MASSACHUSETTS
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
North Central Technical Assistance Group
Municipal Recycling Grant Participating Communities
in the Montachusett Region and Beyond
N
Draft
W
E
S
ROYALSTON
ASHBY
WARWICK
WINCHENDON
DUNSTABLE
PEPPERELL
TOWNSEND
ASHBURNHAM
ERVING
TYNGSBOROUGH
GROTON
ORANGE
ATHOL
PHILLIPSTON
WENDELL
FITCHBURG
GARDNER
LUNENBURG
WESTFORD
SHIRLEY
TEMPLETON
CHELMSFORD
AYER
WESTMINSTER
LITTLETON
CARLISLE
LEOMINSTER
HARVARD
BOXBOROUGH
LANCASTER
HUBBARDSTON
PETERSHAM
SHUTESBURY
ACTON
CONCORD
PRINCETON
NEW SALEM
STERLING
BARRE
BOLTON
PELHAM
RUTLAND
HARDWICK
STOW
MAYNARD
CLINTON
OAKHAM
NEW BRAINTREE
BERLIN
HOLDEN
WEST BOYLSTON
BOYLSTON
HUDSON
SUDBURY
WAYLAND
MARLBOROUGH
NORTHBOROUGH
PAXTON
SOUTHBOROUGH
Prepared by
Amanda Amory MRPC
Irene Congdon MRIP, DEP
Michael Pattavina, RCAP
FRAMINGHAM
NATICK
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 3
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5
A. Project Goals ....................................................................................................................... 8
B. Process and Public Participation ......................................................................................... 8
II. Municipal Solid Waste in the Montachusett Region .............................................................. 9
A. Municipal Solid Waste Brief History ............................................................................... 13
C. Waste Bans and Regulations ............................................................................................. 17
III.
Solid Waste Management Plan Goals and Objectives ...................................................... 19
IV.
Solid Waste Management Cooperatives and Districts ...................................................... 27
A. Existing Districts and Cooperatives in Massachusetts...................................................... 27
B. Quanifiable Benefits ......................................................................................................... 29
C. Sample Budget .................................................................................................................. 31
V. Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 32
APPENDIX A Montachusett Region Population and Projections to 2025
APPENDIX B Average Annual Tonnage of Municipal Solid Waste in the Region
APPENDIX C Regional New Residential Construction
APPENDIX D Number of Businesses by Standard Industrial Classification
APPENDIX E Type of waste by businesses Classification
APPENDIX F Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Methods by Town
APPENDIX G Reduce and Reuse programs
APPENDIX H Municipal Recycling Programs
APPENDIX I HHW \ Pesticides Collection
APPENDIX J Solid Waste Districts and Cooperatives in Massachusetts
APPENDIX K:Recommended MOU for the North Central Solid Waste ManagementCooperative
APPENDIX L: Examples of assessments
APPENDIX M: Definitions: .............................................................................................................
APPENDIX N: Funding and resources.............................................................................................
APPENDIX O: Waste Haulers Licensed to Serve the Montachusett Region .................................
APPENDIX P: December 11, 2003 workshop ................................................................................
APPENDIX Q: Zoning information ................................................................................................
APPENDIX R: Local Contacts .........................................................................................................
Montachusett Regional Planning Commission
Saturd
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Page 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Municipal solid waste (MSW) has historically been the primary focus of state and local planning
efforts. However, the inter-relationship between the management of MSW and other nonmunicipal solid wastes (non-MSW) requires that we look holistically at our entire waste stream
to ensure that our planning for specific waste streams incorporates all potential opportunities to
efficiently and effectively manage the entire waste stream.
In partnership with the MADEP Municipal Recycling Incentive Program, the Rural Community
Assistance Program, the North Central Technical Assistance Group, the Montachusett Regional
Planning Commission developed this Regional Solid Waste Management Plan. The partners
enlisted the cooperation of local government leaders to illustrate the current and future
dimensions of waste disposal in the region, and to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of
our solid waste management, while reducing trash and exposure to toxic materials.
The intent of this plan is to establish a formal means of implementing the principles, policies and
goals of Massachusetts’s Beyond 2000 Solid Waste Master Plan. The State’s plan seeks to
reduce the quantity and toxicity of the waste stream to the maximum extent feasible; through
reducing the amount of waste produced, reusing and recycling as much as possible, removing
toxics such as household hazardous waste, allowing all businesses and residents access to
recycling and reuse opportunities, and disposing of what is left in a way that protects public
health and the environment. The focus of this plan is to embrace sustainability principles that
require us to reverse recent trends of increasing waste generation by generating less waste, and to
view discarded material as a resource for reuse. The state encourages individual stewardship in
addressing waste reduction, asking manufacturers to take greater responsibility for the products
and packaging they produce.
The plan recommends the creation of the North Central Regional Solid Waste Management
Cooperative to provide solid waste management services for its member municipalities, seeking
cost effective solutions for source reduction, recycling, reduction in toxicity and disposal. The
cooperative will offer a variety of strategies and programs, seeking savings through negotiated
cooperative bid contract for services including recycling initiatives, specialized periodic
collection programs such as hazardous waste and bulky waste, and hauling and disposal of solid
waste and biosolids. The cooperative will also seek permanent collection sites for oil paint,
automotive fluids, household rechargeable batteries, and fluorescent bulbs. The Cooperative will
seek to serve businesses and institutions by establishing more comprehensive recycling and
hazardous waste management systems.
The Cooperative will provide education and training to municipal workers, residents, businesses
and institutions. Staff will coordinate contracts, keep comprehensive records, manage the state
reporting requirements, and represent the member communities at State and National Forums.
To achieve its mission, the Cooperative will finance its administrative and operating costs
through a variety of administrative and technical assistance grants, and fee for service programs
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Page 4
to minimize any need for direct assessments to local communities wherever possible. Some key
responsibilities for realizing these goals include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Increase the capacity in the region for source reduction, recycling, and toxicity reduction.
Provide convenient hazardous product collection services to all residents and very small
quantity hazardous waste generators.
Expand source reduction programs, especially those targeted at businesses.
Negotiate contracts for waste-ban materials, to ensure compliance with waste bans.
Work in partnership with organizations like DEP, EPA, Planning Commissions,
watershed groups, MMA, The Product Stewardship Institute in Lowell, The Northeast
Resource Recovery Association (NRRA), Northeast Recycling Council (NERC), solid
waste / recycling companies and MassRecycle.
Provide technical assistance to drop-off recycling centers to ensure facility safeguards
and compliance with regulations to prevent enforcement proceedings by DEP or other
regulatory agencies.
Encourage manufacturers to share in the responsibility for reducing and eliminating
toxics and waste while developing and marketing their products.
Update the regional solid waste plan annually.
Work with member communities on their site assignments and permit regulations
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Page 5
I. Introduction
The volume of Municipal Solid Waste is growing throughout the nation and throughout
Massachusetts. In 2000, the United States generated 232 million tons of Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW), an increase of 13 percent over 1990 levels, and 53 percent more than in 1980.
Massachusetts residents and businesses now produce 31% more waste than 10 years ago.
Currently Massachusetts incinerates 38% of its waste, landfills 13%, exports 15% and recycles
the remaining 34%. Yard waste, leaves, wood, food, paper, and paperboard, make up 70% of
MSW. All of these can be composted, yet only 5%-10% of these organic wastes are composted.
Household Hazardous Products (HHP) are still easily purchased; and they are stored in our
homes, private institutions, and public buildings including schools. Some of these products
increase risks for consumers at the point of use as well as disposal.
Since 1988, waste management policy in Massachusetts has encouraged the maintenance of
enough waste disposal capacity to meet the State’s own needs. Waste disposal capacity is
limited to neither the amount of waste generated within the state that is not recycled, so that we
should be neither a net importer nor a net exporter of trash. Exporting waste does not avoid the
potential adverse impacts of disposal, but only changes the location where these impacts occur
and creates additional impacts from increased transportation. Exporting waste also means losses
in revenues from recyclables recovery.
Even as we increase our waste reduction and recycling capacity, waste flow projections indicate
the state will still need to permit additional disposal capacity to meet a no net import / no net
export goal. In permitting this capacity, the state will continue to ensure the protection of health
and the environment and promote an integrated approach to waste management that emphasizes
waste reduction, and recycling and reuse of discarded materials. As waste management capacity
in the region becomes more restricted, any disposal or recycling facility should be viewed on a
regional basis, not just on a community basis.
Solid waste has become an issue of great concern to the communities within the Montachusett
region. The population of the 22-town Montachusett region has steadily increased at a rate of 6
percent per decade for the past twenty years, from 202,557 to 228,005, increasing the pressure
for management of solid wastes. Population in the region is projected to grow by 8 percent over
the next decade and by 15 percent in the next twenty years, to a projected total of 262,000 by
2025.
A regional study was needed to understand the current conditions and projected future impacts
on the region to prepare for a potential solid waste management crisis. The region has two
operating commercial landfills (Gardner and Fitchburg/ Westminster). The Gardner Landfill is
nearing capacity and must either be expanded or replaced. The Fitchburg/Westminster Landfill
has recently been expanded to accept MSW for a projected 20 years. Two more landfills are in
operation in Barre and Hardwick, which are outside of the Montachusett Region but which
accept wastes from the region. Both of these facilities have a limited life expectancy as well.
Several communities are considering landfill expansions; others are exploring developing
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Page 6
transfer stations. By considering the present and future condition, the study sets the stage for
addressing waste generation and diversion to reduce the need for landfills and incinerators.
The North Central Technical Assistance Group (NCTA), a group of neighboring communities
extending from Royalston to Tyngsborough and from Petersham to Berlin, formed about 6 years
ago, coming together to share contacts and solutions to solid waste issues. Actively participating
communities include Royalston, Athol, Winchendon, Ashburnham, Ashby, Townsend,
Lunenburg, Hubbardston, Gardner, Barre, Phillipston, Westminster, and Leominster. NCTA sees
the importance of reducing waste and increasing recycling, but with limited staff, time and
funding; opportunities have passed them by and resources have not been used to their fullest. In
2001, NCTA partnered with Fundamental Action to Conserve Energy (FACE) and Municipal
Recycling Incentive Program (MRIP) to apply for a DEP technical assistance grant in a first
attempt to formalize a regional approach to solid waste management. They have seen that
individual solid waste programs are not only getting more technical but more expensive, and that
the regional approach has worked with community health tasks such as permits and security
programs, and therefore the regional approach for solid waste management seems like the next
progressive step.
