Recovery rates v2

Recovery RatesAn Alternative to Recycling RatesSome Massachusetts ExamplesPRESENTED BY:

TED S IEGLER

WWW.DSMENVIRONMENTAL.COM

DSM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. WINDSOR, VT 1

http://www.dsmenvironmental.com/

Recycling RatesEPA set the standard for measuring recycling in 1997 when it published Measuring Recycling, A Guide for State and Local Governments

The intent of the Guide was to standardize measurement across programs so that states and municipalities could compare programs and measure progress over time

Unfortunately recycling rates have been plagued by a number of variables making comparison across programs challenging

◦ What materials are included in the numerator?

◦ What materials are included in denominator?

Is California really that much better than Massachusetts – or does the inclusion of ground C&D and sludge in the numerator and denominator make a big difference?


The Changing Ton *More recently recycling rates have been either falling or flat despite the best efforts of states, in large part because of the changing ton

◦ Newspapers and other types of paper are shrinking dramatically

◦ Glass, the other “heavyweight” is being replaced by light weight plastic

◦ And plastics continue to be light-weighted as packaging technologies improve

As a result, recycling rates have become an increasingly problematic tool for measuring success over time

◦ Municipalities and states are not necessarily doing a worse job

◦ Instead we are increasingly handling higher volumes of lower weight materials

* Thanks to Chaz Miller and Dylan De Thomas


Waste Characterization DataMany states turn to waste characterization studies to determine what is left in the waste stream

◦ DSM/MSW/Cascadia currently conducting a state-wide waste characterization study for Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation

◦ Will be starting Connecticut in late April

◦ And completed Vermont’s in 2012

While these studies do tell us what is left in the waste stream for a state (or region), they don’t necessarily tell us:

◦ How well our recycling programs are performing

◦ And more importantly, where we should go to improve recycling


Recovery Rates – An AlternativeDefinition of Recovery Rate

◦ Can be calculated for a single recyclable material, or for all recyclable materials accepted in a program

◦ Primarily used to assess the performance of residential programs, but can be used to evaluate commercial or transfer based recycling programs as well

◦ For a single material – “the quantity of newspaper set out for recycling on a collection route divided by the quantity of newspaper set out for recycling plus the quantity of newspaper disposed in the trash on the same route”

◦ Summing the recovery rate for each recyclable material collected in the program results in an overall recovery rate for all recyclable materials on that route or in that municipality.


Benefits of Recovery Rate AnalysisAccounts for differences in income and generation

◦ Low income households generate far less heavy recyclables◦ newspaper, magazines and glass bottles

Is independent of the numerator and denominator of recycling rates◦ Simply measures what percent of the materials you are asking residents to recycle are being recycled

Can be significantly less costly than a waste characterization study◦ You are only sorting what you are targeting in your programs


Massachusetts's DataOver the past 18 months DSM has conducted recovery rate sorting for the City of Boston

◦ Charlestown, South End, Back Bay, and Beacon Hill

And for the Massachusetts grocers and beverage distributors◦ Low, middle and high income routes in Worcester

◦ Two subscription routes in central Massachusetts – rural and suburban

◦ Sherborn transfer station

◦ Barnstable transfer station


Some Key Take Away’s From the Analyses


Very High Recovery Rates are Possible, and PAYT Makes a Difference

Municipality High Low Average

(%) (%) (%)

Subscription, Suburban (modified PAYT) 82.8

Sherborn (Drop-Off, no PAYT) 81.9

Worcester (Weekly Curbside, PAYT) 82 76.4 79.8

Subscription, Rural (modified PAYT) 60.5

Boston (Weekly Curbside, no PAYT) 66.5 40.9 53.9

Barnstable (Drop-Off, no PAYT) 44.1

Average 67.2

Recovery Rate


Comparing Recycling Rates and Recovery Rates

A high recycling rate doesn’t necessarily mean the program is performing at the highest level

Recycling rates of 50% could only be achieved in a few communities without organics

