HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 Recycling Task Force - Report to Mayor and BPW on A Recycling Program in the City of Ithaca 1
I
Report to the Mayor and the Board of Public Works
On Options and Considerations for Designing and Implementing
A Recycling Program in the City of Ithaca
Prepared by Lynn Leopold
Education Coordinator, ITHACA RECYCLES
September 18, 1986
(Revised, November 4, 1986)
2
I. RATIONALE FOR RECYCLING.
What are we going to do with our trash? This is not an idle
question now being asked by communities throughout the United States
and for which there are few simple answers. Gone are the days when we
could just throw trash away and "away" could be almost anywhere, as
long as it did not impinge too greatly on our suburban vistas. The
dumps we once used in such a carefree manner have either long since
been filled to overflowing, or closed due to health and environmental
reasons. New landfills are costly to open and government surrounds
them with ever-tightening webs of restrictions and regulations. Where
we put our trash now and in the next few years will depend partly on
what new technologies emerge that will help us reduce the volume of our
trash, and on what methods we employ that both alter the content and
amount of our solid waste stream.
While recycling will not solve our solid waste dilemma on its own,
it is one of the more benign strategies for waste reduction. Recycling
industries are not pollution free, but balance, in the long run, the
extraction and refining of raw materials, which are expensive
processes. Many of our industries require raw materials that must be
imported in large quantities, thus adding to our foreign trade
deficits. Recycling materials, such as aluminum, paper and steel,
contributes to the economy by keeping the money at home, lowering
manufacturing costs, reducing pressure on landfills, providing new
jobs, and conserving energy and resources.
II. CURRENT MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SYSTEM
Trash collection in the city of Ithaca is provided by the
Sanitation division of the Department of Public Works and is financed
by city taxes. A fleet of four 20-yard packer trucks collects
residential trash at the curb in all city neighborhoods each week.
Municipal solid waste (MSW) is then transported to the Landstrom
landfill on the edge of Tioga County, a round trip of about 30 miles.
The city collects approximately 9000 tons per year in this manner at a
cost of around $230,000, for about $25.55 per ton. The remaining some
13,000 tons per year are collected by private haulers. The cost to
city residents to dump trash at the county landfill is around $6.25 per
capita, for a total of approximately $180,000 per year. This cost is
paid for out of residents' county taxes.
There is no "tipping fee" at the landfill, since the costs are
hidden in county taxes. There is also no direct charge to homeowners
for trash collection and no restriction on the number of containers per
household.
3
III. PRESENT RECYCLING PROGRAM
ITHACA RECYCLES is the city's weekly curbside recycling program,
that follows the same routes as the trash trucks in each city
neighborhood, usually several hours later. Recyclable materials are
picked up and segregated into containers on a stake-sided truck owned
and operated by Ithaca Scrap Processors, the contractors for collection
of recyclables. Materials are then delivered to Ithaca Scrap for
processing and eventual sale.
A. History.
In the Preliminary Report to Common Council, submitted by the
Recycling Task Force in 1981, several recycling options were discussed.
In 1984, there were bids from three prospective collectors: the
Community Self-Reliance Center, Challenge Industries and Ithaca Scrap.
Bids from the first two groups came in considerably higher than Ithaca
Scrap's, since they had no equipment or a physical plant for
processing; Ithaca Scrap was awarded the collection contract.
The program began in September, 1984 with funding from the city.
The first year's budget was $25,000 and has been increased to $28,000
in 1986, to reflect increased costs to the collector. The budget
provides $6200 for an education coordinator and $22,200 for the
collection and processing of materials. For each ton collected, the
city is reimbursed $5. In its first year of operation, ITHACA RECYCLES
collected approximately 230 tons of recyclables, for $1150
reimbursement to the city. Present cost to recycle is $140 per ton.
B. Participation.
Since it would be virtually impossible to ascertain the number of
residents participating in the recycling program due to the large
number of multi-family dwellings in Ithaca, the rate of participation
is measured rather by the percentage of recyclables diverted from the
total tonnage of municipal solid waste. The voluntary program has had
a participation rate of roughly 2% (of 9000 tons) , or about 230 tons
per year. The city anticipated that the program would enjoy higher
participation rates of at least 10 to 15%, but actual numbers have
fallen short of those goals.
The success of the program is limited in part by the physical
design, with a collector arriving at the curb long after the trash
trucks, so that mistakes are difficult to remedy. Overlooked
recyclables have been a problem throughout the life of the program. It
has been difficult selling the idea of recycling to city residents.
Many people feel that the preparations required are too time-consuming.
4
C. Education.
The education coordinator's tasks are numerous and varied, with
the main emphasis on encouraging residents to recycle, using available
media resources, school programs, brochures, posters, festivals, nature
centers and public forums for the purpose of increasing knowledge and
awareness of solid waste and resource issues. Still, not all residents
know about ITHACA RECYCLES and much more must be done to reach all city
residents about the program. Further, a large segment of Ithaca's
population moves away every year, making the education task even more
challenging.
There is also an attitude towards recycling that it is a frivolous
pastime that ought not to subsidized by the city, since it is costing
the city more to recycle than to dump each ton. (Solid waste handling
in most US municipalities is heavily subsidized by public funds. )
While this attitude is rapidly changing, both at the city and county
government levels, many citizens do not yet fully recognize the
connection between solid waste and increasing landfill costs and
problems.
D. Advantages.
Under the present system, the city is responsible only for
financing the program and does not have to oversee recycling
operations. Ithaca Scrap collects, processes, stores and markets the
materials, which is a boon for the city, since processing and marketing
take special equipment and experience. No city space or equipment is
committed to the program, and no city employees are involved.
Residents are gradually learning about recycling, how to do it,
why it is beneficial and what some of the consequences of not recycling
are. The present program is preparing at least some of the population
for a time when recycling will not only be a household word for all
residents, but a practice equally as common as putting out trash for
collection.
E. Liabilities.
Continuity is difficult to maintain in the program, with one
entity collecting the trash, another the recyclables and a third
responsible for coordinating communications between the public and the
program. There is no one entity in charge.
Consistency is a continuing problem with missed collections and
participants who do not prepare materials properly. These problems are
5
the domain of the collector and the education coordinator,
respectively. Many people drop out of the program after only one try.
They have little incentive to stay in.
Income from the sale of recyclable materials has fallen short of
anticipated amounts, due to low volumes collected, meaning that the
city does not begin to off-set its costs for the program.
IV. RECYCLING OPTIONS.
The following is a discussion of possible program options that the
city might consider in selecting a recycling program that will work in
Ithaca. The field has been narrowed to four main options based on the
likelihood that one of them would be suitable for Ithaca's needs.
A. CONTINUING WITH PRESENT SYSTEM
The city could choose to continue with the present recycling
program, using either the same collector, Ithaca Scrap, or contracting
with a different one. It may be difficult for the city to find another
contractor who would collect for an amount equal to or lower than
Ithaca Scrap and may have to allocate more funds for someone else to do
the work.
Ithaca Scrap is interested in continuing to work with the city in
a recycling program and would be willing to collect materials at the
curb if the city were to go to a mandatory ordinance. This would
probably at least triple if not quadruple the amount collected, putting
the tonnage totals somewhere around 600 to 900 tons per year in the
beginning and going much higher, it is hoped.
Ida Webber has said that she does not know how much more such a
stepped-up program would cost her, but she agreed that it would take
more time and trips for her workers to cover the routes and process the
materials. Her present contract is for $22,200 per year and her
increased costs would put her contract closer to $27,000.
B. COMBINATION SYSTEM
The city could do the curbside collection of materials itself and
deliver the materials to Ithaca Scrap or someone else for processing,
at a cost. What Ithaca Scrap would charge for this service is not
known at present, but it is likely that their cost to the city would be
less than the cost of having someone else, such as Challenge
Industries, do the processing.
C. CITY-OPERATED SYSTEM.
6
There has been much discussion of how the city might design and
operate a recycling program "in house" (to collect, process and market
materials) , by the Sanitation division of the Department of Public
Works, treating recycling as part of solid waste management. As a
result of visiting the Village of Hamburg, New York, the city has
prepared a budget for a recycling plan based on the Hamburg program,
but tailored to Ithaca's special needs, from collection method, to
labor and equipment. See Appendix 1 for a copy of the proposed budget
for 1987.
The recycling system calls for a parallel collection crew using a
specialized truck that would follow close behind the trash collection
crews to pick up recyclables. There is still a continuity problem with
this method, since the person who loads the trash onto the truck will
not be the same one to pick up the recyclables, thereby leaving room
for mix-ups over materials. Crews will have to be carefully trained to
discern the difference between sorted and unsorted refuse. The first
crew will have to be sure it is leaving recyclables behind for the
follow-up crew, and not just a bag of refuse with a few glass jars
placed on top.
An "air-tight" collection system will be crucial if the city goes
with the tandem system; the two crews would have to operate by a method
that would guarantee that trash always went in the packers, recyclables
in the recycling truck, unsorted trash collected either with a warning
left or fine levied, or the trash left behind. Communications between
the two crews may be complicated by the fact that a packer might fill
up first and have to leave for the landfill or vice versa. These
logistics would have to be carefully thought out and tried to be sure
the new program wouldn't suffer from the same woes as the present one.
1. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 1987:
The proposed budget for a recycling program reflects both start-up
and operational costs for one year:
$77,520 start-up costs--truck, buildings, bins,
forklift, fence/gate, other materials
$39,380 annual operational costs--salaries, gas,
utilities, telephone, maintenance
$116,900 total
(See Appendix 1 for a detailed breakdown of expenses) .
