The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992-09-16 ) LJ;SrrU:::t;-j-:'= Y,-, ,.:"_' ~ ...""t _'/_~ 'l"'~':n_" ON. ," .))C22-' ,:." - -- '" ---.-.w..-o_-..:u.:.. ,. '~_.' -_.',A.. County of Albemarle EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~\ t . e:~': :.~:~: ~ AGENDA Recycli Review AGENDA DATE: September 2, 1992 ',. IT!:M~~i,i; ,,'fJ'I . i'- / c.' - ,'X _ -....x___,,,' 9;1, Off)'>, 57'7 INFORMATlbN:~ ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: STAFF C Messrs. Brandenburger, Ms. Higgins ATTACHMENTS: Yes (1) REVIEWED By;dJ! d was presented a status report on Ms. Trank's review of the County's recycling at the August 5th meeting. The attached report concludes her review and makes recommendations. DISCUSS Ms. Tra report includes a summary of the Homeowners' Association survey, program options with ad antagesjdisadvantages and specific recommendations for our recycling program. This report's provided as a brief overview and discussion as appropriate. A later work session will be cheduled at which time a comprehensive solid waste review will be presented for your cons ide ation. This subsequent worksession will incorporate the Recycling Program Review, Materia s Recovery System Study, Solid Waste collection (to include transfer stations), and options on subsidizing tipping fees. for information and discussion. 92.120 , ALBEMARLE COUl1TY RECYCLIIIG PROGRAII REVIEW DRAFT REPORT September 1, 1992 Submitted by: Andrea Trank 1706 Bent Tree Court Charlottesville, VA 22902 804-296-7165 1 1 Albeaarle county Recycles ~able of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project 1.2 Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction ....................... Design Approach .................... . . . 3 3 3 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 population and Demographic Information ...... 4 2.2 Waste Generation and composition ............ 4 2.3 Waste Collection and Disposal............... 6 2.4 Current Recycling Program ................... 6 2.5 Problems with Current Program ............... 7 2.6 Current Recycling Costs ..................... 8 3. LOCAL 3.1 3.2 SURVEYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Business Survey............................ 9 Neighborhood Survey........................ 12 9 4. PROGRAM MODELS FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY . . . . . . 14 4.1 Survey of Other Recycling programs using Private Haulers in urban/rural settings ................ 14 4.2 Other Programs ............................ 18 4.3 Analysis: Pros and Cons .................... 19 5. RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 project Introduction Albemarle County is currently in the process of reviewing cycling opportunities to determine what, if any role, the unty should play in promoting recycling, meeting state wide ndate of 25% reduction in trash going to the landfill by 1995, d possibly exceeding those goals. Andrea Trank was retained to search and make recommendations for a comprehensive recycling ogram. This draft report outlines the scope of study, the search methods and findings, an analysis of various options and ecific recommendations for the Board of Supervisor's nsideration. 1.2 Program Design Approach The goal of this project was to analyze local conditions and portunities for recycling and to evaluate the pros and cons of rious recycling options. The project's design approach nsisted of the following steps: Met or interviewed by phone local representatives, including Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA), private trash haulers, processors, civic groups, business people and residents. Conducted a survey of County businesses (3500 surveys mailed out) and a survey of Neighborhoods (50 surveys mailed out). ) Analyzed both surveys. ) Staffed a recycling committee which consisted of representatives from the business community, civic associations, neighborhood associations, private haulers, processors and government officials. (See appendix A for committee members.) Surveyed other jurisdictions to identify successful program approaches. ) Attended various local recycling conferences to collect information on successful approaches from around the country. Interviewed by phone recycling coordinators to find out pros and cons of various recycling options and the costs of their respective programs. ) Met periodically with other recycling committees and groups in the region, including haulers and other interested citizens groups. Developed a summary of program options and issues, including potential barriers. Identified preferred alternatives. 3 1) Wrote a report including recommendations for action. 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Population and Demographic Information e Thomas Jefferson Planning District estimates, which are based o 1990 census, suggest : Census Data and other sources County square miles County population County households Single family homes MUlti-family Trailer homes/other Est.Households with trash Businesses County's share of Ivy Landfill (excluding UVA) 748 68,135 25,958 16,467 7,615 1,876 service 16,000 3,553 51. 4% A bemarle's population is expected to increase at a rate of 1% a nually until the year 2000. 2.2 Waste Generation and Composition From July 1991 to June 1992, 45,996 tons of trash were d'sposed of at the Ivy Landfill. 51.4% came from the County. Although hard data on the composition of the waste stream uld require a year-long waste stream analysis, there are merous national studies and a recent local study (conducted by S Engineers) which demonstrate that 40% of domestic waste is per, while 25% is composed of organic materials, such as aves, grass and food waste.l [See exhibit #2-1 excerpted from e SCS Engineers Draft Report "Material Recovery System asibility Study.]" 3 Waste Collection and Disposal Residents in Albemarle County currently dispose of their ste in one of three ways: 1) they use one of 23 private haulers nging in size from very small serving just 10 customers to the rgest (BFI) with 2,000 customers; 2) they self haul their trash Ivy Landfill; or 3) they dispose of it by burning it or mping it illegally. The haulers say they are offering service t roughout the county. Their fees range from a low of $10/ month ('n high density neighborhoods with contractual arrangements) to $ l/month. The cost differentials are dependent upon several 1 At a recent EPA Solid Waste Conference, several national searchers stated that they believe local waste analysis is not arly as accurate as national analysis because the national gures comes from the manufacturers. In other words, you get a re accurate picture of what is going into the waste stream. ese researchers felt without a year long survey analyzing fferent season, local analysis would be less than accurate. 4 f ctors in addition to density: whether a trash can is provided, i pick up is at the curb or at the door, if recycling service is p ovided, and in a few cases, the volume of trash. The average c st has just gone up $1.25/ month since the new tip fee went i to effect July 1, 1992. The collection costs of recycling and increasing tip fees e a major concern of the haulers and must be considered in veloping a successful program. Despite the costs of recycling d uncertainty of the future direction the county will take, ny of the haulers have decided to provide recycling service to ay competitive and to meet current demand. 2 4 Current Recycling Program Last November, the County initiated a pilot co-mingled bag r cycling program with four haulers. During the first quarter, j st 4 tons of recyclables were collected by those haulers and d opped off at the container at the Ivy Landfill. This past q arter more than 60 tons were collected. Since the program's i ception, the County has paid the cost of renting the container, h uling and processing fees. The most current estimate of the c st of this recycling program provided by processor is $ 19/ton.2 This figure does not represent the collection costs b rn by the hauler. RSWA staff handled the administration of the program and p oduced an information brochure and sheet which were made a ailable to all participating haulers. In January 1992, the c unty decided to expand the program to all interested haulers. T date, 13 haulers have contacted RSWA to participate in the p ogram. During the past six months, 103 tons of materials were r cycled. While this figure shows great strides have been made i the nine months of the program, it still represents a r cycling rate of 1/2 of one percent (Based on state's f rmula).3 Haulers claim the county's curbside recycling figure i low due to the difficulty in differentiating what city and 2 The program currently accepts glass jars and bottles, a uminum and steel cans, plastic milk jugs and soda bottles. In a staff report written by Bob Brandenburger, earlier this year, b sed on an estimate that the program cost $88/ton, it was e trapolated that adding newspapers to the program would lower the r ton cost to $52/ton (total cost of such a program would be 5,058 excluding educational materials and the costs to the ulers.) While these figures would not be accurate in today's rket, it is clear that adding a high volume item like newspapers uld lower the per/ton costs. 3 The state's formula is based on the amount of recycling of h usehold waste defined as "any waste material, including garbage, t ash and refuse, derived from households." Households include s ' ngle and multiple residences, hotels and motels, bunkhouses, r nger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds and day u e recreation areas. Rate = A/(A + B), A=total recycled, B = w ste subject to recycling which includes waste from households, p us recyclables from businesses, whether recycled or not.) 5 c unty trash is being collected privately. The City of C arlottesville curbside recycling program, which is available to a 1 13,000 households and many apartments, and includes n wspaper, diverts just 9.5% of their waste from the landfill. I is clear from these figures that curbside residential c llection alone will not meet the state's mandate. An estimate of the County's total recycling rate including: ( ) businesses which reported to the planning district, (2) proximately 50% of materials collected at the McIntire drop off nter and (3) half of the scrap recycled (conservative timates) puts the County's recycling rate at 12%. There may be re recycling activities going on. Several other haulers say ey are offering their own version of a recycling program, but rrently, RSWA is unable to track what materials they are llecting and where they are being recycled. 