WIH Resource Group and Routeware, Inc. Form Strategic Business Alliance

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Routeware, Inc. and WIH Resource Group Form Strategic Alliance to Provide Software Implementation and Business Optimization Support Services to Waste Management and Recycling Collection Service Providers

BEAVERTON, OR AND PHOENIX, AZ – May 19, 2009 – Routeware, Inc. and WIH Resource Group (WIH) announced today that the two companies have formed a strategic business alliance to provide back-end software implementation and business optimization support services to waste management and recycling collection companies in both the private and public sectors. 

“The waste industry is constantly seeking ways to improve profits, increase customer retention, and operate more efficiently,” said Robert DeKoning, President & CEO of Routeware. “The partnership with WIH Resource Group is a huge step in delivering on those goals. The combination of Routeware’s data collection tools and WIH Resource Group’s analytical capabilities makes for a powerful combination that will benefit waste haulers throughout the industry.”

WIH Resource Group’s Principal and Vice President of Client Solutions, Bob Wallace, stated that “…we are pleased to form this strategic business alliance with Routeware. With Routeware’s software and hardware technology and WIH Resource Group’s implementation and business optimization solutions team, the alliance between the two companies offers waste management and recycling collection companies in the private and public sectors an unprecedented opportunity to significantly improve their operations and profit margins.”

WIH Resource Group utilizes a proprietary process known as the Operational Performance Assessment (OPA) that analyzes customer’s operations, leading to client-specific recommendations that can improve their business and operation performance. In concert with Routeware’s on-board computing and software analysis tools, waste haulers will now gain unparalleled insight into the metrics that are running their business—and highlight ways to improve. The partnership will also spotlight WIH Resource Group’s ability to set waste hauler performance benchmarks, with Routeware’s on-board computing and software products providing actual field data. This unique combination will support attractive ROI and return on capital employed (ROCE) targets usually associated with joint WIH Resource Group/Routeware projects.

Both companies will be at Waste Expo and available to meet with to discuss how the Alliance will benefit clients.  Routeware’s booth at Waste Expo is 8040.

ABOUT ROUTEWARE, INC.

With its powerful combination of on-board computing and back office software, Routeware helps haulers optimize routes, track driver field activity, and cut costs. The system fully integrates with existing routing software and adds powerful analysis tools such as route costing and customer service information—in real-time—including backup and service verification cameras, RFID, and scales integration. From the driver to the CEO, Routeware provides the entire organization with the information it needs to improve service, boosts profits, and unleash productivity. Routeware is headquartered in Beaverton, Oregon.

 ABOUT WIH RESOURCE GROUP

WIH Resource Group (WIH) is based in Phoenix, Arizona and provides its expertise to clients in both the public and private sectors throughout North America. WIH and its affiliates also specialize in financial and operational analysis of integrated solid waste management programs. One of WIH Resource Group’s primary missions is to serve the solid waste and recycling needs of local governmental agencies, municipalities and private sector clients. The team of experts at WIH Resource Group are uniquely qualified to assist clients with solid waste, recycling and transportation consulting services.

The WIH Resource Group Team offers unique qualifications and experience needed to provide the full range of consulting, technical research and development services required to successfully complete integrated solid waste and recycling projects.  The WIH Resource Group team has worked with hundreds of municipalities, multiple jurisdictional solid waste authorities and private sector clients throughout the United States to evaluate, plan, improve financials and operations, assess and improve their regulatory compliance and management throughout their individual organizations.

WIH Resource Group Team’s possesses a strong knowledge of local and national solid waste systems, trends, regulations and economics that they share with the clients.  The WIH Resource Group Team have established a track record of providing waste management, recycling, logistical and strategic business planning consulting services to numerous public and private sector clients.

For more information, contact:

Routeware, Inc.                                                                                            

Dennis Keizer, Vice President, Sales                                                         

Email:   dkeizer@routeware.com                                                                

Phone: (708) 650-0300                                                                                

Website: www.routeware.com                                                                     

WIH Resource Group                                                                                                        

 Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions 

 Email: bwallace@wihresourcegroup.com

Phone: (480) 241-9994

Website: www.wihrg.com

NewsBlog: www.wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

Mayor Newsom Announces San Francisco’s Highest in the Nation Recycling Rate Now at 72%

Mayor Newsom’s mandatory construction debris recycling ordinance accounts for lowest tonnage sent to landfills in over 30 years

San Franciscans are world class recyclers, and are closing in on the city’s goal of 75 percent landfill diversion by 2010. New statistics show that the city kept 72 percent of all recyclable material from going to the landfill, up from 70 percent the year before. The most significant gain was in the area of recycling material from building sites, thanks to Mayor Newsom’s 2006 Mandatory Construction and Demolition Debris Recovery Ordinance.

“By requiring builders to recycle debris from construction projects, we were able to divert tens of thousands of new tons of material away from the landfill,” said Mayor Gavin Newsom. “Clearly, mandatory recycling measures pay off; if we’re going to reach a recycling rate of 75 percent in 2010 and zero waste by 2020, we need to make sure that residents and businesses are taking full advantage of our composting and recycling programs.”

The figures compiled by the City’s Department of the Environment (SF Environment) show that San Francisco generated 2,100,943 tons of waste material in 2007. Of this, only 617,833 tons went to landfill, the lowest disposal rate since 1977.

The increased recovery of construction and demolition debris is a positive trend. However, SF Environment data shows that over two-thirds of the landfill-bound material was recyclable, with nearly 40 percent consisting of mixed compostables (mostly food scraps and soiled paper), 15 percent recyclable paper, and 15 percent other mixed recyclables.

“If we captured everything going to landfill that could have been recycled or composted, we’d have a 90 percent recycling rate” observed SF Environment Director Jared Blumenfeld. “The Board of Supervisors will soon be considering an ordinance that will require residents and businesses to sign up and use the recycling and composting programs, which we need to make our goals.”

Mandatory recycling is an established best practice in the field of solid waste management, and many state and local governments have mandated recycling various materials, or conversely banned them from landfills. Major cities including Seattle, Pittsburgh, Honolulu and San Diego have successfully implemented mandatory recycling programs. Garbage collection has been mandatory in San Francisco since 1932.