2. LABOR -- CHALLENGE INDUSTRIES
7
This proposed budget does not include any money for the labor to
process the materials, labor that would presumably be provided by
Challenge Industries clients or some other group. The Village of
Hamburg contracts with the local ARC (Association for Retarded
Children) to do their processing, for a sum of $27,000 per year.
Hamburg processes about 900 tons of recyclables per year. Using
these figures, the amount of money the city would have to pay Challenge
for similar work would be comparable, assuming the city collects no
more than 900 tons. In conversations with Milton Goldstien, the
director of Challenge Industries, the figure of $27,000 was suggested
as a fair sum to include for two clients plus a supervisor. This
amount reflects both the actual labor cost and a built-in mark-up for
overhead.
Mr. Goldstien was very interested in the possibility of working
with the city in a recycling program. He feels that if his clients can
do work comparable to other available labor, the city should pay
accordingly. Challenge guarantees its labor, so that absenteeism is
not a problem. If the clients are not capable of doing the work
required, others will replace them.
Adding labor for processing:
$116,900 total proposed cost
+ 27,000 labor
$143,900 total
3. SAFETY
Also not included in the proposed budget is safety equipment. If
the city chose not to provide the necessary protective wear, then the
contractor for processing would probably include this cost in the bid.
The cost of hard hats, safety glasses, ear muffs, aprons and gloves
would probably not be very large, and some or all of it might already
be available in the Department of Public Works as standard equipment.
4. BALER
There is no money allocated for a baler, an essential piece of
equipment if the city is to process and market the materials. Second-
hand balers cost around $4,500--5,000, and new ones cost between
$9,500--10,000.
$143,900
5,000 used baler
$148,900
8
5. TRIPS TO ELMIRA
Assuming that the city contracts with Diamond-Thatcher Glass to
buy glass, the cost of delivering the glass must also be included. In
the Preliminary Report of 1981, the total for round trips for one year
was estimated at about $900, with gas costing $1.40 per gallon. Gas is
cheaper, but labor and other costs have increased. A rough estimate
for 52 trips per year (assuming that the city would have to truck glass
each week to avoid storage) is $1000.
$148,900
1,000 trips to Elmira
$149,900 total program cost for first year
6. BUILDING
If the city were to provide an existing building, then $20,820
(includes fence and gate) for new construction could be subtracted from
the total budget, leaving a net of $128,080. There are at least two
buildings owned by the city that might be candidates for a processing
center, the DPW storage barn and the old sludge-drying building on
Franklin Street. Both have the advantages of being centrally located
and would save the city some construction costs. There may be
refurbishing costs if using an existing building, but how much is
unknown at present.
$148,900 total
- 20,820 building cost
$128,080 possible total program cost
7. REVENUES
Under the present system, the city receives $5 per ton for each
ton recycled, which is a low figure. The city may want to consider
increasing this amount if it contracts with a private processor. If
the city were paid $5 per ton, then the income from 900 tons would be
$4,500. It should not be assumed that a private contractor would be
willing to share profits because processing costs are high and prices,
in general, are low.
8. POTENTIAL REVENUES FROM SALE OF MATERIALS
Based on the assumption of 900 tons collected by a city program in
its first year and on the close to 250 tons of materials actually
9
collected by Ithaca Recycles, the percentages of recyclables are as
follows:
newsprint = 75% or 675 tons
* corrugate — 5% or 45 tons
glass — 15% or 120 tons
aluminum — .05% or 4 tons
* Actual corrugate collected tonnages has been at about 9%, due to the
new pick-ups on the Commons. The program is presently getting about 24
tons per year, mostly from the Commons. The national average for
corrugate however, is about 5%.
(See Appendix 2 for collection tonnages for Ithaca Recycles.)
Going by the present September, 1986 prices for the various
materials, the projected revenues for 900 tons would be:
675 tons newsprint @ $25/ton, baled — $16,875
45 tons corrugate @ $40/ton, baled = 1,880
350 tons glass @ $50/ton, crushed = 17,500
4 tons aluminum @ $400/ton, clean = 1,600
Total revenues $37,775
The above revenues assume stable prices, and since there is plenty
of room for market variability in this equation, revenues could be half
this amount. Operating costs can be reduced by the profits from the
sale of materials, after processing costs have been taken into account.
For a more concise look at the possible costs and benefits of a
city recycling program, either operated by the city or the private
sector, see Appendix 3.
9. COST AVOIDANCE
By diverting recyclable materials from the landfill, some costs
are avoided, such as for fuel, maintenance on trucks, and the costs per
ton to dump trash at the landfill. Other costs remain fixed, such as
depreciation, insurance and labor. The total cost of one round trip to
the landfill is now $21.34. Only a portion of this cost would actually
be saved by not sending a truck to the landfill, estimated to be
between $4.00 and $6.00. In order to avoid landfilling and
transportation costs, enough recyclable materials would have to be
collected each day to prevent a truck from going to the landfill.
R
10
Under the city's present waste hauling system, a trash truck with
only half a load at the end of the day will still be sent to the
landfill. Since a full load is approximately 6 tons, if half a load
were saved every day (3 tons) , then in a year's time 780 tons would be
saved. Therefore, the program would need to collect about 780 tons per
year in order to prevent a packer from making one trip per day to the
dump. It follows then, that fewer trips to the dump will realize some
savings through cost avoidance.
The only way to reduce costs significantly would be to retire a
packer from the fleet altogether. Ideally, this is what should happen
in a successful program, since trash collection equipment is quite
expensive to own and operate. Until dumping costs at the county
landfill go up appreciably, there will be small savings realized by
reducing the total amount of solid waste the city collects.
10. EDUCATION
A stepped-up recycling program will require a public education
effort that is commensurate with the increase in operations,
particularly if the program is mandatory, since it will then become
very important to reach all city households. Given the considerable
turn-over in Ithaca due largely to student populations, reaching all
residents with the recycling message will be a quite a task requiring
more resources than are presently available to the education
coordinator. There will have to be a larger allocation of funds for
publicity, particularly for newspaper, radio and television
advertising. Public service announcements can augment the task of
getting the message out to city residents, but cannot be expected to
fill the role that paid advertising can.
Volunteer help will still be important, perhaps even more so, but
volunteers in Ithaca are in general a very engaged group of people who
are also active in many other causes. They cannot be asked to do what
is unreasonable or else they will be lost to the program. The Block
Leader program, that includes between 50 and 60 volunteers, is a good
foundation to draw upon should the city mandate recycling. These
people may be able to assist city residents in making the transition
from voluntary to mandatory recycling, helping to lessen some of the
difficulties the program may experience in the beginning.
D. NO RECYCLING PROGRAM
The least expensive option for the city, for the present time,
would be no recycling program at all. There would be no liabilities to
1
11
the city other than continued collection and dumping costs. The city
could wait and see how much the county increases costs when the new
landfill is in place. The city could then continue to research ways by
which it could reduce its volume of solid waste, either through source-
separation, composting or other means.
The state Recycling Forum, an advisory group appointed by Governor
Cuomo, is recommending that recycling be mandated state-wide, though
legislation to that effect is probably quite a ways off. Until such
time as recycling is mandated, either by the county or the state, the
city is in a position to continue exploring volume-reducing ideas. It
is wiser to be ahead of a crisis than to have to deal with it after the
fact.
The danger in delaying the choice of a program is that costs of
all aspects of solid waste management will continue to go up and will
thus make choosing a method harder in the long run.
E. OTHER OPTIONS--DROP-OFF CENTERS OR LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION
Before the present recycling program was implemented, the
Recycling Task Force's Preliminary Report to Council provided a great
deal of information about a number of recycling options, including
drop-off centers, both roving and stationary. The Task Force now feels
that drop-off centers, while they are still a possibility, have many
concomitant staffing and logistical problems preventing them from being
viable options for the city. Most municipalities are now turning to
full-scale collection systems, whether they be at the curbside, at
transfer stations or at the landfills themselves. To go to a drop-off
system at this time would essentially be a step backwards in efforts to
achieve volume reduction levels that are meaningful and effective.
Ithaca Scrap serves as a local drop-off center, even though there
is no credit for materials to the city. It is important for those
residents who live outside the city to have a place to leave their
recyclables. Presently, volumes of glass and newsprint dropped off
nearly match those from the curbside program.
Less frequent collection, such as twice or once per month, is
another option that does not seem feasible at this time if done by the
city, since it would mean crews that worked only those days, or very
uneven labor distributions at the very least. Sanitation workers are
hired for 40-hour weeks, regardless of the actual hours worked each
day. Any change in that system would require a major overhaul of the
work-force arrangement.
12
V. MANDATORY ORDINANCE
There have been preliminary discussions in the Recycling Task
Force, committees of Common Council, and the Department of Public Works
about the advantages and disadvantages of mandating recycling. Such
legislation, in essence, redefines what is trash and what is not and
requires residents to separate recyclables from household trash and
place them at the curb for collection. Some sort of enforcement
mechanism would be necessary, such as refusal to collect unsorted
trash, or levying a fine.
Mandatory ordinances are becoming increasingly the rule, rather
than the exception in municipal recycling programs, partly because of
rapidly-filling landfills and because municipalities need large volumes
of materials to off-set their program costs. A community cannot
"strike it rich" by recycling, but it can substantially reduce its
solid waste disposal costs by removing recyclables from the waste
stream and selling them. A mandatory ordinance, if it is fair and
consistently enforced, can help achieve these goals.
In a survey of communities presently mandating recycling (most of
them in New Jersey) , nearly all reported that they were happy with
their ordinances and say that they have experienced significant
increases in participation rates. The survey was conducted by EcoCycle
in Boulder, Colorado, in order to determine what the general attitude
was of municipalities towards their ordinances. There were few
complaints and no talk about rescinding them.
