Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 Recycling Task Force - Preliminary Report to Mayor and BPW on A Recycling Program in the City of Ithaca r , J Pr ' Preliminary Report to Common Council On the Feasibility of an Improved City-Wide Recycling System Prepared by the City Recycling Task Force September 2, 1981 Task Force Members: --Daniel Hoffman, Chairperson Deborah Hoard, Vice Chairperson ---Earl Arnold ✓Ernest Bury Lloyd Irvin Mary Ann Kozak George Kugler —Ann Mathews Ward Merrill Martin Sampson Ida Webber ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report would not have been possible without the assistance and cooperation of many individuals and organizations. At this time, we would like to thank all those who helped with this effort; every contribution was important. If and when our work continues, we hope that all those who helped will remain involved. Specifically, we would like to thank: i j Common Council members Nancy Schuler, Ethel Nichols, and Elva Holman for joining us at Task Force meetings and providing a liason with City Government; The City Planning Department for its assistance, in particular Sheila Parker and Susan McCormick, who deciphered our scribblings and typed the draft and final reports; Paul Finger, coordinator of the Environmental Management Council , for hi.s generous cooperation and participation; The CIVITAS program at Cornell University, which provided a word study student to assist with recycling research; The Community Self-Reliance Center, which shared its files and offered the services of the CIVITAS work study student to the Recycling Task Force, at no cost. And Betsy Shreve, the work study student, who organized this report and put in time and energy well beyond the call of duty. SUMMARY This report, prepared by the Ithaca Recycling Task Force, attempts a prelimirary analis of tate feasiblIfty of an improved recycling and source separation program for the City of Ithaca. Past and current recycling efforts are analyzed to determine their strengths and problems. Local businesses and institutions are surveyed to assess their willingness to participate in a recycling program. New York State's program of 50% reimbursement-for initial capital expenditures is explained. Tompkins County's role in resource recovery is presented, as well as the possible implications for a city-wide recycling program, r A proposal fora city-wide educational program is included, as an integral part of any improved recycling system, Five dUferent_o _j ons for a new residential collection program are presented, with special emphasia given to those options that minimize costs and logistical concerns. The two options that appear most feasible, based on the information now available, ikrb municipally operate. or privately-operated mobile optoff_centers,, Preliminary cost breakdowns are presented for these two options. Although it is premature to commit the City to any particular system until more information is available, a list of recommendations for interim action is presented. Some improvements, suc hs: the educational pro�r_am or a 1 f-baling sy�m, could be implemented immediately. Taking these steps now will provide a firm foundation for whatever program is desired in the future. It is hoped that Common Council will review the report and recommendations carefully, and make preliminary decisions as to what the City is willing and able to commit toward the implementation of an improved recycling program. The Task Force is willing to continue and proceed with more specific proposals, once a general direction is set. I RECOMMENDATIONS The Recycling Task Force recommends that Common Council support the implementation of an improved and more comprehensive source separation and recycling program for Ithaca and Tompkins County. In order to carry out such a program, the Task Force recommends that the City: 1. Continue the Recycling Task Force for follow-up study of the City's options for source separation and recycling 2. Continue to work with the County Source Separation Committee to implement compatible recycling systems for the City and County. 3. Implement a municipal leaf-baling program such as that operated in Batavia, NY. 4. Develop and carry out a source separation and recycling education program. An educational program concerning the value of recycling is needed regardless of whether or not the City chooses to initiate a new collection system. r 5. Authorize the Task Force to solicit letters of interest from private businesses and non-profit agencies regarding a source separation and recycling program for the city. 6. Reemphasize existing municipal source separation legislation and modify it as needed for any new source separation and recycling program. 7. Work with community groups to ensure that valuable community services now funded by recycling (.such as those performed by Kiwanis Club) are not terminated by a new recycling program. 8. Continue to support returnable beverage container legislation on the State level . 9. Does not dispose of the glass crusher, blue stake truck and conveyor previously used by Challenge, and still owned by the City. 10. Schedule an appointment with the Department of Environmental Conservation for a pre-application conference, to discuss the types of program possibilities and the City's eligibility for funding. 11. Recommend that the County consider Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) as an alternative to mass burning of refuse because of RDF's potential for increased recovery of recyclables and energy. 12. Recommend that the County consider the development of a solid waste disposal fee system that would provide an incentive for the City and others to reduce the volume of refuse. TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Acknowledgements ii. Summary iii. Recommendations I. Introduction II. History and Present Situation A. Past and Current Recycling Programs 1. Challenge Industries 2. Kiwanis Club - 3. Community Self-Reliance Center 4. Ithaca Scrap and Wallace Steel B. Current Municipal Collection and Disposal of Refuse III. Markets- IV. Recycling/Energy Recovery Possibilities A. Cornell University B. County Solid Waste Study V. Education VI. Funding for Municipal Systems VII. Legislation Requiring Source Separation VIII. Potential Impacts of City-Wide Recycling Program A. Returnable Beverage Container Legislation B. Kiwanis Paper Drives IX. Programs in Other Cities A. Batavia, NY B. Islip, NY C. Marblehead, Ma. X. Options for Expanded Residential Recycling Program Assumptions A. Existing Municipal Collection System B. Separate Municipally-Operated Curbside Collection System C. Municipally-Operated Drop-Off Centers Figure 1 Cost Detail D. Privately-Operated Curbside Collection E. Privately-Operated Drop-Off Centers Figure 2 - Cost Detail Appendices 1. Institutions and Businesses which either have participated or are currently participating in recycling program. 2. Cornell University Letter of Interest for RDF project. 3. Education Proposal 4. Application for State Assistance - Pursuant to the Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1972. 5. Source Separation Ordinance - Cortlandt, NY 6. Source Separation Ordinance Islip, NY 7. Sample of Recycling Programs in Other Communities. 8. Newspaper Article concerning Batavia's Leaf-baling Program. 9. Possible Drop-Off Sites within City Boundaries. 10. Community Groups Expressing Interest to Participate as Volunteers in Recycling Program. 11. Personal Statements from Task Force Members. ITHACA RECYCLING TASK FORCE PRELIMINARY REPORT I. ;'Introduction Recycling is an effective way to save energy and resources and thus improve the environment. By separating recyclable materials such as glass, metal and paper products, fuel and natural materials can be saved that otherwise would have been used to produce those items. Increasing the amount of material recycled in Ithaca would also relieve the burden on the landfill and refuse collection system, which are supported by city and county taxes. The Recycling Task Force was established in March 1981 by Common Council to investigate the feasibility of implementing a city-wide recycling program. This report is an attempt to outline the major components of a city-wide recycling program. The advantages and disadvantages of several different options are presented, with special attention given to eco- nomic costs and benefits. The Task Force recommends that Common Council support the study and implementation of a source-separation and recycling program for the city and Tompkins County. It should be recognized that the study and implementation of such a recycling program may involve the expenditure of some public funds, initially or on a long-term basis. In light of Tompkins County's current investigation into a source separation and/ or energy recovery facility, it is recommended that the City Task Force be maintained to conduct a follow-up study that would take into consideration -2- any County recommendations. II. History and Present Situation A. Past and Current Recycling Programs Residential and non-residential recycling is not new to Ithaca. For years, glass, metals, and paper have at different times been collected by various groups within the community. Challenge Industries, the .Kiwanis Club, the Community Self-Reliance Center, Ecology House, Ithaca Scrap Processors and Wallace Steel have all at one time or another been involved .in recycling. 1.' .Challenge Industries Challenge Industries, a sheltered workshop, began collection of glass in 1972, first at various drop-off points, and then, as, the volume of recyclables increased, by weekly curbside collection throughout the city. The City purchased for Challenge a stake body truck , conveyor, and glass crusher, and provided a building at essentially no cost. Challenge operated its highly labor-intensive program until 1980, when the increasing costs of collection, separation, and transportation to Thatcher Glass Co. in Elmira exceeded revenues and forced termination of the program. Although citizen participation approached 60%, and 650 tons of glass were collected, Challenge's glass recycling program suffered an operating deficit of $35,000 for the year 1980. 2. Kiwanis Club Kiwanis continues to conduct a newspaper drive three or four times per year. Approximately 30 volunteers from Kiwanis staff six drop-off stations, collect the paper and transport it to Ithaca Scrap, which handles processing and shipment, An average drive collects approximately 3540 tons of -3- newsprint. Revenue from paper drives (about $2,000-$3,000 annually) supports community programs such as the Boy Scouts baseball league. 3. Community Self-Reliance Center The Community Self-Reliance Center currently coordinates residential curbside collection of glass, aluminum, newspaper and cardboard in the Fall Creek and Bryant Park neighborhoods. Prior to the start of the programs, volunteers took educational material door-to-door in each neighborhood. Reminders are distributed every few months. On the first and second Saturdays of each month, volunteers from the Center and the respective neighborhoods staff a truck, loaned at no cost by Ithaca Scrap for processing and shipment. One problem facing the Center is that materials must be delivered to Ithaca Scrap by noon on Saturday. This limits the area the project can cover. Participation is currently about 20% and rising, and as it does, the Center may feel the need for more time and equipment. 