FINAL REPORT

Feasibility Study for

the Recycling Program
January 14, 2021
This report was delivered electronically. If it is necessary to
print a hard copy, please use recycled-content/FSC-certified
paper and recycle when no longer needed.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Approach ......................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Scope of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 2
2. EXISTING SYSTEM OVERVIEW ........................................................................ 2
2.1 Recycling Regulatory Summary .................................................................................................. 2
2.1.1 State Requirements .................................................................................................................2
2.1.2 County Requirements.............................................................................................................3
2.1.3 Charleston’s Solid Waste Code .............................................................................................3
2.2 Refuse and Recycling Collection Services ................................................................................ 4
2.2.1 Organization ............................................................................................................................4
2.2.2 Recyclables Collections ..........................................................................................................5
2.2.3 Recycling Cost of Service ......................................................................................................6
2.2.4 Other Residential Collection Services..................................................................................7
2.2.5 Daily Routes...........................................................................................................................10
2.2.6 Material Quantities................................................................................................................11
2.2.7 Contracted Services ..............................................................................................................12
2.3 Recyclables Processing .............................................................................................................. 12
2.3.1 Recyclables Markets and Market Values ...........................................................................12
2.3.2 Raleigh County Solid Waste Authority (RCSWA) ...........................................................13
2.3.3 Kanawha County Solid Waste Authority (KCSWA) .......................................................16
2.4 Summary of Processing Options and Expected Processing Cost ...................................... 17
2.4.1 Alternative: Transfer of Recyclables .................................................................................18
2.4.2 Alternative: Develop a Local Recyclables Processing Facility ......................................20
2.4.3 Alternative: Mini MRFs .......................................................................................................20
2.5 Recyclables Outreach and Education...................................................................................... 22
3. PROGRAM COMPARISONS & BENCHMARKING........................................... 26
3.1 Benchmarking: Systems & Financials ..................................................................................... 26
3.2 Benchmarking: Collection services .......................................................................................... 27
3.3 Benchmarking: Recyclables Collected ..................................................................................... 28
3.4 Benchmarking: Comparative Performance ............................................................................ 28
4. RECYCLING SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION ........................................................... 29
4.1 Collection .................................................................................................................................... 29
4.1.1 Distributing Standardized Recycling Containers..............................................................29
4.1.2 Avoid Bagged Recyclables ...................................................................................................30

City of Charleston i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.1.3 Moving Beyond Manual Collections ..................................................................................30

4.2 Expenditures and Revenue Sufficiency................................................................................... 32
5. RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 33
5.1 Prerequisites ................................................................................................................................ 33
5.2 Optimized Recycling In Charleston ........................................................................................ 35
5.3 Other Comments and Recommendations.............................................................................. 36
6. IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE ....................................................................... 39

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A – Additional Resources

Appendix B – City Council Briefing 10-7-2020
Appendix C – Working Meeting 11-6-2020
Appendix D – Project Findings and Recommendations Meeting 1-06-2021

ii City of Charleston
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Charleston & Kanawha County, WV ......................................................................................... 1

Figure 2-1 Charleston Refuse Services Organization Chart ....................................................................... 5
Figure 2-2 Recycling Collection and Set-Outs.............................................................................................. 6
Figure 2-3 Unlimited Refuse Set-Outs .......................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2-4 Loose Yard Waste Set Outs ......................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2-5 Bulk Set-Outs ................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 2-6 City Collection Vehicles................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 2-7 Charleston Topography ..............................................................................................................10
Figure 2-8 Recyclables Market Values ..........................................................................................................13
Figure 2-9 RCSWA Facility and Operations...............................................................................................14
Figure 2-10 KCSWA Facilities ......................................................................................................................17
Figure 2-11 Transfer Options .......................................................................................................................19
Figure 2-12 Long-haul Transportation via Tractor Trailer.......................................................................19
Figure 2-13 Potential Regional Recyclables Yields ....................................................................................20
Figure 2-14 Mini MRF ...................................................................................................................................21
Figure 2-15 Mobile Mini MRF ......................................................................................................................22
Figure 2-16 Recycling Landing Page on Charleston Website...................................................................23
Figure 2-17 Charleston Recycling Bin Decal ..............................................................................................24
Figure 2-18 KCSWA Website Landing Page ..............................................................................................25
Figure 4-1 Recycling Container Options .....................................................................................................30
Figure 4-2 Plastic Bags at the Curb & at the Recycling Center................................................................30
Figure 4-3 Cart-Based Collection Options..................................................................................................31
Figure 4-4 Cart-Based Collections on Hilly Terrain ..................................................................................32

City of Charleston iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables

Table 2-1 State Recycling Requirements ....................................................................................................... 3

Table 2-2 Charleston Refuse & Recycling Charges ..................................................................................... 4
Table 2-3 Estimated Direct Cost of Recycling Program ............................................................................ 6
Table 2-4 City of Charleston Collection Routes ........................................................................................10
Table 2-5 MSW Tons Collected (CY 2015–2020) .....................................................................................11
Table 2-6 Residential Waste Generation Estimate ....................................................................................11
Table 2-7 Average Curbside Recycling Performance (Annual Pounds per Household).......................12
Table 2-8 Summary of Waste Management Contracts ..............................................................................12
Table 2-9 Recyclables Managed by RCSWA ..............................................................................................14
Table 2-10 Recyclables Managed by KCSWA ............................................................................................16
Table 2-11 Comparison of Recyclables Processors ...................................................................................18
Table 2-12 Recyclables Processing Pricing in U.S. Regions .....................................................................18
Table 3-1 Charleston Benchmarking Cities ................................................................................................26
Table 3-2 Benchmark City Systems & Financials ......................................................................................26
Table 3-3 Benchmark City Collection Services and Monthly Rates ........................................................27
Table 3-4 Benchmark City Recyclables .......................................................................................................28
Table 3-5 Benchmark City Tonnage Comparison ......................................................................................29
Table 4-1 System Revenues vs. Expenditures ............................................................................................32
Table 4-2 Annual Expenditures ....................................................................................................................32
Table 5-1 Optimized Recycling Cost of Service ........................................................................................36
Table 5-2 Economic Impact of Recycling in West Virginia .....................................................................37
Table 5-3 PAYT Rate Examples ..................................................................................................................37
Table 5-4 Conceptual PAYT Rate Structure ..............................................................................................37
Table 6-1 Implementation Timeline ............................................................................................................39

iv City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

1. INTRODUCTION
MSW Consultants was engaged by the City of Charleston, WV (City), to perform a recycling program
feasibility analysis (Study). The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP)
funded the Study through a Recycling Assistance Grant. Faced with high recyclables processing and
transportation costs, the City commissioned this project to evaluate its residential recycling program and
identify potential actions and strategies for improving the program’s performance.
1.1 BACKGROUND
The City of Charleston is West Virginia’s state capital and largest city, with a population of 46,536
residents 1. Charleston also serves as the County seat for Kanawha County, the most populated County in
West Virginia. Figure 1-1 below shows the City of Charleston within Kanawha County’s boundaries.
The City’s Public Works Department provides weekly
Figure 1-1 Charleston & Kanawha County, WV
refuse, recyclables, and bulky item collections to
approximately 18,000 households (in residential
properties with 12 dwelling units or less) as well as
scheduled dumpster collections to some 67 City
facilities and institutional customers. Other
commercial and institutional generators of solid waste
obtain services from private haulers.
Charleston’s curbside recycling program has
undergone significant changes during the past six
years, starting with the change in materials processors
in 2014. Up until that point, the City delivered the
materials to a recyclables processing facility owned
and operated by the Kanawha County Solid Waste
Authority (KCSWA). The KCSWA stopped accepting
the City’s recyclables in 2014 due in part to high
operational costs. The recycling facility has since been
demolished (the KCSWA continues to operate a
public, source-separated drop-off center and a remote
baling operation). In its place, the City responded by
securing single stream recyclables processing capacity at the Raleigh County Solid Waste Authority’s
(RCSWA) recyclables processing facility in Beckley.
However, RCSWA’s facility is a 60-mile one-way trip from Charleston, which increases transportation and
labor costs and vehicle wear and tear. In addition, for the first time, the RCSWA is now charging the City
a recyclables processing fee of $175 per ton.
The City’s curbside recycling program has also been beset by low participation and recyclables yields in
recent years. A field study performed by City staff in 2015 found that just 19.5 percent of eligible
households set out recyclables each week. From 2015 through 2019, Charleston collected an average of

1 2019 U.S. Census Estimate

City of Charleston 1
RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

650 tons of curbside recyclables per year or just over 70 pounds per household. Both the set-out and
pounds per household collection metrics are far below national averages.
Finally, the City was forced to temporarily suspend curbside recycling in April 2020 due to the COVID-
19 pandemic related closure of the RCSWA’s facility. The City resumed services in late September. Due
to the temporary suspension of the curbside recycling program, it was not possible for MSW Consultants
to observe the single-stream collection system operating under normal conditions. Nonetheless, historical
data and professional experience with other jurisdictions were sufficient to understand current recycling
collection system performance.
1.2 PROJECT APPROACH
The project was organized into three key phases, including:
 Phase 1 - System Inventory and Initial Observations: This phase included the project initiation
and kick-off meeting, as well as the inventory and baselining of the operational, financial,
environmental, policy, and political attributes of Charleston’s recycling program. It also offered some
preliminary ideas for ways to evolve and improve the system.
 Phase 2 – Definition and Analysis of Alternatives: Phase 2 of the project included identification
and assessment of alternatives for the City and compared the operational, financial, environmental,
contractual, and risk positions of each one against the status quo.
 Phase 3 – Reporting and Recommendations: This report represents the final phase of the project
and presents key findings.
It should be noted that the project also included supplemental meetings with members of the City
Council’s Environment and Recycling Committee. These meetings included two introductory meetings,
each with three to four committee members present, as well as a presentation and meeting with the entire
Committee on October 7, 2020. MSW Consultants also provided an update to the Committee at its
December 9, 2020 meeting. While not in the initial project scope, MSW Consultants believes these
meetings provided additional insights and perspectives into City policymakers’ support for the recycling
program.
1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
It is important to note that this Study was focused on the recycling program, spanning collection,
processing, and education. However, because municipal waste management systems necessarily integrate
refuse collection and disposal, bulk waste collection and disposal, and potentially other collection
programs, the approach to this Study included some attention to these other services. It was beyond the
scope of the project to consider the entire sanitation system though, and primary analysis and the more
detailed recommendations arising from the Study are focused on the recycling program.
2. EXISTING SYSTEM OVERVIEW
2.1 RECYCLING REGULATORY SUMMARY
2.1.1 STATE REQUIREMENTS
The West Virginia Recycling Act of 1989 established a statewide goal of reducing per capita solid waste
disposal by 50 percent by 2010, using 1991 as the base year. The act requires municipalities with more than
10,000 residents to provide curbside recyclables collections for its residents, while local Solid Waste
Authorities (SWA) are mandated to develop recycling plans and incorporate them into their
Comprehensive Litter and Solid Waste Control Plans.

2 City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

The state’s requirements are presented in West Virginia Code §22-15A-18. Charleston is one of the 14
cities in the state required to provide curbside recyclables collections. Key state requirements for mandated
municipalities and counties are summarized in Table 2-1 below.
Table 2-1 State Recycling Requirements
§22-15A-18
Subsection Description
(b) (1) Adoption of an ordinance that mandates residents, institutions, and businesses separate at
least three recyclable materials from refuse
(b) (2) A scheduled recyclables collection day of at least once per month
(b) (3) Municipalities are encouraged, to the maximum extent possible, to provide for recyclables
collection at the same frequency as refuse collection
(b) (4) Provisions to ensure compliance such as incentives or penalties
(b) (5) A comprehensive public information and education program that notifies all participants of
the benefits of recycling, program features and requirements, system operations, municipal
responsibilities, incentives, and penalties (for non-compliance)
(b) (6) Consultation with a county or regional solid waste authority to avoid duplication, ensure
coordination, and maximize recycling markets
(d) Recyclable materials shall include (but not be limited to): aluminum and steel cans, glass,
paper, or other materials specified

Note that State Code, in §22-15A-17, also requires that each county or regional solid waste authority
develop a “comprehensive litter and solid waste control plan,” as well as a recycling plan. The City falls
under the KCSWA’s recycling plan, the most recent of which was approved by the West Virginia Solid
Waste Management Board (SWMB) in October 2016.
Oversight and regulation of recycling efforts across the state and at the local level are generally performed
by three state agencies, including:
 The Solid Waste Management Board (SWMB), which primarily interfaces with the state’s 50 local
solid waste authorities, including grants issuance and administration
 The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which promulgates rules and manages the
Rehabilitation Environmental Action Plan (REAP) program and the WV Covered Electronic Device
Takeback program and grants
 The Public Service Commission (PSC) which regulates solid waste tipping fees
Determining the success of West Virginia’s recycling requirements has been challenging, according to the
SWMB. While permitted solid waste facilities, mandated municipalities, and the state’s solid waste
authorities do report tonnages to the SWMB, which are published in the every-other-year update to the
West Virginia Solid Waste Management Plan, there are no reporting requirements for private recyclers.
2.1.2 COUNTY REQUIREMENTS
Kanawha County adopted a recycling ordinance in 1992, which mirrors requirements as presented by West
Virginia Code §22-15A-18. Kanawha County receives state grant monies for the WV Covered Electronic
Device Takeback program in order to support e-waste diversion events but does not appear to have a role
in developing and promoting other recycling efforts.
2.1.3 CHARLESTON’S SOLID WASTE CODE
Chapter 98 of the Code of Charleston addresses solid waste and recycling. A summary of recycling
requirements in the code is provided below:

City of Charleston 3
RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

 The City’s annual solid waste service charges are identified in Division 2, Section 98-71, Subsection
(b). Charges are detailed below in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2 Charleston Refuse & Recycling Charges
Customer Class Monthly Rate Annual Rate
Residential $18.00 $216.00
Non-residential:
Curbside $25.00 $300.00
Dumpster $40.00 $480.00

 Recyclables separation requirements are primarily identified in Division 4, Section 98-121, Subsection
(a). Recyclables referenced include aluminum, steel and bi-metal cans, PET (#1) and HDPE (#2)
plastics, mixed office paper, newspaper, magazines, junk mail, boxboard, and corrugated cardboard.
Section 98-121 references the West Virginia Code, Chapter 22, Article 15A, which requires mandatory
separation of at least three recyclables. The State Code grants the City Administrator the ability to
designate the program recyclables.
 Subsections (d) and (e) also require commercial and institutional establishments to separate at least
three materials for recycling. Subsection (d) further requires that “community activities” such as
regattas, fairs, bazaars, and other events separate recyclables.
 Recyclables collection requirements are specified in Section 98-122.
 Yard waste requirements are spelled out in Division 5, Section 98-151. The section specifies that yard
waste is to be set out for collection in clear bags provided by the City. Limbs and brush can be set out
for chipping and, at certain designated times, leaves are permitted to be piled at the curb.
The implications of the current code will be addressed throughout the report.
2.2 REFUSE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICES
2.2.1 ORGANIZATION
Refuse and recycling services are provided by crews within Charleston’s Public Works Department (PWD).
Other key lines of business for the PWD include street maintenance, equipment maintenance, and
management of public grounds and facilities. The refuse and recycling operation has an FY 2021 staffing
level of 66 positions and operates 34 collection vehicles. The adopted FY 2021 operating budget is just
under $3.3 million, and planned capital expenditures, which vary from year-to-year based on equipment
needs is, $515,000. The refuse and recycling operation’s organization chart is shown below in Figure 2-1.

