The city also provides recy-
cling services to commercial entities
(U.S. EPA,2008d).
Funding Opportunities
Federal, state, and private funding opportunities
are available for many resource conservation and
recovery practices, such as recycling, source reduc-
tion, and the creation of recycling markets.
FEDERAL FUNDING
Some federal agencies offer grants to help communi-
ties initiate resource conservation strategies.
1 EPA Regional Recycling Grants. A number of EPA
Regional offices offer grants for recycling. For example,
the Region 8 Solid Waste Program (serving Colorado,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming, and 27 tribal nations) provides funding to
government agencies and non-profit organizations to
promote waste reduction and the safe and effective
management of solid waste. EPA solid waste grants
generally fund program development or pilot projects
that promote waste reduction, recycled-content prod-
ucts, and markets for recycled materials, or assist in the
development of solid waste management plans and the
cleanup of open dumping (U.S. EPA, 201 Ih).
Website: http://www. epa.gov/region8/recycling/grants.
html
EPA Source Reduction Assistance Grant Program.
OSome EPA Regions annually issue Source
Reduction Assistance (SRA) awards to
support environmental projects that reduce or
eliminate pollution at the source. Each EPA
Region establishes specific criteria for SRA grants
(U.S. EPA, 201 If).
Website: http://www. epa.gov/p2/pubs/grants/#sra
STATE FUNDING
Many states offer grants that help communities
initiate resource conservation and recovery strategies.
Local governments can search their states' environ-
mental department website to see if programs are
available. A few examples are listed below:
Florida Recycling Grants and Loans. The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection funds
several recycling grant and loan programs, including
Innovative Recycling/Waste Reduction Grants, Small
County Consolidated Grants, and funding Special
Projects for local governments (Florida DEP, 2011).
Website: http://www. dep.state.fi. us/waste/categories/
recyding/pages/grants.httn
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
7. COSTS AND FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
17
-------
Ohio Department of Natural Resources Community
Development Grants. The Community Development
Grant program provides financial assistance to local
governments in Ohio that propose to design and estab-
lish projects involved in the collection and processing
of recyclable materials (ODNR, 201 la).
Website: http://www.ohiodnr.com/Home/Grants/
CommunityDevelopmentGrant/tabid/21188/Default.
aspx
Ohio Department of Natural Resources Market
Development Grants. Ohio offers grants for private-
public partnerships in Ohio communities to help
create the infrastructure necessary for successful
markets of recyclable material and related products.
Grants can be used for a variety of purposes, such
as purchasing equipment, product manufacturing,
material processing and recovery, or facility expansion
(ODNR, 201 Ib).
Website: http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Home/Grants/
MarketDevelopmentGrant/tabid/21189/Default. aspx
Pennsylvania Recycling Finance Assistance.
Pennsylvania charges a $2-per-ton recycling fee
to all resource recovery facilities in the state that
process waste or dispose of it in landfills. These fees
fund County Planning Grants, Recycling Program
Development and Implementation Grants, County
Recycling Coordinator Grants, Recycling Performance
Grants, and Household Hazardous Waste Collection
Grants (Pennsylvania DEQ, 2011).
Website: http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.
pt/'community'/financial_assistance/'14065
Texas Regional Solid Waste Grants Program. The
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
awards grants to regional and local governments
for MSW management projects through the state's
Regional Solid Waste Grants Program. The state
Legislature directs TCEQ to dedicate one-half of the
revenue generated by state fees on MSW disposed
of at landfills to grants for regional and local MSW
projects. Eligible project categories includes source
reduction and recycling projects that provide a direct
and measurable effect on reducing the amount of
MSW going into landfills, by diverting materials from
the municipal solid waste stream for reuse or recy-
cling, or by reducing waste generation at the source
(TCEQ, 2010).
Website: http://www. tceq. texas.gov/permitting/
waste_permits/waste_planning/wp_grants.html
Wisconsin Recycling Efficiency Incentive Grants. The
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources awards
Recycling Efficiency Incentive Grants to local govern-
ments that have made efforts to improve the efficiency
of their recycling programs (Wisconsin DNR, 2010).
Website: http://docs. legis. wisconsin.gov/code/admin_
code/nr/549.pdf
NON-GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Non-profit organizations may provide grants and other
funding for resource conservation and recovery initia-
tives, often in partnership with for-profit companies.
Coca-Cola/KAB Recycling Bin Grant Program.
Coca-Cola and Keep America Beautiful (KAB) provide
beverage container recycling bins for parks, schools,
offices, and special events. The Coca-Cola/KAB
Recycling Bin Grant Program supports local commu-
nity recycling programs by providing selected grant
recipients with containers for the collection of beverage
container recyclables in public settings. Grant recipi-
ents receive actual recycling bins instead of funding
(Coca-Cola/KAB, 2011).
Website: http://www.bingrant.org
TAX INCENTIVES
Some local governments offer tax incentives to
encourage private firms to operate recycling facilities
and other resource conservation and recovery opera-
tions in their municipalities.
North Carolina Recycling Tax Credits. The North
Carolina Recycling Business Assistance Center offers
two recycling tax credits. The N.C. Recycling Property
Tax Exemption exempts equipment and facilities used
exclusively for recycling and resource recovery from
state property taxes. The N.C. Sales Tax Incentive for
Manufacturing Equipment applies a one-percent privi-
lege tax rate to recycling equipment purchases, with a
maximum tax of $80.00 per article. Local governments
can use these incentives to encourage the state's recy-
cling industry(RBAC, 2011).
Website: http://www.p2pays. org/rbac/tax_credit.html
18
7. COSTS AND FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
-------
8. FEDERAL, STATE,
AND OTHER PROGRAM
RESOURCES
Local governments can obtain information and assis-
tance on resource conservation and recovery strategies
from federal, state, and other programs, including
those listed below.
Federal Programs
U.S. EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program
(LMOP). LMOP is a voluntary assistance and partner-
ship program that promotes the use of landfill gas
as a renewable, green energy source. By preventing
emissions of methane through the development of
landfill gas energy projects, LMOP helps businesses,
states, energy providers, and communities protect the
environment and build a sustainable future (U.S. EPA,
2011d).
Website: http://www. epa.gov/lmop/
U.S. EPA PAYT Program. EPA provides tools and
technical assistance to local governments to implement
PAYT, a system in which residents are charged for the
collection of household trash based on the amount
they throw away instead of through the tax base or
a flat fee. This creates a direct economic incentive to
recycle more and to generate less waste (U.S. EPA,
2009).
Website: http://www. epa.gov/waste/conserve/tools/payt
U.S. EPA Plug-in to eCycling. Plug-in to eCycling
develops partnerships between EPA and leading elec-
tronics manufacturers to assist consumers in donating
or recycling their used electronic devices (U.S. EPA,
2010g).
Website: http://www. epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/
pluginU.S.
EPA Responsible Appliance Disposal Program.
