Thomas A. Mackie from Mackie, Shea, O'Brien's presentation on 'Zero Waste' in Massachusetts.

1. Zero Waste inZero Waste in
Massachusetts?Massachusetts?
MassRecycleMassRecycle
R3R3
April 1, 2013April 1, 2013
Thomas A. MackieThomas A. Mackie

2. 22

3. Q. 1: Do you define zero-waste as zero-waste in theQ. 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 politicalNo, zero waste should not be governed by political
boundaries. Zero waste should focus on whetherboundaries. Zero waste should focus on whether
materials with a potential beneficial reuse arematerials with a potential beneficial reuse are
disposed of regardless of location.disposed of regardless of location.
33

4. Q. 2: If you mean zero-waste in the state, how do weQ. 2: If you mean zero-waste in the state, how do we
deal with the pending capacity shortfall. If not, doesdeal with the pending capacity shortfall. If not, does
it matter how materials shipped out of state areit 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 ownMassachusetts should take responsibility for its own
materials (waste) management. Although the industrymaterials (waste) management. Although the industry
opposes barriers to interstate commerce, changes in flowopposes barriers to interstate commerce, changes in flow
control law may put teeth in state boundaries.control law may put teeth in state boundaries. UnitedUnited
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 solid550 US 330 (2007) (local ordinance forcing solid
waste companies to dispose waste to local public facilitywaste 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 withIf flow control is lawful, Massachusetts could be faced with
prohibition on export of waste.prohibition on export of waste.
44

5. 55

6. 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.

7. Q. 2: Continued/Tellus ReportQ. 2: Continued/Tellus Report
ExcerptsExcerpts
 While MA waste-to-energy incineration capacity isWhile MA waste-to-energy incineration capacity is
expected to remain at about 3.1 million tons per yearexpected to remain at about 3.1 million tons per year
through 2020, MA permitted landfill capacity is expected tothrough 2020, MA permitted landfill capacity is expected to
decline precipitously from 2.5 million tons per year in 2006decline precipitously from 2.5 million tons per year in 2006
to about 630,000 tons per year by 2020. The assumedto 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 additionalstate landfill capacity, means that significant additional
processing/disposal capacity will be required inprocessing/disposal capacity will be required in
Massachusetts and/or significant increases in net wasteMassachusetts and/or significant increases in net waste
exports will occur.exports will occur.
77

8. 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 shortfallMassachusetts will have a capacity shortfall
of 3.1 M tons/year, compared to currentof 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 isRather than approaching zero waste, this is
a projected net increase in the amount ofa projected net increase in the amount of
waste to be managed (presumably exportedwaste to be managed (presumably exported
for landfilling).for landfilling).
88

9. 99

10. 1010

11. Solid Waste Master PlanSolid Waste Master Plan
 Action Item:Action Item:
 MassDEP will modify the moratorium on municipal solid waste combustion to encourageMassDEP will modify the moratorium on municipal solid waste combustion to encourage
the development of alternative technologies (e.g., gasification and pyrolysis) forthe development of alternative technologies (e.g., gasification and pyrolysis) for
converting municipal solid waste to energy or fuel on a limited basis. The moratorium willconverting 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. Totalremain 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 statewidenew 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 shortfallto 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 weof 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 thosedo 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. Proposedportions 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 recyclingprojects will have to meet stringent emissions, energy efficiency, and upfront recycling
standards. New facilities will be subject to the same site assignment rules as otherstandards. New facilities will be subject to the same site assignment rules as other
facilities. MassDEP will seek stakeholder input while developing performance standardsfacilities. MassDEP will seek stakeholder input while developing performance standards
for municipal solid waste conversion facilities. Any new facilities will be required tofor municipal solid waste conversion facilities. Any new facilities will be required to
employ state of the art processing technologies focused on removing recyclableemploy state of the art processing technologies focused on removing recyclable
materials to the greatest extent possible so that these facilities do not supplant recyclingmaterials to the greatest extent possible so that these facilities do not supplant recycling
or re-use options.or re-use options.
1111

12. 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 ofnecessary 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 Planhealth, 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?

13. Q. 3: Do you count alternative energy as a part ofQ. 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 toZero waste should be defined as not allowing materials to
go to waste that otherwise have the potential for beneficialgo 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

14. Tellus Institute ReportTellus Institute Report
1)1) From a lifecycle environmental emissions and energyFrom a lifecycle environmental emissions and energy
perspective, source reduction, recycling and composting are theperspective, source reduction, recycling and composting are the
most advantageous management options for allmost 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

15. Tellus Report Con’t.Tellus Report Con’t.
 2)2) After maximizing diversion through source reduction, recycling andAfter maximizing diversion through source reduction, recycling and
composting, it is appropriate for DEP to continue to monitorcomposting, it is appropriate for DEP to continue to monitor
developments regarding alternative waste management technologies thatdevelopments regarding alternative waste management technologies that
produce energy – gasification, pyrolysis, and anaerobic digestion. Inproduce energy – gasification, pyrolysis, and anaerobic digestion. In
evaluating conventional and alternativeevaluating conventional and alternative management options for themanagement options for the
remaining waste stream, the competing needs of energy generation andremaining waste stream, the competing needs of energy generation and
prevention of climate change come into play, given that materials with highprevention of climate change come into play, given that materials with high
fossil fuel energy content, such as plastics and rubber, also emit high levels offossil 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 suchExpected federal regulation of carbon emissions, or market mechanisms such
as cap-and-trade systems, may place additional focus on solid wasteas cap-and-trade systems, may place additional focus on solid waste
management facilities as emission sources, making greenhouse gases anmanagement 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

16. Proposition 2 ½ Not a BarrierProposition 2 ½ Not a Barrier
 Myth that Proposition 2 ½ restrains MassDEP’s ability toMyth that Proposition 2 ½ restrains MassDEP’s ability to
mandatemandate
 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 notDEQE argues that G.L. c. 29, Sec. 27C, does not
exempt municipalities from laws or regulations ofexempt municipalities from laws or regulations of
general applicability governing activities engaged in bygeneral applicability governing activities engaged in by
private businesses, when the municipality voluntarilyprivate businesses, when the municipality voluntarily
engages in such activities. We agree.”engages in such activities. We agree.”
1616