Solid Waste Task Force — Portland, ME
Date: 2010-03-25

body: Austin, Texas
 Zero Waste
 Strategic Plan




 December 4, 2008
 Prepared by Gary Liss & Associates
 4395 Gold Trail Way, Loomis, CA 95650-8929
 916-652-7850 * gary@garyliss.com * www.garyliss.com
 with assistance from
Richard Anthony Associates * 858-272-2905 * ricanthony@aol.com
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. i
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ............................................................................................... ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ iiv
A. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING SYSTEM....................................................................... 1
 1. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 1
 2. ZERO WASTE AND CLIMATE CHANGE ...................................................................................... 2
 3. EXISTING SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING SYSTEM .................................................................. 4
B. POLICY AND PROGRAM OPPORTUNITIES .................................................................. 9
 1. SERVICE OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 9
 2. PROGRAM AND FACILITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 9
 4. ZERO WASTE POLICY AND PROGRAM OPTIONS ..................................................................... 10
 UPSTREAM POLICY AND PROGRAM OPTIONS ......................................................................... 12
 DOWNSTREAM POLICY AND PROGRAM OPTIONS ................................................................... 13
 GREEN BUSINESS, GREEN BUILDINGS AND JOBS.................................................................... 14
 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT AND REGIONAL COORDINATION ................................................. 15
 5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................................................................................................... 18
 6. ZERO WASTE AND JOBS ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 18
C. POLICY AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 20
 1. UPSTREAM POLICY AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 20
 2. DOWNSTREAM POLICY AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 20
 3. GREEN BUSINESS, GREEN BUILDINGS AND GREEN JOBS ........................................................ 21
 4. REGIONAL COORDINATION AND RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT ................................................... 21
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 24
APPENDIX A. LIST OF ZERO WASTE PLAN MEETINGS .............................................. 25
APPENDIX B. PUBLIC RECOMMENDED POLICY & PROGRAM OPTIONS ............. 26
APPENDIX C. EXISTING RECYCLING ORDINANCE ..................................................... 36
APPENDIX D. PRODUCT & MATERIALS MARKET INVENTORY ............................. 37
APPENDIX E. MAP OF CONTRIBUTING COUNTIES...................................................... 40
APPENDIX F. REGIONAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT ......................................................... 41
APPENDIX G. MODEL EPR RESOLUTION ........................................................................ 44
APPENDIX H. HIGHEST AND BEST USE HIERARCHY.................................................. 47
APPENDIX I. ZERO WASTE RESOURCES ......................................................................... 49




Gary Liss & Associates i
 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
 No. 20090115-050



 WHEREAS, consistent with its goal to make Austin the most livable city in the country, the
Austin City Council adopted Resolution No. 20050519-44 in May 2005 supporting the United
Nations Environmental Accord and committed the City to achieving a 20 percent reduction in
per capita solid waste disposal to landfills and incinerators by 2012, and Zero Waste to landfills
and incinerators by 2040; and


 WHEREAS, Zero Waste is an ambitious goal to divert 90% of waste from landfills and
incinerators by 2040 using a “whole system” approach to evaluate and manage the flow of
resources and waste created by our communities; and


 WHEREAS, Austin is part of a regional waste management system within the Capital Area
Planning Council of Governments (CAPCOG) region; and


 WHEREAS, as the Capital Area continually grows, outpacing other Texas communities, the
region will be faced with a need to expand existing landfills, open new landfills, or divert a
drastic amount of waste from current landfills to properly ensure the health and safety of the
region. Austin’s Zero Waste Plan seeks to extend the life of existing landfills while
acknowledging that a certain amount of residual waste is inevitable; and


 WHEREAS, the City Council adopts the Zero Waste Strategic Plan, attached hereto as
Exhibit A and hereafter referenced as the “Plan,” as a long term planning vehicle and further
directs the City Manager to incorporate the Plan into the development of a Solid Waste Services
Master Plan. City Council recognizes that the policy and program recommendations in Section C
of the Plan may necessitate changes to rules, ordinances, and/or policies and will require on-
going collaboration with key stakeholders, public private partnerships, and close coordination
with public and privately owned regional waste disposal facilities and recycling and compost
operations; and




Gary Liss & Associates ii
 WHEREAS, Austin recognizes the need to encourage and assist in the development of one
or more public and/or public/private material recovery facilities which can respond to the solid
waste and recyclables markets through composting recycling, landfilling and other appropriate
means of solid waste management; and


 WHEREAS, in 2007, the City hired Gary Liss and Associates to work with community
members and develop a Zero Waste Strategic Plan; NOW, THEREFORE,


BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN:


 The City Council adopts the Zero Waste Strategic Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A and
hereafter referenced as the “Plan,” as the long term planning vehicle. City Council recognizes
that the policy and program recommendations in Section C of the Plan may necessitate changes
to rules, ordinances, and/or policies, and will require on-going collaboration with key
stakeholders, public private partnerships, and close coordination with public and privately owned
regional waste disposal facilities.


 City Council approval is required for any changes to existing policies in effect as of January
14, 2009 with regard to control over pricing, collection and disposition of commercial solid
waste and commercial recyclable materials, or to impose surcharges to, or limit the rights of, area
landfill operators to receive waste.


 City Council recognizes that the successful implementation of the Plan and achievement of
Zero Waste will require the adoption of policies and procedures designed to encourage all
stakeholders to work cooperatively toward this ambitious goal.


 The City Manager is directed to continue to inform and involve the City Council, the Solid
Waste Advisory Commission, and other stakeholders as work progresses on specific programs,
and to seek City Council approval on changes to policy and ordinances.


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:



Gary Liss & Associates iii
 The City Council directs the City Manager to develop an interim Zero Waste
infrastructure transition plan to manage and implement the following four Zero Waste policy
priorities pending completion of the Solid Waste Master Plan:


 1. Lead by example. Evaluate departmental waste streams for baseline data and future
 monitoring within one year of adoption of the Plan. Within three years of adoption of
 the Plan, frame, develop and implement, where appropriate and feasible, waste
 diversion programs with input from City Departments.

 2. Consider and implement proactive education and enforcement methods for the
 Commercial and Multi-family Recycling regulations. Develop and present to City
 Council City Code amendments as necessary to require recycling at all commercial
 enterprises and multi-family residences and include them in the stakeholder process.
 The proposed City Code amendments should become effective in phases over a three
 year period.

 3. Reach out to institutions, industrial facilities, and manufacturers, to encourage them
 to adopt and implement zero waste goals.

 4. Promote composting to remove organic material and compostables from landfills,
 which is necessary to reduce methane and carbon emissions. First, identify the best
 strategies to promote on-site composting at work and home. Second, evaluate
 infrastructure for residential curbside, commercial, and institutional composting;
 develop strategies to increase composting capacity; and implement a pilot curbside
 composting program when composting capacity is available.

The City Council further directs the City Manager to pursue the following Zero Waste items, as
staff time and funding permits:


 • Until the Master Plan can provide recommendations on the Pay-As-You-Throw rate
 structure, build on the progress made in the FY2009 budget and make the Pay-As-
 You-Throw rates incentivize waste diversion and fully fund zero waste initiatives and
 SWS operational requirements.

 • Develop and present to City Council, City Code amendments or implement rule
 changes as necessary to encourage sustainable practices, including recycling and
 other zero waste practices, at events that require the use of public facilities and rights
 of way, starting with large events.

 • Develop an education program for Appendix D of the Plan, identifying the various
 resources available to the community.

 • Allocate staff time and resources to work with local government officials across
 Texas to launch a Texas Product Stewardship Council.
Gary Liss & Associates iv
 • Evaluate and develop a public and private partnership for neighborhood reuse center
 (possibly a pilot program).

 • Play an active role in lobbying the state legislature to improve the Texas Computer
 Take Back Law and expand producer take back to other products such as TVs,
 fluorescent lighting, pharmaceuticals, nonrechargeable batteries, etc.

 • Recognizing the legislative limits of flow control over landfills, begin a dialogue with
 regional partners to evaluate ways to influence flow control and enhance Zero Waste
 in the CAPCOG region.

 • Evaluate advancements in technology and facilities that help the city/region achieve
 zero waste with an emphasis on the economic and environmental impact.

 • Encourage existing landfill operators to collect methane gas, and initiate a study of
 issues surrounding the use of landfill methane as an energy resource and its
 implications for the City’s goals regarding zero waste and climate protection.




Gary Liss & Associates v
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Zero Waste is a design principle that goes beyond recycling to focus first on reducing wastes and
reusing products and then recycling and composting the rest. Zero Waste works to redesign the
system to mimic natural systems, recognizing that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure and
everything is a resource for something or someone else. Currently, Austin is estimated to lose
over $40 million annually by sending materials that could be recycled or reused to area landfills.

Austin’s Zero Waste system will strive to recover that estimated loss and eliminate waste, or get
darn close. This Plan defines success as reducing by 20% the per capita solid waste disposed to
landfills by 2012, diverting 75% of waste from landfills and incinerators by 2020, and 90% by
2040.

Zero Waste Businesses are already leading the way, diverting over 90% of their wastes from
landfills and incinerators. Local Zero Waste Businesses have documented that they save money,
reduce their liabilities, increase their efficiency and contribute significantly to addressing climate
change. Austin's Zero Waste Plan considered Austin's current and planned public and private
solid waste infrastructure, as well as the City's Climate Protection Program.

Recommendations developed through this process are integral to achieve the City adopted
United Nations Urban Environmental Accord's goal to reduce by 20% the per capita solid waste
disposal to landfills by 2012 and Zero Waste by 2040. Zero Waste initiatives could reduce
greenhouse gases by nearly 500,000 metric ton carbon equivalent (MTCE), making Zero Waste
one of the most significant contributors to reducing climate change that the City can influence at
the local level.

The City of Austin was an early leader to implement recycling and to adopt producer
responsibility and commercial recycling policies. The City of Austin’s Zero Waste Plan
proposes to build on the City’s past success to work together throughout the region and state to:
 ♦ Expand and improve local and regional reuse, recycling, and composting
 programs;
 ♦ Adopt new rules and incentives to reward those who embrace the goal of Zero Waste;
 ♦ Develop Green Campuses and Resource Recovery Parks for Zero Waste
 infrastructure;
 ♦ Advocate for producer and retailer responsibility for product and packaging
 wastes, and bans on problem materials;
 ♦ Educate and advocate for a Zero Waste agenda as part of climate change and
 sustainability policies and programs; and
 ♦ Involve the community through collaboration and partnerships to achieve Zero
 Waste.
On a regional scale, the Capital Area Council of Government’s (CAPCOG) Solid Waste
Advisory Committee noted that Austin’s Zero Waste initiatives support the waste reduction goals
of the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan and the recommendations of the Market Analysis
of Recoverable Materials (2007) prepared for the CAPCOG region by R.W. Beck.

The City of Austin has already taken the first critical step by committing to Zero Waste. This
plan is intended to serve as the first step on a long path towards a Zero Waste future. Dedication,
collaboration, and continual re-evaluation will be essential to Austin’s success.
Gary Liss & Associates vi
 A. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING SYSTEM

1. BACKGROUND
In 2005, the City of Austin Solid Waste Advisory Commission (SWAC) and its Long-Range
Solid Waste Planning Task Force (Task Force) worked with staff of the City Solid Waste
Services Department to develop a scope of work for the Zero Waste Plan. A consultant was
solicited to develop a Zero Waste Plan that would:

 ♦ Consider current and planned public and private solid waste infrastructure;
 ♦ Consider the City of Austin’s Climate Protection Program and the United Nations
 Urban Environmental Accords goal to reduce by 20% the per capita solid waste
 disposal to landfills by 2012 and zero waste by 2040;
 ♦ Emphasize reduction, reuse, and recycling of waste;
 ♦ Include a specific timetable for each priority, including actions to be taken for the
 greatest impact on the diversion of materials sent to landfills;
 ♦ Estimate order of magnitude costs for each priority action;
 ♦ Include public education and outreach to promote the concepts of the plan;
 ♦ Integrate the concept of eco-industrial parks;
 ♦ Include effective methodologies for maximizing Producer Responsibility;
 ♦ Address applicable rules, regulations and policies necessary to support zero waste
 goals;
 ♦ Address rules, regulations, policies and infrastructure investments that constitute
 barriers to achieve these goals; and
 ♦ Obtain input from the Task Force and SWAC, and seek input from a broad range
 of stakeholders, including businesses, environmental organizations, and the
 community at large.

On November 29, 2007, the City Council awarded a contract to Gary Liss & Associates (GLA),
Loomis, CA to develop a Zero Waste Plan for the City of Austin. 1 GLA reviewed background
information provided by City staff then met in Austin monthly over the following four months in
an extensive series of public meetings, focus groups and interviews with key stakeholders,
business leaders, environmental organizations and the community at-large. A list of the meetings
held by GLA can be found in Appendix A.

At the first public presentation before the SWAC in January 2008, over 50 stakeholders and the
public attended. The event received media attention from four local TV stations, two radio
stations and two Austin newspapers. The focus of the first presentation was an Introduction to
Zero Waste and what other communities and businesses were doing around the country. In
February, GLA presented its preliminary findings to over 100 stakeholders and the public on its
analysis of Austin’s existing programs and facilities as well as untapped service opportunities
that could help Austin achieve Zero Waste. In March 2008, GLA met with over 100 individuals
in a series of three focus groups on: Organics; Green Building; and Construction and Demolition
Debris Recycling and Reuse. For each of the focus groups, GLA invited service providers and
waste generators, as well as other interested stakeholders, to help clarify the needs for Austin. In
March, GLA also made an initial presentation to the Capital Area Council of Governments

Gary Liss & Associates 1
(CAPCOG) Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC), to obtain their input on Austin’s Zero
Waste initiatives. In April 2008, GLA presented Draft Recommendations to be part of the Zero
Waste Plan, and solicited input from stakeholders and the public. GLA also met with the
CAPCOG SWAC and separately with Travis County leaders to explore how Austin could work
best with its regional partners on its Zero Waste initiatives. The public input and recommended
policy options received were categorized based on goals/objectives and can be found in
Appendix B.

This Plan summarizes the analysis and input received on Zero Waste and makes
recommendations for the City of Austin on how to proceed to Zero Waste. Although there are
several recommendations included in this Plan, there is no one right way to get to Zero Waste.
Many paths can be taken. Zero Waste is about the commitment and the journey. Austin has
taken the first step to commit to this goal. Everything else should fall into place by repeatedly
evaluating whether and how it will contribute to Zero Waste. To reach its goal, the City will
require a great deal of effort and support by all stakeholders: City staff and elected officials; solid
waste, reuse, recycling and composting service providers; local businesses; environmental and
civic groups; schools and colleges; religious leaders; County and regional staff and elected
officials, State representatives for this region in the State Legislature, and State agencies.
Hopefully this collaborative Zero Waste Plan process will serve as the genesis to continue
discussion, planning, and action towards a Zero Waste future.


2. ZERO WASTE AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Concern about climate change has altered how communities handle and think about solid waste.
Under Mayor Will Wynn’s leadership, the City signed onto the Urban Environmental Accords
which commits Austin to reduce its waste per capita by 20% by 2012 and achieve Zero Waste by
2040. 2 In 2007, the City of Austin also adopted its Climate Protection Plan (CPP) that
highlights the importance of these issues. The intent of the CPP is to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, the primary contributor to climate change, make Austin the leading city in the
nation in the fight against global warming. 3 The CPP elements include:
 ♦ Municipal Plan - Make City of Austin facilities, fleets and operations carbon-
 neutral by 2020.
 ♦ Utility Plan - Expand conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy
 programs to reduce Austin Energy’s carbon footprint; cap carbon dioxide
 emissions from existing power plants; and make any new electricity generation
 carbon-neutral.
 ♦ Homes and Buildings - Update building codes for new buildings to be the most
 energy-efficient in the nation, pursue energy efficiency upgrades for existing
 buildings, and enhance Austin Energy’s Green Building program.
 ♦ Community-wide - Engage Austin citizens, community groups, and businesses to
 reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the community.
 ♦ “Go Neutral” Plan - Provide tools and resources for citizens, businesses,
 organizations, and visitors to measure and reduce their carbon footprint.

But how does Zero Waste influence Climate Change?


Gary Liss & Associates 2
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been studying the links between solid waste and
climate change for over a decade. Their website contains detailed analysis and summary steps
that individuals and businesses can take to reduce their carbon footprint. 4 The EPA graphic
below (Figure 1) highlights “the different sources of GHG emissions from waste….The disposal
of solid waste produces GHGs in a number of ways. First, the anaerobic decomposition of waste
in landfills produces methane, a GHG 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Second, the
incineration of waste produces carbon dioxide as a by-product. In addition, the transportation of
waste to disposal sites produces GHGs from the combustion of the fuel used in the equipment.
Finally, disposal of materials indicate that new products are being produced as replacements; this
production often requires the use of fossil fuels to obtain raw materials and manufacture the
items.” 5

 Figure 1
 Life Cycle of Waste




The State of California has given additional consideration to the relationship between climate
change and solid waste disposal. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for
implementing AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. CARB convened the Economic and
Technology Advancement Advisory Committee (ETAAC) which was comprised mostly of
business leaders from different sectors of the state’s economy. In their Final Report adopted in
February 11, 2008, ETAAC recognized the connections between solid waste disposal and
climate change:

 “ETAAC recognizes the hierarchy of waste reduction, reuse, and recycling to
 reduce GHG emissions. These waste management strategies also avoid the energy
 use and other environmental impacts associated with extracting, processing, and
 transporting raw materials. Eliminating upstream emissions by reducing,
Gary Liss & Associates 3
 recycling and composting can result in substantial climate change mitigation
 benefits.” 6

ETAAC then recommended the following measures to be adopted by the State:

 ♦ Develop Suite of Emission Reduction Protocols for Recycling
 ♦ Increase Commercial-Sector Recycling
 ♦ Remove Barriers to Composting
 ♦ Reduce Agricultural Emissions through Composting

The latest report on these issues, Stop Trashing the Climate, “provides compelling evidence that
preventing waste and expanding reuse, recycling, and composting programs — that is, aiming
for Zero Waste — is one of the fastest, cheapest, and most effective strategies available for
combating climate change. This report documents the link between climate change and
unsustainable patterns of consumption and wasting, dispels myths about the climate benefits of
landfill gas recovery and waste incineration, outlines policies needed to affect change, and offers
a roadmap for how to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within a short
period.” 7 The report also finds that “significantly decreasing waste disposed in landfills and
incinerators will reduce greenhouse gas emissions the equivalent to closing 21% of U.S. coal-
fired power plants. This is comparable to leading climate protection proposals such as
improving national vehicle fuel efficiency. Indeed, preventing waste and expanding reuse,
recycling, and composting are essential to put us on the path to climate stability.” 8

Based on the information gathered above, one of the keys to addressing climate change locally is
by reducing the waste sent to landfills to reduce the methane produced in anaerobic conditions.
Even the best-managed landfills over the average lifetime of the facility are not expected to
recover over 75% of the gases produced. 9 In addition, 30 years after landfills are approved by
the federal government for complete closure, private owners are no longer required to manage
those landfills under federal law. The surfaces of sites that are not maintained open up allowing
rain to enter through the cracks. Gas and leachate are produced and are no longer controlled. In
addition to these direct landfill impacts locally, for every ton of solid waste produced locally,
there are 71 tons of waste produced “upstream” from mining, manufacturing and
distribution of products. 10 These upstream impacts also have many climate change
implications as well, some of which are factored into calculators available from the US
Environmental Protection Agency.

Based on this data, Zero Waste needs to be an integral part of the City’s climate change
initiatives. This will take close coordination and strong partnerships between the City’s Climate
Protection staff and the staff of the Solid Waste Services Department. In addition, all City of
Austin facilities, fleets and operations should take an active role in evaluating and implementing
ways to help meet Zero Waste goals as part of these climate change initiatives.

3. EXISTING SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING SYSTEM
In considering how to get to Zero Waste, it is important to understand how Austin’s solid waste
management system currently functions, including what is within the City of Austin’s control
and what is not.

Gary Liss & Associates 4
The City of Austin’s Solid Waste Services Department is responsible for city-wide litter
abatement and collection of solid waste from 163,965 residential customers, 234,965 anti-litter
customers, and 2,603 commercial customers, which includes small multi-family dwellings of 4
units or less and a limited number of qualifying small businesses. In addition to providing
weekly garbage pick services, the City also offers curbside recycling to its customers.

Using a conservative 7.3 lbs. per person per day and Austin’s population of 743,358, GLA
estimated that the annual tons generated for landfill in Austin, Texas is projected to be about
1,000,000 tons per year. 11 Modeling information from regional data and other cities of similar
size and character, GLA then estimated the percentages by market categories of contributing
materials in the 1,000,000 tons per year of discards. Many of the values were reconfirmed
through site visits with recycling and composting industry representatives in the area. City
recycling collection data also indicates that this analysis is fairly accurate. In FY06/07, the City
collected over 70,000 tons of recyclable and organic resources: 31,876 tons (45.5%) from
curbside recycling; 26,635 tons (38.1%) from collection of yard trimmings and brush; and
12,122 tons (17.3%) from private users of the City’s materials recovery facility. Figure 2
separates these materials into categories and identifies compostable organics compose over half
of the total material discarded. These categories were then broken out to the estimated annual
tonnages of marketable resources and issued a value based on current market prices (See Table
1). Calculations indicate that the value of the materials currently sent to the landfill and lost
to the local economy is over $40 million annually. 12

 Figure 2

 Austin Texas Discards Sorted into the 12 Market Categories
 Note: Half of the Materials are Suitable for Compost


 Reuse Chemicals
 2% 1%
 Polymers Metals
 Textiles 8% 5% Glass
 5% 5%
 Ceramics
 2%




 Plant Debris
 19%


 Paper
 34%




 Putrescibles Soils
 9% 1% Wood
 9%




Gary Liss & Associates 5
 Table 1
 Resource Commodity Analysis Austin Texas
 (In order of value of materials discarded)

 Categories % Annual Tons $/Ton 13 Annual $
 Paper 36 360,000 50 18,000,000
 Reusables 2 20,000 550 11,000,000
 Textiles 5 50,000 100 5,000,000
 Polymers 8 80,000 50 4,000,000
 Metals 5 50,000 40 2,000,000
 Plant Debris 20 200,000 7 1,400,000
 Putrescibles 14 9 90,000 7 630,000
 Glass 5 50,000 10 500,000
 Wood 6 60,000 8 480,000
 Ceramics 2 20,000 4 80,000
 Soils 1 10,000 7 70,000
 Chemicals 1 10,000 5 50,000
 Total 100 1,000,000 $ 43,210,000


With nearly 60% of the residents of Austin living in single-family dwellings and participating in
curbside recycling for recyclable materials and organics, achieving Zero Waste among single-
family residents is an ambitious, but achievable goal. Yet, is the same true for commercial and
multi-family contributors?

While the City is responsible for single-family residential collection, multi-family residences,
businesses, and institutions must contract with private haulers to collect and process their
materials. Currently, the City can only control the flow of the residential streams, but not the
commercial streams. The City can, however, influence what happens in the commercial sector
through the policies, programs, and ordinances it adopts. This is best evidenced in the City’s
Commercial Recycling Ordinance passed by the Austin City Council in 1998 (Appendix C). 15

According to the City’s Recycling Ordinance:

  Apartments and Multi-Family Communities with 100 units or more must provide on-site
 recycling of any four of the following materials: aluminum cans, tin/steel cans, glass
 containers, plastic bottles, newspaper, cardboard, kraft paper bags, and home office
 paper.
  Businesses and Office Buildings with 100 employees ore more must provide on-site
 recycling of any two of the following materials: aluminum cans, tin/steel cans, glass
 containers, plastic bottles.

In part because of the Recycling Ordinance, numerous large buildings recycle paper, thereby
supporting a substantially sized paper recovery industry in Austin. Similar benefits from the
Recycling Ordinance were reported for other recyclables making the recovery of materials in
Austin well established for most commodities. International markets are also thriving and have
dramatically increased the value of these commodities in recent years contributing to the success

Gary Liss & Associates 6
and sustainability of these markets. Clearly, the City is capable of having a greater impact on the
commercial and institutional collection system by collaborating with stakeholders to adopt
policies and programs that incentivize, encourage, and, as a last resort, require more
environmental responsibility to stimulate a sustainable green market economy. Where
collaboration falls short, the City can influence waste management practices by leveraging its
regulatory authority over waste haulers.

Under Texas State Law, cities have the authority to regulate solid waste service providers in their
communities. The City of Austin currently issues licenses to regulate commercial solid waste
haulers authorized to transport waste in the City limits. The current annual fee is a multi-tiered
system based on the number of containers and the number and size of trucks operating within the
City limits by the hauler. The City of Austin may be able to use its regulatory authority to obtain
more information about the total amount of waste being disposed by haulers, develop funding
resources to support Zero Waste initiatives, and develop incentives to encourage recycling.

As noted above, the City has limited control over the disposal system. In fact, now that the City
has closed its own landfill, it is just like the many other regional landfill users. Like many Texas
cities, Austin is part of a regional system of landfills, transfer stations and citizen collection
stations as depicted in Figure 3. 16 According to the Capital Area Council of Government’s

 Figure 3




Gary Liss & Associates 7
(CAPCOG) Regional Solid Waste Management Plan, “…the implementation of Subtitle-D
Regulations has produced the most significant impact on solid waste disposal in the State of
Texas…. moving away from reliance on smaller rural landfills, to more regionalized systems,
based on larger landfills.” 17 In 1990, there were thirteen (13) landfills receiving waste in the
CAPCOG region. By 1995, there were six (6) permitted landfills in the CAPCOG region
receiving waste. As of 2008, the CAPCOG region still has six (6) permitted landfills receiving
waste.

With the CAPCOG Region continually growing and outpacing other Texas communities, this
region will be faced with a need to expand existing landfills, open new landfills, or divert a
drastic amount of waste from current landfills to properly ensure the health and safety of the
region. It has been projected that a total of 33 counties send some if not all of their waste to the
four Austin area landfills in addition to the ten Counties that make up CAPCOG. Although there
are some possibilities for controlling the flow of wastes going to those landfills, it will take a
strong regional consensus to move those possibilities forward.

The focus of CAPCOG, outlined in the most recently adopted Regional Plan, is to:

 ♦ Encourage Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Diversion Programs
 ♦ Promote public education on integrated solid waste management
 ♦ Promote community clean up events to provide alternatives to illegal dumping
 ♦ Continue and enhance current illegal dumping enforcement programs
 ♦ Continue effective and efficient management and operation of recycling services
 ♦ Explore alternatives to dealing with the disposal of special wastes, including
 construction and demolition debris, oil, used tires and electronics
 ♦ Encourage proper management and disposal of solid waste
 ♦ Promote reduction in the disposal amount of yard waste and encourage recycling

Many of the focus items identified by the Regional Plan are addressed in the following analysis
and recommendations, highlighting how Zero Waste is a logical extension of the policies and
programs that have already been adopted in the region.




Gary Liss & Associates 8
 B. POLICY AND PROGRAM OPPORTUNITIES

1. SERVICE OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS
Service opportunity analyses identify existing services available and highlight where new
services are needed to help the community reach Zero Waste. In a Zero Waste systems
approach, one of the first steps to be completed is an inventory of the materials generated in the
service area and identification of the facilities that reuse, repair, recycle and/or compost the
materials. This analysis incorporates all material generated and all facilities processing the
materials, including self-hauled, public, and private service providers. The inventory does not,
however, include landfills or incinerators. A complete analysis of the inventory will not only
identify existing programs and facilities in the Austin area that currently reuse, recycle or
compost discarded materials generated in Austin, but will also reveal voids or gaps in material
markets and services available.

Discards are identified by standard classifications and sorted into twelve market categories,
similar to the pie chart in Figure 2. For each classification, market options are identified, both
inside Austin and outside Austin, including internationally. This step also allows identification
of products or packages that have unacceptable disposal options and/or need opportunities for
new services.

Issues of access, opportunity, availability and knowledge are addressed next. In many cases, such
as disposable diapers, the inventory shows that there is no reuse, recycle or compost option. In
such instances, these items should be addressed as producer responsibility issues. As Martin
Bourque of the Berkeley Ecology Center explains, “If it can't be reused, repaired, rebuilt,
refurbished, refinished, resold, recycled or composted, then it should be restricted, redesigned, or
removed from production.” 18

The results of the market inventory can be found in Appendix D. Options to improve existing
systems are summarized in the Program and Facility Analysis section of this Plan.


2. PROGRAM AND FACILITY ANALYSIS
A review of the service opportunities identify the areas where new rules coupled with redesigned
storage, collection and processing systems would allow for the diversion of more materials from
area landfills. Table 2 identifies the key opportunities.

Based on the information gathered, the most opportunity to improve diversion exists among the
materials that already have a market potential to be reused, composted, or recycled such as used
construction materials, treated wood, and organic materials such as food wastes. Several of the
policy options discussed later in this Plan have the same goal as Single Stream Recycling and
Resource Recovery Centers, making services more readily available in order to increase
participation and expand the diversion services provided in Austin. There is also a significant
amount of work needed in the area of making manufacturers responsible for taking back products
and packaging they sell in the area that are not safe for landfills or are difficult to recycle locally.


Gary Liss & Associates 9
 Table 2
 Program and Facility Opportunities

 Material Current Services Program/Facility Opportunity
 Some commercial food discards Operating capacity is needed for
 Food Waste
 are accepted at one site. the whole city.
 Some commercial discards are Operating capacity is needed for
 Fish and Meat Waste
 accepted at one site. the whole city.
 Two companies take selected Need 12-category resource
 Used Construction
 materials. recovery centers located in
 Materials
 neighborhoods to handle.
 One company is limited to Need 12-category resource
 Treated Wood accepting reusables. recovery centers located in
 neighborhoods to handle.
 Residential market available. Need 12-category resource
 Limited commercial services recovery centers located in
 Fines (e.g. soil from available. neighborhoods to handle clean
 C&D excavation) soil or establish systems for
 nurseries and contractors handle
 these materials directly
 Limited market if recovered Need glass market for window
 Window and Other
 completely during and other glass
 Glass
 construction/demolition.
 Limited local market Existing infrastructure should be
 #3-7 and Other
 evaluated to determine if it is
 Plastics
 capable of handling capacity.
 Diapers/Hygiene No market. Products need redesign,
 Products restrictions or regulations.


4. ZERO WASTE POLICY AND PROGRAM OPTIONS
As previously stated, there is no one right way to achieve Zero Waste and many paths can be
taken. The City has already adopted significant local policies establishing rules for residents and
businesses to participate in the City’s solid waste and recycling system. The City’s Recycling
Ordinance was designed to:
 ♦ Increase access to the benefits of recycling and waste reduction for area businesses and
 multi-family properties within the City of Austin
 ♦ Help increase the life of local landfills
 ♦ Decrease disposal costs for area businesses and multi-family properties
 ♦ Have a positive impact on the environment generally in terms of reduced pollution and
 energy consumption.

The Recycling Ordinance empowers the Director of the Solid Waste Services Department to
adopt and revise rules, procedures and forms to regulate commercial and multi-family recycling
in the City of Austin. Revisions to existing policies as well as most of the additional policies

Gary Liss & Associates 10
recommended below could cite the same authorities and purposes identified by the Recycling
Ordinance and enhanced by the provisions of the CPP adopted by Austin City Council in 2007.

During the Zero Waste Plan process, several policy and program options were discussed among
community members and stakeholders. Appendix B details the options discussed with and
recommended by the public to provide a better understanding of everything considered in
making recommendations for the City of Austin and the region. Additionally, as the City
achieves its goals, staff can look back at the options discussed with and recommended by the
public to discuss and evaluate whether or not to implement the remaining options. The policy
and program options detailed in Appendix B are organized by the following categories:

 ♦ Upstream - Advocate for Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation
 and programs for producers to take back their products and packaging.
 ♦ Downstream - Reduce, reuse, recycle and compost all materials that are
 discarded for their highest and best use.
 ♦ Green Business, Green Buildings and Jobs - Reinvest discarded resources into
 the local economy with incentives and support for green, sustainable, and Zero
 Waste businesses. Entrepreneurs will create new green collar jobs from discarded
 resources if given the opportunity, resources and stimulus to do so.
 ♦ Residuals Management and Regional Coordination – Stop or regulate the flow
 of wastes from outside the area into landfills in the Austin area as the region
 reduces its reliance on landfills.

These options were not intended to be adopted together. Some are complementary while others
work best independently. In some cases, options may even conflict with one another. Each of
the listed policies and programs were further organized into 3 categories:

 ♦ Voluntary, Education & Incentives may be the easiest policies and programs to
 implement, but may not achieve goals by themselves. Most of these options
 would complement other policies and programs.

 ♦ New Rules & Advocacy may be done with virtually no City funding required,
 except for initial education and ongoing enforcement staffing. These options may
 also require the largest investment of political capital to adopt them, but could
 also shift the responsibility for funding new programs to those who are currently
 benefiting the most from the sale of products and packaging. These approaches
 may also require the City to work with other interested communities and
 stakeholders in Texas to develop collaborative policies and programs, and/or to
 work with the State Legislature to adopt new policies and programs statewide.

 ♦ New City Programs will generally require the most funding. For example, new
 City programs could expand the approach used to serve single-family residents to
 serve multi-family residents and businesses. Whether the City provides the
 services itself, or contracts for services to be provided, it will need to budget for
 those services and plan for the likelihood of on-going expenses. New programs
 for multi-family and commercial businesses will require new funding sources,


Gary Liss & Associates 11
 which could be obtained through cooperative efforts with private service
 providers or from new rate structures, fees, or taxes on disposal.


UPSTREAM POLICY AND PROGRAM OPTIONS

Wasting is a design decision and does not have to be inevitable. Producers design products and
packaging “upstream” from the local government solid waste and recycling system. For every
ton of waste in the local solid waste and recycling system, there are 71 tons produced “upstream”
from mining, manufacturing and distribution of wastes. 19 Producers and retailers have shifted
the responsibility of managing the disposal of after-life products to local governments. In a Zero
Waste system, once they accept physical and/or financial responsibility for their products and
packaging, producers and retailers will have an incentive to design waste out of the system. This
is known as “Extended Producer Responsibility” (EPR) or “Product Stewardship.”

EPR is one of the most powerful opportunities that exist to move society and the economy
towards Zero Waste, particularly for products and packaging items that are toxic or currently
difficult to reuse, recycle or compost. In advocating for EPR, the system should establish
efficient repair and reuse programs to retain the form and functions of products, rather than
taking back products and packaging to just be crushed or shredded for recycling. EPR systems
should also ensure the redesign of products and packaging to eliminate waste and encourage
durability and longer product life cycles.

Local governments have authority in the area of health and sanitation to make rules as to what
can and cannot be placed into the City waste system. If a material has been designated by a State
or Federal Agency to be a pollutant or banned from the landfill, local governments can require
the seller of the material to be responsible for disposal of that product. In New York City, an
ordinance was recently adopted that requires all retailers of electronic products to take back those
products to be reused or recycled. 20 The statutory basis for the New York City legislation was
the state’s Solid Waste Management Act, which requires local governments to provide solid
waste and recycling services. Although Texas’s Solid Waste Disposal Act does not provide local
governments with the exact same regulatory authority as in New York, Austin can work with
other regions and surrounding communities to identify key elements of the Texas Solid Waste
Disposal Act that can be utilized or modified to help the Austin area achieve Zero Waste goals.

Under the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act, the City of Austin and other local governments can
assert their combined influence to develop and adopt policies that keep certain materials out of
regional landfills. Once City and/or regional staff identify and agree on the options they are
most interested in, further legal review will determine how the policy can be adopted locally,
regionally, or whether legal authority from the State may be required. If State legislation is
required, the City could use this opportunity to collaborate with surrounding communities,
identify the materials that are most difficult and costly to manage locally/regionally, and unite
local governments behind a common goal of shifting disposal responsibility of certain materials
back to the producer.

Under Mayor Kirk Watson’s leadership from 1997-2002, the City of Austin was an early leader
in favor of producer responsibility and take back programs. In 2007, the Austin City Council
and other local governments took a stand in favor of producer take back recycling of electronic

Gary Liss & Associates 12
waste. 21 As a State Senator, Kirk Watson sponsored HB2714, landmark legislation passed in
2007 by the Texas Legislature requiring manufacturers who sell computers in Texas to provide
convenient and free computer recycling. This is a model for other ways to collaborate on a
statewide basis to develop the new rules, policies and incentives that will be essential to achieve
Zero Waste.

DOWNSTREAM POLICY AND PROGRAM OPTIONS

Downstream policies and programs are designed to reduce, reuse, recycle and compost materials
that are discarded based on their highest and best use. Highest and Best Use Hierarchies attempt
to rank systems based on their ability to maximize resource conservation and minimize
environmental and economic impacts. Austin may wish to use or adopt the hierarchy in
Appendix H to guide its evaluation and consideration of future Zero Waste downstream policy
and program options.

Zero Waste has been defined by the Zero Waste International Alliance as an economic and
physical system that emulates natural cycles, where all outputs are simply an input for another
process. This means designing and managing materials and products to place the highest priority
on conserving resources and retaining their form and function without burning, burying, or
otherwise destroying their form and function. It means eliminating discharges to land, water or
air that harm natural systems. It means preventing rather than managing waste and pollution, and
recommitting to the priority order of the waste reduction hierarchy which is: (1) reduce
consumption; (2) reuse what is left; (3) recycle anything that is no longer usable; and (4) landfill
any residuals.

Voluntary policies, education and incentives should be designed to engage, educate, motivate
and inspire diverse audiences with simple, positive, clear communications. Policies and
programs should develop partnerships within and beyond Austin, among other government
agencies, businesses, and non-government organizations. Policies, incentives and new rules
should aim to reduce and eliminate incentives for landfilling materials and phase out use of toxic
materials in products and processes. Educational initiatives should champion, highlight, and
celebrate successes in moving towards Zero Waste. The City should provide information about
Zero Waste and sustainability actions – what to do, how to do it, and why it is important.

The two key areas of discussion for downstream options focused on (1) expansion of reuse,
recycling, and composting opportunities and (2) modifying existing systems such as fee
structures and permitting processes to create incentives to recycle more and reduce waste.

Expanding Reuse, Recycling, and Composting Opportunities. Like Austin, many communities
are now implementing “single-stream” recycling programs for their single-family residential
customers. Austin is replacing the current 18-gallon recycling bins with 90-gallon rolling carts in
which all recyclables can be combined together. The new program is expected to increase
recycling participation rates by 40%, based on the success of City conducted pilot programs.
The reason for such a high increase in participation can be attributed to the fact that single-
stream recycling programs make it more convenient for the public to participate and recover
more materials.



Gary Liss & Associates 13
The key to the success of single-stream recycling programs is providing strong education and
information to participants and ensuring that processing facilities are designed and operated to
produce no more than 10% residue. For Austin, it will also mean educating the public that
separating “wet” waste from “dry” recyclable materials, which will be collected together in the
single-stream carts, will be essential to ensuring single stream’s success. Many successful Zero
Waste communities implemented single-stream recycling carts, and later added another cart for
all organics including yard trimmings, food scraps and food-soiled paper. After Austin launches
its single-stream recycling program and has time to fine-tune the new city-wide recycling
system, the next step should be to evaluate how to provide composting of all organics, including
food scraps.

Resource Recovery Centers can help provide recycling services where no other options are
available. Resource Recovery Centers are generally locations or facilities where all 12 market
categories of materials can be brought by residents and/or businesses to be reused, recycled or
composted. Typically the materials are placed into commercial or industrial-sized containers
like roll-off boxes, or placed into designated areas on the ground separated by large concrete
blocks to separate the different material drop-off areas. As the City continually evaluates its
Recycling Ordinance, Resource Recovery Centers may be a viable alternative option for smaller
commercial and multi-family customers.

Rate and Fee Structures. Garbage rate structures and permitting fees are two powerful tools to
encourage increased diversion. The City of Austin adopted a Pay as You Throw rate structure to
encourage residential customers to reduce and recycle. However, changes in that rate structure
could significantly contribute to meeting Zero Waste goals as services are expanded and new
programs are brought on line. Suggested changes to that rate structure are detailed in the
Downstream Options in Appendix B.

While the City does not control private collection fees, like public service providers, private
haulers should pay for valuable materials and provide free or low cost hauling for clean, source-
separated materials. Service providers should also make up any lost revenues by charging more
for solid waste hauling services, not recyclables. Such a fee structure rewards businesses and
organizations that comply with the City Recycling Ordinance, which requires source separation
of reusable, recyclable and compostable materials.

To encourage participation in recycling and diversion efforts, especially among construction
projects, the City could also incentivize recycling of construction materials with adjustments to
its permitting fees or by requiring deposits refunded when waste diversion goals are met. The
City could also use its authority to add fees, taxes, and data reporting requirements on waste
hauling as conditions of service providers operating in the City. To fund new Zero Waste
initiatives, the City could encourage the adoption of fees and taxes on waste disposal by counties
and the State. These fees would be particularly important if the City selected to provide any of
the new City program options identified in Appendix B.


GREEN BUSINESS, GREEN BUILDINGS AND JOBS

Zero Waste policy goals should recognize the significant opportunity for generating “Green
Collar” jobs through reinvestment of discarded resources into the local economy. Zero Waste

Gary Liss & Associates 14
policies must help retain and expand local and regional reuse, recycling, composting and green
manufacturing businesses and facilities, which are critical elements to sustain Zero Waste
initiatives and become a truly sustainable city.

The City should offer tangible economic incentives and technical assistance for green,
sustainable, and Zero Waste businesses. Expanding existing incentive programs, including
Green Building and Green Business programs, will also support and energize businesses around
Zero Waste goals. The City could assist existing reuse, recycling and composting service
providers to upgrade their appearance and operations, in order to be good neighbors. To identify
the best locations for needed services, the City could also work with environmental justice,
neighborhood, workforce development, and business development organizations.

Austin has already experienced major successes in the use of recycled materials, particularly at
City Hall, green buildings in the downtown area, and the new Long Center for the Performing
Arts, which recycled 97% of the old Palmer Auditorium. Austin Energy (AE) highlighted that
most products are delivered to job sites in protective packaging which results in cardboard,
plastic, and Styrofoam waste even though the product itself may not create any additional waste
in its installation. 22 Some materials that do not have construction waste may not have
manufacturing waste, since they are fabricated in a controlled process that generates little, if any,
waste. The AE Green Building (AEGB) rating program attempts to provide incentives for use of
products that are more durable, have a longer lifespan, require no additional finishing on-site and
have less frequent maintenance and repair cycles. AE’s programs also give credits for products
made from recycled content.

Most of the projects enrolled in the AEGB program surpassed the 50% waste diversion
requirement significantly. AE’s multi-family residential program recently separated from the
commercial program in August 2007 and adopted the same standard waste diversion requirement
of 50% and optional credit base of 75% waste diversion as used under the commercial program.
The AE single-family residential program has documented diversion rates on the Mueller
redevelopment project, which requires a minimum of 25% diversion rate, even though most
builders have documented rates of over 30% and 40% in the first six months of construction.

Businesses are leading the way to Zero Waste, diverting over 90% of their wastes from landfills
and incinerators. 23 Zero Waste businesses that have been documented have all saved money,
reduced their liabilities, increased their efficiency, and contributed significantly to addressing
climate change. Designing waste out of the system by process improvements and decreasing the
amount of materials used in products and packaging saves the most money. Reusing products
and packaging (e.g., use of returnable shipping containers and pallets) saves the next most
money. Recycling and composting both avoid solid waste collection and disposal costs, as well
as generate revenue from the sale of the materials recovered. Once a Zero Waste system is
established in Austin, local businesses that embrace Zero Waste goals should save money, and
those that don’t embrace the goals could pay more for wasting.


RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT AND REGIONAL COORDINATION

Although Austin is striving for Zero Waste, the City must recognize that it will have an on-going
need for some amount of disposal capacity as programs are phased in. This Plan defines success
Gary Liss & Associates 15
at achieving the Zero Waste goal to be reducing by 20% the per capita solid waste disposed to
landfills by 2012, diverting 75% of waste from landfills and incinerators by 2020, and 90% by
2040. This means that there still may be up to 10% of solid waste to dispose of otherwise. As a
result, the City does need to ensure that there is some on-going disposal capacity to meet its
long-term needs. If others use up available landfill space, then the Austin Zero Waste initiatives
will not solve Austin’s long-term waste management needs by themselves. 24

In Travis and Williamson Counties, landfills reported to Texas Conservation on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) that they receive wastes from up to 33 counties within approximately 100 miles
surrounding this area as depicted in Appendix E. This disposal practice evolved over the past
decade as smaller landfills in outlying areas closed down because they could not afford to
comply with new Federal and State regulations implementing Subtitle D landfill regulations of
the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The low cost of large regional landfills in
Travis and Williamson Counties acted as a magnet for waste from an even larger region and
undercut the economics of reuse, recycling and composting.

Therefore, although a majority of the landfills in the Capital Area are privately owned and cannot
be controlled by local governments, Austin’s Zero Waste Plans must include finding ways to
stop or regulate the flow of wastes from outside the area into landfills in the Austin area.
While local governments cannot demand flow control among private landfills, there maybe ways
to influence flow control.

Under Texas law, counties with landfills in their jurisdiction can adopt policies not to allow
NEW landfills. 25 Counties are also empowered to develop solid waste management plans that
could stipulate conditions for use of area facilities. If new landfills opened, Travis and
Williamson Counties Solid Waste Management Plans could add language that only allows the
use of landfills in the County by counties that have adopted Zero Waste goals appropriate for
their communities, and are working to implement those goals.

Under federal law, counties or cities could stop or limit the flow of wastes into landfills that are
publicly owned. Currently, only one municipal solid waste landfill is publicly owned and it is
located in Williamson County. Private landfill owners, however, may consider public acquisition
in exchange for allowing them to continue operating the facility, and transferring long-term
responsibility for the landfill to the public entity. The public agency could be a city or county
government or a Solid Waste District composed of one or more of the above. Once public
ownership is obtained, the public agency could prioritize phasing out imported wastes from
outside the CAPCOG region.

Contracts between agreeing parties are also significant tools that could be used to address the
lack of regulatory authority. Travis County, or a regional Solid Waste District, could negotiate
with landfill owners in the region to voluntarily adopt a landfill surcharge to fund new reuse,
recycling and composting programs, and to fund long-term liabilities after the state and federally
mandated 30-year post-closure care period. In exchange, landfill owners could be enticed to
participate in these initiatives if they were also considered to be eligible parties for grants or low-
cost loans to fund new reuse, recycling and/or composting programs that they would like to build
locally. Contracts could be structured between the governmental entity and the landfill owner
not to go into effect until all the landfills in Travis County adopt comparable provisions. 26 This
approach could generate a new source of cash for landfill owners that they could not afford to
Gary Liss & Associates 16
charge themselves alone, as they would be put at a competitive disadvantage. Such an agreement
could level the playing field for existing landfill owners to invest in more waste reduction
activities and provide more Zero Waste programs and services.

As part of this Zero Waste Plan process, the City met with Travis County and the Solid Waste
Advisory Committee of CAPCOG. As an outcome of those meetings, the City received letters
supporting the City’s Zero Waste initiatives, including working together on areas of common
interest, such as:

 ♦ Expanded tire recycling programs;
 ♦ Expanded composting and organic waste diversion programs;
 ♦ Expanded Green Building initiatives throughout the region;
 ♦ Expanded recycling and reuse of construction and demolition debris;
 ♦ Development of Green Campuses and Resource Recovery Parks; and
 ♦ Support for Extended Producer Responsibility and manufacturer take-back
 policies and programs.

CAP Cog’s SWAC also noted that Zero Waste initiatives support the waste reduction goals of
the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan, and the recommendations of the Market Analysis of
Recoverable Materials (2007) prepared for the CAPCOG region by R.W. Beck. 27

Neighboring communities and counties should clearly understand that Austin alone cannot
control what happens with solid waste in the region nor is that Austin’s goal. Instead, Austin
must collaborate with CAPCOG and surrounding communities to address the waste management
challenges and opportunities facing the region.

One additional area in which regional cooperation would be particularly helpful would be in
documenting the amount of solid waste disposed of in area landfills from different communities
and different sectors, and how much is being reused, recycled or composted within the region
through public, private and nonprofit activities. It is widely recognized that such data is not
currently available to accurately assess the current status of wasting and recycling in the area.
Data should be reported and assessed using the 12 market categories detailed previously. This
data would be helpful for the City’s design of residential solid waste, reuse, recycling and
composting facilities. It would also provide a measurable baseline for evaluating progress
towards the Zero Waste goals and greatly assist in enforcement and understanding of how
effective existing ordinances such as the Commercial Recycling Ordinance and future policies
and programs are in achieving the City’s goals.

Since the flow of materials occur on a regional basis, it would be best if more detailed reporting
and data analysis were developed on a regional basis. Collaborating with CAPCOG will be
critical to collecting this data. In many locations, data is required to be reported from private
operators as conditions of permits, franchises or contracts. In Austin, a revised system of
operating permits should include detailed data reporting requirements, as is commonly done in
many other locations. Data for such reports could be sent to an independent third-party to
protect private business practices from public review and ensure fair competition.



Gary Liss & Associates 17
Additionally, the region may want to consider a regional waste characterization study funded by
CAPCOG grants to get a better understanding of the existing waste system.

5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
If recovered for recycling, reuse, and/or composting, the amount of materials shown in Resource
and Commodity Table (Table 1) would have a clear impact on global warming and greenhouse
gas production. Significant savings come from avoiding the wastes produced from mining,
manufacturing and distribution of products equivalent to 71 tons of waste for every ton of
products in the local waste stream. Using the total amount of the materials currently land filled
in Austin, the EPA WARM computer model calculated that the Austin area could experience an
estimated reduction of carbon measured by metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCE) of nearly
500,000. 28 This is a significant emission reductions noted in Table 3.

 Table 3 - EPA WARM Model Summary: Recycled Materials vs. Landfilling 29

 Tons Tons
 Total Total
 Material Land Recycled /
 MTCE* MTCE
 filled Composted
 Glass 50,000 518 50,000 (3,789)
 Dimensional Lumber 12,000 (1,596) 12,000 (8,038)
 Food Scraps 90,000 17,764 90,000 (4,874)
 Yard Trimmings 200,000 (11,947) 200,000 (10,831)
 Mixed Paper 360,000 34,187 360,000 (347,263)
 Mixed Metals 50,000 518 50,000 (71,692)
 Mixed Plastics 80,000 829 80,000 (32,600)
 Mixed Organics 58,000 3,737 58,000 (3,141)
 Aggregate 20,000 207 20,000 (42)

 Total 920,000 44,217 920,000 (482,270)
 *MTCE = Metric Ton Carbon Equivalent

6. ZERO WASTE AND JOBS ANALYSIS
 “Austin has 5 colleges. It has a greater concentration of people with intellectual
 ability than any other city in the Southwest. Combined with shrewd mercantile
 ability and manufacturing know-how, it has also become one of the computer
 capitals of the world. I believe we should use Austin’s gifts to solve some of the
 world’s problems....” 30

In keeping with the spirit of Paul Robbins quote above, a Zero Waste approach would lead to
many job opportunities from the processing of reused, recycled and composted materials,
manufacturing of new products, and the sale and distribution of those products.

For every 10,000 tons of waste land filled, only 1 job is created. For every 10,000 tons of
organic materials composted, 4 jobs are created. For every 10,000 tons of recyclables processed,
10 jobs are created. For every 10,000 tons of reusables processed, 75-250 jobs are created. 31
The recycling industry in America is as large as the automobile industry. 32 In California, the

Gary Liss & Associates 18
recycling industry is as large as the movie and video industry. 33 Each dollar spent on diversion
instead of landfill disposal generates nearly twice as many sales tax revenue dollars and jobs. 34

For the million tons of wastes currently disposed in Austin area landfills, the total number of jobs
that could be generated is estimated to be just over 1,800 as explained in Table 4.

 Table 4 - Jobs from Discards 35

 Market Category Tons Per Year Jobs Potential
 1. Reuse 20,000 249
 2. Paper 360,000 63
 3. Plant Trimmings 200,000 60
 4. Putrescibles 90,000 40
 5. Wood 60,000 36
 6. Ceramics 20,000 7
 7. Soils 10,000 20
 8. Metals 50,000 29
 9. Glass 50,000 125
 10. Polymers 80,000 745
 11. Textiles 50,000 425
 12. Chemicals 10,000 20
 Total 1,000,000 1,819




Gary Liss & Associates 19
 C. POLICY AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations listed below are based upon the public input received and detailed in
Appendix B as well as a cursory analysis of Austin’s legislative authority and potential for
developing sustainable green markets. After implementing the recommendations, the City can
utilize the remaining options listed in Appendix B to serve as guidance in developing new
initiatives and continuing on a path towards Zero Waste.

1. UPSTREAM POLICY AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
 a. Be a strong advocate for Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation and
 programs regionally, statewide and nationally. Work to form the Texas Product
 Stewardship Council composed only of representatives of local government to clearly
 address this “unfunded mandate.”
 b. Work to obtain legal authority and regional cooperation to ban problem products and
 packaging or require businesses and institutions to take back designated products and
 packaging sold in Austin, CAPCOG, and in the State that are toxic in their manufacture,
 use, or disposal, and/or are not currently recyclable in the area.
 c. Develop public/private and or intergovernmental partnerships to setup convenient
 neighborhood centers for reusables, recyclables, compos tables, construction and
 demolition (C&D) debris and household hazardous wastes funded by producers and/or
 retailers.
 d. Explore other ways to encourage and support on-site composting at homes, schools and
 colleges, businesses and institutions with sufficient space so that the producers of these
 organic wastes take care of it themselves.

