Austin Texas. I once joked that in trying to come up with a list of "Things I like about Texas" I listed, "Lance Armstrong, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Tony Lama Boots,...did I mention Lance Armstrong?" It is time for me to say that my comment was an unwarranted cheap shot. Austin is a great town. It's a rat stinkin' hot city these days but I really do like this place.
Today was the official opening of WASTECON 2005. Here are some observations from today...
WASTECON '05: Tuesday, September 27, 2005
I don’t think I’ve ever appreciated how much ceremony there is at a SWANA Conference. At the opening ceremony/breakfast (overcooked eggs & coffee accompanied by country music), there was the presentation of the flags, bagpipes, ribbon cutting, playing of the National Anthem, playing of the Canadian Anthem. And, presiding over it all was our own Rick Mauk, 2005 President of SWANA. To say it was stirring would definitely be a reach.
The highlights from this mornings plenary session:
Disaster Debris Management Report, in response to Hurricane Katrina, is available at the SWANA Website for free. The link to the report is:
http://www.swana.org/sections/press/pr_viewdetail.aspx?pressId=154
The new president for 2006 is Andrew Quigley from Lake County, Illinois.
SWANA has seen a net growth in membership of 4%-6% for the past few years.
I'm bringing back a copy of the proceedings if you want to read exactly what these people said.
The first technical session I attended was "Is There Really an E-Waste Crisis?"
Angela Logomasini, Director of Risk and Env. Policy from the Alfred E. Newman "What, me worry?" Free Market Institute...not really...she's from the Compeitive Enterprise Institute-Free Market Public Policy Group (www.cei.org) presented a paper titled, "Mandated Electronics: A Lose-Lose-Lose Proposition"
Below are a few of my notes from her presentation:
Is this the next solid waste crisis?
Drew a parallel between e-waaste and the solid waste crisis of the 1980’s
Landfills represent a one in ten billion cancer risk.Land fill Space Grew; Disis not “Run Out” of landfill space. Market forces solved the crisis.
E-waste is:
75% in homes
14% recycled/reused
11% landfilled
Myth: E-waste growing at an uncontrollable rate
Myth: E-waste Makes Landfills Dangerous - leachate is showing very low e-waste pollutants
Wastefull Ewaste Polices
WEEE Initiative (Europe)
RoHS
Expected annual costs
Adds $60 to the computer - in her view, that's a bad thing.
Precautionary Principle is bogus and inefficient
Shouldn’t be looking at hazards but at risk (incidental note: from the current best seller "Freakenomics," Peter Sandman, a self-described "Risk Communications Specialist," has reduced risk management down to the following:
RISK = HAZARD + OUTRAGE. Beware of those wanting to manage risk.)
Recycling should not be forced where it isn’t economically practical.
Replicate the “Fridge Fiasco”
Very costly stockpiles that have to be managed
Risks associated with substitutes
Fire risks overstated
Inferior Product Performance
Tin solders inferior
California’s ADF
Increases Costs
Virginia and Maine also have regulation
Private Efforts
Dell, HP, IBM Computers
Government approaches are inefficient.
In sum, I found her presentation unbalanced and motivated by ideology rather than science.
A more balanced presentation was made by Jerry Powell, Editor of E-Scrap News & Resource Recycling Magazine
jpowell@resource-recycling.com
His resentation could be summed up by the comment, "E-Waste: Concerns: No Crisis – It’s just a good recyclable material”
Loss of Resources – Many not available in North America
CRT’s don’t pass TCLP testing – SWANA
Disposal does create problems
Heavy metals in leachate are below federal standards
From his own surveys of the e-waste recycling industry, his assessment of the magnitude of the problem is as follows:
2 million tons per year e-waste
Insufficient Recovery
Adequate Infrastructure
Recovery rate very low.
Processors at 60% capacity
Recovery costs about $300/ton
Seattle has c’side program
Manufacturers, Retailers, E-Bay (Rethink Initiative) are all getting involved recovery
United Parcel Service has an asset recovery program
Legislated ARF in CA and Alberta Canada
Maine will have EPR law next year
Stongest Proponents of Legislation are OEMs
12 member alliance including Apple & IBM in favor of legislation
Dell and HP opposed legislation
In Jerry Powell's opinion, product stewardship is the "main game" for the future of e-waste recovery
Canada is moving quickly towards a national EPR laws implemented at the provincial level.
Exports to China is a problem-magnitude may be overstated
BAN’s video high level of public awareness
Problems with e-waste recycling programs
Recovery low
costs high
Investment is weak.
Expect to see consolidation in the industry.
In Jerry Powell's opinion, the Product Stewardship Model will prevail as a long term solution. In the near term, ARF may be necessary to fund recycling of the backlog of old obsolete legacy e-waste.
EPR already exist in other products: carpet, batteries, paint is coming.
Designing for recovery? Jerry mentioned that the EPA is working with industry to come up with a certification for recyclability (including deconstruction - I've e-mailed Jerry for the URL.
Landfill bans will only work if there is a viable alternative – “No ban without a plan”
There is a huge parts industry in legacy chips and parts.
The afternoon session was real interesting...
Pharmacuetical and Personal Care Products in the Environment: A review of Current Research and Implications for Future Management
Stephen Musson
University of Florida
“The new e-waste?”
PPCP Pharm & Personal Care Products
PhaCs Pharm reaching the environment.
USGS Tested 95 organic contanminaents
82 compounds were found in 30 states
Cause: people flushing
Another source is excretion - - sometimes your body changes it, sometimes it stays the same.
40% of these compounds reaching the POTWs ends up passing-thru untreated. Of the 60% that is captured in treatment, it ends up in biosolids.
Agriculture is another source: Denmark says farms use more pharma in ag than pesticides.
Pharma has been found in landfills as industrial solid waste from factories-as opposed to finding it in what people throw away.
Finding in parts per billion (ppb) and parts per trillion (ppt) – new technologies for detecting at extremely low levels are identifying coumpounds in low concentrations all over the world.
Endocrine Disruptors
Estrogenic compounds – birth control – “Feminization of Fish”
Antibioitics
Blood lipid regulators
Analgesics
Future Effects?
Viagra
Genoome designed drugs
Are more stringent Environmental Screenings going to be required?
Persistence – how long do these compounds stay "alive" in the environment?
Generally they breaks down quickly. Howeve, because they are constantly being discharged they remain persistent in the environment.
Drug Synergy – combining compounds for a new unaticipated effect
Chronic Effects?
Management
FDA Requires new Env. Asssesment – However, drug companies have been exempt because the Governmetn doesn't concern itself with levles in the ppb and ppt range - too low.
DEA only concernted with controlled substances
EPA only concerned with HW
Med Waste Regs. – vary from state to state
Pharmacy Boards – regulate prescriptions
Increasing consumption: from '88-'94 and '99-'00 precsription drug daily consumption increased 39-44%
Means of managing waste:
Reverse Distribution thru Phamacies
HHW Disposal
HHW
US is behind. Australia has a national collection program thru pharmacies
US efforts are localized. No national policy.
HHW Collection
Must be convieneint
Privacy: HIPPA rules must be considered. Personal info on bottle must be destroyed.
Controlled Substances – Must be regulated by DEA. DEA registration or local law enforcement.
Funding of Community Collection - HHW
Who pays? Mr. Musson had no specific recommendations. But, he did believe that some sort of EPR would be the long-term solution. Reverse Distribution Systems serve major pharmacies and hospitals. But, could work for households.
Expect to collect other medical items and waste (sharps, tubes, other med waste)
Reuse of some drugs may be an option.
Conclusions:
Regualtions are hindering collection.
Study different disposal options
Public education on the dangers of sewage disposal necessary
Pharmacuetical Manufacturers Assoc. is showing increased interest. But yet to become actively involved.
Stephen Musson
U of Florida
smusson@ufl.edu
The last session I attended was "Comparison of Air Quality, Human Health, and Odor Impacts from Landfills v.s. Composting
Patrick Sullivan, SCS Engineers
Comparing emissions from LFG and Composting
Presentation Objectives:
Evaluate expected organic emissions from bioreactor
Evaluate emissions from composting facility handling similar amounts
In bioreactor, there is a faster organic decay
Landfill used in study (the composting operation was of similar scale):
1000 tpd
20 years operational, 30 post-closure
75% collection efficiency
95% destruction
Bioreactor will emit 29 tpy average. Bioreactors have very low emissions at the end of 50 years - - by design.
Composing historically not considered a concern air regulatory agencies have not historically permitted them.
Composting is now regulated in the South Coast Air Board
Conclusion:
Composting is significantly more polluting than Bioreactor Landfill
The difference is the LFG recovery systems on landfills
Recommendations
Emissionfactors need to be confirmed
Emisisons from composting should be considered before making any permitting decision
Composing is not a zero impact activity
My notes on this last session are scetchy. Sorry. The engineering discussion was over my head and I ended up trying to just capture the conclusions. The upshot appears to be that Composting operations are viewed as environmentally benign endeavors. This study challenges that perception. Mr. Sullivan also said that in the South Coast Air Board District where this research was conducted, levels of methane were also detected in many of the operations. I don't know if these operations were just ran badly or is methane production in muncipal composting operations more common than otherwise percieved. Anyway, I have his paper, anyone wants to pursue this.
Until tomorrow...
Today was the official opening of WASTECON 2005. Here are some observations from today...
WASTECON '05: Tuesday, September 27, 2005
I don’t think I’ve ever appreciated how much ceremony there is at a SWANA Conference. At the opening ceremony/breakfast (overcooked eggs & coffee accompanied by country music), there was the presentation of the flags, bagpipes, ribbon cutting, playing of the National Anthem, playing of the Canadian Anthem. And, presiding over it all was our own Rick Mauk, 2005 President of SWANA. To say it was stirring would definitely be a reach.
The highlights from this mornings plenary session:
Disaster Debris Management Report, in response to Hurricane Katrina, is available at the SWANA Website for free. The link to the report is:
http://www.swana.org/sections/press/pr_viewdetail.aspx?pressId=154
The new president for 2006 is Andrew Quigley from Lake County, Illinois.
SWANA has seen a net growth in membership of 4%-6% for the past few years.
I'm bringing back a copy of the proceedings if you want to read exactly what these people said.
The first technical session I attended was "Is There Really an E-Waste Crisis?"
Angela Logomasini, Director of Risk and Env. Policy from the Alfred E. Newman "What, me worry?" Free Market Institute...not really...she's from the Compeitive Enterprise Institute-Free Market Public Policy Group (www.cei.org) presented a paper titled, "Mandated Electronics: A Lose-Lose-Lose Proposition"
Below are a few of my notes from her presentation:
Is this the next solid waste crisis?
Drew a parallel between e-waaste and the solid waste crisis of the 1980’s
Landfills represent a one in ten billion cancer risk.Land fill Space Grew; Disis not “Run Out” of landfill space. Market forces solved the crisis.
E-waste is:
75% in homes
14% recycled/reused
11% landfilled
Myth: E-waste growing at an uncontrollable rate
Myth: E-waste Makes Landfills Dangerous - leachate is showing very low e-waste pollutants
Wastefull Ewaste Polices
WEEE Initiative (Europe)
RoHS
Expected annual costs
Adds $60 to the computer - in her view, that's a bad thing.
Precautionary Principle is bogus and inefficient
Shouldn’t be looking at hazards but at risk (incidental note: from the current best seller "Freakenomics," Peter Sandman, a self-described "Risk Communications Specialist," has reduced risk management down to the following:
RISK = HAZARD + OUTRAGE. Beware of those wanting to manage risk.)
Recycling should not be forced where it isn’t economically practical.
Replicate the “Fridge Fiasco”
Very costly stockpiles that have to be managed
Risks associated with substitutes
Fire risks overstated
Inferior Product Performance
Tin solders inferior
California’s ADF
Increases Costs
Virginia and Maine also have regulation
Private Efforts
Dell, HP, IBM Computers
Government approaches are inefficient.
In sum, I found her presentation unbalanced and motivated by ideology rather than science.
A more balanced presentation was made by Jerry Powell, Editor of E-Scrap News & Resource Recycling Magazine
jpowell@resource-recycling.com
His resentation could be summed up by the comment, "E-Waste: Concerns: No Crisis – It’s just a good recyclable material”
Loss of Resources – Many not available in North America
CRT’s don’t pass TCLP testing – SWANA
Disposal does create problems
Heavy metals in leachate are below federal standards
From his own surveys of the e-waste recycling industry, his assessment of the magnitude of the problem is as follows:
2 million tons per year e-waste
Insufficient Recovery
Adequate Infrastructure
Recovery rate very low.
Processors at 60% capacity
Recovery costs about $300/ton
Seattle has c’side program
Manufacturers, Retailers, E-Bay (Rethink Initiative) are all getting involved recovery
United Parcel Service has an asset recovery program
Legislated ARF in CA and Alberta Canada
Maine will have EPR law next year
Stongest Proponents of Legislation are OEMs
12 member alliance including Apple & IBM in favor of legislation
Dell and HP opposed legislation
In Jerry Powell's opinion, product stewardship is the "main game" for the future of e-waste recovery
Canada is moving quickly towards a national EPR laws implemented at the provincial level.
Exports to China is a problem-magnitude may be overstated
BAN’s video high level of public awareness
Problems with e-waste recycling programs
Recovery low
costs high
Investment is weak.
Expect to see consolidation in the industry.
In Jerry Powell's opinion, the Product Stewardship Model will prevail as a long term solution. In the near term, ARF may be necessary to fund recycling of the backlog of old obsolete legacy e-waste.
EPR already exist in other products: carpet, batteries, paint is coming.
