Recycling E-Reporting Takes Off
Making an Investment in Recycling Education
Governor Signs Green Building Executive Order 145
Brownfields Legislation Passes Legislature
Livestock Siting Law to Affect Local Zoning
Lessons Learned from Equipment Replacement Project
New Facilities Added to the National Environmental Performance Track
2007 Household and Agricultural Grant Opportunity Pre-Announcement
Midwest Clean Diesel Initiative Announces Grant Funding
Regulatory Updates and News
Events, Training, Workshop and Tour Opportunities

May 2006

Recycling E-Reporting Takes Off
Steve Brachman

Introduction of several new recycling reporting opportunities by the UW-Extension and WI DNR are moving forward quite successfully.  In 2006, for the first time, material recovery facility (MRF) operators were able to input their reports electronically.  Responses to this pilot effort were good, with well over half of all MRFs reporting electronically.  A similar initiative is being developed by SHWEC to capture both construction and demolition debris recycling and e-waste project data.  These additional online reporting opportunities are currently being field-tested and should be ready by early fall for full implementation.

Meanwhile, year two of the recycling responsible units (RUs) e-reporting effort has exceeded expectations, easily doubling last year’s pilot effort.  Nearly two-thirds of all RUs now report electronically, representing virtually every part of the state

Currently, local governments from only five Wisconsin counties (shown on the map in light blue)  have not tried the online reporting system.  Much of the success of this effort is due to increased publicity and encouragement by the Wisconsin DNR, including efforts by the state to reduce postage costs by encouraging electronic downloading of forms by municipalities.

Making an Investment in Recycling Education
Joe Van Rossum

Buyers of plastic, aluminum, steel and paper have been paying top prices for the materials collected by Wisconsin’s local recycling programs. Revenues generated from the sale of recovered materials by Material Recycling Facilities (MRFs) have allowed these facilities to reduce or eliminate tipping fees and, in some cases, pay for materials delivered to their facilities. According to Bart Sexton at the Oneida County MRF, they have been paying haulers $10/ton for two stream sort for a little over a year now. The Waukesha County MRF has proposed a plan to distribute profits to participating communities based on the volume of materials they deliver to the MRF, rather than program costs as currently is the case.

Many recycling programs have reduced spending on recycling education programs as a response to budget constraints during the past few years. The reduction in spending may be one of the causes of flat recovery levels across the state. With the increased value of materials collected by recycling programs, based on recent reports from the Curbside Value Partnership, it would be wise for a local program to evaluate education as an investment in recovering these valuable materials.

The Curbside Value Partnership (CVP) is a program developed by the Aluminum Can Council to boost aluminum can recovery levels. The CVP has been working with communities across the country to identify some best practices. In Brevard County, Florida, a pilot program revealed that a cost-effective communications program implemented for a three-month period increased participation. It resulted in a 132% return on investment, based on the County’s revenue sharing with their service provider, as recovery levels increased by 9.5%.

The volume of materials recovered can be impacted by increasing the level of participation or through higher recovery levels from residents already participating. To reach non-participants, educational efforts should focus on motivating residents to use the recycling program.  Getting those already recycling to recycle more may be as simple as offering additional bins to residents. There have been some studies that have shown that increasing the volume of recycling containers increases the amount of materials that are set out for collection. A small investment in additional bins may reap increased volumes of materials on a continuing basis.

Communities that currently do not have a revenue sharing agreement with their haulers or service providers may be able to benefit as well. A community may be able to work with their service provider to share the cost of an augmented education program based on revenue gains the service provider will realize from a larger volume of recovered materials.

Portage County Solid Waste Manager Meleesa Johnson states that she believes the recent increases in recovery levels for the Portage County program is “due in part to our education/PR/outreach.” Portage County has made changes to their education materials to make them easier to understand. Ms. Johnson feels that “previously there were far too many rules and restrictions” for preparing recyclables. Portage County’s new approach is to make it easy for residents to recycle.  The Portage County MRF has also been able to increase the volume of materials they are processing by offering a “transportation rebate” for materials delivered from other counties. This, along with increase local recovery levels, has doubled the volume of materials handled by the MRF.

