DOCSLIB.ORG

Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fourth Five-Year Review Report Five-Year Review Report Fourth Five-Year Review Report for Marshall Landfill Site Boulder County, Colorado August, 2011 PREPARED BY: u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 Denver, Colorado Approved by: Date: Assistant Regional Administrator Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 [This page intentionally left blank.] Five-Year Review Report Table of Contents List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................. i Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iii Five-Year Review Summary Form ................................................................................................. v 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Site Chronology ................................................................................................................... 2 3.0 Background .......................................................................................................................... 3 3.1 Location and Setting......................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Site History ....................................................................................................................... 4 4.0 Remedial Actions .................................................................................................................... 5 4.1 Remedy Selection ............................................................................................................. 6 4.2 Remedy Implementation .................................................................................................. 7 4.3 Remedy Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................... 8 5.0 Progress since the Last Review............................................................................................ 8 6.0. Five-Year Review Process ................................................................................................... 9 6.1 Administrative Components .......................................................................................... 9 6.1.1 Community Involvement ........................................................................................ 10 6.1.2 Document Review ................................................................................................. 10 6.1.3 Data Review ........................................................................................................... 10 6.1.4 Site Inspection ........................................................................................................ 12 6.1.5 Interested Party Interviews ..................................................................................... 13 7.0 Technical Assessment ........................................................................................................ 14 7.1 Question A...................................................................................................................... 14 7.2 Question B ...................................................................................................................... 15 7.3 Question C ...................................................................................................................... 16 7.4 Technical Assessment Summary ................................................................................ 16 8.0 Issues .................................................................................................................................. 16 9.0 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions ........................................................................ 17 10.0 Protectiveness Statement ................................................................................................... 18 11.0 Next Review....................................................................................................................... 19 Tables Table 1 – Chronology of Site Events Table 2 – Actions Taken Since the Last Five-Year Review Table 3 – Issues Identified Table 4 – Recommendations and Follow-up Actions Figures Figure 1 – Site Location Figure 2 – Water Quality Monitoring Locations Appendix Appendix A – List of Documents Reviewed Appendix B – Site Surface and Ground Water Performance Standards Appendix C – Photo Log of Site Conditions List of Acronyms ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements BFI Browning-Ferris Industries CD Consent Decree CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ESD Explanation of Significant Difference IC Institutional Controls IR Information Repository LGAC Liquid-phase granular activated carbon MOM Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance NCP National Contingency Plan NPL National Priorities List O&M Operation and Maintenance OU Operable Unit PCE Perchloroethene POC Point of Compliance PRP Potentially Responsible Party RAO Remedial Action Objectives RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ROD Record of Decision RPM Remedial Project Manager TCE Trichloroethene TDS Total Dissolved Solids VGAC Vapor-phase granular activated carbon VOC Volatile Organic Compounds i [This page intentionally left blank.] ii Executive Summary The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 has conducted the fourth five-year review of the remedial actions implemented at the Marshall Landfill Site (Site) in Boulder County, Colorado. The purpose of the five-year review is to determine whether the remedy at the Site is protective of human health and the environment. Because hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain in place at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, five-year reviews are required. The trigger action for this review is completion of the third five-year review in September 2006. The Site is located in southeastern Boulder County, approximately one mile east of the town of Marshall and consists of two adjacent landfills, each comprising approximately 80 acres. Together the two landfills, totaling 160 acres, comprise one operable unit (OU1). The Marshall Landfill, in the northern portion of the Site, began operating in 1965, when the Richland Company, under contract with Boulder County, began a solid waste composting and disposal operation at the Site. In 1974, use of the Marshall Landfill was discontinued