Leaking landfills fuel contamination concerns across state

Written by

Fox News 34 Lubbock
Bailey Miller
Original story here

A report by the Texas Campaign for the Environment says 40 percent of the nearly 200 active landfills in Texas are leaking toxins, and one of Lubbock’s two landfills is on the list. The 2013 report uses Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) data from 2012.

fox34landfill

“Well if residents are on well water, it would probably be a good idea to get your well water tested,” Robin Schneider, Executive Director of the Texas Campaign for the Environment, said. “It’s hard to know how these plumes of toxins move underground.”

According to the report, the city’s landfill in the 8400 block of North Avenue P is leaking heavy metals, as well as some volatile organic compounds.

“It’s been determined that the contamination is directly related to an interface of landfill gas with the groundwater,” Jeff Bertl, with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, said. “Therefore, the corrective action that was put in place was to withdraw the landfill gas so it would not have that interaction with the groundwater.”

He said the TCEQ has done what it can to minimize the risk posed to residents.

“The grading of the groundwater has been determined to be in a northeast direction, which is away from the city of Lubbock,” Bertl said. “So, as far as any contamination, if it were to get off site, it would not come towards the city of Lubbock.”

Schneider said the Texas Campaign for the Environment is working to reduce the toxins being put into the landfills to reduce potential contamination in the long run.

“The state of Texas has passed laws to require that if a company is selling computers and televisions, they have to set up recycling programs,” Schneider said. “We are working to get the battery makers to do the same thing.”

She said as consumers, we can utilize producer take-back programs at places like Best Buy and Goodwill, which take electronics and rechargeable batteries, which can help keep those products out of the landfills.

For more information on household hazardous waste products, as well as how to properly dispose of them, click here.

To see the entire Texas Campaign for the Environment report “Texas Leaking Landfills List 2013” click here.

Caldwell County residents hope to use landfill ban to stop proposed facility

Written by

Austin American Statesman
Farzad Mashood

LOCKHART — Caldwell officials passed a countywide ban on landfills Monday, though they acknowledged the measure likely comes too late to block the plans already in the works for a 250-acre landfill five miles north of Lockhart.

“The county is not going to use the ordinance to fight the landfill*. The county is outfitting itself so we don’t have to do this again,” said Commissioner Joe Roland, whose precinct includes the proposed landfill site near Texas 130 and FM 1185, owned by Green Group Holdings. He suggested the law to block any future landfills except on an 18-acre former gravel pit south of Lockhart.

Still, some residents opposed to the Green Group Holdings’ site hope to use this new law in the upcoming legal battle. Several dozen residents, many with signs declaring “Bump the Dump,” packed into the commissioners meeting room Monday morning, with standing room only by the time the public hearing began.

“I think this is the worst kind of economic development we can have,” Lockhart resident Leslie Banks said. “If you approve this ordinance today, 30 to 40 years from now … I don’t think anyone will look back and say, ‘gosh, I just wish we had built that dump.’”

After hearing from about 18 residents during an hour-long public hearing, all of whom said they supported the law and opposed the landfill, commissioners met briefly in a closed session before approving the law. Several representatives from Georgia-based Green Group Holdings attending the hearing, but did not address commissioners.

“We decided not to participate in the public hearing based on the fact that this ordinance does not apply to our facility because we have an application pending before the (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality),” David Green, a vice president with Green Group Holdings, told the American-Statesman.

The facility has begun filing permit applications with the environmental agency under the company name 130 Environmental Park LLC. With the permit process underway, the landfill is exempt from new laws prohibiting them, Green said. But the company has only filed two of the four parts of the permit application, so the process hasn’t begun making the facility not exempt from the county law, argued James Abshier, who chairs Environmental Protection in the Interest of Caldwell County, a local group organized to oppose the landfill.

“This is probably an issue for the courts to decide,” Abshier said.

Waller County, where Green Group Holdings is also trying to permit another controversial landfill called Pintail, passed a similar law, but commissioners voted to remove the restrictions on the Pintail site in February, the Houston Chronicle reported.

The company announced plans in September for the Caldwell County landfill, which would be built on a grassy cattle ranch where ducks swim in a nearby reservoir. The site, about 30 minutes from downtown Austin, would hold 25 million tons of trash, almost 200 times what the city of Austin’s trash trucks collected in 2012. Company president Ernest Kaufmann said the facility, estimated to cost $30 million to $35 million, is needed to serve the growing metro area. The site has little groundwater and deep clay soil, which provides a natural liner in addition to the thick plastic landfill liner that would be installed to keep contaminants from seeping into the ground, he said. The company also plans to design a landfill that exceeds the state requirements for groundwater monitoring and has extra drainage in the event of a large flood.