To learn more about San Francisco’s recycling programs visit: http://www.sfenvironment.org/.

For additional information on WIH Resource Group and their diversified Client-specific environmental and logistical solutions visit: http://www.wihresourcegroup.com or http://www.wihrg.com.

Visit WIH’s daily news Blog for National and International news of timely importance and relevance to the waste management, recycling, sustainability, transportation and environmental industries and sectors at: http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com/.

Members Take Sides on National Recycling Coalition’s (NRC) Future

Just one week after the National Recycling Coalition floated the possibility of a merger with Keep America Beautiful as a way of alleviating the financial hardships currently plaguing the organization, NRC members have begun sounding off in droves. Preliminary findings of a poll administered by Resource Recycling indicate that, of the 703 NRC members who replied at the time of this writing, over two-thirds are against any merger.

“KAB’s mission is litter reduction whereas NRC’s has always been about promoting recycling as a beneficial alternative to raw materials extraction,” commented NRC member Mark Loughmiller of the Arcata Community Recycling Center in California. “Litter reduction is a side benefit of the recycling process but is not the motivator for those within the industry.”

 

Other survey comments from NRC members were more blunt: “I don’t think that watering down the NRC with a KAB partnership is wise because of the headaches associated with this organization!” writes Bryce Hulsey of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. “There would be a better alliance with the bottle bill folks and SWANA.”

 

Dissent was not uniform among members, however. “While a national forum for recycling is necessary, I think local issues are also important,” said Adam Schlachter of Norseman Plastics. “One of the benefits that a NRC/KAB merger will provide is locally-driven execution. Some of the major issues that could be tacked include a buy-recycled marketplace push, market development initiatives, regional recycling initiatives, etc. Most KAB groups are members of state trade associations (which in turn join NRC) and so there is definite benefit by pushing national ideas to local affiliates for execution.”

 

Interestingly enough, the percentages are roughly reversed among non-NRC members surveyed. The majority — 58 percent — of the 480 non-members polled support a potential NRC/KAB deal, with many of those responses coming from KAB-active cities. 67 percent of NRC members oppose any potential deal.

 

Averaged together, only 43 percent of all respondents indicated they would support a merger between NRC and KAB. Another similar survey of 117 industry members by Waste & Recycling News indicated a somewhat greater disparity, with only 26.5 percent supporting a NRC/KAB merger.

News Source: Resource Recycling and Waste News

If you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified consulting services, please contact us at admin@wihrg.com. Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: www.wihrg.com, www.wihresourcegroup.com  and www.wastesavings.net

Solid Waste Management Consulting Firms Seek Out China For Business

As China spends tens of billions to clean up after years of environmentally destructive growth, companies big and small are scrabbling for contracts to restore polluted waterways and landfills.But while tougher environmental rules and increased incentives are driving investment, the carrots and rebates are not expected to last forever and companies that sign on to long-term projects are vulnerable to policy change.

Tight credit and strained budgets at the municipal level could also limit the flow of funds to some projects.  

Beijing has earmarked 350 billion yuan (S$75 billion) this year for clean water and waste management on top of a 1 trillion yuan allocated under its 11th 5-year plan, which runs to 2010.

For the moment, Beijing can afford to offer generous subsidies to anyone willing to take part in the clean-up.  ‘There’s a lot of demand for environmental projects because, frankly, there has been a lot of neglect in the past,’ said Philip Fan, general manager of China Everbright International , a sewage treatment and waste-to-energy company.

China Everbright is in tie-up talks with waste-to-energy company Covanta Holdings , while Waste Management Inc , the largest trash hauler in the United States, announced plans to bid for refuse-fired power plants in the mainland.

With water unfit to drink in many parts of China, the mainland is also a key growth market for Singapore water treatment firm Hyflux and French utility giants Suez Environnement SA and Veolia Environnement .

The world’s largest polluter, China, has been struggling to change its priorities from growth-at-all-costs to more sustainable development, driven in part by worries that environmental degradation could compromise economic growth.

China expects government and private spending on the environment to reach 500 billion yuan by 2010, or about 1.35 per cent of gross domestic product.

Green experts say protecting China’s land and water resources demands annual investment equivalent to 2 per cent of GDP – the same share channelled by the United States.

In 2004, China surpassed the United States as the world’s largest producer of municipal solid waste at about 190 million tonnes a year. By 2030, the World Bank estimates that will have more than doubled to at least 480 million tonnes.

Only 16 per cent of the rubbish China collects is crushed to burn at incinerators, with the rest ending up in landfills. By contrast, developed countries incinerate up to 30 per cent of their trash, while Japan burns 70 per cent.

DRY AND DIRTY

Waste water presents an even tougher challenge given China’s limited water resources.

State media have cited official statistics showing China on average lacks 40 billion cubic metres of water each year, leaving over 200 million farmers short of drinking water and large swathes of farmland too dry for growing crops.

Drought and floods are perennial problems in China, which has per capita water resources of 2,125 cubic metres – well below the global average of 8,310 cubic metres. Outright shortages of water are exacerbated by water pollution, which leaves many rivers unfit for irrigation.

‘We are bullish on opportunities within China’s overall environmental value chain,’ said Credit Suisse analyst Clarice Khoo, citing a solid waste segment still in its infancy and leaky water pipes that are a worry for the country.

Ms Khoo forecasts that China’s environmental protection industry will grow by 14 per cent next year due to government support.

The government-guided return on net assets for urban water suppliers is around 8 per cent, and higher if foreign investment is involved, said Credit Suisse’s Khoo. For waste-to-energy projects the return is 15-20 per cent, she said.

The government also pays 0.25 yuan more of tariff for every kilowatt of electricity generated from burning trash.

China is looking to massive water diversion projects to ease chronic shortages in Beijing and other parts of northern China, including the South-to-North Water Diversion Project.

The 500 billion yuan project will channel 44.8 billion cubic metres of water yearly to northern China from its largest river, the Yangtze, when completed decades from now.

