HomeMy WebLinkAboutChambersburg Recycling Problems
THE BOROUGH OF CHAMBERSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA:
PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS OF THE BOROUGHS
RECYCLING PROGRAM
Group Research Project
G. Bryan Salzmann! Esquire! M.S.
Professor of Environmental Law
Shippensburg University
December 2! 1996
Prepared by:
Tosha Ohar
Brandy Gontz
Ed Holland
Deborah Henson
INDEX
I. Introduction
PaS!e#
1-2
II. Scope and Purpose
2
III. Statement of Hypothesis
3
IV. Research Methodology
3
V. Laws Regulating Recycling
4
VI. Background Information on The Borough
of Chambersburg's Recycling Program
5-6
v. Problems with the Boroughs Recycling Program
6-7
VI. Analysis of Other Recycling Programs
7-9
VII. Pay-Per Bag
1 0-1 1
VIII. Solutions for Chambersburg
12-1 4
IX. Conclusion
14-16
X. References Cited
17-18
XI. Appendix
ABSTRACT
The objective of this paper is to give the Borough of Chambersburg
suggestions on how they might improve the Boroughs recycling program.
Suggestions have been made after studying various other programs and
conducting background research on recycling.
INTRODUCTION
Packaging protects what consumers buy, preserves food, makes life
easier. The same items which make life easier have caused one of the nations
largest environmental problems: municipal solid waste. According to the
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, annual municipal solid waste generated
in 1960 was 88 million tons, by 1988 the figure had doubled to approximately 180
million tons per year. The EPA now estimates by the year 2000 the United States
will generate 216 million tons of municipal solid waste annually. In the past little
regard has been given to what would happen when the landfills were full. The
United States is currently facing the problem of where to dump its waste.
Currently the majority of the U.S. population lives where there are fewer than ten
years of landfill capacity left (Stillwell, Canty, Kopf, and Montrone, 1991). The
reality is landfills are closing, waste is increasing, and there is fast becoming no
room for the nation's garbage.
Recycling has become the solution that may help to reduce the amount of
waste placed in landfills. The various components of packaging which are
recyclable are aluminum, wood, steel, glass, plastics, and paper. Americans
have responded positively to recycling and separating trash and have started
using "green" or environmentally friendly products which are usually packaged in
recycled material. However, while many Americans understand the
environmental problems the nation faces, changing our lifestyles is not something
that comes easily. The American people, as consumers, have become a
throwaway society. Americans purchase items based on a products convenience
and while concerned with the environment give little thought to what happens to
these disposable items and the impact the items have on the environment.
Reducing the number of disposable items purchased is one way to help reduce
the municipal solid waste being sent to landfills. Recycling is another alternative
to sending municipal solid waste to landfills.
Cities across the United States have developed recycling programs to help
decrease the amount of municipal solid waste being placed in landfills. Many of
these cities have been successful, others have not. The Borough of
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania (Map 1, appendix A) has developed a recycling
program that according to Borough officials is not successful.
SCOPE AND PURPOSE
This document is intended to provide an evaluation and analysis of the
current recycling program established for the Borough of Chambersburg, Franklin
County, Pennsylvania. According to Borough officials the recycling program is
not as effective and efficient as the program could be. Background research of
the recycling program and personal interviews with Borough officials and
residents provided data from which suggestions for improving the recycling
program have been concluded. Comparison of the Borough's recycling program
is compared to the recycling program currently being used by the town of
Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania and other communities throughout the country.
2
STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS
Prior to conducting research into the Borough of Chambers burg's recycling
program our group discussed issues that we believed may be problematic for the
Borough. Based on our groups existing knowledge of recycling it was concluded
that potential problems of the Borough's recycling program were recyclable
materials not being recycled, the existing program was not being run efficiently,
and education could be improved. We also believed that there was no market for
recyclable materials other than aluminum and therefore the Borough could not
make money to sustain the recycling program.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Proper analysis of the Borough recycling program required extensive
background research. Background information on recycling and recycling
programs was obtained from the Ezra Lehman Memorial Library of Shippensburg
University, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the
Borough of Chambersburg, and the Internet. Personal interviews were
kc.v~
conducted with Borough Manager, Julio Lacuana, and Borough Engineerl
Director of Public Works, Robert Wagner to obtain an understanding of how the
recycling program is organized and problems the Borough is encountering.
