Organics Management in Vermont A state-wide overview of legislation, regulation, and current practices What’s happening in VT & why – what’s working and what’s not VT not only NE state to enact a statewide organics ban – most ambitious May provide some opportunities for NH in terms of establishing a 2-state / region-wide organics market

Why Organics Matter in VT VT 2012 Waste Characterization. Graph represents trash only (not waste stream before recycling) Organics (primarily heavy, wet food scraps) biggest component of MSW Obviously room for improvement – >50% of MSW = wasted resources Jamieson, SWANA 2016

Act 148: Universal Recycling Law Law encompasses all aspects materials management (not just organics). Goal to decrease disposal and increase diversion **(recycling rate stagnant ~33%)** Aims to provide consistent, convenient, cost-effective services statewide Incentives for alternative disposal – e.g. PAYT Organics large focus b/c largest untapped resource Jamieson, SWANA 2016

Food Scrap Generators Phase-In Law structured so that food scraps ban phased in over time – starting w/ largest generators and eventually working down to household level. Diversion only required if a facility exists within 20 mile radius of generator 2018 - 2020 --- focus on getting to household level **July 2017 haulers and transfer stations required to offer organics collection** Lawn and Leaf/ Other organics already banned Jamieson, SWANA 2016

Food Recovery Hierarchy Food Hierarchy – preference given to highest an best use (Food equivalent to the recycling “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle”) Reducing waste at source is always most preferable – hard to implement Divert quality, edible food to Hunger relief organizations – have already seen big jump in donations Jamieson, SWANA 2016

Food Recovery Hierarchy Food to animals – poultry / swine A major strategy, but some concerns: farms not permitted SW facilities (no compliance w/ phase-in & 20-mile rule) Animal feed means restrictions on non-food items (utensils, paper, packaging) and no meat for swine – may lead to service inconsistencies – **separate streams** Jamieson, SWANA 2016

Food Recovery Hierarchy Currently 10 permitted SW facilities Explain AD Jamieson, SWANA 2016

Certified Organics Facilities Fairly even distribution Note some gaps (see 20-mile radii)

Service Reality Compare location of facilities to major transport lanes 20 miles as the crow flies doesn’t always mean practical or cost-effective Familiar situation to many in NH

The Good News Jamieson, SWANA 2016 Note decrease in disposal does not necessarily translate to increase diversion Jamieson, SWANA 2016

Issues 20 Mile Rule Animal Feed “Loophole” 20 mile rule for food scraps ONLY works if infrastructure exists and applies only to permitted SW facilities Animal Feed “Loophole” Composters switching to animal operations as a regulatory loophole, which precludes permitting & sidesteps the 20 mile rule Consistency of collection/available services What each composter will take, and how, may be different -- recreates the recycling problem 148 was supposed to solve Animal feed – requires separation of meat, utensils, plastics Bio-Plastics Growing usage, but not eligible for “organic certification” 20 mile rule acts as a loophole -- some ethical questions about flow control (what’s economical & fair) Another loophole: compost facilities switch to animal feed operations (ANR working on draft legislation to prevent this) **Some concern that facilities will be “flooded” with more organics than they can handle** Potential inefficiencies

Issues Infrastructure/ Capacity Anaerobic Digestion Contamination Current processing capacity falls short by several thousand tons – more infrastructure needed to meet demand Anaerobic Digestion AD could close the capacity gap, but investment & infrastructure are lacking Contamination Major source of expense for composters Carbon Sourcing Paying for carbon amendments limits margins and increases costs Costs Haulers, among others, are concerned about unfunded mandates & new costs Carbon (wood shavings, hay, leaves) for optimal compost recipes – not always available in large quantities, often obtained at significant cost Some haulers concerned about “critical mass” of participation needed to cover investment in new equipment and infrastructure – remember July 2017

Funding Gap Barbagallo, SWANA 2016 Casella statewide cost analysis Who’s footing the bill?? Big demands on private sector/municipalities Barbagallo, SWANA 2016

Capacity Gap What’s currently being processed (tons of food scraps) Compare this to overall generation est. CLOCK IS TICKING Compare to an estimated 60,000 annual tons of FS 60,000 > 6,186 Barbagallo, SWANA 2016

Takeaways Intentions are good Initial results good Divert and recover materials according to highest and best use Initial results good Drop in MSW generation Modest increase in diversion Increase in food donation/source reduction Issues of capacity/funding need to be addressed

Questions?