Zero Waste in Zero Waste in Massachusetts?Massachusetts?

MassRecycle MassRecycle R3R3

April 1, 2013April 1, 2013Thomas A. MackieThomas A. Mackie

22

Q. 1: Do you define zero-waste as zero-waste in the Q. 1: Do you define zero-waste as zero-waste in the state, or does shipping out of state qualify?state, or does shipping out of state qualify?

No, zero waste should not be governed by political No, zero waste should not be governed by political boundaries. Zero waste should focus on whether boundaries. Zero waste should focus on whether materials with a potential beneficial reuse are materials with a potential beneficial reuse are disposed of regardless of location.disposed of regardless of location.

33

Q. 2: If you mean zero-waste in the state, how do we Q. 2: If you mean zero-waste in the state, how do we deal with the pending capacity shortfall. If not, does deal with the pending capacity shortfall. If not, does

it matter how materials shipped out of state are it matter how materials shipped out of state are handled?handled?

Like any other part of essential infrastructure, Like any other part of essential infrastructure, Massachusetts should take responsibility for its own Massachusetts should take responsibility for its own materials (waste) management. Although the industry materials (waste) management. Although the industry opposes barriers to interstate commerce, changes in flow opposes barriers to interstate commerce, changes in flow control law may put teeth in state boundaries. control law may put teeth in state boundaries. United United Haulers Assoc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mngt. Haulers Assoc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mngt. Auth., Auth., 550 US 330 (2007) (local ordinance forcing solid 550 US 330 (2007) (local ordinance forcing solid waste companies to dispose waste to local public facility waste companies to dispose waste to local public facility does not violate interstate commerce clause.)does not violate interstate commerce clause.)

If flow control is lawful, Massachusetts could be faced with If flow control is lawful, Massachusetts could be faced with prohibition on export of waste.prohibition on export of waste.

44

55

Projected Capacity ShortfallProjected Capacity Shortfall

Tellus/MassDEP projectionsTellus/MassDEP projections

66

Tellus Projections for 2020 Assuming Increased Generation (2%/yr.) and Increased Diversion from 47% to 62% (2006 Baseline)*

Waste Generation 18,300,000

Diversion at 62% (11,400,000)

Residual for Disposal 6,900,000

Projected Landfill Capacity (630,000)

Projected MWC Capacity (3,100,000)

Export or otherwise manage 3,170,000

*Assessment of Material Management Options for the Massachusetts Solid Waste Master Plan Review, Tellus Institute December 2008.

Q. 2: Continued/Tellus Report Q. 2: Continued/Tellus Report ExcerptsExcerpts

While MA waste-to-energy incineration capacity is While MA waste-to-energy incineration capacity is expected to remain at about 3.1 million tons per year expected to remain at about 3.1 million tons per year through 2020, MA permitted landfill capacity is expected to through 2020, MA permitted landfill capacity is expected to decline precipitously from 2.5 million tons per year in 2006 decline precipitously from 2.5 million tons per year in 2006 to about 630,000 tons per year by 2020. The assumed to about 630,000 tons per year by 2020. The assumed growth in waste generation, combined with the loss of in-growth in waste generation, combined with the loss of in-state landfill capacity, means that significant additional state landfill capacity, means that significant additional processing/disposal capacity will be required in processing/disposal capacity will be required in Massachusetts and/or significant increases in net waste Massachusetts and/or significant increases in net waste exports will occur.exports will occur.

77

Q. 2: ContinuedQ. 2: Continued

Tellus Institute Report projects that in 2020, Tellus Institute Report projects that in 2020, after increased waste reduction, after increased waste reduction, Massachusetts will have a capacity shortfall Massachusetts will have a capacity shortfall of 3.1 M tons/year, compared to current of 3.1 M tons/year, compared to current shortfall or about 1M tons/yr.shortfall or about 1M tons/yr.

Rather than approaching zero waste, this is Rather than approaching zero waste, this is a projected net increase in the amount of a projected net increase in the amount of waste to be managed (presumably exported waste to be managed (presumably exported for landfilling).for landfilling).

88

99

1010

Solid Waste Master PlanSolid Waste Master Plan Action Item:Action Item: MassDEP will modify the moratorium on municipal solid waste combustion to encourage MassDEP will modify the moratorium on municipal solid waste combustion to encourage

