A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste TABLE of CONTENTS

GLOBAL ALLIANCE FOR INCINERATOR ALTERNATIVES A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

INTRODUCTION 6

CHAPTER 01: “Garbage in, Garbage out”: Why the Lack of Accessibility to 12 Good Data on MSW Holds Cities Back Good Data Makes Good Policy, but Data on MSW is Both Hard to Get and Dated 13 Strategy 1 : Require Good Data and Transparency 17 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CHAPTER 02: Mythcycling is NOT a Solution for Wishcycling: 20 Very Little Plastic is Actually Recycled Written by Denise Patel. Research provided by Alex Danovitch and Susan Hubbard of Nothing Left To Waste. It was edited by Natasha Naayem and designed by Tigist Kelkay at YolkWorks. Other contributors Finding #1: Very Little Plastic is Actually Recycled 25 and reviewers include Claire Arkin, Monica Wilson, Doun Moon, Tok Michelle Oyewole at GAIA; as well as Strategy: Eliminate Unnecessary Plastic 37 KT Andresky of Breathe Free Detroit, Nazir Khan of Minnesota BIPOC Table, Whitney Amaya of East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, Lynn Hoffman of Eureka Recycling, Natalia Figueredo of Ironbound Finding #2: Most Recyclable Plastic is Still Left in the Trash 38 Community Corporation, Shashawnda Campbell of South Baltimore Community Land Trust, and Jenny Tang. Strategy: Shift the Supply Chain to Reuse, Refillables, and Sharing 43 This report has been made possible in part through funding from Plastic Solutions Fund. The views Finding #3: Broken waste management systems drive false solutions 45 expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of Plastic Solutions Fund. Strategy: Don’t Fuel the Myth 47 DOI: www.doi.org/10.46556/HEOY6222 Also available at: http://www.no-burn.org/5cities CHAPTER 03: Align City Resources with Zero Waste Goals 48 Strategy 1: Align Mission with Plans, Policies, and Resources 53 Cite this report as: Patel, D., Danovitch, A., & Hubbard. S. A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste. Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. www.doi.org/10.46556/HEOY6222 Strategy 2: Improve Legitimate Recycling 53 Strategy 3: Make Polluters Pay 56

CONCLUSION 58

©2021 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives APPENDIX I: TERMINOLOGY 60 1958 University Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA APPENDIX II: METHODOLOGY AND SUMMARY OF DATA 64 www.no-burn.org Baltimore 77 GAIA is a global network of more than 800 grassroots groups, NGOs, and individuals. We envision a just, Minneapolis 86 zero waste world built on respect for ecological limits and community rights, where people are free from the burden of toxic pollution, and resources are sustainably conserved, not burned or dumped. We work to Newark 95 catalyze a global shift towards environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that Long Beach 103 advance solutions to waste and pollution. Detroit 113 2 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) SUMMARY SUMMARY EXECUTIVE municipal recycling programs. be legitimately recycled and harmingthe overall sustainability of of non-recyclable plastic, contaminating other materials that can crisis. Mixed plastic collection hasledto widespread “wishcycling” programs inanunsuccessful attempt to solve the plastic waste For decades, U.S. cities have collected mixed plastic inrecycling

plastic production. to justify continued will be recycled inorder that allplastic canand Perpetuating the myth mythcycling amounts of plastic waste to incinerators and landfills. recycled and the rest disposed, these U.S. cities are sending staggering progress and develop effective solutions.Withonly 8.8%of plastic waste solid waste (MSW) management—data that isnecessary to monitor considerably lackingindata transparency and records around municipal produced hasnever been recycled. Despite thisharrowing figure, cities are It isbecoming common knowledge that globally91% of plastic ever rethink publicprograms and budgets for healthier outcomes. for bansand redesign to efficiently deal with non-recyclable plastic and to highlights the dangers of burningplastic and sheds lightonthe opportunity dividing plastic into “recyclable” and “non-recyclable” streams, thisstudy in the U.S. that currently incinerate orhave recently incinerated waste, and the plastic waste composition and management systems infive key cities whether the plastic they produce istrulyrecyclable ornot. By lookingat linear system that allows them to keep producing plastic indiscriminately, plastic (manufacturers of plastic and plastic goods),who profit from a “Mythcycling” onthe other hand, hasbeen perpetuated by proponents of management system. fueled by ourbroken waste our societies and are literally to play too great of arole in have played and continue environment, incinerators hazardous to ourhealth and and one of the most ways to deal withwaste As one of the most costly

3 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 4 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Newark, NJ;LongBeach, CA; and Detroit, MI,found the following: An investigation into the waste characterization of five cities, Baltimore, MD;the Minneapolis area, MN; KEY TAKEAWAYS zero waste strategies, municipalities canrebuild trust inrecycling programs and efforts. recycling, increasing program access and outreach to residents, and aligningresource allocation to recycled. To end the plastic crisis,we must separate fact from fiction. By improving legitimate plastic. Over 65%of people inthe United States are unsure ordon’t believe their material isgetting become skeptical of trulyrecyclable materials asaresult of being somisledonthe recyclability of technically burdened by the presence of non-recyclables, they are alsoundermined when citizens Legitimate recycling efforts for paper, metals, glass, and #1PET, #2HDPE,and #5PPare not only plastic industry. the plastic. Misinformation abounds and recycling codes are often usedasgreenwashing tools by the recovery facilities (MRF)and municipalities need to have viableaccess to end markets that purchase and state redemption programs where available. For aplastic to be considered recyclable, material be recycled, and only8.8%actuallyends upbeing recycled through municipalrecycling programs This study found that only35.7%of plastic inMSW streams inthese five cities hasthe potential to communities are paying for itwiththeir health and their pocketbooks. not recyclable through municipalrecycling orstate redemption programs, and yet not cities, should pay. 64.3%of allplastic inthe waste stream inthe five cities is Recycling rates are low because most plastic produced isnot recyclable. Companies, health and environment. could supplyplastic-to-fuel orchemical recycling facilities, allof whichare harmful to our stream inthe five cities isactually recycled. The remainder isincinerated, landfilled or reduce pollution by banning non-recyclable plastic. Only8.8%of allplastic inthe waste Most plastic isdesigned to be dumped orburned, harming communities. Cities can and communities that want to shiftto truezero waste systems. to exploit loopholes and pushself-serving narratives, and creates challenges for cities municipal waste flows isabsent,oldand difficult to find.This allows the plastic industry Lack of data transparency obstructs solutions.Good data leads to goodpolicy. Data on communities to acircular, zero waste economy. this study have the potential to be at the forefront of reimagining the system and trulyshifting their Today, solidwaste disposal continues to eat upthe lion’s share of resources available. The cities in plastic and poor waste management policies. end contracts withincinerators, astoxic whichserve escape valves for overproduction of unrecyclable by these industries isconsistently borne by taxpayers and municipalgovernments. Cities must also through redesign, bans,and targets isequallycrucial,asthe health and cost of monetary waste caused providers. Holdingretailers and producers of plastic packaging responsible for reduction and reuse investments indata collection systems and enforced requirements from waste and recycling service and reliable data around waste issues—which isconsiderably lackingand difficult to find—through that theseIt isimportant solutionsbe underpinned by significant efforts to bringtransparency used containers and result inhighrecycling rates. anational bottlesupport redemption program, and container deposit laws motivate the publicto return as incinerators and landfills. These systems as84% of Americans willalsogainpublicsupport, already at source: reducing the production of virgin plastic and the need for harmfulend-of-life optionssuch systems that allow for reduction and reuse, cities and governments willbe solving the plastic problem integrated waste management hierarchies. By investing and incentivizing the development of alternative It istime for policy and regulations to prioritizereduction and reuse over recycling, inline with remove allnon-recyclable plastic from the system. The simplest and most ethical solutionto thisproblem isto sustainability. provides upto 200xasmany jobsasdisposal, environmental furthers justice, and improves waste systems must be prioritized.Zero waste infrastructure like reuse, refill, and repair While plastic recycling must be improved, ithasitslimits.Plastic reduction and zero programs was not recyclable. landfilled. Conversely, 12%-55% of allplastic that ended upinsingle-stream recycling recyclable plastic (#1PET, #2HDPE,and #5PP)gets recycled; 76%gets incinerated or collecting onlyplastic that canbe recycled. Inthe five cities, only24% of potentially People (understandably) don’t know what’s actuallyrecyclable. Cities should prioritize

5 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 6 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) INTRODUCTION available—and simplyrequire the political willto address the issue. with thishighlyproblematic material for whichsolutionsare ready and and isnot recycled. Thisreport identifies alternative strategies to deal also the majorityof plastic ends upineither incinerators orlandfills only undermines these cities’ entire waste management systems, but Despite the data varying collection methods, itisclear that plastic not Minneapolis area, MN;Newark, NJ;LongBeach, CA; and Detroit, MI. solid waste streams (MSW) of five U.S. cities: Baltimore, MD;the This report looks at the state of plastic waste inthe municipal State of plastic waste management in 5 cities analyzed in5cities management waste plastic of State 1 FIGURE mt vr30tn fNxayear a NOx of tons 300 over Emits community? EJ an in Incinerator Plastic in Plastic recy the in Plastic 24% ogBeach, Long California © Doun Moon/GAIA © Doun inDecline.An Industry Emissions data and EJcommunity criteria asdescribed inU.S. MunicipalSolidWaste Incinerators: Source data for recycling/disposal rates can be found inAppendix II:Methodology. **EJ community: Environmental Justice community the net amount of recycled plastic isnot available. * Based on the amount of plastic putinto the recycling stream by residents and businesses; data on lan predominantly immigrant communities, and communities of color. broken system—79% of MSW incinerators are located near low-income, cities familiar included isvery inthisreport withthe real impactsof this has negative impactsonthe environment and ourhealth. Eachof the real zero waste solutions.Waste ingeneral, no matter how itis“managed,” change context inmind revealed the underlying impediments to achieving Approaching the data gathered from these five cities witha systems 52% cine dﬁlled .S. Municipal SolidWaste Incinerators: inDecline (2019). AnIndustry GlobalAlliance for Incinerator Alternatives. https://www.no-burn.org/industryindecline/ 1

rated 24% U cling YES stre am* vr1 t 11 over Emits In cine o na E an in rator 13% fPM of ons 87% c J** year a 2.5 ommunity? 0% YES inaoi Area, Minneapolis ( community? EJ an in Incinerator Detr Minnesota 3e #3 community? EJ an in Incinerator Ren oit trfrla falU in US all of lead for mitter 6% Power ewable 4% 0% 47% 94% n2019 in closed 49% Michigan cinerators Detroit, NO YES ) 1e #1 community? EJ an in Incinerator e Jersey New trfrla falU in US all of lead for mitter Newark, 11% 1

89% Baltimore, Maryland 0% cinerators YES

7 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 8 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) disproportionately burdened, even though most of them are attempting to control that waste. their country. Communities across Asia,and increasingly inLatin America and Africa, continue to be regulations to banallplastic waste stop orotherwise the imports dumpingof contaminated plastic in being dumped orburned. Chinaand other nations have adopted increasingly stringent policies and of plastic, and often contain alarge share of unrecyclable plastic and other contaminants that end up other countries for “recycling” are often mixed bales rather thanhomogenous bales of asingletype 200 times asmany waste. jobsinreuse and repair asinburningand burying has been landfilled orended upinouroceans and the environment. ever produced, only9%hasever been recycled, 12%hasbeen incinerated, and the remaining 79% widely recognized that recycling alone cannot solve the plastic problem. Ofallof the plastic material new products). Whilerecycling of azero canbe waste anauthenticallypart important solution, itis recyclable into new products), and increasingly more plastic (demonstrably poor at being recycled into In the 1970s,many U.S. cities started collecting glass, paper, and metal (materials that are legitimately often after their single-use. Report as “waste-to-energy,” the solepurpose of incinerators isto burnthe items that manufacturers make, is one of the most polluting waste disposal systems: incinerators. Often referred to inappropriately community willface the injustice of waste. They have allbeen orare currently host to incineration, which These cities have the potential to be at the forefront of buildingzero waste systems sothat no other have inlimitingthe potential smog formation), and eutrophication. But what isless commonly known isthe impactthese incinerators disease. These incinerators alsocontribute to globalwarming, acidification, photochemical ozone (or incinerators suffer seriouslydetrimental impactsontheir health from respiratory and cardiovascular stream to be burned orlandfilled. countries have sentplastic waste backto the U.S., where or enters itsitsinports ourbroken waste https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/bffp_reports/discarded-communities-on-the-frontlines-of-the-global-plastic-crisis/ 7 e1700782. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782 6 Incinerator Alternatives. www.doi.org/10.46556/GFWE6885 5 www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/Bad-News-for-Recycling-Final.pdf 4 44(1), 40–48.https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12939 D. (2020).The health impactsof waste incineration: Asystematic review. Australian and New Zealand Journalof PublicHealth, 3 R.J.,oberts, &Chen, M.(2006).Waste incineration—how bigisthe health risk?Aquantitative method to allow comparison with other health risks. Journalof PublicHealth,28(3),261–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdl037 2

G Discar Zer T R W eyer, R.,Jambeck, J. R.,&Law, K.L.(2017). Production, use, and fate of allplastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7), ait, P. W., Brew, J., Che, A.,Costanzo, A.,Danyluk, A.,Davis, M.,Khalaf, A.,McMahon, K.,Watson, A.,Rowcliff, K.,&Bowles, better jobs. Zero waste systems not onlycreate more jobs,they create aste Incinerators: Bad News for Recycling and Waste Reduction (2013). GlobalAlliance for Incinerator Alternatives. https:// o Waste and Economic Recovery: The JobCreation Potential of Zero Waste Solutions(2021). GlobalAlliance for ded: Communities on the Frontlines of the Global Plastic Crisis(2019). GlobalAlliance for Incinerator Alternatives. 4 for ourcommunities to move towards zero waste approaches: there are 2 after report 3 verifies what we intuitively know: people who live near 6 Shipments of plastic waste to 5 7 Some

nation/most-americans-would-pay-more-to-avoid-using-plastic-poll-says 10 resources/astrx-study-of-material-recoverability/ 9 cular ClaimsFall Flat: Comprehensive U.S. Survey of Plastics Recyclability (2020).Greenpeace. https://www.greenpeace. org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Greenpeace-Report-Circular-Claims-Fall-Flat.pdf 8 the solution despite the facts: unaffordable to sustain localrecycling programs. Meanwhile, hasdoubleddown industry onrecycling as and the cost to plastic resins sort withno end markets, make impossible itvirtually and often examples of the growing variety of materials that cannot be recycled. The inherent lackof recyclability, are layered withother materials like aluminum, commonly seeninplastic film pouches—are just a few New plastic combinations whichcould include mixes of two ormore of the #1-7 plastic resins— orwhich being recycled. pocketbooks. For far too long,thissystem hasflourished without any accountability for what is really and packaging. The system isbroken and communities are paying for itwiththeir health and their federal government to collect and recycle materials are undermined by the inclusion of plastic products and cities across the country. Inthe end, investments by municipalities, counties, states, and the is, and the inclusion of non-recyclable plastic inthe collection stream occurs at the expense of towns haslongclaimed that plastic canbeWhile the recycled, plastic industry the reality little isthat very

• • •

R Cir “Mos eview of Material Flows at MRF’s and Reprocessors (2019). ApplyingThinking Systems to Recycling (ASTRX). https://astrx.org/ willing to pay more to changethe system. There are agrowing number of people who donot want plastic oritsimpactsintheir life and are MRFs are unableto efficientlyand process sort the proliferation ofsingle-useplastic packaging. collect and dispose of non-recyclable plastic. exceptions of #1PET, #2HDPE,and #5PP)to make new products, costing cities even more to There few are very end markets that willpurchase and usethe of bulk plastic packaging (withthe t Americans Would Pay More to Avoid UsingPlastic, Poll Says” (2019). PBSNewsHour. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/ 10 back against waste dumping from countries like the U.S. ©Ecoton U.S. the like countries from dumping waste against back EnvironmentalGoldman Prize-winner Prigi of Arisandi Ecoton fights 8 9

9 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 10 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) city’s share ofcity’s greenhouse gasemissions. reducing reliance onfossil fuelsand addsto every new virgin plastic isasignificantimpediment to packaging alternatives to avoid the production of The lackof refill/reuse systems and non-plastic ticwave_summary.pdf pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2020/07/breakingtheplas- (2020).The Pew Charitable Trusts; SYSTEMIQ. https://www. ment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution 13 https://kab.org/litter-study/ 12 w BigOilMisledthe Publicinto Believing Plastic Would org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into- Be Recycled” (2020).NationalPublicRadio. https://www.npr. 11 all, exacerbates the problem. recyclable materials, ifthey caneven be recycled at and packaging combined withthe low value of fuels to produce new virgin plastic products Meanwhile, the continued extraction of fossil consumers to recycle properly. Beautiful” that putthe burden of responsibility on programs and pushes campaignslike “Keep America funds grants forindustry misleading education of recycling asasolutionto ourwaste problem, To buildpopularity for and perpetuate the myth solutions to prevent waste inthe first place. and waterways, butfails to advocate for systemic up 152pieces of litter each to clean uproads, trails, campaigns, “152AndYou” pushes individuals to pick

“Ho Br Na eaking the Waves of Plastic: AComprehensive Assess- quadruple by 2040. leakage into the ocean to nature to triple, and plastic to double, plastic leaking into Plastic production isforecast tional Litter Study(2020).Keep America Beautiful. 11 One of their latest 13

©Santiago Vivacqua/GAIA ©Adam Dean/GAIA a waste process, the burningof any post-consumer polymers and thusremoving these processes from any regulation as technology similarto incineration. attempting Withthe plasticto industry redefine recycling to include Alternatives. https://www.no-burn.org/https-www-no-burn-org-legislativealert/ andalk NoRecycling: AnInvestigation of the U.S. “Chemical Recycling” Industry. (2020).GlobalAlliance for Incinerator 15 Alternatives. https://www.no-burn.org/chemical-recycling-us/ 14 This so-called“chemical recycling” burning plastic and other equallydetrimental schemes, goingsofar asto callthis“chemical recycling.” rates, isgainingmomentum definition the inchanging theof industry very recycling sothat itincludes Even denial of more the problem troubling isthat thanthe after industry’s decades of dismalrecycling plastic waste data collected, are informed by their communities’ experiences, plans,and actions. truly impactfulsolutions.The biggest opportunities for these cities, highlighted by the analysis of the transparency inourcurrent system willbe key, asthiswillsafeguard against greenwashing and support waste, and recognize that the best way to deal withwaste isto prevent itfrom occurring. Creating truly sustainable, circular zero waste systems, we must turnaway from the oldsystem that perpetuates bridges astemporary should onthe onlyserve road to zero waste. To protect publichealth and build Some of the methods usedinthe current linear waste system (often referred to astake, make, waste) authentic solutionsto the waste problem. more and more waste plastic that willpollute ourcommunities, damageourhealth, and compete with

US Legisla All T tion Alert: American Chemistry Council’s American Chemistry tion Alert: Effort to Push“Plastic-to-fuel” Bills(2020).GlobalAlliance for Incinerator 15 real solutionsare critical.Investments insuchfacilities could create the demand for 14 would best be calledmythcycling, asitisjust another burn

11 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 12 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) DATA ON MSW HOLDS CITIES BACK THE OFWHY ACCESS LACK GOOD TO OUT”: GARBAGE IN, “GARBAGE CHAPTER 01 CHAPTER ©Santiago Vivacqua/GAIA barium, cadmium, mercury, and lead when burned. polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and toxic metals suchasarsenic, Plastic releases persistent organic pollutants suchasdioxins, furans, profound impactsonthe health of communities addressed in the study. pressing problem. Yet MSW that ends upinincinerators continues to have on solidwaste), therefore, isonlyamicrocosm of amuchlarger and discarded-communities-on-the-frontlines-of-the-global-plastic-crisis/ Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/bffp_reports/ 18 International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/plasticandhealth/ 17 stable/j.ctt5hhfqh of Environmental Action inthe United States. The MITPress; JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/ 16 and environmental health nations. impactsonimporting from the U.S. and other high-income nations causesignificant pollution or isinherently hazardous, like polyvinyl chloride(PVC). Plastic exported contaminated withnon-recyclable material, may include harmful additives to other countries for “recycling.” Itisoften non-recyclable, heavily Another majorinformation gapiswhat happens to waste that isexported accounting for just 3%. are expected to be at least 97%of the entire waste stream, with MSW wastes are not required to be measured orreported, even though they of information onany waste that isnot MSW. Thismeans that industrial example important One of very thisdata problem isthe complete lack understand, orsooldthat itisunreliable. Unfortunately, this data canquite commonly be very hard to get, hard to communities impacted by the waste system to influence these decisions. to achieve their zero waste goals.Access to thisknowledge alsoallows dependable budgets and forecast funding needs that are required inorder allows cities to make realistic plans,establish policies, important develop disposed of (incinerated orlandfilled) ordiverted (recycled or composted) of waste being generated, and what happens to the waste when itis Understanding how muchand where waste isbeing generated, the types and Dated Makes Policy, Good Data Good Get to Hard onMSW is Both Data but

Plas MacBride Discar tic and Pollution: The HiddenCosts of aPlastic Planet (2019). Center for ded: Communities onthe Frontlines of the GlobalPlastic Crisis(2019). Global

, S. (2012). Recycling Reconsidered: The Present Failure and Future Promise 16 This report (and Thisreport almost everyyou report read 17 18