But Abshier, other local residents and the Texas Campaign for the Environment don’t think it’s a good site for the landfill. The prolific Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer is just outside the proposed landfill’s footprint, and the liner to keep water from seeping into the ground won’t be thick enough, opponents said Monday. Trash-contaminated water seeping from the landfill then could flow from the primarily sand-based aquifer to the nearby Carrizo-Wilcox, Abshier said.

*Commissioner Roland says that he was misquoted and that Caldwell County does wish to use the new ordinance to prevent the proposed landfill from being built.

Dallas finally passes strict gas drilling rules after years of debate

Written by

CultureMap Dallas
Claire St. Amant

It’s been a long road for Dallas gas drilling opponents and proponents alike. The journey that began in 2007 reached a conclusion of sorts on December 11, when the Dallas City Council approved a new gas drilling ordinance that is among the strictest in the nation.

IMG_0905The new ordinance, which was proposed by the City Plan Commission, passed 9-6. The main issue at stake was the setback distance between drilling sites and homes and other protected properties like parks and schools.

The 2007 ordinance prescribed a 300-foot setback, but a gas drilling task force (appointed by then-mayor Dwaine Caraway) recommended a 1,000-foot distance. In September, the City Plan Commission recommended its own setback figure of 1,500 feet. This is in line with other cities in Dallas-Fort Worth. Flower Mound also has a 1,500-foot rule, while Denton sets the limit at 1,200 feet.

As you may recall, Trinity East Energy unsuccessfully tried to obtain gas drilling permits in August. Had they been approved, the permits would have paved the way for gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing in parklands and the floodplain — both of which are currently against city code. The permits appeared destined for approval, but a slew of vocal opponents swayed the City Plan Commission (and ultimately, the City Council) into an across-the-board denial. Public speaker lines frequently run out the door at City Council meetings in which gas drilling was discussed. (Photo by Claire St. Amant.)

The Texas Campaign for the Environment backed the ordinance, though spokesperson Zac Trahan says it’s not perfect. “We’d prefer to have a complete ban on drilling, or any industrial activity on parklands,” he says. The 1,500-foot setback effectively does that, though the council can allow drilling closer to protected spaces with a three-fourths approval vote.

Drilling proponents worry that the new ordinance will make any natural gas or hydraulic fracking activity impossible in Dallas County and have hinted at taking legal action. Interim director of sustainable development David Cossum says this new ordinance is now the law of land in Dallas “until someone wants to amend it again.”

Environmental groups press Rayovac for battery recycling

Written by

Waste and Recycling News

Twenty-seven environmental groups have joined forces for a publicity power play aimed at getting battery manufacturer Rayovac to begin taking back their batteries for recycling.

The non-profit group Texas Campaign for the Environmental (TCE) is leading the charge to press the Wisconsin-based company to adopt an extended producer responsibility (EPR) policy. Executive Director Robin Schneider says in May TCE privately requested Rayovac provide recycling for batteries in the United States as it does in Europe. However, in June the company refused to start a take-back program, according to the TCE. Since then, 26 other recycling and zero-waste advocacy groups across the country have joined the cry for action.

Rayovac-Take-Em-Back-Logo“Rayovac is falling behind their competitors when it comes to battery recycling, and it’s past time for them to join these efforts toward sustainability,” Schneider said in a statement. “We want them to take back their batteries for recycling, to set meaningful goals for these collections and to support legislation which would create a level playing field for battery recycling. These solutions have worked for electronics and a variety of other products nationwide, and now we want Rayovac to help make it a reality for batteries.”

Rayovac is one of the four largest manufacturers of single-use batteries. Its competitors — Duracell, Energizer and Panasonic — have all taken steps towards establishing battery take-back programs for consumers. The three companies belong to the Corporation for Battery Recycling. TCE says Rayovac belonged to the group but withdrew.

In an April 2012 Earth Day press release, Rayovac encourages consumers to buy rechargeable batteries because fewer batteries purchased “means less waste deposited in landfills.” The company also instructed customers to look for battery retailers that have drop-off programs or hold onto used batteries until a hazardous waste collection event is held.

