Policy Workshop- Legislation on Mandatory Waste Reduction and Universal Recycling: Stephen Lisauskas, WasteZero presents in support of the bill SB 389 that would introduce a performance standard on municipal recycling.

1. Improving Solid Waste
Management in Massachusetts
April 1, 2013

2. Copyright © 2013 WasteZero
2
Recycling – Good Policy and Good Business
Cities and towns are under enormous pressure to find savings within
municipal budgets.
Producers and manufacturers are looking to meet sustainability goals and
reduce costs.
The key for both is increased recycling, which will give municipalities
budget relief while creating sustainably sourced feedstock for producers.
There is also a crisis, as landfill space is being filled quickly, which will
require the addition of new incinerators or even more waste exports.

3. Copyright © 2013 WasteZero
3
About WasteZero
WasteZero works with 800 cities and towns across 42 states, helping
reduce waste and increase recycling.
We see what works – and what doesn’t – at the state and local level.
Utilizing this broad perspective, we support legislation that will:
— Increase recycling
— Reduce waste
— Improve the fiscal health of municipalities
— Improve the environment
— Create sustainable jobs
We have offices in Cambridge, MA; Raleigh, NC; Chicago, IL; and Murrells
Inlet, SC

4. Copyright © 2013 WasteZero
4
What Are Other States Doing?
A variety of states have adopted goals for recycling or solid waste
— Iowa: 25% reduction in trash by 1994; 50% reduction by 2000
— Minnesota: 1993: 25% reduction in rural counties, 35% in urban;
1996 35% reduction in rural counties, 50% reduction in
urban.
— Missouri: 40% waste reduction by 1998
— Nevada: 25% waste reduction goal
— New Hampshire: 40% reduction in weight by 2000
— Oregon: 45% materials recovery by 2005; 50% by 2009, with no
increase in per capita MSW totals
— Rhode Island: Meet tonnage targets or pay a higher – though still
subsidized – tipping fee
— Tennessee: 25% reduction in non-C & D waste

5. Copyright © 2013 WasteZero
5
How Effective Has It Been?
Results have been quite mixed
Iowa and Minnesota have seen strong results from waste reduction
New Hampshire and Rhode Island have not seen significant improvements
— Enforcement has been lacking
— Adding a few dollars per ton of waste – even on a base of $32 per ton – does
not create sufficient incentive to act
Vermont is an interesting experiment; it is mandating unit-based pricing for all
municipal solid waste services by 2015.

6. Copyright © 2013 WasteZero
6
What Have Been the Problems?
Goals are often unenforceable; they are goals
Goals fail to provide an impetus to act – “they represent your priorities, not
mine”
Calculated measures – such as recycling rates – can be manipulated easily:
— San Francisco – commercial and business tonnage counts
— Florida counts incineration as recycling (and counts it twice if you host the
incinerator!). Iowa counts it as recycling if your recycling rate is already 35%
— The “good faith” exemption complicates things where it exists
They provide no incentive to source reduce – to avoid waste in the first
place – or to pursue other important goals, such as organics diversion

7. Copyright © 2013 WasteZero
7
Considering a Performance Standard
Good policy – and business – must be SMART. Is this?
— Specific – The standard is specific and clear as to what is to be measured. There
are no issues with the definition of the unit of measure
— Measurable – “Tons of waste” is easily measurable. The data is easily accessible
and has historically been reported to DEP (not the case in many states)
— Achievable – Depends on where you set the standard. The S 389 standards are set
above the level already achieved by many cities and towns
— Realistic – If cities and towns are already beating the proposed standard, it must be
realistic. Regulation may be appropriate to provide an outlet for municipalities that
try to achieve the standard but fail by no fault of their own
— Time-bound – Municipalities have dozens of priorities, and changing solid waste is
not usually high among them. A deadline is critical if anything is to be achieved
There is robust precedent in Massachusetts for State-provided performance standards –
education, affordable housing, pension fund management, health insurance costs

8. Copyright © 2013 WasteZero
8
Our Read of SB 389
Would create a step-down standard that reduces trash tonnage – and increases
recycling – over time
• Assuming full compliance by 2020, an estimated 900,000 tons of trash would
move from trash to recycling, reuse, source reduction and other diversion
• We know “better” is possible – a number of communities have prioritized
waste reduction – Cambridge, Worcester and others – and have seen
excellent results. Many other communities have not
• By controlling what can be controlled – trash tonnages – the standard would
incentivize cities and towns to reduce all categories of “waste”, without the
Commonwealth telling them how to do it
• The proposed standard does not involve definitional issues or math; it is
straightforward, which reduces the risk of error (or “error”) in calculations

9. Copyright © 2013 WasteZero
9
Our Thinking
The fact that we are having this discussion is a good sign!
By focusing on waste, pressure is applied in an area where municipalities
already exercise significant control
Putting a “SMART” standard in place has achieved results in other areas in
government – health insurance, pension fund management, affordable
housing, education – and may here as well
Given the pressing nature of the Commonwealth’s landfill issues, action –
and results – are needed in the very near term to avoid higher costs, or the
eventual expansion of disposal capacity in Massachusetts
— Given the current landscape of solid waste management in Massachusetts, if
you aren’t “for” waste reduction, you are “for”:
• Lifting the incinerator cap
• Licensing new landfills
• Shipping more than half of our trash out of state each year