The Responsible Appliance Disposal Program is a
partnership program for utilities, retailers, manufac-
turers, and state and local governments to ensure that
ozone-depleting substances and other chemicals from
old household appliances are handled properly. By
capturing and destroying or reclaiming the chemicals
from the appliances and recycling the durable goods,
partners also prevent GHG emissions (U.S. EPA,
201 li).
Website: http://www. epa.gov/ozone/partnerships/
radU.S.
EPA State and Local Climate and Energy Program.
This program assists state, local, and tribal govern-
ments in meeting their climate change and clean
energy goals by providing technical assistance,
analytical tools, and outreach support. It includes two
programs:
The Local Climate and Energy Program helps
local and tribal governments meet multiple
sustainability goals with cost-effective climate
change mitigation and clean energy strategies. EPA
provides local and tribal governments with peer
exchange training opportunities and planning,
policy, technical, and analytical information that
support reduction of GHG emissions.
The State Climate and Energy Program helps
states develop policies and programs to reduce
GHG emissions, lower energy costs, improve
air quality and public health, and help achieve
economic development goals. EPA provides states
with and advises them on proven, cost-effective
best practices, peer exchange opportunities, and
analytical tools.
Website: http://www. epa.gov/statelocalclimate/U. S.
EPA Waste Wise Program. Waste Wise is a free, volun-
tary EPA program through which organizations reduce
and recycle MSW and selected industrial wastes,
benefiting their bottom line and the environment.
Waste Wise members can join as partners, endorsers,
or both. Partners range from small local governments
and nonprofit organizations to large, multinational
corporations.
Website: http://www. epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/smm/
wastewise/
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
8. RESOURCES
19
-------
State Programs
CalRecycle. CalRecycle is California's state authority
on recycling, waste reduction, and product reuse.
CalRecycle's goal is to "play an important role in the
stewardship of California's vast resources and promote
innovation in technology to encourage economic and
environmental sustainability." CalRecycle's extensive
website provides resources for California consumers,
businesses, recycling and waste-hauling industries,
non-profit organizations, educational facilities, and
others (CalRecycle, 201 la).
Website: http://www. calrecyde. ca.gov/
North Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention
and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA). The North
Carolina DPPEA provides resources to help indus-
tries, citizens, local government, recycling businesses,
and state agencies enact resource conservation and
recovery programs. The DPPEA's goal is to "use a
systems approach to promote the elimination, reduc-
tion, reuse, recycling, and proper management of
wastes" (DPPEA, 2011).
Website: http://www.p2pays.org/
Other Programs
Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR). ILSR works
with citizens, activists, policymakers, and entre-
preneurs to design systems and policies to increase
economic effectiveness, reduce wastes, decrease envi-
ronmental impacts, and provide for local ownership of
the infrastructure and resources essential for commu-
nity well-being. ILSR has issued a number of reports
and other publications (ILSR, 2011).
Website: http://www.ilsr.org
Keep America Beautiful (KAB). KAB is a national
non-profit organization that focuses on changing
behaviors and improving communities through litter
prevention, waste reduction and recycling, and beauti-
fication and community greening (KAB, 2011).
Website: http://www.kab.org
National Recycling Coalition (NRC). The NRC is
a national non-profit advocacy group and a profes-
sional membership organization that represents and
advocates for every sector of the recycling industry
across the United States at the local, state, and federal
levels (NRC, 2011).
Website: http://www. nrcrecydes. org/
Northeast Recycling Council (NERC). NERC's
mission is to advance an environmentally sustainable
economy by promoting source and toxicity reduction,
recycling, and the purchasing of environmentally
preferable products and services. NRERC works
with 10 states—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware—and holds
regular conferences (NERC, 2011).
Website: http://www.nerc.org
U.S. Composting Council. This group's mission is
to advance composting and promote compost use to
enhance soils and provide economic and environ-
mental benefits for its members and society. The U.S.
Composting Council hosts a yearly conference (U.S.
Composting Council, 2011).
Website: http://compostingcountil. org/
9. CASE STUDIES
City of Kansas City, Missouri
Kansas City, Missouri, has one of the most cost-
effective trash and recycling collection programs in the
nation, currently spending about $7 less per household
than the national average (City of Kansas City, 2011).
However, as the city's local landfills start to reach
capacity, trash collection costs are projected to rise by
an estimated 45 to 75 percent as more money is spent
on fuel, driver salaries, and truck maintenance to ship
trash farther away (SCS Engineers, 2008). When the
city began confronting these cost concerns, it was in
the process of developing a climate protection plan
that called for significant GHG emission reductions
through improved waste management. The priorities of
cost control and GHG reduction have led to a greater
emphasis on recycling and the development of Kansas
City's Long-Term Solid Waste Strategic Management
Plan, completed in the spring of 2008.
20
9. CASE STUDIES
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
-------
PROGRAM INITIATION
Kansas City's Public Works Department, Solid Waste
Division, initiated KG Recycles as a biweekly curbside
recycling program in 2004. The city expanded the
program to a weekly basis in 2005.
On August 17, 2006, the mayor of Kansas City signed
a resolution directing a climate protection planning
process for Kansas City. The City Council subsequently
approved a goal to reduce GHG emissions from city
government operations by 30 percent from year 2000
levels by the year 2020 and to reduce community-wide
emissions in Kansas City by 30 percent from year 2000
levels by 2020. The Kansas City Climate Protection
Plan includes goals to increase and expand curbside
recycling, expand city government recycling and green
purchasing, and require construction and demolition
recycling in city-supported projects. Together, these
goals would reduce GHG emissions by an estimated
116,725 MTCO2e (City of Kansas City, 2008).
Profile: City of Kansas City, Missouri
Area: 313 square miles
Population: 447,306
Structure: KC Recycles is run by the City of
Kansas City's Public Works Department, Solid
Waste Division.
Program Scope: KC Recycles is Kansas City's
curbside recycling and household waste disposal
program. Recycling is voluntary and residents
can set their recyclables out every week or on
an as-needed basis. The city also provides event
recycling and recycling drop-off centers for the
region.
Program Creation: Kansas City initiated KC
Recycles in 2004 as a biweekly collection in order
to reduce the amount of waste going to landfills
in the region. The city expanded to weekly
collection in 2005 and initiated its event recycling
program in 2007. The city's Climate Protection
Plan calls for further expansion of recycling for
residents, government operations, and city-
supported projects.
Program Results: KC Recycles collects
approximately 1,500-1,600 tons of recyclable
materials per month, and has collected more
than 98,000 tons of recyclable materials since its
launch in 2004. This amounts to a GHG savings of
approximately 281,260 MTCO2e.
PROGRAM FEATURES
Kansas City provides a variety of recycling oppor-
tunities for its citizens through curbside recycling,
event recycling programs, and recycling drop-off
centers. The city provides weekly curbside collection
of recyclables from houses and apartments having up
to six units. It gives each resident a 22-gallon bin for
recyclable materials, which is collected on trash day
every week through a private hauler under contract
to the city. Materials collected at the curb include
aluminum and tin cans, plastic bottles, mixed paper,
and cardboard. The recyclables are collected in a
"single stream" and taken to a privately owned mate-
rial recovery facility where they are sorted and sold
(City of Kansas City, 2011).
