Subject: Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Municipal Waste Ma
As long as the global warming debate is raging on the list, I thought I =
would forward this Federal Register notice that asks for your opinion. =
At the very least it is worth noting that greenhouse gas generation is =
not the sole domaine of the fossil fuel combustors of the world.
The paper concludes "source reduction yields the greatest reductions in =
greenhouse gas emissions, followed, in order, by recycling (including =
composting), and disposal (whether combustion or landfilling results in =
lower greenhouse gas emissions depends on the specific material)".
Anyone out there figured out how to generate power from hydrogen yet?
-----Original Message-----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5818-3]
=20
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Municipal Waste Management
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of data availability and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In support of the Source Reduction and Recycling Initiative=20
under the President's Climate Change Action Plan, EPA's Office of Solid=20
Waste and Office of Economy and Environment are releasing for public=20
review a draft contractor report estimating the greenhouse gas=20
emissions and sinks associated with managing ten materials in municipal=20
solid waste in a variety of ways. The ten materials examined are=20
newspaper, office paper, corrugated cardboard, aluminum, steel, HDPE=20
plastic, LDPE plastic, PET plastic, food scraps, and yard trimmings.=20
Together, these materials constitute roughly 50 percent of the=20
municipal solid waste stream. The municipal solid waste management=20
strategies addressed are source reduction, recycling, composting,=20
combustion, and landfilling.
The report employs a streamlined life cycle inventory methodology=20
to calculate the greenhouse gas emissions and sinks associated with=20
managing these materials in specific ways. This methodology includes=20
assessments of the following: (1) Process and transportation greenhouse=20
gas emissions from raw materials acquisition and manufacturing; (2)=20
carbon storage in forests; (3) soil carbon storage; and (4) greenhouse=20
gas emissions and emissions offsets associated with combustion and=20
landfilling. Greenhouse gas emissions estimates are made for each=20
material and management strategy on the basis of metric tons of carbon=20
equivalents per ton of material managed in a specific way.
Preliminary results indicate that municipal solid waste management=20
strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are generally consistent=20
with the municipal solid waste management hierarchy of preferred waste=20
management methods. That is to say, source reduction yields the=20
greatest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, followed, in order, by=20
recycling (including composting), and disposal (whether combustion or=20
landfilling results in lower greenhouse gas emissions depends on the=20
specific material).
The Agency is providing a 90-day comment period for this draft=20
contractor report. Information on how to submit comments is provided=20
below.
DATES: Submit comments on or before July 28, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their=20
comments referencing docket number F-97-GGEA-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket=20
Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental=20
Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), 401 M Street, S.W.,=20
Washington, D.C. 20460. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to=20
the Arlington, VA, address listed below. Comments may also be submitted=20
electronically by sending electronic mail through the Internet to:=20
rcra-docket@epamail.epa.gov. Comments in electronic format should also=20
be identified by the docket number F-97-GGEA-FFFFF. All electronic=20
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file; please avoid the use of=20
special characters and any form of encryption. Commenters should not=20
submit electronically any confidential business information (CBI). An=20
original and two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover=20
to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W),=20
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing=20
in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I,=20
First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is=20
open from 9 AM to 4 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal=20
Holidays. To review docket materials, the Agency recommends making an=20
appointment by calling (703) 603-9230. Persons may copy a maximum of=20
100 pages from any
[[Page 22943]]
regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the=20
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 or TDD (800) 553-7672 (hearing=20
impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call (703) 412-
9810 or TDD 412-3323.
For a paper copy of the report, ``Greenhouse Gas Emissions From=20
Municipal Waste Management,'' please contact the RCRA Hotline at (800)=20
424-9346 or TDD (800) 553-7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington,=20
DC, metropolitan area, call (703) 412-9810 or TDD (703) 412-3323. The=20
document number is EPA 530-R-97-010. The report is also available in=20
electronic format on the Internet at the following address: http://www.elsevier.nl
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/.
The official record for this action will be kept in paper form.=20
Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically=20
into paper form and place them in the official record, which will also=20
include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record=20
is the paper record maintained at the address in ``Addresses'' section=20
above.
EPA responses to comments, whether the comments are written or=20
electronic, will be contained in a notice in the Federal Register or in=20
a response to comments document placed in the official record for this=20
Notice of Data Availability. EPA will not immediately reply to=20
commenters electronically other than to seek clarification of=20
electronic comments that may be garbled in transmission or during=20
conversion to paper form, as discussed above.
Finally, for detailed questions regarding the report or to schedule=20
a report review meeting during the comment period, please E-Mail Eugene=20
Lee at lee.eugene@epamail.epa.gov or Clare Lindsay at=20
lindsay.clare@epamail.epa.gov and insert in the subject line of the=20
message only the term ``ghg.'' Organizations interested in meeting with=20
EPA to discuss the draft report should submit a list of questions or=20
issues to Eugene Lee or Clare Lindsay by E-Mail at least one week prior=20
to the scheduled meeting.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In October 1993, President Clinton announced=20
the U.S. Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). The primary goal of the=20
CCAP is to return U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 levels by=20
the year 2000. The plan's programs are voluntary public/private=20
partnerships between federal agencies and organizations that want to=20
protect the environment and operate more efficiently. Throughout the=20
country, CCAP program participants increase the energy efficiency of=20
their operations; conserve resources and promote renewable energy=20
technologies; nd improve industrial, agricultural, and forest=20
productivity as they relate to atmospheric pollution.
Among the 50 some initiatives outlined in the CCAP is Initiative #=20
16--the Source Reduction, Pollution Prevention and Recycling=20
Initiative. The purpose of this Initiative is to promote reduction and=20
recycling of municipal solid waste (MSW) as a means to help reduce=20
greenhouse gas emissions.
In an effort to estimate the potential for source reduction and=20
recycling of MSW to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, EPA's Office=20
of Solid Waste and Office of Economy and the Environment jointly=20
launched a research effort to quantify the greenhouse gas emissions=20
associated with reducing, recycling, composting, combusting, and=20
landfilling ten materials commonly found in MSW. The draft contractor=20
report noticed for public review today is the product of this initial=20
research.
While this draft contractor report has been reviewed by EPA and=20
other government agencies as well as a number of academic peer=20
reviewers, the report has not yet been reviewed by industry, state and=20
local governments, or non-governmental organizations. The Agency is=20
looking forward to detailed input from these sectors to help in=20
improving the methodology and data used in this draft report. EPA=20
expects this review process to result in changes and improvements to=20
the estimates contained in the draft that will make it more useful for=20
the applications outlined below.
The Agency anticipates four potential applications for the=20
greenhouse gas emission factors provided in this draft report. First,=20
organizations that are interested in quantifying greenhouse gas=20
emission reductions associated with managing a waste in a particular=20
way may use these estimates for that purpose. Second, the estimates of=20
greenhouse gas emissions and sinks may be useful to solid waste=20
decision-makers when evaluating specific municipal solid waste=20
management options. Third, EPA plans to use the estimates to evaluate=20
the extent to which its efforts to promote source reduction and=20
recycling (through such programs as WasteWi$e and Pay-As-You-Throw) may=20
be contributing to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Finally,=20
this analysis may assist other countries in estimating the extent to=20
which waste management offers opportunities for greenhouse gas=20
reduction.
The Agency is providing a 90-day comment period for this draft=20
contractor report. Comments can be submitted to the RCRA Docket either=20
electronically or by hard copy. See ADDRESSES section above for=20
information on submitting comments. For information on how to schedule=20
a meeting, please see the FURTHER INFORMATION section above.
Matthew Hale,
Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. 97-10887 Filed 4-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 6560-50-P
The discussion of the past few days has awakened many feelings about global
warming and the associated environmental costs, but there has been little
discussion of the costs of avoiding fossil fuel use. This issue has
recently been addressed by Thomas Gale Moore, a Senior Fellow at the
Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and a former member of Ronald
Regan's Council of Economic Advisors. While one may or may not agree with
his conclusions, it is worth while to note what is being said.
Moore's editorial appears in the current issue of Barron's (April 28, 1997,
p. 49) and can be found on the WWW at the following site:
http://www.barrons.com/bie/articles/current/toc.html
Moore says in part: "Yale economist William Nordhaus estimates a net
discounted cost of $7 trillion for stabilizing greenhouse-gas emissions at
1990 levels. Presuming that some system of carbon taxation would have to be
implemented, a study by DRI/McGraw-Hill economist Lawrence Horwitz
estimates that a levy of $100 a ton would cost the American economy $200
billion a year. Raising the carbon-tax estimate to $200 a ton produces a
$350 billion decline in the production of goods and services, a cost of
4.2% of our entire gross domestic product."
He goes on to say that "For consumers, it would feel like life during the
oil crisis of the late 1970s" and that
"The American Petroleum Institute warns
that the only way to achieve the drastic reductions called
for is through an energy tax or fuel rationing. It is
estimated that just to get back to 1990 emission levels
would require a doubling in home heating-oil prices and a
gasoline tax of 60 cents a gallon."
It is unclear how these estimates were arrived at or whether they take into
account the benefits from job creation or longer-term environmental
effects. Also, to this reader, a gasoline tax of 60 cents a gallon does
not seem undesirable or unthinkable.
The effect of low energy costs have created infrastructure barriers in the
United States economy: tremendous dependence on truck as opposed to rail
transport; spreading suburbs with long commutes to work; inefficient
automobiles, poorly insulated homes and work spaces, and inefficient
manufacturing practices that has driven jobs overseas.
Energy conservation need not be as painful as envisioned by Moore and the
API. It is time that we begin to reclaim photovoltaic and wind energy
technology as US manufacturing industries.
Here in Wisconsin, following the shut-down of the Point Beach nuclear
reactors last September (apparently due to irreparable corrosion in cooling
coils), installation of one of the largest wind energy generation systems
in the country is proceeding at only a small fractional increase above what
is traditionally one of the lowest utility rates in the country. The irony
from a domestic perspective is that the wind machines are being imported
from Germany.
Tom Jeffries