With Athol serving as host community, several communities in North Central Massachusetts
received a 2004 DEP Customized Technical Assistance Grant (CTAG) to create a regional solid
waste management plan, formalize a municipal cooperative and to implement the goals and
objectives of the Commonwealth’s solid waste master plan for reducing the waste stream,
increasing recycling, increasing composting, and decreasing toxicity. Participating NCTA
communities for the CTAG include Ashby, Athol, Barre, Gardner, Royalston and Winchendon.



Town of Athol:
Town of Royalston:
Town of Winchendon



Town of Ashby
City of Gardner
Town of Barre
Represented by Phil Leger Royalston Board of Health
Represented by Phil Leger Athol Health Agent,
Represented by Steve Stewart Winchendon Solid Waste and
Represented by James Kriedler Winchendon Town Manager
Represented by Mary Krapf Ashby Board of Health
Represented by Bernard Sullivan Gardner Health Agent
Represented by Sam Pickens Barre Board of Health
Regional collaboration will expand opportunities for cooperating on common solid waste issues
including recycling markets, composting initiatives, long-term disposal options and public
education. This grant will allow important regional partners to work together for the first time,
as well. These partners include the Department of Environmental Protection Municipal
Recycling Incentive Program (MRIP), the Montachusett Regional Planning Commission
(MRPC) and the Rural Community Assistance Program (RCAP Solutions). The participating
NCTA communities represent five of the twenty-two MRPC communities. It is the commitment
of organizations like RCAP and the MRPC which give this latest effort a significant chance at
succeeding where past efforts have stalled.
MRIP was a program of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), in which DEP gave
municipalities financial incentives to increase their recycling tonnage and reduce toxicity in their
waste streams. The program was funded under the Clean Environmental Fund, which was
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Page 7
financed directly from the unclaimed bottle bill money for 6 years, and was a great success.
Today DEP provides technical assistance in the form of staff time through the MRIP
coordinators throughout the state to provide local support to communities to manage their
recycling and waste reduction programs.
The MRPC has a long history of involvement in solid waste issues. In 1987, the Planning
Commission conducted a review of solid waste practices in its constituent communities.
Developing solutions to solid waste management issues is a stated objective of the regional
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) Committee for the region, which the
MRPC coordinates. The Planning Commission has reviewed several landfill expansion projects
in its constituent communities. Chapter 40B, Section 5 requires the planning commission to
study the resources, problems, possibilities and needs of its district and prepare a comprehensive
plan of development. A primary goal is that the patterns of growth and development be planned
to minimizes negative impacts and encourage opportunities to improve and protect the natural
environment, infrastructure, services, and transportation; and to balance residential and economic
development land-use and natural resources. A regional solid waste management plan supports
the requirement.
RCAP Solutions (formerly the Rural Community Assistance Program) is a well-established and
respected advocate of rural communities in Massachusetts. This non-profit has conducted
numerous projects in this area of Massachusetts and has a working relationship with many of its
town officials. RCAP technical assistance providers are federally funded and offer technical
assistance at no cost to communities.
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Page 8
A. Project Goals
The technical Assistance grant provided staff time from the Municipal Recycling Incentive Program to
coordinate activities of the North Central Technical Assistance Group, as well as support for the participation of
staff of the Montachusett Regional Planning Commission to develop the planning document and to coordinate
MRPC’s Commission Members and meetings with the Boards of Selectmen from participating communities.
Objectives of the project included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Enhanced regional participation and support for the North Central Technical Assistance Group.
Development of a waste characterization survey for the six NCTA partner communities and a general
survey of waste management in the 22 Montachusett Region communities.
Identification of a broader interest in participation on the part of Montachusett Region communities
Stakeholder Education and Outreach through the Boards of Selectmen and the planning Boards of
participating communities
Exploration of current waste management capacity needs
Identification of regional recycling, composting, and waste stream management opportunities
Recommendations for the framework of a Municipal Solid Waste Management Cooperative
Final Report/Project Recommendations
B. Process and Public Participation
Interest in the project was kindled at the Money to Burn Workshop held Wednesday, June 18, 2003. Many
communities were faced with municipal solid waste disposal contracts that were nearing an end. The workshop
invited communities to explore ways to pool their resources to develop better negotiating positions for better
services, contracts and rates.
The planning effort commenced with a workshop co-sponsored by North Central Technical Assistance Group
and MassRecycle, held on December 11, 2003, to introduce the constituent communities to existing municipal
cooperatives operating successfully in Massachusetts and to discuss the successes and lessons learned in
developing these cooperatives. The grant, awarded in January of 2004 funded a series of tasks to develop the
plan.
The partners collected data to develop a waste characterization study for the six participating communities, to
identify present waste management opportunities, and to investigate the gaps in meeting present and future
Solid Waste Management needs. The first task was to identify current and potential disposal or transfer sites for
MSW and recyclables and the permitted capacity. The partners coordinated a series of meetings with the
NCTA membership, with the Montachusett Regional Planning Commission members (comprised of
representatives from the planning boards of the 22 cities and towns in the region, and with the Boards of
Selectmen in the six participating communities, to discuss elements of the plan, potential for establishing an
implementing body, and issues the communities face. The press was invited to attend these meetings and to
issue public service announcements. Using feedback from the extensive round of meetings and data collected
on the character of the waste stream in the Montachusett region, the partners determined the appropriate waste
management organization to implement the regional plan, developing a framework for a cooperative.
Montachusett Regional Planning Commission
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Page 9
II. Municipal Solid Waste in the Montachusett Region
Over the last three decades, the Montachusett Region and several communities on its borders have grown
significantly, increasing by nearly 23 percent at an average rate of 6 percent per decade for the past twenty
years. The population of the 22-town region increased by 25,036 from 202,969 to 228,005. Since 1990, the
region has grown by 5 percent. Leominster is the fastest growing community in the region, in terms of raw
numbers, with an increase of 3,158 people between 1990 and 2000.
The rapid regional growth occurred in the rural areas in a pattern of sprawl affecting air and water quality and
exacerbated traffic problems. This sprawl is characterized by a separation of land uses into residential,
commercial, and industrial classes, which results in a fragmentation of community and a rapid consumption of
open space and agricultural lands. Many communities saw significant shifts in land use from agricultural,
forestry, and other open space uses to residential and commercial uses. The communities experiencing the most
significant impacts of growth and development were coping with unplanned “Approval Not Required”
development patterns, maintenance programs for roads, bridges, and utilities that had difficulty keeping pace
with population growth.
The growth trend is expected to continue, according to the Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic
Research of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.1 The Montachusett region is projected to grow by 8
percent by 2010 to a population of 246,400 and at a rate of 3% every five years following 2010, to a projected
population of 270,000 by 2025. For detailed information go to Appendix A.
The average annual tonnage of municipal solid waste in the Montachusett Region (based upon The US Census
since 1970 and MISER Population Estimates from 2005 to 2025, assuming a per capita annual average rate of
solid waste generation of 0.4 tons.) is noted by the chart below and Appendix B.
1
MISER uses a cohort-component projection model to produce its projections using past and current population estimates from the US Census
and its own intercensal population estimates. The growth estimate factors in vital statistics of births and deaths from the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health (DPH), international immigration data from Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS), and domestic
migration data provided by both the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The projections are strictly
demographic projections. The methodology does not use economic variables or land use suitability data. Thus the model is a trends-extended
estimate without modifying constraints.
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Page 10
Projected Growth in the Volume of Solid Waste
in the Montachusett Region
Average Annual
Volume of Trash
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Projection Year
As development increases, a correlating amount of solid waste is produced, further stressing an already strained
solid waste disposal system. As our solid waste volume has increased, regional capacity to manage the waste
has decreased. If regional growth and economic development are to be accommodated, solid waste disposal
issues must be addressed. We need to plan for the growth, not only in disposal solutions for municipal solid
waste, but also in recycling options. The waste stream must be reduced to accommodate the future.
The region consists mostly of smaller communities with a housing stock comprised of single-family units. In
the past decade, residential housing stock in region increased by roughly 7,667 units, at an average rate of 902
units per year. The greatest number of new units was built in Leominster, at 1,276 units. Remaining new
construction was spread throughout the region, and consisted primarily of single family structures. In Appendix
C lists the year 2000 housing stock distribution for communities in the Montachusett region.
Larger communities have more diverse housing stock and different needs from small communities, particularly
with PAYT programs. Most of the multi-family units are situated in the four most populous communities in the
region. Multi-family structures generally rely on dumpsters and do not participate in town recycling programs.
As such, residents in these dwellings have limited to no access to recycling. Multi-family structures with 5 plus
units have commercial hauling services. The landlords have responsibility for addressing the solid waste, which
is considered commercial waste. Recycling programs and educational tools must be tailored to the needs of the
individual communities, while achieving regional goals.
In 2000, The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) sponsored the creation of buildout analyses
for all 351 towns and cities within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in support of the Community
Preservation Act. Buildout analyses illustrate the maximum development permitted as-of-right by the local
zoning bylaws currently in place. The analysis reflects a community’s zoning bylaws and regulations. The
buildout provides an estimate of the total number of houses and commercial/industrial square footage that could
result if every piece of unprotected, buildable land is developed, if no more land is permanently protected
within a community, and if zoning remains unchanged. Using a projected growth rate based upon past growth
trends, population forecasts and economic forecasts, communities can anticipate the length of time needed to
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Page 11
reach buildout and to reach certain growth thresholds, such as when additional schools, water supplies and
sewer systems will be needed.2
According to the buildout analysis, existing residentially-zoned developable land could yield as many as
122,307 new housing units in the Montachusett Region increasing the housing stock to an estimated 206,412
units. The population in the region could potentially increase to 551,731, more than doubling the present
population of 228,005. Total water demand could increase by 600 percent to 65.3 million gallons per day, and
the total road miles could more than double, increasing to a total of 3,157 miles. The solid waste volume
estimate could increase by an additional 165,830 tons of solid waste per year to an estimated of 256,830 tons
per year. Of the additional waste, 47,950 tons was estimated to be recyclable.
Under the buildout assumptions, the Montachusett region could potentially develop 18,000 more housing units
in the next twenty years, with a corresponding average loss of 208,325 acres of open space. At an average
annual rate of 900 new residential construction permits per year, the anticipated growth potential could be
realized in 140 years. Existing zoning districts in the region have development potential for 271,708,698 square
feet of commercial and industrial floor area, as well. These estimates provide a basis for estimating future
remodeling needs, resultant future C & D, and identifying places for dealing with this material (a futures
market).
