Waste Not! Carroll

Study: Single-stream is more wasteful, expensive

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:15:00 +0000

By Chrissy Kadleck | WRN correspondent

April 25 -- Sorted recycling systems win out over single-stream recycling in a head-to-head competition when the municipal playing fields are even, according to a research report that tracked outcomes in United Kingdom markets over a four-year period.

The study, which was published by 4R Environmental on March 28, provides an analysis of 65 bids between 2008 and 2012. It revealed that 51% of all recycling collection services resulted in curbside sorting, even though that system was only allowed in 45 of the 65 municipalities tracked. Overall, 28% were awarded to single-stream commingling and 21% resulted in dual-stream systems.

In 29 cases, there was a genuine competition between systems, said Andy Bond, director of 4R Environmental Ltd. and the report´s author. In those cases, 59% of the municipalities selected curb-sort, 31% selected dual stream, and 10% selected single-stream.

"And even if you count all the procurements that curb-sort isn´t allowed to tender for, it is still the most successful system because it´s got more than 50% of the procurement where a local authority has gone to the market to secure a service," said Bond. "Where the system is allowed, it won on 73% of the occasions. The next most successful was two-stream, and single-stream was by far the least likely system to win in a competition."

Bond, formerly the managing director of ECT Recycling, the largest social recycling enterprise in the U.K. when it was purchased by May Gurney in 2008, said the results confirmed what he has witnessed in the field during the past two decades.

"My experience was that curb-sort systems, by and large, were more economically successful in competition with commingled systems because they won more frequently," he said, adding that the study was also done to "to inform a debate that is ongoing where authorities and waste management companies claim that commingling is the only way to do [recycling] and it´s cheaper. The reality is there is not a lot of evidence to support that, and this is just another piece of evidence that says this assumption that they are making is actually wrong."

In fact, he has been involved in two recent cases where municipalities switched back to curb-sort recycling from single-stream because it was cheaper.

"There are at least four cases that I am aware of where councils switched back to curb-sort recycling from single-stream, and I was involved in tendering for two of them successfully," Bond said. "It was cheaper, and in order to win, you needed to be cheaper. The difference is significant. In one case, it was 1 million pounds a year for a relatively small local authority. So instead of $5 million, they were paying $4 million for the service. And recycling is only one component, but it is significantly cheaper."

Susan Collins, executive director of the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), said she found the research fascinating -- albeit not surprising.

"This study is really interesting because there are so many data points. They looked at dozens of procurement situations, so they are actually uncovering a pattern," said Collins, adding that CRI has for the past few years been researching and gathering data about single-stream systems in the U.S. "We have always expected to see that single-stream would be more expensive, because it yields less in terms of scrap value."

In fact, higher contamination levels in single-stream programs on average result in an overall loss rate of 22% to 27% by weight, according to research findings Collins published in February.

"What we found [over the years] was that single-stream is often reported as having the highest collection volumes ... but it´s not just the amount collected. It´s how much actually makes it into a manufactured product at the end of the day," she said. "With those higher contamination levels, the costs are higher for the mills and reclaimers, so of course the mills and reclaimers pay less for the output of single-stream then they do for cleaner materials."

Bond said curb-sort is a superior system for many reasons.

"There are a lot of environmental reasons why it´s better, particularly the quality of the materials, lack of wastage and the [carbon dioxide] outcomes are significantly better," he said. "It also happens to be cheaper as well, so the taxpayer gets a better outcome, too."

He said there is evidence that yields tend to be higher in commingled systems, but when you factor out the wastage at the materials recovery facilities, sometimes 25% of the material sold doesn´t get reprocessed because the quality is too poor.

"What the most important thing is how little waste there is at the end of the system," he said.

But can this report translate to single-stream programs and costs in the U.S.?

Yes and no.

Collins and Bond both concede that economics, geography and market density vary.

"I do know that there is a conversation that is getting increasingly louder that is saying that we have to preserve the quality of materials as we collect them and that needs to happen through greater separation at the source," she said, adding that the issue of separation was highly recommended in an international research study done by GreenBlue titled "Closing the Loop."

"It doesn´t mean you have to separate them into 40 different categories," Collins said, "but putting them all together has its disadvantages and all of the systems in Europe that have really high recovery rates also have a much greater level of separation than we do."

WRN correspondent Chrissy Kadleck can be reached at ckadleck@sbcglobal.net.

Philly Deals: Trash to near-junk-bond status in Montco

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:15:00 +0000

Joseph N. DiStefano

Government-owned, taxpayer-funded trash-to-energy plants in Harrisburg and CamdenCounty have fallen many millions below the financial projections of the people who sold them years ago.

