DOCSLIB.ORG

NOTICE of MOTION Contract with Republic Services

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NOTICE of MOTION Contract with Republic Services J(24) NOTICE OF MOTION Contract with Republic Services of Canada Inc. Moved by: Councillor Duguid Seconded by: Councillor Pitfield “WHEREAS City Council at its meeting held on November 26, 27 and 28, 2002, adopted, as amended, Clause No. 29 of Report No. 12 of The Works Committee, headed ‘Haulage and Disposal of Wastewater System By-Products - Request for Proposals No. 9155-02-7307’, and, in so doing, granted the authority to negotiate and enter into an agreement with Republic Services of Canada, Inc., to provide the required haulage and disposal services for wastewater system by-products for the City of Toronto commencing January 1, 2003; and WHEREAS the disposal of the wastewater system by-products will take place at the Carleton Farms landfill in the United States or other licensed and permitted solid waste disposal facilities, and it is in the interest of the City that the agreement be modelled on the City’s Waste Transport and Disposal Agreement, dated October 25, 2000, in relation to the disposal of the City’s solid waste, including the addition of parties; and WHEREAS there are no financial impacts associated with this Motion; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, in accordance with §27-49 of Chapter 27 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, Clause No. 29 of Report No. 12 of The Works Committee, headed ‘Haulage and Disposal of Wastewater System By-Products - Request for Proposals No. 9155-02-7307’, be re-opened for further consideration; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Council consider the attached report dated April 14, 2003, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and that such report be adopted; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the necessary provisions of Chapter 27 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code be waived to permit introduction and debate of this Notice of Motion at the meeting of Council to be held on April 14, 15 and 16, 2003.” April 14, 2003 Attachment According to Chapter 27 of the Municipal Code, the foregoing Notice of Motion: Notice was previously given Meets Municipal Code provisions and only requires a simple majority to introduce and debate Requires two-thirds to waive notice (√) Requires two-thirds to re-open (√) Fiscal Impact Statement provided * Should have Fiscal Impact Statement prior to debate * Requires two-thirds to waive requirement if Council wishes to debate Should be referred to the Committee/Community Council Requires two-thirds to waive referral if Council wishes to debate Recommendations are time sensitive * Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to advise. STAFF REPORT April 14, 2003 To: Council From: Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services Subject: Contract with Republic Services of Canada Inc. Haulage & Disposal of Wastewater System By-Products to the Carleton Farms Landfill in Michigan All Wards Purpose: The purpose of this report is to request additional authority (i) to enter into a five-party agreement with respect to the contract awarded through RFP No. 9155-02-7307 for the haulage and disposal of the City's wastewater system by-products to the Carleton Farms landfill in Michigan or other licenced and permitted solid waste disposal facility, (ii) for the provision of terms and conditions substantially similar to those contained in the City's Waste Transport and Disposal Agreement, dated October 25, 2000, in order to protect the interests of the City and (iii) for a minor cost clarification. Financial Implications and Impact Statement: There are no financial implications arising from this report. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) authority be granted for the City of Toronto to enter into an agreement with Republic Services Inc., Republic Services of Canada Inc., Republic Services of Michigan I, LLC (doing business as Carleton Farms) and Wilson Logistics Inc. to provide the required haulage and disposal services in respect of wastewater system by-products effective January 1, 2003 to the Carlton Farms Landfill in Michigan or other licenced and permitted solid waste disposal facilities, on the terms and conditions set out in this report and otherwise on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to protect the interests of the City and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor; (2) in addition to the previously authorized prices for haulage and disposal as set out in Clause No. 29 of Report No. 12 of the Works Committee, as adopted by City Council at 1. 