Municipality/Prog

ram

Measured

Recovery

Rate

Measured

Recycling

Rate

Maximum

Achievable

Rate

Worcester

High Income 81% 38% 47%

Medium Income 82% 28% 35%

Low Income 76% 24% 32%

Boston

Beacon Hill 41% 21% 46%

Back Bay 50% 33% 50%

South End 58% 34% 47%

Charlestown 67% 40% 50%

Subscription

Suburban 83% 32% 36%

Rural 61% 28% 42%

Drop-Off

Sherborn 82% 40% 48%

Barnstable 44% 21% 37%


Single Stream Contamination RatesManageable, but of concern

Worcester

Monday 10.3%

Tuesday 9.5%

Wednesday 20.2%

Subscription

Suburban 14.0%

Rural 9.3%

Sherborn Transfer Station 4.9%

Barnstable Transfer Station 2.3%

Boston

Charlestown 10.3%

South End 8.4%

Back Bay 13.5%

Beacon Hill 8.9%

Average (excluding

Sherborn & Barnstable): 11.9%

RouteContamination Rate


General ObservationWe are moving toward an era of ever lighter materials

◦ Lighter plastics will continue to be substituted for heavier materials, and existing plastic containers will become even lighter

◦ Pouches and film will continue to replace glass, aluminum and rigid plastics as packaging materials

◦ Digital media will continue to replace newspapers and magazines, and paper will decline as a percent of material in our carts and bins

The result will be continued flattening, or even declines in conventional recycling rates◦ Even as we manage higher volumes of material

◦ The net value of the recyclables we collect will decline as light weight plastics ride on the backs of less higher value paper

Recovery Rate analysis does not rely on the relative weight of MSW and recyclables ◦ And they can play an important role in the analysis of program performance going forward.


Recovery RatesThe nuts and bolts – but caution – I am a garbage sorter, and an economist - not a statistician!


Recovery RatesThe Abridged VersionIt’s all about the sample

◦ No one likes sorting garbage – or at least sorting more than is absolutely necessary

The key is to obtain a random sample that is representative of the population you are interested in

◦ Curbside – work with the public works department or the private hauler to define streets or collection routes that they believe are representative of specific populations

◦ Transfer stations – take samples for a long enough period during the day to cover the behavior of different groups using the facility

◦ Businesses – work with a private hauler to collect samples from between 8 and 12 generators of a specific business category


Sample SizeOver the years we have come to the conclusion that a sample size ranging from 40 to 50 households provides accurate data

◦ As long as the sample is absolutely randomly selected and is representative of the population being studied

The key is to avoid any bias in the sample selection◦ Which would you choose to sort – a nice small bag of waste and a clean bin of recyclables?

◦ Or a big pile of garbage bags and a jumbled mess or recycling with some waste mixed in?

For this reason, the sample size is pre-selected, and compared against the route size, or the expected use of the transfer station, and then the X’th set-out is determined to collect the sample

◦ Route is 500 stops, and you want 50 stops, then you take every 10th stop, no matter what is there

There are variations on the theme, but the basic principal remains the same


Logistics - CurbsideYou need two trucks or a split truck

◦ At each designated stop you need to collect all of the waste in one truck and all of the recyclables set out at the same stop in the second truck

◦ If only garbage has been set out at the stop, you collect the garbage and move on to the next designated stop

◦ If only recyclables are set out you collect the recyclables and move on to the next stop

Remember that the theory is that the overall sample is representative of the behavior of all of the stops on the route

◦ Some people recycle every week, some less frequently, and some not at all, and some only put out recyclables some weeks


Role of ScavengersIn deposit states aluminum and PET will be artificially low because these containers will have been scavenged out of the recyclables


Logistics, Transfer StationThe same basic sample rules apply, but you have to be realistic

Not all users want you sorting through their waste◦ That appears to be especially the case in Barnstable!

◦ I am sorry I don’t have a picture of Natalie almost being run over!