Franklin County Recycling Coordinator, Sherry Clayton, provided information on
problems involving the types of recyclable materials currently recycled and those
that may be an alternative, giving the program better results.
3
LAWS REGULATING RECYCLING
On July 28, 1988 Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey signed the
Pennsylvania Municipal Waste Planning, Recycling and Waste Reduction Act,
also known as Act 101. This legislation seeks to fulfill four main goals:
1. Reduce waste flow.
2. Recycle at least twenty-five percent of waste generated.
3. Produce and use recycled and recyclable materials.
4. Educated the public concerning recycling and waste reduction.
Under Act 101, Phase I communities, those with a population often thousand or
more, were required to have curbside recycling programs in place by September
26, 1990. At least three recyclable materials must be selected from a list of eight.
Phase II communities, all those with a population of five to ten thousand people or
those having a population density of three hundred people per square mile, were
required to meet the same standards by September, 1991.
In addition, commercial, municipal, and institutional establishments were
required to recycle aluminum, cardboard, high grade office paper, and any other
materials designated by individual municipalities ordinances (Moore Recycling
Associates, Inc., 1992). Individual municipalities may adopt resolutions,
ordinances, regulations, and standards for the recycling however, they cannot be
less stringent than the Solid Waste Management Act and Act 101 (PA Code 53,
Section 4000.304).
4
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE BOROUGH OF CHAMBERSBURG'S
RECYCLING PROGRAM
The Borough of Chambersburg began a recycling program on ~e~
1, 1990. Under the Borough of Chambersburg's recycling program all residential
and commercial establishments must separate and recycle aluminum cans, clear
/vo'
glass, and colored glass. In additi~all residential and commercial
establishments must separate cardboard and office paper from regular recycling.
The Borough provides each residence and commercial establishment with three
recycling containers. These containers are the responsibility of the property
owner and should always remain with the property. If the containers are lost or
stolen it is the responsibility of the p~operty owner to replace the containers.
Recycling containers are to be placed at the curbside of the street or alley at the
same location where other solid waste for the property is collected. Collection of
recyclabre material is made once a month and containers are not allowed to be
placed curbside more than 24 hours prior to collection. Once the recyclable
materials have been placed for collection the recyclables become the property of
the Borough of Chambersburg. Anyone, not authorized by the Borough, found
removing recyclable material from the curbside is subject to a fine not less than
twenty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars or thirty days in jail under the
Borough Refuse Ordinance No. 90-9. Prior to placing recyclable material for
collection. Preparation includes crushing of aluminum cans and removal of lids
from all glass. Labels may remain on containers and glass jars and bottles are
not to be broken.
5
Property owners are required to pay for collection, transportation and
/)
disposal of recyclable materials along with regular refuse on a monthly basis. Qf
recyclable materials exceed the capacity of the three recycling containers 1,/-0
provided by the Borough the property owner must purchase a tag to be placed on
the additional recyclables\ Property owners and/or tenants of the property who
/
violate Borough Refuse Ordinance No. 90-9, will be subject to not less than a
twenty five dollar fine nor more than a one thousand dollar fine or thirty days in
the county jail.
(j)
PROBLEMS WITH THE BOROUGHS RECYCLING PROGRAM
The recycling program Borough residents are to follow appears to be
simple and straight forward. Discussions with Borough officials however, indicate
the recycling program is not successful, primarily due to residents not recycling.
Lt.~
Lacuana stated, "The current rate of recycling is fourteen percent." Clayton
believes the reason recycling rates are low is due to the selection of items the
Borough recycles. Clayton suggested the Borough select items for recycling
residents would be more willing to recycle. "Plastic should definitely be recycled
rather than aluminum." Clayton said. The amount of aluminum recycled indicates
residents may be recycling aluminum themselves rather than turning it over to the
Borough for recycling. Although under Section 20 F of the Recycling Ordinance it
is illegal to remove municipal solid waste once it has been placed curbside for
collection, aluminum is sometimes removed by those who will recycle it and
6
collect the money themselves. According to Steve Gray, a property and business
owner in the Borough of Chambersburg, this is a regular occurrence.