when Urban Waste Resources, along with Mesa Sand and Gravel, opened the Boulder Landfill to the immediate south, this southern portion of the landfill closed in January 1992. Landfill operations companies changed ownership multiple times by successive corporate acquisition. Republic Services, Inc is the current successor of landfill operations and is a responsible party in conjunction with the City of Boulder. Throughout the period of landfill operations, the land has been owned by The Cowdrey Corporation. Several sources of contamination were identified during the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), which was conducted in 1986. These included areas of saturated refuse, trenches used for waste disposal, small undefined areas where organic solvents were disposed, and two unlined leachate lagoons. Onsite groundwater within the shallow alluvial aquifer was found to be contaminated with volatile organic compounds, heavy metals, chloride, nitrate and sulfate. Flow in the shallow aquifer is generally to the north and northwest and then east along Cowdrey Drainage. No contamination was identified in the deeper bedrock aquifer within the Laramie and Fox Hills Formations. No contamination was detected in surface waters leaving the Site during the RI. However, after completion of the RI, 1, 1 -dichlorethane was detected at 5 micrograms per liter (µg/L) in surface water from the Cowdrey Drainage. The following Remedial Action Objectives (RAO) for the Marshall Landfill Site were developed in the Feasibility Study and Record of Decision (ROD; September 26, 1986): • Assure that all surface water discharge from the landfills does not adversely impact the current or planned future beneficial uses of the surface waters in this area or any other waters that it may contact; • Control the generation of contaminated groundwater at the Site; iii • Assure that any offsite contaminated groundwater originating at the Site does not adversely impact possible beneficial uses of groundwaters in this area or any other surface waters and groundwaters it may contact; and • Eliminate or control impacts resulting from leachate seepage in the landfills. The Site remedy included a groundwater collection and treatment system, landfill improvements, and environmental monitoring programs. The remedy was considered operational in 1993. The collection and treatment system was placed on a stand-by mode in November 2004 after influent to the treatment system consistently met the discharge requirements for the main contaminants of concern. While specific onsite and non-point of compliance monitoring wells have exhibited low level exceedances, the downgradient offsite point of compliance (EPA-18) has consistently met established groundwater
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Henderson ‐ Chapter 5.17 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
    1 Henderson ‐ Chapter 5.17 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 5.17.005 Declaration of city policy. It is declared to be the policy of the city to regulate the collection, transportation, deposit, transfer, recycling and disposal of solid waste and recyclables in a manner that is consistent with State law and that will: A. Protect public health and welfare. B. Prevent water or air pollution. C. Prevent the spread of disease and the creation of nuisances. D. Conserve natural resources. E. Enhance the beauty and quality of the environment. (Ord. 2545 § 1 (part), 2006) 5.17.010 Definitions. In the construction of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply, unless the context clearly requires otherwise. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future tense; words in the plural number include the singular number, and words in the singular number include the plural number; the words "shall" and "will" are mandatory, and "may" is permissive: "Agricultural waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible waste material in solid or semisolid form that is generated by the rearing of animals other than household pets, or the production and harvesting of crops or trees, for profit in a zoning district where such activities are permitted, and that has not been discarded or abandoned by its owner. "Buy‐back center" means a facility operated by a licensed commercial recycler or registered charitable organization where persons may bring recyclables in exchange for payment. "City" means the city of Henderson, Nevada. "Commercial recycler" means any licensed entity, to include any licensed franchisee, that is in the business of purchasing, accepting donations of, collecting, storing, transporting or processing source‐ separated recyclable materials.
    [Show full text]
  • US and State of Texas V. Allied Waste Industries, Inc
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and Civil Action STATE OF TEXAS, No.: 497-CV 564 E Plaintiffs, v. ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. ' Defendant. COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT The United States, pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act ("APPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h), files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding. I. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDING On July 14, 1997, the United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint alleging that the proposed acquisition by Allied Waste Industries, Inc. ("Allied") of the Crow Landfill in Tarrant County, Texas from USA Waste Industries, Inc. ("USA Waste") would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. An Amended Complaint was filed on July 29, 1997. The Complaint alleges that Allied and USA Waste are two of only four competitors in the greater Tarrant County area that operate commercial landfills for the disposal of municipal solid waste ("MSW") generated in Tarrant County. If 'the acquisition were consummated, there would be only three operators competing to dispose of MSW generated in Tarrant County, and that loss of competition would likely result in consumers paying higher prices for waste disposal and hauling and receiving fewer or lesser quality services. MSW disposal is a service which involves the receiving of waste at landfills from haulers which have collected paper, food, construction material and other solid wastes from homes, businesses and industries, and transported that waste to a landfill.
