Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4541 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4541) Finance Committee Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/3/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Results of the Two -Cart Waste Pilot and Discussion of the Next Steps Title: Report of Results of the Two -Cart Waste Collection Pilot and Discussion of the Next Steps That Would Help Move the City Toward Its Zero Waste Goals From: City Manage r Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation This staff report presents the results of a year-long two-cart collection pilot project and a discussion of possible next steps to beneficially capture food scraps. No action is required by the Finance Committee at this time. Executive Summary The City recently completed a two-cart waste collection pilot project, that eliminated the separate collection of the garbage and tested how residential food scraps and food soiled paper (referred to as “food scraps” throughout the report) can be collected and composted effectively. The two-cart pilot results are summarized below and reported in detail in an attached pilot report (Attachment A). Based solely on analyzing the pilot results, and the practicalities of the City’s collection program, staff were heading towards a City-wide recommendation that would have residents put food scraps in the green cart, either loose or bagged and then process and compost the combined yard trimmings/food scraps at a regional composting facility. However, in light of recent Council direction to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development of a composting facility on the 3.8 acre portion of the Measure E site, it is apparent that there is a second issue: namely, that mixing the residential food in with yard trimmings may increase the Measure E City of Palo Alto Page 2 processing/composting costs too much to make a new facility viable. Therefore, staff believes it would be best to hold on a formal recommendation until the City receives comparative prices from the new RFP process (yard trimmings with and without residential food) this fall. The next steps include negotiating with waste processors, finalizing a cost analysis, and returning to Council with a staff recommendation in late fall 2014. Background Staff presented Staff Report No. 3099 to the Finance Committee On October 2, 2012. The report described options for a pilot program that would collect residential food scraps and divert it from landfills. Staff identified the collection of food scraps as an effective way to help the City achieve its zero waste goals because food scraps account for approximately 50 percent of the waste contained in the residential (black) garbage carts. After receiving input from both the Finance Committee and from residents in the proposed pilot neighborhood (Greenmeadow area), staff recommended and Council approved a year-long two- cart collection pilot project (Staff Report No. 3222, January 14, 2013). This two- cart collection pilot eliminated the separate collection of garbage and redirected all bagged food scraps into the green yard trimmings carts. Recyclable materials and bagged garbage items were placed in the blue recycling carts. Both of the carts were collected weekly and the materials were sorted at a materials recovery facility (MRF). The year-long pilot began in April 2013, and has now been successfully completed. A pilot project report has been prepared (Attachment A). Discussion The ultimate goal of the pilot was to evaluate whether the two-cart collection system would be feasible and help the City meet its zero waste goals while reducing truck trips through the neighborhoods. The pilot’s specific goals are included in the pilot project report in Attachment A. Some key pilot successes and challenges learned are listed below. Pilot Successes  Recovered an average of 1,280 pounds of food scraps each week.  Participation was high at 65%. On average, the residential diversion rate increased by 8%.  Over 90% of residents think that it is important to recover food scraps. Most residents in the pilot were satisfied with the pilot program. City of Palo Alto Page 3  The compostable bags used to collect food scraps tended not to break during transport and could be separated quickly from the yard trimmings. Pilot Challenges  Waste sorting was overly complicated by the sorting and collection of wastes within bags.  Many residents did not like purchasing the compostable bags.  The pilot route was sized too large for the blue carts, sometimes requiring a second trip to the MRF. This skewed the data for vehicle trips, miles and collection times.  