September 25, Christopher Flynn, Chairman c/o No on Question 2: Stop Forced Deposits P.O. Box Charlestown, MA 02129

Transcription

1 September 25, 2014 Christopher Flynn, Chairman c/o No on Question 2: Stop Forced Deposits P.O. Box Charlestown, MA Re: Recovery Rate Sorting, Massachusetts Dear Chris: DSM Environmental Services, Inc. (DSM) was contracted by Comprehensive Recycle Works (now the No on Question 2 Committee) to conduct recovery rate sorting in Massachusetts. The primary purpose was to estimate what percentage of bottle bill and non-bottle bill containers are captured from comprehensive recycling programs in Massachusetts, exclusive of the bottle bill. 1 DSM had previously conducted recovery rate sorting in three representative neighborhoods in Boston, under contract to the City of Boston. The intent of the sorting was to select other representative municipalities in Massachusetts that have comprehensive recycling to conduct recovery rate sorting, and to combine the data from Boston with the new data to develop a range of recovery rates, and an aggregate average recovery rate by material type. In all cases the data represent residential refuse and recycling programs, not ICI programs so the resulting recovery rate data can only be used to draw conclusions about residential programs. In addition, it is important to note that the data collected come only from municipal and subscription programs that DSM consider comprehensive, in that recycling is offered in parallel with refuse collection. As one would expect, there is a broad range of collection programs that offer parallel collection, but in different forms with different incentives. For example, Boston offers weekly, single stream recycling collection on the same day as refuse collection, but in some neighborhoods there are 1 to 2 additional refuse collections each week. Also, while Boston will provide carts (in the neighborhoods studied) to households who request one, many households still use small recycling bins. 2 And Boston does not have PAYT pricing. Worcester, on the other hand has comprehensive PAYT pricing with same day collection of refuse and recycling for all households, but also does not offer carts to residents. And private hauler Casella offers subscription, single stream recycling with carts to most residential customers, but does not have formal PAYT pricing, although they charge households less for every other week collection of refuse. 1 The bottle bill does impact the amount of containers subject to the deposit currently available in the conventional recycling program in two ways. First, many deposit containers are redeemed by the generator and therefore are not set-out for recycling. In addition, a number of deposit containers that are set out in the recycling bin are scavenged before being collected by the recycling truck. 2 Boston provides carts to all households in the majority of neighborhoods except for those with narrow streets, little storage and a high percentage of large unit buildings. 1 P a g e

2 Finally, Sherborn does not have PAYT pricing, and requires households to separate their recycling into two streams paper and containers, but does provide comprehensive collection of recyclables at no charge directly adjacent to the transfer hopper for refuse. Sampling Areas DSM collected samples in the City of Boston under a separate contract with the City completed in October In July and August 2014, DSM collected samples from three representative routes in Worcester selected by the City of Worcester, and then collected samples from two subscription Casella routes one a suburban route in Charlton, and one a rural route in Dudley, MA. Finally, DSM sampled at a non-payt transfer station and recycling facility in the suburban/rural municipality of Sherborn on September 6, The areas selected and subsequent results should be representative of four types of collection systems: Municipally organized, contract collection of refuse and single stream recycling but without PAYT Boston Municipally collected refuse and municipally contracted single stream recycling with PAYT Worcester Subscription collection of refuse and single stream recycling Charlton and Dudley Drop-off refuse and recycling, without PAYT - Sherborn This Letter Report presents the study methodology and the results for all the days of sorting. Definition of Recovery Rate Materials recovery rates are different from recycling rates, and tend to be a better indicator of the performance of recycling programs because they filter out variables associated with household size, income levels, organics generation and diversion and set outs of bulky waste. All of these factors make comparisons of recycling rates difficult. Material recovery rates can be calculated for individual recyclable materials, and for the sum of all materials collected in a municipality s recycling program. For each material that a municipality collects for recycling, the materials recovery rate (expressed as a percent) can be calculated as follows: Materials Recovery Rate = Material Set Out for Recycling / (Material Set Out for Recycling + Material Placed in Trash) For example, Worcester residents can set out all newspaper for recycling. The Materials Recovery Rate for newspaper equals 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 thrown away (or placed in the trash) on the same route. 2 P a g e