Stick to your assigned number – say every 10th vehicle entering the facility◦ Try to persuade those who don’t want to participate to participate

◦ Assure them that no data are kept on the individual samples

◦ Offer to unload the car for them

◦ If the answer is still “no”, then move on to the next user


You Have Your Sample, Now What


Sort ItOn a curbside route the entire sample is brought back to an enclosed location and sorted

Sort categories are predetermined depending on the study but typically are based on what materials households are asked to place in their recycling bin

We typically start with the garbage sample and pull all recyclables out of the garbage and place in the respective bins

Once all of the garbage is sorted we weigh each material and record the weights◦ We also weigh all the waste so that a recycling rate can be calculated

We then sort the recyclables into the same categories and weigh each category◦ We sort out contaminants and weigh that as well so that we know what the contamination rate is for

the sample

◦ But note that contamination does not impact the recovery rate results


So What Can Recovery Rates Tell Us?How well the program is doing

How much better the program could be doing◦ What are residents doing well, where are they doing poorly

How many more pounds/tons could be achieved out of a high achieving program

Is contamination a big problem – if so, what materials


Massachusetts ExamplesCambridge

Boston

Worcester

The tale of two transfer stations◦ Sherborn

◦ Barnstable


Cambridge, MAOld study – 2004, but the example is still valid

Where should Cambridge go to increase recycling◦ Data available to the City indicated that the high income neighborhoods were doing a good job of

recycling – lots of pounds per household

◦ Low income neighborhoods were not – low pounds per household

Recovery rate study confirmed that, but offered some surprising conclusions


Cambridge Results

Route Day Income

Recycling

Rate

Recovery

Rate

Tuesday H 43% 59%

Wednesday M 36% 56%

Thursday L 15% 39%

Friday M 24% 35%


CambridgeWhere Can You Go For More?

Route Day Income

Max. Achievable

Recycling Rate

Total

Newspaper

Recycled In Refuse Total (%) (Lbs)

Tuesday H 1367 489 1856 59 890

Wednesday M 320 180 500 56

Thursday L 273 442 715 39 140

Friday M 449 201 650 35

Recyclables

(Annualized Pounds/HH)


BostonPrimary Questions

◦ Do households who receive more than one refuse collection per week, but only one recycling collection per week recycle less than those households who receive a single day of refuse and recycling collection per week

◦ If so, what would happen if we eliminated one or more refuse collections per week?


Boston: Results By Material TypeMaterial

Charlestown South End Back Bay Beacon Hill

PAPER 65.0% 57.4% 51.3% 42.3%

Corrugated Cardboard 80.6% 68.0% 61.0% 38.4%

Mixed Paper 51.1% 49.7% 45.1% 43.8%

Newspaper & Inserts 80.7% 68.2% 55.7% 45.4%

PLASTIC 55.1% 42.4% 32.0% 29.3%

#1 PET Bottles, Containers, and Thermoforms 80.7% 70.2% 61.4% 22.5%

#2 HDPE Bottles and Jars 52.9% 49.7% 26.4% 35.7%

Tubs, Cups, Trays, & Lids 40.1% 31.1% 26.3% 28.1%

Bulky Rigid Plastics 46.1% 31.2% 1.3% 36.5%

METAL 46.5% 27.6% 25.0% 26.9%

Aluminum Beverage Cans 57.4% 13.9% 20.2% 17.7%

Aluminum Tins/Foil 20.1% 13.3% 22.8% 11.8%

Steel Cans 53.5% 38.8% 28.3% 39.4%

GLASS 77.3% 69.2% 55.3% 43.1%

Glass Bottles and Jars 77.3% 69.2% 55.3% 43.1%

66.5% 58.1% 50.1% 40.9%

Recovery Rate

Total:


What Could Boston Achieve By Eliminating Multiple Refuse Collections?


WorcesterHas 20 Years of PAYT Been Effective?

