Success!...
Thanks tons to Rhinebeck Conservation Advisory Council Chair Meg Crawford; she's been working with me this year to educate folks locally and in the county on the benefits of a zero-waste approach to resource recovery (and in particular food-waste composting)...
Well-- tonight at 6:45 pm the Rhinebeck Town Board will hear a presentation from Shabazz Jackson of Greenway Environmental Services on food-waste composting and the possibilities for Rhinebeck to move towards zero-waste!...
Also-- 'tis true-- I've actually gotten Northern Dutchess Hospital, the Baptist Home, and Fairgrounds all to make commitment to seriously consider food-waste composting as crucial step towards going fully zero-waste!...(see below-- re: forums I co-hosted July 29th and June 24th at Rhinebeck Town Hall with Shabazz Jackson and Josephine Papagni of Greenway Environmental Services)...
[contact Shabazz Jackson-- greenway777@aol.com or 656-6070 for much more info on this-- success
(because I organized 6/24 & 7/29 forums w/Shabazz, Meg C. inspired/empowered to go further; go Meg!)]
[also-- scroll down a bit for reprint of article on this in Northern Dutchess News from early July as well]
[recall below posted to my blog back on Aug. 4th; see:
http://dutchessdemocracyne.blogspot.com/2009/08/zero-waste-update-ndh-baptist-home-rcsd.html ]
Thanks tons to all who came out to my July 29th zero-waste/food-waste-composting follow-up mtg. at Rhinebeck Town Hall with presenters Shabazz Jackson/Josephine Papagni of Greenway Environmental Services-- attendees included William Marek (Baptist Home of Rhinebeck Administrator), Steve McKenna of Northern Dutchess Hospital (Health Quest Corporate Director of Hotel Services), Laurie Rich (Rhinebeck School Boardmember/County Faigrounds Green Initiative Coordinator), Jim Constantino (General Counsel for Royal Carting), Meg Crawford (Rhinebeck Conservation Advisory Council Chair), Brenda Cagle (R. Hook Conservation Advisory Council Chair)...
All were quite positive-- indeed, the prevailing mood was downright enthusiastic re: zero-waste here:
William Marek (Baptist Home of Rhinebeck Admin.): "We're very interested in food-waste composting."
Steve McKenna of Northern Dutchess Hospital (Health Quest Corporate Director of Hotel Services):
"This all seems so easy to me-- why couldn't we take our food waste to be composted; why would anyone not want to do this? I gather we could mimic at Northern Dutchess what the colleges have been doing on this. We're very interested in talking further about helping Rhinebeck become a pilot zero-waste community-- right here we have the right environment philosophically and culturally; we have the interest; we have the philosophical commitment." [note-- since then, McKenna still positive!]
Jim Constantino (General Counsel for Royal Carting) tonight: "This is about leadership-- setting a standard-- let's do something; let's look at some possibilities. This works." [speaking re: food-waste composting example modeled by Shabazz and Josephine at Vassar Farms in Poughkeepsie-- taking food waste from Vassar, Marist, and SUNY-New Paltz, mixing it with yard waste, and making compost]
Laurie Rich (Rhinebeck School Boardmember/County Faigrounds Green Initiative Coordinator): "I'm going to take this back to our school board and the Dutchess County Agricultural Society; this is good."
Thanx much again to Barbara Kraft (Village Boardmember) for here efforts on this issue too this year...
Josephine Papagni (Greenway Environmental Services): "There's grant money out there for this."
Shabazz Jackson (Greenway Environmental Services Cofounder): "We'd definitely like to explore possibilities with the town of a host community benefit agreement/lease/and-or-purchase agreement for parcel of land at the old landfill [on Stone Church Rd. next to transfer station] to operate a food-waste/yard-waste composting operation. This place has everything we need-- already a transfer station system is here and functioning-- the wood dump at the old landfill is the perfect location and geology with shale bedrock there. For example, one possible option is this-- in two weeks we could get that spot to receive food waste and more yard waste materials to be processed there for six months, and collect all sorts of data on participation, routes, amounts, etc., etc. Rhinebeck has the right population, infrastructure, and logistics-- this place is perfect for a zero-waste demonstration project with food-waste composting. Right now the local food waste is hauled down to Poughkeepsie with the rest of the municipal solid waste-- if the food waste is handled locally, it makes the system cost-effective [recall-- 425% increase over last three years in county subsidy from local taxpayers at our county's Resource Recovery Agency to handle waste brought there-- and don't forget-- food waste is 90% water; the folks at our county incinerator don't even want it brought there]. It's good and important that Joel brought representatives from some of Rhinebeck's largest institutions here tonight-- there's never enough residential food waste to make a food-waste composting system work without large institutions to make it viable-- commercial businesses are a necessary core, and the residential food waste stream can follow and ride along. We can design a system and go for grants, then demonstrate that this type of a pilot zero-waste food-waste composting operation can work here." [in northern Dutchess County just the same way Shabazz and Josephine have been proving this a half-hour south of here in Poughkeepsie]
[Shabazz' and Josephine's PowerPoint focused on how important real community-based social training (a proven effective method to deliver sustainable behavior) is to make zero-waste work-- putting the system in the people by connecting people to local end-product.]
[recall-- Shabazz was recognized in 1992 by the NYS Council of Mayors with an Innovations in Local Government Award-- for getting the City of Beacon up to a verified 72% recycling rate w/transfer station:
http://greenwayny.com/beta/about/?id=bio ; http://www.cbsm.com/public/mma/advanced+training.html ]
Hope to see you all there tonight!...
Joel
242-3571/876-2488
joeltyner@earthlink.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From p. 6 of Northern Dutchess News (came out first week of July):
"Food Waste Composting Elicits Discussion in Rhinebeck"
by Greg Lucid
At a meeting held the evening of June 24 at Rhinebeck Town Hall, a presentation was given to 12 local citizens by Greenway Environmental Services on ways to protect the climate by food waste composting, also known as a zero-waste approach.
County Legislator Joel Tyner, D-Rhinebeck-Clinton, originally publicized the meeting as a taxpayers' forum to discuss ways the county could save tax dollars. One of the proposed initiatives, included on a press release distributed by Tyner prior to the meeting, was a zero-waste approach to resource recovery, which the legislator suggested could save millions of tax dollars.
While Tyner touched on some of the other ways the county could save money, most of the meeting was devoted to learning about composting from Greenway officials Shabazz Jackson and Josephine Papagni. A discussion followed a video and PowerPoint presentation on the work Greenway does locally.
Answers.com defines compost as "a mixture of decaying organic matter, as from leaves and manure, used to improve soil structure and provide nutrients." Notably compost can also contain certain foods. Composting most people are familiar with on a smaller scale is typically done in gardens.
According to reports, everything in Dutchess County that is not recycled is incinerated. [note-- this is false-- as tens of thousands of tons of our county's municipal solid waste are driven annually many miles upstate to landfills there] Food waste requires a lot of energy to incinerate because it is 95 percent water. [note-- a more accurate statement here would be that food waste is over 70 percent water] Each ton of food waste recovered saves two tons of carbon dioxide.
Jackson and Papagni know first-hand about getting their hands dirty by composting and educating communities on zero-waste, better alternatives they believe for protecting the environment.
"We process tens of thousands of tons of organic waste [each year]," Jackson said. Greenway, based in Newburgh, is one of the largest producers of organic topsoils and mulches, he said.
Jackson underscored Greenway's community involvement.
"We work with the students (including local high school students). And we donate 10 percent of our time to environmental education activities," he said, also noting a partnership Greenway has established "formally" for the past seven years with Vassar College. Vassar students are involved with Greenway through work-study and senior projects. Greenway also works with Marist College and SUNY New Paltz student volunteers. Marist has been active with Greenway since 2007, while New Paltz has just started working with Greenway this year, he added.