Contamination of recyclables at the MRF by putrescible garbage (e.g., pet wastes, diapers, etc.) may impact the value of recycled commodities. The pilot project confirmed that the two-cart collection system is a good method to increase diversion of food scraps and additional recyclables from landfills. However, staff is not recommending a citywide roll-out of the two-cart collection system at this time. One of the largest problems with this pilot system was that in order to keep the garbage from cross-contaminating with recyclables in the blue cart and to keep food scraps from cross contaminating with yard trimmings in the green cart, the pilot required separation of garbage and food scraps by use of bags. The pilot area residents reported that sorting these wastes into bags was complicated and lead to considerable confusion. In addition, many residents did not like purchasing the compostable bags that were required for the food scraps. Therefore, in order to address the complicated/confusion complaints, staff prefers rolling out a new residential collection program in a step-by-step manner. The next step could involve the city-wide collection of residential food scraps collected either bagged or mixed in the green carts with yard trimmings. The green cart contents would then be co-composted together. Most Bay area cities collect food scraps with yard trimmings and then compost the material together. Even further steps would be necessary in order for the City to meet its zero waste goals by 2021. Staff will monitor planned residential food scrap collection pilot projects in Sunnyvale, Mountain View and elsewhere to identify if there are better solutions. Since the two-cart system did divert more material from the landfill than the current three-cart collection program, the City could in the future revisit the two cart scenario that could be modified to simplify the collection system. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Organics Facilities Plan (Measure E) On May 12, 2014, Council approved recommendations related for the Organics Facilities Plan in Staff Report 4744. Based on those recommendations, staff is currently preparing a request for proposals (RFP) for a compost facility on the relatively flat 3.8-acre portion of the Measure E site. The RFP will ask for two prices: one for yard trimmings only; and two, for comingled yard trimmings and residential food scraps. Staff is planning to return to Council in December 2014 with a joint recommendation that relates to both a residential food scrap collection program and a composting facility on the Measure E site. For this reason, it is necessary for staff to keep the options open in order to stay flexible and be able to consider a different collection system that keeps yard trimmings and food scraps separate. Staff’s goal is to implement a food scraps collection program on July 1, 2015. A decision by December 2014 would allow enough time to implement a new program of this type. The Pilot Neighborhood Since staff will recommend that food scrap collection will begin in July 2015, the pilot neighborhood will continue to place food scraps in compostable bags within the green carts with yard trimmings until a new program is implemented citywide. The pilot green cart will continue to be delivered to the GreenWaste Material Recovery Facility (MRF) in San José. The food scraps are separated from the yard trimmings at the MRF and composted at Z-Best near Gilroy. Home Composting Home composting is the preferred option for dealing with food scraps. Home composting reduces collection costs, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, provides for a “closed-loop” use of food scraps, and saves residents money. Staff has implemented an expanded home composting campaign to increase participation citywide. The expanded campaign is an eight month long focused outreach and incentive-based campaign that augments and adds emphasis to the City’s traditional, ongoing, multi-partner program for home composting, water conservation, and pollution prevention. The expanded campaign will raise awareness about the benefits of home composting, increase the number of people composting at home, and increase the number of people using compost in their yard/garden. City of Palo Alto Page 5 The expanded campaign aligns with the timely topic of California’s drought. It encourages home composting by highlighting compost’s water-saving properties, and through incentives such as the City providing (a limited number of) free home composting bins to Palo Alto residents. Bins were also given away at the Arbor Day Festival on March 8, 2014 and the Great Race for Saving Water on April 19, 2014. The remainder will be given out at compost workshops throughout 2014. Additionally, to help encourage residents to use compost in their garden, the City held a compost give away in Palo Alto on May 17, 2014. Resource Impact After the Measure E Composting Proposals are received and evaluated, staff will