MassDEP Municipal Waste Reduction Methods Report Summary

Carolyn Dann
MassDEP Municipal Asst Coordinator

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

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)


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 significant

MREC = Municipal Recycling
Enforcement 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 salary

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!


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.

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 2004


Single-Stream Recycling (SSR) w/o
Carts
• 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 Dann
4/06/2010
SSR alone will reduce SW 5-7% 9

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.


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


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:
 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/hh


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.


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.


Mansfield’s Variety Approach
3-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


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


Added SS-Recycling
SW 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


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 barrels


Next Steps
 Hear from Boston, Hamilton, Lowell, Malden, North
Attleborough
 Test future results against the “preliminary
conclusions”
 Improve quality of data for # of Households served


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 = 300,000


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 response


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

Boston: Impact on SW
“Before” (FY06 and FY07) Boston's SW & R History
300,000 households
SW =~0.8 tons SW per household
SW Tons R Tons

166,336 165,475
158,169
149,516
143,847
“After” (FY09) SW Total = 134,740

0.72 T/hh/y in FY09
0.67 T/hh/y projected for FY10
15% 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


Lowell: Automated SW
 ‘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 bag

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 Worcester


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


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 fees


Hamilton: Waste Reduction Prgm
 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 contract


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 $1.75


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


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 SW


Malden: Pay As You Throw
 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 recycling


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.


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.


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.

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 SW


N.Attleborough: PAYT + SS-R
 Start Date: PAYT – September 1998
SSR – July 2008
– 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 recycling

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.


N.Attleborough: SS-R Implementation
Lessons
 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.

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"

MassDEP Municipal Waste Reduction Methods Report Summary

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à MassDEP Municipal Waste Reduction Methods Report Summary

Similaire à MassDEP Municipal Waste Reduction Methods Report Summary (8)

Plus de MassRecycle .

Plus de MassRecycle . (20)

MassDEP Municipal Waste Reduction Methods Report Summary