3 A materials recovery rate for all recyclables accepted by the municipality can also be calculated, which is essentially the sum of the weight of all the materials set out for recycling in a neighborhood (or collection route) divided by the sum of the materials set out for recycling plus the sum of all the same types of materials that could be recycled that were instead thrown away in the trash in the same neighborhood (or collection route). This can be compared with a Recycling Rate calculation which is defined as: All the material set out for recycling divided by the material set out for recycling plus all of the trash set out. As stated above, the problem with comparing neighborhoods using recycling rates (instead of recovery rates) is that different neighborhoods generate different amounts of recyclables and trash (when compared on an average per household basis), and different restrictions exist on what types of trash and bulky waste are collected. For example, a wealthy neighborhood might generate much larger quantities of newspaper, magazines and wine bottles but recycle only some of them, disposing the rest. Because these materials are heavy and represent a large portion of their total waste generation, this neighborhood might turn out to be poor recyclers (or represent a greater opportunity for additional materials recovery) but still show a high recycling rate because the materials this neighborhood did recycle are a large portion of the total trash (and recycling) set out. This could be compared against a low income neighborhood, which typically generates much smaller quantities of newspapers, magazines and wine bottles, but could be doing an excellent job of setting out the majority of their recyclables (as measured by the Recovery Rate), resulting in a lower recycling rate because the recyclables (by weight) are a much smaller portion of their total trash (and recycling) being set out. Finally, even if the low income neighborhood had low recovery rates, the higher income neighborhood might represent the best opportunity for increasing the quantities of material recycling in that community. Methodology Representative Municipalities There were essentially three critical data collection components. The first was to find willing municipalities that could be considered representative (in the aggregate) of Massachusetts. Worcester was selected because it has a diverse population as measured by income and by transient populations (because of the large college population), and because it is one of the oldest PAYT communities in Massachusetts. Data from Worcester (as the second largest city in Massachusetts) can be directly compared to Boston because both represent large urban areas with diverse neighborhoods the primary difference being that Worcester requires that all trash be placed in PAYT bags, while the full cost of solid waste management in Boston is included in the property tax. Charlton and Dudley were selected because Casella was interested in the data and because private subscription collection services are an important component of collection throughout Massachusetts. In this case, it was also possible to sample from a suburban, mixed income community (Charlton), and a rural, mixed income community (Dudley, MA). Just as importantly, Casella collects recyclables every 3 P a g e

4 other week in both communities using 64 gallon recycling carts, and there is a mix of households who pay for weekly versus every other week collection of refuse. Casella estimates that 60 percent of Charlton households have every week collection of refuse and every other week collection of refuse while in Dudley it is estimated that 55 percent of households have every week collection and 45 percent opt for every other week collection. Finally, Sherborn was selected because it is a non-payt municipality that has been discussing moving to PAYT pricing and was thus viewed as an opportunity to compare recovery rates between non-payt and PAYT (Worcester). In this case we also sampled only at the drop-off to increase the universe of collection types sampled. Sample Collection The overall goal was to collect a sample of 50 randomly selected households spread out over a collection route deemed representative by the municipality or hauler. It has been DSM s experience that 50 randomly selected households is representative of a typical solid waste collection route; and just as importantly, the amount of refuse and recycling collected from these households can by sorted in a single day by a typical four person sorting crew. This is critical because all the refuse and recycling collected must be sorted in order to compute the recovery rate. This is different from a waste characterization study where samples taken are typically around 200 to 250 pounds and sorting can stop at the completion of any of these small samples. In the case of a recovery rate sampling event it is impossible to know how much material will be collected, but as illustrated below, it is not unusual to sort as much as 2,500 pounds during the course of a single day of sorting. Worcester Robert Fiore, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Works selected the three collection routes for sampling. The first day of sampling represented a stable, upper middle income, primarily single family route. The second day of sampling represented middle income households with duplex households inter-mixed with single family households, therefore including both longer term residents and more transient residents. The third day of sampling represented a lower income section of the City with primarily two to four family buildings and a more transient population. It is generally assumed that stable neighborhoods with long term residents will be more careful about participating in recycling than neighborhoods with a higher transient population, although it is not clear that there are sufficient data to verify this assumption. Sampling occurred once a day over a three day time period. Representatives from DSM met a designated City of Worcester garbage truck and a Casella single stream recycling truck each morning at a pre-set location3. The City of Worcester garbage truck driver drove a pre-determined, designated route with a DSM enumerator in the truck, counting stops and designating every 5th set-out for collection. The Casella recycling truck driver then collected the recycling set out (if there was one) from the same set- 3 The Department of Public Works collects residential waste in Worcester, but contracts with Casella for collection of recycling. 4 P a g e

