&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/R-95/109
July 1995
of Diversion and
Costs for Selected Drop-off
Recycling Programs
*
A MITE Program
Evaluation
-------
CONTACT
Lynnann Kitchens is the EPA contact for this report. She is presently with the newly organized
National Risk Management Research Laboratory's new Land Remediation and Pollution
Control Division in Cincinnati, OH (formerly the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory).
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is headquartered in Cincinnati, OH, and
is now responsible for research conducted by the Land Remediation and Pollution Control
Division in Cincinnati.
-------
EPA/600/R-95/109
July 1995
EVALUATION OF DIVERSION AND COSTS
FOR SELECTED DROP-OFF RECYCLING PROGRAMS
A MITE PROGRAM EVALUATION
by
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.
Falls Church, Virginia 22043
Burroughs Consulting
Lutherville, Maryland 21093
Recycling Concepts
Covington, Kentucky 41011
and
Solid Waste Association of North America
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Cooperative Agreement No. CR818238
Project Officer
Lynnann Kitchens
Waste Minimization, Destruction, and Disposal Research Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under Assistance Agreement CR-818238 to the Solid Waste
Association of North America (SWANA). It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative reveiw, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA doument Mention of
trade names or commerical products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Much of the information contained hi this document was provided by staff of the case study
communities. The information was reviewed by Gershman, Bricknew & Bratton, Inc. (GBB),
Burroughs Consulting, and Recycling Concepts for consistency, anomalies, and completeness.
Some field verification was also possible during site visits. However, it was not in the scope of the
study to independently verify each data point.
n
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency
strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities
and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet these mandates, EPA's
research program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today
and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely,
understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future'
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the
environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the prevention and
control of pollution to air, land, water and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public
water systems; remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention and control of
indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze development and implementation
of innovative, cost-effective environmental technologies; develop scientific and engineering
information needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support
and information transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations and
strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research
plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the
user community and to link researchers with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppek, Director
National RiskManagementResearchLaboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This analysis was undertaken in 1993-94 to examine a sample of drop-off recycling programs
in the United States and Canada to determine the quantities of recyclable materials diverted, the cost
of diverting those materials, and the impact of a wide range of independent variables on diversion
and costs. Case studies were developed for eighteen drop-off systems in twelve programs that
included multiple sites, central sites, buy-back facilities, block corner and combination systems.
Case study programs were selected to include rural, urban, and suburban communities. Case study
data is either calendar or fiscal year 1993, as available. The independent variables included site
characteristics, drop-off technology, degree of separation, presence of competing recycling
programs, population and number of households served, size of the geographic area served,
requirements of state legislation, median income, education levels, and population density.
Because the case study communities were selected to provide information on programs of
various types in different regions rather than as a representative sample, findings from the study
cannot be considered statistically significant. However, a positive correlation between high
diversion rates and high levels of education hi the target area was found. Communities with positive
site evaluation ratings (convenience, cleanliness, etc.) also showed the highest percent diversion
rates. It appears that sites serving relatively small, neighborhood populations (two to four thousand
persons) also show higher diversion rates.
Costs did not appear to directly correlate to the amount of materials diverted. In general, the
number and types of materials targeted for recovery did not appear to affect total costs. The
inclusion of plastics, in particular, did not positively correlate with total costs.
This paper has been reviewed in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's peer and administrative review policies and approved for presentation and publication.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Disclaimer y
Foreword j^
Abstract iv
List of Figures vi
List of Tables ':'.'.'.'.'/.'.'.'.'.'. vii
Acknowledgements jx
Glossary and Definitions of Terms . Y
****""*** -.......... A. .
List of Acronyms xx
I. Introduction and Purpose . . 1
II. Approach to the Project 2
A. Selection of the Case Study Sites 2
B, Data Collection 3
C. Summary of Collected Data . 5
III. Analysis and Findings jg
A. Analysis of Case Study Data jg
B. Results of Analysis ; jg
C. Findings and Observations 40
IV. Case Studies / 42
A. City of Burnaby, British Columbia 42
B. City of Vancouver, British Columbia 47
C. City of Santa Monica, California 53
D. Southeast Colorado Joint Recycling Program 5g
E. City of Largo, Florida 57
F. City of Tampa, Florida '. 70
G. Southern Maine (Towns of Falmouth and Freeport) 73
1. Town of Falmouth, Maine 73
2. Town of Freeport, Maine : . 77
H. City of Blue Ash, Ohio SI
I. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 84
J. Town of West Greenwich, Rhode Island 87
K. Central Virginia Waste Management Authority 91
1. Chesterfield County 91
v
-------
2. City of Petersburg 96
3. Henrico County 99
City of Norfolk, Virginia 103
LIST OF FIGURES
n-i.
m-i.
m-2.
m-3.
Map of Case Study Sites . : 4
Relationship Between Total Cost and Percent Diversion 37
Relationship Between O&M Cost and Percent Diversion 38
Relationship Betwen Overhead Cost and Percent Diversion 39
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
II-1. Independent Variables: Program Characteristics 7
H-2. Independent Variables: General 9
II-3. Results Measure: Diversion in Tons Per Year and as a Percent
of Residential MS W . n
II-4. Results Measure: Diversion in Pounds Per Capita Per Year . . . '.'.'.14
11-5. Results Measure: Costs of Diversion (U.S. $ per ton) . . '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'." 16
III-l. Percent Diversion in Target Area . 19
III-2. Per Capita Diversion in Target Area 20
ffi-3. Drop-off Program Per Ton Total Cost . ' 21
III-4. Area-wide Percent Diversion 22
IH-5. Drop-off Program Per Ton O&M Costs ...'.'.. 23
III-6. Drop-off Program Per Ton Overhead Cost 24
III-7. Effect of Collection Technology on Drop-of Recycling 29
III-8. Effect of Legislative Mandates on Drop-off Recycling 30
III-9. Effect of Competing Recycling Programs on Drop-off Recycling 31
HI-10. Effect of Site Staffing on Drop-off Recycling . . . . ' ' 32
III-l 1. Effect of Program Operator on Drop-off Recycling ... 33
III-12. Effect of Commingled Container Collection on Drop-off Recycling 34
Hl-13. Effect of Site Evaluation Rating on Drop-off Recycling '.'.'. 35
IH-14. Effect of Level of Education on Drop-off Recycling 36
IV-1. City of Burnaby Main Depot Recovered Recyclables (1993)
(Tons Per Year) 45
IV-2. City of Burnaby Main Depot Annual Costs (1993) ($U.S.) '.'.'.".'. 46
IV-3. City of Vancouver Depot Sites and Hours of Operation . . . / 49
IV-4. City of Vancouver Drop-off Recycling Program
Recovered Recyclables (1993) (Tons Per Year) 51
IV-5. City of Vancouver Drop-off Recycling Program
Annual Costs (1993) . 52
IV-6. City of Santa Monica Drop-off Recycling Program
Recovered Recyclables (FY 1993) (Tons Per Year) .56
IV-7. City of Santa Monica Drop-off Recycling Zones
Annual Costs (FY 1993) 57
IV-8 Southeast Colorado Recycling Program Participants 58
IV-9. Southeast Colorado Participating County
Population and Household Estimates 61
IV-10. Southeast Colorado Joint Recycling Program
Recovered Recyclables (FY 1993) (Tons Per Year) 65
Vll
-------
IV-11. Southeast Colorado Joint Recycling Program
Annual Costs (FY 1993) 66
IV-12. Largo, Florida Recycling Program Recovered Recyclables
(1993) (Tons Per Year) 69
IV-13. Largo, Florida Drop-Off Recycling Program
Annual Costs (1993) 69
IV-14. City of Tampa, Florida Drop-Off Recycling Program
Recovered Recyclables (1993) (Tons Per Year) 71
IV-15. City of Tampa Drop-Off Recycling Program
Annual Costs (1993) 72
IV-16. Town of Falmouth Drop-off Recycling Program
Recovered Recyclables (1992) (Tons Per Year) 76
TV-17. Town of Falmouth Drop-off Recycling Program
Annual Costs (FY 1993) 76
IV-18. Town of Freeport Drop-off Recycling Program
Recovered Recyclables (FY 1993) (Tons Per Year) 79
IV-19. Town of Freeport Drop-off Recycling Program
Annual Costs (FY 1993) 80
IV-20. City of Blue Ash, Ohio Drop-Off Recycling Program
Recovered Materials (1993) (Tons Per Year) 83
IV-21. City of Blue Ash Ohio Drop-Off Recycling Program
Annual Costs (1993) 83
IV-22. Philadelphia Block Corner Program (Queen Village
and Cedar Park) Recovered Recyclables (FY 1993)
(TonsPerYear) 85
IV-23. Town of West Greenwich Drop-off Recycling Program
Recovered Recyclables (FY 1993) (Tons Per Year) 89
IV-24. Town of West Greenwich Drop-off Recycling Program
Annual Costs (FY 1993) 90
IV-25. Chesterfield County Drop-off Program Recovered
Recyclables (1993) (Tons Per Year) 94
IV-26. Chesterfield County Drop-off Recycling Program
Annual Costs (FY 1993) 95
IV-27. City of Petersburg Drop-off Program Recovered
Recyclables (1993) (Tons Per Year) 98
IV-28. City of Petersburg Drop-off Program Annual Costs (FY 1993) 99
IV-29. Henrico County Drop-off Recycling Program
Recovered Recyclables (1993) (Tons Per Year) 101
IV-30. Henrico County Drop-off Program Annual Costs (FY 1993) 102
IV-31. City of Norfolk Drop-Off Recycling Program
Recovered Recyclables (1992-1993) (TonsPerYear) 105
IV-32. City of Norfolk Drop-Off Recycling Program
Annual Costs (FY 1993) 106
Vlll
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was funded under the U.S. EPA's Municipal Solid Waste Innovative Technology
Evaluation (MITE) Program, the American Forest & Paper Association (AFPA), the American
Plastics Council (APC), Environmental Products Corp, (ENVIPCO), the National Soft Drink
Association (NSDA), the Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA), and WMX Technology and
Services, Inc. Project management was provided by the Solid Waste Association of North America
(SWANA). The EPA Project Officer was Lynnann Hitchens, and SWANA's Project Officer was
Charlotte Frola.
The authors wish to express their sincere appreciation to all the municipal solid waste
managers in the case study communities who so graciously volunteered their time and expertise to
support this project. .
GBB, Burroughs Consulting, and Recycling Concepts evaluated the community drop^off
programs and prepared this report. Report reviewers included Lynnann Hitchens of the U.S. EPA,
Dianne De Roze and Charlotte Frola of SWANA. Peer reviewers included Janet Keller of Rhode
Island's Department of Environmental Management and Nancy Nevil of the City of Piano, Texas.
IX
-------
GLOSSARY AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
Background Data - Data that does not figure into the analysis section of the report, but provided
for background purposes or to provide additional insight to the local community. It includes:
Demographics
Population Total population of community, including the target area.
Total Households Total households in entire community.
Area Total square miles of community.
Waste Generation
Single Family Waste Waste generated by single-family houses, as provided by
community. Includes recyclable materials.
Multi-family Waste ~ Waste from multi-family buildings, as provided, when
available, by community. Includes recyclable materials.
Total Residential Waste ~ Total of single family waste and multi-family waste.
Other Residential Recycling Programs
Generally, curbside-collected recyclables programs may or may not serve the target
area. Data provided by community includes:
Households served;
Population served;
Annual tons collected; and
Total, curbside program costs, net of revenues (collection, processing,
administration, education, etc.).
Commingled Containers Glass, metal and plastic bottles and cans mixed together in a single
container for collection.
Commercial Solid Waste Commercial solid waste means solid waste generated by commercial
enterprises engaged in the buying and selling of goods and services that is similar in nature to
solid waste generated from residential sources.
Household Solid Waste Any solid waste generated by households (including single and
multiple residences, hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds,
picnic grounds, and day-use-recreation areas).
Independent Variables Site specific descriptors, as rated by data collectors during site visits
to facilities, including:
Site Characteristics - Includes many factors. Overall site characteristics were determined
by rating each of several specific characteristics with the values 1 (highest) through 5
(lowest), and taking a straight average. For communities with multiple sites, the data
x
-------
collector generalized for all sites together, rather than ranking each site individually.
Cleanliness Is the site well maintained and free of windblown litter?
1...free of litter, new containers and equipment
2.
3.. .some litter in view, or containers beginning to show signs of age
4 , :
5...old or dilapidated facility or equipment, or significant litter, or both
Operation and Layout Is the site spacious, well organized, and well-lit? Are
staff on site to answer questions and assist residents?
1.. .easy access for both walk-up and drive-through residents, easy to understand
instructions, minimal waiting time, helpful staff available
2 .
3...some phase of operation could be improved, but on the whole, still fairly easy
to use ,
4
5...significant difficulty to park or reach drop-off equipment, confusing signs or
lack of instructions, no staff
Safety Is the site safe at all times, either because of location or because of on-site
staffing?
1...well-lit, staffed, good neighborhood
2 . . ,
3...either poorly lit or in a in a questionable neighborhood, but no major
problems
4 ...'.;
5...poorly lit, no staff on-site, bad neighborhood
Distance from homes Is the site relatively close to target area residents? Tunes
are calculated for walking time (urban areas) or driving time (rural/suburban areas)
1...within 1-4 minutes
2...between 5 and 8 minutes
3...between 9 and 12 minutes
4...between 13 and 16
5... over 16 minutes
Convenience Is the site next to or near other places that target area residents are
likely to visit?
1.. .In an apartment complex building or parking lot or in the same location
as a transfer station or landfill where target area residents self-haul
2...in same parking lot as a supermarket/mall/U.S. Post Office
3...across the street from a supermarket/mall/U.S. Post Office
xi
-------
4.. .located on the way to/from a destination, but requiring a special stop
5...not located near anything, special trip required
Access periods Is the site open 24 hours, or are residents limited in the times
they can use the site?
l...open 24 hours, 7 days per week
2...open daytime only, 5 to 7 days per week
3...open daytime 4 to 5 days per week
4...open weekly, but fewer than 4 days per week
5...open every other week, or on some other moving schedule
Materials Collected How many materials does the site collect?
l...over 17 materials collected
2... 13-16 materials collected
3...9-12 materials
4...5-8 materials
5... 1-4 materials
Drop-off Technology Details on technologies used by the communities are provided in
Chapter IV. In the summary Table II-l, "technology" means the type of containers where
target area residents can place their recyclable materials. These include:
Roll-off containers with compartments
Igloos (with or without compartments)
Compacting collection (dumpsters, front-end loader trucks, etc.)
Degree of Separation This refers to the ability of the drop-off program to keep materials
separate during the collection and transportation phases, to facilitate more efficient and
cost-effective processing of the materials. Also rated on a scale of 1 to 5.
1.
2
3.
. .All materials kept separate
..papers commingled but separate from containers, or containers commingled but
separate from paper
5... all materials commingled
Competing Recycling Programs This is provided as a yes/no answer in the analysis
section. A competing recycling program is defined as a residential recycling program
(i.e., curbside collection), including some or all of the materials collected by the drop-off
program, that provides service to some or all of the drop-off program target population.
Education level Percent of population completing high school; percent completing four
year college.
xn
-------
Geographic area The number of square miles over which the target population is
spread. This may not be available in all communities.
Household total Where available, the number of households targeted by the drop-off
program. This figure may be used to estimate target population.
Legislative Mandate - This variable illustrates the range of legislative influence through
the setting of recycling goals or mandates. State laws affecting recycling were given
values of 1 - 5, as follows:
I...No Legislative Influence - No State laws with recycling requirements.
2.. .Recycling Goal or Target - A State law setting a numerical percent diversion,
but for communities to strive to achieve, but no requirement that the
diversion be met.
3.. .Mandate for Recycling Program Development - State law requires that local
jurisdictions set up and operate recycling programs without specifying the
type of program or a percent diversion such programs must achieve.
4...Mandate for Curbside Recycling Program - State law requires local
jurisdictions set up curbside collection for residentially-generated recyclable
materials. Does not specify percent diversion to be achieved.
5.. .Recycling Mandate - State law not only requires local governments to set up
and operate recycling programs, but also sets a percent diversion that the
program must achieve. These laws often have a deadline for achieving
diversion as well as specifying what materials qualify in calculating the
percent diversion rate.
Median income - Latest available figure for dollars per household earned by residents of
the community. If available, this figure will apply to the target population, but may use
data for broader cross-section of the community if this is the only data available.
Population Number of people living in the area, targeted by the drop-off program. This
will be provided by each participating community. Also referred to as target population.
Population density - Population divided by the geographic area of the participating
community. Once again, this only refers to the drop-off target area boundaries as defined
by the participating community. In some cases, it may not be possible to calculate the
actual population density.
Xlll
-------
Industrial Solid Waste Solid waste generated by manufacturing or industrial processes that is
not a hazardous waste regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. This term includes construction and
demolition debris. It does not include mining waste or oil and gas waste.
Institutional Solid .Waste Solid waste generated by institutional enterprises such as social,
charitable, educational, and government services that is similar hi nature to that of residential and
commercial solid wastes.
Local Government Any incorporated or unincorporated jurisdiction including cities,
municipalities, towns, townships, boroughs, districts, special purpose districts, authorities,
counties or similar local government entities that have been established by state, provincial or
local government law for the purposes of serving a designated segment of population within a state
or province, or interstate/interprovincial areas.
Medical Waste Any solid waste generated in the diagnosis, treatment (e.g., provision of
medical services), or immunization of human beings or animals, in research pertaining thereto,
or in the production or testing of biologicals.
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) ~ Solid waste generated by the general public and from
residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial sources consisting of paper, wood, yard
wastes, food wastes, plastics, leather, rubber, and other combustible and noncombustible materials
such as metal, glass and rock. The term does not include:
Any solid waste identified or listed as a hazardous waste under section 3001 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, created as a result of a response or corrective action
taken under sections 104 or 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, or identified as a toxic substance under the Toxic
Substance and Control Act;
Medical waste;
Industrial solid waste resulting from manufacturing processes;
Any material diverted from the solid waste stream for the purpose of recycling,
reclamation, or reuse;
Any solid waste generated by an industrial facility that is disposed of oil-site or by
a facility owned by or affiliated with the generator; or
Materials or products returned to the manufacturer or its agent for credit,
evaluation, possible reuse, or disposal, or unsold materials returned to the
manufacturer or its agent.
Note that materials diverted for recycling, reclamation, etc. are normally NOT considered
part of the MSW stream. For the purposes of calculating recycling percent diversion for this
study, the total Municipal Solid Waste stream is considered the sum of the amount of MSW
generated in the drop-off facility Target Area plus the total amount of materials diverted through
the drop-off facility (and other Competing Recycling Programs, if any). The method of
calculating diversion is provided under Results Measure: Percent Diversion definition on page 8.
xiv
-------
Plastics - Synthetically produced compounds, usually made from organic materials (e.g., oil,
natural gas, wood) by polymerization. The types of plastics addressed in this report include:
HOPE - High Density Polyethylene, a plastic resin that may be natural (translucent) or
colored that is used for milk, water and juice jugs and other containers. Labelled #2
(HDPE).
LDPE ~ Low Density Polyethylene, a plastic resin used to make film plastics and some
rigid items such as food storage containers. Labelled #4 (LDPE).
PET --' Polyethylene Terephthalate, a plastic resin used for, soft drink bottles and other
containers. Labelled #1 (PETE).
PP - Polypropylene, a plastic resin used to make battery cases and some food containers.
Labelled #5 (PP).
PS - Polystyrene, a plastic resin used in food containers, plastic cutlery, etc. Labelled
#6 (PS).
PVC -- Polyvinyl Chloride, a plastic resin used to make bottles, blister packs, etc
Labelled #3 (V).
Other Plastic - Plastics included in this category generally are multiple resins. Expanded
polystyrene (foam plastic for containers or packing material) is also included in this
category.
Recyclable Materials - Materials that can be recovered from the municipal solid waste stream
for reuse (except where noted in text, all diverted material is from households).
Materials included in this study for evaluation are:
Aluminum - Aluminum food and beverage cans, may include aluminum foil.
Aseptic packaging and polvcoated paperboard - Juice boxes and paper-based juice and
milk cartons.
Blue glass Vancouver and Santa Monica collect blue glass containers.
- Brown glass -- Brown glass food and beverage containers.
Clear glass -- Clear glass food and beverage containers.
Glass, unspecified - Mixed clear, green, and brown glass food and beverage containers.
xv
-------
Green glass - Green glass food and beverage containers.
Magazines -- Magazines and glossy print paper.
Mixed paper - Chipboard, paperboard, junk mail, colored ledger paper, kraft paper, and
other non-contaminated paper stock.
Newsprint Newspapers.
Office Paper ~ White ledger paper and other high grade white paper, computer paper.
Phone books Telephone directories published by local telephone service companies or
One Book.
Plastic Seven categories of plastics, as follows:
(1) Soda bottles only (PET) (#1) :...-:
(2) Milk jugs only (HDPE) (#2)
(3) Soda bottles and milk jugs (PET and HDPE)
(4) All containers (PET and HDPE)
(5) Hard plastic (#1, 2, 5 and some #4, 7) '
(6) Soft plastic (#4 and some #7)
(7) Other plastic (#3, 4, 5, 7)
Steel cans Steel-based food and beverage containers.
Residential Solid Waste - Same as Household Solid Waste.
Results Measures: Cost of Diversion - The cost of diversion is presented as 1993 or FY 1993
dollars spent per ton of materials collected at the drop-off sites. There are many cost elements
of a drop-off program; these elements are shown separately where available. In certain
communities (such as where an outside contractor operates the drop-off program), it is
possible that only one lump-sum cost will be available. Specific cost elements, as provided by
communities, include:
Administrative Costs Administrative costs refer to the expense of additional work
required of solid waste division staff to organize, manage, and administer drop-off
program operations. Administrative costs would still exist were the drop-off program to
terminate, but they would be channelled elsewhere. In some communities, administrative
costs may be included in operating costs, and may not be available separately.
