Austin Litter Study

Austin Resource Recovery
1520 Rutherford Lane, Bldg. #1

Austin, Texas 78754
+01 (512) 974-6424
Environmental Effects of the Single Use Bag Ordinance in Austin, Texas

Presented by:
Aaron Waters
For
Austin Resource Recovery
&
The Zero Waste Advisory Commission
According to
Recommendation 20150114-003a
10 June 2015
Austin Resource Recovery Results of the Single-Use Bag Ordinance in Austin, Texas
Table of Contents
1
Abstract
Keywords
Presentation of Austin Resource Recovery
Introduction to the Single Use Bag Ordinance of Austin, Texas
Background
The Impact of Plastic Bag Litter
Plastic Bags as a Component of Austins Litter
12
Measuring Plastic Bags in the Recycling Stream
14
A. Purpose
14
B. Goal
15
C. Method of Capture
15
i. Texas Disposal Systems
15
ii. Balcones Resources
18
D. Results
19
i. City of Austin Recycling Stream
19
ii. Comparative Recycling Stream
21
Conclusion
10 Discussion
22
25
A. People
25
B. Planet
25
C. Profit
26
11 Summary
28
12 Acknowledgements
29
13 Bibliography
30
Abstract
The City of Austin implemented a Single Use Bag Ordinance (SUBO) in March of 2013 as a method to
change the behavior of its citizens in an effort to improve the environment and decrease waste as a
part of its 2011 Master Plan1. Bag ordinances such as the SUBO are becoming more prevalent
nationwide, gaining momentum as the plastic bags become more unpopular across the northern
hemisphere after widespread restrictions throughout the global South 2. The goal of this report is to show
the impact of the ordinance to the City of Austin through anecdotal and empirical evidence. To
obtain this evidence, interviews were conducted in many different relevant sectors, including; multiple
agencies within the City of Austin, non-profits ranging from local to national influence, private
corporations from Austin and beyond, as well as individual stakeholders such as politicians and
attorneys. Two comparative studies were completed to gather data related to whether this ordinance
has had an effect on consumer behavior;
1. A litter composition study conducted by non-profit litter abatement organizations to track the
amount of single use bags in a municipality without a bag ordinance, Fort Worth, and a
municipality with a bag ordinance, Austin, and;
2. A single use bag audit performed during the semi-annual recycling composition study
performed at both of Austins single-stream residential recyclable material vendors; this audit
also analyzed a co-mingled stream from a combination of municipalities which do not have
bag ordinances.
Master Plan. Rep. Austin Resource Recovery, 15 Dec. 2011.

Clapp and Swanston, "Doing Away with Plastic Shopping Bags: International Patterns of Norm
Emergence and Policy Implementation" 315-332
1
2
Keywords
Single-use bag Any bag which was not designed to be re-usable as per the specifications of the
Single-Use bag ordinance3. These bags are made from high density poly-ethylene (HDPE) resin.
Reusable Bags Any bag which was designed to be used multiple times. This includes low density polyethylene (LDPE) plastic bags with a thickness of more than 4 mils, woven polypropylene, cotton, and
many others. These bags are constructed with the purpose of durability for reuse.
Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) a combination mechanical, manual, and electric recyclable
material separating system4
Social Norms rule[s] governing the behavior of certain individuals despite the lack of legal sanctions,
often due to social sanctions at the behest of peers5
Mil a common measurement in describing the thickness of plastic, especially in terms of bags. It is
equivalent to 1/1000th of an inch, or 0.0254 mm.
City of Austin, Texas, Ordinance No. 20120301-078.

"Eco-Industrial Park - MRF (Material Recovery Facility)"
5 Kinzig et al., "Social Norms and Global Environmental Challenges: The Complex Interaction of
Behaviors, Values, and Policy" 164-175
3
4
Presentation of Austin Resource Recovery
Austin Resource Recovery (ARR) is the municipal solid waste collection service for the city of Austin,
Texas. The tasks of ARR include6:
Residential curbside collection of landfill-bound waste, recycling, and bulk items
Street sweeping and litter abatement
Operating a household hazardous waste collection facility
Promotion of the Zero Waste philosophy and goals.
The Zero Waste advisory Commission (ZWAC) provides oversight of the solid waste management
services of ARR and reports policy recommendation and resource management in addition to being
tasked with holding hearings, initiating studies, and making reports and recommendations to the city
council7. It was this commission which created Recommendation Number 20150114-003a: Single Use
Bag study8 that has become the basis for the following report.
ABOUT AUSTIN RESOURCE RECOVERY

Austin, Texas, Municipal Code 2-1-182
8 Recommendation Number 20150114-003a: Single Use Bag study
6
7
Introduction to the Single Use Bag Ordinance of Austin, Texas
In the spring of 2007, Mayor Lee Leffingwell and the City Council of Austin drafted a resolution 9
requesting the City Manager to investigate strategies to reduce the amount of non-compostable bags
by stores within the city limits. One year later, a new resolution initiated a voluntary pilot program in an
effort to reduce plastic bags entering the waste stream by 50% over the following year. This project
paired the Texas Retailers Association with the cooperation of their affiliates alongside the City of
Austin and Keep Austin Beautiful (KAB). While the program attained a mildly successful 20% reduction10,
it did not achieve the levels originally sought after by the resolution. After an investigation into the
economic impact of plastic bags was released11 by Austin Resource Recovery (ARR)12, the Council
passed the final resolution leading up to the creation of the Single Use bag Ordinance (SUBO).
The SUBO was passed at 2:00 am on the 2nd of March, 201313 and officially went into effect one year
later, with the administrative rules following in November of that year. Once the ordinance was in
effect, there were very few complaints from citizens, at least directly to the City of Austin. During the
first year or its implementation, there were 123 calls placed to 3-1-1concerning the bag ordinance,
and of those calls, only 89 were complaints from residential customers 14. Wording of the ordinance
included the ability to request variance in the form of a hardship for residential customers and
alternative compliance to the commercial clients. Within the City of Austin, 38 applications for
hardship variance were approved, and 45 businesses applied for alternative compliance, of which 6
withdrew their application and 32 were approved 15.
In 2013, The City of Austin commissioned a study 16 to determine the general attitudes and awareness
of shoppers from before the ordinance went into effect to establish a baseline, as well as six months
afterwards to find a reactionary response. This study found that support amongst heavy shoppers
decreased by 12% in the six month period following the implementation of the ordinance. Reasons
included the inconvenience of having to bring their own bags, a growing pain associated with a
change in behavior, and less opportunity to reuse the plastic bags obtained from stores for secondary
purposes. The former will be discussed later in the report, but plays a significant role as an economic
argument against a carryout bag ordinance crafted in the fashion of Austins.
City of Austin, Texas, Resolution No. 20070419-026.

