Materials Management and Rural America, Part 2

October 2, 2018

October 2, 2018


Last week’s article, Materials Management and Rural America, Part 1, presented a broad overview of some of the issues facing rural and small towns in America. As found in a Wall Street Journal analysis of rural America, based upon a number of key measures of socioeconomic, the decline in our rural and small communities is accelerating.


An ongoing series posted on CityLab, however, points out that economic growth and opportunity is “not only uneven and unequal between urban and rural places; it is also uneven within them.” Thus, some rural and small communities are flourishing, just as some urban areas are growing and thriving, while other communities, rural and urban, are on the decline.


Working in a range of small and rural communities over the past decade, I’d tend to concur with CityLab’s conclusion.


Materials Management presents Opportunity


In a September 2018 Resource Recycling article, Looking Farther Afield, Natasha Duarte (Director of the Composting Association of Vermont) and I discuss food scrap diversion efforts in small towns and rural jurisdictions in Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont.

As presented in the article, effective strategic planning, dedication on the part of local stakeholders, and a focus on resident education and involvement has helped make food scrap diversion successful in a number of rural and small town communities. Similarly, just as in urban areas, small and rural communities can benefit greatly from effective implementation of source reduction, reuse, and recycling.

Beyond the potential economic benefits, materials management can help to build communities, bring citizens together, promote public participation, and help to spur a sense of community pride.


Vermont, a state comprised primarily of rural and small town communities, has become a national leader in materials management. To conserve space in its only landfill and reduce its carbon footprint, the Vermont Legislature adopted Act 148, the Vermont Universal Recycling Law, in 2012. Through a phased in time-line, the law bans disposal of the following major types of waste materials: “blue bin" recyclables, leaf and yard debris, clean wood, and food scraps.


Additionally, all towns were required by 2015 to adopt pay-as-you-throw waste collection systems. The ban on food scraps began in 2014 with the largest generators (greater than 104 tons per year), if the generator is located within 20 miles of a processing facility. The threshold has been lowered each subsequent year. By 2020, all food scrap generators, including residents, will be required to divert food scraps from disposal.


As noted in last week’s article, I live and work in Brattleboro, Vermont (population 12,000). The town is a mecca for those of us in materials management. Curbside recycling was started in the town long before I arrived. In 2013, with the urging of Triple T Trucking, the town’s contracted waste and recycling hauler, Brattleboro initiated a pilot curbside food scraps collection program.


The pilot went town-wide in 2014 with free curbside food scrap collection offered to all 5,300 households (including multi-family properties with up to four units). With the adoption of pay-as-you-throw trash disposal in July 2015, collection of food scraps more than doubled to 9.5 tons per week.


In 2016, the town became one of the few communities, small or large, to adopt every-other-week trash collection. Now Brattleboro is diverting 64 percent of its waste stream through recycling and organics diversion. Moreover, the Town of Brattleboro saves about $35,000 a year in reduced tip fees (landfill-tipping charges locally are $105 per ton).


Keeping organics local has also benefited the community. The Windham Solid Waste Management District compost facility (located in Brattleboro) processes 605 tons per year of food waste (and soiled paper) from the Brattleboro curbside collection, along with 627 tons per year of commercial and institutional food waste. The facility is a cash-positive operation. Residents can purchase compost at a relatively low cost; schools and other entities around the region have benefited from the District’s generous donation of compost.

Around Vermont, small and rural communities have certainly been aided in their waste diversion efforts by the formation of “waste management districts.” Utilizing fees paid by their member communities, as well as grants and fee-for-service programs, the districts help communities to reduce and divert waste, and provide information about trash, recycling, composting, and hazardous waste, including hauling services, drop-off centers, and more. The districts also provide technical assistance and training for businesses, schools, events, and residents in accordance with Vermont’s Universal Recycling Law.


For example, with support from a U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Services grant, the Central Vermont Solid Waste Management District helped establish two community food scrap composting sites. They are located at Quarry Hill, a low-income housing complex with 36 units in Barre and Franklin Street Home Owners Association, a condominium complex with 10 units in Montpelier.


In Massachusetts, another waste management district has become a leader in materials management in that state. The Franklin County Solid Waste Management District consists of 21 member towns in the less-populated western part of the state. The towns’ populations range from 378 to 8,455.


Twenty-five public schools in Franklin County, including seven high schools, have comprehensive recycling and cafeteria and kitchen food scrap composting programs. Additionally, eight other schools in the county collect food waste for animal feed at local farms. Only two schools in the county remain without food scrap diversion programs.


All twenty District transfer stations accept recyclables, eight of these accept food scraps and soiled paper from residents at no cost. Several also have swap sheds. Three "Super Sites" are permitted (and open year-round) to accept automotive products such as used motor oil, oil filters, transmission fluid, and anti-freeze; mercury-containing devices such as fluorescent lamps, button batteries, fever thermometers and thermostats; oil-based paints, thinners, lacquers, and other paint-related items; rechargeable nickel-cadmium batteries; and fluorescent lamp ballasts. The district also lends its special event signage and recycling and compost bins to over 40 special events each year.


These are just a few examples of how small and rural communities can offer comprehensive materials management programs. Many of these efforts, including reuse and food scrap diversion, can draw upon the strengths inherent in these communities. For example, diversion of food scraps for animal feed in agricultural areas. More on this topic in Part 3.



By Athena Lee Bradley

Share Post

Maryland Environmental Service

By Sophie Leone • November 17, 2025
Currently employing almost 800 individuals, Maryland Environmental Service (MES) was established by the Maryland General Assembly in 1970. The goal of its formation was to assist with the improvement, management, and preservation of the air, land, and water quality, natural resources, and to promote the welfare and health of the citizens in Maryland. Dedicated to helping Maryland communities, MES is currently working on over 1000 environmental projects across the state and the Mid-Atlantic Region. Tackling environmental solutions through environmental justice is of high priority, “in FY23 and FY24, MES supported the preparation, writing, and submission of grant applications totaling over 163M dollars, and provided letters of support for many others.” NERC is thrilled to welcome Maryland Environmental Service as members. The work they do toward environmental justice and the help they provide their communities is a testament to their dedication. We look forward to supporting the important work they do. For more information on Maryland Environmental Service visit .

From Waste to Worth: Highlights from the Rethink Resource Use Conference

By Angelina Ruiz • November 7, 2025
The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) held their annual event from October 7 – 8 in Boston, MA. Renamed the Rethink Resource Use Conference, the name reflects an update in the approach of managing materials and discussing key strategies to drive sustainable practices forward in communities. “The new name, Rethink Resource Use, makes us consider how we can leave a more positive impact. NERC brings together professionals from across the materials management chain to improve management practices and ensure the health of the people and the environment. The event aims to mobilize others to take action and engage people in recycling programs, community engagement, trends, and more,” said NERC’s Executive Director, Megan Schulz-Fontes. Gathering together leaders from academia, government, and the sustainable materials industry, the conference was a great way to reconnect through networking and learning opportunities. RRU DAY ONE Material Shifts and New Terrain On Tuesday morning, October 7, Schulz-Fontes welcomed attendees to Boston and expressed that she was looking forward to having meaningful discussions and making connections with people around the industry. With great speakers from across the world, a wide range of important topics would be covered from innovations in infrastructure to technology. She also thanked talented colleagues who evaluated this event and made it even better, welcomed emerging professionals, and emphasized that it is important to acknowledge that human practices are shifting and evolving, and new programs and regulations are coming online to address the growing waste problem. We need to safeguard public health and biodiversity to help life on earth. Schulz-Fontes then introduced John Fischer, Deputy Division Director for Solid Waste Materials Management for the Massachusetts’ Department of Environmental Protection, who made the opening remarks, reflecting on Massachusetts’ Solid Waste master plan. He pointed out that they set an aggressive reduction goal—to reduce 1.7 tons of waste by 2030. While they have seen progress in certain areas, waste has continued to rise. So, they are reviewing it now to see how they can shift elements for greater progress. Massachusetts has been successful in food waste reduction (from small businesses and residents) with a waste disposal ban and recycling market grants, as well as loans to try to build the infrastructure. He said they have also seen success in their mattress disposal ban and an increase in textile recovery since implementation in 2022. There is also a long-standing disposal ban on construction waste to ensure more effective separation. In 2020, diversion was at 15% and increased to 20% in 2025. They would like to get to 30% by 2030. Fischer also pointed out that the Massachusetts DEP needs to take a comprehensive approach and grow market funding. They have collaborated with state and local health officials to create best practices with food containers and replace single waste food service ware to reusables. There are growing suites of market recycling program grants, including market reduction innovation grants launched this year. Smaller and more flexible grants could grow waste diversion over time and help facilities grow at scale. He said that while they are looking at doing the best they can to manage waste, the goal is to learn from colleagues in other states and in the business communities. David Allaway, Senior Policy Analyst, from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, gave the keynote address, first pointing out that about 20 years ago, they started taking a deeper look at their solid waste and recycling program and the connection with the waste and climate situation. Because of that, it caused a shift in programming. Going back to 2004, the Department was tasked with looking at solid waste management opportunities—recycling and waste prevention was primarily reducing in other states but not Oregon. The community was ready for climate protection, but emissions reductions don’t count. That was the beginning of Oregon’s Consumption-Based Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory (CBEI) and the results were an eye opener and the inventory has been updated since to look at current trends. The key takeaways from this was that all studies point in the same direction—materials matter! The production and use of materials does have a profound impact on our environment. Most impacts occur upstream of use and disposal. Recycling and composting can be helpful but alone are insufficient. From this, Oregon’s 2050 Vision and Framework for Action was born. This also included end of life materials. Allaway explained that the legislative report and technical supports were published last fall. For Oregon: Materials are driving growth in emissions Most emissions occur pre-purchase (most in food and vehicles and parts) Sector based emissions have flattened while consumption-based emissions have grown Emissions are out of state but not out of reach Oregon Comprehensive Climate Action Plan (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and Solid Waste Management) includes: Landfill methane reductions Recycling improvements Expand composting Prevent wasting of food Plant-rich diets Upstream packaging EPR Reduce embodies carbon He pointed out that not all materials are equally beneficial to recycling, and not all recycling pathways are equally beneficial. Maximizing recycling is not the same as optimizing recycling. Lifecycle impacts versus material attributes begs the question; how well do popular material attributes correlate with reduced environmental impacts? When comparing different packages based on recyclability, recyclable packages are better for the environment, however, downstream impacts must be taken into consideration. Recycling and composting are a means to an end—the conservation of resources and reduction of pollution, however, not all are effective. Design your programs to maximize them instead of just chasing tonnage diversion targets. Is education effective? It depends on how recycling is communicated and how local authorities think about it and treat it. Whether it is advanced through policy through broader benefits, it depends on you and what choices you make and the paths take in the coming years. Discussions on EPR After the welcome remarks and morning keynote, focus turned to “EPR for Packaging State of Mind: Lessons and Progress in the Northeast” Moderated by Kevin Budris, Deputy Director for Just Zero, the discussion featured Jason Bergquist, Vice President of U.S. Operations for RecycleMe; Erin Victor, PhD, Member of the Senator George J Mitchell Center Research Team at the University of Maine; Shannon McDonald, Natural Resource Planner at the Maryland Department of the Environment; and David Allaway, Senior Policy Analyst for Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Bergquist kicked it off by talking about the current EPR landscape in the U.S. Seven EPR packaging bills have been passed and 10 states have introduced legislation for EPR for packaging from 2024 to 2025; this number continues to rise. Those that have been signed into law include Oregon and Maine (2021), Colorado and California (2022), Minnesota (2024), and Washington and Maryland (2025), with implementation ranging from July 2025 to July 2029. California has the most ambitious goals—by 2032 100% of all packaging must be recyclable or compostable, 65% of all single-use plastic packaging to be recycled, and there should be a 25% reduction in packaging. He said that challenges producers face in the west are when is a producer a producer, when is a package a package, where should the focus be (fees, targets, modulation plans). There are always different definitions, two different scopes, bottle bill vs non-bottle bill, primary, secondary, tertiary—which is in scope? Victor covered the research she’s been doing the past couple of years. Her research approach included a qualitative case study of the emergence of Maine’s EPR for packaging legislation situated within a larger 24-month ethnographic research project on the politics of disposable packaging. Maine is a primarily rural state and much of it relies on drop off centers. However, the state has yet to meet the 50% waste diversion goal, so something more needs to be done. She did explain that there have been disruptions to Maine’s materials management system that have been a challenge: centralized waste planning agencies disbanded, Green Fence/National Sword, COVID, and the shuttering of the Coastal Resource of Maine facility in Hampden. Maine’s packaging journey started in 2019 when the DEP recommended EPR for packaging. In 2021, the state passed the first in the nation EPR law, the rules were adopted in 2024, and in 2025, the goal is to define ‘readily recyclable’ and selecting a stewardship organization. She emphasized that it is critical to have a strong commitment to stakeholder outreach, maintain municipal operational control over materials management, look at the need for more transparent and robust data and the burden of reporting (for both producers and municipalities), and consider what elements of packaging regulation to address through market-based approaches versus command-and-control regulations. Fortunately, LD1423 was introduced this year which really updated and harmonized the program. She said that she is currently working on estimating the impact of tradeoffs in U.S. EPR rulemaking scenarios. Read the full article on Waste Advantage.

Pressurized Cylinder Industry Association

By Sophie Leone • October 29, 2025
The Pressurized Cylinder Industry Association is a 501C(6) trade association comprised of leading pressurized cylinder producers. They are “working to advance industry interests through advocacy, sustainable stewardship development, education, and innovative collaboration on shared challenges that impact our industry, our customers, and consumers.” Advocacy, Sustainable Stewardship, Education, and innovation are the pillars of the work they do, including collaborating with state legislators, regulatory officials, and other industry associations, particularly related to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy work. To expand their impact on EPR legislation, PCIA established a nonprofit Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) called the Cylinder Collective, which recently launched its first cylinder collection program in the State of Connecticut. “The passage of the legislation in CT, as well as the subsequent implementation of the CT statewide cylinder collection program, allowed PCIA and its staff to gain experience in developing the local partnerships required to implement sustainable solutions at the local level.” David Keeling, Executive Director, Pressurized Cylinder Industry Association and The Cylinder Collective. NERC is thrilled to welcome the Pressurized Cylinder Industry Association to our diverse group of trade association members. We look forward to supporting their industry work and education efforts through collaboration and action. For more information on the Pressurized Cylinder Industry Association visit .