Amortization Costs - The capital investment described below may be paid as a lump sum,
or the capital raised can be amortized (paid off) over the operating life of the drop-off
program or a specified time period. These amortization costs reflect capital investment
xvi
-------
costs on an annual basis, and can be used for comparison purposes. In some communities,
amortization costs may be included in operating costs, and may not be available separately.
Amortization of land cost is not included.
Capital Investment - This is the total amount of capital required to implement a drop-off
program. Capital investment refers to spending that occurs prior to the start of the
program, and is paid as a lump sum over a relatively short time (six months to three
years). Investment may be made for land, buildings, containers, tracks, arid other large
equipment that is necessary to operate a drop-off program. Additionally, marketing and
other public education efforts that occurred prior to drop-off program start-up is >
considered capital investment. Because participating communities started their drop-off
programs at different times, and the value of money changes significantly over time, it is
difficult to compare capital investment costs.
Education Costs ~ These are the costs of preparing, circulating, and evaluating the effect ;
of public education materials that aim to increase awareness and participation of the drop-
off program. Education costs include the portion of labor and fringes for any solid waste
management staff that spend all or part or their time dealing with drop-off program .'-
education. Education costs include the cost of development and distribution of
informational materials, and of putting on any other education or recycling awareness ;
program applicable to the drop-off program. Education costs refer only to ongoing annual
costs, and would cease entirely were the drop-off program to terminate. In some
communities, education costs may be included in operating costs, and may not be available
separately.
Operating and Maintenance Costs (O&M) -The costs associated with daily operation,
maintenance, and service for the drop-off program. O&M costs include labor and fringes
for drop-off program staff, and any portion of labor and fringes for solid waste
management staff who spend part of their time dealing with drop-off program operations.
O&M costs include materials and supplies, insurance, and contractual costs for services
provided at the drop-off center(s). Finally, operating costs include transportation costs for
hauling the drop-off materials to the first processor, and also the tip fees paid or revenues
received from the delivery of the recyclable material. All operating costs would cease
were the drop-off program to terminate.
Overhead Costs - Overhead costs are defined for purposes of this study as the costs of
education and administration. Because these costs vary widely from one jurisdiction to
the next, they were deleted from operations and maintenance (O&M) costs in order to
more fairly assess O&M costs associated with different drop-off technologies.
Additionally, by separating Overhead Costs, it is possible to evaluate whether such
expenditures affect the success of individual programs.
Program Development and Marketing ~ If available, the length of time in months or years
xvii
-------
spent educating the public, distributing informational materials, and improving public
awareness of recycling prior to program start-up. If the capital investment for these
activities is available, it will be listed.
Total Costs The sum of operating and maintenance costs, education costs, administrative
costs, and amortization costs. Due to their somewhat speculative nature, avoided costs are
not factored into total costs. The limited availability of data and the lack of a uniform
method for calculating avoided costs prevent their use in quantitative analysis. Total costs
will summarize the readily quantifiable total annual spending that occurs to support the
drop-off program. Total drop-off program cost divided by the total tons of material
collected at the drop-off site(s) will yield the cost of diversion result measure.
Results Measures: Percent Diversion Drop-off program diversion is defined as the amount
of materials that the drop-off program has collected that otherwise would have been a part of the
waste stream of the drop-off target area. All diversion calculations in the study apply only to the
target population (as specified by the participating community) of the drop-off program.
Diversion is estimated using two different measures, percent diversion and per capita diversion.
Participating communities provided the total quantity of materials (individually and in total)
collected at the drop-off sites. Participating communities also provided the estimated waste
generation for the drop-off program area. Given this information (all quantities hi tons), drop-off
program percent diversion is calculated as a percent of the total waste stream that has been
collected by the drop-off program, or
Percent Diversion =
Total Drop-off Quantity
Total Residential MSW, Drop-off Target Area \
x 100
If total waste generation data provided by the community did not include the drop-off materials,
then drop-off quantities were added back into the denominator (i.e., the denominator includes the
numerator) before making percentage calculations. Ideally, drop-off quantities would be provided
net of residue after processing. Realistically, gross drop-off quantities were used in all
calculations, because limited data was available on the amount of residue from processed drop-off
materials.
In addition to the percent diverted from the total waste stream, per capita diversion for each
material collected (and for all materials combined) were calculated. The formula for this result
measure is
Per Capita Diversion, Material,
2,000 x (Tons of MaterialM)
Drop-off Program Area Population
Once again, the population in the denominator must be an estimate of the population served by
XVlll
-------
the drop-off target area, and not the population of the entire community.
Solid Waste - Any garbage; refuse; sludge from a wastewater treatment, water supply treatment,
or air pollution control facility; and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid,
or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural
operations; and from community activities. Does not include solid or dissolved material in
domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges
that are point sources subject to permits; or material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended.
Target Area - The geographic area served by the drop-off facility, as defined by the community;
details provided in Chapter IV.
Total Residential Municipal Solid Waste - All MSW from single-family and multi-family
households, including yard waste and recyclable materials. Amounts were provided by
communities.
xix
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CY Calendar year, January through December.
FY Fiscal year. Usually October through September; sometimes July through June.
EtDPE High Density Polyethylene
LDPE Low Density Polyethylene
MRF Materials Recovery Facility, also Called an IPF or Intermediate Processing Facility.
A facility designed to accept, separate, process/upgrade, and market recyclable
materials.
MSW Municipal Solid Waste (see Glossary)
MSWM Municipal Solid Waste Management
O&M Operations and maintenance
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
PP Polypropylene
PS Polystyrene
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride ;
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (40 U.S. Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 260, ff.).
SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act - 40 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 260, ff., as
amended by RCRA.
xx
-------
I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Drop-off recycling programs have been integral to recycling recovery efforts for decades.
However, with the advent of curbside recycling programs and increasing demands from
constituents, many solid waste program managers across the country are re-evaluating the role of
drop-off programs for residential recyclable materials in their municipal solid waste management
(MSWM) systems.
This analysis was undertaken to examine a sample of drop-off recycling programs in the
United States and Canada to determine:
The quantities of recyclable materials diverted;
The cost of diverting those materials; and
The impact of a wide range of variables on diversion and costs.
The case study information contained in this report is intended to provide meaningful data
to MSW program managers about the potential role of drop-off recycling in their residential
MSWM systems. All data was collected in 1993-94, and costs are reported in Calendar or Fiscal
Year 1993 numbers, as available.
The sections of this report that follow address the data collection and analysis protocols
used, the findings, and conclusions/observations.
-------
II. APPROACH TO THE PROJECT
A. SELECTION OF THE CASE STUDY SITES
The Project Team worked with peer advisors, project sponsors,, SWAN A Staff, and EPA
Staff to identify a list of candidate sites that met the following key criteria:
Diversion from the drop-off program was reported to be approximately four
percent or better, although study research showed some case study communities'
drop-off programs diverted less than four percent;
The drop-off program had been in place for at least one year;
Data were maintained on quantities of materials collected and costs of drop-off
program management;
The community was willing to participate in the Study; and
Diversity was sought in geographic representation, demographic considerations,
technologies employed, and legislative conditions.
A preliminary list of nearly 40 case study sites was developed, and these communities were
contacted to assess interest and availability of data. Based on the limitations of the project
schedule and scope, it was determined that approximately ten case study sites would be targeted.
i i
The communities selected for inclusion in this study are listed below in alphabetical order
by state or territory. Information on the characteristics of each community are provided in
Chapter IV, Case Studies. Because of the geographic proximity of some sites, a total of twelve
communities/programs were examined, which resulted in data about 18 drop-off recycling
systems. The communities display a variety of drop-off approaches, including:
Multiple sites (e.g., Central Virginia, Southeast Colorado)
Central sites (Vancouver, Burnaby)
Buy-back (Tampa)
"Block Corner" (Philadelphia sites)
Combinations of the above.
The reason there are more drop-off systems than communities included' in this study is the
presence of six multiple-site programs. The communities also display different site configurations
and accept varied materials. The case study sites are:
Burnaby, British Columbia
-------
Vancouver, British Columbia (Main and Mini Depots)
Santa Monica, California
Southeastern Colorado
Largo, Florida
Tampa, Florida (Drop-off and Buyback)
Southern Maine (Falmouth, Freeport)
Blue Ash, Ohio
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Queen Village, Cedar Park)
West Greenwich, Rhode Island
Central Virginia Waste Management Authority (Chesterfield County, City of
Petersburg, Henrico County)
Norfolk, Virginia (Southeastern Public Service Authority)
Figure II-l presents a map showing the location of the case study sites.
B. DATA COLLECTION
Prior to initiating the case study visits, the Project Team developed a list of independent
variables that could impact two results measures: diversion of materials and program costs. The
independent variables considered were:
Demographic Considerations
Population and Density
Median Annual Household Income
Percent of Population with High School Diploma
Percent of Population with four Years of College
Program Characteristics
Number of Sites ,
Number of Materials Collected
Number of Separations Required
Staffing Levels
Technology Used
Public Education and Program Administration
Site Characteristics
Operation and Layout
Distance from Households
Convenience
Access Periods
Cleanliness/Appearance
Safety/Lighting
-------
-------
Other Variables
Legislative Conditions
Competing Recycling Programs
In addition to the Independent Variables listed above, Table II-l also provides data lines
for the average capacity per site and the average number of users per site. The average number
of users per site is calculated by dividing the Target Area population by the number of sites
operated by the drop-off program. This information is intended to help the reader understand the
relative scale of the sites. The Vancouver Mini Depots, the Santa Monica sites, and the Southeast
Colorado drop-offs have small cubic yard (cy3) capacities. All three have a relatively small
number of daily visitors per site, either because of a small average number of users per site (Santa
Monica), vast distances (Southeast Colorado), or competition from a larger drop-off facility
(Vancouver Main Depot).
Case study communities were then contacted by telephone and letter prior to the site visits
to expedite the data collection process. Site visits included interviews with staff, tours of drop-off
sites, and review of operational records, budget data and reports. Follow-up included phone calls
with program managers, budget personnel, processors/markets, and other appropriate contacts.
The Glossary provided at the front of this document presents a list of definitions used
during the data collection and analysis process.
C. SUMMARY OF COLLECTED DATA
Tables II-l and II-2 show a summary of the program characteristics, demographics, and
other independent variables considered as part of the study. Please refer to the Glossary for
definitions of terms used in report tables. Note that individual table columns may not add due to
rounding.
Table II-3 summarizes diversion data from the case study sites. The quantity of materials
recovered from the drop-off programs was evaluated as a percentage of the total residential MSW
generated by the target population. Diversion rates ranged from 0.36 percent in Tampa, Florida
to 15.61 percent in Santa Monica, California. Table II-4 presents per capita diversion (in pounds
per person per year) for each of the case study communities.
Costs of diversion from the case study systems are shown in Table III-5. Total costs have
been broken down into operating and maintenance costs, education and administrative costs, and
annualized capital costs (where applicable and available). In some cases, communities were not
able to assign costs for overhead (education and administration) or to separate out annualized
capital costs. These spaces are left blank in the table. Where "$0" is entered on the table
(Philadelphia sites), there is no expenditure made by the community for that line item. Total cost
lines (in bold) are available for all communities.
-------
Section III of this report provides a discussion of the analysis of the study data and its
findings. Section IV of this report presents detailed descriptions of each of the case study
programs.
-------
H
9
Ji
ซ o
1
ซf
I
O X
II
t/3 C
'i
coง
ซr
Santa Moni
California
..a
S ง
ง 1
8 "3
g O
> ซ
.2
^1
^5
|5
cq pq
1 PARTICIPATING
COMMUNITY
fc
Drop-o
c.
B
ฃ
1
ฃ
C
to
V
0
Drop-off
a
1 Mini Pep
ฃ
*rt
S
| Drop-off
1
VO
S
OS
en
S
VO
-
* 1
Number of Sites
c-^
^
a
J
^c
en
=*
en
S
'ON
en*
ve
a
2
S
Average Capacity/site (yd3)
i
I
V.
1
1
c
1
o
1
a
CO
1
CO
Staffed/Not-Staffed
t
|
,1
vo
rt
Number of Materials Collected
o
1
T)
1
1
en
cS
g
"
oo
oo
oo
>n
|| Average Users per Site
a
o
tx
z
ง
ฃ
en
$
3
S;
Avg. Collection Qty. (ton/site)
8or^oot-^i>- o"*o
in*-iinปn1o-'H ซnen
"HeNencScNi-iin vDcN
i <
8888888 88
eneneneneneS"1^' ป * en
CN
OOeNC^Q-^t-fD ^or^
inot-oooo\c5 ooo
cSencscNencstn OeN
entnoo'n'ncD OOI-H
'-teNOoe^ieso oo-nS
en m e*^ c*^ en ^ i ^f oo CN
8888888 88
SO O O O O C5 O ^O
O O O O O C? O OO
? a
S s 1
Sop -o
CO ^> O - ฃS
liltllil II
|D
CO CO
g.squis
Qi
-------
1
u
I
1
I.
4)
1
J4
< <ง
<*> S
a< o
en 2
*j *5
G oQ
<3ฃ
SI
ฃ* >
0 g1
ฃ ฃ
E o
ซง
ซ*
ซ PARTICIPATING
COMMUNITY
K
E?
5
i
2
a
ซ3 2
J3 T3
0 w
a
t/J ^
M
o
Cedar Park
s a
aj W
d>
ซ
tL,
3
S
>,
CO
fc
s
Q
r*
VO
"n
CO
-
CO
CN
a
CO
cs
II Number of Sites
vo
06
VO
t-;
en
en
o
TI-
CO
in
Tf
O
*
W)
1
3
1
1
O
o
VO
en
|| Average Capacity/site (cy3)
3
0
ซ
a
i8
1
1
2
S
1
T3
leneNcnen'-ien t^-eS
gggg-ogg 03
enTfcNeneN'-^en ooeN
ggggggg gg
en * n en en * ocs
d
ooooinoo >ot-
cn-^-cscncs^H-^- o\cs
ggggggg gg)
< cs i >n i * M vocs
ggggggg gg
Cf1cN'~<'-Hr^'-<^ ^teN
ggggggg gg
CD c4 i-t I-H *-(*-< ^ cni-H
8Of-QC--r-co rf^H
OVDO'O^Ocn enOs
Y_4T_,T_JC^r^1_HCO cni-H
88R.888R 88
-H ^ i CS CO CS CO Tt-CS
^
JJ a -S
"11 "S"
s. s- -s g
bD t 1 ง w u
'-D =y ^s u & *o . g
*|! tPl S'l
l!
5uOt5?QO<ง ||
;* 5: g | g
OT W
g en jj ฃ g
l"t
8.8. fil 38
&&
CO CO
8งg 3 |8
00 0 g b -
tt
8.8.||8.
C.CO fegCO
CO
8^ i |8
1> (U
CO CO
s^^^s
ts -< S S -
&&
CO CO
88i|5S
^^ ll~
u 0 M ซ O
. <~: IS ซ p
* - a S ซ
,55^
Separation of Materials
Collection Compartments
Collection Sep. Factor2
Paper Collection(Mti/Seprt)
Container Collection(M/S)
Separation Rating(scale 1-5)'
- 8
-------
I
8
1
I
1
S
H
ง1
3 o
o
E
3ฃ
I.
U
ฃ
G
I
I1
'
S
^
H
-------
!
i
C3
6
I
ฃ
*
ฃ
S
1
i
T3
^
o
^
OT "ง
fez
_H ctf
SI
S.a1
O ^>
ft> *O
11
- rt
J3 'S
&J5
a g-
S cu
a u
11
5s
PARTICIPATING
COMMUNITY
Q
g
aa
E?
1
&
Js "3
0 ซ
.g
0 g
O
^
ซ
!a
3
u
Si
ai>
I
&
1
2
g
Study Area
S3
o
<ง
Q
S3
o
2
P
S3
I
2
P
!
2
P
9
o.
1
S3
D.
2
P
S3
I
g
D
S3
Q*
g
P
%
pt
S
Program Type
gggggg
VO *O CM M
CS
งen O en vi o\
2 00 CM S 5\
cT rf* t*-* \o
en o\ to en
CM
ง\o \O O en o
o\ CN t- c^ r-
^ ^ o\ c^ vo_
oo" *o cT in* *-^
en ~^ *-<
c5 vo CM en ^* o
-t ซ ฐ. n ^ *ฐ
tn in tn o
cs r- vo ^
O\ '-i *-H O CM ^t
t"; O\ O\ y^
CM
rj- \O ^ C\
S1"" ^"
cn "^ in vo
^- O*N ฎ OO
oC en" oo
^- vo in O ^.r c
t> CM* CN"
VO O VO ^ 5j CN
t-^ en^ CM"
1
ฃ^ .^* >. S c
^ g 2 (K J 3, c
SSg
g P S
* g?ss
S en q
rn oo rt
ซo
S S? 6?
en r^ in
<" cs en
w
IP
^
g *S*S
HO q
gsa
^'cn o
if ^"
S s?s?
$ en o
SS 5
/5-
2 0 0
r-"\o cj
en oo en
V)
s**
^ ^* 3^
^ฐฐ
^j a> _
< g ,
,
in 2
^Z
* z
04 2
ซZ
g
|2 jr
1 Drop-off Program Fac
Legislative Mandate
Competing Recycling
g-
l'
4-< ^
O
-------
Table II-3. Results Measure: Diversion in Tons Per Year
and as a Percent of Residential MSW
PARTICIPATING
COMMUNITY
Program Type
Residential Waste Disposal, incl.
Recyclables (TPY):
Drop-off Target Area only
Area-wide
1 Materials Collected (TPY)
Paper:
Newprint
Office Paper
Magazines
Phone Books
Mixed Paper
Total Paper
Glass:
Clear Glass
Green Glass
Brown Glass
Glass, Unspecified
Total Glass
Plastic:
Soda Bottles only (PET)
Milk Jugs only (HOPE)
Soda Bottles & Milk Jugs
All PET & HOPE Containers
Plastic, Hard (1,2,5, some 4.7)
Plastic, Soft (LDPE, some 7)
Other Plastic (PVC/LDPE/PP)
Total Plastic
Metal:
Aluminum
Steel Cans
Total Metal
Recovered Material Composition
(% of Total Reed. Materials)
Paper, %
Newspaper Only %
Glass, %
Plastic %
Metal, %
Total Materials Collected (TPY)
Percent Diversion, Target Area
Percent Diversion, Total Waste
Burnaby,
B. Columbia
Drop-off
48,288
48,288
184.26
23.75
44.81
271.25
524.1
41.84
41.84
10.51
94.2
25.8
28.5
54.4
4.68
19.89
24.6
75.2%
26.4%
13.5%
3.5%
697.2
1.44%
1.44%
=j========
Vancouver,
Main Depot
75,672
202,400
418.0
862.6
1280.6
115.0
125.4
20.9
261.3
41.8
41.8
0
80.9%
26.4%
16.5%
2.6%
0.0%
1583.7
2.09%
0.78%
Mini Depots
75,672
202,400
123.0
79.0
202.0 '
26.9
294
4.9
61.2
9.8
98
0
74.0%
45.1%
22.4%
3.6%
0.0%
273.0
0.36%
0.13%
=;====:
Santa Monica,
California
Drop-off
20,584
2665.2
2665.2
398 7
70 7
1.5
6.6
71.5
78.1
82.9%
82.9%
12.4%
2.2%
3214.2
15.61%
10.81%
=====
Southeast,
Colorado
Drop-off
Largo,
Florida
_ Drop-off
39,870
39,870
902
.902.0
287.0
(\\ A
348
0
14.8
74
68.1%
68.1%
26.3%
0.0%
1324.0
3.32%
3.32%
25,840
49,760
1734
1734.0
20.4
20.4
20.4
85.0%
85.0%
13.0%
1.0%
2040.0
4.10%
11
-------
Table II-3 (cont). Results Measure: Diversion in Tons Per Year
and as a Percent of Residential MSW
PARTICIPATING
COMMUNITY
Prop r3 m TVDC
Residential Waste Disposal, incl.
Recyclables (TPY):
Drop-off Target Area only
Materials Collected (TPY)
Paper:
Newprlnt
Office Paper
Magazines
Phone Books
Glass:
Clear Glass
Green Glass
Brown Glass
Total Glass
Plastic:
Soda Bottles only (PET)
Milk Jugs only (HOPE)
Soda Bottles & Milk Jugs
All PET & HOPE Containers
Plastic, Hard (1,2,5, some 4.7)
Plastic, Soft (LDPE, some 7)
Other Plastic (PVC/LDPE/PP)
Total Plastic
Metal:
Aluminum
Steel Cans
Total Metal
Recovered Material Composition
(% of Total Reed. Material's)
Paper, %
Newspaper Only %
Glass, %
Plastic, %
Total Materials Collected (TPY)
Percent Diversion Total Waste
Tampa, Florida
Drop-off
137,596
171,139
2528.7
2528.7
471.3
471.3
258.5
258.5
14.2
14.2
77.3%
77.3%
14.4%
7.9%
0.4%
3272.7
2.38%
1.91%
Buy-back
NA
171,139
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1680.0
NA
0.98%
Southern
Maine
Falmouth
Drop-off
2,494
2,494
269.0
21.0
3.0
4.0
297.0
4.0
4.0
11.0
11.0
26.0
26.0
87.9%
79.6%
1.2%
3.3%
7.7%
338.0
13.55%
13.55%
Freeport
Drop-off
2,601
2,601
89.0
30.0
7.0
1.0
108.0
235.0
37.0
37.0
27.0
27.0
21.0
21.0
73.4%
27.8%
11.6%
8.4%
6.6%
320.0
12.30%
12.30%
Blue Ash,
Ohio
Drop-off
6,496
6,496
' 430.5
430.5
73.9
30.6
23.5
128.0
27.9
36.5
64.4
28.9
49.2
78.2
61.4%
61.4%
18.3%
9.2%
' 11.1%
701.0
10.79%
10.79%
Rhode Island
West Greenwich
Drop-off
1,604
1,604
109.0
109.0
15.0
9,0
5.0
29.0
7.U
7.0
11.0
11.0
69.9%
69.9%
18.6%
4.5%
7.1%
156.0
9.73%
9.73%
12
-------
Table II-3 (cont). Results Measure: Diversion in Tons Per Year
and as a Percent of Residential MSW
PARTICIPATING
COMMUNITY
Study Area
Program Type
S^H^^=!^^"!^~"ซSi^"ซi^~i
Residential Waste Disposal, incl.
