[A]s new mandates to ban recyclables from landfills take effect July 1, the solid waste industry says the law will be costly for rural areas of the state, prompting some solid waste districts to seek exemptions from the law.
The state’s universal recycling law, known as Act 148, aims to ban all organics and recyclables from landfills by 2020. But much of this responsibility falls on solid waste districts and waste haulers who will have to make infrastructure upgrades to handle the new material.
Rural areas will bear the heaviest costs. Sparse population densities, long delivery distances, and the dropping value of recyclables could cost districts in the Northeast Kingdom nearly $80 per ton to get rid of their recyclables, the district estimates — which is nearly the cost of simply throwing recyclables away.
“You shouldn’t be penalized by your ZIP code,” said Susan Alexander, district manager for the Lamoille Regional Solid Waste Management District.
The law requires all haulers who pick up trash to also offer curbside pickup of recyclables. Haulers must then recover these costs through a single fee that includes trash and recyclables pick up, according to the law.
The Vermont Solid Waste District Manager’s Association, which represent 10 districts, said the law should exempt communities where curbside recycling costs more than double current trash disposal rates. The association also says haulers should be able to separate collection rates.
Pat Austin, owner of Austins Rubbish & Roll-Off Service, Inc., a West Charleston-based private hauler serving more than one dozen towns in the Northeast Kingdom, said some residents will want to bring their trash to the transfer station rather than pay a higher rate for curbside recycling.
Austin said many residents may prefer to take their recyclables to a transfer station, rather than pay a higher rate for curbside collection. Requiring haulers to offer parallel pick up, which means some will have to either upgrade their trucks to pick up trash and recyclables at the same time or take two trips, will be costly, he said.
“This is going to be an increase across-the-board on residents,” Austin said. “If this law takes effect as it’s written — [there are] a half a dozen haulers that I compete with right here, it will put them out of businesses. These guys are all one-man shows.”
Making matters worse, the value of recyclables is currently low, which drives up the cost to get rid of the material.
The state has two single stream processing facilities, one in Williston and another in Rutland. In 2012, when Act 148 was passed, the value of plastic, metal, paper, glass and other recyclables combined was $127 per ton, according to Tom Moreau, general manager Chittenden Solid Waste District, who co-owns the Williston facility.
At that price, he said the facilities were paying haulers to bring in material. But now, the value of these materials has dropped. Moreau expects the value to drop to about $70 per ton by July. As a result, he will be charging — not paying — haulers more to drop off material.
“It’s not as lucrative when this law passed and we were paying people ten dollars per ton,” Moreau said.
He said his district, which serves nearly a quarter of the state, will not have a problem implementing Act 148, despite the low commodity prices for materials. Casella Waste Systems, the state’s largest hauler, also has no objected to the law’s implementation.
But the rural districts say they will struggle, and have so far failed to convince policy-makers their concerns should be addressed. Their proposed exemptions received a tepid response from top lawmakers and the Shumlin administration, who say the law is flexible enough as it stands.
“It’s no surprise that as the deadlines are coming up, people are feeling anxious about it,” said Deb Markowitz, secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources, which oversees the state’s solid waste program. “We think there is enough flexibility in the law.”
Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier, who chairs the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, said he will not take up a bill to change the law.
Officials, however, agree that money is needed for planning and infrastructure upgrades. Though funding was not including in Act 148, the cost to achieved the goals of the laws is estimated at $45.5 million over the next five years, according to a February report by Solid Waste Infrastructure Advisory Committee (SWIAC), which was commissioned by the legislature.
The administration has not presented a funding proposal this year, in part because last year’s attempt to increase a fee placed on dumping trash was scrapped, according to Markowitz. Now, they are open to suggestions, but have not taken a position on any proposals.
But lawmakers will take up a bill to place a tax on disposable bags from at retail and grocery stores, according to Klein.
According to the SWIAC report, a 5-cent fee on disposable bags could raise $1.5 million to $2 million. Retailers opposed a 10-cent fee last session, but Klein is confident he can get a bill to the Ways and Means Committee by the end of the week.
“It’s easy to do,” he said. “It’s not hurting anybody because nobody has to have a bag if they don’t want it.”
Casella Waste Systems is opposed to the fee. The company wants to review how the state is currently spending its solid waste infrastructure assistance money.
“We care a great deal about what it’s like to live in Vermont. And if more taxes are not necessary, that’s something that we believe in, too,” said Joe Fusco, vice president of Casella.
