1. Carolyn Dann
MassDEP Municipal Asst Coordinator

2. Methods, Caveats
 Tracking “interesting towns” SW since FY06
 Updated with FY11 tonnage info where available
 Information 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

3. Chelmsford Case Study
3

4. Barrel Size Matters
4

9. Conclusions from “Interesting Towns”
 Starting point matters - Always ask about “before”!
 More reduction predicted if >1.0 Ton/household
 Program matters
 PAYT will result in 0.5 – 0.7 TPH
 WRP will result in 0.7 – 0.9 TPH
 Automated 64-g or 2 bag limit will result in 0.9 – 1.0 TPH
 3-4 Barrel and Unlimited programs will result in 1.1+ TPH
 5-10% 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

10. Next
 Ipswich, Bedford, Grafton and Hamilton,
 Continue to gather info
10

11. Ipswich: 4, 3, 2, 1 Barrel Limit
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
11

12. Ipswich : Getting to “Change”
 Decision Process
 Selectmen not prepared for drastic change
 Start enforcing current limits first
12

13. Ipswich : Getting to “Change”
 Key Factors
 Surveys (Most were already at 1-2 by 2010)
 Know your stuff! Selectmen presentations (data!)
 Awareness
13

14. 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

15. 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

16. Ipswich : Getting to “Change”
 Public Response
 Majority comply
 Some complaints – big families
 Very little public ‘dumping’
16

17. Ipswich : Implementation Lessons
 Communication is Key
 Data is important
 Keep improving – never stop
 Dedicated volunteer team
17

18. 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

19. Solid Waste Tonnage
Before / After WRP
Solid Waste
400.00
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00 FY 2010
150.00
100.00 FY 2011
50.00
-
ly
ne
ril
y
rch
y
st
De e r
ry
er
Ma
Ju
er
Ap
ar
er
Ju
gu
ua
tob
mb
Ma
mb
mb
nu
Au
br
ve
Oc
Ja
ce
pte
Fe
No
Se
19

20. 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

21. Ipswich
 Town policy should support contract
 Joint responsibility with the hauler for enforcement
 Contract collection and tipping fees separately to
discourage collecting too much trash at the curb
 Plans for bulky items
 Penalties for collecting too much trash
 Single stream vs. separated recyclables
 Work on the rejection sticker with your hauler
 Contact numbers, wording etc.
21

22. Current Issues
 Getting hauler to enforce the rules
 Establish clear rules about how full a barrel can be
22

23. Current Issues
 Residents who put out trash but no recycling
23

24. Current Issues
 Residents who have oversized barrels
 - Give a grace period for people to get the right size
barrel
 - Warning stickers about the size
 - Enforcement plans
24

25. Current Issues
 Multi-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

26. Recycling Committee
 Spent many hours planning
 Spent many hours negotiating
 Spends many hours implementing
Many hours of this was done with volunteers!!
26

27. Bedford: Automated 48-g carts
 Start Date: October 5, 2011
 Program details:
 48-gal barrels distributed to all 1-4 family households
 Continued manual, dual-stream recycling collection
 One-day collection for entire town
 Total households served = 4336
 Gave barrels to “accessory use” apartments only after
investigation
 Sold ~120 2nd barrels for $150/1st year, $100/yr thereafter
 Bags: 1.75mil, sold in rolls of five for $7.50 per roll ($1.50 ea)
27

28. Bedford : Getting to “Change”
 Decision Process
 Considered 35-gal barrels but …
 DPW Staff drove streets, counted barrels in actual use
 Held one public hearing
 Received calls, articles, letters
 Hauler started to request added fee on overflow bags
 Selectmen 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

29. Bedford : Implementation Lessons
 Barrel eligibility policy
 Distribution process
 Space and security needs while barrels assembled and
delivered
 Getting rid of residents’ unwanted old barrels
 Addressing concerns of the COA
 Gave 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

30. Bedford : Impact on SW and $
2000 1824
1800
1525
1600 16% or 249 tons less
1400
Before (Oct – Feb FY11) 1200
trash, worth $17,000
so far!
• SW = 1824 tons
Tons
1000
= 1.07 tons T/hh/y 800 663
539
• Rec = 539 tons 600
23% or 124 tons more
400 recycling
200
0
Oct 2010- Feb 2011 Oct 2011-Feb 2012
After (Oct – Feb FY12) Trash Curbside Recycling
• 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
30

31. Hamilton: A Program Evolution
4/06/2010 Prepared by Carolyn Dann 31

32. 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 residents
 Pilot program documented interest and weight of compost
 Key Factors
 Local compost site available
 Supportive haulers (one for organics pilot, one for town-
wide program)
 Town Manager and Selectmen support for innovation and
sustainably financed SW & R system 32

33. Hamilton: Compost Pilot Lessons
 Weight of food waste = 10-15 lbs/week, 1/3 – ½ of total
SW
 People liked the ability to have year-round curbside
compost collection
 Gardeners valued getting free compost in return and
were willing to pay for participation during pilot period
 A separate route for collecting organics is expensive
 Distance to the compost site must be minimal and tip
fees must be lower than trash tip fees
 Providing 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

34. 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

35. Grafton: Pay As You Throw
 Start Date: July 1, 2009
 Program 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

36. Grafton: Getting to “Change”
 Decision Process
 Board of Selectmen & Town Meeting
 Key Factors
 Outreach Meetings
 Equity – Household Size – Surrounding Communities
 Compared Cost to Private Haulers
 Responses
 Illegal Dumping
 Disposing
 Bag Quality & Materials
36

37. Grafton: Implementation Lessons
 Bags vs. Stickers
 Type of Bags Selected
 Draw Strings
 Supply ahead of implementation
 Bag Manufacturer
 State Contract
 Account Management & Distribution Logistics
 Waste Leaves the Grafton Stream
 Solid Waste Decrease Recycling Increase
 Reduce, Reuse
 Stopped bringing workplace trash home
37

38. Grafton: Impact on SW
FY 2009
SW 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

39. Grafton: Lessons Continued
 Further Increased Recycling through Automated Collections
39