In the past, education programs were seen as just another requirement to maintain a Responsible Unit’s (RU) “Effective Recycling Program” status or as a mechanism to reduce waste; perhaps it is time to evaluate the impact education can have on the bottom line. By convincing residents to recycle more and waste less, a recycling program may be able to increase revenues and improve its fiscal health.

Looking for help in evaluating your program? SHWEC staff is available to help you take a look at what your recycling program is costing you and what opportunities may be available for improvement. Contact Joe Van Rossum, Recycling Specialist, for more information; phone: 608-262-0936, email: vanrossum@epd.engr.wisc.edu.

Governor Signs Green Building Executive Order 145
Sherrie Gruder

On April 11, 2006, Governor Jim Doyle signed Executive Order 145 Relating to Conserve Wisconsin and the Creation of High Performance Green Building Standards and Energy Conservation for State Facilities and Operations. This green building executive order (EO) is part of the Governor’s Conserve Wisconsin agenda released last August. It is designed to have the State lead by example and be a model of energy conservation for the rest of the state.

The Green Building EO contains provisions on energy and green building that impact both new and existing state and university buildings. Governor Doyle’s Green Building EO, while not requiring certification to the US Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, contains minimum performance standards based on LEED tools and approaches, as well as measurement and reporting requirements. This will enable state staff to design and build new buildings and upgrade existing buildings to be high performance green buildings. The EO will likely have significant benefits: meaningful improvements in the energy performance of state and University buildings, the costs to operate and maintain them and the health of those who work and study in them. On a broader scale, this is good for Wisconsin business, the environment, the economy and the community.

Specific highlights of the Green Building Executive Order are:

To read the text of Executive Order 145, go to:
http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/journal_media_detail_print.asp?prid=1905&locid=19

Brownfields Legislation Passes Legislature
David S. Liebl

Senate Bill 546 has passed the Wisconsin State Assembly and Senate, and now goes to the Governor’s desk for signature. This brownfield initiative is aimed at fostering economic development in rural and urban areas of Wisconsin.

The bill outlines four separate provisions:
First, it proposes to make environmental remedies more cost-effective by relying on state law instead of deed restrictions to impose any potential environmental controls or limitations.
In addition, the legislation will expand the Voluntary Party Liability Exemption to apply to a particular set of waste facilities, known as “unlicensed landfills.”
The bill also exempts a local government from certain parts of the Solid Waste Law for involuntary acquisition of an “unlicensed” landfill.
Finally, the bill proposes technical modifications to make the Environmental Remediation Tax Incremental Financing District more useable and more consistent with recent changes to the respective statutes, potentially resulting in more frequent use by local governments to promote business expansion and job creation.“

This proposal will help to address the estimated 8,000 to 10,000 brownfield properties that continue to be an economic drain on our state,” according to Representative Scott Gunderson. The bill is supported by the Brownfield Study Group, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the Wisconsin Counties Association, Alliance of Cities, Wisconsin Economic Development Association, League of Municipalities, and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Natural Resources, Trade and Consumer Protection.

Livestock Siting Law to Affect Local Zoning
David S. Liebl

A provision of Wisconsin’s new livestock facility siting law and rule (ATCP51) requires local governments utilizing conditional use permits to regulate the siting of large livestock facilities, to conform with new state siting standards. Communities that wish to continue to utilize conditional use permits to regulate livestock facility siting must modify the language of their ordinances to be consistent with the new rule by November 1, 2006. This includes communities in over forty Wisconsin counties. Communities that limit new livestock facilities to 150 animal units may forfeit control if they do not modify their ordinances by November, while communities with conditional use permits may be unable to control the siting of new facilities.

