Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSolid Waste Comm. 6/11/87-5/23/91PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL n- SUMMARY OF MEETING: THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1991 ATTENDEES: Michael VanSplinter, Marydee Flynn, Amos Robinson, Bob Swanson, Dan Baublis GUESTS: Tom.Gill, Scott Kinney, Will Plant- Mansfield Jaycees CORRESPONDENCE' - Notice from DEP stating that we can accept batteries as long as we have protection (overhead roof & concrete slab). UPDATES MILLIS -'Will update next meeting' ANNAWON Will ,updatenext meeting RECYCLING PARK'r- Michael Van Splinter went before the Board of Selectman with some concerns - First announcing that the Park will only being open on Saturdays. He also proposed doing away with the contract with BFI'for White goods pickup. The BOS motioned to delay the subject. Mike also suggested the town give, preference to purchasing recycled products. BAILER - Bob Swanson has looked.into buying a bailer. He has been looking into buying a used one, has looked at it and is working on negotiating a price. STILL NEEDED - Bob Swanson will work on getting: Bulletin Board/Sign Sign for #1 & #2 Plastics — New sign for Compost area (Sat only) First Aid Kit, Safety Glasses, Barrier for Glass Crusher. SALVATION ARMY PICKUP- Bob Swanson will see if we can get another' pickup, The box is being full by noon on most Saturday, NEWSPAPER ROLLOFF - It was suggested that the new rolloff be put next to the DPW in place of the open -front one. Presently the DPW crew has to go out and clean the yard a couple of times a week and restack the newspapers. Moving the new rolloff over should help a lot. - DONATION PLAQUES. - Mike VanSplinter suggests we make up plagues to display on the donated items (Glass Crusher, Rolloffs, Sheds, etc.) - Still need to look into getting a market for oil, tires, and plastic bags. - We have a good number of returnable deposit bottles. The committee has decided to look into making a deal with CRNC or a redemption center. We could set up an account to put the money back into the Park, - STAFFING - It was decided that for the next 7-8 weeks, one committee member man the park until all the members and possibly some volunteer groups get a feel for what should be happening. (see attached schedule.) NEXT MEETING: THURS.JUNE 13, 7:30 PM TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RE: Summary of meeting May 25, 1989, Thursday ATTENDEES: Marilyn Ouellette, William Lewis, Michael Van Splinter, John Dunn, Karl Sharicz CORRESPONDENCE On May 25, 1989, Mike Van Splinter had received a letter from John Rhind stating his concern over the maintenance of the APR trailer. [Copy of letter attached] Immediate action taken: Committee voted in favor of sending a letter to John Rhind requesting that he state his understanding of the situation in terms of his involvement, i.e., checking the trailer, calling APR to unload, etc. OLD BUSINESS 1. JAYCEES Action taken: Marilyn Ouellette will attend Jaycees' next meeting as primary speaker; she report back with information at next meeting. 2. MILLIS Action taken: Bill Lewis reported that the May 24 meeting at Millis was cancelled; he will attend the next meeting on June 14. 3. PSA Action taken: Mike Van Splinter reported that the toll free information line was out of service; he will attempt to obtain information'directly from the Environmental Defense Fund. 4. LETTERS TO BOARD Action taken: Two letters addressed to the Board requesting letters of intent be sent to SEMASS and MILLIS were drafted and approved by the Committee. The letters will be forwarded to the Board for action. John Dunn was informed by Tom Dwyer that only twc pieces of correspon- dence exist between Mansfield and Douglas Priest from the Millis project: 1) a letter dated Oct. 1988 from Doug Priest to the Board asking for support of the facility; 2) a letter dated Nov. 1988 from the Board to Doug Priest stating the town's intent and interest in Millis. [Copies of both letters are attached] John Dunn was also informed by Tom Dwyer that apparently no formal rommunicatioo fook place between Mansfield and any of the SEMASS organizations; merely a verbal discussion was made concerning capacity. Tom Dwyer had recently spoken with both Angelo Hazofotis from the SEMASS recycling facility and Mr. Tanzi from SEMASS incinerator and reported to John Dunn the folloiing news: - within 60-90 days expecc to conduct a pilot study of MRF; all those communities in immediate area and already on this list will be participating (trying it on a small scale). - the incinerator cgpacity is being expanded to an additional 900 tons; this additional capacity has already been committed and 5 communities are on the waiting list. 5. REGIONAL COMMITTEE SUMMARY Action taken: Mike Van Splinter expects to have a draft ready by next meeting. 6. PAMPHLETS Action taken: John Dunn reported that the pamphlets are currently being stored in the Board's office. The Post Office will deliver the pamphlets using the school permit @ 3.50 per pamphlet on the condition that the word "RESIDENT" be stamped on each pamphlet. Appropriate stamps will be ordered. John Dunn will report back with a status at next meeting. NEW BUSINESS 1. REGIONAL SWC UPDATE Mike Van Splinter reported that there are currently nine communities actively participating. At the last meeting, a representative from the Weymouth Coalition had explained their purpose and their recent receipt of the only state grant awarded. The Coalition is in the process of creating a resolution and a main issue is obtaining capital.commitments from their member communities. 2. REPORT PREPARATION Karl Sharicz had distributed to the Committee an updated version of the draft; both the recycling and incinerator sections are new. PLEASE NOTE: ALL MEMBERS ARE ASKED TO REVIEW THE UPDATED DRAFT AND TO PREPARE NOTES FOR DISCUSSION FOR NEXT MEETING!! [Copies of the updated draft have been sent to those members who were unable to attend May 25 meeting] **REMINDER ** Next meetings are scheduled for: JUNE_8_ and JUNE_22 Thursdays TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of June 22, 1989 Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS Feedback on: 1. Jaycees meeting - Marilyn 2. PSA tapes - Mike V. 3. Pamphlets - John D. 4. Tritown Chamber meeting - Marilyn 5. Millis update - Bill D. NEW BUSINESS Continued preparation of report E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mans1fe„jA0204 51U89 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ,'­'r RE: Summary of meeting June 8, 1989 Thursday ATTENDEES: Eric Butler, Dennis Baker, Willaim Lewis, Michael Van Splinter, Marilyn Ouellette OLD BUSINESS 1. JAYCEES - Marilyn Ouellette is scheduled to speak on June 15 meeting of the Jaycees and will report back at the next meeting. 2. PSA - Mike Van Splinter is still attempting to contact the appropriate organization to obtain info on recycling PSAs. 3. PAMPHLETS - John Dunn will report the status at next meeting. 4. .LETTERS TO BOARD - Committee approved of the letter drafted to John Rhind concerning the maintenance of the recycling trailer. The letter was submitted to Rhind for further action. 5. REGIONAL COMMITTEE SUMMARY Mike Van Splinter's drafted summary has been included in the newly revised report summary. NEW BUSINESS - The Anawam Regional Solid Waste Committee's next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 28 at 7:30pm at the school building located next to Foxboro town hall. The guest speaker is Steve Katz from MASSCRINC who will discuss miniMRFs and glass recycling. - Marilyn Ouellette will attend the TritownChamber of Commerce luncheon at the Sheraton on June 21. Town administrators from Norton, Mansfield and Foxboro are expected to attend with one of the topics of discussion being solid waste. Marilyn will report back with any findings at next meeting. - REPORT PREPARATION: ALL MEMBERS ARE ASKED TO REVIEW THE ENCLOSED UPDATED VERSION OF THE R PORT SUMMARY. PLEASE NOTE: Certain sections are drafted for discussion only and are denoted by11DFD0". ** R E M I N D E R ** Next meeting is scheduled for J U N E 22 Thursday !!!!!!! TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Agend : Meeting of July 27, 1989 Thursday A. REVIEW OF MEETING SUMMARY B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS - Millis Update D. NEW BUSINESS - final signatures for report E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS R�C�IVED 1989 TOWN OF MILLIS BOARD OF SELECTMEN June 19, 1989 TO: Regional Recycling Committee FROM: Douglas C. Priest Enclosed please find a copy of the DEOE's letter concerning the recycling consortium and an overview of regional recycling. The next meeting will be held at 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, July_ 19th, in the Selectmen's Office, Town Hall, 64 Exchange Street, Millis. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call the Selectmen's Office (508/376-2634). s enclosures •..7• 64 EXCHANGE STREET - MILLIS, MASSACHUSETTS 02054 •G*— R� REGIONAL RECYCLING In all communities the cost of solid waste disposal is rising; tip- ping fees to burn facilities or landfills are rising yearly; towns are building transfer stations or are implementing curb -side pickup -- all of this at the same time. Many towns are feeling the constraints of Proposition 2 1/2. As municipal officials, we are required to be more foresighted and creative in handling the problems facing our towns. Re- cycling is one method for towns to lower their costs for solid waste disposal, extend the life of landfills (if a town is fortunate to still have one), and we haven't even mentioned the impact recycling has on our environment. When Millis created the Millis consortium with other area towns, we realized that, because of the nature of the market for recyclables, it is highly advantageous for communities to join together to generate large quantities of recyclables of consistent quality.- - This type of supply, in turn, leads to a stronger level of demand, as it means that re -manufacturing facilities see the materials as a viable feed -stock for their processes. We also wanted to take the best attributes of the public and pri- vate sectors, combine them, and come up with solutions to solid waste recycling problems. This plan was not just a lucky guess; it has taken over a year to get to the point of doing a request for proposal (RFP). These uncharted waters required the group to come up with answers or seek advice with problems that would alleviate concerns that each participating town had. The group came together formally in January of 1988, at Millis' in- vitation, to work on a regional approach to answer every town's recy- cling problems and to see if interest existed for a public/private ven- ture in the creation of a Material Recovery Facility (MRF). The group of towns in the Millis consortium represented a myriad of collection methods, levels of recycling, tonnage disposal costs and populations. In the course of over a year, the Millis consortium has determined that the following items are the most advantageous for municipalities to re- cycle: paper, glass, plastic, ferrous and aluminum. Joint Private Munici al Develo went or Large Service Contracts This method appeared to provide groups such as the Millis consor- tium, with viable solutions in a far more timely and cost effective man- ner than state developments seemed likely to do. Many towns have start- ed, or are in the process of starting, certain levels of recycling. The problem -- no matter how large or small your town -- is finding the most -cost effective end -users to take each type of recyclable and being able to keep them interested in taking the material. Towns generally do not have the time, expertise, methods of trans- porting, volume and, most importantly, guaranteed quality. Private com- panies in this field have the ability and desire to handle these issues and make long-term contracts with re -manufacturers. An example a recy- cling problem is the paper glut that currently exists. A combination of factors wreaked havoc on the market for old newspaper in the North- east and elsewhere. As a result, many Eastern municipal recycling pro- grams are paying to have their newspapers hauled away by waste paper dealers. Small municipalities are not the only ones suffering, but the cost still makes sense to most communities because of the high waste disposal costs. Naturally, one cause of the problem is the growing sup- ply, which is going to continue to grow. We haven't even seen the ma- 2 jor metropolitan areas in the Northeast start a concerted effort yet. However, this will not be so for very long; it is expected that within three years, every major metropolitan area in the Northeast will be re- cycling. So, why would a dealer want your supply when he can have a consis- tently larger supply from the more sizable population areas? The an- swer.-- he will if you regionalize and; as a group, provide volume that has a guaranteed quality. Why not have the municipalities build a facility? This is an al- ternative, but we felt that a private company would be better suited to do this. The private sector already has the expertise in this field; and it can build a facility for less money than a municipality can, which, coupled with the profit motive (bottom line mentality), are posi- tive attributes of private sector operations. --- - ---- When- looking at companies that .recycle,- remember,—if--this—is- a_-______ long-term commitment; so make sure the company has done business before in other parts of the country and is in the business for the long haul. Locating The Facility This was the hard part to overcome -- the "not in my backyard" problem. As a group, we looked at every community to locate the best sites. Naturally, you want to identify more than one location in your preliminary search. It was felt that the site should meet certain re- quirements: A.- Road Access B. Rail Access C. Proximity to Residents Primary 3 Secondary D. Public Land - Size and Vicinity to Groundwater Protected Land E. Central Location for Participating Towns A. Road Access is necessary so that recycling trucks will have access to the MRF without making a significant impact on the host commu- nity. In addition, set routes must be established so as to not impact residential areas. Any trucks violating the established routes would be warned and fined if the violations continue. B. Rail Access is important because the biggest expense of recy- cling is transportation. Railroads permit more geographical availabili- ty to end -users. We also looked at transporting recyclables from the towns or from specified locations into the MRF, thereby cutting down the road use into the host community, as well as, hopefully, cutting transportation costs. Due to the present layout of rail lines; --it was — -' considered impractical for the group to pursue this. However, rail ac- cess is a more economical method of transportation versus trucking, the most expensive method to transport processed recyclables to re -manu- facturers. C. Residents/Neighbors -- A MRF produces as much noise as a run- ning engine of a truck. The material processed is considered to be clean solid waste versus waste deposited at a transfer station or land- fill. A MRF building resembles that a small company, but it would be more desirable if it was not located in a residential area. The residents' concerns may be unfounded; but they are real con- cerns and must be addressed. The recycling business should be a good 4 neighbor to the host community, and in selecting the site an environmen- tal impact study would help town officials to answer questions. D. Public Land -- Availability of public land is not necessary. We considered use of public land as a way of cutting the overhead of a company and similar to the transportation issues, all of which helps to cut tipping fee costs. It also gives the group and the host community the ability to control growth. E. Central Location -- Ideally, a host site should be equidis- tant to all member towns. Since that is not always the case, we are looking at the tipping fee being reduced based on the distance a town must travel. When determining the volume that a .MRF will handle, it is neces- sary to consider the total population of the number of towns. The aver- age man, woman and child generate a little over one-half ton per year in mixed solid waste. Of this, 25% is recyclable. One should figure a..-.-... - participation rate of 50% and an efficiency rate of 90%. This will rise as people become better informed about recycling. The breakdown of the recycled solid waste stream is as follows: Newspaper 39% Mixed Paper 9% Cardboard 6% Aluminum . Ferrous Metals Plastic Glass - Flint Amber Green 5 3% 13% 6% 11.25% 5.25% 4.25% Mixed 4.25% TOTAL 100% The cost avoidance to each town is significant when looking at the disposal cost of solid waste as opposed to the cost of disposing recy- cled material from your solid waste stream. When planning on a region- al approach, each town must understand than an anti -scavenging clause should be added, preventing towns from taking out material that might have an easy resale value. Costs -- Each town is required to help finance the legal expenses that would be incurred by the group. For the Millis consortium, this represented .20 per person for a town's population. Since a private concern has to go to a bank to finance the build- ing and equipping of the facility, the bank will want a guaranty of in- come from the company. Each member town will have to pay a tipping fee for each ton of recyclables. If .there is anything left over after the company sells the product and takes out its expenses as well as a prof- it, this residual amount, or profit sharing, will either be given back to the towns or rolled over for the next pay period. The profit shar- ing will be based on a weighted average, such as: *Host community compensated for being the host community; *Amount of recyclables delivered -- this is an incentive for towns to have a higher participation by residents; also, larger towns should receive more money than the smaller towns due to the volume they deliv- er. *The first towns to join should be compensated for taking the risk versus the town that waited to see if it was successful. This can also 11 be done with initial tipping fees charged; any town which joins after the start-up pays more per ton. *Equipment for towns -- Each town has a requirement to run a suc- cessful recycling program. This may mean availability of recycling trucks, containers at the transfer stations or landfills, containers for each household or recycling trailers to be attached behind compac- tion trucks. The benefit of a regional group is that we can purchase for sever- al towns, thus realizing cost savings that individually towns could not receive. 7 Daniel S. Greenbaum Commissioner Division of Solid Waste Management 1 Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 Dear Board of Selectmen or Municipal Official, May 26,,4 99�89 JG,ticFi L. James Miller DEQE applauds the Millis consortium of communities' efforts to Director plan for the provision of regional recycling services under the farsighted leadership of Doug Priest, Selectman from Millis. We are pleased to be able to offer technical assistance to the group in support of these efforts. Because of the volatile nature of the market for recyclables, it is highly advantageous for communities to join together to market" large quantities of recyclables of a consistent quality. This type of supply leads in turn to a stronger level of demand, as it means that remanufacturing facilities see the materials as a viable feedstock for their processes. Therefore, DEQE has a number of programs in place to encourage regional waste management practices, including regional recycling programs. The state's first materials recovery facility, or MRF, will open in Springfield in the fall of 1989. The lessons we have learned through its ponstruction suggest that state development of recycling facilities is not necessarily the best approach. Alternative approaches such as private development, joint private/municipal development, or jointly - negotiated service contracts may provide groups such as the Millis consortium with viable recycling options in a far more timely and cost-effective manner. DEQE therefore sees the Millis consortium project as a pioneering effort that will be valuable not only to the participant communities but to the Commonwealth overall. To this end, we are in the process of awarding a $40,000 contract to Alternative Resources, Inc. of Concord, Massachusetts, to provide the consortium with an analysis of its recycling needs, and to evaluate and recommend options to 100% Recycled Paper meet its goals in the most cost-effective manner. Based on this analysis, ARI will assist the consortium with the procurement process (i.e., prepare and evaluate responses to an RFP for a materials recycling facility or analyze potential service contract bids). The consortium representatives have recognized that additional funds will be needed for legal support and may be needed for additional consultant services. Based on the estimated cost of these items, the group decided that each participant community would allocate money set aside as a line item in the budget or as discretionary funds at a rate of $0.20 per capita. The funds will not be needed until late August or September. In the interim, the consortium will need to establish a mechanism to collect and administer the funds locally. For your information, we are attaching a list of the consortium participants and the communities they represent. If you would like further information on this effort, please feel free to contact Doug Priest, Selectman from Millis, at (508) 376-2634 (Millis Town Hall) or (508) 478-6000 (work), or Amy Catterton, DEQE Recycling Facility Development Planner, at (617) 292-5960. We look forward to working with you on this effort. Sincerely yours, wai(I <SWa# ttA Willa Small Kuh / Acting Director, Division of Solid Waste Management TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISP-"`v " "`—= Fw„____� RE: Summary of meeting July 13, 1989 Thursday ATTENDEES: Michael Van Splinter, John Dunn, Dennis Baker, Marilyn Ouellette, William Lewis, Eric Butler CORRESPONDENCE 1. Douglas Priest from Millis submitted a memo concerning the recycling consortium and regional recycling.Ecopy attached] 2.. Cable Access submitted a memo announcing the purchase of two videos concerning solid waste issues. OLD BUSINESS Interim report update: the report has been finalized and will be distributed at next meeting for final signature approval. * NEW BUSINESS - Committee voted in favor of recommending that the Selectmen support the adoption of the Anawam Committee resolution. - Committee voted in favor of sending letter of thanks to Cassandra Enterprises for the donation of the report binders. - Committee voted in favor of sending letter to Finance Committee concerning their representative's absence from SWC meetings. - Committee voted in favor of sending'.Tom Dwyer's letters to the Rochester recycling and incinerator facilities. ** R E M I N D E R ** NEXT MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR: JULY 27 Thurdsay *NOTE: ALL MEMBERS SHOULD ATTEND NEXT MEEIING FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF INTERIM REPORT!!!!!!! TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of August 10, 1989 A, REVIEW OF MEETING SUMMARY B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS D. NEW BUSINESS E. COMMENTS FROM PU]iLIC/GUESTS CHamBeR 0 Stephen Lombard Thomas Dwyer and Andrew Gala addressing membership at a recap luncheon Tri-Town Managers Speak: Agree regional recycling is best solution. As representatives of Foxborough, Mansfield and Norton met with Cham- ber members at our luncheon on June 21st, it was evident that the three towns share common concerns. In the same way that the area business people joined together to create the Tri-Town Cham- ber, the three town governments would also benefit from regional cooperation and planning. Solid waste disposal, infrustruture, and dealing with the taxation limits of proposal 2 1/2 are three major problem areas facing all three towns. Mansfield Town Manager Thomas Dwyer, Fox - borough Town Administrator Andrew Gala and Norton Executive Secretary Stephen Lombard commented on these and other issues during the luncheon as over 50 of our members listened. In principal and in practice, they agreed on the solution to many of the problems affecting their respective towns. It is common solutions to common problems that spurs thinking that regionalism would be an effective way to move our three communities forward at a pace faster than in the past, addressing the issues affecting us all. Although Foxborough is unique in that it is the only one of the three towns that still has its own landfill, Dwyer, Gala and Lombard agreed that a regional facility to serve the three towns would probably be the best solution. This may, indeed, serve as a step toward develop- ing a regional management theory. Similarly, all agreed that mandatory recycling is a feasable way to reduce the Continued on Page 7 Pulse The Source Is Your Best Resource You're a new resident to the Tri- Town area and you're looking for a comprehensive, easy -to -read list of busi- nesses - or just some basic information about your new "home town." Or per- haps you're a business in need of a specific service - an accountant or in- surance agent. More and more, both business and home owners are turning to the Chamber's membership directory/ community guide, "The Source" for the answer to these and similar ques- tions. Even a quick flip through "The Source" is evidence enough that it is an easy to use, invaluable reference guide to the facts and figures of life in the Tri-Town area. It contains vital infor- mation on education, government, trans- portation, places of worship and other data of interest to both citizens and com- panies situated in the towns of Norton,. Mansfield and Foxborough. "The Source" is becoming the who's who in business in the Tri-Town area. It is a handy directory of respected busi- nesses providing quality services on both a consumer and commercial level. It's no wonder, then, that this publication proves itself time and again in business - to -business referrals. Beside being distributed through the Chamber office, it is also available through the three town halls, Welcome Wagon, the Tourist Information Center as well as several insurance and real estate of- fices. Just who uses "The Source" - and how is it used? Consider Barbara Orlando of Orlando Associates Realtors, for Continued on Page 7 TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield„MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RE: Summary of meeting, July 27, 1989 Thursday ATTENDEES: Dennis Baker, Marilyn Ouellette, William Lewis, Jolin Dunn, Michael Van Splinter, Karl Sharicz OLD BUSINESS Millis.Update: Bill Lewis attended the July 26 meeting in Millis and reported the following key notes: - 11 communities were present at the meeting and each representative was requested to give a brief synopsis of what their community was doing in terms of solid waste management - a representative from the state had indicated that no decision has been reached as to whether any grant monies will be awarded to the Millis project. As an alternative means of raising some initial cppital, it was suggested that a charge of 20�/capita be assessed instead of the original 10t/capita. The-20t is based on a population base of 300,000 to 350,000 from the 11 communities present. - Rep. Bill Vernon urges the towns to contact their local representa- tive in support of hiring consultants for the re_-;!�arch; Alternative Resources Inc. is the consulting firm under consideration. - Bill will attend the next Millis meeting scheduled for Sept. 13; Bill will be notified of any decision reached by the State. NEW BUSINESS 1. APR Container the following is a brief recounting of the series of events surrounding the permanent removal of the APR container: - On Wednegday, July 12, APR routinely picked up its container but never returned it. On Friday, John Rhind had informed Mike Van Splinter that apparently the APR service, was discontinued. - According to a phone conversation between Mike and Mr. Brownell at APR, the company was losing approx. $100/ton and based on this unprofitability, the service was discontinued. Mr. Brownell further stated that the company didn't deem it necessary or warranted to notify the town of Mansfield of their decision. - Subsequently, on July 20, the Board of S-lectmen received a letter dated July 17, formally notifying the town of, Mansfield of the discontinuance of the APR recycling container service. To avoid public confusion, John Rhind cover the newly erected recycling sign at t1ie site and will post a "temporarily closed" sign. Mike will speak to John Rhind about getting credit from APR for previous pick-ups for which no weigh tickets were'issued. . Mike Van Solinter has spolcen with Bill Cox who currently works for Sugarman &Co, which owns the firm Avon Fiber Co. whicY1 charges Norwood $25/ton for newspaper. The program is based on a "gentlemen's agreement" for a 6 month trial period. Norwood is employing a 2nd pickup for recylcing purposes. Mike will arrange for Bill Cox to attend a meeting to present viable options to Mansfield. 2. AGAWAM Regional SWC Meeting Milce Van Splinter reported that the regional committee is making quick progress with currently approx. 150,000 people being represented with the possiblity of Taunton imminently joining. The State suggested Dighton -Rehoboth and Wareham be a logical addition to the group since the State is more favorable im.funding regional prodects. The regional committee has already been unofficially approached by a firm offering regional recycling space. And David White from NortMtlantic Recycling Co. from Andover had made d.presentation at the last meeting regarding paper and separated glass. 3. Interim Progress Report The Committee endorsed the report which will be forwarded to the Board of Selectmen as theProgress Report for the MSWC. The report has been distributed for the necessary signatures. 4. Gther New. Business ... - Per John Dunn, the Board of Selectmen voted in favor of the appointment of Mike Morizio as member to the Permanent Subcommittee on Solid Waste Disposal. Mike has yet to be officially sworn in. - A letter will be drafted and sent to the Finance Committee concerning the continuing absence of their representative at SWC meetings. - Dennis Balser had noted that a new section of the Masterplan is dedicated to resource recover facilities. Immediate Action Taken: The committee voted to send letter to Michael LaCasse requesting an interpretation of the zoning by-law outlined in the Masterplan. - Marilyn Ouellette has suggested the Committee attempt to obtain a tape of the ]lour long presentation with the mayor which was well balanced and presented. ** REMINDER ** Next Meeting is .clieduled for AUGUST 10 Thursday TOWN. OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of August 24, 1989, Thursday A. Review of meeting summary B. Correspondence C. OLd Business 1. Millis Update 2. Regional SWC Update 3. Printing of Progress reports D. New Business 1. Bill Cox - recycling (tentative) 2. Jerry St. Hillaire - composting (tentative) 3. Shaun Burke - MasterPlan (tentative) E, Comments from public/guests TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSAC ,$ETTS 50 West Street, Mam`sf' 48 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RE: Summary of meeting, August 10, 1989 Thursday ATTENDEES: Marilyn Ouellette,William Lewis, John Dunn, Michael Van Splinter, Karl Sharicz, Michael McClanahan OLD BUSINESS 1. APR: Mike Van Splinter received from APR twoimonths worth of weight tickets totalling 56,000 lbs of paper (approx. $1568) which will be submitted to'BFI for credit. It was noted that with such good cost reductions it would prove worthwhile to pursuerecycling operations. Mike Van Splinter will try to arrange for Bill Cox to attend the next meeting to discuss recycling options. 2. PROGRESS REPORT: Karl Sharicz distributed the finalized version of the Progress Report to the present committee members. John Dunn will handle the printing of the copies of the Progress Report (approx. 50-100 copies). He will report back at next meeting with a status. 3. MILLIS UPDATE: Amy Catterton,a DEQE Facility Planner, had stated that the State has yet to make a decision regarding grant monies. She expects an answer in a week. Bill Lewis will report back at next meeting with any new developments. 4. ANAWAM.REGIONAL SWC MEETING: Mike Van Splinter reported that the next meeting is sc'aeduled for Wednesday, August':23 at Easton Town Hall. The creation of a video on regional recycling is onthe agenda. NEW BUSINESS 1. MasterPlan: Immediate Action Taken: Committee voted in favor of sending letter to Shaun Burke requesting that the SWC be included in his agenda of presentations of the MasterPlan, preferably at the next meeting, August 24, In addition to Shaun Burke's presentation, Mike Morizio has offered to further clarify any details of the MasterPlan regarding the section on Resource Recovery Facilities. 2. Progress Report: Immediate Action Taken: A letter will be sent to Board of Selectmen requesting to be placed on agenda for Sept 6 meeting. In preparation of the presentation of the Progress Report to the Board of Selectmen,rMilce Van Splinter and Karl Sharicz will combine their efforts in producing enlargements of the graphs for overhec.d use. Also, in an effort to present an immediate plan of action regarding composting, Mike Mcclanahan will arrange for Jerry St. Hillaire to attend next meeting to discuss composting options. 3. Video Tapes: -Dennis Baker had informed Mike 'Van Splinter that Vicki Prsaad of Cable Channel 4 will purchase two copies of the tape "Work on Waste" (WOW). A copy has been 'made of the tape to be circulated amongst committee members. -Karl Sharicz had reviewed the tape entitled "Landfilled" which was created by RISolid Waste Mgmt Corp.' The tape is a complete presentation of Rhode Island's entire solid waste_ management program. Milce'Van Splinter will have a copy available for the committee members` perusal. ** R E P4 I N D E R ** Next meeting scheduled for: AUGUST 24 Thursday !!!!!!!! i n TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE_DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of September 14, 1989 Thursday A. REVIEW OF MEETING SUMMARY B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS 1. Millis Update 2. Anawam Regional Update 3. Update on printing of reports 4. Update on presentation to Board D. NEW BUSINESS E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS 0 TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSAG 50 West Street, Mansfi PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPO RE: Summary of meeting, August 24, 1989 Thursday TTS ATTENDEES: Dennis Balser, Marilyn Ouellette, John Dunn, Michael Morizio, Michael Van Splinter, William Lewis, Karl Sharicz, Michael McClanahan CORRESPONDENCE Mike Van Splinter received a notification from Mass Public Health Assoc. for a conference on Saturday, September 23. This program will be comprised of seminard and workshops discussing the waste management issues. Registration deadline is Sept 15, please contact Mike for registration form. D BUSINESS 1. MILLIS UPDATE: Bill Lewis received a letter from Linda Shea from the Millis Regional Recycling Consortium stating that if Mansfield is interested in making a commitment that 20�/capita should be set aside. Also, a survey was sent and should be completed and returned The Committee agreed that Bill should obtain a formal statement from Shea outlining the proposed uses of the Money. The next Millis meg!ting is scheduled for September 13. 2. ANTWAM REGIONAL SWC MEETING: Mike Van Splinter reported the following- - time was de,oted to identifying and defining the region - 2 or 3 more members have joined as official reps - Fall River, Taunton, and Norwood are all seriously considering joining the regional committee - next meeting is scheduled for September 27 3. PRINTING OF PROGRESS REPORT John Dunn reported that PROJECT SPOKE will print the reports. The report will be pr4�nted two-sided with spiral binders and covers; cost estimated at $100 for 50 copies. John will report back with status at next meeting. 4. VIDEO TAPES Copies of the "WOW" and "Landfilled" tapes are availaUe to members. 4. BILL COX Based on a conversation with Bill Cox, Mike Van Splinter reported the following: - current market price for cardboard is $14/ton - current market cost of hauling away newspaper rose to $45/ton - a truck rollout would cost $20-25/wk for rental of unit and an additional $100-120 per emptying of unit Based on these economics, it was deemed not worthwhile to further pursue the idea. NEW BTJSINESS 1. COMPOSTING ISSUE Jerry St.Hillaire, guest speaker Key notes: -Jerry stated that nothing has been authorized in terms of reviewing site assigntlents, cost analysis, etc. -Doesn't forsee co -composting at least in any great volume; there _is.a potential site at sledge landfill composting fzcility but need site work. State recommends pad be composed of natural material, ie., losse stone and compact gravel. -Behind salt shed an Fruit Street is good site for leaf composting because of central location but cost is incurred for water lines to be extended out to site and personnel. It was also noted that the .'Fruit St site has room for receiv ng and end product facilities. but there is no money ifi waste water budget allocated for construction. And lie recommended not utilizing the waste.. water personnel. He considers it a good, workable project that needs direction and {groper authorization. -Mike Van Splinter had spoken to Alan DeSault from DEP and noted that no site assignment was necessary in this case and the application is merely a registration process. - Without shredder, composting time is estimated to be 10-12 mos. With shredder, the time is reduced to 3-4 mos. If add grass clippings the time is significantly reduced but requires more temperature monitoring- -Economics: cost to bury in landfill $11/yd cost to compost $13/yd revenue from compost $ 5/yd cost reduction of $3/yd - Jerry feels need concerted PR effort to educate Mansfield residents about composting process. - It was suggested that special curbside pickup be employed for leaf composting with voluntary effort from Jaycees. 2. MASTERPLAN Shaun Burke , guest speaker Key notes concerning Special Permits section: -The State's position is th't towns can't prohibit resource recovery fanilties but the town can adopt reasonable regulation. -The current section was drawn from the original document Mike Morizio had submitted and was reviewed and revised by Mike LaCasse, Dick Lewis and Shaun Burke with changes in the following three areas: setbacks - use mininum requirements of State size capacity- - 150 tons interim water protection.area- Zone 2 studies still need to be performed on water sources -Planning Board will be holding two public hearing on MasterPlan on September 20 and 27. 3. OTHER NEW BUSINESS Karl Sharicz distributed atticle from Time magazine on plastics recycling. Copies will be distributed at next meeting. **REMINDER** Meetings in September are scheduled for: SEPTEMBER 14 Thursday SEPTEMBER 28 Thursday TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of October 5, Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS 1. Millis Update - Bill L. 2. ANAWAM Update - Mike V. or Karl 3. Brochure draft - Karl 4. Tom Dwyer's input on BFI contract- Mike V. 5. Board's reaction to BFI contract - Sohn D. NEW BUSINESS Will Sarro - (tentative ) E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 9/29/89 Douglas Priest Chairman, Board of Selectmen Millis Town Hall 64 Exchange St Millis MA 02054 Dear Mr. Priest: Please be advised that the Mansfield Solid Waste Committee strongly supports the concept of recycling. We are willing to bring to our town meeting forum an article to appropriate the money for the per capita charge assessment which you require to support your efforts. Advice from our town counsel indicates that an article be presented that will support the intended use. Please provide us with information in writing which would enable us to write the town meeting article to meet the intent; or send a sample article for background which is being or has been used by another town. Our committee would like to meet with you to better understand the proposal and the intended use of the 20C. per capita charge. Please feel free to contact me at (508) 339-9865. I look forward to hearing from you. Respectfully, Michael an Sp e� Chairman, Mansfield Soli4Wate"Committee Helping investors manage money since1924. z o�Dw�0� c 0 m m m N N N N N fl O zl n n O < G �o�a�rncnn N co Ul - OD (n U1 O W J - -A D m 64 Z �. C D N N N N N D r �O�OOiO�Or 0 0 0 0 0 M M M M M co C) (� 4v chZD� t0U1N�OQ�r� 0ODC)liN 3 O z -000 V (3) NO�o W -I O Oo O) A N < M 4 P O M > m �MMZ -{ 0 00 c ,Ap�t�110oD Z OCiNO� O D d�Q� V�ZZ N N M D -I (,r) -i M M p C-)m m -j 0> n Z Z m T D r -i0 00 Z O 77 r 0 n O O sscti<s�— (14 ("� Z cn— —0)Nrn mUioo0ut(AZ N n O 3 m O N 2 O Z m X TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of September 28, 1989 Thursday A. REVIEW OF MEETING SUMMARY B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS 1. Millis update - Bill 2. Regional ANAWAM update - Mike V. 3. Video tape update - Dennis 4. BFI cost update - Mike V. D. NEW BUSINESS E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 r Nov PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, RE: Summary of meeting of September 28, 1989, Thursday ATTENDEES: Michael Morizio, Karl Sharicz, Michael Van Splinter, Dennis Baker, William Lewis, Marilyn Ouellette, John Dunn OLD BUSINESS 1. MILLIS UPDATE: Bill Lewis reported that according to Doug Priest, the State has awarded the Millis Consortium the $40,000 grant for site study Immediate Action Taken: Committee agreed to send a formal letter to Doug Priest requesting further details concerning the 20G/capita; the letter will also note the Committee's willingness to bring the issue to Town Meeting. [Copy of this letter is attached] 2. VIDEOTAPE UPDATE: Dennis Baker reported that Mr. Prsaad from cable will start showing a series of tapes on solid waste issues as follows: OCTOBER 2, Monday 7:30pm: 10 minute program presented by Wheelabrator on incineration } hour segment presented by residents (a rebuttal) } hour segment presented on Filmore County, Minn. regarding recycling OCTOBER 9, Monday 7:30pm: - 1 hour segment by Culvert County on chemical waste - 1 hour segment entitled " As If the Future Mattered " regarding recycling 3. BFI UPDATE: Mike Van Splinter had negotiated a price schedule and preliminary "contract" with BFI to handle and administer a recycling program for the Town of Mansfield. Basic price components are: rental of rolloff/wk: $25 trucking/ load $165 weighing fee/load $10 tipping fee/load $18* administration fee/mo: $15 credit from BFI $56/ton Based on these figures, Mike had generated some cost/return projections - see attached sheet. *Mike had negotiated tipping fee with Gerry Fine from Fine Tree Farms who will compost the newspaper with chicken manure to obtain the proper carbon:nitrogen ratio acceptable by DEP. Gerry indicated the full compost process has a 6month to 1 year duration. He also noted that he needs a day's notice prior to dumping. Mike had made these quick notes about the proposed recycling program with BFI: - dealing with no experience base currently - have no fund to draw from - technically doesn't require monies to be appropriated - try a 6-month trial period with the understanding that at tnattime Mansfield can choose to discontinue the program. Plus, at the end of the 6 months, a strong enough experience base will be established which will enable the Committee to bring the issue to town meeting to appropriate monies to support the program, if the program proves successful. Immediate Action Taken: The Committee voted in favor to support the preliminary "contract" negotiations between Mike Van Splinter and BFI as outlined in the letter. Mike Van Splinter will present the contract, along with his cost/return projections to Tom Dwyer for review and to finalize. John Dunn will present this finalized contract to next meeting of Board of Selectmen. Coordinated efforts to support and implement this recycling program: - announcement will be changed on cable channel to reflect new program - Karl Sharicz will revise old brochure to promote the new program; he will redraft the brochure for next meeting. He will also check with post office to determine minimum quantity needed to qualify for bulk rate postage/delivery. It was agreed that "RESIDENT" and Mansfield generic address (and bulk rate postage, if can qualify) be printed on brochures. - planned to reach public via: cable, newspaper, and brochures - Marilyn Ouellette will contact the Jaycees and other civic organizations to offer voluntary support of the new recycling program. It was noted that one group will be needed to handle the Senior Citizen housing on an ongoing basis. NEW BUSINESS: - Mike Van Splinter received letter from SETPOINT which offers large biodegradable bags for approx. 37C/bag. Require a minimum order of 25,000 bags if want any advertising on them; no minimum order for blank bags. Per Mike, Great Woods is still very interested in advertising on the bags, especially for spring cleanup. Bags would retail for 50C each; town would receive for 37C. - Mike Morizio distributed information by MASSCRINC on recycling glass; each member will review for future options - Mike Morizio announced that on October 30, Monday, Lakeville Hospital will host a hearing on the region's MasterPlan **REMINDER** NEXT MEETINGS ARE SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 5 Thursday OCTOBER 26, Thursday TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 NOV I iJE39 �� �j PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RE: Summary of meeting, September 21, 1989 Thursday ATTENDEES: Marilyn Ouellette, William Lewis, Michael Van Splinter, Dennis Baker, Michael McClanahan, John Dunn NEWSPAPER RECYCLING: - Mike Van Splinter spoke with BFI regarding a newspaper recycling program and reported the following price quotes: $25/wk to rent 50 cubic yard rolloff with door $165/ to haul and empty (could be less costly) $10 to weigh the load ( the nearest site is Plainville) Based on experience with APR, estimate 7} or 8 tons per 40 cubic yards produced from town to be emptied. LEAF DUMPING/HAULING: - Mike Van Splinter reported the following price quotes from BFI regarding leaves: no charge for 30 yard open top container/dumpster $165 to haul and empty $10 to weigh the load Immediate Action Taken: Committee voted in favor for Michael Van Splinter to contact BFI to determine if they will handle the credit internally. He will submit figures and cost analysis to Board of Selectmen. Immediate Action Taken: Committee voted in favor to report to Board of Selectmen that there's insufficient time to fully and properly implement leaf collection and composting program for this year. The Committee had estimated that the Town would need to appropriate approx. 12 months' worth of monies to support the newspaper and/or program depending if BFI would handle the credit internally and based on two emptyings per month. - Mike Van Splinter will arrange for Selectmen Will Sarro to attend a SWC meeting to discuss incinerators and other solid waste matters of interest. ANAWAM UPDATE: Per -.Sohn Dunn, the Board of Selectmen will appoint official representatives to the Regional ANAWAM Committee based on the nominations of the SWC Committee. Immediate Action Taken: Committee voted in favor of appointing Michael Van Splinter and Karl Scharicz as "nominees" of the SWC Committee for the appointments as official representatives of Mansfield to the regional ANAWAM SWC committee. VIDEOTAPE UPDATE: Dennis Baker spoke with Mr. Prsaad from cable company and reported the following - Mr. Prsaad wishes to air in 1/2 hour segments four tapes which he has reviewed and approved. Two of these tapes are the "WOW" and "Landfilled" which were both available for review by the Committee. The other two tapes are the following: one was created by Saugus residents and is anti -incineration and the other tape was produced from a incinerator company and is pro -incineration. Immediate Action Taken: Committee voted in favor not to endorse any tapes until they all have been reviewed and approved by the Committee. Dennis Baker will notify Mr. Prsaad to start airing a week from Monday beginning with the WOW and Landfilled tapes. In the interim, the Committee will review the other two tapes. **REMIND ER** Next meeting is scheduled for: SEPTEMBER 28, Thursday !!!!!!!!!!! TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of October 26, 1989 Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS 1. Board's decision on BFI contract - John/Mike V. 2. Brochure update - Karl 3. Millis update - Bill 4. ANAWAM update - Mike V. 5. Volunteer effort update - Marilyn D. NEW BUSINESS Will Sarro (tentative) E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS ��" c ryT °odo° ° r CW N0 y do ^ k*Vb 0 Nm �E$ yN' G M �. N p+ a tu w y NOooaO ....., ry O 0 Qq (~D O L C. w O o C p f'+ 7 R n 'O w v' Wrp� _n' '� yy W O N 0 7 O ,,�� .r� N N ^'1 ° Y 7 N V. V. N O ry ° M N C O nY O G' O O '+ �1 O � pt OQ n �C r. 0 r� fD Vi C d a n'1 N Q �. N R T8 Q' W CL ° �! O (D G N ry� ^ v N � n1 y Cl O ry ''l, ° FV.iw f=/i K P1 CU Cl N y 7 N rF ° G O N N• nMI K h-i N N O O ° tj Q' Z OQ y ° O' C O �7-r A o a 0 �' o a e b K w rn° C 0 j �x y ry N �_ �L'. j5 o a o c 0 y 0 e° p• o "'+ O w 7 n O O G d �y tl0 ^ y v• N "'S .'O a fD N 7 0 QQ Q�q .ti. .�i. .°n N F O G 'U p 'O a. LNL': w W O °.tj Q1 a M (p vq ry b w a O y O g f�ryD t�D N Cob N [�CSJ �aOJ -2N 2a R— am 'ty y � •�m to y_ m y rn a, a ��, '" Ewa io >y�" � c „ rn w �' -,00 aQQ 0 io7 0�. o4. �'oa G C=J �28,.^.ctD,rn 'rnob5° .. �. 7 G. G�.'C O K N .q G. ° a a0, cN,i� Zm �.a, E y oc H : o^ CrJ�� aa�rn a�0�.�� w r" 'tiR'CE, 0w to 5� c°. Gwoct^a CrJ co ?'y. �. (D .+ �•1 va' teZ '0N ao.G 0,rnr Cn000 w o° 5ryC.° O (,0,°c wtG a — w O arn 0 qy a O " ° a 0 y '}, N X Q' ~ ° 'G O❑ rn o00 ti a o y rn w 5 ° G � w 7.a`"'7 C z O x '0 OV Hooya0 Z5*" ,o w J110, .p 0 0 f9 •, GJ N a `J O C t2l y O 3cz °N'd�w ti ^m zq mw � G�0 7 O A Z f� w O 7 oq fi 3' fD O r w°ooco °° °q= M Z r y C warn y 7 d m w O . O QC .J� O_=G �G .Oy O J O O V 1 N A )n2$»&$/ & UQ ( ®((k)\ 0 } CD C} 0 \n -\)§EE tj 0n ��«�\ TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 I r ,- PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Nov aIJ RE: Summary of meeting of October 5, 1989 Thursday_ z r ATTENDEES: Karl Sharicz, Marilyn Ouellette, Michael McClanahan, Michael Van Splinter, William Lewis, Dennis Baker, Michael Morizio, John Dunn 1. BFI Update: Tom Dwyer reviewed the BFI contract but awaited to present the program with John Dunn, who was unable to attend due to illness. They intend to present it to the Board at their next meeting. Mike Van Splinter has been exploring other sources for the recycling program in an effort to reduce the operating expenses of the program and he had reported that such variable costs as trucking and rental fees can be reduced along with the possibility of eliminating the $10/load weighing fee. It is intended that BFI will handle the whole operation in the short term and based on the results of the program, other sources will be sought. John Dunn had commented that the Highway Dept has previously expressed concern over the responsibility of restacking the newspapers in the rollout. Mike Van Splinter noted that he and John Rhind had addressed the issue before. 2. Brochure Update: Karl Sharicz completed and distributed the rough draft of the updated brochure to the Committee. (Copy attached). The Committee reviewed the wording and submitted recommendations to revise. Karl will finalize the draft by incorporating the Committee's recommendations. Committee has agreed that Karl employ Mansfield Press to handle the printing and folding of the new brochures. Printer will be requested to create bundles of 500, ready for delivery by October 26. John Dunn will obtain the necessary bulk rate postal info and report to Karl. Immediate Action Taken: The Committee voted in favor to approve the wording of the brochure and 1) the brochures are not to be printed until receive approval afPY from Board of Selectmen; and 2) the brochures are not to be mailed until first rolloff is on site at DPW garage. ***REMIND ER** NEXT MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 26, 1989 Thursday 7:30 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: The Committee there are any contact me. TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 Solid Waste Committee Thomas E. Dwyer, Town Manage r-f— %� October 19, 1989 G*T—'' Miscellaneous Matters may be interested in the following matters. If questions or special concerns, please feel free to We appreciate your active involvement and leadership role in these matters, and look forward to working with you further on J these important and far-reaching issues. Refuse Removal and Recycling Options Study Building off the work and recent report of the Solid Waste Com- mittee, enclosed you will find the study outline and a benchmark schedule for a staff review now underway of various options before the Town for refuse removal and recycling. It is an am- bitious review with an ambitious schedule as well. It is important to note that neither a definitive approach to this matter nor a reliable cost estimate of the expense of refuse removal and recycling in the coming fiscal year will be ready by the time I must submit my budget to the Board of Selectmen and to the Finance Committee (December 21 per Town Charter). Therefore, the budget number for refuse removal and recycling will be only a very rough estimate which will be refined during the deliberative process by the Board and the Finance Committee prior to the Town Meeting. We will certainly be sure to keep you informed of our work. Any thoughts you have during our internal review to add to the study would be appreciated. Two staff teams are working on two different aspects of the project. Environmental and Conservation Planner Richard Lewis and Water/Wastewater Operations Manager Gerald St. Hilaire are handling the recycling study; Director of Public Works John i Solid Waste Committee - 2 - October 19, 1989 Rhind and Deputy Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Robert Swanson are studying the normal refuse collection options. Eventually, their preliminary findings and recommendations will be integratedinto a comprehensive set of suggestions for refuse removal/disposal and recycling. Recycling Report For your information I enclose a' very' interesting recent report from the International City Management Association about recy- cling. We are using that report as one reference and guide in our staff work. Newseaoer Comoostinq Enclosed you will also find the letter "I'recently sent to; Browning -Ferris Industries about the newspaper composting program in conjunction with the Parente Chicken/Egg Operation and the Fine Tree Farm. The letter is self' -explanatory. I might note that it does not appear to be appropriate to enter into any specific agreements or letters of understanding with either Parente or Fine, since all our dealings on a contractual basis will be; strictly with BFI. BFI has indicated its willing- ness to approach the matter this way. j This arrangement provides additional protection for 'the 'Town `while simplifying and stream- lining the inter -relationships. Through your Chairman, I will advise the Committee as soon as BFI responds. Refuse Collection Attached please find a graph prepared by my Office from data sup- plied by Browning -Ferris Industries on the amount of refuse col- lected by month from residential dwellings within Mansfield for the 12 month, period from _September 1988_to August 1989. The to- tal amount of tonnage is 7,164 for that period, or about .45,:tons per person. This 'amount includes only residential -based refuse -- not amounts independently collected and disposed of by other haulers from commercial and industrial facilities. TED:eo Enclosures cc: John Rhind, DPW Director Robert Swanson, Town Engineer/Deputy DPW Director Gerald St. Hilaire, Water/Wastewater Operations Manager Richard Lewis, Environmental and Conservation Planner STAFF STUDY OUTLINE - FOR REFUSE REMOVAL AND RECYCLING OPTIONS NEAR TERN I. METHOD OF COLLECTION/DISPOSAL A. PRIVATE OR TOWN CONDUCTED? 1. PRIVATELY CONDUCTED a) Disposal cost separately identified offers advantages of: i) avoided cost benefit for recycling ii) flexibility for other developing disposal options b) Collection cost separately identified i) more precise method of ascertaining cost c) Build -In Flexibility in Contract 2. TOWN CONDUCTED a) Estimation of Costs: i) Capital - outright purchase; lease; _ lease -purchase ii) Manpower needs and collective bargaining impact iii) Insurance (esp. Workers Compensation) iv) Maintenance v) Disposal site -- Location/availability/commitment -- Cost vi) Back-up Support --manpower & equipment B. TYPE OF COLLECTION SYSTEM 1) Normal (two - three man) 2) Highly Mechanized (one-man with containerized loading) C. SERVICE TO CONDOMINIUM/APARTMENT COMPLEXES/OTHER SPECIAL USE CATEGORIES D. INTEGRATION OF RECYCLING OPTIONS (see Part II) II. RECYCLING OPTIONS A. VARIOUS RECYCLING SERVICES (realistic assessment of what is possible and relatively cost-effective) 1) Composting a) Where/what b) Equipment/manpower needs/facility 2) Newspapers/Glass/Aluminum a) Where/what b) Equipment/manpower needs/facility 3) Other (tires, plastic, etc.) B. HOW WOULD RECYCLABLES (BY TYPE) BE COLLECTED? 1) At source? a) Equipment b) Manpower 2) At collection center? i) Equipment/facility 'ii) Manpower iii) Location C. COSTS OF COLLECTION/DISPOSAL 1) Are markets available? 2) Self-supporting or subsidized? D. SERVICE PRIVATE OR TOWN SUPPLIED 1) Integration with regular refuse removal (see Part I) E - Various tions to Consider 1) Disposal/collection fee a) Offset by recycling incentive (disposal disincentive) 2) Tax supported 3) Combination of fee/taxes 0 ti o Z Z 3y 94 dCa 7dq C� CS h e u � yu o y e o o C ao c u t ti �n �U.. Uw° iC,o v Y L C v •J '.'S td 0�o Cw 0 0 C Z Q Q O tyTtO W. ;s cLi c E 2'eua 3 av .ro �'.c•°�W.�� o•x'K YL „oyao•$LE° oaE � z �a E aEiW•a ,�',E,A `�L«o inu" o ro0.c c .n t°v� �yC7 q �a�i0 °0 °Ea0.� EWE om •NC m� y 0 0 '_ °° CA N° ro C N tiro bud•a°ai °•vcitl 0Eyo ."eo 7 .00 O iy O N N A m o N b q U `•' � .O So ' g o a w O a W eo 0.•LS c a u'- ro� v 3 o3A��c��o�,a roE3aca� u O...E4m •� yo^y•o ro° a m 3 9 0 wa 3 0 3 6 ro Gau •ow ^ E u d ro 3 E L p 0 y ro O•L [4.Op jD Q �N O C N•C G O pd O« .O N ro '.a^ G CC G� O p Tp p i> ?C N ANNL.O C U a N N L O'O do o f N C O y ro (1j E 0 � o •C t° ° v e, 4 w T'J d rN0. _0 hoc u a0.0. O ou° 3 0 goy�� ° ° 'o y eW oa'ec'n eu °� °" 3 °'qqv G .0 'Eon's A a a, u w Y E a •o .o .� $.go d.°�.CaN•wx°�� oho y.w_. 00 00 3A�o �aai a�wm oN'ou uoEraoMoEnoay,,,ro 000 Em �w ELu.E �+°yes p.E o•o 0.Lyo ubs�'E«o5� c'�auro� o FED""F w«uro0.'ro W usgo `" �yyTa E E3uu v: o u'amuc Eo You" ii t O U W Q z 0 d N C �eEado= ;o d a°awmz z3wvLn > y waA[�boE� y o G A ro o a� Js >,yb �• 10 �n�oNv�ieae�"nne z O U aw C�M7 O z 0 H ;D F z TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 TO: Michael Van Splinter, Solid Waste Committee FROM: Richard Lewis, Environmental and Conservation Planner DATE: October 5, 1989 RE: Recycling Information As you are aware, I am participating in the staff review of the options for solid waste disposal for the next fiscal year(s). In order to avoid duplication of efforts, I would appreciate it if you could supply me with an outline of the different communities, organizations, private businesses, etc. that your or the committee have spoken with regarding recycling options, availability of markets, cost, market values, etc. I would appreciate getting this information as soon as possible. Thank you for your cooperation. TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of November 9, 1989 Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF MEETING Evil C. OLD BUSINESS 1. BFI Recycling update - Mike V. 2. Brochure update - Karl 3. Millis update - Bill 4. Allocation of funds for SWC Comm - Marilyn/Mike Mo. 5. Anawam Regional Comm. update - Mike V. 6. Volunteer effort discussion D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Will Sarro - tentative 2. Styrofoam cup issue - Mike Mo. E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL t i jil ilt DEC I �,. ,u s"'A" 'd RE: Summary of meeting of October 26, 1989 ThursVao� 1 ATTENDEES: Dennis Baker, William Lewis, Michael Morizio, Michael Van Splinter, Marilyn Ouellette, Karl Sharicz CORRESPONDENCE Mike Van Splinter received the following correspondence (see attached copies for details): 1. a letter from Richard Lewis, dated October 5, requesting an outline of activity from the SWC Committee 2. a letter from Tom Dwyer, dated October 19, which includes an update on the BFI recycling issue and a summary on the creation of two new staff teams formed to review the SWC proposals outlined in interim report. NEW BUSINESS 1. BFI UPDATE Mike Van Splinter reported that the Board of Selectmen "endorsed" the newspaper recycling program involving BFI. Mike Van Splinter spoke with Tom Dwyer who reported that Gerry Fine met with BFI and the rolloff is scheduled to be in place by November 1. The Board of Selectmen has assigned Tom Dwyer the reponsibility of drawing up the final agreement with BFI and obtaining the appropriate signatures. 2. BROCHURE UPDATE The Committee has established the following trigger mechanism for mailing the recycling brochures: Karl will be notified by Mike Van Splinter to start printing once Mike has received confirmation from Tom Dwyer that 1.) a binding contract has been signed with BFI and 2.) the roll off is physically in place on site Based on the above criteria being satisfied, Karl will have brochures ready for mailing for November 6. To accommodate the three -fold process, Karl had to revise the wording with the consent of the Committee. Karl will obtain the bulk postage rate from either Sohn Dunn or Mike Morizio. 3. MILLIS.UPDATE Bill Lewis reported that at the last meeting in Millis it was noted that the $40,000 has not yet been awarded to Millis. It was emphasized that itis not a grant, but considered a state consultant contract administered by the State and is to be used to hire the consulting firm, Alternative Resources. In light of the State's financial status, participating towns are proceeding to fund initial stage of proposal (cost estimate is approx. $20,000) - this is not the 200 capita fee. Millis Consortium will draft an outline of the consultant's proposal for the participating towns to review and bring to town meetings to obtain the funding necessary for the first phase. Bill expects the draft will be ready for next meeting on November 15. Immediate Action Taken: Committee voted in favor to appoint William Lewis as official representative of Mansfield SWC to Millis Recycling Consortium. Mike Morizio and Marilyn Ouellette will discuss with John Dunn and Tom Dwyer the best approach to allocating funds for immediate use by the SWC (subject to the Board's approval). 4. ANAWAM REGIONAL UPDATE Mike Van Splinter reported that on October 25, the ANAWAM Regional Committee hosted a presentation from a Leominster firm on recycling of styrene. The ANAWAM Committee has set up a program with two subcommittees assigned to researching the issue of recycling glass and polystyrene. The ANAWAM Regional Committee is scheduled to meet twice a month. The next meetings are scheduled as follows: in Foxboro on November 1 (the first and fourth in Attleboro on November 22 Wednesdays of each month) 5. VOLUNTEER EFFORT UPDATE Per Marilyn Ouellete's request, the Committee will discuss at next meeting what specific direction does the Committee wish the volunteer effort to take; Marilyn needs a clearer direction and input from the Committee. NEW BUSINESS - Mike Van Splinter will discuss with the Town Manager the feasibility/economics of establishing a program to recycle town white paper refuse to generate income. According to some source quotes Mike has obtained, non green -bar computer paper has a market price of approx. $200/ton; green -bar computer paper captures a price of over $100/ton. The intent would be to eventually present the proposal to the Town Manager and Board of Selectmen with the option of the Town managing the program itself or resorting to a voluntary effort. - Mike Van Splinter will contact Will Sarre again about attending next meeting. - Bill Lewis distributed to the Committee members for their perusal a copy of the Initiative Petition involving Mark Roosevelt's recycling campaign efforts. (Copy attached) - Mike Morizio has suggested that the Committee discuss at next meeting the issue of recommending to the Board of Health instituting some regulation on styrofoam cups. - An updated list of Committee members will be issued to Elinor Harry from Town Manager's office and to the Town Clerk for town files. - Committee agreed to issue a second letter to Finance Committee concerning the continued absence of their representative at SWC meetings. QUORUM ISSUE Due to quorom problems, the Committee will begin to implement two new procedures in an effort to eliminate the problem: - any member with repeated absences from SWC meetings will receive a notice regarding his/her absenteeism - ANY MEMBER UNABLE TO ATTEND A SWC MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT THE FOLLOWING PRIOR TO MEETING TIME: Chairman, Mike Van Splinter 339-9865 (OR) Secretary, Lisa Silvestri 339-3614 All members' cooperation is greatly appreciated. *** REMINDER *** Next meeting is scheduled for : NOVEMBER 9 Thursday TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 November 7, 1989 George Wojtkiewicz Chairman, Mansfield Zoning Bd of Appeals c/o Mansfield Town Hall 50 West Street Mansfield MA 02048 Dear Mr. Wojtkiewicz: The Mansfield Solid Waste Committee has witnessed the repeated absence of your currently appointed representative, Eric Butler, at our meetings. Please advise the Committee if Eric will continue to serve as representative or if a suitable replacement will be appointed. This request is prompted by the troublesome issue of reaching quorum of which Eric's absenteeism is a contributing factor. If the Zoning Board doesn't have a member sincerely interested in representing the Committee, please formally notify, in writing, both the Solid Waste Committee and the Board of Selectmen of this decision. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, feel free to contact me at 339-9865. Absence of a response by November 30 will indicate that you were unable to find an active participant for our committee. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Michael Van Splinter Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Solid Waste Disposal cc: Eric Butler cc: Board of Selectmen TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 November 7, 1989 Joseph Pasquale Chairman, Mansfield Finance Committee c/o Mansfield Town Hall 50 West Street Mansfield MA 02048 Dear Mr. Pasquale: The Mansfield Solid Waste Committee has witnessed the repeated absence of your currently appointed representative, Barbara Hagg, at our meetings. Please advise the Committee if Barbara will continue to serve as representative or if a suitable replacement will he appointed. This request is prompted by the troublesome issue of reaching quorum of which Barbara's absenteeism is a contributing factor. If the Finance Committee doesn't have a member sincerely interested in representing the Committee, please formally notify, in writing, both the Solid Waste Committee and the Board of Selectmen of this decision. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, feel free to contact me at 339-9865. Absence of a response by November 30 will indicate that you were unable to find an active participant for our committee. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Michael Van Splinter (� Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee�'dn Solid Waste Disposal cc: Barbara Hagg cc: Board of Selectmen TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 November 11, 1989 Edward Tartufo Chairman, Board of Selectmen c/o Mansfield Town Hall 50 West Street Mansfield MA 02048 Dear Mr. Tartufo: At a recent Board of Selectmen's meeting it was requested that the Mansfield Solid Waste Committee conduct a study on incineration. After careful examination of the matter, the Committee has decided it needs more definitive parameters to be able to effectively conduct an intelligent review of the issue. Therefore, the Solid Waste Committee respectfully requests the Board of Selectmen to designate a member to attend one of our meetings to provide us with guidance and to discuss exactly what aspects of incineration the Board would like us to pursue. Our next meeting is scheduled for November 30, please feel free to contact me at 339-9865 with your response or comments. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Michael Van Splinter Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Solid Waste Disposal TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DI RE: Summary of meeting, November 9, 1989, Thursday ATTENDEES: Dennis Baker, Milre Van Splinter, William Lewis, Marilyn Ouellette, Michael t`Morizio, Michael McClanahan OLD BUSINESS 1. BFI Update: 'The recycling contract between BFI and Mansfield was duly signed and the rolloff was in place on November 2. The rolloff was reported to be 25% full. Michael Van Splinter had contacted the local newspaper; a press release,photos and commentary is due to appear in the local newspaper in the November 10 edition. Marilyn Ouellette had noted she will speak to Gail Goddard Taylor at :The Sun Chronicle about obtaining some publicity on Mansfield's recycling program. 2. Brochure Update: Karl'Sharicz had reported to Mike Van Splinter that printing of the recycling brochures should be completed by Friday, November 10; brochures are expected to be mailed by Wednesday, November 15. For further publicity measures, Mike Van Splinter will discuss with John Rhind'or Bob Swanson the feasiblity of permanently anchoring a a sign near the rolloff to publicize the recycling program to residents, 3. Millis Update: Bill Lewis reported that he has heard no further developments from the Millis Consortium. Next Millis meeting is scheduled for Nov. 15. 4. Allocation of funds for SWC: Marilyn Ouellette and Mike Morizio were unable to to discuss the matter with the appropriate individuals but anticipate some information by next meeting. 5. ANAWMI Update: DMike Van Splinter reported that one of the subcommittees is now very seriously studying the idea of recycling styrofoam and glass on a small scale with possible rotating pickups with each town taking turns. No formal recommendations have been made as yet. It was noted that out of the ten communities represented on the ANAWAM Committee, only two use stryofoam in the school 1citchens. 6. Volunteer Effort Update: -,lie following suggestions were made during the discussion on volunteer effort. - have volunteer groups man DPW garage site on weekends - possible curbside pickup by volunteer groups with free use of pickup trucks VOLUNTEER EFFORT cont'd: - volunteers could pickup piles in trash room on each floor of Senior Citizen buildings - stacking and monitoring of rolloff could be assigned to volunteer group - Committee sponsor paper drive or paper with cans as an added inducement of malcing money for the volunteer group manning the drive - flea market concept sited at South Common with a pile of newspapers as form of admission Marilyn Ouellette will speak with Marguerite at the Housing Authority to further publicize the recycling program and to gain insight into the newspaper situation at Cedar Court and Bicentennial Drive. Marilyn recommended that Mike Van Splinter, as SWC chairman, make presentation to a couple of the civic groups (i.e., Jaycees). It was noted that the recycling program definitely needed more publicity in press and needs to seek volunteer/civic groups with much broader based participation such as the Mansfield Elks who deal with town -sponsored projects. NEW BUSINESS 1. Styrofoam issue: Mike Morizio introduced the idea of local control of styrofoam cup use by municipalities and private sector As a further study of the issue, Mike Morizio will compile a list of local businesses/merchants in an effort to identify those products that have a viable option. The intent ultimately would be to supply an incentive for businesses to change behavior irl using paper rather than styrofoam. 2. Will Sarro issue: Since Selectman, Will Sarro, is unable to appear at an SWC meeting due to various reasons, the Committee has agreed to issue a letter to the Board of Selectmen Chairman, Ed Tartufo,requesting another member of the Board be assigned to attend a SWC meeting in order to provide guidance and specifics on the study of incineration. [copy of letter attached] OTHER NEW BUSINESS... - Mike Van Splinter reported that the leaf recycling operation in North Attleboro has started off with much success with approx. 200 vehicles dropping off in a two hour period. Mike had sited that the operation was a highly organized, clean , simple operation with municipal employees manning the posts and sweeping out trucks and ensuring that leaves and brush/rubbish are kept in separate piles. Six bags per vehicle were permitted and contractors were also welcomed. Mike also noted that despite the fact that people had to burst any polyliners, the area remained unlittered. Mike will try to obtain more information on the success of the operation. - Mike Van Splinter noted to the Committee that attention shouldb^focused on a Spring Cleanup operation. Mike suggested that the Committee look into the economics of renting short term a relatively small compactor to reduce bulk/volume of leaves and to ultimately create a proposal to the Board which will outline the rental of the compactor, the quantifying/weighing of the leaves, and the drop off to Gerry Fine. Currently, the estimated cost of rolloff to truck to scale and dump is $130 to $165. The biggest single cost of the operation is electrical service. B - John Rhind reported to Mike Van Splinter that the tom has been receiving about $2000 in credit from BFI due to weigh tickets still being submitted by APR from the aborted recycling program. - Mike Morizio had mentioned the following events: November 19, Sunday, at 7:30pm Attleboro High School Gathering of the Republican Gubernatorial candidates to discuss various issues; they are very much interested in hearing from town boards and committees. November 18, Saturday Wheaton College MassClean 4th Annual Conference on environmental issues; two of interest:: 9:00 to 10;00am Reusable Resources of Attleboro - "PSaking community recycling work" 10:00 to 11:00am Incineration MRF located in Johnston,Rhode Island host open house every Tuesday. It was suggested that Committee obtain video to review and if interested, schedule a trip to the DIRF. 6iiioi�iii�i�i�■;i�i3 NEXT MEETING SCHEDULED FOR: NOVEMBER 30 Thursday 7:30pm TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of November 30, 1989 Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF LAST MEETING 12 C. OLD BUSINESS 1. BFI Recycling Update - Mike V. 2. Brochure Update - Karl 3. Millis Update - Bill 4. Allocation of funds for SWC - Marilyn/Mike Mo. 5. ANAWAM Update - Mike V. 6. Town Paper Recycling - Mike V. 7. Volunteer effort - Marilyn B. Responses from ZBA and FinCom re: absent members - Mike V. 9. Response from Board re: incineration study - Mike V. D. NEW BUSINESS Spring Cleanup issue: leaf program proposal; compactor rental E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 MEMORANDUM TO: The Solid Waste Committee FROM: Richard Lewis, Environmental. & Conservation Planner DATE: January 3, 1990 SUBJECT: Recycling Information and Planning As the Town staff prepares the hid package for solid waste dis- posal beginning August 1, 1990, the need to more clearly define our recycling options becomes evident. Clearly the Solid. Waste Committee has invested time and energy .in exploring the many options available. As I stated in my memo to the chairman of your committee last October, to avoid duplication Of efforts, I would appreciate getting ,your latest information on recycling options - markets, experiences of other towns, costs, etc. I£ it is easier to speak directly with individual members of your committee regarding certain aspects, please let me know, Thank you for ,your anticipated cooperations. RL/dt. cc: Board of Sele(Amen Town Manager enc. TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 January 17,1990 Edward Tartufo Chairman, Board of Selectmen c/o Mansfield Town Hall 50 West Street Mansfield r7A 02048 Dear Mr. Tartufo: This is to inform the Board of Selectmen that the Mansfield Solid Waste Committee has been formally notified by the Zoning Board of Appeals that its currently appointed representative, Eric Butler, will no longer serve as a member of the Committee. The Zoning Board also noted that it does not intend to appoint a replacement for Mr. Butler. In addition, repeated correspondence issued.from the Mansfield Solid Waste Committee to the Finance Committee concerning the continued absence at meetings of its appointed representative, Barbara Hagg, has elicited no response. Based on this response or lack thereof, the Mansfield Solid Waste Committee respectfully requests the Board to formally approve the reduction of the Committee's membership from its current ten members to eight members. This approval will consequently solve the Committee's occasional quorum problems and ensure a sincere interest of all its members. If you have any questions or comments concerning this matter, please call me. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Michael Van Splinter Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Solid Waste Disposal (a/k/a Mansfield Solid Waste Committee) TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of January 25,1990 Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF LAST MEETING FP C. OLD BUSINESS 1. BFI Update - Mike V. 2. Brochure Update - John 3. Millis Update - Bill 4. ANAWAM Update - Mike V. 5. Volunteer effort - Marilyn/ Mike V. 6. Trips to recycling facilities - Mike V./Mike Mo. 7. Allocation of funds for SWC - Marilyn/ Mike Mo. 8. Tovm Paper Recycling - Mike V. 9. Response from Board re: absent members - Mike V. D. NEW BUSINESS E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 0204nn8 sFEB 2 PERMANENT SUBCOXrIITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RE: Summary of meeting , January 11, 1990, Thursday ATTENDEES: Michael Morizio, William Lewis, Michael Van Splinter, Karl Sharicz, Marilyn Ouellette, Dennis Baker, Marydee Flynn OLD BUSINESS 1. BFI Update: Mike Van Splinter reported that the recycling operation is working relatively smoothly but noted that BFI is providing a 42yard container instead of the 50 yard container initially "offered". Careful review of the BFI agreement by Mike and the Town Manager revealed that. the container size was never specified. Since the reduced size results in an increased frequency of pickup and higher costs, Mike suggested the Committee start exploring other options available after the 6 month trial period. Mike also stressed that it would be advantageous to set up allocations for the recycling program at next Town Meeting. Mike also reported that Jerry Fine is very comfortable with the recycling program but indicated that he has witnessed more plastic than desired. 2. Brochure Update: Mailing of the recycling brochures has been delayed until John Dunn meets with the Postmaster to resolve the problem concerning the bulk permit. According to the Postmaster, bulk mailing requires that brochures be sent to all sectors of the community - i.e., commercial, industrial and residential. In order to comply with this regulation, it has been estimated that: 2000 additional brochures need to be printed. John Dunn will report his results at next meeting. Marilyn Ouellette and Dennis Baker have arranged to personally dispose of the 'original" brochures into the BFI recycling container. 3. Volunteer Effort: Marilyn Ouellette reported that Marguerite from t:he Mansfield Housing Authority was very responsive to the recycling effort. Marguerite' had suggested starting a "pilot" program at Park Court since it is readily accessible to both the tenants for dropoff and for the volunteer to pickup. Based on the success of this program, Parguerite targeted Cedar Court as next site to include in recycling. Marguerite is still considering the feasibility of Bicentennial Drive. Mike Van Splinter will contact Joe Allen, President of Mansfield Jaycees,regarding the volunteer effort. e 9. Millis Update: Y Bill Lewis reported no new developments concerning Millis. 5. Absent Members: Michael Van Splinter received from the ZBA a formal notification that their current representative, Eric Butler, will no longer serve as a member of the Solid Waste Committee. The ZBA does not intend to appoint a replacement. Mike also noted that tie has not received any response from the Finance Committee regarding Barbara Hagg's continued absence. IDIEDIATE ACTION TAKEN: The Committee agreed to issue a letter to the Board of Selectmen informing them of the ZBA's decision and the lack of response from FinCom with a request to the Board to approve the Solid Waste Committee membership at eight members. [Copy of letter attached] NEV BUSINESS - Michael McClanahan submitted to Mike Van Splinter his formal resignation as member of the Solid Waste Committee on 1/11/90 citing personal and business reasons. Marydee Flynn has been appointed by the Planning Board as replacement and Linda Sohn will serve as Marydee's "alternate" in tier absence. - The Committee agreed to make arrangements to view both the Sturbridge and Johnston, RI recycling facilities. Mike Van Splinter will handle Sturbridge and will also attempt to obtain a copy of the 1'thour tape of the Sturbridge Recycling Center which includes segments of the operation and various meetings. Mike Morizio will handle Johnston,RI, which is a larger scale operation. - The Committee agreed to explore the feasibility/profitability of expanding the recycling operation to include glass with the eventuality of incorporating leaf compost, yard debris, grass cuttings, and Christmas trees into a more comprehensive program. Mike Morizio cautioned that glass recycling requires more space and careful monitoring to ensure the "integrity" of the glass debris to avoid rejection from the glass company due to bottlecaps, etc. - In an effort to find another viable means of expanding the recycling program, Mike Morizio is currently conducting an experiment to determine the feasibility of in -home separation of residential junk mail. As a matter of convenience, Mike suggested using simple wood containers to aid in separation. Mike intends to collect two months of data and will present his findings to the Committee. Mike Morizio also indicated that in -home or at -office white, paper separation can be be made easier with use of the type of three dimensional posters currently displayed throughout federal buildings. The posters explicitly state what's acceptable and it has been reported to greatly contribute to the quality of separation. - Marilyn Ouellette distributed to all committee members a memo from Dick Lewis requesting assistance in terms of information in preparation for new town solid waste disposal contract. [Copy of memo attached.] - IDEDIATE ACTION TAKEN: The majority* of the Committee voted in favor of limiting meetings to one hour; any business left: will go on next week's agenda. Exceptions are: 1) if spealcer is scheduled; and/or 2) if majority rules to extend meeting time. *one dissenting vote TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Swanson Dick Lewis � 'J i) FROM: Larry Harrington 1°� DATE: February 8, 1990 RE: Solid Waste Proposal Please allow me to apologize for any mis-spoken words at last evening's meeting. I never intended to imply that you by- passed or ignored the Solid Waste Committee. My only point was that the Solid Waste Committee should have received the material in advance; that way they would have been prepared to provide the Board of Selectmen with any constructive com- ments. I realize that you and all the staff work very hard and do an effective job of communication. Again, I apologize for any impression to the contrary. LJH:ebh cc: Town Manager olid Waste Committee Board of Selectmen � , t HANDOUT - SUMMARY SOLID WASTE_ DISPOSAL I have drafted a Request for Proposals (RF''P) for Solid Waste Col- lection and Disposal. The intent- of this handout is to present -- the major- items in the RFP and the proposed method of addressing them. I have summarized these points below- 1. PROPOSED SCCIPE OF SERVICES Ahernate Bid, Base Bid and three Alternative Bids BASE BID -- Weekly pick: -up of Resi.denti.a.l. Solid Waste i.nclud.... ing White Goods/Bulky Waste and Yard Waste. Also, weekly pick-up from small businesses with six hags/containers per week: (same as present contract). Alternative I - Same as Base Did, but with only semi-annual pick-up of White Goods/Bulky Waste. Alternative 2 - Same as Base Bid, but excluding Yard Waste (requires mandatory recycling of yard Waste or composting.) Alternative 3 - Same .:as Base Bid, but with semi --annual pick- up of White Goods/Bulky Waste and excluding Yard Waste. . (Note: White Goods/Bulky Waste could be collected quarterly or semi-annually). 2„ BID ITEMS P'r-esent. - $/household Proposed - _l'/ton of waste Pluses with :#/t:on: A: If we recycle then c:os>t of disposal is offset Minuses with Kton: A- More difficult to project annual cost of dispc.:sal with a/ton versus $/households. Latest: records show 7200 (cons/year of waste, brit it can vary. We now pay K 40.00/ton. B: Crash Flow: With proposed method we pay more dining beginning of contract. In Spetember, 1990, we would be paying 113,000 more than if 12 equal monthly payments were made. See attached chart Monthly Percentage Cumulative Present of Waste Total Billing August, 1990 R"R% 8.8% 8.3% September, 1990 9^2% 18"07 16"7% October, 1990 7.7% 25.7% 25.0% November, 1990 8"2% 33.9% 33"3% December, 1990 8.7% 42,6% 41"7% January, 1991 7.3% 49,9% 50"0% February, 1991 6.4% 56"3% 58.3% March, 1991 7.8% 64,1% 66.7% l April� 1991 ! � ^ R 0% 72 1% . 75% , May, 1991 9"9% 82^0% 83"3% June, 1991 9^4% 91.4% 91"7% . July, 1991 0.6% 100%* 100%* * A difference of 1% in these columns represents $10,000" Worst Month: September, 1990 (18 ~ 16.7 = 1"3%) We would be $ 13,000, above the present equal payment method. `I . Breakdown of Break down rate into fee for collection and fee for transportation and disposal.. Mon Collection $/ton Transport and Disposal. Pluses: a) If Town contracts for a disposal site (such as SEMASS) then we can terminate or renegotiate the transport and disposal portion of the costs. 7. A: $ Over Three Years R: Qualifications ~ Bidders must certify that: a. Solid Waste is major business b" Have 5 years experience or $ 1,000,000. in receivables collecting waste � C. Own vehicles � d^ Have contracted disposal site for length of contract 4" 5" Town can terminate for: a. Contractor's non-performance b, If Town contracts with a separate disposal site, Town could try to renegotiate the transport and disposal portion of the contract. Contractor can terminate for- a. Town's attempt to renegotiate ��. If 25% of the services contracted are reduced or ' removed by the Town. (For instance mandatory recycling could reduce the tonnage by 25%, or if the Town did have its own disposal site this could reduce the transport and disposal fee significantly.) Present " Voluntary newspaper recycling. Citizen drop-off at Highway Garage. We rent the 50 yard covered container - from BFI for the drop-off. BFI reimburses us for the monies they Gnllert at waste paper redemption companies. The net cost of our present recycling system is zero: the cost is nffset by the revenue. Proposed ^ Voluntary newspaper recycling at Highway Garage with citizen drop-off. The cost of the 50 yard container is included in the Contractor's bid ($/ton)^ The Contractor empties the container as needed and the recycled newspapers then become his property" The weight of the newspapers is not included int he Solid Waste tonnage charged to the Town. In this manner the trnage of newspapers removed from the Solid Waste is recycled or disposed of at no cost to the Town. 6. Collection Days Present: 4 days - Tuesday through Friday. Proposed: Contractor sets schedule. Pluses: I assume this will result in the most economical bid. Minuses: Contractor may propose 5 day pickup with Saturday pickup on holiday weeks. SOLID WASTE RECYCLING THE MANSFIELD POTENTIAL I. Overview Between 9/15/89 and 10/15/89 a scattered survey of just 3 local and regional newspapers showed an average of 3-4 articles per week on solid waste issues. Recycling options were key components of most of these articles. Clearly the need and the desire to recycle is on the minds of State Officials, Public Interest Organizations and the general public. Each of these groups are motivated by different factors, but the factors seem to boil down to being "Environmentally right and/or Economically true". I'L is our opinion that recycling is "environmentally right". It is also our opinion that until the cost of recycling a ton of material exceeds the cost to dispose of this material through a standard landfill/incineration method, then recycling is the economically correct disposal option. Our analysis and recommendaticns are based on these opinions. This memo will review the following: i. Mansfield's experience with newspaper recycling, :•:hat happened and why? II. Assessment of experiences of other communities. III. Necessary components of a successful Recycling Program. IV. Recommendations for recycling in Mansfield a. Composting b. Newspaper c. Glass d. Metals and Plastics For item III, issues such as markets, locations, manpower and costs will be considered. L. "lansfipld's Experience With Newsapaper Recycling Much has been written and said about the short lived arrangement with American Paper Recycling (APR) for collection, transportation and disposal -of dropped off ne:•jspapers, so We wont go into details here. In our opinion, the shortcoming of the agreement wi.th'APR that undermined this first stab at recycling was that APR received no compensation for their efforts. If tV.e media reports of APR costs being .c 45.00 per ton for disposing. of the paper was correct, then APR should have been paid at least that amount. Again, until A.PR's cost reached $56.00 a ton, the avoided cost from BFI was economically beneficial for the Town. 1 On the positive side, it should be noted that while there was a very limited public education campaign to inform Town resident's that newspaper recycling option existed, the level of participation and the tonage of collected papers was on the increase. Bags of papers are still being left at the former collection site. The proposed arrangement to compost newspapers with chicken manure seems to be a good short term project that would help keep recycling in the minds of Town residents. It might be prudent to create an agreement for this cooperative agricultural composting project to end on July 31, 1990 when the contract with BFI expires. II. Assessmentsof Experiences of other Communities Several information sources -literature reviews, media reports, personal communications, etc. - have revealed a variety of approaches towards and a range of experiences with, recycling options in other communities. Since each community is different, the approaches and experiences have differed. Many factors such as infrastructure, history of solid waste management and. disposal, and timing of the entrance into a recycling program, all play a part as to how successful the program will be. The experiences.of these other communities can best indicate the potential that can be reached in Mansfield and how it can be achieved. Lexington Lexington, a town. with 24,500 residents, generates 17,000 tons of solid waste a year. In August, 1957 the Board of Selectmen appointed a Waste Task Force Committee comprised of toxin staff and residents. The 1993 Town Meeting enacted a mandatory recycling by-law requiring the separation of certain materials. A contract bid package was prepared and put out to bid. Lexington (con't) The contract was awarded to New: England Crinc. Costs are as follows: COST OF CONTRACT WITH NEW ENGLAND CRINC Year One - nine months (FY89) collect glass, newsprint, mag. supply, distribute 15 gal -bins public education & marketing TOTAL first year Year two (FY90) collect glass, newsprint, nag. public education TOTAL second year Year three (FY91) same as year two •s' 50,125.00 r 46,170.00 16,540.00 $1127835.00 66,833.00 >0 7,068.00 6 73,901.00 In the first 9 months of the contract the Town recycled: Newsprint Aluminum Steel Flint Glass Mixed Glass Total Tonage Avg.TPD* Total for period -tons 8.43 1612.75 .02 3.95 .006 1.21 .93 183.78 1.72 338.03 11.12 2180.69 The participation rate was approximately 76.4%. Pickup for each household is every other week. One container is initially supplied by the town. New England Crinc handles the separation. The Town has also offered leaf composting for several years. This once voluntary program is now mandatory. Residents an either drop leaves off at the old landfill and place them in barrels or use biodegradable paper bags for regular curbside pick up. All municipal offices participate in the recycling of office paper. N.E. CFinc also disposes of this material. According to the Assistant Town Manager, the success of the recycling program is a result of an intensive educational campaign and the concerted and dedicated efforts of the DPW Director and the DPW staff. The bid package and examples of educational materials are attached as Appendix A. Wellesley Wellesley (population. 27,000) appears to have the longest running recycling operation in the commonwealth and possibly in the nation. Source separation began in 1971, and today recycling is a primary component of the Town's Recycling and Disposal Facility (RDF). The Town has no curbside pickup. Approximately 87+ percent of the residents use the RDF site, which is both a transfer station and the recycling center. Recycling began with a strong and effective citizen and voluntary effort. The RDF, open 60 hours a week (Mon. -Sat 7:00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.), is today operated by seven DPW staff. Two attachments (Appendix B) outline some of the numbers (tons and dollars) for the Towns recycling and solid waste program and are a good example of their educational material. Like Lexington, education is extremely important to the continued success or e athe recycling effort. Newton Newton has run a successful leaf composting operation for several years. This leaf composting site is located at the former demolition landfill adjacent to the City's landfill. The facility has, for the most part, relied upon leaves collected from the City Streets. This year residents will be able to pile their- yard leaves at curbside for pickup. A site visit in late September showed a clean and well run site. According to the City's Director of Public Works the composting Operation requires no additional persornel and no increase in departmental budgets. Careful maintenance and oversight of the program is the key to the r_-eation of a well composted product. In Newton, the compost is'mixed with sand, street sweepings and a small amount o= low grade loam. The end product is used for Town projects (grass_ strips, ball fields, etc.). Due to the inclusion of street sweepings, the city does test the compost for -.metals and other hazardous Materials- 4 Attleboro The Citizen Croup - Re -usable Resources of Attleboro - has operated voluntary recycling drop-off centers for approximately ten years on the first Saturday of every month. Presently, three drop-off points are used. Between 1200-1400 cars arrive to deposit papers, aluminum, car batteries, brass and cooper. The Citizens Croup will begin to collect class in December. Waste Systems Inc. provides the roll -offs for collecting the recyclables. They drop-off the container on Friday afternoon or Saturday morning and pick:. them up following the evert. Reusable Resources of Attleboro takes in almost $300.00 in returnable bottles and cans each month. They use this money to offset their expenses. If the market for recycled newspapers continues to drop, this $300.00 will also be used to pay to dispose of the collected papers. Presently much of the recycled paper is being baled and shipped over seas. Nationwide, many communities have recycling success stories. A short sampling includes: St. Louis Park;, Minnesota Operates weekly voluntary curbside pic}:uo for paper, metal and glass. The city provides each household with three stackable recycling coat _aners at approximately :*6.00 per container. Billing is separate from the tax rate. Residents who recycle receive a credit on thier refuse bills.. The city had 80% participation for the first 5 months of 1989. Four Vermont Towns Windsor, Woodstock, Hartford and Hartland (total population 17,000) jointly purchased a recycling trailer that spends one week: in each community. The.volume of recyclables is increasing monthly. San Jose, California Operates a highly successful curbside pick-up program. Approximat-ely 60% of the residents participate. The recycling program sprung from a comprehensive set of goals and principles for solid waste management• developed in 1983. One goal was to reduce the waste stream by 25% by 1990. 5 III. Necessary Components of a Successful Recycling Program No matter what type of recycling program is established, there are several components which must be included in order for the program to succeed. a. Public Education A widespread public education campaign, utilizing brochures end flyers, slogans and logos, media support etc., must be in place prior to the start-up of the recycling program and should remain in place throughout the program. Special events (contests, school programs, etc.) and door-to-door canvassing could also be utilized. The education campaign should stress why recycling is important (the economic and environmental reasons and how to participate. b. Convenience This is crucial to a successful program. For a volunteer drop-off center, the hours must be tailored to promote participation. If residential curbside pickup is utilized, pilot programs and studies have shown that higher participation rates are achieved if colored storage containers are provided by the collector of the town. C. Incentives To encourage new and continued participation in a recycling program, even a mandatory one, residents must have an incentive which could be either positive or negative. An example of a positive incentive is found in Plymouth, Minnesota. There the city selects a resident at random and a city employee checks that house on collection day.'If that person is participating in the recycling program they win a $100.00 cash prize. Another ex_=,mple might be a discount on the collection fee. Examples of a, negative incentive might be where individuals do not participate and pay higher collection fees, or households which do not separate recyclable will not have their trash picked -up. There is little question that positive incentives would be more palatable and enticing to' town residents. 6 d. Marketin If no contract is put together with a private firm for disposal of the recyclables, the towin will have to find marl::ets for these materials. For a successful program, the town must either get commitments from one or more firms to purchase and/or take the materials (paper, metal, glass, etc.) or be prepared to Seek out from a variety of firms the best price at a given point in time. Depending upon the types of materials collected, the latter option could be time consuming. e. Management of Collection Center If the option of a central collection center is pursued., then time and energy will F:ave to be committed to maintaining and managing the renter. It must be set-up to make it as easy as possible for residents i o drop-off their rpcyclables. R: clsar: center .ull prumoUa participation and, adecuate storage and processing space must be available. The components listed above are by no.. means comprehensive. Dependillg upon. the final program chosen, additional needs may arise. RL/dt 7 d. Marketing If no contract is put together with a private firm for disposal of the recyclables, the tot -in will have to find markets for these materials. For a successful program, the toxin must either get commitments from one or more firms to purchase and/or take the materials (paper, metal, glass, etc.) or be preoared to seek out from a variety of firms the best price at a givan point in time. Depending upon the tyres of materials collected, the latter option could be time consuming. e. Management of Collection Center If the option of a central collection center is pursued, then time and energy w0l have to be committed to maintainiro and managing the center. It must be set-up to make it as easy as pnsaible for residen�-; ts i_o drop-off theirrcyclahJ.e=.. F rr. _Je center .:i11 Promote particip_=.tion and, adequate storage and processing space must be available. The components listed above are by no means comprehensive. Depending Upon the final program chosen, additional needs may arise. RL/dt 7 TEN (10) KEY DECISION POINTS CONCERNING SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING OPTIONS Basic Collection and Removal Services 1. Do you agree that the cost should be calculated on a tonnage basis? 