Hopewell Junction-based Royal Carting Service Co. has been servicing Greenway projects for more than 30 years, Jackson said. That relationship helped Royal make the investment into food waste, he added. Jackson noted one service Royal provides is shipment of selected waste materials to Greenway from across the Hudson Valley region.
Greenway's Solution to Pollution
For the past few years, citizens in Rhinebeck have been exchanging ideas with one another on better resource management.
"One of the things that has happened in the past two, two-and-a-half years: For the first time, the village, town, Rhinebeck Central School District and the fairgrounds have developed a cooperative initiative...it's the first time these entities have discussed how to all work together to better use our resources to share with one another," said Laurie A. Rich, coordinator of the Dutchess County Fairgrounds Green Initiative. Rich, one of 12 individuals at the meeting, is a member of the Rhinebeck Central School District Board of Education.
Some believe Dutchess County Fairgrounds could even serve as an ideal site for a food waste compost pilot project.
Papagni said Rhinebeck is an ideal location to work in because it contains an existing organic waste dump. "With a little bit of remediation work," she said, "You could have a very efficient system that could serve the whole community."
Tyner also plans on reaching out to the Town of Clinton for participation.
So where does Greenway go from here?
"We want to set up at the Beacon Transfer Station to do training, put together places where people will work," Jackson said. He noted that to get the process up and running, from obtaining local and state permits to having a site plan done among other tasks, it could take about a year before moving forward with waste collection and composting at new sites.
Meanwhile at the government level, the county is following Greenway's lead.
"In March, a resolution was passed [unanimously] by the County Legislature to try to draw down federal stimulus funds to move toward zero waste," Tyner said.
Tyner, the chairman of the County Legislature's Environment Committee, said he has introduced ways to save money and protect the environment. He said he attended a zero-waste conference held in Albany last November, at which time he decided to seriously take action toward zero waste.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2009/October09/09/DC_GRTF-09Oct09.html ...
[see Green Ribbon report here-- http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/assets/pdf/BK142669916.PDF -- or scroll down to very bottom of this email to see full actual text of our Green Ribbon Task Force report]
Dutchess Green Ribbon Task Force Calls for Complete Transformation of County's Resource Recovery Agency
POUGHKEEPSIE - The Dutchess County Legislature's Green Ribbon Solid Waste Task Force final report calls for a toughening of waste and recycling efforts in the county.
Environment Committee Chairman Joel Tyner headed up the committee and presented its final report to lawmakers on Thursday.
"We are recommending that Dutchess County get to a 70 percent recycling goal by 2020 and especially that can be possible if we intensify food waste composting," he said. "The Dutchess County Resource Recovery agency needs to completely transform itself or there needs to be a new Dutchess County Waste and Recycling Management Authority or much more active participation from the solid waste commissioner."
The county legislature will now review the report and consider adopting its recommendations.
Click on this link-- http://www.totalwebcasting.com/live/dutchess/ to see webcast of my presentation before our County Legislature's Environmental Committee w/PowerPoint on this...
[note-- am I the only person who noticed Oct. 7th at Rhinebeck High School auditorium debate how Dealy wouldn't even answer the question directed to him about what he would do re: DCRRA issues?]
Thanks to Vassar College Sustainability Committee's Nadine Souto for putting PowerPoint together...
[even Chair Roger Higgins says he'd like our Green Ribbon report & PowerPoint on Co. Leg. website!]
Note-- you're all cordially invited to come out to Rhinebeck Town Hall (80 East Market St.) Tues. Oct. 27th 5:30 pm-- I'll be presenting this PowerPoint again!...(and taking your questions)...
[...and Rhinebeck's Andi Novick of the Election Transparency Coalition will also be updating us all that night on the latest in her heroic efforts to stop NYS from following the other 49 states in the U.S. like lemmings off a cliff-- and stop the rush to computerized voting machines!...(last Dec. Andi and I got Dutchess County to be the first in the state to pass a resolution to keep lever voting machines; since then 19 other counties have passed resolutions-- along with NYS Association of Towns too)...get the facts, folks-- at http://nylevers.wordpress.com/ ; http://www.ElectionDefenseAlliance.org ...]
Incredibly, my Republican/Conservative opponent Pat Dealy literally lied three times about the Green Ribbon report during his Sept. 23rd Clinton Town Hall debate with me-- sadly, Dealy actually stated three times 9/23 that the Green Ribbon report calls for summarily shutting down our county's Resource Recovery Agency (it doesn't), and Dealy also falsely said it calls for creating two new landfills.
Fact: This, specifically, is what the Green Ribbon Solid Waste Management Task Force report says:
"Based upon the points cited above, and in light of the extraordinarily high costs, inefficiency and mismanagement recently document at the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency, we recommend that the new PLAN (Dutchess County Local Solid Waste Management Plan) give careful and thorough consideration to the phasing out of the waste to energy facility over a 2-4 year time horizon and the phasing out or complete transformation for the Resource Recovery Agency over the same period of time."
Thanks to the following Green Ribbon Task Force members for many open mtg.'s I chaired in '09:
-- Tom Baldino, City of Beacon Conservation Advisory Council Chair
-- Ryan Courtien, Dover Town Supervisor
-- Shabazz Jackson, Greenway Environmental Services
-- Jack Hess, Hess Hauling
-- Michael Long, City of Poughkeepsie City Administrator
-- Stephen Lynch, R.S. Lynch & Company
-- Jonathan Smith, "Progressive Perspective" columnist for The Hudson Valley News
-- Rita Trocino, Recycle Depot
Thanks much as well to Co. Leg. Assistant to the Chair Fred Knapp for his time and info on this too; and to Co. Leg. Chair Roger Higgins for the idea (building on my similar idea last year), appointments.
Sign on to http://www.petitiononline.com/zeroyes to join 36 other Dutchess residents for zero-waste!...
Now that our report has been released-- email countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us: make rec.'s real!...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fact: More than two thirds of the materials we use are still burned or buried, despite fact we have technical capacity to cost-effectively recycle, reuse, or compost 90% of what we waste.
[see http://www.StopTrashingtheClimate.org ]
As the Institute of Local Self-Reliance has noted-- " On a per-ton basis, sorting and processing recyclables alone sustain 10 times more jobs than landfilling or incineration."
[see: http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/recyclingmeansbusiness.html ]
Institute for Local Self-Reliance President Neil Seldman:
[nseldman@ilsr.org or (202) 898-1610 or http://www.ilsr.org ]
"Worcester (MA), Portland (OR), Seattle/King County (WA), Hawaii County, Oakland, and Los Angeles are all examples of communities that have rejected incineration invested in recycling and composting and have saved tax dollars as the costs of solid waste management have gone down."
"This has been accomplished because solid waste has been reduced by diverting materials to the private sector which hire workers, pay taxes and expand the local tax base. For example, Oakland has created over 1000 jobs in the last decade as a result of a rejected incinerator there and investing in recycling and composting."
"Austin, Texas in l986 rejected an incinerator and invested in recycling and composting. They lost $22 million when they cancelled the plant-- but saved $120 million over the 20-year proposed life of the plant."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Some new info here below we've dug up-- read, fwd widely friends!...
The current costs for our Resource Recovery Agency are out of control-- over six million dollars to be paid this year on top of $11 million to be paid by system users. This adds up to a total cost of $125/ton-- much higher than any other publicly owned incinerator of the same size in the state (usually about $85/ton)-- and unlike all other publicly owned facilities, these costs do not pay off all of our county incinerator's debt; this debt goes on well after the incinerator's service agreements.
