TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction

on

  • 691 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
691
Views on SlideShare
691
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Carolyn DannMassDEP Municipal Asst Coordinator
  • 2. Methods, Caveats  This is primary research in early stages!!  Information sources include DPW reports wherever possible (FY). Otherwise, sources are Recycling Data Sheets (CY)  Main weakness is # households served! Some have been carefully computed; others have not.  Please review your own data, request LA4 form from Assessor’s office and provide me with corrections as needed.4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 2
  • 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)4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 3
  • 4. 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, 1.14 -> 1.0, 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 = 5-13% if T/hh > 1.0 • If T/hh < 1.0, then reduction less significant4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 4
  • 5. MREC = Municipal RecyclingEnforcement Coordinator • Either existing staff or DEP grant-funded staff • FY09 Grants given to: Billerica, Chelmsford, Tewksbury, Springfield, and Lynn • May/June 2009 vs 2008 Results: – Billerica – SW down 8% – Chelmsford – SW down 7% – Tewksbury – SW down 11% – Waltham down 3% without a MREC or any changes • Conclusion: 7-11% impact on tonnage depending on starting point. • Note: This can be enough to pay for coordinator’s salary4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 5
  • 6. 3- or 4-Bag Limit• Definition: Households limited to 3 or 4 bags or barrels per week curbside.• 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• Real enforcement is KEY!4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 6
  • 7. Automated SW (64-g barrels)• Truck with mechanical arm, residents receive free barrel, pay for 2nd barrel or overflow bags• Examples from first 7 months: – Billerica reduced SW 23% from 1.26 T/hh to 1.02 – Burlington reduced SW 27% from 1.24 T/hh to 0.84 (+ weekly R) – Tewksbury reduced SW from 1.34 T/hh to 1.0 T/hh (added condos) – Tyngsborough reduced SW 13% from 0.93 to 0.86 – 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. 4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 7
  • 8. Barrel Size Matters Springfield SW Tonnage 1994-2004, using 96-g Barrels 60,000 50,000 40,000 Tons per year 30,000 Auto and Semi-Auto Manual 20,000 Rubbish 10,000 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20044/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 8
  • 9. Single-Stream Recycling (SSR) w/oCarts • Residents use own containers but can mix fiber and containers (“zero sort”) • Examples: – Braintree: SW down 5% from 1.36 to 1.29 – N. Andover (weekly): SW down 6% from 1.13 to 1.06 – Westford (some carts): SW down 2% from 1.22 to 1.2 – Framingham: SW down 8% over 2 yrs with SSR and 3-bag limit from 1.04 to 0.97 – Quincy: SW down 7% from 0.87 to 0.82 – Weymouth: SW down 5% from 1.15 to 1.10 • Conclusion:Prepared by Carolyn Dann4/06/2010 SSR alone will reduce SW 5-7% 9
  • 10. Single-Stream Recycling With Carts  Residents receive standardized cart, collected with automated truck, “zero sort”  Examples:  Boston: SW down 15% over 3 years from 0.8 to 0.67  Conclusion: More impact when combined with SW limits, PAYT, or dedicated carts for SW.4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 10
  • 11. 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 basis4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 11
  • 12. Waste Reduction Program, BasicService PAYT, One “Free” Barrel Residents allowed first barrel (up to 36-g), have to buy bag for extra trash at ~$2/bag Examples:  Hamilton: SW down 32% from 0.96 to 0.71 T/hh in first 12 months  Wenham: SW down 25% from 0.98 to 0.73 T/hh  Longmeadow: SW down 24% from 0.91 to 0.69 T/hh Conclusion: WRP reduces SW to 0.7-0.8 T/hh4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 12
