INSIDE THIS ISSUE
- Sign up Now for the NRRA Training Workshop
- NRRA Annual Meeting Invite
- Updated MOM Meeting Schedule
- October Pricing Guide Now Available
- Is Recycling Dead?
- School News You Can Use
- NHDES News
- NH the Beautiful
- Massachusetts News
- National News
- NRRA Calendar
~Recycling Fact of the Day~
Nearly 60 to 70% of waste found in dustbins can be recycled and reused and close to 50% of the same waste can be composted.
NRRA Training Workshop: “It’s Not Easy Being Green”, The Workshop 1.0
Friday October 23, 2015 8:30-12:00 Noon
Do You or Your Operators Need Certification Credits before the end of the Year ?? Sign up today!!!
We are expecting a full house! This informative training workshop will be held in the NHDES Auditorium on the main floor at NHDES at Hazen Drive in Concord. NRRA will present a full 2.5- 3 hour training session which will count for Certification credits. Those whose credentials will expire by 12/31/2015 will be given first priority. Member and Non-Members alike can attend and credit certificates will be issued by NRRA for attendees to present to NHDES. Topics to be covered include the “New Normal” of Recycling Markets, “Talkin’ Trash 3.0” – Current MSW numbers and Contract Negotiations, Basic Operator Best Management Practices- From Permits to Plastics to PGA, and “Burn Piles” How Should they be Handled”. Compost anyone?
This workshop will cover a wide range of current topics to help keep operators both new and experienced in the “loop” on the current state of transfer stations. There is a $25 fee to cover the morning check in and supplies. We must have a minimum of 50 registrants. This workshop is being offered solely by NRRA, all questions and/or registrations must come to the NRRA Office. To register, call or email Stacey Morrison at email@example.com or 736-4401 ext. 20. Click Here to download the registration form. You can fax or email the registration form directly to Stacey. All registrations must be received no later than October 19th.
In light of the recent NH Budget Freeze which was only recently lifted, NRRA is providing this opportunity so that those operators who need credits can remain certified. Don’t miss out!
When: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 / Noon – 2:30 pm
Where: Makris Lobster & Steak House, Route 106, Concord, NH
As a member, you are cordially invited to join the staff and trustees of the Northeast Resource Recovery Association (NRRA) for its annual meeting and luncheon. The NRRA is YOUR organization, so please plan to attend or send a representative in your place.
Each Municipal Member is entitled to only one vote but you may send as many representatives to the event as you wish. Associate Members do not have a vote, but we welcome and encourage their participation. This Annual Meeting and Luncheon offers a wonderful chance to network with recycling professionals throughout the Northeast.
The cost for the luncheon is $25.00 per person and pre-registration is required. Please fill out the form HERE and return with a check made payable to the NRRA. Registration deadline is Monday, November 9, 2015.
We look forward to seeing you on November 18th and thank you for your continued support of the NRRA.
I. Lunch and Welcome
II. Approve 2014 Annual Meeting Minutes
III. Election of 2015-16 Board of Trustees (Slate Available at the Meeting)
IV. Treasurer’s Report – Lisa Stevens, BCEP
V. President’s Report – Duncan Watson, City of Keene, NH
VI. Executive Director’s Report – Michael Durfor- It’s Not Easy Being Green
VII. Other Business
Updated M.O.M Meeting Schedule Now Available: Two Dates Added
Two NEW dates have been Added to the 2015 Member/Operations Marketing Committee‘M.O.M’ Meeting – Dates/Locations, See Below:
(All meetings begin at 9:00 a.m. unless otherwise noted)
October 14 M.O.M. Meeting @ NRRA Offices
November 18 NRRA Office/Annual Meeting (NOTE: is 3rd Wednesday due to Holiday)
December 9 M.O.M. Meeting @ NRRA Offices
Attendance at 2 M.O.M. Meetings is equivalent to 2.5 hours Continuing Professional
Development Credits for NH DES Solid Waste Certification.
NRRA October Pricing Guide is Now Available
The NRRA Monthly Pricing Guide for October is now available! Click HERE to view the password version OR if you’ve got a username and password for our Member’s Only Section of the Website, you can view it without the need for a password (Click on the “Members Only” tab at the top of the page). If you’re having trouble viewing the guide, please contact Stacey at firstname.lastname@example.org
Freon/Refrigerant Recovery through NRRA
Seasonal Price Reduction – Effective Dates October 1st, 2015 to March 31, 2016
Per unit cost to NRRA Members will be reduced from $9/unit to $8/unit.
$8/unit charge for Refrigerators, Freezers, Air Conditioners, Dehumidifiers and Water Coolers
evacuated on your site.
-Minimum of 25 units per stop
-Units stay on your site to be included in your scrap metal for revenue
-Certificates of Recovery are provided with each pickup
-Freon Recovery can be done year-round (winter included)
-Arrange units upright with backs accessible for Freon Removal
Call Member Services with questions or to set up Freon Recovery at your Site!
“The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”…Mark Twain
A recent New York Times article by John Tierney in essence affirms that:
“Recycling is Dead ….Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish” ( my wording, not his).
It essentially says it costs too much to recycle when markets are down (or up, in his view) and that it is not environmentally friendly but, in fact, more harmful.
Since that article was released, numerous well founded and fact based rebuttals (some are included with the original article below, as they are all in the public domain) have appeared as the troops rally around the flag and respond to another assault on what they believe makes good sense and good cents: Recycling.
Rather than try and rebut the article point by point as those more knowledgeable than I have done, I offer a solution to his concerns.
I absolutely agree that for recycling to be sustainable and viable it has to make sense both economically and environmentally.
Economically: Does it always make cents? No. Less costly than the alternative? Usually.
Should we ever give up when it isn’t? Absolutely not.
Environmentally: Does it always make sense? Yes Does it protect the planet? Yes
Should we keep looking for a permanent solution? Absolutely!
The Municipalities and citizens that NRRA represents, are working hard to reuse or recycle as much material as possible out of the waste stream that ends up on their doorstep. The methods vary widely from source separation by residents at transfer stations all the way to curbside pick-up and delivery to Mega-MRF’s for processing.
In addition to all of the discussion generated by this latest article, I believe any serious discussion should include the beginning of the production pipeline. In short, just manufacture and produce only those products and their packaging that can be recycled economically and that make sense for the environment.
Instead of debating the common sense value of saving the planet’s finite resources for the ever growing generations to come, we will have a recovery rate of 100% which will eliminate the debate entirely.
The following are lengthy pieces but I thought it worth the effort to include the Article and some of the comments submitted by various members and associates. If something positive comes out of the energy expended on this discussion then it will have been beneficial
“The Reign of Recycling”
By JOHN TIERNEY, October 3, 2015
IF you live in the United States, you probably do some form of recycling. It’s likely that you separate paper from plastic and glass and metal. You rinse the bottles and cans, and you might put food scraps in a container destined for a composting facility. As you sort everything into the right bins, you probably assume that recycling is helping your community and protecting the environment. But is it? Are you in fact wasting your time?
In 1996, I wrote a long article for The New York Times Magazine arguing that the recycling process as we carried it out was wasteful. I presented plenty of evidence that recycling was costly and ineffectual, but its defenders said that it was unfair to rush to judgment. Noting that the modern recycling movement had really just begun just a few years earlier, they predicted it would flourish as the industry matured and the public learned how to recycle properly.
So, what’s happened since then? While it’s true that the recycling message has reached more people than ever, when it comes to the bottom line, both economically and environmentally, not much has changed at all.