CHALLENGES AHEAD

As the government spreads development to more provinces and cities in China, companies like solid waste recycling firm Lo’s Enviro-Pro Holdings Ltd hope to benefit.

‘We were shocked that it took government just days to approve our project,’ said Yany Lo-Quiroz, director of corporate affairs for Lo’s Enviro-Pro, which invested 130 million yuan in a recycling plant in Jiangsu’s Shuyang City this year after years of knocking on government doors to present its waste technology.

But analysts warn of challenges ahead, given intense competition due to low entry barriers to the sector. Small firms are up against bigger and better-funded rivals.

‘Winning government projects is not easy as there are bigger players out there competing for contracts,’ said Pan Asia’s Wan.

The sector also relies heavily on state incentives and a change in policy could dampen investment and weaken growth.

‘Key risks (include) policy change to withdraw preferential treatment in the long-term,’ said Morgan Stanely analyst Helen Wen.

News Source: Reuters

If you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified consulting services, please contact us at admin@wihrg.com. Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: www.wihrg.com, www.wihresourcegroup.com  and www.wastesavings.net

A Cautionary Video About America’s ‘Stuff’

The thick-lined drawings of the Earth, a factory and a house, meant to convey the cycle of human consumption, are straightforward and child-friendly. So are the pictures of dark puffs of factory smoke and an outlined skull and crossbones, representing polluting chemicals floating in the air.

Which is one reason “The Story of Stuff,” a 20-minute video about the effects of human consumption, has become a sleeper hit in classrooms across the nation.

The video is a cheerful but brutal assessment of how much Americans waste, and it has its detractors. But it has been embraced by teachers eager to supplement textbooks that lag behind scientific findings on climate change and pollution. And many children who watch it take it to heart: riding in the car one day with his parents in Tacoma, Wash., Rafael de la Torre Batker, 9, was worried about whether it would be bad for the planet if he got a new set of Legos.

“When driving by a big-box store, you could see he was struggling with it,” his father, David Batker, said. But then Rafael said, “It’s O.K. if I have Legos because I’m going to keep them for a very long time,” Mr. Batker recalled.

The video was created by Annie Leonard, a former Greenpeace employee and an independent lecturer who paints a picture of how American habits result in forests being felled, mountaintops being destroyed, water being polluted and people and animals being poisoned. Ms. Leonard, who describes herself as an “unapologetic activist,” is also critical of corporations and the federal government, which she says spends too much on the military.

Ms. Leonard put the video on the Internet in December 2007. Word quickly spread among teachers, who recommended it to one another as a brief, provocative way of drawing students into a dialogue about how buying a cellphone or jeans could contribute to environmental devastation.

So far, six million people have viewed the film at its site, storyofstuff.com, and millions more have seen it on YouTube. More than 7,000 schools, churches and others have ordered a DVD version, and hundreds of teachers have written Ms. Leonard to say they have assigned students to view it on the Web.

It has also won support from independent groups that advise teachers on curriculum choices. Facing the Future, a curriculum developer for schools in all 50 states, is drafting lesson plans based on the video. And Ms. Leonard has a contract with Simon & Schuster to write a book based on the video.

The enthusiasm is not universal. In January, a school board in Missoula County, Mont., decided that screening the video treaded on academic freedom after a parent complained that its message was anticapitalist.

But many educators say the video is a boon to teachers as they struggle to address the gap in what textbooks say about the environment and what science has revealed in recent years.

“Frankly, a lot of the textbooks are awful on the subject of the environment,” said Bill Bigelow, the curriculum editor of Rethinking Schools, a quarterly magazine that has promoted “The Story of Stuff” to its subscribers and on its Web site, which reaches about 600,000 educators a month. “The one used out here in Oregon for global studies — it’s required — has only three paragraphs on climate change. So, yes, teachers are looking for alternative resources.”

Environmental education is still a young and variable field, according to Frank Niepold, the climate education coordinator at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. There are few state or local school mandates on how to teach the subject.

The agency is seeking to change that, but in the interim many teachers are developing their own lesson plans on climate change, taking some elements from established sources like the National Wildlife Federation and others from less conventional ones like “The Story of Stuff.”

Ms. Leonard is self-educated on where waste goes and worked for Greenpeace to prevent richer nations from dumping their trash in poorer ones. She produced the video, with the Free Range Studios company, and with money from numerous nonprofit groups; the largest single giver was the Tides Foundation. She did so, she said, after tiring of traveling often to present her views at philanthropic and environmental conferences. She attributes the response to the video’s simplicity.

“A lot of what’s in the film was already out there,” Ms. Leonard said, “but the style of the animation makes it easy to watch. It is a nice counterbalance to the starkness of the facts.”

The video certainly makes the facts stark and at times very political: “We’ll start with extraction, which is a fancy word for natural resource exploitation, which is a fancy word for trashing the planet,” she says at one point. “What this looks like is we chop down the trees, we blow up mountains to get the metals inside, we use up all the water and we wipe out the animals.”

Mark Lukach, who teaches global studies at Woodside Priory, a Catholic college-preparatory school in Portola Valley, Calif., acknowledged that the film is edgy, but said the 20-minute length gives students time to challenge it in class after viewing it.

“Compared to ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ ” he said, referring to Al Gore’s one-and-a-half-hour documentary on climate change, “it is much shorter and easier to compact into a class segment. You can watch it and then segue into a discussion.”

Mr. Lukach’s students made a response video and posted it on YouTube, asking Ms. Leonard to scare them less and give them ideas on how to make things better. That in turn inspired high school students in Mendocino, Calif., to post an answer to Woodside, with suggested activities.

Dawn Zweig, who teaches environmental studies at the Putney School, a private academy in Vermont, said that the very reason the video appealed to teachers — it shows students how their own behavior is linked to what is happening across the globe — could also raise sensitive issues. She said students, particularly affluent ones, might take the critique personally. “If you offend a student, they turn off the learning button and then you won’t get anywhere,” Ms. Zweig said.

Sometimes teachers observe the opposite: children who become environmental advocates at home after seeing the video. After Jasmine Madavi, 18, saw it last year in Mr. Lukach’s class at Woodside Priory, she began nagging her parents to stop buying bottled water. Her mother resisted, saying that filtered tap water, Jasmine’s suggested alternative, would not taste as good. But Jasmine bought the filter on her own, and the household is now converted.