  • 13. Full PAYT  Residents pay for every bag of trash or use a sticker on each bag of trash  Examples:  Natick: PAYT since FY04, FY08 SW was at 0.70  Malden – SW down 50% after 1 year from 1.21 to 0.58 T/hh  Gloucester – SW down 25% in first 9 mos, from 0.69 with sticker-PAYT to a projected 0.52 T/hh with bag-PAYT  Shrewsbury – down 39% from 1.10 to 0.68 T/hh  Worcester – PAYT for many years, CY07 was 0.48! (w/o BW)  Conclusion: Full PAYT reduces SW to 0.5-0.7 T/hh;  Bags significantly more effective than stickers.4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 13
  • 14. SS-R+Automated SW Collection or PAYT • Residents receive 2 barrels: one for SW, one for recycling, “Zero sort” • Examples: – Holden (96-g R, 64-g SW) : reduced from 1.14 in CY06 to 0.81 in FY08 – Ashland (SSR+PAYT): SW down 38% from 0.96 to 0.6 – Newton (Automated SW+Automated SS-R): Piloted Oct ‘08-Jan ‘09; Started City-wide in October ‘09. Early results:  Oct + Nov ’07 = 4726  Oct +Nov ’08 = 4000, 15% less than pre-pilot.  Oct + Nov ’09 = 3379, 16% less than last year, (but Sept was 7% less). Comparing to ‘07, SW is 29% less.  T/hh was 0.93 and could get to 0.79 if SW drops 15% all year. – North Attleborough (SSR&PAYT): SW down to 0.54 T/hh • Conclusion: SS-R + Automation/PAYT can reduce SW to 0.6- 0.8 • Results will depend on size of SW barrel. 4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 14
  • 15. Mansfield’s Variety Approach3-Barrel Limit -> SW down 12%, from 1.3 to 1.1 Started 3- 10000 barrel limit 9000 8000 FY99 7000 FY00 6000 FY01 FY02 5000 FY03 4000 FY04 FY05 3000 FY06 2000 FY07 1000 0 Jul-98 Jul-99 Jul-00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Jul-04 Jul-05 Jul-06 Jul-07 Jul-08 4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 15
  • 16. FY08 Had Automated SW (64-g)SW Down Another 19% from 1.1 to 0.9 Started 3- 10000 barrel limit 9000 April 07 Started 8000 Automated SW FY99 7000 FY00 FY01 6000 FY02 5000 FY03 FY04 4000 FY05 3000 FY06 FY07 2000 FY08 1000 0 Jul-98 Jul-99 Jul-00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Jul-04 Jul-05 Jul-06 Jul-07 Jul-084/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 16
  • 17. Added SS-RecyclingSW Down Another 8%, from 0.9 to 0.8 Started 3- 10000 barrel limit 9000 April 07 Started Automated SW FY99 8000 FY00 7000 FY01 FY02 6000 FY03 5000 FY04 July 08 Started FY05 4000 SS-Recycling FY06 3000 FY07 FY08 2000 FY09 1000 0 Jul-98 Jul-99 Jul-00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Jul-04 Jul-05 Jul-06 Jul-07 Jul-084/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 17
  • 18. Preliminary 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 barrels4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 18
  • 19. Next Steps  Hear from Boston, Hamilton, Lowell, Malden, North Attleborough  Test future results against the “preliminary conclusions”  Improve quality of data for # of Households served4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 19
  • 20. Boston: Semi-automated Single-Stream Recycling  Start Date: 7/1/09  Program details:  64-g barrel for each household  1 cart for buildings with 1 to 3 units  2 carts for buildings wit 4 and 5 units  3 carts for 6 units  7+ unit buildings owners are required by law to provide wheeled-carts (100,000 0f the total 300,000)  weekly recycling  Total households served = 300,0004/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 20
  • 21. Boston: Getting to “Change”  No change to collection cost; hauler chose to extend contract  Pilot program  DEP grant  Cart donations from cart vendors  5 pilots over 2 years showed significant increase in R tons  Residents’ positive response4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 21
  • 22. Boston: Implementation Lessons Delivery  Better Formula: 1 cart for single-family; 2 carts for 2 to 4- unit residences; 3 carts for 5 and 6-unit residences  Record serial numbers Publicity  Mailings, ads, video, cart itself, cart lid graphic Collection  Anticipate longer collection initially  For crowded streets, residents to put cart on street between parked cars to give recycling truck driver access to cart Other options - old trash barrel with lid and sticker, old recycling bin, clearby Carolyn Dannbag 4/06/2010 Prepared plastic 22