The program is voluntary, but the city encourages
participation by limiting the amount of trash that
can be picked up. Kansas City uses a hybrid PAYT
system: residents are allowed a base amount of trash
(80 pounds, two 40-pound bags) for no monthly cost
and only purchase tags for bags in excess of that base
amount. By limiting the amount of waste that can be
picked up at no cost, the city is encouraging residents
to recycle materials. There is no limit on recyclable
collection: materials that do not fit in the bins can be
placed next to them for pickup (City of Kansas City,
2011).
In addition to weekly curbside collection, the city
operates three drop-off recycling centers. The centers
provide outlets for residents of multi-unit housing
that do not have curbside recycling service, and they
accept materials not included in the curbside collec-
tion program.
Kansas City also encourages recycling in the commu-
nity through public education. In 2010, KC Recycles
distributed approximately 10,000 door hangers and
made presentations to neighborhood groups where
recycling bins are distributed (Mid-America Regional
Council Solid Waste Management District, 2010).
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
9. CASE STUDIES
21
-------
KG Recycles has started expanding its efforts beyond
curbside and commercial recycling into food waste
collection and composting. The city began collecting
food waste in 2008 from several city facilities and
works with a private composting firm that collects
about 4,000 tons of food waste annually from a range
of private and public clients in the area. Despite the fact
that about 75 percent of housing units in Kansas City
have in-house food disposals, food waste still accounts
for about 19 percent of residential waste sent to the
city's landfills (SCS Engineers, 2008).
Kansas City launched an event recycling program in
2007 to provide recycling services at special events and
festivals. It also launched a recycling for pedestrians
program in 2008, providing curbside recycling to
pedestrian traffic in several business districts. Food
waste collected from these programs is mixed with
yard waste collected by the city to create premium
market-ready compost.
The Kansas City Climate Protection Plan, released in
2008, called for the development of a comprehensive
solid waste management plan with a goal of diverting
up to 80 percent of residential trash from landfill
disposal. The city adopted this plan and goal in 2008
(SCS Engineers, 2008). Other goals in the Climate
Protection Plan include doubling the amount collected
from curbside recycling, from 20,000 tons today to
40,000 tons in four years through marketing and
expansion of existing programs, improving the city's
own recycling rate (in government operations) from 2
to 22 percent, and making construction and demoli-
tion recycling mandatory for city-supported projects
(City of Kansas City, 2008).
PROGRAM RESULTS
KG Recycles has collected more than 98,000 tons of
recyclable materials since launching in 2004 (U.S. EPA,
2010).
RECYCLING RESULTS
In 2009, KG Recycles collected approximately 19,000
tons of material through curbside recycling (City of
Kansas City, 2011). Average curbside collection rates
are 1,500-1,600 tons per month (City of Kansas City,
2008).
In 2009, Kansas City provided recycling services at
six events, including a major festival where the city
recycled more than 46 percent of the trash generated.
1 The city's drop-off recycling centers recovered 2,664
tons of materials for recycling in 2008 (City of Kansas
City, 2008).
The city's recycling rate in 2006 was about 26
percent. The city's Long-Term Solid Waste Strategic
Management plan lays out the steps the city will need
to take to boost its diversion rate to 80 percent, in line
with the climate protection plan (SCS Engineers, 2008).
REVENUE GENERATED
The sale of recycled materials enables Kansas City to
generate revenues up to 4 percent of the composite
market value of the materials. In 2007, the city received
approximately $69,000 for nearly 19,000 tons of recy-
clables (SCS Engineers, 2008).
GREENHOUSE GAS BENEFITS
Since its inception in 2004, the program has avoided
emissions of 281,260 MTCO2e through recycling,
comparable to the annual emissions of more than
55,000 cars (U.S. EPA, 2010).
In 2009 alone, KG Recycles avoided emissions of
54,530 MTCO2e (City of Kansas City, 2011).
Kansas City has received several awards and other
recognitions for its waste reduction efforts, including
the 2005 National Award for Waste Reduction
from KAB and an Outstanding Large Municipality
Recycling Award in 2010 from the Missouri Recycling
Association. (City of Kansas City, 2011)
Website: http://www.kcmo.org/CKCMO/Depts/Public-
WorksKCRecycles-YourCurbsideRecyctingProgram
Palm Beach County, Florida
The Solid Waste Authority (SWA) of Palm Beach
County, Florida, uses a range of innovative approaches
to encourage recycling among residents (both single-
family and multi-family residences) and businesses.
SWA is achieving an annual waste reduction goal of 42
percent, compared with the current statewide recycling
rate of 28 percent (SWA, 2010).
22
9. CASE STUDIES
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
-------
PROGRAM INITIATION
The Florida Legislature created SWA in 1974 under
the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Act. SWA began
residential curbside recycling in 1987, and by 1992 it
was available to more than 98 percent of single-family
residences and 78 percent of multi-family residences
(SWA, 201 la). In 2009, the county built a new
138,000-square-foot facility, the Recovered Materials
Processing Facility, the largest such facility in the
state, to handle its recycling stream and to expand
the range of materials accepted for recycling. SWA
continues to explore avenues for expanding waste
diversion in the county, including several projects
to recover food waste from individual businesses in
the county. In one of these projects, food wastes are
processed by fly larvae, which are then used as food
for farm-raised fish (SWA, 201 Ib).
Profile: Palm Beach County, Florida
Area: 1,977 square miles
Population: 1.3 million
Structure: The Solid Waste Authority (SWA) is a
Dependent Special District governed by the seven
elected county commissioners of Palm Beach
County.
Program Scope: SWA provides recycling
collection from residential (single and multi-
family) and commercial areas within the
unincorporated county. It collects materials
through curbside pick-up and at over 240 drop-
off centers. Recyclable materials are then sent to
the Recovered Materials Recycling Facility where
they are sorted, processed, and prepared for sale.
Program Creation: The Florida State Legislature
created SWA in 1974. SWA began curbside
recycling in 1987, and it built a new recycling
facility in 2009 to collect, sort, and process
materials for sale to the market to produce
revenue. SWA has an annual goal of 50 percent
waste reduction.
Program Results: SWA has exceeded its recycling
goal three out of the past nine years. It has
collected more than 2 million tons of recyclable
material since the recycling program's inception,
with an average of 130,000 tons of recyclables
collected per year. In 2010, SWA collected more
than 94,000 tons from residential recycling,
and more than 19,500 tons from commercial
recycling. Current recycling activities conducted
by SWA are estimated to reduce GHG emissions
by nearly 501,300 MTCO2e annually.
PROGRAM FEATURES
Palm Beach County, Florida, is made up of 37 incor-
porated cities. These communities organize recy-
cling and solid waste collection for residential and
commercial establishments. SWA provides solid waste
and recycling processing and disposal services to both
incorporated and unincorporated parts of the county.
