Measuring Efficiency & Effectiveness in HHW/CESQG Collection Programs

MeasuringEfficiency &

Effectivenessin HHW/CESQG

Collection ProgramsJim Quinn

Metro Hazardous Waste ProgramPortland, OR

PSI/NAHMMA Conference June 2009

Presentation Overview Basic program measures Measuring efficiency Measuring effectiveness Is there anything else? 2005 program comparison

study

Metro’s collection program:(FY07-08 numbers)

2 permanent collection facilitiesMetro South: 28,600 household customersMetro Central: 19,215 household customers

Roundup program12,296 customers

CESQG program788 customers

MetroPaint Total waste handled: 5.5 million pounds

Basic program measures

Customers served Pounds collected Program cost Labor hours (FTE)

Composite measures

Pounds/customer Cost/customer Cost/pound Labor hours/customer Pounds/labor hour

CostThree components: Labor Materials Disposal

But what about: Capital costs “Overhead”- maintenance, utilities, etc. Promotion & education Supervisor, managers, safety staff, support staff HR, IT, accounting, payroll

Customers Are repeat customers tracked? What about a customer bringing in waste

from multiple households?

Waste volume Do you include container weights, drum

weights, etc., or do you determine net weight?

Do you use weight assumptions and averages?

Efficiency- cost per pound

Metro, FY07-08 data

Total operating cost: $3,636,332Revenue: $133,700Net operating cost: $3,502,632Total pounds handled =

4,762,000Net cost per pound: $0.73

Comparing across programs- more caveats:

Differences in the wastes handled? Proportion of less expensive waste,

e.g. oil, antifreeze, lead-acid batteries

More expensive wastes- explosives, reactives, gas cylinders, etc.

Efficiency- cost per pound

Wastes- Metro’s Program Latex Paint 42% Oil-based paint & other flammables

26% Motor Oil, Car Batteries, Antifreeze

9% Pesticides 6% Cleaners & water-based wastes 3% Aerosols 3% Acids, bases and oxidizers 2% Miscellaneous 9%

“Miscellaneous” Batteries Asbestos Propane and other compressed gas

cylinders Reactives & organic peroxides Ammunition/explosives Radioactives Sharps PCB-containing fluorescent ballasts

Efficiency- net cost per pound

95-9697-98

99-00 01-02

03-04 05-06

07-08

$0.00$0.20$0.40$0.60$0.80$1.00$1.20$1.40$1.60

Efficiency- pounds handled per labor hour

Total FTE = 28.25 = 58,760 hours

Total pounds handled = 4,762,000

Pounds handled per hour = 81

Efficiency- pounds handled per labor hour

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0

54.6

FY98-99

81.0

FY07-08

48% increase

Effectiveness

?????

95-9696-97

97-9898-99

99-0000-01

01-02 02-03

03-04 04-05

05-06 06-07

07-08

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000Total household customers by fiscal year

Effectiveness

% of all HHW generated that is collected % of households served per yearpounds collected per capita Useful only

by comparison to other HHW programs

EffectivenessWhat is the goal of the program?

Metro’s goal: “Reduce the use and improper disposal of products generating hazardous waste in order to protect the environment and human health.”

Improper disposal- impacts on health and the environment

In the home- poisonings, fires, indoor air quality

The solid waste system- workers, equipment

Sewer system, wastewater treatment plants

Air, ozone layer, surface water, ground water

Plants & animals

Hazardous waste in MSW - OR waste comp studies

Year % of MSW hazardous

1994 0.55%1998 0.51%2000 0.41%2002 0.74%2005 0.41%

Other program considerations

What about:Customer serviceWorker safetyEnvironmental impact of disposal

methods selectedOther services provided by

program

How is it disposed of?

Reuse; 3%

Recycle; 28%

Energy Recovery; 32%

Treatment;

2%

Inciner-ation;

4%

Landfill; 30%

Other services provided by Metro staff

Emergency response to hazardous materials incidents at Metro’s transfer stations

Response to loads setting off transfer station radiation alarms

Disposal of various Metro facilities’ waste (Zoo, Parks, etc.)

School chemical cleanouts Abandoned waste Education

2005 Comparison Study Compared Metro’s program to 24

other leading HHW programs Findings:

Metro provides greater convenience and hours of operation than other programs

Metro handles “difficult” wastes that others do not (asbestos, explosives, radioactives, and gas cylinders)

2005 Comparison Study (cont.)

Primary benchmark for comparison across programs - cost per pound

Range: $0.21 to $2.02 Median: $0.67 Metro’s cost per pound: $0.85

(FY07-08 down to $0.73) but- 19 of the 24 other programs handle

larger % of inexpensive auto-related wastes (oil, antifreeze & lead-acid batteries), typical cost < $0.10/pound

2005 Comparison Study (cont.)

% of the households in the region served each year range: 2%- 24%median: 7% Metro: 10%

pounds collected per capita range: 0.81- 6.55median: 2.30Metro: 2.93