Waste Reduction Strategies for Rural Communities, Is Organized Into Three Sections

American With support from: Plastics Communities Tennessee Valley Authority Council For the Amrricaii Plastics Council A Joint Initiative with The Socicty of the Plastics Industry, Inc.

Mxch 1994

Contents Page

Acknowledgments

Executive Summary ...... ES-I

Introduction ...... , , ...... , . , . , . , . . . . , . , . , . . . . . 1

Case Studies

City of Troy, Alabama ...... , , . . . 1-1

City of Eureka Springs, Arkansas ...... , . . . 11-1

City of Warren, Arkansas ...... ,111-1

Hamilton County, Florida ...... IV-1

West Kentucky Correctional Complex Recycling Program ...... , . , . . , . . . , . . . V-1

DeSoto County, Mississippi ...... VI-I

Pamlico County, North Carolina . . . , ...... VII-1

City of Morristown, Tennessee ...... VIII-1

Town of Signal Mountain, Tennessee ...... IX-1

North Central West Virginia Recycling Cooperative ...... , . . . . . X-1

Case Study Photographs...... XI

Appendices

Appendix A: Model City Program Master List . . 1-1

Appendix B: Resource Directory . . . , ...... 2-1

Appendix C: Definitions and Abbreviations . . . . 3-1 , i

i Figures Page . .

...... Figure 1-1: Study Region ...... e5-2 .

Figure 1-2: Case Study Locations Within Region ..... e5-5

Figure 1: Study Region ...... 3

Figure 2: Case Study Locations Within Region ...... 5

Figure 3: Troy. AL ...... 1-1

Figure 4: Eureka Springs. AR ...... 11-1

Figure 5: Warren. AR ...... 111-1 c Figure 6: Hamilton County. FL ...... 1v-1

Figure I: West Kentucky Correctional. KY ...... V-1

Figure 8: DeSoto County. MS ...... v1-1

Figure 9: Pamlico County. NC ...... v11-1

Figure 10: Morristown. TN ...... VIII-1

Figure 11 : Signal Mountain. TN ...... IX-I

Figure 12: North Central West Virginia ...... X-1 i - Tables Page

Table 1: Rural Community Case Study Matrix .... e5-6

Table 2: Troy. AL ...... 1-2

Table 3: Troy Recycling Operating Budget ...... 1-9

Table 4: Eureka Springs. AR ...... 11-2

Table 5: Warren. AR ...... 111-2

Table 6: Hamilton County. FL ...... 1v-2

Table 7: Potential Inmate Labor ...... 1v-7

Table 8: West Kentucky ...... V-2

Table 9: DeSoto County. MS ...... v1-2

Table 10: Cities and County Population ...... v1-3

Table 11 : Pamlico County. NC ...... v11-2

Table 12: Morristown. TN ...... VIII-2

Table 13: Signal Mountain. TN ...... 1x-2

Table 14: Signal Mountain Recyclables Collected ... IX-8

Table 15: North Central West Virginia ...... X-2

Table 16: West Virginia Cooperative. Materials Marketed ...... X-5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This manual reflects work commissioned by the American Plastics Council (APC), Washington, DC, in a joint project with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Center for Rural Waste Management (CRWM), Knoxville, TN. Research was conducted under the general direction of Andrea Pascarella (APC) and Roosevelt Allen and Jim Malia (TVA). The MaCC Group, an environmental and utilities consulting firm based in Orlando, FL, performed the work with Caroline Mixon, Executive Consultant, serving as Project Manager and assistance provided by Ray Crooks, Executive Consultant, Matthew Nieswender, Recycling Manager, and Catherine D'Avella Peterson, Research Specialist.

We gratefully acknowledge the following for their cooperation and assistance given throughout the project: Larry Bailey of the LewisGilmer County, WV, Solid Waste Authority; Sami Barile of the Morristown-Hamblen County, TN, Keep America Beautiful System; Judy Bolin of the Pamlico County, NC, Department of Recycling and Litter Control; Dick Cirre of the Kentucky Recycling Brokerage Authority; Bob Coit of the Upsbur County, WV, Solid Waste Authority; Martha Gatlin with the Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service; Susan Hubbard of the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology; Mike Jolly with the city of Warren, AR Cindy McCall of Recycle Signal, Inc.; Jane Mild of the North Central West Virginia Recycling Cooperative; Joe Moss of the city of Wilton Manors, FL; Kirby Murray with the city of Eureka Springs, AR Mayor Gregg Reep of Warren, AR Bill Rice with the city of Troy, AL; Gregg Sayer of One World, Morgantown, WV; Jim Smith with the Hamilton County, FL, Solid Waste Department; Allen Spiker of the Preston County, WV, Solid Waste Authority; Bryan Ukena with the city of Eureka Springs, AR; and Jake Winger of the city of Troy, AL.

We extend our thanks to the following individuals and their organizations for their support, suggestions and cooperation in our research efforts: Tom Arnold of Browning-Ferris Industries of West Virginia, Inc.; A1 Babcock of the North Central West Virginia Recycling Cooperative; Mickey Beasley of TIDI Waste Systems, Inc.; Henry Blayney of the Pamlico County, NC, Solid Waste Authority and the Coastal Regional Solid Waste Management Authority; Ronald Brady of the Hamblen County-Morristown, TN, Solid Waste Authority; Dillard Cartwright of the tom of Signal Mountain, TN; Ken Castlebeny of the Hamilton County, TN, Solid Waste Authority; Joe Chancey of Lakeway Recycling and Sanitation; Craig Cobb of the Barbour County, WV, Solid Waste Authority; Alvin Collins of the Hamblen County-Morristown, TN, Solid Waste Authority; Bob Crissman with the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources; Michael Forster of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management; Janet Freeman of Freeman's Waste Management; Deanna Fry of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Solid Waste Assistance; Sandy Garcia of Ozark Recycling; Carl Gilbert of the Morristown, TN, Department of Public Works; Cheryl Graham of Recycle Signal, Inc.; Mary Evelyn Jones of the Tennessee Soft Drink Association; Charles Kinsey of the Taylor County, WV, Solid Waste Authority; Kate Krebs of the Arcata Community Recycling Center and co-chair of the National Recycling Coalition’s Rural Recycling Committee; Louie Mann of Waste Diversion Resources; Donna Michaels of Mon Recycles; Kenneth Murphree of DeSoto County, MS; Dan Myers of the Hamblen County, TN, Road Department; Benny Ramadge of DeSoto County, MS; Dick Sherman of DuPont; Ed Taylor of Recycling Concepts; Judy Thaanum of Bayboro Dehydrating Company, Inc.; Dan Wade of the Hamilton County, TN, Department of Public Works; and Jim Walden with Carroll County, AR. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

According to rural waste management officials, there is a lack of information available to them which provides instructions and alternatives to implement practical, efficient waste management programs. This type of information is critical to design and implementation of waste diversion programs necessary to comply with stringent regulations and legislation, yet minimize cost and overcome rural barriers. In response to this need, the American Plastics Council and the Tennessee Valley Authority have joined together for this project to present rural solid waste officials with effective approaches to address their solid waste problems. These approaches are depicted in settings similar to many rural communities in relevant situations and describe actual solutions to rural solid waste management issues. This report was commissioned by the American Plastics Council (APC) as part of a joint project with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to explore various methods of achieving waste diversion and integrated waste management in predominantly rural areas. Over half of the solid waste in the nation is generated outside of metropolitan areas, yet rural communities have consistently expressed a void in information that is readily available and directly related to their situations. This void was expressed not only by communities which were in the planning stages, but also by those communities with well established waste management programs. As pointed out by solid waste officials in the city of Troy, AL, many of the states with predominately rural populations have financial constraints so severe that information and training is seen as an unnecessary budget item. In Troy the solid waste officials are not able to pursue education and training opportunities that are outside of the state. One official stated, “I’m willing to try anything if it’s for the better, but I just don’t know where to go from here. The only people I talk to are in this state, and when you’ve got the number one program in the state, what are you going to learn from them.” Hopefully this document, the peer contacts and resources listed can help fill the void.

Study Region

The study is primarily focused in the south, a region in which TVA is actively involved in assisting rural communities through their Center for Rural Waste Management (CRWM). The TVA service region overlaps seven southem states, but maintains a national focus through its CRWM. The American Plastics Council, also with a national program focus, agreed to focus this project in the south as part of their Technical Assistance Program (TAP) for the southem states region. The study region targeted for this project includes the 14 states shown in Figure 1-1.

ES-1 StucJv Region

ES-2 Model Case Study Sites

This document presents case studies of 10 different communities or waste management programs, ranging from a single municipality or county to an eight- county cooperative in the southern part of the country. The programs highlighted are shown on Figure 1-2 and include the city of Troy, AL; the city of Eureka Springs, AR; the city of Warren, AR; Hamilton County, FL; the West Kentucky Correctional Complex Recycling Program; DeSoto County, MS; Pamlico County, NC; the city of Morristown, TN; the town of Signal Mountain, TN; and the North Central West Virginia Recycling Cooperative. These programs were selected due to their rural setting, an integrated approach to their waste management needs and the resourcefulness exhibited in the way economic, geographic and other obstacles were confronted. Communities with a variety of demographic elements, such as population, rates of unemployment and industry presence, were selected to provide a broader reference base for struggling communities to identify with and possibly replicate in their efforts to manage their solid waste stream. For example, populations of the case study communities range from slightly below 2,000 in Eureka Springs, AR, to almost 70,000 in DeSoto County, MS. The areas covered by the selected programs range in size from four square miles to over 500 square miles. Within those parameters, a variety of waste disposal and diversion options are employed, such as balefill operations, hazardous waste disposal facilities and energy recovery. Detailed information depicted in each case study's waste management program and other demographic data is provided in Table ES-I. Other projects of note are included in a Model Program Master List (Appendix B) to supplement Table 1 as well as to provide further contacts and program choices for rural waste officials to draw on. Additionally, resources on topics ranging from more efficient use of equipment to available funding mechanisms and technical assistance are listed along with contact information for each case study.

One of the biggest assets rural inhabitants seem to possess is the resourcefulness with which they approach any task. This study captures community resourcefulness as well as presenting successful integrated waste management programs that can be duplicated in other areas of the country. Evidence of this quality is seen in the Pamlico County, NC, caye study, for example, where emphasis is placed on minimizing the number of times materials are handled, and in the Eureka Springs, AR, case study, where employees used creativity and called on several resources to build what is probably one of the most comprehensive programs studied.

Several of the case studies also exhibit how the union of several forces can help to achieve formidable goals. Merging funding, expertise and other resources is often the only way rural communities can meet strict goals and guidelines. Cities and counties have come together to form solid waste authorities, as is the case with the Morristown-Hamblen County, TN, balefill operation. As many as

ES-3 eight counties united to form the North Central West Virginia Recycling Cooperative. Organizations such as Keep America Beautiful (KAB) have resources available to support rural waste management and reduction education programs as well. In addition, private industry has formed valuable partnerships with rural communities, such as Potlatch Corporation's involvement with the city of Warren, AR, waste diversion program.

Beyond publication and distribution of this report, one goal of the APC and TVAs Center for Rural Waste Management is to provide struggling rural solid waste officials with a network of resources. These resources can help identify other means of information and support the key aspects of developing a successful integrated waste management program. One of the most common principles expressed by rural solid waste officials in the various study communities was the idea of banding together with another community to develop a disposal or diversion program. With limited resources, it is often necessary for rural communities to join forces and combine funds and know-how to establish a program. Peer match networking enables officials to draw on the knowledge of others who have been in a similar situation to offer information and warnings of various pitfalls to avoid. Workshops and symposia are being planned as a second phase of this project to bring those peers with knowledge to share and those seeking ideas on successful solid waste planning together for discussion and presentations.

The last two sections of Table 1 provide an overview of the collection and disposal systems in each case study area. One of the greatest barriers to managing the waste stream in rural areas is the lack of mandatory solid waste collection. Communities in three of the case study areas do not have mandatory garbage collection. In these situations residents can haul their own garbage to convenience centers.

A variety of other collection methods are utilized by the case study communities. Innovations such as bluebag and co-collection systems are discussed in three communities, and one case study discusses volume-based rates. Recycling takes place in all of the case study communities; however, some offer drop-off programs only, while others have curbside or both curbside and drop-off recycling programs. Three of the communities collect solid waste that must be long hauled to a final disposal destination. Active municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are present in only half of the case study areas. For this reason, the communities have employed a variety of waste diversion altematives.

ES-4 locotion of Case Study Sites

ES-5 Table ES-1: RURAL COMMUNITY CASE STUDY MATRIX Marion, Monongalia, Preston, Gilmer, Lewis, Taylor, Upshur, Barbour Co.'s, wv

0 J J

Sauare Miles I % Hioh- School I 67.3 I 76.6 I 55.2 I 58.4 I 62.0 I 71.2 I 65.9 I 57.4 I 93.6 I 64.8 Grad. % Unemployed 7.6 6.6 10.6 8.6 8.2 5.4 7.0 7.9 2.0 11.4 Median HH 17,254 17,262 16,243 18,709 19,995 31,756 21,060 19,749 49,821 18,416 lncame

"I 1990 Census of Population and Housing

Figures in column represent average of cooperating counties.

J = applicable 0 = not applicable = drop off . = curbside ES-6

, ~..I.,. . I i RURAL COMMUNITY CASE STUDY MATRIX (continued)

Won, Marion, Marshall, Monongalia, Crittendon, Preston, Trim Gilmer, Lewis, Livingston, Signal Taylor, Upshur, Eureka Hamilton Caldwell DeSoto Pamlico Morristown, Mountain, Barbour Co.'s, Troy, AL Springs, AR Warren, AR County, FL CO'S, KY County, MS County, NC TN TN wv

YW Compost/ / J J f 0 0 0 0 0 0 ChlplMulch

Landfill (MSW) J 0 0 J 0 0 J 0 J J

Landfill (other) J 0 J J 0 J 0 0 0 0

Balefill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0

Air Curtain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / 0 0 Incinerator

I Coaeneration I J I o I J I o I o I o I o I o I o I 0 I

Waste Tire 0 J J J 0 J J J 0 0 Program

J = applicable 0 = not applicable = drop off . = curbside ES-7 Model Program Overview and Demographics

Troy, AL

The city of Troy is remotely located away from any major city. Troy can be described as a small university town, since its economic and social characteristics can be traced almost directly back to Troy State University. The city has a population of just over 13,000, while the student population is reaching 4,000. The university presence has also had a major impact on the success of Troy’s recycling program. A recycling education program developed by the university nearly doubled the recycling participation rate, which, in Troy, is the number one landfill diversion program. Recycling is accomplished using a dual bluebag collection system. Other waste diversion programs implemented by the city include yard waste chipping and composting, and energy recovery.

Eureka Springs, AR

Eureka Springs is a small town of 1,881 permanent residents. The majority of the residents are owners/operators/employeesof retail stores, restaurants or hotels. The town was founded initially as an Indian “Neutral Zone.” The Natural Springs were beneficial to all tribes, so the tribes did not fight when they were in the area. Later, in the 1960s an entrepreneur commercialized the area because of the springs and the reputed healing power of the water. The city was a tourist town from its very beginnings. Today the town hosts some 1.5 million visitors a year; however, it continues to be an environment dedicated to maintaining its greatest asset, the natural surroundings, as witnessed by the number of waste management programs in place. The majority of the waste stream comes from tourist-related entities such as the 2,522 lodging rooms, 64 restaurants, 8,000 seats for evening entertainment, and 200 giftkraft shops, art galleries, and antique stores. The town has learned to live with the influx of tourists, holding them accountable for the waste they generate through commercial recycling and volume-based solid waste service rates. Because waste from Eureka Springs gets long hauled out of the state to Missouri or Oklahoma for landfilling, the city is highly motivated to maximize waste diversion and as a result has one of the most comprehensive waste diversion programs profiled in this document.

Warren, AR

Located in the southeast corner of Arkansas, Warren is the county seat for Bradley County. The city of Warren has a population of 6,455 and an economy based on agriculture and wood/timber related industries. The town does not have a major interstate running through it and has only one major company. Potlatch Corporation’s Wood Products Southern Division is based in Warren, and is the largest employer in the town. The lack of a transportation infrastructure has been

ES-8 one of the difficulties in implementing recycling and other waste management programs in Warren. Nontraditional waste management policies, such as paper and plastic diversion to a cogeneration facility, are being pursued due to the combined barriers of i) inadequate infrastructure, ii) remote location, iii) low tax base and growth economy and iv) slow economic growth prohibiting traditional recycling.

Hamilton County, FL

Hamilton County, FL, is located in rural north central Florida, just south of the Georgia border. The county has a population of only 10,930 and is classified by the U.S. Census as 100% rural. The population per square mile is 22, representing a relatively large farm community. There are slightly over 300 residential units that receive sanitation service. Hamilton County does not have a large tax base. A phosphate plant, farming and the timber industry are the major employers in the area. 1993 Florida legislation lets small counties “off the hook” from more stringent 1988 solid waste reduction mandates. For the solid waste department this translates into fewer dollars committed by the county and less of a political commitment to recycling and other waste management programs. To counter the impact of a weak tax base and reduced county funding, free inmate labor is utilized.

Western Kentucky

Six rural counties-Lyon, Marshall, Crittenden, Trigg, Livingston, and Caldwell-make up the Regional Recycling Corporation in western Kentucky. When the state mandated Comprehensive Solid Waste Diversion and Management Plans by either individual counties or waste management districts, only one group of counties submitted a regional cooperative plan. However, many counties in Kentucky are beginning to realize the many benefits of sharing equipment, facilities and other resources. The extensive cooperation of the six westem Kentucky counties to develop the Correctional Complex Recycling Program and form the Regional Recycling Corporation should serve as a model not only for regionalization efforts in Kentucky but other states as well. The U.S. Census describes the six counties as 81% rural; the average population is 12,613. The counties can quadruple their population during holidays and summer months, making the waste generation rate exorbitant and altemate disposal options critical.

DeSoto County, MS

ES-9 in the state during the 1980s. DeSoto County is approximately 28 miles wide and 16 miles long, totaling 448 square miles. Its current population is 67,910. Mississippi state law requires counties to discontinue the use of a special millage rate to subsidize the cost of garbagehecycling services. Mandatory collection and disposal of local nonhazardous solid waste through fee collection is also imposed. DeSoto County has successfully implemented a pesticide container recycling program.

Pamlico County, NC

Pamlico County is centrally located on the shoreline of North Carolina, midway down the state coast. The terrain is mostly marshy. The central area of the county is classified as wetlands and therefore cannot be developed (213,400 acres of Pamlico County is land; 151,000 acres is water). Fishing is the primary industry in the county. A unique fish waste processing facility located in Pamlico County was named North Carolina’s Recycling Industry of the year. The fact that only two-lane highways run through the county is an indication of the extent to which Pamlico County is remotely located. The county population is 11,372, and is relatively stable.

Morristown, TN

Morristown is located in eastern Tennessee at the foothills of the Great Smokey Mountains, roughly 40 miles east of Knoxville, and has a population of 21,385. The area surrounding Morristown is sparsely populated and rural. Morristown is the only incorporated city located in Hamblen County. The Keep America Beautiful program in Morristown has joined a partnership with the city and county to accomplish recycling and waste reduction education. Hamblen County, along with Morristown, uses a “balefill” rather than landfill, and they have successfully implemented bluebag recycling programs as opposed to the traditional bin systems.

Signal Mountain, TN

The town of Signal Mountain is located approximately 15 miles northwest of the city of Chattanooga, in Hamilton County, TN. 7,034 residents live at the top of the mountain, which has an elevation of 1,910 feet. Recycle Signal, Inc., is a nonprofit organization, sanctioned by the town to operate a centralized drop-off facility re-use center. The center is as user-friendly and inviting as a library.

ES-10 North Central West Virginiu

The North Central West Virginia Recycling Cooperative covers an uncommonly large eight-county region (representing seven county solid waste authorities; the counties of Lewis and Gilmer operate under one solid waste authority). Training received by the program’s Executive Director was obtained through peer match assistance. A key reason the experiences of the recycling cooperative serve as a “model” program is this very concept of not reinventing the wheel, but learning from the successful programs of others.

ES-11 Conclusions

Although each model program featured in this report utilized a different selection of techniques to manage its solid waste streams, some common principles and techniques were reiterated.

The limited availability of outdoor storage space for recyclables was addressed by many of the model communities as a continuing challenge. Although rural communities are thought to have an abundance of space that could be used for waste management programs, they are still limited by the cost to acquire property and to construct facilities.

Tractor trailers no longer suitable for over-the-road hauling were purchased by communities and placed on site for storage purposes. The trailers offered protection from the sun, moisture, rodents, vandalism and theft. Reusable bulk lift storage bags made of polypropylene plastic also provide protection from moisture and ultraviolet radiation and prevent deterioration from exposure to weather, unlike gaylord boxes. Budgetary constraints restrict the acquisition of gaylords and pallets in many rural areas; consequently, steel drums and other containers that are difficult to handle are used instead. Bulk lift bags can hold more loose bottles than a gaylord box and they can also be loaded and unloaded without machinery.

Another common principle among the model rural communities featured in the manual was the partnerships formed between local, state and national organizations. When the Lyon County (KY) Solid Waste Board decided to extend their plans for solid waste management beyond the county borders, they found many other counties, state institutions and federal organizations willing to participate. The project eventually became contagions, and many organizations are attempting to join in the process of implementing a successful waste management strategy. Cooperation between several entities provides valuable experience to the management team of the program, as well as potential sources of additional funding.

Keep America Beautiful, Inc., and its local affiliates have also assisted many communities with valuable educational services related to waste management, as has the Cooperative Extension Service of the United States Department of Agriculture.

Not only have partnerships between governmental agencies been prevalent, but cooperation between private companies and municipal agencies has been essential to the success of many programs. Freeman's Waste Management in Eureka Springs, AR, worked directly with the Eureka Springs Recycling Department, providing a valuable perspective in formulating the solid waste plan currently in

ES-12 use. Warren, AR, has teamed up with Potlatch Corporation to reduce waste flowing to the landfill and to generate electricjty for the surrounding area.

Each model community has learned from many of their own mistakes while attempting to solve their solid waste problems, but they have built upon these experiences and have shared their valuable knowledge so others can provide the same quality service to their communities. Many of the pitfalls that stalled these ten projects may now be more easily avoided. Some of the model programs in this manual are still modifying their waste management techniques to lower costs and to increase participation, but this process is ongoing even for the most successful programs.

The communities emphasized in this manual were driven to manage solid waste not only to comply with state and federal legislation but to save money and to preserve the quality of life they currently enjoy. Hauling charges, landfill tipping fees and the cost of opening and maintaining a modem landfill have reached a point now where communities can no longer sit idly by waiting for someone else to solve the problem.

The innovative spirit of the rural communities has provided various methods of organizing waste management strategies and has reminded us of the many resources available to us that we often overlook in search of costly technology.

ES-13

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

This report was commissioned by the American Plastics Council (APC) as part of a joint project with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to explore various methods of achieving waste reduction and integrated waste management in predominantly rural areas. Over half of the solid waste in the nation is generated outside of metropolitan areas, yet rural communities have consistently expressed a void in information that is readily available and directly related to their situations. This void was expressed not only by communities in the planning stages, but also by those communities with well-established waste management programs. As pointed out by solid waste officials in the city of Troy, AL, many of the states with predominately rural populations have financial constraints so severe that information and training are seen as unnecessary budget items. In Troy the solid waste officials are not able to pursue education and training opportunities that are outside of the state. One official stated, "I"willing to try anything if it's for the better, but I just don't know where to go from here. The only people I talk to are in this state, and when you've got the number one program in the state, what are you going to learn from them?' Hopefully this document and the peer contacts and resources listed can help fill the void.

