Loading...
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.