Despite decades of exhortations and mandates, it’s still typically more expensive for municipalities to recycle household waste than to send it to a landfill. Prices for recyclable materials have plummeted because of lower oil prices and reduced demand for them overseas. The slump has forced some recycling companies to shut plants and cancel plans for new technologies. The mood is so gloomy that one industry veteran tried to cheer up her colleagues this summer with an article in a trade journal titled, “Recycling Is Not Dead!”
While politicians set higher and higher goals, the national rate of recycling has stagnated in recent years. Yes, it’s popular in affluent neighborhoods like Park Slope in Brooklyn and in cities like San Francisco, but residents of the Bronx and Houston don’t have the same fervor for sorting garbage in their spare time.
The future for recycling looks even worse. As cities move beyond recycling paper and metals, and into glass, food scraps and assorted plastics, the costs rise sharply while the environmental benefits decline and sometimes vanish. “If you believe recycling is good for the planet and that we need to do more of it, then there’s a crisis to confront,” says David P. Steiner, the chief executive officer of Waste Management, the largest recycler of household trash in the United States. “Trying to turn garbage into gold costs a lot more than expected.
We need to ask ourselves: What is the goal here?”
Recycling has been relentlessly promoted as a goal in and of itself: an unalloyed public good and private virtue that is indoctrinated in students from kindergarten through college. As a result, otherwise well-informed and educated people have no idea of the relative costs and benefits.
They probably don’t know, for instance, that to reduce carbon emissions, you’ll accomplish a lot more by sorting paper and aluminum cans than by worrying about yogurt containers and half-eaten slices of pizza. Most people also assume that recycling plastic bottles must be doing lots for the planet. They’ve been encouraged by the Environmental Protection Agency, which assures the public that recycling plastic results in less carbon being released into the atmosphere.
But how much difference does it make? Here’s some perspective: To offset the greenhouse impact of one passenger’s round-trip flight between New York and London, you’d have to recycle roughly 40,000 plastic bottles, assuming you fly coach. If you sit in business- or first-class, where each passenger takes up more space, it could be more like 100,000.
Even those statistics might be misleading. New York and other cities instruct people to rinse the bottles before putting them in the recycling bin, but the E.P.A.’s life-cycle calculation doesn’t take that water into account. That single omission can make a big difference, according to Chris Goodall, the author of “How to Live a Low-Carbon Life.” Mr. Goodall calculates that if you wash plastic in water that was heated by coal-derived electricity, then the net effect of your recycling could be more carbon in the atmosphere.
To many public officials, recycling is a question of morality, not cost-benefit analysis. Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York declared that by 2030 the city would no longer send any garbage to landfills. “This is the way of the future if we’re going to save our earth,” he explained while announcing that New York would join San Francisco, Seattle and other cities in moving toward a “zero waste” policy, which would require an unprecedented level of recycling.
The national rate of recycling rose during the 1990s to 25 percent, meeting the goal set by an E.P.A. official, J. Winston Porter. He advised state officials that no more than about 35 percent of the nation’s trash was worth recycling, but some ignored him and set goals of 50 percent and higher. Most of those goals were never met and the national rate has been stuck around 34 percent in recent years.
“It makes sense to recycle commercial cardboard and some paper, as well as selected metals and plastics,” he says. “But other materials rarely make sense, including food waste and other compostables. The zero-waste goal makes no sense at all — it’s very expensive with almost no real environmental benefit.”
One of the original goals of the recycling movement was to avert a supposed crisis because there was no room left in the nation’s landfills. But that media-inspired fear was never realistic in a country with so much open space. In reporting the 1996 article I found that all the trash generated by Americans for the next 1,000 years would fit on one-tenth of 1 percent of the land available for grazing. And that tiny amount of land wouldn’t be lost forever, because landfills are typically covered with grass and converted to parkland, like the Freshkills Park being created on Staten Island. The United States Open tennis tournament is played on the site of an old landfill — and one that never had the linings and other environmental safeguards required today.
Though most cities shun landfills, they have been welcomed in rural communities that reap large economic benefits (and have plenty of greenery to buffer residents from the sights and smells). Consequently, the great landfill shortage has not arrived, and neither have the shortages of raw materials that were supposed to make recycling profitable.
With the economic rationale gone, advocates for recycling have switched to environmental arguments. Researchers have calculated that there are indeed such benefits to recycling, but not in the way that many people imagine.
Most of these benefits do not come from reducing the need for landfills and incinerators. A modern well-lined landfill in a rural area can have relatively little environmental impact. Decomposing garbage releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas, but landfill operators have started capturing it and using it to generate electricity. Modern incinerators, while politically unpopular in the United States, release so few pollutants that they’ve been widely accepted in the eco-conscious countries of Northern Europe and Japan for generating clean energy.
Moreover, recycling operations have their own environmental costs, like extra trucks on the road and pollution from recycling operations. Composting facilities around the country have inspired complaints about nauseating odors, swarming rats and defecating sea gulls. After New York City started sending food waste to be composted in Delaware, the unhappy neighbors of the composting plant successfully campaigned to shut it down last year.
THE environmental benefits of recycling come chiefly from reducing the need to manufacture new products — less mining, drilling and logging. But that’s not so appealing to the workers in those industries and to the communities that have accepted the environmental trade-offs that come with those jobs.
Nearly everyone, though, approves of one potential benefit of recycling: reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. Its advocates often cite an estimate by the E.P.A. that recycling municipal solid waste in the United States saves the equivalent of 186 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, comparable to removing the emissions of 39 million cars.
According to the E.P.A.’s estimates, virtually all the greenhouse benefits — more than 90 percent — come from just a few materials: paper, cardboard and metals like the aluminum in soda cans. That’s because recycling one ton of metal or paper saves about three tons of carbon dioxide, a much bigger payoff than the other materials analyzed by the E.P.A. Recycling one ton of plastic saves only slightly more than one ton of carbon dioxide. A ton of food saves a little less than a ton. For glass, you have to recycle three tons in order to get about one ton of greenhouse benefits. Worst of all is yard waste: it takes 20 tons of it to save a single ton of carbon dioxide.
Once you exclude paper products and metals, the total annual savings in the United States from recycling everything else in municipal trash — plastics, glass, food, yard trimmings, textiles, rubber, leather — is only two-tenths of 1 percent of America’s carbon footprint.
As a business, recycling is on the wrong side of two long-term global economic trends. For centuries, the real cost of labor has been increasing while the real cost of raw materials has been declining. That’s why we can afford to buy so much more stuff than our ancestors could. As a labor-intensive activity, recycling is an increasingly expensive way to produce materials that are less and less valuable.
Recyclers have tried to improve the economics by automating the sorting process, but they’ve been frustrated by politicians eager to increase recycling rates by adding new materials of little value. The more types of trash that are recycled, the more difficult it becomes to sort the valuable from the worthless.
In New York City, the net cost of recycling a ton of trash is now $300 more than it would cost to bury the trash instead. That adds up to millions of extra dollars per year — about half the budget of the parks department — that New Yorkers are spending for the privilege of recycling. That money could buy far more valuable benefits, including more significant reductions in greenhouse emissions.
So what is a socially conscious, sensible person to do?
It would be much simpler and more effective to impose the equivalent of a carbon tax on garbage, as Thomas C. Kinnaman has proposed after conducting what is probably the most thorough comparison of the social costs of recycling, landfilling and incineration. Dr. Kinnaman, an economist at Bucknell University, considered everything from environmental damage to the pleasure that some people take in recycling (the “warm glow” that makes them willing to pay extra to do it).
He concludes that the social good would be optimized by subsidizing the recycling of some metals, and by imposing a $15 tax on each ton of trash that goes to the landfill. That tax would offset the environmental costs, chiefly the greenhouse impact, and allow each municipality to make a guilt-free choice based on local economics and its citizens’ wishes. The result, Dr. Kinnaman predicts, would be a lot less recycling than there is today.
