Tag Archives: recycling

Waste and Recycling

Economics of Recycling in Houston

2 Comments

Waste Management, a company started in Houston, Texas and now serves more than 20 million customers around the United States and Canada, started its business with commodity prices at an all-time-high and made contracts with municipal governments based on a deal that required a commodity price floor of $65 a ton. However, when the revenue falls below $65 a ton, the city of Houston does not make any money and Waste Management takes a loss.

  • The sorting process at a recycling facility costs between $75 to $150 on average, depending on how contaminated the recycling load, while Waste Management sells the recycled material for just $80 on average.
  • Contracts were made when average recycled commodity prices rose 20 percent in 2011 and received as much revenue as $140 per ton.
  • The city of Houston gets 70 percent of any revenue over $65 per ton.
  • Last March, Houston’s recycling process contamination rate was 17.4 percent.

The Waste Management contracts with municipal governments have been profitable for both over the past few years. However, with recycled commodity prices as low as they now are, Waste Management’s contracts might have to expire. Cities like Houston could lose their popular recycling programs due to hasty decisions that were made a few years ago.

What can you recycle curbside in Houston?

Paper: Newspapers, magazines

Cardboard: Broken down to no more than 3-feet-by-3-feet and clean. No soiled pizza boxes, for example.

Plastics: Nos. 1-5 and No. 7 only

Metals: Tin, aluminum, empty aerosol cans

Glass: Only on routes with 96-gallon bins

Laminated cartons: Milk cartons, for example.

Waste and Recycling

EPA Final Rule Revising Definition of Solid Waste

1 Comment

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) final rule on the definition of solid waste will become effective on July 13, 2015. Perhaps the biggest revision in the rule is EPA’s withdrawal of the transfer-based exclusion codified in the 2008 rule. In its place, EPA created the “verified recycler exclusion.” This new provision requires that all recyclers operating under this provision have RCRA permits or obtain variances prior to reclaiming hazardous secondary materials. Factors in the new provision:

  • hazardous secondary material must provide a useful contribution to the product or recycling process
  • recycling process must produce a valuable product or intermediate
  • hazardous secondary material must be managed as a valuable commodity
  • recycled product must be comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate

According to analysis conducted by Bergeson & Campbell, PC:

The rule retains the exclusion for hazardous secondary materials that are legitimately reclaimed under the control of the generator (generator-controlled exclusion), but adds several conditions to the exclusion, including notification and recordkeeping requirements and emergency preparedness and response conditions. EPA also modified the transfer-based exclusion by adding several conditions, including one that recyclers have financial assurance in place to manage the materials left behind when the facility closes. An addition to the rule is the remanufacturing exclusion, which exempts certain higher-value solvents transferred from one manufacturer to another for the purpose of extending the useful life of the solvent by remanufacturing the spent solvent back into commercial grade solvent.

Environment

Dallas Imposes Plastic Bag Tax

2 Comments

After over two dozen cities around the nation have banned plastic bags, Dallas officially joined this year at 5 cents per bag. This new imposed fee encourages the use of reusable bags. However, the Dallas plastic bag ban will end up having a negative effect on the city.

Contrary to the myth propagated by environmental lobbyists, plastic bags are not a significant source of waste. Indeed, the national 2009 Keep America Beautiful study does not even include plastic bags in its top 10 sources of litter. A recent study found that plastic grocery bags make up less than 0.6 percent of the overall waste stream.

Negative effects of a plastic bag tax:

  • Stores affected by bag bans reported an increase in missing shopping carts and hand baskets.
  • Stores inside the Los Angeles ban area reduced their employment by more than 10 percent. Stores outside the ban area increased their employment by 2.4 percent. This occurred despite the fact that the overall unemployment rate in Los Angeles County fell dramatically.
  • The cost to taxpayers also will rise as lawsuits are filed challenging these bans.

Reusable bag dangers:

  • On the economic front, China is the leading manufacturer of reusable bags, while plastic bags are made in the U.S. with the industry employing thousands of workers.
  • When the bags are used to carry meats, poultry or fish, blood and other fluids can soak into them. If not cleaned regularly and stored properly, bacteria — including E. coli — can take up residence and mold can form.