develop costs relating to a food scraps collection and processing program and return to the Finance Committee in late fall 2014. Timeline and Next Steps If this food scraps collection program is approved by the Finance Committee then staff will complete the tasks listed below and return to the City Council for approval in fall 2014: Tasks/Milestones Anticipated Dates Measure E Composting Facility RFP Issued July 1, 2014 Receive Proposals Sept. 16, 2014 City Council Selection of Preferred Proposer and food scraps collection system December 2014 Develop conceptual outreach and training plans Early 2015 Finalize and distribute outreach and training materials Spring 2015 Full citywide implementation July 1, 2015 Further steps in reaching the Zero Waste goals –  Continue monitoring other cities pilot projects;  Continue to consider possible modifications to the two-cart system;  Evaluate whether bagging food scraps and recovering it for a potential energy/compost feedstock should be accomplished. Ongoing City of Palo Alto Page 6 Policy Implications The collection of food scraps is consistent with the City’s Zero Waste Operational Plan and Climate Protection Plan both adopted in 2007 to provide for the collection and diversion of all compostable materials. Environmental Review This pilot report and next steps discussion is not a project under CEQA. Attachments:  Attachment A: Pilot Summary Report (DOCX) Residential Two-Cart Pilot Project Summary Report April 2014 City of Palo Alto Residential Two-Cart Pilot Project Summary Report City of Palo Alto 1 Background The 2007 Zero Waste Operational Plan included the recommendation to collect residential food scraps. In 2009, the City entered into a new solid waste hauling and processing contract with GreenWaste of Palo Alto (GWOPA). Staff initially looked to include the collection of residential food scraps, but the service was considered too expensive and not ready for implementation. The GWOPA contract included the collection of commercial food scraps and in-vessel composting at the Z-Best Composting Facility (an affiliate of GWOPA) outside of Gilroy. Residential yard trimmings, collected curbside in the green cart, would be composted separately in open windrows at the Palo Alto Composting Facility until its closure in 2012, and then at Z-Best in open windrows. Residential food scraps would continue to be placed in the garbage (black) cart and landfilled, put down garbage disposals (kitchen sink grinders), or, in the best of cases, composted at home. Residential yard trimmings, collected curbside, have created high quality compost at a very low price. Z-Best, as per CalRecycle regulations1, considers food waste to be a contaminant in the yard trimmings compost, which will reduce the quality and marketability of the compost. Approximately 11,500 tons of yard trimmings are collected curbside annually, transferred at the Sunnyvale Material and Recovery Transfer (SMaRT) Station, and composted at Z-Best. Adding the food scraps directly to the yard trimmings cart, a process common in many communities around the Bay Area, is not an option when using Z-Best’s, open windrow composting process. The City’s commissioned Waste Characterization Report by Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. in 2011, showed that 50 percent of the material residents placed in the garbage was compostable – estimated to be about 5,000 tons, Diverting these tons from the landfill is a key opportunity to help the City achieve its Zero Waste goals by 2021. Additionally, based on the EPA WARM greenhouse gas emissions model, landfilling food scraps and food soiled paper yields nearly 2,600 metric tons of CO2e when compared to composting. The Residential Two-Cart Collection Pilot (Pilot) Project was an effort to revisit the challenge of collecting residential food scraps effectively and affordably. The goals of the Pilot were to:  Increase diversion of compostables from landfills and recover resource value;  Determine if collection costs can be reduced by reducing truck trips;  Simplify waste sorting for residents; and  Reduce greenhouse gas generation. The Waste Characterization Report also identified that about 24 percent of the material in the garbage (black cart) was recyclable. Much of this material is captured as the material is processed at the SMaRT Station. However, much of it is also landfilled, which results in significant greenhouse gas emissions. The Pilot looked to not only capture the compostables like food and food soiled paper, but also recyclables. The Pilot required residents reconsider the materials they generate to determine which cart they belonged in, subsequently creating a change in their behavior. 