Collect Waste Without Wasting Money


Are You Throwing Money Away with Your Trash?

WIH Resource Group’s Strategic Partner, Enevo, has created ONe which is a comprehensive logistics technology solution that saves time,money and the environment. It uses wireless sensors to measure and forecast the fill-level of waste & recycling containers and generates smart collection plans using the most efficient schedules and routes. The solution provides up to 50% in direct cost savings.

Enevo ONe is a complete waste monitoring solution that brings up to 50% savings in waste collection costs. Works with any type of container and any type of waste mixed, glass, bio, metals or fluids such as oils and waste water etc.

Enevo ONe is a comprehensive logistics solution that saves time, money and the environment. It uses wireless sensors to measure and forecast the fill-level of waste containers and generates smart collection plans using the most efficient schedules and routes. The solution provides up to 50% in direct cost savings.

Smarter Planning

Until now collecting waste has been done using static routes and schedules where containers are collected every day or every week regardless if they are full or not. Enevo ONe changes all this by using smart wireless sensors to gather fill-level data from waste containers. The service then automatically generates schedules and optimized routes which take into account an extensive set of parameters (future fill-level projections, truck availability, traffic information, road restrictions etc.). New schedules and routes are planned not only looking at the current situation, but considering the future outlook as well.

Easy-to-use Mobile Service

A rich historic backlog of all the analysis results, predictions and reports can be accessed using our easy-to-use web service. Our mobile service on cellular tablets help guide your drivers along optimal routes and enable them to report problems directly via the tablet. The mobile service also enables management of all site configuration.

How does it work?

  • Fill level measurement

    Small battery powered wireless sensors monitor each container’s fill level in real time. The sensors are firmly attached and hidden away out of sight inside the container. Waste monitoring works with any type of container and any type of waste (mixed, paper, glass, bio, metals and fluids such as oils and waste water etc.).

  • Analysis and modeling

    The data from each container are sent over wireless cellular networks to the Enevo servers for analysis and immediately displayed when you log on to the Enevo ONe web site.

    • Real time fill level status
    • Alerts for abnormal events (such as high temperature and movement)
    • Predicted fill-up dates
    • Statistics
    • Planning tools
  • Forward to route planning

    You can automatically provide a list of containers, schedules and routes to your drivers through your existing fleet management system. We offer an easy-to-use API for integrating information from the Enevo ONe servers directly into most ERP and fleet management systems available.

Increased Efficiency

Collection based on Enevo’s smart plans significantly reduces costs, emissions, road wear, vehicle wear, noise pollution and work hours. Enevo ONe provides you up to 50% in direct cost savings in waste logistics. And that’s not all. Reducing the amount of overfull containers means less litter and happier customers! Enevo ONe provides a significant increase in efficiency across the whole value chain.

Easy-to-use Web Service

All real-time measurements and forecasts can be accessed through our easy-to-use web service. The web service alerts you if something unexpected happens i.e. a container is only partially collected or a sudden and extreme change in temperature occurs. The web service also shows you how much you have saved thanks to Enevo ONe.

Try Now!!

Whether you are a small organization, private garbage company, large waste management corporation, government agency, small waste generator or large company with lots of locations, we can offer you a flexible service agreement that fits your needs. Most of our customers start out with a pilot trial to see how the service works. As they start saving they rapidly expand the service across more and more containers.

The great thing about Enevo ONe is that it requires no upfront investments, you only pay a fixed monthly rate per sensor. The fixed monthly rate includes the device and warranty, all data transmissions, access to real time measurements, forecasts, collections lists and alerts via our web service. Not included in the monthly rate are shipping and installation of the sensors. Click here to fill out the form on our website via the link below and we’ll get back to you within 24 hours.

Source: WIH Resource Group

For More Information, visit WIH Resource Group’s You Tube by Clicking HERE

Contact WIH Resource Group
For more information, Visit our website by CLICKING HERE and contact us today to see how we can best serve you by phone at 480.241.9994 or by e-mail at admin@wihrg.com

WIH Resource Group’s Diversified Client-Specific Services

  • Waste Management Consulting
  • Recycling Programs Optimization
  • Alternative Fuels for Truck Fleets
  • Research & Polling – Customer Satisfaction Surveys
  • Landfill Operations Consulting
  • Business and Assets Appraisals & Valuations
  • Collection, Processing, Transfer & Disposal Procurement
  • M&A Due Diligence
  • Waste to Energy & New Technology Evaluation Environmental Services
  • Expert Testimony/Litigation Support
  • Facility Planning & Design
  • Finance and Economic Analysis
  • Mergers, Acquisitions and Divestitures
  • Operations & Performance Assessment (OPAs)
  • Planning – Solid Waste, Recycling and Program
  • Program Management & Capital Project Planning
  • Rates, Financial Analyses & Appraisals
  • Rates and Regulatory Support
  • Recycling Program Design
  • Renewables / Clean Energy Technology

(Click here to request more information about these services and / or WIH RESOURCE GROUP)

Advertisements

2010’s Top 10 Waste Age.com Articles via WIH Resource Group, Inc.


In Waste Age’s recent online edition of their weekly Waste Age WIRE newsletter, they presented 10 of the most popular articles posted on www.WasteAge.com in 2010 and five of the most read entries published on The Heap, their staff-written blog on the site, last year.

Recycling was a popular topic last year – four of the 10 articles below deal with the subject in some form. However, it was the potential positive effect that the drive for renewable energy could have on the waste-to-energy industry that most piqued their readers’ interest.

Topics addressed in the most popular Heap entries include the 2010 Olympics, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and the hit movie “Toy Story 3.”

 
1. Fuel for the Fire

A renewable energy push could spark demand for the refuse-derived fuel produced by waste-to-energy plants.

Read More

 

 
2. The E-Waste Disconnect

States continue to implement differing e-waste laws but a federal electronics recycling program doesn’t appear to be on the immediate horizon.

Read More

 

 
3. Q&A: Behind the scenes of “Undercover Boss” with Waste Management’s Larry O’Donnell

An interview with former Waste Management Chief Operating Officer Larry O’Donnell after his appearance on the CBS reality TV program “Undercover Boss.” On that show, O’Donnell pretended to be a new hire at Waste Management, trying out a number of frontline jobs.

Read More

 

 
4. When Disaster Strikes

Managing the debris caused by events such as hurricanes and tornadoes requires thorough preparation.

Read More

 

 
5. Waste Management to Appeal Verdict in Defamation Lawsuit

In the aftermath of a $25.5 million judgment against Waste Management in a defamation lawsuit filed by Texas Disposal Systems, the company said it would appeal the verdict.

Read More

 

 
6. Fleet on the Forefront

A look at the New York City Department of Sanitation’s pilot testing of hybrid trucks.

Read More

 

 
7. Report Says Plastic Bag Recycling at All-Time High

Approximately 832.4 million pounds of post-consumer film were recycled in 2008, according to a report.

Read More

 

 
8. Florida DEP Releases Plan for 75 Percent Recycling Rate

The department was required to produce the plan by the state Energy, Climate Change and Economic Security Act of 2008.

Read More

 

 
9. EPA’s LMOP Recognizes Landfill Gas Projects

The U.S. EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) honored eight landfill methane capture projects for “innovation in generating renewable energy and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.”

Read More

 

 
10. Recycling’s Rebound

Despite some wild swings, the pricing of recycling commodities largely improved from the economy’s darkest days.