Lacuana believes the Borough does not have enough "manpower" to
properly enforce the laws involving recycling. "On occasion garbage bags are
torn open and the contents examined, however, this is time consuming and can
be dangerous to employees." said Lacuana. If a resident is found to have
sdJ.OrYl
violated the ordinance a warning is sometimes given but fines are ~issued.
The Borough requests financial assistance for the recycling program
through the DEP, according to Clayton. The amount of money municipalities
receive each year for recycling programs can change and thus the amount of
money received by the Borough may change. This effects the Borough's
equipment and the number of employees working on the program. Clayton also
believes that education is key in any successful recycling program and the
Borough of Chambersburg needs to establish an improved education program.
ANALYSIS OF OTHER RECYCLING PROGRAMS
Several case studies of various recycling programs were reviewed and by
demographic comparison Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania was selected as the most
similar community to compare with the Borough of Chambersburg. Comparison
of Chambersburg and Bloomsburg was made based on five categories:
population, age, sex, race, education, and class of worker (Figures 1-6, appendix
A).
7
In 1977 Volunteer Recycling, Inc. (VRI) began a voluntary recycling
program and by 1984 had implemented a mandatory recycling program.
Mandatory recycling was a condition for receiving a $150,000 grant from the
Department of Environmental Resources ,DER. The grant funded building of a
recycling center and a down stroke baler. Curbside service was provided by VRI
,!:.
for Bloomsburg and surrounding areas and contracts were held with Bloomsburg,<-, J&I~'/
. .
University and other commercial establishments. In 1990, VRI ceased operation
and the Town of Bloomsburg accepted responsibility for the recycling program.
The town currently collects aluminum, and steel/bimetal cans, all colors of
glass, newsprint, PET (recyclable plastics), and corrugated cardboard.
Bloomsburg has continued to build a successful recycling program with the
assistance of grants originally funded by the DER. These grants have allowed
the Town of Bloomsburg to purchase a recycling truck, plastic granulator,
educational material, cargo trucks and build additions to the recycling center.
The community of Bloomsburg is divided into five collection zones.
Collection times are spaced throughout the month for each of the five zones.
This eliminates all recyclable materials for the community being brought to the
recycling center at the same time. Materials are collected in the beginning of the
week and then processed at the recycling center by the end of each collection
week. Bloomsburg markets all recycled material collected (Moore Recycling,
1992). Aluminum goes to Alcoa, granulated PET is sent to St. Jude Polymer,
Frackville, PA., all glass is shipped to Owens Brockway, Clarion, PA. Corrugated
cardboard and newsprint is sent to a number of markets.
8
Bloomsburg's recycling program has proven to be extremely successful in
complying with Act 101, in 1991, when this study was conducted, the recycling
rate was 21.7%. Factors that have led to success of the program have been;
allowing sufficient time for processing and re-routing the flow of materials through
the facility allowing for more effective collection and processing of recyclables,
change in collection routes, reduction in work staff and marketing, and DER
grants. Grants have eliminated the cost for capital expenditures and the
associated amortization for that equipment (Moore Recycling, 1992).
The Borough of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, has a
population of 20,000. Carlisle has managed to achieve recycling rates of 32%
and saved $83,504 in disposal costs during the first forty weeks of the program
which began in July, 1990. Recyclable materials which may be placed for
collection are glass, newspaper, corrugated paper, plastics, and
aluminum/bimetallic cans. The participation rate for this program ranges from 90-
95% (Davis,1991). Success of Carl isles' recycling program can be attributed to
an emphasis on waste reduction, a thorough education program, citizen
participation in the planning process, and a per-bag collection fee as a recycling
incentive.
Carlisle began an educational recycling program in an elementary school
as part of the curriculum. Parents became involved by supervising the collection
of recyclable materials. Sixteen thousand pounds of materials had been recycled
by the end of the year and $400.00 had been collected for the school's treasury.
A contest was held for students to create a recycling logo, the winning logo is
9
now displayed on Carlisle's recycling containers. A survey conducted at the end
of the school year showed the majority of the parents had not recycled prior to the
program however, at the conclusion of the program 57 percent had started
recycling (Davis, 1991).