2. Do you agree that there should be flexibility to move away from the traditional four -day collection schedule? 3. Do you support periodic collection of bulky waste to save money? 4. Do you agree that the cost of collection should be separated from the cost of transport and disposal of waste? Recycling Service 5. Do you agree that the Town is not yet ready for mandatory recycling? 6. Do you think the Town should consider a voluntary curbside recycling program in the coming year? If so: What items and Under what conditions? 7. Do you agree that the priority order for voluntary drop-off recycling activities should be: a) yard waste b) glass c) metal (Assumes newspaper recycling continues.) 8. If savings materialize from the new bid, should that amount be directed to recycling programs (curbside collection; drop-off centers; capital equipment; educational information) or to strict budget/tax savings? Solid Waste/Recycling Costs 9: Do you think the Town should seriously pursue a refuse removal fee in FY 1.991? 10. Do you think a fee based system should be pursued with recycling incentives or disincentives? TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 MEMORANDUM TO: Solid Waste Committee FROM: Board of Selectmen DATE: February 8, 1990 RE: Reduction of membership Please be advised that the Board of Selectmen, at their Janu- ary 24th meeting voted to approve the reduction of your member- ship from ten to eight. ebh Ga,�x il'aa�g'� Jan uar 2 1990 Ms. Judith Scott Mansfield Town Clerk Mansfield Town Hall 50 West Street Mansfield, MA., 02048 Dear Ms. Scott By unanimous vote on January 25,;1990, the Permanent Subcommittee On Solid Waste Disposal moved to sponsor the below Article for the next Annual Town Meeting. Please accept this letter as the subcommittee's formal submission of this Article for inclusion in the Annual Town Meeting Warrant. Article To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate, or transfer from available funds, $11,000 to establish a recycling project for the purpose of reducing trash disposal costs. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael Van Splinter Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Solid Waste Disposal (a/k/a Mansfield Solid Waste Committee) TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 February 12, 1990 Elinor Harry c/o Mansfield Town Hall 50 West St Mansfield, PIA 02048 Dear Elinor, The Mansfield Solid Waste Committee wishes to express its, thanks to you for all your time and kind effort taken in properly preparing the newspaper recycling brochures for mailing. The success of the town recycling program is due largely in part to unselfish contributions of support such as yours. The brochure mailing has already elicited a response from a town resident who sent a letter to the Commmittee applauding both the brochure and the program. Thanks again for your help in our endeavor. Sincerely yours, � in'U Mica el Van Splter Chairman Permanent Subcommittee on Solid Waste Disposal (a/k/a Mansfield Solid Waste Committee) P TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 January 30, 1990 Mr. Brian J. Magner, District Manager Browning -Ferris Industries, Inc. 190 Mulberry Street Brockton, MA 02402 Dear Mr. Magner Enclosed please find the correspondence we discussed by telephone the other day in which Pat 'Murphy, formerly of BFI's northeast regional office in Boston, indicates to the Chairman of our Solid Waste Committee that your firm will be able to supply us with a 50-yard dumpster for newspaper recycling. You and I have previously talked about this question in earlier conversations. Based on our most recent conversation of January 29, I understand that you will be able to supply to us within the next two to three weeks . 50-yard,dumpster as specified. We look forward to receiving it. If, for any reason, the dumpster cannot be placed at the Highway Garage within the next three weeks,•please let me know. Sincerely,. 5� Thomas E. Dwyer Town Manager TED/eo cc: Robert Swanson, DPW Director/Town Engineer _,John Rhind, DPW Maintenance Superintendent Enclosure II NNSf/� a(QP�GiNCi ,�'� �q 'O aOASA��s��. �wN 1v TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mans �I P FEB1` PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RE: Summary of meeting, February 8, 1990, Thursday ATTENDEES: Marilyn Powers, :Karl Sharicz, William Lewis,. Michael Morizio, Michael Van Splinter, Marydee Flynn, Jolm Dunn OLD BUSINESS 1. BFI Update: Tom Dwyer sent letter to Brian Magner,,District Manager at BFI, confirming BFI recent verbal agreement with Mike Van Splinter. to provide 50 yard container at DPW site. .[Copy attached] The Committee recently received a letter from a Mansfield resident congratulating the newspaper recycling program and brochure and had commented on the feasiblity of glass recycling. [Copy attached] 2. Brochure Update: The newspaper recycling brochures were mailed out to town residents. John Dunn reported that the delay was due to the post off ice's requiring that the brochures be grouped in amounts according to each route. The necessary recounting and preparation for mailing was performed by Elinor Harry, secretary to the Board of Selectmen. Immediate Action Taken: The Committee voted in favor to send a letter .of thanks to Elinor for her time and effort with the brochures. [Copy attached] 3. Millis Update: Bill Lewis recently received a call from George Russell, the.Natick .representative from the Millis Consortium, urging individuals to contact state representatives in support of the proposal of funds ($40,000 grant) for the Millis Consortium. Russell had indicated that. the possibility exists that the State may still award the grant to Millis. Immediate Action Taken: The Committee voted in favor of Bill Lewis sending letter to Reps. Vernon and Keating in support of funds for Millis Consortium. The letter will be followed up with a phone call and a copy of letter will be sent to Board of Selectmen urging them to send a similar letter of support to reps. 4. ANAWAM Update: Mike Van Splinter reported that a meeting will be scheduled .to discuss long range planning. He also noted that"industry watchers" characterized the ANAWAM regional committee as as being the best operating group in existence now. 5. Volunteer Effort: Marilyn Powers made preliminary contact with the Boy Scouts and will arrange a meeting with them to further discuss concepts and ideas. Marilyn also noted that Marguerite Carruthers from Mansfield Housing Authority reported that residents of Park Court are eager to participate in newspaper recycling but require help. A similar scenario exists at: Senior Citizen housing. The volunteer effort will begin its focus in these areas of immediate need. 6. Trips to recycling facilities: Trip to Sturbridge facility is tentatively scheduled for MARCH 3, Saturday. Details are forthcoming. Gerry Fine, as well as -Dick Lewis and Bob Swanson will be invited to join this excursion.. 7. Allocation of funds for SWC: Mike Van Splinter personally submitted the formal version of the Town Article on January 30. [Copy attached] Mike informed Tom Dwyer of the Committee's sponsorship of the Article and also discussed the recycling "park concept at the old landfill site. Dwyer commented favorably but noted that more concrete calculations would have to be made to substantiate the $11,000 figure requested in the Article. Mike also noted that Great Woods is willing to buy huge leaf bags for town's leaf composting efforts. 8. Reduction of membership: Board of Selectmen approved of the Committee membership be reduced to eight members. [Copy of letter attached] As a result, only four members will now be required to reach quorum. NEW BUSINESS In preparation for the renewal of the town's solid waste contract, the Board of Selectmen voted during the Feb 7 meeting that the Solid Waste Committee is to report back or "jointly present" with Dick Lewis and Bob Swanson their research and recommend. ations to the Board. As a result, the following schedule of meetings has been arranged: FEBRUARY 20, Tuesday workshop meeting between Solid Waste Committee, Dick Lewis, Bob Swanson, Tom Dwyer FEBRUARY 22, Thursday regularly scheduled Solid Waste Committee meeting devoted to going over details based on info exchanged during workshop meeting with intent to establish consensus for Board presentation FEBRUARY 28, Wednesday meeting with Board of Selectmen as collaborative group with Dick Lewis, Bob Swanson, Tom *Dwyer. t:o present consensus of staff and Committees * Please note: Dick Lewis and Bob Swanson will be meeting with Finance Committee to obtain their input. Mike Morizio will be performing a comparative analysis of viable alternativeSto be discussed and reviewed during the workshop meeting. Mike will also create an outline. Due .to time constraints, Bill Lewis will obtain for Mike the pertinent info concerning Norton's present leasing program; Marydee Flynn will obtain info concerning the Foxboro disposal contract. FYI: See attached listing of landfill data handed out by Mike Morizio for review. f Both Dick Lewis and,Bob Swanson created three different handouts for the Committee's review - see attached copies. The three handouts are a RFP, Summary, and questionnaire. OTHER NEW BUSINESS - The Committee formally aclmowledges the name change of member Marilyn Powers, previously referred to as Marilyn Ouellette. -'Karl Sharicz mentioned the following ',FYI" for fellow Committee members: Citizen's Advisory. Board for Rhode Island Solid Waste Management is sponsoring a a panel discussion on solid waste management for a 1-1� hour sesion including meal Date: February 20, Tuesday 'Place: Rocky Point Park Palladium Time: 6:00 pm If interested, please call Karl for details. **RED4INDER *** Next meetings are scheduled for: FEBRUARY 20, Tuesday 7:30 {special FEBRUARY 22, Thursday 7:30 Special Board presentation: FEBRUARY 28, Wednesday 7:30 PLEASE NOTE: If you are unable to attend any of these meetings, please notify - Mike Van Splinter at 339-9865 or ; Lisa Silvestri at 339-3614 TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 March 2, 1990 The Honorable William_B. Vernon State House, Room 443 Boston, MA 02133 Dear Bill: I am writing to advise you that the Mansfield Board of Selectmen voted at its February 21, 1990`meeting to support the pending grant applica- tion of the Millis Consortium for recycling. This grant request is now being held in the Office of Administration & Finance of the State for fur- ther review and funding determination. The Town has consistently supported recycling efforts and, in particular, has endorsed the progressive work of the Millis Consortium. Our Solid Waste Committee has participated in the 'Millis Consortium work and has supported the Consortium's determined efforts in securing State funds to help in the study of this important issue. We are 'aware that the Solid Waste Committee has already written to you on its behalf asking for your support. The Board is happy to join its voice with that of the Solid Waste Committee in this effort. On another note, we thank you for attending the Board's meeting February 28th to discuss local aid. We all were pleased to learn once again of your continuing strong support of adequate State funding for municipali- ties. Sin, Thomas E . wyer TOWN MANAGER TED:ebh cc: Board of Selectmen d Waste Committee Douglas Priest/Millis Board of Selectmen PINS r �okNCI � p TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS - 50 West Street, Mansfield MA 02048 ASAD AWN \t� PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of March 22, 1990, Thursday A. REVIEW OF SaPJAR OF LAST MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS 1. BFI Update - Mike V. 2. Millis Update - Bill 3. ANAWAM Update - Mike V. 4. Feedback on Mike M.'s proposition - P4ilce M. 5. Trip to Sturbridge 6. Volunteer Effort D. NEW BUSINESS E. CODDiENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS TOWN OF MANSFIELD, `.t rfGS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MAC 48 90 MAY 17 An 8: 51 MASSACHUSETTS PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RE: Summary of meeting, March 8, 1990 Thursday ATTENDEES: William Lewis, Karl Sharicz, Michael Van Splinter, Michael Morizio CORRESPONDENCE Michael Van Splinter received from Tom Dwyer a copy of the Board's letter issued to Rep. Bill Vernon in support of granting funds to Millis Consortium. [Copy attached] OLD BUSINESS 1. BFI Update: Mike Van Splinter reported that 50 yard recycling container is on site (2 feet higher in dimension) resulting in approx. 2 tons more being picked up. Mike had indicated that hasn't been receiving any data or feedback from town concerning cost figures, etc. - lie will discuss with Tom Dwyer about establishing some type of reporting. "mechanism". Si In an effort to eliminate the incidence of plastic bags in the recycling container, Mike Van Splinter will discuss with Tom Dwyer the possibility of installing sign on site stating no plastic. 2. Millis Update: Based on conversations with George Russell (Natick rep.) and the secretary for Consortium, Bill Lewis reported that the Millis Consortium did receive the $40,000 grant from the State. Most of the grant will be allocated to performing feasibility study and site selection (111st phase") through employment of consulting firm. Millis is still in the running for additional aid from NY -based plastics group. Both Sen. Kerry, Kennedy and Rep. Frank are focusing some time and effort in persuading the NY plastics company of the idea and its viability. 3. ANAWAP4 Update: Mike Van Splinter reported that Martinson p p p presented program on g promoting yard waste and leaf composting in "low-tecki" form using gravel and Jersey barriers. Mike had also noted that in 1992 no more yard waste or leaves will be allowed to dump on landfills. As a result, DEP and State Board of Health is encouraging backyard composting of leaves. 4. Trips: Jerry St. Hillaire and Tom Dwyer applied for permit to burn out the old tree stumps at landfill site to make room for future leaf compost site. Trip to Sturbridge recycling facility has been arranged for MARCH 17 Saturday Depart from Town Hall at 8:00 am NEW BUSINESS - Bill Lewis received letter from Andrew Martin, consultant for Highway Selvage Recycling Inc. of Lakeville which specializes in collection and disposal of metals, aluminum, copper, brass, big white goods, etc. Bill will pursue for details and arrange for Martin to attend a SWC meeting. - Karl Sliaricz reintroduced the topic of stopping usage of Styrofoam; lie cited a current gradual educational campaign being implemented at his workplace and suggested if feasible or worthwhile to attempt it at town level - Based on discussion with private owner of an Attleboro landfill, Al Dumont, Mike 1,4orizio has created package of information based on state studies and comprised of the following: Exhibit A - copy of Norton contract (to be used as model) Exhibit B - Foxboro trash collection contract Exhibit C — draft of sample contract (based on Norton's) outline According to Mike's presentation of information in this package, the town of Mansfield could realize considerable cost savings. IPMIEDIATE ACTION TAKEN: Tl.e Committee voted in favor to approve formal transmittal of this proposition to Town Manager and Staff for their review and consideration. 'c Mike Van Splinter will hand deliver the package to the Town Manager's office with brief cover letter. [ODpies of Milke's proposition will be distributed at next meeting to those members who were absent.] *** R E M I N D E R Next meeting is scheduled for: MARCH 22 Thursday 7:30 NOTE TO MEMBERS: If you are unable to attend a meeting, please call MIKE VAN SPLINTER at 339-9865 or LISA SILVESTRI at 339-3614 TOWN OF PERMANENT SUBC0MMITTEE r MANSFIELD, MA� t: N-W S50 West Street, Mansfiel48 90 VAY 17 AY 8. 51 MASSACHUSETTS ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RE: Summary of meeting, March 8, 1990 Thursday ATTENDEES: William Lewis, Karl Sharicz, Michael Van Splinter, Michael Morizio CORRESPONDENCE Michael Van Splinter received from Tom Dwyer a copy of the Board's letter issued to Rep. Bill Vernon in support of granting funds to Millis Consortium. [Copy attached] OLD BUSINESS 1. BFI Update: Mike Van Splinter reported that 50 yard recycling container is on site (2 feet higher in dimension) resulting in approx. 2 tons more being picked up. Mike had indicated that hasn't been receiving any data or feedback from town concerning cost figures, etc. - lie will discuss with Tom Dwyer about establishing some type of reporting. "mechanism". 2. 3 RE In an effort to eliminate the incidence of plastic bags in the recycling container, Mike Van Splinter will discuss with Tom Dwyer the possibility of installing sign on site stating no plastic. Millis Update: Based on conversations with George Russell (Natick rep.) and the secretary for Consortium, Bill Lewis reported that the Millis Consortium did receive the $40,000 grant from the State. Ptost of ttie grant will be allocated to performing feasibility study and site selection. ("1st phase") through employment of consulting firm. Millis is still in the running for additional aid from NY -based plastics group. Both Sen. Kerry, Kennedy and Rep. Frank are focusing some time and effort in persuading the NY plastics company of the idea and its viability. ANAWAM Update: Ptike Van Splinter reported that Martinson presented program on promoting yard waste and leaf composting in "low -teed" form using gravel and Jersey barriers. Mike had also noted that in 1992 no more yard waste or leaves will be allowed to dump on landfills. As a result, DEP and State Board of Health is encouraging backyard composting of leaves. Jerry St. Hillaire and Tom Dwyer applied for permit to burn out the old tree stumps at landfill site to make room for future leaf compost site. Trips: Trip to Sturbridge recycling facility has been arranged for MARCH 17 Saturday Depart from Town Hall at 8:00 am NEW BUSINESS - Bill Lewis received letter from Andrew Martin, consultant for Highway Selvage Recycling Inc. of Lakeville which specializes in collection and disposal of metals, aluminum, copper, brass, big white goods, etc. Bill will pursue for details and arrange for Martin to attend a SWC meeting. - Karl Sharicz reintroduced the topic of stopping usage of st.yrofoam; he cited a current gradual educational campaign being implemented at his workplace and suggested if feasible or worthwhile to attempt it at town level. I —Based on discussion with private owner of an Attleboro landfill, Al Dumont, Mike Morizio has created package of information based on state studies and comprised of the following: Exhibit A - copy of Norton contract (to be used as model) Exkiibit B - Foxboro trash collection contract Exhibit C - draft of sample contract (based on Norton's) outline According to Mike's presentation of information in this package, the torm of Mansfield could realize considerable cost savings. IMMEDIATE ACTION TAKEN: The Committee voted in favor to approve formal transmittal of this proposition to Town Manager and Staff for their review and consideration. Mike Van Splinter will hand deliver the package to the Town Manager's office with brief cover letter. [Wpies of Mike's proposition will be distributed at next meeting to those members who were absent.] *** R E M I N D E R Next meeting is scheduled for: MARCH 22 Thursday 7:30 NOTE TO MEMBERS: If you are unable to attend a meeting, please call MIKE VAN SPLINTER at 339-9865 or LISA SILVESTRI at 339-3614 v TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOWIITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of May 10, 1990, Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUDVARY OF LAST MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS 1. RFP Update - Mike Poo. 2. Response from Board re: memrership 3. Millis Update 4. ANAWAP4 Update r. Recycling Park/Ammendment Update D. NEW BUSINESS E. COW1ENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS J4° T1 TOWN OF MANSFIELD,, NIASSACHUSETTS 50Weste3rpe,, l4,ins�f[pid MA02048 t}3 $ J' �TTS PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RE: SUMMARY OF MEETING OF APRILY-6,1990 Thursday ATTENDEES: Michael Morizio, Michael Van Splinter, William Lewis OLD BUSINESS I. RFP Update: Town opted for split bid process for new solid waste contract and attracted three main bidders: Laidlaw, BFI, Plainville The bid ranges were: collection $200,000 - $300,000/yr disposal high $40's - low $50's The separate recycling program element of the contract elicited the bids in a range of $112,000 - $200,000/yr. And each offering was substantially different. Tom Dwyer intimated that the Town would look seriously into accepting one of the recycling proposals. Mike Morizio commented that the small amount of bidders could be attributed to the complexity of the Town's bid documents. 2. ANAWAM Update: The SWC regional committee hosted presentation by Taunton on their recycling program. Capitol -Paper provides town with 50cubic yard rolloff with sliding interior -panels which serve to compartmentalize the different recyclables. Taunton is expending alot but is not achieving high efficiency due to problems requiring handstacking of newspapers daily and also some compartments filling to capacity faster than others. Capitol Paper quoted the following for Mansfield: rental of multipart rolloff container $140/mo price offered for tin/steel cans $20/ton glass $20/ton natural HDP $.80/lb colored HDP $20/ton Harvey from Capitol Paper strongly suggested renting steel compactors if dealing with plastics. He further commented that the best markets were local but the company would haul it anywhere town could find a market. Haul fee can be up to $120. Capitol is equipment supplier and hauler. Bill Lewis reported that Waste Systems figures are similar in range to Capitols. He has no concrete figures yet on Highway Selvage Co. 3. Recycling Update: Recycling program is currently averaging 11 tons of newspaper every 8 days. At special town meeting on May 14th, Committee will seek support/approval of ammendment to capital budget to add $11,000 for capital in creating and'implementing recylcing park concept. Primarily be presented as modification of two proposals: 1) Town Mgr and staff request to burn stump dump and provide compactor for composting 2) SWC recycling park proposal Estimates of recycling park concept: $4500 fencing/gating $9000 baler $30000 labor Based on these estimates, 13J% participation is required to breakeven. 4. Membership issue: Committee agreed to send letter to Board of Selectmen requesting the Board set SWC membership at eight, including Board member; or seven members without Board member. It was also requested that the remaining open seats be designated to citizens at large to ensure a higher level of interest and participation among members. Mike Van Splinter will follow up with phone call. 5. Millis Update: Bill Lewis reported that the consultants, ARI, have created the following schedule of action: Phase I Present -feasibility study in progress; survey of recyclable markets; identifying options; economic analysis; evaluation impact June/July -comparison of DiRF, bidding, siting methodology, site selection August -preparation of RFP specs, report Phase II Sept -prepartion of RFP Phase III October -analysis of bids Phase IV -vendors prepare bids ARI will present two proposals: one based on 450,000 pop. with high tech mechanical operation and the other based on 250,000 pop. with low tech transfer station type setup. Palmer&Dodge was the law firm chosen by the Millis Consortium to handle the legal aspects. In order to cover the legal expense, toinis are requested to make definitive judgements as to whether or not they are serious and to reach decision by June with funds in hand. Millis is presently only town with the appropriate funds, but some towns are bringing it to town meeting. It has been cited that those towns counted "in" by June will reap benefits of initial investment and will experience favorablly lower fees. Additionally, in next two months,each town is requested to designate an individual with the authority to decided on town's behalf issues such as site selection, loading fees, etc. 4 Committee voted in favor to approach Board to allocate approx. $3200 (20Q/capita) with.the understanding the Town of Mansfield is merely buying share -in participation of study with no further obligation or any- expectation of getting any money back. In addition, the Board is requested to empower Bill Lewis to authorize decisions on town's behalf on the Millis Consortium project. The Coimn:6ttee's intent: is to keep all options open. * * * R E P4 I N D E R* ** NEXT MEETINGS IN MAY ARE SCHEDULED AS FOLLOWS: MAY 10 Thursday 7:30pm MAY 24 Thursday 7:30pm ALSO REMEMBER: MAY 14 Monday Special town meeting; $11,000 ammendment proposal If you are unable to attend a meeting, please contact Mike Van Splinter 339-9865 or Lisa Silvestri 339-3614 TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of June 28, 1990 A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF LAST MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS 1. Recycling Park Update 2. Millis Update 3. Anawam Update 4. New members D. NEW BUSINESS Preparation of Recycling Park presentation ERS Presentation 8:30 pm E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS r R TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MA 1,Q T§Q 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RE: Summary of meeting of June 14, 1990 Thursday CORRESPONDENCE 1. For informational purposes, Mike Morizio issued letters to Board of Selectmen and all other town boards concerning the availability of government surplus personal property. This property encompasses a wide range of items (ie.,forklift, tables, folders) that are granted -on a first come basis depending on availability. An administrative fee may be charged for certain items. To be considered for this property and placed on state's list, the town must be certified by filling out certain documents. 2. Mike Van Splinter received letter from Town Manager informing the SWC that the literature on Brockton Iron & Steel proved interesting and that it was forwarded to Dick Lewis to pursue further. 3. Eleanor Harry, secretary for Board of Selectmen, forwarded cover letter and resume from interested applicant for membership to SWC for review. Immediate Action Taken: Committee agreed to notify Board of its interest in applicant with request to pursue further. With regards to new members, it is noted that to date, no formal acknowledgement was received from the Board with respect to the letter issued to the Board from the SWC concerning membership. OLD BUSINESS 1. Recycling Park Update Mike Van Splinter spoke briefly with Will Sarro and was informed of no new developments since the Board was unable to meet with Town Manager. Immediate Action Taken: The Committee agreed to focus attention on developing formal comprehensive business plan/presentation of the Recycling Park Facility. The compost aspect will not be addressed since it will be handled as outlined by Town Manager in budget. Based on Mike Morizio's suggestion and previous outline, the Committee agreed to approach the project by assigning each member a particular recyclable item or "commodity" as follows: Karl Sharicz: metals Bill Lewis: plastics Mike Morizio: glass Mike Van Splinter: paper Each member is responsible for thoroughly researching the item and devising a viable means of handling the collection and disposal of the item (excluding thb marketing aspect). Subsequently, the Committee will collectively review the individual proposals to modify and finalize. Mike Van Splinter will attempt to obtain aerial photos of the proposed site. And Bill Lewis will bring in Recycling Park map/model for Committee's review. For next meeting, each member is requested to compile all literature pertinent to the recycling park project.to serve as reference library for members. 2. Millis Update Bill Lewis reported that during Millis' last meeting on May 23, the consultants, ARI, presented the following schedule of events: June: site evaluation; currently accepting site proposals July: review specs of facility; RFP preparation Sept: formal RFP presentation; create by-laws Legal firm created by-laws and were presented for review at last meeting. It was recommended that all bills be directed to Millis who will be responsible for remitting payments. Before or on July 1, all towns truly interested in participating should remit the requested 20C/capita 'fee. Some towns have already passed the necessary warrants to allocate appropriate funds for the Millis project, while other towns are awaiting town meetings to convene. Charlie Le$ou, DEP rep. to Millis Consortium, stated that he would like all interested towns to pass warrant article or send letter of support from towns? boards. Immediate Action Taken: The Committee agreed to send letter to Board of Selectmen requesting their formal support to allocate 20C/capita for Millis project. (Note: it will be researched to see if a similar letter has already been sent to Board) Mike Van Splinter will inform Board of Selectmen that Bill Lewis will make presentation on the Millis project to the Board, if so requested. Immediate Action Taken: The Committee voted in favor of recommending Bill Lewis be appointed official town_ representative to Millis Consortium in the event the Board formally endorses the town's participation. 3. ANAWAM Update Mike Van Splinter reported no new developments. NEW BUSINESS Mike Van Splinter informed the Committee of a presentation being made by ERS, Environmental Recovery Systems, a vendor currently proposing a site for composting facility for Norton. Key info: June 28 Thursday at Ann's Place cocktails 6:30 pm dinner 7:00 pm ($13.50/person) program 8:30 pm The Committee agreed to schedule next meeting at 6:30 and to later adjourn to to attend the ERS program at 8:30pm. "Making.It Happen" THE MANSFIELD RECYCLING PARK PLAN An Environmentally Safe Plan For Reducing Solid Waste Disposal Costs. THE VISION The vision of the Solid Waste Committee is that of a Recycling Park functionally similar to the facility at Sturbridge, MA. Since the location under consideration for our facility is in front of our former landfill which will be capped shortly, a park -like background will be easily attainable. The front of the area .is already sheltered by trees and ground cover. This area has long been "The Dump". No neighborhood complaints are envisioned. The lower section which is equally sheltered is proposed as the compost site, and perhaps in the far rear, a police pistol range. Unpaved roadways allow easy access throughout the entire area. Each area, due to road configuration and topography, can operate independently of the other. n pa. 2 The range of items handled which would grow as utilization and participation increase would ultimately include - 1. Yard Waste 2. Metals steel copper aluminum white goods 3. Paper C.P.O. #1 High grade colored mewsprint 4. Corrugated 5. Plastics HDPE LDPE 6. Glass clear brown green 7. Textiles 8. Certain Woods 9. Tires 10. Batteries il. Motor Oil Since categories 1 through 7 are already handled through our Solid Waste contract, diversion of those items will result in a cost avoidance of approximately $57.00 per ton. a pa. 3 Additionally, some of the items have a relative "High" market value: $20-$90/ton. Items 9-11 can be recycled by diverting them from the hazardous waste stream. The intent of the committee in proposing this park is to create a cost effective, true recycling plan without increasing the cost of living in Mansfield through taxes, fees or penalties. 5/18/90 OUTLINE Section I. RECYCLING PARK FLOW DESIGN AND OVERALL SITE LAYOUT. (Site plan showing flow of automobile and foot traffic through park including layout of major components to Recycling and Commercial Awareness Modules..) Section II. THE RECYCLING MODULE PLAN. II(1). The Recycling Module Management Plan Management Responsibility Recycling Module Staffing; Town & Volunteers Materials to be Collected and Recycled Marketing of Reclaimed Materials Hours of Recycling Operation Advertising, Education & Community Awareness II(2). Recycling Module Equipment Design. Equipment Selection Equipment Layout Material Handling and Transportation Design Maintenance 1I(3). Recycling Site Design. Fencing & Security Roadways & Walkways Buildings & Power Parking & Landscaping Land Preparation for Equipment Placement II(4). Recycling Module Permits And Licenses. DEP & BOH Permits Section III. THE COMMERCIAL AWARENESS MODULE PLAN. III(l). The Commercial Module Management Plan Management Responsibility Staffing; Town Volunteer Groups Commercial Activities Allowed Hours of Commercial Operation Advertising, Education & Community Awareness III(2). Commercial Module Site Design. Fencing & Security Roadways & Walkways Buildings/stands Parking, Landscaping & Signage Land Preparation & Power. III(3). Commercial Module Permits And Licenses. DEP & BOH Permits Zoning & Commercial Licenses Section IV. THE FINANCIAL PLAN. Equipment Cost Land Development Cost Direct Operational Expenses Recycling Module Town Revenue Commercial Module Town Revenue Commercial Module Volunteer Group Revenue Disposal Cost Avoidance. ................................................. M................................... .... .PEL7LY/.... dQK ..........................._.... BULEGET DETAIL - .............._._............:................................ ........ :ANNUAL TONS € 7300: _ _....................................... ........................ _......................................._......_......................_....._............_....._....._...._.............................w.. ..............I........................... -..........;YEAR ONE, TI_P........._.............. $57:12 e ........ .......................... ;._...... .... _._..................... ..................... ............... ._.......... ....................................... :.._.................................... ........................._.........................9 MATERIAL ...................... ....................................... :..................... ..................».....................................0 :ANNUAL TONS:YALUE PER TR ..... ................._.........._i......................................... RETURN :AVOIDED CSVNET VALUE MILK HD ..................................................... ........._..._......13.:1.6 ...................................._:............................._.....9........................................ GLASS ..... ............................................... _ .................._$8000........_$1..,.052.80............$751:70_.........._$_1.,80450.. :..................... ' :...................................._:......................_ ......................................... CLEAR _.................._......... _.......................... 58.2108 $40:00 a $2 328:43 e ............ $3,325:00. $5,653.43 ................................................... COLORED f..............._29;98250...................$20.:00. . 31,2.25_ COLORED PLASTIC*....> ....................__3:.__6.i.................._$40,00.............._$,526:4Q............_$751_:70_i............�.,20:�_0.. _...........$599.:65.1......$1..,712;60............$2 STEEL..................................._.................................._0....................._$0:00 ` : 0.00: $...................................................... $0.00 C.P.O. 0i ........................................................... NEWSPAPER 448.92: ......8........9..............{$18-00)i.,_($8,212.00) 9 $25 642.00........$.1_7 430.00....WASTE : 984i $0.00: .. $0.00: $56,206081 $56,206:08 ..........9 WHITE GOODS .............................................................................................................._$0:00_._.................$0:00......._$1.809:56e ................................................................. 31.68: p P $1 809;56.. TEXTILES 0i ................................................................................i.................... $O.00..F................._$ 0 :0 0..(........................$0.: 0!�.. ALUM .: FOILS O: $0.00 $0.00: $0.00 .........................................................................................:......................................,.......................................................................... ................_TNS kECY CED 33. .._$90,1.98:6�1.......................................... ...........................4 mo. rojection ..........1579:1_t ........................................ ....................................... .... _................................... .._(43,704,72 ;.......................................................... .................:................ ............ ............ ......................................... _.......... ' .:....................... TDTAL: $86 493.92 _.... .............................................. _......................................_............_........._............................................... XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX:XXXXXXXXXXXXXiXXXXXXXXXXXXX:XXXXXXXXXXXXx XXXXXXXXXX:XXXXXXXXXXXXX ............................................................................................9........................................................... BASIS i ......... MATERIAL ......................................:............. _.......... ......... ... ,................ :AMT.INTONS: _............. _.... ,....................... PARTICIP. _........... ......................................... RE-CYCLE ....................................................:.......................................9.............................................................................._..................................9....................................... ALL PLASTICS 6.598 COMBII(474.5 ................._.............._........................._..........................................:..................................._:...................._..__........:......................................... COLORED.PLASTIC 3.00 5�: ...... .MILK{H.O:P:)............o......._._........3:00°�i ................2. ......................_. ..... ............................5..%.._........._...._32 :85.... .................................. ALL GLASS ....................._....._21_9a........................_1_5� i 8.1 % COMBI �J 591 _................_32:$5.......................................... ................................_.........ro............................... CLEAR i ......... ................... 365:......................._15�i_. .._._.... ...... —... .................. ............ b........................................ L.0....R..ED ..................._S:00%i '.3:00� 2t9 15�'.................. .......... _._58:21.i......................................... 29:93 ALLMTA.... L... S .......... ......... .....C...0... .................................. ...8.... 7.6 .... COMBIN635.1 ........................... ;........................................ ................................9.............................. iTEEL CAS......_O _.........................................................................9............................ ...................................................................._..................._...................:......................................... .ALUM&FOILS ............. ..............9..................................................................... ....... 0 .....................5.�.i........................0.:O0. ........................... ............. WHITE GOODS 8.70V ........................_159op.......................0:00......................................... : 63.5.. 5%;: 31.68i .P...A....P....E....R...S. ..A.... .:..............................................:........._..........._.._..._....._.............._..................a ..........................................................'...4...1.�.C..O.....MB..I...N_2993 .L.....L. ......................................9.................. C:P;O * .. .. .................... . P.................................... Oi 90%: _.... _.......................................... 0.00€ .............. NEWSPAPER .... .. .............................. ....................................._._........................................................_......................................................... ..................4100%i P.................. 2993:......................15S�i..............._448 92_........................................ YARD WASTE ........... _..........................9... ...................18:OO�o 1314i 75i 984.00i TEXTILES..... .................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................... P.............. _.. .................................................._... ..................._15�..........._. ..... ..........0........;......................................... ................ .................................. :.............. ......................... :........................................ ........... ........... _............_ ;.................................. ....s........ oTOTAI......................._.._.......1.5 ............................ :........................................ ..9..._........................................... ........... _........................... { PPESENT PARTICIPATION IS MORE THAN 16� .................................................... ................... ..... ............... ................ ......... .................. ........ .............. ............... .................. _................ :........................................ ..................._.................................................... .................. ................ ........................ SCHOOLS &OFFICES : d...................... .. ..:.................................. %OF TOTAL MSW 21 63% ...................................................._......._......_.,_............._....._.............,..................................._................._.........._......:....................................... 1 CU./t O CLASSROMS AND .5 Lb. PER FTE .................................................... ...........................:.................._................... ..................... .................. b.............. .................................. ........... ..... .... ........ __..i............................ I............ ............................ ......... ........... 4....................... 9........... _.......................... .... ............................... .............. ..... P............. ......................... ....................... _.......... ........ ....... ........ .....d........................................ ..... .................. ................................ Page 1 DATE 5/11 /90 TIME 11:19 PM ............................................. ......^....... ...._.............................. _.............. _.................. _.......... 's........................................ j....................................... 1........... ._.......................... ................_.................._i....................................b. o................... _..._._........ d................. .................... _.............................. ............................... ..................... ........................................I......................._.......................................,............................................................................ i....................................... a.................................... __ .................... ___.......... :.................................... J..................... .............. ....I........................................ n.................................P.................................._:...._.............._................... ECCONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS o..._._................................ CAPITAL COSTS .......................................................................,.....................................P....................._...._....... ................. OPERATIONAL COSTS ......................................... ........................ ........... ....................................................0..................................... BAILER........................_.....__�.�. ............... ........................ 9........................................ ......................................... OQO:OO..d........................................:LAB '.................... .................. .. 0................... .................0..................... ...............................J........................................ _....... ..._�......... ................................ GLASS REDUCER [ ........_:...4,500.:OQ. .............................. ;ELECTRICITY i _. $600.00 ELECTRICAL $500.00: RENTS/LEASES: FENCING .._ ..._...................................:............._..._..._.........................................._........_..._ $4,5Q m..: ROLLOFFS �1 ............. _....... : GRADINGIGRAVEL $13,000.00: CANS MISSA. ..................._...............................P................................................. $500.00 ....... ....... :TRUCKING .......P..................__._..........:..................A....._....._....... 9 240,00 ......................................1. SUPPLIES $1,800.00 ................................. ........... ....... :................... _.................. ;........................................ :ADVERTISING i $1 000.00 *$12 000 FOR COMPOST SITE d................................................................................................................................................._....... ................................ ................................................................................1.....................................a................................................... .TOTALS33xD00:OO..d................................. ...... .............. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX :X,<XXXXXXXX?ZX:XXXXXXXXXXXXXl.X.XXXXXXXXXXXkXXXXXXXXXXXX X;XXXXX.<XXXXX ..............................................>.......................................,..............................................................................,....................... ............ d........................................ i..................... ............................................ ....................................................:.......................................a....................................... ............... I........... s.................................... ..................................................................................................... :MARKET IDENTIFICATION ......................... ............... ........................................ MATERIAL ............................................................................................ ........................................ 4.............. ......... .......... ;.............................................................................. .............................................................. .................................................._i.......................................d........................................:......................................i............_......................b............................... MILK H:D P.E:* ...................J........................ . EVER60ARD......a GLASS ..............._........_........................... GOOD EARTH i MILFQRD .......................p........................................1............ ........................................._NATIONAL.......€.........._HARVEY........... IQRTH ATLANTIC NATIONAL I HARVEY CLEAR ........................' GOOD EARTH MILFORD ._...................................................P......... AORTH ATLANTIC NATIONAL _............................. HARVEY COLORED 4....................................................:............................................................................................................................................................J...................................._.. G00D EARTH MILFORD ?aORTH ATLANTIQ NATIONAL HARVEY COIQREfiPLASTIC€PLASTICS AGAIN: EVERBOARD ....................................................J........_......................................................................J...................................... € NATIONAL ` HARVEY STEEL CAtdS GOOD EARTH :BROCKTONIRON:: .....................I......... .................................... NATIONAL ......................................... HARVEY C P 0 ...: .:.:._................................... a........................................,......................... GOOD EARTH HANNA P............._................. ............................................ AVON FIBER € .................... NATIONAL J................................... HARVEY NEWSPAPERS FINE TREE FARM ,................. _...... _.......... ................ NATIONAL HARVEY YARD WASTE ................................................0............................................................................... FINE TREE FARt1 NATIONAL HARVEY WHITE GOODS ....................................................:............................_.... HIGHWAY SAL. ? .... s.............._........................:......................._..._ P..................................... J. NATIONAL HARVEY TEXTILES ....................................... GOODWILL . A4VATIONARMY o _....a........................................ NATIONAL HARVEY__._... ALUM. FOILS GQOD EARTH ? ......... NATIONAL : „ HARVEY STYROFQAM ......... PLASTICS AGAIN; NATIONAL ........ ......... HARVEY Page 2 DATE 5I11190 TIME 1 1:19 PM TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ** Calendar of Meetings ** AUGUST: August 22 Wednesday 7:30pm [Special Presentation] August 23 Thursday 7:30pm SEPTEMBER: September 13 Thursday 7:30pm September 27 Thursday .7:30pm TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of August 23, 1990 Thursday A. REVIEW OF LAST MEETING SUMMARY B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS 1. Recycling Park Update 2. Millis Update 3. ANAWAM Update D. NEW BUSINESS E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS I, I TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS (`95kWe2FSt a@t 'ILRsNeld, MA 02048 ; _�e PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RE: Meeting of August 9, 1990 Thursday ATTENDEES: Amos Robinson, Michael Van Splinter, Karl Sharicz, William Lewis OLD BUSINESS 1. Recycling Park Update: Mike Van Splinter was notified that '-hp Committee has been placed on the Board of Selectmen's agenda as follows: SWC RECYCLING PARK PRESENTATION AUGUST 22 Wednesday 7:30pm NOTE: ALL MIBERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND THIS PRESENTATION TO COLLECTIVELY OFFER THEIR EXPERTISE AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. For presentation purposes, Mike Van Splinter created a written compilation rf what the Committee has accomplished to date. Included is an outline created by Mike Morizio along with two pages of calculations which had been used in a previous presentation to Board. [Copy attached] Since the Committee is at a crucial stage with the proper elements in place, a recommendation will be made to Board to appoint someone to be specifically responsible in interacting with SWC on reytilar basis. 2.. BFI Update: Based on a conversation Mike Van Splinter had witb Tom Dwyer a couple of weeks ago, Tom Dwyer had "renegotiated" the town's present arrangement with BFI concerning the newspaper recycling program. The result of this renegotiation was the elimination of the management fee. After careful review by Mike Van Splinter (and subsequently by the Board), it was noted that: .Tom needs to renegotiate again witli the objective to eliminate both weigh and management fetescvith reduction of trucking fees. Tom will notify Mike of his results. 3. New Members Update: The Committee's prospective member, Bruce Cummings has recently notifie>'d the Board of his ineligiblity to serve on a committee in the town since lie will be moving imminently to Norton. Immediate Action Taken: Committee agreed to send letter to Board apprising them of situation and requesting the Board to begin advertising for replacement. TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of September 13, 1990 Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF LAST MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS 1. Recycling Park Update 2. Millis Update 3. ANAWAM Update D. NEW BUSINESS E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS g TOWN OF MANS FIELD, MASSACHUSETTS e� q$tSfr44[,:IHQhsfie1d,MA02048 (F JE }ItiI.�.Y �V }}Y5 J'J fY (♦ PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RE: Meeting of August 23, 1990 Thursday ATTENDEES: Michael Morizio, Michael Van Splinter, Karl Sharicz, William Lewis OLD BUSINESS 1. Recycling Park Update: On August 22, the Solid Waste Committee presented the recycling park concept to the Board of Selectmen for approval. The Board was very receptive to the idea and suggested the Committee meet with Finance Committee to discuss the economics of the program. Mike Van Splinter had submitted all the necessary permit applications to the Town Manager and staff to handle accordingly. To organize the efforts of the Committee toward implementation of the park program, each Committee member has been assigned various "modules" or aspects of the program for which he/she will be responsible. [Attached is a copy of the (tentative) assignments listing entitled "New Horizons".] Bill Lewis spoke with Dave Erikson from Camp Dresser to discuss the progress of the landfill capping. Bill reported that the lower area has been leveled and graded and the stumps have been chipped. Bill indicated that this lower level seemed ideal for composting. Bill will periodically speak with Dave for ongoing progress reports on the capping process and he will also try to obtain their production schedule. At the Board of Selectmen meeting, Bob Swanson recommended that the proposed compost/ park site be delayed and temporarily moved to another site until the capping activity is completed to avoid interference with the capping operations. Based on this recommendation, the Committee agreed to initiate the program at the lower level area limiting the operation to composting only. The newspaper rolloff will remain at its current site. The following reasons to keep the two separate were cited: - the temporary site proposed for composting has limited access - residents will best accept the park concept if exposed gradually to each component, (i.e., composting, newspaper) - the current newspaper rolloff site presents the perfect place to advertise the new composting effort Mike Morizio will contact Big-4 Lumber to see if they'd be interested in donating a wood structure to serve as bulletin board to be used to post news regarding the recycling/composting effort. Mike Van Splinter will arrange to meet with Bob Swanson and Jerry St. Hillaire to discuss the Committee's ideas regarding composting and to solicit their input/comments. In an effort to.creat enthusiasm from residents about the park, Mike Van Splinter suggested possibly holding a contest and awarding a prize to whomever comes up with the best name for the recycling park. Companies could be requested to donate prizes and the contest could be generated through the school system. In regards to the BFI newspaper contract with the town, Jerry Fine indicated to Mike Van Splinter that in his estimation, the elimination of weighing results in reduction of trucking time and recommended negotiating.a flat rate. He intimated that he would like to get approx. $200/load. Action taken: Committee agreed for Mike Van Splinter to write letter to Tom Dwyer outlining this proposal to renegotiate with BFI for flat rate. 2. Millis Update: Bill Lewis reported that he recently received a draft of phase I Nebds Analysis which outlines 8 or 9 potential sites; three of which are prioritized. Bill further noted that a $40 tipping fee has been proposed and that a few more towns have "signed'on" resulting in a population base of approx. 350,0000. MEETING SCHEDULE Next meetings: SEPTEMBER 13 Thursday 7:30pm SEPTEMBER 27 Thursday 7:30pm NOTE: IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND A MEETING, PLEASE NOTIFY Mike Van Splinter at 339-9865 or Lisa Silvestri 339-3614 (answering machine) i SOLID WASTE COMMITTEE MEN HORIZONS Mike Morizio 1. Volunteer Development a. staffing at park b, drives - outlying staffs .Mar de Linda 2. Pre -market Sales A1L 3. Management of Park Make Morizio 4. Fin Con Presentation Bill/Karl 5. Market Identification Karl Sharicz 6. Publicity/ Ads Bill/Karl ._ 7. Specification Development -ByU L w;s_ S. Park Layout/Flow Mika V_- 9. Compost Mika V_ 10. Newsprint/newspaper factor Mike M. 11. Other modules Town Staff 12. Permits Mike M. 13. Sighage 8/23/90 TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of September 27, 1990 Thursday A. REVIEW OF LAST MEETING SUMMARY B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS 1. Recycling Park Update a. results of FinCom meeting 2. Millis Update 3. ANAWAM Update D. NEW BUSINESS E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MAS1q I i 'SETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 9 ""}} , , r, G �vei v F.i iV` s f U PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RE: Meeting of September 13, 1990 Thursday ATTENDEES: Amos Robinson, Michael Van Splinter, Karl Sharicz, Marydee Flynn OLD BUSINESS 1. Recycling Park Update: Mike Morizio scheduled to meet with the Finance Committee on September 18 to discuss the financial aspect of the park. Copies of the written material presented to the Board earlier will be given to the Finance Committee to review. Mike Van Splinter spoke briefly with engineer involved with the capping process to discuss the feasibility of an "over -land" route to the lower level. The engineer had reservations concerning the amount of traffic traveling over the pipeline and indicated that Shell Oil may be adverse to the route being situated there. The other alternative would be a frontage road running parallel to Route 106 leading to the lower level. Mike Van Splinter had briefly mentioned to Tom Markt the possibility of the pistol range being "started" since the expensive equipment is already in use in the area and it could be arranged to have the contractor work at the embankment. Mike will discuss this matter with Tom in more detail. Mike Van Splinter will talk to Bob Swanson concerning starting the permit process. Mike noted that although the Town Staff has limited time to devote to the composting issue, the permit process should commence to avoid delays since it can be a lengthy process. The Committee discussed the recycling of high grade paper in municipal buildings. It was agreed not to start any immediate program until every aspect is in place. Currently, the town pays one fee to have trash emptied and additional fee of $50/ton for disposal. Some town buildings and schools presently do not have huge containers, rolloffs or compactors. A recycling program will greatly reduce present costs. 2. Anawam Update: Mike Van Splinter reported that regional meetings will be starting up again beginning with September 26. ANAWAM Committee will be taking part in the Mass Clean Conference as follows: November 10 Saturday 9:OOam - 12:OOpm Wheaton College Norton Anawam Committee will make a presentation featuring the topic of garbage handling. 4i In addition, a representative from Millis, a state representative, Environmental Recovery Systems and Energy Answers are a few of the different vendors, agencies attending this conference. For more details, contact Mike Van Splinter. NEXT MEETING: September 27 Thursday Q n r" rr Fl PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID" WASTE I e S�'OSAI; r if .U, 1U'— 5 9 J RE; Meeting of November 8, 1990 Thursday ATTENDEES; Michael Morizio, Michael. Van Splinter, William Lewis, Karl Sharicz, Dan Baublis OLD BUSINESS 1. Recycling Park Update; Mike Van Splinter stated the schedule for the composting site has been extended for two weeks longer with Nov. 17-18 being the last weekend. Bill Lewis and Mike Morizio reported their progress on the Site Design for the Recycling Park. Bill Lewis hopes to have the final drawings to present for the next meeting. There is still a question as to the use and repair of the present building. Mike Morizio made mention of the still lack of ability to come up with a written Business Plan for the center, Dan Baublis volunteered to draft a written plan for two phases; Management responsibilities & Marketing. Mike VanSplinter is handling the Equipment Design and Advertising/Education aspects. Bill Lewis motioned to stay with the original list of products and to discuss anything else as it comes along. The motion was approved unanimously. NEW BUSINESS The board members recently received information on a State Grant Program for Cities and Towns to receive Rolloffs and Curbside collection bins, It was decided that Mike Morizio would prepare a narrative on Mansfield's situation and forward it to Bob Swanson who will submit the application to the state. Since there are many financial questions arising at our meetings, it was proposed to ask a member of BinCom to join the board as an advisor. Joe Pasquale has previously expressed interest, therefore Bill Lewis will invite him to the next meeting. Mike V. spoke to Bruce at Great Woods who has agreed to donate $4000-$5000 to buy a piece of equipment for the center. They had originally planned to donate the first order of recycling bags. NEXT MEETING WILL BE DEC.13 (No meeting Nov,22-Thanksgiving) Y i,I v i.1� IVY PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPCW LU SUMMARY OF MEETING; December 27, 1990, Thureda iJ��_1T ATTENDEES: Michael VanSplinter, Michael Morizio, Bill Lewis, Dan Baublis, Amos Robinson, Bob Swanson - EAC is starting a recycling plant, and is offering us their 'markets'. Information was turned over to Bill Lewis for review, OLD BUSINESS 1, MILLIS - Meeting held last week, Bill unable to attend, He is waiting to receive the minutes. 2, ANAWON - Nothing to report this month, 3. PRESENTATION TO BOARD OF SELECTMAN - Michael VanSplinter was able to present to the board the committee's progress towards our Recycling Park, Even though his time was cut short, he was able to present the layout of the park, and give actual cost avoidance figures. He was unable, because of time limitations, to announce the Xmas tree disposal day, and to mention the Grant Application, The Board of Selectmen endorsed the park, and on the suggestion of Ed Tartufo, gave approval for 2 signs (1 at newspaper rolloff, &a 1 at the future site) to be posted announcing the coming of the Community Recycling Park in the spring, It was also suggested that the committee get in touch with Waste Mngmt, to see what they may do for us now that we have reduced our waste stream. Bill Lewis will review the contract and report at the next meeting on the issue of the additional 14K/yr for white goods disposal and the possibility of eliminating this clause. Mike has distributed to all members a handout of the actual figures and projections for participation, tonnage, cost avoidance,etc. for all to review. For 1990, the total cost avoidance, after expenses, was $24,243. ($12,943 - newspapers; $11,300 - yard waste). Yard Waste was really only one season, 4. FINCOM - Mike Morizio and Bill Lewis have scheduled a meeting for Jan, 8, at 7:30 to make a presentation, and hopefully get their approval. Topics to be presented are: - Grant Application - Year-to-date figures & projections - How a Community Recycling Park will be more profitable than Curbside - Advise on the possibility of establishing an Enterprise Account, NEW BUSINESS 1. XMAS TREE DISPOSAL - Sunday Jan. 6 will be the day for residents to bring their Xmas trees to the Composting site for disposal. Information will be posted in the local newspapers, Bob Swanson will try to get the chipper to go out curbside to the neighborhoods on collection day the week of Jan, 7 to pick up any trees being put out for pickup, 2, MEETING WITH SUPT, OF SCHOOLS - Mike VanSplinter will meet with the Superintendent to discuss the involvement of the schools in this Community project. He will report on this at the next meeting. NEXT MEETING - THURSDAY JANUARY 10, 1991 - 7:30 PM PLEASE NOTE - If you are unable to attend a meeting, please contact Michael VanSplinter or Secretary, Patrice Frazier. :if Jr'i1J1 PH PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOS'4h { t�j qq �c t iYiJJHCi, J15 SUMMARY OF MEETING: January 24, 1991, Thursday ATTENDEES: Michael VanSplinter, Michael Morizio, Bill Lewis, Marydee Flynn, Amos Robinson GUESTS: Joe Pasquale, Ed McQuade; FinCom members CORRESPONDENCE - Memo from Joan stating the committee has till Jan 16 to submit any articles. - Information on wood recycling in Peabody. - Brockton Iron & Steel offering to supply us with a 7 yd, container for food/beverage containers, They will pick-up and empty it for free, and remove white goods, - Memo from Planning Board telling us Marydee is replacing Linda, and Mike McClanahan will be the alternate. ,UPDATES STATE GRANT APPLICATION - Grant approvals still have not been announced, and a specific date has not yet been set. Bill Vernon has been checking on our status, and will continue to push for answers, Hopefully a decision will be made soon. MILLIS - Bill Lewis stated there has been considerable progress with the RFP. A draft was sent to the Inspector General office and was well received with minor changes recommended. The tentative RFP was sent to 45 vendor communities for review with comments expected for Feb. 6 subcommittee meeting. It was recommended that the RFP be brought before the selectmen. Bill will try to get on the agenda for next week- for comments and approval from the Board of Selectmen. A .suggestion was made that Mike Morizio review it on behave of the Solid Waste Committee. MEETING WITH SCHOOLS -Michael Van Splinter had a very successful meeting with the Superintendent and 15-20 students, teachers, Inter - generation members & GOA representatives. They are all ready to begin a recycling plan as soon as they get the go-ahead. FINCOM - Joe & Ed expressed that the feeling from the Board of Selectmen is one of approval. They said the money for start up costs for the park is available in the trash funds. The figures for projected costs and savings were presented by Mike Morizio for review. _.Joe agreed to meet with Mike to put together a formal package to present to the Town Manager. It was suggested we get estimates for the repair of roof on the building as soon as possible. As soon as the job is complete, the school/municipal paper recycling program can begin. NEW BUSINESS NATIONAL RESOURCES TRUST will hold an awareness program on May 11, 1991 on the common, Mike VanSplinter will have more details when available, We hope to announce the name of the park, unveil the Logo, and launch our advertising campaign at this program, NEW MEMBER STILL NEEDED - Amos mentioned again we should try to recruit an additional member, preferably a citizen -at -large. NEXT MEETING - THURSDAY FEBRUARY 14, 1990 - 7:30 PM PLEASE NOTE - If you are unable to attend a meeting, please contact Michael VanSplinter or Secretary, Patrice Frazier. PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of February 14, 1991, Thursday A. Review of Summary of Meeting B, Correspondence C. Old Business 1. Update on; - Millis - Bill Lewis - Anawon - Michael VanSplinter - Grant Application - Mike Morizio 2. Status of Roof estimates 3. Natural Resources Trust D. New Business E, Comments , � 1'OyVN -� PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID . �y�� "L // r (` ,�;UMMARY OF MEETING: THURSDAY, FEBRW L ./^oa/+bMU5E//S ATTENDEES: Michael VanSp]inter, Michael Mcrizio` Bob Swanson, Dan Bauhlis/ Merydee Flynn, Bill Lewis, Amos Robinson - Copy of letter to BO.9, from Planning Board Chairman` supporting Recycling program. - Letter to Joan Cutillc from TPS interested in setting up recycling center in Mansfield adjacent to landfill. UPDA A new revised RPF will he sent out to Vendor Towns with no major changes. Voting to held on 3/6, Rill Lewis will support the document on our behalf, Will hold aprogram jnTaunton c'ntransfer stations on 3/6. Program on recycling by Haste Management Corp. N4To1�AL S�0K - Sturbridge will give us a video tape to use for display on May l\` to be used to show a model for our center. ScHqr8=S - Plans for "logo" & ''name the perk'/ contest are continuing with the help of the Art & Science Depts. Closing Date expected to be ''Earth Day'' with entries and winner to displayed at Natural Resource show. Schools have set up areas for paper recycling and have begun the process. We are still awaiting the roof repairs to begin transporting bins to the center. ^ We have a mailing list of all interested individuals and groups known to date. Rill will be in touch as needed. PLAN ` Mike is putting the final #/s together' and will present final draft as soon as possible. - Dan is working on getting pamphlets to be sent home with school children to prepare for opening. There still has been no announcement of awards. NEW - There have been no takers for 2 vacant seats on the committee. We will try to get some notice in � News of the openings. RODF OR QMjLQjVG ^ Bob Swanson stated three bids have been made to tear down and replace existing roof. and ) bid has been made to cover existing roof with plywood and redo. Selection should be made in near future. Pt, a 12 Ni PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SUMMARY OF MEETING: THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 1991 ATTENDEES: Michael VanSplinter, Bill Lewis, Amos Robinson CORRESPONDENCE - Letter from Sarah Mulvaney, Employee Volunteer Coordinator for schools, noting plans underway and posters will be hung announcing 'logo' and poster contests. There will be a 'Recyled Art' contest , Mike VanSplinter has been asked to be a judge, - Literature from Foster Forbes, one of two buyers of glass, sent copies of their standards & purchase policies. UPDATES MILLIS - A new revised RPF is out to Vendor Towns, There is an upcoming Open Forum in Framingham. Bill will have details at next meeting. ANNAWON - Presentation by Waste Management was very informative, Mike VanSplinter made arrangements them to meet with the Committee and review Mansfield plans and offer their help, Have also offered us special rates on rolloffs, which we can look into. - RECYCLING PARK - LOGO/POSTER CONTEST - Closing date will be April 19, with judging to be done the next week and all entries to be displayed at Natural Resource Day. Amos Robinson will get three people to be .judges. PAPER RECYCLING - With the schools all set to begin, there is a need to get containers set up and ready in the town buildings also, - GRATING FOR PARK - Bob Swanson noted this to be done by the town itself, it will not go out for bid, - STURBRIDGE - It was suggested a trip to Sturbridge would be in order at this time to get their feelings on their satisfaction with the equipment With over a year in operation they should have some insight to share with us at this time, In r ^,l PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL' '"1 SUMMARY OF MEETING; THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 19 ATTENDEES; Michael VanSplinter, Bill Lewis, Amos Robinson, Mike Morizio, Dan Baublis GUESTS: Jaycee members; Tom Gill, Scott Kinney, & Will Plant Citizen Volunteer Rick Morse - Notice from Bob Swanson that a contract for the roof repair was awarded to Arrow Construction, Work will be done shortly, UPDATES MILLIS - Correction: last meeting's minutes should have read "A copy of the RFP was sent out to the Vendor Communities" (not towns), 61 Proposals were sent out with 3 additional, The upcoming schedule is as follows: May 31 - proposals due to be submitted, June 1 - July 31 - Proposals evaluated, Aug, 2 - Contract selection, Sept. 1 - Proposal contracts complete, All contracts executed by Jan, 31, 1992 Next Meeting is April 10. ANNAWON - Laidlaw to be speaker at meeting on 1st Mon, in May. RECYCLING PARK - ****** GRANT ***** Word finally came from the DEPW that we were awarded three 40-yd rolloffs. That is a grant of over $11,000 „ Thanks to Mike Morizio, Bill Vernon, and the efforts of the Committee! - LOGO/POSTER CONTEST - Closing date will be April 12, with Judging to be done the next week and all entries to be displayed at Natural Resource Day, There will be a $50 prize for the winner of both the Logo, and the Poster contests. - BUSINESS PLAN - Mike Morizio is working on finalizing the business plan, He is working on the details of for licensing procedures necessary for having the Community Service Organization manning the park, A final draft will be ready by May 10 to present to the Committee, Town Manager, and the selectmen, PRINTING/LAYOUT - Dan Baublis has been working on a Quarterly Newsletter to be published by the SWC, A draft of the first issue will be available for our next meeting on 4/11. The newsletter will have information on what we will recycle, how to package it, times of business, etc, The first issue will be ready for handing out at the Natural Resource Fair, VOLUNTEERS - Amos Robinson was successful in recruiting members of the Mansfield Jaycees to help as volunteers on the Park project, They have offered to seek donations of one, possibly two, sheds (or materials for sheds) to be used for Book Swap and Put N Take Shop within the park. NEW BUSINESS - VOLUNTEER COORDINATION MEETING - Plans have been made to conduct an introduction & workshop for all interested volunteer groups. A tentative date of April 30 has been set to meet at the Council of Aging, Introductory letters will be sent to all Community Service groups asking for a representative to attend, The aspect of Community involvement in the park, and the possibility for fundraising will be stressed, Some merchandising ideas for the groups which were mentioned were: coffee & donuts, net or canvas shopping bags, kraft bags for leaves, or HDP reusable bags, The next meeting will be slotted for conducting a 'dry run' of April 30's meeting. Mike VanSplinter will try to get some AV equipment in so that we can show a introductory tape, NEXT MEETING: THURS. APRIL 11, 7:30 PM j.� PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DI.-' p)S�AL �s ,� s -, SUMMARY OF MEETING: THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 19911iA,: I i{ .-n Vli ATTENDEES: Michael VanSpllnter, Bill Lewis, Amos Robinson, Mike Morizio, Dan Baublis CORRESPONDENCE - Notice from Bob Swanson that a contract for the roof repair was awarded to Arrow Construction. Work will be done shortly, UPDATES MILLIS - Will update next meeting ANNAWON - Will update next meeting RECYCLING PARK - i - LOGO/POSTER CONTEST - Closing date has been extended to May 9, Entries can be submitted until 5:00PM. Should be left for Amos Robinson at Town Hall, Judging will be at the next committee meeting (May 9), - PRINTING/LAYOUT - Dan Baublis presented a draft of the first issue of our quarterly newspaper. Committee members reviewed and approved a job well- done by Dan, Minor revisions to be made prior to publication on May 11. - VOLUNTEER COORDINATION MEETING - Mike Morizio has sent invitations to area organizations and businesses to attend meeting on April 30, Committee members agreed on the outline to be: Introduction - Amos Robinson Recycling Info./#'s, Percentages - Mike VanS, Model of Park - Bill Lewis Publicity/Printing - Dan Baublis Community Concept/ Volunteering - Mike Morizio NEW BUSINESS DONATIONS - A $500 anonymous gift was made to the Recycling efforts on the condition that it be used for education and promoting the, park. The committee has decided to use $50 to each winner of the Logo and Name the Park Contests, and the remainder to printing costs for Newsletter and Information cards, The Glass crusher to be used at the Park was also donated by a local merchant, saving us about $5000. NEXT MEETING: THURS. MAY 9, 7:30 PM u TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of June 8, 1989, Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS Feedback on: 1. Jaycees meeting - Marilyn 2. PSA tapes - Mike V. 3. Pamphlets - John Dunn 4. Regional Committee summary - Mike V. 5. Committee approval on letter to J. Rhind D. NEW BUSINESS ` Continued preparation of report E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS Mr. Douglas C. Priest - 2 - November 10, 1988 Selectmen are looking forward to receipt of this additional in- formation. Sincerely Thomas E. Dwyerf�� Town Manager !/ TED:eo cc: Mansfield Board of Selectmen Michael Van Splinter, Chairman Solid Waste Advisory Committee John Rhind, Department of Public Works Director TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 Mr. Mike Van Splinter Chairperson -Solid Waste Committee 155 Gilbert Street Mansfield, Ma. 02048 Dear Mr. Van Splinter: The paper recycling trailer located at the Highway yard seems to be a large success, with many resident utilizing it daily. However, I would like to clarify the responsibility of its maintenance. It was my belief at the time that the trailer was brought to the Highway yard that it would be maintained by members of the Solid Waste Committee. The Highway personnel have had to stack it on every occasion, as APR will not remove it unless it it properly stacked to the top of the roll out. I would ask that the trailer be maintained by members of your committee, or perhaps an organization such as the Boy Scouts who maintained the trailer when it was located at the landfill. Thank you for your anticipated co-operation concerning this matter. If you should have any questions please contact me at your convenience at 261-7316. Sincerely, �ohind Director of Public Works cc: Thomas Dwyer -Town Manager DPW Files TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Man4ffwommm-*4 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RE: Summary of meeting May 11, 1989 Thursday ATTENDEES: Dennis Baker, Marilyn Ouellette, William Lewis, Michael Van Splinter, Karl Sharicz, Michael McClanahan OLD BUSINESS 1. CABLE/VIDEO TAPES Action taken: Dennis Baker sent letter to Cable Access urging them to buy the tapes for use on Cable Channel 8. A copy of this letter is attached. 2. RECYCLING PAMPHLETS Action taken: Karl Sharicz delivered the entire supply of pamphlets to the Town Hall for John Dunn to distribute accordingly. 3. MILLIS UPDATE Action taken: Bill Lewis spoke with Douglas Priest from the Millis project and reported the following: - Millis recently received a $40,000 grant from DEQE for a recycling facility. Both Medfield and Natick are being considered as possible sites. - Millis at present has a list of communities that have submitted letters of intent. There is also a list of communities that have verbally expressed interest and Mansfield is included on this list. - Priest had indicated that they prefer to receive letters now with the note that a charge of $.20/person may be assessed at a later date to meet any additional legal costs. The Committee appointed Bill Lewis, as representative, to attend the next meeting in Millis scheduled for May 24. Bill will report back any new developments at next meeting. Immediate action taken: Committee voted in favor of sending a letter to Board of Selectmen requesting them to submit a formal letter of intent to Douglas Priest expressing our continued interest in the Millis recycling facility. The letter will be drafted and ready for Committee approval at next meeting. Immediate action taken: Committee voted in favor of sending a letter to Board of Selectmen requesting them to direct two letters of intent to the two separate SEMASS facilities - 1) SEMASS incinerator facility and 2) SEMASS recycling facility. The letter will be drafted and ready for Committee approval at next meeting. NEW BUSINESS FINAL REPORT PREPARATION Action taken: Karl Sharicz distributed to committee members a draft for the final report. Please note: the draft is merely a working document not intented to be the definitive report; it is to used as a basis for discussion and any additional comments. The following Committee motions were made as an outcome of the discussion on certain sections of the report: Immediate action taken: Committee voted in favor to recommend that Town Manager conduct a feasibility study on the purchase or lease of trucks with or without town personnel for town solid waste collection/removal; and to compare costs to present/proposed costs paid to BFI. (This refers to Sect. III B of draft) Immediate action taken: Committee voted in favor to recommend to request that the Town Manager be directed to implement through the Department of Public Works a leaf and grass composting program. (This refers to Sect. II B of draft) All committee members are asked to develop notes/comments to defend all the positions made at this meeting. These will be reviewed and discussed at next meeting. OTHER NEW BUSINESS - Marilyn Ouellette will appear on the Committee's behalf at the Mansfield Jaycees' Meeting scheduled for May 18. Marilyn will report back with information at next meeting. - Mike Van Splinter will look into the possibility of obtaining public service announcements regarding recycling. - Mike Van Splinter has been assigned to write up the summary for the section on the Regional Solid Waste Committee. Also note that Mike will continue to participate and attend the regional meetings to discuss regional problems and solutions. - Per letter dated 4/6/89 addressed to Board of Selectmen, the Zoning Board of Appeals has appointed Eric Butler to the Committee. He will serve as replacement for George Wotjkiewicz. (Copy of letter is attached) ** R E M I N D E R ** NEXT MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR MAY 25, THURSDAY TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of May 25, 1989 Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS Feedback on: 1. Jaycees meeting - Marilyn 2. Millis update - Bill 3. PSA tapes - Mike V. 4. Committee approval on letters to Board 5. Committee notes on last meeting's motions 6. Regional Committee summary - Mike V. D. NEW BUSINESS Continued preparation of final report E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS TOWN OF MANSFIELD 50 WEST STREET MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL May 5, 1989 Mo Prasad Cable Access of Mansfield c/o Town of Mansfield 50 West Street Mansfield, MA 02048 Dear Mo: Further to our conversation a few weeks ago, the Permanent Subcommittee on Solid Waste Disposal recently voted to request that, if possible, Cable Access purchase the series of tapes by Dr. Paul Connett of St. Lawrence University. As you will recall, I had obtained a copy of one of these tapes which you had reviewed, and the copy quality was poor. At that time, you indicated that Cable Access might be able to purchase these tapes for viewing by Mansfield residents on Cable 8. I enclose a description and a price list for this series of tapes. As a committee, we are extremely interested in having these tapes shown, so we would appreciate Cable Access' response as soon as reasonably possible. You may feel free to call me at my home number (339-7405), or Cable Access can write the Permanent Subcommittee on Solid Waste Disposal c/o Town Hall. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dennis Baker Permanent Subcommittee on Solid Waste Disposal TOWNT����T� ��l7 &�4Y��I7T��l[�� ����������Y7�l����� -� -� �� _^..~.~.', ~~^..~^.`.`^~'""���°50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 � MEiv] Or �ANDUPI! Tf: Selec�man John unn J. 0ATE: ApriL b, 1'P89 REon Solid Waste SN�ucly Commit�ee Your Memr of April 4, 1989 The Zoning Doard of AppeaIs has appointed <395 o Main St. - 3�9`3205) tthe Sol id Nase tStudy Comm iLtee �lease contact �i� re meetin�s, etc" Thank you, OHW/sh EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES I. Background The Town of Mansfield ownes and operates a new 3.1 mgd wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) which receives flow from the Town as well as portions of the Towns of Foxboro and Norton. The WWTF located .in the Town of Norton currently serves approximately 13,250 people plus industries and generates approximately 2,000 cubic yards of dewatered sludge cake per year. The dewatered sludge cake is trucked to a new sludge landfill/composting facility owned and operated by the Town of Mansfield. This facility, located in the Town of Mansfield, has three sludge -only landfill areas and an uncovered static -pile sludge composting area. During the warmer and dryer months of the year, usually from mid -April thru November, the composting facility is used. During the remaining months of the year, the lime stabilized sludge cake is landfilled in one of the three sludge landfills on site, which were specially constructed with synthetic liners to collect leachate. The compost end -product has a beneficial reuse as a soil conditioner assuming heavy metal concentrations in the compost are within acceptable limits. After the first full season of operation, tests indicate that the composted sludge will probably be classified as a Type II compost in accordance with DEQE sludge quality criteria. Although this does not restrict the reuse of the sludge, it does limit the amount that can be applied to the land. II. Objectives The objective of this Feasibility Study is to determine if co -composting municipal sludge with leaves and/or grass clippings is technically, and economically feasible. The success of such a co -composting operation is important to the Town for the following reasons: 1. All of the Town's residential solid waste is trucked out of town and disposed of by Browning -Ferris Industries, Inc. (BFI). BFI has offered the Town a credit to reduce the amount of leaves in their waste because the Town currently operates a sludge composting facility, it may be possible to incorporate leaves into the operation. Thus, co -composting leaves with sludge would not only provide a financial benefit to the Town by lowering refuse disposal costs, it results in a form of resource recovery, and reserves precious landfill capacity for solid waste that has to be landfilled. -I- 2. The sludge compost presently generated is classified as a Type II compost due to the levels of cadmium. Co -composting leaves with sludge may effectively reduce the cadmium concentrations such that a Type I classification may be obtained. The benefit of a Type I classification, is that the compost could be more widely used. Type I compost may be used, sold or distributed for use on any site without further approvals by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE). 3. Composting leaves with municipal sludge could potentially reduce the bulking requirements with woodchips at the existing sludge composting operation. A reduction in woodchips results in an operating cost savings since all woodchips are bought from a local supplier. III. Tasks Determine or estimate the quantity of leaves and grass clippings by source (Town -owned property vs. residential). 2. Using existing WWTF records, establish sludge and compost quantities, as well as woodchip usage. Sludge quality with respect to those metals which exceed Type I criteria will be examined. 3. Conduct a literature search of facilities currently employing co -composting of leaves and/or grass with sludge and those that have tried but stopped. Where co -composting operations were halted, ascertain the reasons for the stoppage (e.g. leaves too wet, improper methods of handling, improper leaf shredding). If possible, visit successful facilities to ascertain compost quality and marketability. 4. Upon completion of the above tasks, meet with both Town and State to discuss approach, schedule and State requirements. Then develop a demonstration program which would evaluate various process parameters; mix ratios (sludge, woodchips, leaves); operating temperatures, composting times, and air requirements. In addition to composting, screening performance will be evaluated. An Operations Control Plan identifying the objectives, methodology, monitoring procedures, etc. will be prepared and submitted for review by the Town and DEQE. 5. Conduct the demonstration program. Equipment and materials required to initiate the program are as follows: a) A suitable source of leaves to sustain the program thru its duration. -2- b) Rental of a suitable leaf shredder capable of handling the anticipated volumes. c) Tarps to keep leaves dry (provided by the Town). d) A blower or other suitable method, to dry wet leaves (provided by the Town). e) Temperature meters with recorders (provided by the Town). f) Oxygen meters with recorders (provided by the Town). o. Upon completion of the demonstration program, meet with the Town to discuss the feasibility of co -composting. If found technically feasible, an economic analysis will be performed to establish capital and annual operation and maintenance costs for a full scale co -composting operation. Equipment needed to operate a full-scale facility will also be identified. In addition, identify any necessary or desireable modifications to the existing composting facility or equipment and assist the Town in developing a leaf collection/management system. 7. Prepare a draft report summarizing the findings and results of this Feasibility Study and submit to the Town for their review and approval. After the draft report is reviewed, we will incorporate any comments and subsequently submit a copy of the final draft to the Town and Massachusetts DEQE. We will make final revisions to the report based on comments received from the Town and the State. We will submit five copies of the final report to the Town and three copies to the State. IV. Work Products 1. Prepare an Operations Plan for the co -composting demonstration program. 2. Prepare a final report summarizing the findings/results of this Feasibility Study. V. Time Line The project basically consists of four components: preliminary investigations; Operations Control Plan preparation; demonstration program; and analysis and report preparation. Preliminary investigations would be conducted during the month of July, 1989. The Operations Plan would be prepared during the month of August, 1989. Demonstration work would be conducted over a two -month period (September thru October). Analysis and report preparation would extend from November to December 1989. For more detailed information, see Figure A-1 attached, which j presents the time frame according to Tasks 1 thru 7 as described in Section III of this Scope of Services. -3- VI. Costs The estimated cost to conduct this Feasibility Study and perform the work, as outlined and described in Tasks 1 thru 7 of Section III, is $30,000. Table A-1, attached herein, itemizes these costs according to Task and to the category of personnel involved in that Task. VII. Payment Schedule The payment schedule for this Feasibility Study is presented on Table A-2 attached herein. This table presents the anticipated payment. VIII. Consultant Camp Dresser & McKee Inc..will provide engineering services to conduct this Feasibility Study. -5- go ► -%�si� 8 z 'e e. w ; MIA I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 M M « I 1 M N « I I N 1 1 M 1 1 « I 1 Y 1 1 N I I M 1 I M 1 1 M 1 1 M 1 1 M 1 I M 1 I M 1 I Y 1 I r 1 I r I I « I 1 w 1 1 N I 1 r 1 1 r 1 1 w 1 1 « 1 1 I « 1 I w 1 I w 1 I w 1 I r i 1 r 1 1 N I 1 M 1 1 « 1 I w 1 1 M I I N I I « I I M 1 1 M 1 1 w 1 1 « I 1 w 1 1 « I 1 M I 1 M 1 I « 1 1 w I 1 M 1 1 w 1 1 w I 1 M 1 I w 1 1 w 1 1 w 1 i M 1 1 w I 1 M 1 1 M 1 1 w w I 1 w M 1 1 w w 1 I w M 1 I Y M I 1 w « 1 1 w w 1 1 w M I 1 w M 1 I w w 1 1 M M I 1 w w 1 V C H a c A N O 9 R O n R b R O Q. I PCJ2'C —Tw IQ$$ acc'Ss 0. of (QM4PA # l cJL to 2/' � A-t PI, C e V� Cf ttV c� asEe g -rea, ,4 cod cis kc(t we Cif c�a.Ec�LL (�s�t-li, � I11,Ic�s ite�y � � Wlf{1 c�ncL,-IS ppsz,LC_ PT cNS ` ) L (L vi i ci a — �) C'z,70s+�n� 3.) PryL -j,�t �cCYt Pr2 2.L1L Si-afu� / c14 Cr1S� I)PC6wtnMevtlQGf71, src his pmG ru pfto � cams I' / I e� �t1� �, s �Glu-CLk.o, Y?C TM � n CA Ile oCd70' j!i ,V-e htS �f rope�c�is pl sic s ,s1`atmarcL fvnn Mtwts iie[d �c7�n.cam. rle '- 1 vvt2 vtC2 Q� (71 IS c • ia CC, C lechlc;v� 0 o'tmS WjDaz Bowl et-t!'" fit s s/ OF CI`9 C J reC-crn &AeA� � ON d� r nl Lkf nl eC( sfry iZLS ?f&Tlce-is �feCtiLcs,vi►�eMctc�i� s4r%hu Pasn CNIS O p t7&1 (��CtJ7v,.o-v� eciG�G,756YLf cNo p') ��fc�v,s 2 dtsuissc�mv Su vn m I' 0� c� rn rn�G.�i �►1S l©SSCt � 6� Teemsuwj In "i��t� ►mil'02�" &m5 �ss N secs -h b-e �eac C w�'ri c e �'l�rn 4�e2 � R il? V Czv� ��scuSsr�����.fi �'�xt �-►ee l�1 J d, f u,rz,-� ✓bw,at't cvtc( at- Mc j -q-5 ly�fi �-rj , FnaL P/Zrnr TLu-ae 15 i�i,° or-fi -to o v z uLn e 21 (�. l►s r'-o Sfza} e+�e�r o,F P wTast o wd Qcxs 4e streo-oA s- -m ,any L va t,l 2. 3• ��ctr,Qf�cfon1 4, (�euJc�aw� 6 BFIL s. `�iP.ans�2 say q, �6z Was �e Caf (ec�oN (0, Red t c NPCU t if PRC4a Cc 11, ELtcothonj lZ. S ummaey of (Zecomm.eixdo,�oAjs 13. of Te-p r t; Ise ekes TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL'' (!' APR 1 019C RE: Summary of meeting, March 30, 1989 Thinj� ' OLD BUSINESS 1.VOLUNTEER/CIVIC HELP Action taken: Marilyn Ouellette is still pursuing various organizations for help. 2.CABLE/VIDEO Action taken: Karl Sharicz and Dennis Baker had reviewed the videos noting the fact that the quality of the tapes wasn't particularly good. The selected tapes have been submitted to the cable channel for a final decision. 3.ROCHESTER WAITING LIST Action taken: John Dunn will check with the Town Manager and report back with a status. 4.PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN Action taken: Karl Sharicz had reported that the recycling pamphlets have been completed and are ready for distribution. Mansfield Press printed the pamphlets at a cost of $200.00 for 5000 copies. Copies were folded courtesy of resident Larry Christian who volunteered the use of a folding machine. Printing bill was approved and will be submitted to Tom Dwyer. Both Mary Ann Campisano and Karl had discussed their concern in reaching a limited "audience" via school distribution. In response to this concern, the following alternatives were presented: - via postmaster: use bulk mailing rates - 10¢/copy if routes identified - 13.20/copy no identification - via electric dept.: requires special envelopes resulting in a charge of 250/copy - insertion in newspaper delivery: no cost ava. - selected placement in areas such as library, Council on Aging,etc. Immediate Action: Committee voted in favor of empowering Karl Sharicz and John Dunn to take appropriate action(s) in distributing the recycling pamphlets to town residents. S.NON-ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS Action taken: John Dunn reported that the Board of Selectman is sending the letter to the appropriate individual and will handle the situation. 6.LAND CRITERIA Action taken: Marilyn Ouellette had carefully reviewed the situation and indicated that there are very limited sites available; she further noted that a transfer station as a criteria form is useful only as a component of a bigger waste management plan/program. John Dunn had voiced his concern that with limited availability of sites, criteria should be established and site identified as soon as possible by determining how and if a transfer station fits in the overall scheme. NEW BUSINESS - Mike Van Splinter had presented to the Committee as a reference source his Solid Waste Options Model and the Trash Life Cycle model. (Copies attached] - Immediate action taken: Committee voted in favor of assigning Mike Van Splinter and Karl Sharicz to draft an interim report embracing all issues previously discussed. The report will serve as a starting point for discussion purposes with the focus on immediate recommendations that will be formally presented in the final report to the Board of Selectmen in May. The interim report is expected to be ready for April 27th meeting. - Immediate action taken: Committee voted in favor of the Solid Waste Committee making a recommendation to the Town to aggressively pursue a composting program of yard waste which would reduce the waste stream by approx. 9%. - Mike McClanahan will contact Jerry St. Hillaire to arrange for him to possibly attend next meeting to discuss availability of space for composting. - Mike Morizio had submitted to Mike Van Splinter a copy of Norton's leasing (truck) contract; apparently, Norton's expense just for personnel and rental of trucks is $450,000 but there also additional costs that need to be reviewed. - Mike Van Splinter had recited the testimony he had presented as a private citizen at the hearings for the new Bill#1783 introduced by Rep. Mark Roosevelt which promotes the 4 R's: reduction, reuse, recycling, and return. Latest status on Bill 111783 is still in committee in hearing testimony as of March 26 and lobby day was scheduled March 27. All committee members are urged to review the official legislative summary of the Bill which is currently in Mike Van Splinter's possession. It is the intent to obtain a vote from the Committee as to whether or not to endorse the Bill. - The Regional Solid Waste Committee has already taken a stand in favor of the Bill. ** R E M I N D E R ** Next meetings are scheduled for: APRIL 13 Thursday APRIL 27 Thursday (interim report) TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of April 13, 1989, Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS D. NEW BUSINESS Composting space issue - Jerry St. Hillaire [tentative] E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS 0 r v 3 A %v N � m rn CD m rm- ,p 3 2 ' O z r► M m c r 0 " rn O O0 z M rn m 0 L Om <z mN vm «rn r) X X o m <z m(A �rn 44 rn X n Om < Z mN m 3�G» a�N� I rn 3 a z Z 3 C >3 z r- rnzc) N r) r r>., ar) 0 v3 N N Zq m 0 0D 00 Z N I TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RE: Summary of meeting February 23, 1989 1 ATTENDEES: Dennis Baker, Marilyn Ouellette, William Lewis, Michael Van Splinter, Karl Sharicz, John Dunn OLD BUSINESS 1. VOLUNTEER/CIVIC-HELP Action taken: Marilyn Ouellette stated that she will have something definite to report next meeting. 2. CABLE/VIDEO Action taken: Dennis Baker reported that the standard procedure is for the cable channel to review the tapes prior to airing. Dennis and Karl Sharicz are assigned to review and select the tapes to be presented to the cable channel and will set up an appointment to meet with the cable channel. April 1st is the earliest date to view tapes. The objective is to have a balanced presentation with preferably a 2-3 week commitment devoting one theme per week. Ideally, airing of the video tapes would coincide with the release of the recycling pamphlets. 3. COMPOST APPLICATION Action taken: Jerry reported to the Committee the following - -grant application for state funds was submitted February 23 requesting monies to be applied to a feasibility study of co -composting -due to the complexity of the issue, Camp Dresser & McKee was hired to produce preliminary documentation that was reviewed by Tom Dwyer and Jerry -Jerry had noted that the State "prefers" that the monies not be used for more feasibility studies. The state typically awards approximately $30,000 in grant money to a town. Jerry had indicated that Mansfield will at least be on the list for funds and if not eligible now, money will be available in July. -currently, municipal compost (final product) can procure a price of $5-$15/yd depending on quality and availability. -advantage of composting: results in cost avoidance and extension of landfill life. 4. PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN Action taken: MaryAnn Campisano informed Karl Sharicz of the schools' approval of the distribution of the recycling pamphlets in the schools. Robinson Elementary and the High School will distribute the pamphlets at no cost; the Middle School will charge $40 to include in their mailings. Based on cost estimates obtained by Karl, the Committee voted to approve a maximum cost of $250.00 be allocated to the printing of the pamphlets (subject to Town Manager's approval). Karl will seek approval to use town seal on the pamphlets. Also, the pamphlets will note "..program sponsored by Solid Waste Comm.". Karl will also provide Tom Dwyer with the wording of the sign. 5. ROCHESTER WAITING LIST Action taken: John Dunn will be meeting with Tom Dwyer to discuss this issue and will report with results at next meeting. 6. NON-ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS Action taken: John Dunn will handle accordingly and report at next meeting. 7. LAND CRITERIA Action taken: Due to time constraints, Marilyn Ouellette will draft a list of criteria and will review it with John Dunn. NEW BUSINESS -It has been estimated that approx. 16,000 lbs. of paper has been dropped off at the APR container. -Mike Van Splinter met with the regional Solid Waste Committee and it had been decided that the committee will directs its efforts towards determining what the towns can do collectively and individually and also research the economic advantages. -Board of Selectmen have supported a pickup of hazardous wastes to be scheduled next Spring. -A formal letter has been addressed to Rep. Bill Vernon requesting any information or update concerning Rep. Mark Roosevelt's bill dealing with disposal of hazardous waste such as motor oil. **REMI NDER** Next meetings are scheduled for: MARCH 9 and MARCH 29 Thursdays IMPORTANT NOTICE!!!!: It has already been noted that 2 committee members will not be present at the MARCH 9 meeting and therefore establishing -` a quorum is a concern. If you are unable to attend next meeting, please contact the committee Secretary, Lisa Cipriano, at 339-3614. TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of March 9, 1989, Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS Feedback on: 1. Volunteer/civic help - Marilyn 2. Rochester waiting list - John 3. Cable/Video - Dennis & Karl 4. Publicity campaign - Kail 5. Non-attendance of members - John 6. Land 'Criteria- Marilyn & John D. NEW BUSINESS E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RE: Summary of meeting, Thursday, February 9, 1989 ATTENDEES: Karl Sharicz, Dennis Baker, Michael McClanahan, Marilyn Ouellette, Michael Van Splinter, John Dunn OLD BUSINESS VOLUNTEER/CIVIC HELP Action taken: Marilyn Ouellette reported that the Tritown Chamber of Commerce doesn't get involved with such activities as volunteering for the recycling. Marilyn will investigate further into other civic organizations and will report back with her results. 2. CBA ON TRUCK LEASING Action taken: John Dunn reported that Tom Dwyer will perform a CBA when he meets to discuss the contract. John doesn't expect any results for awhile. 3. ROCHESTER WAITING LIST Action taken: John Dunn will meet with Selectmen to proceed with getting Mansfield on waiting list for Rochester. John will also check into the original letter of intent to see if its effective in maintaining a (higher) spot on the list. 4. CABLE/VIDEO Action taken: Dennis Baker reported that SERPID presently is unable to allocate any money to purchase the set of tapes; Dennis will review the "free" tapes again and is still awaiting a call back from the cable channel. 5. ROCHESTER RECYCLING UPDATE Action taken: Mike McClanahan reported that Angelo will inform us of any new develop- ments that may arise; they are currently involved with finalizing the joint venture agreement. 6.' COMPOST APPLICATION Action taken: Tom Dwyer briefly met with the Committee to discuss the status of the town's application for state grant money for composting. Tom had indicated that since Mansfield currently has a working site and an active program that the town would be most eligible and more competitive in pursuing the co -composting program for funds. With the February 28 deadline, Tom had noted the urgency to act and expects something definite from Jerry and John imminently. Tom stated that he will keep John Dunn informed of the proceedings. 7. PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN Action taken: Karl Sharicz had distributed to the Committee a "prototype" of the publicity pamphlet; he had also suggested several possible motifs for the pamplet cover. Karl had indicated that he had received favorable feedback from the Committee; MaryAnn Campisano had one reservation concerning the last paragraph of the pamphlet which might erroneously appear to other committees as a form of publicity for the Solid Waste Committee. MaryAnn will be meeting with School officials for approval of the program to be implemented in the schools. As a subtle message, Karl had suggested to print the pamphlets on recycled paper and to footnote the fact on the cover. He will contact both the electric company and Eileen Ouellette to arrange for printing and distribution of the pamphlets. Town will be billed for the expense. Mike Van Splinter reported that Tom Dwyer approved of a sign being erected at the "tank" site. It was suggested that the sign's logo tie in with the pamphlet to establish an association of the two. John Dunn had suggested using the "thermometer" idea to measure the program's progress and to act as a motivational factor to the public. [A copy of pamphlet prototype is attached.] NEW BUSINESS TRANSFER STATION Action taken: Marilyn Ouellette brought in map for open space plan and reviewed for the Committee the various town -owned parcels of land. Marilyn and John Dunn were appointed to develop criteria for the type of land needed. Based on the criteria established, then various sites can be pursued. PLASTICS RECYCLING Karl Sharicz had distributed several articles on plastics recycling to the Committee for review. Karl had noted to bear in mind the specificity of recyclable plastics. [Copies are attached.] -Chairman Mike Van Splinter has been appointed to the agenda committee for the regional Solid Waste group forming. Next regional meeting is scheduled at the Mansfield Town Hall on Monday, March 13 at 7:30pm. *** REMINDER*** Next meeting is scheduled: February 23, Thursday TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of February 23, 1989, Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS Feedback on: 1. Volunteer/civic help - Marilyn 2. Rochester waiting list - John 3. Cable/video - Dennis 4. Compost application - John 5. Publicity campaign - Karl D. NEW BUSINESS E. COMMENTS FROM GUESTS/PUBLIC • v .y �! a^ b7 w y p< 7o w a 5 °• O 7 g °' to o��� on t" N O N 04 G r j a b' X' � cGiny yy]'c�o p c � e � 7 � �u0. C o. n � ^0 7 0'B '. co m o �:RxR (�^ w N wio (o'aN oq ° (7o w rn 0 0 0 2 o N 0.9 »^m4° ] mN <,IM 7 no o�w ° aB 0N e° bnNti, , �(dD r-6°:;• .NK.. 1yrn� Cr:.1 •w'1 7y K7 . aC (oj �. n oCo. no 0tr��C]]'',V o atwi 'i a O pa S. 'rC_; b� NoaN'CD GbZ o� Ro aH ? aOQ w no N5 (pNOnn a a 0 o m w7Q. 7 o' yM oN 90° ° 0 o C.aq `^ °' o w 71 co �. �' (moo w ti n N w N N N r'. W d C ]. M (D n_ p w p �(y° a7q O W v°i O (�i. OOv (C ,� (D .w•. O w' G• w N N ° 5.0 C• 7 y o0 0° b � 0 .�...-r ti �' a— d N rn 0. N O ry O' � ,z C .°+. O OOOO z7EC°�(^y "tio: oa°4 N�a 7 � 7Cc �EON w 'o :5. CO 0 0CO y o °.('b O i pC w o ° p° + w � T CO'd O n aq (w 01 (o S • TwN y. X• O G�A N CG N o W N O (D CO l°T. —.0 O M n. p ° (D .+ �• N a o v ti o f wo o 5 d v° m a w o rn yo _ Vp b'1 ii M'n :r ° ° (D �W7C tO NNC N, FdqW N rntin O 1 o Ntr A n rn a0 o o. 0 G f�D �i y^ �y O' w 0 •N•e � "NJ't w w N y N N w CL w o��'°C n o a+ (o o �,5 d c� N°,o . ❑ a o 'o n (p 'C .2 o- n .,� (o �- • o• o w C O �d� 0- °ydyy w w�zw 0 00w a o a a CyCr7aE o orn°, O'xi 0 5 (D (o (0 ry n (D o N 7rn��m�w oov9�w� Ly9 °rn—°?QgRN ow wv 'z R w •,nn bnp LJ7'w �n.Ony G0.. rl •C "(N.� ^. 'OP .•.+. w tiWo �y ' C w a 00N 7 O ° oo IQ o w 0 " N"G8 C n a',o O.pCpyGponpN QQ NN w � (/'CaN d T 0 n ry Q•.0 nt O. N 0.0 (0 �''� N •O N E y 0°0 O N O y p C o-�"i '�J' b^ O O C f�7 n N X w w tj O w .� _ 91 aQ' N wN� . 7 n E " O C cwi 'b .0 tr aq S•O.�° o o m W fD .w-eaa'm� .-..gyp; y� �V PJ- •�' w E' a� o.� Dy 8: n`'� �f - •5. 00 K 7 �i' � ^Oi L'�•. c �3 N O' y 5 �: N tvi�+ N 5. 5 N fD d o �' ry y'•Q P+ �' n b 0 m .'Q G aw w o •coo• x°, wyv,a °•G�'w mri 06 n R = 5b1 0. Ex0 S. Oo�°wc� °<.n o m c° oN.wtr'wF�?fDo'�y CT 0 y N f0.Ol `Grt .wr N w tN E•cw,�U,; M-ag Wnprw=. E;Fa5a M Ei. a �i N� O Pn pK Zo N N= r m o £ 0 f0 W n M� (D (D •K 7 N w on ii Y ° a o- ' Nam'' p �o5'mOQm�c'�-c`Dp v'-- mow -,bozo. x�7� mE (° w n e: o» y �:s O O W O Uq (I4 M d (D z N 'pdp++ ry� N N y y �• O 'l7 `< N Nj O N O p n X' a G' `< K n `G fm m 7 N O N 7 (D a �' a •o ��g < •�°. ro o °. � R � y w ro °. � no 0 O O n 'Q m O t q O N .'^.. M. W Z, N O dP. Up ry N n 0 W Q fD R 5' N Ei •Q d 5 O o 5' OEV . C N Q W N �• N �_' r N n .N.. R N O oEi. A w°o°wSwyfD�ov Q N J O F: UQ d all w'i5mowoc�S O m° ° o a m , -m •� m rt c� ua b rt `PlasticsAgain receiving national coverage LEOMINSTER-The nation is awaiting the start-up of its first plastic foam recycling plant, which will open this month in Leominster. "Plastics Again," was recently featured on a seg- ment of ABC's "Good Morning America," showing an interview with Tom Tomazk, plant manager. Tomazk said that the durability of plastic foam, which has a negative implact upon the environment, becomes an asset in recycling. The polystyrene from food trays and cups will_be made into hard pellets, then sent to other factories to be made in- to such items as flower pots and plastic hangars. TIME Magazine featured the new $4 million factory in a quarter -page story in their Jan. 9 issue, with a picture of plastic food trays being loaded into a truck. According to the article, Plastics Again is expected to recycle about 3 million pounds of foam, or 8 percent of the state's annual consumption. Plastics Again is owned by Mobil Chemical, a subsidiary of Mobil Oil, and Genpak, a food - packaging manufacturer. The plastic to be recycled dur- ing the first year will come from 20 area schools and from two Wang Laboratory cafeterias. This is just a start. The nation uses 5 billion pounds of polystyrene annually. Now, in. stead of taking up space in over crowded landfills, the plastic wil. see new life as fence posts, in sulation, and packing materials BASIC DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR RECYCLING PROGRAMS Ronald L. Mersky Assistant Professor Department of Civil Engineering Widener University Chester, Pennsylvania 19013 1. BACKGROUND The design of a residential recycling program involves three distinct processes: setting goals, gathering necessary infor- mation, and then choosing it set of design parameters that will permit those goals to be met. The design parameters chosen will, of course, be a function of the goads that have been established and the information that has been gathered. The goals of residential recycling programs vary consider- ably from case to case, but they tend to fall into Iwo general categories —goals concerning local waste management issues ar `opals concerning national or international issues. .apical local goals include postponement of landfill replace- ment, reduction of transfer and transport costs, reduction of needed capacity in energy recovery plants, and provision of a stable materials supply for local secondary materials proces- sors. National and international goals may include environ- mental protection, energy conservation, and reduced dependence on foreign materials suppliers. The information that must be gathered for a residential re- cycling program includes local market conditions for secondary materials, waste stream composition, population and dento- graphic data, cost information for recycling activities and cog information for other waste control options. 2. WHAT ARE THE RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING DESIGN PARAMETERS? Once goals have been established and information has been Lathered, the process of choosing design parameters may be- -in. When we speak of the "design parameters" of a recycling rogram, we mean the physical and operational characteristics which describe that program. The "design' of a recycling rogram involves choosing the set of design parameters which s most likely to resuli in that program meeting its established ,oals in an efficient manner. °use of variations in goals and local conditions, it is not osufe to establish a "model" recycling program which will e optimal in all situations. Rather, the design process requires that each designer choose, from among the available param- eters, the set which best fits his/her unique situation. The pur- pose of this paper is (o provide the designer with an understanding of the various parameters that are available in residential re- c)cling prognuns its well as general information and opinions which may aid in the choice of it parameter set. The design parameters for it residential recycling program can be grouped into several categories, as listed below. The sections following this list will discuss each of these categories in more detail. Design Parameter Categories Program Operator. Mandatory or Voluntary Participation. Choice of Materials. Area to be Served. Co -mingling or Total Separation. Processing. Drop-olf or Curbside Collection. —Drop-off Parameters. --Curbside Parameters. 3. PROGRAM OPERATOR For it municipality (or other jurisdictional unit) considering the establishment of it residential recycling program, one of the most important parameters that must be chosen is the ad- ministrative body which will have responsibility for the op- eration of the program. There are four possible options for this parameter: the municipality itself may administer the program; a voluntary. group may be assigned administrative responsi- bility; private waste material dealers/processors may be as- signed responsibility; some combination of the other three options may be used. When the municipality assumes administrative responsibil- ity, there are two options for collection of recyclable material — collection by municipal employees or collection by private haulers. In many cases, private haulers are better suited for the JOURNAL OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY VOL. 16, NO. 2 JULY 1988 task because they have more flexibility in their usage of labor and equipment. This is especially true if municipal labor con- tracts require that recycling collection be considered overtime work with payment at a higher rate. The primary advantage of municipal responsibility is that it provides the municipality with greater control of the program. This control may permit other goals, not directly related to recycling, to be met (hiring only local residents, for example can help the municipality meet unemployment reduction goals). Furthermore, it may permit better enforcement of regulations relating to the recycling program. The primary disadvantage of municipal responsibility is that it places an additional work- load on municipal officials. This can be especially burdensome in smaller municipalities where officials tend to be part-time. In some cases, the municipality will assign administrative responsibility to a voluntary group —generally and established civic organization. The voluntary group will provide all needed labor, but the municipality may provide some or all of the necessary equipnunt. storrve space. ae. Regulations are pro- mulgated to ensure that only the officiallY appointed voluntary group may collect recyclable material (this prevents competi- tion from scavengers). The municipality benefits from such an arrangement by avoiding the cost of labor and most of the administrative burden. As a reward for its efforts, the voluntary organization is often permitted to keep the proceeds from the sale of the recycled material. This, of course, deprives the municipality of revenues, which is a disadvantage from its perspective. In general, established civic organizations with proven records of accomplishment may be expected to administer and operate recycling programs in a professional and reliable man- ner. However, unproven voluntary groups (either previously existing or organized specifically for the recycling program) should only be utilized with great care. Such volunteers are often less reliable than paid employees and that can mean missed collections or other serious difficulties. Furthermore, the use of volunteers may, if not managed in if professional manna, obscure the fact that recycling is it scriuus contpunent of municipal operations (Recycling is regarded by some seg- ments of the population as primarily a fund-raising activity for youth groups —an unprofessional volunteer staff may reinforce that image and interfere with efforts to educate the public concerning the seriousness of the recycling effort). Another potential difficulty with such an arrangement is that the turnover rate for volunteers may be high, leading to ex- cessive training expenses. And voluntary groups can, of course, only be considered an option if there is a readily available pool of volunteers. Often, a municipality will contract with a private secondary materials dealer or processor to operate all or part of its re- cycling program. Typically, the private firm will provide all labor and equipment and receive, in return, ownership of the collected material. If the value of the collected material relative to the collection cost is felt to be unbalanced, a payment ar- rangement (in either direction) may be agreed to by the mu- nicipality and the private firm. Such arrangements can benefit both parties —the munici- pality gains a cost-free or low-cost recycling operation and the dealer/processor gains a materials supply of stable quantity and cost. There are some potential difficulties with these arrange- ments, however. If the dealer/processor receives only the re- cycled material for its efforts, it will only be willing to collect those materials for which the market value exceeds the cost of collection. The municipality, however, might wish to recycle additional materials because it has other goals (such as reducing the volume of material for which disposal must be provided). Furthermore, the dealer/processor may not be willing to collect materials at times when prices fall. Thus program continuity (which is necessary to avoid confusing and annoying residents) cannot be ensured. Also, many dealers/processors may be un- willing to accept this arrangement because of the need to invest in equipment and employee training. A variety of combinations of the above options are also possible for the program operator parameter. In some cases, for example, a secondary materials processor miry collect one material while municipal employees collect others. While such combinations may often be the least cost options, they can lead to eonf union amour' residents if not planned and operated with considerable care. 4. MANDATORY OR VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION Participation by residents in a residential recycling program can be either mandatory or voluntary. In a mandatory program, appropriate regulations are promulgated to require all residents to separate specified recyclable materials from other household waste. In a voluntary program, residents can participate if they wish, or they can continue to dispose of recyclable materials along with other waste. Mandatory programs offer several advantages. They gen- erally result in higher volumes of materials being recycled. This means a better cost efficiency for the recycling program and a greater reduction in the volume of waste for which dis- posal must be provided. Furthermore, they demonstrate to res- idents that recycling today is it serious municipal function. The primary concerns with mandatory programs involve their political cost and enforcement. Many governmental bodies feel that requiring recycling will generate strong citizen opposition. In practice, however, the opposite is true. Residents subjected to mandatory recycling programs tend to support those pro- grams very strongly. Most residents of mandatory programs involving a single material favor increasing the scope of their programs to include additional materials. One very important warning should be mentioned, however —such favorable opin- ions will only be formed if the community education program prior to the start-up of operations clearly explains to residents why recycling is necessary and how they (or their municipality) will benefit. A mandatory program that is promulgated without proper community education can have a high political cost. Enforcement is usually accomplished by mandating that the specific materials to be recycled not be disposed of in household waste. Most citizens will comply with mandatory programs simply because they do not wish to violate the law. To deal with the small number who do not comply, the most popular enforcement options are fines or refusal to collect waste in the BASIC DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR RECYCLING PROGRAMS 105 future (first violations are usually handled with a warning). In most cases, periodic inspections are not necessary. Experienced waste collectors report that they can detect newspaper, cans "" bottles in a refuse bag just from the way it feels when t .ed up. S. CHOICE OF MATERIALS The choice of which materials to recycle is critical to the success of a recycling program. In general, this choice depends on three factors —how collectable a material is, how market- able it is, and the quantity produced. Collectability usually dictates that a recyclable material be solid, easy to handle in bulk, and convenient for residents to separate. Many materials meet these criteria including news- paper, glass bottles, aluminum cans, textiles, mixed papers, plastics, wood, etc. The quantity of it material produced is important because low -quantity arterials are generally not economical to col- lect —many miles may have to be driven by a collection vehicle to gather it small amount (this is less of a problem in drop-off systems). Furthermore, low -quantity materials will have less impact on landfill utilization and energy recovery plant size. The gtrmtily requirement usually rules out wuud, textiles. and certain other materials from curbside programs. Markctahility is probably the most important factor in de- termining what materials to ,recycle. A serious [law in the design of many recycling programs is the assumption that if it material is collected, it can be sold. Making such an assumption .'result in large quantities of collected material accunudaling at .;mirage sites or, even worse, collected recyclable materials being shipped to the landfill. A material should never be re- cycled until a reliable market has been located. The market- ability requirement has historically ruled out plastics from most recycling programs. In recent years, however, advances have been made in plastics recycling, so this situation may change as such progress continues. Overall, taking into account collcclability, quantity and mar- ketability, the most popular choices for materials to collect are aluminum cans. glass bottles, zinc[ newspaper. Local conditions may dictate that other materials :re also feasible. 6. AREA TO BE SERVED In general, a municipal recycling program operates through- out the jurisdictional area. In some cases, however, it may be beneficial to operate the recycling program in only certain portions of the municipality. This will generally be the case when there are significant population density variations be- tween the area served and the area that is not served. While residential recycling programs do not generally exhibit econ- omies of scale, they may exhibit economies of density (because greater quantities may be collected in a given time). So it may be economically feasible to operate a recycling program in -e densely populated areas, but not in less densely populated This observation may not hold if population density is so great in an area that travel becomes slowed due to roadway -ongestion. 7. CO -MINGLING OR TOTAL SEPARATION When more than one material is to be recycled, a design parameter that must be chosen is the degree of separation of materials that residents will be required provide. Some recy- cling programs choose complete separation —residents are re- quired to individually separate each recyclable material from all other materials (including the other recyclables). Other pro- grams choose to collect co -mingled materials —residents Sep- arate the recyclable materials from other waste, but are not required to separate the recyclable materials from each other. The essential difference between complete separation and co -mingling is that in co -mingling the residents are responsible for only part of the separation process (recyclables from non- recyclables). The rest of the separation process (recyclables from each other) is the responsibility of the program operator. In curbside collection co -mingling programs, the operator has two options for completing separation —the collector can sep- arate materials at the curbside and place them in individual compartments of the collection vehicle or the material can be collected in the co -mingled state and subsequently separated at a processing plant. In drop-off co -mingling programs, only the latter option is feasible. From the residents' viewpoint. co -mingling is almost always preferred to complete separation. Complete separation requires residents to place several containers at curbside (or transport several containers to it drop-off site) and complicates the in - home aspects of recycling considerably. For the operator, however, complete separation is usually preferable. Separation of co -mingled material at the curbside nay require additional employee time. Separation at a pro- cessing plant is usually very labor intensive and also requires capital investment. Furthermore, co -mingling may increase contamination of the recycled materials which may reduce their quality and therefore their market value. B. PROCESSING A recycling programs operator may sell recycled material as collected or may choose m subject that material to processing before sale. A variety of processing options are available in- cluding haling fOr newspapers. crushing or densitying for alu- nummo cans, shreddimg for ferrous, and breaking for glass bottles. The processing decision is primarily based on economic considerations. In general, processed material has a greater market value than unprocessed —in some cases processing may double the value of a material. In addition, processed material generally has a greater density than unprocessed which may reduce shipping costs. But processing requires a capital in- vestment in equipment as well as operating and maintenance costs. It also requires the operator to develop expertise in an additional facet of recycling. For large-scale recycling programs, the economic advan- tages of processing usually outweigh the disadvantages. In some cases, smaller recycling programs may find that pro- cessing is economically feasible if they form a processing part- nership with other small recyclers in their region. In all cases, 106 JOURNAL OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY VOL. 16, NO. 2 JULY 1988 the quality requirements of buyers should be thoroughly in- vestigated before the processing parameter is decided. 9. DROP-OFF OR CURBSIDE COLLECTION The major cost component in most recycling programs is the collection of materials that have been separated for recy- cling by residents. It is therefore critical to the success of a program that this parameter be chosen with great care. There are two basic options for collection of recycled ma- terials —curbside collection and drop-off collection. In curb- side programs. residents place recyclable material al the curbside (or some other appropriate location) and it collection stop is made at each home to collect that material. In drop-off pro- grams, residents transport recyclable materials to it central lo- cation from which they are collected by the program operator. Curbside collection provides residents with :t higher level of service but usually costs more. In m:mdalo"N' programs. the pmYicipntion lines fur cwhsi& and drug -off rolltetwn .hould not differ significaur(ly but in voluneuv programs. curbside collection will generally have it higher participation rate. In municipalities where curbside collection is provided for general waste, the use of drop -oft- collection For recyclable maucrials might tend to lessen residents' perception of recycling as an important component of waste control operations. 9.1. Drop-off Parameters When strop -off is the choice for the collection parameter, several other parameters, specific to drop-off programs, must be chosen. One such parameter is the location of the crop -off tiles. Location decisions should consider residents' conve- nience and security litr both residents and the drop-olf center. In general, the most convenient locations lot drop -oft sites arc places that resiecnts regularly travel to or travel past. Shop- ping centers m major roadways arc cunlmon choices. In vol- untary programs. the convenience of sites can affect participation rates. Security should be it very impunanl consideriliuo in locating drop-off sites. If it site operates 24 hours per day, many res- idents may choose (o recycle at off -hours. Furthermore, the drop-off sites themselves may be vulnerable to vandals and illegal dumpers. Security concerns often dictate than drop-off sites be located in areas that are visible from major roadways or adjacent to police stations or other municipal buildings that are staffed 24 hours. Another drop-off parameter is the use of auendants for the drop-off sites. Unattended sites generally consist of only bins for materials and signs providing information. Attended sites have personnel to assist residents in unloading and carrying of - materials. The primary advantages of unattended sites are lower cost and the possibility of 24 hour operation. Attended sites, however, are more convenient, allow for better control of ma- terial quality, and avoid most security problems. If sites are attended, an option that may be considered is buy-back. Buy-back programs pay residents for the recyclable materials they bring to drop-off sites (payment is usually a function of current market prices). In voluntary participation programs, buy-back may increase participation rates, but labor and equipment costs may be higher. And, of course, the pay- ments made to residents adversely affect the overall financial viability of the recycling program. Drop-off collection systems should provide an alternative collection service for persons who are unable to transport ma- terials to drop-off sites due to disabilities. A popular option is "on -call" service in which a vehicle is dispatched to residents' homes at times arranged by telephone. 9.2. Curbside Parameters One p:u.mleler that must be chosen lilt curbside collection systems is the collection vehicle to be used. There are two basic options --separate recycling vehicles or add-ons to reg- ular waste collection vehicles. The main advantage of using add-ons is that recycled materials can be collected on the same route as other waste, which can result in cost reductions. How- ever, the available add-ons do have certain disadvantages. The most common add-ons are trailers pulled by the regular waste collection vehicle or racks installed on the vehicle body itself. Trailers can contain several compartments for multi - material collection while racks are generally most suitable for newspaper only. Also, trailers usually have greater capacities than racks. The primary disadvantage of trailers is that they may reduce the maneuverability of the collection vehicle to such an extent that certain streets are not accessible. Racks have the disadvantages of being limited to only one material and having limited capacities. Collection scheduling is :mother curbside parameter. In vol- untary programs, materials yields tend to increase with fre- qucncv ut collection, but costs also increase. It is ',encridly recommended than recycling collection be conducted on the same day as regular waste collection to avoid confusion among residents as to what will be collected on a given day. Some curbside programs provide distinctively narked con- tainers in which residents place recyclable material (a variation of this option is the provision of adhesive labels for bags con- taining recyclables). These containers help collection crews to distinguish between materials placed at the curbside. In vol- untary programs they can also provide peer pressure to increase participation by identifying which households participate. The purchase cost of such containers may discourage their use, however. In some cases, private firms might be willing to provide containers if advertising is permitted on the sides. BASIC DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR RECYCLING PROGRAMS NEWS FOCUS Solid Waste Concerns Spur Plastic Recycling Efforts With plastics taking up 30 % of volume of municipal solid waste and costs of landfilling and incineration rising rapidly, waste reduction efforts focus on development of plastics recycling technology Ann M.Thayer, C&EN Northeast News Bureau The management of solid waste is reaching a crisis in the U.S. and worldwide. This is illustrated by wandering garbage barges with no permission to land and by wastes washing up on beaches. Every year the U.S. generates about 320 billion lb of what is called municipal solid waste, or postconsumer waste. About 85% of this trash is currently disposed of in landfills. Yet as the amount of solid waste increases —and the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that it will reach 380 bil- lion lb by 2000—a third of the landfills are expected to close in the next five years. Many people are concerned that efforts to deal with the growing quantity of gar- bage are not moving fast enough. Plastics make up only about 7% of solid wastes, according to figures prepared by Franklin Associates for EPA, but plastics and paper are the fastest -growing segments of such wastes. In 1987, the plastics industry produced a total of 55 billion lb of plastics, and the public discarded about.22 billion lb of that. By 2000, plastics production may reach 75 billion lb, and the public is expected to throw away about 38 billion lb of that, accounting for 10% of solid municipal wastes that year. Although not a significant proportion by weight, plastics have been targeted as a waste prob- lem since, by volume, they are a very visible 30% of municipal solid waste. Rapidly rising costs of landfilling, as high or higher than $100 per ton in some parts of the U.S., and of alternative waste treatment methods, such as inciner- ation, are making it prohibitively expensive to deal with large amounts of waste. When coupled with the desire to conserve resources and have an environ- mentally acceptable 'means of reducing solid waste, recycling is often considered as an alternative. Recycling, although not inexpensive itself, can be less costly than other disposal methods because there is both a return on the reused materials and an offset of landfill charges. Of the more than 300 billion 1b of solid waste produced, only about 10% is recycled an- nually. Aluminum and paper are the materials recy- cled most, with about 30% of the aluminum and 20% of the paper reprocessed. Only 1% of the plastics is recovered. The apparent lack of movement in plastics kecycling has helped to make plastics a scapegoat in the battle .lanu.w 30. 7989 CRFN 7 News Focus Clean, ground recycled polyethylene milk bottle chips fall from pilot plant equipment into bin on solid waste. In the past decade, plastics have be- come increasingly prevalent because of their light weight, versatility in a range of applications, and convenience. But many plastic consumer items have short life spans and quickly make their way into the waste stream. More than half of the discarded plastics Mound in the form of packaging, an area frequent- ' argeted for recycling. Packaging, about one third by weight of consumer waste, consists primarily of paper (48%), glass (27%), and plastics (11%). Much of the public believes that plastics cannot be recycled or safely incinerated and, because they do not decompose, that they should be removed entirely from the waste stream. One can argue as to whether plastics are in fact a major cause of the solid waste crisis, but the answer is almost irrelevant since plastics are gen- erally perceived to be a significant problem. The result has been the rapid introduction of a tremendous amount of local, state, and federal legisla- tion that attempts to deal, one way or another, with the problems of solid waste. Much of the legislation has been aimed directly at plastics. On the federal level, former President Reagan signed the Plastic Pol- lution Control Act on Oct. 28, 1988, requiring that all six-pack ring carriers be made of biodegradable mate- rials. The act will go into effect unless, in the next two years, EPA determines that it is either not feasible or that the by-products of the biodegradable materials are not environmentally safe. Efforts to deal with solid waste issues are also expected to continue with a reauthorization of the Resource Conservation & Re- covery Act, which at this time promotes recycling only through government procurement guidelines. The most comprehensive federal legislation pro- 1=d to date was reintroduced this month by Rep. George J. Hochbrueckner (D.-N.Y.). The bill, H.R. 500, entitled the "Recyclable Materials Science & Technol- ogy Development Act," has been described as the first measure introduced to authorize a comprehensive con- sumer product recycling program on a national level. The bill stipulates that after a four-year joint review s by EPA and the Commerce Department, all consumer items deemed recyclable would be identified and list- 3 ed. Items determined to be recyclable must then be recycled, and all remaining items must be made bio- degradable. After an additional year, the sale of cer- tain nonrecyclable or non biodegradable consumer goods would be prohibited. The bill would establish an Office of Recycling Research & Information to distribute information and funds for research. Com- merce would be directed to look into ensuring tech- nology development, expanding the end -use markets for recycled materials, and encouraging the develop- ment of biodegradable products. On the state level, the interplay of plastics and legislation began in 1978 with the introduction of the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) beverage bottle. In a relatively short time, nine states introduced "bottle bills," or deposit laws on the return of plastic bottles. In these states, the deposit laws account for collection of an estimated 80 to 95% of the PET bottles sold. At present, at least 30 states are looking into some sort of waste management legislation involving plastics. The existing or proposed legislation runs the gamut of possible approaches, from the relatively benign sponsoring of feasibility studies for recycling to out- right bans on the use of plastics. Other approaches include limited bans on certain items, such as polysty- rene food containers, taxes on bottles or other con- tainers, deposit laws, enforced usage of biodegradable materials, and restrictions on government procure- ment of recyclable or degradable items. In addition, voluntary or mandatory recycling programs are starting in many states. Susan Vadney of the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) Council on Solid Waste Solu- tions indicates that at least nine states have recycling programs and six more are likely to follow. A few states such as Rhode Island, New Jersey, and California have become models for recycling programs, with Rhode Island and New Jersev having mandatory programs. In both states, several communities have had successful pilot programs for recycling that have included plastics. In October 1987, California enacted a mandatory beverage container redemption law (AB2020) with the condition that plastics manufactur- ers guarantee end -use markets for recycled plastics. Massachusetts, in a joint study with Rhode Island, has recently released a Plastics Recycling Action Plan. The plan includes plastics as a significant part of a comprehensive recycling program aimed at reducing municipal waste levels 25%. The plan promotes pilot programs and further R&D into all aspects of recycling. Added incentives to recycling sometimes take the form of potential legislated penalties, such as taxes or de- posits, that would be imposed if recycling goals, or those for certain materials, are not met. These incen- tives are often directed at bringing the recycling of plastics up to a level comparable to aluminum cans and glass bottles. Some states, like New Jersey, are also offering business loans, R&D funds, tax credits on equipment purchases, and market stimulation as incentives. par ha, wa par age bar flu• req bio P ly r stre bar, rial are are lic'� 8 January 30, 1989 C&EN Five resins are in common use in consumer packaging Thermoplastics, which account for 87% of plastics sold, are the most recyclable form of plastics because they can be remelted and reprocessed usually with only minor changes in their properties. Five resins are com- monly used in consumer packaging applications. Polyethylene is the most widely used resin. High -density polyethylene (HDPE) is used for rigid containers such as dairy and water jugs, household prod- uct containers, and motor oil bottles. Low -density polyethylene (LDPE) is of- ten used in films and bags. NIM U.S. total 1987 production of Packaging resins = 12.7 million in Source: Cen1e1 lo, P(-M'i 5 RecIdhi q Rpsua¢M1 On a local level, some of the legislation already passed has made people take notice, since its approach has been more drastic. Suffolk County, New York, was one of the first counties to ban plastic food packaging —the apparent target being fast-food pack- ages made of polystyrene. Similarly, Berkeley, Calif., banned all polystyrene packages made with chloro- fluorocarbon (CFC) blowing agents. The Berkeley law requires that all fast-food restaurant containers be biodegradable by 1990. Although the reaction by government has been fair- ly rapid and directed, the issue of plastics in the waste stream is complex. The number of legislative moves to ban plastics or replace them with biodegradable mate- rials is increasing. Critics say that these approaches are based on misinformation and misconceptions, and are only a politically expedient response to the pub- lic's desire for solutions that appear to be environ- Morrow (left): very ambitious objective. Pearson: ban on plastics is not the answer Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is used extensively in rigid containers, particularly beverage bottles for car- bonated beverages. Polystyrene (PS) Is best known as a foam in the form of cups, trays, and food containers. In its rigid form it is used in cutlery. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is a lough plastic often used in construction and plumbing. It is also used in some food, shampoo, oil, and household product containers. Polypropylene (PP) is used in a vari- ety of areas, from snack food packag- ing to battery cases to disposable dia- per linings. It is frequently interchanged for polyethylene or polystyrene. mentally safe. But biodegradable materials and plastics may not be the answer. "There are still a lot of unanswered questions about biodegradable plastics," says Mary Sheil, deputy director of New Jersey's Division of Solid Waste Management and one of the drafters of that state's mandatory recycling law. Among these questions are concerns about the degradation products and how they will affect the environment. In addition, the introduction of degradable materials is often consid- ered at cross purposes to recycling, because the de- gradable items can become contaminants of the more stable recyclable materials. One of the most startling facts that is coming to light is that even materials that are expected to decompose, such as paper and food- stuffs, are not breaking down in landfills. Therefore, producing more biodegradable materials would not necessarily ease the burden on landfills. Public perception and the resulting trends in legis- lation have led manufacturers of plastics and plastic products to realize that they either have to act and get involved with the issue or be prepared to shoulder much of the blame for the solid waste crisis and face tremendous restrictions on their industry. The compa- nies' initial responses included the formation of both internal divisions and cooperative industry associa- tions to approach the issues of plastics recycling and solid waste management. "Fortunately, we had some visionary people," says Wayne E. Pearson, executive director of the Plastics Recycling Foundation (PRF), an independent, non- profit organization started through the Society of the Plastics Industry in 1985 by 20 members of the plastics and allied industries. "This group recognized, before it was as apparent to most of us, that there was a solid waste crisis, that recycling was important and that [group members] needed to know more about it." The foundation now has 45 member companies, rang- ing from resin producers to container manufacturers to users of the containers, who are concerned about January 30, 1989 CBEN 9 News Focus ^:attitudes driving today's legislation and would i )to see it take a new direction. "The legislation is -oming from a quick fix, " says Pearson. "And it's too early to make simplifying decisions, unless you know the impact on society and the environment. "But," he says, "what we can't let it do is cause us to panic. We are trying to get a message out there about recycling, but get it out there in a calm and rational way. We want to get to various legislators and let them know that when they have the facts, they will see that banning plastics is not the answer." But how and where does a group like this get its facts? In 1985, PRE made its primary objective the establishment and support of the Center for Plastics Recycling Research (CPRR) at Rutgers University. Funds totaling nearly $2.3 million in 1988-89 to sup- port research come from PRF, Rutgers University, and other organizations such as SPI, the National Science Foundation, the New Jersey Commission on Science & Technology (which has established CPRR as one of its Advanced Technology Centers), and several state gov- ernments and universities. In the near future, Rep. Jim Courter (R.-N.J.) is expected to reintroduce a proposal to fund the center as the National Center for Plastics Recycling, the hub of a national effort with other universities. Starting up a research program in recycling is not an unlikely thing for plastics manufacturers to do, P ,on points out. "One of the things I don't think ti. �jiublic at all understands is that the plastics indus- try recycles every plastic, every thermoplastic, every day.'" He explains that the reprocessing of in-house scrap from the manufacture of plastic products has been a common practice for as long as the industry has existed. Thus, much of the technology for reusing plastics already exists. But, he notes, the use of in- house scrap is relatively straightforward, since collecting and sorting the materials is not necessary. So the question CPRR was given regarding plastics recycling was, Pearson says: "How do you gather it back from 240 million American> and du .urn•thing with it that makes any sense?" Under a charter to advance R&D in all aspects of plastics recycling and reuse, the job has been given to Darrell R. Morrow, director of CPRR, and his staff. The center operates with three divisions —research, process development, and information services —that work on covering the scientific, technological, eco- nomic, environmental, and practical sides of recvcling plastics. This includes defining and developing the necessary infrastructure to recycle plastics. This frame- work consists of four areas: collection, sorting, recla- mation, and reuse. Unlike other materials such as paper, metal, and glass, which have been recycled for 40 years or more, the infrastructure for plastics recycling is not yet in place. k center initially concentrated on reclamation ahu reuse and developed a technology for the recla- mation of postconsumer waste plastics. After only two years, CPRR published nearly 25 reports based on its research and held conferences to provide for transfer- ring the technology. "We want to disseminate the Dittman sits on plastic bench made at CPRR plant information as widely and in as timely a fashion as we can to help develop the infrastructure that will cause plastics to be included in the recycling stream," says Morrow. In its first two years, CPRR also constructed and began operating what is potentially a commercial - scale pilot plant facility. "To be able to reduce the applied research to practice in a timely manner," says Morrow, "we realized that we had to have a process development and demonstration facility that was sig- nificantly larger than you would ordinarily expect to find at a university, or even in industry." He adds that this has allowed them to move along faster toward a commercially viable design. Through this focused effort, CPRR has produced a technology transfer manual that describes in detail the setup and operation of a plastics recycling plant. The hope of CPRR is that making the technology available will foster the commercialization of plastics recycling. There are currently 14 licensees of the CPRR process worldwide; two of them are looking into build- ing plants in the near future. The process developed at CPRR is said to be similar in its layout to those Used in private industry. Most plastic reclamation systems are designed to work with rigid containers, such as PET beverage bottles, and HDPE milk or household product containers, because they are currently the easiest postconsumer items to collect and sort. PET beverage bottles are actually not one, but several materials: a PET body (clear or green), a pigmented high -density polyethylene (HDPE) base cup, aluminum cap, label, and adhesives. To separate these components, either a dry or wet separation meth- od based on one or more of the different physical properties of the materials can be used. Frank W. Dittman, project manager at the CPRR pla her are res on "b1 I d� Aft inh fiec pal cyc T cost terl fins pla' tort of boti frac nor. stag usit Dit' be . HD T so t the alul exp rep It's alut CPI poh gen tic the .1. (wi cen cost abo oth ope ana pla: mol a III wot C HD anc Sig] anc Ilot win, cyc 1` 10 January 30, 1989 CBEN plant, describes its operation after the containers have been collected and delivered to the plant. The bottles are sorted by hand to separate out the more valuable resins. "We are looking at mechanical sorting based on optical and electrical principles," says Dittman, "but whether that's going to beat hand sorting at cost, I don't know. You can sort by hand pretty quickly." After sorting, the bottles are shredded and ground into chips for processing. The chips are then air classi- fied, which, Dittman says, means that the lighter weight paper and other contaminants are separated in an air cyclone from the heavier plastic chips. To remove the labels still attached to the chips, a cost-effective and efficient means of removing a wa- terproof adhesive had to be devised. After finally finding a detergent wash that would xvork, he ex- plains, it had to be optimized with re,pecl to temhrra- ture, washing time, concentration of deter;gent, power of mixing, and, of course, concentration of chip.. In the case of the multicomponent PET beverage bottles, once the labels are removed, the lighter HDPE fraction is separated from the heavier PET and alumi- num pieces in a hydrocyclone system. It is at this stage that other reclamation methods often differ, using a separation step based on flotation methods; Dittman suggests that the hvdrocvclone system will be an improvement over the flotation methods. The HDPE chips are then dried and collected. The PET and aluminum chips require further drying so that thev can be electrostaticalty separated. This is the most expensive part of the entire process. "The aluminum cap is only 1% by weight of the bottle," explains Dittman, "but the equipment to remove it represents about 30% of the investment in the plant. It's out of balance, and we are trying to remove the aluminum more cheaply." The process —which at the CPRR plant can handle about 600 lb per hour, or a potential capacity of about 5 million lb per vear— generates clean, well -separated (99.97,) granulated plas- tic chips that can be sold to a manufacturer who uses the resins. The chips sell for about 25 to 35 cents per lb for PI f (with less than 100 ppm of aluminum), and 17 to 25 cents per lb for HDPE. In comparison, virgin PET costs about 50 to 60 cents per 16, and HDPE resins about 40 cents per lb. The center combines these and other factors in evaluating the financial aspects of operating a plant. "In our engineering manual we analyzed the economics and showed that a profitable plant should be able to process 20 million lb a year or more," says Dittman. He notes that the investment for a plant of that size would be about $2.5 million and it would pay for itself in three to five years. Other available reclamation technologies for rigid HDPE plastics are made by Transplastek of Canada and A.K.W. of West Germany and are similar in de- sign to the CPRR process with granulating, washing, and separation steps. Transplastek uses a proprietary flotation tank method to separate plastics by density, whereas the A.K.W. method is based on the hydro- cycloning technology. Much of the resin reclamation and reprocessing technology comes from overseas, as the Europeans and Japanese have been involved in recycling for a longer period of time. There are other reclamation processes for different resins, which have been devel- oped by or licensed to private companies, but because these are usually proprietary the details of their oper- ations are not known. Morrow makes a point of calling the system de- signed at CPRR a "resin recovery system," to stress the fact that it will work on about five different resins. Currently PET and HDPE can be processed together and are easily separated because of their different densities. The center hopes to add polvsty- rene and polvvinvl chloride to the mixed plastics stream thev process. But, with the present technology, PEI' and PVC cannot be run together since they have >intilardensities. "We have a very ambitious objective,'" says NIorrolc. What we have challenged ourselves to is to make our resin recovery system a universal reclamation facili- ty." Ideally, he explains, one would like to be able to feed in mixed, even granulated, plastics and have pure, generic resins come out the other end. This would remove the need for hand sorting and, for example, the separate processing of pigmented and ulpignlented HDPE containers. Morrow notes that economics are driving this stage of the reclamation process: Colored HDPE is less valuable than uncolored HDPE, which hasgreater flexibility in end uses. The value of recycled materials is present only if there are available markets, and plastics have become the second most valuable recyclable material after aluminum. The greatest return on recycled plastics is gained when the resins are reused in their original or similar applications, or by producing materials with added value, such as engineering plastics. if the prop- erties of the resins are not compromised by the recla- mation process, and if free enough of contaminants, generic resins can be sold to the manufacturers of ET/1 extruder at CPRR pilot plant January 30, 1989 C&EN 11 News Focus recycling of plastics is alternative to mechanical methods In addition to mechanical methods of reusing plastics, such as molding or extruding, polyester resins also can be reclaimed through chemical means and used to produce new polymer composi- tions. Eastman Chemicals (a division of Eastman Kodak) and Freeman Chemical Corp. have led in developing the chemi- cal recycling of polyester resins. By one of three reaction paths, polyethyl- ene terephthalate (PET) can be used to produce polyols (for polyurethane foams) and unsaturated resins, or it can be broken down into its original starting components and repolymerized. Eastman Chemicals, through the Plastic Bottle Institute of the Society of the Plastics Industry, has provided detailed discus- sions of these reactions. PET consists of repeating ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid (TPA) units joined together by ester linkages. Aro- matic polyols, hydroxyl -terminated short - chain molecules consisting of TPA and glycol units, can be produced from PET in a one-step glycolysis reaction. The idea behind the reaction is very simple: -High-molecular-weight PET is broken down into short -chain pieces through a catalytic reaction of PET and diethylene glycol. By heating a mixture of PET and diethylene glycol in the presence of a manganese catalyst, the polymer chain is cut into short fragments, and the ethylene glycol portions undergo ex- change with the free diethylene glycol. This reaction is allowed to proceed until an equilibrium between the two glycols is reached and the PET has been re- duced to short -chain polyols. The aromatic polyols resulting from the reaction can be mixed with com- mercial polyols, blowing agents, surfac- tants, catalysts, and polymeric isocya- nates to produce a rigid polyurethane foam. When compared with control foams prsfic products as a replacement for virgin material. But Food & Drug Administration restrictions prohibit use of recycled resins in food applications, making one major plastics market inaccessible to recycled resins. Mixed, or commingled, plastics must be dealt with differently to find end uses. Several technologies exist for mixed plastics, such as the ET/I extrusion process from Advanced Recycling Technology of Belgium anti a compression -molding process from Recycloplast of West Germany, At CPRR, another pilot plant with an ET/I extruder has been installed to make plastic lum- ber out of mixed plastics. Lower -melting plastics in the mixture act as a matrix that carries other plastics, and even up to 40% contaminants, such as paper, metal, glass, and dirt, into the mold. The resulting product can be treated and used like wood in nonconstruction applications such as decks, picnic ta- bles, and park benches. Reclaimed HDPE resins are also used to make flower pots, pipe, bottle base cups, pails, and drums. A few companies make mixed plastic items commer- cially. About six years ago, Eaglebrook Plastics of Chi- cago started recycling HDPE plant scrap, developing its own technology for cleaning and reclaiming the resin to be sold back to manufacturers. Eaglebrook since has extended its technology to deal with p, `consumer waste and now buys bales of bottles 1 Jcommunity collection centers. An offshoot com- pany, Eaglebrook Profiles, was recently opened to make plastic lumber profiles using a proprietary, continuous -extrusion process developed in-house. Similarly, Polymer Products, a division of Plastic Recycling Inc. of Iowa, is a young company that has 12 January 30, 1989 CBEN produced from commercially available polyester polyols, the foams produced from reclaimed materials were found to have essentially the same properties. Freeman Chemical uses about 25 mil- lion lb of postconsumer PET bottles and film scrap to make polyols for the pro- duction of rigid foams. The company estimates that more than 50% of the laminate foam insulation used for con- struction is made from recycled material. PET resins also can be reused to produce new unsaturated polyester res- ins. This takes a two-step reaction. The first reaction is similar to that used to make the polyols but, instead of ethyl- ene glycol, propylene glycol is used in the glycol exchange. The end products of this reaction include bis(hydroxyethyl). terephthalate and bis(hydroxypropyl)tere- phthalate diesters, mixed ethylene gly- col and propylene glycol terephthalate diesters, and free ethylene glycol and started buying industrial scrap and postconsumer plas- tics, generally commingled, to make car stops, speed bumps, traffic bollards, and plastic lumber. Floyd Ham- mer, chairman of Plastics Recycling Inc., says that when he started the company he had in mind to manufacture value-added products with their own end -use markets, rather than deal in the more volatile commodity resins. He noted that two years ago there wasn't a market for mixed plastics products, but that the company has been building its market slowly, but successfully, as one of the few small companies mak- ing these types of products. In contrast, PET end -use markets have been devel- oping for at least 10 years. When the PET bottle was introduced in 1978 and was collected in states with deposit laws, the industry for recycling them and reusing them began to develop. PET resins can be reused to make polyols for insulation and unsaturated resins for bathtubs, shower stalls, boat hulls, and auto panels. Reclaimed PET is also used for strapping, paint brushes, geotextiles, fibers for fiberfill and carpets, and other textile applications. Wellman Inc, of Clark, N.J., the largest consumer of reclaimed PET, recycles PET beverage bottles and scrap to manufacture fibers, fiberfill, geotextiles, and other products. Dennis Sabourin, vice president of Wellman, indicates that the company used about two thirds of the PET bottles collected in the U.S., or about 100 million lb, in 1988. About 150 million lb of PET bot- tles were collected nationwide and recycled in 1988, or about 20% of those manufactured. This is a substan- tial increase over the 8 million lb collected in 1979 at a time when the return of plastic bottles was just begin- HO Cr prc ucl the ant Pat ce: hot sis duc PE - me me cot anc the eat nil lea MCI lio tht grc the of Yo; flu ,II b u: var do anc dir ma L ma' atti anc Bot list• list: 47 nie nie 1\ tell cur tint ind t ailable xluced and to ies. is mil- es and ,e pro- mpany of the r con- :erial. sed to er res- ,n. The sed to ethyl- ised in oducts iethyl} vl)tere- ie gly- Ihalate of and _ O HO CHs—CHz—O—OC \ / C-OCHZ—CHz—OH JJJn Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) propylene glycol. Since all of the prod- ucts are hydroxyl -terminated, reacting them with a dibasic acid like malefic anhydride produces new unsaturated. polyester condensates. This synthetic method has been suc- cessfully tested on PET from beverage bottles (a 2-L bottle, for instance, con- sists of about 50 to 60 g of PET). Pro- ducing unsaturated resins from reclaimed PET takes about half the time as other methods and produces materials of equal molecular weight, acid value, and vis- cosity. Glass fiber -reinforced laminates and unreinforced castings prepared from the reclaimed PET material test favor- ably with other materials. Although Eastman Chemi- cals does not currently use the unsaturated resin synthe- sis from reclaimed PET in its production, it does frequently use a methanolysis reaction, which breaks down PET into its original starting materials, to reprocess large amounts (tens of millions of pounds) of Kodak film scrap. As David Cornell, manager of technology and manufacturing in Eastman Chemicals' polyester recycling business unit, says, "It makes good sense for us at Eastman Kodak to recycle our scrap as it helps treat the solid waste problem and saves on our disposal cost." The methanolysis begins with rea- sonably clean PET scrap to which a catalyst and methanol are added. This mixture is heated under pressure to force the PET to depolymerize. The end products are ethylene glycol and di - methyl terephthalate (DMT). Pure DMT and ethylene glycol are obtained through ning. CPRR estimates potential market now for at least 500 million lb of reclaimed PET, increasing to more than 900 million lb in 1993. Similarly, 55 mil- lion 1b of HDPE containers were recycled in 1988 and the potential market is estimated at 440 million lb, growing to 660 million lb in 1993. By most estimates the market for plastics reuse is growing. According to an analysis of markets and economics of recycling by R. M. Kossoff and Associates of New York City, although the market for plastic resins can fluctuate widely, economic incentives are present in all aspects of the recycling chain. The firm sees the business as highly segmented, with opportunities at a variety of levels. These include collection, reclama- tion, selling of reclaimed resins, end -use products, and equipment manufacture. But as Richard M. Kossoff, director of the study, says, "In the long run, the markets will have to lead." Increasing costs of virgin resins and viable end -use markets are currently making the recycling business attractive, and more and more companies, both large and small, are entering the business. The 1988 Plastic Bottle Recycling Directory and Reference Guide pub- lished by the Plastic Bottle Institute of SPI currently lists 67 companies that buy bulk bottles for recycling, 47 companies that sell reprocessed plastics, 50 compa- nies that purchase reprocessed plastic, and 54 compa- nies that manufacture equipment for recyclers. Most people in the plastics recycling business will tell you they can always use more plastic than is currently available, but that the bottleneck is in get- ting the materials collected from consumers. Sabourin indicates that Wellman could use more than twice the recrystallization and distillation, respec- tively. These pure materials can be used as feedstocks for the synthesis of nbw pglyesters. A few special considerations must be dealt with when reusing PET from consumer sources in chemical recycling. For example, the PET must be clean and free of contaminating materials. Using plant scrap assures the manufac- turers of both the identity of the resin and its purity. Using mixed colored res- ins may pose a problem, although when they are used in products that are not visible to the consumer, such as foam insulation, color is not a factor. Whether an economic advantage is realized when using reclaimed materi- als depends on several factors, ranging from the relative costs of obtaining and reprocessing the materials to the cost of virgin materials or feedstocks. In ad- dition, the supply of materials and the scale of the reprocessing effort may Play a significant role. amount currently available and as much as three and a half times that in the next two years. That more than 200 million lb of plastic containers were recycled with no organized recycling program, other than deposit laws in nine states, suggests that the level of plastics recycling and the requisite end -use markets will prob- ably rise with increased collection efforts. Having produced a working reclamation plant, CPRR is shifting its R&D emphasis to the areas of collecting and sorting plastics. The center is in the process of publishing another manual to help communities and industry establish the infrastructure for collecting and sorting plastics as a part of a comprehensive recycling program. In following the progress and analyzing the results of several community pilot programs, the cen- ter has found that the success of these programs de- pends on many factors. The most important factor is the careful design and planning of a program to fit a given community. Even though including plastics in recycling pro- grams is a new concept, participation rates can be as high as 70 to 90%. "If you want to get serious about collecting, you make it very simple for the consumer to participate," says Pearson. This usually means curb- side pickup programs for trash and recyclable materi- als in suburban communities. In comparison, drop-off programs only have a 10 to 30% participation rate. Although mandatory recycling laws do help to direct- ly communicate the need for recycling and enforce it, Pearson feels that with sufficient education about the solid waste problem and the value of recycling, most people are very willing to participate. And the value of education is not to be underestimated, because the January 30, 1989 C&EN 13 Vews Focus difficult initial obstacles to overcome are the ous misconceptions people hold about plastics tot being recyclable. The extent to which a community gets involved in •ecycling depends on the economics of collection, :ransportation, handling, reprocessing, the revenues =rom sales of recycled materials, and the offset of .andfill or incineration fees. The large number of iariables makes the overall economics of recycling -irograms complicated. Based on current costs and market prices, the CPRR economic model predicts :hat an average suburban community with landfill :harges of $45 per ton or more cannot afford not to recycle. Although this should encourage some com- munities to become involved in recycling, this does not mean that local governments must become entre- .�reneurs in the plastics end -use market. However, ;overnment subsidies to start programs and stimulate market growth might be necessary. CPRR suggests that communities work toward de- veloping regional Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) to handle all the recyclable materials collected. Several MRF facilities exist across the U.S., and the number being looked at is growing rapidly. These larger facil- ities, serving several communities, can handle sorting and densification (baling or shredding) in addition to sale and transport of recyclables to reprocessors. Promoting recycling and collecting plastic contain - sled to the development of other organizations. 0=.- of these is NAPCOR, the National Association for Plastic Container Recovery, a nonprofit associa- tion of 12 major PET resin and container manufactur- ers. "We work with communities in recycling efforts to either encourage including PET in existing pro- grams or to have it included in programs under devel- opment;' says Luke B. Schmidt, president of NAPCOR. NAPCOR has a goal of achieving a 50% recycling rate for PET bottles by 1992. Geotextile fabric for sanitary landfill.liners is made by Wellman Inc. from recycled green PET bottles NAPCOR works on a project -by -project basis to en- courage collection, Schmidt says. These projects are usually in demonstration programs. Currently, they are working in at least seven states giving financial support, technical assistance, and public education and promotion programs. In addition, the member companies of NAPCOR have pledged to use a volun- tary coding system developed by SPI to identify res- ins. The code consists of a number and letter symbol that can be imprinted on containers in the molding process and should help in the sorting of resins. The Plastic Bottle Institute of SPI and the Council on Plastics & Packaging in the Environment (COPPE) work to educate and provide information on plastics recycling and waste issues. The Plastic Bottle Insti- tute, with 23 industrial members, publishes newslet- ters in addition to its extensive plastics recycling di- rectory. Along with other organizations, it hopes to inform the public about the recyclability of plastics and the existence of viable end -use markets. COPPE works to communicate information to industry, the public, and government about plastics recycling and waste management. "We want to educate the public as to what can and should be done so that decisions can be made on an informed and not an emotional basis," says Connie Pitt, communications coordinator for COPPE. Although not a lobbying organization, it does interact on mat- ters of public policv as an information source and in a peer review capacity. Thereare 42 companies in COPPE that cover a broad base in the plastics industry. Noel H. Malone, manager of marketing in Eastman Chemicals' polyester recycling division, says that the large num- ber of groups spanning the plastics industry is benefi- cial. "The industry is deep and wide, and specific groups can focus in on specific problems," he says. New Jersey Division of Solid Waste Management deputy director Sheil is encouraged that the plastics industry appears to be joining together and moving forward on recvcling. "Unlike other industries [glass and paper], the plastics industry is a very diverse group, ... especially by the time vuu get to the end product," she says. "If the states hadn't put the pres- sure on, it wouldn't have happened." Although the industry has come a long way toward recvcling plas- tics, comments Sheil, recycling plastics hasn't yet become real on a large scale, and it will remain to be seen what happens in the next few years. In addition to getting involved in recjcling through organizations such as PRF, NAPCOR, and COPPS, the plastics industry is expanding its own internal efforts. Many of the major resin manufacturers, such as Du Pont, Dow Chemical, Mobil Chemical, and Eastman Chemicals, have taken positions on and responsibility for solid waste issues and established corporate divi- sions to focus on plastics recycling and/or solid waste management. These divisions look into the govern- mental, environmental, and business aspects. Of course, companies see the support and promo- tion of plastics recycling as vital to their positions in the marketplace and the growth of their companies. As happened with the aluminum can, the promotion Sp( by. of; a joi, rec ma r pol sty, scri eth tiol Mo pec fro) pie tics C are firs foo bei tutl firr. Tht yea the pos apt S agr the PEI can tics the to b C uct 14 January 30. 1989 CBEN en - a, } the, racial t tion fiber Iun- res- nbol iing ncil 'l'E) tics nsti- di- to -tics ,'PE the and and � an inie ugh nat- ;n a PPF I H. ats' im- efi- ific ent tics ifig :ass •rse ,nd the ias- vet be gh the rts. Du ian ity vi- ste Speed bump is one of a number of end use products made by Polymer Products from commingled plastics of a product as recyclable lets the public perceive it in a positive light and helps to maintain a market. And joint ventures, acquisitions, and the building of recycling businesses offer the plastics industry new markets and promotional opportunities. Mobil Chemical is a producer of polvethvlene and polystyrene resins and a major manufacturer of poly- styrene products. In addition to recycling all in-house scrap, the company purchases 100 million lb of poly- ethylene film scrap to use in the production of institu- tional trash bags. Robert J. Barrett, general manager of Mobil's Solid Waste Management Solutions unit, ex- pects that business opportunities will continue to arise from the solutions to solid waste problems. An exam- ple is Mobil's $4 million joint venture company, Plas- tics Again, with Genpak of Glens Falls, N.Y. Genpak, a plastic products manufacturer, and Mobil are in the process of opening and operating one of the first plants to recycle polystyrene foam items such as food containers, cups, and cutlery. The materials are being collected from Massachusetts schools and insti- tutions by New England CRlnc, a major reclamation firm and recycled materials end -use manufacturer. The plant has a capacity to recycle 3 million lb per year of polystyrene resin, which will be reused by the companies or sold to producers of insulation, fence posts, and flower pots. The new company is expecting a profit by 1992. Similarly, Dow has entered into a joint venture agreement with Domtar of Canada to operate what the companies hope will be by 1990 a self-sustaining PET and HDPE recycling business. The North Ameri- can company is expected to take postconsumer plas- tics and, using a proprietary Dow process, convert them into resins for use in Domtar's manufacturing or to be sold by Dow. Other industry efforts to "close the loop" of prod- uct manufacture, recycling, and resin reuse include Procter & Gamble's marketing of a plastic househol, product container made from recycled PET. Johnso, Controls, a major manufacturer of PET beverage bot tles and containers, is also involved in promotinl recycling efforts. Internally, the company recycles in house scrap and is -working on proprietary R&D of forts in recycling. As a container manufacturer, John son Controls is also taking an interest in the design o packaging to make it more recyclable. A company spokesman indicates that approaches are being workec on to begin marketing nonfood containers from recv cled materials. Manufacturers looking to use recycled resins are concerned with getting consistent quanti- ties and quality of the materials to make these efforts economically feasible. Although plastics have been targeted in the battle on solid haste, and both government and indus(n have responded, plastics are only one part of the growing solid waste problem. The importance of in- vestigating alternatives in waste disposal is becoming obvious to all involved. And new organizations, such as the Council on Solid Waste Solutions of the SPI, are growing out of the plastics and other industries. Un- like PRF, which emphasizes plastics recycling, the Council looks into all aspects of the solid waste prob- lem, focusing on reaching local, state, and federal governments to influence legislation and on evaluat- ing waste treatment technologies. Alternative solid waste treatment methods are being explored and plastics recycling will probably con- tinue to be among them, because it doesn't seem likely that our society will entirely give up their plastic products. Morrow makes the important point that plastics should be integrated slowly into the recycling scheme, starting with beverage bottles and moving on to other types of packaging, to provide time for the collection, reclamation, and end -use in- frastructure to grow. Forcing too much, too soon, into the existing structure could do more harm than good in terms of a collapse of the effort and backlash from the apparent failure to recycle plastics. The outlook on biodegradable plastics, as generally expressed by the plastics industry, is that they may only find limit- ed applications in agriculture or in dealing with litter. EPA's Office of Solid Waste has proposed that an integrated system of waste reduction, recycling, incin- eration, and landfilling be established. This view seems to be supported by most industries and many legisla- tive and environmental groups, but with different emphasis on the different components. EPA has also set a goal for recycling 25%of solid waste nationwide. Although the details and issues of solid waste man- agement are both complex and controversial, it ap- pears that after reducing the amount of waste through recycling and burning that which can be safely incin- erated in waste -to -energy conversion facilities, the levels of materials left for landfills can be greatly reduced. Still left to be dealt with are the issues of safe and cost-effective incineration, air and ash toxicity levels and disposal, establishment of a nationwide recycling infrastructure, and development of efficient and environmentally safe landfilling methods. ❑ January 30, 1989 C&EN 15 TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE RE: Summary of meeting, Thursday, January 26, 1989 ATTENDEES: Karl Sharicz, Dennis Baker, Michael McClanahan, Bill Lewis, Mike Van Splinter, Marilyn Ouellette, John Dunn; Guest: Dorothy Freeman, Chrmn from Norton OLD BUSINESS RECYCLING PUBLICITY UPDATE Action taken: Karl Sharicz has developed a rough draft of ideas for the recycling program. A copy of this draft is attached for review. Once approved, it will be integrated into the school program with the assistance of MaryAnn Campisano. Karl will report back at next meeting with status. NEW BUSINESS 1. ROCHESTER PRESENTATION Representative from the Rochester recycling facility made the following key comments in his presentation: -SEMASS approach to waste management is an integrated program encompassing both incineration and recycling; ideally recycling beginning in the household. -envision material recycling facility (MERF) located next to burn facility and will handle glass, paper, plastic, and various metals. -currently in process of structuring the Program and getting funding -studying several approaches: 1) co -mingled recycling program using the 113-bin system" at home separating plastics, paper, glass or metals 2)mechanically separate at facility with use of heavy plastic (collapsible) bag to be picked up with trash or separately 3)also considering drop-off centers -project that construction on MERF will commence at last quarter of this year and expect to be fully operational by year end or beginning of next year; the MERF is not necessarily restricted to committed SEMASS communities. In 60 days, will be able to provide a more definitive program. -advantage of being a part of a large facility such as Rochester is its ability to establish long-term contractural arrangements with key markets to ensure the best market price for paper, etc. -usually a tipping fee (cost) for separating co -mingled material at plant; always a cost -saver to separate at household first -occasionally will pay bonuses back to communities if market pays well -town is responsible for transportation -Burn facility: most of the committed communities are in shake -down phase and won't be on-line until September (residential and some commercial); Mansfield is encouraged to join the waiting list -Mike McClanahan will be kept informed as to the progress of the program IMMEDIATE ACTION TAKEN: Committee voted in favor of recommending to the Board of Selectmen to send a letter requesting Mansfield be placed on waiting list for SEMASS incineration facility. 2. VOLUNTEER HELP FOR RECYCLING Action taken: Marilyn Ouellette was appointed to coordinate and generate interest from civic organizations as a continuing service to pick up paper a certain spots (i.e., Senior Citizens home) to deliver to APR container. It was suggested that someone be designated a "community coordinator". Marilyn had proposed a semi-annual event to draw attention and get the community fully involved. She will report back at next meeting with results of her efforts. 3. LEASING/OPERATION OF TRUCKS Action taken: At Selectmen's meeting, it was suggested to look at pros/cons of operating our own trucks/pickups Dot Freeman had briefly mentioned Norton's current leasing contract: -cost is approx. $450,000 plus personnel (includes tipping fee) based on 6400 ton generation -leasing trucks from a company in Wrentham which provides plenty of backup trucks -pickup is 5 days a week; estimated to be approx. $200,000 cheaper than BFI contract Immediate action taken: John Dunn will propose to Town Manager to perform a cost benefit analysis on purchasing and leasing T�s. 4. CABLE UPDATE Action taken: Dennis Baker will contact the cable channel to ascertain the procedure for airing tapes publicly;ideally, want to coordinate the airing with Karl's releases. Dennis will report back with his results at next meeting. 5. DEQE AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS Mike Morizio distributed to the Committee documentation outlining DEQE's air quality analysis. Mike had indicated that DEQE is "lenient" in their regulations of burn facilities and cited the fact that they do not test for pollutants such as dioxins. Mike recommends that Mansfield needs to establish a regulatory structure in the town to impose stringent regulations on future burn/incineration facilities. Committee will review the analysis and offer feedback at next meeting. REMINDER Next meetings are scheduled for: FEBRUARY 9 Thursday FEBRUARY 23 Thursday 339-ga04- NEWSPAPER RECYCLING SAVES $$$ FOR MANSFIELD Dear Mansfield Resident, Like many surrounding communities, Mansfield's Solid Waste Committee is working to recommend trash disposal options which make the best sense for our town. Everyone agrees that there are four basic methods for trash disposal; recycling, composting, landfill and incineration. Our trash is presently collected and disposed of by Browning - Ferris Industries (BFI), its ultimate disposal involving an out-of-town landfill. Regardless of the methods that will eventually be adopted to solve our long term trash disposal needs, there is something you can do to help right away. BFI has agreed to credit us with measurable reductions in the amount of trash collected. The Solid Waste Committee in cooperation with American Paper Recycling (APR) has arranged for a newspaper drop-off as a first step in the reduction of Mansfield's trash. With every resident participating, Mansfield could save over $100,000 per year in avoided disposal costs just from newspaper recycling alone. It makes perfect sense for each of us to use the facility provided and share in this effort. Why recycle? There are two good reasons why you should participate in Mansfield's newspaper drop-off program. Recycling is one of the best environmental alternatives of trash disposal. By reducing the amount of trash that is picked up each week, Mansfield will save money in avoided disposal costs. This benefits every resident of Mansfield. Will the amount of newspaper I generate make a difference? It is estimated that each household collects about 50 pounds of newspaper each month generated by subscribing to one daily and one Sunday newspaper. If you subscribe to two daily newspapers, this could amount to 80 pounds per month. Over a year this amounts to 600-900 pounds per household! With 6000 households in full participation at the rate of $56 per ton, Mansfield could realize a yearly cost avoidance of over $100,000. Your efforts will indeed make a difference. How easy is it to recycle newspaper? Newspaper recycling couldn't be easier. Using twine, you can tie'them tggether in manageable bundles. Even easier would be to slip them into a used supermarket brown paper grocery bag (no plastic please). Then, at your convenience, just bring them to the Mansfield Highway Department on route 106. There you will find a large "tank" in which to place them. It's that simple! What will be next for Mansfield? The success of the newspaper drop-off program may lead to a more extensive recycling program that includes metal and glass and household hazardous waste collections. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to the trash disposal problem. Each alternative requires a sacrifice of one kind or another. If you are interested in the course that the Solid Waste Committee is following, you may wish to attend their twice monthly meetings. See the Mansfield News for public meeting dates and times. IN TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of February 9, 1989, Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS Feedback on: 1. Publicity campaign for recycling - Karl 2. Volunteer/civic help - Marilyn 3. CBA for truck leasing - John 4. Cable channel - Dennis 5. Rochester waiting list - John 6. Review of DEQE air quality analysis 7. Further developments from Rochester (Angelo) - Mike M. D. NEW BUSINESS E. COMMENTS FROM GUESTS/PUBLIC TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Sttee`,f 'Nl="wh*- ,.02040 �I JAN 2 q i.c OWN � r PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE D RL RE: Summary of meeting, Thursday, January 12, 1989 ATTENDEES: William Lewis, Dennis Baker, Mike McClanahan, Mike Van Splinter, John Dunn, Karl Sharicz OLD BUSINESS 1. ROCHESTER UPDATE Action taken: Mike McClanahan has arranged for a representative from the Rochester recycling program to make a presentation at the next meeting, January 26. Mike also briefly noted to bear in mind the fact that the burn facility and recycling program are "corporately separate" and that their operation is NOT contingent on state funds. 2. APR CONTAINER Action taken: Mike McClanahan had stated that an APR container is located on the DPW garage site for recycling purposes. The container is clearly visible from the road and has already been utilized by some residents. A need for a publicity program was cited since special effort on behalf of the residents is required . Immediate action: Karl Sharicz was appointed to coordinate with MaryAnn Campisano a publicity campaign for the recycling paper program. The plan is to reach the public via schools, newspaper and TV. Karl will design and create leaflets to be inserted in the electric bill mailings. Also recommended was community involvement by civic/volunteer groups to help out on Saturdays. Objective: ideally, to attain at least 25% participation to reduce waste stream by approx. 23% resulting in meaningful cost reduction without incurring any expense to town/residents. 3. NORTON/FOXBORO/MANSFIELD SOLID WASTE MEETING Action taken: On January 3 at the Norton library, Chairman Mike Van Splinter attended a joint meeting with both Norton and Foxboro chairpersons, Dorothy Freeman and John Arnold, respectively. Key notes from the meeting: - all three towns have approached the Rochester facility and have met with similar results - Foxboro plans to make its new landfill a "commercial venture" by going public with offerings of 5-acre units to create revenue. - it was agreed that all three chairpersons continue to meet on an informal basis to explore areas of mutual interest Mike Van Splinter is arranging for Norton and Foxboro to attend the Rochester presentation on January 26 in Mansfield. Also, Mike Van Splinter has been invited to attend an Attleboro solid waste meeting on January 30 at the Attleboro City Hall. 4. BY-LAW Action taken: Mike Van Splinter has amended by-law to be used as a trigger mechanism for the Board of Selectman for action. Committee members approved of this action. [Copies of the amended by-law will be distributed at a later date] 5. SPREADSHEET Action taken: Mike Van Splinter has created another spreadsheet of figures for reference. Based on these calculations, town is left with approx. 1200 tons to dispose. Mike Van Splinter had indicated that the town needs to find a comfortable mix of recycle, compost, thermal, etc. - one method is not the solution. General concensus of the committee is that burning and incineration has to be part of the "mix". Immediate action: Committee voted to actively pursue and investigate the pros and cons of siting a plant in Mansfield. 6. INTERIM REPORT Mike Van Splinter gave a brief overview of his interim report to the Committee which contained the following key accomplishments and actions of the Committee: - Recycling of newpaper underway resulting in cost avoidance. - Publicity and advertising campaign for recycling program will be developed. - Composting of sludge; presently awaiting results of testing. Space a concern. - Board of Health sponsored hazard waste pickup at Great Woods was successful. - Regional meetings between Norton and Foxboro underway. - Requesting by-law - Surveyed industrial waste regarding above -ground tanks with oil and antifreeze. - Permanent subcommittee established. - Recommend not including industrial waste in waste stream reduction. - Endorse incineration as part of solid waste management. **REMINDER** Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, JANUARY 26. TEST PROJECTIONS REVISITED A 6 C D E F 6 H 1 YEAR D.U.'S POP. COST CST./D.U. AN.VOL.(TNS) CONTRACT ESCALATION 2 *198 5537 15421 3 1987 5874 16145 $824 196 140.3126 8/87-7/88 BASE 4 1988 6211 16869 $878 592 141.4574 6300 8/88-7/89 6.60% 5 1989 6548 17593 $974 358 148,8024 8/89-7/90 10.90% 6 * 199 6886. 18316 7 *199 8113 21337 8 *200 9193 23901 9 10 11 **THE STREAM 12 1984 1986 13 14 PAPER 42% 41% 15 YARD 23% 18% 16 METAL 9% 9% 17 GLASS 9% 8% 18 FOOD 8% 19 PLASTIC 7% 7Z 20 MISA. 9% 2% 21 WOOD g� 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STREAM REDUCTION METHODS 29 START 6300 TONS 30 31 RECYCLE 6300.00 PARTICIPATION 50% REDUCTION 30V REMAINDER 5355.00 32 33 34 35 COMPOST THERMAL LANDFILL 5355,00 5047.09 1261.77 25% 100% 100� 23%1 75%1 100� 5047,09 1261.77 0,00 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 *A/7ASTERPLANFORNANSF/ELO 47 1 **FRANK[/NASSGC/ATES ALL NUMBERS STILL SUSPECT m v s 17/9R/RR TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of January 26, 1989, Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS D. NEW BUSINESS Rochester recycling presentation E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 i r�r �a uyyN G,I ER PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOS RE: Summary of meeting, Thursday, December 8, 1988 ATTENDEES: Karl Sharicz, William Lewis, Michael Van Splinter, Dennis Baker OLD BUSINESS 1. ROCHESTER UPDATE Action taken: Mike McClanahan was informed that the Rochester facility is already committed to capacity and is not accepting any more contracts for next two years. Also, speakers for the Rochester recycling program are unable to visit until after New Year. Mike McClanahan will attempt to schedule a presentation at next meeting. 2. RECYCLING CONTAINER AT DPW Action taken: Mike McClanahan reported that Bill Cox from APR will meet with Mansfield DPW to discuss final details of the placement of the container at the DPW garage site. The actual placement will be done imminently. Mike has also arranged for newscoverage to publicly announce the program. NEW BUSINESS 1. "JOINT VENTURE" In an effort to establish a joint regional venture, Chairman Mike Van Splinter has been invited by Chairmen of the Solid Waste Committees from Norton (Dot Freeman) and Foxboro (John Arnold)to attend a joint meeting to discuss the solid waste issues. This meeting is scheduled for December 13 at Norton Town Hall. 2. INTERIM REPORT On Wednesday, January 18, Chairman Mike Van Splinter is scheduled to deliver an interim report to the Board of Selectmen. The report will be both verbal and informal in nature. Mike will present the report to the Committee at next meeting for comments/feedback. * Committee members are encouraged to attend the January 18 presentation to the Board. OTHER NEW BUSINESS... - Karl Sharicz had distributed during the meeting, copies of articles concerning composting and recycling. These copies are attached at end of summary for those who were unable to attend last meeting. - Mike Morizio mentioned that the State is now entertaining application for funds for various programs such as landfill capping, recycling, site assignments. He will notify and submit to the Committee any regulations he may obtain. ** R E M I N D E R ** Upcoming meetings are scheduled for: JANUARY 12 Thursday JANUARY 26 Thursday (interim report). JANUARY 18 Wednesday to Board HAVE A SAFE AND HAPPY HOLIDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of January 12, 1988, Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Rochester Recycling presentation [tentative] 2. Presentation of interim report - Mike Van Splinter E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS TOWN OF S�7������� ������������ �-------' ^�~^..°^^~'°�~,vEvTn 50West Street, Mansfield, MAO2D48 ISWC OF 11" 1988 �\8��~,���~`� � AsFONDomb: Marilyn Ouellette, Michael Van Spli^ Mike McClanahan, Bill Lewis, Karl Sha John Dunn Note: Marilyn Ouellette abstained from any SWC voting due to our meeting not being posted. BF1 PRESENTATION BFI representatives Steve Dunn, Brian Magner, Bruce Sugarman and Pat gave a presentation concerning BFI's recycling programs to reduce the waste stream" These programs were mainly curbside separation and composting" They gave Weymouth as an example of a fall yard waste collection/composting program that they instituted" Noteworthy was the comment that curbside collection is not 1nexoensive and does not cut costs to the town. �l Otner waste reduction measures that they were involved with � were newsprintr glass and metal collection" The rate for newsprint is currently around $5/ton^ Weymouth recently collected 300 tons @ 70-75% participation with only 1 months notice to the public. we became involved in a program of this type we could save an "avoided cost of disposal" whereby BFl would credit us the reouction of tonnage at the $56/ton rate that it is currently costing us to have them dispose of our waste (minus any xtra nours in pickup and/or labor) MORATORIUM UPDATE John Dunn reporteu that according to the !987 Mansfield town reanrt that tle "Moratorium on incinerators" exempts the esoaolisnment of any municipal incineration projects^ lixe VcClanahan rePorted that no permit was reouireu for leaf comzostin? zut t1at a Permit was required for a '`stump dump-. ACTION 3ExS Yike McClanaman will speak to APR to arrange a container. L � to ze PlaceC at tne DPW garage to be used for newsprint crop -off" Also to saeaK to tne Press (Mansfield News, Sun Chronicle) to announce the Program to residents. c. Mike McClanahan will try to arrange a trip to Rochester (SEMASS) to visit the Recycling/incineration project and possibly arrange a presentation by the developers to inform us of any possibilities of participation with them. John Dunn and Marilyn Ouellette will investigate any town owned open land which could be used as a transfer station should PFI interrupt service of fop a drop-off point and/or composting area for any future need in conjunction with trash collection, recycling and distribution. NEXT MEETING KS 11/23 - December 81 1988 7:30 PM Town Hall TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of December 8, 1988, Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS D. NEW BUSINESS Rochester facility presentation [tentative] E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS 0 TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield; MA 02048 ov �s PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RE: Summary of meeting, Thursday, November 10, 1988 ATTENDEES: Karl Sharicz, John Dunn, William Lewis, Michael Van Splinter, Michael McClanahan, Dennis Baker, Marilyn Ouellette, Barbara Hagg O-D BUSINESS INDUSTRIAL SURVEY Action taken: Marilyn Ouellette had recently received Tri-Town Chamber newsletter outlining the survey results. Chamber was pleased with high response rate of 18%. Copies of these results will be furnished with next meeting summary. 2. COMPOST PERMIT No response from Jerry on this subject. NEW BUSINESS LEGrIS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRESENTATION Guest speakers: Tom Dickinson Dave Anderson An outline/overview of the Taunton project was distributed at the meeting and is attached at end of meeting summary. Additional key notes are as follows: - Legeis is currently working on two projects: • 200 ton/day facility in Shirley • 625 ton/day facility in Taunton Other Legeis projects: • three 20-50 ton/day medical waste facilities • one chemical waste facility in Springfield -Legeis' focus is on 200-500 ton/day facilities; company has been in existence for 22 years. Company's approach: • regional focus • selected waste mix • operations -oriented • no technology constraint • stresses local initiative and acts as promotional manager - Shirley project: - "no frills" type plant • 160 ton/day nominal capacity • 3.5 megawatt of electric output • kiln is utilized • depends on local initiative to separate • site size: approx. 9 acres bordered by wetlands • water usage: approx. 90,000 gals/day - Town of Shirley estimates that their residential sector generates 4000 ton/year of solid waste. - Shirley estimates economic impact of facility: $275,000/year cost avoidance $110,000/year host fee approx. $385,000/year i0 "total savings" - Tipping fees: Shirley residential - no tipping fee for life of plant; all others would pay approx. $45-48/ton to utilize Shirley plant. Taunton residential - no tipping fee for years 1 to 5; $10/ton tipping fee starting in year 6. Current estimate for all other users is $55-60/ton. - Legeis Corporation is currently accumulating mailing list with the intention of issuing newsletters. Mike Van Splinter requested Mr. Dickinson to keep the Committee informed of any new developments concerning the Taunton facility. OTHER NEW BUSINESS . . - Mike Van Splinter met preliminarily with Tom Dwyer to discuss and review the BFI contract. A close look at the contract indicates some adjustments made to to the original contract, possibly to coTensate for parks, schools, etc. Mike will "investigate" further and will also arrange for a BFI representative to make a presentation at the next meeting. - On 11/2/88, Karl Skaricz attended a North Attleboro Solid Waste Committee meeting; his synopsis of the meeting is attached at end of meeting summary. - Karl Sharicz had recently obtained a set of guidelines for a leaf composting program presently utilized by Holliston. A copy of these guidelines are attached at end of meeting summary. - John Dunn will review moratorium to see if exemption exists concerning municipal purposes. - The Committee appointed Mike McClanahan to serve as representative to the Rochester faoility. Mike will find out their current status and arrange for a representative to make a presentation at the next meeting. ***REMINDER*** Next meetings are scheduled for: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22 and THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8.!!! 0 North Attleboro Solid Waste Committee Meeting 11/2/88 K. Sharicz Speakers: 1. Mr. Carmen Chevie - Consultant, Bridgewater Energy Center 2. Dr. Bruce Bond - WTE Corp. Bedford MA PROPOSAL 1000 TPD Refuse Derived Fuel Facility - would source separate ferrous materials and screen other non-burnables from incoming waste before shredding and subsequent thermal degradation. They claimed not to be proponents of mass -burn. Proposal was in concept only and included little in terms of details about possible tipping fees for N.A. or other interested communities. Ash by-product to be landfilled on -site. Interested in securing land owned by Lorusso Corp. adjacent to Plainville landfill to site the facility. Would be either in Plainville or Wrentham according to a map they displayed. To extend life of Plainville landfill (13 years left) by burning 75% of what otherwise be placed there. Plainville landfill presently accepts 750 TPD raw trash. They would need the additional 250 TPD from surrounding communities for a total of 1000 TPD for processing whereby the 250 TPD of generated ash would be landfilled. Would likely be a joint venture between Bridgewater Energy, WTE Corp., Babcock & Wilcox and Lorusso Corp. Seeking an expression of interest from surrounding communities specifically from North Attleboro, Attleboro, Norton, Mansfield, Foxboro and Wrentham. Also stated that mandatory curbside recycling would reduce help communities reduce cost/ton. AUDIENCE REACTION Solid Waste Committee disappointed in lack of specifics. Commented to. me that SEEDCO presentation previous week was more "professional". They also seem to favor siting in North Attleboro due to perks normally offered to host community. 75-80 residents (near Boro gravel pits) in attendance mostly there to voice opposition to proposal by SEEDCO. Most of them mistakenly thought that the Bridgewater/WTC presentation was related to the SEEDCO proposal. ARE WE INTERESTED ? TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of November 22, 1988, Tuesday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS Feedback: 1. Compost permit 2. Review of moratorium (exemption) - John Dunn D. NEW BUSINESS BFI presentation [tentative] Rochester facility presentation [tentative] E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RE: Summary of meeting, Thursday, October 27, 1988 ATTENDEES: Karl Scharicz, John Dunn, William Lewis, Dennis Baker, Barbara Hagg, Marilyn Ouelette, Michael Van Splinter OLD BUSINESS 1. INDUSTRIAL SURVEY Action taken: According to Marilyn Ouelette, the Board of Directors has not released the results; expect results by next meeting. 2. COMPOST PERMIT Action taken: Mike Van Splinter spoke to Jerry S. concerning the compost issue; Jerry voiced his concern about space and is still looking into the permit issue and will contact Mike with the results. NEW BUSINESS 1. SPREADSHEET Mike Van Splinter had compiled a "spreadsheet" of workable formulas and figures to serve as a point of reference for the Committee. Mike cautioned that all figures are "suspect" since they were extracted from various sources. [Copy of the spreadsheet is attached at end of summary.] 2. NORTH ATTLEBORO On October 26, Mike Van Splinter attended North Attleboro's Trash Advisory Committee meeting which hosted a presentation by the Southeastern Development Corporation. Mike cited the following key notes: - proposed site of facility: Dorrance property on Plain Street (near gravel pit) in North Attleboro; approx. 150 yards from Mansfield town line - proposed plant: 450 tons/day incinerator with 13-megawatt generator; with possible tire reclaimation, recycling facility and stump grinders. _ - based on 30-year contract: $410,000/yr host fee • $50/ton project monitor • $60/ton discounted rate on industrial waste • electricity break discount to community • water or air cooled system; 600,000 gals/day H2O for H2O system and 50/gals/min for air cooled. - contention: waste ash will be disposed on site on George Street (near mobile home park) in $60 million lined landfill. Company claims no evidence of leachate from ash but runoff does contain a salt component. Also, 50% of business derives from spot market of which North Attleboro will virtually have limited (if any) "control" over in terms of traffic, etc. - North Attleboro Trash Advisory Committee appeared very receptive to the proposal but are currently entertaining proposals from several other firms. The Committee voiced the following concerns regarding the North Attleboro proposal: - Mansfield has no leverage or control of facility since its not the host community - Mansfield would "fight battle without input". Also, Mansfield is bounded by the moratorium at this time. - Proposed site is near Mansfield's aquifer and wells; need to consider potential impact on quality of water. Mike Van Splinter plans to attend North Attleboro's next meeting. 2. MILLIS UPDATE Mike Morizio reported the following: - Feasibility studies will be conducted and be immediately funded by Medfield and Holliston with reimbursement back from the State. - Consortium is being established and will comprised of a limited number of participating towns; currently looking to obtain from the town a policy commitment (not financial) to: *formally endorse the project • ready/willing to entertain legal fees It has been agreed that Mike Morizio will meet with Chairman Mike Van Splinter by prearrangement to announce/inform him of any regulations and procedures for applying for recycling grants. Based on Mike Morizio's recommendation, a formal letter will be sent to Rep. Vernon requesting general information concerning state monies and aid for recycling. 3. NORTON Marilyn Ouelette had reported the following: - Norton is currently in the process of reorganizing their Solid Waste Committee; former member, Dorothy Freeman, had mentioned Norton being invited to Seamass in Rochester. -Project has DEQE commitment to fund the site (targeted for April); project appears further progressed than Millis. - Norton was invited to DEQE headquarters; Mansfield has not been similarly notified by DEQE. - In response to Norton's request to open lines of communication between the communities, copies of each meeting's agenda and summary will be issued to Dorothy Freeman. John Dunn had mentioned the prediction of stiff competition for state funds for recycling; town needs to get involved in order to receive grant money. Board of Selectmen wants to earnestly be involved in recycling concept and the Committee endorses this interest and in accordance will pursue "all avenues" - entertaining no commitments yet, merely explore and investigate further into Seamass, Millis, etc. OTHER NEW BUSINESS . . . -John Dunn reported that MaryAnn Campisano had spoken to the Superintendent of schools who proved very receptive to the education idea and funding; MaryAnn will also contact the cable companies and will report the results to John. -Dennis Baker and Karl Sharicz will combine their efforts in developing a cross -sectional view of the solid waste issue. [A copy of Dennis' preliminary_ video resource list is attached at end of summary] -Mike Van Splinter has arranged for Mr. Dickinson from Legis Corporation (Taunton facility) to give a presentation at next meeting. *** R E M I N D E R*** For November, the meetings are scheduled for: NOVEMBER 10, Thursday NOVEMBER 23, Wednesday TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of November 10, 1988, Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS Feedback: 1. Industrial survey - Marilyn 2. Compost permit - Mike D. NEW BUSINESS Legis Corporation presentation guest speaker: Mr. Dickinson E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS W cnAWNr0kaC*.40cnACA W W W W W N N N N N N N N N r0�O0p11O�N�WNrO N r r r r r r r r r r p V N W N r v X 2 r>SDomm cc�� (O�OD pv AX p pppO�OAc=x X ....� 00 OD W ?1 �'! X > r r D\ y r X X X X 0 0oopl- 00 N X rrg�m 8A 00000 O X !X X 0000z rn x CD X rn X O o �� x x "'X D pL4 Wm At- X x (no V1 C z o� 'Cp X X -3iX X C `�'�� O IX JN CO p r 0;00 X W W W W W X o m x p O X O 00000 IXbo X m y�2 X X p ClX X 70 x X T 3 �o� 18 (f(nl A �D rm r X XI %O _ O�O�UIW �X ZX Icn ae O � x x O N_ N D r �Om Cn m x x O a8 00000 a8 a8 ae a0 a8 x X o a8 x X �m CA X O I pI X 710 rn co A X IO m I X 0 IZ I -+IX �^ p y( 3 x I 01 X (6+x o x 3 rC!'710 3 X x I(�Im OIm IOi-4 0 <n JIm X r IO > X m I� I� N m X I I IU) �lO! X OI O O OIO O Z�X ICC7 m C X I Cr X ag O ae ae a8 a8 ae X --i -� x ! '' Z Z Z; Z X I I 3IX I m ' X4ff;(AI !CD10D Z X X o m I 1 -jix laix(Ipi vi I (n Ip 3 m X I 1 IO !mI0Ipl0lyxX(. ( �O��Ir D� v ��-0 X x ID m _ I o�Xi�l rA*ilxi�l I i-;a8 3 plX I loi olA rn D X X p C\ N -- CA �.X.O� X :O .ae D r Cn x X i0;0 IOIO O p _. o 'X X O �t 0 W 0 ON 0 w VI en llO rn p X x Z Cn'^ I I X X to o Z wiz VI cn p Ix J W (AIXIC 0 0 r-. .x yil(O�n m I x IxI+�iN I O W� O m X �� I m X :x I p m T ZI f ! N ZIX a8���r) I I NIO .<I IXI _' I -11X x X i i z m+ X. O A Zix (nIX X C/f XI 1 I I� O A 3 X X N V1 m Iv�X I I ( IX I ?(n-I Cohn 0 c; IX o �Xi x x IX Dj I I ( ix O Z IX ! XI I JW I70 in -I- XI I to C IX i - ; iX' i I Im X x x X x x +X X X �X I I _ �X 'X IXi I i I X ( IX IXI 1 m v oA m A Z W DATABASE, FIRST DRAFT A I B C D I E F 0 1 FACTS CONVERSION 2 POPULATION 15500 2.27 P/P/P/D 3 NO. HOUSES' 5537 813 P/P/P/Y 4 FAMILY SIZE4 2.79 35185 P/P/W 17.6 TONS 5 *VOLUME I 6,300 TONS 12,600,000 P/P/Y 6300 TONS 6 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX 7 FORMULAE SPREAD 8 GENERATIONI TEST MASSPIRGi45% RESIDENTIAL 9 DEQE 3. P5 /P/D 9900 TONS 55% COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 10 DEQE iK P/P/Y 7750TONS1 11 DEQE(?) 175 P/P/H/Y 12 1 WHEEL'OR .8 TON P/P/Y 12400 TONS 13 14 15 16 DISPOSAL 17 1 % OF STREAM RESIDUE TYPICAL MUNICIPAL MIX 18 RECYCLE FOOD & YARD WASTE 23.40 8 19 DEQE_, 30%' 701% PAPER & PAPERBOARD 42.10% 20 WHEEL' 15-20% 80-85% GLASS 9.40% 21 1 IMETALS 9.20% 22 1 P LAST I CS 6.50 % 23 COMPOST IOTHER 1 9.40% 24 DEQE 23V_ 77% 25 i SOURCE: FRANKLIN ASSOC. 1984 26 ' 27 THE_RMAL ! I 28 DEQE 100% 10% 29 I 30 31 YARD COM. 32 DEQE 10V 90% 33 WHEEL' 15% 85%i 34 35 LAND FILL 36 DEQE 100% 0% 37 38 39 40 1 TRUCK I NO C05TS 41 $1.00 PER MILE PER TON 42 43 44 45 46 *DOES NOT INCLUDE PUBLIC HOUSING PUBLIC BUILDINGS OR INDUSTRY 47 DEQE FORMULAE INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL WASTE ND ARE ONLY GUIDE LINES ALL NUMBERS SUSPECT M.V.S. 10/26/88 Norfolk County Agricultural High School - Coop Extension ib Bill Dilibero Administration Building 2nd Floor Route IA Walpole (roughly halfway between Walpole & Norwood centers) 769-8355 / 668-9795 - they have two tapes on Household Hazardous Waste - they can be rented and copied. One tape is about Household Hazardous Waste Collection - the other is about sources of Household Hazardous Waste. $10.00 deposit, $2.00'for a 3-day rental. Dennison Waste Management System "From Waste ... To Energy" Copy of videotape showing Dennison's trash -to -energy operations in Framingham - they burn their own trash to generate their own electricity. John Arnold from Foxboro lent us his copy - he is (was?) on a similar committee in Foxboro, and works for Dennison. Must be returned. Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) John DiNapoli, Vice President Landfills Boston regional office (617) 265-0500 BFI has copies of several tapes which might be useful to us - DiNapoli was going to review these tapes and call us back. Haven't heard from him yet (left message again on Thursday afternoon). ORFA New Jersey (609) 662-6600 Facility for "total recycling" (recycling everything). Has a tape available called "Automated Recycling" - is sending the videotape, but says it cannot be duplicated and must be returned Video Active Productions Box 322, RR #2 Canton, New York 13617 (315) 386-8797 Company owned by Dr. Paul Connett, Chemistry -Department St. Lawrence University Canton, NY 13617 (315) 379-9200 Has a set of five videotapes available on trash burning incinerators in the United States. Copies available for $12.00 each videotape. Also has a set of seven videotapes available on other methods of solid waste disposal - recycling, reuse, composting, etc. These copies available for $25.00 each videotape. Video Active Productions sending a list of all tapes for our review. Bill Napolitano at SRPEDD extremely interested in this set of videotapes - says if they seem worthwhile, SRPEDD may purchase the entire set for use by all of their member communities. "Successful Community Recycliriq'! This is a slideshow highly recommended by SRPEDD which profiles the Wellesley recycling program. Dan Morgado, Town Administrator in Easton, presented this slideshow on June 30, 1987 in Attleboro. "Waste Oil Recycling" and "Household Hazardous Waste Collection" Also slideshows highly recommended by SRPEDD. Both done by the New Bedford -Fall River League of Women Voters. (DEM may have copies available through Barbara Kelley's Coalition Program - 727-3260.) Cable Access - Cable S. Mansfield Bob Woodall - 339-8049 Mo Prasad - 339-8797 has copies of the following: 1) videotape made in Rochester, New York - late 1986/early 1987, when several town officials went to view trash -to -energy facility (Mo Prasad went and filmed tour) 2) Public hearing relating to trash -to -energy proposal late 1986/early 1987 *************** Mass CableVision Skip Tenczar 131 Main Street Foxboro 543-8650 / 543-9022 has copy of videotape - political talk show called "Massachusetts Agenda" on Cable it - this particular show entitled "Trash to Cash" - interviews with George Mallon, SEEDCO, and Michael Van Splinter - will make copy if we get him a blank videotape, if Michael Van Splinter doesn't already have Skip also says that the Citizens for Trash Alternatives has a copy of a videotape apparently against trash -to -energy - they contacted him some time ago about showing it - he says he referred them to Cable 8. Mo Prasad says he doesn't know anything about it. M.I.T. (617) 253-1000 Tried to reach several times... messages not returned. �i D.E.0.E. (617) 292-5500 (617) 292-5989 - Natalie Roy Tried to reach several times... messages not returned. However, Bill Napolitano from SRPEDD says they are actively pursuing communities who are at stages of implementation for different methods of waste disposal. They are currently holding workshops on Composting. Contact Carl Natho, Regional Planner - Lakeville, at 947-1231. ******************* MASSPIRG (Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group) (Ralph Nader Consumer Protection Group) 29 Temple Place Boston, MA 02111 attn: Laura Janetzke 292-4800 (This is not a videotape, but this information was given to me by Skip Tenczar at Massachusetts CableVision) Issued a report- in February, 1988 against trash -to -energy called "Up in Smoke" which discusses "where Massachusetts has gone wrong". Copy of report is $5.00 - send to Laura Janetzke's attention, include name, address and title of report to request copy. TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street.-Mansfdp-1-]0,OA8 r PERMANENT COMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL --. Summary of meeting, Thursday, October 13, 1988 --=NDEES: Dennis Baker, William Lewis, Michael McClanahan, Michael. Van Splinter, Karl Sharicz - BUSINESS .-NDUSTRIAL SURVEY Results are not available yet. 3FI FIGURES Barbara Hagg is expected to present some verification at next meeting. 'ILLBURY PLANT TOUR =-tion taken: Mike McClanahan has made the following arrangements for the tour, as follows: DATE: October 22, Saturday DEPARTURE: From the town hall .'' 9:OOam A minibus with volunteer driver will provide transportation. -. EARTH TUNES =-tion taken: MaryAnn Campisano had spoken with Town Manager who recommends that the Committee approach the Superintendent of Schools for funding of the program. P-Elvi BUSINESS --OMPOSTING PRESENTATION (town sewer plant) GUEST SPEAKER: Jerry St.Clare ey Notes: • town produces 2500 cubic yards of sledge per year; Mansfield's sledge is composed of 40% solids thereby making it burnable ayto find a sledge landfill site • town commenced composting April 1st, resulting in none going to landfill • municipal composting is presently selling for $5-$15/yard but costs approx. $18/yd to produce • DEQE classification of town compost forthcor_rn;; town expects "Type 2" classification indicating the need for permitted areas. Also, DEQE prefers that all Type 2 compost from the Town be sent to one site for easier monitoring. • can obtain Type 1 classification if legally dilute amount of metals it sledge thereby making it more marketable. • next April DEQE will announce new regulations concerning composting • town presently produced 600-700 yds of compost • proposal: Tom Dwyer and John Ryan had proposed the rental of a leaf shredder for a few days for cold composting purposes. 50 yards of leaves was the amount proposed. This will enable data to be collected and eventually presented to Selectmen. • Jerry will report back to the Committee on the following: 1. results from the "trial" 2. clarification on the permit requirement for cold composting 2. WHEELABRATOR PRESENTATION (Millbury facility) GUEST SPEAKER: Jack Ristau Key notes: • Millbury plant is entreprenuerial venture. Company built and funded the the plant; no public monies involved and no commitment of waste was required from the town. • 1500 ton/day capacity with two units handling 750 tons. • typically produces 25-30% ash per weight varying due to recycling; ash is taken to Shrewsbury and dumped in composite -filled landfill • sources of revenue for plant: - power generated - tipping fees • produces 4500 megawatts of power which is sold to "grid"; presently getting 80/kilowatt hour (depending on area) • revenues are used to offset operational costs; plant uses 5% of output of energy to run facility (self-sustaining) • Millbury plant utilizes approx. 800,000-900,000 gals of water per day; water consumption is function of cooling system and availability of water. • plant is heavily regulated and reviewed to ensure emission standards are being met; continuous monitoring of gases to OEQE are made to ensure efficiency • Wheelabrator offers 20 year contracts at fixed rate with provisions for uninsurable events; some communities have growth provisions. Company does not commit to BTU content. • Wheelabrator strongly advocates recycling with annual turnaroung fund from tipping fees. • estimates 15-20% by weight of waste stream is recyclable (not incl. leaves, etc.); an additional 15% can be expected if have a yard waste/composting program instituted for Mansfield, Wheelabrator would recommend: 1500 ton/cay capacity with estimated $50-60 tipping fee; based on town population, estimated 12,000 tons produced per year (on avg. .8 tons per person per year cf residential waste.` =_-IS UPDATE _.e Morizio reported the following: • s;.ate reps have unofficially adopted Millis facility as next MRF (regional 'acility) • state program entails the following: - state provides all containers and trucks (if necessary) - state also provides funding for education process - state requires town to pass mandatory recycling ordinance - Mike has submitted cony of ordinance to Committee • z-ate will soon deal in large volumes to compete with Larger privately -owned =acilities; identified a need to regionalize the recycling in order to command a good price 'ke had also briefly ment_cned the Hazardous caste `?a­gement and Siting Acts .Sections 21c and 21d) which states: by statute, anyone has the absolute right to build and operate a waste facility in an industrial zone; once notifi:�ation is filed, town can only discuss the particular location of site via local assessment committee _--ER NEW BUSINESS .... - '-ke Van Splinter is in the process of collecting sources of formulas and efinitions in an effort to establish some consistency and to enable _alculations to be made - -:arl Sharicz has been appointed to represent tie Comm.i::ee at upcoming Norton ,,,aste Committee meetings. Karl will keep the Committee-nformed of their _roceedings. - Dennis Baker will review the video/cable resources and compile a cross-section -f varying opinions/views on the issues of composting, recycling, incineration. - Vike McClanahan will contact John Gunn to arrange for cable coverage of the "illbury plant tour. - "ike Van Splinter had recently discussed with the Town Manager the possiblity of instituting a white paper program. Town Manager was very receptive and recommended that Committee should make a preliminary presentation to Board of electmen concerning the pickup process. *-** REM I N D E R Next meeting is scheduled for: OCTOBER 27, Thursday!!!!! TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of October 27, 1�38, Tt._rsday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS Feedback: 1. Industrial survey - Marilyn 2. BFI figures - Barbara 3. Clarification on cor_-ost permit - Jerry S D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Establishment of formulas for calculation purposes 2. Compilation of cross -sectional view on waste issue (Dennis) E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSA 50 West Street, Mar PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DI RE: Summary of meeting, Thursday, September 29, 1988 ETTS ATTENDEES: Barbara Hagg, William Lewis, Michael Van Splinter, Dennis Baker, Michael McClanahan OLD BUSINESS 1. INDUSTRIAL SURVEY Action taken: Marilyn Ouellette was informed that the results are not ready for presentation; expecting results for next meeting 2. DEQE DECISION ON DUMPSITES Action taken: Mike McClanahan was informed by the town manager that the Committee must file for a regular permit. Mike has started the process and anticipates 6 months - 1 year to finalize. Location: not yet defined; possibly near dumpsite 3. MILLBURY PLANT TOUR Action taken: A tour of the Wheelabrator facility in Millbury has been set for Saturday, October 22. Mike McClanahan will finalize the plans and present the details at next meeting. Also, Mike will try to arrange for a representative from the facility to attend next meeting. 4. VIDEO/CABLE RESOURCE LIST Action taken: Dennis Baker had presented and distributed during the meeting a list of all video/cable resources available concerning the solid waste issue; several resources have yet to be reviewed 5. BFI FIGURES Action taken: Barbara Hagg was successful in obtaining the following facts and figures from BFI: • Based on contract, Mansfield generates 6300 tons/yr currently; (Barbara will contact BFI to verify this figure) • 65-70 lbs./dwelling per week are generated based on 5000 households • wetter months are much heavier for trash • BFI now dumps in Attleboro instead of Plainville; BFI trucks white goods to Bridgewater • Town of Mansfield is currently paying approximately $68,683.00/mo. in costs for waste disposal; $72,000.00 is projected costs for next month [Please note: specific breakdown of these figures will be distributed separately at next meeting.] =a:bara will contact the town manager, Tom Dwyer, to obtain a copy of the BFI ::-tract for closer examination . =a=oara had also briefly mentioned Newton's current policy of curbside pickup c-bined with recycling. Results: Newton estimates a cost avoidance of approx. =�_0,000 for 1987 fiscal yr. and projects approx. a half million for 1988. BUSINESS APR PRESENTATION GUEST SPEAKER: Bill Cox Key notes: • "white" paper (high grade) has greater value and potentially produces good revenue; big cities have generated approx. $35,000-$AO,000/yr • APR will not pay for newspaper or corrugated products (low grade) • White paper can be worth $220-230/ton (this includes computer paper) • A white paper program can be instituted and involves the following: - small napkin holders placed in various locations throughout buildings; stickers are affixed to designate type of Paper - holders are collected in laundry hampers (or barrels) and hauled away • APR also provides confidential paper destruction on site • APR currently has containers on premises for drop off; can provide large red containers at various town sites • Bill had strongly emphasized the need for educating the community Immediate proposal: arrange for container to be placed at town garage. 2. EDUCATION PRESENTATION GUEST SPEAKER: MaryAnn Campisano Key notes: • Barbara Herson from "EARTH TUNES" provides program/workshops for elementary children on solid waste issue; taping of workshops is encouraged • fees: $75/workshop and $200/show; estimated total of $600.00 in transportation costs da. • Cable (ch. 8) can be contracted tol�the taping of the shows and can play the tape at their discretion and to anyone in the town upon request • The program can be funded partially by the Cultural Education Collaborative. Arts Lottery, and the private sector Immediate action and proposal: Committee unanimously voted to instate the EARTH TUNES program. Private donations will fund the program. First workshop series is scheduled for November 28,29,30. MaryAnn will contact Barbara Herson of the Committee's decision and will report back with results at next meeting. MILL IS UPDATE Mike Morizio made the following comments concerning the current proceedings in Hillis: • engineering firm is collecting statistical data • will create model contract • state/DEQE is establishing regulations for funding due to come out next fa_: OTHER NEW BUSINESS.... - Mi'<e Van Splinter spoke briefly with Tom Dixon from a development company in Taunton and will have update at next meeting of any further developments - Mi'e Van Splinter will attend a presentation in San Diego (MIT) and will report results at next meeting - Mike McClanahan will contact Jerry St. Clare to arrange for him to attend next meeting to discuss composting - Carl Shoricz has been appointed to the Committee by the Board of Selectmen - The following committee policy has been established: concerning majority rule, minority report will be submitted stating their position - Proposal: develop broad -based presentation on pros/cons of the solid waste issue as a tool to educate community; will concide with education process instated in school system. Produced and presented via cable. - Prepare budget needs of committee at next meeting - to be presented to Board of Selectmen ** R E M I N D E R ** Meetings for October are scheduled for OCTOBER 13 and OCTOBER 27. TONNIN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of October 13, 1988, Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS Feedback: 1. Industrial survey - Marilyn 2. BFI figures - Barbara 3. Millbury plant tour - Mike M. 4. MIT/San Diego presentation - Mike V. 5. Status with EARTH TUNES - MaryAnn C. D. NEW BUSINESS Discuss budget needs of committee Discuss further the development and funding of education program Presentation from rep. from Wheelabrator (Millbury) plant [tentative] Presentation from Jerry St. Clare on composting [tentative] E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC/GUESTS S ( s PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSSE� r RE: Summary of meeting, Thursday, September 8, 1988 ATTENDEES: Barbara Hagg, Marilyn Ouellette, Mike Van Splinter, Mike McClanahan, Dennis Baker, John Dunn 'he meeting opened with the dispensing of old business, as follows: 1. EDUCATION Action taken: John Dunn spoke with Mary Ann Campisano to discuss the education issue; it will be arranged for her to make a presentation at the next meeting, Sept 29. 2. INDUSTRIAL SURVEY Action taken: Marilyn Ouellette was informed that all results are in; the Tri-Town Chamber will meet Monday to discuss the results. Marilyn will present the results at next meeting. 3. DEQE DECISION ON DUMPSITES Action taken: Mike McClanahan was unable to obtain any information due to vacation; some answer is expected at next meeting. 4. APR/PAPER RECYCLING Action taken: Mike McClanahan spoke with Bill Cox of APR with the following results- • no value can be assigned to the paper • APR will supply special containers for paper waste generated in the schools for recycling • Mike will arrange for Bill to attend the next meeting 5. CURRENT COST FIGURES BFI/TOWN Action taken: Barbara Hagg was unable to obtain BFI tonnage figures since her contact was on vacation; Tom Dwyer had agreed to contact BFI. Barbara will present figures at next meeting. Barbara was able to obtain the following key cost figures: • approximately $873,000 in costs for 2nd contract yr. (6.6% increase) • projected $1,000,000 in costs for 3rd contract yr (10.9% increase); in addition to $12,000/yr for DPW garage and $12,000/yr for schools • population of Mansfield has increased from 14,790 to 15,360; based on population it was calculated that approx. 38.4 tons/day of solid waste are produced per household -7 following issues constituted new business: MILLIS RECYCLING FACILITY Mike Van Splinter recently attended a program in Millis regarding the recycling facility and deemed it worthy of further consideration Mike Morizio, president of CTA, was appointed to serve as the representative for the committee to the Millis issue; Mike will keep the committee abreast of all recent developments concerning the facility A few key points were made regarding Millis facility: • facility takes 'comingled' recyclable material (may require some separation in home) • facility will separate (to some extent) and recycle the material • portion of revenue generated may be paid out to towns • reduces waste strain (estimated up to 50%) STATE RECYCLING FACILITIES According to a recent meeting of the Bristol County Selectmen Assoc. Task Force Committee, the state has proposed to establish 5 recycling facilities. These facilities are projected to handle enough volume to produce a large enough amount of by-products to be marketable nationally. Also, the operation will be geared towards curbside pick-up (typically results in higher participation rate). ;. STATE VS. PRIVATE FACILITY Two key points were raised in comparing state with private facilities: • if private concern doesn't generate a profit will costs be passed on to towns? • is curbside pick-up provided by private concerns? MILLBURY PLANT Representative from the Millbury plant had stated that a tour of the facility can be arranged at a convenient time. A tour of the facility was tentatively scheduled for a Saturday and a minivan would be used for transportation. Mike McClanahan will contact Millbury for details. A brief discussion of this facility led to the following key notes: • paper by-products produced are readily acceptable to paper industry • unrecyclable by-products have been used as caps for landfills • currently focusing on New,England area because of its critical landfill situatic- • negotiating with DEQE in deciding where in the process they belong • company still needs to work out situations 4. TAPE/CABLE PRESENTATIONS In an effort to make the community aware of the solid waste issue, the committee proposed to utilize cable to develop a series of programs which will present all facts and views regarding the issue. Dennis Baker will research and compile a list of resources (video,cable) available. He will present his results at next meeting. *** R E M I NDER*** NEXT MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR: SEPTEMBER 29, Thursday !!!!!!!!! n TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Meeting of September 29, 1988, Thursday A. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS MEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS Feedback: 1. Industrial survey - Marilyn 2. DEQE decision on dumpsites - Mike M. 3. BFI tonnage fiqures - Barbara 4. Millbury plant tour - Mike M. 5. Video/ cable resource list - Dennis D. NEW BUSINESS 1. APR presentation guest speaker: Bill Cox 2. Education presentation guest speaker: Mary Ann Campisano E. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC PERMANENT SUBCOM,1ITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL [I, RE: Summary of meeting, Tuesday, August 30, 1988 ATTENDEES: William Lewis, Michael McClanahan, Michael Van Splinter, Marilyn Ouelette, Barbara Hagg The meeting opened with the dispensing of old business, as follows: 1. STAGING FOR STORM DEBRIS/YARD WASTE: Action taken: Mike McClanahan met with the torn manager to discuss the issue with the following results: - DEQE has reservations regarding the use of the old dump sites. He will follow-up with a decision in a couple of weeks. - It was determined that Stearns Hill dump site is not suitable for handling storm debris/yard waste. 2. NEWSPAPER RECYCLING Action taken: Bill Lewis' recent discussion with APR }Melded the following results: - APR is willing to undertake the newpaper recycling for Mansfield and would consider the possibility of handling other articles, i.e., cardboard and corrugated products. - APR would supply the containers but with the stipulations that all containers be full to capacity and trash be bundled in a manner to ensure easy stacking. - APR cited the need for the town to establish controls and supervision - Bill will contact. APR to discuss the handling of color -dyed newspaper and APR's willingness to pay the town for the trash. 3. EDUCATION Action taken: John Dunn is expected to present his report at next meeting. In his absence, the issue was briefly addressed with the following comments noted: - Committee acknowledged the need and vital importance of educatinc both the town and community in the economic and environmental factors concerning solid waste disposal -Aim: long term solution t.hrouah the school systems, coupled with concerted effort from the gown and community towards reducing the paper waste generated from the school systems S. FC\BORO/NORTON A::'ion taken: Mike Van Splinter contacted John Arnold and expressed Mansfield's interest. in their situation. John will keep Mike informed of the proceedings. . I\DUSTRIAL SURVEY Action taken: Marilyn Ouelet.t:e spoke with Mark Eagen regarding the survey. There is still an influx of surveys and results will be provided as soon as possible. Wit**: the conclusion of old business, the following issues were discussed: Marilyn Ouelette, representative to the Bristol County Task Force reported the following: - Dorothy Freeman extends her full cooperation in working with tLe committee in coordinating an educational program. - En__esentative from O'Donnell Sand & Gravel had ciscussed its company's services: have equipment capable of shredding and grounding stumps and yard debris; also able to deboulder stumps - ready for composting _'. equipment available for hire on a daily basis - Sta_e facilities are considering easing the strain on towns by doing curbside pick u . =n addit.ion, the state is focusing some of its attention on plants handling problem was�es i.e., reused plastics, tires. Presently awaiting definite figures of success cf ilot: program in Springfield, MA. - Kes:port selectman prepared a study on breakeven point of facilities. George Leach is willing, to provide any summary or information requested. The study concludes tha : breakeven point is approximately 200-250 tons/dap. - Representative from URFA Corporation appeared at the Tri-town Chamber of Commerce meeting to discuss the: proposal for a plant in Philadelphia about to go on line. Literature was passed out to members for perusal and comments. The discussion concerning the economic/cost factor of solid waste disposal introduced the following issues/concerns: - Tcw _ currently holds 3-pear binding contract with BFI to haul trash; based on 0 households (3700 households presently being served). - Ccst- of service from contract is escalating; present dump site in Plainville is nearing full capacity which may result in exceedingly high costs for the 3rd contract year. To defer costs, it was proposed that residents pay fees for trash disposal. Recorr,endation: It was agreed that definite cost need to i.e calculated in order to properly assess the situation; estimates will serve as basis to establish measures of success. The figures will be obtained from the following sources: - BFI tonnage figures - Solid Waste Master Plan Survey - Town departments assessment of current costs Other recommendations: - Generate income via recovery of paper, bottles - Recycle paper waste (i.e., computer runs) generated by both school and town departments - Reduce cost via recycling and composting To co,:clude new business.... - A tour of the trash -to -energy facility in Millbury, MA was proposed - Eff-_-ctive August 30, Lisa Cipriano will serve as secretary to the subcommittee - Mee_ings will be scheduled for the 2nd and 9th Thursdays of every month; For September, meetings are set for: SEPT 8 and SEPT 29- TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 PERMANENT SUBCOMbIITTEE ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AGENDA: Fleeting, Thursday September 8,1988 A. REVIEW OF SUFDIARY OF PREVIOUS FLEETING B. CORRESPONDENCE C. OLD BUSINESS 1. Education report - John 2. Feedback: Industrial survey - Marilyn DEQE decision on old dumpsites - Mike M. APR - Bill D. NEW BUSINESS I. Calculate actual costs 2. Establish criterion to measure degree of success 3. Take closer look at other types of facilities (i.e., ORFA) E. COFAENTS FROM GUESTS/PUBLIC Solid Waste A1ternati of January.23, 1988 Minutes ;� FEB 1 1. 1988 The Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives met on Saturday, January 23, 1988 at the Mansfield Town Hall. The meeting was called to order at 12:25 P.M. by Chair Marilyn Ouellette. Members present were: Ouellette, William Madan, .Tony Caponigro, MaryAnn Campisano, and John Dunn. Correspondence 1. Material from WTE Corporation on managing implementation and long term operation of waste processing, recycling and energy recovery facilities. **Madan/Campisano motioned to approve the minutes of 1/19/88. Motion passed 4-0. Old Business Ouellette visited the Board of Health and gave copies of her outline. Michael Van Splinter of the Board of Health attended this meeting as a private citizen. Ouellette discussed Foxboro regional possibilities with Ralph Seifert who has met with the Foxboro Industrial Development Committee. That committee is responsive to the idea and concept of building a facility with Mansfield. Foxboro likes the idea of including industrial output. Seifert is offering to print and mail a survey of industrial tonnage to industries in Mansfield, Foxboro, and Norton. Seifert is also aware that the state legislature is giving assistance to towns willing to take care of local industrial waste. **Madan/Campisano motioned to ask Ralph Seifert to do a survey of the industrial tonnage of industry in Mansfield, Norton and Foxboro. Discussion: Seifert's survey will be included in immediate recommendations in the report. Motion passed 4-0. New Business Van Splinter was asked about the report outline. He stated that he didn't think anything was overlooked. Drafting of R.eoort Additions and changes: ImmediateR.ecommendations.: #5 in this section will be: Pursue possibilities of a regional solution with Foxboro and possibility Norton. #6 in this section will be:. "non -binding referendum" etc. Interim Recommendations: #11 in -this section will be: Institute a composting program General Long Range solutions and recommendations: #4 in this section will be: Continue educational programs aimed at reducing waste stream and hazardous waste concerns. Specific Long Range solutions and recommendations Committee for Solid Waste'Alte Meeting of Tuesday, January 1, Minutes The Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives met on Tuesday, January 12, 198£ at the Mansfield Town Hall. The meeting was called to order at 7:55 P.M. b,'', Chair Marilyn Ouellette. Members present were: Ouellette, William Madan,', John Dunn, MaryAnn Campisano, and Tony Caponigro.. Minutes **Madan/Dunn moved to approve the minutes of 12/22/87 as written. Motion passed 3-0-1. Ouellette, Dunn,, and Madan voted to approve and Campisano abstained. Correspondence 1. Copy of an article from "American City and County" on solid waste' disposal and recycling. 2. Memo from Eileen Ouellette stating submission for annual report must be received by 1/15/88 - 3. A copy of a draft for a mandatory recycling ordinance from Rep. Philip Travis 4. Revised anti -litter by-law - this committee will study same and decide whether to support it. S. "Globe" article on dioxin in breast milk 6. "Globe" article on recycling in New Jersey 7. "Globe" article on Vinyard trash problems Videotape on Dennison trash plant The paper burned in the Dennison trash plant is nor. recyclable. Dernision recycles as much paper as possible. Paper to be burned is coated or has adhesive resins on it. Metals and solvents (hazardous waste) are removed from the waste and disposed of separately. The plant generates about $200,000 per year. The savings is realized because Dennison disposes of its own trash and generates power (steam) for its own. plant. The videctap' is documentation for Dennison's use and is also a public.relations tool. It is also useful for Dennison's own employees' education. Comments Campisano asked if the Dennison trash facility is regulated by DEQE. Dunn said the facility reminded him of a gassification plant as the produc is prepared and is ideal. Industry has a good opportunity to classify its waste where household waste is less easily classified. Industry can have control over all aspects of the process. Ouellette said the Dennison model shows the merits of taking in commercial', waste and may even remove the fear of industrial waste. old Business 1. Ouellette will attend the Foxboro solid waste committee meeting on 1/13/88. At that meeting, Foxboro committee members will have the opportunity to ask questions of this committee's representative and will b made aware of the dangers of not planning ahead for a solution to the soli,i waste problem. By concensus of committee members Ouellette will represent this committee at the Foxboro meeting. Campisano asked if Ouellette will indestigate a shared solution with Foxboro and Ouellette replied that she would. Committee for Solid Waste Alternat Meeting of Tuesday, December 2.2, Minutes The Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives met on 1987 at the Mansfield Town Hall. The meeting was P.M. by Chair Marilyn Ouellette. Members present Madan, John Dunn and Tony Caponigro. called to order at 7:45 were, Ouellette, William' Correspondence 1. Memo from Joan. Cutillo regarding use of photocopying machine. 2. Two articles from Raytheon Newsletter 3. Article from Florida Sun Sentinel "Burning Issues" 4. Information from Bristol County Selectmens' meeting - Results of Questionnaire. 5. Two mandatory recycling ordinances from Springfield and Brookline.'. (ordinances don't take effect until one week after MRF facility commences) Ouellette will contact DEQE, Atty. General's office or city of Springfield for clarification. Minutes **Dunn/Madan motioned to approve the minutes of 12/14/87 as written. Motion passed 4-0. Old Business MaryAnn Campisano met with Supt. Barbarisi and gave Earthtunes information.', Supt. Barbarisi will discuss Earthtunes with his principals. Madan asked if anything has been heard from Foxboro. Ouellette doesn't expect to hear anything until after New Year's. She will contact J. Arnold before this committee's next meeting of 1/5/88. Madan asked if there will be a joint meeting with Foxboro. Ouellette said Arnold needs to meet with his committee first but feels this committee should strive for a joint meeting. New Business Dunn presented additions to a draft of a letter to J. Schall, DEQE. (Mansfield has declared a state of emergency relative to its landfill whit!-',; has failed and emits a lechate into water resources. Mansfield is presently without solid waste disposal resource other than very expensive option of trucking out of town. This recycling alternative will help Mansfield.) Ouellette asked all committee members to sign letter indicating their station. If no objection,.ouellette will make up letter and leave in slot for committee members to sign. Ouellette will pass this committee's lette,- on to Selectmen with a memo stating this committee wants the Selectmen to support a MRF facility. Drafting of Report Ouellette stated the next phase is recommendations. Recommendations were divided into immediate possibilities, interim possibilities and future possibilities. Immediate possibilities 1. staging area for storm debris - Madan said W. Bridgewater townspeople bring their debris to a designated snot once each year and the town burns it. Ouellette said J. St. Hiilaire could mix chipped brush with sludge for! composting. Is already testing composting of sludge and have attained temperatures'of 155-160 degrees. The excess not composted could be burned or chipped to use as mulch. Above uses would reduce the amount of storm debris to be disposed of. Rest of Recommendations 1. A small massburn facility. Town owned and operated- sized for one or two communities. Dunn said take care in placement. Must•rneet latest technology. Facility should take care of our local problem. 80-100 tons per day - not 450 tons per day. The key is the facility should be owned and regulated by the town or towns. Ouellette said town should use massburn for non-recyclables. A secured landfill is necessary for the ash. 2. A regional recycling facility. 3. MRF facilities. Tie into a MRF and have a mandatory recycling ordinance. If the area communities push to get a mandatory recycling ordinance, a state facility might be attracted here. It might he easier tc sell to the community. Ouellette asked committee members haw they felt about pushing for a mandatory recycling ordinance to take effect when a MRF facility is available. Dunn and Caponigro felt pushing for the ordinance is premature.i Dunn said the committee should support the idea of a state funded MRF in concept. Ouellette suggested proposing at town meeting a non -binding referendum to introduce people to the idea. Referendum would state that the t_owns_•eople will participate in a state funded and supported recycling program the market is guaranteed.) Caponigro asked who would take initiative to get the referendum. Dunn said the people need to be educated and prepared for the idea of a recycling program. This should be under immediate possibilities. Under interim possibilities, the committee should recommend that the Selectmen initiate a referendum relative to state funded recycling programs. **Caponigro/Dunn motioned to adjourn at 9:30 P.M. Motioned passed 4-0. Respectfully submitted, Marcia Gannon, Secretary Approved By: ii1r� S1.Qlyy� 1 V oOl �LXlL� Jt� �a�.m.��,.� t 2l t Q 88 55 f_ U/ 111 JM 2 19w Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives Meeting of Monday, December 14, 1987 Minutes The Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives met on Monday, December 14, 1987 in the cafeteria of the Mansfield High School. The meeting was called to order at 7:20 P.M. by Chair Marilyn A. Ouellette. Attending were Chair Ouellette, John Dunn, William Madan, Tony Caponigro, and MaryAnn Campisano. Correspondence 1. Notification of the Bristol County Selectmens' Association Solid Waste Management meeting of Thursday, January 7, 1988 hosted by the town of Norton to be held at the Norton town hall. Also enclosed is a copy of a letter to John Schall, director of recycling, Solid Waste Management, dept of DEQE, stating the'BCS have formed a Solid Waste task force to solve problem of solid waste disposal for 20 cities and towns of Bristol County. Letter requests a recycling `facility to be located in or near Bristol County. **(Dunn/Madan) motioned to send a similar letter from the Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives and from the Board of Selectmen. Motion passed 5-0. 2. Copy of letter to Board of Selectmen to ask for extension of Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives to 2/1/88. 3. "Wall Street Journal" article on plastic packaging. 4. Christmas card from PP.S S. Brochure - "Recycling - Make it Work" from P.owantree Enterprises. 6. Lombardo and Assoc. - Engineering consultants - "Wastewater" 7. Enviornmental profile - Mass. DEQE - quarterly report. 8. "Earthtunes" - information 9. Draft of letter relative to Anti -littering By -Law to go to Board of Selectmen from Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives - approved by committee Old Business From Barbara Herson - "Earthtunes" - a recycling program. Also information for applying for grants and her rates for '87'7'88'. Campisano will review the Earthtunes program with Supt. Barbarisi. The, program (a workshop and play) focuses on the entire enviornment; air, water, etc. and is highly recommended. Dunn suggested, in relation to motivation in recycling, purchasing, books listed in "Recycling - Make it Work" Campisano, in reference to residential hazardous waste, mentioned a "Boston Globe" article in which Greenpeace suggested the EPA. classify incinerater ash as hazardous waste. She questioned whether this committee should push to have incinerater ash classified as hazardous. Campisano will research incinerater ash further and report back. Ouellette met with Nick Carpeno and he has not been able -to discuss the Newspaper recycling truck with J. Rhind. The waste oil situation was also discussed. Now, the town drains its oil into an underground tank in the garage. When full, the tank is pumped out by a hazardous waste hauler. Carpeno will check to see if public access to the tank is possible. Dunn asked when the tanks were last inspected and sucgested the storage be 'above ground. He asked how the performance of an underground tank can be gauged. Committee for Solid Waste Alternati Meeting of.Tuesday, December 8, 19 Minutes'. The Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives met on Tues arbe8 1987 at the Mansfield Town Hall. The meeting was.called to order at 7:50 P.M. by Chair Marilyn A. Ouellette, Attending were Chair Ouellette, MaryAnn Campisano, Tony Caponigro, William Madan, and John Dunn. **Madan/Caponigro motioned to approve minutes of 12/1/87 with corrections. Motion passed 4-0-1. (Ouellette, Campisano, Caponigro and Madan were in favor; Dunn abstained) Correspondence 1. From Selectmen - An order form for report on Taste to Energy conference in New York. Old Business Campisano spoke to Linda Dillon of Wellesley. Will send information on how to incorporate recycling into curricula. Referred to Newton person who does programs in schools as a business Grants available - perhaps Arts Lottery. Campisano will see Supt. Barbarisi when information received. Person wondered why we have no newspaper recycling facility. Campisano asked if J. Rhind is still out. Dunn suggested asking someone else to take over. Ouellette will speak to Nick Carpeno. New Business Wednesday night Ouellette attended Bristol County Selectmens' Solid Waste Task Force meeting in Rehoboth. Out of meeting came: 1. letter supporting idea of locating a MRF facility in Northern Bristol County. At the Selectmens' Assn. meeting they voted t• concur. Dunn added that at that meeting person who does site assignment was lobbied to locate a MRF facility in our area. (Concept: one box for recyclables - separated at plant - large warehouse style building). Small towns, on their own, cannot generate enough recyclables to get a decent contract. A regional recycling plant attracts possible nationwide contracts because of steady stream of recyclables. State has budgeted enough funds for 4-5 plants. State needs 11-13 plants to cover whole state. Ouellette said Travis impressed with Selectmens' solidarity. Since meeting a tentative siting of MRF facility at SEMASS. Contracts have been signed. The Cape has a great need. Dunn said SEMASS not far from Mansfield. We could use the facility. Ouellette added that there is talk of another MRF facility in Milf=•rd. Group from North Attleboro stressed the state purchased land in Plainville and same is not being used. State, after lengthy court battle to obtain the land, may sell the parcel. Perhaps in state's best interest to hold onto the land as MRF facilities are coming. Ouellette said Mansfield Clean has done work on education as to what is household hazardous waste and what is available on the market that is not hazardous. (An article on this'subJect was in the Nevis) Ouellette attended a seminar at Tufts and has a Hazardous Waste wheel.', Shows what is hazardous and how to dispose of it. . Madan mentioned motor oil. Ouellette mentioned paint thinner, old paint, drano, etc. Dunn suggestedidentifying same and breaking down. Would there be a section of the recycling center for household hazardous waste - a running operation? Campisano said if so, pe_•ple might n_•t want a recycling center in their town. Ouellette said to absolve the town and cut down on liability, at recycling center, hazardous waste handed to special personnel through car windows. On a special hazardous waste day, the personnel separate the waste into drums. Is done fairly frequently r but not on an ongoing basis like collection of recyclables. Dunn reccommended having Hazardous Waste days on a regular basis. Ouellette suggested supporting the efforts of the Board of Heath in seeking grant funding to establish a Hazardous Waste collection. Section B - Madan suggested a storage tank be used for collection of motor oil to prevent same going into streets and to keep out of water supply. At the Highway garage, next to the new fuel depot station, in a locked in area, would be a good place. The town has to collect its own motor oil and may as well collect on a large scale. Ouellette asked if anti -freeze should also be collected. Household batteries and car batteries are also hazardous waste. Landfill - a viable solution if pursued regionally, secured, and funded by grants. Encourage to pursue a regional solution with Foxboro. Dunn said we have a secured landfill for sewerage plant - available to Foxboro and Norton. - but no other sites to recommend_ In report, a non -regional, town funded and maintained solid waste landfill will not be recommended for following reasons - 1.) can't site with state regulatory process 2.) precluded by cost - landfill - is expensive 3.) ever! with methods used to decrease waste stream only will postpone high c_•st of s=lid waste disposal. 4.) hat enough land available outside water protection district to develop a secured'' landfill large enough to s•=•lve the problem long term. Dunn said the regional appr_•ach shouldn't be the total*solution - must', be in c•_•njunction with recycling, c_•mposting, etc. Waste of money to landfill recyclables. Be conservative in uses. .Don't waste. Ouellette said regional secured landfill shculd" be used only in conjunction with methods to decrease the waste stream. . pg. 3 0 4- +_ Committee for Solid :waste •Alternatives Meeting of Tuesday, November 24, 198.7 Minutes The Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives met on Tuesday, November 24, 1987 at the Mansfield Town Hall. The me__inr' was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chair Marilyn A. Ouellette. Attending were Chair Ouellette, MaryAnn Campisano, Tony Caponigro, Nlilliac. Madan, and John Dunn. Corresnondence 1. C_•py Of memo from Ouellette to the B_a.d of Selectmen indicating Richard Carey and Joseph Cherry have resigned from the committee. .Replacement appointees are not desired. 2. "New York Times" article "As T•_wns Burn More Waste, Residues Worry Neighbors" 3. "Boston Gl_nhe" articles On cemp_•sting. 4. List of businesses in entire town of Mansfield. May he used for possible polling of industrial waste tonnage. 5. Announcement of Solid Waste Task Force meeting to he held in Rehoboth. Minutes **Caponigro/Madan motioned to approve minutes of November 2, 1937. No discussion. Motion passed 3-0-1. (Ouellette, Campisano, Cape•nigro•.ir. favor - Madan abstained) **Campisano/Caponigro moved to accept minutes of November 10, 1987. No discussion. Motion passed 4-0. Secured Landfills Ouellette indicated Attleboro landfill is not secured. FO wever, owner has knowledge on secured landfills. Caponigro felt landfill method, which we are using now, has net been addressed. Attleboro landfill Owner will be able to offer information of cast, maintairence, and methods of building a secured landfill. Committee members decided to limit the landfill owners rresentat_•=n to one-half hour. Caponigr•: will contact Attleboro landfill owner. Ouellette felt 'that informati._n On secured landfills will be valuable in committee members' backer rr•ounds, es_^eci. l `y if town does get a transfer statin-n. Can_•nigro asked if a public hearing should he offered and.advertis-_. Ouellette said this committee not empowered to do so. Mls t h_id an educational forum to Obtain feedback from the e_•mm unity. Madan sucgestec being live on cable one nia_ht with live e::•_•ne for calling in by towns: _ple. Ouellette will check ail=^e for a'T� lsnaCe for December 15th. the idea grows then manufacturers will respond without mandatory legislation. Madan said packaging could be addressed on a state level:(ex: bottle bill) Ouellette felt consumers should be responsible for choice in marketplace. One can write to legislators on state and national level. Madan said some marketers are cutting down on packaging and in advertising educated consumers will be attracted. Campisano felt a recommendation should be made regarding packaging. Ouellette said no matter what we do to urge the state to decrease the waste stream, the people themselves should realise they create the waste. There are alternatives - other ways to buy things without elaborate packaging. Campisano said that once people become aware that they have choices an do start to participate, by decreasing their own waste streams, they may wonder why they should make the effort if industry is not helping out. Ouellette felt that this is where education enters in. The residents should be aware they can make choices in packaging when available. They can write to manufacturers when a product has excessive packaging and write to legislators on state and national levels. It starts with one little package. Campisano suggested we do both. Ouellette agreed and added that the committee could recommend the town take a position on packaging with a resolution at town meeting and also incorporate it as a part of education to consumers on decreasing waste stream. If everyone gets together and pushes, the process can begin. Composting The state is funding composting and has pilot programs. Capc•nigr_• suggested recommending a town facility for composting. The residents should be encouraged to compost on their own. The waste stream will be reduced and therewill be cost avoidance to the town in reduced tipping fees. Ouellette suggested including that the town is heading in the right direction on a town facility and that information on backyard composting will be available through the town clerk's office. The library trustees might be encouraged to do a program on composting. Have a composting weer. - publish in the newspaper, set aside books in the library on co•mpo•sting . Madan suggested a,pulic seminar on composting and that composting week be the week everybody brings leaves to the town facility. Recvclina Campisano has not yet been able to meet with Supt. Barbarisi. Will report after she meets with him. lj Committee for Solid Waste Alternate es Meeting of Tuesday December 1, 1987 ; DEC 17198Y Minutes The Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives met on XT§ad December 1, 1987 at the Mansfield Town Hall. The meeting called to order at 7:45 P.M. by Chair Marilyn Ouellette. Attending were Chair Ouellette, MaryAnn Campisano, Tony Caponigro, and William Madan. **Madan/Campisano moved to approve the minutes of 11/24/87. Discussion - Ouellette will compare with videotape. Motion passed 4-0. Correspondence 1. "Enterprise" article of 11/24/87 - Taunton proposals - one is by P.R.S. 2. "Enterprise" article of 11/29/87 including photo of Mansfield landfill closed sign. Closures in Mansfield and Norton discussed. Carl Natho of DEQE says state is stressing regional solutions - one of the criteria for state funding will be pursuance of regional solutions 3. Institute for Local Self -Reliance Technical Report list. 4. R.W.Beck and Assoc. articles on Solid Waste issues. Regional Possibilities - Foxboro John Arnold - Chairman of Landfill Advisory Committee of Foxboro. Background - also member of Foxboro Industrial Development Committee - is a mechanical engineer with Dennison - designed and built a 30 ton waste to energy facility for Dennison. Foxboro has a sanitary (lined) landfill - opened 1974 approx. Site is 129 acres, 20 of which have been used so far. Last few years has been rapid growth of tonnage going to landfill. Five years ago 6,000 tons/year - now 13,000 tons/year (58o is commercial). Only accept town garbage (incl. commercial ex: Foxboro Co.) but suspects taking outside too. Committee formed in October and is trying to minimize amount of commercial business coming in. Charging $30./ton delivered to landfill and is recommending raise to $65./ton to discourage commercial dumping. Is not working so committee will recommend to Selectmen phase out of commercial dumping. A To develop remainder of acerage will be costly. Long term solution - equalization of recycling and waste burn. Looked at gassification but too many enviornmental concerns. Had a presentation from George Malian - a spin off of NEED. Looking seriously at Massburn. Trying to sensitize public to landfill life. May take disposal costs out of tax bill (bill residents'for cost) In response to a question by Ouellette, Arnold said some investors of NEED are behind Malian but no other relationship exists. Campisano asked if Foxboro solicited Malian's proposal. Arnold said Malian contacted him to make multi -media presentation. As a result was asked to present to Board of Health. Malian hopes for Arnold said Mallan contacted him to make multi -media presentation. A! a result was asked to present to Board. of Health. Mallan hopes for site assignment in short time but not likely to happen. Foxboro committee wants to check ether possibilities. Mallan's credentials are good but Arnold concerned about high cost of installation of 450/tor: per day trash to energy facility. (100-200 million) Camnisano asked what would be done with the ash. Arnold said ash must go to sealed landfill. A major cost (clay bottom, plastic layer, gravel, drains etc.) Camnisano asked where sealed landfill would be. Arnold said at existing landfill site. Madan asked where landfill is in terms of Mansfield aquifer. Arnold said close to Rumford aquifer. Of no concern because ash must be locked up. No lechate allowed in. Campisano asked how we could be sure it is securely 1_•cked. Arnold said can't be sure. Must take responsibility for our own. waste. Not responsible to ship out of town. Must minimize risk. 456 of trash can be recycled as is done at Dennison - some waste is useful (glass, plastics, organics for ccmpnsting). Some waste do-esn'# burn well (pollutants). In the end a way must be found to get rid of some waste. Technology is not difficult. Use thick plastic liners and clay bottoms - security can be built in. Arnold pointed out he drinks Mansfield water. Madan mentioned sewer arrangement - Mansfield/Norton/Foxboro. Could something be worked out regionally for solid waste for the three towns? Arnold said, as a p?ivate citizen, cost to develop Foxboro landfill further will be 150-200,000 per acre. Perhaps we could share Foxboro's landfill capacity in return for assistance in funding to develop. Buy time before we come up with a regional solution. Would still limit commercial dumping. Is Mansfield interested? Ouellette said small businesses are caught in the middle. When our landfill closed their costs went up. ,t Arnold said a dumpster costs several hundred per month and 65-70/ton landfill cost and 4S/ten shipping cost. Ouellette said committee will recommend to Board of Selectmen pursuance of this avenue with Fo;:bcr=•. Arnold said perhaps other mutually beneficial possibilities. Perhaps a regional recycling facility. Ouellette mentioned Mp.F program. State guarantees a market for recyclables and aids in purchasing of vehicles. Commitment by town tc mandat•ry recycling and education. Caponigro asked cost of Foxboro's contracted pickup. Arnold said about $140,000 - saves about $700,000 with own landfill. Madan asked about gassification. pG. z of S Arnold said the technology is not there yet - dangerous to the enviornment. A low fire burn is incomplete combustion - ha-rd to control - dioxins and infurons associated with low temperature burn. Direct massburn is better. Arnold said necessary to shread before feeding to get a more complete burn. is more expenive though. Madan suggested Foxboro and Mansfield. -intly build a small (200/ton)', facility. Arnold said such a faclity would be more controllable - is concerned about the trucking. Cost would be 6-10million - not much land needed.. We wouldn't reed 200 tons -about 40 tons per day would do. We could offer service to industry and get our own garbage picked un for free. '.. Campisano said no data that says commercial waste any more hazardous then residential. Arnold said his facility separates the trash. Has a video-tape of Icsu s_.:'F- i__:jii+v - t.,ii i make ar-1 In e: , C_..ampigann asked if Fgxbr�ro is r_: t :3 in 133 _ _ e•- Arnold said yes - a strong interest with reservations.. Worried about size of Massburn - 450 tons/day generates 100 tens/day of ash. Volume'' of 100 tons of ash = 160-170 tens of garbage. Commercial Massburn will fill up Foxboro's landfill too quickly. Commercial Massburn is a''. 20 year solution but Arnold wants a 100 year solution. Perhaps regional Massburn is a 100 year solution. Anti -Littering By -Law Sections related to private yards should be revised. Madan said state, laws govern uncovered loads. There is duplication (ex: refuse from airplanes) Ouellette said problems could be addressed with .recycling and composting. Town should provice a place t: compost and make it accessible to townspeople. The by-law could provide avenues to dispose of certain wastes. Madan said a person may want to save things others consider to be trash. ( Section 3) one cannot save things to bring for recycling according to this by-law. Campisano wondered why committee is reviewing this proposal`. Ouellette said the problem is related to the closing of the dump. The by-law is well intentioned and Ouellette will draft a letter and bring in next week expressing concern of the committee. Old Business Caponigro said Attleboro landfill person doesn't want to come. Committee members decided to scrap the idea. Ouellette said acting town will be $200,000 higher as estimated. Perhaps fee per townspeople aware of cost. manager said cost of disposal this year municipal waste amounts higher than household should be instituted to make PC,-3 of 5 Caponigro said now industry is paying for part of trash removal without benefit to itself.. With fee households take full cost. Ouellette said other needs of the town will suffer if trash costs continue to come under 2 1/2. Caponigro asked if there is an escalation clause in'the BFI contract. There was only one bid - perhaps other bidders will emerge at renewal time. Ouellette said Norton's cost is $600,000 and size is comparable to Mansfield. New Business **Madan/Caponigro moved to ask Board of Selectmen for an extension on the report to January 15, 1988 in order that the regional options be further explored. Discussion - Campisano wondered how long it would take to write the report. Caponigro suggested the Mansfield/Foxboro possibility simply be part of the recommendations. Ouellette said Arnold's idea not yet explored with his committee. It will -take at least two weeks to gauge Foxboro's recommendations. We must see what Foxboro's feelings are before we can incorporate into the report. Motion passed 4-0. Drafting of Report Regional Solutions - Campisano said sharing of cost is an advantage. Education - Campisano spoke to Supt. Barbarisi. Any recycling program' adopted by Mansfield should be incorporated into the curricula. However, concerned about storing waste or recyclables on school premises because it could pose a dangerous situation for the children.', Campisano made it clear that the main objective is education. Recycling program could be incorporated into Health Ed. or Science. He would like a program presented to him and suggested borrowing from !. Wellesley's program. He was receptive meeting jointly with civic groups, Administration, School Committee to get this into the works. Campisano will get in touch with Wellesley for specifics of implementation. Advantages - start educational process early - children will teach parents. Disadvantages - We don't now have recycling capability. Ouellette suggsted focusing on reuse and being less wasteful — what can be done with recycled products. Also an disadvantage is -that all households are not reached through the schools. Public Education- Ouellette said there is no easy way to accomplish. Caponigro suggested books, newspaper articles, cable T.V. Gear toward reuse if facility not immediately available. Ouellette said general populace should be educated as to cost savings. Caponigro suggested educating civic organizations and enlisting their help. Campisano said civic groups could do paper recycling, glass drives, etc. Regulatory Agencies - DEQE Solid Waste division beginning to get planning.assistance to communities. Campisano said an advantage with PG. 4- o � 6- funding, grants, offering official guidance - networking - DEQE has access to lots of information. Transfer Stations - Campisanc said transfer stations afford a place to'. recycle - a place to store things in emergencies (ie: hurricane) Ouellette said a disadvanage is that we must handle•more items rather than truck out. Caponigro said transportation is duplicated (may be offset by recycling income) Ouellettesaid sorting could be handled at a transfer station. Caponigro said station must be manned (salvage rights could be given in lieu of a salary). Ouellette said a backup method mus- be available in case of equipment breakdown. Campisanc, said cost of liability insurance is a disadvantage. Ouellette announced meetings for 12/8/07 and possibily 12/13/87. A later date for live broadcast will be chosen - possibly in January. " Campisano/Caponigro motioned to adjoi Motion passed 4-0. Respectfully submitted, Marcia Gannon, Secretary Approved By: PG. 5 ej S' Committee for Solid Waste Al Meeting of Tuesday, Novembe Minutes The Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives met on Tuesday, November 10, 1987 at the Mansfield Town Hall. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 F.M. by chair Marilyn Ouellette. Members present were, Ouellette, William Madan, MaryAnn Campisano, and John Dunn. Correspondence 1. Copy of Master Plan survey results from the planning director. 2. Memo from Joan Cutillo regarding credit card phone usage. 3_ Copy of municipal resource recovery seminar details. 4. Copy of proposal presented to Conservation Commission - an anti -littering town by-law. Board of Selectmen is invited to co-sponsor the by-law for the annual town. meeting. Minutes **Madan/Dunn motioned to approve minutes of 10/13/37. in discussion Dunn asked that motions be highlighted with an asterisk. Also, Ouellette asked that when someone abstains from a vote, those who vote for or against be named as well as who abstained. Motion passed unanimously. **Campisano/Dunn motioned to accept the minutes of 10/27/87. The motion passed unanimously with Dunn, Ouellette and Madan in favor. Campisano abstained. Minutes of 11/2/87 were tabled. Old Business Tom Yeransian's table entitled "MATERIALS DISCARDED INTO THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM" was passed out to the committee members. New Business Ouellette presented a table entitled "Town of Mansfield Estimated Solid Waste Tonnage." Same indicated if yard waste was eliminated from tonnage disposed, (131 reduction), cost avoidance would be $104,003.GS annually. If recyclables were eliminated, (251 reduction.), cost avoidance would be $200,002.51 annually. In the future, with a population of 23,000, the avoidance costs are $10 ,731.83 and $311,030.26 respectively. Dunn felt these figures to be conservative. At the Bristol County Selectmen's Association meeting, the main speaker from DEQE addressed recycling. Dunn said the state has funds for 5-5 recycling plants (12-13 will.be needed to take care of the regions). Speaker suggested these attending the meeting Lobby to have a facility located in our area. The collection method has recyclables put in a special container left curbside for a recycling truck to pick up. Money earned from recycling helps to maintain the facility. The regionalized approach to recycling assures a large steady supply to feed a nationwide market. Campisano asked how recycling would be marketed. j Y Dunn said the state will provide an educational format to local towns.'. The funds for education will be large. The process can be followed as Springfield will be the site of the first recycling center. Ouellette said a tire recycling firm may be coming to the state. Dunn mentioned a new process for recycling tires. The material is saved and reused instead of beinq turned into powder. Ouellette said Jerry St. Hillaire complained of a truckload of leaves deposited on the other side of the gate at the sludge landfill. Dunn said leaves are not easily composted with sludge. Wood chips are better. Leaves should be c:mposted alone, not necessarily at tTn Sludge Treatment Plant site. Campisano mentioned the leaf vacuuming done in Brookline. Leaves are brought to landfill to compost. Workshop Dunn'-_ outline of the report was reviewed. He suggested same be used as a tool to draft the actual report. Ouellette suggested members review the outline and come in prepared to discuss section 4 (Areas Considered and Reviewed). Dunn cautioned the committee members net to be restricted by his outline. Some areas may be missing or need more work. Ouellette said Tony Caponigro would like people from the Attleboro Landfill to come in to answer questions about running a landfill. The committee decided to request above to come in only if their landfill .is secured. Campisano mentioned the educational approach with the schools. Ouellette suggested first working with Supt. Barharisi, then with civic groups. Dunn said the state has probably already done work on education. Rep.' Philip Travis could give name of speaker at Bristol County. Selectmens' Meeting who could send information about how the educatioal process is handled. Materials may also be available. Ouellette asked committee members to be prepared to• make suggestions for section 5 of the outline (Cons iderat i•=ns for Mansfield). Ouellette will work on section 6. (Limitations Specific to Mansfield). At 8:35 P.M., failing a quorum, the meeting ended. Respectfully submitted, Marcia Gann_n, Secretary Approved By;llln G(i, (J_i�rro��ad7-o.��/24Ig7 � d DEC - 31987 Committee for Solid Waste Alternatsi' Meeting of Monday, Noverner 2, 198 �' Minutes FMA H The Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives met on Monday, November 2, 1987 at the Mansfield Public Library. The meeting was called to order!, at 8:15 P.M. by Chair Marilyn Ouellette. Members present were Ouellette, MaryAnn Campisano, Tony Caponigro, and John Dunn. Joseph Cherry verbally resigned from the committee and will follow up with a letter to the Selectmen. Corresnondence 1. Copy from Selectmen of a DEQE report on safe waste management 2_ Copy from Selectmen of a draft Proposal for regulations for landfill capping program 3. From David Grant, an updated map and listing of corporations in CC&F. Tom Yeransian Yeransian's background - works for a consulting firm in Solid Waste Management for large municipalities ie; Boston, L.A., N.Y., St. Louis. Looks at alternatives (integrated approach). Yeransian discussed the Mass. crisis. By 1992 we will only have 35 of today's land capacity - will be one million ton shortfall - over 100 communities size of Mansfield with no landfill space. Much of Mass.'s trash is going to R.I., N.H., and Maine - helps shortfall of landfill space - but those states are experiencing classic NIMBY syndrome. Campisano asked Yeransian if gassification is safe. Ouellette stated Taunton has three proposals to retrofit their old light station. If Power Recovery Systems gets the contract, they will want ether municipalities to tie in. Mansfield would have less transportation cost to Taunton than to SEMASS. Yeransian said gassification is a new technology which has its roots in coal gassification in the 70's. PP.S has applied this technology to', trash only on a pilot scale. (problem of the scale up factor). Gassification is claimed to be enviornmentally cleaner than other processes. At this point, Yeransian felt more disadvantages to gassification than advantages compared to other technologies. Campisano asked how Massburn started. Were their claims realistic? Yeransian said Massburn is a simple technology. Unsorted trsh gees from pit to furnace - no preparation. Used in Europe for decades as their resources are more limited as are resources of East and West coasts.When Massburn started it didn't have to prove anything. Dioxins not discovered until late 70's to early 80's. Yeransian said Mansfield can't depend on gassification. P. higher risk exists than with a. more proven technology. Ouellette asked if advantages to separating prier to Massburn. Yeransian said "no" from an incineration technology standpoint. From standpoint of collecting recyclables such as aluminum , iron, or glass and finding a market for sale,"yes." Ouellette asked if pollutants would be reduced if separation done. Yeransian said all data says no difference. Separation does not help. Ouellette said, if separation done before tipping fees paid, amounts would be reduced. Yeransian said many facilites remove metal or glass to get a price. However, in terms of pollutants trace metals are of "critical concern" as are organics such as dioxins. Removing metals up front doesn't help reduce pollutants in air emmissions as trace metals aredistributed throughout trash in plastics, wood products etc. Concentrations are low enough not to pose a health risk and are not worse than from a coal fired boiler. Caponigro asked what the least expensive method of solid waste disposal will be in forseeable future. Yeransian said a competitive free market exists now. Landfill owners will get more for their space later and may be reserving space. Big firms are buying up small landfills. He suggested Mansfield look for pricing and long term contracts. Ouellette said we presently have a contract with BFI.- a one year contract with two one year options. Third year could be expensive. Yeransian suggested Mansfield ask for a 5-10 yr. contract. Incineraters will ask for long term contracts with any excess capacity available on the spot market at large cost. Ouellette asked if advantge to town picking up its own trash. Yeransian said "not sure- is a pricing stratey." Felt same.was true of ownership of a transfer station. Depends on haulage distance, size of community, etc., Campisano asked if a small town owned facility would be feasable. Yeransian said gassification is enviornmentally better but economically in need of a larger scale to be worthwhile- about 400-500 tons per day. A 30 ton facility would cost roughly 3-5 million in capital and there is a high failure rate. Service contracts are expensive, plants are costly to maintain - equipment is not simple. If there's to be a facility in town have someone else build it and take the risk. Large cities split the risk 50/50 with a vendor. Yeransian said reducing tonnage to be exported is a good idea as is composting with sludge. f Ouellette asked if any other avenues to explore. Yeransian said, "building our own secured landfill with linered leachate collection." ' Ouellette said there is not sufficient land available for long term landfill use. Yeransian suggested a regional landfill. Ouellette said, with the exception of Norton, nearby communities are not facing a deadline. If a regional solution becomes available in a few years, we may be committed by contract to another solution and unable to participate. Yeransian said Mass. has not addressed the problem at all and needs to give direction. New Jersey has mandated by county a Solid Waste Management plan with recycling and resource recovery (such as Massburn or gassification) and a dedicated landfill. In contrast, Mass. is allowing vendors to set up competetively. There will be a lag time due to lack of planning and public opposition to opening of regional facilities in their town. NEED was an entrepeneur rather than part of a Solid Waste Plan initiated by the state. Yeransian presented a breakdown of municipal solid waste projected into 2000. Plastics will be up- are replacing glass. Paper and cardboard will be close to half of our waste. Dunn asked if communities are looking at Industrial waste responsibilities. Yeransian said most communities don't get involved unless it affects their water, land etc.. In Mass. a large o of industrial waste is paper because of the computer industry. Dunn asked if there are any problems with composting sludge. Yeransian' said the sludge must be analyzed. There may be trace metals from industry. There are three classes of sludge/compost depending on trace metals content. If not class one, use is restricted. Also yard waste`' is seasonal. Ouellette asked about the ratio on sludge/yard waste mix. Yeransian will put Jerry St. Hillaire in touch with knowledgeable people. Old Business At the next meeting Dunn will have an outline f•cr the report. Ouellette said AIDS in sludge is not a problem. The Wastewater Treatment Plant considers Hepatitis B a minor problem and immunizes its workers against same. Campisano will check further. Camplsano/Caponigro motioned to adjourn at 9:SS P.M. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Marcia Gannon, Secretary Approved By:11K1•RiQ{ -nAaU dQCEUQ JL v Page 3 Committee for Solid Waste Alternativ+ Meeting of Tuesday, October 27, 198' Minutes The Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives met 1987 at the Mansfield Town Hall. The meeting 7:40 P.M. by Chair Marilyn Ouellette. Members Pulliam Madan, John Dunn and Tony Caponigro. on Tuesday," was called to present were, ctober 27, order at Ouellette, Correspondence 1. Copy of letter from Selectmen to George Mallan of Mallan Associates dated 10/14/87, indicating no interest in his proposal. 2. Copy of letter from Reusable Resources of Attleboro, Inc. whose aim is to aid Attleboro and surrounding towns to better manage 'their solid waste. Also enclosed- pamphlet from DEQE on composting. Composting Ouellette spoke to Jerry St. Hillaire of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and he has reservations about use of area at sludge landfill for storage of fall leaves for composting. He doesn't want to leave the gate open for townspeople to drive in and is afraid of what else might be dropped off. He felt it might be better to collect the leaves elsewhere in the community and transport to the sludge landfill off Fruit Street. Dunn didn't feel it practical to see the leaves moved 'once deposited. Madan and Dunn discussed special methods of'leaf `curbside pickup in other towns. Dunn felt a town employee supervising dropoffs'might be practical, probably four Saturdays in the fall. Caponigro felt leaf drives etc., beyond the scope of this board. Perhaps recommendations could be made in the report. ' Ouellette said St.`_Hillaire's budget will not sustain an employee to supervise leaf dropoffs. Dunn questioned whether the cost to compost can be justified now, especially when we are 'already paying and are under contract to have all trash removed from curbside. The committee agreed that composting on a smale scale would be a better idea to get the community used to the idea -'perhaps one or two Saturdays this year. In a few years, composting may give more cost avoidance and should be explo"red more thoroughly then. St. Hillaire will be advised to keep in mind composting on a larger scale for_, next The committee will put in its recommendations that this avenue should be pursued. Norton Solid Waste Study Committee The SRPEDD rep. was at last Thursday's meeting and is trying to set up a regional meeting within the next few weeks. Nothing is happening, with the Bristol County Selectmen's Assn. Reps. from Regional Waste Services, Inc. of Peabody were at the meeting and offered formulas on tonnage per day as well as information on transfer stations. Formula is #people *3 lbs. per day * 7 days per Committee for Solid Waste Alternati Meeting of Tuesday, October 20, 19 Minutes NOV Z 7 1987 The Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives met on Tuesday, October 20, 1987 at the Mansfield Town Hall. The meeting was called to order at 7:50 P.M. by Chair Marilyn Ouellette. Attending were Ouellette, Peter Fontinini, William Madan, MaryAnn Campisano, and Tony Caponigro. Correspondence Board of Health regulations for dumping sites from Health Agent Scott Leite. Brochure forwarded from Selectmen called "Managing Sludge Disposal" Old Business/New Business Campisano asked about the newspaper recycling truck. Ouelette indicated John Rhind has been hospitalized so she has been unable to speak to him. Ouellette contacted Tom Yeransian and he is unable to speak to the committee on Tuesdays 'so a date of 'Monday, November 2, 1987 was decided upon. Ouellette toured the sludge landfill. At the composting site there is an area for storage of leaves. ' Fontinini asked if a secondary sludge landfill site is under consideration. He suggested the backup site might be a spot for a recycling center. Ouellette said Master Plan is doing a survey of the town and will look for such a spot. Fontinini felt that if no backup site is available, in the committee's recommendations to the 'town it should be 'suggested a spot be purchased now. He felt the site next to the closed landfill would be a good spot for a recycling center. Campisano asked if this site would eventually be the 'location of the town transfer station and if they are under a'moratorium by the Board'of Health. The committee agreed that municipal use of a transfer station is exempted from the moratorium. Madan added that the ban on transfer stations within the water protection district has been left open by the Planning Board as the site adjacent to the landfill may have to be used. Madan stated the discarding of motor oil is a problem. The committee agreed the Selectmen need to deal with this problem,perhaps by locating a 1000 gallon disposal drum at the Highway Dept. Ouellette will get information on what the town does with its own oil before the committee makes a motion. A` \ �r}V` Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives a 1- Meeting of Tuesday, October 20, 1987 Minutes The Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives met on Tuesday, October 20, 1987 at the Mansfield Town Hall. The meeting was called to order at 7:50 P.M. by Chair Marilyn Ouellette. Attending were Ouellette, Peter Fontinini, William Madan, MaryAnn Campisano, and Tony Caponigro. Correspondence Board of Health regulations for dumping sites from Health Agent Scott Leite. Brochure forwarded from Selectmen called "Managing Sludge Disposal" Old Business/New Business Campisano asked about the newspaper recycling truck. Ouelette indicated John Rhind has been hospitalized so she has been unable to speak to him. Ouellette contacted Tom Yeransian and he is unable to speak to the committee on Tuesdays so a date of Monday, November 2, 1987 was decided upon. Ouellette toured the sludge landfill. At the composting site there is an area for storage of leaves. Fontinini asked if a secondary sludge landfill site is under consideration. He suggested the backup site might be a spot for a recycling center. Ouellette said Master Plan is doing a survey of the town and will look for such a spot. Fontinini felt that if no backup site is available, in the committee's recommendations to the town it should be 'suggested a spot be purchased now. He felt the site next to the closed landfill would be a good spot for a recycling center. Campisano asked if this site would eventually be'the 'location of the 'town transfer station and if they are under a moratorium by the Board of Health. The committee 'agreed that municipal use of a transfer station is exempted from the moratorium. Madan added that the ban on transfer stations within the water protection district has been left open by the Planning Board as the site adjacent to the landfill may have to be used. Madan stated the discarding of motor oil is a problem. The committee agreed the Selectmen need to deal with this problem,perhaps by locating a 1000 gallon disposal drum at the Highway Dept. Ouellette will get information on what the town does with its own oil before the committee makes a motion. Committee for Solid Waste Alternative � Meeting of Tuesday, October 13,198 DEC pE� 3 Minutes THe committee for Solid Waste Alternatives met on Tuesday, October 13, 1987 at the Mansfield Town Hall. The meeting was called to order at 7:45 P.M. by Chair Marilyn A. Ouellette. Attending were Chair Ouellette, MaryAnn Campisano, Tony Caponigro, John Dunn, and William Madan. Campisano/Madan motioned that the committee_ accept with regret a letter of resignation from Richard Carey. Motion passed unanimously. Next on the agenda was George Malian of Malian Associates, a consultant for the waste to energy business and a retired president of SEMASS. He represents investors who want to locate a 500 ton per day_massburn_ plant in the Mansfield area. Malian stated a plant's financial_ benefits to Mansfield as one million dollars a year income ie, $500,000 in cash and $500,000 in reduced disposal costs. Malian stated the plant's negative aspects as a large smoke stack and 25 garbage trucks per day. Ouellette asked Malian if he had done work with Dr. Kosstrin of Power Recovery Systems in Cambridge. Mallon answered "yes" `although he _feels gassification is not ready for commercialization yet. Dunn asked Malian if he was aware of Mansfield's recent experience with NEED and the town's referendum on Massburn. He "stated this committee wants to see diversification, not one ,big solution such as an industry for waste reduction which exceeds Mansfield's needs and raises enviornmental concerns. Malian acknowledged these concerns but, if encouraged will educate the town boards and people to turn what he perceives as a "negative perception" around. Madan asked, "What are the good points of Massburn?" Malian pointed out their 20 year longevity, reliability and improving technology. Also, dioxin levels must meet Mass. DEQE guidelines. Malian said, although no plant is absolutely clean, the emissions are so minute they are not a "credible health problem." Campisano asked for clarification of the dioxin issue. Campisano asked for outside help in understanding gassification. Ouellette will contact Tom Yeransian, an engineer and consultant who works for a firm that serves large municipalities. Ouellette described her Sunday visit to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Equipment for composting sludge is due. Dunn suggested stockpiling leaves for the plant's composting use next spring. Ouellette will check on this. Campisano wondered if AIDS figures into sludge and composting. Ouellette will see if testing for viruses, etc. is done on sludge in regard to town liability. **Dunn/Campisano motioned to send a letter to the Boards of Selectmen in Sharon, Easton , Norton, North Attleboro, and Plainville asking to correspond with committees working on the same issues as the Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives. Motion passed 5-0. Madan asked about emergency dumping of brush and hurricane debris. Dunn suggested same might he dumped near a location for leaf stockpiling. **Dunn/Campisano moved that the minutes of the October 6, 1987 meeting be accepted and approved as written. The motion passed 4-0-1. Dunn, Campisano, Caponigro and Ouellette were in favor. Madan abstained. **Campisano/Camponigro motioned to adjourn at 9:40 P.M. The motion passed 5-0. Respectfully submitted by: Marcia Gannon, Secretary COMMITTEE FOR SOLID WASTE ALTERNATXA MEETING OF TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 198 Minutes The committee for Solid Waste Alternatives met on Tuesday, October 6, 1987 at the Mansfield Town Hall. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Chair Marilyn A. Ouellette. Members in attendance were, chair Ouellette, MaryAnn Campisano, Tony Caponigro, John Dunn and Peter Fontinini. Secretarial applicant Marcia Gannon was introduced. John Dunn indicated that funds were available for this position as well as for seminars, training and miscellaneous expenses. Regionalization of efforts to solve the solid waste problem was discussed. Linda Whittemore, the chair of the Norton Solid Waste Committee was in attendance to discuss her committee's objectives and goals. She first thanked Chair Ouellette for attending Norton's first recycling day and for her efforts as liason. She then stated her committe's goal as finding a "viable solution to the solid waste disposal problem that does not interfere with the health of the community or surrounding communities." Whittemore extended an invitation to the Mansfield committee to attend Norton's next meeting on October 22, 1987. Representatives of a Peabody company that has set up fifty transfer stations will be present to discuss expenses, how the station works, etc. Norton presently has curbside pickup by Waste Management of Attleboro and in addition to transfer stations is exploring recycling and composting with the remainder going to landfill or SEMASS. Norton also has been discussing the possibility of a regional solution with SRPEDD. SRPEDD is looking to contact the chairmen of the Attleboro, Mansfield, North Attleboro and Norton committees to discuss working together. John Dunn cautioned that regional efforts can be complicated and since there are regional efforts in other areas such as sewerage treatment and water protection with Easton, Foxboro, Norton and Sharon that might be the better avenue to persue. Whittemore suggested that just Mansfield and Norton working together could be beneficial. It was suggested by Peter Fontinini that any regionalized transfer station would be impractical as it would be difficult to tell what town would be bringing in how much trash. A regional transfer station at which trash would be sorted would be a large facility that would not be welcome in anyone's backyard. John Dunn suggested a good curbside pickup contract assures less illegal disposal as the service picks up almost everything. It was suggested a list of items that can/cannot be picked up could be published in the Mansfield News again. Peter Fontinini further stated the double burden of the cost of hauling trash and the implementation of a new solution to the trash problem will have to first pass Town Meeting and will then be felt on the tax bill. Chair Ouellette felt a regionalized plan would be practical if there was a regional contract for disposal. Chair Ouellette.attended a recycling drive in Attleboro conducted by Reusable Resources of Attleboro, Inc. These recycling drives are held on the first Saturday of every month. Information on their program which donates the proceeds to charity each month will be obtained. Mary Ann.Campisano/Peter Fontanini moved to recommend to the :.Selectmen that the recycling truck for newspaper be again located adjacent to the gate in front of the closed landfill.- The .motion passed unanimously. Mary Ann Campisano/John Dunn motioned to request Joseph Cherry's resignation from the committee because of his lack of attendance. The motion passed unanimously. John Dunn/MaryAnn Campisano moved ,that the committee begin to meet every week.`The motion passed unanimously. George Mallon, retired president of SEMASS has contacted Chair Ouellette and would like to address the committee at the next meeting on October 13, 1987. The committee will allow him a half-an=hour.. Mary Ann Campisano/Peter Fontanini moved to adjourn at 9:12 P.M. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted by, Marcia Gannon, Secretary Approved bY: �Cl�TLJ�LIM ) t�l l l i 0 1L4 A JL9� `J�Qj� ���-18 h ,d PRESENT; MINUTES OF MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1987 MARILYN OUELLETTE, CHAIRMAN MARYANN CAMPISANO, CLERK TONY CAPONIGRO, JOHN DUNN, BILL MADAN CHAIRMAN MARILYN OUELLETTE CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 7:35 P.M. AT THE TOWN HALL. THE CHAIRMAN WELCOMED BILL MADAN, REPRESENTING MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE, TO THE COMMITTEE FOR SOLID WASTE ALTERNATIVES. MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 1987 MEETING WERE REVIEWED BY MEMBERS. JOHN DUNN/TONY CAPONIGRO MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. BILL MADAN ABSTAINED. M O T I O N P A S S E D CORRESPONDENCE WAS REVIEWED WHICH INCLUDED; 1. TOWN OF WELLESLEY RECYCLING PLAN THIS PACKET OF INFORMATION WILL BE KEPT IN THE SELECTMAN'S OFFICE FOR MEMBER'S PERUSAL. 2. LETTER RECEIVED FROM C.E. MAGUIRE THIS LETTER WAS SENT IN RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE THAT APPEARED IN THE SUN CHRONICLE FOLLOWING THE JUNE 11, 1987 MEETING. THIS WILL ALSO BE HELD IN THE SELECTMAN'S OFFICE. 3. COPY OF MINUTES OF JUNE 4, 1987 GREEN MEETING THE MINUTES NOTED THAT THIS GROUP INTENDS TO FOCUS ON THE ISSUE OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL. MANSFIELD'S LANDFILL WAS MENTIONED. ALSO INCLUDED WAS A NOTICE OF A SLIDE SHOW PRESENTATION ENTITLED 'SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY RECYCLING' WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 30, 1987. THIS IS THE SLIDE SHOW DEPICTING WELLESLEY'S RECYCLING PROGRAM. + BILL NAPOLITANO, REPRESENTATIVE FROM SPREDD, SPOKE TO THE MEMBERS REGARDING OUR ALTERNATIVES. TOPICS DISCUSSED INCLUDED; JOINING SEMASS (ROCHESTER, MAC APPLYING FOR STATE GRANTS FOR CLEAN UP OF MANSFIELD'S LANDFILL. SPEAKING WITH BRIDGEWATER, MA REGARDING THE AVENUES THEY ARE INVESTIGATING REGARDING SOLID WASTE ALTERNATIVES. JOHN DUNN LEFT MEETING AT 8:05 P.M. CHAIRMAN OUELLETTE REQUESTED HELP FROM SPREDD REGARDING OUR LONG RANGE PLANS, BILL NAPOLITANO SAID HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO HELP. MINUTES OF 6/23/87 MEETING COMM, FOR SOLID WASTE ALTERNATIVES PAGE 2 ' SCOTT LEITE (MANSFIELD..HEALTH-AGENT) INFORMED US THAT SEMASS REQUIRES AN OFFICIAL INQUIRYOF AVAILABILITY OF THEIR SERVICES BY JULY 1, 1987 TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION I'N THEIR PROGRAM. 8:27 P.M. JOHN DUNN RETURNED TO MEETING. BILL MADAN/TONY CAPONIGRO'MADE A 'MOTION.TO.HAVE THE SELECTMEN, BY JULY 1y 1987, SEND A NON -BINDING LETTER -OF INTENT TO NEGOTIATE TO SEMASS, M(10T I O N PASSED 8:35 P.M. JOHN DUNN LEFT MEETING, CHAIRMAN MARILYN OUELLETTE CALLED FOR A 5 MI'NUTE BREAK AT 8:37 P.M. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 8;45 P,M, SCOTT LEITE, MANSFIELD HEALTH AGENT, REPORTED ON THE TRASH CONFERENCE HE ATTENDED IN NEW HAMPSHIRE. HE STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF INFORMING THE PUBLIC THAT THIS PROBLEM I'S "YOUR PROBLEM" BECAUSE I'T WILL TAKE THE INVOLVEMENT OF ALL THE CITIZENS OF MANSFIELD TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN ATTAINING AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE SOLUTION. HE SUGGESTED THAT THE TOWN ARRIVE AT SEVERAL SOLUTIONS (I.E., COMPOSTING COUPLED WITH RECYCLING) RATHER, THAN LOCK OURSELVES INTO ONE SOLUTION. TONY CAPONIGRO/MARY'ANN CAMPPSANO MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN APPOINT MR, JOSEPH CHERRY AND MR. RICHARD CAREY TO THE COMMITTEE FOR SOLID WASTE ALTERNATIVES. M O T I O N P A S S E D TONY CAPONIGRO/BI'LL MADAN MADE A MOTION TO SEND A LETTER OF THANKS TO JUDY SCOTT, TOWN CLERK. THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO HER EFFORTS TO FIND MR. JOSEPH CHERRYtS NAME FOR US. CC; TO BOARD OF SELECTMEN AND TOWN MANAGER. M 0 T I' O N P A S S E D TONY CAPONIGRO%BILL MADAN MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 9:45 P.M. 'M 0 T I 0 N P A S S E D APPROVED BY:A:DATE: Qi�-(, j C(g-7 MAC/HS COMMITTEE FOR SOLID WASTE ALTERNATIVES MINUTES OF MEETING THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1987 Present: Mary Ann Campisano, Citizen -at -Large Tony Caponigro, Planning Board John Dunn, Board of Selectmen Peter Fontanini, Board of Health Marilyn Ouellette, Conservation Commission John Dunn called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Hall. The motion of the Board of Selectmen establishing the committee was read. The committee decided to meet every other Tuesday. John Dunn declined the chairmanship. Tony Caponigro/Peter Fontanini moved to make Marilyn Ouellette chairman. MOTION PASSED Tony Caponigro/John Dunn moved to make Mary Ann Campisano clerk. MOTION PASSED The committee will investigate every avenue available. Topics discussed: • New landfill • Recycling • Trash -to -energy • Gasification • Trucking to other facilities • Transfer stations John Dunn suggested looking to the regulatory agencies for their position on these issues. (Department of Environmental Quality Engineering - DEQE) Thursday, June 11, 1987 Page 2 Representatives of SRPEDD (Southeast Regional Planning and Economic Development District) should be invited to assist in goal setting. Also discussed was inviting representatives of BFI (Browning -Ferris Industries, Inc.). In addition, Rande Wilson, Town Manager and Scott Leite, Health Agent, will be asked to share information on the conference they attended on solid waste disposal. Chairman Ouellette will contact SRPEDD for the next meeting. Mary Ann Campisano will try to get the slides from the Town of Wellesley on their recycling program. The committee discussed holding public hearing. One to get information on the types of trash that are disposed of by town residents. Public Hearing on possible alternatives should be held after the committee has gained a better understanding of those alternatives. The needs of the town departments should also be solicited. Peter Fontanini/Tony Caponigro moved to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. ���. �r Approved btice. � . �• , _ ' 'a�t�� Date: ♦. • �f� ► (SOLIDW.MIN)