2. DOWNSTREAM POLICY AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
 a. City of Austin agencies lead by example to implement all actions asked or required of
 residents and businesses.
 b. Encourage venues and special events to adopt Zero Waste goals as part of a larger “green
 events” policy and use incentives and technical assistance to help them implement goals.
 c. Continue programs on an on-going basis to educate residents, businesses and visitors
 about how and where to reduce, reuse and recycle in Austin.
 d. Update, expand, educate, enforce, and effectively implement the Commercial and Multi-
 Family Recycling Ordinance and encourage other governmental entities to follow
 Austin’s lead.
 e. City review residential Pay-As-You-Throw rate structure on regular basis at a minimum
 of every five years to phase-in more incentives for residents to reduce wastes and recycle
 more, particularly once the single-stream recycling program is implemented. Include
 innovative ways to address the use of excess garbage bags and stickers to promote
 recycling. Include additional revenue needed to fund new residential Zero Waste
 initiatives in structuring rates.
 f. Support continuation and expansion of local, regional and state landfill fees and
 surcharges, hauling fees, and bond issues to fund low-interest loans, grants, contracts
 and/or staffing (comparable to other large cities) to develop needed programs and
 infrastructure to support Zero Waste programs and initiatives.

Gary Liss & Associates 20
 g. Set up system for commercial waste hauling that specifies recycling services, reporting
 and hauling fees.
 h. Adopt a City goal that no compostable organics go to landfill by 2015, including support
 of a statewide legislative initiative.
 i. Develop pilot programs by the City of Austin and through public/private partnerships to
 incorporate food scraps and food-soiled paper to City of Austin’s residential and
 commercial organics collection program.
 j. Investigate and develop needed legal authority to require businesses and institutions in
 Texas to recycle food scraps and food-soiled paper and mandate private haulers and solid
 waste management facility operators to establish needed infrastructure to properly
 manage those materials.

3. GREEN BUSINESS, GREEN BUILDINGS AND GREEN JOBS
 a. Adopt Precautionary Principle for City purchases and Zero Waste purchasing goals.
 b. Develop one or more Green Campuses and/or Resource Recovery Parks in the Austin or
 nearby and encourage development within CAPCOG region.
 c. Ask Businesses to adopt and implement Zero Waste goals.
 d. Work with Austin Energy Green Building Program to:
 1) Review recycling goals and ensure that they are based on % diverted from
 facilities certified by Austin Energy or another City department.
 2) Evaluate how to revise its reuse goals to value the recovered products by the price
 for which they are sold, or some multiple of their weight, to reflect the higher
 value of reuse.
 e. Expand Austin’s use of required Green Building waste management and recycling
 standards for all major projects in the City, not just special development areas.
 f. Work to pass an Ordinance to require in all new construction that adequate space be
 provided for recycling, composting and trash containers.
 g. Work with state agencies and local governments to use more recycled and compost
 products, especially in the CAPCOG region.

4. REGIONAL COORDINATION AND RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
 a. Ask CAPCOG SWAC to adopt a resolution in support of Austin’s Zero Waste Plan.
 b. Ask CAPCOG and all counties that currently use landfills in Travis and Williamson
 Counties to support Austin’s Zero Waste goal and to work together to implement that
 goal.
 c. Work with CAPCOG to develop more detailed data reporting system for solid waste and
 recycling for the entire region.
 d. Work with Travis County, Williamson County, and the CAPCOG SWAC to identify
 ways to influence, stop, or regulate the flow of wastes from outside the CAPCOG area
 into landfills in the Austin area.
 e. Investigate alternatives for regional and state cooperation to support and implement the
 Zero Waste policies in jurisdictions outside the City of Austin and support needed State
 legislative initiatives.



Gary Liss & Associates 21
Zero Waste is an ambitious but important endeavor. No single strategy will result in success and
each community must carve its own path, cognizant of and willing to work within its existing
political environment, financial boundaries, and legislative systems. The next step down the path
to Zero Waste will be the development of a Solid Waste Services Master Plan that will include
detailed timetables and budget to implement this Zero Waste Plan. By utilizing various strategies
identified in this plan, developing supportive partnerships, and remaining dedicated to the long
term goal of Zero Waste, Austin will achieve its goal of being among the most sustainable cities
in the nation.

 Endonotes
1
  Gary Liss & Associates. Home Page. 29 November 2008. <http://www.garyliss.com>
2
  Sustainable Development Networking Program. World Environment Day 2005: Urban Environmental Accord. 29
November 2008. <http://www.sdnpbd.org/sdi/international_days/wed/2005/wed2005/accord.htm>
3
  City of Austin. 2007. Austin Climate Protection Program: About the Program. 29 November 2008.
<http://www.coolaustin.org/accp.htm>
4
  United States. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 24 June 2004. Climate Change and Waste. 29 November
2008. <http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ActionsWaste.html>
5
  Ibid. Global Warming – Waste: Basic Information. 29 November 2008.
<http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ActionsWasteBasicInfoGeneralLifeCycle.html>
6
  State of California. Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board. 11 February 2008. Recommendations
of the Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee Final Report. 29 November 2008.
<http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/etaac/ETAACFinalReport2-11-08.pdf>
7
  Institute for Local Self Reliance. June 2008. Stop Trashing the Climate Full Report. 29 November 2008.
<http://stoptrashingtheclimate.org/>
8
  Ibid.
9
  Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. 2007. Mitigation of Climate Change: Contribution of Working
Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Chapter 10, page 16.
29 November 2008. <http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/AR4-chapters.html>. States that “estimates of ‘lifetime’
recovery efficiencies may be as low as 20%.”
10
 GrassRoots Recycling Network. 2000. Wasting and Recycling in the United States 2000. Page 13. 29 November
2008. <http://www.grrn.org/order/w2kinfo.html>
11
 Data derived from two sources. Regarding estimated tons per day per person, Capital Area Council of
Governments. 9 February 2005. Regional Solid Waste Management Plan 2000-2022. Pages 10 and 15. 29
November 2008. <http://www.capcog.org/documents/solidwaste/RSWMP%20Vol%20II%20as%20Adopted.pdf>
Regarding estimated City of Austin population, see United States Census. Fact Finder projected 2006. 10 December
2008. <www.census.gov> Calculation: 7.3 lbs/day x 743,358 x 365 days/year.
12
 Estimated calculations do not include the cost to separate, process, and transport the materials.
13
 Ibid.
14
 Putrescibles are also considered food scraps.
15
 City of Austin, Ordinance No. 981022-P, Chapter 15-6, Article V
16
 CAPCOG serves as an advocate, planner, and coordinator of special initiatives that, when undertaken on a
regional basis, can be more effective and efficient. This includes coordinating regional solid waste management
needs using the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) regulates all Texas landfills.
17
 Capital Area Council of Governments. 9 February 2005. Regional Solid Waste Management Plan 2000-2022.
Page 11. 29 November 2008.
<http://www.capcog.org/documents/solidwaste/RSWMP%20Vol%20II%20as%20Adopted.pdf>
18
 GrassRoots Recycling Network Zero Waste Conference, New York City, April 2005.
19
 GrassRoots Recycling Network. 2000. Wasting and Recycling in the United States 2000. Page 13. 29 November
2008. <http://www.grrn.org/order/w2kinfo.html>
20
 “NY City Council Overrides E-Waste Veto.” WasteAge.com. 20 May 2008. WasteAge Magazine. 29 November
2008. <http://wasteage.com/news/NYC_e-waste_veto_overridden/>
21
 The Central Texas cities of Georgetown, Kyle, San Marcos, Lakeway and Round Rock as well as Hays and Travis
Counties all passed resolutions in favor of producer takeback recycling of electronic waste.

Gary Liss & Associates 22
22
 Cook, Miki, 8 April 2008. Email to the Author. 1 October 2008.
23
 Zero Waste Businesses identified to date in the Capital Area include, but are not limited to: Toyota (San Antonio),
Dell Computers, Applied Materials, Barr Mansion, Habitat Suites, Goodwill Computer Works, Balcones Recycling,
and Allied Recycling
24
 According to the latest landfill data available from TCEQ from calendar year 2007, there is about 30 million tons
of remaining capacity in area landfills, and it is currently being used at a rate of 2.2 million tons per year. That
yields a total remaining life in area landfills at current use levels of 13.6 years.
25
 Under Section 364.012 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, the County may prohibit the disposal of solid waste
in one location as long as it designates another area of the County where such disposal is not prohibited. See:
<http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.005.00.000364.00.htm#364.012.00>
26
 Such an agreement could also include Williamson County as well.
27
 Capital Area Council of Governments. September 2007. Market Analysis of Recoverable Materials: Final
Report. 29 November 2008. <http://www.capcog.org/documents/solidwaste/Recoverable_Materials.pdf>
28
 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Climate Change: WARM Model. 10 December 2009.
<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html> EPA created the Waste Reduction
Model (WARM) to help solid waste planners and organizations track and voluntarily report greenhouse gas
emissions reductions from waste management practices.
29
 Ibid.
30
 Robbins, Paul. Austin Environmental Directory 2003: Creating An Employment Base From Environmental
Business. Page 2. 29 November 2008. <http://environmentaldirectory.info/PDFs/EBusinessPart3.pdf>
31
 Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Waste to Wealth: Recycling Means Business. 10 December 2008.
<http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/recyclingmeansbusiness.html>
32
 USEPA. Waste Resource Conservation: Recycling Market Development. 10 December 2008.
<http://www.epa.gov/jtr/econ/rei-rw/rei-rw.htm>
33
 State of California Integrated Waste Management Board. September 20, 2004. Recycling: Good for the
Environment/Good for the Economy. Page 5. 10 December 2008.
<http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/Economics/41004002.pdf>
34
 Alameda County, California. 10 December 2008. <www.stopwaste.org>
35
 Based on analysis done by Institute for Local Self-Reliance for State of Delaware 2005.




Gary Liss & Associates 23
 APPENDICES



  APPENDIX A. LIST OF ZERO WASTE PLAN MEETINGS
  APPENDIX B. PUBLIC RECOMMENDED POLICY & PROGRAM OPTIONS
  APPENDIX C. EXISTING RECYCLING ORDINANCE
  APPENDIX D. PRODUCT & MATERIALS MARKET INVENTORY
  APPENDIX E. MAP OF CONTRIBUTING COUNTIES
  APPENDIX F. REGIONAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT
  APPENDIX G. MODEL EPR RESOLUTION
  APPENDIX H. HIGHEST AND BEST USE HIERARCHY
  APPENDIX I. ZERO WASTE RESOURCES




Gary Liss & Associates 24
 APPENDIX A.
 LIST OF ZERO WASTE PLAN MEETINGS

January 2008
♦ Solid Waste Services Department (SWS) Staff
♦ Orientation Tour of Facilities (Balcones Recycling, Hornsby Bend Dillo Dirt Composting
 Program, TRIAD Building Maintenance, Goodwill Industries, Center of Maximum Potential,
 Habitat for Humanity, BFI Recycling, Ecology Action, Texas Disposal System)
♦ Austin Solid Waste Advisory Commission

February 2008
♦ Public Meeting
♦ Green Business (open to the public)
♦ City Staff
♦ Service Providers
♦ Austin Long Range Solid Waste Planning Task Force (invite Cap COG reps.)
♦ Austin Energy Green Building
♦ Texas Campaign for the Environment

March 2008
♦ City Council Candidates and City Council Aides (scheduled, but rained out)
♦ Public Meeting (scheduled, but rained out); Zero Waste Challenge issued
♦ Green Business Public meeting
♦ Organics Focus Group (Hotels, Bars, Restaurants, grocers, food distributors, nurseries)
♦ Green Buildings + Construction and Demolition debris Focus Group - Architects,
  Contractors, Developers, Austin Energy
♦ Thrift shops and Reuse - Service Providers (private and nonprofits)
♦ Austin Long Range Solid Waste Planning Task Force
♦ Elected officials and Business Leaders at Barr Mansion
♦ City Economic Development and Small Business Development staff
♦ Capital Area Council of Governments (CAPCOG) SWAC
♦ Recycling and Composting Service Providers

April 2008
♦ SWS staff
♦ Citywide Dept. Directors and Asst. Directors
♦ City Council Aides
♦ Austin Long Range Solid Waste Planning Task Force
♦ Austin Small Business Development Program
♦ State Staff (TXDOT)
♦ Travis County (Comm. Gomez, Eckhardt, aides and staff)
♦ Austin Independent School District
♦ CAPCOG SWAC



Gary Liss & Associates 25
 APPENDIX B.
 PUBLIC RECOMMENDED POLICY & PROGRAM OPTIONS




Gary Liss & Associates 26
 UPSTREAM PROGRAM & POLICY OPTIONS

Goal : Require Producers to Take Responsibility for Products
Voluntary, Engage industry, make them aware of materials and products that are problems for Austin, and
Education, and establish a process for producers to resolve those problems.
Incentives
 Encourage businesses and institutions to take back products and packaging sold in Austin that are
 toxic in their manufacture, use, or disposal, and/or are not currently recyclable in the area. 1

New Rules and Be a strong advocate for legislation and programs regionally, statewide and nationally to make
Advocacy business responsible for their packages and products.
  Expand upon existing EPR Resolution (2000803-68) supporting changes to
 procurement policy by adopting a new EPR Resolution to clearly establish support of
 EPR as City policy. 2
  Help set up TX Product Stewardship Council
  Work with other local governments and organizations such as the TX Municipal
 League, Natl. League of Cities, Product Policy Institute, and Product Stewardship
 Institute to promote EPR and clearly authorize local governments to adopt policies and
 programs.

 Ban products or packaging from being sold in Austin that are toxic in their manufacture, use, or
 disposal, and/or are not currently recyclable in the area and join with other local governments in
 the region to do the same.

 Require businesses and institutions to take back designated products and packaging sold in
 Austin that are toxic in their manufacture, use, or disposal, and/or are not currently recyclable in
 the area and join with other local governments in the region to do the same.

New City Establish centers throughout the City to receive household hazardous wastes (e.g., e-waste,
Programs batteries, oil, paint, pesticides, cleaners) and join with other local governments in the region to do
 the same.

 Develop public- private partnership to develop industry sponsored facilities to receive household
 hazardous wastes and difficult to recycle materials.
  Evaluate similar programs like those in Boulder, CO CHaRM Center and BC Product
 Care Centers. 3
  Join with other local governments in the region to do the same.




Gary Liss & Associates 27
 DOWNSTREAM PROGRAM & POLICY OPTIONS

Goal : Lead by example. Reduce/recycle City of Austin agency waste.
Voluntary, Evaluate employee incentives to encourage recycling.
Education, and  Department Challenges similar to the Combined Charities Event Challenges
Incentives  Offer recognition to the departments that recycle the most material.

 Evaluate employee education and outreach programs to increase participation in recycling and
 reduction efforts.
  Utilize inter-office website, emails, meetings, and magazines to communicate
 information
  Establish “green teams” in each department or office building to encourage other
 employees to recycle, continually evaluate reduction efforts and recycling services, and
 recommend improvements to the City’s departmental programs.

 Educate employees to distinguish between recycling systems. Once composting program is in
 place, use colors and graphics to support the message that one color (blue) is for recyclables and
 another color (green) is for compostables.
New Rules and Require all public venues and special events, starting with large events, to implement a Zero
Advocacy Waste program.

 For City solid waste contracts of their own facilities, require that all materials be reused,
 recycled, or composted, and only inerts be buried in landfill

 Review current purchasing practices and develop specifications with “green” in mind. This
 could include requiring reduced packaging, delivery of computers with minimal packaging,
 purchasing office supplies with a certain amount of post-consumer recycled content, etc.

 Adopt Precautionary Principle for City purchases and Zero Waste purchasing goals.

 Require city facilities and public projects to use the mulch and compost made from the City’s
 composting program towards landscaping local roads, public venues, and public property.

 Require the use of other recycled materials in sub-base (e.g., recycled concrete aggregate), road
 mixes (e.g., crumb rubber) and surface treatments (e.g., glass traffic beads) in all public projects
 in Austin and surrounding areas. Include C&D derived aggregate material as part of City Public
 Works Master specification. Work with TXDOT engineers to develop specifications.

 Require buildings leased to house City departments and services to provide space for recycling
 and/or offer recycling services.

 Austin Energy should stop including landfill gas as a green energy source in its “Green Choice”
 program. The recovery of gases should be required for environmental reasons, and not provided
 incentives. Any incentives given to landfills make Zero Waste less economic.
New City Provide single stream recycling to all City of Austin departments and office buildings and
Programs evaluate progress annually.

 Train managers and maintenance staffs of city buildings and facilities about Zero Waste policies,
 systems, and resources.

 Place recycling bins wherever there are trash bins in all public locations, including parks
 facilities.

 Once organic composting program is fully functional, include organics bins wherever food is
 served in public locations.


Gary Liss & Associates 28
 DOWNSTREAM PROGRAM & POLICY OPTIONS (continued)

Goal: Reduce waste from single family homes.
Voluntary, Evaluate rate structure for incentives. Once single stream recycling program is
Education, and implemented:
Incentives  Adopt closer-to-linear Pay-As-You-Throw rates to provide greater incentive for
 residents to reduce wastes.
 o Once comprehensive organics program is implemented, that includes food
 scraps and food soiled paper, adopt a linear pay-as-you-throw rate structure, 4
 and
 o Develop a pilot program to evaluate how to offer lower rates for less frequent
 garbage collection service.

New Rules and Adopt policy that no compostable organics should go to landfill.
Advocacy
 Once single stream recycling program and “all” organics programs are implemented,
 establish rules to keep “wet” garbage separate from “dry” materials.

New City Programs Develop one or more Green Campuses and/or Resource Recovery Parks in Austin (or
 nearby) to accept all 12 market categories of reusables, recyclables and compostables from
 the public. 5
  Provide locations for reuse, recycling and composting businesses to process
 materials, manufacture products and sell products to the public.
  Encourage similar development in CAPCOG region.
  Partner with nonprofit organizations, thrift shops, home stores, supermarkets and
 shopping malls to establish drop-off recycling centers and swap shops throughout
 the City to receive 5 clusters of all 12 market categories of materials. 6

 Require reuse, recycle or composting of all bulky items collected by City.
  Partner with local non-profit organizations and thrift stores to achieve most cost
 effectively.

 Once single stream recycling program is performing successfully, add food scraps and food-
 soiled paper to residential organics collection program.
  Start with pilot program to determine how best to roll-out citywide.
  Tour other communities that offer such services first to help design pilot.

 Help fund development of new processing facilities for local reuse nonprofit organizations.
 Consider designating part of Green Campus processing facility for this activity.




Gary Liss & Associates 29
 DOWNSTREAM PROGRAM & POLICY OPTIONS (continued)

Goal: Reduce waste from commercial, multi-family, and institutional entities.
Voluntary, Develop programs on on-going basis to educate residents, businesses and visitors about the
Education, and new rules and changes over time.
Incentives  Reinvigorate the Greater Austin Waste Reduction Association to work with City
 staff on outreach and education with businesses.
  Develop Master Recycler education of local residents who can act as advocates in
 the community.
  Train university students to help on outreach to local businesses to implement
 City’s Recycling Ordinance like Fresno. 7
  Use MySpace, YouTube, texting and celebrities to talk about Zero Waste. Develop
 major community based social marketing campaign to support Zero Waste.
  Explore other ways to encourage and support on-site composting at homes, schools
 and colleges, businesses and institutions with sufficient space.

 Ask major businesses in Austin area to use Resource Management techniques to contract for
 solid waste services that require that all materials be reused, recycled or composted, and
 only inerts buried in landfill to reduce business’ liabilities. 8

 Ask Businesses to adopt and implement Zero Waste goals.

 Help promote reuse businesses throughout City.
  Develop and continually update a Reuse Guide to be distributed to all thrift stores,
 available on the City’s website, and utilize other innovative approaches.
  Designate “Reuse Zones” to encourage expansion of reuse stores in those areas
 (e.g., South Congress and Burnet Streets are naturally doing this).
New Rules and Update, educate, expand and effectively implement Commercial and Multi-Family
Advocacy Recycling Ordinance to require ALL multi-family dwellings, businesses and institutions to
 recycle and compost.
 Develop a regulatory system for commercial waste hauling that specifies types of recycling
 services, reporting requirements and fee payments that vary with the amount of waste
 diverted from landfill and incineration. 9 Set hauler/landfill fees to provide more economic
 incentives for recycling, and to generate funds for new Zero Waste programs.
 Agree upon and require all permitted waste haulers and recyclers to achieve waste diversion
 targets. Require that all permitted haulers provide equal amount of container service (size
 and frequency of collection) for recycling as provided for garbage service.
 Once food scrap composting program services are available, develop pilot programs by the
 City of Austin and/or through public/private partnerships to collect and process food scraps
 and food-soiled paper from businesses and institutions.
 Help market using urban organics to farmers to restore the health of soils and reduce use of
 fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation water. Work with local and state permitting agencies to
 make it easier for farmers to use such resources.
New City Programs Develop and fund programs that can evaluate and approve waste management plans and
 monitor commercial and multi-family diversion activities to confirm that they are reaching
 agreed upon goals.
 Develop and fund recognition programs to promote businesses that achieve diversion goals.
 Develop drop-off recycling centers and swap shops throughout the City to receive 5 clusters
 of all 12 market categories of materials, partnering with nonprofit organizations, thrift shops,
 home stores, supermarkets and shopping malls. 10
 Help develop new processing facilities for local reuse nonprofit organizations (e.g., by
 designating part of processing facility in Green Campus to be used partly for this activity).

Gary Liss & Associates 30
 DOWNSTREAM PROGRAM & POLICY OPTIONS (continued)

Goal: Reduce waste from development projects.
Voluntary, For projects that appropriately document that they reused, recycled or composted a certain
Education, and percentage of their construction/demolition materials, return a portion of their fees/deposits
Incentives based on the percentage of diversion.
New Rules and Require all contractors and developers to certify to the City that they reuse, recycle or
Advocacy compost at least 50% of materials from C&D projects and to maintain weight slips as an
 audit trail to document those activities

 Require waste management plans from businesses and service providers, and deposits for all
 construction/demolition projects.

 Work with Austin Energy Green Building Program to revise recycling goals to be based on
 % diverted from facilities certified by Austin Energy another City department.

 Work with Austin Energy Green Building Program to revise its reuse goals to value the
 recovered products by the price for which they are sold, or some multiple of their weight, to
 reflect the higher value of reuse.
New City Programs Develop, fund, and staff programs that approve waste management plans and monitor data
 from construction projects to verify that debris has been recycled or composted.
 Develop and fund programs that recognize the success of development projects that
 consistently achieve agreed upon diversion goals.



Goal: Develop and invest in Zero Waste infrastructure
Voluntary, Include Zero Waste infrastructure needs, such as Resource Recovery Parks and Green
Education, and Campuses, as part of local climate action plans.
Incentives
 Support continuation and expansion of local, regional and state landfill fees, hauling fees,
 and bond issues to fund low-interest loans and/or grants, contracts and/or staffing
 (comparable to other large cities) to local governments, private businesses, and nonprofit
 organizations to develop needed programs and infrastructure. 11
New Rules and Modify Zoning Code to facilitate the development and expansion of Zero Waste
Advocacy infrastructure in appropriate zones. This will need to be done very carefully and require
 high standards for design, signage, landscaping and operations to be compatible with
 neighborhoods. Consider Berkeley, CA Recycling Zone as a model of land use overlay
New City Programs Form partnerships with the private sector and nonprofit organizations for Zero Waste
 infrastructure development such as composting programs, Resource Recovery parks, etc.
 Perform a complete evaluation of current infrastructure and identify infrastructure needed to
 implement Zero Waste strategies
 Work with job training programs to support reuse, recycling and composting programs.




Gary Liss & Associates 31
 DOWNSTREAM PROGRAM & POLICY OPTIONS (continued)
Goal: Enlist region to support Austin Zero Waste efforts
Voluntary, Work with school districts to integrate Zero Waste into curriculum and implement Zero
Education, and Waste systems for all schools and administrative offices.
Incentives
 Ask regional agencies and TXDOT regional offices to include in their contractor
 specifications the use of mulch and compost made from urban organics to landscape
 freeways, and the use of other recycled materials in sub-base (e.g., C&D debris), road mixes
 (e.g., crumb rubber) and surface treatments (e.g., glass traffic beads). 12

 Ask CAPCOG and all counties that currently use landfills in Travis and Williamson
 Counties to adopt Zero Waste as a goal and to work to implement that goal.

 Investigate alternatives for regional and state cooperation to support and implement the
 above policies in jurisdictions outside the City of Austin and support needed State legislative
 initiatives.
New Rules and Require landfill operators to confirm with drivers the source of wastes delivered, and to
Advocacy report that information to TCEQ and/or CAPCOG so that better planning can be done in
 future.
 Ask State to require all landfills in area to develop a Resource Recovery Park to accept all
 12 market categories of reusables, recyclables and compostables from the public.
 For NE Travis County landfills, require the development of a single Resource Recovery
 Park at their landfills or nearby. Fund initiatives with landfill surcharges.
New City Programs




Gary Liss & Associates 32
 GREEN BUSINESS, GREEN BUILDING, AND GREEN JOBS

Goal : Retain and Expand Green Businesses and Green Collar Jobs
Voluntary, Provide preferences in Austin procurement, funding and permitting for certified Green
Education, and Businesses in Austin.
Incentives
 Encourage businesses to purchase Zero Waste products and services: return to vendor any
 wasteful packaging; reduce packaging and buy in larger units; use reusable shipping containers;
 purchase reused, recycled and compost products; buy remanufactured equipment; lease, rent and
 share equipment; buy durables, using life-cycle cost analyses; and buy less toxic products.

 Ask businesses to adopt Zero Waste goals and plans that follow Zero Waste Business
 13
 Principles.

 Expand “go to head of line” for permits and financing help for Zero Waste businesses (not just
 for Affordable Housing projects as currently set up).

 Encourage Austin Community College to offer Management/Development of Green Business,
 Green collar” job training and certification courses, Green product/process R&D, Green
 continuing education courses for the general public, on-campus “Green centers” to support the
 curriculum and provide recycling and other services to nearby communities, like the partnership
 with the high tech industry and Chamber of Commerce in the 1990s.

New Rules and Adopt Precautionary Principle for all City of Austin purchases
Advocacy
New City Require City to purchase Zero Waste products and services, including contract services:
Programs  Return to vendor any wasteful packaging;
  Reduce packaging and buy in larger units;
  Use reusable shipping containers;
  Purchase reused, recycled and compost products;
  Buy remanufactured equipment;
  Lease, rent and share equipment;
  Buy durables, using life-cycle cost analyses; and
  Buy less toxic products.

 Support research and development into new products and business opportunities from discarded
 materials at Green Campus.

 Support “think pads” at proposed Green Campus to stay on the cutting edge of Zero Waste
 practices.

 Provide one-time start-up grants and/or loans for needed Zero Waste infrastructure out of
 funding recommended in Zero Waste Plan (e.g., landfill surcharge or fees on commercial
 hauling).

 Set aside portion of Workforce Development funds for green job training and wages.




Gary Liss & Associates 33
 GREEN BUSINESSES, GREEN BUILDINGS, AND GREEN JOBS
 (continued)

Goal : Encourage Green Building Construction Standards
Voluntary, Encourage residents and businesses to restore functional buildings, rather than demolish them.
Education, and
Incentives Encourage businesses to include Green Buildings in their specifications for rental spaces. Help
 promote residential developments that are certified as green buildings.

 Levy mitigation fees on high impact facilities to mitigate impacts of operation and to compensate
 those most impacted by needed facilities.

 Encourage on-site crushing of recycled materials in Green Building projects with best available
 control technology especially over sensitive karst limestone geology.

 Expand “go to head of line” for permits and financing help for Zero Waste businesses (not just
 for Affordable Housing projects as currently set up).
New Rules and Expand Austin’s use of required Green Building standards for all major projects in the City, not
Advocacy just in special development areas.

 Get check-off box on permit renewal requirements for Green Building and Zero Waste projects.

 Require advertising of upcoming demolition projects while permits are being finalized, so that
 maximum deconstruction can be arranged.

 Require general contractor and subs training on C&D reuse and recycling requirements as
 condition of permits.

 Work with Austin Energy Green Building Program to:
  Base success on reuse of highest and best use of products in buildings and decorative
 architectural features and by value of materials recovered (not by weight);
  Evaluate adding another “innovative point” to realize higher lifecycle benefits by
 recovering higher value of reused products.
  Evaluate adding Zero Waste as “bonus point.”

 Work with Austin Energy Green Building Program to base Green Building “status” on recycling
 goals achieved through % diverted from facilities, not by weights from each project.

 Require in all new construction that adequate space is provided for recycling, composting and
 trash containers, comparable to MRP1 in LEED – and add provision for organics/compostables.

 Once infrastructure and markets are established for C&D materials, prohibit landfilling C& D
 debris.
New City Evaluate how Solid Waste Services staff, AE staff, AWU staff, and WPDRD permitting staff can
Programs work together to establish and sustain a certification program to certify Green Buildings that
 meet BOTH green building requirements and Zero Waste goals.




Gary Liss & Associates 34
 Notes
1
  The City of Ottawa Ontario developed a voluntary takeback program that publicizes businesses that voluntarily
accept products they sell from their customers, which engenders customer loyalty and appreciation for their
corporate responsibility.
2
  See Appendix G based on model resolution from Product Policy Institute at:
http://www.productpolicy.org/assets/word/MODEL_Local_EPR_Resolution.doc
3
  Ecocycle. Center for Hard to Recycle Materials. 10 December 2008. <http://www.ecocycle.org/charm/index.cfm>
4
  For example, offer 32-gallon-cart option for garbage from Austin residents at 50% of the cost of a 64-gallon-cart
option and provide cost alternatives for low-income large families.
5
  This would be comparable to the City’s Green Campus proposal, with addition of reuse and composting activities,
or at least collection of all 12 market categories. It would also be good to include a major baler at the Green
Campus to help in marketing the single-stream materials to be processed there.
6
  Set up at least one center in each “waste shed” of City to conveniently take from the public Reusables,
Recyclables, Compostables, Concrete and Demolition Materials, and recyclable Household Hazardous Wastes (e.g.,
batteries, oil and paint). In California, the state requires supermarkets to establish convenient recycling centers in
their parking lots (or within 2 miles of the store) to receive designated recyclable materials.
7
  City of Fresno, CA hired 5 students to contact every business in the City to help them implement a similar
mandatory Recycling Ordinance. See article in April 2008 Resource Recycling journal.
8
  United States EPA. Waste Partnerships – Waste Wise Program. 10 December 2008.
<http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/reduce/wstewise/wrr/rm.htm>
9
  State of California Integrated Waste Management Board. Incentive Programs for Local Government and Waste
Reduction. 10 December 2008. <http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov./LGLibrary/Innovations/Incentives> Monrovia,
California, reduces its nonexclusive commercial service agreement fees directly proportional to the amount of
wastes diverted. Franchise fees are 16 percent for haulers diverting 24 percent or less, 12 percent if they divert 25 to
49 percent, and 8 percent if they divert 50 percent or more.
10
 Set up at least one center in each “waste shed” of City to conveniently take from the public Reusables,
Recyclables, Compostables, Construction & Demolition Materials, and recyclable Household Hazardous Wastes
(e.g., batteries, oil and paint). In California, the state requires supermarkets to establish convenient recycling centers
in their parking lots (or within 2 miles of the store) to receive designated recyclable materials.
11
 Particularly include as eligible costs the startup of new takeback programs by industry sectors that agree to levy an
industry-wide fee to keep such programs going after grant is over.
12
 Texas Department of Transportation. Recycling Summary. 10 December 2009.
<http://www.txdot.gov/business/contractors_consultants/recycling/performance.htm>
13
 GrassRoots Recycling Network. Zero Waste Business Principals. 10 December 2009.
<http://www.grrn.org/zerowaste/business>




Gary Liss & Associates 35
 APPENDIX C.
 EXISTING RECYCLING ORDINANCE
7.0 COMMERCIAL / MULTI-FAMILY RECYCLING GUIDELINES 1

7.1.0 SCOPE OF RULES
The City of Austin requires that all businesses with 100 employees or more and multi-family
properties with 100 units or more must provide on-site recycling services. Under this
requirement, businesses and multi-family properties continue to choose their own waste haulers
and recyclers and to negotiate prices for these services.

The Recycling guidelines contained within this document are intended to articulate the standards
and expectations for commercial and multi-family recyclables collection as authorized in the
City Code Chapter 12-3, Article VI.

7.2.0 ADOPTION AND REVISION OF RECYCLING GUIDELINES
Under authority of City Code Chapter 12-3, Article VI, the Director of the Solid Waste Services
Department [hereinafter Director] is authorized to adopt and revise rules, procedures and forms
to implement provisions of that Chapter which regulate commercial and multi-family recycling
in the City of Austin.

7.3.0 GENERAL PRINCIPLES
City Code Chapter 12-3, Article VI is designed to increase access to the benefits of recycling and
waste reduction for area businesses and multi-family properties within the City of Austin and
thus help increase the life of local landfills, decrease disposal costs for area businesses and multi-
family properties, and have a positive impact on the environment generally in terms of reduced
pollution and energy consumption.

The Ordinance requires that multi-family property owners and business owners provide on-site
recycling opportunities to their residents and employees in much the same way that the City of
Austin has provided this opportunity to single-family homes through curbside recycling. As is
the case with the City of Austin’s curbside program, the participation of each individual resident
or employee is voluntary.

1
 City of Austin Solid Waste Services Department. Chapter 12-3: Solid Waste Guidelines. 10 December 2008. Page
13. <http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/sws/downloads/rules.pdf>




Gary Liss & Associates 36
 APPENDIX D.
 PRODUCT & MATERIALS MARKET INVENTORY1
 Item Programs/Facilities Accepting Materials
 1. Reusable
 Appliances Goodwill, Computers for Kids, Axcess Technologies, Earth Protection
 (e –waste) Services
 Goodwill: Salvation Army: TDS Landfill, COA Diversion Recycling
 White Goods 2
 Center, Austin Energy’s refrigerator pickup and recycling program
 Durable plastic Goodwill, Salvation Army, Thrift stores
 products
 Goodwill, Salvation Army, St. Vincent de Paul Store, Assistance
 Usable Textiles
 League of Austin Thrift House,
 Mattresses Salvation Army: Habitat for Humanity:
 Goodwill: Salvation Army Re-Sale, Big Brother/Big Sister, ARCH,
 Furniture any non-profit organization, St. Vincent de Paul Store, Assistance
 League of Austin Thrift House
 Goodwill, Salvation Army Re-Sale, Bookstores, Library, Austin
 Books
 libraries, Ecology Action, Half Price Books stores various locations
 Building Materials Habitat for Humanity (limited)
 Other reusables and Goodwill, Salvation Army Re-Sale, Habitat for Humanity, Austin’s
 repairables Yellow Bike Project, Bikes Not Bombs
 2. Paper
 COA-MRF, Balcones Recycling, Allied Waste Services, Moving
 Cardboard
 Company, Ecology Action, Solid Waste Services, Ecology Action
 COA-MRF, Balcones Recycling, Allied Waste Services, Recycle
 White ledger curbside, Paper retriever dumpsters, Ecology Action, Solid Waste
 Services
 COA-MRF, Balcones Recycling, Allied Waste Services, Recycle
 Newsprint curbside, Paper retriever dumpsters, Ecology Action, Solid Waste
 Services
 COA-MRF, Balcones Recycling, Allied Waste Services, Recycle
 Magazines /
 curbside, Paper retriever dumpsters, Ecology Action, Solid Waste
 Catalogs
 Services
 COA-MRF, Balcones Recycling, Allied Waste Services, Recycle
 Other office paper curbside, Paper retriever dumpsters, Ecology Action, Solid Waste
 Services
 COA-MRF, Balcones Recycling, Allied Waste Services, Recycle
 Paperboard
 curbside, Paper retriever dumpsters, Ecology Action
 Other / Composite Balcones Recycling, Recycle curbside, Paper retriever dumpsters,
 paper Ecology Action
 3. Plant Debris
 TDS Landfill (composting program), COA Hornsby Bend Facility
 Leaves & Grass
 Compost, Curbside yard Solid Waste Services 3
 TDS Landfill (composting program), COA Hornsby Bend Facility
 Prunings
 Compost, Curbside yard Solid Waste Services
 Whittlesey Landscape Supplies, TDS Landfill (composting program),
 Branches & stumps COA Hornsby Bend Facility Compost, Curbside yard Solid Waste
 Services



Gary Liss & Associates 37
 Product and Materials Market Inventory (continued)

 Item Programs/Facilities Accepting Materials
 4. Putrescibles
 Compost Texas Disposal Systems, Texas Organic Products
 Food waste
 composting (Accepts commercial food waste on limited basis).
 Fish and meat waste Unclear
 Austin Water Utility, City of Austin’s Hornsby Bend Wastewater
 Sewage sludge
 treatment plant
 5. Wood
 Habitat for Humanity, Austin Wood Recycling, Texas Organic
 Untreated wood
 Products composting program
 Treated wood Habitat for Humanity (Limited)
 6. Ceramics
 Concrete Habitat for Humanity, Roadmix Co, Marcelo’s Sand and Loam
 Asphalt paving Roadmix Co, Marcelo’s Sand and Loam
 7. Soils
 Gypsum board TDS Landfill, Habitat for Humanity
 Fines (Unclear)
 8. Metals
 Auto bodies Salvage yards, Commercial metals, CMC-Austin/AMP Recycling
 COA-MRF, All American Recycling, Southside Recycling, DNT
 Recycling, Allied Waste Services, Gardner Iron & Metal, Ecology
 Aluminum cans
 Action, Curbside recycling. Solid Waste Services, CMC-Austin/AMP
 Recycling, Austin Metal and Iron, Beaman Metal Co.
 COA-MRF, All American Recycling, Southside Recycling, DNT
 Recycling, Allied Waste Services, Gardner Iron & Metal, Ecology
 Steel cans
 Action, Curbside recycling. Solid Waste Services, CMC-Austin/AMP
 Recycling, Austin Metal and Iron, Beaman Metal Co.
 COA-MRF, Commercial Metals, All American Recycling, Southside
 Other Ferrous
 Recycling, DNT Recycling, Allied Waste Services, Austin Metal &
 metals
 Iron, Ecology Action, Austin Metal and Iron, Gardner Iron and Metal
 COA Diversion Recycling Center, COA-MRF, Commercial Metals,
 All American Recycling. Southside Recycling, DNT Recycling, Allied
 Other Non-ferrous
 Waste Services, Austin Metal & Iron, Ecology Action, Austin Metal
 and Iron, Gardner Iron and Metal
 9. Glass
 COA MRF, Ecology Action, Curbside recycling, Local recycling
 Clear glass
 center, Tri-Recycling
 COA MRF, Ecology Action, Curbside recycling, Local recycling
 Green glass
 center, Tri-Recycling
 COA MRF, Ecology Action, Curbside recycling, Local recycling
 Mixed glass
 center, Tri-Recycling
 COA MRF, Ecology Action, Curbside recycling, Local recycling
 Brown glass center, Tri-Recycling
 Window glass Habitat for Humanity, Ecology Action
 Other glass Ecology Action




Gary Liss & Associates 38
 Product and Materials Market Inventory (continued)

 Item Programs/Facilities Accepting Materials
 10. Polymers
 COA Curbside, Ecology Action, Local recycling center, BFI MRF,
 # 1 PET
 Cycled Plastics
 COA Curbside, Ecology Action, Local recycling center, BFI MRF,
 #2 HDPE
 Cycled Plastics
 #3 PVC COA Curbside, Ecology Action, Cycled Plastics
 #4 LDPE COA Curbside, Ecology Action, Cycled Plastics
 #5 PP COA Curbside, Ecology Action, Cycled Plastics
 # 6 PS COA Curbside, Ecology Action, Cycled Plastics
 #7 plastic Ecology Action (limited)
 Other plastics
 Asphalt Roofing Marcelo’s Sand and Loam
 Tires Sears stores ($2 fee), Most tire stores—call first, Eco Depot
 11. Textiles
 Goodwill, Salvation Army, St. Vincent de Paul Store, Assistance
 Poly fibers
 League of Austin Thrift House
 Goodwill, Salvation Army, St. Vincent de Paul Store, Assistance
 Cotton and wool
 League of Austin Thrift House
 12. Chemicals
 COA/SWS-Disposal Services/, Oil change shops, Solid Waste
 Used motor oil
 Services’ Household Hazardous Waste Facility, Eco Depot
 Household COA COA/SWS-Disposal Services/HHW, Solid Waste Services
 Hazardous Wastes Household Hazardous Waste Facility
 Disposable Diapers Stericycle Biohazardous Waste
 Medical waste Stericycle Biohazardous Waste, COA HHW
1
  The Market Inventory is constantly evolving. Staff will need to work diligently to keep the information up to date.
2
  White Goods are also known as home appliances
3
  City currently collects yard trimmings from containers provided by homeowners.




Gary Liss & Associates 39
 APPENDIX E.
 MAP OF CONTRIBUTING COUNTIES




Gary Liss & Associates 40
 APPENDIX F.
 REGIONAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT




Gary Liss & Associates 41
Gary Liss & Associates 42
Gary Liss & Associates 43
 APPENDIX G.
 MODEL EPR RESOLUTION
 MODEL RESOLUTION NO. ________
 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN
 SUPPORTING EXTENDED PRODUCER
 RESPONSIBILITY

 WHEREAS, approximately 1,000,000 tons of discarded materials and products
are currently sent to disposal from our community which are valued at over $40 million per year;
and

 WHEREAS, federal and state rules ban landfill disposal of certain products that
are deemed hazardous, including [confirm ones that apply: household batteries, fluorescent bulbs
and tubes, thermostats and other items that contain mercury, as well as electronic devices such as
video cassette recorders, microwave ovens, cellular phones, cordless phones, printers, and
radios]; and

 WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the list of waste products determined to be
hazardous and therefore banned from landfills will continue to grow; and

 WHEREAS, state policies currently make local governments responsible for
achieving waste diversion goals; and

 WHEREAS, household hazardous waste management costs are currently paid by
taxpayers and rate payers of the City of Austin and are expected to increase substantially in the
short term unless policy changes are made; and

 WHEREAS, local governments have no input on the design of the products,
make no profit from the products, and do not have the resources to adequately address the rising
volume of discarded products; and

 WHEREAS, costs paid by local governments to manage products are in effect
subsidies to the producers of hazardous products and products designed for disposal; and

 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Austin supports statewide efforts to
hold producers responsible for hazardous products and other product and packaging waste
management costs; and

 WHEREAS, there are significant environmental and human health impacts
associated with improper management of hazardous products; and

 WHEREAS, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy approach in
which producers assume responsibility for management of hazardous waste products and which
has been shown to be effective; and

Gary Liss & Associates 44
 WHEREAS, when producers are responsible for ensuring their products are
reused or recycled responsibly, and when health and environmental costs are included in the
product price, there is an incentive to design products that are more durable, easier to repair and
recycle, and less toxic; and

 WHEREAS, EPR framework legislation establishes transparent and fair
principles and procedures for applying EPR to categories of products for which improved design
and management infrastructure is in the public interest; and

 WHEREAS, the California Product Stewardship Council (CPSC) is an
organization of California local governments working to speak with one voice in promoting
transparent and fair EPR systems in California; and

 WHEREAS, in (Date), the City of Austin adopted a municipal Zero Waste Plan,
and this plan describes how zero waste cannot be achieved unless product manufacturers reduce
the toxics in their products and design them to be reusable and recyclable; and

 WHEREAS, the City of Austin wishes to incorporate EPR policies into the
City’s and County’s product procurement practices to reduce costs and protect the environment;

 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUSTIN that the Council of the City of Austin urges the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to support legislation, policies and programs on Extended
Producer Responsibility; and

 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Austin
encourages the formation of a Texas Product Stewardship Council as an organization of Texas
local governments working to speak with one voice in promoting transparent and fair EPR
systems in Texas to shift waste management costs from local government to the producers of the
product, and which will give producers the incentive to redesign products to make them less
toxic and easier to reuse and recycle; and

 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Director of Solid Waste Services
Department be authorized to send letters to Texas local government organizations, state agencies
and the State legislature and to use other advocacy methods to urge support for EPR legislation;
and

 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the (Jurisdiction name) encourages all
manufacturers to share in the responsibility for eliminating waste through minimizing excess
packaging, designing products for durability, reusability and the ability to be recycled; using
recycled materials in the manufacture of new products; and providing financial support for
collection, processing, recycling, or disposal of used materials; and

 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Austin will lead by example to
develop producer responsibility policies for its own purchases, such as leasing products rather




Gary Liss & Associates 48
than purchasing them and requiring producers to offer less toxic alternatives and to take
responsibility for collecting and recycling their products and the end of their useful life.


 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Austin, State of Texas
on _____________________________ by the following vote:

AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:


Signed: _________________________________ Date: (mo/day/year)
 Will Wynn, Mayor




ATTEST: ______________________________
 (Name), Clerk
 City of Austin




Gary Liss & Associates 49
 APPENDIX H.
 HIGHEST AND BEST USE HIERARCHY
Zero Waste has been defined by the Zero Waste International Alliance as a philosophy and visionary goal in which
manufacturing and supply chains emulate natural cycles, where all outputs are usable inputs for other value-added
processes. It means designing products and managing materials and systems for maximum resource conservation,
highest, most efficient use, and minimum negative environmental impact. It means eliminating harmful discharges
to land, water and air, by preventing rather than managing waste and pollution.
Highest Use
 Redesign Manufacturing & Supply Chain
 Mandate Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
 Produce durable, reusable, recyclable, and recycled-content products
 Use environmentally sustainable feedstocks & materials
 Design for repair, reconditioning, disassembly, deconstruction and recycling
 Make brand owners/first importers responsible to take back products & packaging

 Reduce/Refuse/Return
 Reduce Toxicity
 Reduce toxic materials in products
 Replace toxic materials in products with less toxic or non-toxic alternatives
 Reduce Consumption
 Purchase and use less
 Apply Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) standards to purchasing
 Reduce Packaging
 Purchase products with less packaging
 Incentive durable, reusable packaging

 Reuse/Preserve Form & Function
 Repair and recondition products
 Deconstruct and salvage buildings and building products
 Support thrift stores and charity collection

 Recycle/Compost/Digestion
 Recover & return materials to economic mainstream for remanufacture to like-value products
 Recover & return materials to economic mainstream for composting to value-added soil amendment
 products
 Ambient temperature (<200 degrees) processing of organic materials for recovery of fuels and energy,
 with composting of residue

 Down Cycle
 Recover & return materials to economic mainstream for remanufacture to non- or marginally-
 recyclable products, such as office paper to tissue paper, or soda bottles to toys or clothing

 Waste-Based Energy 1
 Biological energy recovery technologies, including anaerobic digestion
 Thermal energy recovery technologies including gasification, plasma arc, pyrolysis

 Bury/Incinerate
 Bioreactor landfilling, when design incorporates sufficient safety & environmental protections
 “Beneficial” landfill use, such as alternative daily cover (ADC) or landfill construction
 Traditional landfilling
Lowest Use

1
 Revision made by staff with SWAC input.



Gary Liss & Associates 47
 APPENDIX I.
 ZERO WASTE RESOURCES
Austin Zero Waste: www.austinrecycles.com
 Jessica King
 512-974-2728
 jessica.king@ci.austin.tx.us
 Rebecca Hays
 512-974-7720
 rebecca.hays@ci.austin.tx.us

GrassRoots Recycling Network: www.grrn.org

Zero Waste International Alliance: www.zwia.org

Earth Resource Foundation: www.earthresource.org/zerowaste.html

Gary Liss & Associates: www.garyliss.com/id18.html




Gary Liss & Associates 49
  Solid Waste Generation & Disposal
 Capacity Report

 For Calendar Year 2007



 Prepared by the Maine State Planning Office

 for the

Joint Standing Committee on Natural Resources
 of the 124th Legislature




 January 2009
Acknowledgements
This report is prepared by the State Planning Office in accordance with 38 MRSA §2124-A.

Calculations are based on data provided by municipalities, commercial recycling brokers, and
public and private disposal facilities. We would like to thank the hundreds of municipal officials
and private sector waste management and recycling companies for their help with supplying
data. Without them, the State Planning Office could not produce this report.

Data from calendar year 2007 are the most current, complete data available for this report.




 Executive Office
 State Planning Office
 Waste Management & Recycling Program
 38 State House Station
 184 State Street
 Augusta, Maine 04333-0038
 (207) 287- 8934
 www.maine.gov/spo/recycle




 January 2009




 Printed under Appropriation #014 07B 1655 008208




 2
 Contents

Executive Summary .....................................................................................5

By the Numbers ...........................................................................................6

I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………..9

ll. Municipal Solid Waste Generation .........................................................11

III. Recycling ..............................................................................................13

IV. Existing and Planned Processing and Disposal Capacity ....................19

V. Projected Waste Processing and Disposal Needs and Capacity ..........29

Vl. Disposal Prices .....................................................................................36

Appendices ................................................................................................37
 A. Legislative Reference .......................................................................39
 B. Definitions and Acronyms .................................................................40
 C. Maine Recycled Materials, 1999-2007 .............................................42




 3
4
Executive Summary

Solid waste generation in Maine increased from 2006 to 2007, from 1,989,266 tons to
2,066,448 tons. Recycling efforts of both public and private programs continued but
were unable to maintain the 2006 recycling rate of 36.2 percent, with it slipping to 34.8
percent, due to the increase in the tonnage of waste generated. The state has unused,
permitted disposal capacity that will meet Mainers’ needs until at least 2015, with
potentially permittable capacity for another 15 to 20 years beyond that.

This report provides an overview of Maine’s municipal solid waste generation, recycling,
combustion, and landfill activities for 2007, in order to:

 1) determine the impact of these activities on available solid waste disposal
 capacity,
 2) identify planned and consumed capacity at disposal facilities, and
 3) project the lifespan of capacity.

The report also assesses progress towards achieving the state’s 50% recycling goal.



KEY FINDING: Municipal Solid Waste generated in Maine increased.

Residents and businesses in Maine generated 2,066,448 tons of waste in 2007, a three
(3) percent increase over waste generation experienced in 2006. This increase varies
from recent year’s solid waste generation, where it has been fairly stable.



 Waste Generation in M aine 1993-2007



 2500000


 2000000


 1500000
 Tons
 1000000


 500000


 0
 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007




 5
KEY FINDING: Management of municipal solid waste.

32% of Maine’s total municipal solid waste tonnage was delivered to the four waste-to-
energy facilities, recycling managed 34.8%, and both activities reduced the volume of
waste requiring landfilling. The tonnage of raw municipal solid waste being directly
landfilled was 24.8% of the total, (total tonnage landfilled, including processing residues,
was 30.3%) and 2.9% of the state’s municipal solid waste was exported.


 Maine's Solid Waste Management Methods
 2007


 Wa ste -to-energy
 32 .0%
 Recycled 34.8%




 Expo rted
 2.9 %
 L and fille d 24 .8 %




KEY FINDING: Mainers’ continue to recycle more each year, but recycling has not
kept pace with the growth in the amount of waste we generate.

Maine has had a 13-year trend of growth in both solid waste generated and recycling
efforts, though that has flattened in the past few years. However, in 2007, solid waste
generation increased 3% from 2006, which when coupled with a slight decrease in
recycled tonnage, depressed the state’s recycling rate from 36.2% to 34.8%.