5 out; and, a DSM vehicle followed behind to ensure that both of the trucks were each picking up from the same set-out. Each sample size was made up of a total of 50 set-outs, representing 50 households. In suburban areas 50 set-outs was equal to 50 stops, however in more densely populated areas the number of households each set-out represented was accounted for and resulted in less stops. For example, the set-out from an apartment building with three apartments would be accounted for as 3 separate set-outs even though it was only one collection stop. TABLE 1 Sample Size by Date, Housing Type and Weight, Worcester Date Housing Type Sample Size (lbs.) Trash Recycling July 21 st Single Family Homes 1, July 22 nd Single Family/Duplex 1, July 23 rd Multi-Family Apts 1, Once 50 set-outs were collected, DSM, the City of Worcester garbage truck and the Casella recycling truck drove to a Worcester Department of Public Works site on Millbury Street. At the Millbury Street location the garbage truck and recycling trucks dumped their load on the sorting floor in two separate piles. Charlton and Dudley Glenn Petit, the Casella route manager for Casella s central Massachusetts operations selected the subscription routes for the two days of sampling. Because both routes are subscription routes in relatively suburban and rural areas it was impossible to drive the entire collection day route before the regular Casella trucks were allowed on the route, and to ensure that there would be sufficient time to sort the collected material. In both cases Glenn selected a portion of the route that he considered to be representative of the entire route, and a decision was made to collect from each third Casella set-out. It should be noted here that there are other private haulers servicing households in each of these municipalities so in reality the truck was passing by significantly more than three stops in order to collect from every third Casella set-out, thus the route appeared to DSM to be very representative of the municipality by the time the full sample was collected. As stated above, the sample size is dictated by the number of households represented and the amount of refuse and recycling collected. Because both Charlton and Dudley have a mix of every week and every other week collection, and because of the long distances driven between stops, a decision was made to stop collecting samples at 45 stops in Charlton, and this was reduced to 30 stops in Dudley once DSM recognized the amount of waste collected on the first day in Charlton. 5 P a g e

6 Sherborn TABLE 2 Sample Size and Date, Casella Subscription Routes Date Municipality Housing Type Sample Size (lbs) % Bi-Weekly Trash Recycling Refuse August 19 Charlton Single Family 2,510 1,398 40% August 20 Dudley Single Family 1, % The sampling procedure was significantly different for Sherborn because DSM was sampling material brought into the transfer station and recycling facility. Essentially DSM collected waste and recycling from all users of the facility over the course of five hours except for two short time periods. The first was mid-morning where too many vehicles came in and there was insufficient room to store the waste and recycling separately so a small number of users were allowed to simply throw their refuse and recycling in the designated locations. The second time was when the commercial collection trucks came in and DSM had to move the sorting table and bins to allow them to dump. Ultimately 50 samples were collected and sorted. Sorting Sorting took place after the samples were collected and safely secured, beginning with the refuse sample and ending with the recycling sample. The sorting crew pulled out all of the recyclable containers and paper from the trash and weighed each category, and then sorted the recyclables into the same categories. Material Categories The material categories sorted were the following: PET Deposit Bottles PET Expanded Bottles PET Food/Other PET Cups PET Thermoforms (except for Worcester) HDPE Bottles (non-deposit) HDPE Expanded Bottle Bill All Plastic Tubs, Cups + Lids Glass Deposit Bottles Glass, Expanded Bottles Glass Non-Deposit Bottles and Jars Aluminum Deposit Cans Aluminum Expanded Cans Aluminum Other (foil and food cans) Steel Cans Steel Cans, Expanded (not including first two days of Worcester) Paper Trash (all other material) 6 P a g e