However, single-use batteries are banned from disposal in California and Europe, and are considered “universal waste” by the U.S. EPA. The waste category is for widely produced, potentially hazardous products that should be kept out of normal disposal streams whenever possible.

TCE says Rayovac also produces rechargeable batteries which are toxic and even more widely banned from disposal. TCE says it also privately called upon lighting manufacturers Philips, GE and Sylvania to take their products back for recycling because most modern lighting is toxic. Philips and Sylvania also responded with a refusal in June, the group says.

Consumers need responsible solutions for disposal or recycling, according to TCE, which says it plans to bring more groups from around the country together in a widespread, creative campaign to change the companies’ policies.

“We are not afraid to take on big companies that are doing too little for the planet,” Schneider said in a statement. “We are also excited when we get to move from opposition to cooperation, and we expect that Rayovac and the lighting companies will make changes sooner rather than later. Until then, we intend to organize support to hold these irresponsible companies accountable.”

So far, TCE has been joined by organizations in 11 states.

Electronics Retailers Receive Fs on Recycling Report Card

Written by

EasyToRecycle-1024x768Environmental Leader

Staples, Best Buy and Office Depot are the only three major electronics retailers making a serious effort to help consumers recycle their old electronic products, says a report card released yesterday by the Electronics TakeBack Coalition.

While the three companies earned high marks on the report card, more than half of the 16 retailers flunked, including retail giants such as Walmart, Amazon, Costco, Sam’s Club and Sears. The coalition say that these retailers are doing very little to help recycle the billions of dollars in electronics that they sell.

Some retailers offer trade-in programs for high-value items like tablets and cell phones, but not for larger low-value items like  TVs, printers, VCRs and DVD players. The coalition says it does not count the trade-in programs as being equivalents of recycling, since consumers have to take the trouble to ship the trade-in back — few offer in-store options — and the programs only work for select high-value items.

The report card evaluated the retailers’ programs against 20 criteria, including convenience, transparency, collection volumes and responsible recycling. Chief among the findings:

  • Only three of the retailers (19 percent) have effective recycling programs, meaning they take back all or most of the 13 categories studied and offer physical collection sites.
  • Nine of the 16 retailers got Fs (56 percent), because they either have no recycling program or they take back only one item.
  • While all 16 retailers sell TVs, only two (12 percent) — Best Buy and Micro Center —  take them back for recycling at their stores. Yet TVs are the items for which consumers have the most difficulty finding recycling options and will never mail back.
  • Nine retailers offer trade-in programs, but only two of them — Best Buy and Radio Shack — let you bring trade-in items back to their stores. The others require consumers to ship their old products back to the trade-in vendor for credit.
  • Six of the 16 (37 percent) retailers are using certified e-Stewards for their recycling or trade-in. The e-Steward standard does not allow vendors to export toxic e-waste to developing countries.

The Texas Campaign for the Environment, a coalition member, has singled out Walmart for not doing enough in Texas to promote electronics recycling. With lawmakers in the state introducing bills that will require big box retailers to step up to the plate, Robin Schneider, executive director of the Texas Campaign, says Walmart should increase its recycling efforts before the law forces it to do so.

Making it a legal requirement does boost recycling, as demonstrated by New York State. A report by the Product Stewardship Institute for the Natural Resources Defense Council says that easier consumer access to scrap electronics collection sites, spurred by manufacturer funding, has contributed to an increase in e-waste recycling and a decrease in government spending in the state.

The evaluation of the New York State Electronics Producer Responsibility Law, published earlier this week, found in the first partial year of the law’s implementation, which began April 1, 2011 and ended Dec. 31, 2011, the number of electronics take-back sites had increased by 77 percent across the state, and more than 44 million pounds of scrap electronics were collected. The report says the law saved local governments millions, if not tens of millions, of dollars, by shifting the financial burden of post-consumer product management away from municipalities and toward producers.

Texas appealing to other states for radioactive trash, looks to expand program

Written by

radioactive_imageFoxNews.com
Barnini Chakraborty

When it comes to nuclear waste, many states have a not-in-my-backyard attitude. But Texas is rolling out the welcome mat.

A measure that would allow three-dozen states to dump even hotter radioactive waste at a West Texas nuclear facility is picking up steam as it makes its way through the state legislature — despite growing opposition from environmental groups who argue the economic incentives shouldn’t trump public safety concerns.

