Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction
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

TEST UPLOAD PRESENTATION Waste reduction

510

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
510
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
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

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

×