PAY-AS-YOU-THROW SUMMER 2010 BULLETIN
Get SMART with
Pay-As-You-Throw
Help Your Community Stabilize
Revenues and Protect the Environment
NEW PAYT STUDY SHOWS MORE
SUSTAINABILITY SURPRISES
A rigorous new study gives cities yet another
reason to adopt Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT). The
study "Unit Based Garbage Charges Create
Positive Economic and Environmental Impact in
New England States" by Green Waste Solutions
reveals that when residential waste is actually
isolated and measured on a per capita basis,
PAYT communities generate about 49 percent
less waste than those leaving the cost of trash
in the tax base or in a fixed fee.
So, why is this study significant? First, it surveyed 228 com-
munities -- a large number with similar demographic profiles
-- all in New England.
Second, it isolates just the residential waste sector by identi-
fying the total households associated with the waste tonnage
and factoring out households (generally multifamily) that use
commercial haulers. According to EPA's annual Facts and
Figures report residential waste is the single largest part of
the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream, representing ap-
proximately 60 percent.
Third, the study is the result of actual contact with local
officials. Surveys were first sent to public works and other
officials most knowledgeable of their community's waste
management details. Respondents were then called and
asked to estimate the total number of households using
either curbside or drop-off for trash disposal and additional
follow-up calls were made to clarify the results.
Finally, this study compares 118 municipalities using PAYT to
110 municipalities with a traditional non-PAYT system, cover-
ing a total population of 4.68 million people. These communi-
ties were further divided by their collection method:
Drop-off - 68 PAYT; 45 non-PAYT
• Curbside - 50 PAYT; 65 non-PAYT
The staggering results showed that curbside PAYT communi-
ties generated 49 percent less waste material than non-
PAYT communities. In PAYT municipalities an average of 467
pounds per capita was disposed of compared to 918 pounds
per capita in the non-PAYT municipalities.
-------
Per Capita Waste Disposal PAYT
vs. Non-PAYT Curbs/tie
PAYT
non-PAYT
The drop-off group was more difficult to assess and demon-
strated a higher overall per capita recycling rate. However, the
drop-off disposal trend was consistent with the disposal trend
in the curbside set. The average amount of waste disposed
of in a PAYT community was 422 pounds per person per
year; the average in a non-PAYT community was 890 pounds
per person per year, or 53 percent less waste generation in
the PAYT communities.
Per Capita Waste Disposal PAYT
vs. Non-PAYT Drop-offs
PAYT
non-PAYT
The total generation of trash and commodity materials com-
bined was 33 percent less in PAYT municipalities. The lower
number represents materials no longer in the waste stream.
These materials have either been brought to municipal
compost sites; backyard composted, or have been source
reduced by the residents. This shows true consumer behavior
change after adopting the SMART city solution.
Based on information in this study, a nationwide
residential PAYT program could decrease the U.S.
residential waste stream by 50 percent and
decrease overall U.S. MSW waste by 33 percent.
Overall Generation
(per capita waste + per capita commodity recycling)
PAYT
Drop off
200
400
600
800
1000 1200
*The higher per capita recycling rates in drop-off communities is attributed to
the fact that some homes drop-off recycling and utilize private haulers for trash
collection; also some small businesses utilize the drop-off for recyclables.
** Recycling numbers overall were slightly lower than expected. The states in this
study are "bottle bill" states where the redemption rate is already approximately
75 percent and this material is recorded as commercial recycling. Subsequently
the overall commodity recycling number appears lower in both the PAYT and the
non-PAYT sets than it would in a "non-bottle bill" state.
Of the total diversion in PAYT communities, about 25-30
percent is related to an increase in commodity recycling
(e.g., paper, cardboard and commingled materials) and
about 70-75 percent is related to source reduction and
compost/yard waste collection. Source reduction and
compost/yard waste were combined in this study because
not all communities could isolate these items in reliable detail.