SWA provides two types of recycling bins to resi-
dences for curbside pick-up: yellow bins for paper
products, and blue bins for recyclable containers
(plastic, glass, aluminum, etc.) (SWA, 201 Ic). Unlike
many communities, SWA provides large versions
of these recycling bins to multi-family residences,
making it easy for apartment and condo dwellers to
participate in the recycling program. SWA determines
disposal fees through a disposal assessment to the
customer and from tipping fees at transfer stations
and processing facilities. All residents are assessed a
disposal fee, currently set at $166 per year for single-
family households and $94 per year for multi-family
households (SWA, 201 la).
To improve efficiency and reduce the costs of waste
transportation, SWA operates six transfer stations
around Palm Beach County that accept nearly 72
percent of the county's solid waste and recyclables
(SWA, 2009a). The remaining materials are deliv-
ered directly to the Recovered Materials Processing
Facility, the waste-to-energy facility, the composting
facility, or landfills, which are all located adjacent to
one another and all owned and operated by SWA.
Recovered materials are sorted, processed, and
prepared for sale to manufacturers that will use the
materials to produce new products. The revenue from
the sale of these materials is used to offset the costs
to operate and maintain SWA's recycling programs. A
portion of revenue is also shared with local businesses
and municipalities, as described below (SWA, 2009a).
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
9. CASE STUDIES
23
-------
To reduce commercial waste, which accounts for
approximately 40 percent of the 1.4 million tons of
solid waste generated in the county every year, SWA
offers businesses financial incentives, technical support,
and free waste audits (SWA, 201 Ic). Financial incen-
tives are provided through SWAs Commercial Material
Purchase Program, which provides a portion of SWAs
recycling revenues to businesses and government
offices that deliver clean loads of corrugated cardboard
and sorted white ledger paper to the processing facility
(SWA, 201 Ic). Waste audits evaluate a company's
current waste stream, recommend steps to cut costs,
and propose a plan for a recycling program. Audits
also involve educational presentations and outreach
materials for employees. SWA provides recycling bins
for businesses and offers over 240 convenient public
recycling sites around the county where businesses can
drop off their recyclables.
Because recycling in Palm Beach County is voluntary,
SWA provides educational programs and outreach
materials to inform the public and businesses about the
benefits of recycling and source reduction. SWA educa-
tors come to schools to give classroom presentations,
and schools can take site tours of SWAs facilities. SWA
also provides an extensive set of interactive educational
materials for teachers, with nearly 50 classroom activi-
ties and 12 lesson plans for different grade levels, all
of which can be downloaded from SWAs website:
http://www.swa.org/site/recyding/educational/
educational_programs.htm.
PROGRAM RESULTS
Since the program's inception, SWA has collected
more than 2 million tons of material from residential
and commercial recycling (SWA, 201 la). Palm Beach
County households and businesses recycle more than
130,000 tons of recyclable materials per year (SWA,
2011d).
RECYCLING RESULTS
In 2010, SWA received more than 94,000 tons of mate-
rials from residential recycling, and more than 19,500
tons from commercial recycling (SWA, undated).
In 2010, SWA collected curbside recycling from more
than 700,000 residences, including both single-family
and multi-family units (SWA, 201 la).
REVENUE GENERATED
In 2010, SWA sold more than 118,000 tons of recy-
clable materials and generated approximately $11.4
million in recycling revenues (SWA, 201 la; 201 le).
In 2010, SWA began a revenue-sharing program to
encourage cities to participate in SWAs recycling
program. This program directs 50 percent of the net
revenues to the cities and the SWA collection enter-
prise, based on the amount of recyclable materials
delivered to SWA (SWA, 201 le).
GREENHOUSE GAS BENEFITS
Current recycling activities conducted by SWA
reduce GHG emissions by a nearly estimated 501,300
MTCO2e annually, comparable to the annual emissions
of 98,300 cars (SWA, 2009b).
In addition to providing waste management benefits,
SWAs transfer stations provide GHG and air pollution
benefits by reducing miles traveled and enhancing
transportation efficiency. SWA estimates that these
transfer stations save almost 11 million miles and 2.5
million gallons of diesel fuel, reducing CO2 emissions
by 25,400 metric tons annually (SWA, 201 la).
SWAs recycling program has been recognized by a
number of organizations, including the Solid Waste
Association of North America, American Forest and
Paper Association, KAB, and Recycle Florida Today
(SWA, 201 la; 201 le).
Websites: http://www.swa.org/ and
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/localgov/
success/palmbeach.htm
24
9. CASE STUDIES
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
-------
10. ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES AND INFORMATION RESOURCES
Title/Description
Examples of Resource Conservation and Recovery Activities
Website
The Bottomline on Buying Recycled. This EPA document illustrates how some
businesses save money by using recycled materials in the products they purchase
and manufacture.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/
downloads/Bottomline_Buying_Recycled.pdf
Broward County, FL. Recyclables collected by Broward County residents are
processed at a materials recovery facility (MRF) located in Davie, Florida. The
MRF is a 40,000-square-foot center that processes more than 450 tons of
Broward County's recyclables per day. The MRF's operational costs are covered
through a surcharge on the disposal fee at the county's waste-to-energy plants,
state grants, and other funds. Revenues raised from the sale of the materials are
returned to participating cities based on the tonnage they deliver.
http://www.epa.gov/region4/rcra/mgtoolkit/
Clayton, NC. Clayton residents more than tripled the amount of waste they
recycle thanks to an expanded collection program the town implemented at
the beginning of 2008. The revised recycling program included the replacement
of 18-gallon bins with 64-gallon rollcarts, which are easier for residents to use.
Several more items were also added to collection, including magazines; catalogs;
phone books; cereal boxes; junk mail; office waste paper; and plastic bottles and
jugs numbered 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
http://www.epa.gov/region4/rcra/mgtoolkit/
Climate Showcase Communities. Several of EPA's Climate Showcase
Communities (CSC) are testing innovative resource conservation and recovery
programs. Quarterly updates on their progress are available online. Communities
with waste management elements include: Gila River Indian Community, AZ;
Hailey, ID; Alameda County Waste Management Authority, CA; Humboldt Waste
Management Authority, CA; Monroe County, NY; and the Mid Ohio Regional
Planning Council.
http://epa.gov/climateshowcase
Food Recovery Success Stories. Many organizations have successful food
recovery programs. EPA has compiled examples of successful programs here.
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/
organics/food/success
Kinston, NC. In November 2007, the city of Kinston modified its recycling
program, giving residents 95-gallon wheeled carts. Also, instead of workers
collecting the recycled materials once a week, they collected it once a month.
Once a month collection requires less fuel, and automated collection makes it
possible to reuse the same trucks used for waste pick-up. According to Rhonda
Barwick with the Kinston Department of Public Services, residents are more
likely to participate since the carts are easier for the elderly to wheel to the street
and offer a cover to keep out rain and pests. Kinston says the city has realized
$100,000 in fuel savings and now requires fewer collection personnel.
http://www.epa.gov/region4/rcra/mgtoolkit/
Pay-As-You-Throw Success Stories. PAYT (charging for MSW based on the
amount of trash disposed rather than through the tax base) has helped several
local communities reduce the waste they landfill. Examples of 1000's of
successful PAYT programs exist all across the country.
http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/tools/payt/
tools/success.htm
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
10. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
25
-------
10 ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES AND INFORMATION RESOURCES (cont.)