The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection has an official livestock siting website, with a wide range of information relating to ATCP51.
http://www.datcp.state.wi.us/arm/agriculture/land-water/livestock_siting/siting.jsp

The following University of Wisconsin Extension state specialists are also available to assist you with this issue:
Bill Bland - for producer and siting related questions wlbland@facstaff.wisc.edu
Jim Schneider - for questions on ordinance language and approval jim.schneider@uwex.edu
David S. Liebl - educational programs and materials liebl@epd.engr.wisc.edu

Lessons Learned from Equipment Replacement Project
Joe Van Rossum

In most cases Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) depend on every piece of equipment operating properly in order to process incoming materials. This article shares one MRF’s experience with the replacement of a vital piece of equipment, the baler.

The Brown County MRF initially began operation late in 1993 to process the mixed containers collected by Brown County communities. Since that time the service area has expanded to include material from an additional seven counties. After nursing every last bit of life out of the original baler it was time to replace it with a new piece of equipment.  The money was set aside in the budget and the approval process went as smoothly as could be expected.  The Request for Proposal (RFP) was put together and a bid was accepted.

Planning for a major equipment replacement
Brown County had planned to shut down the MRF for one day to complete this project. The first day would entail removing the old baler and setting the new one in its place. A second day, with limited operation, would be for start-up and operator training. The smallest amount of planning has a positive impact on most projects, however, even the best laid plans can go awry. Sometimes you have to accept the fact that no matter how well you plan, some things are not under your control and will likely adhere to Murphy’s Law.

The installation of the new baler was initially scheduled for the third week of December. The first indication of trouble was when the manufacturer began to push back the installation date. First delivery was delayed a week, then two, and finally to a date six weeks later than expected. Additionally, the County was having difficulty obtaining specifications such as electrical details from the manufacturer.

The install date finally came.  The old baler was removed and the new one put in as planned.  On the second day, the manufacturer’s technician showed up to train Brown County’s employees.  M uch to the County’s surprise, the technician was seeing new baler software for the first time and had never been trained on it.  One day of training turned into a seven-day nightmare as the tech trained himself and tried to troubleshoot the baler.  By the time the tech, left three full days of production had been lost and only limited production took place on the four other days.  In the end, the MRF was left to manage three full tip-floors of material at its location and two other transfer facilities.  Brown County ultimately had to divert 21 tons of material to an alternate MRF.

At this point, the technician felt the baler was running properly and left. Unfortunately, the baler was not operating properly and was, in fact, less useful than the 12 year old baler it replaced. Bale wires were breaking and bales of aluminum were jamming in the discharge chute, leading to lost production and downtime. These issues required the baler operator to continuously monitor a piece of equipment that was intended to operate “automatically” with minimal operator attention. This led the County to contact the manufacturer to resolve the operational issues. After two weeks the manufacturer finally sent a second technician to deal with the problems.  He quickly recognized that the baler was not set up to factory specifications and, after a couple of hours, he had it operating properly.

Lessons learned
When a facility faces a short time frame for replacing a piece of equipment, the evaluation of proposals must entail more than quality and the price of a piece of a equipment. On-time delivery, equipment and electrical specifications, initial start-up and training become paramount as most MRFs have a limited storage capacity for incoming materials. In this situation Brown County experienced problems in each of these areas and resulted in a significant backlog of material that accumulated as installation and start-up took much longer than originally planned for.

Create a contingency plan should unforeseen problems arise. MRFs must be able to serve the collection trucks delivering materials to their facility. Planning for what to do with over-flow material in the event of extended plant down-time can make a difficult situation easier to deal with. Resources such as temporary storage locations, alternative MRF sites, or transfer equipment can all be identified ahead of time.

Include operator training with equipment purchases. Just a small amount of training will benefit even the most experienced equipment operator. When specifying the training in a proposal be specific in the requirements; include either a number of training hours or a phrase such as “until unit is operating to the manufacturers specifications.”