 Maine Solid Waste Disposed vs. Recycled
 1993-2007


 1600000
 1400000
 1200000
 1000000
 Tons 800000
 600000
 400000
 200000
 0
 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007

By Disposed Recycled


 6
 the Numbers (tons)

 Municipal Solid Waste Management in Maine
 2006 2007
Waste Generation - Total 1,989,266 2,066,448
  Recycled/Reused 720,410 718,613
  Combusted 504,078 503,226
  Landfilled 688,798 879,731*
  Exported 75,980 60,491
  Imported 437,037 456,580
  *(includes bypass and residues from waste to energy facilities)


 Recycling in Maine
 2006 2007
Municipal/Public Efforts 227,767 201,358
Commercial/Business Efforts 492,643 517,643
Total Tons Recycled 720,410 718,613
% of MSW Recycled 36.2% 34.8%



 Processing for Combustion at Waste-to-Energy Facilities

 2006 2007
Delivered MSW tonnage 867,606 826,292
By-pass 36,183 27,014
FEPR 122,512 110,016
Metal 22,044 22,032
Combusted 504,078 503,226
Ash 169,000 164,003


 Out-of-state Generated Municipal Solid Waste

 2006 2007
MSW – Maine Energy 136,472 117,320
MSW – PERC 29,323 37,148
MSW Landfilled – commercial landfills 7,547 8,576
CDD Landfilled – Pine Tree 259,310 290,493
CDD Landfilled – Crossroads 4,385 3,043
Total Imported 437,037 456,580



 7
 Landfill Disposal (Instate Generated Municipal Solid Waste
 & Residues from Processing Municipal Solid Waste)

 2006 2007
 Juniper Ridge 290,435 309,950
 9 Municipal Landfills 124,615 142,143
 Municipal CDD Landfills 27,446 (est.) 28,000
 2 Commercial Landfills 246,302 399,638
 Total Landfilled 688,798 879,731

 Disposal Capacity in Maine*

 2007 Capacity 2010 Capacity 2012 Capacity 2017 Capacity 2027 Capacity
 – currently – projected – projected – projected – projected
W-T-E Facility Capacity available remaining remaining remaining remaining
 (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year)

MMWAC - Auburn 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000
ecomaine - Portland 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000
Maine Energy -
 310,000 310,000 310,000 310,000 310,000
 Biddeford
PERC - Orrington 304,000 304,000 304,000 304,000 304,000

Total 854,000 854,000 854,000 854,000 854,000
 2007 2010 2012 2017 2027
 Licensed Licensed Licensed Licensed Licensed
Landfill, Disposal Capacity Capacity – Capacity – Capacity – Capacity – Capacity –
 end of year end of year end of year end of year end of year
 (cubic yards) (cubic yards) (cubic yards) (cubic yards) (cubic yards)

State Landfills (2):
  Carpenter Ridge – T 2 R 8 Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped Undeveloped
  Juniper Ridge – Old Town 8,462,000 6,200,000 4,100,000 0 0
  Juniper Ridge – Old Town
 Unlicensed Unlicensed Unlicensed 20,500,000 8,100,000
 (expansion)

Municipal Landfills (9)
  7 - Municipal landfills 2,416,700 1,900,000 1,600,000 2,500,000 1,200,000
  2 - Municipal - ash 1,184,450 1,000,000 880,000 580,000 0

Commercial landfills (2)
 Crossroads - Norridgewock 3,900,000 2,500,000 1,850,000 160,000 0
 Pine Tree - Hampden 1,000,000 0 0 0 0

Total 16,963,153 11,600,000 8,430,000 23,740,000 9,300,000


* This table does presume continued operation of the four waste-to-energy facilities. It does include planned
expansions of the Presque Isle, Tri-Community and Juniper Ridge Landfills but the permitted capacity may vary from
these projections, since that new capacity is dependent upon receiving the necessary environmental approvals.




 8
I. Introduction

Maine law requires the State Planning Office to report annually to the Legislature on the
state’s recycling rate and the available and projected disposal capacity and how that
capacity affects disposal prices. The full statutory language appears in Appendix A.

To accomplish this, the State Planning Office calculates the volume and tonnage of
waste generated by Mainers, the amount of recycling, and how and where waste is
disposed. It compares the disposal capacity needed with the available capacity, taking
into account planned, new capacity and consumed, lost capacity. It also identifies the
impact that recycling has on capacity and identifies potential recycling and disposal
capacity issues for specific regions around the state. Additionally, the report provides
insight on how disposal capacity impacts disposal fees.

How policymakers can use this report

The capacity report provides policymakers with the information needed to plan for and
make decisions about future capacity investment. Maine law requires that the
Legislature be notified with recommendations for developing new disposal capacity
when there is six years of capacity remaining. In addition to the currently operating
state-owned landfill known as Juniper Ridge, located in Old Town, the state also owns a
permitted, ‘greenfield’ site known as Carpenter Ridge in Township T2 R8. This report
provides the basis for recommendations for developing new landfill capacity when
needed.

The report also assists policymakers with understanding the progress toward our waste
reduction and recycling goals and their impact on disposal capacity.

Planning for solid waste management

This report provides an analysis of disposal capacity. The data contained within this
report is used to support the development of the state’s five-year Waste Management &
Recycling Plan. The plan takes a broader view of waste management activities in Maine
including analyzing how we manage waste, offering policy perspectives on solid waste
management, and presenting scenarios on possible options for future management
needs.

About this report

The State Planning Office updates this report each year in order to provide the most
current data and information to policymakers, which, in turn, will help them respond
more quickly to changing waste management needs for Maine citizens.

The report includes an analysis of the solid waste disposal needs of the State for the
next 3, 5,10, and 20 years. The report also analyzes how the fill rate at each solid waste


 9
landfill has affected the expected lifespan of that landfill, as required by statute. In
addition, the report assesses supracompetitive pricing and its possible implications.

Data for the calculations in this report are provided by municipalities, commercial
recycling brokers, and public and private disposal facilities. Supporting information was
also used from the soon to be released ‘Recycling Economic Information Study’,
completed through the Northeast Recycling Council for five northeastern states, with
Maine being one of those states. Data from calendar year 2007 are the most current,
complete data available for this report.

This report focuses on municipal solid waste (MSW) as defined by Maine law. MSW
comprises household, baggable waste and bulky wastes such as furniture, tires, and
metal, and construction and demolition debris.

Though this report focuses on municipal solid waste, it does include some sludge and
ash tonnages considered ‘special wastes.’ Special wastes are generated by other than
typical housholds or businesses and due to their quantity or chemical or physical
properties require particular handling. They include primarily ashes, sludges, and
industrial process wastes. These wastes are landfilled at facilities specifically designed
and licensed for their disposal. This report looks at only those special wastes which are
residues of managing municipal solid waste, primarily incinerator ash. In projecting the
remaining disposal capacity at the state owned landfill, all of the waste streams being
delivered are considered.

Industrial wastes are also not included in this report. Industrial wastes are not part of the
waste managed by municipalities. These wastes are typically managed by the generator
and disposed at generator-owned facilities or out-of-state.

Appendix B provides definitions for terms and acronyms used in this report.




 10
ll. Municipal Solid Waste Generation

The amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated by Mainers is the starting point for
the calculations and projections in this report. It provides the basis for determining the
statewide recycling rate as well as all the projections that follow.

A. Methodology

Municipal Solid Waste

This report considers only municipal solid waste and its residues (primarily ash from
waste-to-energy facilities). MSW is waste typically generated by households and
businesses and managed by municipalities. It includes household garbage and other
non-bulky waste (corrugated cardboard, newsprint, office and mixed papers, food waste,
plastics, glass, metals, and textiles) as well as bulky waste (construction and demolition
debris, appliances, furniture, tires, wood waste, and yard waste).

Waste Generation Calculation

The State Planning Office uses three pieces of data to determine the statewide
generation of municipal solid waste:

 1. data provided by municipalities in their annual solid waste reports to the State
 Planning Office;
 2. data provided by public and private disposal facilities in their annual license
 reports to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection; and
 3. data provided by commercial recyclers and end-users in a voluntary survey.

The Office combines the tonnage of waste processed and disposed, as well as that which
is recycled, composted, and reused, to create a reliable estimate of waste generation in
Maine.


B. Statewide Municipal Solid Waste Generation

Maine residents and visitors generated 2,066,448 tons of municipal solid waste in 2007,
up from 1,989,266 tons in 2006. Waste generation is a function of population growth,
lifestyles, economic activity, and manufacturing and production practices.

As shown in Figure 1, over the recent past, waste generation growth had leveled. In
2007, though, the total waste generated grew by 77,182 tons, a 3% increase. This
increase can be attributed to the amount of unprocessed wastes delivered to landfills.




 11
 Waste Generation in Maine 1993-2007


 2500000


 2000000


 1500000
 Tons
 1000000


 500000


 0
 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007




 Figure 1: Maine Waste Generation, 1993-2007
 Source: State Planning Office




C. Per Person Waste Generation

Municipal waste generation, when calculated on a ‘per person’ basis, shows that each
Maine resident generates approximately 3,200 pounds of MSW a year, or about 8.8
pounds of waste per person per day. 1 Maine’s per person generation is higher than the
2007 national average of 4.6 pounds per person reported by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.

One obvious reason why Maine’s per person number is higher than the national average
is that Maine includes both bulky waste and construction and demolition debris (CDD) in
its definition of MSW, which the U.S. EPA does not. If we exclude CDD from our numbers,
the Maine per-person rate drops to about 7.5 pounds per day. The bulky waste fraction of
the municipal solid waste stream is not tracked by all handling or receiving facilities so
the extent of bulky waste remaining in the MSW is unknown.

Anther explanation for the higher weight per person is the high success in capturing
commercially generated solid waste tonnages, as well as the additional impact of visitors
on solid waste generation.


Note: in the State of New Hampshire, their ‘per person’ solid waste generation
calculation for 2007 was 6.9 pounds. Conversations with their agency staff yield similar
conclusions about the actual composition of waste and tracking of its generation.


1
 Based on an estimated 2007 Maine population of 1,315,398

 12
III. Recycling

The Maine Legislature set a 50% recycling goal for the state.

A. Statewide Recycling Rate

Recycling Rate Calculation

The recycling rate is derived by using recycling data in conjunction with disposal and
generation data according to the following formula:

 (MSW recycled)
 Recycling Rate = ------------------------- * 100
 (MSW generated)

This calculation is not a precise measurement. Some data are incomplete, particularly for
composting and reuse efforts. Adjustments are made to eliminate duplicate counting of
recyclables. However, the Office estimates that the overall result is accurate to within two
(2) percentage points.

Recycling Trends

Maine recycled 34.8% of its municipal solid waste in 2007, a decrease from the 2006
recycling rate of 36.2 %, due to the increase in overall waste generated coupled with a
slight decrease in tons of material recycled.

Approximately thirty percent of Maine’s reported recyclables are handled by municipal
recycling programs. The balance of recycling efforts statewide is the result of business-
generated recyclables, handled by private sector waste management companies.

The rapid rise in recycling rates during the first half of the 1990s was due to a
concentrated effort by private sector, local public programs, and the state acting in
partnership, with recycling having not only a priority statutory identity, but state level
presence and support. During this time, the state invested $12.5 million in local grants for
recycling collection and processing equipment, provided for statewide public education,
and conducted hundreds of training workshops for local officials. Since that time, state
funding has not been available and local programs compete with other municipal services
for their share of property tax dollars.

However, at the same time, there has been an upward trend in municipal solid waste
being generated. Figure 2 shows the tons of waste disposed compared to the tons
recycled. The growth in waste generation prevents the recycling rate from increasing
despite greater tonnages being recycled.




 13
 Maine Solid Waste Disposed vs. Recycled
 1993-2007


 1600000
 1400000
 1200000
 1000000

 Tons 800000
 600000
 400000
 200000
 0
 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007

 Disposed Recycled


 Figure 2: Maine Solid Waste Disposed vs. Recycling, 1993-2007
 Source: State Planning Office


Two overarching reasons why recycling rates have not kept pace with increases in solid
waste generation:
 ¾ First, recycling has not advanced aggressively into other components of the waste
 stream that are growing, such as organics management (through composting) and
 construction and demolition debris;
 ¾ Secondly, even though markets for traditional recycling commodities have grown
 throughout the first half of this decade, many municipal programs have not been
 able to adjust their programs to increase recycling efforts.



EPA Definition of Municipal Solid Waste


The state recycling rate is also calculated using the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s definition for MSW, which is primarily ‘baggable waste’. Determining the 2007
statewide recycling rate with EPA’s definition, Maine’s statewide recycling rate becomes
39.6%. Table A shows the two methodologies for calculating the state’s recycling rate
and Figure 3 shows a comparative trend line.




 14
 Table A: Maine Statewide Recycling with and without CDD - 2007

 Maine Definition (CDD included) EPA Definition (CDD not included)

 MSW with CDD MSW w/o CDD
 2,066,448 1,748,958
 generated generated

 MSW with CDD MSW w/o CDD
 718,613 692,987
 recycled recycled

 Recycling Rate 34.8%* Recycling Rate 39.6%*




 Maine's Statewide Recycling Rate
 1993-2007
 44%42% 43% 43% 43%
 45 41% 42% 42%
 40% 37% 39% 39.6
 40 35% 36%  36%
 35%
 35 33% 34.8
 30


 Percentage
 25
 20
 15
 10
 5
 0
 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007
 Years Reported
 Rate with Maine's definition Rate with EPA's definition


 Figure 3: State Recycling Rate with and without CDD included
 Source: State Planning Office




B. Type and Amount of Materials Recycled

Maine recycles a wide variety of materials with the biggest recovery rates in glass, metal,
and paper. See Appendix C for a table depicting recyclable categories and tonnages from
1997 to 2007.




 15
C. Municipal Recycling Programs

Maine cities and towns by law are responsible for providing for municipal solid waste
disposal. As a result, Maine municipalities have designed and implemented various solid
waste management facilities over the years, including the construction and operation of
approximately 240 transfer stations, over 300 public recycling programs, and over 70
composting facilities.

Individual municipalities and regions are not required to achieve a 50% recycling rate; but
they are required to demonstrate progress towards the goal. Recycling progress varies
from community to community, but overall, programs removed 201,358 tons from the
state’s waste stream that would otherwise need disposal.



D. Progress Toward Achieving State Goals

MSW Management and the Hierarchy

Maine’s solid waste policy is to plan for and implement an integrated solid waste program
based on a management hierarchy. The hierarchy guides public decisions regarding
investments in, and the permitting of, solid waste management facilities. 38 MRSA §2101,
establishes the management priorities within the hierarchy in priority order as follows:

 1. Reduction, including both the amount and toxicity of waste;
 2. Reuse (use of a product in same form as the original use);
 3. Recycling (reprocessing of waste and creation of a new, usable material);
 4. Composting of biodegradable waste;
 5. Volume Reduction (waste processing that reduces the volume of waste
 requiring disposal, including incineration for-energy recovery); and
 6. Land disposal.

Maine’s Recycling and Waste Reduction Goals

In 1989, the Maine Legislature established a goal to recycle 50% of the state’s municipal
solid waste annually. The legislated date to achieve the goal is January 1, 2009. The
2007 state recycling rate is 34.8%, fifteen percentage points short of the goal. The state
remains committed to reaching the 50% goal in light of its value on reducing overall solid
waste management costs, the positive impact on the environment, and a lessening of the
need for additional solid waste disposal facilities.

The state waste reduction goal challenges Mainers to reduce waste generation by 5%
every two years. As waste generation continues to climb in Maine, we have not achieved
this goal. However, we are seeing a modest trend in waste reduction from decreases in
the weight of consumer goods, for example when products get smaller, are made of more
lightweight materials, or use lighter weight packaging.



 16
Achieving our Recycling Goal and Beyond

There are a number of efforts on the horizon to help Maine reach its 50% recycling goal,
including organics recovery and composting, improved collection efforts, and a revitalized
statewide public awareness campaign.

Perhaps the most significant has been the move to adopt ‘single stream’ or ‘single sort’
recycling collection strategies, which has been implemented in the Greater Portland area
as well as in approximately a dozen other communities. ‘Single stream’ or ‘single sort’
simply means collecting co-mingled recyclables and sorting them at a central processing
facility. This collection method makes it easier for residents to recycle, reduces collection
time, labor and transportation costs while increasing the volumes of materials collected.

As successful as these programs may be, nevertheless, these improvements require
significant capital investment, which can be challenging to achieve at the current time.

In 2005, a state policy review task force called for Maine to move beyond a 50% recycling
goal. Recycling is increasingly critical as a foundation for sustainable production. We
need to maximize use of waste and minimize its consumption of landfill capacity. It’s time
to view waste, not as a disposable, but as a resource.




 17
18
IV. Existing and Planned Processing and Disposal Capacity

In 2007, Maine’s solid waste disposal facilities included: one state-owned landfill, two
commercial landfills, nine municipally-operated landfills, an estimated 20 municipal
construction and demolition debris (CDD) landfills, and four waste-to-energy facilities.
Several processing facilities/operations were available for managing construction and
demolition debris.


Assumption: Capacity figures provided for the state-owned landfill assume that
operations achieve a ratio of 1.0 tons of waste per cubic yard of landfill space. At the
commercial landfills, the assumption is that operations also achieve a one-to-one ratio of
tons-to-cubic yards in landfill compaction.


A. Landfills

Landfills receive a variety of wastes, and that variety differs among the facilities,
depending upon what their approval allows for acceptable wastes. Included in that
variety of wastes are: raw garbage; construction and demolition debris; residues
and ash from waste to energy facilities; contaminated soils; sludges; ash from bio-
mass operations; and, other special wastes. This report focuses on municipal solid
waste, including construction and demolition debris as well as the residues from the
processing of those wastes, but in reviewing landfill capacity, the tonnages of the
other special wastes that are accepted by the landfills do consume capacity, and for
that reason, those wastes and their impact on landfill capacity is included in this
report.


State-owned Landfill 2

In 2007, the state-owned landfill in Old Town, known as Juniper Ridge, received a total of
472,600 tons of in-state generated waste, of which 151,073 tons were municipal solid
waste and CDD and another 158,877 tons were residues from processing or incineration
of MSW. The balance of the waste buried at the landfill included various types of
sludges, contaminated soils and approved wastes from other in-state commercial and
industrial generators (non-msw wastes).




2
  In addition to the Juniper Ridge Landfill, the State Planning Office owns 1500 acres of land in T2 R8 (near
Lincoln), upon which a special waste landfill was permitted in the mid 1990s. Known as Carpenter Ridge, it has a landfill
design for about two million cubic yards of waste. It was acquired by the former Maine Waste Management Agency and
has been held by the state for disposal capacity when it is needed.

 19
Assessment of Facility

Available disposal capacity remaining at Juniper Ridge at the end of 2007 was
approximately 8,462,000 cubic yards, which translates into space for approximately 7.15
million tons of solid waste. At projected fill rates 3 , the present licensed capacity should
provide 11 - 12 years of disposal capacity for the state. Starting in 2009/2010, however,
with the closure of the Pine Tree Landfill and the initiation of processing at the planned
construction/demolition processing facility in Westbrook (as permitted by Casella Waste
Systems, Inc.) an expected additional 300,000 tons of wastes will be delivered to the
Juniper Ridge Landfill for disposal. With the addition of these wastes, the consumption of
the space at the landfill is expected to change, from approximately one ton of waste per
cubic yard of space to 0.8 tons of waste per cubic yard. This change impacts the
planned life of the landfill, leaving approximately 9 -10 years of remaining capacity, as of
the end of 2007.

In late 2006, the State Planning Office proposed an expansion at Juniper Ridge to
provide an additional 22.5 million cubic yards of disposal capacity. As of the date of this
report, the application for the expansion has not been submitted to the Maine Department
of Environmental Protection. We expect this approval process to take at least 3 to 4
years. If approved as proposed, the expansion would provide an additional 18-20 years
of capacity extending the life of Juniper Ridge to at least 2035.


Commercial Landfills

Maine has two commercial landfills grandfathered under the 1989 Solid Waste
Management Act that banned the development of new commercial disposal facilities.
Having the commercial landfills has provided competition and disposal options for
municipal solid waste, construction and demolition debris, and special wastes. The two
commercial landfills are:
 • Crossroads Landfill, located in Norridgewock, owned by Waste Management, Inc.
 • Pine Tree Landfill, located in Hampden, owned by Casella Waste Services, Inc.

The Crossroads Landfill is permitted to take special waste, municipal solid waste, and
construction and demolition debris. It provides recycling and disposal services on a
contract basis for municipalities and businesses. It currently serves 30+ Maine
communities in Western Maine. In 2007, the landfill accepted 336,854 tons of solid
waste. Of that tonnage, 182,525 tons were Maine generated municipal solid waste and
CDD and 19,922 tons of residues from the processing of MSW. The balance of wastes
included Maine generated special wastes (59,974 tons), and CDD and special wastes
generated outside of Maine (74,433 tons).



3
  The State Planning Office projects that wastes delivered to Juniper Ridge will average 550,000 tons per year, but will
increase to 850,000 tons per year starting in 2010, with wastes diverted from the planned closure of the Pine Tree
Landfill in 2009, and from additional residues and wastes generated from CDD processing operations within the state.

 20
The Pine Tree Landfill is permitted to take special waste, by-pass municipal solid waste,
and construction and demolition debris. In 2007, the Pine Tree Landfill accepted 557,793
tons of solid waste. Of that tonnage, 39,058 tons were Maine generated municipal solid
waste, CDD and 158,133 tons of residues from its processing. The balance of wastes
included Maine generated special wastes (35,971 tons) and MSW by-pass, CDD and
special wastes generated outside of Maine (324,631 tons). Through an agreement
reached among the Town of Hampden, Maine Department of Environmental Protection
and the landfill’s owner, the landfill will cease accepting solid waste by the end of
December 2009.



Assessment of Facilities

The total disposal capacity currently licensed at these two commercial landfills is
approximately 5.0 million cubic yards. The majority of this capacity is at the Crossroads
Landfill, with an estimated 3.9 million cubic yards of capacity remaining at the end of
2007. Table B shows estimated remaining disposal capacity at the commercial landfills.


 Table B: Capacity at Maine’s Commercial Landfills – end of 2007
 Estimate in years
 2007 Fill Remaining Remaining
 of life remaining
 Rate Capacity Capacity
 based on 2007 fill
 (tons) (Cubic Yards) (tons)
 rates
Crossroads Landfill 336,854 3,900,000 3,900,000 10-12 years
Pine Tree Landfill 557,793 1,000,000 970,000 < 2 years


Total 894,647 4,900,000 4,870,000




Municipally Operated Landfills

In 2007, 107,248 tons of solid wastes and 59,100 tons of ash were disposed at nine
municipally-operated landfills. Table C provides information on each individual landfill,
including fill rates and estimated available remaining capacity.




 21
 Table C: Municipal Landfill Tonnages – 2007
 Remaining
 Remaining Years of life remaining
 2007 Fill Rate Capacity
 Capacity based on 2007 fill rates at
 (tons) Cubic Yards
 (tons) .65 tons/yard 4
 (est.)
MSW Landfills:
Bath 23,552 422,000 274,300 11 years
Brunswick 4,850 140,000 91,400 19 years
Greenville 600 56,000 36,500 60 years
Hatch Hill (Augusta) 25,961 937,000 609,000 20 years
Presque Isle* 20,140 149,900 85,800 4 years
Tri-Community (Fort
 31,145 703,800 457,500 18 years
Fairfield)*
CFWF (West Forks) 1000 (est.) 8,000 5,000 <1 year
Total Tons: 107,2485
Total Remaining
Capacity (est.) 2,416,700 1,559,500
 Remaining
 Remaining Years of life remaining
 2007 Fill Rate Capacity
 Capacity based on 2007 fill rates at 1
 (tons) Cubic Yards
 (tons) ton/yard
 (est.)
Ash Landfills:
ecomaine 40,320 915,700 915,700 20-30 years
Lewiston 18,780 268,750 268,750 12 years
Total Tons: 59,100
Total Remaining
Capacity (est.) 1,184,450 1,184,450
* Both the Presque Isle and Tri-Community landfills are currently seeking additional disposal capacity that
would provide up to 50 years additional capacity at each facility.



Assessment of Facilities

Among the seven municipally-operated MSW landfills, there is approximately 2.4 million
cubic yards of remaining available capacity that can accept approximately 1.56 million
tons of municipal solid waste. This capacity is sufficient to carry those communities for 10
to 14 years (on average), with growth in solid waste of 4 percent a year.

The actual remaining life varies for each landfill, resulting in ‘unevenness’ of municipal
capacity across the state. This variation, as to when a particular community or region
may exhaust their current disposal capacity, is independent and possibly irrespective of


4
  Different ton-cubic yard conversion rates are used for different facilities. Household, baggable waste at municipal
landfills typically converts at 0.65 tons per cubic yard. Ash is heavier than municipal solid waste, so SPO uses a 1:1
conversion rate with one ton equalling one cubic yard. Commercial landfills, with heavier equipment for compaction and
more varied waste streams, also typically achieve a 1:1 conversion rate.
5
  83,043 tons were municipal solid waste or construction demolition debris. The balance was other wastes, including
special wastes.

 22
any possible statewide disposal capacity concern, but will be of significant concern to
those regions (see Section V.B on Regional Disposal Issues).

Bath and Brunswick are two of the state’s oldest secure landfills. Brunswick serves only
its own residents and a portion of its businesses. Both communities adopt programs to
extend the life of their landfills, such as ‘pay-as-you-throw’ (PAYT) and single stream
recycling collection. The Hatch Hill Landfill in Augusta serves eight communities and was
recently expanded. A study on expanding recycling options within these communities was
just released.

Together, the Presque Isle and Tri-Community (Fort Fairfield) landfills serve nearly 50
communities in Aroostook County. Both are currently seeking expansions that will provide
capacity to serve those communities for upwards of fifty years.

The Caratunk, Forks, and West Forks landfill was closed in 2008, ending that facility’s
use.

As part of an arrangement with the Mid Maine Waste Action Corporation, the City of
Lewiston brings its waste to the MMWAC incinerator in Auburn. MMWAC, in exchange,
disposes its incinerator ash at the Lewiston landfill. In addition, the Lewiston Landfill
accepts CDD and other wastes.


Municipal CDD Disposal Facilities

There are approximately 20 municipal disposal facilities that accept locally-generated
construction and demolition debris, inert fill, brush, and trees. Local facilities furnish a
‘short-transport’ option for the management of these wastes. An estimated 28,000 tons
of materials were buried at these sites during 2007; in 2006, these facilities accepted
27,466 tons. Typically, scales are not available at these facilities so a conversion factor
of 400 pounds per cubic yard of delivered waste has been used to estimate tonnage.

Assessment of Facilities

The remaining capacity at individual CDD facilities varies, but numbers indicate that
landfill space exists for an overall capacity for another 10-12 years. A number of these
facilities will be full before then, creating ‘pockets’ where CDD disposal options will need
to be reconsidered. Four of the facilities have an estimated six years or less of capacity at
current fill rates and licensed footprints. One site, Marion Township in Washington
County, is currently exploring developing a replacement disposal site.

CDD disposal capacity and management continue to be problematic. These materials are
unacceptable at waste-to-energy facilities and cannot be recycled or reused without
investment in equipment, labor, and sufficient land area to aggregate and process them.
Markets for processed CDD and bulky wastes do exist but, on the small scale that most
Maine towns operate, are limited. Communities’ low volume and dispersed facilities do
not often produce the economics needed for sustainable recycling markets.

 23
Maine has several commercial CDD processors, KTI Biofuels in Lewiston; Commcercial
Paving and Recycling (CPRC) in Scarborough; Plan-it Recycling in Gorham. KTI is a
fixed operation. It accepts only clean wood products (from in-state and out-of-state) for
processing for use as biomass fuel. CPRC used to provide mobile services but now
operates strictly from its Scarborough facility, hauling in material and shipping out the
finished product. Plan-It Recycling also operates from a fixed location. Casella Waste
Systems has permitted a CDD processing operation that would accept up to one
thousand tons of CDD per day in Westbrook and anticipates building that facility in 2009.
There are also several commercial wood chippers that move from site to site to manage
smaller brush piles. Additional commercial CDD processing capacity may be permitted in
Maine in 2007-8, which would provide an outlet for Maine-generated CDD.




B. Waste-To-Energy Facilities

In 2007, 32% of Maine’s municipal solid waste was sent to a waste-to-energy (W-T-E)
facility. Maine’s W-T-E facilities received 826,291, tons of MSW, a decrease of 867,606
tons of MSW in 2006, as shown in Figure 7. Of this 2007 tonnage, 671,823 tons were
generated in-state and 154,468 tons were imported, both a decrease from 2006
tonnages. Table D shows the processing capacity of the four waste-to-energy facilities:




 Table D: Maine W-T-E Capacity

 Annual processing
 Waste-To-Energy Tonnage
 capacity
 Facility received in 2007
 (tons/year)
 ecomaine 170,000 157,637


 Maine Energy (ME) 310,000 280,210

 Mid Maine Waste 92,696
 70,000
 Action Corporation (MMWAC)
 Penobscot Energy Recovery 295,749
 304,000
 Corporation (PERC)

 Total of W-T-E
 854,000 826,292
 Facilities




 24
The facilities provide both a product from combustion as well as a reduction of the MSW
tonnage requiring disposal, thus reducing the need for landfill capacity. They produce a
combined capacity of approximately 62 megawatts a day of electricity and reduce the
volume of waste requiring landfilling by about two-thirds.

The four waste-to-energy facilities, while combusting MSW and producing electrical
power, also produce several streams of materials and residues: by-pass waste, front-end
process residue, and ash. These residues, which require disposal in landfills, comprise
approximately one-third of the waste processed by these facilities (Figure 4).



 Maine W-T-E Plants, Management of Materials
 2007
 FEPR
 13%


 By-pass
 3%

 Ash
 17%
 Combusted
 60%

 Metal
 3%




 Figure 4: Maine W-T-E Plants, Management of Materials
 Source: Facility Annual Reports, State Planning Office




By-pass Waste

By-pass waste is that portion of the municipal solid waste stream intended for delivery to
and incineration at a waste-to-energy facility, but diverted because the facility could not
accept it. Solid waste is ‘by-passed’ if there are operational interruptions or facility shut-
downs or if the facility reaches its operational capacity and cannot accept waste that it is
contractually-obligated to receive. The by-pass waste is typically delivered to a landfill for
disposal.




 25
Front-end Process Residue

Front-end process residue (FEPR) is removed prior to incineration, and may include
ferrous metals, glass, grit, and fine organic matter. While metals are recycled, most
FEPR is landfilled. In the past, FEPR was used in conjunction with landfill closure
programs, but this is no longer a viable outlet. The FEPR waste stream has a strong,
negative impact on landfill capacity, since alternatives to landfilling it do not readily exist.
While some composting of FEPR has been done, the resulting product typically contains
contaminants that restrict its use to limited landfill cover applications only.

Maine Energy (ME) and Penobscot Energy Recovery Company (PERC) use a ‘refuse
derived fuel’ technology and generate front-end process residue as a by-product of their
operations. These facilities dispose of the front-end process residue at landfills. Mid-
Maine Waste Action Corporation (MMWAC) and ecomaine use a ‘mass burn’ technology
and do not produce FEPR.


Waste-To-energy Facility Ash

Ash is a by-product of incineration, is classified as a special waste, and is landfilled. The
ash from ME and PERC was buried at the commercial landfills and Juniper Ridge. The
ash from MMWAC was buried at the City of Lewiston’s landfill and ecomaine’s ash was
buried at their landfill.


Assessment of Facilities

Three of these facilities are at their 20th year of operation. The plants’ maintenance
programs, along with upgrades, have kept these facilities functioning well, and should
continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Facility upgrades occur in response to
environmental regulations, primarily aimed at air emissions reductions. All of the Maine
W-T-E facilities perform at or better than their license requirements.

To produce the electrical generation contracted for, waste-to-energy facilities need to
operate at maximum capacities. The seasonal nature of waste generation causes
tonnage overage problems during the summer months and the need to ‘attract’ additional
tonnage during the winter months. Facilities bypass waste when they reach their daily
operating capacity and import waste to make up for shortfalls.



C. Imported/Exported Municipal Solid Waste

Movement of solid waste across state lines is protected under interstate commerce laws.
Municipal solid waste is considered a commodity and is subject to fluctuations accruing to
supply and demand at the regional and national level.


 26
In 2007, 456,580 tons of municipal solid wastes were imported to Maine, while exports
totaled 60,491 tons. The amount of MSW imported to Maine is relatively stabile. Exports
of waste to New Hampshire and New Brunswick landfills fluctuates but appears to be
declining, as shown in Figures 5 and 6.


 Municipal Solid Waste Imported to Maine
 1997-2007
 500000
 450000
 400000
 350000
 300000
 250000
 200000
 150000
 100000
 50000
 0
 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007
 Tons
 MSW, Incinerated Unprocessed CDD, Landfilled MSW, Landfilled



 Figure 5: Municipal Solid Waste Imported to Maine, 1997-2007
 Source: State Planning Office




 Municipal Solid Waste Exported from Maine
 1993-2007

 160,000
 140,000
 120,000
 100,000
 Tons 80,000
 60,000
 40,000
 20,000
 0
 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007



 Figure 6: Municipal Solid Waste Exported from Maine
 Source: State Planning Office


 27
D. Recycling Capacity

Maine has recycled over 700,000 tons per year during recent years; approximately a third
of which is handled by municipal recycling programs. There are approximately 300 local
recycling programs relying upon about 145 processing operations, with a dozen of those
being major municipal recycling processing centers.

Recycling consists of two operations: collection and processing. Collection can be done
by the municipality or a private hauler by curbside pick-up or self-transported by residents
to a collection center. Small collection centers provide short-term storage with some
minimal processing (i.e. crushing glass) to reduce volumes. From there materials are
moved to processing centers or sometimes, depending on the material, directly to end
users.

Processing centers consist of building capacity to house storage and processing
operations, equipment such as paper and plastic balers, glass crushers, and forklifts, and
office space. They process material to meet market specifications and amass sufficient
quantities to move directly to markets.

Assessment of Facilities

Today, Maine recycling operations have the ability to process current tonnages, as well
as modest increases.

There have been significant, recent (within the last five years) improvements in
processing capacity in the following regional programs: Bangor, Pittsfield, Skowhegan,
Rockland, Camden, Coastal Recycling, and Lincoln County. In 2007, ecomaine, Maine’s
largest recycling region serving its 21- owner-municipalities in Cumberland County,
completed a $3.8 million upgrade to its materials recovery facility in Portland and is
offering processing of ‘single sort’ recycling collection services to expand its recycling
efforts. Similarly, FCR Goodman Recycling, through Pine Tree Waste services, offers
‘single stream’ recycling collection services to many of its municipal clients, and
transports the comingled recyclables to a processing facility in Massachusetts.

The State Planning Office recently conducted extensive interviews with regional recycling
managers and operators around the state and concluded that there is capacity to process
an additional 20,000 tons of recycled materials with the existing infrastructure. Almost all
of Maine’s municipal recycling physical plant was put in place in 1990-93 and is
approaching 20 years of use.




 28
V. Projected Waste Processing and Disposal Needs and
Capacity

Based on our projections, Maine will require approximately 34 million cubic yards of
landfill capacity over the next 20 years to properly manage the municipal solid waste that
is directly landfilled, along with the residues generated by the four waste-to-energy
facilities and other processing facilities that also require landfilling. Over this same time,
we project there will be 39 million cubic yards of capacity. Maine has sufficient capacity to
meet its needs for the next 20 years.

A. Statewide Disposal Capacity

Capacity Needed

Disposal capacity is a factor of need versus availability. Maine generated just over two
million tons of waste in 2007. Assuming a 4% annual increase, we will generate over 4.6
million tons in 2027. With a 34.8% recycling rate, 1.6 million tons per year will be
recycled, 0.86 million tons will be sent to a W-T-E facility, and leaving 2.4 million tons will
require landfilling. 5 That landfilled waste includes unprocessed solid waste, residues
from waste to energy facilities and processing operations, and special wastes such as
ash.

By 2027, total tons needing disposal are projected to increase to 3 million tons. Of that,
2.4 million tons, or over 2.5 million cubic yards of wastes, will need to be landfilled per
year. Figure 7 shows Maine’s projected capacity needs over the next 20 years.


 Projected Disposal Capacity

 3,000,000
 2,500,000
 2,000,000 State Landfill

 Tons
 Municipal Landfills
 1,500,000
 Commercial Landfills
 1,000,000
 Waste To Energy
 500,000
 0
 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
 Years out from 2007



 Figure 7: Maine Projected Capacity Needs in Tons, 2007 – 2027
 Source: State Planning Office

5
 Including out-of-state waste

 29
Specifically, this report is to address projected disposal capacity needs at four points in
time: 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, and 20 years out from the date of this report. In
projecting those needs, we presume recycling efforts are unchanged from today and that
activities and demands reflect the projected changes described before. With those
caveats, it is estimated that: in 3 years the disposal capacity needed will be 1.5 million
cubic yards; in 5 years, the disposal capacity needed will be 1.7 million cubic yards; and
in 10 years, the disposal capacity needed will be 2 million cubic yards.

To handle this projected tonnage over the next 20 years, Maine will need approximately
34 million cubic yards of landfill capacity, based on the following assumptions:
 • continued growth in MSW generation at 4% per year (with no waste reduction
 assumptions built in and recycling at 34.8%). This four percent increase is
 conservative and it is possible that actual increases may be softened or
 eliminated by improved recycling and waste reduction efforts, or an uncertain
 economy. However, given that development of disposal capacity is not a quick
 or easy process, having adequate capacity anticipates that time lag and
 reduces the possibility of a shortage of capacity.
 • recycling tonnages increase as waste generation increases to maintain a
 34.8% recycling rate 6
 • imports decrease as capacity at W-T-E facilities is replaced by Maine MSW as
 generation increases and landfills close
 • exports remain at 2007 levels

Projected Capacity Available

The projection of solid waste disposal capacity is based on these parameters:
 • continued operation of and reliance upon the four W-T-E facilities
 • no significant change in municipally-operated landfills
 • closing Pine Tree Landfill
 • Crossroads Landfill ceasing operations around 2017
 • a license amendment and expansion permit for Juniper Ridge is approved
 • additional capacity is approved for the Presque Isle and Tri-Community landfills

Currently, we estimate that Maine has about 17 million cubic yards of disposal capacity
for municipal solid waste and the residues from processing operations and waste to
energy facilities, as follows:
 • 2.4 million cubic yards in municipal landfills (1.9 million tons)
 • 1.2 million cubic yards in municipal landfills (1.2 million tons of ash)
 • 0.85 million cubic yards in municipal CDD landfills (170,000 tons)
 • 4.9 million cubic yards in commercial disposal facilities (4.7 million tons)
 • 8.5 million cubic yards in Juniper Ridge Landfill (7.4 million tons)
6
 Note that even to maintain a 34% recycling rate will require that Maine increase the tons recycled from 700,000 to 1.4
million tons over the next 20 years.

 30
The amount of available disposal capacity will be affected by both increases and
decreases in capacity as follows:


Projected Consumed Capacity

The planned closure of Pine Tree Landfill in 2009 will have an impact on Maine’s current
solid waste management system, in that approximately 150,000 tons of in-state
generated special wastes and construction and demolition debris waste that was annually
disposed of at that landfill will be diverted to the Juniper Ridge Landfill. In addition, the
residues from the processing of construction/demolition debris at Casella Waste
System’s planned processing facility in Westbrook will also be directed to Juniper Ridge,
an additional 150,000 to 200,000 tons expected. The planned closure responds to state
policy adopted in 1989 that sought to restrict additional private sector development of
disposal capacity.


Projected Planned Capacity

The State Planning Office is seeking an additional 22.5 million cubic yards (18 million
tons with a compaction rate of 0.8 tons per cubic yard of landfill space) of disposal
capacity at the state-owned Juniper Ridge Landfill. The effort to permit the proposed
capacity expansion at Juniper Ridge is currently underway and is planned to be
submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection in early 2009. That review is
expected to take several years and if approved and permitted will provide disposal
capacity to the state for an additional 15 to 20 years beyond its current life.

Additionally, the Presque Isle and Tri-Community landfills are seeking approvals to
expand their disposal capacity to extend their useful lives for up to another fifty years.


Impact of Recycling on Disposal

Recycling will continue to divert significant tonnages from disposal. The State Planning
Office estimates that over 20 years, recycling will divert 20 million tons (cumulatively)
from disposal at today’s recycling rate of 34.8%. If the recycling efforts can be increased,
and the expected overall waste generation rates remain as predicted, the required
disposal capacity to handle the state’s solid waste will be reduced.




 31
Out-of-state Waste

The types and amount of out-of-state waste will likely shift in response to changes in
Maine’s waste generation and management systems.

The waste-to-energy facilities that currently take out-of-state waste will continue to rely
upon it to fulfill their boiler needs and power contracts. However, the State Planning
Office anticipates that as Maine-generated solid waste tonnages needing disposal
increase, waste-to-energy facilities’ need for imported municipal solid waste will
decrease. The state’s remaining commercial landfill (after 2009) may continue to accept
unprocessed CDD from out-of-state.

For purposes of this report, we estimate a 4% annual reduction in MSW imported and
decreases in unprocessed CDD to a nominal amount by 2015, or an estimated 4 million
cubic yards (cumulative) over 20 years.




Biomass Fuel
This report does not address processed green wood or construction and demolition
debris imported into state for use as biomass fuel. This material is used in industrial
boilers in Maine. Ash from its incineration has been managed by the industrial owner and
until recently has not impacted capacity at the state public or commercial landfills.

Nevertheless, with uncertain oil prices and continuing tax incentives for green energy,
interest in biomass fuel is growing. Anticipated development of construction and
demolition debris processing facilities in Maine, in response to demand for biomass fuel
recovery as well as recovery of other components of that waste stream, will rely upon
out-of-state generated debris for at least part of their operation.

The residues from these processing facilities would be disposed of at landfills within the
state. The ash from the combustion of the CDD fuel wood could be disposed of at any of
the state’s licensed special waste landfills, including the state-owned Juniper Ridge
Landfill, with a corresponding affect on the lifespan of those facilities. This continues to
be an issue that warrants watching.




 32
Projected Disposal Capacity, Available vs. Needed

Based on the above analysis, Maine will have an estimated 39 million cubic yards of
landfill capacity over the next 20 years, meeting our need for nearly 34 million tons as
shown in Table E.


 Table E: Projected Disposal Capacity Available vs. Needed
 2007-2027

 Landfill Capacity Available Capacity Needed
 (cubic yards) (tons)
 2,416,700 Total waste 65,000,000
 Municipal Landfills
 generated
 Municipal CDD 850,000
 Imported Waste 4,000,000
 Landfills
 Commercial 4,900,000 Recycled (22,000,000)
 Juniper Ridge 8,462,000 Exported (1,200,000)
 Juniper Ridge Diverted to,
 22,500,000 combusted at W-T-E
 (12,000,000)
 expansion*
 Total Landfill Total Landfill
 39,128,700 33,800,000
 Capacity Available: Capacity Needed:
 * projected capacity, not yet approved

 Table E: Projected Disposal Capacity Available vs. Needed, 2007-2027
 Source: State Planning Office


While Maine has sufficient landfill capacity to meet its needs, we must not become
complacent. Siting new disposal capacity is a costly and highly volatile undertaking.
Maine should do all that it can to make the existing capacity last beyond the next two
decades. This will require state and local investment in waste reduction and recycling.

Another factor to consider in projecting total needed disposal capacity is the location of
that capacity. The number and actual location of disposal facilities influences competition
of type, quality and cost of solid waste services. As the number of disposal options
decreases, this issue warrants consideration.


B. Regional Capacity Issues

Regionally, Maine is divided into “waste sheds” with waste feeding into regional disposal
facilities as shown in Figure 12. Some waste sheds are geographically large like PERC
(170+ communities) and the Crossroads landfill (30+ communities), some receive
municipal solid waste from a single community or a small region, such as the two landfills
on the mid-coast in Brunswick and Bath.



 33
While this report typically looks at statewide disposal capacity, the State Planning Office
has identified some regional or local areas where disposal capacity is uneven or in flux.

Aroostook County

The Presque Isle Landfill is currently seeking approval for an expansion. The expansion,
if approved, will extend their capacity for another 50 years. The Tri-Community Landfill in
Fort Fairfield also is seeking a landfill expansion at this time which will serve those
communities for another possible 50 years. These efforts will require significant local
resources but should not disrupt the solid waste capacity in the region.

Washington County

The Marion Regional CDD Landfill in Marion Township is reaching capacity and is
expected to close in the near future. A new construction and demolition debris landfill for
that region was being planned but now that project’s fate is uncertain.

York County

In 2006, local officials undertook an effort to purchase and close the Maine Energy
W-T-E facility. This facility, which serves about 36 communities in York County, is located
in downtown Biddeford. Proposals were put to the voters in Biddeford and Saco to raise
the money to buy the facility, but were turned down.

The loss of disposal capacity in Southern Maine would disrupt Maine’s waste
management system, but it would not precipitate a crisis. The loss could be absorbed
through a combination of aggressive waste reduction and recycling efforts by
communities in the service area, transporting waste to other instate and out-of-state
disposal facilities 7 , and, with a possible license amendment to Juniper Ridge to accept
“bagged” or household MSW, transporting waste there. 8 The state, municipalities, and the
private sector would need to work in partnership to find the best solution for the long
term. 9



C. Recycling Capacity

To achieve a 50% recycling goal would require municipal and private sector recycling
programs to handle 300,000 tons more of material based on what we generate today.
This number will grow each year to match projected increases in waste generation. 10


7
  The cost-benefit of transporting wastes long distances would have to be considered.
8
  Any change in the type of waste accepted at Juniper Ridge would require approval from the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection.
9
  Another consideration for this region is the contract renewal for electrical generation payments. A lower price could
increase tip fees and impact volumes at waste to energy facilities.
10
 Based on an assumed 4% annual growth in municipal solid waste generation

 34
Over the next 20 years, simply to maintain the state’s current 34.8% recycling rate will
require public and private programs to double their recycling handling abilities. As waste
generation increases, the volume of recyclable materials at a 34.8% rate will increase
from 700,000 tons in 2007 to over 2 million tons in 2027.

To achieve a 50% recycling goal by 2009 and hold it for the next twenty years would
require the capture and processing of nearly 30 million tons from the waste stream over
that period (increasing from 718,613 tons in 2007, to 1.1 million tons in 2009 and over 2
million tons by 2027).

Currently, municipalities do not have the capacity to handle these kinds of new volumes;
neither the physical (buildings and equipment) nor human (staffing) capacity.
Municipal recycling programs currently handle, on average, 90,000 tons of ‘traditional’
recycled materials per year. As discussed earlier, they have additional capacity for
another roughly 20,000 tons annually. 11

The private sector can likely handle additional tonnages or be in a position to respond
with capital investment needs to grow their tonnages if the economics warrant it.

There are also concerns over where this volume would come from. Higher yields and
participation rates can be stimulated with public awareness programs, incentives such as
pay as you throw, and technological advances including single sort. Many communities
are responding with these kinds of efforts, but greater effort is needed to generate the
tonnage to achieve a 50% recycling goal.

It will take significant infrastructure capital investment by both the public and private
waste management sectors to achieve our 50% recycling goal. Maine should begin to
prepare now to build the infrastructure needed to manage an increase in recycling.




11
  This does not include the recent ecomaine recycling processing operation expansion which can by itself accept an
additional 15,000 tons a year of recyclable material.

 35
Vl. Disposal Prices

A. Disposal Fees

The cost of managing solid waste is one of the biggest portions of municipal budgets.
Disposal expenses comprise collecting, transporting, and ‘tipping’ waste. Disposal fees or
‘tipping’ fees are a key driver of municipal disposal costs. Current disposal fees range
from $40.00 to $158.00 12 per ton at Maine’s landfills and incinerators and have stabilized
allowing predictability for municipal budgeting and long-term planning.

Tipping fees at the four waste-to-energy facilities are fairly consistent and reflect the
commitment of the municipalities who either own the facility or have long-term contracts
for disposal services.

The State, in its operating agreement with Casella Waste Systems, established a ‘ceiling’
for tip fees that sets an upper limit on how much can be charged for wastes delivered to
the Juniper Ridge Landfill. It is anticipated that this will act as a check on pricing for the
disposal of similar materials at other solid waste facilities.

Energy Revenues

Tipping fees at waste-to-energy facilities are influenced by revenues received from the
sale of the electricity they generate. The revenues reduce the facility’s operating
expenses, yielding a reduction in the tip fee charged for solid waste. Should electrical
sales revenue drop, tip fees may increase. Conversely, should the electrical sales
increase, the possibility exists lower or maintain tip fees being charged.


B. Supracompetitive Prices

Supracompetitive, as applied to ‘prices,’ means prices that are higher than they would be
in a normally functioning, competitive market; usually as a result of overconcentration,
collusion, or some form of monopolistic, oppressive practice. State law requires the State
Planning Office to determine whether changes in available landfill capacity have
generated, or have the potential to generate, supracompetitive prices and make
recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes as necessary.

Disposal capacity at Maine landfills is sufficient to meet current needs. At the time of this
report, the disposal capacity situation does not appear to have generated, nor does it
appear to have the potential to generate supracompetitive disposal fees. In looking
ahead, however, at that point when disposal capacity exists with fewer facilities than
today, it is possible that prices will become supracompetitive. Where the actual date and
timing of this is not known, it is critical that the Office maintain a firm awareness of this
possibility and keeps the Governor and Legislature informed.

12
 This does not reflect spot market prices.

 36
Appendices




 37
38
A. Legislative Reference

Title 38: WATERS AND NAVIGATION
Chapter 24: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING
Subchapter 2: SOLID WASTE PLANNING



§2124-A. Solid waste generation and disposal capacity report


By January 1, 2008 and annually thereafter, the office shall submit a report to the joint standing
committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over natural resources matters, the Governor and
the department setting forth information on statewide generation of solid waste, statewide
recycling rates and available disposal capacity for solid waste.
The report submitted under this section must include an analysis of how changes in available
disposal capacity have affected or are likely to affect disposal prices. When the office determines
that a decline in available landfill capacity has generated or has the potential to generate
supracompetitive prices, the office shall include this finding in its report and shall include
recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes as necessary.
Beginning on January 1, 2009 and every odd-numbered year thereafter, the report submitted under
this section must include an analysis of how the rate of fill at each solid waste landfill has affected
the expected lifespan of that solid waste landfill. The January 2009 report must also include an
analysis of the solid waste disposal needs of the State as of January 1, 2009 for the next 3, 5 and
10 years.
Beginning on January 1, 2010 and every even-numbered year thereafter, the report submitted
under this section must include an analysis of consolidation of ownership in the disposal,
collection, recycling and hauling of solid waste.
The joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over solid waste matters may
report out legislation related to the report submitted pursuant to this section.




 39
B. Definitions and Acronyms

The following definitions are provided to assist the reader in reviewing this document:

Broker’s Survey – a biennial survey conducted of private sector recycling brokers
 and end-users to determine level and effort related to management of
 commercial recyclables.

Bulky Wastes – these are solid wastes that do not typically fit into a 30 gallon trash
 container, and may include such items as wood, large metal appliances and
 construction materials.

Construction/Demolition Debris (CDD) – these are the wastes generated by building,
 remodeling and/or destruction activities and may include such wastes as
 wood and wood products, concrete and brick, gypsum board, shingles and
 other common components of buildings.

Front-end Process Residue (FEPR) – residual of municipal solid waste resulting
 from the processing of solid waste processing prior to incineration or
 landfilling, and includes, but is not limited to, ferrous metals, glass, grit and
 fine organic matter.

Household Hazardous Wastes (HHW) – items generated by households that are
 corrosive, toxic, ignitable, or reactive, and as such are hazardous to humans
 and/or the environment if disposed of improperly.

Incinerator Ash – this is the residue from the combustion of municipal solid waste at
 waste-to-energy facilities. It may also contain fly ash from the facility’s
 operation and is designated as a ‘special waste’.

Municipal Solid Waste Annual Reports – these are the reports submitted to the
 State Planning Office by municipalities, as required through 38 MRSA § 2133.
 These reports convey their efforts related to municipal solid waste
 management and provide detail on the tonnage of solid wastes they have
 overseen and a description of the various solid waste management practices
 utilized.

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) – solid waste emanating from household and normal
 commercial activities.

Special waste – wastes that generated by other than domestic and typical
 commercial establishments that exist in such an unusual quantity or in such
 a chemical or physical state that require special handling, transportation and
 disposal procedures.




 40
 Supracompetitive when applied to prices – means prices that are higher than they
 would be in a normally functioning, competitive market -- usually as a result
 of overconcentration, collusion or some form of monopolistic, oppressive
 practice.

 Universal Wastes – a category of wastes that including: PCB containing lighting
 ballasts; Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) containing devices; fluorescent lamps;
 other lamps containing hazardous wastes; and, mercury-added devices
 from commercial sources.

 Waste-to-energy facilities (W-T-E) – incinerators which receive municipal solid
 waste, and through combustion, recover energy and convert it into electricity,
 while reducing the volume of waste requiring disposal.

The following acronyms are provided to assist the reader in reviewing this document:

 CDD – means Construction/Demolition Debris, wastes generated by building,
 remodeling and/or destruction activities and may include such wastes as
 wood and wood products, concrete and brick, gypsum board, shingles and
 other common components of buildings.

 CRT – means ‘Cathode Ray Tube’, the projection device located in certain computer
 monitors and television sets

 DEP – means the Maine Department of Environmental Protection

 EPA – means the United States Environmental Protection Agency

 FEPR – means Front-End Process Residue, residual of municipal solid waste
 resulting from the processing of solid waste processing prior to incineration
 or landfilling, and includes, but is not limited to, ferrous metals, glass, grit and
 fine organic matter.

 MSW – means Municipal Solid Waste, solid waste emanating from household and
 normal commercial activities.

 PCB – refers to Polychlorinated Biphenyls, a class of chlorinated aromatic
 hydrocarbons

 SPO – means the Maine State Planning Office

 W -T- E – means waste-to-energy facilities, incinerators which receive municipal
 solid waste, and through combustion, recover energy and convert it into
 electricity, while reducing the volume of waste requiring disposal.