Summary of Austin Plastic Bag Initiative: Summary Report, 2009
11 Gedert, "Memorandum to Mayor and Council Members, Austin TX," January 12, 2011
12 ARR was named Solid Waste Services at the time; the department was re-branded in 2011.
13 "Regular Meeting of the Austin City Council March 1, 2012," 2012
14 "Single Use Bag Ordinance Update Presentation," 2014
15 Ibid.
16 Decision Analyst, Inc., 2013
9
10
Background
To better understand how the plastic bag banning movement became so rampantly popular over the
last several decades warrants an examination of social norms and their roles in determining societal
behavior. Social norms are the appropriate behaviors according to the ideas and beliefs of a
society, and are often associated with a number of movements around the world, including those with
an environmental prominence17. The most direct way to address and change the pre-existing norms is
to craft legislation which is designed to alter the behavior of the citizen. Such was the case with the
bag reduction ordinance passed in Austin. While some may view governmental involvement an
imposition of unwanted control, it is often the case that heavier handed intervention techniques in the
form of legislation mandating change become needed. And in this scenario, the more intense efforts
will produce larger gains18 in terms of a social behavioral adaptation.
On a larger scale, the origination of the anti-bag rhetoric originated in the global South and has only
moved north recently19. The conception of the bag ordinance movement began with the blight of
these objects of convenience upon the infrastructure of the Bangladeshi sewage system 20, and this
serves as an example of an environmental impact of the bags. In India, the bags were being
consumed by the sacred cows which are allowed to freely roam the streets, and this caused them
ruminants to starve to death as their digestive system became clogged21. This effect, among others, on
the ranching industry in west Texas has led municipalities to institute and ordinance restricting the use
of plastic bags22.
The previously mentioned study23 states that 81% of the general public perceived plastic bags to be
harmful before the ordinance went into effect, and of that group, 70% said that was because they are
a leading source of litter24. It should be no surprise that citizens often feel this way; plastic bags are
voluminous, lightweight, and durable, properties which have made them incredibly popular. However,
these physical attributes also allow them to travel freely through the atmosphere as well as waterways
and persist when snagged on fences and trees (see Figure 1). Litter often plays a significant role upon
a municipalitys decision to enact an ordinance governing the usage of plastic bags 25, and this study
will address the impact the SUBO has had on the litter composition of Austin in contrast to Fort Worth, a
comparably sized city without an ordinance.
See Supra note 2
Carlson, "Recycling Norms," 2001
19 See Supra note 2
20 Reazuddin, 2006
21 Edwards & Kellett, Life in plastic: The impact of plastics on India, 2000
22 See discussion infra note 37
23 See Supra note 10.
24 See Infra notes 33 and 34. Plastic bags are highly visible but are not a leading component of litter.
25 Romer and Tamminen, "Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinances: New York Citys Proposed Charge on All
Carryout Bags as a Model for U.S. Cities" 237-276
17
18
The Impact of Plastic Litter
Reducing the impact of litter is often cited as one of the significant driving factors when a municipality
decides to implement a single use bag ordinance. This man-made source of detritus can wreak havoc
on municipal infrastructure in myriad ways, including;
Forcing MRFs to shut down their operations to disentangle the bags from their equipment 26,
Clogging drainage systems which can cause floods and lead to stagnant water, a breeding
habitat for mosquitos27, a public health hazard relevant to Central Texas due to the recent
prevalence of West Nile Virus28, and,
Compelling litter abatement crews to utilize special tools for the removal of bag litter from
trees29.
Additionally, if plastic bags are not removed as litter, they eventually make their way to waterways
leading to the sea during which time they undergo photo-degradation through exposure to ultraviolet
radiation, oxygen, and natural elements such as wind, rain, and the mechanical motion of waves in
the ocean30. Once these plastic products break down into their smaller components, they release
additives such as bis-phenol A, a compounding additive, into the surrounding environment 31. This
process also introduces micro-plastic particulates which have adsorbed toxins such as toxins such as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to the natural environment, allowing the smallest organisms to
consume these particles as a food-like substitute for organic matter, thus presenting a source of
contamination which may bioaccumulate as energy ascends within the food chain. While the
molecular size of the plastic monomers may be too large to have a biochemical effect on most living
creatures, the chemicals that are released during degradation, as well as those which bioaccumulate,
as considered to be endocrine disruptors, a type of chemical which can lead to detrimental
developmental consequences for both environmental and human health 32.
While plastic bags represent a growing menace to our ecosystem, they are not the only source of
plastic pollution; in fact they are far from the greatest contributor. The 2009 Keep America Beautiful
National Litter survey reported that all bags collected, including single use carryout bags, trash bags,
bulk food bags, etc., comprised only 0.6% of all litter33, while the 2013 Texas Litter Survey states that
Houck, "Lockout-Tagout: Tackling the Plastic Bag Problem at Oregon's MRF's"

See Supra note 2
28 "West Nile Virus In Texas"
29 From conversations with Rebecca Saltsman of Keep Austin Beautiful (phone call on 2 March 2015),
and, Roxanne Jackson of Austin Watershed Protection (phone call on 13 March 2015).
30 Cole et al., "Microplastics as Contaminants in the Marine Environment: A Review" 2588-2597
31 Andrady, "Microplastics in the Marine Environment" 1596-1605
32 Teuten et al., "Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife,"
2009
33 Mid Atlantic Solid Waste Consultants, 2009 National Visible Litter Survey And Litter Cost Study
26
27
plastic retail bags comprised 1.95% of roadside litter34 in the State of Texas. A 2004 study conducted by
the Algalita Marine Research Foundation found that roughly 18% of plastic bound for the ocean was
composed of plastic film fragments35, a greater percentage than what is commonly found in roadside
litter due to the concentrating effect of watersheds in terms of pollutants 36. However, even though the
profile of the plastic bag is comparatively low, a reduction in their numbers is regarded as highly
beneficial. This is largely due to the ancillary issues associated with plastic bag litter bulleted above;
however, there are other factors to be considered.
Plastic bags were designed to be voluminous and lightweight in order to carry a large amount of
goods, but this also means they are highly visible as litter. Darren Hodges, Councilman for Fort Stockton,
Texas, stated37 that their ordinance was implemented not only to relieve stress on their sewage system,
but also to reduce unsightly roadside litter which they felt reduced the number of visitors willing to
make a stop while travelling on the interstate through the town of Fort Stockton. As a town with only
8,283 inhabitants38, they consider every visitor to be vital.
Indirectly, litter contributes to an estimated 7.4% reduction in property value 39 within communities
containing a noticeable amount of visible litter present. The sight of a plastic bag is also widely
considered as a contributor to the broken window theory within a community 40. This theory states
that if people see an act which is deemed socially unacceptable, but that act goes unnoticed or is
ignored, they will often repeat the behavior as there are no perceived consequences. This can
translate into a scenario in which an increased amount of the litter in an environment can directly
contribute to the likelihood that more people will become litterers, even if they do not normally
engage in the behavior on a regular basis. Due to the physical properties of the bags listed above, in
addition to the compounding nature of plastic bags growing presence if not attended to, there are
those that say these bags are a contributor to urban blight41, an issue all cities must struggle against.
Austins residents and municipal employees have remarked on the very noticeable difference since
the ordinance was enacted. Within the Watershed Protection Department of Austin, general
consensus amongst the Field Operations Division is an overwhelming decrease in number of bags
Environmental Resource Planning, LLC, 2013 Texas Litter Survey

