HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/14/1990 - Solid Waste Abatement Commission AGENDA
SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER CONFERENCE ROOMS A & B
TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1990
11:30 A.M.
t46,ki&mr I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA fi1L&4116 _
,
y-.II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES `y-" 'I `�' b�
III. OATH OF OFFICE Co 3s2ir
IV. STAFF REPORT
A. First Half 1 90 Tonnage Report
B. Compost Facility Update
C. Appliance Overview
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Commercial Recycling Program
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Long Range Funding- Dakota County
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. DISTRIBUTION
IX. NEXT MEETING
ADJOURNMENT
S.4Stw•eia chLodein +4-`;'-&-""1/(1-41/41A-‘7S‘
MEMO TO: CHAIRS MANN & HOEL & ALL MEMBERS OF THE SOLID WASTE
ABATEMENT COMMISSION
FROM: RECYCLING SPECIALIST HAGEMAN
DATE: AUGUST 7, 1990
SUBJECT: EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION MEETING OF
AUGUST 14, 1990
A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission
will be held on Tuesday, August 14, 1990 at 11:30 a.m. in the Eagan
Municipal Center Conference Rooms A and B. The City will provide
a box lunch to commission members requesting one by noon, Monday,
August 13. Please contact Kris Hageman or Jane Helebrant at 454-
8100 to indicate whether you will attend and your luncheon
preference.
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The agenda, as presented or modified, requires adoption by the
Commission.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A copy of the minutes of the Solid Waste Abatem nt Commission
mee ing of July 10, 1990 is enclosed on pages through
f or your review. These minutes, subject to any change,
re ire approval by the Commission.
III. OATH OF OFFICE
The Oath of Office will be administered to Dennis Seiz as a member
of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission and to Floyd Hiar as an
alternate.
IV. STAFF REPORT
A. First Half 1 90 Tonnage Report- -
1. Recycling activities are right on target for meeting our 12%
abatement goal this year. With a strong 60% participation rate,
good patronage of the drop -off center, expansion of the multi-
family program and the separate yardwaste collection and disposal,
reaching the 12% (2500 tons) goal should be attainable.
Totals 1/1 through 6/30/90:
/
EAGAN - DAKOTA CO. Date: 1/1 THRU 6/30/90
RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING Curbside Dropoff
Month /year started: MARCH 1989 PRE -JULY 1988
Provided by: HAULERS RMR REDEMP /MISC.
$ Cost to user $ $
Tons residential by material *:
Glass .2 N4/. 7 tons /.3. V tons
Newspaper 783.5 tons /. / tons
Aluminum 4 Z tons VS. 9 tons
Bi -Metal /Steel /9.4 tons . 9 g tons
Plastic ..5 tons /. 79 tons
- Household Items/ tons tons
Corrugated Cardboard tons 7. 8 irtons
Oil (Est) tons Y.95 tons
Batteries (Est) tons /5%51 tons
Scrap Metal /Appliances tons 36.4i$ tons
Other (Identify) AC. Ala. tons .0'l tons
'tons tons
TOTAL ■ Z'fZ' tons =fin-tons
Pick -up frequency: WEEKLY
Same day as trash? YES
City supplied " - YES
Was LRDG facto m? NO NO
City $ for rec $ $
County $ for r $ $
•
RESIDENTIAL YAl Curbside Dropoff
Month /Year sta3 VARIES APRIL 1986
Provided by: HAULER
$ Cost to user: $ $
Tons Yard Waste . . w : ORIVIEf tons /G 3A.% • tons
Pick -up frequency: VARIES
Same day as trash? YES
City supplied bin? kleel‘No
Was LRDG factor in starting program? NO NO
Where disposed? rEmP,G / 41111111111, CO.SITES SOINI,CO.SITES
$ Tip fee charged: $ S Ca . P&L ScAcdK le,
2. Materials currently recycled in the Municipal Center include:
white office paper, newspaper, glass and aluminum and household
batteries.
With our 95% participation in the W.O.P. program, we have recycled
3.3 tons of material and an additional 300 pounds of aluminum
during the first six months of this year.
For your information, please find a compari 9n sheet for total 1989
figures and to -date '90 figures on page .
*Reminder: 1/3 of total recycling weight can be yardwaste numbers.
B. Compost Facility Update- -
Jon and I have recently met with Warren Wilson from Dakota County
and Richard Becar, the site manager, for a first quarter review of
operations.
The overall evaluation of site management was positive. The site
has been kept orderly and there has not been much traffic flow
2
problems other than some Saturdays in early spring. The transfer
of material has slowed to four containers a week or as needed if
odors arise.
Woodchips and compost have been available since early June. The
quality of the compost is very high while the woodchips are not
very desirable. Some changes in chipping methods in the next few
weeks may improve the quality of future woodchip piles. We have
also made available some chips from another source, but it is a
small quantity.
Yardwaste Compost Facility Figures* for April, May and June:
April 3,973 cubic yards 2300 a.o
May 5,390 cubic yards
June 3,432 cubic yards 3 000
*Total: Yardwaste, mixed and brush, commercial and public
C. Appliance Overview- -
Recently passed recycling legislation states that "a person may not
place major appliances in MSW or dispose of major appliances in a
solid waste processing or disposal facility after July 1, 1990 ".
Major appliances include washers /dryers, dishwashers, hot water
heaters, garbage disposals, trash compactors, conventional
ovens /ranges /stoves, air conditioners, refrigerators /freezers.
Appliances have been banned for four reasons:
1. Many appliance motors contain PCBs (a hazardous waste) and
refrigerator /freezers /air conditioners have CFCs which
contribute to ozone depletion.
2. They take up space in landfills.
3. The metal and plastics can be recycled /reused.
4. Often they can be repaired /reconditioned.
Four options for recycling used appliances are:
A. Contact your garbage hauler -- most collect appliances for a
fee;
B. Negotiate to have the company that delivers a new appliance
take the old one;
C. Drop off old appliances at a facility listed below;
D. Contact JR's, Lakeville /Bloomington, Paul's Hauling or Major
Appliance Pick Up Service to pick up old appliance, and
others.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Commercial Recycling Program- -
To follow up on direction to staff regarding the brochure for
businesses in Eagan, I have the following estimates:
3
4
/ cts Influential list for entire City businesses will be
1o X 535.
f
�'", f e have receiv ed from our printer for a 2- sided,
: 2 -color ($198) and 3 -color ($254
I - stimates for 700 brochures (650 mailed):
700 2 -color $198.00
k : ),, sk " l''- (650) postage 162.00
5360.00
I. > 700 3 -color 254.50
� (650) postage 162.00
. $416.50
IJII Plus listing (C I) $535.00
2 color $895.00
t e} 3 color $951.00
VI. NEW BUSI SS
,,P Lo.. Range Funding - Dakota County- -
f 6�
% The oakota County Solid Waste Advisory Committee has put together
a bcommittee to develop a long -term strategy for funding landfill
• ..atement activities.
1
The subcommittee is comprised of one representative from each
. district represented on the Advisory Committee rather than the
original member formula stated in the strategy statement.
The group will meet twice per month until March of 1991 when their
final report is due. The county is planning a kick -off meeting
which will include County Board members, all advisory committee
members, City Managers and local recycling staff. Throughout the
course of their meetings, issue papers will be developed and
forums /small groups will be organized to focus attention on
specific issues, i.e. private /public sector involvement currently,
generator's role, sources of funding, etc. The lead staff members
are Financial Director Richard Johnson, Director of Planning &
° Program Management Jeff Connell and Recycling Program Manager Lynn
v 5V,nderson.