Ithaca has a recycling ordinance in the Municipal Code that
requires residents to separate newspaper, glass and aluminum from the
trash and put it out separately. However, for the purposes of the
present or a future recycling program, the ordinance needs to be
reworded, to include all recyclable materials, an anti-scavenging
ordinance and consequences for non-compliance. A draft revised
ordinance prepared by the Recycling Task Force is in Appendix 4.
When the city feels it is ready to begin discussing the idea of a
mandatory ordinance in earnest, it will be important to get citizen
input, both for the purpose of learning how residents feel about the
issue, and to educate them as to the reasons why an ordinance might be
considered. Further, there are some myths associated with the idea of
mandatory ordinances that must be dispelled. There also are some
problems with mandatory ordinances in that the more communities that
adopt them, the more the market is flooded with recyclable materials,
often at a greater rate than the demand can bear. This will continue
13
to be a problem nation-wide until the manufacturing sector can catch up
with the flow of materials.
VI. STATE ASSISTANCE--Environmental Quality Bond Act
The NYDEC currently has $2.2 million available to assist
municipalities that are implementing recycling programs. The funds
provide up to 50% of the costs of equipment for collecting, preparation
and storage, including compartmentalized trailers, truck bodies and
other non-motorized devices, containers, storage bins, balers, screens,
magnets and so forth.
The municipality must own the equipment and must demonstrate that
they have signed market agreements in place with 2-year contracts in
order to be eligible for state assistance. A number of specific
procedures must be followed in order to qualify for the state
assistance. A copy of the application procedures and a list of other
municipalities in New York that have received EQBA funds is in Appendix
5.
PART II. SURVEY OF POTENTIAL MARKETS FOR RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
I. PURPOSE
The following is an investigation of the possibility of marketing
various recyclable materials from a city-wide recycling program in an
effort to determine if there are markets, where they are located and
whether or not such markets would be interested in purchasing
recyclables from the Ithaca. The results should be considered
preliminary, since there are many pieces of the recycling puzzle not
yet in place, such as what type of program the city might implement,
what actual participation rates, tonnages of materials and prices might
be, and what increased landfill costs could be expected.
II. SURVEY DESCRIPTION
1. MARKETS.
In this discussion, it should be understood that the "market" is
really a combination of entities, including the actual markets--the
mills, the brokers who act as go-betweens for the mills and the
materials producers, and the dealers who are the procurers and/or
processors of materials. Reference to "market" in this study generally
refers to the whole combination.
14
2. SOURCES.
The Solid Waste/Resource Recovery Division of the Department
of Environmental Conservation provided a market directory, which was
the main source of information for locating markets in DEC regions 7
and 8, the central and upstate New York areas that are within
approximately a 100 mile radius around Ithaca. In polling regional
markets, Robert Henderson at the DEC suggested looking first within a
50 mile radius and then to expand to 100 mile radius. Names of
companies were then chosen according to location, applicability of the
business, and general size.
3. QUESTIONNAIRE
Using a questionnaire, businesses were interviewed by
telephone and one was visited. Completed questionnaires are in
Appendices 6 and 7. In general, interview length reflects the degree
of interest expressed by the company.
The questionnaire is divided into various market aspects, such as
type of materials, prices, storage, and transportation, which are
explained as follows:
Materials--recyclables that are accepted, such as newsprint,
glass, metals and cardboard.
Condition--degree of processing required by the buyer, such as glass
clean and crushed, paper sorted, baled, and aluminum rinsed clean.
Price--what the business will pay for any given material, depending
upon its condition.
Floor price--minimum price that is paid by a firm, assuring that
materials will always be taken, while not always for fair
market value. (Floor prices are not popular right now
because prices for recyclable materials have been depressed
in the last few years. )
Contract--terms under which a business will enter into an agreement to
purchase materials, whether by bidding or a long-term purchase
agreement.
Shipping--how the materials will be moved to market, either by the
purchaser or the seller.
Storage containers--what the business might supply for storage of
materials, such as roll-off containers or truck trailers.
Comments--personal insights and recommendations of market contacts.
15
III. SURVEY RESULTS
From questionnaire responses, companies were sorted into three
categories: interested, unlikely at the present time, and those
businesses that were rejected because they were unsuitable for the
city's purposes, or were out of business. Interviews for the first two
groups are divided accordingly in Appendices 6 and 7. Following are a
summary of the most likely potential purchasers of recyclable
materials, and a brief discussion of the price ranges.
A. POTENTIAL MARKETS.
As a result of polling some 34 businesses, it appears that there
are markets for recyclables, both near and farther away from Ithaca.
Roughly 13 expressed an interest in the possibility of working with the
city, in ways that ranged from just trucking the materials away from
time to time, to serving in some sort of consulting capacity to help
set up the processing end of a recycling program.
There are potential markets in Ithaca, Elmira, Binghamton,
Syracuse, Auburn, Buffalo, Rochester and Marcellus. The larger
companies who are at a greater distance seem less concerned about the
distance, since they operate on a much larger scale than many scrap
dealers.
Those who expressed an interest include:
Action Paper Co. , Binghamton (paper)
Consolidated Fibers, Inc. , Buffalo (paper)
Diamond-Thatcher, Inc. , Elmira (glass)
Domtar, De Pew (near Buffalo) , (paper)
Elman Recycling Co. , Syracuse (paper)
Ithaca Scrap Processors, Ithaca (multi-material)
I. Shulman & Son, Elmira (multi-material)
Sam Masi, Auburn (non-ferrous metals)
Rosen Brothers, Cortland (metals)
Roth Brothers Smelting Corp. , Syracuse (aluminum)
Spector Waste Paper Corp. , Rochester (paper)
Staiman Industries, Inc. , Binghamton (paper)
Wallace Steel, Ithaca (metals)
Ithaca Scrav is presently Ithaca's best local market for
recyclables, because the company is set up to handle all or most of the
materials the city might collect, and because shipping would be
minimal. However, it is unlikely that the city could obtain the long-
term contracts necessary for qualifying for the state recycling funds.
This would require further investigation and negotiation. Ithaca Scrap
is also the only local market for high-grade office paper.
Wallace Steel is another potential local market for the city.
They would be interested in aluminum, since they have ingot-making
16
capability. While they are not currently set up for paper and glass,
Tony Treadwell, an employee, said that he would like to be kept abreast
of developments in the city's and county's planning process for a
recycling program. He expressed a willingness to consider increasing
his company's capacity to include other materials, particularly if the
city is interested in turning the processing and marketing aspects of
the program over to the private sector.
I. Schulman & Son was also interested in the processing and
marketing of Ithaca's recyclables, although Steve Schulman was hesitant
to go into details about his firm's potential role. The company is set
up to handle most anything Ithaca generates, including tin cans, but it
is not clear at this time the exact way in which the company might
participate. He suggested that he help the city as a consultant in
setting up a processing facility. He could then transport materials
and share in the profit of the sales. Schulman would need a clearer
idea of the city's plans before becoming involved in detailed
discussions.
Diamond-Thatcher Glass is the best local glass market for Ithaca's
glass because it is close. They do not pick up glass so it would be
the city's responsibility to deliver glass at its own expense. Other
markets exist in Upstate New York but the cost of sending glass to them
is prohibitive.
Both Domtar in De Pew and Action Paper Co. in Binghamton would be
willing to provide the city with empty truck trailers for storing and
transporting newsprint and cardboard, but both companies stressed the
need to bale the paper in order to load the maximum weight on the
truck, which is much more cost-effective than loading paper in loose.
Minimum loads would be between 20,000 and 30,000 pounds.
Consolidated Fibers and Spector Waste Paper could pick up paper
from Ithaca when their own trucks were in the area. It is not certain
this would be on a dependable, regular basis.
Other firms, such as Staiman Industries in Binghamton, Roth
Brothers Smelting and Elman Recycling in Syracuse, could arrange
through brokers to have trucks come to Ithaca to collect materials.
Sam Masi and Rosen Brothers said they might be able to come to
Ithaca to buy materials, but neither would quote a shipping price nor
do they use contracts.
The range of costs for transporting materials is discussed below
in the Transportation section.
B. PRICES FOR RECYCLABLES.
Prices offered by the firms for recyclable materials varied
widely, depending on the type and condition of materials. Lower prices
17
were quoted by companies that included freight costs in the price.
Some companies refused to quote prices at all due to large price
fluctuations.
Newsprint: $10/ton, unbaled
$20--$50/ton, baled (clean)
Corrugated: $20--$75/ton, baled
Glass: $50/ton, green; $55/ton, clear
Aluminum: $.14/lb. --$.34/lb. ($280--$680/ton) , clean
$.04/lb. , contaminated (lawn chairs, etc.)
IV. TRANSPORTATION
How materials are moved to market is important to any recycling
program because of the high cost of transporting these often heavy,
low-value items. In the case of glass, it is crucial to have a glass
plant nearby, simply because cullet is too expensive to handle and move
long distances.
A. TRUCKS
Materials would most likely be moved by tractor-trailers, since
they can usually carry loads of up to 40,000 pounds. Most mills that
deliver manufactured products in trucks will also back-haul raw
materials to the mills, thus saving extra truck trips. Recyclables
could be hauled from Ithaca by a number of truckers who are back-
hauling for mills or other suppliers. Arrangements are usually made
through brokers.
Prices quoted for trucking materials from Ithaca to various
dealers or mills ranged from $35 to $135 per load. Some firms include
trucking costs in the F.O.B. prices for recyclable materials. (These
are usually the larger companies. )
B. RAILROADS
A few companies interviewed cautioned about the use of rail cars
for moving recyclables, based on personal experience and citing high
costs and unreliability as the reasons for their opinions.
