Case Studies in Rural

Solid Wmte Recycling

prepared for THE FORD FOUNDATION

November, I 987

,, *'

I. INTRODUCTION

Each American produces about 4 lbs. o f garbage every day. This amounts t o near ly 4,000,000 tons o f garbage a year i n Minnesota alone; a s ta te w i t h only 4% of the Nat ion 's populat ion. Management o f s o l i d waste presents increas ing enV i rOn"a1 concerns r e s u l t i n g i n skyrocketing costs f o r l o c a l government throughout the U.S.

Open t rash burning dumps have been shut down or are shu t t i ng down due t o concern about a i r and water qua l i t y , unstght l iness and pest cont ro l . Sani tary l a n d f i l l s , a 1970's successor to the open t rash dump, are decreasing I n number due t o c losure f o r environmental reasons and the i n e v i t a b l e p o l i t i c a l reac t i on against s i t i n g new f a c i l i t i e s . quick solut ion, presents growing controversy and concern about the hea l th ef fects of a i r emissions and dlsposal o f i n c i n e r a t o r ash.

Many s o l i d waste haulers, planners, c i t i t e n a c t i v i s t s , policymakers and engineers bel ieve, a t l e a s t i n theory, t h a t " integrated" waste management i s the most cost e f f e c t i v e , environmental ly sound and long term so lu t i on t O Our mounting t rash problems. I n other words, we w i l l have achleved*sound waste management when: we reduce the amount of garbage we produce; reuse what i s reusable; recyc le what ma te r ia l s can be recycled; compost organics; i n c i n e r a t e and produce energy from the remaining garbage; and, l a n d f i l l the res idua l

I n c i n e r a t i o n of trash, although a t t r a c t i v e as a

I n r e a l i t y we s t i l l bury most, burn some and recyc le a l i t t l e of our na t i on ' s . trash. Disagreement a r i s e s among planners, haulers, policymakers and c i t i z e n s over how best t o apply the i n teg ra ted s o l i d waste management theory. example, some argue t h a t the hea l th t h r e a t t presented by waste l a n d f i l l s and waste i n c i n e r a t o r s are too great. These f a c i l i t i e s , they argue, should be avoided a t any cost. Others c la im t h a t the lower technology waste management apti On2 of reduct ion reuse, recyc l i ng and composti ng cannot r e a l i s t i c a l l Y handle our wastes due t o consumer behavior, technology and the p r i v a t e market system. We are indeed i n a t r a n s i t i o n per iod i n s o l i d waste management i n Small comnuni t i e s , s ta te capi t a l s , and metropol i tan areas throughout the U.S.

For

So l i d waste issues and management concerns are even more recent i n the r u r a l U.S. Rural areas produce near ly ha l f of our s o l i d waste. Nearly a l l of t h i s garbage continues t o go i n t o land disposal s i t es . money l i m i t a t i o n s increase the l i k e l i h o o d o f qu ick- f ix , piecemeal and sho r t term waste management decisions.

The Minnesota Pro ject , a nonpro f i t r u r a l community development organization, was establ ished i n 1979. cu r ren t l y addresses i s s o l i d waste management.

Our s o l i d waste work focuses on in tegrated waste management and includes: 1) working w i t h r u r a l communities i n Minnesota t o organize, design, and implement lower technology waste management programs and, 2 ) developing broader s o l i d waste management p o l i c y as i t impacts these r u r a l groups.

I n October, 1986, the Ford Foundation provided the Minnesota Pro ject w i th funding t o study the lack of i n teg ra ted s o l i d waste management i n r u r a l areas. Our i n t e n t was t o analzye how the o f ten overlooked lower technology waste maiisgemetrt o p t f o s ; ~ of reductlm, r e u ; ~ , recyc l i ng and composting can be more

In r u r a l areas time and

One of the major issues the Minnesota P ro jec t

-1-

c

effective i n r u r a l a r e a s .

T h i s s tudy by no means provides a formula f o r successful rural r ecyc l ing . present seven r e c y c l i n g c a s e s t u d i e s wh ich we t h i n k i l l u s t r a t e the range of c r e a t i v e approaches t o r e c y c l i n g i n r u r a l a r eas . C i t i r e n s i n r u r a l communi ties who a r e t h i n k i n g about s t a r t i n g a r e c y c l i n g program may b e n e f i t from reading each appended case s tudy be fo re r ead ing this r e p o r t i n i t s e n t i r e t y . on our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these c a s e s t u d i e s wh ich we hope will encourage inc reased r e c y c l i n g and I n t e g r a t e d waste managment I n rural comuni ties. F i n a l l y , t h i s s tudy i s n o t meant t o compare urban and r u r a l waste management; indeed, an a n a l y s i s of r e c y c l i n g i n urban a r e a s i s n o t w i t h i n the scope of this r epor t .

We

In fact , o f f i c i a l s and

I n s o f a r as i s p o s s i b l e , we make recommendations based

XI. STUDY DESIGN

A Study Advlsory Committee provided guidance on the s tudy o b j e c t i v e s , assumptions, methods and a n a l y s i s . Advi s o r y Conmi ttee members.

Appendix 8 i n c l u d e s a 1ist.Of Study

The o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s r u r a l r e c y c l i n g s tudy a r e to present in-depth c a s e studies of r u r a l r e c y c l i n g and to address the fo l lowing broad s o l i d waste management p o l i c y i s s u e s : 1) i d e n t i f y , e x p l o r e and compare the b a r r i e r s t o . r u r a l i n t e g r a t e d waste management i n rural areas, i n p a r t i c u l a r the l ack of the 1 ower technol ogy op ti ons of waste r e d u c t i on, reuse, recycl i ng and compos t i ng ; 2 ) I d e n t i f y , e x p l o r e and compare the a c t i v i t i e s and policies w h j c h succeed I n e l i m i n a t i n g these b a r r i e r s t o i n t e g r a t e d s o l i d waste management i n r u r a l a r e a s ; and, 3 ) I n s o f a r as i s p o s s i b l e , i d e n t i f y and exp lo re the rural development impact of i n t e g r a t e d s o l i d was te management.