This figure is not truly indicative of single-use plastic carry-out bags as the plastics in this study were
too small to determine the origin; however, they certainly existed as a component since this study
predated any form of restrictive bag ordinance in the area.
36 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Watersheds, Flooding and Pollution," 2015
37 From a phone call on the 6th of March, 2015. His estimate was that plastic bag litter had been
reduced by about half since the ordinance was implemented. He also mentioned that the City
manager had corroborated the sentiment of having less downtime in municipal facilities that came
into contact with single use plastic carryout bags.
38 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010
39 See Supra note 33
40 George L. Kelling And James Q. Wilson, "Broken Windows"
34
35
found on a daily basis, and that if the crews do encounter a bag, it would be considered exceptional
rather than expected, as was the case before the ordinance 42. Representatives from Austin
Community Court, Austin Water Center for Environmental Research, and Austin Parks and Recreation
Department have also voiced unequivocal anecdotal evidence in regards to the reduction of plastic
bags as litter43. Austin Parks Foundation, a local non-profit dedicated to the maintenance of Austins
parks, trails, and open spaces, reported a 90% reduction in plastic bag litter in the first six months after
the ordinance had been passed44.
On the 25th of February, 2013, one week before the Single Use Bag Ordinance went into effect, Mr.
Kerry Getter, C.E.O. of Balcones Resources, took several photos from a large waste management
facility in northeast Austin45. This landfill, like many others, is surrounded by large catchment fencing in
multiple tiers in order to collect trash which is blown about due to high winds. These fences mostly
catch very light debris in the form of paper and plastic film so that it does not inundate the surrounding
neighborhood with unsightly litter. Figure 1shows the site on two windy days, to serve as a comparison
between pre-ordinance conditions and the impact on the site two years and one month after
implementation.
The first photo from Figure 1 shows the area near the entrance of this facility, and single use plastic
bags are clearly seen stuck to the fence. The middle picture is the area across the street from this
location, in front of an office building. These fragments are residual pieces from the landfill which were
unable to be contained by the fencing. This material also makes it way into the residential area just
north of the office building. The final depiction shows the most drastic reduction along the fence line.
This picture was taken directly across the street from a neighborhood, so the decline is crucial to the
health and safety of the residents.
From email correspondence with Roxanne Jackson, Division manager of Field Operations for the City
of Austin Watershed Protection Department, from the 13th of March, 2015.
43 From Communication between ARR and; Jeremy Myers, Austin Community Court (18 March 2015),
Kevin Anderson, Ph. D., Austin Water Center for Environmental Research (9 March 2015), and Rene
Berrera, Austin Parks and Recreation (12 March 2015)
44 From email correspondence with Ladye Anne Wofford, Program Director at Austin Parks Foundation,
from the 6th of March, 2015.
45 Mr. Getter emailed these photos to the City of Austin on the 24 th or March, 2015.
42
10
FIGURE 1. Before and After Photos from the Allied Waste Services Landfill in Austin, Texas.
Photos on the left were taken on the 25th of February, 2013.
Photos on the right were taken on the 24th of March, 2015.
While the photographers were different, the locations were replicated as accurately as possible.
Photo Credit for Above: K. Getter, Balcones
Photo Credit for Above: A. Waters, Austin
Resources
Resource Recovery
11
Plastic Bags as a Component of Austins Litter
To define the amount of plastic bags found in Austin, and how that compares to a peer city, a study
was conducted both in Fort Worth, Texas, and Austin, Texas via their local affiliates of Keep America
Beautiful. The goal of these studies was to determine how many plastic bags are found in the open
spaces of both cities and find a difference in litter composition.
Keep Fort Worth beautiful sponsors an annual litter cleanup event by the name of the Cowtown
Cleanup. For this occasion, volunteers adopt a location which they feel needs attention and converge
upon that site in a concerted effort to reduce the amount of trash which did not make it into a waste
management location. In 2015, this event brought an estimated46 6,857 volunteers out to aid in the
beautification of Fort Worth. These volunteers collected more than 52 tons of material during the
cleanup as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Totals from the Fort Worth Cowtown Cleanup.
Total litter collected (Lbs.) (Estimated47)
Percentage of Single Use Bags found in Litter
based on Sample Sites
Total Weight of Single Use Bags Collected During
Cleanup (Lbs.) (Calculated48)
Number of Single Use Bags Collected During
Cowtown Cleanup (Calculated49)
109,800
0.12%
135.2
8,757
Source: A. Waters and Keep Fort Worth Beautiful
The litter rate for Single Use Plastic Bags was found to be 0.12%. To obtain this figure, the four most
productive sites from the cleanup were tasked with the collection of all single use bags, which was
then recorded and compared to the total amount of litter from the corresponding site. While this litter
rate is very low, especially considering that ER Planning found the number to be 1.95% in their study 50, it
still proves to be much higher that what was found in Austin.
Keep Austin Beautiful holds an annual CleanSweep event with the same intent as the Cowtown
cleanup, namely, to garner the help of volunteers to remove as much litter as possible from the open
spaces of Austin. In 2015, over 3,000 people took to the streets and parks of Austin to collect about 29
tons of material, as seen in Table 2.
All estimates for the Fort Worth Cowtown Cleanup come from Keep Fort Worth Beautiful, and are
based on standards set by Keep America Beautiful.
47 Ibid.
48 To find this figure, as well as the number of Single Use Bags collected, a weight of 0.0154 pounds per
bag was used. This weight was found during the recycling audits conducted at Texas Disposal Systems
and Balcones Resources.
49 Ibid.
46
12
Table 2. Totals from the Keep Austin Beautiful CleanSweep Event

Total litter collected (Lbs.) (Estimated51)
Percentage of Single Use Bags found in Litter based
on Sample Sites
Total Weight of Single Use Bags Collected During
Cleanup (Lbs.) (Calculated52)
Calculated Number of Single Use Bags Collected
During CleanSweep (Calculated53)
58,118
0.03%
18.1
1,131
Source: A. Waters and Keep Austin Beautiful
The litter rate within the City of Austin was determined to be 0.03%. To acquire this figure, Team leaders
for cleanup crews partaking in the cleanup event were asked to ensure that all participants collect
and count any single use plastic bags they came across. This litter rate for single use plastic bags is one
quarter of the rate which is found in Fort Worth. See Table 3 for a translation into total bags reduced in
the City of Austin.
Table 3. Total Number of Single Use Plastic Bags Reduced, based on 2009 Estimates
200954
Population in
Average number of bags used per year by
each American55
Number of Single Use Plastic Bags in Litter
Composition as Compared to Fort Worth
Equivalent Number of Single Use Plastic Bags
Per Person
Number of Single Use Plastic Bags used by
each city based on Population in 2009
Bag totals based on equivalency
Difference (aka bags reduced)
Austin
786,386
Fort Worth
727,577
335
335
0.25
1.00
85
335
263,801,371
246,648,603
66,721,916
197,079,454
246,648,603
-
Source: A. Waters, Keep Fort Worth Beautiful, and Keep Austin Beautiful, USITC
Table 3 shows that based on litter abatement figures from two large scale cleanup events; the number
of plastic bags has been reduced by 75%. This would indicate that since the implementation of the
single use bag ordinance, and all other considerations being the same, the City of Austin has reduced
their yearly single use plastic bag consumption by more than 197 million bags per year. The totals were
calculated based on data from 2009.
All estimates for the CleanSweep event come from Keep Austin Beautiful, and are based on
standards set by Keep America Beautiful.
53 Ibid.
55 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Investigation Nos. 701-TA-462
and 731-TA-1156-1158, 2009
51
13
Measuring Plastic Bags in the Recycling Stream