Read More

Source: Waste Age Magazine and www.wasteage.com

RELATED LINKS
http://www.wihrg.com

ABOUT WIH RESOURCE GROUP
WIH Resource Group is a global leader and provider of comprehensive waste management, recycling, transportation/logistical and business solutions, specializing in, among other services, waste management operational performance assessments, transportation / logistics, alternative fuels use, solid waste planning, waste and recycling market studies, business development, business valuations, due diligence and Mergers and Acquistions (M&A) transactional support and environmental services. 

WIH Resource Group’s experience includes the oversight of operations, maintenance, finance, human resources, business development, sales, safety and environmental compliance while maintaining responsibility for multi-million dollar publicly and privately held assets including: a variety of collection operations, Sub-title D and hazardous and Class II landfills, transfer stations, intermodal facilities, recycling centers, buyback centers, material recovery facilities, vehicle and container maintenance operations, call centers and payment processing operations.
Based in Phoenix, Arizona, the company serves both private companies and public sector Agency clients throughout North America and internationally.  To learn more about WIH Resource Group, Inc. visit http://www.wihrg.com

For Additional information on WIH Resource Group, Inc. contact:
Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions
WIH Resource Group – Waste Management, Recycling and Logistical Solutions
Email: admin@wihrg.com Phone: 480-241-9994

Website: http://www.wihrg.com
Daily News Blog: http://www.wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com
Follow WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

ABOUT WIH RESOURCE GROUP

WIH Resource Group is a global leader and provider of comprehensive waste management, recycling, transportation/logistical and business solutions, specializing in, among other services, waste management operational performance assessments, transportation / logistics, alternative fuel use, solid waste planning, waste and recycling market studies, business development and environmental services.  Based in Phoenix, the company serves both private and public sector clients throughout North America and globally.  Our customers include both public agencies and private sector businesses customers throughout North America. To learn more visit http://www.wihrg.com

About the WIH Resource Group’s Principal Bob Wallace, Principal and Vice President of Client Solutions, WIH Resource Group, Inc. (WIH) and Waste Savings, Inc. (WSI), former Boardmember SWANA ~ State of Arizona Chapter (Solid Waste Association of North America), APWA (American Public Works) ~ National Solid Waste Rate Setting Advisory Committee and Member of WASTEC (Waste Equipment Technology Association) NSWMA ~ Phoenix, Arizona USA. (bwallace@wihresourcegroup.com).

WIH Resource Group’s White Paper on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fuel Use in Refuse Collection Vehicles Industry is Available for Purchasing:   The entire 65-plus page report and Appendices: $299.00 US Funds – Visa and Mastercard Accepted.

Order Your Copy today!

Phone: 480.241.9994 ~ E-mail: admin@wihrg.com

Source:  WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and our daily blog at https://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wihresourcegroup

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

The State Of Garbage In America – WIH Resource Group, Inc.


Latest national data on municipal solid waste management find estimated generation is 389.5 million tons in 2008 — 69 percent landfilled, 24 percent recycled and composted, and 7 percent combusted via waste-to-energy.

BIOCYCLE, in collaboration with the Earth Engineering Center (EEC) of Columbia University, conducts the biennial State of Garbage In America survey on the generation and management of municipal solid waste (MSW) in the United States. The State of Garbage In America Report, launched by BioCycle in 1989, is unique in that actual tonnage data is collected from each individual state, with waste characterization studies solely used for validation of the numbers. This is the 17th nationwide survey, reporting data from calendar year 2008.

The data was gathered during the spring of 2010, using an Excel form that was e-mailed to the solid waste management departments in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. All entries were checked and validated using results of former State of Garbage in America reports, EPA waste characterization studies, and also a survey of Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF) carried out by Eileen Berenyi of Government Advisory Associates (GAA). We greatly appreciate the time spent and the contributions made by the solid waste and recycling officials listed at the end of this report. Thanks to their help and expertise, we can present the 2010 edition of “The State of Garbage in America.” All tonnages are reported in U.S. tons (1.1 U.S. ton = 1 metric ton).

State Of Garbage In America Map_ full size
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
In 2004, the EEC was invited by BioCycle to collaborate on a science-based version of the State of Garbage survey. The State of Garbage methodology uses the principles of mass balance: all MSW generated is equal to the MSW landfilled, combusted in waste-to-energy (WTE) plants, composted and/or recycled. This relies on the assumption that all management methods employed for municipal solid waste are quantified/tracked and reported to the state agencies. According to our survey results, at least 15 states require waste management companies and local government agencies to report annual tonnages. Nineteen states reported that there was no such requirement and another 12 states did not respond to this question. Only five states did not complete the 2010 State of Garbage survey. For states where companies and local agencies are not required to report to the state, disposal data can and, in most cases, are still collected from waste management facilities. This is especially true for landfills and waste-to-energy plants, since they track all of the disposed waste by simply weighing incoming and outgoing trucks. Composting and materials recycling facilities, however, may not have scales and/or are commercial or public enterprises that are not obligated to report tonnages received and processed to local or state government agencies.

An important part of MSW accounting in the State of Garbage survey is “filtering out” non-MSW materials that may be included in the states’ responses. The BioCycle/EEC survey uses the US EPA definition of Municipal Solid Waste, which includes: residential and commercial wastes like paper, plastic packaging, bottles and cans, tires, yard trimmings, batteries, furniture, appliances, etc. Typical “non-MSW” materials are: industrial and agricultural wastes, construction and demolition (C&D) debris, automobile scrap and sludge from wastewater treatment plants. To account for these non-MSW materials, survey respondents were asked to provide a more specific breakdown of the waste streams being reported. This was done either by estimate or from measured tonnages. The non-MSW tonnages were automatically subtracted in the Excel spreadsheet from the total generation reported.

Over the past six years (with the survey conducted every two years), the methodology developed by EEC has been further refined. In the 2008 State of Garbage In America Report (December 2008), MSW management was divided into three main categories: Landfilling, Waste-to-Energy and Recycling. After much discussion and with input from survey participants, it was decided to divide the “recycling” category into materials recycling (i.e., recovery of paper, metals, glass, plastics) and organics recycling via composting (which includes mulch production). The tonnage sent to composting facilities appears to be tracked in many states, and EEC believes that it is useful to distinguish composting and mulching from other material recovery methods. As a result, recycled and composted tonnages are reported in separate columns in Table 2. It is quite likely that some smaller composting operations have, inadvertently, not been included and, therefore, the total MSW composted may be somewhat higher than reported.

In the 2010 survey, an additional “filter” on the reported composting/recycling rates for different materials was introduced: The total amount of MSW generated was estimated using the 2008 State of Garbage national number of per capita generation (1.38 tons/capita; 2006 data) and the population of the state. EEC then used EPA’s MSW Facts And Figures waste characterization report (EPA, 2008) of the average (U.S.) percent composition of MSW times the population of the state to estimate how many tons of each material were generated in the state. On the basis of this information, we were able to “filter out” reported recycling tonnages that were “through the roof,” most likely due to the inclusion of non-MSW materials (e.g., automobile scrap). Reported recycling tonnages that were higher than the estimated waste generation of a particular material were decreased to 100 percent of the estimated waste generation.