The M i nnesota P r o j e c t , worki ng w i t h the S tudy Advisory Cammi t tee , cl a r i f i es assumptions and d e f i n i t i o n s f o r purposes of t h i s rural r e c y c l i n g s tudy . First , we define s o l i d waste as "any m a t e r i a l t h a t i s no longer wanted and must be recycled o r dfsposed". Second, we assume t h a t I n t e g r a t e d s o l i d waste management results i n the most c o s t effective, environmental ly sound and long term waste management. Th i rd , we assume t h a t i n t e g r a t e d waste management i s n o t used i n p r a c t i c e since the low technology o p t i o n s of r educ t ion , reuse, recyc l i ng and composti ng a r e t y p i c a l l y over1 ooked. Fourth, we assume tha t the 1 ower techno1 ogy methods of reducti on, reuse, recycl i ng and composti ng a r e Similar i n terms o f planning and p o l i c y impl i ca t ions . For this reason , and due t o funding l i m i t a t i o n s , we have selected recycling as t h e focus of this s t u d y . He encourage the r e a d e r t o c o n s i d e r these r u r a l recycling p o l i c y i m p l i c a t i o n s when s t u d y i ng the 1 mer technol ogy waste management op tl ons o f reducti on, reuse and composting a s well. F i f t h , we define recyc l ing as "re-using a ma te r i a l i n i ts o r i g i n a l form o r a1 tering a m a t e r i a l through the manufacturing process t 0 be used i n a new form". We do n o t cons ide r yard waste soraposting t o De recyc l ing i n this Study. F i n a l l y , we choose n o t t o adhere t o a s t r i c t d e f i n i t i o n of " r u r a l " f o r purposes o f this s tudy . We rely on our own qua l i ta t ive sense o f the r u r a l nature of a p l ace based on characteristics such as popu la t ion , d i s t a n c e from urban c e n t e r s , popula t ion d e n s i t y and economic a c t i v i t y .

S t u d y methods included a l i t e r a t u r e review, seven i n - d e p t h case studies Of recycling i n the rural U.S. and an analysis of the seven case studies w i t h replication of these models and their policy implications i n mind.

Over one hundred rural recycling programs were i n i t i a l 1 y ident i f ied and sumnarited w i t h help from the Study Advisory Comnittee. selected for the in-depth case s tudy research. We attempted to se l ec t mu1 t i -ma t e r i a1 , source separation sol id waste recycl i ng programs i n rural areas which had been i n existence for a period of time. case studies based on their divers i ty w i t h regards to the following c r i t e r i a :

Seven sites were

Furthermore, we selected

0 distance to markets 0 mandatory vs. voluntary nature 0 curbside vs. drop off collection 0 public vs. private sector participation 0 redemption vs. donation of recyclables 0 existence vs. non-existence of an economic incentive 0 ju r i sd ic t ion o f so l id waste management 0 solid waste management history and plans 0 involvement of the s t a t e or regional authority 0 geographi c 1 oca ti on

Each case s tudy involved a series of preliminary c a l l s to key individuals i n each community and a review of any writ ten information about the program. Case studies were Conducted on-site. interview key individuals including policymakers, trash haulers, l and f i l l operators, recycling center operators, c i t izen leaders and private businesses. We attempted through interviews of people w i t h different perspectives to exam1 ne the h i story, evolution, mechanics and impact of each recycl i ng program. Each of the seven case s tudies was prepared i n written form and i s included i n Appendices 1 through 7.

A predetermined s e t of questions was used t o

'

Concerns re la ted to this case s t u d y approach are many. any one case s t u d y s i te may not have included key individuals his tor ical ly impor t an t ta the recycling ac t iv i ty . Obviously, the par t ic ipants change. Second, information collected and written up on each case s t u d y was verifled, insofar as i s possible. Given a l l the s t a t i s t i c s and varying opinions, errors I n numbers are no doubt made. Th i rd , case studies were conducted and written i n the s p r i n g and summer of 1987. The author i s aware that changes may have taken Place i n each program since the time o f w r i t i n g . waste management information and s t a t i s t i c s about programs for comparison purposes i s extremely d i f f i c u l t . The method and degree of record keeping varies tremendously a s any individual involved i n solid waste planning and research will know. Finally, additional case studies need to be conducted SO tha t s t u d y d e s i g n can be improved and these s t u d y f i n d i n g s and recommendations veri f i ed or refuted.

F i r s t , interviews i n

Fourth, gathering solid

The a u t h o r i s convinced t h a t the benefits of this case s tudy analysis outweigh the l i m i t a t i o n s outlined above. No formula for successful rural recyclfng 1 s presented ; ra ther , f i ndi ngs and recommendations related t o these seven programs are presented f o r the benefit o f other rural places and solid Waste poli cymakers. We hope t h i s report stimulates more rural recycl i ng as , indeed, these seven places i l l u s t r a t e i s possible.

111. BRIEF DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY OF CASE STUDIES

Ind i v idua l Case Studies are presented i n Appendices 1 - 7. Each Of the seven programs i s presented b r i e f l y below as background fo r the study analysis. The U.S. map inc luded i n t h i s sect ion shows the approximate l o c a t i o n Of case study s i t es . 1. Case Study Y1: Pierce County, Wisconsin

Plerce County. Wisconsin (est imated 1985’ P o w l a t i o n 32.126) i s located i n west cen t ra l Wisconsin, 40 mi les east of the Twin C i t i e s Metropol i tan Area of Minnesota. A recyc l i ng e f f o r t was i n l t l a l l y s t a r t e d by the River F a l l s Recycl ing Center (RFRC), a n o n p r o f i t Organization, i n the C i t y o f River F a l l s i n 1981. I n January, 1986, Pierce County contracted w i t h the RFRC t o expand the r e c y c l i n g t o a countywide program. The voluntary program consis ts of f i v e Unattended drop o f f she l te rs as w e l l as a drop off and processing center i n the County Seat. The program handled approximately 180 tons o f ma te r ia l s i n 1986, inc lud ing: aluminum/bi-metal cans; t i n cans; aluminum scrap; glass; newspaper; cardboard; o f f i ce paper; waste of 1 ; and, bat ter ies. Recyclables are del ivered t o markets i n the Twin C i t i e s and Wisconsin using a County owned recyc l i ng truck.

2. Case Study 1 2 : Morrison County Development Achievement Center Recycling Services, Morrison County, Minnesota

Morr i son County, Minnesota ( 198 0 populat ion 29,311) i s located 100 mi les northwest o f the Twin C i t i e s i n cen t ra l Minnesota. The Morrison County Developmental Achievement Center (DAC), a n o n p r o f i t organizat ion serving developmentally d isabled adults, s t a r t e d recyc l i ng as a c l i e n t work a c t i v i t y i n 1975. The voluntary program c u r r e n t l y cons is ts o f 18 unattended drop off boxes around the County and corrugated cardboard p i ck ups from approximately 42 area commercial esrab!!shments. !E 1986 the WAC hanb’ted 722 texs cf m t e r f d l ~ , 1 ncluding: newspaper; cardboard; glass; and, aluminum/bi-metal cans. The DAC h i r e s a l o c a l t ruck ing company t o d e l i v e r most ma te r ia l s t o markets i n M i nnesota.