2 5 Problems with Current program Participation in the County program runs as low as ten rcent on some routes to as high as 60% on others. On the erage, most haulers believe that 20% of their customers are rticipating. Several factors seem to be affecting the rticipation rate: the amount of knowledge each hauler has ncerning recycling, the time he or she spends promoting the ogram, the amount charged for recycling, rapport with customers d lastly, demographics. Haulers say they have not heavily omoted this program because they are uncertain of its fate. In dition, the haulers believe their livelihoods are at stake due regulatory changes and increases in the tip fee. One hauler timates he has lost 20% of his business due to increases in the p fee. her problems with the current program include: . Unacceptably high levels of contamination of materials used by a lack of understanding by the public of what materials e recyclable. . Breakage of materials is too high due to the following asons: 1) use of bags of insufficient strength and 2) improper ndling during transport of materials to the processor.4 The cal processor who receives the material estimates that he rows away 10% (by volume) of what he receives for recycling. e two items that make up this 10% are broken glass and the ong types of plastic containers. . Operation at the Ivy Landfill. Landfill staff claim they end ten to twenty hours a week picking up broken recyclables d trash created by piles of overflow bags. Haulers believe is problem is created by the container, which only has a small 4 A recent study by the Washington-based recycling think tank, sti tute for Local Self Reliance showed co-mingled recycling ogram have higher breakage and residue than segregated programs. -4% of recyclables in segregated programs are disposed of, while 16% of co-mingled materials are dumped. 6 o c therefor appears to be full long before it reaches All of these problems are affecting the quality of the ogram, however, all of these problems could be solved latively easily, but not without some costs. Recommendations e provided in section 5.2. 2 6 current Recycling Costs Recycling programs range from a low of $48/ton for unmanned op off centers to a high of $200/ton for source separated rbside programs. The costs of recycling (even with the County's lp) remain high for the private hauler in our area due to the llowing reasons: . Economy/depressed markets (our local market prices are ch lower than the national average) [See exhibit 2-3] The ice paid locally for recyclables is affected negatively by the llowing factors: 1) Other states have strong recycling mandates, so businesses which use these materials are locating in those states. This situation is what might be considered a "Catch 22." On one hand, local governments in virginia are reluctant to increase collection of materials without receiving a strong indication from businesses that the market is there. But the industry is waiting to see if we can produce a consistent supply of uncontaminated materials before making their moves. 2) Collection costs including transportation, labor and equipment (the lower the density~ the higher the cost/ton for recycling pick-up.) 3) Education 3 LOCAL SURVEYS 3 1 Business survey To access recycling activities in Albemarle's commercial ctor, 3500 businesses with current business licenses were sent rveys. (See Appendix B for sample survey). Of the 3500 sent t, more than 1100 were sent back. ( We continue to receive more rveys in the mail each day). This represents a return rate of re than 30% (average return rates for surveys are 7%). 5Riding with one hauler in the rural part of the county who r ns a separate truck for recycling, he was able to pick up only 18 h useholds in 2.5 hours. 7 Survey revealed the following information: . 70.3% of the businesses who responded say they are doing sort of recycling. . 50% of those who answered the survey say they recycle to protect the environment, . 15.6% are recycling to save on disposal costs, . 12.9% are recycling because their customers or employees want them to. . Most of the businesses are recycling aluminum, the second m st popular item is cardboard and thirdly, is office paper. . Of the 311 businesses who responded that are not currently r cycling, 50% of them say they would be interested in having the C unty or RSWA help them begin a recycling program. 45% of the p ople who are already recycling, still need help from the county o RSWA. en asked what do you envision as the County's role in cycling: . 40% of everybody who responded say to provide convenient d op off sites such as a location at the Ivy Landfill . 11% of everybody who responded say to provide recycling e ucation, technical assistance and coordination . 8% of the respondents who recycle say the county should ndate it . 5.0% of the respondents say to provide leadership, p omotion and recognition of businesses that do recycle. en asked what are the barriers to recycling: . 12% of those who recycle say they would expand but they c nnot find an outlet or a hauler to take additional materials, i e more types of plastic . 4% of those who recycle say storage space is a problem, 2% o those who do not recycle agree. . 3% say cost is a limiting factor. en asked how to get business cooperation in a recycling porting program in order to quantify recycling activities: . 15% of the respondents who recycle believe reporting is necessary paper work; 18% of those who don't recycle aren't ppy with a business reporting form either. . 27% of the respondents who recycle say they would operate in a business reporting procedure if it were kept mple; 20.4% of those who don't recycle said they would operate if it were a simple form. . 12% of the respondents say a business reporting form s ould be accompanied by a reduction in their cost of business l'censes or some other tax incentive; 10% of those who don't r cycle agree. . 6% of the respondents who recycle say reporting should be ken care of by the private haulers or at the recycling centers, % of those who don't recycle-- agree. 8 o her interesting facts: . 27% of those who responded had one employee. 51% of those r sponded had 10 or fewer employees. And 37.8% of those who r sponded did not indicate the number of employees in their c mpany. In many of the general comments expressed by the survey r spondents, there emerged some common themes: 1 Misconception that recvclinq should be free or at least pay for itself " feel the county is neglect for not having a free recycling ogram. Companies need an incentive to continue recycling. H wever, it is expensive to recycle and seems to be one of the f'rst things businesses cut when the economy is bad." (20 person M dical Company) " ake recycling pay for itself. Provide more drop offs, free llection which is paid for by the products that are recycled." ndividual Proprietor) " nstead of telling us to recycle and then making us pay for it. y us back for doing a good job. Some sort of rebate." (Small mpany) " y trash collector charges me a flat fee per month, whether I h ve one bag of trash or ten. You probably should give him some s rt of discount to recycle, which he could pass on to me." ( mall Company) " t would be nice to have a a least a pick up center. ivate service. He should mall Company) free pick up in Southern Albemarle or It does offset tipping fees for our be rewarded in an additional way." " f I recycle, my trash fees should go down." (Small consulting mpany) " e haul stumps and debris to Ivy, we would certainly welcome a eaper alternative than paying $40/ton." (Medium Size nstruction Company) " have talked to haulers and all they say is it will cost me to cycle this way or that, but I will not see a return. It is rrently cheaper to send stuff to the landfill. I hope that a cycling system can be worked out." (Large Company) " ake people understand that they might not make money off of cycling directly, but will do so by cutting disposal costs. e county should set up more recycling centers, conduct ucation programs and compile a list of recycling carriers." ompany with 27 employees) e company that is saving money on its disposal costs is Michie verno Its survey said, "We at Michie Tavern recycle in the ighborhood of 60% of our waste. Disposal pickups have been cut 9 b 1/3 to 1/2 . Employees realize how important the program is to o r business as well as the environment. [Our hauler] has been s per in their cooperation. We could not do the program without [ ur hauler'S] support... I convenience of the current s stem e key here is that the hauler has been offering the recycling rvice for free. But this hauler could not afford to do that th all businesses or it would face enormous losses. .. far I see it, the county at present has no role in recycling. have to drive all my recycling materials to Charlottesville. WE ED FACILITIES IN THE COUNTY. ALBEMARLE IS FAR BEHIND THE REST THE NATION. PLEASE LETS TRY TO CATCH UP." (Sole proprietor) .. ake it easier please. As it is, I have to take glass and wspaper to U Haul, other paper to McIntire, and plastic to een County. Why aren't there any plastic recycling bins a ailable?" (Medium Size Computer Company) .. am frustrated by the lack of recycling opportunities. I have cycled religiously everything possible since the recycling nter opened. After fifteen years, there is still no plastic cycling. And cardboard requires an appointment. Wood, it ems, could be recycled and sent to an OSB or plywood plant. I spect other building materials can also be recycled." (Small siness Owner) hope one day that all households and businesses will be to recycle and pre cycle by not purchasing items in non-recyclable materials. The county should ensure businesses and homes have access to recycling centers d that all types of recyclable materials are collected. Glad see some action taking place. Don't let the ball drop because red tape or pressure from lazy businesses." (Small Writing mpany) More Education .. nform the business how to do it and most will. I have stomers every week ask if we recycle. I would love to tell em yes." (17 employee Aviation Company) .. ducation and encouraging marketing of recyclables would be eful. Update on where these materials go and what they are rned back into would be helpful, also." (Day Care Operator) to .. ack of information, lack of any system set up to handle the terials." (13 employee Construction Company) ram Ideas .. ) Use yard waste wisely, i.e. haulers sperate brush, grass I aves from trash for composting. Chip logs or cut logs into f'rewood and give to those who need it. 2) Construction waste, 10 a low scavenging, much of material thrown away is reusable. 3) SE~t up a dump store. If you are interested please, give me a cc~ll . II ( ndividual Proprietor) T~e results of our survey closely mirrored the results of a s~aller survey conducted last year by the League of Women Voters, t~e Chamber of Commerce and the Thomas Jefferson Planning D strict Commission. A copy of their survey results is in Appendix C. 3 2 Neighborhood Survey 50 surveys were sent out to a list of neighborhood or h~meowner associations provided by the County Executive's office. 1 of the surveys were returned. The results of this survey are mpre anecdotal than statistically significant. A copy of the o iginal survey mailed out is contained in Appendix D. 1 Number of 5 6 1 Are they 7 2 3 haulers single haulers multiple haulers nja offering recycling? yes no nja 2 3 for not participating in recycling lack of information inconvenience lack of interest nja Reasons 4 2 2 4 4 What kind 7 3 2 service is desired? of recycling curbside drop off nja 5 recycling specifics current co-mingled bag program separate containers program like Charlottesville's nja More 6 2 2 4 6 would you like recycling paid for? county subsidizes through general tax revenue separate monthly fee or charge current system in which haulers decide other nja How 4 4 2 1 1 7 Are you interested in yard waste composting? 