You are on page 1of 14

_.

7~

~------------~-~r-----'-..01!!!.;~------:--I~-------1

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation


Division of Materials Management
Bureau' of Permitting and Planning, 9th Floor 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-7260 Phone: (518) 402-8678 Fax: (518) 402-9024 Website; www.dec.ny.gov .! ("
.
r

-. Joe Martens Commissioner

SEP'262012
Commissioner Nicholas D'Antonio City of Albany Department of Public Works . One Connors Blvd. " Albany, New York 12207 Dear Mr. D'Antonio: Re: Draft Capital Region Solid Waste Mafmgement Partnership Local Solid. Waste Management Plan .

Staff from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Department) have reviewed the Draft Capital Region Solid Waste Management Partnership Local Solid Waste Management Plan (LSWMP), dated October 2010 and p~o:vide .. ~. . the enclosed comme.rits.. . It is recognized that this Draft LSWMP was s~bmitted to the Department in January 2011 and due to a number of internal Department programmatic reasons, final review was not able to be completed until now. We appreciate your patience duriiigtbis period. We look.forward to working with you to address our comments and recommend meetingl~o more fully discuss these comments as well as the next steps in the LSWMP development and finalization process, Weare committed to working with the Planning Umt to develop an. approvable LSWMP. .. .
. ". >l; "',. .

The LSWMP is an important tool toward an improved solid waste management system that will .benefit the residents of the Capital Region/ The Planning Unit is commended for recognizing that organics recycling is an important part of solid waste management and their efforts to increase recycling during the planning period and for being progressive in the pIari's for the establishment of a regional food scraps recovery facility." ,'. .... '. After you have had the opp0rtm:llty to review these comments, please contact Richard Forgeain the Region 4 Office at your earliest conveD!en~e, at (51~) 357-2~43,to schedu17.a meeting. . ,

:David! Vitale . Director ;.: .Bureau of Permitting Enclosure ec: . W. Bruce, City of Albany . K. Gallagher, Clough Harbor Associates E. Kelly, NYSDECRegioil 4 Director

:~2lL

and Planning

".

\
"

-----------------------------~--.-Comments on Capital Region Solid Waste Management Partnership's . Draft Local Solid Waste Management Plan . (Dated October 2010)
A review was conducted based on the requirements of 6 NYCRR Section 360-15.9 for Local Solid Waste Management Plan (LSWMP) contents. The following comments summarize the concerns and . deficiencies in the submitted draft LSWMP. These comments are divided into two sections; a general comments section intended to discuss some of the broader comments on the LSWMP and a specific comments section intended to identify more specific issues related to the text and LSWMP. Separate response to these comments is not required and can instead be provided as part of the text of the revised draft LSWMP.

General Comments 1. There are a number of instances through the LSWMP where data used was considerably
dated when submitted in January 2011 and will need updating for current reference and evaluation. In addition, there are instances where changes may have occurred during the extended review time of the Departinent since January 2011 that may have an impact of the Final LSWMP and will also need to be updated. The specific comments will strive to identify those instances and the Department will work with the planning unit to identify and minimize updates due to the extended review time of the draft LSWMP by the Department. In those instances, the specific comments will strive to identify those instances to minimize duplication of comments.

2. There are a number of comments that affect several portions of the LSWMP.

3. The text of the LSWMP often refers to a LSWMP through 2030 and in other areas including the implementation schedule and recovery rate/disposal projections plans through 2020. The Department
will approve a ten year planning period for LSWMPs when complete. Accordingly, all references to a term of the planning period should be ten years. For the current draft LSWMP, that would be 2011 through 2020. However, due to the extended review time of this draft by the Department, it is . suggested the term be revised to 2013 - 2022. References in the LSWMP to time frames that reach 2030 (or 2032 is adjusted) may be most appropriately referred to as a ''planning horizon" as was done in the final paragraph of Section 2.1.2 and used by the State in Beyond Waste to capture the concept of impacts of actions and activities undertaken during the planning period that will be more completely realized beyond the planning period. . 4. The four major categories of waste that need to be analyzed and addressed as part of a LSWMP are: municipal solid waste (MSW) which includes residential, commercial and institutional waste; construction and demolition (C&D) debris; industrial waste; and biosolids. This LSWMP addresses MSW, C&D debris and Industrial waste but does not address biosolids. This category of waste should be incorporated into the LSWMP as appropriate through the LSWMP. It is acknowledged that biosolids management was noted in response to comment DISS on pages 38 and 39 of the "Response to Comments" but needs to be included and evaluated in the LSWMP.

5. While there are a number of instances where background information provided are the same that was used in the 2009 LSWMP Modification, there are a number of significant details and aspects that are
not specifically included or merely incorporated by reference in the LSWMP. Those especially related to the detailed activities, steps and time frames identified need to be should be included in the revised draft LSWMP.