4. Ithaca Scrap and Wallace Steel Ithaca Scrap and Wallace Steel are private businesses that recycle both residentially and non-residentially generated materials. Wallace Steel handles mainly metal recyclables, while Ithaca Scrap -accepts glass and paper products as well as metal . The bulk of material that Ithaca Scrap handles is from non-residential generators, although containers for glass, aluminum and newspaper are located outside Ithaca Scrap for 24-hou.r re- sidential drop-off. Ithaca Scrap estimates that between 220-230 tons of glass will be dropped off in 1981. Due to seasonal fluctuations in the newspaper market, storage of paper is a problem in the summer months. -4- Ithaca Scrap currently picks up different grades of paper from certain institutions and businesses throughout Ithaca. For example,. some academic departments at Cornell University separate high-grade office and computer paper from regular refuse for collection by Ithaca Scrap. The revenue generated is donated to Ecology House, which operates a recycling program for Cornell residential units. (Other institutions and businesses either are currently participating or have participated in the past in some sort of recycling program -- a sampling of these is presented in Appendix I.) These current recycling efforts are certainly helping to decrease the amount of waste material collected by municipal and private refuse carriers, as well as helping to reduce the amount of material transported and dumped at the landfills. But significantly greater amounts of recyclable material could be diverted from both the residential and non-residential sectors, leading to greater savings in collection and disposal . i B. Current Municipal Collection and Disposal of Refuse In 1980, Ithaca's Sanitation Department collected 9310.6 tons of refuse, which it transported in 1682 trips to Landstrom"s landfill in Spencer, 122 miles south of Ithaca. Total expended budget for 198W s trash collection was $232,412.28. (.This figure includes wages, fringes, gas and truck maintenance. ) The present work system operates on an "incentive basis. The four full-time drivers and the six full--time laborers are paid for a 40 hour work week regardless of how many hours they actually I work. According to Lloyd Irvin, head of the Sanitation Department, this system has been functioning very well . The workers generally average -5- between 4.5 and 6.5 hours per day (excluding lunch), depending upon the particular season and severity of weather conditions. The implementation of a municipally operated recycling program would necessitate some sort of modification of the present system -- either in work hours or in truck routing. The extent of the modification would depend, of course, upon the type of program instituted and the volume of recyclables collected The refuse collected by the municipal sanitation department, as well as by other private carriers, is taken to the landfill . There is currently no tipping fee charged at the landfill . The County has a contract with the landfill owner; the cost of the contract is paid through County property taxes. The actual costs of disposal at the landfill are thus 'hidden' costs, as there is no direct relationship between the amount of refuse citizens or businesses generate and the cost to them of disposal of that refuse. There is, therefore, no incentive at this time for`City residents to reduce the amount of refuse generated. If the County were to institute a tipping fee, there would be a direct incentive for municipalities to reduce their waste volume (and recycle more). Regardless of whether there is such a tipping fee, though, it is important to remember that reducing . the total amount of material dumped at the landfill would lengthen the life of the landfill , reduce the city's costs of collection and trans- portation of refuse to the landfill , and reduce that percentage of City residents' taxes that go toward landfill disposal costs. III. Markets The County has undertaken a study concerning the feasibility of a source separation and energy recovery facility to be operated within Tompkins -6- County. One aspect of the study, to be completed by a consulting firm in early Fall 1981, is a market analysis. It is recommended that .the City not try to carry out its own market study but refer to that study for complete market information for any recycling program it might adopt or support. At the present time, some information is available concerning local markets for some recyclable materials. Glass Elmira -- Thatcher Glass Pays $30.00/ton for crushed glass, delivered The glass can be partially mixed by color. Syracuse -- Fulton Glass Pays approximately $19.00/ton crushed glass. They pick up. Aluminum Auburn -- Reynolds Aluminum Pays .23/lb, delivered Ithaca -- Ithaca Scrap Pays .18/lb. delivered Ithaca -- Walace Steel Pays .13/lb. delivered Newspaper Ithaca -- Ithaca Scrap Varying Rate according to season August 1981 - $0/ton (poor market) Winter 1981 $40/ton IV Recycling and Energy Recovery Possibilities I It is possible that a recycling program could be operated in conjunction a t -7- with an energy-recovery operation. The recyclable materials could be removed prior to the burning of refuse. Both Cornell University and the County are considering the possibility of implementing energy recovery programs. A. Cornell University Cornell University is considering operating its heating plant boilers with a mixture of coal and Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF), a shredded or pelletized fuel processed from solid waste. Burning RDF with coal in- creases the heating value of the solid waste, while reportedly reducing some of the harmful air emissions produced when coal is burned alone. The RDF-coal fule mixture would also result in less coal ash, and thus reduce landfull space requirements. Recyclable materials such as ferrous metals can be removed after the refuse has been shredded, but prior, to burning, through the use of magnets. An RDF plant in Baltimore County, Md. also recovers glass through the use of air classifiers. Cornell has not proposed any particular plans at this time, but has expressed interest in researching the different factors involved in the burning of this type of fuel . (See Appendix 2 for letter of Cornell interest). One benefit of investment in upgrading solid waste to RDF i is that existing Cornell boilers can be utilized. A separate mass-burning operation would necessitate major investment in new boilers B. County Solid Waste Study As mentioned previously, Tompkins County has undertaken a three-part solid waste study to focus upon current and future landfill capacities, the feasibility of an energy recovery-facility as well as a source--separation -8- program. An integral component of the County's solid waste study is an investigation of the possibility of source separation of recyclable material from regular refuse. A committee is currently researching different options for a recycling program that could be implemented independently, or in conjunction with an energy recovery plan. The County's Committee is considering many of the same factors the City is investigating, such as how to recover the most recyclable material with the least imposition upon residents. One innovative technique that eases the burden upon residents has been developed by Resource Recovery Systems, Inc, of Connecticut, The RRS facility is a low-technology inter- mediate processing center that has the unique capability of receiving bottles and cans that are mixed together, and processing this raw material into high-quality commodities for glass packaging, detinn%ng and aluminum industries. The main advantage of this type of program is that participation is easy and uncomplicated for the householder, Bottles and cans can be put together in a simple container for collection, and then transported to the processing center. The system, which has initial costs of approximately $100,000 would be too expensive an operation for the City alone to undertake. However, should the County decide to install such a facility, the City would certainly benefit as the City's efforts at residential collection of recyclables would be greatly facilitated, i V. Education Regardless of which recycling option the city chooses to adopt or I i -9- support, an educational program geared to residential and non-residential generators or recyclable materials is crucial for the program's success. An intensive educational effort is needed not only for the initial phase of the program,but must be continued due to the high annual turnover of city residents. The recycling program must be highly visible, and inform- ation about it must be accurate and readily available. For a relatively small investment in materials ($3-4,000) and part--time coordination ($4-6,000), the City could launch an intensive one-year educational/ promotional program aimed at teaching city residents, school children, businesses and institutions why, what, and how to recycle. In following years, the tasks of coordinator would be assumed by employees of the recycling program, thus reducing costs of the educational program to costs f of materials. , The basic components of an educational program are out- lined below. (The program is presented in greater detail in a proposal prepared by the Task Force. ,See Appendix 3.) F is A part-time coordinator (salary: $4-6,000) would have overall for planning and implementing a city-wide campaign, for preparing materials, for coordinating large numbers of volunteers, for supervising students. (This cost might be lowered or eliminated if present City staff or college work-study students would assist.) 2. Educational/promotional materials would consist of brochures, posters, curriculum materials for school teachers, and (.possibly) magnets and-calendars for households.., A_slide show could be developed to be shown to school children, and also to college audiences. The slide show could be presented as "Coming Attractions" preceding campus movies during fall season. (Estimated first-year cost is $3-4,000.) -10- 3. Volunteers would be needed to help in distributing educational materials, making presentations to groups, staffing informational booths or 'travelling show' on recycling, participating in the annual Energy Fair on the Commons, etc. 4. Cooperation from community groups and businesses, as well as from the media, city government, and schools is essential if the program is to work. The success of any recycling program is dependent upon the community's willingness to spread information on the program so as to reach as many people as possible. VI. Funding for Municipal Systems The amount of funding necessary to finance a municipally-operated recycling program obviously depends upon the scope of the program, Initial equipment and building expenditures, as well as ongoing costs can be expected to vary according to the nature of the different programs. (See Cost Breakdowns in Figures 1 and 2.) It is hoped that the ongoing operational costs of a recycling program can be kept to a minimum by using wither existing labor or volunteers. It is also hoped that revenue from sale of the recyclables will meet operating costs. Therefore, a major expense for the operator will be initial expenditures on equipment and building site, if necessary, Fortunately, state aid exists to help municipalities defray the costs of equipment and other devices for low-- technology resource recovery from source-separated solid waste. This funding, in the form of 50% reimbursement for eligible costs is ' -11- availa le under the New York Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1972. Guidelines for Determination of Eligible Costs of Source Separation/ Recycling Resource Recovery- Projects were-establ. .shed by the Department of EnvironmentaTfConservation (Dec.) in December, 1978, and at"ihat', time the New York Legislature appropriated $1,000,000 to assist municipalities in fu ing J`x� an 'mplementing source spearation projects. (A copy of the application be found in Appendix 4.) The maximum amount allocated to any individual community is $50,000. Items eligible for the 50% reimbursement include equipment or devices to ai"d—in the storage, processing and/or preparation for sale of source separated recyclable materials including, .but not limited to, paper, lass, ferrous metals, aluminum, plastics, and used oils. Eligible items also include storage containers or receptacles, specially designed racks, trailers, truck bodies and other non-motorized devices to aid in the separate collection and recycling of previously separated recyclable materials. Eligible processing equipment includes, but is not necessarily limited to, low-density balers, small-,scale shredders and cruchers, screens, magnets., and appurtant conveyors, storage containers or receptacles. The re- imbursement does not apply to materials recovery processes or equipment for high-technology, front-end systems designed to separate materials from mixed solid wastes. Nor does it apply