Saving with Waste

As resource management director for the New York State Department of Correctional Services, Jim Marion has implemented several programs that have saved the department millions while also minimizing the department’s impact on the environment. With recycling programs at each of the department’s 70 prisons – which house 64,000 inmates – and 54 composting programs, the department was able to save $3.5 million during the 2004-05 fiscal year. Computers, scrap paper, clothing, shoes and buckets are all recycled at New York prisons, along with conventional recycled items such as cans and cardboard. Marion, who also oversees the department’s agri-business program and 13 prison farms, spoke with Correctional News over the phone from his office in New York.

Correctional News: How long have you been involved with waste management?

Jim Marion: I’ve been involved here in the department of corrections for 15 years. Before that, for about five years, I worked in the private sector. I’ve been with corrections since 1990.

CN: What is the biggest challenge facing waste management?

JM: Funding and the fact that there are always new recyclable items being identified in the waste stream that need to be separated. It continues to be a struggle to implement some of the separations in all of our prisons.

Here are a couple of examples: Ballast (for light bulbs) are considered universal waste, so they have to be separated and removed from the waste stream. They are a costly item. There are vendors that take those materials and recycle them or dispose of them properly. To collect them, store them and get them to a vendor in your region is always a problem.

The other challenge that we’ve come across in the last few years, and I’m glad it’s happening, is electronic waste. Electronic waste is quickly unloaded – a computer has the lifespan of three to four years, usually. There now is a pretty good network, at least here on the East Coast, of vendors that will recycle computers. But again, getting them collected, packaged appropriately at all the different prison sites and accumulating large enough lot sizes to get them to a vendor takes a lot of time, planning, storage space and logistics at individual prisons.

There’s always new material coming in the waste stream that we try to separate. Right now we separate up to 20 different items out of the waste stream. To set up a logistical system, so every facility is capturing a large portion of the waste stream, is sometimes very costly. It is very difficult and a challenge from the administration right on down.

We’ve been very lucky and very fortunate in New York. We’ve had commissioners who have supported recycling who have seen the potential for the cost savings – avoided tipping fees and hauling fees. Our Commissioner Glenn Goord recently approved a statewide implementation of an office paper shredding and recovery program that provides every prison in the state up to 25 large-capacity shredders. Every scrap of paper coming off a person’s desk is shredded every day for security reasons, so inmates or other people don’t see payroll records and Social Security numbers.

We’re finding that through avoided costs and also by selling the shredded paper – which is worth about $120 a ton – we’re going to be able to pay for this whole program in about three years.

CN: That is a good incentive.

JM: It’s both a cash payback and a cost avoidance. That’s what happened to all of our recycling programs. It’s one of the main reasons we started the programs back in 1990 when they hired me out of the private sector.

The first priority was to comply with the New York state recycling laws, which were put into place in 1988, and the second priority was to avoid costs for the department. Last year our avoided costs through recycling, composting, reuse and other procurement practices was over $3 million. The revenues we generate go back into the program to buy new equipment, repair equipment and keep the system running.

CN: What is the best way for a prison or jail system to start a waste reduction program?

JM: If you’re looking to implement a program throughout a statewide system, somebody from the commissioner’s office or the state legislature needs to recognize that it’s going to take funding and it’s going to take personnel. To have a plan that can be implemented statewide from the top down they have to be able to accept its merits, not only from a cost-avoidance standpoint, but also from an environmental compliance and global perspective.

You can hire consultants to come in and help set up your program, analyze your waste stream and establish what your markets are for the different materials so you know how to collect them.

But, the real original impetus really needs to come from a central office and they need to make a commitment for funding and personnel to do the job correctly. A lot of states and municipalities will do one item and then they’ll expand to another item instead of taking a broader perspective.

CN: How much staff time do these programs take?

JM: Right now we have myself and one other person who work full time, statewide from a central office to implement and monitor new programs and budget. Out at the individual facilities, every facility has someone who is designated as a solid waste coordinator. It is not designated as a full-time job by any means; it may only be an hour a day.

The real time comes from utilizing inmates and prison security staff to collect the material, repackage it and get it collected in large quantities so it is acceptable for sale. Statewide we have about 1,100 inmates employed either full or part time in the solid waste recycling and composting program. There are probably 13 people full time at different correctional facilities throughout the state who are bailing, processing, sorting and separating the materials. Some of them are correctional officers that are supervising inmates. In a couple of cases they are civilian staff at one of our regional recycling processing centers. It’s a lot of part-time commitment, but I think there are more and more states realizing that they need to have at least one person working full time to oversee the program statewide.

CN: Is composting a major factor in what you do?

JM: Composting has always been a major element, diverting up to about 30 percent by weight of our waste stream. Food waste, scrap lumber and yard waste are all composted.

CN: With composting there are often concerns about odors and the possibility of attracting animals. How do you address that issue?

JM: There are very well established procedures and operating standards for composting facilities now. The sites have a very low potential for nuisance, but they have to be operated correctly.

In every state, there are people at the state level in colleges who generally have a good composting background that are available for advisement. There are a number of private sector vendors that have composting systems that work very well. It all depends on what your quantity is and how much you are willing to spend for a system. You need to determine that by the economics of it – how much food waste are you going to pull out of the waste stream and what is that going to save you each year? That will have a determination on how technical you need to get.

Every facility is a little bit different, but given the knowledge that is out there today, composting does not have to be a nuisance if it’s done properly. The department and correctional facility, whether it be a county, a city or a state, needs to make the commitment with appropriate staff and have them trained with adequate equipment so that they’re not going to create a nuisance.

CN: Over the years you’ve worked in corrections, have you seen an increase in composting?

JM: Certainly. Not only in the corrections field, but also municipalities, hospitals, nursing homes and other institutions where they feed a lot of people. They have started to come on board and recognize the economics and also the legal compliance issues.

I’ve done consulting in 18 other states; they are now slowly but surely adding compost facilities to their repertoire of waste management. It can be an expensive proposition when you start, and dedicating staff is sometimes a problem for departments, but it’s definitely grown.

The next stage that is now coming out is anaerobic digestion of cattle manure and food waste to produce methane gas, which can be used as a fuel to heat water or produce electricity. It is still evolving technically.

CN: Have correctional facilities caught on to that technology?

JM: Some of the prison farms have. We have not done it with the food composting programs that I’m aware of. Prison farms in New York are relatively small, but I believe Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Florida are looking at methane digestion and anaerobic digestion.

The private sector is way ahead of us. A lot of the large dairy farms in California, where they have 5,000 or 10,000 cows, are producing a lot of energy from methane-producing manures. Doing it with food waste that you would normally get out of a prisons system is a little more difficult. It needs to be prepared and ground and it’s in more of a raw state than manure is, but the technology is rapidly developing.

CN: What is the single most important benefit to composting and recycling at correctional facilities?

JM: I have to give you two answers. From my personal beliefs and standpoints, the environmental benefit in reuse and conservation of natural resources is preeminent. Looking at it as a Department of Corrections employee, and the fact that departments of corrections are normally short of money, the economic benefits certainly make it feasible for a department of corrections to go into it.