Four Key DCRRA Errors That Have Led to the Current Situation:
1. The DCRRA about seven years ago replaced Westinghouse with Montenay without a competitive procurement or negotiation-- this resulted in a Montenay operating contract with payment terms much worse for the County than typical operating contracts in the industry.
2. The DCRRA used an expensive financial derivative contract to force the early refinancing of the facility's debt in a period of high interest rates. If the DCRRA had simply refinanced when provided for in the bond indenture (a year later), it would have refinanced at lower rates and avoided the million-dollar cost of the derivative and other excessive transaction costs.
3. Just over the last few years the DCRRA sunk millions of dollars more into this aging facility; the
extraordinary costs we see today were a completely predictable result of this ill-advised investment at the time the DCRRA requested the Legislature to make these new debt commitments.
4. The DCRRA continues gross mismanagement-- these four ways-- (1) over $500,000 of expenses accidentally overpaid, (2) no one knows how our payments for recycled metal work or why we are paying a certain firm to take the metal when others are being paid for it, (3) over ten different funds and accounts holding Agency funds can't be explained, (4) no one knows if these funds are invested within State Law and indenture guidelines.
The DCRRA needs to be replaced by a now governance structure that is transparent and accountable. Future waste management and planning needs to be managed by the County Legislature because this body is not irretrievably committed to burning our waste and can objectively look at all options (reduction, recycling, waste export) and pick burning only if it is the best option going forward. The Legislature is accountable to the taxpayer for the cost of our future solid waste management system; sadly, the DCRRA's approach seems to be burn, baby, burn-- no matter what the cost.
While a flow control law in Dutchess County could remove the $6 million of burn plant subsidy from the General Fund, it does not actually lower system costs-- and simply shifts the financial burden of above market costs from the County budget to municipal budgets (Poughkeepsie etc.) and to private haulers who will pass along these added costs to homeowners through higher waste collection fees. This is simply a new tax and will assure that there is no county cost scrutiny or competition from the private sector for the next 20 years.
No one is suggested that we should build new landfills in the County-- but defenders of the status quo are using the following misrepresentation to try to win the flow control debate-- "If the County does not pass flow control, or keep and expand County owned trash plants, then the only solution is to build new landfills in the County." This is not true-- the truth is there are plenty of out-of-county landfills with 50+ years of space that would love to have our trash at half the cost of the burn plant.
A flow control law is quite dangerous-- by forcing all waste to the burn plant regardless of the cost it removes the DCRRA from any cost discipline imposed by the competitive waste market. The DCRRA now advocates legislative flow control for all waste and recyclables in the County-- for an estimated cost $250-300/ton. This would be a new County law which makes it illegal for any resident, business or municipality to send their recyclables and waste to any facility other than the County's overpriced burn pant or two new plants which the County would have to develop finance and build in the county. No private sector waste or recycling facilities would be legal in Dutchess County. Current ones would have to close.
#################################################
Note as well-- I'm also more than a little bit concerned about the recommendations from the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency's hand-picked consultant's report that came out recently from Germano and Cahill, P.C. and Gerhardt, LLC-- their report entitled "Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency: Flow Control & Solid Waste Management Alternatives."
In particular, page 12 of the report pushes strongly to expand and extend life of county incinerator(!):
"We recommend that the Agency undertake a diagnostic study of the [Resource Recovery (incinerator)] Facility to determine the scope and cost of major maintenance that will be required to extend the life of the Facility for an additional 25-30 years. This effort should be undertaken as soon as possible in order to allow the Agency to plan for future investment, and to prepare for a procurement process to select a new long-term operator for the Facility after 2014. The diagnostic study should include an evaluation of the feasibility and cost of upgrading or replacing the existing turbine generator to increase electric power production, and an evaluation of the feasibility of expanding the capacity of the Facility by adding a third boiler train. We estimate that if recycling capabilities in the County are enhanced, the total amount of remaining processable waste generated in the County may be reduced to approximately 215,000 tons per year, or 65,000 tons more than the Facility's current capacity, an amount that may be handled by the addition of a third boiler train."[!!!]
Specifically, on page 42 this same report calls for an "RRF Turbine Retro-fit for three million dollars"(!).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recall these great investigative exposé pieces from Pok. Journal's MB Pfeiffer over last several months:
May 10th: "Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency: Inefficient, Expensive, and in Debt"
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20090510/NEWS01/905100344&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
May 31st: "Resource Recovery Agency: Padded Budgets or Solid Plans? County Subsidy Total is $5.4 Million More Than Needed Since '03"
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Dato=20090531&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr=107060002&Ref=AR
July 12th: "No Bid Deals Might Add to Agency's Financial Trouble"
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20090712/NEWS01/907120337
################################################
Fact: Our county incinerator doesn't even want food waste, as it's highly inefficient to burn (over 70% water; see http://www.Cool2012.com )-- and Dutchess taxpayers spent $1,167,271 on incineration in 2006, $5,005,364 last year on this, and are to spend $6,330,612 on this in 2009-- if status quo holds.
Recall the front-page article about Shabazz Jackson in the Poughkeepsie Journal last April 3rd (2008) on great food-waste composting operation in Poughkeepsie using materials from Vassar and Marist to produce extremely valuable compost in high demand at non-odor facility (Vassar Farm); see:
http://groups.google.com/group/planputnam/msg/bb0dd1fd8ca9441a ; http://greenwayny.com/beta/about/?id=bio ; http://www.recycle.net/trade/aa945288.html ;
http://www.grn.com/trade/aa945288.html ; http://nysawg.org/news.php?id=40 .
Fact: Ithaca, Portland, Seattle, Boulder, Cambridge, and communities across Vermont, North Carolina, Minnesota, Michigan, California have smartly moved towards zero waste with food-waste composting
[ http://www.cool2012.com/community/collection/ http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/000525.html ;
http://www.recycletompkins.org/editorstree/view/177 ; http://ccetompkins.org/compost/index.html ]
Fact: The Dutchess County Incinerator spews out over 3700 tons of carbon emissions annually.
[ http://www.CARMA.org ]
Fact: "Significantly decreasing waste disposed in incinerators and landfills will reduce greenhouse gas emissions the equivalent to closing 21% of U.S. coal-fired power plants. This is comparable to leading climate protection proposals such as improving national vehicle fuel efficiency. Indeed, preventing waste and expanding reuse, recycling, and composting are essential to put us on the path to climate stability." [ http://www.StopTrashingtheClimate.org ]
[see http://www.350.org if you're not sure about how real threat of global warming/climate change is]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Institute for Local Self-Reliance President Neil Seldman's crucial info here below:
Go to "Waste to Wealth" ILSR site for more-- http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/index.html .
Also-- check out these two gems ILSR President Neil Seldman recently penned for E Magazine:
"Wasted Energy: Debunking the Waste-to-Energy Scheme"
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4315
"Recycling First: Directing Federal Stimulus Money to Real Green Projects"
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4601&src=QHA290
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recall http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2009/February09/20/recyc_selfrel-20Feb09.html ...
Self reliance expert promotes recycling, waste reduction over landfilling/burning
Feb. 20th-- POUGHKEEPSIE - The president of the non-profit Institute for Local Self Reliance told audiences in Poughkeepsie and Newburgh Thursday that the way to bring down the use of landfills is to expand recycling, waste reduction, building deconstruction and related fields. Neil Seldman of Washington, DC spoke to audiences at Vassar College and Newburgh Free Library and said federal stimulus money could help grow this technology, create new jobs and increase recycling. "We think if the federal government matches local spending with about $10-$20 billion, the transition from our current of recycling, which is 33-34 percent nationally can be increased to 75 percent within three to five years," he said. Seldman met with Dutchess legislators Joel Tyner, Barbara Jeter-Jackson and James Doxsey who agreed that if more jobs could be created and recycling increased, it would be a win-win for the economy and society.