13 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 14 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Impacts of Plastic Throughout the Lifecycle Throughout Plastic of Impacts 2 FIGURE because itisoften measured by what residents place at the curb, not by what isactuallyrecycled. nonetheless. onrecycling Cityreporting likely includes the non-recyclable material counted as“recycled” material arrives at the MRF, what happens to itisoften unknown, butallof the material hasbeen counted recycling rate basedonwhat the recycling haulerpicks upat the curband delivers to the MRF. Once the How, where, and the type of data collected by acityalsoskews the picture. Most cities count their understanding oraccountability over what happens to that waste. Troublingly, most municipalities of count their exports recycling aspart rate, despite having no emissions EXTRACTION Toxic contamination Groundwater emissions GHG emissions MANUFACTURING Toxic oi liquid Toxic udeloss Nurdle (pellets) waste ecln communities Fenceline Solid emissions GHG exposure chemical Consumer USE odchain Food emissions Toxic Incineration environment at othe to waste Uncollected © Doun Moon/GAIA © Doun Land/marine Lan disposal dﬁll emissions GHG contamination Groundwater Ash including Michiganand Minnesota. are already overburdened withpollution. Thisbillisnow being replicated inother states, industrial facilities orthe expansion of current facilities incommunities like Newark that in passing anenvironmental justice billfor New Jersey designed to prevent the sitingof new succeeded instopping 13proposed incinerators from being built.Last year, ICCsucceeded incineration and allother majorsources of pollution for more thanforty years, and has incinerator. The Ironbound Community Corporation (ICC),founded in1969,hasbeen fighting in place to facilitate better outcomes for Newark’s waste, alarge majorityends upinits least 89.2%of plastic isincinerated. Without more systematic monitoring and reporting Newark’s recycling composition. Based onthisinformation, we estimate that inNewark, at on facility averages for 14MRFs states in11 inthe region Northeast was usedasaproxy for of Mercer County hadto be usedasaproxy. Arecent onrecycling report composition based published waste characterization study was available specific to Newark, and a2013 study of other toxic chemicals that pollute the air, land, and water. Despite these facts, no per day. Itemitsmore lead into the airthanany other U.S. incinerator, inadditionto dozens In Newark, the Essex County Resource Recovery incinerator burnsabout 2.8tons of waste Spotlight onNewark, NJ:Troubles withAccess to Waste Data ©Ironbound Community Corporation 15 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 16 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) recyclable lightweight flexible packaging). and their packaging manufacturers save money by “lightweighting” their products (often usingnon- plastic packaging numbers canbe complicated to estimate because consumer goods companies different packaging applications and likely ageddata onplastic isvery underestimated. Furthermore, policy/program tools mightbest suitthe city. Inparticular, plastic usehasbeen steadily increasing for about waste composition. Knowing the composition of the waste stream iscritical for determining what waste composition data was extrapolated from the state’s data since the city had no specific information 2019 information; the data from the other cities was at least five and up to eight years old.Much of the All of the waste composition data found for these programs was dated withthe exception of Baltimore’s MSW DATA IS OLD of Information requests to get any information whichcanbe time and resource intensive. imported into their community for disposal are left withthe optionto gothrough the process of Freedom or the landfills. Citizenslivinginthose communities that want to understand how much waste is None of the cities provide any information about the sources of the waste coming into the incinerators in some of the cities when requested, there were no cities that madeit easy to access orunderstand. the amount of waste they generated, what isintheir waste, orwhat happens to it.Whileitwas available Most of the cities didnot have information ontheir website that was accessible to their residents about or how itisused. mixed plastic. The result isthat cities have hardly about any where certainty the material gets recycled easily be the casethat the first purchaser of the material could resell the materials asis common for Some cities provider dorequire their service to where report the MRFsellsthe recyclables, butitcan markets. of the validity —especially when itcomes to the specifics of materials types, contamination, and end is usuallyself-reported by the owners/operators of the facilities, and there isno auditingorverification aware of thisrequirement untilresearchers pointed itout.The cities that doget data are getting what provider.data from the service cities that Certain hadcontracts that require were reporting not even unsure of where to get it.Insome cases, itisunknown whether the cityhasany legalrightto obtainthe the employee responsible for providing thisinformation at the locallevel either didnot have itorwas providers. Cities are strapped and cityemployees are covering alot of bases. Itiscommonplace that because the cities themselves have difficulty getting the proper information from their service Efforts expended for demonstrated thisreport that publicdata ishard to get from localgovernments MSW DATA GET TO IS HARD To make data more accessible and easier to understand to the public: data overall. locally-owned recycling businesses that share the communities’ goalsprovide better access and better must rely heavily onmultinational, for-profit waste haulers to achieve their recycling goals.Ingeneral, from the products we recycle, the data matters. Thisbecomes even more criticalwhen communities recycling chasingarrows symbol onnon-recyclable packaging, to alackof transparency onwhat ismade impact. From alackof municipaldata onthe basicwaste composition, to misrepresentations of the how well-intentioned actionsmightactuallybe greenwashing, and therefore have littlemeaningful problematic trends. Itresults inaninabilityto prioritizeefforts, properly allocate funding, orunderstand The historic lackof data and transparency around waste issues isone of the most significant STRATEGY 1:REQUIRE GOOD DATA AND TRANSPARENCY 4. 3. 2. 1.

links to relevant documentation. and municipalvendor contracts. Thisinformation should be published onawebsite quarterly with Sta and provide more transparent access to information. Sta d. c. b. a. deciding what to include inthe recycling program, and analyzingthe efficiency of the program by: Citie damages and other penalties. operating license requirements. These requirements should be enforced through liquidated Citie

tes should require the cityto maintain, collect and waste report data through cityoperations tes ormunicipalities can invest indata collection systems to standardize the collection of data R R R R the curb. (RFP)/bid process to ensure itisincluded inprogram cost. is inthe residual. Thisrequirement should beof the included request aspart for proposal as plastic recycling facilities orPRFs) to understand what happens to materials there. type, where they go, what the typicalend useis,and what isexported. s should understand what happens to materials at the MRFfor useintargeting education, providerss should require their service to provide information through contracts or business eporting diversioneporting numbers basedonthe finaldestination at the MRF, not what is collected at equiring acomposition analysis specific to the material delivered by the city, including what equiring MRFs to provide processing duediligence onsecondary markets they may use(such equiring MRFs to the report types of commodities that they handle, including plastic by resin

17 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 18 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) communities for generations. and begin to reverse the health and economic disparities that have plaguedthe city’s ownership, financial resources, goodlocalunionjobs,and democratic governance— the plan, the citywilllegitimizeand reinforce community power through land improved access and education for the citywiderecycling program. By implementing polystyrene foam, and advocating for astatewide bottle redemption program, alongside goal,including fullimplementation of theprimary plastic bagban, expanding the banon Development Planfor Zero Waste focuses onreduction of non-recyclable plastic asa of Public WorkDepartment Director withoperational waste experience. Baltimore’s Fair Plan for Zero Waste, pledged$16 milliontowards itsimplementation and hired a institutions, the Baltimore CityCouncil unanimously adopted the Fair Development As aresult of SBCLT’s work, incollaboration withother localorganizations and of the city. composting infrastructure asthere iscurrently no suchinfrastructure within30miles just, equitable, and safe zero waste systems—beginning withapushfor traditional Government and anchor institutions to replace allpolluting waste infrastructure with on communities located closest to itssite; SBCLT ispushingthe Baltimore City sources of airpollutants. Thisisthe first step in reversing the injustices inflicted Refuse Energy Systems Co. (BRESCO)trash incinerator, one of largest the city’s create a“Just Transition to Zero Waste” ispushingfor the closure of the Baltimore worst toxic airemissions inthe whole country. Today, SBCLT’s city-wide campaignto incinerator inthe country, sited to be builtinthe community already subjected to the ago, SBCLT managedto shutdown aproposal for what would have been the largest surrounded by polluting industries to healthy zero waste communities. Afew years North, South, Central, and West Baltimore neighborhoods from dumpinggrounds In Baltimore, the SouthBaltimore Community Land Trust (SBCLT) isworking to change Spotlight onBaltimore, MD:Fair Development Planfor Zero Waste ©South Baltimore Community Land Trust

19 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 20 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) VERY LITTLE PLASTIC IS ACTUALLY PLASTIC VERY LITTLE RECYCLED WISHCYCLING:FOR SOLUTION A NOT IS MYTHCYCLING CHAPTER 02 CHAPTER ©Adam Dean/GAIA International Environmental Law.https://www.ciel.org/plasticandhealth/ 21 International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/plasticandclimate/ 20 w Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics (2016). World Economic economy-rethinking-the-future-of-plastics Forum. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/the-new-plastics- 19 analysis matched thisconclusion. lack of market demand for bottle-to-bottle uses, and the data from our than 2%of allplastic packaging canbe recycled asecond time dueto are difficult and to recycle. collect,sort, According to one report, less containers, and film)are non-recyclable, and those that can be recycled Currently, the majorityof plastic packaging (whichincludes bottles, are at acrucialfork inthe road. most of ourplastic waste. Decisionsabout plastic packaging and waste and trends indicate inthisreport that reduction isthe onlysolutionfor could potentially be recycled inthe current municipalsystem. The data 39.7% of the plastic #1PET, #2HDPE,and #5PP included inthe analysis into arecycle bin. Inthe five cities studied, a range of only32.7% to our perception of what really happens when we toss ourplastic waste The current system regulatory and economic incentives inplace skew weakened to include these false solutions. alternatives are incentivized and recycling policies are reversed or difficult strategy when plastic-to-fuel facilities and other problematic and other waste-to-fuel schemes. Reduction becomes amuchmore recycling standards by including false solutionsof gasification, pyrolysis, companies continue to focus onrecycling asa solutionand to weaken supply chainfrom extraction to disposal. issues from toxicity to climate changeassociated witheach step of the only the best solution, itisthe onlyapproach that addresses the many waste that they are not equipped to handle. Plastic reduction isnot and yet these recycling programs are often burdened withplastic programs can’t technically process many types of plastic inthe market

A Ne Plas Plas tic and Pollution: The HiddenCosts of aPlastic Planet (2019). Center for tic and Climate: The HiddenCosts of a Plastic Planet (2019). Center for 19

Furthermore, municipalrecycling 20, 21 Despite these facts, many 21 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 22 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) those found inelectronics, furniture ortextiles. SeeAppendix IIfor more detail onMinneapolis data. included plastic sorted outspecifically inplastic grades and did not include allplastic inthe waste stream suchas household items like toys, tableware orhome decor, through recycling the city-serviced program. The analysis only Data usedinthe figure includes plastic discarded in containers and non-container durable plastics, suchassmall ADataPartners. Visualization Tool IdentifyingOpportunities to Recapture Plastics inthe U.S. and Canada). The projected end uses are basedonthe average national end uses of #1PET, #2HDPE,and #5PP(ClosedLoop (tons/year, Waste Area inMinneapolis Plastic of Flow Material MSW only) residential 3 FIGURE © Doun Moon/GAIA © Doun waste ispossible, feasible, and affordable. Minneapolis doesn’t have to choose between burningand dumpingitstrash because zero of environmental and climate justice activists and groups—is working to show them that opposition to it,butthe Minnesota Environmental &Climate Justice Table—a coalition dioxin. Hennepin County owns the incinerator and hasignored decades of community every year, including heavy metals, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfurdioxide, and state. HERCburns1,000 tons of trash per day and produces 1.5millionpounds of emissions Minneapolis’ Blackpopulation lives, of the citythat apart hasthe highest asthma rate inthe Hennepin Energy Resource Center (HERC)incinerator islocated near where the majorityof recyclable plastic isstill sentto the incinerator. Built inDowntown Minneapolis in1989,the the importance of recycling withthe goal of waste reduction. Nevertheless, alot of non- citizen advocates and the work of mission-based recycler Eureka Recycling to highlight curbside and drop off collection programs. Thishighpercentage canbe attributed to strong recycling program, resulting inthe highest percentage of plastic actuallyrecycled through Of allof the cities inthe study, the Minneapolis area hasthe most effective municipal Spotlight onMinneapolis, MN:Environmental Justice Advocacy ©BIPOC Table 23 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 24 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) NOTES ON CITY DATA ONNOTES CITY 6. 5. 3. 4. 2. wark hadthe least site-specific data, which was substituted with regional estimates. No 1.

requires of their contracts aspart reporting and licensing regulations. Waste. to Detroit from arecent study. from aMichiganstudy was usedasaproxy. Recycling characterization data was available specific this, the charts used in this report are usedinthisreport specificthis, the charts to residential waste only except as noted. included residential. Some cities handled commercial and multifamily data differently. To address reported withinthe last 3years. Data included inthe scope of “MSW” varied by city. Allcities All citie Th B from recycling the city’s vendor was provided of the citycontract aspart requirements. Long Be No publish study of the Recycling Northeast Council were usedasaproxy. composition data from neighboring Mercer County and MRFcomposition data published through a information was not provided by contractor the city’s when requested. Therefore, waste published waste orrecycling characterization studies were found for Newark, and recycling Ne altimore hadrecent data from work the city’s to develop the Fair Development Planfor Zero e Minneapolis area hadgoodnumbers asthe cityeither provides directly, the services or s haddata onannualweight recycled/disposed of and data specific to their communities ach usedastatewide data system for waste composition. Composition and weight data ed waste characterization studies were found for the Cityof Detroit. Statewide data aste Land” (2020).Planet Money, NationalPublicRadio(NPR). https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/912150085/waste-land 22 Methodology of Summary 3. See Methodology in Appendix for detail. 2. 1.

goods companies, even when the product packaging isnot actuallyrecyclable. use plastic. Recycling arrows that surround the numbers onplastic packaging are usedby consumer in the waste stream isnot recycled and the #1-7 codes have become agreenwashing tool for single- to believe that the plastic they putintheir recycling canbe recycled. binorcart Inreality, most plastic signify the resin usedto make that product. These resin numbers lead municipalities and consumers Plastic packaging isgenerally required by state laws to be labeled with#1-7 and chasingarrows to • • • The average data inthe cities show: results are dismal. plastic iscurrently recycled orcould potentially be recycled inthe current recycling system. The All of the data from the cities isconsistent studied inthisreport withnational trends onhow much IS ACTUALLY RECYCLED PLASTIC VERY LITTLE #1 FINDING

“W D comparable. Averages provide ageneral picture of findings regarding scenarios inthese cities. and detail provided. Becauseof the variations indata sets between cities, the data isnot always This s predict national outcomes nor would itbe reasonable to dosowiththe available data. While som b. a. met: to be be recyclable. Inorder for plastic packaging to be considered recyclable, two requirements needed Only 8.8%of plastic isactuallyrecycled “State (seechart of Plastic inFive recyclable “What Happens to (seechart Plastic inSingle-Stream Recycling?”). A widerange of 12-55%of allplastic that ends upinsingle-stream recycling isnot actually “Ultimateredemption programs. (seecharts Fate of Plastic inFive Cities”). 64.3% of allplastic inthe waste stream isnot recyclable through municipalrecycling orstate ata for thisstudy was limited to publiclyavailable sources and varied instudy methodology, age,

MRF plastic packaging material curr tudy onlyconsidered #1PET, #2HDPE,and #5PPplastic packaging (including containers) to ent recycling systems municipalprograms hadthe technical ability to serving capture the s hadaccess to existing markets for thiscaptured plastic waste material. e data about the five casecities presented follows national trends, the does report not

Cities”). 22 25 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 26 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) and distribution. and repair shops across the cityand atransition away from fossil fuelextraction, refining, a zero waste plan that willeliminate single-useplastic and buildanetwork of reuse, refill, mixed-plastic-resin/585328 Waste Dive. Retrieved July21, 2021, from https://www.wastedive.com/news/long-beach-california-recycling- 23 of high-quality items withpost-consumer markets. residents to recycle by item types in2020.The cityhopes thiswillresult inthe collection plastics, the cityshifted away from recycling by numeric designation and instead asks After frustration withchangingrecycling guidelines and alackof new markets for certain Management, to waste report composition and weight data through astate data system. container deposit legislation. LongBeach alsorequires itsrecycling vendor, Waste remains athreat, butthe cityisgoverned by great state policies suchasbeverage Today, the LongBeach incinerator, Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF), source of greenhouse gasemissions. subsidies in the form of renewable energy credits, despite incineration being a significant together to defeat legislation that would have provided incinerators withmuch-needed plagued communities for 31 years. Thiswinwas built off the backof groups organizing organization succeeded inshuttingdown the incinerator inCommerce, whichhad were built,aswell asseveral oiland plastic production facilities. Inrecent years, the Southeast LosAngeles, and LongBeach, where two of the three incinerators inCalifornia environmental health communities and justice inEast organization LosAngeles, serving East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice (EYCEJ) isacommunity-based Spotlight onLongBeach, CA: From Extraction to Reduction

“Long Be ach, California, Revamps Recycling to Focus onPlastics by Item Type, Not Resin Numbers” (2020). ©East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice 23 Meanwhile, EYCEJ isadvocating for org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Greenpeace-Report-Circular-Claims-Fall-Flat.pdf 26 waste-map/ Retrievede Commodity Pricing Index for July21, 2021, from https://www.closedlooppartners.com/research/us-and-canada-recycling-infrastructure-and-plastic- Post-consumer Recovered Materials. Recycling Markets. Retrieved March 10,2021, from 25 https://www.recyclingmarkets.net/ 24 other countries to accept the waste. the plastic packaging to make new products, and thiscanno longerbe hiddenbecause of the refusal of A 2019-2020 survey of 367U.S. MRFs found few very end markets that willpurchase and usethe of bulk PROBLEMATIC NO VALUE HAS PLASTIC plastic. plastic packaging and $0ornegative market values for commingled #3PVC, #4LDPE,#6PS, and #7other, In the five cities studied, there are currently positive market values for grades #1PET, #2HDPE,and #5PP Information regarding recycling drop-off programs was not available. non-recyclable containers to help communities better understand impactsof strategies suchasbagbans. PS, and #7other,, including plastic film, non-recyclable. Plastic film was left asaseparate category to determined that onlysome of #1PET, #2HDPE,and #5PPcanbe recycled, leaving #3PVC, #4LDPE,#6 the likelihood that the plastic isactuallyrecycled. Based onthe market value of the material, itwas market value to be recyclable, whichensures that cities have access to aviableend market and increases single-stream recycling program. Inthe five cities studied, we only considered plastic with positive focusedThis report onthe types of plastic that are ableto be processed at aMRF, through each city’s VALUE?WHAT MARKET HAS PLASTIC would burnthe plastic for fuel. a growing incentive to selltheir non-recyclable plastic to plastic-to-fuel facilities and cement kilnsthat to find anoutlet for them. With no viableend markets to turnthisplastic into new products, PRFs have the material. Meanwhile, PRFs consolidate large amounts of non-recyclable plastic and are under pressure that cities and consumers believe the material ismarket grade and that they have successfully recycled #3-#7 plastic creates the illusionof economic value for materials that simplyhave none. The end result is #5 PP’s are pulledoutand most of the remaining plastic isincinerated orlandfilled. Mixing#5PP’s with #4 LDPE,#6PS, and #7other, commingled plastic bales to aplastic recycling facility (PRF).At the PRF, markets. Whileit’s not the caseinMinneapolis, inmany cities, #5PPplastic ismostly shipped with#3PVC, that is captured ismadebackinto film, 30% exported, and the remainder is mostly madeinto lumber. systems.sorting Whilesome commercial recycling isviable, inthe U.S., onlyabout 24%of recycled film problems inMRFs, pose dangers to workers responsible for machines, detangling sorting and contaminate “recyclable” because they are not acceptable inmost MRFs. Filmsand polystyrene causeseriousand costly grades have apositive, butsignificantlylower, market value, they were not included inthisanalysis as these materials to market. Those costs are passed onto municipalities. Whilesome filmand styrofoam

A D Cir Onlin cular ClaimsFall Flat: Comprehensive U.S. Survey of Plastics Recyclability. (2020).Greenpeace. https://www.greenpeace. ata Visualization Tool IdentifyingOpportunities to Recapture Plastic inthe US&Canada (2021). ClosedLoopPartners. 24 When materials withnegative market values enter the recycling stream, MRFs have to pay to get 26 Many MRFs #1PETand #2HDPEand sort directly shipthem to end

27 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 28 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Summary of Waste and Plastic Streams in Each City inEach Streams Waste of Plastic and Summary or finaldisposal inlandfill or incinerators and other disposal methods. *Plastic stream isthe complete flow of plastic collected for recycling from itssource through to recycling Mission-based Recycler State Redemption Program Single-stream Recycling plastic inthe plastic stream? What is the maximumpotential of recyclable trash? How muchpotentially recyclable plastic isinthe redemption? gets recycled inthrough single-stream and How muchplastic inthe recycling stream actually recyclable? How muchplastic inthe plastic stream* isnon- MSW Recycled Population MSW Landfilled orIncinerated % MSW Incinerated inCityonAverage (primarily residential) Baltimore, MD Total MSW 593,490 30.6% 32.7% 67.3% 91.7% 7.6% 2.1% 49% Yes No No

Minneapolis Area, MN (residential and some How does plastic get collected for recycling ineach city? commercial) Total MSW 420,324 22.5% 66.4% 33.6% 19.4% 61.5% 100% 11.1% Yes Yes No

(residential, commercial and institutional) Newark, NJ Total MSW 277,140 38.8% 76.9% 30.1% 19.8% 61.2% 100% 8.7% Yes No No

(primarily residential) Long Beach, CA* Total MSW 475,980 60.3% 23.3% 80.7% 39.7% 16.4% 19.3% 68% Yes Yes No

(residential, commercial and institutional) eri,M*Average Across Five Cities Detroit, MI* Total MSW 674,841 28.0% 33.5% 66.5% 91.6% 5.0% 5.6% Yes Yes 0% No