 41
C. Maine Recycled Materials, 1997-2007
Materials: 2007 2005 2003 2001 1999 1997

high grade paper 72,846 72,965 3,951 43,125 11,570 31,470
corrugated
cardboard 117,324 117,144 88,166 202,129 198,442 214,536
newspaper 26,453 32,300 33,442 32,069 42,612 44,710
magazines 8,532 8,723 1,881 13,259 6,104 3,702
mixed paper 11,131 5,226 13,919 14,766 12,860 12,207
other paper 7,668 8,900 3,166 27,376 12,671 6,465
other grades 42,210 36,805 132,475
Total paper 286,164 282,063 277,000 332,724 284,259 313,090

clear glass 10,656 11,058 6,334 11,706 8,324 10,590
brown glass 23,544 24,377 11,270 12,200 12,545 7,060
green glass 11,878 12,622 3,142 6,700 26,167 11,767
all other glass 3,442 3,598 21,672 620 440 1,734
Total glass 49,520 51,655 42,418 31,226 47,476 31,151

white goods 82,493 78,401 68,125 115,219 142,640 122,895
aluminum 2,454 2,163 2,109 6,100 1,862 1,332
tin cans 1,989 1,089 3,154 9,754 18,833 10,693
non ferrous 25,655 23,213 18,847 22,491 18,652 21,572
other (various
materials) 72434 68,432 68,984
Total Metal 185,025 173,298 161,219 153,564 181,987 156,492

HDPE 8,530 9,377 3,420 2,274 4,410 4,160
PET 5,277 4,766 8,725 9,042 6,521 6,021
LDPE film 576 526 711 4
polystyrene 8 0 554 6 6
Other 798 631 531 1,917 1,211 1,042
Total Plastic 15,181 15,308 13,387 13,791 12,148 11,229

wood waste 86,544 93,582 92,154 40,443 41,103 38,402
leaves 29,448 29,938 33,376 26,340 27,421 24,528
food waste 214 142 2,623 23,744 24,582 23,240
Total Organic 116,206 123,662 128,153 90,527 93,106 86,170

tires 30,545 30,374 35,467 19,621 32,530 30,559
CDD, other wastes 25,626 23,425 49,714 38,848 39,469 44,209
Mercury-added/UW 848 487 327 242
Total Hard to Manage 57,019 54,286 85,508 58,711 71,999 74,768

Textiles 2,196 1,724 2,260 3,827 6,023 1,726
Other nonbulky
MSW 7,302 6,935 7,638 3,445 2,740 5,252

TOTAL TONS 718,613 708,931 717,583 687,815 699,738 679,878
RECYCLED:



 42
43
 Waste or Resource?

Rethinking Solid Waste Policy




 State of Maine
 Waste Management and Recycling Plan
 January 2009
The Maine State Planning Office is directed by the Legislature to develop state policies that
promote a balance between economic growth and natural resource conservation. To fulfill that
charge within the scope of its mission, the Waste Management and Recycling Program continues
to ensure sufficient land disposal capacity within our borders to meet the needs of today’s waste
management system and the economy that depends upon it. At the same time, we encourage the
development of waste-to-resource systems that reduce waste destined for disposal, with the dual
aims of alleviating our impacts on Maine’s health and environment and enhancing Maine’s
economy and quality of place.




 Maine State Planning Office
 Waste Management and Recycling Program
 38 State House Station
 184 State Street
 Augusta, Maine 04333-0038
 www.maine.gov/spo
 www.mainerecycles.com

 January 2009




The State Planning Office would like to thank the Department of Environmental Protection and
members of the Maine Waste Solid Management Advisory Council for their input and assistance
 in developing this plan.




 Cover photo features one of a series of posters from the Maine Recycles public awareness
 campaign launched in 2008 and designed to encourage Mainers to recycle more.




 Printed under appropriation # 014 07B 1655 008208




 -2-
CONTENTS

Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... 5

The Purpose of this Plan............................................................................................................................... 7

I. Waste Characterization.............................................................................................................................. 8
 Municipal Solid Waste Generation ........................................................................................................ 8
 State Recycling Goal........................................................................................................................... 13
 Conclusion: Waste Characterization ................................................................................................... 15

II. Solid Waste Management Infrastructure Capacity ................................................................................. 17
 Recycling Capacity.............................................................................................................................. 17
 Processing and Disposal Capacity...................................................................................................... 19
 Projected Waste Processing and Disposal Demands and Capacity .................................................. 28
 Conclusion: Infrastructure Capacity .................................................................................................... 32

III. Assessing the Effectiveness of Current State Policies .......................................................................... 33
 Recent Policy Discussions .................................................................................................................. 33
 Years of Decisions, Decades of Consequences ................................................................................. 34
 Conclusion: Positive Outcomes of Current Policy............................................................................... 39

IV. What has Happened Since the 1998 Plan?.......................................................................................... 41
 Costs of Municipal Solid Waste Management .................................................................................... 41
 Markets for Recycled Materials........................................................................................................... 44
 Management of Construction and Demolition Debris ......................................................................... 47
 Beneficial Use ..................................................................................................................................... 49
 Conclusion: Changes over 10 Years................................................................................................... 52

V. Long-term Issues to Watch..................................................................................................................... 53
 Growth in Waste Generation ............................................................................................................... 53
 Out-of-state Wastes ............................................................................................................................ 53
 The Role of Local Government ........................................................................................................... 57
 Other Issues ........................................................................................................................................ 57
 Conclusion: Issues to Watch ............................................................................................................... 59

VI. New Trends ........................................................................................................................................... 60
 Energy and Greenhouse Gas Initiatives ............................................................................................. 60
 New Technologies............................................................................................................................... 61
 Single Sort Recycling .......................................................................................................................... 63
 The Product Stewardship Model ......................................................................................................... 64
 Personal Responsibility ....................................................................................................................... 65
 Conclusion: New Trends ..................................................................................................................... 65

VII. Where Do We Go from Here? .............................................................................................................. 66
 The Run Up to 50%............................................................................................................................. 67
 Moving Beyond 50% ........................................................................................................................... 68
 Common Threads................................................................................................................................ 72
 Conclusion: We Have a Choice .......................................................................................................... 73

Appendix A: Statutory References for the Plan .......................................................................................... 74
Appendix B: Municipal Cost of Solid Waste Management: Contrasting Profiles ........................................ 77




 -3-
DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS

The following definitions are provided to assist the reader in reviewing this document:

Broker’s Survey – a biennial survey conducted of private sector recycling brokers and end-users to
 determine level and effort related to management of commercial recyclables.

Construction/Demolition Debris (CDD) – these are the wastes generated by building, remodeling
 and/or destruction activities and may include such wastes as wood and wood products,
 concrete and brick, gypsum board, shingles and other common components of buildings. It
 may include such items as wood, large metal appliances and construction materials. These
 are solid wastes that do not typically fit into a 30 gallon trash container.

Front-end Process Residue (FEPR) – residual of municipal solid waste resulting from the
 processing of solid waste processing prior to incineration or landfilling, and includes, but
 is not limited to, ferrous metals, glass, grit and fine organic matter.

Household Hazardous Wastes (HHW) – items generated by households that are corrosive, toxic,
 ignitable, or reactive, and as such are hazardous to humans and/or the environment if
 disposed of improperly.

Incinerator Ash – this is the residue from the combustion of municipal solid waste at waste-to-
 energy facilities. It may also contain fly ash from the facility’s operation and is designated
 as a ‘special waste’.

Municipal Solid Waste Annual Reports – these are the reports submitted to the State Planning
 Office by municipalities, as required through 38 MRSA § 2133. These reports convey their
 efforts related to municipal solid waste management and provide detail on the tonnage of
 solid wastes they have overseen and a description of the various solid waste management
 practices utilized.

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) – solid waste emanating from household and normal commercial
 activities.

Special waste – wastes that generated by other than domestic and typical commercial
 establishments that exist in such an unusual quantity or in such a chemical or physical
 state that require special handling, transportation and disposal procedures.

Universal Wastes – a category of wastes that including: PCB containing lighting ballasts; Cathode
 Ray Tube (CRT) containing devices; fluorescent lamps; other lamps containing hazardous
 wastes; and, mercury-added devices from commercial sources.

Waste-to-energy facilities (W-T-E) – incinerators which receive municipal solid waste, and
 through combustion, recover energy and convert it into electricity, while reducing the
 volume of waste requiring disposal.




 -4-
Preface
Declaration of Policy

The Legislature finds and declares it to be the policy of the State, consistent with its duty to protect the
health, safety and welfare of its citizens, enhance and maintain the quality of the environment, conserve
natural resources and prevent air, water and land pollution, to establish a coordinated statewide waste
reduction, recycling and management program.

The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the State to pursue and implement an
integrated approach to hazardous and solid waste management, which shall be based on the following
priorities: reduction of waste generated at the source, including both the amount and toxicity of waste;
waste reuse; waste recycling; waste composting; waste processing which reduces the volume of waste
needing disposal, including waste-to-energy technology; and land disposal.

The Legislature finds that it is in the best interests of the State to prefer waste management options with
lower health and environmental risk and to ensure that such options are neither foreclosed nor limited by
the State's commitment to disposal methods. The Legislature declares that it is in the public interest to
aggressively promote waste reduction, reuse and recycling as the preferred methods of waste
management.

The Legislature finds that environmentally suitable sites for waste disposal are in limited supply and
represent a critical natural resource. At the same time, new technologies and industrial developments are
making recycling and reuse of waste an increasingly viable and economically attractive option which
carries minimal risk to the State and the environment and an option which allows the conservation of
the State's limited disposal capacity.

The Legislature further finds that needed municipal waste recycling and disposal facilities have not been
developed in a timely and environmentally sound manner because of diffused responsibility for municipal
waste planning, processing and disposal among numerous and overlapping units of local government.
The Legislature also finds that direct state action is needed to assist municipalities in separating,
collecting, recycling and disposing of solid waste, and that sound environmental policy and economics of
scale dictate a preference for public solid waste management planning and implementation on a regional
and state level (bold added here for emphasis).1

Such was the clarity of our beginnings and, for 20 years, Maine has worked to implement this
policy. During this time, the state has made significant progress in reducing, reusing, and
recycling its municipal solid waste.

 ¾ The state’s recycling rate has more than doubled; recycling more than five and a half
 million tons of solid waste over this period.
 ¾ Public recycling services have expanded to serve over 98% of our population.



1
 38 Maine Revised Statute Annotated, Chapter 13

 -5-
 ¾ Businesses have adopted and implemented recycling programs that support the state’s
 objectives.
 ¾ We’ve reduced toxics in the solid waste stream by banning from disposal in Maine solid
 waste disposal facilities: mercury-added products, cell phones, and cathode ray tubes
 (CRTs) found in computer monitors and televisions, and requiring the recycling of
 hazardous consumer products known as ‘universal wastes’.
 ¾ The number of municipalities offering collection programs to divert and safely manage
 household hazardous waste (HHW) has grown to 140 municipalities in 2007.
 Additionally, two permanent HHW collection facilities have been established to better
 serve the on-going household hazardous waste management needs of Maine’s residents.
 ¾ Nearly 100% of the state’s unlicensed, unlined, substandard landfills have been capped
 and closed, significantly reducing their impacts on Maine’s environment.

In the decade since the last waste management plan, recycling progress has slowed. The
statewide recycling rate leveled off as our growing economy and changing lifestyles resulted in
waste generation levels that outpaced our efforts and support of recycling. The amount of solid
waste being disposed increased 60 percent.

The legislated date to achieve the state’s 50% goal is January 1, 2009. The 2007 state recycling
rate is 34.8%, fifteen percentage points short of the goal. The state remains committed to
reaching the 50% goal in light of its value on reducing overall solid waste management costs, the
positive impact on the environment, and a lessening of the need for additional solid waste
disposal facilities.

The state waste reduction goal challenges Mainers to reduce waste generation by 5% every two
years. As waste generation continues to climb in Maine, we have not achieved this goal.
However, we are seeing a modest trend in waste reduction from decreases in the weight of
consumer goods, for example when products get smaller, are made of more lightweight
materials, or use lighter weight packaging.

In 2005, a state policy review task force called for Maine to move beyond a 50% recycling goal.
Recycling is increasingly critical as a foundation for sustainable production. As the current
stewards of this system, we have the obligation to counter the notion of useless waste as an
unavoidable conclusion of normal everyday living. Our work for the coming years is to return
these “resources” to either their natural or industrial systems.




 -6-
The Purpose of this Plan
The intent of the Declaration of policy placed into law in 1989 is unambiguous; as is the
direction it provides the plan.

While this plan does offer specific resource management objectives and suggestions to achieve
them, and has analytical and informational functions, it is deliberately a forward looking policy
document for policymakers and program managers at the state, regional, and municipal level.
The plan is intended to encourage them to make full use of the waste hierarchy when crafting
decisions about program implementation, to provide them with the policy standards to apply to
those decisions and to persuade them to pursue and achieve the state’s 50% recycling goal; one
of the fundamental legislative reinforcements of the hierarchy.

The plan takes a look at the development of Maine’s waste management system in order to
assess the effectiveness of current state efforts. The plan also:
 ¾ looks at how solid waste is currently being managed in Maine;
 ¾ provides an update on issues cited in the last plan ten years ago; and
 ¾ identifies issues that warrant monitoring and new trends.

Finally, it describes strategies for how Maine might move forward managing municipal solid
waste into the next decade.

In addition, the plan is the basis for:
 ¾ communicating Maine’s waste management priorities and policies;
 ¾ assessing statewide disposal capacity, recycling progress, and waste management
 strategies; and
 ¾ guiding public benefit determination for environmental licensing.

Appendix A provides the statutory references for the plan.

The Plan’s Format
This plan update contains edited excerpts from the most current Solid Waste Generation and
Disposal Capacity Report. The capacity report has been expanded in scope and is now revised on
an annual basis. Certain requirements of the plan and the report overlap including determination
of existing and potential disposal capacity, and projected demand for capacity.

The goal of this “link up” is to develop mechanisms through which the State Planning Office can
readily scrutinize the progress and effectiveness of Maine’s solid waste policies and programs
against the most current numbers and projections supplied by the capacity report.

This change in format is in keeping with the move to a standing Solid Waste Management
Advisory Council from the once-every-five-year task force and the change to the annual report;
to develop a more timely, policy-guided review of any changes and trends of Maine’s solid waste
management practices and translate the information gained into appropriate action.



 -7-
I. Waste Characterization
Municipal Solid Waste Generation2
The amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated by Mainers is the starting point for the
calculations and projections in this plan. It provides the basis for determining the statewide
recycling rate as well as all the projections that follow.

Municipal Solid Waste
This plan considers municipal solid waste and its residues (primarily ash and front-end process
residue generated by waste-to-energy facilities). MSW is waste typically generated by
households and businesses and managed by municipalities. It includes household garbage and
other waste (corrugated cardboard, newsprint, office and mixed papers, food waste, plastics,
glass, metals, and textiles) as well as construction and demolition debris, appliances, furniture,
tires, wood waste, and yard waste.

Waste Generation Calculation
The State Planning Office uses three pieces of data to determine the statewide generation of
municipal solid waste:
 1. data provided by municipalities in their annual solid waste reports to the State Planning
 Office;
 2. data provided by public and private disposal facilities in their annual license reports to the
 Maine Department of Environmental Protection; and
 3. data provided by commercial recyclers and end-users in a voluntary survey.

The Office combines the amount of waste processed and disposed and the tonnage recycled,
composted, and reused to create a reliable estimate of waste generation in Maine.

A. Statewide Municipal Solid Waste Generation
Maine residents, businesses and visitors generated 2,066,448 tons of municipal solid waste in
2007, up from 1,989,266 tons in 2006. Waste generation is a function of population growth,
lifestyles, economic activity, and production practices.

Between 1993 and 2003, municipal solid waste generation in Maine increased over 55%. While
we can attribute some of this growth to increased economic activity, we also recognize that
improved data collection plays a part. During this period, for each successive reporting year, the
Office was able to capture more precise waste generation numbers. However, as can be seen in
Figure 1, over the last four years, waste generation increases have slowed. Again, improved
accuracy in data plays a part.




2
  Excerpted from the 2007 Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Capacity Report, Maine State Planning Office,
January 2009 (edited)


 -8-
Nevertheless, a fundamental change in the waste stream is occurring; a change that impacts
waste tonnages. Products and product packaging today are increasingly made from lighter weight
materials. This saves on both manufacturing and transportation costs. Shifting from glass to
plastic packaging, downsizing packaging, and switching from metal to plastic product
components are occurring across industries. For example,
 ¾ newspapers are smaller and lighter weight;
 ¾ aluminum and plastic containers are being manufactured with less material;
 ¾ glass is disappearing from supermarket shelves; and
 ¾ computer components are often now made of plastic rather than metal.

These changes impact waste stream composition. Plastic, which used to be 7% of the waste
stream by weight, now comprises 12-13%, displacing glass and metal. Where 24 aluminum cans
used to weigh a pound, now there are 34 cans to a pound. Newspaper is now a smaller percent of
the waste stream by weight.

Changes in society also contribute to decreasing the weight of what we dispose. Smaller families,
reading their morning newspaper on-line, and eating more restaurant meals, generate less waste.
A trend of growing-your-own or buying local produce may also reduce food waste in places.

At the same time, we continue to see increases in disposable, single-use, convenience packaging.
Today’s on-the-move lifestyle takes advantage of ready-made meals, and also the demands of
higher food hygiene standards. Everything from plastic utensils and beverage cups to throwaway
floor mops to disposable underwear and socks for travelling represents a growing share of
household waste, particularly if you consider its volume. Disposable products and packaging,
while increasing in amount also appear to weigh less; a contributing factor to Maine’s slowing
waste generation tonnages.

 Waste Generation in Maine 1993-2007



 2500000


 2000000


 1500000
 Tons
 1000000


 500000


 0
 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007


 Figure 1: Maine Waste Generation, 1993-2007
 Source: State Planning Office




 -9-
B. Per Person Waste Generation
Municipal solid waste generation, when calculated on a ‘per person’ basis, shows that each
Maine resident generates approximately 3,200 pounds of MSW a year, or about 8.8 pounds of
waste per person per day.3 Maine’s per person generation is higher than the 2007 national
average of 4.6 reported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

One reason why Maine’s per person number is higher than the national average is that Maine
includes both bulky waste and construction and demolition debris (CDD) in its definition of
MSW, which the U.S. EPA does not. If we exclude these wastes from our numbers, the Maine
per-person rate drops to approximately 7.5 pounds per day. For comparison, New Hampshire’s
6.9 pounds per person per day in 2007 includes CDD,4 also higher than the national average.

Another explanation for the higher weight per person is the high success in tracking and
capturing commercially-generated solid waste tonnages, as well as the considerable additional
impact of visitors on solid waste generation. Maine sees tens of millions of overnight stays and
hundreds of thousands of extended stays by nonresidents per year. For example the Mount
Desert area with a year round population in the thousands, sees over three million visitors per
year that have an enormous impact on MSW generation numbers.

C. Types of Waste
1. Composition of Household Wastes

The plan depends upon the EPA Waste Characterization Study of the same data year in order to
assess the types and amounts of Maine-generated MSW (See Figure 2 below).




 Figure 2: Municipal Solid Waste Characterization
 EPA Waste Characterization Study 2007


3
 Based on an estimated 2007 Maine population of 1,315,398, US Census
4
 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services


 - 10 -
We can apply these percentages to the amount of Maine’s MSW, but we must subtract CDD as
the EPA chart does not include that waste stream.

Subtracting out the 2007 CDD tonnage leaves 1,748,958 tons of MSW generated. By applying
the percentages of the chart to Maine’s tonnage, we can estimate the types and amounts of MWS
as shown in Table 1.

 Table 1: Maine Recyclables Generated (in tons) - 2007
 paper and paperboard 571,910
 yard waste 223,867
 food scraps 218,620
 plastic 211,624
 household metal 143,415
 textile, rubber and leather 132,920
 wood waste (other than CDD) 97,942
 glass 92,695
 other 55,967

It is worth comparing these numbers with the recovered numbers reported in Table 6. While the
categories do not match up precisely, they are close enough in definition to warrant their use
here. Table 2 shows the percent recovered for selected recyclable materials.

 Table 2: Recovery Rates of Selected Recyclable Materials
 2007
Waste type Amount generated Amount recovered % recovered
Paper/ paperboard 571,910 286,164 50%
Yard waste 223,867 29,948 13.3%
Food scraps 218,620 214 minimal
Plastic 211,624 15,181 7%
Household Metal 143,415 86,936* 61%
Textile/rubber/leather 132,920 9,498 7.1%
Wood waste 97,942 **
Glass 92,695 49,520 53.4%
* includes white goods ** no corresponding definition

This comparison confirms current trends in recycling data. The mature recycling commodities –
glass, metals, and fiber – have the highest recovery percentages, while plastics is gaining share in
generation but lags behind in recovery due to the complexity of chemistries that relates directly
to weakness in recycling efforts. It also highlights where Maine can make the most gains by
concentrating on fiber, plastics, construction demolition debris, and the organic fraction.

Another way to look at Maine’s waste stream is to look at the source of the waste. Maine has a
larger commercial share than the US average because of our MSW definition inclusive of CDD
(see Table 3).




 - 11 -
 Table 3: Breakdown of Sources of Waste - 2007
 Percent of MSW
 Type of Waste
 Generated
 Residential Includes waste from single-family Maine US
 and multi-family dwellings
 46% 55-65%
 Commercial Includes waste from businesses, Maine US
 schools, institutions, and the MSW
 portion waste generated by 54% 35-45%
 industrial sites (e.g. office waste)


2. Composition of Construction/Demolition/Debris

In 2007, Maine generated an estimated 317,490 tons of CDD. Based on waste composition
models, as shown in Figure 3, we can assess the types and amounts of the CDD waste stream.


 CDD Waste Composition (percent by
 volume)
 Other Painted and
 24% pressure
 treated
 w ood
 Dryw all 24%
 5%


 Clean
 Scrap Metal Wood
 7% 19%
 Asphalt
 Shingles
 21%

 Figure 3: Vermont CDD Composition Study 2003

Using the percentages of Figure 3, it is estimated that Maine generated the following amounts
and types of CDD, shown in Table 4:

 Table 4: Types of CDD generated – 2007 (in tons)
 Painted and other wood 76,198
 Clean wood 60,323
 Asphalt shingles 66,673
 Metals 22,224
 Drywall 15,875
 Other5 76,198

5
  “other” includes carpet, plastic floorings, insulation, plastic conduit, joint compound, containers, and paper
products, and mixed materials products that could not be categorized.


 - 12 -
Again referring to Table 6, Maine recovered 25,626 tons of CDD and other wastes for a
recycling rate of just over 8% of our CDD stream.

State Recycling Goal
A. Recycling Trends
The goal of the state of Maine is to recycle 50% of the state’s waste each year. Maine recycled
34.8% of its municipal solid waste in 2007. This reflects a decrease from the 2006 recycling rate
of 36.2 % and falls below the recycling rate of 35.5% experienced in 2003. The Office estimates
that the overall result is accurate to within two (2) percentage points.

Approximately 33% of Maine’s recyclables are handled by municipal/public recycling programs.
The balance of recycling efforts statewide is the result of private business-generated and
managed recyclables, handled by private sector waste management companies.

Maine’s recycling rate grew rapidly in the first ten years following the enactment of the Maine
Solid Waste Management Act – from an estimated 17% in 1987 to 42% in 1997. It has since
leveled off, declining slightly each year since the high of 42%. Figure 4 shows the state’s
recycling rate over time.

The rapid rise in recycling rates from 1987 to 1997 was due to a concentrated effort by private
sector, local public programs, and the state acting in partnership, with recycling having not only
a priority statutory identity, but state level presence and support. During this time, the state
invested $12.5 million in local grants for recycling collection and processing equipment,
provided for statewide public education, and conducted hundreds of training workshops for local
officials. Since 1998, state funding has been available at a fraction of previous levels ($475,000
in 1998, $600,000 in 2003) and local programs compete with other municipal services for their
share of property tax dollars.

 Maine Statewide Recycling Rates
 1993-2006


 50
 41% 42%




 Percent Recycled
 40%
 40 37% 35% 36.4% 36.2%
 33% 34.8
 30
 20
 10
 0
 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007


 Figure 4: Maine Recycling Rates, 1993-2007
 Source: State Planning Office

At the same time, there has been an upward trend in municipal solid waste being generated.
Figure 5 shows the tons of waste disposed compared to the tons recycled. The growth in waste
generation prevents the recycling rate from increasing despite greater tonnages being recycled.


 - 13 -
 Maine Solid Waste Disposed vs. Recycled
 1993-2007


 1500000

 1000000
 Tons
 500000


 0
 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007

 Disposed Recycled


 Figure 5: Maine Solid Waste Disposed vs. Recycling, 1993-2007
 Source: State Planning Office

There are four broad reasons why recycling rates are falling behind generation rates.

First, recycling has not advanced aggressively into other components of the waste stream that are
growing, such as the organic fraction and construction and demolition debris.

Secondly, even though markets for traditional recycling commodities have grown throughout the
first half of this decade with strong revenues and encouraging price signals, municipal programs
have not sought to follow their lead and increase recycling efforts. This is primarily due to yearly
budget constraints that prevent investment to take advantage of market opportunities.

Thirdly, municipal programs typically view recycling as an “add-on” to their MSW program and
may lack confidence in recycling as an integral part of their management system, creating a
divide between what they are required to do by law and what they may desire to do.
And lastly, municipal recycling programs are often not extended to cover small businesses (i.e.
less than 15 employees, the threshold for required recycling under state law) so a large amount of
material is missed, falling in the gap between large scale commercial recovery and
municipal/residential resource recovery efforts.

B. EPA Definition
We can also compute the state recycling rate using the U. S. EPA’s definition for MSW, which
excludes CDD. When the 2007 statewide recycling rate for Maine is calculated using the EPA
guidelines, our statewide recycling rate becomes 38.8%. Table 5 shows the two methodologies
for calculating the state’s recycling rate and Figure 6 shows a comparative trend line.




 - 14 -
 Table 5: Maine Statewide Recycling with and without CDD
 2007

 Maine Definition (CDD included) EPA Definition (CDD not included)

 MSW with CDD MSW w/o CDD
 2,066,448 1,748,958
 generated generated

 MSW with CDD MSW w/o CDD
 718,613 692,987
 recycled recycled

 Recycling Rate 34.8%* Recycling Rate 39.6%*


 Maine's Statewide Recycling Rate
 1993-2007
 44%42% 43% 43% 43%
 45 41% 42% 42%
 40% 37% 39% 38.8
 40 35% 36%  36%
 35%
 35 33% 34.8
 30


 Perc entage
 25
 20
 15
 10
 5
 0
 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007
 Years Reported
 Rate with Maine's definition Rate with EPA's definition


 Figure 6: State Recycling Rate with and without CDD included
 Source: State Planning Office


Conclusion: Waste Characterization
Waste generation increases appear to have slowed. Societal changes and reduced packaging
contribute to this. Mainers are recycling more each year. Nevertheless, we continue to throw
away more. Our recycling rate cannot keep pace with waste generation.




 - 15 -
 Table 6: Type and Amount of Materials Recycled 1997-2007
Materials: 2007 2005 2003 2001 1999 1997

high grade paper 72,846 72,965 3,951 43,125 11,570 31,470
corrugated cardboard 117,324 117,144 88,166 202,129 198,442 214,536
newspaper 26,453 32,300 33,442 32,069 42,612 44,710
magazines 8,532 8,723 1,881 13,259 6,104 3,702
mixed paper 11,131 5,226 13,919 14,766 12,860 12,207
other paper 7,668 8,900 3,166 27,376 12,671 6,465
other grades 42,210 36,805 132,475
Total paper 286,164 282,063 277,000 332,724 284,259 313,090

clear glass 10,656 11,058 6,334 11,706 8,324 10,590
brown glass 23,544 24,377 11,270 12,200 12,545 7,060
green glass 11,878 12,622 3,142 6,700 26,167 11,767
all other glass 3,442 3,598 21,672 620 440 1,734
Total glass 49,520 51,655 42,418 31,226 47,476 31,151

white goods 82,493 78,401 68,125 115,219 142,640 122,895
aluminum 2,454 2,163 2,109 6,100 1,862 1,332
tin cans 1,989 1,089 3,154 9,754 18,833 10,693
non ferrous 25,655 23,213 18,847 22,491 18,652 21,572
other (various
materials) 72434 68,432 68,984
Total Metal 185,025 173,298 161,219 153,564 181,987 156,492

HDPE 8,530 9,377 3,420 2,274 4,410 4,160
PET 5,277 4,766 8,725 9,042 6,521 6,021
LDPE film 576 526 711 4
polystyrene 8 0 554 6 6
Other 798 631 531 1,917 1,211 1,042
Total Plastic 15,181 15,308 13,387 13,791 12,148 11,229

wood waste 86,544 93,582 92,154 40,443 41,103 38,402
leaves 29,448 29,938 33,376 26,340 27,421 24,528
food waste 214 142 2,623 23,744 24,582 23,240
Total Organic 116,206 123,662 128,153 90,527 93,106 86,170

tires 30,545 30,374 35,467 19,621 32,530 30,559
CDD, other wastes 25,626 23,425 49,714 38,848 39,469 44,209
Mercury-added/UW 848 487 327 242
Total Hard to Manage 57,019 54,286 85,508 58,711 71,999 74,768


Textiles 2,196 1,724 2,260 3,827 6,023 1,726
Other nonbulky
MSW 7,302 6,935 7,638 3,445 2,740 5,252


TOTAL TONS
 718,613 708,931 717,583 687,815 699,738 679,878
RECYCLED:




 - 16 -
II. Solid Waste Management Infrastructure Capacity
Recycling Capacity
Maine cities and towns by law are responsible for providing for municipal solid waste disposal.
Title 38, Chapter 13, section 1305 states, “Each municipality shall provide solid waste disposal
services for domestic and commercial solid waste generated within the municipality…”

Individual municipalities and regions are not required to achieve a 50% recycling rate; but they
are required to demonstrate progress towards the goal. Recycling progress varies from
community to community, but overall programs removed 90,000 tons of paper and plastic and
metal and glass containers from the state’s waste stream that would otherwise need disposal, and
recycled an additional 137,000 tons from other waste streams in 2007.

Based on what we generate today, municipal and private sector recycling programs would need
to handle 300,000 tons more of material to achieve a 50% recycling goal. This number will grow
each year to match projected increases in waste generation.6

Over the next 20 years, simply to maintain a 35% recycling rate will require public and private
programs to double their recycling handling abilities. As waste generation increases, the volume
of recyclable materials at a 35% rate will increase from 700,000 tons in 2007 to 1.6 million tons
in 2027.

To achieve and maintain a 50% recycling goal by 2009 would mean processing 30 million tons
from the waste stream over the 20-year period as shown in Figure 7 (increasing from 700,000
tons in 2007, to 1 million tons in 2009 and 2.4 million tons by 2027).

 Tons Recycled to Achieve a 50% Recycling Goal,
 2007-2027

 2500000
 2000000

 Tons
 1500000
 1000000
 500000
 0
 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2027



 Figure 7: Tons Recycled to Achieve a 50% Recycling Goal
 Source: State Planning Office




6
 Based on an assumed 4% annual growth in municipal solid waste generation.


 - 17 -
Currently municipalities do not have the capacity to handle these kinds of new volumes; neither
the physical (buildings and equipment) nor human (staffing) capacity. Municipal recycling
programs currently handle, on average, 90,000 tons of fiber, packaging, products and container
recycled materials per year. The Office estimates that they have additional capacity for another
roughly 25 to 30,000 tons annually.7

The private sector can likely handle additional tonnages or be in a position to respond with
capital investment needs to grow their tonnages if the economics warrant it.

There are concerns over where this volume would come from. Higher yields and participation
rates can be stimulated with public awareness programs, incentives such as pay as you throw,
and technological advances including single sort. Many communities are taking these kinds of
actions, but greater effort is needed to generate the tonnage to achieve a 50% recycling goal.

Today there is sufficient down time at most the regional recycling centers8 that most of the
changes needed to meet future capacity needs at those facilities can be met by additional labor
time and increases in personnel. There will always be the requirement to have sufficient funds to
repair/maintain and replace equipment, but not necessarily the demand to expand processing
capacity (i.e. adding more and bigger balers). An alternative would be to add new stationary or
mobile infrastructure in order to change over single sort recycling systems, which partially
eliminates the need for additional personnel.

We can look at ecomaine for a real world example. They are actively seeking more recycling
tonnage to go from their 2007 level of approximately 25,000 tons to 40,000 tons. At the higher
figure they can run their new MRF at capacity for a single shift. To double that tonnage over 17
years will take some refinement of their current operation to improve throughput, eventually
adding a second shift to as their projected throughput builds from 40,000 to 80,000 tons. That
one additional shift at that one facility represents 25% of the future recycling capacity needs of
Maine’s municipalities.

The gradual increase in material levels over the next several years will mean that municipalities
will also see pressure to move towards more efficient collection/aggregation systems whether
that be improvements in curbside systems or the move from drop off to curbside, or larger more
efficient drop offs that eliminate bottle necks and over handling.

It is anticipated that future municipal recycling infrastructure costs will be for collection,
containment, and storage, for the traditional recycling stream, and expanding into organics
diversion through composting and to accommodate increased CDD recycling.

It will take significant infrastructure capital investment, by both the public and private waste
management sectors to achieve our 50% recycling goal. Maine should begin to prepare now to
build the infrastructure needed to manage an increase in recycling.
7
  This does not include the ecomaine recycling collection and processing expansion that is predicted to add 15,000
tons a year of recyclable material or expansion of other single stream materials recovery efforts.
8
  A regional recycling center is defined here as 2 or more communities, several balers or at least one horizontal
baler, a tipping floor to handle large amounts of incoming materials, sufficient bale storage for a truckload of more
than one type of material, with a transport and marketing system in place and sufficient personnel and auxiliary
equipment.


 - 18 -
Processing and Disposal Capacity
In 2007, Maine’s solid waste disposal facilities included: one state-owned landfill, two
commercial landfills, eight municipally-operated landfills, (including Greenville in closure
negotiations) 23 municipal construction and demolition debris (CDD) landfills, and four waste-
to-energy facilities. Several processing facilities/operations were available for managing
construction and demolition debris.

Assumption: Capacity figures provided for the state-owned and commercial landfills assume that
operations of those facilities achieve a one-to-one ratio of tons-to-cubic yards using best
management practices for landfill compaction.

A. Landfills
Landfills receive a variety of wastes, and that variety differs among the facilities,
depending upon what their approval allows for acceptable wastes. Included in that variety
of wastes is: raw garbage, construction and demolition debris, residues and ash from waste
to energy facilities, contaminated soils, sludge, ash from bio-mass operations, and other
special wastes. This report focuses on municipal solid waste, including construction and
demolition debris as well as the residues from the processing of those wastes, but in
reviewing landfill capacity, the tonnages of the other special wastes that are accepted by
the landfills do consume capacity, and for that reason, those wastes and their impact on
landfill capacity is included in this report.

1. State-owned Landfill9

In 2007, the state-owned landfill in Old Town, known as Juniper Ridge, received a total of
472,600 tons of in-state generated waste, of which 151,073 tons were municipal solid waste and
CDD and another 158,877 tons were residues from processing or incineration of MSW. The
balance of the waste buried at the landfill included various types of sludge, contaminated soils
and approved wastes from other in-state commercial and industrial generators (non-MSW
wastes).

 Assessment of Facility
 Available disposal capacity remaining at Juniper Ridge at the end of 2007 was
 approximately 8,462,000 cubic yards, which translates into space for approximately 7.15
 million tons of solid waste. At projected fill rates10, the present licensed capacity should
 provide 10-12 years of disposal capacity for the state.

 Starting in 2009/2010, however, with the closure of the Pine Tree Landfill and the
 initiation of processing at the planned construction/demolition processing facility in

9
 The State Planning Office owns 1500 acres of land in T2 R8 (near Lincoln), upon which a special waste landfill was permitted
in the mid 1990s. Known as Carpenter Ridge, it has a landfill design for about two million cubic yards of waste. It was acquired
by the former Maine Waste Management Agency and has been held by the state for disposal capacity when it is needed.
10
 The State Planning Office projects that wastes delivered to Juniper Ridge will average 550,000 tons per year, but will increase
to 850,000 tons per year starting in 2010, with wastes diverted from the planned closure of the Pine Tree Landfill in 2009, and
from additional residues and wastes generated from CDD processing operations within the state.


 - 19 -
 Westbrook (as permitted by Casella Waste Systems, Inc.) an expected additional 300,000
 tons of wastes will be delivered to the Juniper Ridge Landfill for disposal. With the
 addition of these wastes, the consumption of the space at the landfill is expected to
 change, from approximately one ton of waste per cubic yard of space to 0.8 tons of waste
 per cubic yard. This change impacts the planned life of the landfill, leaving
 approximately 10 years of remaining capacity, at the end of 2007.

2. Commercial Landfills

Maine has two commercial landfills grandfathered under the 1989 Solid Waste Management Act
that banned the development of new commercial disposal facilities. Having the commercial
landfills has provided competition and disposal options for municipal solid waste, construction
and demolition debris, and special wastes. The two commercial landfills are:

  • Crossroads Landfill, located in Norridgewock, owned by Waste Management, Inc.
  • Pine Tree Landfill, located in Hampden, owned by Casella Waste Services, Inc.

The Crossroads Landfill is permitted to take special waste, municipal solid waste, and
construction and demolition debris. It provides recycling and disposal services on a contract
basis for municipalities and businesses. It currently serves 30+ Maine communities in Western
Maine. In 2007, the landfill accepted 336,854 tons of solid waste. Of that tonnage, 182,525 tons
were Maine generated municipal solid waste and CDD and 19,922 tons of residues from the
processing of MSW. The balance of wastes included Maine generated special wastes (59,974
tons), and CDD and special wastes generated outside of Maine (74,433 tons).

The Pine Tree Landfill is permitted to take special waste, by-pass municipal solid waste, and
construction and demolition debris. In 2007, the Pine Tree Landfill accepted 557,793 tons of
solid waste. Of that tonnage, 39,058 tons were Maine generated municipal solid waste, CDD and
158,133 tons of residues from its processing. The balance of wastes included Maine generated
special wastes (35,971 tons) and MSW by-pass, CDD and special wastes generated outside of
Maine (324,631 tons). Through an agreement reached among the Town of Hampden, Maine
Department of Environmental Protection and the landfill’s owner, the landfill will cease
accepting solid waste by the end of December 2009.

 Assessment of Facilities
 The total disposal capacity currently licensed at these two commercial landfills is
 approximately 5.0 million cubic yards. The majority of this capacity is at the Crossroads
 Landfill, with an estimated 3.9 million cubic yards of capacity remaining at the end of 2007.
 Table 7 shows estimated remaining disposal capacity at the commercial landfills.




 - 20 -
 Table 7: Capacity at Maine’s Commercial Landfills – end of 2007
 Estimate in years
 2007 Fill Remaining Remaining
 of life remaining
 Rate Capacity Capacity
 based on 2007 fill
 (tons) (Cubic Yards) (tons)
 rates
Crossroads Landfill 336,854 3,900,000 3,900,000 10-12 years
Pine Tree Landfill 557,793 1,000,000 970,000 < 2 years
Total 894,647 4,900,000 4,870,000

3. Municipal MSW Landfills

In 2007, 107,248 tons of solid wastes and 59,100 tons of ash were disposed at nine municipally-
operated landfills. Table 8 provides information on each individual landfill, including fill rates
and estimated available remaining capacity.

 Assessment of Facilities
 Among the seven municipally-operated MSW landfills (excluding Greenville and West
 Forks), there is just over 2.4 million cubic yards of remaining available capacity that can
 accept 1.56 million tons of municipal solid waste. This capacity is sufficient to carry
 those communities for 15 years (on average), supposing a relatively flat growth in the
 volume of municipal solid waste requiring disposal.

 The actual remaining life varies for each landfill, resulting in ‘unevenness’ of municipal
 capacity across the state. This variation, as to when a particular community or region may
 exhaust their current disposal capacity, is independent and possibly irrespective of any
 possible statewide disposal capacity concern, but will be of significant concern to those
 regions.

 Bath and Brunswick are two of the state’s oldest secure landfills. Brunswick serves only
 its own residents and businesses. Both communities are adopting programs to extend the
 life of their landfills, such as ‘pay-as-you-throw’ (PAYT) and single stream recycling
 collection. The Hatch Hill Landfill in Augusta serves eight communities and was recently
 expanded. None of these facilities is expected to expand beyond their current footprint.

 Together, the Presque Isle and Tri-Community (Fort Fairfield) landfills serve nearly 50
 communities in Aroostook County. Both are currently seeking expansions that will serve
 those communities for an additional fifty years.

 As part of an arrangement with the Mid Maine Waste Action Corporation, the City of
 Lewiston brings its waste to the MMWAC incinerator in Auburn. MMWAC, in
 exchange, disposes its incinerator ash at the Lewiston landfill. In addition, the Lewiston
 Landfill accepts CDD and other wastes.




 - 21 -
 Table 8: Municipal Landfill Tonnages – 2007
 Remaining
 Remaining Years of life remaining
 2007 Fill Rate Capacity
 Capacity based on 2007 fill rates at
 (tons) Cubic Yards
 (tons) .65 tons/yard11
 (est.)
MSW Landfills: 12
Bath 23,552 422,000 274,300 11 years
Brunswick 4,850 140,000 91,400 19 years
Greenville see footnote 600 56,000 36,500 60 years
Hatch Hill
 25,961 937,000 609,000 20 years
(Augusta)
Presque Isle 20,140 149,900 85,800 4 years
Tri-Community
 31,145 703,800 457,500 18 years
(Fort Fairfield)
CFWF (West
 1000 (est.) 8,000 5,000 <1 year
Forks)see footnote
Total Tons: 107,248*
Total Remaining
Capacity (est.) 2,416,700 1,559,500
 Remaining
 2007 Fill Remaining Years of life remaining
 Capacity
 Rate Capacity based on 2007 fill rates at
 Cubic Yards
 (tons) (tons) 1 ton/yard
 (est.)
Ash Landfills:
ecomaine 40,320 915,700 915,700 20-30 years
Lewiston 18,780 268,750 268,750 12 years
Total Tons: 59,100
Total Remaining
Capacity (est.) 1,184,450 1,184,450


4. Municipal CDD Disposal Facilities

In 2007, 17 municipal disposal facilities reported accepting locally-generated construction and
demolition debris (CDD), inert fill, brush, and trees. Local facilities furnish a ‘short-transport’
option for the management of these wastes. A total estimated 28,000 tons of materials were
buried at these sites during 2007; this is a decrease from the 34,839 tons landfilled in 2005, as
shown in Figure 8.

11
 Different ton-cubic yard conversion rates are used for different facilities. Household, baggable waste at municipal
landfills typically converts at 0.65 tons per cubic yard. Ash is heavier than municipal solid waste, so SPO uses a 1:1
conversion rate with one ton equaling one cubic yard. Commercial landfills, with heavier equipment for compaction
and more varied waste streams, also typically achieve a 1:1 conversion rate.
*
 83,043 tons were municipal solid waste or construction demolition debris. The balance was other wastes,
including special wastes.
12
 The CFWF landfill ceased operations in 2008. The Greenville landfill is in closure negotiations.


 - 22 -
 Maine Generated CDD Disposed in Municipal CDD Landfills
 1999-2007
 70000
 60000
 50000
 40000
 tons 30000
 20000
 10000
 0
 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007


 Figure 8: Maine CDD Disposed in Municipal CDD Landfills, 1999-2007
 Source: State Planning Office

Assessment of Facilities
The remaining capacity at individual CDD facilities varies. Although statewide numbers
indicate landfill space exists for an overall capacity sufficient for another 10-12 years, a
number of these facilities will be full before then, creating ‘pockets’ where CDD disposal
options will need to be reconsidered. Four of the facilities have an estimated six years or
less of capacity at current fill rates and licensed footprints. One site, located in Marion
Township in Washington County, is expected to be full in 2-3 years and the owners of
that facility were pursuing development of a replacement disposal site, but those plans
have been shelved for 2009.

CDD disposal capacity and management continue to be problematic. These materials are
unacceptable at waste-to-energy facilities and cannot be recycled or reused without
investment in equipment, labor, and sufficient land area to aggregate and process them.
Markets for processed CDD and bulky wastes do exist but the small scale at which most
Maine towns operate limits access to those markets. Communities’ low volume and
dispersed facilities do not often produce the economics of scale needed for sustainable
recycling markets.

Maine has several commercial CDD processors: KTI Biofuels in Lewiston; Commercial
Paving and Recycling (CPRC) in Scarborough; and Plan-it Recycling in Gorham. KTI is
a fixed operation. It accepts only clean wood products (from in-state and out-of-state) for
processing for use as biomass fuel. CPRC used to provide mobile services but now
operates strictly from its Scarborough facility, hauling in material and shipping out the
finished product. Plan-It Recycling also operates from a fixed location. Casella Waste
Systems has permitted a CDD processing operation that would accept up to one thousand
tons of CDD per day in Westbrook and anticipates building that facility in 2009,
providing an additional outlet for Maine-generated CDD. There are also several
commercial wood chippers that move from site to site to manage smaller amounts of
wood waste.



 - 23 -
B. Waste-To-Energy Facilities
In 2007, 32% of Maine’s municipal solid waste was sent to a waste-to-energy (W-T-E) facility.
Maine’s W-T-E facilities received, 826,291 tons of MSW, down from 867,606 tons of MSW in
2006 as shown in Figure 9. Of this, 671,823 tons were generated in-state and 154,468 tons were
imported, both a decrease from 2006.


 Total MSW Accepted by W-T-E Facilities
 1999-2007


 1,000,000
 800,000
 600,000
 Tons
 400,000
 200,000
 0
 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007


 Figure 9: MSW Accepted by W-T-E Facilities, 1999-2006
 Source: Facility License Reports, Maine DEP

Table 9 shows the processing capacity of the four waste-to-energy facilities:


 Table 9: Maine W-T-E Capacity

 Annual Processing Capacity Tonnage Received in 2007
 Waste-to-energy Facility
 (tons/year)

 ecomaine 170,000 157,637

 Maine Energy (ME) 310,000 280,210

 Mid Maine Waste
 70,000 92,696
 Action Corporation (MMWAC)
 Penobscot Energy Recovery
 304,000 295,749
 Corporation (PERC)

 Total of W-T-E Facilities 854,000 826,292


The facilities provide both a product (electrical power) from combustion as well as a reduction of
the MSW tonnage requiring disposal, thus reducing the need for landfill capacity. They produce
a combined capacity of approximately 62 megawatts a day of electricity and reduce the volume
of waste requiring landfilling by about two-thirds.




 - 24 -
The four waste-to-energy facilities, while combusting MSW and producing electrical power, also
produce several streams of materials and residues: by-pass waste, front-end process residue, and
ash. These residues, which require disposal in landfills, comprise approximately one-third of the
waste processed by waste-to-energy facilities (see Figure 10 and Table 10).

 Maine W-T-E Plants, Management of Materials
 2007
 FEPR
 13%

 By-pass
 3%

 Combusted Ash
 60% 20%



 Metal
 3%



 Figure 10: Maine W-T-E Plants, Management of Materials
 Source: Facility License Reports, Maine DEP

 Table 10 - W-T-E – All Waste Streams - Combined Tonnages
 2006 2007
 Delivered MSW tonnage 867,606 826,292
 By-pass 36,183 27,014
 FEPR 122,512 110,016
 Metal 22,044 22,032
 Combusted 504,078 503,226
 Ash 169,000 164,003

1. By-pass Waste

By-pass waste is that portion of the municipal solid waste stream intended for delivery to and
incineration at a waste-to-energy facility but is diverted because the facility could not accept it.
Solid waste is ‘by-passed’ if there are operational interruptions or facility shut-downs or if the
facility reaches its operational capacity and cannot accept waste that it is contractually-obligated
to receive. The by-pass waste is typically delivered to a landfill for disposal.

2. Front-end Process Residue

Front-end process residue (FEPR) is removed prior to incineration, and may include ferrous
metals, glass, grit, and fine organic matter. While metals are recycled, most FEPR is landfilled.
In the past, FEPR was used in conjunction with landfill closure programs, but this is no longer a
viable outlet. The FEPR waste stream consumes landfill capacity, since alternatives to landfilling


 - 25 -
it do not readily exist. While some composting of FEPR has been done, the resulting product
typically contains contaminants that restrict its use to limited landfill cover applications only.

Maine Energy (MERC) and Penobscot Energy Recovery Company (PERC) use a ‘refuse derived
fuel’ technology and generate front-end process residue as a by-product of their operations.
These facilities dispose of the front-end process residue at the Pine Tree Landfill, though a
portion was delivered to other disposal facilities. Mid-Maine Waste Action Corporation
(MMWAC) and ecomaine use a ‘mass burn’ technology and do not produce FEPR.

3. Waste-To-energy Facility Ash

Ash is a by-product of incineration, is classified as a special waste, and is landfilled. The ash
from MERC and PERC was buried at the commercial landfills and Juniper Ridge. The ash from
MMWAC was buried at the City of Lewiston’s landfill and ecomaine’s ash was buried at their
landfill.

 Assessment of Facilities
 Three of these facilities are at or close to their 20th year of operation. The plants’
 maintenance programs, along with upgrades, have kept these facilities functioning well,
 and should continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The facilities are essentially in
 “as new” operating condition.

 Facility upgrades occur in response to environmental regulations, primarily aimed at air
 emissions reductions. All of the Maine W-T-E facilities perform at or better than their
 license requirements.

 Looking at future supply stream, 2018 is an important date in the planning process. On
 that date the majority of the municipal disposal contracts held with PERC and MERC
 will expire.

 To produce the electrical generation contracted for, waste-to-energy facilities need to
 operate at maximum capacities. The seasonal nature of waste generation causes tonnage
 overage problems during the summer months and the need to ‘attract’ additional tonnage
 during the winter months. Facilities bypass waste when they reach their daily operating
 capacity and import waste to make up for shortfalls (see Section IV.C on
 Imported/Exported Municipal Solid Waste).

C. Imported/Exported Municipal Solid Waste
Movement of solid waste across state lines is protected under interstate commerce laws.
Municipal solid waste is considered a commodity and is subject to fluctuations accruing to
supply and demand at the regional and national level.

During 2007, 456,580 tons of municipal solid wastes were imported to Maine, while exports




 - 26 -
totaled 60,491 tons. The amount of MSW imported to Maine is stabilizing while the amount
exported13 fluctuates as shown in Figures 11 and 12.

 Municipal Solid Waste Imported to Maine
 1997-2007
 500000
 450000
 400000
 350000
 300000
 250000
 200000
 150000
 100000
 50000
 0
 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007
 Tons
 MSW, Incinerated Unprocessed CDD, Landfilled MSW, Landfilled

 Figure 11: Municipal Solid Waste Imported to Maine, 1997-2007
 Source: State Planning Office



 Municipal Solid Waste Exported from Maine
 1993-2007

 160,000
 140,000
 120,000
 100,000

 Tons 80,000
 60,000
 40,000
 20,000
 0
 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007


 Figure 12: Municipal Solid Waste Exported from Maine
 Source: State Planning Office
Imported waste in 2007 consisted of approximately 33% municipal solid waste that was
incinerated and 66% construction and demolition debris that was landfilled (see Table 11).




13
 Exported waste was delivered to landfills in New Hampshire and New Brunswick for disposal.


 - 27 -
 Table 11: Imported Waste by Facility

 2006 2007
 MSW – Maine Energy (MERC) 136,472 117,320
 MSW – PERC 29,323 37,148
 MSW Landfilled – commercial landfills 7,547 8,576
 CDD Landfilled – Pine Tree 259,310 290,493
 CDD Landfilled – Crossroads 4,385 3,043
 Total Imported 437,037 456,580


Projected Waste Processing and Disposal Demands and Capacity
Based on our projections, Maine will require approximately 34 million cubic yards of landfill
capacity over the next 20 years to properly manage the municipal solid waste that is directly
landfilled, along with the residues generated by the four waste-to-energy facilities and other
processing facilities that also require landfilling. Over this same time, we project there will be 39
million cubic yards of capacity. With approval of the proposed additional disposal capacity,
Maine has sufficient capacity to meet its needs for the next 20 years.

A. Statewide Disposal Capacity
1. Capacity Needed

Disposal capacity is a factor of need versus availability. Maine generated just over two million
tons of waste in 2007. Assuming a 4% annual increase, we will generate over 4.6 million tons in
2027. With a 34.8% recycling rate, 1.6 million tons per year will be recycled, 0.86 million tons
will be sent to a W-T-E facility, leaving 2.4 million tons that will require landfilling.14 That
landfilled waste includes unprocessed solid waste, residues from waste to energy facilities and
processing operations, and special wastes such as ash. Figure 13 shows Maine’s projected
capacity needs over the next 20 years.

To handle this projected tonnage over the next 20 years, Maine will need 34 million cubic yards
of landfill capacity based on four assumptions.

 1. Continued growth in MSW generation at 4% per year (with no waste reduction
 assumptions built in and recycling at 34.8%). This four percent increase is conservative
 and it is possible that actual increases may be softened or eliminated by improved
 recycling and waste reduction efforts, or an uncertain economy. However, given that
 development of disposal capacity is not a quick or easy process, having adequate capacity
 anticipates that time lag and reduces the possibility of a shortage of capacity.
 2. Recycling tonnages increase as waste generation increases to maintain a 34.8% recycling
 rate.15

14
  Including out-of-state waste.
15
  Note that even to maintain a 34% recycling rate will require that Maine increase the tons recycled from 700,000 to
1.4 million tons over the next 20 years.


 - 28 -
 3. Imports decrease as Maine MSW replaces capacity at W-T-E facilities as generation
 increases and landfills close.
 4. Exports remain at 2007 levels.


 Projected Disposal Capacity

 3,000,000
 2,500,000
 2,000,000 State Landfill

 Tons
 Municipal Landfills
 1,500,000
 Commercial Landfills
 1,000,000
 Waste To Energy
 500,000
 0
 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
 Years out from 2007

 Figure 13: Maine Projected Capacity Needs in Tons, 2007 – 2027
 Source: State Planning Office

2. Projected Capacity Available

The projection of solid waste disposal capacity is based on these parameters:
 • continued operation of and reliance upon the four W-T-E facilities;
 • no significant change in municipally-operated landfills;
 • additional capacity is approved for the Presque Isle and Tri-Community landfills;
 • closing Pine Tree Landfill;
 • Crossroads Landfill ceasing operations around 2017; and
 • a license amendment and expansion permit for Juniper Ridge is approved.

Currently, we estimate that Maine has 17 million cubic yards of disposal capacity for municipal
solid waste and the residues from waste to energy facilities, as follows:
 • 2.4 million cubic yards in municipal landfills (1.9 million tons)
 • 1.2 million cubic yards in municipal landfills (1.2 million tons of ash)
 • 0.85 million cubic yards in municipal CDD landfills (170,000 tons)
 • 4.9 million cubic yards in commercial disposal facilities (4.7 million tons)
 • 8.5 million cubic yards in Juniper Ridge Landfill (7.4 million tons)

The amount of available disposal capacity will be affected by both increases and decreases in
capacity as follows.




 - 29 -
 Projected Consumed Capacity
 The planned closure of Pine Tree Landfill in 2009 will have an impact on Maine’s
 current solid waste management system, in that approximately 150,000 tons of in-state
 generated special wastes and construction and demolition debris waste that was annually
 disposed of at that landfill will be diverted to the Juniper Ridge Landfill. In addition, the
 residues from the processing of construction/demolition debris at Casella Waste System’s
 planned processing facility in Westbrook will also be directed to Juniper Ridge, an
 additional 150,000 to 200,000 tons expected. The planned closure responds to state
 policy adopted in 1989 that sought to restrict additional private sector development of
 disposal capacity.

 Projected Planned Capacity
 The State Planning Office is seeking an additional 22.5 million cubic yards (18 million
 tons) of disposal capacity at the state-owned Juniper Ridge Landfill. The effort to permit
 the proposed capacity expansion at Juniper Ridge is currently underway and is planned to
 be submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection in early 2009. That review
 is expected to take several years and if approved and permitted, will provide disposal
 capacity to the state for an additional 15 to 20 years over its current life.

 Impact of Recycling on Disposal
 Recycling will continue to divert significant tonnages from disposal. The State Planning
 Office estimates that over 20 years, recycling will divert 20 million tons (cumulatively)
 from disposal at today’s 34.8% rate.

 Out-of-state Waste
 The types and amount of out-of-state waste will likely shift in response to changes in
 Maine’s waste generation and management systems.

 The waste-to-energy facilities that currently take out-of-state waste will continue to rely
 upon it to fulfill their boiler needs and power contracts. However, the State Planning
 Office anticipates that as Maine-generated solid waste tonnages needing disposal
 increase, waste-to-energy facilities’ need for imported municipal solid waste will
 decrease. The state’s commercial landfills will continue to accept unprocessed CDD from
 out-of-state for economic reasons. But as those facilities fill up and close, imported waste
 will drop.

 For purposes of this report, we estimate a 4% annual reduction in MSW imported and
 decreases in unprocessed CDD to a nominal amount by 2015, or an estimated 4 million
 cubic yards (cumulatively) over 20 years.

3. Projected Disposal Capacity, Available vs. Needed

Based on the above analysis, Maine will have an estimated 39 million cubic yards of landfill
capacity over the next 20 years, more than meeting our need for nearly 32 million cubic yards as
shown in Table 12.




 - 30 -
 Table 12: Projected Disposal Capacity Available vs. Needed
 2007-2027

 Landfill Capacity Available Capacity Needed
 (cubic yards) (tons)
 2,416,700 Total waste 65,000,000
 Municipal Landfills
 generated
 Municipal CDD 850,000
 Imported Waste 4,000,000
 Landfills
 Commercial 4,900,000 Recycled (22,000,000)
 Juniper Ridge 8,462,000 Exported (1,200,000)
 Juniper Ridge Diverted to,
 22,500,000 combusted at W-T-E
 (12,000,000)
 expansion
 Total Landfill Total Landfill
 39,128,700 33,800,000
 Capacity Available: Capacity Needed:
Source: State Planning Office

While Maine has sufficient landfill capacity to meet its needs, we must not become complacent.
Siting new disposal capacity is a costly and highly volatile undertaking. Maine should do all that
it can to make the existing capacity last beyond the next two decades. This will require state and
local investment in waste reduction and recycling.

In addition, while the state makes use of the remaining capacity at commercial and municipal
landfills in these projections, the state does not have any direct control over the rate at which the
capacity is consumed at those facilities. In 2007, the state prohibited the disposal of out-of-state
wastes in municipal landfills but does not control access to that capacity from waste streams
generated within the state.

B. Regional Capacity Issues
Regionally, Maine is divided into “waste sheds” with waste feeding into regional disposal
facilities. Some waste sheds are geographically large like PERC (170+ communities) and the
Crossroads landfill (30+ communities), some receive municipal solid waste from a single
community or a small region, such as the two landfills on the mid-coast in Brunswick and Bath.
While this report typically looks at statewide disposal capacity, the State Planning Office has
identified some regional or local areas where disposal capacity is uneven or in flux.

1. Regions in Flux

 Aroostook County
 The Presque Isle Landfill is currently seeking approval of an expansion that is part of an
 engineered solution to ongoing environmental issues that will, if the entire proposal is
 pursued and approved, provide in excess of 50 years capacity. Closure of the existing
 site by the end of 2010 is also being discussed in the context of negotiations on a
 schedule of compliance.




 - 31 -
 The Tri-Community Landfill in Fort Fairfield is also seeking a landfill expansion at this
 time, which will serve those communities for another 15-20 years. These efforts will
 require significant local resources but should not disrupt the solid waste capacity in the
 region.

 Washington County
 The Marion Regional CDD Landfill in Marion Township is reaching capacity and is
 expected to close in 2008-9. A new construction and demolition debris landfill for that
 region was in the planning stages in 2008, but the plans have been scrapped for 2009. The
 potential sources and volumes of the waste, potential costs, intermittent participation in
 the process by the local communities and their lack of buy-in to the project were given as
 the reasons. The fate of the project is uncertain.

 York County
 In 2006, local officials undertook an effort to purchase and close the Maine Energy W-T-
 E facility. This facility, which serves about 36 communities in York County, is located in
 downtown Biddeford. Proposals were put to the voters in Biddeford and Saco to raise the
 money to buy the facility but were turned down.

 The loss of disposal capacity in Southern Maine would disrupt Maine’s waste
 management system, but it would not precipitate a crisis. The loss could be absorbed
 through a combination of aggressive waste reduction and recycling efforts by
 communities in the service area, transporting waste to other instate and out-of-state
 disposal facilities16, and, with a possible license amendment to Juniper Ridge to accept
 “bagged” or household MWS, transporting waste there.17 The state, municipalities, and
 the private sector would need to work in partnership to find the best solution for the long
 term.18 These solutions must take into account the environmental impacts of the long
 distance transport of the waste.

Conclusion: Infrastructure Capacity
Maine has a mature infrastructure for both recycling and disposal. Recycling infrastructure,
nearing two decades of use, will need upgrading and expansion to accommodate the increase in
materials to meet the 50% recycling goal. Maine’s combination of W-T-E facilities and state-
owned, commercial, and municipal landfills provide sufficient disposal capacity for 20 years.




16
 The cost-benefit of transporting wastes long distances would have to be considered.
17
 Any change in the type of waste accepted at Juniper Ridge would require approval from the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection.
18
 Another consideration for this region is the contract renewal for electrical generation payments. A lower price
could increase tip fees and impact volumes at the ME facility.


 - 32 -
III. Assessing the Effectiveness of Current State Policies
Recent Policy Discussions
The three previous state solid waste plans were products of the times in which they were written.
The 1990 plan signaled the start of Maine’s “modern” era of waste management. The 1993 plan
was essentially a progress report written just after a large infusion of public bond funds into the
state’s municipal recycling infrastructure. The 1998 plan noted the success of the ten-year-old
policies, the high point in the state’s recycling rate, and what had occurred in the three years
since the demise of the Maine Waste Management Agency. This plan is no exception and reflects
the last five years, during which:

 ¾ In 2003, the Legislature authorized the state acquisition of the Juniper Ridge Landfill. In
 directing the state to purchase the landfill, the Legislature hoped to achieve two public
 policy goals: providing statewide land disposal capacity, and aiding a financially troubled
 paper company and the jobs it represented for the Penobscot region. Maine became the
 one of only two states to own a landfill and the only state to directly own a landfill
 without creating an intermediary authority.

 ¾ In the fall of 2005, 35 people representing the interests of state, regional, and local
 government, public entities, citizens groups, environmental organizations, the private
 sector and the general public came together as the Solid Waste Policy Review Task
 Force.19 They reviewed current policies and concluded that the state should maintain the
 ban on commercial disposal facilities, continue to apply the waste management hierarchy,
 and expand efforts to achieve the 50% recycling goal.

 ¾ The Legislature’s Natural Resources Committee was prompted to form a Blue Ribbon
 Commission to examine questions on how Maine manages its municipal solid waste. The
 Commission met in several locations throughout the summer and fall of 2006 and
 reported out legislation for consideration by the Second Regular Session of the 123rd
 Legislature (LD 1908).20

 ¾ At the direction of the Legislature, a new, permanent state Solid Waste Management
 Advisory Committee was formed to replace the Solid Waste Policy Review Task Force.
 This committee met for the first time in June 2008.

The 123rd Legislature passed several pieces of significant solid waste legislation that in sum
acted to strengthen the solid waste hierarchy.




19
 The report of the Solid Waste Policy Review Task Force, April 2006, can be found on-line at: http://mainegov-
images.informe.org/spo/recycle/docs/wastepolicytaskforce_finalreport04-24-06.pdf.
20
 The report of the Blue Ribbon Task Force, date, can be found on-line at:
http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/solidwaste/blueribbon/.


 - 33 -
Years of Decisions, Decades of Consequences
Coming into 1987, the state faced a solid waste disposal crisis. That crisis was the backdrop for
our current policy. There was a potential landfill capacity shortage. Recycling, as a waste
management strategy, was accounting for well under ten percent of the waste stream. There was
no integrated waste management approach.

In less than three years, we as a state, by actions of the Legislature, decided how we wanted to
manage our municipal solid waste. To a great degree, the structure of our current system is a
reflection of those few basic decisions made 20 years ago.

The priority objectives were to:
 1. bring the state’s landfill disposal into compliance and end the use of unlined landfill
 disposal;
 2. prevent the state from becoming a disposal site for MSW produced by the “BosWash”
 megalopolis to our south; and
 3. place into law a policy to pursue a coordinated statewide waste reduction, recycling, and
 management program implemented through an integrated approach generally referred to
 as the waste management hierarchy.

To assist in achieving these objectives, the Legislature placed the following into law:
 ¾ a ban on new commercial disposal facilities;
 ¾ state authority to acquire and to oversee land disposal capacity;
 ¾ reinforced municipal responsibility for disposal services; and
 ¾ a statewide 50% recycling goal.

These laws were applied through a comprehensive set of solid waste rules over all processing
and disposal activities and facilities coupled with financial and technical assistance programs.

A. Ending the Use of Unlined Landfills
To address the looming environmental, financial, and legal problems posed by grandfathered
landfills, the Maine Legislature established closure dates for unlicensed landfills and created the
Solid Waste Landfill Remediation and Closure Program to close landfills that pose hazards to
public health and the environment. Under the landfill closure program, in full swing by the late
1980s, the hundreds of small, open, unlined landfills that had been the standard means of local
disposal for all manner of wastes for a century rapidly disappeared from the landscape.

 Outcome: Bringing Municipally-owned Land Disposal Operations into
 Environmental Compliance
 In the last two decades, the number of open, operating, unlined, publicly-owned MSW
 landfills has shrunk from over 300, ranging in size from covering hundreds of acres to
 only two acres, in Greenville and West Forks, which are in near term closure
 negotiations.

 Just eight licensed municipal landfills are currently in operation, with individual
 remaining capacity ranging from 6 to 30 years at current fill rates. Only a few


 - 34 -
 municipalities built their own replacement landfills, many joining with neighboring
 towns to develop regional facilities.

 These landfills are supplemented by some two dozen municipally-owned landfills
 restricted in size to less than six acres and to the disposal of construction and demolition
 debris only (CDD.)

 Today, landfills overall provide 25% of the disposal needs for Maine’s unprocessed
 municipal solid waste and provide disposal services for the ash and process residue of the
 waste-to-energy facilities.

B. Controlling Out-of-state Waste
The Legislature placed restrictions on expansions of existing commercial landfills and banned
the construction and operation of all new commercial disposal facilities.21 The ban on new
commercial disposal facilities was put in place to shield the state from the importation of ‘out-of-
state’ waste.

 Outcome: Banning New Commercial Disposal Facilities
 In 2008, the number of commercially-owned and operated solid waste landfills remains at
 two, the same number as 20 years ago, due to the continuous enforcement of the
 commercial landfill ban.

C. Ensuring Sufficient Disposal Capacity
In the 1980s, the federal government provided funding to states to invest in alternative solid
waste management and disposal systems for energy production. The city of Auburn constructed a
waste-to-energy facility using mass burn technology to serve its needs and the needs of several
surrounding communities, forming the Mid Maine Waste Action Corporation (MMWAC).

Portland area communities had previously joined together to form the Regional Waste Systems
(RWS). Regional Waste Systems (now ecomaine) also built a mass burn waste-to-energy facility.
Private companies22 built two refuse-derived fuel facilities large enough to serve regions in York
County (in Biddeford) and in Bangor-Brewer (in Orrington) and signed long-term contracts with
those towns to provide the waste needed by those facilities. 180 communities have 23%
ownership in the PERC facility in Orrington with their interests represented by a Municipal
Review Committee, the MRC.

Over 32% of Maine’s MSW, almost 700,000, tons is now delivered to and processed for its fuel
value in one of the four waste-to-energy (W-T-E) facilities, prior to landfilling. In 2007 the four
W-T-Es required landfill space for 301,000 tons of ash, residue and by pass wastes.

From the outset, one of the state’s priorities was to make sure that the operations of the four in-
state W-T-Es would not be affected by a sudden loss of in-state land disposal capacity for their
by-products of ash and front-end process residue.

21
 Publicly-owned disposal facilities were exempted from this ban.
22
 Both W-T-E facilities were built prior to the ban on commercial disposal facilities.


 - 35 -
In order to ensure that there would be sufficient disposal capacity available, the 1989 Solid
Waste Management and Recycling Act gave the state the authority to own, design, develop, and
operate new solid waste disposal facilities.

That authority, coupled with municipal reluctance to take on the debt and the social and
environmental liabilities associated with land disposal, has meant the state has taken on the role
of provider of last resort for disposal capacity in Maine.

The state-owned special waste landfill would be a safety net to be brought on line when disposal
capacity was needed.

The state purchased land then owned by Lincoln Pulp and Paper on Carpenter Ridge in T2 R8. It
was then successfully permitted as a state-owned special waste landfill that remains to this day
ready to be developed when it is needed.

The state’s strategy to provide capacity for land disposal within Maine has increased by a factor
of five with this recent acquisition of Juniper Ridge with 10 million cubic yards adding to the 1.9
million cubic yards of capacity currently permitted at the Carpenter Ridge site.

 Outcome: Sufficient Disposal Capacity
 Maine has in-state disposal capacity for municipal solid waste and special waste for the
 next 12-30 years. This is the direct result of the continued investment in W-T-E upgrades
 and acquisition and development of Juniper Ridge.23

D. Fostering the Solid Waste Management Hierarchy
The 1989 law established a hierarchy of Maine waste management systems. The Legislature also
established ambitious waste recycling goals. It instituted both incentives, in the form of credits,
grants, and loans, (not currently available) and disincentives, in the form of deposits and fees
(removed or expired), to encourage appropriate waste management practices. It also provided in
statute for financial and technical assistance to municipalities and businesses to further these
practices.

The hierarchy guides state and local decisions regarding solid waste funding and grants,
investments in, and the permitting of, solid waste management facilities, the operation of such
facilities, and the management of residential and commercial waste.

 Outcome: Toxics Reduction Success
 In order to reduce the toxicity of the waste stream, the state has aggressively pursued
 eliminating the use for and of the overwhelming majority of mercury-added products.
 Today, mercury-added products from all sources are banned from disposal within Maine
 and must be recycled. Maine also enacted a first-in-the-nation program for the collection
 and recycling of electronic waste. Devices, such as computer monitors and TVs
 containing cathode ray tubes, cellular phones, and other electronic wastes from all


23
  The range in the time frame is based on current projected fill rates and reflects status under current license
restrictions versus the potential expanded build out of the facility.


 - 36 -
sources are banned from disposal within Maine and must be recycled, the responsibility
for proper management shared among the manufacturer, government, and consumer.

In addition to these state-initiated, targeted, pollution prevention programs, many
municipalities now offer once-a-year collection for the category of MSW known as
household hazardous wastes (HHW). In 2007, 140 municipalities offered such
opportunities to their residents. Maine now has two permanent facilities for HHW
collection located in Lewiston and Portland open to all Maine citizens. These efforts
target a small but toxic part of the municipal waste stream for action.

The Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) program created by the Maine State Legislature
to reduce the amount of toxic substances introduced annually into Maine’s environment
from industrial generators, has also had several notable accomplishments including:
 1. significant reductions at existing facilities in toxic use, release, and hazardous
 waste categories;
 2. continued success with outreach and education particularly to smaller facilities
 without full-time environmental staff and in need of greater technical assistance
 (outreach examples include assisting smaller companies in switching from toxic
 cleaners and solvents to less hazardous or non-hazardous chemicals);
 3. implementation of cost accounting (comparing the costs of utilizing toxic
 chemicals and generating hazardous waste with the economical benefits of
 reducing such use and generation) along with introducing worker safety concepts
 that reduce worker exposure to toxics; and
 4. an emerging opportunity in the TURA program to track new toxics coming into
 the marketplace and to utilize the technical assistance tools adapted by DEP staff
 to address them.

Outcome: Recycling Success
Through steady local, state, private and public support for recycling and composting and
long-term growth of these management systems, in-state markets have developed for the
recycling and compost resources diverted from the waste stream, and are further
supported by similar gains in regional, national, and global markets.

Over twenty million dollars of state and local match bond funding have resulted in
recycling programs and facilities that now consistently manage the municipal share of the
approximately 33% of our MSW currently recycled, accomplished through a series of
local collection and regional processing programs.

Over 98% of Maine residents and the commercial sector have access to public or private
recycling programs that have grown from just 24 programs in place twenty years ago to
320 working programs today. Over 60% of Maine communities have reached a 35%
recycling rate or better. Over 22% have reached a fifty percent or better.

One third of Maine’s MSW, over 700,000 tons, is physically removed from the waste
stream, separated and collected and sent to manufacturers both in-state and around the
world for use as replacement of virgin raw materials in their manufacturing processes
(recycling). Approximately two-thirds of these recyclables are collected by the private


 - 37 -
 sector from the private sector. The remaining percentage is diverted through municipal
 programs from residents and local commercial sources.

 Though the state made good gains, reaching a high point of 42% in 1997, Maine has yet
 to reach the 50% recycling goal in statute for 2009, and in 2007 had the same rate as in
 the mid-1990s.

 Outcome: The Hierarchy Applied
 As of 2005, waste reduction is now recognized in statute with its own goal. Reuse has
 gained status through widespread public support for the local institution of municipal
 reuse centers at transfer stations. On a much larger scale, the Department of
 Environmental Protection’s solid waste rules (Chapter 418) governing the beneficial use
 of solid waste encourage such opportunities through clear guidelines and standards.

 It has been left to municipalities to put the hierarchy into practice as there is no state law
 mandating the recycling of the majority of the components of Maine’s municipal solid
 waste, other than those discussed above under toxics reduction, or the recovery of its
 organic fraction. The only state wide disposal bans are on white goods, whole tires in
 landfills and car batteries, again except for those that apply to toxics reduction.

 This local exercise of choice in the degree and method of recycling has determined the
 wide variation in our largely voluntary recycling system and in our level of support for
 the hierarchy.

 While the goal was to develop a statewide integrated waste management system based on
 the hierarchy, it was left to local governments to build the links of one approach in the
 hierarchy to another and how to assure that all resources worth recovering would be
 removed prior to land disposal.

 Waste management programs have tended to flatten the hierarchy in order to focus on the
 maintenance of a stable range of prices of disposal and stable costs for operations and
 transportation. The marketplace has responded and disposal prices and costs for now are
 stable, but this perspective has left us short of our goal and recovery potential. The
 hierarchy was put in place with an intentional bias; all approaches are not equal.

E. Municipal Responsibility for Solid Waste Disposal
Maine is a home rule state and it is a municipal responsibility to provide disposal services for the
residential and commercial activities in their jurisdiction.

The old local dumps have been replaced by a complex set of private and public partnerships,
underpinning a system of hundreds of small consolidation transfer stations, largely paid for by
municipal bonds, connected by long-term contracts and truck transport to a relatively few
disposal facilities. There is now a collection and transportation infrastructure of 240 public
transfer stations and several large private facilities serviced by private and public truck transport.
There are 320 public recycling programs and over 70 municipalities have set up leaf and yard
waste composting sites.



 - 38 -
The inter-connected system that has evolved to meet the municipal responsibility has been built
by initiative and need, often in concert with private entities. These private/public partnerships
have been put together in a wide variety of combinations that manage a large percentage of the
collection, consolidation, processing transportation, and disposal of Maine’s MSW.

 Outcome: Regionalization
 One result of the rapid conversion of the state’s solid waste management structure was
 that municipal solid waste programs were among the first public programs to adopt the
 concept of regionalization to improve cost to benefit performance, and those programs to
 a noteworthy extent have held together and expanded. Approximately half of Maine’s
 municipalities share solid waste management responsibilities with at least one other
 municipality, with several regional efforts supported by membership of 20 communities
 or more. Regionalization helps avoid situations where problems and proposals rise and
 fall as local issues to which there are no real local solutions.

 Local governments remain the key to Maine’s MSW management. They have control
 over the MSW generated within their jurisdictions whether they choose to exercise that
 control or not. When a proposal for a new municipal facility or an activity is put forward
 or a change in solid waste management suggested at the local level, the guidelines of the
 hierarchy, the attainment of the 50% recycling goal and 5% waste reduction goal should
 attach to the proposal and to the waste stream they intend to manage. The state must
 remain aware and assert its role as the principle proponent of its own policy.

 The state’s municipal partners should be encouraged to plan for their future waste
 management needs to accommodate anticipated growth and development through support
 for the hierarchy and to achieve the state’s recycling and waste reduction goals.

Conclusion: Positive Outcomes of Current Policy
Maine’s solid waste policies have largely achieved the Legislature’s desired ends.

 1. The objective of ending unregulated disposal of solid waste as standard practice was
 reached well over a decade ago. The Department of Environmental Protection has
 worked in conjunction with Maine’s solid waste professional community to achieve a
 high level of environmental compliance.

 2. The great majority of Maine citizens have the opportunity to recycle as an alternative to
 disposal.

 3. Across the state, on a daily basis, over 5,500 tons of municipal solid waste are collected,
 consolidated, transported, processed for recycling or combustion, and disposed of in
 compliance with current regulation. With the commitment of existing public and private
 efforts, this loosely organized arrangement has the ability to continue to perform its tasks
 for years to come. Though problems with solid waste arise from time to time, generally
 they are site or waste stream specific and there is a process in place to manage them.

 4. There is sufficient landfill disposal capacity to meet the state’s current and projected
 future needs.


 - 39 -
5. For the most part, Maine manages its own municipal solid waste. About three percent of
 Maine’s overall waste stream is currently exported for disposal. This out-of-state disposal
 is often a local decision made by municipalities near our borders and results in the
 utilization of land disposal facilities located within New Hampshire or New Brunswick.
 This is based upon the favorable combination of disposal fees and transport costs, when
 compared to ‘in-state’ disposal options.

6. The policy of pursuing an integrated waste management system based on the hierarchy
 and the four strategies of 1989: the ban on new commercial disposal facilities; municipal
 responsibility; a recycling goal with measured progress; and state oversight of land
 disposal capacity are all still in use. The image of Maine as dumping ground for the
 northeast has not materialized but questions persist for state and local officials about what
 to do with the out-of-state waste that comes into Maine in response to market forces and
 legitimate opportunities.




 - 40 -
IV. What has Happened Since the 1998 Plan?
Several solid waste issues were identified in the 1998 plan. Among them were:

 ¾ The high cost of solid waste management for municipalities;
 ¾ The need for secure and stable markets for recycled/composted materials;
 ¾ The lack of management options for construction and demolition debris; and
 ¾ The desire to promote beneficial use.

The following section is a brief overview of where these issues stand in today.

Costs of Municipal Solid Waste Management
Certainly costs have remained an issue for municipalities. As the 1998 plan predicted, the need
to lower municipal costs must coexist with innovations to improve recycling rates. It has had an
effect by contributing to and in some ways exacerbating the stagnant character of the state’s
pursuit of the 50% recycling rate and local enthusiasm for using the waste hierarchy in solid
waste decisions.

In 2007, citizens, businesses, municipalities, and others spent an estimated $200 to $250 million
to reuse, recycle, compost or dispose of the two million tons of municipal solid waste generated
within Maine.

Municipalities arranged for the disposal of about 50% of Maine’s total municipal solid waste
generation, or just over one million tons, and reported spending approximately $90 million per
year24 on the solid waste and recycling services that they provided. Recycling efforts conserved
landfill space and provided an avoided disposal cost of approximately $6 million while
contributing a net gain of $5 million to those communities from the sale of the recyclables.

On average, according to information from the Maine Municipal Association, Maine
communities spend about 10% of their municipal budget to secure and provide necessary solid
waste and recycling services. Most municipal expenditures are available on the municipalities’
web sites.

Solid waste disposal varies among communities and ranges from municipalities that simply
contract with a disposal facility and leave all other responsibilities and costs to their residents
and businesses, to communities that pay for the full collection and disposal services as part of the
municipal budget.25

While the state does not have precise information on municipal costs for MSW management
from the early 1990s for comparison, it appears based on municipal information reported to the


24
 In 2005, businesses and citizens spent another estimated $120 to $160 million to secure these necessary solid
waste disposal and recycling services.
25
 Most municipal solid waste expenses are paid by the municipality from tax revenue, although some assess user
fees to reduce costs (75% of municipalities versus 25% that offer fee-based waste services).


 - 41 -
State Planning Office that costs have recently stabilized in terms of both actual dollars spent and
as a percentage of municipal budgets, to a range of $95 to $110 per ton. This figure is supplied
with the following caution: that many communities to not apply full-cost accounting measures to
their solid waste budgets and many do not bear all the costs of all the municipal solid waste
streams generated within their jurisdictions.

A. Disposal Fees
Disposal expenses comprise collecting, transporting, and ‘tipping’ waste. Disposal fees or
‘tipping’ fees are a key driver of municipal solid waste costs. Current disposal fees range from
$40.00 to $158.0026 per ton at Maine’s landfills and incinerators and have stabilized allowing
predictability for municipal budgeting and long-term planning.

Tip fees at the four waste-to-energy facilities are stable and reflect the commitment of the
municipalities who either own the facility or have long-term contracts for disposal services. A
number of regional landfill facilities (Bath, Augusta, ecomaine) recently implemented price
increases that should hold for the foreseeable future.

The state, in its operating agreement with Casella Waste Systems, established a ‘ceiling’ for tip
fees that sets an upper limit on how much can be charged for wastes delivered to the Juniper
Ridge Landfill. It is anticipated that this will act as a check on pricing for the disposal of similar
materials at other solid waste facilities. In fact tip fees at the state’s W-T-Es have been stable for
years. For example, the PERC base tip fee for charter communities has remained at $45.00 per
ton for close to fifteen years.

B. Energy Revenues
Revenues from the sale of the electricity largely determine tipping fees at waste-to-energy
facilities. The revenues reduce the facility’s operating expenses, yielding a reduction in the tip
fee charged for solid waste. Should electrical sales revenue drop, tip fees may increase.
Conversely, should the electrical sales increase, the possibility exists to lower or maintain tip
fees currently being charged.

C. Municipal Expenses
Expenses vary from municipality to municipality due to a variety of factors such as cost of
disposal, operation of a transfer station, number of hours the transfer station is open, level of
recycling services, and bulky waste acceptance and processing. The more services that a
community offers, generally the more expense is incurred.

Communities have also formed regional programs to gain an “economy of scale” advantage,
allowing the smaller towns to offer a larger range of services.

The selected towns listed in Table 13 below have variable collection and disposal costs for
municipal solid waste that reflects disposal fees and different levels of municipally-provided
services. Table 13 shows the variability in costs, not for an “apples to apples” comparison.

26
 This does not reflect spot market prices.


 - 42 -
 Table 13: Disposal Costs for Selected Municipalities

Municipality/ Disposal Facility Collection Transfer $ Per Person
 Region System Station

Brunswick Town Landfill Municipal No $55.28
 curbside
Tri-Community Regional Landfill Curbside & No $49.37
 Drop off
Hartford Crossroads Landfill Contracted No $60.28
 curbside
Temple Crossroads Landfill Contracted No $68.30
 curbside
Livermore Falls Crossroads Landfill Subscription Yes $55.19
Farmington Crossroads Landfill Subscription Yes $7.46

Minot MMWAC Subscription No $28.76
Lewiston MMWAC Contracted Yes $54.02
 curbside
Norway-Paris MMWAC Drop-off Yes $63.16
Sabattus MMWAC Drop-off Yes $36.97

Bangor PERC Contracted No $40.07
 curbside
Unity PERC Contracted No $68.83
 curbside
Winthrop PERC Drop-off Yes $68.74

Yarmouth ecomaine Drop-off Yes $95.45
Casco-Naples ecomaine Drop-off Yes $122.42
Portland ecomaine Municipal No $83.30
 curbside
Cumberland ecomaine Contracted No $114.24
 curbside
Saco Maine Energy Municipal No $42.08
 curbside
North Berwick Maine Energy Drop-off Yes $59.35
Sanford Maine Energy Cont Curb Yes $69.51

Profiles of two differing local recycling programs are provided in Appendix B that show the
variations in local costs.




 - 43 -
Markets for Recycled Materials
A. Market Stability and Growth Over the Long-term
There is a direct and obvious correlation between markets and recycling success and support for
the hierarchy.

Unlike a decade ago, recycled and composted materials have reached a high level of price
stability. This is due in part to new North American mills and to the steady rise in offshore
markets for fiber and steel, and an increase in prices for virgin raw materials. Figures 14, 15, and
16 show three examples of pricing trends in the fiber market that illustrate the stability and
general upward trend in pricing.

The new market stability is reflected best by the price strength relative to recent history for the
category of recycled fiber generally known in Maine as mixed paper (see Figure 16).

 Maine Resource Recovery Association
 News Paper
 Jan 1994 - Aug 2006 US $ per ton


 200




 150




 Price per ton
 100




 50




 0
 Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Au
 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06  g

 Year

 Figure 14: Price Per Ton, Newspaper, 1994 – 2006
 Source: Maine Resource Recovery Association

 Maine Resource Recovery Association
 Cardboard
 Jan 1994 - Aug 2006 US $ per ton



 200




 150




 Price per ton
 100




 50




 0
 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 06
 Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Se
 n n n n n n n n n n n n n p
 Year

 Figure 15: Price Per Ton, Cardboard, 1994 – 2006
 Source: Maine Resource Recovery Association




 - 44 -
 Maine Resource Recovery Association
 Mixed Paper
 Jan 1994 - Apr 2003 US $ per ton




 80

 65


 50


 Y-Axis
 35


 20


 5


 -10
 Jan Jan Jul Jan Sep Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jul Jan Jan Jan
 94 95 95 96 96 97 98 99 00 01 01 02 03 04


 X-Axis


 Figure 16: Price Per Ton, Mixed Paper, 1994 – 2004
 Source: Maine Resource Recovery Association

Excluding the spike of 1994-95, there is an obvious upward trend in the year-to-year market
prices. This is true across the fiber, metals, and plastics markets, but not of glass that is losing
market share to lighter weight materials.27

Domestic and overseas markets have responded to the industrial growth in Asia. Overseas
economies will not produce enough recycled product to meet their own needs for feedstock for at
least a decade, meaning they will need to continue to import recycled materials from the U.S. for
some time to come.

The challenge for marketers is to commit to move their recovery systems forward to increase
supply, at the same time be able to respond to and take advantage of possible changes and
opportunities in materials, in products and packaging, manufacturing processes, commodity and
product delivery systems, consumer demand, global conditions, and new laws and policies.

In 2008 recycled products remain the number one container ship export from U.S. west coast
ports. Recycled product revenues for all products on average exceed $50 per ton. The trend
shows the annual cyclical market slowly moving up every year.

As in 1998, nationwide there is still a lack of markets for plastics labeled #3-7. Plastics recycling
remains the province of numbers one and two necked containers. There has been some progress
in combining the #3-7 resin types of plastics chemistries with other materials to use in structural
applications, and they have some value in the low-priced, overseas market.

For the next two decades, the challenge for Maine suppliers will be to make changes to increase
supply to take advantage of stable prices. This is particularly true of public, municipally-
controlled programs where recovery efforts for fiber and containers have stayed below 100,000
tons annually.

Whatever changes are made, quality controls must be kept at current levels. Maine commodities
have always moved in the market even at times of low prices and over supply because of their


27
  The ’94 spike in fiber was caused by a temporary high demand from overseas that was misread and led to a huge
oversupply to the market that took several months to correct.


 - 45 -
reputation for quality. Quality control is essential to mitigating the effects of low price cycles in
the commodities’ market.

B. Recent Downturn in Pricing
The global financial crisis of the last quarter of 2008 is reflected in the steep decline in price for
recycled materials across the board that has carried into the first quarter of 2009. In this current
economic climate there are a few facts worth remembering.

¾ Recycling markets go through periodic fluctuations; witness the corrugated cardboard boom
  and bust of the mid ‘90s, but consistently trend upward over the long term, despite two
  recessions in the last 20 years.

¾ This is not a structural problem in the recycling industry. It is an economic problem of supply
  and demand. Once economies around the world and in the U.S. pick up, recycling markets
  will return.

¾ In down markets, quality materials have a much better chance with buyers that are looking to
  keep their own costs as low as possible and produce defect free product. Maine materials
  have always enjoyed a reputation for quality in the recycled commodity market.

¾ Recycling reduces disposal fees that are placed on every ton of material that leaves a facility
  as waste for disposal.

In a down market, recycling program managers should look for ways to increase volume. This
may seem to be a contradiction when demand is dropping off, but the more quality recycled
product in the market, the more manufacturers will turn away from virgin raw materials when
they decide to buy. Buyers prefer to purchase materials from large suppliers with whom they
have a good working relationship. The goal is to keep the buyer.

C. Municipal Compost Supply
Although composting of leaf and yard waste now takes place at many municipal facilities and
appears to be steady, there has been little growth over the last several years in the number of
public programs despite high local consumer demand for the final product. The growth in
organics composting beyond leaf and yard to include food waste and other organics in the waste
stream has been very slow to develop.

The State Planning Office sponsored a food composting initiative in 2004, which resulted in one
successful on- going permanent project. The Office provided financial and technical assistance to
a partnership consisting of the town of Farmington, the University of Maine at Farmington,
Franklin Memorial Hospital, and the Sandy River Recycling Association, along with assistance
and regulatory oversight by the Maine DEP. The regional program composts food wastes from
the university and hospital. It gives the finished product to the town for municipal uses.




 - 46 -
Management of Construction and Demolition Debris
A 2008 study done by the State Planning Office found that the common factor in successful
Maine recycling programs, the ones that exceed 50%, is that they accepted a large number of
items for recycling, and they include construction and demolition materials in their recycling
programs, such a waste wood, asphalt shingles, sheetrock, metals, unwanted furniture, and other
large items. They also have active reuse programs for home construction products and large
household items.

The rate of construction and demolition debris (CDD) disposal and recycling is directly related to
the state of Maine’s economy and to the cycle of residential and commercial construction.

A. CDD Composition
Wood waste makes up between 33-54% of the total volume of the CDD loads, with clean wood
totaling between 17-32% by volume. Second to wood waste is asphalt shingles totaling between
approximately 15-26% by volume.

Asphalt, brick, and concrete waste overall is found in very small quantities. An all other CDD
waste category would include various wastes such as plastic compound buckets, plastic crates,
nail boxes, non recyclable packaging, electronics, rugs, bedding, broken tools, bottles and cans,
and other municipal solid waste.

B. Municipal Collection and Management
Maine towns manage CDD primarily through their local solid waste facilities. In 2007,
municipalities recycled an estimated 13,000 tons, or approximately 50% of the total CDD
recycled in-state for the year. This is an estimated 4% of the total 317,490 tons of CDD waste
managed within the state.

Most CDD in Maine is landfilled without processing. An estimated 100,000 tons of municipally-
managed CDD was landfilled at either the six municipal MSW landfills, the 23 municipal CDD
landfills, the state-owned landfill at Juniper Ridge in Old Town, or the Waste Management Inc,
landfill in Norridgewock. Additionally a small amount of mixed MSW/CDD tonnage is exported
into New Hampshire and Canada by some of Maine’s border communities.

The state’s four waste-to-energy facilities also receive a small CDD fraction with their other
MSW deliveries. Maine Energy is not designed to process these materials into fuel and must
remove and landfill them; MMWAC and ecomaine, as mass burn facilities, can burn CDD but
are limited by their small fuel feed openings. PERC has recently purchased a small grinder for
materials too large or problematic for their fuel processing system.

Additionally, at some transfer stations, the wood portion of CDD waste suitable for fuel is not
recycled; it is open-burned, without air pollution controls or energy recovery. This practice is
allowed under state statute with some limitations and conditions.




 - 47 -
The estimated combined generation of asphalt shingles and sheetrock, two components of CDD
that are being recycled at some locations, is over 88,000 tons annually in Maine, while the
recovery rate for all CDD is just over 25,626 tons. There is a tremendous opportunity for growth
in recovery efforts.

C. Quality Control
“Source separation” is the basic strategy for controlling the quality of the CDD waste for reuse,
recycling, or processing. It entails the sorting of usable elements of CDD at the point of
generation (i.e. a demolition site) or collection (i.e. a municipal transfer station).

Local facilities have significant control of how the waste is delivered and sorted. They have the
ability to manage delivery of relatively clean components of the construction and demolition
debris waste stream for reuse, recycling, or processing. CDD storage areas and areas set aside to
check load contents are inexpensive to construct and operate, but are heavily dependent on
supervision of the customers to ensure adequate separation of potential contaminants.28

D. Management Options
There has been considerable discussion around the best management options for Maine’s CDD
stream. Boiler fuel is the largest potential market for locally-generated, source-separated, wood
CDD. Local transfer stations, which manage CDD waste wood for the fuel market by requiring
source separation, can typically receive a waste stream that is at least 95% wood.

However, potential recycling opportunities are tempered by the relative lack of sufficient
concentrated volume outside Southern and Midcoast Maine to guarantee the financial success for
any additional expansion of CDD processing capacity, the lack of sufficient local markets, and
negative effects of transport costs. Thus, planning for future in-state CDD processing capacity
suffers from a lack of long-term volume predictability. There has also been hesitancy on the part
of municipal or public programs to commit to recycling of these materials.

If all municipal CDD were managed to separate wood waste at the point of collection, and
assuming that 25% of the CDD waste stream could be processed into wood fuel that met market
and regulatory specification, Maine municipalities potentially could generate 75,500 tons of
CDD wood fuel annually for which there would be a ready in state market.

In the area of municipal construction demolition debris management, the major change will be
the gradual closure of the state’s two dozen small (under six acres) CDD landfills. If recycling
opportunities do not come forward, the present alternative outside of southern Maine will be to
continue to land dispose of CDD, which would be using up local landfill capacity.29

Whether or not municipal programs will seek to permit and license new, small-scale, CDD
disposal facilities or seek to expand an existing one is an open question, given the costs and
potential extensive permitting process for either option. Small-scale CDD landfills may no
28
 Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Report on the Substitution of Wood from Construction and
Demolition Debris for Conventional Fuel in Biomass Boilers, April 2007
29
 Managing municipal CDD for maximum CDD wood fuel generation could reduce the amount of Maine landfill
capacity currently used for disposal of CDD by 133,200 yds annually.


 - 48 -
longer pay for themselves and in fact may have to expand in order to be financially viable. The
attempt to site one such new facility in Washington County may suggest the complexity of any
such undertaking.

If the two dozen small regional CDD disposal facilities do close, that will mean those programs
currently using them will face either transport and disposal to the remaining large centralized
landfills; or the development of CDD separation and aggregation storage areas to facilitate
shipping to processing facilities where the materials are recovered as previously discussed.

Beneficial Use
The solid waste management hierarchy provides guidance on determining, selecting and
implementing possible ‘end of life’ management options for unwanted products and materials, in
descending order from reduction to landfilling. The second option within that hierarchy is
‘reuse’, which includes beneficial use.

A. What is Beneficial Use?
Beneficial use is the term applied when the substitution of a waste product occurs for a raw
material in a manufacturing process, as a construction material, or as a fuel. The 1998 state
Waste Management and Recycling Plan asserted that beneficial use could have a major impact
on diverting certain hard-to-manage waste streams, such as tires, wood waste, and ash, from
disposal to a different use or application.

Beneficial use is a practice that takes appropriate secondary materials out of the waste stream
and uses them in place of more traditional virgin material. Beneficial use has potential in a
number of industries, including construction, transportation, electrical generation, and waste
treatment, to provide cost effective replacements for aggregate, fill, cementitious material, drying
agents, and many other materials currently in demand. Beneficial use not only provides
secondary materials for Maine companies to use, but it also decreases cost and demand for
disposal facilities and maintenance.30 Determination of a certain waste product for beneficial use
requires Maine Department of Environmental Protection review and approval.

B. Examples of Beneficial Reuse
The use of waste as substitution for raw materials or other items has been practiced for many
years. Some examples of secondary materials and their currently approved beneficial use in
Maine include31:

 1. Multi-fuel Boiler Ash – may be used as: alternative liming material; soil stabilizer; odor
 absorbent for compost and waste treatment; possible concrete additive/cement
 replacement.



30
 University of Maine. Beneficial Use of Solid Waste in Maine, 2006.
31
 University of Maine. Beneficial Use of Solid Waste in Maine, 2006.




 - 49 -
 2. Fly Ash – may be used as: raw material in a cement kiln; additive to cement clinker prior
 to grinding; addition to concrete mix as a partial replacement for cement; lightweight
 aggregate; controlled low-strength material (flowable fill); autoclaved cellular concrete;
 structural fill; landfill cover; water treatment; soil stabilization and modification.

 3. Cement Kiln Dust – may be used as: soil stabilization; waste stabilization/solidification,
 Portland cement replacement; asphalt pavement; controlled low strength material
 (flowable fill); lightweight aggregate; construction fill.

 4. Dredged Material – may be used in: wetland management, restoration, creation, and
 enhancement; shoreline and sedimentation stabilization; erosion control; wildlife habitat
 development; water quality improvement; recreation and cultural resources; contaminant
 stabilization; dike construction; rip rap; and other applications.

 5. Lime Mud – may be used as: an agricultural liming material; in waste stabilization and
 sanitation; as a construction material.

 6. Tire Shreds – may be used as: lightweight fill for embankment construction on weak
 foundations; retaining wall and bridge abutment backfill; to limit frost penetration;
 drainage layers for roads and landfills. Tire shreds have had three principal uses in Maine
 once they are processed into suitable sized chips: (1) as base grading materials (as
 demonstrated in the construction of the Sabattus interchange on Interstate 95); (2) as part
 of the landfill liner systems, and (3) as fuel in solid fueled boilers licensed to burn them.

 7. Oil Contaminated Soil – may be used as: aggregate for hot and cold mix asphalt
 processes; concrete aggregate; raw material replacement.

 8. Street Sweepings – may be reused as road sand; as fill material; as landfill cover; as a
 raw material replacement.

 9. Waste Wood/Brush and Construction or Demolition Waste – these are two of the more
 commonly ‘beneficially used’ categories of municipal solid waste. To highlight this, the
 following is devoted to these wastes:
 • Clean Wood Waste – discussed below
 • Construction or Demolition Debris, including concrete and asphalt shingles –
 discussed below
 • Sheetrock/Gypsum – discussed below

Since 1998, much of the Department’s work in this area has been to develop rules (see Maine
Department of Environmental Protection, Rule Chapter 418) to allow for the beneficial use of
construction and demolition/debris (CDD), and in particular, to create fuel standards for the use
of construction derived wood (CDW) as boiler fuel. Wood from construction or demolition
debris (CDD wood) refers to the wood component of the solid waste resulting from construction,
remodeling, repair or demolition of structures.




 - 50 -
The adopted rule also provides guidelines and standards for the use of tire chips, brick, concrete,
porcelain, and glass as fill materials, as well as exempting recycling activities that produce
secondary products in substitution for virgin materials in manufacturing.

The demand for the recovered wood waste fraction of CDD, principally the CDW, of the waste
stream has increased in recent years and has the potential for growth. Several biomass boilers in
Maine are permitted to combust this fuel substitute. As a result of increased demand, there has
been a corresponding increase in the number and locations of grinding and screening machinery
that accepts the CDD and processes it to capture the usable wood fraction.

 Clean Wood Waste
 Clean wood waste is recovered from demolition sites, and excess wood from the
 construction process, may also be used in many other ways. CDD can be used as a fill
 material or aggregate and may be a reasonable alternative to valuable natural resources in
 certain applications.

 Construction or Demolition Debris
 CDD contains many products and items, and if a home is demolished, may include the
 kitchen sink! Consequently, metal is a common component of CDD and is the most-
 recycled of CDD materials, due largely to the historic market and demand for recovered
 metals. The metal recovered from CDD is recycled and used to create new products from
 the old metal.

 Concrete
 Concrete can be readily crushed and reused. The most common use of crushed concrete is
 as road-base gravel, but it is often also used as an aggregate in asphalt or concrete
 manufacturing. One estimate is that 50 million tons of asphalt and concrete from
 pavement that is torn up is reused.32 Of that total, up to fifty percent is reused as
 Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement, or often referred to as ‘reclaim’, which when properly
 placed, provides for a solid surface.

 Asphalt Shingles
 Asphalt shingles separated from CDD streams can be reused in making hot or cold mix
 asphalt, or even new roofing materials. Excess or cut shingles from construction sites are
 more widely used for recycling than used asphalt shingles collected from a demolition
 site, but both have value. What follows is a description of how one Maine business
 beneficially uses discarded asphalt shingles:
 Commercial Recycling Systems (CRS) of Scarborough, Maine has been successfully
 recycling asphalt shingles for over seven years. The CRS processing facility
 currently accepts shingles delivered in both roll-off and dump trailers, containing 12-
 20 tons per load. Roofing products come from numerous towns, cities, and private
 roofing contractors in New England.

 Collection of the shingles occurs at both municipal and commercial transfer stations,
 and through direct delivery to the CRS facility. An inspection is performed to make

32
 University of Maine. Beneficial Use of Solid Waste in Maine, 2006.


 - 51 -
 sure that incoming loads are comprised of shingles only and do not include any
 wood, flashing, or other debris. After inspection, the shingles are processed into the
 desired particle size at the facility, with measures taken to both remove roofing nails
 and minimize asphalt dust. The processed shingles are then incorporated into various
 road construction products, such as HMA and ‘cold patch’ at rates based on the
 product performance requirements. The use of the shingles in the construction
 materials replaces some or all of the virgin asphalt in the various grades of road
 building materials, which are produced to meet Maine Department of Transportation
 product specifications.

 Sheetrock/Gypsum
 The gypsum material in sheetrock can be removed from the paper backing for use in
 manufacturing new sheetrock. In addition, the gypsum has many other practical uses as
 well. Often thought of as having liming abilities, gypsum does not alter the PH of soil or
 water when added to either.

In looking ahead at methods and practices that reduce the volumes of solid waste destined for
disposal, beneficial use continues to be a working option for those materials already permitted
and remains an opportunity for further application, given current efforts to consider wastes as
resources and divert their ‘end of life’ management from landfills to ‘a second chance’.

Conclusion: Changes over 10 Years
The issues raised in the 1998 state Waste Management and Recycling Plan are mostly still of
concern today. Municipalities face cost worries, however, waste tip fees have become more
predictable and recycling revenues help offset expenditures. Markets for recyclables over the
long-term have grown, with spikes and declines that track a global economy. The lack of
management options for CDD remains a concern. And, while there are viable options for
beneficial reuse, there remain opportunities to do more.




 - 52 -
V. Long-term Issues to Watch
Growth in Waste Generation
Maine currently disposes more solid waste than it reduces or recycles. While that fact alone is
cause for concern, that we as a state find ourselves in this situation after 20 years of effort to
reach 50% recycling goal, the data trend over the last six years shows that the increase in
disposal is outpacing any increase in recycling. Though recycling tonnages continue to increase,
recycling’s share of the MSW stream has declined relative to disposal over the last several years.

This continuing and growing disproportion raises concerns that our current policies and
programs are insufficient to guarantee an improved future for Maine citizens when it comes to
solid waste management programs that properly reflect the quality of the place we consider
Maine to be.

Out-of-state Wastes
A. Why do we Import MSW?

Why not ban out-of-state waste?
Many people wonder why the state doesn’t just ban the importation of waste. Movement of solid
waste across state lines is protected under the federal commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
This federal law overrides individual state action to restrict that market at their borders. The law
enacted in Maine in 1989 to ban the development of new commercial disposal facilities was in
direct response to the limitations imposed by the commerce clause. Those publicly-owned and
private disposal facilities that remain in Maine today may accept wastes from beyond Maine’s
borders as long as that acceptance does not run counter to the regulatory, legal, or contractual
provisions under which they operate.

1. Out-of-state Waste Makes Energy and Supports our In-state MSW System

 The Fuel Gap
 The majority of the state’s businesses and residents rely on the four W-T-E facilities to
 manage their MSW. Since their inception, the four W-T-Es located in Maine have
 required, either occasionally, or on a seasonal, or permanent year round basis, more fuel
 (MSW) than is currently available to them from Maine market sources. This over
 capacity creates a demand that their managers have to meet by looking out of state for
 additional fuel. Given our current level of W-T-E capacity, out-of-state waste is
 necessary to continue to manage our own MSW. It maintains operational efficiency at the
 W-T-Es and allows them to meet their contractual responsibilities.

 The facilities are not only dependent upon a predictable flow of over 800,000 tons of fuel
 per year (with a portion of that fuel coming in from out of state); but also upon access to
 landfills for their own waste streams of by-pass, ash and, for the two refuse-derived fuel
 plants, front-end process residue (FEPR). Current technology has not achieved any
 significant resource recovery from either of the two waste streams under present
 regulatory conditions.


 - 53 -
 In the long term, we need to decide whether and how the state should sustain this
 exchange of waste for energy if Maine recommits to and reinforces the hierarchy and
 with the reality that at least for the next several years the fuel needs of the W-T-Es will
 need be met by out-of-state sources.

 In the meantime out-of-state wastes support the conversion of our own wastes into energy
 and thus support the hierarchy in preference over landfilling.

 Out-of-state Wastes and Biomass Fuel
 Maine has by far the largest concentration of biomass steam plants in the northeast
 region. What Maine lacks is processing capacity for CDD or the waste stream volume to
 supply wood for those boilers.

 Current Market
 Only two of the seven boilers approved for construction derived wood (CDW) fuel
 combustion are presently burning it: Sappi Westbrook and Boralex-Livermore. Roughly
 two-thirds of the CDW fuel for these plants was fuel processed outside of Maine. If all
 seven boilers combusted wood waste up to their full capacity allowed by license
 requirements and by state law,33 they could generate an annual demand for 1.37 million
 tons. The Office does not believe that we are likely to attain this full level of demand.

 In-state Sources
 Maine does not produce enough CDD wastes from which a sufficient amount of CDW
 can be derived to meet today’s fuel demands of in-state biomass boilers, or the fuel
 demands of new, yet-to-be-proposed technologies, such as gasification, that are under
 consideration, or the financial requirements for throughput of any future CDD landfills or
 processing facilities.

 At the current rate of capture and processing of wood waste from CDD, Maine
 municipalities supply less than 1% of the maximum annual projected demand for CDD
 wood fuel. Processing of in-state commercial waste currently provides an additional 3%.
 If all municipal CDD were managed to separate wood waste at the point of collection,
 and assuming that 25% of the CDD waste stream could be processed into wood fuel,
 Maine municipalities potentially could generate 75,000 tons of CDD wood fuel annually.
 This is an estimated 6% of the maximum CDD wood fuel permitted for use in Maine
 biomass boilers today.

 Out-of-state Sources
 Because of Maine’s low volumes of CDD wood waste, there is concern over a potential
 influx of very large amounts of CDD from out of state to fuel the present seven licensed
 biomass boilers.

 To combust the maximum amount of CDW fuel approved for use, biomass boilers would
 need to rely upon CDW fuel that originates outside of Maine, or on fuel that is produced
 in Maine from out-of-state CDD.

33
  DEP licenses for these facilities restrict the annual tonnage of CDW to no more than 50% of its licensed fuel
supply.


 - 54 -
Recent legislation has written into law that waste, produced by the processing or
recycling, or incineration in Maine of out-of-state waste, is considered to be waste
generated within the state. Thus those wastes may be received by any facility licensed to
receive those types of wastes.

For example, in 2007, 293,536 tons of out-of state, unprocessed CDD was sent to
Maine’s commercial landfills. If this amount were separated and processed for CDD
wood fuel production rather than landfilled, it would create an estimated additional
75,000 tons of CDD wood fuel (roughly 6% of the projected maximum demand) and
reduce the landfill capacity used by at least an equivalent amount.

CDD Products and Recyclables (other than Wood)
Most large construction and demolition debris processing facilities produce a variety of
recycled products in addition to CDD wood fuel. These facilities remove as much
salvageable and reusable material from CDD as is practical in order to recover value from
the waste constituents and to minimize the transportation and disposal costs associated
with landfilling construction and demolition debris. Materials recovered by these
facilities include aggregate from bricks, concrete, asphalt, rocks, and dirt; ferrous and
non-ferrous metal; asphalt shingles, un-used gypsum board for reuse, and wood for reuse
or for fuel in wood-fired biomass boilers.

Additionally, other CDD components not suitable for recycling may be mixed with the
recovered aggregate materials and marketed to operating landfills as a soil substitute to
cover waste or for shaping and grading material for landfill closure projects. Generally,
20-35% of a mixed CDD waste stream can be processed into CDD wood fuel.

Typically, the processing facilities offer generators financial incentives to send wood rich
loads of CDD separately from wood poor loads or require source separated loads from
demolition and building contractors. This allows the processor to use the wood poor CDD
loads to create landfill closure material or to by-pass the CDD directly to landfills for
disposal.

Maine Processing Facilities
Current in-state processing of CDD wood is performed by mobile shredders that process
stockpiles of pre-separated CDD wood into fuel at municipal collection sites, and by five
commercial processing plants – Aggregate Recycling Corp (ARC) in Eliot, CPRC Group
in Scarborough, KTI Biofuels in Lewiston, Simpson, Inc. in Sanford and Plan-It
Recycling in Gorham. Another facility, owned by Casella Waste Systems, is newly
licensed to operate in Westbrook, but is not yet operational.

Currently, the wholesale replacement of out-of-state processing capacity by in-state
facilities is unlikely since it is significantly less expensive to process locally (nearer the
sites of CDD generation) and to pay to transport only the portion of CDD that is
processed into wood fuel than to transport mixed CDD into Maine for processing. The
degree to which out-of-state CDD processors can increase their operational capacity to
meet increased fuel demand is also limited. Out-of-state processors are currently
operating at close to capacity.



 - 55 -
B. The Impact of Imported CDD on Landfill Capacity
When the state’s two commercial landfills reach capacity and are closed, those disposal options
for imported CDD will dry up, which will reduce the importation of out-of-state waste for
landfilling. 34

However, given the recent change in law that defines processing waste as waste generated within
the state, the residue from the processing of CDD imported from out of state for the purposes of
creating fuel for Maine biomass boilers could consume valuable landfill space either at Juniper
Ridge or at some future publicly-owned and -controlled disposal facility.

There are five, soon to be six, Maine facilities that may receive out-of-state CDD for processing
CDD into fuel. The processing of CDD into wood fuel by these facilities potentially could
increase in the future. A possible projection has the processing of CDD into wood fuel
generating residues that could use up to 15-20% of Maine’s current remaining landfill capacity
annually (without an expansion).

Several conditions would have to be present for this scenario to emerge. First, the six processors
would need to expand their existing operating capacities to process all the CDW fuel needed.
This would require equipment purchases and regulatory consent. There would need to be
sufficient building and construction activity to generate the supply of material to be processed.
In-state disposal costs would need to be low enough to offset the increased costs of
transportation. Finally, there would need to be sufficient demand for the product (i.e. the seven
Maine boilers consume CDW fuel up to their licensing and/operational limits). This scenario also
assumes that all of these conditions align at the same time and remain constant for a sufficient
period of time so that all the necessary investments can be made and permit approvals obtained.

Nevertheless, this situation requires prudent and timely monitoring because of the potential for
growth in market supply and demand (based on operational limits of current processing facilities
and biomass boilers) that could then escalate the demand on Maine’s landfill capacity, a core
concern of the state.

Also, it is likely that some of the ash from the biomass boilers will continue to be disposed of in
generator-owned landfills to add stability to paper mill sludge, reducing the reliance on public
landfill capacity.

 Out-of-state Wastes and Bypass
 Recent legislation has defined bypass and included bypass waste from Maine waste to
 energy facilities, recycling and processing facilities under the definition of waste
 generated within the state. One of the potential consequences of this legislation is that
 out-of-state waste destined for one of the W-T-Es may be directed on to a licensed public
 or private disposal facility in Maine.



34
 Through an agreement with the Maine DEP, Pinetree Landfill in Hampden will close in January of 2009.
Crossroads in Norridgewock will reach capacity between 2019 and 2023 (this is only an estimate based upon today’s
fill rates).


 - 56 -
In conclusion, the types and amount of out-of-state waste disposed of in Maine will likely shift in
response to changes over time in Maine’s waste generation and management systems. Without
changes to current law both commercial land disposal facilities will eventually fill and close,
shutting off those disposal outlets for out-of-state waste. While new CDD processing facilities
may bring out-of-state wastes into Maine, they will also serve to improve the recovery of Maine-
generated CDD.

The Role of Local Government
Since their local dumps were ordered closed or radically changed to meet new state law and
standards in the 1980s, and the affirmation of home rule, municipalities have wrestled with their
role in solid waste management and the questions of who has control, who has ownership, and
who has responsibility and what those words mean.

The positive result is that over the last two decades each Maine city and town has chosen, built,
and managed their individual MSW systems to their liking, as long as they stayed in compliance
with state laws and rules. The people in the 495 civil divisions with their own governance have
the right to choose the level of services they want to pay for.

The principle negative result of this system of local control is this same variability of service so
that communities next door to one another have widely different levels of service and
approaches.

Also, the full life cycle costs and benefits of all the components of the waste stream and the
various possible means of their management are often not evaluated or even recognized in the
typical annual “services versus taxes” municipal budgeting process. Municipalities are only
obligated to provide a means of disposal for MSW generated within their borders. Following that
minimal scenario, it is rational and acceptable to send solid waste “downstream” shifting the
burden geographically or to future generations, in order to minimize immediate local risks and
costs. The long-term environmental and social impacts of “downstreaming” solid waste and the
cost of siting future disposal facilities generally are not usually factored into annual budget
choices by those who manage the MSW at the local level. [An exception should be noted for
those eight communities that still operate their own landfills and must have long term plans for
preserving landfill space, possible mitigation, monitoring, closure, and post closure disposal.]

The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on flow control does give municipalities potential, wide-
ranging control over MSW generated within their jurisdictions. It gives local governments
standing as both market regulators and market participants with the power to direct MSW into
their own facilities as long as they pass a balancing test where the public benefit is greater than
the burden, particularly in those circumstances where those bearing the potential burden are the
same as those enacting the law. This new situation may have long-term, positive effects on
building greater regional cooperation to direct MSW into municipally-owned recycling and
composting facilities.

Other Issues
Besides the growing waste generation versus recycling imbalance, out-of-state wastes, and the
role of local government, there are three adjoining issues that concern current policy.


 - 57 -
A. Limits to Private/Public Partnerships
Certain private/public partnerships have been very successful in terms of sharing power,
providing service, and stabilizing prices —witness the PERC-MRC relationships.

Until recently, financial and environmental risks have limited the number and use of municipal
landfills to meet the disposal needs of their municipal owners for solid waste generated within
their borders or under contract or agreement with adjacent communities. This status quo has been
challenged by proposals for municipal partnerships with private companies that are testing the
definition of commercial disposal facilities.

The potential short term advantages for municipalities are: relief from the costs of operations; a
reduced or no tip fee for its own solid waste; and, a revenue stream from several possible sources
depending upon the terms of the contract. Again depending upon the contract, they may get relief
from mitigation, closure, and potential pollution costs connected with a facility.

The private company would receive valuable landfill space in a state with limited permitted sites,
with predictable costs and revenues to serve their collection and hauling contracts.

This issue raises many questions, principally; where is the source(s) of the private company’s
MSW, what types, and volumes of the solid waste would be disposed of; does the use violate
state law and would it pass the public benefit determination test. Recent legislation has addressed
some of these concerns by prohibiting the disposal of out-of-state wastes into municipal landfills.

B. Changes in Public Attitudes
For generations until the 1970s and into the 1980s, most Mainers lived with unlined open
burning dumps within their individual communities, often within a short driving distance to or
bordering on residential areas.

Today, environmental, health, and property value considerations, the changing social dynamics
around solid waste activities, and concerns over what is in the waste stream and where it is
generated are at the forefront of the public’s perception about solid waste. Newer facilities built
and maintained to stringent environmental standards that were once accepted as part of the local
landscape, or even seen as an economic boon to a community, are now often under severe and
constant public scrutiny.

It should be noted that all large scale development projects face opposition, even those proposals
that seem to benefit the environment. But a 2006 survey published in Waste News reflected
current public sentiment as waste disposal facilities ranked at the bottom of community
development preference, below rock quarries, casinos, and airports.

Communities across Maine have worked for more than a decade to become fully involved in
defining what it means to be a host community. Up to now there has been little common ground
in discussions of options and alternatives to the present facilities.




 - 58 -
This has potentially serious implications for our system that is heavily dependent upon
maintaining a small number of relatively large regional waste processing (four W-T-Es) or
landfill disposal facilities (eight by 2010).

C. The State of Maine as a Market Participant
Finally, we must consider the effects and future implications of the state as a market regulator
and as a market participant. The state has become a market participant with its purchase and
operation of the Juniper Ridge Landfill, but not in the manner envisioned by the crafters of the
1989 legislation. It was anticipated that given the eventual demise of the state’s two commercial
landfills and the reluctance of public entities to seek to replace them with new, large-scale,
publicly-owned landfills, that the state would be the provider of last resort of the capacity for the
waste streams from the four W-T-Es, special wastes, and CDD, in the manner prescribed in
statute. Today, however, unlike the states in the southern tier of New England, Maine continues
to have overcapacity in W-T-Es and potentially very significant landfill capacity.

The passage of the legislative resolve of 2003 and the purchase of the landfill bypassed the
statutory “trigger” and that anticipated process, but provided the state with the opportunity to
gain significant capacity with potentially one of the largest landfills in the Northeast.

We must consider how the capacity at Juniper Ridge can be used to support the hierarchy and to
the best advantage for the people of Maine.

Juniper Ridge is already perceived by the private and public waste sectors as having an effect on
disposal pricing. It was a significant factor in the decision of Casella Waste Systems, who holds
the operating services agreement to operate Juniper Ridge, to close the Pine Tree landfill in
Hampden and to permit the CDD processing facility in Westbrook, to aid in fulfilling their
obligation under the Operating Services Agreement for the Juniper Ridge Landfill.

Also, Juniper Ridge may be directly impacted over time by the recent legislation defining by-
pass and in-state processing wastes as wastes generated within the state. Its capacity may be open
for use by those waste streams.

Conclusion: Issues to Watch
Such is Maine’s MSW management landscape. But all of these issues and concerns can be turned
to our advantage if we apply the hierarchy with all the resources, knowledge and tools developed
over the last 20 years, and adhere to the 50% goal as we pursue their solutions.

If the hierarchy is to mean what it says, Maine must move from ‘waste management’ to ‘resource
management’. To do so by the 2020s, we must consider what is now called solid waste instead to
be feed-stocks and resources from which all potential value is extracted; and we put an end once
and for all the practice of down-streaming waste to future generations or someone else,
somewhere else.




 - 59 -
VI. New Trends
The basic common thread for effective waste management is in the waste itself because there is
no difference in the MSW from Berwick to St. Agatha. This commonality of generation,
characteristics, and results provides the state with an opportunity to take a lead role in the
process of identifying, researching, and if found appropriate for Maine, pushing new trends in
MSW management that can be generally applied.

Energy and Greenhouse Gas Initiatives

In 2007 the following language was added to the state waste hierarchy:

 Waste reduction and diversion. It is the policy of the state to actively promote and
 encourage waste reduction measures from all sources and maximize waste diversion
 efforts by encouraging new and expanded uses of solid waste generated in this state
 as a resource (underlining added here for emphasis).

This new language encourages the state to look at new technologies and methods for managing
MSW that are currently not part of the waste hierarchy.

Since the first Earth Day, recycling has played a role in discussions on global resource
conservation. Now all aspects of solid waste management have been drawn into discussions on
several larger environmental issues, such as global warming related to greenhouse gas emissions
reduction, changing energy markets, energy self reliance and conservation, toxics reduction, and
the carbon cycle. These issues are on the table as we conduct our own debates about what is the
best way for us to manage our solid waste, and have the potential to be the controlling issues of
the near future.

Landfills are one of the largest human-formed sources of green house gases. Methane, the
principle gas released from landfills, is 21 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2. The
state of California has estimated that the recycling and composting of all discards would be the
equivalent of removing all emissions from all vehicles on their roads.

Recognizing the relationship between solid waste management and greenhouse gases, the US
EPA created two web-based tools to aid in this effort: WARM and ReCon.35

The Waste Reduction Model (WARM) helps solid waste planners and organizations track
greenhouse gas emissions reductions from several different waste management practices.
WARM calculates and totals emissions of waste management practices source reduction,
recycling, combustion, composting, and landfilling. The model calculates emissions in metric
tons of carbon equivalent, metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, and energy units across a
wide range of material types commonly found in municipal solid waste.



35
 EPA. Office of Climate Change. Waste Web Page.


 - 60 -
The Recycled Content (ReCon) Tool helps companies and individuals estimate life-cycle
greenhouse gas emissions and energy impacts from purchasing and/or manufacturing materials
with varying degrees of post-consumer recycled content.

Maine recognizes the impact of greenhouse gas as well. Maine citizens, the Legislature, and the
Executive branch, through the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, are implementing
a plan to actively reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in Maine. According to the Department
of Environmental Protection, Maine continues to make significant progress toward its goal of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 10% below 1990 levels by 2020. Maine continued to lead
regional efforts toward establishment of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI),
becoming the first state to adopt rules to implement the program. In addition to directly reducing
greenhouse gas emissions in the electrical power sector, the program will generate significant
new funds for electrical efficiency investments.


New Technologies
A. Waste Conversion Technologies

There are three broad categories of waste conversion technologies: 1) thermochemical, such as
gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc technology; 2) physiochemical, such as distillation of
ethanol and the production of biodiesel; and 3) biochemical, such as anerobic digestion and
ethanol fermentation and hydrolysis.

While research into these technologies is ongoing, key questions remain: do they reduce the
carbon footprint, do they reduce the toxics footprint, and do they continue Maine’s strong
commitment to protect public health and the environment. In general, their touted benefits are
lower carbon emissions, lower air emissions, renewable energy, offset fossil fuels, sustainability,
and beneficial use of their residual wastes.

Three technologies are briefly discussed here because they are new and have relevance for Maine
and large-scale applications for waste management.

1. Gasification
At present, there are gasification proposals being floated in Maine. Gasification is a term that
describes a chemical process by which carbonaceous (hydrocarbon) materials (coal, petroleum
coke, biomass, etc.) are converted to a synthesis gas (syngas) by means of partial oxidation with
air, oxygen, and/or steam.

A hydrocarbon feedstock is fed into a high-pressure, high-temperature chemical reactor (gasifier)
containing steam and a limited amount of oxygen. Under these “reducing” conditions, the
chemical bonds in the feedstock are severed by the extreme heat and pressure and a syngas is
formed. This syngas is primarily a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The syngas is
then cleansed using systems that remove particulates, sulfur, and trace metals. The resulting gas
mixture is itself a fuel.




 - 61 -
Gasification is potentially a very efficient method for extracting energy from many different
types of organic materials. The potential advantage of gasification is that burning the gas mixture
would be more efficient than direct combustion of the original fuel; such as the current W-T-E
technology employed in Maine. More of the energy contained in the fuel is extracted. In
addition, the high-temperature process refines out corrosive ash elements allowing cleaner gas
production from otherwise problematic fuels, and produces lower emissions of greenhouse gases
than current W-T-E systems.

2. Plasma Arc Technology
Plasma arc gasification as a waste treatment technology uses high electrical energy and high
temperature created by an electrical arc gasifier to break down the waste primarily into elemental
gas and a solid waste slag. The process is intended to be a net generator of electricity, depending
upon the composition of wastes, and also to reduce the volumes of waste being sent to landfill
sites.

A different type of plasma arc waste conversion that uses plasma to refine gases produced during
waste conversion, rather than to destroy waste, has recently shown itself to be successful on a
full commercial test scale in Ontario. Its emissions are also lower than other thermal waste
processing systems, and by converting waste to CO2 and water, rather than to methane, the
greenhouse gas emissions of the process are much less than competing technologies.

There has been a number of large scale plasma projects proposed to come on line over the next
several years including proposals in Ottawa, Ontario, St. Lucie County, Florida and the city of
Tallahassee also in Florida.

3. Landfill Gas-to-energy Projects
This technology actively manages MSW landfills for their gas recovery potential. The gas is then
used to fuel generators to produce electricity. Pipes are placed in the landfill; slight pressure is
maintained sufficient to draw the gas into a recovery plant but not enough to draw oxygen in
through the landfill cap. The gas is then cleaned and piped to the generator plant, which is either
connected to the power grid or into a local application. There is also the potential to recover the
waste heat created in certain circumstances.

Maine has recently seen its first power to the grid from landfill gas at the Casella facility in
Hampden. The amount of solid waste deemed as the minimum amount to make such a project
feasible is decreasing, making the technology available for consideration by smaller landfills
such as we have in Maine.

Two of those smaller landfills, Bath and Tri-Community in Fort Fairfield are moving forward
into the carbon credit market where small facilities are encouraged to reduce their carbon
footprint by capturing and flaring landfill gases in exchange for revenue from the credits.




 - 62 -
Single Sort Recycling
While not new, but new to Maine in 2007, this collection and processing technology, called
“single sort”, offers the ability for recycling programs to collect unsorted, commingled
recyclable materials. Its principle benefits are that it is a very efficient collection strategy that
also offers convenience that may encourage more people to participate in recycling programs and
in turn give the state the opportunity to recycle greater amounts and more items.

Single stream, single sort, fully co-mingled, are all terms used to describe a means for residents
and small businesses to mix all recyclables, paper products and containers together in one bin or
tote or cart. Those recyclables can then be dropped off into one large undivided container at a
recycling drop off facility, or if curbside service is available, collected by one truck with one
compartment in which all the recyclables are compacted.

Whether from the drop off facility or by the truck collecting curbside, the mixed recyclables are
then transported to a facility, commonly referred to as a “materials recovery facility” or MRF,
then and there to be “unmixed”. Separation through a combination of machinery and hand labor
prepares them for sale as commodities in the market, and finally materials are shipped to mills
around the country and the world.

Thus single stream is a collection and processing operation that emphasizes efficiency in
collection in exchange for more expensive infrastructure and more complicated and problematic
processing operations. ecomaine and FCR Goodman are fully committed to this type of system.

The potential and proven benefits include:
 ¾ increased ease and convenience to residents;
 ¾ increased participation;
 ¾ increased recycling reduces disposal costs;
 ¾ wider range of materials: most plastics, most paper grades;
 ¾ far less labor intensive: no handling past the collection container;
 ¾ compaction, if used, results in fewer trips, lowering transport costs; and
 ¾ for curbside, faster collection of materials, collection and transportation savings.

The drawbacks to single sort/single stream are:
 ¾ reduced revenue from the sale of recyclables, or the imposition of per ton processing fees,
 as is currently the case in times of down market cycles;
 ¾ communities still need to be involved in quality control process – they cannot leave it all
 up to the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF); they must keep MRFs “honest” about
 levels of contamination, residuals etc., not passing on contaminants that increase
 operating costs and disposal at receiving mills; and
 ¾ a loss of 20 years of source separation/quality education of residents, which would be
 difficult to ‘re-teach’ if is not successful.

Additional questions that communities may want to consider are:




 - 63 -
 ¾ Is there an additional community benefit (public good will) in continuing with the source
 separated system?
 ¾ Is there a compelling reason to change the current program? Such as going to curbside
 collection, mandatory recycling or PAYT? Or an external community reason such as a
 budget crisis?
 ¾ Once the program is committed to providing material into a centralized single sort
 facility, how will single stream facilities react to changes in the marketplace? Will the
 program end up sharing the costs of processing?
 ¾ Will materials from MRFs carry the same reputation in the marketplace as Maine
 products currently enjoy?
 ¾ People still have to overcome their resistance to the basic separation of trash from
 recyclables. If the program already enjoys a high recycling rate what will be the increase
 in participation?
 ¾ Will the percentage really up-tick, with more people recycling more stuff?
 ¾ Does the potential increase in recyclables volume cover the costs of upgrading to a more
 expensive system?

It remains to be seen what kind of increase in recycling tonnage a program achieves. In other
areas, single sort alone has brought an increase of 3-7% in the volume of recyclables.

There are ancillary issues to consider such as local control over the recycling program, the
sustainability of existing regional programs that employ source separation in the face of
competition with single stream providers, and limited competition in the market (i.e. only two
vendors are actively engaged in single sort).

If single sort can deliver the expected growth in recycling tonnages as anticipated by those 50
plus communities that have signed onto it, then it is worthy of serious consideration throughout
the state. Initial reports from communities that have adopted single sort are encouraging.

The Product Stewardship Model
The product stewardship model, begun in Maine with the mercury-added products recycling law
and then expanded under Maine’s first in the nation cathode-ray tube (CRT) management
legislation, has recently been expanded again to include thermostats and cellular telephones.

The model puts forth that the responsibility for reducing product impacts on public health and
the environment is shared among industry, government, and consumers. Each item of the waste
stream is examined for its impacts on the environment, its recyclability, or ease with which it can
be returned to the technological resource stream, its marketability, and the condition of those
markets. Manufacturers are given guidelines and goals to increase the recyclability of the
products and to lower toxicity. Generators are pushed to be responsible and follow the program,
and the collective government entities expand access and convenience and enforce the program
at all points of the system.

For example, cathode ray tubes (CRTs) found in all televisions and computers prior to flat screen
technology contain significant amounts (3-8 lbs.) of lead and other toxic heavy metals.




 - 64 -
In Maine, before 2003, these items were landfilled and crushed. The lead was exposed and posed
a potential threat to land and water and the health of Maine citizens. To alleviate this risk, the
Maine DEP developed legislation that requires the manufacturers to pay for the transportation
and recycling of these items generated from Maine households.

The Department also created the regulatory and program structure to achieve this goal
efficiently. Municipalities are required to provide the means for home owners to recycle the
CRT-containing units. The State Planning Office provided over 1.3 million dollars in grant
funding to assist municipalities in developing the CRTs collection infrastructure.

Homeowners are required to separate these items out from their other MSW and deliver them to
the appropriate facility or program. Once all program elements were in place, CRTs were banned
from disposal and required to be recycled by state law. In Maine to date, several thousand tons of
TVs and computer monitors have been recycled through this program.

Product stewardship initiatives are currently being developed in the northeast by the Product
Stewardship Institute, of which the Maine DEP is a participating member, and at similar
organizations on the west coast, on several products including among others, paint, pesticides,
telephone books, carpeting, and pharmaceuticals. By engaging them at the onset of the process,
product stewardship efforts encourage manufacturers to take increasing responsibility to reduce
the entire life-cycle impacts of a product and its packaging beginning with product design
through to its end-of-life management.

Product stewardship is an approach that has the potential to be widely applied to many current
products and those new products or new combinations of materials currently making their way
into Maine’s MSW stream.

Personal Responsibility
Finally, debates over infrastructure and operations involving hundreds of millions of dollars
overshadow and at the same time sidestep the issue of personal responsibility. Products are
brought to market and purchased without regard to their disposition after their original use.
Generally, there is a disconnection between the consumption of goods and services and the full,
life cycle costs; social, environmental, as well as financial of those goods and services.

Municipal solid waste management comes down to mitigating the effects wrought by the choices
we make as consumers and the consequences of the actions we take as individuals to manage our
own waste. As we move into the next decade, the decisions we make as voting citizens, must
shift from personal denial to personal responsibility.

Conclusion: New Trends
Waste management is more than putting garbage at the curb and forgetting it. Economic and
environmental considerations dictate that we find new ways to manage our waste and
responsibility for this is shared across society. In the future, in Maine and elsewhere, MSW can
no longer be considered separately from global environmental issues.




 - 65 -
VII. Where Do We Go from Here?
Past plans (’90, ’93, ’98) focused on the prospects and positive performance of the emergent
recycling efforts during those building years. Our perspective is different when we are looking at
a mature system and at figures showing us moving away from achieving our stated priorities.

As the current stewards of Maine’s MSW program, we know how to protect public health and
minimize and mitigate damage to the environment and these will remain our core obligations.
But once again as in 1987 we have had extensive public discussion on how we manage our solid
waste, and again we have the opportunity to decide what is fitting for Maine. What is our vision
of the future, what are our goals for the decades to come? Will it be reactive to external
challenges, or will it be forward thinking? We can chart our own course.

This section of the plan describes how Maine might achieve and then move beyond the 50%
recycling goal.

Assumptions
The starting point for these strategies is the baseline assumptions of Maine’s MSW management out to
2027 at the current 35% recycling rate and a 4% annual increase in waste generation.

Discussion of the growth rate
The 4% annual increase may or may not be viable for all planning scenarios. It is used here because it is
based on the growth rate of the previous two decades and because using such a scenario is protective of
the state’s landfill capacity and of the process required to seek and secure additional new capacity if it be
required.

However, the current situation from the latter part 2008 and into 2009 saw flat or declining tonnages at
some of Maine’s disposal facilities. The economy, particularly the consumer economy, may not come
back to present levels for some time and waste is linked to economic activity. Waste reduction strategies
in product design, packaging, and consumer choice, may take hold, particularly in this time of economic
change, and those strategies may result in permanent reductions in certain components of the MSW
stream leading to overall reductions in tonnages.

Thus, the projected 4% growth rate may be too aggressive. It should be qualified by connecting it with
overall state economic growth and with progress in waste reduction and other green efforts to slow or
reverse the growth of waste. The 4% rate should be seen as the high case Maine’s economic growth rate
to provide the plan with the background in which to base the forward looking reduction and recycling
strategies.

The plan is built from the annual waste generation data contained in the state Waste Generation and
Disposal Capacity Report. The annual report is aptly more fluid than the plan and reflects actual solid
waste conditions in Maine. The plan takes a longer view of waste data in order to assess the effectiveness
of statewide policies. It relies on the trends provided over time by the annual data.

Tied to the 4% growth rate question is the issue of the importation of waste. There are questions as to
whether or not out-of-state waste will really decline and be supplanted by the growth of in-state waste for
the W-T-Es. If delivery numbers from Maine communities continue to decline, due to their economic
conditions or recycling and waste reduction efforts, the fuel gap will grow, maintaining the flow of out-
of-state wastes.


 - 66 -
The Run Up to 50%
A strategy for achieving Maine’s 50% recycling goal.

Meeting a 50% recycling goal would extend the life of the state’s existing state and municipal
land disposal facilities. It would require an increase in recycling by 300,000 more tons a year at
today’s generation totals and up to 2.3 million tons a year by 2027. It could be accomplished
through the expansion of public and private sector recycling efforts. Most local programs could
on average achieve a 60% participation rate.

All strategies and goals assume some level of state assistance within available resources, to
encourage these efforts through grants, education, outreach, and technical assistance.

 Objective: Improve collection and participation in public recycling programs.
 ¾ Single sort recycling and other efficiency based collection and processing systems would
 be implemented by all those programs in which the technology demonstrates a clear
 advantage over their previous method(s). This would include the majority if not all of the
 most heavily populated areas of the state. It would be combined in many situations with
 the adoption of curbside collection and PAYT (pay as you throw) programs and an
 expanded list of items to be recovered.

 ¾ Maine materials would still move to market in times of over supply due to improved
 quality controls installed at the processors and by public education and inspection at the
 municipal level.

 ¾ The relationship of volume to price will stay within acceptable limits (excluding current
 market conditions) because any potential reduction in revenue will be more than offset by
 the increase in recycling volume and the decrease in disposal costs.

 ¾ The state would provide targeted infrastructure, planning, and equipment grants to
 regions to improve collection and participation rates..

 Objective: Mandate recycling of old corrugated cardboard (OCC).36
 ¾ OCC is easily identified, easily separated, of good value, and comprises 14% of the
 MSW stream (excluding CDD). If the majority of recycling programs in Maine had
 banned corrugated cardboard from disposal, the amount of OCC recycled in 2007
 (117,000 tons) would have doubled and thus could have provided 20% of the tonnage
 needed to reach the 50% recycling goal. It is already mandatory for businesses with 15 or
 more employees to recycle OCC. This strategy would extend that program to all
 businesses and residences.

 Objective: Encourage communities to ban the disposal of leaf and yard waste.
 ¾ Municipalities would be encouraged to establish their own leaf and yard waste compost
 programs to divert up to 13% of their waste stream from disposal and provide quality
 compost for municipal projects and community use. The goal is to build up the
36
 There has been an ongoing debate on mandatory recycling since the inception of the state recycling goal. There
are real questions as to how such programs would gain public acceptance and be monitored and enforced.


 - 67 -
 composting infrastructure in numbers of locations and the capacity of those locations
 around the state.

 Objective: Encourage recycling the components of the CDD waste stream that can be
 recycled.
 ¾ CDD recycling can have dramatic effects on recycling rates. While they require
 oversight, space, access, regulatory requirements for operating surface and separation
 between materials, CDD recycling operations are not complicated and there are many
 municipal programs in the state with high diversion rates that can serve as model
 programs and be replicated in other locations. As with the compost facilities,
 communities would be encouraged to set up and run new programs or expand existing
 facilities.

 Objective: Expand recycling opportunities for commercial sources.
 ¾ Businesses would embrace recycling similar to other green energy, efficiency, and green
 building initiatives. The state would engage business in a public/private grassroots effort
 to realize the financial and social benefits of recycling, through a grants and technical
 assistance program through the regional councils as part of their current outreach to
 business programs. The state will encourage expansion of municipal programs to include
 recycling from commercial sources.

 Objective: Maine state government, the state’s largest employer in terms of employees and
 building square footage, leads by example.
 ¾ The state would routinely achieve a 65% recycling rate for its own operations and
 facilities, including the university and community college systems.

 Objective: Continue efforts to remove toxic wastes from Maine’s MSW stream.
 ¾ Expand the number of permanent HHW facilities from 2 to 16 (every county). Include
 mobile collection infrastructure with these HHW service centers in order to improve the
 level of access and convenience for all Maine residents.

Moving Beyond 50%
Once we achieve the 50% goal, what could we do to move beyond it? What if we change our
perspective on who’s responsible for the products that we make and buy and then no longer
want? What if we were to keep the defining line between what we call a waste and what we call a
resource always fluid, always moving towards resource?

Beyond 50% will call for building on the steps outlined to get to there and then proceeding on
two pathways. One would fully exploit our traditional means of resource recovery. The other
would pursue shared responsibility or stewardship for certain individual products or classes of
products.

The traditional approach will call for on-going commitments from both the state and
municipalities. Not only investments in collection and processing, management and equipment,
but recognizing recycling as the centerpiece for managing business’ and residents’ discards.
Waste as unwanted “garbage” must be seen as secondary and only constitutes what has not, as


 - 68 -
yet, been recycled. Waste systems will be converted to recycling systems and recycling becomes
a resource recovery management system.

The second track will entail the development and implementation of a new set of policies based
on stewardship of individual products using extended producer responsibility. The goal, to
paraphrase the California Product Stewardship Council’s mission statement, is to shift Maine’s
system of managing certain discarded products from one focused on government waste diversion
efforts to one that relies on producer responsibility in order to reduce public and environmental
costs and drive improvements in product design that promote environmental sustainability.

The following are some of the steps to build all or part of this dual scenario.

A. The State
By direct participation in the management of municipal solid waste, the state will:

Objective: Encourage personal responsibility by building public trust in recycling.
 ¾ In order for Mainers to agree to a recycling system, they must trust that: the system is
 effective; their participation makes a difference; and, is a shared community value that
 most of the people respect most of the time. This message would be delivered through a
 continual state public education and awareness campaign in unison with local program
 elements.

Objective: Enact a statewide ban on the disposal of all commodities for which there is a proven
accessible market.
 ¾ Cardboard, newspaper, mixed paper, #1, and 2 plastics, steel containers, metals, glass,
 etc. would be banned from disposal, subject to an emergency provision. The state would
 provide targeted infrastructure, planning, and equipment recycling and composting grants
 to regions.

Objective: Encourage the separation and collection of organics, leaf and yard waste and food
wastes.
 ¾ The full utilization of existing facilities and the development of a system of public and
 private composting facilities within all major service center areas would support full-
 scale organics composting.
 ¾ Leaf and yard materials would be banned from disposal by 2020.
 ¾ Communities that contract for collection service would include organics collection
 provisions to homes and commercial establishments in their contracts.

Objective: The state would encourage management efficiencies and provide clear state-level
direction by:
 ¾ Encouraging collection and transportation efficiencies to reduce to the extent practical the
 energy required to collect and transport Maine’s MSW.
 ¾ Establishing recycling standards for all materials delivered to disposal facilities and CDD
 processing facilities based on the waste hierarchy and the state recycling and reduction
 goals as applied to their annual tonnage.


 - 69 -
B. Local Government
Objective: Municipalities join into regional programs in order to take more effective control
over their waste streams including the following municipal initiatives:
 ¾ Public recycling services would be encouraged through targeted grants to extend to all
 commercial entities within their jurisdictions;
 ¾ Ongoing reuse and recycling clean-up programs would be provided;
 ¾ Recycling and trash collection contracting practices in public/private partnerships would
 be changed so that all parties have the maximum incentive to increase recycling
 collections tonnage and to process materials to achieve best available market prices as
 private sector’s revenue share (percentage) would increase as recycling tonnage
 increases. Under the proper structure, the public and private would become genuine
 partners, both having incentive to maximize recycling and minimize disposal and
 contamination;
 ¾ Recognizing that recycling and composting have to compete with trash for market share,
 programs would encourage curbside collection, container sizing (larger bins for
 recycling, smaller bins for garbage), and single sort mechanisms;
 ¾ A CDD recycling component would be attached to all building permits, through local
 ordinance;
 ¾ Participation in recycling programs would be incentivized;
 ¾ Collection and transportation efficiencies would be increased in order to reduce to the
 greatest extent practical, the energy required to collect and transport Maine’s MSW; and
 ¾ ‘Flow control’ initiatives based on the key points of the Supreme Court ruling would be
 used.

The state would assist municipalities with enhanced technical and educational recycling
assistance for outreach to:
 ¾ the commercial sector,
 ¾ to multi family units, and
 ¾ in public areas and at public events.

C. Product Stewardship
Maine can pursue a product stewardship system by considering each item or class of items and
developing legislation, regulations, and programs to address that specific class. This approach
has been a success with computer and TV monitors and thermostats —a common process with
clear goals but flexible approaches.

As a place to start, the state could use the key elements of our existing electronics waste (E-
waste) law as templates for future deliberation. In brief, the basic premise is that the management
of products that are disposable and exhibit hazardous characteristic(s) by design and manufacture


 - 70 -
is not a core function of local government, but should be shared by the producers and consumers
and government, with the preponderance of responsibility borne by the producers.

In broad terms, products would be chosen using criteria that looks at their volume, complexity,
and characteristics. Complexity refers to the relative ease or difficulty by which the product may
be managed through the traditional recycling/resource recovery system.

There would be clear policy goals, guiding principles, definitions, clear roles and responsibilities,
governance, products and product categories covered, program effectiveness and measurement.
These are the key elements that reflect Maine’s E-waste law.

Whichever system we design for the future, the goal is to respond quickly to new products or
changes to current products that affect their impact on the environment; identifying them on their
way into the market, before they enter the waste stream.

The steps to go beyond 50% could result in the following:

 1. Although waste prevention will remain a challenge, as so little of what Mainers consume
 is produced here, the state will join with other jurisdictions in the region and across the
 nation to put in place extended producer responsibility programs, using sales bans and
 mandatory producer recycling efforts and encouraging sustainable purchasing by the
 retail markets. The reduction and elimination of toxic and complex products will remain
 the number one priority.

 2. There will be on-going public relations and education campaigns across media and in all
 markets utilizing as many channels as practical with several specific annual elements (for
 example, Maine Recycles Week, and the yearly best of all media high school and college
 contests), coordinated through a campus media project and paid for though private
 sponsorship. The sustained high level of public awareness campaigns may lead to Maine
 produced ads and advertising agencies finding their way into the national marketplace.

 3. There would be a significant increase in recycling volume and participation after the
 statewide ban on the disposal of all materials for which there was an established, proven
 market demand; eventually including all fiber products, 1-7 plastics, metals, and glass.
 Despite some predictable market fluctuations, additional gains would be realized when it
 becomes the accepted practice for municipalities to extend public recycling services to all
 commercial entities. With quality assurance practices in place, collection and processing
 systems such as single stream would be widespread.

 4. Market demand and prices for recycled commodities in the long term will remain stable.
 The overseas markets will mature, as they produce more of their own recycled
 commodities, but rising standards of living across the globe and the high cost of energy
 and the relatively low cost and energy efficient nature of recycled resources over virgin
 extraction will keep them attractive to the market.

 5. Local governments’ role in MSW management will remain essential as they are
 encouraged to join into regional entities, a process may lead to the development of
 several regional waste-to-resources master plans.


 - 71 -
 6. Although the state will not find it necessary to impose a full ban on the disposal of all
 organics, local programs will be given incentives and encouraged through grants and aid
 to pursue the separation and collection of organics, including the full utilization of
 existing facilities and the development of a system of public and private composting
 facilities within all major service center areas. Thus, communities that contract for
 collection service will be rewarded if they included organics collection provisions to
 homes and commercial establishments in their contracts.

 7. There would certainly be effects on and to the state’s recycling and disposal capacity. As
 local recycling programs grow in volume, they will need to choose between expansion of
 local collection and processing capacity through their own capital investment, and
 combining with or into larger regional efforts. Among the outcomes would be to extend
 the life of the state’s existing land disposal capacity.

D. Waste and Greenhouse Gases
Addressing waste generation and its impact on disposal capacity and toxicity of waste is only
part of an effort to move beyond 50%. To truly move from a waste to resource, we must also
look at larger environmental issues such as climate change related to greenhouse gas emissions.

To move beyond 50%, the state of Maine could establish an emissions goal for all waste
management facilities:
 ¾ through an expanded hierarchy;
 ¾ directed by a state solid waste greenhouse gas initiative;
 ¾ to take into account energy and emissions using the improved life cycle analysis WARM
 (model) or the best available technology;

Performance standards for all recycling and waste facilities would be developed so that those
facilities may be issued a greenhouse gas initiative rating. The performance measure will
encourage collection and transportation efficiencies to reduce to the greatest extent practical the
energy required to collect and transport Maine’s MSW and the emissions from our facilities.

Common Threads
Maine’s solid waste program managers will make their own plans for the future. They may
choose to use all or parts of the scenarios outlined in the plan or something else entirely. But
there are some common threads that ought to be included as essential parts in any effort from the
smallest local program to statewide initiatives.

 1. Waste prevention remains the top priority. It is the goal of the state to take advantage
 of every available means to change practices at the source of production through state,
 local, and regional projects, using all levels of technical and financial assistance,
 voluntary agreements, and legislative action to reduce the amount of solid waste we
 produce.




 - 72 -
 2. It is the goal of the state to maintain and promote recycling as Maine’s preferred
 solid waste management method. Recycling is cost-effective and we should actively
 seek ways to increase recycling tonnage. It will extend the life of existing land disposal
 facilities and lower health and environmental risks.
 3. It is the goal of the state to continue to make every effort to remove toxics from our
 MSW stream. As its has with mercury products, CRTs, and now cell phones, we must
 continue to find and extract those toxic products from the waste stream and assign
 appropriate responsibility for their sound and sustainable management. We must find and
 continue support for household hazardous waste collection and look to find ways to
 include remedies for very small quantity commercial generators of similar waste types
 and amounts.
 4. It is the goal of the state to include greenhouse gas emissions reduction, energy self-
 reliance, and energy conservation in our present operations and future waste
 management plans. We should develop measurement and reporting tools so that all parts
 of our system are aware of the effects and consequences of their operations. This could
 mean using the EPA WARM system, available life cycle analysis, or any improvement
 upon those systems.
 5. It is the goal of the state to promote personal responsibility. If we produce waste, our
 responsibility does not end at the curb. We are responsible for it as long as it remains
 waste. In effect, it stays in our custody.

Conclusion: We Have a Choice
Maine is at a crossroads. After 20 years, we have achieved laudable results. We have
dramatically reduced the environmental risks posed by our disposal facilities. We have a waste
management system that effectively handles the waste we generate. Guided by ambitious goals,
with minimal incentives, municipalities and businesses voluntarily recycle a third of Maine’s
waste stream. We can continue with minimal investment to maintain an effective and respectable
system. Or we can go beyond that. We can change the way we view waste. We can enact more
aggressive waste management policies. We can make new investments. We can adopt more
rigorous standards and regulations. It’s a matter for policy makers to choose.




 - 73 -
Appendix A: Statutory References for the Plan
These chapters are edited for relevancy to the purposes of this section.

Title 38: Chapter 13: Subchapter 1-A: Article 3: §1310-N. Solid waste facility licenses
1. Licenses. The department shall issue a license for a waste facility whenever it finds that:
C. In the case of a disposal facility or a solid waste processing facility that generates residue
requiring disposal, the volume of the waste and the risks related to its handling and disposal have
been reduced to the maximum practical extent by recycling and source reduction prior to
disposal.
3. Public benefit determination.
5. Recycling and source reduction determination.
5-A. Recycling and source reduction determination. The requirements of this subsection
apply to solid waste disposal facilities and to solid waste processing facilities that generate
residue requiring disposal.
A. An applicant for a new or expanded solid waste disposal facility shall demonstrate that:
(1) The proposed solid waste disposal facility will accept solid waste that is subject to recycling
and source reduction programs, voluntary or otherwise, at least as effective as those imposed by
this chapter and other provisions of state law. The department shall attach this requirement as a
standard condition to the license of a solid waste disposal facility governing the future
acceptance of solid waste at the proposed facility; and
(2) The applicant has shown consistency with the recycling provisions of the state plan.
B. The provisions of this paragraph apply to solid waste processing facilities that generate
residue requiring disposal.
 (2) A solid waste processing facility that generates residue requiring disposal shall recycle or
process into fuel for combustion all waste accepted at the facility to the maximum extent
practicable, but in no case at a rate less than 50%. For purposes of this subsection, "recycle"
includes, but is not limited to, reuse of waste as shaping, grading or alternative daily cover
materials at landfills; aggregate material in construction; and boiler fuel substitutes.
(3) A solid waste processing facility subject to this paragraph shall demonstrate consistency with
the recycling provisions of the state plan.

Title 38: Chapter 13: Subchapter 1-A: Article 3: §1310-AA. Public benefit determination
1-A. Public benefit determination for acceptance by publicly owned solid waste landfills of
waste generated out of state. Prior to accepting waste that is not generated within the State, a
solid waste facility that is subject to this subsection shall apply to the commissioner for a
determination of whether the acceptance of the waste provides a substantial public benefit.
2. Process. … In making the determination of whether the facility under subsection 1 or the
acceptance of waste that is not generated within the State under subsection 1-A provides a
substantial public benefit, the commissioner shall consider the state plan,……..
3. Standards for determination. The commissioner shall find that the proposed facility under
subsection 1 or the acceptance of waste that is not generated within the State under subsection 1-
A provides a substantial public benefit if the applicant demonstrates to the commissioner that the
proposed facility or the acceptance of waste that is not generated within the State:
A. Meets immediate, short-term or long-term capacity needs of the State;




 - 74 -
B. Except for expansion of a commercial solid waste disposal facility that accepts only special
waste for landfilling, is consistent with the state waste management and recycling plan;
C. Is not inconsistent with local, regional or state waste collection, storage, transportation,
processing or disposal;
The following statutes also have bearing on the purposes of this section:

Title 38: Chapter 24: Subchapter 1: §2101. Solid waste management hierarchy
1. Priorities. It is the policy of the State to plan for and implement an integrated approach to
solid waste management for solid waste generated in this State and solid waste imported into this
State, which must be based on the following order of priority:
A. Reduction of waste generated at the source, including both amount and toxicity of the waste;
B. Reuse of waste;
C. Recycling of waste;
D. Composting of biodegradable waste;
E. Waste processing that reduces the volume of waste needing land disposal, including
incineration; and
F. Land disposal of waste.
It is the policy of the State to use the order of priority in this subsection as a guiding principle in
making decisions related to solid waste management.

2. Waste reduction and diversion. It is the policy of the State to actively promote and
encourage waste reduction measures from all sources and maximize waste diversion efforts by
encouraging new and expanded uses of solid waste generated in this State as a resource.

Title 38: Chapter 24: Subchapter 3: §2132. State goals
1. State recycling goal. It is the goal of the State to recycle or compost, by January 1, 2009,
50% of the municipal solid waste tonnage generated each year within the State.

1-A. State waste reduction goal. It is the goal of the State to reduce the biennial generation of
municipal solid waste tonnage by 5% by January 1, 2009 and by an additional 5% every
subsequent 2 years. This reduction in solid waste tonnage, after January 1, 2009, is a biennial
goal. The baseline for calculating this reduction is the 2003 solid waste generation data gathered
by the office.

Title 38 MRSA §2122. State waste management and recycling plan
The office shall prepare an analysis of, and a plan for, the management, reduction and recycling
of solid waste for the State. The plan must be based on the priorities and recycling goals
established in sections 2101 and 2132. The plan must provide guidance and direction to
municipalities in planning and implementing waste management and recycling programs at the
state, regional and local levels.
 1. Consultation. In developing the state plan, the office shall consult with the department.
The office shall solicit public input and may hold hearings in different regions of the State.
 2. Revisions. The office shall revise the analysis by January 1, 1998 and every 5 years after
that time to incorporate changes in waste generation trends, changes in waste recycling and
disposal technologies, development of new waste generating activities and other factors affecting
solid waste management as the office finds appropriate.



 - 75 -
§2123-A. State plan contents
The state plan includes the following elements.
 1. Waste characterization. The state plan must be based on a comprehensive analysis of
solid waste generated, recycled and disposed of in the State. Data collected must include, but not
be limited to, the source, type and amount of waste currently generated; and the costs and types
of waste management employed including recycling, composting, landspreading, incineration or
landfilling.
 2. Waste reduction and recycling assessment. The state plan must include an assessment
of the extent to which waste generation could be reduced at the source and the extent to which
recycling can be increased.
 3. Determination of existing and potential disposal capacity. The state plan must
identify existing solid waste disposal and management capacity within the State and the potential
for expansion of that capacity.
 4. Projected demand for capacity. The state plan must identify the need in the State for
current and future solid waste disposal capacity by type of solid waste, including identification of
need over the next 5-year, 10-year and 20-year periods.

§2124. Reports
The office shall submit the plan and subsequent revisions to the Governor, the department and
the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over natural resource matters.




 - 76 -
Appendix B: Municipal Cost of Solid Waste Management:
Contrasting Profiles
The communities of Hartford, ME (pop. 963) and Portland (pop. 64,249) offer two very different
perspectives on the costs of managing solid waste.37

Town of Hartford

 • Contracts for curbside MSW and recyclable collection
 • Operates small bulky waste transfer station
 • MSW Disposal at Crossroads Landfill at $70.50/ton
 • Expenses paid from tax revenue

The Town of Hartford, with a population of 963 and 364 year-round housing units, contracts
with Archie’s, a local trash collection firm, for curbside municipal solid waste collection that is
disposed of at Waste Management’s Crossroads Landfill. Recyclables are also collected curbside
by Archies. Hartford pays a disposal tip fee of $70.50/ton. Hartford has 206 seasonal housing
units, and a large summer population. Hartford operates a small transfer station for
construction/demolition debris, large bulky items, and metal appliances. In 2005, Hartford
disposed of 380.63 tons of municipal solid waste, which is equivalent to 790.6 pounds per
person, and recycled 115.71 tons of municipal solid waste, which was equivalent to 240.4
pounds per person.

As shown in the chart below, Hartford spent a total of $58,050, or $60.28 per person:

 Personnel $1,200
 Curbside MSW Collection $25,920
 MSW Disposal Fee $26,155
 Recycling $1,000
 Bulky $3,775
 Total: $58,050

City of Portland

 • Provides full service recycling, MSW and bulky waste disposal
 • Municipal employees collect residential MSW and recyclables curbside
 • Residents “pay-by-the-bag” (PAYT) for solid waste removal
 • City operates Riverside bulky waste processing facility
 • MSW Disposal at Ecomaine $88/ton + additional financial assessments
 • Expenses paid by tax revenue and from the PAYT fees and bulky waste fees



37
 Information presented in these profiles is based upon the annual solid waste management reports submitted to the
State Planning Office


 - 77 -
The City of Portland, with a population of 64,249 and 29,714 year round housing units, has its
public works employees provide curbside pick-up of MSW and recyclables. Portland has a ‘pay
by the bag’ trash collection program, where residents are charged $.95 for a 30-gallon bag of
trash and $.47 for a 15-gallon bag of trash. Portland has a crew of 20 in solid waste and recycling
collection and operates six recycling trucks, four solid waste trucks, and one roll-off truck.
Portland services single-dwelling homes and apartment buildings with up to nine units. Portland
is a member of ecomaine, formerly Regional Waste Systems, where its MSW is incinerated and
recyclables processed.

Portland residents have the option of curbside recycling pick-up, or drop-off at 14 recycling roll-
off containers placed around the city.

Portland contracts with Commercial Paving and Recycling Company to operate the Riverside
Bulky Processing Facility. This facility is open to Portland residents and businesses, as well as
surrounding municipalities. Residents and businesses in Portland account for about one-half of
the material received at Riverside. The Riverside facility is staffed by four Portland employees
and 8-10 Commercial Paving and Recycling Company employees. Portland residents receive an
annual punch-pass for their use of the facility. Businesses and commercial waste operators are
charged a fee for using Riverside

In 2005, the single-family dwellings and qualified apartment building residents generated 12,249
tons of municipal solid waste, or about 381.2 pounds per person. The city collected 5,018 tons
of recyclables, and ecomaine recycled 151 tons of metal for a total of 5,169 tons, or 161 pounds
per person. About two-fifths of Portland’s solid waste and recycling program is paid through
fees collected, and three-fifths from tax revenue.

As shown in the chart below, Portland spent $5,351,834, or $83.30 per person, though not all
residents qualified to receive the solid waste services provided by the city:

 Personnel $779,954
 Equipment Purchase $160,000
 Equipment maintenance $101,320
 Spring Clean-Up $100,000
 MSW Disposal $1,110,560
 ecomaine Assessment $1,100,000
 Riverside Facility $2,000,000
 Total: $5,351,834

These two examples highlight the complexity in cost and other points of comparisons between
the over three hundred municipal programs and operating systems.




 - 78 -
Recycling. Advisory Committee
 Cheryl Leeman, Chairman




 Report to the


 Portland City Council
 th
 October 26 , 1998
ACKN'O~ •••. I.... ...........__...........................,...................._____............-....-.................................___ 2
EXEctJTIV'E SUMM.AR.Y..........-........___.....__......_ .............................___..........__...........______..........-...... _5

INmODUCTION................._.._....................__.........................._..........__________.........._____.....--___....._. ___... 8

L HISTORY............_............ . .........__......_ ........._ ....______.._____......_ .............__.._......................._. _ _... 9
 A. REGIONAL WASTB SYSTBMS ............................................................................................................................. ~•••••••••...•••••.. 9
 B. RIvERsIDE REcYCLING FACILITY........................................................................................................................................10
 C. R:asmENTIAL RBcYCIJNG BP'PORTS..................................................................................................................................... 10
 D. Pn.oT CURBsIDE RBcYCLING PROJECT ............................................................................................................................... 11
 E. PERFORMANCE ....................................................... _ ........................................................................................................... 11
 F.lNSTII'tmONALRBcYcmo................................................................................................................................................. 13
n. CtJRRE,N'T PR.OGRAMS...._.......•_..._____.. .... ____...___...___________............_ _ _....._ _..............15
 A. TRAsH DISPOSAL ................................................................................................................................................................ 15
 B. REcYCLING ......................................................................................................................................................................... 15
 C. OTHER PROGRAMS: ............................................................................................................................................................. 16
 D.IN-HOUSEREcYCLlNG.........................................................................................................................................................17
 E. CoMMERCIAL ......................................................................................................................................................................17
Ill. INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIO~S_."" ....................._ ..____ 0 • •_ _ _ _ ._.18
  A. SAN11'ATIONIRECYCLlNG ............................................................................................................................................ 18
 I.} TrQ9h PiclrrlJp 01Ul Voluntary Drop OD'RecyclUrg ....................................................................................................... 18
 2.} TrQ9h PicIc-lJp 01Ul Ex:po.1uletJ Voluntary Drop-oj/Recycling............................... ,....................................................... 18
 3.) pay-Per-Bag Trash PkJr...lJp 01Ul Ex:po.1uletJ Yolrmtary Drop-oj/Recycling................................................................. 19
 4.} TrQ9h Pick-Up 01Ul Voluntary Curbside Rscycling ....................................................................................................... 19
 5. pay-Per-Bag Trash PicIc-lJp and Curbside Recycling ................................................................................................... 20
  B. 011lER. COMPONENTS: .................................................................................................................................................. 20
IV. UCOMMENDAUONS..___...._ ......______....______ .....______..____...._.._......____..____.___._____ 22

 A. RESIDENTIAL SEltVICB................................................................................................................................................. 22
 B. crrY IN'-HOUSE RBCYCL1NG ....................................................................................................................................... 23
 C. COMMERCIAL RBCYCLING.......................................................................................................................................... 26
 D. PROPOSED SrrE PLAN ORDIN'ANCB REVISION ....................................................................................................... 28
v.  ~AnON_ ..._________....._.___..._.._....._....__________...._......_...._____._._....___....-._29

 A. TR.ASlI COLLECI'IONIRECYCLING ............................................................................................................................. 29
 B. 01liBR. COMPONENTS ................................................................................................................................................... 30
 C. PUBlJC RELATIONS AND COMPIJANCB CAMPAIGNS .......................................................................................... 32
 D. ENFORCBMENT............................................................................................................................................................... 32
'VI. .FIN'ANCIAL...-..._....._ •••______....__...__••_....__.•_.__...._.________•_____..___..............__.__....._.__ ,34

 A. CURRENT COSTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 34
 B. SUMMARY OF 0P'I10NS ................................................................................................................................................ 35
 r:
 r
 TABLE OF APPENDICES I.
 t,
A Survey ofresults from Department ofPublic Works Questionnaire

B. Excerpt from report by the Mayors Task Force on Solid Waste, Dec. 22, 1997
 [
 reganiing recycling

C. List ofcommunities in Maine with pay-per-bag programs r
 r~
D. Policies for City and other communities related to multi-family buildings and i
 ~ .,
 housing authorities

E. City's Administrative Regulation #42 r=
 'L._.J

F. Selected news articles on recycling and pay-per-bag
 [

 1­
 j
 L.

 r '.
 'j
 C'-4
 i
 ,J

 'l
 .J
 dlat-w S;lO!llI!<I
 ~no:ua:> lL ~ UUIItplV os;
 rqaox-uar .JIIJ!ZO([ .A:1lDH


 t~ £~

 paq~A\~ ~·PW("'HlL9
 ~·1fBD ~pg
 . '''' .. -r:' ," , ',,,f~ ....;_.,' ~ H>'
 ,

 t~ 1 pPaIf(I
 . . . . . . . . . .1A1t . . . ~8t
 OIIID ..... pAoa-woPl


 t~·~A:aD
 .IS lIlt) "IIIIart I'-D

 2lMEtl dO"..  !II'"'. oII •• " ••• "I.W




1'lI.1. ,"q"'IUJIi'&"~"'JO"'''''''._''!''''.1
 . p;f1lptJ . . a.t-...... ·.........AD..- ... ·~·:a:mpat
~ ...".. . . . . p••, . . , ....... l J.-.;.JO . . . . . Il··.... 11!1U,




 r 1
 w
, J
 dl8J-~V . Qilm[-~v
 ~S poo~u:oua: 101 JlIIII!t\ S,JD[puBl[) 90£
 udOJIUBU ~o:)paqOH:
If
  I
,.J


1
,.J

]
 £~

J )OaQS pualqS!H 1..9
 ~P8:

J
 lPJ.IIS!Q

 QfMID1DQId lIJiIISIIA\ It


o astnO "'!J8:
 t ~ '.qJOlRlO:)AJt)
8 U8CDJ!1ICD 'UlrLill1iwI IAIott::>


o . ""'·*"O~"R:''''''''''··.
 ~ IIJIll ~~ OlqwtlpA paalJC)CldDs'P"PJAam
U oqA\ OJ(qttdtnD:JO . . . . ., . SIICl- - ,• •~ Olll ~ Alto -D OJ quBqJ 18~

.J • •1IIUpIIlq palIIIDtIWZ!11d1O ~'fI'IIJO dnoII aIIikAfP 8.1lfOJJ ~Jdal

,j ~"""""OIU ·...,...AD..
 --pal~~
 OJ mopdo IftlOlDA poufi--1I'4l SSIiaoaI ~. J.O pm q IJ ~ 8!IfJ,

J
U
i'




 Commercial Recycling Advisory Sub-Committee


 Joe Blotnic~ Chaimmn
 Maine Businesses for Social Responsibility
( ..:.



 Mike Fenton
 William Goodman & Sons
 . Chuck Foshay
 Barb Hager Regional Waste Systems
 Portland Downtown District
..,
 Kate Moon
 Bric Root Walkabout
 Regional Waste Systems
,-_. i


 Suzanne Snowden
 FUomena Troiano Wastecap Maine
 Troiano Waste Services
 . Ron Ward
L...
 Carleton Winslow Old Port Task Force
r -,
I
 Greater Portland Housing Association




f '
L ,




;




 3
 r
 t.
 City StatJ r! ,
 William Bray
 Director ofPublic Works
 Troy Moon
 Com. Waste Programs Admininstor
 r,
 Department of Public Works ('
 L
 JobnRague
 Customer Service Manager Donna Katsiaficas r
 I
 l •
 Department ofPublic Works Associate Corporation Counsel
 r
 l .
 Mark Adelson Kevin Marltee
Director ofHousing and Neighborhood D.ircctor of Treasmy r-'
 1-·
 L,
 Services
  Planning and Urban Development [
 Carol McClure
 EllenSanbom Customer Service Manager L,
 Assistant Finance Director Parks and Recreation


 , .
 1



 ['
 ,
r
 Executive Summary

 Neighborhood recycling was introduced to Port1anders in 1990 by RWS through
.......... the use of roll-off recycling containers commoDly referred to as "silver buIlets." That
 program currently diverts only 7% ofPortland's waste stream from the incinerator. As
 demonstrated by actual numbers, in 1997 residents of Portland generated 22,504 tons of
'1".- ...
 trash and recycled oDly 1,666 tons.
',- j




 With a mandate from the State ofMaine and the residents ofthe city (see
 Appendix A), the Portland City Council empanelled an advisory committee of citizens
 representing different neighbmboods. This committee pursued the following goals and
 objectives:
f~




 Mission Statement: Increase reeycHng and promote solid waste
,~
 reduction.
 Residential .

~. . I. Goal: Develop a cost effective residential integrated waste management
 plan.

 A. Objective: To explore various options including household hazardous
 waste, leat7yard waste, big item pick up and education.

,~~
 .City
,.. 1. Goal: Develop City waste reduction and procurement policies.

 A. Objective: To update current administrative regulation No. 42,
 Recycling Policy and examine options for new opportunities.


 Commercial

 1. Goal: Develop recommendations that encourage businesses to reduce,
 recycle and reuse.

 A. Objective: To examine a variety of options including, but not limited
 to, Buy Recycled Purchase Policies, business assisted programs,
 economic incentives, how-to-guide and education.
 r
 I


 r
 After framing out their task:, the committee reviewed the history ofwaste disposal l
in the city, current programs for rubbish collectionlrecycling and explored various
options for creating an integrated solid waste management program targeted at increasing r,
recycling and reducing the amount of solid waste generated. I ,

 The primary conclusion of their review was that the City of Portland's recycling
 r
rate is far below where it should be, especially when compared to other cities in the l
Northeast and State ofMaine who recycle 40% - 50% of their waste stream. The (",
Advisory Committee recommends, therefore, that the City of Portland provide its citizens
with alternative methods ofwaste disposal to increase recycling by adopting a pay-per­
 !:
bag trash pick-up program complemented by a curbside recycling program. The
committee also recommends that the City adopt a yard waste collection program, a
hazardous waste collection program and that the Public Works Department collect bulky
items by appointment r-'
 I
 l ,
 The pay-per-bag trash pick-up program will require residents ofPortland to set
their trash out in an approved, officially stamped and color-coded bag. These bags will
be pmchased frorillocal retailers. The City's sanitation crews would continue to collect ~~
 .,
residential trash once a week.

 The curbside recycling program will provide residents with a way to dispose of a r:
significant portion oftheir waste stream at no charge. The City will 'distribute bins,
purchased with money from a grant from the State Planning Office, to each eligible i
resident Residents will collect their recyclables in this bin and set it out on their regular l"
trash day. A contracted vendor will collect the material.

 Research and the experience of other communities have shown that such
programs dramatically increase waste reduction and recycling because they attach a cost
 L.
to wastefuJness. Reducing waste, increasing recycling and integrating our waste
management programs will benefit Portland residents tremendously: .i~ -"I




 • Minjmizing the waste stream will reduced tipping fee at RWS and result in cost
 savings for taxpayers
 • Less waste to the incinerator is more environmentally responsible
 • Removing yard waste and hazardous waste from the waste stream creates
 additional cost savings and reduces toxic emissions from the incinerator
 • Controls abuses ofthe heavy item collection
 • Frees the District Crews to work in the neighborhoods during the month of
 September

 Realizing the importance ofpublic support for a change in our current policies for
trash disposal, the Advisory Committee further recommends that the City conduct a
substantial education program prior to implementation. They also recommend that an
enforcement program acCOinpany any policy changes. To that end, a public
relations/educational campaign will be developed and enforcement will be part of the
educational effort.

 Additionally, the Advisory Committee recommends that current practice govern
who will receive sanitation and recycling services. Staffwill work with landlords and the
Portland Housing Authority to address issues arising from service to multi-family
buildings. (See Appendix D)

 Finally, the Advisory Committee recommends a change in the City's site plan
review for new construction that would ask for (not mandate) a narrative description of
proposed recycling efforts. They also suggest that the Economic Development
Department explore ways to support new or relocating companies to improve recycling.

 While the focus ofthe Advisory Committee's work was on residential programs,
two other groups should be recognized for their work on the City and commercial aspects
ofrecycling. Because it is important for the City to lead by example ofthis issue, a City
Hall task force reviewed the current recycling policy (AR 42) and recommends several
changes. The Commercial Sub-committee representiDg the business community - which
generates 60% ofPortland's waste - recolllDlCllds that an ongoing task force be
established to determine the current level of.recycling among businesses md develop a
plan for increased recycling efforts. Maine Businesses for Social Re~ibility has
agreed to lead this effort. The work accomplished by both groups appears in this report
in the Institutional and Commercial sections.

 In conclusion, upgrading the City ofPortland's residential waste recycling
program is the right thing to do and long overdue. The Advisory Committee's
recommendations incorporate a synergistic system ofw~e management. They make
environmental sense, they expand current services while reducing costs to taxpayers and
they will help make Portland - and the planet - a better place fur generations to come.
 Introduction
 r
 The enviromnental quality ofour community is of utmost importance to current
 r.
and future generations. Out ofconcern over closing landfills, pollution and the
destruction ofnatural resources. the City of Portland undertook the examination of ways
 r
 r'
to expand and/or enhance efforts in the area ofsolid waste management through reuse, [,
waste reduction and recycling.
 t:
 On Apri122, 1998 the Portland City Council unanimously voted to approve
co1Dlcil agenda item #304 which read as follows: [
 [, '
ORDERED, that the Recycling Advisory Committee is hereby established for the l. :


 pUlpOSe ofreviewing all recycling options available to the City and for the
 pmpose ofpromoting and encouraging recycling and making
 r
 l.

 recommendations to the City Council for that pmpose; and '-"
 :
BE IT FURTIIER ORDERED, that the Recycling Advisory Committee shall focus L,
 primarily on residential recyeling optiODS and a sub-committee shall be
 created for the p~se offoeusing on options available and to promote
 r'
 L ..


 and encourage commercial recycling, said committee to be called the C'

 t.
 Commercial Recycling Advisory Subcommittee; and...


 This report will focus on the residential, commercial and governmental current
practices. It explores the various options evaluated to develop recommendations for the
 L .•
implementation ofan Integrated Waste Management System that will result in a
reduction of solid waste. These will provide substantial benefits to the environment and
community because it is the right thing to do. Further, the new plan will increase the
level of service currently provided to the residents ofthe City ofPortland.
.r."}
.\ !
 W
 r
 ( ,



 l'
 I
 I.mSTORY
 r
 t:
A. R.egiolllll Wute Systems
 r
 I
 '. ­
 RWS is a nonprofit corporation formed as a result ofan intcrlocal agreement
dated November 14,1984. The purpose oftbe corporation is to own and operate a
 r"'L ,
regional solid waste management system for "mutual and civic benefit." There are I'
 I
currently 21 member municipalities and 10 associate members. l _
 The Member Municipalities, including the City ofPortland, have each entered
into waste handling agreements with RWS whereby the municipalities pledge to send r
their solid waste to the RWS facility for processing. In turn, RWS agrees to accept all r-""
 I

waste delivered by the communities and agrees to process the waste. Portland entered r
into its waste bandling agreement on May 1, 1985. The Participating Municipalities also
 r',
enacted "flow control" ordinances requiring that any solid waste generated in their l
respective communities be delivered to RWS. The pledge ofthe waste stream from the r
 j
 t ;
Municipalities has been used by RWS to obtain bond financing for the construction and
operation ofthe facility. r-'
 i
 In 1994, the United States Supreme Court struck down a flow control ordinance L.
 (' ,
similar to the ordinances in place in the Participating Municipalities. As a result, i
mandatory flow control by local ordinance became unenforceable. The Participating
 L..,
Municipalities remain contractually botmd to RWS to deliver the solid waste from their
communities to RWS. In Portland's case, this means the waste picked up by the City ­
residential and waste from schools and City buildings - has continued to be brought to
RWS as required by the Waste Handling Agreement.
 Under the terms ofthe Waste Handling Agreement, recyclable material is
 L... _
considered solid waste and must be delivered to the RWS facility for processing. The
agreement does provide, however. that any material recycled by the City ofPortland as of
 l
May 1. 1985 can continue to be recycled and need not be delivered to RWS. The
agreement also provides that the City can remove recyclables from the waste stream if
 RWS grants the City permission to do so. The pennission descnbed in the Agreement
 would require a vote ofthe RWS Board.




 B. Riversi4e Recyc/bJg Facility


 Until the faIl of 1996 this facility operated as an unlined, bulky waste and
 construction & demolition debris (C&D)landfil1 for the City ofPortland. In the fall of
 1996, the City contracted with L.R.. Higgins to cap the landfill. to construct a pad on
 which to operate a C&D recycling facility and to operate the facility once it was
 oonstructed. Since this time, the facility has separated and processed a variety of
.. ;
 materials including brush, demolition debris, metal, wood, leaves and yard waste. The
 ,facility was designed to operate as arcgional facility, so in addition to waste generated
 through municipal operations and by Portland residents, it accepts waste from
 commercial waste haulers and from other municipalities.
 This facility has been a vital resource for the City as it provides a convenient
 location for crews to deliver waste collected during H.I.P., the leaf program and through
 municipal maintenance operations.

 C Resi4entilll Recycli1lg Efforts


 The RWS Neighborhood Recycling Program began in the fall of 1990 with the
 distribution ofthe first roll-offrecycling containers. The City ofPortland received four
 "silver bullet" containers, adding additional containers and locations when conditions
 allowed. (Since most containers are on private property, siting additional recycling
 containers has been challenging.) There are currently fourteen containers located at eight
 locations around the city. (Two schools also host containers, primarily for their own
 use.)




 10
 ~.
 When the program began, RWS was responsible for pulling the containers and
delivering them to the processing facility. This responsibility has now passed to the rl '
member communities. In Portland, the Department ofPublic Works has one employee
and one roll-offtruck assigned to this duty. This employee empties each container at r'
 I
least once a week. He empties the containers at the most popular locations more
frequently. r'
 L:

 r
D. Pilot Carbside Reqcllng l'rtJjed

 In 1991 RWS conducted a pilot cur.bside recycling program. A sample of 836
households in Falmouth, South Portland, Scarborough and Portland received a recycling r
 I

bin and instructions on how to participate in the program. According to an RWS report, 1,

between 70% and 800A.ofthe houSeholds served by the program participated, setting out
an average of 11.26Ibs. of material each week. Contamination rates were reportedly
very low. Despite the success ofthe program, RWS chose not to continue the program
once the demonstration period had ended, citing cost as the primary factor ~ their n
decision. r-­
 L
E. Perfornumce
 r
 The voluntary drop-off recycling program bas had limited success in the City of L,
Portland. Records indicate that the "silver bullets" divertedjust over 3% ofthe city's r~'·1



 I
 I.
municipal solid waste during-the first year of the program. Although the amount of waste L




diverted from the waste stream increased in subsequent years, the percentage of waste i"

diverted from the incinerator has remained small. L,



 \-.




 L_ ~




 11
 Total Waste TORRage,
 FY92-FY97


This graph shows-a steady growth in the amount ofresidential waste generated in the
City of Portland over the past six years, from 22,235 tons in FY92 to 24,170 tons in
FY97. As the dark section at the bottom of each column indicates, the amount ofwaste
recycled during this period has doubled, rising from 813 tons in FY92 to 1666 tons in
FY97.

 Household Waste by Percentage
 FY92-FY97




Despite this increase, the percentage ofwaste diverted from the incinerator by the drop­
off program has remained low, reaching only 6.9% of the total waste generated in FY97.



 12
 r
 n
F. InstitlldonaI Recycling l
 The first effort to recycle in City Hall was initiated by Deputy City Manager, r
 \
Mark Green, in 1989. A working committee made up of City employees was formed to
plan a recycling pilot program. for City Hall. The objective ofthe program was to
 I l ,
determine the feasibility ofrecycling throughout the City organization. Until this time,
only office and computer paper generated by MIS had been recycled. ­
 ,I
 I ,
 The goals of this program first effort were:
 • to recycle all computer paper
 • to recycle all standard office paper
To this effect, bins were placed on each floor of City Hall for paper collection. William
Goodman & Sons supplied the bins' and emptied them. Some employees volunteered to
 r:
be floor leaders to educate coworkers and monitor the bins as they fined.
 Education was a major part ofthe project, with displays set up around City Hall
 I'
and recycling articles and other information posted at the recycling bins and near the I
 L
photocopiers. Each employee received a cardboard box to hold the paper they generated r-'
 I

and a nYESINO" recycling sheet descn'bing the acceptable and unacceptable materials. I
 t ;
 I



Revenues from the recycled paper were to be put in a :fund and used to purchase recycled r'-',
 I
product gifts and other educational. incentives for participants. l._,
 The program was moderately successful. Since it was a voluntary program, there
were some employees who were just Dot interested and were given DO incentive to
recycle. On the other hand, the program. installed the bins in City Hall that have been
used consistently ever since. There was no follow-up monitoring of the program,
therefore, no assessment was made of its success.
 In the summer of 1996, a second recycling committee came together to broaden L

and further the scope and objectives of the first recycling effort. A student intern from
U.S.M. assisted the committee. The objectives ofthis program were:
• To broaden the existing recycling program. to include the School Deparbnent and the
 Barron Center.
• To consider other items for recycling, such as food from the Barron Center, and
 magazines and newspapers, mixed paper;

 13
 • To consider other options to reduce waste, such as by purchasing reusable coffee
r"I
 cups, printing on two sides of paper, etc; and
 • Purchasing ofproducts made of recycled materials was encouraged.
r An educational campaign and promotional effort were proposed as part ofthis
 effort. Special recycling containers were to be spray painted and handed out to employees
r­
1 to kick-off the prognun. Volunteers were again recruited to educate employees in each
Ii
 department and monitor the filling and emptying of the bins. The City Manager signed
r Administrative Regulation #42, setting forth the policies and objectives ofthe program.
I
 (See Appendix E.)
r--'
l Currently, most City ofPortland offices recycle office paper through William
l .
 Goodman & SOM. Some departments also make extensive efforts to reduce waste and
)'.
f' recycle material. In Public Works, for example, Districting and Construction crews reuse
\

 bricks, cobblestones. pavers and oorhing. The Vchicle Maintenance section recycles a
f"L. wide range of materials from anti-freeze to machine parts. They also purchaSe
 biodegradable, citrus· solvents as an alternative to more toxic chemical solvents. Both
r
I
I
 Public Worlcs and Parks and Recreation make extensive use ofthe recycling capabilities
 at the Riverside Recycling Facility, delivering significant volumes ofbrush and inert
~-,



 . materials to the facility for processing and recycling.

r
[' ,




 14
 n.CURRENTPROG~
 [
A. T1'tI8h DiapD6IIl
 r
 The Oty ofPortland cum:mtly provides weekly curbSide rubbish collection to I,
 approximately 23,000 households. Six rear loading rubbish packers provide
 service Monday through Friday. Bach vehicle has II crew of two. In total, I
 I I




 Sanitation bas eighteen employees: 16 Maintemmce WOIker n, one foreman and
 the Commercial Waste Programs Administrator. r
 \ i




 r
 City ordinance specifies that all Bingle family homes and all multi..unit apartment If
 buildings with ten or fewer units will receive sanitation service. CondomiDimns
 are excluded. The ordinance includes a grandfathering provisio~ however, thai
 P
 1.__ 1




 extends service to many apartment buildings with more than ten units and some
 condominium developments. Additionally, the majority ofPortland Housing
 [
 Authority units receive sanitation service. I'
 t.;
B.Recyclillg
 r-'
 Residents cmrently have the option to participate in a vollmtary drop-off !.-~~J




 recycling program. There are a total of fomteen "Silver Bullet" recycling [:
 I
 L,
 containers in eight locations around the City. Additionally, two schools host
 containers, primarily for their own use. Containers can be found in the following L~
 l_.,
 locations:
 ( 1

 • Northgate Shopping Center i
 ~~ ,

 • Marginal Way Parking Lot
 • 118 Congress Street (Munjoy Hill)
 • CVS Plaza, Forest Ave.
 • RSVP Discount Beverage c..

 • Portland Ice Arena
 • Salem Street (behind Danforth Heights) ,~




 15
 • Casco Bay Lines
" Each container has four compartments and accepts the following items:


r
L
 • Mixed paper - newspapers, phone books, paper bags, magazines, old
 mail

l •
 •
 #2 Plastic - "natural" only, such as milk: and water jugs
 Glass, cans & almninum - metal food and drink containers, empty
r
I spray cans, clear and colored glass
li
 • Paperboard - cereal boxes, toilet paper centers, poster board
r'"

t .
 Public WoIks picks up the containers on a rotating schedule and delivers them to
r"',
H RWS where the material is processed and marketed. RWS owns the containers.

,-"I
L. The Department ofPublic Worlcs and RWS recently arranged to place a container
 in the Marginal Way parking lot to collect cormgated cardboard.

 C Other ProgrlUll&:
r'~
I 1. Heavy Item Pick-up (HlP)
L.i
 Each September the Districting crews perform a bu1ky waste collection.
 Collection generally begins on the Peninsula (Districts I &2) the day after Labor
 Day. The following Monday the crews move into the remaining Districts,
:I
'- . spending a week in each one.


 Historically, residents were able to simply bring their items to the curb. Starting
 last year, however, they were required to sort their items by type, metal in one
 pile, wood in another pile and so forth. These separations are required to facilitate
 the recycling process at Riverside Recycling Facility. The additional time
 required to handle the materials in separate streams raised the program cost
 dramatically, particularly overtime costs. For four weeks the Districting Crews
 are pulled from neighborhood projects to deal with the H.I.P. program.

 16
2. LeafProgram

 Each November Public Works conducts a leafcollection program. For the past
 few years~ residents have bagged their leaves in standard plastic lawn and leaf
 r
 r
 bags and placed them at the curb on their regular trash day. Since the compost
 I~
 facility could not accept the plastic bags, the crews were responsible for the labor­
 intensive job ofripping open the bags and dumping the contents into the hopper
 ofthe packer truck. The foreman on duty collected the empty bags from the
 r:
 crews for disposal at RWS.
 r
 This year residents will have to purchase special biodegradable leafbags in order
 to have their leaves collected. Since the bags will be acceptable at the compost
 r
 facility crews will be able throw the bags and their contents into the hopper. By
 eliminating the need to.de-bag the leaves, we expect to save approximately 40%
 in labor costs. [
 f'
 r ..•
D. In-house Recycling

 I
 I..
 Interviews with various participants in the City's rccycling program revealed and
 adminjstrative policy (AR 42) that has never been fully implemented. Individual r"
 I
 L.
 recycling bins were never distrIbuted and the recycling program never progressed
 beyond office and computer paper in most departments. However, education did
 increase throughout the organization and the large recycling containers began to
 r '
 be emptied on a more regular basis. I
 I
 l...
E. Commercial I
 I
 I
 L.,
Businesses in Portland are responsible for their own trash disposal Most contract with
waste haulers or have waste disposal handled through their building's management l_.


Recycling is also an individual business decision. The City's only involvement in the
commercial waste sector is code enforcement issues and the waste hauling assessment.

 17
 SUO!ldO lu~ma~'Bu'BW
alS'BM P!lOS pal'Blg~luI ·111
 m.INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS I,
(Each option assumes the addition of a yard waste collection program, a hazardous waste r
collection and bulky waste collection (R.I.P.) by appointment See Section B. "Other I
Components."

A. &A.NITATIONIRECYCLING r
1.) Trash Pick-Up and VollDltary Drop OffRecyding r
 I ,

 This option is maintains the current level ofservice provided by Public Works
 except for minor changes. It includes weekly trash pick-up for sing1e.-family
 r
 I
 L. '
 '




 homes, multi·unit buildings with fewer than 10 units and most Portland Housing
 Authority units. Many multi-unit buildings with more than 1ounits and some
 condominiums receive sanitation services due to the grandfathering clause in the
 t
 r-'
 I
 existing sanitation ordinance. (See Appendix D.) L.
 Option 1 maintains the existing voluntary drop-off recycling program and
 incorporates the changes noted above. This program will result in an estimated
 [
 recycling rate of 10% at an additional cost of$68,OOO. ,­
2.) Trash Pick-Up and Expanded l'oluntary Drop-offRecycling

 This option maintains the current trash pick-up program but expands the
 L,
 voluntary recycling program by placing "silver bullet" recycling containers in
 r -.
 neighborhoods that do not currently have containers - outer Brighton Ave., for
 f~-'
 .~,




 example. Making this change would have little appreciable impact on the existing
 r-'
 sanitation program. The changes would make the program more convenient for J

 L.
 residents but would probably not increase the volume ofrecycled material
 significantly enough to anticipate avoided costs in tipping fees at RWS. I

 L

 The current program is perfonned in-house by the Department ofPublic Works.
 It employs the use ofone worker and one piece of equipment. Increasing the
 ,­
 existing program with any de~ee of significance would undoubtedly require
 '--­
 additional personnel and equipment.
 18
;"I

 Option 2 increases the number of locations for "silver bullets" with
 changes in other components as noted above. This program will result in
 an es~ recycling rate of 15% with an additional cost ofS79,000.



 3.} Pay-Per-Bag Trash Pick-Up and Expanded Voluntary Drop-offRecycling

 This option includes a pay-per-bag trash pick-up program which would require
 residents to put set their 1nlSh out in an officially stamped, color-coded bag. Trash
 in unapproved containers of any type would not be picked up.


 In concert with a pay-per-bag program, an expanded recycling program as
 described in Option 2 would be established.


 Option 3 maintains the current trash collection program but requires residents to
 use approved tI\ISh bags instead of other ccmtainers. This option expands the
 voluntmy recycling program by increasing the number of "silver bullets"
 available to the residents but it does not offer curbside recycling. This program
 would result in an estimated recycling rate of20% and save the City
 approximately $441,000 per year.



 4.} Trash Pick-Up and Voluntary Curbside Recycling

 This option maintains the existing trash collection program. It further
 incorpomtes a curbside recycling program.


 It is anticipated that such option would promote a "commingled" program with
 two distinct separations: containers (that is, glass, cans, plastic, etc.) and paper
 products. This would be accomplished either by supplying residents with two
 separate bins or by asking residents to bundle paper products and place them on
 top ofthe containers in one recycling bin. The bins would eliminate the need for
 most ofthe II silver bullets." A private contractor would collect the material from
 the residents on a weekly basis.



 19
 Option 4 maintains the current trash pick-up program but adds a voluntary curbside r
 recycling program and other component changes as described above. (It does not
 include pay-per-bag.) Such a program would result in a recycling rate of
 r"
 approximately 25% at an additional cost of$375,OOO. ,
 ,



 II
 I

5. Pay-Per-Bag Trash Pick-Up and Curbside Recycling
 This option is a combination part of Option 3 and Option 4. It maintains the I
 i

 current trash collection but requires residents to set out their trash in approved
 ,,--.
 I
 bags, which would be purchased at local stores. It also includes a cmbside I
 L

 recycling program. The City would supply residents with a bin -- purchased with
 funds from a State Planning Office grunt - for commingled recyclables including ~
 glass, cans, paper, etc. A contractor would collect this material from the curb on (-'
 the same day City crews collect the trash bags. r.
 r-'
 Option 5 is a pay-per-baglcurbside recycling program and includes other
 components as described above. This program would result in an estimated r-
 I

 recycling rate of35% at a cost savings ofbctween 5247,000 and 5563,000, t,
 depending on the price ofthe bags. Cost savings factor proj ected additional program
 costs, offsetting revenue from bag sales and money saved by avoiding tipping fees at i'
 RWS through waste reduction and recycling..



B. OTHER COMPONENTS:
 f'

Yard Waste Collection

 The City ofPortland currently has no yard waste collection program with the
 exception ofPublic Works' leaf collection program in November. Throughout
 the spring, summer and early fall, however, the vast majority of yard waste such
 L."
 as grass clippings, brush, inert materials, etc., most likely wind up placed in trash
 bags and sent to RWS along with the weekly household trash. Yard waste is quite
 heavy and, therefore, contributes significantly to our annual sanitation costs.


Household Hazardous Waste Collection
 20
rz




 "lgn- aHO JO . . . . . O£ .I8q1UAO.N. - I ply ......,. . . .wqodd.
 iq . .i l l . , . . . . . JI . .·.. ·dTII... 1aeu ,...a.1IOJP8II03
 ~ ........... ~ . . . . . . . paA.<... lIMU. ......lIOdaIo:>

 »'10.. .IOJ . . . . . . -.ua ............ S - 111l8pdo :IJON


 'lWA 1(311 ....16 OI.lO (~) aAg;
JO.J PlOtt UO 1qJOp ~ ~ ~.8lO 1JU(I<"BoIodmd. pII8 S11JDJ1l!
 nw lO.J 'tpJq1A 'MwJO ~~ 9tI. Act pII"IlOJ»d " U18Iiold I!1U '~dgS
 JO tpu.oUl ;q Juptt:p '(tHH) 4n-MJ ""1 NtzIaH•• JO 'ualIold uopnoo
 II



 QlI8N..qnq 1ftUU8- SUIIC:p8d ADlDUIlO qJOlA 'Hqt1dJo ~ aqJ.
 f"tiIW lloytXlQOj ~.M t6nn1I

 'S.M.lI Aq popq JO prumq Iapq " Q'JI8M. iparJIftV tJUB 1!SIJq A[!8p '8 uo ~
 8I1OJUIIftII JuflPUIH( " aoq JpOIA Jl\O l1RD IlU8RlIJU ·dn-~ qI8Jl A).lpQIA
Itt!mP ~ 8I1OJUIIftII pJIIOIft) ~ JIftD iUOJODIIJ !...... ~ 1180
~U() "U'lBJiOld uoP=llO:> ~A\ snop.Dmra: PlotpittoH OU SIR{ Ap.mwnO Al!;:) ~1U
 ReeycUng
 Pay per Bag
 • City-wide curbside collection
 • Bags required to receive service • Commingled collection
 • Bag cost $0.50 - $0.75
 • Collect wide:: range ofmaterials




 Integrated Solid
 Waste Management
 Household Hazardous Waste
 Plan BLP.
• Annual collection day • By appointment only. Spring - Fall.
• Sponsored by Public Works in association with • R111es to be established by Director of
 the Fire Department Public Works




 Lear & Yardwasie
 • Leaf collection during November
 • Biodegradable bags required
 • Bring packers to neighborhoods for
 twice weekly yard waste drop-offs.
 Spring - Fall.




 r-- r - .. [ ---, r-
 I
 "
 I
 -'-~ r-~-~ ~-l
 ~ TJ ,-J ~! ~ ~ :-.-1 ~
 IV:.J,mCOMMENDATIONS

 The Recycling Advisory Committee recommends that -the City ofPortland adopt
 the following waste reduction and recycling programs and policies.

, i
 A. RESIDENTIAL SERJlICE


 The Committee recommends that the City adopt an integrated approach to solid
i, .. ,




 waste management Such an approach would:

 • Provide residents with a financial'incentive to reduce, reuse and recycle
 • Make recycling and composting a convenient alternative to disposal
 • . Reduce cost of trash disposal to city taxpayers and
 • Increase public awareness of the need to reduce waste.
,",~.\
 An integrated waste management program would provide Portland residents with
 environmentally sound methods to manage their household waste materials
 through the following components:
 1. Trash DisposaJ/Reeycling (Option 5)
" ~.




 • Pay-per-bag rubbish collection (City).
 • Weekly curbside collection ofcommingled recyclabl~ (Contract out)
,~ . 2. Other Components

 • Yard waste collection
 • Household hazardous waste collection
 • Heavy Item Pick-up by appointment (HIP)


 The Committee recommends that all residents cmrently receiving sanitation service be
 eligible for these services. This includes all units covered by the grandfathcring
 provisions ofthe sanitation ordinance and Portland Housing Authority units. (Sec
 Appendix D.)

 22
 t '
B. CITYIN-HOUSB RECYCLING


The Committee feels that the City should lead by example. Therefore. it is important that
 r
we revitalize and augment our policies regarding waste reduction and recycling. We rl !

recommend that the Gty of Portland take the following measures to further this end:


1. Required recycling
 r
 Mandate the recycling ofoffice paper and. any other agreed upon materi.a1. Each
 r
 r
 employee would be educated as to the appropriate materials to :recycle and the
 I.
 methods for recycling. Each employee would be provided with aIeCycJing
 container.
 r
 t1

2. Expanded paper recycling/reuse c
 Expand our current office paper recycling effort to include other materials. Many [~
 aspects oftbis expanded program. were included as recommendationS in A.R.42.
 r-'l_...
 Include other paper
 r-­
 • newspapers and magazines L;
 • cardboard
 f\
 C
 Institute reuse policies r.
 • make diffenmt sizes of scratch pads out ofused office paper, L~

 • reuse file folders j .

 • purchase copiers that can reliably make two-sided copies L...,



 Reduce paper consumption
 • do not use fax cover sheets
 • print on two sides of paper

 23
r
l. ,


r
1, .
 3. Otheritems

I: . Work with Parks and Public Worlcs Departm.ents who cummtly recycle and reuse
 construction equipment, signs, automobile oil and antifreeze. vehicles and parts,
 toner cartridges and other equipment.

[
 Craft an agreflment between the Parks and Recreation Department and the
r Riverside Recycling :facility to compost ym:d waste, leaves, and grass clippings
L for reuse on park: land.
r..
I
'.-
 Work with School DeP,artmentand Bmon Center to compost food wastes.
r~




r:' Coordinate with the Public Works Department to ~ of hazardous wastes
r­
i when the household hazardous wastes are being collected.
l.i

 4. General Store


 Set aside a large area to store and exhibit used equipment and furniture. Assign
I~. j


 accounts to each department items dropped off earn credits which may be used to
 purchase other items. Open store to the public on a monthly basis. An updated
 inventory would be ciroulated to departments on a regular basis. In conjunction
 with the General Store, an effort should be made to make damaged bricut pavers
 and cobblestones more readily available to residents for their household projects.
1 !

 5. Personnel & Equipment


 Designate a person to serve as a liaison between departments, manage materials
 storage, set up education programs for employees and the public, broker contracts
 with material haulers and processors.



 24
 Coordinate with all City Departments to share equipment and expertise. For
 exam.ple,tbe School Department owns a baler that is located at the Portland Expo.
 rl .
 Schedule the tnmsport of waste cm:dboani to the Expo from various City
 Departments and select a haulerlprocessor.
 ~
 ~
 As part ofthe coordination effort, send out a newsletter or contribute to Human
 Resources newsletter and reconvene City employee subcommittee regularly.

 [
 Expand the cleaning service contract to include the emptying or sorting of
 recycling containers or tnmsport ofmaterials to a central storage area. [
 Make recycling more convenient by creating "recycling 'CC.'IIlterslt 011 each :floor.
 Recycling centers would contain well-m.a.tked bins for the various recycled
 ~
 Ir-'.
 materials. Educational and promotioDBl materials will be posted, as well as a I
 \.
 telephone number to call if the containers are full

 Establish a central storage location (perhaps as part of the General Store) where
 ['
 the materials to be recycled can be stored, shredded, baled and picked up. The r:
 LJ
 ability to stockpile will give the City an opportunity to realize a greater profit.
 r'L...
 Place a silver bullet or igloo at City Hall and/or Public Worlcs to collect additional
 materials such as bottles, cans, newspaper, or cardboard.
 L
 r
 I
 L
Purchasing

 \-J

 Set up a revised purchasing policy for the City that will reduce waste, require life
 cycle cost analysis, and encourage recycling by its vendors.
 'L


 purchase to reduce waste
 L- ..

 • buy products with minimal packaging
 25
 • discontinue the purchase ofdisposable cups and supply coffee
 ,.......
 mugs instead (:incentive: free or reduced cost refills at basement
 COlDlter with mug)

 • Purcbasethe least toxic material suitable for a job. (herbicides,
 non-latex paints)


 purchase to promote recycling

 1

 • purchase "recycled content" products such as office paper, .tissue

 ~ paper, paper towels, cmpet, office fumiture~ building materials an
 toner cartridges. Include a "recycled content" percentage in any bid
 r-->
 solicitation.



 C COMMERClALRBCYCLING
:-'--,




 Business waste makes up approximately 60010 ofPortland's waste stream. Consequently
 an effort must be made to promote waste reduction and recycling in this sector. In
It.
 keeping with the philosophy that the private sector should manage its own waste stream,
r~'
 the Committee recommends that business organi 7-8tions and their members take the lead
1-.

 in this effort. In this spirit, the Sub-Committee on Commercial Recycling offers the
r"
 following recommendations:
u

 1. Conduct a survey ofbusinesses to determine the current extent ofrecycling
L-.~



 efforts.
 2. Establish a task foroe to design and define the criteria for an acceptable storage
 and collection system for recyclables from businesses in Portland
 3. Develop a highly visible '~uce~ Reuse~ and Recycle" program aimed at
L_...
 small businesses in Portland.




 26
 4. Continue to partner with communities in the greater Portland area to seek
 rl ,
 regional solutions. Seek government and/or private support to offset the start­
 up costs of a new commercial recycling system.
 r
 i. '

 5. Create an on-line directory ofreducelreuselrecycle resources for Portland..
 6. Develop a program to offer state-of-the-art office recycling systems to r
 businesses at discounts accrued through bulk purchasing. r:
 [,
 goals and other efforts.
 7. Link Portland's efforts to BPA climate change goals and other efforts. r
 8. Require that space for recycling be considered in site plan reviews for all new
 l,
 developments. rl ,  1




Conclusion p
Responsibility, l~hip, and funding for carrying out most of the recommendations can
come from a consortium ofbusiness organizations and Portland businesses. The Maine
 rl
Businesses for Social Responsibility, Wastecap Maine, and other business organizations
have on-going commitments to promote responsible action in regards to recycling.

 r-~
 :
However, waste management, including recycling, is'a public policy issue. The i
 l,


leadership for finding funding solutions for new recycling systems that will help keep .....
 I
 -,

long-term costs ofwaste disposal down must come from·the City ofPortland. 1
 "-0
Developing fair, accurate, and appropriate accounting methods for fees and taxes
 !,
associated with commercial trash disposal and recycling is also the responsibility of the I
 L.



City ofPortland. Finally, creating and modifying ordinances, codes, and site plan review
 'I"
 !
criteria to encourage, not discourage the ''reuse, reduce and recycling" of resources is the L_..

responsibility of local government as well. Thus, accomplishing recommendations #4
and #8 will require a special commitment and attention from the City ofPortland. L




 27
87:




 '[
 ,
 I
 I
 • I




 .'1
 . !
 , ..- l




 r-l
 \"<




 .1



 .1"""
 I.  1
 ,  I
 '--'




 ·....,.,.,JIllM..., Ato-.I pm .a••
 ..,.....I . t , .... I. ..._."....rbal~
  ~"'Fl
 -u. lItJIIfillll' Q r l'il.".~
 '0.'.......'I,. nr11'..... MIl..
 t u....... ~

 ...
 ....,••'2,1.'... 1J1,.. .- .... ,.~
  P'• • ".Inll· I. . . . . . . .,..,. •• If JII. 'CliP. . . ., ....... CIIIJ

'".,...,..11
 ~JO_ " rl . . 1 Sa ..........,
 ,..1......:
 ullll' ••• I,. 11...- " .....
 M~.""" ,,'''11 .....,
 ~
 1-J't. . . . . . . . ~1
 J. . ..JO 1IOJtICIptwp
 1'IfJIIIIlIIIf" ~~.ua:uv
 '-, !




 (a)~S'1rt ~S


 G.JJ8.ID.J~~.:q ...~
 . .J_.....
 . ...."' ' JIiII!JO l'IFD'MIlOO
 lI'Jo~ PUlltII!S
 (O')(OOS1rl ~S
UO!l8f: .. . . . . . .duq ·A t -'.
 , i
 ......
 f "
 . I
 LJ
 \ ,

 r
 ( ,



 v. IMPLEMENTATION
 r
 ,......,
A. TRASH COLLBCTJONIRBCYCLlNG

Pay-Per-Bag Trash Pick-Up
 l !




 r
 Pay-Per-Bag programs are common throughout the country. Several companies, l,
 therefore~ manufacture plastic bags specific to these programs and within the

 specifications outlined by the individual community, that is, thickness, volmne, I I ,

 color and any printed information. The cost ofprOduction is bome by the bag
 manufacturer and/or the distnbutor. Bags are available to residents through
 I'
 \ ,

 grocery outlets, hardware stores, garden centers, neighborhood comer stores and r-'

 ~
 the like. Public Works will work with a distributor to supply bags to retailers. l.,;


 r1
 The price per bag would be set and reviewed annually through the budget process t~
 by the City Council. It -will be the Council' sprerogative to decide the portion of r.,
 I

 needed funding that would be attributable directly to bag sale revenues. l i




 The actual collection ofbagged trash would remain a :function ofthe Deparbnent
 ['
 ofPublic Works on a weekly basis. No new equipment or other cost-incurring r"
 j
 I....~
 factors are anticipated. Bagged trash would be delivered to RWS daily, as is the
 current practice.


 Anticipated SfIR1 Date; July 5, 1999 r.
 I
 L


Curbside Recycling

 The Department ofPublic Works will provide every eligible Portland resident
 with a recycling bin. Residents will set their bins out for collection each week. \.. ..

 We anticipate our program to be a commingled curbside recycling program.
 Commingling would allow customers to place their cans, bottles and jars and
 plastic goods in one container. Acceptable paper products would be bound or

 ~




 29
 otherwise grouped and simply placed on top ofthe commingled products on the
--,
 day ofcollection or set in a separate bin. Collection days would be the same day
 as the customer's normal sanitation day.


 Although we would expect to continue to pick up sanitation utilizing City forces,
 it is oUT'recommendation that the cmbside recycling effort be done by contract
 with a private hauler. This obviously would require the submission ofRFP's by
 mterested contractors. We would look to tie the oontractor down to a minimum
 five (5) year contract. This would discourage "low-balling" the initial quotes in
,-.
 order to get the contract with an eye toward inflating the numbers in future years.

r-·~-,,\




 Autici1HW4 SWrt DIItej July 5, 1999



 B. OTHER COMPONENTS

 Yard WIISte Collection

 The yard waste collection program would be established to provide residents with
 a method of disposal oftheir yard waste and to elim;nate this heavy and costly
 waste-item from our waste stream.


 It is suggested that three (3) strategically located "di-op-off points" be established
 throughout the City where an operator could park a trash collection truck (packer)
 and accept yard waste from residents. This service would be provided on
 Tuesdays and Saturdays each week during the Spring, Summer and Autumn
 months at times convenient to the user.


 Residents would simply drive their yanI 'waste to the most convenient location
 where it will be deposited into the packer. At the end of each "yard waste day",
 the packer would deliver the waste to the Riverside Recycling Facility where the
 waste will be composted and eventually reused.



 30
 A"f'rIr"etI StJpt D4tC April20, 1999 r
 !
HouehoUi HlIZIII'tknu WtI8te CoIIectW"

 A household hazardous waste collection day would be designated and collection 1.
 locations (perhaps the same flS the Ya.rd Waste sitar for co1ltimdty) would be rI
 \ ,
 determined so that residents could bring their hazardous waste such as batteries,
 paints, thinners, anti-freeze. motor oil and the like for disposal. A contractor r
 licensed in hazardous waste disposal would collect and prt)pCrly dispose ofthese
 l
 materials. This collection would occur once a year.
 ~
 r'
 Because of the obvious fire prevention benefits this type program provides, it L
 L,
 could be coordinated by the Fire Department in cooperation with Public Works.
 r-'
 t.
 Anticilllletl SIiIrt lJqte: .October 1999
 1-'
 It,,-.,j
Bulky WIISte CoI1ectiIJ" (H.LP.)
 r.
 A ''HIP by Appointment Program" would be established from April! to \ .
 November 30 annually. Under this program residents will call a designated
 r-'
 ,
 telephone number and request a bulky waste pick-up. Through a detailed
 scheduling and work order process, a collection date will be assigned and the
 service provided. The Director ofPublic Works shall promulgate rules --..

 establishing the parameters of this service. Residents would have one:final H.I.P.
 in the fall of 1999 prior to the implementation ofthis program. L ..




 A1IIicipatetl SIiIrt Date; April 1, 2000 L ..




 1-,




 31
c. PUBUC RELATIONSAND COMPLIANCE CAMPAIGNS
 AlthoUBh it is imperative that our programs be wel1-thought-out and properly
 structured, without solid "public relations and compliance campaigns" these
 programs would yield little success while fostering confusion.


 Several months prior to the initiation ofeach phase ofthe integrated program, we
 will commence a full-scale media and public education effort. This effort will
 include, but not be limited to:


 • HCD Neighborhood Meetings
 • Radio Advertising
 • Enclosures with tau: bills
 • Newspaper Advertising
 • Newspaper Articles
 • Press Releases
 • Direct MaIliDgs
 • Posten in Public and Private Buildings
 • Bootlas at CommDDity Events
 • Public Service ADDoDDcements
 • Hand BDling through School ChDdren
 • Use of the Public Works Mascot (Jack Hammer)


 A professional PR Consultant may be sought. We expect the entire effort;
 however, to fall tmder the coordination of the Public Relations Coordinator,
 Customer Service Division, Department ofPublic Works.



D. ENFORCEMENT
 As Public Education is essential to the success of these programs, so is
 Enforcement. It is only through enforcement that total compliance will ever be
 achieved. The vast majority of Portland's residents will comply simply because


 32
we will have explained the prosrams and will have asked them to comply. As in
any such effort, however, a small contingent will resist. There will also be a small
 r
group that will need to be continually reminded.
 l,
The program revenue will pay for two (2) new enforcement personnel be added to
 I..
the Inspection Services Division ofthe Department ofPlanning and Urban
Devc10pmcmt whose sole duty will be the continual enforcement ofthe rules of r
these pl'Osrams. Ini1ia1ly, cmf'orcement will be a strong part ofthe educational
process. Through the inspectors, violators will be dealt with pmsonally and
 [
courteOusly in an. effort to make them aware ofthcir violations and to politely "
 I .
 l,
prompt compUance throughout tho commlDlity.


Although these Inspectors will have the ability to issue StIDUDODS, the issuance of
 ~
smnmons would be considered only after aU other efforts to gain compliance have [;
failed. Especially in the beginning, these individuals will be kept quite busy
responding to "illegal put-outs", that is, improper containers; yard waste with [
sanitation; hazardous waste with sanitation; broken. gltJas,' animal feces and other
illegal materioJs defined by ordinance. [
 r-
 I
 1-1


 r -,
 I

 L


 I
 L.




 33
 u
 ,,'

 0
ti."


 "
 0
 0
 0
 E1
 "


 , ,
 !
 ,
 0
 '.""
 rl
 U
 ,...,
 U
 rl
 ,U

 J"'l
 I....i


 ;. U
 I.
 !
 VI. FINANCIAL
 r
A.. CURRENT COSTS i
Assessment/Fees to RWS r
 l ,
The City bas two different costs for RWS on an annual basis. They are as follows:

1. Tip Fee - A per ton fee charged at the gate for every ton of waste that crosses the scale. This fee (currently 553
pee ton) is set according to market conditions. 1be City is billed each month for the waste delivered for disposal at
the RWS facility. Any material delivered to RWS in the silver bullets as recyclable material is presently received
 I
by RWS at no charge. The total estimated cost for FY99 is $1,080,000, based on 22, 041 tons.

2. AnDual Assessmeut - This assessment represents the operating deficit of all
 !
operating expenses minus all operating revenues. It is assessed at a :fixed percentage
based on the number ofmunicipal tons delivered to RWS in the base year (portland is at
30.06% oftotal municipal tonnage. base year is 1995). The cost for FY99 is
$1,012,613. rL,
 l 1
Revenuefrom Commercial HlUIlers

Prior to the elimination of flow conttol, commercial haulers paid $65 per ton at RWS, and were required to take
any waste they hauled from Portland to RWS. Without flow control, commercial haulers were able to take waste
:from Portland to any facility. Other facilities were charging lower gate fees, which RWS could not compete with.
This created the potential for RWS to lose the volume of waste it needed to operate efficiently. RWS responded
by lowering the per ton charge to $40.

Lowering the gate fee caused a revenue shortfall. By calculation of the assessment, the City was required to pay a
higher assessment amount, (approximately $1.000,000). To offset that cost, the City CounCil passed an ordinance
 r-'
 L,

that imposed a fee on commercial haulers. The fee was calculated as the difference between the original $65 gate
fee and the lower fee set by RWS, or f'"
525. iL.
As RWS has raised its gate fee. the corresponding City commercial hauler fee has been reduced, so that the r '
commercial haulers continue to pay a total fee of 565, but in different proportions to the City and RWS. The L.. ,
effect of this is that the revenue to the City is reduced as the RWS gate fee increases.

Riverside Recycling Facility

L. R. Higgins is cmrently paid 5677,200 annually to manage the facility. They are also paid 5103,548 annually for
five years for capital investment items that would stay with the City if the contract was terminated.
The City shares in the revenue generated by the facility by receiving the first $56,433 collected in fees each
month, after disposal costs. Any additional revenue is split 50/50 between Higgins and the City. The estimated
 r
City revenue for FY99 is $317,045. Higgins accepts all of our HIP volume for no gate fee. However, we .
participate in the cost ofdisposal for any portion of the debris that cannot be recycled.

Public Works
 L,,~ .•


In FY99, the City bas budgeted approximately 5690,000 in the Public Works budget for trash pickup. HIP and
marketing for the bio-bag program.


 34
 :~- . ., r-i ..... ~--~1 ,r-----.-----,
 n-J :-j:-l -_"1 ~~--~-l "-- --l
 J




 Financial Summary, Options 1 - 5



 1 2
 Est. Net Est. Additional I Notes
 Cost TonsR~ded


 \.,UIIcnl programs


 recycling rate


 recycling rate




Drop offrecycling only




Curbside recycling, recycling rate
without pay-per-bag


Curbside recycling with
pay-per-bag
(Recommended Option)

 per ton cost avoidance. RWS does NOt currently
 2. Based on average estimated number a/bags per household, adjust«i for increos«i recycling. A.sJume.s 25 lbs. per bag.
 Note: This schedule does not include any possible changes in the RWS annual assessment.
 a
',' l.: /,
 0
 0
 "-..'c J
 0
 0
 ..
 0
 nu
 Ie,




 ~~
 0
 ".:.. - ~ .
 ~r ' '




 0
 r
 APPENDIX A r
Comments about recycliD.g received by PubUc Works In response to the Calendar r
Questionnaire I'
•
•
 We need curbside recycling.
 The recycle bins are not emptied frequently enough. Could there be one at Pine Tree
 I.
•
 Shopping Center?
 Enact a curbside recycling program. .And pay per bag rubbish collection. The latter can pay
 for the former.
 r
• Need to recycle different types of all plastics. r
• Great job on both cleanliness and recycling etforts. L,
• Would like more recycling done!
• No comment on recycling efforts, [
• Cmbside recycling would be great.
• Should be doing cutbside recycling ofnewspapers and cans at least
• Please provide more access to recycling containers and include more plastic and paper [
 board items.
• Should have recycling pickup.
• Silver bullet is good but not enough. Could be more cardboard, curbside pick-up of C
 recyclables, leaves. r o
 '




• Curbside recycling may encourage more people to participate.
 (.
• Recycling is good -more people need to get with it.
•
•
 I find it difficult to fin.d a place to properly dispose of used motor oil How and where?
 Please adopt a city wide recycling system. l­
• Where do we dispose of cardboard?
• Wish I could recycle from home using bags to separate categories -I'd be willing to pay for "
 bags.
• Curbside recycling would encourage more participation in recycling.
• What recycling?? r"
• 4 Recycling
 C
• Wish you had recycling pickup. r ,

• Need recycling center at Westgate. L.....
• Recycling efforts good. Thank you.
• Excellent on glass/paper/cans. We need usable household goods put in a recycle area for
 giveaway to a new home. After 2 weeks display then crush. Please!
• Why did you move the recycling bins near Shop N Save?
• It would be nice to have newspaper recycling.
• Re: Recycling: Not enough collection locations. Other cities and towns have better
 collection systems.
• We had a recycling bin at the old Reed School. Someone complained, now it's gone. I'm
 L.,.,

 complaining because I have to go to Northgate. Public Works promised to rectify this, no
 action. How come a complaint removed something lots ofpeople use.
 • Recycle cardboard, motor oil, insecticides, etc.
 • No change in recycling efforts.
 • We need curbside recycling.
 • I would like to know all the materials that may be recycled.
 • I'm a new resident and don't know where to recycle.
" "J • Curbside recycling?
 • Need cw-bside recycling.
r '.

 • Curbside recycling would allow those with no car to recycle on a regular basis and would
 make it easier for everyone.
 • Need curbside recycling.
; . • With such a mixed population on the peninsula it is a wonder the trash pick-up goes as well
 as it does. Forget curbside recycling.

L~
 • Would like to see a city wide recycling pick-up system., just as gaIbage is picked up
 weekly.
 • Curbside recycling would be nice for the items that pile up quickly -newspap~, milk
r
, \ containers, cardboard.
 • We need more recycling drop-off areas.
 • More recycling locations. Add cardboard.
LJ
 • Why do we not have recycling as well as rubbish removal?
 • Recycling pick-up would be useful.
 • Recycling is pretty good, need more participation, though.
 • The recycling bins on the boulevard are always full.
_. • More recycling. Curbside would be nice.
! • A few more recycling bins would be great
L. • Sidewalk recycling!
r" • Recycling good, but more needs to be done.
I
! • Portland is not serious about recycling.
 • Recycling: Should ty to do more.
 • Recycling is not good enough.
 • Recycling is A+, but I live on Peaks Island... and we are the only district with curbside
 recycling.
 • How about cmbside recycling like other cities?
1..._,", • Would like more recycling.
 • Need recycling bins in the Pine Tree Shopping Center.
 • Need curbside recycling.
 • We need cmbside recycling.
 • Curbside recycling is a must!
 • Great litter and brush control, No recycling efforts.
 • Include more plastics in recycling, esp. #1 and #5. More recycling!!
 • A mandatory recycling effort would be ideal. Although costly, it would make your city
 pick-up oftrash much lighter and city dumps more :free ofw&ste. Recycling is very good.
 The suburbs are lax about picking up around their businesses.
 • Recycling needs more promotion. People don't seem to know where the bins are or use
 B
 o
 ·fl
 f)
 '. ~




 T3
.. ~~~
 ~ ,



r~->
 Jl .
 ,
:ilr- . •
 . ':.'
 It

ll'
',;';',.' •
 .,
 •




;;.9\··
. ." --:','",
~ '"

• "';~,.. '·'ti"'!!!r-.­

 r.·
~'a •
 ....
 •
 ..
 ,....,
 APPENDIXB t.
 r! :
 Excerpt from Mayor's Tvk Foree on S01ld Waste Report, December 22, 1997

 2. Recycling: [
 The task force concluded that neither RWS nor the City ofPortland are (for perhaps quite [
 different reasons) doing as much as they could be doing in the area ofrecycling. RWS· for some
 r~
 1•
 time was in something ofa conflict-it needed material to bmn-recycling reduced the waste

 stream available for burning; end result-very little recycling. More recently RWS has a large r
 l I




 enough volume ofmaterial (actua11ymore than enough) to meet their bum commitments, but
 [
 though RWS may be in a position to handle larger volumes ofrecyclable materials, it does not
 r
 I
 appear that they have made the front-end investment in separution equipment that would enable L

 r'.
them to handle in an economically beneficial manner significantly higher volumes ofrecyclable I
 lo __

materials. In short, they're doing more than ever before, but less than seems possible.
 \"
 I. :
 For a long time the city, more or less supporting RWS's early needs for volmne, largely
 r- .
ignored recycling. Municipal tipping fees for household wastes were reasonable by virtue of I
 L_.
"flow control"; the public was not demanding recycling; and the city did not wish to make an

investment in front-end separation equipment. Portland didn't seem to have the volume to justify
 r'
. this investment; moreover; secondary markets for recyclables (which might have produced 1--­
 L.

income for the city) were unpredictable and subject to wide price variations. The end result ­ I
 L.
very little recycling. At some point the city put the silver bullets (large recycling containers) in

place to support RWS's increased recycling effort, but we did little else. These containers collect ,--,

about 1800 tons ofrecyclable material, about 6-7% ofPortland's household wastes, each year.

Coupled with our annual heavy item pickup, which also generates about 1800 tons ofmaterial,

Portland's total level ofrecycling each year is arolmd 12-14%, of total household waste. This is
 one ofthe lowest levels ofmunicipal recycling in the state.

 Recently however, two or three important factors have changed suggesting the need for
f-~'



II , new approaches to recycling by both RWS and the city. First, "flow control" is gone. probably

r-~ forever. Whether you thought it W88 a good thing or a bad thing is irrelevant today - nothing the
I .
 task force heard suggests it is coming back - period. Life without "flow control" means higher
I.......


L i tipping fees for household wastes - these could rise to "much higher" over time. Second, the

 private sector recycling industry has grown tremendously. Portions ofit operate globally; at its
[
...., best. it is integrated and sophisticated; it utilizes constantly improving technology; it has made
[, huge inve~tments in front-end separation, sorting, cleaning, shredding, and baling equipment

 Many private sector recyclers operating in the region are in a better position than either RWS or
L,
r-, Portland to flexibly react to, and to make money from, the broadening market for recyclable

 materials. Given these factors the task force would offer the following recommendations.
I
I
j ..


 A. The time has come for RWS to either get into the recycling business on a more

 committed basis (competing with private sector recyclers on their own terms) or get out of the

 recycling business by spinning it off to private sector firms ready, willing, and able to take over

 these activities from RWS, expand regional recycling efforts, and make money doing it.

 Continuing on as we have seems the worst alternative; we don't recycle as much as we could or

1.... should; we don't derive much revenue from recycling; we bum materials that we ought not to

 bum, complicating our ash disposal problems. RWS should explore spin-off possibilities

 (including an appropriate level ofparticipation in any future success of a privatized recycling

 activity) through an RFP process.
 r
 I !


 On the basis ofpresent infmmation, it can be argued that ofthe two approaches (getting
 r
into recycling more fully or getting out by privatization) the latter is preferable. RWS could then I
concentrate on doing what it does best-nmning the trash to energy facility. Privatizing RWS's

recycling activity has the added benefit of enabling R WS to avoid significant capital investment
 r
costs that would certainly be necessary ifRWS were to attempt to become a major player in the
 l.
recycling marketplace; moreover, it would keep RWS out ofthis highly volatile, competitive,
 [,
and often unpredictable marketplace. r
 [.

B. The City ofPortland should significantly expand its recycling effort focusing on household r
wastes and utilizing a separation and pay per bag approach. The time is right. To encourage each r'L ;
household to separate, recycled materialS (including organic wastes-leaves and grass clippings) roo,


would be picked up FREE by public works personnel. All other materials would be bagged,

uti1izing a standard 30 gallon bag sold at reasonable cost ($.75 or $1.(0) by the city; these
 r-"
 L
bagged wastes would also be picked up by the public works department. Bagged wastes would

be delivered to RWS for bum; recycled materials would be delivered to RWS or its designee and
 L:
move into seconciaIy recyclable goods markets. Alternatively, Portland could negotiate its own

contract for the handling ofthese recyclable materials (similar to the Hamlin's Pit contract) with
 I
 L. •


a private recycling finn. Here, too, the alternatives could be explored through use ofthe RFP

process. The avoided cost alone (presently $49.00 a ton for household wastes delivered to RWS

for incineration)* justifies an expanded city-wide recycling effort. As previously noted, between

* The actual tipping fee per ton of household wastes delivered by the city to RWS to bum is prescmtly
595.00, but approximately 546.00 ofthis total is Portland's share of sm:chatges to cover RWS budget deficits that
arose with the loss of "flow control". Increased recycling would not reduce the city's surcharge costs--one way or I- '.'

another these must be paid; but each ton of wastes not bumed (but which is instead recycled) will save us $49.00.
 the silver bullets and heavy item pickup, the city presently recycles about 3600 tons (12-14% of

 Portland's household wastes) each year. Iftbat percentage could be increased to 25-30% (which

 would still be below the state average) the city would save (avoid costs of) close to $200,000. If

 we reach the projected State average for municipal household waste recycling (50010) the savings

 would approximate $500,000. Whatever we got for the recycled materials would be an added

 revenue. The approach the task force recommends would for the time being leave commercial
.....,
 waste streams alone. Some commercial generators (mostly large fums) already do a good deal

:- 1
 ofrecycling for the same reason laid out above-to save money. Private haulers who gather most

 ofthe commercial wastes in the city would be strongly encouraged to work: with the city and/or

 with RWS to expand their respective recycling efforts, particularly with smaller generators, but

 no direct control over commercial recycling is recommended at this time.



 C. A fall back position to that outlined above is to move to a separation and pay per bag

 approach in at least two large-scale demonstration areas ofthe city, one off-peninsula, a second

 on-peninsula. Any demonstration should be for a long enough period oftime to enable us to

 'assess the problems and benefits fully, probably a'year or more. A demonstration would save less

 and provide less revenue from the recycled materials, but it would allow us to work out the

 logistics and mechanics ofthe new system in a more bite-sized manner before expanding the

 system city-wide. Ofthe two approaches (B and C) the task force would recommend approach

 B. Going city-wide from the start is doable. The mechanics and logistics can be worked out

 before we put the program in place; hundreds of cities throughout the country have moved in this

 direction - we can learn from their mistakes; we would maximize savings and environmental
benefits; and finally. everyone in the city would be treated equally.
 l.
D. The least Portland should do - an approach which the task force would recognize but does

not endorse (because it does not go far enough) is to significantly expand the number, access-
 r
 I..
 \
ability, and use of silver bullets throughout the city. This approach, iftak~ should be

accompanied by more frequent emptying of these containers, wide distribution ofmaps showing r
 L;

where these containers are located, and efforts in the schools and through social service r
 rL I



organizations to expand use of these facilities. These efforts will no doubt increase our present

rate ofrecycling somewhat; the city will realize some cost savings, but it is a timid option - one
 rl ..
that largely misses the opportunities ofthe moment. )'
 L,

 1"-,

 It_
Note: Whatever approaches are taken by RWS and the Portland city council to expand present

recycling activities, they should be preceded and accompanied by an extensive public education r'L.
effort demonstrating the economic and environmental advantages ofwhatever program is
 L,
adopted. There are private professional organizations (such as Global Action Inc.) that can assist

in these efforts. But neighborhood meetings, school involvement, enlisting the aid of ,I ..
environmental and service organizations, working with all forms ofthe mass media will i
 I
 L
benecessary if expanded recycling efforts are to succeed.



 In discussing these issues with the state office of solid waste management, which is now

within the state planning office, it became clear that ifwe adopted either approach B or C as
 i-~_
outlined above, they would support us with a significant demonstration grant. An amount was
 "gq ptnoqI P. SB s ~J8IU. "amm: lO[ 'B .(1JCi '((J.M.

. . . . G$ PIIA l,UDp OI(A\ -/PUB 'o$nM.jO wt.iB\fVA llIPIlDJM.IPfOItOIRDq oaoru. ";QJj dn ~
 gq tWA fD.)I8IA ~~ . . . . . . . . . . v- ~tJO:l1I"'»quD1IDl ~aPlg A»A

A1rd fflJA ~ JO lOt" op 0If04A ....... M.OJ 1D!IA ~ --u. -daq ~ lOJ lSOO

  at; act ptIIOIA ~ ...... 'Pf0lfillll0'l JqJ 1100 AfIIOa1I -u. ,..,.... ~ 0I01tl QQI PtUoqa
 ~~~~1IN_~'~~lIlWJ~



iJ.IUiiAUUiOOOlaolOJ~" .... ~ qIJq.<tld. . . . GqM.~ ~ JIOO ptI8 'lWpDlq

 1»PPII- QC{ lOU ptIlOM. ~ IIq ad Awl pal VO!l8.-. .. lIR(JlIDJ:I ~ qItU ~ 'AnsrI



 "wmqaplft 10 PAOt...sv •• 1ftOq8·luMltr+~ ~
  am OA\ 'lId lq[WlH dIl :J.DQS G$ tm. :wrI Ao1g JQ'8.II ~ cnp uo pgnq lDq 'p9SfRlosy> lOU
./
 l
 APPENDIXD
 [
 Sanitation Programs for Multi-Unit BuiJdiDes
 r
 L'

 in other Communities

 Apartment Buildlnes Housing Authorities r
Lewiston up to 8 units no pick up [
South Portland apts: up to 4 units depends on various
 Cluster: will pick up PILOT agreements [
 8-12 units ifno room for
 dumpster
 [
Westbrook up to 10 units no pickup

Auburn nla nla
 [
Bangor upto4 units nla [
 [
 ['
 r'
 L
 ~
 l...,
 .~~~
 L
APPENDIXE Appro¥ed By.  CitiM81UIIef ~ r
 l:
 b:::.
 Efrective~ Date: /'~ '2. {1-'?
 r
 J




 ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION NO. 42
 r
 Recycling Policy r
 ~ ,


 r
 l ,
 PURPOSE

 This Administrative Regulation (AR) is intended to set forth the basis and
 procedures for controlHng waste generation and disposal practices. Consistent
 r
 with the State ofMaine's waste management priorities~ the City's first priority of r
 waste management is to "reduce" both in amount and toxicity ofwastes L,
 generated. The City' ssecond priority is the "rc:uG" ofwaste. Our third priority is r'
 I
 the "recvclin&" ofour waste. Collectively these are referred to as the "3 R's".
 l.J
 Reduction
 r-'
 The City ofPortland has established "reduction" as its first waste management
 priority because it prevents the creation ofwaste; other methods only manage r
 waste after its creation. By reducing waste generation, the City will decrease' the t
 amount ofmaterials that must be reused, recycled or disposed ofand will reduce
 f'"
 its total costs of banc11ing materials. Suggestions or questions regarding I


 "reduction" should be directed to the City's Purchasing Agent I~ ..'
 r-'
 Listed below are some recommendations ofreducing waste generation:
 L._

 • minimize paper usage by using E-Mail, voicemail.using routing slips
 instead ofissuing multi-copies ofdocuments, photocoping two sides of
 paper, using clean side ofpaper for note pads, editing work on P .C./Word
 processing C.R.T. versus paper copy, etc.
 L.
 • Investigate option ofretunring unused materials to ihe original supplier
 for credit. The same option should be used for unneeded and expired
 supplies. l.~ ,




 • Keep all inventories to the minimum. Return to the supplier any out-of­
 date inventory for credit. Audit inventory monthly to identify any over­
 stocked items.
 • Where cost effective, purchase products who packaging is not excessive•
-, consistent with the City's goals of controlling costs and minimize waste
 generation.


 The City ofPortlmd has identified reuse as its second waste management priority.
 By recognizing materials and items that are still usable and by identifying uses for
 these materials, the City reduces its purchases, recycling and disposal costs.

 Materials that may be appropriate to reuse include:

 • Fire trucks, rehabilitated, refitt~ and modernized.
 • Construction equipment rehabilitated and modernized.
 • Brick and granite curb removed during reconstruction can be reused.
 • Office fumiture can be cleaned and repainted.
 • Obsolete equipment to be sold by public auction or donated to needy
 organization.
 • Excavated earth can be blended into suitable construction material.
 • Wood waste chipped into bark mulch.
 • Leaves and grass clippings compacted into a soil conditioner and
 fertilizer.
 • 'Sale of obsolete items to salvage company.


 'Suggestions or questions regarding ''reuse" should be directed to the City

 Purchasing Agent Recycling


 The City of Portland has identified ''recycling'' as its third waste management
 priority. After waste reduction and reuse have been maximized, materials that
 remain may be appropriate for recycling. By recycling materials that cannot be
 reused, the City minimizes the amount ofmaterials requiring disposal, as well as
 the environmental and monetary cost associated with disposal.

 State law requires recycling of office paper and cardboard at all facilities where
 15 or more people are employed. The City is meeting this requirement by
 implementing an office paper collection and recycling at its facilities.

 The City recycles a wide range ofmaterials, and it continues to search for reuse or
 recycling options for materials which are disposed of currently.

 All employees are encouraged to investigate and pursue recycling options for all
 materials, where such recycling is cost effective.
 '
 0.
 1
 l



o
0'
o
'0
o
o
"0
rlU

o
 Pordtmd Press Herald. Munday. Decemba 8. 1997
 r'




  IN POR1l.AND
 - "­
 'f.




  Pay-per-bag plan will save· :'
  tax dollars, and environment f:'
 r-~1


 I
 L~
 • Oty council.oIS should back fewer ~ spent on trash disposal and r r'o'
 the .:...1-.. b for ... Jess of an onpact on the environment. .
 1Wdl, ut prepare CI10ClSm. lJ)tirnateJy, the city will be able to lower t l_,.
 LhGw trash ..U -.-.,.I taxes or avoid a tax increase thanks to


 A
 pay-per~ ~t'......... the savings and added revenue.

 ~
 system in Portland can be On the negative skie, some residents "
• depended upon to won't Jib the iDconvenieDce and are (' ,
 both positive and negative sure to complain ' ~,
, . results. . ~ twO
 On the positive side, having Portland City Council in the
 CertainfJ:s: the Portland .
 e. Here they "
  residents pay for each bag of trash they have aD idea that will save the city and
  produce will do a lot to encourage its taxpayers money and help the
  recycling. Other commmlities in the environment in the process. It is'l~
  region use the system to great success. .endorsed by the Solid waste Task Force
 Experience shows people wiD recycle .appointed by Mayor George CampbelL "
  when not doing so costs them money. -this idea, however; is bound to bring
  WIth'ID01'e items recycled, the city will some angIy folks totbe microphones at L­

  save money. 'The city pays $44.45 per some future council meeting. City COUD­
 !
 ~~, .
  metric ton ($49 f,er ton) for trash cilors should be prepared Dr this, and
  disposal to Regiona  waste Systems. The resolve to do the right thing. The worst "
  city w.ill also conect moaey from rem. thing they coUld do is approve the I

  dents who buy bags mr waste disposal . program and then rescind their approval .
 The result of such a pro~ will be the first time they are cbaJlenged on it. )
-'




 Portland Pn!ss Herald. SalUrd&:Iy, April 18. 1998




 Portland trying C(~~
 again to improve ft
 its recycling rate \ i

 • The Oty Council will • I
 ~e'd like to see
 appoint an advisory panel
 Wednesday to explore the Portland do betta. 1f
 city's options. Portland would do f,.
 better, all the l
 By ANDREW D. RUSSEIJ.. communities would i· ~
 Staff Writer .
 be doing better."
 Portland's days as one of the Collin 1herden, t.
 worst recycling communl;ies in stare planner
 I .
 .~ .-~
 Maine may be numbered. ~

 The city is forming a new recy­
 cling committee. Its goal is to
 cbange the way residents of Maine's Portland recycles just 20 to 25
 largest city throw away their trash percent of its waste, compared with :
 by developing a citywide recycUng - the statewide average of 35 percent. ,
 program. state and local o8ida1s say. The f
 For six months, the Recycling statewide recycling goal for munici- ~
 Advisory Committee wm study resi- palities is 50 percent. :
 dential and commercial recycling "1 think we all can do more," said .
 options. These range from doing Chris McDuft'ie. a Wellwood Road·
 no.thing new to starting a pay-per- resident who pJans to serve on the .
 bag trash pickup system. The City recycling committee.
 Council is expected to vote on a plan City o8ieiais agree.
 earJy next year. "I think there's a public recogni­
 It's all part of an effort to improve tion that we need to do more with
 Portland's recycling record, which regards to recycling." said Cheryl .
 lags behind that of most communi­
 ties around the state. Please see RECYClE, Page 4B
 _..... ~ ..:.....' •• :""''''-" "-..... ~ ·"11, .... ~t:._., .... ,_ ..... : " , ....




 PoI1'ond Ptl:'SS Hmdd, $Qturdoy, Ar.il 18. J998


 .........-.... . .._.
 are: recycling rate. The state goal is not drop-off points. such as North Deer­
1RECYCLE • Increasing the amount of a mandate, altbough commtritles In&.reeycle as much waste as those
 waste recycled by adopting a pay­ that by hard to recycle may be who live in towns with aggressive
ICo,..hilled /,.Off. Page 1B per-bag system that would require eligible for grants to belp'support mUnlcipal recycling prognuns, such
 residents to buy bags for non-recycl­ their programs. as Falmouth or Freeport, said ErIc
 Leeman, a city councUor who will able trash. SUU, state ot1Ida1s who monitor Root, recycling coordinator ror
 chair the committee. "So we'U look recycling programs say they'd like It.egIcnal Waste s,stems. ..
 to have a clan in place that does a • CoUecting· recyclable items at to see Portland improve Ita standJng
 curbside. "Because Portland has diferent
 better Jo of dealing with our -< If only lor the message It sends...
 nelgfiJorhoods, there's sort or a
 environment and our waste." • Increasing the number of recy­
 The elIort mirrors a recommen­ cling drop-olJ containers - so-called better,""We'd Uke to see Portland do mix," Boot said "And if you look at
 daUon from a cil.Y solid waste task "silver bullets" - around'the cl~: ...:.. Ior plannersaid CollIn Thenien, a sen­ the towns In the state that are doing
 force that suggested Pot·tland could with the state's waste well, they an by and large munlci­
 save as much as $200,000 a year In • Hiring a private contractor to management program. "1f Portland paUlies that have a dtlzens' recy­
 trash disposal costs by insUtutJng a run a citywide recycling program" . would do better, all the communWes cling committee.'" .
 <.'Omprehensive, citywide recycUng "The ballfteld Is wide open," said would be  doing better." 'lbat's the goal behind  Portland's
 program. Troy Moon, who runs commerclal new committee. Members, who are
 It's not that PottJand basn1 tried­ to be appointed Wednesday by the
 At present, residents who want to waste programs (or the cll;y's Public to Improve recycling. CIty oOidals
 recycle must deliver their recycl­ Works Deparbnenl "'Ibey're going first pmposed 8 . .y-per-bag system City CouncU, w.Ullnclude local resi­
 abies to one of 10 dl'ofH)1l points to look at everytbing that's available In late 1991. But they dropped it a dents who both favor and oppose
 al'Ound the city. Heavy items can be and develop a pmgraDl to make the few months later after residents l1!C,.t'cling programs.
 disposed of at Ule IUvcrside Recy­ best fit for Portland." opposed the Idea. "We want to make sure we get
 cling Center, fOI'merly Hamlin's Pit. Beyond the environmental bene­ _ dilferent viewpoints 10 give the com­
 Among the recycling options the fits of recycling, there's no real What's more, residents in some mlttee balance to make the right
 committee Is expected to consider pressure on the .city to Improve Its. neighborhoods with easy access to choices." said Leeman.




 !_.-
 -----1 :-J ~-~l ---J 1
Faster than a Silver bUllet
Forgot tho81 Inconvanlilnt drop-oil locations. Curbsldl But in fact, a pay.per-bag system can
 be used to help fUnd curbside reeycling
recycling and pay-per-bag trash ara Pordand's bait Ihotl and might be the only way to motivate
 people to throw Iway less. Portland,
at raduclng Its Ilow 01 garbaga. which pays $49 per ton to Indnerate
 trash at RqponaJ Waste Systems (RWS),
• LAURA CONAWAY there's little incentive for people to sepa· have sald no to curbside recycllns is that could actually Sive money if residents
 Like many Portland residents, rate their trash and haul recyclables to they believe the service would cost 100 recycled more of their gamalle. A task
 SarahRose Werner is serious about recy­ the city's eight silver bullet containers. As much. Residents In 1991 also rejected the force lart year predicted taxpayers could
 cling. At home, Wemer dutifully collects a result, Portland recycles less than one­ Idea ofpaylng for each Indtridual bag of save $200,000 on the city's annual SI.I
 paper, plastic, aluminum and glass In a quarter of Its trash, compared to the non-recyclable trash, arguing that they milliQn garbage bUl if Portland collected
 cardboard box until the contents are statewide average of41 percent. .. I know pay for collection with property tues. A recyclables alonB with household trash.
 overflowins, Then she loads it all into a in my neighborhood, people really, really short-lived curbside recycling PlO,8ram And if Portland charged residents for
 camp~'s backpack and hikes 20 minutes want to get involved (in recycling]," said was canceled that year after it proved
 each baa ofnon-recyclable waste they set
  from her West End apartment to the "sil­ Portland Mayor George CampbeU; "and astronomically expensive.
 out, the predicted yelrly savlnas would
  ver bullet" recycllns container on we don't make it easy for them." For nearly a decade, the city has col·
 . rise to It least SSOO,oOo - eaough 10 off­
  Marginal Way. More than once Werner, Now a new citizen committee, chaired lected recyclioB door-to-door on Peaks
 set some ofcumside recyclina's CODsider­
  who doesn't own an automobile, has by City Councilor Cheryl Leeman, Is Island, but to Bet that convenience,
  IUBBed her recyclables across the city, ready to study ways Portland could islanders agreed to sacrifice other munic­ able expense•
• only to find that the container had been reduce its How of garbage and increase ipal services, such as having sanitation Towns such as Cumberland, which
  moved or was stuffed to capacity. "I sus­ recycling. Options range from leaving the workers stalT the dump fuD·time.. Tbat olrer curbside reeyeDn, but have Wllimit­
  pect most people who don't have a car present system as it is to charging resi· type or bade-olf might not work lOr ptO. • ed trash disposal, stiD las. behind the state
  ou.n recyCle at ait,' she S!.ie:.. ' Very I~W dellt:! for each bag oi garbage they sec out pie who dve in tOWII, suggesleo ~a.ol average. Among RWS rnember comma..
  people are willing to haul their trash and offering free curbside pickup of Eisellberg, who founded lIIe weekly pick· nities, the places with highest recycling
  around, especiaI1Y'wh~n you get there paper, glass, plastic and aluminum. "The up program on Peaks and started the rates ue thOR where residents pay more
  and the thing is fuU." right program could save us money. II failed pilot program on the mainland. if they throw Iway more - evea If they
 Inconvenient recycling and unlimited Leeman said. "It's a win-win situation. She slJl1leSted mainlanders would rather have to lug their old newspapers and
  trash disposal have caused Portland to The taxpayers get a break, and the envi· use recycling drop-olTs than pay higher cans to silyer bullets themselves.
 lag behind much of the rest of the state in ronment gets a huge break. How can you property taxes for door·:o-door pickup. "Everybody knows 'reduce, reuse, recy­
 recycling. Garbage pickup costs the same say no to that?" "I'm not sure curbside I. the answer," cle,'" said Eric Root, director or recy­
 whether you put out two bags or 10, so The short answer for why taxpayers Eisenberg said. cling at RWS, "But It's not happening.
 except in those municipalities where bills
 are paid by pay.per-bag."




 CBw tf·A3.'1~
 Recycling
 When Falmouth converted to a pay­
per-bag system in I992; residents Imme­ Garbage I'allltics
diately reduced the amount of garbage Numbers aren't what they seem
they sent to RWS by 35 percent. The Depending Dn WhOH statistics you
town's'household recycling, meanwhile, trull, Portl.and recycles either 24 percent
ciimbed dramatically, and Is topped only of its waste or a mere 6.9 percent. The
by the rate in Durham, which also gap between estimates is so wide because
 charges residents per bag. "Obviously,
 you have an incentive," said Tony
 ., the city's department of public works
 Includes materialslICh as paper and card·
 Hayes, Falmouth's director of public Leeman's citizen committee isn't board recycled by municipal govemmeni
 works. "You could fill the trash bag fuD expected to make recommendations to and schools. which boosts the fiBures.
 of everything and throw it away, or you the City Council ror six months. Meanwhile, R.eglonal Waste Systems
 could recycle two-thirds of your trash Meanwhile; Portland officials are plan­ (RWS) conslden only the tons of trash
 with no cost." ning to try a pay-per.bag program when recycled at the plant versus the tons
 In Falmouth, residents set their trash the city runs its leaf-coUection program incinerated. which brings the number
 out in specially marked bags sold at area in November. City Manager Bob Oanley down. And when state planners claim
 stores. A 33-gallon bag costs 91~ and a said residents wiD have to buy spedally. Maine recycles about 41 percent of its
 22-gallon bag goes for 64t. "People rec­ marked com-starch bags - at a projected garbage statewide. theY're including
 ognized, for once, that it was costing a cost of 27~ each to dispose orleaves at returnables like bottles and cans -Items
 lot of money to get rid of trash," Hayes the annual curbside pickup. Not only will Portland leaves out orits calculation.
 said. "The cost was hidden in taxes, and the sale of baP offset the cost or coIIec· "There's a certain percen.tage of the
  people didn't realize the town was pay­ tion, but the baas also decompose, saving wIlSIe stream that's not Included in our
  ing about $200,000 to get rid of trash. It sanitation workers the husle and figure," said Tro)' MOOD, who oversees
  He estimated Falmouth now saves about expense of slitting open and throwing out commercial garbaBe proBrams for
  $100,000 a year as a direct result or plastic bap. Portland public: wotlca. That makes it dif·
  increased recycling. Oanley predicted Portland will even­ ficult to JudIe how well the city is doing
 Root said Falmouth's reduction in tually have curbside recycling, even irthe at recycUnB.
  garbage couldn't have come at a better city has to charge residents per bag of But Ihere an! two solid recycling statis.
  time, since RWS has almost always had trash In order to make the program seem lics, said Brie Root, director of recycling
 more trash than it could possibly burn, worthwhile to average citizens. "Times ror RWS. The first. from a surveyor
 and has since the day it opened in 1988. chan~e and people come around to it, II RWS member commuaides, Ihows that
 Last year, RWS had to bury some 10,000 he said. "There's a big next step in just 66 percent of the population recycles
 tons of waste, because there was no room getting people to really. really commit to some or their prbilge at lelll some of the
 to Incinerate it. That has lead some recy­ it. Do Ihey do that voluntarily, or do you time. The second, from municipal waste
 cling consultants to speculate that RWS sort offinancially push them?" reports, shows Ihat when towns and
 will either have to expand the current cities besin diaralng citizens for each bag
 facUlty or buUd a new one - two enor­ of trash the), c:reat:e, the total volume or
 mously expensive propositions. "I don't
 think we could alford it, and I don't think
 we could get it lenvironmentallyl permit­
 I
 J
 non-recyclable .arbage drops by one·
 third. "The data's absolutely consistent
 aeron the counb:y." Root said. "Nothing
 ted," Root said. "Recycling is certainly I else you do gets that kind ofresult...
 where we have to start .:.. The time for
 decisions is upon us."
 Ii I..IUA CONAWAY
 i




 t'~ . r- r-'~ r-"""'--" ~--j
 ,----,
 i -l ~_ -1
 --1 -----1 I J




 .C.BW 'i ·,,:. ·c:t g
 n the first Earth Day in 1970, I was an idealistic 6-yur-01d who wrote household trash (see "Faster than a siver bullet," page 8). There IU! aD torts of
O letters to President tlixon about .viug the whales. I didn't litter, and I excuses for not separatlDl reeydables: It's messy, it takes up precious space in I
Iikea to lecture pi;ople who did (the line between idealism and seIf-riahteousness aamped'apartmmts, the reqdlng containers are few and far between. Curbside
is, of course, very thin). So when my mother lot a gil helpiug to write the recycling, I've often heard people say, wuuld at least make things easier and
speech New York Mayor John Lindsay would deliver at the Inaugural peen more conven.lenl. . .
event, I thought it was pretty cool- especially since it meant I would be able to But curbside recydiug COIitS money. and Pottlanden seem to be stuck In the ­
 attend. 1 vquely remember wanderlnS with my mom around mindset that you can Ibmw thinp any for m:e. It Isdt so. TIll! cost of rampant
 Union Square, checldns out the booths and tables of long· trash·tassln. is hidden, but It'. real. We'd better aclmowledse it. Across the
 haired environmental reformers. One recol1ection stands out: nation, studies have shown !hat the only, way to reduce the bulky flood or refUse
 a larle 31ass aquarium filled with filthy water from the that el1lelJe5 from til\'! II'IIlI1IJIC home Is to !!lake people pay for what they set out I
 Hudson River, holdinl one very unhappy.lookIna fash, its gills on the curb. Nothins mOr:M1e!! IJb maaey. .
 heavins In the strusBle for oxygen. In Maine towns and cities where a pay-per-baa poUcy is In effect, It hal been
 We've come a lonl way since tben. Bnvironmental proven to wort. Such a policy, a10na with curbside rec:ydlns. would mOlt likely
concepts that were radical t.ck In 1970 - the responsibility of Industry to dean be eIfec:tive In reducing die ,arb. stream bere as well. Let your citY councilor
up after itselr, the Inherent value or wild places, the impoJ1arlce or a biologically know you'd be wiIIinI to spend a Utde ~ on trash bags to help pay lOr the
diverse planet - have become widely accepted. So we're doing peat, riPt1 convenience ofcurbside recrctlJll. That would be the best way of celebratlna the
 Well, maybe not. Barth Day Itself bas become a cultural institution, but tbat'i Barth this ~I after Earth 01; has been left bebind.
not necessarily a good thillg. These days, the connection between April 22's
ubiquitous blue-and-sreen Slobes and concrete action on environmental issues is 1he 10IIII podIIJe _
about as real as the link between the Baster Bunny and the risen ChrIst. Symbols· As you'll see from the advertisement on paae 39, we're in the process of
and rote phraSes - "RedUI:e! Reusel Recycler" - have become a comfortable searching for a new editor. After dearly three years in the job. I've made the
substitute ror the difficult «:boices that need to be made ir we're not solns to decision to move on, but I'll be here for the next two months to ensure a smooth
drown in our own waste. . tnmsition. Watch Ibis space for developments.
 Portlanders, ror Instance, are way behind the state avaage In the recydlng of SARAH GOOOYfAR
 rI
 Recycle II!' r
 Perhaps. I~ not whJms1cal to tJon that converts t:tash to energy
 tmaghle the day when East End (or dUes and towns in southern I
 \
 residents wt1l be able to set their MaIne. It has more than 80 recy­
 recyclable Items em the curb (or e1IDg bins In 28 towns in Southern
 ptek-up. Portland has ~cre- MaIne. Includina a dozen in Port­
 ated a RecycUngAdvtsory CommIt­ land.
 tee to smprwe tts recycbDa record. ~ is gcwemed by a 28-mc:m­
 Cummtly. Portland ranks very low bel' board and is owned and COD-
 inpen:entageoftrath~edcom- trolled by ItS member munidpall· r
 pared. to thestate average. Portland t1es. Much oflhe waste transported 'l
 recycles 20 to 25 pen:ent COIIIpIlI'ed to the (acillty located on outer Con­
 to the state aV'fll'BSit of 35 pen::cnt. Jre8$ Street in Portland is 1Ddne:r.
 The statew1d.e reeyclmg goal (or atecl to create electrtetty. wblch is
 muntdpaltues 1& 50 pereent. then &old to Central Mame Power
 By now. many HDI residents CoInpmJJ'. With ItS 35 percent recy­
 realize tbat Earth Day is more Ulan cling rate (State Plannlng Ofllce
 once a year. Rec,ye11ng bas been caJeulat1on). RWS IS maklng a sub­ .....,
 !
 ,.lDtegrated .Into many ltves through stanUalcontributJonto the achtev'e- i
 I
 COD8C1enf:toususeolRclJonalwaste ment 0{ the state's solid waste re- I ;

 Systems "sflver bullet" recycltng . duc:tlOn goals.
 bins. It takes dort to coIIeet. sort.
 and haul recycJables to the bInS.
 RWSBoard CbairmanJIm Soule
 COIDdlIImted on local rtCJdiD8 ef- r-'
 I
 but people ftnd It Js worth the work (orbil. "Our programs bave been a I ,
 to decmaae their trash output and success because the people In
 pJ'eIel"Ve our envtrrmment. II the southern MaJne do a IfC8t Job or t~·"1

 City deeldes to adopt a pay-perbag USIng OW" mcycllng bUts to help
 trash plclmpsystem. Port1andresl· reduce trash dJsposal. We pruvlde
 dents wt1I have evenDJOre tncenUve the bins. But people use them. And
 to recycle. that's the key.­
 RWS is the entity responsible The btns handle mixed paper r
 (orwaste handling and recycling in such as phone books, catalogs,
 this area. It is a non-proDt corpora­ See RECYCUNG. Page 4
 r'
 ,
 t ,

~
"C
 CD
.r::. •
.!e
::a:::J
a..
 Recycling IS Good
 Continued from page 1
 paper bags and newspapers: chip­ fonner site of the Whole Grocer. I
 i~ •

 board such as cereal boxes and egg Addltlona1 nearby bJ.ns are at the
 Casco Bay Feny TennJnal. Com·
 ,,­
 cartons: hard materJals such as
 glass. steel and alummum cans: merclal Street at FtankJin Arterial.
 and No. 2 plastics such as milk and the USM ParkIng Lot on Mar" ,-­
 1- ,
 cartons and water boWes. glnal Way across &om the Whole
 Eric Root. dttector of matertals Grocer's new 1ocat1on. '
 recoveJY at RWS. says it Is iJnpor­ Root says thatJoealgovemment
 tant to followlnstrucl:lm1sand crush has played an acttve role In
 the plasUc Jugs you recycle. It can Portland's recycling efforts. He also
 .t as much as three U1Des the said that additional silver bullets
 .q>eDSe to haul (ull-stzecontalners arc available uponrcquest. Ifsome­
 t:ompared to those that are com­ one can identify an appiopr:tate 10­
 pressed. He also said that plastics cation.
 collected are Um1ted to clear HOPE For additional infOJ"Dlatton on
 tI2 containers. recycling. can Ertc Root at RWS.
 The RWS "stiver bullet"locaUon 773-6465. Watch this space for
 most acCessible to HID R:Sklents is updates on Portland's Recycling
 located at 118 Congress Street. the Advtsory Committee.
Pay-per-bag plan gains favor
• , \s req'I'
 c mg Y
 b therecvcllngprogram,
 "The taxpavers could control their
 HECYCllNfT 01'110:-15 betwl!en $0 and 75 cents each. The
 city would hire a linn to collect resi­
residents lags, a city own cost and also control that line den ts' recyclables - glass. plastic,
committee is again Item i~ the (cityl budget" said City Portland', Reqdlng Commltlte and InclUSl ng ~(llulP'Y R:C)" aluminum or newspaper - at the I
 Councilor Cheryl A. Leeman. chalr­ has been meedng for six months. cbng by adding more R:C)'C1ing 11:­ ~de. 1
proposing the system to woman of the city's recycling com­ stud)ing ~'ll)'S (0 Increase pardcl­ cepl8I:les around the dry. In theory, PortJand could pay for •
 · 1 ~ ts mittee. "A pay-per-bag system pation in the dt)··s m:)'I:llng pro­ Insdtutina p)o.per-bag IIlISh plck­ the expanded recycling program 1
re duce dtsposa cos. ' would give the taxpayer the Ineen. gram. II Is considering Dve.op­ up and expanding the \'Oluntary mlI' Ume with money that it saves in ;


 ~
 a. tJve to do more." 11005: R:C)"CIlng prqpm. disposal fees at RWS. :
By MARKSHANAHAN~ ~"'. Although It Is just one of five op­ Condnulng (he SlIme ~'CI ofser­ Continuing c:um:nt cutbslde .rash .Other IJ8I'!S of the plan call1lr col·
'i1affW.il(r • lions being considered by the recy. vice. which Includes curbside pickup and adding a.ab:slde m:y­ Iecting iard waste and bazardous
. cling committee, the pay-per·bag trash pickup and \IOIunW)' m:y­ ding. waste at est.abD8hed cIroIHHI points
 Portland soon could join the grow· plan has strong support and Is likely ding. IDICillltlnl pa,.-per-bag trash pick­ and doing the annual hea\oy-item
ing number of Maine communities to be recommended to the City Continuing curbside ItlISb pickup' up and curbside rec)dr1g. pickup by = n t , rather than
that charge residents fees to dis· CouncIL only during  tember.
pose of their househ!>ld trash. This is not the rlr'St time that a tor six months, the recydlng
 Disappointed by the relatively paI- pay-per-bag system has been dis­ committee has studied ways to in­
l!)' number of residents who now re- cussed In Portland. But as trash dls­ according to city officials. said HeIlI1 Dozier, a Portland resi­ crease reCj'Cllng. Leeman even visit·
cycle. city officials are considering posaI costs continue to climb and re­ That number Is so low because dent on the recycling committee. ed Worcester, Mass~ a clW more
implementing a pay-per-bag trash cycling rates remain low, the talk Is the city's recycling program is com­ "People think there's a trash falry ­ than twice the _ of Portland that
pickup system as early as next turning serious. pletely voluntary. ResIdents who just put It out and It's BOne. But as runs a successful pay.,er-bag
summer. Portland now generates about want to recycle must take their soon as you set people's wallets in­ system.
 By making people pay to throw 22,500 tons of household trash a year Items to one of 10 drop-off points volved, you gel results." Onee a self,described "nonbeliev­
away their trash, officials hope to reo and pays S53 per ton to dispose or It around the city. Heavy Items can be Under the plan beirI@ considered, er" In pay-per.bag trash coIIeetkm,
duce the amount or trash being gen- at the Regional Waste Systems in­ disposed of at the Riverside Recy­ the city would conlinue to pIcII up Leeman said she Is now convinced
erated by Portland households and clnerator. Barely 7 percent of Port· cling Center. . residents' trash - but ontv flit Is In that it Is good for the errvironrnent
increase residents' participation In land's household trash is recycled, "Trash Is a problem evel)'Where," speclaI bags bought at a store for I'Im!t sa ntASH, l'agt 1B

 and couJd save the cil;y some money.
 "People will complain about having
 to buy bags," Leeman said "But
 there are direct Onancial benefits to
 the taxpayer, and It's the risht thing
 to do."
 According to the State PlllIlIlir!g or. .
 fice. 65 clties and towns In MaIne aI.
 I ready charge residents for trash
 bags. Virtually every one has seen a
 marked Increase In recycling and a
 decrease In d1sposai costs.
 RecyeUng rates statewide have
 climbed from 16.5 percent In 1988 to
 better than 40 percent now. However,
 that reDects all I;ypes of recycUng, in.
 cludlng composling yard waste and
 grinding up lumber.
 "Recycling Is not hard ThIs Is ..-:..
 about changing habits," said Bridget
 Chase, a Portland resident who Is on
 the ri~'YCUng commlttee.."You am
 teach an old dog new tricks."
 UlllletJ .::Ilale5 -..-vv_"",u . t:::r"J":t.:JUol"'-:;m-v" I
 Environmental Protection Emergency Responte September 1996 rt
 Agency (OS305) ) ;



 &EPA Pay-As-You-Throw !'



 A Fact Sheet for Elected
 Officials
 As an elected esidents in most communi­
 What is
 official in your
 community, you
 have many
 R ties have come to expect
 efficient, reliable trash col­
 lection and disposal. and
 tend to support those officials that
 can get the job done.
 pay-as-you-throw?
 Fortunately, there is a system out
 there that can help your MSW man­
 agement personnel meet these chal­
 [
 re~p'onsibilities
 This task has been growing more
 lenges. In ne31'ly 2,000 communities [
 across the country, a program called
  besides municipal complicated, however. First of all, "pay-as-you-throw" is offering resi­
 solid waste (MSW) it's likely that your residents are dents a more equitable way to pay for [
 generating more waste each year, collection and disposal of their
 management-but even if you have a recycling program
 it's an important in place.
 trash-while, at the same time,
 encouraging them to create less waste
 [
 service. and increase the amo.unt they recycle. r-'
 That can mean escalating costs. And
 whether your residents pay for Pay-as-you-throw programs, also
 MSW services through a direct, flat called unit-based or variable-rate pric­ ,~ .
 ;

 fee or via their property taxes, it's ing, provide a direct economic incen­
 CJ.
 o,-"OInic8 not a very equitable system: every­ tive for residents to reduce waste.
 one pays the same amount, no mat­
V @' ter how much (or how little) trash
 Under pay-as-you-throw, households

 ~
 are charged for waste collection based
<i they actually produce. on the amount of waste they throw
~ CO away-in the same way that they are
$llliJ(,-q. ~q , charged for electricity, gas, and other
 utilities. If they throw away less, they
 ~~ pay less. Some commnnities charge


 & ~~y
 ~
 @~ residents for each bag or can of
 waste they generate. In a few
 communities, households
 ® ,...
 are billed based on the
 ~ weight of their
 0Q­ trash.
 @'~" ~
 ~~R,O .

 99
What are the benefits of some cases, pay-as-you-throw has worked so well
 that the communities have become models in their
pay-as-Y°!J-throw7 region, demonstrating how MSW services can be
Pay-as-you-throw gives residents greater control improved. And within the community, elected offi­
over their costs. While they may not realize it, your cials can point to pay-as-you-throw as an example of
constituents are paying for waste management ser­ municipal improvements they helped bring about.
vices. And. whether they pay through taxes or a flat
fee. residents that generate less and recycle more arc Are there disadvantages to
paying for neighbors that generate two or even three
 pay-as-you-throw7
times as much waste. When a few
residents generate more waste, every­ While there are potential barriers to a
one pays for it. With pay-as-you­ successful program, communities
throw. residents that reduce and with pay-as-you-throw report that
recycle are rewarded with a lower they have found effective solutions.
trash bill. Illegal dumping is a frequently raised
 issue. While it is often assumed that
As a result. households under pay-as­ illegal dumping will increase once
you-throw tend to generate less resident... are asked to pay for each
waste. Communities with programs in container of waste they generate,
place have reported reductions in most communities with pay-as-you­
waste amounts ranging from 25 to 45 throw have found this not to be the
percent, on average. Recycling tends case. This is especially true when
to increase significantly as well. And communities offer their residents
less waste means that a community recycling, compesting for yard trim­
might be able to spend less of its mings, and other programs that allow
municipal budget on waste collection individuals to reduce waste legally.
arid disposal-possibly even freeing Others, particularly lower-income res­
up funds for other essential services idents, worry about the amount they
like education and police protection. will have to pay. In many communi­
 ties, however, coupon or voucher
 Because residents stand to pay less (if
 programs are being used to help
 they generate less), pay-as-you-throw
 reduce trash collection costs for these
communities have typically reported
 households.
 strong public support for their pro­
grams. The initial reaction from resi­
 dents can vary, however---some How can I learn more
residents might feel that the program about pay-as-you-throw7
is no more. than an added charge. To
 EPA has developed a guidebook for anyone interested
address this, It is important to explain to residents at
 in pay-as-you-throw programs. Pay-As-You-Throw:
the outset how the program works, why it is a more
 Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing (EPAS30-R-94-004)
equitable system, and how they can benefit from it.
 contains background information on the advat,t~ges.
Pay-as-you-throw has tended to work best where
 of pay-as-you-throw and provides "dei:aned informa­
elected officials and other community leaders have
 tion on how these programs work. To order a copy,
reached out to residents with a thorough education
campaign.
 call the EPAfRCRA Superfund Hotline at 800-424­
 9346 or TDD 8QO..553-7672 for the hearing impaired.
Many of the resulting programs have been highly For Washington, DC, and outside the United States,
successful, and have often attracted attention. In call 703-412-9810 or TDD 703-412-3323.

100

body: Meeting Minutes
 Solid Waste Task Force
 March 25, 2010
 4:00 PM
 Room 24, City Hall

City Councilor: John Anton
City Councilor: Cheryl Leeman
Staff:
Troy Moon
Mike Bobinsky

Determine schedule for upcoming meetings
 Councilor Anton proposed a standing meeting time.
 The 2rd Thursday of every month at 5:00 pm except next month:
 April 22, 2010 (4th Thursday in April)

Presentation on current solid waste management programs and policies (state, regional, & city levels)
Mike Bobinsky and Troy Moon presented existing Solid Waste Management policies and infrastructure.
Powerpoint will be posted online.
Troy went into detail on Portland’s Waste Management Strategies:
  History: Started in 1989 - established waste management hierarchy and goals for waste reduction
 (50% recycling goal for 2009, currently at 35%)
  Existing Responsibilities and Policies: Producer responsibility (Maine is viewed as a leader in this
 area) and Climate Goals related to reducing GHG emissions.
  Existing Infrastructure: Landfills across the state have replaced town dumps – they are more
 environmentally friendly & better managed because they deal with a lot more waste
 Facilities (owned by the City): ecomaine, Riverside Recycling
 City Disposal: Trash barrels, PED trash cans & City-owned trash cans (50/50), NO recycling
 barrels in city at this point, “Silver Bullets” (on Somerset Street) used heavily for recycling and
 available for any community member – emptied daily
  Future Disposal: State banned new commercial landfills so they can be the sole owner of all new
 future landfills.
  Data: Waste generation is going up, Recycling rate is going down (because more waste) but the act of
 recycling is going up, Little effort going towards dealing with food waste (200,000 tons generated but
 none recycled), No large-scale compost facility for downtown, Recycling has continued to increase
 citywide with single stream curbside program, 4% of recycling waste can’t be recycled which is a very
 low % for single stream system, Portland has higher recycling rate (3-46% range in state, Portland is
 32%)
  Waste disposal comparison: compared various city’s system in the Greater Portland area (It will be
 posted online)

Questions:
What happens to the electronic recycling?
  The state authorizes certain consolidators that are very effective in this area. The City gets certificates from
  these consolidators so they know they have been recycled. They are working on developing an on-going
  policy for additional products. Prescription drugs/materials are the next wastes to be considered.
What are the difficult-to-manage wastes for recycling?
  Hazardous wastes, pesticides, large items (mattresses, etc)

What policies in the Recycling Advisory Committee relate to the city policies related to waste
management?
 Increase targets for recycling. The report focuses on the analysis of different recycling options out there
 (strategies from other cities). The curbside recycling program was implemented in this policy. The pay-as-
 you-go waste program was established which increased the amount of recycling citywide.
How much of the waste in the 150 trash barrels is recyclable?
 Most of the waste probably could be recycled. Lots of cans and bottles! Councilor Leeman thinks
 recycling trash barrels should be highly considered; a kind of barrel that allows you to separate trash and
 recycling right there on the sidewalk.
Can ecomaine collect the unclaimed bottle deposit?
 Ecomaine doesn’t touch any deposit bottles that go through facility. It doesn’t separate the deposit bottles
 from the other recycling items that go through and recycles the content automatically. Hand sorting would
 have to happen. Otherwise unclaimed bottle deposit goes back to the bottlers which is actually a good
 thing.
What happens to the unclaimed deposit?
 It goes back to the bottlers.
Could the unclaimed deposit money go elsewhere?
 There may have to be a change is legislature for the bottle deposit to be used for other resources. Using the
 unclaimed money for recycling strategies could be a strategy.
What happens to the compost??
 Some schools are dealing with, but most places don’t have enough space to deal with it (Restaurants, Maine
 Med…)
Do we have any data about home composting systems?
 In the past 2 years, 4-500 have been sold but it isn’t a huge number city-wide. Space is definitely an issue!!
Is there anything in the Recycling Process that could make it more efficient?
 Ecomaine will turn up or down process when market fluctuates.

Comments:
  Finding a better location for the “Silver Bullets” seems like a good idea. People don’t know where
 they are and some people think they are no longer available.
  Interview people to figure out who are using the “Silver Bullets”
  Councilor Leeman had a few negative comments about the current status of the location and look of
 the “Silver Bullets.” The place is dirty and had to navigate which might deter community members.
 She said it might be something to think about at new location.
  Councilor Anston said that we need to think about deposits and the unclaimed bottle deposit.
  On the commercial side: compost is being dealt with (i.e. Whole Foods)
  Old Port – We need a common place for recycling downtown that is convenient and easy for people to
 use. It’s a good thing to think about for the Task Force but it’s hard to find a place to do it.
  Committee should look at range state wide and figure out the best strategies to increase recycling in
 the City.
  Councilor Leeman gets the most complaints about Leaf Collection: needs to be an issue for the Task
 Force to deal with.
  Councilor Leeman: Demo waste needs to be dealt with and could be something the Task Force can
 help with.

Topics that weren’t covered:
 What happens to the incinerator over the long haul – Is there a time limit?
 Councilor Anston said there should be state policies that advocate for that.
 Have we identified areas that are not working now?
 What does work now?
 Where’s the most forward looking idea right now in terms of how people are managing waste?
 Discussion about Riverside. How can we change policies?
 What happens now with recycling to continue to be progressive? How can continue to progress rather than
 plateau at 30%?
 How can the city of Portland lead by example? (encourage businesses and residents, etc)
 How can we integrate commercial into the strategies more?
 What changes can be made in the state laws? In Portland, if there are building codes that are hindering?
 What education efforts can be initiated to help?
 What does all this cost?
 We need to figure out the barriers: codes, costs, etc.

Develop work plan for upcoming meetings (Councilor Anton)
 We need to identify what are goals are in order to complete these tasks.
 Staff needs to create policy goals for our solid waste.
 Identify barriers, and strategies to overcoming the barriers and what costs are.
 Agenda earlier for next meeting

Adjourn