United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5306W)
EPA530-N-01-001
Spring 2001
www.epa.gov/payt
&EPA
A Listing of Pay-As-You-Throw News and Events
T
B U
I N
By Popular Demand: Maine Turns
to PAYT
S A JT e were a bit surprised that people were talking about it," admitted Sam Morris,
|\/\A: senior planner at Maine's State Planning Office. "We weren't expecting residents to
!_JL_T__; be this supportive of PAYT, especially when they raised issues like the programs
greater fairness and its environmental benefits. They were talking about the future—about
their children—when they decided to speak up."
PAYT has grown significantly in Maine in the past few years—up to 128 programs from
fewer than 50 in 1995—in response to several developments. Cities and towns alike began to
notice the potential to contain or even reduce solid waste management costs with user-based
fees. In addition, recycling programs in the state have grown to the point where 90 percent of
all residents have access to recycling, which lead communities to begin looking for ways to
increase participation rates. But one of the driving forces was the interest and, often, enthusi-
asm of neighbors in Maine to adopt a program that they saw as both greener and fairer.
Morris explained that his office was often asked by local boards of selectmen or city coun-
cils to attend local hearings or town meetings where a proposed PAYT program was under
discussion. Anticipating that residents might at first react negatively to the idea of paying
directly for their trash, he expected at these meetings to have to lay out all the reasons why
PAYT was better for both residents and the community as a whole.
Instead, Morris often found people standing up immediately to voice their
." support for a program that they saw was likely to increase recycling amounts. In
many cases, these residents had been using recycling programs for a few years,
and recognized that the next step to protect the environment was to involve more
people. User fees just made sense to them. Just as important, they saw the pro-
gram as more equitable, because paying by the bag or can would let them control
their own costs (and not pay for their neighbor's trash, if they chose not to recy-
cle). Of course, there often were residents at the meetings who were skeptical, but
Morris was pleased with the overall level of support people were offering.
For many Maine cities and towns, this public approval gives local decision-making
boards the political boost they needed to sign off on PAYT, a program increasingly
supported by solid waste departments. The buzz about PAYT has been spreading
among Maine's community waste management officials, who see the economics of per-can or
Printed on paper lhat contains at least 50 percent postconsumer fiber.
Continued on Page 2
-------
Continued from front cover
per-bag fees as just making more sense. The cost of trash
disposal in the state hovers around $50 per ton on aver-
age, with some communities paying more than $75 per
ton. Most of this waste goes to one of five waste-to-energy
(WTE) incinerators; two large commercial landfills and
about a dozen small ones take up the remainder.
Typically, the cost of sending collected recyclables to
regional recycling facilities is lower, often around $5 to
$10 less per ton. In Portland, which implemented PAYT
in 1999, the difference is $30 per ton. And "put-or-pay"
agreements, under which a community is required to sup-
ply a certain amount of trash or pay a penalty, aren't a
concern for Maine city or town WTE contracts—the
amount they must supply is usually small, and can be in
die form of either trash to the incinerator or recyclables to
the processing facility. In fact, trash amounts allowed to
be sent to the WTEs are often capped at a certain level—
creating a further incentive for communities to aggressive-
ly promote recycling.
As a result, communities in Maine are implementing
PAYT to help them contain costs, increase their recycling
rates, cut overall trash disposal amounts, and better serve
their residential customers. So far, it seems to be working.
In Portland, the recycling rate shot up to 35 percent from
7 percent in the year after they introduced combined
PAYT and curbside collections. Other communities also
have seen strong results. Supporting much of this has
been Morris's State Planning Office, which has a staff per-
son dedicated full-time to PAYT outreach and technical
support. The office also runs a series of regional confer-
ences throughout the state each year to help get out infor-
mation and ideas about user fees.
Throughout each city's or town's decision-making
process, Morris emphasized, his approach is to remain
neutral and provide information as needed. "Our job is
just to explain the facts about PAYT," he added. "And if a
community sees the benefits and elects to move ahead
with it, we're there as a resource for them."