1 Title 14 CCR Division 7, Chapter 3.1, Article 5, Section 17868.5 (a)(1). Green Material Processing Requirements Residential Two-Cart Pilot Project Summary Report City of Palo Alto 2 The Pilot began on April 3, 2013, and ended on April 30, 2014. GreenWaste of Palo Alto assisted the City by collection data for the Pilot routes in February and March 2013 and throughout the Pilot on material tonnage, contamination, and truck fuel and mileage. Outreach The community assisted in determining the Pilot’s collection scheme and the Pilot neighborhood. In late 2012 staff presented the community and the Council Finance Committee with collection options that included reducing the frequency of garbage collection or eliminating the garbage cart entirely. Both the community and Council showed a preference for the elimination of the garbage cart option. This was fortuitous since California Public Health code2 requires weekly pick up of putrescible wastes (e.g., diapers, pet wastes, some bathroom waste). The Pilot needed a neighborhood. Staff considered three neighborhoods with overlapping garbage and recycling routes, strong community institutions, and relative compactness. The Greenmeadow neighborhood and surrounding areas, bounded roughly by Charleston Road on the north, Middlefield Road on the east, San Antonio Road on the south, and Alma Street on the west, matched the Pilot requirements and, while primarily single-family residential, had a variety of multi-family complexes with single-family collection service to help understand the range of potential collection impacts. Staff met with the community in February 2013, to gauge whether the community members were willing to participate in the Pilot. The overall sentiment from the community was that they were willing to give it a try. Pilot Neighborhood 2 Title 14 CCR Division 7, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 17331. Frequency of Refuse Removal Residential Two-Cart Pilot Project Summary Report City of Palo Alto 3 Since the Pilot involved a somewhat dramatic change in the refuse service provided by the City, staff held four meetings in March 2013, to prepare the community for the Pilot. The meetings included a description of the Pilot, a sorting “what goes where” presentation, and an introduction to the EPA’s “Food Too Good To Waste” program. While many in the community were suspect of the Pilot, the community tended to embrace the challenge and recognized the importance of collecting food scraps. The Pilot began on April 3, 2013. During the week prior to the start of the Pilot, staff with the support of GWOPA delivered the Pilot toolkit to every one of the 670 households in the Pilot neighborhood. The toolkit included a pilot brochure with detailed information about the Pilot and the new sorting system, a 1.9 gallon SureClose® kitchen compost bucket for food scraps, a starter roll with 25 3-gallon compostable bags from BioBag®, a sticker to place on each of the carts and the new kitchen bucket to help Pilot participants remember what goes where and a link to the City website with additional information. The toolkit also included a survey (the findings from the initial survey and the subsequent two surveys will be discussed in the “Findings” section) and information about the EPA’s “Food Too Good To Waste” program. Staff also prepared a “what goes where” video, which was posted on the City’s website. Staff provided residents with regular email updates and reminders as to “what goes where.” The initial roll out of the Pilot was met with some confusion. In the first month, 172 customers put out the garbage (black) cart. First time “offenders” were given a cart tag. On the second set out of the garbage (black) cart, GWOPA placed a cart tag and taped the lid shut. If a customer put out the garbage (black) cart a third time, GWOPA would remove the cart. Only a handful carts were removed. By May 2013, 4 weeks after the pilot began, only 8 garbage (black) carts were set out. No garbage (black) carts were set out in the subsequent months. City and GWOPA staff met periodically with residents at multi-family complexes. Staff sent an update about the pilot in October 2013, along with a midpoint survey. Those who completed the midpoint survey received a coupon for two dollars off compostable bags at Piazza’s, the neighborhood grocery store. The final survey was sent out in March 2014. That same month, staff held two meetings where they presented the findings to the community. Staff provided boxes of compostable bags to the meeting attendees. The Pilot ended on April 30, 2014. Residents were sent a letter offering thanks from the City, findings from the Pilot, and information about food scrap collection after the Pilot. Description of Two-Cart Pilot Collection Sorting at home Standard single-family residential service is three carts – a garbage (black) cart, a recycling (blue) cart, and a yard trimmings (green) cart. Food scraps and food soiled