New Facilities Added to the National Environmental Performance Track
Jack Annis

The National Environmental Performance Track program recognizes facilities that work with their communities; set three-year goals for continuous improvements in environmental performance and have internal systems in place to manage their environmental impacts.  The program recently welcomed 37 new Performance Track facilities. Since the program's inception in June 2000, Performance Track membership has grown to more than 400 members in 46 states and Puerto Rico and those members have made more than 1,500 commitments to the environment. 

To date, Performance Track members have collectively reduced their water use by 1.9 billion gallons; conserved nearly 9,000 acres of land, and increased their use of recycled materials by nearly 120,000 tons.  In 2004, Performance Track members collectively reduced their water use by more than half a billion gallons;reduced their hazardous waste generation by 800 tons, and reduced their use of nonrenewable transportation fuels by more than 43,000 gallons.

Information on new Performance Track members:  http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/round11PTFacilities.htm

Information on the National Environmental Performance Track program: http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/

2007 Household and Agricultural Grant Opportunity Pre-Announcement
MADISON, Wis.-In late May 2006, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) will release grant application materials for 2007. Municipalities such as counties, towns, cities and regional planning commissions along with special districts interested in applying for household and agricultural clean sweep grant funds can begin early planning activities at this time.  $710,400 will be made available for the 2007 grant cycle.  Grant applications will be due back to the Department by mid-July. 

All application materials for 2007 grants will be posted to the Department's web site as downloadable files.  No hardcopy mailings will occur with the 2007 Request for Proposals (RFP).  Counties can apply for agricultural and/or household grants, but cities, villages, and towns can only apply for household grants.  All grantees must provide hazardous waste services for businesses (Very Small Quantity Generators) either on-site or through referral to an adjacent collection program. 

Municipalities interested in applying for 2007 grant funds should take this opportunity to: 1) assess their hazardous waste disposal needs, 2) meet with citizen groups, local businesses, and non-profit organizations to gain potential partners, 3) determine if they want to work with neighboring municipalities to offer multi-governmental clean sweeps, and 4) determine what additional services, (e.g.. recycling, solid waste collection) they want to add to offer greater value to the "clean sweep experience."  Municipalities interested in multi-governmental applications are strongly encouraged to create clear, cooperating agreements (MOUs), which review the responsibilities and duties of each unit and any coordinating committees. 

One of the best ways to understand the full demands of Wisconsin Clean Sweep is to review ATCP 34, the Program's governing rule.  This rule can be found at ATCP 34 (hot link).   Should questions arise in advance of the official grant release in May, please contact Roger Springman, Program Manager at 608-224-4545.   
                                                                             
For more information on the Wisconsin Clean Sweep Program, visit the DATCP web site at http://www.datcp.state.wi.us/arm/agriculture/pest-fert/pesticides/clean-sweep/index.jsp.

Midwest Clean Diesel Initiative Announces Grant Funding

The Midwest Clean Diesel Initiative, a public-private partnership created to reduce diesel emissions in the Midwest, announces the availability of grant funds to address this significant public health challenge.  The funds are being offered through two separate Requests for Proposals: one for school bus projects with total available funding of $464,320, and one for diesel reduction projects in areas other than school buses with total available funding of $575,000.  State, county, federally recognized tribal, city or township governments, nonprofits with a 501(c)(3) status and other similar organizations are eligible. This is the first year the Initiative expects to award grants under either of these two programs.  Proposals are due on June 16, 2006.
For more information on the grant announcements, visit: http://www.epa.gov/midwestcleandiesel/grants/rfp.htm
More information on the Midwest Clean Diesel Initiative can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/midwestcleandiesel/

 Regulatory Updates and News……………………………………………………………

EPA Extends Public Comment on Implementing Proposed Particle Standards
EPA is announcing a 90-day extension to the public comment period for its proposal on how best to implement any new standards that may result from the recently proposed revisions to the particulate matter air quality standards.  The public comment period is being extended for 90 days and will now end on July 10, 2006.
The purpose of the notice is to assure the public that EPA is aware of and is considering the multiple issues associated with implementing potential revised standards for fine particle pollution and new standards for coarse particles while recognizing that no final decision has been made whether or how to revise the current particulate matter standards.  The notice announces that the agency will seek comment on key implementation issues to ensure that all points of view are considered by EPA. Additional information on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/actions.html )
  Information on particle pollution (http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution )

EPA Report Highlights Pollution Reduction Control Technologies with the Clean Air Interstate Rule
EPA released a report April 18th on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) highlighting data and analyses showing that under CAIR, the power industry will provide cleaner power through the installation of advanced control technologies, use of cleaner coal and other changes in the power industry. 

By 2020, nearly 80 percent of all coal-fired power plant capacity in the CAIR region will have advanced pollution controls installed and working to reduce emissions of NOx and SO2.  Also in 2020, 99 percent of coal-fired power plant generation in the CAIR region will employ some form of NOx or SO2 control.  Although 295 regulated coal units in the CAIR region are projected to be without advanced control technologies, those units represent only 20 percent of coal fired generation. When fully implemented, CAIR will reduce SO2 emissions in the CAIR region over 70 percent and NOx emissions by over 60 percent from 2003 levels. 
More information on the report:  http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/
General information about the Clean Air Interstate Rule:  http://www.epa.gov/cair

EPA Report Shows Decrease in Toxic Chemicals Released
The amount of toxic chemicals released into the environment decreased four percent from 2003 to 2004 according to the Environmental Protections Agency's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) released April 12, 2006.
Significant decreases were seen in some of the most toxic chemicals from 2003-2004.

EPA's 2004 TRI reporting includes toxics managed in landfills and underground injection wells in addition to those released into water and air and releases or other disposals of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals.  PBT chemicals include dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, PCBs, mercury and mercury compounds, lead and lead compounds, and several pesticides.  The amount of toxic chemicals released into the environment has declined 45 percent since 1998.  It is important to review the full data in context, since in many cases changes from one year to the next are less important than longer term trends.

TRI tracks the chemicals and industrial sectors specified by the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 and its amendments.  The Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 also mandates that TRI reports must include data on toxic chemicals treated on-site, recycled, and burned for energy recovery.  Together, these laws require facilities in certain industries to report annually on releases, disposal and other waste management activities related to these chemicals.
TRI data and background information:  http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri04/index.htm
TRI explorer mapping tool:  http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer                            

 Events, Training, Workshops and Tour Opportunities…………………………………

May 17-19, 2006  Greening the Heartland 2006,  Advancing Sustainable Practices, Kansas City, Missouri  Visit http://www.greeningtheheartland.org

May 25, 2006, Energy Incentives for the Commercial Sector . WGBA Breakfast Club program in the Fox Valley. 7:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m, Liberty Hall, 800 Eisenhower Drive, Kimberly, WI . To register, call the WGBA office at (414)224-9422 or email connielindholm@wgba.org by noon, Tuesday, May 23.

June 26-30 the 4th International Conference on Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities in Stevens Point.  See web link for details: http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/GEM/EMSU/Home.htm

June 27-30, 2006  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2006 Community Involvement Conference and Training, Milwaukee.  Intended for EPA community involvement, outreach and program staff as well as EPA partners who plan and implement environmental community involvement, partnership, stewardship, outreach and education programs. Go to http://www.epa.gov/ncic/2006/

July 22,2006   Hybridfest, Alliant Energy Center, Dane County Fair, Madison.  For more information see http://www.hybridfest.com

August 6-11,2006  8th International Mercury Conference, Monona Terrace Convention Center, Madison.  http://www.mercury2006.com

September 5-8, 2006  ProWalk/Pro Bike 2006, Monona Terrace Convention Center, Madison.  Pedestrian and bicycle advocates, public health and transportation professionals will gather for the 14th International Conference on Walking and Bicycling.  Find details at http://www.bikewalk.org/PWPB2006/index.html