9 yes 3 no 11 8 ,) What type 5 3 2 2 of composting? backyard neighborhood municipal nja S neighborhoods are worth noting for their successful in generating interest in recycling. F Lakes has contracted with a hauler to collect c mpost material. The Neighborhood will be charging $1.00 per h useholdjmonth for this service and will be taking the material t a compost bin built especially for the neighborhood. Peacock H II neighborhood has a common trash area and recycling center f r the entire neighborhood. Fees are included in homeowners f es. Several other neighborhoods including Hollymead have c ntracted out the trash and recycling service to the lowest b dder. westminster Canterbury retirement community staff c llect newspapers and aluminum cans from its residents. They a e looking to expand the service if they can find an interested h uler at the right price. T e Waverly Neighborhood Association recently became so i terested in our survey efforts, they mailed out a survey to e ery resident in the neighborhood. Of 66 homes, 24% responded t the survey. Here is a summary of their findings: . 81% of the respondents recycle. . Those who don't recycle, cited a lack of information as main reason. . 69% favored curbside, 38% favored locally-based drop offs . 50% favored paying for recycling out of general tax r venues. . 31% favor current system where haulers absorb costs and p then on to customers. . 13% favored a separate monthly fee or charge . Because of the rural nature of this neighborhood, 100% s they dispose of their yard waste in the woods and therefore w re not interested in any municipal or neighborhood composting p ogram. . At least five haulers serve this neighborhood, but with mage to roads, a costly item in their neighborhood fees, the verly Homeowner's Association might consider contracting out e service to reduce the number of trucks coming into their ighborhood.6 4 PROGRAM MODELS FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY As preparation for modeling Albemarle County's recycling p ogram, jurisdictions in other areas were surveyed to determine t e range of approaches that have been used successfully. Some p ogram options were not looked into because they would involve e ormous expense or were not viable options. i.e. municipally- o erated programs. 6Thanks to Anne waite, Waverly Board member for taking the to conduct this survey and analyze its results. 12 4 1 Survey of Other Recycling programs using Private Haulers i urban/rural settings (see Chart 2-4 for Program Highlights) ince William County, Virginia - has 18 haulers servicing the unty with 87,000 households. These haulers are all required by dinance to provide recycling service. The haulers meet monthly th the county staff. They are all licensed and bonded. In dition, the county operates 29 drop off igloos that are rviced by the county. Recycling is mandatory for residents and sinesses. The county has hired two additional staff and erates its own truck and boom to handle these centers. During e first year of the program, the county gave the haulers a bsidy of $2.50 per household for recycling. That amount was creased to $1.50 and will very soon be phased out completely. the landfill, where the haulers drop the materials off, the unty keeps track of the recycling with a computer. The program sts $1.5 million a year with thirty percent of the budget set ide for education and advertising. Education includes a cycling newsletter that goes out to all residents four times a are Currently, the county is building a compost pad and will banning compost from its landfill by 1994. rtage County, Ohio - has 21 trash haulers servicing 48,000 useholds. The garbage service has remained a free market eration, while recycling service was contracted out to 2 ulers (BFI and Waste Management). Since everyone in the unty's main city gets a utility bill, the fee for recycling is ntained on this bill. All residents pay $2.75 per month for cycling service in the city. In the outlying areas of the unty, there are 13 unmanned drop off centers, which cost 44,000jyear to operate. Recycling is mandatory for all sidents and businesses. The county has just divided up the tlying areas into eight regions and is putting out bids for cycling contracts. In addition to their licensing requirement, ey also require all haulers to offer volume billing. The unty paid for all the containers and for all of the educational formation. Beginning December 1993, a ban on yard waste will in effect at the landfill. naxa City, Kansas - has three trash haulers servicing 9,300 useholds. Two of them are also offering recycling. "Our verning body did not want to get into the waste hauling siness," according to Art Davis, the Recycling Coordinator, so ey decided not to offer a recycling contract. Instead, they ndated by law, that all licensed waste haulers provide cycling services or subcontract out that service. The dinance also spells out what type of recycling service is to be fered and what items are to be collected. The governing body so put a ceiling on the amount each hauler can charge for trash d recycling. Haulers must report the weight of each cyclable items they recycle and provide receipts proving these terials were sent to recycling centers and not dumped. The c unty has authority to conduct spot inspections from time to t'me. They held monthly meetings with haulers and had them help d velop the program. Unlike the other two models, waste haulers Lenaxa are required to pay for everything including ucation, billing, providing recycling bins, and reporting cycling results. The city spent $18,000 to kick off their 13 r cycling program and does assist the haulers with public i formation. The key issue, according to Davis is a countability. D kota county, Minnesota - has 45 haulers servicing 100,000 h useholds. This county took the carrot approach and said they w uld give any hauler that provided recycling a subsidy per h usehold of $1.50jmonth. The County bought the bins and gave e ch hauler who agreed to distribute them $1.00jbin. Their total r cycling budget is $3 millionjyear. The county is weaning the h ulers off this subsidy s~owly (during the course of 3 years). A a condition of licensing, all haulers are required to fill out r cycling reports. "One of the most important things for a . . . . s ccessful program," accordlng to Gall Prest, Recycllng C ordinator "is to have a very good relationship with the h ulers." Participation rates are 80% with each household r cycling over 30 lbs of material each month. L ncaster county, PA - originally had 200 haulers, but since r quiring all haulers to offer recycling, the number of haulers s runk to 80. However, five haulers do sixty percent of the b siness. Recycling Director Jim Warner doesn't believe in rural d op offs. He says they are too hard to manage and don't get the p rticipation. He is attempting to work out a system where rural h ulers offer recycling once a month as opposed to once-a-week in t e urban areas. Recycling education costs run about $2.00j h usehold. Participation is at 65%. W stern Lake superior sanitation District (WLSS), DUluth, M nnesota - is of all the programs the most sophisticated. This d strict, which has 33,000 households, was served by 20 haulers. S nce instituting licensing and a requirement that all haulers o fer recycling in the urban areas, eight haulers have gone out o business. There is mandatory recycling for the urban areas, a d what is known as "mandatory opportunity to recycle" in the r ral areas. Haulers pay a $250.00 licensing fee and are told h w much they can charge for both trash service and recycling s rvice (volume billing). The figures were arrived at through a v ry detailed analysis done by a University Professor hired as a c nsultant. (The report is available for those interested). In a dition to the curbside service, there are 15 drop off stations w ich are open 12 to 20 hours per week. Each of these stations c st approximately $11,000 to construct and are operated with a $ ,000 a year budget for operations. Most of the $456,000 r cycling budget is spent on education. The approximate figure f r education is $300,000. Samples of some of the WLSS e ucational materials a e available. Caven county, North carolina - decided against allowing the free m rket to operate on its own. Instead, it created service d'stricts and awarded a single contract for all of its recycling n eds. Craven County also went to volume billing after realizing t at 61% of the population was paying for a green box (transfer s ation) system that was only used by 39% of the population. T ese green boxes were costing Craven County residents $ OO,OOOjyear. In the place of the green box, Craven County went w th service districts. six private collectors already in 14 b siness, hired a lawyer and divided the county. Craven County 1 t American Refuse System negotiate the contract on their b half. (ARS also received the recycling contract). ARS says it t ok five months to count up the number of customers that each h uler had, and set the districts. Each hauler was given the s me number of customers and a percentage of new customers. An o dinance requiring all residents to use a trash hauler increased t e pool of customers by 300%. Residents pay $1.25/for a sticker f reach 32 gallon trash can. Each household also pays $3.00 per m nth for recycling and administration of the program. Seven c nvenience centers are set up, but the haulers get a percentage o money generated by the convenience centers through sticker s lese Trash going to the landfill has decreased from 4,000 t ns per month to 1,600 per month. Participation in the r cycling program is 75%. County officials claims these rates a e due to the volume based sticker program and amount of r cycling taking place. They also claim there has not been a n ticeable increase in illegal disposal. The trash hauling s stem has been closed off to newcomers unless they appeal to the Bard of supervisors. The cost of trash service under the free m rket system was $11.00 to $13.00 per month with an added $8.00 a nual tax rate for the green boxes. Under the current system, r sidents are only paying $8.00 per month. G and Traverse, Michigan - has 64,000 households. The county m intains a strong hauler licensing system. As a condition of 1 censing, each hauler must provide weekly curbside collection of r cyclables. There are five haulers, two of which have 80% of t e population. (Not BFI and Waste Management) In addition, the c unty has five drop off centers and is expanding to 15 sites, w ich will also be privately operated. Research conducted for G and Traverse by Resource Recycling System (a division of Waste M nagement) showed that an increase in drop off availability i creases curbside use by bringing recycling to another level. L cal haulers strongly disagree with this premise, saying many d op off sites would provide direct competition to their service. I these drop-off sites