The League of Women Voters of South Hampton Roads
2022-4 Local Recycling Study Report
Contributors: Judith Brown, Kari Buchanan, Carolyn Caywood, Judy Hinch, Judy Kyle
League of Women Voters Positions
Relevant existing LWV positions can be found in LWV-US Impact on Issues p.96-9 and LWV-VA Positioned for Actionp.17-25. Virginia’s Positioned for Action addresses natural resources, but does not specifically mention recycling.
Impact on Issues (LWV-US)
The League supports the preservation of the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the ecosystem and maximum protection of public health and the environment. The League’s approach to environmental protection and pollution control is one of problem solving. The interrelationships of air, water, and land resources should be recognized in designing environmental safeguards. The League’s environmental protection and anti-pollution goals aim to prevent ecological degradation and to reduce and control pollutants before they go down the sewer, up the chimney, or into the landfill. Page 96
Environmental protection and pollution control, including waste management, should be considered a cost of providing a product or service. Consumers, taxpayers and ratepayers must expect to pay some of the costs. Page 96
The League supports: Policies to reduce the generation and promote the reuse and recycling of solid and hazardous wastes. Page 99
South Hampton Roads Local Residential Recycling Study
In 2022, we asked, “Why is a study needed? When Chesapeake City Council declared its intention to end curbside recycling, we learned that much of what residents dutifully set aside for recycling doesn’t get recycled. Many people in Chesapeake were surprised by the City Council’s action, because recycling is viewed as desirable, an activity good for the environment. Norfolk almost stopped recycling a few years ago due to contract and cost issues: some materials have a recycling market, but many don’t. Virginia has passed laws intended to reduce the waste stream of hard-to-recycle materials but local political will is lacking. How do we move past personal virtue to broad community action? Is a legislative fix possible? Can some of the issues be addressed regionally, as opposed to each locality having a separate contract?”
The Local Recycling Study was approved at the 5/21/22 Annual Meeting of LWVSHR.
Scope
- We considered Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach only.
- We only considered household recycling, i.e. residential waste.
- We focused on actions LWVSHR can advocate and our 5 city governments can take.
History & Context:
Origins of Recycling
For most of history, people used things till they wore out and then tried to re-purpose what remained. In the first half of the 20th century, many empty glass beverage bottles were redeemed for money and reused by businesses. According to You’ll Never Believe Who Invented Curbside Recycling, “A 1948 study found that about 96 percent of soda bottles ended up back at their manufacturers.” Not long after that study, both beer and soft drink companies began switching to single use cans.
Without the deposit and refund incentive, littering increased. In 1953, the beverage industry came up with “Keep America Beautiful” to deflect legislation in states that would have required returnable containers. While this campaign discouraged littering, it dumped the problem of disposal on local government’s waste management.
Soon more goods and packaging were intended for disposal after one use. Widespread use of disposable plastics accelerated the trend, which prompted environmental push back. The single-use plastic bag, Earth Day, the slogan “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” and the “chasing arrows” symbol all date to 1970. In 1988, the Society of Plastics Institute adapted the arrows symbol to label seven types of plastic with Resin Identification Codes.
The beverage industry continued to advocate for recycling as an alternative to taking back their used containers. Environmental organizations joined them in lobbying Congress to support municipal recycling. In 1976, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. However, the tension remained between what we now call Extended Producer Responsibility laws and recycling programs within local waste management.
Before 1976, each local government managed its own solid waste disposal. (Mount Trashmore in Virginia Beach is a legacy of the pre-SPSA days and an early attempt at thinking about landfills and the environment.) Our regional solid waste disposal organization, the Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA), was set up in 1976. Recycling stayed with the individual cities. At first, containers for the public to drop off recyclable waste were scattered around the cities. There were tensions over odors, contamination, overflow, and general unsightliness.
In Virginia Beach, for example, 18-gallon collection bins were issued to households for curbside recycling. Meanwhile, “Virginia Beach went fully-automated for its solid waste in 1986 to reduce cost and service its residents more efficiently,” according to Wade Kyle, then Waste Management Administrator in the Public Works Department. This involved a 95-gallon trash container designed to fit a lifting mechanism on the collection vehicle. A few years later, a second 95-gallon, wheeled, “toter” was issued to each household for recycling. Public participation grew steadily in the late 20th century as recycling became more convenient and more widely perceived to be virtuous. However, the move to single-stream, i. e. collecting all recyclables in a single bin, increased contamination and added the cost of sorting.