Title/Description
Put-in-Bay Township, OH. The Township of Put-in-Bay includes nine islands in
the middle of Lake Erie with a population of 763 full time residents, but climbs
to between 600,000 and 750,000 tourists each year during the summer. Waste
management has been difficult; all solid waste must be removed from the
islands. After receiving an ODNR Division of Recycling & Litter Prevention grant,
the township was able to purchase two new packer units in which to collect
and compact recyclable materials at a rate of six to one. This greatly reduced
the number of trips off the islands and increased the amount of materials the
township could collect, as previously bins were always full. The project was so
successful that the township has expanded into commercial recycling, thus
saving additional time and resources while further increasing recycling rates.
Area businesses are now able to use the recycling services on the island for a
nominal fee.
Website
http://www.ohiodnr.com/tabid/2309S/default.aspx
Smart Communities Network. The Smart Communities Network Website
showcases many sustainable development success stories from communities
across the country.
http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/
management/sstoc.shtml
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30
Communities. This EPA report analyzes the actual operating experience of 30
diverse communities and draws lessons for communities wanting to strengthen
their own programs.
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/downloads/
recy- com/index, h tm
WasteWise Success Stories. EPA's WasteWise has more than 1,700 members that
have reduced a combined 120 million tons of waste. The WasteWise website
publishes success stories for all organization types, including local and state
governments.
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/smm/
wastewise/success.htm
Information Resources for Resource Conservation and Recovery Activities
Food Recovery Guide. EPA's Guide for Feeding the Hungry and Reducing Solid
Waste through Food Recovery discusses the link between food recovery, waste
reduction, and feeding the hungry.
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/
organics/pubs/wast_not.pdf
GHG Equivalencies Calculator. EPA's GHG Equivalencies Calculator translates
emissions amounts into terms that are more easily understandable, including
equivalencies for avoided emissions through waste reduction.
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-
resources/calculator.html
Household Emissions Calculator. EPA's Household Emissions Calculator allows
individuals to estimate their annual GHG emissions (including those from waste)
and explore ways to reduce them.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/
ind_calculator.html
ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability. This organization is an association
with more than 1,220 local governments committed to sustainable development.
Members come from 70 countries and represent more than half a billion people.
http://www.idei. org/index.php?id=iclei-home
Individual Waste Reduction Model (iWARM). The iWARM tool is similar to WARM,
but geared toward individuals. It helps consumers understand the life-cycle GHG
savings associated with recycling common household products.
http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/tools/iwarm/
Life-Cycle Assessments of Waste Materials. EPA's Solid Waste Management and
Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks reports
on GHG emissions from management of common materials in municipal solid
waste. For the materials covered in WARM, EPA has published background
documents detailing the methodology and data used to develop the emission
factors.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/
SWMGHGreporthtml
26
10. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
-------
10 ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES AND INFORMATION RESOURCES (cont.)
Title/Description
Materials Management and Climate Change - An Introduction. This scripted
presentation from the West Coast Climate and Materials Management Forum
explains how material conservation actions reduce GHG emissions. It is designed
for local and state governments and can be used to educate policy makers,
inform climate action planning, and help support projects that minimize the
impacts from materials.
Website
http://www.epa.gov/regionlO/pdf/climate/
wccmmf/materials_management_and_climate_
change_presentation.pdf
Materials Management Approaches for State and Local Climate Protection
Toolkit. This wiki is a materials management toolkit developed through the West
Coast Climate and Materials Management Forum compiling climate protection
actions, examples of climate action plans, new approaches to GHG inventories,
measurement tools, links to resources, and more. The Forum was convened in
2008 by EPA Regions 9 and 10, and is a partnership of federal, state, and local
government stakeholders from the western states committed to advancing
materials management strategies to reduce GHG emissions.
http://captoolkit.wikispaces.com/
Materials Management Webinars. EPA's West Coast Forum on Climate
Change, Waste Prevention, Recovery and Disposal is a series of webinars
to educate stakeholders on the connection between climate change and
materials management, and how state and local governments can use resource
conservation as part of their climate strategy.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/rlO/ECOCOMM.NSF/
Programs/wcf
Mid-America Regional Council. The Mid-America Regional Council, located in
Kansas City, Missouri, runs an online educational series on recycling and solid
waste management.
http://www.marc.org/Sustain/smm_web-academy.
asp
Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool (MSW-DST). EPA's MSW-DST
calculates life-cycle environmental burdens for all waste management activities
including collection, transportation, material recovery facilities, transfer
stations, composting, remanufacturing (of recovered materials), landfilling, and
combustion, as well as offsets for the potential benefits from conservation of
energy and materials. As of July 2012, EPA was in the process of updating MSW-
DST to make it web-accessible; information on the tool is available via the link at
right.
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/appcd/combustion/
cec_m odels_ dbases, h tm I
Office Carbon Footprint Tool. EPA's Office Carbon Footprint Tool helps offices
estimate the GHG impact of their operations, including waste reduction.
http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/smm/
wastewise/carboncalc.htm
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land
Management Practices. This EPA report finds significant potential to reduce the
country's GHG emissions through materials management (e.g., recycling and
waste prevention), and land management (e.g., brownfield redevelopment, land
restoration, and smart growth).
http://www.epa. gov/oswer/docs/ghg_land_and_
materials_management.pdf
Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse. This report by
Preservation Green Lab of the National Trust for Historic Preservation provides
an analysis using life-cycle assessment of the potential environmental benefits
of building reuse as compared to new construction. The report's key findings
offer policy-makers, building owners, developers, architects, and engineers
compelling evidence of the merits of reusing existing buildings as opposed to
tearing them down and building new.
http://www.preservationnation.org/information-
center/sustainable-communities/sustainability/
green-lab/lca/The_Creenest_Building_lowres.pdf
Recycled Content (ReCon) Tool. EPA's ReCon tool helps organizations,
companies, and individuals estimate life-cycle GHG emissions and energy
impacts from purchasing and/or manufacturing materials with varying degrees of
post-consumer recycled content.
h ttp://www. epa.gov/clima tec ha nge/wycd/was te/
calculators/ReCon_home.html
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
10. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
27
-------
10 ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES AND INFORMATION RESOURCES (cont.)
Title/Description
Recycling Measurement Tool. EPA's Recycling Measurement Tool assists
local governments in assessing their recycling efforts. This tool allows local
governments to compare recycling rates of other communities and provides
useful information for setting up a recycling program.
Website
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/
recm eas/index. h tm
SMART BET. EPA's SMART BET is designed to help waste managers decide
whether a PAYT program is the right model for waste management in their
community.
http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/tools/payt/
tools/smart-bet/index.htm
Sustainable Materials Management: The Road Ahead. This EPA report suggests a
roadmap for the future based on materials management—fulfilling human needs
and prospering, while using fewer materials, reducing toxics, and recovering
more of the materials used.