4 City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Figure 2-1 Charleston Refuse Services Organization Chart

MSW Consultants spent parts of three days observing residential dispatch and collections in Charleston.
The operations review results are contained in a PowerPoint presentation from the November working
meeting, included in the report’s appendix. Because many of these observations spanned beyond the
recycling program, they are not provided in the body of this report. Selected details are included in the
subsections below.
2.2.2 RECYCLABLES COLLECTIONS
The following materials are collected in Charleston’s curbside recycling program:
 Mixed paper, including newspaper, magazines, office paper, boxboard, etc.
 Corrugated cardboard
 Aluminum and steel cans
 PET (#1) plastics including water, soda, and juice containers
 HDPE (#2) plastics including milk jugs, detergent bottles, shampoo bottles, etc.
It is noteworthy that glass bottles and jars are not currently included in the recycling program. Where end
markets exist, glass is highly recyclable, and because it is heavy, it will contribute to a higher recycling rate.
However, its density also makes it expensive to transport to market, and the market price even for very
clean glass is low (as is noted later).
Recyclables are collected weekly from personal containers or in see-through plastic bags. Residents are
instructed to clearly mark personal containers used for recycling, and the City makes downloadable
recycling decals available on its website. While there are no limits on the amounts of recyclables that can
be set out, containers or bags must be 48-gallons or less in volume and weigh less than 40 pounds.
Even though curbside recycling service had been suspended since April due to the COVID-19 outbreak
at the RCSWA, MSW Consultants was able to observe a handful of recycling set outs (materials placed out
for collection either through habit or by residents who were unaware of the service suspension). City staff

City of Charleston 5
RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

indicated the set outs observed and shown below in Figure 2-2 are representative of set outs when the
program was operational. Note that collections staff indicated they received instructions to collect
unbagged OCC with the trash, citing concerns over wet paper and cardboard apparently expressed by the
RCSWA (even though there was no precipitation on the collection day observed).
Figure 2-2 Recycling Collection and Set-Outs

Recycling Set Out Recycling Set Out Recycling Collection

The City collects recyclables the same day as residents’ trash day, Tuesday through Friday. Recyclables are
collected using 20 cubic-yard rear loading compactors and three-person crews. The City currently operates
ten recycling routes, with two each on Tuesdays and Fridays and three on Wednesdays and Thursdays.
As it has been noted, recyclables are currently delivered to the RCSWA facility in Beckley. This is a round-
trip of more than 120 miles, although recyclables are not hauled to the RCSWA directly from the daily
routes. Instead, City recycling trucks generally collect and hold materials over the course of the week and
deliver materials to RCSWA on Fridays. Most weeks result in three total deliveries to Beckley, although
occasionally a fourth trip is required due to additional volumes.
2.2.3 RECYCLING COST OF SERVICE
The City does not currently track the cost of its recycling collection and processing services. Rather, solid
waste management costs are accounted for in their entirety. MSW Consultants collaborated with the City
to identify the equipment and labor resources, capital costs, and unit costs for the provision of residential
curbside recycling collection. This estimate does not consider any allocated costs of management,
administration, and City overhead that may reasonably be attributed to the recycling collection service, and
therefore the estimate is of the direct costs only. The current direct cost estimate is shown in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3 Estimated Direct Cost of Recycling Program
Metric Current
Set-Out Rate 25%
Number of Routes 3
Annualized Capital Cost $81,143
Vehicle O&M Cost $100,620
Labor Cost $583,331
Processing Cost $110,425
Total $875,519
Households 18,000
Annual Cost per HH. $48.64
Monthly Cost per HH. $4.05

6 City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

As shown, the direct cost per household is estimated to be just over $4 per month. Recent competitively-
bid recycling contracts for similar-sized cities in the Eastern U.S. have seen recycling costs per household
in the $6 to $10 per month range (including collection and processing). This estimate suggests that
Charleston residents are currently paying less than most other cities across the country that have a
residential single-stream recycling program.
Another observation on the current cost is that all 18,000 households are paying this amount, while less
than one-quarter of the households are setting out on any given day. It is important to note that an
optimized recycling system will cost more, in both absolute terms and on a per-household basis, than the
current system. This is because it will require more collection trucks and crews to capture the higher level
of recycling participation, and a significantly greater amount of recyclable material will be collected.
However, the City may be able to reduce the cost of other collection services as a prerequisite to making
recycling program changes, which would offset the cost of the recycling program.
2.2.4 OTHER RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION SERVICES
Consistent with cities across the U.S., Charleston provides a full slate of curbside services to its residential
sector:
 Refuse: Refuse collection is provided weekly to residential properties. Collections are performed four
days per week on Tuesday through Friday. The City is divided up into 40 routes, with ten routes
collected each day. Each route is serviced by a 20 cubic-yard rear loading compactor and a three-
person crew. Collections are manual, with residents instructed to set out refuse in personal containers
or bags. There are no limits to the number of refuse items that can be placed out by residents each
week, an allowance that can delay the completion of daily routes. This is shown in Figure 2-3.
Residential refuse is disposed at the City of Charleston Landfill, located on South Park Road. This is
owned by the City but has been operated under contract by Waste Management since 1994. The landfill
is approximately five miles from the City’s public works yard.

City of Charleston 7
RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Figure 2-3 Unlimited Refuse Set-Outs

 Yard Wastes: Yard wastes and brush generated by residents is currently collected along with refuse.
Residents are able to set yard waste and brush out loose for collections, a rule which can significantly
impair collection productivity and increase the risk of accident or injury. An example of loose material
set outs is shown in Figure 2-4 (which took five minutes to complete during our observations). The
Public Works Department’s public grounds business line previously operated a small yard waste
processing operation, which has since been suspended, and the materials are now landfilled.
Figure 2-4 Loose Yard Waste Set Outs

8 City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

 Bulky Wastes and Tires: These materials are also collected from residences weekly using the
Tuesday through Friday routing schedule, from a combination of stake-body trucks and rear loaders.
The City used to require residents to schedule the pickup of these materials. Refuse and Recycling runs
five bulky and two tire routes per day using two-person crews. MSW Consultants observed a number
of households that set out an excessive number of bulky materials. Figure 2-5 below depicts two bulky
set outs from the same property on the Thursday bulk route in South Hills.
Figure 2-5 Bulk Set-Outs

Standard Set Out Excess Set Out

Figure 2-6 below shows the two primary collection truck types used for all curbside services. The City
does not currently utilize any automated lifting technologies on the residential routes.
Figure 2-6 City Collection Vehicles

Rear loader Truck for Refuse and Recyclables Stakebed Truck for Bulk Wastes

Charleston features numerous streets with narrow travel areas, steep grades, and dead ends. Figure 2-7
below shows a narrow road observed during the Wednesday collection route as well as a steep grade and
dead-end street from the Tuesday route. For dead-end streets, the trucks back into the end (with help from
crew members) and collect materials while travelling out.

City of Charleston 9
RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Figure 2-7 Charleston Topography

Narrow Streets Steep Grades

Finally, it is noted that City crews collect refuse from three cubic-yard rear loading dumpsters from 67 City
facilities and commercial properties. Some of these materials are collected during the Tuesday through
Friday residential routes. The City’s rear loader trucks are all equipped with tippers that allow rear load
dumpsters to be serviced. A portion of these sites are collected separately on Mondays and Saturdays.
2.2.5 DAILY ROUTES
Charleston’s daily collection routes by service, truck type, and crew size are detailed in Table 2-4. The
primary observation from this table is that there are significantly more resources devoted to refuse and
bulky waste collection than to recycling collection. This will be explored later in the report.
Table 2-4 City of Charleston Collection Routes
Day of Week
Service Truck Type M T W H F Sa Crew Size
Garbage Rear load 10 10 10 10 3
Recycling Rear load 2 3 3 2 3
Bulk Stakebed 5 5 5 5 2
Garbage/Bulk
Pack Rat Open Top 2 2 2 2 2
Combined
Scrap Metals Stakebed 1 1 1 1 1
Tires Stakebed 1 1 1 1 1
3
Dumpster (3 cy) Rear load 1 * * * * 1
(2 on Mon & Sat)
Totals 1 21 22 22 21 1

10 City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

2.2.6 MATERIAL QUANTITIES

The City of Charleston has collected an annual average of 27,460 tons of refuse, recyclables, and other
materials for the years 2015 through 2019. This includes tonnages from residential generators as well as
the institutional and commercial dumpster routes. Because full-year statistics for 2020 are not yet available,
as well as the impact to recycling and refuse tonnages that have resulted from April’s COVID-19 related
suspension of recycling collections, MSW Consultants has based much of this report’s analysis on the five-
year average tonnages. 2
Table 2-5 below shows tons collected by material for calendar years 2015 through 2019, with six-month
totals for 2020.
Table 2-5 MSW Tons Collected (CY 2015–2020)
Calendar Year
Materials 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 (2)
Trash (1) 26,599 25,341 25,289 24,512 24,691 13,312
Yard Waste 1,510 1,104 1,271 1,057 1,841 1,202
Recyclables 604 798 669 640 631 97
White Goods 75 113 145 119 125 84
Tires 17 13 20 32 37 8
E-waste 32 15 - - - -
Totals: 28,837 27,384 27,394 26,362 27,325 14,703
(1) Includes C/I dumpster collections
(2) Totals through June 2020

Note that the reported tonnages in Table 2-5 include some refuse from the small number of commercial
establishments collected with the dumpsters. Table 2-6 presents the residential portion of wastes by
excluding the estimated quantity (562 tons) from the commercial establishments.

Table 2-6 Residential Waste Generation Estimate

Generation Rate Per
Material Annual Tons Household (lbs.)
Total Refuse 24,691 N/A
LESS Dumpster Refuse (562) N/A
Residential Trash 24,129 2,681
Recyclables 631 70
Yard Waste 1,841 205
White Goods 125 14
Tires 37 4
Total Residential MSW 26,763 2,974

There are two noteworthy observations about this table. First, the residential MSW generation rate is
higher than expected. This may be due to the current lack of set-out limits, which would provide an

2 COVID-19 and its accompanying stay-at-home orders have generally resulted in increased residential solid waste
generation across much of the U.S.