Recyclables (TPY):
Drop-off Target Area only
Area-wide
Materials Collected (TPY)
Paper:
Newprint
Office Paper
Magazines
Phone Books
Mixed Paper
Total Paper
Glass:
Clear Glass
Green Glass
Brown Glass
Glass, Unspecified
Total Glass
Plastic:
Soda Bottles only (PET)
Milk Jugs only (HOPE)
Soda Bottles & Milk Jugs
All PET & HOPE Containers
Plastic, Hard (1,2,5, some 4.7)
Plastic, Soft (LDPE, some 7)
Other Plastic (PVC/LDPE/PP)
Total Plastic
Metal:
Aluminum
Steel Cans
Total Metal
Recovered Material Composition
(% of Total Reed. Materials)
Paper, %
Newspaper Only %
Glass, %
Plastic, %
Metal, %
Total Materials Collected (TPY)
Percent Diversion, Target Area
Percent Diversion, Total Waste
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
Queen Village
Drop-off
^__^__^____
7,250
7,250
160.0
160.0
.87.5
87.5
0
2.5
2.5
64.0%
64.0%
35.0%
0.0%
1.0%
250.0
3.45%
3.45%
Cedar Park
Drop-off
10,336
10,336
149.5
149.5
50.5
50.5
0
2.0
2.0
74.0%
74.0%
25.0%
0.0%
1.0%
202.0
1.95%
1.95%
Central ,
Drop-off
83,881
83,893
2524.3
2524.3
296.6
32.3
38.1
367.0
99.3
99.3
58.6
32.6
91.3
81.9%
81.9%
11.9%
3.2%
3.0%
3081.8
3.67%
3.67%
Drop-off
- ______
19,077
19,077
231.6
231.6
76.3
9.7
8.2
21.9
4.3
9.5
64.8%
64.8%
26.4%
6.1%
2.6%
357.2
Drop-off
==
147,602
152,250
2,471.9
d.1 fl
41.0
2553 9
514.9
54.8
65.8
635.5
144.7
144.7
35.9
33.0
68.8
75.1%
72.6%
18.7%
4.3%
2.0%
3402.8
2.31%
2 24%'
1 ||
SPSA
Norfolk
Drop-off
5SS-
79,091
111,058
809.7
844.0
64.4
5.7
5.0
75.1
15. o
32.6
9.9
21.2
31.1
85.9%
82.4%
7.6%
30 ty
.3%
982.8
1.24%
13
-------
05
u
fi
.S
0
S
*
1
I
4)
1
"3
<*
S:i
n O
**
IE
11
11 * rt
_l E
tf 0
s i
5 c
35
o .S
1 1
Iu
II -" -j
11 J ,5
It ฐ O
|| lซ
1 "
*1
Inn
PARTICIPATING
COMMUNITY
-------
i_
S
ID
PH
ฃ
3
es
U
1
H
o
.s
2
1
o
35
=
cง
s
I/i
3
o
&
I
T
*ซ
3
1
of
i
1
P-,
u
ซ
g
1
CO
s
0
s
S
ป PARTICIPATING
COMMUNITY
O
&
bO
1
<2
S
PH
0
(^ -
33
1
"O
1
ฃ
3
O
e
g
s
g
S1 S
^ 0
Study Area
(
!
c
'?
(S
, o
s
Q
^
o<
'Q
'"ง
C
c
0
g
Q
14-,
"9
Q
Q
SH
o-
Q
'it!
O
&
.Q
Program Type
ON
. ,_
r
|
C
c*1
8
oo
CO
8
IT
1
1
ON
en
S
<
O
r-"
CN"
-c^
o>
I
(2
I
O*O
CN CN
vd o
ON vo ^O
^4* co co
CN ' ฐ
eS
cN
1 ซ
1
3
CN
S
OO
CO
CO
r** CN o\ oo c**
i/^ OO i-H Q O
fS| fn
o CN os >n
r- ซn t- o
0 iOO-
en
Paper, Ibs./person/year: -
Newprint
Office Paper
Magazines
Phone Books
Mixed Paper
NO
*
NO
r
r
eS
C
9
^N
c^
oc
C*"
CO
I>
\ง
eS
od
CO
Pi
s
1*
&<
I
333
odd
oo oo r^
* * m
-* d d
oo o co
os in -*
co" d d
CO ON Tj-
NO C-) CO
oi d d
V
f~
e^
i/^
S
in
11
d \O en
1 Glass: Clear Glass
Green Glass
Brown Glass
Glass, Unspecified
ฃ
0
Sn
V
'5
"*
NO
e^
CO
in
CO
V
oc
l/ฐ>
c
s
'"^
cs
Total Glass
en cs
d d..
S
11
S
"*
00
oo
d
,
vO
C~ '
OS
OO
c~i
1
S2 ^-^ST
a ai ai rs
Plastic:
Soda Bottles only (PET)
Milk Jugs only (HOPE)
Soda Bottles & Milk Jugs
All PET & HOPE Contaii
Plastic, Hard (1,2,5, som
Plastic, Soft (LDPE, som
Other Plastic (PVC/LDPI
in
r
0
c"-
^
S
^
OO
ซ
0
vo
t "
oo
CN
i
s
a
งNO
1
d o
*-< ON
en o
d o
CN C
d o
n o
d o
en
d
en -
in
d
jฃ
v-
en
oo
ซ
o
.00
1 Metal: Aluminum
Steel Cans
c
o
NO
a
0
ex
0
CO
o
en
IT
d
c>
ซi
en
oo
1 NO'
p
od
Total Metal
'8
r-;
ON
ON
es
3
(X
oo
c*
t^
CN
C
in
o\
oc
el
CO
co
od
oo
CO
1 Total Materials Collected
15
-------
*
<
a ^3
PQ O
o
E
a
ฃ
n Cj
fg
E
I ง
Ig
IB
s
l!
lo
ttt
si
sl
S ,9
3
> CQ
>;!
g *o
n m
ป PARTICIPATING
COMMUNITY
,
X.
a
Q
ii
JS
ง
ซ
sa
o
0.
2
Q
'R
^
R
Q
it!
o<
g
Q
1
a
Q
p
ฃ,
a
3
R
^
cs
s\
VO
r^
Total Material Collected (TP1
o c?
oo" oo"
ป) i-H
CO CO
^ vo
ง ง
S i
88
CN "O
sss
WJ-
0 -I
S 00
c-1 oo
OO T-H
W} -4
Sll
IT*5
goo >n
r- CN
|SS
งcn t>
cn o
gss
ciSS
oo cM
Net Drop-off Program Costs
0
cp
oo"
CO
vo
s
g
s
UJ
o
ฃ
S-
g
ป
g
I
o
s
cn
oo
i-H
CO
(N
OO
o
ft
a
O&M Cost/Net of Admin. &
vo
cn
i t
a
M
In
S
S
I
cn
2
00
(ft
P.
fe
cn
00
cn
fe
8
S
w
,'
^J
Total Cost, $/ton diverted
oo
vo
a
rv|
v\
*
s
o\
VO
c^
49-
-
ป
O
S5
OO
s
J4
VD
j
cn
O&M Cost, $/ton diverted4
00
8
1 i
cs
vo
cn
(ft
^
oo
ซ3-
8
cn
cs
i?
8
VO
cn
8
1 Overhead Cost, $/ton diverte<
I
I
16
-------
1
V)
a
J4
< I
oo 2
1'E
a "
o j
f!
11
3 i
d, PM
E
W ^
8-g
i -
ซ PARTICIPATING
COMMUNITY
8
1
a
CO
ซ '
OH J
i
t/5
.Si
0
o
&
1
g
1
73
&
&
g
*-i "*
S g
a
s
c
c
Sg
i
Q
SB
o
O,
2
Q
as
.c
ฃ
ฃ
SH
i
C
9
o.
ฃ
fc
0,
2
Q
83
1
o
2
I
;
(S
(
:
ฃ
j
i
CM
C
S
tt
2
s
f
1
a
1
a
c5
_j5
o.
| Public or Private Operation
oc
(
oo
ฃ
en
ฃ
CT
OO
o
C
en
O
c
0
c
o
c
V
q
oo
en
en
q
n
*"*
Total Material Collected (TPY)
< CN 00
oo vo en
ฐV *~i "*
S"10"-
2 vo
M- CM
**
vo o
oo S\
t^ en
S
3S
, o" of
rt
v>
&
s
S2
vo" cT
*-* oo
^-( VO
oo vo
cs" vo"
^5-
O\ 0
*^V ^s
^4 CM
w-
1 Drop-off Program Costs: :
Operation & Maintenance Costs2
Education & Admin. Cost3
Annualized Capital Costs3
oo v
"n c
g^
VD O<
Sr
6-3-
VO VO
S "
'1J5
of v
^ r~<
<#
ง
i
IT
ft*
o
oo
\ฃ
e>
/
oc
c
IT
c
ft*
ง
c
ft
8
V
OC
o
ft*
oc
ft5
0
..
^
ft*
O&M Cost/Net of Admin. & Ed.
o
c
(
W
VO
e*;
1
a
VD
IS
-------
III. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
A. ANALYSIS OF CASE STUDY DATA
The definition of the target area served by each drop-off program presented several
challenges (i.e., the jurisdictions studied indicated that drop-off users were not monitored and
anyone in the community could use the sites). Consequently, the diversion achieved by the drop-
off programs as measured against the entire residential MSW stream was also considered.
Relationships between diversion and cost and the following independent variables were
examined in tabular format:
Effect of collection technology (e.g., type of container used);
Effect of legislative influences;
Effect of competing recycling programs (defined as programs targeting some or all
of the same materials or population);
Effect of site staffing;
Effect of program operator (public or competitively procured private);
Effect of collecting commingled versus separated containers;'
Effect of site evaluation rating; and
Effect of level of education.
Scatter diagrams were prepared to plot the relationship between each of the independent
variables considered and the results measures (percent diversion, total average costs per ton of
diversion, and average operating and maintenance costs per ton). Single variant regression
analyses and multi-variant regression analyses were performed to identify statistically significant
relationships between the independent variables and results measures.
B. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
As the first step hi this process, the communities were listed hi order of then: ranking with
regard to the results measures. Tables 111-1,111-2, and III-3 present the rankings for diversion
(percentage and per capita) from the target area and total average cost per ton of diversion,
respectively.
18
-------
Table III-l. Percent Diversion in Target Area
Case Studies
Santa Monica, CA
Falmouth, ME
Freeport, ME
Blue Ash, OH
West Greenwich, RI
Largo, FL
Chesterfield,. VA (CVWMA)
Queen Village, PA
Southeast Colorado
Tampa, FL (Drop-off) '
Henrico, VA (CMWMA)
Vancouver, BC (Main Depot)
Cedar Park, PA
Petersburg, VA (CVWMA)
Burnaby, BC
Norfolk, VA (SPSA)
Vancouver, BC (Mini Depots)
Tampa, FL (Buy-back)
Percent Diversion Target Area
15.61%
13.55%
12.30%
10.79%
9.73%
7.89%
3.67%
3.45%
3.32%
2.38%
2.31% ;
2.09%
1.95%
1.87%
1.44%
1.24%
0.36%
NA
19
-------
Table III-2. Per Capita Diversion in Target Area
Case Studies
West Greenwich, RI
Largo, FL
Blue Ash, OH
Freeport, ME
Falmouth, ME
Santa Monica, CA
Queen Village, PA
Cedar Park, PA
Henrico, VA (CMWMA)
Tampa, FL (Drop-off)
Chesterfield, VA (CVWMA)
Southeast Colorado
Petersburg, VA (CVWMA)
Tampa, FL (Buy-back) '
Vancouver, BC (Main Depot)
Burnaby, BC
Norfolk, VA (SPSA)
Vancouver, BC (Mini Depots)
Per Capita Diversion
(Ib/person/year)
113.50
106.25
102.87
90.87
88.83
73.97
52.95
30.01
29.59
28.49
27.38
23.70
18.61
14.63
12.94
8.78
7.52
2.23
20
-------
Table HI-3. Drop-off Program Per Ton Total Cost
Case Studies
Tampa, FL (Buy-back)
Vancouver, BC (Main Depot)
Petersburg, VA (CVWMA)
Chesterfield, VA (CVWMA)
Henrico, VA (CMWMA)
Blue Ash, OH
Cedar Park, PA
Queen Village, PA
Southeast Colorado
Santa Monica, CA
Largo, FL
Norfolk, VA (SPSA)
West Greenwich, RI
Falmouth, ME
Tampa, FL (Drop-off)
Burnaby, BC
Freeport, ME
Vancouver, BC (Mini Depots)
Percent Diversion Target Area
15.52
26.00
36.59
41.35
41.36
^51.36
60.00
60.00
71.73
73.83
81.43
86.00
86.28
87.22
95.24
154.52
155.30
463.69
21
-------
Table ffl-4 presents the community rankings showing area-wide diversion percentages (not
target area only). While there was a slight shift of ranking for some programs, the top six
programs continued to rank highest regardless of how diversion was calculated.
In addition, when reviewing cost data from each of the programs, wide variances were
found hi the portion of program spending dedicated to education and administration (overhead
costs). To examine the impact of these overhead costs on system cost performance, community
rankings were developed based on operating and maintenance costs only (Table III-5) and
overhead costs only (Table III-6).
Table III-4. Area-wide Percent Diversion
Case Studies
Falmouth, ME
Freeport, ME
Santa Monica, CA
Blue Ash, OH
West Greenwich, RI
Largo, FL
Chesterfield, VA (CVWMA)
Queen Village, PA
Southeast Colorado
Henrico, VA (CMWMA)
Cedar Park, PA
Tampa, FL (Drop-off)
Petersburg, VA (CVWMA)
Burnaby, BC
Tampa, FL (Buy-back)
Norfolk, VA (SPSA)
Vancouver, BC (Main Depots)
Vancouver, BC (Mini Depot)
Percent Diversion Area-wide
13.55%
12.30%
10.81%
10.79%
9.73%
4.10%
3.67%
3.45%
3.32%
2.24%
1.95%
: 1.91%
1.87%
1.44%
0.98%
0.88%
0.78%
0.13%
22
-------
Table III-5. Drop-off Program Per Ton O&M Costs
Case Studies
Vancouver, BC (Main Depot)
Tampa, FL (Buy-back)
Largo, FL
Blue Ash, OH
Henrico, VA (CMWMA)
Petersburg, VA (CVWMA)
Chesterfield, VA (CVWMA)
Santa Monica, CA
Tampa, FL (Drop-off)
Queen Village, PA
Cedar Park, PA
Falmouth, ME
Southeast Colorado
West Greenwich, RI
Norfolk, VA (SPSA)
Freeport, ME
Burnaby, BC
Vancouver, BC (Mini Depots)
O&M Costs
($/ton)
11.98
15.52
23.16
25.68
33.95
35.50
40.57
50.57
59.03
60.00
60.00
67.49
68.71
73.46
80.75
91.21
131.36
381.87
23
-------
Table III-6. Drop-off Program Per Ton Overhead Cost
Case Studies
Tampa, PL (Buy-back)
Cedar Park, PA
Queen Village, PA
Chesterfield, VA (CVWMA)
Petersburg, VA (CVWMA)
Southeast Colorado
Norfolk, VA (SPSA)
Henrico, VA (CMWMA)
West Greenwich, RI
Vancouver, BC (Main Depot)
Falmouth, ME
Burnaby,.BC
Santa Monica, CA
Blue Ash, OH
Tampa, PL (Drop-off)
Largo, PL
Freeport, ME
Vancouver, BC (Mini Depots)
Overhead Cost ($/ton)
NA
NA
NA
0.78
1.09
3.02
5.25
7.40
12.82
14.02
19.73
23.16
23.26
25.68
36.21
58.27
64.09
81.82
24
-------
Tables III-7 through ffl-14 (placed at the end of this section) show the results of analyzing
diversion and independent variables. A wide range of percent diversion (less than 0.36 percent
to 15.61 percent) was observed in the programs studied. Similarly, a wide range of costs per ton
was also noted ($26.00 per ton to more than $463.00 per ton). To understand the relationship
between diversion and costs, graphic plots were developed (see Figures III-l through III-3 at the
end of the section). Based on these plots, groupings were noted of programs that achieved high
diversion at low costs.
The following discussion of Tables III-7 through 111-14 and graphics is undertaken with
the caveat that the programs studied were not selected as a random sample, but as a group of
programs that display variable circumstances (e.g., urban versus rural). Consequently, the
implications of the data are not necessarily universally trae. It should also be noted that the cost
elements for the Vancouver, British Columbia Mini Depot are unusually high, and thus have been
omitted in calculating average total and O&M costs on these tables unless otherwise noted.
Table III-7, Effect of Collection Technology on Drop-off Recycling, shows that the type
of containers used on-site for collection of materials brought by residents does not appear to affect
the percent diversion achieved in the target area. Roll-off containers, igloos, and compacting
collection equipment (e.g., dumpsters, front-end loader trucks, etc.) show average diversion
percentages in the target area and per capita diversion at similar rates. The remaining
technologies have lower average rates, but the small sample sizes makes comparison unhelpful.
As shown on Table III-8, of the communities studied, only Southeast Colorado does not
have any type of legislative influence on recycling efforts. The communities with the highest
average per capita diversion are those with mandated recycling requirements; however, it should
be noted that a slightly higher percent diversion hi the target area is achieved by communities
where only a recycling goal has been set by the state. Average program costs do not appear
affected by recycling legislation.
Table III-9 shows that competing recycling programs have no effect on the percent
diversion (both in the target area and area-wide) or on the amount of material brought to the drop-
off (per capita diversion). This finding is not what one would expect since a competing recycling
program presumably would collect some of the materials that would otherwise show up at a drop-
off facility. The presence of a competing recycling program may provide additional publicity for
recycling in general, thus increasing overall participation. The resultant higher participation rate
would serve to maintain drop-off collections at rates similar to drop-offs where no competing
program is present. Another factor may be that all eight of the programs that have competing
recycling operations are also facilities that scored high on the Site Evaluation Rating (see Table
III-13). Four of these eight sites rated 20 or more points, while the remaining four are in the
upper middle range (16.50 to 19.50 points).
25
-------
The effect of whether a site is staffed or not is evaluated in Table IH-10. The presence of
on-site staff to assist residents does not show significantly higher diversion, either as a percent of
waste diverted or as per capita diversion. It should be n<|ted that two communities with high
percent diversion (Falmouth and Freeport, Maine) have a mix of staffed and unstaffed sites. As
expected, average per ton O&M costs are $16.57 higher for sitaffed sites (an increase of 39 percent
over average unstaffed sites). \
Table III-11 shows the effect of public versus private operation on diversion rates and
program costs. The average percent diversion in the target area for publicly operated facilities
is 4.05 percent, while the rate for privately operated facilities is 7.20 percent (a 78 percent
increase). At the same time that privately operated facilities snow increased target area diversion,
they also keep costs down, averaging roughly $15.00 less per ton in total costs and $10.00 less
per ton in O&M costs. However, it should be noted that the program with the highest target area
percent diversion, Santa Monica, California, is a publicly operated program whose O&M costs
are comparable to average private operation O&M costs. Santa Monica is a large-scale program,
with 104 sites serving almost 90,000 people. It may be that the cost savings achieved by the
privately operated sites have more to do with the efficiencies of scale available to private vendors
serving multiple communities than with the type of operation.
The effect of commingled container collection on drop-off recycling shown in Table IH-12
is a measure of whether the amount of separation required of residents impacts their willingness
to bring materials to a site. Fourteen of the 18 programs require, residents to separate containers
(glass, plastics, and steel and aluminum cans) to some degree. 'The remaining four sites allow
residents to drop off commingled containers that are separated later. Requiring residents to
separate containers does not seem to discourage participation, although it should be noted that
O&M costs for separate collection of containers averages $11.30/ton higher than commingled
collection. The commingled cost average is based on a sample of only three sites (excluding
Vancouver Mini Depots) and consequently attention should be paid to the range of O&M costs
for commingled collection ($11.98 to $73.46/ton). |;
Table IH-13 compares the overall site evaluation rating (see Glossary and Definition of
Terms) with the diversion rates for the eighteen communities. The communities are listed in
descending order based on the total site evaluation score received. The table is divided into those
sites receiving a total of 20 or more points, those with at least 15 but less than 20 total points, and
those below 15 points. Unlike other tables, the low number scores on this variable represent sites
that were rated highest for site cleanliness, convenience, safety, etc. As expected, the sites rating
below 15 points show higher costs; however, average total and operating costs for those systems
with 20 or more points (low-ranking sites) show higher costs than the middle range sites. The
average target area percent diversion is higher for the sites scoring below 15 (7.81 percent
diversion compared to 4.60 or 5.33), and the average pounds of material diverted per capita in
the target area increases as the site evaluation rating becomes more favorable. It appears that
26
-------
making a drop-off site attractive, convenient and safe could increase the amount of material
diverted by a drop-off facility.