A case study approach was undertaken in order to show practical program applications and to provide a list of contacts willing to share more detailed information upon request. Four primary objectives were established for the project:

To examine successfully implemented, integrated waste management strategies and document them in a manner that describes both operation and evolution.

To emphasize strategies and applications over hardware and specific processing statistics.

To produce a document that can be used in training seminars designed to provide rural solid waste program managers with program ideas, and also to provide a resource directory for information guidance, equipment or financial assistance and peer contacts.

To ensure that the final product reaches the target audience of rural waste managers, and to provide a resource that would highlight proven alternatives for integrated waste management.

1 The study is primarily focused in the south, a region in which TVA is actively involved in assisting rural communities through their Center for Rural Waste Management (CRWM). The TVA Center for Rural Waste Management service region overlaps seven southern states, but maintains a national focus. The American Plastics Council, also with a national program focus, agreed to focus this project in the south as part of their Technical Assistance Program (TAP) for the southern states region. The study region targeted for this project includes 14 “southern states” as shown in Figure 1.

2 Study Region

3 Approach

Over 30 communities were identified within the study region which met the rural definition, and which had programs and/or experiences that could serve as valuable learning tools for similar communities. For purposes of this report, the definition of “rural” is consistent with the criteria used by TVAs Center for Rural Waste Management. Each participated in a telephone survey which revealed not only the types of programs in operation, but what the communities’ information and training needs were. Brief descriptions of each program surveyed and their contacts are listed in Appendix B. From this master list 10 communities were selected for case study development due to their integrated program activity as well as diversity in size and geographical distribution. The case study areas are geographically distributed such that a community in any one of the 14 states included in the study region ought to be able to find at least one program it can identify with, due either to proximity or to community characteristics.

The south has an abundance of sparsely populated land, which is one of the criteria used to define “rural.” Although no rigid definition of rural was established for the purposes of this project, the basic premise employed was that if a community thinks of itself as rural, it is probably rural. However, other general guidelines were used, such as remote location versus proximity to a major metropolitan area, total population, and economic dependence on agriculture, fishing, mining and forestry. The communities selected for case study development range from small remote towns to a mid-size yet independent city that is rural in nature and located in a state that has an overall rural population. Counties included range from a single county with population of 10,000 to an eight-county cooperative. The locations of the 10 case study sites are shown in Figure 2.

For each case study, a written survey and site visit were completed in order to highlight the landfill status, and at least one feature program was designed to divert material from the landfill. Pictures are provided in Appendix A to assist with the visualization of facilities, equipment and operations and to avoid complicating or overstating the operations. Each case study concludes with a section on lessons learned. Although these communities have implemented model programs, they were not built without some trial and error. The “how to” philosophy of each community is considered invaluable because of their trailblazing experience. As stated by Janet Freeman of Freeman’s Waste Management in Eureka Springs, AR, “Trailblazing is a tremendous adventure and it is great to have someone who has traveled the way before to help point out shortcuts as well as pitfalls.”

4 location of Case Study Sites

5 Organization of Report

The report, Waste Reduction Strategies for Rural Communities, is organized into three sections. Section I is the introduction, which provides an overview of the 10 model program case studies. Section I1 contains details of each model program, including information regarding solid waste collection and disposal systems; waste diversion programs such as waste reduction, recycling, composting and energy recovery; the defining feature program that renders the case study a model program; resources contributing to the development and current operation of the program; and finally, because even model programs have had to overcome barriers, lessons learned by the case study community.

The appendixes make up the third and final section of the report. Information contained in each appendix provides the reader with more detailed program information or sources for pursuing such information. Photographs from the 10 model program case studies are provided in Appendix A. Contacts for the case studies, and over 25 other successful rural programs, are listed in Appendix B. A resource directory can be found in Appendix C, and a glossary of terms and abbreviations is provided in Appendix D.

6 City of Troy Case Study CASE STUDY I: CITY OF TROY, ALABAMA

COMMUNITY PROFILE Table 2 Demograuhics and Solid Waste Svstem Structure Collection Features

Population Transfer Station 0

Percent I%) Rural I 0 II Lona Haul Waste I 0

yo Below Povertv I 30.2 II Landfill 1MSW I J

[I] 1990 Census of Population and Housing J=applicable O=not applicable .=drop off *=curbside

The city of Troy is remotely located away from any major city. Traveling about one hour over rolling hills to the north or south will lead to a relatively large city but certainly not a metropolitan center. Troy can be described as a small university town, since its economic and social characteristics can be traced almost directly back to Troy State University. The city has a population of just over 13,000, while the student population is reaching 4,000. The university presence has also had a major impact on the snccess of Troy's recycling program. A recycling education program developed by the university nearly doubled the recycling participation rate, which, in Troy, is the number one landfill diversion program. Other waste diversion programs implemented by the city include yard

1-2 waste chipping and composting, and energy recovery. Considering industry and institutions as “good neighbors” has served the city well. Both the energy recovery and composting programs have supportive relationships with industry that are similar to the recycling program’s successful relationship with the university.

SOLID WASTE SYSTEM

Solid Waste Collection

Approximately 4,828 single-family residences receive city-operated refuse collection once per week. Each residential unit receives one 90-gallon roll cart container. The city defines a residential unit as a single-family dwelling having less than six units and serviced by one water meter. The residents must put the roll cart at the curb for pickup. The city incorporates the use of rear packer, semiautomatic garbage trucks. The city is divided into five garbage collection districts, which operate under a 1-1-1 collection system:

Once a week garbage collection.

Once a week recycling collection.

Once a week yard waste collection.

The 591 multifamily accounts have to contract with one of three private haulers for solid waste collection service.

The city also provides a monthly bulky waste pickup, which includes white goods. Due to heavy workloads during the holiday season, this service is not offered during November and December.

Yard waste collection includes tree limbs and yard clippings. Tree limbs are collected by hand and by mechanical means, depending on the size of the pile. The city uses a small vacuum truck to collect grass clippings. Woody debris is taken back to a central processing yard for chipping. Residents can get all the chips they want from the public works yard or landfill.

Solid Waste Disposal

Although the city’s landfill has five to seven years of capacity remaining, it is being forced into early closure due to Subtitle D regulations. The city had until October of 1993 to close the landfill, but was recently granted a six- month extension. At that time, the city will begin using a privately operated regional landfill. The city landfill does not have a scale; therefore, garbage

1-3 disposal fees are charged by the cubic yard. Currently, the city’s tipping fee for garbage, construction and demolition debris (C&D), bulky trash and white goods is $1.00 per cubic yard. The tipping fee does not cover the cost of disposal operations. Rather, operating revenues from the city’s utility subsidize the program. Troy has been producing electricity since 1881.

The landfill also accepts cut tires. Landfilling whole tires is prohibited due to the “float” effect they have when buried. Whole tires brought to the landfill go directly to a contractor for cutting. The disposal fees for tires are as follows: $3.00 per cubic yard for cut tires; $0.50 per tire for whole car tires; $0.75 per tire for truck tires; and $1.00 per tire for tractor tires. Solid waste personnel believe the disposal fees are too low and estimate that tire disposal fees need to be raised as much as 200%. They also anticipate a major rate increase when the city’s landfill is closed and they have to rely on a privately run regional landfill. Tipping fees at the regional landfill will cost $24/ton, whereas currently the cubic yard rate is equivalent to only $6/ton.

WASTE DNERSION STRATEGIES

Waste Reduction

The city of Troy has no programs designed specifically for waste reduction. Attempts at waste diversion include interventions to remove materials from the waste stream prior to final disposition at a landfill, recycling and energy recovery.

Recvclinp

Recycling in the city is achieved by way of a “dual bluebag” curbside recyclable collection program for single-family residences. The city is divided into five collection districts that receive once-a-week recycling collection. To participate in recycling, residents place their aluminum, three colors of glass, steel cans and PET and HDPE plastic bottles in one of two bluebags, and they place old newspaper (ONP), old corrugated cardboard (OCC), old magazines (OMG) and kraft bags in the other bluebag. Residents place both bags at the curb on their designated recycling day.

Although the participation rate in the bluebag program has been as low as lo%, a university-sponsored education program has resulted in dramatic improvement. Details of the dual bluebag programs are provided in the feature program description.

1-4 Commercial recycling in the city boasts a 75% participation rate. Although commercial and multifamily units are required to contract with one of three private haulers for solid waste collection, the city provides recycling service to these accounts. The city subsidizes the commercial collection service with general fund allocations. The city felt that if small businesses and schools had to pay full costs through a private hauler, they would not participate.

Recyclables are collected at a business, school or apartment complex using a high-sided trailer, which is provided by the city at no charge. The main component pulled out of the commercial sector is OCC, but the program allows a business or an apartment complex to bag other commingled items and place them in the trailer with the loose OCC.

The recycling trailers come in varying sizes depending upon the quantity of material generated from an apartment complex or business. Businesses clustered together may share a trailer that is placed in a common area for easy access.

Recyclahles from both the curbside and commercial trailer programs are handled at the city-operated Material Recovery Facility (MRF). Details of the MRF operation are included with the description of the bluebag feature program.

Until recently, composting was a major waste diversion method used by the city. The city once operated a wastewater sludge and yard waste compost program, but due to citizen complaints, the health department suspended the operation until tests are completed. The operation was previously performed at the landfill. The city used a small vacuum truck to collect grass clippings for the compost program.

Tree limbs and woody debris are chipped at a central processing yard. This yard waste is collected by hand and by mechanical means, depending on the size of the pile. Residents use most of the chipping program product. They can pick up all the chips they want from the public works yard. Equipment for the yard waste program includes vacuum trucks and a centrally located wood chipper.

Energy recovery is achieved on a limited basis through a large lumber concern, Henderson, Black & Greene (HB&G), located in the city. This private facility cuts timber and manufactures products such as doors, posts and windows. In an effort to reduce the amount of sawdust and wood shavings going to the landfill, the company installed a small wood waste-to-energy plant on the lumber yard site.

1-5 The wood waste gets fed into a boiler through the use of a mechanical screw. The plant produces steam, which aids in generating enough electricity to power about 30 homes. HB&G sells the power to Troy.

Although the process only allows wood waste that has been reduced to sawdust, the system is being redesigned to accept wood chips. The company has agreed to take the excess wood chips from the city's tree limb chipping operation.

FEATURE PROGRAM

Although Troy estimates a 45% participation rate, some officials believe the participation rate is much higher. Because bags can hold a large volume of material, the recycling coordinator speculates that many households participate but only set out their bags every other week. The use of two bluebags is still a relatively new approach to collection, hence highlighted in this section.

Program Development

The program took about a year from the date of conception to the date it went on line. It took two years before the operation ran smoothly.

On September 29, 1989, a Public Works Advisory Committee formed, under the guidance of the Director of Solid Waste. The Advisory Committee consisted of private volunteer citizens and local business people. The Recycling Subcommittee was also made up of local business people and private citizens and was chaired by the Director of the Troy State University Center for Environmental Services. The Subcommittee developed the dual bag concept and then took it to the City Council. According to the Recycling Coordinator, there were no politics involved because everyone thought curbside recycling was a good idea. Markets were available to accept all material in the program. Once City Council approval was granted, the program quickly got under way. The Mayor considers the recycling center the city's number one priority at this time.

Recyclable collection is accomplished using a flat bed truck with 4-ft-high wooden sides. Crews consist of two laborers where both the driver and the second person collect, each working a side of the street. Recyclables are collected once a week, with the day determined by which of five districts residents are in.

I- 6 The city decided to go with bluebags rather than bins because:

Bags were cheaper to provide to residents.

w Using bins would limit the amount of material they could accept.

w Using bins with loose material would require special collection trucks.

Bags would be easiest for residents to adapt to and use (one-way to the curb).

Imdementation

The curbside program went on line in January 1991. Recycling program operators have had no problem distinguishing the bags from garbage, because garbage is prohibited from being placed in any bag. Rather, the city provides each resident one 90-gallon roll cart container for garbage.

The curbside recycling program estimates a 45% participation rate, which the city attributes largely to the successful public education campaign developed by Troy State University. Since the programs began in 1989, the amount of recyclable material set out has more than doubled.

The curbside program accepts PET soda and HDPE natural bottles, which are sold to KW Plastics. Aluminum and tin cans are accepted and sold to the same scrap dealer that collects white goods, Jerry Spurlock Iron & Metal, Inc., of Troy. Single cell (household) batteries are accepted by Mount Scrap, located in Montgomery, AL. Mount Scrap also picks up glass, ONP and OMG collected in the curbside program. The only material collected that the city does not get paid for is OMG, paint and single cell batteries. The used paper market is so bad the city does not expect the current ONP price of $5/ton to hold up.

Bluebags used in the program were stockpiled for about six months. At that time enough bags had accumulated to make four 1,000 pound bales, which are marketed to KW Plastics. It is estimated that 10,000 bags per year will be used in dual bluebag program.

Recycling bluebags are provided to residents who live in the county's unincorporated area. These bags can be dropped off at the MRF, but no curbside service is provided to county residents. The city operates the MRF in a building that the county owns but has no use for. The county leases the

1-7 building to the city for an annual fee of $1.00. The structure is about 10,000 square feet.

Bluebag material tipped from residential collection is loaded into commercial trailers for temporary storage. The processing is done entirely by hand on sorting tables or from the rear of the trailers. Although the MRF does not have conveyor belts, this system operates quite efficiently at its current throughput. The center is running at near capacity, and a further expansion to the program would undoubtedly require the use of a more mechanical MRF operation

Old corrugated cardboard (OCC), old magazines (OMG) and computer printout (CPO) get baled, while the rest of the material goes into gaylord containers for shipping. The residue from the collected material is placed in 90-gallon roll carts, which are serviced daily by the city's sanitation department.

Start-up equipment purchased for the recycling program included trailers, one baler, a glass crusher, a forklift and a pickup truck (a second truck used in recycling operations was already owned by the city). Since the program has evolved, a second baler has been added as have more trailers. There are now 74 trailers for OCC collection and bluebag commingled recyclables. For its next investment, the city plans to upgrade the MRF by adding storage space and conveyors.

Financial Information

Most of the major costs associated with operating the recycling program are funded in part by other waste management programs. The additional investment to sustain the recycling program is $72,931 and represents part of the general fund subsidy. This figure does not account for the $21,600 realized in recycling revenues. The costs that are attributed solely to recycling and not shared with solid waste or compost operations break down as follows:

1-8 Recycling Operating Budget $34,970.70 Supplies Utilities 1) Telephone 480.00 11 Advertising I 2,500.0011

Insurance 1,500.00 Depreciation 18,000.00 $72,931.70

Barriers and Solutions

Although the city has effective recycling and yard waste programs in place, they will continue to explore methods to increase this participation and capture rates in the recycling program and pursue new recycling venues such as white goods and tire recycling.

Initially the bluebag program had residents commingling all recyclables in one bag. The Recycling Coordinator discovered fairly early in the program (in the first week) that glass breakage would be a problem in terms of contaminating the ONP collected. Educational efforts accomplished chiefly through radio spots encouraged residents to place ONP into separate bags.

RESOURCES

The following individuals served as primary contacts for assembly of the Troy case study and site visit tours. Each has agreed to continue to serve as a resource, providing additional information to the reader upon request:

Jake Winger, Superintendent of Public Works Bill Price, Recycling Coordinator 202-566-1 133 P.O. Box 549 Troy, AL 36081

1-9 LESSONS LEARNED

Troy is by no means the most comprehensive program highlighted in this document. It is, however, a good case study of a successful, low-cost recycling program which overcame participation and other barriers, of a community in transition resolving some very pressing, albeit very common, landfill problems. Suggestions made by this community to others who are in a similar position or looking at comparable programs are as follows:

Recycling has gone further than the city ever imagined, especially based on reduction in the level of complaints initially received from the public. A key reason that Troy has the number one recycling program in the state is because their Recycling Coordinator has pushed ahead when programs seemed likely to fail. Even now, with the program recognized by the state as one of the best, the city continues to try to build and improve the program.

The bluebag program has proven to be as effective as any bin system in the state. However, modifications recommended to a community starting from scratch include i) have bluebags source-separated (thrown into different trailers) to keep newspaper and glass completely apart; ii) plan the routes so that residents can put out their blnebags on their normal garbage day.

The citv is willing to share more details of this urogram with interested I A- readers, but also expressed a desire to learn from communities that are doing more. Out-of-state travel has not been allowed for training, and the waste management officials feel they need program information beyond what has been available in Alabama.

1-10 City of Evreka Springs case Study

Arkansas II-1 CASE STUDY 11: CITY OF EUREKA SPRINGS, ARKANSAS

COMMUNITY PROFILE Table 4 Demographics and Solid Waste System Slructufe Collection Features

[I] 1990 Census of Population and Housing J=applicable O=not applicable .=drop off -=curbside

II-2 entities such as the 2,522 lodging rooms, 64 restaurants, 8,000 seats for evening entertainment, and 200 gifdcraft shops, art galleries and antique stores. Because waste from Eureka Springs gets long hauled out of the state to Missouri or Oklahoma for landfilling, the city is highly motivated to maximize waste diversion. Approximately 29% of the waste stream is diverted by the combination of the drop-off program, commercial recycling programs and residential recycling programs.

SOLID WASTE SYSTEM

Freeman's Waste is the city's contracted waste hauler. The company also helped the city develop a variable-rate bag system.

The variable-rate bag system requires residents to pay for each bag of solid waste they set out; the more bags used by a household, the higher its individual solid waste collection costs. Each resident must purchase yellow trash bags from the city. No other bags are picked up by Freeman's Waste. Two rates are charged for bags: 30-gallon bags cost $.75/bag, and 15-gallon bags cost $.35/bag. Bags are available at the Recycling Center and at City Hall. Projected revenue in 1994 from the sale of bags is estimated to be $29,000. Freeman's Waste and the city used many factors to come up with a pricing structure. The existing rate structure, Freeman's Waste's actual costs (local wages, property and equipment costs) and recycling data were among the many items used to compute the rates. Still, long weekends and many hours a day were spent answering questions about the program and justifying the cost. Although the variable bag system's primary goal was to discourage thoughtless waste, the public did not immediately respond with questions regarding how they could reduce their waste and the number of bags they needed. Instead, they bombarded the department with questions regarding why the bags were so expensive. To kick off the program, the recycling department gave every resident 52 bags. This was done to ease the bad feelings many of the residents had about having to pay for the bags.

Freeman's Waste identified two critical components to make the variable- bag rate program work i) mandatory participation and ii) enforcement. Both were implemented by the city, which also formed a Solid Waste Committee. Five members, one each from Freeman's Waste, the residential sector, the commercial sector, City Hall and the recycling center were assigned to the committee. The committee has issued policies for the waste management program in Eureka Springs, including the rate policies for various types of accounts, such as multipurpose buildings, apartment houses, home business

II-3 accounts, elderly low-volume residential accounts, hardship low-volume residential accounts and residential accounts.

Solid Waste Disposal

There is no open landfill in Eureka Springs. Solid waste is hauled to a transfer station located in Berryville, AR, that is owned and operated by Carroll County. It was built in 1989, approximately 11 miles from Eureka Springs. There, the waste is compacted and long hauled to one of two landfills, the Cherokee Nation-owned and -operated landfill in Stillwell, OK, or the McDonald County Landfill owned by McDonald County and operated by B&B Sanitation in southern Missouri.

American Waste, located in Green Forest, AR, has the contract to supply all the roll-off bins for compacted trash and also has the right to haul the compacted trash to a landfill.

Both public and private haulers are charged on a volume basis for tipping at the transfer station. All household waste is accepted at the transfer station, although certain items are kept segregated for recycling or shipping to a disposal destination other than the landfill. The transfer station applies a charge to bulky items such as tires, electrical items and white goods. These items are kept separated and stored until enough is accumulated to ship segregated loads to their respective markets. Used tires are loaded onto a trailer for Davis Rubber Company of Springdale, AR. There tires are first shredded, then either made into cattle troughs or rubber mats, or sold to Georgia Pacific in Crossett, AR, to be burned for the generation of electricity. A-1 Recycling, a local Eureka Springs company, picks up televisions, refrigerators and other white goods from the transfer station for recycling. The charge for haulers or residents to dispose of televisions is $5.00, while disposing of refrigerators costs $15.00.

WASTE DIVERSION STRATEGIES

Waste Reduction

Other than financial incentives to reduce the amount of waste each household generates, no specific operational or educational programs exist for waste reduction.

II-4 Recvcling Dmo-Off and Cnrbside Collection

Recycling collection programs began in Eureka Springs in 1988. At that time a drop-off program for newsprint, aluminum, glass and plastic (HDPE and PET bottles) was initiated. Commercial recycling also began at that time as a result of waste audits which revealed that OCC was about 40% of the waste stream.

Recycling began with approximately six volunteers, each motivated by having seen too much garbage piled up in otherwise naturally beautiful surroundings. The volunteers started using a pup trailer and hand-lettered signs to collect the four materials mentioned above at centralized drop-off locations.

In 1989 one of the program originators was hired by the city of Eureka Springs to run the recycling operation. General revenues were allocated for the operation of the Recycling Department. During the first full year of operation, a baler for processing OCC was purchased, a cooking oil satellite drop-off center was established, and a program for freon collection from air conditioners and refrigerators was instituted.

In the early years of the program, plastic was flattened by stomping on the bottles. Later, as the program developed, a Sears household garbage compactor was experimented with to flatten two or three bottles at a time. This method proved to be too slow. Glass was crushed manually with a rod until a slightly more advanced method was implemented: a pulley, rope and cement block were used to crush the glass. Finally the Public Works Department purchased a glass crusher for the recycling center. It still is revered as being the first piece of mechanized equipment. The glass crusher is now functioning at the recycling facility in Fayetteville.

Instructions at the drop-off facility were provided by actual containers nailed to a “totem pole.” The recycling totem pole was a 4”x4” piece of lumber that stood 8 ft high. Materials not acceptable at the drop-off center were stapled to the “No-Totem” as a physical reminder to drop-off participants. This method of public education began to look sloppy as the stapled material became weathered.

A new method of education will be implemented to replace the educational totem poles. Photographs will be taken of unacceptable material, blown up to poster size, laminated and displayed at the drop-off site. The Eureka Springs Recycling Department plans to implement the poster program .as soon as funding becomes available.

11-5 In 1989 a US. Department of Energy grant in the amount of $12,000 made it possible to conduct a pilot curbside program.

A survey was conducted before the pilot program began to investigate levels of interest. After the pilot was implemented, a second survey was conducted to identify behavior changes as a result of participation and to investigate any operational difficulties that were experienced. Two educational brochures were developed after both surveys were completed and distributed with the recycling bins.

The first bid for curbside collection was issued in July 1992. In January 1993 the formal program began.

To capture tourists' recyclables, many businesses are provided with voluntary cardboard collection service from the recycling department. Additionally, a private individual collects glass from hotels and restaurants that cater to tourists. The glass is eventually delivered to the Eureka Springs recycling center.

The Recycling Department is in the process of implementing a voluntary glass recycling service for hotels and restaurants that cater exclusively to tourists. To accommodate the new glass collection service, the recycling department is planning to reduce the number of days the cardboard collection truck runs from three days to two days. The cardboard collection vehicle will use the extra day to collect glass. The truck that will be collecting glass must be modified to mechanically assist the operator with lifting and dumping heavy loads of glass.

Recvcline: Material Recoverv Facility

A bond issue was passed by the residents of Eureka Springs in October of 1991 with an approval rating of 86%. The bond provided $243,000 to the Recycling Department to purchase equipment and to build an addition to the existing recycling drop-off center. The end result was a modern fully functional Material Recovery Facility (MRF) with storage bins, picking lines, horizontal balers and offices.