paper comprise about 50 percent of the material in residents’ garbage (black) cart. An unknown quantity of food scraps are also sent down the drain in garbage disposals (kitchen sink grinders), and/or composted at home. Residential Two-Cart Pilot Project Summary Report City of Palo Alto 4 The Pilot asked residents to place all of their food scraps and food soiled paper in a compostable plastic bag, tie it, and put it into the yard trimmings (green) cart. Large compostable items like pizza boxes could be placed in loose. Yard trimmings would still be placed loose in the green cart. Residents were asked to bag their actual garbage (e.g., bathroom waste, diapers, pet waste, multi-material items, expanded polystyrene) and place it into the recycling (blue) cart. Large trash items like hoses could be placed in loose. The recyclables would still be placed loose into the blue cart with the bagged garbage. The garbage (black) cart would not be used. Residents with space constraints could request to have GWOPA store the garbage (black) cart offsite for the duration of the Pilot. Residents would not be able to change their Refuse charge during the Pilot. However, residents could change the size of the green or blue carts. Collection Prior to the Pilot, a two-man team would pick up yard trimmings and then return to the neighborhood and pick up garbage. Both loads were dropped off at the SMaRT Station. The Pilot changed this to only one driver picking up the new green cart with the yard trimmings and bagged food scraps. Reducing this route from a two-man truck to a one-man truck was seen as one of the main opportunities to realize cost savings with the Pilot. After five months, GWOPA switched from a front-loading compressed natural gas truck (CNG) to a side-loading diesel truck so that the driver could haul more weight in one load. This reduced the need split the load and additional trips to the material recovery facility for the green cart loads. The new blue cart collection with bagged garbage and loose recyclables was picked up by the same truck and driver as before the Pilot – a one-driver diesel truck. Due to fleet limitations, the blue cart truck was switched to the lower capacity CNG truck at the same time as the green cart truck switch. In other words, the trucks swapped routes. Processing The materials in both the green and blue carts needed to be separated prior to processing. Initially, the green cart was tipped at the SMaRT Station where workers would manually remove the green compostable bags, other bags, loose garbage, and loose compostables, from the yard trimmings. These materials were weighed and recorded. Staff also estimated the percentage of intact compostable bags. A front-loader truck was used to spread the load on the tipping floor to assist the workers. The yard trimmings proceeded to a grinder and then transferred to Z-Best for open windrow composting. The obvious garbage was landfilled. All of the other material, which included the compostable bags and their contents, the non-compostable bags and their contents, and the pizza boxes were mixed with commercial compostable materials and sent to Z-Best for in- vessel composting. In July 2013, GWOPA diverted the green cart collection truck to the Charles Street material recovery facility (MRF) in San Jose operated by GreenWaste. The sorting operation was unchanged at the new location. The blue cart materials were sorted at the Charles Street MRF throughout the Pilot. Like the green cart materials, the blue cart materials were tipped onto a sorting floor and the garbage bags were removed manually Residential Two-Cart Pilot Project Summary Report City of Palo Alto 5 by a team of workers from the loose recyclables. The weights of the garbage and recyclables were recorded along with an estimate of contamination. For two weeks in the fall of 2013, the blue cart materials were processed, without any presorting, over the recycling “line” to test how the material would go over the line. This was necessary because if the pilot went City-wide, the manual presort would be too labor intensive. The processing test was meant to identify if more material could be recovered, what the impacts would be on the recovered commodities, and whether the MRF could save time and labor in the sorting effort if the pilot was expanded citywide. The material was sorted on the “clean” recycling line and not the “dirty” municipal solid waste recovery line. This is because the “dirty” line has a bag breaker at the front of the line, and the MRF did not want to have the obvious garbage going over the line needlessly. When the material was sent over the “clean” line, workers at the first sort line were asked to make a judgment as to whether a bag was filled with garbage or contained some recoverable materials. The result was that the workers