A. Purpose
In an effort to determine the impact of the single use bag ordinance on the City, an investigation was
performed during the bi-annual recyclable materials composition study performed on-site of both
residential recycling vendors for the City. The first audit was performed at Texas Disposal Systems (TDS),
which services approximately 40% of the recyclable material in Austin and whose area covers territory
lying south of the Colorado River. The second audit occurred at Balcones Resources (Balcones), which
services the remaining 60% of the recyclable material in Austin and whose area covers territory lying
north of the Colorado River. This compositional analysis is a contractual obligation between the City
and each of the vendors to determine up-to-date and accurate billing information in an everchanging recycling commodities market. While reasonably thorough, the study does not address
individual components such as the characterization of detrimental plastic film, types and sizes of
bottles, brands of products, or relative percentages of the mixed, 3-7 plastics category. Table 4 details
the regularly surveyed items in the compositional study. As the audit does not normally obtain a count
of percentage of plastic bags, this methodology will address this concern by completing a one-time
survey of bag quantities from both vendors.
Table 4. The categories used to calculate the pricing structure of the following recycling period.
Materials Regularly Monitored During Compositional Study
1. Old Newspaper #8 (ONP)
2. Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC)
3. Mixed Paper (MP)
4. Plastic Bottles made of PETE (Polyethylene Terephthalate) (PB)
5. HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) Natural (HDPE-N)
6. HDPE Colored (HDPE-C)
7. Mixed Plastics 3-7 (MPl)
8. Used Beverage Cans Aluminum (UBC)
9. Tin Cans (TC)
10. Scrap Metal (SM)
11. Glass (Gl)
12. Mixed Rigid Plastics (MRP)
13. Residuals, Materials to be sent to Landfill (Res)
Source: Austin Resource Recovery
14
B. Goal of the Audit

The goal of this study was to obtain a representative bag count from the semi-annual recycling audit
conducted at each of the Citys two recycling vendors, TDS and Balcones. While the bag audit was
conducted at both sites, at TDS it was also compared to a recyclable stream containing a
commingled mix of incoming material from surrounding municipalities. This commingled material
served as a baseline for comparison as it originates from a municipality (or combination of
municipalities) that does not have a bag ordinance in place at the time of the study. Due to the
nature of operations at TDS, determining the source of the material was not possible other than
knowing the origin to be from outside of the city limits. However, the method of capture was the same
for both vendors, and in the case of TDS, for both sources of the material 56.
Before each audit was to commence, the following areas of both facilities were emptied in order to
reduce the risk of contamination from other sources;
The tipping floor area for the material to be audited,
The materials recovery facility (MRF), including,
The receiving receptacles used in the MRF operation, and,
The storage bunkers.
C. Methodology for the Audit

i. Texas Disposal Systems
In order to determine the effectiveness of the Single Use Bag Ordinance in the City of Austin (COA), a
count of single use retail bags was performed during the biannual recycling audit conducted at Texas
Disposal Systems (TDS). As a basis of comparison, TDS also conducted an audit on a commingled
recycling stream from surrounding communities which did not have bag ordinances.
The semi-annual audit of the incoming residential single stream of recycling materials is designed to
assess the commodity value of recyclable material as a contractual obligation between the COA and
TDS. The audit process is conducted at the TDS Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) located in
Creedmoor, Texas. The date of the audit, as agreed upon by TDS and the staff of Austin Resource
Recovery (ARR), was the 25th of April, 2015. Representatives from ARR were on site during the audit
from start to finish.
The methodology was developed based on input from each vendor at the request for clarification
from ARR. While an official methodology had not previously been outlined in detail for either
company, they both commit to a functionally identical operational strategy based on the contractual
obligations with the City of Austin. The included methodology serves as a highly detailed description of
current operational procedure for both TDS and Balcones.
56
15
The collection trucks used for auditing were pre-selected from the portion of Austin which TDS services,
specifically, all addresses on the Southern side of the Lower Colorado River (Figure 2). A total of six (6)
truckloads of materials carrying 32,201 pounds of recycling material were set aside during the
preceding weeks collection as a representative sample of the customers served (Figure 2). The trucks
were weighed empty to obtain a tare weight, and again full, to obtain recyclable material weight. All
loads used in the audit were to be dry and reasonably compacted in accordance to the truck
manufacturers suggested pressure settings for the hydraulic system equipped on each vehicle.
The sorting equipment and employees processed the audited material exactly as though it were a
normal operational workday. However, there were six employees dedicated to collecting all plastic
bags, from the manual sorting line, including both single use and reusable but excluding other plastic
films. The employees manually removed the bags into 44 gallon plastic waste containers as they
moved along the first manual sorting line. These vessels were weighed empty57, to obtain a tare
weight, prior to the beginning of the audit, and again upon completion of the audit, to obtain the
weight of the material collected. The single use bags were then characterized by type, counted, and
weighed categorically to determine the plastic bag composition percentage and average weight per
bag.
Once all the recycling material was sorted, each remaining commodity was baled. These bales were
weighed on-site with certified scales provided by TDS. Residual material was not baled, but was also
weighed in loose form. The weight of each commodity, including residual, was recorded by both TDS
and the City and then reviewed by each party to ensure accuracy. The individual totals were then
divided by the total weight of recycling material designated for the audit in order to establish the
percentage of each commodity. Percentages were calculated to the second decimal place.
The same procedure was carried out with a recycling stream of commingled material originating from
the residential recycling program of a municipality within the CAPCOG region without a bag
ordinance in place. This data is to be used comparatively against the City of Austins figures to define
reduction achievement. Originally this audit was designed to establish the basis of revenue due to the
COA from the processing and sale of recyclable material semi-annually, it will also serve as a
representative data collection tool to analyze the number of single use bags in the recycling stream
from the geographic area that TDS services.
The scale used to weigh the single use plastic bags as well as the tare vessels at both TDS and
Balcones was a WeiHeng WH-A Portable Electronic Scale with an accuracy of 5 grams for weights of 010 kilograms, and an accuracy of 10 grams for weights of 10 45 kilograms. There were no available
calibration certificates for the scales, however, weights were measure using two different scales and
an average was calculated [Measurement from Scale1 + Measurement from Scale2 / (2)] to obtain a
more accurate figure.
57
16
Figure 2. Locations of the routes which contributed to the Semi-Annual Recycling Audit
17
ii. Balcones Resources

The audit process conducted at the Balcones Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) located in Austin, Texas
was slightly different from that of TDS, both in terms of volume and the more automated nature of the
Balcones equipment. The date of the audit, as agreed upon by Balcones and the staff of Austin
Resource Recovery (ARR), was the 9th of May, 2015. Representatives from ARR were on site during the
audit from start to finish.
The collection trucks used for auditing were pre-selected from the portion of Austin which Balcones
services, specifically, all addresses on the Northern side of the Lower Colorado River (Figure 2). A total
of nine (9) truckloads of materials carrying 53,293 pounds of recycling material were set aside during
the preceding weeks collection as a representative sample of the customers served (Figure 2). The
trucks were weighed empty to obtain a tare weight, and again full, to obtain recyclable material
weight. All loads used in the audit were to be dry and reasonably compacted in accordance to the
truck manufacturers suggested pressure settings for the hydraulic system equipped on each vehicle.
The sorting equipment and employees processed the audited material exactly as though it were a
normal operational workday. However, there were six employees dedicated to collecting all plastic
bags, from the manual sorting line, including both single use and reusable but excluding other plastic
films. The employees manually removed the bags which were then collected into large, 50 gallon
plastic bags. The large bags were weighed empty, to obtain a tare weight, prior to the beginning of
the audit, and again upon the completion of the audit, to obtain the weight of the material collected.
The single use bags were then characterized by type, counted, and weighed categorically to
determine the plastic bag composition percentage and average weight per bag.
Once all the recycling material was sorted, each remaining commodity was baled. These bales were
weighed on-site with certified scales provided by Balcones. Residual material was not baled, but was
weighed in loose form on certified scales provided by Balcones. The weight of each commodity,
including residual as well as single use bags, was recorded by both Balcones and the City and then
reviewed by each party to ensure accuracy. The individual totals were then divided by the total
weight of recycling material designated for the audit in order to establish the percentage of each
commodity. Percentages were calculated to the second decimal place.
While this audit was originally designed to establish the basis of revenue due to the COA from the
processing and sale of recyclable material until the following audit, it will also serve as a representative
data collection tool to analyze the number of single use bags in the recycling stream from the
geographic area which Balcones serves.
18
D. Results of the Audit