4 '' Please find on pages 9 through /b the strategy statement
for long -term funding subcommittee.
Please find on pages /1 through /fa a letter sent to County
Administrator Lyle Wray by City Administrator Hedges and the
response from County Administrator Wray to that letter enclosed on
pages /3 through /V
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. DISTRIBUTION
Enclosed in your packet please find:
1. Comparison sheet for total 1989 recyclinn and yardwaste
numbers vs. to -date '90 figures on page
2. On pages through A9, strategy for long -term funding
of landfill abatement activities.
3. On pages /1 through /2 , you will find the revised
final version of the letter to Mr. Lyle Wray regarding our
comments on the proposed solid waste fee.
4. On pages 13 through Py , response letter from Lyle Wray.
5. On pages AT
through /6 , you will find an article
"Kicking Trash Habits" from the Star Tribune, July 24, 1990.
6. On pages / through c29 , you will find an article
"Curbside Recycling Reaches 40 Million" from Biocycle, July
1990.
VIII. NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission will be
on Tuesday, September 11, 1990 at 11:30 a.m. Please mark your
calendars for that meeting.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn at or about 1:00 p.m.
l. .
Recycling Coordinator- ity of Eagan
go
7_0 DO
Subject to Approval
MINUTES OF THE SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION
Eagan, Minnesota
July 10, 1990
A regular meeting of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission was
held on Tuesday, July 10, 1990 at 11:30 a.m. Present were Cindy Ista, Darlene
Bahr, Terry Schnell, Tom Moline, Earl Milbridge and Denny Seiz. Members of the
public present were Joanie Davis and Floyd Hiar. Staff present were Recycling
Coordinator Hageman, Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein and
Administrative Intern Olinger.
AGENDA
Upon motion by Ista, seconded by Moline, all members voting in favor,
the agenda was approved as presented.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Ista, seconded by Moline, all members voting in favor,
the minutes of the June 9, 1990 meeting were approved as presented.
Terry Schnell was appointed to Chair the meeting in the absence of
both the Chair and the Vice - Chair.
STAFF REPORT
Hageman reported that 50% of the multi -unit dwellings are now
participating in the recycling program. She stated her goal for the non-
participating 50% will be to visit different complexes every week from now until
October.
Hageman reviewed the tonnage report. She mentioned that we are on
target for meeting requirements for the year.
Schnell addressed the Commission concerning his relocation out of
state and the necessity to resign from the Commission. His last meeting will
be in August.
OLD BUSINESS
Hageman reported that the County will be focusing on commercial
industrial recycling next year and what the Commission might do to prepare the
way. Hohenstein asked if the Commission would like to see something done
concerning commercial industrial recycling to help get the program running while
the City still has the opportunity to influence the direction of the program.
Hiar mentioned targeting the 75 companies and their employees and bringing in
speakers from the Chamber of Commerce, etc. for a recycling fair. Other ideas
discussed by Commission members included a computer bulletin board, a telephone
information recycling line, presentations similar to the one offered by Eagan
last year and a basic brochure.
Ista stated the Commission should get information out soon, so when
the County begins the program, the groundwork will have been started. Hohenstein
(6'
noted that the "Contacts Influential" mailing list, which provides owners' names
and addresses for each business within the City, could be purchased.
Bahr suggested developing a brochure outlining the recycling program,
placing Hageman and a County recycling contact on the brochure and mailing it
to all businesses in Eagan using the "Contacts Influential" mailing list. Seiz
noted the City could develop the brochure but wait until the Volunteer Fireman's
phonebook is delivered and have the brochure delivered with the phonebook.
A motion was made by Bahr, seconded by Ista, directing staff to begin
preparing a brochure, determining a cost for the "Contacts Influential" mailing
list and contacting the haulers for their input. All members voted in favor and
the motion was passed.
A recycling trade fair was considered and deemed to be an idea to
look into.
Discussion commenced concerning the letter which was drafted to the
Dakota County Board concerning the increase fee for recycling. A few changes
were suggested by the Commission. Staff was directed to mail the letter after
making these modifications.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Bahr, seconded by Ista, the meeting was adjourned at 1:00
p.m.
JJ0
Date Chairperson
Secretary
7
Eagan Residential Abatement
1989 Total vs. 1990 First Half
'rays
1989 1990 1989 1990 1989 1990
Curbside Curbside Drop -off Drop -off Total Total
Recycling Recycling Recycle Recycle Recycle Recycle
1,633 1,094 436 186 2,069 1,280
1989 1990 1989 1990 1989 1990
Curbside Curbside Drop -off Drop -off Total Total
Yard Waste Yard Waste Yard W. Yard W. Y. W. Y. W.
874 674 1,174 1,032 2,049 1,707
1989 1990
Grand Grand
Total Total
4,118 2,987
7
STRATEGY FOR LONG -TERM FUNDING.
OF LANDFILL ABATEMENT
What should Dakota County's long -term strategy be for financing the County's landfill
abatement efforts which include recycling, yard waste composting, household hazardous waste
collection, and the Recyclables Collection Center, given
the need to meet a goal of 35% recycling by 1993 and a
probability of higher goals in the future.
the increasing number of mandated programs and abatement
targets being set by the state legislature.
a proliferation of roles and responsibilities among the
state, county, municipalities and private sector which are
not always clearly defined.
the consumer's unawareness of the full cost for solid waste
collection and disposal due to subsidization of
municipalities, haulers, and disposal facilities.
a declining base of revenue (solid waste surcharge) for the
County to fund all of the necessary initiatives to
' accomplish landfill abatement.
It is proposed that Dakota County initiate a process to develop a long -term strategy for
funding landfill abatement. This process would involve the County Board appointing, by no
later than August 1, 1990, a commission consisting of at least:
one elected official from each of the local municipalities, other
than the townships and rural cities, to be appointed by the
municipalities
one representative of the Rural Solid Waste Commission to be appointed by
the Rural Solid Waste Commission;
three representatives from business to be appointed by the County
Board;
three representatives from the solid waste industry to be appointed by the
County Board;
three citizen representatives to be appointed by the County Board;
1 the Chairman and two members of the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee
1 to be appointed by the Chairman of the Solid Waste
Management Advisory Committee; and
one County Commissioner as liaison.
9
The Chair(s) of the Commission would be appointed by the County
Board. This Commission would examine the issue of a long term
funding strategy in detail and would present a recommendation to
the Solid Waste Advisory Committee by March 1, 1991. The
Commission would be supported by County Staff and representatives
of city staffs.
SCOPE
The Commission would evaluate funding alternatives for recycling
and other abatement activities to include the role of the public
sector versus the private sector. The evaluation would not
include the funding of the Resource Recovery facility although
discussion would be solicited regarding the use of the tipping
fee at the plant to cover some costs.
T �
1D
July 20, 1990
Lyle D. Wray
County Administrator
Department of Administration, Dakota County
1560 Highway 55
Hastings, Minnesota 55033
Dear Mr. Wray,
During the past few months, the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement
Commission, an advisory body to the Eagan City Council which
includes representatives from local businesses, the hauling
community and Eagan residents, has been reviewing The County
Board's recent decision regarding the proposed fee to County
residents and businesses to help fund the Solid Waste Enterprise
Fund.
