Connecticut’s Trash Crisis

Image Source: Connecticut Public

We don’t often think about what happens to our trash after we toss it to the curb. But when problems arise in our waste disposal systems, we are forced to focus on one of the most important functions of local government and a major environmental issue. After the closure of the Materials Innovation and Recycling Authority (MIRA) waste-to-energy power plant in Hartford this past July that left hundreds of thousands of tons of trash with nowhere to go, Connecticut has been forced to reckon with the waste it produces and how to handle it long-term. The introduction of HB 6664, a new bill proposed by Governor Ned Lamont to reform Connecticut’s waste management systems, has put a spotlight on the state’s “solid waste crisis” and the debate between state officials, municipal governments, trash haulers, recycling companies, retailers, and consumers over what to do about it.

The average Connecticut resident produces about four pounds of trash a day and three-quarters of a ton of trash a year, creating almost 2.4 million tons total across the state. Of that 2.4 million, 1.5 can be incinerated to produce electricity in the four waste-to-energy plants that remain in Connecticut after MIRA’s closure. The remaining 860,000 tons must now be shipped out of state, traveling either three hours by truck to a landfill in Pennsylvania or by rail to one in Ohio. Under these conditions, Connecticut now sends more trash beyond its borders than any state besides New Jersey. This arrangement serves no one—it’s expensive for taxpayers, it prevents the state from reaping the economic benefits created by waste management infrastructure, and it pollutes the environment. 

When HB 6664 was proposed in February, it set a goal of total in-state waste management by 2033. It aims to reduce the waste stream, mandating that communities eliminate food waste by increasing the availability of food scrap collection and composting programs. It also asserts that the state government will invest in (as yet unspecified) new waste management infrastructure. Especially controversial is the bill’s call for widespread implementation of extended producer responsibility (EPR), under which companies are responsible for the waste created by their products and must fund “stewardship programs” to recycle them. The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) advocates that these changes will make waste disposal costs more predictable for municipalities and give the state more control over its progress towards sustainability goals. 

HB 6664 has faced its share of criticism. Recycling plant owners and trash haulers have denounced EPR, which they fear would encourage powerful corporations to push them out of business. They argue that DEEP’s statements misrepresent how much EPR would decrease waste and don’t acknowledge that EPR might make recycling “less reliable and more expensive,” with companies’ costs being passed down to retailers and consumers through increases in the prices of goods. Environmentalists also have qualms about EPR; some worry that HB 6664 doesn’t go far enough in regulating companies, which might be able to lobby to set standards that suit their interests rather than those of citizens and the environment. They are concerned that involving large corporations so intimately in recycling infrastructure could take power away from state environmental agencies like DEEP. Cash-strapped municipalities also resent the imposition of fees on an expensive process. Because of this resistance, legislators have already changed the bill, delaying implementation of EPR until neighboring states adopt it and removing a proposed $5 fee for every ton of trash sent out of state.

Despite the controversy, this HB 6664 represents an important step towards state-level action on issues of waste management. Historically, Connecticut towns have been left to fend for themselves without state policy or support, resulting in inefficiencies due to a lack of coordination. Some towns have managed to implement successful programs; for example, Stonington has administered pay-as-you-throw trash collection, where rather than a flat tax, residents pay based on how much or little trash they dispose of. The program’s success is clear—the average Stonington resident produces half as much trash as people in the rest of the state. But for many towns, it has been difficult to find the funds or manpower for sustainability initiatives. The new bill, along with grant money for food waste projects now available through DEEP, may signify a turning point.

HB 6664 is the most ambitious plan to limit waste in Connecticut in more than a decade, but the issue of waste management is a thorny one. Reports of haulers making a profit by mixing carefully divided trash and recycling and questions surrounding whether recycling is even possible on a scale large enough to matter can make significant waste reduction feel hopeless. But there are indications that this is a step in the right direction. Similar tactics have worked in Vermont; through mandates and infrastructure expansion, the state has been able to entirely ban food waste disposal. Diverting food waste could help support the development of more facilities like Quantum Biopower, a plant in Southington that uses food scraps to produce both compost and electricity to power part of the town. And EPR has proven successful in keeping plastic out of landfills in parts of Europe and Canada. While not the most glamorous of political issues, better waste management is integral to a sustainable future and requires efforts from consumers, producers, and government at all levels to seek solutions. 

References

Condon, Tom. 2022. “With Trash Plant Closing, CT Rethinks Waste Policy.” CT Mirror. May 3, 2022. https://ctmirror.org/2022/05/03/with-trash-plant-closing-ct-rethinks-waste-policy-mira-hartford/.

‌Crowley, Brendan. 2023. “Trash Haulers and Recyclers Voice Opposition to Lamont’s Trash Reduction Plan.” CT Examiner. March 1, 2023. https://ctexaminer.com/2023/02/28/trash-haulers-and-recyclers-voice-opposition-to-lamonts-trash-reduction-plan/.

Dylan, Jonah. 2022. “What’s next for Closed Hartford Trash Plant? Officials Say Future Still Uncertain.” CT Insider. October 2, 2022. https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/Hartford-MIRA-trash-plant-17473686.php.

“FAQs - Recycling Program.” n.d. CT.gov - Connecticut’s Official State Website. Accessed April 25, 2023. https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/Reduce-Reuse-Recycle/FAQs---Recycling-Program#:~:text=In%20Connecticut%2C%20most%20of%20our.

‌“Is CT Recycling Going into the Trash? Some Haulers Caught in the Act.” 2023. Connecticut Public. February 27, 2023. https://www.ctpublic.org/2023-02-27/is-ct-recycling-going-into-the-trash-some-haulers-caught-in-the-act. 

Spiegel, Jan Ellen. 2022. “Best of 2022: Efforts to Get Food out of CT Waste Stream Find More Support.” CT Mirror. December 28, 2022. https://ctmirror.org/2022/12/28/ct-food-waste-trash-stream/.

‌Sullivan, Laura. 2022. “Recycling Plastic Is Practically Impossible — and the Problem Is Getting Worse.” NPR.org, October 24, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/10/24/1131131088/recycling-plastic-is-practically-impossible-and-the-problem-is-getting-worse#:~:text=While%2052%25%20of%20recycling%20facilities.