64.3% 26.9% 35.7% 8.8% 29 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 30 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) *Located instates withstatewide bottle redemption programs Summary of Plastic Waste Management in 5 Cities Analyzed in5Cities Waste Management Plastic of Summary recycling? recyclable plastic insingle-stream What isthe maximumpotential of What happens to plastic ineach city? the plastic stream non-recyclable plastic in plastic stream recyclable plastic inthe the singlestream non-recyclable plastic in single stream recyclable plastic inthe 32.7% of non-recyclable plastic. stream, there are almost two tons plastic (#1,#2,#5)inthe recycling For every three tons of recyclable recyclable. MSW program, two tons are non- that iscollected through Baltimore’s For every ton of recyclable plastic 60.7% Baltimore, MD 39.3% 67.3% 88.4% recyclable plastic. stream, there isone ton of non- plastic (#1,#2,#5)inthe recycling For every eighttons of recyclable tons are non-recyclable. Minneapolis’s MSW program, two plastic that iscollected through For every ton of recyclable 33.6% Minneapolis Area, MN 11.6% 66.4% 80.3% non-recyclable plastic. stream, there isalmost one ton of plastic (#1,#2,#5)inthe recycling For every four tons of recyclable are non-recyclable. Newark’s MSW program, three tons plastic that iscollected through For every two tons of recyclable 38.8% Newark, NJ 19.7% 61.2% 45.0% recyclable plastic. there isover one ton of non- (#1, #2,#5)inthe recycling stream, For every ton of recyclable plastic tons are non-recyclable. Long Beach’s MSW program, three plastic that iscollected through For every two tons of recyclable 39.7% Long Beach, CA* 55.0% 60.3% 75.5% recyclable plastic. stream, there isone ton of non- plastic (#1,#2,#5)inthe recycling For every 3tons of recyclable recyclable. MSW program, two tons are non- that iscollected through Detroit’s For every ton of recyclable plastic 33.5% Detroit, MI* 24.5% 66.5% 31 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 32 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) demonstrates the fullrecyclability of MSW. plastic ineach city’s PET, #2HDPE,and #5PPplastic withviableend markets for the MRFormunicipalityto purchase the plastic.” and The data presented inthe “Ultimate Fate applies of the Plastic” charts definition of recyclable as“#1 inthis report plastic of fate ultimate The plastic film film plastic 37.0% plastic film film plastic in trash in 36.0% in trash in non-recyclable plasticnon-recyclable (#3, #4, #6, #7) at MRF at #7) (#3, #6, #4, no (#3,#4, #6, #7) at MRF at #7) (#3,#4, #6, n-recyclable plasticn-recyclable Ultimate Fate Ultimate of Plastic in in of Plastic Baltimore Ultimate Fate 28.9% 1.4% Minneapolis of Plastic in in Plastic of Area 1.5% 2.1% (#1, #2, #5) at MRF at #5) (#1, #2, recyclable plastic (#3, #4, #6, #7) in trash in #7) (#3, #6, #4, plasticnon-recyclable rec (#1, #2, #5) in trash in #5) (#1, #2, 30.6% rec 11.1% (#1, #2, #5) at MRF at #5) (#1, #2, yclable plastic yclable plastic plastic in trash in plastic non-recyclable 28.9% in trash in #5)(#1, #2, plastic recyclable 22.5%

incinerator. could be recycled goingto the and results inmore plastic that guarantees access to allresidents recycling collection program that Baltimore does not have acitywide recycling collection program. recycled through the residential in the waste stream isactually program, Baltimore’s residential collection Of the plastic collected through reaching the MRF isrecyclable. ensure that the majorityof plastic mission-based recycler help to education efforts and contracted single-stream program. The city’s plastic isnon-recyclable and inthe is incinerated. Only1.5%of all up inthe trash, most of which is potentially recyclable butends bottle bill.Still,22.5%of allplastic highest rates inthe study without a collection program, one of the through acurbsideresidential plastic isrecyclable and collected In the Minneapolis area, of 11.1% all only 2.1%of allplastic plastic film film plastic 36.4% in trash in 26.6% p film in lastic lastic trash (#3, #4, #6, #7) in trash in #7) (#3, #6, #4, non-recyclable plasticnon-recyclable 26.2% non-recyclable plasticnon-recyclable (#3, #4, #6, #7) at MRF at #7) (#3, #6, #4, (#1, #2, #5) at MRF at #5) (#1, #2, Ultimate Fate rec Ultimate Fate of Plastic in in Plastic of (Residential) Long Beach Beach Long of Plastic in in Plastic of yclable plastic Newark 2.1% 6.2% 30.1%

(#1, #2, #5) at MRF at #5) (#1, #2, recyclable plastic 8.7% (#1, #2, #5) in trash in #5) (#1, #2, rec yclable plastic 7.5% no (#3,#4, #6, #7) at MRF at #7) (#3,#4, #6, 23.3% (#1, #2, #5) in trash in #5) (#1, #2, recyclable plastic n-recyclable plastic n-recyclable (#3, #4, #6, #7) in trash in #7) (#3, #6, #4, plasticnon-recyclable 22.7% 10.2% s redemption in plastic recyclable ystem

program. residential recycling collection plastic collected through Newark’s in the waste stream isrecyclable incinerated. currently inthe trash stream and be diverted to recycling butis 36.4% film. 30.1% of allplastic could 22.7% non-recyclable plastic and municipal program, including study was not recyclable inNewark’s The vast majorityof plastic inthe program. residential recycling collection plastic collected through Newark’s in the waste stream isrecyclable incinerated. currently inthe trash stream and be diverted to recycling butis 36.4% film. 30.1% of allplastic could 22.7% non-recyclable plastic and municipal program, including study was not recyclable inNewark’s The vast majorityof plastic inthe Only 8.7%of allplastic Only 8.7%of allplastic 33 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 34 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) stimated that between28 18%and 25%of the plastic included inthe analysis report included non-single-use packaging. plastic analysis. SeeMethodology inAppendix IIfor details. Items that potentially are madefrom plastic and other materials, suchasfurniture, electronics, textiles are not included inthis 27 The “Ultimate Fate provide of Plastic” charts anoverall picture of where allplastic solutionto thissingle-useplastic.primary recyclable and inthe trash, recycling isstill being and pushed misguidedpolicymakers by industry asthe The problem with plastic containers and packaging isthat despite the majorityof plastic being non- HOW MUCH SINGLE-USE IS RECYCLED? PLASTIC get recycled. how significantcity policy isindetermining how much of the plastic that can be recycled actuallydoes collectioneach program city’s ultimately ends up, according to the publiclyavailable data, and highlights

(#3, #4, #6, #7) (#3, #6, #4, non-recyclable It ise In dustrial and construction/demolition (C&D)waste were not included inthis analysis. 45.6% (plastic film, containers and other non-recyclable plastic). Of allthe plastic included inthe study, 64.3%isnon-recyclable i n trash plastic plastic 28 (#1, #2, #5) at MRF at #5) (#1, #2, rec

yclable plastic Ultimate Fate of Plastic in in Plastic of 1.3% Detroit 4.3% (#1, #2, #5) in trash in #5) (#1, #2, recyclable plastic 28.0% redemption system recyclable plastic in in trash in film plastic 20.4%

to residents upon request. begun to offer free recycling carts rate.36% participation The cityhas every other week and hasalow takescollection service place optional recycling pickup. The Since 2015, Detroit hasprovided plastic collected and recycled. results in4.3%of additional has aredemption program which collection program. Michigan opt-in residential recycling plastic collected through Detroit’s in Detroit, only1.3%isrecyclable Of the plastic inthe waste stream 27 collected through e study assumes only#1 PET, #2HDPE,and #5PPplastic have viableend markets inthese cities. Itisalsoassumed that includes incineration, landfilling, burningasfuel at industrial facilities, plastic-to-fuel, etc). #3 PVC, #4 LDPE,#6PS, and #7other plastic are likely sentto another processor, MRForsecondary orare disposed (disposal 29 recycled inthisstudy, asthe program onlyaccepts #1PET, #2HDPE,and #5PPrecyclable packaging. programs, the plastic beverage containers collected inthe redemption program counted as100% lower rate. For LongBeach (CA) and Detroit (MI),cities instates withbottle deposits and redemption ends up).Additionally, the Minneapolis area hasamission-based recycler, whichcontributes to the city’s advertises “all plastic recycling” for instance), and how data isreported (where the non-recyclable plastic bottles incurbsideprograms and recycle them through redemption programs), education efforts (ifacity The rate isimpacted by differences suchasbottle deposits and redemption (where residents putless city and how muchplastic ineach cityismost likely to be recycled. City,” present data to show how muchof the plastic collected through single-stream collection for each recyclable materials. below, The charts “What Happens to Plastic inSingle-Stream Recycling inEach realities of ourrecycling systems. Single-stream recycling way cities isthe collect primary and count Zooming inonjust the plastic that issorted for recycling and sentto MRFs sheds further lightonthe ONLY ACTUALLY MARKETABLE PLASTIC RECYCLED GETS implemented. bags, the Cityof Baltimore hasalready passed anordinance to banplastic bags. Ithasnot yet been fully and California have already passed plastic bagbans.Whilethe State debates of Maryland banningplastic (primarily plastic bags and packaging film) ranges from 20.4% -37% of plastic inthe trash. New Jersey the trash. Inthe four cities where plastic film was collected and counted, the amount of plastic film demonstrates the potential for policy to eliminate considerable amounts of plastic that ends upin While plastic filmis not considered a recyclable plastic inthis study, isolating itasacategory ranges from 2.1%inBaltimore to 16.4%inLongBeach. of plastic that actuallygets recycled insingle-stream and redemption programs across the five cities #6 PS, and #7other) whichmost people think isrecyclable, ends upinthe trash. Overall, the percentage all factors that impactthe overall potential. Still,muchof the non-recyclable plastic (#3PVC, #4LDPE, access to collection, statewide redemption programs, and the presence of amission-based recycler are current programsEach city’s affect the amount of the total diversion of plastic. The frequency of and stream through state redemption programs available to Detroit and LongBeach.

Th 12% inthe Minneapolis area to ahighof 55%inLongBeach. plastic included insingle-stream recycling, ranging from alow of The five cities amounts studied allhad of non-recyclablevarying 29 Some plastic isdiverted from single- 35 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 36 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) recycling anddiscussed isfurther inGAIA’s Zero Waste Master Plan systems, and highest and best useof recyclable materials canbe appliedto allmaterials collected in the amount of bottle-to-bottle recycling willnot increase. The concepts of circularity, closedloop resin types. Unless minimumcontent standards create more market demand for #1PETand #2HDPE, is dependent onbrands demanding post-consumer content and alsoonthe technical feasibility of the Recycling does not inherently reduce the demand for extraction and move the economy to circularity. It for bottle-to-bottle uses. lessreport, than2%of allplastic packaging canbe recycled asecond time dueto lackof market demand bottle recycling reduces the need for more virgin plastic and promotes sustainability. According to one carpet orplastic lumber. Whilereuse and refill systems should be prioritized over recycling, bottle-to- plastic isrecycled into different uses that can’t be easily recycled again(or“downcycled”), like clothing, of plastic that really could be recycled willalsoresult inthe collection of more non-recyclable plastic. packaging isasignificantchallengeand leads to the that any predictable trajectory increased recycling this plastic isunacceptable inthe programs, educating residents about the confusing array of plastic https://www.eunomia.co.uk/measuring-packaging-recycling-rates-across-the-us/ 33 tic-waste-map/ Retrieved July21, 2021, from https://www.closedlooppartners.com/research/us-and-canada-recycling-infrastructure-and-plas- 32 Alternatives. https://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/Safe-Recycling-Report.pdf 31 andemic-Driven ‘Wishcycling’ IsCausing BigProblems At Recycling Centers” (2021). WCCO-CBS Minnesota. https:// minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/04/30/pandemic-driven-wishcycling-is-causing-big-problems-at-recycling-centers/ 30 in the US). #2 HDPEsorted at aMRForPRFiscurrently madebackinto bottles basedoncurrent national averages in actuality, today few very of those bottles are recycled backinto bottles (24%of #1PETand 32%of The highest and best usefor clear #1PET and natural #2HDPEbottles isbottle-to-bottle recycling. But END MARKETS PLASTIC recyclable into the recycle bin. The loadsthat aMRFmust process are alsocontaminated when people throw materials that are not energy demanding equipment. MRF isanintensive physical and often dangerous labor practice and/or requires the useof expensive and Prioritizing bottle-to-bottle recycling makes itmore likely the plastic willbe recycled again. into crates, pipes, buckets, etc. and 13%isexported. There isno breakdown of “containers” specifically. make other products that are less likely to be recycled again. According to the data, 87%of PPismade

Sus Th A D “P e 50States of Recycling: AState-by-State Assessment of Containers and Packaging Recycling Rates (2021). Eunomia. ata Visualization Tool IdentifyingOpportunities to Recapture Plastic inthe US&Canada. (2021). ClosedLoopPartners. tainable and Safe Recycling: Protecting Workers Who Protect the Planet (2015). GlobalAlliance for Incinerator 32 Whileviablenon-bottle markets exist for #5PP, these containers are most often usedto 30 31 Despite the fact that most communities doat least some education that Thisisnot onlycostly to the the communities, plastic at the butsorting . 33 Other

Cities and/or counties canadoptpolicies and programs suchas: contaminates the system, costs taxpayers money, and harmsthe health of their communities: recyclable materials, suchasaluminum, glass, and paper, whileeliminating the problematic plastic that can establish waste policies and contracts that protect the integrity of the recycling system for truly transforming-waste-tool 35 https://plasticpollutioncoalitionresources.org/resources/maps/ 34 local jurisdictionsisto bannon-recyclable plastic bags, straws, and foam. We cannot recycle ourway outof the plastic crisis.The most obvious solutiontaken by state 713 and STRATEGY: ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY PLASTIC State and federal entities cityand cansupport county efforts by:

1. 2. 5. 4. 3. riting recycling contracts and RFPs that require MRFs that receive municipalorcounty recycling 2. 3. 1.

Managing an

Legisla examples. management program. The EPA Transforming and ManagingWaste Streams website includes Es Es Es handle plastic that have no markets. R En existing programs. there are no markets, and working to remove #3PVC, #4LDPE,#6PS, and #7other plastic from No requirements. goes, and creating economic incentives orpenalties new that support policies to meet the R traceable recycling markets. to onlyaccept materials that are actuallyrecyclable and require material to goto legitimate, W that actuallyget recycled through existing infrastructure and end markets. The legislation products and required manufacturers to make packaging exclusively outof recyclable materials and the proliferation of plastic. The billsrequired significant reductions inthe use of disposable in the 2019-2020 session to develop acomprehensive framework for reducing plastic pollution achieve withdeadlines or face being banned from use. California presented two companion bills recycled materials. estricting State and Federal grants from investments inwaste/recycling infrastructure that equiring transparency and requirements reporting incontracts to understand where the material tablishing bansand fees onsingle-useplastic that isnot recyclable inthe localwaste tablishing policies that set specific recycling rates that different packaging materials must tablishing laws to require that packaging material include aminimumamount of content from couraging orrequiring retailers to take backproducts and/or packaging. t creating oradvertising programs to accept alltypes of plastic insingle-stream programs when tive Datasets and Maps(2021). Plastic Pollution Coalition . Retrieved July21, 2021, from d Transforming Waste Streams: ATool for Communities (2015). USEPA, R.09.https://www.epa.gov/ 35 34 Cities and/or counties 37 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 38 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Comparing Capture Rate of Different Containers in a Municipal Collection and Redemption System Redemption and Collection inaMunicipal Containers Different of Rate Capture Comparing 5 FIGURE 4. metals inthese cities. recycling systems are not even working well very for the traditional materials like glass and being recycled points outamajorflaw inthe effort to increase plastic recycling —the current majority of alldiscarded containers are inthe trash. The fact that most containers are not percentage of alldiscarded containers, by type, that are recycled onaverage inthe cities. The for recycling outof the total amount available inthe five cities studied. The graphs show the The “Capture Rate” of materials chart below shows how muchof each material iscollected trash and there isasignificantamount of trash inthe recycling. There are significantamounts of materials that could be legitimately recycled that are inthe IN THE TRASH LEFT IS STILL PLASTIC RECYCLABLE MOST #2 FINDING

Es 20% inthe first time frame and not less than40%inthe next time frame. products by 2030.The manufacturer would need to demonstrate arecycling rate of not less than also required regulations to reduce orrecycle at least 75%of single-useplastic packaging and value. This chart shows only aluminum collected through the recycling and redemption programs. redemption and recycling the through collected aluminum only shows chart This consistent its to due value. gleaners, and scrapers pickers, canners, via yards scrap through system municipal a of outside and inside both captured traditionally been has that commodity one is Aluminum Note: 100% 50% 25% 75% 0% tablishing laws requiring reusable and refillable optionsinstead of singleusepackaging items. recyclable plastic (#1, #5) #2, 24% 57% glass aluminum 43% 26% steel Container Capture Rate by Commodity inNewark by Commodity Rate Capture Container Area Minneapolis inthe by Commodity Rate Capture Container inBaltimore Containers Different of Rate Capture Comparing 100% 80% 40% 20% 60% 50% 25% 75% 0% *Curbside only, recovery rate likely higher. likely rate recovery only, *Curbside higher. likely rate recovery only, *Curbside higher. likely rate recovery only, *Curbside 0% 30% 20% 10% 0% recyclable plastic recyclable plastic recyclable plastic (#1, #5) #2, (#1, #5) #2, 22.4% 33.1% (#1, #5) #2, 6.5% 61.6% glass 83.8% glass 15.8% glass aluminum* 17.2% aluminum* 42.8% aluminum* 7.0% 39.6% steel 45.7% steel 5.6% steel 39 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 40 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) recyclables inthe trash are typicallyborne by residents through municipalfees and ortaxes. the plastic recyclability issue, most of the plastic willstill be inthe trash. The cost of dealing with consumer motivation that would be needed to increase the capture rate. Even ifitispossible to “solve” programs, economic incentives suchasbottle deposits and pay-as-you-throw, and education and been oninvesting capacity, inMRFsorting itdoes not address the significantinvestments in collection are recycled at arate 2-3times higher thanrecyclable plastic. focus Whilethe plastic industry’s has Of allrecyclable material, plastic hasthe worst capture rate. Onaverage recyclable glass and aluminum inDetroit by Commodity Rate Capture Container Beach inLong by Commodity Rate Capture Container 100% 80% 40% 20% 60% 50% 25% 75% 0% 0% recyclable plastic recyclable plastic (#1, #5) #2, (#1, #5) #2, 41.4% 16.6% 78.5% 47.6% glass glass aluminum aluminum 83.2% 63.4% 31.1% 7.1% steel steel Spotlight onDetroit: Just Recovery After Incineration (#1 PET, #2HDPE,and #5PP)are inthe trash and not the recycling. are captured at rates 3-4times greater thanthe recyclable plastic inDetroit, 83%of which only collects 4.3%of recyclable plastic from the city. Recyclables, like glass and aluminum redemption program that recycles 100%of the recyclable material collected, the program available to residents at no cost upon request from the city. WhileDetroit also hasabottle pickup, withcollection every other week rate. and a36%participation have Carts been made zero waste systems for the city. Since 2015, the cityof Detroit hasprovided “opt-in” recycling working to fight real estate interests from buyinguptheir neighborhood and to build new in Detroit, Breathe Free Detroit incollaboration withgrassroots groups across the cityis facility’s immediate closure. Now that anend hasbeen putto municipalwaste incineration decades of community activism, the Detroit Renewable Power Incinerator announced the incinerator of emissions inMichiganwithalonghistory violations. OnMarch 27th, 2019, after down the Detroit incinerator, Detroit Renewable Power, the largest municipalsolidwaste Breathe Free Detroit isacommunity and grassroots-led campaignthat was formed to shut ©Breathe Free Detroit 41 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 42 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Average Programs Residential Collection fromSingle-Stream Composition 6 FIGURE 54.8% 57.6% paper paper #3, #4, #6, #7 plastic: plastic: #7 #6, #4, #3, #3, #4, #6, #7 plastic: plastic: #7 #6, #4, #3, Residential Collection likely disposed Average Composition Ar from the Minneapolis Minneapolis the from Collection Program likely disposed Composition from Composition from in the Five Cities the in ea’s Single-Stream Single-Stream Single-Stream 0.7% Programs Average 2.9% 3.3% m etal 3.1% m etal 5.7% likely recycled plastic: #5 #2, #1, 6.4% likely recycled plastic: #5 #2, #1,

16.8% residual 6.7% residual 16.2% glass 26.1% glass

UPSTREAM Solutions. economic development and business incubation to be successful. Discover the Reuse Revolution with the supplychainto eliminate waste willrequire acombination of policy, infrastructure investments, sharing opportunities, willplay acriticalrole inbuildinglocaleconomies and creating jobs.Changing delivery, and businesses that keep ourdurable goodsinuselonger, such asrepair, reuse stores, and Businesses that provide goodsinrefillable packaging orare package-free, including take outand the problem at the source. Transitioning away from disposability requires arobust reuse economy. It isessential for cities to invest inand incentivize the development of alternative systems that solve STRATEGY: THE SHIFT SUPPLY AND SHARING REFILLABLES, REUSE, CHAINTO even recycled once), confirm the burden single-useplastic putsoncities’ MSW operations. material that canactuallybe recycled, and the limited potential for itto ever get recycled again(ifitis These factors: the limited capture rate of plastic from the waste stream, the limited amount of that 22.7% for the other 4cities. recovered. When excluding the Minneapolis area from the average, the percentage of residuals rises to community education programs and optimizetheir operations to ensure recyclable materials are the Minneapolis area are processed, have residual rates closerto 10%because they prioritizestrong amount of material). By contrast, mission-driven MRFs like Eureka Recycling, where recyclables from include material that issentto end markets and isdisposed of there (whichcanbe another substantial into the recycling binorbecause MRFs are unableto the material sort properly. Thisfigure does not collection iscontaminated by non-recyclable material (including non-recyclable plastic) that was tossed On average, 19.6%of material collected for recycling inthe five cities isburned orlandfilled; either the The Minneapolis area hadthe least amount of residual. first line of defense against waste, especially plastic waste. The data unequivocally points to why recycling cannot be the 43 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 44 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Strategies for the reuse economy for the reuse Strategies 7 FIGURE 2021, from https://oregonrecyclers.org/blog/obrc-proposes-refillable-bottle-program-oregon-brewers 36 Policies, ordinances, regulations, and legislation should:

OBRC Pr investment that creates localsupplychainlogistics for refillables. and refill systems. For example the Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative isacity-supported grants, loans,and technical to support create the infrastructure necessary to develop reuse Prioritize r owned business enterprises (MWBE) that canbe expanded for reuse and refill industries. and buildings. Many cities have already established programs to minority support and women- trusts to create community gardens, farms, and reuse and recycling operations from vacant lands properties and reusing/recycling recovered buildingmaterials to withcommunity land partner development bonds orother revenue sources for jobs deconstructing nuisance and vacant Zero Waste of the Cityof Baltimore calledfor $20millionannuallyfrom municipaleconomic community-based sharingprograms and reuse enterprises. The Fair Development Planfor and Business Incubation programs canprovide affordable orsubsidized buildings and land for oposes Refillable Bottle Program withOregon Brewers (2017). Association of Oregon Recyclers. Retrieved July21, eduction and reuse over recycling and provide state and localinvestment through 36 Economic Development © Doun Moon/GAIA © Doun advancing-activity-advanced-recycling-extended-producer-responsibility-laws/ andalk NoRecycling: AnInvestigation of the U.S. “Chemical Recycling” Industry. (2020).GlobalAlliance for Incinerator 38 Alternatives. https://www.no-burn.org/chemical-recycling-us/ 37

3. centivize orrequire retailers to reduce plastic packaging and foodware and shiftto reusables 2. 4. need to subsidize, orincentivize support, their next false solution—plastic-to-fuel. that dismal potential for any real recycling of the plastic they create asthe reason why we consumers, needs to dosomething withallof thisnon-recyclable plastic. uses The industry has been successful inestablishing their view that someone else, individual particularly of non-recyclable single-useplastic needs to be restricted, the industry, at least sofar, unproven technologies that burn or transform plastic. Instead of assuming that the production damaging isthat accepting allplastic candrive what isthen declared asthe “need” for these when items are accepted inrecycling programs they canbe and are recycled. Even more about what really happens when plastic isdiscarded. Policymakers and consumers think transparency allow to the exploit plastic industry loopholes and pushaself-serving narrative The complex web of waste management systems for different materials and lackof WASTE SYSTEMS FALSE DRIVE BROKEN SOLUTIONS MANAGEMENT #3 FINDING facilities. public health and environmental protections required by other chemical manufacturing being developed without aclear framework regulatory to operate that willensure the same technological process for plastic waste, categorized asatype of chemical manufacturing, is

All T “F urthering Activityurthering withAdvanced Recycling and EPR”(2021). Recycling Today. https://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/ Enact rightt Elimina progress. through fees, bans,and requirements. Build and inreporting enforcement mechanisms to track In and redemption regulations, and other restrictions to allow reusables. 38 te possible barriers to reuse inbuildinginspection codes, food safety and bottle deposit o repair legislation. 37 Thisnew 45 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 46 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) the broken waste management system drives false solutionsand cities must: 40 Alternatives. https://www.no-burn.org/legislativealert 39 yet to be tested onhumanhealth and the environment, that either have been proven to harmhumanhealth, the environment, and the climate, orhave Not propose onlydoes continued the burningof industry plastic and other thermal processes facilities and allows them to be sited without asolidwaste permit. Many states have already passed “advanced recycling” legislation that incentivizes plastic-to-fuel with terminology like “advanced recycling” asaway to obfuscate the truthof what ishappening.