Thanks again to Rhinebeck Village Boardmembers Barbara Kraft and Svend Beecher for comin' out to this forum above Feb. 20th-- and everyone else who turned out for Neil Seldman's Feb. 19th and 27th Poughkeepsie talks organized by yours truly with Vassar Sustainability Committee folks Lucy Johnson and Jeff Walker-- Rockland County Environmental Committee Chair Connie Coker, Jonathan Smith, Laurie Husted of Bard's Environmental Program, David Dell of Sustainable Hudson Valley, Manna Jo Greene of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Allison Morrill Chatrchyan of Cornell Cooperative Extension's Environmental Program, Patricia Zolnik of the Cary Institute for Ecosystem Studies, Michelle Leggett of the Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency, Co. Leg. Jim Doxsey (and Co. Leg. Barbara Jeter-Jackson earlier), Dave Petrovits of Recycling Crushing Technology, Vassar Economics Professor Bill Lunt, environmentalists extraordinaire Marie Caruso, Nancy Swanson, and Tom Baldino, Richard Dennison, Fred and Alice Bunnell, and Cary Kittner, Vassar students Katherine Straus, Anna Weisberg, Nadine Souto, and Susan Unver, and Damon and Stephanie Lewis, Mary Schmalz, Margaret Slomin, Chris Wimmers, Patrick and Liz Noonan, Amanda Adams, Caitlin Zinsley, Peter Prunty, Chris Eufemia, Allie Chipkin, Jamie Roderick, Sarah Womer, Frank Haggerty, Frankie Mancini, et. al.
#################################################
[recall below sent out by yours truly to my list Oct. 19th]
Clean up Dutchess, limit donations from waste haulers, end de-facto monopoly locally!...
Check out this one from the front page of today's paper:
"Trash-Pickup Competition Is Rare in Dutchess County: Royal Carting Dominates: Other Companies Cry Foul" by Mary Beth Pfeiffer
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20091019/NEWS01/91016011
[recall yesterday's piece-- "No License? No Problem for Trash Haulers" by Mary Beth Pfeiffer
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20091018/NEWS01/91016009/Dutchess-trash-hauling-licensing-lax&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL ]
It's one more reason to join us today 12:30 pm for our press conference in front of our County Office Building at 22 Market Street in Poughkeepsie-- to push for answers asap to the ten questions below!...
Again-- I sent the letter a bit below to DCRRA Ex. Dir. Bill Calogero, Dutchess County Solid Waste Commissioner Roger Akeley, Dutchess County Attorney Ron Wozniak, and Dutchess County Sheriff Adrian (Butch) Anderson-- calling on the four of them to join me (along with local waste haulers and anyone else interested) for a public forum on this Thursday October 29th at 7 pm on the sixth floor of our County Office Building at 22 Market Street in Poughkeepsie...(thx to Butch-- he's already said yes!)...
[I called Co. Leg. offices-- we'll be in Legislative Chambers on sixth floor this Thursday 10/29 for this!]
As before, I've long called for beefed up enforcement when it comes to waste management in Dutchess County; recall-- back in January 2008 I started my http://www.petitiononline.com/newideas petition calling this citing Westchester's efforts: "County Beefing Up Enforcement of Recycling Rules" [11/29/07]
http://larchmontgazette.com/2007/articles/20071129recycling.html ...
All this year I've helped lead investigation into the DCRRA with the Green Ribbon Solid Waste Management Task Force; join 34 already on board my http://www.petitiononline.com/zeroyes effort!...
As always-- help get my colleagues on board; email them countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us...
Your (polite) emails to Calogero, Akeley, Wozniak, and Anderson help too-- to wcalogero@dcrra.org, rakeley@co.dutchess.ny.us, rwozniak@co.dutchess.ny.us, aanderson@co.dutchess.ny.us!...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ten Questions Dutchess County Taxpayers Have a Right to Have Answered ASAP Re: DCRRA...
[ten questions I hope to fully delve into at Oct. 27th forum with Calogero, Akeley, Wozniak, & Anderson!]
1. Why has Dutchess County unfairly helped put into place a de-facto monopoly on waste hauling with big discounts for Royal-- when other facilities offer discounts in more equitable and transparent ways?
[83% of the trash dumped at our county incinerator is delivered there by Royal Carting-- a company that gets to do this at a rate 8% less than other haulers in the county-- see today's Poughkeepsie Journal.]
2. Why has Dutchess County allowed pay to play to run rampant, empowering the biggest waste hauler in the county, Royal Carting's founder and owner Emil Panichi and his wife Emily to give the County Executive $12,000 in campaign donations since 2005-- more than any other individuals? [Even the Poughkeepsie Journal has twice in last decade published scathing editorials calling on Dutchess County to follow the good example of Rockland County and enact a $100 limit on campaign donations to county officials and candidates from companies like Royal who have contracts with the county.]
[join over 50 other Dutchess residents signed on to http://www.petitiononline.com/cleangov for action;
see: http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2009/08/re-pay-to-play-in-dutchess-county-brand.html ]
3. Why is it that the very waste hauler (Riccelli Enterprises) hired by the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency to take away its ash hasn't even been licensed by Dutchess County itself?
4. Why is it that Dutchess County has issued only one citation for unlicensed waste hauling since 2005, even though DCRRA Ex. Dir. William Calogero himself has taken over 100 pictures of this going on?
5. Why is it that Dutchess County has collected only $400 in fines for illegal carting since 2005-- while
Westchester County, with roughly three times our county's population, nets $100,000 to $200,000 annually this way-- with (unlike Dutchess) a staff of enforcement agents it uses to catch offenders through garbage station records?
6. Why is it that Dutchess County, with literally dozens of unlicensed waste haulers carting construction debris, has the lowest rate of licensed carters in five local counties-- with only one-fourth the number of licensed waste haulers per capita that Westchester has, and half the number per capita that Ulster and Orange counties have, per population?
7. Why does Dutchess County make it so hard for seemingly legitimate waste haulers to be licensed here?
8. Why is it that the DCRRA has the highest per-ton processing cost of 14 incinerators in the region-- 46% higher than average-- with a subsidy from county taxpayers this year projected to be $6.3 million (compared to $1.1 million in 2001)?
9. Why is it that millions of our county tax dollars in DCRRA contracts have been awarded without competitive bidding (requests for proposals) in violation of the DCRRA's state-mandated policy-- including roofing work, long-term arrangements with lawyers, auditors, and engineers, and the contract to operate the incinerator?
10. Why is it that the last six Dutchess County budgets have included literally $5.4 million more in subsidies than the DCRRA has actually used?
[questions #3 through #10 are taken literally from the front page of yesterday's Poughkeepsie Journal]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From today's paper-- http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20091019/NEWS01/91016011 ...
Trash-pickup competition is rare in Dutchess County: Royal Carting dominates; other companies cry foul
OCTOBER 19, 2009 Poughkeepsie Journal by Mary Beth Pfeiffer
Every day scores of trucks from Royal Carting Service of Hopewell Junction unload trash at the Dutchess County burn plant in the Town of Poughkeepsie, paying a fee to dump that is 8 percent below the going rate.
And though the burn plant has foundered-- the result, a legislative task force says, of mismanagement-- Royal has soared. Begun with one truck in 1955, the company now has 200 employees and 30,000 customers in the mid-Hudson Valley. In Dutchess, it controls an estimated 80 to 85 percent of the market, servicing most schools, businesses, and homes that have collection (some under a subsidiary, Welsh Sanitation). As Millbrook's deputy village clerk, Camille Prehatney, put it, "I'm not even sure there's any other company that does pickup."