It’s not that ugly in MontgomeryCounty, but even there, towns are burning less trash than expected:

Moody’s Investors Service this week cut its credit rating for Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority’s $34 million 2002 bond issue, which is financed by the incinerator at 1155 Conshohocken Rd., Plymouth Township, to Baa3, just above junk-bond status, from A2, low credit risk.

“The economic decline appears to have led to meaningful reduction in waste,” a team of credit analysts at Moody’s Investors Service led by Esra Akyol complained in a report.

Blame recycling, better packaging, a drop in consumption, or cheaper private haulers. The result is less trash to burn at guaranteed municipal rates.

The incinerator burns 1,215 tons of trash a day from 22 mostly wealthy MontgomeryCounty towns and contracts commercial and industrial trash to make up any shortfall — usually at lower rates, which cuts the plant’s income. It uses the heat to power steam electric generators, selling the electricity to Exelon Corp.

There are two reasons for the ratings cut:

In 2009, the plant was sold by its former owner, France-based Veolia Environment, which also runs Philadelphia’s steam-heating loop, to Morristown, N.J.-based Covanta Corp., which also operates a Chester plant and a couple of Philadelphia trash-transfer stations. Covanta is junk-bond-rated, and that hurt the Plymouth plant’s rating, too.

Also worrisome: Plymouth’s increased reliance on “third-party source waste delivery” to replace the drop in township trash. The incinerator, to pay its bills, charges towns more than private companies pay, which has provoked litigation over the years from towns, apartment landlords and other trash sources that would rather be able to shop for cheaper landfills.

In Plymouth’s favor, Moody’s also noted that Covanta has a cash reserve for the plant and that it had a “strong track record of supporting its operating plants.”

“Waste is fuel for these plants,” and “there’s plenty of waste out there” when towns fall short, Covanta spokesman James Regan said.

Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority bosses did not return calls.

Group pushes U.N. to define ?zero waste?

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:10:00 +0000

By Vince Bond Jr. | WRN reporter

April 23 -- The next step in the global green saga may be the ratification of a universally recognized definition of zero waste.

Environmental advocates from Zero Waste International Alliance (ZWIA) have collaborated on a zero-waste resolution proposal, and the group´s desire is clear, no matter the locale: Let´s take it to the world stage.

Richard Anthony, chair of ZWIA, said the alliance hopes to get the resolution accepted by the United Nations during the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, which begins June 20 in Rio de Janeiro.

Public and private sector representatives from around the world will converge on the city as the U.N. marks the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit, which also took place in Rio.

The resolution was reviewed by numerous ZWIA member groups, including Zero Waste UK, Zero Waste Europe, Zero Waste Italy and Zero Waste Australia. The document received unanimous approval, Anthony said.

"I have to believe that any policy-maker, at this point, that is working on international environmental policy would have to see zero waste as a no-brainer," he said. "It´s better to put everything back in circulation. A key part of the definition is zero waste means ´no burn, no bury.´ The key for us is to get this to go viral."

The alliance is listed as an observer of the conference and is waiting to hear if the U.N. will take action.

Even if the document doesn´t make it to the floor, Anthony said the alliance will push for resource managers and local and national governments to embrace it, to prove there is "worldwide consensus on this definition."

The 566-word resolution declares, among other things, that voluntary recycling goals haven´t cut waste enough.

Other key points include:

n The placement of materials in waste disposal facilities such as landfills and WTE plants causes damage to human health, wastes natural resources and/or transfers liabilities to future generations.

n Landfills are the largest manmade source of methane in the United States and contribute significantly to global warming.

n Reduced waste and increased reuse, recycling and composting could help reverse climate change.

n Some communities assume the financial cost of collecting, recycling and disposing of increasingly complex and toxic products and packaging, which is an unfunded mandate.

Australia is already on the brink of a zero-waste wave, said Kellie Walters, chief executive of Zero Waste Australia, in an email interview.

As waste management costs soar and landfill space becomes more limited, pursuing zero waste is imperative, Walters said. Wasting things that have alternative uses is "illogical in any culture," she added.

"I believe Australian corporations and businesses are clearly recognizing that waste disposal represents an operational cost that could be offset through a combination of better practices and creative thinking. The interest in zero waste nationally is increasing rapidly," Walters said. "The advent of [the] carbon tax has assisted in this regard, but I think a general mindset shift, particularly in larger companies, is also happening."

Michael Alexander, president of Recycle Away, said the zero waste term has been hijacked by some and "used to promote dubious technologies" in the waste-to-energy field. Recycle Away is a Brattleboro, Vt.-based recycling container company that also provides consultation for clients organizing recycling programs.

Alexander said WTE facilities and landfills don´t maximize the energy embodied in waste.