were funded, their would be no incentive f r residents to pay for service. The budget for the Grand T averse drop off centers is $100,000 --which includes both c pital and operating expenses. Five will be staffed and three w II also be trash disposal sites with compactors. Grand T averse also instituted a volume billing system for trash and r quires everybody to pay for recycling, whether they use it or n t. The haulers are required under the licensing arrangement t provide educational materials. The total budget for recycling i $250,000 per year. 4 2 Other Programs o her program directors were interviewed about specific aspects o their programs. Here is a brief description of each: L udoun County, Virginia - in many ways, Loudoun County is very s milar to Albemarle. It has nearly the same population and its g owth has mirrored the growth of this county. It also has a v ry rural area, a suburban area and an urban area. Loudoun R cycling Director Steve Carfora believes Loudoun made many m stakes in developing its program, mistakes which he hopes other 15 c mmunities can benefit from. The Loudoun program is a mishmash o everything, according to Carfora. Haulers are not at all r gulated. Drop off centers are scattered throughout the county, s me are manned, some are not. Each take different items. The c unty subsidizes one, but not the others. The county s bcontracted out the centers to several different haulers. Each i running a different operation. They are not doing very much e ucation, another mistake according to the Coordinator. Several y ars ago, they were going to contract out the recycling service, b t Waste Management won the bid which angered all the small h ulers. The county dropped the idea of contracting out the s rvice, but did not pursue other avenues of regulating the h ulers. What Loudoun did was to institute mandatory recycling w th a $100 fine for noncompliance, but there is not the proper s aff to enforce this ordinance. The total recycling budget is $ 50,000jyear. S utheast PUblic service Authority (SPSA) representing Norfolk, V rginia Beach, Chesapeake, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Franklin, Isle o wight County and Southhampton County operates 50 drop off c ntainers at 37 locations. None of these drop offs are in areas w th curbside recycling. "contamination is a big problem at drop o f sites because people are not taking the time to read the 1 bels on the containers," says SPSA Recycling Program Manager D vid Horne. SPSA purchased the containers at a cost of $3,500 t $5,000 a piece. They also bought a truck and hoist system for $ 5,000 and pay a driver a minimum of $17,000. "We are not m king any money from the collection and sale of recyclable m terials, but we are prolonging the life of the landfill," says H rne. SPSA covers a much larger area than Albemarle and s rvices a population of close to 1 million households. The plan i to have 500,000 of them be covered by curbside service. H nover County, virginia has several manned transfer stations t at also are used for recycling collection. Tip fees charged to c mmercial customers subsidize these stations, which run $ 6,000jmonth. Each station accepts three color glass, aluminum, b -metal cans, plastics 1 and 2 and newspaper. Three of the s ations accept used oil. $200,000 of their operating budget c mes out of general funds. In 1994, BFI will begin operating a p ivate landfill in the county. At that time, the County will 1 se a source of revenue for recycling. They say they will fund i out of general revenues. Luisa County, Virginia is in the process of replacing all of its g een boxes with seven manned drop off centers. Each of the c nters located on 3 acres of land are being installed at a cost o $168,000.7 The centers are surrounded by a fence and locked. T ey each contain ramps for access, a shed with a toilet facility a d shower. Bins for aluminum and tin, trailer for newspaper and c rrugated cardboard, bins for glass and plastic 1 and 2. In 7Waste Management Inc. claims it could set up drop off sites s'milar to Louisa's for $75,000 each, if the county owns the land t e sites are going to be set up on. Operating costsjper site per m nth are estimated by Tim Lee of Waste Management to be $ 500jmonth. 16 a dition a 250 gallon tank for waste oil and a trash compactor t at reduces the volume of the trash to 1j16th of the size. The c unty has put out bids for the recycling and trash collection. Luisa also has many voluntary programs including a Chamber of C mmerce sponsored ledger paper and computer paper pickup. 4 3 ANALYSIS: PROS AND CONS While each of these programs have different features, they a 1 contain a few elements in common which make them successful. o e, successful recycling programs run by the private sector r quire good communication between the haulers and the g vernment. There also must be a certain amount of government o ersight over the program. Most successful county programs seem t require, at a minimum, money spent on education. S ecific options: L cense all haulers and make a condition of their licensing, a p ovision that they offer recycling. (All localities interviewed f lt this step was the minimum necessary for working with a p ivate hauling system.) A es The county's involvement would be limited to that of a monitor and promoter, allowing the marketplace to ultimately establish the price of collection of recyclables coupled with the traditional trash pick up service. This service would promote maximum participation by the public because of its ease and simplicity. The pickup of trash and rec~clables could occur on the same day by the same hauler. It would standardize the recycling service already being offered to many residents. It would make recycling available to all residents with private trash service. It would be easier to enforce than an ordinance that requires all households and businesses to recycle. It would make reporting requirements easier to enforce. It would require less staff time and money than either contracting service or running a program municipally. More households would be offered recycling service. It would leave in place the existing free market for trash collection. 8excerpted from analysis done for the Lenaxa City Council, d cument "Lenaxa Recycles." 17 D sadvanta es It would force more reluctant haulers or those who felt they couldn't afford recycling service to either offer the service or abandon their business. There could be an option for smaller haulers to contract out the recycling service. It would increase the cost of doing business for all haulers. This solution does not address overlap in current hauling routes or efforts to keep cost of recycling down. ndate that all residences and business people recycle. he majority of communities that have worked with the private ctor in my study took this step.) es It places the burden of recycling on every waste generator. More recyclables will be collected. It raises environmental awareness. It spreads the cost of recycling among the total population and acknowledges that the cost of recycling are societal. It makes it more cost effective for the hauler to offer recycling service. D'sadvanta es It is nearly impossible to enforce. It may be unpopular with some residents who resent increased government regulation. without requiring haulers to offer recycling, this option would be very difficult to implement. ntract Out Recycling service (Several communities I looked at ose this option rather than try to get all haulers to offer cycling.) The county would be assuring the public that it was being charged the lowest cost for recycling because of the competitive bid process. It would standardize service by not working with a large group of haulers. It would leave in place the existing free market for trash collection. 18 ~) since recycling is not very economical (see section 2.6), it might be more acceptable among those haulers who have been reluctant to offer this service. D'sadvantaaes Looking at other communities, it is likely that smaller companies would be unable to compete for the recycling service. ~) Many haulers who are offering recycling service would be forced to drop this service, experiencing a loss in investment. ~) It might confuse residents by providing them with two different trash haulers. ~) It would be difficult to require pickups on the same day which most studies agree improves participation. 5) Rural areas might be excluded because of the high cost of recycling in these area. E~tablish Service Districts using current haulers. A Bvantaaes It would improve efficiency in collection of recyclables and trash by avoiding overlap in hauling routes. V) It may decrease price paid by each household in the suburban area. (see Craven County experience) B) It may decrease illegal dumping if all households must receive service. (The examples I looked at, required all households to pay a hauler to pick up their garbage and recyclables.) ~) A variable rate user fee system could be established and enforced easier, which would encourage source reduction, reuse and composting. D sadvantaaes ) It limits household's choice of haulers. ~) Many haulers claim this would violate anti-trust statutes. They say it might result in a lawsuit, as almost happened in Craven County. B) If an equitable system were to be worked out involving all haulers, it would require enormous staff time to develop the districts and shift haulers around the county. ~) Some haulers may be forced out of business due to being put at a competitive disadvantage. D) It might increase the cost of recycling in rural areas. 19 E tablish Drop Off Centers at various locations around the county A es It is a less expensive way to make recycling available to large groups of people, because the transportation costs are partially born by the individual hauling his own recyclables. It meets the request of many people who responded to the survey. It is easier to set up than a curbside program. The types of items that drop off centers accept can be easily expanded, i.e. cardboard, motor oil, office paper can be added. It would provide recycling coverage in areas where curbside recycling is not available. D'sadvanta es Could become a magnet for trash. contamination of recyclables is high at centers that are not manned. staffing drop off centers could be costly. Unless there was a system in place to charge users, it would provide unfair competition to the haulers offering curbside recycling service (for a cost). Participation rates aren't as high as in curbside programs. Lower participation rates result in lower waste diversion rates and could jeopardize meeting state mandates. tablish a drop off center at the Ivy Landfill es It is convenient for residents who bring trash to landfill (50 peoplejday during the week, 200 peoplejday on the weekend.) ) Encourages those who use the landfill to recycle. ) It is a less expensive way to make recycling available to large groups of people (average 650jweek). It meets the request of many people who responded to the survey. It is easier to set up than a curbside program. 