Introduced by Republican Sen. Kel Seliger, the “low-level radioactive waste bill” encourages other states to send waste with higher concentrations of radioactivity to the 1,300-acre waste burial ground in Andrews County. The bill would keep the maximum volume allowed at the site the same but change the type of material allowed, Seliger told FoxNews.com Tuesday.

“The majority of the items are safe,” Seliger said. “The county and the state of Texas has a lot to gain.”

The bill highlights how, in Texas, nuclear waste storage has become big business.

During the last legislative session, Texas lawmakers approved the plan to allow waste from more than three dozen states to be buried on the land owned by Dallas-based Waste Control Specialists. Currently, toxic oil-tainted sludge dredged from the Hudson River in New York as well as Cold War-era radioactive waste from an Ohio uranium-processing plant is already buried at the site located near the Texas-New Mexico border.

If Texas lawmakers agree to up the concentration of contaminants, the county and state could receive a considerable boost in money they’d get from Waste Control Specialists. In theory, states and businesses would pay more to send the higher levels of radioactive material to Texas. The company would make more money and in turn the amount it paid the county (5 percent) and the state (25 percent) from its quarterly revenues would also rise.

But according to the Texas Campaign for the Environment, the money made should not be a trade-off for public safety. The group claims politics are to blame.

“To be clear, this proposal is being pushed to directly financially benefit one of the largest campaign contributors involved in Texas politics: billionaire Harold Simmons of Waste Control Specialists who has donated millions of dollars to Gov. Rick Perry and other politicians who are supporting this legislation,” program director Zac Trahan told FoxNews.com. “His company stands to earn millions of dollars by turning part of our state into a radioactive waste site which will be poisoned for generations to come.”

Calls made to Waste Control Specialists for comment were not immediately returned.

Asked about the claim, Seliger said: “I don’t know anything about that.”

Seliger’s bill also promotes sending low-level waste, known as Class A, out of Texas for burial while upping the annual curie limit — which refers to the radiation level — for the state to 300,000 from 220,000. The higher level would allow locations that have Class B or Class C levels of waste to ship it to the Lone Star State for disposal.

The Senate version of the new bill removed a provision that limited Texans from challenging permits to the plant granted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

A similar bill is making its way through the Texas House. That version, filed by Rep. Drew Darby, goes a step further and not only limits citizen challenges in Texas but also bars people from other states from challenging Waste Control’s licenses.

The closest populated town to the site is Eunice, N.M.

Darby’s chief of staff, Jason Modglin, told the Texas Observer the legislation was written to streamline “a burdensome process.”

Texas blast illustrates bigger risk

Written by

westblastBloomberg News
Darrell Preston

DALLAS — With two schools near a plant storing ammonium nitrate — the fertilizer used in the Oklahoma City bombing — West Superintendent Marty Crawford said he had always worried about an explosion like the one that happened last week.

Crawford’s dilemma is echoed nationwide where land use near plants handling dangerous chemicals is controlled by a patchwork of federal and state regulations and zoning laws that are often more attuned to property owners’ rights than those who live and work near industrial sites.

“We crossed our fingers that that could never happen,” Crawford told reporters a day after the April 17 blast killed 14 people, wrecked two schools, destroyed a nursing home and left a crater 93 feet wide and 10 feet deep.

Though only 2,800 people live in West, a rural town 80 miles south of Dallas, millions of people nationwide live and work near high-risk chemical plants, according to a report this year based on Congressional Research Service data. The report said 89 chemical facilities put more than 1 million nearby residents at risk, including 33 in Texas.

Following the explosion in West, which also injured 200 people and flattened 50 homes, thousands of similar fertilizer centers around the U.S. will get more scrutiny of hazardous chemicals from local residents and government officials, said Chris Damas, an independent fertilizer analyst with Barrie, Ontario-based BCMI Research.

“It looks like regulators dropped the ball,” said Damas. “People may forget this terrible accident and necessary improvements in fertilizer storage regulation won’t happen.”

Texas environmental groups, including Public Citizen Texas and Texas Campaign for the Environment, said in a April 24 statement that state lawmakers should pass tougher regulation and step up enforcement, including more inspections and disclosure of toxic threats.

