Materials Management and Rural America, Part 2

October 2, 2018

October 2, 2018


Last week’s article, Materials Management and Rural America, Part 1, presented a broad overview of some of the issues facing rural and small towns in America. As found in a Wall Street Journal analysis of rural America, based upon a number of key measures of socioeconomic, the decline in our rural and small communities is accelerating.


An ongoing series posted on CityLab, however, points out that economic growth and opportunity is “not only uneven and unequal between urban and rural places; it is also uneven within them.” Thus, some rural and small communities are flourishing, just as some urban areas are growing and thriving, while other communities, rural and urban, are on the decline.


Working in a range of small and rural communities over the past decade, I’d tend to concur with CityLab’s conclusion.


Materials Management presents Opportunity


In a September 2018 Resource Recycling article, Looking Farther Afield, Natasha Duarte (Director of the Composting Association of Vermont) and I discuss food scrap diversion efforts in small towns and rural jurisdictions in Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont.

As presented in the article, effective strategic planning, dedication on the part of local stakeholders, and a focus on resident education and involvement has helped make food scrap diversion successful in a number of rural and small town communities. Similarly, just as in urban areas, small and rural communities can benefit greatly from effective implementation of source reduction, reuse, and recycling.

Beyond the potential economic benefits, materials management can help to build communities, bring citizens together, promote public participation, and help to spur a sense of community pride.


Vermont, a state comprised primarily of rural and small town communities, has become a national leader in materials management. To conserve space in its only landfill and reduce its carbon footprint, the Vermont Legislature adopted Act 148, the Vermont Universal Recycling Law, in 2012. Through a phased in time-line, the law bans disposal of the following major types of waste materials: “blue bin" recyclables, leaf and yard debris, clean wood, and food scraps.


Additionally, all towns were required by 2015 to adopt pay-as-you-throw waste collection systems. The ban on food scraps began in 2014 with the largest generators (greater than 104 tons per year), if the generator is located within 20 miles of a processing facility. The threshold has been lowered each subsequent year. By 2020, all food scrap generators, including residents, will be required to divert food scraps from disposal.


As noted in last week’s article, I live and work in Brattleboro, Vermont (population 12,000). The town is a mecca for those of us in materials management. Curbside recycling was started in the town long before I arrived. In 2013, with the urging of Triple T Trucking, the town’s contracted waste and recycling hauler, Brattleboro initiated a pilot curbside food scraps collection program.


The pilot went town-wide in 2014 with free curbside food scrap collection offered to all 5,300 households (including multi-family properties with up to four units). With the adoption of pay-as-you-throw trash disposal in July 2015, collection of food scraps more than doubled to 9.5 tons per week.


In 2016, the town became one of the few communities, small or large, to adopt every-other-week trash collection. Now Brattleboro is diverting 64 percent of its waste stream through recycling and organics diversion. Moreover, the Town of Brattleboro saves about $35,000 a year in reduced tip fees (landfill-tipping charges locally are $105 per ton).


Keeping organics local has also benefited the community. The Windham Solid Waste Management District compost facility (located in Brattleboro) processes 605 tons per year of food waste (and soiled paper) from the Brattleboro curbside collection, along with 627 tons per year of commercial and institutional food waste. The facility is a cash-positive operation. Residents can purchase compost at a relatively low cost; schools and other entities around the region have benefited from the District’s generous donation of compost.

Around Vermont, small and rural communities have certainly been aided in their waste diversion efforts by the formation of “waste management districts.” Utilizing fees paid by their member communities, as well as grants and fee-for-service programs, the districts help communities to reduce and divert waste, and provide information about trash, recycling, composting, and hazardous waste, including hauling services, drop-off centers, and more. The districts also provide technical assistance and training for businesses, schools, events, and residents in accordance with Vermont’s Universal Recycling Law.


For example, with support from a U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Services grant, the Central Vermont Solid Waste Management District helped establish two community food scrap composting sites. They are located at Quarry Hill, a low-income housing complex with 36 units in Barre and Franklin Street Home Owners Association, a condominium complex with 10 units in Montpelier.


In Massachusetts, another waste management district has become a leader in materials management in that state. The Franklin County Solid Waste Management District consists of 21 member towns in the less-populated western part of the state. The towns’ populations range from 378 to 8,455.


Twenty-five public schools in Franklin County, including seven high schools, have comprehensive recycling and cafeteria and kitchen food scrap composting programs. Additionally, eight other schools in the county collect food waste for animal feed at local farms. Only two schools in the county remain without food scrap diversion programs.


All twenty District transfer stations accept recyclables, eight of these accept food scraps and soiled paper from residents at no cost. Several also have swap sheds. Three "Super Sites" are permitted (and open year-round) to accept automotive products such as used motor oil, oil filters, transmission fluid, and anti-freeze; mercury-containing devices such as fluorescent lamps, button batteries, fever thermometers and thermostats; oil-based paints, thinners, lacquers, and other paint-related items; rechargeable nickel-cadmium batteries; and fluorescent lamp ballasts. The district also lends its special event signage and recycling and compost bins to over 40 special events each year.