PROTOCOL USED FOR RECYCLING TONNAGES
For a consistent determination of the tonnages to report in the survey, the following protocol was established: Use reported tonnage unless any of the following factors were evident:

1. States did not report a recycled material tonnage: The GAA MRF survey reported MRF-processed tonnages that in general were one half of the recycling tonnages reported by the states. Therefore, EEC concluded that approximately 50 percent of all recycled materials are sent directly to paper and other recycling plants and do not pass through MRFs for processing. Thus, states that did not report a recycling number were assigned a tonnage equal to two times the MRF tonnage in the state, as reported by the GAA survey.

2. Overestimate of recycled tonnages: As discussed earlier, for any recycled material where the state-reported tonnage was in excess of the EPA’s average estimate of waste generation, the recycling of that material was set to 100 percent of the generated material.

3. Data not reported: In a few cases where tonnages were not reported (recycled, composted, waste-to-energy, landfilled) or numbers were obviously too low or too high, cross-reference was made to the 2006 data, as reported in the 2008 State of Garbage in America survey.

4. Underreporting of recycled tonnages: When the recycling tonnage appeared to be underreported by the state, and the GAA MRF number was not higher than that provided by the state, the data is marked as “Likely to be underreported.”

NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PICTURE
Table 1 summarizes the State of Garbage survey data from 1989 through 2008. The overall results of the 2010 State of Garbage in America survey (2008 data) are: An estimated 389.5 million tons of MSW were generated, most of which (270 million tons) were sent to landfills. This represented 69 percent of the total MSW and was three million tons higher than two years ago. An estimated 7 percent, nearly 26 million tons, were combusted with energy recovery in WTE plants. The total recycling and composting tonnages for 2008 were estimated to be close to 94 million tons, or 24 percent of the total MSW. They consisted of over 69 million tons of materials recycled and 24.5 million tons of yard trimmings and some food wastes composted or mulched.

It is interesting to note that national MSW generation dropped between 2006 and 2008, from 413 million tons in the 2008 State of Garbage Report to 389.5 million tons in this 2010 Report. This may be a reflection of the economic downturn, as well as the more detailed exclusion of non-MSW materials that was done in the survey of 2008 data.

Table 2 provides the main results of the 2008 data, by state. The “Reported MSW Generated” column shows the raw generation number as provided by each state. It may differ from the “Estimated MSW Generation” column because of differences between definitions of MSW, as discussed earlier. Some states base this number on an extrapolation of occasional measurements of household MSW generation. The “Estimated” generation number is a summation of the MSW sent to each of the four recovery and disposal methods. All tonnages have been adjusted for import and export, assigning waste to the place of generation, not where it was disposed (e.g., out-of-state landfills). On average, 1.28 tons of MSW were generated per capita in 2008. This is 0.10 tons/capita lower than 2006. Hawaii reported the highest per capita generation number: 2.89 tons/capita. However, it has to be taken into account that the population number is skewed by the high influx of tourists — around 7 million people visit Hawaii each year.

Figure 1 provides a breakdown, by region, of recycling, composting, combustion and landfilling rates. According to the 2008 state data, the West leads the nation in recycling (35%) and composting (11%). New England has the second highest recycling rate (22%), followed by the Mid-Atlantic (20%). The Midwest has the second highest composting rate (10%), followed by New England and the Mid-Atlantic (7%). With respect to combustion with energy recovery, New England is the leader by combusting 39 percent of its MSW. The Mid-Atlantic region is a distant second with 14 percent of the MSW combusted. The Rocky Mountain region has the highest landfilling rate (88%), followed by the Great Lakes (81%), the South (79%) and the Midwest (78%).

RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING ACTIVITY
The tonnages of specific materials recycled in 2008 are shown in Table 3. All but 10 states and the District of Columbia provided data on at least one recycled material. Sixteen states had data available on tons collected through single-stream recycling programs; only four states reported aggregated dual stream data. Table 3 shows the “as reported” tonnages for various materials. It can be seen that some states have reported material recycling figures that most likely included non-MSW, primarily in the categories “Iron and Steel Scrap” and “Other Metals.” States that were adjusted for this in the final results of Table 2 are: Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Washington (see item No. 2 in section above titled “Protocol Used For Recycling Tonnages”).

The State of Garbage survey requested information on the number of curbside recycling collection programs and population served by curbside recycling in each state, as well as the number of MRFs, drop-off sites and “pay-as-you-throw” programs. Only 25 states had data on curbside programs, and only 21 reported the population served by such programs. These states reported a total of 4,371 curbside recycling programs; New York State did not report a number, but according to the 2006 State of Garbage in America Report (2004 data), New York had 1,500 curbside programs. The total population served by these programs amounts to 87.9 million, of which 23.6 million is from California. California did not report a curbside population number, but this information was obtained from the calrecycle.ca.gov website (calrecycle.ca.gov, 2010).

The State of Garbage survey also requested information on the number of facilities composting yard trimmings in each state. Thirty states reported a total of 2,284 facilities. New Jersey reported the most sites (345) that compost over 1.9 million tons of MSW yard trimmings.

LANDFILLS, WASTE-TO-ENERGY AND LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY
The State of Garbage results for number of landfills and WTE plants, gate (“tipping”) fees for these facilities, and remaining landfill capacity are shown in Table 4. Where states did not provide 2008 data, data from the 2008 State of Garbage Report (2006 data) were used. A total of 1,908 MSW landfills were reported. (Interestingly, when BioCycle conducted the first State of Garbage In America survey in 1989, there were almost 8,000 MSW landfills in the U.S.). Average gate (“tipping”) fees have increased slightly since the 2008 survey; landfill and WTE gate fees were, on average two dollars higher than in 2006, at $44.09 and $67.93 per ton of handled waste, respectively.

Another section of the 2010 State of Garbage survey requested data on the recovery of landfill gas (LFG). Twenty-eight states reported that 260 out of 1,414 landfills recovered landfill gas. However, some of the non-LFG landfills may be closed. A total of 95 landfills reported volumes of LFG captured: 59.1 billion cubic feet. Since LFG generally contains 500 Btu per cubic foot, the energy recovery from these 95 landfills was about 30 trillion Btu. This amount represents only 20 percent of the total LFG energy used by the U.S. in 2004 (150 trillion Btu), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2006). Since this is the first time that LFG capture was included in the State of Garbage survey, it is hoped that more states will collect and report such data in future surveys.

MSW IMPORTS AND EXPORTS, LANDFILL BANS
Waste imports and exports are shown in Table 5. There is an obvious discrepancy between the totals of these categories: imported MSW was almost two times higher than exported MSW. EEC believes this is due to the fact that imported wastes are much better tracked than those exported. MSW imports/exports from other countries, primarily Canada, were excluded where possible.

Table 6 shows materials banned from landfills. It can be seen that whole tires are banned from landfills in almost every state, except Alabama, Alaska, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota and Wyoming. Oil and lead-acid batteries are banned from most U.S. landfills as well. Twenty-five states ban leaves, grass and/or brush from landfill disposal. Seven states have bans on disposal of containers and/or paper. Three states do not allow disposal of construction and demolition debris.

FINAL NOTE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issues an annual report on MSW generation and management in the U.S. (MSW Facts & Figures, 2008). The State of Garbage methodology differs from that of EPA’s in several ways. First, the EPA characterizes the MSW stream for the whole nation and not on a state-by-state basis. Second, the EPA bases its results on the aggregate of several sources, including estimates of materials and products generated and their life spans, key industry associations and businesses, and waste characterization studies and surveys conducted by governments, the media and industry.