It is critical that community leaders and officials understand
that PAYT is a highly effective solution for increasing diversion
specifically in the residential sector. Residents in PAYT com-
munities generate 49 percent less waste than residents in non-
PAYT communities. Therefore 49 percent less waste is sent
to landfills or waste to energy facilities, thus saving 49 percent
in overall tip cost. PAYT implementation is critical to changing
residential disposal habits and achieving long-term sustainable
waste reduction though recycling and source reduction.
"PAYT may represent the first truly significant improve-
ment in our approach to waste management in the mod-
ern era. Recycling is a great idea, but we never could
figure out how to get people to do it, PAYT is where the
rubber hits the road. It can get people to recycle, but it
can also get people to compost and to start demanding
less wasteful packaging in the first place,"
Daniel McKinley and Chris McClure - Environmental
Economics, University of Georgia
It is clear that PAYT is an extraordinarily powerful way
to decrease residential MSW in single family units. So,
what are you waiting for? If it's additional information or refer-
ences, visit the PAYT Web site www.epa.gov/payt and look
for the study entitled, "Unit Based Garbage Charges Create
Positive Economic and Environmental Impact in New England
States" conducted by Green Waste Solutions.
-------
IS PAYT A
SMART BET?
Use EPA's Benefit Evaluation
Tool (BET) to find out the GHG
Reductions and Cost Savings
that Your Own City Can Achieve!
Are you someone who really "gets" the SMART (Saving
Money and Reducing Trash) program of PAYT, but also some-
one who struggles with the political challenge of selling it to
your elected officials? Well, this Benefit Evaluation Tool (BET)
was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to help. Community solid waste managers can tailor
the data of this software tool to help determine whether unit-
based pricing is the right model for their own town or city.
The SMART BET allows users to input readily available infor-
mation, such as:
• tons of waste land filled and recycled annually
local population
landfill tip fees
The user may also provide a more detailed breakdown of the
disposal and recycling streams, if this information is available.
The tool then combines this information with nationwide aver-
age waste disposal data, typical PAYT results, and green-
house gas emission factors originally created for EPA's Waste
Reduction Model (WARM) to provide the greenhouse gas and
cost savings that your community is likely to see after imple-
mentation of PAYT.
The EPA promotes the unit-based pricing
approach to solid waste management,
as it has proven to be the single most
measurably effective way to reduce
residential solid waste, increase recycling,
and decrease waste-related greenhouse
gas emissions.
Communities that implement PAYT
typically see a decrease in overall solid
waste production, with a final disposal
(i.e., land filling/combustion) rate of 400
to 600 pounds per person per year, with
associated increases in recycling and
source reduction of waste. Well designed
programs generate the revenues com-
munities need to cover their solid waste
costs, including the costs of complemen-
tary programs such as recycling and composting. Residents
benefit too, because they have the opportunity to take control
of their trash bills.
Placing an economic value on something at the curb definite-
ly changes behavior, claims Daniel Morgado, Town Manger
Shrewsbury, MA. The first full year of PAYT the town gener-
ated 25 percent less overall material (waste and commodity
recycling combined). People consciously purchase differently,
I know I do." The Town reduced the amount of trash taken to
the waste to energy facility by over 40 percent and realized a
34 percent (commodity only) recycling rate. The results of the
Shrewsbury program are just what SMART BET would have
predicted. The town avoided over $260,000 in disposal fees
equally about $26 per household.
Please visit www.epa.gov/payt to download the instructions
and Excel-based tool.
BET Sample of Shrewsbury, Massachusetts
-------
SMART in the Spotlight
Concord, New Hampshire
When the city of Concord learned its
multi-year contract with the waste-to-
energy facility was expiring and the
facility was planning to reset rates in 2009, offi-
cials knew existing waste collection practices would
soon end. Its tip fee per truckload was scheduled to
skyrocket from $45.90 to $62.10 in a single year.
"We immediately knew the new rates reflected how
expensive trash collection and its disposal had become
and that we needed to rethink the status quo," says
General Services Director Chip Chesley.