Nevertheless, since the Conrail-Lehigh Valley Railroad runs through
Ithaca and since the city has property that abuts the line in Southwest
Park, it seemed worthwhile to contact the rail company to discuss the
possibility of leasing rail cars.
From initial discussions, it is clear that more information about
leasing costs and shipping tariffs is needed. Since deregulation,
18
there are more possibilities for moving materials around by rail,
though they are expensive.
A box car can be leased for between $5--$7 per day for a period of
at least 6 months to a year. The railroad is not interested in short-
term agreements. This would incur a storage cost of between $1800 and
$2555 per year. In addition to this charge, there are hauling charges
that are based on the type of material being moved and the distance
involved. The rate structure is very complex and since the city does
not yet know where markets might be, what types or tonnages of
materials would be moved, it is difficult to pin down a true cost of
using the rail system.
Bill Burroughs, sales representative for Conrail in Elmira, said
he would do some checking to see if there were any possibilities of
providing an old car as a community service, and to see what might be
worked out between Conrail and Canadian National, whose rates are less
expensive, to ship materials long distance to Canadian markets. Every
time a rail car is either shifted from one line to another, or its
contents are loaded into another car (such as a Canadian car) , more
costs are incurred.
V. ESTIMATES OF RECYCLABLES
In talking to the potential markets, it was difficult to give
accurate tonnage estimations of recyclables, by type, as they appear in
the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream, since the county has only a
general idea of what is in its MSW. In the absence of solid numbers,
both for percentages of recyclables and for total estimated tonnages,
discussions had to stay on a hypothetical level. The EPA estimates are
still probably the best measure of what is in MSW (see Appendix 8) .
None of the companies interviewed was troubled by the lack of real
numbers since they know that there are many variables in estimation
methodology, however the idea of a mandatory ordinance was appealing to
them, since they could then expect a reasonably steady flow of
recyclables.
VI. QUALITY CONTROL.
Markets require that the purchased materials be in an agreed-upon
condition, therefore quality control is crucial. Recyclable materials,
in order to compete with primary, or virgin, materials, must be in as
upgraded, industry-ready condition as is feasible. This insures that
the markets will continue to be interested in what a municipality can
produce and can be assured of materials that need little or no further
processing. The more the materials are processed for sale, the more
saleable they become, but at more expense to the program. Conversely,
materials can be sold with little preparation, but will bring a lower
price.
19
Since the degree of processing is still unknown, quality will
remain poorly-defined until the city has the finer details of a
proposed program in place. Nevertheless, markets were able to give a
good idea of what their processing expectations are, which should be
useful to the city for its planning.
VII. SUMMARY
There are markets for recyclable materials in central and upstate
New York that may be interested in doing business with the city of
Ithaca, depending upon what types of materials are offered, their
prepared condition and volumes. At least one company (Schulman) seemed
interested in setting up a cooperative arrangement with the city to
transport and process recyclable materials, though details are lacking
at present.
When program plans become more clearly defined, it would be good
to recontact these markets to discuss prices, contracts and shipping
arrangements in more detail. It may be difficult to obtain the minimum
two-year agreements required by the state to qualify for EQBA money,
due to extreme fluctuations in the secondary materials markets.
In the time between the end of the present recycling program and a
new one implemented by the city, much can happen with the secondary
materials market. The market has been "soft" , that is, prices have
been low for most materials, though corrugated cardboard is recovering
somewhat after a deep plunge. Profits from the sale of recyclable
materials may drift downward as more municipalities jump on the
recycling bandwagon. The city will have to balance the costs of
starting up and running a program with the sale of materials and
avoided costs of landfilling the refuse it collects, costs that are
destined to go up in the next two years as the county develops and
opens a new landfill.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The city has two basic options for designing a recycling program:
to collect, process and market the recyclables, "in-house" , with either
city labor alone, or with sheltered workshop assistance, or to collect
the materials and turn the rest of the operation over to some private
entrepreneur who may or may not share the profits, after expenses, with
the city. By the end of October, the Board of Public Works will have
seen presentations by representatives of both these approaches: Peter
Karter, from Resource Recovery Systems in Connecticut, and Gerald
Knoll, Superintendent of Public Works in Hamburg, New York. The city
can now begin to design its own recycling program, tailored to the
needs of Ithaca.
20
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The city should purchase a baler for paper and cardboard if
it plans to do the materials processing. Second-hand balers can
be had for around $5000 and new ones for about $10,000. Balers
qualify for EQBA funding assistance.
2. Loading processed materials onto trucks would be greatly
enhanced by having a loading dock at truck height.
3. All paper types should be kept dry under covered storage and
may have to be stockpiled from time to time.
4. Materials should be upgraded to the extent that they become
desirable commodities for the recycling industry, i.e. ,
materials should be crushed, cleaned, baled, and sorted
according to market requirements with contaminants kept to a
minimum.
5. Relax the preparation guidelines that residents must now follow to
allow them to mix some or all recyclables in one container, rather
than requiring them to place these materials in several separate
bags and bundles. The more they are asked to perform,
voluntarily, the less likely they are to participate.
6. Provide households with some sort of special container that
is for recyclables only would create a more positive response.
Communities that have recycling containers have much more program
visibility. However, providing containers is expensive,
especially for a community of Ithaca's size.
7. Finally, the Recycling Task Force recommends that the city
fund and operate a curbside recycling program within the
Department of Public Works and that due consideration be given to
a mandatory ordinance to ensure a high level of participation and
reliable volumes of materials. Because the application period for
EQBA funds can take up to a year to complete, it is wise for the
city to begin as soon as possible on program implementation in
order to qualify for the state aid.
It is difficult to recommend a recycling program that would cost
upwards of $150,000 to start and operate, requiring a separate crew and
a new specialized truck. It is very expensive. One of the biggest
problems experienced by the present program is the lack of continuity
between trash and recyclables collection. Opting for a tandem system
such as the one proposed by the Sanitation Department could perpetuate
this problem. The Task Force feels that while the packer-trailer
system has been effective in municipalities with flat topography, it is
21
unlikely that trailers could work in Ithaca, without some major
technological breakthrough in truck chassis design.
When and if the city chooses a recycling system, consistency will
be an important factor, particulary as it can help build confidence in
recycling, both as a viable, necessary process and as a municipal
activity that has positive societal value and the full support of the
people who oversee it and carry it out. A successful program will
require participation of the city's residents and the full support of
its leaders. It is hoped that if problems develop after the program is
in operation, they can be faced with resourcefulness and determination
and eventually be solved.
}
22
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 Proposed DPW budget for 1987 recycling program
APPENDIX 2 Materials collected by ITHACA RECYCLES, 1984-1985
APPENDIX 3 Cost-benefit analysis of City collection/process-
ing vs. city collection/private processing
APPENDIX 4 City Municipal Code: collection regulations
APPENDIX 5 State recycling funding guidelines and application
procedures; NYS projects utilizing EQBA funds
APPENDIX 6 Questionnaires for markets
APPENDIX 7 List of unlikely markets
APPENDIX 8 Table of potential recyclables in Ithaca MSW
ACCOUNT # A8161
CITY OF ITHACA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ACCOUNT NAME:RECYCLING.
DIVISION STREETS AND FACILITIES
1984 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1987 1987
EXPEND. EXPEND. BUDGET PROJECT. REQUESTS BOARD MAYOR COUNCIL
EXPEND. RECOMENDATION RECOMENDATION ADOPTED
105 Salaries-Administration
110 Salaries-Staff
115 Hourly-Full Time 31,200
120 Hourly-P/T & Seasonals
125 Overtime 1,980
SUB TOTALS - 100 ACCTS 0 0 0 0 0 33,180
205 Furniture & Fixtures
210 Office Equipment
215 Motor Vehicles 28,700
220 Construction Equipment
225 Other Equipment 23,000
SUB TOTALS - 200 ACCTS 0 0 0 0 0 51,700
' a
405 Telephone
ro
410 Utilties 1,000 t
415 Clothing 100
420 Gas & Oil 1,200 H
425 Office Expense 200 x
430 Fees for Prof. Service ~
435 Contractual Services, 20,820
440 Staff Development
445 Travel & Mileage 700
450 Advertising
455 Insurance
465 Concession Supplies
470 Rental of Equip. & Bldgs.
475 Property Maintenance 100
476 Equipment Maintenance 1,000
477 Equip. Parts & Supplies 1,500
478 Repair Parts For Others
480 Bldg. Maint. Supplies 200
481 Small Tools 200
482 Signs and Blanks
483 Construction Materiels 5,000
484 Salt & Cinders
485 Trees
486 Curb & Gutter Renewal
487 Machine Paving
488 Gravel Base Exist. Sts.
495 Treatment Supplies
SUB TOTALS : 400 ACCTS 0 0 0 0 0 32,020
'ACCOUNT TOTALS 0 0 0 0 0 116,900
CITY OF ITHACA ACCOUNT / A8161
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ACCOUNT NAME:RECYCLING
DIVISION STREETS AND FACILITIES
REMARKS
Account/ Amount Explanation
115 HOURLY - FULL TIME 9,880 LABORER
9,880 LABORER
11,440 TRUCK DRIVER
215 MOTOR VEHICLES 28,700 2 1/2 TON TRUCK WITH CONTAINER BODY
225 OTHER EQUIPMENT 23,000 SMALL LOADER FORKLIFT WITH QUICK EXCHANGE BUCKET
435 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 14,420 TWO STORAGE BUILDINGS - (24 X 30 X 12)
6,400 FENCE & GATE
483 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS 2,000 MATERIALS FOR BINS
3,000 MATERIALS FOR FLOOR
APPENDIX 2
MATERIALS COLLECTED BY ITHACA RECYCLES: 1984-1985
NEWSPRINT CORRUGATE GLASS
TOTAL 188 24.3 29.5 (9 mo. )
T/ mo. (ay. ) 15 2.0 3.2
T/yr. 188 24.3 39.0
Total tons collected: 251.3
APPENDIX 3
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF
CITY COLLECTION/PROCESSING VS. CITY COLLECTION/PRIVATE PROCESSING
CITY COLLECTION AND PROCESSING
$116,900 total proposed recycling budget
27,000 processing labor (Challenge?)
