Transcript W Hartford Haz Waste.pptx

Recycling Campaign
West Hartford
Four Perspectives
 Economic Implications – now and in the future
 Regulatory background
 Engineering comparison of alternatives
 Tactics
Background and goals
 Current program
 33% diversion rate
 Single Stream Recycling – collection cost $91,000 per
month
 Town Receives approx. $12 per ton
 If WH Doubles diversion rate it would cover about 90%
of the recycling program ($12 of income - $57 dollars of
avoided fees)
 Current goal is to increase diversion rate from 33% to
37% in 2015
Regulation
 Since January 99 – Connecticut requires certain
items to be recycled.
 Certain items forbidden to be disposed of in trash
 Connecticut “aspirational goal” – 58% diversion by
2024
 Federal “aspirational goal” – 50% diversion by 2015
Regulatory Hierarchy of
Waste Management
Engineering Perspective
 Recycling is better than Energy Recovery and
Landfilling from 4 vantage points:




Energy Use
Solid Waste Produced
Air Emissions
Water Emission
Energy Use
September 17, 1996
17:25
Annual Reviews
DENIBACK(D).DUN
AR16-08
Recycling Saves 3x the energy that WTE produces
ENVIRONMENTAL LIFE–CYCLE COMPARISONS
219
Tactics
 Revamp town website
 Education – media and schools
 Focus on key generators – e.g. sporting events
 Peer pressure – “Blue Ribbon” barrels
 Feedback – monthly public review of diversion rate.
SAQs
 Seldom asked questions:
 Is recycling mandated by law?
 Is our current level of waste output sustainable?
 Will education and coercion be enough?
Managing Residential Hazardous Waste
– The New Maginot Line
 Discuss the goals and approach of the Hazardous
Waste collection program
 “Deep Dive” on a typical lawn product and the
nature of its pesticide:
 Behavior in the Soil/Water
 Toxicity to Bees and Fish
 Toxicity to Humans
 Recommendations
The Program
 Comprehensive list of materials to be handled by
hazardous waste pickups
 2x per year collection
 Guidance on where to recycle materials not listed
 Guidance on proper mixing and use of chemicals
 Guidance on alternatives to hazardous chemicals
 Recycling opportunities for electronics
An “Innocent” Product
Scotts® Turf Builder® With SummerGuard
Bifenthrin

Bifenthrin is a Type I pyrethroid that affects the central and peripheral
nervous system by interfering with sodium channel gating.

Bifenthrin is included in the draft list of initial chemicals for screening under
the U.S. EPA Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).

The U.S. EPA classified bifenthrin as a Category C, possible human carcinogen

Bifenthrin is very highly toxic to fish with 96-hour LD50 values of 0.10 and
0.18 ppb for rainbow trout and bluegill sunfish.

Bifenthrin is highly toxic to bees with and oral LD50 of .1 ug/bee.
Good News / Bad News
 Bifenthrin is not nearly so toxic as its predecessor
pesticides.
 It is only moderately persistent
 Once in the soil it binds to the soil and doesen’t migrate.
 However if it is washed off and into waterways it is
problematic and bio accumulate in the aquatic life
 It can reach children through direct contact and exposure
to pets.
 It will kill bees if they are exposed.
The Maginot Line  The hazardous waste program is a formidable
barrier to improper disposal of hazardous waste.
 But we ought not feel secure given that many of the
chemicals will get to us through “proper” use.
 Bifenthrin is one of hundreds of “invaders”
Recommendation
 Rank order “legitimate” chemical use in the town
based on a combination of toxicity (to humans and
other life) and amount of usage (i.e. if highly toxic,
or heavily used rank it higher)
 Test children – waterways – and birds for levels of
these chemicals.