It should be noted that the drop-off sites for Southeastern Colorado were rated a " 1" (the
highest rating) for convenience, despite the fact that residents have to travel considerable distances
to reach the sites. The communities have sited facilities near Post Office branches, which
residents must visit to collect mail and post letters. This siting strategy guarantees that the drop-
offs are close to a location used by every resident on a regular basis.
Table ffl-14 shows the effect of the community level of education on the diversion rate and
amount of material collected by drop-off programs. The table is divided into those communities
where 80 percent or more of the population has a high school degree (this group also includes the
highest rate of college educations as well, averaging 33.98 percent of the population), those where
more than 70 but less than 80 percent have high school educations, and those where less than 70
percent of the population graduated from high school. In those seven communities where 80
percent or more of the population had high school degrees, the percent diversion hi the target area
and area-wide are significantly higher than the remaining programs. The amount of material
collected per person (pounds per capita) is more than double for this group. This table was
prepared omitting the three Canadian programs studies (Burnaby and the two Vancouver
programs) because comparable census data was lacking for these communities.
The scatter diagrams shown hi Figures III-l through III-3 plot the relationship between
selected independent variables and the results measures (percent diversion, total average costs per
ton of diversion, and average operating and maintenance costs per ton). Figure III-l shows the
relationship between total cost and percent diversion. Sixty percent of the community systems
studied (11 of 18) cluster in the lower left-hand quadrant, which represents the lower percent
diversion (less than eight percent diversion in the target area) at the lowest costs (less than
$200.00 per ton). Of the six communities with the higher percent diversion (Santa Monica,
California; Blue Ash, Ohio; Falmouth and Freeport, Maine; Largo, Florida; and West Greenwich,
Rhode Island), all have achieved these rates while keeping costs per ton in the-same range.
Burnaby, British Columbia is the only study community (except, as noted, Vancouver Mini
Depots) that expends a relatively high cost per ton for a low percent diversion.
Figure HI-2 explores the relationship between Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs
per ton and percent diversion. Of the eighteen programs shown on the diagram, Santa Monica,
California; Blue Ash, Ohio; and Largo, Florida show the highest percent diversion for the lowest
O&M costs per ton. :
Figure III-3 graphically depicts the relationship between per ton overhead costs
(administration and education costs) and percent diversion. The Vancouver Mini Depots lie by
themselves in the lower right-hand quadrant which represents high overhead costs and low percent
27
-------
diversion. Most (11 of 18) programs occupy the lower left-hand corner, showing lower diversion
and lower overhead costs per ton. Santa Monica, California; Falmouth, Maine; Blue Ash, Ohio;
and West Greenwich, Rhode Island have the highest percent diversion at the lowest overhead costs
per ton.
28
-------
I
coincoocNc^co
in NO
tง
o'g
IQ
f
invocoininoooot1-
cs) ii c4 ii oo S\ ui
^
ง
ซง
U
'S
I
w
r>
s
OJ
i
ง
I
Q
PH
03
M)
H
on
a
:2
\o
00 IT)
VO Tf
ซ3-
OO t-
in o
so
o\
VO CO
o, M
S? &? ^
O C-l jH
ii CO l>
co
O\ CS rH
oo co ve
t- co
Colo
La
South
rg
vo oo t~- (^
en vo oo wi
0 o
n vo O
in c- r-i
o\ o\ o
oo
oo
cs co o oo
in c~ co
cs in
in ป-i >n
Tf OO O
o\ co vc
co o
o o
in 1-1 in
* vo O
ON ซ
t- CO
> i i i o o
. < -3 u
8 -
in
in
CO OO
o o\
o\
in
m
l-H 00 I/)
O\ t> CO
l-H O
OO O\ Tf
co cs r<
cs c4 rM
?
i
s!
ซT
&<
I
BC
Va
Av
!
:i
!
i
ง
ง
I
I
29
-------
CUD
ง
(U
CO
E
a>
1
o
U
S
I
S
I
60
1
00
i
3s
a
oo
vo
IS
CO
T-
Tj-
lOl~
o\oo
(N rH
c--cnooooo
CS t- OO O\
^ -d
o 03
ca
a
vo oo oo t- rr
co o vo oo rn
o p
co <-<
>o o
VO CO VO CM O\
1-1 o * >n
co o\ co n vo
VO
ซซ
os o co
0 CS
oo co ^t- *n
^H -H VC
O >-i CO OO OO
>-H OS t*- O\ 1 1
1-1 OS O TT
6S 65 ฃ8 < ^
Os oo co Z f-
oo co r- vc
t-' cs os vo
Hi
H <1
i
f
!
1
S
3
o
u
I
I
30
-------
s
u
I
o
ฃ
&
o
ฃ
P-I
1
g
ex
g
I
Q
B
I
H
m
t~
VO
o
t>
-------
I
s
g
&
I
CM
ง
"S3
I
I
oo
O
"g
I
vo
co
co >-H o I-H oe
t~- co vo T-H IT
(N O OO CN O O ซ/J
>O O CS D
O
vo
VO * O VO
oo in vo CN
co in o oo ซ-<
VO O\ >O t~ป O
* CN CO 00 O CN 00
i i ID < < co i i fi
00
o\
"O 00
o\ r~
O CO O\ i ป-H O fj
>/2 CO
* f~
to ON CO
ON O t>
CO ON
CN CO
\A
<-H O\
CN rj- c-~ 00
T-H O O O\
ON VO OO t-
O CO Q iH
CO OO O ซซ
>n oo vo
>o oo oo
t~-
oo
CS i-l
-------
CO ซ:
t^i * en o o o\ f>
-^t-r-loooovove
O CS f- i-H
Q
t
03
U
,0
03
P
.
a
0)
1
00
U
I
s
ง
^-
O -a
I S3
.goo
clude
do
8.
33
-------
i W
t> T-I >n oo **
&o- cn< ivo* i
-
vo >o ro
OO CM t-
ซ<ซ
O * r~ en vo
>r> o\ ON M so
a
p
O
CO CS CO C-) O
is
CO'OO T-H CO VO
f~ t~ OO <-i fl
o o o
ง
CO
t*-
i-l VO V>
VD CO ON
>/>
o\ cs
-------
a*
' o
bfi
a
1
I
1
tป
s
1
S
a>
ซ c
&-2
Case
8383S
OS S \O
ggsssg
O CO O O
OO I/I
oo \o
en N -H en
>o o *o *rt v*
^ en o^ v> oe
en* cs i-ซ en ""
Queen Vill
Freeport,
Cedar Par
Falmouth,
Average
OOOOOO
5
rO V]
O t^ vo m cs c
>o in en o O OC
cn in en ปn ON I-H
8 8 8 $ 8
r-i ซ ts es es
-> o -H ^ o tn
S5 S
: B? S5 <
sburg, VA
ta Monica, CA
BC
L (Drop-
B
y,
, F
te
B
Tam
Tampa,
Averag
I
8
35
-------
ง
fl
O
CM
O
I
8
B
*-ป o
fl W)
O D
" 8
(H -H H
ซ o g>
ft U Q
a s1
8 O
pa
.S g
CQ U
O
T|- CM O O\ O\ iJ
in 10 C) CM cs co o
t*- t^ VO ^" "^J* rH i-H
OO OO OO OO OO OO OO
CO OO
CN t- ON CO
.
ej o o
III
OO O OO C^ ^
CO t~- VO OO OO
1-H t~- t>
in
CN
VO CO
O CN
OO -^-
CN ^^
O CM OO i-H OO ^1
i-H CO OO O\ O\ CM
co o
0\ CS rt 00 ^ i-l
OO CO CM CO l>
CO
CS
CO
H H
O O U~i
1-H 1-H CO
CO CO ^H
CO CO C-)
CT\ O
VO
80
>o
ON
OO
en Village, PA
edar Park, PA
etersburg, VA
C
Pe
A
f- ซ
5
52
W ft 33
36
-------
HI
o
Q.
8
ซ
*
ฃ
ง
m
s?
o
q
cd
Figure IH-1. Relationship Between Total Cost and Percent Diversion
37
-------
o
o
m 3? ^
_
UJ B;
1 I
< 2 1 1
. J= it O
11* I
o ฃ 5
2 iฃ
3 x *
S * ฐ
to
co jz _i
CO U.
* 1
CD jj
0) (0
> a
It
cd *""" *
o
CD
JD
cd '
m
o - A
^ *" "o
o > S ul S "g 52.
< CB 3 CO i- Z
. ^ co ฃ *~~
2 ^^ |2 O ฃ ""
if ^ **"* ^
^ ^ ^ oi ^ iซ
1*<^ lit
S ^ 7S *-> -
I'l ฐ- 1
So
C ^ ca^
. . i i i 1 H 1 *?-S-
0
S-
o
10
co
o
o
co
o
in
CM
c
o
o <"
0 0
** s
0
o
- IT)
te-
' *
o
10
t
o
| 1 h~~ 1 ' ' |S\ ^^
8 S 1 1 8 8-8 8งi |
CD ^ cvj 0 00 CD *
-------
Ill
2
I
o
ฃ
LL _j
ซ, ^.
e>
3
5
C w
^ QJ fll
"ti ซป^" CO ~~
Wo * j=
* 1 |
" ง
ป -
CD
1
5
'*
. '
O ^-,
ID w
ง1
e
|t
u- ฃ~
H? 0 O
Q ^
1 1
"*^ 3
ฐ m
^ ^
i i"
o c a.
o < ro fn
2 > > xi. ^
$ 1 i~ * 5 f
> co o> o rn-
. - ^ X -^ *t Si
*Q) 2 -^ ^CL 2! u_
|> w | * ' a"
1 | | | | | ฐ | ^^ ^ - ^" t
' &
0
- oo
ee- ,
o
o
- CD
c
o
O H
v> at
O
o
TJ
a
Q)
o ฃ
ซ >
0
o
CO
fee-
CM
o
ซ
ซe-
^* O^ 0s O""* O*** cf**1 O^ QJ rt^ ,Q ^ J>^
3 O CD CD CD O O > , O jง Ji ' O
o
co
co
CD
3
Figure HI-3. Relationship Between Overhead Cost and Percent Diversion
39
-------
C. FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS
Because of the limited sample size, statistically significant relationships were not identified
among the collected data points, with the exception of the relationship between percentage of the
population completing high school and diversion percentage. There was a statistically significant
relationship between these variables, so that diversion could be explained or predicted by high
school education completion (within a plus or minus six percent range) according to the following
formula:
Diversion rate = (% of population with high school x .58) - 35.6
Identifying what constitutes a "successful" drop-off program depends on the aims of the
program sponsors in developing the project. A community may be willing to expend a higher cost
per ton diverted through a drop-off program, for example, in order to provide an opportunity to
recycle to an underserved portion of the population (e.g., multi-family housing that does not
receive curbside service). In such a case, the amount of materials diverted from disposal is useful
in evaluating the service, but is not the only benefit of the program. For some communities,
keeping costs down while meeting the requirements of state recycling legislation is a success. If
the drop-off program is the only recycling service available in a community, then the percent
diversion becomes the best measure of success.
In terms of the largest amounts of materials diverted from disposal, Table in-1 showed the
percent diversion in the target areas. There is a distinct break between the twelve programs
achieving less than four percent diversion and the six that range from 7.89 percent (Largo,
Florida) to 15.61 percent (Santa Monica, California). What do these six programs have hi
common? Of the independent variables for program characteristics (Table II-l), no distinguishing
characteristics can be determined. However, in looking at the target populations served (Table
II-2) and the number of drop-off sites (Table II-l), it appears that these drop-off sites are truly
neighborhood programs serving relatively small populations each, as broken out below:
Santa Monica
Falmouth
Freeport
Blue Ash
West Greenwich
Largo
Target Area
Population
86,905
7,610
7,043
13,629
2,749
38,400
Number of
Sites
104
2
3
6
1
9
Average Population Percent
per Site Diversion
836
3,805
2,348
2,272
2,749
4,267
15.61
13.55
12.30
10.79
9.73
7.89
40
-------
Other programs range from an average of 2,108 people per site in Southeastern Colorado (spread
out over an extremely large territory) to 158,858 people served by a single site in Burnaby, British
Columbia. The two Philadelphia programs (Queen Village and Cedar Park) are neighborhood
locations, but are modest volunteer-run drop-off sites that did not score well on convenience or
access hours.
In general, the factors driving costs could not be determined. Some other relationships
observed - though not statistically significant - were of enough interest to warrant further
investigation, including:
Higher rates of expenditures on overhead (administration and public education),
do not appear to increase the percent diversion of materials.
Total spending was not positively correlated with diversion;
There was no apparent relationship between materials selection (i.e., the types or
number of recyclables targeted for recovery) and diversion;
The types or number of recyclables targeted for recovery did not appear to affect
total costs hi general. The inclusion of plastics, in particular, did not positively
correlate with total costs;
Site characteristics and program design decisions (safety, lighting, access periods,
users per site, convenience, etc.) may be related to diversion, especially in
programs that are achieving high diversion at low costs; and
Some program managers may trade off costs in one area for savings hi another; for
example, the Town of Freeport, Maine used to conduct their own recycling
collection program, and retained revenues from the sale of materials. On joining
the RWS program, the Town no longer receives a revenue return from the
materials; however, the value of the materials to RWS translates into a lower per
ton cost for participating communities. Because of the boundaries of the study
investigations, analogous situations may exist in other Case Study communities that
were not identified.
In order to test these observations, additional study would be required, including:
Identifying ten to twenty additional communities that are achieving high diversion
. at low costs;
Developing hypotheses based on preliminary findings;
Collecting needed data; and
Testing hypotheses.
41
-------
IV. CASE STUDIES
A. CITY OF BURNABY, BRITISH COLUMBIA1
In 1993, the Provincial Legislature of British Columbia adopted a waste reduction goal of
50 percent by 2000. This goal has also been adopted by the Greater Vancouver Regional District
(GVRD), a district government established by the Provincial Legislature which has the
responsibility for initiating waste reduction programs (including recycling) among all waste
generating sectors.
A ten-year solid waste management plan developed by the GVRD became a part of
Provincial law after its approval by the Provincial Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks.
This plan update was completed in 1994. Following plan approval, the GVRD has the authority
to direct waste and recyclables flow to designated facilities.
Because of stringent City planning department rules, a drop-off site (Depot) can only be
operated as a "temporary" site, which means no permanent structures, compactors, or balers may
be installed on-site without the construction of a building to house them.
Demographics
Burnaby is a suburban community bordering the eastern edge of the City of
Vancouver and covering an area of 40 square miles.
Although the official language is English, Italian and Chinese are also spoken by
some residents.
The 1992 population of the City was estimated at 158,858.
There are approximately 36,000 single family residences and 26,000 multi-family
households in Burnaby.
The Depot program target area is the entire City, or 62,000 single family and
multi-family households.
In 1990, the median annual household income in the City was $32,106 Canadian
per year, or approximately $24,697 U.S.
Description of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Management System
Residential MSW from all single family and 50 percent of the multi-family
residences is collected by the City.
'All Canadian dollars are converted to U.S. at a rate of $1.30 Canadian to $1.00 U.S. Canadian metric tonnes are equivalent to 1.10 U.S.
tons. All dollar and weight amounts are given in their U.S. equivalents to facilitate comparison of systems.
42
-------
Private contractors provide waste collection from the remaining 50 percent of
multi-family households as well as the commercial/industrial sector.
Residential MSW from the City is delivered to a GVRD-owned mass-burn
incinerator hi Burnaby, which charges a tipping fee of $69 (Canadian) per metric
tonne (approximately $58.38 U.S. per ton).
-The costs of solid waste and recyclable's collection, processing, and disposal are
paid through property taxes (i.e., the City general fund).
The total amount of residential MSW (including recyclables) generated within the
Depot service area in 1993 was approximately 48,288 U.S. tons per year.
Description of Drop-off System
The City's main Depot has been in place since 1990 and accepts a greater variety
of materials than the curbside or mini-depot programs.
Retired (stationary) waste packers from the City's collection fleet are used at the
Depot to collect residential recyclables; a fourth packer will be added to handle
yard waste beginning July 1, 1994. The packers are tipped into roll-offs for
transport to markets. Materials collected in the packers include:
Corrugated cardboard;
"Hard plastic" (mostly PET, HOPE, PP, some plastics coded
"Other"); and
"Soft plastic" (some LDPE and "Other").
Separate containers are used for color-separated (clear, green and brown) glass, tin
and aluminum, scrap metal, glossy magazines, phone books, mixed paper, and
newsprint. Depot users are required to sort materials into the individual
containers.
Drop-off areas are also available for waste oil, auto batteries, and: white goods.
City staff operate compactors and maintain grounds.
In 1992, the main Depot was used by an ayerage of 200 vehicles per day; this
dropped to 161 per day hi 1993 with the start of multi-family recycling programs
in October 1992.
Processing contracts for materials collected at the Depot are let on an annual,
material-by-material basis, independent of other City recycling programs.
Convenience and Site Aesthetics
The main Depot is located near the GVRD Compost Demonstration Garden and
Burnaby Environmental Classroom on the south side of the City.
There are only a few street signs directing residents to the Depot; therefore,
residents must either look at a City brochure or call for directions if they are
unfamiliar with the Depot location.
Residents must make a special trip to use the site. In addition, a high level of
materials separation is required. However, Depot patrons did not appear to have
43
-------
any difficulty determining which containers to use. Staff are available to provide
assistance.
On-site signs are large and very visible.
The site is well maintained, with sufficient space for a number of vehicles to
maneuver.
Public Educatiofi
The City relies on "free" advertising as much as possible. Public education
consists primarily of public service ads, graphics on recycling bins and bags, hand-
outs, and City publications.
The City has an information request form available and will provide specific
information as requested.
Public education materials rely on graphics to the greatest extent possible as a
means of overcoming language barriers.
The City uses a volunteer language resource bank to call persons who need
recycling information translated into another language; the bank handles about 80
recycling-related calls per year at an estimated average of five minutes per call.
The City budgeted $10,200 Canadian ($7,846 U.S.) for Depot advertising and
promotions, which does not include volunteer language resource bank tune.
Other Recycling Opportunities
Curbside recycling is provided by the City to 36,000 single-family households.
HDPE and PET, newspapers, mixed paper, glass containers, and tin. and aluminum
containers are collected in the blue box/bag program.
The City also provides a special curbside white goods collection service on an on-
call basis.
The multi-family recycling program is being developed. The City currently
provides collection to approximately 77 percent of City's 16,000 eligible multi-
family residences.
BFI provides processing for the City's blue box and multi-family recycling
programs.
Increasing levels of commercial/industrial recycling collection and processing are
becoming available through the private sector (essentially three major processing
facilities and a number of smaller private marketers).
44
-------
Table IV-1. City of Burnalby Main Depot
Recovered Recyclables (1993)
(Tons Per Year)
Material
Quantities1
Newsprint
184.26
Magazines
44.81
Mixed Paper
271.25
Office Paper
23.75
Clear Glass
41.84
Green Glass
41.84
Brown Glass
10.51
Plastic, Soft
28.53
Plastic, Hard
25.84
Aluminum Cans
4.68
Tin Cans
19.89
Total
697.20
tonne.
'Short tons; converted from metric tonnes at rate of 1.10 U.S. (short) ton per metric
45
-------
Diversion
Total tons of materials recovered at the City's main Depot in 1993 was 697.2 U.S.
tons. A summary of these materials is shown in Table IV-1.
Based on the residential solid waste disposed from the Depot service area, the
program is achieving a diversion rate of 1.44 percent.
Program Costs
The City's total provisional solid waste budget in 1993 was $8.27 million Canadian
($6.36 million U.S.).
The City spent $158,753 Canadian ($122,118 U.S.) for Depot operations in 1993,
which included overhead, annualized capital costs, advertising/promotions, site
improvements, and O&M.
Material revenues paid to the City by contract processors totalled $18,707
Canadian ($14,390 U.S.). :
The net cost of the Depot to the City was $140,046 Canadian ($107,728 U.S.).
The cost to the City per recovered ton in the Depot program in 1993 was $154.52
U.S.
Table IV-2 provides a summary of annual cost elements.
Table IV-2. City of Burnaby Main Depot
Annual Costs (1993)
($U.S.)
Component
Operating and Maintenance
Education and Administration
Annualized Capital
Gross Total Costs
Revenue from Sale of Materials
Net Total Costs
Annual Cost
($U.S.)
$101,617
16,146
4,355
$122,118
14,390
$107,728
46
-------
B. CITY OF VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA
In 1993, the Provincial legislature of British Columbia adopted a waste reduction goal of
50 percent by 2000. This goal has been adopted by the. Greater Vancouver Regional District
(GVRD), a district government established by the Provincial legislature that has the responsibility
for initiating waste reduction programs (including recycling) among all waste generating sectors.
As a member municipality of the GVRD, the City of Vancouver also has adopted this goal.
The ten-year solid waste management plan developed by the GVRD became a part of
provincial law after, its approval by the provincial Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks.
This plan update was completed in 1994. following plan approval, the GVRD has the authority
to direct waste and recyclables to designated facilities.
Demographics
The City of Vancouver, which covers an area of 43.65 square miles, has an
estimated population of 475,000 people in 22 distinct neighborhoods.
There are 95,000 single family residences and 101,000 multi-family units in the
City.
Approximately 23.1 percent of the residents over 15 years of age have completed
high school; 16.3 percent have university degrees.
The median per family income is $32,414 (Canadian), or approximately $24,934
per year (U.S.).
The official language is English; five other languages (French, Vietnamese,
Chinese, Punjabi, and Hindi) are also spoken by some residents.
The primary drop-off program target area includes those multi-family households
within metropolitan Vancouver (101,000 units).
Description of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Management System
Municipal solid waste (MSW) from single family residences, co-op buildings, some
"strata" buildings (which are similar to condominium associations), and basement
suites is collected by City crews.