Then why do so many public officials keep vowing to do more of it? Special-interest politics is one reason — pressure from green groups — but it’s also because recycling intuitively appeals to many voters: It makes people feel virtuous, especially affluent people who feel guilty about their enormous environmental footprint. It is less an ethical activity than a religious ritual, like the ones performed by Catholics to obtain indulgences for their sins.
Religious rituals don’t need any practical justification for the believers who perform them voluntarily. But many recyclers want more than just the freedom to practice their religion. They want to make these rituals mandatory for everyone else, too, with stiff fines for sinners who don’t sort properly. Seattle has become so aggressive that the city is being sued by residents who maintain that the inspectors rooting through their trash are violating their constitutional right to privacy.
It would take legions of garbage police to enforce a zero-waste society, but true believers insist that’s the future. When Mayor de Blasio promised to eliminate garbage in New York, he said it was “ludicrous” and “outdated” to keep sending garbage to landfills. Recycling, he declared, was the only way for New York to become “a truly sustainable city.”
But cities have been burying garbage for thousands of years, and it’s still the easiest and cheapest solution for trash. The recycling movement is floundering, and its survival depends on continual subsidies, sermons and policing. How can you build a sustainable city with a strategy that can’t even sustain itself?
John Tierney is the writer of the Findings column for The New York Times Science section and co-author of the book “Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength.”
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
Responses to this Article…..
Subject: Re: The Reign of Recycling – NYTimes.com
It’s déjà vu all over again.
Yes, his conclusions and inferences are beyond flawed, just as they were 20 years ago. But rather than categorically renounce Mr. Tierney and the inaccurate conclusions that I think he draws, let’s look at some of this objectively.
Where I agree with Mr. Tierney is that recycling is not a crusade or a religion. As I wrote in a blog post a while back, recycling is nothing more than a manufacturing process.
You have to do a benefit cost analysis for each material to determine the benefits of recycling. The benefits of recycling accrue differently in the supply chain for each product that you are looking at. Thus, a universal criticism of recycling is as inane as a universal assertion that any recycling is good no matter what the material or no matter what the cost. The devil is in the details. You have to look at things on a material by material basis.
Where I think we went wrong as an industry/movement and opened ourselves up to criticism from folks like Mr. Tierney has been our historical inability to reconcile marginal recyclables and outthrows.
There are some things that we allow in our bins that are not recyclables. If you called up a mill and offered them a truckload of solely those items, they would laugh you off the phone. Those items are acceptable contaminants, tag-along items that can be included in very limited quantities along with the recyclables without hurting anything, but they are not really themselves recyclables (and should not be counted as such). But we screwed up. Our stickers and labels and the metrics by which we measure success only had a “yes” or “no” column, they didn’t include a column for “eh, not really but if you include a few it won’t really hurt anything,” especially not if you were striving for a bigger and bigger recycling goal:
For those outhrows, recycling might not be the best option. For those items, waste reduction might be the best option. And that is one of the glaring omissions in Mr. Tierney’s article. The inclusion of those items was not solely the result of misguided politicians or overzealous advocates. Manufacturers of certain materials were well aware of that dynamic, and if you make a living selling a product, you would much rather see it in the recycling column than the waste reduction column. Thus there was a massive push to get materials included as “recyclable,” because the alternative might mean a loss of sales. That meant a full court press to get those items included in recycling programs and mandates no matter what the cost. If the economics didn’t make sense, no worries, they would help you commingle it with items for which the economics did. The problem isn’t that recycling doesn’t make sense. The problem is that a few items don’t make sense, especially not for all collection and processing methods and commingling them with other recyclables devalues those recyclables that do make sense.
The biggest flaw in Mr. Tierney’s article (and there are several) comes from his de-valuing of the lifecycle benefits of recycling. His assertion that reducing the significant resource, energy, and emissions costs of primary material processing is (by displacing those materials with recycled feedstocks) is of limited value because it is “not so appealing to the workers in those industries who have accepted the environmental trade-offs that come with those jobs” is bordering on insane.
Allow me to use Mr. Tierney’s own logic to show the insanity of his argument. Let’s say (completely hypothetically) I could pay someone $50/day to relieve themselves on Mr. Tierney’s doorstep every day (which given how many of my colleagues he has offended with his articles over the years could probably only be a Kickstarter campaign away from viability, but again, let’s keep this purely hypothetical). In addition to probably being morally wrong, that would likely be offensive and damaging to Mr. Tierney (but who knows, I don’t want to presume) and he would likely urge the activity to stop. But by Mr. Tierney’s own logic, that activity should not stop because the person who would be (hypothetically) relieving themselves on Mr. Tierney’s doorstep would have accepted the moral trade off of doing so and would not want to give up the money they earn from doing so, regardless of the damage to others.
There are so many flaws in Mr. Tierney’s article that I don’t have space to write about them all. But just remember that if it doesn’t make sense to recycle one material, or if a particular collection or processing method isn’t viable for all materials, it doesn’t mean that all recycling is bad or unsustainable (or that landfilling is universally good). It just means that there are issues with that particular material or collection method or processing system.
Roger Guzowski – NRRA Board of Trustees
Gordon Martin –Superintendent -Town of Wellesley – Department of Public Works – Recycling and Disposal Facility & NRRA Trustee submitted this piece by Jeff Morris
It might interest you all to know that John Tierney interviewed me in two lengthy phone calls for his article, but chose to not use anything I had to say. I sent him the 25 year history of recycling market prices in the Puget Sound region showing that price cycles are normal and what goes down eventually comes back up. I also sent him a couple of my peer-reviewed articles on the environmental benefits of recycling vs. disposal, but he seemed to be intent on doing another negative article like the one he did many years ago. I was cordial and helpful in the phone conversations and in answering follow-on questions sent from him via email.
How naïve of me to think that he was actually listening and hearing! A person blinded by ideology cannot see, hear or smell the science behind our estimates of environmental impacts from resource extraction and manufacturing of products, including fuels, and services that eventually yield the discards we generate from our homes, business, vehicles and multitudinous purchases of stuff. John Tierney’s editor & fact checker, Kevin McCarthy, talked with me several times and we both agreed that the article took an extremely critical, and I would say one-sided view, and that the article would provoke lots of online comments and letters to the editor. That’s not a bad thing except that none of those responses get the play that the Tierney article gets, so it’s one-sided journalism that gets the full circulation across the nation.
It’s obvious that one can do recycling in an environmentally and economically less beneficial way – inefficient collection, bad sorting, rinse the containers 10 times with hot water, and so on. But that’s not even close to the norm and average characteristics and behavior for recycling.
Furthermore, recycling market prices don’t reflect externalized public health and environmental costs, and the big waste handling companies’ bottom lines don’t either. So disposal begets more profits than recycling or composting do. Hence the big waste handling companies can’t aggressively push waste diversion from burying and burning and maximize short run profits at the same time. Until we get a hefty carbon tax as well as hefty taxes for releases of other pollutants – small cancer causing particulates, cancer and morbidity causing metals and other chemical releases, and internalize costs to future humans, other species and ecosystems of land use, water use and ocean disposal of non-degradable plastics, it will be the case that in many places recycling costs a lot more than disposal. The result – focus on the narrow financial bottom line, now and kill the planet’s bottom line (i.e., ecosystems sustainability, other species survival and eventually survival of most of our own human species with the exception of the few at the top) now and in the future.
I wish I could be more optimistic about good behavior from the human species overcoming the negative impacts of the current systems for developing market prices and costs that drive behavior of most of us. Looking around it sure is hard to see behavior that is substantially different than behavior of the big waste handling companies. Busy, busy, busy lives drive us all to minimize our costs of living rather than maximize the well-being for current and future generations of all species that share our planet. “Pay now or pay later. You don’t miss your water until your well runs dry”!!!!!!
Jeffrey Morris, Ph.D. – Economics
Sound Resource Management Group
Questioning America’s “weird obsession with recycling everything”
By Rebecca Lee CBS News October 6, 2015, 12:52 PM
In a controversial story headlined “Recycling is Garbage,” New York Times Science columnist John Tierney called recycling “a waste of time and money, a waste of human and natural resources,” setting an all-time record for hate mail at the New York Times Magazine.
Nineteen years later, Tierney revisits the system he trashed in an op-ed titled, “The Reign of Recycling.” Tierney maintains his view, writing, “when it comes to the bottom line, both economically and environmentally, not much has changed at all.”
On “CBS This Morning” Tuesday, Tierney addressed the “weird obsession” and common misconceptions about “recycling everything.”
Tierney acknowledged that some things — including paper, cardboard and metal — are worth recycling because of their economic and environmental benefits, but not everything is.
“There’s this idea that we should get to a free-waste society — and most stuff in garbage it’s not that worthwhile to recycle,” Tierney said.
Tierney singled out glass as one example that not only breaks the recycling machinery, but is also costly to get rid of because “nobody wants it.”
He also cautioned that even when recycling “worthy” materials, such as plastics, can be easily skewed from a well-meaning attempt to be eco-friendly to a waste of energy, but literally and figuratively.
“To offset the carbon emission from one plane to Europe, you would have to recycle about 40,000 plastic bottles,” Tierney said. “And the savings is so little that if you rinse those bottles in hot water, just a little energy from hot water could offset all the savings and you end up putting more carbon in the atmosphere.”
Tierney also urged that contrary to common belief, there is plenty of open space to deposit the garbage in rural landfills that could ultimately be covered and transformed into parks.
Speaking about his recent trip to a third grade science classroom, Tierney said he was taken aback by the students’ perception that their garbage was going to “destroy the earth.”
“I think it’s nice to tell kids not to waste things…but I think we’re getting a kind of warped message,” he said. “I wanted to tell them, that yogurt container that you got, all the things in that yogurt container, it came out of the earth…and now we’re going to put it safely back in the earth and we’ll build a park,” he said.
Though maybe not as much as nineteen years ago, Tierney said slamming recycling the second time around still generated some anger.
“It’s hard to persuade people that if you think it’s morally wrong to throw away garbage, I respect that’s a moral opinion,” Tierney said.
He’s Back… By Athena Lee Bradley – NERC – Brattleboro, VT
Sunday’s New York Times posted another opinion piece by John Tierney preaching the evils of recycling. Those of us in the business for a while will remember his first attack on recycling back in 1996. And, now he’s regaling us with pretty much the same message—recycling costs money and its a waste of time.
Yes, we all know some recycling costs money; but all trash disposal costs money.
Mr. Tierney fails to discuss externalities, costs, and environmental impacts of increasing our reliance on landfills and incinerators. Nor does he address the externalities, costs, and environmental impacts of resource extraction and manufacturing with virgin resources that the use of recycled resources helps us avoid.
Instead says Tierney, “THE environmental benefits of recycling come chiefly from reducing the need to manufacture new products — less mining, drilling and logging. But that’s not so appealing to the workers in those industries and to the communities that have accepted the environmental trade-offs that come with those jobs.”
There are so many things wrong with this statement that I could write multiple blogs on it. So, I’ll just say that the fact that mining, drilling, and logging have declined in this country has far less to do with recycling, and more to do with world economics and the social and environmental impacts of these industries.
Tierney did not bother to mention ISRI’s recent study on the economic and environmental impact of the scrap industry. Their findings—“the U.S. scrap recycling industry is a major economic engine powerful enough to create 471,587 jobs and generate $11.2 billion in tax revenues for governments across the country, all while making the old new again and helping to protect the earth’s air, water, and land for future generations.”
According to ISRI, the total economic activity spawned by scrap recycling in the United States is $105.8 billion. This puts scrap recycling on par with our country’s “data processing and hosting industry, the dental industry, and the automotive repair industry.”
On reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Tierney states: “…to reduce carbon emissions, you’ll accomplish a lot more by sorting paper and aluminum cans than by worrying about yogurt containers and half-eaten slices of pizza.” Clearly Mr. Tierney hasn’t paid much attention to the studies pointing to the greenhouse gas contribution of food scraps landing up in landfills or the carbon sequestration benefits of compost.
Pointing out some of the flaws in Mr. Tierney’s “facts,” here’s what Adam Minter of Shanghai Scrap had in response to Tierney’s comment on recycling’s supposed ineffectual impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions:
“Now here’s the additional perspective that Tierney left out: in 2010, Americans consumed 42.6 billion plastic water bottles, alone, according to the Container Recycling Institute. That’s enough plastic water bottle waste to offset the greenhouse gases for 1,065,000 round-trips between London and New York in coach every year. If business or first class is desired, and you use Tierney’s methods, the numbers drop to 426,000 offsets.
And it just gets better. Bottled water sales grew 7.4% in the U.S. last year. Not only that, Americans use many, many other types of recyclable plastic bottles – including detergent bottles, by the millions (or billions?). In other words – many more hundreds of thousands of greenhouse gas offsets between London and New York!
Of course, not all of those bottles are actually collected for recycling. In the U.S., the rate is around 30%, annually (but growing). So we’re probably talking around 340,000 offsets for round-trip flights between New York and London.”
Or, as Mr. Minter points out, “Americans recycle enough plastic water bottles every year to offset the carbon emissions generated by the entire population of Anaheim, California flying round-trip between New York and London, annually.”
Tierney offers, with no facts backing his statement, “Despite decades of exhortations and mandates, it’s still typically more expensive for municipalities to recycle household waste than to send it to a landfill.” Well, Ron Gonen, former Deputy Commissioner for NYC’s Sanitation and Recycling wrote this comment on the Times website in response to Tierney’s article:
“As the former Deputy Commissioner for Sanitation and Recycling in NYC (Bloomberg administration) and as someone who now manages a Fund (www.closedlooopfund.com) that invests in municipal recycling projects, I can tell you that the purported ‘facts and figures’ in the oped are completely erroneous. With industry knowledge, it reads like a oped pushed for by the owners of landfills. Quoting the CEO of Waste Management, the largest owner of landfills in the U.S. and the largest owner of transfer stations (facilities that transfer waste from cities to landfills) in the U.S. about the state of recycling without disclosing their financial interest in landfills and transfer stations misleads readers…The economics of recycling for a City are simple. Send paper, metal, glass, plastics and food waste to landfill, the City is charged a fee. In the case of NYC, over $350m of tax-payer money annually. Send the same material, to a local recycling facility or organics processor, the City avoids the landfill fee and sometimes also generates revenue.”
Susan Robinson, Director of Public Affairs for Waste Management points out in her article recently posted on the NERC Blog, Recycling…Challenges and Successes, since 2000, “per person waste generation in the U.S. is down by 8%, bottles and cans weigh 30% less, and we generate 20% less paper packaging.” So, while national recycling rates may be stagnant, much of this reflects that industry and the American people are doing a great job at source reduction.
There are also plenty of communities around the nation that have reached recovery rates far higher than our national average—San Francisco, Portland, Minneapolis—just to name the big ones.
Yes, markets for recyclables are down. Markets go up and down…ask anyone who lost his or her shirt in the housing market collapse. How about the continued fall of oil prices? Are we abandoning our need for housing or our dependence on oil? It may make sense for some communities not to recycle some materials. But, to abandon all recycling is illogical.
If recycling is so costly, why do so many manufacturers strive for zero waste? Certainly as these manufacturers exemplify, recycling is just one part of the materials management hierarchy which must include source reduction, reuse, and recycling. No mention by Tierney of the big picture of materials management.
Producer responsibility legislation to integrate more recyclability in our products is also a point not addressed by Tierney—the fact that many of our products and the packaging in which it comes are increasingly harder to recycle.
Argues Tierney, “As a business, recycling is on the wrong side of two long-term global economic trends. For centuries, the real cost of labor has been increasing while the real cost of raw materials has been declining. That’s why we can afford to buy so much more stuff than our ancestors could. As a labor-intensive activity, recycling is an increasingly expensive way to produce materials that are less and less valuable.”
Regardless of the fact that people in developing nations are not paid livable wages to make our consumer items, that we produce fewer durable items (increasingly made out of nonrenewable petroleum-derived materials), and that the pollution caused by manufacturing said consumer items has tremendous impacts on these countries and the planet, Mr. Tierney would have us keep consuming at higher and higher rates.
I’m not sure what’s more appalling—Tierney’s lack of regard for the impact our production and consumption has on developing nations, the environment, and the loss of resources for future generations or his advocacy for simply “burying” everything because civilizations have been doing so for “thousands of years.”
I’ll keep practicing my recycling “religion” and continue offering “sermons” (based upon actual facts) because recycling is the right thing to do, makes economic and environmental sense, and is vital for the future of our planet.
SCHOOL NEWS YOU CAN USE
US School Gardens School Grant Program
Created in partnership with FoodCorps, the School Garden Grant program provides a $2,000 monetary grant to a K-12 school, or a nonprofit working in partnership with a K-12 school, to support a new or existing edible garden on school grounds.
Interested in a garden grant for a non-profit children’s programming organization, not located at a school? Check out our NEW Extended Learning Garden Grant program!
2016 School Garden Grant Program
Application Open: September 1st, 2015
Application Closed: October 31, 2015 at 5pm CST
Review Period: Winter 2016
Notification of all applicants: February 15, 2016
Important information and resources:
School Garden Grant Application – A copy of the 2016 application questions. Get started now!
School Garden Grant FAQs – Review these helpful FAQs regarding the school garden grant application process.
School Garden Grant Writing Tips – FoodCorps reviewer tips for a successful grant application!
Visit our School Garden Resource Center for guidance on planning your school garden.
Explore our new School Garden Curriculum for tips on how to make your garden an edible education experience!
Why School Gardens?
Whole Kids Foundation believes that student involvement in a school garden fosters a relationship between students and their food. It creates knowledge of and respect for whole nutritious food, informing their food choices for years to come.
Since 2011, Whole Kids Foundation has invested over $6 million to support over 3,000 school gardens across the United States and Canada. Check out the online map to see where we have supported grants.
Recycle Bowl kicks off
By Editorial Staff, Resource Recycling
September 22, 2015
Registration for the annual four-week showdown known as Recycle Bowl has begun. Public and privates schools can register until Oct. 13 at the event website.
Recycle Bowl 2015 will run from Oct. 19 to Nov. 15, wrapping up on America Recycles Day.
Last year’s competition, which featured nearly 1,500 schools, led to the recycling of more than 2,200 tons of recyclables. Schools participating in the event recycle 10 percent more than those who stay on the sidelines, Keep America Beautiful statistics indicate.
“Through this fun competition, we’re providing students, teachers and administrators across the country with an opportunity to learn more about the economic and environmental benefits of recycling, and inspire their families to take similar actions both at home and on the go,” said Jennifer Jehn, Keep America Beautiful’s CEO and president.
Would you like to host a TOLD, Garbage Guerillas or another Workshop at your school? Let the CLUB Help!
- Improves academic performance, especially in science and math
- Can lead to financial savings for schools
- Decreases the school’s carbon footprint through practical solutions that reduce energy and water consumption
- Reduces school waste and conserves natural resources
- Encourages student environmental awareness and stewardship
- Increases parental involvement
- Helps students and teachers develop stronger relationships with their communities
Previous EPA EE-funded research at over 200 New England schools completed by the NRRA School Recycling CLUB (the CLUB) found that the single most challenging area for school recycling programs was in providing curriculum integrations that brought recycling and sustainability into classrooms to be used as the subject matter for meeting state and local curriculum standards. The intention of the CLUB programs is to address just that issue in schools across all six New England states. Our goal is to use the CLUB’s workshops and technical assistance programs, all experiential and hands on, as a tool for educating K-12 students about consumption, proper diversion of waste, the resulting impacts on climate change and what they can do to change it. Through these offerings, we are also afforded the opportunity to link these priorities to curriculum standards. In addition, these workshops will model, for educators or community leaders, exemplary ways of teaching in creative, effective, and efficient methods about human health threats from environmental pollution as well as how to minimize human exposure to preserve good health. Click here to learn more or contact us at email@example.com or call 1.603.736.4401 ext. 19
NH DES NEWS
NH Municipal Association Conference
Please swing by the NHDES booth at the NH Municipal Association Conference, November 19 and 20. We will have all the latest information that municipalities need to know. For more information about the conference visit https://www.nhmunicipal.org/
Practice Safe Medicine Disposal!
Ongoing research of groundwater and surface water throughout New England has discovered trace amounts of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PCPs) in the water. In many cases, the traces of pharmaceuticals in the water are likely due to improper disposal of medications. When unused medications are flushed down the toilet or sink, the medications eventually reach septic or wastewater collection systems. Once in the collection systems, traces of the medications have the ability to leach into the surrounding soil and nearby waterbodies. In turn, not only are the lives of aquatic life impaired, but all of us can be exposed to trace amounts of medication, which could have an unknown impact our health.
To help avoid further contamination of our water and soil, NHDES, in cooperation with the Department of Safety, Department of Justice and Board of Pharmacy, has created household medicine disposal guidelines. This effort has led to the implementation of a New Hampshire Prescription Drop Box Initiative for police departments. Currently, there are 42 police departments that have implemented the drop box program, allowing New Hampshire citizens to anonymously discard unused medications. Not only do these drop boxes help prevent accidental pollution of pharmaceuticals into our environment, but it also aids in preventing the abuse of prescription medications, which is a growing issue in New Hampshire and throughout the country.
However, if you need to dispose of your unused medications on your own, you can do so safely and legally by following these steps:
1. Put medication in a sealable plastic bag.
2. Add water to any solid medication to dissolve it.
3. Once the medication is liquefied, add kitty litter or coffee grounds to the bag.
4. Close the bag, making sure it is properly sealed, and then dispose of it in your regular trash.
5. Using a marker, black out any of your personal information on the medicine container prior to disposing of it in the trash.
The best way to avoid having to dispose any of prescription medication is to only fill prescriptions that you need and to follow your doctor’s instructions, which, in most cases, includes taking all of the medicine prescribed.
For more information on how to dispose of your medicine safely, please visit the NHDES Medicine Disposal Information webpage at www.nh.gov/medsafety .
NH THE BEAUTIFUL
Grants Program for NH Municipalities
Do you need equipment for your facility? All New Hampshire municipalities are eligible to apply for grants toward the purchase price of recycling equipment. For more information or to apply for a grant, go to http://www.nhthebeautiful.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/equipment_grant_app_710.pdf, print & fill out the form and fax it to 603-736-4402. If you do not have access to the internet, please give us a call, and we can fax or mail a form to you. The next NH the Beautiful Board Meeting will be on December 10th, 2o15. Please submit your grant applications by December 1st to have them considered at this next meeting!
NH the Beautiful Provides FREE Facility Signs
All NH municipalities are eligible to apply for FREE facility signs. NHtB has been providing professional looking signs for NH municipalities since 1983. Under the NHtB Sign Program, New Hampshire Municipalities are all eligible to apply for signs (60 points each fiscal year or until funds run out). The NHtB fiscal year runs November 1-October 31. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Stacey at 603-736-4401 x.10. To maximize your points, you can also order “recycled” signs or overlays for existing signs!
For a complete list of sign options and to order signs, click here Complete Sign Packet. Simply print the forms you need, mail or fax them to 603-736-4402.
Please NOTE!!! You can only use points to order signs that are on the list. Words can be removed, but nothing can be added. Custom signs are available for purchase. Contact the NRRA for details.
NHtB Also has Clear Stream Containers and 14-Gallon Recycling Bins for Sale at Discounted Prices
Click the links below to find out how you can get yours! Please note that effective July 1, 2015 the cost of the 14 gallon Curbside Recycling Bins have increased by .50 cents a bin. We regret this unavoidable increase but assure you that these bins are still being offered at a great discounted rate to all Towns, Schools, Businesses and non-profit organization who apply.
Visit NH the Beautiful on Facebook and Twitter
To see all the latest that NH the Beautiful is doing for NH check out their Facebook Page! Click the following link – https://www.facebook.com/pages/NH-The-Beautiful/253682871403932
NH the Beautiful, Inc. (NHtB) is a private non-profit charitable trust founded in 1983 and supported by the soft drink, malt beverage, and grocery industries of New Hampshire. By offering municipal recycling grants (over $2.5 million) and signs, anti-litter programs, and technical assistance to recycling programs, NHtB is a unique organization that represents a voluntarily-funded alternative to expensive legislation intended to achieve the same end results. NHtB supports the NRRA School Education Program (the Club). The Northeast Resource Recovery Association (www.nrra.net) administers the New Hampshire the Beautiful programs.
September Board Meeting notes
Mid City Scrap sponsors breakfast
HHW Roll Off RFQ
SSRC get $107K in Round 1 DEP SMRP
Director testifies on Ewaste Producer Responsibility bill
Director invited to regulatory advisory group
Zero Waste Solutions facility opening pegged at April
Mass DEP Textile Recovery Stakeholders Meeting
MassRecycle, MBTA Launch recycling program at Alewife
USDA, EPA set national food waste reduction goals
Framingham State food recovery group hopes to haul in community
By Brittney McNamara/Daily News Staff
Posted Sep. 25, 2015 at 10:57 PM
Updated Sep 25, 2015 at 10:58 PM
FRAMINGHAM – So far, Meghan Skeehan and her friends have hauled about 2,500 pounds of food from Framingham State University. This year, they’re looking to make their take even bigger.
Skeehan, a graduate student in the school’s food and nutrition program, founded Framingham State’s Food Recovery Network chapter in 2013, taking the first load of leftover food to area shelters in 2014. This year, Skeehan is hoping to make the food donation program an official club at the university, building its status into the community.
The Food Recovery Network is a national organization that helps college students start chapters at their campuses to pick up leftover food at the school and take it to area homeless shelters or food pantries. The idea, Skeehan said, is to put the food that would typically be thrown out into hands that need it.
“I think the statistic is actually one in six people go hungry,” Skeehan said. According to the Recovery Network, she’s right. “This is definitely working to change that, rather than just throwing all the food (away).”
Each week, Skeehan and other volunteers collect leftover food from Framingham’s dining services, typically extras like prepared and frozen soup. Then, the group drives the food around to different shelters in town, including the Salvation Army or the Pearl Street Cupboard and Café, run by the United Way of Tri-County.
While Framingham State composts its food waste, Skeehan said the campus was excited to have an outlet for leftovers.
“I think before I met with the director of dining services (Ralph Eddy), he had mentioned the school used to do something like this. It wasn’t in a consistent way,” Skeehan said. “He was definitely supportive of what we wanted to do. They were very helpful.”
Currently, Skeehan said the Framingham State chapter is her and a group of about 10 volunteers. It has no official recognition on campus. By obtaining official club status, Skeehan said the group could have more leverage on and off campus.
“I’m hoping it gets the word around and more people want to volunteer,” Skeehan said of becoming a club. “What we would really like is to find more places to recover food from. Local bakeries, coffee shops, farmers markets.”
More volunteers would allow the group to make collections more frequently, Skeehan said, and have a bigger impact. She’s envisioning weekly or more frequent pickups from community businesses that want to help stymie local hunger.
Right now, the group is gearing up for its first recovery of the school year, which will likely happen next week. Then, Skeehan said the group will start reaching out to local businesses and recruiting more members. Until then, more details about the Food Recovery Network are available at http://www.foodrecoverynetwork.org/
Personally speaking, I think glass packaging is fantastic. It feels good, looks cool, and has been used in some form or another as a packaging material for centuries. The Egyptians were one of the earliest civilizations to use it in their art and culture. Starting around 1500 BC, the Egyptians, and other cultures, including South Asia, China, and later the Romans produced glass, including storage vessels.
As we know, glass containers are endlessly recyclable. In theory, if not always in practice, anyway. Many communities struggle to make the economics of glass collection work. Single-stream recycling has brought other issues (a.k.a., glass breakage and contamination) which have dampened the enthusiasm for curbside glass collection.
Some European countries address the economics by having policies that uphold a strong price on cullet to guarantee high return rates in glass recycling. In the Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland), glass container return rates of 95% are not uncommon. In the US, states with container deposit laws have an average glass container recycling rate of around 63%, while in non-deposit states, only about 24% of glass bottles are returned for recycling.
When David Hudson with Strategic Materials spoke at a NERC Conference in 2014, he made several observations on the “State of the Glass Industry”:
- Glass container demand is lower, while liquor markets remain strong, wine is flat, and, beer is down.
- The closure of the Salem, New Jersey glass plant was having an impact on end use for glass.
- Fiberglass manufacture, an end market use for recovered glass containers, is very closely tied with new housing starts which continue to remain below forecasted expectations.
- Specialty uses of recovered glass containers, including counter and flooring businesses have also leveled off.
- On a brighter note, abrasives remain a strong opportunity, especially in the Northeast.
One solution for resolving the glass dilemma was recently implemented by the Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation (RIRRC). RIRRC manages the solid waste and recycling demands for the majority of Rhode Island’s 1.05 million residents from its facilities located in Johnston, Rhode Island.
Like many recycling operations around the country, glass presented an economic challenge to RIRRC. RIRRC stopped sending glass to processors in 2002 because of the shipping expense. The material was used primarily as landfill daily cover.
RIRRC retrofitted its Materials Recycling Facility in 2012, installing new state-of-the-art processing equipment to transition the facility from a dual stream sorting operation to a highly automated and efficient single-stream operation capable of processing 50 tons per hour.
In 2013, RIRRC began paying a yearly fee of $205,000 to have its glass hauled to SMI’s glass processing facility in Franklin, Massachusetts. Still, in addition to the enormous expense, processing the glass at the RIRRC MRF presented challenges in order to meet the quality requirements of SMI’s Franklin facility.
RIRRC successfully negotiated with Strategic Materials to have a “satellite recycled glass processing facility” built at the RIRRC facility. The new SMI facility now accepts all of the recycled glass from RIRRC’s MRF and uses it to make cullet for manufacturers at its Franklin, Massachusetts facility.
Perhaps RIRRC’s bold idea presents a model that can be used to enhance glass collection and processing in other parts of the country.
More creative solutions for the Glass Frontier in an upcoming blog…
By Athena Lee Bradley
NERC’s Glass Recycling Forum – Exploring Possible Solutions—will bring together manufacturers using recycled glass for making new containers, fiberglass, color-coated aggregate, concrete applications, and blasting medium, as well as collectors and processors of recycled glass to discuss ways to bolster glass recycling and recycled glass markets throughout the Region. The Forum will be held on November 9 & 10 in Providence, Rhode Island.
An added bonus to the event is two facility tours being offered by Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation (RIRRC) and Strategic Materials. The first stop will be at the RIRRC Material Recovery Facility (MRF) and then to Strategic Materials’ new satellite recycled glass processing facility at the RIRRC compound.
The day-long Forum agenda will provide many opportunities for learning from and interacting with a notable cast of presenters.
Wood products industry releases wood reuse website
Recycling Today Sept 2015
The American Wood Council (AWC), Leesburg, Virginia, and the Canadian Wood Council (CWC), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, have partnered with the Building Materials Reuse Association (BMRA), Chicago, to develop an online North American directory outlining reuse and recycling options for wood and wood products. The website can be found at: ReuseWood.org.
“For wood products, there has historically been a lack of awareness of the opportunities to recycle and reuse wood products, and thereby extend their useful life. We are aiming to change that,” says AWC President and CEO Robert Glowinski. “Our industry wants to do its part when it comes to the full life cycle impact of our products. It’s our hope that this directory will help educate builders, designers and consumers on the many opportunities to salvage, recycle or reuse wood products, in turn reducing waste.”
CWC President Michael Giroux adds, “Various construction sector stakeholders are increasingly being called upon to balance functionality and cost objectives with reduced environmental impacts on the built environment.”
Giroux continues, “This online resource is one of the ways the wood industry is taking ownership in the areas of reuse and recycle—affirming the renewable qualities of wood and wood products, and assisting the design/construction communities in reaching their green objectives.”
Features of the website include:
the business directory is accessible via both map and list, with sorting capabilities according to target categories (location, services provided, etc.);
individual listing pages show the contact information, location and available services for each business; and
the sustainable wood guide includes useful information and articles on the different wood products and the opportunities for wood reuse or recycling.
“The demand for reclaimed wood products has been steadily increasing as consumers recognize and value the look, feel, functionality and cost of reused wood in products such as flooring, furniture, structural timbers and more. The North American Wood Reuse and Recycling Directory will connect demand and supply to ensure the continued growth of this reclaimed wood market, while simultaneously keeping thousands of tons of wood out of landfills,” says BMRA Executive Director Anne Nicklin.
The associations say relevant businesses and organizations are invited to check or add their listing to the Reuse Wood business directory at www.ReuseWood.org.
The AWC says it is the voice of North American wood products manufacturing, representing more than 75 percent of an industry that provides approximately 400,000 employees in the United States with family-wage jobs. AWC members make products from a renewable resource that absorbs and sequesters carbon. Staff experts develop state-of-the-art engineering data, technology and standards for wood products to assure their safe and efficient design, as well as provide information on wood design, green building and environmental regulations, according to the AWC.
The CWC says it is an association representing manufacturers of Canadian wood products used in construction. CWC is a strong advocate for the use of life cycle assessment and communication about the environmental attributes through the use of Environmental Product Declarations. CWC provides technical and knowledge transfer services relating to codes, standards and regulations. The CWC says its vision is a ‘Wood First’ culture in North American where wood products are recognized as the sustainable building material of choice for residential and nonresidential construction.
The BMRA says it works to create a vibrant building materials reuse economy as part of a world without waste. The association accomplishes this by providing educational resources to its members in the reuse industry, and through targeted outreach and advocacy to the existing construction & demolition (C&D) industry as well as to the general public.
The BMRA says its mission is to advance the recovery, reuse and recycling of building materials in such a way to:
reduce the consumption of new resources;
reduce landfill waste;
create a value-added market and increase cost effectiveness;
expand job opportunities and workforce development skills; and
promote the sustainability of communities and the environment through resource preservation.
*If your town/municipality has equipment that you’d like to sell or a job posting you’d like us to include in our publication, please email your posting to Stacey Morrison at firstname.lastname@example.org*
Canterbury, NH Solid Waste Transfer Station & Recycling Center
The Town of Canterbury is seeking a part-time employee to cover vacation & sick days at the Transfer Station & Recycling Center. The facility is open to the public Wednesday evenings and Saturdays, as well as preparing material for shipment other weekdays. The successful candidate will be a certified Principal Solid Waste Operator with the State of NH, or have the necessary experience and education to obtain this status, have basic interpersonal and accounting skills, be timely and trustworthy, and be able to lift up to 75 lbs. Waste-management and/or heavy equipment experience is desirable, as is ability to work on short notice, should the shift be to cover illness. Hours for this position will not exceed 450 annually; wages will be commensurate with experience and abilities. This position may lead to a permanent part-time position with vacation and sick-leave benefits, but is currently to fill in as needed.
Interested parties should send a letter of interest, resume, and references to Ken Folsom at email@example.com or
Attention: Ken Folsom
Town of Canterbury
PO Box 50010
Canterbury, NH 03224
Solid Waste Manager-Lebanon, NH
The City of Lebanon is currently seeking a highly skilled and dynamic Solid Waste Manager to join the Department of Public Works team.
Named the Best Small Town in America in 2015 by Livability.com, Lebanon, New Hampshire is a place of engagement – people, trails, parks, education, entertainment and events.
With a population of approximately 13, 500 people, Lebanon is situated on the Connecticut River in the heart of a pristine New Hampshire Valley, and possesses some of the most beautiful country in the world.
The City is a healthy and thriving community that enjoys both the quiet everyday living of rural life and the cultural experience of a big City.
Lebanon is home to Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, the Norris Cotton Cancer Center, and many high tech, well-known companies, Lebanon’s business community is dynamic and diverse. Lebanon also offers an extremely active and accessible recreation program that stretches from preschool aged children to senior citizens.
Position is responsible for planning, directing, administering, and supervising the programs and activities of the Lebanon Landfill and Recycling Center, including: planning and coordinating work assignments; scheduling work teams, materials, and equipment; supervising and inspecting work; developing, negotiating and managing contracts; and developing procedures, rules and regulations for implementing policy. Work is performed under the general supervision of the Assistant Director of Public Works; may serve as the Assistant Director of Public Works during his/her absence. This is an exempt position. The incumbent will be required to work outside normal business hours and on weekends and to report to the facility in response to emergency/important situations.
Duties include, but are not limited to, the following:
Manages all activities and programs at the Lebanon Landfill and Recycling Center in accordance with City practices and policies and applicable federal and state law, regulations, etc.
Assists the Assistant Director of Public Works and/or the Director of Public Works with the development of long-range solid waste management strategies and plans.
Reviews and supervises and/or assists the Assistant Director of Public Works with the review and supervision of consulting, engineering and construction firms retained to assist the City on special projects related to solid waste management issues.
Responsible for monitoring all activities at the facility to ensure customer and staff safety and to prohibit the deposit of unacceptable and/or prohibited materials and waste.
Evaluates the performance of employees; trains and instructs employees in job practices and methods of work; counsels/disciplines employees as appropriate.
Provides professional advice and services to the Department, City Officials, and boards and committees concerning solid waste management issues.
Schedules, supervises, coordinates, performs and inspects work activities to ensure that production schedules are met and that work is performed in a safe and efficient manner in accordance with standard operating practices, operating permits and City policies.
Provides solid waste management assistance to residents, businesses, other departments and developers as requested. Promotes and maintains responsive community relations.
Bachelor’s Degree in Civil or Environmental Engineering, Business or Public Administration or related field, with five (5) years of progressive experience in solid waste facility operations and solid waste management supervisory experience, or an equivalent combination of education, training and experience which provides the necessary knowledge, abilities and skills. Valid driver’s license required. Current NH DES Principal Operator, Step 3 or 4 designation required.
Compensation/Affiliation: The Solid Waste Manager position is a Grade 12 position represented by LPASE/Teamsters 633. The 2015 salary grade for the position is $1275.78 to $1722.71 per week. The position will remain open until filled.
A City of Lebanon Employment Application and complete job description and position posting are available from the Human Resources Department, City Hall and on the City’s website at http://www.hr.lebnh.net.
Applications will be reviewed and qualified candidates contacted for interviews on an ongoing basis. Therefore, interested applicants are encouraged to apply early.
Applications that do not include a completed City of Lebanon Employment Application will not be considered. Forward completed applications to: Human Resources, 51 North Park Street, Lebanon, NH 03766 or to firstname.lastname@example.org.
RECYCLING/SOLID WASTE MANAGER- Plymouth, NH
The Town of Plymouth is currently accepting applications for the full-time position of Recycling/ Solid Waste Manager. Applicants must have the ability to coordinate and manage various functions and operations of the Town’s Transfer Station/ Recycling Center. Applicants must have Class IV operator certification, and recycling management background. For a full job description see the town’s website at www.plymouth-nh.org.
If you are looking for a drug free, appreciative working environment that offers a competitive wage and benefit package including: Vacation, Sick Leave, Personnel Days, Educational Training, Health Insurance (Employee pays 15% of premium), Dental Insurance (Employee pays 100% of premium), Group Disability and Life Insurance, and retirement through NH Retirement System, you may be the person we are looking for. The Town of Plymouth is an equal opportunity employer.
Resumes with cover letter may be submitted to: Paul Freitas, Town Administrator
Town of Plymouth 6 Post Office Square Plymouth, NH 03264
(603) 536-1731 office
(603) 536-0036 fax
electronically at email@example.com
Transfer Station Supervisor
Town of Chesterfield is seeking a motivated team player to serve as Supervisor for the town’s Transfer Station. Saturdays required. Responsible for planning, directing, conducting and administering all functions of the Transfer Station. Must be responsible, hard working, dependable and work well with the public. Some mechanical skills a plus. Applications may be obtained at the Chesterfield Selectmen’s Office or Transfer Station. (603) 363-4624 ext 10. Applications should be submitted to the Selectmen’s Office by noon on August 31st.
Rick Carrier, Chesterfield Town Administrator
(603) 363-4624 x13
SOLID WASTE MANAGER
The Town of Marlborough (pop. 2,000) seeks a knowledgeable and experienced, part-time (approx. 20 hours/week) Solid Waste Manager to manage and coordinate all aspects of the community’s Recycling Center/Transfer Station. Working under the supervision of a three-member Board of Selectmen, the Manager supervises three part-time employees.
Desired skills and experience include knowledge of municipal solid waste and recycling management issues, mechanical aptitude and “trouble shooting” skills and experience operating mechanical/motorized equipment used in solid waste operations. The candidate must have or be eligible to obtain State certification. Must be able to perform physical tasks including lifting, turning, reaching and squatting. Candidates should possess proven interpersonal, written and oral communication skills, with the ability to maintain positive working relationships with elected officials, department heads, employees and the public. In addition, working Saturday (the center’s busiest day) is required.
Salary for this part-time position is dependent upon qualifications and experience. Submit cover letter, resume and references to Sandra LaPlante, Administrative Assistant, PO Box 487, Marlborough, NH 03455 or email to Selectmen@marlboroughnh.org by noon on August 11, 2015. The Town of Marlborough is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
Part Time Transfer Station Attendant
Greenfield, NH-Permanent PT position Tu-Th-Sat 20 hrs. p/w. Wages $12 – $14 p/h based on exp. Some Benefits. Saturdays req. Will train – equip/baling exp. a plus
Or call 547-8617
Compliance Officer – ecomaine
ecomaine, a leader is sustainable waste management strategies, is currently looking for a Compliance Officer to add to their team. This position will be responsible for developing, implementing, and executing the Regional Hauler Permitting & Compliance Program. Other responsibilities include the following:
• Review applications, issuing permits and collecting permit fees.
• Investigating and ensuring compliance with the Regional Hauler Permitting & Compliance Program, providing appropriate documentation and background to owner communities to address compliance issues.
• Track tonnage and waste flows to properly manage the program. Stays abreast of latest developments and trends in the industry to provide community members with up to date information.
• Provide education and outreach materials associated with this program, as well as the outreach and educational programs that the organization offers.
• Perform other work-related duties as assigned.
• Bachelors’ or Associates Degree related to environmental and/or enforcement issues or an equivalent amount of education and experience providing the desired skills, knowledge and ability to perform the function.
• At least three years of experience and be comfortable with compliance and enforcement issues.
• Creative, outgoing, multi-tasker, self-starter, very well organized, able to make well-reasoned decisions, a problem solver, and is independent while still being a team player.
• Able to work effectively with all levels within ecomaine
• Valid State of Maine driver’s license and insurable under ecomaine policies.
• Must have strong writing and computer skills specifically with the Microsoft Office Suite of Programs.
ecomaine is a equal opportunity employer. Interested candidates should send cover letter, resume, and salary history to firstname.lastname@example.org. Candidates can also apply online at jobsinme.com.
Wanted to Buy
Town of Gilmanton needs 10 Wheeler
10 Wheeler w/hoist for roll-offs, does not need to be road worthy. Need to move containers on site.
Contact: Board of Selectmen or Town Administrator,Gilmanton, New Hampshire 03237 (603)267-6700
Diesel Hyster Forklift & Two Balers for Sale
The Town of Canaan, NH has the following items for sale, Please contact Mike Samson (603-523-4501 x 5) if interested or if you have any questions.
1) 1986 Diesel Hyster H40 XL forklift, Load capacity 4,000 lbs.
2) TWO , Advance Lifts Downstroke Balers BR9000 SN 18004 997A and BR9000 SN 18004 997B. Looks like it’s rated for 15 HP but I haven’t climbed up to look.
Both in excellent condition. Acquired from NETC.
At Spector Manufacturing Inc. providing the highest level of customer satisfaction is our top priority. Founded in 1994, we have quickly grown to become an industry leader for all your demolition, construction, and waste management needs. We offer a wide variety of steel and aluminum moving floor, rear ejector, and dump trailers that can be custom tailored to meet your specifications. In addition, we also carry an extensive parts inventory to meet all your repair needs. Our on- site repair facility is open to all makes and models and our repair crew has a combined experience of over 40 years in the industry! In short, whatever your needs are, Spectec is here to help you take care of them.
Contact: Faller Enterprises LLC (603) 455-6336
Selco Vertical Baler
Weathersfield, VT DPW has a used Selco Vertical Baler for sale. Model# V5-HD. Good working condition. $5000.00 or Best Offer. Contact Wesley Hazeltine at 802-291-3219 for more information.
October 12: Columbus Day, NRRA Offices WILL BE Closed
October 14: M.O.M Meeting- 9:00 a.m. at NRRA Offices
October 19th: Deadline for NRRA Workshop Registration
October 23rd : NRRA Workshop, 8:30 – 12:00 at NHDES Auditorium, Concord, NH-Pre Registration Required!
November 11th: Veteran’s Day – NRRA Offices Closed
November 9th: Deadline for NRRA Annual Meeting Registration
November 18th: NRRA Annual Meeting 12:00 – 2:00 p.m. at Makris Steak & Seafood. NRRA OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED DURING THIS TIME.
November 26 & 27: NRRA OFFICES CLOSED FOR THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY
*NEW* December 9th: M.O.M Meeting – 9:00 a.m. NRRA Offices
December 10th: NH the Beautiful Board Meeting – 8:30 a.m. NRRA Offices
December 25th: NRRA OFFICES CLOSED CHRISTMAS DAY