Any increase in scrutiny would come as the fertilizer industry plans $22 billion of new projects and expansions in Texas and elsewhere in North America. The Texas economy is booming as it reaps the benefits of cheaper natural gas supplies from the hydraulic fracturing of shale rock formations. Gas is used as a raw material to make nitrogen-based fertilizer.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, said in a Monday interview that there hadn’t been any violations at the West plant since 2006 and that recent inspections hadn’t found any “abnormalities that would cause concern.” Calls for change are “premature” until investigations of the cause are complete, he said.

Cities have grown up around manufacturing all over the country, said Perry, who questioned whether it would be cost-effective to move plants or residential areas away from each other. West had expanded into the rural area where the fertilizer plant was already established.

The facility, owned by closely held Adair Grain, was built in the 1960s, according to the governor. The plant wasn’t incorporated into the city and remained in McLennan County, where Texas zoning laws are weaker.

“Are the people willing to pay the cost?” Perry said. “Cost versus benefit is always what we battle with.”

After touring the damage last week, Perry, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott all said changes were needed to prevent future explosions near residences and schools.

“By the grace of God, this was at night” when children weren’t in school, Perry said. “How there were only 14 people who lost their lives is a bit of an amazement.”

Government officials have been slow to change zoning and other land use laws and federal regulations that could prevent dangerous chemical facilities from being built near schools and residential areas, said Kelly Haragan, environmental clinic director at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin.

“These patterns take a long time to change,” said Haragan, who has worked for advocates of buffer zones separating industrial sites from residential areas. “In some cases the companies were there first.”

Texas, in its effort to support local business and lure more companies to the state, has been reluctant to add to regulatory burdens on industry, Perry said.

“We are a state that does not believe in overburdening businesses,” Perry said.

Lawmakers in Texas, the biggest energy-producing state in the union, began their biennial legislative session in January with a surplus estimated at about $8.8 billion as the booming energy industry helped state revenue to top projections.

The Adair Grain plant stored ammonium nitrate, a highly explosive material responsible for industrial accidents and used in terrorist attacks. The solid fertilizer was used by Timothy McVeigh to destroy the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building and kill 168 people in Oklahoma City 18 years ago.

The owners and employees of Adair Grain and its West Fertilizer Co. unit are working with investigators, the company said in a statement two days after the explosion. The cause of the blast and the fire that preceded it still hasn’t been determined.

The plant held 270 tons of ammonium nitrate as of Dec. 31, according to a report from the Texas Department of State Health Services.

“Texas has gone out of its way to maintain a reputation for low regulation,” said Elena Craft, a health scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund in Austin. “We’re all for creating jobs and good conditions for business, but it shouldn’t cost you your life.”

The crater in West was smaller than the one left by a bomb in Oklahoma City in 1995, said Brian Hoback, an ATF supervisor who investigated the Oklahoma City bombing. Still, the damage had an impact on Perry and other state officials.

“This is the stuff used to make fertilizer bombs,” said Cornyn, after his tour. Local, state and federal laws needed to be looked at for possible changes, he said.

“The question is whether you should be storing it this close to schools, nursing homes and residential areas.”

Houston Activists Say New Recycling System Is Not The Way To Go

Written by

Houston Press
Vanessa Piña
Original article here

A day after Mayor Annise Parker jubilantly announced the city had won $1 million by being a finalist in a municipal-improvements contest, experts held a press conference to say the city’s winning “One Bin for All” recycling project is bad for the environment.

Experts like Tyson Sowell of the Texas Campaign for the Environment and Dr. Robert Bullard, Dean of the Barbara Jordan-Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs at Texas Southern University, said people want to recycle and are interested in the concept, but having a new system that does not assure a positive outcome is not the way to go.

The One Bin for All system calls for residents to throw all their garbage into a single bin that will be sorted at a still-to-be-built facility that critics say will cost $100 million. Supporters of the idea say it increases recycling because it’s not dependent on residents separating out bottles, plastic and paper from their other garbage. But opponents say such facilities have failed in other cities and have not proven able to produce quality recyclable material.

“For someone who has done research and written more than 18 books on this stuff it is rather odd that we would be opting for an unproven, risky idea,” Bullard said at the press conference.

Yes, this new system will attempt to increase recyclables in the city, they said, but with that comes along a risk, like financing.

“It is being represented that this system will never cost taxpayers any money, because a private entity will come forward to finance a facility estimated to cost $100 million,” said activist Leo Gold.

Said Gold:

The single stream system that Mayor White initiated has none of those risks. There is a successful partnership between the city and waste management, and material is daily being handled. Waste Management’s single stream sorting facilities are running at an estimated 50 percent of capacity and can easily handle more if the city will only provide more carts to our citizens.