City of Charleston 11
RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

incentive for residents to bring commercially-generated materials and/or renovation debris to their homes
for set out (this will be discussed in Section 3 as well).
The second key observation is that the City is not capturing the expected fraction of curbside recyclables.
Table 2-7 shows current data on the amount of curbside recyclables that are typically captured from
residential recycling programs based on a national survey. Although the data in this table are for programs
that include glass as a targeted material (unlike Charleston), the data show that 300 to 400 pounds of
recyclables should be harvested from every household in a mature recycling program. This represents a
four-fold increase over the City of Charleston’s current recovery level.
Table 2-7 Average Curbside Recycling Performance (Annual Pounds per Household)
Median Number of
Avg. Lbs./HH Lbs./ HH Community
Residential Recycling Container Collected Collected Data Points
Bin 360.4 363.3 48
Bag 324.8 353.7 6
Cart 458.8 452.6 242
Programs Using a Combination of Bins & Carts 451.5 448.8 47
Source: The Recycling Partnership: “2020 State of Curbside Recycling” report

2.2.7 CONTRACTED SERVICES

The City’s primary solid waste services contracts for landfill disposal and recyclables processing are
summarized in Table 2-8. The RCSWA contract is discussed later in this report.
Table 2-8 Summary of Waste Management Contracts
Vendor Service Term Ends
Waste Management (d/b/a Landfill
Operation of City of Charleston Landfill February 15, 2029
Services of Charleston)
Raleigh County Solid Waste Authority (1) Recyclables Processing June 30, 2021
(1) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

As shown, the City relies on a third party for accepting and processing its recyclables. The lack of multiple
recyclables processing alternatives in the region is a major barrier to establishing a higher-performing
recycling program and will be addressed in this report.
2.3 RECYCLABLES PROCESSING
2.3.1 RECYCLABLES MARKETS AND MARKET VALUES
Since the late 1980s, when state and local governments began enacting recycling and waste diversion goals,
creating today’s municipal recycling system, global and U.S.-recovered materials markets have experienced
market downturns and pricing spikes. From about 2000 until 2014 (with notable exception during the 2009
worldwide financial crisis from which markets quickly rebounded), U.S.-recovered materials prices enjoyed
a long stretch of relatively stable pricing due to strong demand from the Republic of China. Indeed, this
demand for U.S.-recovered materials, as well as inexpensive shipping costs, were a key driver in the
development of single-stream recycling programs during that time period.
However, since the enactment of its Operation Green Fence in 2013, which imposed stricter materials
quality standards and increased inspections of recovered materials imports, followed by implementation
in 2018 of the National Sword Policy, China is no longer the major consumer of U.S. recyclables. Swings
have been particularly volatile in the past three years, with the estimated value of curbside recyclables in
the entire U.S. shrinking from more than $5.5 billion in early 2017 to roughly $2.8 billion at the end of

12 City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

2019, a drop of nearly 50 percent. Perhaps not surprisingly, recycling programs have struggled (and a few
have been suspended) during down markets, despite flourishing in periods when market pricing was
strong.
The loss of China as a primary end-market for U.S.-recovered materials has had a ripple effect on virtually
every program in the U.S. Even programs that have been served primarily by domestic end-markets and
materials buyers, such as those in West Virginia, have seen their material values plummet due to increased
supply, shrinking demand, and the need to slow recyclables processing systems to remove program
contaminants.
Figure 2-8 below demonstrates that the pricing for most primary recycling commodities has been volatile
over the past decade. For large-volume commodities, such as corrugated containers, a value swing of a
few dollars can impact operational costs significantly.
Figure 2-8 Recyclables Market Values
$1,800
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
$ Per Ton

$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Aluminum Cans Steel Cans PET Plastics

HDPE Natural Plastics HDPE Colored Plastics Mixed Paper
Newspaper Corrugated Cardboard

Source: Recyclingmarkets.net; NY. Region, high-price for Aluminum, Steel, PET, and HDPE; SE Region, high-price for RMP,
ONP & OCC. Pricing through November 20, 2020.

2.3.2 RALEIGH COUNTY SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY (RCSWA)

As noted in this report’s introduction, Charleston has been delivering its curbside recyclables to the
RCSWA’s recyclables processing facility in Beckley since late 2014. This move was precipitated by the
operating issues and subsequent closure of the KCSWA recycling facility on Slack Street.
The RCSWA’s recycling facility is located on the Authority’s landfill property in Beckley and accepts
curbside recyclables from Charleston, South Charleston, and Beckley – three of the 14 cities required to
provide curbside recycling collections in West Virginia. It also accepts materials from other municipalities
and institutional and commercial generators. The center processes mixed paper, cardboard, metal cans,
and PET and HDPE plastics. Table 2-9 below shows tons of recyclables processed by RCSWA during the
past five full calendar years.

City of Charleston 13
RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table 2-9 Recyclables Managed by RCSWA

Year Tons Processed
2015 2,172
2016 2,526
2017 2,624
2018 2,081
2019 2,429
Source: RCSWA

Materials are tipped inside the facility and pushed onto an infeed conveyor where they are carried across
an elevated sort line. Here workers perform a “positive sort,” manually removing recyclables and pushing
them into storage bunkers underneath the sorting line. Materials are then densified using the facility baler
and stored for eventual shipment to end-users. The system does not feature any automated processing
sub-systems or technologies such as magnets for steel cans, eddy currents for aluminum, fiber screens, or
optical sorting systems for plastics. The RCSWA also includes an education room and the ability to conduct
tours. Figure 2-9 below shows images from RCSWA’s facility.
Figure 2-9 RCSWA Facility and Operations

RCSWA Recycling Facility Exterior RCSWA Tipping Floor & Infeed Conveyor

Bale Storage Elevated Sort Line

(as seen from Education Center)

Based on our meeting and tour of the RCSWA, MSW Consultants judges it to be a well-managed and
maintained facility. The RCSWA’s executive director also indicated that the facility has the ability to
increase its processing capacity by three-fold (from about 2,500 tons per year to 7,500), meaning it could

14 City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

manage a potential increase in recyclables tonnages from Charleston. However, the facility is a 60-mile
one-way trip from Charleston, which increases transportation and labor costs, and adds wear and tear to
City vehicles.
Moreover, while the RCSWA’s end-markets are exclusively domestic, revenues have been negatively
impacted by the global recovered materials markets challenges brought about through China’s National
Sword import restrictions. The RCSWA issued a report in early 2020 which detailed these pricing and
revenue challenges, and for the first time in its relationship with the City of Charleston, requested that it
pay a processing fee. Indeed, upon restarting curbside recycling in September, the City agreed to pay the
RCSWA a processing fee of $175 per ton.
MSW Consultants offers the following comments on the new MOU with RCSWA for recyclables
processing services:
 The $175 per ton processing fee is one of the highest that MSW Consultants has seen, even in the
post-National Sword era. The RCSWA did outline its program expenses as part of the early 2020 report
to the City, but MSW Consultants further hypothesizes the following:
 According to RCSWA’s executive director, processing fees have historically not been charged
to MRF customers. Operating expenses for the recycling facility have been offset through
disposal tipping fees and recyclables revenues.
 RCSWA’s geographic location (as well as virtually that of every other recycling processor in
West Virginia) limits its access to end-markets that may have the ability to offer higher
materials revenues.
 In recyclables processing, higher materials volumes are necessary to achieve economies of
scale. At an annual throughput of approximately 2,500 tons, the RCSWA recycling facility is a
small facility. According to the National Waste and Recycling Association and Governmental
Advisory Associates, the “average” recyclables processing facility in 2018 processed between
200 tons per day (vs. an estimated 10 tons per day at the RCSWA facility).
 Section E of the MOU specifies that the City and RCSWA agree to reassess the per-ton processing
fee for FY 2022. This gives the City both a second-year option (and the ability to make possible
refinements) as well as time to assess other potential recyclables processing approaches.
 The MOU is silent on some features commonly found in larger recyclables processing contracts,
including:
 Provisions for measuring the composition of the City’s recyclables. While RCSWA’s
report issued to its recycling customers in early 2020 mentioned inbound composition audits,
they appeared to be presented in the aggregate, not by individual program. The City and
RCSWA should at least consider performing a recyclables composition audit to establish
baseline percentages.
 Recyclables market values are not addressed. Again, the early 2020 report from RCSWA
outlines recyclables market values; the value of the City’s recyclables is unknown. This can be
determined by measuring the materials composition and factoring those percentages by market
prices. Baselining and regularly measuring the composition and value of the City’s recyclables
can provide planning-level insights, as well as be incorporated into a contract mechanism that
allows for Charleston to experience some fiscal benefits (through a revenue share or
processing price adjustment) when market prices improve and/or the City delivers higher-
quality recyclables.
 Other incentives. In addition to incentivizing a cleaner recycling stream, the MOU could also
address how the City collects materials. For example, plastic bags are often cited as one of the
top nuisances at recyclables processing facilities around the U.S., and considerable resources

City of Charleston 15
RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

have been invested both in educating recyclers to not use plastic bags for packaging recyclables
and equipment to manage them better in recycling facility environments. Now that plastic
bags are optional, and the City is promoting the use of recycling bins and personal containers,
Charleston and RCSWA could consider MOU terms that incentivize the City for delivering
materials loose and not in plastic bags. This could be measured and determined as part of a
recyclable composition study.
2.3.3 KANAWHA COUNTY SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY (KCSWA)
Up until 2014, the City of Charleston delivered curbside recyclables to the KCSWA’s facility at 600 Slack
Street. The KCSWA had operated at the Slack Street location since 1994, purchasing it outright in 1998.
The Slack Street location was a dual-stream facility and operated two manual sorting lines, including one
for commingled metal, plastics, and glass containers, and one for fiber such as newspaper, mixed paper,
and cardboard. Despite its dual-stream design limitations, the facility apparently accepted and processed
single-stream recyclables. The KCSWA processed more than 7,700 tons of recyclables as recently as 2008,
receiving materials from the City of Charleston, other municipalities in Kanawha County, and some
commercial generators.
High operating costs and inefficiencies, followed by structural and safety issues within the facility, caused
it to cease operation in 2012. West Virginia Recycling Services, LLC (WVRS) took over the operation of
the facility under lease with the KCSWA but also struggled with operating costs and facility structural
issues until finally shuttering the facility for good in 2014. The standing building was eventually demolished
in 2015. In the years since the Slack Street processing facility’s demolition, the City of Charleston, as well
as other jurisdictions within Kanawha County, have been party to discussions with the KCSWA and West
Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on the development of a new recycling center,
but those discussions appear to have ended.
The KCSWA continues to operate a large public drop-off center for residents and businesses, a scale
house, and materials load-out and shipment at the Slack Street location. It also operates a remote baling
operation on Eden’s Ford Road. While the KCSWA operation serves a valuable purpose and produces a
clean recyclables stream, the amount of recyclables received and processed has fallen dramatically during
the past ten years, as shown in Table 2-10 below.
Table 2-10 Recyclables Managed by KCSWA
Year Tons Processed
2010 7,364
2015 625
2017 585
2019 287
Source: KCSWA & WV Solid Waste
Management Board (SWMB)

Figure 2-10 below shows images from the KCSWA drop-off center on Slack Street, as well as the baling
operation at Eden’s Ford Road.

16 City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Figure 2-10 KCSWA Facilities

Public Drop-off Area at KCSWA (Slack Street) Outdoor Bale Storage (Slack Street)

Eden’s Ford Facility Entrance Eden’s Ford Baling Operation

2.4 SUMMARY OF PROCESSING OPTIONS AND EXPECTED PROCESSING

COST
Table 2-11 below offers a comparison of the recyclables processing facilities utilized by Charleston either
currently or in the past.

City of Charleston 17
RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table 2-11 Comparison of Recyclables Processors

Facility Attribute Kanawha County Raleigh County
Owner: KCSWA RCSWA
Operator: KCSWA RCSWA
Location: Charleston Beckley
Distance from Charleston (1-way): ~1 mile ~60 miles
Processing System: Curb-sort Single stream
Materials Accepted: Newspaper Newspaper
Mixed paper Mixed paper
Carboard Carboard
Aluminum cans Aluminum cans
Steel cans Steel cans
PET plastics PET plastics
HDPE plastics HDPE plastics
Annual Tonnage: < 300 (2019) ~ 2,400
Available Capacity? Unknown Yes
Processing Fee ($/ton): N/A $175

To provide further context on recyclables processing pricing, MSW Consultants reviewed data from other
regions of the U.S. Although specific terms and pricing are not available or presented, Table 2-12 below
shows reported processing fees from 2019 and 2020 based on a large-scale survey of communities with
processing contracts, as well as research performed by MSW Consultants on behalf of a large,
Southwestern U.S. city. As shown, processing of recyclables is reported to range from $70 to over $90 per
ton at the current time, and MSW Consultants is aware of a number of instances where recyclables
processing exceeds $100 per ton.
Table 2-12 Recyclables Processing Pricing in U.S. Regions
No.
Communities or
Region Source Year Average Fee MRFs Reporting
Northeast &
Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) 2020 $91.00 18
Mid-Atlantic
Southeast The Recycling Partnership 2019 $70.75 31
Southwest MSW Consultants 2019-2020 $77.76 7

2.4.1 ALTERNATIVE: TRANSFER OF RECYCLABLES

Given the deficiencies in the current processing alternatives, the City will need to either (a) develop a
recycling transfer operation to consolidate its curbside recyclables for more efficient transportation to
Raleigh County, or (b) develop local processing infrastructure.
A recycling transfer operation would consist of a covered pad where curbside recyclables could be tipped
from collection vehicles and then loaded into a larger container for more efficient transportation to a
remote facility. Figure 2-11 shows both a floor loading transfer operation and a top-loading transfer
operation. Floor loading operations are less expensive for smaller amounts of material because they require
only a bucket loader and some reinforced push walls to load recyclables. Top load transfer facilities require

18 City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

a properly designed building with an upper and lower grade, where the upper level is the tip floor, and the
lower level allows trailers to pull through for loading.
Figure 2-11 Transfer Options

Floor Loading Top Loading

Regardless of the type of transfer operation, it should be noted that the quality of the recyclables can be
significantly degraded during the transfer process. Each time recyclables are handled by heavy equipment,
paper can be further shredded, and any contamination contained in the load of recyclables (i.e., bags of
trash, food wastes still contained in recyclable packaging, etc.) can be further spread around. Further,
should the City ever add glass to its recycling program (due to a new market or some unforeseen
improvement in glass recycling economics), a transfer operation will increase breakage of glass and cross-
contamination of glass particles into the paper and cardboard fraction.
Figure 2-12 shows a typical tractor/trailer used for long-hauling of wastes or recyclables. These trailers
typically employ a walking floor to offload materials at the processing facility.
Figure 2-12 Long-haul Transportation via Tractor Trailer

The establishment of a recyclables transfer and hauling operation would enable more cost-effective use of
the Raleigh County recycling facility by eliminating the use of compactor trucks for long-haul of materials.