"There´s a lot of people trying to use zero waste to tout their environmental commitment and, in those cases, they´re misusing the term," he said. "For instance, the zero-waste-to-landfill claim many times is, in essence, another way of saying, ´We burn the materials,´ [or], ´We don´t recycle,´ or ´We´re not able to recover.´

"Other users of the term ´zero waste´ believe recovering energy from the waste stream is part of the zero waste equation. A purist definition of ´zero waste´ wouldn´t accept that because by burning the material, you´re not capitalizing on the embodied energy in that material stream and that resource stream. You´re just getting some crude level of energy out of it. You´re not using the innate qualities of the material."

People have consumed a lot of resources in the past 50 years, Anthony said, and the resolution would serve to correct a wasteful course in human history. But it won´t turn things around overnight.

"Set your goals," he said. "It´s a journey."

Harrisburg, Pa., wants new overseer for WTE plant

Sat, 07 Apr 2012 00:10:00 +0000

April 6 -- Creditors for cash-strapped Harrisburg, Pa., asked a judge to assign a retired sewer executive from Maryland to run the city´s waste-to-energy plant.

Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. and TD Bank NA are pushing for Robin Davidov to take over the facility, which is owned by the Harrisburg Authority, according to Bloomberg News.

Judge Todd A. Hoover ruled last month that the Authority should be replaced with a receiver, Bloomberg reported.

The state-appointed receiver David Unkovic, who was responsible for repairing the city´s finances, asked state and federal officials to investigate illegal activities in financing an overhaul for the facility, but he later resigned after saying a receiver would interfere with his duties.

Hoover disagreed because the receiver would merely manage the plant to make sure debts are paid on schedule, Bloomberg reported.

Davidov retired last year as the executive director of the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, which operated four WTE plants near Baltimore that made $23 million in electricity sales.

Bob Philbin, spokesman for Harrisburg Mayor Linda Thompson, said the mayor "wants the incinerator sold as quickly as possible with the highest return."

On March 9, the city announced that it couldn´t afford to pay $5.37 million in general-obligation bond payments due March 15, according to Bloomberg.

Contact Waste & Recycling News reporter Vince Bond at vbond@crain.com or 313-446-1653.

Cash for Trash: Innovative Companies Profitably Upcycle, Recycle and Reduce Waste

Sat, 07 Apr 2012 00:10:00 +0000

By Vreni Hommes

Turning worm poop into fertilizer was TerraCycle’s first big idea. Then they transformed discarded drink containers into consumer bling, which made them a world-recognized leader in this hot, new trend of “upcycling.” Upcycling is the conversion of waste destined for landfills into new products of better quality or a higher environmental value. TerraCycle upcycles unwanted trash into messenger bags, notebooks, and the list goes on.

“Buy low, sell high” is the underlying business model for upcycling companies such as TerraCycle. They buy raw source materials (waste) at low cost and charge premium prices for their fashionable, environmentally-friendly upcycled products. But that’s not all. The upcycling companies’ business partners also benefit because their scrap waste is being reused. Instead of having to pay someone to haul their waste away, someone is actually paying for it and taking it off their hands.

The good news for the environment is that as more trash is upcycled, less trash is ending up in landfills. It also lowers the consumption of raw materials, air pollution from waste incineration, and water pollution from leaking into landfills.

The upcycling trend is doing something more . . . it is raising people’s awareness about the growing trash problem and motivating them to change their behavior. For example, Recyclebank does this by educating and rewarding their customers for recycling. Terracycle does this by setting up collection centers to make it easier for communities and schools to recycle.

Upcycling is a growing industry

TerraCycle and Recyclebank aren’t the only companies coming up with innovative – and profitable – ideas for making stylish, environmentally-friendly products out of trash. Learn more about them and other cutting-edge upcycling companies below.

TerraCycle, Inc. is a worldwide leader in the collection and reuse of consumer packaging and products.Recyclebank rewards people for taking everyday green actions with discounts and deals from local and national businesses.Playback Clothing transforms trash like plastic bottles and clothing scraps into great looking eco-clothing.Hipcycle offers upcycled products that are as desirable, attractive and durable as traditional equivalent products.IceStone makes high design surfaces from recycled glass instead of quarried stone.Preserve makes attractive toothbrushes and kitchenware from recycled plastic like yogurt containers.Criticism of upcycling

Critics argue that upcycling and recycling only postpones the inevitable – the waste will still eventually end up in landfills. It is better to reduce waste to begin with to than upcycle waste after it is generated. “Zero Waste” advocates want products that are designed to be repaired, refurbished, re-manufactured and reused. They want people to change their behavior and businesses to change their practices so that less waste is created and any discarded material is used as a resource for others.

What about “Zero Waste?”

