DPW Worcester

1. Making our physical
environment more
sustainable
Presented at 3rd Massachusetts Sustainable
Communities Conference
April 24, 2013
Robert L. Moylan Jr., P.E
Commissioner of Public Works and Parks
Worcester MA

2. Overview
§ What is sustainability?
§ How do we evaluate sustainability?
§ Case studies of sustainable practices
§ Examples of non-sustainable practices
§ Guidance for going forward

3. Sustainability
What is it???
Sustainability in public works, in the
broadest sense, means delivering our
services in a manner that ensures an
appropriate balance between the
environment, the community and our
ability to pay. It means making smart,
thoughtful decisions by spending the
publics money to get the best return for
the environment and the community

4. Responsibilities of Public
Works Directors or City
Managers
§ We are problem solvers and practitioners of
sustainability
§ Stewards of our community’s resources
§ Advocates for and protectors of the environment
§ Managers of complex infrastructure systems
§ Responsible for the prudent expenditure of the
public’s money
§ Visionaries for our communities
§ And if we are really good, we not only
do more with less, we do almost
everything with nothing!!!!

5. How Do We Evaluate a
Sustainable Concept?
§ Triple bottom line
• Needs to be good for the environment
• Needs to be good for people/community
• Needs to be economically justified & viable

6. How Do We Evaluate a
Sustainable Concept?
§ Sustainability cannot be achieved if one of the
requirements is missing; it should not be
forced
§ Economics is often the most challenging of
the 3 requirements to satisfy
§ The Holy Grail: Identifying a practice that
achieves environmental improvement by
promoting good behavior that costs less than
bad behavior

7. Some of sustainability’s
many forms
§ Fleet operations
§ Vehicle idling policy
§ Vehicle fuel policy
§ Recycling opportunities
§ MSW
§ Construction Materials
§ Vehicle re-use
§ Energy and Street Lighting
§ Smart offices
§ LED lighting

8. Case Study #1: Making Solid
Waste Management in
Worcester Sustainable
§ Worcester’s Historical Solid Waste Collection
Program (prior to 1993)
§ Traditional waste collection – tax levy funded
§ Weekly collection (50,000 household units)
§ Over 40,000 tons/yr collected (WTE facility)
§ Bagged waste collected at curbside (36
employees)
§ Recycling strongly promoted at drop-off centers
(2% of waste stream recycled)

9. Making Solid Waste
Management Sustainable
§ Conclusion:
• Traditional program was not sustainable
• >40,000 tons/yr incinerated
• Only 2% of waste stream recycled
• 36 city employees needed to collect waste
• The city’s solid waste program was not
satisfying the economic requirement of TBL
….therefore program not sustainable

10. Worcester’s Current PAYT
Solid Waste System
§ Developed in 1993 during
budget crisis
§ Required purchase of special
yellow bags at 50 cents each
§ Benefits
§ Weekly curbside trash and
recycling
§ Recycling is “free”
§ Created monetary incentive to
recycle; promoted good
behavior vs. bad

11. Worcester’s Current PAYT
Solid Waste System
§ Results:
• Worcester recycle rate increased from
2% to 38% in one week….12,000
tons/yr
• We now recycle > 50% of our waste
stream with leaf and yard waste
• City’s MSW waste reduced from
40,000 tons/yr to 23,000 tons/yr…
savings > $1M/yr
• Workforce reduced from 36 persons
to 16
• Program is successful because it
satisfies the triple bottom
line...created new behavior that
improves environment and costs less

12. Case Study #2:
Composting Worcester’s
Leaf and Yard Waste
§ Historical Practice:
§ Landfill leaves and yard waste collected on
city streets (75,000 cy) during fall season
§ Residential properties managed their own
leaf and yard waste during other months

13. Case Study #2:
Composting Leaf and Yard
Waste
§ New Program:
§ Leaf waste collected by city equipment from
all city streets over a 5 week period in fall
§ Yard waste collected from residential
properties during growing months
§ All waste is composted and screened and
then made available for residents at no
charge
§ Some compost material sold to landscape
companies

14. Case Study #2:
Composting
§ New Program (cont)
§ One of largest municipal composting
programs in the state
§ Operation fully managed within city limits by
city forces
§ Reuses a material that once took up
valuable landfill space and now provides a
beneficial use to residents
§ Annually provides 25,000 cy of “black gold”
§ Program is fully embraced by public