Concord faced the same dilemma that many New England
communities currently have. With landfills and waste-to-
energy facilities decreasing in the area, the basic principles of
supply and demand drive up disposal rates.
Concord's city council immediately developed a Solid Waste
Advisory Committee that was a mix of city officials, city
staff, and local residents. Together, the committee assessed
the city's existing waste collection practices and used it
as a foundation to determine where they wanted to go in
the future. According to the minutes posted by the City of
Concord's Solid Waste Advisory Committee, they decided on
a SMART/PAYT waste management program because PAYT
is cost effective, equitable, and created long-term behavior
change in residents.
The Solid Waste Advisory Committee spent more than
two years determining the best strategy for implementing
a SMART program for Concord's 44,000 residents and
16,000 households. Chesley said that the residents' involve-
ment on the Advisory Committee was central. They were
able to see firsthand the budgetary issues the city faced
and understood there were two options: reduce waste or
increase taxes to cover the rising trash and tip rates. The
resident committee members became ambassadors for
the initiative and disseminated the information throughout
the community. Chesley figures the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee's thorough review coupled with the dramatic rate
increase provided enough incentive for the community to
support and pass SMART legislation.
Concord implemented a linear-priced bag system for all its
curbside pickup. Residents have the choice of purchasing
two bags: a 15-gallon bag for $1 or a 30-gallon bag for $2.
To accommodate its multi-family residents, who make up 25
percent of Concord's population, the city issued containers
for entire buildings, and each building's management compa-
ny is billed based on the number of containers it purchases.
"The program has been an overwhelm-
ing success," said Concord's Mayor
Jim Bouley. The city cut its total
waste collection dramatically, from
15,000 tons to 8,500 tons of
trash. Its recycling tonnage,
which has economic value,
doubled, from 2,700 tons to 4,200 tons.
After reviewing collection practices under
the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, Con-
cord decided to stop yard waste collection in
the summer and winter months, seeing a need for it in the
fall and spring only.
Mayor Bouley is thrilled with the results of the SMART
program and says that if the success continues, he will be
able to call Concord a leader in the state of New Hampshire.
Councilor John Nyhan, who chaired the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee, concurs: "We are very pleased about how the
program has moved forward."
f\P fr
Chesley said that the city has adapted extremely well to the
changes, "We have not had a problem with
illegal dumping as we thought," he says.
"On the rare occasion we do, we can
easily identify the offender through a
paper trail and remedy the practice
through fines."
Concord joins the list of other
SMART communities that are sav-
ing money while reducing, reusing,
and recycling. "You can't argue with
these numbers," says SMART advo-
cate Kristen Brown of Green Waste
Solutions. "Concord is another
example of how SMART/PAYT is
the most effective waste collection
strategy out there."
Cerfi&rd
PAY!
Pay-As-You-Throw
Quick Review of Rate Structure Design -
How to Get the Biggest Bang for Your Buck!
Proportional vs. Variable Rate Structure -
What's the Difference?
When implementing a PAYT program, there are a variety
of ways to structure the costs. Most commonly, cities and
towns that implement unit-based pricing mechanisms use
either proportional (linear) or variable pricing structures.
What's the difference between proportional and vari-
able price structuring?
Proportional (linear) programs are financed on a one-
to-one ratio of disposal units to cost. For example if a fam-
ily throws away one container it may cost $30, while two
-------
containers would cost $60, and three containers would
cost $90, etc. This dramatic increase in cost by increasing
to the next size of trash container creates the most incen-
tive to source reduce and has shown significant source
reduction and diversion rates.
Variable programs offer various pricing levels using
different size containers (e.g., 30-gallon, 60-gallon, and
90-gallon). The rates for additional containers may be steep
or modest depending on the city's goals. Some programs
increase rates to motivate households that do not reduce
trash generation. Typical pricing would be $30 for the first
container, $35 for the second and $40 for the third. The
more significant the price increments, the more demonstrat-
ed results in source reduction due to behavior change.
Some good examples of successful pricing structures are
demonstrated below in Vancouver and Clark County, Wash-
ington; and San Jose, California.