“You just have to be persistent,” said Ms. Madavi, who is now a community college student. “When you use a water bottle, it just doesn’t disappear. That’s Annie’s message.”

Most parents take such needling with humor. But Mark Zuber, a parent of a child at Big Sky High School in Missoula, had a stronger reaction when a teacher showed the video to his daughter last year. “There was not one positive thing about capitalism in the whole thing,” Mr. Zuber said.

Corporations, for example, are portrayed as a bloated person sporting a top hat and with a dollar sign etched on its front.

He described the video as one-sided. “It was very well done, very effective advocacy, but it was just that,” he said.

Mr. Zuber argued before the Missoula County School Board that the way in which “The Story of Stuff” was presented, without an alternative point of view, violated its standards on bias, and the board agreed in a 4-to-3 vote.

Still, Ms. Leonard is hoping the video will circle the globe. “I’ve heard from teachers in Palestine and Papua New Guinea,” she said. “It is just spreading and spreading.”

News Source: The New York Times

If you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified consulting services, please contact us at admin@wihrg.com. Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: www.wihrg.com, www.wihresourcegroup.com  and www.wastesavings.net

Pending Bill on Renewable Energy Omits Huge Source

American Loggers Council (ALC) Position: Clearing biomass from nation’s forests will keep them healthy

Despite pending federal legislation that promotes renewable, clean energy and creates new jobs, hard-working people in rural areas are being denied the promise of a green economy, according to the American Loggers Council (ALC).

Unemployed loggers all over the country could have a future in sustainably gathering and selling tons of clean-burning woody biomass to power plants were it not for the fine print in The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 that’s now under consideration in the House of Representatives. The harvesting of woody biomass involves collecting stems and wood waste from the forest or stands of beetle-killed wood – but the Act excludes 60 to 70 percent of biomass sources in the U.S. simply because the biomass lies in federal and certain private forests.

“Woody biomass is not the cutting down of old-growth trees,” said ALC Executive Vice President Danny Dructor. “A sustainable biomass industry will keep our forests healthy and provide clean energy and green jobs.”

While it commends Congress’ commitment to renewable energy, the ALC is committed to educating Congress about the true benefits of woody biomass harvesting:

• Reviving small-town economies
• Creating a viable, proven source of renewable energy
• Reducing the risk of catastrophic forest fires by removing dead and dying trees and the waste that provides fires much of their fuel
• Fighting insects that destroy forests by thinning dense stands and removing the waste in which pests breed.

Throughout the U.S., the closing of mills has devastated small-town economies that once relied on logging. In Oregon, 30 percent of loggers are currently unemployed and many rural communities reliant on forestry now suffer from almost 20 percent unemployment — more than twice the national average.

“Here in Minnesota, counting loggers and spin-off jobs from mills, unemployment in our industry’s probably 60 percent,” said logger Jerry Birchem, of Virginia, Minnesota.

But Birchem has found his own solution through harvesting woody biomass. Not only does he own a wood pellet plant, providing a clean energy solution for his area, but he also gathers and sells woody biomass to a power plant.

“I saw some of the economic trends for logging a few years ago,” Birchem said. “And if it weren’t for biomass, I’d only have half the work I have now. The popular position used to be that there should be no harvesting of anything, and it seemed like they’d rather have forest fires, but I don’t think that’s the mainstream view anymore.”

Like Birchem, third-generation logger Scott Melcher of Sweet Home, Oregon, saw an opportunity to diversify his business when he decided to collaborate with another local businessman to collect and haul the biomass to a utilization center instead of piling it up trailside and burning it.

“I looked at it as a challenge and a way to position Melcher Logging at the forefront of biomass utilization,” he said.

So logging does have a future and there’s a big economic stimulus waiting to be had for rural economies and everyone else — in creating renewable energy through woody biomass.

The ALC urges Congress to change the fine print in The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 to include all biomass sources. By harvesting biomass in compliance with federal, state and local laws, the nation’s federal and private forestlands will experience huge benefits in the prevention of catastrophic forest fires, the preservation of wildlife habitats and the protection of critical water resources.

“Logging communities have been economically devastated,” said Jim Petersen, co-founder of the non-profit Evergreen Foundation, and publisher of Evergreen, the Foundation’s periodic journal.

Whether things can turn around for the logging communities depends on the government. “They have to get serious about biomass,” said Petersen.

“One thing that’s important for people to understand is that forests grow; that’s what they do,” he said. “There will always be biomass, and collection of biomass could keep loggers going forever.”

News Source: American Logger Council

If you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified consulting services, please contact us at admin@wihrg.com. Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: www.wihrg.com, www.wihresourcegroup.com  and www.wastesavings.net

Obama Administration Revokes Bush-Era ESA Consultation Rule; Decision on Polar Bear Rule Still Pending

On April 28, 2009, Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar announced that their departments are revoking a controversial Endangered Species Act (the “ESA” or the “Act”) regulation promulgated at the close of the Bush Administration. The rule briefly allowed federal agencies conducting, permitting or financing projects to decide on their own whether the projects would adversely affect listed species and require consultation with federal resource managers under Section 7 of the Act (the “Consultation Rule”). In a joint statement, the Secretaries announced their determination that the Bush administration’s “11th hour regulation … undermined [ESA] protections.” The decision, reached after the departments were directed by President Obama and Congress to reconsider the Consultation Rule, reinstates a process that has been criticized as unduly burdensome. In light of those concerns, the Administration promised to review the 1986 consultation regulations to decide whether to propose any changes to the process. For the foreseeable future at least, it is back to business as before at NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

A decision from the Department of Interior on the status of another ESA rule promulgated by the Bush Administration, governing protections for the polar bear (the “polar bear 4(d) rule”), is still pending. The polar bear 4(d) rule sets forth the prohibitions and exceptions applicable to the recently listed polar bear, and does not provide the species with the full protections available under the ESA. The Administration’s decision on that rule is due by May 10, 2009.