These are just a few examples of how small and rural communities can offer comprehensive materials management programs. Many of these efforts, including reuse and food scrap diversion, can draw upon the strengths inherent in these communities. For example, diversion of food scraps for animal feed in agricultural areas. More on this topic in Part 3.



By Athena Lee Bradley

Share Post

By Megan Fontes May 29, 2025
The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) published its Chemical Recycling Policy Position on May 30, 2025. The purpose of the policy statement is to articulate guiding principles for environmentally responsible chemical recycling of plastics. NERC supports the conservation of natural resources, waste minimization, and recognizes the role of recycling in reaching these goals. Plastic is a prevalent material for packaging and other products due to its material properties. Producing virgin plastic from fossil fuels is an extractive process with negative environmental and social impacts. Therefore, NERC supports reduction, reuse, and recycling processes that displace virgin production in plastics where environmentally preferable. You can view the policy statement here: https://www.nerc.org/chemical-recycling . The Policy Position was developed by the Subcommittee of the NERC Chemical Recycling Committee. Participants on the Subcommittee included Committee Chair Tom Metzner, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP); Claudine Ellyin, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP); John Fay, Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association (NEWMOA); Anthony Fontana, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Retired ; Michael Fowler, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP); Timothy Kerr, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), Left MDE ; Shannon McDonald, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE); Chaz Miller, Ex-Officio, NERC Board; Elizabeth Moore, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP); Marc Moran, Pennsylvania Department Of Environmental Protection; Michael Nork, New Hampshire Department Of Environmental Services; Megan Schulz-Fontes, Northeast Recycling Council (NERC); and Richard Watson, Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA). NERC created the Chemical Recycling Committee in 2022 with the goal of sharing information on new technologies called “chemical recycling.” The Committee shares information on the efficacy, cost, and impacts of these new technologies. Our Policy is the result of those efforts. The Committee is open to NERC state members and several advisory member organizations whose participation has been approved by the state members serving on the committee. NERC has published several other policy positions including the Post-Consumer Recycled Content Policy (2019) and Product Stewardship and Producer Responsibility Policy (2018), which can be found among others on NERC’s website: https://www.nerc.org/policy-positions-and-statements . For more information, contact Megan Schulz-Fontes, Executive Director, at megan@nerc.org .
May 28, 2025
Waste Advantage NERC’s Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) Commodity Values Survey Report for the period January – March 2025 showed a slight jump in the average commodity prices for Q1. The average value of all commodities increased by 9% without residuals to $102.34 and 8% with residuals to $89.62, as compared to last quarter. Single stream increased by 12% without residuals and 11% with residuals, while dual stream/source separated increased by 10% without residuals and 9% with residuals compared to last quarter. The average percentage for outbound tons marketed per commodity in calendar year 2024 showed decreases for all commodities as compared to 2022, except for polypropylene and bulky rigids, which increased by 40% and 29%, respectively. We also see an increase in mixed glass and residue, as compared to 2022, by 31% and 8%, respectively, further offsetting the decreases in marketed commodity percentages across the board. Notably, green, brown, and clear glass had the largest fall with clear glass decreasing by 77%. Changes in calculation methodology may affect these trends. Percentages are derived from tonnages reported for calendar year 2024 as opposed to percentage breakdowns in previous years. This is the 24th quarterly report in NERC’s series of reports on the market value of commodities from MRFs in the Northeast. This report includes information from 19 MRFs representing twelve (12) states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. These survey results reflect the differing laws and collection options in the participating states. Five of the states included in this report have beverage container deposit laws. As a result, fewer glass bottles, PET bottles and aluminum cans are processed in MRFs in those states. Those MRFs are also likely to have less revenue from those recyclables. In addition, the report reflects a mix of single stream, dual stream, and source separation to collect recyclables with single stream being the most common approach. The type of collection used will have an impact on MRF design and operation. Thus, the data from this report reflects the unique blend of facilities and statewide laws in the reporting states. Residual refers to the incoming material that cannot be marketed and goes to disposal. The value without residuals reflects the value of a perfect ton of marketed material, while the value with residuals reflects the value of each ton processed with the costs associated of disposing unmarketable material. Note: In many cases, recovered glass goes to market but at a negative value. This data is not intended to be used as a price guide for MRF contracts. NERC’s database represents single and dual stream MRFs, states with and without beverage container deposits, a wide variety in markets and geographic access to markets, and variety of materials collected for processing at the participating facilities. As a result, it represents the diversity of operating conditions in these locations and should not be used as a price guideline for a specific program. For more information, contact Megan Schulz-Fontes, Executive Director, at megan@nerc.org or visit www.nerc.org .
By Megan Fontes May 22, 2025
2024 Average Percentage of Outbound Tons Marketed per Commodity Published; New Format: Report Includes Q1 2025 Individual Commodity Average Prices
More Posts