Pay-per bag is the key to Carlisle's recycling program. Pay-per bag, also
known as pay-as-you-throw, variable rate pricing, or unit pricing, is a system
under which residents pay for municipal waste management services per unit of
waste collected rather than through a fixed fee (EPA, 1994). Carlisle residents
purchase specially marked trash bags from local retailers for $2.10 each. This
cost covers the costs of waste collection and disposal and operation of the
curbside recycling program. The pay-per bag fee places responsibility on the
waste generator and provides an economic incentive to recycle.
PAY-PER BAG
Several agencies including , the National Conference of State Legislators,
the Reason Foundation, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, provide detailed documentaiton
on the benefit of unit based pricing or pay-per bag solid waste collection
strategies. The benefits of this type of program are (Canterbury, 1994):
1. Waste reduction of 25-45%
2. Reduced waste disposal costs - gains may need to be reinvested in the
recycling program for the program to improve.
10
3. Increased waste prevention - residents will begin to change buying and
disguarding habits.
4. Increased participation in composting and recycling programs -
decrease the amount of waste.
5. More equitable waste management fee structure - residents who
generate less waste will pay less for waste disposal.
6. Increased understanding of environmental issues in general.
Drawbacks are also associated with this program. Illegal dumping or burning of
waste to avoid additional fees are problems that have been associated with this
program. Any municipality starting a pay-per bag system should evaluate and
update burning and dumping ordinances and be prepared to enforce them.
The former DER's 1991 publication, Variable Trash Collection Rates,
states the combination of waste reduction, recycling, and composting can result in
the total amount of municipal solid waste placed in a landfill decreasing to 39
percent (Davis, 1991). Figure 7, appendix A, shows ideal circumstances in
recycling and waste reduction numbers that would lead to 39 percent of municipal
solid waste being placed in a landfill. Figure 8, appendix A, is the analysis of
recycling potential based upon nationwide averages of waste generation. Pay-
per bag or variable rate programs according to Davis, 1991, should help attain
ideal goals for recycling and reducing municipal waste.
11
SOLUTIONS FOR CHAMBERSBURG
With only a fourteen percent recycling rate the Borough of Chambersburg
is definitely not complying with the standards set out in Act 101. It is conceivable
the program can be successful with a few revisions. Analysis of Carlisle and
Bloomsburg provide ideas Chambersburg may wish to consider adopting to
improve their recycling program. The most important being the pay-per bag
incentive. Pay-per bag programs increase the percentage of municipal solid
waste recycled. If introduced properly to the community, the Borough of
Chambersburg should see an increase in the percentage of recyclable materials.
Proper introduction of a pay-per bag program should include a clear outline of the
program and how it will benefit the community. An added incentive to this
program may be taken from Seattle, Washington. While the demographics of
Seattle and Chambersburg are not comparable the concept of the pay-per bag
may be applied. Seattle has attained over a 55 percent recycling rate. Residents
are allowed to place one twenty gallon garbage can for collection each week, any
in excess are charged and additional collection fee. Recyclable materials are
also collected once a week however, recyclable collection is free (Environmental
Almanac, 1993). /
// }/o
Chambersburg charges additional fees for recyclable materials in excess
of what the recyclable containers will accommodate. Residents may be
discouraged to recycle all their recyclable materials if they have to pay additional
fees when they can easily place these additional recyclables in with regular
municipal solid waste. The Borough should reevaluate this system and look for
12
ways to encourage recycling by residents. If residents commonly have recyclable
~.
material in excess of the three recycling bins, residents should be allowed to ~e'i c
b(
purchase additional recycling bins and not"charged for additional pick up.
Aluminum is recycled in other programs and does not appear to decrease
recycling rates. Chambersburg may want to continue recycling aluminum
however, add a fourth recyclable, plastic. Glass, plastic, aluminum and paper all
I ,;J
~/\
have market value as was observed from the case study of Bloomsburg.
