Plans Underway to Improve Providence Recycling

By TIM FAULKNER/ecoRI News staff

PROVIDENCE — Recycling was a major topic during a recent meeting of the city's Environmental Sustainability Task Force. One immediate change discussed by the committee is a proposed ordinance requiring outdoor events such as road races and WaterFire to recycle and generally be more responsible with waste.

Sheila Dormody, the city's new director of sustainability, is working with the Arts, Culture + Tourism department to outline basic waste disposal requirements to be included in the permitting for events. Dormody said a City Council member will introduce the new rule.

Any permits, however, should be simplified, suggested Joseph Spremulli of the city's Water Department. Many environmental ordinances, he said, such as diesel idling at construction sites are often not followed. The cause, he suggested, was the vast number of all types of ordinances already in place. Many of these rules also aren't on job specification forms, thus vendors, contractors and even city employees aren't aware that the rules even exist, Spremulli said.

"Put them in black and white because there are thousands of them," he said.

Lindsey Brickle, of the mayor's communication office, noted that waivers for many ordinances are granted by the city but the reasons for the exemptions aren't made clear. She also referred to a ban on the purchase of bottled water by city departments. The rule was enacted by former Mayor David Cicilline, but the mandate doesn't appear to have been documented, she said.

Assistant city solicitor Anthony Cottone agreed, "A lot of times ordinances get passed and they never get enforced."

Single-stream recycling
Improving the city's 20 percent residential recycling rate is a priority for the task force. Worcester, Mass., by comparison, has a recycling rate of more than 40 percent. Dormody explained that the new statewide, single-stream recycling program, which is scheduled to begin in late April, is expected to boost recycling by 20 percent to 30 percent. Under the system, residents combine plastic, glass and paper recyclables in a single bin — the color doesn't matter. Additional plastic items, such as cups and food containers, also will qualify for recycling, thus helping boost the state's recycling rate.

Many details of the new system remain to be worked out, Dormody said, including what types of bins will be used for curbside pickup and how to pay for the containers. The current blue and green curbside tubs are too small to handle the expected volume of recyclable items, she said. The city is considering 95-gallon bins similar to the green curbside trash bins currently in use. Possible funding options include grants or a payment plan with the city's waste hauler, Waste Management.

"We're looking at ways to keep that price down, but right now the cost is pretty large," Dormody said.

The expected increase in volume of plastics and paper heading to the recycling facility at the Central Landfill in Johnston is predicted to bring more revenue to the city. Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation (RIRRC) currently returns half of the money it generates from the sale of recyclable materials collected to each community. In 2011, Providence received $205,000 for its recyclables. Much of that revenue is quickly offset by clean-up needs, such as collecting and disposal of discarded mattresses.

Thus, any investment in improving the city's recycling program will "certainly pay for themselves," Dormody said.

Dormody, who also serves on the board of commissioners at RIRRC, explained that a mail marketing campaign, written in both English and Spanish, will launch before April to educate the public about the upcoming recycling changes.

The task force also is looking to improve recycling in other parts of the city. Board member Nicole Poepping suggested that Aramark, the public school food provider, play a larger role in recycling at schools. Dormody plans to meet soon with Aramark and the School Department.

Dormody said on-street parking remains a top issue for Mayor Angel Tavares. The task force favors preserving the current on-street parking rules while reducing the number of required parking spaces per dwelling to one. Reducing off-street parking requirements allows for more green space, such as backyards and community gardens. Less pavement also preserves permeable surfaces that absorb rain and stormwater runoff, which helps reduce flooding and improve water quality for rivers and ponds.

Dormody said she will spend the next year creating a city-wide sustainability plan that addresses such issues as solid waste, energy, transportation and water. The task force intends to hold informal public meetings throughout the city to involve the community in the process.

New Recycling Solution for Small Businesses

By DAVE FISHER/ecoRI News staff

Damon and Citirah Harris of Wrecycleit.PROVIDENCE — Many small businesses in Rhode Island don't recycle their waste properly. In many cases, the added cost of sorting and removing recyclable waste is a non-starter for small-business owners.

Sometimes they lack the space for a sorting and collection area. But whatever the excuse for not properly recycling, local small businesses now have a low-cost recycling solution.

Providence native Damon Harris has started a company with his wife, Citirah, that is equal parts environmental and social responsibility. Wrecycleit was created to fill the gaps in recycling services for small businesses and to create jobs within the communities in which it operates.

Wrecycleit began in the couple's current home, Richmond, Va., and according to Damon, the economic slump has actually helped to grow the business. “When you’ve been out of work for a long time and don’t really see any prospects coming up,” he said, “people don’t mind collecting recyclables for cash.”

The business model for Wrecycleit is much different than that of other waste haulers. This service requires no long-term contract, no dirty diesel trucks for collection, no set pick-up schedule and no specialized bins to buy. Like it says on the website, “We don’t care if you put it in a bag, box or bin.” The service is single stream and has door-to-door collection options and flexible pick-up scheduling, including on-call pickups.

Damon calls it “valet recycling.”