i. City of Austin Recycling Stream
During each audit, plastic bags were captured by the manual sorting line before being allowed to
enter the MRF. These bags were collected, categorized, and weighed to determine the percent
composition within the recycling stream. Each facility handles recycling streams of slightly different
composition based on socio-economic demographics and other factors, and the results will show a
slight difference in composition. However, the scope of this study does not include an investigation into
the myriad aspects of consumer behavior; therefore, speculation as to the nature of the discrepancies
must be left in the opinions of the reader.
The composition of plastic bags from the audit of the recycling stream at Texas Disposal Systems is
shown in Figure 3. The data represents the proportion of each bag type by weight. Single use bags
comprised a total of 7% of all bags collected, by weight. However, by count, single use plastic bags
represented 35.7% of all bags collected. Plastic bags from H-E-B, a Texas based grocery retailer made
up the majority of plastic bags collected, at 62% of all bags from this audit. This is most likely because
they are the only grocery chain to distribute a 4 mil reusable bag, while all others provide paper, which
is recyclable in the MRF. The amount of unbranded reusable bags represented a large proportion of all
reusable bags, which is different than the data from Balcones. There are a variety of considerations as
to the nature of this difference; however, those discrepancies fell outside of the scope of this study.
Figure 3. Plastic Bag Composition - Texas Disposal Systems

4%
1%
2%
HEB Reusable Bags

Other Reusable Bags
32%
HEB Branded SUB

Branded SUB
61%
Unbranded SUB
Source: A. Waters, Texas Disposal Systems
The composition of plastic bags from the audit of the recycling stream at Balcones Resources is shown
19
in Figure 4. The data represents the proportion of each bag type by weight. Single use bags comprised
a total of 6% of all bags collected, by weight. However, by count, single use plastic bags represented
29.3% of all bags collected. Plastic bags from H-E-B once again made up the majority of plastic bags
collected, at a significantly higher rate of 92% of all bags from this audit. The amount of unbranded
reusable bags represented a much smaller proportion of all reusable bags, which is different than the
data from TDS.
Figure 4. Plastic Bag Composition - Balcones Resources
2%
2%
2%
4%
HEB Reusable Bags
Other Reusable Bags
HEB Branded SUB
Branded SUB
Unbranded SUB
90%
Source: A. Waters, Balcones Resources
Once all of the recyclable material had been processed through the MRF, the totals were tallied in
order to calculate percentages of both single use and reusable plastic bags in terms of their weight.
Table 5 shows that the average total plastic bag composition within the City of Austin is 0.054%, while
the single use plastic bag average composition was 0.004%.
Table 5. Plastic Bag Audit Totals from the City of Austins Recycling Stream and Comparison
TDS
Balcones
70,991
117,490
16,320
470
857
591
0.007
0.007
0.007
Plastic Bags Composition (by weight)
0.052%
0.055%
0.054%
0.036
0.071%
Reusable Plastic Bags
0.049%
0.052%
0.050%
0.011%
Single Use Plastic Bags
0.004%
0.003%
0.004%
0.060%
Total Recycling Processed (Lbs)

Total Number of Bags
Number of Bags per Pound
Average
Comparative
Source: A. Waters, Austin Resource Recovery, TDS, and Balcones
Source: A. Waters, Balcones Resources
20
ii. Comparative Recycling Stream

The composition of plastic bags from the audit of a municipality within the CAPCOG region which
was completed at Texas Disposal Systems is shown in Figure 5. The data represents the proportion of
each bag type by weight. Single use plastic bags comprised a total of 85% of all bags collected by
weight. By count, single use bags represented 97% of all bags collected, with 574 bags. All totals can
be found in Table 5. Plastic bags from HEB represent a lower percentage of the total as all retailers
from this municipality are still using single use plastic bags, so there is more variation in contributing
sources.
Firgure 5. Plastic Bag Composition - Comparative Study
4%
4%
11%
HEB Reusable Bags

Other Reusable Bags
HEB Branded SUB
Other Branded SUB
54%
27%
Unbranded SUB
Source: A. Waters, Texas Disposal Systems
Of special note, reusable bags comprise a much smaller proportion of the totals shown in figure 5. This
is likely due to the thickness of a bag not being mandated through an ordinance, and as a result, the
retailer is not as inclined to use this style of bag, especially as it is more expensive to produce and ship,
decreasing the revenues on an industry that already operates on an estimated 1.9% profit margin58.
Many stores in Austin have elected to either decline the option to provide a thicker plastic bag, or,
use a recyclable paper bag as defined by the Single Use Bag Ordinance 59.
Table 5 also shows that in general, plastic bags are much more prevalent in the recycling stream of
this representative community, as they appear at a rate of 0.036 bags per pound, a much higher rate
than Austin, at 0.007 bags per pound. Total plastic bags composition is higher in the compared
municipality, at 0.071%, due to a higher count of bags having a much lower weight per bag.
58
59
The Reinvestment Fund, Understanding the Grocery Industry, 2011