Chambersburg may want to research these markets further to increase revenue
which can be returned to the recycling program. Newspapers should also be
recycled. According to Robert Wagner, beef and dairy farms in the Cumberland
i;
.Ii
.c:...--
"i ;. I.'.t
,/~ .
yalley use newspaper as bedding for cattle. The sale of collected newspaper to
farmers would increase revenue for the recycling program as well.
Borough resident, Pete Guldin, suggests positive reinforcement for
mandatory recycling. Guldin proposes, "You have to make it worth while for
people to want to participate, you should offer a prize for those who recycle rather
than fines for those who do not." A random selection of households could be
made and the garbage from each household searched. If recyclable materials
i
6.'c
/7-~
. 'l~.c..
/'.'
were not found the household should be entered into a lottery and at the end of
each month one number would be drawn and a prize awarded. Guldin be lives
that if a program such as this were properly publicized it would create incentive to
participate in recycling.
According to the EPA a successful recycling program should have a
recycling coordinator and the municipality should form a team to brainstorm ideas
13
for reducing waste. The EPA also believes homes and businesses should
conduct waste assessments to determine how much of each recyclable item is
used in a certain time frame. Finally the EPA feels waste reduction goals should
be set and aimed at cost efficiency (EPA, 1994). If Chambersburg evaluates the
above suggestions the Borough should be able to incorporate the ideas into the
existing recycling program and create a program that will attain the 25 percent
recycling rate set forth by Act 101.
Bloomsburg was able to fund a large percentage of their recycling program
through grants from the former DER. DEP currently issues grants based on
innovative ideas for recycling. The Borough of Chambersburg could benefit
greatly from these grants which could help the Borough purchase newer and
more efficient equipment.
Education should also be a priority for improving the recycling program. A
school wide program should be implemented, possibly similar to the one used in
Carlisle. Carlisle was very successful in educating not only children but adults.
Education must start with the youth. Children tell parents what was learned in
school and will share recycling knowledge with adults who are not aware of the
importance of recycling. After all, the children of today are tomorrow's future;
understanding the necessity and importance for recycling is half the battle.
CONCLUSION
The Borough of Chambersburg currently has a fairly successful program
nevertheless, there are definitely aspects of the program that need to be
reevaluated. An overhaul of this nature however, takes time, technology and
14
funding. Cooperation of the Borough residents is also necessary. Therefore, as
Sherry Clayton stated, education is key when developing a successful recycling
program. The Borough must establish programs that will educate adults in the
community and help them to understand why it is important to recycle. The
Borough must also enforce recycling in the community. Recycling is not optional
for the residents, it is mandatory. The Borough does not help the program by not
enforcing Act 101. If the suggestion of Guldin to reward those who had no
recyclable materials in their garbage was incorporated into the program, property
owners found to be in violation of Act 101 should be fined according to the
Borough's ordinance 90-9. When the Borough does not enforce Act 101 they
send the wrong message to residents. Not taking action indicates to residents
that it is not an important issue, if it were they would be receiving fines for not
recycling. All members of the community must work together to make a change
which will make the recycling program work.
The Borough can undoubtedly have a successful recycling program.
Recycling usually does not generate a tremendous amount of revenue, what it
does generate should be placed back into the program. Unfortunately, Borough
officials want to see a profit for the Borough not the recycling program. Attitudes
about recycling must change if Chambers burg is to improve the recycling
program. Interviews with Borough officials indicated that they were not overly
concerned about the program. Borough officials stated the program was not
working but offered no suggestions to improve the program. Statements of "We
can't make it work", "It is not cost effective to run the program" and "The Borough
15
cannot enforce recycling policies" will not produce a successful program.
Ultimately it becomes the decision of the Borough as to whether the recycling
program will be changed to improve the program. Under the Waste Reduction,
Recovery, and Recycling Act it would seem that the Borough would be held
responsible if they did not force the residents to comply. If the DEP is not fining
the Borough for not attaining a 25 percent recycling rate, perhaps the problem
extends beyond the scope of the Borough. Recycling programs must be
supported at all levels; federal, state, and local if the public is expected to comply.
The Borough of Chambersburg can improve its recycling program with a
change in attitude and adjustments to its current program. Closer evaluation of
the suggestions provided in this paper may help to set the Chambersburg
recycling program on the track to success.