to items which are not re quired for effective, efficient source separation, or are not required in the preparation of source separated materials for sale to the markets -12- from which signed market of purchase agreements have been obtained. Finally, ineligible items for reimbursement also include those items that would duplicate existing private materials processing services reasonably available to the applicant or that would cause a serious displacement of existing secondary materials market. There are several conditions that must be met in order for municipality to qualify. The municipality must be the owner of the equipment. It can then rent the equipment to others as long as the equipment is stored on municipally-owned land. Another prerequisite for funding is the demonstration of signed market or purchase agreements. This requirement is included becuse the successful operation of any .recovery program is dependent upon the existence of stable, reliable markets for materials recovered by the facility. There are several steps involved in the application procedure for funding. A pre-application conference must first be held with the Regional Director of DEC to discuss the proposed source separation project. Following the conference, the municipality submits a completed application with which the State determines the municipality's eligibility for reimbursement. Once the application is approved, the municipality must still advertise for bids, and purchase and erect the equipment before it is reimbursed by DEC. The entire procedure can take six months to a year to complete. Thus, it is important that the municipality make an early commitment to the development and operation of a recycling program in order to facilitate the lengthy process. -13- Other possible sources for funding a source separation program exist. The County Source Separation Committee is currently developing a list of sources through use of a computer search system. For specific details on these programs refer to the County Task Force Report on Source Separation and Energy Recovery, VII. Legislation Requiring Source Separation The success of any recycling program depends of course on the awareness of the community as to the need for resource recovery-- whether for reduction in landfill costs, or reduction in energy costs or both. The educational portion of the program is crucial` to expand that awareness. The success of a recycling program is also dependent upon the willingness r of residents, businesses, etc. ,• to comply with the necessary aspects of the i program -- whether it be sorting glass by color, and leaving in separate containers for curbside collection, or driving once a week to the neighborhood drop-off site to deposit glass and paper. Any recycling operation depends on the goodwill and ecological spirit of its residents to participate on a regular basis. Voluntary participation within the may not, however, be high enough to yield significant' revenues to offset operating costs. A national survey conducted by EPA of recycling collection programs found that mandatory programs generally resulted in higher participation rates than did voluntary programs, given similar socioeconomic characteristics of residents collection frequency, and publicity campaigns. The survey found that 59% of the mandatory programs had participation rates of 50% or more while only 19% of the voluntary programs -14- had 50% participation rates. In addition, the survey found that most communities with mandatory programs do not encounter problems in enforcing their regulations. Having a mandatory program seems to increase participation rates even if little time and money is spent to actually enforce sanctions against non-participants.* Thus, several municipalities have instituted legislation that mandates recycling participation among its residents Two such communities in New York are Islip and Cortlandt. The town of Cortlandt operates a weekly curbside collection of separated paper trash. Source separation of the paper from regular refuse is mandated by ordinance. The intent of the legislation, as-explained in the ordinance (see Appendix 5 for full text) is to contribute to the longer life of the Town's landfill areas, the conservation of natural resources, and produce a positive cash-flow to the Town as a result of reducting the amount of money paid for dumping fees combined with the revenue from the sale of the recyclable materials. The ordinance itself outlines the procedure by which residents and commercial establishments must separate recyclable paper for municipal collection. The ordinance contains an anti-scavenging clause, which emphasizes the fact that recyclable materials become town property once placed on the curb for collection. The ordinance also specifies penalties for violations of the anti-scavenging provision. Conviction results in a fine of between $25 and $250 for each offense. There is, however, no specific penalty for failure to separate the recyclable paper from refuse. A councilman *U.S. EPA, Separate Collection Programs: A National Survey, 1978 from Cortlant indicates .that despite existence of the ordinance, the parer recycling program is actually voluntary, Currently, out of a population of 28,000, the councilman estimates between 25 and 33% participate in the t recycling program The Town of Islip operates a curbside recycling program for glass, cans and paper. The ordinance mandating separation of recyclable materials from regular refuse pertains only to those residents within town garbage districts (as opposed to private refuse carrier districts). This ordinance also specifies the manner in which recyclable materials are to be separated and prepared for municipal collection, as well as emphasizing in an anti-scavenging clause, the ownership rights•of the town. Unlike Cortlandt, the Islip ordinance stipulates penalties to residents who fail to separate and properly prepare recyclables, Depending upon the number of convictions, an individual may be responsible for fines ranging from $IO to $250. (See Appendix 6 for copy of Islip Ordinance,) Although a source separation ordinance currently is on the books in Ithaca, it appears worthwhile for the City to emphasize such an ordinance to accompany a new recycling program. The City's formal support of the program will most likely increase participation rates even if actual enforcement of the ordinance does not occur. VIII. Potential Impacts of City-wide Recycling Program In addition the more obvious considerations involved in the implementation -16- of a recycling program, such as those outlined above, there are other factors that must be considered if the program is to be successful . Two factors that deserve attention are: the effect of passage of a _ Returnable Bottle Bill on a glass and/or aluminum recycling program, would have on community groups such as the Kiwanis Club, which operates its own recycling project. B . Returnable Beverage Container Legislation It is obvious that passage of returnable beverage bottle bill legislation on either a local or state level could have an impact on the glass and aluminum waste streams. Soft drink and other beverage bottles comprise a significant portion of recyclable refuse, and their removal from the recycling stream would reduce the amount of crushed glass shipped to market. However, two things should be considered: The law would not require refillable containers, although it may encourage their production and use. Non-refillable bottles and cans would not be removed from the waste stream; rather, more of them would be handled by retailers rather than residents. In other states, arrangements have been made for private recycling groups to receive beverage containers from retailers, thus increasing rather than reducing the group's revenues. Any decreases in recycling revenues caused by the bottle bill would probably be offset by reductions in collection and other operating costs. In any event, two important reasons for recycling -- extension of landfill lifespan and energy savings in production of glass materials would still be realized through a mandatory returnable bottle bill . The Task Force unanimously endorsed a resolution for support of Senate Bill 2831 and Assembly Bill 3692 -17- (which did not pass in 1981), citing the 'higher use' of reusable bottles as opposed to recycling the glass material . B. Impact on Kiwanis Newspaper Drives A municipally or privately operated city-wide recycling program will certainly impact the Kiwanis fund-raising newspaper recycling drives. Kiwanis currently sponsors a newspaper drive three or four times a year. For each drive, about 30 or 40 volunteers staff drop-off stations and collect and transport 35-40 tons of newspaper to Ithaca Scrap, which bales and sells the paper. The revenue from the paper drives approximately $2,000-$3,000 ��WAN�S annually -- helps to support the-J@@mfi*"t baseball league. There is no doubt that the fundraisers are a service to the community, and a full-time recycling operation would probably compete with, if not force the termination of the newspaper drives. (Although Kiwanis collects from outside the city, they believe most of their volume comes from city residents,) One solution to this problem is to have Kiwanis and other service groups supply volunteers on an alternating basis for a privately (non-profit) operated recycling program. The groups that supplied volunteer time to staff drop�off sites, or transport the materials, or coordingate, would share the revenues gen- erated. This type of direct compensation might give more incentive to the younger groups in the community such as the Scouts — to participate in the fund-raising programs from which they receive the money to finance their activities. IX. Programs in Other Cities Programs in other parts of the state and the country were examined in an attempt to understand what kinds of systems are successful , and what the -18- critical components of those systems are. (A more complete listing of various programs operated in other areas can be found in Appendix 7.) A. Batavia, NY Several towns and cities in New York State are operating successful recycling programs. The town of Batavia currently operates curbside pickup for newsprint, cans, and bottles in addition to staffing a drop-off site for the same materials. The curbside collection is managed through the use of trailers that are towed behind regular refuse vehicles on collection routes. Each trailer contains six 1-CY containers into which recyclable materials are dumped, while regular trash. is deposited in the refuse vehicles. The trailers .and trucks are backed into some alleys, unless passageways are too narrow. Studies by the Batavia municipal sanitation department have indicated that additional labor time is 20-30 minutes per day. Batavia has been able to operate this kind of system in large part because of its flat terrain. According to Lloyd Irvin, supervisor of Ithaca's Sanitation Department, the hilly topography of Ithaca, as well as its physical layout with many narrow allwyways, make the use of tow-behind trailers much more difficult, if not impossible. Batavia also operates a leaf collection and baling program that has been very successful , has been adopted b �,, New York and could be adopted by Ithaca. (See Appendix 8 for article on Batavia's leaf-baling operation.) An adapted tractor and a converted hay-baling machine bundle up tons of leaves from the roads and curbside, and produce.neat, 35--pound bales left at the curb. Batavia has found that the city never has to pick up the bales; they disappear overnight for use as mulch, or substitute peat- _19- moss, or for straw bedding. Because of the leaf-baling program, the city has managed to cut its annual leaf.