erred on the side of leaving the vast majority of the bags on the line to be recovered. Therefore, the entire blue cart contents for those two weeks in the fall were sorted through the “clean” MRF line. The effectiveness of the line is shown in the data presented later in the report. This process also helped confirm that there was still a large amount of food scraps, food soiled paper, and recyclables in the garbage. Data Collection As noted earlier, the GWOPA and SMaRT Station staff collected weights for the recovered food scraps and food soiled paper, pizza boxes, yard trimmings, recyclables, and garbage. Data about the percentage of intact bags, commodity contamination, and time required to sort was also captured. GWOPA also provided detailed information about the collection vehicles before and after the Pilot. This data looked at tons collected per load, driver time, truck miles traveled, and fuel used. Understanding Pilot participation was a unique challenge. In June 2013, City and GWOPA staff looked inside every blue and green cart set out for collection in the Pilot area to see if the residents were using compostable bags and if the carts were at or exceeding capacity. The City initially requested that the MRF processing the green cart count the number of compostable and non-compostable bags received. However, this proved to be logistically impossible and very time consuming. Not all of the food scraps were making it into the compostable bags and the green cart. To identify the placement of the missing food and the residents’ sorting behavior, waste characterizations were conducted for both the garbage bags in the blue cart and garbage bags (non-compostable bags) in the green cart. The waste characterization also looked at the garbage found in the loose recyclables. Data was also collected from the pilot participants. Residents expressed their concerns and opinions about the Pilot in three surveys. The surveys were mailed out to every address in the Pilot area and available to fill out on- line. The first survey, distributed with the starter kit, focused on initial impressions of the Pilot. Respondents were given a $5 gift card to Philz Coffee. The second survey asked many of the same questions as the first survey. It was designed to see if residents changed their opinions on the Pilot. Residents who responded were provided a $2 coupon for compostable bags at Piazza’s, a local grocery store. The third and final survey focused Residential Two-Cart Pilot Project Summary Report City of Palo Alto 6 on whether residents preferred the Pilot over the existing three-cart collection system or an augmented three- cart collection system that allowed for the collection of food scraps. The surveys and results are attached to this report. Findings The data collected throughout the year-long Pilot allowed staff to analyze residents’ participation, amount of material diverted from the landfill, contamination of the recovered commodities, program costs, truck trips and greenhouse gas impacts, and convenience for residents. Participation Based on the data from the June 2013, investigation of the Pilot neighborhood blue and green carts, 75 percent of residents were placing bags (presumably with garbage) in the blue cart. Half of the blue carts were filled to the top or over filled. 65 percent of residents had compostable bags in their green cart. Over six percent had non-compostable bags in the green cart. Only 25 percent of the green carts were filled to the top or over filled. Close to 20 percent had no yard trimmings and placed only compostable bags in the green cart. Based on the 65 percent participation rate and average weight of food scraps collected (1,280 pounds per week), the participating households contributed nearly 3 pounds per week of food scraps. The 65 percent participation rate compares favorably with other communities. According to a report published in Biocycle in December 20123, Contra Costa County Solid Waste Authority reports that around 35 to 40 percent of residents participate in their food waste collection program. This same report notes that Barrington, Illinois, had a 25 to 30 percent participation rate and collected about 1.9 pounds per resident. A study of best management practices for EPA Region 54 noted that mature food collection programs should receive 7 to 9 pounds of food scraps per household. For the Pilot neighborhood, the theoretical amount of compostable material in the garbage (black) cart prior to the Pilot was about 2.75 tons or 5,500 pounds or 8.2 pounds per household (if all households participated). The data suggests that 23 percent (1,280 lbs / 5,500 lbs) of the available food scraps and food soiled paper in the Pilot neighborhood was collected. The results of the waste characterization of the garbage bags in the blue cart suggest