Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options  by C. Dann
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Municipal #2 Finding the right fit, Evaluating waste reduction options by C. Dann

361

Published on

Published in: Business, News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
361
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Move Westford and NA to “without carts”, revisit Boston’s results, include other?
  • Add Brockton
  • Transcript

    • 1. Carolyn Dann MassDEP Municipal Asst Coordinator, NE3
    • 2. Methods, Caveats
      • Updated with FY10 tonnage info
      • Information sources include DPW reports wherever possible (FY). Otherwise, sources are Recycling Data Sheets (CY) and CY09 Solid Waste Survey info
      • Main weakness is # households served! Some have been carefully computed; others have not.
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann Updated Jan 2011
    • 3. Definitions and Range of Options
      • Education and Outreach
      • WBE= Waste Ban Enforcement
      • WBE + MREC   (Municipal Recycling Enforcement Coor.)
      • 3-bag or 4-bag limit
      • SSR (without wheeled carts)
      • SSR only (with carts) or RecycleBank only
      • Automated SW (64-g)
      • WRP, one bag limit, or 39-g barrel automated collection
      • PAYT (with stickers)
      • PAYT (bags, fee for all trash)
      • SSR + Automated SW collection (64-g carts)
      • SSR + PAYT or Automated SW collection (<40-g carts)
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann Updated Jan 2011
    • 4. Tonnage Tracked from FY06-FY10 Updated Jan 2011 Prepared by Carolyn Dann   Pop Hhs School SW? Muni Buildings Condos, Apts? TPY Tons/Hh Lbs/Hh TPY Tons/Hh Lbs/Hh TPY Tons/Hh Lbs/Hh TPY Tons/Hh Lbs/Hh TPY Tons/Hh Lbs/Hh Worcester 52,000 Yes Yes No       24,924 0.48 959 23,019 0.44 885   0.00 0 21,397 0.41 823 North Attleborough 8,000 No No No 5,815 0.73 1,454 5,558 0.69 1,389 4,894 0.61 1,224 4,140 0.33 657 4,331 0.34 687 Gloucester 12,500 Yes Yes No 10,168 0.81 1,627 9,531 0.76   8,590 0.69 1,374 7,915 0.63 1,266 6,808 0.54 1,089 Malden 17,783 Yes   0.00   26,523 1.49 2,983 21,500 1.21 2,418 12,858 0.72 1,446 10,405 0.59 1,170 Ashland 5,500 Yes Yes Most 5,270 0.96 1,916 3,283 0.60 1,194 3,300 0.60 1,200 3,252 0.59 1,183 3,275 0.60 1,191 Groton 1,400 1,449 1.04 2,070 1,500 1.07 2,143 1,519 1.09 2,170 1,205 0.86 1,721 897 0.64 1,282 Longmeadow 5,474 5,008 0.91 1,830 3,788 0.69 1,384 3,755 0.69 1,372 3,548 0.65 1,296 3,585 0.65 1,310 Shrewsbury 33,456 9,686 Yes Yes No 11272 1.16 2,327 10944 1.13 2,260 10686 1.10 2,206 7137.19 0.74 1,474 6,370 0.66 1,315 Ayer 1,367 1,044 0.76 1,527 1,028 0.76 1,526 1,021 0.83 1,662 1,015 0.73 1,459 936 0.67 1,345 Natick 31,000 8,265 Yes Yes No 6,890 0.83 1,667 6,549 0.79 1,585 6,476 0.78 1,567 5,817 0.70 1,408 5,718 0.69 1,384 East Longmeadow 5,200 Yes Yes No 4,060 0.78 1,562 3,889 0.75 1,496 3,703 0.71 1,424 3,732 0.72 1,435 3,702 0.71 1,424 Hamilton 2,640 