3. Case Study #3: P r a i r i e du Sac, Wisconsin

i n South Central Wisconsin approximately 30 mi les from Madison. The V i l l age Trustees es tab l i shed a mandatory curbside recyc l i ng program i n 1982. V i l l a g e contracts w i th a l o c a l company t o have both garbage and recyclables picked up a t curbside on d i f f e r e n t days each week. The hauler de l i ve rs the donated recyc lab les t o Wisconsin Intercounty Nonprof i t Recycling (WINR), Inc. i n nearby North Freedom f o r processing and marketing. I n 1986, WINR handled 288 tons of ma te r ia l s from the P r a i r i e du Sac program alone, inc lud ing: glass; newspaper; Cardboard; aluminum cans; aluminum scrap; t i n cans; o f f i c e paper; cooking grease; used o i l ; and, p l a s t i c containers. The WINR arranges t o have recyc lab les picked up and/or de l ivered t o markets i n Wisconsin and 111inOiS.

yhe V i l l a g e o f P r a i r i e du Sac, Wisconsin (1980 populat ion 2,145) i s located

The

4 . Case Study #4: I thaca, Michigan I t haca , Michigan (1980 populat ion 2,950) i s located 40 mi les no r th of

Lansing i n Central Michigan. was s t a r t e d up by the Ci ty , G r a t i o t County, the C i t y ’ s contracted t rash hauler and M l d-Mi ch i gan Recycl ing which i s a p r i v a t e recyc l i n g business. Mld-MI chi gan

I n 1986 a voluntary curbside recyc l ing program

qar , , I GbJclif ig p i c k s up recyciabies a t the curb twice each month on the saw day as

Location of Case Study Sites

rcata, Caliltornia

. . r

..

trash i s picked up. In i t s f i r s t 5 months of operation the program handled 15.6 tons of glass, aluminum scrap, aluminumlbimetal cans, t i n cans, p l a s t i c , newspaper and cardboard. Mid Michigan Recycling arranges t o have recyclables picked up or delivered t o Michigan markets.

5. Case Study #5: Arcata Comnunity Recycling Center, Arcata, California Arcata. California (1980 population 12,340) i s located 300 miles north of

San Francisco on the Pacific Coast. The Arcata Community Recycling Center (ACRC) i s a nonprofit organization which co l lec ts recyclables using four methods: drop off donation a t the center; buy back a t the center; p i l o t neighborhood drop off boxes ; and, commercial /i nsti t u t i onal pick ups. In 1986 ACRC handled approximately 856 tons of materials from the C i t y of Arcata alone, i ncl udl ng : glass ; newspaper; a1 umi num cans ; a1 umi num scrap ; off i ce paper ; cardboard; and, used o i l . The Arcata program works through brokers t o sell materials to markets located 250-350 miles away. deliver materials.

Local trucks a re leased to

6. Case Study #6: Peterborough, New Hampshire 'The T a r n o t Peterborough, New Hampshire (lg80 population 4,893) i s located

i n southern New Hampshire about 30 miles southwest of Concord. The Town has required Town Dump users t o recycle since 1981. Administrator approximately 50% of the Town's residents use the dump fo r "self-haul" trash disposal and, therefore, recycling. 546 tons of materials, including: glass; newspaper; cardboard; p las t ic ; t i n cans; aluminum cans; and scrap metal. Some materials a r e marketed cooperatively w i t h members of the New Hampshi r e Resource Recovery Associ a t i on ; other materials a re delivered by Peterborough to nearby markets.

According to the Town

In 1986 the Town handled

7. Case Study 17: South Berwick, Maine South Berwick, Maine (1987 population approximately 5,600) i s located i n

southern Maine approximately 40 m i l e s from Portland. T h e Town has required a l l Town Transfer Station users t o recycle since 1981. Manager approximately 80% of the Town's population uses the Transfer Station as a Self haul s i t e . In 1986 the Town handled 83 tons of glass and a luminum cans. Both glass and aluminum are picked up by Maine Beverage Company out Of Portland, Mai ne.

According to the Town

IV. FINDINGS

F i n d i n g s based on the seven in-depth case studies are presented i n f ive broad categories below: 1) background of the si tes; 2 ) sol id waste generation, coil ec t i on, d i sposal ; 3 recycl i ng program h i s tory ; 4) recycl i ng program operations; and, 5) recycling program impact.

Please note t h a t we re fer to the Morrison County Developmental Achievement Center Recycl i ng Program as the "Morri son County Program", keepi ng i n mind t h a t the program i s owned and operated by the Morrsion County DAC which is a nonprofit organization serving developmentally disabled adults. t o the Arcata Comuni t y Recycling Center Program as the "Arcata Program" keeping i n mind t ha t i t i s owned and operated by the nonprofit ACRC serving the area i n and around Arcata, Califcrnia.

And, we re fer

1. Background o f the S i tes

State maps included i n each of the appended case s tud ies i n d i c a t e the approxi mate 1 oca t i on o f case study s i tes. Peterborough, I thaca, P ra i r i e du Sac, South Berwick and Pierce County are located w i t h i n 60 mi les o f metropol i tan areas. Morrison County i s located about 100 mi les from a l a rge urban center. Arcaza, 300 mi les from both San Francisco and Port land, i s c l e a r l y the one s i t e which i s f u r t h e s t from a metropol i tan area.

Table 1 sunmarires popluat ion and income f o r each o f the seven case study s i t es . I thaca and P r a i r i e du Sac have the smal lest populations. County and Pierce County, the l a r g e s t programs i n terms o f serv ice area, have the l a r g e s t populat ions. Arcata has the most people o f a l l the s i t e s i n terms of persons 1 i v i ng w i t h i n I t s incorporated ntuni c i pa l boundaries .

Morrison

The 1979 median household income i s reported f o r each place f o r comparison purposes. Peterborough and P r a i r i e du Sac r e p o r t the h ighest income; Morrison County and Arcata r e p o r t the lowest median household income o f a l l seven places.

Each o f the seven comnunities has i t s own unique demographic features which cannot be captured s t a t i s t i c a l l y . W i sconsi n - R i ver Fa1 1 s and Arcata hosts Cal i f o r n i a ' s Hunbol d t State Univers i ty . England se t t i ng . observers t o be ' bedroom' comnuni t i e s o f other, more urbanized, places.