We were correct in hypothesizing the Chambersburg recycling program
was not being run efficiently and there is a need for educational programs
promoting recycling. We were incorrect however, about aluminum being the only
marketabl~ recyclable. We found in our research that all recyclable material has
a market. With the proper research into markets that are available all of
Chambersburgs recyclable material should be able to bring money back into the
recycling program.
16
REFERENCES CITED
Publications
Borough of Chambersburg, 1991, "Borough of Chambersburg: Recycling
Program" .
Canterbury, Janice L., 1994, "Pay as You Throw: Lessons Learned About Unit
Pricing", Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste.
Davis, Arthur A., 1991, "Variable Trash Collection Rates and Their Role in Waste
Reduction", Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental
Resources.
Environmental Almanac, 1993, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston and New York.
pp.52-53, 60-61.
Moore Recycling Associates, Inc., 1992, " Pennsylvania Municipal, Recycling
Costs: Eight Case Studies". The Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources.
Pennsylvania Code 53, " Municipal Waste Planning, Recycling and Reduction
Act:' July 28, 1988.
Stillwell, Joeseph E., Claire E. Canty, Peter W. Kopf, and Anthony M. Montrone,
1991, Packaging for the Environment: A Partnership for Progress, Arthur D.
Little, Inc., New York.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1994, "How to Start or Expand a
Recycling Collection Program".
Interviews
Sherry Clayton, Franklin County Recycling Coordinator, Franklin County
Pennsylvania. November 1996.
Steve Gray, Resident, Borough of Chambersburg. November 1996
Peter Guldin, Resident, Borough of Chambersburg, November 1996.
17
Robert Wagner, Borough Engineer/Director of Public Works, Borough of
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, October 1996.
Websites
htpp:/Itiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapbrowse-tbl
htpp:/Itiger. census. gov/cdrom/lookup/
18
APPENDIX
:'~:,,~",..~;... ~.- '('I ,t. ';' ~ \
. - ~./ '. ~#' v , . 'J \ I
, \ '--, -
. . ,>z' ' - \" ~ . ,
......'., ... .,.<<~ ~,... ~7 '\ I'"' ,
- .~. \.' '(.'"' ...~~\ \'-'Jl. '! . ,. '.'
r ..' \ ...:..' ~"i, '''''
'/ ,:.,J;:?: ,.. .', "'- ,~\ ' 'I
'(~/. .;..,.... ... '~~~.:.~..~< >//,," -,
-'JCt'
'y/ ';
~ II .
Jl.,_1
I 1\
1"
"
"
'I
I
.
i'"
,,;/"
>~'.,
"
~
-'l"~~
'/
"',,:f,
\.-
, 1\Zi' "'"~:,
~ j..l ~. '.
C\;-,"" ,..,
"
~
::/,?~~:
~ :.t~:-;
,,-
,/
l,'
~- "/,.
, ,
,/
.~,'
.,
'.,
./
./. .
;""-2, "
. v
ir
..,~ I
(/ t
1.'
, 'I
.
~.
<
(i/
v
i
.\
\
~
,,y
/' ",-
1,- f!-..----
, _-~.//.i
I,
,
,.
, , '
, "
'-"
... -,
x .'
f'. I ^N-, :,
Persons
Families
Households
Chambersburg
16,647
4,287
7,238
Bloomsburg
1 2,439
2,003
3,926
\ Persons I
(57.2"10)
. .Chambersburg
rI!1IJBloomsburg
(42.8%)
I Families I
(68.2"k)
. _Chambersburg
_Bloomsburg
(31.8"10)
I Households I
(64.8%)
. .Chambersburg
III Bloomsburg
(35.2"10)
I Population Comparison I
20
CD ~ 15
Q. i
o CI)
CD 5 10
Q. ~
5
o
_ Chambersburg
IfI!!J!J!l Bloomsburg
Persons
Families Households
Type
h r,:,r.p
age 0-5
age 6-11
age 12-18
age 19-24
age 25-39
age 40-59
age 60-74
age 70 up
r' ~ ~ l
AGE
ChambersburgBloomsburg
1148 530
1164 498
1297 1267
1363 4647
3727 1884
3332 1588
2732., 1042
1120 I 799
:4
I AGE I..