Building materials, landscape timbers and interior furnishings made with recycled content were used during construction of the facility. The upstairs level of the MRF houses an education center where recycled content construction materials are on display along with other educational materials and a VCR-equipped television. Additional funds for the MRF were obtained from Carroll County, the city of Berryville, the American Plastics Council, Wal-Mart, Sunset Environmental Technologies, Garden Pleasures, Roger Richards, the Public Works Department of Eureka Springs, the Arkansas Forestry Commission, the Small Business Administration, the Arkansas Department of Energy and the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. Many citizens of Eureka Springs and Carroll County also made donations. The total value of the MRF and equipment is $350,000.

The MRF has a rated capacity of 15 tons per eight-hour shift, which will allow it to handle recyclables from the entire county. It has not, however, been run consecutively for eight hours to be adequately tested. Commingled recyclables are dumped on a cement slab which is exterior to the MRF building; however, this does not pose a problem because the area can be covered. Because money was limited, a complete roof over the entire tipping area could not be built. Instead, an adaptation was made with a rolling awning. The roof is rolled on tracks out of the way when collection trucks back into the tipping area, raise the bed of the truck and dump recyclables. When the truck is finished tipping, the awning roof is rolled back in place to keep materials dry and sheltered from direct sunlight.

Material reaches a conveyor from the tipping floor through a hole in the wall. The hydraulic-driven conveyor brings the material up to the picking table (hydraulics do not cause a power surge when the conveyor is turned on, which allows for a wider range of speeds for the workers separating material on the picking line). The materials are positively sorted off the line and thrown down chutes into large bins. The bins back up to the outside wall, where a door can be opened and the bins can be pushed back outside. Now segregated, the materials from the bins are removed and pushed onto the conveyor again. This second run over the conveyor is to move the material to a baler and also to serve as a quality check.

Cardboard and newspapers are tipped near a conveyor used exclusively for paper grades. This conveyor feeds directly into the throat of a horizontal baler. Newspapers are scooped up and placed in gaylord boxes when the baler is processing another material. The boxes are stored in semi-trailers until the baler is available. Semi-trailers that are used for storage were purchased for $750 from a company that rebuilds them.

The drop-off center, which once stood alone at the new MRF site, continues to operate. Drop-off operations feature the use of gaylord boxes, wire cages, bulk lift bags, cooking oil storage and motor oil storage.

11-7 The original covered drop-off station remains open to the public today. The wooden station has holes cut out for each acceptable material. Under each hole is a wire cage designed to hold bottles and cans. Bottles and cans are emptied from cages into gaylord boxes or bulk lift bags, then transported to the MRF tipping floor for processing. Used bulk lift bags were purchased at a cost of $9.50 each. The polypropylene woven bags work as excellent outdoor storage containers because they are water and weather resistant and are constructed with handles for easy maneuverability. In addition, the bags offer ultraviolet radiation protection and can be reused several times.

Special containers are located in the drop-off area for collection of used motor oil and used cooking oil. The tank for used motor oil was provided by the recycler of the oil. The tank is surrounded by a platform filled with oil- absorbent material, which assists in controlling any spills made by the public while emptying their containers.

The recycling department uses a commercially available cooking oil receptacle for liquid oils. Due to the high volume of restaurants in this tourist community, cooking oil recycling was one of the first programs implemented and continues to operate at the drop-off location. A cage receptacle is provided for collection of the HDPE bottles that originally contained cooking oil.

Comaosting

Composting has also been implemented successfully in Eureka Springs by mixing yard waste with sludge. The sludge being composted with yard waste in Eureka Springs is a cake-like, dry sludge that is odor free. Approximately 320 cubic yards of sludge generated per year in the city was being sent to the Cherokee Nation's landfill in Stillwell, OK. In 1990 the price to landfill the sludge there was $12/cubic yard; the price jumped in 1991 to $30/cubic yard. Sludge not being landfilled was sent to processing facilities in or near the water treatment plant. Capacity there was limited, however. Between the cost of landfilling and the growing amount of sludge that could not be treated with existing capacity, another solution had to be found. Sludgdyard waste composting began in 1991.

A fiberglass-reinforced concrete slab with a plastic liner is the foundation for the compost operation. The back of the slab is flat, and the front three- fourths of the slab is tilted toward a furrow that directs the runoff to the main sewer line.

Previously the sludge was processed through a digester and then through a drying bed where the water was evaporated from the solids. The new composting system required some changes. During a site visit to a composting

II-8 operation in another state, city officials learned that plastic blocks which interlocked and stood on a cement slab could dry sludge up to eight times faster than their old way of drying. The drying beds in Eureka Springs were then divided to accommodate both systems; plastic media beds make up two- thirds of the beds and the sand beds make up the other third.

The sewer sludge is removed from the sand with large hay forks that allow the sand to pass through and the cakes to remain. The caked sludge is removed from the plastic media beds with large plastic snow shovels.

One dump truck load of sludge at a time is taken to the composting site, where it is mixed with an equal volume of chipped yard waste. A Wildcat windrow turner is used to turn the mixture as it slowly becomes compost. Two windrows of compost approximately 15 yards long and 4 to 5 ft high represent almost two years of effort. On an annual basis, 320 cubic yards of sludge is brought to the compost facility and is mixed with an equal amount of yard waste. The end product is about 320 cubic yards of compost, with each raw material undergoing a 50% volume reduction.

Annual tests are conducted to determine the level of heavy metals. The runoff is not tested because it does not drain into the surrounding area. Land that receives compost sludge is prohibited from being planted for two years from the time of compost application.

In April 1993 the first load of compost was taken by a farmer and spread by a manure spreader. The land on which it is spread will be tested for a year. If it passes all tests, the compost will be made available to the public.

Eureka Springs lies among the Ozark Mountains and is fairly rocky; consequently, topsoil is a valuable commodity.

Compost equipment includes a power train operated Wildcat windrow turner valued at $15,000, a John Deere turbocharged diesel tractor valued at $25,000 with creeper gear, a power sprayer to wash down the plastic media beds and a 12" diesel-powered brush chipper with auto feed and trailer mount valued at $15,500. The equipment and building were acquired with bond money.

The total cost of the building, site preparation and base and pad construction was approximately $61,000. The total cost of composting, including labor and maintenance and capital/equipment expenditures, was $130,738 in 1991.

n-9 Enelnv Recoven

The city does not participate in an energy recovery program.

FEATURE PROGRAM

Multiple fee collection mechanisms are in place because solid waste officials wanted to reinforce to residents the cost of wastefulness. Incoming revenue is derived from a franchise fee, a landfill diversion credit and the sale of bags for the variable-rate program.

Pm~ramDevelopment

The City Council in Eureka Springs originally discouraged the landfill diversion credits and other reliable revenue sources for the recycling department because the programs were new. Very few people understood the desired effects and how to manage such programs. The hesitancy of the City Council was not alleviated until the recycling department participated in a peer match program in Minnesota. The peer match program provided information that resolved the questions and concems the City Council had about various facets of the revenue sources.

The Minnesota Project and the International City Managers Association (ICMA) sponsored the peer match program. Eight individuals were accepted as peer match participants. The manager of the Eureka Springs Recycling Department was one of the participants and returned with videotapes, photocopies and slides from the trip to assist his presentations to the City Council. The peer match education was most crucial to the success of establishing volume-based rates, hut other revenue-creating programs in Eureka Springs gained momentum as well.

Implementation

Each resident pays $7.75/month for garbage collection (in addition to paying for bags). Of this fee, 8% is directed to the city's general fund as a franchise fee. The remainder goes to the waste hauler. Businesses also pay a monthly fee, of which 10% is realized by the city as a Commercial Franchise Fee.

A critical part of the franchise system is mandatory collection of waste from all residences and businesses in Eureka Springs. Businesses in the city limits are required to use the waste hauler with the franchise right. Taking away the freedom of the business owners to choose any waste service they n-lo wanted created grief that still lasts today. Some businesses claim they do not create waste; therefore they do not need any waste services. Other businesses felt that they had no control over quality of service, so certain safeguards were written into the franchise contract to promote a high-quality service. For instance, if the waste hauler allows complaints to increase more than 5% per year, the city can take action against the waste hauler.

Expected revenue in 1993 from the Commercial Franchise Fee is $29,226.00. Expected revenue in 1993 from the Residential Franchise Fee is $62,092.00.

A landfill diversion credit is paid by the hauler to the recycling department for the total amount of recyclables sold to market, measured in cubic yards. The formula agreed on was derived by reviewing conversion figures from several states. The city receives from the hauler a rebate equal to the landfill tipping fee, which currently stands at $9.75 per cubic yard. Expected revenue in 1993 from landfill diversion credits is $24,000. The first check was received by the city in January 1993.

The final method of financing recycling and solid waste programs is the variable-rate bag program. The sale of bags is the smallest revenue generator of all the mechanisms in place. However, due to much consternation on the part of residents, each was provided with 52 free bags the first year.

Barriels and Solutions

The program founders believed from the start that long-term revenue sources had to be implemented to sustain recycling for any period; therefore, a variety of approaches to revenue generation was developed to keep incentives, checks and balances built into the program's finances. Despite multiple collection mechanisms, recycling operations are still subsidized by the general fund. No full cost accounting is in place.

RESOURCES

The following individuals have worked on the various programs since inception and are available to provide additional information:

Bryan Ukena, Recycling Department Manager 501-253-7773

11- 11 Kirby Murray, Public Works Director 501-253-9600 City of Eureka Springs 44 South Main Street Eureka Springs, AR 72632

Susan Hubbard 501-423-6037 Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology P.O. Box 721 Berryville, AR 72632

LESSONS LEARNED

If gaylord boxes and pallets are too expensive to replace and too awkward to lift without the use of a forklift or pallet jack, a good alternative is the use of bulk lift polypropylene bags.

At one point the city's entire revenue from glass recyclables was not enough to cover the cost of sending glass to market in gaylord boxes on pallets. Both pallets and boxes were very expensive to replace. Although bulk lift bags are not recommended for glass, a lighter, thinner gaylord may be a solution. The city found a deal on thinner, less expensive gaylords and is no longer losing money on glass recyclables.

II-12 Arkansas III-1 CASE STUDY lE CITY OF WARREN, ARKANSAS

COMMUNITY PROFILE Table 5 Demographics and Solid Waste System

Demogfaphics 'I Variab e Rates

[I] 1990 Census of Population and Housing J=applicable O=not applicable .=drop off .=curbside

Located in the southeast corner of Arkansas, Warren is the county seat for Bradley County. The city of Warren has a population of 6,455 and an economy based on agriculture and woodtimber-related industries. The town does not have a major interstate running through it and has only one major company. Potlatch Corporation's Wood Products Southern Division is based in Warren and is the largest employer in the town.

The lack of a transportation infrastructure has been one of the difficulties in implementing recycling and other waste management programs in Warren. Non- traditional waste management policies are being pursued due to the combined m-2 barriers of i) inadequate infrastructure, ii) remote location, iii) low tax base and iv) slow economic growth. A close relationship between the city, Bradley County, and Potlatch has resulted in a new waste management plan to divert 25 to 30% of the solid waste stream. The city and Bradley County also participate in a regional solid waste management district.

SOLID WASTE SYSTEM

Solid Waste Collection

Approximately 2,500 residences are serviced with garbage collection twice a week. Each resident pays $7.00/month for the service through a separate. garbage bill. The city also provides commercial and industrial waste hauling services to more than 300 local businesses. Rates for commercial services vary according to volume and frequency of pickups. The rates charged to residential and commercial accounts do not generate sufficient funds to cover the cost of the garbage service, so $50,000 to $100,000 is transferred from the general fund to support the Sanitation Department.

The city of Warren Sanitation Department operates with an estimated annual budget of $360,000, which includes garbage collection and disposal, wood and limb grinding services, and recyclable collection and diversion services.

Residents may also haul solid waste to the city/county transfer statiodconvenience center. The convenience center area provides a staffed drop-off site for residential garbage, scrap metal, white goods and tires. The scrap metal and white goods collected at the center are shipped uncompacted to vendors for recycling.

The department's fleet is made up of four side-loading compactor trucks, a dump truck, and two trucks capable of unloading 5-yard containers.

Solid Waste Disposal

Solid waste generated in Warren is processed at the transfer statiodconvenience center. The city of Warren and Bradley County have compacting equipment and containers on site. Each govemmental entity operates independently and the land is owned by the county. A 100-year lease has been extended to the city to coexist at the site. The site is 70 miles away from the Class I landfill where compacted trash is delivered. The Class I landfill is located in Jefferson County and is owned and operated by Waste

m-3 Management, Inc. Waste Management, Inc., bills the city each month for long hauls and disposal.

The transfer statiodconvenience center was recently upgraded using a $100,000 state grant. Improvements included widening the ramp, constructing a cement slab and purchasing four enclosed 40-yard containers and two open- top 40-yard containers. A hydraulic compacting unit was also purchased for compacting garbage into transfer containers.

A truck outfitted with equipment to pull the 40-yard containers is jointly owned by the city and the county. The vehicle is operated primarily to shuttle containers from under the compacting units and to deliver scrap metal to a recycler in Fordyce, AR. The county bills the city of Warren monthly for truck maintenance and fuel.

A Class IV landfill accepting demolition and construction debris as well as waste tires is operated by the city of Warren. The city refers to this site as the “rubbish pit.” The rubbish pit was once the location of a Class I landfill. That landfill was formerly operated by the city, but has not accepted MSW for over a year.

The city estimated that it would he more economical to build a transfer station than to upgrade the old Class I landfill. The Class I landfill was at 85% capacity, so economies of scale could not be achieved by keeping it open under Subtitle D. By utilizing a transfer station, costs were kept to a minimum, and the landfill remained useful for Class IV debris. Additionally, the city and county gained time to evaluate other solid waste disposal options.

The city of Warren deposits 50 to 60 yards of construction and demolition debris each month at the Class IV landfill. The site is open one day per week and is staffed by a city employee. The tipping fee for one pickup truck load of Construction debris is $3.00.

WASTE DIVERSION STRATEGIES

Waste Reduction

The city of Warren has no programs designed specifically for waste reduction. Attempts at waste diversion include interventions to remove materials from the waste stream prior to final disposition at a landfill, recycling and energy recovery.

m-4 Recvcling

The goal of the paper and plastic diversion facility, which is under construction on property near the transfer station, is recyclable collection and diversion. Material will be generated for the facility by a city-run drop-off program. Drop-off bins for paper and plastic commodities will be provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week at the fire station. By having attendants at the collection site, the city hopes to reduce contamination, litter and vandalism. The city also plans to increase the amount of material collected by implementing a voluntary drop-off program for corrugated and mixed paper at businesses and schools. The city will supply 5-yard containers to participating institutions and businesses wishing to collect recyclables for the diversion center. The building will measure 60 ft by 40 ft, including office space. Trucks will enter through two roll-up doors, measuring 12 ft by 12 ft and 12 ft by 15 ft, and will tip onto an 8" reinforced concrete pad.

The city of Warren received a grant from the state of Arkansas, Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, Solid Waste Management Division for Construction of the diversion center. The grant application identified old newsprint, mixed white paper, corrugated cardboard, computer paper and plastic as types of material targeted for diversion at the facility. The city of Warren and Bradley County have estimated that 25 to 30% of the waste stream will be diverted by this effort. The city hopes to cut transportation and material disposal costs at the landfill and make substantial progress toward the state's goal to recycle 40% of the municipal solid waste stream by the year 2000.

Construction for the diversion center began in the spring of 1993. A 50 horsepower (hp) diesel-powered skid loader with grapple attachment will deliver the paper and cardboard products from the tipping floor to a chopper powered by dual 40-50 hp motors. The paper products will be fed through a hopper and chopped down to 3" by carbon steel blades. A 7.5 hp blower will deliver the chopped paper directly into a gooseneck trailer. The gooseneck trailer will be pulled by a one-ton truck to the cogeneration facility at Potlatch, where paper products will be burned to produce energy. The state of Arkansas recognizes cogeneration as a method of meeting the 40% recycling goal.

The city of Warren expects to see an immediate reduction in the total amount paid in landfill tipping charges once the diversion center begins operation. Diverting cardboard and paper from the landfill will reduce the city's $1 1,000 monthly landfill fee by $2,000 to $3,000. ComaosGng

No city-operated composting program is in place at this time.

Enemv Recovery

In the spring of 1991, the city of Warren began a woodlimb chipping service. A mobile chipper operates two to three times weekly as needed for commercial and residential accounts. The chipped wood is blown into a trailer, then dumped at the Potlatch facility along with the company's manufacturing wood waste where it is burned and converted into energy. Approximately 8 to 10 yards of chipped wood is delivered each week to Potlatch.

A pilot program conducted at the Potlatch cogeneration plant confirmed the feasibility of cofiring paper and plastic with wood waste to recover energy. The plant currently burns wood shavings, bark and sawdust in six furnaces at a rate of 30 tons per hour. Potlatch is willing to use the various post-consumer feedstock for energy because the addition of plastic/paper corrugated waste from the city does not bring the facility out of environmental compliance. An emergency conveyer with a controllable feed rate will feed the post-consumer material. The feed rate can be varied to burn up to a week's worth of plastic/paper/cormgated in one hour. The boiler is rated for 12-15 MW and 30 tonshour of hog fuel. No new permits are required, since the boiler will not be burning more than 15% waste by energy value.

FEATURE PROGRAM

Information about the evolution and operation of Warren's energy recovery program is highlighted because of the practicality of utilizing an existing energy recovery infrastructure as opposed to forcing traditional recycling in an area where transportation to markets and volume of material available are severe barriers.

Program Development

Solid waste legislation adopted in Arkansas in 1991 allowed energy recovery as a means to achieve the recycling goal. The city of Warren, having access to a local cogeneration facility, organized a wood/limb chipping program with the Potlatch cogeneration plant designated as the end market. Processed with a mobile chipper by the Warren Sanitation Department, municipal wood waste is taken to the Potlatch facility, bumed with the company's manufacturing wood waste, and the resulting electricity is used to power various Potlatch facilities. Influenced by the success of the program and because more credit toward the recycling goal could be obtained, the city decided to expand into paper and plastics products. No other recycling markets for those materials were within close proximity.

Prior to implementation, Potlatch officials and the state Department of Pollution Control and Ecology held meetings to resolve logistics, permits and monitoring. holementation

Trial bums were conducted on each type of post-consumer material. Implementation was planned to occur in two phases-paper, then plastic-in order to monitor the impact of each product's introduction to the cogeneration process. Prior to the material arriving at Potlatch, there were more concerns over quality control of plastic than paper, so more time was needed to plan the plastics collection and handling process.

Because paper that is shredded in long strands has a tendency to jam the equipment that carries the feedstock to the boiler, the city needed to buy equipment that would cut paper down to wood chip size. Bids for the equipment ranged from $100,000 to $140,000. The paper cutter was purchased from Switzerland, and upon arrival had to be adapted from 480 volt, three- phase power to 240 volt power to maintain compatibility. The adaptation to the correct voltage level caused delay in implementation.

Financial Information

Although funding for the equipment was somewhat offset by state grant funds, the paper equipment alone represented significant capital outlay for a town the size of Warren. Funds and equipment donations were sought from several agencies, but none obtained. The city hoped to find a single piece of equipment capable of processing both the paper and plastic in order to lessen the capital cost required.

Electricity generated at the Potlatch cogeneration facility is used to power the company's operations, with any excess sold to the Arkansas Power Corporation. This sale, according to Potlatch, represents a net loss. Since Potlatch does not realize a profit, they do not pay the city for the waste raw material. However, the city does not have to pay to deliver the waste to Potlatch, so the city saves money by avoiding tip fees.

m-7 Barriels and Solutions

The technical feasibility of burning plastics and controlling the types of resins processed remains a concern for Potlatch. Plastic and paper should have a negligible contribution to the bottom ash, but this depends on how clean the waste comes in.

There was no adverse reaction from the public or city officials to the concept of burning plastic in the Potlatch boiler. Engineers predicted that it would not adversely affect the emissions or ash leachability. Extensive stack testing and ash leach testing have been conducted by Potlatch before and after the introduction of post-consumer paper. The testing will continue and likely be enhanced when the second phase, introduction of plastics, occurs.

RESOURCES

Individuals responsible for the planning and implementation of the energy recovery project are listed below:

Steve Rand, Larry Goodsell 501-226-2611 Potlatch Corporation Wood Products, Southern Division P.O. Box 390 Warren. AR 71671

Mayor Gregg Reep Mike Jolly, Sanitation Director 501-226-6143 City of Warren, AR Warren City Hall P.O. Box 352 Warren, AR 71671

Another valuable resource for the city's solid waste management programs is the Southeast Arkansas Regional Solid Waste District.

Regionahation

Regionalization has facilitated waste tire reclamation and other joint recycling and diversion programs. In 1990, the state of Arkansas initiated a plan to organize the state's 75 counties into Solid Waste Districts (HB-1447, ACT 91-752). The Solid Waste Districts were created to promote several programs. Foremost, the state wanted to promote cooperation between governmental bodies and regionalize facilities and equipment in order to lower costs for each county and city.

For the purpose of implementing a solid waste plan as required by the state, the Solid Waste Districts have the power to levy taxes, arrange fees, incur bonded indebtedness and exercise eminent domain for the acquisition of land. District control and management within the solid waste stream allows the state to easily acquire accurate information from the district participants about recycling rates and other information.

The city of Warren is in the Southeast Arkansas Regional Solid Waste District (SEARSWD), which includes 10 counties in southeast Arkansas. The SEARSWD is governed by a board of directors, of which the Mayor of the city of Warren is chairman.

The board of directors has been meeting for the past two and a half years planning the strategy for the SEARSWD and organizing the comprehensive solid waste plan.

A contract has been signed by the SEARSWD with the South Arkansas Reclamation Center in Smackover, AR. The used tires collected at the Class IV landfill operated by Warren and other district locations are picked up by the South Arkansas Reclamation Center. The used tires are shredded and shipped to a cogeneration facility owned and operated by Georgia Pacific in Crossett, AR.

LESSONS LEARNED

A community as small and remotely located as Warren may have difficulty finding markets due to transportation costs and relatively low volume of recyclables. A local solution for Warren was to look beyond traditional recycling markets and engage in energy recovery for wood wastes, paper and plastics.

While landfill tipping costs are not yet exorbitant, the cost to transport to the nearest landfill is. When all these barriers come into play and an industrial “good neighbor” is willing to offer a no-cost solution, non-traditional recycling can become not only economical, but an environmentally sound solution to attaining waste diversion and recycling goals.

III-9

HomiIton County Case Study crl)Hamilton County

Florida wc g' Md N-I CASE STUDY N: HAMILTON COUNTY, FLORIDA i

COMMUNITY PROFILE I Table 6 I- Demographics and Solid Waste Svstem 7 Structure Collection Features 1 !

AGIForestrv I J II Air Curtain I 0

I I I I Proaram I I

[l] 1990 Census of Population and Houslng J=applicable "=not applicable '=drop off *=curbside i

Hamilton County, FL, is located in a rural north central part of Florida, just FI south of the Georgia border. The county has a population of only 10,930 and is classified by the U.S. Census as 100% rural. The population per square mile is i 22, representing a relatively large farm community. There are slightly over 300 residential units that receive sanitation service. L

Hamilton County does not have a large tax base. A phosphate plant, fanning and the timber industry are the major employers in the area. The phosphate plant once provided an employment for 3,000 people, but has downsized to 800 employees. Likewise, the tax base went from $4 million to $1.7 million. With

N-2 little money in the general fund, and what was described as an insufficient tipping fee, there was little motivation in the county to build a model solid waste program. However, prompted by Florida’s 1988 solid waste bill, which required that every Florida county achieve a 30% recycling rate by 1995, along with federal Subtitle D landfill regulations, the county found simplistic methods and creative financing to build an exemplary integrated waste management program. More recently, however, that program has been compromised by April 1993 Florida legislation “letting small counties off the hook” from the 1988 mandates. For the Solid Waste Department, this translates into fewer dollars committed by the county and less of a political commitment to recycling and other waste management programs which were deemphasized in the 1993 legislation for small counties. The energy and dedication of staff, however, will go a long way in keeping the programs going and keeping Hamilton County at the forefront of rural solid waste management.