Page 1 of 13 .

-~---------------"

---,-

6.

Any typographical errors noted during review will be provided independently meetings or conversations for consideration in final editing.

as part of future review

Specific Comments
The following review comments are provided in the order they were identified in the draft LSWMP and are not in order of significance. Section headers from the LSWMP are included for ease of organizing these comments. Executive 7. Summary

Table-E-2 (which is also Table 3-5) is missing data noted elsewhere in the LSWMP or does not correlate with available Department data. The Department will share available data to the planning unit to ensure the final draft includes all available information. nita used was also dated when submitted and can be updated with more current information. Examples include the lack of inclusion of waste disposed at the North Albany C&D debris landfill noted in Section 3.4 and the amount of waste disposed in both the Town of Colonie Landfill and the Bethlehem C&D debris landfill.

8. The identification ofthe recycling rate on page E-3 and many other locations throughout the LSWMP
will likely need adjustment based on adjustments to base generation and disposal data as well as the inclusion of materials such as C&D debris used as alternate daily cover within recycling calculations. This issue will be discussed more completely in subsequent comments in this letter but will require consistent adjustment in the revised draft LSWMP., 9. Table E-3 will also require adjustment and updating concerning the amounts included in C,&D debris recovery category as noted above as well as adjustments to the reporting of trees and brush as yard waste instead of as land clearing debris which would be included in the general C&D debris reporting' category. These issues will be discussed more completely in subsequent comments in this letter.

10. Adjustments to the waste composition discussion and recovery rate projections and specified "maximum achievable" recovery rates may also require adjustment based on responses to comments concerning both these topics that will be more completely addressed in subsequent comments in this letter.

11. The feasibility study for the regional solid waste management

authority referenced on page ES-6 and several other places in the LSWMP is now complete and the text-here and, throughout the revised draft LSWMP should be revised accordingly to reflect the current status and findings of the study.

12. The discussion related to the hauler requirements using the Rapp Road Landfill instituted in 2009
referenced on page ES-6 and several other places in the LSWMP should be updated to reflect the results of the program. and associated annual report information. 13. The discussion related to the Planning Unit Recycling Coordinator (PURC) on page ES-6 arid several other places in the LSWMP was dated at the time of submittal, and should be updated to reflect the details of efforts of the PURe. 14. The discussion regarding land disposal on page ES-ll and throughout the plan and calculations should be enhanced and consistently presented to include the concept addressed on page 3-11 where it is stated "Achievement of the other primary goal of the new LSWMP. to minimize the amount of solid waste requiring disposal, may help to extend the useful life of the Eastern Expansion beyond 2016." This is' an important planning concept that is not consistently conveyed throughout the LSVIMP.

Page 2 of13

15. The "Interim Measures" discussion on page ES12 should be updated to address concerning the progress made on the proposed source separated organic waste (SSOW) facility and the solid waste management authority. . Chapter 1 16. The following tasks were identified in the Department's June 12, 20091etter to Commissioner Nicholas D' Antonio regarding the 2009 LSWMF' Modification. These tasks remain incomplete or documentation of their completion has not been provided to the Department and must be if these communities are to be included as members in the planning unit. a. In order for the-Town's of Be me, East Greenbush, Knox, New Scotland, Westerlo and the Village of Green Island to be considered in the same status as the other municipalities of the Capital Region Solid Waste Management Partnership Planning Unit, they were required to submit to the Department for review and approval, a revised local source separation law or ordinance consistent with the requirements of Section 120-aa of the General municipal Law which has been adopted by the respective Towns and Village. Additionally, the Town's of Berne, East Greenbush, Rensselaerville and Westerlo were also to submit a copy of a resolution agreeing to implement the LSWMP modification. A copy of all current municipal source separation laws or ordinances for the municipalities within the planning unit should be included as an Appendix to ~e LSWMP. 17. The population density discussions in section 1.:l.2 - Populations Trends and Projections on pages 1-2 and 1-3 require adjustment to more accurately reflect the data. 18. Section 1.1.3 - Significant Features Affecting Solid Waste Management, should be enhanced to include a set of lists. maps or tables describing the planning units major population centers, school districts, large retail centers, State of federal parks, large or significant industries, prisons and colleges and universities including a discussion of their impact 'on waste generation and management. 19. Section 1.13 should list all the food processors located in the planning unit identifying the type and amount of waste generated, and their current means to manage the waste. 20. Section 1.1.3 should also include a description of the agricultural!and use and farming in the Planning Unit. This should include the number offarms, the amount of land used for farming and other information germane to waste generated and managed or potentially managed by farms or farming operations. 21. The discussion on page 1-8 in section 1.1.4 -Background and Previous Solid Waste Planning, related to yard waste and household hazardous waste management should be updated and clarified by more specifically identifying the municipalities that have active programs and those that do. not. 22. The discussion in section 1.2- SWMP Steering Committee, should be clarified as to whether or not the Committee is still a in place and functioning and if so an identification of its intended future role. 23. Section 1.3 - Goals and Objectives should be enhanced in the revised draft LSWMP to also include an identification of the :final numerical goals in addition to the descriptive goals. The last two goals and objectives should be revised to be more definitive and affumative than using the beginning qualifier "considering!' These are also used in Section 4.3 and 6.0.