2 its meeting held on November 26, 27 and 28, 2002, authority be granted to pay Wilson Logistics Inc. the sum of $90.00 for the haulage and disposal of each trailer load in circumstances where, in order to make up its full 12 tonne load capacity for Type 1 waste (i.e., capacity of one roll-off box) or 34 tonnes of Type 2 or Type 4 waste, a trailer is required to attend at an additional location as authorized by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to pick up material; (3) the appropriate City Officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. Background: At its meeting on November 26, 27 and 28, 2002, Council approved Clause No. 29 of Report No. 12 of the Works Committee to negotiate and enter into an agreement with Republic Services of Canada, Inc. to provide the required haulage and disposal services in respect of wastewater system by-products for the City of Toronto (the “wastewater by-product disposal agreement”) commencing January 1, 2003 to the Carleton Farms Landfill in Michigan (“Carleton Farms”). The clause set out prices for various categories of wastewater by-products with varying contractual periods for each. In discussion with Republic Services of Canada, Inc., it was determined that the agreement should in fact be entered into with Republic Services Inc., Republic Services of Michigan I, LLC (doing business as Carleton Farms), and Wilson Logistics Inc., which are Republic Services of Canada Inc.’s partners in this venture (collectively, the “contractor”). The contractor has asked that the services be addressed either by an appendix to the City’s prior Waste Transport and Disposal Agreement, dated October 25, 2000, entered into between the City and those parties for the haulage and disposal of the City’s solid waste at Carleton Farms (the “solid waste disposal agreement”) or by separate agreement which mirrors the provisions of the solid waste disposal agreement. Comments: Because the services involve disposal in the United States, the terms and conditions of the wastewater by-product disposal agreement, including the obligations of the respective parties, should therefore be substantially the same as the City’s solid waste disposal agreement. As with the solid waste disposal agreement, the responsibilities of the parties under the wastewater by- product disposal agreement are primarily and generally as follows. Wilson provides the transportation services, Republic Services of Canada, Inc. is responsible for disposal and to provide for contingencies, Republic Services of Michigan I, LLC (doing business as Carleton Farms) is responsible to ensure that the primary disposal site is made available and for compliance with applicable law in the management of the site and Republic Services Inc. is a guarantor of the obligations under the agreement. Subject to the specific requirements of RFP No. 9155-02-7307 for the handling of wastewater by-products, the pricing and the varying contractual periods in relation to the categories of the by-products, the wastewater by-product disposal agreement should in fact mirror the provisions 1. 3 of the City’s solid waste disposal agreement in order to protect against potential liabilities and contingencies such as a border closing. While such an approach could have been done by appendix to the prior solid waste disposal agreement, administratively it is felt better to deal with the specific handling requirements and varying contractual periods by separate agreement. Because of this, authority is being sought to authorize the addition of the parties and an agreement which mirrors substantially the City’s already negotiated and finalized solid waste disposal agreement. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services should have the authority, however, to modify any terms to ensure the workability of the agreement in relation to the handling of wastewater by-products consistent with the provisions contained in RFP No. 9155-02-7307. It was also indicated by Republic Services of Canada Inc. that an omission had been made in the earlier report to Council authorising the haulage and disposal services in not detailing a $90.00 charge to the City by the contractor for each additional location where a trailer is required to pick up Type 1, Type 2 or Type 4 waste to make a full load. Type 1 waste is comprised of grit and screenings from the wastewater treatment plants, Type 2 waste is comprised of catch basin and sewer cleaning debris, as well as street sweepings and Type 4 waste is comprised of contaminated/organic soils, sludges and slurries. Conclusions: The Department is recommending that the City enter into a five-party agreement for the required haulage and disposal services for the City’s wastewater by-products on the terms and conditions as indicated in this report. In particular, Legal Services has advised that modelling this agreement on the terms and conditions of the City’s prior solid waste transport and disposal agreement, including the obligations of the respective parties, protects the City’s interests given disposal of the waste at Carleton Farms in the United States and is therefore protective of the City’s interests. With respect to the $90.00 charge specified above, the related cost was estimated and included in the annual expenditures mentioned in the earlier report, i.e.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Washtenaw County Solid Waste Plan Amendment – Approved Draft