-clearing bill from $26,000 in 1977 to roughly $13,200 in 1979. The recycling Task Force recommends that the City institute a leaf-baling program. B. Islip, NY Islip (pop. 325,000) collects paper, cardboard, glass and metal in a weekly curbside pickup. Operators of the program, called WRAP (With Recycling Alternatives are Possible) calculate that personnel costs per week are $2, 770, while revenues, based on 100 tons/week are $3, 701. Com- parison of-this program to Ithaca would have to account for the significantly smaller volume of recyclable material available in Ithaca due to its f smaller population. Although labor costs to operate a smaller scale pro- gram might be less, fixed overhead expenses could not be so easily re- duced. C. Marblehaead, Ma. The town of Marblehead, Massachusetts, a 'white collar` community with a population of 23,000, also operates a curbside collection of paper, cans, and glass. The Marblehead program was originally made possible through a 3-year grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . This grant enabled Marblehead to purchase necessary equipment and maintain extensive documentation. The Marblehead program utilizes compartmentalized trucks, which pick up recyclable materials weekly. In addition to the curbside pickup, the town also operates a drop-off site located at the former landfill . The success of Marblehead's program has been seen through reduction in the frequency of regular refuse collection from twice to once per week. The town also has been able to reduce the equipment and labor -20- needs of its regular refuse collection program. After 2.5 years of operation, the Marblehead program had saved the town over $45,000, and it is estimated that between 55-60% of the revenue was generated from savings in solid waste .disposal costs. Again, any attempts to institute a similar operation in Ithaca must seriously weigh the differences in the towns' situations. The initial expenditures of the.Marblehead program were covered by the EPA grant. Ithaca would have the possibility of receiving 50% reimbursement -- up to %50,000 -- from the state, but that still leaves a significant cost to be borne by the city. X. Options for Expanded Residential Recycling Program Five different options for an expanded residential recycling program were outlined by the Task Force for investigation as to their feasibility, given the special physical, social , and economic conditions of the City of Ithacan, The options considered were the following: 1) Retrofit existing municipal collection system 2) Separate municipally-operated curbside collection system 3) Municipally-operated drop-off centers 4) Privately operated curbside collection system 5) Privately operated drop-off centers. Each of these options was considered in light of expected volume of recyclable material , initial capital cost expenditures, ongoing operating costs, processing and transportation costs, as well as current logistical and institutional factors. In light of current attempts to reduce public spending, effort has been made to emphasize those options that will minimize any city expenditures. -21- Assumptions For the purpose of this study, several assumptions were made to determine anticipated volume of recyclable material , citizen participation rates, collection and disposal savings costs, and central storage building costs: 1) Recyclable material as percentage of refuse «According to an EPA 1980 source separation study, newsprint represents between 9-15% of total waste, glass between 7116%, and aluminum beverage cans between 0.1 and M . Therefore, the percentages used to estimate possible recyclable materials are: 12% /newspaper 0 .-,,glass .1% aluminum (lowest possible percentage) 2) Participation rates were set at 60% and 30% to get a sense of the possible range in volume of recyclable materials that could be generated. The percentage rate will vary according to the type of program established. 3) A recycling program that removes a portion of recyclable material from the waste stream will represent a savings in regular refuse collection costs and in landfill disposal costs. The amount of savings depends on the amount of material recovered. Both the city and county have established cost perton figures for collection and i disposal . These are $24.96/ton and $5.00/ton respectively. Theoretically, the number of tons removed from the waste stream multiplied by $/ton represents total savings to the city and county However, after consultation with the Supervisor of the City's. Sanitation Department, it was determined that certain fixed overhead expenses in the collection system cannot be reduced on a per ton basis, -22- If the implementation of a recycling program is to result in the reduction of collection costs, it must first result in the removal of enough refuse to warrant a reduction in the number of trips to the landfill . Currently, in order to ensure that each packer begins its morning route empty, the last trip to the landfill is made with only 2 a load. This represents 3 tons/day or 780/tons/year. Therefore, any amount of material removed from the waste stream above 780 tons results in a savings in collection costs due to reduction in trips to the landfill . The breakdown of savings in collection costs is the following for each 6 tons (one full truckload) of recyclable material removed from regular refuse collection: 4.61 Wage 1,92 Fringes 2.74 Truck Depreciation 3.00 gas at 3 gal ./ rd. trip $-12.27 Collection savings listed on Figures 1 and 2. were calculated according to estimated tons/recyclables at the different participation rates. . The landfill disposal savings of $5.00/ton given by Frank Liguori is also currently a theoretical savings because the savings will not be seen directly by the City or the County. The County would recognize a savings only if it changed its contract with the landfill -23- owner and paid on a per ton basis, The City would only recognize a savings if the County then charged a tipping fee to users, on a per ton or per truck load basis. 4) Finally, regardless of which option the city undertakes or supports a central stroage and processing site is necessary. The city rented a building to Challenge Industries (for $I/year) when that organ- ization operated its glass recycling program. It is hoped that the F City would again make a building available. The building that Challenge used may be torn down soon for the new sewage treatment plant. The City Planning Department has indicated that the Old Stables building located on Franklin Street, between First and Second Streets, is vacant and available for use. (".-Chuck Barker, Assistant City Engineer, indicates that the building is only partially vacant, a portion of it being used to store electrical equipment. Perhaps this equipment could be stored elsewhere and the building made available for storage of recyclable materials. The Task Force is continuing to investigate the availability of this building. E As mentioned previously, it is possible that the County many construct a source separation and energy recovery facility at the old hospital heating plant. If this were to occur, a separate city facility might not be necessary. However, until that becomes a reality, it must be assumed that the City program would need its own storage site. The following is a discussion of each of the options with special attention given to those options which appear to be most feasible for implementation -24- at 24-at this time. Cost estimates are included in charts following this discussion. A. Retrofit Existing Municipal Collection System This system would involve the purchase of trailers with separate containers or compartments to be towed behind City "trash vehicles during regular collection hours. Materials collected would be disposed of at the central storage site. Improperly source-separated materials could be disposed of at the time of collection in the refuse vehicles. This type of system is being successfully operated currently in Batavia, New York. As explained previously, Batavia has a flat terrain, and although that city does have alleyways, the logistical problems of getting refuse trucks in and out are not so severe as in Ithaca. This option can be broken down into the following advantages and disadvantages: Advantages Disadvantages Low cost to city for equipment -- Hilly topography and narrow alleyways trailers can be built for approx- make movement difficult for existing imately $600 each. trucks; Sanitation Department supervisor does not believe it is feasible. City would receive revenue for Current collection system is based on sale of recovered materials. incentive time/pay scale. Workers are paid for 40 hrs/wk, regardless of how many hours they work. Use of trailers Occurs same day as regular would involve additional labor time. refuse collection, and thus Therefore, would require major re-design increases participation. of system. Equipment is eligible for 50% City takes risk of unsuccessful program. reimbursement (trailers, com- partments, storage bins). Improperly sorted material can be disposed of simultaneously 1 -25- Retrofitting the current trucks with racks does not appear to be a feasible alternative. Interference with the truck's mechanical operation is one problem, while lack of suffiecient collection storage space is another, B. Separate Municipally-Operated Curbside Collection System This system would involve the purchase of large flatbed vehicles with containers of 55-gallon drums for storage of materials, or purchas of compartmentalized dump trucks. Pickup could be weekly on the same day as regular collection, or on a less frequent basis. The advantages and disadvantages of this system are the following: Advantages Disaftanta5ps The logistical problems of Hi.gh cost of equipment tow-behind trailers are not encountered Possibility of additional labor costs if current labor cannot be utilized Participation would be high through transfer from regular refuse if collection occurred on collection, weekly basis -- especially if on same day as regular coll­ Collection equipment may not be eligible ection. for 50% reimbursement. The regulations state that truck bodies to aid in the City would get revenue from separate collection and recycling of sale of recovered materials. previously segregated materials are eligible, Therefor-, a compartmentalized truck would be eligible, but a flat- bed truck might not, (Contai.ners on flatbed truck would be eligible. ) If a new municipally operated system is too expensive to consider at this time, the city could consider incremental replacement of the present refuse vehicles with vehicles that are capable of storing both recyclables and regular refuse. These trucks would be eligible for the 50% reimbursement from the state. Such a vehicle, called the Separated Discards Carrier, -26- is being designed, developed and tested by Recycling and Conservation, Inc. Recyclable materials are loaded onto hydraulic buckets on sides of the truck and dumped into compartmentalized containers in the center secion. Newspapers are loaded into enclosed shelves on the side of the truck. Regular refuse is placed into a rear-loading hopper and fed with an auger into a 15 CY compactor body. Replacement of current refuse vehicles with SCDs would allow continuation of the present incentive system and would ensure weekly same-day collection which would increase participation rates. C. Municipally-Operated Drop-Off Centers The municipally-operated drop-off centers could be managed in several different ways -- they could be open at all times, unstaffed; open + at all times and staffed occuaionally; open only when staffed; or mobile (set up for specific times in designated areas). Sites open at all times provide maximum convenience to residents, and thus greater participation rates may be realized. However, sites that are open at all times or are open when staff is not present run a greater risk of receiving improperly sorted or cleaned materials, and of becoming hazardous and unsanitary areas if glass is broken and if containers overflow before pickup. Sites open at all times should be covered to protect newspaper, and this adds additional expense to the operation. The City would have to supply equipment for the collection and transport- ation of materials to markets or to central storage facility, The equip- -27- ment for storage and processing would be eligible for 50% reimbursement. E if located on City-owned property. i The City would have to locate acceptable and accessible sites for the drop-off centers. (Appendix 9 lists possible sites for drop-off i centers. ) The County is also investigating different private and public sites for drop-off centers and maps are being prepared indicating exact