The County Solid Waste Department has rescued a landfill that would have faced closure under Subtitle D, and is initiating a composting program. Inmate labor supports an MRF that is quickly becoming a regional center for recycling. Successful marketing has resulted from persistence to find high-value nontraditional outlets for the recyclables.

SOLID WASTE SYSTEM

Solid Waste Collection

There is no mandatory solid waste collection in Hamilton County. Residents may choose to haul to the county landfill or contract with a private hauler for the service. The county offers no solid waste collection service.

Solid Waste Disposal

The landfill in Hamilton County is located in the city of Jasper, which is close to both the Hamilton County Correctional Institute and the local cemetery. Less than three years ago the county nearly lost its landfill. The landfill is now in compliance with Subtitle D regulations. At one point the landfill was cited with eight major violations, including being 15 feet too high, having severe industrial “glue” contamination and a heap of unprocessed mixed metals. These violations caused the landfill to be assessed $150,000 in fines. The landfill was on the verge of forced closure when a three-month extension was granted which gave the county a chance to clean up the landfill. All metals were pulled out of a tall pile of uncovered trash, and a glue- contaminated section was capped off, closed and set up for methane gas

Iv-3 removal. A new section opened about five months ago. About $1.5 million was spent on the restoration effort.

Tipping fees were at $32.00/ton two years ago and remain at that level today. If true costs were revealed, however, county officials believe the required tipping fee would be about $48.00/ton. The county will raise the fee to this level for political reasons.

Free inmate labor helps keep operational costs for the facility down. In exchange for this labor, the county offers the jail, which is located directly across the street, free garbage tipping. The solid waste department comes out ahead as the correctional facility generates only six to 8 tons per day of garbage. This would yield an annual revenue from tipping fees of $66,560, whereas the labor is worth an estimated $5.50/hr, with an annual value of $161,600 (the labor cost assumes two 10-person crews for 30 hours per week). Part of the reason the volume of garbage generated at the correctional facility is so low is because the jail has an aggressive internal recycling and reuse program.

WASTE DIVERSION STRATEGIES

Waste Reduction

Hamilton County has no programs designed specifically for waste reduction.

Recvcling

Recycling operations are supported by inmate labor, while equipment was largely funded with state recycling grant money allocated over the past four years. The county purchased six trailers at a cost of $3,10O/trailer.

The department embraced a philosophy that instead of putting money into operating expenses which could not be sustained without the subsidy, it was better to put it into capital equipment and lay the infrastructure for a sustainable recycling program. The trailers actually serve two purposes: i) they provide needed storage space and ii) they allow the county to ship loosely baled, light or mixed loads, which would be difficult or expensive to move through a common carrier.

Drop-off containers for every city and school in the county were purchased with state grant funds. Curbside bins, classroom central collection containers and signage were also provided by the county with state grant funds. Each

Iv-4 school has a teacher who serves as recycling coordinator. Each school and its program coordinator are from a different County Commissioner’s district, which provides political balance.

Hamilton County participates in two successful recycling market ventures. They have an agreement to act as a handler for plastic material generated in south Florida, separating it for 3 cents a pound. The handling fee is pure revenue, since the labor utilized is “free” inmate labor.

The inmate workers are very thorough. Two strong motivators cause this work ethic: i) the MRF offers a chance for them to get out and ii) they are aware that any disturbances reported by the solid waste department are treated with strict discipline. The snccess of the MRF operation led to offering the program’s plastic handling and marketing to service Madison County. Madison County has experienced limited success at handling the material or securing a plastic market.

The plastics Hamilton County sorts are rendered very high quality and contaminant free. There are virtually no caps or rings on the baled PET soda and HDPE dairy bottles. Hamilton County also sorts and markets pigmented HDPE, PVC and PP bottles. Madison County, however, was successful at finding a high-value market for their waste paper. The county participates in an animal bedding program. Hamilton County is now sharing this market and with state grant funds has purchased a paper shredder. The shredded post- consumer paper is marketed for a premium $115 per ton for animal bedding applications.

Marketing is strongly emphasized in Hamilton’s recycling program. The recycling program includes “all” materials, ranging from mixed plastics to newspaper, high-grade paper and metals. As a result of the marketing emphasis, unique arrangements have been made for plastic and paper.

Household hazardous waste is collected at a drop-off center located near the MRF. A state grant in the amount of $100,000 was received to implement the hazardous waste program, which serves Hamilton as well as neighboring counties.

Comoosting

Composting is planned, although the department does not feel that composting will be cost effective for Hamilton County. Unlike recycling, composting is less labor intensive, so using inmate labor will not help defray the costs. Composting requires expensive equipment such as windrows and grinders, which further adds to its lack of cost effectiveness for the county.

Iv-5 Purchasing a windrow and grinder capable of meeting the county's needs would cost $130,000 to $140,000. An additional cost would be the land necessary for composting. Moreover, the costs of doing lab tests for the end product are expensive. These tests would be necessary if the compost was to be used by farmers. Farmers, however, would not necessarily be available for picking up the compost material, and there is no other way to get it to them. On the other hand, it is estimated that an air-curtain burner would cost $65,000, but no recycling credit is offered by the state if yard waste is burned. Furthermore, burning is not included in the current land plan for the county. For these reasons, despite the county's belief that composting will not be cost effective, a compost facility is in development. Even with these constraints identified, the county will go forward with composting because yard waste is banned from the landfill.

Enerev Recovely

Hamilton County does not participate in an energy recovery program.

F- F-

The Hamilton County waste management program features the use of inmate labor in both its recycling and solid waste operations. This section discusses how that labor source is effectively used to sustain waste management. Utilization of inmate labor to support waste management functions is one of the primary reasons the Hamilton County program is sustainable. Although it took some legwork to get the agreements in place and proper releases to initiate the program, it is a program that could be easily duplicated. In fact, two other programs highlighted in this document make use of inmate labor to keep their programs financially viable. In most cases, it was felt that using inmate labor did not displace jobs that would otherwise be available to the public. Rather, if access to free labor were not available, the recycling solid waste programs would not have been pursued. The following table indicates the inmate population in the southem states and the number of facilities that currently offer work release programs. Table 7: Potential Inmate Labor

NO. N LlhlHER I.0C \I. JAILS INhlATES IN PRISONERS IN UIIMBI.:R OF \V/ WORK WORK S’l\‘lK/FEU ,,AI12s RI.:I.E:ASE RKI.EASE S’IA’I’E PES.“ (21 PKOGRAhlS PROGRAhl

W. VIRGINIA 1,565 52 40 113

Sources: I” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Prisoners in 1990” Census of Local Jails, 1988 Volume IV

The table also shows all locally administered jails that held inmates for more than 48 hours and that were staffed by municipal or county employees. This would indicate a rich source of forced laborers for beginning programs. The Bureau of Justice Statistics lists 3,316 locally managed jails across the country. Eight of the 25 largest jail jurisdictions are in the southern states of Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia. Waste management programs have utilized labor from both minimum and intermediate security facilities, including local jails and state/federal penitentiaries. Federal and state facilities are not included in the data; however, the number of inmates from these facilities are listed. Although the Hamilton County case study is based on local cooperation, the West

Iv-7 Kentucky case study included in this document reveals the process for involving labor from a state facility.

Proem Development

In March 1990, Hamilton County began to use prison labor to operate the material recovery facility (MRF) to maintain the grounds of the county landfill and to pick up roadside litter.

The Hamilton County Correctional Institute was approached by the Hamilton County Solid Waste Department with the idea of using inmate labor to assist the county. A contract between the county and the correctional institute was drafted and reviewed by the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners and the Florida Department of Corrections.

The Hamilton County Board of Commissioners held two meetings to plan the use of inmate labor and finalize the contract between the county and the correctional institute.

Part of the agreement made between the county and the Hamilton County Correctional Institute included an offer by the Solid Waste Department to waive tipping fees for waste generated at the Correctional Institute, if the correctional institute provided labor. This agreement allowed both parties to receive a financial savings and was additional incentive for the correctional institute to participate.

Implementation

The process of planning through implementation took only two months, because there was general acknowledgement that no interference with private enterprise or resistance from labor unions would occur.

Financial Information

The recycling budget for operations is roughly $62,00O/year, which covers maintenance costs, the solid waste director's salary and trucking. This funding comes from both the general fund and the tipping fee.

The Solid Waste Department relies heavily on the prison labor, leaving a lean permanent staff and low operating budget. A recycling coordinator was assisting the director, but funding for the position was eliminated after only one year. The position was lost due to 1993 legislation which deemphasizes the need for rural communities to pursue the recycling goal. Funding for both recycling and household hazardous waste came primarily from the state's grant program, which is further evidence of the inability to operate the recycling program were it not for inmate labor.

Barriers and Solutions

Although use of inmate labor can substantially reduce operating cost, Hamilton County warns that yielding a net revenue from the venture has caused the State Attorney General to express concern about continuing the program.

RESOURCES

The main contact responsible for Hamilton County’s solid waste and recycling program is Jim Smith.

Jim Smith, Solid Waste Director 904-792-1020 Rt. 1, Box 33 Jasper, FL 32052

LESSONS LEARNED

Two decisions have proven critical to the success of the Hamilton County programs: i) use of grant money to pay for capital items and payment for the operation of the facility with generated revenues, ii) if a program isn’t making money or isn’t at least self-sustaining, it will not continue.

A better cost recovery method for solid waste operations would be to have mandatory commercial and residential solid waste collection, hence routing more material and revenue to the landfill facility. This, rather than a higher tipping fee, is believed to be the solution to the department‘s financial concerns.

A key reason recycling has been sustainable is creativity. Rural communities must go beyond the market directories that are available through the state and the nearest metro area and seek out special deals or follow up aggressively with traditional markets.

“To stay alive yon have to treat recycling like a business, emphasizing reduction in bottom line costs. Cost avoidance and revenue generation motivate County Commissioners and key decision makers to maintain the program.”

N-9 Although there is no formal cooperative structure or regional plan, neighboring rural counties have effectively worked together with Hamilton, sharing information on recycling markets, permitted yard waste burn sites and processing tricks of the trade.

Iv-10 West Kentucky Correctional Complex Recycling Program ':iivingston

v-1 CASE STUDY V: WEST KENTUCKY CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX RECYCLING PROGRAM

COMMUNITY PROFILE Table 8 Demograuhics and Solid Waste Svstem Strudure I Collection FwIures

, Dmgraphics” ’ Variable Rates Transfer Station

Income ChipIMulch

1 %Below Povertv t 168 I I Landfill lMSWl I 0 I I I1 ,.-.---, I Land II (otner)

- Program

111 1990 Census of Populatlon and Houslng J=applicable O=not applicable .=drop on *=curbside

Six rural counties-Lyon, Marshall, Crittendon, Trigg, Livingston and Caldwell-make up the Regional Recycling Corporation in western Kentucky. When the state mandated Comprehensive Solid Waste Diversion and Management Plans by either individual counties or waste management districts, only one group of counties submitted a regional cooperative plan. However, many counties in Kentucky are beginning to realize the many benefits of sharing equipment, facilities and other resources. The extensive cooperation of the six western Kentucky counties to develop the Correctional Complex Recycling Program and v-2 form the Regional Recycling Corporation should serve as a model not only for regionalization efforts in Kentucky but other states as well.

The U.S. Census describes the six counties as 81% rural; the average poplllation is 12,613. However, the natural beauty of the Land Between The Lakes Park (LBL) and other area attractions draws several million tourists each year. Lyon County's 46-store outlet mall draws over 2,000,000 visitors annually. The surrounding counties can quadruple their population during holidays and summer months, which makes the waste generation rate increase tremendously and the need for alternate disposal options critical.

SOLID WASTE SYSTEM

Solid Waste Collection

Each of the six participating counties operates independent solid waste collection programs. In Kentucky each county has a Solid Waste Advisory Board which provides guidance on collection, transportation and disposal. The Lyon County Solid Waste Advisory Board initiated the six-county cooperative. The Lyon County Solid Waste Advisory Board consists of members representing various sectors of the community, including the county government, county and state penitentiaries, industry, tourism, incorporated cities and the 4-H organization.

Solid Waste Disposal

The Lyon County Solid Waste Advisory Board formulated plans to consolidate solid waste diversion plans from several organizations. Examples of organizations targeted for participation are:

i) the Western Kentucky Correctional Complex (a medium security facility, with approximately 380 medium security inmates and 80 minimum security inmates),

ii) the Tennessee Valley Authority (responsible for management of the Land Between The Lakes Park, which encompasses about one-third of Lyon County), and

iii) the United States Corps of Engineers (responsible for management of Lake Barkley).

v-3 A comprehensive solution for disposal of waste generated under each of these agencies' jurisdiction has not yet been developed. Rather, under the leadership of the Lyon County Solid Waste Advisory Board, the group decided to implement a uniform recycling program. Since most agencies had not yet implemented recycling, it would be easier to build a successful recycling joint venture than to undo or alter solid waste disposal practices already in place. Also, recycling could be designed so that tourists could participate by lessening their impact on solid waste generation.

Waste Diversion Strategies

County Solid Waste Advisory boards are charged with waste reduction, composting and energy recovery programs. These programs have yet to be addressed by the six-county and multiple-agency cooperative. The regionalization effort is in its infancy. To date, recycling is moving forward and appears to be a successful joint effort. If in fact the success continues, it will likely serve as a model for pursuing joint programs for othcr waste diversion strategies.

When the Lyon County Solid Waste Board realized the benefits of including other agencies in the recycling project, the board extended its territory to include the entire western Kentucky region. By doing so they could collect more material and fund a more modem facility.

Five counties-Caldwell, Crittenden, Livingston, Lyon, Marshall and Trigg-joined Lyon County to formulate ideas about a regional recycling cooperative, which would require an interlocal and an interagency agreement to manage recyclables for the region. Eventually other organizations became involved, including the three state parks in the six-county region, Murray State University, the Vehicle Enforcement Station (operated by the state Transportation Cabinet), the Kentucky State Penitentiary (maximum security, with approximately 800 inmates) and Fort Campbell Military Base.

. -- FEATURE PROGRAM

The regionalization effort is highlighted in the remainder of this case study. The recycling program is still in early development stages, so many of the individual counties have not yet determined how they will collect recyclables to support the program. Rather, the effort and focus of this case study is on the prerequisite administrative issues and planning required to pursue a Regional Recycling Corporation. Important participants in this process included several different state departments, county solid waste advisory boards and county judgekxecutives. v-4 Program Development

The state Division of Waste Management assisted the state Division of Correctional Industries by searching for a geographic area that could support a prison labor assisted recycling program with private industry. The Western Kentucky Correctional Complex was chosen due to the cooperation of the various counties, and because the complex had an abandoned building suitable for serving as an MRF. The building was previously used as a vegetable cannery and was equipped with a three-phase power supply and loading docks.

The state Divisions of Correctional Industries and Waste Management presented the recycling center proposal to the Lyon County JudgdExecutive, officials representing the Western Kentucky Correctional Complex, LBL Park and Lake Barkley, all of which fall within the county's boundaries. The Lyon County Judge/Executive agreed in concept with the proposal, so they took the lead to coordinate the six-county region. The state Department of Economic Development and the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority also became involved at that juncture.

The position of county JudgelExecutive is an elected position with duties similar to a County Administrator. The county Judge/Executive chairs the County Fiscal Court, which is made of up of Commissioners or Magistrates. The Fiscal Courts of Lyon, Crittenden, Livingston, Marshall, Trigg and Caldwell Counties agreed to form a non-profit, non-stock Regional Recycling Corporation. The Fiscal Courts of all six counties met separately and ratified the by-laws of the Regional Recycling Corporation and signed the new interlocal agreement between Regional Recycling Corporation and the Division of Correctional Industries. This action then allowed the Regional Recycling Corporation to initiate an Interagency Agreement. A total of three documents were necessary to complete formation of the Corporation:

Resolution to establish the corporation: The resolution is an ordinance that confirms that the six counties agree on the purpose of the Regional Recycling Corporation, the organization and terms of the Board of Directors.

Interlocal Agreement: The Interlocal Agreement obligates the six counties to be involved for the duration of the agreement and to provide support to the organization. It also provides clear definitions for the purpose and objectives of the Regional Recycling Corporation.

Interagencv Agreement:- The Interagency Agreement is between the Regional Recycling Corporation and the state of Kentucky Divisions of

v-5 Waste Management, Correctional Industries, Economic Development and the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority.

Interlocal and Interagency Agreements must also be signed by the State Attorney General. A 12-member Board of Directors was created to govern the business and affairs of the corporation; six members are JudgeiExecntives from each county, and each JudgeiExecutive will appoint one member to serve a four-year term. The Kentucky Recycling Brokerage Authority (KRBA) will provide marketing services for the Regional Recycling Corporation.

The Solid Waste Advisory Board is providing guidance for the collection and transportation of recyclable materials to the material recovery facility.

Imalementation

Recycling at the regional recycling center had a planned start-up date of October 1, 1993. The Regional Recycling Center will not charge a tipping fee for material brought to the center; however, the cost for transportation of raw materials to the recycling center will be the responsibility of the individual counties. Each county and incorporated city will also be independently coordinating and implementing separate methods of drop-off and/or curbside collection customized to their community. Individual counties have yet to determine how they will collect the various accepted recyclables.

Initially, the material recovery facility (MRF) will be able to handle aluminum cans, steel cans, corrugated cardboard, newsprint, PET bottles, HDPE bottles (both natural and pigmented) and three colors of glass. The Division of Waste Management specified equipment for the MRF that could process between 10 and 20 tons of material a day. The MRF is expected to use 12 laborers and one warehouse manager. To estimate the number of laborers needed for each process, several other MRFs operating in Kentucky were visited. The sorting line will occupy four to five laborers, and another three to four will be used to tie bales. Prison inmates will he used for miscellaneous tasks. While creating specifications for equipment, the Division of Waste Management purposely chose more labor-intensive equipment, like balers manufactured for manual tying. In an effort the minimize start-up cost, equipment with higher labor requirements and lower capital costs was chosen. This will not present a problem due to the abundance of free inmate labor.

The Division of Correctional Industries is responsible not only for providing inmate labor, but for modifying the building for recycling activities and maintaining the financial records of the facility.

V-6 The Division will manage the Regional Recycling Center to be located at its Western Kentucky Correctional Complex, a minimum security state penitentiary located near Fredonia, KY (Lyon County). Inmates from the minimum security section of the Westem Kentucky Correctional Complex have helped clean city and county parks and over 100 miles of highways. Inmates have also laid water lines in rural sections of the county, so both labor and management are familiar with public works operations and inmate labor procedures.

The minimum security inmates will separate the recyclables that have been brought to the recycling center and will process all the recyclable items into a marketable form.

The Division of Waste Management will provide preliminary data on expected volumes of materials that may be removed from the solid waste stream and technical data as it relates to creating specifications for equipment. The Department of Economic Development will provide marketing assistance through the Kentucky Recycling Brokerage Authority.

Financial Infomation

The Kentucky Office of Financial Management and Economic Analysis has awarded a grant, based on reimbursement, to Lyon County for $50,000. The county has to match one-third of the grant. The monies will be used to purchase equipment for the recycling center.

Each participating county will also provide funding. First-year commitments of $10,000 have been made to support the Regional Recycling Corporation.

Caldwell, Crittenden, Livingston and Lyon Counties are expected to receive initial funding from grants awarded by the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority, whereas Marshall and Trigg Counties will supply initial funding from their general funds. These funds will be used as start-up capital, to purchase equipment, to renovate the existing building and to pay for other organizational costs.

Barriers and Solutions

Extensive effort was required to process the interlocal agreement. The state Division of Waste Management wanted to review the Interlocal Agreement because they would be providing financial assistance. Additionally, the Interlocal Agreements had to be reviewed and signed by the Attorney

v-7 General of the state of Kentucky. It took five months to organize and officially incorporate the Regional Recycling Corporation.

Determining the level of participation of each state agency involved in the Regional Recycling Corporation also took about five months. Two months were needed to work out the financial and processing responsibilities of both the Division of Correctional Industries and the Regional Recycling Corporation.

Many of the participants in this project were concerned that collection mechanisms could easily outstrip demand and materials would not be able to be marketed. In response to these concerns, the KRBA has signed agreements with at least two buyers for every commonly recycled product to be handled at the regional recycling center. A civilian at the Fort Campbell Military Base will also assist in the marketing of recyclable materials.

RESOURCES

The Resource Conservation and Development (RCD) Council has approached the six counties and has offered assistance which opens the door to potential federal grant money. An explanation of RCDs follows, with more detailed information and RCD formation contacts for southern states listed in Appendix C.

The Resource Conservation and Development Council is a national United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) assisted program created in 1962 by Public Law 9798. Councils are created on a local level, usually formed within a multicounty region in cooperation with the Department of Soil Conservation, an agency of the USDA. The Department of Soil Conservation acts as the administrative agency to the Resource Conservation and Development Council. According to an amendment to Public Law 9798, the Department of Agriculture states that the Resource Conservation and Development Council was:

“...created on the assumption that local citizens, primarily in rural areas, with coordinated assistance provided through the USDA, could develop and carry out an action-oriented plan for the social, economic and environmental betterment of their communities.”

The USDAs role is to assist local government agencies in identifying and utilizing all resources available to them. Local leadership is intended to maximize human resources closest to the problems plaguing the development region in an ultimate goal to better manage natural resources and improve the quality of life. v-8 Authorized RCD areas are locally sponsored by the state Department of Agriculture. In order for a region to become an authorized RCD, they must first apply through the State Conservationist, who forwards the application to the State Secretary of Agriculture for approval.

Funding for the Resource Conservation and Development Council comes from federal, state and local agencies as well as grants from private organizations. The structure of the funding varies from one RCD to another but one constant is that the Department of Agriculture cannot contribute more than 25% to an individual project.

For more information on the Resource Conservation and Development Council, and to find out if there are local councils in your area, see Appendix C.