Anyone can become a recycling sales affiliate, and all you need is a way to transport your collected materials and a can-do attitude, Damon said. “We educate our affiliates about recycling, customer service, decomposition, landfills, incinerators, and local laws and land-use regulations,” he said. "We also provide all manner of office and support services. Business cards, accounting services, cold calls, procuring vehicles and finding local recyclers to work with.”

Wrecycleit’s first man on the street in Providence is Michael Brown, who will soon be joined by Damon’s younger brother Jason, who is currently completing Wrecycleit's training program.

The company’s pricing system also differs radically from that of other waste haulers. Recycling can be run on a pay-per-bag program with no need to sort. Larger customers can get two, four or eight collections a month for $10, $20 or $50, respectively. The company also offers a school recycling program in which 30 percent of the sales of the collected materials goes back to the school where it was collected.

The rules for collected materials are roughly the same as the state's can and can’t recycle guidelines, but all manner of plastics are accepted.

Damon, a graduate of Johnson & Wales University and a former city social worker, said Providence is a great fit for his company. “Providence is and old city. The streets are narrow, it’s densely populated. Many businesses don’t have room for a Dumpster and many larger companies can’t — or don’t want to — service these smaller businesses. That’s where we come in.”

Newport Offers Expanded Municipal Recycling

By DAVE FISHER/ecoRI News staff

NEWPORT — The city recently expanded its municipal recycling collection by inviting local businesses to participate in the program. In this video, ecoRI News speaks to Newport's Clean City Coordinator, Kristin Littlefield, and staff members from the International Yacht Restoration School (IYRS) and Newport Storm Brewery. Both businesses are participating in the program. IYRS opts to have the city collect its recyclables, while the folks at Newport Storm transport their own recyclables to the transfer station.

Local businesses that are interested in participating in the program should contact Kristin Littlefield at 401-845-5642 or via e-mail at klittlefield@cityofnewport.com.

R.I. Recycling By the Numbers

By DAVE FISHER/ecoRI News staff

With 26 of 39 Rhode Island communities participating in either “no bin/no barrel” or some type of “pay-as-you-throw” program concerning their trash and recyclables, ecoRI News thought it would be a good time to investigate how well these programs have worked.

But, as it turns out, getting a handle on state recycling by the numbers is more difficult than expected.

“There are very few apples-to-apples comparisons that can be made regarding recycling rates in Rhode Island,” said Sarah Kite, director of recycling services for the Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation, which manages the Central Landfill in Johnston. “There are too many variables in play to look at it from a strictly numbers point of view.”

For instance, after instituting a no-bin/no-barrel policy, Providence’s recycling rate increased about 5 percentage points. While that doesn’t seem like a huge jump, it represents an increase of 50 percent over the 10 percent of its municipal solid waste that the city recycled in the previous years.

Other municipal numbers are just as deceiving. On paper, Johnston has the lowest recycling rate in the state (16 percent). This seems odd — due to the fact that the state landfill and recycling facility are situated in town — until one discovers that, as the host community for the Central Landfill, the town pays no tipping fee for garbage.

In addition to the line-item discount for trash disposal in the town’s budget, the numbers are further skewed by the fact that Johnston residents can drop off just about anything, including debris from renovations and construction projects, at the landfill.

“If you look at it from a per-household perspective, their rate is comparable to other similarly-sized towns in the state (about 22 percent),” Kite said.

The most important factor in improving a community’s recycling rate is having a recycling coordinator that is active, according to Kite. “The town of North Smithfield’s rate is way up because Donna (Kaehler, the town’s part-time recycling coordinator) is extremely involved,” she said.

The no-bin/no-barrel and pay-as-you-throw programs instituted in Rhode Island were, for the most part, started by municipalities that were lagging behind expected recycling rates.

For towns and cities that are still lagging behind, next year’s goal of 35 percent recycling and a 50 percent landfill diversion rate seem even further away. But that’s not to say these communities should worry about any repercussions from not hitting 35 percent.

“There are no teeth in the law as it stands,” Kite said.

No bin and pay-as-you-throw programs are only a few of the ways to positively impact the state’s recycling rates. Organics such as yard waste and tree limbs make up some of the waste that is diverted from the landfill. These waste products are composted into high-grade compost and are then made available to Rhode Island residents and communities. Cities and towns that bring such material to the landfill can take back the finished product for free. Residents are charged $30 per cubic yard, with a minimum purchase of a half-yard.

This April, the RIRRC’s materials recycling facility will be ready to accept single-stream recycling, which is expected to increase household participation rates by making recycling even easier.

Paper, plastic and recyclable metals will all go in the same bin, instead of into separate green and blue bins. The switch to a single-stream system also will get more businesses involved because of the ease and reduced cost associated with this type of recycling, Kite said.

“Right now, the biggest reason for lack of recycling in the business community is cost,” she said. “Hopefully, by reducing the cost and labor involved in recycling, we can bring more businesses to the table.”

