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

Carolyn DannMassDEP Municipal Asst Coordinator, NE3

Methods, CaveatsUpdated with FY10 tonnage infoInformation 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 DannUpdated Jan 2011 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)


Tonnage Tracked from FY06-FY10 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/H

h Lbs/HhWorcester 52,000 Yes Yes No 24,924 0.48 959 23,019 0.44 885 0.00 0 21,397 0.41 823North 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 687Gloucester 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 1,089Malden 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

Mos

t 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 1,191Groton 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 1,282Longmeadow 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 1,310Shrewsbury 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 1,315Ayer 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 1,345Natick 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 1,384East 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 1,424Hamilton 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 1,470Boston 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 1,471Concord 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 1,514Ipswich 4,827 3,688 0.76 1,528Quincy 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 1,563Arlington 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 1,581Holden 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 1,605Lexington 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 1,652Mansfield 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 som

e 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 1,664Wenham 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 1,671Tyngsboro 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 1,682Marshfield 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 1,737Brockton 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 1,780Framingham 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

Updated Jan 2011 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 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, 1.18 -> 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


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 salaryPrepared by Carolyn DannUpdated Jan 2011 6

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!


Chelmsford Case Study


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 Dann4/06/2010 9

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 decisionPolitical results - almost no opposition


Chelmsford: Lessons LearnedIt 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.


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


Automated SW (64-g barrels)• Truck with mechanical arm, residents receive free barrel,

pay for 2nd 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, BelmontPrepared by Carolyn DannUpdated Jan 2011 13

Barrel Size Matters


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 DannUpdated Jan 2011 15

Single-Stream Recycling With CartsResidents 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.

2nd Conclusion: When SSR carts are added to 64-g carts, can bring SW T/hh down to 0.8 range.


Springfield Benefits from MREC, SSR


RecycleBankResidents receive a recycling barrel and earn

coupons based on the weight of recyclables collected On a individual household basisOn a route basisOn a community-wide average basis

Results – Info not yet available on City-wide basisEverettRevere

Program makes most sense when residents are paying private haulers and pay the additional cost themselves.


Waste Reduction Program, Basic Service PAYT, One “Free” BarrelResidents allowed first barrel (up to 36-g), have

to buy bag for extra trash at ~$2/bagExamples:

East Longmeadow: WRP since FY06, FY10 SW = 0.71

Longmeadow: WRP since FY07, FY10 SW = 0.65Hamilton: WRP since FY09, FY10 SW = 0.74Wenham: WRP since FY10, FY10 SW = 0.84

Conclusion: WRP reduces SW to 0.7-0.8 T/hh


Full PAYTResidents pay for every bag of trash or use a sticker

on each bag of trashExamples:

Natick: PAYT since FY04, FY10 SW = 0.70Malden – PAYT since FY09, FY10 SW down 50% to 0.59

T/hhGloucester – FY10 SW = 0.54 T/hhShrewsbury – PAYT since FY09, FY10 SW = 0.66 T/hhGreenfield – PAYT since FY05, FY10 SW = 0.75 T/hhWorcester – 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.


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 DannUpdated Jan 2011 21

Mansfield’s Variety Approach3-Barrel Limit -> SW down 12%, from 1.3 to 1.1


FY08 Had Automated SW (64-g)SW Down Another 19% from 1.1 to 0.9


Added SS-RecyclingSW Down Another 8%, from 0.9 to 0.8


ConclusionsStarting point matters - Always ask about

“before”!More reduction predicted if >1.0 Ton/household

Program matters5-10% reduction possible with EWBE, MREC, 3-4

bag/barrel limit, SS-R only25-35% 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


FY10 Average: PAYT, WRP = 0.67


FY10 Average: 64-g limit = 0.96


FY10 Average: SSR Alone = 1.07


FY10 Average: No limit SW = 1.06


An “Ideal” Program Evolution1. MREC + a 1-2 bag limit 2. Full PAYT + SS-Recycling3. Automated SW w 35-gal carts + Automated

SS-R w 96-gal carts4. Automated SW, Automated SS-R, co-

collected weekly, plus Organics collected weekly

5. Then, ….


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


Littleton : Getting to “Change” Role of CommitteeRole of Selectmen

Timing of Selectman’s DecisionRole of Town MeetingPolitical results


Littleton: Implementation LessonsNeed to re-design Transfer Station??Increase in recycling tonnage??Need for additional staff??Role of Bag Vendor


Littleton: Impact on SW(Comparing same 5 months, from October through February)

“Before”SW Total CY09 = 2186October, 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


Holden: Automated with 64-galStart Date: FY08Program details:

64-gallon SW containers 96-gallon R containers

All residents are eligibleTotal households served = 5425


Holden : Getting to “Change” Previous SW Program Changes and

ResultsRole of Committee….Role of Selectmen ….

Timing of Selectman’s DecisionRole of Town MeetingPolitical results


Holden : Implementation Lessons


Holden : Impact on SW

“Before” (FY06, FY07SW 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



Business

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