For more information on this case study, the following local officials may be contacted:

Honorable Terry 0. McKinney, JudgeExecutive 502-388-731 1 Lyon County Courthouse Eddyville, KY 42038

Mr. Tom Grissom, Corrections Department 502-564-4980 Division of Correctional Industries 475 Coffee Tree Road Frankfort, KY 40601

LESSONS LEARNED

It is too early to determine the success, or tell what could have been improved, in this regionalization effort. However, the counties in western Kentucky have found a method of complying with federal and state mandates that will be less of a tax burden on citizens and businesses in the region. The cooperative effort thus far has proven to be more cost effective. The elimination of duplicated effort will save the participating counties money and also allow them to comply with mandated waste diversion goals.

v-9 i

.- I DeSoto Countv Case Study

Mississippi VI-1 CASE STUDY VI: DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

COMMUNITY PROFILE

Table 9 L Demographics and Solid Waste System - Structure Collection Features I Cltv I I I MandatorvSW. I J I

I Var aole Rates

Population 67,910 Transfer Station 0

SqLare Miles

Graa Lnemr, oved

Median HH 31,756 YW Compost' 0 Income ChipIMukh

Farm Population I 910 I I Balefill 0

AGIForestty J Air Curtain 0 Fishing Incinerator

Service J Cogeneration D

Manufacturina J Haz-Mat Facilitv 0 Mining J Waste Tire J IL Program

DeSoto County, MS, lies 30 miles south of Memphis, TN. Unlike neighboring counties in Mississippi, DeSoto County has not experienced a rapid decline in population due to unemployment and extreme poverty. DeSoto County is the eighth largest county in Mississippi and was one of the top five growth counties in the state during the 1980s. DeSoto County is approximately 28 miles wide and 16 miles long, totaling 448 square miles. Its current population is 67,910, with roughly 10% of the population living below the poverty level. The county population has grown at an average growth rate of 2.33% from 1980 to 1990. DeSoto County is composed of four cities. The population of the four incorporated cities and the county are as follows:

VI-2 Table 10

Horn Lake 4,326 9,069 Olive Branch 2,067 I Southaven 16,441 I Unincorporated 28,127 I 34,200 TOTAL 53,930 67,910

Mississippi state law requires counties to discontinue the use of a special millage rate to subsidize the cost of garbagdrecycling services. Senate Bill 2984 requires that all counties implement mandatory collection and disposal of local nonhazardous solid waste through fee collection. Prior to Senate Bill 2984, residents could choose between signing individual contracts with private haulers or self hauling to “green boxes” supplied by the county. Senate Bill 3009 mandates that each county compile a solid waste management plan, which includes a 25% waste minimization strategy, 20-year solid waste projections and capacity need evaluations.

SOLID WASTE SYSTEM

Solid Waste Collection

The county had placed over 300 five-yard containers, known as green boxes, at over 130 locations for garbage drop-off. The county administrator explained, “The green boxes were at virtually every intersection. These bins had to be consolidated because the county could not control the waste.”

In the summer and fall of 1991, the green boxes were consolidated at “convenience centers” because of littering, illegal dumping, fires and vandalism near the green boxes’ locations. The staffed convenience centers were implemented as a means of reducing these problems and segregating recyclable and reusable items. Five convenience centers were originally sited, and a sixth site was added at a later date.

In response to legislative requirements discussed earlier, DeSoto County and the incorporated cities of Hernando, Horn Lake, Olive Branch and Southaven all have assessed a mandatory fee for trash collection. Monthly residential collection fees vary with each location: Hernando residents pay

VI-3 $3.00/month, Horn Lake residents pay $6.50/month, Southaven residents pay $7.50/month and county residents pay $5.00/month. The county and the cities mentioned above each operate their own waste hauling equipment.

The city of Olive Branch is the only city that does not own and operate its own vehicles. Olive Branch contracts with BFI for collection, transportation and disposal of nonhazardous household garbage. Residents in the city pay $4.00/month for waste pickup, while the city is charged $7.71 per household for the service. The city subsidizes the cost differential with appropriations from the general fund.

The county makes available 90-gallon containers to all residents in the unincorporated county for garbage storage. A $25.00 deposit is required for use of the containers.

DeSoto County residents may still take trash to one of six convenience centers, but must pay the $5.00 monthly collection fee even if trash is not set out at the curb.

Solid Waste Disaosal

The DeSoto County landfill was developed in 1972 and stopped accepting waste in November of 1990 because it reached capacity. MSW was then routed to a BFI landfill near Memphis. A rubbish pit, which opened in August 1989, is still operated by the county.

DeSoto's rubbish pit is a Class IV landfill that accepts construction and demolition debris and yard/wood waste. Rubbish disposal is free for county residents, but private haulers inside and outside of the county pay to use the site. In 1991, a total of 56,780 tons was brought to the rubbish pit; 50,626 tons of that amount was carried in from out of the county via private haulers.

The rubbish pit site in DeSoto County will be certified as a waste tire collection site. The county Board of Supervisors voted in favor of accepting tires of the facility for a fee and will in turn sell the tires to Environmental Waste Control, Inc., in Como, MS. Another agreement is pending between the city of Olive Branch and Quality Dock Bumper Company to recycle size 900 x 15 or larger tires.

VI-4 WASTE DIVERSION STRATEGIES

Waste Reduction

Education on waste management and waste minimization has been addressed in DeSoto County through assistance from the Agricultural Extension Office.

The extension office facilitated the formation of the County Waste Diversion Committee for industries and municipalities. Among the topics addressed by the committee were techniques and methods of quantifying and identifying components of the solid waste stream.

Additionally, as part of their education program, the extension office made presentations to civic organizations and taught solid waste principles in the public school system.

Recvcling

Recyclables are collected curbside along with trash (co-collection) in the unincorporated areas by county crews twice weekly. Participants in the curbside recycling program do not utilize special containers for the recyclable items; any open-top container can be used.

Commingled glass, HDPE pigmented and natural bottles, PET soda bottles and aluminum and steel cans are collected as part of the recycling program. Newspaper is not included in the curbside recycling program but may be taken to a county drop-off site.

During the collection process, recyclable items are placed in bags that are attached to the back of the tmcks. When a bag becomes full, it is tied and loaded into a side opening in the wall of the compactor trucks. On the route, when the trash is compacted, the ram does not go all the way back toward the cab of the truck and therefore minimizes glass breakage in the bagged recyclables.

After the routes are completed, bagged recyclables are taken to the DeSoto County Central Maintenance Building, where the recyclables are unloaded into an old barn at the back of the property. When enough recyclables are stored to make a truckload, the bags of recyclables are emptied into a compactor truck and taken 40 miles to the BFI MRF in North Memphis. Approximately 3,300 pounds are delivered to the MRF every two to three weeks. The county pays $5.50 per ton to have recyclables processed at the MRF.

VI-5 Drop-off recycling complements the co-collection program. The drop-off centers accept the same recyclables as the curbside program and also accept newsprint. Six convenience centers are currently operated in DeSoto County and a seventh center is scheduled to open in late 1993. Approximately 40 to 50% of material handled at convenience centers is household garbage. The remainder is recyclable or reusable. Each convenience center is staffed seven days a week, 12 hours per day. Each center is county-owned and operated with contract attendants. The contract attendants are paid $750 per month. Additional compensation can be earned by removing from the garbage recyclable and reusable items. Each contractor can sell recyclablesheusables to markets that they individually arrange. The recyclable items removed from the garbage may be sold to individuals, recycling markets or scrap yards or retained by the contractors for their own use.

Newsprint, which is not included in the curbside program, is segregated at the center in compartmentalized drop-off bins, while plastic and glass are stored together in green box containers. Bulky items such as white goods, mattresses, aluminum siding and some auto parts are also accepted at the drop-off centers. These items are stored openly until a vehicle removes them for delivery to a recycler, a secondhand store or a flea market. Used motor oil is collected in steel drums at the convenience centers. Pallets are placed under drums to keep them above the ground and to facilitate transporting full drums.

Many of the storage containers have been modified to fit the particular needs and budget of the contract attendant. Signs vary from location to location, as do the type of container used to collect a specific item. One of the functions of the onsite attendant is to assist residents with any questions they may have.

Each convenience center saves the county an estimated $3,000 per year in maintenance costs. When green boxes were scattered around the county at unstaffed drop-off sites, county crews were paid to maintain the areas. Convenience center maintenance is now the responsibility of the contracted attendant. The attendants have 30 days to sell or remove items.

Pesticide containers are recycled in DeSoto County with assistance from the Mississippi State Department of Agriculture and Commerce and the Department of Environmental Quality. Both agencies have regulatory authority over pesticide container recovery programs and have provided educational information, inspection of recovery sites and guidance on applicable state and federal laws. Financial assistance has been provided by the National Agricultural Chemical Association and the Agricultural Container Research Council. The pesticide container recycling program is detailed below in the feature program section of this report.

VI-6 Comaastine

The Agricultural Extension Office implemented a pilot home composting program. Results of the pilot program indicated that 51% of the yard waste previously sent to the county landfill was diverted to the composting programs. A county-wide compost program has not been implemented, despite the favorable results of the pilot program. A grant application was submitted to the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality for the construction of a composting facility and a chipper. The grant application was denied.

Enerw Recovery

The county does not operate an incinerator or participate in an energy recovery program.

FEATURE PROGRAM

Information ahout the evolution and operation of the pesticide container recovery program is highlighted due to its success in DeSoto County and applicability to most rural communities.

Promam Development

In 1989, the National Agricultural Chemical Association (NACA) recognized the need for pesticide container recovery programs. NACA representatives travelled to seven states to choose two in which to pursue pesticide container recovery programs. Eventually, Mississippi and Minnesota were chosen to be participants. NACA was involved initially in the DeSoto County program, but the Agricultural Container Research Council (ACRC) evolved from the NACA Container Management Task Force to take over NACA responsibilities. The ACRC increased the number of states with pesticide container recovery programs from two in 1989 to 25 in 1992.

Due to heightened public awareness concerning illegal disposal of pesticide containers, the Cooperative Extension Service in DeSoto County formulated a plan to collect pesticide containers for recycling. They researched existing pesticide container recovery programs and contacted several state agencies for regulatory and other pertinent information.

Rex Livingston Farms of Leland, MS (Washington County), had been involved with granulating pesticide containers for recycling when the Extension Service located them. Rex Livingston Farms previously coordinated activities in several Mississippi counties with assistance from NACA. DeSoto County

VI-7 began recycling HDPE pesticide containers in 1991 by joining the Rex Livingston Farms program. The Cooperative Extension Service played a major role in the education of DeSoto County farmers on methods to reduce residue in containers, such as triple rinsing containers to allow the plastic to be classified as a nonhazardous waste material.

Implementation

Pesticide container recovery began in neighboring counties as early as 1989. This allowed planners in DeSot6 County to have access to an existing blueprint for implementation. After receiving the support of agricultural producers in the county, the program gained momentum.

Educational pamphlets were received from the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), NACA, ACRC and the Farm Bureau. Mississippi State University produced radio and television advertisements which highlighted the container recovery program. Television and radio programs aired in DeSoto County during a weekly agricultural program. Newspaper articles were published to educate the public about the opportunity to recover pesticide containers. Additionally, as part of the educational program, pamphlets were included when local farmers were refilling their chemical orders.

In 1991, 10 farms in DeSoto County recycled over 5,000 pounds of plastic pesticide containers, 30% from aerial applicators. In 1992, over 10,000 pounds of DeSoto County's plastic pesticide containers were recycled by Rex Livingston Farms, which in turn recycled approximately 386,000 pounds statewide.

One of the keys to the success of this program is strict adherence to regulatory standards set by the DEQ and the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce. DEQ representatives are often on hand during collection days to monitor the rinsing and grinding operation.

Financial Information

The ACRC subsidizes the cost of pesticide container recovery in DeSoto County. The subsidy covers the cost of equipment, power to operate equipment, transportation of ground plastic, storage and eventual disposition of the plastic. The ACRC assumes full responsibility for the material after it is ground. Currently, the ACRC is paying $.18/lb to transport and deposit the ground pesticide containers at a rotary cement kiln in Missouri. The plastic is used as a fuel source to aid in the manufacturing of cement. The ground containers are also used by E.1. DuPont De Nemours and Company (DuPont) to make other pesticide container bottles.

Barriers and Solutions

Pesticide container recovery in general has several barriers to overcome. Those barriers range from transportation to contamination. The DeSoto County program overcame these barriers largely through assistance from Rex Livingston Farms and ACRC. Finding sources of funding for the program and markets for the ground HDPE containers was a hurdle Rex Livingston Farms had to overcome prior to adding DeSoto County to their program. Very few markets paid for the ground material, and Rex Livingston Farms would be incurring several costs associated with reclaiming the bottles.

ACRC is involved in research to expand environmentally acceptable uses for reclaimed pesticide container materials. Although DuPont has been willing to use the county's reclaimed material in their dry product line containers, most of DeSoto County's plastic is used as a fuel source. Expanding this market and identifying altemative markets continues to be a difficult and challenging task.

RESOURCES

The Cooperative Extension Service is a national educational network. Implemented in 1914 through the Smith Lever Act, the Cooperative Extension was designed as a partnership of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and land- grant universities, authorized by the federal Mom11 Acts of 1862 and 1890. When initially established, the purpose of the organization was to educate citizens through the expertise of professionals, state and local officials and volunteers. Through provision of technical and financial support, the Cooperative Extension Service promoted agricultural technology, environmental awareness and responsibility, utilities consumption, distribution and assistance in economics. The Cooperative Extension's focus has broadened over the years to include waste management. One of the new goals of this program is to provide residents of a particular geographic area with the means to address their waste management problems using the most advanced available technology, funding and the opportunity for local citizens and officials to play a direct role in the solution of their problems.

Additional information on Cooperative Extension programs and solid waste services can be obtained by contacting land-grant universities located in the southeast as listed in Appendix B. In Mississippi the universities include Mississippi State University and Alcorn State University.

VI-9 The Waste Management Initiative contact for the Cooperative Extension Service in Mississippi and the local contact in DeSoto County are listed below:

Martha Gatlin, Extension Home Economist/County Coordinator 601-429-1349 Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service 3260 Highway 51 South Hernando, MS 38632

Dr. Joseph Schmidt Phone: 601-325-3141 Fax: 601-325-8407 Comm. Development Specialist Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service P.O. Box 5446 Mississippi State, MS 39762

Contact names for all southern states are also listed in Appendix B

Other contacts with information available on DeSoto County waste management programs are listed below:

Kenneth Murphree, County Administrator 601-429-1460 DeSoto County Courthouse 2535 Highway 51 South Hemando, MS 38632

Agricultural Container Research Council 4 10-757-9488

National Agricultural Chemicals Association 202-296-1585

Alliance for Clean Rural Environment 800-545-54 10

LESSONS LEARNED

The participation rate in DeSoto County's recycling co-collection program is down to an estimated 10%. The use of a compactor truck by county crews to pick up both garbage and recyclables has produced a negative view of the recycling program in the public's eye. Citizens watch the collection activity

VI-10 and perceive that recyclables are being discarded as trash; then these concemed citizens contact the county to see why the recyclables are being thrown away.

Although the use of garbage trucks to haul both garbage and recyclables confused many citizens, the DeSoto County Board of Supervisors had very little capital to invest, hence made the decision to pursue co-collection.

The problem of maximizing routes and keeping a positive image of recycling is currently being addressed by a public education campaign. The intent of the campaign is to let residents know that material set out for recycling is actually recycled, despite the use of the compactor truck in the co- collection process, and that such a collection system means residents save money. The primary lesson learned in DeSoto County was that the recycling message should have been communicated more frequently and more visibly early in the program. The confidence in the recycling program of the residents of DeSoto County has been eroded, and it will take a substantial effort to regain the residents' confidence and support.

VI-11 i i

-L

! i

.- i Pamlico County Case Study

North Carolina w-I CASE STUDY Vlk PAMLICO COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

COMMUNITY PROFILE Table 11 Demozrauhics and Solid Waste Svstem Structure CollectIan Features

Grad % Unemployed 7.0 MRF "

Median HH 21,060 YW ComposV D I Income I I I ChiolMulch I I

Haz-Mat Facility

[I] 1990 Census of Papulation and Housing J=applicable O=not applicable .=drop off .=curbside

Pamlico County is centrally located on the shoreline of North Carolina, midway down the state coast. The terrain is mostly marshy. The central area of the county is classified as wetlands and therefore cannot be developed (213,400 acres of Pamlico County is land; 151,000 acres is water). The fact that only two-lane highways run through the county is an indication of the extent to which Pamlico County is remotely located. The town of Bayboro (population of 733), the county seat, has one traffic light. The county population is 11,372, and is relatively stable. Pamlico County is not affected by tourism or summer residents to the extent other coastal communities are. There are no television or radio stations located in Pamlico County.

VII-2 The closest metropolitan areas are the city of Raleigh (population 207,951), located 126 miles northwest of Pamlico County, and the city of Fayetteville (population 75,695), which is 125 miles due west of Pamlico County.

Very little industry exists in this part of North Carolina. Farming and fishing are the two dominant industries, particularly in Pamlico County. The majority of residents not engaged in fishing or farming work in the town of New Bern located in neighboring Craven County.

The regulatory framework driving waste diversion in North Carolina and Pamlico County is as follows:

Pamlico County must reduce the amount of waste it generates by 2,000 tons in 1993 and by over 4,000 tons by mid-year 2001 to assist the state in meeting its reduction goals.

All counties and municipalities were required to implement recycling programs in July 1991.

All of the following items are prohibited from being landfilled: whole tires, waste oil, white goods, lead acid batteries and yard waste.

SOLID WASTE SYSTEM

Solid Waste Collection

Although it is mandatory to have solid waste collection, all refuse collection in the unincorporated areas of Pamlico County is accomplished through private haulers. Of the incorporated towns, only Oriental has municipal solid waste collection crews.

Solid Waste Disposal

Pamlico County’s landfill, known in the area as “Mt. Trash-less” will close in October 1993. This landfill was developed in 1982. The Pamlico County landfill would have an estimated life of 10 years, but is subject to closure due to Subtitle D regulations.

As the cost to construct and operate landfills became prohibitive, Pamlico, Craven and Carteret Counties formed the Coastal Partnership Regional Solid Waste Management Authority to consolidate waste management activities in the three-county region. A 400-acre site (an expansion of the present Craven

VII-3 County landfill) will be modified to meet state and Subtitle D regulations and will be utilized by all three counties.

Of the three counties, none was any closer to being in compliance with Subtitle D regulations than another, so the decision was based on very basic criteria: which had the space and which could justify having it located in their county. The new landfill will be located in Craven County because Carteret County had no room for expansion; Pamlico had the space but couldn't afford the liner necessary to be in compliance. Craven County also had the room to expand hut, like Pamlico, could not bear the cost of the liner, so the final decision on whether to locate in Pamlico or Craven was based on anticipated use. Craven County generates 275 tondday; Pamlico generates 25 tondday; Carteret generates 140 tondday. Based on these statistics, the new landfill will be located in Craven County.

Tipping fees at the regional landfill will be $37/ton for Craven County and $49.50/ton for Pamlico and Carteret. The reason for the difference is due to the fact that Craven County does not need to build a transfer station, and the other two counties have to cover the cost of transporting their waste to the new landfill.

Bonds were sold to fund capping off Pamlico's old landfill, construction of the transfer stations and the new landfill. Tipping fees will help to recoup the costs of building the new landfill.

The Pamlico County Landfill budget for fiscal year 1992-93 was $22 1,000. The requested amount for fiscal year 1993-94 is $309,000. This amount includes, among other things, the following: $7,144 for well water monitoring, $2,700 for engineering fees for closure and $135,000 for capping 4 1/2 acres.

The Pamlico landfill closing will coincide with the opening of the new Coastal Partnership Regional Transfer Station (located at the same site as the Pamlico County Landfill) and the opening of the new regional landfill in Craven County.

WASTE DIVERSION STRATEGIES

Waste Reduction

Pamlico County has no program designed specifically for waste reduction.

VII-4 Recvcling

Drop-off recycling started in 1990. Start-up costs for the drop-off program included $200 for six Jeep trailers, $4,800 each for two roll-off containers and $72,778 for a roll-off truck.

Pamlico County operates two mobile drop-offs that move to new locations around the county every 24 hours, five days a week. The mobile drop-offs are 40-cubic-yard roll-offs. County haulers transport the roll-offs to their destinations and haul the full roll-offs to the landfill's recycling center to be emptied. The county trucks then transport the roll-off to its next destination around the county. Once the materials are processed, the county hauls the materials to market. The Jeep trailers are being phased out, but still serve as stationary drop-offs. The county has four stationary drop-off locations.

Aluminum beverage cans, steel cans, three colors of glass, PET and HDPE plastic bottles are accepted in the drop-off program. The county also sponsors three paper drives per month as part of the mobile drop-off program.

The towns of Alliance, Bayboro and Minnesott Beach all have curbside source separated recycling programs. Using bins, the towns collect three colors of glass, aluminum cans, mixed paper and corrugated, steel cans, and PET and HDPE plastic bottles. All three of these communities contract with Waste Management Industries for the collection of the recyclables and for their refuse collection. The recyclables are hauled to the recycling center at the Pamlico landfill and county haulers transport the materials to market, along with the materials collected in the drop-off programs. The proceeds from these programs all go to the county.

The town of Alliance was the first community in the county to have a curbside recycling program. The town holds a recycling lottery to boost participation each month. Residents are chosen at random and that household's garbage is sorted through on pickup day. If no recyclables are found in the trash, that resident wins $100. If recyclahles are found, the money goes back into the lottery and rolls over to the next month's lottery.

Since the program's inception in July 1992, lottery winnings have only been awarded five times. Considering that five household are checked each month in the 12 months the program has been in place, the success rate is not very high.

Residents are definitely interested in the program, but the town board insists that the guidelines for the winner selection be strictly adhered to. One cap left on a soda bottle out of 40 is enough to disqualify a resident. The point

VII-5 of the lottery program is not only get residents to recycle but to recycle according to end market specifications.

A recycling center currently located at the Pamlico landfill is expected to remain active even after the regional landfill is operational. Although there has been some talk of regionalized recycling, right now the focus of the regional authority is on the disposal issues.

The goal of the county’s recovery and diversion programs at the landfill is to minimize handling without compromising the quality of recyclables and to use low- or no-cost equipment or materials to achieve this end.

Once the regionalization takes place in October 1993, the recycling center will retain five county employees, and an additional three county employees will run the transfer station. Four full-time county employees currently operate the landfill and three full-time county employees serve as the recycling crew, preparing materials for market. The landfill also uses inmate labor from the county jail.

Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) supplies a semi-trailer at the landfill to transport plastics, HDPE bottles and OCC to a BFI collection center in Kinston, NC. To ease loading of the baled material into the trailer, a ramp leading to the mouth of the trailer was constructed out of discarded construction debris. Now the forklift can drive right up into the trailer to deposit the recyclables.

Plastics collected in the Pamlico County program are sorted at the landfill using a conveyor that was purchased for “next to nothing” at a junkyard. On another ramp built from recovered construction debris, trucks can drive up to dump loose, commingled plastics into a hopper. The material drops onto the conveyor belt where workers sort the desired plastics from plastics not accepted in the program and other contaminants.

HDPE plastic is placed into one dumpster and PET plastic into another. The contaminants remain on the belt and are fed into a dumpster.

Another example of this philosophy of minimal handling is demonstrated in the way aluminum cans and steel cans are separated. The commingled materials are dumped onto a table, the same type that is used by fishermen to clean their catch. Any garbage or contaminants are separated out and the metals are dumped into a can crusher. The steel cans are caught by a magnet, the aluminum cans are crushed and then blown up a pipe that was built through the wall of the recycling center and are fed directly into a dumpster outside.

VII-6 The roll-off container is then hauled to market and the materials are handled only once.

A tire collection program is also offered at the Pamlico landfill. Residents may dump their first five tires at no charge, but after the fifth time the charge ranges from $1.00 to $20.00, depending on the size of the tire. It is primarily commercial haulers that bring tires to the landfill for disposal. According to state regulations, all haulers carrying tires to be disposed of must have a special hauler's permit.

Used motor oil is collected at the center in a small tank that is later picked up by Safety Kleen of Raleigh. White goods are collected and marketed to a scrap metal dealer in Jacksonville, NC. An appliance repairman vacuums out the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) prior to selling them to the scrap dealer. Lead acid batteries are collected and go to North State Batteries in Wilson, NC. The landfill receives $1.00 for every lead acid battery sold to North State Batteries.

Various other materials are recovered at the landfill if they are known to have a resale value. For example, all railroad ties are retrieved from the waste stream and sold to the public to he used in residential landscaping. Large metal barrels are also used by residents for landscape applications, so they are retrieved and sold for $5.00 each.

Comoos ling

The Coastal Partnership will pay to establish wood chipping and composting facilities. The regional authority will also provide mobile chipping equipment to travel between the counties as needed.