that residents were still not separating the majority of their food scraps and food soiled paper from their garbage. Nearly 49 percent of the material in the garbage bags was compostable and 17 percent was recyclable (mostly plastic film). The MRF was able to separate an average of 1.97 tons or 3,940 pounds per week of garbage in the blue cart loads. According to rough estimates, 1,900 pounds per week of compostable materials were included as part of that ‘garbage’ and ultimately landfilled. Diversion The Pilot was able to reduce the amount of material going to the landfill by nearly one ton per week (1,800 pounds). The average volume of trash heading to the landfill from the Pilot went from 5.07 tons per week to 3 http://www.biocycle.net/2012/01/12/residential-food-waste-collection-in-the-u-s/ 4 http://www.foodscrapsrecovery.com/EPA_FoodWasteReport_EI_Region5_v11_Final.pd f page 6 Residential Two-Cart Pilot Project Summary Report City of Palo Alto 7 4.17 tons. These estimates include the recovery potential at the SMaRT Station and the contamination in the blue and green carts during the Pilot. This aggregate number provides the best evidence of the effectiveness of the Pilot. The effective diversion5 rate of materials from the landfill was over 76 percent. Furthermore, when the blue cart was run through the Charles Street MRF “clean” recycling line, the amount of material landfilled dropped to under two tons per week. This increased the effective diversion rate to nearly 90 percent – the standard that many communities consider achieves zero waste. The Pilot neighborhood diverted 33.35 tons of food scraps and food soiled paper from the landfill. This material that would have been landfilled was now composted resulting in reduction of 22 metric tons of CO2e emissions. Contamination While the MRF reports asked for a visual survey of contamination, these numbers were not very reliable. The waste characterization of the loose material in the blue cart load identified over 20 percent of the material was garbage that should be disposed in the landfill. Over 5 percent of the loose material in the blue cart were recyclable materials that was contaminated somewhere in the process. 5 This diversion rate should not be confused with the CalRecycle diversion calculation based on pounds per day landfilled. Palo Alto’s CalRecycle diversion rate is calculated at 77 percent. The fact that this is close to the Pilot diversion rate i s coincidental and neither supports nor contradicts the CalRecycle calculation. Nevertheless, the Pilot did result in a drop of 52 tons in disposal to the landfill for the year, which will be reflected in the CalRecycle Annual Report. 5.52 6.00 3.92 3.96 4.04 4.28 4.48 4.11 3.44 4.71 4.93 3.91 4.11 4.10 5.49 6.00 5.01 4.74 4.81 4.87 5.05 5.71 5.21 4.98 5.71 5.32 4.42 5.01 5.49 5.78 8.71 8.27 7.91 8.43 7.89 8.12 7.69 12.35 9.88 8.78 7.44 8.41 1.00 0.86 0.78 0.72 0.89 0.69 0.47 0.49 0.48 0.33 0.56 0.45 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 Pre-Pilot Low April June August Oct Dec Feb Monthly Pilot Average Tons per Week Food Scraps Yard Trimmings Recyclables Trash * indicates a 5 collection days Residential Two-Cart Pilot Project Summary Report City of Palo Alto 8 As part of running the blue cart contents across the “clean” recycling line at the Charles Street MRF, the MRF operator was able to disassemble a “special mix” paper bale that would have been marketed on the recycling market. This “special mix” paper is considered the lowest value paper, but still has some value. Nevertheless, multiple plastics, food waste, diapers, and even dog feces were found in the paper bale. Despite this contamination and reports of food particles in the glass fragments, the MRF materials were able to be marketed. There were no reports of increases in contamination of the high-value yard trimmings compost by Z-Best. MRF Performance The MRF operator separated the compostable bags from the food scraps much faster (20 minutes per green cart truck load) than the garbage bags from the loose recyclables (80 minutes per blue cart truck load). Costs The pilot program did not in itself confirm costs that could be extrapolated citywide, but verified assumptions that would be used by the City’s collector GreenWaste of Palo Alto to provide a fee estimate if this program were rolled out. According to GreenWaste staff, the pilot confirmed that a total of three drivers could be reduced if the two cart pilot were implemented city-wide. GWOPA also confirmed route sizes and collection times that were used to generate proposal fees. City staff are evaluating cost proposals and options and reporting to the Council independently of this pilot report. Truck Trips Due to the sizing of the route and weight limitations, the truck collecting the blue cart was unable to service every