With new construction projects comes construction and demolition wastes (C&D). Throughout the 1980’s and
the 1990’s the construction boom generated tremendous amounts of construction and demolition debris, as
many places renovated or rebuilt, and as new housing was built. The need for affordable housing in
Massachusetts indicates that the annual rate of new construction is likely to continue. DEP is considering a
proposal to ban construction and demolition debris from solid waste management sites unless they are
specifically designed to process the waste stream, removing toxics and recyclables to reduce the volume. It will
be necessary to quantify the volume of C & D debris waste to be managed annually and to tailor educational
programs to address these wastes.
The mix of businesses in the region has a profound impact on the content of commercially generated solid
waste. The Montachusett region has a total of 8,196 businesses, according to Business Listings data available
from Info USA and compiled for the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, June 2003. As expected, the
greatest numbers of businesses are in Fitchburg and Leominster. The most successful sectors are the services
and retail sectors. Following these, the next most successful sector is the construction trades, followed by
finance, insurance, real estate, then by manufacturing. Appendix D lists a tally of existing businesses by
community and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) category.
The volume of wastes generated by each type of business is dependent upon the number of full time employees.
This data was unavailable at the time of this study. By understanding the types of commercial, industrial, and
residential waste and recyclables coming out of each community, the Cooperative can take a proactive approach
to service design for the commercial sector. Further research into the size of the employment rate in each
community should be conducted. The number of businesses in the Montachusett Region by Standard Industrial
Classification is in Appendix D. Appendix E then expresses the type of waste each industry produces. Which in
the Montachusett Region we have 8,196 business of which 2, 567 are Service and the next largest grouping is
Retail at 1,332. Both the Service and Retail businesses produce large volumes of paper and cardboard.
2
http://commpres.env.state.ma.us/content/buildout.asp
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Page 12
According to the analysis, the top five materials disposed across all industries in 2000 where Paper 1,143,100
Tons, Food 762, 500 tons, other organics 461,800 tons, C&D 424,100 Tons, cardboard 273,600 tons statewide.
Materials Disposed in 2000 by the Commercial Sector
1,400,000
1,200,000
Estimated Tons
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
Paper
Food
Other
Organic
s
C&D
Corrugat
ed
Cardboa
Metal
Contain
ers
Plastic
Film
Plastic
Textiles
Bulky
Waste
Series1 1,143,11 762,520 461,757 424,146 273,607 214,934 185,539 179,294 143,309 139,808 80,793
Glass
40,024
Special Mixed
Wastes Residue
37,989
21,861
Hazardo
us
Waste
Tires
10,270
9,684
Type of Material
Food, organics, and C&D debris will soon be a part of the waste bans in an effort to reduce the amount of waste
going to landfills. Organics and C&D are the main contributors of landfill odor problems as with the release of
methane gas and sulfur dioxide. The region has four categories of organic waste generators: institutions,
supermarkets, restaurants, and manufacturers. Permitted food residual composting facilities in and around the
region include: Mass Natural in Westminster, Agracomp in Bolton, Laughton’s Nursery in Westford, Martone
Landfill compost site in Barre; all of these faculties are currently underutilized. For more information go to
www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/business.
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Page 13
A. Brief history of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in the Montachusett Region,
Most if not all communities in the region had their own landfill at one time. In 1995- The US EPA required all
non lined landfills to close (40 CFR, Part 258: The USEPA has put in place federal requirements for MSW
landfills in regulations published in Part 258, Volume 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).)
By 1995, these community landfills were forced to close since they were not lined and posed potential health
and environmental problems. Communities were forced to find other options for disposing of their MSW.
Some created transfer stations at the existing landfill sites and either employed community personnel to operate
the facility or contracted private vendors to manage operations. Other towns contracted with private haulers for
curbside collection and let the hauler manage the disposal. Still others completely removed themselves from
solid waste management and let the residents subscribe with their own haulers under individual contracts.
Each option yielded advantages and disadvantages. Communities with transfer stations are faced with
expending time on research in locating facilities to accept the MSW and recyclables. Only a portion of the
residents use the transfer stations, because of the lack of convenience and access. Many people use the curbside
programs, but the amount of items that are efficiently collected are limited to paper and co-mingled containers.
Many other items are excluded. Communities that opted for private subscription services must still field calls
from residents and have less control over the service provided. Most private subscription haulers do not
encourage recycling or source reduction. A number of communities are dealing with illegal disposal issues
since options are limited and in most cases expensive. In all cases, the landfills and incinerators are limited in
capacity as well as in life expectancy of operation, driving up the price of disposal each year.
The region has two operating commercial landfills (Fitchburg/ Westminster and Gardner) Barre and Hardwick
are outside of the region but are used by private haulers, all of which are reaching capacity and must soon be
expanded or replaced. Several communities are exploring landfill expansions; others are exploring developing
transfer stations. Currently, most refuse materials from the Montachusett communities ship to the Gardner
landfill, run by Waste Management, Inc., which is permitted to take up to 93,477 tons per year. In 2002 the
facility accepted 86,970 tons of MSW, and 362 tons of C&D. The site has an expected life of less then a year.
Barre landfill, also operated by Waste Management, is permitted to take 93,522 tons per year. In 2002 the
Barre landfill accepted 80,973 tons of MSW and 12,153 tons of C&D. Barre Landfill is expected to close in 3-5
years. The Fitchburg/Westminster landfill, also operated by Waste Management, is now permitted to accept
_220,007 tons per year. In 2002, the Westminster Fitchburg facility accepted 146,540 tons of MSW, and 4,495
tons of C&D. The Fitchburg /Westminster landfill just opened a new cell with an expected life of 20 years.
The Hardwick landfill is operated by Casella Waste Systems is permitted to take up to 56,659 tons per year.
The regional has is own industries that are being proactive and have created businesses to divert material to
either reuse items, compost material, or recycling the used items to make new products. They are:
Market
Paper
Electrics-
Community
Fitchburg
Gardner Leominster
Tires
Littleton -
Industry
Newark Group, Inc., www.newarkgroup.com 978-815-8828
Electronicycle Inc- 461 W. Broadway www.elecronicycle.com 800-829-5082
East Coast Electronics Recycling, Inc; 10 Powers Street,
www.eastcoastrecycling.comm 978-537-6500
Reouthier & Sons, Inc; 256 Ayer Road, Jprouthier1@rcn.com 978-772-4251
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Clothes
Athol
Metal
Clinton
Townsend
Westminster
Lunenburg
Organics
Construction
& Demolition
Asphalt
Shingles
Pallets
Page 14
Fitchburg
Kiducation 134 Chestnut Hill Ave; www.communitycrusadeforchildren.org
978-248-9813
William Reisner- 33 Elm Street, L.cotton@reisner.com 978-365-4585
MJS Metals- 60 Turnpike Road, www.mjs.metals.com 978-597-2927
Mass Natural 978-874-0744
PJ Keating Company 998 Reservoir Road, www.PJKeating.com 978-5825223
Ken Snow
Hubbardston
Mass Pallet, 26 Gardner Road, frankmaspal@aol.com 978-928-5390
The Trash issue:
The Montachusett Region in 2005 produces 95, 000 tons a year and in 2025 it will be 108,000 tons of trash.
Our capacity will be:
Disposal site
Gardner
Barre
Westminster
2005
93,477
93,522
220,007
2008
0
93,522
220,000
2025
0
0
0
What are the options for the future for disposal?
In the Region and vicinity:
With the expected closures of Gardner’s landfill in 2005 and Barre’s landfill in 2010, and with the prevailing
philosophy of “Not in My Back Yard” (NIMBY) landfill capacity is reaching a crisis in the region. Many
towns are also starting to see that the community landfill is not an option because of the costs and regulations
associated with present day landfill development. They are also learning that economies of scale can yield
favorable rates in contracts with disposal facilities. EPA has also made a comment recently that landfills that
have been built with “state of the art” technology will eventually fail and be exposed to the environment. The
only way solution is to reduce our trash in volume and toxicity to the maximum possible while working together
to get the best rate as well.
Currently there are two proposed expansions within the region but they are very much feeling the NIMBY
philosophy in the towns of Templeton and Winchendon.
The Town of Templeton is proposing to work with Casella Waste Industries on an expansion project. The
Templeton Expansion project would resuscitate an unlined landfill, focusing on correcting a potential wetlands
impact. Templeton owns the landfill site, though Casella has a 20-year agreement for commercial capacity.
Upon approval from the community, the site could operate for 14 years accepting 500 tons of MSW a day,
serving communities in a 25 mile radius of the facility. This landfill project is in a holding pattern due to
political issues.
The Town of Winchendon has a site assignment for a C&D landfill. Currently they are working at changing its
designation to an MSW landfill. Public opinion does not support this change because the public does not want
out of town trash to come into Winchendon.
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Page 15
In the State: We have the policy of no import no export but each year more and more is being exported.
MSW
Permits over Permits over
Ash
C&D
Sludge
Incinerators
landfills
2010
2015
Landfills landfills landfills
Central Mass
1
7
4
3
1
0
0
State wide
8
20
8
6
7
0
2
In New England:
NH http://www.des.state.nh.us/waste_intro.htm
Incinerators
State wide
MSW landfills
Permits over 2010
Permits over 2015
Permits over 2010
6
Permits over 2015
5
2
ME http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/data/licecomswfac.htm
Incinerators
State wide
MSW landfills
3
8
VT http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/solid/pubs/2001PLAN.pdf
State wide
Incinerators
1 C&D only
MSW landfills
5
Permits over 2010
2
Permits over 2015
2
RI http://www.state.ri.us/dem/programs/benviron/waste/pdf/swfacs.pdf
Incinerators
MSW landfills
State wide
Permits over 2010
Permits over 2015
2
CT http://www.dep.state.ct.us
Incinerators
MSW landfills
Permits over 2010
Permits over 2015
Incinerators
MSW landfills
24
Permits over 2010
Permits over 2015
State wide
NY
10
State wide
Space for 239 M tons
Currently accept 75 M
tons
Not looking good
Each community has negotiated disposal contracts with its permitted haulers or disposal facilities. The disposal
costs range between *$70 and $200 per ton depending on the contracts communities were able to negotiate with
their haulers or disposal facilities. Eleven communities use transfer stations, six communities have recycling
centers, and two communities incinerate their solid waste. Five communities leave the waste removal decisions
to their residents, who contract individually with private haulers. Many communities have handshake deals
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Page 16
Ashby
Athol
Barre
Gardner
ºSubscriptio
2,845
n
ºSubscriptio
11,299
n
5,113 Drop-Off
Curbside
Drop-Off
20,770 PAYT
Drop Off
1,254 PAYT
Royalston
Winchend
on
9,656 Drop Off
Totals 50,937
MRPC
Region
228,005
NA
240
151
89
NA
Landfill
Closing 2010
5,398
5,313
50
5,318
3,694
9,870
Landfill
Closing '05
Annual
Hauler Contract
Annual
Hauler Contract
Hazardo
us
Waste
Special
Waste
(tons) (tons)
Yard
(tons)
Metal
(tons)
Bulk &
C&D
Recyclin
g
Rubbish
Volume
of Waste
Contrac
t Ending
Landfill
Closing
Progra
m Type
Populati
on
Commu
nity
with private haulers and with landfills, yet they are now losing favorable deals, as regional capacity shrinks.