Enemv Recovery

Pamlico County does not participate in an energy recovery program.

FEATURE PROGRAM

Fish waste recycling is a unique waste diversion activity that has been accomplished by Bayboro Dehydrating Company, Inc. The company received the 1993 North Carolina state recycling organization award for Industry of the Year.

vn-7 The facility's operation cannot be counted as part of the waste reduced through the Pamlico County recycling program as the company has been in operation since 1948, prior to the waste diversion act. According to the North Carolina Solid Waste Management Act of 1989, the only programs that count toward reduction goals are those that counter solid waste problems identified with the passing of the legislation, and fish waste was not considered to be one of those problems. Nevertheless, Bayboro Dehydrating's operations are still providing a substantial reduction of the county's solid waste stream.

Bayboro Dehydrating is located in Vandemere, NC. It is a privately owned company that processes fish waste and crab shells into a material used as an additive for chicken feed and for natural fertilizer.

Implementation

Material comes from 13 crab houses in the area, 8 of which are located in Pamlico County. (Crab houses are where seafood is taken to be prepared for market.) In 1992, the facility processed roughly 7,000 tons of fish waste and crab shells (the whole county produces 7,223 tons of MSW per year, in addition to the material processed by Bayboro Dehydrating).

A relatively simple technology is used that would not be too difficult to replicate in other coastal communities.

Fish waste and crab shells are dumped onto a conveyor, which feeds into a 22-foot agricultural dryer. The dryer is split into three sections and bums about 60 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil per hour. Other types of fuel oil can be used, hut the company has found No. 2 to work the best in this operation. In the first compartment, the fish waste is cooked at temperatures of 260 to 270 degrees. Material is then fed into the next compartment, where it is dried using a fuel forced dryer (the same type that is used in sweet potato operations). When the waste is dried, it is fed into the last compartment, where it is syphoned out of the drum through fans, into an overhead cyclone to cool and flows down into a hammermill. There are screens in the hammermill to determine the size of grain desired, depending on the end use.

Financial Information

Because Bayboro Dehydrating is a private enterprise, no financial information is on record with the county. The company did not release the information for this report.

VII-8 Baniem and Solutions

The company has experienced smooth operation since their start up, Their receipt of the 1993 Recycling Industry of the Year award reaffirms their success.

RESOURCES

The following individuals served as primary contacts for assembly of the case study information and site visit tours. Each has agreed to continue to serve as a resource, providing additional information to the reader as needed:

Judy Bolin, Coordinator 919-745-528 1 Pamlico County Dept. of Recycling and Litter Control P. 0. Box 776 Bayboro, NC 28515-0776

Henry Blayney, Operation Manager 9 19-633-1564 Coastal Regional Solid Waste Management Authority P.O. Box 1166 252 Cravens St., 4th Floor New Bern, NC 28563

Judy Thaanum, Owner 9 19-745362 1 Bayboro Dehydrating Company, Inc. P.O. Box 145 Vandemere, NC 28587

Pamlico County has, since 1948, diverted what would have been the biggest component in their waste stream, fish waste. Having waste reduction and recycling relatively under control, the county had a tougher issue to tackle: waste disposal. Much has been achieved through the formation of a regional solid waste authority. Public reaction to the formation of the partnership has been favorable. The Department of Recycling and Litter Control produced videotapes and a slide show which were shown at church meetings, civic organizations and town meetings. Pamlico County Department of Recycling and Litter Control believes that because they took the time and effort to explain

VII-9 the process of regionalization and waste disposal, residents of Pamlico County were more receptive and participatory in the program.

vu-10 City of Morristown case Study

Tennessee Vm-1 CASE STUDY VIE CITY OF MORRISTOWN, TN

COMMUNITY PROFILE Table 12 Demogranhics and Solid Waste Svstem Structure Collection Features city J Mandatoly S.W. J County J Co-collecVBluebag

Coooerative 0 Yard Waste

DistriciIAuthor~ 0 Recycling

Demogr6Qhlcs'" Var ab8eRates Populaton 21.385 Transfer Station

Percent (".J RLra Long Haul Waste SqJare Miles 12 Dlspo~alFeatures

O0 H gh Scnool 57.4 Re-Lse

Farm Population 0 Balefill IJI AWForestry J Air Curtain J I Fishina I I I Incinerator I I

I Service I J I I Coaeneration I 0 I I Manufacturina I J I I Haz-Mat Facilitv I I Mining J Waste Tire J Program

Morristown is located in eastem Tennessee at the foothills of the Great Smokey Mountains, roughly 40 miles east of Knoxville, and has a population of 21,385. The area surrounding Momstown is sparsely populated and rural. Momstown is the only incorporated city located in Hamblen County.

Although the focus of this case study is on the city's operations, both solid waste and recycling systems are closely intertwined with the county's activities. The Keep America Beautiful program in Morristown has joined in the partnership to accomplish recycling and waste reduction education. Also active in solid waste and recycling is TIDI Waste Systems, a private company that services 99% of all vm-2 commercial and industrial accounts within Hamblen County. Morristown has implemented unique adaptations to traditional solid waste disposal and recycling. Hamblen County, along with Morristown, uses a “balefill” rather than landfill, and they have successfully implemented bluebag recycling programs as opposed to the traditional bin systems.

SOLID WASTE SYSTEM

The Morristown Street Department collects all refuse, recyclables, yard waste, white goods and bulky items in Morristown. Refuse is collected curbside, once a week, using three 20-cubic-yard packer trucks. Yard waste, white goods and bulky items are picked up curbside approximately every 10 days. The general tax base supports refuse collection.

Yard waste is disposed of using an air curtain incinerator and is picked up separately from other bulky goods. Drivers collect brush during the first trip on the route, take the material to the air curtain located at the balefill and then go out for white goods.

Brush is collected every day by three trucks, which are dedicated to bulky items. The city is divided into four quarters; all three trucks start in one quarter, complete it and move on to another quarter in a counterclockwise direction around the city. It takes 10 days to cover the entire city, so when drivers finish all quadrants, it’s time to start again.

Solid Waste Disposal

The city and county formed a joint solid waste authority in 1989. A joint disposal facility was developed to meet the compliance measures of Subtitle D. Neither the city nor county had the funding or capability to meet the regulations on their own.

The authority decided to use a “balefill” rather than a landfill, primarily due to financial incentives. The site of the present balefill was formerly the city’s landfill. In 1989 the city landfill only had three years of life left. By disposing of waste in bales, the disposal site now has at least 25 years of remaining life. A total of 125 to 150 tons of refuse per day is disposed of at the balefill. The city and county both pay $23/ton or $3.65/cubic yard to tip at the balefill.

vm-3 WASTE DIVERSION STRATEGIES

Waste Reduction

With assistance from the local chapter of Keep America Beautiful (KAB), Morristown has developed educational materials for schools and civic organizations which address waste reduction strategies such as service reduction and pre-cycling. KAB has been a valuable resource to the city in several waste management programs.

Incinerating yard waste and bailing household waste are used to reduce the volume of waste. The balefill operation is highlighted as a feature program later in this case study.

Recycling was initiated via drop-off service in September 1990 in Morristown. Seven stationary drop-off bins were located at schools around the city, and one was located at the TIDI Waste facility in Morristown.

The drop-off containers have a capacity of eight cubic yards and were each painted a different color, indicating a different type of material. The color system was consistent throughout all drop-off locations. For instance, yellow was the color designated for all glass containers throughout the county.

The bins were serviced by TIDI Waste. A different material would be emptied from its respective bin on a different day of the week. For instance, all of the glass would be emptied around the city on one day; the next day the aluminum cans would be emptied, etc. A front end loader truck was used to empty bins and take the recyclables to the Lakeway Recycling and Sanitation MRF. At the time, the facility was nothing more than a tipping floor with some roll-offs. The materials were transported loose to markets.

The city of Morristown was responsible for paying TIDI Waste for their services. Morristown was charged $1,600 a month for collection of the materials and the arrangements for transport to the market.

Recvcling

In March 1991, a recycling task force was formed with a representative from all entities of waste management in Momstown and Hamblen County (including private waste haulers, recyclers and private citizens through KAB). The task force was formed to devise a means of providing more accessible recycling options to all county residents. vm-4 The County Executive suggested that a curbside program was the logical program choice since all county residents already had access to curbside refuse collection. Bluebags were decided on rather than bins because it would cost less to provide bluebags to residents than bins. Another factor was that farm residents had a distance to go to deposit their recyclables at the roadside. The task force concluded that participation rates would be higher if bluebags were used because residents would not have to carry a bin back to their house after collection. Another reason why bluehags were favored was the fact that they require no special trucks for collection. Packer tnicks could be used, rather than having to purchase compartmentalized recycling trucks to collect source separated materials.

The city and county originally planned to provide bluebag recycling to all residents at no charge. This plan was later amended when it was discovered there was no convenient way to distribute the bags.

Prior to the kick-off of the curbside program, KAB held educational workshops for various civic organizations to explain how the program would work.

To get the program started, Lin Pac Flexible Packaging, a plastic bag manufacturer with a facility in Morristown, donated 100,000 bluebags. After that, residents would purchase their bags from local retailers or carry out their groceries in bluebags. A number of local businesses started using bluebags as sacks for customers to carry out groceries. Four stores, four area banks and the local power company made bags available at no charge. The bags differ in size from store to store, but because the goal was to make the program convenient, bag size was not an issue. Retailers and businesses giving away bags added to the convenience.

In January 1992, the curbside bluebag program was implemented in Hamblen County and Morristown. On the same day, all drop offs around the county were closed, with the exception of those located at TIDI Waste. TIDI Waste continues to service the drop-off bins at their location, with Lakeway Recycling and Sanitation processing the collected materials.

Morristown offers curbside collection of recyclables every other week, on alternating days from refuse collection. Even though refuse is collected every week, the volumes of recyclables being collected are too small to justify a weekly pickup.

Local radio stations and the local newspaper were instrumental in helping educate the community and reminding the residents of the recycling collection schedule. The local newspaper, The Citizens Tribune, offered to print an insert

VIII-5 about the recycling program at no charge. The newspaper also assigned a reporter to cover the program’s history, and KAB contributed numerous pieces on general recycling education.

No new start-up equipment was needed because the city had an extra 20- cubic-yard packer truck. The truck was painted blue (so that it would be associated with the bluebags) and recycling logos were painted on the sides. Although the truck is equipped with a compactor, it is not used when collecting recyclables because of glass breakage. The county already had the packer unit but needed to purchase a new chassis for $60,000.

The curbside program collects HDPE natural and pigmented bottles, PET soda and custom bottles, aluminum and steel cans, three colors of glass containers and newspaper. Containers are collected in one bluebag, and residents are requested to put newspapers in a separate bluebag to cut down on contamination.

Continuing education is provided by putting a neon orange sticker on the bag if it contains unacceptable material. The sticker has a checklist of reasons why the contents of the bag are unacceptable (e.g., nonrecyclable materials placed in the bluebag, recyclables set out in non-recyclable bag, newspapers in with containers, etc.). The whole bag is left so the resident can see why it wasn’t accepted.

During the program’s first year, media ad space and air time was funded almost exclusively through donations. One of the main reasons for the program’s success is a supportive and eager community infrastructure, from businesses to residents, getting involved in the program and promoting it.

Apartment and condominium complexes are also serviced in the program. Tenants bring their bags to a central collection point along a main street bordering the complex so the truck can service the entire complex in one stop.

The program boasts a participation rate of 75% in both the city and county. Hamblen County and Morristown have already met the 25% reduction goal for landfilling or incineration established by the Tennessee Solid Waste Management Act of 1991, ahead of the 1995 deadline.

The Material Recycling Facility that processes the bluebag recyclables has been in operation since 1990. It was designed for use with the bluebag program and is operated by a private enterprise. The MRF could be termed “low budget,” but it gets the job done. A nearby community recently built an MRF that cost $500,000. This cost included construction of a building for $210,000 and a rather sophisticated baling system. The Lakeway Recycling

VIJI-6 MRF uses a building that formerly served as a Ryder Truck Rental garage. Lakeway added on a few hundred square feet to expand the facility to 6,200 square feet. A used baler was purchased for $20,000 and a used granulator for $3,000.

City and county trucks dump bluebags on the tipping floor. A Bobcat retrieves them and delivers the bags to a conveyor. A worker on the sorting line de-bags the material manually. Newspaper is picked out first so that it can be kept clean and dry. There are a total of seven materials and seven chutes on the opposite side of the sorting line from where the workers stand. As the materials are pulled out, they are thrown into their respective chutes and into dumpsters located below the line. The segregated recyclables are processed according to spot market specifications because markets and price change frequently.

Composting

No city-operated compost program is offered to residents. The air curtain incinerator is utilized.

Enemv Recovery

All MSW is processed through the balefill. No waste-to-energy facilities are operated by the city.

FEATURE PROGRAM

Information about the evolution and operation of Morristown's balefill is highlighted in this section. The balefill has proven to be a successful solution to life span and cost concerns.

Program Develooment

In 1989, the City Council and the County Commission both wanted to convert their landfills into balefills to extend the lifespans. The city and county pursued the venture together to reduce equipment costs and operational costs. Before making the final decision to convert their individual landfill operatiohs to a balefill, members of the City Council and County Commissioners visited several balefills. The city and county members also sought information regarding the availability of grants and other funding sources from the University of Tennessee County Technical Assistance Service organization. The organization is a division of the university's Institute of Public Services, and consists of five agencies with consultants to assist residents, private

VIII-7 industries, municipalities and counties in Tennessee on all aspects of business and solid waste management.

The issue of whether to merge the city and county solid waste authorities and convert to a balefill operation was put to a vote by both groups and the decision was made to join forces under the Joint Hamblen CountyMorristown Solid Waste System (Joint Solid Waste System). The two groups appointed four members each to the Joint Solid Waste System Board, which would govern and run the balefill.

Imolementation

The Joint Solid Waste System took control of the balefill on July 1, 1989, which is also the start of the Joint Solid Waste System's fiscal year. Baling operations began in September 1989. Between July and September, waste was being dumped loose and a compactor was run over the waste since the material was not densified in a bale.

Financial Information

Ownership of the city's and county's equipment was transferred to the Joint Solid Waste System. The Joint Solid Waste System made the following expenditures for the balefill operation:

Equipment Q&t

2 Mosley horizontal balers $689,000 and conveyor systems

1 scale $ 50, 000

Air curtain destructor $150,000 (including installation)

Facility construction (for baling $710,000 operation and offices)

The total cost of this equipment and the facility was roughly $2,000,044. At the time, the Joint Solid Waste System could not obtain grant support, so funding was ultimately obtained through a loan from the Tennessee Municipal League Bond Fund. Funding for waste management equipment is now available through the state Department of Environment and Conservation (the Department of Environment and Conservation is responsible for regulating all landfills in Tennessee). Operational costs are recovered through a tipping fee. vm-8 The Joint Solid Waste System uses an enterprise fund accounting system to fully account for costs.

Barriels and Solutions

No real stumbling blocks were encountered in the process of forming the Joint Solid Waste System and converting the individual landfills into the joint balefill. There was a waiting period for constructing the facility, ordering and installing the equipment and transferring the individual landfill permits to the Joint Solid Waste System balefill permit; however, during this period an interim permit was started.

RESOURCES

A local KAB chapter was organized in May 1985 to address litter control. Their focus has since broadened into several of Morristown's education programs, including recycling and balefilling.

A unique partnership was formed between Monistown, Hamblen County and KAB to work closely with First Brands Corporation on the bluebag program. First Brands is one of the companies making bluebags for curbside recycling. KAB received $2,500 from the company to fund an outdoor classroom (located at the balefill) to teach school children about the environment.

KAB provides assistance nationally to municipal waste management programs. The KAB national contact is:

Roger Powers, President 203-323-8987 Keep America Beautiful, Inc. Mill River Plaza 9 West Broad St. Stamford, CT 06902

The following individuals are involved in the daily management of Morristown's waste programs and available to provide additional information to the reader upon request.

VIII-9 Sami Barile, Director 615-586-6383 Ellen Glasgos, Education Director Morristown/Hamblen County Keep America Beautiful System P.O. Box 9 Morristown, TN 37815

Alvin Collins, Balefill Manager 615-581-8784 Hamblen County-Morristown Disposal System 3849 Sublett Road Morristown, TN 37813

Joe Chancy, MRF Manager 615-587-3257 Lakeway Recycling and Sanitation P.O. Box 1894 Monistown, TN 37816-1894

Contacts at other agencies providing resources to Momstown are listed below:

Joe Sweat, Director 615-255-6416 Tennessee Municipal League 226 Capitol Boulevard, Suite 710 Nashville, TN 37219-1894

Denise Knight, Manager 615-255-6416 Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund 226 Capitol Boulevard, Suite 710 Nashville, TN 37219-1894

Louis Bumbus, Solid Waste Consultant 61 5-242-0358 University of Tennessee Institute of Public Services County Technical Assistance Program

LESSONS LEARNED

The balefill has been a very cost effective, practical way for the city and county to stay in the disposal business and avoid using a privately operated landfill. vm-lo i

Bluebag recycling programs do not come without some problems. Morristown has been able to overcome most of the problems commonly associated with these programs (ie., participation, contamination, etc.) through aggressive public education, which can be attributed largely to involving KAB. 7 -i

i ! I .i ~-

VIII-11 - j Town of Signal Mountcrin case Studv

Tennessee M-1 CASE STUDY IX: TOWN OF SIGNAL MOUNTAIN, TN

COMMUNITY PROFILE Table 13 Demomauhics and Solid Waste Svstem Structure Collectmn Feat~res

I Powlation I 7034 I I Transfer Station I J I I Percent (%) Rural1 I I Lono Haul Waste I " I Square M#es 5 Disposal Features

I % High School I 936 I I Re-Use IJI Grad

% Unemployed 20 MRF 0

Median HH 49.821 YW Compost/ 0

Program

[I]ISSO Census of Population and Housing /=applicable O=not applicable .=drop off .=curbside

The town of Signal Mountain is located approximately 15 miles northwest of the city of Chattanooga, in Hamilton County, TN. The 7,034 residents live at the top of the mountain, which has an elevation of 1,910 feet. The road leading up to the town arrives at a primarily residential, quiet community. Most of the larger industries in the Hamilton County area have gone out of business in recent years. Quaker Oats had a facility in the area, as did a glass manufacturer. Both companies have relocated to other areas of the country. One of the largest employers still operating in the immediate area is the Coca-Cola Bottling Plant, located in Chattanooga.

M-2 SOLID WASTE SYSTEM

Solid Waste Collection

The town of Signal Mountain Department of Public Works has provided trash collection for their residents for the past 30 years.

When the program first began, all town residents had access to back-door service at no direct charge. The costs for the program were funded through the town's tax base. The amount budgeted from the general fund for solid waste collection in Signal Mountain for fiscal year 1992-1993 is $329,000. Roughly four years ago, the town started offering curbside garbage collection service. When curbside service was introduced, residents who wanted back-door service had to pay $6.00/month, in addition to their taxes. Elderly and handicapped residents receiving back-door service were exempted from the additional charge.

Today, curbside refuse collection is the standard practice and is provided to 2,223 households. Roughly 248 senior citizen households have back-door service at no charge and 204 other households opt to pay for back-door service.

White goods and scrap metals are also collected by the town. Residents have three options for collection of bulky items: they may use a drop-off container located at the town transfer station, they can wait until the first Wednesday of every month when the town will collect the items curbside for no additional charge or they may request a special pickup at any other time during the month and pay a $20.00 fee. The drop-off container for white goods and scrap metal is supplied at no charge to the town by Southern Foundry of Chattanooga, TN. When the bin is full, Southern Foundry then comes and picks up the material, again for no charge.

Waste collected by the town is taken to the transfer station, consolidated, then hauled to the Hamilton County landfill. The transfer station was opened in the early 1970s in conjunction with the closing of the town's landfill. The town's landfill was closed by the state for environmental reasons. The landfill was built on a rock shelf, and runoff from the landfill would flow down the shelf and into a creek, which emptied into the Tennessee River.

There is no charge for residents to dump waste at the transfer station, with the exception of the following two types of materials: i) the charge for non- compactible items, such as roofing and other building material, wood and construction debris, is $25.00 per pickup truck load for town residents; non- residents pay $40.00 per pickup truck load; ii) the charge for waste tire disposal is $1.00 per tire for cars and light trucks and $5.00 per tire for large trucks and tractors.

Solid Waste Disoosal

The Hamilton County landfill was constructed in 1972. This landfill has no liner in place and leachate testing is not performed, so it must be closed in accordance with Subtitle D. Construction has hegun on the new landfill, which is scheduled to open in 1996 on a site roughly 500 yards from the present landfill. The estimated cost for construction is $2,000,000.

Refuse processed through the town of Signal Mountain transfer station is hauled to the Hamilton County landfill, located approximately 30 miles from Signal Mountain. Each haul of trash down the mountain costs the town $300, with weekly costs running $1,500, including tipping fees.

Tipping fees at the Hamilton County landfill are $23.00/ton for all residential and commercial waste. If waste comes in by pickup truck, the landfill charges $5.00 per load or $lO.OO/ton. The only exceptions to this are roofing material (the tipping fee being $23.00/ton) and asbestos. Disposal of asbestos at the Hamilton County landfill requires a permit issued by the state Department of Environmental Regulation. The cost is $200.00 per load plus the $23.00/ton tipping fee and the company disposing of the waste must provide protective clothing and face masks for the landfill employees handling the material. A flat rate is charged for brush; $5.00 per pickup truck load or $10.00 per ton. Brush is kept separate and burned at the landfill in dumpsters, along with wooden pallets recovered from dumped refuse.

WASTE DIVERSION STRATEGIES

Waste Reduction

Recycle Signal, Inc., is a non-profit citizens advisory organization with a primary focus of educating the community about recycling, waste diversion, waste management and environmental issues. The town of Signal Mountain donated a site for a recycling/reuse center and employs one full-time attendant at the center. The office of Recycle Signal, Inc., is located at the center, in a 100-year-old tobacco bam that was reconstructed on the site.

An extensive reuse program is sponsored by Recycle Signal, Inc., where “swap shops” are utilized. Residents can obtain and/or pass on various items using a swap board at the facility. A used clothing drop-off box was established for the Welfare Council, and a book swap is also located at the site.

M-4 On the swap hoard, residents advertised household articles they no longer used but did not want to discard. As an example, hard-cover books are not easily recycled, so the center encourages residents to leave old books, exchanging them for other books the center has collected. When the program began, literature was sent to residents advising them of the landfill shortages in the state and of the volumes of waste produced by the town. The urgency of the message, attractiveness of the facility and strong sense of community seem to bring the residents out in full force to take advantage and support of the center.

Recycling

The town of Signal Mountain's recycling program is a centralized drop-off program that is staffed by one employee. Roll-off containers of glass, aluminum beverage cans, plastic bottles coded one or two and mixed paper are hauled to market by an employee from the town. The mixed paper and newspaper are collected in separate containers and taken to Chattanooga Recycle Fibers, Inc. Plastics go to Orange Grove Recyclers, Inc. The OCC is picked up by Waste Management. Overall supervision of the facility is the responsibility of Recycle Signal, Inc.

The recycling program in the town of Signal Mountain is an exemplary centralized drop-off program. Details of the Recycle Signal facility development and operations are highlighted in the Feature Program section.

Comaosting

A demonstration program for backyard composting is set up at the Recycle Signal facility. However, residents are encouraged to compost at home, eliminating the need for a community-wide program.

Enerw Recovery

The town does not participate in an energy recovery program.

FEATURE PROGRAM

The town of Signal Mountain accomplishes recycling through one centralized drop-off facility. This low-cost method of recovering materials for recycling has proven very effective in terms of volume of material generated and public participation and enthusiasm.

M-5 Program Development

Steps leading to the formation of Recycle Signal, Inc., and the Recycle Signal facility were as follows:

January 1989-Louise Mann, Louisa Mesick and Dick Graham, the program's founders, began planning recycling program and concept for the center.

w The founders designed a model program for the TVA and received a grant from TVA for $8,000 to start implementing the program.

September 1989-Drop-off center (located at town transfer station) began operating. Sixty-nine tons of recyclables were collected by calendar year end.

w September 1989-Educational programs began in schools, monthly updates on the program and centers were published in the local newspaper and educational materials were distributed to residents.

w September 1990-Began tracking capture rates and analyzing program data on a regular basis. The new drop-off facility opened at its present site.

November 199CLThe Recycle Signal citizens advisory group received its 501 (C)3 non-profit environmental organization status, forming a corporation known as Recycle Signal, Inc., and seceded from the town of Signal Mountain.

holementation

The drop-off program is used primarily by the residents of Signal Mountain but also by residents of the nearby town of Walden and the unincorporated areas of Hamilton County and of Saquatchie County. The Director of Recycle Signal, Inc., estimates the total population served by the program to be 15,000. Newspaper articles on the success of Signal Mountain's program mention the fact that residents of Saquatchie Valley and Chattanooga make difficult drives up the mountain to make use of the drop-off facility. The staff at Recycle Signal, Inc., however, advised the residents of other communities that the center was for the town of Signal Mountain only and gave them alternative recycling venues in their geographic areas. Based on a recent study done by the town, approximately 20% of the recyclables collected at the Recycle Signal drop-off center is left by residents of neighboring communities. This amount is deducted from any quantity figures shown in this report. Similar adjustments

M-6 are made by Recycle Signal, Inc., in order to track diversion rates and avoided tipping fees.

The variety of materials accepted at the center is impressive for such a small community in a relatively isolated location. There are roll-off containers for aluminum, three colors of glass, newspaper and mixed paper, including magazines and cereal boxes and a separate container for OCC. Steel cans are noticeably absent from this list of materials. This is because the closest available market for steel cans is in Rossville, GA, roughly a 45-minute drive from Signal Mountain. Once the material reaches Rossville, it is eventually shipped back to Chattanooga. Once this routing problem is worked out by the recycler, the center will begin collecting steel cans.

Situated to the left of the roll-offs is a small covered area housing a baler and large garbage cans to deposit plastic recyclables. A board posted next to the collection area shows samples of the types of plastic material not accepted. Levels of contaminants or incorrect materials left at the center are very low, demonstrating that people understand the instructions and are careful to leave only the requested plastics.

Orange Grove Recyclers, a local sheltered workshop for mentally handicapped individuals, is the market for plastic bottles. Six-pack rings go to ITW Hi-Cone. The'former president of Recycle Signal, Inc., discovered the ITW Hi-Cone program through a trade magazine. ITW-Hi-Cone was contacted and sent two 55-gallon blue plastic drums, two pallets, gaylord boxes and large plastic bags to Recycle Signal, Inc., at no charge. Recycle Signal, Inc., collects the six-pack rings and will ship the material to the recycler when 2,000 lbs of material is accumulated. The shipping costs are bome by Recycle Signal, Inc. The Supervisor of the Recycling Center states that they have been collecting the six-pack rings for roughly one year and only have about 50 to 60 pounds, because the material is so light.

As part of the ongoing education program, Recycle Signal, Inc., keeps citizens aware of the recycling center's progress. Progress reports may include information about the quality of material collected, tonnage data reflecting waste diversion or other pertinent facts about the facility. One of the indirect goals of Recycle Signal, Inc., is to get residents to take on ownership responsibility to make the program both cost effective and efficient.

The biggest component of the Recycle Signal, Inc., agenda is the Child Education Program. Once a month, a staff of nearly 50 volunteers trained in waste management, recycling and waste diversion curricula visit Signal Mountain elementary schools. Each month, 1,500 students in kindergarten through seventh grade (next year, the program will be expanded to the eighth

M-7 grade level) are taught some aspect of waste management by the volunteer. At the present time, the program’s focus is on waste reduction. Recently, Recycle Signal, Inc., sponsored a Waste-Less Day at area schools. Activities included games using recycled materials and making T-shirts. The purpose behind the program is to reach the children so that they help to educate their parents about important waste management methods.

Densification is taught by showing first graders how to “stomp” milk jugs. The plan is that at home, these children will not only discourage their parents from throwing the jug in the trash but that they will also “stomp” on it before they put it with the recyclables, which will help save space and hauling fees. The members of the center feel that by teaching the children, you are also teaching their parents. The same principle applies to the training of the volunteer instructors; the curricula and waste management lessons they teach the children are information they will hopefully share with their own peers as well. The impact of the program is reflected in Table 14, which reveals the tonnage of recyclable collected at Recycle Signal.

Table 14: TONS OF RECYCLABLES COLLECTED AT RECYCLE SIGNAL CENTER FY FT FY 90/9 1 91/92 92/93 July 41.6 50.4 50.24 Aug. 30.4 45.6 59.3 Sept. 30.4 46.4 52 Oct. 42.2 50.4 56 Nov. 42.1 38.4 55 DeC. 46.4 61.6 58 Jan. 48 54.64 54.4 Feb. 36 45.04 47.52 March 48 54 61 Totals 365.1 446.48 493.46

All figures represent total recyclables collected after deducting 20% for non- town resident contributions. Financial Information

As stated earlier, in 1989 the town of Signal Mountain's recycling program received an $8,000 grant from TVA to begin implementing programs. By November 1990, Recycle Signal had received its 501(C)3 status as a non-profit environmental education corporation. This enabled the organization to more aggressively pursue grants.

In its fiscal year of 1990-1991, the town of Signal Mountain received a $20,000 grant from TVA to fund education programs and to support some operating expenses. In the following year, a $25,000 grant from the Lyndhurst Foundation (family that owns the Coca-Cola Bottling Plant in Chattanooga) was awarded for use in environmental education programs. Other grants obtained include $4,000 from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), $5,000 from the Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company of Chattanooga, and an additional $16,000 from the Lyndhurst Foundation.

Recycle Signal, Inc., spends approximately 20 hours per year writing grant applications. Of the total monies applied for, the organization has received 95%.

Baniem and Solutions

The Recycle Signal program evolved without any overwhelming barriers. A key to the success of the program is the ongoing participation and education of volunteers. Personal time, volunteers and financial donations have served the program well.

Minor constraints the program has faced include tracking and minimizing the flow of out-of-town material, which complicated determining true waste diversion figures. Rather than discourage out-of-town residents from recycling, Recycle Signal provides a service which directs non-residents to other facilities in their geographic area. Despite this solution, some out-of-town material still gets deposited at the drop-off center, so waste diversion figures have to be continually adjusted.

RESOURCES

Individuals primarily responsible for Signal Mountain recycling and waste management programs are listed below and have additional information available upon request:

M-9 Louise G. Mann 21 7-344-7903 1310 Mitchem Urbana, IL 61801

Cindy McCall, Director 615-886-4341 Recycling Signal, Inc. P.O. Box 327 Signal Mountain, TN 37377

Dan Wade, Public Works Administrator 615-757-2089 Public Works Division Sixth Floor, Newel1 Tower Chattanooga, TN 37402- 1904

LESSONS LEARNED

Recycle Signal is a clean, attractive facility that seems to appeal to residents because of the educational aspects and user-friendly nature of the facility. The center offers a place to deposit unwanted materials as well as “shop” for reusable items. Education programs target children and schools in outreach programs, which further helps maintain the high level of enthusiasm and awareness for recycling in the community.

M-10 North Central Uest Virginia I Recycling Cooperative

x-1 CASE STUDY X: NORTH CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA RECYCLING COOPERATIVE

COMMUNITY PROFILE Table 15 Demomaohics and Solid Waste Svstem Structure Collection Features

LAB I Demographics Varao e Ram

[I]1990 Census of Population and Housing J=applicable O=not applicable .=drop off *=curbside [2] Average population of participating counties

The North Central West Virginia Recycling Cooperative covers an uncommonly large eight-county region (representing seven county solid waste authorities; the counties of Lewis and Gilmer operate under one solid waste authority). The counties have an average population of 30,049. Peer match assistance was sought to train the Executive Director, who coordinates marketing and other cooperative efforts. The recycling cooperative serves as a “model” program because of this very concept of not reinventing the wheel, but learning from the successful programs of others. The Executive Director participated in x-2 this study to offer the same peer match opportunity to someone who may be just entering a situation similar to hers. The purpose of this case study is to provide an overview of the organization and cooperation necessary to undertake a regional cooperative venture. The North Central West Virginia Cooperative is still in its infancy; therefore, the information offered for this case study is primarily focused on development of the cooperative.

The state of West Virginia has set goals to reduce the solid waste stream through recycling and composting 20% by January 1, 1994; 30% by January 1, 2000; and 50% by January 1, 2010. Other legislation affecting waste management is as follows:

w In the state of West Virginia, only licensed refuse haulers can haul recyclables.

The West Virginia legislature requires all landfills without liners in place to be closed by March 1993. Those built in the early 1980s with clay liners were given an extension until October 1993.

w Any form of incineration, municipal or private, is banned in the state of West Virginia.

The West Virginia Public Service Commission (PSC) sets rate structures for refuse collection and determines haulers' service areas (one hauler's area may overlap several counties). Because of the restrictions placed on haulers by the PSC, there is a good deal of mistrnst, and the haulers do not work well with each other or anyone else. The counties of Gilmer and Barbour, although active in meetings, are not officially in the cooperative at this time due to their hauler's concern about being involved with such a large and diverse group.

FORMATION OF THE COOPERATIVE

Propram Development

Cooperative marketing of recyclahles was an idea considered by several of the county officials in north central West Virginia. These officials had been unable to obtain critical information, especially with regard to cooperative formation and issues. At the 1991 Annual West Virginia Conference on the Environment, some of the individuals working in the north central area first heard the concept of a recycling cooperative explained.

x-3 The group, armed with support from a local DuPont plant, organized themselves by i) approaching EPA for education grant and ii) leaming about the viable end markets for recyclable materials.

DuPont brought in a consultant to “work as the glue” for the group. The consultant put everyone in a positive frame of mind by convincing them that they could implement a successful cooperative, provided sound ideas for commercial recycling projects and helped with market contacts. After the initial phase, the consultant continued to assist by reviewing grant applications. During the first year, three grants were pursued, each requiring 100 to 150 hours of time.

Imolementation

When the cooperative formed in February 1992, all employees and board members worked on a volunteer basis. In October 1992, one of the volunteers started receiving a Director’s salary.

The cooperative has been successful at assisting with the establishment of a number of commercial recycling programs. The cooperative conducts marketing for commercial programs, examples of which are listed below:

Laser printer cartridges.

H Fiberglass industrial scrap.

H Shrink wrap.

w Pallets.

Gaylord and pallet program.

Each of the counties involved in the cooperative began collection of residential recyclables in drop-off programs which started in April 1993. All of the counties collect basically the same materials, with a few exceptions. Most of the material is handled at a BFI recyclery located in the city of Fairmont. Mon Recycles is also a recipient of some of the recyclables, and a third handler is in the process of locating at an industrial recycling park being built by North American Recyclers.

x-4 Materials marketed by the cooperative from the main collection center are indicated in Table 16.

Tahle...~... 16-.

MA'Ik:RIAI,S hlARKE'IEL) BY RKCYCI.ING COOI'k~KA'II\'F FHOhl HFI COI.I.IXTIOS CENTER IN FAIKhlOKT

Hauled tu Material Sold to Facility location Malket by ... Price paid

HDPE Quantum Heath, Ohio DuPont haled-7.5 centsllh. PET Marietta, Ohio DuPont clear haled- EnviroSolutions 12.5 centsllh. Glass Owens-Brockway Huntington, WV * unknown (3 colors) Aluminum Budweiser Ohio Local 34 centsllh. (UBC's) Budweiser distributor

Steel cans Weirton Steel Weirton, WV $62.50 gross I* ton delivered ONP I Broker in I I * I $20 ton haled Pittsburgh

* The cooperative tries to negotiate all pricing based on end-market transportation

Financial Information

The EPA awarded the program a $35,000 grant for administrative purposes (could not be used for collection, processing or education) on August 1, 1992.

A grant from the Department of Natural Resources in the amount of $117,580 was awarded in January 1993. This money is received in draw- downs once a quarter throughout the year: 30%, 30%, 30% and 10%. It is an implementation grant and can be used for anything other than capital improvements.

Baniels and Solutions

The Executive Director has experienced difficulty getting second year funding for the recycling cooperative program. Everyone wanted to give them money the first year, but no one wants to help this year. The Director suggests

x-5 to anyone starting a similar program to begin looking for second year funding immediately.

RESOURCES

Three individuals involved in formation and management of the cooperative are available to provide additional information:

Jane Mild, Cooperative Executive Director AI Babcock, Chairman 304-363-6403 North Central West Virginia Recycling Cooperative 200 Jackson Street, Suite 103 Fairmont, WV 26554

Mary Evelyn Jones 6 15-780-2122 23 12 Candlewood Drive Franklin, TN 37064

LESSONS LEARNED

The funding issue is an ongoing concern, as the cooperative is still in a relatively infant stage. Planning for second year operating funds is critical early in the development stages.

Despite some financial struggling, the cooperative is viewed as advantageous for several reasons, a primary one being the empowerment gained for all participants by joining forces, yet maintaining their autonomy as separate county entities. The cooperative offers more opportunities than an individual county would enjoy on their own, such as more ideas, more funds to draw on and greater volumes of material for better markets and market prices.

A key to the success of this cooperative is the fact that each of the executive board members, who represent and coordinate program related activities for their respective counties, also serve on their counties’ solid waste board in some capacity. It is an essential mechanism of the cooperative program that those in charge of solid waste activities be responsible for orchestrating recycling programs. Given the role of the state Public Service Commission, their designated waste hauler service areas and the requirement that only licensed waste haulers can haul recyclable materials, refuse and recycling are tied “hand-in-hand” in West Virginia.

X-6 Case Stady Photographs

XI i City of Troy, AL

Cut Tire Disposal Facility

Dual Bluebag Program City of Troy, AL cont.

Recycling Trailers Eureka Springs, AR

~ Material Recovery Facility Eureka Springs, AR cont.

Rolling Roof Over Tipping Floor Eureka Springs, AR cont.

Hydraulic Conveyor

Movable, Roll-away Conveyor Section at MRF Eureka Springs, AR cont.

Clients . Eureka Springs, AR cont.

Cooking Oil Container at Recycling Center Eureka Springs, AR cont.

~~~ Compost Facility: Two Windrows Ready for Land Application Warren, AR

Transfer Station: Front Gate Warren, AR cont.

Class IV Landfill Warren, AR cant.

Hamilton County, FL

Landfill

ShippinglStorage Trailers Hamilton County, FL cont.

Baled Plastic

Paper Shredder- for Animal Bedding DeSoto County, MS

Green Boxes Located at a Convenience Center for Garbage

90-Gallon Containers for Curbside Collection of Garbage DeSoto County, MS cont.

Curbside Truck Used for the Co-Collection of Recyclables and Garbage

Barn that Stores Bagged Commingled Recyclables DeSoto County, MS cont.

Contents of Commingled Bags DeSoto County, MS cont.

Vehicles to Transport Bulky Items from Convenience Center Pamlico County, NC

Fish Waste & Crab Shell Conveyor Pamlico County, NC cont.

2-Foot Long Agricultural Dryer

Fish Waste Finished Product Pamlico County, NC cont. Pamlico County, NC cont.

Mobile Drop Off Container Morristown, TN

Hamblen County Balefill

Garbage Conveyor at Hamblen County Balefill Morristown, TN cont.

Yard Waste Fed to Air Curtain Incinerator Morristown, TN cont.

Yard Waste Incineration

Tidi Waste Blue Bag MRF Morristown, TN cont.

Bluebag MRF Sorting Line Signal Mountain, TN Signal Mountain, TN cont.

Recycle Signal Book Swap

Center Entrance & Paper Drop Off Containers Signal Mountain, TN cont.

Plastic Processing Station

Six Pack Ring Drop Off Containers Signal Mountain, TN cont.

Glass Drop Off Containers APPENDIX A: MODEL PROGRAM MASTER LIST

TROY, ALABAMA Jake Winger, Superintendent of Public Works Bill Price, Recycling Coordinator 205-566-1 133 P.O. Box 549 Troy, AL 36081

EUREKA SPRINGS, ARKANSAS Bryan Ukena, Recycling Department Manager 501 -253-7773 Kirby Murray, Public Works Director 501 -253-9600 City of Eureka Springs 44 South Main Street Eureka Springs, AR 72632

WARREN, ARKANSAS R. Gregg Reep, Mayor 501-226-6743 City of Warren, AR Warren City Hall P.O. Box 352 Warren. AR 71671

HAMILTON COUNTY, FLORIDA Jim Smith, Solid Waste Director 904-792- 1020 Rt. 1, Box 33 Jasper, FL 32052

1-1 KENTUCKY REGIONAL RECYCLING CORPORATION Honorable Terry 0. McKinney, JudgeExecutive 502-388-7311 Lyon County Courthouse Eddyville, KY 42038

Tom Grissom, Corrections Department 502-564-4980 Division of Correctional Industries 475 Coffee Tree Road Frankfort, KY 40601

DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI Martha Gatlin, Extension Home EconomisUCounty Coordinator 60 1-429-1349 Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service 3260 Highway 51 South Hemando, MS 38632

Kenneth Murphree, County Administrator 601-429-1460 DeSoto County Courthouse 2535 Highway 51 South Hernando, MS 38632

PAMLICO COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Judy Bolin, Coordinator 9 19-745-5281 Pamlico County Dept. of Recycling and Litter Control P.O. Box 776 Bayboro, NC 28515-0776

Henry Blayney, Operations Manager 919-633-1564 Coastal Regional Solid Waste Management Authority P.O. Box 1166 252 Cravens St., 4th Floor New Bern, NC 28563

Judy Thaanum, Owner 9 19-745-3621 Bayboro Dehydrating Company, Inc. P.O. Box 145 Vandemere, NC 28587

1-2 MORRISTOWN, TENNESSEE Sami Barile, Director Ellen Glasgow, Education Director 615-586-6383 MorristowdHamblen County Keep America Beautiful System P.O. Box 9 Morristown, TN 37815

Alvin Collins, Balefill Manager 615-581-8784 Hamblen County-Morristown Disposal System 3849 Sublett Road Morristown, TN 37813

Joe Chancey, MRF Manager 615-587-3257 Lakeway Recycling and Sanitation P.O. Box 1894 Morristown, TN 37816-1894

SIGNAL MOUNTAIN, TENNESSEE Cindy McCall, Director 6 15-886-4341 Recycling Signal, Inc. P.O. Box 327 Signal Mountain, TN 37377

Dan Wade, Public Works Administrator 615-757-2089 Public Works Division Sixth Floor, Newel1 Tower Chattanooga, TN 37402-1904

NORTH CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA RECYCLING COOPERATIVE Jane Mild, Cooperative Director A1 Babcock, Chairman 304-3 63-6403 North Central West Virginia Recycling Cooperative 200 Jackson Street, Suite 103 Fairmont, WV 26554

The following programs were considered as potential case study communities. Each of these communities or areas has a notable feature in their waste

1-3 management programs. Due to the limited scope of this project and desire for geographic and program diversity, all programs could not be detailed. Many, however, are worthy of contacting for more information on waste diversion strategies in rural areas.

Athens. Decatur and Huntsville Recycling Cooperative. AL - Contact: Cindy Morehead Phone: 205-351-7760

These three cities, located about 20 miles apart from each other, are joining forces to expand recycling programs.

Bull Shoals, AR - Contact: Chet Parsons, Mayor Phone: 501-445-4776

This retirement community, located in northern Arkansas, has curbside collection for refuse and recyclables. The curbside recycling program yields high participation rates and residents are very involved in recycling related activities in the community.

Columbia Countv, AR - Contact: Kendrick Ketchum Phone: 501-362 2666 Lake City Sanitation

All county residents have access to curbside bin recycling and refuse co- collection as well as curbside yard waste collection. Yard waste collected is used for a composting program.

Favetteville. AR - Contact: Bruce Cully Phone: 501-521-6457

Fayetteville is noted for its composting program, utilizing a large amount of the city's yard waste. The city also has recycling drop-offs.

Hot Sprinps. AR - Contact: Doyle Smith Phone: 501-321-6911

The city's senior citizens operate the local recycling center.

1-4 Jacksonville. AR - Contact: Skip Spears Phone: 501-982-6071

Jacksonville boasts a drive-through recycling center, as well as yard waste and hazardous material incineration. The city also offers a leaf and yard waste grinding and mulching operation for producing mulch for residents' use.

Newton County. AR - Contact: Judge Villines Phone: 501-446-2913

Newton County is the most rural in the state of Arkansas, but curbside refuse collection and recycling are available to county residents. By funding refuse collection with a pay-per-bag system, the county nearly covers the cost of all solid waste collection, including recyclahles.

North Little Rock. AR - Contact: Robert Boyles Phone: 501-376-7507

The city's composting program involves adding trap grease collected from restaurants and food service establishments to their compost product.

Rogers. AR - Contact: Sterling Nelson Phone: 501-621-1185

Rogers' recycling program is the oldest in Arkansas, with a start date of 1979. Like the city of Hot Springs, Rogers' senior citizens also staff their recycling center.

Stone Countv. AR - Contact: Tom Holland Phone: 501-269-5081

Stone County offers curbside collection of old corrugated cardboard to businesses in the city of Mountain View. The city pays $30 to the county for every ton of this material collected to offset disposal costs. The county also has a drop-off program for other recyclable materials.

Brunswick. GA - Contact: Debra Stinnett Phone: 912-264-7363

The Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center is currently conducting a study to assess the solid waste needs of an 18-member cooperative. The needs assessment report should be published during the summer of 1993.

1-5 Meade County. KY - Contact: Tommy Tucker Phone: 502-422-5718

Despite their very rural location, the county has been recycling for 7 years. In early May, Meade County opened a new recycling center, accepting the usual materials plus magazines. The program has been hailed as one of the most progressive in the state.

Northern Kentucky Solid Waste Advisory Board - Contact: Lynn Tomasetti Phone: 606-331-7128

Rural residents of the three-county area covered by the Board can contract with private haulers for curbside recycling pickup for only $2.00/month. The larger towns in the service area also have chippers for composting yard waste.

South Appalachian Regional Recycling Coalition. KY - Contact: Dan Danford Phone: 606-633-4450

This program is located in a very impoverished area in the southeastern part of Kentucky. The unemployment rate is very high, so the program's goal is to generate enough materials to develop a small processing facility for aluminum and newspaper to provide jobs for the residents as well as divert recyclables from the waste stream. The Coalition received an $80,000 grant from the Environmental Protection Agency to implement this program in early 1993.

Bav St. Louis. MS - Contact: Howard Lazana Phone: 601-467-0172

Gulf Coast Recycling began a curbside recycling program in Bay St. Louis earlier this year. The city does not have a recycling budget and the only funds for the program come from state grants.

Residents also have access to drop-off centers for recyclables.

Gulfport. MS - Contact: Penny Penrose Phone: 601-863-8107 Please note: This contact requested payment for any information shared.

The city is also participating in a state funded hotelhestaurant recycling program through Gulf Coast Recycling. Recycling drop-offs for city residents are located at Gulf Coast Recycling.

1-6 Hancock Countv, MS - Contact: Curly Lewis Phone: 601-255-3367

Five convenience centers are located throughout Hancock County for refuse collection. The centers are staffed and funded by the county so no tipping fees are charged.

Jackson Countv. MS - Contact: George Touart Phone: 601-769-3089

Jackson County's incinerator can burn 140 to 150 tons of waste per day. Two-thirds of the county's solid waste is incinerated. The incinerator has also been permitted to burn medical waste. Recyclables are pulled out of the waste stream at the landfill in Harrison County and marketed by Browning-Ferris Industries.

Transvlvania Countv. NC - Contact: Will Sager Phone: 704-884-6830

Transylvania County uses six collection facilities located throughout the county for collection of refuse and recyclables. Currently a composting program is being planned.

Roland. OK - Contact: Ken Purdy Phone: 918-456-01 16

Roland employs developmentally disabled residents to sort recyclables to reduce processing costs. The town also offers curbside recycling and municipal composting to its residents. Oil overcharge funds are used to subsidize the programs.

Clinch-Powell Resource Conservation & Development Council - Contact: Lindy Turner Phone: 615-828-5927

This largely rural and economically depressed five-connty region in northeast Tennessee overcame many a bureaucratic hurdle to be authorized as an official RC&D in 1990. As an RC&D, the area is now eligible for a broader base of funding with which to address its rural solid waste problems.

1-7 Hardeman County. TN - Contact: Jesse Williams Phone: 901 -658-4403

Hardeman County is a very rural area, with virtually no industry located in the county.

Developmentally handicapped laborers from a sheltered workshop sort the recyclables collected in the county's drop-off program.

Lookout Mountain. TN - Contact: Diane Hayes Phone: 615-559-3307

This primarily educational program is modeled after the Signal Mountain, TN, program.

Sevierville. TN - Contact: Larry Finn Phone: 615-429-4924 Title: Vice Pres. of Engineering, Bedminster Bio Conversion

Bedminster Bio Conversion operates an MSW composting facility in Sevierville. This county-owned facility processes 175 tons per day of MSW and sludge.

Williamson County. TN - Contact: Amy Depp Phone: 615-790-5848

The county and Waste Management Industries, a private waste hader, have entered into a joint venture to do regional recycling.

Big Sandy. TX - Contact: Scott Hammer Phone: 903-845-5985

Big Sandy is the home of a 20-year-old composting facility also operated by Bedminster Bio Conversion, which processes brewery waste, agricultural waste and sludge.

Nacozdoches. TX - Contact: Glynda Cessna Phone: 409-564-4693

Curbside collection of organic debris and drop-offs for plastic bottles and other recyclables are available to the residents of this east Texas community. Using a small-scale cooperative approach, Nacogdoches markets their materials through the city of Lnfkin, TX.

1-8 Tyler. TX - Contact: Dan Brotton Phone: 903-53 1-1390

Tyler operates a composting program accepting a variety of materials.

Lee. Scott and Wise Counties. VA. Cooperative and Resource Conservation and Development - Contact: Phil Gay Phone: 703-346-7714

These three counties attempted to form a cooperative to construct a regional landfill and recycling center. At this time, it appears that the program may not move forward; however, useful information about the planning process and how to avoid possible pitfalls of such a process could be obtained.

1-9

APPENDIX B: RESOURCE DIRECTORY

DOCUMENTS

Project Pride, Inc., and TVA initiated “The Model Solid Waste Management Community Project - Haywood County, NC,” in 1989. This effort, along with the Minnesota Project, “Case Studies in Rural Solid Waste Recycling,” sponsored by The Ford Foundation in 1987, is aimed at rural audiences. Although the approach and focus of each is different from this document, they are pointed out because of the concern expressed by many communities that resource information directly specific to rural governments was not available.

Project Pride reviews planning efforts and preliminary findings of one demonstration project that emphasizes use of local grassroots resources for organizing, planning and financing a comprehensive waste management system.

The Minnesota Project’s 1987 report is focused on case studies in rural recycling and attempts to reveal a range of creative approaches to recycling in rural communities in the north central and northeast United States.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

The Tennessee Valley Authority Jim Malia, Roosevelt Allen 615-632-3023 400 W. Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902

The American Plastics Council Andrea Pascarella, Ron Perkins 202-37 1-5319 1275 K St., N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005

2-1 The MaCC Group Caroline Mixon 407-679-7582 Crealde Executive Center, Suite 213 243 1 Aloma Avenue Winter Park, FL 32192

PESTICIDE CONTAINER RECYCLING

Agricultural Container Research Council (ACRC) 410-757-9488

Agricultural Container Research Council Program 202-1585

Alliance for a Clean Rural Environment 800-545-5410

USED EQUIPMENT

The Green Sheet 305-949-6455 Miami, FL

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

The Resource Conservation and Development Council is a national U.S. Department of Agriculture-assisted program created in 1962 by Public Law 9798. Councils are created on the local level, usually formed with a multicounty region in cooperation with the Department of Soil Conservation, an agency of the USDA. The Department of Soil Conservation acts as the administrative agency to the Resource Conservation and Development Council.

According to an amendment to Public Law 9798, the Department of Agriculture states that the Resource Conservation and Development Council was:

2-2 The USDAs role is to assist local government agencies in identifying and utilizing all resources available to them. Local leadership is intended to maximize human resources closest to the problems plaguing the development region in an ultimate goal to better manage natural resources and improve the quality of life.

Authorized RC&D areas are locally sponsored by the state Department of Agriculture. In order for a region to become an authorized RC&D, they must first apply through the State Conservationist, who forwards the application to the State Secretary of Agriculture for approval.

Funding for the Resource Conservation and Development Council comes from federal, state and local agencies as well as grants from private organizations. The structure of the funding varies from one RC&D to another but one constant is that the Department of Agriculture cannot contribute more than 25% to an individual project.

For more information on the Resource Conservation and Development Council, and to find out if there are local Councils in your area, following are the phone numbers for the Soil Conservation Service offices in the capital of each state. When an office is not located in the capital city, the next closest location is chosen.

Alabama, Montgomery 205-365-5124

Arkansas, Little Rock 501-324-6335

Delaware, Dover 302-697-6176

Florida, Tallahassee 904-488-6971

Georgia, Fulton County 404-393-2849

Kentucky, Frankfort 606-223-2024

Louisiana, Baton Rouge 504-664-1430

Maryland, Annapolis 410-841-5865

Mississippi, Jackson 601-965-5682

North Carolina, Raleigh 919-250-1050

South Carolina, Columbia 803-253-3975

2-3 Tennessee, Nashville 615-736-5471

Virginia, Richmond 804-771-2457

West Virginia, Charleston 304-347-5 121

The United States Soil Conservation Service 202-205-0027

The United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 202-720-8732

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE

The Cooperative Extension Service is a national educational network. Implemented in 1914 through the Smith Lever Act, the Service was designed as a partnership of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and land-grant universities, authorized by the federal Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. When initially established, the purpose of the organization was to educate citizens through the expertise of professionals at the land-grant universities, state and local officials and volunteers to promote better agricultural technology, environmental awareness and responsibility, utilities consumption and distribution in rural areas and assistance in home economics through provisions of technical and financial support. The Cooperative Extension's focus has broadened over the years to include such areas as waste management. One of the new goals of this program is to provide residents of a particular geographic area with the means to address their waste management problems using the most advanced available technology, funding and the opportunity for local citizens and officials to play a direct role in the solution of their local problems.

On the federal level, the Cooperative Extension program receives almost 50% of its funding from state agencies, roughly 30% from federal sources, with the remaining portion coming mostly from local government agencies. A very small percentage (less than 5%) comes from private organizations. While there is no set standard for the amounts from each source that are distributed through the state extension services, funding is distributed on the local level. Most counties have a district office of their state cooperative extension that funding would flow through.

Following is a listing of the land-grant universities located in the southeast region of the United States. Individuals seeking additional information on Cooperative Extension programs and services should contact the land-grant university in their state or the state coordinators from the Waste Management National Initiative. The contact names for the Waste Management National Initiative follow the land-grant university listing.

2-4 LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITIES IN THE SOUTHEAST:

Alabama - Auburn University, Auburn 36849 Alabama A&M University, Normal 35762 Tuskegee University, Tuskegee 36088*

Arkansas - University of Arkansas, Little Rock 72203 University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff 71601

Delaware - University of Delaware, Newark 19717-1303 Delaware State College, Dover 19901

District of Columbia - University of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC 20008

Florida - University of Florida, Gainesville 3261 1 Florida A&M University, Tallahassee 32307

Georgia - University of Georgia, Athens 30602 The Fort Valley State College, Fort Valley 31030

Kentucky - University of Kentucky, Lexington 40546 Kentucky State University, Frankfort 40601

Louisiana - Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge 70803-1900 Southern University and A&M College, Baton Rouge 70813

Maryland - The University of Maryland, College Park 20742 The University of Maryland, Eastern Shore 21853

Mississippi - Mississippi State University, Mississippi State 39762 Alcorn State University, Loman 39096

2-5 North Carolina - North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695-7602 North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro 27420

South Carolina - Clemson University, Clemson 29634 South Carolina State College, Orangeburg 291 17

Tennessee - University of Tennessee, Knoxville 37901 Tennessee State University, Nashville 37209-1561

Virginia - Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg 2406 1-0220 Virginia State University, Petersburg 23803

West Virginia - West Virginia University, Morgantown 26508

*Please note: while flwkegee University is not an authorized land-grant university, it is still recognized as a participant in the Cooperatlve Ertension Service program

2-6 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE WASTE MANAGEMENT NATIONAL INITIATIVE STATE PROGRAM COORDINATORS AND CONTACT PERSONS

ALABAMA:

Dr. Warren McCord, CRD Director Alabama Cooperative Extension Service 202 Duncan Hall Auburn University Auburn, AL 36849-5614

Phone: 205-844-445 1 Fax: 205-844-9650

ARKANSAS:

Tom Riley, Jr. Extension Specialist - LeadershipKD Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service P.O. Box 391 Little Rock, AR 72203

Phone: 501-67 1-2076 Fax: 501-671-2251

DELAWARE:

Thomas Williams Extension Specialist, Water Quality 055 Townsend Hall University of Delaware Newark, DE 19717-1303

Phone: 302-831-2468 Fax: 302-83 1-3651

2-7 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:

Maurice Dorsey State Program Leader, CES University of the District of Columbia 901 Newton Street, NE Washington, DC 20017

Phone: 202-576-6951 Fax: 202-576-87 12

FLORIDA:

Dr. Wayne H. Smith Biomass Energy Systems Building 103, Room 11 University of Florida Gainesville. FL 3261 1

Phone: 904-392-1511 Fax: 904-392-9033

D. Lawrence Carter Administrator Florida A&M Extension Program 215 Perry-Paige Building Florida A&M University Tallahassee, FL 32307

Phone: 904-599-3546 Fax: 904-56 1-2 15 1

GEORGIA:

Dr. Horace Hudson Head, Comm. Development Department Cooperative Extension Service University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602

Phone: 706-542-8935 Fax: 706-542-8845

2-8 KENTUCKY:

Dr. Richard Warner Department of Agricultural Engineering 21 7 Agricultural Engineering Building Lexington, KY 40546-0276

Phone: 606-257-3000, ext. 217 Fax: 606-257-5671

Noland C. Williams State Specialist for CRD Cooperative Extension Program Kentucky State University Box 196 Frankfort. KY 40601

Phone: 502-227-6389 Fax: 502-227-5933

LOUISIANA:

John W. Branch, Specialist Division of Environmental Science Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service 185 Knapp Hall Baton Rouge, LA 70803-1900

Phone: 504-388-6998 Fax: 504-388-2478

Ron Hendrick Specialist for Solid Waste 268 H Knapp Hall University Station Baton Rouge, LA 70803

Phone: 504-388-6988 Fax: 504-388-2478

2-9 MARYLAND:

Herbert Brodie Agricultural Engineering Specialist 4701 Cliff City Road Chestertown, MD 21620

Phone: 410-778-7676

MISSISSIPPI:

Dr. Joseph Schmidt Comm. Development Specialist Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service P.O. Box 5446 Mississippi State, MS 39762

Phone: 60 1-325-314 1 Fax: 60 1-325-8407

NORTH CAROLINA:

Dr. Mike Levi NC Agricultural Extension Service Box 7602 North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695

Phone: 919-515-3252 Fax: 919-515-3135

SOUTH CAROLINA:

Dr. Fran J. Wolak Extension Agricultural Engineer 212 McAdams Hall Clemson University Clemson, SC 29634-0357

Phone: 803-656-4075 Fax: 803-656-0338

2-10 TENNESSEE:

Maxine McManus University of Tennessee P.O. Box 1071 Knoxville, TN 37901

VIRGINIA:

Dr. Kathleen Parrott Extension Housing Specialist 103 Human Resources Annex, VPI&SU Blacksburg, VA 24061

Phone: 703-231-4783 Fax: 703-23 1-7826

WEST VIRGINIA:

W. Edgar Hooper Assistant Extension Specialist Waste Management & Extension Program 2104 Agricultural Science Building P.O. Box 6108 Morgantown, WV 26506-6108

Phone: 304-293-6954 Fax: 304-293-3408

2-11

APPENDIX C: DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

DEFINITIONS

Air Curtain Incinerator - A large, screened incinerator used for burning large brush and yard waste.

Bale - The end product of a compaction process that is used to decrease the amount of volume that solid waste or recyclable material consumes. Bales are typically 3’ x 4‘ x 5‘ and must be tied together with plastic strapping, wire or rope to keep from falling apart.

Balefill - A landfill that accepts only municipal solid waste that has been compacted into a bale and tied. Balefills are used to minimize the space garbage consumes when it is placed in a landfill.

Bluebag - A bag made of recyclable plastic used to collect recyclables and garbage. “Bluebags” can be any color.

Bulky Waste - Waste items too large to be removed or compacted at the curbside by garbage removal vehicles. Mattresses, box springs, large tree stumps and furniture are considered bulky waste.

Class I Landfill - A landfill that serves a population of over 5,000 people for the disposal of household garbage and materials likely to rot and create an unpleasant odor.

Class N Landfill - A landfill facility used for the disposal of solid materials not likely to rot or create an unpleasant odor. Class IV landfills do not accept hazardous waste, household garbage or sewer sludge. Class IV landfills are also commonly referred to as rubbish pits.

Co-collection of Recyclables - When household garbage and recyclable materials are collected at the same time with the same truck. The recyclable items are kept in a separate compartment from the garbage.

Cogeneration - The sequential production of thermal energy and electrical or mechanical power from the same full source. The fuel source can be refuse derived, natural gas, coal etc.

Commingled - Collecting different types of materials together in the same container.

3-1 Commingled Recyclables - Two or more different recyclable materials collected and transported in the same truck compartment or container. Plastic bottles and glass could be considered commingled if collected together. HDPE bottles and PET bottles collected together would not be considered commingled.

Commodity - Any item capable of being publicly bought and sold by individuals or companies. Com, wheat, oil, and post-consumer plastic bottles are considered commodities.

Composting - The gradual decomposition of organic matter. Compost programs may include combinations of grass clippings, leaves, wood shavings and sewer sludge.

Convenience Center - A location open to the public that accepts both garbage and recyclable materials.

Cooperative - Mutually beneficial arrangements between several county or city governments. Cooperatives are organized to share expenses and resources and reduce costs of a particular project. Cooperatives can form partnerships with businesses and state and federal agencies.

Cover Material - Any material placed over waste in a landfill. Cover material is generally soil or sand but may also be a synthetic foam. Cover material is required to be placed daily over waste in a Class I and Class IV landfill to reduce litter, odor and the presence of rodents.

CPO - Abbreviation for used computer print out. Computer print out can be recognized by the green horizontal bars on the paper.

Creeper Gear - A piece of equipment that can be added to tractors, which at maximum throttle will not allow the tractor to travel faster than .5 miles per hour.

Demogmphics - Data that refers to the relationship of populations to each other and to a specified geographic area.

Drop-off Site - A location with large containers for the deposit of recyclable and reusable items; drop-off sites do not accept garbage.

Eminent Domain - The right of a government organization to claim a section of land to be used for the common good of the people represented by the organization. When eminent domain is claimed, landowners are compensated for the property.

3-2 Energy Recovery - The method of extracting energy from an object that could not supply the energy in its current form. An example of energy recovery is the creation of electricity from the incineration of plastics and wood scrap.

Environmental Protection Agency - Federal regulatory agency which is responsible for monitoring the regulation of landfills, hazardous waste disposal sites, and waste-to-energy facilities.

EPA - Abbreviation for the Environmental Protection Agency.

Fee-based Collection - System of garbage collection in which fees are paid by residents and businesses to a garbage collector for picking up garbage and/or recyclables.

Franchise Fee - A fee paid by a solid waste hauler to a city or county government for the right to haul garbage and/or recyclables in a particular area without competition.

Freon - A gas used in refrigeration units to create cold air. Freon is required by state and federal law to be collected from used refrigeration units before the units are dismantled for recycling.

Gaylolrl - A large, sturdy cardboard box with reinforced seams used to store various recyclables. Gaylords hold between 800 and 1,000 pounds of plastic pellets and are approximately 3 feet long x 3 feet wide x 3 feet deep.

HDPE - Abbreviation for high-density polyethylene. A plastic used to manufacture milk jugs, detergent bottles and grocery bags.

Heavy Metals - Metals such as mercury and lead that are used to manufacture several industrial products. If not properly contained, heavy metals can be hazardous to the environment. Landfill operators monitor heavy metals from wells located near the landfill.

Hog Fuel - Wood waste material ground into a form that can be burned efficiently at an energy recovery facility.

Horizontal Baler - A machine which compresses recyclables or garbage into large blocks to reduce the amount of space for easier transporting. The material is placed in the bale chamber and the compacting unit compresses the material from the side of the bale chamber.

Household Hazardous Waste - Any household matend that is corrosive, explosive, flammable or toxic. Household hazardous waste includes automotive products,

3-3 paints, stains and finishes, nail polish remover, home permanent solutions, pesticides and insecticides.

Incineration - A method of solid waste management where waste materials are burnt for size reduction. Incineration facilities control the type and rate of feedstocks, temperature and solid and gaseous waste products.

Infrastructure - A system of collection programs, transportation systems and processing facilities within a specific geographical area that can be used to assist solid waste management programs.

Integrated Waste Management - Systems that manage solid waste by several methods: source reduction, recycling/reuse, landfilling and incineration. Municipalities may use several of these methods, depending on availability and cost.

KAB - Abbreviation for Keep America Beautiful, Inc.

Keep America Beautiful, Inc. - A privately supported, national public education organization with local affiliates, founded in 1953. KAB is dedicated to improving waste and handling practices.

Landfill Diversion Credit - Fee assigned to a recycling program for materials recycled rather than deposited in a particular landfill. Landfill diversion credits can be calculated in dollars per ton or dollars per cubic yard.

LDPE - Abbreviation for low-density polyethylene. A plastic used to manufacture flexible plastic bags and €ilm used for dry cleaning bags and grocery bags. LDPE is also used to create some flexible lids.

Leachate - A liquid material that is created from rain water and other fluids trickling through buried material in a landfill. Leachate is restricted from reaching the soil under landfills by plastic liners. Pipes on top of the liners collect leachate and pump it to treatment tanks where it is monitored, tested and eventually disposed.

Material Recovery Facility - A facility that receives recyclable materials in a form unacceptable by the marketplace. The material recovery facility separates, removes contamination, sorts, condenses, and stores recyclable material types. Each material is prepared to meet the requirements of a specific market. Material recovery facilities are generally considered handlers.

MRF - Abbreviation for material recovery facility.

3-4 MSW - Abbreviation for municipal solid waste.

Municipal Solid Waste - The commercial and residential waste produced in a city, town or county.

OCC - Abbreviation for used corrugated cardboard.

Oil Overcharge Funds - Money received from the United States Department of Energy Petroleum Violation Escrow fund. This escrow fund was created from fines levied on oil companies in federal court. States with large petroleum production facilities receive these funds.

OMG - Abbreviation for used magazines.

ONP - Abbreviation for used newspapers.

Participation Rate - A measurement of the number of households or businesses participating in a particular recycling program over a specified period of time.

PET - Abbreviation for polyethylene terephthalate. A plastic resin used to make carbonated beverage containers, juice bottles and plastic liquor bottles.

PP - Abbreviation for polypropylene. A plastic used to make caps for bottles, and some food containers.

PS - Abbreviation for polystyrene. A plastic that can be rigid or foamed, used to manufacture clear carryout containers, egg cartons, protective packaging and vitamin bottles.

Recycling Markets - Individuals or businesses who purchase recyclable materials. Markets indicate what kind of recyclables they purchase, what price the material is worth and what form the material is needed in. Recycling markets fall into two broad categories of recyclers:

Handler - An organization that prepares recyclables by sorting, condensing andor storing the material. When the handler has finished processing, the material is not ready to be manufactured into a new product yet.

Reclaimer - An organization that further processes recyclable materials. When the reclaimer finishes processing, the material is ready to be remanufactured into a new product.

3-5 Roll-off - A large container used to collect recyclables and transport them to a sorting facility or end market. Roll-off containers can be loaded onto specially designed trucks using hydraulics and a pulley system.

Rubbish Pit - A landfill-type facility used for the disposal of solid materials not likely to rot and create an unpleasant odor. Tree branches and demolition and construction debris are examples of rubbish pit materials. Rubbish pits generally do not accept hazardous waste, household garbage or sewer sludge.

Rural - As used in this document, rural has been loosely defined from a collection of criteria including economic dependence on agriculture, forestry, fishing, or mining, distance from major metropolitan areas and population.

Segregated Recyclables - Material collected for recycling and separated according to the value it has. Segregated recyclables are not mixed or collected with household or commercial garbage.

Subtitle D - Federal law that places very specific requirements on companies or communities that operate landfills. Requirements are enforced for landfills that are currently in operation, opening, expanding or closing. Penalties are also placed on closed landfill operators that do not monitor the landfill for leaks. Subtitle D raised the cost of opening, expanding and closing landfills because of lining, capping and methane gas recovery requirements.

Tarp - A large, sturdy, usually plastic covering used as protection from the weather. Tarps can also be used to sort commingled recyclables on and to move the materials within the sorting facility.

Tipping Fee - The dollar amount charged to those who dump recyclable material at a recycling center or who deposit trash at a landfill or transfer station. Truckloads of material are usually charged tipping fees based on the weight or volume the material occupies (in cubic yards).

Transfer Station - A site where household and commercial garbage is transferred from individual vehicles or commercial waste hauling trucks to a larger container capable of compacting the waste. Transfer stations allow municipalities to save money by hauling small loads of garbage shorter distances.

User Fees - Money paid to a garbage collector for picking up garbage and/or recyclables. User fees are applied in a fee-based garbage collection system.

3-6 Variable Rate System - A method of charging for garbage collection service depending on the type of business or the type and number of individuals in a household. For example, a garbage service using a variable rate system would charge a family of five more for collection service than a retired single resident.

Vertical Baler - The same as a horizontal baler, except that the compaction is applied from the top of the bale chamber down onto the materials.

Volume-based Rates - A system where the charge for waste collection and disposal is based on the size and number of containers used in a curbside refuse collection program.

Waste Audit - A calculation of the weight and volume of all the separate waste materials at a particular site. Waste audits supply data used to focus recycling and waste reduction activities.

Waste Diversion - Preventing waste from going to the landfill, usually by recycling or reuse.

Waste-to-energy - Facilities involved in recovering energy from waste items. Waste-to-energy plants use tires, wood, paper and municipal solid waste to create electricity.

White Goods - Large, steel-frame appliances such as stoves, dishwashers, refrigerators, washers and dryers. Any large appliance is considered a “white good,” regardless of its color.

Windrow - An efficient method of storing compostable material to promote maximum degradation. Windrows are rows created with composting equipment that periodically mixes the organic material to promote biological breakdown.

3-1