Wasted Opportunities

The importance of understanding the difference between waste and recyclables. By Robin Wiener, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc.

Waste management is a key issue confronting our nation and our policymakers. While it might seem merely a question of nuance or semantics, it's a much larger issue that deserves our attention and action.

"Recyclables Are Not Waste and Recycling Is Not Disposal." These nine simple words frame what should be a simple concept. How can valuable commodities that not only conserve virgin materials such as oil, trees, and metallic ores, but also dramatically reduce the energy consumed in the process of manufacturing basic materials, such as steel, copper, aluminum and paper among others, be defined as waste? And that's not even addressing the tremendous amounts of pollution that are reduced in the manufacture of these basic materials.

Scrap recyclables are a substitute for raw materials that otherwise would come from non-replenishable virgin resources and are sought after by the industrial community as a readily available feedstock. In comparison, wastes are materials that are discarded, or thrown away with no value or use other than disposal.

The scrap recycling industry recycled 150 million tons of materials in 2008, transforming society's outdated and obsolete products and materials into useful raw materials needed to produce new products. At the same time, the scrap recycling industry, employing over 85,000 employees in "green" jobs, exported over $28.6 billion of recyclable materials to 153 countries, helping our country's trade balance and making America more competitive in the global marketplace.

With all the discussion as to how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce global climate change, scrap recycling has an extremely positive environmental impact that should be encouraged and expanded. The US Environmental Protection Agency estimated that recycling in 2006 (142.2 million tons of materials) resulted in 232.7 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions being avoided. A more recent study by the Bureau of International Recycling estimated that CO2 emissions avoided through recycling total approximately 500 million tons. These are impressive numbers that provide meaningful impact on our environment.

At the same time, the challenge of recycling ever-increasing amounts of electronic equipment is being met by the scrap recycling industry. Approximately 2.8 billion pounds of electronic equipment was recycled in 2006, including 65 million units of computer equipment (CPUs, monitors, and printers). Obsolete electronics are products that contain marketable commodities traded in the global market. One metric ton of electronic scrap from personal computers contains more gold than that recovered from 17 tons of gold ore.

The electronics recycling process, using state-of-the-art technologies to ensure responsible recycling, yielded 1.3 billion pounds of recyclable materials, more than half of which were metals. Consumer electronics alone are now considered to be approaching more than 3 million tons generated annually. With these types of numbers, you can easily see the environmental and economic benefits of treating electronics equipment as scrap rather than trash (e-waste?).

With near universal agreement that recycling is good for our economy, our environment, and a sustainable future, it's hard to imagine that anyone would intentionally impede the recycling process. But it happens everyday due to the confused definitions of and distinctions between recyclable materials and waste.

Unfortunately, because the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) does not clearly delineate between waste and recyclables, courts as well as state and local governments have often confused the two and created unnecessary burdens on recycling that defy the very meaning of RCRA – resource conservation and recovery. Efforts to encourage the US Environmental Protection Agency to remove the stigma have not been successful to date.

As a result, today's state and local laws and regulations often unintentionally regulate recyclables as waste and scrap recyclers/processors as waste handlers. Some of the unintentional consequences of this confusing terminology are that scrap recyclers are required to operate under restrictions intended to apply to disposal operations, such as solid waste management plans designed to oversee landfills and to control the flow of solid waste. Local governments also misconstrue the confusion to justify discrimination against scrap recyclers when they apply for land use/zoning consideration.

Thinking that scrap recycling must be similar to waste disposal operations, many local governments mistakenly adopt a NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) approach to scrap recycling operations, further limiting and penalizing scrap recycling without proper justification. Another consequence of this confusion over recyclables being treated as waste is additional insurance costs for recyclers who must be insured for hazardous waste activities, even though they are not handling hazardous waste materials.

Without clear and precise federal distinctions differentiating "recyclables" from "solid waste," many state and local governments (as well as private entities) simply confuse the two, to the overall detriment of legitimate recycling. While the interpretation of the terminology may seem a minor issue, there are substantial and unintended consequences that unfairly penalize the scrap recycling industry. 

On another front, the US scrap recycling industry is critically dependent upon reliable rail service to transport recycled materials to its industrial consumers in domestic markets and to ports for international export to consumers located around the world. Unfortunately, rail car shortages, appreciable rail car and service deterioration, extensive rail congestion, significant cost increases, and a lack of effective remedies for insufficient and unsatisfactory service have all combined to create an intractable situation that is harming most of the nation's important manufacturing and exporting industries. Improving the nation's rail service by increasing capacity, reducing congestion, and improving service is imperative for the US scrap recycling industry and for all US manufacturers.

The scrap recycling industry is uniquely positioned to meet the challenges of today's world – a leading economic engine for America providing real solutions that help protect and sustain the earth's environment. By addressing the confusion and misunderstanding between waste and recyclables, as well as taking steps to ensure reliable and affordable rail service, we can take a significant and meaningful step crucial to the economic and environmental well-being of our nation.

Robin Wiener is President of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc.

For further information see www.isri.org.

Recycling Facts

• Scrap accounts for 40% of the world's raw material needs
• 2 out of 3 lbs. of steel made in the US is manufactured using ferrous scrap
• 60% of the metals and alloys produced in the US are made from nonferrous scrap
• Recycling one ton of steel conserves 2500 lbs of iron ore, 1400 lbs of coal, and 120 lbs of limestone
• 33% of the US aluminum supply comes from recycled materials
• Recycling one ton of aluminum conserves up to 8 tons of bauxite ore and 14 megawatt hours of electricity
• 100 million tires were recycled in 2008 for reuse in a variety of industrie
• Recycling one ton of paper saves 17 trees, 79 gallons of oil, 7000 gallons of water, and 3.3 cubic yards of landfill