Royal's founder and owner Emil Panichi and his wife, Emily, gave County Executive William Steinhaus $12,000 in campaign donations since 2005-- more than any other individuals, while giving nothing to county Democrats or members of the Legislature. (Only one corporate donor, Meyer Contracting Corp. of Pleasant Valley, gave more to Steinhaus than the Panichis, $15,300.)
Under its deal with the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency, Royal Carting pays $73.75 to dump a ton of trash-- compared to $80 charged to other commercial haulers and $79 to the City of Poughkeepsie. (Royal was also paid $1.1 million in 2008 under a five-year contract to remove ash from the plant.)
The year-round discount-- under which the carter guarantees delivery of 115,000 tons of trash-- is part of a special contractual agreement for Royal alone; no formal policy exists as to when other carters might qualify. While the deal assures the plant has enough trash to keep running, it also offers a significant advantage-- financed partly by taxpayers-- to what is the undisputed dominant player in a market already short of competition.
The problem, haulers and even an agency board member said, is how the discount is administered: to one company and with no established guidelines as to when others may qualify. (The agency occasionally offers seasonal discounts, as in August, when trash production lagged, and three companies responded.)
R. Stephen Lynch [a Millbrook resident], an agency board member and critic, said the agency should provide discounts in a more equitable way, such as by posting a specific policy on a Web site. "There's fair ways to offer volume discounts and unfair ways," he said. "What they do is not transparent."
The Hudson Falls trash plant, which Lynch's waste-consulting company manages, offers discounts to carters who deliver at least 667 tons monthly under six-month to three-year contracts in an attempt to attract waste from a variety of sources. The Poughkeepsie trash plant, meanwhile, is dependent on Royal for 83 percent of its lifeblood: trash.
"They're certainly giving them an opportunity that they are not giving other people," David Dyal, owner of Dyal Roll Off Inc. of LaGrangeville, said of Royal's arrangement, echoing other haulers. "You would think that the county would operate a level playing field"...
Royal Carting is the widely acknowledged trash-hauling powerhouse of Dutchess County, a status it has achieved through competitive prices, a penchant for buying out other carters and what haulers and residents say are lucrative offers to hold on to wavering customers. In question is whether Royal's favorable deal at a facility that gets millions in county subsidies every year has helped to cement the company's dominant position in the county-- at the expense of other competitors.
"What the county did for years, they kept competition out, they built up one company and now they have to bow down to that one company," said one small hauler who asked not to be named for fear of offending the agency, which processes haulers' licenses. "If everybody was paying the same rate and everybody could compete, you'd have more garbage coming into the county."
Indeed, the scramble for trash-- in a market awash in cheap alternatives at upstate and Pennsylvania landfills-- is at the heart of the Royal deal, which dates to 1998...At the same time, the facility is in difficult financial straits, carrying $49 million in debt, facing a multi-million dollar annual deficit and, the Journal has previously reported, costing more to process a ton of trash than 13 other plants in the region.
###############################################
[here below-- letter I sent to Calogero, Akeley, Wozniak, and Anderson early this morning]
[again-:thx much to Sheriff Anderson for already indicating willingness/interest to come to forum on this!]
From: Joel Tyner
To: wcalogero@dcrra.org, rakeley@co.dutchess.ny.us, rwozniak@co.dutchess.ny.us, aanderson@co.dutchess.ny.us
Subject: Mr. Calogero (Bill), Mr. Akeley (Roger), Mr. Wozniak (Ron), Sheriff Anderson (Butch)...
Dear Mr. Calogero (Bill), Mr. Akeley (Roger), Mr. Wozniak (Ron), Sheriff Anderson (Butch):
Surely you saw this article on the front page of yesterday's (Sunday's) Poughkeepsie Journal:
"No License? No Problem for Trash Haulers" by Mary Beth Pfeiffer
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20091018/NEWS01/91016009/Dutchess-trash-hauling-licensing-lax&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
So-- please let me know as soon as possible if you are available to attend a public forum I am putting together-- "The Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency and Waste-Hauling"--Thursday October 29th at 5 pm in the Legislative Chambers of our County Office Building at 22 Market Street in Poughkeepsie-- I think it would be a good idea if county legislators, local taxpayers, and waste haulers had opportunity to have questions like these eight below answered on this issue and be heard publicly.
[note-- email readers-- again-- scroll up to top of this email for full list of ten questions-- includes today]
I also invite you all to join me for a forum I'm holding on this issue Tuesday October 27th at 5:30 pm at Rhinebeck Town Hall at 80 East Market Street as well; let me know if you can attend either or both.
Joel Tyner
Dutchess County Legislature Environmental Committee Chair
County Legislator (Clinton/Rhinebeck)
cell: 242-3571; home: 876-2488
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[recall other Pok. Journal special reports: "Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency (pt.'s I, II, III)"
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/section/special&template=2col ]
"No License? No Problem for Trash Haulers"
County Enforcement Lax; Agency Hires Unlicensed Firm
Poughkeepise Journal October 18, 2009 by Mary Beth Pfeiffer
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20091018/NEWS01/91016009/Dutchess-trash-hauling-licensing-lax&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
For the last 21 months, 18-wheel tractor-trailers have regularly left Dutchess County's trash-burning plant in the Town of Poughkeepsie filled with thousands of tons of ash hauled by a company without a county license to carry waste.
The case of the trucker, Riccelli Enterprises, is perhaps the most dramatic example of a Dutchess County waste hauling law that is poorly enforced by county solid waste officials, flouted by many carters and-- in this instance-- ignored even by the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency, the county's chief waste manager, a Poughkeepsie Journal investigation of trash licensing found.
Ironically, the agency-- which runs the burn plant and awarded the $600,000-a-year Riccelli contract in late 2007-- is also responsible for processing haulers' licenses under a statute that deems it "unlawful for any private hauler" to pick up or dispose of waste in Dutchess County without a license.
Riccelli, of North Syracuse, declined to return numerous calls for this article. The company applied in July 2008 for a license, but it still has not been granted-- putting Riccelli in league with other unlicensed carriers in the county.
The Journal's findings come at a critical juncture for the management of trash in Dutchess.
A task force appointed by the Democrat-controlled county Legislature concluded recently that the agency was mismanaged and said its multi-million-dollar annual subsidy-- and possibly the trash agency itself-- should be eliminated.
The agency countered with its own report advocating a new property tax to support operations, an expanded burn plant, and most significantly, the adoption of a "flow control" law that would put the agency in charge of all 250,000 tons of waste produced in the county, in addition to the 150,000 tons processed at the burn plant.
Troll the roads of Dutchess and you will see trucks and roll-off containers bearing the names of companies like CRP Sanitation, Marangi Disposal, AAA Carting, and many others that aren't on the county's list of 14 licensed carters. Significantly, licensing procedures assure that haulers are well insured-- including carrying liability protection for the county-- and, moreover, that they undergo background checks to verify they have no links to organized crime. The Journal found no evidence of such ties, but did find:
-- Dozens of unlicensed operators haul thousands of tons of waste in Dutchess each year without the requisite checks of their background and financing necessary to obtain a two-year haulers' license.
-- These haulers, unlike Riccelli, mostly carry waste from business and household renovation and construction, called C & D or construction and demolition debris.
-- While the licensing process is meant to keep criminal operators out of the industry, it may also unwittingly discourage legitimate operators because of the process' length, expense, and demands for information.
"This license process has been overwhelming, burdensome, and outright exhausting," said Christopher Larkin, owner of Nieco Container Corp. of Marlboro, who has tried for more than four years to get a Dutchess haulers' license, a process that cost him $6,400 in application fees and $70,000 in legal bills. (He is operating under a temporary license.)