Parker, of course, disagrees with the critics. In accepting the award this week she said “One Bin for All is a first-of-its kind innovation that will revolutionize the way we handle trash, achieving high-volume recycling and waste diversion, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and lower operating costs….I know this cutting-edge technology has the potential to improve health and quality of life not only in Houston, but around the world.”

The contest was created by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who obviously is also a fan on the One Bin idea. “”Recycling has often been treated as an individual responsibility, like paying taxes,” he said at the award ceremony. “But Mayor Parker’s innovative One Bin for All idea turns that notion on its head. Achieving a 75 percent recycling recovery rate in Houston would represent a huge leap forward in urban sustainability practices.”

Recycling plan a million-dollar idea

Written by

Mayor collects big check for city’s ‘one bin for all’ proposal to boost participation, reduce emissions

Houston Chronicle

Mike Morris

Original article here

Houston’s plan to increase its dismal recycling rate fivefold got a boost Wednesday, when Mayor Annise Parker accepted a $1 million prize from Bloomberg Philanthropies as part of the Mayors Challenge, a contest rewarding innovation in American cities.

The city’s “One Bin for All” idea would allow residents to mix trash, recyclables, yard clippings, food and other waste in a single container, to be automatically sorted at a first-of-its-kind $100 million plant to be built and run by a private firm. The city plans next month to issue a request for proposals from companies interested in the plan, with construction starting as early as next year.

“Even with extensive education, easily available single-stream and in cities where you actually have an economic incentive — which we do not since we don’t charge separately for garbage — you don’t achieve the recycling rates that would be available under this technology,” Parker said. “And those of us who care about recycling have had the dilemma: You’re standing with something in your hand and you’re looking, ‘Do I put it in the bin that says recycling, the bin that says compost, or the bin that says garbage?’ This takes that decision away and automates it.”

If all goes according to plan, in two years the city’s household recycling rate could jump from 14 percent to as much as 75 percent. Instead of sending four rounds of trucks door to door retrieving trash, recycling, yard waste and heavy trash, Houston may send one — cutting vehicle emissions, miles on the fleet and strain on city roads, not to mention operating costs and $13 million in annual landfill fees.

It would be a dramatic shift for a city in which a third of households cannot even recycle at the curb today, with another third unable to recycle glass curbside. Just a third of residents have single-stream, the green 96-gallon bins that take all recyclables.

Houston aims to accomplish this turnaround without any added cost to residents or the city.

The technologies to sort and process the materials are proven, said city sustainability director Laura Spanjian. Companies will be willing to build and operate such a plant, she said, because they’ll have a contract giving them the right to resell up to three-quarters of all waste generated by the nation’s fourth-largest city.

Tyson Sowell of Texas Campaign for the Environment, however, called the idea “anti-recycling” and a “pipe dream.” His group thinks the city will ultimately have to invest in the plant, and believes the technologies are unproven. Single-stream, composting and other such methods work, he said.

Spanjian said the one-bin plan is supported by the Environmental Defense Fund, Clinton Climate Initiative, Keep Houston Beautiful and other environmental groups.

Drew Sones, who retired a decade ago from running Los Angeles’ solid waste operations, said new sorting technology is already working. Houston’s proposal, he said, “has all the components that are being used today. It’s not like a black box: ‘Trust us, we can do this.’”

Sones set up Los Angeles’ current residential recycling system, with black bins for trash, blue for recycling and green for yard waste. If he had his old job today, Sones said, he would use Houston’s approach. “People don’t recycle everything or don’t recycle at all, don’t participate,” he said. “Even if you’ve got a three-can system, it’s worth it to take that black bin through the process.”

It’s not clear what proposals Houston will receive, but one option could see biomass — yard and food waste, even clothing and plastics — converted into biofuels through a process such as that used by CRI Catalyst Company, a Houston subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell whose Alan Del Paggio has been in talks with city officials.

“We’re well on our way to demonstrate to the world that this is not just wishful thinking but, in fact, this is technical reality and economic reality,” he said.

About the award

Mayor Annise Parker said the $1 million prize from Bloomberg Philanthropies won by the city for its “One Bin for All” recycling plan will cover start-up costs such as a project manager and an analysis of the city’s waste, to better understand what materials the plant would process. Houston’s award was one of four runner-up prizes in the contest; Chicago, Philadelphia, and Santa Monica, Calif., were the others; Providence, R.I., won the $5 million grand prize. Houston also will get $50,000 for netting more than 15,000 online votes to win the “fan favorite” part of the contest.