Although it remains challenging to get consumers reduce their waste and recycle, many businesses are already discovering there is money to be made with zero waste programs. According to GreenBiz, by finding ways to reduce its waste, Wal-Mart has cut the cost to haul waste to landfills in California by over 80 percent. General Motors has earned $2.5 billion from recycling over the past four years. Kraft has achieved zero waste at 36 food plants around the world and, at some locations, use manufacturing byproducts to create energy. Companies in almost any industry and of every size are seeing significant savings by reducing, reusing, or recycling materials. Besides being environmentally friendly, zero waste initiatives save money by cutting out waste and streamlining production.

Is one waste strategy better than another?

It seems that almost any waste strategy – upcycling, recycling, reusing, or reducing materials – can lead to significant savings and even boost revenues. This is clearly good for business. When it comes to the environment, however, there is a bit of a debate about which waste strategy is best. As mentioned earlier, zero waste advocates argue that any upcycled or recycled waste still eventually ends up in landfills. Thus, it is better to not create the waste to begin with.

Yet even if upcycled products do eventually end up in landfills, upcycling companies like Terracycle and Recyclebank are succeeding in raising people’s awareness of the waste problem and motivating them to change their behavior and recycle more. Plus, the new upcycling market is incenting companies to develop new environmentally-friendly products and services. While upcycling isn’t as green as zero waste, it is changing how we view and what we do with trash.

What do you think?

Is zero waste the only environmentally responsible waste strategy?

Or is upcycling a good development for the environment too?Is the solution to the waste problem going to come from corporate America and zero waste programs?

Or does a lasting solution require consumers to change their behavior with regard to trash?

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Plans Default on Bond Payments

Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:05:00 +0000

By Romy Varghese on March 09, 2012

Harrisburg (9661MF), Pennsylvania’s insolvent capital, says it will miss general-obligation bond payments forthe first time next week as its receiver seeks approval for aplan to sell assets.

The city, carrying a debt load of more than five times itsgeneral-fund budget, will miss $5.27 million in bond paymentsdue March 15 on $51.5 million of bonds issued in 1997, accordingto a notice its receiver posted on the Electronic MunicipalMarket Access system, a database for filings by debt issuers.

The default is the latest for the $3.7 trillion municipalmarket, which has seen the number grow while remaining rare. Therate of U.S. municipal-bond defaults doubled to 5.5 a year in2010 and 2011, from 2.7 in the previous 39 years, Moody’sInvestors Service said this week in a report. Stockton,California, last month voted to default on some of its bonds.

“It’s a worrisome trend if it becomes more commonplace”for communities to expect bond insurers to pick up debtpayments, said Alan Schankel, director of fixed-income researchat Janney Montgomery Scott LLC in Philadelphia. Municipalissuers may become increasingly willing to default even if thereis no insurance for bondholders, he said.

“If it’s OK to hurt the bond insurer, is it OK to hurtbond holders?” Schankel said.

Objections to Plan

The default decision was made as some city officialsobjected to a plan to sell assets and avoid a trip to bankruptcycourt. State law bars the city from seeking Chapter 9 protectionfrom creditors until July. A majority of the City Council soughtunsuccessfully to make that move last year.

“It’s just an indication of how severe the problem is,”Dan Miller, the city controller and a supporter of seeking courtprotection, said by telephone. “Without a bankruptcy judge, wecan’t get a solution.”

Ambac Assurance, a unit of New York-based Ambac FinancialGroup Inc. (ABKFQ), insures the city’s general-obligation debt.

“We are honoring and paying” valid claims, MichaelFitzgerald, an Ambac spokesman, said by e-mail. He said thecompany doesn’t comment on specific cases.

While Harrisburg in 2009 started skipping payments on debtrelated to an incinerator overhaul and expansion, it hasn’tdefaulted on general-obligation bonds. The city’s fiscal crisisis driven by more than $300 million in debt from the project atthe waste-to-energy plant, which doesn’t generate enough revenueto cover its costs.

Receiver Appointed

In December, David Unkovic was appointed as the city’sreceiver, a first for the state. Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, had declared a fiscal emergency to ensurevital services, including making payroll and paying debtobligations, were continued.

“My first priority as receiver is to ensure that vital andnecessary services such as police and fire are maintained,”Unkovic said today in a statement. “The city will not be makingthese payments to ensure sufficient cash flow so the citizens ofHarrisburg continue to receive essential services.”

By defaulting, Harrisburg will be able to keep payingmunicipal workers about $1 million every two weeks, through thethird quarter at least, Unkovic said by telephone. He declinedto say if other bond obligations may be missed. The city’s debtservice, including the March payments, totals almost $12 millionthis year, not including incinerator-related securities.