Another important difference is that EPA estimates the tonnage landfilled as the difference between its estimate of MSW generated minus its estimate of what is sent to composting, recycling or WTE plants. The State of Garbage methodology, however, is based purely on tons managed via all four methods in the responding states. Table 7 provides data from the US EPA’s MSW Facts And Figures Report (2008 data) compared to the 2010 State of Garbage in America Report (2008 data). As a result, the EPA estimate of MSW landfilled is 98.5 million tons less than what is actually disposed in MSW landfills according to the BioCycle/EEC measurements.

Rob van Haaren received his M.S.in Earth Resources Engineering from the Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering of Columbia University. His thesis research was sponsored by the Earth Engineering Center of Columbia (www.eecny.org). He is currently a Ph.D. Candidate and Research Associate at the Center for Life-Cycle Analysis, Columbia University. Nickolas J. Themelis is Director of the Earth Engineering Center and Stanley-Thompson Professor Emeritus, Earth and Environmental Engineering (Henry Krumb School of Mines) at Columbia University. Nora Goldstein is Editor of BioCycle.

REFERENCES
Berenyi, E.B., 2007-2008 Materials Recycling and Processing in the United States Yearbook & Directory (5th Edition), Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc., Westport, Connecticut.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2008. www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2008rpt.pdf

Calrecycle.ca.gov: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/Curbside/

U.S. Energy Information Administration: www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/landfillgas/landfillgas.html

SURVEY CONTRIBUTORS
BioCycle and the Earth Engineering Center of Columbia University would like to thank the following state solid waste management and recycling/composting officials for their assistance with the 2010 State of Garbage In America Report. We greatly appreciate their time and willingness to participate in this national survey. Gavin Adams, Alabama; Douglas Buteyn, Alaska; Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Arizona; Nancy Carr, California; Wolf Kray, Colorado; Judy Belaval, Connecticut; Anne M. Germain, Delaware; Shannan Reynolds, Florida; Randy Hartmann, Georgia; Lane Otsu, Hawaii; Dean Ehlert, Idaho; Ellen Robinson, Illinois; Michelle Weddle, Indiana; Becky Jolly, Iowa; Christine Mennicke , Kansas; John Rogers, Louisiana; George MacDonald, Maine; David Mrgich, Maryland; JohnFischer, Massachusetts; Matt Flechter, Michigan; Arlene Vee, Minnesota; Mark Williams, Mississippi; Brenda Ardrey, Missouri; Bonnie Rouse, Montana; Steve Danahy, Nebraska; Nevada Division of Environmental Protection – Bureau of Waste Management, Nevada; Donald E. Maurer, New Hampshire; Edward Nieliwocki, New Jersey; Connie Pasteris, New Mexico; Scott Menrath, New York; Scott Mouw, North Carolina; Steve Tillotson, North Dakota; Andrew Booker, Ohio; Mary Lou Perry, Oregon; Mike McGonagle, Rhode Island; Elizabeth Rosinski, South Carolina; Steven Kropp, South Dakota; Department of Environment and Conservation, Tennessee; Kari Bourland, Texas; Ralph Bohn, Utah; Jeff Bourdeau, Vermont; Stephen Coe, Virginia; Gretchen Newman, Washington; Cynthia Moore, Wisconsin; Craig McOmie, Wyoming.

Authors: Rob van Haaren, Nickolas Themelis and Nora Goldstein

Source: BioCycle Magazine – Copyright 2010, The JG Press, Inc.

ABOUT WIH RESOURCE GROUP
WIH Resource Group is a global leader and provider of comprehensive waste management, recycling, transportation/logistical and business solutions, specializing in, among other services, waste management operational performance assessments, transportation / logistics, alternative fuels use, solid waste planning, waste and recycling market studies, business development, business valuations, due diligence and Mergers and Acquistions (M&A) transactional support and environmental services. 

WIH Resource Group’s experience includes the oversight of operations, maintenance, finance, human resources, business development, sales, safety and environmental compliance while maintaining responsibility for multi-million dollar publicly and privately held assets including: a variety of collection operations, Sub-title D and hazardous and Class II landfills, transfer stations, intermodal facilities, recycling centers, buyback centers, material recovery facilities, vehicle and container maintenance operations, call centers and payment processing operations.
Based in Phoenix, Arizona, the company serves both private companies and public sector Agency clients throughout North America and internationally.  To learn more about WIH Resource Group, Inc. visit http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wihresourcegroup.com

For Additional information on WIH Resource Group, Inc. contact:
Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions
WIH Resource Group – Waste Management, Recycling and Logistical Solutions
Email: admin@wihrg.com Phone: 480-241-9994  Website: http://www.wihrg.com
Daily News Blog: http://www.wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com
Follow WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

ABOUT WIH RESOURCE GROUP

WIH Resource Group is a global leader and provider of comprehensive waste management, recycling, transportation/logistical and business solutions, specializing in, among other services, waste management operational performance assessments, transportation / logistics, alternative fuel use, solid waste planning, waste and recycling market studies, business development and environmental services.  Based in Phoenix, the company serves both private and public sector clients throughout North America and globally.  Our customers include both public agencies and private sector businesses customers throughout North America. To learn more visit http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wihresourcegroup.com

About the WIH Resource Group’s Principal Bob Wallace, Principal and Vice President of Client Solutions, WIH Resource Group, Inc. (WIH) and Waste Savings, Inc. (WSI), former Boardmember SWANA ~ State of Arizona Chapter (Solid Waste Association of North America), APWA (American Public Works) ~ National Solid Waste Rate Setting Advisory Committee and Member of WASTEC (Waste Equipment Technology Association) NSWMA ~ Phoenix, Arizona USA. (bwallace@wihresourcegroup.com).

WIH Resource Group’s White Paper on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fuel Use in Refuse Collection Vehicles Industry is Available for Purchasing:   The entire 65-plus page report and Appendices: $299.00 US Funds – Visa and Mastercard Accepted.

Order Your Copy today!

Phone: 480.241.9994 ~ E-mail: admin@wihrg.com

Source:  WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and our daily blog at https://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wihresourcegroup

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

The Impact of Privatization of Solid Waste Collection and Transportation in Delhi: The Impact on the informal Recycling Sector


Background

Since the late 1990s, two important public interest litigations have been filed in the Supreme Court, the highest court in India. Both demand greater accountability from the municipality for cleaner cities. The first, B.L. Vadhera Vs the Union of India, resulted in several court orders, even personal appearances of senior officials in the Court and rules being created for Hospital Waste. The second case, Almitra Patel Vs. The Union of India, has resulted in rules being made for Municipal Solid Waste. The case was also focused on technology as a primary solution for a cleaner country.

Apart from their individual outcomes, both these cases resulted in great pressure on the municipal authorities to perform their tasks in a more efficient manner. The media keenly reported the proceedings and frequently mocked municipal inability to meet the courts’ and public’s exacting standards.

Continuous court pressure and frustrated attempts to clean the city was an important reason for the municipalities in Delhi to seek privatization as an opportunity to respond to the courts. Subhash Chopra, a vocal member of the Delhi Legislative Assembly has stated, “privatization of garbage collection and disposal will be for the city. The MCD has been a total failure on this count.”

Other Roads to Privatization

Another reason was the change in Delhi’s own position as the capital of an increasingly important player in the global economy. The Masterplan 2021 includes many new features that are geared towards international conferences, entertainment etc. The problem of waste handling and a filthy city remained an environmental and visual impediment to the new city. With legislation that encouraged investment in services and several developing countries seeking to privatize waste management, Delhi was encouraged to do so too, as part of its quest to be what is often described as a ‘world class city.”