Three haulers said it was faster and easier to get gun permits, which also require criminal background checks, that it was to get a trash haulers' permit in Dutchess County.
County officials said that the process to become licensed, however lengthy, was necessary to cull "possible criminal elements in the solid waste industry."
"The licensing process is designed to ensure that all carters who operate in Dutchess County are held to the same set of standards," said Senior County Attorney Carol Bogle in written response to Journal questions. She denied charges by several frustrated carters who have come to believe that the county process is intended to keep down competition among licensed haulers-- a belief fostered by a rigorous permit review at one end of the system and little enforcement at the other.
Though unlicensed hauling is common-- William Calogero, the trash agency's director, has taken more than 100 photographs-- the county issued just one citation for it since 2005, county records show, to CRP. That irks haulers who have paid thousands in licensing fees and insurance.
"It's brutal for anyone who's in Dutchess County," said Andrew Dyal, former owner of Dyal Carting of Poughkeepsie. "You go through the proper channels and do what you're supposed to do to get a permit and you have all these guys come from out of town, and there's no enforcement."
"The guy...on the sneak who's not paying taxes, not licensed, maybe not insured-- he's going to do it cheaper than me," said Jack Hess, owner of Hess Hauling of Wappingers Falls, a small licensed carter in central and southern Dutchess.
Companies whose containers were photographed by the Journal had varying responses.
Officials of AAA, of Peekskill, and Marangi, of Valley Cottage, Rockland County, said they would seek a license; Ronald Carbone, an official of CRP, of Elmsford, Westchester County, said the company believed it was OK to work under another company's license; a county attorney said it was not.
Calogero, the trash agency head who oversees the county burn plant, blamed the county for poor enforcement.
"The enforcement really isn't being done," he said. "County government has not gotten heavily enough behind it....It's not my responsibility," he added.
Asked why, in view of these complaints, the agency itself would hire a hauler without a county license, he explained that ash has a "beneficial use" as cover for trash landfills, making it a "gray area" that might not need a trash-hauling license. He acknowledged, however, "The rules and regulations do not make that point clear." (Riccelli does have a state license to transport waste.)
The agency and county jointly review applications for licenses to haul trash, which are ultimately granted by Roger Akeley, the county's planning commissioner, and, for the past several years, acting solid waste commissioner. Under county law, enforcement "shall be the responsibility of the commissioner of solid waste management." Akeley, through the county attorney, declined an interview.
Enforcement Goals
County officials said they were working to beef up enforcement. About 30 letters have been sent since 2006 advising unlicensed haulers to apply for permits, and several stakeouts were conducted in the last year to catch offenders. According to Bogle, the senior county attorney, enforcement is difficult because "the law enforcement officer...must witness an unlicensed carter in the act of transporting or delivering solid waste to a solid waste facility"-- something Dutchess rarely does.
Since 2005, the county has collected just $400 in fines for illegal carting; by contrast, Westchester County, with about three times Dutchess' population, nets $100,000 to $200,000 annually. Unlike Dutchess, it has a staff of enforcement agents and catches offenders through garbage station records, among other things.
Dutchess County's licensing regulations, which stem from legislation passed in 1984, require that truck operators have good driving records, vehicles are registered and companies carry adequate insurance to protect themselves, their employees and, moreover, the county and agency from claims.
But the regulations have an equally important mission: to attest to the applicant's "character and fitness" to haul waste.
Organized crime families have historically been implicated in New York in attempts to divide control of the trash market and fix prices, and the Journal found no evidence that organized crime has infiltrated the industry here. (The then-general manager of CRP was convicted of conspiring to violate federal racketeering laws in a price-fixing case in 2006 but the company continues to be licensed in Westchester.) But nor have many of the unlicensed participants undergone background checks that might reveal such ties.
The licensing procedure involves two-to-three-month probes by private investigators, delving into the financial, personal, and criminal histories of applicants. The process costs carters several thousand dollars, depending on how many company principals must be investigated, and often raises issues that lead to further investigation.
"It really, really took a long time-- months, months, months," said Rita Trocino, vice president of Recycle Depot, a hauling and debris-recycling center in the Town of Poughkeepsie who paid $2000 for her license.
The question is whether the county has made the review process so onerous as to steer haulers-- and competition-- away.
Since 2005, 12 hauling companies failed to finish the license application, two withdrew completed applications, and three did not respond to county inquiries on their applications, according to county records. Thirteen were approved.
Indeed, the county, which currently has 14 licensed haulers, has many fewer per capita than other local counties. Orange and Ulster have about twice the rate per capita (and Ulster doesn't license roll-off companies as in Dutchess) while Westchester, with a similarly rigorous review process, has four times as many per population.
Marangi Disposal, which services local Kmarts and Home Depots, has operated here without a license for 10 years, its president, Michael Marangi, acknowledged. "It's almost impossible to get a license," he said.
Larkin, the hauler who has waited more than four years for a full license was asked for voluminous amounts of information including bank records, deposit slips, cancelled checks, tax returns, W-2 forms, stockholder information-- even his sister's marital status.
He acknowledged that he worked for men who, according to court records, were subsequently barred from the waste industry in New York City for organized crime ties; he was 16 when he started collecting trash in the Bronx and said such associations come with the business. His sister's (now ex-) husband, who was also in the field, was indicted in 1994 for racketeering and sent to prison, he acknowledged. But the Town of Poughkeepsie resident maintains that there is nothing in his background to suggest criminality-- he obtained a Westchester County haulers' license in 2005 and 2007 and also has a pistol permit, both requiring background checks.
County Concerns
Bogle, the county attorney, acknowledged the case's twists and turns, which she said were rooted in "concerns about the information that had been provided in connection with this application." Larkin sued the county and eventually had to sell his residential route of 450 customers-- even though a judge ruled he had shown "a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits" at trial. He has been offered a conditional license which would require him, among many other things, to allow the county to view his customer lists.
"They have shut the door on this entrepreneur," Larkin said, noting that his problems began when he sought to change his license from temporary to permanent and told county officials he intended to expand from roll-off services to weekly residential pick-up. "This whole thing was done to deter other people from coming in here."
An official of County Waste of Clifton Park, N.Y., expressed a similar sentiment. The company, with 191,000 customers in 13 New York counties, abandoned a yearlong attempt in 2007 to get a license after numerous inexplicable delays.
"It's like would you go and play a poker game if you knew that the deck of cards were fixed?" said Jerry Cifor, a principal in the company. "It's difficult to get a hauler's permit (in Dutchess). They were you down to nothing...I've been in the industry for 25 years, and I've never seen anything like it before."
The company is under investigation by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for alleged fraud in connection with dumping at a Colonie landfill. A County Waste spokesman, Saleem Cheeks, said the probe began after County Waste withdrew its Dutchess application.
In response to such charges, Bogle said the county was just doing its job: "The licensing process is...not designed to limit competition or discourage haulers."
James Constantino, general counsel for Royal Carting Service of Hopewell Junction, the county's largest licensed hauler, defended the county's process. "The fact is that licensing does not unfairly impact legitimate carters from competing," he wrote in a statement. "On the other hand, a carter that is under criminal investigation or is unable to meet the minimum insurance standards would likely take the position that the licensing process would inhibit its ability to compete."
He said there was no lack of competition here when unlicensed haulers were considered. Some of them, he said, offered scheduled pickup; aside from Marangi, which acknowledged five commercial accounts, the Journal could not find examples of unlicensed haulers providing regular collection.
At least one hauler said the licensing process worked well. "We've had a pretty smooth transition with getting a license," said Hans Taylor of Taylor Recycling of Montgomery. The company's permit expired last December, however; county officials say the company has not completed necessary paperwork to renew while Taylor says everything has been submitted.