Gritty Protest: Rio Hondo residents push back against sewer plan

Written by

Valley Morning Star
Fernando del Valle

Rio Hondo — Residents on Thursday packed City Hall to request state officials deny a permit to a San Antonio company that proposes to treat liquid grease and grit waste at the sewer plant that discharges into the Arroyo Colorado.
More than 100 residents spilled out of City Hall chambers to wait to comment on the company’s proposal.

“I’m very concerned about the quality of the water,” Yvonne Peck said. “Already there is a high negative impact on water quality.”
Sid Rouch said the city’s sewer plant overflows onto his lot.

“The system can’t handle what it’s got,” Rouch said. “You’re going to add more mess to the problem. You’re going to be putting more (junk) into the system.”
John Whelan said car wash oil would contaminate the waters.

“You’re still going to get (oil). It’s going to accumulate,” Whelan said. “No one would want to go to the point of discharge and take a cup of water and drink it.”

If the comments show that information in the application by Partners Dewatering International is inaccurate, then the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality could use those comments in determining whether to grant the permit, agency attorney Ron Olson said.

Local state official Jaime Garza told residents that the agency would investigate any fish kill to determine whether the city or the company would be held responsible.

David Mendez waited in line to point to a 2006 agency report aimed at cutting back on contaminates that pollute the arroyo’s waters.

The arroyo’s low-oxygen levels designate it as an “impaired body of water,” Mendez said.

“They’re trying to reduce pollutants going into the water, so why do they want to issue a permit to this company?” Mendez asked. “It doesn’t make any sense.”
Kay King said she lives in her mother’s house on the arroyo’s banks.

“The arroyo is everything to this area,” she said. “We revere the arroyo and keeping it clean is absolutely critical. We don’t want their (junk) in our river.”

State Rep. Rene Oliveira, D-Brownsville, and Rep. J.M. Lozano, R-Kingsville, called for the public hearing last September.

Public pressure led commissioners last Sunday to meet in a special closed-door meeting with City Attorney Eddie Lucio III to consider getting out of the city’s contract with Partners Dewatering International.

In 2008, a previous commission entered into a contract that would allow the company to use the city’s sewer plant to treat liquid waste from restaurant grease traps and car wash grit traps.

The company, which collects and treats liquid waste from restaurants and car washes, proposed the building of a treatment facility at the sewer plant. The proposed facility would separate liquid waste that would be treated at the sewer plant, said Carter Mayfield, finance director with the company.

The sewer plant could safely and effectively treat the liquid waste before the plant discharges it into the arroyo, Mayfield said.

He said solid waste, or sludge, would be trucked away and composted at a site outside the Rio Grande Valley or disposed at Donna’s landfill.

The company plans to put about 50,000 gallons of liquid waste a day into the sewer plant that treats about 138,000 gallons a day, said Jess Mayfield, the company’s president. He said the sewer plant has a daily capacity to treat 400,000 gallons of wastewater.

Carter Mayfield said the discharge of the “non-hazardous” liquid waste into the Arroyo Colorado would not contaminate the waterway.

The company, whose clients include H-E-B and Valero, would pay the city about $1,500 a month under the agreement that would boost payments as increased business would lead the company to treat more liquid waste at the sewer plant. Mayfield said payments could increase to as much as $200,000 a year.

Texas Campaign for the Environmental, a statewide group based in Austin, organized residents from across much of the Rio Grande Valley to oppose the company’s proposal.

The environmental group handed out flyers that accuse the company of violations at a sewer plant it operates for the city of La Coste near San Antonio.

But Mayfield said the state has not issued violations for the company’s La Coste operation that treats liquid grease trap and grit trap waste during a reporting period that spans the last five years.

The state cited the city of La Coste’s sewer plant operation for “major” violations that included a fish kill in Polecat Creek that stemmed from the release of ammonia nitrogen, for which the state fined the city $8,120; an incident in which the city discharged sludge into a stream, for which the state fined the city $14,990; and an incident in which the city failed to notify the state of “a change in the volume or character of pollutants discharged into the wastewater treatment facility,” for which the state fined the city $28,860, a TCEQ report states.

The company paid fines for each violation, Mayfield said.