7 Results Worcester Worcester was one of the first municipalities in Massachusetts to implement PAYT pricing for refuse. The success of this program is based on the 20 plus years that have passed since its residents have become accustomed to purchasing garbage bags and therefor understanding the financial benefit of separating their recycling and refuse. Table 3 presents the recovery rates, by material type for each sample day, and the average of the averages over the three days. The average recovery rate over the three sort days was 79.8%. While this rate is excellent, it is slightly lower than the true recovery rate because scavengers were picking through recycling bins for PET and Aluminum deposit containers in front of the sample collection trucks (see Figure 1-3). It is important to note that scavengers were observed only picking through recycling bins and not the refuse bags. TABLE 3 Materials Recovery Rates, Worcester, July 21 23, 2014 Recovery Rate Material Monday Tuesday Wednesday Average Steel Cans 88.3% 86.7% 60.3% 78.5% Steel Cans Expanded 90.0% 90.0% AL Deposit 70.0% 63.2% 13.8% 49.0% AL Expanded 100.0% 10.0% 52.6% 54.2% AL Other 0.0% 10.0% 42.9% 17.6% PET Deposit 97.6% 80.6% 26.3% 68.2% PET Expanded 90.1% 92.9% 81.1% 88.0% PET food/other 72.9% 88.3% 67.9% 76.4% PET Cups 60.0% 57.9% 46.2% 54.7% HDPE Bottles 97.9% 91.5% 81.7% 90.4% HDPE Expanded 97.1% 98.0% 33.3% 76.1% Plastic Tubs/Lids 80.7% 61.3% 75.7% 72.6% Glass Deposit 48.8% 34.8% 63.5% 49.1% Glass Expanded 100.0% 100.0% 63.0% 87.7% All Other Glass Bottles 96.7% 95.7% 75.9% 89.4% Mixed Paper Recyclables 77.6% 82.0% 79.3% 79.6% Total: 81.0% 82.0% 76.4% 79.8% 7 P a g e

8 FIGURE 1: Scavenger, Worcester, MA, Wednesday, July 23 FIGURE 2: Scavengers, Worcester, Tuesday, July 22 FIGURE 3: Scavenger, Worcester, Tuesday, July 22 8 P a g e

9 Charlton and Dudley While Boston and Worcester represent organized collection of refuse and recycling, Charlton and Dudley represent subscription collection of refuse and recycling. This is the second most common form of collection in Massachusetts, and as such it was important to collect samples from one or more municipalities in which subscription service is the norm. In both Charlton and Dudley DSM observed at least three other company containers besides Casella, and we are not aware of what type of service these companies offer. However, we do know that Casella offers a baseline service which consists of two 64 gallon carts one for single stream recycling and one for refuse. Recyclables are collected every other week, and households can choose whether they want their refuse collected each week, or also every other week, on the same day as recycling collection. The cost differential between every week and every other week refuse collection is relatively minor, but in essence is a mild form of PAYT since households choosing the lower cost every other week collection need to store two weeks of refuse in their 64 gallon refuse cart, forcing them to be more vigilant about recycling. Because the sample was collected only on the week when recycling was being collected it was necessary for DSM to adjust the weight of the recyclables pulled from the refuse to reflect that some households on the route were placing one week of refuse in the cart and some were placing two weeks of refuse in the cart (those with weekly and every other week refuse collection respectively). Households with weekly refuse collection had the opportunity to place additional recyclables in their refuse during the week when they did not have recycling collection. This variable required DSM to multiply the recyclables pulled from the refuse by the ratio of weekly refuse stops to every other week refuse stops. This adjustment is a rough calculation because: a) we don t know whether the ratio of customers sampled is the same as the ratio of those signing up for weekly versus every other week collection; and, b) because one could speculate that those households with every week collection are less, or more avid recyclers. Given these limitations, Table 4 presents the estimated recovery rates for these two subscription routes, as well as the average of the averages to perhaps better reflect actual behavior. As illustrated by Table 4, while there is a significant range between the two routes, the range still lies on the high side of overall recovery rates, ranging from a 60 to 82 percent. 9 P a g e