The City collects three containers (cans or bags) of solid waste at single family
residences and five containers at duplexes at no charge (cost covered through
general taxes). Stickers for additional containers cost $1.50 each.
Solid waste from institutional, commercial, and industrial (ICI) generators and all
multi-family residences other than duplexes (e.g., income/rental buildings) is
collected through an open private collection system. The City collects about 15
percent of this waste using front-loading trucks.
The City owns and operates a transfer station and a landfill that accept the City's
solid waste as well as some waste generated by specified areas of the GVRD.
47
-------
Residential collection costs of about $90 Canadian ($69.23 U.S.) per year are
covered through the general tax fund.
Transfer station and landfill operations costs are covered by a tipping fee of $69
Canadian per metric tonne (about $58.38 U.S. per ton); the tip fee is established
by the GVRD and adopted regionwide for all regional disposal facilities.
The landfill tipping fee generates additional revenue used to pay host community
benefits, as well as recycling and waste reduction program costs.
Approximately 460,000 metric tonnes (506,000 tons) of MSW were delivered to
the Vancouver Landfill (VLF) in 1993. Approximately 40 percent of the waste
entering the VLF is residential; the remaining 60 percent is a combination of
institutional, commercial, and industrial.
The total amount of residential MSW originating from the multi-family drop-off
target area is estimated at 68,792 metric tonnes per year (75,672 tons). This is
about 15 percent of the overall waste delivered to the VCF.
The City collected 79,000 metric tonnes (86,900 tons) of refuse and 15,900 tonnes
(17,500 tons) of bluebox recyclables from single family residences in 1993.
Description of Drop-off System
There are two components of the City's drop-off recycling system: (1) a main drop-off
"Depot" at the City transfer station; and (2) six multi-family residence "mini-depot" sites.
Mam Drop-off Depot
This program, operating since 1974 and redesigned hi 1989, targets all residential
and small commercial users in the City.
The site is designed as a drive-through system in which residents pull up alongside
separate containers for each material. An average of 1,500 cars per week use the
site; typical drop-off tune is three to five minutes.
The containers used to collect recyclables vary. Plastics, corrugated cardboard,
and mixed paper go into compactors; newsprint is placed hi roll-offs; and glass is
collected hi mailbox-type drawers. City staff (1.5 full tune employees) monitor
drop-off separations for quality control.
Materials collected include clear, green, brown, and blue container glass; steel and
aluminum containers (cans, pie plates, etc.) and foil; HOPE and PET plastic
containers; mixed paper (magazines, corrugated cardboard, writing paper, junk
mail, boxboard, and telephone books); and newspaper. In addition, the main
Depot accepts white goods, scrap aluminum, waste oil, and other types of
household plastics except PVC (#3) and plastic bags (#2 or #4).
The City markets materials collected at this site through one-year contracts with
local processors. Processors guarantee a cost for processing and a percent return
on revenue to the City.
Six multi-family residence "mini-depot" sites
48
-------
Each mini-depot has three four-cubic yard modified dumpsters. These dumpsters
have a metal extender welded to the top with small openings (i.e., 6-10 inches)
through which recyclables can be passed one or two at a time to minimize
contamination. Each dumpster handles a separate recyclables stream, e.g.,
commingled containers, mixed paper, or newspaper.
Materials collected include clear, green, brown, and blue container glass; steel and
aluminum containers (cans, plates, etc.) and foil; HDPE and PET plastic
containers; mixed paper (magazines, corrugated cardboard, writing paper, junk
mail, boxboard, and telephone books); and newspaper.
These sites are unstaffed, although local volunteers monitor and maintain sites
under the terms of a placement agreement.
Hours of operation vary; Table IV-3 presents a listing of sites and access periods.
Mini-depots are serviced Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. In addition, a City
employee visits each site three times per week to ensure that dumpsters are not
overflowing and unacceptable material has not been dumped, to clean up littering,
and to load recyclables left by elderly, handicapped people, or children.
Recyclable streams (commingled containers, mixed paper, and newspaper) are
loaded and transferred separately; a City truck visits each site three times (for each
of the streams) on service days.
Materials are processed and marketed under the City's curbside blue box
processing/marketing contract with a private contractor.
Table IV-3. City of Vancouver Depot Sites and Hours of Operation
Site1
Gordon Neighborhood House
Vancouver Aquatic Centre
Kits House
Mt. Pleasant Community Centre
Champlain Heights Community Centre
Britannia Community Services Centre
City Recycling Depot2
Hours Of Operation
9:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m., Monday-Friday;
1:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m., Saturday
Dawn to dusk, daily
9:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m., Monday - Saturday
Dawn to dusk, daily
Dawn to dusk, daily
Dawn to dusk, daily
7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m., Monday - Sunday
All mini-depot sites are located in outdoor parking lots except the Gordon Neighborhood Site, which is in an undergound parkade.
Located at the City's South Transfer Station.
49
-------
Convenience and Site Aesthetics
The City's mini-depots are sited in areas where multi-family dwellings are
concentrated.
Use of most sites requires a special trip or a combined trip to a local community
center, although mini-depots are located within reasonable distance (about 10
minutes) of major traffic arteries.
The modified dumpsters at these sites may be difficult to use, especially for
children or the elderly. Consequently, the City advises these individuals to leave
materials outside dumpsters for volunteers or City staff to load (all sites visited
daily).
Mini-depot dumpsters are generally in good condition and clearly labelled.
Containers at the main drop-off Depot are being repainted and retrofitted with new
signage consistent with graphics used in other parts of the recycling system.
There are no street or road signs to direct people to mini-depots.
The location of the main drop-off Depot is noted on transfer station signs on a
major traffic artery.
As a method of discouraging dumping, no refuse bins are provided at any site.
Public Education
Specific public education efforts for the depot programs are primarily the
responsibility of the City, although GVRD undertakes "umbrella" 3Rs (reduce,
reuse, recycle) education programs regionwide.
The City does not use the media heavily to promote the program; instead it relies
upon brochures, local community centers and their public education activities,
press releases to community newspapers, and word of mouth.
Ah1 mini-depot graphics are standardized with those used in the blue box program
and those being installed at the main Depot.
Brochures are sometimes printed in up to six languages to ensure information
availability.
Other Recycling Opportunities
Curbside (i.e., blue box) recycling is available for 95,000 single-family residences.
This program uses a blue box for commingled containers; a 22-inch x 22-inch blue
plastic bag for newsprint; and a 22-inch by 22-inch yellow plastic bag for mixed
paper products. The same materials are collected .in the blue box program as are
collected in the mini-depot program.
The blue box program recovered about 15,900 metric tonnes (17,500 tons) in
1993.
50
-------
Diversion
.
Commercial/industrial recycling services are increasingly being offered by private
sector contractors.
The total quantity of targeted residential materials estimated to be recovered
through the drop-off programs in 1993 was 1,856.7 tons; Table IV-4 presents the
breakdown of these materials. Note that the programs target scrap metal and other
materials not evaluated as part of this study.
Based on the amount of residential solid waste disposed in the drop-off service
area, the diversion rate is calculated at 2.45 percent.
Table IV-4. City of Vancouver Drop-off Recycling Program
Recovered Recyclables (1993)
(Tons Per Year)
Material
Newsprint
Mixed Paper
Glass
Plastic
Total
Mini-Depot
(Tons)
123
79
61.21
9.8
273
Main City Depot
(Tons)
418
862.6
261.32
41.8
1583.7
Total Tons
541
941.6
261.3
41.8
1856.7
Includes approximately 26.9 tons of clear, 29.4 tons of green, and 4.9 tons of brown glass.
Includes approximately 115 tons of clear, 125.4 tons of green, and 20.9 tons of brown glass.
Program Costs
The Vancouver Landfill generated total 1993 revenues of $22.9 million Canadian
($17.6 million U.S.), of which $6.6 million Canadian ($5.08 million U.S.) was
available to the City for waste reduction and recycling program services and
contributions to the capital reserve fund.
Main Drop-Off Depot
Total capital costs for main drop-off Depot renovations, approximately $160,500
Canadian ($123,462 U.S.), were incurred as part of a $9 million transfer station
development. The annualized capital cost is estimated to be $15,150 U.S.
51
-------
The estimated cost of City on-site operations: $49,500 Canadian ($38,077 U.S.).
The estimated cost of administrative and education program support from other
budget areas (project engineer, recycling coordinator, foreman, etc.) was $28,865
Canadian ($22,204 U.S.).
The revenue to City from main drop-off Depot operations was estimated to be
$44,530 Canadian ($34,254 U.S.).
Mini-depot costs
Total annualized capital cost for six sites was approximately $30,000 Canadian
(approximately $23,076 U.S. or $3,846 U.S. per depot site).
The annual operating costs for these sites was $19,000 Canadian ($14,615 U.S.)
per site per year, which includes $20 Canadian per ton processing fees ($15.38 per
ton U.S.).
The estimated cost of administrative and educational program support from other
budget areas (project engineer, recycling coordinator, secretarial support, etc.) was
$29,040 Canadian ($22,338 U.S.).
The total annual cost of the mini-depot program to the City was approximately
$173,035 Canadian ($133,104 U.S.).
The net revenue to the City from materials collected at the mini-depots was $8,471
Canadian ($6,516 U.S.).
Table IV-5 presents a summary of annual costs for the Main Depot and mini-depot
sites.
Table IV-5. City of Vancouver Drop-off Recycling Program
Annual Costs (1993)
Component
Operating & Maintenance
Education & Administration
Annualized Capital
Gross Total Costs
Revenue from Sale of Materials
Net Total Costs
Main Depot
$38,077
22,204
15,150
$75,431
34,254
$41,177
Mini Depots
$87,690
22,338
23,076 .
$133,104
6,516
$126,588
Total
$125,767
44,542
38,226
$208,535
40,770
$167,765
52
-------
C. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
Through the enactment of AB 939, the California legislature established waste reduction
goals of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000,, California also has container deposit
legislation (AB 2020), under which bottlers pay the State a deposit for all carbonated beverages
sold. This mechanism ensures that the State receives revenue on all containers sold rather than
only containers redeemed. The current redemption amount is set at 2.5 cents per container under
24 ounces and 5 cents per container 24 ounces or larger. According to some program
representatives, drop-off programs in the State, including Santa Monica's "recycling zone"
program in its multi-family neighborhoods, have been adversely affected by this legislation
because of scavenging from the sites.
Demographics
The City of Santa Monica, which covers an area of 8.3 square miles, is bordered
on the west by the Pacific Ocean and on the north, east, and south by the City of
Los Angeles. The 1990 population was 86,905.
There are approximately 7,500 single family residences and 40,000 multi-family
units in the City.
Approximately 87.5 percent of the City' s residents have completed high school and
43.4 percent have completed at least four years of college.
The median annual household income in the City is $35,997.
The drop-off program service area includes those high-density multi-family
households that do not receive curbside collection (about 87.5 percent of all multi-
family dwellings, or approximately 35,000 households). This service area
comprises a distinct 150 square block area in the City.
Description of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Management System
The City collects municipal solid waste (MSW) from all single-family and multi-
family residences in the City.
The City has a variable rate fee structure for residential waste collection. The
basic container sizes and costs are:
40 gallons: $13.04 per month;
68 gallons: $15.60 per month; and
95 gallons: $18.51 per month.
The City bills residents bi-monthly. Revenues from these fees cover costs of solid waste
collection and disposal, street sweeping, litter removal, recycling, and household hazardous waste
programs.
The City competes with the private sector for commercial/industrial waste
collection.
53
-------
All City-collected MSW is delivered to a City-owned and operated transfer station
and hauled to a publicly-owned landfill approximately 30 miles away, which has
a tipping fee of $15.95 per ton.
The total amount of residential MSW (including recyclables) generated from the
drop-off target area (35,000 units) in 1993 was estimated to be 20,584 tons.
Description of Drop-off System
Each of the City's 104 drop-off areas is defined as a "recycling zone."
The typical recycling zone has a minimum of three color-coded two-cubic yard
dumpsters. Zones in high-traffic or high-visibility areas may have more than three
dumpsters to meet increased usage.
Materials collected in all zones include: newsprint; mixed clear, green, brown, and
blue container glass; and commingled tin and aluminum cans and plastic containers
(PET, HDPE, PVC, LDPE, and PP accepted).
Dumpsters used to collect newspaper have three narrow slots in a locked lid to
deter illegal dumping. Dumpsters used to collect plastic and metal containers have
two rectangular openings with rounded centers through which most large plastic
containers will fit. The glass collection dumpsters have two 12-inch diameter holes
fitted with slides on the inside of the bin. Slides are fitted at an angle to minimize
scavengers' ability to withdraw containers from the dumpster. These angled slides
have not been totally effective in preventing scavenging.
Some recycling zones, particularly those near commercial areas, also have
dumpsters for mixed paper (catalogs, magazines, phone books, boxboard, junk
mail, aseptic packaging, and paper bags) and corrugated cardboard.
Zones are unstaffed. Signage on the dumpsters states that hours of operation are
8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., although these access periods are not always observed.
Complaints about noise and use of sites after hours have resulted in some zones
being relocated or removed altogether.
A survey crew checks zones every Monday and Thursday. Dumpsters are reported
as being 25, 50, 75, or 100 percent full. Collection crews service 100 percent full
dumpsters on same day they are checked; 75 percent full dumpsters are serviced
the next day, and so forth. Usually, all dumpsters marked at least 50 percent full
are pulled within three days.
Empty containers are left when full containers are pulled.
Contamination is reported at 5 to 10 percent total in all City recycling programs.
Convenience and Site Aesthetics
Recycling dumpsters are typically sited in alleys between multi-family housing
buildings, although some are in high-traffic locations (City libraries, parks, fire
stations, at the corners of major traffic arteries, Santa Monica Beach).
A special trip, although short, is required to use most of the sites.
54
-------
Recycling dumpsters in alleys are intended for use by area residents within a five-
minute walk or drive.
There are no street or building signs directing people to recycling zone locations;
a potential recycler must make a concerted effort to locate the nearest recycling
zone.
Some recycling dumpsters are in poor condition. The City spends approximately
$12,500 per year on repairs and maintenance, which includes painting, graffiti
removal, Wheel repair, and so forth.
Collection crews are responsible for cleaning up illegally dumped trash; this trash
collection is not always accomplished as quickly as desired by area residents.
The City uses several criteria in selecting recycling zones, including:
Preferably public property;
Collection truck access;
Dumpsters can be placed against, a high wall and away from windows,
meters, garages, and so forth; and
Hard, level surface.
Lighting and other site characteristics vary depending on location.
Public Education
Public education for recycling zones is solely the responsibility of the City.
The City uses a local graphic artist to produce brochures and other public
education pieces.
The recycling zones are shown on a City map that is usually sent out to about
35,000 multi-family residences per year. The map has not been sent out for the
past two years. These zone maps are also available at libraries and City Hall.
. The City relies on word of mouth and phone calls to City offices to inform multi-
family residents of changes in collection programs or zone locations.
Other Recycling Opportunities
Curbside recycling is provided by the City to 7,500 single family households and
about 5,000 low-density multi-family units located in single family neighborhoods.
The same materials are collected in the curbside program that are targeted at the
recycling zone locations.
Diversion
The total amount of materials recovered from targeted multi-family units hi 1993
was estimated at 3,214.2 tons. Table IV-6 presents a summary of these quantities.
Based on the amount of solid waste disposed by targeted multi-family units, the
drop-off program achieved a residential MSW diversion rate of 15.61 percent hi
1993 in the target area.
55
-------
Program Costs
The City estimates it has capital costs of approximately $61,000 in collection
equipment and $119,000 in dumpsters, locks, and signage for a current capital cost
of $180,000. This includes approximately $1,000 per recycling zone ($300 per
dumpster, $10 per lock and $50 for signage at each site) and $15,000 hi
replacement dumpsters.
City has received two capital assistance grants, one for $30,000 to identify and
plan appropriate recycling programs, and another $260,000 to purchase equipment
Table IV-6. City of Santa Monica Drop-off Recycling Program
Recovered Recyclables (FY 1993)
(Tons Per Year)
Material
Newsprint
Glass (All Colors)
PET
HDPE (Milk Jugs only)
PVC, LDPE, PP
Aluminum Cans
Steel Cans
Total
Estimated Quantities1
2,665.2
398.7
16.4
54.3
1.5
6.6
71.5
3,214.2
Based on FY 1993 material percentages (excluding mixed, white and computer print-out paper) and CY 1993 drop-off recycling
zone tonnage estimate provided by City (46 percent of all residential recyclables collected).
for the curbside and multi-family collection programs. Of this, an estimated
$90,000 was spent on the multi-family recycling zone program.
The City's total recycling budget in 1993, including the recycling zone program,
curbside collection, miscellaneous commercial collections, processing and
administration, was $737,000, the equivalent of 8.33 percent of the total solid
waste budget.
56
-------
Of this amount, $221,037 is attributed to the drop-off recycling program. About
another $16,275 per year is expended through dumpster maintenance and repair
and equipment depreciation, bringing the total annual cost to approximately
$237,312.
Unlike previous years, the recycling program did not generate any market revenues
in 1993. Processing fees for materials delivered to the processor are included in
the total cost. (A new five-year contract extending from June 1, 1994, to May 31,
1999, will pay the City revenues of $6 per ton of newsprint and $10 per ton of
cans, glass, and plastics.) .
The net cost of the recycling zone program to the City in 1993 was $237,312.
The net cost per recovered ton in this program in 1993 was $73.83.
Table IV-7 provides a summary of annual costs.
Table IV-7. City of Santa Monica Drop-off Recycling Zones
Annual Costs (FY 1993)
Component
Operating and Maintenance
Education and Administration
Annualized Capital
Total
Annual Cost ($)
$152,5091
74,778
10,025
$237,312
No revenue from sale of materials in FY 1993.
57
-------
D. SOUTHEAST COLORADO JOINT RECYCLING PROGRAM
The Southeast Colorado Recycling Pilot Program began as a joint project of Bent, Kiowa,
Otero and Prowers Counties and several communities located in those counties to reduce the waste
stream requiring disposal through increased recycling efforts.
Due to the rural nature of the area, none of the jurisdictions could individually collect a
sufficient amount of recyclable materials to afford a proper consolidation and densification
facility. In addition, communities were concerned that the cost of recycling collection from this
large area could outweigh the avoided costs of landfill disposal. In order to devise a successful
program, the communities determined to band together to increase the volume of materials and
find an efficient method of collection to keep the costs down.
These considerations led to the formation of the Southeast Colorado Joint Recycling Pilot
Program in June 1992. This pilot effort was established as a joint venture between the public and
private sectors and was intended to run over a two-year period to provide operating data and
results to the participants.
Initially, the program involved 22 sites in eight counties; by June 1993, the program had
expanded to 53 sites in 40 communities spread over 13 counties. Table IV-8 provides a listing
of the participating communities The communities are in the process of forming a district or
authority to keep the drop-off recycling program going indefinitely. The program is presently run
by a joint committee made up of representatives from each of the participating jurisdictions and
organizations. In addition, each participating jurisdiction has a committee that oversees operations
in their community. .
Currently, the State of Colorado is one of the few states that has no mandatory or
voluntary recycling goals. None of the Counties served by the Southeast Colorado Joint
Recycling Pilot Program have adopted recycling goals or legislation, and only one municipality
in the service area (with a population of 726 residents) has passed a mandatory recycling
ordinance.
Table FV-8. Southeast Colorado Recycling Program Participants
Original Southeast Colorado Program Started June 1, 1992
Community
Branson
Bents Ford
Number of Containers
1
1
1
3
Type of Containers1
2 yd News
3 Way
2 yd News
2 yd Other
58
-------
Original Southeast Colorado Program Started June 1, 1992
Community
Ft. Lyon
VA Hospital
Eads
Haswell
Holly
Kim
La Junta
La Junta Newspaper
Lamar
Lamar Newspaper
Las Animas
La Veta
Manzanola
Ordway
Pritchett
Rocky Ford
Sugar City
Number of Containers
3
3
2
4
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
3
5
15
1
4
12
1
2
6
1
4
1
1
1
3
1
2
3
3
1
3
Type of Containers1
2 yd News
4 yd Other
3 Way
4 yd Other
2 yd News
2 yd Other
2 yd News
3 Way
2 yd News
2 yd Other
2 yd News
2 yd Other
4 yd News
2 yd Other
4 yd News
4 yd News
2 yd Other
2 yd News
2 yd News
2 yd Other
4 yd News
4 yd Other
2 yd News
3 Way
4 yd News
2 yd Other
2 yd News
2 yd Other
2 yd News
3 Way
2 yd News
2 yd Other
59
-------
Original Southeast Colorado Program Started June 1, 1992
Community
Trinidad
Walsenburg
Wiley
Number of Containers
5
6
1
3
1
3
Type of Containers1
4 yd News
4 yd Other
4 yd News
2 yd Other
2 yd News
2 yd Other
East Central Colorado Program Started June 1, 1993
Agate ' :
Arapahoe
Arriba
Bethune
Burlington
Burlington Newspaper
Cheyenne Wells
Elbert
Elizabeth
Flagler
, 1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
4
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2 yd News , , , ,
2 yd Other
2 yd News
2 yd Other
2 yd News
2 yd Other
2 yd News
2 yd News
4 yd News
2 yd Other
4 yd News
4 yd News
2 yd Other
2 yd News
2 yd Other
2 yd News
2 yd Other
2 yd News
2 yd Other
:3-way containers are compartmentalized igloos accepting glass and steel and aluminum cans.
60
-------
Background and Demographics
The 13 countiestSin the program cover an area of 36,200 square miles with a
population of 111,727 residents. Table IV-9 shows population and household data
for each of the participating counties, based on data provided by the State of
Colorado Office of Business Development.