Page 3 of13

24. Section 1.4 - Public Review and Comment should be enhanced to identify the public comment process undertaken so ~a.rand the planned additional public comment envisioned.

Chapteil
25. In section 2.1 - Estimates of Solid Waste Generation, it is stated that "Haulers are not generally required to record or report on the origin of the waste or recyclable material collected." AS of January 1,2009, the City of Albany has implemented a commercial hauler permit program at the Rapp Road Landfill that, among other things, requires reporting from haulers. This information was dated at the time of submittal but should now be able to be significantly enhanced with the additional time that has passed. This updated information along with any improvements and enhancements to the permitting and reporting systems that will increase the planning unit's ability to obtain this data during the planning period of the tSWMP needs to be included in the revised draft LSWMP. . 26.' The waste generation discussions in section 2.2 - Characterization of Solid Waste, should be supplemented with waste generation data contained in Beyond Waste as additional comparisons and references. Much of the information parallels the information ill the draft LSWMP however may provide Useful information to inform the planning effort. This base information will also be helpful in Understanding any related discussion and adjustments that may be made concerning the waste composition data based on planning unit specific generation data developed with the Department's waste composition tools which are based on this data. The results can also be a useful tool to assess the quality of existing data These tools are found on the Department's website at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemica1l65541.html. . 27. Section 2.2.1 - Field Study of Solid Waste Characterization, provides a summary of the MSW composition data which is presented more fully in Appendix D. This is very useful data for the planning unit to use as part of the development of the new LSWMP and the significant effort and commitment to gather and analyze the data is acknowledged by the Department. The Department does however have comments related to some of the information and its presentation in the draft LSWMP. a.

It is important to clarify that the information presented in Tables 2-4, 2-5 and 2-6 is not the
waste composition of the waste generated but is instead the waste composition of the waste disposed as it did not include either the recyc1ables collected or analyzed in the recyclables waste composition study conducted or any white goods and other large bulk metal.

b.

The study was only a limited three-day sort for waste disposed at the end of February 2009 and a limited three-day sort for the recyclables the first week of March 2009, potentially skewing the yard waste results and increasing the telephone directory categories.

c.

It would be helpful and appropriate to enhance Table 2-6 by including waste composition
data from the Department developed through the Department's waste composition tools specifically for the anticipated waste composition for the planning unit based on the information assembled and used in the development of Beyond Waste. There are several differences in these two data sets that are worth evaluating as part of the revised draft LSWMP. Materials of note are yard trimmings and non-container ferrous metal project significantly less than the planning unit data while glass and certain components of paper and plastics project significantly greater.

Page 4 of13

d. The discussion and conclusions related to the yard waste composition on page 2-15 of section 2.2 should be revisited as part of the discussions with the Department based on the , projections of the waste composition data and the apparent inclusion of some land clearing debris in the tonnages included as yard waste recovery as noted on page 3-14. 28. The waste composition data for C&D debris presented in section 2.2.2 - Construction & Demolition Debris, should be supplemented with waste composition data contained in Beyond Waste as additional comparisons and references. There are several differences in the projected waste composition especially related to wood. 29. The discussion and data calculations on page 2-17 of section 2.2.2 need to be adjusted to reflect that C&D debris used as alternate daily cover is not considered recycling in the calculation of overall recycling rates and is instead considered as landfilled material. Additionally, facility data indicates that greater quantities of C&D debris were disposed both inside and out of the planning unit than is indicated in this section. The Department will provide the Planning Unit with all available disposal data as part of future meetings and discussions related to development of ~ revised draft LSWMP. 30. In Section 2.2.3 - Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste, it is indicated that only 19 of 150 surveys mailed to industrial waste generators were completed and returned. The LSWMP implementation schedule should indicate the steps to be taken to obtain greater response and or otherwise enhance this data. 31. In Table 2-8 in section 2.3.1 - Projected Solid Waste Quantities, there is a typographical error in the total waste generation column. This should be lO.21b/personlday instead of the 10.6 listed. The rest of the Table is calculated with the correct 10.2 value, however, this is a typographical error as that is used is other calculations in the alternatives analysis sections in chapter 5. 32. In section 2.3.2 - Future Solid Waste Generation, similar to the suggestions for Table 2-6, it would be helpful and appropriate to enhance Table 2-:-9 by including waste composition data from the Department developed through the Department's waste composition tools specifically for the anticipated waste composition for the planning unit based on the informationassembled and used in the development of Beyond Waste. The estimated as-generated waste composition presented in Table 2-9 may require adjustment in a manner similar to the as-disposed waste composition presented in Table 2-6 as the previously discussed differences track through the generated calculations as well. Chapter 3 33. Generally, there appears to be variation in the categories ofrecyclables accepted by the various planning unit member municipalities. This LSWMP should include an initiative to improve the standardization of acceptable materials for recycling in all member municipalities allowing for more streamlines and cost-effective promotional, education and enforcement efforts. 34. A description of the various permit systems and fee structures for generators using the various Town transfer stations of the member municipalities should be included in section 3.1. 35. Much of the information provided in section 3.1.1 on pages 3-2 - 3-7 describing the various municipal programs was dated at the time of submittal and is much the same as the information presented in the 2009 LSWMP Modification. This information needs to be updated in the revised draft to ensure It represents the current status of the municipal programs. Special issues of'note for several of the municipal discussions include:

Page 5 of 13

a. Bethlehem - the Town's hauler licensing program and procedures should be described in more detail and the method of collection of yard waste in the Town should be clarified (e.g., municipal collection or contracted pickup ion behalf of the Town). . b. Green Island - the destination facility for yard waste collected by the Village should be identified along with clarification as to why metals are not included in the curbside collection program. . c. Guilderland - the description of the Town's programs related to yard waste where it is indicated that leaves, grass, trees and brush collected by the Town is transported to the transfer station and "turned into mulch" needs clarification as to the process employed at the transfer station for processing this material and its regulatory status. More information needs to be provided about the statement "When possible asphalt is recycled and reused!' Such as how, when, where and in what quantities. Additionally, the method of collection of yard waste in the Town should be clarified (e.g., municipal c.ollection or contracted pickup ion behalf of the Town). d. Knox - the discrepancy between Table 3-1which indicates there is no private collection in the Town and the text in this section that indicates there is' needs to be rectified. It is indicated that Town burns yard waste collected at the transfer station. Please clarify the Town's current practices for yard waste management at the transfer station. e. Rensselaer- the description of the City of Rensselaer program is extremely limited and required enhancement. f. Rensselaerville->- the discrepancy between Table 31which indicates there is no private collection in the Town and the text in this section that indicates there is needs to be rectified .. It is indicated that Town has no formal yard waste program and it is mostly managed by residents on their own property. Please clarify the Town's current practices for yard waste management from commercial establishments. g. Voorheesville ~ The description of the Villages program related to yard waste where it is indicated that it is collected.by the Village and "is transported to several different businesses for use in compo sting" needs clarification as to the quantities and regulatory status of the businesses. h. Watervliet - clarification as to why metals are not included in the single stream curbside collection program should be provided. i. Westerlo - it is indicated that Town burns yard waste collected at the transfer station and has no yard waste program as it is mostly managed by residents 'on their own property. Please clarify the Town's current practices for yard waste management at the transfer station and clarify the Town's current practices for yard waste management from commercial establishments. 36. Section 3.1.2 - Commercial, Industrial and Institutional (CIl) MSW. includes information on solid waste collection, recycling and disposal practices of hospitals, state government and some unspecified "large crr waste generators," It does not appear to, and should, specifically include the collection, recycling, and disposal practices of schools or school districts, colleges and universities, hotels and motels, multi-unit residences, large retail establishments such as shopping malls and supercenters, food processors, and the Port of Albany. 37. In section 3.2 - C&D Collection and Management Practices, the text and calculations should be adjusted to reflect the complete inventory of C&D debris as discussed previously and to consistently characterize C&D debris used as ADC at the landfill here and throughout the plan as materials landftlled. .

Page 6 of13

38. It is stated on page 3-11 in section 3.4 - Solid Waste Management Inventory, that "Achievement of the other primary goal of the new LSWMP, to minimize the amount of solid waste requiring disposal, may help to extend the useful life of the Eastern Expansion beyond 2016." A discussion as to whether or not an evaluation was performed as to the impact of restricting the amount of out of planning unit waste received at the landfill as a tool to extend the usefu1life of the Eastern Expansion beyond 2016 and if not, such an evaluation should be performed. 39. The facility discussions in section 3.4 requires updating as well as the list of facilities in Table 3-3 as much of that information was dated when received and should be updated with current information.
40. A description

of the management of animal mortalities in the planning unit such as road kill, slaughter waste or other non-farm related animal mortalities or parts should be described,

