The proposal to expand Northampton’s landfill doesn’t fit well with state-level preferences to increase recycling and expand the use of anaerobic digestion facilities. Landfill operators have a strong incentive to maintain or increase the tons of waste accepted rather than reduce them. In addition, if local households, organizations and governmental facilities have their waste disposal costs subsidized, they have less incentive to divert materials from the waste stream. Northampton’s 34% recycling rate lags that of many nearby communities as well as the statewide average of 47%.
Here are some key passages from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Draft Solid Waste Master Plan Framework and Stakeholder Discussion Questions (MS Word document, November 2008, emphasis added):
This document describes current trends in the management of Massachusetts’ solid waste, and proposes some general principles for a new policy framework…
The 2006 Solid Waste Master Plan Update continued an effort to reduce the solid waste we produce by 70% by 2010, a goal set in the “Beyond 2000” Solid Waste Master Plan. It also established a goal to recycle 56% of the solid waste generated in Massachusetts by 2010. While we are now recycling 47% of our waste and within 10% of achieving this goal, it will most likely not be met by 2010…
Waste bans, first adopted by MassDEP in 1990, cover a variety of materials with well-established recycling markets.[1] The waste bans are intended to reduce the toxicity of the waste we send to disposal facilities and to support the development and operation of recycling markets by ensuring that there is a continuous supply of these materials. Widespread compliance with the waste bans, however, has not yet been achieved…
Even with increased fuel costs, the cost of out-of-state disposal remains very low compared to in-state disposal, because inexpensive rail transport carries waste to out-of-state landfills with lower tipping fees. About 1.4 million tons of Massachusetts’ solid waste is disposed of out of state each year. With reduced capacity available at in-state landfills, more Massachusetts waste will be exported in the future: by 2014, exports are expected to rise to between 2.5 and 4.1 million tons annually.
Questions have been raised about the effectiveness of the incinerator moratorium in protecting the environment. The moratorium was established in 1990 to avoid overbuilding in-state disposal capacity with facilities that must receive large amounts of trash for decades. It was reaffirmed in 2000 to prevent increases in mercury emissions to the air. However, the moratorium may have had an unintended effect of protecting existing facilities from competition with new technologies that may be able to meet more stringent environmental performance standards…
We need to break through the current logjam of old ideas, stop relying on state subsidies to reach our recycling goals, and stop disposing of waste as if the material had no value…
How can we harness market forces to better align the costs and benefits for increased recycling by waste generators (residents, businesses, municipalities), with the interests of the businesses that handle waste materials?…
See also:
Assessment of Materials Management Options for the Massachusetts Solid Waste Master Plan Review (PDF, 655KB, December 2008; see related documents on MassDEP website)
From a lifecycle environmental emissions and energy perspective, source reduction, recycling and composting are the most advantageous management options for all (recyclable/compostable) materials in the waste stream…
The prospects for anaerobic digestion facilities appear to be more favorable [than gasification or pyrolysis] given the extensive experience with such facilities in the U.S. for the processing of sewage sludge and farm waste and the fact that no significant human health or environmental impacts have been cited in the literature…
From a life-cycle net energy perspective, waste diversion through recycling provides the most benefit, saving an estimated 2,250 kWh per ton of solid waste…
Scenario 1 [Business As Usual], without an enhanced diversion program (or the introduction of new thermal treatment technologies), produces significantly lower environmental benefits than the other scenarios across all emissions categories considered…
The fraction of waste recycled or composted has a dominant impact on the overall system energy profile for all three scenarios…
Economic instruments such as taxes or fees should be part of the mix, but should be linked to long-term waste reduction goals in the context of increasing resource productivity. Getting price signals right for goods and services by including environmental externalities is an important element for achieving the structural changes in the economy that are required to move towards a sustainable materials management system…
Our review of the LCA literature and our modeling outputs confirm that, after source reduction, waste diversion through recycling and composting is the most advantageous management option from an environmental and energy perspective…
Video: Special Meeting of the Board of Public Works and the City Council, 8/21/09; Landfill Ballot Question No. 2
It is not proved beyond doubt that disposing of our waste within Northampton is significantly cheaper than shipping it out. The cost to ship our waste to Seneca Meadows/Seneca Falls, New York—to name just one alternative–appears to be comparable to our landfill’s current average commercial tip fee (Alternatives Study, 8/17/09 presentation, slide 30). A more thorough search of outside disposal sites might reveal other cost-competitive options. By choosing to ship our waste out, the city could retain flexibility in the face of changing conditions. If we expand the landfill, we are locked into that course of action for the next 25-30 years, even if better (cheaper and/or more ecologically sound) waste management options emerge in the meantime.
Video and Slides: Public Forum on Innovative Approaches to Manage Northampton’s Solid Waste, 11/19/08
Mayor Clare Higgins asserts that the region has a moral obligation to deal with its trash locally. The Valley Advocate quotes her as saying, “We are providing a regional public service… Western Massachusetts should deal with Western Massachusetts trash. And even leaving the region out of the equation, Northampton has to send its trash somewhere. What are the options? Will we feel good about ourselves if we ship our trash out of state to a poorer community?”
Gary Liss challenges this notion (1:55:10-1:56:30), saying, “I don’t think you have to assume that you have to provide landfill capacity. You could provide transfer capacity. The assumption of having to provide local capacity was in the 80s, when there was a concern that there wasn’t going to be disposal capacity available anywhere, and ‘we’re running out of landfill space’. That was the driver for a lot of the programs of the 80s and 90s. That doesn’t compute anymore with the regional haul…
Northampton Redoubt: “Mary Serreze interviews Northampton BPW Chair Dave Reckhow on the proposed landfill expansion” (11/15/08)
Reckhow: “If there are conflicts between waste reduction and the economics of operating the landfill, we’ll want to examine that. We’ll need to define our priorities. I believe that we should be reducing our waste stream. Whether that is compatible with the landfill expansion has yet to be determined.”
Valley Advocate: “Trash is Good” (10/9/08)
In the landfill business, trash is good. Currently Northampton’s Solid Waste Enterprise Fund relies on 45,000 to 50,000 tons per year in order to meet budget. If Pioneer Valley residents significantly reduce what they throw away, the city may move to expand the landfill’s “wasteshed”–that is, to entice tonnage from other areas. If another regional facility offers haulers a cheaper alternative,
this strategy may fail. Duseau Trucking has a permit to operate a transfer station in North Hatfield, with rail access. If, for instance, Duseau were able to ship our region’s trash to another facility at a lower cost, it is possible that the Northampton municipal landfill would end up cash-starved…
Video: Landfill Options – Public Information Meeting of 8/17/09
Download the Solid Waste Management Alternatives Study (PDF, 2.7MB)
Department of Public Works: Landfill Documents
Northampton Solid Waste Alternatives Google Group
Key Portions of the Solid Waste Management Alternatives Study
Water Not Waste Launches to Save Barnes Aquifer