Dakota County Financial Director, Richard Johnson, attended a
special meeting of the Commission, June 8, 1990, and reviewed the
proposed plan. While Mr. Johnson answered most of the Commission's
questions, considerable concern still remained regarding the
potential negative impact such a fee could have on County residents
and their participation in recycling activities. While the
Commission chose not to take official action in this regard, it
requested that staff share its concerns with the County in the form
of this letter.
Regardless of the realities of the situation, the perception of
the public is that they've done such a good job of recycling that
they must pay even more for the privilege. This fee creates a
negative reponse which will not reinforce the positive work the
County and Cities have done. The County, local governments and
residents have worked very hard in the last few years to accomplish
and surpass our waste abatement goals and this achievement could
be diminished by negative perceptions of the nature and purpose of
this fee.
Other issues have also surfaced regarding the need for additional
funding. While it is true the amount of waste being delivered to
local landfills has been lower than anticipated, the amount has
/1
Lyle Wray
July 20, 1990
Page 2
only decreased slightly. In addition, the amount of materials
- may soon increase due to the fact one of the large Scott county
landfills has closed forcing Dakota County haulers to deliver
wastes to local facilities. Another source of revenue will be
funds from the SCORE legislation although the amount is lower than
anticipated for 1990.
The Commission also encourages you to reevaluate the use of the
Tip Fees at local landfills and eventually the Resource Recovery
Facility. Raising the Tip Fees as the major source of revenue
places the bulk of the cost upon those disposing of waste, not
those recycling it. The City of Eagan might be able to assist
lobbying efforts to secure legislative authority for surcharges at
the Resource Recovery Facility, although the County's ability to
set the facility's rates permits additional charges to be built in.
We also understand that a separate source of revenue is necessary
as security for the financing of the resource recovery facility.
It is essential, given the philosophical and public relations
aspects of this issue, that other funding alternatives be
considered instead.
The Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission strongly urges the
Dakota County Board of Commissioners to reevaluate the need for
the proposed fee and the negative impacts the decision may have on
public perceptions and, therefore, on the future of local recycling
and other waste management practices currently being supported by
county residents and businesses.
Sincerely,
Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
cc: Jeffrey Connell, Director Planning and Program Mgmt.
Mayor Egan
Council Member Gustafson
Council Member McCrea
Council Member Pawlenty
Council Member Wachter
/4;2
DAKOTA COUNTY ADMINISTR E
612/438 -4418
O NA CO O + � DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1560 HWY. 55 - HASTINGS. MINNESOTA 55033
M / A' N ES •C � ( � y �
a� 0 I 1990
7
July 27, 1990
Mr. Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Minnesota 55122 -1897
Dear Tom:
I appreciated receiving your recent letter expressing the
concerns of the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission. Many of
those concerns are the same as those expressed by the County
Board as well as County staff.
Because of these concerns, the Dakota County Board recently
directed the County Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee to
identify a recommended long -term strategy to the County Board for
financing the County's landfill abatement effort by March of
1991. This charge was given to the Committee within the context
of five major concerns:
o The need to meet a goal of 35 percent recycling by 1992
and a probability of higher goals in the future;
o The increasing number of mandated programs and
abatement targets being set by the State Legislature;
o A proliferation of roles and responsibilities among the
State, County, municipalities and private sector which
are not always clearly defined;
o The consumer's unawareness of the full costs for solid
waste collection and disposal due to subsidization of
municipalities, haulers and disposal facilities;
o The declining base of revenue (Solid Waste Surcharge)
for the County to fund all of the necessary initiatives
to accomplish landfill abatement.
The Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee has established a
sub - committee of their group to do this study. This group held
its first meeting on July 24th and will be meeting again on
/3
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Thomas Hedges
July 27, 1990
Page 2
August 7th. Notices of each of the meetings will be made
available to the Recycling Coorrdinators within each of the
municipalities. There will also be opportunities in the future
for various groups to share thoughts and respond to preliminary
findings that this sub - committee develops.
As I am sure you are aware, there are limited funding
alternatives for the County to use in funding all of the Solid
Waste abatement activities that are currently underway. In
addition, there are new areas that need to be addressed in
pastics recycling and commercial recycling. At the same time, we
are attempting to maximize the use of the Solid Waste Surcharge.
The County Board will be considering a recommended increase in
that revenue source over the next month.
Also, as you noted in your letter, a separate source of revenue
is a necessary security for the financing of the Resource
Recovery Facility. There is currently no other revenue source
other than the Solid Waste Service Fee that provides the
reliability that the financing community desires in financing of
the Resource Recovery Project. While it is not our intent, and
certainly not our expectation that this service fee revenue would
actually have to be used to support the project, it is necessary
to building in the appropriate safeguards to be able to finance
the project at a desirable rate.
I would encourage you and members of the Solid Waste Abatement
Commission to follow the activities of the sub - committee of the
County's Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee as they do
their study. We will need the cooperation and input of all
parties in order to come up with solutions to these types of
issues over the long term.
Thank you for your interest and please keep me advised of other
questions and concerns that may arise en this very important
matter.
Sincerely,
(,)221.
Lyle . Wray, County Admin'strator
LDW:dod
cc: County Board of Commissioners
/'
—
��
1
'Pli; lid-
3 2::>.... * ...w...1 .-..e............,,,......,_v,_,..,,, b 91
p e q
S \V $ n � o nc - ` U �`�
, ...• c e o a wa i H y
D L! � °' o ^ no 0 : a Cow 3 <
1). nod =°°�`� ^7. al is
� ■
CD = • O N 7 •-• & e E. "' m 7,, , to to ��
n0o F O co ' • w
f M' O IUL! a
LO a Ft. oe s' ° se p) r '�
n %_•,.^I e .. - n
* al . 6 " 8 • [ a 8 ra • `0'Ae4 5 cD w as
c O n �C B = . - n � -1 . 1 = — wv, -.; .... 3 , w ,
.E
., ....,.......,,.,,,...„, Mir ; g g c fr 7 a *i ,cr,r .2. PO -
,.. ..... ..... o e�i e c o 1=1," R 11 . 0 CD CD (1) ,.,
°'� n R no n o 5 mow
=r
111114 i ' boo -�F � � � °° �
ll& ,i'-' IP : R . = o S- B c g n fr .;:- • le i f g r. wA W a il i a ma
.....- • all
a
■ 0 • eB -c- • 5 g ...J O '■
.
Cn
0 7 = v Q $ 9, ° co c o V° VJ — 0 pill
ie a p sec Ea a-°
r e _ B F = _oo ,. 7. co o
C. r, g $x °$0 - ?: E gad ' 5++
O
r -
° n � ' Rn CO O 'O �� T
a ea p_, to n n •• g a •O O N pa CD—
w G - 7te F •
n
it..., n g 2 7 K F o c (°
(D
.
t::, 7 7 9- r 9- 9 ,, c E., n M
ig [ 1 1 1 1 1 1 I_ I ' ' ' 3 1J 2
.• ..,.• t :max, = �� � � �,� � .. • r �. ♦ .1i1` 'di
P.N t 0 ;._ - - € r }1 .• < i + 3 t 8 1
f Y E
;nom I 1 11. ? is-c-)41 . l a) ■
. ....„.... �1
.� ';''..,,-.1, ' 1 + 'm 1 g ...1 e
AO
U
Y FF y am __ / } � � 1
• r` 4y 1 sn I N.3 Moo
- 4 y e f .. •- 1 € O 1 1 a�
e' I '
. tin[ T
--... - 7 - 4 - 14 - ....." ' .1 .;., - zsik, '•-_---:::;— 1-7,...''''_!: 1 ,,, 5_ : i DT
,7 82,090 F
x I.cx; � ... « .c
i /%511
m
`c
Garbage a choice between recycling or The seven counties are expected to
burning to reduce this flow, the Met- exert a major influence on the revi-
ro Council is tilting strongly toward lions in garbage policy being pro-
Continued from page IB the former. But it may �cli ngt its posed by the council staff. They re-
approach. Previodsly, counties had cently banded together into a formal
years' worth of landfill space by to meet individual recycling oats. Solid Waste Management Coordir
1995, either by finding their own raY 4 ing Board, which provides a fo
sites or contracting for disposal at a The proposed standards would fudge for joint planning on
landfill outside the metropolitan area progress on a regional basis, allowing 1 P B garbage issue.
the council to set more stringent re-
that• meets regulatory standards. A But intercounty cooperation would
quirements for lagging have to increase to meet the expecta-
new huge landfill also is recommend- q 88inB counties when lions in the council's proposal.
ed. they obtain or renew permits for
processing plants.
