Solid waste bills include new rules and mandates

Communities have made great strides over the years in recycling and effectively managing solid waste, but they may face new recycling and solid waste reporting standards, reduced flexibility and unfunded mandates under several bills currently before the Legislature.

Since 1991, when Massachusetts first issued waste disposal regulations, 90 percent of cities and towns have implemented recycling programs for residents. Communities have also instituted programs such as organic composting, single-stream recycling, automated collection, pay-as-you-throw, recycling enforcement, and recycling education. Many communities have also passed local ordinances and bylaws that require private haulers to provide recycling services to their customers (typically businesses, offices and larger residential buildings).

Out of concern for the environment and in an effort to reduce the solid waste stream, some communities have passed bans on single-use plastic bags, plastic water bottles and Styrofoam. Retail, beverage and plastic manufacturing associations have opposed these local bans, however, and some have supported legislation that would undermine the ability of communities to ban these materials.

On June 10, the MMA testified in opposition to a bill (H. 1833) that would prohibit cities and towns from adopting any local rules, regulations, bylaws or ordinances regulating any ”product or consumer good.” This legislation would have a significant impact on a community’s ability to maintain a “clean” recycling waste stream, since plastic bags are the leading containment in recycling bins. The bags clog recycling processors, which forces material recovery systems to shut down for long periods, driving up municipal disposal costs.

On June 23, the MMA testified before the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture in opposition to several bills that would reduce municipal flexibility when dealing with solid waste and impose unfunded mandates on communities.

With the defeat of the expanded bottle bill last year, the beverage industry, environmentalists and some legislators are now focusing their efforts on imposing new recycling standards and mandates on cities and towns to reduce solid waste.

Many of the bills would burden municipalities with unfunded mandates, including new reporting standards, forcing communities to explain reasons for not meeting the standards, and requirements that communities reduce the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills. The bills have no such requirements for commercial or private haulers, however.

Municipalities in Massachusetts control only about 35 percent of all the disposal tonnage in the state, mostly residential. Approximately two-thirds of the estimated 5 million tons of trash in the state is generated by businesses and collected by the private sector, according to the Department of Environmental Protection.

Proposed legislation would require an increase in the quantity of residential solid waste that is recycled rather than increasing the quality or amount of “clean” material. The legislation would add cost burdens on municipalities and actually undermine the goal of reducing disposal tonnage because it would increase the amount of contamination in recycled material, and this material ultimately must be disposed of as solid waste.

Also on June 23, the MMA testified in support of legislation that would shift the burden of managing products from local governments to the producers who design and market the products. Such legislation includes a bill (S. 408) that would establish a statewide paint collection and recycling program for residents and businesses, operated and financed by the paint industry. Many cities and towns currently accept paint at their recycling facilities or provide annual household hazardous waste collection days. S. 408 would save cities and towns money while improving the safe management of leftover paint.

The MMA has testified in favor of similar legislation for the electronics industry.