In 1992, the city of Vancouver implemented a weekly mini-
can option, and within five months nearly 500 residents had
switched to the mini-can. By the end of the following year,
this number had doubled and the city was receiving numer-
ous customer requests for more service choices. Three new
residential garbage service level options were implemented:
every-other-week 32-gallon can, every-other-week mini-
can, and monthly 32-gallon can service. These options are
increasingly being utilized as customers learn how waste
reduction and avid recycling can help them reduce their
monthly garbage output and bill.
In 1992, in cooperation with Clark County, the City of Vancou-
ver implemented a curbside recycling program. The program
is mandatory for single-family households, and all households
are billed $3.10 per month for weekly recycling as part of their
garbage service. A similar program is also available to all mul-
tifamily complexes within the city limits. The city's contracted
hauler also offers a voluntary yard debris collection program.
For a monthly fee customers can set out up to 96 gallons of
material. Since the program is voluntary, it does not conflict
with citizens who choose to compost their organic wastes at
home or self-haul to local composting facilities.
Volume-based proportional rates are an effective tool for
encouraging residents and businesses to examine their dis-
posal habits, to recycle more, and to decrease their garbage
service levels. The city surpassed its 50 percent recycling
goal by the end of 1995. Based on available data sources,
it was determined that 51 percent of the city's wastes were
recycled and 49 percent were disposed of in the landfill that
year. While some residents are motivated by environmental
stewardship, others are encouraged to change habits based
on their pocketbooks. Although volume-based linear rates
pose challenges, the City of Vancouver believes that they
are the driving force behind their success in meeting waste
reduction and recycling goals.
Similarly, the City of San Jose in California used to provide
services to residents at a flat monthly rate for unlimited trash
pickup. In 1993, the city implemented a recycling program
that also included PAYT. Their program included the option
for residents to purchase garbage carts of varying sizes (20,
32, 64 and 96-gallons.) Prices would increase with the larger
carts. According to San Jose officials, 80 percent of resi-
dents opt for a 32-gallon cart for trash. As of 2000, they had
exceeded an EPA diversion goal of 50 percent by hitting 64
percent and hope to hit 100 percent by 2010.
While both pricing structures increase recycling efforts and di-
version rates, proportional price structures have demonstrated
more significant and consistent increases in source reduction.
For additional information about rate structuring, please visit:
www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/payt/tools/rsd.htm.
STATES MAKE A
BOLD STATEMENT
ABOUT PAYT
Massachusetts Takes a Hands-
on Approach
Massachusetts has come a long way since
adopting its first Solid Waste Master Plan
Vf* back in 1990. Before then, most of the
state's waste was disposed of in landfills or
combusted. Today, Massachusetts boasts a 47 percent over-
all recycling rate, one of the highest in the United States.
One of the most instrumental ways the state has achieved
such dramatic improvement has been through PAYT programs
implemented at the municipal level. Nearly 80 municipalities in
Massachusetts use PAYT drop-off programs, and more than
50 use PAYT curbside programs, with impressive results.
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Pay-As-You-Throw
Communities in Massachusetts
February 2010
According to a Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) study, the towns below reduced their monthly
average household waste tonnage by an average of 42 per-
cent by switching to PAYT.
Vest Boyls
Grafton
Shirley
199 Ibs
Shrewsbury 187 Ibs
145 Ibs > 100 Ibs = 31 % reduction
190 Ibs > 102 Ibs = 46% reduction
92 Ibs = 54% reduction
116 Ibs = 38% reduction
DEP is instrumental in ensuring the success of PAYT pro-
grams. The DEP funds a network of seven regional Munici-
pal Assistance Coordinators referred to as "MACs". They
provide technical waste reduction assistance to cities and
towns throughout the state. MACs work with municipalities to
implement local pilot projects while also coordinating regional
waste management approaches to improve cost effective-
ness and accessibility of services. According to Brooke Nash
of DEP's Municipal Waste Reduction Program,
"Providing hands-on assistance to cities and towns
through our regional Municipal Assistance Coordina-
tors is one of the cornerstones of our PAYT development
program. Whether it's evaluating the potential impacts
of PAYT on a community's solid waste disposal budget,
educating elected officials about the program, preparing
outreach materials for a public forum on PAYT, or working
through the logistics of program rollout, the MACs provide
key assistance that paves the way for new programs."