To the Brink

Harrisburg almost missed payments on its general-obligationbonds in the past two Septembers. Last year, it covered theobligations with the help of a $7.5 million advance from theHarrisburg Parking Authority for a lease of municipal land. In2010, the community averted default after then-Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat, expedited state aid to meet debt service.

Unkovic’s recovery proposal, which must be approved by astate court, calls for the sale or lease of city assets, raisingtaxes and fees, and winning concessions from municipal unions inthe community of 49,500 residents.

“From my perspective, this doesn’t diminish mydetermination to proceed with the plan,” Unkovic said of thedefault. “This preserves my ability to do that.”

In court papers, Unkovic estimated the city’s deficit at$9.53 million this fiscal year, without concessions from laborunions, while net revenue is forecast at about $48.5 million.

A bid by the council majority to put Harrisburg intoChapter 9 proceedings was dismissed on Nov. 23 by U.S.Bankruptcy Judge Mary D. France in Harrisburg. She said thefiling wasn’t allowed under state law. The council is seeking toappeal that decision.

The default “shows what a charade this receivership is,”said Mark Schwartz, a lawyer hired by the council, in atelephone interview today.

One of the general-obligation bonds to be in default,maturing in September 2021, traded at an average of 49.3 centson the dollar on March 5. That’s up from an average of about38.7 cents in October, the month the council sought bankruptcyprotection, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

To contact the reporter on this story:Romy Varghese in Philadelphia at rvarghese8@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:Mark Tannenbaum at mtannen@bloomberg.net

Jiffy Mart brings recycling "Dream Machines" to Carroll

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 00:20:00 +0000

Posted: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 12:00 am

By Carrie Ann KnauerTimes Staff Writer

Jiffy Marts in Carroll now have four of 4,000 recycling machines available nationwide by PepsiCo that were designed to reward those who recycle and to donate money to a program for wounded veterans.

The Dream Machines, which were developed by PepsiCo and Waste Management and released in April 2010, encourage recycling by giving users coupons and points that they can collect on a membership card toward larger prizes from greenopolis.com, an interactive online community dedicated to recycling, resource management and offering rewards for recycling, including deals and discounts for more than 3,000 businesses nationwide.

Tom Moser, general manager of Jiffy Mart, said the company had been looking for a cost-effective way to bring recycling to its stores, which had only been operating a cardboard recycling program.

Moser said he was in a ROCS convenience store, a company based in Martinsburg, W.Va., when he came across a Dream Machine. After a little research, he contacted PepsiCo and learned more about them, then decided to pursue getting four of the machines for Jiffy Mart stores in Hampstead, Finksburg and two in Westminster.

“Our thinking was [customers are] coming into our store a lot of times with cans and bottles and just throwing them in the trash as they get out of their car, but what better way to recycle than you put it in a recycling machine, and help the environment out and help yourself out a little at the same time,” said Dwayne Cover, business manager of Jiffy Mart.

The machines were delivered Thursday then set up by Dream Machine staff Friday, who also gave a brief tutorial on them to some Jiffy Mart staff members, Moser said.

Mary Freyer, manager of the Jiffy Mart on West Main Street in Westminster, said she and other staff members are excited about the new machines.

“I think it’s a really user-friendly machine,” Freyer said, “even the registration part of it.”

Users can sign up with the machine and get a membership card, which can also be used as a key tag, to track their points with the system. Members are rewarded one to five points for each item they recycle, Freyer said, which the machine can differentiate when users scan the barcode on a plastic bottle or can before entering it in the machine.

“What I like most is where the money’s going to,” Freyer said of the value of the recycled goods.

PepsiCo has committed to donating $500,000 a year to the Entrepreneurship Bootcamp for Veterans with Disabilities program, and an additional $250,000 for every 10 million pounds of materials collected through the Dream Machines, according to a fact sheet from the company. Through the bootcamp program, post-9/11 disabled veterans can receive free training in an entrepreneurship and small business management so they can start their own businesses.

While the Dream Machines are a part of PepsiCo, they will accept bottles and cans from all manufacturers, Moser said.

According to PepsiCo’s fact sheet, Pepsi has made a public commitment to form partnerships to help increase the U.S. beverage container recycling rate to 50 percent by 2018. Currently less than a third of plastic beverage containers are recycled each year, and according to Keep America Beautiful, another member in the Dream Machines partnership, only 12 percent of public spaces are equipped with recycling receptacles, indicating a need for greater availability of recycling bins.

Moser is expecting it can take some time for the Dream Machines to catch on, he said, so for awhile the machines may only need to be emptied once a week. Jiffy Mart was able to get Waste Management to work with Jiffy Mart’s current trash haulers to work together on the new recycling operations, he said.

