Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSolid Waste Committee Report - 1988Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives 1987-1988 Report to the Board of Selectmen TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Subject 1................ Introduction 3.................List of Contacts and Resources Areas Considered and Reviewed: 5................. Trash to Energy / Resource Recovery 9................. Landfill 10................ Decreasing the Waste Stream 11................ Recycling 13................ Composting 14................ Transfer Stations 15................ Hauling Out of Town 16................ Regional Solutions 19................ Regulatory Agencies 20................ Education 22................ Hazardous Waste 23................ Recommendations: Immediate, Interim and Long Term - Solutions not Recommended 28................ Authorship of Report Sections 29................ Committee Members INTRODUCTION Following the heavy rains during the spring of 1987, the closure of the town's leaking and oozing landfill became necessary. In an effort to solve the resulting problem of trash disposal, the Board of Selectmen appointed the Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives. The motion to appoint the committee was: "That the Board of Selectmen appoint a committee to evaluate the various alternative means of dealing with the disposal of solid waste. The (committee) will return a summary report to the Board of Selectmen by no later than six months from the date of appointment. The report will provide an overview of viable alternatives, the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and a recommendation of which alternative or combination of alternatives should be adopted by the town of Mansfield... The eight member committee was comprised of five representatives of town boards and three citizens -at -large appointments made by the Selectmen. The town board representatives were: Selectman John Dunn, Planning Board member Tony Caponigro, Board of Health member Peter Fontanini, Conservation Commissioner Marilyn Ouellette, and Master Plan Advisory Council member William Madan who is also a member of the Planning Board. MaryAnn Campisano, Joseph Cherry and Richard Carey were appointed as citizens -at -large. Due to increased personal responsibilities, members Cherry and Carey resigned and replacements were not appointed. Page 1 The committee did find it necessary to request an extension of the six month deadline to February 1, 1988. The first phase of the committee members' task was to educate themselves as to the possible alternatives, and the limitations of those alternatives when applied to the Town of Mansfield. The second phase was to analyze the information that the committee had gathered and recommend alternatives for Mansfield. Implementation of the Committee's Report of Recommendations is important to Mansfield's future. With the cost of solid waste disposal rising rapidly, finding a long-term solution to the town's problem, that is as economical as possible, is essential to Mansfield's stability and its ability to provide its residents with required services. Page 2 LIST OF AFFILIATIONS Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives Date Name and Affiliation Topic Discussed or Site Visited 1987 6/23 William Napolitano - SRPEDD (Southeast Region Planning and Economic Development District) Scott Leite - Mansfield Health Agent 6/30 Thomas Margardo, Town Adminis- trator of Easton 7/7 7/21 7/21 8/11 8/11 9/1 9/12 9/26 10/3 10/6 Planning advice and possible SEMASS contract Decreasing the Waste Stream Slides taken at Wellesley Recycling facility presented at Green Discussion Group Charlie Johnson Former Selectman Transfer station operation and West Bridgewater, MA. possibility of joining SEMASS Dr. Herbert Kosstrin - Power Recovery Systems William Vernon, State Representative, Mansfield Betsy Loring - DEQE (Dept. of Environmental Quality Engineer- ing), Solid Waste Division Phillip Travis, State Representative, Rehoboth Power Recovery Systems,Cambridge Town of West Bridgewater Transfer Station Solid Waste Advisory Committee Town of Norton Reusable Resources of Attleboro,, Inc. Linda Whittemore - Chair Solid Waste Advisory Committee - Norton 10/13 George Mallan - Mallan Associates Page 3 Gasification technology used by PRS Content and Status of the Solid Waste Bill's progress Recycling and Composting Programs Present and Planned by the State Bristol County Selectmen's Association Solid Waste Manage- ment Task Force formation Tour of model 10 ton/day plant Fluid -bed gasification Tour arranged by Charlie Johnson joint with Solid Waste Advisory Committee of Norton Recycling Day conducted jointly with Norton Recycling Committee Attleboro monthly recycling project observation Possible Regional efforts Possibility of a mass burn facility locating in Mansfield 10/22 11/2 12/1 12/14 Page 4 Robert Boucher - Regional Waste Services Tom Yeransian, Voluntary Consultant John Arnold, Foxboro Landfill Committee Barbara Herson Earth Tunes Transfer station equipment and installations presented at Norton Solid Waste Advisory Committee meeting Advice on the alternatives available to the town Possibility of a Regional Solution Program/Workshops proposed for elementary level education in solid waste problem TRASH TO ENERGY / RESOURCE RECOVERY General The committee has reviewed two different methods of burning trash: the Massburn concept and the Gasification process. Some of us have had the opportunity to review three facilities: North Andover, MA., Oswego, NY., and an experimental gasification unit at Cambridge, MA. General observations were that most break-even operations dealt with economies