■ Lowering the toxicity of garbage
disposal by removing hazardous Hitting a 50 percent recycling rate •
products wherever possible in the
won't be easy. Seattle, generally ac-
disposal chain and taxing those knowledged to be the leader among - —
products when they're sold. large cities in recycling, is at 36 per-
cent. Going beyond the state -set 35
II Trying to reduce the amount of Percent goal here will require adding
trash buried, by requiring counties to to recycling bins several materials
share space at their processing plants not commonly recycled by house-
and by removing county borders as bolds — perhaps plastics, mixed pa-
barriers to where garbage can be per *Pd wood.
burned, recycled or composted.
Counties would get a chance to de- Planners aren't sure how Twin Ci-
vise agreements to permit inter - bans would react to a mandatory
county movement of garbage, but a recycling law.
regional agency to do the job is a A 1988 survey University
possibility if they don't. Minnesota of 1,20 h
9 randomly select- proposals will be worked over ed state residents found that 91 per -
for a month or so in a council com- cent favored mandatory recycling of
mittee that suggested some of the newspapers, cardboard, bottles and
changes, and the public will get a cans. The rest were opposed.
chance to comment on them this fall.
A revision of the council's garbage
plan then could be adopted next Feb- The proposal before the council leans
ruary, although several changes strongly toward increasing compost -
would require legislative approval. ing to process garbage that isn't recy-
cled, at least for this decade. This
The proposals reflect a decade of dovetails with the staffs desire to see
experience since the 1980 Legisla- additional processing of garbage after
ture, concerned about potential it's run through processing plants.
ground water contamination, told the For example, at plants that make
Metropolitan Council and counties boiler fuel, much of the nonburnable
to reduce landfill use as much as portion of incoming garbage is com-
possible. postable. That additional step would
reduce further how much is left to
In the 1980s, curbside recycling be- bury in landfills.
came available to most of the re-
gion's households. Residents were Moreover, the council's staff feels
asked to handle yard waste different - that wet garbage can be handled bet-
ty. There were periodic collections of ter by composting than at incinera-
household hazardous waste. An in- tors and boiler -fuel plants. Yet less -
cinerator was built in Minneapolis, degradable garbage that might snarl
and plants to produce boiler fuel machinery in boiler fuel plants could
from trash were built in Newport and easily be burned.
Elk River. Planning is well along on
an incinerator in Dakota County and To supervise the sharing of process -
composting plants to serve Farming- ing capacity and additional process -
ton, and Scott and Carver counties. ing that it urges, the proposal encour-
ages joint trash - processing agree -
Yet the decade ended with increasing ments among counties to allow a
recognition among the area's trash freer flow of garbage across county
planners that these efforts were insuf= lines.
ficient. For one thing, the supply of •
trash is rising faster than population As an example, Council Chairman
or employment. Building all those Steve Keefe has suggested that it's
garbage- processing plants and meet- inefficient to haul elsewhere Dakota
ing the state's goal of recycling 35 County garbage fiat's collected with -
percent of the region's trash by 1993 in sight of the Newport processing
still will leave substantial amounts of plant used by Washington and Ram -
garbage going straight to landfills. try counties.
they calculate.
/6
BIOCYCLE SURVEY
CURBSIDE RECYCLING
REACHES 40 MILLION
T hroughout the United States scale and pilot programs in existence.
curbside recycling programs are Will that kind of growth continue? In all
becoming as popular as frozen yo- likelihood, yes, at least for the next several
gurt. Which is to say that they years. Consider this - Of the four states (New
have a strong following, but they Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode
aren't to everyone's liking. In Island) that require municipalities to pass or-
1989 alone there were in the neigh - dinances requiring citizens to recycle, only
borhood of 500 curbside New Jersey's law is fully implemented. The
recycling start-ups, others will take effect over the next few
bringing to 1,600 years. And of the six states (Con -
the number necticut, Maryland, Minnesota,
of both full 4 North Carolina, Oregon
More t h a n 1,600 �•►�y ; ,t, .,, • !! ,..
curbside collection •,, • t; ~� -l
e :
programs now jk � � ) { �• f' � !
operate In the ; ; ' ` - i "' °'�, ,'` _
.. � } .., r - , ./ tt mo \; • United States. `,•., : , • •'" • + , • -- e ` " ` `
This report , } 1-. , ., 5 f s
explores how a "' ' .; \•', . ,
representative , ; , r. . #. ;� ,
sample funct -, \ • „ . , . ,
and how much , -___ _ - , , t ,, . .. . :,
=��
material they N1.07 7 •
, * f
remove from the �--, � t, r
waste stream. .. - ;�,- - :. `/' --
Jun Glenn -z `. �--.1 --
/ 7
and Washington) that require municipalities rate is 82 percent. For the two Seattle pro-
or counties to establish recycling programs, grams the rates were 85 percent for the north '
only Oregon's has taken effect. Add to that part of the city and 71 percent for the south `r ¢ `_
numerous other state strategies to increase part. According to Peter Guttchen, Olym - � -.,
recycling and mix in the potential for other pia's recycling coordinator, about five per- - --
states to pass similar legislation and the cent of those people who sign up to receive a - 1
stage is set for a "recycling container in ev- container never recycle.
ery home." If there remains a doubt in anyone's mind _ Ill -
Two years ago, BioCycle conducted a sur- that people will participate in curbside recy-
vey of 21 curbside recycling programs cling programs, the participation figures f
throughout the United States and Canada. given by programs in the survey should help -: L - i,
The purpose of that report was to get an idea to overcome it. Participation in all the pro- i iik:
of how municipalities were picking up recy- grams (those that could determine the rate)
clables at the home and how successful they ranged from 49 percent in Trenton, New Jer- �`
were in removing recyclables from the solid sey to 92 percent in Barrington, Illinos. The ''- w: $ _
waste stream. Further, the survey looked at participation rate for weekly programs aver- "`"
_ . �-
the operational aspects of the programs. aged 75 percent, while the rates for the four �
Realizing that two years in this business is bi- monthly and monthly programs were 60 i.� _
a lifetime, we recently completed a similar percent. -� "�
survey. With the exception of the Seattle pro- The range of participation in all voluntary ; � ;
gram (which offers a means of contrasting programs was from 55 percent in Orlando,
two very different approaches side -by- side), Florida to Barrington's 92 percent. The aver-
all of the programs in this latest survey are age was 70 percent. For weekly voluntary
new. We included a sampling of municipally- programs, the average was 72 percent partic- - — ~ -
operated vs. private collections and a variety ipation.
of set out schemes so that no one type of pro- Participation in the mandatory programs
gram would be over represented. went from 49 percent in Trenton's program
MORE AN ART THAN A SCIENCE to 90 percent in both Oyster Bay, New York Survey results show
and East Greenwich, Rhode Island. The av-
If there was one thing that carne across erage rate for mandatory programs was 75 amount of materials
Loud and clear in doing this survey; it was percent. For weekly mandatory programs,
that collecting recyclables from homes is not the average rate increased to 84 percent. collected weekly
a "cookie- cutter" business. Not everyone is
using any particular type of vehicle. Not ev- OUT OF THE WASTE STREAM ranges from 18.7 to
eryone uses the same type of home storage While tracking participation will help de-
container. In fact, while most programs do termine if citizens are responding, the goal of .