5,000 baler
1.000 trips to Elmira (Thatcher Glass)
$149,900
149,900
- 28.917 revenues from sale of recyclables
120,983
- 1,560 cost avoidance--landfill trips @ $6/trip x 260 days
119,423 total for program for first year
- 44,380 fixed costs ($39,380 + 5,000, baler)
75,043 operating costs
- 18,000 estimated reimbursement from EQBA funds
$ 57,043 approximate operating total first year
CITY COLLECTION WITH PROCESSING BY PRIVATE SECTOR
$116,900 total proposed budget
- 25.820 new building expense
91,080
- 4,500 pay-back revenues @ $5/ton collected (uncertain)
86,580
+ 20,000 estimated contract to do processing
106,580
- 44.830 fixed costs
61,750 operating costs for first year
- 18,000 estimated reimbursement from EQBA funds
$ 43,750 estimated total operating costs first year
Neither of these proposed totals includes the cost for a
coordinator. It is assumed that someone would be needed to do
public education and public relations but what the cost might be
depends on how large the tasks are, how much time would be
involved.
APPENDIX 4
City of Ithaca Municipal Code
(suggestions in parentheses ; changes in bold type)
§ 272 . 9 Collection regulations
A. Items accepted for collection.
a . Refuse - The waste material resulting from the day to day
operation of a household. (be more specific .
e . g. , the village of Hamburg has these definitions :
"Garbage" shall mean kitchen and house refuse and table
cleanings , fruit and vegetable parings , decaying vegetable,
metal animal and fruit matter and fallen fruit.
"Nonrecyclable rubbish" shall mean plastic containers ,
metal rags , sweepings , excelsior, rubber , leather, crockery,
shells, clothing, straw, dirt, filth, ashes , waste paper
and similar waste material. )
It may be placed for collection in either of the two
following methods :
1 . Metal containers with tight fitting covers and handles
top and side . These containers shall not exceed 32
gallons in capacity. They shall be shaped so that all
materials flow freely when dumped. When filled , the
container should not exceed 100 lbs .
2 . Securely tied disposable plastic bags not less than
1 . 5 mils thick and sufficiently strong to contain the
materials enclosed. Each bag when filled should not
exceed 50 lbs .
b . Glass for recycling is clean glass bottles , jugs or jars
(we should add "with all neck rings , foil, or other metal
removed") to separate containers having a capacity of
not less than 10 nor more than 32 gallons . The metal
container shall be clearly labeled "Glass" in letters at
least 3 inches high.
C . Aluminum for recycling is clean, pure aluminum in any form.
It includes cans , cooking utensils , household appliances
(omit "appliances" , include "lawn furniture with fabric
removed") . When placed for collection, it should be in
separate metal containers having a capacity of not less
than 10 nor more than 32 gallons , and clearly labeled
"Aluminum" in letters at least 3 inches high .
d. Bulk newsprint for recycling is piled newpapers or
magazines (should delete "magazines") securely tied in
packages not exceeding 50 lbs .
pg. 2
e . Brush is tree branches , twigs , shrubs and hedge clippings
securely tied in bundles not exceeding 36 inches in length
nor exceeding 50 lbs . in weight . No tree branch may exceed
2 inches in diameter .
f . Pasteboard ( should be changed to "Corrugated cardboard
for recycling") is cardboard shipping containers which
have been flattened and folded or nested ( should say
"flattened, folded and tied") .
B . Method of placement .
a . Refuse , bulk newsprint ( should go under b . , below) ,
brush and pasteboard ( should go under b . ) when prepared
for collection as indicated under Paragraph A above , shall
be placed at the curb after 2 P .M. on the day prior to the
day designated for collection and before 5 : 30 A . M . on the
day designated for collection. There will be no call-backs
to collect items placed at the curb after 5 : 30 A. M.
b . Glass for recycling and aluminum for recycling ( should
include "bulk newsprint and corrugated cardboard" ) shall
be placed at the curb separately from the items mentioned
under ' a . ' above . They must be placed subsequent to 2 P . M .
on the day preceding the day designated for collection and
before 5 : 30 A. M. on the day designated for collection.
C . Only the items referred to under Paragraph A properly
prepared and placed as indicated under Paragraph B will
be accepted for collection. (add "Mixed recyclable and
non-recyclable refuse is improperly prepared and will not
be accepted for collection. )
C . Empty containers .
All refuse containers must be removed from the curb on the
same day and as soon as possible after collection has been
made . Refuse containers remaining at the curb on the day after
collection will be picked up and disposed of by the City.
[ § 272 . 9 and , Res . B . P .W 2/9/77 . ]
D . Service Charges .
a . Charges shall be levied against property owners for the non-
scheduled pickup by the Department of Public Works of items
acceptable for collection that do not conform to the method
of placement indicated under paragraph B . The charges
shall be as follows :
Single family dwelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 15 . 00 per pickup
Two-family dwelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 . 00 per pickup
Multi-residential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 . 00 per pickup
Commercial or other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 . 00 per pickup
pg. 3
b . Such charges levied shall be levied in accordance with the
City of Ithaca Charter , Section 5 . 33 .
[ Subd . D added by Resolution of B . P .W on 9/23/81 . ]
[ §272 . 10 deleted by Resolution of B . P .W. on 4/ 28/82 . ]
(we do need an anti-scavenging section in the ordinance , perhaps
like the Village of Hamburg ' s :
"From the time of placement of recylable rubbish at the curb by
a resident for collection in accordance herewith such
recyclable rubbish shall become and be the property of the City
of Ithaca or its authorized agent. It shall be a violation of
(cite appropriate section in Code of Ordinances) for any person
without authority from the City of Ithaca to collect , pickup,
remove or cause to be collected, picked up or removed any
recyclable rubbish and each such collection, picking up, or
removal from one or more premises shall constitute a separate
and distinct offense in violation of the Code of Ordinances . )
§ 272 . 11 Refuse Disposal
The disposal of household refuse , or any solid wastes resulting
from the demolition of buildings , commercial operations , industrial
operations or from any other operations shall be prohibited on any
lands owned by the City of leased by the City without the express
authorization of the Superintendent of Public Works .
§ 272 . 20 Penalty for Violations
A. Any person who shall violate any provision of this Chapter
shall be punishable as provided in § 241 . 100 of this Code .
B . The imposition or payment of any charge for services rendered
by the City shall not be a bar to the imposition of punishment
pursuant to this Section.
Authority: Charter § § 5 . 32 , 5 . 33
§ 241 . 100 Penalties
Any person who shall violate any provision of the rules and
regulations contained in this Chapter shall be subject to a penalty
of ten dollars ( $ 10. 00) for the first violation , twenty-five dollars
( $25 . 00) for a second violation and fifty dollars ( $50 . 00) for a
third violation committed within one year (This is probably too
little , expecially for motivating landlords . It should probably be
double . ) ; such penalty shall be enforced by action brought in the
name of the City of Ithaca.
Authority: Charter § 5 . 23
APPENDIX 5
On July 12, 1978, Commissioner Peter A.A. Berle of the New York State
Department of Enviroiunental Conservation approved and i3sued the Technical and
Marketing Guidelines for Determination of Eligible Costs of Source Separation/
Recycling Resource Recovery Projects pursuant to the Environmental Quality Bond
Act of 1972.
The guidelines set forty, the format for municipalities to receive financial
assistance under the Enviro:..7iental Quality Bond Act of 1972 for resource recovery
. projects 'i: the so l—ce separation/recycling category. in the 1978-?9 fiscal year
capital budget for the State of New York, the Legislature appropriated 1$1,000,000
to assist municipalities to fund and implement source separation projects.
The specific purpose reflected in these guidelines is to Lund equipment or
devices for "lcw-technology resource recovery" from source separated solid waste
and not to fund. resource recovery projects of the "high-tee'linology" type which
separate, process, modify, convert, treat or prepare mixed (unsorted) solid waste.
Eligible items for funding include equipment or devices used in the processing
of source separated recyclable materials and will be eligible for grant aid assist-
ance in the amount of 50 percent of eligible costs. A prerequisite to f ndini is
the demonstration of signed market or purchase agreerrE!nts relative to the materials
to be reco•.erec.
Municipalities are advised to contact the local 1-egional Office -of the
Department'of Environmental Conservation to obtain information and copies of the
simplified Environmental duality Bond Act Grant Application Kit for Solid Waste
Management Projects relating to source separation/recycling.
NEw York State Department of Enviroz-mental Conservation
Division of Solid Waste management
Application .Procedures
for
Source Separatiai/Recycling Resource Recovery Projects
This modified Source Separation Grant Application Kit has been prepared
for use by local goverment h-i applying for Source Separation Ian ding under
Article 51, Implementation of Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1972, Title 5,
Solid Waste Recovery and rlanagement Sections 280 thru 283.
1. Use of this application kit.
This application kit is to be used by municipalities for source separation/
recycling resource recovery projects. If an item is not applicable to the
source separation project, please make a note of it.