US Legisla Ibid. tion Alert: American Chemistry Council’s American Chemistry tion Alert: Effort to Push“Plastic-to-fuel” Bills(2020).GlobalAlliance for Incinerator 39 italsogreenwashes these methods 40 Whether by default ordesign, ©Santiago Vivacqua/GAIA STRATEGY: THE FUEL MYTH DON’T State and federal entities cityefforts: cansupport 2. 1. 4. 3. an facilities that produce fuelsfrom plastic and mixed2. waste. 1.

actual recycling. R federal solidwaste regulations. to-fuels, orplastic-to-energy, orchemical recycling does not qualifyasdiversion under state and involve burningplastic. Ensure that any “conversion” technology (pyrolysis, gasification), orplastic- that redefines recycling to include pyrolysis, gasification and plastic-to-fuel schemes, which often Pr markets. Hold PRF #1 PET, #2HDPEand potentially #5PPdirectly at the MRF. R penalizing residuals orburningfor fuelinwaste contracts. Ensur B estrict State and Federal grants to investments inwaste/recycling infrastructure that support efuse to collect #3PVC, #4LDPE,#6PS, #7other plastic and work withcompanies out that sort otect the integrity of recycling pushes asthe “advanced plastic industry recycling” legislation e plastic-to-fuel and other burnfacilities are not anend market for municipalwaste by s accountable for reaching recovery goalsand working withtransparent recycling 47 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 48 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) MORE EFFICIENT RECYCLING EFFICIENT MORE REMOVING NON-RECYCLABLES TO CREATE WASTEZERO GOALS: RESOURCES WITH ALIGN CITY CHAPTER 03 CHAPTER ©Santiago Vivacqua/GAIA 364(1526), 2115–2126. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0311 opportunities. 42 .S. Municipal SolidWaste Incinerators: inDecline (2019). AnIndustry GlobalAlliance for Incinerator Alternatives. https://www.no-burn.org/industryindecline/ 41 at afixed cost to keep the facility profitable. that require municipalities to supplyminimumtonnage of waste annually heavily subsidizedby renewable energy credits and long-term contracts compared to disposal infrastructure. For example, incinerators are grants from state funds, butrecycling programs are rarely subsidized utility fees. Resident fees canbe augmented withgeneral funds and/or the residents, typicallythrough collection fees, taxes, property orwith address plastic waste. Recycling programs are predominantly paidfor by Recycling programs are one of the mainways that cities have triedto paper, and steel. allowed plastic packaging to take hold of the market and replace glass, of producing virgin plastic materials to dueinpart fossil fuelsubsidies to hope everything thrown in the binwillbe recycled. Italsorequires however, contributes to increased wishcycling by leading individuals by packingmore material into one load.Single-stream recycling, intense compaction, allows recycling collectors to create efficiency types of containers and paper inone recycling which, cart, through stream recycling isaprime example. It involves puttingallthe different the value of the materials they were collecting for recycling. Single- collection efficiencies, butdid not invest in systems that maintained In order to become more profitable, these multi-nationals implemented taking over what were once municipaland nonprofit recycling programs. hauling companies consolidated, buyingupindependent providers and At the same time that plastic became dominant,multi-national waste 40-to-80 times itsoriginalvolume. takes upalot of room per unitof weight because ithasbeen expanded name “Styrofoam”), isatypicalexample of aproblematic plastic that problem. Polystyrene foam (commonly referred to asthe trademarked been ableto hideunder the of radar the asaseeminglysmallerportion measurement used.Plastic, whichweighs less thanother material, has is sizable, butinthe waste management sector, weight isthe primary end. Where packaging ismeasured inmarket share the amount of plastic of plastic packaging, despite muchof itbeing burned orlandfilled inthe the increasing costs for collecting and processing the exploding growth

U Hop ewell, J., Dvorak, R.,&Kosior, E.(2009).Plastics recycling: Challenges and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:BiologicalSciences, 42 Recycling programs were forced to adaptand absorb 41 Meanwhile, the low cost 49 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 50 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) What is left in the trash after diversion? after trash inthe is left What 8 FIGURE and cheaper solutionisto remove non-recyclable plastic from the system. education programs and to collect and process non-recyclable plastic from residents when the simpler that canbe of areal the solutionend part uptakingthe fall. Cities allover are paying for the country often dobecome skeptical of even the materials that doget recycled. Legitimate recycling efforts When the publicfinds outthat they have been misledabout the recyclability of plastic, they canand being recycled. consumers and cities to believe that what they are puttinginthe binand collecting oncurbsisactually Shifting the programs and practices hasnot addressed the underlying issues of recyclability and leads too smallormadeof mixed material that cannot be recycled suchasfood pouches lined withaluminum. sophisticated may causethe material sorting, to be damagedbeyond recyclability, and includes items 29.6% remaining garbage 19.6% food waste food incinerators and incinerators and Trash to sent 2.3% landfills glass 3.4% metal 15.4% paper 4.6% recyclable (#1, #5) #2, recyclable potentially plastic: 5.2% (#3, #7) #4, #6, plastic: non-recyclable 5.4% plastic film plastic 14.5% yard waste Zero WasteZero Hierarchy 9 FIGURE rates, and give distributors and bottlers clear roles. to fund collection. These policies motivate the publicto return usedcontainers, result inhighrecycling cities to pay for new waste management systems. For example, container deposit laws canbe structured resources would be spent to achieve zero waste goals.Zero waste policies offer the for opportunity waste hierarchy isaguidefor how decisionscould be made inthese communities, including how Each of the cities inthe study hasastrong organized communityzero that waste. supports The zero of what isleft inthe trash for each city, seethe individual data summaries for each cityinthe Appendix. economic and environmental outcomes from reduction and reuse strategies. For adetailed breakdown on increased plastic recycling over other diversion important strategies isdisproportionate to the all plastic (15.2%),and over 10times the diversion potential of recyclable plastic. Clearly, the emphasis additional 21.1% of the waste stream. These two areas addupto three times the diversion potential of the waste stream inthe cities studied. Traditional recyclables (metal, glass, and paper) make upan Beyond plastic, onaverage, organics (food waste and yard waste) make upanaverage of 34.1%of WASTEZERO STRATEGIES Rethink/Redesign (“Waste-to-energy” incineration(“Waste-to-energy” Recycle/Compost (Biological treatment and treatment (Biological Residuals Management Material Recovery Reduce stabilizing landfilling) stabilizing and “plastic-to-fuel”) Reuse Unacceptable

©Zero Waste International Alliance (zwia.org/zwh)

51 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 52 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) waste while creating jobsthat services provide family sustaining wages inthe communities they serve. communities who want to encourage and help entrepreneurs who share their purpose inproviding zero organizations. Today, there are onlyahandful of these pioneers left butthey actasexamples for other in the U.S., the programs flourished under the care and control of communities and community Zero waste strategies generally demand alocalfocus just by their design. Asrecycling was growing are accountable to the communities they canhelp to serve address thischallenge. to enforce and strengthen values inacontract. Investments inlocal,community-driven enterprises that the lackof those who share their zero waste values and goals.Itisextremely difficultif not impossible Another significantbarrier for many cities isalack of any vendors/service providers and much more so is especially truewhen they have ownership/financial responsibility for that facility. are available. Additionally, disposal of waste isoften subsidizedby the localorstate government and this legislation. By far, solidwaste disposal hasand continues to eat upthe lion’s share of the resources that to that guide. Thisistrueeven when the cityhasadopted the hierarchy by localordinance orstate Yet there isno model citythat the authors are aware of that actuallyinvests their resources according trash puts reuse,burning and repair, burying and source reduction of waste asthe best strategies. Even the traditional waste management hierarchy usedby integrated waste proponents that include and the localeconomy? to be better for the communities’ health, the environment, were focused onthe zero waste strategies that have proven What could be achieved ifthe same oreven more resources ©Tjada Frida-Fridizia/Zero Waste Europe spite Over Uncertainty Recycling, Consumers Aren’t Backing Down” (2019). Waste Advantage Magazine. https://wasteadvantagemag.com/despite-uncertainty-over-recycling-consumers-arent-backing-down/ 43 cities studied. Strategies to achieve thisvisioninclude: of their zero waste efforts whilereducing plastic —especially inlightof the impact of incineration inthe in improving the recycling system for glass, aluminum, and paper that canactuallybe recycled aspart reuse targets, recycled content mandates, and taxes onraw materials. Cities and counties must invest policies including incinerator and landfill disposal bansand increased tonnage fees, waste reduction and can alsocallonstate and federal policymakers to level the playing field for zero waste systems through show that allrecyclable commodities have significant room for improvement inallfive cities. Cities While muchattention hasbeen understandably focused onplastic, the data and trends from thisreport STRATEGY 2: IMPROVE LEGITIMATE RECYCLING mission: The following strategies canplay asignificant resourcesrole inaligninga city’s withazero waste to lobbyindustry to protect it. be prioritized.When the status quoischallenged,significantadditional resources are applied by the the funding issecure. Politically, the reallocation of resources to reduction isdifficultbut needs to infrastructure for managingalldiscards aswaste hasalready been builtand the system for perpetuating With anincinerator for instance, the investment creates afinancial disincentive to reduce waste, asthe The allocation of resources and investments acitymakes drives the speed of transition to zero waste. STRATEGY POLICIES, 1: AND RESOURCES MISSION ALIGN WITH PLANS, 1. 4. 3. 2. 1.

“De believe their material isgetting recycled. implement strategies to ensure that thisisindeed the case. Over 65%of people are unsure ordon’t goals. People recycle because they believe itisgoodfor the environment and now isthe time to R businesses through federal, state, and localprograms. Supp progress madeinaligningspending withgoals. Aligning fun Na T a. ransparency inspending and subsidies onwaste. ebuild trust incityrecycling programs by ensuringthe impactof recycling alignswithzero waste

tional tracking and publiceducation around the chemical and plastic industries’ lobbying efforts prevent itfrom being disposed of inincinerators orlandfills. Ensur orting, developing,orting, and incentivizing mission-based zero waste providers service and e that contracts are developed that protect recycling ineconomic downturns and ding priorities withthe waste reduction hierarchy and requiring onthe reporting 43

53 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 54 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) 793 Recycling: Plastic beverage containers: Minimumrecycled content. California State Legislature (2019-2020). Retrieved July21, 2021, from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB793 44 4. 3. 2.

AB- a. Cr a. In d. c. b. In e. a. d. c. ot include products that are not recyclable inthe program and minimizeresidual rates b.

centivize participation:

crease program access and outreach to residents:

eate demand for recyclables: i. manufacturers. W Utilize pa recyclables. R De Pr increase capacityfor adequate space, chutes, and access for recycling. In Pr public parks and other publiclocations. RFPs for providers. service conditions, and localmarkets). Make sure thiscriteria isincluded when writingand evaluating the specific values of the community, for example: circularity potential, carbon impact, worker De Do n safe collection inadverse conditions. they are paidlivingwages. Companies must alsoensure sufficient staffing levels to provide workers are treated asfrontline workers, that their health and safety are protected, and that Ensur operations, and publiceducation. through reduced compaction duringcollection, contract incentives, investments inbetter MRF

equire recycling at events through the event permitting process for private facilities and in clude multifamily buildings inthe program. Require modifications to state orlocal codes to ork withState and Federal legislatures to establish higher recycled content requirements for ovide multilingualeducation and outreach efforts to engageallresidents. ovide orbinsto carts allresidents. velop, increase, and promote publicspace recycling programs. velop criteria for highest and best usefor end markets for recyclable materials (basedon Th into bottles). resin, including what meets the specification for bottle grade (this could be recycled back requirementsimportant that producers the must report amounts and types of recycled fees of 20cents for each pound of PCRby whichthey fall The short. legislation alsohas 2030. Beverage manufacturers that fail to meet the targets willbe subjectto penalty in2022.The recycled-content(PCR), starting mandate rises to 25%in2025and 50%in container redemption program to contain anaverage of at least 15%post-consumer resin is the first of itskind inthe U.S. The law requires allplastic bottles covered by the state’s e that contract languageprotects workers. Employers must ensure drivers and MRF e most recent example of thistype of legislation was passed last year inCalifornia. y-as-you-throw strategies to financially incentivize residents to divert more 44 It It apr-design-guide 46 billsummary?BillNumber=5022&Initiative=false&Year=2021. reduction. 45 recycling for legitimate Strategies 11 FIGURE 5.

SB 5022C APR De eliminated from the system. design standards should be followed and #3PVC, #4LDPE,#6PS, and #7other plastic should be be legislated to ensure compliance and level the playing field.The Association of Plastic Recyclers There are growing commitments to industry design packaging to be recyclable butthisneeds to R c. b. equire products designed for recyclability to eliminate problematic labels, adhesives, colors, etc.

Washington State Legislature (2021-2022) . Retrieved July21, 2021, from https://app.leg.wa.gov/ recyclable commodities. R Cr ashington State recently passed abillthat requires minimumpost-consumer recycled ii. sign® Guide(n.d.). The Association of Plastics Recyclers. Retrieved July21, 2021, from https://plasticsrecycling.org/ equire and increase post-consumer content incityand state purchasing guidelines.

eate localmarket development opportunities that drive post-consumer demand of truly oncerning the management materials of certain to recycling support and waste and litter W cleaning products, and personal care products. plastic by weight with50%targets to achieve by 2031 for beverage containers, household 46 45

© Doun Moon/GAIA © Doun 55 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 56 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) manufacturers of the products. cause of muchof the unnecessary waste, suchassingle-useplastic, should be the responsibility of the The investments required to shifttowards zero waste systems willcost billionsof dollars, butthe multifamily and commercial recycling. legislation. Whilethe Minneapolis area hasasimilarrecycling rate, the overall numbers donot include In LongBeach, the plastic recycling rate reflects the positive impact of the beverage container deposit beginning stages socurrently the majorityof the containers recovered are attributable to the legislation. states that have adopted beverage container deposit legislation. Detroit’s recycling program isjust inits e 50States of48 Recycling: AState-by-State Assessment of Containers and Packaging Recycling Rates (2021). Eunomia. https://www.eunomia.co.uk/measuring-packaging-recycling-rates-across-the-us/ 47 84% of Americansanational bottle support redemption program. the publicand incentivize participation. Arecent poll by Eunomia and the Ball Corporation found that approximately 40%instates withthislegislation. Bottle redemption programs are alsopopular with According to the Container Recycling Institute, PETbottle recycling increased onaverage by few optionsto selectbetter orno packaging. everyday items that we allneed are packaged and priced by the manufacturers leaving consumers with the “consumer” canachieve responsibility orlay theof waste primary management onconsumers. The incentivized, implemented, and resourced strategy. Current prevention strategies often focus onwhat which are borne by taxpayers and municipalgovernments. Furthermore, reduction isthe least studied, in amyriad of cityand county level waste management programs, the health costs and of monetary waste management squarely onstates. Many states have decentralized waste management resulting Federal policy, through the Resource Recovery Act, and Conservation places the burden of regulating STRATEGY PAY 3: POLLUTERS MAKE

1. ended producer responsibility (EPR)isapolicy principle to improve the environmental and 2.

R Th eal Circularity (n.d.). Ball. Retrieved July21, 2021, from https://www.ball.com/realcircularity return usedcontainers, result in higher recycling rates, and give distributors/bottlers aclear role. C requirements to redesign, reduce, reuse, and recycle collected materials instead of continuing local employment, etc). EPRisnot apanacea, and safeguards are necessary. Policies need strong replacing any public systems and removing orlimitingcommunity inputinto programs, standards, financial and givingproducers support) management responsibility (whichhasahighriskof financial responsibility (whichwould allow any current recycling systems to continue withadded in whichthey willoperate. Inthisregard, to itisimportant distinguish between givingproducers the materials feedback loopfrom cities to producers. Policies should help improve the systems redesigning items systems ordelivery to limitthe generation and toxicity of waste, and to close cycle of items. EPRpolicies cover specific categories of materials, and should lead to producers social performance of products by extending the responsibility of producers over the entire life Ext ontainer deposit laws canbe structured to fund collection. These policies motivate the publicto 47 Both LongBeach and Detroit are in

48 id/2235104 50 HF1734/2021. 49 4. 3.

House Bill1734.

Sena provides amodel withthislegislation. new standards inlabeling soonlymaterials that are actuallyrecyclable are labeled assuch. Oregon R in their 2021 legislative session. reduction efforts. Minnesota introduced legislation that includes thistype of funding mechanism funds earmarked for waste composition and reports the remaining goto community-based waste could be to taxthe gross revenues of the majordisposal facilities and have of those aportion composition analysis through fees onthe packaging they sellinthat state. Another approach Sta oversight, enforcement, and triggers for additionalpolicies ifasystem does not achieve targets. unsustainable waste disposal. To ensure accountability, policies need transparency, public equire that the recycling arrows be removed from allplastic packaging and products and enforce te Bill581. Oregon State Legislature (2021). Retrieved July21, 2021, from https://legiscan.com/OR/text/SB581/ tes should require packaging manufacturers to pay for regular municipalsolidwaste Minnesota State Legislature (2021-2022). Retrieved July21, 2021, from https://legiscan.com/MN/bill/ 49

50 57 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 58 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) communities to zero waste. and powerful role to play to stem the crisisand shifttheir be solved withrecycling alone. Cities have an important From wishcycling to mythcycling, the plastic crisis cannot CONCLUSION ©Santiago Vivacqua/GAIA Real zero waste actionsinclude moving the communities towards: just shiftthe burden of waste to other communities. implementing zero waste and fightingagainst false solutionsthat organizing efforts, these cities are focusing onthe key strategies of them acommitment to find real solutions to waste. Because of local waste inincinerators located intheir own neighborhoods inspires in experiencing how their communities are impacted by the burningof a culture of throwaway, there isno suchthingas“away.” Directly waste. These cities recognize that for trash, whichresults from because they have strong community-led efforts to implement zero The cities represented inthisstudy are uniqueinthe country to make the transition to zero waste. Master Planincludes asuite of localpolicy solutionsfor cities ready create sustaining jobsintheir communities. GAIA’s Zero Waste and have agreat potential to improve their health, save money and food waste and yard waste where they have more direct influence communities to usetheir limited resources to tackleitems like responsibility for their creation. Ifsuccessful, thiscould allow manufacturers of the materials that canbe recycled to take plastic that cannot be legitimately recycled, and requiring the towards solutionsincluding: refillables and reusables, banning Organizations, localgovernments and entrepreneurs are moving • • • • •

the resources ecosystem. Respecting and equitablyengagingeveryone of that isapart while ensuringsocialand environmental justice. their highest and best useand at the most locallevel possible Developing systems and infrastructure to recover resources at environment. Addressing consumption to respect the limitsof our and packaging, including the redesign of products. Requiring responsibility from the manufacturers of products Ending waste disposal inincinerators and landfills. 59 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 60 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) or depolymerization. The end result caneither be afuelto be burntorhave the potential to be turned components, monomers and raw materials through chemical processes suchascracking, gasification plastic-to-plastic technologies. These processes reduce the plastic/polymer chainto constituent Chemical Recycling -Aterm created that by groups various the plastic industry plastic-to-fuel and either returned to the state, retained by distributors, orusedfor program administration. amount for each container, plusanadditionalhandling fee inmost states. Unredeemed deposits are other redemption center. The distributor then reimburses the retailer orredemption center the deposit buying the beverage, and receives arefund when the emptycontainer isreturned to asupermarket or to the distributor for each container purchased. The consumer pays the deposit to the retailer when Bottle Deposits and Redemption can include bioplastics -whichisoften confused withcompostability) #7 OTHER: Any other resins (for example: could be anything, could be acombination of plastics, and it and other to gofoam containers.) #6 PS:Polystyrene (for example: and when CDcases, itisfoamed disposable cutlery itcanbe clamshells #5 PP:Polypropylene (for example: margarine and yogurt tubs,their lids,and some straws.) and some films.) #4 LDPE:Low DensityPolyethylene (for example: some shopping bags, bread bags, frozen food bags, plastic filmwrap that clings) #3 PVC: Vinyl/Polyvinyl Chloride(for example: some cleaning product bottles, squeezebottles, and #2 HDPE:HighDensityPolyethylene (for example: jugs, milk shampoo, detergent and laundry bottles) #1 PET:Polyethylene Terephthalate (for example :sodaand water bottles and clamshells) that isnot true. Very littleof the plastic packaging withthe code and arrows could be recycled. Because itissurrounded by recycling arrows most people think that itmeans that itcanbe recycled but #1-7 Resin Identification Code (RIC)-The number that canbe onthe bottom of some plastic packaging. TERMINOLOGY APPENDIX I - When aretailer buys beverages from adistributor, adeposit ispaid or finaldisposal inlandfill or incinerators and other disposal methods. Plastic Stream -The complete flow of plastic collected for recycling from itssource through to recycling depolymerization are variations of thisprocess inwhichplastic isultimately burned. Plastic-to-fuel -Any process including butnot limited to incineration, pyrolysis, solvolysis or recyclable and organic waste for free, and onlycharges them for landfill and incineration-bound waste. Pay-As-You-Throw -APay-As-You-Throw system allows residents to dispose of their source-separated Incineration -The destruction of materials by burning. best useof arecycled product. lowers the energy required to make abottle. There isno agreed to standard of what isthe highest and best use(often calledclosed-loop)since itoffsets the need for miningnew material and dramatically glass asanexample, many believe that recycling bottle glass backinto aglass bottle isthe highest and Highest and Best Useof Recyclables -Recycled materials canbe usedinavariety of end uses. Using feedstock. often referred to asend markets. They process the resin and sellto manufacturers to useasrecycled product that uses recycled content asaninput.Inthe caseof plastics, wash/grind operations are End Market -The final step inthe chain of recyclable ownership. Generally itisamanufacturer of a from cities to producers. systemsdelivery to limitthe generation and toxicity of waste, and to closethe materials feedback loop EPR policies cover specific categories of materials, and should lead to producers redesigning items or performance of products by extending the responsibility of producers over the entire life cycle of items. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)-Apolicy principle to improve the environmental and social End Useof Recyclables -The resulting product that ismadefrom the recycled material. and extraction further of natural resources isrequired to make new materials and products. solutions like burningwaste and others asacceptable. For example, burningwaste destroys the discard derived from the discard. But the challengewhen usingorreading thisterm isthat some include false process again. Circular implies that the source of the material inputno longerrelies onextraction butis used (often once) and discarded inaway that destroys the potential for becoming aninputinto the Circularity orCircular Economy -Analternative to alinear approach inwhichresources are extracted, new plastic when thisisnot the case. different outcomes, itcaneasily confuse people into thinking that thismeans itisalways recycled into into new plastic for products and packaging. By grouping these technologies together withtheir vastly