20 The types of items that drop off centers accept can be easily expanded, i.e. cardboard, motor oil, office paper can be added. D'sadvanta es Additional cost (see Appendix E for cost estimated provided by RSWA.) "Nowhere in the u.s. is significant recycling and composting curring, especially for residents, without significant rticipation by government," according to the Grand Traverse lid Waste Program overview. It is clear from my research that 1 successful privately-run recycling programs have an element government oversight and assistance. Most of the assistance s come in the form of education. In some cases, there have en direct subsidies to the haulers to defray some of the start- u costs for recycling. The following recommendations are the m'nimum necessary to ensure a recycling program that will meet s ate mandates. Other options delineated in this report might n ed to be looked at more seriously if the private sector fails t cooperate fully with this proposal. ) It won't serve the entire county. Participation rates are generally lower than curbside.9 5 RECOMMENDATIONS 1 Commitment from the county to continue the curbside program ready established and phase-in expansion. since the program is ready in existence and is experiencing problems that are easily lvable, it makes sense to work with this program. The county uld continue paying the cost of processing and marketing terials. In addition, the county could subsidize the cost of ucational materials such as brochures, Albemarle county cycling logo on bags, other promotional items such as stickers r successful business recycling efforts, public service a nouncements, etc. 2 Correct problems in current program: If the county commits to is program, several things could be accomplished quickly to rrect current problems. Change the set-up at the Ivy Landfill to make it easier to load recyclables and prevent breakage of materials. Details of anges to the collection system could be worked out jointly by e county, the private haulers, RSWA and the processor. Re-do the current recycling brochures (improve the look, clude county recycling logo and space for individual haulers to d their names. Develop on-going information sheets to address 9 Some of the ideas in this analysis were also contained in a r port produced by Angela Glomm for the League of Women Voters and f r CART. 21 p oblems with the program. (Sample educational materials c ntained in background resource notebook are located in the C unty Board of Supervisor's office and Engineering Department o fice.) 3 License all haulers and require the haulers to offer cycling as part of licensure arrangement. Consider offering a ort-term subsidy to help haulers defray start-up costs for cycling. This would also encourage recycling over trash mping. Spell out the type of recycling service to be offered d what types of materials are to be picked up. In other words, andardize the recycling effort and create a level playing field r all haulers. (Sample licensing agreements and ordinances ntained in Resource notebook.) 4 Provide at a minimum, a short-term recycling education ogram that will include the following elements: work with the ulers (hold monthly meetings), develop start-up educational terials including brochures, radio, tv and print vertisements, provide technical assistance to business mmunity and work with RSWA. One additional staff person within e Engineering Department could handle this responsibility. The ed for locally-based educational programs for recycling was pressed in the July 1, 1991 Thomas Jefferson Planning District lid Waste Management Plan. 10 Until Albemarle's program is up speed, there might be reluctance from RSWA to handle all the ogram aspects. Once the program is on par with arlottesville's recycling program, the education coordinator at R WA will be able to spend equal amounts of time on county and c'ty recycling education. 5 As soon as feasible, phase-in the addition of newspapers to e county program. Adding newspaper to current County program creases the amount of materials collected for recycling, duces cost per ton for materials collected and makes the City d County programs uniform, which would help with education. e program would require additional labor by private haulers and ded upfront costs for the county, haulers andjor customers. ee staff reports contained in Appendix F for estimates of sts. ) 6 Establish a drop off center at the Ivy Landfill, separate om the haulers receiving area and away from the scales. (Cost timates for a facility were provided by RSWA earlier this ar. ) 7 Analyze over the next year and a half whether these programs e improving the recycling throughout the county before nsidering placing other drop-off centers, establishing mobile nned centers or before considering mandating all businesses and 10"General information regarding the environmental benefits of ternative waste management strategies can be disseminated on a gional basis with the advantages of cost sharing; but as long as riad and divergent recycling programs are operating int he rious jurisdictions specific information will need to be handled cally." page 43, TJPDC Solid Waste Management Plan. 22 r sidents to recycle. 5 8 Actively pursue a compost site at the Ivy Landfill as r commended by earlier task force reports and the SCS report. 5 9 Aggressively pursue a business recycling program in c operation with RSWA and citizen groups such as CART. w'th every business that answered our survey requesting t e County or RSWA. Follow-up help from 9 Many other long-term recommendations are contained in the arlottesvillejAlbemarle Solid Waste Task Force Report 1989 and e Thomas Jefferson Planning District Solid Waste Management an. These recommendations should not be abandoned, but r visited yearly to see if they are politically or economically v'able. is summarizes my findings. In my review of the preliminary aft of the SCS report on a MRS, it seems nothing I am commending is contrary to their recommendations. In the ckground resource notebook, there are additional appendices ntaining pertinent information. o Work out a system with Ivy landfill staff, haulers and ocessors to accurately report the amount of material recycled. not require businesses that recycle to report, unless they s nd materials to outside collection centers. i.e. Giant sends a 1 of its cardboard to Maryland. 23 I > >, 'd ::l +l U) >, +l "r-! .-l "r-! .Q "r-! UJ I1l OJ r.. e OJ +l UJ >, U) >, l-l OJ :> o u OJ p:; en W o :J .... en z o i= Cii o Do :!: o o W .... en <C_ ;:~ 0.... -J: .Jo 0- enW u.~ o z o en a: <C Do == o o UJ .-l I1l "r-! H OJ +l I1l ::E: I +l H o 0. OJ p:; +l \j..j I1l H Q UJ ... . N .... ffi J: ~ H OJ OJ c: "r-! tJI c: riI U) U U) ...I ~ (3 a: w ::E ::E o o ell ...I ~ ~ m o (i) w a: o w b CO ::E o o 'II: 'II: "4)~ ~ :. G>-c: = ., o E a.8 G< ~+ fu+ tI "OtI CI) CI) -01 .s=., 01... O(j) CI) :i:~ ...I ~ ~ w ::E ::E o o III 01 ., Gi ~ 'II: E 0 .,0 -E~ :I 0 00 + Cl)o O>z a . ... 0 00 tI l;i~ 't: . Oiij 0 Ll.0 ...I ~ 1= m Q en w a: 'II: E 0 .,0 -E~ :I 0 00 + Cl)o O1Z a . ... 0 00 l;i~ 't: . 'iij 0 Ll.0 ?- m ~ ::E o o (')" 00 :!cO ~~ (,)"'-(,)000 e:!"":cOt"iui~ 101010"'-00 C\iuiC\it"iait"i - -.,,- "IOC\/"'-O(l) cO.,:.,:C\iaicO - -.,,- (l)1O"'-"c\/" e:!":uiC\i~~ 100101"'-0(1) c:i.,:C\iC\iaiai C\/ .....,,- (I) Ql.,,-C\/Ql.... ~t"i.,:C\i~~ CI) 0> ., Gi ~ 10(')(')00.... coco~.,:aiai ....(') 10"010(1)01 aic6~":~~ "",-(')(1)10" ai"":~C\i~C\i c\/.,,- C\/""....".... cO":c:iuie:!~ .. ~ 4i:g ~ ~ _ON CI) ~ ~ill...Q. -g _ E ~ 8.~ 1ijoE8~~s 0> 0."4) >-"0 0 2~ol311l1- ffi 0 CI)!E ..2 olS o.ozOC>::E ~ 0101....(1).,,- c:it"ic:it"iai (l)C\/IOIO.... c:i":c:i":c:i - (1)"'-100110 c:i":c:iui~ .... Ql....IOC\/(I) c:i":c:i":ai 10....1010(1) c;i":c:it"ico 0"01"'-0 ~t"ic:it"iai ....C\/Ql"Ql ~":c:it"iai (')(I)....C\/.,,- ~t"i~t"iai 1OC\/1OC\/1O c:it"ic:it"i,...: o ~ III ., a: S ow ... 0 -o."I-G>1- I- 0 ~UJ ij :sJ:COo.o a. 10 cO o cO 01 ,...: .... ,.... en....... ,.... co"":~ ,...: - 10 ,...: - 1010"'- 10 t"i.,:,...: ui .... .,,- cO "C\/Ql.,,-C\/ C\i":aicOui C\/ ~ .... "'-0110"10 t"i":c:ic6ui .... C\/ <':! .... ~..,.-_o t"iuiC\ico"": .... ,C\/ "": .... 10....(1')(\1..- C\i":~"":ui .... C\/ 10 C\i C\/C\/"'-(I) 10 ":ui CO CO.,: C\/ (I) C\i .... (')(1)"'-100 C\it"iaiai~ .... cO 0110(').,,-.... C\i.,:~aico .... C\/ o ui .,,-,,(I)C\/.... C\ic1gaire .,,- ui C\/ 10 C\/C\/O 0 "':~cOd"-: ....C\/ .! III ., :i: -0 :a w> 1-";;1 en~ ~I- o a: ~ Gi ~ CI) oS -oCl) 0:8 CI) 0:1_ ~a: III en.....~ S O.8Gl ...0 ZE~'8G>1- ~:lGloij ......JI-Ll.O a: o III o oi 0> o C\/ cO o ,...: "'-101010 ~c6c:icO 10 ui 01..,.(')10 c:i":c:iui .... .,: (I) 10 C\/1O c:i":c:iui (') .,: "C\/(,)C\/ c:it"ic:i": C\/ .,: 1OC\/(').... c:i":c:iui 10 ui 0(').....,,- ~c6c:i,...: .... cO QlC\/..,.1O c:i":c:iui C\/ cO (1)101001 c:i":c:iui .... ,...: 010110"'- c:i":c:ic6 01 .,: OC\/_(') ~t"ic:i": en en :5 C> Cil Qi E ::E ~.. S OE 5 Q~ ...I :I t: ~ ~.",CI) tu...LI. ::E " cO o c:i (') t"i m C\i 10 t"i 01 C\i m .,: o t"i 10 C\i 01 C\i (') t"i " C\i a: w J: I- o DRAFT o g o g o g o g - OJ .~ G> E E o o C Q) eci G>m a.m 0_ ~~i~ ..........G$-, "':Cii.8~.!" Sl.DECllCll -~Q)~"8.. Cii<.>~Cii::::> .oG>o.,o ~C: .~g: o >-ij'-o _ o-g:lo;;;.. cU)(j)!~ CIS "as a:88~U) 'E :.e E 2 '"0 Gllll8G>Glai E 8. a. a.~ ~ GleEg::J- ~Oo_CI)': cOO oij 8. ':.!.!g'c .0::: III CIl""-a:Q) Gl Cll ell CIl Gl Ui:i::i:oc;;Ui~ GJ__CGJ... :i:Cll~8:i:o -0:5::: -oLl. o=ooE:::.:o< o ... Ca cu 0 en en<3o~en~ Gi.c..s=UiC6c 0-;: 1:: 1:: Gl 09- Ui o"ooUioell g>>z Z ell Oc ~ :> ....:~:l-o - ~ ~' Cll ::E .- ~c5c-o c~oooen ~oo-o~~ OCE~+:l:a ~01CllCll~E 't: a -E .o"C Q) 0- ... j CI) Q) .0 LfOo 01C:;< w!f~~~]" ~~~~G'5 CoEo!;-o -Xl .."0. g' g'.! ~ ~ Q) c w w ~w -c: ow v, Cll ~enenen"a;en.J:: "'OOO~::J() {ienenCl). + '!I: a: to + '!I: to + 'II: o g o g o 8 o 8 o 8 o 8 o 8 ...I ~ o I- CS Engineer's Dra~t Re ort ~ Materials Recovery System Feasibility Study' EXHIBIT 2..~ PRESENT AND HISTORIC END-USER PRICES BY MATERIAL REGIONAL RECYCLING RECYCLING MATERIAL PRICE TIMES. TIMES. ($/ton) May 1992 May 1991 ($/ton) ($/ton) Paper - ONP $ 0 - 35 $ 10 - 15 $ 10 - 20 - OCC 20 - 35 25 - 35 35 - 40 - OP 0 - 140 160 - 220 175 - 220 - MXP 0 - 35 7,5 - 10 7,5 - 10 Glass - Clear $ 20 - 60 $ 50 - 55 $ 50 - 55 - Brown 40 45 - 55 45 - 50 - Green 15 10 - 20 35 - 50 Metal - Aluminum $320 - 840 $520 - 600 $500 - 760 - Ferrous 37 - 40 50 - 60 55 - 65 Plastic - HOPE $ 60 $140 - 160 $140 - 200 - PET 40 - 140 140 - 160 120 - 140 - Mixed N/A 0 - 30 22.4 - 120 * Waste~. 'Recycling Times, Mid-Atlantic Region.' May 5. 1992. + Waste~, 'Recycling Times. Mid-Atlantic Region. May 7, 1~1. u.l II: ~ ...:l b ~ r.:l E< ~ H II: P- el ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ re ~ ...:l b fq u.l u.l ~ o o b u.l fq o j u.l I ~ I N i ... tJ >< l-l rn QJ I.< 0.1 0 '" ..... o.rno 01 rn U :J '" QJ.....M ZCI Sl o .~ +I 111 GI llt... ....'" UP: .~ t: III Po .... o .... .... -~ 'Om '" C QJ -~ I.< '" dO 0+1 "'0 I..... a.~ "'llt dO ..... N '0 QJ ... I.< QJ QJ+I > 01 .~ '" o :J Cl ~il ....... 0 011I Z >lQ Sl o .~ ... III U :l '0 Iol I.< QI 0. '" 01 0. I.< QJ 01 0 I.< :J 0 ::l 0> QJ U .<:CCI.< U.~ QJ 0> orn.<:+lC l-l.~........ .~ .a....6Q1..... I.< ..... U QJQJQlOl>. 6 > U :J U O'OCQIQI lII.cOZt>: l>t 11I'0 .... ~VI III~ III o U >. 'O~ '0 .....<: 'O'~ '" "'+lQlVI qoVlo>0.6c.a Cl>QlC ....."'::l O.~>'QlQlOl .... 0>.......... 