Pierce County hosts the Un ive rs i t y of

Peterborough i s an a f f l u e n t comnunity nest led i n a scenic New P r a i r i e du Sac and South Berwick a re considered by some

2. S o l i d Waste Generation, Col lect ion, Disposal

A P- -r - - * inn n. UCIICI a L.I UII

A l l est imates o f s o l i d waste generation presented i n Table 2 are those o f the author, based i n part , on f i gu res provided by representat ives i n each case study s i te. Notes t o Table 2 describe est imat ion procedure.

Estimates o f s o l i d waste generation re la te, as one would expect, t o the populat ion o f each place. populat ions produce the l e a s t s o l i d waste per year; Worrison and Pierce Counties w i t h the l a r g e s t populat ions produce the greatest amount o f sol id waste per year. S o l i d waste generated per person per year ranges from a high of approximately .89 t o n i n Arcata t o a low o f approximately .4 ton i n Pierce and Morrison Counties.

P r a i r i e du Sac and I thaca w i t h the smal lest

B. Col 1 ec ti on

Peterborough and South Berwick do n o t provide s o l i d waste c o l l e c t i o n as a serv ice t o residents; both Towns r e l y p r i m a r i l y on s e l f haul ing t rash c o l l e c t i o n and disposal systems. Residents e i t h e r choose t o haul t h e i r own t rash t o the Peterborough Dump o r South Berwick Transfer Stat ion, or h i r e a p r i v a t e hauler t o C o l l e c t and dispose o f t h e i r trash. Approximately 50% o f Peterborough ' s res1 dents and busi nesses choose t o sel f-haul trash; approximately 80% of South Berwick's res idents and businesses choose t o s e l f haul t h e i r ow'! trash.

APPEFIDIX 5

RURAL RECYCLING CASE STUDY #5:

ARCATA, C A L ~ N I A ARCATA CO- RLCYCLING C t m ,

B r i e f Recycl i ng Program Oescri p t i on: .

The Arcata Community Recycl ing Center presents an example of a P r i v a t e nonpro f i t r e c y c l i n g program w i th four methods o f c o l l e c t i n g recyclables: drop o f f ; buy back; c m e r c i a l p i c k ups; and, neighborhood drop s i tes.

1. Background o f the Area

Arcata, C a l i f o r n i a i s located 300 miles no r th o f San Francisco i n Humboldt County on C a l i f o r n i a ' s northern coast. j u s t 5 miles south o f Arcata.

Eureka, the Humboldt County Seat, i s

Arcata 's 1980 populat ion was 12,340, a 372 increase from 1970. Approximately 6000 res idents a re Humboldt State Universi t y students. populat ion of Humboldt County i s approximately 113,000. As of 1981, 50% of the County's populat ion l i v e d outs ide o f incorporated areas.

f ishing, t imber products and tourism. same na tu ra l resource i ndus t r i es , has changed i n recent years. Tourism i s becoming more and more important. service trades. campus, i s a major employer i n the community. nearby Eureka .

The

The Humboldt County economy has h i s t o r i c a l l y been dependent on commercial Arcata 's economy, w i t h roo ts i n these

Many res idents are employed i n r e t a i l O r Humboldt State Univers i ty , a C a l i f o r n i a State UniVerSi ty

Many res idents no doubt work i n

Humboldt County i s r u r a l i n nature i n terms of papulat ion density, distance from metropol i tan areas and i t s resource-based economy. communi t i e s are scattered throughout the county's 3,600 square m i l e area , i s o l a t e d by narrow roads through rugged terraine. a Small u n i v e r s i t y town, located i n an area o f higher pop lu la t i on densi ty along the coast.

A number of small

Arcata i t s e l f I s t y p i c a l o f

The median household income i n the C i t y o f Arcata was $12,541 i n 1979, compared t o $18,243 i n the State of C a l i f o r n i a and $16,841 i n the U.S.

2 . Sol i d Waste Genera ti on, Col 1 e c t i on and D i sposal

An estimated 30 tons o f s o l i d waste i s generated each day i n Arcata, or 11,000 tons each year. An estimated 70% of t h i s t o t a l i s r e s i d e n t i a l waste. These estimates are based on the hau le r ' s estimates o f t rash tonnages p lus recyc l i ng l e v e l s i n Arcata.

Arcata Garbage Company holds an exclusive franchise t o c o l l e c t and dispose o f Arcata 's r e s i d e n t i a l and comnercial s o l i d waste. The C i t y Council signed a 10 year f ranchise agreement w i t h the p r i v a t e company which reserves the C i t y ' s r i g h t t o approve garbage rates. from households. The household I s b i l l e d $4.50/month fo r t h i s one-can-a-week pick up; the bi!! i s higher If the househole places !!!ore than ORP 30 gal!Qn

The company p icks up garbage on a weekly basis

container a week a t the curb. the company based on frequency o f p i c k up and volume.

Arcata Garbage Company i s responsible f o r d isposal o f Arcata’ s garbage consis tent w i t h State and County requirments. Humboldt County c u r r e n t l y holds a con t rac t w i t h p r i v a t e Transfer Stat ions i n Eureka and Redway and the p r i v a t e Cumnings Road l a n d f i l l j u s t 10 mi les east o f the c i t y o f Eureka, Transfer S t a t i o n and Cumnings Road L a n d f i l l are both owned by City Garbage Company of Eureka, a subsid iary of Golden Gate Disposal Company. A l l garbage haul ers opera ti ng w i th in Hwnbol d t County, i ncl ud i ng Arcata Garbage Company, are requi red by the County t o haul t rash t o the designated Transfer Stat ion. Haulers pay a S6.85/ton t i p p i n g fee t o the Eureka Transfer S ta t i on operator. The Transfer S t a t i o n compacts the garbage and i s requ i red by the County t o t ranspor t a l l waste t o the Cumnings Road L a n d f i l l . The County pays the l a n d f i l l operator $6.85/ton f o r disposal o f the Transfer S ta t i on waste. In 1986 approximately 65,000 tons of s o l i d waste were disposed o f l n the Cumnings Road L a n d f i l l . According t o the l a n d f i l l operator, the disposal s i t e has more than 20 years o f remaining capacity. the State of Ca l i f o rn ia .