See Supra note 3
21
Conclusions
The Single Use Bag Ordinance for the City of Austin which went into effect over two years has had a
variety of responses; from the Texas Retailers Association filing a lawsuit 60 (later withdrawn), to
consumers both praising and forsaking the effort 61, and finally, the Attorney General of Texas, Greg
Abbott, issuing an opinion on his perspective of the legality of such ordinances 62. While most citizens
find the bag ordinance to be beneficially to the environment, at least in terms of the reduction of
litter63, the results do not indicate a clear success. Indeed, the amount of single use plastic bags has
been reduced, both in count and by weight. However, in their place, the larger 4 mil bags have
replaced them as the go to standard when the reusable bag is left at home. This reusable plastic bag,
along with the paper bag, has a very high carbon footprint compared to the single use bag.
Estimates state that a single paper bag must be used between 3-9 times in order to offset its overall
environmental impact64. The plastic bag is even higher, necessitating 4-12 uses before its impact is
mitigated. The paper bag, however, is fully recyclable, and the ordinance dictates that these bags
must be made from 80 % post-consumer material as well, perpetuating the cycle and providing a
market for that paper as a commodity.
The heavy gauge plastic bag is a different story. There is no standard for post-consumer material
content; therefore, these bags are often made with virgin plastic. Using virgin plastic reduces the
consumption of post-consumer, recovered plastic sources. This in turn relies heavily on the production
of plastic pellets made from the by-product of liquid natural gas refinement, further expanding the
carbon footprint. However, they were designed to be used 100 times or more, and if used consistently
over this many uses, their environmental impact decreases dramatically below that of the single use
bag65.
Plastic film, in all its forms66, is generally not recycled in the two MRFs which service Austin; it is
removed if possible and sent to the landfill67. The lack of recycling for films at the MRF can be
explained by two mechanisms. First, plastic film causes major problems for the machinery of the
recycling facility68, and it is in the best interest of these facilities to limit the amount of exposure to this
type of flexible plastic. When the material entangles the various sorting mechanisms of the MRF, the
The City of Austin, Communications and Public Information Office, 2013
Herzog, 2013
62 Lindell, 2014
64 Edwards & Fry, 2011
65
Ibid.
66 This can include, but is not limited to, dry-cleaning bags, produce bags, trash can liners, bread bags,
and new car wrapping; all of which eventually end up in the waste stream.
67 The exception to this is at Texas Disposal Systems. They have a program with the City of Georgetown,
Texas, named Bag the Bag in which plastic film is collected into city supplied plastic bags. This is then
recovered and marketed by TDS as a commodity.
60
61
22
efficiency drops dramatically. Both MRFs in Austin reported a decrease in downtime after the
ordinance was implemented, however, as both sites also service other communities without bag
ordinances, they still have to clean their machinery minimally at the end of each shift, in an effort to
remove the film and other contaminants. The second concern stems from the contaminated nature
of the film upon its arrival at the MRF. As MRFs are only responsible for the sorting and selling of the
recyclable material, the companies which buy this second hand film are primarily interested in the
highest quality material possible, as virgin plastic is inexpensive enough to be competitively priced.
Once the film is placed in a single stream recycling bin, it comingles with all the other materials,
becoming less frequent, and thus making a concerted removal effort more difficult to justify from a
cost-benefit perspective. In addition, any organic contamination within the single stream cart can
leach onto the film, making it utterly worthless as a commodity. For these reasons, most MRFs will not
accept plastic bags, as they cannot collect or sell this material in an economically viable manner.
So, if these plastic bags are not being recycled at our local facilities, what is their fate? More often
than not, they make their way into our landfills, taking even longer to degrade than a traditional
single use plastic bag as well as taking more space, both due to their thickness which is mandated by
the ordinance. The most ideal method for disposal comes from the retail take-back option available
at many retail locations. This is the box located near the entrance of a store which accepts plastic
films. These materials are then marketed to the buyers 69 of second hand films as less contaminated
product, and can be used more readily then the film coming from a MRF.
However, one unintended result of the single use bag ordinance was that many retailers in the Austin
area that were forced to discontinue supplying plastic bags also removed their plastic film recycling
boxes, as they no longer received the single use bags after a time. A phone survey of 30 local area
pharmacies70 found that only one facility still offered plastic film recycling. Most large grocery retailers
which were contacted reported that the recycling services were to be available for the foreseeable
future. However, as plastic bags are the main component to be recycled at grocery store take back
programs, the departure of the single use bag will inevitably signal a removal of the containers within
the stores. This could lead to an increase of plastic films in the waste and recycling streams, while
reducing the amount of recycled material going to the buyers of this film.
The use of 4 mil reusable plastic bags also increases the overall plastic bag presence as a component
of the recycling stream. Table 5 shows that while Austin had a much lower instance of bags per
pound in relation to the comparative municipality, figures 3 and 4 show that the reusable bags make
up 93% of the composition at Balcones and 90% at TDS. Based on the figures from the Waste
Buyers include Hilex-Poly, a plastic bag manufacturer, and Trex, a maker of composite decking.
The survey was conducted by calling 30 different pharmacies and pharmacy chains from north to
south Austin, and asking the manager whether the recycling was still offered on site.
69
70
23
Characterization study conducted for the City of Austin in March of 2015 71, removing these bags from
the recycling stream could potentially eliminate an additional 23 tons of plastic film from entering the
MRFs of Austin72. Based on the bag audits conducted at both TDS and Balcones for the City of Austin
recycling stream, the removal of reusable plastic bags would be nearly equivalent to the amount of
all of the single use bags removed from the recycling stream as a result of the ordinance
implemented in 2013.
While this is not an insignificant amount of bags removed, it pales in comparison to the volume
calculated from the recycling reduction. Data from the Cowtown Cleanup help annually in Fort
Worth, Texas suggests that the amount of plastic bags in the litter stream amounts to 0.12% of all litter
accrued. In Austin, during the CleanSweep event held by Keep Austin beautiful, the litter rate of
plastic bags73 was 0.03%. Assuming the figures from 2009 74 are accurate, and using the ratio of the
litter rates of Austin to Fort Worth, this reduction would amount to a 75% decrease in plastic bags
used. As table 3 shows, this amounts to a decrease in usage of 197,079,454 bags, annually, in Austin.
City-Serviced Residential Waste Characterization Study, 2015