Free plastic bags benefits:

  • Plastic bags reused to line bathroom trash bins, collect dog waste and used cat litter, to securely seal soiled diapers and more.
  • A number of major retailers have set up recycling boxes at the entrance of their stores to encourage recycling, and plastic bag recovery has increased by 31 percent since 2005 and according to EPA data, this growth is more than nine times the 3.4 percent increase in recovery of all municipal solid waste from 2005 to 2009.

Consumers like choice, and most choose plastic bags for their convenience, flexibility and strength. Evidence indicates that cities with bag bans lose, where people cannot choose.

Waste and Recycling

NE Expanding Waste Management Program

4 Comments

In places like Nebraska, a city’s trash could become one group’s treasure. A new project from Nebraska Organic Waste Energy (NOW) and Uribe Refuse Services Inc. is looking to turn a portion of the city’s organic waste into energy, compost and fertilizer.

The project will take 1,450 of the 52,000 tons of organic waste produced by Lincoln residents and convert it into electricity, as well as compost and liquid fertilizer for lawn care, gardens and golf courses, reports The Journal Star.

Uribe Refuse predicts that the project will save them $39,000 in landfill gate fees and $20,000 in electricity bills per year. The overall return from the 20-year project is estimated to total $1.2 million.

Currently, Nebraska is a net-exporter of energy. But the state’s energy expenditures have been steadily rising over the last decade, from $4.4 billion in 2000 to $9.1 billion in 2008. The total cost for the Lincoln project is unknown, and the verdict on the efficiency of waste-to-energy programs is still out. If the profits outweigh the costs, the program could be a good way to generate clean energy and eliminate waste.

The project intends to target commercial customers, including restaurants, schools and corporations, and will offer sign-up incentives to customers who commit to becoming “zero waste” businesses.

Another aspect of the project excites city planners: the corporate involvement. As part of the state’s energy plan, Nebraska is seeking to address more energy issues through public-private partnerships. Gene Hanlon, Lincoln’s City Recycling Coordinator, says he’s pleased to see private companies taking initiative.

“Local governments can’t do it alone,” says Hanlon. “We need to work in full partnership with the private sector to develop innovative efforts to conserve resources and reduce waste sent to the landfill.”

To get the project up and running, NOW Energy has applied for a $735,000 grant from the Nebraska Environmental Trust to cover its start-up costs. Uribe Refuse and NOW intend to push through with a scaled-down version of the project if the grant doesn’t come through.

Megan Simons is a research associate at the National Center for Policy Analysis

Waste and Recycling

The Other Side of Solar Trash Cans

3 Comments

Do solar trash cans save time and money?

Solar trash cans are popping up all over some of America’s largest cities. Their popularity with local governments has turned it into the latest fad as it seeks to combine waste and recycling with energy conservation and carbon emission reductions. Some city leaders are claiming the solar trash cans, like the ones from BigBelly, are saving the cities millions.

However, a 2010 report from the Philadelphia Controller Allan Butkovitz claims that the $4,000 solar trash cans are wasteful and unkempt:

  • Pictures of trash cans with overflowing garbage
  • Trash cans still sitting in in warehouses long after purchase
  • Trash cans lacked damage and repair warranties from the manufacturer
  • Crews said they were not trained to operate and care for the new machines, which replaced $100 wire baskets
  • Crews did not have operating manuals or tools and were not performing the recommended maintenance
  • The night trash collection crews did not have access to the system that wirelessly reports when each trash can is full and serviced trash cans anyway
  • Daytime crews that responded to trash can full alerts said the alerts are often wrong and hours old
  • Clouded solar panel covers
  • Malfunctioning alerts
  • Physical damage

During a two-month observation, crews collected trash from Big Bellies 10 times a week on average, more than double the anticipated frequency. Moreover, it takes more time to empty the machine compared to the old-style baskets. The solar trash cans have also invited more graffiti, meaning a burden on the city to clean it up. Altogether, the extra time and costs associated with having solar trash cans were not factored into the overall savings.

Just from this one report, there is a good chance that the cities that have introduced solar trash cans may actually be exaggerating the benefits. Those cities should rethink their plans to waste more money on these trash cans and other cities that are thinking about making this change should also reconsider.