For more information on PAYT programs in the state
of Maine, contact Sam Morris at
or 207 287-8054.
s part of the continuing American Big Cities
(ABC) Campaign to encourage the growth of
r\ PAYT around the country, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
International City/County Management Association
t (ICMA) have co-sponsored a series of technical assistance
\ workshops around the country to target large populations
,' for education about the implementation of successful
'• PAYT programs. Some of these cities are well on their way
: to program implementation, while others are just recog-
nizing that PAYT could be a viable option for helping
them manage their solid wastes. Depending on the stage
-_ they are at in the planning process, EPA has been provid-
ing these cities with a variety of support, ranging from
facilitating informational workshops with stakeholder
groups to helping cities devise implementation plans and
time lines.
Cities up North See the Light
Over the past year, as part of this ABC Campaign,
EPA convened workshops in both Ann Arbor, Michigan,
and Lowell, Massachusetts, a large suburban community
about 30 miles northwest of Boston. Both cities requested
1 1-1/2 day technical assistance workshops involving partic-
ipation of various community stakeholders. The hands-on
sessions included brainstorming, identification of key
r issues and concerns, and case studies from other urban
PAYT cities. _ ^
According to Bryan Weinert, the manager of resource
-- recovery for the/city, of Ann ArbojJAnn Arbors work-
- shop provided a first-of-its-kirid opportunity for solid
waste financing to be discussed among interested stake-
holders without the pressure of deficits or a looming crisis
staring us in the face. An honest and reasoned assessment
of PAYT was therefore possible, and I can't help but think
Ann Arbor will the better for it."
The workshop in Lowell took on a different format. In
recent years, Massachusetts has witnessed rapid growth in
the number of communities adopting PAYT programs.
This workshop, which was co-sponsored by EPA and the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(MDEP), was aimed at a number of larger Massachusetts
municipalities that are considering PAYT as a solid waste
management option. Through various presentations, the
19 attendees representing city governments throughout
; the state learned about how PAYT-works, .options for pro-
u gram design and rate structure, and* how PAYT can be
! effectively funded. In a lively Q&A session, workshop
;. participants indicated a high level of interest in PAYT.
2 PAYT Bulletin
-------
PAYT Grantee Update
On the day prior to the workshop, John Gibson, a Seatde
expert in the economics of solid waste management,
met with Lowell city staff to discuss full-cost accounting
and rate design. According to Joseph Lambert, PAYT
program and grants manager with MDEP, "We got the
large city audience we were looking for. The attendees
included finance directors, Department of Public Works
superintendents, and city managers, exactly the level we
need at these workshops."
Hopping on the PAYT Bandwagon
Down South
The technical assistance efforts in two large southern
cities—Fort Worth, Texas, and New Orleans, Louisiana—
included an overview of PAYT but focused primarily on
rate structure design options and considerations and
developing implementation time lines. To smooth the
way toward PAYT, both cities convened strategic planning
sessions with key implementers and decision-makers to
wresde with their key barriers.
In addition, John Gibson met with several key solid
waste officials in separate sessions to gain a better under-
standing of the economic considerations. As a result of his
discussions with these groups, Mr. Gibson was able to
provide feedback and suggestions to the larger group of
attendees on different rate structure options for the cities.
With EPA and ICMA's assistance, both cities are
planning PAYT programs to determine if citywide imple-
mentation will work.
Region 1—New Hampshire Governor's Recycling
^Program (GRP)
Under a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) grant issued in 1999, the GRP developed a
beta version of a software program called
PriceSetter, which is designed to assist municipal officials
Jn small communities to. estimate PAYT rates for bag pro-
grams. The program uses data that communities readily
have on hand and provides the ability to increase or
decrease variable parameters .such as tipping fees, hauling
fees, or waste reduction rates to develop various PAYT
! pricing scenarios over, a five-year period.
; Under an earlier EPA grant, the GRP promoted and
? tracked PAYT activity in New Hampshire and conducted
j. instructional workshops throughout New Hampshire,
:;; Maine, and Vermont. During the:course of this grant, the
:f GRP realized that, one of the major challenges facing
^municipal officials in implementing PAYT was determin-
| ,ing a price per bag. As luck would have it, GRP staff
pjearned of the Ratemaker software while conducting
|f research for the workshops. After attending an EPA-spon-
L sored workshop highlighting the Ratemaker software and
^subsequently using the tool first hand, the GRP deter-
mined that it was geared more toward larger communities,
,. not small communities such as diose in New Hampshire.
f Consequently, it began developing a comparable software
' program that would benefit smaller communities.
r The GRP s efforts resulted in the PriceSetter software.
In 1999, the GRP applied for and received a second grant
0 from EPA to finalize the development of the software and
promote the program nationally. The GRP completed the
I beta version and sent it to an industry-specific review team
^comprising local, state, and federal officials. The most sig-
• nificant change made as a result of the review was the con-
:; version of the program from Microsoft Excel to Visual
|-1' Basic format, which will allow users to download the pro-
i" gram and use it without any special software program.
t*- The GRP anticipates completing the final version of
|. the PriceSetter program by mid-2001. Simultaneous with
r; the release of PriceSetter, the GRP will promote a
FPriceSetter-specific Web site that will allow the program
jji: and a "how-to" guide to be downloaded (at no cost)
P directly from the site. The Web site will also provide links
^ to other PAYT sites and enable visitors to ask questions,
[p make suggestions, and share information.
:-":- For more information on the GRP's PriceSetter pro-
»" gram, contact Todd Ellis at .
Continued on Page 4
-------
Region 4—North Carolina Division of Pollution
Prevention and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA)
ince 1999, DPPEA has been providing direct techni-
cal assistance and grant funding to North Carolina
communities that need help implementing PAYT
programs. DPPEA is working with two communities (the
city of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County) to help them
implement PAYT, but expects to have workecLwith 10 by
the end of the grant'period. Based on the average size of
the communities under consideration, DPPEA expects to
increase the population served by PAYT programs in North
Carolina-by-moreThair450;OD.O. DPPEAJjopes that the
addition of 10 new PAYT comm^ities_.,ih the state will
provide a significant increase in examples for other state
communities to follow. To further improve waste reduction
in the state, DPPEA has been encouraging project commu-
nities to add backyard composting programs and expand
the number of materials collected as part of their recycling
programs. According to James Hickman, project manager
for the program, "these activities will help maximize the
efficiency of the PAYT systems, both in terms of waste
reduction and greenhouse gas offsets."
In addition to direct technical assistance, DPPEA has .
created a listserver and Web site that serve both North and
South Carolina. The listserver is a group e-mail service that
lets individuals interested in or already involved with PAYT
post questions to their peers, while the Web site provides a
host of information and resources available to potential and
existing PAYT communities. Furthermore, based on infor-
mation obtained during the course of the project, DPPEA
will develop an in-depth guidance document to assist other
communities that want to switch to PAYT and a document
that analyzes how PAYT affects communities in North and
South Carolina.
For more information on DPPEA's project, contact James
Hickman at 919 715-6528 or .
You can also visit the Web site DPPEA developed at
.
Free Resources
On December 7, 2000, EPA's Climate and Waste Program—in partnership
with several national solid waste and governmental organizations—broad-
cast a nationwide satellite forum entitled Why Waste a. Cool Planet: MSW
Solution for Global Climate Change. This interactive program was dedicated to help-
ing educate businesses and state and local governments about the relationship
between solid waste management and climate change. You can request a free video of
the broadcast online at .
You can also order a free copy of the video Pay-As-You-Throw: A New Trend in
Solid Waste Management online at or by calling the PAYT
Helpline at 1-888-EPA-PAYT.
006$ ssn ejBAUd
'sseujsng
Se-S'ONllMd3d
VdH
iiwi ssvno-isHid
(M90e9)
Abu06v uoipeiojd iBUJatajuo-MAig
------- |