Subject: RE: new technology: your question
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:31:44 -0800
From: "Roberts, Glenn" <...>
To: Doug Moran <...>, Vic Ojakian <...>,"Harrison, Emily" <...>
CC: "Jackson, Mike" <...>

Those types of technologies are exactly what is already being done in processing
the single stream recyclables from the pilot project, would continue in the City
wide single stream program, and would be incorporated into the design of a
future ESC project.

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Moran <...>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 11:05 PM
To: Vic Ojakian; Harrison, Emily; Roberts, Glenn
Subject: ESC: new technology: your question

Vic
(cc Emily and Glenn so you are aware of my response)

I was the one who mentioned "new technology" that led to your
question to staff for the study session.

One tech was optical sensors that allowed for automated separation
of glass (clear and colored).
My recollection is that it was Glenn Roberts or possibly Walt Hayes
who told me this.
This automation would not only reduce labor costs but allow a smaller
footprint for processing, and also separating out smaller pieces than
is practical for humans.

Another person told me that they heard that there were promising
results using a similar approach for separating plastics.
I interpreted this as meaning that it was somewhere between an
intermittently working laboratory experiment and an ungodly expensive
commercial prototype.
I don't remember who that person was, but my impression was that their
info was at least second-hand.

There were also a variety of second-hand reports of discussions with
people of varying degrees of expertise in waste management about
single vs dual stream that said that (unspecified) technologies were
narrowing the difference between dual and single stream, and that it
was an ongoing process.

With the number of distinct reports, it seems to be an issue that needs
to be explored.  However, it could be an echo chamber (single report
travelling down multiple paths, seeming to be multiple independent reports).

-- Doug Moran

=================================================================

Douglas Moran wrote:

Mike Jackson
(cc'ing others from original message, correcting Ojakian address):

Some suggestions on how you might prep for the Council Study session.
Councilmember Ojakian is CC'ed since he added the topic and hence
is the one most likely to correct/extend these suggestions.

I am making these suggestions by trying to put myself in the mindset
of the decisionmaker (and I have been through multiple presentations
and read many of the online docs) and based upon my experience in an
unrelated tech field (computer facilities).

Split the new tech into two categories:
 - that which is relevant to both single and dual stream (reducing labor
   costs, reducing footprint, increasing yields from non-paper recyclables)
 - that which is relevant to the balance between single and dual stream,
   eg, reducing the contamination of the paper stream.

Tech shifts labor balance, reducing need for sorters but increasing need
for technicians.
 - One of the things that struck me during the tour of the SMaRT station
   was the statement that they needed a full-time tech on-site to handle
   equipment break-downs, not because break-downs were common but because
   the system was so sequential (in my field we call it a "stove pipe")
   that most break-downs severely affected the overall operation and even
   small delays for a technician to get to the site would be very costly.
 - One concern about these shifting labor costs is that if you have equipment
   that needs more specialized support (multiple technicians to cover the
   various types of equipment), this typically results in consolidation of
   facilities to make more efficient use of technicians.

Where we are on the tech curve for equipment
 - early models typically have high costs
   - often no upgrade path (mfg learned from early models and release 2 is
     a radical redesign)
   - higher cost for parts
        - custom parts
        - low number of deployed units -> higher overheads
   - lower reliability (increased down time)
   - higher maintenance costs
        - number of failures, cost of replacement parts
        - higher cost technician
                - higher training costs
                - higher specialization = less ability to use on other tasks
 - early adopter? - Recognizing that the Bay Area is very different from much
        in the various economic pressures (eg labor costs, landfill costs,
        regulations), I have absolutely no intuitions about where other cities
        are relative to adopting this technology.
        I read on one web page that WMI was committing to single stream because
        of this technology, but was silent on at what pace it would proceed.
        *** the information that WMI is using this tech in their Oakland facility
        doesn't help me in this regard, because Oakland could be their alpha test
        or it could be their 50th facility using this tech. ***

On the single vs dual stream option, have a chart showing
        - value per ton of recyclables
          Subcategorize on processed side
          - recyclables that can be sold (changes over time)
          - waste (items too contaminated or that could not be separated out)
        - processing costs
        - collection costs
Having a chart that lines up these numbers would make it easier for the
decision-maker to visualize effects of different shifts in these costs
(Councilmember Morton asked for a similar condensation of one of the charts
from the Auditor's Report).

Hope this helps.

-- Doug Moran