MACs provide over 10,000 hours of hands-on technical
assistance to municipalities each year. In addition, DEP
provides PAYT start-up funds to help new programs with
education outreach, initial bag purchases, and other related
costs. Making waste reduction a priority at the state level
has allowed Massachusetts communities to succeed in
implementing PAYT, and has led to a statewide recycling
rate of nearly 50 percent.
South Carolina Shows Recycling
Successfully Creates Jobs
From hauling, processing, and brokering
materials to manufacturing and distributing
recycled content products, the process of
transforming discarded items into new prod-
ucts requires a wide range of businesses and job functions. In
fact, recycling is estimated to create nearly five times as many
jobs as land filling. So, it's no surprise that increased recycling
rates directly correlate to economic growth.
According to the South Carolina Department of Com-
merce, there are more than 300 companies, employing
over 15,600 people, in the state's recycling and reuse sec-
tor. But while South Carolina boasts a strong and diverse
recycling and reuse industry, it also has a significant area of
untapped potential.
In 2008, South Carolina's commercial recycling rate was 52
percent, and its industrial recycling rate was 57 percent, but
residential recycling trailed behind at only 13 percent. That
meant a lot of materials, including glass, paper, plastic bot-
tles, and aluminum cans, were sent to the landfill instead of
being tunneled back into the state's recycling industry where
they could create new products, jobs, and economic growth.
According to the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control Office of Solid Waste Reduction and
Recycling, in fiscal year 2009, South Carolina's total municipal
solid waste recycling rate was 22.1 percent. It is estimated
that 400,000 tons of recyclable materials (the equivalent of
four 100,000 ton aircraft carriers) could have gone to market
to recycling businesses in South Carolina and other south-
eastern states instead of being sent to the landfill. About $52
million in potential revenue from the sale of these materials by
local governments was lost. And, with average landfill tipping
fees in South Carolina at $35 per ton, approximately $15
million was spent to dispose of these recyclables. Without a
doubt, the economic impacts are significant for engaging in
increased recovery of materials.
At a national level, recycling efforts have traditionally focused
on increasing recycling among businesses, and this shows
in South Carolina's high commercial and industrial recycling
rates. However, approximately 60 percent of the nation's
total municipal solid waste is from the residential sector.
Unfortunately, most households never realize the true cost
of land filling this waste. By creating an economic incentive
to reduce waste and increase recycling at the household
level, programs like PAYT can have a huge impact on the
recycling industry.
-------
Current SC Recycling Rate - Identifying Untapped Potential
Sector
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
2010 Current
Diversion/
Recycling Rate
13%
52%
57%
Percent
Commodity
Recycling
6%
22%
56%
IfS.C. increased
diversion to 60%
in each sector,
the recycling
industry would
create additional jobs
6,662
713
623
Potential
Economic
Growth From
60% Diversion
$2 billion
$21 8.4 million
$180 million
If S.C. increased
diversion to 70%
in each sector,
the recycling
Potential
Economic
industry would Growth From
create additional Jobs 70% Diversion
8,066 $2.4 billion
1,595 $482 million
2,639 $809 million
Sources: DHEC 2008 Annual Report, Institute for bcal Self-Reliance (ILSR) and South Carolina Departmentof Commerce 2006 Economic Impact Study.
If South Carolina were to increase its residential recycling rate
to 60 percent, it would create over 6,000 new jobs in the
recycling/reuse sector and grow the state's economy by over
$2 billion. An increase to 70 percent would yield more than
8,000 new jobs. And, if all three sectors—residential, com-
mercial, and industrial—increased their recycling rates to 70
percent, more than 12,000 new jobs would be created and
more than $3 billion generated.