61 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 62 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) waste are thrown away -prepared foods, produce, etc.). paper, plastic and metals detailed categories orvery (for example, a breakdown of what types of food in the waste stream of adefined area/location. Categories general caninclude categories very like Waste Composition -Provides data about what percentage each of the different components represent energy cangenerate. (less than1%of USenergy). Incomparison, recycling conserves 3-5times more energy than waste-to- Waste-to-Energy -The destruction of materials by burningwithsome generation of electricityorheat processed to meet specifications for sale to markets. collection. Single-stream recyclables are taken to aMRF for by type sorting of material and further newspaper, cardboard, plastic, aluminum, and steel for cansare placed inasinglebinorcart recycling Single-Stream Recycling -Acollection and/or processing system inwhichallrecyclables, for example, there. missorted into the wrong commodities and sentto the wrong market, where itisgenerally disposed of no longerrecyclable. Some residual ends upaswaste disposed of at the MRF, whileother residual is of the MRFresulted initnot being captured, or(iii)the processing itselfdamagedthe item sothat itwas be recycled either because itwas (i)erroneously putinthe recycling or(ii)the inefficiencies binorcart, Residual recycling orfinaldisposal inlandfill or incinerators and other disposal methods. Recycling Stream -The complete flow of material collected for recycling from itssource through to and businesses. of theportion MSW that iscollected through cityprograms and redemption programs from residents hazardous, construction and demolition (C&D)orother kinds of waste. focuses Thisreport onthe institutional locations, suchasbusinesses, schools and hospitals. MSW does not include industrial, electronics and batteries. Sources of MSW include residential waste and waste from commercial and packaging, yard trimmings, furniture, clothing, bottles and cans,food, newspapers, appliances, Municipal SolidWaste (MSW) -(Commonly calledtrash) consists of everyday items suchasproduct cleaning, compressing, and baling)to meet specifications for sale to end markets. newspaper, cardboard, plastic, aluminum, and steel cansandprocess further the material (ex., by Material Recovery Facility (MRF) consumer canbe confused asto the source and environmental impact. packaging donot differentiate the two “contents” and mightsimplyclaim100%recycled content, sothe facility and putbackinto the product itisPre-Consumer Recycled Content. Alot of products or or newspaper), itispost-consumer. If, for example, itis scrap collected off the floor at amanufacturing If the content isderived from materials after the consumer hasdiscarded the item (for example, abottle Post-Consumer Recycled Content - The percentage that the of MRFreports the material that was sentto the MRFthat could not - Afacility designed to recyclables sort by type, for example, - Thisdifferentiates the recycled content inaproduct orpackaging. or airthat threaten the environment orhumanhealth.” (ZWIA,2018) recovery of products, packaging, and materials without burning,and withno discharges to land, water, ofis the allresources conservation by means of responsible production, consumption, reuse, and Zero Waste -GAIA adopted the Zero Waste International Alliance definition of Zero Waste: “Zero Waste disposal inlandfill orincinerators and other disposal methods. Waste Stream -The complete flow of waste from itssource through to composting, recycling orfinal 63 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 64 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) C. B. A. critical tool for identifyingand prioritizingcitystrategies around diversion and reduction. for each community to have arobust zero waste plan. Waste characterization/composition studies are a emphasis onthe disposable plastic stream. The scope of thiswork isnot intended to replace the need and graphs tocharts tell of the the story state of waste from the perspective of each community, withan reported withless specificity. The model was used to establish key benchmarks and synthesize data in data was usedasaproxy. Insome cases, extrapolations were madeto provide detail ondata that was unavailable ordata we determined to be reasonably inaccurate dueto ageorlackof detail), regional studies, was researched and compiled for analysis. For any missing data (either data that was publicly cities, the best available data from city, county, and state sources, aswell asexisting characterization the context of plastic and incineration for cities. the For participating each of the five participating The following sectiondescribes the data and process usedinevaluating municipalwaste streams within DATA OF SUMMARY AND METHODOLOGY APPENDIX II APPENDIX

through municipaldiversion programs (recycling and composting). The characterization studies the recycling stream were documented by commodity withafocus on streams typicallymanaged C asdetailedreporting inthe data sources document for each community. waste. The data isfrom 2017 to 2020and typicallycomes directly from annualcity, county orstate studied. Where possible, the data was broken further down by residential orcommercial sources of to landfills, incinerators, recycling facilities, or composting facilities was documented in each city G analysis. plastic and other materials, suchasfurniture, electronics, textiles are not included inthisplastic pots, utensils, etc.) withmixed plastic (#3-7) container grades. Items that potentially are madefrom had ageneral catch-all that included category durable plastics (like toys, buckets, tubs,garden and 25%of the plastic analyzedinthe included report non-single usepackaging. Many of the studies data available inthe existing waste studies for the communities. Itisestimated that between 18% into the analysis. The specifics of the types of plastic included inthe analysis were limited to the Construction and demolition, sewage sludge, and other industrial waste streams were not factored Sc omposition/Characterization: The composition of the waste stream and the composition of eneration Rate: The total amount, inmetric tons, of municipalsolidwaste (MSW) delivered annually ope of Data: The focus of thisanalysis was onplastic inmunicipal solidwaste (MSW) streams. not always comparable between different communities. comparable to provide arelevant snapshot of current and potential diversion. However, the data is The data usedwas selected sothat withineach community, the waste and recycling data were The methodology usedto conduct the waste characterization studies varied for each community. amount to recycling totals that isattributable to the city(basedonpopulation of cityand state). redeemed PET, HDPE,glass and aluminumbottles was usedto addarepresentative proportionally available match. For the two bottle billstates (Michiganand California), the statewide total weight of specific to the community, while others were statewide orproxy communities that provided the best detailed inthe data sources document. These studies are from 2013 to 2019 and some of them are used for each community for waste and recycling (typicallytwo different studies orsources) are Notes onplastic compositions usedinstudy: 3. 2. 1.

b. a. get recycled: standards were usedto determine the types of plastic delivered to aMRFthat may actually was defined for the purpose of this study analysis as#1PET, #2HDPEand #5PP. Two acceptable incurbsidemunicipalprograms were included asrecyclable. “Recyclable” plastic As thiss b. #5 P summaries inAppendix III. were exclusive to plastic were included and varied by each study asdescribed inthe city T a. sources were usedto extrapolate the amount of #5PPincluded withmixed plastic: and recycling composition studies. For the purpose of the analysis the inthisreport, following ype of plastic included inthe analysis: categories Onlysort listed inthe studies that

contaminate systems. the sorting because they are not acceptable inmost MRFs asthey pose processing issues and significantly lower) market value, they were not included inthisanalysis as “recyclable” these materials to market). While some filmand styrofoam grades have a positive (but #7 plastic grade has$0oranegative market value (meaning the MRFmust pay to get new products). MRFs and PRFs sellthe sorted material to markets. Commingled #3- Th processsorting inmost facilities. and containers. Filmand flexible packaging pose processing issues and contaminate the facility (PRF).The predominance of MRFs onlyhave technology bottles capable of sorting Th F F 2018 industry article were2018 article used(“Mixed industry Messages”). to Recapture plastic inthe U.S. and Canada”) resins inthe waste stream was used.(“A Data Visualization Tool IdentifyingOpportunities olypropylene isoften included withmixed plastic inmany of the waste characterization or mixed plastic inthe recycling stream, estimates from More and Associates, cited ina or mixed plastic inthe waste stream, analysis anindustry that included composition of e availability of domestic U.S. markets (where the recycled plastic ismadeinto e types of material that canbe mechanically sorted by atypicalMRForplastic recycling tudy focused onmunicipalsolutions,only economically viablematerial currently 65 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 66 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) composting facilities. Source data for each cityisdescribed Fbelow. inPart of municipalsolidwaste (MSW) delivered annuallyto landfills, incinerators, recycling facilities, or Table 1:Residential and Commercial AnnualGeneration Rates. The total amount, inmetric tons, D. Residential and Commercial Annual Generation Rates Generation Annual Commercial and Residential 1 TABLE

Program State Redemption Municipal Recycling MSW Landfilled MSW Incinerated and Incineration) MSW DISPOSED(Landfill Recycling, Compost) Total Discards (Trash, Average % Incinerated incityon or Food Waste Collection Municipal Yard Waste and/ Population indicate these cities are located instates withstatewide redemption programs. sources usedfor thisstudy. LongBeach, CA, and Detroit, MI,are designated withanasterisk (*)to Summar or allcommunities, #1PET, #2HDPE, and #5PPwere included as“recyclable,” asthose c. y of Data Collected for EachCity:

markets. Allother #3-#7plastic were considered non-recyclable inthisanalysis. grades are both recoverable inaMRFand have reasonable market value inU.S. domestic F atmr,M inaoi,M eak JLn ec,C*Detroit, MI* LongBeach, CA* Newark, NJ Minneapolis, MN Baltimore, MD residential) Total MSW (primarily 4,0 3,2 3,8 2,0 333,454 223,101 236,388 130,720 348,400 9,9 2,2 7,4 7,8 674,841 475,980 277,140 420,324 593,490 162,500 1,5 80,396 319,450 5,5 80,396 156,950 26,650 2,300 49% 0 some commercial) (residential and Total MSW Annual Generation Rates (metric tons/year) 24,962 Tables 1-3summarizethe data collected from public 25,362 100% 0 0 commercial and institutional) (residential, Total MSW 8,8 8,2 305,385 180,129 181,883 8,8 123,047 181,883 46,870 100% 7,635 0 0 residential) Total MSW (primarily 32,587 10,385 57,081 68% NA commercial and institutional) (residential, Total MSW 305,385 11,521 5,433 11,115 0% 0 program where available. For recycling, the end point of the collected material inthistableisthe MRForthe state redemption These numbers show the initialdestination point, not the percentage of material actuallydiverted. and the statewide redemption program. Compost only includes municipally collected yard waste. sum of allstreams. Recycling collection takes place through municipalcollection, drop off programs, Table 2:Endpoint for MSW. The MSW collected for recycling, compost, ordisposal asapercent of the Endpoint forMSWEndpoint 2 TABLE Recycling Compost (yard waste) Landfill orIncinerator atmr,M inaoi,M eak JLn ec,C*Detroit, MI* LongBeach, CA* Newark, NJ Minneapolis, MN Baltimore, MD residential) Total MSW (primarily 91.7% 0.7% 7.6%

some commercial) (residential and Total MSW 19.4% 61.5% 19.1% commercial and institutional) (residential, Total MSW 76.9% 19.8% 3.2% residential) Total MSW (primarily 80.7% 19.3% NA

commercial and institutional) (residential, Total MSW 91.6% 5.0% 3.5% 67 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 68 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Where Residents and Businesses Discard Plastic Discard Businesses and Residents Where 3 TABLE that isincinerated ineach cityasdescribed inTable 1. sent directly to landfills and/or incinerators. Total plastic incinerated orlandfilled isbasedon% MSW recycling programs (curbsideand drop-off), state redemption programs, ordisposed of withtrash and city that iscurrently collected for recycling (butnot necessarily recycled, seebelow) through municipal Table 3:Where Residents and Businesses Discard Plastic. The percentage of allplastic discarded inthe Redemption Centers Plastic Sentto MRF Incinerated Landfilled Total Plastic Recycled stream Plastic Recycled inSingle- (Discarded and Recycled) Total Plastic Stream Program State Redemption Plastic Recycled Through Total Plastic Landfilled Total Plastic Incinerated (Landfill and Incineration) Total Plastic Disposed atmr,M inaoi,M eak JLn ec,C*Detroit, MI* LongBeach, CA* Newark, NJ Minneapolis, MN Baltimore, MD 70,300 33,336 67,850 34,514 47.4% 49.1% 2,450 2,450 3.5% NA NA 12,968 87.4% 12.6% 11,336 11,336 0.0% 1,632 1,632 NA NA 0 Plastic Recycling (metric tons/year) Plastic Recycling (metric tons/year) Plastic Disposal (metric tons/year) 32,470 28,955 28,955 89.2% 10.8% 0.0% 3,515 3,515 NA NA 0 24,375 18,535 10.2% 24.1% 12,661 51.9% 13.7% 5,840 3,343 2,497 5,874 44,861 44,861 94.0% 47,712 2,052 0.0% 4.3% 2,851 1.7% 799 0 Ultimate Fate (tons/year) of Plastic 4A TABLE Recyclable Plastic inRedemption System onlyincludes LongBeach and Detroit. Recyclable Plastic inTrash” for the Cityof Baltimore inthe Cityof Baltimore Master Plan. The Average analysis for thisstudy (including trash and recycling). “Plastic FilminTrash” isincluded inthe “Non- disposal and recycling stream intons/year and asapercentage of the total plastic included inthe Table 4A&4B:Ultimate Fate of Plastic. Tables 4Aand 4Bshow the recyclability of plastic inthe sis of CityData: E.

Total Plastic Stream Recyclable Plastic Maximum Potential of Redemption System Recyclable Plastic in Single-stream Recyclable Plastic in Recyclable Plastic inTrash Total Non-Recyclable Plastic FilminTrash Single-stream Non-Recyclable Plastic in Trash Non-Recyclable Plastic in redemption programs. are designated withanasterisk (*)to indicate these cities are located instates withstatewide purchase the plastic,” and asdescribed A-C. indetail LongBeach, inParts CA, and Detroit, MI, as “#1PET, #2HDPE,and #5PPplastic withviableend markets for the MRFormunicipalityto summarized inTables 1-3above. The calculations appliedthe definition of recyclable inthis report characterization data collected usingthe publiclyavailable sources cited Fbelow inPart and as Analy The tables that follow summarizethe results of analysis conducted onwaste atmr,M inaoi,M eak JLn ec,C*Detroit, MI* LongBeach, CA* Newark, NJ Minneapolis, MN Baltimore, MD 23,009 47,292 20,319 70,301 21,521 26,011 1,488 962 NA How MuchPlastic isPotentially Recyclable? 12,968 8,604 4,364 4,663 3,752 1,443 2,921 189 NA How MuchPlastic isNon-Recyclable? 32,470 19,884 12,586 11,820 2,822 9,764 7,371 693 NA 24,375 14,703 6,380 6,485 2,497 5,670 9,672 1,505 1,838 16,000 13,344 21,775 47,713 31,713 2,052 9,742 603 196 69 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 70 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) average for redemption systems is2.9% [2] Recyclable Plastic inRedemption System isanaverage across onlycities withstatewide redemption programs. The five city the Cityof Baltimore. [1] The “Average Across Five Cities” assumes anextrapolation for plastic filmintrash and non-recyclable plastic inthe trash for Fate (byUltimate Plastic of percent) 4B TABLE is potentially recyclable asdefined in this analysis and provides averages across the five cities. Table 4B:Further estimates the total recyclable plastic for each citybasedon the amount of plastic that Single-stream Plastic in Recyclable Trash Plastic in Recyclable Recyclable Total Non- Trash Plastic Filmin Single-stream Plastic in Recyclable Non- Trash Plastic in Recyclable Non- Redemption stream And in Single- Recycled Actually Plastic Recyclable Potential of Maximum System Redemption Plastic in Recyclable Baltimore, 06 25 01 33 28.0% 23.3% 30.1% 22.5% 30.6% 89 89 27 62 45.6% 26.2% 22.7% 28.9% 28.9% 27 36 88 97 33.5% 39.7% 38.8% 33.6% 32.7% 70 60 64 66 20.4% 26.6% 36.4% 36.0% 37.0% 73 64 12 03 66.5% 60.3% 61.2% 66.4% 67.3% 1.4% 2.1% 2.1% MD NA

. Minneapolis, How MuchPlastic isPotentially Recyclable? 1.50% 11.1% 11.1% How MuchPlastic isNon-Recyclable? MN NA Newark, 8.7% 8.7% 2.1% NA NJ

Long Beach, 10.2% 16.4% 6.2% 7.5% CA* Detroit, 0.4% 4.3% 5.6% 1.3% MI*

Across Five 30.4% Average 7.3% 64.3% 26.9% 35.7% 31.3% Cities 2.6% 5.9% 8.8% [2] [1] [1] Aluminumisoften captured outsideof municipalsystems. Thisfigure islikely higher. by Commodity Rates Capture Residential 5 TABLE trash, recycling and deposit systems. collected through municipalrecycling and deposit asapercentage of the total amount of that material in Table 5:Residential Capture Rates by Commodity. The capture rate shows the percentage of material Steel Capture Rate Total Steel Stream Redemption Steel inRecycling or Steel inTrash Capture Rate Aluminum Total AluminumStream Redemption Aluminum inRecycling or Aluminum inTrash Capture Rate Glass Total Glass Stream Redemption Glass inRecycling or Glass inTrash Capture Rate (#1,#2,#5) Recyclable Plastic Total Plastic Stream Recycled and Redemption Recyclable Plastic Trash Recyclable Plastic In

[1] atmr,M inaoi,M eak JLn ec,C*Detroit, MI* LongBeach, CA* Newark, NJ Minneapolis, MN Baltimore, MD 23,009 21,521 15.8% 4,000 4,300 11,100 9,350 7,650 8,100 1,488 1,750 5.6% 6.5% 7.0% 300 450 42.8% 83.8% 45.7% 33.1% 4,364 6,635 1,443 2,921 1,286 7,921 406 482 984 888 563 421 22.4% 12,586 39.6% 61.6% 17.2% 2,822 4,274 6,843 2,996 9,764 11,117 1,755 2,121 1,810 1,186 366 83.2% 16,754 78.5% 13,152 41.4% 4,002 3,602 2,093 31.1% 5,670 9,672 2,146 1,786 1,441 360 652 15,844 13,344 63.4% 15,999 47.6% 16.6% 8,306 2,323 2,655 3,667 7,538 1,344 1,344 1,447 7.1% 103

71 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 72 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) incinerators from basedonreporting the source cited table. inthe communities data summary Table 7:What’s Left After Diversion. Thisshows the composition of MSW disposed inlandfills or clamshells, other plastic). [5] plastic withestimates of #5PPremoved. [4] plastic withestimates of #5PPremoved. [3] residual. [2] with estimates of #5PPremoved. [1] Average Programs Residential Collection fromSingle-Stream Composition 6 TABLE table. summary composition of residential recycling from basedonreporting the source cited inthe communities data Table 6:Average Composition from Single-Stream Residential Collection Programs. Thisshows the Likely Disposed Plastic (#3,#4,#6,#7): Recycled Plastic (#1,#2,#5):Likely Paper Glass Metal Recycling Composition Packaging Inclusion in Notes onPlastic Non- Residual The recycling characterization study reported a“mixed that included plastic” category filmand other non-recyclable plastic The recycling composition study included amore of filmand detailed sort non-recyclable plastic grades (#6PScupsand The recycling composition of included report #3-#7mixed acategory plastic whichincluded filmand other non-recyclable Since the MRFdoes not ship#3-#7plastic to aPRF, the MRFprovided facility wideestimates of %of non-recyclable bottles in The recycling composition labeled included reporting “mixed acategory plastic” whichincluded filmand other non-recyclable atmr,M inaoi,M eak JLn ec,C*Detroit, MI* LongBeach, CA* Newark, NJ Minneapolis, MN Baltimore, MD 20.0% 65.1% 4.5% 2.9% 2.3% 5.3% [1] 0.70% 57.6% 26.1% 3.3% 6.7% 5.7% [2] 60.8% 14.6% 13.8% 6.0% 3.3% 1.5% [3] 20.6% 47.7% 18.0% 4.6% 5.6% 3.5% [4] 25.3% 42.7% 14.3% 11.1% 3.0% 3.6% [5] accounted for 3.14%of total waste stream orabout 21% of total plastic stream inwaste. [5] The waste characterization for study included asort plastic labeled with#3,#4,#5or#7plastic, excluding packaging. This waste stream after #5PPadjustment or23% of plastic stream inwaste. [4] cups. About 4%of total waste stream after PPadjustment or25%of plastic stream inwaste. [3] waste. fitness and outdoors; and Other/Unknown. This stream totaled 2.7% of total waste stream orabout 20% of plastic stream in categories: Kitchen; Tableware; Home décor; Home storage; Home improvement; Patio &Garden; Automotive; Toys; Sports, [2] study (roughly 4%of total waste stream, 18%of plastic stream inwaste). [1] Diversion After Left What’s 7 TABLE Waste Composition Packaging Inclusion in Notes onPlastic Non- Remaining Garbage Plastic Film Plastic: Non-recyclable Recyclable Plastic: Potentially Paper Glass Metal Yard Waste Food Waste Not well defined, likely some included inwhat was labeled as “other in referenced plastic category” waste characterization The Waste Characterization study included an“other that included plastic” category items like hard plastic toys and yogurt Waste Characterization study included “durable plastic” and the “Non-Recyclable Plastic” categories, whichincluded 10sub- The Waste Characterization defined study included asdurable acategory plastic and composite plastic. Total of 2.4% of non-recyclable atmr,M inaoi,M eak JLn ec,C*Detroit, MI* LongBeach, CA* Newark, NJ Minneapolis, MN Baltimore, MD (#3,#4,#6,#7) Included in plastic 20.5% 26.9% above 14.5% 13.6% 11.3% 2.9% 3.6% 6.7% [1] 40.6% 10.8% 15.0% 14.1% 5.8% 3.6% 4.7% 3.7% 1.6% [2] Plastic Disposal (metric tons/year) 24.8% 26.0% 21.3% 5.4% 2.3% 6.0% 3.5% 6.5% 4.1% [3] 20.5% 33.7% 10.8% 19.0% 3.2% 3.7% 4.1% 1.9% 3.1% [4] 20.6% 22.0% 20.1% 16.9% 4.4% 3.2% 3.0% 2.7% 7.1% [5] 73 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 74 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) ata Sources by Category: F.