2. Sukmission
All information pertaining to a source separation/recycling resource recovery
project should be submitted in duplicate (an original and one copy) to the
appropriate regional director.of the Department of Environmental Conservation.
All dollar amounts requested in the application should be rounded to the
nearest dollar.
- 3. Completing the application.
The application_ procedures consist of three parts -
Part 1. Pre-application conferences
A municipality should request the regional director of the Departrent
of EnvirorIIrental Conservation to schedule a pre-application conference
to discuss the proposed source separation project. Generally, it wi11
be the regional solid waste engineer who will be workirxj with the local
municipality in the preparation of an application and conducting the
pre-application conference.
Part 2. Application for State assistance
Follcwing the pre-application conference, the municipality shall submit
to the appropriate regional director of the Department of Environmental
Conservation a-complete application consisting of the following:
(a) Application for State Assistance, Form GA-57
(b) Certificate of Recording Officer, along with the Suggested Form
of Resolution '
(c) Certificate as to Title of Property Site
(d) List of source separation equipment, description of the project
and marketing data. (Information Required for Submission of
Fun diiig for source Separation/Recycling Equipment)
It -<=Id be noted that no Environmental Analysis Information form
is necessary since tl-x-- Division of Solid- Vtiaste Mal,Ligcment has prepared
a native declaration. On this basis, local mnici��lities do not
have to prepare an cnvirormental assessment for a source separation
project.
Part 3. Eligibility notification
Following favorable action on the application, the municipality will
be notified in writing that the application and the project are
eligible for funding (at 50 percent of the cost of the source
separation equipment) .
4. Project cacnpletion procedure.
After notification of acceptability of a source separation project, the
procedures are as follows:
(a) Preparation of plans and/or specifications for the source separation
equipment.
(b) Application, plans and/or specifications approval.
(c) Preparation arra signing of a State contract between the State of
New York arra the local municipality.
(d) Letting of bids for the source separation equipment by the municipality.
(e) Awarding of equipment purchase by the local municipality.
• (f) Erection or placement of equipment for source separation.
(g) Preparation of payment vouchers by the local municipality.
(h) Certification of omstruction and performance of the source separation
equipment.
5. Technical assistance.
Since the source separation grant aid program is new, the Bureau of Resource
Recovery Programs in the Division of Solid Waste Management will assist
municipalities in implementing source separation projects. Also, since
marketing and the sale of recovered materials may be unfamiliar to municipal
officials, the Bureau will provide marketing assistance. This technical
assistance available to the local municipality will be in the following
areas: '
(a) In canpleting the application fonus for source separation.
(b) In assisting in the development of a source separation program and
providing an overview of resource recovery and source separation
technology.
(c) Providing guidance in preparation of plans and/or specifications
submitted for source separation equipment.
(d) Assisting in selection of technology which is best suited for the
. particular material that is beirxg recovered.
(e) Provide assistance in development and negotiating market and purchase
contracts.
(f) Assist communities in negotiating purchaser specifications relative
to materials to be recovered for sale.
(g) Assist in the development of a public information system to disseminate
information to thee-general public to enhance acceptance and cooperation.
(h) In providing administrative and technical assistance in the design of
a source separation program.
(i) In evaluating the source separation program as part of the total
solid waste management for the municipality.
Technical and .dark-eti•)g Guidelines for Source Separation/Recyclincr Resource
Recovery Prolects are included as mart of theBond Act kit. The main purpose
of prei r g the guidelines is for use by the Departr ent of Audit and Control
in the auditing of the projects for pajm(ent. F-Owever, the local municipality
should utilize these guidelines since they adequately describe the purpose
Of the program, tl-ie types of equipment or devices which are eligible for
Bond P.ct funding, and tt types of marketir or purchase agreements
rketi
necessary for ma
ng of the recovered products.
SUGGESTED FORM OF RESOLUTION
Resolution of County, City, Town, Village Public Benefit Corporation or
an Improvement District
Authorizing the filing of an Application for a State Grant-In-Aid
for Solid Waste Management Project
. and si.G,4ng of State Contract.
(Title 5, Chapter 659, Laws of 1972) .
WHEREAS, (Chapter 659, Laws of 1972) provides financial aid for the construction of
municipal solid waste management projects; and
WHEREAS,
(city, county, town, village, public benefit corporation,
(improvement district, or any combination thereof - Legal Name and Address)
hereinafter called the MUNICIPALITY, has made application for STATE-IN-AID, and
WHEREAS, it is necessary that a Contract by and between THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
-NEW YORK, hereinafter referred to as the STATE, for such STATE AID be executed on
behalf of now
(municipality)
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY ,
. the governing body of said MUNICIPALITY, as follows:
1. ' That
(municipality' s authorized representative - T:Lt],e only)
be hereby authorized to sign, on behalf of the MUNICIPALITY and make application for
' a STATE GRANT-IN-.41D and provide the STATE such information, data and documents
pertaining to the application for a grant as may be' required, and otherwise act as
the authorized representative of the MUNICIPALITY in connection with said application,
and to signthe resulting contract if said application is approved by the State;
2. That the MUNICIPALITY agrees that if a Federal grant or grants and STATE
assistance for the Solid Waste Management project are made pursuant to Laws of 1972,
or any Federal Law or program, the
will pay the- remaining costs of the approved project:
3. That the MUNICIPALITY or MUNICIPALITIES set .forth their respective
responsibilities by attached joint resolution relative to a joint solid waste recovery
and management project.
4. That four (4) Certified Copies of this Resolution be prepared and sent to the
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, ALBANY, NEW YORK 122059
together with a complete application.
5. That this resolutioh shall take effect immediately.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Bureau of Municipal Waste
Resource Recovery Section
Albany, NY 12233 .
Source Separation Projects Utilizing EQBA Funds in New York State
Total EQBA
Municipality Equipment Status Cost Funds Output Contact
Madison County Open Top Container Operational $ 2,900 S 1,450 Recyclable Materials David Grossman
Superintendent
Madison County !
Highway Department !
Wam ville NY 131631
Town of Batavia Building, open top con Operational 95,000 $25,500 Paper, glass, ferrous Jerry C. Hiller
Genesee County tainers. can crusher, metals Town Manager
roll-off container, 4165 W. Main Street
maintenance tools, Batavia, NY 14020
phase converter, skid-.
steer loader, flat bed
trailer, baler
Cattaraugus Count Platform scales, bar- Operational 53,000 26,500 Glass, ferrous metals William White
rels, barrel manipula- Cattaraugus County
tor, bottle buster, Refuse Agency
tilt frame trailer, 200 Erie Street
open top containers, Little Valley, NY 14750
Barrel handtruck.
Town of Carmel Conveyor belts, magne- Equipment $100,000 $50,000 Paper, glass, ferrous, Richard Othmer
Putnam County tic separator, can Received non-ferrous metals Supervisor
flatteners, glass (on hold) Town Hall
crusher and open top Town of Carmel
truck trailer Maho ac NY 10541
Town of Tuxedo Trailer Body Operational 2, 50 ,3 5 Paper Linda Moscarella
Orange County Box 24
Tuxedo NY 10987
Town of Cortlandt Roll-off Containers Operational S 21,000 $10,500 Paper Muriel A. Morabito
Westchester Countj Supervisor
Town of Cortlandt
Municipal Building
Van Wyck Street
Croton-on-Hudson NY 10520
Page 1 of 4
I
June 4, 1984
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Bureau of Municipal Waste
Resource Recovery Section
Albany, NY 12233
Source Separation Projects Utilizing EQBA Funds in New York State
Total EQBA
Municipality Equipment Status Cost Funds Output Contact
Oneonta Glass Smasher perationaT_—V U,4_00 $ 4,200 Glass Larry a er
Otsego County Municipal Building
Main Street
Oneonta NY 13820
Broome County 4-yard containers Contract E 85,000 42,500 Glass Philip Murphy I
Pending Commissioner of Publiol
(on hold) Works
Broome County
Governmental Plaza
Box 1766
Bin hamton NY 13902
Village of Ardsle3 Shipping container Operational S 1,300 650 Paper Vincent Atalese
Westchester Count3 Village Manager
505 Ashford Avenue
Ardsley, NY 10502
Town of Orchard Trailer body Operational 2,000 ,000 Paper Nan Ackerman
Park 95 Jolls Lane
Erie County Orchard Park NY 14127
Town of Oyster Ba3 Collection baskets Application S 18,894 9,447 Paper Joseph Colby
Nassau County Received Supervisor
(On Hold) Town Hall
Audrey Avenue
Oyster Bay, NY 11711
Fulton County Open-top containers Operational 73,000 36,500 Paper, Glass, Metals John Subik
Trailer/tilt frame Chairman
Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
Johnstown NY 12095
New York City Baler, collection Operational $100,000 S 50,000 Office paper Frank Mastandrea
carts, desk-top Executive Director
collectors Surplus Activities
i 1900 Municipal Building
New York NY• 10007
Page 2 of 4
I
I
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Bureau of Municipal Waste
Resource Recovery Section
Albany, NY 12233
Source Separation Projects Utilizing EQBA Funds in New York State
Total EQBA
Municipality Equipment Status Cost Funds Output Contact
Village of Hamburc Iraiiers, skid-steer Operational $ 54,400 23,200aper, Glass, Metals Gerald Knoll
Erie County loader, storage bins Superintendent of Public
Works
100 Main Street
Hamburq. NY 14075
Town of Marbletow Roll-off container Operational 5,000 2,500 Glass, Scrap metals Elsie Weg arz
Ulster County Chairman
Marbletown Environmental
Conservation Comm.
