Product Stewardship Can Provide Savings to Local Governments
By Kevin Voorhees

During the past twenty years, local governments and solid waste management companies have invested millions to achieve dramatic increases in recycling rates. However, even though New Yorkers recycle more now than ever, the amount of waste requiring disposal has also continued to increase. To reverse this trend, in March of this year the New York State Association for Solid Waste Management (NYSASWM) took steps to start reducing the amount of waste generated by forming the New York Product Stewardship Council (NYPSC).

The mission of the NYPSC is to promote product stewardship, also known as extended producer responsibility, as the priority policy for solid waste management. Through the enactment of legislation at the state and, ultimately, federal level, product stewardship (e.g., manufacturer take back legislation) will shift our waste management system from one focused on government funded and ratepayer financed solid waste and recycling programs to one that develops manufacturer responsibility for the recycling and reuse of their products at the end of their useful lives. The intent is to encourage producers to make improvements in product and packaging design that promote environmental sustainability, increase recycling and reuse of manufactured products, and that creates green jobs.

The NYPSC is the seventh Product Stewardship Council in North America – the others have been established in the Northwest (States of Oregon and Washington), California, Texas, Vermont and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Nova Scotia.  

Local governments can learn more about the benefits of product stewardship through a unique arrangement made by the NYPSC and NYSASWM, which has made membership in the Product Stewardship Institute through December 31, 2010 available for free for every local government in New York State.

The advancement of product stewardship legislation in other states has shown that product stewardship can save local solid waste management programs substantial money. For example, the State of Washington’s new electronics product stewardship program, which holds manufacturers responsible for setting up the means to properly handle their electronic products at end-of-life, will save Snohomish County $368,000 in annual electronic waste (e-waste) program operating costs and will generate $180,000 in revenue per year for providing some of the e-waste collection infrastructure/services (for a net gain of $548,000 per year for that county).

Similar savings may soon be realized by local e-waste management programs in New York State, if e-waste product stewardship legislation supported by the NYPSC (A.9049/S.6047) is enacted by the Senate and signed by the Governor (it passed in the Assembly on June 22, 2009). After e-waste, which is the fastest growing component of the waste stream, future product stewardship legislation in New York may address other products such as leftover paint, mercury thermostats, fluorescent lamps, pharmaceuticals, and product packaging.

With funding assistance from New York City and other state solid waste management and recycling associations, the NYPSC and NYSASWM have arranged for more information on product stewardship to be made available to every local government in the state by providing free member benefits in the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) through December 31, 2010. Local governments can sign up for this free PSI membership by filling out the "NYPSC - Full Government Membership" form at http://www.productstewardship.us/registernewmembers.cfm

Do Your Floors Contain Mercury?
By John E. Rigge

Maybe! Mercury was used in making some rubber-like (polyurethane) floors from the 1960s to the 1990s. This flooring has been found primarily in gymnasiums, field houses and similar rooms and facilities. These floors were typically a multi-part liquid resin floor poured over concrete. Mercury was added as a component of one part as a catalyst for the curing process and was reported to improve flowability and elasticity of the floor. The concentration at which the mercury was added was based on the manufacturer and specific flooring product. One manufacturer added aryl mercury salt (phenyl mercuric acetate) in concentrations between 0.1 and 0.2 percent.

The problems – Mercury Vapor, Handling, & Disposal. Mercury from these floors could evaporate into the air and accumulate in indoor air. If mercury vapor accumulates to a high level, it can be a health concern for people who breathe in the mercury vapor over a period of months to years. Long-term exposure may cause hand tremors and tingling in hands and feet as well as memory disturbances and other neurological effects. Removal or disturbance of these floors exacerbates the problem exponentially.

Based on the life expectancy and location of these floors, many have likely been replaced. More often, these floors have been concealed by the installation of another poured resin, rubber-like flooring system. This is the case for the two most recent mercury floor removals being completed by B&L clients. One floor system encompasses more than 50,000 square feet of a field house on a college campus. The other is in a public school gymnasium. B&L sampling indicated that each floor contained sufficient mercury (0.2 mg/L or more) for it to be considered a hazardous waste by the EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The materials were sampled and analyzed by TCLP (Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure) analysis. The floors were found to contain mercury at a concentration ranging from 2.1 to 2.5 mg/L. Further, mercury has been found to have permeated to the underlying concrete subfloor.

