1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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
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

5. 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

6. 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

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

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

9. 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

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

11. 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

12. 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

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

14. 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

15. 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

16. Questions?