  • 23. Boston: Impact on SW“Before” (FY06 and FY07) Bostons SW & R History 300,000 householdsSW =~0.8 tons SW per household SW Tons R Tons 166,336 165,475 158,169 149,516 143,847“After” (FY09) SW Total = 134,7400.72 T/hh/y in FY090.67 T/hh/y projected for FY1015% reduction in SW and 17,202 56% increase in R 12,052 11,898 11,058 12,581 13,753 comparing FY10 to FY07 FY05 FY06 FY07 = FY08 w SS FY09 w SS FY10 w SSR "before" pilot pilots citywide 4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 23
  • 24. Lowell: Automated SW  Start Date: 3/2/09  ‘Hybrid’ UBP Program details:  Annual fee of $125/year per household  68-gal wheeled-cart provided for SW for each household  Seniors eligible for 35-gal cart (for discounted price)  weekly dual-stream curbside recycling  serves single to 4-family, ‘owner-occupied’ 5- and 6- family & residential portion of ‘mixed-use’  25,000 households served  35-gal (PAYT) draw-string ‘overflow’ trash bag4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 24
  • 25. Lowell: Getting to “Change”  Hauler offered to re-negotiate (1 yr early) if switched to automation  4 Surrounding communities already committed  Manager publicized urgent need to stem financial losses in SW program  Preparatory steps… wrote new ordinances  Plenty of outreach  Included City Council in decisions, field trips to Nashua and Worcester4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 25
  • 26. Lowell: Implementation Lessons  Work on Assessor’s [eligibility/distribution] list  Start early: six to eight months necessary  Outreach!  Parades, football games, sandwich boards  Markets, festivals, flyers, electric sign boards  Website, hotline  Clearly designate one Dept. to handle inquiries.  Assign extra staff for 1 wk before & 2 after 4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 26
  • 27. Lowell: Impact on SW “Before” (3-08 to 2-09) Lowell SW Tonnage 12-m rolling totals SW Total = 40,000 50,000 45,000 1.6 tons per household 40,000 35,000 30,000 New Barrel Program 25,000“After” (3-09 to 2-10) 20,000 15,000 CY03 CY04 CY05 CY06 SW Total = 29,000 10,000 CY07 CY08 5,000 CY09 CY10 1.1 tons per household 0 Jan-10 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 27.5% reduction in SW $715,000 saved in tip fees4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 27
  • 28. Hamilton: Waste Reduction Prgm  Start Date: 5/18/08  Program details:  Each household can use own <36-g barrel for trash “free”  Bi-weekly recycling  33-gallon overflow bag costs $1.75  Serves all housing units  Total households served = 2460  Same hauler for trash and recycling, no change in contract4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 28
  • 29. Hamilton: Getting to “Change”  League of Women Voters study in FY07 re PAYT  Waste Ban Enforcement in FY08  Support from Town Administrator and Selectmen  Town counsel saw a need for Town Meeting vote  Recycling Committee conducted outreach:  Public meeting  Cable, email, website, outreach to groups  Coordinated presentations at Town Meeting  Selectmen then affirmed by voting to set bag fee at $1.754/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 29
  • 30. Hamilton: Implementation Lessons  No DPW Director during transition  Constant contact with hauler  Businesses, churches – provided individualized help  Hotline - high touch approach, relief for DPW staff  Residents – free in-home coaching  Barrel stickers - provided for shared driveways and multi-families, all residents notified  Outreach by signs, email, cable, hotline, neighbors, news articles, mailed flyers to all 4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 30
  • 31. Hamilton: Impact on SW“Before” (4-07 to 3-08) Hamilton Solid Waste Tonnage 12-m rolling totals • SW Total = 2733 4,000 Waste Reduction 3,500 Program started 3-08 • 1.04 tons per household 3,000 2,500 2,000“After” (4-08 to 3-09) 1,500 Waste Ban Enforcement started 4-07 • SW Total = 1856 1,000 • 0.71 Tons per household 500 - • 32% reduction in SW4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 31
  • 32. Malden: Pay As You Throw  Start Date: 10/6/08  Program details:  All trash must be in blue bag, one free bulky item / week  33-gallon bag costs $2.00 each  15-gallon bag costs $1.00 each  Weekly curbside and drop off recycling  Serves all housing units with 6 units or fewer  Total households served = 17,783  Population = 56,000  City contracts w/JRM Hauling for trash and recycling4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 32
  • 33. Malden: Getting to “Change”  For the Mayor of Malden, it was all about balancing the City’s $130 million dollar budget and avoiding avoiding substantial program and personnel cuts.  In putting together his FY09 budget, Mayor Howard included a residential PAYT program citing an estimated $2.5 million dollars could be freed up - from disposal cost savings and revenue from the sale of PAYT bags.4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 33
  • 34. Malden: Implementation Lessons The City over-estimated average # of large bags per week per household, and introduced a small bag 3 months into the program, so projected bag revenues were down. On the plus side, the savings from cost avoidance for disposal was way up. Were the City to do it all over again, they would have bag vendor manage all retailer invoicing / collections. Now, larger retailers remit payment to the City for bags. As a result, the City needs to keep their bag vendor appraised of delinquent retailers.4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 34
  • 35. Malden: Lessons Continued  Be flexible in the first few weeks of program.  The outcry from not involving the public from the beginning has been challenging, but would have certainly slowed, if not, jeopardized implementation.  Need larger recycling containers with even larger recycling decals (and change wording from co- mingled to containers or bottles and cans to make clearer).  Anticipate and make provision for language and cultural obstacles.4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 35
  • 36. Malden: Impact on SW “Before” (10-07 to 9-08) 25,000 SW Total = 20,750 20,000 •1.17 tons per household 15,000 SW 10,000 R “After” (10-08 to 9-09) 5,000 •SW Total = 10,428 •0.59 Tons per household 0 Before After •50% reduction in SW4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 36
  • 37. N.Attleborough: PAYT + SS-R  Start Date: PAYT – September 1998 SSR – July 2008  Program details: – Annual flat fee covers all fixed program expenses.  All trash must be in a town bag or have appropriate tag.  33-gallon bags cost $1.50/ea · 15-gallon bags cost $1.00/ea  Bag tags cost $3.00/ea · Bulky tags cost $2.50/ea  Weekly recycling beginning in 1998 Changed to SS-R July 2008  Serves all residential dwellings with 4 units or less  Total households served in 2009 = 8,027  Population = 26,900 in 2009  Same hauler for trash and recycling4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 37
  • 38. N. Attleborough: Getting to “Change”  1998 the landfill was capped and closed.  Committee negotiating the new contract was motivated to reduce trash and increase recycling.  New hauler contract included a clause – each year the total tonnage was less than 6,020, the town would receive a reduction in the annual bill. $5,500 for every 86 tons less than the 6,020.  Disposal costs combined with collection.4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 38
  • 39. N.Attleborough: SS-R ImplementationLessons  Begin distributing carts at least three weeks before switching to new system.  Assign carts to addresses by number and record for future use.  Carts are included in contract price and owned by hauler.  Revenue share on recycling.  Investigate clear (see through) carts and/or lids.  Focus on education and outreach - attend school orientation nights, PTA and Town meetings with demonstration materials. 4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 39
  • 40. N. Attleborough: Impact on SW “Before PAYT” (FY98)  6,735 tons SW per year = 0.94 T/hh “After PAYT” (FY99)  4,732 tons SW per year = 0.66 T/hh N. Attleborough SW History  30% reduction in SW in Tons/HH served/Year 1.00 0.90 0.80 “With PAYT, Before SSR” (FY08) 0.70 0.60  5,475 tons SW per year = 0.69 T/hh 0.50 0.40 0.30 “After PAYT & SSR” (FY09) 0.20 0.10  4,331 tons SW per year = 0.54 T/hh 0.00 FY98 FY99 FY08 FY09  21% additional reduction in SW "before "after "PAYT but "after PAYT" PAYT" before SS- PAYT and R" SSR" 4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 40