R.D. 11, Box 621
Stone Ride NY 12484
Oneida County Conveyors, storage Contract 33,000 16,500 Glass Robert Haseme er
containers, trailer approved Deputy Commissioner for
(On Hold) SWM
Oneida County DPW
800 Park Avenue
Utica NY 13501
New York City Roll-off containers Contract $1,400,000 $ 50,000 Glass, ferrous and non ,loan Edwards
approved ferrous metals NYC Dept. of Sanitation
Room 830
51 Chambers Street
New York NY 10007
Town of Islip Crushers, trommel, Contract 338,000 69,000 Glass, ferrous and non Thomas Hroncich
Suffolk County roll-off containers, approved ferrous metals, paper, Comm. of Env. Control
roll-off trailer hoist corrugated and plastic Town of Islip
conveyors, trailer, 655 Main Street
baler Islip, NY 11751
County of Rocklanc Desk folder, baskets, Contract S 4,900 S 2,450 Office paper Barbara Porta, Exc. Dir.
bins, containers approved Rockland County EMC
Rockland Co. Health
Complex
Building D, Room 173
Pamona NY. 14075
Page 3 of 4
I
i
`y
c I
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Bureau of Municipal waste
Resource Recovery Section
Albany, NY 12233
Source Separation Projects Utilizing EQBA Funds in New York State
Total EQBA
Municipality Equipment Status Cost Funds Output Contact
Village of Hamburc Waste oil containers, Contract waste Ull Geraldno
Erie County trailer containers, approved Supt. of Public Works
drain trough & rack 100 Main Street
Hamburg, NY 14015
Town of Truck racks Application
Cheektowaga trailer Received $ 4,600 S 2,300 Paper Daniel E. Weber ,
Erie County Supervisor
Broadway and Union Roads
Cheektowaga, NY 14221
t
Page 4 of 4
I ,.ti
• APPENDIX 6
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MARKETS
NAME: Domtar CODE: paper
ADDRESS: De Pew, NY (near Buffalo)
PHONE: 716-681-1560
CONTACT: Iry Janoff, Mgr. Steve Glisson, buyer and plant coordinator
PHONE:
MATERIAL(S) ACCEPTED: colored and white ledger, tab cards, computer, corrugated
cardboard and newsprint (may have mills for outlets for
news)
CONDITION REQUIREMENTS: Must be baled.
(degree of processing) :
PRICE PER TON ACCORDING TO CONDITION: $25-$30/to4baled newsprint
Prices are F.O.B. $60/ton, baled, sorted ledger
$80-90/ton for computer
$200/ton for tab cards (use Gaylord
FLOOR PRICE: $50/ton, coorreugate these)
CONTRACT TERMS: They go by the "Cincinnati; _Yellow Sheet", a scrap price index that
comes out regularly, and then price accordingly. They would be interested in
signing a 2 to 5 year contract
SHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS: They would take paper directly to mills, saving extra handling
at their own plant. They have trucks in the area from time to time. Any truck
filled completely with one paper type would go to mill; a truck filled half-and-
half would have to go to plant, thus reducing the price paid.
STORAGE CONTAINERS: Could provide empty trailer and drop off empties as others
became full. They do not like to leave their trailers for extended periods of
time and suggested that we just store materials until we have the equivalent of
a full load.
DISTANCE FROM ITHACA: 3 1/2 hours, more than 100 miles
COMMENTS.- Very interested. Might work through Ida Webber as a broker.
Baling is essential.
r
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MARKETS
NAME: Consolidated Fibers, Inc. CODE: paper
ADDRESS: Buffalo, NY
PHONE: 716-827-9252
CONTACT: Frank Karczewski, gen. manager
PHONE:
MATERIAL(S) ACCEPTED: newsprint
corrugated cardboard
CONDITION REQUIREMENTS: Both must be baled and sorted
(degree of processing) : Must be kept dry.
PRICE PER TON ACCORDING TO CONDITION: Newsprint: $45 F.O.B.
Corrugated: $55 F.O.B.
FLOOR PRICE: No.
CONTRACT TERMS: Could sign a contract for to yearn, guaranteeing a "home" for
the materials. Would be flexible with contiact arrangements.
SHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS: Would ship by the trailer-load on their trucks, picking
up when their trucks were in the area.
STORAGE CONTAINERS:
DISTANCE FROM ITHACA: more than 100 miles
COMMENTS: 3000 tons would fill a football field.
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MARKETS
NAME: Action Paper Co. (Indian Valley Industries) CODE: paper
ADDRESS: 30 :Crandall St.
Binghamton, NY 13905
PHONE: 607=724-1803
CONTACT: Mr. Milton Rosen
PHONE:
MATERIALS) ACCEPTED: office paper, computer paper, newspaper, corrugated cardboard
CONDITION REQUIREMENTS: newspaper in bundles or bales. If in bales, must be free
(degree of processing) : of contaminants (slick paper). Corrugate must be baled.
Would require a minimum of 10 tons in a truck-load. Quality guarantee.
PRICE PER TON ACCORDING TO CONDITION: Prices very low now. $10/ton, delivered.
Corrugated cardboard= $30/ton (in 800-100 lb bales) delivered
Clean newsprint= t20/ton (bales) delivered
FLOOR PRICE:
CONTRACT TERMS: City could put materials out for bid from time to time. They
would then pick up. Bids would .be renewed every three months.
SHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS: Could lend a truck trailer and ship out to plant when enough
had accumulated. Rail transport is too expensive. They would charge $100 for a
25,000-30,0001b load.
STORAGE CONTAINERS : Trailers.
DISTANCE FROM ITHACA: About 50 miles.
COMMENTS: They would pay best price for materials that were neatly bundled, stored
where they would be dry and easily loaded. Tractor-trailer should have access to
loading dock at proper height.
They have a "commitment to bid" contract with Broome County for their office paper
program.
r
i
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MARKETS
NAME: Sam Masi CODE: Non-ferrous
metals
ADDRESS: 8 Delavan St.
Auburn, NY 13021
PHONE: 315-253-0846
CONTACT: Sam Masi
PHONE:
MATERIALS) ACCEPTED: Non-ferrous metals: aluminum scrap, various types of wire,
contaminated aluminum (has steel, plastic or other). No iron or steel.
CONDITION REQUIREMENTS: Sorted types bring the best price
(degree of processing) :
PRICE PER TON ACCORDING TO CONDITION: $15/ton for clean aluminum
$.04/ton for contaminated
FLOOR PRICE:
CONTRACT TERMS: No contracts. Goes by price of the day.
SHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS: Has 14-foot stake-sided truck. If materials are baled,
they might bring the truck down to pick up loads. Would want a sample load
before deciding on price. Want to see quality of material first. There is
a great deal of contaminated material around.
Shipping charge: ca. $35 per load.
STORAGE CONTAINERS: No.
DISTANCE FROM ITHACA: <50 miles
COMMENTS: Concerned about contaminated aluminum.
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MARKETS
NAME: Roth Brothers Smelting Corp. CODE: Aluminum
ADDRESS: 6223 Thompson Rd. , Box 639
PHONE: 315-463-9500
CONTACT: Mr. Eric Rochelson
PHONE:
MATERIAL(S) ACCEPTED: Auminum scrap
CONDITION REQUIREMENTS: baled: 20,000 lb.--half load
(degree of processing) : 4.0,000 lb.--full load
PRICE PER TON ACCORDING TO CONDITION: Highly variable. Good to check at time
of sale.
"Old sheet"(can, foil, etc. )=$.28/lb, loose
price can go up to $.34/lb ($680/ton)
FLOOR PRICE:
CONTRACT TERMS: Net 30 basis: we would be paid in 30 days. Could arrange for a
longer term contract, up to a year, which is usual length.
SHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS: They would contract with a shipper and would charge for a
full load. Could back-haul to mill with hired hauler, but
would charge for full load. Shipping cost: $134.4.0 for full load.
STORAGE CONTAINERS:
DISTANCE FROM ITHACA: around 50 miles
COMMENTS: We might do better to work directly with Ithaca Scrap for aluminum.
r
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MARKETS
NAME: Rosen Brothers (Mr. Steel, Inc. )
CODE: multi-metals
ADDRESS: 136 S. Pendleton St. , Box 12
Cortland, NY 13045
PHONE: 753-3048
CONTACT: Mr. Robert Bergeron
PHONE:
MATERIAL(S) ACCEPTED: Aluminum and steel scrap.
CONDITION REQUIREMENTS:
(degree of processing) :
PRICE PER TON ACCORDING TO CONDITION: Light aluminum= $.14/lb
Contaminated (with iron, etc.)=$.04/lb
(This type includes lawn chairs, siding, pots & pans)
FLOOR PRICE:
CONTRACT TERMS: Does not use contracts. Deals by word of mouth to locate materials.
SHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS: They might be able to pick up materials, depending on
what we have to sell. Would not quote a shipping price.
STORAGE CONTAINERS: No.
DISTANCE FROM ITHACA: Close by.
COMMENTS: With aluminum, we would do better to stockpile it and then ship directly
to the mills.
They have a large metals baler.
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MARKETS
NAME: Wallace Steel CODE: metals
ADDRESS: 105 Cherry St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
PHONE:
CONTACT: Mr. Tony Treadwell
PHONE:
MATERIALS) ACCEPTED:
CONDITION REQUIREMENTS:
(degree of processing) :
PRICE PER TON ACCORDING TO CONDITION:
FLOOR PRICE:
CONTRACT TERMS:
SHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS:
STORAGE CONTAINERS:
DISTANCE FROM ITHACA: local
COM14ENTS: In preliminary discussions with Mr. Treadwell, he has asked to be kept
informed of the city's progress in planning a recycling program. He
would like the option to consider handling recyclable materials should
the city wish to contract with some private enterprise to process and
market the recyclable materials it collects.