No Yes No 3,314 1.26 2,511 2,699 1.02 2,045 2,530 0.96 1,917 1,843 0.70 1,396 1,941 0.74 1,470 Boston 635,787 280,800 249,897 0.89 1,780 236,364 0.84 1,684 226,851 0.81 1,616 214,796 0.76 1,530 206,556 0.74 1,471 Concord 3,200 yes yes no 2,555 0.80 1,597 2,559 0.81 1,614 2,467 0.77 1,543 2,387 0.74 1,488 2,486 0.76 1,514 Ipswich 4,827             3,688 0.76 1,528 Quincy 40,000 Yes 36,030 0.90 1,802 42,610 1.07 2,131 34,989 0.87 1,749 32,712 0.82 1,636 31,258 0.78 1,563 Arlington 40,000 19,600 Yes Yes All 18,083 0.92 1,845 17,289 0.88 1,764 16,232 0.83 1,656 15,359 0.78 1,567 15,493.00 0.79 1,581 Holden 5,375 6,111 1.14 2,274 6,051 1.13 2,252 4,348.00 0.81 1,618 4,296.00 0.82 1,634 4,221.00 0.80 1,605 Lexington 30,000 10,982 Yes Yes No 9,404 0.86 1,713 9,036 0.82 1,646 8,883 0.81 1,618 8,612 0.78 1,568 9,069 0.83 1,652 Mansfield 6,358 No Yes 8,275 1.30 2,603 6,997 1.10 2,201 5,733 0.90 1,804 5,134 0.81 1,615 5,276 0.83 1,660 Newton 26,500 Yes Yes some 29,894 1.13 2,256 28,814 1.09 2,175 27,203 1.03 2,053 24,524 0.93 1,851 22,042 0.83 1,664 Wenham 1,170 No Yes No 1,621 1.39 2,771 1,556 1.33 2,660 1,381 1.18 2,361 1,215 1.04   978 0.84 1,671 Tyngsboro 11,723 4,347 Yes Yes No 4,587 1.06 2,110 4,346 1.00 2,000 4,085 0.94 1,880 4,060 0.93   3,656 0.84 1,682 Marshfield 25,000 9,260 Yes Yes No     11,228 1.21 2,425 7,639 0.82 1,650 7,566 0.82   8,043 0.87 1,737 Brockton 28,000 No Yes No 27,991 1.00 1,999 28,162 1.01 2,012 26,197 0.94 1,871 24,750 0.88 1,768 24,918 0.89 1,780 Framingham 16,796 Yes Yes Yes 18,342 1.09 2,184 17,529 1.04 2,087 16,897 1.01 2,012 16,218 0.97 1,931 15,788 0.94 1,880
    • 5. Waste Ban Enforcement
      • Definition:
        • Hauler is required to leave behind any “visible recyclables” (hopefully with a sticker but not always).
        • Requires DPW and Selectmen/City Council support
      • Examples and impact on Tons of SW per household served
        • North Andover (2/2005, 1.35 -> 1.2, down 12%)
        • Andover (5/2005, 1.4 -> 1.3, down 7%)
        • Chelmsford (2/2006, 1.18 -> 1.03, down 12%
        • Tewksbury (9/2008, 1.48 -> 1.35, down 10%)
        • Billerica (10/2007, 1.54 -> 1.36, down 13%)
        • Lexington (9/2007, 0.82 -> 0.81, down 2%)
      • Conclusion: Impact on SW = 7-13% if T/hh > 1.0
      • If T/hh < 1.0, then reduction less significant
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann Updated Jan 2011
    • 6. MREC = Municipal Recycling Enforcement Coordinator - Curbside
      • Grants given to Billerica, Chelmsford, Tewksbury, Springfield, and Lynn for FY09 and FY10:
      • Comparing FY08 to FY10 shows:
        • Chelmsford – SW down 3.6% from 1.00 to 0.96 TPH
        • Lynn - SW down 7.3% to 1.21 TPH
        • Springfield – SW down 7% to 1.07 TPH
        • Note: in same time period, Waltham SW dropped 3% without a MREC or any changes to 0.95 TPH
      • Most effective coupled with other program changes such as new limits or automation. Both towns added Automated SW in FY09.