Baltimore, MD Newark, NJ Minneapolis, MN Long Beach, CA Detroit, MI D City 2020 Year 2017 2019 2018 2017 JSaeMncplDsoa ae MSW recycled includes allpaper and beverage NJ State MunicipalDisposal Rates Small HaulerReport. tonnage and report, the 2017 tonnage the report, 2017 QRL tonnage the report, 2017 NWTS the Report, 2017 BRESCOMRA thereport, 2017 Baltimore City Task 2017 5Report: MDEMRA City of Baltimore Master Plan, Factsheet. Solid Waste and Recycling, 2020 City of Minneapolis, Division of email. Beach onFeb. 23rd, 2021 via Provided by the Cityof Long Green LivingScience. Data provided by Natalie Jakubat DATA SETSOURCESAND NOTES MSW RECYCLED Source (Tons) from CalRecycle data Extrapolated commercial recycling rate using management asaBUD(NJAC 7:26A-1.3). are no longercounted asrecyclable dueto their included asnon-industrial. Street sweepings industrial generator. 10% of total metal has been textiles when they are generated by anon- cell batteries, other glass, other plastic and leaves, consumer electronics, food waste, dry containers, anti-freeze, motor oil,brush, grass, loads delivered to QRLby private haulers. of Transportation aswell assome mixed waste delivered to QRLby DPW and the Department However, thisalsoincludes mixed waste businesses and CityGovernment buildings. which includes some waste from Downtown together. Residential waste iscollected by DPW, Data were both evaluated separately and Residential and Commercial/Institutional recycling services. are not required to participate free inthe City’s are required to have garbagecollection, but municipal properties. Allresidential customers of larger buildings, parks, commercial and units, some townhomes and asmall number buildings containing fewer than four dwelling & Recycling provides to allresidential service Residential MSW Only: Minneapolis SolidWaste Tang) Detroit.” Reema Abi-Akar, Gabriel Jones, and Yi Materials Management and Zero Waste in 09 April18,2017 Opportunities for Sustainable (ascitedCounty Report No. in“Report CSS17- Data matched figures published in2015 Wayne City of LongBeach Website. and used2020MSW figure Notes Baltimore, MD Detroit, MI Minneapolis, MN Newark, NJ Long Beach, CA City Year 2019 2014 2019 2016 2013 Solid Waste inMichigan Characterization of Municipal Economic ImpactPotential and Recycling Program Evaluation Waste Composition Analysis and 2016 Minneapolis Residential Solid Characterization Study Quantification and Solid Waste and Recycling Improvement Authority forReport Mercer County Measurement and Analysis CalRecycle Waste Stream Small HaulerReport. tonnage and report, the 2017 tonnage the report, 2017 QRL tonnage the report, 2017 NWTS the Report, 2017 BRESCOMRA thereport, 2017 Baltimore City Task: 5Report City of Baltimore Master Plan, MMSW DISPOSEDCOMPOSITION DATA SETSOURCESAND NOTES Source 2017 MDEMRA Canada Opportunities to Recapture Plastic inthe US& using “A Data Visualization Tool Identifying PP from Mixed inwaste Plastic category stream Detroit-specific characterizations.Extrapolated Used Statewide figures because there are no stream). in the US&Canada” (PP13%of total plastic Identifying Opportunities to Recapture Plastic waste stream using“A Data Visualization Tool Extrapolated PPfrom Mixed in Plastic category stream). in the US&Canada” (PP13%of total plastic Identifying Opportunities to Recapture Plastic waste stream using“A Data Visualization Tool Extrapolated PPfrom Mixed in Plastic category stream). in the US&Canada” (PP13%of total plastic Identifying Opportunities to Recapture Plastic waste stream using“A Data Visualization Tool Extrapolated PPfrom Mixed in Plastic category of actualcommodities disposed by Geosyntec. Detailed recent waste aswell sorts, asanalysis ” (PP13%of total plastic stream) Notes 75 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 76 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Baltimore, MD ogBah A2020(residential) Long Beach, CA Minneapolis, MN Newark, NJ Detroit, MI City 2014 (commercial) 2020 Year 2019 2019 2019 Small HaulerReport tonnage and report, the 2017 tonnage the report, 2017 QRL tonnage the report, 2017 NWTS the Report, 2017 BRESCOMRA thereport, 2017 Baltimore City Task: 5Report City of Baltimore Master Plan, Reporting forReporting Newark. Council (NERC) together withDEP Recycling, NorthEast Northeast Commodity Values inthe onBlendedReport MRF City of LongBeach. Beach Population. Provided by the state, proportioned for Long reported redemption tons for the CalRecycle tool. Included Commercial was basedon MRF composition for residential. Waste Management reported Date: September 28,2020) (RFP2020-38IssueServices Minneapolis RFPfor Recycling Data asListed in2020Cityof 2018 Recycling Composition Living Science. Population. Provided by Green state, proportioned for Detroit reported redemption tons for and the URBFoundation. Added 2019 Recycling StudyBy GLS MSW RECYCLED COMPOSITION DATA SETSOURCESAND NOTES Source 2017 MDEMRA Recycling Today onJune 7, 2018. stream usingcitation from “Mixed Messaging” in Extrapolated PPinMixed Plastic recycling of actualcommodities disposed by Geosyntec. Detailed recent waste aswell sorts, asanalysis Recycling Today onJune 7, 2018. stream usingcitation from “Mixed Messaging” in in Extrapolated PPinMixed Plastic recycling addition of redemption data. Extrapolated PP Actual waste of recycling sort in Detroit with Recycling Today onJune 7, 2018. stream usingcitation from “Mixed Messaging” in Extrapolated PPinMixed Plastic recycling MRF compositions was inthe used. NorthEast from 2017, arecent NERC of report average Since NJState recycling composition was extrapolated redemption data. in Recycling Today onJune 7, 2018. Added stream usingcitation from “Mixed Messaging” Extrapolated PPinMixed Plastic recycling Management, Inc. through CityReporting. Used actual2020data provided by Waste numbers. and alignwithMinneapolis trash reported Used 2018 average to avoid impactsof COVID Notes plastics” grade, the extrapolation method detailed inthe methodology was used. data was usedto extrapolate more detail. Aspolypropylene (#5PP)was not separated from the “mixed in electronics, furniture, ortextiles. Where the combined city report streams of plastic, the waste sort out specifically inplastic grades and did not include allplastic inthe waste stream suchasthose found as smallhousehold items like toys, tableware, orhome decor. The analysis only included plastic sorted included approximately 18%non-container durable plastic inthe non-recyclable plastic categories, such below. The plastic numbers from thisstudy usedinthe analysis were approximately 72%containers and waste streams, aswell asextrapolations of the generation rates, through the sources listed inthe chart Waste Master Plan. Thisincluded recent waste and composition sorts analysis of both the recycling and the Cityof Baltimore collaborated withconsulting group Geosyntec to produce the Recycling and Solid ology section. Muchof the data needed for the Baltimore analysis was relatively accessible because The process for gathering data for Baltimore followed the procedures outlined inthe general method- ABOUT THEDATA SOURCES Baltimore’s data. The following tableprovides of key asummary program components, for useascontext inanalyzing BALTIMORE OF CITY SUMMARY WASTE CHARACTERIZATION Data QualitySummary Municipal SolidWaste (MSW), including estimated waste generated in Included inWaste Generation Rates Nomunicipalfood waste program. Nocommercial composting facility within40 Municipal Composting Program Municipal Recycling Program % of Total Waste Incinerated Population BALTIMORE AND DATA DEMOGRAPHICS SOURCESUMMARY Characterization studies are from 2019. Tonnage volumes are from 2017. Recent cityanalysis provides credibility to the accuracy of the data. residential, commercial, and institutional sectors. miles of Baltimore. to residents. Free recycling planned for carts distribution inSpring2021. City provides curbsideand drop off recycling. Hasnot provided free binsorcarts 49.1% 593,490 77 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 78 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Where Waste from Baltimore Goes WasteWhere Baltimore from CHART B2 incinerators, recycling facilities, orcomposting facilities from households inBaltimore. The total amount, inmetric tons, of municipalsolidwaste (MSW) delivered annuallyto landfills, intons/year Rates Generation Annual Residential CHART B1 HOW MUCH TOTAL MATERIAL ISTHROWN OUTAND DIVERTED INBALTIMORE? 200,000 300,000 100,000 0 46.6% incinerated municipal 156,950 landfill waste waste municipal landfilled from Baltimore Baltimore from 162,500 Where Waste waste waste (yard waste) compost 0.7% Goes 7.6% recycling off &drop curbside municipal recycling 26,650 incinerator 45.0% yard wasteyard collection municipal 2,300 Key points ongeneration and MSW sorting: actually diverted (asdescribed). yard waste. These numbers show just the initialdestination point, not the percentage of material takes place through municipalcollection and drop off programs. Compost includes municipallycollected The percentage of MSW collected for recycling, compost, incineration, ordisposal. Recycling collection Where Residents Discard Plastic inBaltimore Plastic Discard Residents Where CHART B3 • • • Initial Plastic Diversion: WHAT TO HAPPENS PLASTIC DISCARDS INBALTIMORE?

viable optionsfor recycling containers. Because there isno statewide curbside, bottle and billinMaryland, drop off recycling are the only 7.6% of residential waste isrecycled and 0.7%iscomposted. is incinerated. Baltimore sends 91.7% of itsresidential waste to alandfill orincinerator. 46.6%islandfilled and 45% curbside program, to anincinerator, orlandfilled. recovery facility (MRF)for recycling (butnot necessarily recycled, seebelow) through the The percentage of allplastic discarded inthe citythat iscurrently sentto amaterials 49.1% landfilled Discard Plastic Plastic Discard in Baltimore Residents Where Where 3.5% plastic sent to MRF to sent plastic 47.4% incinerated 79 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 80 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) • Key Points onPlastic inBaltimore: burning asfuelat industrial facilities, plastic-to-fuel, etc). another processor, MRForsecondary orare disposed of (disposal includes incineration, landfilling, these cities. Itisalsoassumed that #3PVC, #4LDPE,#6PS, and #7other plastic are likely sentto disposed of. The study assumes only#1 PET, #2HDPE,and #5PPplastic have viable end markets in The percentage of plastic that issorted for recycling and sent to aMRFthat islikely recycled orlikely Recycling Program inBaltimore’s Single-Stream Plastic the to Happens What CHART B4 • • • Key Points onDiversion of Plastic: PLASTIC THAT “ACTUALLY” GETRECYCLED:

• current system. 39.3% of plastic collected inBaltimore’s municipalrecycling program cannot be recycled inthe next section). Diversion rates include some non-recyclable plastic that are incorrectly included inrecycling (see off recycling program. hasno bottle billredemption Maryland program. 3.5% of plastic discarded iscurrently sentto arecycling center through curbsideand the drop city’s incinerator. Currently 49.1%of residential plastic goes directly to disposal inlandfills; 47.4% issent to an

bottles, and jugs), residents still send non-recyclable plastic to the recycling program. This While Baltimore currently advertises that itaccepts onlyplastic that isrecyclable (plastic jars, likely recycled (#1, #2, #5) (#1, #2, 60.7% Single-Stream What Happens in Baltimore’s to the Plastic to Plastic the Recycling Recycling Program (#3, #4, #6, #7) (#3, #6, #4, disposed likely 39.3% program. system. shows Thischart the limited amount of diversion that is possible under current the city’s The percentage of recyclable and non-recyclable plastic that ends upinthe trash orsingle-stream Fate inBaltimore Ultimate Plastic of CHART B5 • • FOR MORE? HOW MUCH ACTUAL PLASTIC RECYCLING NOW ISHAPPENING AND WHAT ISTHEPOTENTIAL

significantly impacted by the increased contamination rates associated withincreased recovery. If plastic recycling continues without strategies to address non-recyclable plastic, MRFs would be by about 40%. trash that issentto recycling. Eliminating non-recyclable plastic would likely reduce processing fees results inincreased contamination and increased cost to the citywhichpays amuchhigher fee for For every five tons of plastic that is received by aMRF, two tons of thisplastic is non-recyclable. This • •

when chasingarrows are usedwithresin numbers onpackaging. shows how difficultitis toeducate residents onwhichtypes ofplastic are recyclable—especially actually recycled. because itisoften measured by what residents place at the curbordrop off, not by what is onrecyclingCity reporting likely includes the non-recyclable material counted as“recycled” from the MRF. The MRFlikely sends mixed plastic bales processor to asecondary and counts them asrecycled plastic film in trash in film plastic 37.0% no n-recyclable plasticn-recyclable in single-stream Ultimate Fate Ultimate of Plastic in in of Plastic Baltimore 1.4%

2.1% in single-stream recyclable plastic rec 30.6% yclable plastic in trash plastic in trash in plastic non-recyclable 28.9%

81 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 82 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) included in the recycling program. the trash orrecycling) that isrecycled. compares Thischart the capture rate for each type of container The capture rate of arecyclable commodity isthe percentage of that commodity that isdisposed of (in inBaltimore by Commodity Rates Capture CHART B6 • • • • Key points onOverall State of Plastic: HOW LIKELY ISITTHAT WE CAN AT LEAST RECYCLE THERECYCLABLE PLASTIC?

plastic isnon-recyclable. Focusing onreduction willhave the biggest impactonreducing plastic inthe waste stream, asmost • The majorityof plastic isnon-recyclable and inthe waste stream, representing 65.9%of allplastic. • in the trash. 32.7% of allplastic ispotentially recyclable Baltimore; almost 94%of thisrecyclable plastic ends up • 2.1% of plastic isactuallyrecycled today inBaltimore.

*Curbside only, recovery rate likely higher. likely rate recovery only, *Curbside 30% 20% to significant costs and logistical issues. film (37%)that cannot be recycled insingle-stream programs and is not collected separately due This includes non-recyclable containers that total 28.9%of allplastic inBaltimore and plastic 30.6% of allplastic isrecyclable and inthe trash. While 3.5%of allplastic inBaltimore ends upat aMRF, 1.4%isnon-recyclable. 10% 0% recyclable plastic (#1, #5) #2, 6.5% 15.8% glass aluminum* 7.0% 5.6% steel Key Points onCapture Rate: • • Key Points of Overall Composition of MRF: plastic, orresidual.shows Thischart the MRF’s composition of curbsiderecycling collected inBaltimore. The percentage of materials sorted through the single-stream program that ismetal, glass, paper, Average Programs Residential Collection fromBaltimore’s Composition Single-Stream CHART B7 • • • WHERE DOES THISLEAVE SINGLE-STREAM RECYCLING AS AWHOLE?

• • 72.7% of the recycling consists of paper, glass, and metals. to continue recycling. Over three quarters of recycling inBaltimore’s single-stream program isrecycled and it’s important Glass iscaptured at agreater rate thanthat of recyclable plastic. collection and processing system, directly to scrap yards. the onlydata available. The actualrate islikely muchhigher dueto sales outsideof the residential representsAluminum inthischart onlycansrecovered through the curbsideprogram asthat was Less than7%of recyclable plastic containers end upinarecycling stream.

Glass and metal make upan additional 7.6% of the recycling stream. Paper isby far the most recycled commodity at 65.1%of the recycling stream. 65.1% paper plastic (#3, #4, #6, #7): #7): (#3, #6, #4, plastic likely disposed likely R esidential Collection Composition FromComposition Single-Stream Single-Stream B 2.3% Programs altimore’s altimore’s Average metal 2.9%

4.5% 5.3% glass likely recycled #5): (#1, #2, plastic 20.0% residual 83 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 84 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) WHAT’S LEFTAFTERDIVERSION INBALTIMORE? What’s Left After Diversion inBaltimore After Left What’s CHART B8 •

This chart showsThis chart the composition of what isleft after diversion inBaltimore. • • or sentto another processor. MRFor secondary About 23% of allthe single-stream materials delivered to the MRFfrom Baltimore islikely landfilled •

2.9% isunrecyclable plastic. commodities sentto the wrong market, where they willgenerally be disposed of. up aswaste disposed of at the MRF, whileother residuals are incorrectly sorted into the wrong by the size, shape, orcondition of the material goingacross line. the sort Some residuals end inherent inefficiencies ofsingle-stream MRFs, suchashumanerror or mechanical issues caused contaminated inthe process; collection and sorting ormaterial that cannot be sorted dueto the the first place and mistakenly putin recycling material binsand carts); that was destroyed or 20% of material delivered to the MRFisresidual: items that were wishcycled (non-recyclable in Recyclable plastic makes up4.5%of single-stream material. •

manufacturers. as alternative dailycover onlandfills, rather thansending the cullet back to glass While outsidethe scope of thisproject, many MRFs useglass for low value uses such food waste 20.5% 26.9% remaining garbage Diversion in Baltimore’s Baltimore’s in (Residential) What’s LeftWhat’s Trash after 2.9% glass Efforts 14.5% (#3, #4, #6, #7) (#3, #6, #4, plastic: non-recyclable 3.6% metal 6.7% (#1, #2, #5) (#1, #2, plastic: recyclable 13.6% yard waste p 11.3% aper

Data Sources canbe found inthe Appendix II:Methodology and Data Summary. Key Points of What’s Left After Diversion inBaltimore: • • •

• A smallfraction of the waste stream (6.7%)ispotentially recyclable plastic. waste stream Traditional recyclables of paper (13.6%),glass (2.9%),and metal (3.6%)account for over 20%of the Food waste (20.5%)and yard waste make (11.3%) upthe 31.8% of the remaining waste inBaltimore.

waste stream Plastic, including non-recyclable (14.5%)and recyclable packaging (6.7%),makes up21.2% of the 85 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 86 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) method detailed inthe methodology was used. separated from the “mixed plastic” grade inthe trash orrecycling composition study, the extrapolation for Recycling (RFP2020-38Issue Date: Services September 28,2020).Aspolypropylene (#5PP)was not A 2018 composition of the recycling for Minneapolis was usedaslisted in2020Cityof Minneapolis RFP did not include allplastic inthe waste stream suchasthose found inelectronics, furniture, ortextiles. tableware, orhome decor. The analysis onlyincluded plastic sorted outspecifically inplastic grades and durable plastic inthe non-recyclable plastic categories, suchassmallhousehold items like toys, used inthe analysis were approximately 80%containers and included approximately 20%non-container a detailed composition of Minneapolis’ residential waste stream. The plastic numbers from this study the total tons of material disposed, recycled, and composted. A2015 Hennepin County Studyprovided of MSW disposed, recycled, and composted, among other things. The fact sheet for 2020was used for methodology section. The Cityof Minneapolis publishes afact sheet each year, outliningthe amount The process for gathering data for Minneapolis followed the procedures outlined inthe general ABOUT THEDATA SOURCES: Minneapolis’s data. The following tableprovides of key asummary program components, for useascontext inanalyzing MINNEAPOLIS OF CITY SUMMARY WASTE CHARACTERIZATION Data QualitySummary accounts -does not Just cityserviced include the majorityof commercial Optinresidential program. cart Included inWaste Generation Rates Municipal Composting Program Municipal Recycling Program % of Total Waste Incinerated Population MINNEAPOLIS DEMOGRAPHICS ANDMINNEAPOLIS DATA DEMOGRAPHICS SOURCESSUMMARY

Minneapolis waste composition from 2015 Hennepin County Study. Recycling composition provided inrecent CityRFP. Recent 2019 data for generation rates provided by the City. accounts inthe citythat require their own service. Recycling. Weekly collection, cart single-stream. Mission driven recycling partner, Eureka 100% at HERC 420,324 HOW MUCH TOTAL MATERIAL ISTHROWN OUTAND DIVERTED INMINNEAPOLIS? Where WasteGoes Where Minneapolis from CHART M2 Minneapolis. incinerators, recycling facilities, orcomposting facilities from households and businesses in The total amount, inmetric tons, of municipalsolidwaste (MSW) delivered annuallyto landfills, intons/year Rates Generation Annual Commercial and Residential CHART M1 100,000 50,000 25,000 75,000 0 incinerator 61.5% municipal wastemunicipal incinerated 80,396 Minneapolis Minneapolis Waste from Waste from Where Where Goes municipal recycling 25,362 19.1% compost waste & food waste waste &food waste 19.4% recycling off &drop curbside municipal yardmunicipal collection 24,962 87 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 88 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) to anincinerator. (MRF) for recycling (butnot necessarily recycled, seebelow) through the curbsiderecycling program or The percentage of allplastic discarded inthe citythat iscurrently sentto amaterials recovery facility inMinneapolis Plastic Discard Businesses and Residents Where CHART M3 • • • Key Points onGeneration and MSW Sorting: material actuallydiverted (asdescribed). waste and yard waste. These numbers show just the initialdestination point, not the percentage of place through municipalcollection and drop off programs. Compost includes municipallycollected food The percentage of MSW collected for recycling, compost, orincineration. Recycling collection takes Initial Plastic Diversion: WHAT TO HAPPENS PLASTIC DISCARDS INMINNEAPOLIS?