Meanwhile, the county promises to take steps to crack down on unlicensed haulers.
"The county has increased its enforcement efforts over the past year and is continuing to review its enforcement procedures and assigned resources for 2010," Bogle said.
Haulers would welcome the development.
"We really go out of our way to make sure there's no illegal things being dumped into the trash and roll-off containers," said Hess, the Wappingers Falls carter. "You get these other guys...they come in, they do what they want."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dutchess County Green Ribbon Task Force on Solid Waste Management
Summary of Recommendations in General
The Dutchess County Green Ribbon Task Force on Solid Waste Management is a group of local leaders, residents and solid waste experts assembled by the Chairman of the Dutchess County Legislature to discuss and recommend action on the following four (4) topics:
1. Recommendations for development of a comprehensive plan for the management of the county's solid waste disposal needs.
2. Complete a review of the need and feasibility of continuation of the Resource Recovery Agency.
3. Develop and outline options for the elimination of the RRA's annual "net service fee" charged to the County.
4. Develop recommendations for the elimination of disposal waste in the County, including but not limited to; expanded recycling efforts which should encompass education and enforcement efforts and possible incentives, options for the creation of energy and reusable products from disposal waste and identify methods and incentives to encourage and create "green collar" jobs aimed at disposing the County's solid waste in an environmentally sound manner.
After meeting for several months to discuss the current conditions in Dutchess County, share examples of pilot programs that have been successful in other communities and debate the feasibility of different options proposed by members of the Task Force for solutions to the above topics, the Green Ribbon Task Force supports the recommendations filed in this summary report.
It is not within the scope of this Task Force, nor do we have the resources to develop and propose a complete Solid Waste Management Plan. Rather, our approach is to offer certain guiding principles, with specific themes outlined, which we believe are appropriate to be utilized by the County and its team of solid waste management plan consultants.
The following are the guiding principles we would recommend, categorized into the four areas which the Green Ribbon Task Force was directed to address.
1. Recommendations for development of a comprehensive plan for the management of the County's solid waste and recyclables
A. The Green Ribbon Task Force recommends that the Dutchess County Legislature put out a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a solid waste planning consultant or team of consultants (The Consultant) that will be responsible to advise the members of the legislature on a New Dutchess County Local Solid Waste Management Plan (PLAN). Duties of the Consultant should include but not be limited to: identifying the key issues for waste in the county, preparing analysis of the current conditions of the county waste system, preparing analysis for possible future proposals to the PLAN and preparing amendments and modifications to the proposed PLAN to conform the proposal to the best possible public policy. The specific recommendations of the Green Ribbon Task Force for areas of focus in the PLAN are contained throughout this report.
B. County representatives and future solid waste planning consultants should follow closely the highly prescriptive process required for Local Solid Waste Management Planning as further prescribed in:
New York Law Part 360-15.9, Comprehensive Local SWM Plans, and
Part 360-1.9(f) Comprehensive Recycling Analysis.
In evaluating future waste management and recycling options the new PLAN should consider, among other criteria, the following:
1. The environmental impact, both locally and regionally of the options at hand, and
2. The cost and affordability of all options including alternative mechanisms for the payment of such services such as possible legislative flow control.
C. The Green Ribbon Task Force recommends that the New Dutchess County Local Solid Waste Management Plan incorporate, to the maximum extent feasible, facilities and systems that will greatly increase material recycling and composting from their current level throughout the County and establish Dutchess County as a waste reduction, recycling and composting leader in the State. The Task Force requests that the PLAN and the Consultant chosen to advise the legislature thoroughly examine the possibility of setting countywide mandated recycling goal of 70% of all municipal solid waste generated in Dutchess County by the year 2020 by substantially increasing our food waste composting infrastructure.
D. We recommend that the planning process begin with the recognition that the County's current waste management infrastructure handles only roughly 50% of the MSW generated within the County. The new PLAN should address both (1) how the current waste and recycling infrastructure (the Resource Recovery Facility and the Hudson Baylor MRF) can be modified or replaced in order to better handle the 50% currently being addressed and (2) what new facilities and systems are most appropriate to handle the remaining waste and recyclables generated within the County.
2. Complete a Review of the need and feasibility of continuation of the Resource Recovery Agency.
The Green Ribbon Task Force believes that the current governance arrangements for waste management in Dutchess County (basically all duties delegated to the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency) has failed on many levels, especially by virtue of the fact that costs incurred by the Resource Recovery Agency at the expense of the taxpayers is far in excess of industry standards. The new PLAN must evaluate and identify new and better options, such as a new Dutchess County Waste and Recycling Management Authority, or more active participation of the County's Public Works Committee or Solid Waste Commissioner, to name just a few.
Whatever new governance mechanism is selected must avoid the mismanagement currently dominating waste management in Dutchess County. Better mechanisms of oversight and transparency are critical to the success of the PLAN and must be clearly outlined by the County's SWM consultant. The Task Force further recommends that the legislature have the power of budgetary review over any new governance mechanism.
Based upon the points cited above, and in light of the extraordinarily high costs, inefficiency and mismanagement recently document at the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency, we recommend that the new PLAN give careful and thorough consideration to the phasing out of the waste to energy facility over a 2-4 year time horizon and the phasing out or complete transformation for the Resource Recovery Agency over the same period of time. If the Agency is phased out, all efforts should be made to secure new County jobs for the administrative staff of the Agency. We believe that once waste reduction, recycling and composting has been maximized in Dutchess County the remaining balance of material which needs to be disposed of may well be best disposed of through out of county rail or truck transport to large in or out of state landfills. This option needs to be very thoroughly considered in the new PLAN from both an environmental and cost of service point of view.
3. Develop and outline options for the elimination of the RRA's annual "net service fee" charged to the County
Legislative flow control in Dutchess County may offer a prudent mechanism for the future funding of both waste disposal and recycling programs. It is very important, however, that all parties recognize that simply moving the current net service fee away from the County budget and imposing it on system users through correspondingly higher tip fees enforced through legislative flow control captures no real savings to taxpayers, homeowners and businesses.
True waste and recycling cost reform is, however, available by elimination of the mismanagement currently dominating waste management in Dutchess County. We strongly recommend that the new PLAN evaluate each and every capital and operating cost line item incurred by the DCRRA, compare it to benchmark levels for similar facilities and identify ways to bring these millions of dollars of out-of-control spending levels into alignment with industry standards for the remaining life of the Agency.
Additionally, it is a recommendation of the Task Force that the legislature review the possibility of canceling or renegotiating the expensive county contract with the burn plant facility operator, possibly incurring some costs but ultimately relieving taxpayers of a contract that is much more expensive than industry standards. The Task Force also recommends that the facility operator be in compliance with labor laws, environmental laws and occupational safety laws at all times.
4. Develop recommendations for the elimination of disposal waste in the County, including but not limited to; expanded recycling efforts which should encompass education and enforcement efforts and possible incentives, options for the creation of energy and reusable products from disposal waste and identify methods and incentives to encourage and create "green collar" jobs aimed at disposing the County's solid waste in an environmentally sound manner.
It is the recommendation of the Task Force that a separate and distinct report be commissioned from nationally known zero-waste experts through legislative action to establish detailed cost analysis and implementation outlines for a Dutchess County Zero-Waste Pilot Program (DCZWPP). It is the intention of the Task Force that the DCZWPP should be prepared and implemented by 2011.
Dutchess County's unemployment rate is now over eight percent (twice what it was just two years ago), with well over ten thousand local residents officially out of work. The fact is that recycling and composting (a zero-waste approach to resource recovery) creates ten times more jobs than incineration and landfilling, according to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. On a national level, over two-thirds of the materials we use are still burned or buried, despite the fact we have the technical capacity to cost-effectively recycle, reuse, or compost 90% of what we waste; here in Dutchess County we owe it to ourselves and the rest of the country to get as close to 90% as possible as soon as possible.