locations. Essential to designating sites is to make them easily accessible to residents, and to try to locate the sites that are frequented by large numbers of residents so that special trips to the drop-off site are not necessary. At the same time, care must be taken to design sites to handle a flow of traffic and to prevent congestion and hazardous conditions. ' Because of the labor and maintenance problems involved in operating 24-hour permanent drop-off sites., the Task Force suggests a mobile drop-off collection system. (See Figure 1 for cost details.) This system would involve the designation of 5 specific neighborhood sites, each of which a roving compartmentalized truck and crew would visit on a weekly basis. The crew would collect and sort materials at one location per day -- perhaps from 9 am - 4 pm, The truck could be unloaded into storage bins at the central storage facility at the end of each day. A compartmentalized truck would be eligible for 50% reimbursement. ! Marblehead's recycling program utilizes an 18.8 Cy compartmentalized M vehicle. Materials are placed in a hydraulic bucket which is also i compartmentalized to ensure separation of materials, -28- An especially interesting fact is that Marblehead's vehicle is specifically designed to aid in maneuvering narrow streets and sharp corners -- problems also found Ithaca. The truck cabs were mounted over the engine to shorten vehicle length. The cost of the trucks several years ago was $20,000, but is probably now close to $30,000 with inflation. With 50% reimbursement, this cost would be about $15,000. A staff of two persons probably would be sufficient to operate the truck and staff the sites. The same concerns listed above regarding accessible and convenient location sites, as well as maintenance of sites must be considered. The following list cites advantages and disadvantages of this system: Advantages -Disadvantages Less labor and equipment Designated times are less convenient than curbside pickup to resident, thus reducing participation levels Less maintenance problems Additional equipment that that now hazards than permanent 24- existing is necessary, hour drop-off sites. Equipment is eligible for 50% Additional labor than that now used reimbursement. is necessary. City gets revenue from sale Collection from non-redisential sectors of recovered materials is difficult. Quality of materials higher than unstaffed drop-off sites One major disadvantage to drop-off as opposed to curbside collection of recyclables is that it makes collection from non-residential sectors much more difficult. A random survey of non-residential businesses and in- stitutions indicated that willingness to recycle is strong -- but coordination and facilitation of collection are needed. (See Appendix 1 for survey of non-residential establishments. ) One advantage of a roving Figure 1 Municipally-_Operated Drop-Off 5 Sites % Partic- ; (9310.6) Revenue ; Savings in Savings in Initial Costs (Costs are ipation ;1980 Refuse Collection Disposal from EPA estimates, and from actual costs of Tons Recy- lat 12.27/6T.1' at $5.00/T 1 other.programs.) + clable + over 780 T. + 1 1 1 ! 1 Newspaper ; at 12% tai $15/T. ; 11 .1 1, $30,000 Compartmental- ' ized Truck 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 60% ; 670.4 ; $.10,055 $3,352 (15,000) (50% reimb.) 1 1 i 1 1 30% ; 335.2 ; 5,028 ; T---- ; 1,676 (3,000) (each of 5 yr.) q I 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 + 2. $20,000 Front-end loader 1 1 1 1 1 (_10,000) (50% reimb.) 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 (2,000) (each of 5 yr.) 1 1 1 1 1 Glass ; at 10% ; at $30/T. ; 13. $6,000 1 1 1 1 1 60% 11 559.0 11 $16,759 11 �----- ; $2,793 ; (3,000) 3 stationary bins-city- 30% ! 279.3 8,379 ! - ---�� 1,397 (600) y made 35 cy. each ;. 14,, $1,000 glass crusher 1 t 1 1 1 (.500) (50% reimb.) (100) (each of 5 yr.)? Aluminum ; at 1 % at $360/T 5, $2,000 Baler 60% ; 5.6 ; $20012 ; $28 (_1,000) (50% reimb.) 30% 2.8 1,004 14 (200) (each of 5 yr.) 1 1 i 1 a i 1 1 1 � 6. $1,500 pallet lift hand-operated ' (_750) (_50% reimb. ) t 1 1 A + ' (150) (each of 5 yr.; 1 i 1 1 1 d 1 1 1 I d 1 1 Total ' ' '-------------'------------ ' $5,000 Coordinator 60% 1234.6 $28,826 $930 $6,159 3.000 PublAc,i.ty 30% 617.3 14,411 3, 087 X68,500 TOTAL 138,250) (50% reimb.) 14,050) (each of 5 yr.) -29- compartmentalized truck is that perhaps one day per week it could be used to collect from non-residential sources of recyclable materials. D. Privately-Operated Curbside Collection This option is basically the same as Option B, a municipally operated curbside collection system, except that the operator would be a private business or non-profit organization. The City could choose what sort of operation is desired and then bid out the contract among interested parties. Two private carriers, Seymours and Collins were contacted to see if either would be interested in operating any kind of city-wide recycling program. Collins expressed no interest at all , but Seymours did, and would want to hear details proposed by the City, Ithaca Scrap would only continue to operate the type of system it now has some commercial and institutional pickup, and residential drop-off. Ithaca Scrap estimated it could operate at a cost of $20/ton of recyclable materials, Challenge Industries is very interested inoperating a collection program, and would make a bid if the City formalized details. However, Challenge did experience a net loss of $35,000 for the operation of the glass recycling program in 1980, Jack Gilroy, .from Challenge, said that depending upon the nature of the program chosen, Challenge would want assurance from the City that any losses would be absorbed. Dan Hoffman, from the Community Self-Reliance Center, said the Center was interested in coordingating a City-wide recycling program, and that the Center had had suc-ess in attracting volunteers for its current efforts. He said that the Center could not afford to purchase equipment k j i Roving Compartmentalized Truck Figure 1 Operating' Costs Savings and Revenues Total Costs Profit or Loss to City $24,960 labor at Cost to City (50% reimb.) $6.00/hr. i (50% reimb.) ; High Cost ---- Revenue (this includes 60% 20% fringe) : 28,826 Rev. 38,250 Initial ; 60% 30% 930 Coll. i 29,292 0p er. ; 6,159 Disp. 67, 542 ; 67,542 67,542 i 35,915 i ; 35,915 17,498 $1,517 Gas- -31,627 -50,044 125 mi/whJ 6 mi/gl . 1 Cost to City 1.40/gl . (each of 5 yr.) ; 30% ; 14,050 Low Cost ---- Revenue 29,292 43,342 60% 30% $1,500 maintenanci 14,411 Rev. ------ Coll , 43,342 43,342 3,087 Disp. ; 35,915 17,498 17,498 -7,427 !25,844 $400 insurance $915 gas to Elmira-56 at 60% City would trips need to subsidize 70 mi/trip ; $7,427 6 mi/gl . � $29,292 -30- and would need more favorable market agreements for recovered materials in order to pay for coordination and education. A non-profit agency could probably make significant use of volunteers. A paid coordinator could organize and schedule the volunteers. Certain community organizations were contacted to see if they would be interested i in donating time to an effort such as this, and several groups indicated support. (A listing of groups contacted is found in. ,appendix 10). Incentive to volunteers to participate could be in the form of a share in the revenue generated from the sale of materials, It would, however, be unreasonable to expect that a weekly curbside collection system could be staffed by volunteers. Collection would probably- have to be reduced to once a month. Another possible source of volunteers is the Court system. "Public service" work can be an alternative sentence to prison. Preliminary discussions with Offender Aid and Restoration and others in the Court system have indicated that this possibility should be explored for them. One important consideration in the operation of a private curbsid collection i system is the purchase of equipment. In order to be eligible for 50% reimbursement, equipment must be owned by a municipality and stored on municipally-owned property. Therefore, in order to reduce costs substantially to a private organization, the city could purchase the necessary equipment, and rent it to the private operating group. I i i I -31- The following is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of this option: Advantages Disadvantages Equipment may be eligible for Initial equipment costs are high 50% reimbursement. Curbside collection generates If volunteers are used, collection greater participation cannot be done on a weekly basis. Curbside collection can more City will have to incur initial equipment easily receive recyclables costs if 50% reimbursement is to be from non-residential genera realized. tors than can drop-off site collection. City does not receive revenue from recovered materials. City does not take as great a financial risk, does not have Dependence on volunteers could cause responsibility for operation. reliability problems. i E. Privately-Operated Drop-off Centers This option is basically the same as the municipally-operated drop-off centers except that the operator would be one or more private businesses or non-profit agencies. Again, the City could design the type of drop-off program and accept bids from interested groups. Suitable city sites would have to be located and decisions as to permanent vs. mobile and staffed t vs. unstaffed would have to be made. For the reasons cited in the F Municipally-operated drop-off system --labor and maintenance T- theTask Force suggests a mobile drop-off system. A roving compartmentalized truck could visit 4 city sites -- 1 per weekend. If a non-profit group operated the system, volunteers could be used to staff trucks and sites. This does, of course, necessitate the reduction in the number of collection times per month, as volunteer labor is basically available on weekends as opposed to weekdays, Incentive to volunteer groups can be a share in the revenues generated. ROVING COMPARTMEENTALIZED TRUCK Figure 2 Savings to Total cost or profit to Operating Cost City Total Cost to City(Collection 8 Private Operator Disposal) $12,480 Labor High - (50% reimb.} $15,575 Operating costs 1 worker @ $6/hr (inc.- 60% Partic. $38,250 initial cost 20% fringe),, Costs minus revenues $930 Coll. 280 Gas @ 100 mi.! low - (each of 5 yrs) 60 30 per month j 6159 Disp. $1.40/gal. t t $79650 initial cost 15,575 15,575 i 7089 i 28,826 14,411 1500 Maintenance1 (139251) (1164) r Cost minus savings 400 Insurance High: 915 Gas to Elmira; ' At 60% Private Operator 56 trips 30 Partic. 60 30 makes $13,251 profit 38,250 389250 0 Coll. i 79,089 39087 At 30% Private Operator { suffers$1164 loss $15,575 TOTAL ; 3087 Disp. 31,161 35,163 3087 Low: 60% 30 I ' 71650 7,650 i 7,089 3,087 561 4,563 City would need to ( subsidize at 60% $561 ! at 305K 4563 i I 1 1 I i ;ur: PRIVATE_Y-0-D;:H TES D:.07�-OF. 4 SIT:.` cr r -a Tons savinas n SEvinos in Initial costs -- --- --r ticipa- Recyclabl= RevenuE colle-tion. disposal @, (from LPA estimates and from actual on (1980 total S1-_•27/ S5/ton costs in other programs) ,tefuse 9310); c tons over 7801 tons News- 1• caper 12% I $I5/ton $30,000 Compartmentalized truck i6Cr 670.4 $10,055 $39352 (15,000 with 50r reimb. (3,000) each of 5 years 30% 335.2 5.028 1,676 2. $20,000 Front end loader I (10,000) with 50% reimb. �2Iass 10 $30 ton (2,000) each of 5 years 60% 559.0 16,759 2,793 3. $6,000 3 stationary bins (City-made) 35 cy each 30% 279.3 8,379 1,397 (3000) with 50% reimb. (600) each of 5 years I Alum. _,1% $360 ton4. $1,000 Glass crusher 5. , (500) with 50% reimb. 60% 6 2 012 28 (100) each of 5 years 30% 2.8 j 1,004 14 5. $29000 Baler j (1,000) with 50% reimb. TOTAL (200) each of 5 years 60% 1234.6 $28,826 $9306 159 6. $1,500 Pallet-lift (Hand-operated) 30% 617.3 14,411 � (750) with 50% reimb. I 3,08 (150) each of 5 years ;. $8,000 Education Coordinator - 110'9000 EI Publicuty - 3,000 $68,500 TOTAL I -3Q,250 50% Reimburseable i382250 Actual cost to city Each of 5 years ` baso .