Of additional concern will be the methods and procedures for the removal of the floor systems. The limited disturbance required to collect a 1” x 1” sample of the floor material for analysis resulted in the liberation of mercury vapor at levels in excess of the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) using a Jerome Mercury Vapor Analyzer. Full scale removal and containerization of the floors will require specialized engineering controls, procedures, and equipment. Proper transport and disposal/treatment of the waste generated will also be of concern.

B&L is currently working with the facility owners assessing the extent of mercury/mercury contamination, and developing the removal plans and specifications.

Green Components are a Significant Factor in Federal Funding Priorities
By Richard A. Straut, P.E

The Obama administration is driving funding and regulatory policy toward alternative energy and green infrastructure at a rapid pace. The administration’s funding policies place a priority on green innovation, and recognize that significant investment in infrastructure is necessary. Funding programs are providing higher priority to projects that have a green, sustainable, and/or energy conservation component. More water projects will be funded than in recent years, and grants will likely become available for clean water and drinking water projects where they were not available in the past.

The EPA section of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) includes $6 billion in the STAG account for Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) capitalization grants. Funds will remain available for obligation until September 30, 2010. The ARRA authorized that not less than 20% of economic stimulus funding provided for the State Revolving Funds (SRFs) be used for green infrastructure. Of the $432 million in stimulus funds appropriated for the New York Clean Water SRF, $86.5 million will be available for green infrastructure projects. Of the $86.8 million in stimulus funds appropriated for the New York Drinking Water SRF, $17.36 million will be available for green infrastructure projects.

Green infrastructure projects eligible for these funding sources include:

• Water efficiency, reuse or conservation:  projects that deliver equal or better services with less water.

• Energy efficiency: projects that reduce energy consumption, use renewable energy, or produce clean energy for water or wastewater facilities. 

• Green wet weather infrastructure: projects that maintain, restore, or mimic natural systems to infiltrate, evapotranspirate, or recycle stormwater. Examples of these projects include green streets (effectively treat street runoff through sustainable stormwater practices), wet weather management for parking lots, green roofs, etc.

• Environmental innovation: projects that manage water resources to prevent or remove pollution in an economically sustainable way. Examples of this include wetland restoration and constructed wetlands, decentralized wastewater treatment solutions, green infrastructure/low-impact development stormwater projects; water reuse/balance projects; and sustainable landscaping/site design, etc.

Beyond ARRA, it is expected that the administration’s policies to promote green innovation and invest in infrastructure will continue. Budget proposals in Congress reflect significant increases in the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs and investment in innovative energy development. Therefore, funding opportunities for implementing critical infrastructure development are expected to be much more accessible for communities for years to come. Stay tuned for more details as they develop.

EPA Brownfield Assessment and Clean-up Grant Program Applications Due This Fall
By Stephen B. Le Fevre, P.G., C.P.G.

The EPA Brownfield Program emphasizes a locally based approach to environmental protection that encourages strong public-private partnerships while promoting innovative ways to assess, clean up, and redevelop Brownfield sites. Accordingly, the mission of the EPA Brownfield program is to provide funding to states, communities, and other stakeholders to assess, clean up, and reuse Brownfield sites in the pursuit of economic redevelopment. The impacts of Brownfields revitalization on the affected community can be significant. For instance, the successful cleanup and re-use of an abandoned Brownfield site can result in the following positive impacts to a municipality:

• Increase in the local tax base

• Facilitate new job growth

• Utilize existing infrastructure

• Reduce pressure to develop Greenfield or open space areas

• Prevent sprawl

• Improved quality of life
  

According to the EPA, a Brownfield site is defined as “real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence, or potential presence, of hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants, controlled substances, petroleum products, or is a mine-scarred land.” Common examples of Brownfield sites are abandoned gasoline stations, former petroleum bulk storage facilities, abandoned factories/mills, former industrial sites, and chemical spill sites.

There are currently three different types of grants available under the EPA Brownfield Program – Assessment grants, Cleanup grants, and Revolving Loan Fund (RFL) grants. Assessment grants provide funding for developing inventories of Brownfield sites, prioritizing sites, conducting community involvement activities, and conducting site assessments and cleanup planning related to the targeted Brownfield sites, while cleanup grants provide municipalities with the necessary funding to carry out cleanup activities at previously investigated Brownfield sites. The intent of RLF grants is to provide the necessary funding for a grant recipient to capitalize a revolving loan fund and to provide sub-grants to carry out cleanup activities at Brownfield sites.

For this year’s round of EPA Brownfield funding, grant proposals will be due to the EPA by late October/early November 2009, and grants will be announced in the Spring of 2010, so now is the time to start planning to take advantage of this valuable program.