6 ~ o u..... 0 .... QI >.as.c '.... +I QI U'~""'l-l 0 ::l....QJ+la>. o I.<'~ 1/1 6 0. C, I.< QI O).~ O'~N QI'<: CI>.... .... ~CI> 0.+1 ..... III .~ " . ... III X 0> Iao '0 C + O>t>: as I .~ Iaocxo.c:ueQl ..:l'~ o.~ 0..... 01 +I'~+lU>OO. ....+lI.<Cal l-l.ao ~ as8;~ 8.~ ~"i"& I.< QJ 6..... o.QlI.<QJO Ill.!(N 0+1 +lual.0 c: I.< QI 6 QI '0 ..~ +I l-l '" 0 0 0...... M as .~ NU+lOIllCl>....~.<: ... o '0 QJ .... as 0. .~ U +I o.~ C 0.... QI .. 0>1/1 C 6'0 C . as QlQI...... >l-l.....CI>C ......~ U as g &~~.a CQlQI....QI H I>: I.< .... 'Om Dl 01 l-l QI' as l-l I.< QI '0 :J QlQI....c: ..............0'0 :l::l0.al.< as as '" :X::X: 1 I >< 1 1 .. .. Cl " U as Sl .....as :l Sl U.~ .~ '0 t:S III Po VI I.< ...tl 0..... :l ....as III 0) ..... .. '0 ..... o .....<1 o Cl VI ....:l o III o o o .. 0) l>t ... .... ..... III U .s II III .... ..... ..... .~ ~ III .... . Sl U.... SlO\ .~ " ".~ Po> 0> .-4 rn m- ol l-l .~ l-l'O C.... 1 0> III rn l-l > o QJ l-l IllC: ::l'O l-l I o QJ to. 0. III u..... uo,.,o I 0 ......a as 0 l-l-~ 01 ..... mo-....(/) , o..a ,o.+I~ 01 0 Olu'Oc6rn'O 6rnOl.-4'O 10 U III o '" ::l :J l-l ::l :J "'.~ C as C .....MOU.-4QJIll ...-f QI.-4 e (d~M."" CI to. .cZU .cZPo~ CI E-< .... ::l as>. o +I \D .... m..... +lOQJU l-l QJ ..... QJ OlOl.aC >~ CIll'~+I OmdPOr-l c: ~'<:1/1"" U.<: QI +I .. >'+1 :.: dOCIOUC 1/1 00)0 QI 0"" "'6"'''''' l-l6 0 III QI >< C o .~ ..... ..... .~ e 1/1 ..... CI> C .S ~ +I 0 o QI 0 66U o ::l l-l.-4 0> o.OC >.~ .-4 ..... .....~U IllU>' 111 U o l-l QI OE-<t>: 0> C .... ..... U >. U'O QI..... 1>:0 .<: 01 QI ....Ill III ::l 00 u.c ..... .....N as.. .... 0..... E-<CI> l-l l-l '0 QI.... 0 0> QlCO.... C .... C.~ .~ to. C 111 +I III III III ",+I l-l+l m 02l5[~ U 1ll+l::lU U 0.... l-l l-l "''O~COC: 0. oQlao 0 >. +l0'~"""~ III QI.... o.UO +I"'" +1'<: +I.~O'" .U"'U.... 11I.....l-ll-lqoQl QlC l-l.~'O +1'<1'.-1'0.-10 QI U c:..... ......~..... e o.asMOU>O",O O.........U~UPou'" .... ::l >. M OUl"" 0\ r-- ..... 0\ '0 ...... '0..... .r4N..... t>> .aCl>.... III ::l '" U .<: QI >. .. .a QI III U"' c: '0 0 "' .... 0. 0 QI QI l-l > l-l6 c: +I l-l1ll0> .~::l "' +I ~ -g.~ &'6 .a QlC QI..... QI> QI ~ 0 0>'0 U I>: +I l-l'~ C.~ >. l-l III "' +I'~ III U 01 QI QI", eU.-IQIQI l-l....u:J QI U l-l l-l QI....~ QI.....>. ..........0>'0 QI.....U.....l-l.....:l l-ll-l l-l0 QI..... o.~ III 0 QI as IaoUI>:.c....a:x:....m>. l-l U . QI , E-<QlH+I.... 1 P:1ao 01 0> .....IIllI1lC N N ~~ :c o o o 0) '<I' l>t ... I:l :l o U Cl 0\ III t:~ 0.<1 PoO 01 C+I III "' c: 01 l-l U-~ U I 0 l-l.~ ..... '0.+1100 6 01 01 01 U ::l:J 111111 c: r-4 Q1.-4 r-4 Pl..... .cZPoCl E-< dO 0) 1/1 I QI 01 ::l o .<:.<: .....+1 10 6 .a ..... .....'0 dO ..... 000 O)M'<: o Z o Z .... ... 0..... l-l I:J 0 .!( 0 U.... U .~ III .!(o~o> U 01 C o l-l.~ O....QI..... 0.....1"""1 U ...... :l >. ooo.",u ....Ol.cQl CI> ~ P: l-l o o U .... .~ 0> c: ... -~ 0..... U 01>. +lU o QI ..:It>: c: o .~ ..... ..... .... 6 M CI> I.< +I QI c: ..... QI '0 :l 'OQI", .~..... .<: 01 U QI >. 0 I.<U+I .....QI 0l.<C: 1/1 QI . 0 > .....<: .~ CI>:JO> 0\ C .~ ..... U >. U QI'O 1>:..... o ....<: QI QI 0>01 '0 ::l ::l 0 Ill.c ..... .....0 1110 .... . OM E-<CI> QI +I ::l .... .a .<: .~ 0> 1.<1.< :lIllQl+l o 0>..... al .a "' ::l.... .a as '0 >. .c ......... 0 COlQl+l.c :l c: > U O.~ as..... "' U.aClCl>QI I.< 01 0 QI... al al asa '" 0 QlI/1 >. I.< '0 >. :l U.... .... '" III '0 C:CI> .... c: 01 '0 +lQI .~ c: .~ .a I.< >. QI ., O\.a ::l '0 QI o c: QI '" 6 '0 c: al ~ ~ 0.0 ....0. QI QI.... 0> QI '" > 1.<..... c: "' ,~ al I.< 0 I.< al .....~ U.~ &0> .... +I g &~"ti 01 >.c: I.< c: QI QI c: .-4 .~ o QI c: QI QI >''0 > I>:'~ I.< "''0 0\ ....t>:I.<UQI.... ..... QI >. III -~ c: QI>O> IllU.<:.........QI>.al.~ al al I.< I.< 0 I.< >.01 I.< 0.+1..... QI..... l-l I.< QI 1.<>' Qlu",aso.::lo.I. III ::l '" .....QI '" '" 0 :x: I 1 I l.cl.< :X::X:I I U I I +1'0 I.< . +I .cu oc:o. Ill>. QI U as U N >.~ I.< QI ~"''''' E-: '<:l-l 1 1 1/1 '" MN qoMo. 0 0 0 0 M 0 ~ 0 0 .... . . l>t l>t ... ... .~ .~ III U U... 0 III .. III VI l< 111 ... Cl '" .. o I:l I:ll:l ~I:l CJ III 111.~ ..:llo: OX 'tI U :I Il "" +' Il o U ~ I '" VI'tI ~ U lIl+' .rl U k U U~ +'~ III 0 XU +> I:: I:: e.rl -rl :I +> k I:: 0. DI.rl ~ DI DI e Gl :J III :I Gl Q)....-4r-4.&-J Z~t(lJI QJ 'tI Gl - 'tI +> 0" 'tI k Gl'tl en omrUQJ4J~ III ~Dlko."'''' DI~ QJ 0'''' 0'0 DI Gl DI Gl I:: 0. :I .0 1::>'tIGl+>-rl.c k'tl "''''kk""DlOlUkk U Gl lIl-rl.c :I'..... 0 '" H><I-<~lD.cOUU Il o .rl +' '" Cl c:l.+' .rllll UIII: .rl t: III 114 dP o r-- 1 III ID u ~'g ~.. o III >IQ o Z k Il :>. o ....... 'rl Gl +' DI . :I U 0 :I .c 'tI ....... 101 N l>o fIl'tl .rl ~ 01 fIl~ fIl o U Gl I:: o Z ~ III .rl k U +' III X k.c Gl+> 0'''' e 1::'" k'tl .rl 0 . 01 +> k > '" 1::"'~OIOGlGl o ~.c k k U k U +> Gl I:: '" 1 Oll::k~O 10 I:: I:: 0 0:1 ~ ... :I." e... '" Gl '" "'e~ .c~k o :I'" k U:I ~"'O.cGl:>'k c:l.1Il.c ........>( U Ok +>O"'QJI:: k:l.......lIllOek.rl OIl::JlJI~ .... o I:: :J o DI +> ~ ~ I::~ DI k :a~~8' "Ol+,.ckk 'tI I::,rl Olc:l. Gl"" :J Gl 0 k~ DI k Gl "" U 10 :I 0.'tI &~~ +' Gl.~ GlGlGlDl'tl.o III: k'tl :I.rl k .rl e DI :I IOklO .oU l.{GlGllOk Gl....k+':lO ~... .rl U I:: ~ 0 ::1.~ r--,., :I:I.c~N'" I I 01 01 Cl k U III Il ~1Il :Ill U.rl ""'tI t:~ III 114 01 k .... Cl O~ :I ..... III dP ~ 01:: o Ill.rl 00 DI NIOO:l 'tI.o DI :J 111 o Ill'" ~Z~O 01 'tI ~ o .....<:1 o U 01 ....:1 o III o o o ~ III ~ l>o +' .rl ~ . U oS l>o I +' .rl ~ DI.~ 8.=~ 3 Il"" e k . e Cl ~ . DI +' ~ .... Gl .. l>otl'...... III 01 DI.rl +' U Il 'tI.rl 1l1l0 ~ III GlIDO'" ~ll4O\IDo. Gl en J..4r-i m~ DIll' Gl+>e kGl U:I:>.I::+>:lIOo. ......n~..-4 OM .-Ifd +> 'tI",.o.cDlOo. (t)~C"'" .........mum '" ~ :I I:: 0. I:: '" :J ....-4..-4 fd 0 0 ..........M QJ Po. e ~ U 0.1-< ~ Z dP 10 III 10 Gl >< 1l ~ I:: k 1110' I:: k 0 OJ OOlk +> 0. .rl k '" :.: :>. Gl ....... I:: +' OJ'tI GlOOol +'101 kO.rlk DI :lO+>Gl GlQJ O.c .",0. +>+> ."UOUO I::DI 'tIOO:l 8~~~~~'g1l o Z qo I:: DI en.&-J..-4 cd 01 U Gl GlGl~k k~ DI '" OJ "'~ Gl ... 00.0' ... I:: U :>. I:: 001 -+>... .o~ :>. o.k+>"'~ O:l>"'+> k I 0.... :I 0,., -'tI 0 >c '" I:: e 0 10 .rl .. 0' DI Gl +' 'tI I:: Gl 0' U Gl.rl I:: k Gl k~""11I ~ .rlUe.c ~ &~GlU'g8 GlGl+>I::OJ II:kGlO"':>' 'tI.rl.o k 10 k +> 0 kGl:>.UGl+> Gl"'+'Gle'" ~"'I::~:I'tI :lO:l~~1:: 01 000 111 :I:IUU>X 1 1 ON N~ DI :J 01 0 ~Z o o o ,., ,., 1 01 +> .rl +' .:l ~.~ ~ IlllJlk... ~ +'X k .. eO.rl . .rl c:l.<:l elk +' +> el Il :I 01 c:l.O~ Gl :I.rl :I ~Ul+'c:l +' Gl 0' 'tI :I lD 0' I:: .rl ~ U :>. 1.>( U :J 0I'tI Gl ~....... +'~ III: , +> DI OJ .rl 0' '" '" k .......:I'tI 0' ~ DI+>e.c +,.o~1:: 01 ... lJI OJ.o .rl +' ... qoO OO.......+' 0 00' N U+'k'" f-< I::+>I :>'k 0.... UN'tI 'O.......Gl O~Gl~Gl>cOOO' kU~ "'0000 'tI:>'~ 1::'" k .0 U 0 Gl 01 o.~ . k III Gl U c:l.+' o.~ qo 0 MO::-OUl-c(l)oe,n.~ k Ul 'tI Gl k Ul k 0. IOU III III ~... 0 0. 'DlO+>.o DI eUlUUl'tl :J I:: :I '" III k Q).....-4.-tM.-I1U Zf-<.c~ Po.U '... U 0 k GldP ~~~ o DI U'tI III Gl :J dP ol~ OI::Uk 10 ... :>.-" l'tIUGl O'tlGl.c IDoIk+> DI Gl >< o o o ID III qo DI k Gl :>. ~ r.. ....... > Of-< 0....... 00 .... O'tl ~1Il <1>11I: o o o 10 ID ~ +> Gl 0' ....... 'tI .c'tl :I +>~O lD eoo ........c 0 0' o Gl. I:: ,.,DlO "" '::IN ,...4 ~O~ U .c<l> :>. U Gl II: DI k Gl Gl 'tI1:: .rl... DI '" .o+> k I:: :I 0 UU ~ 01 +> o f-< Gl 10 +'+' DI U 111 01 :J k +> 'tI1:: kO oIU :>. 'tI 'tIGl Gl+' 1::'" I:: 111 111 k 1XIc:l III o o o ID N l>o +' Illll :I+' 00 U VI Cl Illl o c:l l>o.rl ~X II 0 .ol .... III U :s '0 rq 1Il ::j \.< III GJ ......>. )...... '0 ......... U 0 !>o Ill'<: 11I'0 \.<GJ 'ol .... Ul f-4 III C :s III~ 00 U.<: III ...... 0 >'0 .....0 U \.< Ill'" '0 GJ..... II ;..V> :s GJ II ...t U .... C II ..... GJ 0 III ool U 'ol C ~ GJ Ul ., II > \. Ul 0 .ol '" C'O...t .... 0 ...tGJ'<: GJ III ... .........0 GJ ...... o III C ... III III >.-ol III N .... 0....'" 0> 0 GJO'" C ..... ... .ol "'0> -ol ... 0 '" GJ III .....Ill III .... '" t: '" 0.....'0 III II Ul 0 GJ ;.,..... GJ '" U ...t ..... 1tIl.....t UJ U.r4 Ul III II '0 ::j:s....GJ'Olll ..... III .... tIIC'" .0 :s II GJ 0 '<:GJ >. Oool 0 III e.<:.... GJ .ol '0 .ol'<: "'~'" GJ.....ol e t:~ '> Ill"" III GJ GJ e..... :s '" III C::j.<: "'.......ol..... III GJ '" 0 .... O><'l .... 0 p. IIl....U-Olll...:s> I I I I o o o o III N I .... GJ 0> '0 :s 111 0> C .ol ..... U >. o GJ P; o ..... .... III Ul .... "'0> 0 ... C E-t Oool 0 '0 0 PoC 0 o III , '" Po~O 'Ol<1Il0 GJ.......... III - ... , 0 ..... "'0> 0>.... III CIll.o ...... e...... '0..... ..... GJ 0 , '" >. U .ol 0 :s >. :s GJ '0 III O''''GJPo GJ P;GJGJIll '0'0.... 0).r4..... t:: m '" > > GJ \.< GJOO'O'<:GJ rl s.. ......... en.....t :s Po Po Ul III :s III GJ '" III :I: I I P;....:I: I .... C GJ e GJ > ..... o > C H III '" "'11 r- III 0..... :r ""Ill III III '0 ..... 0 0 0 ....<l 0 0 011 0 0 III .; "":S ..... 0 <'l \D III 'III WI' !>oil .....ol '" !>o ll..... 0 .... :r 0 > 'ol 0'" III ..... UIII '" II III U E-i III 0 II t1l oS GJ.<l '0 .... ~t: ll.<l III U '" 0 "'-ol 1.l:Z: Cl:E A PENDIX A RECYCLING COMMITTEE staffed by Andrea Trank lly Buxton ozet Women's Club ute 2, Box 330 ozet, VA 22932 3-4950 eston Coiner C iners' Scrap Iron and Metal P.O. Box 1334 C arlottesville, VA 22902 2 6-6465 B'll Colony R WA citizen's Advisory Comm. 3 20 Glenaire Drive C arlottesville, VA 22901 2 6-1923 B'll Flemmons B I 1 31 Avon Street Ext. C arlottesville, VA 22902 2 5-4177 L' z Jessup F rrest Lakes Neighborhood A sociation 3 04 Edgewater Drive C arlottesville, VA 22901 9 4-6245 Donna Klepper Chamber of Commerce Representative P.O. Box 1564 Charlottesville, VA 22902 295-3141 Randolph Layman Layman's Disposal and Recycling Service Route 3, Box 230 Charlottesville, VA 22901 456-6642 Sam Morris Assistant Mgr. Historic Michie Tavern Route 21, Box 112 Charlottesville, VA 22902 977-1234 Peter Parsons Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Charlottesville, VA 22902 977-2970 (* left position) Al Reaser Director of Building Services, Albemarle County Schools 2751 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 973-3677 Appendix B COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5861 July 1992 We cu al wa Albemarle County Businesses ~~ Robert W. Tucker, County Executive ~I Andrea Trank, Recycling Advisor are writing to ask for your help in acquiring information on the state of rent recycling activities in the County. As you may be aware, Albemarle (like other municipalities in the state) is under a mandate to recycle 25% of its te by 1995. rom: To: We co pa co fo believe that a great deal of recycling is taking place in the business unity, but currently we have no way of tracking this information. This one e sur.vey is the first step in compiling such information and in eliciting your ents on what role the County should play in recycling activities. We look ward to working with you. QUESTIONNAIRE ease return in the SASE by July 25, 1992 to: Andrea Trank, c/o Engineering t. Albemarle County Office Bldg., 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville , VA 02-4596) Business ephone :I tact person A) Are you currently recycling? B) If not, are you interested in Albemarle County or the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) contacting you to help you begin a recycling program? C) If you answered yes to question A: Why are you recycling? (circle correct answer) a) to save money on disposal costs b) to protect the environment c) to help the County meet its 25% mandated recycling goal d) because your customers or employees want you to e) all of the above f) other FAX (804) 972-4060 . -- . -- Appendix C The Three R's of Waste Management: Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling A Survey ofLocaI Businesses A Joint Project of: The CharlottesvillejAlbemarle League of Women Voter.i The Charlottesville/A/bemarle Chamber of Commerce The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission November 1991 -.. ! - '- - . ~ I I ~ I ntro uction In Ju e 1991, the Charlottesville Albemarle League of Women Voters and the Chamber of Co erce joined together to plumb the opinions of the business community concerning traffic prob ems and trash reduction, reuse, and recycling. For reasons of time and cost, a mail sUIVey meth d was chosen. A random sample of all businesses with more than fifteen (15) employees was c osen from a Virginia Employment Commission list. A follow-up phone call was made by Lea e members to those who did not respond initially. Thirty percent of the surveys were retur ed. The distribution of employer sizes among surveys returned was very similar to the dis- tribu ion of the original sample. Analysis of the data was conducted by the Thomas Jefferson PI . g District Commission. The results have a 5% margin of error. Findi gs Empl ~ee Attitudes. One third of the area business find their employees are enthusiastic about recyc ing; 65% find their employees cooperative. 