You’ll Never Believe Who Invented Curbside Recycling concludes, “The industry promoted public recycling systems as self-sustaining, since they could make money selling recycled materials back to manufacturers. But according to a 1999 study, that revenue covered less than 35 percent of the programs’ expenses. And most waste still didn’t end up recycled. Far from ushering in a zero-waste world, curbside recycling provided cover for the creation of ever more packaging, and ever more trash.”
The American public became more aware and concerned about the growing volume of waste, especially plastic. In 1993, the League of Women Voters Education Fund published The Plastic Waste Primer to help communities discuss the problem. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch was first sighted in 1997. In 2009, China implemented a nationwide ban of plastic bags. Other nations, some states and Washington D.C. followed.
China
Then in 2018, China’s “National Sword” policy ended the import of what other countries collected for recycling. While recycling had filled shipping containers that would otherwise have gone back to China empty, too much of that recycling was contaminated and couldn’t be recycled. It just added to China’s own growing waste stream. Loss of that market cut into recycling’s profit margin. If that wasn’t enough, COVID-19 increased residential waste and recycling as offices closed, restaurants resorted to carryout, and online shopping increased packing waste. Online shopping delivery companies also competed for drivers with trash collection and recycling.
In part because of China’s action, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) studied Virginia’s recycling rates in 2019. The rate had been stable at 41-42%. The report recognized that additional funding and incentives might be needed in the wake of China’s decision. It noted that single stream recycling gets both greater participation and greater contamination.
Virginia
The state mandates recycling by local governments, provides a formula for calculating the minimum, and requires annual reporting for cities the size of those in Hampton Roads.
In 2020, the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation addressing waste from released balloons and styrofoam containers. Legislators authorized counties and cities to adopt an ordinance imposing a Disposable Plastic Bag Tax. The Plastic Waste Prevention Advisory Council and the Waste Diversion and Recycling Task Force were established.
Governor Northam’s 2021 Executive Order No. 77 Virginia Leading by Example to Reduce Plastic Pollution and Solid Waste directed state agencies to discontinue buying, selling, or distributing: disposable plastic bags, single-use plastic and polystyrene food service containers, plastic straws and cutlery, and single-use plastic water bottles, unless there was a health or safety need. Phasing out of these items was to be completed by the end of 2025.
In April, 2022, Governor Youngkin issued Executive Order No. 17 Recognizing the Value of Recycling and Waste Reduction. EO#17 addressed raising awareness of recycling, food waste, use of post-consumer recycled products, capture of recyclable materials at government properties, and attracting recycling businesses to Virginia. EO #17 also rescinded the previous Governor’s EO#77.
DEQ describes efforts to implement EO #17. DEQ also directed the Waste Diversion and Recycling Task Force to investigate how to attract recycling related businesses to Virginia and to include that in the Task Force report. The Task Force report is available on the Legislative Information System. The report was reviewed by WasteDive, an industry website. The Plastic Waste Prevention Advisory Council submitted an annual report for 2022 and planned to keep working through June, 2023.
South Hampton Roads
When Chesapeake’s contract with TFC Recycling ended in summer of 2022, the cost of a new contract was higher than the city government was willing to pay. Chesapeake returned to the system of setting up drop off recycling locations. Residents also had the option of a subscription service if they wanted to keep the convenience of curbside pick up. According to WAVY, use of the drop off bins was higher than expected and about three thousand households signed up for curbside service for a fee.
TFC contracts with Norfolk and Virginia Beach will end in June 2024. The Suffolk contract will end with the fiscal year in 2025. Virginia Beach has been conducting a citizen engagement campaign to get feedback on the available options, that is, to accept a more expensive contract, return to drop off centers, or let households opt in to receive curbside service for a fee.
Portsmouth does not contract with TFC because of the presence of the Wheelabrator trash-to-energy plant within its city limits. However, the Navy, that was the main energy customer in Portsmouth, has a new gas-powered energy plant scheduled to begin operation in 2024, according to the Virginian Pilot.
An important point in the Waste Diversion and Recycling Task Force report is that recycling businesses want to be assured of a steady and sufficient stream of material to be recycled. If the cities of South Hampton Roads end curbside recycling, it will drastically reduce that stream of material. If the Governor is serious about attracting recycling businesses, he may want to consider what incentives the state can offer to preserve curbside recycling.
Methodology of This Study
Cities
We planned to interview a city official from each of the five cities but only succeeded in getting a meeting with LJ Hansen, Public Works Director for Virginia Beach. That meeting, however, was very enlightening. The main takeaway from our interview was that there is no cost savings associated with recycling. He agreed that there were important benefits to the environment, but there was no way to calculate them economically. Decisions on recycling must be made on the basis of “public good,” not economics.