Another important reason was Commonwealth Games, scheduled to be held in 2009 in Delhi. The leader of the Delhi Parliament described the need, “All these measures would enable Delhi to become a clean and neat city, which is the need of the hour in view of the fact that the Commonwealth Games are due to take place in 2010 and thousands of foreign tourists would be visiting Delhi. There is a need to give a complete facelift to the Municipal Solid Waste Management System in MCD.”

Hence, privatization of waste collection and transportation (hereby referred to as privatization) was not just a policy, but indicated a fundamental loss of confidence in the ability of the municipality to supply the city with essential services. The decision also indicated the perceived new needs of a rapidly changing Capital City.

This paper unpacks the interaction between the informal sector and the private waste contractors and the impact of privatization on the informal sector in Delhi. It uses the unfolding of privatization in Delhi and global experiences to understand the issue and to suggest how waste can be handled in an equitable manner.

Framing Privatization

There have been several ways by which governments across the world have approached privatization of services. The early ideas of privatization began in the late 1970s and 1980s, with governments like that of Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the USA. In this context, privatization came to mean a shift in activities or functions from the state to the private sector as well as the shift of production of goods from the public to the private sector. Governments then began to stop directly producing services, but enacting legislation and the framework for these to be privately produced.

In this case, privatization has been ‘privatization by attrition,’ as the quality of services was seen to be allowed to run down and in need of urgent reinvigoration.

In India, privatization of solid waste handling has two components, from the municipal perspective. The first is related to transportation of the waste and the second to its appropriate disposal, recycling or use in waste to energy projects.

Privatization of waste handling in Delhi is currently limited to the MCD. It has been framed by officials here as a taking over of existing municipal systems for more efficient functioning. Hence, the waste contracts demand efficient collection from the dhalaos, transportation to the landfill and a stage wise segregation of the waste.

A few of the most significant clauses in the contract are as follows:

Article 5.15 : Sale/distribution of recyclable substances

The concessionaire shall be free to sell or otherwise dispose of recyclable substances and other materials recovered from the Municipal Solid Waste at such price and to such persons and using such marketing and selling arrangements and strategies as it may deem appropriate.

Article 5.19d : Endeavor to improve the ancillary conditions and infrastructure related to the project, including assistance to the project including assistance to informal recycling workers Article 5.19l. Be responsible for all the health, security, environment and safety aspects of the project at all times during the concession period. Article 5.19t :Endeavour to employ the informal Municipal Solid Waste collectors within the concession area to carry out the work of collection and segregation of MSW, in accordance with this agreement and applicable law. Article 6 : MCD Obligations : Give all assistance to the concessionaire to employ the existing informal Municipal Solid Waste collectors including rag pickers and assist the concessionaire in solving issues arising from the redeployment and employment of such waste collectors by the concessionaire

Therefore, the contract shows that the MCD is aware of the sector.

In the context of this discussion, the following aspects of the contract must be kept in mind:

The private contractor is paid for the waste collected by weight The ownership of the recyclable waste lies with the contracting company The private contractors have the right to manage the dhalaos as their own spaces , with rights to advertise on the walls and to fence off the waste dumped there Additional spaces to store the segregated dry waste will be allocated to the contractors during the 8 year contract period. The contractor is expected to segregate waste in a graded manner over time

Therefore, despite how it is framed in official discourse, privatization in Delhi is not a direct transfer of a set of services from the government to the private sector.  A new role, in keeping with evolving thinking by technical experts, and the changing nature of the city itself, was created for the private company. Both the collection and disposal services provided by the government and the segregation services by the informal sector, were handed over to the private contractor. Public assets of built land and space were also handed over as part of the contract.

II. Implementing Privatization

In order to implement the process, the IDFC (Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation), was contracted to manage the process of privatization on a turnkey basis. A global tender was put out and bids sought. There were no detailed discussions or consultations with any other interest groups, except for an initial meeting prior to the writing of the bid. During this meeting, there was intense opposition by NGOs to the privatization on various counts. These included the in-build disincentive for waste generators to segregate, the marginalization of the informal recycling sector and the level of private involvement. The last point was based on whether the contractor should also be involved in collecting waste from the households or not. There was no further discussion.

Finally three companies were selected and their work was scheduled to begin in June 2005.

The most notable amongst the private companies, Delhi Waste Management (DWM), is a consortium of transportation companies and financiers. What sets this company aside is that it was allocated what were perceived by the competing companies and the municipal workers as the most ‘lucrative’ zones. The others were allotted zones that were less developed, or older and therefore, with poorer infrastructure and with less influential residents.

Each contractor was to ensure that the waste in the dhalao (an intermediary transfer point, often like a room )  was segregated, the dhalao and its defined surroundings of 25 feet was clean and the waste was collected and transported at regular hours to the landfill. Each contractor was given a list of existing dhalaos to ease their work.

Prior to this, for over two years, the Delhi Government initiated the Bhagidari (literal meaning : partnership) scheme where middle and high income residential areas were trained to understand the importance of segregation of waste into dry and wet categories. This programme was well publicized and several hundred residents from the more affluent parts of Delhi were invited to attend these trainings. This does not seem to have been implemented, since the waste arrived at the bins in an unsegregated manner, despite a law that made it mandatory for waste generators to segregate. The task of the private company therefore was not impacted by the Bhagidari scheme, underlying the failure of the exercise. This failure also drove home the point that residents were unlikely segregate their waste and an external agency would have to continue to do so for them. Traditionally, the informal recycling sector has always segregated the waste and sold it in the chain for reprocessing.

A survey of the privatized areas undertaken in January 2006, preceded by a discussion with managers of DWM revealed that the company had sub-contracted each area to smaller players, who acted as labour providers. Using this model, each sub-contracted party would provide a fixed number of workers who would be called bin guides. They would be stationed at a dhalao or bin, cleaning the bins, segregating waste and helping load the compactors. Many of them would also live in the bins overnight, as they were unable to find inexpensive housing neaby. Few of them were waste pickers, but several were simply paid daily wagers. On an average, they were paid appx. 1/3rd of the minimum daily wages, or Rs. 1000 and had no social security. However the workers had informal access to dry waste, which was sold to a junk dealer and significantly supplemented the income.

This model was only viable in high income areas where there was adequate recyclable waste discarded. In lower income areas, the worker was forced to live off the payments and often, undertake responsibility for a cluster of bins, in order to optimize his earnings. This resulted in lower quality of work and poorer work conditions. It was also difficult to implement this in areas where large amounts of organic waste were produced. In South Delhi’s Dakshin Puri area, the waste from processing fruit and vegetables was so enormous that the workers were forced to stay out of the dhalaos  and work from a distance.

According to several media reports, the performance of DWM in handling waste has been poor, based on the quality of visual cleanliness. Other companies have received less flack and none of it is reported as yet in the media.

The NDMC is also now preparing to privatize the waste handling, on the same lines as the MCD.

Initial cost comparisons are known only informally and via discussions with the private operators. According to a former official of DWM,  the cost per truck to the company was only $ 40, which is significantly less than that of the MCD’s $ . 140 or the NDMC’s $ 180 per truck. Greater efficiency and stricter monitoring is likely to be one cause for this significant drop, as are, possibly, different approaches to calculating the cost, which may hide some costs. A recent World Bank reportsuggests that this difference is an India wide phenomenon, and that the difference can be in the range of 20-40%. Comparing the costs of waste collection and transportation in 10 towns in the southern Indian state of Karnataka, the report shows the trend of cost reduction across the board. However, the Bank suggests that “One of the reasons for the relatively lower costs incurred by the contractor is quoted as differential wages, particularly when private contractors tend to pay lower than minimum wages to their sanitary workers.” The government, on the other hand, cannot indulge in such practices and therefore would incur much higher costs for the same labour performed by the same number of workers. It also pays social security to many of them.