65 lbs. per
use them, there are still some that get along any recycling program is keeping materials household per
quite well without them. out of the waste stream and putting them
The use of private collectors is probably in back into use. One measure of effectiveness
the majority, but there are still many is based on how much each participating month. Average
municipally - operated programs. The separa- household sets out on a monthly or annual
tions that homeowners are required to make basis. These figures are a function of the participation in
is decreasing, but not everyone is embracing number of materials that are being collected,
the use of commingled systems. It doesn't the amount available, and the amount a weekly mandatory
take a mandatory ordinance to get people in household chooses to set out.
large numbers to recycle. The survey results show a wide range in programs rose to 84
PARTICIPATION RATES the amount of material that is being col-
lected by the individual programs. For percent.
The yardstick many use to measure the ef- weekly programs, the range was from 18.7
fectiveness of curbside programs is citizen lbs/household/month to 65.4 lbs/household/
participation. In most instances, programs month, with the average being 44.3 lbs/
measure that participation on a monthly ba- household/month. Annually, the amount of
sis, since with weekly collections, it's com- material set out by each participant in
mon for residents not to set out each and ev- weekly programs went from 224 lbs. in La-
ery week. fayette, Louisiana to 785 lbs. in Irvine, Cali-
There are various approaches to determin- forma.
ing overall participation rate. In some com- With programs that collected less fre-
munities, rates are based on guesstimations quently than a weekly schedule, the amount
provided by program coordinators. In other of material collected went from 22.7 lbs/
localities, the figures are derived by taking household /month to 64.2 lbs /household/
periodic samplings over a given period of month. The average was 37 lbs/household/
time. Others use a system in which each resi- month. Annually, the range was from 272
dence is monitored on a continuous basis. In lbs. per household in Trenton to 770 lbs. per
most cases, this monitoring is done manually household in Seattle (South).
by the driver /collector as the materials are Another approach to measuring program
collected. However, in St Louis Park, Minne- effectiveness is to view the amount of mate
sota, bar codes attached to each container al- rial collected in terms of the total number of
low for electronic tracking. households served by the program regard -
In the three Washington State programs less of whether they participate or not. Obvi-
surveyed, citizens must sign up to receive re- ously, because nonparticipants are included
cycling containers. In Olympia the sign up in the formula, the amount of material per
BIOCYCLE /ei Jui.Y 1990 31
each household will go down. less frequently went from 134 lbs /household/
For weekly programs the range in the year in Trenton to a high of 448 lbs/
To determine route amount of material collected annually from household/year in the Seattle (South) pro-
each household served was from 102 lbs. in gram. The average for these programs was
jizeS truck Ontario, California to 666 lbs. in Oyster Bay, 250 lbs/household/year.
s New York. The average was 385 lbs/ One would expect that as the number of
con fi guration and household/year. materials collected increases there would be
The range in the amount of material col- a good chance that the amounts collected
capacity needs, lected annually from programs that collected will also increase. However, such a trend is
planners need to
know number of Table 1: General Program Characteristics
daily set outs and Households Materials Start-up
amount of material Community Population Served Collected Date Participation
Barrington, IL 10,000 3,500 N,G,A 6/86 Vol.
set out per Blaine, MN 40,000 9,134 N,G,T,A 1/89 Vol.
Boulder, CO 85,000 22,000 N,G,T,A 10/88 Vol.
household each Champaign, IL 59,000 15,750 N,G,T,A,H 3/88 Vol.
East Greenwich, RI 12,000 4,000 N,G,T,A,H,P 4/88 Mand.
collection day. East Providence, RI 53,000 15,470 N,G,T,A,H,P 11/88 Mand.
Franklin, PA 8,600 2,800 N,G,T,A 6/88 Mand.
Irvine, CA 103,000 26,000 N,G,T,A,H,P 4/88 Vol.
Ithaca, NY 28,000 6,000 N,C,G,A,H 9/87 Mand.
Jersey City, NJ 230,000 84,000 N,C,O,G,T,A,H,P 4/88 Mand.
Lafayette, LA 89,500 27,600 N,G,T,A,H,P 10/88 Vol.
New London, CT 28,740 14,000 N,C,G,A,T 1988 Mand.
Olympia, WA 28,500 10,400 N,C,O,G,T,A 10/88 Vol.
Ontario, CA 118,000 23,500 N,G,T,A,H,P 10/88 Vol.
Orlando, FL 165,000 39,500 N,G,T,A,H,P 4/89 Vol.
Oyster Bay, NY 303,000 68,000 N,O,G,T,A,H,P 1/89 Mand.
Saint Louis Park, MN 43,000 12,000 N,G,T,A 3/83 Vol.
Seattle (North), WA 213,000 69,000 N,O,G,T,A 2/88 Vol.
Seattle (South), WA 248,000 79,500 N,C,O,G,T,A,P 4/88 Vol.
Shakopee, MN 12,500 2,500 N,G,T,A 3/89 Vol.
Trenton, NJ 92,000 25,000 N,G,T,A,H,P 9/89 Mand.
Whitehall Twp, PA 24,000 6,400 N,G,T,A 7/89 Vol.
N - Newspaper C - Cardboard 0 - Mixed Paper M - Magazines G - Glass T - Tin A - Aluminum H - HDPE P - PET
Table 2: Collection Characteristics
Same Day Provide Household
Community Frequency as Trash Container Separation How
Barrington, IL Weekly No Yes Three P -M-G
Blaine, MN Weekly Yes Yes Three P -M -G
Boulder, CO Weekly 65% Yes 1 Three P -M -G
Champaign, IL Weekly No Yes N/S N/A
East Greenwich, RI Weekly Yes Yes Two P -C
East Providence, RI Weekly Yes Yes Two P-C
Franklin, PA Monthly Yes Yes Three P -M -G
Irvine, CA Weekly Yes Yes Three P- M /PI -G
Ithaca, NY Weekly Yes No Separate I.M.