As Gerry Fishbeck, chair of the Recycling Market Develop-
ment Advisory Council notes,
"Recycling creates an improved quality of life in South
Carolina, whether it's additional quality jobs, a reduced
need for landfills or sources of cost efficient waste man-
agement for industry. South Carolina is a great place to
live and a great place for business."
Florida Targets a Whopping
75 Percent Recycling Goal
In 2008, Florida passed the Energy, Climate
Change and Economic Security Act into
B law, establishing a new statewide recycling
goal of 75 percent by 2020. The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was tasked
with creating a plan to turn this goal into a reality. In Janu-
ary 2010, after extensive research and contributions from
stakeholders, the state's 75% Recycling Goal Report was
released. This report outlines the most effective opportuni-
ties and actions Florida can take to move from its current
recycling rate of 28 percent to an impressive 75 percent in a
single decade. It can be found by visiting www.dep.state.
11. us/waste/recyclinggoa!75/.
Not surprisingly, one of the innovative recycling strategies
suggested is the use of PAYT programs. The report cites
a 2006 Skumatz Economic Research Associates analysis
which found that PAYT programs increase recycling by ap-
proximately 50 percent, without increasing costs for the ma-
jority of implementing communities. The analysis also showed
that PAYT is the single most
effective action communi-
ties can take to increase
recycling and diversion in the
residential sector.
While there are about 7,000
PAYT programs nationwide,
there are only a handful of
communities in Florida that
currently use the program,
including Gainesville, Planta-
tion, and Sarasota County.
In Gainesville, PAYT netted
an 18 percent decrease in the amount of waste collected and
a 25 percent increase in recyclables recovered during its first
year alone. It also saved customers over $186,000 that year.
Not coincidentally, Sarasota County, with the highest overall
recycling rate in the state (41 percent), also requires PAYT.
The Florida DEP recommended that its legislature apply the
new 75 percent recycling goal to counties with a population
greater than 100,000 and cities with a population greater
than 50,000. These high population centers account for
95 percent of the state's population and MSW generated.
If these areas implement a combination of PAYT and Re-
cycleBank (a program that provides discount coupons for
increased recycling) it is estimated that they will achieve ap-
proximately 10 percent of the state's overall goal.
Florida's 2010 legislative session concluded on April 30
and HB 7243 was enacted which will strengthen Florida's
recycling program. Highlights of the bill, signed by Governor
Charlie Crist, include:
It increases recycling goals from 30% to 75%
by the year 2020, with incremental recycling
benchmarks for the state, counties and cities
that must be reached by December 31, 2020.
It allows municipal solid waste burned in waste-
to-energy plants to count towards the goal.
It directs DEP to create a Recycling Business
Assistance Center for coordinating efforts to
develop new markets and expand existing
markets for recyclable materials.
• It requires, to the extent economically feasible,
that all construction and demolition debris must
be processed for recycling prior to disposal.
According to Mary Jean Yon, Director of DEP's Division of
Waste Management, "While the bill does not include specific
legislation regarding PAYT, we anticipate much more interest
in PAYT at the local level as counties and cities implement pro-
grams to meet Florida's new statewide 75% recycling goal."
-------
RURAL PAYT
PROGRAMS
Big Results in Small
Communities
PAYT programs are often associated with cities and towns
with curbside waste and recycling pick up. But many rural
communities with landfill drop-off sites also take advantage of
PAYT. Residents are charged by the bag, or by the weight of
their trash, when they drop off at the landfill. Large or small,
any community can use PAYT and be SMART (save money
and reduce trash).
New Hampshire
There are 47 towns across the state of New
Hampshire using PAYT to incentivize recycling
and reduce waste. The newest "drop-off town" in
the state to make the switch to PAYT is Hopkinton, which is
scheduled to implement its program in November 2010. Other
towns with PAYT drop-off programs include Canterbury and
Lyme. According to Donald Maurer, Supervisor of Solid Waste
Technical Assistance for the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services,
"We have seen remarkable results in Canterbury and
Lyme recently. Lyme, with a population around 1800,
had a budget line item of$110,000 prior to implement-
ing PAYT. After PAYT, they reduced the line item to
$10,000 and increased their recycling rate from 34 to
50 percent."