Commercial establishments arrange b i l l i n g w i t h

The Eureka

The l a n d f i l l i s l icensed and regulated by

The costs o f garbage c o l l e c t i o n i n Arcata are covered through fees p a l d d i r e c t l y by households and businesses t o Arcata Garbage Company. incurs no a d d i t i o n a l s o l i d waste management expense. f i n a l garbage disposal a t the l a n d f i l l which amounts t o approximately $75,35O/year ($6,85/ton x 11,000 tons) i s pa id by Humboldt County through a combination o f county general funds and some user fees pa id by Arcata Garbage

The C i t y The cost of Arcata’s

,. Company.

The C i t y o f Arcata has appointed a So l i d Waste Task Force t o consider compos ti ng , 1 1 t t e r , hazardous waste, stream pol 1 u t i on, and recyc l f ng i SSUeS, and t o develop a c i t y s o l i d waste managment plan. complete i n the F a l l o f 1987 and be incorporated i n t o tire c i t y ’ s i M ” i Plan. Humboldt County s ta f f , a County s o l i d waste advisory comnittee and County Board Members have spent a good deal of time i n recent years deal ing w i t h S o l i d waste issues and aevelopi ng/updating the State mandated county s o l i d waste management plan. Plans be updated every 3 years.

The p lan i s expected t o be

The State o f C a l i f o r n i a requi res t h a t County S o l i d Waste Management

3. Recycl i ng Proqram

A. H i s t o r y

The Arcata-based Northcoast Environmental Center (NEC) , a nonproff t consor t i um o f environmental groups i n the Humbol d t County area, s ta r ted recyc l i ng i n Arcata as a p r o j e c t i n 1971. instrumental i n researching the f e a s i b i l i t y o f recycl ing, i d e n t i f y i n g i n i t i a l markets f o r recyclables, arranging transportat ion, and marshal l ing vo18!nteers and donations f o r the i n i t i a l r e c y c l i n g e f f o r t .

Three a c t i v e NEC members were

I n July, 1971, NEC members establ ished a recyc l ing drop-off s i t e on a vacant l o t i n Arcata which was open t o the p u b l i c on Saturdays. Volunteers spent Saturdays receiv ing, s o r t i n g and processing the donated recyclables and using a borrowed truck t o t r a n s p o r t recyc lab le t o a donated s i t e f o r storage.

5- 2

The Arcata Community Recycling Center (ACRC) as i t came t o be known accepted glass, newspaper and aluminum on a donation basis. I n i t s f i r s t few years the ACRC handled l e s s than 100 tons o f recyc lab les a year. Aluminum was sold t o a l o c a l scrap dealer f o r quick cash. Glass and newspaper were shipped approximately 300 mi les by r a i l t o markets i n C a l i f o r n i a ' s Central Val ley and the San Francisco Bay Area.

Recycl ing revenues, w i t h some f i n a n c i a l help from the NEC, allowed ACRC t o pay a p r o j e c t d i r e c t o r a very minimal sa lary i n the e a r l y years. The f i r s t ACRC Di rector , Wesley Chesbro, i s c u r r e n t l y a Humboldt County Comnissioner. A l l o ther labor was volunteer and a l l equipment/space was donated o r very low cost. mid-1970's Humboldt County contr ibuted approximately $40,000 i n federa l revenue sharing d o l l a r s t o ACRC. The center used those designated funds t o move t o i t s present l o c a t i o n i n a l i g h t i n d u s t r i a l area o f Arcata, and to purchase equipment and a truck. r e c y c l i n g center w i t h l abo r through VISTA, CETA, JTPA and other j o b t r a i n i n g programs. resource conservation e f f o r t r a t h e r than a s o l i d waste management strategy.

I n 1979 the ACRC spl i t o f f from the NEC t o form a separate nonpro f i t organization. had been consider ing t h i s s p l i t f o r a number o f years.

processing and marketing recyclables. The amount of recyclables handled by the ACRC between 1971 and 1980 increased from less than 100 tons per year t o over 500 tons the l a s t year. Three methods o f c o l l e c t i n g recyclables, i n add i t i on t o drop o f f donations a t the Center , have been i n i t i a t e d by the ACRC dur ing i t s h i story.

The ACRC grew and evolved as a NEC p r o j e c t dur ing the 1970's.

I n the

A t about the same t i m e the County began t o supply the

The County funding was meant t o support an environmental and

Northcoast Environmental Center members and r e c y c l i n g a c t i v i s t s

By 1980 the ACRC had 9 core s t a f f as w e l l as county work program s t a f f

F i r s t , i n the l a t e 1970's ACRC establ ished mul t i -mater ia l drop o f f s i t e s i n a nanafui o f smaii communities i n northern Humboldt County. This c o l l e c t i o n o f m u l t i ma te r ia l s from drop o f f po in ts i n small towns ended i n the e a r l y 1980's due t o f i n a n c i a l cutbacks. Newspaper i s s t i l l picked up from small towns and transported t o the ACRC by the area Kiwanis Club. Second, the ACRC began p i ck ing up cardboard and highgrade paper from area businesses and of f ices i n the mid-1970's. Third, the ACRC began paying the p u b l i c f o r newspaper, glass and aluminum cans i n 1983. Community groups were encouraged i n p a r t i c u l a r t o es tab l i sh buy back accounts w i t h the ACRC f o r t h e i r own f u n d n i s i n g purposes.

The ACRC's f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n has strengthened throughout i t s h i s to ry . I n the e a r l y years the Center operated on a shoestr ing w i t h volunteers, donations and very low overhead. provided the m a j o r i t y and most s tab le p a r t o f the ACRC's revenues. outside support has proven c r i t i c a l . i n t o i t s present b u i l d i n g and t o purchase machinery and equipment. foundation has helped t o pay f o r c a p i t a l expenses as wel l . t r a i n i n g programs have been used t o support the Center's labor expenses. F i n a l l y , comnunity donations have provided a l o t of help i n some very hard times. $30,000 o f the purchase p r i c e was ra i sed through community donations and fundrai s ing events.

Money from the sale o f recyclables has con t inua l l y However,

A l o c a l County support allowed the ACRC t o move

County work and job

I n f a c t , i n 1985 the ACRC purchased i t s leased b u i l d i n g f o r $90,000;

5- 3

The ACRC ' s pub1 i c i n f ormati on and education e f f o r t s have i ncreased s i nce i t S t a f f has made speaking presentations, placed ads i n newspapers began i n 1971.

and p r i n t e d brochures f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n .

B. Current Programs

1. Opera ti ons

The ACRC operates o u t o f the same b u i l d i n g i t moved i n t o i n 1974. a f t e r a one-year c a p i t a l fund dr ive, the ACRC purchased the 590,000 b u i l d i n g w i t h $30,000 i n l o c a l donations, $10,000 i n l o c a l foundation support and a $50,000 mortgage.

