measuring efficiency & effectiveness in hhw/cesqg collection programs
DESCRIPTION
Measuring Efficiency & Effectiveness in HHW/CESQG Collection Programs. Jim Quinn Metro Hazardous Waste Program Portland, OR PSI/NAHMMA Conference June 2009. Presentation Overview. Basic program measures Measuring efficiency Measuring effectiveness Is there anything else? - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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