43% have recycling training programs for their mployees. Recyc ing Programs. 65%,..f area business report having a recycling program. As the chart belo indicates, aluminum is recycled by all businesses who recycle. Slightly more than one tWrd of are businesses are recycling office paper. The least frequently recycled material is plastic. Non-t 'Clditional Items. Additional items are recycled by many area businesses. For example, moto oil is recycled by 27% of area businesses; batteries by 18%. Inten t in Additional Recycling. Plastic leads the list of items in which area businesses are inter- ested recycling-39% of area businesses are interested in recycling plastic. Interest in office and c mputer paper and cardboard recycling follows closely. The chart below indicates interest in re cling various materials. Business Recycling CUrroot and Interest Ksy: Offc ppr" OffICer Paper Newsoaor: Newspaper Cmotr 00: Computer Paper Cardbord: Cardboard EWtlc:. plastic Aluminum: aluminum ~glass Nonferus: Non-ferrou8 metal. OJrrootly Doing Interested In Doing ~,..,u nr>r IlJf1 """""'''r ~ I""Y"fr rn "" cardtcrd ~ rla~ic rrrm aluminllm Appendix C roblems With Recycling In Businesses Not Currently Recycling. 77% of the businesses not currently recycling are not doing so because they are unsure of what to do. The next most frequently cited problem is lack of space (50%). Reasons given for not recycling at present are shown in the chart below. Pro blems with Recycling % 80 70 60 50 unsure II diffsepa ~ no tilOO II inal-.mt ~ dff t Ill(" YJ/JJlJ no space Ilks n df ~ to >q:lOSV ~ no cprtn Key: ~ Unsure how to Implement a program Diffsepa' Difficulty In separating the types of recyclablea No time: Concerned recycling will take too much time Incnvnnt: Recycling Is too Inconvenient I2ft..11m;. Difficult to market recyclables No space: Inadequate on-slte apcce for collection Mks n df: Reeycling makes no difference To xonsv: Too expensive to do No cortn" No cooperation from employees In Businesses Currently Recycling. 46% of the businesses currently recycling report having some problem with doing so. The most frequently cited problem is lack of storage space. 59% of those who had encountered problems cite limited storage space as a problem for their business. 35% cite lack of education as a problem; 24% report unreliable pickup, odor, or lack of employee cooperation as problems. 17% of the businesses are concerned about the time in- volved in recycling. 10% perceive the cost of recycling to be a problem; 4% are concerned that littering will occur. Overcoming the Problems. 12% of the businesses citing lack of storage space as a problem have done something to resolve the issue. 22% of those citing the need for education have also resolved the problem. Exactly how these issues were resolved was not part of the survey. However, that information could be gathered in the future and would be particularly useful for business to share. ow business recycles 11 % of the firms currently recycling have a paid coordinator; 62% use employee volunteers to run their program and 27% use some unspecified other way to coordinate their recycling. 70% of these business have atjequate space for their programs. Materials are collected in both centralized (73%) and scattered (66%) bins. Most firms are paying less than $9.00 per month for their recycling program. Most area businesses do not receive revenue for recycled materials; only 13% report receiving any revenue. 29% are using one or more haulers to remove recyclables; 43% are taking recycl- abIes to a recycling center. Appendix C Effec of Fees on Recycling 43% f area businesses would be more likely to recycle if they were charged by weight or volu e for their trash pickup. 24% do not feel that would make a difference; 22% did not know. Wast Reduction and Reuse Prese tly 92% of area businesses practice some method of source reduction. Bulk purchasing is the m st frequently mentioned practice (78%). 60% use double sided copying; 60% route mem s. 59% use reusable containers; 55% use recycled paper and 50% use washable dishes. 25% f area businesses reuse some items. These include shredding paper for packaging (25% of busin sses reusing materials); and recharging laser printer cartridges (50%). 25% reuse paint thinn r. Sugge tions from business 40% 0 the businesses have suggestions for increasing recycling, reuse or source reduction prac- tices. the area. The most frequent suggestions are implement a recycling program (~O%), make ecycling easier (15%) and share information (15%). the businesses named a contact person for waste management in their firm. B us in ses Working Together "Who. 2% of area businesses are interested in working together in a cooperative business recy- cling p ogram. 29% were unsure; only 6% were not interested. Most of the businesses cite Charlo esvilIe Albemarle Recycles Together (CART) as the best choice to coordinate coopera- tive e rts. usiness would like help with information sharing, employee training, recycling program entation, and coordination of hauling. Minimal interest was expressed in cooperative ing. How. 0% of the businesses are willing to pay a consultant to develop and implement a recy- cling p gram; 32% were not sure; 54% were not willing to fund this activity. Summa Busine is recycling, wants to recycle, needs information to do so, and is willing to work co.o~era 'velr to red~ce waste, reuse materials, and to recycle. The challenge will be translating thIS mte est mto actIon to lengthen the life of the landfill. Recycling is a public concern which may bes be solved by business and government working together in a public-private partnership. I j PPENDIX D COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5861 July 15, 1992 ear Neighborhood or Homeowner's Association: Albemarle County is trying to determine what recycling is aking place within the residential sector of our community, and recycling services residents would like to see in this ommunity. Please keep in mind as you are filling out this survey hat recycling costs money. I would request that you fill out the ollowing questionnaire and include a name, address and telephone umber of a contact person within your neighborhood for recycling. lease mail it back in the SASE by August 1, 1992 to Andrea Trank, jo Albemarle County Engineering Department, Albemarle County Office uilding, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596. (Please circle the correct answer or fill in the blanks) ow many households in your neighborhood? How many are in our Neighborhood Association or Homeowner's Association? ' Is your neighborhood served by a) one hauler or b) multiple haulers? If yo~l;' neighborhood has contracted with one hauler.. who is it and does he/she offer recycling? ow much are you paying for recycling service? ___-~ ow much are you paying for trash service? If your neighborhood uses more than one hauler, do you have any way of determining who they are? If yes, could you please list the names of the haulers and indicate whether they offer r cycling? 1. 2.' 3. 4. 5. FAX (804) 972-4060 PPENDIX E / B. Citizen Drop-oif Recycling Center at Ivy Landiill Input data: Total estimated monthly tonnage: 25 Mixed paper: 15 Containers: 10 Container density (f/CYI: 150 Roll-oif container monthly fees: Mixed paper: ~75 Containers: $150 Roll-off pickup fees: Mixed paper: $100 Containers: $50 Monthly aluminum revenues per container roll-off: $30 Roll-off capacities: Mixed paper (tonsl: 4 Containers (CYj: 15 Labor per hour (utility worker wi benefitsl: $8,30 Hours per week: 10 Itemized monthly costs/revenues I Roll-off rental: Roll-off pickups: Mixed paper: Containers: $225 Labor: Aluminum revenues: $375 $444 $360 $267 ' Monthly operational costs: $1,137 Start-up capital costs: Ammortized capital. monthly (n=48mo" ,i=7~, FV=OI ~3tOOO $74 Pi ~3 projected costs: $16,649 Cost per ton: $48 . . APpendix F ,-.. . """"\! - ~ ~ , " COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5841 -" . AGENDA ITEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item i: C;), OJOf, q3 Solid Waste Report Solid waste and recycling report. Late last year, you requested a solid waste staff t on a number of issues; the curbside recycling program, tional efforts, alternatives to landfilling and recycling, and ng and exceeding state recycling mandates. sion: This report addresses each of these issues except for the detailed cost/benefit comparisons of landfill alternatives whic is being evaluated by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. The vol tary curbside program has just gotten underway and a defi itive evaluation cannot be made this soon, but expanding this prog am is addressed. this update addresses Albemarle County's issues, many of the endations and strategies will be an integrated effort to rt our Regional Solid Waste Management Plan. Rec ndation: Staff recommendations are included in the report for your discussion and consideration. St f Contact s): Messrs. Tucker and Brandenburger. RWT Jr / dbm 92. 