Carolyn DannMassDEP Municipal Asst Coordinator

Methods, CaveatsTracking “interesting towns” SW since FY06Updated with FY11 tonnage info where availableInformation sources include DPW reports

wherever possible (FY). Otherwise, sources are Recycling Data Sheets (CY)

Now, there are enough “interesting towns” that I’ve been able to group them by type of program

Main weakness is # households served! Some have been carefully computed; others have not.

2

Chelmsford Case Study

3

Barrel Size Matters

4

Conclusions from “Interesting Towns”Starting point matters - Always ask about “before”!

More reduction predicted if >1.0 Ton/householdProgram matters

PAYT will result in 0.5 – 0.7 TPHWRP will result in 0.7 – 0.9 TPHAutomated 64-g or 2 bag limit will result in 0.9 – 1.0 TPH3-4 Barrel and Unlimited programs will result in 1.1+ TPH5-10% reduction possible with 3-4 bag/barrel limit, SS-R

only*Barrel size matters with Automation!

64-g will result in 1.0 TPH

9

NextIpswich, Bedford, Grafton and Hamilton, Continue to gather info

10

Ipswich: 4, 3, 2, 1 Barrel Limit

11

4 bag/barrel limit enforced 2006

3 bag/barrel limit implemented 2008 $2 overthrow sticker

2 bag/barrel limit implemented Jan 2010

1 bag/barrel limit implemented June 2010 $2 overthrow bag replacing sticker

Ipswich : Getting to “Change”

Decision ProcessSelectmen not prepared for drastic changeStart enforcing current limits first

12

Ipswich : Getting to “Change”Key Factors

Surveys (Most were already at 1-2 by 2010)Know your stuff! Selectmen presentations

(data!)Awareness

13

Ipswich : Getting to “Change”Key Factors

Providing easy ways to recycle: Recycling Extravaganza Electronics Recycling Styrofoam Recycling Curbside Composting Rigid Plastic Recycling Metal Recycling Future – Textiles?

14

Ipswich : Getting to “Change”Key Factors

Communication Utility Bill Inserts Extensive articles/notices in Newspaper Post office Flyers around town Meetings (offered to go to people’s homes to

educate) Cable show and slides School letters Email Lists

15

Ipswich : Getting to “Change”

Public ResponseMajority complySome complaints – big familiesVery little public ‘dumping’

16

Ipswich : Implementation LessonsCommunication is KeyData is importantKeep improving – never stopDedicated volunteer team

17

Ipswich : Impact on Solid Waste, $• Before WRP: SW =.74 tons /hh/yr

• After WRP : SW =.62 tons/hh/y r

• 16% reduction in Solid Waste • 36% increase in Recycling

• $41,000+* saved in disposal fees• ~$ 15,000 revenue in Yr 1 (tipping fee not taken

into account)

18

Solid Waste Tonnage Before / After WRP

19

Solid Waste

-50.00

100.00150.00200.00250.00300.00350.00400.00

FY 2010

FY 2011

Ipswich : Other Revenue - We get paid $10 per ton for recyclable materials ($18,000 for Year 1)

- Scrap metal collection at the Transfer Station is on target to bring in ~$10,000 in year 2 of WRP

20

IpswichTown policy should support contractJoint responsibility with the hauler for

enforcementContract collection and tipping fees separately to

discourage collecting too much trash at the curbPlans for bulky itemsPenalties for collecting too much trashSingle stream vs. separated recyclablesWork on the rejection sticker with your haulerContact numbers, wording etc.

21

Current IssuesGetting hauler to enforce the rules

Establish clear rules about how full a barrel can be

22

Current IssuesResidents who put out trash but no recycling

23

Current IssuesResidents who have oversized barrels

- Give a grace period for people to get the right size barrel

- Warning stickers about the size- Enforcement plans

24

Current IssuesMulti-family dwellings

Hard to determine overages vs. multi-family trash- We have asked people to label their barrels

with Unit 1, Unit 2, ….. (work in process) but this is not always possible as some people cannot use barrels

- We often have to ask the hauler to go back and pick up what is left

25

Recycling CommitteeSpent many hours planningSpent many hours negotiatingSpends many hours implementing

Many hours of this was done with volunteers!!