Jersey City, NJ Weekly No No Two P -C
Lafayette, LA Weekly Yes Yes Three P-M-G/P1
New London, CT Weekly Yes Yes Two P -C
Olympia, WA Weekly Yes Yes Three P -MP -C
Ontario, CA Weekly Yes Yes Four P- M -G -PI
Orlando, FL Weekly Yes Yes Two P -C
Oyster Bay, NY Weekly No Yes Two P -C
Saint Louis Park, MN Weekly Yes Yes Three P -M -G
Seattle (North), WA Weekly Partial Yes Three P -MP -C
Seattle (South), WA Monthly No Yes One All
Shakopee, MN Weekly Yes Yes Three P -M -G
Trenton, NJ Bi- Monthly No Yes Two P -C
Whitehall Twp, PA Weekly 2 60% Yes Three P -M -G
P - Paper; M - Metal; G - Glass; PI - Plastics; C - Mixed Containers MP - Mixed Paper (Separate); I.M. - Individual Materials
1 - Container for Newspaper only
2 - Newspaper collected one week, containers collected the next. /
A2 RrnCvrr r .11T TT V 1 QQrI
not evident when you look at the results I i , i t
from the survey, except where mixed paper `-� •
and cardboard are collected. Both of the pro- - `;
grams (Oyster Bay and Seattle/North) that If e " �~ •
generate more than 650 lbs /household • '`
served/year collect mixed paper. And two of - ,;,, L -,��,
the three programs (Seattle /South and again " -'`
Oyster Bay) that generated more than 700 -= "
lbs/participating household /year collect /, ='��' -
mixed paper. l a:
s
r- 1
OPERATING PARAMETERS -:
When developing a curbside recycling pro- % _ •
gram, information on the amount of materi- �' ''
als collected and overall participation isn't as � „ ' " , v
important as data detailing the number of "�''
% ' n
daily set outs and the amount of material set � a z.. -
ou per household each collection day. This ° -
information will help program planners to de- `" s = ;.-- may - "`�
termine the route sizes, truck configurations
,1 :), �`� - • " a
and capacity needs. '11 rII . I � 11 4 1111 .
RESIDENTIAL SET OUT RATES One reason for Seattle's high rate is the
The total amount of material the average fact that mixed paper is collected. However,
household sets out at the curb during any the collection of mixed paper doesn't neces-
given week varies dramatically. In the sur- sarily translate into high set out rates. In
vey, the lowest average rate was 9.3 lbs/ contrast to Seattle, Olympia's household set
household/set out in Ontario, California and out rate is 13.6 lbs. and Olympia also collects
the highest was 25.91bs out in mixed paper. Is it possible that the amount
the Seattle (North) program. The average of paper available changes dramatically from
was 15.9 lbs /set out. one location to another?
hb/e 3: Program Results - Materials Collected Annually
ANNUAL TONNAGE
Households
Community Served Total Paper Glass Alum Tin HDPE PET
Barrington, IL 3,500 860 N -612 228 20
Blaine, MN 9,134 1712 N -1250 308 —154 —
Boulder, CO 22,000 3549 N -2615 863 35 36
Champaign, IL 15.750 1114 N -768 263 —74--- 9
East Greenwich, RI 4,000 971 n/a
East Providence, RI 15,470 3600 n/a The largest amount
Franklin, PA 2,800 233 N -113 98 4 18
Irvine, CA 26.000 7246 N -6267 828 — 143 -- —8 (a)— of material collected
Ithaca, NY 6,000 1040 N-460 297 —n /a— n/a
283 by far is newspaper.
Jersey City, NJ 84,000 8972 M -7025 1947 y
Lafayette, LA 27,600 1858 N- 1203 585 42 n/a —28 (b)— For weekly
New London, CT (c) 14,000 2529 N -1171 596
Olympia, WA
C-762
10,400 1938 N- 690 540 30 83 programs it
M -595
Ontario, CA 23,500 1202 N- 666 357 —87— —92-- represents from 55
Orlando, FL 39,500 4500 N•3360 1140
Oyster Bay, NY 68,000 22630 N -18000 4630 to 86 percent of
Saint Louis Park, MN 12,000 2785 N -2130 528 —137— --8
Seattle (North), WA 69,000 22944 N- 7526 5300 321 688 22
M -9109 total volume. Glass
Seattle (South), WA 79,500 17787 N-6647 3988 240 646 18 73
C -1772 is second with a
M-4394
Shakopee, MN (c) 2,500 589 N-464 93 14 18 range from 11 to 31
Trenton, NJ (c) 25,000 1671 N -906 765
Whitehall Twp, PA (c) 6,400 1416 N -1098 257 — 61— percent.
N - Newspaper, C - Cardboard, M - Mixed Paper
(a) - Figure is for partial year, May -Dec 1989
(b) - Figure is for partial year, May -Oct 1989.
(c) - Partial year totals adjusted to annual rates.
BioCycLE a Jul. D 1990 33
cent level. Before all you plastic - haters out
there latch onto these numbers to illustrate
Plastics represent OUT RATES FOR WEEKLY CURBSIDE PROGRAMS that no one will recycle plastics, remember
that it's only lately that HDPE and PET
less than one Total News Glass Alum Tin have been collected. And be advised the On-
tario program collected more plastics last
percent of the Range 9.3 -25.9 4.8 -18.6 2.6 -6.0 .2 -.4 .2 -.8 year than aluminum and tin cans combined.
Average 15.9 11.7 3.4 .3 .5 For programs that collect mixed paper
materials collected Percentage 74 21 2 3 along with news, the amount of each type
collected is roughly equal. In Olympia and
for most of the Seattle (South), slightly more newspaper is
As one can see from the chart above, the collected than mixed paper. The reverse is
programs, but largest amount of material collected by far is true in the Seattle (North) program. New
newspaper. For weekly programs, it repre- London, Connecticut and Ithaca, New York,
Ontario California seats anywhere from 55 to 86 percent of all where corrugated cardboard is collected
materials collected (if no other paper prod - along with newspaper, the split between the
picked up more ucts are collected). Glass ranks second two is roughly 60/40, newspaper to card -
(again, if other paper products aren't taken board. Because mixed paper and corrugated
plastics last year into account), with a range from 11 to 31 per- cardboard add so substantially to the
cent. Aluminum and tin cans respectively ac- amount of material collected, one would ex-
than aluminum and count for 2 and 3 percent of all materials. pect that the percentage of bottles and cans
Plastics collected for most of the programs collected would decrease. However, looking
tin cans combined. represent less than one percent of the materi- at the five programs mentioned above, that
als. Only two of the programs, Lafayette, is not the case. For those cities, the percent -
Louisiana at 1.5 percent and Ontario, Califor- age of bottles and cans generated is on par
nia at eight percent, were above the one per - with programs that collect newspaper only.
Table 4: Collection Rates
Community Weight /Stop (lbs)
Households Average
Served Stops /Wk Total News Glass Alum Tin HDPE PET Other
Barrington, IL
3,500 2975 11.1 7.9 2.9 .3
Blaine, MN
9,134 4500 16.0 11.7 2.9 - -1.4-
Boulder, CO
22,000 7500 18.2 13.4 4.4 .2 .2
Champaign, IL
15,720 3200 13.4 9.2 3.2 - .9- .1
East Greenwich, RI
4,000 2600 14.4
East Providence, RI
15,470 10830 12.8
Franklin, PA (c)
2,800 1600 24.2 11.7 10.2 .4 1.9
Irvine, CA
26,000 13000 21.4 18.6 2.4 - .4- - Nil -
Ithaca, NY (OCC)
6,000 3000 13.3 5.9 3.8 Nil Nil 3.6
Jersey City, NJ
84,000 30000 11.5 9.0(a) 2.5
Olympia, WA (Mixed)
10,400 5500 13.6 4.8 3.8 .2 .6 4.2
Ontario, CA
23,500 5000 9.3 5.1 2.8 - .7- - .7-
Oyster Bay, NY
68,000 34000 25.6 20.4 (b) 5.2
Saint Louis Park, MN
12,000 7800 13.7 10.5 2.6 - .7-
Seattle (North), WA (Mixed)
69,000 34,000 25.9 8.5 6.0 .4 .8 Nil 10.3
Seattle (South), WA (c) (OCC)
79,500 46,150 64.2 24.0 14.4 .9 2.3 .06 .26 6.4
(Mixed)
15.9
Shakopee, MN
2,500 1200 18.9 14.9 3.0 .4 .6
(a) - Includes mixed paper
(b) - Includes junk mail
(c) - Monthly collection
34 BIOCYCLE ` /
JULY 1990
COLLECTION DAY SET OUTS as the initial flag in enforcement actions.