    WASHTENAW COUNTY SOLID WASTE PLAN AMENDMENT – APPROVED DRAFT APPROVED DRAFT FOR 90-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AS OF APRIL 21, 2017 COMPILED DRAFT PREPARED BY RESOURCE RECYCLING SYSTEMS SUBMIT COMMENTS TO: [email protected] THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK How to Read this Document This draft Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment follows the format that is required by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) through enactment of Part 115, Solid Waste Management, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended (Act 451). Much of the current solid waste law is focused on ensuring proper and adequate disposal capacity. However, the Washtenaw County Solid Waste Planning Committee embraced the environmental mindset that is prevalent in the community and strived to set goals and objectives to focus on reduction, reuse, and recycling. Required Sections The plan consists of three primary sections with appendices to provide supporting documents and materials, as required by the state. The three sections are: Introduction: describes the goals and objectives of the plan. Database: consists of background information to support the development and implementation of the plan. Selected Solid Waste Management System: describes the comprehensive approach to managing the County’s solid waste and recoverable materials. The appendices provide supporting documents and materials. Appendix A contains additional detail about the evaluation of current systems. Appendix B contains additional evaluation of alternatives not selected by the County. Appendix C contains documentation of public participation. Please note that this section will be completed prior to final submission to the MDEQ, as public participation is actively occurring.
    [Show full text]
  • Lucas County Solid Waste Management 2010 Plan Update
    Lucas County Solid Waste Management 2010 Plan Update Due to OEPA September 16, 2011 Lucas County Commissioners Pete Gerken, President Tina Skeldon Wozniak Carol Contrada Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 6 A. Plan Approval Date, Counties In District and Planning Period ......................................................................... 6 B. Reasons for Plan Submittal ............................................................................................................................... 6 C. Process to Determine Material Change in Circumstances ............................................................................... 6 D. District Formation and Certification Statement ............................................................................................... 8 E. Policy Committee Members ............................................................................................................................. 9 F. Board of County Commissioners ...................................................................................................................... 9 G. District Contact Information ............................................................................................................................. 9 H. Technical Advisory Committee and Other Subcommittees ............................................................................ 10 Section 2: Executive Summary ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: the Canadian Context
    Cov-Public Confidence Canadian 30/09/03 12:45 Page 1 Radioactive Waste Management Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: The Canadian Context Workshop Proceedings Ottawa, Canada 14-18 October 2002 NUCLEAR•ENERGY•AGENCY Radioactive Waste Management Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: The Canadian Context Workshop Proceedings Ottawa, Canada 14-18 October 2002 © OECD 2003 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: − to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; − to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and − to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996), Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14 December 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Claim, As Required by the Proceedings Against the Crown Act