� 8000 t 4- f f I I � i I � I -32- Initial costs of equipment would be high and again, in order to be eligible for the 50% reimbursement, the equipment must be owned by the city, and stored on municipal property, The City's support of the program could be shown through purchase of the equipment, and rental to the private operating group. A detailed. examination of costs is presented in Figure 2 but a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the option are as follows: Advantages Disadvantages City does not have responsi_ Initial cost of equipment is high bility of operation. Privately operated - exten--' Possibly less frequent collection due to sive use of volunteers scheduling of volunteer labor. possible. Equipment eligible for 50% Drop-off system reduces chance for non- reimbursement. residential recycling, unless truck used on separate day for collection. City does not receive revenues. Conclusion It should be emphasized that this is a preliminary report. Complete cost projections for different systems cannot .be made until more market information is obtained from professional consultants hired by Tompkins County, until funding possibilities from New York State are explored, and until the County decides what type of disposal and/or recycling system it will build. In the meantime, there are steps the City can take to move the process along, as outlined in Recommendations. The Task Force hopes that Common -33- Council will comment on the options presented here, make suggestions for improvements or additions, and set a direction for future efforts by the Task Force. Members of the Task Force are willing to continue to perform research, if Common Council is committed to supporting an improved recycling system. i i APPENDIX 3 RECYCLING EDUCATION: CITY OF ITHACA - Action Proposal (Preliminary) Mary Ann Kozak, Ann Mathews, Dan Hoffman SUMMARY: We suggest that for a relatively small investment in materials ($3,000-$4,000?) and part-time coordination ($4,000-$6,000?) the City could launch an intensive one-year educational/promotional program aimed at teaching City residents, school children, businesses and in- stitutions why, what and how to recycle. Such an educational effort would be essential to the success of any recycling system that requires source separation. Whatever system the Sity chooses, it must be highly visible and information about it must be accurate and readily available. We expect this initial expenditure (and a smaller annual sum in future years, to orient newcomers and remind others) will 'be returned in the form of increased revenues for recycled materials and savings in municipal collection and landfill expense. MAJOR COMPONENTS: 1. Part-time coordinator - Someone must have overall responsibility for planning and implementing a City-wide campaign, for preparing materials, coordinating large numbers of volunteers, for supervi-sing students. Estimated cost: $4,000-$6,000 (1st year) 2. Educational/Promotional Materials - 10,000 brochures (for all residents) slide show (with different components for different audiences) , posters, curriculum materials for school teachers, magents and calendars for householders, advertising, etc. Estimated cost: $3,000-$4,000 (1st year) 3. Volunteers to help in distributing educational material , making presentations to groups, staffing informational booths or a "travelling -35- show" on recycling, etc. 4. Cooperation from media, businesses, community groups, City government, schools. TARGET AUDIENCES 1. All City Households (9500 according to 1980 census) Suggested strategies -.Individual contact, person--to-person whenever possible: door-to-door campaigns, distributing educational brochure (possibly with calendar and magnet). -Work through existing community/neighborhood groups; talks, slide show. -Organize recycling committees in neighborhoods, -Conduct public informational meetings -Insert recycling info into City-wide mailings (eg, school tax bills, water and sewer bills). -Create a "travelling show" about recycling that can be taken to fairs, schools, etc. -Teach children about recycling through schools and youth programs -Develop a catchy slogan or logo to be used throughout the campaign -General public visibility: Radio spots, articles, and ads in newspapers, posters, buttons, bumper stickers, etc. Who takes responsibility? -Paid Coordinator plans campaign, writes material , coordinates volunteers -Volunteers distribute literature, work with media, address groups, staff travelling show, take slides, sell buttons, etc. -Media offers free publicity -36- -Schools help arrange teacher training sessions -Community groups help recruit volunteers, plan programs -Colleges provide word study student(s) or classes working on projects to help with Education program. 2. Businesses, Industries, Institutions (offices, schools, colleges, nursing homes, etc.) -Subdivide into categories based on primary type of material generated: paper, glass, cardboard, organic waste. -Target a small number of "likely co-operators" within the category,. work on each case individually, expand to others as time permits. Suggested Strategies: r -Individual contact with store owners, office managers, department heads, etc. j -Distribute educational literature geared to each type of generator -Try to involve Chamber of Commerce, as it can influence businesses. III -Develop slide show geared to each type of generator -Give public recongition to businesses that recycle. Who takes responsibility? -Paid coordinator develops campaign -Volunteers approach individual businesses, schools, etc, -Community groups: some may want to specialize on a particular type of institution (.eg. Ecology House or Eco-Jus.ti:cs Task Force working with Cornell , League continues to work with industry) . -Media provides free publicity about cooperating businesses, 3. School Children Suggested Strategies -37- -Develop a "recycling curriculum" (variations for different ages, try to get selec-ed teachers, or schools, or the entire district to implement it. -Develop a list of volunteers who are willing to visit schools to address students about recycling. -Visit shcools with "travelling show -Produce a slide show for children -Sponsor a poster contest for school children -Try to involve young people in some volunteer activities -Set-up highly visible recycling "centers" inside schools Encourage establishment or extracurricular recycling clubs Who takes responsibility? -Paid coordinator plans campaign, makes initial contacts with. school district Volunteers take program into the schools -Teachers integrate recycling education into their lesson plans, offer to supervise recycling clubs -PTA involvement NOTES -Obviously, not all of these things can be done at once. Priorities must be established and a timeline/plan of work drawn up for the coordinator -We believe that any educational program. wi:ll be much more successful if it is accompanied by policies or legislation that financially reward i -38- recycling, and impose additional costs on those who do not recycle. -These are only suggestions; make comments, criticisms, add your own ideas! Cornell University- Utilities Department 607/256-4727 Humphreys Service Building, Ithaca, New York 14853 May 18, 1981 Mr. James W. Ray Tompkins County Board of Representatives Court House 312 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Ray: Mr. Ernest Bury, representing the Ithaca Solid Waste Task Force, visited me seeking information on Cornell 's interest in solid waste as .a fuel . Mr. Bury suggested I write this letter to you, summarizing our discussion. Cornell continues to be interested in its energy future, including investi- gation of all options for alternative fuels. In the past, we have experi- mented successfully with burning green wood chips in mixtures with coal . Several weeks ago we burned an 80 ton sample of refuse derived fuel in pelletized form from a solid waste processing plant in Baltimore, Maryland. While we did not run air quality tests, other technical aspects of handling and burning the material seemed satisfactory. Numerous technical details ' would have to be sorted out prior- -to making a commitment. This test was proposed by Mr. Fred Stettner of Medusa, New York, with the assistance of Teledyne, a company interested in designing and operating RDF facilities. Tests to date have been carried out in our power No. 8 boiler, our only currently operating coal boiler. By the fall of 1981 we expect to complete construction of an additional coal boiler, which will increase both our capacity to burn coal and our ability to consider alternative fuels. As you know, in late 1979 we declined participation in the Multi. County Sol i.d Waste Project proposed for Cornell , for economic and technical reasons, and environmental uncertainties. I consider that rejection specific to the con- figuration proposed and not necessarily limiting our consideration of either refuse derived fuel or incineration with heat recovery. In summary, we presently have capability to burn alternative fuel in our boilers and we are prepared to consider various possibilities after a deter- mination of the environmental , economic, and technical feasibility of any specific plan. Very truly yours, Henry E Doney Director of Utilities HED:md xc E. Bury' F. Liguori F. Stettner R. Matyas c 6.1 On July 12, 1978, Commissioner Peter A.A. Berle of the New York State Department of Environmental 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 forth the format for municipalities to receive financial assistance under the Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1972 for resource recovery projects *3'111 the source separation/recycling category. in the 1978-79 fiscal year capital budget for the State of New York, the Legislature appropriated $1,000,000 to assist municipalities to fund and implement source separation. projects. The specific purpose reflected in these guidelines is to fund equipment or devices for "low-technology resource recovery" from source separated solid waste and not to fund.resource recovery projects of the "high-tec:,xnology" type wnich separate, process, modify, convert, treat or prepare ��ixed .(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 orereg iisite ,,o funding is the demonstration of signed market or Turcaaze agreements relative to the timterials to be recovered. Municipalities are advised to contact the local 1`11egional Office -of the Departxent'�of Environmental Conservation to obtain information and copies of the simplified Environ,-aental Quality Bond Act,Grant Application Kit for Solid Waste Management Projects relating to source separaoion/recycling. I r Nei York SUatp- Department of -rnviroir►,.ntal Conservation Division of Solid U--ste Management Application Procedures for Source SeparationAecycling Resource Recovery Projects This modified Source Separation Grant Application Kit has been prepared for use by local government ill applying for Source Separatic)n Funding under Article 51, Implelentation of Environmental �1ali.ty Bond Act of 1972, Title 5, Solid Waste Reoovery and Management Sections 280 thru 283. - 1. Use of this application kit. This alication kit is to be used by municipalities for source separation/ recycling resource recoveryprojects. If an item is not applicable to the source separation project, please make a note of it. 2. Submission 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 De .ent of Enviromental Conservation to schedule a pre-application conference to discuss the proposed source separation project. Generally, it will be the regional solid waste engineer who wi.11 be working with the local municipality in the preparation of an application and conducting the pre-application conference. Part 2. Application for State assistance Fbllaaing the pre-application conference, the municipality shall submit to the appropriate regional director of the Department of Enviromental 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 im-d marketing data. (Inforriation Requirc-d for Suhmission of Fuming for Source Separation/Recycling Equipment) i It s<iould be noted that no Enviromental Analysis Infon-ation form is necessary since the Division of Solid* Waste Management has prepared a no'gative declaration. On this basis, local munici a- l.ities do not f have to prepare an environnental assessment for a source separation project. Part 3 Eligibility notification Following favorable action on the application, the municipality will be notified in writipg that the application and the project are eligible for funding (at 50 percent of the cost of the source separation equipuent) . 