City of Charleston 19
RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

2.4.2 ALTERNATIVE: DEVELOP A LOCAL RECYCLABLES PROCESSING FACILITY

The development of a local recyclables processing facility is, in the opinion of MSW Consultants, likely to
be the best solution to establish effective City and regional recycling. Simply stated, a locally-sited facility
would capitalize on the most important attribute of Charleston regarding recycling: namely, that the most
geographically concentrated generation of recyclable materials exists in Kanawha County. Recyclables
processing facilities are more economical at a larger scale, and it makes the most sense to build a larger
facility closer to where the recyclables are being generated.
Based on MSW Consultants’ review of the capital region’s population and potential recyclables yields, we
can estimate that nearly 40,000 tons of residentially-generated recyclables could be captured and processed
from the counties adjacent to Kanawha through a regional recyclables processing facility. This planning-
level estimate, which is based on applying a moderate to high estimate of the pounds of recyclables
(including glass) captured from every residential household, is shown in Figure 2-13 below. (Note that, as
a practical matter, every incorporated city and every county in the region would need to make substantial
changes to their residential recycling programs to actually capture this material; however, the exercise is
illuminating to estimate the region’s long range recycling potential.)
Figure 2-13 Potential Regional Recyclables Yields

A publicly owned facility could be funded by lower-cost debt, operated without regard to the same financial
performance metrics typically applied by investor-owned waste management companies, yet could still
leverage private sector know-how with an operating contract (public-private partnership). As noted earlier
in this section, investment and operating costs for recyclables processing facilities decrease with higher
materials volumes.
2.4.3 ALTERNATIVE: MINI MRFS
Although the recyclables processing industry has seen single-stream facilities increase in size and
throughput, recent entrants have come into the market seeking to bring single-stream processing to smaller
communities, often in more rural areas where large-scale facilities cannot be justified. These so-called Mini
Materials Recovery Facilities (Mini MRFs) target smaller communities that typically generate 10,000 tons
of recyclables per year or less. One such type of facility has been developed by Revolution Systems out of
Colorado and is currently operating in the Town of Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Revolution Systems is

20 City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

also developing a similar facility in Cumberland County, New Jersey, which is slated to come on-line in
mid-2021. The company is slated to begin development of four additional plants later during 2021. 3
The Mini MRF concept is being driven in part by Closed Loop Partners (CLP), which is an arm of a private
investment fund that seeks to expand materials recovery and circular economy supply chains across the
U.S. CLP’s investment portfolio includes materials processors and end-users, as well as state and local
governments. In discussions with MSW Consultants about Mini MRFs and the Revolution System, CLP
shared the following details:
 The Revolution System is modular and is custom-designed for the program. They can be managed
“turn-key” by Revolution or be designed for operation by the host jurisdiction. Revolution Systems
manages the plant design, set-up, and initial staff training.
 Systems typically require about 15,000 square feet of space, which allows for the processing system’s
footprint, tipping floor space, and bale storage. The processing systems feature magnets, balers, and
metered feed systems but do not include fiber screens or optical sorting devices.
 A program’s recyclables materials mix can have a significant impact on the plant’s operation (i.e.,
contaminants and glass make it more expense to operate).
 According to staff from CLP, the system operates best at a recyclables processing rate of five tons per
hour.
 CLP is capable of marketing the recyclables processed through the Revolution System.
 The system generally requires a capital investment of approximately $1 million. This assumes a per-
ton capital cost of $25 (a five-year payback) and an operating cost per-ton of approximately $70.
Figure 2-14 below shows a conceptual plan and footprint of such a processing system obtained from the
company’s literature.
Figure 2-14 Mini MRF

3 MSW Consultants does not endorse any provider of recyclables processing equipment or services. This vendor is
identified, however, because they are specifically targeting smaller markets such as the City of Charleston, where large-
scale MRFs may not be economically viable.

City of Charleston 21
RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

On an even smaller scale, the same vendor also provides a mobile Mini MRF system that be transported
to different material storage locations. This system is primarily designed for large-scale events but can also
be used for smaller communities and support existing MRFs. An image of the Mobile Mini MRF system
from CLP’s literature is shown below as Figure 2-15.
Figure 2-15 Mobile Mini MRF

Mini MRFs tend to be more reliant on manual sorting and of course have not been widely established yet.
The next several years will better inform whether Mini MRF technologies can establish a successful track
record.
It is also important to note that establishment of any new recyclables processing capacity in and around
Charleston should apply best practices for the competitive procurement of the processing system or
facility.
2.5 RECYCLABLES OUTREACH AND EDUCATION
MSW Consultants reviewed Charleston’s recycling outreach and education materials and elements and
offers the following observations.
 City Website: The City’s website landing page offers a direct link to recycling program information.
A screenshot of the landing page is shown below as Figure 2-16, while it can be accessed here:
https://www.charlestonwv.gov/charleston-life/recycling.

22 City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Figure 2-16 Recycling Landing Page on Charleston Website

 Outreach Materials: MSW Consultants was provided with or able to locate the following recycling
program outreach materials:
 Recycling Guide: This is a one-page MS Word document that is downloadable from the
City’s website here: https://www.charlestonwv.gov/node/1457
 Recycling Frequently Asked Questions (updated): Charleston published an updated
recycling FAQ after the City Council voted to relax the requirements for using clear plastic
bags. This is the only outreach document with images and can be located and downloaded
here: https://www.charlestonwv.gov/index.php/documents/refuse-faq-wed-12212016-1547
 Recycling Bin Decal: Because Charleston residents are able to use their personal recycling
bins, the City makes a downloadable bin decal available. It can be found on the City’s website
here:https://www.charlestonwv.gov/sites/default/files/non-departmental-
documents/2019-11/recycling.pdf. The decal is also displayed below as Figure 2-17.

City of Charleston 23
RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Figure 2-17 Charleston Recycling Bin Decal

 Recycling and Refuse Frequently Asked Questions: The FAQ document details
acceptable recyclables and unacceptable materials and publishes Refuse and Recycling’s phone
numbers. The FAQ also provides additional insights on plastics recycling. The document can
be located and downloaded here: https://www.charlestonwv.gov/sites/default/files/non-
departmental-documents/2019-05/Refuse%20FAQ.pdf
 Kanawha Solid Waste Authority Website: The City also lists the KCSWA’s website as an
educational resource. Although it is unknown how active the KCSWA’s website is, it appears
to provide up-to-date information on what is acceptable for recycling in Charleston, as well as
other jurisdictions in Kanawha County. The KCSWA website also provides more general
information on the benefits of recycling. The link to the KCSWA’s website can be found here:
https://www.kanawharecycles.org/Default.aspx. A screenshot of the KCSWA website’s
landing page is shown below as Figure 2-18.

24 City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Figure 2-18 KCSWA Website Landing Page

 City Council Support: Elected officials in Charleston, including Mayor Amy Goodwin and members
of the Charleston City Council, have shown strong support for improving the City’s recycling
programs. The City Council has a standing Environmental and Recycling Committee, which has
reviewed and approved changes to the recycling program during the past two years. These include
approval of the mayor’s proposal to eliminate the provision of clear recycling bags, as well as the
renewed agreement with RCSWA for recyclables processing services.
MSW Consultants presented an overview of the Recycling Feasibility Study to the Environmental and
Recycling Committee and took questions during its meeting of October 7, 2020 MSW Consultants’
presentation from this meeting is included in the report appendix. MSW Consultants also provided an
update at the Committee’s December 9th meeting.
 Green Team: The Council also voted in August 2020 to establish a seven-member citizen “Green
Team” to engage in community outreach and advise the Council on recycling as well as broader
sustainability issues. The Green Team is slated to meet on a quarterly basis and issue an annual report.
Members are to be recommended by the Environment and Recycling Committee and appointed by
the mayor for two- and three-year terms. The City’s public works director is designated as a non-voting
ex-officio member.
Observations – It is MSW Consultants’ professional opinion that the City’s recycling outreach and
education methods as described above are insufficient. Recommended improvements to the City’s
recycling education and outreach program will be presented in Section 5 of this report.

City of Charleston 25
RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

3. PROGRAM COMPARISONS & BENCHMARKING

Combined with performance measurement, benchmarking enables a local government to see how its solid
waste management system measures up to other municipalities with comparable customer bases and
service levels. It should be noted that while benchmarking is conceptually simple, in the realm of solid
waste management, there are myriad system characteristics that are likely to differ among different
municipalities. For example, even if the customer base of two municipalities is the same, differences in
underlying system characteristics may diminish the comparability of the two systems.
MSW Consultants compiled information from similarly-sized regional cities to allow for basic comparisons
of program service levels and performance. MSW Consultants used performance statistics from 2019 and
published operating budget data from either FY 2020 or FY 2021. The information used was researched
primarily through publicly available documents and reports from the profiled cities such as webpages, solid
waste and recycling plans, operating budgets, and reported performance measures.
Table 3-1 below shows the cities reviewed as part of the benchmarking research.
Table 3-1 Charleston Benchmarking Cities
City State Population (1)
Charleston  WV 46,536
Annapolis  MD 39,223
Harrisburg  PA 49,271
Morgantown WV 30,549
Huntington WV 45,110
Parkersburg WV 29,306

 = State capital
(1) 2019 U.S. Census estimate

3.1 BENCHMARKING: SYSTEMS & FINANCIALS

Table 3-2 below presents the key system and financial metrics from among the benchmarked cities.
Table 3-2 Benchmark City Systems & Financials

Solid Waste Recycling

City Service Provider Budget Employees Coordinator?
Charleston City $3.29 M 66 Yes (1)
Annapolis Contractor $3.28 M 4 Yes (2)
Harrisburg City $16.1 M (3) 68 Yes
Huntington City $3.63 M 37 No
Morgantown Contractor $1.53 M Not available Not available
Parkersburg City $2.58 M 24 No
(1) P/T grant-funded position
(2) Position also supports overall City sustainability program
(3) Budget includes commercial services

Observations – MSW Consultants’ observations of the data presented in Table 3-2 include:
 All cities, with the exception of Annapolis, MD, and Morgantown, use municipal crews and trucks for
solid waste collection services (Annapolis moved to contracted collections 2012).

26 City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

 Two of the profiled cities have professional staff who oversee their city’s recycling programs.

3.2 BENCHMARKING: COLLECTION SERVICES

Table 3-3 below details curbside collection service among the profiled cities.
Table 3-3 Benchmark City Collection Services and Monthly Rates

Service Charleston Annapolis Harrisburg Huntington Morgantown Parkersburg

REFUSE
Frequency Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly
Personal City- Personal Personal Personal
Personal
Container Type containers & provided containers containers & containers &
containers
bags containers & bags bags bags
Collection Style Manual Manual Manual Manual Manual Manual
RECYCLING
Frequency Weekly Weekly Weekly N/A Weekly Weekly
Personal Carts or Carts
Bins (city- Bins
Container Type containers or bins (city- N/A (hauler-
provided) (city-provided)
bags provided) provided)
Single Stream or Single Single Single Single
Single stream Dual-stream
Dual Stream? stream stream stream stream
Semi-
Collection Style Manual Manual N/A Automated Manual
Automated
YARD WASTE
Seasonal
Frequency N/A Weekly (leaves N/A N/A N/A
only)
Manual/
Vacuum
Collection Style N/A Semi- N/A N/A N/A
truck
Automated

MONTHLY RATE $18.00 $22.83 $32.34 $20.00 $19.80 $16.00

Observations – MSW Consultants offers the following comments on the benchmark cities’ collection
services:
 With the exception of Huntington, all profiled cities provide weekly recyclables collection. Apart from
Parkersburg, all cities collect materials single stream.
 Huntington does not provide curbside recycling services. Residents who wish to recycle in Huntington
must use the recycling drop-off program managed by the Cabell County Solid Waste Authority
(CCSWA). The program includes a centralized drop-off center and a mobile site open on the first and
third Saturdays of each month. CCSWA charges residents $75 per year for this service, and drop-off
site access is achieved through the use of a CCSWA-issued FOB device.
 All of the benchmark cities that provide curbside recycling services issue residents standardized
recycling bins or carts. Harrisburg and Morgantown provide either semi or fully-automated collections.
 The cities of Annapolis and Harrisburg are the only benchmark cities that appear to provide some
level of source-separated yard waste collections for composting.

City of Charleston 27
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

3.3 BENCHMARKING: RECYCLABLES COLLECTED

As detailed in Table 3-4 below, all benchmark cities provide collections of a standard suite of “blue bin”
recyclables.
Table 3-4 Benchmark City Recyclables

Category Item Charleston Annapolis Harrisburg Huntington Morgantown Parkersburg

Corrugated
cardboard/ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
kraft paper
Mixed Paper Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Paper
Newspaper Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Shredded
Other N/A N/A Cartons Cartons N/A
paper
#1 PET bottles
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
and containers
#2 HDPE
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
natural bottles
#2 HDPE
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
colored bottles
Rigid plastic
Plastics containers No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
#3-#7
Rigid plastics
(i.e., toys, milk No Yes No No Yes No
crates, etc.)

Other plastics N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Plastic bags

Glass bottles Drop-off

Glass No Yes Yes Yes Yes
and jars only
Aluminum
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Metals cans
Steel cans Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Observations – MSW Consultants’ observations include:

 Harrisburg is the only other city that does not accept glass in its curbside recycling program (they
instead accept it source-separated at a drop-off center). Note that glass typically makes up between 15
and 25 percent of a recycling program’s tonnages.
 By not accepting aseptic cartons, #3-7 plastics, rigid plastics, and glass, Charleston appears to have the
most restrictive list of acceptable recyclables. However, little is known about the actual ability of the
cities that do accept these materials to successfully market them (markets for all have been limited).
3.4 BENCHMARKING: COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE
Table 3-5 below compares solid waste tonnage generation among profiled cities:

28 City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table 3-5 Benchmark City Tonnage Comparison

Generation
Households Yard Total MSW Per HH
City Serviced Refuse Recycling Waste Other Generation (Lbs./Year)
Charleston 18,000 24,129 (1) 631 1,841 (2) 162 (3) 26,763 2,974
Annapolis 8,800 7,986 3,013 1,753 12,752 2,898
Harrisburg
(4) 20,520 -
Morgantown 10,522 (5) 967 967 -
Huntington 17,755 18,000 (6) 2,400 (7) 20,400 2,298
Parkersburg 13,152 14,753 1,077 15,830 2,407
(1) Includes bulky wastes
(2) Materials currently collected with refuse
(3) Includes recycled scrap metals and white goods (125 tons) and tires (37 tons)

(4) Data not made available

(5) Data not made available

(6) Huntington residents are eligible to use the Cabell County Solid Waste Authority’s (CCSWA) recycling drop-off center.