    Archived Content Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us. Contenu archivé L'information archivée sur le Web est disponible à des fins de consultation, de recherche ou de tenue de dossiers seulement. Elle n’a été ni modifiée ni mise à jour depuis sa date d’archivage. Les pages archivées sur le Web ne sont pas assujetties aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada. Conformément à la Politique de communication du gouvernement du Canada, vous pouvez obtenir cette information dans un format de rechange en communiquant avec nous. UNDER THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES AND SECTION B OF CHAPTER Ii OF TIlE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN: VITO G. GALLO Investor v GOVERNMENT OF CANADA (“Canada”) Party STATEMENT OF CLAIM A. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES CLAIMANT! INVESTOR: Vito G. GallooAc) ENTERPRISE: 1532382 Ontario Inc. 225 Duncan Mill Road Suite 101 Don Mills, Ontario M3B 3K9 Canada PARTY: GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada Justice Building 239 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0H8 Canada 1. The Investor alleges that the Government of Canada has breached, and continues to breach, its obligations under Chapter 11 of the NAFTA, including, but not limited to: (i) Article 1105, The Minimum Standard of Treatment (ii) Article 111 0, Expropriation and Compensation 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on Solid Waste Landfilled in Michigan for 1996
    REPORT OF SOLID WASTE LANDFILLED IN MICHIGAN October 1, 2019 - September 30, 2020 Prepared By: Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy Materials Management Division Solid Waste Section P.O. Box 30241 Lansing, Michigan 48909-7741 517-388-0293 February 11, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 WASTE DISPOSAL SUMMARY INFORMATION ........................................................... 2 TABLE 1 SOLID WASTE DISPOSED IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS .................................................................................. 4 TABLE 2 SOLID WASTE DISPOSED IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS BY PERCENTAGE ................................................... 4 FIGURE 1 OUT-OF-STATE WASTE AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DISPOSAL IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS ............................ 5 FIGURE 2 MICHIGAN AND OUT-OF-STATE WASTE AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DISPOSAL IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS ............................................................... 5 TABLE 3 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SOURCE SUMMARY ....................... 6 TABLE 3A INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL SOURCE SUMMARY……. ..... 7 WASTE IMPORTS ..................................................................................................... 8 TABLE 4 IMPORTED WASTE BY ORIGIN ................................................. 8 FIGURE 3 IMPORTED WASTE BY ORIGIN ................................................. 9 TABLE 5 IMPORTED WASTE BY COUNTY AND PLACE OF ORIGIN ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Selected Solid Waste Management System
    III-4 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS Designated Solid Waste Disposal Areas in Oakland County – revised table – November 2013 Type II Landfill: Type A Transfer Facility: Collier Road Landfill Allied Waste Transfer Station – Southfield Eagle Valley Landfill Allied Waste Site – Pontiac Oakland Heights Landfill SOCRRA Transfer Station – Troy SOCRRA Landfill SOCRRA Transfer Station – Madison Heights City of Pontiac Site – Pontiac Waste Management Site – Pontiac Type III Landfill: FPT – Pontiac Division – Pontiac None Designated BP – Pontiac Processing Facility: SOCRRA MRF Site – Troy Incinerator: RRRASOC MRF Site – Southfield None Designated Allied Waste Site – Pontiac City of Pontiac Site – Pontiac Waste Management Site – Pontiac Waste-to-Energy Incinerator: FPT – Pontiac Division – Pontiac None Designated BP – Pontiac Other: Waste Piles: None Designated None Designated III-12 SELECTED SYSTEM FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS Facility Type: Waste Transfer Facility Name: BP-Pontiac County: Oakland Location: City of Pontiac Town: 3N Range: 10E Section(s) 17 and 20 Map Identifying location included in Attachment Section: ___X____ Yes _______ No If facility is an Incinerator or a Transfer Station, list the final disposal site and location for Incinerator ash or Transfer Station wastes: see list on reverse side Operating Status (check) Waste Types Received (check all that apply) ______ open __X___ residential ______ closed __X___ commercial ______ licensed __X___ industrial ______ unlicensed __X___ construction & demolition ______ construction permit __X___ contaminated
    [Show full text]
  • Download 3697.Pdf
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION __________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ) STATE OF OHIO; ) STATE OF ARIZONA; ) STATE OF CALIFORNIA; ) STATE OF COLORADO; ) STATE OF FLORIDA; ) COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; ) STATE OF MARYLAND; ) STATE OF MICHIGAN; ) STATE OF NEW YORK; ) Civil No.: 1:98 CV 1616 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; ) STATE OF TEXAS; ) STATE OF WASHINGTON; and ) STATE OF WISCONSIN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Filed: ) v. ) ) USA WASTE SERVICES, INC.; ) DOME MERGER SUBSIDIARY; and ) WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) MODIFIED FINAL JUDGMENT WHEREAS, plaintiffs, the United States of America, the State of Ohio, the State of