The members of The Green Ribbon Task Force are committed to reducing the environmental impact of waste disposal in Dutchess County while simultaneously bringing costs in-line with industry standards. To that end, the Task Force recommends that the Dutchess County Legislature authorize the development of several pilot programs around the county. These programs will be dedicated to the advancement of research and assess the feasibility of a cutting edge zero-waste program in the county. While several independent pilot programs exist around the county, only through a coordinated program can the full feasibility of these programs be determined. The following is an outline of specific elements of the DCZWPP that are strongly recommended to be considered by the Consultant:
1. The county should help facilitate the creation of an eco-industrial resource recovery park to create jobs recycling current resources that are disposed of-- food waste, fats, oils, greases, glass, electronic scrap, mattresses, and construction and demolition debris
2. Utilize existing infrastructure and the existing collection and labor to demonstrate the feasibility of ZERO WASTE
a. Beacon Transfer Station
b. City of Poughkeepsie Howard street
3. Establish specific parameters for the demonstration:
a. Demonstration time frame (beginning and ending dates)
b. Determine desired measurements
c. Determine protocol for measuring, quantifying and reporting results
4. Once the demonstration project has established the feasibility of ZERO WASTE the next step is to:
a. Make modifications and adjustments
b. Implement the program permanently
c. Utilize the demonstration sites to train the remainder of Dutchess County
5. Because the demographics of Dutchess County are so diverse (urban / suburban / rural), each service area would have its' own intermediate processing facility that would be modeled after the demonstration facilities.
6. The intermediate processing facilities would:
a. Localize organic waste management. Each of the local intermediate transfer facilities will process the organics, achieving volume reduction and hygrading the material for distribution into the local market.
b. Function as a primary aggregation for source separated (generator) recyclables. The generator separates the recyclables, the hauler collects and delivers them to the Transfer Facilities where the material is given a final inspection and aggregated into full loads for eventual transport to the existing central recycling facility (MRF).
7. Centralizing recycling allows the county to:
a. Maximize the value of the recovered materials.
b. Attract industries that will utilize this recovered material as a source of their manufacturing stock
c. Plastics can be recycled into new uses. Plastic wood is one example of a product that has a high value in the market. It has the function and strength of wood, yet is not subject to rotting, warping, and insect damage.
d. The _plastic wood_ is being used with great success in horticultural applications. This has the added benefit of completing the recovery cycle from the generator to the collector to the processor and finally to the consumer (AKA: back to the generator) - all within the local loop of the county.
e. The market for recovered glass is stable as glass continues to be manufactured in this country.
According to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance's President Neil Seldman: "At least 60% of the total municipal solid waste and construction and demolition waste (C and D) generated in the region can be processed in the area. The markets for these materials are within the region. Markets are good for lumber, topsoil/compost, clean aggregate, mulch, glass. These materials are needed by the construction industry, renovation sector, landscaping/grounds keeping/nursery industries, agriculture. These materials are valuable because they have embodied energy and labor, save water and energy, and avoid landfill and incineration costs. The more materials diverted the more jobs, small business growth and expanded tax base, the region accrues. Moreover, companies in the region have already started operating-- including glass processing, composting, c and d processing, commercial waste recycling.
8. Rockland County recycled 41,000 tons of cans, bottles, plastics, and paper last year at their Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)-- with a population almost identical to that of Dutchess County (about 290,000)-- while Dutchess County recycled only 8,000 tons of cans, bottles, plastics, and paper last year at our MRF.
Rockland County also recycles plastics #1 through #7, as Wayne and Yates counties has long done as well; obviously there are markets in our region for plastics #4 and #6; it's time that Dutchess County recycled all plastics #1 through #7, instead of just #1, #2, #3, #5, and #7.
To increase recycling in Dutchess County, our county's Resource Recovery Agency and Division of Solid Waste Management should make sure that recycling bins for cans and bottles and office paper are placed next to all trash receptacles in the county, and work with the Dutchess County Sheriff's office to enforce the county's law on this. According to the official Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency website, "under Dutchess County's Mandatory Recycling Law, the following materials are required to be kept separate from trash: office paper (copy paper, stationery, computer paper, ledger), newspaper, corrugated cardboard, glass bottles and jars (clear, brown and green colored); metal cans (tin/bi-metal/aluminum); aluminum pie plates and foil; PETE and HDPE plastic containers (except automotive product containers), and major appliances, tires, yard debris."
9. Once food-waste composting infrastructure is available, Dutchess County should mandate that organic materials be processed through this mechanism rather than as trash at our county incinerator, transfer stations, or by waste haulers, as in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, and Nova Scotia. Dutchess County should also ban electronic waste from being accepted as trash at transfer stations, at the county incinerator, and by waste haulers as has been done in New York City, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon, North Carolina, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Arkansas, and enforce a ban on recyclable construction demolition and debris from incineration and landfilling as well.
10. Dutchess County's cities, towns, and villages with municipal curbside collection should implement curbside SMART/PAYT (Save Money and Reduce Trash/Pay-As-You-Throw) programs as Binghamton, Utica, and Ithaca have done already and as the City of Kingston is in the process of doing now, as DEC Region 3 Regional Recycling Specialist Terry Laibach has recommended (and as seven thousand other communities across the U.S. are now doing). As the EPA has noted, "Communities with programs in place have reported significant increases in recycling and reductions in waste, due primarily to the waste reduction incentive created by PAYT. In communities with pay-as-you-throw programs, residents are charged for the collection of municipal solid waste- ordinary household trash- based on the amount they throw away. This creates a direct economic incentive to recycle more and to generate less waste. Traditionally, residents pay for waste collection through property taxes or a fixed fee, regardless of how much-or how little-trash they generate. Pay-As-You-throw (PAYT) breaks with tradition by treating trash services just like electricity, gas, and other utilities. Households pay a variable rate depending on the amount of service they use. PAYT is an effective tool for communities struggling to cope with soaring municipal solid waste management expenses. Well-designed programs generate the revenues communities need to cover their solid waste costs, including the costs of such complementary programs as recycling and composting. Residents benefit, too, because they have the opportunity to take control of their trash bills."
11. As Institute for Local Self-Reliance President Neil Seldman has stated, "The best bet for Dutchess County is a dual-stream system of recycling. Single-stream in Dutchess County run by your county government or a local private contractor would be a good change in the right direction, but single-stream with materials fed to a centralized facility miles away would mean no jobs for Dutchess County and low value for your materials, as has happened in Washington, D.C. Many U.S. paper mills will not accept recycled paper from single-stream programs."
As Conservatree noted in a recent report (cited by the Institute of Local Self-Reliance's Brenda Platt), "The introduction of single stream collection systems has not had such uniformly positive results for recycled product manufacturers. Instead, it has accelerated an already pronounced slide towards poorly sorted recovered materials, with glass, plastics and metals being delivered to paper mills in bales of fiber, the wrong types of fiber going to paper mills that can only use specific grades, and increased contamination, as well as materials lost to plastics, glass and aluminum manufacturers. Recyclable materials that were recovered for recycling in community programs but then sent to the wrong types of manufacturers generally end up in landfills near the mills. In other words, poor processing trashes recyclables. While more than 75% of recovered materials from many single stream curbside programs are paper fiber, the problems created by delivery of poorly sorted recovered materials affect all recycling manufacturers. Glass and paper fibers mixed in with the plastics, or ceramics and plastics mixed into the glass, or glass mixed with aluminum cans all present serious problems for those manufacturers."
No comments:
Post a Comment