2001 Solid Waste Data Master Plan Goals and Policies

1
2001 Solid Waste DataMaster Plan Goals and
Policies

• Solid Waste Advisory Committee
• November 18, 2003

2
2001 Waste Reduction Rates Key Points

• Overall waste reduction rate is 57
• Same as 2000 once 2000 adjusted for updated
  economic data
• Overall recycling rate is 46
• down from 48 in 2000
• Total disposal down 2 from 2000
• Generation down 1 from 2000 (was up slightly in
  2000)

3
What do these rates mean?

• Waste Reduction prevented need for 18 new 1,500
  tpd disposal facilities
• Recycling and Composting
• Reduced Greenhouse Gases by 1.1 million MTCE
• Saved 13 trillion BTUs of energy, enough to power
  120,000 homes for a year or equivalent to 100
  million gallons of gasoline
• Conserved 500,000 tons of iron ore, coal, and
  limestone and more than 17 million trees

4
What do these rates mean? (cont.)

• Recycling business adds more than 142 million
  annually in revenues for Massachusetts
• Directly supports 19,000 jobs with payroll of
  600 million

5
Progress in Meeting Waste Reduction Milestones
6
Recycling Progress
7
How MSW was Managed
8
How CD was Managed
9
Waste Management Capacity Projections

• Since 2000 Progress Report, permitted 100,000
  tons of additional landfill capacity, short of
  544,000 tons allowed
• Also extended permits within existing landfill
  capacity
• 365 K tons in 2003 and 2004
• 511 K tons in 2005 and 2006
• 146 K tons in 2007
• Based on 2001 data, an average of 570,000 tons of
  additional capacity per year for the next three
  years would be needed to achieve no net
  import/export of waste in 2006

10
Data MethodologyWaste Reduction

• Waste Reduction Rate
• Recycling Source Reduction
• Potential Generation (i.e., Generation w/o Source
  Reduction)

11
Data MethodologySource Reduction

• Source Reduction Potential Generation Actual
  Generation
• Potential Generation Calculated by Multiplying
  1990 Waste Generation by Gross State Product
  Driver

12
(No Transcript)
13
Data MethodologyMSW Recycling/Composting

• Total Recycling Processor Surveys
• Municipal Recycling Municipal Data Sheets
• Commercial Recycling Total Municipal
• Total Composting Site Reports
• Municipal Composting Data Sheets
• Commercial Composting Total-Municipal
• (Does not Include Home Composting)

14
Data MethodologyCD Recycling

• From CD Processors Survey
• Fines wood for fuel are counted as Other
  Diversion (will also include residuals)

15
Where do we stand on key Master Plan
goals/milestones?

• 70 diversion
• at 57 through 2001
• No net import/export by 2006
• In 2001, net export of 1.5 million tons
• Basically staying level, but no indication will
  reach no net import/export by 2006
• HHP access, goals
• Tellus estimated we are at 85 access in 2001,
  though that has likely declined due to program
  cuts

16
Where do we stand on key Master Plan strategies?

• Emphasize source reduction, toxicity reduction,
  and product stewardship
• CD Waste Ban
• Phased Disposal Capacity
• Solid Waste Regulations double liner
  requirements and facility-based risk assessment
• Enhanced waste ban enforcement
• Recycling Benefit Plans did not proceed
• Multi-family recycling legislation did not pass
• Non-MSW Materials Management

17
Where do we stand? (cont)

• Funding has been cut dramatically
• Can no longer implement all the programs Master
  Plan called for at least not in the same way,
  to the same extent, or in the same amount of time
• Are working on alternative strategies to do the
  best we can with limited resources

18
Tellus Findings

• 70 goal achievable by 2010, but requires
  sufficient funding and staffing
• Would need to increase from 20 to 31 waste
  reduction staff by 2010
• Would need to increase from about 12 million to
  16.5 million by 2010
• These resources not available for foreseeable
  future
• Also local governments that implement programs
  are more likely to cut than to grow programs at
  this time

19
Reviewing Master Plan

• Beginning process to review goals and strategies
• How to proceed for the rest of decade given
  reduced resources and staffing
• Should we modify major goals or strategies?