waste collection optionsto single-family household residents. 19.1% of MSW iscollected for composting. Minneapolis provides basedyard cart waste and food 19.4% of MSW isdiverted through municipalrecycling the city’s program. Minneapolis. Minneapolis sends allwaste bound for disposal (61.5%) to the HERCincinerator located indowntown incinerated 87.4% Discard Plastic Plastic Discard in Minneapolis in Residents and Residents and Businesses Businesses Where Where 12.6% plastic sent to MRF to sent plastic • Recycling Program Single-Stream inMinneapolis’ Plastic the to Happens What CHART M4 • • • Key Points onDiversion of Plastic: Key Points onPlastic inMinneapolis: these cities. disposed of. The study assumes only#1 PET, #2HDPE,and #5PPplastic have viableend markets in The percentage of plastic that issorted for recycling and sent to aMRFthat islikely recycled orlikely PLASTIC THAT “ACTUALLY” GETRECYCLED:

• the current system. of11.6% plastic collected inMinneapolis’ municipal curbsiderecycling program cannot be recycled in next section). Diversion rates include some non-recyclable plastic that are incorrectly included inrecycling (see program. Minnesota hasno bottle billredemption program. 12.6% of plastic issentto aMRFfor recycling through curbsideand the drop city’s off recycling Currently 87.4% of plastic isincinerated

used withresin numbers onpackaging. educate residents onwhichtypes of plastic are recyclable—especially when chasingarrows are the cityaccepted allplastic types (including non-recyclable). Thisshows how difficultitis to While Minneapolis currently advertises that itaccepts onlyplastic that isrecyclable, for years, likely recycled (#1, #2, #5) (#1, #2, 88.4% in Minneapolis’ Minneapolis’ in Single-Stream What Happens to the Plastic to Plastic the Recycling Recycling Program 11.6% #7) (#3, #6, #4, disposed likely 89 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 90 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) under current the program. city’s ultimately ends upinMinneapolis. shows Thischart the limited amount of diversion that ispossible The “Ultimate Fate of Plastic inMinneapolis” summarizes the chart overall picture of where allplastic FOR MORE? HOW MUCH ACTUAL PLASTIC RECYCLING NOW ISHAPPENING AND WHAT ISTHEPOTENTIAL Ultimate Fate inMinneapolis Ultimate Plastic of CHART M5 • • •

recovery. be significantlyimpacted by the increased contamination rates associated withincreased If plastic recycling continues without strategies to address non-recyclable plastic, MRFs would reduce processing fees related to plastics by 11.6%. much higher fee for trash that issentto recycling. Eliminating non-recyclable plastic would likely recyclable. Thisresults inincreased contamination and increased cost to the citywhichpays a For every ten tons of plastic that isreceived by aMRF, about one ton of thisplastic isnon- • • recycling program. Because Minneapolis works withamission-driven recycler, thishasuniqueimpactsonits

is given atransparent of reporting what isactuallyrecycled at the MRF. While the citymay still include non-recyclable material initstotal recycling numbers, the city includes thisnon-recyclable plastic inthe residual rate. Eureka Recycling, contracted the city’s recycling processor for residential recycling, plastic film in trash in film plastic 36.0% non-recyclable plastic non-recyclable in single-stream Ultimate Fate Ultimate Minneapolis of Plastic in in of Plastic 1.5% 28.9% in trash in plastic non-recyclable 11.1% single-stream recyclable plastic in in trash in recyclable plastic 22.5% Capture Rates by Commodity inMinneapolis by Commodity Rates Capture CHART M6 • • • • Key points onOverall State of Plastic: program. system. shows Thischart the limited amount of diversion that ispossible under current the city’s The percentage of recyclable and non-recyclable plastic that ends upinthe trash orsingle-stream included in the recycling program. the trash orrecycling) that isrecycled. compares Thischart the capture rate for each type of container The capture rate of arecyclable commodity isthe percentage of that commodity that isdisposed of (in HOW LIKELY ISITTHAT WE CAN AT LEAST RECYCLE THERECYCLABLE PLASTIC?

plastic isnon-recyclable. Focusing onreduction willhave the biggest impactonreducing plastic inthe waste stream, asmost • The majorityof plastic isnon-recyclable and inthe waste stream, representing 64.9%of allplastic. • trash. 33.6% of allplastic isrecyclable inMinneapolis; two-thirds of thisrecyclable plastic ends upinthe • of11.1% allplastic isactuallyrecycled today inMinneapolis.

to significant costs and logistical issues. film (36%)that cannot be recycled insingle-stream programs and is not collected separately due This includes non-recyclable containers that total 28.9%of allplastic inMinneapolis and plastic 22.5% of allplastic isrecyclable and inthe trash. While 12.6%of allplastic inMinneapolis ends upat aMRF, 1.5%isnon-recyclable. 100% 50% 25% 75% *Curbside only, recovery rate likely higher. likely rate recovery only, *Curbside 0% recyclable plastic (#1, #5) #2, 33.1% 83.8% glass aluminum* 42.8% 45.7% steel

91 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 92 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Minneapolis. plastic, orresidual.shows Thischart the MRF’s composition of curbsiderecycling collected in The percentage of materials sorted through the single-stream program that ismetal, glass, paper, Average Programs Residential Collection fromMinneapolis’ Composition Single-Stream CHART M7 • • • Key Points onCapture Rate: WHERE DOES THISLEAVE SINGLE-STREAM RECYCLING AS AWHOLE?

recyclable plastic. Other commodities, like glass, steel, and aluminum, are captured at greater rates thanthat of collection and processing system, directly to scrap yards. the onlydata available. The actualrate islikely muchhigher dueto sales outsideof the residential representsAluminum inthischart onlycansrecovered through the curbsideprogram asthat was 33% of recyclable plastic containers end upinarecycling stream. 57.6% paper plastic (#3,#4,#6,#7): plastic R likely disposed likely esidential Collection Composition FromComposition Single-Stream Single-Stream M inneapolis’s 0.7% Programs Average 3.3% metal

5.7% likely recycled (#1,#2,#5): plastic 6.7% residual 26.1% glass Key Points of Overall Composition of MRF: • • •

• • burned for energy, orsentto another processor. MRForsecondary 7.4% of allthe single-stream materials delivered to the MRFfrom Minneapolis islikely disposed of, • • • 87% of the recycling consists of paper, glass, and metals. continue recycling. Over 90%of recycling inMinneapolis’s single-stream program isrecycled and it’s to important

• • 0.7% isnon-recyclable plastic. commodities sentto the wrong market, where they willgenerally be disposed of. up aswaste disposed of at the MRF, whileother residuals are incorrectly sorted into the wrong by the size, shape, orcondition of the material goingacross line. the sort Some residuals end inherent inefficiencies ofsingle-stream MRFs, suchashumanerror or mechanical issues caused contaminated inthe process; collection and sorting ormaterial that cannot be sorted dueto the in the first place and mistakenly putin recycling material binsand carts); that was destroyed or 6.7% of material delivered to the MRFisresidual: items that were wishcycled (non-recyclable Recyclable plastic makes up5.7%of single-stream material. all glass to abeneficiation facility that results inamajority of it being used to make new bottles. Glass and metals make upanadditional29.4%of the recycling stream. Eureka Recycling sends Paper isby far the most recycled commodity at 57.6% of the recycling stream.

has oncontamination. This level of transparency onMRFresidual rate shows the impactthat non-recyclable plastic mission-driven approach. Eureka’s residual rate isextremely low for asingle-stream facility, indicative of itsunique 93 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 94 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Data Sources canbe found inthe Appendix II:Methodology and Data Summary. • • • Key Points of What isLeft After Diversion inMinneapolis: showsThis chart the composition of what isleft after diversion inMinneapolis. Diversion inMinneapolis After Left What’s M8 CHART WHAT’S LEFTAFTERDIVERSION INMINNEAPOLIS?

• • A smallfraction of the waste stream (3.6%)ispotentially recyclable plastic. the waste stream Traditional recyclables of paper (10.8%),glass (1.6%),and metal (3.7%)alsoaccount for over 16%of trash, totalling over 29%of the remaining waste inMinneapolis. Food waste (15%)and yard waste (14.1%)make upthe largest divertable fraction of what’s left inthe

Plastic filmmakes upabout half of non-recyclable plastic. 14.1% of the waste stream Plastic, including film(5.8%), non-recyclable (4.7%),and recyclable packaging (3.6%),makes up remaining garbage remaining 40.6% food waste 15.0% Minneapolis Diversion in Left After Left 1.6% What’s glass 3.6% (#1, #2, #5) (#1, #2, plastic: recyclable 3.7% metal 4.7% (#3, #4, #6, #7) (#3, #6, #4, pl astic: non-recyclable 14.1% yard waste 5.8% p

lastic film lastic 10.8% paper

trash orrecycling composition study, the extrapolation method detailed inthe methodology was used. recycling composition. Aspolypropylene (#5PP)was not separated from the “mixed plastic” grade inthe composition basedonfacility averages for 14MRFs inthe State 11 NE Region was usedfor Newark’s only vague composition details onrecycling composition. Asaproxy, arecent onrecycling report or textiles. A2017 specific DEPreport to Newark was usedasan estimate for composting, but offered grades and didnot include allplastic inthe waste stream suchasthose found inelectronics, furniture, like toys, tableware, orhome decor. The analysis onlyincluded plastic sorted outspecifically inplastic non-container durable plastic inthe non-recyclable plastic categories, suchassmall household items this study usedinthe analysis were approximately 75%containers and included approximately 25% specific to Newark, a2013 study of Mercer County had to be usedasaproxy. The plastic numbers from Recycling Rates inNew Jersey (Tons).” Asno published waste characterization study was available of EnvironmentalDepartment Protection’s published figures titled“2017 Generation, Disposal and section. The total tons of MSW recycled and disposed specific to Newark were gathered from NJState The process for gathering data for Newark followed the procedures outlined inthe general methodology ABOUT THEDATA SOURCES Newark’s data. The following tableprovides of key asummary program components, for useascontext inanalyzing NEWARK OF CITY SUMMARY WASTE CHARACTERIZATION Data QualitySummary MunicipalSolidWaste (MSW) includes residential, commercial and institutional. Included inWaste Generation Rates Municipal Composting Program Municipal Recycling Program % of Total Waste Incinerated Population NEWARK AND DATA DEMOGRAPHICS SOURCESUMMARY recycling. Used another county asaproxy for trash and average northeast for MRFreport No cityspecific composition data on recycling ortrash. State 2017 generation rates for recycling and trash. None Curbside Recycling Program 100% 227,140 95 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 96 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Where WasteWhere From Newark Goes CHART N2 recycling facilities, orcomposting facilities from households and businesses inNewark. The total amount, inmetric tons, of municipalsolidwaste (MSW) delivered annuallyto incinerators, intons/year Rates Generation Annual Commercial and Residential CHART N1 HOW MUCH TOTAL MATERIAL ISTHROWN OUTAND DIVERTED INNEWARK? 200,000 100,000 150,000 50,000 0 incinerator 76.9% municipal wastemunicipal incinerated 181,883 Where Waste from Newark Newark from compost compost 3.2% Goes municipal recycling 46,870 19.8% recycling off &drop curbside municipal yard waste yard municipal and food waste waste food and collection 7,635 Where Residents and Businesses Discard Plastic inNewark Plastic Discard Businesses and Residents Where CHART N3 • • • • Key Points onGeneration and MSW Sorting: actually diverted (asdescribed). and food waste. These numbers show just the initialdestination point, not the percentage of material place through municipalcollection programs. Compost includes municipallycollected yard waste The percentage of MSW collected for recycling, compost, orincineration. Recycling collection takes to anincinerator. (MRF) for recycling (butnot necessarily recycled, seebelow) through the curbsiderecycling program or The percentage of allplastic discarded inthe citythat iscurrently sentto amaterials recovery facility Initial Plastic Diversion: WHAT TO HAPPENS PLASTIC DISCARDS INNEWARK?

next section). Diversion rates include some non-recyclable plastic that are incorrectly included inrecycling (see diversion isyard waste and the other halfisfood waste. Compost diversion accounts for 3.2%of MSW. Based onstate about reporting, halfof compost A total of 19.8%of MSW isdiverted for recycling. Newark sends allwaste bound for disposal (76.9%)to incineration. incinerator 89.2% Discard Plastic Plastic Discard Residents and Residents and Businesses Businesses in Newark in Where Where 10.8% plastic sent to MRF to sent plastic 97 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 98 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) • Key Points onPlastic inNewark: industrial facilities, plastic-to-fuel, etc). processor,secondary orare disposed of (disposal includes incineration, landfilling, burningasfuel at It isalsoassumed that #3PVC, #4LDPE,#6PS, and #7other plastic are likely sentto another MRFor of. The study assumes only#1PET, #2HDPE, and #5PPplastic have viableend markets inthese cities. The percentage of plastic that issorted for recycling and sentto aMRFthat islikely recycled ordisposed Recycling Program inNewark’s Plastic Single-Stream the to Happens What CHART N4 • • • Key Points onDiversion of Plastic: PLASTIC THAT “ACTUALLY” GETRECYCLED:

• • the current system. 19.7% of plastic collected inNewark’s municipalcurbsiderecycling program cannot be recycled in next section). Diversion rates include some non-recyclable plastic that are incorrectly included inrecycling (see Jersey hasno bottle billredemption program. 10.8% of plastic issentto aMRFfor recycling through curbsiderecycling the city’s program. New Currently, 89.2%of plastic isincinerated.

it isoften measured by what residents put at the curb, not by what isactually recycled. onrecyclingCity reporting likely includes the non-recyclable material counted as“recycled” since from the MRF. The MRFlikely sends mixed plastic bales processor to asecondary and counts them asrecycled likely recycled (#1, #2, #5) (#1, #2, 80.3% Single-Stream What Happens to the Plastic to Plastic the in Newark’s Recycling Recycling Program 19.7% (#3, #4, #6, #7) (#3, #6, #4, disposed likely • • Fate inNewark Ultimate Plastic of CHART N5 • • Key Points onOverall State of Plastic: program. system. shows Thischart the limited amount of diversion that ispossible under current the city’s The percentage of recyclable and non-recyclable plastic that ends upinthe trash orsingle-stream FOR MORE? HOW MUCH ACTUAL PLASTIC RECYCLING NOW ISHAPPENING AND WHAT ISTHEPOTENTIAL

• at aMRF)cannot be recycled inNewark’s current system. 61.2% of plastic (non-recyclable plastic inthe trash, plastic filmintrash, and non-recyclable plastic 8.7% of allplastic isactuallyrecycled today inNewark. significantly impacted by the increased contamination rates associated withincreased recovery. If plastic recycling continues without strategies to address non-recyclable plastic, MRFs would be associated withplastic recycling by 20%. trash that issentto recycling. Eliminating non-recyclable plastic would likely reduce processing fees results inincreased contamination and increased cost to the citywhichpays amuchhigher fee for For every five tons of plastic that is received by aMRF, one ton of thisplastic is non-recyclable. This

38.8% of allplastic ispotentially recyclable today. plastic film in trash in film plastic 36.4% non-recyclable plastic non-recyclable in single-stream Ultimate Fate Ultimate of Plastic in in of Plastic Newark 2.1% 30.1% 8.7% single-stream recyclable plastic in in trash in recyclable plastic in trash in plastic non-recyclable 22.7% 99 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 100 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) • • • • Key Points onCapture Rate: included inthe recycling program. the trash orrecycling) that isrecycled. compares Thischart the capture rate for each type of container The capture rate of arecyclable commodity isthe percentage of that commodity that isdisposed of (in inNewark by Commodity Rates Capture CHART N6 • • • HOW LIKELY ISITTHAT WE CAN AT LEAST RECYCLE THERECYCLABLE PLASTIC?

containers. program for allcommodities, given particularly the low capture rate of plastic compared to other Focusing onplastic recycling willhave muchless of animpactwithout asuccessful recycling all containers end upinthe trash inNewark. All commodities inNewark are captured at alow rate. Withthe exception of glass, more thanhalfof Other commodities, like glass and steel, are captured at higher rates thanthat of recyclable plastic. is inthe trash, not recycling. 22.4% of recyclable plastic containers end up in a recycling stream and 77.6% of all recyclable plastic plastic isnon-recyclable. Focusing onreduction willhave the biggest impactonreducing plastic inthe waste stream, asmost • The majorityof plastic isnon-recyclable and inthe waste stream, representing 59.1%of allplastic. 77.6% of allrecyclable plastic isinthe trash, not the recycling. *

Curbside only, recovery rate likely higher. 80% 40% 20% 60% 0% significant costs and logistical issues. (36.4%) that cannot be recycled insingle-stream programs and isnot collected separately due to This includes non-recyclable containers that total 22.7%of allplastic inNewark and plastic film recyclable plastic (#1, #5) #2, 22.4% 61.6% glass aluminum* 17.2% 39.6% steel • • • Key Points of Overall Composition of MRF: plastic, orresidual.shows Thischart the MRF’s composition of curbsiderecycling collected inNewark. The percentage of materials sorted through the single-stream program that ismetal, glass, paper, Average Programs fromNewark’s Residential Composition Collection Single-Stream CHART N7 WHERE DOES THISLEAVE SINGLE-STREAM RECYCLING AS AWHOLE?

• burned for energy, orsentto another processor. MRForsecondary 15.3% of all the single-stream materials delivered to the MRFfrom Newark islikely disposed of, • • • Over three quarters of the recycling consists of paper, glass, and metals recycling. About 85%of recycling inNewark’s single-stream program isrecycled and it’s to important continue

by the size, shape, orcondition of the material goingacross line. the sort Some residuals end inherent inefficiencies ofsingle-stream MRFs, such ashumanerror or mechanical issues caused contaminated inthe process; collection and sorting ormaterial that cannot be sorted dueto the in the first place and mistakenly putin recycling material binsand carts); that was destroyed or 13.8% of material delivered to the MRFisresidual: items that were wishcycled (non-recyclable Recyclable plastic makes up6%of single-stream material. • Glass and metals make upanadditional18%of the recycling stream. Paper isby far the most recycled commodity at 60.8%of the recycling stream.

manufacturers. as alternative dailycover onlandfills, rather thansending the cullet back to glass While outsidethe scope of thisproject, many MRFs useglass for low value uses such 60.8% paper plastic (#3, #4, #6, #7): #7): (#3, #6, #4, plastic likely disposed likely R esidential Collection Composition FromComposition Single-Stream Single-Stream Programs N 1.5% Average ewark’s ewark’s 3.3%

6.0% metal likely recycled #5): (#1, #2, plastic 13.8% residual 14.6% glass 101 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 102 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Data Sources canbe found inthe Appendix II:Methodology and Data Summary. • • Key Points of What’s Left After Diversion inNewark: showsThis chart the composition of what isleft after diversion inNewark. Diversion inNewark After Left What’s N8 CHART • WHAT’S LEFTAFTERDIVERSION INNEWARK?

• • • the waste stream Traditional recyclables of paper (21.3%), glass (2.4%),and metal (3.5%)alsoaccount for over 27% of totaling 30.8%of the remaining waste inNewark. Food waste (24.8%) and yard waste (6%) make upthe largest fraction of what’s left inthe trash, These numbers reflect the glass, metal, and plastic collected incurbside recycling binsand carts. •

Plastic filmmakes upalmost two-thirds of non-recyclable plastic. 16% of the waste stream Plastic, including film(6.5%), non-recyclable (4.1%),and recyclable packaging (5.4%),makes up A smallfraction of the waste stream (5.4%)ispotentially recyclable plastic. 1.5% isnon-recyclable plastic. commodities sentto the wrong market, where they willgenerally be disposed of. up aswaste disposed of at the MRF, whileother residuals are incorrectly sorted into the wrong remaining garbage remaining 26.0% food waste 24.8% glass Diversion in Left After Left metal Newark

2.4% What’s 3.5% 4.1% (#3, #4, #6, #7) (#3, #6, #4, plastic: non-recyclable 21.3% paper 5.4% pl (#1, #2, #5) (#1, #2, astic: recyclable 6.0% yard waste 6.5% p lastic film lastic

the methodology was used. “mixed plastic” grade inthe trash orrecycling composition study, the extrapolation method detailed in of the requirements of the recycling contract. Aspolypropylene (#5PP) was not separated from the composition was provided by the recycling vendor, Waste Management, upon request of the cityaspart include allplastic inthe waste stream suchasthose found inelectronics, furniture, ortextiles. Recycling or home decor. The analysis onlyincluded plastic sorted outspecifically inplastic grades and did not recyclable plastic categories, suchascomposite plastic and smallhousehold items like toys, tableware, approximately 77%containers and included approximately 23% non-container durable plastic inthe non- The County report. plastic numbers from thisstudy usedinthe analysis ofreported anLA aspart were volumes, aswell asprovide the composition of the waste stream. The percentage incinerated was Waste Stream Measurement and Analysis tool was usedto extrapolate commercial and residential methodology section. Total tons recycled and disposed of were reported by the city. The CalRecycle The process for gathering data for LongBeach followed the procedures outlined inthe general ABOUT THEDATA SOURCES Long Beach’s data. The following tableprovides of key asummary program components, for useascontext inanalyzing BEACH LONG OF CITY SUMMARY WASTE CHARACTERIZATION Data QualitySummary LongBeach numbers include both residential and commercial components of There isno citywidecollection of yard waste orfood waste. Included inWaste Generation Rates Municipal Composting Program Municipal Recycling Program % of Total Waste Incinerated Population LONG BEACH AND DATA DEMOGRAPHICS SOURCESUMMARY Generation of waste isfrom county reported 2019 numbers. Composition of waste isfrom statewide data tools using2014 data. 2019. Composition and generation of recycling isspecific to LongBeach and from MSW withinthe city. collects #1PET, #2HDPE,and #5PP. Weekly single-stream collection, recently dropped allplastic and now only 68% of allwaste goes to the SERFFincinerator and the rest to alandfill. 475,980 103 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 104 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Where Waste from Long Beach Goes Beach WasteWhere Long from CHART LB2 composting. Beach. The compost collection isbasedon the statewide characterization tool for commercial incinerators, recycling facilities, orcomposting facilities from households and businesses inLong The total amount, inmetric tons, of municipalsolidwaste (MSW) delivered annuallyto landfills, intons/year Rates Generation Annual Residential CHART LB1 HOW MUCH TOTAL MATERIAL ISTHROWN OUTAND DIVERTED INLONG BEACH? 200,000 300,000 100,000 0 incinerator 55.2% incinerated municipal 123,047 waste waste Where Waste Beach Goes Beach municipal landfilled from Long Long from 57,081 waste waste 4.7% redemption recycling municipal recycling 32,587 14.6% recycling off &drop curbside landfill 25.6% state container redemption 10,385 deposit Key Points onGeneration and MSW Sorting: the initialdestination point, not the percentage of material actuallydiverted (asdescribed). There are no reported composting numbers onthe residential sideinLongBeach. These numbers show takes place through municipalcollection, drop off programs, and the statewide redemption program. The percentage of MSW collected for recycling, compost, incineration, ordisposal. Recycling collection Where Residents and Businesses Discard Plastic in Long Beach inLong Plastic Discard Businesses and Residents Where CHART LB3 • • • • Initial Plastic Diversion: WHAT TO HAPPENS PLASTIC DISCARDS INLONG BEACH?