The Consultation Rule

On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed H.R. 1105, the $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. The Act provides funding for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Act also authorizes the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior to withdraw the Consultation Rule and the polar bear 4(d) rule. The Appropriations Act followed the President’s March 3, 2009 memorandum to the heads of executive agencies (the “ESA Memo”), in which he asked the Secretaries to review the Consultation Rule. The Appropriations Act and ESA Memo directed the Secretaries to reconsider the rules, and the Act empowered the Secretaries to rescind both rules on or before May 10, 2009, without complying with the notice and comment procedures normally required under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).

Under Section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies must ensure that “any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency … is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered … or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [designated critical] habitat.…”.  Under the ESA and its implementing regulations, when an action with a federal nexus may adversely affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, the agency undertaking or authorizing the project (the “action agency”) must consult with the appropriate Service, in order to ensure that the relevant activity does not jeopardize the species or habitat.

Under the Consultation Rule, in certain circumstances the federal agencies considering a project or action – either public or private – that requires federal authorization or involves federal funding, could decide for themselves whether they had to consult with the appropriate wildlife Service on the effects of that project or action. The Bush Administration changed certain elements of the 1986 consultation regulations, which require concurrence by the Service when an action agency determines that its project is not likely to adversely affect species or designated critical habitat.

President Obama’s Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

In his ESA Memo, President Obama asked the Secretaries to review the Consultation Rule and “determine whether to undertake new rulemaking procedures with respect to consultative and concurrence processes that will promote the purposes of the ESA.” President Obama did not formally suspend implementation of the Consultation Rule pending reconsideration. Instead, he asked federal agencies to exercise their discretion under the rule “to follow the prior longstanding consultation and concurrence practices involving the [Services]” until the review is done. The Memo expressly states that it does not create any enforceable rights, duties or remedies.

The Appropriations Act

Section 429 of the Appropriations Act authorize the Secretaries to “withdraw or reissue” the Consultation Rule and polar bear 4(d) rule on or before May 10, 2009, “without regard to any provision of statute or regulation that establishes a requirement for such withdrawal.” If the Secretaries withdraw a rule under the Act, they must “implement the provisions of law under which the rule was issued in accordance with the regulations in effect under such provisions immediately before the effective date of such rule, except as otherwise provided by any Act or rule that takes effect after the effective date of the rule that is withdrawn.

Earlier this year, the Senate defeated an amendment to the Appropriations Act proposed by Alaska Senators Lisa Murkowski (R) and Mark Begich (D) that would have subjected any action by the Secretaries to the normal 60-day comment period.  Thus, provided that they do so by May 10, the Appropriations Act allows the Secretaries to also withdraw or reissue the polar bear 4(d) rule without adhering to the notice and comment requirements of the APA.

Effects of Consultation Rule Revocation and Pending Decision on Polar Bear 4(d) Rule

Both the Consultation Rule and the polar bear 4(d) rule have been the subjects of many lawsuits filed by environmental plaintiffs as well as the States of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island.  On March 16, 2009, the parties to several of those lawsuits filed joint proposed case management orders seeking a 60-day stay of proceedings, in order to ensure that the government’s experts could focus on reconsidering the rules rather than litigating over them. The Secretaries’ action will moot many of those lawsuits.

Once the Consultation Rule is formally rescinded, consultation will proceed as it has in the past, with the Services reviewing decisions by action agencies about effects of projects on species. The Secretaries may propose additional changes to the consultation rules in the future, perhaps to streamline the process when implementing projects funded with federal stimulus money. If Interior also revokes the polar bear rule, that species may be afforded the full protections of the ESA.

In the Consultation Rule and the polar bear 4(d) rule, the Services repeatedly emphasized that the emission of greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) by individual sources will not trigger consultation requirements. Therefore, in reviewing the polar bear 4(d) rule, the Obama Administration could take the opportunity to address the intersection of climate change and the ESA – namely, whether GHG emissions trigger consultation requirements for Arctic and other species adversely affected by climate change effects. If it does, that could be the most interesting and controversial element of the Administration’s review. Climate change already plays a role in some consultations. The Services have been, and may continue to be, required to evaluate climate change effects as part of the environmental baseline of “past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area

News Source: Obama Administration

 

If you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified consulting services, please contact us at admin@wihrg.com. Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: www.wihrg.com, www.wihresourcegroup.com  and www.wastesavings.net

Top 10 Renewable Energy Sources

There are many sources of energy that are renewable and considered to be environmentally friendly and harness natural processes. These sources of energy provide an alternate ‘cleaner’ source of energy, helping to negate the effects of certain forms of pollution. All of these power generation techniques can be described as renewable since they are not depleting any resource to create the energy.

While there are many large-scale renewable energy projects and production, renewable technologies are also suited to small off-grid applications, sometimes in rural and remote areas, where energy is often crucial in human development.

10 Tidal Power

Tidal energy can be generated in two ways, tidal stream generators or by barrage generation. The power created though tidal generators is generally more environmentally friendly and causes less impact on established ecosystems. Similar to a wind turbine, many tidal stream generators rotate underwater and is driven by the swiftly moving dense water. Although not yet widely used, tidal power has potential for future electricity generation. Tides are more predictable than wind energy and solar power. Historically, tide mills have been used, both in Europe and on the Atlantic coast of the USA. The earliest occurrences date from the Middle Ages, or even from Roman times. Tidal power is the only form of energy which derives directly from the relative motions of the Earth–Moon system, and to a lesser extent from the Earth–Sun system. The tidal forces produced by the Moon and Sun, in combination with Earth’s rotation, are responsible for the generation of the tides. British company Lunar Energy announced that they would be building the world’s first tidal energy farm off the coast of Pembrokshire in Wales. It will be the world’s first deep-sea tidal-energy farm and will provide electricity for 5,000 homes. Eight underwater turbines, each 25 metres long and 15 metres high, are to be installed on the sea bottom off St David’s peninsula. Construction is due to start in the summer of 2008 and the proposed tidal energy turbines, described as “a wind farm under the sea”, should be operational by 2010.