Many others have costly arrangements. For a break down of each towns trash collection and disposal methods
go to Appendix F.
Waste Characterization
(tons)
(tons)
Yes
No
NA
NA
No
35
NA
1,112
No
Yes
(WMI)
Yes
412
100
5,647
1,689
Yes
2,156 (WMI)
Yes
335
43
660
208
285
No
Yes
75
2
2,748
24,234
899
15,912
No
Yes
193
1,050
170
315
91,202*
º Ashby and Athol are both reviewing creating a drop-off with PAYT
regional recycling at the statewide average of 34
NA
90
738
748
3,963 2,994
16%
31,008*
*
*total generation **Assuming
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Draft
Montachusett Region
Solid Waste Facilities
N
W
E
S
ROYALSTON
!;
WARWICK
Page 17
k!; !;
!;
TOWNSEND
kÅ
ASHBY
WINCHENDON
ASHBURNHAM
!;
ORANGE
ATHOL
!;
!;
PHILLIPSTON
GARDNER
FITCHBURG
TEMPLETON
WESTMINSTER
!;
!;
!;
!;
Þ
!k;
!;
!; !;
PRINCETON
NEW SALEM
!;
;! ;
! ;
!
k LANCASTER
BARRE
!;
Þ
MRPC Region
"This project is funded by a grant from
the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection"
Printed on 30% post - consumer recycled paper
NEW BRAINTREE
!;
!; CLINTON
RUTLAND
OAKHAM
HARDWICK
Town Boundaries
k
!;AYER
!; Å k
Acive Transfer
Closed Transfer
BOXBOROUGH
ACTON
BOLTON
Inactive Transfer
WEST Legend
BOYLSTON
BOYLSTON
Solid Waste Landfill
!;
!;
!;
Active Landfill
Closed landfill
Construction/Demolition
Å
Inactive C & D
NORTHBOROUGH
Inactive Landfill
LITTLETON
!;
HARVARD
STOW
L=Active Landfill
C=Active Compost sites
R=Active Drop-off, Recycling
Center
MAYNARD
SUDBURY
HUDSON
BERLIN
HOLDEN
Transfer Stations
k
PAXTON
NCTA Grant Towns
k
Major Roads
WESTFORD
SHIRLEY
!;
STERLING
TYNGSBOROUGH
Þ
LUNENBURG
LEOMINSTER
HUBBARDSTON
PETERSHAM
!; GROTON
!;
!;Å
DUNSTABLE
PEPPERELL
MARLBOROUGH
Composting Facilities
Þ
Active Composting
Þ
Closed Composting
SOUTHBOROUGH
FRAMINGHAM
SHREWSBURY
B. Waste Bans and Regulations
Over the past decade the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has amended its solid
waste facility regulations to restrict acceptance of recoverable materials such as lead-acid
batteries, white goods, leaves and yard waste, glass, metal and plastic containers, all paper,
cardboard, and paperboard products; whole tires and cathode ray tubes (CRTs) (televisions and
computer monitors).3 Additional materials banned from disposal at solid waste combustion
facilities, landfills and transfer stations include hazardous wastes and infectious wastes.4
The waste bans are designed to reduce our dependence on landfills and incinerators, remove
toxic substances from the environment, and promote business and residential recycling efforts by
ensuring that large volumes of material are available on a consistent basis. The waste bans apply
to any solid waste destined for a Massachusetts landfill, combustion facility or transfer station,
including all residential and commercial wastes. It is the responsibility of all facility operators to
ensure that only allowable quantities of restricted materials are disposed of at their sites.
Waste ban inspections are routinely conducted at Gardner, Barre, Leominster, FitchburgWestminster. Haulers that formerly used the recycling facility in Orange are now disposing of
more recyclables at these facilities. The waste ban inspections prevent excessive disposal of
materials that were intended to be diverted from the waste stream.
Operators of solid waste handling and disposal facilities must conduct continuous waste stream
monitoring of all incoming loads. Periodically they must conduct comprehensive waste load
inspections of certain loads. The facility must respond to failed loads and send written
communication to responsible parties when they deliver unacceptable amounts of restricted
materials. Rejected waste loads may subject the waste generator or hauler to a reloading charge
at the original disposal facility or a charge for culling recyclables from the mixed waste. Waste
3
General Requirements, Procedures and Permits for Solid Waste Management Facilities, 310 CMR 19.000 - PART I, waste
disposal restrictions at 310 CMR 19.017.
4
as defined in 310 CMR 30 and 105 CMR 480
Montachusett Regional Planning Commission
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Page 18
haulers may incorporate the risk of possible rejection into the service charges to communities or
businesses that do not recycle. Listed below are the restricted materials and their definitions.
Lead-acid Batteries
Lead-acid batteries used in motor vehicles or stationary
applications are not acceptable.
White Goods
Appliances employing electricity, oil, natural gas or liquefied
petroleum gas to preserve or cook food, to wash or dry clothing,
cooking or kitchen utensils or related items, or to cool or heat
air or water are not acceptable. These include refrigerators,
freezers, dish washers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, gas or
electric ovens and ranges, and hot water heaters.(310 CMR
19.006)
Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs)
Any intact, broken, or processed glass tube used to provide the
visual display in televisions, computer monitors and certain
scientific instruments such as oscilloscopes are prohibited. (310
CMR 19.006)
Whole Tires (landfills only)
Whole car and truck tires of all types. A tire can be landfilled
only if it has been shredded or ground into at least four pieces so
that it no longer has a circular shape. Combustion facilities and
transfer stations can accept whole tires.
Leaves and Yard Waste
Deciduous and coniferous leaves, grass clippings, garden
materials, shrub trimmings, and brush up to one inch in
diameter. Unbagged Leaves and Yard Waste should not exceed
10% of the waste load by volume. Bagged Leaves and Yard
Waste are limited by the types of transport vehicle:
• transfer trailer - 40 bags;
• roll-off container - 20 bags;
• packer truck - 10 bags;
• dump truck or smaller - 5 bags;
Glass, Metal and
The combined allowable level established for glass, metal and
plastic
Narrow-Neck Plastic Containers containers is 5 or fewer units per bag of refuse.5
Recyclable Paper
All paper, cardboard, and paperboard products excluding tissue
paper, toweling, paper plates, cups, and other low-grade paper
products which become unusable to paper mills as a result of
normal intended use. Recyclable Paper should not exceed 20%
of the waste load by volume or not more than 20% of 3 or more
sampled bags.
5
Metal Containers - Aluminum, steel or bi-metal beverage and food containers. Glass Containers - Glass bottles
and jars excluding light bulbs, plate glass, ceramics, Pyrex cookware, drinking glasses, windows, and windshields.
Single Resin Narrow-necked Plastics - all narrow-necked plastic containers of any resin type.
Montachusett Regional Planning Commission
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Page 19
Proposed Waste Ban Regulations
The (C&D) Debris Subcommittee (a group of external stakeholders) of the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee has recommended to the Massachusetts (DEP) adding certain (C&D) debris materials
to the list of waste ban materials. As recommended, this would mean that asphalt paving, brick,
concrete, wood and metals would be restricted from disposal or transfer for disposal at
Massachusetts’ solid waste facilities. The proposed ban will affect municipalities, processors,
contractors and others involved in the collection and processing of C & D debris. The
recommendation from the (C&D) Debris Subcommittee to the DEP includes an exemption for
solid waste handling facilities that received the restricted items of (C&D) debris in vehicles with
a capacity of five cubic yards or less, such as a resident dropping off material at a local
municipal transfer station in a pick-up truck. These solid waste handling facilities would not
have to conduct continuous monitoring. An infrastructure is currently in place.6
Organics from commercial facilities are also in consideration in becoming a waste ban product
with in the next 5-10 years. This would be for post consumer material. An infrastructure is
currently being forges and DEP has a density map of generators and processors.
http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/compost.htm.
Solid Waste Management Plan Goals and Objectives
The primary goal of this plan is to address solid waste management issues embracing the
principles of sustainability and sustainable practices outlined in Beyond 2000, the State’s waste
management strategy. Three key activities constitute this approach: Reduce, Reuse, and
Recycle.
Source reduction is the most environmentally preferable and potentially least costly alternative to
waste management. Wastes not generated do not need to be managed; therefore the costs and
impacts of waste management are avoided altogether. Source reduction also includes reuse of
materials, which has less environmental impacts than recycling. Key components of our strategy
include:
Promote Source Reduction by:
• Increase backyard composting of yard, food, and paper waste.
• Promote Pay-As-You-Throw municipal trash programs.
• Promote material exchange networks and other opportunities for reuse of products.
• Promote source reduction concepts in building design and construction.
• Provide education and technical assistance to consumers and businesses on how they can
reduce the amount of waste they generate.
Toxicity Reduction is a subset of source reduction that will have significant environmental
benefits. Many of the products that people routinely throw in the trash contain substances that
constitute a toxic threat to the environment. Therefore, we must ensure that products contain
fewer toxics and that those which do contain toxics are removed from the waste stream for
recycling or proper disposal. Key components of our strategy include:
6
C&D locations- Markets http://www.stopwaste.org/
Montachusett Regional Planning Commission
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
•
•
Page 20
Expand household hazardous products collection efforts (including convenient collection
programs, local and regional permanent collection centers).
Promote Environmentally Preferable Products purchasing.
Backyard composting is a successful means of reducing the volume of moisture-laden organic
material in the waste stream. Organics can contribute to the toxicity of landfills by supplying
acids and moisture to materials in the landfill that then react chemically to increase toxic
leachate. In addition, many people don’t realize that compost helps hold moisture in garden soils,
which can make the difference between life and death to plants during drought conditions.
•
Expand municipal programs for composting organic materials and develop education
programs for encouraging backyard composting (including convenient collection
programs, local and regional permanent collection centers).
Reuse of materials that are still in good condition extends their useful life and prolongs the time
preceding the ultimate disposal in a landfill or incinerator. There are many things people dispose
of that others in the local community or in neighboring communities may need. Through
partnerships in the community and with neighboring communities, these materials can be identified
and managed through regional swap-shops. This strategy encourages the formation of partnerships
with volunteers, the local press, town departments, town residents and businesses both within
communities and between communities, to both educate the public and manage programs for
reusing viable items.
Many materials that can be recycled are currently being disposed, resulting in lost economic and
environmental protection benefits. This practice is not sustainable in the long run, and so
stronger actions are needed to ensure recovery of recyclable materials. The benefits of recycling
include reductions in the disposal of usable raw materials; savings in energy and water usage;
and reductions in air and water pollution. Recycling reduces disposal costs, since recycling
programs in municipal offices, schools and businesses are often less expensive than disposing of
materials as waste. The goal of our recycling efforts must be to ensure that all waste is processed
for the removal of recyclables prior to disposal. Key components of our strategy include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provide technical assistance to municipalities in seeking grants and incentive programs
for recycling programs.
Promote Pay-As-You-Throw municipal trash programs.
Assist communities with managing refuse subject to waste bans.
Increase recycling access to residents, multi-family, commercial, municipal buildings and
school
Encourage business participation in a solid waste management co-op.
Establish recycling collection programs in community public spaces
Implement education campaigns for source reduction, waste bans recycling and technical
assistance to residents, municipalities, schools, multi- family complexes, commercial and
industrial businesses and the construction industry to increase participation in recycling
programs.
Increase the amount of materials that maybe reused and recycled within the region. See
Appendix H for what some communities in Central mass are collecting.
Montachusett Regional Planning Commission
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Page 21
Trash and recycling programs costs communities and residents.
Private Curbside
Cost per
household
Tax base
Cost per
household
Tax base
$200-400
No line item- illegal
dumping
Athol- Hubbardston
Municipal
Curbside
$150-250
PAYT Curbside
all
None- part
Tyngsborough
Lunenburg
$100-200
Curbside/dropoff
$200
PAYT
Curb/Drop
$100
Drop-off
PAYT drop-off
$150
$60
All
Townsend
Part
Gardner
none
Winchendon
little
Groton
Listed in Appendix H are the Reduce and Reuse Programs reported to exist in the Montachusett
Region. Only six communities have adopted a Pay-as-you-Throw program, which is an effective
means of creating incentive to recycle at the individual level. A few communities sell compost
bins and provide education on composting.
Listed in Appendix G provides a broad-brush picture of recycling programs in the region. Most
communities have a DEP approved recycling plan (DARP). The region has room for
improvement in its overall recycling rate. In general, the table is lacking information, and
committed staff time is needed to collect the data in most of the categories. With a dedicated
staff person focused on the reporting requirements each community must complete, this
information could be consistently tracked for all the communities in the region. This would
allow a means of tracking progress across time.
Most communities participate in recycling programs of one type or another. Several provide
drop-off recycling centers. The drop-off recycling centers can offer a wide range of services for
recycling a vast variety of materials. Several others have curbside recycling or a mix of both.
Those who subscribe with a private waste hauler often need to ask for recycling and they have
limited recycling options. Since residents pay a premium to have a private hauler it is not in their
economic interest to reduce their trash. Often the fees involved with certain types of recycling
commodities have been so high that people will store the waste at home waiting for another
disposal option, such as computers and appliances. Communities report evidence of illegal
dumping to avoid the fees. Similarly, in communities that have subscription services, recycling
services may not be offered. In a region seeking to capitalize on its ecological tourism potential,
illegal dumping cannot be tolerated. For more detailed information go to Appendix H.
Montachusett Regional
Planning Commission
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Irene’s latest version
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Page 22
Hazardous wastes present a significant challenge to the region. Nine of the twenty –three
communities have ever had a hazardous waste day, and those that do generally scheduled only
one or two per year at best. Some of the drop-off centers accept certain hazardous wastes, for a
fee. For more information go to Appendix I.
While collection events do publicize the need to dispose of Household Hazardous Wastes
properly, they can also cause traffic issues. In limited cases, the collection sites can become a
hazardous environment since they draw a lot of people who bring everything. If the community
and/or the vendor is unaware of the mix of products to be disposed of at the event, or the number
of people likely to attend it, steps should be taken to ensure the event is fully staffed and
prepared. By requiring pre-registration for the event, people can be assigned an arrival time,
minimizing wait time and ensuring the right materials are brought.
Construction and Demolition Waste is subject to a waste ban. It is also an objective of the State
to encourage communities to develop consistent local policies for Commercial and Residential
Construction and Demolition materials. Components of such policies include requiring a plan
for management, reuse, recycling, and ultimate disposal of these materials when issuing permits
for building or remodeling town buildings and schools, as well as private projects. Components
of the plan would address clean wood recycling, mercury removal and recycling, and reuse of
removed doors, windows, concrete, and asphalt. Communities can facilitate such permit
requirements by providing a drop-off area where people can take good wood and materials, and
offer them in trade for other recycled materials.
At present, construction demolition programs appear to be non-existent in the region, according
to available data reported here. Again, the information is incomplete and requires dedicated staff
time to track progress in implementing. Similarly, materials thatare difficult to dispose of need
collection programs in the region.
Community History:
Ashby – The town is in the process of finding a long term solution for their waste. They have
voted to establish a town only, transfer station. The site will be a PAYT facility.
Athol and Royalston – These two communities share a Health Agent. Phil Leger.
Athol- Athol closed and capped its landfill 5 years ago. Since Orange closed its regional
transfer station, Athol has been trying to establish a PAYT transfer station, on very little
money. Athol was granted a Technical Assistance grant to establish a regional compost
facility to be sited at the local equestrian center. They are acting host for the regional
study.
Montachusett Regional
Planning Commission
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Irene’s latest version
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Page 23
Royalston- Royalston closed and capped its landfill in 2004. They have a PAYT
transfer station, which is widely used. They have opened their recycling center to haulers
that were once recycling in Orange which is now closed to haulers and other nonresidents. As they opened their doors they made a deal with Newark America in
Fitchburg to take their paper for free.
The Health Agent, Phil Leger said, “Trucking of trash is always an issue. We’re faced with
trucking trash outside the region, but is that environmentally and financially sound? With
recycling and trash, its all about trucking. For towns involved in transfer stations recycling
amounts are critical. We need a viable, economically sound place to bring things.”
Barre – The Barre landfill will be closing in 3-5 years. Waste Management operates the
commercial landfill and the residential transfer station. The town will receive ownership of the
transfer station at the end of the contract. They have already started looking at opinions for their
waste and considering PAYT.
Gardner –With Gardner’s landfill closing and curbside contract nearing completion they are
looking for a disposal site, and service. Their solid waste costs exceed 5% of City’s budget,
excluding the school budget and they expect a doubling of their per ton cost. Gardner has
adopted a modified Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) program to start January 1, 2005, providing the
collection of the first barrel free of charge. Subsequent bags in excess of the one barrel will be
purchased through local vendors.
Hubbardston: Residents subscribe with haulers under private contract for curbside trash
removal. The Recycling Committee operates a recycling center drop-off facility that is open once
a month for hard to manage items.
Templeton – Templeton is currently awaiting legal opinions and a ruling from the Attorney
General regarding its Landfill Expansion plans. The Town has an unlined landfill next to
wetlands and beaver activity is making the situation worse. Expansion plans include reclaiming
the material from the unlined landfill and relocating it to a new double lined cell on the property,
away from the wetland, while also expanding regional capacity. The town is also looking for a
solution for bulky items and illegal dumping.
Winchendon - The Town is collaborating with Phillipston on hauling plastics to Keene, NH.
They have a 48% recycling rate without the use of a PAYT program. The town has a proposal
for expansion of their closed landfill. Currently the permit is for 300 tons/day of Construction
and Demolition waste, but due to the limited value for C & D disposal since the waste bans, the
town is trying to change the permit to accept MSW. It was voted down at a special town
meeting, the residents did not want outside waste.
Leominster – Their trash and recycling contracts expire on June 30, 2005. The Leominster
Health Department and the Solid Waste Committee are currently exploring options for the next
three year contracts. Leominster has a low recycling rate which has resulted in costs being
higher than rubbish collection and disposal.
Montachusett Regional Planning Commission
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Montachusett Plan
Goal: Divert the Waste Stream
Objectives:
1.
Identify the waste materials that need to be diverted and project needs 20 years
into the future.
2.
Identify any shortfall of capacity and opportunities to direct materials.
3.
Track trends affecting waste stream management (i.e. waste bans, population and
projections, regulatory changes, economic development). Anticipate future
disposal costs and fiscal impacts on N. Worcester County towns
4.
Determine the most cost effective methods to divert the waste stream.
5.
Develop an office paper recycling collection program for Town offices of
member communities and small businesses
6.
Track diversions of solid waste materials to estimate success rates of programs.
Goal: Support local economic development incentives
Objectives:
1.
Identify existing opportunities.
2.
Research the best available emerging technologies.
3.
Partner with existing economic development organizations, such as: the Chambers
of Commerce, the Montachusett Enterprise Center, Inc., the Comprehensive
Economic Development Committee, and the Montachusett Regional Brownfields
Reuse Initiative Steering committee.
Goal: Find cost effective solid waste services
Objectives:
1.
2.
Take advantage of economies of scale.
Conduct a market analysis.
Montachusett Regional Planning Commission
Saturd
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Goal: Ensure that the solid waste plan and organizational operations are environmentally
compatible.
Objectives:
1.
2.
Take responsibility for our solid waste.
Select vendors with demonstrated performance of environmentally sound business
practices.
Goal: Upgrade community programs for solid waste management in communities
throughout the region.
Objectives:
1.
Identify technical assistance needs.
2.
Lend support to “washed hands” communities, i.e. hosting events.
3.
Increase regional access to Household Hazardous Waste disposal sites for all
residents, businesses and schools, through regional annual or semiannual
collection events with reciprocal privileges for residents of member communities.
4.
Develop an education program addressing: HHW, pesticides, toxic products etc.
Educate municipal governments, schools, and businesses on methods to avoid
unnecessary printing, and to conserve paper, such as two-sided printing.
Encourage recycling education, recycling programs, and the importance about
buying recycled materials. To also promote municipal pesticide reduction and
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy that eliminates pesticide use on
municipal buildings and grounds, except as a last resort.
5.
Identify infrastructure needs.
6.
Increase access to solid waste diversion options.
Goal: Streamline Reporting Requirements and Quality Control the Information
Objectives:
1.
2.
3.
Collect statistics on volumes of trash and recycling for each community on a
monthly basis
Complete DEP’s Data Sheet annually for each member or participating
community
Submit updates of the Solid Waste Plan for the Region to the Board of Directors
annually to reflect changes in priorities and technologies.
Montachusett Regional Planning Commission
Saturd
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Goal: Promote Best Management Practices for waste diversion.
Objectives:
1.
2.
Implement PAYT programs.
Develop model programs using progressive waste diversion techniques (business
recycling, commercial organics composting, home composting, etc.).
Goal: Promote a “Buy Recycled” Purchasing Policy among member communities
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Purchase products made with recycled materials if they are reasonably
competitive with non-recycled products, and will coordinate bulk purchasing
contracts for member communities or those participating under contract
agreement.
Seek favorable pricing under bulk purchasing contracts.
All print orders shall be printed on recycled paper with vegetable-based inks to
replace toxic petroleum-based inks, and shall say “printed on recycled paper”.
Make use of state blanket contracts for cleaning products, office products and
other items that can are recycled or less toxic, wherever pricing is favorable.
Set an achievement threshold or milestone for per capita spending for recycled
products
Develop an education program for member communities to emphasize the
importance of buying recycled products to residents of the communities.
Goal: Establish partnerships with organizations that have compatible missions.
Objectives:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Gain support for the solid waste plan
Conduct outreach.
Support business development in progressive waste diversion industries.
Participate in regional organizations as appropriate.
Goal: Ensure that actions under the plan are appropriate to the scope of the plan and
sensitive to the needs and character of communities in the region.
Objectives:
1. Give monthly updates to member communities representative, town officials and town
planners
2. Give quarterly updates to MRIP and MRIPC which will be passed on to others in the
region.
Montachusett Regional Planning Commission
Saturd
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
III. Solid Waste Management Cooperatives and Districts
By focusing on five major components of the waste stream, recyclables, compost, toxics,
wastewater treatment plant sludge, and solid waste. A solid waste cooperative can aid
communities in addressing municipal solid waste management needs by streamlining the
processes and methods of dealing with the waste flow. By consolidating their efforts and buying
power, communities can achieve economies of scale, favorable rates for hauling and disposal of
trash, for processing of recyclables, for providing specialized waste collection events. By
consolidating buying power communities can achieve greater efficiency in meeting the goals and
objectives of the State’s Waste Prevention Strategy. Securing professional staffing can aid
communities and achieving a consistent approach with neighboring communities, while
enhancing friendly relationships. Professional staff can meet the reporting requirements for
member communities, as well. This can provide useful data on local and regional success rates,
as well as build a spirit of regional enthusiasm and cooperation to meet regional goals. A
summary of benefits includes:
Regional cooperative buying power
Venue for negotiation of contracts and capacity
Expansion of Economic Development capacity
Volume-based reduction in hauling and tipping costs
Reduction in waste stream through organized diversions of the waste stream
Resource Recovery
Reduction in illegal dumping in rural areas
Fee-for-service participation options
A. Existing Districts and Cooperatives in Massachusetts
Six districts or cooperatives currently exist, servicing 247,000 people in 60 communities. These
entities primarily serve the rural communities of Massachusetts, who’s costs are driven by lack
of volume of trash, which drives up the cost if managed by individual communities or left to
residents to negotiate.






Franklin County Solid Waste Management District
Northern Berkshire County Solid Waste Management District
Southern Berkshire County Solid Waste Management District
Hilltown Resource Management Cooperative
South Shore Recycling Cooperative
Greater New Bedford Regional Refuse Management District
The Hilltown Resource Management Cooperative assists 11 member communities with
developing a comprehensive integrated waste management program in the service region.7 Eric
Weiss, HRMC Administrator, states that, our board is made up of two appointed volunteers from
each of the eleven member towns who are concerned about recycling and the environment. The
7
Ashfield, Chesterfield, Cummington, Goshen, Hatfield, Huntington, Middlefield, Plainfield, Westhampton, Williamsburg
and Worthingon
Montachusett Regional Planning Commission
Saturd
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
services offered include program administration, technical grant writing, and the development of
new comprehensive and innovative recycling programs. The HRMC conducts annual outreach
efforts in as many schools in the region as possible each fiscal year. HRMC educates residents
on waste management, recycling, and resource conservation issues when appropriate at Town
meetings or in special public meetings. HRMC encourages all towns to buy recycled when
possible; though small towns prefer to use local contractors and services for cost and familiarity
reasons whenever possible. HRMC supports the use and development of local or regional
recycling markets. The waste management programs offer added benefits through efforts to
conserve energy, to prevent pollution and eliminate waste, to protect the water supply and
conserve water, to protect or minimize impact on woodlands, waterways and green space.
Through partnerships with organizations such as the MRF Advisory Board, Mass Recycle, MRIP
program through DEP and the Municipal Recycling Council, HRMC is able to implement
sustainable practices to reduce the waste stream and educate the public.
Massachusetts
Solid Waste Management Districts
and Cooperatives
Draf
AM ES BURY
SALIS BURY
ME RRIM AC
NEW BURY PO RT
W ES T N EW B URY
HAV ERHILL
NEW BURY
G RO VE LA ND
CLARK SBU RG
MO N RO E
ME TH UEN
G EO RG E TO W N
RO W E
W ILLIAM ST O W N
LE YDE N
HEA TH
NO RT H ADA M S
CO LRAIN
FLO RIDA
RO YA LS TO N
NO RT HFIE LD
ASH BY
W AR W ICK
W INCH ENDO N
SAV O Y
BUCK LAND
ERV ING
G REE NFIE LD
SHE LB URNE
AT HO L
FIT CHB URG
G ARDN ER
W ES TF O RD
PLAINF IELD
W INDS O R
ASH FIE LD
SHIRLE Y
TE MP LET O N
LIT T LE TO N
SUND ERLAN D
LE VE RET T
PRINC ET O N
W O RT HING T O N
CHES TE RF IELD
HADLE Y
RUT LA ND
HARD W ICK
HO LDEN
W ES T B O YLST O N
BO YLS TO N
CHES TE R
EAS TH AM PT O N SO UT H HA DLEY
W AR E
BELCH ERT O W N
G RANB Y
W O RCE ST ER
NO RT H BRO O K FIE LD
G RAF TO N
EAS T B RO O KF IELD
BRO O K FIE LD
AUB URN
W ES TF IELD
BRIM F IELD
W ILBRA HAM
SAN DISF IELD
O XF O RD
SPR ING FIE LD
TO LLAND
AG AW AM
SO UT HW IC K
EAS T LO NG M E ADO W HAM PD EN
LO N G ME ADO W
SUT TO N
NO RT HBRID G E
ST URBR IDG E
MO N SO N
G RANV ILLE
HO LLA ND
SO UT HBR IDG E
W EB ST ER
DO UG LAS
CO HAS SE T
HING HA M
NO RW O O D
CANT O N
RAND O LP H
NO RW E LL
W ALP O LE
HO LBRO O K
RO CKLA ND
AVO N
NO RF O LK
SHA RO N
ST O UG HT O N
FRA NKLIN
ABIN G TO N
BRO CK TO N
W RE NTH AM
UXB RIDG E
SCIT UAT E
BRA INTR EE W EY M O UTH
HO PE DALE
ME NDO N
DUDLEY
MILT O N
W ES TW O O D
MILLIS
ME DW A Y
BELLING HA M
W ALE S
Q UINCY
DEDH AM
DO VE R
SHE RBO RN
ME DF IELD
MILF O RD
CHAR LT O N
HULL
HO LLIS TO N
MILLBU RY
UPT O N
W ES T S PRIN G FIE LD
NEE DHAM
ASH LA ND
HO PK INTO N
PALM ER
RUSS ELL
NEW MA RLBO RO U G H
E
S
BO ST O N
W ELLES LEY
NAT ICK
LE ICES TE R
W AR REN
LU DLO W
CHICO P EE
SHE FF IELD
W
W INT HRO P
W ES TB O RO UG H
W ES T B RO O KF IELD
HO LYO KE
BLAND FO RD
EG RE MO N T
MO U NT W AS HING T O N
BELM O NT
CAM BR IDG E
SO M ERV ILLE
BRO O K LIN E
FRA M ING HAM
SHRE W S BURY
SPE NCE R
MO N TG O M ER Y
N
NAHA NT
REV ERE
EVE RET T
CHELS EA
NEW TO N
SO UT HBO R O UG H
SO UT HAM P TO N
O TIS
MA RBLE HEA D
LY NN SW A M PSC O TT
MA RLBO RO U G H
PAX TO N
HUNT ING T O N
TY RING HA M
MO N TE REY
PEA BO DY
SAU G US
MA LDEN
W AT ER TO W N
W ES TO N
NO RT HBO RO U G H
NEW BRA INTR EE
W ES TH AM PT O N
G REA T B ARRIN G TO N
W ALT HAM
W AY LAND
NO RT HAM PT O N
LE E
BEC KET
ALFO R D
O AKH AM
SUDB URY
HUDS O N
BER LIN
AM HER ST
MID DLEF IELD
W ES T S TO C KBR IDG E
ST O CKB RIDG E
ME DF O RD
ARLING T O N
LIN CO LN
MA YNA RD
CLINTO N
PELHA M
HAT FIE LD
W AS HING T O N
LE NO X
ST O W
ME LRO SE
W INCH EST ER
LE XING T O N
BO LTO N
BAR RE
W ILLIAM SB URG
RICHM O ND
LY NNF IELD
W AK EF IELD
W O BU RN
ST O NEHA M
ST ERLING
BEV ERLY
SALE M
BURLING T O N
BED FO RD
ACT O N
CO NCO RD
NEW SALE M
MA NCHE ST ER
DANV ERS
REA DING
CARLIS LE
BO XB O RO UG H
LA NCA ST ER
HUBB ARD ST O N
PET ER SHA M
SHUT ES BUR Y
W HA TE LY
G O SHE N
PER U
W ILM ING TO N
LE O M INST ER
HARV ARD
HINSD ALE
G LO U CES TE R
NO RT H REA DING
BILLERICA
W ES TM INS TE R
DEE RFIE LD
CO NW A Y
CUM M ING TO N
ESS EX
W EN HAM
CHELM SF O RD
AYE R
DALT O N
PIT TS FIE LD
HAM ILTO N
TE W KS BUR Y
LU NENB URG
PHILLIPS TO N
W EN DELL
RO CKP O RT
TO P SF IELD
MID DLET O N
O RANG E
MO N TA G UE
BO XF O RD
NO RT H AND O VER
ANDO V ER
G RO TO N
HAW LE Y
LA NES BO RO U G H
IPSW ICH
DRAC UT
TY NG SB O RO UG H
LO W ELL
CHES HIRE
HANC O CK
DUNS TA BLE
PEP PE RELL
TO W NSE ND
ASH BURN HAM
G ILL
NEW ASH FO RD
RO W LEY
LA W RE NCE
BER NARD ST O N
CHAR LE M O NT
ADA MS
PEM B RO KE
HANS O N
EAS TO N
PRO V INCET O W N
DUXB URY
EAS T B RIDG E W AT ER
W ES T B RIDG E W AT ER
MA NSF IELD
PLAINV ILLE
MA RSH FIE LD
HANO V ER
W HIT M AN
FO X BO RO UG H
BLACK ST O NE
MILLVILLE
TRU RO
HALIF AX
BRIDG E W A TE R
NO RT H AT TLE BO RO UG H
KING S TO N
PLYM PT O N
NO RT O N
W ELLF LE ET
AT TLEB O RO
RAY NHAM
TA UNT O N
MRPC Region
Towns
Hilltown Resource Management Cooperative
South Shore Recycling Cooperative
Northern Berkshires Solid Waste Management District
Greater New Bedford Regional Refuse Management District
Franklin County Solid Waste Management District
Southern Berkshire Solid Waste Management District
NCTA Grant Communities
CARV ER
MID DLEBO R O UG H
SEE KO NK
REHO B O TH
BER KLEY
DIG HT O N
PLYM O UT H
EAS TH AM
LA KE VILLE
W AR EHA M
SW A NSE A
O RLEAN S
FRE ET O W N
SO M ERS ET
BRE W ST ER
RO CHE ST ER
FA LL RIV ER
ACUS HNE T
SAN DW ICH
MA RIO N
DENN IS
BO URN E
HARW ICH
BAR NST AB LE
NEW BED FO RD
CHAT HA M
YAR MO U TH
MA TT AP O ISE TT
FA IRHAV EN
DART M O UT H
MA SHP EE
W ES TP O RT
FA LM O UT H
G O SNO LD
TIS BURY
O AK B LUFF S
W ES T T ISB URY
CHILM ARK
EDG A RTO W N
G AY H EAD
NANT UCK ET
For detailed information about each of the Cooperatives and Districts within Massachusetts
review Appendix J.
Montachusett Regional Planning Commission
Saturd
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
B. Quantifiable Benefits
The Franklin County Solid Waste Management District realized a number of quantifiable
benefits through regional cooperation and enhanced buying power. The District saves its
member towns money by coordinating bids every 2-3 years for hauling trash, recyclables, bulky
items, appliances/scrap metal, and waste water treatment sludge. The regional hauling prices are
usually much cheaper than what the town would get individually. The district also looks at other
operations in the town, including purchasing recycled copy paper in bulk and managing
hazardous waste from highway garages. The district completes reports, grants, and
miscellaneous program paperwork for towns.
On its regional Household Hazardous Waste contract, the District saved member towns 25% plus
the $750 set up fee. On its regional Construction and Demolition Waste contract, district member
towns enjoy a $57/ton tipping rate instead of the gate price of $75/ ton. On its regional
Electronics contract, district members received a 50% discount from the state contract.
District towns collectively saved over $275,000 in disposal costs in 2003, through the efforts of
the district to achieve source reduction and increase access to recycling. The Town of Heath was
paying $250 for hauling trash. As a member of the Franklin County District, their hauling price
is now $182 per haul. Each town saved over $3,000 per year in hauling costs. Through the
regional contract for hauling trash and recycling, the Town of Heath was able to save 15% over
the rate they paid individually. Similarly, the Town of Rowe was paying $260 per haul, plus
$100 per ton for trash disposal. As a member of the Franklin County District, the town now pays
$160 per haul and $66 per ton for trash disposal. This saved the town over $4,000 a year.
Individually 15 waste water treatment facilities paid $627,000 for sludge disposal. Under the
Franklin County regional contract for sludge disposal, the facilities paid $485,000, a savings of
22%.
The district allows each town to determine the fate of its solid waste. Towns are invited to join
district bids for disposal but are not required to do so. Towns are also able to participate in the
bid but not accept the awarded contractor. There are no restrictions for membership.
In North Central Mass it could be possible for a member town to also own their own disposal
facility, they would be considered just one of the possible bidders and would not change their
standing in the Cooperative. If a town owns a disposal facility, they are entitled to bid on
disposal capacity just as a private company would. The cooperative would hold a contract
between the town and the coop. Other towns would sign a Memorandum of Understanding with
the coop. All contracts and agreements would be clear of the division of interests.
Subscription communities can benefit even if they don’t use the fee-for-service programs, such
as hauling contracts. The cooperative would work with town offices, highway garages,
businesses, institutions, and residents in all towns. State and federal grants are available to all
towns. All towns participate in the cooperatives annual bulky waste collection and household
hazardous waste collection. The cooperative would assists with public education on illegal
dumping and backyard burning employing effective methods used in other regions of
Montachusett Regional
Planning Commission
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Massachusetts and New England. These communities would also benefit from time savings on
the annual reporting and quality control done by the cooperative staff on behalf of the
communities.
The cooperative would not own or operate any facilities. Small businesses are not supplanted by
regionalizing services. Our fee-for-service program is based upon bids from private businesses,
including small, local companies. In this situation, the cooperative would work to create a milkruns in order to maximize efficiency.
Jan Ameen, the Franklin County Solid Waste Management District, Director stated that seeing
first hand how 6-10 towns going out to bid receives such better rates then one town does, makes
her a believer in regional bids. It shows that towns can save money by using their buying power.
The Franklin County District is funded 90% by administrative fees on fee for service programs
which reduces member’s assessments greatly. These regional fee for service bids saves towns
money, gives haulers the secure business that they enjoy and funds the organization.
Montachusett Regional
Planning Commission
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
C. Sample Budget
To illustrate how the cooperative would function financially, the team estimated a preliminary
budget for the first year of operation. It consists of anticipated operational expenses and
hypothetical revenue sources. From there, the analysis illustrates four cases under which a
possible assessment might be allocated, should it prove necessary to assess member communities
for participation in the cooperative.
For the first two years it is intended to fund the cooperative through grant funding for staff, in an
effort to build the cooperative and establish bulk purchasing contracts. It will be the objective of
the cooperative staff and board to contain costs, to seek grant funding for all initiatives, and to
creatively expand financing options through recycling markets, fee-based services, and favorable
hauling and disposal contracts. Below is the proposed budget for the first 2 years at $35,000.
After the first two years an assessment may be required to fund the program, Appendix L shows
the possible assessments.
Sample 2005 Budget for North Central Regional Solid Waste Cooperative
EXPENSES
Administration - Board of Commissioners
Professional & Technical - Treasurer
$1,000.00
Professional & Technical - Legal
$1,000.00
Salary - 20 to 25 hours / week
$25,000.00
Employee Benefit - Workman's Comp
$715.00
Employee Benefit - Unemployment
$55.00
Employee Benefit - Medicare
$330.00
Office Equipment
$300.00
In State Travel - Travel
$700.00
Advertising - Legal Ads
$1,000.00
Telephone & Internet
$1,300.00
Postage
$600.00
Office - Other
$500.00
Program Expenses
$1,000.00
Education Flyers
$1,500.00
TOTAL EXPENSES
$35,000.00
REVENUES
State Grants/Reimbursements
Other Grants
Assessments
Donations
Miscellaneous
Interest Income
TOTAL REVENUES
Montachusett Regional
Planning Commission
$35000.00
$0
0
0
$0
$0
$35,000.00
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
IV. Recommendations
The Primary recommendation of this effort is to establish a Solid Waste Management
Cooperative, an organization dedicated to regional cooperation. Such an organization is viewed
as the best way to effectively implement solid waste management, recycling programs, toxic
reductions, and volume reduction for the region. Through the services of a professional staff
communities can achieve cost and time savings over locally run programs through regionalized
bulk purchasing of hauler and disposal services, bulk purchasing of recycled materials.
Communities can achieve greater more convenient access to specialized programs such as
hazardous waste days, bulk waste days, and educational services that help to educate the public
and the business community about the waste management problem and the means of reducing it.
Recommended Organizational Structure for the North Central Solid Waste Management
Cooperative (NCSWMC):
I. Organization – The structure of the organization that includes participating municipalities
and the legal authority
•
Composition – Membership in the North Central Solid Waste Management
Cooperative shall be open to all communities who wish to participate. At present, the
following communities of Ashby, Athol, Harvard, Leominster, Lunenburg, Royalston
and Petersham have signed the intermunicipal agreement.
•
Structure of organization – the cooperative shall be defined as an Intermunicipal
agreement between participating communities, with a host community to serve as a
funding conduit and to provide office resources to the cooperative.
II. Board Structure
•
Representatives – One representative from each community for every 15,000
residents or each fraction thereof. Member municipalities are entitled to and
encouraged to appoint or elect their representative and two alternates
•
Voting – Procedures to be determined by the Board established under municipal
agreement.
•
Standing Committees –When needed, the Board appoints standing committees, such
as Finance, Education, etc.
•
Officers – Chairperson, Vice-Chair, Treasurer, Secretary to be elected by the Board
as needed.