15. Case Study #3: Complete
Streets Program
§ $20 M Street Improvement Program (27 miles)
§ Work includes coordination of infrastructure
improvements of all utilities
§ Water & Sewer
§ Gas & Electric & Cable
§ Includes:
§ Street & Sidewalk Improvements
§ Tree Planting
§ Traffic signals & signage
§ Hydrant painting

16. Be cautious of the “Green”
tag
§ Not all “Green” initiatives are worthy of
adoption…evaluate against the TBL
§ Bio-Fuels
§ Tree Pits to control P
§ Clean Water Act
§ Stormwater
§ NPDES permits

17. Bio-Fuels for Municipal
Equipment Fleets
§ Bio-fuels: fuels made from organics that
are mixed with other fuels to reduce
GHGs
§ Avoided by City for many reasons:
§ Fuel is very problematic < 40°F
§ Reduces engine efficiency and life
§ Unreliable
§ Costly even though subsidized

18. Tree Pits to remove
phosphorous from runoff
§ “Green” Infrastructure to improve
stormwater quality
§ Placed on residential streets to collect
runoff and pass it through a medium to
reduce P loadings
§ Average cost to install = $8k/ea
§ Equivalent number of trees = 27
§ Which choice is preferred?

19. Is the Clean Water Act
Sustainable?
§ CWA passed in 1972
§ Noble goal is to make all
waters fishable and
swimmable
§ Law passed at a time when
nations waters were very
contaminated, many posed
a health hazard and were
unusable

20. Is the Clean Water Act
Sustainable?
§ EPA’s NPDES Permits
System
• Stormwater: controls
discharge from urban
drainage systems
• Wastewater: controls
point sources from
POTW’s

21. Stormwater Management
§ EPA’s Historical Approach
• Maximum Extent Practicable = statutory
municipal stormwater treatment standard
• Best Management Practices + Public
Education + Implement within your means
= MEP
• Seek continuous Improvement
• Sustainable because it satisfied the TBL

22. Stormwater Management
§ EPA’s New Approach
• MEP is insufficient; specific water quality standards
must now be achieved
• Standards are unachievable with good behavior
• Meeting standards far more costly…treatment
needed
§ Cost to treat an impervious urban acre is
$150,000 (estimate from EPA)
§ Statewide = $21 Billion
§ Triple bottom line remains unmet because
economic requirement is not satisfied
Does anyone in MA think that we have a $21B
stormwater problem?????

23. NPDES Permit for
Wastewater Treatment
§ NPDES permits require removal of pollutants to
assure uses of water are protected or restored
§ Gross pollutants (toxins, metals) are under
control
§ Focus is now nutrients: namely P and N
§ UBWPAD not yet completed $200M upgrade to
meet 2001 permit and are hit with new permit
costing $200M

24. Wastewater Treatment
UBWPAD NPDES Permit
§ Current plant discharge is
• TP = 0.3 mg/l
• TN = 6 mg/l
§ New Discharge Permit (2008) now
under appeal
• TP = 0.1 mg/l
• TN = 5 mg/l
§ To meet new permit will require a
50% increase in the carbon
footprint of the plant

25. Wastewater Treatment
UBWPAD NPDES Permit
§ Conclusion: The CWA does not consider
“sustainability”
§ It focuses on improving water quality at the
expense of energy consumption, air quality
degradation and other environmental impacts
§ It does not satisfy the TBL criteria

26. Wastewater Treatment
§ EPA’s Historical Approach
• Federal and state cost sharing to lessen the
financial burden
• EPA very conscious of costs and cost-
benefit when they have money in the game
• Incredibly successful at restoring nation’s
waters
• Sustainable because it produces clear
environmental and societal benefits and
considers economics

27. Wastewater Treatment
§ EPA’s New Approach
• No more federal or state grants
• Assistance limited to loans (SRF)
• Sorry, we can’t consider costs
• Any perceived improvement is good, no
matter how marginal
• Science is weak and disputed
§ Triple bottom line remains unmet because
environmental benefits and social benefits are
unproven and economic leg is not satisfied

28. Going Forward
§ Triple Bottom Line is the method by which we
must measure or evaluate a sustainable
initiative
§ The most challenging variable of the TBL is
economic
§ Technology and innovation will drive the
economic variable
§ Be wary of adopting “green” solutions simply
because they come with a “green” tag