        • Billerica – SW down 24% to 1.07 TPH
        • Tewksbury – SW down 17% but added 1900 condos so = 0.99TPH
      • Conclusion: 0-4% less tonnage depending on starting point.
      • Note: This can be enough to pay for coordinator’s salary
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann Updated Jan 2011
    • 7. 3- or 4-Bag Limit
      • Definition: Households limited to 3 - 4 bags or barrels/wk
      • Examples:
        • Mansfield (FY07) reduced SW 15% from 1.3 to 1.1 T/hh
        • Tyngsborough (FY07) reduced SW 5% from 1.06 to 1.0 T/hh
        • Framingham (FY08) reduced SW 4% from 1.04 to 1.01 T/hh
      • Conclusion: 3- or 4-bag limit drops SW to ~1.0T/hh
      • Two-bag limit is even better!
        • West Newbury (FY10) reduced SW 11% to 1.02T/hh
        • Chelmsford (FY11) appears to be dropping another 15+%
      • Real enforcement is KEY!
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann Updated Jan 2011
    • 8. Chelmsford Case Study Updated Jan 2011 Prepared by Carolyn Dann
    • 9. Chelmsford: 2 Bag/Barrel Limit
      • Start Date: July 1, 2010
      • Program details:
        • Curbside SW & bi-weekly R
        • Excess trash beyond two 35-gallon bags or barrels must be in blue “overflow” bag, which costs $2.00 each (or $10 for a sleeve of five bags)
        • Bulky Waste -
        • Curbside service provided to all residences including apartment complexes and multi-families
          • Stickers provided for multi-families
          • Dumpster rate provided for complexes
        • Total households served = 13,385
        • Population = 33,802
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann 4/06/2010
    • 10. Chelmsford: Getting to “Change”
      • Role of Selectmen – received several presentations on automation, barrels sizes, etc.
      • Role of Town Meeting – gave an informational presentation when considering automated collection
      • Town Manager – made the decision
      • Political results - almost no opposition
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann 4/06/2010
    • 11. Chelmsford: Lessons Learned
      • It Works! We should have done it years ago.
      • Publicize early and often.
      • Have something to “give” residents when dropping the trash limits, such as Single-Stream Recycling
      • Be prepared to offer extra pick-ups at multi-family complexes if the new limits increase their recycling.
      • Let haulers know that your goal is excellent service AND enforcing the waste bans and trash limits.
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann 4/06/2010
    • 12. Chelmsford: Impact on SW (Comparing same 8 months, from July through February)
      • “ Before” (7-2009 to 2-2010)
        • SW Total = -------
        • R Total
        • --- SW tons per household
        • ___R tons per household
      • “ After” (7-2010 to 02-2011)
        • SW Total = -----
        • R Total
        • --- SW Tons per household
        • ___ R tons per household
        • __ % reduction in SW
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann 4/06/2010
    • 13. Automated SW (64-g barrels)
      • Truck with mechanical arm, residents receive free barrel, pay for 2 nd barrel or overflow bags
      • Examples from first year (Fy10):
        • Billerica reduced SW 18% from 1.31 T/hh to 1.07
        • Burlington reduced SW 22% from 1.24 T/hh to 0.97 (+ weekly R)
        • Tewksbury reduced SW 8% from 1.34 T/hh to 1.0 T/hh (and added 1900 condos)
        • Tyngsborough reduced SW 10% from 0.93 to 0.84
        • Lowell reduced SW 25% in first 12 mos, down from 1.46
      • Conclusion #1: Starting Point Matters; Brings SW down to ~0.9 to 1.0 T/hh;
      • Conclusion #2: Smaller barrels would bring SW down more
      • Towns considering smaller barrels = Bedford, Belmont
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann Updated Jan 2011
    • 14. Barrel Size Matters Prepared by Carolyn Dann Updated Jan 2011
    • 15. Single-Stream Recycling w/o Carts
      • Residents use own containers but can mix fiber and containers (“zero sort”)
      • Examples:
        • Arlington: FY10 SW stayed same as FY09 at 0.8 T/hh
        • N. Andover (weekly): FY10 SW down 7% vs. FY08 to 1.05
        • Braintree: FY10 SW down 5% from 1.36 to 1.27
        • Quincy: FY10 SW down 11% from 0.87 to 0.78
        • Weymouth: FY10 SW down 0% at 1.15
        • But, Belmont, w/ no changes, dropped 5% from FY08-FY10
      • Conclusion: SSR alone will reduce SW 0-7%
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann Updated Jan 2011
    • 16. Single-Stream Recycling With Carts
      • Residents receive standardized cart, collected with automated truck, “zero sort”
      • Examples:
        • Boston: FY10 SW down 9% over 2 years from 0.8 to 0.74
        • Newton: FY10 SW down 19% over 2 years from 1.03 to 0.83 with SSR carts and 64-g SW carts
      • Conclusion: More impact when combined with SW limits, PAYT, or dedicated carts for SW.
      • 2 nd Conclusion: When SSR carts are added to 64-g carts, can bring SW T/hh down to 0.8 range.
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann Updated Jan 2011
    • 17. Springfield Benefits from MREC, SSR Updated Jan 2011 Prepared by Carolyn Dann
    • 18. RecycleBank
      • Residents receive a recycling barrel and earn coupons based on the weight of recyclables collected
        • On a individual household basis
        • On a route basis
        • On a community-wide average basis
      • Results – Info not yet available on City-wide basis
        • Everett
        • Revere
      • Program makes most sense when residents are paying private haulers and pay the additional cost themselves.
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann Updated Jan 2011
    • 19. Waste Reduction Program, Basic Service PAYT, One “Free” Barrel
      • Residents allowed first barrel (up to 36-g), have to buy bag for extra trash at ~$2/bag
      • Examples:
        • East Longmeadow: WRP since FY06, FY10 SW = 0.71
        • Longmeadow: WRP since FY07, FY10 SW = 0.65
        • Hamilton: WRP since FY09, FY10 SW = 0.74
        • Wenham: WRP since FY10, FY10 SW = 0.84
      • Conclusion: WRP reduces SW to 0.7-0.8 T/hh
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann Updated Jan 2011
    • 20. Full PAYT
      • Residents pay for every bag of trash or use a sticker on each bag of trash
      • Examples:
        • Natick: PAYT since FY04, FY10 SW = 0.70
        • Malden – PAYT since FY09, FY10 SW down 50% to 0.59 T/hh
        • Gloucester – FY10 SW = 0.54 T/hh
        • Shrewsbury – PAYT since FY09, FY10 SW = 0.66 T/hh
        • Greenfield – PAYT since FY05, FY10 SW = 0.75 T/hh
        • Worcester – PAYT for many years, FY10 SW = 0.41! (w/o BW)
      • Conclusion: Full PAYT reduces SW to 0.5-0.7 T/hh;
      • Bags significantly more effective than stickers.
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann Updated Jan 2011
    • 21. SS-R+Automated SW Collection or PAYT
      • Residents receive 2 barrels: one for SW, one for recycling, “Zero sort”
      • Examples:
        • Ashland (SSR+PAYT): FY10 SW = 0.6
        • Newton (SSR+64-gal carts): FY10 SW = 0.83
        • North Attleborough (SSR+PAYT): FY10 SW = 0.54 T/hh
      • Conclusion: SS-R + PAYT can reduce SW to 0.6 T/hh
      • Conclusion: SS-R + 64-gal carts can reduce to 0.8 T/hh
      • Results will depend on size of SW barrel!
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann Updated Jan 2011
    • 22. Mansfield’s Variety Approach 3-Barrel Limit -> SW down 12%, from 1.3 to 1.1 Prepared by Carolyn Dann Updated Jan 2011
    • 23. FY08 Had Automated SW (64-g) SW Down Another 19% from 1.1 to 0.9 Prepared by Carolyn Dann Updated Jan 2011
    • 24. Added SS-Recycling SW Down Another 8%, from 0.9 to 0.8 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 4/06/2010
    • 25. Conclusions
      • Starting point matters - Always ask about “before”!
        • More reduction predicted if >1.0 Ton/household
      • Program matters
        • 5-10% reduction possible with EWBE, MREC, 3-4 bag/barrel limit, SS-R only
        • 25-35% reduction with WRP, Automated SW*
        • 35-50% reduction with PAYT, Automated SW&SSR*
      • *Barrel size matters!
        • 0-10% reduction if 1.0 T/hh or less, with Automated SW w 64-g barrels
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann Updated Jan 2011
    • 26. FY10 Average: PAYT, WRP = 0.67 Updated Jan 2011 Prepared by Carolyn Dann
    • 27. FY10 Average: 64-g limit = 0.96 Updated Jan 2011 Prepared by Carolyn Dann
    • 28. FY10 Average: SSR Alone = 1.07 Updated Jan 2011 Prepared by Carolyn Dann
    • 29. FY10 Average: No limit SW = 1.06 Updated Jan 2011 Prepared by Carolyn Dann
    • 30. An “Ideal” Program Evolution
      • MREC + a 1-2 bag limit
      • Full PAYT + SS-Recycling
      • Automated SW w 35-gal carts + Automated SS-R w 96-gal carts
      • Automated SW, Automated SS-R, co-collected weekly, plus Organics collected weekly
      • Then, ….
      Updated Jan 2011 Prepared by Carolyn Dann
    • 31. Littleton: Pay As You Throw
      • Start Date: October 1, 2010
        • All residents are eligible
        • Total households served = FY-10 2,048, FY-11 1,813
        • Population = 9,272
      • Program details:
        • Annual fee dropped from $300 to $100
        • All trash must be in purple bags
          • 33-gallon bag costs $2.00 each
          • 15-gallon bag costs $1.00 each
          • 8.5-gallon bag costs $0.75
        • Bulky Waste
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann 4/06/2010
    • 32. Littleton : Getting to “Change”
      • Role of Committee
      • Role of Selectmen
        • Timing of Selectman’s Decision
      • Role of Town Meeting
      • Political results
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann 4/06/2010
    • 33. Littleton: Implementation Lessons
      • Need to re-design Transfer Station??
      • Increase in recycling tonnage??
      • Need for additional staff??
      • Role of Bag Vendor
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann 4/06/2010
    • 34. Littleton: Impact on SW (Comparing same 5 months, from October through February)
      • “ Before”
        • SW Total CY09 = 2186
        • October, November ‘10= 389 T
        • 1.13 SW tons per household
      • “ After” (Oct, Nov 2010)
        • SW Total = 231 T
        • 0.72 SW Tons per household if trend continues
        • 41 % reduction in SW
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann 4/06/2010
    • 35. Holden: Automated with 64-gal
      • Start Date: FY08
      • Program details:
        • 64-gallon SW containers
        • 96-gallon R containers
      • All residents are eligible
      • Total households served = 5425
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann 4/06/2010
    • 36. Holden : Getting to “Change”
      • Previous SW Program Changes and Results
      • Role of Committee….
      • Role of Selectmen … .
        • Timing of Selectman’s Decision
      • Role of Town Meeting
      • Political results
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann 4/06/2010
    • 37. Holden : Implementation Lessons Prepared by Carolyn Dann 4/06/2010
    • 38. Holden : Impact on SW
      • “ Before” (FY06, FY07
        • SW Total = 6111 Tons, 6051 Tons
        • 1.13, 1.12 SW tons per household
      • “ After” (FY08, FY09, FY10)
        • SW Total = 4348, 4296, 4221 Tons
        • .08, .082, .083 SW Tons per household
        • 30% reduction in SW
      Prepared by Carolyn Dann 4/06/2010
    • 39. Updated Jan 2011 Prepared by Carolyn Dann

    ×