10 TABLE 4 Material Recovery Rates, Charlton and Dudley Massachusetts Subscription Routes (August 19 and 20, 2014) Material Recovery Rate Charlton Dudley Average Steel Cans 70.37% 43.64% 57.0% AL Deposit 64.67% 32.61% 48.6% AL Expanded 21.74% 17.70% 19.7% Al Foil 11.11% 0.00% 5.6% PET Deposit 63.22% 36.08% 49.7% PET Exanded 72.46% 42.94% 57.7% PET Cups 25.89% 15.56% 20.7% PET Food 84.73% 68.39% 76.6% PET Thermoform 53.19% 44.64% 48.9% HDPE Bottles 82.42% 57.51% 70.0% HDPE Expanded % 58.30% 79.1% Plastic Tubs/Lids 48.57% 26.77% 37.7% Glass Deposit 95.78% 78.06% 86.9% Glass Expanded 63.52% % 81.8% All Other Glass Bottles 94.39% 61.73% 78.1% Mixed Paper Recyclables 84.65% 62.80% 73.7% Total: 82.79% 60.53% 71.7% Sherborn, Massachusetts A final day of recovery rate sorting was carried out at the Sherborn Transfer/Recycling Center on Wednesday, September 3, This facility is open Wednesday through Sunday each week accepting refuse, dual stream recycling, and a wide range of special wastes and materials. There has been discussion in Sherborn about the potential to implement PAYT pricing, so a decision was made to conduct a recovery rate sort at the facility to learn what the recovery rate might be without PAYT pricing, and therefore what the potential impact of PAYT might be. Residents of Sherborn can use the Transfer/Recycling Center at no cost, and they can also subscribe to subscription curbside collection of refuse and dual stream recycling. In this case DSM was only 10 P a g e

11 interested in the behavior of residents who use the Transfer/Recycling Center for both refuse and recycling disposal. Any resident bringing only recycling was questioned as to whether they subscribed for curbside collection of refuse. If they answered yes, then their recyclables were not included in the sample. A total of 50 households were sampled over the course of five hours. Table 5, below presents the recovery rates measured on September 3. TABLE 5 Materials Recovery Rate, Sherborn, Massachusetts, September 3, 2014 Materials Recovery Rate Steel Cans 85.7% Steel Expanded 100.0% AL Deposit 81.0% AL Expanded 100.0% AL Other 11.8% PET Deposit 84.4% PET Expanded 79.3% PET food/other 67.5% PET Cups 48.0% PET Thermoform 83.6% HDPE Bottles 80.2% HDPE Expanded 100.0% Plastic Tubs/Lids 72.8% Glass Deposit 95.8% Glass Expanded 90.3% All Other Glass Bottles 97.0% Mixed Paper Recyclables 78.4% Total: 81.9% 11 P a g e