Some Rhode Island communities are contemplating expanding their recycling collection to local businesses. Warren has had limited success extending municipal recyclable collection to businesses on Main Street. Newport is now offering low-cost recyclable collection to all city businesses. Response to Newport’s program has been a bit lackluster — fewer than 20 businesses have opted in so far — but, as with any new government program, it will likely take time to gain traction.

Recently passed producer responsibility bills for e-waste have boosted the quantity of electronics collected in Rhode Island.

Kite said a regionalized approach to waste/recycling collection would reduce costs for municipalities. “Regionalization works for trash removal,” she said, “and it’s much less of a political hot-button than combining police, fire or school departments.”

Westerly and Hopkinton have consolidated their trash services, and Narragansett and South Kingstown have consolidated their transfer stations.

Kite said she sees the no-bin/no-barrel program as a steppingstone to pay-as-you-throw. “No-bin programs definitely increase participation, but pay-as-you-throw scenarios have the beneficial impact on the three E’s — economics, environment and equity,” she said.

The most compelling argument for pay-as-you-throw programs is the equity factor. Consider: A single-family home in Woonsocket pays $96 annually for trash pickup. Savvy consumers who reduce their consumption, reuse everything they can and recycle all possible materials put much less trash on the curb for pickup than most of their neighbors, but still pay that same $96.

The staunchest recyclers are actually subsidizing trash services for their fellow Rhode Islanders who may not be as vigilant about properly separating their trash.

But as the new recycling and diversion mandates become active, expect to see more state municipalities adopting no-bin and pay-as-you-throw programs. Hopefully, the expansion of these programs will get more of us to think about not only the products we buy and the packaging used to ship those products, but also begin contemplating where those things ultimately go when we are finished with them.

The Keurig K-Cup Konundrum

By DAVE FISHER/ecoRI News staff

Keurig K-cups kreate konvenience and kastoffs.OFFICES, HOMES, STARBUCKS and DUNKIN’ DONUTS NATIONWIDE — You’ve all seen them. You may have one in your home. Maybe there’s one in the breakroom at your workplace. They are easy to use, require almost no maintenance or cleaning and can have you sipping your morning joe before you can say “America Runs on Dunkin’.”

The Keurig single-cup coffee brewer is perhaps the best example of American lust — almost exclusively sated at the expense of the environment — for all things cheap and convenient.

Even if you are using a reusable mug to drink your K-offee, a small, non-recyclable plastic cup is produced for each cup that you drink. Unless, of course, you have the Keurig My K-cup, a reusable filter designed for use with your favorite coffee. Unfortunately, the My K-cup is only compatible with eight of the 15 models of one-cup brewers marketed by Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, who acquired Keurig in 2006; online customer reviews of these filters are lackluster at best, with only 50 percent of reviewers claiming they would recommend the product to a friend.

Keurig claims a pretty significant market share in the coffee world. According to its corporate profile, 2.5 million K-cup beverages are brewed in the homes and offices of North America daily, more than 2 billion of the tiny cups have been used since 1998 and 200,000 offices in North America have Keurig systems, boasting 6 percent of all coffee brewed in offices every day.

ecoRI News contacted New Harvest Coffee Roasters in Pawtucket to get some stats on coffee bought by the pound. By comparison, a pound of ground coffee in a single bag will produce about 25 cups of coffee with considerably less waste — as in, not 25 small, impossible-to-recycle, mixed-material cups. Seriously waste-conscious java junkies in Rhode Island can even refill their bags at most supermarkets and at roasting houses such as Coastal Roasters in Tiverton, Coffee Exchange in Providence and the aforementioned New Harvest Coffee Roasters.

Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (GMCR, on its official letterhead) in Vermont is the exclusive distributor of the Keurig K-cups and it offers more than 200 varieties of coffee, tea, hot cocoa, cider, and iced beverages in wasteful one-serving cups. While the company enjoys a very "green" public perception, the K-cup seems to be the antithesis to sustainability. ecoRI News contacted GMCR’s vice president of corporate and social responsibility, Michael Dupee, to talk about the K-cup impact on our landfill and about the company’s green initiatives.

Dupee said that, when GMCR acquired Keurig, the sustainability of the K-cup became a high priority because, “We can’t ignore consumer perception, but it is a difficult technical challenge to create a package that is airtight, blocks light, and has the required thermal properties and rigidity necessary to function in the brewer.”

The company recently completed a life-cycle analysis on the K-cups, which is now being vetted by a third party. The preliminary results showed that the greatest environmental impact of the plastic portion packs is actually upstream from the user, according to Dupee.

“We found that the production and shipping of the plastic cup were the largest culprits, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions to the environment,” he said.

To counter these environmental impacts, the company changed how it packaged the bulk cups from just throwing them in a box, which created a lot of empty space in each case, to a smaller packaging system that reduced the volume of the packaging while retaining the same number of cups in a pack.

“That one change amounted to a 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from shipping," Dupee said. "We can ship more cups in less space.”