 9 Wave Power

Wave power is the transport of energy by ocean surface waves, and the capture of that energy to do useful work — for example for electricity generation, water desalination, or the pumping of water (into reservoirs). Wave energy can be difficult to harness due to the unpredictability of the ocean and wave direction. Wave farms have been created and are in use in Europe, using floating Pelamis Wave Energy converters. Most wave power systems include the use of a floating buoyed device and generate energy through a snaking motion, or by mechanical movement from the waves peaks and troughs. Though often co-mingled, wave power is distinct from the diurnal flux of tidal power and the steady gyre of ocean currents. Wave power generation is not currently a widely employed commercial technology although there have been attempts at using it since at least 1890. The world’s first commercial wave farm is based in Portugal, at the Aguçadora Wave Park, which consists of three 750 kilowatt Pelamis devices. In the United States, the Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative is funding the building of a commercial wave-power park at Reedsport, Oregon. The project will utilize the PowerBuoy technology Ocean Power Technologies which consists of modular, ocean-going buoys. The rising and falling of the waves moves the buoy-like structure creating mechanical energy which is converted into electricity and transmitted to shore over a submerged transmission line. A 40 kW buoy has a diameter of 12 feet (4 m) and is 52 feet (16 m) long, with approximately 13 feet of the unit rising above the ocean surface. Using the three-point mooring system, they are designed to be installed one to five miles (8 km) offshore in water 100 to 200 feet (60 m) deep.

8 Solar Power

Photovoltaic (PV) Solar power is harnessing the suns energy to produce electricity. One of the fastest growing energy sources, new technologies are developing at a rapid pace. Solar cells are becoming more efficient, transportable and even flexible, allowing for easy installation. PV has mainly been used to power small and medium-sized applications, from the calculator powered by a single solar cell to off-grid homes powered by a photovoltaic array. The 1973 oil crisis stimulated a rapid rise in the production of PV during the 1970s and early 1980s. Steadily falling oil prices during the early 1980s, however, led to a reduction in funding for photovoltaic R&D and a discontinuation of the tax credits associated with the Energy Tax Act of 1978. These factors moderated growth to approximately 15% per year from 1984 through 1996. Since the mid-1990s, leadership in the PV sector has shifted from the US to Japan and Germany. Between 1992 and 1994 Japan increased R&D funding, established net metering guidelines, and introduced a subsidy program to encourage the installation of residential PV systems. Solar installations in recent years have also largely begun to expand into residential areas, with governments offering incentive programs to make “green” energy a more economically viable option. In Canada the government offers the RESOP (Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program).

7 Wind Power

Wind power is the conversion of wind energy by wind turbines into a useful form, such as electricity or mechanical energy. Large-scale wind farms are typically connected to the local power transmission network with small turbines used to provide electricity to isolated areas. Residential units are entering production and are are capable of powering large appliances to entire houses depending on the size. Wind farms installed on agricultural land or grazing areas, have one of the lowest environmental impacts of all energy sources. Although wind produces only about 1.5% of worldwide electricity use, it is growing rapidly, having doubled in the three years between 2005 and 2008. In several countries it has achieved relatively high levels of penetration, accounting for approximately 19% of electricity production in Denmark, 11% in Spain and Portugal, and 7% in Germany and the Republic of Ireland in 2008. Wind energy has historically been used directly to propel sailing ships or converted into mechanical energy for pumping water or grinding grain, but the principal application of wind power today is the generation of electricity. As of 2008, Europe leads the world in development of offshore wind power, due to strong wind resources and shallow water in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, and limitations on suitable locations on land due to dense populations and existing developments. Denmark installed the first offshore wind farms, and for years was the world leader in offshore wind power until the United Kingdom gained the lead in October, 2008. Other large markets for wind power, including the United States and China focused first on developing their on-land wind resources where construction costs are lower (such as in the Great Plains of the U.S., and the similarly wind-swept steppes of Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia in China), but population centers along coastlines in many parts of the world are close to offshore wind resources, which would reduce transmission costs.

6 Hydroelectricity

Hydroelectricity is electricity generated by hydropower, i.e., the production of power through use of the gravitational force of falling or flowing water. It is the most widely used form of renewable energy. Once a hydroelectric complex is constructed, the project produces no direct waste. Small scale hydro or micro-hydro power has been an increasingly popular alternative energy source, especially in remote areas where other power sources are not viable. Small scale hydro power systems can be installed in small rivers or streams with little or no discernible environmental effect or disruption to fish migration. Most small scale hydro power systems make no use of a dam or major water diversion, but rather use water wheels to generate energy. This was approximately 19% of the world’s electricity (up from 16% in 2003), and accounted for over 63% of electricity from renewable sources. While many hydroelectric projects supply public electricity networks, some are created to serve specific industrial enterprises. Dedicated hydroelectric projects are often built to provide the substantial amounts of electricity needed for aluminium electrolytic plants, for example. In the Scottish Highlands there are examples at Kinlochleven and Lochaber, constructed during the early years of the 20th century. The Grand Coulee Dam, long the world’s largest, switched to support Alcoa aluminum in Bellingham, Washington for America’s World War II airplanes before it was allowed to provide irrigation and power to citizens (in addition to aluminum power) after the war. In Suriname, the Brokopondo Reservoir was constructed to provide electricity for the Alcoa aluminium industry. New Zealand’s Manapouri Power Station was constructed to supply electricity to the aluminium smelter at Tiwai Point.

5 Radiant Energy

This natural energy can perform the same wonders as ordinary electricity at less than 1% of the cost. It does not behave exactly like electricity, however, which has contributed to the scientific community’s misunderstanding of it. The Methernitha Community in Switzerland currently has 5 or 6 working models of fuelless, self-running devices that tap this energy. Nikola Tesla’s magnifying transmitter, T. Henry Moray’s radiant energy device, Edwin Gray’s EMA motor, and Paul Baumann’s Testatika machine all run on radiant energy. This natural energy form can be gathered directly from the environment or extracted from ordinary electricity by the method called fractionation. One of the earliest wireless telephones to be based on radiant energy was invented by Nikola Tesla. The device used transmitters and receivers whose resonances were tuned to the same frequency, allowing communication between them. In 1916, he recounted an experiment he had done in 1896. He recalled that “Whenever I received the effects of a transmitter, one of the simplest ways [to detect the wireless transmissions] was to apply a magnetic field to currents generated in a conductor, and when I did so, the low frequency gave audible notes.”

