Talking Trash Part II
Recycling programs show city residents’ innovative spirit
By Ray Beck as told to Jim Muench
As I stated in my previous column on solid waste removal, Columbians have always been open to trying and supporting new ways of doing things—at least once they get used to them.
Columbia is cleaner because of the 1962 solid waste ordinance, which required all utility customers with kitchen units to pay solid waste fees for city services, the Dumpster program, and the free distribution and use of color-coded refuse bags.
Likewise, the county-adopted licensed landfill requirement assured proper disposal, helping to eliminate burning dumps around the city. A separate fund for the solid waste program was established within the city government, and the program is totally funded with user fees. No tax dollars are used.
In 1984, while I was Public Works director, Columbia made one of its first serious moves to create a city refuse recycling program with a study for curbside recycling. A year later, the city started curbside recycling and then provided drop-off containers for recycling materials throughout the city. The city also set up drop-off sites for the mulching of wood materials, began composting materials for sale at the landfill, and built a recycling facility at the landfill for the separation and processing of recyclables.
In earlier years, both the city and the university also conducted studies to see whether city refuse could be burned at either the city or university power plants. But the most recent innovations spawned by Columbia’s inventive spirit are the landfill bioreactor and electric power generation from methane gas created by the landfill.
Begun as a pilot project in 2004 and dedicated last month, the bioreactor speeds up the decomposition of garbage by controlling the circulation of the liquid that filters through the waste. The $2.5 million plant produces enough methane gas to generate electricity for about 1,500 homes.
The Water and Light Department, which built the plant, will reimburse the solid waste utility for the methane, which used to be burned off for safety reasons, and the solid waste division of the Public Works Department paid for the retrofitting of the landfill. The new facility will save more than $1.5 million over five years by extending the life of the landfill and will produce an estimated 1.5 percent of our city’s power requirements. The methane burning will provide three-fourths of the mandated 2 percent of energy from renewable sources voted on by our residents and will help achieve the goal set for 2012—5 percent—four years early. In addition, a planned expansion of the bioreactor in five or 10 years should bring the landfill methane up to 2 percent of the city’s energy mix.
Many people worked hard to make the bioreactor a reality. John Glascock, the Public Works director and acting Water and Light director; Tina Worley, a city utilities services manager in the Water and Light department; and Jay Hasheider, energy services supervisor; all played significant roles in successfully bringing the bioreactor project to fruition.
Over the years, there were various levels of recycling that produced limited success. From 1971 to 1978, the Community Rehabilitation Center ran Columbia’s primary recycling effort, which was located on Pannell Street, north of Rogers Street between the railroad tracks and Columbia College. People voluntarily hauled their recycling to the center, which the city supported with funds for purchasing equipment. A city staff member sat on the center’s board of directors, and the city government often helped clean up debris at the center. The site collected newsprint, corrugated paper, glass, aluminum and bi-metal cans, and the organization collected some materials from businesses. Two months after a fire in September 1978 burned $3,000 worth of collected paper, the center sold the recycling business to KD Paper. Detailed records of the amounts of recyclables handled were either lost or undocumented
After the center’s business closed, the local Coors distribution company, which was originally owned by Coach Dan Devine, spearheaded a drive to collect and recycle aluminum cans, an effort that was soon replicated by the local Coca Cola distributor and Fechtel Beverage. Missouri Sheltered Enterprises opened a recycling center for aluminum in 1980 at the intersection of Garth Avenue and Sexton Road, but the center lasted only a year. Several civic groups and businesses also organized periodic drives to collect recyclables. Finally, Dave and Brett Allen started Civic Recycling, which is still operating on Brown Station Road.
In August 1985, the city began its curbside recycling program with a pilot project for a limited number of residents. It was later expanded city-wide. During my transition from Public Works director to city manager, Public Works engineer Dennie Pendergrass and the solid waste division’s superintendent, Richard Weiman, played a huge role in implementing the program. At that time, there were about 22,000 paid customers with 41 full-time and 21 part-time and summer employees, along with three supervisors in the solid waste division. The city provided a special allocation of $51,000 for the new program from the solid waste fund.
Residents had to sort out the different materials: newsprint, cardboard, glass, cans and motor oil. The city sold the materials to Civic Recycling, which handled disposal until the city built its recycling center.
As the recycling program expanded, the “blue-bag” system was introduced in 1998 to handle waste plastic, glass and metal. The city purchased special collection vehicles with two compactor hoppers in the rear to handle the blue bags and black bags, which were first introduced in the early 1970s. Separate collections were made for yard wastes in clear bags, first provided by the city in 1991. However, last year’s state legislative amendments to the solid waste law allows yard wastes to be placed in Columbia’s landfill for energy generation. An added benefit will be that it should also reduce collection costs.
In addition to opening its recycling center, the city began a free hazardous waste drop-off program at the Grissum Building during the summer months, with great volunteer support, and started a large “roll-off” container program in about 1993 for construction sites and other major users.
Over the years, we have seen many proposed changes for the handling of solid waste. Personally, I was not too supportive of any change that might negatively affect the goals of the 1962 ordinance and policies, which were to provide total service for the storage, handling and disposal of solid waste on a cost-effective basis.
One continuing issue was first brought by committee members who pushed for a “pay as you waste” program, which they felt would provide an economic incentive to curb people’s desire to waste. First, this could erode the basic finance structure of the solid waste utility, which helps offset recycling costs. Second, it could lead to the undesirable storage of much more solid waste on premises both inside and around the city. To reduce such storage of refuse in outbuildings waiting for collection, the city eliminated spring and fall special rubble collections.
Another possible problem loomed when the Hancock Amendment passed in 1980, limiting tax increases and possibly our solid waste user fees without a vote. However, this potential threat to our free recycling program was resolved when voters approved a revenue bond issue for our refuse utility, which is supported only by user fees.
Another major controversial issue was the “Can-Ban.” This deposit ordinance passed in 1977 but was held up by litigation and not enforced until Jan. 1, 1982. For years people paid five cents a can extra when they purchased canned and bottled drinks inside the city limits. Then they returned the cans to storage areas in grocery stores to get the deposit back. After several votes, citizens voted down the ordinance, mainly because the city’s blue-bag recycling system became successful.
The deposit ordinance was an innovative idea with some advantages. However, it slowed our city’s recycling efforts because it removed the important aluminum revenue source, and it had an adverse effect on annexation in areas where grocery stores could sell beverages without collecting the nickel deposit.
And the system didn’t respond well to market forces. In 1982, the market for recycled plastic two-liter bottles bottomed out. Completely overrun by the containers, Civic Recycling had to haul them to the landfill. In response, City Councilman Dick Walls moved that the city stop accepting the plastic soda bottles, a motion that was eventually tabled.
Cities handle refuse in different ways. Government operates some systems, and private companies run others, while a combination of private and public participation provides the answer for some communities. Regardless of who manages and provides the service, the government ultimately is responsible for the proper handling and disposal of solid waste.
In Columbia, we continue to have both local government and private operations. With our city-operated program, our residents can be assured that basic services will be provided without interruptions. At the same time, private operations continue to handle collection and processing of recyclables through Civic Recycling and companies that support placement of drop-off containers at service stations.
Columbia should take pride in its ability to find creative ways to handle and recycle our solid wastes, efforts that have made our community cleaner and greener, while providing a full-service program at competitive cost. I believe our program has met and exceeded the original council directive of 1962, and the support of our residents and city council continue to make it happen.