While at first he was concerned that enthusiastic points-chasers would bring all of their recyclables from home to the machines and cause it to fill up too fast, Moser said the PepsiCo reps said they haven’t seen that be a problem at other locations.

Visitors who have recyclables but don’t want to take the time to register a membership account with the machine are still welcome to use the machines without a rewards card, Cover said.

“They don’t have to be a subscriber or have the loyalty card to do that, instead of throwing it in the trash, they can throw it in the recycling machine,” he said.

County Recycling Manager Maria Myers was excited to learn about the new recycling machines, even though she is not sure if the recycled goods will come to Carroll County’s Northern Landfill or somewhere outside of the county to be processed.

“It’s a positive step for the county,” Myers said. “I’m hoping people do the right thing.”

Reach staff writer Carrie Ann Knauer at 410-857-7874 or carrie.knauer@carrollcountytimes.com.

When Trash Becomes a Resource

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:55:00 +0000

Erica Gies, Contributor - Independent environment reporter, founder of ThisWeekInEarth.com

Alameda County recently passed a mandatory recycling ordinance in a bid to divert 90 percent of its “readily recyclable and compostable materials” by 2020. Alameda County includes much of the east San Francisco Bay Area, including Oakland and Berkeley.

The county is following in the footsteps of its ambitious neighbor across the bay, the city and county of San Francisco, which has a goal of zero waste by 2020. It has already achieved a 77 percent diversion citywide.

Some municipalities fear that intensive waste management will be expensive. But the value of the resources extracted more than compensates for those expenses, according to a study by StopWaste.Org, a program of the Alameda County Waste Management Authority.

Alameda County calculates that it is currently burying $100 million worth of materials in landfills each year.

StopWaste.Org conducted a study and found that the cost of collecting and processing recyclables and compostables is less than that for collecting, transferring, and landfilling garbage. The difference was between two to seven percent because the value of the commodities and the avoided landfill tipping fees offset incremental increases in collection and processing.

Additionally, the study predicted that increased recycling and reduced disposal will reduce solid waste service bills for many businesses because most cities charge higher rates for trash disposal than for recycling.

Recycling efforts also create jobs. San Francisco’s zero waste plan has created 250 permanent, local jobs over the last 10 years in the city’s recycling programs, according to Recology, the waste management company that serves the city. Its 200,000-square-foot recycling facility employs 175 workers, who separate co-mingled materials into 16 different types.

San Francisco’s 77 percent diversion rate is the highest in the United States, and that achievement helped it win the title of “greenest” major city in the United States and Canada last June in a study conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit and commissioned by Siemens.

San Francisco achieved this success by making trash management convenient. Residents have one bin for recycling, in which they put paper, glass, and cans. Compost (food scraps and yard waste) is put in a separate bin, which is also picked up curbside. A final bin for trash holds whatever is left over.

San Francisco has also educated its populace in several languages and includes graphics of appropriate products on its bins and educational materials.

It has also banned problem products, such as plastic bags and polystyrene (Styrofoam) food containers, in favor of recyclable or compostable ones.

In 2009, San Francisco became the first county in the nation to mandate composting, expanding the program from its initial foray into curbside compost collection in 1996. While some people grumbled, most complied.

Today, Recology collects about 600 tons of food scraps and yard debris each day, and that material is turned into compost for local farms and vineyards. It also gives away compost to San Francisco residents.

But some cities see mandates as heavy handed. Los Angeles diverts over 65 percent of its waste from landfills by making recycling as convenient as possible, expanding the type of waste that consumers can throw into recycling bins, and encouraging residents with prizes like Starbucks gift cards, according to Wall Street Journal reporter David Ferry.

California leads the United States in cities aiming for high waste diversion, perhaps due to California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which required that each local jurisdiction increase its diversion rate from landfills to 50 percent by Dec. 31, 2000.

Other leaders around the globe include Italian cities and Canadian and Australian governments.

However, according to the Institute for Local Self Reliance in the United States, recycling targets that focus on landfill diversion alone are missing a key part of the puzzle. Rather, a resource values approach is key.

For example, many municipalities in the United States and abroad have built “waste-to-energy” facilities, which burn trash around the clock, typically for 30 years. These efforts do divert trash from the landfill but waste nonrenewable resources, according to Dave Ciplet, U.S. coordinator for the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, an international group that lobbies against waste incineration.

That claim is based on a lifecycle assessment of waste: Trash has more economic value and a lighter impact on climate change when reused, recycled or composted than when incinerated. Burning valuable materials that could be recycled wastes the lifecycle energy of products, according to Ciplet.

The EPA largely agrees with this assessment. It says that reducing the need for new materials should be the top priority, followed by reuse, recycling, waste-to-energy incineration, and placement in a landfill.