The company also has begun a pilot takeback program for K-cups consumed in offices called “Grounds to Grow On.” In the program, companies return the used cups to GMCR, which are then dismantled; the coffee grounds are composted and the remaining materials are incinerated at a waste-to-energy plant. Waste-to-energy incineration, Dupee said, technically qualifies as a renewable energy source, but we at ecoRI News have our doubts. Burning plastic is, basically, the same as burning oil.

The company also takes back about 60 percent of returned brewers to refurbish as display or demonstration models. Any brewers not fit for refurbishing are dismantled and 90 percent of the component parts are recycled, according to Dupee.

The Keurig brewer and K-cup are not the only areas in which GMCR is attempting to reduce its waste/carbon footprint. The company has a litany of environmental and social justice issues that it attempts to address through its corporate and social responsibility efforts — from buying carbon offsets to reducing landfillable waste at its Vermont facilities.

The K-cup’s life-cycle analysis and vetting should be complete by next year, at which time GMCR will make the reports available on its website. As for the future sustainability of the K-cup, Dupee said, “We are ready to invest in materials that don’t even exist yet.”

That is of little solace to waste conscious Rhode Islanders. In addition to the plastic and Styrofoam cups — sometimes both — that surround so many hot and iced beverages from Dunkin’ Donuts, that litter our streets and continue to collect in the Central Landfill, D&D has begun selling its own brand of the K-cup that is, inevitably, destined for the same place.

Bottle Bill Repeals Pushed By Industry

By FRANK CARINI/ecoRI News staff

Only 10 states have bottle bills, including four of the six New England states — Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont — but there is mounting pressure to repeal these decades-old initiatives.

During the past year in both Maine and Vermont, the beverage industry has led an effort to repeal those states’ bottle bills. To the south, Delaware recently dumped its nearly 30-decade-old bottle bill in favor of what is essentially a 4-cent tax.

In Rhode Island, campaigns have been conducted and bills written to bring a bottle bill to the Ocean State, but such a move has been deemed economically unsustainable.

Two years ago, the Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation (RIRRC), which runs the Central Landfill in Johnston, hired a Vermont-based consulting firm to conduct a study on the cost/environmental effectiveness of a bottle bill. The firm determined that an enhanced municipal recycling program, which the RIRRC has since begun to implement and includes a planned shift to single-stream recycling in 2012, is a more efficient system since consumers aren’t required to drive to separate redemption centers to recycle their beverage containers.

During this debate, the Coke- and Pepsi-backed American Beverage Association, an advocacy group representing the nonalcoholic beverage industry, said such an initiative would be inadequately financed. The Rhode Island Food Dealers Association said local supermarkets were concerned about the financial obligations associated with hosting redemption machines that would take up valuable space and pose a safety issue by attracting bees.

“RIRRC is confident in the results of the study which clearly supports making major and specific improvements to our existing curbside program as the most effective way to increase recycling,” Michael O’Connell, executive director of the RIRRC, wrote in a letter dated July 8, 2009 to Senate President M. Teresa Paiva-Weed. “This alternative system was seen as far superior to an enhanced bottle bill because it diverted almost twice the amount of new recyclables for about one third the cost of the bottle deposit program.”

The New England Grassroots Education Fund, however, believes bottle bills are a proven, sustainable method of capturing beverage bottles and cans for recycling. The refund value of the container provides a monetary incentive to return the container for recycling, according to the Vermont-based nonprofit.

Mandatory curbside recycling is being touted as a possible solution along with the demise of bottle deposit programs, but one effort shouldn't prelude the other and recycling rates could be greatly improved using both approaches, according to New England Grassroots Education Fund officials.

According to a 1999 report by the Container Recycling Institute, a nonprofit that studies and promotes policies and programs that increase recovery and recycling of beverage containers, states with redemption laws recycled 491 containers per person and residents of states that didn’t have a bottle bill recycled an average of 191 containers.

As more beverage containers are targeted for inclusion in existing bottle bills — Gov. Deval Patrick, for example, has proposed expanding Massachusetts’ deposit system to include bottles of water, sports drinks, juices and other non-carbonated beverages that have proliferated since the state’s bottle bill was passed in 1982 — juice, sports drink and bottled water manufacturers have joined beverage container manufacturers, soft drink bottlers, beer, wine and liquor distributors, and retail grocers in the anti-bottle bill movement.

In fact, during the past 20 years, a lot of money has been spent to defeat bottle bill ballot initiatives, with industry opponents outspending proponents by as much as 30 to 1, according to the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. The beverage industry spent about $14 million in campaign contributions aimed at defeating the National Bottle Bill between 1989 and 1994 and members of a Senate Committee who voted against the National Bottle Bill in 1992 received an average of 75 times more in anti-bottle bill PAC money than those who voted in favor of the bill, according to a report by the Washington, D.C.-based group.

Another group of bottle bill opponents also has emerged in recent years — waste haulers and owners of materials recovery facilities who want the revenue from the valuable aluminum cans that are recovered through bottle bills.

Maine opposition
In Maine, where a bottle bill was passed in 1976 with overwhelming voter support, the state’s new governor, Paul LePage, has led a charge against the popular law. In fact, the Natural Resources Council of Maine says the governor’s Phase I Regulatory Reform Proposals are just a “slew of anti-environmental policy changes.” 