The Virginia Beach recycling contract is in the Public Works Waste Management budget. It has recently been posted online. The contract ends in June of 2024. Waste Management oversees fulfillment of contract obligations. Under the current contract, the same quantity of material costs the city $3.00 if it goes to TFC for recycling and $1.00 if it goes to the Southeastern Public Service Authority as waste. The total waste stream is 162,298 tons of which 23,164 tons go to TFC. 124,179 of 177,046 Virginia Beach households, 70%, are served by the curbside recycling contract. Residents on private roads are not served. There are some apartment buildings, condominiums, and homeowners’ associations (HOAs) that include recycling with their private waste contracts.
Since our interview, Virginia Beach has rolled out a public engagement campaign to get feedback on which of three options residents prefer. VB options:
1, Same services, increased costs. Increased costs are estimated to be between $2.50-4.00 depending on results of the procurement process.
2. Eliminate curbside service and increase the number of convenience centers. The City currently has two recycling centers (West Neck and the Landfill). This option would look to develop five additional locations at a cost of $400,000 per center. The cost would likely be absorbed through the current waste management fee and the City would work with a subscription-based service to help establish a market.
3. Develop an opt-in/opt-out recycling program. Those who opt in would continue to recycle and it would be collected by a contractor. The cost will be determined by the number of residents who opt in. Those who opt out would put their recycle material into the black waste cart, which would be collected by the City and delivered to SPSA.
Virginia Beach has also emphasized informing residents how to recycle better.
We polled League members across Virginia about recycling. The responses varied widely, depending on population density.
|
locality |
method of recycling |
other notes |
|
Abington |
curbside |
private, for a fee $30/mo, bi-weekly pickup |
|
Arlington |
curbside |
includes organics, table scraps, but not glass |
|
Chesapeake |
drop off |
sites expanded |
|
Falls Church |
curbside |
except glass |
|
Fauquier County |
drop off |
no waste pick up curbside either! |
|
Floyd County |
no |
|
|
James City County |
curbside |
voluntary, for a fee |
|
Norfolk |
curbside |
contract ends June 2024 |
|
Roanoke City |
curbside |
|
|
Roanoke County |
no |
|
|
Suffolk |
curbside |
contract runs to 2025 |
|
Virginia Beach |
curbside |
contract ends June 2024 |
|
Washington County |
private contract |
for a fee |
Recycling Service Providers
We interviewed Michael Benedetto, owner of TFC, about the business side of recycling. TFC handles glass, cardboard, paper, metals, #1PET and #2 HDPE plastics, and could handle organics (food waste composting). About 25% of what they pick up is not recyclable, which is factored into the contract. Too many people indulge in “wishful recycling,” thinking that the more they put into the recycling container, the more good they are doing. Curbside recycling involves a lot of overhead – a fleet of expensive, special-use vehicles plus the factory where materials are sorted. There have been supply chain issues and difficulty hiring drivers. Labor costs have risen.
Benedetto believes that cities should think about ways to motivate residents to recycle. He mentioned pay-as-you-throw and a utility fee approach. The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection lists communities that are charging for trash disposal based on the amount disposed. Extended Producer Responsibility legislation would also be beneficial – Benedetto cited vehicle tires as an example of extended producer responsibility that works. (Benedetto also gave a Zoom presentation on recycling to League members.)
Other waste and recycling businesses observed to be operating in South Hampton Roads include Waste Management and Green For Life Environmental . Both of these are larger than TFC and not headquartered locally.
In other parts of Virginia, Republic Services operates a transfer station on the Peninsula. Choice Waste Services provides recycling to customers in Chesterfield County since the County ended its curbside service in June, 2023. Valley Curbside Recycling provides fee-based service to customers in Salem and Roanoke County. Revolution Curbside Recycling serves customers in Southwest Virginia.
Central Virginia Waste Management Authority (CVWMA) was formed in 1990 as a public service authority that handles both solid waste and recycling for 13 localities in central Virginia. (The equivalent for our Hampton Roads region would be to have SPSA take on curbside and drop off recycling.) In Arlington and Fairfax Counties, it appears that curbside recycling is part of municipal waste management.
What happens to recycled materials:
We learned from TFC the current fate of local household recycled materials by type:
● metal, TFC can sell steel cans for $.11/lb and aluminum cans for $.70/lb. SPSA offers scrap metal collection at the Regional Landfill.
● glass, a buyer in Wilson, NC, purchases it, but at no profit to TFC. SPSA uses it as cullet for landfill cover. The problem with glass is its weight: cost of transport quickly diminishes its value.
● cardboard, $.05/lb paid by Total Fiber Recovery, Celadon Development Corporation
● paper, $.03/lb - paid by Total Fiber Recovery, note: no shredded paper accepted
● plastics, #1 PET sells for $.15/lb and #2 HDPE for $.70/lb to be processed in the US. Plastic resins #3 through #7 are not accepted by TFC.. Some out-of-the-area businesses, like Trex, have drop-off sites for some other plastics.
Other recyclable materials:
l yard waste,Virginia’s Administrative Code states that,”Yard wastes and vegetative wastes are deemed to be recycled if they are composted or mulched and the finished mulch or compost is marketed or otherwise used productively.” This is handled by local governments.
l food waste can be composted. Tidewater Compost offers weekly pickups for $8.75/week plus a one time $25 setup fee.
l textiles, Massachusetts mandates the recycling of all textiles, including bedding as well as clothing. Central Virginia Waste Management Authority partners with Goodwill to promote textile recycling.
Waste-to-energy is considered the least satisfactory kind of recycling, but better than a landfill. In our region, SPSA sells energy back to the grid and also contracts with Wheelabrator.
“Advanced Recycling”
The U.S. is reliant upon plastics for most commercial goods. Plastics are contained in clothes, household goods, and many single use plastic items. Plastics recycling has been limited to #1 PET and #2 HDPE plastics. Most plastics are disposed of directly into landfills. Advanced recycling is newer technology that breaks plastic down into material that can be used to make new plastic material. According to America’s Plastic Makers, advanced recycling is technology that can increase the types and amount of plastics recycled, which reduces the need for fossil resources and keeps plastic out of landfills. The group also states that the plastics industry has a goal of reusing, recycling, and recovering 100% of plastic packaging by 2040. Advanced recycling is complementary to mechanical recycling.
Advanced recycling is controversial. Some sources state advanced recycling increases greenhouse gas emissions. Others state that typical pyrolysis facilities have low air emissions and can decrease greenhouse gasses significantly. Study results differ due to lack of consistent and agreed-upon assessment criteria. An additional controversy is how to regulate the plants. Waste plants are more strictly regulated than manufacturing plants. In 2020, Pennsylvania enacted legislation to regulate advanced recycling as manufacturing and in 2021 Virginia did the same by passing SB1164.
Regardless of how plastic is recycled or how much of it is recycled, the message of recycling is that if it is being reused, using it is not bad. This message and recycling itself do not address the overall amount of material being disposed of by our society.
Markets for Recycled Materials
Even before China upended the trade in recycling, it was apparent that plastic recycling was an economically marginal activity. An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)report in 2018 observed, “The dysfunctional character of markets for recycled plastics manifests itself in several ways. Market volumes and liquidity are limited, trade flows are small as a proportion of total plastics waste generation, and market prices are highly volatile. Global plastics recycling rates are low and the market share of recycled plastics is less than 10%.” The report recommends government policy to improve the market for both buyers and sellers so the market can become large enough to be self-sustaining.
Europe and Asia are leading in this public policy direction. Last year, theUnited Kingdom introduced a tax on manufacturers that produce or import plastic packaging containing less than 30 percent recycled plastic. Without this sort of incentive, recycled plastic costs more than virgin plastic and meets no unique need.
The U. S. Retail Industry Leaders Association last year published aFact Sheet: Mandatory Recycled Content Laws for Packaging that asserts, “Mandatory minimum recycled content policy is a proven market development strategy that has been employed at the state level for more than 30 years.” These laws increase the demand for and value of recycled materials, are fair to all manufacturers, reduce investment risk in this capital-intensive operation, and alleviate pollution and climate impacts. The Fact Sheet notes that, “Supply-side policies, like Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), bottle bills, and mandatory recycling are some ways to increase the available material supply to meet recycled content requirements.”
Other considerations are to focus on post-consumer content, as the market for post-industrial content is stable, to consider ethical sourcing so the market does not create human rights abuses, and to set up verification to avoid green-washing.
Education and Motivation
With regard to efforts to educate and motivate, money matters to the consumer. History (see History and Context section) indicates the deposit incentive has proven its worth. More recently, bottle bills, recycling refunds or container deposit laws are cited by the Stewardship Action Foundation for a 63% recycle rate in states with bottle bills compared with 17% rate in unregulated states. (Eunomia "State of States" report 2021). At this time, Virginia does not have such a law or program.
Another aspect must be minimizing confusion and maximizing convenience in localities. Since recycling rules are local, general education will be helpful, but in the end, it comes down to basic rules in a locality being clearly communicated and repeated often. Publishing, distributing and or posting guidelines in newspapers, church bulletins, grocery stores, garden centers, and restaurants will keep the message before the public. Photos and drawings of acceptable recyclables will continue to educate and remind.