I n 1985

The Center handles newspaper, glass, whole wine bo t t l es , aluminum cans and scrap, o f f i ce paper, cardboard, used motor o i 1 and resua b l e c l o t h i ng , househol d and b u i l d i n g items. Approximately 1223 tons of ma te r ia l s were handled and marketed i n 1986. The ACRC c u r r e n t l y c o l l e c t s ma te r ia l s i n four ways.

res idents a t the Center on a donation basis. fo r drop o f f on Thursday-Saturday from 1O:OO-4:OO. The p u b l i c seems t o be f a m i l i a r w i t h the process of s o r t i n g recyc lab les a t the proper S ta t i on on the s i t e . For example, signs i n d i c a t e s ta t i ons fo r newspaper, glass by color, aluminum, etc. necessary.

F i r s t , approximately 50% o f the recyclables are dropped o f f by Arcata area The ACRC i s open t o the p u b l i c

S ta f f i s a v a i l a b l e t o help the p u b l l c with s o r t i n g if

Second, the p u b l i c and community groups can drop o f f mater ia ls fo r cash payment dur ing these same hours. the accounts o f community groups fo r monthly payment. The ACRC c u r r e n t l y pays: 1 /2 cent/ lb. for glass; 25 cents/ lb. for aluminum cans, and, 1 c e n t / l b f o r newspaper. ( p r i m a r i l y aluminum cans) were buy back mater ia ls, amounting t o $16,149 i n ACRC pay out t o the publ ic. ACRC redempti on program, r e c e i v i n g on the average $50-150/month fo r redempti on of recyc lab le materials.

Cash i s pa id t o i n d i v i d u a l s or c red i ted t o

i n i986, a p p r o x j m t e j y 15% of the Ceiiter's ~ t s ? m t e r i a ! ~

Approximately 124 community groups p a r t i c i p a t e i n the

Third, i n 1986 the ACRC s t a r t e d a p i l o t neighborhood drop o f f program i n two Arcata neighborhoods. r e c y c l i n g cannisters for glass, newpaper, aluminum cans i n each of the two neighborhoods. peer-to-peer organiz ing approach t o increasing pa r t i c i pa t i on . The t o t a l Cost of t h i s p i l o t p r o j e c t i s $12,500; the C i t y of Arcata has contr ibuted $8,000 t o the e f fo r t . I t i s too soon t o t e l l how much mater ia l these neighborhood programs W i l l con t r i bu te t o the ACRC ove ra l l e f f o r t s .

The ACRC has placed a set o f three very a t t r a c t i v e

The ACRC has organized block leaders i n each area as a

F i n a l l y , the ACRC p i cks up corrugated cardboard and o f f i c e paper from about 250 establ ishments i n the Arcata area. ,scheduled route, 5 days/week, p i c k i n g up these materials. Comnercial pfck UPS make up about 35% o f a l l ma te r ia l s handled by the ACRC. uniquely equipped a t ruck w i t h a mobile cardboard ba le r so t h a t cardboard can be baled i n route. Two businesses have e lected t o pay the ACRC an amount equal t o t h e i r monthly garbage b i l l savings f o r t h i s recyc l i ng service.

A t l e a s t one ACRC employee i s on a

The Center has

The ACRC no longer operates mul t i -mater ia l drop off s l t e s i i i surrounding

o f f i n the past three years. Corrugated, newsprint, g lass and aluminum current1 y represent the biggest revenue sources fo r the ACRC.

The ACRC Executive Di rector , working w i t h brokers i n C a l i f o r n i a and Oregon, handles a l l ma te r ia l s marketing. mater ia ls. v i a l o c a l l y leased t rucks t o the var ious markets. by Alcoa and taken to Sacramento f o r densifying; the dens i f i ed aluminum i s shipped t o a smelter i n the Midwest.

The ACRC holds no long-term contracts f o r A l l recyclables, w i t h the exception o f aluminum cans, are shipped

Aluminum cans are picked up

3 . Finances

Arcata Carmuni t y Recycl i ng Center expenses i n 1986 were approxi matel y $111,963. Approximately 53% o f these total expenses cover s t a f f s a l a r i e s and r e l a t e d personnel costs. Nearly 20% o f the t o t a l expenses cover shipping and t ranspor t i ng recyc lab les t o market. The remaining expenses cover mortgage payments, u t i l i t i e s , insurance, etc.

The ACRC's revenues i n 1986 were $111,294; $106,889 o f which came from the sale of recyclables.

Over the years the ACRC has managed to come close t o breaking even w i t h revenues f r o m the sa le o f recyclables. Although special expenses such as the mobile cardboard baler, the p i l o t neighborhood program and the b u i l d i n g purchase would n o t have been poss ib le w i thou t outside funding. Sources p rov id ing funding f o r these special purchases inc lude Humboldt County, the C i t y of Arcata, the Humboldt Area Foundation, and Arcata comnunity residents. county work programs have provided the a1 1-important l abo r f o r processing recyclables. F i n a l l y , ACRC s t a f f sa la r i es and overhead costs are kept low as a means of keeping expenses i n l i n e w i t h revenues.

4. Problems

Both S ta f f and board members i n d i c a t e a d i f f i c u l t y over the years balancing the business o f r e c y c l i n g w i t h the strong envi ronmental and reCyC1 i ng Values inherent i n the comnuni ty. p l a s t i c since a cost -ef fect ive market does no t e x i s t f o r these mater ia ls. Many Arcara residents, on the other hand, f e e l these ma te r ia l s should be recycled a t a loss.

For example, the ACRC does n o t accept t i n o r

The Center has a l so had to deal w i t h the ebb and f low o f outs ide funding. Special purchases are made when outs ide funding i s avai lab le; on the other hand, both s t a f f and any special a c t i v i t i e s such as mul t i -mater ia l drops i n r u r d conmunities are c u t when outs ide funding i s low.

C. Future Plans/Prospects

The ACRC enjoys widespread support i n Arcata, a comnilnPty which d isp iays strong environmental values i n a number o f ways. A 1984 survey i nd i ca tes t h a t 75% o f Arcata res idents know about the ACRC. And, 60% o f Arcata res idents use the ACRC once a month o r less. w i l l no doubt continue over the long-term t o handle a t l e a s t present tonnages.

Given t h i s strong comnunity support, the ACRC

Revenues from recyc lnb les wdll no doubt continue t o provide bread and

towns. volunteer basis by the l o c a l Kiwanis club.