Across the state, other towns are having similar success.
Towns with PAYT programs in New Hampshire have a 39 per-
cent recycling rate on average, versus the statewide average
of 21 percent.
"Tipping fees keep increasing and small towns and cities
have little recourse but to increase budgets in order to
meet the costs," said Maurer. "The only thing that can
be done to keep costs in check is to increase recycling.
Certainly, PAYT is not the only tool in the box that can
increase recycling, but it is one of the best."
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
conducts outreach to help towns reduce the ever increas-
ing cost of waste disposal. The agency rarely discusses the
"green" reasons to recycle, instead letting the economic
incentive speak for itself. Maurer continued,
"We begin with a discussion of the solid waste industry,
including its size and the dominance of market share
by a few large companies. Once the financial picture is
brought into perspective, we then demonstrate that a
town can save money by increasing diversion. It is then
fairly easy to convince them that PAYT is a viable option."
Maurer noted that common objections to PAYT include
the fear that it will lead to illegal dumping or that it will be
perceived by residents as just another tax. However, studies
of communities with PAYT programs around the nation in-
dicate that illegal dumping is not a problem for most towns.
New Hampshire also has a law which allows towns to set
up a dedicated "enterprise fund," separate from the town's
general fund. This can be used to ensure taxpayers that
any revenue generated from PAYT goes toward the cost of
sustaining the program.
Vermont
Many small towns across Vermont are also weigh-
ing in to take advantage of PAYT. For example, the
town of Springfield implemented a PAYT drop-off program
at its transfer station and recycling center after the town
dump closed several years ago. Trash bags are weighed on
platform scales and residents use tickets to pay for disposal.
A sheet of 25 tickets cost $11.25 and each ticket allows four
pounds of trash.
-------
According to Mary O'Brien of the Southern Windsor/Wind-
ham Counties Solid Waste Management District, "Paying
by weight, rather than volume, is a significant motivator to
residents to recycle as much of their waste as possible."
Consequently, Springfield's 43 percent recycling rate is the
highest of any town in the local waste management district.
Chittenden Solid Waste District also uses PAYT at its seven
waste and recycling drop-off centers across Chittenden
County. Drop-off customers pay $1.75 for 18 gallons of
household trash, $3.25 for 33 gallons, $5 for 45 gallons, and
$25 for a cubic yard. The drop-off centers also accept bulky
items and construction and demolition debris on a PAYT
basis, as well as mixed recyclables for free.
Recycling has been mandatory in Chittenden County since
1993, and the solid waste district is currently undertaking
a study to expand PAYT to its curbside customers. Nancy
Plunkett, Waste Reduction Manager for Chittenden Solid
Waste District said,
"We have known for many years that curbside PAYT has
been the piece missing from our waste diversion puzzle.
While we enjoy high participation in our mandatory recy-
cling program, tons of recyclables are still winding up in
trash headed to the landfill. We expect that if we imple-
mented a curbside PAYT program, the amount would be
significantly reduced as people make the connection that
trash collection costs significantly less when they gener-
ate less and recycle more."
Eight towns in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom Waste Manage-
ment District also use PAYT at their transfer stations. Com-
pared to other towns in the district with tax-funded waste
disposal, the PAYT towns experience significantly lower waste
generation rates. In 2009, the average per capita genera-
tion rate for residential and commercial waste in the district's
PAYT towns was 1.64 tons per year, compared to 2.87 tons
per year in the tax-funded towns.
When the Town of Canaan (population ~1,200) implemented
a PAYT system in mid-2008, it decreased its municipal solid
waste from 565 tons in 2007 to 281 tons in 2009 - a 50 per-
cent decrease. According to Paul Tomasi, Executive Director
of the Northeast Kingdom Waste Management District, "We
have and will continue to promote PAYT programs throughout
our membership. It's pretty clear that PAYT helps reduce per
capita generation."