Maximizing convenience cannot be overlooked. If community drop off bins are being utilized, regular attention will be needed to assure that their locations are well known, familiar, and easily accessible to all. This would apply to neighborhood bins, as well as those in apartment and condominium complexes. Door-to-door recycling pickup, offered the same day as waste collection is easiest for residents to remember.
Simple versions of environmentally friendly tips are already found in abundance online and can be added to handouts and other promotional material. Mottos, catch phrases, and slogans can be helpful. The following come to mind: "When in doubt, throw it out;" "Refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle, repurpose"; "Scoop the poop;" "Check for the neck". Neighborhood organizations might encourage lending, borrowing, and sharing rarely used tools, or purchasing used items. Used clothing stores can promote the value of their products. Highlight special events like September Zero Waste Awareness Week and November 15 National Recycle Day. Use cartoons, colorful pictures, simple diagrams, and break down into steps to reach out to children.
Recycling and Climate Change
The vast increase in waste in the last seven decades has been one of the forces driving climate change. Most plastics are derived from petroleum or other fossil carbon. Most manufacturing processes emit greenhouse gasses, and when the product manufactured is discarded after a single use, the emissions mount up fast. Waste that is burned adds more greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. Landfills emit methane, and even when it is captured for fuel, there are still gas emissions. Thus waste that is recycled has the potential to help mitigate climate change.
A recent study was published as “The hidden economic and environmental costs of eliminating kerb-side recycling” by Malak Anshassi & Timothy G. Townsend in Nature Sustainability, 22 May 2023. The study modeled greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the average U.S. household with and without recycling.
The study found, “The approach providing the best ROI does not emphasize placing the greatest amount of material in the recycling bin but instead on capturing those commodities with the greatest market value and highest GHG emissions-offset potential when they are remanufactured. Consider materials such as newspaper, cardboard, aluminium and steel cans and high density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottles.”
The authors assert, “Our analysis highlights that kerb-side recycling provides communities a return on investment similar to or better than climate change mitigation strategies such as voluntary green power purchases and transitioning to electric vehicles. Eliminating recycling squanders one of the easiest opportunities for communities and citizens to mitigate climate change and reduce natural resources demands.”
Recommendations for local governments
l Accept recycling as a part of waste management and as a public good that benefits all who live in or visit the region.
l Explore a regional approach to recycling similar to the Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA) for solid waste.
l Consider expanding the kinds of recycling to include organics, possibly textiles, etc.
l Require recycling participation by every residence including apartments and other multifamily dwellings, either through government or private contract.
l Accept the necessity of curbside convenience to get sufficient compliance to make recycling function well.
l Re-emphasize to the public that "Reduce and Reuse” are preferable to “Recycle”. Educate & advocate for less waste creation.
l Continue to test ways to inform & motivate residents to recycle properly, and avoid “wishful” recycling and contamination.
l Increase the market for recycled products through procurement policies that specify a percentage of post-consumer content.
l Prefer more easily recyclable or decomposable materials to plastics, especially #3 - #7, in procurement policies.
l Advocate for Extended Producer Responsibility to encourage alternatives that reduce excess packaging and single-use products.
Consensus questions
- Is recycling a necessary part of waste management that should be budgeted and managed like other trash collection? _____Yes _____No _____No consensus. Comments:
- Is recycling one of the cross-jurisdictional operations that would be better handled throughRegional Cooperation? _____Yes _____No _____No consensus. Comments:
- Should recycling in South Hampton Roads be expanded to include more categories of waste as long as there are potential markets for what is collected? _____Yes _____No _____No consensus. Comments:
- Should all South Hampton Roads residences be required to participate in recycling, either through government or private contract? _____Yes _____No _____No consensus. Comments:
- Should we accept that curbside service is necessary to get recycling compliance? _____Yes _____No _____No consensus. Comments:
- Should recycling messaging emphasize that "Reduce and Reuse” are more important? _____Yes _____No _____No consensus. Comments:
- Should all households in South Hampton Roads receive regular information and encouragement on how to recycle properly and avoid contamination? _____Yes _____No _____No consensus. Comments:
- Should the procurement policies of local city governments specify a percentage of post-consumer content? _____Yes _____No _____No consensus. Comments:
- Should the procurement policies of local city governments require more easily recyclable or decomposable materials? _____Yes _____No _____No consensus. Comments:
- Should the South Hampton Roads cities advocate for Extended Producer Responsibility laws? _____Yes _____No _____No consensus. Comments: