The document summarizes Massachusetts' solid waste master plan and challenges. It discusses the state's shrinking disposal capacity and difficulties siting new facilities. It also provides details about the integrated solid waste management system in Bourne, including a landfill, recycling programs, and a proposed anaerobic digestion project. Recommendations include developing a state waste plan through the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, improving interagency cooperation, and supporting new infrastructure development.

1. Massachusetts
Solid Waste Master Plan
A Broader Viewpoint
Phil Goddard
Bourne Department of Integrated Solid Waste Management

2. Outline
SWMP Introduction
Current challenges MA
Pros and Cons with SWMP and
Implementation
Bourne- Lessons Learned
Recommendations for improvement

3. Solid Waste Master Plan
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter
16, Section 21, requires the Department
of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
to develop and maintain a
comprehensive statewide master plan
for solid waste management, which the
agency updates on a ten-year planning
cycle.

4. Solid Waste Master Plan
(6) to the extent disposal is identified
as not taking place in any current or
future year at such sites, the options
available to local public bodies for
disposal at such sites or alternative
means …

5. Current Challenges
 MA is facing a shrinking disposal capacity;
serious shortfall looming
 Markets for recyclables are in flux; processors
struggling at both SSR and C&D facilities
 Planning and building new facilities of all types
is a challenge
 Financing
 Siting
 Community support
 Permitting

6. Current Challenges
MA is essentially an island; increasing
export a reality
Rail haul to Ohio is growing
Not prepared for disruptions to the
system
Outages, fires, capacity choke points,
natural disasters

7. Key Questions
 Do we want to control our own fate?
 Who will build and operate facilities with local
and state governments deferring?
 What if the private sector opts out?
 What role can the state play from the cabinet
level on down?
 Are we willing to rely on export?
 Price increases, taxes, availability of railcars or
long haul trucking

8. Pros
Nation-leading policy initiatives
Open to new technologies
Grant programs
Education
MAC support in the field
Environmental regulations
Stakeholder involvement

9. Cons
 Permitting pathway difficult for developers
 Lack of coordination between agencies and media
(air, solid waste, water)
 Policy doesn’t always translate into action
 DEP doesn’t control all the factors
 Extent of the need not always framed fully
 Focus is mostly on household trash
 Less on Ash, Non-MSW items, ICI wastes
 Disaster debris
 Data is incomplete

10. Bourne ISWM
 Fully integrated solid waste management system, hence
the name “ISWM”
 Residential recycling center (DPW collects at curbside weekly)
 Composting
 Landfilling (219,000 TPY potentially available until approximately 2035);
focused on managing ash currently, 30,000 TPY for MSW and soils
 C&D transfer for processing
 Single stream recyclables transfer station (formerly a baling facility)
 Gross revenue for FY ‘16 ~ $12.75 million
 Contributes approximately $2 million a year in savings and
cash to the General Fund

11. Bourne Landfill circa 1972

12. Bourne Landfill circa 1996

13. Bourne ISWMF 2018

14. Residential Recycling Center

15. Residential Recycling Center and
C&D Transfer Station

16. Single Stream Recyclables Transfer Station

17. Phase 5 liner, fall 2016

18. The Landfill will close. The “site” can be active forever.
{------limited life------} {--forever--}

19. Harvest Power Project
 RFP led to a 25-year lease for AD, SSO, FOG, biosolids
 HP to finance, build and operate
 Purchase our LFG, make biogas, mix to make 4-5 mW
 Town invested about $400,000
 Town helped change carve-out for renewable energy
contracts at DOER to include mixed LFG and biogas
 DEP grant for $30,000 for lease
 DEP grant for $350,000 for infrastructure (rescinded)

20. Harvest Power Project
Conflicting emissions policies for LFG
and biogas
Increased risk and cost to HP
About $.07/kwh
Eversource rejected bid
HP terminated lease, no PPA

21. Current Status
Maximizing full use of the landfill up to
2035
Maximizing all of the site for potential
solid waste handling operations beyond
the life of the landfill
Looking at other technologies, including
enhanced composting

22. Potential site master plan 2035

23. Lessons Learned
 Start early with all the key stakeholders
 Do it inside out; ask the tough questions now
 Create a roadmap but be willing to adjust
 Get commitments from various boards etc.
 Budget- allow for 2-3 fiscal years

24. Lessons Learned
 Think logistics and process, not just strategic goals
 Expect obstacles and have support from leadership
 Devote time to managing relationships – CRITICAL
 Identify assets: land, permits, infrastructure, power/heat users
 Identify what vendors need
 Look for ways to help

25. Recommendations
Have a SWMP that is from the Executive
Office of Energy and Environmental
Affairs (EEA); cabinet level.
Include all relevant agencies in EEA and
outside too
 DAR, DOER, DPU, DCAM, DOT
Clear understanding of pragmatic
realities, not just lofty goals

26. Recommendations
 Intermedia cooperation on policy goals
 Air, solid waste, water
 Better data. Reinstate the Data Subcommittee and
coordinate with the DEP contractor
 Mass balance approach for all materials matched
with disposal facilities, transfer facilities, processing
facilities
 Plan in context of where our waste goes and could go
from Canada to Ohio to South Carolina and Virginia
 Coordinate with other states at the cabinet level

27. Recommendations
 Support those that build, own, operate infrastructure
 Think like a developer and create a complete
pathway to success
 Inside-out approach; start at goal and back out what
it will take
 Legislators need to be better educated about facilities
 Better prepare municipalities for changes and options
 MA needs to improve leading by example
 DOT glass, asphalt shingles, loam
 DCAM recycling clean gypsum

28. Recommendations
Chart progress more often
Continuous improvement

29. It will take all of us
 Regulators
 Engineers
 Educators
 Politicians and local boards
 Lawyers
 Community liaisons and the general public
 Business leaders
 You can play a role
 SWANA.org, Massrecycle.org
 Recycling Committees, other local boards

30. We need infrastructure of all types
 Recycling, re-purposing facilities, composting,
collection, energy generation, new technologies
 Landfills will likely always be needed
 Soils
 Residuals (recycling, C&D)
 Bulky, difficult-to-manage
 Backup for outages
 Storm debris
 Special wastes

31. Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate
Image source: Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate
Built on an old dump. Soils from the excavation were
managed at the Bourne landfill.

32. Contact Information
pgoddard@townofbourne.com
508-759-0600, extension 4241

33. Questions?