Besides repealing Maine’s bottle bill, the proposed reforms would have eliminated the state’s energy efficiency building codes, weakened zoning laws that protect lakes, rivers and coastal waters, weakened the state’s pesticide notification system and weakened laws that protect significant wildlife habitat, sand dunes and vernal pools, according to the nonprofit organization.

Earlier this year, Republican state Sen. Tom Martin introduced a bill calling for the repeal of Maine’s bottle bill. Republican Rep. Kerri Prescott proposed a bill to “create consistency and fairness in Maine’s bottle bill.” Republican Sen. David Hastings introduced a bill suggesting the state’s bottle bill could be replaced with a more effective system.

Supporters, however, claimed Maine’s bottle bill is responsible for the approximately 90 percent recycling rate of beverage containers in the state. They said the current bottle bill reduces roadside trash and lessens the amount of waste buried in landfills.

The legislature’s Environment and Natural Resources Committee — made up of eight Republicans and five Democrats — voted unanimously May 2 to keep the Pine Tree State bottle bill in place. Committee members were united in opposition to weakening what is widely seen as a model beverage container redemption law, according to a recent story in The Free Press.

Martin’s bill attempting to overturn bottle bill was withdrawn before it came up for consideration and other bills that would have weakened the law failed in committee, such as a bill that would have exempted wine bottles from the deposit system.

This recent effort to banish Maine’s bottle bill isn’t the first time such an attempt has been made. Three years after the law went into effect, a referendum pushed by corporate beverage interests failed by 85 percent.

Is two better than one?
In Vermont, legislation was introduced last year to repeal the bottle bill and replace it with mandatory recycling. Mandatory recycling, however, wouldn’t target containers consumed away from home or give any financial incentive to recycle or pick up roadside trash, according to the New England Grassroots Education Fund.

Vermont currently recycles 85 percent of all beverage containers covered by its bottle bill, according to education fund representatives, while states without a bottle bill recycle, on average, less than 25 percent of these same containers. A recent poll noted that 90 percent of Vermont voters support the current bottle bill and 85 percent want to see it updated, according to the Vermont Public Interest Research Group.

The state’s bottle bill was enacted in 1972 and covers beer, soda, liquor and mixed wine drinks in metal, glass, plastic or paper containers.

The law also gives Vermont residents the option of recycling their beverage containers by placing them in curbside bins. The combination of these recycling methods has proven successful, according to bottle bill supporters. At 85 percent, Vermont’s beverage container recycling rate is among the highest in the nation.

Two bills, however, were introduced last year that would have repealed Vermont’s bottle bill. One house bill would have replaced it with an extended producer responsibility requirement. According to the Campaign for Recycling, the state’s current bottle bill already has extended producer responsibility requirements in place that are superior to those proposed in that bill.

The proposed legislation would have required producers of packaging and printed material, including beverage containers, to develop plans for recovering these materials and financing the program through fees. Within a year of the time the program was approved, the bill required municipalities and solid waste districts to implement mandatory recycling requirements and “pay-as-you-throw” pricing for household waste collection and disposal.

Supporters of the state’s current bottle bill said if the bill had passed the result would likely have been a recycling system that would only involve curbside collection. While curbside recycling works well now in conjunction with the bottle bill, a curbside recycling program by itself is problematic, according to the Campaign for Recycling, because it wouldn’t target containers consumed away from home and would thus result in lower recycling rates.

A study released in 2002 found that states that used a deposit system in conjunction with another means to recycle beverage containers, such as curbside recycling, enjoyed a recycling rate of more than two and a half times greater than in states without a deposit system.

Another House bill would have replaced the bottle bill with a flat fee on beverage containers. In place of the current 5-cent or 15-cent deposit on beverage containers, the bill would have imposed a half-cent fee on all beverage containers. The half-cent fee would have lasted for the first year and then would have been replaced by a quarter-cent fee for the second year, which would then would have been replaced by an eighth-cent fee for the third year.

The fees would be deposited into the Waste Management Assistance Fund for the purpose of funding a “recycling and reuse assistance account” that would provide for the collection and recycling of beverage containers by solid waste districts.

Supporters of the status quo said this bill failed to hold manufacturers accountable for the products they put into the marketplace, would have reduced recycling rates and hindered the ability to reuse the containers that are recycled.

Both bills died in committee.

Bottle bill recycled
While efforts to repeal the bottle bill in both Maine and Vermont were unsuccessful, Delaware last year repealed its 28-year-old law that required a 5-cent deposit on plastic and glass soft drink and beer bottles and replaced it with a 4-cent non-refundable recycling fee.

States with bottle deposit bills regularly boost bottle recycling rates that exceed 70 percent, according to the Campaign for Recycling. Delaware officials, however, testified during last year’s bottle bill debate that the state’s bottle recycling rate was only 12 percent because many retailers refused to accept returned bottles.

The new 4-cent per container recycling fee, which went into effect in December, is designed to provide start-up money to help waste haulers start single-stream curbside recycling.