CCSWA reported 623 tons of recyclables in 2019, although it is unknown how many originated from Huntington residents.
(7) Includes bulky wastes

Observations – MSW Consultants’ review of disposal and recycling tonnages reported by the profiled
cities includes:
 At 2,974 pounds of municipal solid waste, or MSW (includes refuse, recyclables, yard waste, bulk, etc.)
collected, Charleston has the highest annual per-household generation rate among the profiled cities.
This may be due to a lenient set-out policy for bulk wastes that currently exists in Charleston, and also
on the relatively higher household median income in Charleston relative to the other West Virginia
cities profiled. Higher incomes typically result in higher consumer spending, which can lead to higher
levels of MSW generation.
4. RECYCLING SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION
The subsections below offer viable options for the City of Charleston’s recycling program and also contain
specific recommendations for what this program might look like.
4.1 COLLECTION
Given the current system, the following actions can potentially improve the City’s recycling program
performance. These include:
4.1.1 DISTRIBUTING STANDARDIZED RECYCLING CONTAINERS
Whether recycling bins or carts can be collected using manual, semi- or fully-automated trucks, the City
would be well served to distribute standardized recycling containers to its households. This would have
the effect of providing recyclables storage capacity for participants, as well as aid collections through clearer
identification of recycling set outs. Images of curbside recycling bins and carts are shown below as Figure
4-1.

City of Charleston 29
RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Figure 4-1 Recycling Container Options

Recycling Bins Recycling Cart

4.1.2 AVOID BAGGED RECYCLABLES

As noted in Section 2, plastic bags are often cited as one of the top nuisances at recyclables processing
facilities around the U.S., and considerable resources have been invested both in educating recyclers to not
use plastic bags for packaging recyclables and in equipment to manage them better in recycling facility
environments. Recyclables processing centers require significant shut-down time for staff to remove plastic
bags that wrap around a modern facility’s many moving parts. Figure 4-2 below shows plastic bags wrapped
around a star screen at a large recyclables processing facility.
Figure 4-2 Plastic Bags at the Curb & at the Recycling Center

Plastic Bags at a Recyclables Processing Facility

Photo Source: The Recycling Partnership

4.1.3 MOVING BEYOND MANUAL COLLECTIONS

While single-stream collection systems can take many forms, the most common systems capitalize on one
or two crew members operating high-capacity semi- or fully-automated technologies to maximize
collection productivity. Both semi- and fully-automated trucks feature higher productivity rates and lower

30 City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

injury rates compared to manual collection systems. A summary of semi- and fully-automated collections
follows:
 Semi-Automated is a method of collection that utilizes mechanical cart tippers on the rear of the
truck to lift and empty containers. This technology still requires an equipment operator and at least
one helper on the collection crew, such that the helper still needs to retrieve and roll the carts to the
truck for emptying. Semi-automated systems also require that a standardized cart be issued to every
resident.
 Fully-Automated trucks most often use a hydraulic arm located on the right side of the vehicle that
lifts the carts overhead and empties materials into the hopper. Fully-automated routes are meant to be
performed with only a single operator, reducing labor costs even further.
These types of recycling systems use roll-out carts, most often in the 64 to 95-gallon capacity, which offers
recyclers significantly more space to store materials compared to standard recycling bins. Images of semi-
automated and fully automated collections are shown in Figure 4-3 below.
Figure 4-3 Cart-Based Collection Options

Semi-automated Collection Fully Automated Collection

However, there are challenges with cart-based systems, which can include:
 Equipment Costs: Semi- and fully-automated trucks are significantly more expensive to purchase
and maintain compared to standard rear loaders.
 Cart Costs: Carts generally cost between $55 and $65 per unit, depending on size and features. There
are also administrative and maintenance costs for carts systems. Customers may need to be allowed to
change cart sizes over time. The City will also need to make arrangements to manage, repair, and
distribute carts and should have the ability to perform this task, although doing so may require
increased storage capacity on DPW property for replacement carts and associated parts. Cart inventory
management, using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags, is offered by multiple vendors serving
the waste collection market.
 Routing and Logistics: Cart-based collections may also require jurisdictions to require other-side-
of-street parking to ensure adequate access.
 Recyclables Contamination: Recyclables contamination rates can increase for a variety of reasons,
first and foremost because the recyclables are now completely hidden in the cart, and it is not possible
for the equipment operator to identify the contamination prior to tipping.
 Charleston Topography: City staff have also expressed other concerns about the feasibility of
bringing cart-based collections due to Charleston’s topography and steep hills. However, MSW
Consultants is familiar with cart-based collections in other jurisdictions also known for steep hills.
Figure 4-4 below shows an example from the Hollywood Hills in Los Angeles, California.

City of Charleston 31
RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Figure 4-4 Cart-Based Collections on Hilly Terrain

MSW Consultants does recognize that portions of Charleston may not be conducive to cart-based
collections. But, on balance, improvements could be made to Charleston’s existing system by standardizing
the collection containers for trash and adding semi-automated capability to the collection fleet and future
truck replacements. Rolling out a cart to service with a hydraulic tipper as opposed to manually collecting
multiple bags or multiple and varied containers and returning them to the curb should reduce physical
hazards to collection crews.

4.2 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE SUFFICIENCY

For Task 1.5 of the project scope, MSW Consultants performed a cost-of-service estimate for the City’s
recycling program. This includes high-level assessments of the City’s revenue sufficiency as well as annual
expenses.
The City’s rates by customer class and projected annual revenues are detailed below as Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 System Revenues vs. Expenditures
No. of Monthly Annual
Customer Class Ratepayers Rate (1) Rate Total Revenue
Residential 18,000 $18.00 $216.00 $3,888,000
Dumpster 67 $40.00 $480.00 $32,160
$3,920,160
Source: (1) City of Charleston Code

Table 4-2 below shows the City’s refuse and recycling annual expenditures.
Table 4-2 Annual Expenditures
Expenses FY 2019 Actual FY 2020 Budget FY 2021 Adopted
Personal Services (1) $3,127,591 $3,387,138 $3,123,515
Contractual Services (1) $232,177 $75,891 $76,382
Commodities (1) $476,310 $94,200 $94,200
Lease Payments (2) N/A N/A $515,510
Total $3,836,078 $3,557,229 $3,809,607

Sources: (1) Municipal Budget, 001 (General Fund), 800 (Refuse & Recycling)
(2) Projected Capital Equipment Acquisitions, Health & Sanitation

32 City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Based on this high-level assessment of data provided by the City, it appears that the City has been able to
meet its system financial requirements during the past three fiscal years.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
There are numerous details to every municipal waste management system, and no two cities or counties
will be the same. Practices that are considered “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) in one city may not
be effective or appropriate in another city. Further, there are multiple policies, operational practices,
educational strategies, and program goals that can be employed to optimize a system.
MSW Consultants has extensive experience analyzing and optimizing the components of successful
municipal waste management systems, with particular emphasis on recycling program effectiveness. In
this section, we offer our professional opinion on how the City of Charleston can transform its solid waste
management system to provide a financially sustainable, high-diversion curbside recycling program.
5.1 PREREQUISITES
The scope of this Study focused on the City’s recycling program and collection services. However,
extensive experience across the United States show that municipal waste management programs operate
as an integrated system that requires a stable and sustainable revenue source and provide a suite of services
that include recyclables collection and processing, trash collection and disposal, bulk waste collection and
disposal, and in many cases yard waste collection and processing.
Although it was beyond the scope of this Study to evaluate the City’s broader integrated waste management
system, MSW Consultants believes there are several critical prerequisites to be accomplished before
optimizing the City’s recycling system. These are itemized below:
 Sustainable, Equitable Waste Management Revenue Mechanism: Municipal waste management
systems closely follow the utility business model. These systems provide standard, well-defined
services to all of the customers in the service area. As with any utility, it is therefore critical to have a
fair, transparent, and revenue-sufficient mechanism in place to recover the cost of the services from
the customers who receive the services. Although the City has a monthly user fee, it is not known
whether this revenue mechanism is fully funding the solid waste management system. However, the
observations made during this Study confirm that the current flat-rate user fee, combined with a lack
of set-out limits, does not fairly recover the cost of the services being provided. Additional detail
about sanitation rates structures is provided below.
 Recommendation : The City should undertake a full cost-of-service and rate study for its
entire waste management system. This Study should identify the full cost to provide the
current services and identify appropriate rate structures that (a) cover basic services to all
customers at a fair price and (b) offer premium services at an incremental charge to those
customers needing more than the basic service levels.
 Waste Management Organizational Structure: As with any utility service, waste management
requires experienced, well-rounded management and expertise to handle the many facets of the
operation. The City’s organizational structure is reasonable, with a Sanitation Deputy Director,
Recycling Coordinator, and Operations Supervisor leading the division. However, the job descriptions
for these positions should be revisited to empower these individuals to manage future program
direction, maintain sound financial performance, and evolve the services over time to be in
conformance with industry best practices. Further, the waste management organization will need to
integrate its services with a customer service operation and with the City finance department to
establish and collect user fees and premium charges in an optimized system.
 Recommendation : The City should update the job descriptions, roles, and responsibilities of
these senior management positions and simultaneously offer management and operational

City of Charleston 33
RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

training to existing staff in these roles. The Solid Waste Association of North America
(SWANA) offers a wide range of professional certifications that enable industry professionals
to gain specialized knowledge and expertise. The City should also enable senior sanitation and
recycling managers to attend conferences and trade shows, which (even virtually) offer a
wealth of information on current trends, successful case studies, and best practices.
 Optimized Refuse and Bulk Waste Collection Services: As observed during this engagement, on
the surface, the City of Charleston provides excellent customer service to its residents, in the sense
that City collection crews will remove virtually any materials from the curb that are set out by residents.
Based on our observations and confirmation from PWD leadership, collection crews routinely load
piles of bagged materials, multiple containers, multiple bulky items, and even loose brush and yard
waste materials. However, the lack of reasonable set-out limits undermines the City’s ability to provide
a fair, standard basic service. Studies in other communities with no set-out limits have shown that 20
to 30 percent of the residential customers over-use the service, which means that the remaining 70 to
80 percent of customers are subsidizing the system.
 Recommendation : The City should evaluate and optimize its residential refuse and bulk
waste collection services with an eye towards (a) rebalancing the collection routes, (b)
standardizing set-out limits for basic service, and (c) establishment of additional fees for
residents that require additional service (as described in the prior bullet). This change to the
system will likely need to integrate an enforcement component and changes to the City’s
ordinance to enable the City to charge residents who exceed reasonable set-out allowances.
 Transition to Cart-based Collection: Historically, sanitation services have been provided via
manual collection. Certainly, Charleston has some narrow and hilly streets where manual collection
appears to be the best method (or only method) for collecting materials. However, manual collection
systems are increasingly a liability on several levels. Manual collection systems have higher rates of
injury and workers compensation claims. Manual collectors are at higher risk of serious accidents,
including being struck by other vehicles. Cart-based collection reduces the physical wear-and-tear on
manual collectors, but more importantly, can set up a longer-term transition to full automation in some
parts of the City. Fully automated collection is much more efficient than manual collection, so even
if only parts of the City could migrate to automated collection, it should benefit the system.
 Recommendation : The City should move towards greater automation for all of its collection
services. Converting from manual to semi-automated collection would enable most residential
customers to convert to carts while leaving the ability to collect manually from selected streets
and neighborhoods. Over time, as semi-automated collection is optimized, the City will be
able to identify areas that can convert to full automation. Refuse collection vehicles offer
hybrid technologies to support a combination of manual, semi-automated, and fully automated
service on a single route. Additional information about automated collection is provided
below.
 Develop a Comprehensive Recycling Education and Outreach Strategy: Public outreach and
education have become even more critical for recycling programs during the past two to three years,
given recycling end-market demand for cleaner recyclables. Recycling education and outreach spending
should not be considered a one-time expense. While public education spending benchmarks are not
widely available, MSW Consultants believes routine education and outreach spending for robust
recycling and waste management programs should average roughly $1.50 to $2.00 per household
annually and may double during major system changes.
Outreach and education are critical tools and are necessary for ensuring quality recyclables, but also
for maintaining and expanding participation. Charleston should develop a recycling outreach and
education strategy to improve program participation. Recommendations include:

34 City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

 Overall Messaging: The City’s recycling education and outreach should more clearly
promote what is recyclable in the recycling program, how to prepare those items, and what
the key materials are that should be left out of recycling bins (i.e., contaminants). Moreover,
the messaging should also communicate the value and benefits of recycling to program
participants, including environmental benefits and economic benefits.
 Program Literature: The City’s existing program literature is not eye-catching and lacks color
and graphics. A redesigned printed or downloadable flyer should include those features.
 City’s Website and Social Media: While recycling program information can be accessed
from the City’s landing page (https://www.charlestonwv.gov/charleston-life/recycling), users
have to scroll down to find the link. The City should consider rotating this to a position above
the scroll. Social media posts can be particularly effective at promoting environment-themed
events (such as Earth Day) or promotion of paper and packaging generated during the holiday
season.
 Mobile Apps: During the past five to seven years, a number of recycling and solid waste
services mobile apps have become commercially available. The apps can help remind residents
of their pickup days, schedule changes, and what is acceptable in the recycling program.
 Outreach in Kanawha County Schools: As the state’s largest school district, the Kanawha
County School District may offer opportunities for recycling outreach and education (at least
in those Kanawha County schools within the City of Charleston). Coordination with public
school systems for classroom presentations and assemblies and distribution of program
literature are key elements of many recycling education and outreach programs.
 Overall Community Outreach: The City should examine opportunities to present to
community organizations, civic associations, and business groups.
 Engage City’s Green Team: As noted in Section 2, earlier this year, the City Council
established a seven-member citizen “Green Team” to engage in community outreach and
advise the Council on recycling as well as broader sustainability issues. The Green Team should
be engaged to solicit ideas and input, test and hone recycling program messaging, and circulate
that messaging among constituencies.
5.2 OPTIMIZED RECYCLING IN CHARLESTON
An optimized system will have:
 Specialized, trained, and empowered management staff for sanitation and recycling
 Optimized curbside collection services
 Cart-based collections
 Access to cost-effective processing capacity
 Clear and transparent fee and incentive to recycle
 More dynamic program education and outreach
Were such a system to be established over time in Charleston, the likely cost of the system, as well as high-
level performance expectations, are shown in Table 5-1. This table compares the current recycling program
direct costs to a high-functioning recycling system. In such a high-functioning system, the set-out rate
improves to 65 percent and the recycling yield per household increases from approximately 70 pounds per
year to a still modest 200 pounds.