compost. majority of recycling comes from the residential sector. There was no available data for residential Slightly more than halfof allwaste inLongBeach comes from the commercial sector, whilethe • • 19.3% of MSW isdiverted for recycling. Over two-thirds of disposal discards get sentto anincinerator. 25.6% issentto landfills. Long Beach sends almost 81% of itswaste directly to disposal: 55.2%of itswaste isincinerated and

4.7% iscollected through the bottle deposit redemption program 14.6% iscollected through municipalcurbsideand drop off recycling programs. incinerator 51.9% Discard Plastic Plastic Discard Residents and Residents and in Long Beach Businesses Businesses Where Where 10.2% redemption centers 24.1% landfill 13.7% plastic sent to MRF to sent plastic 105 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 106 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) What Happens to the Plastic in Long Beach’s Single-Stream Recycling Program Beach’s inLong Single-Stream Plastic the to Happens What CHART LB4 • • • Key Points onDiversion of Plastic: center, to anincinerator, orlandfilled. for recycling (butnot necessarily recycled, seebelow) through the curbsideprogram, to aredemption The percentage of allplastic discarded inthe cityiscurrently sentto amaterials recovery facility (MRF) PLASTIC THAT “ACTUALLY” GETS RECYCLED

next section). Diversion rates include some non-recyclable plastic that are incorrectly included inrecycling (see section. program, to itisimportant factor inthe net plastic actuallyrecycled, asdiscussed inthe following While the curbsiderecycling program captures more overall plastic thanthe state bottle deposit • • remainder to landfills. Currently 76%of plastic goes directly to disposal withtwo-thirds goingto incineration and the

10.2% iscaptured through the state redemption program. actually recycled (seenext section). recycling program orthrough the State redemption system. Thisdoes not ensure that itis 13.7% of allplastic inLongBeach iscollected for residential recycling through the citycurbside likely recycled (#1, #2, #5) (#1, #2, 45.0% in Long Beach’s Long in Single-Stream What Happens to the Plastic to Plastic the Recycling Recycling Program (#3, #4, #6, #7) (#3, #6, #4, disposed likely 55.0% • • • • • Key Points onPlastic inLongBeach: burning asfuelat industrial facilities, plastic-to-fuel, etc). another processor, MRForsecondary orare disposed of (disposal includes incineration, landfilling, these cities. Itisalsoassumed that #3PVC, #4LDPE,#6PS, and #7other plastic are likely sentto disposed of. The study assumes only#1PET, #2HDPE,and #5PPplastic have viableend markets in The percentage of plastic that issorted for recycling and sentto aMRFthat islikely recycled orlikely

significantly impacted by the increased contamination rates associated withincreased recovery. If plastic recycling continues without strategies to address non-recyclable plastic, MRFs would be processing fees associated withplastic recycling inhalf. higher fee for trash that issentto recycling. Eliminating non-recyclable plastic would likely cut plastic. Thisresults inincreased contamination and increased cost to the citywhichpays amuch For every two tons of plastic that isreceived by aMRF, one ton of thisplastic isnon-recyclable • • • be recycled inthe current system. The majorityof plastic collected inLongBeach’s municipalcurbsiderecycling program (55%)cannot Just because plastic makes itto arecycling bindoes not mean itisactuallyrecycled. • recycled. (#1PET,in thisreport #2HDPE,and #5PP)and that allbottles collected through itare actually It isassumed that 100%of the state deposit program onlyaccepts recyclable bottles asdefined

recycled. because itisoften measured by what residents place at the curb, not by what isactually onrecyclingCity reporting likely includes the non-recyclable material counted as“recycled” collecting 3-7 plastic, asthere was no market for them. The MRFwhere recycling from LongBeach goes worked withthe cityto transition away from recycling. still present, demonstrating the difficultyineducating residents onwhichplastic to include in Despite dropping non-recyclable plastic from the recycling program, the contamination is the curbsideprogram. deposit program nets outto over 1.5times the amount that iscollected and actuallyrecyclable in the deposit program islower thanplastic collected curbside, the net plastic recycled from the As discussed inthe following section, even though the gross amount of plastic collected through 107 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 108 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) • • • Key Points onOverall State of Plastic: under current the program. city’s onlyincludeschart residential shows data. Thischart the limited amount of diversion that ispossible redemption system. WhileLongBeach collects data onboth residential and commercial plastic, this The percentage of recyclable and non-recyclable plastic that ends upinthe trash, single-stream, or Fate Beach inLong Ultimate Plastic of CHART LB5 HOW MUCH ACTUAL PLASTIC RECYCLING NOW ISHAPPENING AND WHAT ISPOTENTIAL FOR MORE?

• The majority of plastic isnon-recyclable and inthe waste stream, representing 52.8%of allplastic. • 60.3% of plastic cannot be recycled inLongBeach’s current system. • • • 16.4% of allplastic isactuallyrecycled today inLongBeach.

issues. in single-stream programs and isnot collected separately dueto significant costs and logistical This includes non-recyclable containers (26.2%)and plastic film(26.6%)that cannot be recycled 39.7% of allplastic ispotentially recyclable today. However, 83.6% of plastic isstill trashed inLongBeach. compared to curbsiderecycling. The deposit redemption program (10.2%) isamore impactful method of recycling plastic 6.2% of plastic iscollected through the curbsiderecycling program. plastic film in trash in film plastic non-recyclable plastic in trash in plastic 26.6% 26.2% recyclable plastic Ultimate Fate Ultimate (Residential) in single-stream Long Beach Beach Long of Plastic in in of Plastic 6.2% 7.5% in single-stream plastic non-recyclable rec in trash in 23.3% yclable plastic 10.2% redemption system recyclable plastic in

• • • • Key Points onCapture Rate: included inthe recycling program. the trash orrecycling) that isrecycled. compares Thischart the capture rate for each type of container The capture rate of arecyclable commodity isthe percentage of that commodity that isdisposed of (in Beach inLong by Commodity Rates Capture CHART LB6 • HOW LIKELY ISITTHAT WE CAN AT LEAST RECYCLE THERECYCLABLE PLASTIC?

* Curbside only, recovery rate likely higher. containers. program for allcommodities, given particularly the low capture rate of plastic compared to other Focusing onplastic recycling willhave muchless of animpactwithout asuccessful recycling Deposit legislation greatly improves glass and aluminumrecovery. glass and aluminum. The bottle billhasincreased the recyclable plastic capture rate, however itisstill less thanthat of redemption system. is inthe trash, not the recycling. Asdescribed above, most of these are captured through the deposit 41.4% of recyclable plastic containers end upinarecycling stream and 58.6%of allrecyclable plastic plastic isnon-recyclable. Focusing onreduction willhave the biggest impactonreducing plastic inthe waste stream, asmost 100% 50% 25% 75% 0% recyclable plastic (#1, #5) #2, 41.4% 78.5% glass aluminum* 83.2% 31.1% steel 109 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 110 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) • • • Key Points of Overall Composition of MRF: Beach. plastic, orresidual.shows Thischart the MRF’s composition of curbsiderecycling collected inLong The percentage of materials sorted through the single-stream program that ismetal, glass, paper, Average Programs Beach’s Residential Collection fromLong Composition Single-Stream CHART LB7 WHERE DOES THISLEAVE SINGLE-STREAM RECYCLING AS AWHOLE?

disposed of, burned for energy, orsent to another processor. MRForsecondary 23.6% of allthe single-stream materials delivered to the MRFfrom LongBeach islikely ultimately • • • of71.8% the recycling consists of paper, glass, and metals that allhave stable domestic end markets. continue recycling. Over 76%of recycling inLongBeach’s single-stream program isrecycled and it’s to important

Recyclable plastic makes upless than 5%of single-stream material. • Glass and metal make upanadditional24.1%of the recycling stream. Paper isby far the most recycled commodity at 47.7% of the recycling stream.

manufacturers. as alternative dailycover onlandfills, rather thansending the cullet back to glass While outsidethe scope of thisproject, many MRFs useglass for low value uses such 47.7% paper R esidential Collection Composition FromComposition Single-Stream Single-Stream L ong Beach’s Programs 3.5% Average metal

4.6% likely recycled (#1,#2,#5): plastic

20.6% glass 5.6% likely disposed likely (#3,#4,#6,#7): plastic 18.0% residual What’s Left After Diversion in Long Beach Diversion inLong After Left What’s CHART LB8 • WHAT’S LEFTAFTERDIVERSION INLONG BEACH? This chart showsThis chart the composition of what isleft after diversion inLongBeach.

5.6% isnon-recyclable plastic. commodities sentto the wrong market, where they willgenerally be disposed of. up aswaste disposed of at the MRF, whileother residuals are incorrectly sorted into the wrong by the size, shape, orcondition of the material goingacross line. the sort Some residuals end inherent inefficiencies ofsingle-stream MRFs, suchashumanerror or mechanical issues caused contaminated inthe process; collection and sorting ormaterial that cannot be sorted dueto the the first place and mistakenly putin recycling material binsand carts); that was destroyed or 18% of material delivered to the MRFisresidual: items that were wishcycled (non-recyclable in remaining garbage remaining 33.7% food waste 20.5% Diversion in Long Beach Long Left After Left 1.9% What’s glass 3.2% metal 3.1% (#1, #2, #5) (#1, #2, plastic: recyclable 3.7% (#3, #4, #6, #7) (#3, #6, #4, non-recyclable 4.1% p 19.0% yard waste lastic film lastic 10.8% paper

111 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 112 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Data Sources canbe found inthe Appendix II:Methodology and Data Summary. • • • Key Points of What’s Left After Diversion inLongBeach:

• • A smallfraction of the waste stream (3.1%)ispotentially recyclable plastic. waste stream Traditional recyclables of paper (10.8%),glass (1.9%),and metal (3.2%)account for about 16%of the totalling over 39%of the remaining waste inLongBeach. Food waste (20.5%)and yard waste (19.0%) make upthe largest fraction of what’s left inthe trash,

Plastic filmmakes up more thanhalf of non-recyclable plastic. almost of 11% the waste stream Plastic, including film(4.1%), non-recyclable (3.7%),and recyclable packaging (3.1%),makes up trash composition study, the extrapolation method detailed inthe methodology was used. furniture ortextiles. Aspolypropylene (#5PP)was not separated from the “mixed plastic’’ grade inthe plastic grades and didnot include allplastic inthe waste stream suchas those found inelectronics, items like toys, tableware orhome decor. The analysis onlyincluded plastic sorted outspecifically in containers and included approximately 21% non-container durable plastic, suchassmallhousehold Characterization of MunicipalSolidWaste inMichiganusedthe analysis were approximately 79% 2016 was usedinitsplace. The plastic collection numbers from Economic ImpactPotential and study specific to Detroit was available. A Michigan statewide residential composition study from significantly from the available 2015 Wayne Nopublished County Reporting. waste characterization MSW recycled, landfilled, incinerated, and composted inDetroit in2018. These numbers did not differ composition of Detroit’s single-stream recycling program. GLSwas alsoableto provide total tons of section. Recent work by Green LivingScience (GLS) and the UrbFoundation provided adetailed The process for gathering data for Detroit followed the procedures outlined inthe general methodology ABOUT THEDATA SOURCES: Detroit’s data. The following tableprovides of key asummary program components, for useascontext inanalyzing DETROIT OF CITY SUMMARY WASTE CHARACTERIZATION Data QualitySummary Numbers reported for MSW, including both residential and commercial. Cityprovides seasonal collection of yard-waste only. Included inWaste Generation Rates Municipal Composting Program Municipal Recycling Program % of Total Waste Incinerated Population DETROIT DEMOGRAPHICS AND DATADETROIT DEMOGRAPHICS SOURCESUMMARY from 2016 was used. No Detroit specific waste composition data was available, so statewide data 2019 composition study of recycling performed by GLS. Generation rate data from 2018. available to residents at no cost upon request from the City. every other week rate. witha36%participation Recently, are now binsand carts Since 2015, the cityhasprovided “optional” recycling is pickup. Collection service 0% (since incinerator shutdown in2019) 647,841 113 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 114 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Where Waste from Detroit Goes WasteWhere Detroit from CHART D2 incinerators, recycling facilities, orcomposting facilities from households and businesses inDetroit. The total amount, inmetric tons, of municipalsolidwaste (MSW) delivered annuallyto landfills, intons/year Rates Generation Annual Commercial and Residential CHART D1 HOW MUCH TOTAL MATERIAL ISTHROWN OUTAND DIVERTED INDETROIT? 400,000 200,000 300,000 100,000 0 91.6% municipal wastemunicipal landfill 305,385 landfilled curbside & drop &drop curbside off recycling Where Waste from Detroit Detroit from municipal recycling 5,434 1.6% Goes

3.3% redemption recycling state container 3.5% c redemption ompost (yard waste) deposit 11,115 waste collection municipal yardmunicipal 11,521 Key Points onGeneration and MSW Sorting: initial destination point, not the percentage of material actuallydiverted (asdescribed). includes municipallycollected yard waste. These numbers show abreakdown of material reaching the through municipalcollection, drop off programs, and the statewide redemption program. Compost only The percentage of MSW collected for recycling, compost, ordisposal. Recycling collection takes place redemption center, orlandfilled. (MRF) for recycling (butnot necessarily recycled, seebelow) through the curbsiderecycling program, to a The percentage of allplastic discarded inthe citythat iscurrently sentto amaterials recovery facility inDetroit Plastic Discard Businesses and Residents Where CHART D3 • • • Initial Plastic Diversion: WHAT TO HAPPENS PLASTIC DISCARDS INDETROIT?

seasonal yard waste pickup. There iscurrently no citywide food waste collection program. Compost diversion accounts for 3.5%of MSW, the majorityof whichisyard waste. Detroit provides • • A total of 5.0% of MSW isdiverted for recycling. 2019. Detroit sends allwaste bound for disposal (91.6%) to landfills because the incinerator shutdown in

percentage that isdiverted through the municipalrecycling program. 3.3% iscollected through the state bottle redemption program, whichismore thantwice the 1.6% iscollected through municipalcurbsideand drop off recycling programs. 94.0% landfilled plastic sent to MRF to sent plastic Discard Plastic Plastic Discard Residents and Residents and Businesses Businesses in Detroit in 1.7% Where Where 4.3% redemption centers 115 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 116 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) • • Recycling Program Single-Stream inDetroit’s Plastic the to Happens What CHART D4 • • • Key Points onDiversion of Plastic: Key Points onPlastic inDetroit: burning asfuelat industrial facilities, plastic-to-fuel, etc). another processor, MRForsecondary orare disposed of (disposal includes incineration, landfilling, these cities. Itisalsoassumed that #3PVC, #4LDPE,#6PS, and #7other plastic are likely sentto disposed of. The study assumes only#1 PET, #2HDPE,and #5PPplastic have viableend markets in The percentage of plastic that issorted for recycling and sentto aMRFthat islikely recycled orlikely PLASTIC THAT “ACTUALLY” GETS RECYCLED

the current system. 24.5% of plastic collected inDetroit’s municipalcurbside recycling program cannot be recycled in recycled. (#1PET,in thisreport #2HDPE,and #5PP)and that allbottles collected through it are actually It isassumed that 100%of the state deposit program onlyaccepts recyclable bottles asdefined next section). Diversion rates include some non-recyclable plastic that are incorrectly included inrecycling (see the curbsiderecycling program (1.7%). The vast majorityof plastic iscaptured through the state bottle deposit program (4.3%)compared to Currently 94.0% of plastic goes directly to disposal inlandfills. likely recycled (#1, #2, #5) (#1, #2, 75.5% Single-Stream What Happens to the Plastic to Plastic the in Detroit’s Detroit’s in Recycling Recycling Program 24.5% (#3, #4, #6, #7) (#3, #6, #4, disposed likely current program. redemption system. shows This chart the limited amount of diversion that ispossible under the city’s The percentage of recyclable and non-recyclable plastic that ends upinthe trash, single-stream, or Fate inDetroit Ultimate Plastic of CHART D5 • • MORE? HOW MUCH ACTUAL PLASTIC RECYCLING NOW ISHAPPENING AND WHAT ISTHEPOTENTIAL FOR

recycled. because itisoften measured by what residents place at the curb, not by what isactually onrecyclingCity reporting likely includes the non-recyclable material counted as“recycled” from the MRF. The MRFlikely sends mixed plastic bales processor to asecondary and counts them asrecycled plastic bags, thisisnot surprising. Because the cityadvertises inclusion of allplastic (including non-recyclable), excluding only non-recyclable plastic in trash in plastic 45.6% rec in single-stream yclable plastic Ultimate Fate Ultimate of Plastic in in of Plastic 1.3% Detroit

4.3% redemption system recyclable plastic in in trash in recyclable plastic 28.0% plastic film in trash in film plastic 20.4%

117 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 118 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Capture Rates by Commodity inDetroit by Commodity Rates Capture CHART D6 • • • Key Points onOverall State of Plastic: included in the recycling program. the trash orrecycling) that isrecycled. compares Thischart the capture rate for each type of container The capture rate of arecyclable commodity isthe percentage of that commodity that isdisposed of (in HOW LIKELY ISITTHAT WE CAN AT LEAST RECYCLE THERECYCLABLE PLASTIC?

plastic isnon-recyclable. Focusing onreduction willhave the biggest impact onreducing plastic inthe waste stream, asmost • The majorityof plastic isnon-recyclable and inthe waste stream, representing 66%of allplastic. • • single-stream curbsiderecycling program. 5.6% of allplastic isactuallyrecycled today inDetroit, either through the redemption system orthe

* issues. in single-stream programs and isnot collected separately dueto significant costs and logistical This includes non-recyclable containers (45.6%)and plastic film(20.4%)that cannot be recycled plastic being trashed inDetroit. of recycling plastic compared to curbsiderecycling—however, itstill results inalmost 95.0% of The deposit redemption program (4.3%)isamuchmore cost-effective and impactfulmethod 1.3% of plastic isrecycled through the curbsiderecycling program. Curbside only, recovery rate likely higher. 80% 40% 20% 60% 0% recyclable plastic (#1, #5) #2, 16.6% 47.6% glass aluminum* 63.4% 7.1% steel plastic, orresidual. shows Thischart the MRF’s composition of curbsiderecycling collected inDetroit. The percentage of materials sorted through the single-stream program that ismetal, glass, paper, Average Programs Residential Collection fromDetroit’s Composition Single-Stream CHART D7 • • • Key Points onCapture Rate: WHERE DOES THISLEAVE SINGLE-STREAM RECYCLING AS AWHOLE?

containers. program for allcommodities, given particularly the low capture rate of plastic compared to other Focusing onplastic recycling willhave muchless of animpactwithout asuccessful recycling than that of recyclable plastic. recycled insingle-stream programs. Glass and aluminumare captured at rates 3-4times greater This includes non-recyclable containers (45.6%)and plastic film(20.4%), both of whichcannot be deposit redemption system. ends upinthe trash, not the recycling. Asdescribed above, most of these are captured through the 16.6% of recyclable plastic containers end upinarecycling stream and 83.4%of allrecyclable plastic 42.7% paper R esidential Collection Composition FromComposition Single-Stream Single-Stream Programs 3.0% D Average etroit’s metal

3.6% likely disposed likely #7): (#3, #6, #4, ‘plastic 25.3% residual 11.1% likely recycled #5): (#1, #2, plastic 14.3% glass 119 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste 120 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) • • • • Key Points of Overall Composition of MRF:

brought directly to ametal recycling facility. They donot include the glass, metal, and plastic collected through the state redemption program or These numbers reflect the glass, metal, and plastic collected incurbside recycling binsand carts. • • to another processor. MRForsecondary 28.9% of allthe single-stream materials delivered to the MRFfrom Detroit islikely landfilled orsent • • • Over 60%the recycling consists of paper, glass, and metal. recycling. Over 70%of recycling inDetroit’s single-stream program isrecycled andto itisimportant continue

3.6% isnon-recyclable plastic. commodities sentto the wrong market, where they willgenerally be disposed of. up aswaste disposed of at the MRF, whileother residuals are incorrectly sorted into the wrong by the size, shape, orcondition of the material goingacross line. the sort Some residuals end inherent inefficiencies ofsingle-stream MRFs, suchashumanerror or mechanical issues caused contaminated inthe process; collection and sorting ormaterial that cannot be sorted dueto the in the first place and mistakenly putin recycling material binsand carts); that was destroyed or 25.3% of material delivered to the MRFisresidual: items that were wishcycled (non-recyclable Recyclable plastic makes of up11.1% single-stream material. • Glass and metal make upanadditional17.3% of the recycling stream. Paper isby far the most recycled commodity at 42.7%of the recycling stream.

manufacturers. as alternative dailycover onlandfills, rather thansending the cullet back to glass While outsidethe scope of thisproject, many MRFs useglass for low value uses such Data Sources canbe found inthe Appendix II:Methodology and Data Summary. • • • Key Points of What’s Left After Diversion inDetroit: showsThis chart the composition of what isleft after diversion inDetroit. Diversion inDetroit After Left What’s CHART D8 WHAT’S LEFTAFTERDIVERSION INDETROIT

• • A smallfraction of plastic inthe waste stream (4.4%)ispotentially recyclable plastic. waste stream Traditional recyclables of paper (20.1%),glass (2.7%),and metal (3.0%) account for over 25.0% of the diversion, totalling almost 39.0% of the remaining waste inDetroit. Food waste (16.9%) and yard waste (22.0%) make upthe largest fraction of what isleft after

Plastic filmmakes upabout one-third of non-recyclable plastic. 14.7% of the waste stream. Plastic, including film(3.2%), non-recyclable (7.1%), and recyclable packaging (4.4%),makes up remaining garbage remaining 20.6% yard waste 22.0% Diversion in Left After Left Detroit What’s 2.7% glass 3.0% 20.1% paper metal 3.2% p lastic film lastic 4.4% (#1, #2, #5) (#1, #2, pl astic: recyclable 7.1% plastic: non-recyclable (#3, #4, #6, #7) (#3, #6, #4, food waste 16.9%

121 A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste A Tale of 5 Cities: Plastic Barriers to Zero Waste ©2021 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives 1958 University Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA