WASTECON 2005 Austin TX

2005-09-29T23:39:00.000-07:00

Okay, so I’m moving as quick as I can this morning to get myself packed-up. All that stuff picked-up because it seemed so important – brochures, fridge magnets, beer can cozies, EPA reports – they are all getting mixed with the dirty clothes and the trinkets picked-up for the family. I’m trying get to the Convention Center early. The Advanced Research Foundation Committee is meeting early. While everyone else is sleeping off the big SWANA social the night before, I’m out the door, bags packed. I get to the Convention Center with moments to spare.

ARF is divided into four research groups: Waste Reduction/Recycling, Collection, WTE, and Disposal.

The meeting is chaired by Jeremy O’Brian, a consultant working for SWANA. Anyway, it’s just me, Mr. O’Brian and the Solid Waste Program Manager from North Vancouver and past SWANA president are joined by Leonard Neith, the Recycling Coordinator from Abeline Texas. Later, we’re joined by Andrew Quigley, the new SWANA President. I just sit in and listen. These folks are about doing research on various solid waste issues. Recent ARF papers have been on Bioreactors, single stream recycling, heavy metals control at landfills, and composting of MSW substreams.

At this meeting they were discussing proposals for future research including: the state of MFD recycling and food waste composting.

There were two sets of technical sessions today. The first one I attended was on Municipal Success Stories Computer Recycling. The first speaker was Jerry Hendricks, Public Information Officer with the City of Austin.

His presentation was on the Austin Computer Recycling Project. This was a one year pilot collaboration between the City of Austin, Dell Computer, and Goodwill Industries in Austin. During his presentation, Mr. Hendricks enumerated all of the following objectives of the program:

• Improve the volume of computers recycled
• Provide additional methods of collection – including c’side
• Conduct surveys to collect information to better market services
• Continue to educate the public to increase awareness
• Design scaleable program that can be replicated
• Share responsibility between stakeholders
• Increase donations to Goodwill

Marketing Survey Results:
• How did you hear of Project? - 38% increase in the one year of the pilot program.
• 49% heard about the program on the TV
• Top three reasons why residents didn’t dispose of their computers?
1. Environmental
2. Privacy of data
3. People didn’t know how
• 64% of residents wanted to recycle.
• Permanent drop-off and c’side collection were the two most preferred means of disposal by residents.
• Where did residents go for information?
• Internet was the most preferred source
• Computer manufacturers was the second most preferred.
• People would rather donate than throw away.

Since launch of program Goodwill in Austin is experiencing a 30% increase in donations

The second speaker in this session was Paul Alva who presented on E-Waste Recycling in Los Angeles County

LA collects e-waste as part of their HHW drop-off program. HHW Collection events average 3,000 residents. 66,000 residents used the LA County HHW Program last year
Their data shows that people are not willing to drive longer than 5 miles to drop-off their HHW.

Before combining the two programs, LA held several e-waste round-ups. In combining the two programs, LA realized a savings of $9,400 per event.

LA County perceived three problems:
1. DTSC ban from the landfills
2. Insufficient markets
3. Placed burden on local governments

In 2001, E-waste was merged w/ HHW. LA saw three benefits to this strategy:
• Residents are already familiar with the HHW program
• Weekend collection every week
• Combining HHW and e-waste would reduce administrative costs

LA County wished to be a leader in this area. However, before the program was started, they were concerned with volume, types of e-waste and cost. LA decided to conduct a 9 month pilot. The results of 9 month pilot showed that there was sufficient demand without being overwhelming and that the Costs were moderate adding $10/car to the HHW Program.

1.9 million pounds of e-waste were collected last year. LA is projecting to collect three million pounds next year.

Future plans for the program include:
Secure funding from landfills.
Work to provide a national e-waste policy – stakeholders cannot agree on uniform policy

For more information: www.888cleanla.com

Generally, the crowed was skeptical of these two presenters. No one I talked to was convinced of Dell Computer’s commitment to recycling. In addition, a lot of people in attendance, including myself, didn’t think that directing e-waste to an HHW Program exclusively make a great deal of sense.

WASTECON seems like a meeting of tribes. There was the meat and potatoes tribe, talking about landfill management, waste-to-energy, bioreactors and alike. At the same time, there were other tribes presenting good stuff on composting and single stream versus source separation. Is e-waste much a do about nothing? A lot of people think so. A lot of people have a vested interest in it being a real problem (or at least a legitimate resource worthy of recycling). There’s a lot you could say about SWANA being mostly about meat and potatoes. But, Biocycle and USCC hosted sessions. There was a lot of talk about Extended Producer Responsibility. These people even made room for libertarian speakers – people who want to shrink government down to a size where it can be drowned in a bathtub. From my standpoint, SWANA gets a lot of credit for diversity of opinion at this year’s WASTECON.

There’s more to say about WASTECON. There was really interesting discussion regarding how a City’s waste stream changes as the City changes. I’ll mention a little about that tomorrow. Right now, this plane I’m on is flying through tubulance over Utah and I’m getting butterflies as I type. My battery is dying and the woman sitting next to me is on her third gin and tonic and getting louder by the sip. Tom Waits is on iTunes and I’m looking for the motrin.

2005-09-28T19:13:00.000-07:00

Well, it was all a little cooler today. No, wait...I was just inside a lot. The air conditioning works great here. Totally had me fooled.

There was only one set of technical sessions today. The one I attended was on the current state of Landfill Gas-to-Energy subsidies. I actually found the article in the current issue of Biocycle more understandable than the presentations. However, there were a few things worth pointing out. In the recently approved energy bill passed by Congress, LFG is now considered a Renewable Energy - the same as solar and wind. SWANA and the EPA are aggressively promoting LFGE subsidies. Given the high cost of natural gas, these folks see an opportunity. The implications of this are varied and I have discussed them with a few of my colleagues recently. It's of immediate interest for those of us (meaning me) concerned with solid waste disposal. However, anyone interested in organics diversion should check in on this issue from time to time. It's controversial.

Related to this...

Someone at the conference turned me on to a really interesting website:

http://www.competitivewaste.org/index.htm

This is the website for The Center for a Competitive Waste Industry. This is a public interest research group that advocates against consolidation in the waste industry. Granted, it sounds a little like the horse has already left the barn on this one. But, there's some pretty provocative material here. This group is highly critical of government support of the landfill industry at the expense of recycling (including LFGE over composting). Also, there is a paper on this site that offers an explanation as to why recycling has fallen away from the vanguard of environmentalism.

If you all have heard of this website already, I apologize for being late to the party. I don't get out much.

SWANA's Lawrence Lecturer this year was Jeff Cooper, Producer Responsibility Policy Manager of the Environment Agency for England & Wales. His speech was on the topic of EU Producer Responsibility - Focusing on three EU Directives:

Packaging and Packaging Waste

E-waste

End of Life Vehicles: that is, vehicle dismantling and the environmentally friendly recycling of disgarded automobiles. This includes targets for reuse, recycling and recovery of vehicles and their components. The directive also pushes producers to manufacture new vehicles that can be recycled more readily.

There have been some successes with producer responsibility for packaging, end of life vehicles and E-waste. These successes are increasing recovery and diversion from landfill, meeting UK diversion goals. However, a lack of tangible drivers for product eco-design, and an over emphasis on recycling targets, has undermined their ability to fully deliver on the recycling/waste hierarchy. Sounds familiar.

End of life product management will have significant economic implications for British industry. The End of Life Vehicle initiative could end up costing more than £500 million/year. Estimates of the E-waste initiative range between £350 million/yr and £670 million/yr.

The conflict between environmental goals and economic impacts have worked against the implementation of producer responsibility. A major paradigm shift for both producers and consumers will be necessary in order to fully implement these initiatives.

I found it intersting to keep in mind Mr. Cooper's perspective on EU policy as a British Government official.

The last speaker of the day was Bruce Jenner. Yes, that Bruce Jenner. I bagged his speech and went and had an excellent Tortilla Soup with ancho chili on Congress Ave.

Add food to the list of things I like about Texas. Late. Peace out.

2005-09-27T18:51:00.000-07:00

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 materialÂ”
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...