This calculation is based on a processed recycling quantity of 46,415 tons in FY2014.
73 The recycling survey conducted in Austin did not differentiate between single use and reusable
bags; however, the original request for the team leaders of each of the volunteer cleanup sites was to
capture single use bags only.
71
72
24
10 Discussion
Across the board, there was a significant reduction in the amount of single use plastic bags received
by the citizens of Austin. From the perspective of judging whether the ordinance was successful in its
task, the answer is a resounding yes. However, if all other aspects of this issue are considered, the
answer becomes less clear. Simply reducing the usage of a product does not guarantee a positive
environmental or economic impact, and when evaluating the triple bottom line75 of people, planet
and profit in regards to sustainable development, it is necessary to consider all viewpoints when
broad reaching legislation is enacted.
A. People
Ideally, a piece of legislation is designed to change the behavior of the citizens or institutes within the
geographical area governed by political administration76. In this regard, the ordinance was a success
and a failure. From one perspective, the amount of single use plastic bags has shrunk dramatically,
reducing plastic film litter and lessening the impact on the MRF, decreasing downtime when
processing the recycling material of the City of Austin. As resolution 20080410-04877 achieved a
relatively low participation rate of 20%, the current evidence suggests that the single use bag
ordinance has achieved a greater reduction than the voluntary reductions loftiest goals. However,
the downside to this reduction is that it only applies to single use bags. The audit of recyclable material,
including the comparative analysis of a municipality in the CAPCOG region, shown in Table 5,
illustrates that the number of bags per pound is 0.036 in the nearby community while it is 0.007 in Austin.
This is a misleading indicator of success, as the weight of all bags, as indicated by the category Plastic
Bags Composition. From this data, the comparative figures plastic bags to comprise 0.071% of total
weight, while in Austin, the total is 0.054%. Looking closer, the data indicates that of the 0.054%
composition in Austin, reusable plastic bags make up 0.050% of that total. This amounts to 23 tons of
unnecessary reusable plastic bags found in the recycling stream of Austin. For the City to come closer
to achieving its Zero Waste Goals78, the implementation of a comprehensive educational awareness
and outreach program designed to educate the citizens on the recycling standards is the next vital
step in attaining the necessary reduction.
B. Planet
According the Zero Waste goals, The City of Austin has planned to divert 90% of its waste out of the
landfill by 2040. These efforts include implementation of a Universal Recycling Ordinance, as well as an
Slaper & Hall, 2011
Zamir & Teichman, 2014
77 Resolution 2008-0410-048 was approved by City Council as an effort to encourage voluntary plastic
bag recycling with the goal of reaching 50% reduction in 18 months. When this failed, the City of Austin
decided to pursue more aggressive efforts including the drafting of the Single Use Bag Ordinance.
78 See Supra note 1
75
76
25
organics diversion plan to encourage and facilitate compost collection as a residential service.
Reducing plastic bags, both single use and reusable is a positive step in realizing the goals of the Zero
Waste plan. While the overall reduction by weight so far is only about 0.017% 79, with the elimination of
the reusable plastic bags, the reduction could amount to a plastic bag rate of only 0.004% or 1.9 tons
per year80.
One other consideration for the elimination of the 4 mil thickness guideline detailed in the Single Use
Bag Ordinance is the carbon footprint of the reusable bag. According to a report published in 2011 81,
which performed a life cycle analysis one several different grocery bag types, the reusable bags
made of HDPE must be used at least 4 times to offset the amount of additional carbon used in their
manufacture and transportation. If these bags are largely being discarded before that point, the
environmental gain of Zero Waste is diminished due to a rise in this carbon output.
C. Profit
There are many economic impacts associated with the implementation of a plastic bag ordinance.
Directly applied to the retail stores which are the providers of the bags, the cost of providing a single
use plastic bag virtually disappears upon the implementation of the ordinance. Once the retailers in
Austin were no longer allowed to distribute these bags freely, the cost related to providing them has
been removed from their bottom line. Conversely, this cost has shifted to the consumer, who now must
purchase a bag, or, if they choose not to purchase a bag, bring an alternative carrying device with
them.
Additionally, single use plastic bag are often reused during their lifecycle 82, as lunch bags, waste
management, and pet cleanup to name a few. If the consumer is limited in the availability to use the
single use bags for these purposes, they will choose to either travel outside of the area 83, or purchase
replacement bags from a retailer. These replacements are an added cost to the citizens. One
economic analysis estimates the cost related to purchasing bags as a waste management alternative
to single use bags to be $633,588.8884 annually.
Indirectly, encouraging the use of reusable bags has ancillary economic influences as well. One of the
reasons that plastic bags have a low impact is due to their low weight, roughly 0.016 pounds per bag,
according to the recycling audit completed for this study. The 4 mil reusable bag, however, has an
The comparative municipalitys plastic bag rate is 0.71% while The City of Austins rate is 0.54%, a
difference of 0.017%
80 See Supra note 60, total recycling collection for FY 2014 was 46,415 tons.
82 Ibid.
83 Multiple interviews commented on this inevitability, both during the course of the research for this
study as well as documented cases from 3-1-1 calls placed in reference to the Single Use Bag
Ordinance.
84 Rozenski, The Economics of Plastic Retail Bag Disposal in Austin, Texas
79
26
average weight of 0.11 pounds per bag, according to the same audit. This amounts to almost a sevenfold increase in weight, which translating into more resources to transport the heavier bag, increasing
the carbon footprint an addition to the logistical cost of transportation for the retailers. When asked
about a quantifiable increase to the shipping costs of the reusable and paper bags, HEB replied that,
Our shipping is co-mingled and were unable to extract a number for this one product 85, however,
they did provide the photograph in Figure 6 to serve as a contrast between relative bag sizes.
Figure 6. Three Types of Bags, in Their Respective Shipping Containers
Photo Credit: HEB. From left to right: Fashion bags & Canvas Reusable bags
Quantity 100/case; 4 mil bags Quantity 250/case; Single-use plastic bags
2,000/case
The City of Austins outer limit is an amorphous shape due to annexing throughout the years. As a
result, there are many pockets of the city which residents are often surprised to learn belong to the
City. One such pocket is located in the northern are of Austin surrounded by the towns of Wells Branch
and Pflugerville. Within this area, there is an HEB grocery which is covered by the Single Use Bag
Ordinance. However, outside of Austin, in the adjacent towns, there are other larger grocery stores
which do not need to comply with the ordinance. The close proximity of the other grocery stores has
proven problematic for the HEB in this area of Austin, as they have reported that upon the
implementation of the Single Use Bag Ordinance, this store lost between $60,000 to $70,000 per week in
revenue86 as a result of customers choosing to shop at a store which would provide single use bags.
A prepared list of question was submitted to HEB and subsequently answered via email
correspondence.
85
27
11 Summary
The Single Use Bag Ordinance has been successful in reducing the amount of single use plastic bags in
the City of Austin. However, there have been unintended consequences such as an increase on
reusable plastic bags in the recycling stream, increased cost to the consumer, and unforeseen costs to
certain retailers.
Recommendations for improving the existing ordinance include:
Elimination of the availability of the 4 mil reusable bag
Further educate the consumer on proper recycling practices to remove film from recycling
stream
Encourage retail take-back of plastic bags throughout the City of Austin to increase efficiency
of MRF
Encourage surrounding communities to adopt a plastic bag ordinance, both to alleviate litter
concerns as well as facilitate consumer behavior change.
Further educate the consumer on proper reuse practices to add longevity to purchased reuse
bags.
28
12 Acknowledgements
Special Thanks to Bob Gedert, for all your advice, connections, and introspective chats; Thanks to
Michael Sullivan helping me get things done around the City; thanks to Aiden Cohen, Tom Gleason,
and Elizabeth Corey for all your help despite your ancillary duties; thanks to Rebecca Saltsman and
Rodney Ahart of Keep Austin Beautiful for the changes made to their largest project; thanks to Debbie
Branch of Keep Fort Worth beautiful for collecting data; thanks to Ryan Hobbs and Adam Gregory of
Texas Disposal Systems and Sara Koeninger and Kerry Getter of Balcones Resources for your help with
logistics; thanks to Andrew Dobbs for ideas and direction; thanks to Phil Rozenski and Logan Welde for
providing insight and information; thanks to the faculty and staff of St. Edwards University and
Universit catholique de lOuest; thanks to Roxanne Jackson, Andrew Clamann, Matt Westbrook, and
the rest of the staff at the Austin Watershed Protection Department; and a special thanks to my wife
Katie, without your insight I would be an ocean without a current.
29
13 Bibliography
ABOUT AUSTIN RESOURCE RECOVERY. (n.d.). Retrieved April 10, 2015, from
http://austintexas.gov/department/about-austin-resource-recovery
Andrady, A. L. (2011, August). Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(8),
1596-1605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030
Austin Resource Recovery. (2014, April 9). Single Use Bag Ordinance Update Presentation.
Retrieved March 2, 2015, from
https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.austintexas.gov%2Fedims%2Fdocument.cfm%3Fid%3D209279
Austin, Texas, Municipal Code 2-1-182 - ZERO WASTE ADVISORY COMMISSION.
Carlson, A. E. (2001). Recycling Norms. California Law Review, 89(5), 1231-1300. Retrieved from
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol89/iss5/1
CB&I Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc. (2015). City-Serviced Residential Waste Characterization
Study (USA, Austin Resource Recovery). Austin, TX.
The City of Austin, Communications and Public Information Office. (2013, September 17). TEXAS
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION DROPS BAG ORDINANCE LAWSUIT [Press release]. Retrieved May 11,
2015, from https://austintexas.gov/news/texas-retailers-association-drops-bag-ordinancelawsuit
City of Austin, Texas, City Council. (2007). Resolution No. 20070419-026. Austin, TX.
City of Austin, Texas, City Council. (2012). Ordinance No. 20120301-078. Austin, TX.
Clapp, J., & Swanston, L. (2009, May 01). Doing away with plastic shopping bags: International patterns
of norm emergence and policy implementation. Environmental Politics, 18(3), 315-332.
doi:10.1080/09644010902823717
doi: 10.1080/09644010902823717
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., & Galloway, T. S. (2011). Microplastics as contaminants in the
marine environment: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(12), 2588-2597. Retrieved April 15,
2015, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X11005133
Decision Analyst, Inc. (2013). Austin Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance Awareness &
Attitudes Post-Ordinance Report (Rep.). Austin, TX: Sherry Matthews Advocacy Marketing.
Eco-Industrial Park - MRF (Material Recovery Facility). (2011). Retrieved from
http://www.texasdisposal.com/index.php/services-eco-industrial-park
Edwards, C., & Fry, J. M. (2011). Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags: A Review of the
Bags Available in 2006 (UK, Environment Agency).
Edwards, R., & Kellett, R. (2000). Life in plastic: The impact of plastics on India. Mapusa, Goa: Other
India Press.
Environmental Resource Planning, LLC. (n.d.). 2013 Texas Litter Survey (Rep.). Retrieved March 2, 2015,
from Sherry Matthews Advocacy Marketing, Don't Mess With Texas website:
30
http://www.dontmesswithtexas.org/docs/DMWT_2013_Litter_Survey.pdf
Gedert, B. (2011, January 12). Memorandum to Mayor and Council Members, Austin TX [Plastic Bag
Findings and Clarifications].
Herzog, M. (2013, March 6). Austin Bag Ban Generates Mixed Bag of Reactions. Texas Monthly.
Retrieved May 11, 2015, from http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/austin-bag-ban-generatesmixed-bag-reactions
Houck, B. (2011, January 30). Lockout-Tagout: Tackling the Plastic Bag Problem at Oregon's MRF's.
Retrieved March 15, 2015, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoBSW75-AqM
Kelling, G. L., & Wilson, J. Q. (1982, March 01). Broken Windows. Retrieved April 20, 2015, from
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/brokenwindows/304465/?single_page=true
Kinzig, A. P., Ehrlich, P. R., Alston, L. J., Arrow, K., Barrett, S., Buchman, T. G., . . . Saari, D. (2013, March
01). Social Norms and Global Environmental Challenges: The Complex Interaction of
Behaviors, Values, and Policy. BioScience, 63(3), 164-175. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.3.5
doi: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.3.5
Lindell, C. (2014, August 29). Austin bag ban may violate state law, Greg Abbott says. Retrieved May
11, 2015, from http://www.statesman.com/news/news/abbott-bag-bans-may-violate-statelaw/nhCGq/
Mid Atlantic Solid Waste Consultants. (2009, September 18). 2009 National Visible Litter Survey And Litter
Cost Study (Rep.). Retrieved March 2, 2015, from Keep America Beautiful, Inc. website:
http://www.kab.org/site/DocServer/Final_KAB_Report_9-18-09.pdf
Muthu, S. S., & Li, Y. (2013). Life Cycle Assessment of Grocery Shopping Bags. EcoProduction
Assessment of Environmental Impact by Grocery Shopping Bags, 15-54. doi:10.1007/978-9814560-20-7_3
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2015, March 11). Watersheds, Flooding and
Pollution. Retrieved April 20, 2015, from
https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.education.noaa.gov%2FFreshwater%2FWatersheds_Flooding_and_Pollu
tion.html
Office of the City Clerk. (2012, March 5). Regular Meeting of the Austin City Council March 1, 2012.
Retrieved March 2, 2015, from https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2Faustintexas.gov%2Fdepartment%2Fcitycouncil%2F2012%2F20120301-reg.htm
Reazuddin, M. (2006). Banning Polyethylene Shopping Bags: A Step Forward to Promoting
Environmentally Sustainable Development in Bangladesh (Rep.). Retrieved March 23, 2015,
from BANGLADESH CENTRE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES website:
ekh.unep.org/files/Paper%20on%20Polythene.doc
Recommendation Number 20150114-003a: Single Use Bag study. (2015, January 15). Retrieved
31
February 24, 2015, from

