Options to Modify the Site Assignment Regulations

1. Options to Modify the Site Assignment Regulations

2. Basic Assumptions • Facilities managing MSW must go through Site Assignment • Materials that are pre-sorted are not considered MSW • Residuals remaining after separating recyclables from the waste is MSW • POTWs managing SSO in addition to sludge in an AD unit are adequately regulated under BRP regulations and exempt from SW regulations • Must ensure quality of both incoming pre-sorted materials and outgoing products • Maintain standards of protection • Provide for adequate public review and comment on permits

3. Options • Option 1 - Site Assignment Lite • Option 2 - Limited Revisions • Option 3 - Expand Site Assignment Exemptions   • Option 3A – Include Other Conversion Technologies

4. Types of Operations • Examples of operations handling pre-sorted materials: • Agricultural anaerobic digester • Advanced windrow composting • Anaerobic digester >250 tpd • Aerobic digester >250 tpd • Gasification or other technology

5. Major Issues • Quality and Type of Input Materials • Source Separated Organics (SSO) • Pre-sorted Materials • Size of Operation • Location of Facility • Type of Technology • Quality and Type of End Products

6. Option 1 - Site Assignment Lite • Using the current site assignment process, create specific composting/recycling facility siting criteria for use by Boards of Health • Issue: Should the siting criteria be modified or should any be added? • Statutory requirements cannot be modified • BOH timelines • Public hearing requirement • Need for BOH to issue site assignment decision

7. Option 1 - Site Assignment Lite • Existing Handling Facility Siting Criteria • No site is suitable where the waste handling area is: • Within a Zone I of public water supply • Within an IWPA or Zone II • Within a Zone A of surface drinking water supply • 500 feet upgradient or 250 feet of private water supply • For TS <50 tpd, is fully enclosed system and 250 feet from residence, prison, health care facility, school, etc. • For TS >50 tpd, is 500 feet from residence, prison, health care facility, school, etc. • Within the Riverfront Area • Maximum high groundwater is within 2 feet of ground surface

8. Option 1 - Site Assignment Lite • Existing General Siting Criteria • No site is suitable where the waste handling area is within: • An area of designated Agricultural land • Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) • Also, these issues must be addressed: • Traffic impacts and access to site • Impacts to Wildlife and wildlife habitat • Protection of open space • Potential air quality impacts • Potential for creation of nuisances • Sufficiency of Size of facility • Impacts of Areas previously used for solid waste disposal • Preference for locations with no Existing facilities • Consideration of other sources of contamination or pollution • Preference for locations with no Regional participation

9. Option 1 - Site Assignment Lite • PROS • Facilities that receive site assignment get protection provided by statute on zoning • Siting criteria are tailored to specific types of facilities • CONS • Limited ability to modify process established by statute • Site assignment process can be long and expensive • Outcome of application process not guaranteed

10. Option 2 – Limited Approach • Limited proposal – Clarifies/expands composting • Redefines composting to include anaerobic and aerobic digestion • Removes existing tonnage/size restrictions on composting facilities • Removes restrictions on what types of compostable materials a facility may accept • Uses existing DON criteria for review and approval • Does not add new, more specific criteria to address location, types of materials or technologies • Enhanced public notice procedures

11. Option 2 – Limited Approach • PROS • Addresses all current food waste proposals • CONS • Only addresses food waste/SSO materials and does not address other pre-sorted materials • Does not address gasification, enzymatic/chemical conversion or other types of projects using pre-sorted materials • Does not provide as much certainty to applicants because specific decision criteria not specified

12. Option 3 – Expand Site Assignment Exemptions • Go beyond current limitations in definitions of composting and recycling • Expand current exemptions for recycling and composting • Enhance public notice process

13. Option 3 – Expand Site Assignment Exemptions • Expand definitions of composting and recycling (as in Option 2) to include: • Anaerobic digestion • Aerobic digestion • Propose two levels of permits: • “Permit by Rule” for facilities that pose little risk (current conditional exemptions) • Facility-specific permits for facilities that potentially pose greater risk than those in “permit by rule” category (similar to current DON process)

14. Option 3 – Enhanced Permitting Criteria • Expand facility-specific permit process (DON): • Expand and clarify permit application and decision criteria by considering: • Adequacy of pre-sorting of the materials – What test must you pass? • The site • Size of facility • Technology or process to be used • End-products, quantities and product quality

15. Option 3 – Expand Site Assignment Exemptions • PROS • Fits into current regulatory scheme and builds on existing exemptions • Clarifies process and criteria to be used for review • CONS • Does this option expand exemptions too much? • Difficulty in developing review criteria given interrelationship of various criteria • As size goes up, concerns (impacts) potentially go up • As technology improves (i.e. in-vessel systems), concerns go down

16. Option 3A – Enhanced Criteria • Assumption – Start with changes from Option 3 • Add an exemption category for “conversion” technologies that are neither recycling nor composting • Enzymatic/chemical • Pyrolysis • Other conversion technology • Based on concept of handling only presorted materials and perhaps other criteria like non-compostable or non-recyclable • Clarify the test for determining if materials are adequately pre-sorted • If materials fail the test then theyare MSW and facility requires site assignment • Enhance public notice process

17. Option 3A – Enhanced Permitting Criteria • PROS • Provides category for reviewing/permitting future /unforeseen technologies • CONS • Does this option expand exemptions too much?

18. Other Options, Technologies or Activities? • Consider picking and choosing • Combine best of each option into new option • What are we missing? • Are there other options we should consider?