“Zero waste is the idea that garbage isn’t inevitable but it’s really a result of bad design,” said Linda Christopher, executive director of the GrassRoots Recycling Network, a U.S. environmental advocacy group. “We can rethink these processes and design garbage out of the system.”

Panel: Carroll may need to include multiple methods of disposing of solid waste in future

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:25:00 +0000

Thursday, March 1, 2012 12:00 am | By Carrie Ann KnauerTimes Staff Writer |

The majority of the speakers at the county commissioners’ solid waste forum Tuesday evening agreed that Carroll is going to need a plan with multiple methods for managing its waste, regardless of what industry or technology they were supporting.

The question that remains is whether one of those pieces will be a county-owned waste-to-energy incinerator.

The Carroll County Board of Commissioners held the forum at Carroll Community College. It was the first time that the board has publicly entertained discussion on the county’s future direction for managing its solid waste.

The majority of the new board ran on campaigns that were against the county’s current deal to build a 1,500 ton-per-day waste-to-energy incinerator with Frederick County, a decision that was made by a 2-1 vote by the previous board. Since taking office, the commissioners have focused their time on creating the Fiscal Year 2012 budget and revisiting the county airport expansion issue, and held the solid waste forum as a first step toward evaluating the incinerator decision.

Commissioner Doug Howard, R-District 5, said Tuesday that the commissioners need to schedule a time to discuss solid waste options in a public session, which he is hoping can take place in March. However, with the county commissioners planning to start the budget process for Fiscal Year 2013 this month, it may have to be put off a little longer, he said.

Eight presenters were given 15 minutes each at the forum to give their perspectives on directions in solid waste management. Several of the waste management industry representatives talked about recycling being the most preferred method of handling waste, but stressed that local governments still need other methods to account for the rest of the trash that either can’t be recycled or hasn’t been separated out to be recycled.

Communities need to look at waste as a resource, said Lori Scozzafava, deputy executive director of the Solid Waste Association of North America. And after recognizing it as a resource, communities need to look at their personal assets and apply them to develop an integrated waste management strategy specialized to that community.

Presenter Ted Michaels, president of the Energy Recovery Council, gave an overview of how waste-to-energy incinerators, or power plants that use trash as their fuels source, as he called them, treasure waste as a resource.

Another presenter, John Carlton, vice president of solid waste consulting firm Gershman, Brickner & Bratton Inc., gave an overview of emerging technologies such as anaerobic digestion, gasification, plasma gasification and pyrolysis. Carlton said there are almost 600 operations using these newer technologies on smaller-scale projects, calling them the “teenagers” of the solid waste world because they may need a few more years to fully mature.

“Scaling up to a commercial size has a lot of implications to them,” Carlton said of these technologies.

A lot of these new facilities are advancing, Carlton said, but he believes there is a risk aversion on public behalf for funding these projects. Most of these projects are being pursued by venture capitalists right now, he said.

After hearing the presentations, Howard asked the speakers whether they thought Carroll could find one method for managing its solid waste left over after recycling or if it should expect to use multiple methods.

“From what I’ve heard tonight, you’re going to need multiple solutions to reduce the volume [of waste],” said Patrick Serfass, executive director of the American Biogas Council. “Take out recyclables. Sort out organic materials. Do something valuable with each component. There’s going to be no silver bullet solution.”

Presenter Don West, co-founder of WasteNot! Carroll, agreed.

“Multiple strategies leads to versatility,” West said. “It’s a highly dynamic field. To be locked into something and immediately have our hands tied and not be able to explore anything new is a real problem.”

Steven Chafitz, president of the Frederick-based electronics recycling business e-End, also warned that the county might want to avoid locking itself into a long-term commitment now when technologies, and trash, are changing so quickly.

“We’re looking at a snapshot of our waste stream today. We’re looking to solve a problem for 30 years from now, and the landscape 30 years from now is going to be completely different than it is now,” Chafitz said. “I think there’s going to be a lot of proven technologies that will probably come into the production stream. Technology is changing so quickly that you’re going to buy into a technology that’s good today, but it has to last 30 years, and I don’t think it will.”

Commissioner Richard Rothschild, R-District 4, asked Carlton if any of the new technologies seemed more promising for a place like Carroll.

“I think it’s too early to tell,” Carlton said. “In four to six years we’ll know a lot more than we know now.”

Commissioner Haven Shoemaker, R-District 2, said he thought the forum had a diverse group of speakers with some interesting facts and suggestions. Shoemaker said the next step is going to be to delve into the options raised at the forum and then revisiting the contract with Frederick County.

“At some point we’re going to have to make a definitive determination as to how or if we’re going to proceed with the arrangement that we inherited from the last board in regard to the waste-to-energy plant in Frederick County,” Shoemaker said. “But before we make that determination or if we’re going to make that determination, I’d like to have our alternative in place or at least the framework for an alternative in place so that we know exactly what we’re going to do with solid waste going forward.”

