slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Commodity Disposal Ban Analysis PA Department of Environmental Protection

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 29

Commodity Disposal Ban Analysis PA Department of Environmental Protection - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 94 Views
  • Uploaded on

Commodity Disposal Ban Analysis PA Department of Environmental Protection SWAC Commodity Disposal Ban Subcommittee August 6, 2008. Agenda . Finalize Review Process Analysis of Materials Subcommittee Ban Recommendations Implementation of Bans Ensuring Compliance with Bans Next Steps.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Commodity Disposal Ban Analysis PA Department of Environmental Protection' - luke


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1
Commodity Disposal Ban Analysis

PA Department of Environmental Protection

SWAC Commodity Disposal Ban Subcommittee

August 6, 2008

agenda
Agenda
  • Finalize Review Process
  • Analysis of Materials
  • Subcommittee Ban Recommendations
  • Implementation of Bans
  • Ensuring Compliance with Bans
  • Next Steps
slide3

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 Issues
    • Recommendation
slide4

Finalize Review Process (cont)

  • Environmental, Health and Safety Impacts
    • Added questions on:
      • Current restrictions
      • Exceptions
      • Historical information
    • Added decision point
  • Management Impacts
    • Added questions on:
      • Access to collection programs
      • Capacity to manage the materials
    • Added decision points
slide5

Finalize Review Process (cont)

  • Added Economic Impacts
    • Added questions on:
      • On-going costs/revenues
      • Implementation costs for collection
      • Implementation costs for processing
    • Added decision point
  • Implementation Issues
    • Added questions on:
      • When the ban should be effective
slide6

Finalize Review Process (cont)

  • Implementation Issues (cont.)
      • When the ban should be enforced
      • Education
      • How to address illegal disposal
      • Local and regional issues
      • Other actions that could be taken to improve implementation of a disposal ban
slide7

Finalize Review Process (cont)

  • Added Recommendation Step
    • Added:
      • A question on other actions that could be taken that would achieve the same results as a disposal ban
      • A final question on whether the material should be banned
      • A question on rationale for the recommendation
slide8

Analysis of Materials

  • Act 101 materials
    • Paper
    • Aluminum, Steel and Bimetallic Cans
    • Plastic Bottles
    • Glass Bottles and Jars
  • Electronic Waste
  • Mercury-Containing Devices
slide11

Analysis of Materials (cont)

  • Paper
    • 66% of population currently mandated to recycle
    • Greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by 1,857,198 MCTE/year
    • 2,201,118 tons/year would be diverted from disposal
    • 86% of population has access to recycling
    • Only 15-47% of paper is currently recycled
    • Potential to generate revenue
    • Private industry role
slide13

Analysis of Materials (cont)

  • Aluminum, Steel and Bimetallic Cans
    • 66% of population currently mandated to recycle
    • Greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by 230,929 MCTE/year.
    • 151,376 tons/year would be diverted from disposal.
    • 86% of population has access to recycling
    • Only 32-40% of metal cans are currently recycled
    • Potential to generate revenue
    • Private industry role
slide15

Analysis of Materials (cont)

  • Plastic Bottles
    • 66% of population currently mandated to recycle
    • Greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by 62,591 MCTE/year.
    • 155,683 tons/year would be diverted from disposal.
    • 86% of population has access to recycling
    • Only 31-37% of plastic bottles are currently recycled
    • Potential to generate revenue
    • Private industry role
slide17

Analysis of Materials (cont)

  • Glass Bottles and Jars
    • 66% of population currently mandated to recycle
    • Greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by 25,715 MCTE/year.
    • 234,629 tons/year would be diverted from disposal.
    • 86% of population has access to recycling
    • Only 9-14% of glass bottles or jars are currently recycled
    • Potential for savings
slide19

Analysis of Materials (cont)

  • Electronic Waste
    • Commercial, industrial, institutional and municipal establishments required to either recycle CRTs or manage as hazardous waste
    • Commercial, industrial, institutional and municipal establishments required to either recycle other electronic waste or determine if it is a hazardous waste
    • Greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by 84,574 MCTE/year
    • 137,299 tons/year would be diverted from disposal
slide20

Analysis of Materials (cont)

  • Electronic Waste
    • Based on EPA waste composition data the quantity of electronic waste increased 52.6% from 2000 to 2006
    • Only 18% of electronic waste is currently diverted from disposal
    • 89% of population has access to collection programs
    • 100% of the population has access to mail-back programs for a fee
slide22

Analysis of Materials (cont)

  • Electronic Waste
    • The potential disposal cost is approximately $16.6 million/yr. to consumers if each household generated one large electronic waste item every four years
    • Federal and state legislation could be enacted to establish an electronics recycling program
slide23

Analysis of Materials (cont)

  • Mercury-Containing Devices
    • Commercial, industrial, institutional and municipal establishments required to manage mercury-containing devices as hazardous waste
    • An additional 21 million bulbs/year would be diverted from disposal
    • 234 lbs/year of mercury would be diverted from disposal
slide24

Analysis of Materials (cont)

  • Mercury-Containing Devices
    • 79% of population has access to household hazardous waste collection programs
    • 100% of the population has access to either commercial collection programs or can use mail- back programs for a fee of $0.50 to 1.00/bulb
    • The potential disposal cost is approximately $10.6 to 21.2 million/yr. to consumers if each household generated 6 bulbs/year
slide26

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
ensuring compliance
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 knowingly dispose of electronic waste or mercury-containing devices.
  • Waste haulers would provide information on bans to customers.
next steps
Next Steps
  • Finalize Implementation Recommendations
  • Finalize Recommendations to Ensure Compliance
  • Evaluate Additional Materials
    • Carpet
    • C&D Waste
    • Mattresses
    • Source Separated Food Waste
    • Textiles
    • White Goods
    • Wood Pallets
thank you questions or comments
Thank You! Questions or Comments?

Special Thanks to

  • Larry Holley
  • Kim Hoover
  • Carl Hursh
  • Tom Hyatt
  • Cindy Lauderbach
  • Babul Pathak
  • Charlie Scheidler
ad