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/smm/
vision.htm
Waste Reduction Model (WARM). EPA created WARM to help solid waste planners
and organizations track and voluntarily report GHG emissions reductions from
several different waste management practices. WARM calculates and totals GHG
emissions of baseline and alternative waste management practices, including
source reduction, recycling, combustion, composting, and landfilling.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/
calculators/Warm_home.html
11. REFERENCES
Anne Arundel County. 2010. Anne Arundel County
Residential Recycling Advisory Committee (RAC) Final
Report. Available: http://www.aacounty.org/DPW/
WasteManagement/Resources/20101210_RAC_
FINAL_Report.pdf. Accessed 8/1/2011.
BigBelly Solar. 2009. City of Philadelphia Case Study:
Cost-Savings from Solar-Powered Compactors for Trash
and Recycling. Available: http://bigbellysolar.com/jiles/
CaseStudy-Phila-Full-06-09.pdf. Accessed 8/1/2011.
Broward County. 2010. Broward County Climate
Change Action Plan. Available: http://www.broward.
org/NaturalResources/CHmateChange/Documents/
FinalCCActionPlanJorBCBCCappdxB.pdf. Accessed
3/25/2011.
CalRecycle. 2011. Food Scrap Reduction Case Studies.
Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Organics/Food/
CaseStudies/. Accessed 3/25/2011.
CalRecycle. 2011 A. CalRecycle. Available: http://www.
calrecycle.ca.gov/. Accessed 3/27/2011.
CalRecycle. 2002. Waste Reduction in Tehama County.
Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/
Library'/Innovations/Tehama/. Accessed 3/26/2011.
Canterbury, J. and P. Mathis. 2004. The Bottomline
on Buying Recycled. Available: http://epa.gov/climat-
echange/wycd/waste/downloads/Bottomline_Buying_
Recycled.pdf. Accessed 3/28/2011.
City of Falls Church. 20 n A. Recycling. Available:
http://www.fallschurchva.gov/content/government/
departments/pubUcworks/solidwaste/recycUng.
aspx?cnlid=4035. Accessed 3/24/2011.
City of Falls Church. 2001B. Trash Service. Avail-
able: http://www.fallschurchva.gov/content/govern-
ment/departments/publicworks/sotidwaste/trash.
aspx#excess. Accessed 5/31/2011.
City of Honolulu. 1990. Revised Ordinances of Hono-
lulu, Chapter 9, p. 7. Available: http://wwwl.hono-
Iulu.gov/council/ocs/roh/rohchapter9.pdf. Accessed
6/18/2012.
City of Honolulu. 2012. Recycling and Landfill Diver-
sion. Available: http://www.opala.org/solid_waste/
archivelfacts2.html. Accessed 6/18/2012.
City of Kansas City. 2008. Climate Protection Plan.
Available: http://www.kcmo.org/idc/groups/cityman-
ager/documents/dtymanagersoffice/022739.pdf.
28
11. REFERENCES
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
-------
City of Kansas City. 2011. Long-Term Solid Waste Stra-
tegic Management Plan. Available: http://www.kcmo.
org/CKCMO/Depts/PublicWorks/Long-TermSoHd-
WasteStrategicManagementPlan/index.htm. Accessed
2/20/2012.
City of Kansas City. UNDATED. Sustainability in
Kansas City: Where We Are and Where We're Going.
Available: http://kcmo.org/idc/groups/publicworks/
documents/publicworks/022030.pdf.
City of New York Department of Sanitation (DSNY).
2007. New York City Public Space Recycling Pilot
Program: Report on Results. Available: http://www.nyc.
gov/html/nycwasteless/downloads/pdf/psr-reports/01_
DSNY_PSR_Final_Report.pdf. Accessed 8/1/2011.
City of Philadelphia. 2009. Case Study: Cost-Savings
From Solar-Powered Compactors for Trash and
Recycling. Available: http://bigbellysolar.com/files/
CaseStudy-Phila-Full-06-09.pdf. Accessed 2/17/2012.
Coca-Cola/KAB. 2011. The Coca-Cola Company/Keep
America Beautiful Bin Grant Program. Available: http://
www.bingrant.org/overview.aspx. Accessed 3/27/2011.
Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental
Assistance (DPPEA). 2011. North Carolina Division
of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance.
Available: http://www.p2pays.org/. Accessed 3/27/2011.
Environment News Service (ENS). 2009. East Bay
Utility Digests Food Waste to Produce Energy, Compost.
Environment News Service. Available: http://www.
ens-newswire. com/ens/jul2009/2009-07-15-093.html.
Accessed 3/26/2011.
Falls Church Office of Communications. 2010. "City
Attains Highest Recycling Rate in Virginia." Falls
Church Times. Available: http://fallschurchtimes.
com/25519/city-attains-highest-recyding-rate-in-
virginia-2/. Accessed 3/24/2011.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP). 2011. Recycling Program Grants and Loans.
Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/
recyding/pages/grants.htm. Accessed 3/27/2011.
Gentil, E.G., D. Gallo, and T.H. Christensen. 2011.
Environmental evaluation of municipal waste preven-
tion. Waste Management 31(12): 2371-2379.
Goldstein, N. 2007. "Measuring Diversion, Recycling
Progress." BioCycle, 48 (3), 52. Available: http://www.
jgpress.com/archives/_free/001280.html. Accessed
3/26/2011.
Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR). 2011. Institute
for Local Self-Reliance. Available: http://www.ilsr.org/
index.html. Accessed 8/2/2011.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/publica-
tions_and_data/ar4/wgl/en/contents.html. Accessed
2/17/2012.
International Council for Local Environmental
Initiatives (ICLEI). 2011. ICLEI—Local Governments
for Sustainability. Available: http://www.iclei.org/index.
php?id=iclei-home. Accessed 3/28/2011.
Keep America Beautiful (KAB). 2011. Keep Amer-
ica Beautiful. Available: http://www.kab.org/site/
PageServer?pagename=index. Accessed 8/2/2011.
King County. 2005. Achieving the Post-construction
Soil Standard. Available at: http://your.kingcounty.
gov/DDES/forms/ls-inf-SoilPost-ConStd.pdf. Accessed
4/30/12.
Mid-America Regional Council. 2011. Mid-America
Regional Council. Available: http://www.marc.org/.
Accessed 3/28/2011.
Mid-America Regional Council Solid Waste Manage-
ment District. 2010. Reycling Challenge, 2010 Report.
Available: http://www.marc.org/Environment/Solid-
Waste/pdfs/RecyclingChallenge2010Report.pdf.
Morris, J. 2005. Comparative LCAsfor Curbside Recy-
cling Versus Either Landfilling or Incineration with
Energy Recovery. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 273-384.
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Management. 2005.
"The Rise... and Rise of Pay-as-you- Throw." Available:
http:/7www. mswmanagement. com/MS W/Articles/
The_Rise_and_Rise_of_PayAs YouThrow_l 520. aspx.
Accessed 2/29/12.
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
11. REFERENCES
29
-------
National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP).
2012. The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Envi-
ronmental Value of Building Reuse. Available: http://
www.preservationnation.org/information-center/
sustainable-communities/sustainability/green-lab/
lca/The_Greenest_Building_lowres.pdf. Accessed
2/17/2012.