Carroll’s commissioners will be expected to make a decision on the incinerator after the project receives its permits and it comes time to issue the bonds to fund the construction. Carroll Director of Public Works Tom Rio said that the project is expected to receive its permits in in July unless the permit is contested, and officials expect that it will be. If the project permit is not contested, construction could start at the end of the year, he said.

Incinerator background

Since Carroll and Frederick counties both approved basic plansto build a 1,500-ton per day waste-to-energy incinerator in 2009,the project has been in the design and permitting phase.

The contractor, Wheelabrator Technologies Inc., has beendesigning the facility to meet the specific requests and needs ofthe two counties. The Maryland Department of the Environment hasheld some public hearings in Frederick for the air quality permitsprocess. Tom Rio, county director of public works, said the projectis expected to receive its permit in July unless the permit iscontested, which it is expected that it will be. If the projectpermit is not contested, construction could start at the end of theyear, he said.

The plant is slated to be built at the McKinney IndustrialCenter off Md. 85, south of the city of Frederick, close to thecounty's wastewater treatment plant. Frederick would own 60 percentof the operation and be responsible for providing 900 tons of wasteper day and Carroll would own 40 percent and be responsible for 600tons of waste per day.

Carroll's commissioners have cited Tuesday night's forum as thefirst step by this board in making a decision on whether to proceedwith the bi-county incinerator. Rio said several companies havepresented alternative solid waste management options to the countysince the new commissioners took office in December 2010, but theboard has not met with any groups while Carroll remains undercontract with Frederick County.

The commissioners had promoted Tuesday's solid waste forum asbeing a time to explore all solid waste options, not to compare newalternatives with the current deal with Frederick. Several emergingtechnologies were discussed at the solid waste forum, which some ofthe commissioners expressed some interest in learning moreabout.

Reach staff writer Carrie Ann Knauer at 410-857-7874 or carrie.knauer@carrollcountytimes.com.

Carroll County hears trash options

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:40:00 +0000

By Pete McCarthy

News-Post Staff

Carroll County's commissioners Tuesday night publicy reviewed whether to continue a partnership with Frederick County to build a waste-to-energy incinerator plant in Frederick before about 150 concerned residents.The commissioners heard from a variety of groups, ranging from those who were in favor of waste-to-energy to those offering more environmentally friendly alternatives -- including composting.

The groups were invited to speak at a forum at Carroll Community College in Westminster. The meeting was called as Carroll County's commissioners debate the idea of moving forward with the plan.

"I think we are trying to assess where we are," Carroll County Commissioners President Doug Howard said at the meeting. "What tonight has highlighted is there are alternatives to consider, but there is no one option that has been weighed against the other. This is the starting point of the process."

In response to a question, panelist Steve Chafitz warned Carroll County that deciding now could be dangerous.

"Technology is changing so quickly," Chafitz said. "You are being asked to buy into a technology that may not be beneficial 30 years from now."

Chafitz, who operates an electronics recycling company in Frederick, cautioned the Carroll County commissioners that the growing movement to recycle more could create a problem for meeting the need to dispose of waste at the proposed Frederick County plant.

"We used to be a throw-away society, but today, that has changed," Chafitz said. "... Are you going to be able to generate that much material when the industry is diverting it in another direction?"

Several of those in attendance wore pro-composting stickers and were in favor of alternatives.

Former Frederick County Commissioner Kai Hagen, who now serves as director of Envision Frederick County, was in attendance with other opponents of the proposed plant.

He continued to state that there are a range of issues with the plan.

"The more (the Carroll County commissioners) take a thorough and in-depth approach to evaluating the economics of the project, the more likely they are going to back out of the project," Hagen said. "They'll see the numbers just don't add up."

Some speakers were invited to offer a short sales pitch to the Carroll County commissioners on alternatives to the 1,500-ton-per-day waste-to-energy plant. Those companies said they'd be interested in providing proposals for alternatives.

The current plan is to share construction costs, with Frederick County picking up an estimated $221 million -- 60 percent of the total.

Both counties now ship a majority of trash to out-of-state landfills.

Proponents of the plan say it will solve a problem that isn't going away.

Michael Marschner, special projects manager for Frederick County who is overseeing the joint disposal project, has said the county's options will run out fast if the waste-to-energy alternative option is not pursued.

Should Carroll County opt out, a suitable replacement partner would have to be found. If not, the county would be on the hook for a $3 million penalty.

Frederick County officials have remained steadfast in their desire to move forward with the waste-to-energy plan. Marschner has said the plan could be downsized or a new partner identified.