41. Chapter 3 describes the existing solid waste management practices and Chapter 4 describes materials recovery and recycling efforts currently underway in the planning unit. In neither chapter. did we find a description of public education efforts promoting the benefits of reuse and recyc1ables recovery efforts nor did we find a description of the companion enforcement efforts. A discussion of the public education and enforcement efforts needs to be included in one of these chapters. Chapter
4

42. As noted previously, the discussion and calculations of recovery rates in section 4.0 - Materials Recovery" Analysis will need to be adjusted to reflect revised and updated' data and calculations. 43. Section 4.1.1 - Residential MSW Recycling, should be supplemented with recycling summary tables similar to those provided' in the 2009 LSWMP Modification in Attachment 7 which identified all the materials recovered by type for the various planning unit municipalities. This information essential in assessing the differences between programs and the basis for the reported tonnages.

is

44. Table 4-3 on page 4-3 presents data from 200Sw2008 which was dated at the time of submittal. This information should be updated to reflect more current information and program performance. Additionally, Table 4-3 contains some information that will require adjustment such as some land clearing debris reported as yard waste, some asphalt reported as residential MSW and additions to the MSW disposed line to reflect MSW disposed out of planning unit as well as that disposed at The Rapp Road Landfill.

45. Table- 4-4 on page 4-4 presents a residential recyclables materials composition summary that may also require adjustment based on previously discussed waste composition issues.
46. The discussion on pages 4-5 and 4-6 in section 4.1.2 -'-Commercial Industrial and Institutional MSW Recycling, needs to be adjusted to reflect that the industrial sector is a separate sector that is not part of the MSW stream and is separately addressed in section 4.2.2. Additionally on page 4-6, the quantity of waste disposed reported by these generators should also be noted to determine a relative recovery rate. 47. In section 4.2.1 - C&D Recovery, the use and characterization of C&D material used as ADC at the landfill should be clarified consistently throughout the plan as materials landfilled. The disposal data also needs to be updated to clarify the current generation and management of C&D debris in the planning unit. . .

Page 7 of13

48. In section 43 - Potentially Recoverable Recyclable Materials, in the goals and objectives discussion on page 411 as well previously noted in Section 1.3 on page 1-11 and section 6.0 on page 6-1. the last two goals and objectives should be revised to be more definitive and affirmative than using the beginning qualifier "considering".

49. The list of materials in section 4.3 on page 4-12 should also include the additional plastics collected
by some municipalities along with electronics, rechargeable batteries and waste oil. ' made in

50. Table 4-9 on page 4-13 may also need to be adjusted to correspond to any other adjustments response to previous comments related to waste composition.

51. Table 4-10 on page 4-15 will likely require some adjustment to reflect the differences in yard waste recovery as well as additional footnotes related to assumptions to reflect material collected as part of the returnable container act. 52. Table 4-11 will need some additional supporting discussion related to the basis for determining projected maximum recovery rates for the designated recyclables. the

53. Adjustments

to the discussions and calcu1.ations of current recovery rates on page 4-17 will require adjustment in response to previous comments and will need to be consistently carried throughout this chapter and LS'WMP.

54. With respect to the legal challenge to the bottle bill mentioned 'on page 4-17. there was a Court Order issued on October 23, 2009 lifting the injunction on implementation and enforcement of the amendments to the Returnable Container Law pertaining to bottled water products. The text should be revised accordingly. ' 55. The discussion pages 4-17 and 5-5 related to electronic waste and rechargeable batteries should also be adjusted to reflect the passage of product stewardship legislation for those materials.

56. In the discussion on page 4-21 regarding the SSOW stream, there is no evaluation or inclusion of
either non-separated designated paper from the recycling stream that can be easily diverted to the SSOW stream or the paper residues from the designated paper from the recycling stream being include in or directed to the SSOW facility. Both of these streams could increase the amount of material directed to the SSOW facility. 57. The conclusion drawn on page 423 related to a small marginal increase in recovered quantities of C&D debris is not based on the greater generation numbers of C&D in the planning unit based on facility data received by the Department nor the concept of employing maximized C&D recovery at local processing facilities. Accordingly, this section needs to be revisited in the revised draft

, LSWMP.
Chapter 5 58. The time frames for and the status of or resu1.ts from the PAYT study done for the City of Albany by the contractor working through EPA notedon.page 53 in Section 5.3,1.1- Volume Based User Fees
should be provided in the revised draft LSWMP.

S9.