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MARKETS
NAME: Ithaca Scrap Processors CODE: Multi-material
ADDRESS: 402 Third St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
PHONE: 272-1830
CONTACT: Mrs. Ida Webber
PHONE:
MATERIAL(S) ACCEPTED: Newsprint
Corrugated cardboard
green and clear glass
aluminum
white and colored ledger
CONDITION REQUIREMENTS: Paper must be free of contaminants (magazines, etc. )
(degree of processing) : glass--clean and free of metal and plastic
aluminum--clean and free of plastic and other metals
Does not take tin cans or brown glass.
PRICE PER TON ACCORDING TO CONDITION: Prices offered would depend entirely
upon the market at the time.
FLOOR PRICE: No.
CONTRACT TERMS: Probably no long-term contracts.
SHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS: Materials would have to be delivered.
STORAGE CONTAINERS: No.
DISTANCE FROM ITHACA: Local
COMMENTS: Ithaca Scrap might be able to take what the City produces, but condition
of materials would have to be guaranteed.
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MARKETS
NAME: Diamond-Thatcher, Inc. CODE: glass
ADDRESS: McCann's Blvd.
Elmira, NY 14903
PHONE: 737-1933, switchboard; 737-3590, loading docks
CONTACT: Mr. Dowain Nielson, Comptroller or John Bodaker, Industrial Relations
PHONE: 737-3507
MATERIAL(S) ACCEPTED: green, flint(and possibly amber glass, though there are no
immediate plans)
CONDITION REQUIREMENTS: clean, crushed and free of contaminants--metal, plastic,
(degree of processing) : or ceramic.
PRICE PER TON ACCORDING TO CONDITION: $50/ton for green and clear
$55/ton on occasion for clear
FLOOR PRICE:
CONTRACT TERMS: They have no set policy at the moment for long-term contracts. They
are discussing using short-term purchase orders for monthly suppliers, particularly
for those in the glass industry.
SHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS: We would have to deliver.
STORAGE CONTAINERS: Pio.
DISTANCE FROM ITHACA: Under 50 miles
COMMENTS: This is probably the only glass outlet for Ithaca, since all others
are too far to ship cullet without losing money.
Class in US is in overproduction right now. There is a sizeable impact from plastics
industry.
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MARKETS
NAME: Elman Recycling Co. , Inc. CODE: paper
ADDRESS: 920 Spencer St.
Syracuse, NY 13204
PHONE: 315-471-0254
CONTACT: Mr. Joseph Elman
PHONE:
MATERIALS) ACCEPTED: newsprint--baled is best
corrugated cardboard--baled
CONDITION REQUIREMENTS: newsprint must be 1001"0 dry and baled and free of magazines.
(degree of processing) :
PRICE PER TON ACCORDING TO CONDITION: $.s0100 lb. for unbaled newspaper ($10/T)
$25/ton, baled newspaper
$30-40/ton for corrugated cardboard
FLOOR PRICE:
CONTRACT TERMS: Does not operated by contracts. Works on bid system,.-
SHIPPING
ystem,:SHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS: Could send a truck for baled paper. Works with a broker
who supplies mills and could arrange to have a truck in
the area. Broker has a margin profit of $3-5/ton to pick
up fora mill.
Truckload required: 35,000.36,000 tons (full load)
STORAGE CONTAINERS: No.
DISTANCE FROM ITHACA: around 55 miles
COM14ENTS: It would be better to deal with a broker who drives directly to the
mill than to send materials to Elman first.
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MARKETS
NAME: Spector Waste Paper Corp. CODE: paper
ADDRESS: 1436 Scottsville Rd.
Rochester, NY 14624
PHONE: 716-235-8856
CONTACT: Sid Spector
PHONE:
MATERIAL(S) ACCEPTED: Newspaper (free of magazines and other contaminants)
Corrugated cardboard ("old grade"--post-consumer)
CONDITION REQUIREMENTS: Mill-size bales (ca. 700-1000 lb. )
(degree of processing) :
PRICE PER TON ACCORDING TO CONDITION: newspaper: $10/ton, F.O.B.
corrugate: $20/ton, F.O.B.
Prices go by Official Board Market publication. If OBM price for news is $40/ton,
they would pay us $20/ton.
FLOOR PRICE: No.
CONTRACT TERMS: From one to five years, with several options:
-2 year, with option for 3 additional years
- 3 year, with option for 2 additional years
SHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS: Their trucks would come to Ithaca when in the area and
take a full load of materials. Best price is for truckload of all one type of
paper, not mixed. Shipping cost is included in F.O.B. price.
STORAGE CONTAINERS: No.
DISTANCE FROM ITHACA: more than 50 miles; about 2 hours
COMMENTS: They have second-hand mill-size balers for sale for $4500 ea. These run
$9500-10,000 new.
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MARKETS
NAME: Martisco Paper Co. , Inc. CODE: paper
ADDRESS: 4747 Rt. 174, 0.0. Box 198
Marcellus, NY 13108
PHONE: 315-673-2071
CONTACT: Howard Spencer
PHONE:
MATERIALS) ACCEPTED: #1 and #2 newsprint (overissue and post-consumer)
corrugated cardboard
chipboard (heavier grade than corrugate)
CONDITION REQUIREMENTS: minimal magazine contamination in newsprint; corrugate
(degree of processing) : must be free of clips, tape, tar.
PRICE PER TON ACCORDING TO CONDITION: newsprint: from $35 to $50/ton.
corrugate: $50 to $75/ton.
Prices assume that paper is baled.
FLOOR PRICE:
CONTRACT TERMS:
SHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS: They have a small truck that could possibly come into the
area. Could carry about 9 bales per load on stake-sided truck.
STORAGE CONTAINERS: No.
DISTANCE FROM ITHACA: < 50 miles
COMMENTS: They are a small operation, but might be interested.
r
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MARKETS
NAME: I. Shulman & Son Co:, Inc. CODE: multi-material
ADDRESS: 1 Shulman Plaza, P.O. Box 666
Elmira, NY 14902
PHONE: 733-7111
CONTACT: Steve Shulman
PHONE:
MATERIAL(S) ACCEPTED: newsprint, corrugated cardboard, aluminum, steel (might take
steel cans)
CONDITION REQUIREMENTS: could be trucked loose, but it is better to bale.
(degree of processing) : paper does not have to be sorted, but price is gauged
by value of lowest grade in mix.
PRICE PER TON ACCORDING TO CONDITION: Prices not discussed since it was not
clear how the program might be set up.
FLOOR PRICE:
CONTRACT TERMS:
SHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS: They have all sorts of trucks and equipment and might be
interested in setting up a program and running it.
STORAGE CONTAINERS: Lift-off type containers.
DISTANCE FROM ITHACA: < 50 miles.
COMMENTS: Railroads are expensive and unreliable--first-hand experience. They
truck everything. Might be interested in serving as consultants to help implement
and run a program. Would be willing to talk this over with the city. Much infor-
mation seemed to be proprietary as far as type of system and prices were concerned.
APPENDIX 7
FIRMS CONTACTED BUT UNLIKELY MARKETS AT THE PRESENT TIME
NAME REASON
Abe Cooper Deals with industrial grades.
P.O. Box 67, Salina Station Not dealing with recycling.
Syracuse, NY 13208
Al Schutt & Sons, Inc. Too far to ship metals.
78 Winfield St. , Box 2
Corning, NY 14830
Ben Weitsman & Son Too far. City would have to
15 W. Main St. deliver materials.
Owego, NY
Bodow Recycling Inc. City would have to deliver.
1925 Park St. at Hiawatha
Syracuse, NY 13208
Fulton Iron & Steel Steel scrap--no tin cans.
3800 Burnet Ave.
E. Syracuse, NY 13057
Klionsky Scrap Iron & Metal Co. No cans. City would have to
Sevin Chapin St. , P.O. Box 385 deliver.
Seneca Falls, NY 13148
Matlow Co. Industrial scrap only.
333 Bridge St. , Box 297
Syracuse, NY 13209
McIntyre Bros. Paper Co. Make high-grade paper.
131 Mill St.
Fayetteville, NY 13066
Regional Recycling & Res. Rec. High grade paper only.
315 Hollenbeck St.
Rochester, NY 14621
Volney Glass (Owens-Illinois) Too far. No transportation.
RD #5, Great Bear Road
Fulton, NY 13069
v
APPENDIX 8
RECYCLABLES IN ITHACA MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
(Based on 9000 tons/year MSW)
NEWSPRINT PARTICIPATION RATES (IN TONS)
10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 50%
@ 7% msw=630* 63 94 126 157 189 315
@ 10%=900 90 135 180 225 270 450
@ 14%=1260 126 189 252 315 378 630
GLASS
@ 6% msw=540 54 81 108 135 162 270
@ 10% msw=900 90 135 180 225 270 450
@ 13% msw=1170 114 171 228 292 342 584
CORRUGATED CARDBOARD
@ 1% msw=90 9 13 18 22 30 44
@ 2% msw=180 18 27 36 45 54 90
@ 10% msw=900+ 90 135 180 225 270 450
TIN (STEEL) CANS
@ 3% msw=270 27 40 54 67 81 134
@ 5% msw=450 45 67 90 112 135 224
Explanation:
The left-hand figures represent calculated tonnages based on
current estimations of recyclable materials that potentially
would be in a municipal solid waste stream. Since estimations
vary, a number of calculations were done to show what amounts
might be collected at different participation rates. These are
only rough figures since city and county have no waste
composition figures.
*Percentages are based on EPA estimates.
+Percentage based on Institute for Local Self-Reliance estimates.