    [Show full text]
  • Mead Johnson Announces Renewable-Energy Project
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: CarolAnn Hibbard, (508) 661-2264 news@ameresco.com Mead Johnson Announces Renewable-Energy Project Mead Johnson Nutritionals today announced plans for an innovative project that will use landfill gas for energy at the company's manufacturing facility in Evansville. The gas will be captured at a local landfill, processed for use and transported by dedicated pipeline to Mead Johnson, where it will replace most of the company's use of natural gas. Landfill gas is a natural byproduct of the decomposition of organic materials in the landfill. Mead Johnson will work with Ameresco and Allied Waste Industries, Inc., to make this important project possible. Ameresco, which will own the system, will be responsible for designing, building, maintaining and operating it. The system will process the landfill gas into a useable fuel and then deliver it to Mead Johnson's facility via a dedicated pipeline. Allied Waste will provide the landfill gas from its Laubscher Meadows Landfill. Construction is expected to begin in June, and the process will be operational by early 2009. The project is the first of its type for Evansville and it utilizes a ""green"" technology that's been proven safe and reliable. ""Bristol-Myers Squibb and Mead Johnson are committed to environmental stewardship and sustainability around the world,"" said Mead Johnson President Steve Golsby. ""The natural gas usage eliminated through this project represents a shift from the use of fossil fuels to energy that comes from a renewable source," he added. "This is another great example of how we can be stewards of the environment and partner with businesses to achieve positive results,"" said Evansville Mayor Jonathan Weinzapfel.
    [Show full text]
  • SASB Disclosure
    2018 Republic Services® SASB Disclosure This disclosure was prepared following the SASB Waste Management Sustainability Accounting Standard, Version 2018-10, using the reporting entity described in the Republic Services 2018 10-K. All data is as of December 31, 2018 for calendar year 2018. 2018 Republic Activity Metrics SASB Activity Metric 2018 Results Code Number of customers by category: Municipal N/A IF-WM- Commercial N/A 000.A Industrial N/A Residential N/A IF-WM-000.A Republic does not archive historical customer counts by these categories. IF-WM- Vehicle Size 25,094 includes collection fleet, service 000.B vehicles, and equipment Number of: Landfills 190 active landfills 129 closed landfills 0 active hazardous landfills Transfer Stations 207 IF-WM- Recycling Centers 91 000.C Composting Centers 10 Incinerators 0 All other facilities 75 renewable energy and landfill gas projects 37 CNG fueling stations 7 TRD facilities 11 SWD wells Amount of material managed by our business: IF-WM- Total tons managed 115 Million tons 000.D IF-WM-000.D We believe the amount of material we manage is an appropriate metric when calculating and evaluating intensity comparisons. Data includes MSW, Recycling, and E&P waste tons managed. N/A Revenue $10,041 Billion 2 2018 Republic Sustainability Accounting Metrics SASB Sustainability Accounting Metric 2018 Results Code Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions (1) Gross global Scope 1 emissions 13,199,147 Metric tons CO2e (2) Percentage covered under emissions-limiting regulations 83 % (3) Percentage covered under emissions-reporting regulations 85 % Discussion/clarifications/assumptions/etc (including measurement/estimation methods): (1) Scope 1 emissions include emissions from landfills and fleet that are owned, leased, or operated by Republic.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Sustainability Report
    Sustainability Report 2016 5 Elements of Sustainability Materials Operations Communities Safety People Management This Sustainability Report reflects our work in Republic’s five elements of sustainability: Cover photo: Truck driving through our Operations, Materials Management, Newton County Landfill in Indiana. Communities, Safety and People. Our Blue Planet™ We believe in the preservation of a Blue Planet...a cleaner, safer By embodying the Five R’s on the Republic Star – Respectful, and healthier world where people thrive – not just for today, Responsible, Reliable, Resourceful and Relentless – our but for generations to come. employees will thrive in an atmosphere where safety is our top priority and each person can be a compassionate steward of We are guardians of our environment and have a our Blue Planet. responsibility to regenerate our planet with the materials we are entrusted to handle every day by driving increased We’re committed because it’s more than picking up and handling recycling, generating renewable energy, and helping our our country’s waste. This is a collective effort to do what’s best customers to be more resourceful. for our communities, customers, employees, shareholders and environment – without exception, without fail. We must lead by example, working diligently to improve our relationship with the environment and society through This is not a fleeting cause. It is the foundation for our future, decreased vehicle emissions, innovative landfill technologies, and the very heart of who we are as we work every day to use of renewable energy, community engagement and protect our Blue Planet. employee growth opportunities. We are privileged to serve more than 14 million customers in 240 markets across the country, creating effortless experiences that support their evolving needs and honor their unique commitments to improving their communities.