City of Charleston 35
RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table 5-1 Optimized Recycling Cost of Service

Metric Current Optimized
Set-Out Rate 25% 65%
Number of Routes 3 6
Annualized Capital Cost $81,143 $142,000
Vehicle O&M Cost $100,620 $201,240
Labor Cost $583,331 $1,166,661
Processing Cost $110,425 $162,000
Total $875,519 $1,671,901
Households 18,000 18,000
Annual Cost per HH $48.64 $92.88
Monthly Cost per HH. $4.05 $7.74
Recycling Tonnage 631 1,800

5.3 OTHER COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 Impacts of Covid-19 Pandemic: Although the actual impacts are still being evaluated, the onset of
the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in shutdowns and general behavior change, has shifted much
MSW generation from the commercial to the residential sector. Many jurisdictions around the U.S. are
reporting residential MSW volume increases as much as 20 percent. Industry and local government
sources are also reporting changes to the composition of the waste stream, including increases in
single-use plastics and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as disposable masks and gloves and
associated packaging. On the recycling side, programs report an increase in the amount of corrugated
cardboard shipping boxes, brought on by increases in e-commerce purchases.
Nevertheless, it is unknown if the impacts observed to date will continue or if generation will slowly
revert to pre-COVID levels.
 Recycling and Economic Development: While the end-markets and pricing challenges, as detailed
in the earlier sections of this report, have had negative impacts on recycling programs in West Virginia
and across the U.S., recycling still results in considerable economic benefits. Recyclables are
commodities that replace or help minimize the use of raw materials and are value-added – meaning
there is economic activity created at each stage of a recovered material’s life cycle, from collection, to
processing, to secondary processing, remanufacture, and distribution. When compared to traditional
forms of solid waste disposal, recycling and reuse create many more jobs on a per-ton basis.
The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI), a trade association representing recyclables end-
users and markets, and regularly conducts studies to measure the economic impact of the recycling
industry in the U.S. and at the state level, calculating job creation, overall economic output, and tax
receipts. ISRI’s methodology counts direct job creation that occurs from processing, purchasing, and
brokering of recovered materials as well as supplier and induced jobs that are indirectly supported
through suppliers and the industry’s overall economic impact.
Table 5-2 below presents economic impacts in West Virginia from a study issued by ISRI in 2019.

36 City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table 5-2 Economic Impact of Recycling in West Virginia

Direct Supplier Induced Total
Jobs 713 767 711 2,191
Wages (in $ millions) $34 $44 $30 $113
Economic Impact (in $ millions) $164 $195 $116 $474
Source: Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (2019)

 Pay-As-You-Throw: Pay-As-You-Throw (or PAYT) is a possible approach to system financing that

the City could consider. In communities with Pay-As-You-Throw programs (also known as unit
pricing or variable-rate pricing), residents are charged for the collection of refuse based on the amount
they throw away. 4 This user-fee approach is similar to how public utilities such as water and electricity
charge for services, creates a direct economic incentive to recycle more and to generate less waste, and
eliminates the inequities associated with flat fees systems where good recyclers often subsize service
costs for more wasteful residents.
Well-designed PAYT systems generate sufficient revenues to cover program services and costs. Table
5-3 below summarizes monthly rates for FY 2021 from three cities that have mature PAYT systems.
Table 5-3 PAYT Rate Examples
Austin, TX Gainesville, FL Davenport, IA
Refuse Container Price Per Price Per
Size Price Per Month Month Month
< 30 gal. $21.15 $18.50 N/A
30 - 35 gal. $22.40 $24.00 $13.41
60 - 65 gal. $27.55 $29.75 $17.09
90 - 96 gal. $48.00 $37.00 $20.80

Table 5-4 below shows a conceptual structure for a Charleston PAYT system that offers four sizes of
refuse containers. When designing PAYT systems, it is important to ensure that the marginal price
increase for each larger refuse container size is significant enough to customers to provide an incentive
to recycle more and thereby obtain a smaller refuse container. If pricing tiers are too close to one
another, more residents will opt for a larger container as the marginal savings do not provide a
significant incentive. Moreover, it is important to note that it is not possible to project the exact rates
for Charleston currently as they would need to be determined once new collection system attributes
are defined and based on outcomes of a cost-of-service study.
Table 5-4 Conceptual PAYT Rate Structure
Refuse Container
Size Percent of HH. Price
< 30 gal. 5% $14.00
30 - 35 gal. 20% $16.00
60 - 65 gal. 57% $20.00
90 - 96 gal. 18% $24.00

4 Pay-As-You-Throw Programs| Conservation Tools | US EPA.

https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/tools/payt/web/html/index.html

City of Charleston 37
RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

 Investigate Sources of Recycling Program Support: Despite end-market challenges, there have
been considerable levels of private investment in U.S. recycling infrastructure and systems during the
past five to seven years. These efforts are supported by unprecedented levels of funding support from
product manufacturers, brands, and trade associations. Two organizations that are currently actively
involved in supporting and enhancing municipal curbside recycling programs include:
 The Recycling Partnership provides recycling technical assistance, grants for carts
purchases, and equipment capital for cities and counties across the U.S. Jurisdictions are
eligible to apply for grant funds for carts purchases and supplemental program outreach and
technical assistance. Since 2014 the Partnership had leveraged more than $90 million in
funding and helped fund and distribute recycling carts to more than 700,000 U.S. households.
 Closed Loop Partners manages multiple investment funds that support recycling
infrastructure, such as equipment capital for recycling facilities, secondary processors, and end-
users. They also provide support for municipalities, including carts purchases. According to
CLP’s website, since 2014, they have helped leverage some $270 million in investment across
the U.S. and in three other nations.
 Explore Regional Coordination: One of the potential recyclables processing pathways forward
involves the development of a local facility. A locally-sited facility could capitalize on the potential
volumes of recyclables available in the region. However, buy-in and coordination among the regional
partners will be critical, and many, if not all, will be required to examine their approaches to recycling
to ensure that the available recyclables are delivered to the regional facility.
An initial step in fostering regional coordination should involve raising awareness among potential
participants and stakeholders. Accordingly, Charleston should explore the possibilities of hosting a
statewide or regional summit to discuss recycling issues. Such an event could not just have the effect
of getting stakeholders and members of the recycling value chain in the same room, but it can also
lead to dialogue and formulation of action strategies. Potential participants could include statewide
elected officials, state agencies, solid waste authorities, state and regional recycling advocacy
organizations (such as the West Virginia Recycling Association), county economic development
authorities, recycling industry representatives, environmental and civic organizations, and other
stakeholders.
 Perform Customer Surveys: Prior to undergoing significant changes to its solid waste system, the
City may wish to conduct a statistically representative survey of residential households to compile
defensible data and feedback regarding the service and costs. This survey could test the usage levels
of the current system and seek guidance on whether residents support changes to services. Timing of
the survey is critical in that it should be issued after a point where the City has framed some potential
strategies for residents to react to, but before changes are put in motion.
 Examine Return to Source-Separated Yard Waste Collection and Processing: As noted earlier
in this report, the City at one point performed some collections of source-separated yard wastes. These
materials were processed by the public grounds division within the PWD. While researching and
assessing resumption of these services was beyond the scope of this engagement, yard wastes, including
grass, leaves, brush, and prunings can makeup between 10 to 20 percent of the residential waste stream.
High recovery of these materials could dramatically increase the City’s recycling rate.
 RCSWA MOU: The City should act quickly to assess and begin discussions with the RCSWA on
recyclables processing contracting (via the MOU) options for the option year set to commence on July
1, 2021. Discussions could include potential contract features framed in Section 2 of this report and
should also include potential extensions for a third and fourth year, depending on longer-term
recyclables processing options.
 Pilot Testing: To gather performance data for varying collection alternatives, the City should consider
selecting subsections of Charleston to pilot its preferred semi- or fully-automated collections. Pilots

38 City of Charleston
 RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

may be able to be performed in partnership with industry equipment providers (carts, automated
trucks) in ways that minimize pilot program costs. Pre-pilot and post-pilot citizen input could be
obtained along with specific tracking of collection metrics. This data can be used along with the
citywide residential survey results to inform City leadership regarding the best direction for the
recycling system.
 Procurement – Request for Expressions of Interest: The City may wish to use the procurement
process to test the marketplace for recyclables processing options. Many local governments have the
ability to use the Letter of Interest (LOI) or Request for Expression of Interest (RFEI) process to get
scoping and pricing input from vendors before committing to a formal Request for Proposals (RFP)
process. This approach could be most effective as a way to better determine whether a regional
recyclables processing facility is feasible and could also be useful in assessing recyclables transfer
possibilities.
6. IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE
MSW Consultants’ recommended implementation timeline is shown below as Table 6-1.
Table 6-1 Implementation Timeline
Action Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Perform Full Cost of Service Study
Review Organizational Management
Optimize Collection Services
Transition to Cart-Based Collections
Develop and Implement Education & Outreach Plan
Investigate Funding Sources
Explore Regional Collaboration
Perform Customer Surveys
Review Resumption of Yard Waste Service
Revisit RCSWA MOU
Pilot Testing (carts, set-out limits, bulk, etc.)
Procurement (RFEI, LOI for long-term processing capacity)

City of Charleston 39
RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY

This page is intentionally left blank.

40 City of Charleston
 APPENDIX A
Additional Resources

City of Charleston
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Charleston
 – ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
More detailed research and analyses about how these factors may impact Charleston could be
performed but was beyond the scope of this engagement. Readers are encouraged to review the
following sources for more information on industry trends.
 West Virginia Solid Waste Management Board (SWMB):
https://www.state.wv.us/swmb/default.html
 West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP):
https://dep.wv.gov/WWE/Pages/default.aspx
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at https://www.epa.gov/americarecycles
 Recycling Coalition of West Virginia at http://www.wvrecycles.com/home.html
 The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) at https://nerc.org/
 Southeast Recycling Development Council (SERDC) at https://www.serdc.org/
 The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) at https://swana.org/
 The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) at https://www.isri.org/
 The National Waste and Recycling Association (NWRA) at https://wasterecycling.org/
 The Recycling Partnership at https://recyclingpartnership.org/
 Closed Loop Partners, LLC at https://www.closedlooppartners.com/

City of Charleston A-1

This page intentionally left blank.

City of Charleston
 APPENDIX B
City Council Briefing
10/07/2020

City of Charleston
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Charleston
Appendix B 11/25/2020

Recycling Program
Feasibility Study
1

INTRODUCTION & PROJECT OVERVIEW

CHARLESTON CITY COUNCIL

ENVIRONMENT AND RECYCLING COMMITTEE

OCTOBER 7, 2020

About MSW Consultants

2

 Florida-based management
consultant specializing in
the municipal waste sector
o Offices in Maryland and
Pennsylvania
 Experienced in solid waste
master planning, waste &
recycling composition
studies, rate studies,
procurement support
 Engaged by City in August
2020 to perform recycling
optimization study.

1
Appendix B 11/25/2020

State of Recycling in West Virginia

3
 West Virginia Recycling Act
created in 1989
 Goal of 50% reduction per capita
disposal by 2010 (1991 base year)
 Curbside recycling required for
municipalities of 10,000 or more
 Key challenges (per SWMB):
 Low population density
 Low materials volumes/high unit
costs for many centers
 Access to end markets
 Low material values
 2018 to present: Export market
restrictions and disruptions

Recycling in Charleston
4
 2015 study showed  High recyclables
recycling participation rate processing &
of just 19.5% transportation costs
 Low curbside recycling  RCSWA request for
tonnages: relief/per-ton processing fee
 ~670 tons per year  Recycling suspended April
 ~75 lbs. per household 2020 due to COVID-19
 Curb-sort program until
related closure at RCSWA
2014 (with KCSWA)  Recycling resumed
 Single-stream with RCSWA
September 28th
2014-2020  $175 per ton processing fee
 City-provided clear bags,
eliminated 2019
 $400,000 annual savings

2
Appendix B 11/25/2020

Project Phases & Key Tasks

5

Phase 1 – Phase 2 – ID and

Phase 3 -
Initiation & Info. Evaluate Phase 4 (optional)
Reporting
Gathering Alternatives
• Kickoff & info • Analyze • Draft report • Customer
request collection system • Final report Survey
• Operations and alternatives • Presentation
assessment • Analyze
• CoS estimate recyclables
• Contracts review processing
• Educational • Recycling
review education &
public outreach
• Ordinance
review
• Benchmarking
• Working
meeting

Project Activities To-Date

6
 Project kick-off meeting
(August 31)
 Data gathering
 Collection route
observations
 KCSWA and RCSWA site
visits
 Council member
briefings
 Report draft in-progress
 Early November project
report

3
Appendix B 11/25/2020

Keys to Success
7

Efficient, Full Fair,

Sufficient
Service Convenient Transparent
Management &
Curbside Processing at and
Administration
Collection Proper Scale Sustainable
Resources
Program Funding

Questions and Thank You

8

John Culbertson, Principal Phil Bresee, Sr. Consultant

407/380-8951 954/604-9475

jculbertson@mswconsultants.com pbresee@mswconsultants.com

4
 APPENDIX C
Working Meeting
11/6/2020

City of Charleston
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Charleston
Appendix C 11/29/2020

Recycling Program
Feasibility Study
1

WORKING MEETING #1

CITY OF CHARLESTON, WV

NOVEMBER 6, 2020

Working Meeting Objectives

2

 Update Charleston Team on Progress

 Review Existing System Evaluation
 Discuss Potential System Improvements

1
Appendix C 11/29/2020

3 Phase Task Description Status?

1.1 Information Request 
1.2 Kick-off Meeting 

Project 1.2.1 Council Briefings (3) 

Scope & 1.3 Facility/Assets Review 

Status
1.4 Collection Observations 

1–
1.5 Cost-of-Service Estimate 
System
Baseline
1.6 Contracts Review 

1.7 Education Program Review 

1.8 Ordinance Review In-progress

1.9 Benchmarking In-progress

1.10 Working Meeting November 6,
2020
2 – ID Alternatives
3 – Reporting

Collection System Overview

4

Service Truck Days of Crew Size Routes Per

Type Week Day
Residential Rear-load T-W-Th-F 3 10
Trash
Residential Rear-load T-W-Th-F 3 2/3
Recycling

Bulky Stake T-W-Th-F 2 5

bed/rear-
load
Tires Stake bed T-W-Th-F 2 2

C/I Dumpsters Rear-load M-S 3

Total

2
Appendix C 11/29/2020

 Tuesday = East End.