Newspaper i s s t i l l c o l l e c t e d a t drop o f f s i t e s and picked UP on a

The ACRC i s invo lved i n processing recyclables a t l e a s t part-t ime, s i x days a week. invo lved i n : f l a t t e n i n g and blowing aluminum cans i n t o a parked Alcoa semi-truck; s o r t i n g and packing unbroken wine b o t t l e s by s i z e and shape; crushing glass by color; b a l i n g cardboard; s t o r i n g newspaper and h i gh grade paper i n gaylords; and accepting, s o r t i n g and marking i tems a t "The Reusables Depot." Ma te r ia l s are s tored i n and around the ACRC b u i l d i n g u n t i l marketed.

The ACRC c u r r e n t l y has 5 core staf f , inc lud ing: a ful l- t ime Executive Di rector ; three f u l l t ime operat ions s taf f ; and a part- t ime Reusables Depot Manager. The Center r e l i e s on about 5 part- t ime i n d i v i d u a l s from County work programs fo r m a t e r i a l s processing.

The ACRC c u r r e n t l y has two f l a tbed t rucks ( 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 ton capac i t i es ) f o r p i ck ing up recyclables. Center equipment includes: two magnetic metal separators; p la t fo rm scale; warehouse sized baler ; 4 b o t t l e crushers; f o r k l i f t ; p a l l e t jack; b ins/barre ls /gay lords f o r storage; metal container b ins fo r recyc l i ng drop o f f s ; aluminum can f l a t t e n e r and blower; small baler; banding gun; handtools; and, a small paper shredder.

Core s t a f f and l a b o r from the county 's general r e l i e f program are

The Center 's D f rec to r and some Board Members dedicate t ime t O pub l i c education. Ads are run i n the l o c a l papers each F a l l . Brochures and door hangers have been p r i n t e d r e g u l a r l y for d i s t r i b u t i o n . i n v o l v i n g presentat ions t o comnuni t y groups, helps keep the recyc l i ng word Out i n t h e community. excluding s t a f f and Board time, i n 1986.

I n 1986 the ACRC handled 1223 tons of recyc lab le mater ia l . 70%, o r 856 tons, are assumed t o be the C i t y of ArcaGi rcsyciables. ( T h I S estlmate i s based on an ACRC User Survey.) I f these assumptions hold true, then the ACRC handles approximately 7.8% of Arcata 's s o l i d waste each year.

A speakers bureau,

Approximately $500 was spent on these in format ion ef for ts ,

An estimated _ _ _

2. Ma te r ia l s and Markets

The f o l l o w i n g i s a l i s t o f items, markets, approximate tonnages and u n i t p r i ces handled by the ACRC i n 1986:

ITEM Newspaper Corrugated High Grade

Glass Aluminum Cans Scrap A1 umi num Wine B o t t l e s Waste O i l

APPROXIMATE MARKET TONNAGE Port land. OR 4 7 7 s Coos Bay, OR 362 tons ( v a r i es ) ( i n c l uded w i t h

newspaper) Oakland, CA 340 tons '

A1 coa 34.5 tons Arca t a Sal vage negl i g i b l o S.F.Bay Area 8 tons Redding, CA -----

AP P RO X I MATE U N I T PRICES

$92 . 50/ton/del $105-300/ton/del

. 501 ton ide l 1 vered

$65/ton/del. $27cents/l b. / p i cked up

$1351 ton/del e

--.---

_---.-

Yearly tonnages handled by the ACRC increased u n t i l 1984 and have leveled

b u t t e r t o the operat ion over the long-term. Outside funding W i l l s t i l l be needed t O guarantee breakeven given f l u c t i i a t i n g markets and t o fund new O r stronger a c t i v i t i e s . Prospects f o r County, and perhaps City, funding look promising as r e c y c l i n g i s accepted as a v iab le s o l i d waste management Strategy iii a d d i t i o n t o an environmental e f f o r t .

Representatives o f the ACRC s ta f f and Board i n d i cate f i v e new o r expanded a c t i v i t i e s which may have impact on the Center i n the near-term.

\ F i r s t , C a l i f o r n i a ' s Container Deposit Law becomes e f f e c t i v e on October 1, 1987. The ACRC w i l l be a Redemption Center f o r i n d i v i d u a l s and may be a Pedemption Center f o r l o c a l r e t a i l e r s . Second, the neighborhood p i l o t program r e s u l t s may lead t o an expansion of ne i ghborhood e f f o r t s cont ingent on funding. Third, the ACRC plans t o make s i t e and e x t e r i o r b u i l d i n g impr0VeI"tS i n 1987. Fourth, Humboldt Courtty has author ized a $17,000 countywide s o l i d waste p u b l i c education program i n 1987. F i f t h , the ACRC hopes t o r a i s e funding t o Study the f e a s i b l i t y o f s t a r t i n g a l o c a l end-use market f o r recyc lab le mater ia l . Center hopes t h a t a l o c a l user w i l l e l iminate the expense of t ranspor t i ng recyclables long distances. and locally-owned en te rp r i se i n Arcata.

The

A l o c a l end user could a l so produce jobs. income

D . 0 ther Recycl i ng Ac ti v i t y

The Transfer S t a t i o n i n nearby Eureka i s c o l l e c t i n g recyc lab le mater ia ls. Cardboard i s picked up from area establishments and p u l l e d out of t ipped loads . for recycl ing. t ruck compartment on r e s i d e n t i a l p i ck ups. The pub l i c can drop off recyclables and ge t pa id f o r aluminum cans. almost 2000 tons o f recyc lab le mater ia l . Southern Humboldt County i s a l s o r e c y c l i n g mater ia ls.

cans o u t of t h e i r Eureka locat ions.

Some t rash haulers i n Eureka keep newspaper separated f n a

I n any one year the Transfer S ta t i on handles The Redway Transfer S ta t i on i n

Two beverage d i s t r i b u t o r s , Coors and Olympia, pay the pub l i c f o r aluminum

A scrap dealer i n Arcata redeems fo r aluminum cans and aluminum scrap as wel l as accepting metal appl iances and machinery f o r salvage.

4. Case Study Observations

The fo l l ow ing key observations are made:

a. Recycl ing i n Arcata was i n i t i a t e d i n 1971 for environmental ra the r than waste management reasons. C i t y and the Humboldt Area Foundation has been given over the Years t o support recyc l i ng as an environmental r a t h e r than a waste management ef for t . Times are changing, however, as outside funders begin t o consider recyc l i ng as - both a waste management and an enviromental e f f o r t .

