Joint Conservation Committee Reports

Reports provided by PA Legislative Services

HARRISBURG - (3/17/08, 12:00 p.m., Room 205, Ryan Office Building)

The Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee held an environmental issues forum regarding the newly permitted use of tire derived fuel.

Dan Traynor, environmental manager for the Northampton Generating Company, L.P., presented a PowerPoint presentation on their efforts to provide renewable energy from scrap tires by utilizing tire derived fuel (TDF). He first provided some background on the history of the Northampton generating plant. He said the plant began commercial operations in 1995 and is located on a brownfield site. Traynor explained it is a 112 megawatt electric generating facility which generates electricity for 110,000 homes. He said the principal fuel is anthracite waste coal known as culm and they use advanced combustion technology which provides cleaner energy with low emissions. He also said the culm is retrieved from abandoned mining sites throughout eastern Pennsylvania and those sites are then returned to a useful state. According to Traynor, their fuel consumption in 2007 included: 697,129 tons of culm; 38,054 tons of paper processing residual; 11 tons of petroleum coke; and 10,676 tons of TDF. He noted they just started with TDFs in September, 2007. Traynor also noted they produced 362,101 tons of ash which helped return the abandoned mining sites to a useful state. He said the company has two permitted fuel sites in Luzerne County and one in Lackawanna County with two more permits pending in Luzerne County and one more in Lackawanna County.

Traynor then provided some more information of TDF supplies. He noted one scrap tire is generated per person per year in the United States while 12 million scrap tires are generated in Pennsylvania. Traynor estimates there are 10 million scrap tires in tire piles in the Commonwealth and current markets exist for 80% of scrap tires generated. He added their company could consume 20 million tires per year and estimate five million tires to be consumed in 2008. He noted the constraints on using TDF are economic and if the state provided incentives they could take more tires. Traynor said the company has two approved TDF suppliers in Pennsylvania and additional suppliers in Maryland, New York and New Jersey.

Traynor briefly explained the circulating fluidized bed (CFB) technology used by Northampton. He said it is known for its fuel flexibility. Traynor explained fuel is suspended on a cushion of air in the boiler and combustion occurs at 1,400 to 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit. He said the fuel and ash are re-circulated using cyclones which achieves higher combustion efficiency and results in lower stack emissions. Traynor further explained limestone is injected with fuel to reduce SOx and ammonia is injected to control NOx while baghouse filters capture 99.9% of particulates. He noted the limitations on ash and said the company has a beneficial use permit and surface mining permits.

Traynor was asked about the company's monitoring system. He responded they look at NOx, SOx and CO in addition to certain metals. He said it took the company about four to five years to develop the TDF operation and cost about $250,000 to get it approved. Someone asked where the company gets the topsoil to cover the ash at their reclamation sites. Tom Brown, the company's general manager, said they get it from multiple sources. Traynor was then asked about the type of incentives the company is looking for. Traynor responded that they are interested in any type especially tax incentives or tax credits. Brown added that transportation is the issue for the company. He added they need tire to "sweeten the blend" of fuels needed in creating the electricity at the plant.

Someone asked if the company anticipates using more tires. Traynor said they would have to go out of state unless some incentives are provided. Another question was asked about the amount of water the company uses. Traynor said the company uses one million gallons per day from the Northampton River.

Rep. Julie Harhart (R-Northampton) said the plant is in her district and said the company is "doing a fine job". Brown said most people do not know the power plant exists because the fuel is burned in a very controlled process.

Jeff Cox, PA Legislative Services

HARRISBURG - (11/19/07, 12:00 p.m., Room 60, Capitol East Wing)

The Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee held an environmental issues forum on Goodwill Industries of Pittsburgh's Electronics Recycling Program.

Members in attendance included Chairman Scott Hutchinson (R-Venango), Rep. Rich Grucela (D-Northampton), Rep. Bob Bastian (R-Somerset), Rep. Mark Longietti (D-Mercer), Rep. Kathy Rapp (R-Warren), Rep. Camille George (D-Clearfield), Rep. Chris Ross (R-Chester), Rep. Ronald Miller (R-York), Rep. Carole Rubley (R-Chester) and Sen. John Wozniak (D-Cambria).

Michael J. Smith, President and CEO, Goodwill Industries of Pittsburgh told the committee that his organization was the first Goodwill in the country to initiate a computer recycling program in 1995 when Carnegie Mellon University donated its inventory of used computers. The University also provided technicians to help launch the Goodwill Computer Recycling Center at the organization's South Side headquarters. The project has expanded to an 80,000 square foot warehouse in Lawrenceville. It processes thousands of donated computers annually. The recycling center also de-manufactures computers by removing valuable components and precious metals to be sold as salvage materials. The program grew in 2006, Smith explained, through a partnership with Dell, Inc., called Reconnect Pittsburgh, which is a computer recovery and reuse recycling program. Additionally, through its partnership with Dell and in conjunction with a city and a county agency, Goodwill offers a workforce development program in which up to 100 welfare-to-work participants can be employed daily in the de-manufacturing of computers donated to Goodwill, he stated. Smith offered that the agency uses the component parts in salvage operations or installs them in refurbished computers for resale. As of late July, the recycling program de-manufactured 10,568 personal computers and has recovered and shipped over one million pounds of parts and equipment to Dell's approved recycler, he told the committee. He noted that 264 people, who were referred to the program, performed this work. He said there is no restriction limiting the refurbishing work only to Dell computers.

"You can pick up any newspaper today or watch any news show and you see that the attention of the nation seems to be poised upon being environmentally responsive, as well it should be," Smith said. "Although many different 'Go Green' efforts are not popular, they are of great consequence today and perhaps, even more importantly, they are vitally important to our children and their future and of course, to our planet itself. So, in accepting the challenge, Goodwill recognizes that the environmental impact of e-waste, if unchecked, will become the fastest growing environmental problem, even more than it is today. The project celebrated a major accomplishment earlier this year - the one millionth pound recycled, with just this program," he added.

"We've already proven that with very limited funding, we've been able to achieve a lot," Smith went on to say. "We've helped with a greater environmental issue, while at the same time assisting with workforce development in our region. With the opportunity for further assistance from the state government, we could greatly increase our project keeping even more of the e-waste out of our landfills. As a result, one byproduct will be putting more people to work.

Rep. Ross said he introduced legislation last session dealing with e-recycling and will introduce a bill this session too. "My understanding of the economics of this whole issue of by-product recycling is that the actual recycling work that you all are doing in-house is perhaps the least of your costs. The most difficult piece of this is to transport the materials in sufficient quantities to give you product to work with. If there was a way to fund that transportation and collection process, that would be a big step forward in your success. Is that correct?" Smith said, "Absolutely, and I think that's been proven in some of the other states. California and some other states are making money but in Pittsburgh it costs us to operate this program. You're right, volume is essential to making this work."

Rep. Rubley wanted to know if there was a similar program in the southeastern part of the state. Smith said there is not, adding that many of the Goodwill operations around the state are watching carefully to see how the Pittsburgh program works out.

Rep. Rubley asked if the average citizen can go to the Pittsburgh facility and donate a computer or if it is limited to businesses. Smith indicated that they can and that by far, the majority of computers that are donated come from private residents. He said when businesses donate computers they can often be upgraded and resold. He also indicated most of the computers that are offered for resale stay in the 16-county region of southwestern Pennsylvania his agency serves, including their computer store in Pittsburgh.

Rep. Miller asked if the reason they don't do other electronic goods, like televisions, is that they can't be refurbished. Smith said that is absolutely the case, adding that they can't easily dispose of television sets. He said, "Even though we reject televisions during the day, they will end up on our doorsteps at night."

Chairman Hutchinson asked if there is a good market for de-constructed components. Smith responded by saying the monitors are a problem, but they have markets for practically everything. He said there are approved companies that Dell uses to resell the materials and they audit their recyclers to make sure they are complying with their requirements. He said the market is there and there is a wide price difference but if they can command a good price, they try to sell as much as possible. He said they break the computers down into as many components as possible, down to the nuts and bolts, in most cases. He said materials including plastic, metal and wiring are separated and there are markets for each of them. He noted that the market for the plastic components has recently made a comeback.

Chairman Hutchinson inquired about how much of the market Goodwill is reaching. Smith said he didn't know exactly how much of the market they reach, but it is currently "…a small percentage of what is out there. We're starting to get the word out and that will help our business."

Chairman Hutchinson asked what other things they do with the computers they refurbish. Smith noted they do three things with them. In some cases they keep the computers for their own use within Goodwill if there is a need for them, they will swap them out with older, outdated models, or, they will provide them to schools and other organizations who are in need of an upgrade and finally, they sell them in their computer store or their Goodwill stores and "...trust me, we can't keep them on the shelves," he added.

Rep. Rapp wanted to know if the people coming in to work have little or no skills and if they are trained to work in the program. Smith said some of the people do have technical skills to do the refurbishing work but many of the employees are trained to come into the program.

Rep. Rapp said many of the people Goodwill hires are welfare-to-work participants. She asked if the program is successful, could it be expanded to other parts of the state. Smith said it could, adding that t Goodwill organizations around the country are watching the Pittsburgh program to see if it is successful. He added that there are approximately six or seven similar Goodwill programs around the United States and in some cases it is because of legislation that has helped those programs to grow. Smith said Goodwill Industries of Pittsburgh employs about 1,000 employees and serves a wide range of clients in the region, including the disabled, people with special needs, those who are economically disadvantaged and also works with the corrections system in Allegheny County.

Rick Morrison, PA Legislative Service

JOINT LEGISLATIVE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE

Public hearing re e-waste

By Nate Collins, PA Legislative Services

10-4-07

The Committee held a public hearing concerning electronic waste (e-waste) recycling. Members in attendance included Chairman Scott Hutchinson (R-Venango), Senator Ray Musto (D-Luzerne), Senator Roger Madigan (R-Bradford) and Rep. Kathy Rapp (R-Warren).

Chairman Hutchinson stated this issue is important for Pennsylvania because of the amount of e-waste the state produces. He commented that technology is advancing rapidly which is leading to more obsolete equipment that must be disposed of. He suggested that the problem will be exacerbated when the switch is made in 2009 from an analog signal to digital for televisions. Now is the time for the state to consider addressing this issue, he opined.

Meggan Ehret, Senior Counsel for Thomson Inc., a member of the Electronic Manufacturers Coalition for Responsible Recycling, said her company is a world leader in digital video technologies. She commented that her company advocates for advanced recovery fee (ARF) legislation to finance the recycling of televisions. This system has been working well in California since 2005, she stated. Ehret offered that the ARF is the preferred financing model for televisions because it includes shared responsibility, it's easy, it's self-funded up front, it creates private sector jobs, retailers are reimbursed for the costs, it raises consumer awareness of recycling, and it levels playing field for current television manufacturers. She told the committee that in California, the ARF financing model has grown the economy to allow over 600 collectors and 60 recyclers to participate in the program. To date, more than $140 million has been claimed since January 2005, which represents nearly 300 million pounds of covered electronic waste, she stated. "We believe that the advanced recovery fee model is the most practical and environmentally sustainable solution for Pennsylvania," she concluded.

Senator Musto stated computer manufacturers prefer producer responsibility and he asked why it is different for televisions. Ehret replied that it is because of the difference between computers and televisions. She said there is a lot more value in recycled computers, so many companies take them back. She also noted that the life of computers and televisions are very different. Lastly, she noted that companies like Dell are manufacturers and they sell their products, which television manufacturers do not. Senator Musto asked if the industry will accept any other proposals if the ARF is not accepted. Ehret said the industry is willing to work hard with the Legislature to come up with a solution. She suggested that one idea would be sunsetting the fee.

Chairman Hutchinson asked if the Coalition would accept a two-tiered system, with one model for televisions and one for computers. Ehret replied that they have not seen that model in action, but she believes that a bifurcated model may work. Chairman Hutchinson asked what year the California program began. Ehret explained that it was adopted in 2003 and the operation began in 2005. Chairman Hutchinson inquired about the amount of e-waste recycled in California. Ehret replied that 300 million pounds of e-waste has been collected in the state.

Bob Erie, CEO, E-World Recyclers, outlined California's e-waste program. He said the program is working but there are some problems that have to be addressed. He explained that the program allows for the recycling of cathode-ray tube (CRT) televisions and computer monitors, LCD televisions and computer monitors, laptop computers, plasma televisions and personal DVD players. The payments in the program are based on the size of the screens, he said. He told the committee that the program continues to grow and there are now 600 approved e-waste collectors. Erie remarked that consumers do not have a problem paying the fee upfront. He then discussed some of the challenges with the program. He told the committee that all electronics are banned from landfills but no fees are collected on items like copiers and fax machines so they are shipped overseas to whoever will accept them. He suggested that the upcoming changeover from analog to digital televisions will lead to a large number of televisions being recycled. One of the problems with the program, he said, is that the collectors are now in a bidding war and are holding the products from the recyclers to demand more payment for each pound. Since there is no language in the Act to prevent it, the large collectors are controlling the system, he added.

Senator Musto inquired if the state of California contributed funds for startup costs. Erie answered no, explaining that the fee was initiated first before the fund began paying out. Senator Musto inquired about the bureaucracy of the program in California. Erie explained that there is one board that does enforcement and another that does education and outreach. Senator Musto asked if one board could do both tasks in Pennsylvania. Erie offered that DEP could likely handle both responsibilities. Senator Musto, noting that the program collects more than it pays out, asked Erie if he expects this to continue. Erie said yes, adding that the state is thinking about using the excess money to add other electronic products to the program.

Chairman Hutchinson questioned how much bureaucracy is actually necessary for enforcement of a recycling program. He then asked if there is a problem when one state has an e-recycling program and the states surrounding it do not. Erie explained that in California a log is kept of all of the electronics collected. He explained that the state completes sporadic checks by calling people who turn over their products for recycling. There are questions when someone hands in five televisions at one time, he noted. There are ways to defraud the system, he acknowledged, but added that there is a lot of accountability in the system. Erie said every item is bar-coded and weighed and then submitted to the state, so the government is not just handing out money.

Chairman Hutchinson asked why the state needs to set the recovery fee as he believes the market should dictate the amount. Erie explained that when the program in California began most of the collectors were cities and counties who did not recycle. The idea was to pay those cities and counties as collectors, he explained. He suggested that the entire system can be eliminated because the vast majority of collectors are private companies who are holding the materials hostage for higher fees.

Thomas Fidler, DEP Deputy Secretary of Waste, Air and Radiation Management, remarked on the volume of electronic waste, stating that an estimated 304 million electronics were removed from U.S. households in 2005, which amounts to 1.9 to 2.2 million tons. He stated of that amount 1.5 to 1.9 million tons were primarily discarded in landfills. He noted disposing of these items in landfills poses environmental hazards due to the presence of lead and mercury. Fidler then discussed eCycling efforts of DEP, noting that almost 7.5 million pounds have been recycled since 2001, 46 communities have held eCycling events, and 14 counties have established eCycling programs. He noted DEP regulates electronics as non-hazardous waste and eight companies are permitted to demanufacture electronics. Additionally, DEP assists communities with eCycling via funding and partnerships. Fidler cited the importance of advertising eCycling events and consumer education. Fidler stated, "In order to meet the demand of managing future growth in electronics discards, it is time to establish a more comprehensive approach through legislation." DEP feels a landfill ban can be instrumental and legislation would be needed to establish infrastructure through a program supported by electronics producers and vendors. He noted the trend across the states is to institute laws where the producer is responsible for the costs of the eCycling effort. Fidler concluded by stating, "In further defining how eCycling would be instituted in the Commonwealth, the Department is specifically interested in a shared responsibility model where manufacturers and retailers take ownership of eCycling and financially support the development of new and retention of existing recycling infrastructure."

Senator Musto asked if the department can ban e-waste in landfills through regulation. Fidler answered that the department is putting bans into regulation and he hopes it is sufficient but he believes it may be better to put the ban in statute. Senator Musto asked if the state needs to have its e-waste and recycling program in place before it implements a landfill ban. Fidler said yes, adding that the ban would have to be phased in and over time it would create a steady flow of waste. Senator Musto inquired if the department is conducting any studies on e-waste in Pennsylvania. Fidler replied that there are no studies under way, but he noted that there are seven operators in the state accepting and processing e-waste materials. He added that there is not a sufficient infrastructure in place to have a landfill ban.

Senator Madigan noted that discussions have taken place on a national e-waste recycling program and he asked why nothing is moving forward. He also asked if a regional approach would work. Fidler replied that for a level playing field a national approach is the best. He suggested that things have broken down at the national level because of differences in the different regions across the country. He opined that a regional program would not work either because some of the states have already begun their own individual programs.

Joseph Nardone, Environmental Health and Safety Director, Amandi Services, Inc., said his company is acknowledged internationally as one of the premium cathode ray tube glass to glass recyclers in the world. Technological advances in electronics means that the volume of e-waste generated in the United States is large and growing, he told the committee. He then discussed the costs of an electronic recycling program, explaining that the recycling infrastructure itself includes the cost of collecting, advertising, transporting, and sorting the devices. There is also a cost associated with recycling the devices themselves, he added. Nardone offered that if the consumer does not pay for recycling, any recycling fees would likely be absorbed by the state or local agency collecting the device. Most stakeholders agree that if e-waste is to be recycled, it must be as easy for consumers to recycle electronics as it is to buy them, he stated. Nardone then outlined the two categories of state programs, a consumer-paid system and a producer- or manufacturer-paid system. Under the consumer-paid system the e-waste collection and recycling program requires consumers to pay an advanced recycling fee at the point-of-sale of sale, he explained. Proceeds from the fee would be used to implement the state's e-waste collection infrastructure and recycling programs, he added. Nardone said with the "producer pays" model manufacturers implement or finance a collection and recycling program that takes responsibility for their share of returned e-waste and a share of orphan waste (generally assessed based on the company's total market share in the state). He concluded by suggesting that any state recycling program should restrict e-waste exports, set recycling standards and prohibit the use of prison labor.

Senator Musto, noting in Nardone's written testimony that 180 million electronic devices are in storage, asked where the devices are being stored. Nardone replied that they are stored in people's attics, garages and other areas of their homes. Senator Musto asked if there are any warehouses storing electronic devices. Nardone replied that there are a lot of warehouses in the Gulf Coast areas that have CRTs but there are none in the mid-Atlantic region.

Joanne Sonenshine, Environmental Policy Manager of Government Affairs, Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), said her association and its members are committed to the responsible recycling and reuse of consumer electronics products. She commented that CEA advocates for one national solution to the e-waste problem. "While CEA believes that e-waste must be managed appropriately, this ever-growing web of differing state laws has had a significant impact on our members, particularly as they work to adjust their business models to adapt state-by-state," she stated. CEA is committed to consumer education on the need for recycling at the end of life and encourages retailers to communicate to their consumers on proper disposal methods, Sonenshine offered. She told the committee that CEA encourages shared financial responsibility for electronics recycling. Consumer electronics companies have developed numerous ways to ensure that their products are efficient in use and easily and safely disposed of at the end-of-life, she explained. The electronics industry is constantly exploring new avenues of growth for their businesses, coupled with ways to be more environmentally conscientious, which may include incorporating streamlined packaging, differing design mechanisms and developing products that take up less space in landfills, she said.

Rona Cohen, Senior Policy Analyst, Council of State Governments, said currently there is no national program to address the proliferation of e-waste in a comprehensive manner. She noted that nine states have passed laws that mandate different approaches to financing and administering electronics end -of-life management systems. The Council of State Governments/Eastern Regional Conference (CSG/ERC) facilitated a dialogue among legislators in the region to create model legislation that can be filed in each of the participating states, she explained. She offered that the legislators spent a lot of time debating the question of who pays to finance a comprehensive end-of-life electronics management system. The model legislation that CSG/ERC released in April 2006 takes a producer responsibility approach, she said. She outlined the proposal, explaining that each manufacturer's obligation, or share, would be based on a percentage of its sales of covered electronic devices in a state. Cohen told the committee that in nearly every state in which the model bill was filed, the basis for calculating a manufacturer's financial obligation was changed to return share from market share. She remarked that CSG/ERC does not advocate for or against any particular legislative proposal, but she noted that the general trend in electronic recycling legislation is leaning toward producer responsibility. As more states enact electronic recycling laws, it is becoming increasingly clear that regional cooperation would lower states' implementation costs, she added.

Senator Musto asked for a comparison of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey proposals. Cohen explained that New Jersey is considering a hybrid model with an ARF for televisions and producer responsibility for computers. She said this is the first attempt at a hybrid in the nation, and she is not sure there is enough support in the legislature for the proposal. Senator Musto said shared responsibility is a confusing term and asked what it means. Cohen replied that it has different meanings. She explained that Maine is considered to have a shared responsibility plan because consumers may have to pay a fee when they drop off e-waste for disposal. She explained that the producers pay the rest of the recycling process. She then explained that in New Jersey, consumers would pay upfront with a fee on televisions. Senator Musto inquired if legislators feel that the ARF is a tax. Cohen said yes, adding that many feel that fees at disposal are also taxes. She suggested that Maine's program has been successful because the citizens of Maine are used to paying disposal fees when they drop off waste so it is accepted.

Chairman Hutchinson asked about the move to a return share. Cohen stated return share is highly supported by computer manufacturers. She said they chose a market share approach in the model legislation because it creates a more level playing field. Chairman Hutchinson asked if the model legislation addressed interstate commerce. Cohen said the issue was brought up during deliberations but they could not come up with a real answer. She said upon talking to a renowned economist the Council believes there's a good chance this issue would not be a problem.

Rep. Chris Ross (R-Chester) said he attended the CSG/ERC conference and they decided on model legislation requiring producer responsibility. He voiced his concerns that the ARF is hard to properly determine. He explained that the fee is collected upfront before it is spent on the program. He noted that some suggested starting with a low fee and increasing it but his concern is that every time the fee goes up people will see it as a tax increase. Rep. Ross also noted problems with trying to collect the fee from retailers because some are very small and trying to create the infrastructure and enforcing it is nearly impossible. He explained that he is introducing legislation that would require every manufacturer who sells electronics in Pennsylvania to pay a fee upfront to register. Retailers would then have to consult the list of manufacturers to see who is registered, he stated, adding that they cannot sell non-registered equipment. Rep. Ross noted that manufacturers who have their own recycling program in place can register that program and continue it. He urged the committee not to include a landfill ban before implementing the program because he fears electronic equipment will be dumped on roadsides. He also offered that he does not see out-of-state e-waste as a potential problem. He concluded by stating that having a robust recycling industry will be helpful to Pennsylvania.

Senator Musto asked for more information about the registration system. Rep. Ross replied that manufactures would have to be registered to sell their electronic equipment in Pennsylvania. He noted that to remain fully compliant some aspects of the registration program will have to be ongoing.

Chairman Hutchinson asked if Rep. Ross would support a bifurcated system for televisions and computers. Rep. Ross said he would support it if it would make all sides happy.

Bob Bylone, Executive Director, Recycling Markets Center, commented that in Pennsylvania there are approximately 3,247 recycling and reuse establishments providing 81,322 jobs. Annual sales receipts are $18.4 billion and the annual payroll is $2.9 billion, he added. E-waste is generally recognized as one of the fastest growing components of municipal solid waste, he offered, adding that it was estimated that in the year 2000, the U.S. generated 2,124,400 tons of E-waste. Bylone stated that in 2004, experts estimated that 315 million computers became obsolete in the US, many of which will be destined for landfills, incinerators, or waste exports. He then discussed energy consumption associated with electronics. He explained that the manufacturing of a desktop computer requires four times the amount of energy than it uses during its lifetime. He also offered that the total amount of fossil fuels required to make a desktop computer with a CRT monitor is 528 pounds. More than 1 trillion British Thermal Units (BTUs) of energy can be saved in one year by reusing or recycling 1,045 tons of whole computers, he concluded.

Chairman Hutchinson commented that he believes end markets are the key to making e-recycling work. He suggested that end markets need to be developed before a ban is put in place. Bylone agreed that regardless of the commodity there is a need to optimize the end use market.

HARRISBURG - (9/24/07, 12:00 p.m., Room 205, Ryan Office Building)

The Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee held an environmental forum today with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Pennsylvania Environmental Council (PEC) to describe a public-private partnership between state government, environmental organizations, community groups and businesses that have joined forces to clean up illegal dumpsites in the Commonwealth.

The Clean Up Our American Lands and Streams, or C.O.A.L.S. program, now in its third year, is responsible for clearing millions of tons of municipal trash and waste tires from multiple sites in Northeastern Pennsylvania and at one site in central Pennsylvania, near the state Farm Show Building complex in Harrisburg. These sites have been cleaned up and beautified under the initial pilot program and the first two-year phase of the regular program. The program will be expanded statewide by 2012, according to DEP's Northeast Program Manager Steve Bartos.

Bartos explained that businessman Dave Kaleta led a tour of private landowners, legislators, DEP officials, businesspeople and local government officials on December 15, 2004. They toured several illegal dumpsites in the Northeast and he proposed that these sites be cleaned up through better cooperation between landowners and government. A mixture of waste removal by government and community groups, expanded recycling programs, education, aggressive law enforcement, stiffer fines and beautification was suggested. By April 2005, DEP had a program in place. The program became known as C.O.A.L.S.

Under Bartos' guidance, DEP developed a pilot program in Northumberland and Columbia counties. In the first year, after several dumpsites were identified, one million tons of trash were removed. That number expanded in 2006 and "…this year, that number will double," Bartos noted.

By inviting private donations, little taxpayer money is used to fund the program. Several companies have donated landfill space to accept the waste, several waste tire recycling companies have taken the used tires and Waste Management has donated its services to transport the waste to the proper disposal sites. The trash found in illegal dumpsites is roughly 50 percent municipal waste and 50 percent tires, according to Bartos.

He said there is a "golden triangle" that is responsible for clean-ups at these sites, including DEP, the private sector and non-profit groups. Often, high school students who must perform community service projects in order to complete graduation requirements are used to remove trash. The students receive a one-half hour safety briefing and then work for four hours at the site. Boy Scout groups, other community-based organizations and in one case, state correctional facility inmates have participated in illegal dumpsite cleanup projects.

Bartos commented that DEP will not authorize a site to be cleaned under the C.O.A.L.S. program if the agency knows who is responsible for the waste at the site, or if the community does not agree to help clean the location.

Julie McMonagle of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council commented that the program has a valuable educational component. "Students learn how trash affects their community and the environment," she said. "They learn how trash negatively affects the environment, the importance of creating beautification projects like planting new trees and installing walking trails and they see how it can lead to economic revitalization projects coming into their communities as business people see the area as a more desirable place to locate a business."

McMonagle said another benefit to the program is getting municipal governments to talk to each other and cooperate in the cleanup efforts and to keep the areas from becoming dumpsites in the future. She added, "Healthcare companies are supporting the idea when walking trails are installed because it promotes a healthier lifestyle in their communities."

Bartos noted that security cameras and barriers are used to detect and deter illegal dumping at sites that have been cleaned. "This is an aggressive approach because we do not want people dumping again at a site that has been so thoroughly cleaned and in many cases, beautified," he said .

C.O.A.L.S. partners include high school students, private landowners, PA CleanWays, local businesses, local governments, Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful, County Conservation Districts, environmental groups, watershed groups, community volunteers and the Pennsylvania Environmental Council.

Rick Morrison, PA Legislative Services

JOINT LEGISLATIVE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE

Presentation on carbon sequestration

By Heather Hottle, PLS Intern

6-11-07

The Committee held a meeting to hear a presentation on Carbon Sequestration. Chairman Scott Hutchinson (R-Venango) opened the meeting by saying the face of science is changing and there are many environmental problems that our fathers would not have considered. Chairman Hutchinson then named carbon sequestration as one of these problems.

John Quigley, Director of Legislation and Strategic Initiatives for the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), provided the committee with an overview of the Department's preliminary plans to correct Pennsylvania's impact on global warming. Quigley said global warming is the "largest uncontrolled chemistry experiment in history" and is the "biggest single long-term threat to Pennsylvania's existing natural heritage". He continued, saying that in Pennsylvania global warming could cause more frequent and severe storms, loss of cold water fisheries, other negative impacts on wildlife, the spread of tropical diseases, more frequent heat waves, drastic changes in crop yields, a decline in winter outdoor recreation activities and a loss in water resources. Quigley opined that with these impacts "water will become the new oil."

Quigley explained that Pennsylvania provides for one percent of the world's total global warming emissions and ranks third behind Texas and California as the largest emission producing state. He added that motor vehicles account for the largest portion of pollution in Pennsylvania.

Quigley offered that DCNR has been looking at the global warming issue and at carbon sequestration specifically. He explained that carbon sequestration consists of extracting the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or smokestacks through photosynthesis or other technologies and then storing it. Quigley shared that there are two types of storage: terrestrial; meaning plants, grasses, trees and soil, and geologic; meaning underground formations and coal seams that are unable to be mined.

Quigley said the reason DCNR is looking into the issue is because it is the largest landowner in Pennsylvania and it is a member of the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP). He remarked that DCNR has established a Carbon Management Plan to quantify the agency's potential to offset global warming emissions and to identify possible actions that could be taken in the future to reduce carbon emissions. Quigley explained that the plan does not aim for a specific piece of legislation or regulation, but will look to the future in a collaborative effort with industries and stakeholders while keeping DCNR's core mission in mind. He added that creation of the plan is transparent and that all records are posted on the DCNR's website.

Quigley offered that Pennsylvania's potential carbon storage is vast and is estimated to be 140 million tons per year, or 125 years worth of carbon emissions. He conceded that there is no incentive for states to do this, the costs of some methods are high, and to be effective every conceivable technique would need to be used. He added that some methods have been used on a small scale, such as storing carbon dioxide in the North Sea but no large-scale methods have been proven effective.

Quigley commented that Pennsylvania's public and private forests offset 3.5 to 4 percent of annual emissions, adding that DCNR's plan will look into ways to improve this percentage and provide incentives to do so. He announced following seven terrestrial and four geologic priorities for carbon sequestration:

Terrestrial:

Conservation of the forestland base

Further forest establishment and restoration

Proper forest management to help protect from insects and disease

The use of wood and biomass energy, such as cellulosic ethanol, which uses all types of plants for energy

Expanded use of wood products

The expansion of urban and suburban forestry

Public and institutional education

Geologic:

Protocols for siting and operating sequestration projects

Geologic sequestration pilot projects

A pilot coal bed methane project

Public and institutional education

Quigley continued that Pennsylvania has joined the Climate Registry along with 30 other states and is working on a platform for a reporting and trading system called the PA-centric Registry. Quigley explained that because Pennsylvania exports 35% of its net energy, the state needs to be involved in policy discussion and design so that it is not punished for its high amount of emissions compared to other states.

Quigley then answered questions from the crowd.

You talked about a coalbed methane project, could you provide more details about it?

Quigley said there is one commercial coalbed methane recapture project in southwestern PA, but there is talk about trying one in the northwestern part of the state in the anthracite region. He said there is a need to try a pilot project in that area to see if it can work on anthracite coal. He explained that it includes using carbon dioxide to force out coal methane, which is a recoverable resource.

On the subject of incentives and regulations, currently there are no smoke stack regulations?

Quigley replied that there are not specific regulations regarding carbon dioxide, but he believes in the next five to ten years, the United States will likely begin to require emissions to be regulated.

If you put this one percent into perspective and look at the amount of people in Pennsylvania divided into the amount of people in the world, we're a small fraction and we're creating one percent?

Quigley commented that the United States emits 25% of the world's carbon emissions. He said China builds two coal-fired power plants a week and will soon surpass the U.S. in emissions, but refuses to pass regulations until industrialized countries take the responsibility first. He remarked that if Pennsylvania can become the seat for research and development of technology it can be the exporter of the technology.

Rep. David Kessler (D-Berks) said New York City is requiring by 2013 that all taxi cabs be hybrid, adding that he is working on a piece of legislation that will introduce the idea to Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

Quigley remarked that every conservation measure is important.

Pennsylvania is an exporter of energy, does it bother you that we credited with having a carbon dioxide problem when we are exporting energy to states that are considered clean?

Quigley said the question is when carbon is regulated if Pennsylvania will be penalized because it's providing everyone energy for other states. He continued that Pennsylvania has to look forward and have a role in the rulemaking so it is not punished. He said that the issue boils down to how the rules are written and Pennsylvania needs to be at the table to makes sure it is not punished.

The media already penalizes Pennsylvania when they write about the issue.

Quigley responded to the comment saying that the DCNR thinks there is a "sweet spot" that can be found in this situation. He said that there is a possibility for Pennsylvania to protect the environment and develop economically at the same time.

5-21-07

By Kimberly Collins, PLS

The Committee held an informational meeting on the Abandoned Mine Land Fund. Members in attendance included Chairman Scott Hutchinson (R-Venango) and Representatives Dick Stevenson (R-Mercer) and Gary Haluska (D-Cambria).

Chairman Hutchinson remarked this is a timely issue, and stated abandoned mines have been identified in 44 counties in PA, covering 4,800 miles of stream and 1.4 million Pennsylvanians live within one mile of an abandoned mine site. He stated that PA has more abandoned mine sites than any other state and the estimated cost to remediate those sites is $1.5 billion. He noted the reauthorization of the federal Abandoned Mine Land Program means significant funding will be coming into PA.

John Dawes, Administrator of the Western PA Watershed Program (WPWP) and Chair of the PA AML Campaign, provided the committee with an overview of the efforts to reauthorize the federal SMCRA (the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977) and the challenges the state faces in remediating abandoned mine sites. He explained that in anticipation of the sunset of Title IV provisions of SMCRA legislation (the collection of a small fee on coal mining) several environmental leaders from ten eastern coal states met to write provisions for reauthorization. As a result of their efforts, the SMCRA was reauthorized at the end of 2006. He stated reauthorization is particularly important to PA because it has the largest inventory of abandoned mine lands and the largest number of dangerous features. Dawes stated that the federal appropriations under the original SMCRA "became increasingly discretionary and diverted so that picking away at this inventory through annual appropriations in the amount of $22-23 million, it would have taken 60 to 70 years to complete reclamation." The reauthorization, which includes mandatory spending and a pay-out schedule will allow PA to attack multi-year planning and construction projects that will lead to improved quality of life in coalfield communities.

Dawes stated PA anticipates $1.4 billion in abandoned mine land funds to come to PA over the next 15 years, but stressed that this amount represents only a portion of what is ultimately needed. He stated, "Our collective challenge will be to strategically and most cost-effectively prioritize how to clean up Pennsylvania's hundreds of thousands of acres of mine-scarred lands and nearly 5,000 miles of mine-polluted waterways." He offered the following concerns and recommendations:

Insure complete compliance with the law for the collection of reclamation fees with the Federal Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement to expand its audit program to establish a system to document that reclamation fees have been and are being collected in full

No exceptions to collection of reclamation fees, with possible limited waiver for remined coal waste to burn in CFB power plants

Necessary use of funds to include a mechanism for the on-going or perpetual operations and maintenance needs of acid mine drainage abatement or treatment facilities

Flexibility for PA to utilize funds for reclaiming P1 and P2 sites

Use of funds as match to other federal state or private funding as a means to leverage additional funding for acid mine drainage abatement and treatment

Necessary use of funds to include demonstration projects which test innovative and/or most cost-effective methodologies to abate or treat acid mine drainage

Next, Scott Roberts, DEP Deputy Secretary of Mineral Resource Management, provided an overview of the history of mining in PA and efforts to reclaim abandoned mine land. Roberts explained minerals have been a source of wealth for all civilizations and discussed the many minerals that have been mined from PA. He stated as the mineral supply at one site was exhausted, mining operations abandoned the site and moved on to another site. He remarked mining is a site occupier, not land use, and reclamation returns the land for future use. Reclamation, he commented, is not cheap, but necessary to enjoy the full value of PA. Roberts stated PA was the first state to recognize the need for reclamation and he discussed the hundreds of projects undertaken. In 1982, he stated, PA became eligible for federal funding for abandoned mine reclamation projects under SMCRA and the first step was to inventory sites and prioritize them. He explained SMRCA was a health and safety program, not an environmental program, and first priority sites (P1) are those that are deemed dangerous. Second priority sites (P2) are those sites at which an accident may happen. He stated PA has received $600 million since 1982 and reclaimed 170 miles of stream, protected 2,500 acres from subsidence, mine fires have been extinguished (except at Centralia where the town had to be relocated), and 230 passive treatment systems opened. Despite these achievements, Roberts stated, PA still has a lot left to do. He stated 185,000 acres in PA qualify as P1 or P2, and that's just for coal mine sites. He stated there are many other mine sites and quarries across PA that need to be reclaimed.

Roberts stated the reauthorization gives PA a stable funding platform of $1.4 billion in the next 15 years and DEP is working to determine how to spend that money efficiently. He also stated avenues will be explored to utilize this funding to leverage additional funds. He stated DEP will be convening several roundtable discussions to receive input on PA's abandoned mine reclamation needs. In the meantime, he urged patience from the public and reminded those gathered that mines and quarries are dangerous, deadly places that should be avoided.

Lastly, Roderick Fletcher, Director of the Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation at DEP, discussed the reauthorization. He explained key provisions of the law will take effect October 1, 2007 and the federal OSM (Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement) still has to develop rules to implement the reauthorization. He stated the program will extend for 14 more years. He noted there is a possibility the fee will be reauthorized after that, but indicated it is not likely. However, he noted the program may continue beyond that deadline if remaining funding is available. He stated the reauthorization will be phased in so money will not immediately flow into PA and there will be a 10-15% decrease in funding this year, which will be a hardship. Fletcher also noted up to 30% of funds may be set aside for acid mine drainage, so PA will need to determine if it wants to set any money aside for this, and if so how much and how it will be used. Fletcher stated the projected steady funding will allow PA to plan ahead, but we still need to push for additional funding for reclamation because this amount will not meet all of PA's reclamation needs. Lastly, Fletcher warned there may be potential problems in the future to access sites on private land. Currently, he stated, if access is denied they just move onto another project but trends are beginning to appear that indicate this may become a bigger problem.

The presenters then answered questions from the crowd.

Is it true the fee paid by mine companies will be decreased? Where is that money coming from?

Fletcher explained the fee will decrease 20% in two phases. It will decrease 10% immediately then in five years it will again decrease 10%. He stated up to $490 million will be available from Treasury to cover costs, but he opined he is comfortable all the funding will be available.

Why are there variations in the amount of money PA is projected to receive each year?

Roberts explained the previous law required 50% of the fee required in a state to go back to that state, but that money was not fully appropriated in the past so differences will be distributed. States will also receive the 50% going forward and the historic reduction formula (which is based on the amount of the nation's coal that the state produced) will be applied. He explained each of these funding streams is applied differently, which accounts for the variation in each year's projections. Roberts added that the funding is mandatory, and it does not have to go through the appropriations process each year. Fletcher added another variation is the fact that not all states are certified, so it is unknown how many states will be competing for the funding.

Is OSM the final arbitrator in deciding which sites will be reclaimed?

Fletcher replied the law defines priorities and OSM is responsible for maintaining the inventory. Roberts added OSM does not choose the order of sites to be reclaimed; that is determined at the state level. He noted DEP will be rewriting its policy document that direct the selection process following the roundtable discussions.

The next Joint Legislative Conservation Committee meeting will be June 11th at noon in Room 60, East Wing. The committee will hear from John Quigley, Director of Operations at DCED.

4-16-07