Westmoreland,
Capitol Hill

 Wednesday =
Kanawha City,
Oakridge Drive area

 Thursday = South
Hills, Corridor G

 Friday = West Side,

North Charleston,
Route 21

 Bulky, tires, etc. also

collected T-F

 Dumpster crew S/M

Trash & Recycling
Collection Routes

Charleston MSW Collections (2019)

6
 Households Serviced:  City collects from
18,000 residential properties
Material Tons Gen/HH/
with 12 or less dwelling
Yr. (lbs.) units
Trash* 24,129 2,681  Provides dumpster
Recyclables 631 70 service to 67 facilities &
Yard waste 1,841 205 properties
White goods 125 14  3 cy, rear-loader collection
Tires 37 4  Yard wastes no longer
Totals: 26,763 2,974 processed into mulch
* = Less estimated 562 tons of trash collected
from dumpster routes

3
Appendix C 11/29/2020

Recycling Collections
7

Recycling in Charleston (Recent History)

8

 Curb-sort program until

2014 (with KCSWA)
 Single-stream with RCSWA
2014-2020
 City-provided clear bags,
eliminated 2019
 $400,000 annual savings
 Recycling suspended April
2020 due to COVID-19
related closure at RCSWA
 Recycling resumed
September 28th

4
Appendix C 11/29/2020

Curbside Recycling Service Levels

9
 Frequency = 1x/week
 Daily Routes:
Day of T W T F
Week
No. 2 3 3 2
Routes

 Rear-loader trucks
 Manual collections using 3-
person crews
 Delivered to RCSWA MRF in
Beckley (60+ mile one-way
Photo credit: Kanawha County Solid Waste Authority
trip)

Curbside Recyclables
10
 Collection containers: Aluminum Cans
 Resident-provided bins
 Resident-provided Steel Cans
container
 See-through bags Mixed Paper

 Set-outs must be:

Cardboard
 48-gallons or less
 40 lbs. or less PET (#1) Plastics
 No item limit
HDPE (#2) Plastics

Glass Bottles & Jars

10

5
Appendix C 11/29/2020

Kanawha County Solid Waste

Authority (KCSWA)
11
 Residential and small
business drop-off at
Slack Street
 Also receives curbside
recyclables from Belle &
St. Albans
 Accepts source-separated
recyclables
 Consolidation & baling
operation at Eden’s Ford

11

Collections: Yard & Dispatch

12
 MSW observations
September 1st, 2nd & 3rd
 Crews report by 7 a.m.
 COVID temp checks
 Crews muster with route
supervisors
 Truck pre-trips
performed in lower lot

12

6
Appendix C 11/29/2020

Collections: Fleet
13
 32 Active vehicles
 16 rear-load packers
 All models 20-cubic yards
 Average model year = 2016
 Average miles = 51,552
 10 stake-bed style trucks
 All 1-ton capacity
 Average model year = 2016
 Average miles = 51,207

 6 crew chief/supervisory
 Average model year = 2014
 Average miles = 53,552

 2 compartmentalized
recycling trucks

13

Collection Observations: Recycling

14
 Curbside recycling still
officially suspended
during MSW
Consultants’ visit
 Extremely light set-out
(<10 set-outs during full
day’s route audit)
 Some residents likely
storing materials until
services resume

14

7
Appendix C 11/29/2020

Collection Observations: Recycling

15

Crews instructed to dispose of OCC

due to concerns over moisture.

15

Collection Observations: Charleston Topography

16

Narrow Roads Steep Grades

16

8
Appendix C 11/29/2020

Key Recycling Metrics: (where we are vs. where we

can go)
17

Metric Charleston Optimized

Program*
Lbs./HH/Yr. 70 458

Participation 19.5% 85%

Rate
Processing $175 $80-$125
Cost Per Ton

* Source: The Recycling Partnership; MSW Consultants

17

MSW Consultants’ Observations

18

But first, a word about other

curbside collection services:

18

9
Appendix C 11/29/2020

Collection Observations: Unlimited Set-outs

19

19

Collection Observations: Yard Waste

20

20

10
Appendix C 11/29/2020

Collection Observations: Bulky & Scrap Metals

21

21

Collection Observations: Multi-Family

22

22

11
Appendix C 11/29/2020

MSW Consultants’ Observations

23

 Recycling collection programs function most

effectively when:
 Large recycling bins or carts
 Convenience

 Consistent, clear and ongoing public education and

outreach
 Recycling collection provided as part of a utility rate
structure
 Recycling is incentivized

 Strong industry push towards automated collections

23

Recyclables Processing
24

24

12
Appendix C 11/29/2020

Raleigh County Solid Waste Authority

(RCSWA)
25
 Recyclables processor  $175 processing fee 2020
since 2014  MRF processes ~2,600
 Operates drop-off center tons per year (facility
network (including runs at ~20% capacity)
Raleigh County schools)
 60 mile one-way trip
 $0 processing fee until
2020 (subsidized by
landfill tipping fees)
RCSWA Material Recovery Facility

25

RCSWA - MRF
26

Infeed System & Sort Line Paper Bunker

26

13
Appendix C 11/29/2020

RCSWA - MRF
27

Bale Storage Drop-off Bin

27

RCSWA – Educational Center

28

28

14
Appendix C 11/29/2020

RCSWA – Observation Room

29

29

MSW Consultants’ Observations: RCSWA

30

Benefits Drawbacks

 Availability  ~60 mile one-way trip

 Single-stream system  High processing price
 Stability  Labor-intensive
 Extra capacity processing system

30

15
Appendix C 11/29/2020

Kanawha County Solid Waste Authority (KCSWA)

31
 City’s recyclables processor
until 2014
 Recyclables processed
(tons per year):
2010 2015 2017 2019
7,242 625 585 287
Source: KCSWA & WV SWMB

 Annual budget =
~$100,000 (includes DEP
REAP funds, materials
sales)
 Source-separated system

31

KCSWA – Slack Street

32

Bales Awaiting Shipment Covered Storage

32

16
Appendix C 11/29/2020

KCSWA – Eden’s Ford

33

Baling Operation &

Baler & Bobcat
Storage

33

KCSWA – Eden’s Ford

34

Baler & Bobcat Push wall & Materials

34

17
Appendix C 11/29/2020

MSW Consultants’ Observations: KCSWA

35

Benefits Drawbacks

 Local resource  Source-separated

 ~1 mile to facility processing system
 High-quality materials  Scalability & cash flow

 Sufficient parcel for  No existing structure

facility development

35

Contracts Overview
36

36

18
Appendix C 11/29/2020

Recyclables Processing (RCSWA)

37
 MOU between City &  MOU silent on key
RCSWA effective recyclables processing
September 28, 2020 – contract terms:
June 30, 2021  Recyclables market value
 Parties resolve to  Revenue share
reassess pricing and  Materials composition
work toward new  City not incentivized to
agreement for FY 2022 deliver clean recyclables
 $175 per ton stream

37

Education & Outreach Overview

38

38

19
Appendix C 11/29/2020

Recycling Outreach Materials

39

Downloadable Recycling
Recycling Guide
Bin Decal

39

Recycling Outreach Materials

40

Recycling FAQ Other

 Community Resource
Guide
 Fire & Refuse Fees
FAQ

40

20
Appendix C 11/29/2020

Recycling Outreach Materials: Social Media

41

https://www.facebook.com/CityCharlest
onWV/photos/2717739008480885

41

Outreach Review: KCSWA Resources

42
 https://www.facebook.co
m/KanawhaCountySWA

42

21
Appendix C 11/29/2020

MSW Consultants’ Observations: Outreach

43

 Greater staffing and resources commitment is

needed
 Recycling guide not impactful
 Materials are difficult to locate on City’s website

 Information not routinely updated

43

Benchmarking (in-progress)
44

44

22
Appendix C 11/29/2020

Benchmarking Cities
45

City State Population Households

Annapolis MD 39,223 15,664

Harrisburg PA 49,271 20,520

Huntington WV 45,110 19,755

Morgantown WV 30,549 10,522

Parkersburg WV 29,306 13,152

= State capital

45

Benchmarking Cities: System & Financials

46

Residential Collection
Financials
Systems

City Service City Solid Monthly

Provider Waste Rate*
Charleston City Budget

Annapolis City Charleston $3.29 M $18.00

Harrisburg City Annapolis $3.28 M $22.83

Huntington City Harrisburg $32.34

Morgantown Republic Services Huntington $3.63 M

(exclusive Morgantown $1.46 M
franchise) Parkersburg $2.58 M $16.00
Parkersburg City
* Rate for all solid waste services.

46

23
Appendix C 11/29/2020

Benchmarking Cities: Recycling Collections

47

City Frequency Container Types

Charleston Weekly Personal containers &

bags
Annapolis Weekly Carts

Harrisburg Weekly Bins

Huntington Weekly N/A (drop-off program)

Morgantown Weekly Carts

Parkersburg Weekly Bins

47

48

Benchmarking City Trash Recyc. YW Total Recyc.

MSW Rate
Cities:
Charleston x x x x x
Performance &
Services Annapolis x x x x x

Harrisburg x x x x x
Benchmarking to allow
Huntington x x x x x
quantitative
comparisons of Morgantown x x x x x
tonnage, generation,
Parkersburg x x x x x
recycling rates, etc.

Also will examine

qualitative program
features:

o Recycling container
types

o Outreach &
education programs

48

24
Appendix C 11/29/2020

MSW Consultants’ Observations

49

 Do benchmarking cities provide more

comprehensive services?
 Do rates adequately cover costs of service?
 Best management practices among benchmarking
cities?

49

Cost of Service Estimate

50

50

25
Appendix C 11/29/2020

Recycling Direct Costs

51

 Pro-Forma direct cost estimate:

 Collection vehicle capital cost
 Collection vehicle O&M cost

 Labor and fringes

 Recyclables processing costs

 Analysis does not allocate administrative & overhead

costs
 Analysis excludes additional collection services
 No attempt made to validate current rates

51

52
Truck Capital Costs
Cost of Service Metrics Current
Estimate: Cost per Truck $142,000
Truck Capital, Trucks Needed (w/ One Spare) 4
O&M Total Capital Cost $568,000
Useful Life (Years) 7
Annualized Capital Cost $81,143

Truck O&M Costs

Metrics Current
Routes 3
O&M Cost/Route $33,540
Total O&M Cost $100,620

52

26
Appendix C 11/29/2020

53

Current
Cost of Service
Avg Wage &
Estimate:
Position Benefits Count Annual Cost
Labor
Sanitation Crew Leader $61,550 1 $61,550
Sanitation Driver $46,267 4 $185,067
Sanitation Worker $42,089 8 $336,713
Total 13 $583,331

53

54

Cost of Service Processing Costs

Estimate: Parameter Current
Recyclables Recycling Tonnage 631
Processing Processing Per Ton $175.00
Total Processing Cost $110,425

54

27
Appendix C 11/29/2020

55
Scenario Cost Summary
Cost of Service Metric Current
Estimate: Set-Out Rate 25%
Total Pro- Number of Routes 3
Forma Annualized Capital Cost $81,143
Vehicle O&M Cost $100,620
Labor Cost $583,331
Processing Cost $110,425
Total $875,519
Households 18,000
Annual Cost per HH $48.64
Monthly Cost per HH $4.05
Recycling Tonnage 631
Cost per Ton $1,388

55

Optimized Recycling
56

56

28
Appendix C 11/29/2020

Achieving Regional Recycling Critical Mass

57
 Potential recyclables
Est.
generation sufficient to
Jurisdiction Pop. # HH Tons support expanded
City of
Charleston
46,536 21,970 5,042
regional recyclables
Kanawha 131,588 57,467 13,189 processing capacity
County (less
Charleston)  Based on 459 lbs. per
All others (9) 289,351 118,196 27,126 household per year
Totals: 467,475 197,633 45,357
(optimized program with
glass)
 Scale matters

57

High-Performing Recycling Programs Have:

58

Outreach,
Sufficient Efficient & Fair, education &
Convenient
management full-service transparent & enforcement
processing @
& admin. curbside sustainable (affect
resources collection proper scale funding behavior
change)

58

29
Appendix C 11/29/2020

High-Performing Recycling in Charleston?