A small amount o f outside funding from the County,

b. C i t y of Arcata res idents show strong support, i n terms o f usage and donations, f o r the ACRC. Overal l , the comnuni t y e x h i b i t s strong environmental and r e c y c l i n g values.

c. The ACRC has managed t o come very c lose t o breaking even every year since i t s t a r t e d i n 1971. Most revenue i s from the sale o f recyclables,

c 7

although outside funding has and i s help ing o u t w i t h special expenses. general a r e being kept q u i t e low i n order t o match expenses and revenues and new investment i s approached w i t h caution.

Costs i n

d . Markets f o r recyc lab les a re located 250-350 mi les from Arcata i n Oregon and the San Francisco Bay Area. Even w i t h h igh shipping costs the Center makes money on the sa le o f recyc lab le goods. The lack o f cos t -e f fec t i ve markets for some mater ia ls, t i n and p l a s t i c f o r example, expla ins why the ACRC does n o t accept these items.

e. Commercial p i c k ups o f cardboard and h igh grade o f f i c e paper are important con t r l bu to rs t o ACRC tonnage and revenues. c l l e n t s c u r r e n t l y pay the ACRC a serv ice fee amount equal t o t h e l r savings on monthly garbage b i l l s . Th is payment f o r r e c y c l i n g se rv i ces sets a precedent f o r a d d i t i o n a l serv ice payments i n the future.

Two o f the 250 comercia1

f. The ACRC has i n i t i a t e d several d i f f e r e n t methods o f c o l l e c t i n g recyclables over the years, including: comerc ia1 p l c k ups; buy back fo r i n d i v i d u a l s and comnunj t y groups; drop o f f donations; p i l o t neighborhood program; and drop o f f s i n surrounding colapunitles. The use o f these d i f f e ren t c o l l e c t i o n methods seems t o have made recyc l i ng more convenient and a t t r a c t i v e t o resf dents , resu l ti ng 1 n i ncreased tonnages.

g. Publ ic informat ion/educat ion has been important over the years, encouragi ng an a1 ready environmental 1 y-aware c l tl t en ry t o b r i ng i n recyc l ab1 es . The ACRC dedicates a l o t o f tlme b u t n o t a l o t of money t o these informat ional

qb e f fo r t s . The p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s work appears to have been successful. According to a 1984 survey, 752 o f Arcata res idents know about the ACRC and 602 Of Arcata res idents use the ACRC once a month or less. Informatlon/educatfon e f f o r t s have involved brochures, door hangers, news ads, news a r t i c l e s and comnunity ptcsentat i oris.

.

h. Approximately 11,000 tons o f s o l i d waste i s generated each year i n Arcata. And, approximately 856 tons o f C i t y recyclables were handled by the ACRC i n 1936 represent ing approximately 7.82 o f the C i t y ' s t o t a l sol id waste stream.

i. The Arcata C i t y Council has been support ive o f the ACRC, al though no C l t y f i n a n c i a l support was glven u n t i l 1986. This i s n o t su rp r i s ing since the C i t y does n o t r e a l i z e any d i r e c t cost f o r s o l i d waste management. I n 1986 the C i t y granted $8,000 t o the ACRC f o r the neighborhood p i l o t program. recent f i n a n c i a l support, p lus the C i t y ' s appointment of a So l i d Waste Task Force, may t r i g g e r more C i t y support i n the years ahead.

This

j. Humboldt County has provided important support and some outside funding since the mid-1970's. ACRC w i t h l abo r f o r recyc lab les processing. These programs are meant t o support j o b t r a i n i n g or comnunity work ra the r than a s o l i d waste managment e f f o r t . The County's $40,000 grant i n 1974 supported the purchase of equipment and a t ruck as we l l as a move to a permanent bu i ld ing. opinion, the County has supported the ACRC as a community environmental group rather than an impor tant solid waste management e f f o r t . F ina l ly , i n 1986, the County author ized $17,000 f o r a countywide waste education program. supporo seems 50 s ignal the most decis ive support t o date ef recyc l fng as a

County j ob t r a i n i n g and work programs have provided the

I n the author 's

This

5-8

waste management strategy.

k. The State o f C a l i f o r n i a encourages recyc l i ng as a p a r t of ove ra l l waste management po l i cy . 1970's no funding i s a v a i l a b l e a t present.

Although grants f o r r e c y c l i n g were a v a i l a b l e i n the l a t e

1. I n the au tho r ' s opinion, r e c y c l i n g i s perceived as an environmental a c t i v i t y r a t h e r than a waste management s t ra tegy i n Arcata.

m. According t o the ACRC Di rector , the Center has the capaci ty t o handle more recyclables, a1 though addl t i o n a l s t a f f and storage space would be needed.

n. An est imate o f avoided t i p fees cos t i s $11,727. I n other words i t

Note t h a t these avoided t i p would have c o s t the Arcata t rash hauler and Humboldt County $11,727 i n t i p p i n g fees t o dispose o f t h i s 856 tons o f materials. fees are n o t accrued by Arcata o r the ACRC.

5. Sources o f In format ion

a. Kate Krebs Executive D i r e c t o r ACRC 1380 9th S t r e e t Arcata, CA 95521 (707 1 822-8512 (Kate i s c u r r e n t l y the D i rec to r of the ACRC. employee s i nce 1973. )

b. Margaret Gainer 2290 Graham Road Bayside, CA 95524

(Margaret was ACRC Executive D i rec to r f o r several years. comnunity development consul tant w i t h a special emphasis i n waste management. She c u r r e n t l y serves as a consultant, both pa id and unpaid, t o the ACRC.)

She has been an ACRC volunteer o r

(707 1 822-4448 She i s a r u r a l

c. Wesley Chesbro Humboldt County Commissioner Humbol d t County O f f i ces Eureka, CA

(Wesley was one o f the NEC a c t i v i s t s who s t a r t e d recyc l i ng i n Arcata i n 1971- He i s c u r r e n t l y an ACRC Board Member.)

d. Thea Gast, Mayor Cf t y of Arcata 736 F. S t r e e t Arcata, Ca 95521 (Thea i s the Mayor of Arcata and an ACRC Board Member.)

(707) 445-7693

e. ACRC S t a f f and recyc le rs dur ing a s i t e v i s t i n June, 1987.

Arcata, California

Arcal

I.

’.

I U . .

Kate Krebs, ACRC D i r e c t o r , shows how t o use newspaper drops i n Arcata

S o r t i n ? and processinc c l e a r glass i n Arcata