Route Income

Recovery

Rate

Recycling

Rate

Contamination

Rate

Annualized

Lbs/HH

Monday H 81% 47% 10.3% 1005

Tuesday M 82% 35% 9.5% 857

Wednesday L 76% 32% 20.2% NA


Sherborn and Barnstable Transfer Stations

Steel Cans 85.7% 43%

Steel Expanded 100.0% 0%

AL Deposit 81.0% 72%

AL Expanded 100.0% 14%

AL Other 11.8% 50%

PET Deposit 84.4% 45%

PET Expanded 79.3% 30%

PET food/other 67.5% 30%

PET Cups 48.0% 29%

PET Thermoform 83.6% 38%

HDPE Bottles 80.2% 49%

HDPE Expanded 100.0% 100%

Plastic Tubs/Lids 72.8% 26%

Glass Deposit 95.8% 97%

Glass Expanded 90.3% 100%

All Other Glass Bottles 97.0% 41%

Mixed Paper Recyclables 78.4% 42%

Total: 81.9% 44%

Sherborn BarnstableMaterials


ConclusionsRecovery rate analysis can be a powerful tool for analyzing recycling programs

◦ Eliminates the weight based problems associated with recycling rates◦ An increasing problem with light weighting of packaging and paper

◦ Eliminates the bias toward high income neighborhoods/municipalities◦ “Free recycling” embedded in refuse rates benefits high income households

◦ Can target neighborhoods and materials for improvement

◦ Can quantify the potential impact of changes to programs

◦ Can quantify pounds of recyclables by material type per household potentially available


Power of PAYT

Municipality High Low Average

(%) (%) (%)

Subscription, Suburban (modified PAYT) 82.8

Sherborn (Drop-Off, no PAYT) 81.9

Worcester (Weekly Curbside, PAYT) 82 76.4 79.8

Subscription, Rural (modified PAYT) 60.5

Boston (Weekly Curbside, no PAYT) 66.5 40.9 53.9

Barnstable (Drop-Off, no PAYT) 44.1

Average 67.2

Recovery Rate


Comparison of recycling rates and recovery rates

Municipality/Prog

ram

Measured

Recovery

Rate

Measured

Recycling

Rate

Maximum

Achievable

Rate

Worcester

High Income 81% 38% 47%

Medium Income 82% 28% 35%

Low Income 76% 24% 32%

Boston

Beacon Hill 41% 21% 46%

Back Bay 50% 33% 50%

South End 58% 34% 47%

Charlestown 67% 40% 50%

Subscription

Suburban 83% 32% 36%

Rural 61% 28% 42%

Drop-Off

Sherborn 82% 40% 48%

Barnstable 44% 21% 37%


Annualized Pounds/HH

High

Income

Medium

Income Suburban Rural

(lb's/hh/yr) (lb's/hh/yr) (lb's/hh/yr) (lb's/hh/yr)

Steel Cans 30.8 28.6 21.8 19.1

AL Deposit 2.0 7.6 7.3 3.2

AL Expanded 0.2 2.0 2.1 1.0

AL Other 7.4 2.0 3.1 1.6

PET Deposit 4.1 12.4 4.0 6.7

PET Exanded 60.4 56.6 38.3 42.4

PET food/other 11.8 15.4 18.4 20.3

PET Cups 13.0 3.8 8.5 8.9

HDPE Bottles 56.8 54.0 31.5 32.2

HDPE Expanded 3.5 4.9 3.7 3.9

Plastic Tubs/Lids 47.6 34.6 16.2 11.0

Glass Deposit 25.0 31.0 30.6 40.4

Glass Expanded 9.8 16.2 7.1 4.3

All Other Glass Bottles 114.4 70.2 102.2 56.2

Mixed Paper Recyclables 618.4 518.0 544.3 604.5

Total 1005.2 857.3 839.2 855.6

Recyclable Material

Category

Worcester Subscription


Questions


Recovery rates v2

Environment

Transcript of Recovery rates v2