Arizona, the State of California, the State of Colorado, the State of Florida, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the State of Maryland, the State of Michigan, the State of New York, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of Texas, the State of Washington, and the State of Wisconsin, and defendants USA Waste Services, Inc. ("USA Waste") and Waste Management, Inc. (“WMI”), by their respective attorneys, having consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law herein, and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or an admission by any party with respect to any issue of law or fact herein; AND WHEREAS, defendants have agreed to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court; AND WHEREAS, the essence
    [Show full text]
  • Monroe County Solid Waste Management Plan
    STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY LANSING DEii\ RICK SNYDER C. HEIDI GRETHER GOVERNOR DIRECTOR June 1, 2017 Mr. J. Henry Lievens, Chairperson Monroe County Board of Commissioners 125 East Second Street Monroe, Michigan 48161-2197 Dear Mr. Lievens: The locally approved amendment to the Monroe County Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan Amendment) received by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on February 18, 2016, is hereby approved with modifications. The Plan Amendment required modifications that were sent to the Monroe County Designated Planning Agency contact, Mr. Daniel Rock1 on December 1, 2016, and a follow-up modification letter on February 17, 2017. The approval of the modifications, dated April 21, 2017, was received from the Monroe County Board of Commissioners (BOC). Upon approval by the DEQ, the Plan Amendment revises the entire Plan and should be viewed as a stand-alone document. The following modifications were made to the Plan Amendment: Throughout the Plan Amendment, the phrase "Mixed Waste Processing" has been used; however, this term is not defined. Based on our conversations, Monroe County is actually referring to a Solid Waste Processing Facility. Therefore, the term "Mixed Waste Processing Facility" throughout the Plan Amendment shall be replaced with the ,, term "Solid Waste Processing Facility. Page 10, FACILITY DESCRIPTION, Arbor Hills Landfill, the Operating Status check box for "Construction Permit" shall be marked as this facility has a construction permit. This same item shall be changed on page 47 of the Plan Amendment. Page 16, FACILITY DESCRIPTION, Adrian Landfill, Inc., the Operating Status check box for "Open, but closure pending" shall be marked instead of "Open" as this is the current status of this facility.
    [Show full text]
  • The DANGER of Corporate Landfill Gas-To-Energy Schemes and How to Fix It
    C LI E: UB R P WA BE The DANGER of Corporate Landfill Gas-to-Energy Schemes and How to Fix It Why Organics Recycling is an Alternative That Prevents Greenhouse Gases and Creates Jobs B L I C P U RE: BEWA The DANGER of Corporate Landfill Gas-to-Energy Schemes and How to Fix It Why Organics Recycling is an Alternative That Prevents Greenhouse Gases and Creates Jobs A report by: Recycling Works! Campaign www.recyclingworkscampaign.org Sierra Club www.sierraclub.org International Brotherhood of Teamsters www.teamster.org Public Beware: The Danger of Corporate Landfill Gas to Energy Schemes and How to Fix It Why Organics Recycling is an Alternative That Prevents Greenhouse Gases and Creates Jobs Introduction The United States is at a turning point, both economically and environmentally, and the policy choices we make in the near future will have a long-term impact on protecting our climate and reviving our economy. While the planet approaches a climate change tipping point, after which severe damages from global warming will be irreversible, millions of Americans are seeking quality employment. Clean energy solutions are available to both of these problems, but corporate landfill owners’ narrow self-interests can stand in the way of the public good and the de - votion of resources to the most effective solutions. While major waste companies promote landfill gas to energy (LFGTE) projects that purport to capture methane released from landfills and convert it to elec - tricity, a better solution lies in organics recycling. As part of a 21st century re - source recovery infrastructure, organics recycling diverts methane-generating waste from landfills and has the potential to significantly curtail dangerous land - fill methane emissions in the near term and going forward, create quality em - ployment in the organics recycling and clean energy industries—allowing a truly sustainable and renewable source of energy to thrive.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of Solid Waste Landfilled in Michigan