4. Project completion 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 sensation equipment. (b) Application, plans and/or specifications approval. (c) Preparation arra signing of a State contract between the State of New York and 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 construction 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 by 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 completing the application forms 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 n guidance in preparation of plans and/or specif icatio*is submitted for source separation equipment. (d) Assisting in selection of technology which is best suited for the . particular material that is being recovered.- (e) Provide assistance in development and negotiating market and purchase contracts. (f) Assist eatmunities 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 the 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 .'•iarketL-)q Guidelines for Source Senaration/Recwling Resource Recovery Projects are included as part of the Bond Act Kit. The main purpose of preiring' the guidelines is for use by the Department of Audit and Control in the auditing of the projects for pajmin nt. However, the local municipality should utilize these guidelines since they adequately describe the purpose of tha program, the types of equirment or devices which are eligible for Bond P.ct funding, and tl-L-. types of marketin7 or purchase agreements necessary for marketing 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 signing 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 , WHEB.EAS, (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 MUNIMPALITY, as follows; 1. • That . (municipality's authorized representative - Title only) be hereby authorized to sign, on behalf of the MUNICIPALITY and make application for a STATE GRANT-IN:AID and provide the STATE such• informatioa, data and doc=ents 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 sign the 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 tho MUNICIPALITY or MUNICIPALITIES sQt •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. .iEW YORK 12205, together with a complete application. t S. That this resolutioti shall take effect immediately. i 6 P. The Town Board of the Town of Cortlandt does hereby RESOLVE and ORDAIN as follows : LOOAL LAW N0. 2-73 _ APPENIDIX 5 - RESOURCE REc0'1.1'.RY L A:•I LEGISLATIVE INTEITT: The Town Board of the Torn of Cortlandt hereby proclaims that it is in the publin interest of the residents of the Torn of Cortlandt to establish a local l .v that sets standards for the front-end separation of e-ardboard and paper products from the refuse stream and the subsequent disposition of these cardboard and paper products for the purpose of renycling. In so doing the Town contributes to both the longer life of our landfill areas , the conservation of our natural resources and ' produces a positive cash-flour to the Town as a result of reduning the amount of monies paid for dumping fees nombi ned .mit the generated revenue from the sale of the recyclable materials. PURPOS^: To provide for the orderly, systematic and- regularly scheduled nollection of nel•:spapers , cardboard, magazines and all other paper and cardboard products that can be readily separated and reny,-led from the garbage Materials normally produced by persons who are auners , tenants or orrupants of residential and/or commercial buildings in the Town of Cortland D13 I?!IITI0YS: "Reo,y-lable PaDer" - All papers , newspapers , magazines , i cardboard, and all other paper and cardboard nrodu-ts that Taxi be readily separated from all other garbage , refuse or rubbish material. PROCE The following pronedure will be initiated for the separation and collection of recyclable paper: ry _ (a) All owners , tenants or one.upants of resideintial and/or. nommernial buildings in the Town of Cortlandt, being serviced by-the Town of Cortlandt Sanitation .Department shall separate al rersy.►lable paper from all other garbage, refuse or rubbish material. . (b) Re,-yrlable paper, shoOd�be separately parkaged and secured in bundles or nontaied within a carton or bag. All separate f-artons and .ardboard nontainers are to be flattened and secured. . (�} Re,-ye-lable paper is .+o be pla,-ed. ,�urbside and will be �allented by the Town of Cortlandt Sanitation Department on ever Wednesday of the month. No reoy,-fable paper shall be played murbside for nolle�tion before 7:00 P.M. on the night prepeding nollention nor after 7:00 A.M. of the day of nollention. (d) All recynlable paper becomes the property of the Town of Cortlandt once it is placed t-urbside for nollention. (e). :�Noperson, firm or norporation, other than the Town of. Cortlandt Sanitation Department or its duly authorized agent, shall rolle�tj , attempt to nollent, or interfere with the Pollention of this re�y�lable paper. VIOLATIONS AYD P NALTI'S Any person, . fi.. or corporation that violates provision (e) of this Lot-al Law, shall be guilty of a violation, and upon monvintion thereof be punishable by a fine of . not less than $25.00 or more than $250.00 for ea^h offense. BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF CORTLANDT HARRIET L. BOYLE Town Clerk Dated : April 18, 1978 Croton on Hudson , N . Y . _2w ( Published: April 27, 1978 ( TOWN OF ISLIP DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 577 MAIN STREET • IS!IP.NEW YORK 11751 • (516)224=5640 Michael Lo Grande.supervisor Thomas I Hroncich Cornrnissioner TOWN OF ISLIP RECYCLING ORDINA14CE The following portion of Chapter 21, "Garbage and Rubbish" of the Code of the Town of Islip pertains to separation of recyclables for residents within Town Garbage Districts: 21-1. Definitions. As used in the ordinance, the following words are intended to include and be defined as follows: BULK ITEM - an item of solid waste larger than 2' x 2' x 4' or heavier than 50 pounds. RECYCLABLES —Solid waste consisting of newspaper, magazines, to ep one ooks, cardboard, glass and/or metal.. SOLID WASTE - means materials or substances discharged or rejected as being spent, useless, worthless or in excess to the owner at the time of such discard or rejection., except sewage and other highly diluted water-carried materials or substances and those in gaseous form. Such wastes shall in- clude but are not limited to garbage, sludge, rubbish, ashes, incinerator residue, street cleanings, dead animals, offal, abandoned vehicles, agricultural waste, industrial waste, I commercial waste, and construction and demolition debris. 1 21-2:1 RECYCLABLES A. Recyclables shall be separated from all other solid waste. B. Paper recyclables shall be tied in bundles prior -to the collec- tion, removal or disposal of same. Newspaper shall be bundled separately from magazines, telephone books and cardboard. C. Glass and metal recyclables shall be clean and all contents shall be removed therefrom prior to the collection, removal or disposal of same. Caps shall be removed from glass recyclables and labels shall be removed from metal recyclables prior to the collection, removal or disposal of same. -1- D. All recyclables shall be placed in a garbage can for collection, removal and disposal. Recyclables shall not be placed in plastic bags for collection, removal or disposal. E. Recyclables shall not be placed in the same garbage can as or otherwise mixed with other forms of solid waste -for collection, removal or disposal. F. It shall be unlawful for a person to collect, remove or dispose of solid waste which consists of recyclables combined with other forms of solid waste. G. Ownership of recyclables set out for collection shall thereupon vest in the Town of Islip. It shall be unlawful for a person to collect, remove or dispose of recyclables which are the property of the Town of Islip without first having obtained the license required by this Chapter. A person who collects or removes re- cyclables which belong to the Town of Islip shall deliver and dispose of same at such locations as the Commissioner shall designate for that purpose: H. The Commissioner is empowered to designate the day of the week on which recyclables shall be collected, removed and disposed of from a particular area. Recyclables shall not be collected, re- moved or disposed of from that area on any day of the week other than that designated by the Commissioner. I. The Commissioner is empowered to designate the day of the week on which solid waste which does not contain recyclables shall be collected, removed and disposed of from a particular area. Solid waste which does not contain recyclables shall not be collected,- removed or disposed of from that area on any day of the week other than that designated by the Commissioner. 21-10 PENALTIES FOR OFFENSES B. A person convicted of violating 21-2. 1 A,B,C.D or E shall be guilty of a violation and punishable as follows.- (1) ollows:(1) For a first conviction, by a fine of not less than $10. 00 nor more than $25. 00. (2) For a second conviction within one year by a fine of not less than $25. 00, nor more than $50. 00. C3) For a third conviction within one year by a fine of not less than $50. 00, nor more than $100. 00. (4) For a fourth conviction within one year, by fine of not less than $100. 00, nor more than $250. 00. -2- Appendix 7 cont. Town or Type of Mandatory q6 Material Type of Collection City System or Participation Collected Equipment (pop. if Voluntary ( tonage if available) available) Albany, N.Y. Office Voluntary N.A. 4/80 - 3/81 Collection is done by State Office paper Paper 63 T. custodial staff. Paper Rockefeller separation is stored in concrete Empire State Pilot Program Confidential block storage area.s. Plaza Paper 1 , 281 T. Marblehead , Curbside Mandatory ( 1976) 74°x6 ( 1978) Ma. weekly ( 23, 000) Drop-off ( 1978) 60- Paper - avg. Compartmentalized truck available 65% 90 T. /mon. with rear-loading hydraulic buckets Clear Glass Colored Glass , Cans avg. 80- 100 1 T./mon. Larchmont, Curbside Mandatory Very high Newspa er Current existing trash N.Y. weekly newspaper ( 19773 1560 T. equipment retrofitted newspaper only (Village Cans Drop-off cans ordinance) Glass and bottles Palo Alto , Curbside Voluntary 65% Newspaper 2 modified newspaper Ca. weekly Glass delivery trucks - ( 15, 500 Private incentive Cans each with compart- single family hauler system Metal scrap mentalized trailer homes) Total 460 T. /mon. Appendix 7 Sample of Recycling Programs in Other Communities Town or Type of . Mandatory % Material Type of Collection City System or Participation Collected Equipment (pop. if Voluntary ( tonage if available) available) Islip, N.Y. Curbside Mandatory N .A. Glass - sep- N.A. ( 325,000) once/wk. in town arated municipal garbage mixed & priv. districts Metal - ferrous collection non-ferrous Newspaper Batavia, N.Y. Curbside Mandatory 25-40% ( 1980) figures Tow-Behind drop-off depending Trailers on Sat. on time Cardboard 221 T. municipal of year Newspaper 198 T. collection Glass 146 T. Steel/ 165 T. Alum. Cortlandt , Curbside Mandatory 25-33/ Newspaper Standard N.Y. weekly Magazines Rear-Loading ( 28,000) Cardboard packer trucks ' Total 120 T. per month *Carmel/ Curbside Mandatory N.A . Newspaper Flat-Bed Trucks Mahopac, and newspaper collected only with lift gate N.Y. Drop-off only 55 gal. drums Glass - Dropoff Metal *Carmel has recently _. signed contract with Resource Recovery Montgomery, Drop-off Voluntary N.A. Paper Systems. This will N.Y. at town Metal i change collection and landfill Aluminum processing systems . Glass 12 iTHACA.JOURNAL Thursday,Nova 20, 1980 Photo by AP Workers use"a• modified hap-baling..machine to gather. leaves=.:recintly,in ,Batavia, Batawia baled lout of.leaf hassle BATAVIA (AP) - That annual commodity.Gardeners love the free, "But when packaged in neat little autumnal hassle sweeping up crunched-leaf bales as a substitute bales that a person can put in the fallen leaves no longer' bothers for peat moss, which they use for trunk of a car, now they can put this western New York community mulch. Peat moss.generally costs them back in the soil where they thanks to Harry Simmons'creative about $7.a bale. Cattlemen also use need to go," he said. tinkering.and some nighttime sneak the bales'as a substitute for ex- Simmons said he developed the thieves.. pensive straw bedding.. system "on city time with city mon-• Manned by city workers, an . The new system "satisfied cityey" and welcomes other interested budget-watchers, too. It. cut the municipalities to take a look,copy it, adapted tractor and a.converted hay= baling machine bundle up,, tons of 'city s annual leaf-clearing bill from and improve on.it. , . leaves and spew out:neat 35-p6und about $26,000 in 1977 to. roughly Batavia used to rely on citK.work bales at the curb. .