Tomasi further notes,
"Our PAYT towns do not experience higher incidences
of illegal dumping than their tax funded counterparts,
although this fear is usually the first thing that is raised
when the issue is mentioned. We also get a lot of 'PAYT
is more of a burden on those who can least afford to
pay,' but these are the people who stand to benefit most
from reducing their waste generation."
Ohio
In 2007, rural Logan County, Ohio signed a
zero-waste resolution, setting a goal to send no
waste to the landfill by the year 2020. To reach this goal, as
well as to address dwindling capacity in the county's existing
landfill, the Logan County Solid Waste Management District
began to aggressively expand its recycling services. Prior to
2007, the County operated curbside recycling programs in
three towns, and maintained five part-time drop-off recycling
centers which were only open on Saturday mornings.
In 2007, the District constructed a new, 24-hour drop-off
recycling center in the Village of Lakeview.
"We wanted a recycling center that was convenient,
easy to use, always open, and one that would attract
recyclers, but not illegal dumping. Fences, gates and
locks were out. A beautifully appointed and landscaped
recycling center was in," says Alan Hale, Coordinator,
Logan County Solid Waste Management District.
The Lakeview recycling center also features a PAYT trash
collection service. Residents buy green trash bags for $2.00
per bag through an onsite vending machine. Funded in part
through PAYT bag sales, the recycling center was a huge
success. The District quickly began adding additional 24-hour
recycling centers, and currently has 11 centers in operation
with plans to add three more by September.
The centers are equipped with cameras for 24-hour sur-
veillance to maintain safety and reduce any risk of illegal
dumping. In addition, each recycling center has a volunteer
"monitor" who visits the site three times a week and reports
back electronically through the Solid Waste District Web site.
Monitors note how much space remains in the containers,
whether illegal dumping has occurred, and whether vending
machines are fully stocked with PAYT trash bags.
To process and market the recycled commodities collected,
the District converted an old lumber yard into a materials
recovery facility. The District plans to repay its loan for the
MRF through PAYT bag revenues, which currently average
-------
A
between $6,000 and $10,000 per month. After only four
months of operation, the MRF's commodity sales began
exceeding its operation costs, and as additional recycling
centers are added the District anticipates increased revenues
with only marginal increases in costs.
According to Hale, "recycling in our District is becom-
ing a way of life in the community, especially since the
drop-off centers are located throughout the county. The
District receives many compliments on the operation of
the recycling centers, particularly how beautifully they are
landscaped and maintained, A professional landscaper
has been involved in the construction of each new center
and to many people they appear to be recycling gardens
or parks - pleasant places to visit,"
RESOURCES /
ASSISTANCE
Grantee Econservation Institute is providing technical as-
sistance for PAYT to municipalities in Region 9. As part of this
grant, Lisa Skumatz and her team are holding a series of free
national webinars. In addition, they will also offer technical as-
sistance to 15-30 communities and provide detailed technical
assistance to three communities.
According to Lisa Skumatz, "The support is for Region
9 communities only, and includes both simple and more
detailed assistance to move PAYT forward. It might be as
simple as providing tools and phone guidance, or as compli-
cated as rate studies."
While the technical assistance is being offered to communi-
ties only within Region 9, the Web site and free webinars can
be used as national and international resources. To date, the
webinars have included about six foreign countries. For ad-
ditional information visit: www.paytnow.org.
EPA Home
State and Local Climate and Energy Program - Solid Waste
and Materials Management and Relevant Community Solid
Waste Information.
http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/local/topics/
waste-mgmt.html>
PAYT Outreach on Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/tools/payt/tools/
toolkit.htm
Illegal Dumping References/Sites:
http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/tools/payt/
top8.htm
http://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/wptdiv/illegal_dumping/
downloads/il-dmpng.pdf
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA530-N-09-001
------- |