III. Powers – The authority of the Cooperative Board to enter into contracts, or otherwise
develop programs is contingent upon municipal approval of the Chief Executive Officer of
Montachusett Regional
Planning Commission
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
each member community. Signatory authority would be a combination of the Board and the
Executive Officers and staff controlled by the Board. Responsibilities may include the
following:
•
Enter into long term service agreements or leases; with approval of the member
municipalities, and according to provisions of the General Laws.
•
•
Establish user fees based upon use of the programs and equitable cost allocation.
Description of Program – The Cooperative may contract for the use of or otherwise
provide one or more programs for the use of the member municipalities.
Core Activities – Form the Basic functions of the waste management entity.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Professional staff
Completing annual reports required by Mass DEP (i.e. Data Sheet, Facility Report
Form, Hazardous Waste Report Form)
Tracking recycling and rubbish transported from each town to assist towns in their
recycling budget process
Applying for federal, state and local grants to implement special programs like school
chemical clean-outs and electronics recycling on a local and regional basis.
Providing technical assistance to residents, businesses, schools and town office in
each member community for reducing MSW and toxicity, reusing resources and
recycling objectives.
Representing the cooperative at regional, state and national forums
Performs general recycling outreach and public education efforts.
Sell container and bins
Support regional PAYT Programs
Fee for service – Voluntary participation in programs by member or non-member
communities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rubbish hauling and disposal
Recyclables hauling
Bulk waste/appliances/metal and special waste hauling from town facilities
Sludge collection
Household hazardous waste collection
Brush and stump grinding
Sludge Hauling and disposal
IV. Membership
•
New members - The Cooperative Board of Representatives may authorize the
inclusion of additional member municipalities in the Cooperative by proposing an
amendment to this agreement.
Montachusett Regional
Planning Commission
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
•
Withdrawals - Municipalities may withdraw from the Cooperative at any time.
However, notification of withdrawal effective in the next fiscal year must be received
by the Cooperative no later than the second week of January of the current fiscal year.
V. Amending agreements – Defines the process and restrictions for amending the agreements or
the structure of the cooperative. Defines the responsibilities of the board to the governing
bodies of the municipalities.
•
Amendments require a 2/3rds majority vote (of quorum or of the total membership?)
Scheduling and approval of annual budget will be established by the Board. Once it is
established, and will likely commence early in the Fiscal Year in anticipation of municipal
budgetary cycles. The budget will contain estimates of all costs and expenses and revenues
generated. In the first two years, the cooperative is to be grant funded. Thereafter, the Budget
revenues will be a combination of grant funding, fee service programs, and local assessment.
The total assessment will be equal to the Budget less other revenue through grants and Fee for
Service programs. The Town’s share of the NCRSWC budget may be determined by the
following formula: Assessments would be allocated based 50% upon the size of the population
and 50% upon Equalized Valuation (EQV) of property by the Department of Revenue (DOR).
Montachusett Regional
Planning Commission
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Appendix A Montachusett Region Population and Projections to 2025
Population from 1970 through
2000
Population Estimates from 2005 to 2025
1970 1980
1990
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Ashburnham 3,484 4,075 5,433 5,546 5,813 5,993 6,186 6,373 6,567
Ashby
2,274 2,311 2,717 2,845 2,982 3,075 3,173 3,269 3,369
11,18
Athol
5 10,634 11,451 11,299 11,844 12,211 12,602 12,984 13,380
Ayer
5,863 6,993 6,837 7,287 7,638 7,875 8,127 8,373 8,629
13,38
Clinton
3 12,771 13,222 13,435 14,083 14,519 14,984 15,438 15,910
43,34
Fitchburg
3 39,580 41,194 39,102 40,988 42,257 43,611 44,932 46,304
12,95
Ft. Devens*
1 8,838 9037*
0
19,74
Gardner
8 17,900 20,125 20,770 21,772 22,446 23,165 23,867 24,596
Groton
5,109 6,154 7,511 9,547 10,007 10,317 10,648 10,970 11,305
Harvard
2,962 3,744 4,448 5,981 6,269 6,464 6,671 6,873 7,083
Hubbardston 1,437 1,797 2,797 3,909 4,098 4,224 4,360 4,492 4,629
Lancaster
6,095 6,334 6,661 7,380 7,736 7,975 8,231 8,480 8,739
32,93
Leominster
9 34,508 38,145 41,303 43,295 44,635 46,066 47,461 48,910
Lunenburg
7,419 8,405 9,117 9,401 9,854 10,159 10,485 10,803 11,133
Petersham
1,015 1,024 1,131 1,180 1,237 1,275 1,316 1,356 1,397
Phillipston
872
953 1,485 1,621 1,699 1,752 1,808 1,863 1,920
Royalston
809
955 1,147 1,254 1,314 1,355 1,399 1,441 1,485
Shirley
3,952 5,124 5,739 6,373 6,680 6,887 7,108 7,323 7,547
Sterling
4,247 5,440 6,481 7,257 7,607 7,842 8,094 8,339 8,594
Templeton
5,863 6,070 6,438 6,799 7,127 7,348 7,583 7,813 8,051
Townsend
4,281 7,201 8,496 9,198 9,642 9,940 10,259 10,569 10,892
Westminster 4,273 5,139 6,191 6,907 7,240 7,464 7,704 7,937 8,179
Winchendon 6,635 7,019 8,805 9,611 10,074 10,386 10,719 11,044 11,381
200,1
TOTALS
39 202,969 215,571 228,005 239,000 246,400 254,300 262,000 270,000
Percent
Change
1.0% 6.0% 6.0% 5.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
The state’s annual average solid waste generation rate, which includes all trash, recycling,
composting and HHW, is 0.4 tons per person. Applying the annual average rate to the year 2000
population for the Montachusett Region, the region generated 91,202 Tons of municipal solid
waste. Assuming the region recycles at the statewide average of 34%, the region recycles 31,008
tons of recyclable material and composting. Another 60,194 tons must either be sent to a landfill
Montachusett Regional
Planning Commission
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
or incinerated each year. Assuming there is no source reduction in the per capita volume of
waste manufactured and subsequently purchased, the volume of solid waste can be expected to
grow at the same rate as the population. By 2025, the region could be faced with managing
108,000 tons of material annually, an increase of 16,798 tons over current volumes.
Appendix B Average Annual Tonnage of MSW in the Region
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Ashburnham
1,394 1,630 2,173 2,218
2,325
2,397
2,474
2,549
2,627
Ashby
910
924 1,087 1,138
1,193
1,230
1,269
1,308
1,348
Athol
4,474 4,254 4,580 4,520
4,738
4,884
5,041
5,194
5,352
Ayer
2,345 2,797 2,735 2,915
3,055
3,150
3,251
3,349
3,452
Clinton
5,353 5,108 5,289 5,374
5,633
5,808
5,994
6,175
6,364
Fitchburg
17,337 15,832 16,478 15,641 16,395 16,903 17,444 17,973 18,522
Ft. Devens* 5,180 3,535 3,615
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gardner
7,899 7,160 8,050 8,308
8,709
8,978
9,266
9,547
9,838
Groton
2,044 2,462 3,004 3,819
4,003
4,127
4,259
4,388
4,522
Harvard
1,185 1,498 1,779 2,392
2,508
2,586
2,668
2,749
2,833
Hubbardston
575
719 1,119 1,564
1,639
1,690
1,744
1,797
1,852
Lancaster
2,438 2,534 2,664 2,952
3,094
3,190
3,292
3,392
3,496
Leominster 13,176 13,803 15,258 16,521 17,318 17,854 18,426 18,984 19,564
Lunenburg
2,968 3,362 3,647 3,760
3,942
4,064
4,194
4,321
4,453
Petersham
406
410
452
472
495
510
526
542
559
Phillipston
349
381
594
648
680
701
723
745
768
Royalston
324
382
459
502
526
542
560
576
594
Shirley
1,581 2,050 2,296 2,549
2,672
2,755
2,843
2,929
3,019
Sterling
1,699 2,176 2,592 2,903
3,043
3,137
3,238
3,336
3,438
Templeton
2,345 2,428 2,575 2,720
2,851
2,939
3,033
3,125
3,220
Townsend
1,712 2,880 3,398 3,679
3,857
3,976
4,104
4,228
4,357
Westminster
1,709 2,056 2,476 2,763
2,896
2,986
3,082
3,175
3,272
Winchendon
2,654 2,808 3,522 3,844
4,030
4,154
4,288
4,418
4,552
TOTALS
80,056 81,188 89,843 91,202 95,600 98,560 101,720 104,800 108,000
(based upon The US Census since 1970 and MISER Population Estimates from 2005 to 2025,
assuming a per capita annual average rate of solid waste generation of 0.4 tons.)
Montachusett Regional
Planning Commission
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Appendix C Montachusett Region Housing Stock and Building Permits for
New Residential Construction
1990's Annualized
Single Unit Single Unit Two Three/four Multi Unit Building Average
Detached Attached Family
Unit
(5+ Units) Permits Permits
Town/City
Name
Ashburnha
m
2,081
~
75
~
48
277
34.6
Ashby
973
6
22
4
4
37
4.6
Athol
3,219
42
534
439
500
164
20.5
Ayer
1,380
227
438
374
676
374
46.8
Clinton
2,354
426
980
992
1,034
170
21.3
Fitchburg
6,175
428 3,015
3,433
2,852
441
55.1
Gardner
4,017
180 1,015
1,288
2,169
432
54
Groton
2,843
85
262
66
125
na
na
Harvard
1,835
5
251
68
66
248
31
Hubbardst
on
1,188
43
35
50
37
415
41.5
Lancaster
1,674
71
89
148
159
239
29.9
Leominster
7,953
718 1,733
2,021
4,312
1,276
159.5
Lunenburg
3,165
111
178
75
27
424
42.4
Petersham
426
13
14
15
2
52
5.2
Phillipston
697
11
17
1
2
683
85.4
Royalston
461
10
31
~
0
55
5
Shirley
1,221
134
241
147
197
337
42.1
Sterling
2,116
120
219
105
49
508
50.8
Templeton
2,079
47
154
150
117
315
31.5
Townsend
2,634
33
87
46
382
330
41.3
Westminst
er
2,426
50
71
52
95
452
45.2
Winchend
on
2,448
52
420
310
354
438
54.8
Total
53,365
2,812 9,881
9,784
13,207
7,667
902
Sources: US Census, and Conversations with Building Inspectors and Planning Boards
Montachusett Regional
Planning Commission
Montachusett Regional Solid Waste Plan
Montachusett Regional
Planning Commission