$13,200 last year Simmons said. ers to vacuum-,curbside leaves into-: "Leaves are a worthless, noxious open trucks—a time-consuming and We,never pick up aone,". ex pain-to all cities when they fall expensive method:And then the city....-; 41, plaiiied Simmons, the public works loosely on'the road, Simmons said. had to find a landfill willing to take superintendent. "They're stolen ov- "With environmental laws making it the leaves, which often wasn't easy. ernight." illegal,to. burn them.in the street, Simmons said he had been thinking What. once was a - municipal they plug up drains and cause added for years about trying to bale.leaves, uisance is now a,:valuable. local labor and expense. but never could come up with the-,,, __money to put his,plan into effect. Then three years ago,a local farm ; equipment_dealer lent the public ,; works department a.baler.and Sim-q:. mons and his crews began to expel ment. The baler itself, however, didn't pick up leaves. "So we built a conveyor to lessen the angle of lap proach to the road"" Simmons,,ex- plained. k ` Preceding the baler on its rounds is a, tractor-. equipped with an-,old landscaping rake with worn-out sweeper,brooms.. After residents have raked their 1' leaves to the curb, a worker-rakes them into the street, the sweeper brooms put them into a row for the baling machine and after=.some crunching a.bale emerges A worker then sets the bales back at the curb,and another improvised rake and a sweeper follow-behind to finish the cleanup:" The bales;. which"are bound with cord, hold together because., the-._ leaves 'are sw.,compressed �,e truckfuls>;:,oE#,leaves:':yields``-one',f truckload of4 bales. -39- APPENDIX 9 Possible Drop-off Locations within City Boundaries 1. P & C - Hancock St. (Phone conversation with manager revealed that P & C does not want drop-off site in that lot) 2. Jakes - W. Court St. (Behind Plain St. side) 3. Pete's - Laundromat - Taughannock Blvd. 4. Tops Market - Elmira Rd. - (Phone conversation with manager revealed that Tops would be happy to support drop-off site) 5. South 'Hill School - off Hillview 6. Woolworth Parking Lot - city-owned lot 7. I.G.A. parking lot 8. Belle Sherman School 9. Parking Lot- Dryden Rd. 10. Lower McGraw Place - (behind apts. ) 11. Frat House at Highland Ave. and Wykoff 12. Seal and Serpent Frat - Roberts P1 . 13. Old P & C Building - E. York and Tioga 14. Old Clock Factory - (Parking lot) 15. Cass Park - (City-owned) 16. West Hill School - (Parking lot) 17. West Village - West Village Rd. (Parking lot) -40- APPENDIX 10 Community Groups Expressing Interest to Participate as Volunteers in Recycling Program 1. Boy Scouts - (Jack Bennison, 844-8125) very supportive - would like to see other groups participate also so Boy Scouts would not have to participate every week - would like to see some form of compensation to Volunteers. 2. RSVP - Retired Senior Volunteers Program (Esther Miller, 277-4545) very happy to participate where possible concerned about physical constraints - perhaps coordinator could be from RSVP. 3. GIAC - Greater Ithaca Activities Center (Charles Manning) supportive - believes groups of youths would be willing to support recycling program - would like to have Council develop specific proposal to show to group leaders: 4. Girl Scouts (Sue Crowe -273-6666) very supportive - would like to bring matter up at Sept. 15 Council meeting to get feedback from group leaders. 5. ACT - Area Congregations Together (.Georgia Coffin, 273-8816) � supportive - individual congregations were contacted through late summer newsletter and will be in contact if they feel they are able, to participate — personal contact should follow decision of specific proposal . 6. Community Self-Reliance Center (.Dan Hoffman, 272-3040) i -41- very supportive, currently coordinate two monthly neighborhood pickup programs, using four volunteers for each run, plus .others to distribute reminders every four.months, Many of the volunteers are drawn from the neighborhoods served. 4 42- APPENDIX 11 Personal Statements of Recycling Task Force Members The Task Force was fortunate to have a very diverse membership, with many special areas of expertise represented. What follows is a little background information on each member. Some members have included personal statements to reinforce points they feel strongly about, or to include perspectives they feel are missing from the full report. Ernest Bury A collection program is dependent on inexpensive labor. A potential source for such labor is through the courts and jails. A sentence R can evidently be imposed, with consent, that would entail a specified number of hours of working as a collector. Work release of jail inmates is not legally possible at present. A change in the law should be considered which would allow inmates to volunteer for collection duty. Upgrading the solid waste to refuse derived fuel (RDF) would allow it to be burned in Cornell boilers, would increase the amount of energy available, allow recycling of ferrous materials, and reduce the amount of ash hauled to the landfill . Ann Mathews As a Cooperative Extension Agent in Tompkins County, I provide educational programs on a wide range of subjects extending the research based information of the New York State Land Grant Colleges at Cornell University -43- to community residents. Recycling is a topic that involves two of our priority concerns: energy and inflation, addressing both the needs of individuals and their community. My main role with the task force has been to share knowledge and experience in the development of educational programs. Mary Ann Kozak As Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee of the Tompkins County League of Women Voters, I am very interested in the encouragement of recycling in order to conserve natural resources as well as precious landfill space. I also am employed as a health inspector for the Tompkins County Health Department. Earl Arnold As a staff member of the Eco-Justice Task. Force, a Cornell-based educational organization dealing with issues of ecology and social justice, I have a professional as well as personal interest in recycling. In light of impending shortages of energy resources and many kinds of material , I believe our current once-through system of using packaging and many other commodities is wasteful and ill-advised. The current consideration of alternative solid waste disposal options in Tompkins County provides an opportunity for the City of Ithaca to review its waste collection and disposal system. It is my hope that a comprehensive recycling program can begin to emerge as a result of the work of the Recycling Task Force. f -44- Ida Webber, owner of Ithaca Scrap Processors since 1949, family involved in Ithaca fundraising, scouts, urban renewal committees city alderman and many other civic projects. Scrap people are among the first environmentalists, dedicated to j encourage recycling long before it became a VOGUE word. I am personally not on the Task Force committee as a status symbol but to offer advice and encourage recycling along the proper channel . I will report on what I know, what I have seen and what I think could happen. Purpose of Scrap Industry: 1. conserve natural resources 2. save energy- 50% to 95% can be saved through recycling as opposed to using virgin materials 3. extend the life of our landfill sites. Considering Ithaca's contours and geographic location, and listening to more learned people than myself, a house-to-house pickup program would not be one for us. It would be very costly. This is due to the fact that the refuse left at curbside is messy and must be sorted. This is l costly when dealing with an inexpensive item. We can never teach our transient community how to properly prepare recyclables for pickup. Only at a controlled dropoff center can this be accomplished We are a unique community. Some communities have had successful programs while others have already discontinued theirs because they lost money. Most of the successful ones are white collar communities that have 90 -45- T miles to travel to a landfill site, or those that have direct mill commitments for their programs. I recommend recycling only if it is done in the proper manner. 1. Education 2. Encourage volunteer - manned drop-off centers that can control material . This is a proved venture here in Ithaca. We make a profit on glass due to the fact we do not have the expense of curbside service. 3. Encourage Kiwanis to have more paper drives during the peak seasons or when the market is encouraging. This could be possible next year. 4. Paint garbage trucks "Keep Ithaca Clean-Recycle" 5. Encourage more businesses to enter into a program Do not use recycling as a status symbol but as a business. Recycling involves a great deal of expense. The industry does not only speak of glass, aluminum cans and newspaper when it speaks of recycling. We cover much more. Ward Merrill , Assistant Executive Director, Challenge Industries, Inc. As you are aware, Challenge Industries, Inc, operated a glass recycling program we discontinued because we were losing money. We would still be interested in providing a class recycling service if the operating deficit is not Challenge's. I firmly believe that a dollar commitment is necessary to absorb losses in a glass recycling program. -46- Lloyd Irvin, Sanitation Foreman The report is well-done. There is one area of disagreement I have with the report. The percentage of possible newspring available in a ton of refuse stated in the report is 10% to 15%. In 1978, the U..S.E.P.A. reported that 5% of refuse was reclaimable newsprint. I do not believe in a three year period the percentage could rise over 100%. When 12% is used as an amount to figure tons of possible recoverable materials it is inflating the savings of revenue and collection costs of refuse, which makes any of the systems' offered look better than they really would be, No matter which system many, or could be used, the City will have to spend many dollar's, not only for initial start up and equipment, but for operating and maintenance. Also, site and building, whether now existing, or to be built would be expensive to maintain and heat. In conclusion, I state that the City would have to spend many thousands of dollars if it decided to go into resource recovery, Deborah C. Hoard Few would dispute the fact that our society has wasted and misused many resources. Ithaca is an enlightened community which should be among those who have recognized that recycling saves resources, saves energy, and saves solid waste handling and disposal costs. As a preliminary report, this report does not contain a final recommendation on a -47- w recycling program for the City, but does show that recycling programs of a wide variety are operating throughout the Northeast U.S. Ithaca should commit itself to recycling and should work with the County to make a final decision about what program is feasible for our area. Dan Hoffman, Director of the Community Self-Reliance Center I believe that if we are determined and creative, and get the support of the community, we can design a successful recycling system. I know that it's been done in many other places, in many different ways. The Center's program in Fall Creek and Bryant Park indicates to me that volunteers can play a very large role, that residents can be educated to separate and prepare materials properly, and that participation spreads quickly through a neighborhood, once the reliability of a program is established. Conservation and frugality used to be a way of life in this country, and I think recycling is a way to reinstill those values. This is certainly an appropriate time for it!