The new law mandates that all municipal and private waste haulers provide such curbside recycling pickup for single-family homes starting Sept. 15, for multifamily residences starting Jan. 1, 2013 and for commercial sites by 2014. The 4-cent fee is scheduled to end Dec. 1, 2014 or after $22 million is raised.

The Delaware bill, according to opponents of the new law, places the financial responsibility of recycling on the shoulders of consumers and lessens it for beverage distributors. Delaware’s new bottle law also goes against recent trends, as a few states, including Connecticut and Massachusetts, are looking at expanding their bottle bills or extending producer responsibility laws to reduce waste and advance recycling.

For decades, the beverage industry has been contending that residential curbside collection is the best solution for collecting recyclables, claiming bottle bills are incompatible with such a service.

The numbers, at least those provided by the Container Recycling Institute, don’t back that claim.

Two out of three beverage containers sold in the United States end up as litter or buried in landfills. The current 35 percent beverage container recovery rate has declined from 41 percent in 2000 and from an all-time of 54 percent in 1992.

It would seem that a combination of curbside recycling, extended producer responsibility laws and bottle bills would be the best solution for keeping beverage containers out of landfills and from bobbing in our oceans.

Your Guide to Not Recycling in R.I.: Live in a Big Building

By DAVE FISHER/ecoRI News staff

Any building in Rhode Island with four or more dwellings is ineligible for municipal trash and recyclable collection. Building managers and owners bear the onus of compliance to an under-publicized and seldom enforced law.In Rhode Island, a large number of private residents aren’t eligible for municipal trash and recycling collection because of their living situation. Local ordinances dictate how many apartments a building can have and fall under the municipal collection guidelines. Some R.I. towns and cities collect trash from buildings with up to eight dwellings, but due to ignorance and lack of enforcement, many residents of multifamily homes are being essentially forced not to recycle.

This problem isn’t limited to the four- and six-unit tenements that historically housed Rhode Island’s textile workers. Rhode Island has plenty of housing developments managed by local housing authorities, and an increasing number of high-priced/high-rise condos and apartments in the former mills associated with the textile industry.

Warwick, Lincoln, and Pawtucket collect waste from their public housing under the municipal program. Rhode Island’s other public housing authorities contract with a waste hauler to transport garbage, but they all contract for recyclable hauling from housing projects as well, though recycling rates in such developments can be dismally low. The two largest housing developments in Woonsocket, for instance, recycle only 5 percent of their solid waste.

Even at more upscale mill-to-condo renovations, it’s basically management’s choice whether to recycle or not. At the 903 condos in Downtown Providence — which sell for between $400,000 and $2.5 million — management offers cardboard and paper recycling, but no metal, glass or plastic. The High Rocks condos in North Smithfield and Royal Mills apartments in West Warwick offer full recycling to their residents.

While the list of communities that insist on "no bin, no barrel" programs grows — East Providence recently went back to enforcing their "NBNB" — there is a portion of Rhode Island’s population that, though probably willing, can't recycle because of the decision to flout the law by those that manage their buildings.

And while Rhode Island’s housing authorities are doing their part, recycling wise, in our current economic crunch, who’s to say which program will be the next one deemed unnecessary or financially unviable?

While landfill tipping fees, and hence waste removal costs for apartment buildings, are currently low, the continued landfilling of recyclable materials from the residential sector puts an unnecessary pinch on our state’s rapidly shrinking Central Landfill. Continuing recyclable collection from public housing, and expanding municipal recyclable collection to larger, privately owned multifamily residences would extend the life of the landfill and increase municipal recycling rates, bringing more money back to our cities and towns through the Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation.

Renters and owners of apartments and condos need to understand that their choice to recycle isn't about paying a little more now — in rent or operating costs; it's about paying a lot more when the landfill is full and the state must transport its waste farther and farther from home.

Your Guide to Not Recycling in R.I.: Start a Business

By DAVE FISHER/ecoRI News staff

R.I.'s new business portal. Quick? Yes. Easy? Yes. Comprehensive? No.Starting a business in Rhode Island got a little easier when the secretary of state’s office started using a “business portal” model on its website. It’s now easier to find out just how many miles of bureaucratic swamp you’ll have to wade through to get your little slice of the American dream off of the ground.

This new system is envisioned as a comprehensive clearing house of information on starting and maintaining a business in Rhode Island, but one area that affects all Ocean State businesses has seemingly escaped the watchful eye of the office: waste management.

Only this vague warning regarding anything environmental exists in the Quick Start literature: “You Must Contact the Department of Environmental Management to Ensure You Are Fully Compliant.”

This is the only mention of the state Department of Environmental Management (DEM) in any of the literature available from the secretary of state’s office on starting a business in Rhode Island. No mention of the recycling mandates and reporting requirements that the DEM would ultimately enforce. No mention of the “GreenZone” waste reduction program for businesses, or the Rhode Island Green Hospitality Designation available from the DEM. Just make sure to be compliant. With what? For that, you’ll have to call the DEM.

There also is no mention of the free waste audits for businesses available not only through the DEM, but also through the Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation (RIRRC).

There seems to be no communication from the secretary of state's office to the DEM or RIRRC when a new business is incorporated, which would allow those agencies to contact the new business owner regarding the state's waste handling and recycling laws.

The responsibility of waste management lies squarely on a business owner’s shoulders, and the secretary of state's office isn’t responsible for informing every business owner of every state law. But one would think that the office should be promoting awareness among the business sector of the laws that affect every Rhode Island business and resident.

The situation at the state's almost-full landfill and the fact that, according to RIRRC figures, 45 percent of the landfilled trash comes from the commercial sector, makes the state's waste disposal mandates worth a mention. The new system at the secretary of state’s office certainly has made it easier to start a business, but one really can’t call it comprehensive until commercial waste is addressed directly within the system.

Enforcement starts with informing.

Single-Stream Recycling has Drawbacks

By DAVID FISHER/ecoRI News staff

The solid waste management sector in Rhode Island has been all atwitter with the news of the Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation’s (RIRRC) planned shift to single-stream recycling. Single-stream recycling is a system where all recyclable materials are put in one collection bin. Under the current system, paper and cardboard are separated from the other recyclables by the end user — you.

Paper, glass, metal and plastic all in one bin certainly makes recycling easier for the consumer, and the planned expansion of plastics collection to include many more types could increase the state’s municipal recycling rate overnight. But there are some drawbacks to the single-stream option that indicate it may not be the panacea to the shrinking state landfill.

Undoubtedly, collecting most plastics curbside will boost Rhode Island's recycling rate, and the one-bin system will eliminate the “can I or can’t I” internal argument that most of us have had concerning our green and blue bins. Single-stream recycling should also reduce collection costs, which could make recycling more financially feasible for businesses and owners of buildings with four or more dwellings.

Single-stream recycling does lower collection costs. As just one example, automated trucks used for single-bin collection average 800-1,000 home pickups daily, compared to 400-600 for manual pickups with a driver and helper.

Recycling rates do go up in many single-stream scenarios. When the East Valley District in Los Angeles went to single-stream in 1998, net recycling tonnage increased from 1,900 to 4,500 tons a month.

One-bin recycling weaknesses
Single-stream processing costs are higher because additional labor hours are required to sort the mix of paper and plastic. Sorting systems also are much larger and require more space in sorting facilities, and initial sorting equipment investments are high.

An American Forest & Paper Association study reports that expenses increase $3 per ton for paper collected in single-stream systems. And while single-stream collection costs an average $15 per ton less than other systems, processing costs increase an average of $10 per ton and manufacturing costs rise about $8 per ton.

End products are more contaminated in single-stream scenarios. Typically, commodities will be more contaminated than those collected in a dual-stream system or sorted curbside. This contaminated material often has less value than recyclables collected in the current green-and-blue-bin system.

Contamination can also affect recyclers’ ability to produce quality products. For example, if paper grades are not properly separated at a sorting facility, corrugated cardboard might be improperly baled with newspaper. Once the bale has been bought by the newspaper processing mill, it can be difficult to sort the newsprint prior to it entering the pulping process. This type of contamination can reduce the quality of the final newsprint. Contamination also jams equipment, leading to lowered productivity and expensive repairs. Both add costs to processors’ and recyclers’ bottom lines.

Processors may have loads rejected by recyclers, or simply be paid less due to compromised quality, while the recycler must dispose of contaminants and buy additional material to make up for the loss. In other words, the cost savings for a municipality from single-stream collection become cost increases for processors and recyclers.

Another inefficiency related to single-stream vs. dual-stream/curbside sorting is the loss of revenue associated with recyclables ending up in the wrong separated stream — containers in the fiber stream and fiber in the container stream.

Equipment manufacturers suggest that the efficiency of a typical single-stream processing line is about 85 percent. This means that about 15 percent of the container stream sent to market has unwanted fibers, and about 15 percent of the fiber stream has unwanted containers. In most cases, these unwanted recyclables are sent by the recycler directly to disposal. This new waste not only represents significant lost revenue, it also artificially boosts recovery rates. Some 39 million pounds of plastics are sent to paper mills annually due to poor sorting at single-stream processors. Dual-stream recycling typically has about a 2 percent contamination rate.

Glass works
Glass is a problem for both single- and dual-stream sorting facilities. Typically, about 50 percent to 60 percent of glass breaks in the curbside collection process. The percentage generally increases to 60 percent to 90 percent with single-stream, depending on vehicle and compaction ratios.

It's nearly impossible to prevent glass from breaking on its way to the curb or while it's loaded and compacted on the truck, dumped on the tipping floor of sorting facilities, repeatedly driven over by vehicles and dumped on conveyor belts to be processed. It's highly unlikely that glass collected in single-stream systems will be used for its most beneficial closed-loop application — glass bottles or fiberglass. Unless glass is sorted by color and cleaned to recyclers’ specifications, single-stream glass will be downcycled, creating a far-less-desirable outcome in terms of energy conservation and lower emissions. The most likely end uses for mixed glass cullet from a sorting operation is sandblasting base, aggregate material, or, as is the case in Rhode Island, alternative daily cover for landfills.

Even plastic contamination rates increase in single-stream systems. Plastics recyclers report that in general material from single-streams has a yield rate of about 70 percent compared to dual-stream systems which yield about 80 percent. Bales of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic from deposit return systems generally have a yield rate of about 85 percent. The value of PET from a single-stream system is worth on average about 1-2 cents less a pound compared with PET collected via dual-stream.

Studies by the largest recycler of aluminum in the United States, Atlanta-based Novelis, found that curbside-collected material vs. material collected through container deposit and return systems — think bottle bill — the contaminant level, excluding moisture, was on average 78 percent higher for curbside sources.

Although data is limited, studies show that single-stream collection receives more recyclables due to higher participation rates. However, there is a lack of evidence proving that the single-stream system alone motivates increased participation.

Your Next 5K: The Only Impact Should Be on Your Knees

By JOANNA DETZ/ecoRI News staff

Picture this. You’ve just run a 5K. Do you:

A) Cool down and stretch.
B) Update your Facebook status with your race time.
C) Grab your schwag bag and load up on pizza, bananas, bagels and bottled water.

The answer, at least at many 5K races these days, seems to be maybe a little bit of “B,” plus a whole lot of “C.” And that whole lot of “C” can lead to a veritable sea of trash.

Working on the back end of several 5K races with the ecoRI News Green Team — handling the trash, recycling and race remains — has been an eye-opening experience.

Last September marked one of the first times the Providence CVS Caremark Downtown 5K recycled anything, thanks in part to the concerted efforts of the ecoRI News Green Team. Despite that undertaking, which achieved a 70 percent recycling rate, the 10,000-person race still generated a Winnebago-sized dumpster’s worth of trash.

With scores of recycling bins placed around the finish area, racers more or less caught on, though it was dismaying to see that many still threw barely sipped from water bottles into the trash, or that half-eaten pizza slices were jettisoned into recycling bins. We’ll be generous and chalk these oversights up to low blood sugar.

More recently, at the St. Pat’s 5K in Providence, which topped out at 4,000 runners, the ecoRI News Green Team hauled away the recyclables and composted 200 pounds of banana peels, but racers still filled a 15-yard dumpster to the brim with trash.

5Ks, which are accessible to beginning runners and often benefit good causes such as cancer research or family foundations, are problematic from a waste standpoint: Short race and lots of waste.

But, it doesn’t have to be that way. Here are some tips for you and your race organizer:

BYODWB
You: Bring Your Own Damn Water Bottle. Settle down Pheidippides; it’s not a marathon. And, unless you’re hoofing sub-sixes, toting along a reusable water bottle isn’t going to hurt your finish time. Taking the eco-moral high ground will reward you with a surge of good karma tantamount to runner’s high. 

Race organizers: Ban the bottle. Some races such as the Hartford Half Marathon install temporary bubblers at the finish line in lieu of providing bottled water. If you must have bottled water at your race, at least recycle your bottles.

No Matter How You Look at it: The Bottle is Half Full
You know who you are: If you didn’t bring your own bottle, and you’ve enjoyed a few swigs of race-provided bottled water, for crying out loud, don’t recycle or throw out the that bottle if there’s still water in it. When the ecoRI News Green Team works a race, a good portion of our time is spent emptying water out of water bottles that racers have thrown into either the trash or recycling bin. 

FuhGoo
You: Don’t Goo there. Goo is the go-to chemical stew for long-distance runners. It’s often packaged in something approximating one of those fast-food ketchup packets. Ingredients may include: maltodextrin, fructose, glycerin, sodium chloride, sodium citrate and sodium bisulfate. That sounds like the chemical twin to something you’d use to clean your carpets. No one who is not on a space ship or running a marathon should eat this crap. Message to 5Kers: It’s only three miles; you do not need this. Forgo the Goo and eat a tablespoon of peanut butter when you get home.

Bag the Schwag
You: Need FiberONE cereal samples, dental floss and coupons for discount flooring like you need a paperweight in a tornado. Resistance is not futile. Just because it’s free doesn't mean you need it or should take it. Running 5K entitles you to sweat, calorie burn, endorphins and nothing else.

Race organizers: Runners won’t miss what they don’t have. Dismayingly, the ecoRI News Green Team finds many of these bags in the trash.

Go Bananas!
You: They’re your favorite post-race snack. Cheerful yellow potassium rockets in biodegradable wrappers. Eat them and compost the peels.

Race organizers: Look into composting those banana peels. Your bananas will provide nutrients to hungry runners and then the peels will have a go at providing nutrients to the soil. At this year’s St. Pat’s 5K in Pawtucket, a staff of four ecoRI News Green Team members composted almost 100 percent, or 120 pounds of the peels from the bananas racers consumed.

At the end of every race, you should go home a little sore, and with the knowledge that the 3.1 miles you tread upon this earth left only your footprints in the dust and not a pile of trash.