12 Comparison with Boston Table 6, below presents recovery rates for the City of Boston using the exact same sampling procedure. While the container categories are more consolidated, Table 6 illustrates that Charlestown, with true parallel collection achieves recovery rates approaching those observed in this study, while the other neighborhoods, with multiple refuse collections have lower recovery rates. TABLE 6 Comparative City of Boston Materials Recovery Rates, September, 2013 Material Recovery Rate 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% Total: 66.5% 58.1% 50.1% 40.9% Ancillary Data Two other important pieces of information are readily available from the recovery rate sort data. These are: The observed contamination rate of material set out for recycling; and, The percent of PET currently going to the MRF which would be potentially diverted with an expanded bottle bill. 12 P a g e

13 Contamination Rates One concern often voiced about single stream collection of recyclables is that the material is highly contaminated and therefore of lower value. Table 7, below presents the contamination rates (by weight, not volume) for each recovery rate sort, including Boston, and the average contamination rate. As illustrated by Table 7, contamination rates from the single stream programs ranged from a low of 8.4 percent to a high of 20.2 percent, with an average of 11.6 percent (excluding Sherborn, which is a source separated program). While DSM does not have recent data for dual stream MRF inputs, DSM completed comprehensive sampling of the container lines at seven dual stream MRFs around the United States in The average residue rate was 9.8 percent, with a low of 5.4 percent and a high of 14.8 percent. DSM has observed much higher contamination rates, most recently in Delaware where contamination rates coming into the Route 5 Transfer Station in southern Delaware averaged 27 percent. However, the contamination rates observed in Massachusetts, which have much older and more established programs fall within a range that is only several percentage points higher than DSM s measurements of contamination at dual stream MRFs 15 years ago. TABLE 7 Measured Contamination Rates, Material Set Out for Recycling Route Contamination Rate Worcester Monday 10.3% Tuesday 9.5% Wednesday 20.2% Casella Subscription Charlton 14.0% Dudley 9.3% Sherborn Transfer Station 4.9% Boston Charlestown 10.3% South End 8.4% Back Bay 13.5% Beacon Hill 8.9% Average (excluding Sherborn): 11.6% Diversion of PET from MRF s associated with an Expanded Bottle Bill Expansion of the bottle bill primarily impacts PET containers. DSM s sort data indicates that, on average, PET containers that would be subject to the bottle bill represent, 67 percent of all PET collected for recycling, ranging from a low of 31 percent at the Sherborn Transfer/Recycling Center, to a high of 83 percent on the Wednesday Worcester route. 13 P a g e

14 Conclusions The primary goal of these recovery rate sorts was to determine what percent of PET and other containers potentially subject to an expanded bottle bill are currently being captured through comprehensive recycling programs. As illustrated by Table 8, on average in the residential programs sampled, 76.5 percent of the PET containers that would potentially be subject to an expanded bottle bill are being captured in the residential recycling programs sampled. The rate for aluminum, glass and HDPE beverage containers was 50.3, 86.1 and 81.1 percent respectively, with these others materials comprising roughly 21 percent of total material (potential subject to an expanded bottle bill) 4. Finally, the recovery rate, by weight, of all materials potentially subject to an expanded bottle bill was measured at 77.8 percent. TABLE 8 Comparison of Recovery Rates Measured of Materials Subject to an Expanded Bottle Bill Route Generation (lbs.) PET Aluminum Glass HPDE Recovery Generation Recovery Generatio Recovery Generation Rate (%) (lbs.) Rate (%) n (lbs.) Rate (%) (lbs.) Recovery Rate (%) Worcester Monday % % % % % Tuesday % % % % % Wednesday % % % % % Casella Subscription Charlton % % % % % Dudley % % % % % Sherborn Transfer % % % % % Total/Average: % % % % % Weighted Average 77.3% 33.3% 87.1% 83.7% 77.8% TOTAL Generation (lbs.) Recovery Rate (%) Assuming these data are representative of comprehensive residential recycling programs in Massachusetts, the next question is what percent of households have comprehensive recycling? DSM reviewed the most recent complete data available from MA DEP on the status of municipal recycling programs. The most complete dataset (2009) listed the type of refuse and recycling collection system offered in each Massachusetts municipality. For most, but not all municipalities, there was also data on the percent of households served by the collection system. However for some municipalities, there was only data on the collection system type. DSM populated missing municipal data by inserting the 2010 census occupied household counts where household data was missing, and then calculating the percent of households served by collection system type; applying this to all other municipal programs of that same collection type. Table 9 below shows the resulting household counts by type of collection program, and sums totals for parallel and nonparallel collection programs. 4 It is important to note here that the recovery rate for aluminum is low because of the amount of aluminum being scavenged from the recycling bins. Aluminum is worth enough that scavenging is not driven just by the deposit but by the material value. 14 P a g e