Northeast Recycling Council (NERC). 2011. Northeast
Recycling Council. Available: http://www.nerc.org/
index.html. Accessed 8/2/2011.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protec-
tion (NJDEP). 2011. SHWP Recycling in NJ: Source
Reduction (Waste Reduction). Available: http://www.
state.nj.us/dep/dshw/recycling/source_red.htm.
Accessed 3/25/2011.
National Recycling Coalition (NRC). 2011. National
Recycling Coalition, Inc. Available: http://www.mcre-
cycles.org/. Accessed 8/2/2011.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR).
201 IA. Community Development Grant. Available:
http:/'/www. ohiodnr. com/Home/Grants/Commu-
nityDevelopmentGrant/tabid/21188/Default, aspx.
Accessed 8/2/2011.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR).
201 IB. Market Development Grant. Available: http://
www.dnr.state.oh.us/Home/Grants/MarketDevel-
opmentGrant/tabid/21189/Default, aspx. Accessed
8/2/2011.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR).
UNDATED. Organic Waste Recycling and Recovery
System. Available: http://www.ohiodnr.com/Home/
Grants/MarketDevelopmentGrant/MarketDevelop-
mentGrantHighlights/OrganicWasteRecyclingandRe-
coverySystem/tabid/22849/Default. aspx. Accessed
8/2/2011.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ). 2011. Briefing Paper: Residential Green Building.
Available: http:/'/www. deq.state. or. us/lq/pubs/docs/
sw/2050vision/BriefingPaperResidentialGreenBuild-
ing.pdf. Accessed 2/28/2012.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protec-
tion (DEQ). 2011. Recycling Financial Assistance.
Available: http://www.portal.state.pa. us/portal/server.
pt/community/financial_assistance/l 4065. Accessed
3/27/2011.
Recyclebank. 2011. Who is Hartford's Recycling Hero?
You Are! Available: http://www.recyclebank.com/corpo-
rateinfo/index/pressreleaseartide/id/140. Accessed
7/29/2011.
Recycling Business Assistance Center (RBAC). 2011.
Recycling Tax Credits. Available: http://www.p2pays.
org/rbac/tax_credit.html. Accessed 3/27/2011.
SCS Engineers. 2008. Long-Term Solid Waste Manage-
ment Strategic Plan. Available: http://www.kcmo.org/
idc/groups/pubticworks/documents/publicworks/
finalplan.pdf.
Skumatz, L.A. and D.J. Freeman. 2006. Pay As You
Throw (PAYT) in the US: 2006 Update and Analyses.
Available: http:/'/www. epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/
tools/payt/pdf/sera06.pdf. Accessed 8/1/2011.
Smart Communities Network. 2011. Smart Communi-
ties Network Success Stories. Available: http://www.
smartcommunities.ncat.org/management/sstoc.shtml.
Accessed 3/28/2011.
Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County (SWA).
2009A. SWA Annual Report 2008-2009. Available: http://
www.swa. org/pdf/2008-2009_annual_report.pdf. D ata
updated per personal communication with Sandra
Vassalotti, SWA, 5/31/2012.
Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County (SWA).
2009B. Meeting the Future: Evaluating the Potential of
Waste Processing Technologies to Contribute to the Solid
Waste Authority's System. Available: http://www.swa.
orgfpdffSWAPBC_White_Paper_9-2-09.pdf.
Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County (SWA).
2010. Recycling. Available: http://www.swa.org/
SWAGreen/recycling.htm. Accessed 2/20/2012. Data
updated per personal communication with Sandra
Vassalotti, SWA, 5/31/2012.
Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County (SWA).
2011 A. Adopted Fiscal Year 2010/11 Budget. Available:
http://www.swa.0rg/pdf/fy_201 l_budget_document.pdf.
30
11. REFERENCES
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
-------
Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County (SWA).
201 IB. Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County
Florida Response to the Florida Chapter of the Sierra
Club. Available: http://swa.org/pdj7SWAPBC_GBB_
Final_Report_050311_w-Atchs.pdf.
Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County (SWA).
2011C. Recycling at Work. Available: http://www.swa.
org/site/recycUng/recycUng_at_work/recydmg_at_
work.htm. Data updated per personal communication
with Sandra Vassalotti, SWA, 5/31/2012.
Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County (SWA).
201 ID. Recycling at Home. Available: http://www.swa.
org/site/recycUng/recyding_hotne_page. htm.
Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County (SWA).
201 IE. 2011 Component Cost Summary. Available:
http://www.swa. org/pdf/ccs.pdf.
Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County (SWA).
UNDATED. Incoming Recycling. Available: http://www.
swa. org/pdf/fyl 0_incotning_recycUng.pdf.
Sonoma County. 2007. Sonoma County Extended
Producer Responsibility Implementation Plan. Avail-
able : http://www. calpsc. org/assets/poUdes/thru2008/
Sonoma_EPR_Plan_Final.pdf. Accessed 3/25/2011.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environ-
mental Control (SCDHEC). 2009. The South Carolina
Solid Waste Management Annual Report for Fiscal Year
2009. Available: http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/
Iwm/recycle/pubs/swm09_small.pdf.
State of Florida. 2001. Governing Laws, Chapter
2001-331. Available: http://www.swa.org/pdf/govern-
ing_laws/hb945.pdf.
Tellus Institute. 2011. More Jobs, Less Pollution: Grow-
ing the Recycling Economy in the U.S. Available: http://
docs. nrdc. org/globalwarming/files/glo_l 111 1401 a.pdf.
Accessed 2/15/2012.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ). 2010. Regional Solid Waste Grants Program.
Available: http://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/waste_
permits/waste_planning/wp_grants.html. Accessed
8/2/2011.
Tompkins County. UNDATED. Food Waste Collection
and Composting. Available: http://www.recydetomp-
kins.org/editorstree/view/177. Accessed 8/2/2011.
Union City. 2005. Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Inventory Report. Available: http://www.union-city.
ca.us/green_city/Green_city_PDFs/GHG%20Inven-
tory%20Report.pdf. Accessed 3/26/11.
U.S. Composting Council. 2011. U.S. Composting
Council. Available: http://compostingcouncil.org/.
Accessed 3/27/2011.
U.S. Conference of Mayors. 2005. Cans for Cash:
City Recycling Challenge Best Ideas and Practices
Guide. Available: http://www.usmayors.org/mwma/
novelis/2005CansforCash Winners.pdf. Accessed
7/29/2011.
U.S. DOE. 2011. EIA-Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse
Gases Program. Available: http://www.eia.doe.gov/
oiaf/1605/. Accessed 3/27/2011.
U.S. EPA. 1999. Waste Not, Want Not: Feeding the
Hungry and Reducing Solid Waste Through Food Recov-
ery. Available: http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/mate-
rials/organics/pubs/wast_not.pdf. Accessed 3/28/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2002. Recycling is Working in the United
States. Available: http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/rrr/
rmd/rei-rw/pdf/factsheet_nat.pdf. Accessed 3/24/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2008A. PAYT Success Story: Dover, NH. Avail-
able: http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/tools/payt/
tools/ssdover.htm. Accessed 3/24/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2008B. Recycling Success Story—Beaverton,
Oregon. Available: http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/
tools/localgov/success/beaverton.htm. Accessed
3/24/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2008C. Success Stories. Available: http://www.
epa.gov/waste/conserve/tools/payt/tools/success.htm.
