Regulators, contractors and recyclers in Massachusetts now have less than 12 months to figure out how to recycle every bit of asphalt, brick, concrete and wood generated by C&D activities.
A Bay State regulation banning the diposal of those materials, as well as scrap metal and corrugated containers, is tentatively scheduled to take effect Dec. 31, 2003.
A Construction and Demolition Debris Sub-Committee for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has been meeting to discuss several issues, with the disposal ban among the primary topics.
The Rule Review Committee (a group assembled to work with DEP personnel in rewriting CMR 19.000, the DEP’s rulebook) has finished its work and the final document draft is being prepared. After internal review, it will be put out for public comment in the spring.
A companion guidance document has undergone a similar review but is not yet complete. One delay on this document, according to sources in Massachusetts, is the argument by one rail-haul facility that it should be exempted from the ban. The DEP has largely decided that all waste handling facilities will be subject to the ban once it is effective.
Under the Solid Waste Advisory Committee there are two sub-committees. One is for Organics and the other for C&D Debris. Under C&D Debris are yet four more work groups: Source Separation, Market Development, Processing, and Policy.
The work group on Source Separation has five projects under way. Fact sheets the work group is preparing will describe the projects in detail, including cost analyses so that other demolition contractors can use them as guidance.
The Market Development work group reported that Massachusetts has been an active participant in the Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE). CARE is seeking applications for grans of up to $50,000 for projects involving recycling of post consumer carpet.
The Georgia Pacific gypsum plant in Newington, N.H., recycled 50,000 tons of process waste and clean end cuts last year. In two years it will be able to handle triple that amount. So far it does not accept painted or used gypsum. The DEP wants to ban gypsum from disposal next, but admits that it will need a central collection point for clean gypsum first.
Two asphalt shingle-recycling projects are being considered, but no formal applications have been submitted yet.
At present, wood chips—the leading end product under Massachusetts rules for wood taken from mixed C&D loads—can be sent to wood-fired power generators in Maine. The DEP has determined that such use shall be considered “diversion” and count towards its goals of reducing the tonnage sent to landfills. The department has also ruled that wood-fired plants in Massachusetts will not need site assignment but will be subject to air quality regulations on emissions, control of ash disposal and will require a “beneficial use determination” to accept wood chips. One company is reportedly considering locating a plant in New Bedford, Mass.
The DEP has also partnered with an EPA WasteWise program known as the WasteWise building challenge. This promotes sustainable design, minimizes waste, uses materials that will be recyclable and promotes energy efficiency and waste reduction. The DEP is seeking contractors to join the WasteWise program.
On the rail export issue, one company, Champion City Recycling (CCR), Brockton, Mass., has requested that it be exempt from the waste ban or, if not, that the effective date for the ban be delayed. Management there claims there has been a slack market for wood chips. They also claim that they have a signed contract with a company in Ohio to use mixed, unprocessed C&D to fill old, abandoned coal mines. But the DEP seems adamant on enforcing the ban and on the timing, and CCR may be required to comply with the bans, as will be all other waste handling facilities.
On another rail export project, the town of Millbury, Mass., the State DEP, a group of local residents in Millbury and a group of C&D processors have all petitioned the Surface Transportation Board to prohibit LB Railco, from using a site next to a historic river and near two drinking water wells for an open air transfer of mixed C&D debris to rail cars.
LB Railco is claiming exemption from state regulations on the grounds it is a federally chartered rail company, but opponents contend this is not applicable, as the rail operations are not an integral part of the handling of waste. Meanwhile the owner of the property has filed a counter petition that the Surface Transportation Board will also ultimately rule on.
A source in Massachusetts reports that the whole issue may be moot if LB Railco decides to sell its property to a mall developer with an interest in the area.