59
 Optimized curbside  More dynamic program
collection services education and outreach
 Standard recycling  Mobile apps
containers  On-line presence
 Carts-based collections  Coordination with KC
School district
 Develop more cost-
effective processing  Dedicated recycling
capacity coordinator
 Clear and transparent fee
and incentive to recycle

59

Next Steps
60

60

30
Appendix C 11/29/2020

Questions
61

61

31
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Charleston
 APPENDIX D
Project Findings & Recommendations Meeting
1/06/2021

City of Charleston
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Charleston
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Recycling Program
Feasibility Study
1

PROJECT FINDINGS &

RECOMMENDATIONS MEETING

CITY OF CHARLESTON, WV

JANUARY 6, 2021

Introduction
2

 Management consultant
specializing in the
municipal waste sector
 Solid waste master
planning, recycling&
composting, rate studies,
collection optimization,
procurement support
 Engaged by City in
August 2020 to perform
recycling optimization
study.

Appendix D 1
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Objectives
3

 Present Project Findings

 Offer Consultant Recommendations

Project Phases & Key Tasks

4

Phase 1 – Phase 2 – ID and

Phase 3 -
Initiation & Info. Evaluate Phase 4 (optional)
Reporting
Gathering Alternatives
• Kickoff & info • Analyze • Draft report • Customer
request collection system • Final report Survey
• Operations and alternatives • Presentation
assessment • Analyze
• CoS estimate recyclables
• Contracts review processing
• Educational • Recycling
review education &
public outreach
• Ordinance
review
• Benchmarking
• Working
meeting

Appendix D 2
Appendix D 1/14/2021

State of Recycling in West Virginia

5
 West Virginia Recycling Act
created in 1989
 Goal of 50% reduction per capita
disposal by 2010 (1991 base year)
 Curbside recycling required for
municipalities of 10,000 or more
 Key challenges (per SWMB):
 Low population density
 Low materials volumes/high unit
costs for many centers
 Access to end markets
 Low material values
 2018 to present: Export market
restrictions and disruptions

Evolution of Local Govt Recycling Mindset

6

Legacy Viewpoint Market-Based Viewpoint

Curbside recycling programs

Recycling is an offshoot of long- are providers of a specialized
standing trash collection feedstock for U.S.
programs designed to get wastes manufacturers of products
out of neighborhoods and keep and packaging in a
the city clean competitive, global, circular
economy

Appendix D 3
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Features of High-Performing Recycling

Programs:
7

Outreach,
Sufficient Efficient & Fair, education &
Convenient
management full-service transparent & enforcement
processing @
& admin. curbside sustainable (affect
proper scale
resources collection funding behavior
change)

Management and
Administration
8

Appendix D 4
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Optimal Organizational Management &

Administration
9

Recycling
Deputy Director Operations Manager
Coordinator
• Organizational • Management • Policy & planning
management experience (of first- • Program education
• Strategic planning line supervisors & & outreach
• Procurement & crews) • Communications &
budgets • Routing systems marketing
• Fleet management • Fleet management • Recycling markets
• Routing systems • Customer service awareness
• Active membership • Grants
in trade and administration
professional • Active in trade and
associations professional
associations

Collection
10

10

Appendix D 5
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Charleston Refuse & Recycling Overview

11
 Households serviced:
~18,000
Material Tons Gen/HH/
Yr. (lbs.)
 City collects from
Refuse* 24,129 2,681
residential properties
Recyclables 631 70
with 12 or less dwelling
Yard waste 1,841 205
units
White goods 125 14
Tires 37 4
Totals: 26,763 2,974

* = Less estimated 562 tons of trash collected

from dumpster routes

11

Curbside Recyclables
12
 Single-stream Aluminum Cans
 Collection containers:
 Resident-provided bins Steel Cans

 Resident-provided
container Mixed Paper
 See-through bags
Cardboard

PET (#1) Plastics

HDPE (#2) Plastics

Glass Bottles & Jars

12

Appendix D 6
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Best Practices: No Plastic Bags

13

Photo credit: The Recycling Partnership

13

Best Practices: Standardized Containers

14

Recycling Bins Recycling Carts

14

Appendix D 7
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Key Recycling Metrics: (where we are vs.

where we can go)
15

Metric Current Optimized

System Program*
Lbs./HH/Yr. 70 458

Total Tons 650 5,000

Participation 19.5% 85%

Rate
Processing $175 $80-$125
Cost Per Ton
* Source: The Recycling Partnership; MSW Consultants

15

Optimized Recycling: Achieving Regional

Critical Mass
16

16

Appendix D 8
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Optimized Recycling: Achieving Regional

Critical Mass
17
 Scale matters
 Potential recyclables
generation sufficient to
support expanded
regional recyclables
processing capacity
 (But…local and county
governments will need to
commit to collection of
materials)

17

MSW Consultants’ Observations

18

But first, a word about other

curbside collection services:

18

Appendix D 9
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Collection System Overview

19

Service Truck Type Crew Size Routes Per

Day
Residential Trash Rear-load 3 10

Bulky Stake bed/rear- 2 5

load

Residential Rear-load 3 2 to 3
Recycling

Tires Stake bed 2 2

Total 20

19

Collections: Fleet
20

20

Appendix D 10
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Collection Observations: Charleston Topography

21

Narrow Roads Steep Grades

21

Collection Observations: Unlimited Set-outs

22

22

Appendix D 11
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Collection Observations: Yard Waste

23

23

Collection Observations: Bulky & Scrap Metals

24

24

Appendix D 12
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Collection Observations: Multi-Family

25

25

MSW Consultants’ Observations

26

 Recycling collection programs function most

effectively when:
 Large recycling bins or carts
 Convenience

 Consistent, clear and ongoing public education and

outreach
 Recycling collection provided as part of a utility rate
structure
 Recycling is incentivized

 Strong industry push towards automated collections

26

Appendix D 13
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Carts-Based Collections Options

27

Semi-Automated Fully-Automated

27

Carts-Based Collections in Mountainous Terrain

28

28

Appendix D 14
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Recyclables Processing

29

29

Raleigh County Solid Waste Authority

(RCSWA)
30

RCSWA Building RCSWA Infeed & Sort Line

Single stream processor relying on mostly manual sorting.

30

Appendix D 15
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Kanawha County Solid Waste

Authority (KCSWA)
31

Eden’s Ford Baling

Slack Street Drop-Off Area
Operation

KCSWA can only accept & process source-separated recyclables.

31

RCSWA Contract
32

 $175 per ton processing

fee
 Term through June 30,
2021 with one-year
extension
 650 tons (RCSWA
through-put = ~2,400
tpy)

32

Appendix D 16
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Alternative: Transfer and Long Haul

33

Floor Load Top Load

33

Alternative: New Recyclables Processing Facility

34

34

Appendix D 17
Appendix D 1/14/2021

35

Recyclables
Processing
Parameters *
 10,000 tons per
year
 Footprint:
 15,000 sq. ft
building
 ~$1 Million capital
cost for equipment
 Estimated
processing costs:
 $25 per ton capital
(5 years)
 $70 per ton
operating

* Based on vendor-provided pro forma materials

35

Mobile MRF
36

 Emerging technology
 Targeting rural regions
via a “hub and spoke”
approach to recycling
 Well funded
 $400k capital cost

36

Appendix D 18
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Benchmarking
37

37

Benchmarking Cities
38

City State Households*

Charleston WV 21,970

Annapolis MD 15,664

Harrisburg PA 20,520

Huntington WV 17,755

Morgantown WV 10,522

Parkersburg WV 13,152

= State capital
* = Includes multi-family HH

38

Appendix D 19
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Benchmarking Cities: System & Financials

39

City Service Solid Waste Employees Monthly

Provider Budget (FY Residential
2021) Rate
Charleston City $3.29 M 66 $18.00
Annapolis Contractor $3.28 M 4 $22.83
Harrisburg City $16.1 M* 68 $32.34
Huntington City $3.63 M 37 $20.00
Morgantown Contractor $1.53 M $19.80
Parkersburg City $2.58 M 24 $16.00

* Harrisburg also provides commercial collection services, street sweeping, litter abatement, etc.

39

Benchmarking Cities: Recycling Collections

40

City Frequency Container Types

Charleston Weekly Personal containers &

bags
Annapolis Weekly Carts & bins (city-
provided)
Harrisburg Weekly Bins (city-provided)

Huntington N/A N/A (drop-off program)

Morgantown Weekly Carts (hauler-provided)

Parkersburg Weekly Bins (city-provided)

40

Appendix D 20
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Benchmarking Cities: Recycling Coordinator?

41

City Recycling
Coordinator
Charleston Yes (temp term;
grant-funded)
Annapolis Yes (also includes
sustainability coord.
duties)
Harrisburg Yes (also other SW
planning duties)
Huntington No
Morgantown No
Parkersburg No

41

Cost of Service Estimate

42

42

Appendix D 21
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Current Rates
43

 Sanitation conforms with

utility business model
Customer Monthly Annual  Charged on utility bill
Class Rate Rate
Residential $18.00 $216.00  Customers have no
visibility of underlying
Non-residential:
service cost
Curbside $25.00 $300.00  18,000 customers x
Dumpster $40.00 $480.00 $216/year = $3.9 million
 FY19 actual spend of $3.8
million
 FY20 budget of $3.57 million

43

Current System Direct Cost-of-Service

44

Scenario Cost Summary

Metric Current
Set-Out Rate 25%
Number of Routes 3
Annualized Capital Cost $81,143
Vehicle O&M Cost $100,620
Labor Cost $583,331
Processing Cost $110,425
Total $875,519
Households 18,000
Annual Cost per HH $48.64
Monthly Cost per HH $4.05
Recycling Tonnage 631

44

Appendix D 22
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Funding Best Practices

45

 Perform full cost-of-service and rate study for entire

sanitation system
 Recognize the importance of pricing to drive
recycling and waste reduction behavior
Differential Refuse Cart Sizes… …enable PAYT Rate Structure

Refuse Container Price Per

Size Month

30 - 35 gal. $16.00

95 gal. 60 - 65 gal. $20.00

65 gal.
35 gal.
90 - 96 gal. $24.00

45

Education & Outreach

46

46

Appendix D 23
Appendix D 1/14/2021

MSW Consultants’ Observations

47

 Branding
 Commitment to resources
 Mailers
 PSAs
 Social Media

 Public education baseline cost range from $1.50 to

$2.50 per HH per year
 May increase in years where major program changes are
implemented
 MSW Consultants recommends comprehensive
strategy (Section 5.1 of report)

47

Recycling Container Monitoring

48
 Direct feedback
programs are being
rapidly established as a
best practice to maintain
cleanliness of curbside
single stream recyclables

 Very effective when

municipalities also have
proper policies to remove
misbehavers from the
program

48

Appendix D 24
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Optimized Recycling
49

49

High-Performing Recycling in Charleston

50
 Specialized, trained and  Clear and transparent fee
empowered management and incentive to recycle
staff for sanitation and  More dynamic program
recycling education and outreach
 Optimized curbside  Mobile apps
collection services  On-line presence
 Carts-based collections  Coordination with KC
 Access to cost-effective School district
processing capacity

50

Appendix D 25
Appendix D 1/14/2021

51

Scenario Cost Summary

Optimized
Metric Current Optimized
Recycling Cost
Set-Out Rate 25% 65%
of Service
Number of Routes 3 6
Estimate
Annualized Capital Cost $81,143 $142,000
Vehicle O&M Cost $100,620 $201,240
Labor Cost $583,331 $1,166,661
Processing Cost $110,425 $162,000
Total $875,519 $1,671,901
Households 18,000 18,000
Annual Cost per HH $48.64 $92.88
Monthly Cost per HH $4.05 $7.74
Recycling Tonnage 631 1,800

51

Recommendations & Implementation: Year 1

52

 Financially Sustainable: C-O-S & Rate Study

 Confirm rates cover full costs and make appropriate adjustments
 Set rate path to accrue surplus for recycling system optimization
 Organizational Management: Define senior
management staffing needs (and recruit new or train
existing staff as necessary)
 Optimize Collection System:
 Rebalance routes
 Establish set-out limits
 Develop Comprehensive Public Outreach
Program:
 Messaging, materials, social media
 Community outreach, Green Team, public schools
 Also ramp up to educate on possible system changes…

52

Appendix D 26
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Recommendations & Implementation: Year 1

53

 Secure Supplemental Funding: Connect with

potential grant funding organizations
 The Recycling Partnership
 Closed Loop Partners
 Leverage the Region: Initiate regional recycling
network (with surrounding cities and counties)

53

Recommendations & Implementation: Year 2

54

 Customer Surveys: Validate acceptance of specific

recycling program details
 Yard Waste Collections: Assess feasibility of
restarting program
 Contracting: Revisit recyclables processing contract
with RCSWA
 Pilot Testing: Cart-based recycling collection
 (also appropriate set-out limits for refuse & bulk)
 Procurements: Test the market for cost of processing
options
 Transfer and haul to RCSWA
 New single stream recycling facility

54

Appendix D 27
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Recommendations & Implementation: Year 3

55

 Recyclables Processing: Commission new

processing facility or new transfer station for
recyclables to RCSWA
 Automated Collection: Upgrade collection fleet to
increase automation
 Pilot test full automation for some refuse and recycling
 Standard Containers: Procure standard recycling
(and refuse?) carts

55

Conclusion
56

The City of Charleston has a unique

opportunity to implement best practices for a
high-functioning recycling program that
 Creates jobs (processing, end-users)
 Recovers critical commodity feedstocks for
U.S. manufacturers
 Enhances quality of life and creates a sense of
place
 Establishes Charleston as the recycling
leader in the region and throughout West Virginia

56

Appendix D 28
Appendix D 1/14/2021

Questions
57

57

Appendix D 29
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Charleston
11875 High Tech Avenue, Suite 150, Orlando, FL 32817
800.679.9220 | mswconsultants.com