The average per capita income in the region (calculated as a weighted average from
Census data provided for each participating County) is $11,530. Approximately
14 percent of the families in the region fall below the poverty level. , ,,
Table IV-9. Southeast Colorado Pairticipating County
Population and Household Estimates
COUNTY
Baca
Bent
Cheyenne
Crowley
Elbert
El Paso - Black Forest Payton Division
Huerfano
Kiowa
Kit Carson
Las Animas
Lincoln
Otero
Prowers
Total
Population (1990)
4556
5048
2397
3946
9646
19471
6009
1688
7140
13765
4529
20185
13347
111727
Households (1990)
1896
1838
901
1164
3352
6684
2486
648
2786
5476
1823
7625
4990
41309
Oh average, approximately 76 percent of the population over 25 years of age is
estimated to have completed high school, and just under 7 percent have completed 16 or more
years of education.
61
-------
Description of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW> Management System
The traditional method of handling MSW in the 13:participating counties has been
landfill disposal. Many facilities do not meet Subtitle D standards and the State of
Colorado estimates that approximately 70 percent of the existing landfills will need
to close in the State. County Commissioners in the region are confident that they
will receive exceptions to the Subtitle D regulations.
Most landfills in the region are not equipped with scales, and only incomplete
reports of cubic yards of waste received are available. Based on a review of
information provided by the Colorado Department of Health and a review of waste
characterization data from other rural localities, it has been assumed that the
average per capita MSW generation rate in the region is 3.15 pounds per day,
yielding a total MSW generation rate of 64,243 tons per year. In addition, it has
been assumed that approximately 60 percent of the MSW generated in the region
is residential (including multi-family waste that may be collected as commercial
waste). Therefore, it is estimated that approximately 38,546 tons per year of
residential MSW are generated in the region.
ซ Because there are few opportunities to recycle in the region outside of the
Southeast Colorado Joint Recycling Program, the drop-off recycling target area is
defined as the entire region.
Description of Drop-off System
9 The drop-off program uses two- and four-cubic yard fiberglass recycling containers
for collecting newspaper, clear glass, brown glass, and steel and aluminum cans.
The containers are free-standing, with openings for targeted materials. Newspaper
containers are treated with a fire-retardant material to minimize fire hazards.
The drop-off containers are serviced by a private contractor. Recyclables are
unloaded into a compartmentalized trailer, which is towed by a truck equipped with
a crane and a special fixture, called a Kinshofer Attachment, that allows one person
to operate the crane and discharge the contents of the recycling containers without
additional labor assistance.
The participating jurisdictions have a committee, appointed by City or Town
Council, that oversees the drop-off program within that community. These
committees are responsible for:
Securing funding for the containers from the community;
Determining the locations where the drop-off containers are placed;
Ensuring that the drop-off sites are maintained; and
Providing signs at the drop-off sites and educational material to schools and
the public.
All communities of up to 500 residents provide at least one container to match the
State-supplied container.
62
-------
Communities of 500 to 1,500 residents are required to have a total of four
containers at each site, with the local community supplying three of those
containers.
Communities of over 1,500 residents are recommended to have more than one site,
at the local committees' discretion.
Extra containers were obtained through a variety of means, including individual
and business contributions, funds from the communities' sanitation programs, and
lease/purchase options.
As new sites join the program, these communities or businesses are required to
obtain their own containers. In addition, the program is structured to allow
communities to trade smaller containers for larger ones as the programs evolve.
In the "Request for Proposal" to obtain a contractor for the program, the Joint
Committee made a provision that the Committee would meet with the contractor
every six months to discuss modifications to the agreement. Modifications could
include adding communities to the program with the contractor's approval, or, in
the event that the contractor was losing money on the program through no fault of
the contractors' own, attempting to modify the program to cut these losses.
Modifications might include cutting the number of trips or length of the routes or
finding additional funding to offset the losses.
A standby proposal was developed that allows the Joint Committee to obtain a
maximum of $0.05 per capita per month from each community to be used to offset
losses to the contractor. The $0.05 per capita would be a maximum and any losses
suffered by the contractor beyond that amount would be the Contractors'
responsibility.
The original contract with the program's collector/processor calls for a fee of
$1,200 per month to be paid to the contractor to cover mileage (assuming
approximately 1,000 miles per month) and $1,000 per month to be paid by the
participating counties as a processing fee. A contract extension is in the
negotiation process; the extended terms would allow the processor a 20-percent
profit margin.
Convenience and Site Aesthetics
Convenience is seen as a key issue for the success of the Southeast Colorado
program. Because this program serves rural communities ~ many of which have
little or no commerce drop-off sites are typically located at Post Office branches.
Towns without a Post Office do not have a recycling drop-off center, based on the
assumption that residents, by necessity, will travel to another community to pick
up and deposit their mail.
Site maintenance is the responsibility of each participating community. All sites
are equipped with trash receptacles to reduce litter concerns.
63
-------
Public Education
The two main components of the public education program for the drop-off system
are: (1) a monthly newsletter prepared by Ray LaRiviere, the Director of Prowers
County Development, Inc.; and (2) presentations and talks given by Committee
members to schools, civic groups, professional associations, and conferences.
ซ Over 200 copies of the newsletter are distributed each month. The audience
includes Joint Committee members, media outlets in the region, and other
interested parties. The newsletter has resulted in press coverage for the program.
Copies of articles about the program have also been distributed throughout the
region to promote its success and answer questions about the effectiveness of the
drop-off recycling concept.
Recently, a grant request was submitted to the Farmers Home Administration to
develop a video about the program, along with pamphlets that would supplement
the content of the video. The target audience for this effort is school-aged children
(K-12).
Other Recycling Opportunities
Few other recycling programs exist in the region. Two communities indicated that
aluminum cans were being collected as part of a volunteer fundraising effort for
local hospice programs. Another drop-off program, sponsored by a community in
Baca County, was discontinued due to lack of ongoing volunteer commitment.
Diversion
o
Approximately 1,324 tons of recyclables were estimated to be recovered from the
program in FY 93-94 (the second year of program operation).
Table IV-10 presents a summary of recovered tons. Records are kept based on
cubic yard volume, and results of a limited weighing program were used to
calculate estimated tonnages.
Based on this estimate, and the quantity of residential MSW estimated to have been
generated in the region, the program's diversion rate is calculated to be 3.32
percent.
64
-------
Table IV-10. Southeast Colorado Joint Recycling Program
Recovered Recyclables (FY 1993)
(Tons Per Year)
Materials
Newspaper .
Clear Glass
Brown Glass
Cans (Steel & Aluminum)
Total
Estimated Quantities
902
287
61
74
1,324
Program Costs
As shown in Table IV-11, the estimated annual program costs for FY 93-94 total
$142,635. Revenues from the sale of materials during that period were $47,664,
resulting in a net cost of $94,971 per year.
65
-------
Table IV-11. Southeast Colorado Joint
Recycling Program Annual Costs (FY 1993)
Component
Container Costs1
Collection Costs
Densification Costs
Shipping Costs
Education/ Administrative Costs2
Start-up Costs
Gross Total Costs
Revenues from Sales of Materials
Net Total Costs
Annual Cost
$ 27,479
73,378
33,021
2,747
3,997
2,013
$142,635
47,664
$94,971
Estimated annual cost of containers/lease-purchase.
Includes volunteer labor for newsletter production.
ซ The total cost per recovered ton was $71.73. It should be noted that this does not
include local volunteer tune for site maintenance.
66
-------
E. CITY OF LARGO, FLORIDA
Largo, located in Pinellas County, is a middle class and retirement suburban community.
The County is principally responsible for meeting the State of Florida's mandate to develop a
recycling plan and to achieve a 30 percent waste reduction by 1995.
Demographics
Largo covers 14.3 square miles.
The City's population ranges from 67,000 to 80,000 residents seasonally.
The City's residential mix is one-third single family, one-third multi-family, and
one-third trailers and mobile homes.
The target population for the drop-off program is 22,100 households, or 38,400
residents.
Approximately 77.1 percent of the City' s residents have completed high school and
13.8 percent have completed at least 16 years of school.
The median annual household income is $24,296.
Description of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW^ Management System
Largo's Solid Waste Department manages and operates virtually all solid waste and
recycling services in the City.
The City collects garbage, recyclables and yard waste at the curb from single
family residences and small apartment complexes. These residents are charged
$13.35 per month for these services.
Larger multi-family households receive container waste service and have access to
drop-off recycling centers. Container waste service is billed to the multi-family
complex owners; this waste is considered part of the commercial waste stream.
Residential waste is delivered to the County's waste-to-energy facility at a tip fee
of $37.50 per ton.
Residential MSW (including recyclables) from the target population is estimated
to be 25,840 tons per year.
Description of Drop-off System
Largo's drop-off recycling program consists of nine multi-material sites and seven
newspaper sites.
Seven of the multi-material sites are in high-traffic locations. Igloos are used at
these centers. The remaining two sites are at multi-family complexes;
compartmentalized roll-offs are used at these locations.
One of the newspaper collection sites is located at a library; the remaining
newspaper sites are in multi-family complexes. Six- and/or 8-cubic yard containers
are used for newspaper at all but one of these sites. (The news-only sites account
67
-------
for less than 10 percent of the total tonnage collected at drop-off sites and are not
included in site performance evaluations.)
Drop-off sites are policed daily to monitor contamination and need for service.
Most sites have separate containers for waste.
Materials are collected by the City separately and transported to a City-owned
processing facility, where they are consolidated with curbside-collected materials
and marketed. The City avoids the need for a special truck to service the igloo
sites by replacing the grapple on the arm of its yard waste collection truck with a
lift mechanism.
Convenience and Site Aesthetics
As mentioned, most of the multi-material sites are located in high-traffic areas.
Others are located at multi-family complexes.
Sites are policed daily to maintain appearance.
Public Education
Largo's full-tune recycling coordinator is responsible for public education.
Newsletters, flyers, presentations and newspaper articles are used to increase
awareness of and participation in the program.
Other Recycling Opportunities
The City provides curbside recycling service to approximately half of the City's
households once a week using three compartmentalized trucks with two-person
crews. Participation is voluntary.
Residents place commingled materials at the curb hi 14-gallon blue bins. Materials
are curb sorted, and collection vehicles are equipped with on-board compactors for
plastic bottles.
Diversion
Table IV-12 presents a summary of recyclables recovered through the drop-off
system annually.
Based on these figures, the County is estimated to achieve a 7.89 percent diversion
rate for residential MSW from the target area.
Program Costs
Table IV-13 presents a summary of system costs.
Estimated avareage total cots per recovered ton were $81.43.
68
-------
Table IV-12. Largo, Florida Recycling Program
Recovered Recyclables (1993)
(Tons Per Year)
Material
Newsprint
Glass, unspecified
PET and HOPE (Soda Bottles and Milk
Jugs)
Aluminum
Total
Quantities
1,734.0
265.2
20.4
20.4
2,040.0
Table IV-13. Largo, Florida Drop-Off Recycling Program
Annual Costs (1993)
Component
Operating & Maintenance
Education & Administration
Gross Total Costs
Revenues from Sale of Materials
Net Total Costs
Cost ($)
82,250
118,871
201,121
35,000
166,121
69
-------
F. CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA
Tampa is a medium-sized city in Hillsborough County, Florida. The County has primary
responsibility for meeting the State of Florida's mandate to develop a recycling plan and achieve
a 30 percent reduction in its waste stream by 1995. Tampa reports its program results through
the County.
Demographics
The City of Tampa has a population of 290,000.
The City occupies a large land area for its population --150 square miles.
ป Tampa has approximately 100,485 households. Sixty percent of the City's
residences are single-family dwellings.
Although the City is a manufacturing, transportation and finance center, 18 percent
of its population is below the poverty level.-
ซ The median annual household income is $35,997.
Approximately 70.6 percent of the City's population graduated from high school,
and approximately 18.7 percent have completed four years of college.
ป The drop-off target population is defined by the City as 229,712.
pescription of Municipal Solid Waste Management System
Tampa's Solid Waste Department provides waste collection for approximately 60
percent of the City's single family and multi-family residences and manages and
operates the City's drop-off recycling program, as well as the McKay Bay transfer
station and waste-to-energy facility.
ซ The City contracts for waste collection from the remaining 40 percent of single
family and multi-family residences, all curbside single-family recycling services,
and an experimental apartment recycling program.
80,000 households receive individual waste service and are charged $16 per
month. Of these households, 24,515 receive curbside recycling at no extra charge.
Multi-family households receive containerized waste service, which is billed to the
owners. Multi-family waste is managed as part of the commercial waste stream.
All City-collected waste material is transported to the McKay Bay facility, where
it is burned or transferred to the County's landfill. The tip fee at McKay Bay is
$65 per ton.
o Total residential MSW (including recyclables) from the drop-off recycling target
area was 137,596 tons. Citywide residential MSW was estimated to be 171,139
tons.
Description of Drop-off System
ป There are 20 drop-off centers located throughout the City; six of these are located
in curbside collection areas.
70
-------
The drop-off centers accept newspaper, phone books, glass, aluminum, and PET
and HDPE plastic containers. Two of the sites are accepting corrugated cardboard
on a trial basis.
Tlastic bottles, newspaper, and corrugated cardboard are collected in 6- and 8-
cubic yard containers; glass and aluminum are collected in igloos; and phone books
are placed in roll-off containers.
The sites are serviced by City crews.
Collected materials are marketed by the City, and all revenues are retained.
Buy-back recycling is offered by the Tampa Metropolitan Housing Authority at a
center established in a low-income housing location. The Authority owns the space
and equipment and leases it to a private operator for $250 per month. The center
pays customers (primarily scavengers) for newspaper, metal, glass and plastic.
Approximately 140 tons per month are collected from this program.
Table IV-14 provides a summary of materials collected in 1993.
Table rV-14. City of Tampa, Florida Drop-Off Recycling Program
Recovered Recyclables (1993)
(Tons Per Year)
Materials
Newsprint
Glass, unspecified
PET and HDPE containers
Aluminum
Total
Drop-Off
. 2,528.7
471.3
, 258.5
14.2
3,272.7
Buy Back1
1,680.0
Total
2,528.7
471.3
258.5
14.2
4,952.7
Breakout of material composition from buyback center not available.
Public Education
Tampa's recycling programs are promoted through an active educational campaign
consisting of flyers, brochures, presentations, and public displays.
One food store chain, Kash 'n Karry, has been particularly active; several of the
high volume drop-off centers are sited at Kash 'n Karry locations.
71
-------
Other Recycling Opportunities
The City contracts with Waste Aid to provide curbside collection of newspaper,
clear glass, mixed colored glass, and aluminum from 24,515 households. Waste
Aid is paid $41,700 per month plus 50 percent of revenues from collected
materials. From October 1992 through August 1993, the program was diverting
an average of 326 tons per month. Total revenues from sale of materials during
this same time period averaged $1,618 per month.
The City also contracts with Waste Aid to provide recycling collection to 17
apartment buildings with 3,100 units. Materials collected are the same as in the
curbside program. Waste Aid is paid $2,640 per month for this service. This
program collects an average of 15 tons per month; revenues average $220 per
month.
Program Costs
1
Table IV-45 represents a summary of system costs.
Total average net cost per ton diverted was $95.24 for the City's drop-off
program.
Table IV-15. City of Tampa Drop-Off Recycling Program
Annual Costs (1993)
Component
Operating & Maintenance
Education & Administration
Annualized Capital
Total
Drop-Off
$193,200
$118,500
$311,700
Buy-Back
< 2,400 >l
$28,476
$26,076
Total
$190,800
$118,500
$ 28,476
$337,776
Represents amortization of capital costs.
The buyback program costs (building amortization less lease payments) were
$26,076, with an average cost per ton of $15.52.
72
-------
G. SOUTHERN MAINE (TOWNS OF FALMOUTH AND FREEPORT)
The State of Maine is one of the fifteen least densely populated states hi the nation, with
about 40 percent of its population residing hi one of four metropolitan areas. The State has
established a 50 percent recycling goal to be achieved by 1994. In addition, the State has enacted
mandatory deposit legislation. Only dairy product containers are excluded. Liquor containers
require a 15 cent deposit; all others require 5 cents, The Maine Waste Management Agency
calculates a 93.6 percent capture rate for deposit containers.
Regional Waste Systems, Inc. (RWS) is a not-for-profit corporation based in the Portland,
Maine area that is owned by 21 communities in southern Maine. The corporation operates under
the direction of a 28-person Board, representing cities and towns in the service area. RWS
provides solid waste management services to its member jurisdictions, as well as to ten associate
members, for a total service population of 234,000 people.
RWS's services include a 500 ton per day waste-to-energy facility, ash and bale landfill
capacity, leaf composting, and a recycling system that includes a materials recovery facility
(MRF). RWS provides basic educational material support with a curriculum manual, video tape,
and tour programs, as well as an annual publicity and promotion event. The drop-off component
of RWS's recycling system was begun in 1990 and provides the framework for the two member
town programs reviewed hi detail as part of this study - the Towns of Fahnouth and Freeport
1. Town of Falmouth, Maine
Demographics
Fahnouth is a suburban town occupying 29.6 square miles on the northern border
of Portland. The Town has a population of 7,610 people.
There are 3,076 households, including 2,601 single-family households and 475
multi-family dwelling units.
Approximately 87.5 percent of Town residents have graduated from high school,
and 44 percent have completed at least four years of college.
The median annual household income is $44,863.
, The drop-off program target area is defined by the Town as the entire Town.
Description of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW> Management Sygfrm
The Town provides contracted curbside collection of residential trash and leaves.
The Town charges residents for trash collection by selling plastic bags to be used
for trash set-out. Bag sale fees and trash fees are estimated to recover 59 percent
of the cost for managing solid waste in the Town. The balance of solid waste
funding comes from property taxes.
73
-------
Residential trash is handled through RWS; 88.8 percent is incinerated at the waste-
to-energy facility and the remainder is landfilled.
In 1992-3, residential solid waste generated hi the Town totalled 2,494 tons,
including recyclables.
Description of Drop-off System
Falmouth is one of 30 towns that participates in RWS's drop-off "Silver Bullet" program,
which is designed to be self-contained, easy to institute, and effective. Many towns augment the
RWS program with programs to collect materials not targeted by the RWS system.
Falmouth has two drop-off locations, one at the Bucknam Road Fire Barn and the
other at the Transfer Station. Only the Transfer Station site is staffed.
Covered compartmentalized roll-offs are used to collect materials. These
standardized containers have special slots for filling and side gates for emptying
and are painted bright silver (hence the name "Silver Bullet").
Each roll-off container has four compartments for collecting the following
materials: newspaper and kraft paper; magazines and phone books; glass bottles
and jars (all colors) and aluminum and steel cans; and plastic milk and water
bottles (natural HDPE).
RWS owns all the roll-offs, as well as the roll-off transport truck. RWS contracts
with a private hauler to transport the roll-offs, when full, to a low-tech materials
processing facility, also owned by RWS. Some roll-offs are serviced on a
schedule; others are transported and replaced on an on-call basis. Participating
municipalities are responsible for contacting the contract hauler to schedule
collection; different amounts are paid for this service, depending on distance
travelled to the processing center.
Residents using the Transfer Station location can also deposit trash; however, there
are no containers for trash available at the Bucknam Road Fire Barn site. Drivers
servicing the drop-offs are responsible for cleaning up spillage they encounter at
the sites.
In addition to the RWS drop-off sites, Falmouth provides drop-off opportunities
for other materials not addressed in this study, including wood waste, yard waste,
corrugated cardboard, white goods, reusable household items, and used motor oil.
Convenience and Site Aesthetics
Both of Falmouth's RWS drop-off sites are convenient locations. The Bucknam
Road Fire Barn location is open 24 hours per day; the Transfer Station site is open
four 8-hour days for a total of 24 hours per week.
No special lighting for the sites is provided.
74
-------
ซ The only signage for the sites is placed on the bins themselves, indicating which
materials are accepted.
Public Education
ฎ Falmouth developed a major promotional campaign when it instituted recycling
programs in the early 1980's; however, the Town employed only minimal
promotion for the Silver Bullet drop-off program.
ซ The Town spends approximately $1,200 per year on recycling education, which
includes a packet of information given to new residents, an annual newsletter, and
a brochure explaining the Town's solid waste management system.
Other Recycling Opportunities
As mentioned, the Town has a drop-off programs for certain commodities not
covered by this study, including wood waste, yard waste, corrugated cardboard,
white goods, reusable household items, and used motor oil.
Except for the additional materials targeted by the Town's drop-off program, no
competing recycling programs are available in the Town.
Diversion
The RWS program does not track composition or residue by town. System averages have
been used to convert total Falmouth-collected recyclables to net diversion by commodity.
In 1992, Falmouth's drop-off program diverted a total of 338 tons of residential
materials (after allowing for residue and not including those commodities not
covered in this study), for a net diversion rate of 13.55 percent of the residential
waste stream.
ป Table IV-16 provides a summary of recovered materials from both drop-off sites.
RWS does not return revenues from sale of materials to the participating
communities. Revenues are used by RWS to reduce operating costs charged to
communities based on waste disposal tipping fees.
75
-------
Table IV-16. Town of Falmouth Drop-off Recycling Program
Recovered Recyclables (1992)
(Tons Per Year)
Material
Newsprint
Magazines
Phone Books
Mixed Paper
Glass (AH Colors)
HDPE (Milk Jugs only)
Steel Cans
Total
Quantity
269
21
3
4
4
11
26
338
Program Costs
Total net annual costs for the drop-off program were $29,479 in FY 1993.
The net cost per recovered ton is estimated to be $87.22, which includes total
Town and RWS costs.
Table IV-17 presents a summary of cost components.
Table IV-17. Town of Falmouth Drop-off Recycling Program
Annual Costs (FY 1993)
Component
Operating and Maintenance
Education and Administration
Total Costs
Annual Cost ($)
22,811'
6,668
29,479
Adjusted for revenue from sale of materials.