of scale subject to strict air enviornmental regulations. Two still had to face more regulation with ash landfill regulations. All three required a fairly high level of technical support to manage their operation. Massburn Two facilities were reviewed; North Andover and Oswego. Videos are available on both facilities and will give a true representation of how they fit into their surrounding areas. North Andover is publically owned and operated by a contract service company. The facility is relatively new and has the advantage of the latest technology. The management of the firm indicates that even though directed by a Commission of participating communities, abuses occur. In the interest of protection of personnel, management had to strongly confront the Commission to convince it to police and control materials disposed of at the facility. The economies of mass waste disposal vs. hazardous waste disposal encourages abuse and makes it imperative to place strict control and heavy penalties in place. Page 5 The facility has the capability of handling 1500 tons per day. It satisfies the needs of many surrounding communities. The energy produced is in the form of electricity to local NEPOOL customers at avoided and/or set agreed rates. The facility also provides steam to nearby customers. Agreements were written with participating communities who credited those who had to haul long distances. The town of Winchester is paying approximately $50/ton. Those closer are paying more. Penalties are placed on communities not meeting or exceeding their quotas. The facility uses landfill.as a back-up in case of emergency shut down or in excess situations. Communities served by the plant still have their transfer stations as well as contracted or town pick-up. The residents and small businesses still need the ability to dispose of trash on an as -needed basis. There is no fee charged to people who use Winchester's transfer station. The feeling is; what is brought to the transfer station keeps litter off the streets and saves on what has to be picked up curbside. A secured landfill is still a requirement of this facility for disposal of its ash. Dishwashers, refrigeraters, stoves, water heaters etc. still require landfill for disposal. Oswego, although smaller and less sophisticated, is similar to the North Andover plant: both service a regional area. We did not see what area communities use to support their local needs for the "trip to the dump." I would imagine that local transfer stations are the solution. Oswego is also managed by a Page 6 contract operater. Truck trips, which are a concern, are more frequent than the proposer originally predicted. We noticed very little inspection of incoming waste. On the surface, the Cambridge gasification project is less threatening enviornmentally. The tonnage is very small and trash is imported to demonstrate the operation. There is no operating facility in the area, however, one is planned for the New Hampshire area. It appears that a sizable effort would have to go into the sorting of waste entering the process, with a good portion requiring other means of disposal. There has been some concern raised about the gas produced prior to burning and about its toxicity. Gasification appears to be experimental at this point, but it could be the process to stand up to "tommorrow's" emmissions standards. Regulations of facilities of this nature appear to be getting stricter with time. The stack heights seem to be getting taller and taller in order to satisfy dilution of particulate to an acceptable level at today's standards. We also see state agencies sensing that yesterday's standards are too lax. Will today's plants need to be up -graded to higher standards, thus increasing capital and operation costs? The recent accident at North Andover raises yet another concern. Are facilities the size of North Andover more vulnerable to hazards and are they an appropriate solution for municipalities? We are in fact going to have to rely on this type of facility for a portion of our problem and that portion Page 7 comes mostly from our households. Household waste is so homogeneous that there seems to be no easy way to deal with that portion that cannot be recycled. Summary Incineration of a portion of our solid waste seems to be a viable solution. The amount, however, must be minimized by other alternatives: recycling, composting and the elimination of unnecessary, throw -away packaging. Ideally, it would be best not to have incineration, however, people and habits cannot change fast enough to react to today's urgent problem. Therefore, we must burn what we cannot dispose of any other way. Perhaps the only way to force reduction of the need for these facilities is to apply a tax to products that unnecessarily add to the non -recyclable waste stream, ie.; excess packaging. Facilities with large capacities concentrate environmental pollutants in small areas. Therefore, it might be wiser to site more smaller facilities. The state should regulate placement of facilities so that emissions are not concentrated on town borders. A trash to energy/resource recovery facility can be more easily cost justified by taking into account the cost of hauling out of town and the earnings from any positive by-products such as steam or electricity. Page 8 LANDFILL It is anticipated that there will be a two-thirds shortfall in landfill capacity in the Northeast by the year 1990. A secured landfill built by the town, under current regulations, would cost up to $200,000.00 per acre to develop. A secured landfill is a viable option only if it is pursued on a regional basis, is secured, and is funded with state grants. Any secured landfill should only be utilized in combination with methods used to reduce the waste stream, such as recycling, composting, re -use, etc. A town owned landfill would have the following disadvantages: .A secured landfill siting is precluded by an available parcel of land outside the Water Protection District that is large enough to provide a long range solution to the town's needs. .It is also precluded by regulations and the cost involved, even when considered with decreasing the waste stream. .Landfilling, as a temporary measure, only postpones the eventual high cost of waste disposal. Page 9 DECREASING THE WASTE STREAM Residential solid waste has many components. Some of those components can be reused. Throughout history, reclaiming items which have been discarded by others, has been done. Using discarded items creatively can effectively reduce disposal costs through cost avoidance. Composting and recycling are two methods that can significantly reduce the waste stream. These two methods are so important that they are in their own section of this report. Excess packaging is another area that contributes heavily to the waste stream. The choice of a product that does not have excessive package is one way to start. To accomplish this will require educating all town residents to make them aware that their choices can make a difference. The town's people also have to recognize that they are the generaters of the waste which Mansfield has to handle. Educating everyone that each individual generates up to 3/4 of a ton of solid waste per year is an important aspect of decreasing the waste stream. Although it may appear that the problem of excess packaging cannot be solved by Mansfield alone, the town can take a stand on this important issue. A resolution could be passed at town meeting to urge our State and Federal legislators to pass legislation that would penalize those who use excess packaging. One method would be to tax those who package excessively. Those revenues could be used to help solve the solid waste problem. Page 10 RECYCLING After careful review of the concept of recycling, it is the opinion of this committee that a recycling program should be implemented by the Town of Mansfield. A regional recycling facility is the most practical solution from both environmental and financial aspects. Environmentally, Mansfield would most likely share the burden of storage and transfer of the materials to be recycled. Considering the availability of land appropriate for this purpose, and some of the potential hazards involved in storing these materials, it is best not to shoulder the burden alone. From a financial perspective, a regional solution is practical. At this time, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has prepared a multi -faceted Recycling Plan and has developed the programs that will turn this possibility into a reality over the next few years if adequate state funding is made available. Implementing a mandatory recycling by-law would enable Mansfield to be eligible for funding for a regional facility, referred to by the State as MRF (Materials Recycling Facility). The committee has already recommended a mandatory recycling by-law. As noted in "REGIONAL RECYCLING from the DEQE", the Commonwealth would bear the cost of construction of the facility, fund educational programs, provide each household with recycling bins, provide collection vehicles, and provide markets for glass, cans and paper. As with any new concept, education is the forerunner of a successful recycling program. Introduction of this program would be Page 11 best accomplished by integrating recycling education into the curricula at the elementary level. Working in conjunction with the Superintendent and Principals of Mansfield's elementary schools, it was decided that an established recycling program/workshop would be most effective in attaining this goal. To this end, we are recommending a program designed and delivered by Barbara Herson of Earth Tunes; a Newton based firm specializing in environmental education programs for children. We are hoping for funding for this program with a grant from the Arts Lottery. Application for this grant is being processed now. We hope to curb the "disposable society" syndrome before it becomes deeply entrenched in our young citizens. We also want to take the initiative and address this problem immediately. The educational process for the adult sector of the community is more challenging. This town does benefit from having a high concentration of informed, concerned citizens and civic groups as well as a number of "Boards" who do realize the need for change. Further, should we decide to join a regional effort and if we are chosen to participate in the Commonwealth's MRF, the State would contribute funds for public education. Page 12 COMPOSTING Composting, as a method of decreasing the waste stream, can reduce tonnage and, thereby, decrease the cost of disposal. It can also provide an alternative use for otherwise discarded waste. Mansfield has already taken the first step toward the creation of a sludge -composting facility. The town should also establish a composting facility for leaves, branches and other yard wastes, both from residential and from Mansfield Department of Public Works sources. The cost of operating the equipment necessary and for personnel to monitor the materials that are left for composting could be offset by the avoided costs of disposal. Easy access to the composting facility should be provided so that residents will participate in the program. This is necessary since some Mansfield residents have limited space to store materials. A public awareness program for a town composting facility should be instituted. A designated "Composting Week" that would coincide with the time that most residents should be bringing their yard wastes to the composting facility, would heighten awareness. Public forums in the first few years and annual programs about composting, utilizing cable and newspapers, would focus attention on composting. Until a composting facility could be operational, informaton is necessary for town residents about "back -yard" composting. Through educational programs at the town library and in cooperation with civic groups, information on composting could be made available. Do-it-yourself composting pamphlets must be available at locations such as Town Hall and the Mansfield Public Library. Page 13 TRANSFER STATIONS Transfer stations have many advantages and disadvantages. The major advantage is that a transfer would give the town a way to exercise better contol over the tonnage leaving the station. By maintaining control, the flow of waste could be measured thereby providing information necessary to establish and meet contracted quotas. Another advantage is that to site a transfer station, a large tract of .land is unnecessary. Even a small site can provide an area for sorting and separation of elements that can be recycled or that are not acceptable wastes at the facility which takes the town's trash. An area of the station could also be set aside as an "emergency storage area" in the event of an emergency, such as a hurricane or wind storm. The main disadvantages of transfer stations are: duplication of handling exists with curbside removal of trash, twice the number of transportation vehicles need to be purchased or leased, monitoring is required, and equipment can create a liability. All are added expenses. The cost effectiveness of a transfer station should be determined in connection with the long term solution that is implemented by the town. If a transfer station is built by the town, consideration should be given to contracting for its management. Scrap metals and salvage can help defray the costs of managing and monitoring the facility. Page 14 HAULING OUT OF TOWN The hauling of residential solid wastes out of Mansfield provides a quick, short term solution for the town's present situation. The present disposal contract is expensive and will only get more expensive. A long term contract should only be used to address a portion of the town's disposal needs and should not be viewed as the entire solution. Any long term contract should also have an "escape clause" for the town. This clause would afford an opportunity to take advantage of a lower cost solution which might be available in the future. If a contract for hauling out of town is signed, serious consideration should be given to constructing a transfer station. One of the determining factors should be the distance Mansfield's trash needs to be hauled. If the facility is close to Mansfield, our trash could be hauled there in curbside pickup trucks. A transfer station might not be necessay and in fact, might be too costly. If we must haul long distance, compacting trash from curbside pick-up trucks into large capacity trailers should be considered transfer station would then be necessary. Town owned and operated curbside pick-up trucks might also be necessary. Page 15 I:l REGIONAL APPROACHES TO SOLID WASTE ALTERNATIVES There are strong incentives for regional approaches to the solid waste solutions. The state offers encouragement by prioritizing favorably those involved with regional approaches. There are some solutions that must be done on a regional basis to receive funding available from the state. The committee has met with the surrounding towns on a formal and informal basis to heighten the awareness of the activities of the various towns. Formal regional districts must be formed to ensure orderly participaton of the towns in solving the state's waste problem. The -districting must be similar to and formed for the same reasons as the wastewater regional district. In the past decade, the advantages of the wastewater district, and the commitment by the towns to that district, have proven to be invaluable. Recycling Bristol County has established a task force on solid waste concerns. The towns participating have all supported the task force in concept and have petitioned the state to develop a recycling facility for the area. Money is available to support the development of 4-5 facilities throughout the state. It is estimated that approximately 12 facilities will be needed to take care of the entire state. The first to be opened will service the Springfield area. Rochester is getting strong consideration due to the SEMASS project and the focus of waste being brought to that facility. Milford is also being looked at closely. It is important for towns in the region to indicate their seriousness by adopting mandatory recycling by-laws, which are necessary in order to use a state recycling facility. Only Page 16 regionally can enough volume of recyclables be generated to create a marketable value. Recycling also requires a landfill for non -recyclable by-products. Landfill It appears at this time that every facility dealing with solid waste needs to be supported by a landfill operation. Landfills threaten groundwater supplies and are better sited regionally thereby ensuring protection of everyone's groundwater resources. Townships should work regionally to find land that doesn't perc and contains clay or other impervious materials which is perfect for landfill use. Composting This is a process that, if operated on a very large scale, can become very difficult to manage. Each town should manage and operate its own composting facility through its DPW Department. The equipment required to support composting is used mainly by those departments. Trash to Energy or Incineration Trash to Energy is outlined in its specific area and is more easily addressed on a local basis. Facilities should be licensed only after a successful recycling program is in place and should require state approval which conforms to predefined siting regulations. Transfer Stations The decision to have a transfer station rests with each town. Siting should be done according to predescribed regulations. Summary Mansfield should become part of a district which is no larger than our existing water protection district. That is not to say that Page 17 this district cannot cooperate or serve with larger districts but we should do so while keeping in mind our water and wastewater protection district communities. Everyone in the state is in trouble relative to solid waste - everyone wants to cooperate and work together. We must be very careful not to get involved with a district so large that nothing gets done. Staying within our district will allow us to better manage our problems and to maintain the ability to act quickly. Page 18 REGULATORY AGENCIES Depending on the final solution that Mansfield selects to solve the solid waste problem, the town may have to deal with regulatory agencies. Agencies such as Mansfield's own Board of Health, the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) - Solid Waste Division and Federal agencies such as Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) may have review and oversight powers depending on the equipment that Mansfield uses to implement its solution. Before any planning or siting process for a facility is initiated, all the regulations that would apply should be investigated so that the facility would meet these regulations without needing to be redesigned. One agency that is implementing an informational office is the DEQE. This effort will help in the networking process which will assist communities in keeping abreast of what new developments or concepts are available in solving this important problem. Other regulatory agencies provide very little planning guidance. These agencies only review projects to see if they are in compliance with regulations. One avenue that should be pursued is that of state grants that may be available thus decreasing the financial burden to Mansfield. Page 19 EDUCATION Mansfield's education of our solid waste problem began once we were forced to close the landfill on August 1, 1987. If we hope to see any substantial changes in the way we deal with this situation, we must continue that educational process. Once we make the public aware of the fact that each one of us generates 1,500 pounds per year of solid waste; and we can accept the fact that it doesn't disappear once it is placed in a trash bag and hauled away, the active learning can commence. Now that we have raised the questions; "How do we generate this waste?" and "Where does it go?" we, as a community must ask, "What can we do to help change the situation?" The Solid Waste Alternatives Committee has accumulated a substantial amount of information since June 1987, a great deal of which can be used in an educational format. A multi -faceted educational program which includes the use of video tapes, as well as packets of informational material, would cover many of the areas of the solid waste problem we must address. A mandatory recycling by-law would start us in the right direction and is explained in the section under RECYCLING. The programs we employ must appeal to our residents. We will hopefully reach the following groups of people and gain their support: SCHOOLS CIVIC GROUPS MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES / TOWN BOARDS GENERAL PUBLIC Page 20 By aggressively seeking innovative approaches in teaching our residents/ourselves and by using available resources such as video tapes, libraries, newspapers, cable television and informational packets, we are on the way to solving a problem which affects us all. Included in this report is information which touches on many of the solutions we have considered. In addition, there is ample information available to each individual and/or group in this town from both the Commonwealth of Massachusetts DEQE Division of Solid Waste and from right here in Town Hall. We invite you to participate in this awareness/educational process. Page 21 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION Household hazardous wastes could be a major liability to the town in the future. If not handled properly, household hazardous wastes can create environmental hazards. Three areas of concern that Mansfield can address are: household hazardous wastes, batteries and used motor oils and antifreeze. The Mansfield Board of Health has begun to address the household hazardous waste collection problem. These efforts should be strengthened and collection needs to be done frequently to avoid an eventual environmental nightmare. Batteries, both those used in vehicles and in the home are a disposal problem. Mansfield should urge the state to have a collection program that could be a companion to its recycling program. Mansfield should institute its own used motor oil and antifreeze collection program for the do-it-yourself mechanic. Too much potential exists for future problems if these residues are not collected and disposed of properly. Residents of Mansfield need to be better informed of the dangers of improperly disposing of wastes. When informed of the dangers and of the possible alternatives, the amounts of hazardous materials that are generated by households can be decreased. Page 22 IMMEDIATE RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The town should establish a staging area for storm debris. Chipped brush should be mixed with sludge for composting and the excess could be burned or chipped to use as mulch. 