    [Show full text]
  • January 12, 2017 City Hall 130 Cremona Drive, Suite B Goleta
    SOLID WASTE ISSUES STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING January 12, 2017 City Hall CONFERENCE ROOM 1 130 Cremona Drive, Suite B Goleta, California 2:00 P.M. Councilmember Aceves Mayor Pro Tempore Kasdin Michelle Greene, City Manager Tim Giles, City Attorney Rosemarie Gaglione, Public Works Director Everett King, Environmental Services Coordinator I. Potential Franchise Agreement Amendments needed to accommodate the recently executed Resource Recovery Project Materials Delivery Commitment & Processing Services Agreement between County of Santa Barbara and City of Goleta II. Update on State Water Resources Control Board’s Trash Amendment Americans with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the ADA, if special assistance is needed to participate in a City Council meeting (including assisted listening devices), please contact the City Clerk's office at (805) 961-7505. Notification helps to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting. MEMORANDUM DATE: January 10, 2016 TO: Councilman Aceves Mayor Pro Tempore Kasdin FROM: Everett King, Environmental Services Coordinator SUBJECT: Potential Amendments to the Franchise Agreement for Solid Waste Handling Services between City of Goleta and MarBorg Industries _____________________________________________________________________ The recently approved Resource Recovery Project Material Delivery Commitment and Processing Services Agreement between the County of Santa Barbara and the City of Goleta (MDA) commits the City to the Tajiguas Resource Recovery Project (Project). The MDA commits the City’s solid waste stream to the Project for a 20 year term at a tipping fee that is substantially higher than those currently charged by the County for disposing refuse at the Tajiguas Landfill, and for handling and processing of residential source separated commingled recyclables (recyclables).
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Waste Compost Facilities Appendices H, I & J
    Landscape Waste Compost Facilities Appendices H, I & J Appendix H Landscape Waste Compost Facility Owners and Operators Alphabetic by Facility Compost Facility Name Municipality Owner Operator Status Page 1 BFI Modern Landfill Belleville BFI Wst. Stms. of N. America Inc. Pioneer Southern Inc. A R6.19 1 Brickyard Disposal & Recycling Danville Brickyard Disposal & Recycling Inc. City of Danville A R4.23 CDT Landfill Corp. Joliet CDT Landfill Corp. CDT Landfill Corp. A R2.84 Centralia Landscape & Waste Recyc. Centralia City of Centralia, Public Works City of Centralia, Public Works A R6.20 Chicago Botanic Garden Glencoe Cook County Forest Preserve Dist. Chicago Botanic Garden A R2.85 2 2 CID RDF #4 Compost Facility Chicago Waste Management of Illinois Inc. Waste Management of Illinois Inc. A R2.86 Coles County Landfill Charleston Allied Waste Industries Inc. Allied Waste Industries Inc. A R4.24 Crystal Lake Composting Crystal Lake City of Crystal Lake, Engineering Dept. City of Crystal Lake, Engineering Dept. A R2.87 D & L Landfill Greenville D & L Landfill Inc. D & L Landfill Inc. IA R6.21 2 2 DeKalb County Landfill DeKalb Waste Management of Illinois Inc. Waste Management of Illinois Inc. A R1.22 Dirksen Parkway Compost Facility Springfield Secretary of State, Physical Services Secretary of State, Physical Services A R5.14 1 Dixon/GROP Landfill #2 Dixon City of Dixon Allied Waste Industries of Illinois A R1.23 DK-Lake Bluff Lake Bluff Village of Lake Bluff DK Recycling Systems Inc. A R2.88 Elgin Compost Facility Elgin City of Elgin City of Elgin A R2.89 1 1 Environtech Morris Environtech Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems
    4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems The utilities and service systems discussed in this section include the following: 1) potable water supply, treatment and distribution; 2) wastewater collection, transmission, treatment and disposal; 3) stormwater drainage; 4) solid waste regulation and disposal; and 5) energy. This section analyzes the potential for the proposed project to have a significant impact to these utilities and service systems. Information contained in this section has been incorporated from written correspondence from the City of Escondido Water and Wastewater Division (EWWD), Vallecitos Water District (VWD), Rincon Del Diablo Water District (RDD), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) and additional sources as cited throughout the document. Written correspondences from these water and wastewater agencies are included in Appendix G, Utility Providers Correspondence, of this EIR. A summary of the impacts to utilities and service systems identified in Section 4.17.3, Analysis of Project Impacts and Determination of Significance, is provided below. Utilities and Service Systems Summary of Impacts Issue Project Number Issue Topic Project Direct Impact Cumulative Impact Impact After Mitigation Wastewater Treatment 1 Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Requirements New Water or Wastewater 2 Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Treatment Facilities Sufficient Stormwater Drainage 3 Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Securities and Exchange
    1 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-Q (MARK ONE) [X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934. FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 OR [ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934. FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM _____________ TO _______________ COMMISSION FILE NUMBER: 1-14267 REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter) DELAWARE 65-0716904 --------------------------------- --------------------------------- (State of Incorporation) (IRS Employer Identification No.) 110 S.E. 6TH STREET, 28TH FLOOR FT. LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33301 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code) Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code: (954) 769-2400 Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No [ ] On November 5, 1999 the registrant had outstanding 175,447,962 shares of Common Stock, par value $.01 per share. 2 REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC. INDEX PAGE ---- PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION ITEM 1. Financial Statements Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 1999 (Unaudited) and December 31, 1998.................................. 3 Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Three and Nine Months Ended September 30, 1999 and 1998 ... 4 Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statement of Stockholders' Equity for the Nine Months Ended September 30, 1999 ..............