15 TABLE 9 Estimated Number of Households Served by Parallel and Non-Parallel Refuse and Recycling Collection Programs in Massachusetts COLLECTION SERVICE Households Percent Served (1) Net Households Served Percent of Total Households (%) PARALLEL (%) Curbside Refuse and Recycling 2,011,761 86% 1,739,025 65% Drop-off Refuse and Recycling 488,535 70% 341,199 13% Subscription Refuse and Recycling 67,040 70% 46,928 2% Subtotal: 2,567,336 2,127,151 79% NON-PARALLEL Boston, curbside refuse 2-3x week,weekly Recycling 69,447 69,447 3% Curbside Refuse, Drop-off Recycling 5,896 5,896 0% Subscription Refuse, Drop-off Recycling 40,009 40,009 1% Subscription Refuse and Curbside Recycling % Subtotal: 115, ,682 4% UNKNOWN 440,185 16% Total: 2,683,018 2,683, % (1) There were no data on percent served through subscription refuse and recycling programs, so DSM estimated that 70 percent may have recycling collection parallel to their subscription refuse collection. (2) It is estimated that at least 75% of Boston residents have parallel weekly refuse and recycling and 25% or less have 2-3x per week refuse collection and weekly recycling. Assuming the data on recycling program types and access are correct, then nearly 80 percent of Massachusetts households have access to comprehensive, parallel recycling programs Assuming the sort data are representative of municipalities with parallel recycling programs, then Table 10 presents recovery rates for expanded bottle bill materials that might be experienced from Massachusetts residential recycling programs in aggregate. Table 10 assumes that every municipality with parallel recycling has recovery rates the same as the average of the sampled communities. For households with non-parallel or an unknown type of recycling service, an average recovery rate of 15% was assumed for each material. This represents a rough estimate of recycling participation of 20% and recovery of 75% from those households 5. This includes 25% of Boston s households where higher 5 It should be noted here that most of these households with unknown access do have access to either drop-off or subscription recycling. The estimate of participation is conservative based on the assumption that these household do have access to recycling, but that the access is not parallel and therefore fewer of them choose to recycle. 15 P a g e

16 recovery rates were likely experienced, although the sort categories did not break out the expansion materials. TABLE 10 Potential Recovery Rates by Type of Recycling Service and Estimated Recovery Rates for all Massachusetts Households RECOVERY RATES BY PROGRAM TYPE Net Households RECYCLING PROGRAM Served PET Aluminum Glass HDPE PARALLEL 2,127,151 76% 50% 86% 81% NOT PARALLEL OR UNKNOWN 555,867 15% 15% 15% 15% Weighted Average 2,683,018 64% 43% 71% 67% As shown in Table 10, assuming all households generate the same amount of each of the materials studied, then the existing recovery rate for PET, Aluminum Cans, Glass and HDPE potentially subject to the proposed expanded bottle bill might be 64, 43, 71 and 67 percent respectively of the amount of these materials typically found in residential waste. As demonstrated by the parallel row of Table 10, if all Massachusetts households had comprehensive recycling programs, these recovery rates would be higher. Obviously, residential recyclables are only a portion of the total amount of these materials generated as all of these beverage containers are also generated in the workplace and on the go. Thank you for the opportunity to conduct this recovery rate study. These data are very useful, and add to the limited pool of data on this important subject. Signed: Ted Siegler 16 P a g e