Presentation on theme: "Basic Assumptions Facilities managing MSW must go through Site Assignment Materials that are pre-sorted are not considered MSW Residuals remaining after."— Presentation transcript:
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
Options Option 1 - Site Assignment Lite Option 2 - Limited Revisions Option 3 - Expand Site Assignment Exemptions Option 3A – Include Other Conversion Technologies
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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 they are MSW and facility requires site assignment Enhance public notice process
Option 3A – Enhanced Permitting Criteria PROS Provides category for reviewing/permitting future /unforeseen technologies CONS Does this option expand exemptions too much?
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?
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.