For miles around Rhode Island’s Central Landfill, the air often smells like rotten eggs.  In the Landfill, garbage degrades and gives off a gas that is part hydrogen sulfide (which produces the rotten-egg smell), part volatile organic compounds (which can cause cancer), and part methane (a potent greenhouse gas).  At well-run landfills, collection systems capture enough of this gas to avoid creating health and environmental hazards.  Here in Rhode Island, though, something is wrong.

That’s why yesterday CLF’s Rhode Island office notified companies associated with the Landfill that we intend to sue for violations of the federal Clean Air Act.

After a thorough investigation, we figured out that two companies – Broadrock Gas Services and its subsidiary Rhode Island LFG Genco – are not collecting landfill gas like they are supposed to be doing.  Instead, they have allowed part of their gas collection system to become submerged in water.  The gas that is not and cannot be captured by these underwater collectors instead escapes to the air we breathe.  We can tell for sure that gas is escaping because federal regulations don’t allow the air at a landfill’s surface to contain more than 500 parts per million of methane (above background levels in the air), but readings at the Landfill have been as high as 72,900.  By failing to capture harmful landfill gas, the companies have violated the Clean Air Act.

Broadrock and Genco have also been in the news lately for venting landfill gas or some byproduct directly into the atmosphere from a pipe rigged with a broom handle and held together with duct tape.  By venting this gas directly from a pipe to the air, the companies have again violated the Clean Air Act.

As the owner of the Landfill, Rhode Island Resource Recovery is legally responsible for Broadrock and Genco’s violations.  CLF Rhode Island has also learned that Resource Recovery has been operating the Landfill for the last sixteen years without a federally required permit.  By requiring Resource Recovery to get this long-missing permit – which should apply to Broadrock and Genco’s operations too – we hope to bring comprehensive oversight and a clear division of responsibilities to the Landfill.

Now that we’ve notified Broadrock, Genco, and Resource Recovery that we intend to sue – a formal step required by the Clean Air Act before initiating a citizen suit – we have to wait sixty days before filing a complaint in federal court.  But we can start negotiating to fix the problem immediately.  The recent discovery that Broadrock and Genco have been venting raw landfill gas into the air – and the landfill gas explosion that happened a few days ago – let us know that the situation is truly urgent.  And CLF Rhode Island’s notices are a strong first step in getting landfill gas under control here in Rhode Island, stopping the release of harmful pollutants, and making that pervasive rotten-egg smell go away for good.

[Read CLF Rhode Island’s notice of intent to sue here.]

Burying our garbage in landfills is a waste of resources, but it’s also a convenient way to get rid of stuff we don’t need or want. If there were clear alternatives to trashing our resources, would we use them? The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) believes the answer is yes.

The DEP has finalized new rules that provide a permitting pathway for operations that process source separated materials – stuff like food waste or recyclable plastics that are not mixed with other wastes in the general trash stream. Source separated materials are distinguished from “waste”, so qualifying facilities will not be permitted as solid waste facilities. Previously a facility that sought to collect discarded material for recycling or some other reuse was considered a solid waste facility. This created barriers to the productive use of materials like food waste. The new regulations are a good step toward better management of our discarded materials.

Under the new rules, finalized November 23, DEP has created three size-based categories:

1. Small facilities (no permit required)
2. General permit facilities (certain activities permitted by-right)
3. Facilities that will require a new Recycling, Composting, and Conversion (RCC) permit

The good news is that these rules create a permitting pathway for anaerobic digestion (AD) facilities. AD is a process in which organic material, like food waste, is processed in an airtight container to create a gas similar to natural gas (high in methane). AD facilities can use the gas to fuel energy generators to create electricity and heat that can be used onsite or sold in the energy market.

AD facilities, if properly sited and appropriately operated, offer a win-win by managing food waste and generating a renewable gas for energy production. Rather than putting our food waste into a landfill where it does more harm than good, the energy in the food can be efficiency recovered for productive use.

“But what about composting?” you may be asking. DEP’s goals, as stated in the current draft Solid Waste Master Plan, include diverting 350,000 tons of organic waste per year from landfills. Some of this will be accomplished by AD facilities, but some diversion will be accomplished by composting. The new rules clarify which operations are permitted by DEP and which are permitted by the Department of Agricultural Resources (DAR).

Whether we create high quality fertilizers and soil amendments through composting, or energy and fertilizer through AD, we will be diverting organic material from landfill disposal. DEP’s new rules are a step in the right direction to better manage our resources for economic advantage and environmental gain.

Recently, Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation attempted to make recycling easier for Rhode Islanders by creating “single-stream recycling.” Now households do not have to separate paper from plastic – everything can go in the same bin and other items can also now be recycled, such as plastic cups, tissue paper and just about any plastic container 2 gallons or less in volume. Sounds simple and great, right? Sadly, it hasn’t caught on yet.

The state’s recycling rate is still only at 15.9 percent. And the state’s largest city, Providence, is at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to recycling at all. With the lowest rate of diverting materials from the Central Landfill (18.2%), Providence is bringing down the state’s overall recycling rate. To see how your city or town is doing visit this website.

Providence Mayor Angel Taveras has stepped up to the plate by launching the Neighborhood Recycling Challenge (running until September 7) to get more neighborhoods to recycle.  Five “teams” or neighborhoods will be competing for five new trees and a neighborhood barbeque if they improve their recycling rate by the largest margin. The goal is to get the recycling rate up to 25 percent.  It’s not only better for the environment; the city saves $250,000 in recycling costs.

For those living in Rhode Island: help your neighborhood, your city, and your environment. Get your recycle game on.

Creative Commons image courtesy of BenandAsho on Flickr

We throw away a lot of food. Sometimes the scraps are inedible, like banana peels. Sometimes we forget about things in the refrigerator until we notice the smell. And sometimes our eyes are just bigger than our stomachs. Regardless of the reason, a lot of food scraps end up in our trash and ultimately the landfill. This is a wasted opportunity to realize environmental and economic benefits by using food scraps to improve soil health and generate renewable energy.

By diverting food scraps to other uses, such as generating energy and creating compost, we avoid the need to expand landfills in the state or transport waste long distances to out-of-state facilities. When food scraps and other organic matter decompose in landfills, they produce methane gas, a potent contributor to climate change. So diverting food scraps from landfills also helps us meet the state’s aggressive greenhouse-gas emission reduction goals.

To realize these benefits, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is supporting public and private investment in a new kind of infrastructure for managing organic materials. But for this new infrastructure to succeed, DEP and the project developers that will build and operate this infrastructure need to convince the public that food scraps are not garbage, but something else entirely.

The DEP is currently working on an action plan for managing Massachusetts’s organic waste. The state needs a plan, because it has set lofty goals to divert organic material from landfill disposal to be used in other processes. The state’s draft Solid Waste Master Plan calls for diverting 35% of food waste, estimated to be about 350,000 tons of material per year. This goal is echoed by the Clean Energy Results Program, which sets a further goal of 50 megawatts of installed capacity of renewable energy from aerobic and anaerobic digestion facilities by 2020. And let’s not forget the proposal to ban commercial food waste from Massachusetts landfills in 2014. These are great goals, because diverting organic material out of the solid waste stream provides opportunities for economic development that can improve the environmental impacts of solid waste management, and now DEP is developing the plan to make sure we get there.

The plan aims to ensure that organic “waste” isn’t wasted in a landfill. It calls for a few things:

• Gathering better and more current information about sources of food waste,
• Providing funding and technical assistance to work out the logistics of separating food waste from the actual trash, and
• Working with haulers to move this material to appropriate processing facilities.

There are also provisions for funding and technical assistance to facilitate the construction of additional processing infrastructure, like anaerobic digestion (AD) facilities, and to develop good markets for the resulting products.

Organics diversion presents an economic opportunity for cash-strapped municipalities to save money through reduced trash fees. It also allows developers – municipal or private – to generate revenue by using “waste” organics as inputs for marketable products like compost and other soil amendments and as a source of clean, renewable heat and electricity. At a time when municipal budgets are facing historic shortfalls and municipalities are seeking means of both cutting costs and creating revenue, this is surely a good thing.

DEP’s draft action plan is a progressive, proactive approach to organics management, but it’s missing something very important. It provides much-needed support and direction for people and organizations that are already proponents of better organic material management and will help project proponents navigate the technical and regulatory processes to achieve success. But what about the majority of people who likely have no idea that the DEP is interested in doing something dramatically different with organic waste?

This action plan and DEP efforts to date on this issue do little to address the very real need for public engagement and outreach to help citizens and businesses understand the good reasons for organics diversion. These include:

• Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions through improved methane utilization;
• Generating renewable energy from anaerobic digestion; and
• Producing nutrient-rich soil amendments through composting.

The intersection of waste management and energy development is more complex than either of these individual business sectors taken on their own. For instance, energy facilities such as anaerobic digesters, which use “waste” materials as inputs to generate energy, face the siting hurdles typically encountered by both energy and waste facilities. Public concerns with other renewable energy technologies, such as wind and solar, have emerged relatively recently, but communities and individuals have been fighting against landfills and transfer stations for a very long time.

Today, forward-thinking people and businesses are beginning to talk about “materials management” rather than “waste management,” and those on the inside know what we mean by that. But most people don’t currently make the distinction, especially when the materials in question are leftover food and other organics that can rot. In the case of a proposed anaerobic digestion facility, the result is often a contested siting process. While AD proponents see facilities that will produce clean energy and environmentally beneficial soil products, opponents are concerned about siting waste incinerators, trash transfer stations, and toxic sludge.

The DEP, along with other state agencies such as the Department of Agriculture and Department of Energy Resources, is pushing to change the way “waste” materials are managed in Massachusetts. This is a good thing for economic development and the environmental performance of our materials-based economy. However, many people will not readily accept the subtle changes in regulatory definitions that distinguish separated materials from mixed solid waste. With these changes, materials that formerly had to be permitted as solid waste (trash) and processed at a permitted solid waste facility are no longer legally considered trash, so they can be processed at a composting or AD facility without a solid waste permit. I’m very happy this distinction is being made for organic material, but I know that many other people will consider this just another form of garbage disposal.

An action plan to encourage better organic materials management through diversion to composting and digestion needs to include significant resources to engage stakeholders around the Commonwealth to have open and honest conversations about the wide-ranging benefits, the potential pitfalls, and what everyone needs to know to avoid problems.

There is no reason to continue to dump organic material into landfills and many reasons to get everyone on board with using this material to generate more economic value and more environmental benefits for Massachusetts. But we can’t just “dot the i’s and cross the t’s” on the permit applications; we have to engage with people and navigate the changes in a collaborative and productive way. Diverting organic material from landfills can lead to a host of economic, environmental, and community benefits, but anyone who thinks changing the system will be as easy as selecting a site, telling the neighbors about the benefits, and awaiting approval and praise is in for a rude awakening. CLF Ventures looks forward to working with communities and project proponents to engage in open, clear discussions of the real impacts and benefits of organics management facilities so that all stakeholders share the same understanding of the issues and speak with the same terminology.

Earlier this week the Maine Department of Environmental Protection made a formal determination that Maine would benefit from an expansion of the state-owned Juniper Ridge Landfill located in Old Town. In doing so, it cut in half what the State and Juniper’s private manager Casella Waste Systems Inc.’s subsidiary NEWSME had asked for, authorizing an expansion that would increase capacity of the landfill by up to 9.35 million cubic yards, thereby adding ten-plus years of capacity. By cutting the proposal down to size, the DEP sent the clear message that it doesn’t want Maine to continue to be the dumping ground for New England’s waste. That relatively conservative approach is a good start but more work needs to be done to define the role of Juniper and other landfills and to fully address other flaws in Maine’s waste management system.

CLF opposed the Juniper expansion largely because an approval of the 20 years of landfill capacity proposed would have amounted to a surrender to the forces that are keeping Maine’s recycling rate down, limiting our reuse of waste as compost or for other beneficial purposes and driving (literally) Maine and out-of state waste to be disposed of in Juniper and other landfills in the state. So did this decision have the State only half capitulating to Casella and its waste partners?

The answer to that question is complicated and it is still too early to know for certain, but some things are clear at this point. There is no doubt that this decision indicates that the Maine DEP is willing to continue to make landfills a centerpiece of its waste management regime. However, that does not necessarily mean that it intends for Juniper and other landfills to be the option of first resort for our trash. Indeed, the DEP decision justifies its reduction in the expansion size by citing to the potential negative impacts that a fully expanded Juniper Ridge would have had on initiatives to encourage waste reduction, reuse and recycling. To its credit, DEP also implies that it will seek to eliminate disincentives in the tipping fees charged by Juniper that have the effect of making landfill disposal less costly than processing or composting waste as well as to limit the practice of disposing of massive quantities of construction and demolition debris processing residues at Juniper. DEP should be encouraged to aggressively pursue these efforts.

There are also positive indications in the DEP decision that it would like to change the 10-year solid waste status quo in Maine. The Department’s findings seem to encourage statutory changes that would limit the landfilling of waste from other states by redefining what is considered out-of-state waste. It also gives implied support for a statutory waste fee structure that would serve as an incentive to limit imported waste and to increase our beneficial reuse and recycling of garbage. Finally, DEP uses its authority in this decision to place some specific limitations on the manner in which Juniper in managed, by limiting the amount of both unprocessed waste and construction and demolition debris that can be disposed of each year at Juniper and by requiring audits designed to keep Casella honest and operating more for the benefit of Mainers than its own bottom line. These are needed improvements.

So despite the DEP’s decision to allow NEWSME to pursue an expansion of Juniper Ridge, there is some reason for hope in addressing the many remaining issues on the solid waste to-do list of the DEP, the Legislature and the Governor. At a minimum, the list contained in the DEP’s decision should be expanded to include: a meaningful increase in fees charged by the state for waste disposal at any landfill to fund recycling programs and disincent land disposal; re-establish and invigorate municipal recycling programs that create jobs, save towns money and reduce our waste; and, establish caps on the amount of solid waste that can be disposed of annually in Maine landfills to limit disposal and avoid the importation of waste by our waste to energy facilities, the residues of which fill our landfills. These actions would sufficiently counterbalance an expansion of Juniper Ridge to ensure that it is only one piece of a larger and more forward thinking strategy.

The state of Maine is steadily moving forward in its quest to potentially purchase an East Millinocket landfill as part of an effort to save two paper mills that are responsible for hundreds of jobs in the Katahdin region.  The State’s rationale is that in order for the mills to be acquired and reopened by a new company, the liability of the landfills that have been the recipient of waste from the mills for decades must be separated from the mills themselves.

While the intent of the State to try and resurrect the source of up to 600 jobs in the Katahdin region is a good one, this action brings to mind the old saw that “the path to hell is paved with good intentions.” If the state were to acquire the landfills, the facility’s operations and maintenance costs alone are estimated to be a minimum of $250,000 a year.  Those costs pale in comparison to the estimated $17 million to clean up and close the landfills (which only have a few years of capacity left) and does not include costs to clean up groundwater or soils contaminated by more than two decades of unpermitted landfill leachate (liquid that moves through or drains from the landfill) that has been discharged into the groundwater and surface waters in the region, discharges that are ongoing and in violation of both state and federal laws.

CLF raised these concerns in a letter to the Legislature’s Environment and Natural Resources Committee last week, and called for the Committee to thoroughly explore the liability issues the state might incur as a result of purchasing the landfill, as well as how the State would provide funding to properly close and clean up the contamination associated with the landfill. Right now, the state has no dedicated source of funds to meet those costs. In addition, there is a potential constitutional issue concerning the State’s ability to take on such a large liability without a two-thirds vote of support in the Legislature and approval by the people.  CLF will continue to review this issue and determine whether or not action is necessary to address the issue of unpermitted discharges with the DEP and the Legislature.

So the 100% biodegradable packaging that PepsiCo uses for its Sun Chips snacks is going away because … well, isn’t it obvious?!

PepsiCo is taking the no-waste, completely compostable, producer-finally-taking-responsibility-for-the- waste-it generates packaging off the shelves because WE complained that the packaging makes too much noise. It is hard to believe that we as consumers would make the conscious effort NOT to buy a product simply because the part of the product that we usually throw away is too loud. The trash trucks barreling down the side streets to pick up garbage (not too loud), the people living near landfills raising their voices to complain about rodents and odors and air quality (not too loud), citizen voices raised in anger to complain about higher taxes to pay for the higher costs associated with disposal of trash (not too loud), but a socially responsible package, designed to reduce our carbon footprint, our trash footprint, our costs …too loud?

It’s time to shut up and make some noise! Be Loud, Be Proud … and, p.s. buy a composter.

Do you care about trash (or lack thereof)? Join CLF’s Trash Talk campaign. Listen for us on  95.5 WBRU or become a fan of the  Trash Talk Landfill on Facebook.