26

Bedford: Automated 48-g cartsStart Date: October 5, 2011Program details:

48-gal barrels distributed to all 1-4 family householdsContinued manual, dual-stream recycling collectionOne-day collection for entire townTotal households served = 4336Gave barrels to “accessory use” apartments only after

investigationSold ~120 2nd barrels for $150/1st year, $100/yr thereafterBags: 1.75mil, sold in rolls of five for $7.50 per roll ($1.50

ea)

27

Bedford : Getting to “Change”Decision Process

Considered 35-gal barrels but …DPW Staff drove streets, counted barrels in actual

useHeld one public hearingReceived calls, articles, lettersHauler started to request added fee on overflow bagsSelectmen decided to go with 48-gal barrels,Set bag fee reasonably high to deter excess use

($1.50)Set fee for second barrel high ($150, then $100/y)

Public Response – “All Quiet on the Bedford Front”

28

Bedford : Implementation LessonsBarrel eligibility policy Distribution processSpace and security needs while barrels

assembled and deliveredGetting rid of residents’ unwanted old barrelsAddressing concerns of the COAGave out a roll of five bags with each barrel Worthwhile to develop a nice full-color

brochure with photos of barrel placement and recycling options.

29

Bedford : Impact on SW and $

30

After (Oct – Feb FY12)• SW = 1525 tons, down 16% (249 tons) => 0.9 T/hh/y projected• Rec = 663 tons, up 23% (124 tons)• Saved $17,000 in disposal so far• Earned $6,100 new revenue from bag sales

1824

1525

539663

0200

400600800

1000

120014001600

18002000

Oct 2010- Feb 2011 Oct 2011-Feb 2012To

ns

Trash Curbside Recycling

16% or 249 tons less trash, worth $17,000 so far!

23% or 124 tons more recycling

Before (Oct – Feb FY11)• SW = 1824 tons = 1.07 tons T/hh/y• Rec = 539 tons

Hamilton: A Program Evolution

Prepared by Carolyn Dann4/06/2010 31

Hamilton: Getting to “Change” Decision Process

Early success with Waste Ban Enforcement (10% less SW) and Waste Reduction Program (34% less SW)

Key support from LWV, Hamilton-Wenham Green Hotline for Hamilton and Wenham residentsPilot program documented interest and weight of

compostKey Factors

Local compost site availableSupportive haulers (one for organics pilot, one for town-

wide program)Town Manager and Selectmen support for innovation

and sustainably financed SW & R system32

Hamilton: Compost Pilot LessonsWeight of food waste = 10-15 lbs/week, 1/3 – ½ of

total SWPeople liked the ability to have year-round curbside

compost collectionGardeners valued getting free compost in return and

were willing to pay for participation during pilot period

A separate route for collecting organics is expensiveDistance to the compost site must be minimal and tip

fees must be lower than trash tip feesProviding curbside organics collection town-wide

may be inefficient without a “driving force” such as PAYT or bi-weekly SW collection. We’ll see how Hamilton and Wenham compare

New Program starts in April! 33

Hamilton: Impact on SW“Before” Waste Reduction Program (4-07 to 3-08)

• SW Total = 2806• 1.04 tons per household

 “After” (4-08 to 3-09)

• 34% reduction in SW• SW Total = 1843• 0.71 Tons per household • Average of one bag per month per household

•“After” Weekly SSR+SSO, Bi-weekly SW• Hoping to see 0.5 or 0.4 Tons per household

34

Grafton: Pay As You ThrowStart Date: July 1, 2009Program details:

Weekly Solid Waste Collections & Bi-Weekly Single Stream Recycling

Bag Rates: $1.50 - 33 gallon – 25lbs $0.75 - 13 gallon – 13 lbs Sold by local retailers - 7

Total households served = 6,300 Average 1 bag per household per week

35

Grafton: Getting to “Change” Decision Process

Board of Selectmen & Town MeetingKey Factors

Outreach Meetings Equity – Household Size – Surrounding

Communities Compared Cost to Private Haulers

Responses Illegal Dumping Disposing Bag Quality & Materials

36

Grafton: Implementation LessonsBags vs. StickersType of Bags Selected

Draw StringsSupply ahead of implementation

Bag ManufacturerState ContractAccount Management & Distribution Logistics

Waste Leaves the Grafton StreamSolid Waste Decrease Recycling IncreaseReduce, ReuseStopped bringing workplace trash home

37

Grafton: Impact on SW

FY 2009SW Total = 5,169• 0.9 tons per household

•FY 2010•37.6% reduction in SW•SW Total = 3,228•0.5 Tons per household •Tipping Fee Reduction

•$134,317.20 (@$69.20/ton)•FY11 v. FY09: -39.5%•FY12 v. FY09: -41.1% (est.)

38

Grafton: Lessons Continued Further Increased Recycling through Automated Collections

39