Environment Council of Rhode Island

Problem & Challenge

The amount of future landfill capacity available at the Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation (RIRRC) Johnston Landfill is finite, and the state’s ability to continue to rely on the Landfill for its solid waste disposal is not guaranteed in perpetuity. The State’s previous experience with unsuccessfully attempting to site and construct a Waste-to-energy incinerator in North Kingstown and the present statutory prohibition against doing so eliminate this as an alternative to landfilling.

At current waste disposal rates of approximately 1,000,000 tons per year, it is estimated that RIRRC's existing permitted capacity (Phase IV) will be fully utilized in 2004. Optimistic estimates indicate that Phase V, (for which the permit has not yet been issued by DEM), will only provide disposal capacity until some time between 2008 and 2010). Further expansion beyond Phase V may or may not be possible, and will depend on coordination and negotiations between the Town of Johnston, DEM, RIRRC and other stakeholders.

Rhode Island's residential recycling program has been somewhat successful, and the transition to RIRRC's expanded recycling program has been completed in 37 cities and towns. However even with the implementation of this new recycling program, the municipalities' success in diverting increasing amounts of material has been varied. Over 450,000 tons of the state's residential solid waste was landfilled last year, and approximately 80,000 tons was recovered for recycling. A considerable amount of leaf and yard debris is presently being disposed of unnecessarily in the landfill. This material could be recycled through composting into a useful soil amendment, and a relatively small amount of this material is currently being diverted.

The cost to municipalities to dispose of their solid waste at the RIRRC landfill has remained constant since 1993 at $32/ton. This rate is well below prevailing rates in Massachusetts were average disposal fees for solid waste are in excess of $70/ton.

However, the cost for the municipalities to operate their solid waste and recycling collection programs has grown steadily over the last 10 years. Consolidation and contraction in the waste hauling industry has exacerbated this situation for cities and towns that utilize private contractors to provide this service. With municipal budgets under increasing pressure, there has been limited ability by the municipalities to enhance and support their recycling/waste diversion programs.

The state's commercial recycling program infrastructure is essentially non-existent at this time, and there is no reliable information available on the amount of material diverted for recycling by businesses. The commercial recycling regulations are badly in need of revision and are not enforced (or enforceable) by DEM. The acute lack of resources at DEM has impaired it's ability to address commercial recycling-related issues and DEM no longer maintains a commercial recycling program infrastructure. RIRRC also does not currently have staff dedicated to supporting commercial recycling initiatives.

The value of the materials collected from commercial recycling programs is nominal relative to the cost of disposing of it as trash. As such that there is little financial incentive to motivate waste hauling companies to recover these materials and market them for recycling. Businesses interested in recycling typically incur additional costs to so, which is a considerable disincentive.

Solutions

Faced with a decreasing amount of future disposal capacity, it is imperative that the state maximizes its utilization of available landfill capacity. This will require significantly increasing the volume of recyclable material diverted from disposal in the landfill, from both the residential and commercial sectors. Despite the fact that waste reduction and recycling programs are beneficial to the environment and conserve valuable landfill space, the presence of an economic incentive is integral to the sustained success of these programs.

Improving Municipal Recycling — Pay As You Throw?

In order for municipal recycling programs to remain viable for the long run, there must be a financial incentive for residents to reduce their waste and to recycle. Unit based or variable-rate pricing for residential solid waste disposal is commonly known as pay-as-you-throw. PAYT is an alternative way to pay for waste collection and disposal services that motivates people to recycle more and generate less waste in the first place.

Perhaps the most compelling arguments for PAYT have to do with equity and incentive. If one resident is going to great lengths to reduce, recycle and compost as much of their waste as possible and another is not, why should they be required to pay the same amount for an unequal utilization of services? For utilities there is a direct relationship between what is charged and usage. This provides a financial incentive for conservation. PAYT applies this same principle to waste disposal.

Once limited to a few communities, PAYT continues to grow nationwide. In 1999, 4,139 communities used PAYT programs, serving 27 million U.S. residents. That figure is currently estimated to be approximately 6,000 communities. The State of Massachusetts has provided significant financial assistance to its municipalities starting new PAYT programs. These grants have facilitated the implementation of PAYT programs in over 100 of Massachusetts' 150 municipalities. Even with so many successful PAYT programs in place, Massachusetts has been actively working to expand PAYT to more of it's municipalities.

Both North and South Kingstown have successful PAYT programs in place and have achieved higher than average diversion rates. On average, PAYT communities reduce their waste from 14 percent to 27 percent and increase recycling from 32 percent to 59 percent, according to the EPA. Financial assistance from the Resource Recovery Corporation to RI's municipalities that initiate PAYT programs would increase the number of cities and towns considering PAYT as a way to restrain their escalating trash collection and disposal costs.

Improving Commercial Recycling & Promoting Recycling-related Economic Development

The difference in the fees charged for the disposal of commercial solid waste and recyclable material will act as a financial incentive (or disincentive) to increased recycling. Historically, the relatively low disposal fees in Rhode Island for the disposal of municipal and commercial solid waste has subsidized waste disposal, hampered recycling and accelerated the utilization of capacity in the landfill.

Investment in the development of local end-markets for recyclable materials can serve as an economic stimulus while at the same time preserving landfill space. The State of Massachusetts has facilitated numerous projects that have assisted or become successful businesses through it's support of the Chelsea Center for Recycling and Economic Development. Massachusetts launched the Chelsea Center in 1995 to create jobs, support recycling efforts, and help the economy and the environment by working to increase the use of recyclables by manufacturers. Rhode Island should emulate this program.

Strategy

The State must begin to support initiatives that increase the amount of materials diverted from disposal and recovered for recycling of beneficial reuse. It should put in place financial incentives for organizations, businesses, agencies municipalities and other institutions to reduce the volume and toxicity of their waste streams.

Each year, millions of dollars are appropriated from the Resource Recovery Corporation into the state's general fund. A portion of these funds should be returned to RIRRC and the municipalities with the stipulation that they be utilized to support investments in waste reduction, recycling and recycling market development initiatives. Incentives for increasing diversion of materials municipalities and businesses will help to preserve landfill capacity for the future.

---

Problem 2

There currently exists relatively limited access for the State's residents for the proper disposal of hazardous chemicals and materials typically found in the home. If disposed of improperly, this Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) presents a serious threat to the State's environment. In addition, electronic wastes, including computers and cathode ray tubes (CRTs), contained in TVs and computer monitors, are a growing part of the solid waste stream that impose a significant handling and disposal cost to municipalities and RIRRC. Discarded computers and other consumer electronics (also known as e-waste) are the fastest growing portion of our waste stream — growing almost 3 times faster than our overall municipal waste stream.

Solution

Support Producer Responsibility Legislation
and Increase Access to Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programs

The costs for handling and disposing of residentially generated hard-to-dispose of wastes are currently being borne by the state. The manufacturers and industries that produce these materials currently bear no responsibility for the high costs of disposal for these materials — including (but not limited to) lead paint, mercury-containing products, fluorescent bulbs, pesticides, computer monitors and televisions.

The General Assembly should support increased public access to Household Hazardous Waste collections and manufacturer responsibility for hazardous and/or hard-to-dispose of materials. Legislation requiring producer responsibility for e-waste will shift the burden for collection and disposal of this material from the state and it's municipalities to the manufacturers. Similar legislation has been introduced and is currently being considered across the nation.