Accessed 3/28/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2008D. WasteWise Communities. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/osw/partnerships/wastewise/pubs/
comm-fs.pdf. Accessed 3/25/2011.
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
11. REFERENCES
31
-------
U.S. EPA. 2009A. Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse
Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Manage-
ment Practices. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oswer/
docs/ghg_land_and_materials_management.pdf.
Accessed 3/28/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2009B. Pay-As-You-Throw. Available: http://
www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/tools/payt/index.htm.
Accessed 3/27/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2009C. SMART BET Calculator. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/tools/payt/tools/
smart-bet/index.htm. Accessed 3/28/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2009D. Sustainable Materials Manage-
ment: The Road Ahead. Available: http://www.epa.
gov/epawaste/conserve/smm/vision.htm. Accessed
3/28/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2009E. Waste Prevention, Recycling, and
Composting Options: Lessons from 30 U.S. Communi-
ties. Available: http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/
downloads/recy-com/index.htm. Accessed 3/28/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2010A. Communicating the Benefits of Recy-
cling. Available: http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/
tools/localgov/benefits/. Accessed 3/24/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2010B. Individual Waste Reduction Model
(iWARM). Available: http://www.epa.gov/iwarm/.
Accessed 3/28/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2010C. Materials Management Approaches for
State and Local Climate Protection. Available: http://
captoolkit.wikispaces.com/. Accessed 3/28/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2010D. Municipal Solid Waste—Clean
Energy. Available: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/
energy-and-you/affect/municipal-sw.html. Accessed
7/28/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2010E. Office Carbon Footprint Tool. Avail-
able: http://www.epa.gov/smm/wastewise/carboncalc.
/rtm. Accessed 3/28/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2010F. Pay-As-You-Throw Summer 2010
Bulletin. Available: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/
conserve/tools/payt/tools/bulletin/summerlO.pdf.
Accessed 3/24/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2010G. Plug-In To eCycling. Available: http://
www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/plugin/index.
htm. Accessed 3/27/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2010H. Recycled Content (ReCon) Tool. Avail-
able: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/
calculators/ReCon_home.html. Accessed 3/28/2011.
U.S. EPA. 20101. Recycling Measurement Tool. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/recmeas/
index.htm. Accessed 3/28/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2010J. Solid Waste and Materials Manage-
ment. Available: http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/
local/topics/waste-mgmt.html. Accessed 3/24/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2010K. Success Stories. Available: http://www.
epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/organics/food/
success/index.htm. Accessed 3/28/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2010L. WARM Background and Overview.
Available: http://www. epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/
waste/downloads/background-and-overviewlO-28-10.
pdf. Accessed 3/24/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2010M. Waste Reduction Model (WARM).
Available: http://www.epa.gov/warm. Accessed
3/28/2011.
U.S. EPA. 20ION. WasteWise Success Stories. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/smm/wastew-
ise/success.htm. Accessed 3/28/2011.
U.S. EPA. 2011 A. Climate Showcase Communities
Grants. Available: http://www.epa.gov/statelocalcli-
mate/local'showcase/. Accessed 3/26/2011.
U.S. EPA. 20HB. Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calcula-
tor. Available: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-
resources/'calculator.html Accessed 3/28/2011.
U.S. EPA. 20HC. Improving Your Recycling Program.
Available: http://epa.gov/region4/rcra/mgtoolkit/
improving.html. Accessed 3/25/2011.
U.S. EPA. 20HD. Landfill Methane Outreach Program.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/lmop/. Accessed
3/27/2011.
32
11. REFERENCES
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
-------
U.S. EPA. 201 IE. Municipal Solid Waste Generation,
Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and
Figures for 2010. Available: http://www.epa.gov/wastes/
nonhaz/munitipal/pubs/msw_2010_rev_factsheet.pdf.
Accessed 2/17/2012.
U.S. EPA. 201 IF. Pollution Prevention (P2) Grants and
Funding. Available: http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/
grants/#sra. Accessed 3/26/2011.
U.S. EPA. 201 IG. Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emis-
sions by Development of an Innovative Climate Projects
Coordination Structure. Available: http://www.epa.gov/
statelocalctimate/local/showcase/innovative-ctimate-
projects.html. Accessed 3/26/2011.
U.S. EPA. 201 IH. Region 8 Recycling Grants. Available:
http:/7www. epa.gov/region8/recycling/grants. html.
Accessed 3/27/2011.
U.S. EPA. 20111. Responsible Appliance Disposal (RAD)
Program. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/part-
nerships/rad/index.httnl. Accessed 3/27/2011.
U.S. EPA. 201 ij. West Coast Climate and Materials
Management Forum Webinars. Available: http://
yosemite. epa.gov/R10/ecocomm. nsf/dimate+change/
wccmmf. Accessed 3/28/2011.
U.S. EPA. 201 IK. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Through Recycling and Composting. Available: http://
www. epa.gov/regionl 0/pdf/cHmate/wccmmf/Reduc-
ing_GHGs_through_Recycling_and_Composting.pdf.
Accessed 2/15/2012.
U.S. EPA. 20HL. RAD Refrigerator Recycling Pilot
Program in Indian Country: Yakama Nation Case Study.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/partnerships/
rad/downloads/Yakama-Case-Study-Feb-2011 .pdf.
Accessed 6/18/2012.
U.S. EPA. 2012A. Inventory Of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2010. Available: http://epa.
gov/ctimatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html.
U.S. EPA. 2012B. Wastes—Resource Conservation-
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle—Construction & Demolition
Materials. Available: http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/
imr/cdm/index.htm. Accessed 2/17/2012.
U.S. EPA. UNDATED. Household Emissions Calculator.
Available: http:/7www. epa.gov/ctimatechange/emis-
sionslind_calculator.html. Accessed 3/28/2011.
van Haaren, R., N. Thenielis, and N. Goldstein. 2010.
"The State of Garbage in America." BioCycle, 51 (10), 16.
Washington Green Schools. 2011. Case Study:
Reardan-Edwall Middle School. Available: http:/'/www.
wagreenschools.org/836/14/case-study.html Accessed
8/1/2011.
Washtenaw County. 2011. Waste Knot Program.
Available: http:/7www. ewashtenaw. orgi'government/
departments/environmental_health/recyding_home_
toxics/waste_knot/wk_html Accessed 3/24/2011.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
2010. Recycling Efficiency Incentive Grants. Available:
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cfa/grants/
Recyde/efficiency.html. Accessed 3/27/2011.
Resource Conservation and Recovery | Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Series
11. REFERENCES
33
-------
sft
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1200 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
WWW.EPA.GOV/STATELOCALCLIMATE/RESOURCES/STRATEGY-GUIDES.HTML
EPA-430-R-09-044
------- |