76
-------
2. Town of Freeport, Maine
Demographics
Freeport is a suburban town occupying 34.7 square miles 15 miles north of
Portland. The Town has a population of 7,043 people.
There are 2,666 households, including 2,159 single-family households and 507
multi-family units.
Eighty-six percent of Town residents have graduated from high school, and 32
percent have completed at least four years of college.
The median annual household income is $37,150.
The drop-off program target area is the entire Town.
Description of Municipal Solid Waste (MSWl Mana pennant System
The Town contracts with four haulers for curbside collection of residential trash.
Residents pay haulers directly for this service, and the Town pays the tip fee at
RWS's facility.
Freeport also has fee-based drop-off collection of demolition debris, white goods
and yard waste.
Residential trash is handled through RWS; 88.8 percent is incinerated at the waste-
to-energy facility, and the remainder is landfilled.
In 1992-93, residential municipal solid waste handled in the Town totalled 2,601
tons, including recyclables.
Description of Drop-off System
Freeport is one of the 30 towns that participate in RWS' s drop-off" Silver Bullet" program.
Until January 1992, the Town operated its own aggressive recycling program, independent of the
RWS system.
Freeport has three drop-off locations. Two of these are unstaffed RWS sites; the
third is the staffed Recycling Center, located at the old landfill.
- - .. At the RWS sites, covered compartmentalized roltoffs are used to collect
. materials. These standardized containers have special slots for filling and side
gates for emptying and are painted bright silver.
Each roll-off has four compartments for collecting the following materials:
newspaper and kraft paper; magazines and phone books; glass (all colors) and
aluminum and steel cans; and plastic milk and water bottles (natural HDPE).
RWS owns all the roll-offs, as well as the roll-off transport truck. RWS contracts
with a private hauler to transport the roll-offs, when full, to a low-tech materials
processing facility, also owned by RWS. Some roll-offs are serviced on a
schedule; others are transported and replaced on an on-call basis. Participating
municipalities are responsible for contacting the contract hauler to schedule
77
-------
collection; different amounts are paid for this service, depending on distance
travelled to the processing center.
The Town Recycling Center provides drop-off opportunities for all the regular
RWS recyclables, as well as paperboard, corrugated cardboard, office paper, used
oil, white goods, and yard waste. The site is equipped with two balers for paper
products, storage areas and loading docks, as well as office and meeting space.
Whereas residents using the Recycling Center can also deposit trash, there are no
containers for trash available at the RWS sites. Drivers servicing the drop-offs are
responsible for cleaning up spillage they encounter at the sites.
Convenience and Site Aesthetics
Both of the RWS sites are conveniently located near shopping areas. The
Recycling Center requires a special trip; however, this site is clean and paved, with
ample parking.
The RWS sites are open 24 hours per day; the Recycling Center is open four days
per week.
The Recycling Center has ample signage directing residents to the site and
instructing them on how and where to deliver materials.
Public Education
The Recycling Center is a major educational center for residents. The Town's
Solid Waste and Recycling Director has instituted several approaches to introduce
residents to the Center and involve them in recycling, including:
"Contracts" that require students to take their parents to the Center;
A well-publicized landfill tour (featured in What to Do in Maine ?); and
"Coffee and Questions" on Saturday mornings.
Other Recycling Opportunities
Except for the additional materials targeted by the Town's drop-off program, ho;
competing recycling programs are available in the Town.
Diversion
The RWS program does not track composition or residue by town. System averages have
been used to convert total Freeport-collected recyclables to net diversion by commodity.
In 1992, Freeport's drop-off program diverted a total of 320 tons of residential
materials (after allowing for residue and not including those commodities not
covered in this study), for a net diversion rate of 12.3 percent of the residential
waste stream.
Table IV-18 presents a summary of recovered materials.
78
-------
Program Costs
Total gross annual costs for the drop-off'program in FY 1993 were $57,474.
Revenue from sale of materials was $7,677; this amount reflects sales prior to
joining the RWS program.
The net annual cost was $49,697.
The net cost per recovered ton is estimated at $155.30, which includes total Town
and RWS costs.
Table IV-19 presents a summary of cost components.
Table FV-18. Town of Freeport Drop-off Recycling Program
Recovered Recyclables (FY 1993)
(Tons per Year)
Material
Newsprint
Office Paper
Magazines
Phone Books ,
Mixed Paper
Glass (All Colors)
HDPE (Milk Jugs only)
Steel Cans
Total
Quantities
89.0
30.0
7.0
1.0
108.0
37.0
27.0
21.0
320.0
79
-------
Table IV-19. Town of Freeport Drop-off Recycling Program
Annual Costs (FY 1993)
Component
Operating and Maintenance
Education and Administration
Gross Total Costs
Revenue from Sale of Materials
Net Total Costs
Annual Cost ($)
$ 36,864
20,510
$ 57,374
7,677
$49,697
80
-------
H. CITY OF BLUE ASH, OHIO
The City of Blue Ash is part of the Hamilton County Solid Waste Management District,
which is required by the State to develop a recycling plan and to achieve a 25 percent reduction
in its waste by June 1, 1994.
Demographics
The City of Blue Ash is an upper middle class suburban community with a
population of 12,629.
Blue Ash occupies 7.7 square miles, with a population density of 1,770 people per
square mile.
There are 5,200 households; 3,900 single-family homes and 1,320 multi-family
dwellings.
84.2 percent of the population has completed high school and 40 percent have at
least 16 years of education.
The median annual household income is $46,339.
Description of Municipal Solid Waste Management System
Blue Ash contracts with a private hauler (Rumpke) for all waste and recycling
collection services. The City's Services Department administers these programs.
Waste (garbage, trash, and brush) is collected from single family households once
per week at a cost to the City of $4.20 per household per month. All payments to
the hauler are made from the City's general fund.
Rumpke also provides container waste service for multi-family residences and
commercial establishments up to three times per week at no charge to the
apartment complex or business.
The target population for the drop-off program is the entire City.
It is estimated that 6,496 tons per year of residential MSW (including recyclables)
are generated by the target population.
Description of Drop-off System
The City's waste hauler, Rumpke, also provides drop-off recycling service at five
City-selected sites.
Rumpke provides the containers, services the sites, and retains ownership of the
collected materials.
Rumpke charges the City $300 per month per site ($1,500.00) for these services.
Containers or compartments are provided for glass bottles and jars, metal cans,
plastic bottles (#1 and 2), newspapers, and polystyrene.
Although signage on the drop-off containers is somewhat confusing and variable
among sites, Rumpke's practice is to combine all materials, except newspaper,
during collection. Rumpke achieves greater transportation efficiencies by
81
-------
commingling recyclable containers (glass, metal ..and plastic). The company has
built a merchant MRF designed to process mixed recyclables.
Rumpke reports that contamination of materials is reduced by requiring users to
sort materials into separate compartments at the drop-off sites.
One supermarket (Krogers) serves as a sixth drop-off site. This center, configured
similarly to the other Blue Ash sites, is also serviced by Rumpke, but at no charge
to the City.
Convenience and Site Aesthetics
All of the City's drop-off sites are in moderate to high traffic locations that are
well lit and easily accessible. These include a municipal building, two recreation
centers, a community college parking lot and a shopping center.
City employees check the sites daily for cleanliness and need for services.
Public Education
Blue Ash maintains a moderate public education effort using flyers, the community
newsletter, and occasional special events to publicize the drop-off centers.
Other Recycling Opportunities .....
Rumpke also offers voluntary curbside recycling services once a week to its single
family customers. Materials collected include mixed containers and newspaper.
Participating households are charged $1.25 per month.
It should be noted that the City of Blue Ash added single-family curbside recycling
service after the study period described in this document. The recycling drop-off
program has been retained and the volume of materials it collects remains steady.
The addition of the curbside program has raised total diversion of materials to 33
percent, and the combined program costs are $61.00 per ton ($12.00 per household
per year).
Diversion
Table IV-20 presents a summary of recovered materials from the City's drop-off
system.
82
-------
Table TV-20. City of Blue Ash, Ohio Drop-Off Recycling Program
Recovered Materials (1993)
(Tons Per Year)
Material
Newsprint
Clear Glass
Green Glass
Brown Glass
PET Soda Bottles
HDPE Milk Jugs
Aluminum
Steel Cans
Total
Quantities
430.5
73.9
30,6
23.5
27.9
36.5
28.9
49.2
701.0
Based on recovered quantities, it is estimated that the City's drop-off program is
responsible for diverting 10.79 percent of the residential MSW from the target
population.
Program Costs
The annual costs to operate the City's drop-off system are summarized in Table
IV-21,
Table IV-21. City of Blue Ash Ohio Drop-Off Recycling Program
Annual Costs (1993)
Component
Operating & Maintenance
Education & Administration
Total
Cost($)
$18,000
18,000
$36,000
The average total cost per recovered ton is $51.36.
83
-------
I. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
The City of Philadelphia is a major eastern city with an aging infrastructure, diverse
population, and a neighborhood-oriented culture. Although it functions as a metropolitan
government, the City is viewed by the State as equivalent to a county in terms of solid waste
management issues. As are other Pennsylvania counties, the City is required to achieve a waste
reduction goal of 25 percent by January 1, 1997. Curbside collection of at least three designated
recyclable materials is mandated as well.
A major concern for the City's recycling program has been the cost of curbside recycling.
Experience in 25 percent of the City indicated that curbside collection of recyclables (commingled
newspaper, glass, aluminum and bimetal cans, and plastic bottles) is more expensive than waste
collection (reportedly $184/ton versus $144/ton). Although the City has been reluctant to expand
the program, the State has taken legal action to force the City to comply with the curbside
collection mandate. The City has responded by expanding a less expensive version of the original
curbside program (plastic bottles have been eliminated and collection frequency has been
decreased from once a week to every other week).
In addition to its problematic curbside program, the City has a successful block corner
drop-off recycling program that began in the mid 1980's. Two block corner systems, Queen
Village and Cedar Park, were examined as part of this study.
Demographics
The City of Philadelphia has a population of 1,600,000.
Philadelphia is densely populated, with an approximate area of only 120 square
miles. Residential streets tend to be narrow with restricted traffic flow.
The Queen Park neighborhood has a population of 9,443, with 3,984 total
households.
The Cedar Park neighborhood has a population of 13,461 with 5,679 total
households.
Pescription of Drop-off System
Currently, there are 24 block corner drop-off programs, one in Queen Village and 23 in
Cedar Park. Although these programs differ operationally, given that they are organized at the
community level, the overriding approach is similar. Key similarities include:
Residents bring glass, newspaper and aluminum to designated block corners at a
designated time (Saturday mornings). Recyclables are brought in bags and piled
up; no containers are used.
Volunteers are used to spot check delivered materials for contamination.
84
-------
Two City trucks, each with two person crews, collect the bagged recyclables from
each of the designated block locations. A packer truck collects newspaper; a
compartmentalized truck collects sorted glass and aluminum.
Recyclables are transported directly to market.
Individual program differences include:
Collection frequency (i.e., the oldest program in Queen Village operates weekly,
whereas a newer program in Cedar Park collects materials every other week).
Targeted materials (i.e., the newer Cedar Park program collects mixed paper in
addition to newspaper, and glass and aluminum containers. Queen Village only
targets newspaper and glass and aluminum containers).
It is estimated that 7,250 tons of residential MSW (including recyclables) are
generated in the target area for the Queen Village Program and 10,336 tons in the
target area for the Cedar Park Program.
Other Recycling Opportunities
As mentioned, the City is in the process of expanding its curbside program. It is
reported that drop-off participation declines in neighborhoods when citizens find
out that they will be receiving curbside collection.
Other types of drop-off programs exist in Philadelphia. Of note is a program that
specializes in mixed paper and plastic, neither of which are included in the
curbside or most block corner programs. This program was developed by the
Recycling Advisory Committee and is managed by the Weavers Way Cooperative
with heavy volunteer participation.
Neither of the above programs directly compete with the drop-off programs serving
the Queen Village or Cedar Park target areas.
Diversion
Table IV-22 presents a summary of recovered materials from the two block corner
Table IV-22. Philadelphia Block Corner Program
(Queen Village and Cedar Park) Recovered Recyclables (FY 1993)
(Tons Per Year)
Materials
Newsprint
Glass, unspecified
Aluminum
Total
Queen Village
160.0
87.5
2.5
250.0
Cedar Park
149.5
50.5
2.0
202.0
Total
309.5
138.0
4.5
452.0
85
-------
studied.
It is estimated that the Queen Village Program results in a 3.45 percent diversion
rate, while the Cedar Park program achieves a 1.95 percent diversion.
Program Costs
The annual costs to operate the block corners programs are estimated to be:
Queen Village: $15,000
Cedar Park: $12,120
Average total costs per recovered ton from both systems are $60.00.
Revenues received from sale of materials were not used to offset program costs,
but were returned to the communities to support other projects. FY 1993
revenues, not reflected in Table IV-22, Were:
Queen Village: $1,688
Cedar Park: $1,105
86
-------
J. TOWN OF WEST GREENWICH, RHODE ISLAND
Rhode Island has a 70 percent waste processing goal, which is to be achieved through
reuse, recycling, commercial and home composting, and generation of power. Two State agencies
regulate and enforce solid waste management: the Department of Environmental Management
(DEM) and the Solid Waste Management Corporation (SWMC). These agencies provide
Statewide leadership and fill roles typically handled by counties in other states.
Each of the State's 3,9 municipalities is required to pass a mandatory recycling ordinance.
In exchange, the municipality receives grants and technical support for implementing recycling
programs. The State requires residential source separation of newspaper; glass food and beverage
containers; aluminum, tin and steel cans; and PET and natural HDPE bottles.
West Greenwich launched a voluntary recycling program in 1989; a formal program was
begun in December of 1990 and became mandatory in 1991. In fact, the Town became the first
municipality in Rhode Island to institute a mandatory drop-off program. This program became
the prototype for other DEM drop-off programs.
Demographics
West Greenwich is a rural town southwest of Providence with a 1990 Census
population of 3,750 people.
The Town occupies 51.2 square miles.
There are approximately 1,316 single family households in the Town and no multi-
family residences.
. The median annual household income was $41,250 according to the 1990 Census.
Eighty-one percent of the population graduated from high school, and 21 percent
have at least a four-year college degree.
Additionally, a Town planning survey revealed that 94 percent of the Town's
population own their own home; 54 percent are executives or professionals; 13
percent are skilled laborers; and 10 percent are retired.
The drop-off target area is comprised of the 73 percent of the Town's households
that use the Town Transfer Station to dispose of trash and recyclables
(approximately 961 households).
Description of Municipal Solid Waste fMSW) Management System
Approximately 73 percent of Town residents deliver their trash and recyclables
directly to the Town's Transfer Station, which is located at the extreme eastern
border of the Town.
The Transfer Station is open to the public on weekends and on Wednesday nights
during the summer.
The average distance travelled by residents to the Transfer Station is eight miles.
87
-------
ฎ The remaining 27 percent of residents elect to pay $18.00 per month for private
collection and disposal/processing of solid waste and recyclables. Materials
collected are taken either to the landfill or the MRF operated by the SWMC.
The total amount of residential MSW (including recyclables) generated in the Town
hi FY 1993 was 1,604 tons.
The Town's drop-off recycling program diverted 156 tons from the SWMC landfill
to commercial markets.
Description of Drop-off System
The Transfer Station serves as the only drop-off site in the Town.
The site was developed around the basic DEM program, which uses State-
designed, low profile, covered roll-offs to collect materials. Newspaper is
collected separately from "mixed recyclables," which includes aluminum cans, foil
and scrap; glass food and beverage containers; plastic milk jugs and soda bottles;
and tin (steel) cans.
The Transfer Station also accepts other materials for recycling not included in this
analysis, such as yard waste, used tires, white goods and other metals, and used
oil and oil filters.
In addition, the Transfer Station provides an opportunity for residents to swap
reusable materials.
ซ The drop-off center is staffed by two people during operating hours.
Convenience and Site Aesthetics
The drop-off center is conveniently located in that the majority of residents deliver
their waste to the Transfer Station anyway.
The site is neatly maintained with adequate signage.
ซ The site is not paved, but is surfaced with adequately-draining sand.
ซ The site is unlighted; however, the facility is only open in daylight hours.
Public Education
West Greenwich used a customized version of DEM's education package to
publicize drop-off recycling. DEM's basic program, developed in conjunction
with a public relations firm, has been used across the State.
9 DEM estimates that it costs $3,000 to $4,000 to customize its program for a
specific community. Out-of-pocket costs to produce and distribute educational
literature averages about 29 cents per household.
Currently, the Town spends almost nothing to publicize drop-off recycling. New
residents receive copies of educational brochures distributed during the 1990-91
program start-up.
88
-------
The Town relies on word of mouth, an occasional sign at the Transfer Station,
reminder in the Town newsletter, and reports to the Town Council. The local
elementary school also has a recycling club.
Other Recycling Opportunities
No competing recycling programs operate in West Greenwich.
Diversion
The Town's drop-off recycling diverted 156 tons of materials in FY 1993.
Table IV-23 presents a summary of recovered materials.
Table IV-23. Town of West Greenwich Drop-off Recycling Program
Recovered Recyclables (FY 1993)
(Tons Per Year)
Material
Newsprint
Clear Glass
Green Glass
Brown Glass
PET and HDPE (Soda Bottles and Milk
Jugs Only)
Metal Cans
Total
Quantities
109.0
15.0
9.0
5.0
7.0
11.0
156.0
Program Costs
West Greenwich pays solid waste management costs out of property taxes. In FY
1993, the Town spent $92,300 to manage solid waste. Of this, $13,459 was used
to fund drop-off recycling.
Table IV-24 presents a summary of annual costs for FY 1993.
89
-------
Table IV-24. Town of West Greenwich Drop-off Recycling Program
Annual Costs (FY 1993)
Component
Operating and Maintenance1
Education and Administration
Total
Annual Cost ($)
$ 11,459
2000
$ 13,459
Net of revenue from sale of recovered materials.
90
-------
K. CENTRAL VIRGINIA WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
The Central Virginia Waste Management Authority (CVWMA) was formed in 1990 under
the Virginia Water and Sewers Authority Act of 1973 in response to Virginia State Legislation
that established a requirement for recycling planning and required reduction of municipal solid
waste by 25 percent by 1994. According to its charter, CVWMA's purpose is to plan, develop
and manage solid waste management systems for any one or more of the 13 political subdivisions
that make up the Authority's members.
On behalf of its member jurisdictions, CVWMA contracts with the private sector for a
variety of services, including residential MSW collection, street sweeping, curbside and drop-off
recycling, and yard waste composting. Each member has the opportunity to participate in
CVWMA's regional programs. Member jurisdictions pay a $0.50 per capita assessment to
CVWMA annually, which funds CVWMA's general administrative functions. In addition,
participating jurisdictions pay service fees to CVWMA to cover the costs of the programs in
which they are participating. In some cases, a portion of the revenue from the sale of recyclable
materials is returned to the participating member.
Because CVWMA's service area is diverse, three jurisdictions that participated in the drop-
off program in 1993 were selected for more detailed analysis as part of this study: (1) Chesterfield
County (which has aggressively embraced curbside collection for recyclables but maintains drop-
off sites for those parts of the County not yet served by curbside); (2) the City of Petersburg
(which relies on drop-off sites as its sole recycling mechanism); and (3) Henrico County (which
is moving to a subscription approach to curbside recycling while expanding their drop-off
locations).
1. Chesterfield County
Demographics
Chesterfield County is a suburban county covering an area of 446 square miles,
located on the northwest border of the City of Richmond. In 1992, the County had
an estimated population of 225,100.
The predominant housing type in the County is single family homes (67,004
residences). There are approximately 10,235 multi-family dwelling units.
Approximately 84.2 percent of residents have completed high school; 29.2 percent
have completed 16 years of education.
The median annual household income is $43,604 per year.
The drop-off recycling target area is defined as all residents not receiving curbside
collection (75,264 households).
91
-------
Description of Municipal Solid Waste Management System
Residential MSW in the County is collected through an open private collection
system, in which residents contract with the private hauler of their choice.
The County owns and operates two landfills within its borders that accept MSW
generated in the County. Additionally, there are private disposal facilities outside
of the County that accept residential and commercial waste from County sources.
Total residential MSW generated from the drop-off recycling service area in 1993
is estimated to be approximately 83,881 tons per year.
Description of Drop-off System
The County's drop-off recycling system has three components: CVWMA drop-off sites,
school-based drop-off sites, and landfill drop-off sites.
Eight drop-off sites through the CVWMA drop-off recycling program:
Compartmentalized 34-cubic yard roll-off containers placed at these
CVWMA locations in 1993 are used to collect designated materials. Each
roll-off is divided into eight compartments.
Materials collected include clear, green and' brown glass (collected in
separate compartments); aluminum cans and foil and steel cans (collected,
in one compartment); HDPE and PET plastic containers, including clear
and colored HDPE containers and wide-mouthed containers of either resin
(collected in separate compartments at some sites and single compartment
at other locations); and newspaper.
Roll-off containers are collected when full. An informal pull schedule has
been developed at some sites where the volume of collected materials is
fairly constant and predictable. At other locations, County staff responsible
for monitoring the sites notify the contractor when the containers require
servicing. Typically, empty containers are placed when full containers are
pulled. Sometimes, however, a shortage of available containers will
necessitate picking up a full container and leaving the site vacant until it can
be emptied and returned.
27 school-based drop-off sites:
Program was initiated as a cooperative venture between County schools and
Southeast Recycling, a local recycling processor.
Newspaper and aluminum cans are collected in 40-cubic yard roll-off
containers sited in parking lots of 27 schools across the County.
Southeast Recycling collects materials from the containers on a rotating
basis, or when notified by the participating schools.