    [Show full text]
  • Recycling and Source Reduction Advisory Commission
    CrIY OF MILPITAS November 5, 2009 Janis Moore' Department of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement 200 East Santa Clara Street San Jose, CA 95113 RE: DEIR for the Newby Island Rezoning Pro,ject - PDC07-07l Dear Ms. Moore: The project as defined in the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) is for a Planned Development rezoning with the purpose to allow the maximum height of the active portion of the landfill to be raised to 245 feet, adding approximately 15,12 million cubic yards to the capacity of the landflll. The new zoning would also allow changes to the uses and operations at tlle landfill and Recyclery, These changes include allowing the composting areas to be located,'" anywhere on the landfill site, allowing the processing offood waste at the Recycleo/, imposing a limit on the total number of inbound material-carrying vehicles to 1,546 vehicles per day for both the landfill and the Recycle!)', and allowing a future solid waste transfer station at fue Recyclery, The current permits that regulate the operations of the landfill and Recycle!)' restrict the areas for composting, prohibit processing offood waste at the Recyclery,and limit transfer station activities to recyclable materials, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with infonnation that enables them to make a decision, which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. The Newby Island Rezoning Project DEIR failed to sufficiently analyze the significant odor impacts the project would have on the Milpitas community, The odor impacts discussed in the DEIR are identified as less than significant with no mitigation required, Yet the project's Odor Assessment (Appendix C of the DEIR) concluded that ilie project would increase the possibility of odors being transported off site and that mitigation measures are needed.
    [Show full text]
  • October 2020
    Klickitat County Solid Waste Management Plan - DRAFT October 2020 Klickitat County Solid Waste Management Plan October 2020 Prepared for: Klickitat County Solid Waste Department Goldendale, Washington Prepared by: Project 10172512 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Klickitat County Solid Waste Department would like to thank the following organizations and individuals for their assistance in the development of this Solid Waste Management Plan: Klickitat County Solid Waste Advisory Committee Members Name Affiliation/Title Laura Mann City of Bingen Mike Cannon City of Goldendale Donna Rockwell Citizen Representative Commissioner District #2 Steven Randall School Representative John Longfellow Citizen Representative Commissioner District #3 Jason Hartmann City of White Salmon Council Member Joe Johnson Landfill Compliance Officer James Beeks Citizen Representative At-Large / Agricultural Representative David Kavanagh Klickitat County Public Health Department Pierce Louis Agricultural Industry Representative / Business Representative Greg Bringle Waste Industry Representative Kevin Barry Citizen Representative-At-Large Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ ES-1 1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Management Services 2013
    Waste Management Services 2013 The OECD Competition Committee debated Waste Management Services in October 2013. This document includes an executive summary of that debate and the documents from the meeting: a background note, written submissions by Canada, the Czech Republic, Estonia, the European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, South Africa, Sweden, Chinese Taipei, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States, BIAC as well as an aide-memoire of the discussion. Technological and policy changes have altered the economics of waste collection and treatment. Landfills are further away from cities and larger. More waste is diverted towards treatments that allow to re-use it, recycle it, or to recover energy from it. Secondary raw materials derived from recycled waste are being increasingly sought afters, as primary raw materials are becoming scarcer and more expensive. Producers have been made responsible for the products they have put on the market at the post-consumer stage of the products’ life. All these changes are raising new competition issues, some relative to the conduct of firms operating in the markets for the management of waste, some raised by the ever-increasing amount of environmental legislation. This legislation is aimed at protecting the environment and the health of citizens, but may sometimes raise unnecessary barriers to competition and thus reduce the incentives towards efficiency. This Roundtable examines recent developments in the management of municipal solid waste and discusses the experience of competition agencies in addressing the competition implications of these changes.
    [Show full text]