Commodity Disposal Ban Analysis PA Department of Environmental Protection

1. Commodity Disposal Ban Analysis PA Department of Environmental Protection SWAC Commodity Disposal Ban Subcommittee August 6, 2008

2. Agenda • Finalize Review Process • Analysis of Materials • Subcommittee Ban Recommendations • Implementation of Bans • Ensuring Compliance with Bans • 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 Issues • Recommendation

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Analysis of Materials • Act 101 materials • Paper • Aluminum, Steel and Bimetallic Cans • Plastic Bottles • Glass Bottles and Jars • Electronic Waste • Mercury-Containing Devices

10. Commodity Prices

11. 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

12. Commodity Prices

13. 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

14. Commodity Prices

15. 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

16. Commodity Prices

17. 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

18. Commodity Prices

19. 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

20. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

26. 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

27. 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.

28. 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

29. Thank You! Questions or Comments? Special Thanks to • Larry Holley • Kim Hoover • Carl Hursh • Tom Hyatt • Cindy Lauderbach • Babul Pathak • Charlie Scheidler