    REPORT OF SOLID WASTE LANDFILLED IN MICHIGAN October 1, 2018 - September 30, 2019 Prepared By: Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy Materials Management Division Solid Waste Section P.O. Box 30241 Lansing, Michigan 48909-7741 517-284-6551 February 14, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 WASTE DISPOSAL SUMMARY INFORMATION ........................................................... 2 TABLE 1 SOLID WASTE DISPOSED IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS .................................................................................. 4 TABLE 2 SOLID WASTE DISPOSED IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS BY PERCENTAGE ................................................... 4 FIGURE 1 OUT-OF-STATE WASTE AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DISPOSAL IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS ............................ 5 FIGURE 2 MICHIGAN AND OUT-OF-STATE WASTE AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DISPOSAL IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS ............................................................... 5 TABLE 3 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SOURCE SUMMARY ....................... 6 TABLE 3A INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL SOURCE SUMMARY……... ... 7 TABLE 3B ALTERNATIVE DAILY COVER WASTE DISPOSAL SOURCE SUMMARY ……... ........................................................................ 7 WASTE IMPORTS ..................................................................................................... 8 TABLE 4 IMPORTED WASTE BY ORIGIN ................................................. 8 FIGURE 3 IMPORTED WASTE BY ORIGIN ................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Alliance of Rouge Communities (ARC) Resource Recovery Guide
    AA Citizen’sCitizen’s GuideGuide forfor RecyclingRecycling andand HouseholdHousehold HazardousHazardous WasteWaste DisposalDisposal April 2008 AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements The Household Hazardous Waste Subcommittee, a subcommittee of the Alliance of Rouge Communities (ARC) Public Involvement and Education Committee, oversaw the development of this guide. Subcommittee members are: Jennifer Lawson, chair, Public Involvement and Education Committee, City of Troy Meghan Bonfiglio, chair, Household Hazardous Waste Subcommittee, Bloomfield Township Whitney Calio, Oakland County Laura Gruzwalski, Hubbell, Roth & Clark Shawn Keenan, City of Auburn Hills Howard Knorr, resident Mary Vangieson, Wayne County Amy Ploof, Oakland County Zachare Ball, Chris O'Meara ARC staff Questions or comments regarding this guide please email [email protected]. Alliance of Rouge Communities James W. Ridgway, P.E., Executive Director c/o ECT 719 Griswold St., Suite 1040 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: 313-963-6600 Fax: 313-963-1707 www.allianceofrougecommunities.com 2 QuickQuick ReferenceReference IndexIndex A Ammunition ································································································································································································· 11 Antifreeze/Automotive Fluids ·································································································································································· 11 Appliances ·································································································································································································
    [Show full text]
  • TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT of MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COMPREHENSIVE INSPECTION REPORT Final
    TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COMPREHENSIVE INSPECTION REPORT Final Prepared for U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 Work Assignment No. : R07125 EPA Region : 5 Date Prepared : May 17, 2006 Contract No. : 68-W-02-021 Prepared by : Tetra Tech EM Inc. EPA Contract No. 68-W-02-021 Final Report Work Assignment No. R07125 May 17, 2006 CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 2.0 INSPECTION PROGRAM.............................................................................................................1 2.1 LANDFILL BACKGROUND............................................................................................2 2.2 INSPECTION PROTOCOL...............................................................................................3 3.0 INSPECTION FINDINGS...............................................................................................................7 3.1 REQUIRED DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................11 3.2 POTENTIALLY PROHIBITED AND NON-UNIFORM ITEMS (WITHOUT DE MINIMIS THRESHOLDS) FOUND DURING INSPECTIONS..........13 3.3 POTENTIALLY PROHIBITED ITEMS (WITH DE MINIMIS THRESHOLDS FOUND DURING INSPECTIONS ...................16 3.4 REJECTED LOAD SUMMARY .....................................................................................19 3.5 SAMPLES COLLECTED................................................................................................20
    [Show full text]