https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.austintexas.gov%2Fedims%2Fdocument.cfm%3Fid%3D224691
The Reinvestment Fund. (2011). Understanding the Grocery Industry (USA, U.S. Treasury, Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund).
Romer, J. R., & Tamminen, L. M. (2014). Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinances: New York Citys Proposed
Charge on All Carryout Bags as a Model for U.S. Cities. Tul. Env L.J., 27(2), 237-276.
Rozenski, P. R. (2012). The Economics of Plastic Retail Bag Disposal in Austin, Texas (Assessment of Cost
Avoidance's, Revenues and Costs to Residents, Companies and the City of Austin, Working
paper).
Slaper, T. F., Ph.D., & Hall, T. J. (2011). The Triple Bottom Line: What Is It and How Does It Work? Retrieved
May 28, 2015, from http://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/ibr/2011/spring/article2.html
Summary of Austin Plastic Bag Initiative: Summary Report (Rep.). (2009, December 9). Retrieved March
10, 2015, from Texas Retailers Association website:
http://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Trash_and_Recycling/plastic_bags/TRA_Report__City_of_Austin_Plastic_Bag_Initiative_-_12.9.2009.pdf
Teuten, E. L., Saquing, J. M., Knappe, D. R., Barlaz, M. A., Jonsson, S., Bjrn, A., . . . Takada, H. (2009,
June 15). Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526),
2027-2045. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0284
Thousandth of an inch. (n.d.). Retrieved April 10, 2015, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousandth_of_an_inch
United States, International Trade Commission. (2009). Polyethylene retail carrier bags from Indonesia,
Taiwan, and Vietnam investigation nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-1158 (preliminary).
Washington, DC: U.S. International Trade Commission.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). American FactFinder - Community Facts. Retrieved April 20, 2015, from
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml
West Nile Virus In Texas. (2014, December 30). Retrieved April 16, 2015, from
https://www.dshs.state.tx.us/idcu/disease/arboviral/westnile/
Zamir, E., & Teichman, D. (2014). Ch. 10, Law, Moral Attitudes, and Behavioral Change. In The Oxford
handbook of behavioral economics and the law.
32

Austin Litter Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Austin Litter Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Austin Litter Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Austin Resource Recovery

1520 Rutherford Lane, Bldg. #1

Environmental Effects of the Single Use Bag Ordinance in Austin, Texas

Presentation of Austin Resource Recovery

Introduction to the Single Use Bag Ordinance of Austin, Texas

The Impact of Plastic Bag Litter

Plastic Bags as a Component of Austins Litter

Measuring Plastic Bags in the Recycling Stream

i. Texas Disposal Systems

ii. Balcones Resources

i. City of Austin Recycling Stream

ii. Comparative Recycling Stream

Master Plan. Rep. Austin Resource Recovery, 15 Dec. 2011.

City of Austin, Texas, Ordinance No. 20120301-078.

Presentation of Austin Resource Recovery

Residential curbside collection of landfill-bound waste, recycling, and bulk items

Street sweeping and litter abatement

Operating a household hazardous waste collection facility

Promotion of the Zero Waste philosophy and goals.

ABOUT AUSTIN RESOURCE RECOVERY

Introduction to the Single Use Bag Ordinance of Austin, Texas

City of Austin, Texas, Resolution No. 20070419-026.

The Impact of Plastic Litter

Houck, "Lockout-Tagout: Tackling the Plastic Bag Problem at Oregon's MRF's"

Environmental Resource Planning, LLC, 2013 Texas Litter Survey

Photo Credit for Above: K. Getter, Balcones

Photo Credit for Above: A. Waters, Austin

Plastic Bags as a Component of Austins Litter

Source: A. Waters and Keep Fort Worth Beautiful

Table 2. Totals from the Keep Austin Beautiful CleanSweep Event

Source: A. Waters and Keep Austin Beautiful

Measuring Plastic Bags in the Recycling Stream

B. Goal of the Audit

The tipping floor area for the material to be audited,

The materials recovery facility (MRF), including,

The receiving receptacles used in the MRF operation, and,

The storage bunkers.

C. Methodology for the Audit

ii. Balcones Resources

D. Results of the Audit

Figure 3. Plastic Bag Composition - Texas Disposal Systems

HEB Reusable Bags

HEB Branded SUB

Source: A. Waters, Texas Disposal Systems

Source: A. Waters, Balcones Resources

Plastic Bags Composition (by weight)

Reusable Plastic Bags

Single Use Plastic Bags

Total Recycling Processed (Lbs)

Source: A. Waters, Austin Resource Recovery, TDS, and Balcones

ii. Comparative Recycling Stream

HEB Reusable Bags

Source: A. Waters, Texas Disposal Systems

The Reinvestment Fund, Understanding the Grocery Industry, 2011

City-Serviced Residential Waste Characterization Study, 2015

Elimination of the availability of the 4 mil reusable bag

February 24, 2015, from

You might also like