38 Att chment . . Appendix F meeting state recycling mandates is based on the TJPDC ate, the size of Albemarle County's waste stream is a al factor in supporting this effort. In 1989-90, Albemarle Count's 1andfilled waste represented 54.5% (145,377 tons) of the Plann"ng District's total. Cost effective programs of this magni ude demand reasonable data. Improvements in our data are' neces ary and will be pursued as part of program evaluations. The follo ing options are offered for consideration: ot identify where the domestic component (45.5% of our waste) rom (i.e. residential, commercial or industrial) and does not r identify domestic waste by type (yard waste, food waste, paper/cardboard, newspaper, glass, aluminum, metals, etc.). ther concern in developing a cost effective waste reduction is the dispersion pattern of waste generated between our growth areas and the rural areas. does came furth trash Of fu progr urban · Determine necessity for and conduct a waste stream analysis. · Develop a waste stream forecasting capability to account for new business growth impacts, new expanded residential growth, and changing waste stream components. II. COSTS Reducing the waste stream through recycling is more costly than landfilling. Current tip fees for domestic waste are $32/ton. The revis d tip fees may increase to $45-$50/ton for the operating and capital needs to meet state regulations for the Ivy Landfill. The cost to recycle can range from $60 to $200/ton depending on collection methods, processing methods and the market. Recycling costs are directly impacted by the market rates for recyclable mate ials which are discussed in the next section. Recycling does not enerate profits. The full impact of reCYCling compared to land ill is readily apparent: Albemarle's domestic waste in the last 11 months was 38,589 tons, or $1,234,867 at $32/ton. State mand te for 1995 requires 25% reduction through recycling. Recy ling 25% (9,647) at $60/ton cost $578,835 or a net cost incr ase over landfilling of $270,127. While further efficiencies in c llection and processing can be pursued, it is unlikely these effi iencies will ever result in a reCYCling program paying for itse f. Acti alte of a shou supp late is underway to investigate processing and collection natives. Rivanna Solid Waste Authority has initiated a study egional Materials Recovery System (MRS). The results of this d identify the best collection and processing alternatives to rt marketability. This study is expected to be completed in summer and will be incorporated in our program development. -2- . " Appendix F Cost Per Ton* Profit Drop-Off Center End User Generated #l & #2 (150) l5 No urn 440 680 Yes/No Tin 0 44 No * Does not include collection, processing or freight. End User costs are potential prices if the MRS becomes a reality. Albe arle County cannot achieve a 25% reduction in our waste stream by t rgeting only a curbside household recycling program. The curr nt voluntary curbside collection program is estimated to achi ve an 11-12% recycling rate. This assumes: (1) a 20% participation rate from people who have to pay for some part of recycling, (2) 70% of the recyclable waste stream collected (capture rate) , (3) 16,000 of the 24,433 residences are served by private haulers, and (4) all haulers offer the service. If t were curb two curb corom enco e program were mandatory, 100% was captured and newspapers added, the recycling rate would be about 18-20%. Thus, a ide program, in any form, isn't enough to meet mandates for easons - over 8,000 households aren't served by the current ide program and the reCYCling conducted by the rcial/industrial sectors hasn't been accounted for and raged. c. Curbside Program County's voluntary curbside program is just underway and inary data, usage, lessons learned are not yet available to s the program. A cominglied curbside program is still rted as the best'way to maximize citizen participation. The ated program cost for FY 92/93 is $65,978 or $88/ton. This am should continue while we assess the need to expand the cts recovered (currently do not accept newspaper) and the t of serving all households. Adding newspapers to the current ide program would cost approximately an additional $19,080 for al of $85,058 or $52/ton. The feasibility of private trash -4- . .. Appendix F 59% with a program have storage problems, 92% practice source reduction 62% want to work together in a cooperative program 54% are unwilling to fund a position to help coordinate a program. As c manda reque seeki busin recyc ercial/ industrial recycling can be included in meeting es, and in light of the above survey, the TJPDC sent a t to, 578 businesses in the district (225 in Albemarle County) g data on what they recycled in CY 1991. only l3 County sses replied, (5.6%), but these 13 reported 1,684 tons of- ed material. is the potential for significant impact on meeting State es through the business sector without having them do more hey are already. Getting their data is critical to assessing impact on our ability to meet mandates. In addition, ing support in education and assistance to initiate new and ed recycling in the business sector appears to be warranted. The i position of an ordinance to require annual reporting may be necessary if efforts at voluntary reporting are unsuccessful. The mini al cost to a business to report their recycling efforts far outweighs the spending of taxpayer dollars in implementing more aggr ssive household or business programs. · An example of business use is the collection of used oil by service stations, automotive service centers, fleet operators, etc. The oil can be used to meet State mandates whether the oil is collected for recycling or reused for fuel. · Abandoned vehicles are another source of continued recycling in lieu of expanded household programs. Since this source may dry up in time, it must be evaluated each year as a component to the waste stream. IV. .b;X...r.taIDING LANDFILL LIFE The Equa Whil recy goal envi iscussion thus far has focused on meeting State mandates. ly important is a need to extend the life of the landfill. State mandates, can be met without a mandated household ling program, such a program may be warranted to achieve the of extending 'the life of the landfill and improving onmental preservation/protection. A. andfill Alternatives dition to recycling, reducing the landfill waste stream can be -6- . .- . Appendix F econ feasible. The increase in landfill oper tion/closure/siting costs make it prudent to evaluate waste- to-e ergy again. This is especially important as an integrated wast stream management program of recycling, composting, and MRS can ave a significant impact on one of the most critical variables in a waste-to-energy program, i. e., available tonnage of waste goin into the waste-to-energy plant. While regulations and mand tes are driving up the costs of landfills, there is an equal and aybe more dynamic regulatory environment underway regarding wast -to-energy in terms of environmentally safe operation and disp sale This analysis will not be completed until later in CY '92. V. ut a focused and directed solid waste management program, it unter-productive to develop a comprehensive education program othe than generic issues and information. Time, money and energy can be best spent once our direction is established. Once stra egies such as: (1) a coordinated business/household mana ement program, (2) an aggressive program within the County and Coun y Schools, (3) yard waste collection and on-site composting, (4) upport of business needs, and (5) consortium/regional efforts have been developed, the education specialist currently being cons'dered by RSWA would support City and County needs and work clos ly with CART and other interested groups in coordinating our educ tion efforts. VI. I (April 1, 1992) · Determine private sector data collection requirements. Develop an ordinance to require private sector reporting of recycling if warranted. · Request RSWA investigate joint market contracts with the City, University of Virginia and the other public or private sector firms. · Continue County reuse/reduction efforts and provide recommendations for further initiatives. B. Phase II (July 1, 1992) · Expand funding of voluntary curbside program to include newspapers after determining feasibility with private collectors. · Provide and fund an Ivy drop-off collection center. -8- . &' .. Appendix F COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: Robert w. Tucker, Jr. , County Executive Executiv~ FROM: Robert B. Brandenburger, Assistant County DATE: March 19, 1992 RE: Solid Waste Budget Information Th following is provided as an update in response to the Board of Su ervisors' request for additional information on the solid waste an recycling budget items. Southside Transfer station - Based on a review of Ivy Landfill ords and telephone contact with specific private trash haulers, re are at least five haulers providing service in the southern t of Albemarle County. They all provide a minimum of once-a- k and offer service for curbside or driveway pickup. Monthly rges range from $l3 to $l9 depending on where the pickup is e. Three haulers are offering curbside recycling at an itional monthly cost ranging from $0 to $2. These rates are parable to those charged in other areas of the County. Unless idents indicate service cannot be obtained at these rates, the essity for a transfer station cannot be justified on the basis lack of service. Recommend any decision on proceeding with the thside Transfer station be deferred until the solid waste update available this summer. Curbside recycling program - This program is in place and is ilable for all haulers. The unfunded number one budget priority an additional $43,533 is necessary to sustain the current gram for a full year of operation. If funding is not approved, current program would have to be curtailed or residents would e to pick up a greater portion of recycling costs. This request s nothing new to the current program. Ivy Landfill Drop-off Center - Services to be provided by a ycling drop-off container at the Ivy Landfill are currently ilable through private trash haulers or at the McIntire drop-off ter. The Ivy Landfill drop-off container is proposed on a pilot is to meet the needs of residents who do not use private haulers their trash and want to recycle when they take their trash to ... .. . Appendix F ert W. Tucker, Jr. ch 19, 1992 Solid Waste Budget Information e 2 landfill but are unwilling to drive to the McIntire Road ter. This is also in response to the need for an alternative to recently canceled Crozet Recycling program. This pilot program 1 allow us to determine the feasibility of drop-off centers side the urban area. (4) Newspaper Curbside Recycling - Our current curbside program do s not collect newspapers. Newspaper collection is critical in ma ing significant reductions in the waste stream to the landfill: Th requested $19,l79 is an estimate of only the processing costs. Th feasibility of newspaper collection by private haulers has not yet been determined. The requested funding is to support this eff rt if it is feasible. . ) / Tip Fee Subsidy The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority is osing an increase in the tip fee for domestic waste from ton to $4S/ton. If this fee is implemented and the cost is pas ed on to the customer, the addi tional monthly charge to a res'dential homeowner should range between $l.SO to $2.50. view of Mr. Bain's request to form a committee to make mmendations on the broader issue of solid waste collection, to ude recycling, it is recommended that the Ivy drop-off and paper collection initiatives be deferred and this funding be ed in a solid waste contingency pending the development of a ty solid waste plan. Funding the continuation of the curbside cling program is recommended.