4 Geothermal Power

Geothermal energy is a very powerful and efficient way to extract a renewable energy from the earth through natural processes. This can be performed on a small scale to provide heat for a residential unit (a geothermal heat pump), or on a very large scale for energy production through a geothermal power plant. It has been used for space heating and bathing since ancient roman times, but is now better known for generating electricity. Geothermal power is cost effective, reliable, and environmentally friendly, but has previously been geographically limited to areas near tectonic plate boundaries. Recent technological advances have dramatically expanded the range and size of viable resources, especially for direct applications such as home heating. The largest group of geothermal power plants in the world is located at The Geysers, a geothermal field in California, United States. As of 2004, five countries (El Salvador, Kenya, the Philippines, Iceland, and Costa Rica) generate more than 15% of their electricity from geothermal sources. Geothermal power requires no fuel, and is therefore immune to fluctuations in fuel cost, but capital costs tend to be high. Drilling accounts for most of the costs of electrical plants, and exploration of deep resources entails very high financial risks. Geothermal power offers a degree of scalability: a large geothermal plant can power entire cities while smaller power plants can supply rural villages or heat individual homes. Geothermal electricity is generated in 24 countries around the world and a number of potential sites are being developed or evaluated.

3 Biomass

Biomass, as a renewable energy source, refers to living and recently dead biological material that can be used as fuel or for industrial production. In this context, biomass refers to plant matter grown to generate electricity or produce for example trash such as dead trees and branches, yard clippings and wood chips biofuel, and it also includes plant or animal matter used for production of fibers, chemicals or heat. Biomass may also include biodegradable wastes that can be burnt as fuel. Industrial biomass can be grown from numerous types of plants, including miscanthus, switchgrass, hemp, corn, poplar, willow, sorghum, sugarcane, and a variety of tree species, ranging from eucalyptus to oil palm (palm oil). The particular plant used is usually not important to the end products, but it does affect the processing of the raw material. Production of biomass is a growing industry as interest in sustainable fuel sources is growing. The existing commercial biomass power generating industry in the United States produces about 0.5 percent of the U.S. electricity supply. Currently, the New Hope Power Partnership is the largest biomass power plant in North America. The facility reduces dependence on oil by more than one million barrels per year, and by recycling sugar cane and wood waste, preserves landfill space in urban communities in Florida.

2 Compressed Natural Gas

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is a fossil fuel substitute for gasoline, diesel, or propane fuel. Although its combustion does produce greenhouse gases, it is a more environmentally clean alternative to those fuels, and it is much safer than other fuels in the event of a spill (natural gas is lighter than air, and disperses quickly when released). CNG is used in traditional gasoline internal combustion engine cars that have been converted into bi-fuel vehicles (gasoline/CNG). Natural gas vehicles are increasingly used in Europe and South America due to rising gasoline prices. In response to high fuel prices and environmental concerns, CNG is starting to be used also in light-duty passenger vehicles and pickup trucks, medium-duty delivery trucks, transit and school buses, and trains. Italy currently has the largest number of CNG vehicles in Europe and is the 4th country in the world for number of CNG-powered vehicles in circulation. Canada is a large producer of natural gas, so it follows that CNG is used in Canada as an economical motor fuel. Canadian industry has developed CNG-fueled truck and bus engines, CNG-fueled transit buses, and light trucks and taxis. Both CNG and propane refueling stations are not difficult to find in major centers. During the 1970s and 1980s, CNG was commonly used in New Zealand in the wake of the oil crises, but fell into decline after petrol prices receded.

1 Nuclear Power

Nuclear power is any nuclear technology designed to extract usable energy from atomic nuclei via controlled nuclear reactions. The only method in use today is through nuclear fission, though other methods might one day include nuclear fusion and radioactive decay. All utility-scale reactors heat water to produce steam, which is then converted into mechanical work for the purpose of generating electricity or propulsion. In 2007, 14% of the world’s electricity came from nuclear power, with the U.S., France, and Japan together accounting for 56.5% of nuclear generated electricity. There are 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in the world, operating in 31 countries. According to the World Nuclear Association, globally during the 1980s one new nuclear reactor started up every 17 days on average, and by the year 2015 this rate could increase to one every 5 days. According to a 2007 story broadcast on 60 Minutes, nuclear power gives France the cleanest air of any industrialized country, and the cheapest electricity in all of Europe. France reprocesses its nuclear waste to reduce its mass and make more energy. Reprocessing can potentially recover up to 95% of the remaining uranium and plutonium in spent nuclear fuel, putting it into new mixed oxide fuel. This produces a reduction in long term radioactivity within the remaining waste, since this is largely short-lived fission products, and reduces its volume by over 90%. France is generally cited as the most successful reprocessor, but it presently only recycles 28% (by mass) of the yearly fuel use, 7% within France and another 21% in Russia.

Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil. Proponents also emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors, and the operational safety record in the Western World is excellent when compared to the other major kinds of power plants. Critics believe that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous energy source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in power production, and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology. Proponents advance the notion that nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of fossil fuel. Proponents also point out that nuclear power is the only viable course to achieve energy independence for most Western countries. Critics point to the issue of storing radioactive waste, the history of and continuing potential for radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, the history of and continuing possibility of nuclear proliferation and the disadvantages of centralized electricity production.

This article is licensed under the GFDL because it contains quotations from Wikipedia.

News Source: The List Universe

 

If you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified consulting services, please contact us at admin@wihrg.com. Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: www.wihrg.com, www.wihresourcegroup.com  and www.wastesavings.net

Is King County Washington Playing Russian Roulette with Safety in Transporting its Solid Waste?

Every single day it appears, King County, Washington is breaking the law – and they know it. If you drive in the county you’re sharing the road with dangerously overweight trucks that are hauling loads so grossly overweight their drivers say it’s just a matter of time before there’s a tragedy.