Containers are serviced at no charge; Southeast Recycling splits revenues
from the sale of materials with the participating schools.
92
-------
These sites are maintained by student volunteer groups, parent or
community groups, or school maintenance staff.
Corrugated cardboard recovery at County landfill sites:
Two- to four-cubic yard dumpsters with slots for depositing corrugated
cardboard are placed next to the CVWMA drop-off containers already sited
at the County's two landfills. Corrugated cardboard is not included as part
of this study.
These containers are serviced as part of regular landfill operations.
Convenience and Site Aesthetics
Some drop-off locations are situated in high traffic areas; others require a special
trip by users.
Signs directing residents to the drop-off locations are small and easily missed;
some schools have no signs at all.
Signage at some of the sites has been confusing; residents are unclear about which
compartments to use for what materials. CVWMA has recently invested in new,
brightly colored signs with more precise instructions. These signs are expected to
reduce confusion and contamination levels.
Certain operational practices have also resulted in confusion. At locations where
more than one container has been sited, County staff have blocked drop-off
compartment doors with large metal "C" clamps to ensure that residents fill one
container fully before using the second container.
Roll-off boxes observed were in poor condition, with peeling paint, rust spots and
stickers crossed out. The contractor is in the process of repainting the containers
and retrofitting each container with brackets for the new signage.
Public Education
CVWMA has sole responsibility for public education efforts at its drop-off sites
in the County. For participating jurisdictions, CVWMA staff will coordinate
special "grand opening" events to initiate a new site, sometimes working with local
radio stations. CVWMA will also provide .a jurisdiction with educational
brochures to promote the drop-off sites. As mentioned above, CVWMA has
recently updated the signage at its sites in the County.
Participating schools are responsible for promoting the school-based sites. In most
cases, the program has been in place for several years and requires little
promotional support.
No County staff time or funding has been allocated for public education for the
drop-off recycling initiative.
Other Recycling Opportunities
Curbside recycling was available for 1,975 households in the County in 1993.
Materials collected were the same as in the drop-off program, as well as poly-
coated paperboard and aseptic packaging.
93
-------
Diversion
A total of 3,081.8 tons of materials were recovered through the County's drop-off
program in 1993. Table IV-25 presents the contribution of the CVWMA and
school programs toward this total.
Based on the residential MSW generated in the drop-off service area in 1993
(80,799 tons), the diversion rate for the drop-off system is calculated to be 3.67
percent.
Table IV-25. Chesterfield County Drop-off Program
Recovered Recyclables (1993)
(Tons Per Year)
Material Collected
Newsprint
Clear Glass
Green Glass
Brown Glass
PET and HDPE
Plastic Containers
Aluminum Cans and
Foil
Steel Cans
Total
CVWMA Sites
529.3
296.6
32.3
38.1
99.3
26.6
32.6
1,054.8
School Sites1
1,995.0
32.0
2,027.0
Total Quantities
2,524.3
296.6
32.3
38.1
99.3
58.6
32.6
3,081.8
School sites only accept aluminum cans and newsprint.
Program Costs
Table IV-26 presents estimated program costs for the County's drop-off programs
in FY 1993.
Revenue from the sale of materials was $15,227, yielding a net annual cost for the
program of $127,421.
The estimated net cost per recovered ton is $41.35.
94
-------
Table IV-26. Chesterfield County Drop-off Recycling Program Annual Costs
(FY 1993)
Program Element
CVWMA Administration1
Contractor Costs 2 "
County Costs 3
Southeast Recycling Costs (School Sites)4
Gross Total Costs
Revenue from Sale of Materials
Net Total Costs
Annual Cost ($)
$ 2,403
57,913
12,996
69,336
$142,648
15,227
$127,421
Chesterfield County pays a $0.50 per capita annual assessment to CVWMA for general operating and administrative
expenses, including technical and public education support of the drop-off recycling program. Based on data provided by CVWMA
staff, drop-off program expenses that can be allocated to Chesterfield County have been estimated. '
Costs paid to Chambers Waste Systems of Virginia for the number of pulls of drop-off containers provided to Chesterfield
County in FY 1993.
^Estimated costs of recycling coordinator time spent on the drop-off recycling program and site maintenance workers.
Estimated cost based on the cost per ton of servicing the CVWMA containers and the tonnage collected in the school
program adjusted to exclude container rental (no charges are actually made; the program is voluntary as part of a community service
to the County's schools).
95
-------
2. City of Petersburg
Demographics
The City of Petersburg is located approximately 20 miles south of the City of
Richmond and covers approximately 23 square miles.
In 1994, the City had an estimated population of 38,400 residents.
There are approximately 10,926 single-family residences and 5,270 multi-family
residences in the City.
More than 62 percent of the residents have completed high school, and
approximately 13.5 percent have completed 16 years of school.
The median per family income is $21,309 per year.
Description of Municipal Solid Waste Management System
The City provides refuse collection to all single-family residences within the City
limits.
City crews and vehicles also collect refuse from those multi^family dwellings and
commercial establishments not using dumpster collection. It is estimated that the
City provides refuse collection to approximately 20 percent (300 to 400 accounts)
of all multi-family and commercial generators in the City.
The City owns and operates a landfill located within its borders; this site has an
estimated life of approximately 10 years.
The costs of the City's solid waste and recycling management systems are paid
through landfill disposal fees and a $7.00 per month refuse fee assessed on all
residential units and the commercial and multi-family accounts receiving City-
provided refuse service.
The estimated quantity of MSW delivered to the City's landfill in 1993 was 31,200
tons. This figure also includes waste collected by private haulers from generators
not serviced by the City. According to representatives from the City, no MSW
from City residents or businesses is disposed in private landfills or out-of-City
disposal sites.
Approximately 60 percent of the MSW entering the City's landfill is from the
residential sector and 40 percent is from the commercial sector.
Approximately 19,077 tons of residential MSW (including recyclables) are
generated hi the drop-off recycling target area.
Description of Drop-off System
There are six CVWMA drop-off recycling sites in the City. Three of the drop-off
sites are located at schools; one is located at an athletic field; one is located in a
neighborhood; and one site is located at a church.
As with Chesterfield County, all CVWMA drop-off sites in Petersburg use covered
34-cubic yard compartmentalized containers divided into eight compartments.
Materials collected include: clear, green, and brown glass (collected in separate
containers); aluminum and steel cans and foil (collected in one compartment);
96
-------
HDPE and PET plastic containers (collected in separate compartments); and
newspaper.
Five of the sites are sponsored by a group (i.e., church, school, or civic
organization), and each sponsoring group is responsible for maintaining its adopted
site. In return, sponsors receive a share of the revenues from sale of materials
recovered at the site.
The one site that has no sponsor is maintained by the City.
The City monitors all sites on a regular basis to ensure that the sites are being
maintained adequately.
All sites are unstaffed and available for use 24 hours per day.
Containers at two sites are serviced weekly by the CVWMA contractor; others are
serviced as needed. Typically, empty containers are left when a full container is
collected.
Convenience and Site Aesthetics
the City's drop-off sites are located in medium to high-traffic areas considered to
be easily accessible to residents. The City feels that the drop-off program provides
a high level of convenience.
As with Chesterfield County, the condition of the roll-off boxes provided by the
recycling contractor varies, and the equipment is being cleaned and retrofitted for
new signage.
Three of the City's drop-off sites are paved and two are located on a gravel
surface. No lighting or fencing has been installed at any site.
Pjublic Education
Public education is the sole responsibility of CVWMA. No additional resources
of the City are dedicating to promoting the program.
Informal promotion of the drop-off sites by sponsoring organizations is also
assumed to take place.
Other Recycling Opportunities
No additional residential recycling opportunities are available in the City.
Diversion
In 1993, approximately 357.2 tons of recyclables were collected through the drop-
off program. Table IV-27 presents a summary of the tons collected by type of
material.
Based on an estimated MSW generation rate for residential MSW in the target area
of 19,077 in 1993, the drop-off recycling program diverted 1.87 percent in 1993.
97
-------
Table IV-27. City of Petersburg Drop-off Program
Recovered Recyclables (1993)
(Tons Per Year)
Materials
Newsprint
Clear Glass
Green Glass
Brown Glass
PET and HDPE Plastic Containers
Aluminum Cans and Foil
Steel Cans
Total
Tons Per Year
231.6
76.3
9.7
8.2
21.9
4.3
5.2
357.2
Program Costs
Table IV-28 presents a summary of the City's FY 1993 drop-off recycling costs.
With revenue from the sale of materials at $1,506, the net cost of the drop-off
program is estimated to be $13,070.
The average net cost per ton of collected materials is estimated to be $36.59.
98
-------
Table IV-28. City of Petersburg Drop-off Program Annual Costs
(FY 1993)
Program Element
CVWMA Administration1
Contractor Costs2
City Costs3
Gross Total Costs
Revenue from Sale of Materials
Net Total Costs
Annual Cost ($)
$ 390 ,
9186
5000
$14,576
1506
$13,070
The City of Petersburg .pays a $0.50 per capita annual assessment to CVWMA for general operating and administrative
expenses, including technical and public education support of the drop-off recycling program. Based on data provided by CVWMA
staff, dropoff program expenses that can be allocated to the City of Petersburg have been estimated.
Costs paid to Chambers Waste Systems of Virginia for the number of pulls of drop-off containers provided to Petersburg
in FY 1993,
Estimated cost of City staff time spent on the drop-off recycling program and site maintenance workers.
3, Henrico County
Background Information and Demographics
Henrico County is an urban county covering approximately 245 square miles, on
the southeast border of the City of Richmond.
The 1994 population is estimated at 230,000 residents.
There are 64,070 single-family residences and 36,283 multi-family residences in
the County.
More than 81 percent of the residents have completed high school, and
approximately 19 percent have completed 16 years of school.
The median annual per family income is $35,604 per year.
Approximately 6,250 single-family households received curbside recycling
collection services in 1993; therefore, the drop-off service area has been defined
as 94,103 households (57,820 single-family and 36,283 multi-family).
Description of Municipal Solid Waste Management System
Residential refuse collection in the County is predominantly handled through an
open system; however, the County provides refuse collection to approximately
20,000 residences with public crews and vehicles.
There are two MSW landfills located in the County; one is owned and operated by
the County and one is private.
99
-------
The County's solid waste system and recycling are funded through landfill disposal
and refuse collection fees charged to those generators receiving County refuse
service.
Approximately 435,000 tons of MSW were generated in the County hi 1993 and
disposed either at one of the two in-County landfills or out-of-County. Of this
quantity, approximately 35 percent (152,250 tons) was generated by the residential
sector and 65 percent (282,750 tons) by the commercial sector.
Residential MSW (including recyclables) generated hi the target area was 147,656
tons hi 1993.
Description of Drop-off System
There are three major components of the County's drop-off recycling program, as
described below.
15 CVWMA drop-off sites:
All sites use covered 34-cubic yard compartmentalized containers that are
divided into eight compartments.
Materials collected at all sites include: clear, green, and brown glass
(collected hi separate containers); aluminum and steel cans and foil
(collected hi one compartment); HDPE and PET plastic containers
(collected in separate compartments); and newspaper.
Sites are located primarily at fire stations (13 sites) and landfills (2 sites).
All sites are unstaffed and open 24 hours per day.
Containers are serviced on a weekly schedule by the CVWMA contractor
or as needed, depending on the site.
Newspaper collection containers:
There are four 16-cubic yard newspaper collection containers, two of which
are located at the landfill sites and two at heavy-traffic CVWMA sites.
County Landfill:
There are drop-off opportunities for other materials (scrap metal, yard
waste, used oil, corrugated cardboard, batteries, pallets, telephone books,
and magazines) at the County Landfill.
Convenience and Site Aesthetics
CVWMA drop-off sites are located in medium to high traffic areas and are easily
accessible to residents.
Container appearance is maintained by the CVWMA contractor; however, a
County staff person must ensure that containers are not overflowing at frequently
used sites.
All sites have lighting, are paved, and have some type of screening from roadway
view (per County Zoning Ordinance requirements).
Public Education
Though public education assistance is available from CVWMA, the County's
Department of Public Utilities has also developed a full-color brochure to promote
the drop-off sites. .
100
-------
Other Recycling Opportunities
A CVWMA pilot curbside program serving 6,250 homes has been in operation for
3.5 years. This service may be modified to a subscription program in which
residents will be able to sign up for curbside collection services for $2.00 per
month. This fee would entitle residents to every-other-week curbside recycling
service.
Diversion
Approximately 3,402.8 tons per year of recyclables were collected from Henrico
County drop-off sites in 1993. Table 1V-29 presents a breakdown of annual
tonnage by material type.
Based on the tons of residential MSW amd recyclables generated, the drop-off
program results in a waste diversion rate of 2.31 percent.
Table IV-29. Henrico County Drop-off Recycling Program
Recovered Recyclables (1993)
(Tons Per Year)
Materials
Newsprint
Telephone
Books/Magazines1
Clear Glass
Green Glass
Brown Glass
PET and HDPE
Plastic Containers
Aluminum Cans and
Foil
Steel Cans
Total
CVWMA Sites
1,431,9
514.9
54.8
65.8
144.7
35.9
33.0
2,280.8
County Sites
1,040.0
82.0
1,122.0
Total
(Tons Per Year)
2,471.9
82.0
514.9
54.8
65.8
144.7
35.9.
33.0
3,402.8
Estimated to be 50% telephone books (41 tons) and 50% magazines (41 tons).
Program Costs
Table IV-30 presents the estimated cost of the County's drop-off recycling system
in FY 1993.
The estimated cost of County support for the CVWMA program and their own
drop-off collection activities in 1993 was $20,000 for public education and $50,000
for site maintenance/service.
101
-------
Revenues paid by the CVWMA contractor in 1993 were $26,248.
Total average net cost per recovered ton was $41.36 in 1993.
Table IV-30. Henrico County Drop-off Program Annual Costs
(FY 1993)
Program Element
CVWMA Administration1
Contractor Costs2
County Costs3
Gross Total Costs
Revenue from Sale of Materials
Net Total Cost
Annual Cost ($)
$ 5,196
91,790
70,000
$166,986
26,248
$140,738
'Henrico County pays a $0.50 per capita annual assessment to CVWMA for general operating and administrative expenses,
including technical and public education support of the drop-off recycling program. Based on data provided by CVWMA staff, drop-off
program esmenses that can be allocated to Henrico County have been estimated.
Costs paid to Chambers Waste Systems of Virginia for the number of pulls of drop-off containers provided to Henrico
County in EY 1993.
Estimated costs of County staff time spent on the drop-off recycling program (including $20,000 for public education) and
site maintenance workers.
102
-------
L. CITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
The City of Norfolk is a municipal member of the Southeastern Public Service Authority
of Virginia (SPSA). Solid waste processing, disposal, and recycling are handled through this
agency. Funded through tipping fees only, SPSA owns and operates the drop-off and curbside
recycling programs servicing their members, which include: Cities of Norfolk, Chesapeake,
Franklin, Portsmouth, Suffolk and Virginia Beach and the Counties of Isle of Wight and
Southampton. .
SPSA is the lead agency for planning and reporting recycling program progress, as
required by Virginia State law, which establishes a waste reduction and recycling goal of 25
percent. The City of Norfolk has been selected for further analysis as one component of the SPSA
system. In addition, the City has implemented some drop-off recovery efforts outside of the
auspices of SPSA; these efforts will also be addressed.
Demographics
The City of Norfolk is an aging urban jurisdiction with a 1990 Census population
of 261,229 residents.
Norfolk occupies 65.7 square miles and houses the largest naval base in the world.
The City has 50,633 single family residences and 28,357 multi-family housing
units.
The drop-off program service area is defined by the City as the households that are
not receiving curbside recycling collection services, or 54,990 residences.
72.7 percent of the residents have completed at least 12 years of education and
16.8 percent have completed 16 or more years of education.
The median annual household income is $23,563 per year.
Description of Municipal Solid Waste Management System
Municipal solid waste (MSW) from all single-family residences, some multi-family
dwellings, and some limited commercial generators is collected by the City
City residential generators are provided with 90-gallon carts, which are collected
once-per-week using fully and semi automated collection vehicles. Residents pay
$74.04 per household per year for solid waste services.
Households are receiving separate yard waste collection services, and yard waste
from City residents is taken to a SPSA yard waste composting facility.
City-collected MSW is delivered to a SPSA owned and operated transfer station
within the City limits. City MSW is then delivered to a SPSA disposal or
processing facility.
Total MSW disposed from City generators in 1993 was estimated to be 277,644
tons; nearly 60 percent of that amount is assumed to be commercially generated
waste. Residential waste is assumed to account for approximately 40 percent of
the total.
Based on number of households in the drop-off service area, residential MSW
quantities, including recyclables, generated by households served by the drop-off
program are estimated to be 79,091 tons per year.
103
-------
Description of Drop-off System
Compartmentalized 30-cubic yard roll-off boxes are used to collect designated
materials.
Most sites are unattended, located in areas of high traffic (such as shopping centers
or strip malls)
ป For the SPSA program, SPSA personnel use a roll-off truck to collect the full
containers and tip them at a nearby processor. City staff unattended sites daily to
monitor fullness of containers and call for SPSA pick-up when needed.
When containers have been emptied, they are returned to the sites. Most sites have
more than one container, so sites are typically not left without drop-off capacity.
Before SPSA began its drop-off recycling program, Norfolk contracted with
Tidewater Fibre Corp., a local processor, for a drop-off recycling system. Two
sites are still equipped with Tidewater Fibre Corp. containers for paper products.
In addition, several sites accept old magazines, using 90-gallon wheeled carts
supplied through contract with Tidewater Fibre Corp.
Contamination from the City's drop-off program is estimated to be 17 to 21
percent. This number is believed to be artificially high because the processing
methods used at the processing facility result in contamination of otherwise
acceptable materials. An 8 to 10 percent contamination rate is believed to be more
accurate.
Convenience and Site Aesthetics
Recycling drop-off centers have been sited based on availability of land, perceived
need for the facility in an area, and suitability of the site. Most sites are in high-
traffic areas.
Some signs have been placed along roadways and thoroughfares to direct
participants to the drop-off sites.
In some areas, vandalism has been a problem with drop-off centers from graffiti
on the boxes to fires that have been set. These sites are being evaluated to
determine if more suitable locations can be found.
City crews are responsible for maintaining sites.
Lighting and other site characteristics vary depending on location
Public Education
Public education is a shared responsibility between SPSA and the City. Each
SPSA roll-off site is equipped with at least one metal box that contains brochures
describing the program. SPSA supplies these brochures and ensures that the boxes
are full.
The City also produces and distributes flyers about the program; these materials
are photocopied and do not represent a significant outlay of funds.
Predominantly, there is a reliance on word of mouth and phone calls to City offices
to inform residents about the program.
104
-------
Other Recycling Opportunities
Curbside recycling was provided by SPSA to 24,000 households in City of Norfolk
in 1993.
The curbside program targets newspapers, clear glass, aluminum cans, ferrous
cans, plastic milk jugs and soda bottles, and household batteries.
Diversion
Table IV-31 presents a summary of the total estimated recovered tons from
targeted households in 1993.
Based on residential MSW disposed by households in the service area, the
diversion rate from the drop-off program is estimated to be 1.24 percent.
Table IV-31. City of Norfolk Drop-Off Recycling Program
Recovered Recyclables (1992-1993)
(Tons Per Year)
Materials
Newsprint
Office Paper
Clear Glass
Green Glass
Brown Glass
PET (Soda Bottles Only)
HOPE (Milk Jugs Only)
Aluminum Cans
Ferrous Cans
TOTAL
SPSA Program
551.7
64.4
5.7
5.0
17.0
15.6
9.9
21.2
690.5
Norfolk Program
258.0
34.3
292.3
Total Quantities
809.7
34.3
64.4
5.7
5.0
17.0
15.6
9.9
21.2
982.8
Program Costs
Table IV-32 presents a summary of system costs. Total annual costs are estimated
to be $88,581.
Revenue from materials sales in 1993 was $4,060.
105
-------
Table IV-32. City of Norfolk Drop-Off Recycling Program
Annual Costs (FY 1993)
Component
SPSA Operating Costs1
SPSA Administrative Costs2
City of Norfolk Admin/Misc. Costs3
City of Norfolk Site Attendants
Hauling
Container Rental (Tidewater Fibre)
Portable Toilets (Rental)
Site Maintenance
Public Education
Gross Total Costs
Revenue from Sale of Material
Net Total Cost
Costs
$27,473
$1,996
$2,766
$38,143
$10,670
$5,760
$972
$400
$400
$88,581
$4,060
$84,521
^Includes driver's salaries, container cleaning, roll-off operating costs, roll-off truck annualized debt service, drop-off container
annualized debt service, container maintenance and repair, and container signage. Total SPSA drop-off system costs have been allocated to City
of Norfolk based on number of pulls from Norfolk sites as a percentage of total SPSA drop-off pulls.
TSased on percentage of time dedicated to Norfolk drop-off recycling porgram (as reported by SPSA staff) for the following positions:
Recycling Coordinator, Public Information Specialist, and Secretary n.
Includes percentage of Clean Community Coordinator and clerical salaries, site maintenance and waste disposal, posting and
fabrication of signs, and miscellaneous supplies.
oU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1995-650-006/22050
106
-------
-------
-------
-------
m
-o
CD
Ol
o
CO
8
TJO
oง 3
O ji) Q.
Q-S1^
~ oi = ^ 3
3" c g. 3 CD
75" >! 3 ^
i- 8 2 - 03 '3
en sr
Nati
Res
S1^
s
ion
ea
=ฑ < ;ป
Risk
CD
Q.
E"^
CT ^ 03
Q ?
3 CO
Is
i-8
CD
03
3
|
ง
O
CD 3 o
1 CD 3
ro 3- >
ca
CD
I
Tl
m
3J
s
O
do ^
01 33
fflm
------- |