Commodity Disposal Ban Analysis
Download
1 / 29

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


  • 93 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

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


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


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


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


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


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


Analysis of Materials

  • Act 101 materials

    • Paper

    • Aluminum, Steel and Bimetallic Cans

    • Plastic Bottles

    • Glass Bottles and Jars

  • Electronic Waste

  • Mercury-Containing Devices



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



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



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



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



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


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


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


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


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


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