The expiration date for the waste tire management and recycling fee assessed on the sale of new tires noted in section 5.3,1.2 on page 5-5 was extended to December 31, 2013,

Page 8 of13

60. The discussion on page 5-7 in Section 5.3.1.4 - Single Stream Recyc1ables Collection and MRF. requires updating to reflect the single stream facility in the Port of Albany. 61. The percentages used in the discussion related to the Delaware County facility on page 5-9 in Section 5.3.1.6 are not correct and need to be adjusted to more accurately represent the performance of the' facility. 62. The discussion on page 5-11 in section 5.3.1.7 - SSOW Compo sting needs enhancement and updating. The date the Capital Compost facility ceased operation should be included in the discussion to accurately portray the time period and the dynamics of solid waste management at that time. Additionally, the details of the OGS SSOW program at the Empire State Plaza should be included in the revised draft LSWMP. . 63. The discussion on page 5-16 in section 5.3.1.9 - Transfer Station, related to status ofthe Eastern Expansion was out of date at the time of submittal and requires adjustment. 64. The discussion on page 5~20 in section 5.3.1.10 -Landfill, related to the Colonie Landfill needs to be adjusted to reflect the changes in the operation of the landfill while the draftLSWMP has been WIder review by the Department. . 65. In the discussion related to anaerobic digestion on page 5-25 in section 5.3.2.2 - Biological and Chemical Processes, it should be noted that anaerobic digestion has and is being used on farms for manure and mixtures of manure and food waste. 66. On page 5-30 in section 5.4 - Institutional Alternatives, the planning unit member's inter-municipal agreement (IMA) is noted. The IMA 'current at the time of submittal expired on December 31, 2011. A copy of the new IMA signed by each of the member municipalities needs to be included as an Appendix of the revised draft LSWMP. 67. Section5.4.1- Expansion of the Planning Unit, needs to be updated to provide the results of the feasibility study for a regional solid waste management authority and any discussions and activities that have taken place related to regional cooperation on solid waste management since submittal of the draft LSWMP. 68. In the discussion of section 5.5- Alternatives Implementation Scenarios, while these basic scenarios are appropriate for evaluation, it should be acknowledged in this section that there are certainly possibilities of implementing hybrids of these basic scenarios based on a number of changing or . unfolding factors such as usefu1life of the Eastern Expansion, eventual planning unit and Authority municipal membership, and the formation of the Authority. 69. As noted previously, the calculations in sections 5.6.1.2. 5.6.1.4 and 5.6.2 use the 10.6 #/personJday from Table 2-8. 70. While it is noted in section 5.6.1.4 the reasons for using the available construction and operating cost calculations for a new combustor as part of section 5.6.1.4, it may be appropriate to revisit those costs in the revised draft LSWMP to determine if costs for the construction of a similar sized gasification facility are available for comparison.

Page 9 of13

71. The Regional Solid Waste Treatment Facility discussion and analysis in section 5.6.1.4. the Cost _Analysis Sununary of Alternative Implementation Scenarios in section 5.6.1.6 and the Facility Sizing Analysis in section 5.6.2 use the full waste stream for calculation purposes which includes, MSW, C&D debris and non-hazardous industrial waste. While it is somewhat dependent on the solid waste treatment disposal eventually selected, it is not likely that all types of C&D debris or non-hazardous industrial waste will be suitable processing through the facility. 72. The discussions in sections 5.6.4 - Time to Implement, reflect the current schedule for implementation. and its subsections should be adjusted to

73. The discussion in section 5.6.7 - hnpacts on Neighboring Jurisdictions appear to have impacts on the neighboring jurisdictions whether characterized as direct or indirect. The text should be modified accordingly. -

Chapter 6 74. All components of section 6.1- Elements ofthe Preferred Solid Waste Management
Plan, and its subsections need to provide more specific details and time frames for implementation. These should be enhanced the specific steps for each aspect that will be used as building blocks to achieve the overall-goals 'and objectives of the LSWMP. Each of these descriptions in these sections should be directly related to tasks identified in an enhanced implementation schedule in Figure 6-1.

75. This section arid implementation

schedule needs to begin with inclusion of all the individual elements identified in the 2009 LSWMP Modification that have yet to be accomplished and realigned in a new schedule. -

76. The discussion in the first paragraph of section 6.1.1 - Reduction and Recovery of Materials, are far too broad and vague and need to be much more detailed to identify the programs and activities that will be carried out for each of these program elements. 77. The numerical goals discussed in section 6.1.1 should be a reflection of an enhanced implementation schedule in Figure 6.1. This schedule will incorporate all the implementation steps from all the various programs identified into a master schedule. This schedule should be integrally linked with and form the basis of the recovery and disposal rate projections for the planning period. The waste reduction, recovery and disposal reduction goals should be established assuming that the alternatives and tasks outlined in the implementation schedule will be implemented. These goals should be . updated or revised in each biennial compliance report along with the implementation schedule, as necessary. As previously noted, to aid in deriving estimates for potential diversion, the Department has developed waste composition tools that can be used to estimate current and projected recyclables and waste generation and recovery quantities. These tools are found on the Department's website at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemica1l65541.html.

78. An additional column for MSW generation per capita should be added to Table 6.1 on page 6-3. 79. On page 6-3 in section 6.1.1- Waste Minimization,
it is stated that "The use of backyard composting for both yard waste and food waste will be promoted wherever feasible." This program and the qualifier ''wherever feasible" is too vague and does not describe the details of a full backyard composting program. The details of the proposed program should be identified and incorporated into the implementation schedule.

Page

10 of13

80. The discussion on page 6-4 related to promotion and how it "can take place" is very passive and IS not . a formulated program for implementation. The details of the proposed program should be identified and Incorporated into the implementation schedule.

81. It is noted on page 6-4 that the planning unit will continue to work with Cornell Cooperative
Extension to promote backyard composting. While these efforts are commendable, the specifics on this work and how it will be achieved (such as will the planning unit fund publications, establish teaching sites, have a teaching site at the County fair etc) needs to be provided in the LSWMP and implementation schedule.

82. With regard to the "Promote P A YT System Implementation"

noted on page 6-4, the contractor study and the PURC promotion of P AYT are solid first steps and are consistent with the 2009 LSWMP Modification. The LSWMP should identify the steps that will build on those the initial steps to develop specific PA YT strategies and plans for the City of Albany and other planning unit members. Mayor Jennings' Executive Order No. 422-09 established the City of Albany Sustainability Agenda which includes Recycling and Waste Management Initiative #1- "Investigate potential use of a unitbased pricing system for recycling and household waste". This City of Albany initiative is one of those initial steps that can be used by the PURC to inform and educate the other planning unit member municipalities of progressive solid waste management techniques. An identification of the other areas of the planning unit where P A YT is being implemented should be included in the revised draft LSWMP.

83. Specific efforts and plans that will be pursued to advance the concept of waste audits for commercial and institutionai generators as discussed on page 6-4 should be more completely identified and
incorporated into the implementation schedule.

84. Waste minimization

in the C&D debris sector is briefly discussed on page 6-5 which broadly touches upon the concept of policies which favor building deconstruction and recycling. This section should be supplemented with the details of the City of Albany's efforts in this regard outlined in the response to comment RRR8 on page 6 of the ''Response to Comments" concerning its Ordinance Number 68.102.09 (as amended) amending chapters 133 (Building Construction) and 375 (Zoning) in relation to demolition procedures. Among other things, the ordinance now requires review by the Planning Board prior to the issuance permits for building demolition giving consideration to renovation instead of demolition. Additionally the ordinance requires a minimum of 25 % of C&D debris generated from certain construction, remodeling, or demolition projects to be diverted from disposal to landfills through recycling, reuse or diversion programs. The plans for education of the other planning unit member municipalities of the City of Albany's efforts and expansion to other member municipalities should be identified in the LSWMP.

85. With respect to reuse initiatives, in response to comment RR7 on page 5 of the 'Response to Comments," the information from the 2009 LSWMP Modification should be directly incorporated
into the LSWMP and the identification of the over categories should be identified in the LSWMP.

30 companies listed on the website for reuse

86. In the discussion in section 6.1.1.2 - Product stewardship, the schedule for adopting supporting
resolutions should be identified and incorporated into the implementation schedule. .

Page 11 of13

87.,Mayor.Jeti.nlligs' Executive Ord.er,No.422-09 established the City of Al~aJfYSustainability Agenda which. includes these-Recycling and-Waste Management Initiath:~s;. .,' ,..,1. ."
of ~ : ~ "\

;..L'

, .J~,

Initiative #1- Investigate potential use of a unit-based pricing system for recycling and . . household waste." . . .. . . .)." ., :. , -Initiatjye #2- Increase recycling rates citywide through outreach.and education .:( Initiative #3;:.- Strengthen enforcement of recycling by residents and institqtioIfii" . .Initiative #4 -;.Increase access.and expand opportunities for recycling. . Initiative #5 - Reduce use paper and increase recycling in city.offices '. .... t' Initiative #6 - Increase recycling at commercial facilities and in multi-family housing. - _ Ipitiative,#7,;-.Pilot-a composting program in city neighborhoods. .;

of

:',::

-',

:"

I . e

!~....

'f.'

-". .("'-fI"

.. '

The expected ,efforts~toimple;n.ent-Vleseinitiatives should be integrated ~ntotJ:e LS~. -implementation.scheduleand tlWplans-for expansion of these initiatives.to othermember municipalities should be identitle!:. . . " '. -,
I.' '.:, '. ".
',' I . ( .'" '." " .' ,'''' .

. .
I
~' .' h "

to.

"

.,

:'

...

~ .: ~:

~..

._..'

88: An enhanced discussion of the.hauler permitting program first implem~te?p. .Janl,1~.h 2009 " should 'be discussed-more completely.on page 6-6 in ~ect~on6.1).3~. Continue to Promoteand .. '...ExpandLocal.Recycling astruc:ture, and the next stepsin tl:Ie;prowarp.deyelop.m~?ltand :".'. ;- -refinementneedto.be identified and incorporated intotheimplementation schedule.', ... '''J .
, . -. :.... ...: 10 ',' ,." '.,,':'. ,"

'!

t"

" '"

89. There is limited discussion of activities th~t have occurred related to expansion of reC;cllii"g~e'ff~rts in .schools and publicspaces in,tpe City of Albany. The success. of~es_e efforts and th*,c;urent ~tu:>. ,should be more.completelydiscussed. While these are important.first steps fo~these p!,ogr~s they not only Seem limited in scope within the City of Albanybut also-only identify-the City.of.Albany's efforts and not those of the other member municipalities. This section should be enhanced to identify ~. allcurrent.activities in the-planning unit bust also the plans for expansion in the member ... : : municipalities programs: ,'.. ". .' . ~,,'.,. c..
j .', "

.. , l

!.

.t

;' _

'.

. ~

'.

"

'~

t,

... ~

.'

90:' The SSQW Task force''Ya

i~~ece,iv~s 'only '." passingJ?enti0!l.in.!he~ft LSy&n?.' The discussionsandplanning being;donejby thistask force is integral tothe success ,~fsuccessful implementation of ~ S~9W pr<?gr~ in the pl~g:unit., The efforts of.and future;p.l~s for the SSOW task force should he detailed in section ~.l. i.1:""7. ssow. Processjng 8J.l4.Q911ection. <. ,,' ,r,' <. z:
J.' " . ' : : '.

a key component of the 20g9.!-tSwMP Modificationyef

.: .' ~ ., -.~: .If... . ,r. '. . , '. l " ~ . 91. The specific steps that need to.. be taken to advance the development of uleproposed SSQW

.' processing f~cj)!tY .. should. be outtW:~ in section 6.1.1.4 al9P~ witli an identification ,;>{imy c~im~es in local or ordinances necessary to implement the SSOW program.: '1"" . .
f. . ,.,'.' " '

92. In sectiono.L'l.S - Deaignate ~ddition.al MandatoryRecyclables, the a~di~ional ofmore recyclable ,paper. to,each mlJci.cip!ility!s:tp.andiltorylist of recyclables should also beidentified as a targetin . additionto standardizing the designated recyclables acro~s all of the member m.unicip.ali~es. ' . progra~. '.'; , !, ~
i
c

93. Enhancement and maximization of yard waste collection and diversion.programs are an important a;peCtofth~ program across-thi:;enti;e.plamung unit~swell based on ~o~e ofthe:aajustment in, calculations related t~ yardwaste ~ollection and recovery. ' . . '," .

...
)

Page 12 of13

94. The discussion related to the development of the Solid Waste Treatment Facility in section 6.1.2' needs enhancement including a schedule that is coordinated with the formation of the Authority with clearly articulated steps for development along with a backup plan and schedule ifmajor milestones are not met. ' , -'~, ,I_ '
'" I

95. The discussion in section 6.1.3 - Land Disposal, does not addkss the goal of extending' the useful life of the Eastern Expansion beyond 201,9.. and tliecurrent progress toward that goal, The discussion should be -enhanced to address this concerOp and establish specific dates and milestonesfor evaluation and reassessment of progress along with implementation dates for backup plans to ensure the planning units disposal needs aremet. '
"-

96. Section 6.1.4 - Interim Measures, needs to be updated and revised to identify the next steps for both the developmentof the SSOW facility and the development of the regional solid waste management authority currently identified in-this section. 97. The detailedsteps for development of the SSOW facility can be specified as it is to be built in modular phases regardless of the outcome of the efforts to form a regional solid waste management authority. These should be described in detail and incorporated into the implementation schedule. 98. With respect to the formation of a regional solid waste management ~uthority, the proposed ne~t steps and time frames need to be outlinedin the LSWMP. The discussion should provide, an update on the feasibility study findings and changes to the surrounding planning units such as the operations in the Town of Colonie, the dissolution of the Greater Troy-Area Solid Waste Management Authorityand ; the efforts of Otsego County to' separate from MOSA. The next steps envisioned in proposing and . developing interest and membership commitments to the new authority, proposed public disc~.lion ' and involvement, and the steps for the approval and formation of the authority by the legislature need to be included in the LSWM:P and implementation schedule. It is important to establish milestones and reassessment points to be used to measure progress and surrounding infrastructure changes; : 99. As noted previously, the implementation schedule in Figure 6-1 needs to be enhanced to include all elements of the LSWMP. This schedule will incorporate all the.implementation steps from all the various programs and will be integrally linked with and form the basis of the recovery and disposal rate projections for the planning period. '

Page 13 of 13