1 / 22

Commodity Disposal Ban Analysis PA Department of Environmental Protection SWAC Commodity Disposal Ban Subcommittee Sep

Commodity Disposal Ban Analysis PA Department of Environmental Protection SWAC Commodity Disposal Ban Subcommittee September 11, 2008. Agenda . Finalize Review Process Discussion of Proposed Materials Subcommittee Ban Recommendations Proposed Regulations Implementation Recommendations

fiorella
Télécharger la présentation

Commodity Disposal Ban Analysis PA Department of Environmental Protection SWAC Commodity Disposal Ban Subcommittee Sep

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Commodity Disposal Ban Analysis PA Department of Environmental Protection SWAC Commodity Disposal Ban Subcommittee September 11, 2008

  2. Agenda • Finalize Review Process • Discussion of Proposed Materials • Subcommittee Ban Recommendations • Proposed Regulations • Implementation Recommendations • Next Steps

  3. Finalize Review Process • Objective of the review process: To collect sufficient information for the subcommittee to make an informed recommendation to SWAC regarding disposal bans for specific commodities. • Environmental, Health and Safety Impacts • Management Impacts • Economic Impacts • Implementation Factors • Recommendation

  4. Finalize Review Process (cont) • Improved formatting • Section 1- Commodity Information • Moved commodity questions from Environmental, Health and Safety Impacts to Commodity Information • Section 3 - Management Impacts • Added block for describing other options. • Moved decision points

  5. Finalize Review Process (cont) • Section 5 - Implementation Factors • Moved question on when ban should be effective to Section 6 Recommendations • Added questions on local and regional issues • Section 6 - Recommendations • Added question on when the ban should be effective • Added other actions to ensure successful implementation of a disposal ban

  6. Analysis of Materials • Source Separated Food Waste • Easily confused with food waste • Food waste covers a broad category of material from a broad range of sources. • Residential • Commercial • Institutional • Industrial • 1,127,170 tons/year of food waste currently disposed

  7. Analysis of Materials (cont) • Source Separated Food Waste (cont) • Management Options • 13 Institutional Establishments are composting food waste • 9 Composting facilities accept food waste • Recommendations • Perform a detailed analysis of food waste collection and processing alternatives and costs

  8. Analysis of Materials (cont) • Source Separated Food Waste (cont) • Recommendations (cont) • Reduce volume of food waste from institutional establishments • Encourage composting of food waste from institutional establishments • Provide information on the availability of food waste management alternatives to commercial and institutional establishments.

  9. Management of Source Separated Food Waste from 2006 RW Data

  10. Management of Source Separated Food Waste from 2004 RW Data

  11. Analysis of Materials (cont) • Leaf Waste • Leaf waste is currently restricted from disposal • 66% of population currently mandated to recycle • 347,164 tons/year would be diverted from disposal • Currently 62.8% of leaf waste is diverted from disposal

  12. Analysis of Materials • Leaf Waste (cont) • Leaf and Yard Waste are often confused • Expand ban to Yard Waste (includes grass clippings) • 141 composting locations currently accept grass clippings • 136,084 tons/year would be diverted from disposal

  13. Sources of Data • Quantity Currently Disposed - 2003 Waste Composition Study • Quantity Currently Diverted – 2005 County Recycling Reports • Collection Programs – DEP Recycling Website Where to Recycle • Greenhouse Gas Reductions – EPA Waste Reduction Model (WARM)

  14. Sources of Data • Alternative Management Options – Various Sources including Composting, Material Recovery and General Permits facility information from the DEP website • Disposal Costs – Published statewide average of ~ $54/ton • Alternative Management Costs - Northeast Regional Average Pricing for listed recyclable Materials or advertised prices for electronic and fluorescent lamps take back programs

  15. Proposed Regulations • Added requirement for a plan for assuring that solid waste received at the facility is consistent with §§ 273.201 and 273.202 • Added Disposal Restrictions § 273.204 • Mercury-containing devices • Whole waste tires • Yard Waste • Aluminum, steel and bimetallic cans • Recyclable grades of paper

  16. Proposed Regulations • Commodities (cont) • PETE (#1) and HDPE (#2) plastic bottles and jars • Glass bottles and jars • Electronic waste, including CRTs • Added evaluation process • Added review process • Added records on materials not permitted to be disposed

  17. Implementation • Amend regulations or Act 101 to establish bans • Collection programs would need to be provided for the population that does not currently have access to recycling • Role of Private Industry • Role of State, County and Local Governments • How long will implementation take/when should the ban be effective? • Education information would be disseminated by state, county and local governments and by the waste collection and disposal industry

  18. Ensuring Compliance Management System Approach • Participation Rates • County Recycling Data • Transfer and disposal facilities would develop and implement a plan to minimize the disposal of banned materials as part of their permit conditions. • Disposal facilities could not dispose of electronic waste or mercury-containing devices. • Waste haulers would provide information on bans to customers.

  19. Next Steps • Finalize Review Process • Finalize Form • Create Technical Guidance Document • Add to Regulations • Finalize Existing Reviews • Obtain missing information • Evaluate Additional Materials

  20. Status of Commodity Disposal Ban Reviews • Preliminary Reviews Completed • Uncontaminated Recyclable Grades of Paper • #1 and 2 Plastic Bottles • Aluminum, Steel and Bimetallic Cans • Glass Bottles and Jars • Electronic Waste (Includes CRTs) • Mercury-Containing Devices • Source Separated Food Waste • Leaf Waste

  21. Status of Commodity Disposal Ban Reviews • Evaluate Additional Materials • Carpet • C&D Waste* • Land Clearing & Grubbing Waste • Mattresses • Oil-Based Paint • Rigid Plastics • Evaluate Additional Materials (cont.) • Shredded Tires • Textiles* • Waste Oil and Used Oil Filters • White Goods/Scrap Metal • Wood/Wood Pallets

  22. Conclusion • The review process works well for simple commodity types. • The process is useful in identifying implementation factors for complex commodities such as C&D or food waste.

More Related