5
_ Chambersburg
I!I!lliI Bloomsburg
4
II)
-g 3
as
II)
::J
~ 2
I-
o
age 0-5 age 12-18 age 25-39 age 60-74
age 6-11 age 19-24 age 40-59 age 70 up
IAGEI
(8.6"10)
. age 0-5
I!!!I age 6-11
. age 12-18
o age 19-24
. age 25-39
. age 40-59
.age 60-74
Dage 70 up
(23.5%)
(7.2"10)
(7.1%)
SEX
CHAMBERSBURG BLOOMSBURG
MALE 7521 5292
FEMALE 9129 7147
\ MALE I
7521 (58.7%)
5292 (41.3%)
w II)
...J -g 6
a. III
II)
o ::l 4
w 0
a. .s:::.
I-
r-: _,. __ ....,
_CHAMBERSBURG
III BLOOMSBURG
I FEMALE I
9129 (56.1%) -CHAMBERSBURG
-BLOOMSBURG
7147 (43.9%)
ISEXI
10
_ MALE
IIllI!I FEMALE
8
2
o
CHAMBERSBURG BLOOMSBURG
TOWN
White
Black
Am. Indian
Asian
Other
c,. . .,..,.. I I
RACE
Chambersburg Bloomsburg
15,084 12,114
1196 179
33 11
143 98
191 37
IRACEI
20
w .g 15
-' c
a.. as
o ~ 10
W 0
a.. ~
5
o
White Black Am. India Asian Other
RACE
IRACEI
20
.g 15
c
as
U) 10
:::J
0
.s::.
l-
S
0
White Am. Indian Other
Black Asian
- Chambersburg
- Bloomsburg
- Chambersburg
Im!I Bloomsburg
EDUCA TIQN A TT AINMENT PERSONS 25 YEABS...
CHAMBERSBURG BLOOMSBURG
Less than
9th grade 1503 583
9th-12th no
diploma 2097 852
High school
grad or
equivalent 4482 1978
Some
college no
degree 1347 605
Associate
degree 468 283
Bachelor's
degree 1140 701
Graduate
degree 710 495
Education Attainment I
5
4
- Less than 9th grade
- 9th-12th no diploma
_ High school grad or equivalent
CJ Some college no degree
_ Associate degree
I!!D Bachelor's degree
_ Graduate degree
U)
-g 3
C1l
U)
:::l
~ 2
I-
o
CHAMBERSBURG
BLOOMSBURG
t::": r. , , .-...Ll C
CLASS OF WORKER
Chambersburg Bloomsburg
Priyate 1258 3969
Local GOy't 494 252
State GOy't 319 801
Fed. GOy't 849 171
Self-employ
ed 425 211
paid famll 8 19
I CLASS OF WORKER I
5
(/) 4
"tJ
~ 3 _ Chambersburg
(/)
5 2 _ Bloomsburg
..c:
I- 1
o
Private State Gov' Self-employed
Local GOY' Fed. Gov't Upald family
I Bloomsburg I
. Private
. Local GOy't
. State Gov't
o Fed. GOY't
CO.4Zo} .Sen-employed
(3.9 Yo)
(3.2%) . Upaid family
I Chambersburg I
(37.5%)
(14.7%)
(9.5%)
(25.3%)
.I:': ,... ,,, i
(0.2%)
(12.7%)
_ Private
I!!!I Local Gov't
_ State GOY't
D Fed. GOy't
_ Sen-employed
- Upaid family
NECESSARY WASTE REDUCTION
FlGURE 7
( 39.0%) DISPOSAL
( 34.0%) RECYCUNG
tt ( 18.0%) WASTE REDUCTIC
( 9.0%) COMPOSTlNG
(Davis, 1991)
RECYLABLE COMPONENT
FlGURE 8
( 0.4%) PLASTIC
( 12.9%) CORRUGATED
t~~~ ( 4.1%) PAPER
( 7.4%) NEWSPAPER
1.6%) STEEL
( 6.3%) GLASS
( 1.0%) ALUMINUM
( 66.3%) OTHER
(Davis, 1991)