the development of alternative technologies (e.g., gasification and pyrolysis) for the development of alternative technologies (e.g., gasification and pyrolysis) for converting municipal solid waste to energy or fuel on a limited basis. The moratorium will converting municipal solid waste to energy or fuel on a limited basis. The moratorium will remain in place for new capacity for traditional combustion of municipal solid waste. Total remain in place for new capacity for traditional combustion of municipal solid waste. Total new capacity for gasification or pyrolysis of municipal solid waste will be limited statewide new capacity for gasification or pyrolysis of municipal solid waste will be limited statewide to 350,000 tons per year. This limit is set at ½ of the projected in-state capacity shortfall to 350,000 tons per year. This limit is set at ½ of the projected in-state capacity shortfall of approximately 700,000 tons if our disposal reduction goals are met, ensuring that we of approximately 700,000 tons if our disposal reduction goals are met, ensuring that we do not overbuild long-term disposal capacity. These technologies will be used for those do not overbuild long-term disposal capacity. These technologies will be used for those portions of the waste stream for which reuse or recycling are not an option. Proposed portions of the waste stream for which reuse or recycling are not an option. Proposed projects will have to meet stringent emissions, energy efficiency, and upfront recycling projects will have to meet stringent emissions, energy efficiency, and upfront recycling standards. New facilities will be subject to the same site assignment rules as other standards. New facilities will be subject to the same site assignment rules as other facilities. MassDEP will seek stakeholder input while developing performance standards facilities. MassDEP will seek stakeholder input while developing performance standards for municipal solid waste conversion facilities. Any new facilities will be required to for municipal solid waste conversion facilities. Any new facilities will be required to employ state of the art processing technologies focused on removing recyclable employ state of the art processing technologies focused on removing recyclable materials to the greatest extent possible so that these facilities do not supplant recycling materials to the greatest extent possible so that these facilities do not supplant recycling or re-use options.or re-use options.

1111

1212

Statutory Authority for Partial Lifting of MoratoriumStatutory Authority for Partial Lifting of Moratorium

Authority: “to determine [the solid waste facilities] Authority: “to determine [the solid waste facilities] necessary and convenient to the disposal of necessary and convenient to the disposal of [Massachusetts] waste in a manner which protects public [Massachusetts] waste in a manner which protects public health, safety and the environment.” 1995 Master Plan health, safety and the environment.” 1995 Master Plan Revision citing G.L. c. 16, Revision citing G.L. c. 16, § 21 § 21

Question: After how many years does a “moratorium” Question: After how many years does a “moratorium” become a “ban” and should there be a regulation?become a “ban” and should there be a regulation?

Q. 3: Do you count alternative energy as a part of Q. 3: Do you count alternative energy as a part of zero waste strategy?zero waste strategy?

Zero waste should be defined as not allowing materials to Zero waste should be defined as not allowing materials to go to waste that otherwise have the potential for beneficial go to waste that otherwise have the potential for beneficial use. Beneficial uses should include recycling, composting, use. Beneficial uses should include recycling, composting, and energy recovery. and energy recovery.

1313

Tellus Institute ReportTellus Institute Report

1) 1) From a lifecycle environmental emissions and energy From a lifecycle environmental emissions and energy perspective, source reduction, recycling and composting are the perspective, source reduction, recycling and composting are the most advantageous management options for all most advantageous management options for all (recyclable/compostable) materials in the waste stream. (See (recyclable/compostable) materials in the waste stream. (See Tables ES-1 and ES-2, below.) This finding confirms the traditional solid waste management hierarchy that has guided MA DEP’s Solid Waste Master Plan to date.

1414

Tellus Report Con’t.Tellus Report Con’t.

2) 2) After maximizing diversion through source reduction, recycling and After maximizing diversion through source reduction, recycling and composting, it is appropriate for DEP to continue to monitor composting, it is appropriate for DEP to continue to monitor developments regarding alternative waste management technologies that developments regarding alternative waste management technologies that produce energy – gasification, pyrolysis, and anaerobic digestion. In produce energy – gasification, pyrolysis, and anaerobic digestion. In evaluating conventional and alternative evaluating conventional and alternative management options for the management options for the remaining waste stream, the competing needs of energy generation and remaining waste stream, the competing needs of energy generation and prevention of climate change come into play, given that materials with high prevention of climate change come into play, given that materials with high fossil fuel energy content, such as plastics and rubber, also emit high levels of fossil fuel energy content, such as plastics and rubber, also emit high levels of greenhouse gases when they are combusted or processed for energy. greenhouse gases when they are combusted or processed for energy. Expected federal regulation of carbon emissions, or market mechanisms such Expected federal regulation of carbon emissions, or market mechanisms such as cap-and-trade systems, may place additional focus on solid waste as cap-and-trade systems, may place additional focus on solid waste management facilities as emission sources, making greenhouse gases an management facilities as emission sources, making greenhouse gases an increasingly important consideration in future waste management decision-increasingly important consideration in future waste management decision-making.making.

1515

Proposition 2 ½ Not a BarrierProposition 2 ½ Not a Barrier

Myth that Proposition 2 ½ restrains MassDEP’s ability to Myth that Proposition 2 ½ restrains MassDEP’s ability to mandate mandate

Town of Norfolk v. DEQE, 407 Mass. 233, 238 (1990).Town of Norfolk v. DEQE, 407 Mass. 233, 238 (1990).– ““DEQE argues that G.L. c. 29, Sec. 27C, does not DEQE argues that G.L. c. 29, Sec. 27C, does not

exempt municipalities from laws or regulations of exempt municipalities from laws or regulations of general applicability governing activities engaged in by general applicability governing activities engaged in by private businesses, when the municipality voluntarily private businesses, when the municipality voluntarily engages in such activities. We agree.”engages in such activities. We agree.”

1616