household in one trip. The driver needed to drop off a partial load at the Charles Street MRF in San José every week. This added an hour to the driver’s time. In addition to that hour, the driver spent nearly an additional hour on the route. This was due to the fact that nearly every household had a blue cart out for pickup. Prior to the Pilot and according to GWOPA estimates, only 60 to 70 percent of all households put out their recycling (blue) cart for service in a given week. The driver needed more time to “tip” at every household. Prior to the Pilot, the driver could complete the route in 7 hours and 38 minutes. It took the driver 9 hours and 31 minutes to complete the Pilot blue cart route. Table 1: Comparison of Pre-Pilot and Pilot Routes Averages Truck Units Pre Pilot Pilot Difference Recycling Truck Time 7:38 9:31 1:52 Miles 42.13 67.98 25.85 Fuel (gallons) 22.60 28.79 6.19 Tons 5.63 9.11 3.48 Compost Truck Time 8:22 8:10 -0:12 Miles 53.38 56.21 2.83 Fuel (gallons) 29.88 26.40 -3.47 Tons 11.08 9.57 -1.52 The Pre-Pilot Compost Truck includes the data for the garbage and yard trimmings pick up. In standard operation prior to the Pilot, a two- person truck would first collect yard trimmings, tip the yard trimmings at the SMaRT Station, return to the neighborhood to pick up the garbage, and finally tip the garbage at the SMaRT Station – making two full trips. Residential Two-Cart Pilot Project Summary Report City of Palo Alto 9 This extra time led to additional miles and fuel consumption. The Pilot increased the miles traveled by 25.86 miles per week and 6.19 gallons of fuel per week. This increase in fuel consumption added nearly 4 metric tons of CO2e emissions for the year. There virtually was no change in the driving times, miles traveled, and fuel consumption for the green cart truck driver. However, this truck was only operated by one driver as opposed to two drivers prior to the Pilot. Convenience (survey results) Residents who completed surveys neither favored nor disliked the Pilot as identified by the final survey. However, over time, Pilot participants seemed to become more satisfied with the Pilot. The Pilot participants also felt that Pilot was becoming simpler to use over time. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Very Satisfied Satisfied No Preference Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Other How do you feel about the new two-cart collection service? Initial Survey (N=161) Midpoint Survey (N=232) Residential Two-Cart Pilot Project Summary Report City of Palo Alto 10 This slight preference toward the Pilot was seen in the final survey that asked participants whether they preferred the 2-Cart Pilot over the previous 3-Cart collection and a 3-Cart collection system that captured food scraps. However, one item brought the ire of all residents – bags. As part of the midpoint survey, Pilot participants were asked to weigh-in on their experience with the bags. 72 of the 165 responders provided additional commentary 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Other The new two-cart program is simpler and more convenient than the old three-cart program. Initial Survey (N=161) Midpoint Survey (N=232) Prefer 2 Cart 47% No preference 17% Prefer 3 Cart 36% Service Preference N=271 Residential Two-Cart Pilot Project Summary Report City of Palo Alto 11 on the compostable bags. Over half (47) responded with negative comments about the bags. A large number of comments addressed the additional expense to purchase compostable bags as well as the fragility of the compostable bags. These comments were echoed in the final survey comments section. One item that many Pilot participants agreed on was the importance of collecting residential food scraps and keeping them out of the landfill. The Pilot provided residents with compostable service (food scrap collection), which they expressed a strong interest in having. The Pilot, despite an increase in fuel usage and truck trips, provided overall greenhouse gas emissions savings by reducing the amount of organic materials being sent to the landfill. Questions about cost and simplicity are more difficult to pin down. While may Pilot participants felt the bags were difficult to use, nearly 80 percent of responders to the final survey were willing to continue the Pilot to help the City collect data. This result reinforces the community’s desire to see the City identify a cost-effective and convenient way to collect residential food scraps. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree It is important that the City collects and composts food scraps? Initial Survey (N=161) Midpoint Survey N=232) Pilot participants felt that the compostable bags provided in the toolkit were susceptible to breaks and leakage. Participants also expressed displeasure at having to purchase replacement bags.