2. Recycling of newspapers should be started to help decrease the waste stream. A possible location could be at the highway garage. 3. Education is an important part of all recommendations and should start now. A school program is in the planning stage and should be followed through. Public education can start with the distribution of this report and the airing of video tapes on cable television. 4. Support the Board of Health in its household hazardous waste collection. 5. Pursue possibilities of a regional solution with Foxboro and possibly Norton. 6. Sponsor a non -binding referendum question to support a mandatory recycling by-law to become effective when a contract is in place with a State Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) and put a mandatory recycling by-law on the annual town warrant. 7. Survey industrial wastes as to tonnage and type of waste. Page 23 INTERIM RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The town should install separate above ground tanks at the highway garage for the collection of used motor oil and antifreeze. 2. Bottle and can recycling can be started with the help of civic organizations. 3. Education takes planning but can begin now. (Recycling in particular, but also household hazardous waste.) 4. Review state and federal grant money available. S. Form and organize participation in a regional group. Grant money is more available to regional groups. 6. Send questionnaires to town departments and to the school department asking for suggestions to solid waste solutions and ask what type of waste is generated by each department. 7. A compacter should be placed at the highway garage to reduce dumpster emptying. 8. Recycle town waste such as spoiled computer runs. Have an extra wastebasket per desk for recyclables. 9. Establish regular household hazardous waste collection. 10. Check the progress of DEQE master plan for solid waste and other efforts. 11. Institute a composting program. 12. Buy time. Until long term solutions can be implemented, continue to contract hauling household solid waste out of town. Be certain any hauling contract has an escape clause to allow the town to take advantage of new proposals that come along. Page 24 GENERAL LONG RANGE SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. A permanent committee should be set up whose functions would be to study and evaulate the solid waste problem, to support a regional set up and to study new technology. 2. Incorporate industrial waste as part of the total waste stream. 3. Do not become dependent on one long range solution; we must use a combination of solutions. 4. Educational programs should be instituted on a town wide basis in addition to in the schools. These programs should be aimed at reducing the waste stream and at making the town residents familiar with household hazardous waste substances so that they can be disposed of properly. S. Continue a minimal recycling program, household hazardous waste collections by the Board of Health and the composting program. Page 25 SPECIFIC LONG RANGE SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. A small capacity, regional massburn facility should be implemented. It should be owned and operated by the town or the regional participating towns and sized for up to the number of towns in the aquifer protection committee. Care should be taken in siting and it should be designed with the latest technology. The massburn facility should be designed to solve only the local problem and have a capacity of approximately 100 tons/day. After the waste stream has been minimized by other alternatives, the facility should be used for non-recyclables and non -hazardous solid wastes. A secured ash landfill would be required. 2. A state funded Materials Recycling Facility should be tied into, which will require that the town have a mandatory recycling by-law. Efforts should be made to attract a MRF to our area. Other Alternatives Any potential alternative that has not been negatively recommended could also be considered by the Town of Mansfield, especially if new information has made that alternative more environmentally safe and more economical. Page 26 AREAS CONSIDERED AND NOT RECOMMENDED 1. Solid waste landfilling in Mansfield's Water Protection District and/or as the only solution. 2. Privately owned, large capacity massburn incinerators. 3. Contract hauling out of town, especially to a landfill, is shortsighted and impractical. 4. Gasification facilities large enough to burn an entire town's waste have not been proven in practical application. Until it becomes a proven and tested technology in this type of application, gasification should not be considered. Page 27 COMMITTEE FOR SOLID WASTE ALTERNATIVES REPORT SECTIONS / ROUGH DRAFT RESPONSIBILITY Report Sections Rough Draft Responsibility Trash -to -Energy John Dunn Landfill Tony Caponigro Decreasing the Waste Stream Marilyn Ouellette Recycling MaryAnn Campisano Composting Marilyn Ouellette Transfer Stations Marilyn Ouellette Hauling Out of Town Marilyn Ouellette Regional Solutions John Dunn Regulatory Agencies Marilyn Ouellette Education MaryAnn Campisano Hazardous Waste Collection Marilyn Ouellette Immediate Recommendations William Madan Interim Recommendations William Madan Long Range Recommendations William Madan Page 28 COMMITTEE MEMBERS Citizen -at -Large MaryAnn Campisano Planning Board Tony Caponigro Board of Selectmen John Dunn Board of Health Peter Fontanini Master Plan Advisory Council William Madan Conservation Commission Marilyn Ouellette - Chairman Page 29