Not every participating household sets out The collection day set out rate for weekly
recyclables each week. Major influences on pr surveyed u angod from 20 to 85 per- M a j or influences on •
the collection day set out rate are the number cent of the total households served. The av-
of materials collected and the size of the rec - erage was 49 percent.
clan container. For some y In the weekly programs surveyed that the collection d a y
g people, particularly could give both an overall participation rate
singles, older citizens and couples without and a collection day set out rate, the collet- set out rate are the
children, the amount of recyclables gener- tion day rate was from 50 to 92 percent of
ated may not warrant a trip to the curb each the overall rate. That range translates to a number of materials
week. household setting out between once every
Another influence on the weekly set out two weeks to just about every week. The av- collected, container
rate is the type of incentives or enforcement erage of those weekly programs is between
of mandatory ordinances used. Those places 68 and 71 percent, or close to two set outs size and the type of
that give away prizes based on having a con- every three weeks.
father at the curb are inviting half -full recy- incentives or
cling containers. So too are programs that NOW MUCH TO SEPARATE?
see the absence of a recycling container out Years ago multimaterial curbside pro- mandatory
ordinances used.
Table 5. Collection Results
Participation Amount of Material Collected
Community Monthly Collection Annual #/HH/Yr #/HH/Yr
HH Served (44) Day (46) Tonnage (Collected) (Served)
Barrington, IL
3,500 92 85 860 650 -702 491
Blaine, MN
9,134 70 45-50 1712 535 375
Boulder, CO
22,000 50-60 34 3549 523 -628 323
Champaign, IL
15,750 Unk. 20 1114 Unk. 141
East Greenwich, RI
4,000 90 65 971 540 486
East Providence, RI
15,470 85 70 3600 547 465
Franklin, PA (a)
2,800 60 60 233 290 166
Irvine. CA
26,000 71 50 7246 785 557
Ithaca, NY
6,000 80-85 50 1040 408 347
Jersey City, NJ
84,000 Unk. 36 8972 Unk. 214
Lafayette, LA
27,600 60 Unk. 1858 224 135
New London, CT
14,000 75 Unk. 2529 481 361
Olympia, WA
10,400 77 53 1938 455 373
Ontario, CA
23,500 Unk. 21 1202 Unk. 102
Orlando, FL
39,500 55 Unk. 4500 414 228
Oyster Bay, NY
68,000 90 45-50 22630 739 666
St. Louis Park, MN
12,000 82 60-65 2785 564 464
Seattle (North), WA
69,000 Unk.(c) 50 22944 Unk. 665
Seattle (South), WA (a,d)
79,500 58 58 17787 770 448
Shakopee, MN
2,500 75 -80 48 589 589 -629 471
Trenton, NJ (b)
25,000 49 Unk. 1671 272 134
White Hall Twp, PA (e)
6,400 70-90 Unk. 1416 492- 631 440
HH - Households (c) - Sign up rate for the program is approximately 85%.
Unk. - Figure is unknown. (d) - Sign up rate for the program is approximately 71%.
(a) - Monthly collection (e) - Paper is collected one week, bottles and cans the next.
(b) - Twice monthly collection
BtoC'rcLE JULY 1990 35
c:Pai.
grams usually relied on citizens to separate (which is a four-part separation) require ei-
most of the materials that were set out at the ther a two or three stream separation. Most
Private contractors curb. Then at some point the idea of allowing of the three stream separations are paper,
all the recyclables to be set out in one con- glass and metal, but in the Seattle (North)
utilized smaller tainer was pushed as a means of taking some program two of the separations are for paper
of the burden off the citizens. But in fact, (newspaper and mixed) and the third is for
crews and generally most "commingled" programs actually had mixed bottles and cans.
materials set out in two streams —paper and
had a significantly mixed bottles and cans. COLLECTION EFFICIENCY
The idea of commingling recyclables There are a number of variables that deter-
,
I higher collection doesn't set well with many recycling "pur- mine how many households each collection
ists," but with the ever increasing number of crew can pick up during a day. The distance
efficiency (528 stops materials being collected, many concede that between stops, the way materials are set out,
requiring people to do seven or eight sorts the number of times loads have to be taken
per day) than just isn't practical. Hence, some places are to a processing center, the time it takes to
using three (and sometimes four) rough sorts get to the center, the type of collection equip -
municipal crews of paper, glass and metal, with plastics inter- ment used and much more has an impact.
mingled with either the glass or metal. With all of this to take into account, it's un-
(415 stops per day). The information from the survey about the derstandable there was such a wide range in
way recyclables are set out is probably repre- the average number of stops for the pro-
sentative of what is going on around the grams in the survey.
country as a whole. Which is to say that no Overall, the number of stops a crew ser-
one approach now holds sway. The Seattle viced per day went from a low of 250 to 1000.
(South) program was the only one that col- The average was about 490 stops /day. The
lects all recyclables in one container. Pres- programs that relied on a private contractor
ently, while total commingled collections do generally had a significantly higher collec-
exist, they are not common. Total (for the tion efficiency (528 stops /day) than programs
most part) separation programs while more that utilized municipal crews (415 stops/
abundant are being seen less and less fre- day).
quently. In the survey, Ithaca, New York col- While the raw numbers on the average
lects separated materials. The Champaign, number of stops point to private collections
Illinois program doesn't specify how materi- being more efficient, when crew size is fac-
als are to be set out, but in reality most peo- tored in, the advantage becomes even more
ple in that town do separate. striking. In most contract collections, a sin -
The remainder of the programs in the sur- gle person crew is utilized. Many of the mu-
vey, with the exception of Ontario, California nicipal collections routinely use two and
Table 6: Collection Equipment & Routing
Community Crews # of Truck Route Stops/
Type Size Vehicles Capacity Size Route
Barrington, IL Private 1 3 24 cy 1200 1000
Blaine, MN Private 1 2 23 cy 900 410 -460
Boulder, CO Private 2 3 23 cy 1500 500
Champaign, IL Private 1 2 n/a 1600 320
East Greenwich, RI Private 1 1 31 cy 800 520
East Providence, RI Private 1 4 31 cy 770 540
Franklin, PA Municipal 3 2 n/a 350 -924 n/a
Irvine, CA Private 1 5 n/a 1000 520
Ithaca, NY Municipal 3-4 1 n/a 1200 600
Jersey City, NJ Municipal 3 7 n/a (a) (a)
Lafayette, LA Private 2 -3 3 23 cy (b) 1800 n/a
New London, CT Municipal 2 2 28 cy 1400 n/a
Olympia, WA Municipal 1 -2 3 18 cy 700 350-375
Ontario, CA Municipal 1 4 15 cy 1200 250
Orlando, FL Municipal 3 5 32 cy 2000 n/a
Oyster Bay, NY Municipal 2 14 31 cy 1250 540 -600 (c)
Saint Louis Park, MN Private 1 4 23 cy 600 390
Seattle (North), WA Private 1 18 n/a 750 n/a
Seattle (South), WA Private 1 6-10 n/a n/a n/a
Shakopee, MN Private 1 1 n/a 500 240 (d)
Trenton, NJ Private . 2 8 -10 33 cy 900-1000 n/a
Whitehall Twp, PA Municipal 3 1 15 cy 1200-1400 (e) n/a
(a) - 4 trucks pick up paper & 3 trucks pick up mixed bottles and cans.