Comparing these findings, it is likely that the privatization process is economically viable only at the cost of underpaying the workers.

III. The Impact on the Informal Sector Waste Recyclers

According to the former Municipal Commissioner of Delhi, Rakesh Mehta, the design of the privatization system was intentionally different from that of other cities in that the contract did not start at the doorstep of the generator. Instead, this space was left open for informal players, so that they could access the waste that they wanted. Another reason was also that this was likely to prove too complex for the private contractors themselves.

Despite this, a study of the contract signed with the private contractor reveals that the work of the informal sector, as it is being actually performed, has not been taken into account. Although their role has been acknowledged by various government bodies for well over a decade prior to privatization, it finally excludes them. This is likely to be for three reasons. Firstly, that the sector has not been well appreciated in the past to merit adequate inclusion. It is not on the radar of government bodies. Second, the working of the sector is poorly understood by those involved in designing the process and its inclusion is therefore unlikely to have a good fit, should it be undertaken. Thirdly, the vision of a city with an efficient system of privatized waste does not include wastepickers or other informal sector recyclers, since they are in contradiction to the idea of the modern and the ordered. A former Chairperson of the NDMC expressed the imagined city succinctly when he remarked, “I want our streets to look like Singapore.”

The following sections analyze the impact of privatization on the various levels of the informal sector.

Wastepickers

Many of the workers are not wastepickers, but other informal sector workers or wage labourers. This indicates a gradual displacement of the wastepickers from their work. It also indicates an artificially increasing competition for a limited resource. By itself, this fall out is clearly an undesirable one.

But there are several other ways by which the means of privatization is breaking down the waste picking system.

A recent survey showed that in such sites where a wastepicker was on duty, it was often to the exclusion of all other wastepickers. Usually, most wastepickers move from bin to bin at peak hours along a fixed territorial route which is shared by other wastepickers. Alternatively, a few wastepickers take over dhalaos, from where they mine the waste as it is thrown in. This is then their monopoly. Wastepickers find several ways to both collaborate and compete through unwritten codes of conduct and community and peer pressure. As a result, a complex and evolving system of resource sharing comes into play, resulting in one of the highest rates of recycling in the world. This informal system therefore plays out not as the tragedy of the commons but remarkably, the opposite of it.

By breaking the existing system and replacing it with ‘bin guides,’ waste is no longer able to be shared amongst a vast community of the poor. It is instead monopolized via an individual. Moreover, by hiring persons who are inherently entrepreneurial, the incentive to seek out waste to segregate and sell is killed, as a new debilitating dependency is fostered. Many such people are stuck, because refusing an underpaying job may result in job loss or a lost opportunity to leverage better terms of work.

The poor typically harness their social capital to get through difficult times. Systems such as the one described above are likely to break up this social capital because they rupture the basis on acting like a community and instead, seek to create a new ‘professional’ individual outside this system. This considerably weakens the individual and the community, which is seen to provide valuable services where the state/government fails or is unable to.

The model above is indicative of the many problems with this form of privatization. The system of contracting to the lowest bidder has a ripple effect at the dhalao level, where underpayment to workers becomes the only economically viable form of functioning. Sub-contracting places priorities on cleanliness, but does not lay safety standards for workers. Moreover, it continues to operate along the same degraded quality of work, involving standing in waste, and exposes the worker to the same hazards as previously.

In some areas, a quid pro quo system appears to have been established. A site visit to a small dhalao in Delhi’s elite Gulmohar Park Area suggested that in smaller and more discreetly located bins, a wastepicker may access the waste in return for helping with loading the compactors. In other parts of Delhi, municipal workers were seen at the bin sites supervising wastepickers who were loading waste into receptacles installed for the purpose. A discussion with the workers indicated that their role was both unclear at that point as well as in transition. In the meantime, they were still responsible for overseeing the waste handling by the private operator. Given that on site cleanliness was linked with efficient supervision, the officials continue to use existing linkages of coercion to carry out the task at hand.

The ownership of space-the dhalaos and bins-has also negatively impacted wastepickers. Earlier, they would segregate their waste in these dhalaos, as the only available space to undertake such work. Now, DWM  does not allow this and has therefore taken away the only ‘work space’ available to such persons. The decision to take away public spaces and make such assets available exclusively to a single private player therefore disincentivizes recycling.

A newer trend is that of DWM beginning to make rightful claims on the recyclable waste. A clash between the black letter legal owners and the customary legal owners is inevitable. Recent documentation shows that the contractors usually intimidate, abuse, harass and even beat wastepickers who attempt to ‘break into’ a newly privatized space to carry out their work. In a more recent series of events, wastepickers who were simultaneously engaged in collecting waste from the doorstep to access the recyclables also found themselves disallowed from entering bins for segregation and even disposal of waste that is depleted of it recyclables.

It would therefore seem that by not explicitly defining the rights and role of the wastepickers, and by not clearly identifying them as legitimate players in the process of waste management, they are perceived as a category without rights.

Junk Dealers 

In the recycling hierarchy, junk dealers buy waste from the waste picker and itinerant buyers, further segregate it and sell it ahead to specialized dealers or directly to reprocessing factories. In this, they are dependant on the materials flow from the wastepickers.

The previous section showed that privatization, as it is unfolding in Delhi, has begun to fracture the wastepickers’ work and access to recyclables. This clearly impacts the junk dealers as well. According to DWM officials, their own short term plan is to sell the waste directly to the reprocessing factories. In the medium term, they hope to recycle it themselves.

Unless they begin to expand and compete for other, alternative sources of waste, junk dealers are likely to be badly hit by privatization, as they cannot even be hired, unlike some of the wastepickers.

Reprocessors

Reprocessors are unlikely to be impacted by privatization significantly, as they will receive most of  the waste they require. Even recycling operations will not absorb the entire amount generated. Much of it is likely to be in an aggregated form, from a single source, thereby making it only marginally harder for them to negotiate prices. Within this group, the smaller,  semi-legal or ‘illegal’ factories may face greater uncertainty about supplies and the sector will require to upgrade itself.

It is clear that the current form of privatization is fracturing the informal recycling sector. Waste, which was till now a public good, handled by the government as part of its public duty, has been transferred to the private sector. There has been no public discussion about giving off public assets in this case.  Moreover, along with this, the dhalaos, which were similar to common public spaces in that they were manned on behalf of the public by government agencies, have been privatized and the waste contained therein fenced off. The ramifications of this have been described in this section  already, but further include:

An lowering of incentives to pick out the lowest grade recyclables. Once ownership is removed, wastepickers as employee will no longer feel compelled to mine the waste of its least lucrative recyclables. This will result in more residual recyclables reaching the landfill and an increase, not decrease in the space required for landfills in a city. The cost of new landfills is mounting, with an estimate budgetary requirement of $ 2 billion in the next 10 years. An associated concern with reduced recycling rates is the problem of sustainable use of resources. Currently, wastepickers are estimated to pick up between 15% to 59% of the total waste generated in Delhi. This waste is segregated into several categories along the chain, before it is accepted by any reprocessor. The schedule set for the private operator, on the other hand, demands 20% segregation only in the 8th year of operation. Prior to that, and even during this period, the operator is paid by the weight that is delivered at the landfill. This creates a disincentive to segregated. Seen in the light of Article 5.15, giving the operator rights over the recyclables, the contract ‘creates competing interests between the private operator and the wastepicker.

