Replacing Recycling Rates with Life-Cycle Metrics as Government Materials Management Targets

Moving beyond recycling: Examining steps for local government to integrate sustainable materials management

Recently, local governments experienced unprecedented challenges to their recycling programs and are looking to alternative forms to meet their sustainability goals. Traditionally, waste management policies focus on using a mass-based recycling rate to promote and measure sustainability, however that metric inadvertently promotes recycling over source reduction. Here, we present a metric which measures a community's greenhouse gas (GHG) and energy use footprints for their consumed and end-of-life material streams. Using materials and waste statistics for Florida as an example, we estimated the consumed and discarded masses of 24 materials in 2018. We developed methods and used existing (i.e., WARM, literature) lifecycle assessment data to measure upstream and end-of-life environmental footprints of these materials. The total upstream footprints were approximately 12 and 10 times larger than the end-of-life GHG emissions and energy use footprints, respectively, indicating the need for sustainable materials management application. Mixed paper, cardboard, mixed construction and demolition (C&D) materials had the largest lifecycle footprints. We then use these data to illustrate a method for local governments to apply the alternative metric referred to as the lifecycle footprint reduction target. We demonstrate this target's application in Florida using a hypothetical 20% footprint reduction and provide approaches which focus on increasing the source reduction and recycling potentials of key materials to meet the target. The approaches included a junk mail ban, food donation mandate, cardboard takeback mandate, and building deconstruction mandate and were evaluated for their feasibility in meeting the target; the building deconstruction and the food donation mandate resulted in the greatest and least progress, respectively, toward meeting the target. These approaches provide local government a baseline for continued progress toward SMM application.Implications: Consumer consumption of manufactured products - the packaging for our food and beverages, the products in our homes and offices, the vehicles we drive, and the buildings we live and work in - ultimately must be discarded at the end of their useful life. It is through the management of residential and commercial solid waste that local governments face the consequences of society's materials consumption. Thus, not surprisingly, materials conservation efforts at the government level focus primarily on efforts to recycle waste and divert these materials from landfill disposal. Here we examine a concept whereby local governments - normally charged with collecting and managing residential and commercial waste, and thus setting waste recycling targets - expand their thinking to include all life cycle phases for the materials consumed and discarded in their jurisdiction. In doing so, local governments can now shift from a waste management to a lifecycle-oriented perspective and expand beyond just managing waste to managing materials.

Re-evaluating the TCLP's Role as the Regulatory Driver in the Management of Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Ash

Up to 30% of the municipal solid waste (MSW) that is incinerated for energy recovery ends up as MSW incinerator (MSWI) ash. In light of the large volume of MSWI ash and the expenses and regulatory burden if this ash were managed as a hazardous waste, U.S. MSWI facilities place great emphasis on ensuring MSWI ashes pass the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP). The focus on passing the TCLP has the unintended consequence of making recycling more difficult and arguably making the ash less benign. This policy analysis examines current U.S. MSWI ash management practices in relation to the TCLP, and discusses the role of the TCLP as a regulatory driver in the management of MSWI ashes. A review of existing information, example data, and common MSWI ash management practices provide insight into potential issues with the current approach and opportunities for alternative directions.