(b) - Only two vehicles have 23 cy capacity.
(c) - Crews work 10 hours/day
(d) - Contractor does not spend a full day in Shakopee 4:23
(e) - Newspaper is collected one week, bottles and cans the next.
sometimes three people to a crew.
COSTS AND FINANCING CURBSIDE PROGRAMS �� _. 4
Like everything else in this analysis, the ( _ t =r r
costs reported by programs vary signifi• - „
candy. On the low end, programs in Boulder, t' : ._ - : • Colorado and Lafayette, Louisiana are cur- `�
itii
rently paying 44 cents/household/month and €;
YPY�g
29 cents/household /month. In Boulder's ,. . - `- �- i _ -
case, the cost is for collection alone. Lafay- , =e° `. , . t
ette includes both collection and processing. '^-- 3 ::
—4-40,c, -.t_
Before anyone gets too excited, these costs ;,. ,. - _ , - --,-„�
aren't typical nor are they terribly realistic. - = ,.:
In Boulder's case, the private hauler has J.- :.:•-
recently requested that the contract be rene-
—
gotiated. Perhaps he found out that the 44 + ., <- _ • cents wasn't really covering costs. In Lafay-
ette, the collection is being handled by a not • r fir , g ",. ' , - !u 3. --. ,,... ` . . , te
for -prof corporation established by local - . .. _ _
beverage interests.' iii
Discounting the low figures described pant (or would be participants). During the
above, program costs reported in the survey initial stages, it's common for direct mailings
ranged from approximately $1.00 to $2.80/ to go to homes describing how and why the Whatever the cost
household/month. Information from other occupants are to participate. Once the pro-
sources suggest that in new agreements, the gram has gotten underway the frequency Of prog , rams
per household charges for contract collection and type of direct contact varies considera-
is running in the $2.00 per month area. bly. Some cities get recycling news out via material sales are
Whatever the cost of programs, one thing general municipal newsletters or utility bill-
is abundantly clear from the survey: Mate- ings which go out any where from once to 12
rial sales are not what is paying the bills. In times per year. To a lesser extent, some corn- not what is paying
fact, ten of the programs receive no money munities continue to publish regular mail -
for the recyclables themselves. Often times ings or newsletters generally on a quarterly the bills. In fact, ten
this is because contract with private haulers or semi - annual basis.
give the hauler title to the materials when it The mass media, radio, television and of the programs
is picked up. (With that goes the risk of mar- newspaper is not used nearly as much as the
keting as well). But even when a municipal- other two approaches. Perhaps one reason is surveyed receive no
ity does the collection, especially if it collects that this type of media, particularly televi-
commingled recyclables, materials recovery sion and radio many times reach a much money for the
facilities usually don't pay for the recycle- broader audience than the one a recycling
recyclables
bles received. program is trying to reach. In many pro-
Of those programs that did receive a share grams, television that is used is local access
of the revenue for material sales, those mon- cable. themselves.
ies accounted for anywhere from nine to 22 Of all the mass media, newspapers are
percent of program costs. used the most extensively. While many limit
The financing of curbside programs gener- the use of newspapers to trying to attract
all comes from either the municipality's news coverage, some also place ads with pro-
general budget or from the trash bill paid by gram information.
the citizens. In the two Rhode Island pro- The costs of public education are more of-
grams, the bulk of the costs are currently be- ten than not hidden in the overall program
mg picked up by the state, although those budget. Those programs that did provide
payments are scheduled to be phased out in some idea of the cost of education can
the coming y es. roughly be broken down into two categories -
SETTING THE WORD OUT those that spend pennies and those that
clip from 10 to 50 cents About half annually spent
No matter how the character of
recycling per household. While the
changes. one constant that remains is the other half annually spent from a dollar to
Deed for an education program. However, four dollars per household.
what makes up an education program is vari-
able. One education avenue that almost ev- SURPRISING RESULTS
'one used was the school system, based on Quite honestly, the information I received
the concept that if you educate the child, you from this survey surprised me. Before we
educate the parent as well. In some loca- started, I would have guessed that over the
Leans, like Irvine, California, schools are pro- past several years curbside programs had
vEled wuth the recycling education materials gotten a whole lot more homogenized. That
tit the bulk of the responsibility rests with is clearly not the case. From the ones that we
the teachers. Places like Olympia take a looked at, it's evident that good programs
moct hands on approach and the recycling can be forged using a number of different ap-
dcr's the actually goes into the classrooms and proaches. Perhaps the one element that is
job. constant in all is that the people involved
D- household contact provides a vital wanted the program to succeed and worked
!t wi alc between the program and the partici- hard to achieve that success. O
a., ;, a �
JULY 1990 37
I W L R
as ?t
c
• c
cts J O Q
CD J -
c NJ .4--.
O = LC)
U y
•
tw
ra. qg -' N o eo d at m e 41)- o 4 ey .8 8P o 'E
_ y l c "
3 - + � •� 3 s Tt p
00 C§ $.b > I n4s 0 y E kw C as CJ
7g1173:303 .t7
� 3 u
O . E a- ;d p a � .^ •v .2 o .�, �t
c - 5 8cc�2' 3 s : 2 i..0 56 acoe0 ° ' A e n
o '~
(f) 3 a1 `°r°5 v n g~ r 6a o c�'eo 3 nod once E e o
n, .� ar '...o 1 m , E 5 . . •• p^ n ° 'c c c t ed a co 2 L)
W d ¢mI b 61 .3 ^ a� .7 L, ,7 .� � '^ V c '~ A •,
i p..... a >. ° � ",+ V ,.. C Lam.+ to E �Q o V C� ...OJ, � . t+ co >+ 7 G. ∎ E y g, • •
'` °pL„ VI' E W 5 � co ii.; c% 8 cZ °
^ , ep
• o
V A ` V .gi 1 a E 'n .
O O 6 4,1 O 'C ° ,n E .S 4) pp t o .4 ,IV e• 0 �••
[V \/' §, ° E 'E gH ; f " p E E y 'fl .. E o _ E v � % d •v n o
�� auo 'o'��cba. e ra �� ,� ° � u
VA t . ' . �
► � 0 o " � ' "y v w n 3
• ocecv ' c
nU 3a <7 ›
a E. O 'e
^, ie , o4) ›.. v.4 3 Eu 0V I I' '1", 1 II
V/ E� .E vi 4,0 eo c� " uoy « q il
W O -EN CO u c—< c p� y v C b
o to .9 oco
u co S 0. e ea c.E o f U °
•, 48 °' eat aiouci.uaorc1i •o °
.1 Zi ... a�
" y E u >' c� o
c c v • o
(Li E M $ E ' er o a,p
xi = � c 1
= N . E a ; E ed „ � , -U�� � b 3 3 �� E oa
•� N V d. . 0 N e 0 C O .. o 5 0+ 0) V _ p p v) V .+ y y t '
(/� Qr c C u 5 w •a O E c ev .., ...
V/ 2 O 'p, Ei 2 67 ey Q o o -. ... ea y c E C
.... 2 6 o'y y E ' � ' S E eoW ° O 6 'N `� o.— ..• 'n
pp o C ' ` o c INA o y 'EU y u ( p Ee u
O
cra c O E E . as x o r Y U ca ›,7) j j V , gy 0 _ E b y . •
U cct U H V .^ .te .a A;vS 05 5 2 > 1
•