ABOUT WIH RESOURCE GROUP
WIH Resource Group is a global leader and provider of comprehensive waste management, recycling, transportation/logistical and business solutions, specializing in, among other services, waste management operational performance assessments, transportation / logistics, alternative fuels use, solid waste planning, waste and recycling market studies, business development, business valuations, due diligence and Mergers and Acquistions (M&A) transactional support and environmental services. 

WIH Resource Group’s experience includes the oversight of operations, maintenance, finance, human resources, business development, sales, safety and environmental compliance while maintaining responsibility for multi-million dollar publicly and privately held assets including: a variety of collection operations, Sub-title D and hazardous and Class II landfills, transfer stations, intermodal facilities, recycling centers, buyback centers, material recovery facilities, vehicle and container maintenance operations, call centers and payment processing operations.
Based in Phoenix, Arizona, the company serves both private companies and public sector Agency clients throughout North America and internationally.  To learn more about WIH Resource Group, Inc. visit http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wihresourcegroup.com

For Additional information on WIH Resource Group, Inc. contact:
Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions
WIH Resource Group – Waste Management, Recycling and Logistical Solutions
Email: admin@wihrg.com Phone: 480-241-9994 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              480-241-9994      end_of_the_skype_highlighting  Website: http://www.wihrg.com
Daily News Blog: http://www.wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com
Follow WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

ABOUT WIH RESOURCE GROUP

WIH Resource Group is a global leader and provider of comprehensive waste management, recycling, transportation/logistical and business solutions, specializing in, among other services, waste management operational performance assessments, transportation / logistics, alternative fuel use, solid waste planning, waste and recycling market studies, business development and environmental services.  Based in Phoenix, the company serves both private and public sector clients throughout North America and globally.  Our customers include both public agencies and private sector businesses customers throughout North America. To learn more visit http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wihresourcegroup.com

About the WIH Resource Group’s Principal Bob Wallace, Principal and Vice President of Client Solutions, WIH Resource Group, Inc. (WIH) and Waste Savings, Inc. (WSI), former Boardmember SWANA ~ State of Arizona Chapter (Solid Waste Association of North America), APWA (American Public Works) ~ National Solid Waste Rate Setting Advisory Committee and Member of WASTEC (Waste Equipment Technology Association) NSWMA ~ Phoenix, Arizona USA. (bwallace@wihresourcegroup.com).

WIH Resource Group’s White Paper on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fuel Use in Refuse Collection Vehicles Industry is Available for Purchasing:   The entire 65-plus page report and Appendices: $299.00 US Funds – Visa and Mastercard Accepted.

Order Your Copy today!

Phone: 480.241.9994 ~ E-mail: admin@wihrg.com

Source:  WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and our daily blog at https://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wihresourcegroup

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

Clovis California Touts Landfill Remediation A Tax-Dollar Saver


A landfill cleanup in Clovis is about $8 million over budget and nine years late. But city officials say the 12-year project was worth the wait because it will save tax dollars over the long run.

The project, scheduled to finish Nov. 1, will extend the life of the landfill by reclaiming wasted space. It is among the first of its kind in the western United States.

Normally, landfills that reach capacity are covered with dirt and turned into parkland or other public spaces. But cities continue to be saddled with environmental costs, such as long-term water-pollution monitoring — and they must find new sites for trash disposal.

Clovis opted for a different approach for its Auberry Road landfill, 13 miles north of town.

It dug out the waste from the unlined landfill, installed a liner, separated the trash from dirt and then redeposited the trash. By removing the dirt, the city gained room. And lining the landfill prevents contamination of the groundwater, which allows Clovis to continue using the site. 

The project will add at least 35 years of life to the landfill, which otherwise would have been closed in 2015. The city also can use the dirt for fill.

It was supposed to be a 31/2-year, $3.8 million project when it started in 1998, said Luke Serpa — who, as the city’s assistant public utilities director, has been leading the project for five years.

But along the way, there were unexpected developments.

The city paid a contractor $3.85 million to move the trash, but the company went bankrupt before finishing. The city took over and spent $2 million before paying a new contractor $2.8 million to finish the job in 2005.

Also, the completion deadline was extended when more trash was found deeper in the ground. Workers uncovered 50% more waste than expected — about 2.7 million cubic yards in total — that was buried as deep as 100 feet below the surface across 40 acres. And it took longer than expected to separate the trash and soil.

Ultimately, about $3 million was added to the price tag, raising the total to $11 million.

To pay for the overrun, the city’s landfill fund had to borrow $6 million from other city funds — money that will be repaid by the end of June, said Robert Woolley, the city’s finance director.

To cover the cost of that work and future landfill expansion, city residents have been paying higher trash rates since 2004. Compared to 2003 rates, residents are paying about $10 more per month.

Not all similar projects are budget-busters. A landfill reclamation that concluded last year in Collier County, Fla., cost $7.5 million over two years, well below a budget of $12 million to $15 million, said Dan Rodriguez, the county’s waste manager.

Reclaiming the site was the best option, Rodriguez said, because of high costs of land and permitting, and the potential for delays by regulatory agencies.

Reclaimed landfills will become more common in the future, he said, as regulatory headaches and environmental opposition to new landfills grows.

“If you ask people in the business of building landfills, they will tell you that you will spend probably $100 million to $150 million just finding a site … and another $30 million to get it zoned properly and through all the regulations,” Rodriguez said.

Reclamation may be the only solution in communities where land costs are high, said Bob Wallace, principal and vice president of Business Solutions, a landfill consulting firm in Phoenix.

In Arizona, permitting costs for a landfill in the desert are about $200,000 and take two years, Wallace said. By comparison, a client Wallace has in Southern California has paid out $40 million in the past five years to build a landfill.

Over time, Serpa said, he is confident that Clovis’ reclaimed landfill will cost less than a new one.

One environmental engineer says reclamation projects are worthwhile not only because they save money by not having to buy a new site, but because of the expense for dirt alone.

The cost for dirt being trucked in at a landfill project in Escambia County, Fla., is $6 per cubic yard. Pradeep Jain, an environmental engineer with Innovative Waste Consulting of Gainesville, Fla., said he expects the Escambia project to recover close to one million cubic yards of soil.

The amount of trash and soil recovered in Clovis was as much as any reclamation project that he has studied.

Said Clovis Mayor Harry Armstrong, “We now have a site that’s in compliance and we added a couple of decades to our landfill. It will take care of the growth for many years to come and is a good investment for the city.”

ABOUT WIH RESOURCE GROUP
WIH Resource Group is a global leader and provider of comprehensive waste management, recycling, transportation/logistical and business solutions, specializing in, among other services, waste management operational performance assessments, transportation / logistics, alternative fuels use, solid waste planning, waste and recycling market studies, business development, business valuations, due diligence and Mergers and Acquistions (M&A) transactional support and environmental services. 

WIH Resource Group’s experience includes the oversight of operations, maintenance, finance, human resources, business development, sales, safety and environmental compliance while maintaining responsibility for multi-million dollar publicly and privately held assets including: a variety of collection operations, Sub-title D and hazardous and Class II landfills, transfer stations, intermodal facilities, recycling centers, buyback centers, material recovery facilities, vehicle and container maintenance operations, call centers and payment processing operations.
Based in Phoenix, Arizona, the company serves both private companies and public sector Agency clients throughout North America and internationally.  To learn more about WIH Resource Group, Inc. visit http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wihresourcegroup.com

For Additional information on WIH Resource Group, Inc. contact:
Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions
WIH Resource Group – Waste Management, Recycling and Logistical Solutions
Email: admin@wihrg.com Phone: 480-241-9994  Website: http://www.wihrg.com
Daily News Blog: http://www.wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com
Follow WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

ABOUT WIH RESOURCE GROUP

WIH Resource Group is a global leader and provider of comprehensive waste management, recycling, transportation/logistical and business solutions, specializing in, among other services, waste management operational performance assessments, transportation / logistics, alternative fuel use, solid waste planning, waste and recycling market studies, business development and environmental services.  Based in Phoenix, the company serves both private and public sector clients throughout North America and globally.  Our customers include both public agencies and private sector businesses customers throughout North America. To learn more visit http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wihresourcegroup.com

About the WIH Resource Group’s Principal Bob Wallace, Principal and Vice President of Client Solutions, WIH Resource Group, Inc. (WIH) and Waste Savings, Inc. (WSI), former Boardmember SWANA ~ State of Arizona Chapter (Solid Waste Association of North America), APWA (American Public Works) ~ National Solid Waste Rate Setting Advisory Committee and Member of WASTEC (Waste Equipment Technology Association) NSWMA ~ Phoenix, Arizona USA. (bwallace@wihresourcegroup.com).

WIH Resource Group’s White Paper on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fuel Use in Refuse Collection Vehicles Industry is Available for Purchasing:   The entire 50-plus page report and Appendices: $299.00 US Funds – Visa and Mastercard Accepted. Order Your Copy today!

Phone: 480.241.9994 ~ E-mail: admin@wihrg.com

Source:  WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and our daily blog at https://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wihresourcegroup

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

WIH Resource Group, Inc. Launches Online Store & New M&A Support Services


PHOENIX, AZ – October 29, 2010 – WIH Resource Group, Inc. (WIH), (http://www.wihrg.com) announced today the launching of its online store where website visitors can now purchase Industry White Papers and other waste management, recycling, WastebyRail, transfer station, landfill, environmental and transportation / logistics related articles that WIH Resource Group Staff have authored.  The online store can be viewed at:
http://www.wihrg.com/wihs_online_store

WIH Resource Group, Inc. (WIH) also added additional services through its website offering new and existing clients Merger and Acquistions (M&A) Transactional Support Services (http://www.wihrg.com/ma_services). 

WIH Resource Group, Inc. provides its clients with fully integrated solutions to day to day business challenges, solid waste & recycling issues, as well as transportation and logistical challenges. We offer creative solutions to solve complex business issues and solid waste transportation and disposal challenges for government municipalities, industrial companies, environmental & engineering firms and commercial customers alike. In addition, our relationships with our vast network of suppliers enables us to provide solutions from A to Z, ranging from aerial photography to Waste-by-rail.

WIH Resource Group’s Team of Professionals has over 80 years combined experience and WIH has assisted hundreds of organizations, earning a reputation as an independent firm that achieves results through hard work and by treating its clients’ challenges as its own. In addressing these challenges, WIH also looks to the future and has a reputation for creating long-term, sustainable solid waste programs that continue to save money and bring desired results for years to come.  WIH Resource Group is a well known for providing its Client Specific solutions in the following areas:

Association / State Projects
Landfill Operational and Staffing Analysis
Business Development
Waste Characterization Studies
Collection and Route Optimization
Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF) Operational Assessments
Commercial and Industrial Recycling
Public Education / Outreach
Construction Waste and Demolition Debris Recycling
Residential Recycling Plans and Marketing Studies
Disaster Debris Recovery Consulting Services
Solid Waste and Recycling Business Assistance
Merger & Acquistions (M&A) Transactional Support Services Solid Waste Management Plan / Strategic Planning
Economic Flow Control and Alternative Revenue Strategies
Tire Recycling /Reuse Programs
Expert Witness
Transfer Station and Disposal
Full Cost Management
Waste-to-Energy / Alternative Technologies Reviews
WastebyRail Feasibility Studies / Planning and Implementation
Wasteshed Studies – Radius Waste Studies
Brush and Bulky Waste Operational Reviews
Alternative Vehicle Fuels Feasibility Studies / Assessments

WIH Resource Group, Inc. (WIH) is known as an international management consulting firm that assists public agencies and private sector organizations of all sizes craft practical, customized and technically sound solutions for a wide range of complex solid waste management and transportation related challenges.

ABOUT WIH RESOURCE GROUP
WIH Resource Group is a global leader and provider of comprehensive waste management, recycling, transportation/logistical and business solutions, specializing in, among other services, waste management operational performance assessments, transportation / logistics, alternative fuels use, solid waste planning, waste and recycling market studies, business development, business valuations, due diligence and Mergers and Acquistions (M&A) transactional support and environmental services. 

WIH Resource Group’s experience includes the oversight of operations, maintenance, finance, human resources, business development, sales, safety and environmental compliance while maintaining responsibility for multi-million dollar publicly and privately held assets including: a variety of collection operations, Sub-title D and hazardous and Class II landfills, transfer stations, intermodal facilities, recycling centers, buyback centers, material recovery facilities, vehicle and container maintenance operations, call centers and payment processing operations.
Based in Phoenix, Arizona, the company serves both private companies and public sector Agency clients throughout North America and internationally.  To learn more about WIH Resource Group, Inc. visit http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wihresourcegroup.com

For Additional information on WIH Resource Group, Inc. contact:
Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions
WIH Resource Group – Waste Management, Recycling and Logistical Solutions
Email: admin@wihrg.com Phone: 480-241-9994
Website: http://www.wihrg.com
Daily News Blog: http://www.wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com
Follow WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

ABOUT WIH RESOURCE GROUP

WIH Resource Group is a global leader and provider of comprehensive waste management, recycling, transportation/logistical and business solutions, specializing in, among other services, waste management operational performance assessments, transportation / logistics, alternative fuel use, solid waste planning, waste and recycling market studies, business development and environmental services.  Based in Phoenix, the company serves both private and public sector clients throughout North America and globally.  Our customers include both public agencies and private sector businesses customers throughout North America. To learn more visit http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wihresourcegroup.com

About the WIH Resource Group’s Principal Bob Wallace, Principal and Vice President of Client Solutions, WIH Resource Group, Inc. (WIH) and Waste Savings, Inc. (WSI), former Boardmember SWANA ~ State of Arizona Chapter (Solid Waste Association of North America), APWA (American Public Works) ~ National Solid Waste Rate Setting Advisory Committee and Member of WASTEC (Waste Equipment Technology Association) NSWMA ~ Phoenix, Arizona USA. (bwallace@wihresourcegroup.com).

WIH Resource Group’s White Paper on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fuel Use in Refuse Collection Vehicles Industry is Available for Purchasing:   The entire 50-plus page report and Appendices: $299.00 US Funds – Visa and Mastercard Accepted. Order Your Copy today!

Phone: 480.241.9994 ~ E-mail: admin@wihrg.com

Source:  WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and our daily blog at https://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wihresourcegroup

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource