Each year natural disasters challenge American communities. The National Science and Technology Council estimates these disasters cost the United States $52 billion per year in the form of lives lost and property destroyed.  Natural disasters can also generate large amounts of debris adding to the host of challenges for public officials.

The EPA has produced an updated planning guide for local governments and communities in various stages of disaster debris planning.  If you are just starting, this is a great resource.  If you need a checklist to make sure you’ve covered your bases this is also a great resource.

The link is posted below:

disaster_debrisplanning

The 66 Municipal Solid Waste Regions are required to fill out an Annual Solid Waste Regional Planning Report by March 31st of each year.  Contact Matt Maynard at TDEC if you are unsure about the status of your report.

Don’t forget to vote and review results of first CTAS solid waste poll. We asked for input on whether your local program provides options for recycling antifreeze. 24 votes have been cast. If you haven’t voted yet, visit the CTAS website (http://ctasenvblog.tennessee.edu) and select the radio button on the left to indicate your choice. It’s quick, it’s easy. We’ll use this tool for future polls, as topics come up of interest to solid waste professionals in Tennessee.

Nation-wide data collected by US EPA estimates that of the over 1600 pounds of waste generated each year by each person, about 394 pounds are recycled.  More facts are here, as part of Waste Age Magazine’s Profiles in Garbage series.

Here is a waste characterization study undertaken by the city of San Francisco. The survey methodology may be useful to review when comparing similar documents.

CTAS has prepared a record retention guideline for county solid waste programs. This details the duration in which a county must retain the solid waste management records for the county.

In 2000, the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, conducted a study on health and safety risks for refuse collection workers. This study placed municipal solid waste collector seventh on a list of the most hazardous occupations. Read how cameras, mirrors, and protective gear can keep your employees safe.

We’ve provided a link to a document produced by US EPA in 2006 on Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases. Taken from the executive summary, “In the 21st century, management of municipal solid waste (MSW) continues to be an important environmental challenge facing the United States. In 2003, the United States generated 236.2 million tons1 of MSW, an increase of 15 percent over 1990 generation levels and 168 percent over 1980 levels.2 Climate change is also a serious issue, and the United States is embarking on a number of voluntary actions to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that can intensify climate change. By presenting material-specific GHG emission factors for various waste management options, this report examines the interrelationship between MSW management and climate change.
Among the efforts to slow the potential for climate change are measures to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from energy use, decrease emissions of methane (CH4) and other non-carbon-dioxide GHGs, and promote long-term storage of carbon in forests and soil. Management options for MSW provide many opportunities to affect these processes, directly or indirectly. This report integrates information on the GHG implications of various management options for some of the most common materials in MSW. To EPA’s knowledge, this work represents the most complete national study on GHG emissions and sinks from solid waste management practices. The report’s findings may be used to support a variety of programs and activities, including voluntary reporting of emission reductions from waste management practices.”

This is a technical resource with many useful charts and tables explaining contributions and offsets to Greenhouse Gases.

The Tennessee Solid Waste Education Program has K-12 curricula to use in your community’s education program.

You know the MSW triangle..recent high energy prices and better technologies are suggesting this triangle instead:

1. Source reduction
2. Re-use, recycling, composting
3. Conversion (using CTs)
4. Waste-to-energy
5. Landfill with energy recovery

In this article, MSW magazine outlines benefits why Conversion Technologies should be placed into the Solid Waste Hierarchy. See this MSW article for a good introduction to this topic.