Designing for recovery? Jerry mentioned that the EPA is working with industry to come up with a certification for recyclability (including deconstruction - I've e-mailed Jerry for the URL.
Landfill bans will only work if there is a viable alternative – “No ban without a plan”
There is a huge parts industry in legacy chips and parts.
The afternoon session was real interesting...
Pharmacuetical and Personal Care Products in the Environment: A review of Current Research and Implications for Future Management
Stephen Musson
University of Florida
“The new e-waste?”
PPCP Pharm & Personal Care Products
PhaCs Pharm reaching the environment.
USGS Tested 95 organic contanminaents
82 compounds were found in 30 states
Cause: people flushing
Another source is excretion - - sometimes your body changes it, sometimes it stays the same.
40% of these compounds reaching the POTWs ends up passing-thru untreated. Of the 60% that is captured in treatment, it ends up in biosolids.
Agriculture is another source: Denmark says farms use more pharma in ag than pesticides.
Pharma has been found in landfills as industrial solid waste from factories-as opposed to finding it in what people throw away.
Finding in parts per billion (ppb) and parts per trillion (ppt) – new technologies for detecting at extremely low levels are identifying coumpounds in low concentrations all over the world.
Endocrine Disruptors
Estrogenic compounds – birth control – “Feminization of Fish”
Antibioitics
Blood lipid regulators
Analgesics
Future Effects?
Viagra
Genoome designed drugs
Are more stringent Environmental Screenings going to be required?
Persistence – how long do these compounds stay "alive" in the environment?
Generally they breaks down quickly. Howeve, because they are constantly being discharged they remain persistent in the environment.
Drug Synergy – combining compounds for a new unaticipated effect
Chronic Effects?
Management
FDA Requires new Env. Asssesment – However, drug companies have been exempt because the Governmetn doesn't concern itself with levles in the ppb and ppt range - too low.
DEA only concernted with controlled substances
EPA only concerned with HW
Med Waste Regs. – vary from state to state
Pharmacy Boards – regulate prescriptions
Increasing consumption: from '88-'94 and '99-'00 precsription drug daily consumption increased 39-44%
Means of managing waste:
Reverse Distribution thru Phamacies
HHW Disposal
HHW
US is behind. Australia has a national collection program thru pharmacies
US efforts are localized. No national policy.
HHW Collection
Must be convieneint
Privacy: HIPPA rules must be considered. Personal info on bottle must be destroyed.
Controlled Substances – Must be regulated by DEA. DEA registration or local law enforcement.
Funding of Community Collection - HHW
Who pays? Mr. Musson had no specific recommendations. But, he did believe that some sort of EPR would be the long-term solution. Reverse Distribution Systems serve major pharmacies and hospitals. But, could work for households.
Expect to collect other medical items and waste (sharps, tubes, other med waste)
Reuse of some drugs may be an option.
Conclusions:
Regualtions are hindering collection.
Study different disposal options
Public education on the dangers of sewage disposal necessary
Pharmacuetical Manufacturers Assoc. is showing increased interest. But yet to become actively involved.
Stephen Musson
U of Florida
smusson@ufl.edu
The last session I attended was "Comparison of Air Quality, Human Health, and Odor Impacts from Landfills v.s. Composting
Patrick Sullivan, SCS Engineers
Comparing emissions from LFG and Composting
Presentation Objectives:
Evaluate expected organic emissions from bioreactor
Evaluate emissions from composting facility handling similar amounts
In bioreactor, there is a faster organic decay
Landfill used in study (the composting operation was of similar scale):
1000 tpd
20 years operational, 30 post-closure
75% collection efficiency
95% destruction
Bioreactor will emit 29 tpy average. Bioreactors have very low emissions at the end of 50 years - - by design.
Composing historically not considered a concern air regulatory agencies have not historically permitted them.
Composting is now regulated in the South Coast Air Board
Conclusion:
Composting is significantly more polluting than Bioreactor Landfill
The difference is the LFG recovery systems on landfills
Recommendations
Emissionfactors need to be confirmed
Emisisons from composting should be considered before making any permitting decision
Composing is not a zero impact activity
My notes on this last session are scetchy. Sorry. The engineering discussion was over my head and I ended up trying to just capture the conclusions. The upshot appears to be that Composting operations are viewed as environmentally benign endeavors. This study challenges that perception. Mr. Sullivan also said that in the South Coast Air Board District where this research was conducted, levels of methane were also detected in many of the operations. I don't know if these operations were just ran badly or is methane production in muncipal composting operations more common than otherwise percieved. Anyway, I have his paper, anyone wants to pursue this.
Until tomorrow...
posted by Paul Ledesma | 6:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home