The trucks aren’t from some fly-by-night operation — they’re with King County Solid Waste.  So, King County Solid Waste drivers came to the KOMO 4 Problem Solvers in desperation. They told us they were terrified that the county is playing Russian Roulette with your safety.

“Operating a safe system is our highest priority,” said Kevin Kiernan, the director of King County Solid Waste.  But drivers insist it’s not a safe system, and state law says it’s illegal. And time after time, our undercover cameras caught evidence of trucks with scale weights well over the 97,500 pounds gross vehicle weight that the law allows. 

“It’s criminal as far as I’m concerned,” said long-time driver John Arsenian.

Several drivers risked their jobs to bring their concerns to the Problem Solvers. Digging into County records, we found that over the past three years, Solid Waste had more than 19,000 truck trips over the legal limit. That’s an average of 16 overweight, illegal loads on our roads every single day. 

The heaviest recorded load was more than 59,000 pounds overweight.

“It’s negligent, it’s dangerous,” says one driver who asked to remain anonymous. “It’s putting the public at danger, it’s putting the workers at danger.”

King County uses its own fleet of semi-trucks to take garbage from its eight transfer stations to its Maple Valley landfill. That’s where the loads are officially weighed, at the end of the trucks’ trips.

On one day, in less than half an hour, our camera caught three overloaded trucks coming through the scales. Two of them were more than 8,000 pounds overweight.

Several drivers told us they’d gone to management repeatedly for more than a year. “We’re asking our management ‘please just fix this,’ it’s very simple. They say, ‘too bad,’ ” one driver told us.

The State Patrol regulates safe truck travel. Officers wouldn’t talk specifically about King County’s overweight loads but, in general, agree with the drivers’ judgment.

“It’s very dangerous for everybody,” said Code Enforcement Officer Kevin Valentine. “Not just for the drivers — for the motoring public.”

So why hasn’t the Patrol stopped the Solid Waste trucks? The county’s routes from those eight transfer sites to the landfill bypass all state weigh stations.

But Officer Valentine says if they knew of overweight trucks like these, they’d park them immediately. “It’s very unsafe,” he reiterated.   Drivers tell me they’ve begged King County to put in scales – even temporary scales at transfer stations – and a major scale manufacturer told us it’s do-able. But the county told the drivers no.  One driver says they were told, “you can quit or you can haul these loads – we’re not getting you scales.”

But Solid Waste Director Kiernan says temporary scales aren’t feasible.  “Having something operate reliably in that environment is very challenging,” he said. “We’ve looked and we haven’t found anything that we believe is effective.”

Arsenian’s answer? “They think they can get away with anything. That’s their attitude, which is a shame.”

Kiernan insists that’s not true. In 2004, in response to driver complaints, Washington State Department of Labor & Industries investigated and found no safety violations. And, Kiernan says they’ve had no serious accidents.  “Our safety record demonstrates that there’s not a problem there,” he said.

Drivers don’t think that’s good enough.  “I don’t believe that there should be a horrific incident before they do something,” one said.

King County Solid Waste has a plan to overhaul all the problem transfer stations with new scale systems, but the first one won’t be completed until 2012.

In the meantime, KOMO News 4 have taken their findings to the State Patrol and they’re setting up a meeting with King County to educate them on the law and help them get into compliance.

News Source: KOMO News Channel 4 Problem Solvers – Seattle, WA

 

If you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified consulting services, please contact us at admin@wihrg.com. Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: www.wihrg.com, www.wihresourcegroup.com  and www.wastesavings.net

 

How Healthy Is the Air You Breathe? For Six Out of Ten Americans, the News Isn’t Good.

What’s the state of your air? Is it healthy? Or too often a noxious mix of chemicals and particles that can damage your lungs and even shorten

your life? The American Lung Association’s tenth annual State of the Air Report shows what’s in our air—by location— and how the air we breathe continues to threaten the lives and health of millions of Americans.

The State of the Air report offers local air quality rankings, including the 25 dirtiest cities.  It also offers hope—showing progress made in the fight for clean air, and an action plan to help clean the air and protect our lungs. You can get the grade for your community by typing in your zip code here:

Air pollution and your lungs
State of the Air looks at two of the most widespread air pollutants—ozone and particle pollution—that can cause a host of alarming symptoms, ranging from shortness of breath and asthma attacks, to chest pain, heart attacks, and even premature death.

You can learn more about air pollution’s effect on your health here.

Revealing picture
The 10th annual State of the Air report presents a wealth of data and paints a revealing picture of the air we breathe:

· Air pollution itself remains a real and urgent threat to public health.

· Some cities have made steady progress to clean up their air, while others have had mixed results or gotten worse since our last report. 

· Six out of ten Americans live in areas with unhealthy levels of air pollution.

· 40.5 million Americans live in counties where the outdoor air failed all three tests.

· Only one city—Fargo, N.D.—ranked among the cleanest in all three air pollution categories covered in State of the Air.

· Certain people are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution, including infants and children, older adults, people with lung diseases like asthma, people with heart disease or diabetes, in addition to anyone who works or exercises outdoors.

· Minorities and lower income groups are disproportionately affected by illnesses caused by air pollution.

What we’re doing
The American Lung Association has been leading the fight for clean air. We have successfully moved the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to tighten clean air standards so that communities have the legal support they need to reduce their air pollution. We have pushed for power plants to clean up of smog-forming emissions and have been on the front lines fighting for cleaner diesel fuels and diesel engines. 

Real progress, yes, but there’s still much to be done. We need stricter federal emissions controls, even stronger ozone standards, an improved network of air monitors, and stricter enforcement of air quality laws.

What you can do
You can do your part to help improve air quality today. Drive less. Don’t burn wood or trash. Use less electricity, and make sure your local school system requires clean school buses. You can join the fight for cleaner air laws by becoming an American Lung Association e-advocate.  Your support makes our work possible. Make a donation today to help the American Lung Association continue to fight for healthy lungs and clean air across the country.

News Source: American Lung Association

If you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified consulting services, please contact us at admin@wihrg.com. Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: www.wihrg.com, www.wihresourcegroup.com  and www.wastesavings.net